VIA Rail

[kEiThZ]

^There’s nothing that a DMU hub in Kingston can achieve that a Charger layover hub in Kingston can’t. A Kingston hub should be premised on differing volumes of ridership on each of the three directional legs, and on the need for overnight layover to enable late arrivals into and early morning departures from Kingston. Timekeeping and schedule adherence should not be a consideration.....if we can’t solve that......

The volume differences are not well served by through trains alone, because doing so would require empty seats (or empty coaches, in the extreme) for too much of the run....poor equipment utilization. DMU or short Charger trainsets turning at Kingston can take up the slack. I can envisage VIA easily filling 2 coaches a day minimum with early morning Ottawa commuters, and likewise and more westward towards Toronto. So those early morning runs might well grow beyond DMU size.

Depends how we're defining optimal demand for DMUs. Is it to fill 2 cars or 3 cars? Kingston, to my amateur eyes, looks a lot like the smaller European cities which get regular DMU service. Hence, why I think DMUs would work there. Especially off-peak where demand is bound to be substantially lower. But I guess there are cost tradeoffs with fleet commonality that might justify using Chargers to push around 2-3 car trains, even if substantially emptier off-peak.

West of Toronto, I can see HFR leading to a service plan where the hourly trains arriving from the east run through, alternating between the two current routes. That puts London on effectively an hourly service, and 2-hourly headways for both Kitchener and Brantford...

I don't think there's a good case to split service west of Toronto. Pearson needs hourly service from both directions. And GO can serve Hamilton and GTA West really well. They'd be only folks transferring. I imagine that HFR simply becomes a cheaper version of the proposed Ontario HSR routed Toronto-Pearson-Kitchener-London.

 

[robmausser]

Depends how we're defining optimal demand for DMUs. Is it to fill 2 cars or 3 cars? Kingston, to my amateur eyes, looks a lot like the smaller European cities which get regular DMU service. Hence, why I think DMUs would work there. Especially off-peak where demand is bound to be substantially lower. But I guess there are cost tradeoffs with fleet commonality that might justify using Chargers to push around 2-3 car trains, even if substantially emptier off-peak.




I don't think there's a good case to split service west of Toronto. Pearson needs hourly service from both directions. And GO can serve Hamilton and GTA West really well. They'd be only folks transferring. I imagine that HFR simply becomes a cheaper version of the proposed Ontario HSR routed Toronto-Pearson-Kitchener-London.

IMO for HFR I think split service can happen.

For successful HSR, I think that a one-seat Windsor to Quebec City train needs to be possible.

Once you get into 300kmh range you will start to see people wanting to go from London to Montreal, from Kitchener to Quebec City, etc etc.

If you tell them they need to get off the train and have a 1 hour layover in Toronto etc, they will decide to take a plane.

 

[roger1818]

I think that was proposed a few years ago but never implemented...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/london-via-diesel-passenger-cars-1.3462193

From what I gather, they tested the lines (in 2016) using existing RDCs (from the former Victoria-Courtney service) but implementation required the purchase of the RDCs from DART. As mentioned earlier, VIA lost the bid for them (in 2017).

It looks like it was proposed to Kitchener, but I can't read the article because I'm not subscribed to local news away from where I live.

Via Rail calls on old trains for new service to Kitchener

Via Rail is reaching 60 years into the past as it moves forward to restore lost service in Kitchener later this year.

www.therecord.com

The latter article says, "Via intends to deploy them to launch a third daily train between Toronto, Kitchener and areas west..." The CBC article also says, "He wants to see Via stick to its plans to increase the number of trains between Sarnia and London. Sarnia lost its midday trains back in 2011 and 2012 and are down to just one train a day." It isn't clear what the exact plan was, but if I had to guess, it was to bring back trains 86 and 89 (between Toronto and London) and extend trains 85 and 87 to Sarnia (like they were previously), though there may have been plans for other trains.

 

[kEiThZ]

IMO for HFR I think split service can happen.

A split can be done. The question is whether this is optimum. Because split service means half the frequencies on each branch defeating the whole purpose of "HIGH FREQUENCY Rail". Moreover the only way to enable the cutting flights to Kingston and London is to have hourly service to Pearson. Anything less and the airlines will keep their shuttles.

For successful HSR, I think that a one-seat Windsor to Quebec City train needs to be possible.

Literally not possible given the disconnection in Montreal. What will be possible is a one-seat ride from Windsor to Montreal.

I don't think full coverage is necessary for HFR to be successful given that the bulk of traffic in the Corridor will be covered by the London to Montreal portion.

Once you get into 300kmh range you will start to see people wanting to go from London to Montreal, from Kitchener to Quebec City, etc etc.

If you tell them they need to get off the train and have a 1 hour layover in Toronto etc, they will decide to take a plane.

HFR is not HSR. So it will never by running at 300 km/h. HFR won't be competitive with air for Toronto-Montreal, let alone London-Montreal or Kitchener-Quebec City. HFR will be competitive with driving those trips. So vacation travel would probably move to rail.

