VIA Rail

[Urban Sky]

Urban writes:
[a state-controlled regulated monopoly (e.g. France or the UK)]
I'll detail more on the other points later, but this claim is a huge gaffe, as EU Directives dictated the break-up of state monopolies in transport years back. [...]

"The First Railway Directive 91/440/EC (with amendments, also called the "First Railway Package") is European Union Directive that sets out an EU law framework and requirements for railways in the EU to allow open access operations on railway lines by companies other than those that own the rail infrastructure. [...]

I'm afraid you completely missed that I was talking about the infrastructure owners, which are still monopolists (though regulated ones) in the case of Network Rail (UK), RFF (France), Infrabel (Belgium), RFI (Italy) or others, as opposed to the state-owned passenger railroads which used to be monopolists in the respective countries (British Rail, SNCF, SNCB/MNSB or FS/Trenitalia). The EU is perfectly fine with Network Rail's monopoly on rail infrastructure ownership, while they are in conflict with Germany's model of the former monopolist railroad still owning the network (through DB Netz AG) or France, which has so far successfully shielded SNCF from any passenger rail competition worth mentioning.

On a side note, I would like to ask you to use the "quote" function when quoting other members, as this makes it easier to distinguish between what you say yourself and what you answer to...

The 3.3M$ study will be well worth it even if the answer is "no"....which is probable in my estimation. It's not that it isn't a worthwhile endeavour, it's a great concept, but reality dictates much greater necessities elsewhere.

I'm decidedly more optimistic than you are, at least for the HFR studies yielding sufficient results to go ahead with private investors, but I'm probably also the member in this forum with the best access to the preliminary studies conducted so far...

The "greater necessities elsewhere" is constantly applied to justify why we can't do anything well. My prediction is that after 10 years we have nothing to show for Trudeau's tax and spending spree except a couple of stubways, some GO electrification, and yet another VIA study that tells us what we already know. So much pomp, so few results.

How many VIA studies have there been exactly which studied a dedicated infrastructure at conventional speeds between Montreal and Toronto with the explicit objective of considering private sources of funding/financing? I don't recall any and the compulsive studying and re-studying of a French-style HSR line over the entire Quebec-Windsor Corridor with mostly segregated infrastructure (see the studies conducted in 1991, 1995, 2010 and 2011) is the exact reason why we have had "so much pump, so few results" as you deplore.

I'd love to hear proposals from private companies and see government get out of the way, because we're not seeing much under the current ownership and regulatory model. Multiple privately owned subway lines were built in NYC under a city authority. I know the argument will always be made that the private sector will build the profitable lines and leave the unprofitable ones to government, but we're a more urban country now, and surely the are ways of requiring private companies to do their share, just like we require condo developers to build privately owned parks for the public.

This is exactly what VIA Rail aims at with pitching its HFR proposal to private-sector investors, who would build (and potentially maintain) the dedicated infrastructure and rent it out to VIA Rail. However, the revenue risk would remain with VIA and ensure that the operational profits are reinvested into the network, while the investors would presumably demand a government guarantee to protect their investment...

We certainly wouldn't have gotten that from the Conservatives, Euphoria, quite the opposite. The Cons tried their best to kill VIA. Let's not mix up what can be achieved with a couple of Billion though, by comparing massively dissimilar size of projects. For urban areas, that money can make a radical difference, albeit it's still hazy as to what will go where.

I agree that the Conservatives did not really like VIA, but the self-defeating effect of the 2012 cuts seems to have introduced a change in attitude in which VIA was given more entrepreneurial space to find themselves a strategy of how to reduce its deficit while increasing its utility to the Canadian taxpayer. It was the subsequent change in Management which only made the HFR proposal possible...

 

[steveintoronto]

I'm afraid you completely missed that I was talking about the infrastructure owners, which are still monopolists (though regulated ones) in the case of Network Rail (UK), RFF (France), Infrabel (Belgium), RFI (Italy) or others, as opposed to the state-owned passenger railroads which used to be monopolists in the respective countries (British Rail, SNCF, SNCB/MNSB or FS/Trenitalia). The EU is perfectly fine with Network Rail's monopoly on rail infrastructure ownership, while they are in conflict with Germany's model of the former monopolist railroad still owning the network (through DB Netz AG) or France, which has so far successfully shielded SNCF from any passenger rail competition worth mentioning.

