VIA Rail

[Urban Sky]

If HFR happens it will be the perfect project to really start to kick start modernization and rationalization of passenger rail in The Corridor. And based on gut feeling and the reaction to it in the media (and the minimal amount of negative reaction to it) I would put the odds in favour of it at around 75%,

There are two things VIA can do to that will allow it to make the service faster, more reliable, and more appealing. The first is to run on its own dedicated network of tracks. Most don't need to be full on, whiz bang, 300km/h lines. They just need to be their own, and allow trains to operate in that 160-200km/h zone a much as possible, without worrying about freight traffic. And they need to improve their reach and come up with better ways of directly serving areas like most all of the northern GTA, Gatineau, parts of the Montreal Region, and improving access in a number of locations (in other words, differentiating how the serve people home locations at the start of their trip, and their temporary home, their destination at the end of the trip). The second one will be able to happen over time as VIA increases frequency and has more trips that it can experiment with new services on, while not being at the expense of a particular place's existing service levels. And HFR, obviously, starts to address the first issue in a pretty big way.

Mostly agreed, except that in terms of construction costs (and thus economic and political feasibility) a design speed of 160 km/h and 200 km/h are orders of magnitudes apart: Up to 177 km/h (110 mph), level crossings are generally possible, whereas FRA regulations require "impenetrable barriers" for all level crossings in the 178-200 km/h (111-125 mph) band, while (as I already posted in in July and December) Transport Canada's Grade Crossing Regulations already explicitly prohibit the construction of any level crossing beyond 177 km/h (110 mph).

Note: repost from #2,807
Source: FRA (2011, p.20)

If you refer to above table, the dilemma is as follows:

• Everything until 177 km/h (110 mph, Tiers 0/IA/IB) is relatively straightforward,
• Level crossings: whereas TC regulations outright ban them beyond 177 km/h (110 mph), FRA regulations allow a work-around in the 178-200 km/h (111-125 mph) band (Tier IC), but the necessary investments into "impenetrable barriers" under FRA regulations will become useless the moment you upgrade beyond 200 km/h (125 mph).
• Corridor-sharing with freight is still allowed beyond 200 km/h (125 mph), but only until 240 km/h (150 mph, Tier II), so moving beyond that speed requires a dedicated HSR Corridor which again renders prior investment useless.
• Track alignment: according to the Ecotrain Study, 200 km/h requires a minimum radius of 2,500 meters (2,000 meters with tilting trains), whereas 300 km/h requires a minimum radius of 6,000 meters. Investments in less generous track realignments therefore risks becoming useless when design speed is increased towards 300 km/h.

For all above reasons, investing in any infrastructure to reach speeds beyond 177 km/h only makes sense if you make sure that the investment is HSR-ready, i.e. compatible with a later upgrade to 300 km/h. For exactly that reason, I would strongly object upgrading any rail segments beyond 177 km/h, unless they overlap with Ecotrain's E-300 alignment and as far as I see that is only the case for parts of the Trois-Rivières Subdivision, Montreal-De Beujeu, Casselman West-Ottawa-Smiths Falls North and Port Hope West-Toronto.

Everyone knows that the one section of The Corridor that can justifiably have a full HSL built is the Lakeshore corridor from Montreal to Toronto. And it will also be the most expensive section, regardless of what standard a dedicated passenger track is built to. And it will take a lot of planning. Some parts of the line might just be able to run parallel to the CN line, such as from around Coteau to close to Brockville, where the geometries are relatively straight, the land relatively flat, and densities (urban and rural) are lower than other parts of the Lakeshore line. [...]

By the time HFR has been built, VIA will have had enough time that it could come up with a plan for its own dedicated track in the Lakeshore corridor. I would find it surprising if the line was built all at once. Instead, I could see easier sections done first (like the Coteau to Brockville section mentioned above), while negotiations and planning continue for some of the more complicated ones. The plan doesn't need to be totally finalized by the time HFR is done, but the overall vision could be in place.

Currently, the detour via Ottawa adds 94 km (633 km vs. 539 km) and 1:28h (6:32h vs. 5:04h) to the schedule, but with HFR this penalty will decrease to 41 km (580 km) and travel time will actually become 19 minutes faster than the Lakeshore route today (4:45h vs. 5:04h) and most the Lakeshore route will cease to be relevant for Toronto-Montreal passengers and the removal of these passengers means that travel time and frequencies obtainable between Coteau and Brockville will suffice and therefore make any further investment in these segments obsolete...

HFR is probably the first plan that has been proposed by VIA, or any agency or consortium, in the past 30 years, that is actually a good plan. It isn't a compromise plan. It doesn't mean HSR will never be built (it actually strengthens the case and need for HSR, in corridors where it makes sense). It is just a brilliantly, pragmatic plan. And I am not saying that because I have the "lets just support it so that we get something, anything built, or else we will get nothing and VIA will die" mentality. This is a win for almost everyone, is good value for money, will provide faster service, improve the limited rail infrastructure VIA currently owns, and increase the length of dedicated tracks it owns by 4 or 5 fold. HFR is something that everyone needs to get behind and support as vocally as possible.