The layovers aren't going to be an issue. Higher frequencies on both GO RER and VIA HFR would mean minimal layover times. I can see more than 30 mins layover being necessary. And most likely, depending on modernization of the boarding processes, and which GO RER lines get 15 min service, that can probably be brought done to a 10-15 min layover.

 

[crs1026]

Depends how we're defining optimal demand for DMUs. Is it to fill 2 cars or 3 cars? Kingston, to my amateur eyes, looks a lot like the smaller European cities which get regular DMU service. Hence, why I think DMUs would work there. Especially off-peak where demand is bound to be substantially lower. But I guess there are cost tradeoffs with fleet commonality that might justify using Chargers to push around 2-3 car trains, even if substantially emptier off-peak.

Well, I fall back on my long-standing projection that once HFR is moved to the Havelock line, VIA's use of the Kingston route will face even more constraints beyond what's there today.

We need to remember that VIA's post-HFR Lakeshore service plan is an early morning train originating in Kingston in each of three directions. Then, 4-ish through trains each way during the day. And then the three layover trains returning in the evening. (Maybe, in the best of cases, there is a very early departure to get people to the end points by the start of the business day, and a second departure a couple hours later for those who don't need to rise so early - casual shoppers, day trippers, medical appointments, etc.)

If your vision of "regular DMU service" is any more frequent service than that, I would say you are ignoring the facts of VIA's being only a tenant on CN's line.

That service pattern may keep Kingston on VIA's map, but whatever ridership there is will be concentrated on those 4 or 5 daily trains - which will be making all stops along the Lakeshore corridor, by the way, so will have additional riders beyond those boarding in Kingston. Kingston riders will no longer be spread across the very frequent service that we see today.

If your vision for Kingston is ridership loads on those 4-5 trains that can't fill a 3-car Charger every few hours, I'd say you are admitting that Kingston is getting cut out of service and ridership is actually being discouraged rather than grown. I'm sure hoping that isn't the ridership vision..... rather, if there are fewer trains, I'm optimistic that the loads will be sufficient that we will cross the threshold from DMU to standard Charger train, whatever that threshold may be.

If the sole purpose of those layover trains is to handle peak one way in the morning and handle peak the other way in the afternoon, then I'd say there is enough flex in the Charger fleet to utilise turnbacks of through trains.... similar to how GO trains that lay over in the burbs at night are used for 2WAD service during the day, then become layover trains at the end of the day. Why duplicate the capital cost by creating a DMU fleet when there are already enough Chargers to take up the slack?

I don't think there's a good case to split service west of Toronto. Pearson needs hourly service from both directions. And GO can serve Hamilton and GTA West really well. They'd be only folks transferring. I imagine that HFR simply becomes a cheaper version of the proposed Ontario HSR routed Toronto-Pearson-Kitchener-London.

I totally agree that the focus should be on the Kitchener line, with a good integrated service with GO. With some fairly low cost track upgrading west of Kitchener, the Stratford route could be about as fast end to end as the Brantford route... nothing fancy, simply as good as the Smiths Falls and Alexandria lines today. Still, I would argue that through trains along that line towards Windsor and Detroit would be a good business move. The transfer at London has always been problemmatic, and I don't know why Brantford/Woodstock would get the Windsor advantage over Kitchener and Pearson in a new service plan. Perhaps Brantford needs to mirror Kingston.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

We need to remember that VIA's post-HFR Lakeshore service plan is an early morning train originating in Kingston in each of three directions. Then, 4-ish through trains each way during the day. And then the three layover trains returning in the evening. (Maybe, in the best of cases, there is a very early departure to get people to the end points by the start of the business day, and a second departure a couple hours later for those who don't need to rise so early - casual shoppers, day trippers, medical appointments, etc.)

I am assuming something like 4-6 departures per day to Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal each. Assuming the fleet is sized for the 1-2 peak departures, I would bet around needing 3 coaches (2 economy + 1 business). I'll leave it the more knowledgeable to judge whether that is best delivered by DMU or a loco pulled train.

 

[kEiThZ]

I totally agree that the focus should be on the Kitchener line, with a good integrated service. With some fairly low cost track upgrading west of Kitchener, the Stratford route could be about as fast end to end as the Brantford route... nothing fancy, simply as good as the Smiths Falls and Alexandria lines today. Still, I would argue that through trains along that line towards Windsor and Detroit would be a good business move.

The premise of Ontario HSR was that it would connect the urban centre for Southwestern Ontario, one of the major tech innovation hubs of the country, the largest airport in the country and the commercial capital of the country inside a single 1.5 hr train ride. That still applies to a 2 hr train ride.