On a side note, I would like to ask you to use the "quote" function when quoting other members, as this makes it easier to distinguish between what you say yourself and what you answer to...


I'm decidedly more optimistic than you are, at least for the HFR studies yielding sufficient results to go ahead with private investors, but I'm probably also the member in this forum with the best access to the preliminary studies conducted so far...

Urban: Apologies on the "quote" function. This may sound lame to regular iMac users (ostensibly OSX functions the same on all Apple platforms) by I'm forced to use this machine instead of my regular Linux one at home, and it's a royal pain in the asterix by virtue of not being able to accumulate quotes on the taskbar, let alone missing the right click to highlight, copy and paste and/or Google. I could go on, there's many other restrictions to word processing. My formatting will improve dramatically middle of next week when I'm back on a standard device.

I wondered on your "monopoly" claim, it seemed out of character for your other excellent and informed comments. It's an important point to build on though, as *common access* to extant networks is crucial to the argument for needing exclusive tracks or not. It still muddies the discussion on Metrolinx owned tracks, especially as that relates to various 'separations' and thus the certification of rolling stock necessary/permitted. It boggles me how so many resort to the "can't do that, because freight uses that line at least once in a blue moon" argument. TC have already made exceptions possible and have actually worked with agencies to find solutions.

I suspect that will also rear its head in (at least Toronto to Montreal segment of ) the Windsor-Quebec Corridor. Make no mistake...I *want* this to happen! But I'm jaded from the Cdn "can't do that" attitude. Ironically, Americans are far more dynamic in trying to get past that. Where I think many posters lose the plot in making this work is missing the intent of the 3.3M$ study. *IF* there is private financing to be had on this, then excellent. For any PFI to show, there must first be a technical and business case made. Even if that fails, the attempt, at 3.3M$ is a pittance in the big scheme of things. It's money very well spent. I suspect the present regime are being coy on a result being available much sooner than the three years bandied about. I was digging on that, and there's been in-depth discussions on this long before the budget was released. I think the Libs are actually handling this well. Why reveal more than you have to when playing cards?

Edit to Add: Googling to get more actual quotes from the Libs prior to the Budget, and surprisingly, the NatPost seems to like it going by a number of articles! Hell freezes over...albeit I haven't any Terence Corcoran on it.

Here's from a usually 'sour' writer reprinted in the Pest (sic on purpose):
[OTTAWA – Transport Minister Marc Garneau says Via Rail’s proposed dedicated track in the Montreal-Toronto corridor seems to fit with what the Liberal government wants in new infrastructure projects, but cautions the government is doing its homework to determine whether to spend taxpayer dollars on the proposal.

Garneau told the Ottawa Citizen that a dedicated Via Rail track in the corridor makes sense from a passenger’s perspective, and that Bombardier — which is looking for federal financial aid — “certainly has the capability” to provide Via Rail with the engines and cars if the project were to proceed.
[...]
“On the face of it, I don’t disagree with (Via’s assessment),” Garneau said in a telephone interview.

“Since we’re talking about a potential investment by the federal government … that means looking at it in-depth to make sure that if we’re going to proceed with something like this, which involves a lot of taxpayer money, that we’re going to do it in a responsible way.”

Separating passenger and freight rail networks to allow for a dedicated Montreal-Toronto corridor was a key recommendation in a comprehensive review of Canada’s transportation system that was tabled last week by the Liberal government.

Via Rail is looking to large public sector pension funds for approximately $2 billion to build the track and signalling infrastructure for a dedicated Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal passenger rail network, with federal dollars paying for new rail cars.

Via Rail is proposing a “high-frequency” service on dedicated tracks for passenger rail in the busy Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto corridor that would dramatically improve train speeds, frequency of trips and reduce travel times.][...]
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...kes-sense-but-liberals-studying-cost-minister

Just as an abstract thought, and far from optimal in present form in an RER context...but one wonders on the usability of those "replaced" LRC era coaches. Many are in pretty good shape, and not dissimilar to some Metro-North and LIRR coaches. Hmmmm....If extra doors could be cut in the sides mid-point along....from memory, they use one of the standard forms of knuckle couplers too, as do the UPX stock.

I'm thinking the Bramalea South RER corridor...