I am really looking forward to hearing that announcement this year...

Me too! My colleagues and myself are working very hard to make it to happen!

Very well said. For your average Joe, the biggest benefits of HFR will be that trains will run on time as scheduled, something that matters to people, and despite not being HSR, it will still cut travel time by roughly a quarter.

As @JasonParis said, JT needs a legacy project, and this would be a great one, and it would be a legacy in contrast to PET's massive cuts to VIA. One thing politically is that VIA is seen as a very "Eastern" service by people in the West. For VIA to thrive politically in the long term, there needs to be relevance for people in Western Canada too. A Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton version of HFR would also be a relatively low-cost (building track in the Prairies is cheap because flatness) way to really emphasize the "Canada" part of VIA Rail Canada.

I would love for HFR Phase 2 to be Calgary-Edmonton.

I agree and I count on that Western MPs to realize that HFR succeeding in Quebec-Ontario is their best chance to regain any useful intercity passenger rail service in their part of the country...

Lastly, I wonder whether VIA's BCA for HFR also addresses cost and revenue for the Lakeshore route - is the projection of capital cost, ridership, and revenue bundled for both? Or is the Lakeshore route left out of the VIA BCA, or, what assumptions does it make about a share of the through Toronto-Montreal traffic using HFR and not the Lakeshore route? My continuing fear is, the HFR business model has to deliver profitability across both routes, or Ottawa will not accept the proposal. Clearly, there will be no appetite for subsidy of the Lakeshore route once the HFR investment is on the books. I sure hope that the TC reports reach the public domain so so we know the numbers.

https://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/HFR_Info_EN.pdf

https://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/our-company/annual-reports/2017/2017_Annual Report_EN.pdf

 

[crs1026]

^Thanks @UrbanSky for all that data.

So, to repeat back, I'm inferring that Toronto-Montreal business is assumed to mostly go via Ottawa, and the business case reflects that.

I take some comfort from the statement that reads "Triple the number of trains per day in the Corridor". There must be room in that number to retain a useful frequency on the Lakeshore route....although I'm still in the same camp as @nfitz about how that plays out.

Pardon my being jaded by too many HSR studies over the years... has the Ecotrain study attracted some specific credibility that makes its route selection more favoured than all the other studies?

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

Currently, the detour via Ottawa adds 94 km (633 km vs. 539 km) and 1:28h (6:32h vs. 5:04h) to the schedule, but with HFR this penalty will decrease to 41 km (580 km) and travel time will actually become 19 minutes faster than the Lakeshore route today (4:45h vs. 5:04h) and most the Lakeshore route will cease to be relevant for Toronto-Montreal passengers and the removal of these passengers means that travel time and frequencies obtainable between Coteau and Brockville will suffice and therefore make any further investment in these segments obsolete...

Just want to touch on this part of your post. By "currently", do you mean, currently as part of the HFR plan, or currently as in the service today? I just read it as there's an existing train to Montreal via Ottawa, eg a one-seat ride. Also, I'm a little confused on how the penalty decrease is calculated. Are you able to expand on that? Just out of curiosity, what's the average speed of the current Lakeshore route, Tor-Mon, vs the HFR Havelock Sub route, Tor-Mon? I think it may have been posted before in a chart.

 

[Northern Light]

25 years ago the Kingston station was basically at the fringes of the city. Since then, the city has grown in a way that it is probably the most central location to the city and surrounding areas. It is weirdly remote, and there will never be much around it. But if you move the station further west, you make the trip longer for anyone going to or from the station to Queens or other functions downtown. If you move it east, it is further from the Bayridge/Cataraqui/Amherstview areas, into an area that is going to be less remote, but hardly urban, and not likely to become that either.

I lived in the Kingston area for a majority of the years when I was growing up, so I have gone back often to visit family. I have spent many, many hours waiting for delayed trains and I often cursed that it was in the middle of nowhere, and there was nowhere I could buy a beer or coffee while I waited. And I have wondered over and over if there is a better spot for a train station in Kingston. Without spending huge amounts of money to bring it closer to downtown, which wouldn't make sense for a region with around 130,000, there isn't anywhere else you could put the station that would be better. I think VIA should stay in that spot, and just embrace its remoteness.

There are choices that wouldn't cost a proverbial arm and a leg, but those wouldn't deliver a massive benefit. They also entail, at the minimum, the cost of reconstructing the station.

Along the existing mainline track there is room and/or cheap, under-utilized real estate at Division Street. The location is every bit as uninspired w/the main feature being it would be about 1km closer to downtown Kingston.