 

[Urban Sky]

Urban: Apologies on the "quote" function. This may sound lame to regular iMac users (ostensibly OSX functions the same on all Apple platforms) by I'm forced to use this machine instead of my regular Linux one at home, and it's a royal pain in the asterix by virtue of not being able to accumulate quotes on the taskbar, let alone missing the right click to highlight, copy and paste and/or Google. [...]

Don't worry about it, every exposure to MACs reliably converts me into an extremely bad-tempered two-year old and "royal pain in the asterix" has so far been the most elegant way I've seen this frustration described...

[...] I wondered on your "monopoly" claim, it seemed out of character for your other excellent and informed comments. It's an important point to build on though, as *common access* to extant networks is crucial to the argument for needing exclusive tracks or not. [...]

I was born and raised in Germany and went to University in the UK before I came to Canada 3 years ago, which is why I'm relatively familiar with the developments in Europe...

[...] For any PFI to show, there must first be a technical and business case made. Even if that fails, the attempt, at 3.3M$ is a pittance in the big scheme of things. It's money very well spent. I suspect the present regime are being coy on a result being available much sooner than the three years bandied about. I was digging on that, and there's been in-depth discussions on this long before the budget was released. I think the Libs are actually handling this well. Why reveal more than you have to when playing cards?

I believe that the three year mention mainly serves to manage the expectations of those who expect a government-funded HFR or even HSR project anytime soon. I'm myself not too unhappy either, as it avoids creating a deadline until which the deal with the private sector has to be reached...

 

[steveintoronto]

Don't have the examples up in front of me to quote, but two points have been resonating to me for the last hour or so:

It almost seems there's a disproportionate political reason beyond the obvious HFR one we've been discussing for the continual mention of "Bombardier" by government spokespersons. This could be purposeful maneuvering to soften an impending announcement that the CSeries won't get further taxpayer help, but Bombardier's Rail Division will get a contract, or "consideration" (read: writing the contract in such a way as to ensure Bombardier gets it ) Normally the Government, and rightly so, should appear unbiased on assigning favour to a domestic company. We see how awkward the TTC is finding allegiance to Bombardier, and now wonders in retrospect if the bid by Siemens wouldn't have been far better for the new streetcars. So the repetitive mention of "Bombardier" is conspicuous.

And secondly: I keep reeding mention of "track" for the Windsor-Quebec HFR...singular, albeit can be plural in usage too. It's an important point, as the first presumption for the density of service intended is twin track. Does anyone know if only one with passing loops is intended, or is it twin the entire distance(s)? It will affect cost.

 

[Urban Sky]

[...] It almost seems there's a disproportionate political reason beyond the obvious HFR one we've been discussing for the continual mention of "Bombardier" by government spokespersons. This could be purposeful maneuvering to soften an impending announcement that the CSeries won't get further taxpayer help, but Bombardier's Rail Division will get a contract, or "consideration" (read: writing the contract in such a way as to ensure Bombardier gets it ) Normally the Government, and rightly so, should appear unbiased on assigning favour to a domestic company. We see how awkward the TTC is finding allegiance to Bombardier, and now wonders in retrospect if the bid by Siemens wouldn't have been far better for the new streetcars. So the repetitive mention of "Bombardier" is conspicuous. [...]

I have the impression that the slow decline of Bombardier is part of the reason why no rolling stock funding was announced in the 2016 Budget (which, by the way, does not mention Bombardier once), as this would have just been perceived as a present for Bombardier.

[...] I keep reeding mention of "track" for the Windsor-Quebec HFR...singular, albeit can be plural in usage too. It's an important point, as the first presumption for the density of service intended is twin track. Does anyone know if only one with passing loops is intended, or is it twin the entire distance(s)? It will affect cost.

I found this government report, which states that "With a dedicated track, VIA Rail hopes that doubling the frequency of passenger rail service would increase ridership almost fourfold, thus increasing revenues and reducing reliance on federal government subsidies". Given that VIA runs currently only between 6 and 8 frequencies daily in the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto triangle, I would assume that trains won't run more frequent than hourly, for which a single-tracked line with multiple passing sections would be sufficient for the start, while a second track could of course be added at any later point in the future.

 

[MisterF]

Can you name those two nations? And pardon me for playing devil's advocate here...but if that's the case, why have all previous private and private partnerships failed, and what is different now?

Note that you wrote "HSR". Perhaps the term means something different to North Ams, and the context is hazy in this instance. I stand behind a position I've often stated: If there's no market for intra-urban high-speed, how can there be for inter-urban?

What I will add neutral to the debate is that the Toronto to Guelph Radial Interurban Express back in the twenties made it in less time from central Guelph to the Junction than the GO train does today to Bloor station. I think we're going to have to define "high speed rail".
The European definition:
[...]
b) High Speed lines shall comprise:

• Specially built High Speed lines equipped for speeds generally equal to or greater than 250 km/h,
• Specially upgraded High Speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200 km/h,
• Specially upgraded High Speed lines which have special features as a result of topographical, relief or town-planning constraints, on which the speed must be adapted to each case.
• [...]

We have deliberately used the word "definition" in the plural because there is no single standard definition of high speed rail (nor even a standard usage of the term: sometimes it is called "high speed" and sometimes "very high speed"). The definitions vary according to the criteria used since high speed rail corresponds to a complex reality. ]
[...]
http://www.uic.org/highspeed

So what criteria are you using for this comparison F?

You may want to read over previous pages of this thread - we've discussed a lot of the things you're talking about at length. I'm sure you'll find the discussion quite informative. Obviously the definition of high speed rail varies, but in the context of this thread it generally refers to TGV style trains that go ~300 km/h. The two European countries I was talking about that have that type of system are France and Spain. Of course, if high speed rail refers to trains that travel in the 200-300 km/h range, that list expands considerably to include Austria, Sweden, Finland, Turkey, Norway, Portugal, Poland, and Russia. The Windsor-Quebec corridor has about 20 million people and a density in the range of 90-100 people per sq km, and all of those countries are in the same density ballpark. So as I said, we do have the density.

What do you mean by intra-urban high speed rail? High speed commuter trains? Commuter trains tend to be slower than their intercity counterparts. But I have no doubt that GO trains at 200+ km/h would be successful.

We certainly wouldn't have gotten that from the Conservatives, Euphoria, quite the opposite. The Cons tried their best to kill VIA. Let's not mix up what can be achieved with a couple of Billion though, by comparing massively dissimilar size of projects. For urban areas, that money can make a radical difference, albeit it's still hazy as to what will go where.

Back to the "high speed rail" discussion though as per Windsor/Quebec Corridor:
[...][Sebastien Sherman, senior managing director for the Americas at Borealis Infrastructure, pointed out on Tuesday’s panel that high-speed rail plans “need a degree of population density,” more common in Asia and Europe than in a more sparsely populated country such as Canada. Borealis is an arm of the OMERS pension fund that owns 50 per cent of HS1 Ltd., the U.K.’s high-speed line that runs through the Chunnel. He noted that any high-speed project comes with its construction risks, demand risks, regulatory risks and political risks.][...]
http://business.financialpost.com/n...ail-not-the-right-solution-for-canada-via-ceo

The present VIA CEO makes a much more pragmatic case:
[...][...the head of Canada’s dominant passenger rail service, Via Rail Canada, says high-speed rail is a tremendously expensive proposition, and it makes little sense to invest in it until the serious existing congestion problems on Canadian railways is solved.

“Back in 2012, there was a report published that pegged the cost of high-speed rail between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal at $10 billion, and for $10 billion it would get you 10-million customers,” said Via CEO Yves Desjardins-Siciliano. Simply providing dedicated passenger lines at conventional speed, he said, “will cost $3 billion for seven million (passengers), so it’s a third of the cost for two-thirds of the benefit.”][...]

And note that many of the posters are talking 'HFR':
[...][Yves Desjardins-Siciliano is instead pushing the new Liberal government to fund a $4-billion project to create a dedicated regular-speed passenger rail corridor between Toronto and Montreal, which he says would speed up and increase the frequency of service.

“Back in 2012, there was a report published that pegged the cost of high-speed rail between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal at $10 billion, and for $10 billion it would get you 10 million customers,” he said, as quoted at the Financial Post.


But the dedicated passenger corridor would cost $3 billion ($4 billion if the track is electrified) and attract an estimated 7 million passengers, “so it’s a third of the cost for two-thirds of the benefit,” Desjardins-Siciliano says.

It isn’t the first time the CEO of Canada’s Crown corporation passenger rail service has said high-speed rail is wrong for Canada. He has argued previously that half of VIA’s customers travel to and from points outside large cities, so a high speed rail network between Toronto and Montreal wouldn’t be of use to them. And “going at 300 kilometres an hour (for shorter trips) does not warrant the investment,” he said, as quoted at the Windsor Star.