The same sort of opportunity could be considered at Montreal Street with about the same distance benefit.

A slightly better gain could be had by shifting the station back to the location of the old CN station @ Montreal street. The old ROW is mostly in tact, its 900m off the mainline if you dead end it, and about 1.5km of new track to loop it back to the mainline.

It does shave off some more walking/bus time, but you're still more than 2km outside downtown.

The only option that puts you in downtown that doesn't involve tunnels or new ROWs is diverting down the old waterfront ROW.

Thing is, while much of it appears to be in tact, its also a recreational path/waterfront trail.

Portions of the route are certainly not roomy enough for both functions.

The ROW also appears to have been encroached or built on in a couple of spots.

Getting into DT does, otherwise appear viable. But only as a dead-end spur that maybe gets you to the ferry terminal.

Likely not all that cheap, the time-cost on a through trip would not be immaterial.

***

In the end, I think I would vote for moving the station further east to either Division or Montreal, but not so much for DT proximity as better opportunity for Transit-Oriented development and complimentary retail and services.

The cost would have to be weighed, of course.

In the scheme things, I don't think this could be called a priority, as much as a nice to have.

But if the the current station site were retained, I would favour a complete re-think that provided a train shed (full canopy over tracks), and larger station building with additional complimentary retail.

 

[Urban Sky]

Pardon my being jaded by too many HSR studies over the years... has the Ecotrain study attracted some specific credibility that makes its route selection more favoured than all the other studies?

The Ecotrain Study is the to date by far most recent and most detailed HSR study made. Have a look at the Maps I posted here and I doubt you will find a different map as detailed in any other HSR study...

Just want to touch on this part of your post. By "currently", do you mean, currently as part of the HFR plan, or currently as in the service today? I just read it as there's an existing train to Montreal via Ottawa, eg a one-seat ride. Also, I'm a little confused on how the penalty decrease is calculated. Are you able to expand on that? Just out of curiosity, what's the average speed of the current Lakeshore route, Tor-Mon, vs the HFR Havelock Sub route, Tor-Mon? I think it may have been posted before in a chart.

With "currently" I mean the timings of the most recent (i.e. 2018-11-18) VIA schedule:

Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal trains (i.e. "one-seat rides") were offered between April 2011 and June 2016 (when they were split into Toronto-Ottawa and Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec trains), but train 51 survives until this day and that's where I got the 6:32h figure from (The fastest T-O-M train I found was train #57 with 5:48h in the January 2014 timetable, but the fastest T-M train was 4:30h at that time, which still places the time penalty at 1:18h):

There are choices that wouldn't cost a proverbial arm and a leg, but those wouldn't deliver a massive benefit. They also entail, at the minimum, the cost of reconstructing the station.

Along the existing mainline track there is room and/or cheap, under-utilized real estate at Division Street. The location is every bit as uninspired w/the main feature being it would be about 1km closer to downtown Kingston.

The same sort of opportunity could be considered at Montreal Street with about the same distance benefit.

A slightly better gain could be had by shifting the station back to the location of the old CN station @ Montreal street. The old ROW is mostly in tact, its 900m off the mainline if you dead end it, and about 1.5km of new track to loop it back to the mainline.

It does shave off some more walking/bus time, but you're still more than 2km outside downtown.

The only option that puts you in downtown that doesn't involve tunnels or new ROWs is diverting down the old waterfront ROW.

Thing is, while much of it appears to be in tact, its also a recreational path/waterfront trail.

Portions of the route are certainly not roomy enough for both functions.

The ROW also appears to have been encroached or built on in a couple of spots.

Getting into DT does, otherwise appear viable. But only as a dead-end spur that maybe gets you to the ferry terminal.

Likely not all that cheap, the time-cost on a through trip would not be immaterial.

***

In the end, I think I would vote for moving the station further east to either Division or Montreal, but not so much for DT proximity as better opportunity for Transit-Oriented development and complimentary retail and services.

The cost would have to be weighed, of course.

In the scheme things, I don't think this could be called a priority, as much as a nice to have.

But if the the current station site were retained, I would favour a complete re-think that provided a train shed (full canopy over tracks), and larger station building with additional complimentary retail.

My personal preference would be moving the station building closer to Princess Street (with a bus stop on top of the bridge), as the existing platforms could be reused and would simply need to be extended underneath the Princess Street overpass and the 501 bus would provide an all-day-and-every-day connection to downtown every 8-30 minutes and in only 15 minutes:

https://www.cityofkingston.ca/docum...2017.pdf/0c8686d2-942b-4bbd-81f7-d189e2595da6
Note: Kingston rail station bus stop (on top the bridge over the Kingston Sub) would be between the second ("Gospel Temple") and third ("Kingston Centre") column. For the opposite *i.e. downtown-to-rail-station direction, see bus 502.