VIA says a dedicated rail track would allow its trains to travel at a "higher conventional speed" of 177 km/h, up from 100 km.h today.][...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/1...rail-yves-desjardins-siciliano_n_8473342.html

I think some, by advocating for HSR, are aiming far too high and have no hope of hitting a target. We'll see what comes out of the study, but for the couple of Billion on the table for urban transit, what you propose is self-fulfilling defeat. That quantity of money can have a large multiplier effect when Toronto (big breath) approaches the province to match funds to get at least RER Weston off the never-ending drawing board, and into reality. A good part of it is already extant.

Via Rail advocated for TGV style HSR for years and did feasibility studies as first steps to get it built. None of the governments over the years went ahead with it and instead funded highways while cutting Via Rail funding repeatedly. Private proposals have come and gone, none getting government funding despite favourable feasibility studies. Via has recognized that and is now taking a more pragmatic approach. Their current high frequency proposal has a much higher chance of getting built. It wouldn't have the speed of the European systems but it would, for the first time in Via's history, result in a frequent and reliable service that's not at the mercy of freight companies. That's why they've changed their tone.

 

[mdrejhon]

What do you mean by intra-urban high speed rail? High speed commuter trains? Commuter trains tend to be slower than their intercity counterparts. But I have no doubt that GO trains at 200+ km/h would be successful.

I think that 200kph GO RER (region express rail) would be quite successful on a fully electrified Kitchener route -- instead of 2 hours, you'd have 1 hour on an upgraded corridor mostly keeping speed limits (Georgetown Corridor) but upgrading some sprints to 200kph+. You'd have a great long express coast in many sections, with a few selected key-hub stops.

...Including whatever gets chosen as a Pearson transfer point for all rail services in the corridor (e.g. Malton/Woodbine) to efficiently capture airport transfers in both directions without the Weston double-back issue. We can't forget Pearson but we can't depend on Pearson (see UPX...), considering Kitchener is booming, and incoming airport travellers would increasingly appreciate the ability to not need a car to go to the new office towers being built in Kitchener-Waterloo (like that new Google tower). As we speak, something like 16 highrises are already approved for construction in Kitchener. Kitchener in 25 years from now will be totally different urban animal compared to today thanks to the taller construction in the core area and the new LRT, and there is already growing bus traffic with numbers that warrant planning/expanding rail towards all-day train service.

Such 200kph speeds would still be defacto high-speed GO trains if HSR was defined as 200kph minimum -- and might be the compromise outcome of the current Ontario-funded high speed rail study, that might result in an Ontario-funded high speed train, which might fall upon Metrolinx, which might be part of GO RER Phase II or III in a future decade. Still much cheaper than the 300kph options.

If VIA HFR study recommends electrification and it gets chosen...

Now combine a theoretical VIA HFR (electric version) and the GO HSR (lite) begun as a faster electric RER service to Kitchener (as Phase 2 of RER) -- you've got the beginnings of much faster Corridor service even if it isn't true HSR -- more of "High Performance Rail", or "Higher Speed Rail".

Ontario will only pull this off if RER Phase I is successful (the current $13.5bn electrification initiative lasting through the mid 2020s (and whatever "SmartTrack" enhancement pitch-in by City/Feds above-and-beyond this Ontario spend -- basically, that appears to be another few billion already being offered on top of the $13.5bn). All the SmartTrack fiddling is all minor work -- compared to what Metrolinx needs to to recolor the UPX white-elephant into being as part of a successful GO RER system -- but with a Union Revitalizations threatening to create a massively over-capacity station in 2018 if we cancel GO RER.

So we're railroaded on this railroad, literally to have plenty of rail expansions. Some of which, many elements of which could include HFR or HPR elements becoming funded within a few years to a decade from now.

If this all happens, then within 20-25 years, GO HSR-Lite and VIA HFR could end up creating a nonstop Kitchener-to-Montreal dedicated passenger corridor capable of speeds varying from 177kph to maybe ~200-240kph. 300kph sections could come later, for the longer intercity sprints, if demand started overflowing trains.

It would not be true high speed the whole way, but you'd run entry-level high speed trains not too different from Acela Express or one of those European 200-240kph train services, and this paves a way to continue incremental high speed upgrades where opportunity arises (e.g. a grade separation here and there, an upgrade of speed limit). VIA may end up, for example, buying such trainsets in a future trainset refresh

 

[SaugeenJunction]

I don't think this got posted, but it relates to the previous discussion about a potential VIA Rail service restoration for the Banff-Calgary route. Glad to see CP at least on board for a study of the service.