Nevertheless, I acknowledge that every solution come with its unique sets of advantages and disadvantages...

 

[Garuda]

Ahh Kingston Station. I had many friends humble brag about attending Queens and how "European" Kingston is, only to find out that the railway station is out in the burbs. Not to mention how suburban the city is beyond the Queens bubble.

Given that the station is surrounded by environmental protected lands, VIA won't be allowed to expand the station and will limited to minor renovations.

The City of Kingston and VIA should build an intermodal station in and around the Division Street overpass. There's already significant commercial and industrial development. With sidings to allow through traffic and bus bays for intercity and local service. Guelph Central Station is the best model to follow for this.

 

[crs1026]

Given that the station is surrounded by environmental protected lands, VIA won't be allowed to expand the station and will limited to minor renovations.

Actually, it's exactly the sort of situation that the Open for Business Act is being enacted to allow. Build a motel next to the train station, declare it a job creation situation, and Ford will blow all those environmental rules away.

(No, I'm not suggesting we do that.... but that's what is so appalling about the Open for Business Act)

- Paul

 

[littlewill1166]

Passed by Ingersoll today and the old station building had fencing surrounding it. I think VIA might be planning to demolish it.

 

[ShonTron]

Passed by Ingersoll today and the old station building had fencing surrounding it. I think VIA might be planning to demolish it.

The fencing might be to protect it from vandalism or arson. I suspect CN owns it, not VIA, as VIA has been operating out of the nearby unstaffed building for years. Like most railway stations still on railway property, it's protected under federal heritage laws. The St. Marys Junction station has been surrounded by chainlink fencing for years, and it is a National Historic Site with a federal plaque in front.

 

[smallspy]

Passed by Ingersoll today and the old station building had fencing surrounding it. I think VIA might be planning to demolish it.

The fencing might be to protect it from vandalism or arson. I suspect CN owns it, not VIA, as VIA has been operating out of the nearby unstaffed building for years. Like most railway stations still on railway property, it's protected under federal heritage laws. The St. Marys Junction station has been surrounded by chainlink fencing for years, and it is a National Historic Site with a federal plaque in front.

It is CN who owns the station, and it had been scheduled until very recently to undergo restoration work to allow a brew-pub to move in later this year.

And then the roof quite literally caved in 2 or 3 weeks ago.

I haven't heard a final word on the extent of the damage, but it's not sounding good. The station may now be too far gone.

Dan

 

[lrt's friend]

It is CN who owns the station, and it had been scheduled until very recently to undergo restoration work to allow a brew-pub to move in later this year.

And then the roof quite literally caved in 2 or 3 weeks ago.

I haven't heard a final word on the extent of the damage, but it's not sounding good. The station may now be too far gone.

Dan

This is a typical of handling unwanted heritage buildings. Neglect them until they are beyond repair.

 

[cplchanb]

This is a typical of handling unwanted heritage buildings. Neglect them until they are beyond repair.

To be fair just because it's an old building doesnt mean it's worth keeping. That building hasnt been used much for decades.

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

To be fair just because it's an old building doesnt mean it's worth keeping. That building hasnt been used much for decades.

Which brings up the question, what's the point of even designating it heritage status if you're going to let it crumb.

Would be nice if they decided to rebuild it in the same design...but that's just wishful thinking

 

[cplchanb]

Which brings up the question, what's the point of even designating it heritage status if you're going to let it crumb.

Would be nice if they decided to rebuild it in the same design...but that's just wishful thinking

There are certain buildings that are of historical significance such as a landmark building but should all old buildings be heritage? Would you classify an old laundromat from the 60s as historic if is been unused for decades?

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

Playing devil's advocate here, what happens if say Transport Canada via the Government decides not to go forth with Via Rail's HFR?

After reading the comments on the CBC article, I do agree with majority of the commentators about the the need to balance frequency and speed. If it's more of a hassle to take the train (eg. the availability of cheap tickets, speed, duration and value competition with the automobile and air flights etc.) then Via really needs to go back to the drawing board. There's a lot of focus on automobile competitiveness but I think we shouldn't disregard the competition with flights either. Nothing will stop a customer from looking at the price of tickets and travel duration in the final decision. Personally I would love to take the train to Montreal for a weekend get away but the fact that cheap tickets are only available by booking early negates the part of the whole of a weekend get away. At this point I would be comparing the cost of train tickets with flights, time duration and even possibly looking at another destination. If say I use my friends' weekday business travel as a barometer of transportation options to Ottawa and Montreal, it's guaranteed that they will be travelling by plane over the train. For leisure trips it would be either the plane or carpooling. Most of them live in the downtown core if that influences the decision.

I apologize if the above is convoluted, I just had to get my thoughts out. The frustration of the continuous cycle of study, study some more, and study again is reaching the peak if not at the peak by now in the view of the general public.