Canadian Pacific on board with passenger rail study
...Salem Woodrow, Canadian Pacific’s public affairs and communications officer, said CP is committed to working with the communities they operate in and will participate in the feasibility study if it takes place. “Any formal proposal would require careful review by our company and until a full examination is conducted, we would not speculate on whether this service would be feasible,” she said....

 

[steveintoronto]

Just figured out how to use the HTML tags for quoting only a section at a time! That compensates for the shortcomings of the Mac in not being able to do that by right-clicking.

I have the impression that the slow decline of Bombardier is part of the reason why no rolling stock funding was announced in the 2016 Budget (which, by the way, does not mention Bombardier once), as this would have just been perceived as a present for Bombardier.

This might be the careful hand being played. Taken that it isn't in the report, but it's certainly popped up a number of times in news stories recently on this, such that it's almost blatant, I continue to get the impression this is more than one issue in play. You raise a point on procurement policies that various regimes have played with. The F35 contract was a classic one recently, many of the performance specs being worded in such a way as to preclude other bidders from being successful in meeting them. Point taken again on VIA's position that (ostensibly) they'll take whatever supplier meets the need. (Siemens, for instance, would match Bombardier in terms of Cdn content, even build an assembly operation in Mississauga, albeit that went awry recently as Bombardier have padded their claims in the Flexity debacle, and the TTC is left wanting for it.) There appears to be 'doublespeak' in the language from Morneau. I just did a quick Google search, but inserting "Bombardier" as a tag is only showing the CSeries issue. I'll dig deeper later. I'm going to have to reference my claim since I raised it.

Single track: So the intent was 'singular track'. Excellent link, btw. I'm going to pore over that later, but will quote some of it here, as it renders my querying what others mean by "HSR" redundant:
[...]
Given that the federal government does not consider high-speed passenger rail a practical option or as a feasible solution to improve passenger rail service, VIA Rail has recently taken the initiative to explore another approach. VIA Rail is promoting the notion of high-frequency rail (HFR) rather than high-speed rail (HSR) through the acquisition and building of a rail network dedicated to passenger rail service only. A dedicated track for passenger rail service would resolve the rail traffic congestion issues associated with sharing the network with freight rail carriers.19

A passenger rail dedicated track would also allow VIA Rail more latitude to increase frequency of service; improve the availability and convenience of rail service to all Canadians and thus add ridership volume; generate more passenger revenue; reduce reliance on government subsidies; and improve the percentage of trains running on schedule.

VIA Rail's HFR strategy would require the acquisition of existing trackage from freight railways and the rehabilitation or rebuilding of existing rights-of-way found within the Toronto–Ottawa–Montréal segment of the Québec City–Windsor corridor. Unlike the HSR option, which would require the construction of an entirely new and dedicated high-speed rail network infrastructure and necessitate substantial investment in new and untried technology and equipment, the HFR option offers merely to expand and rehabilitate the existing rail network for passenger rail service using existing technology and operating at conventional speeds. The HFR strategy proposed by VIA Rail is considerably less costly than the proposed HSR schemes, with lower execution risk and quicker implementation to market.
[...]
http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/ResearchPublications/2015-55-e.html#a14

So it isn't, and I suspect, could never be with shared RoW, "HSR" in the truest sense, or even close. There's far too many derailments as it is, could you imagine the carnage if a freight derailed adjacent? But what it does have symbiosis with is MD's mention of RER, akin to the US NE Corridor, with their "Corridor Express". One step below the Acela, but cheaper, a tad slower, and many more stops, in their case, hauled by 'toasters'...the originally ABB Swedish design electric locos of about 4000hp+ from memory. I see VIA mentioning EMUs...and the opportunity for the Feds to oversee...or more politically correctly...co-ordinate...maximum integration of those corridors is obvious. That in itself calls for a bit of time to study, since as it stands Metrolinx seem to be parked on a siding with this.

I'll try and find the quotes of "Morneau + Bombardier" later and post them. The more I think about them, (IIRC), then the darker it looks for the CSeries support. The Feds offering to purchase Bombardier rail rolling stock for VIA might be the consolation prize.

 

[steveintoronto]

As we speak, something like 16 highrises are already approved for construction in Kitchener.

Aside from the rail issues, which will be discussed further, what you post pertains to some of the earlier posts talking about a "Guelph Bypass". It's not just the 8kph running from the Guelph station west to the edge of town that adds credence to a "Guelph Bypass"...but it's also the *stark contrast* of K/W being an absolute boom-town while Guelph can't even get development at the centre of town. A lot of that is due to local politics, and the intransigence of Guelphites to embracing regional government (such that it matters little who they elect as much as it's a case of thinking they can continue to live in their own little world, and expect major development to come calling). *IF* that "By-pass" comes to pass (and it was talked about in that grandiose fantasy about a year or so ago for "HST from London to Toronto...with or without Martian help) for a more modest and achievable VIA/GO HFR service then it would make perfect sense, as the major load would be for K/W. As to how Guelph would relocate their station is a good question, but *anything* to improve the service through Guelph demands a by-pass. Guelph ain't gonna like it, but Guelph wants it every which way. (I've spent five years here, just back to house and dog-sit for two weeks). Brampton also is going to be an impediment, but of course, that has been discussed endlessly in this and other forums.

If VIA does get this off the ground, it will be the best thing for GO in a long time as to regional service improvements.

 

[nfitz]

It's not just the 8kph running from the Guelph station west to the edge of town that adds credence to a "Guelph Bypass"...

I can't think for a minute, that the cost of putting an entirely new alignment around Guelph, is at all worth the value of the much shorter, relatively straight track through Guelph.

Sure, the current track is a problem, but I'd think it would politically a lot easier, and cheaper, to mitigate the current alignment. Heck, I'd think it much cheaper to expropriate a dozen or so residences on Kent Street than the amount of land acquisition that would be necessary to the south!

 

[Duck]

If anyone has access to NetFlix, I strongly advise watching Dreamland Season 1 Episode 3. I swear the whole time I was saying "...this is Canada!!"

(It's a sitcom about the Australian national planing committee and this episode is about building high speed rail)

 

[steveintoronto]

Canadian Pacific on board with passenger rail study

Excellent article...and it clearly makes the point that NOW is the time to take the Feds up on their offer.
[“We are hoping to hear by the end of March,” said Diana Waltmann, the Town of Banff’s communications manager. “If successful, we would then look to issue an RFP (request for proposal).”
[...]
“A visitor survey in 2015 indicated that 49 per cent of respondents would take a passenger train to Banff National Park if one was available,” he said.]

They're *right on it*! Absolute kudos to them. Of course details will change with time, but nothing like getting some inertia while the winds are blowing. Of course, CP are not being altruistic on this. Oil train shipments and almost all freight is way down at this point, and those mainlines aren't cheap to maintain. Symbiosis makes perfect sense. As if it wasn't obvious to most of us!

So I wonder if any of that 'goodwill' will rub-off to the Galt subdivision?

 

[steveintoronto]

I can't think for a minute, that the cost of putting an entirely new alignment around Guelph, is at all worth the value of the much shorter, relatively straight track through Guelph.

Sure, the current track is a problem, but I'd think it would politically a lot easier, and cheaper, to mitigate the current alignment. Heck, I'd think it much cheaper to expropriate a dozen or so residences on Kerr Street than the amount of land acquisition that would be necessary to the south!

The problem for the track through Guelph is the *Go Slow* order on it. It is one step away from street running, having a 1 metre concrete retaining wall each side of the (former) double track RoW with residential (and up-scale!) streets running directly parallel with houses facing the tracks.

What other option do you suggest? I lived right by those tracks in two different places for a total of two years. You could talk to the GO passengers with sign-language as they crawled past, and the upper deck ones especially as I sat in the loo looking out the window, and they looked in. It is a a *very real* bottle-neck. I guess you could just buy them all up and rip them down, but you still have the litany of grade crossings. Take a look at the map. Brampton is also another bottleneck, albeit I'm unaware of any other
'Go Slow' orders along that corridor like Guelph's.

Edit to Add: I disagree with aspects of this "report" not the least that it's a pipe dream, but the latest VIA proposal, done in conjunction with GO, is very sane, but some of the following would still have to apply, and that includes a by-pass:

Dec 29, 2014 |
GUELPH—A proposed high-speed rail line from London to Toronto would skip Guelph, going to the south of the city, a recent report commissioned by the Ontario government suggests.

Construction of the new line would affect about 50 farmers' fields and cross the Speed River.

The province commissioned UK-based First Class Partnerships to prepare a 51-page pre-feasibility report on the project, dated March 11, 2014, and an 11-page additional report on community and environmental impacts, dated March 18, 2014. Both are available on the website of rail advocacy group High Speed Rail Canada.

The first report from the rail consultants recommends going through downtown Guelph, but the second report recommends bypassing the city and building the new high-speed line to the south to avoid residential areas.

"While it would be possible to build a bypass around Acton and Rockwood, and to improve the line through Guelph, I am now pretty sure it will be cheaper and easier to build a completely new line for the intercity trains, around the south of Guelph. The existing line would remain for use by regional (GO) trains and freight," wrote consultant Michael Schabas.

Guelph MPP Liz Sandals said the final route for the proposed high-speed rail line will be determined during the environmental assessment process but she said it seems likely Guelph is just too close to Kitchener for a stop to make sense.

"I would consider it a huge bonus if it happened that it was possible to stop in Guelph, but I think it's unlikely," she said in a phone interview.

Sandals said in order for a train to really be high-speed it needs to have a restricted number of stops.

"I think that what they're likely to find is that it slows the service too much to have to be speeding up and slowing down," she said.

The second report suggests the new 41-kilometre line would allow travel at 300 km/h around Guelph, shaving valuable minutes off travel time from London and Kitchener to Toronto. With the section of new line from the southern outskirts of Guelph to the point it rejoins the existing line east of Kitchener, "it seems possible to avoid all buildings but perhaps 50 fields will be severed. Farmers will have longer trips to their fields, or they will swap, sell or rent fields to each other," the report states.

According to the first report the new high-speed line would make the trip from London to Toronto in only 71 minutes, and Kitchener to Toronto in 48 minutes, and would cost $2.5 billion to construct. The Toronto-to-London fare would be $43 on average.

Ajay Woozageer, spokesperson for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, wrote in an email the specific route for the high-speed rail line within the London-to-Toronto corridor has not been determined yet.

Asked about the effects the construction of such a line would have on Guelph or the surrounding area, he wrote the impacts will be identified during the environmental assessment process. He added that stage of the process will likely take four to six years to complete.

Paul Langan, of the rail advocacy group High Speed Rail Canada, said it will be difficult to solve the problem of having to slow down in Guelph on the high-speed line.

But he said the province should make improvements to the existing lines to make GO trains more reliable and faster on the Toronto route.

"Who would complain, for instance, even if you could get into Toronto in an hour or an hour and a half? You're not going to drive there in an hour unless it's Sunday morning," he said.

"Let's get GO running frequently and reduce time to get into Toronto, that's the key."
[...]
http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/5233025-high-speed-rail-line-likely-to-skip-guelph-report/

 

[MisterF]

Aside from the rail issues, which will be discussed further, what you post pertains to some of the earlier posts talking about a "Guelph Bypass". It's not just the 8kph running from the Guelph station west to the edge of town that adds credence to a "Guelph Bypass"...but it's also the *stark contrast* of K/W being an absolute boom-town while Guelph can't even get development at the centre of town. A lot of that is due to local politics, and the intransigence of Guelphites to embracing regional government (such that it matters little who they elect as much as it's a case of thinking they can continue to live in their own little world, and expect major development to come calling). *IF* that "By-pass" comes to pass (and it was talked about in that grandiose fantasy about a year or so ago for "HST from London to Toronto...with or without Martian help) for a more modest and achievable VIA/GO HFR service then it would make perfect sense, as the major load would be for K/W. As to how Guelph would relocate their station is a good question, but *anything* to improve the service through Guelph demands a by-pass. Guelph ain't gonna like it, but Guelph wants it every which way. (I've spent five years here, just back to house and dog-sit for two weeks). Brampton also is going to be an impediment, but of course, that has been discussed endlessly in this and other forums.

If VIA does get this off the ground, it will be the best thing for GO in a long time as to regional service improvements.

If a Guelph bypass is built, the station in Guelph wouldn't necessarily have to move. The pre-feasibility study done for the Kitchener-London HSR assumed that the corridor would be served by slower regional trains as well as the faster express trains. So the regional trains would go through Guelph while the express high speed trains would go around it. This is done a lot in France, in Arras for example.