With GO RER providing 15 min 2WAD to Aldershot and hourly 2WAD to Hamilton, the case for hourly service on Toronto-Aldershot-London and Toronto-Aldershot-Niagara Falls is limited. Both of those could probably be bi-hourly, with short 3-4 car trains, and schedules arranged for hourly service on the overlapping Aldershot-Toronto stretch. Or maybe turn over the whole thing to GO. Heck, the mayor of Niagara Falls, NY wants GO service extend to his town.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The solution to Niagara Falls NY getting GO service is allow walk-overs across the bridge, even without NEXUS. Americans could park at the Amtrak station and cross the bridge.

The logistics of clearing trains at the border is too complicated otherwise, especially since the US station is literally across the bridge from the Canadian one.

 

[roger1818]

Well, I fall back on my long-standing projection that once HFR is moved to the Havelock line, VIA's use of the Kingston route will face even more constraints beyond what's there today.

That brings up a very good point. From CN's perspective, separate trains from Toronto to Kingston and Kingston to Montreal or Ottawa would be more disruptive than a single train from Toronto to Montreal or Ottawa (on lakeshore via Kingston), so it might be easier for VIA to have one train along the entire route than two trains that terminate/originate in Kingston.

I am assuming something like 4-6 departures per day to Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal each.

Kingston Mayor Bryan Paterson tweeted this map in 2017 about post HFR frequency of service in Kingston. It shows 12 trains a day to Toronto and 6 trains to each of Ottawa and Montreal. That is down slightly from the pre COVID service of 17 westbound and 13 eastbound trains on weekdays.

https://twitter.com/x/status/890579315255123968

Assuming the fleet is sized for the 1-2 peak departures, I would bet around needing 3 coaches (2 economy + 1 business). I'll leave it the more knowledgeable to judge whether that is best delivered by DMU or a loco pulled train.

That is about what I would expect. Given that 3 cars is about the break even point for DMUs vs conventional trains, I don't see the advantage of introducing a new train type into VIA's fleet.

Also, given that most modern DMUs come in fixed, preconfigured train lengths, with permanent (not semi-permanent) couplers, they provide much less operational flexibility to adjust for seasonal demand or long term growth.

 

[roger1818]

The solution to Niagara Falls NY getting GO service is allow walk-overs across the bridge, even without NEXUS. Americans could park at the Amtrak station and cross the bridge.

The logistics of clearing trains at the border is too complicated otherwise, especially since the US station is literally across the bridge from the Canadian one.

The logistics become much easier if the station on the NY side has pre-clearance facilities. Do you really think many people who regularly commute across the boarder don't have a NEXUS? The bigger issue is waling across the bridge wouldn't be very nice on a cold winter morning.

The big question is, what would be in it for Ontario to provide such a service to commuters who aren't paying taxes to the Ontario government? Niagara Falls NY would have to heavily subsidize the service, possibly to the point that the extension becomes profitable for Metrolinx.

 

[micheal_can]

That brings up a very good point. From CN's perspective, separate trains from Toronto to Kingston and Kingston to Montreal or Ottawa would be more disruptive than a single train from Toronto to Montreal or Ottawa (on lakeshore via Kingston), so it might be easier for VIA to have one train along the entire route than two trains that terminate/originate in Kingston.



Kingston Mayor Bryan Paterson tweeted this map in 2017 about post HFR frequency of service in Kingston. It shows 12 trains a day to Toronto and 6 trains to each of Ottawa and Montreal. That is down slightly from the pre COVID service of 17 westbound and 13 eastbound trains on weekdays.

https://twitter.com/x/status/890579315255123968

That is about what I would expect. Given that 3 cars is about the break even point for DMUs vs conventional trains, I don't see the advantage of introducing a new train type into VIA's fleet.

Also, given that most modern DMUs come in fixed, preconfigured train lengths, with permanent (not semi-permanent) couplers, they provide much less operational flexibility to adjust for seasonal demand or long term growth.

My thoughts go to what Eastern ON will look like post HFR. Will we see a drop in trains outside the HFR? ill they be shorter? Will they be so short that DMUs make sense?

 

[kEiThZ]

The solution to Niagara Falls NY getting GO service is allow walk-overs across the bridge, even without NEXUS. Americans could park at the Amtrak station and cross the bridge.

The logistics of clearing trains at the border is too complicated otherwise, especially since the US station is literally across the bridge from the Canadian one.

LOL. That's definitely not happening. But there's an argument to be made for VIA to bolster it's Niagara service and to terminate in Niagara Falls, NY. That might provide sufficient extra passengers to justify additional frequencies.

 

[crs1026]

I am assuming something like 4-6 departures per day to Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal each. Assuming the fleet is sized for the 1-2 peak departures, I would bet around needing 3 coaches (2 economy + 1 business). I'll leave it the more knowledgeable to judge whether that is best delivered by DMU or a loco pulled train.

I was persuaded by comments in this thread some time ago (a couple of years maybe?) to the effect that where intermediate points only have three or four stopping trains today, there would be little or no improvement on that, and that these stops would be compressed into all-stops trains - whereas today those stops are staggered across the whole lineup with any single train only stopping once or twice.

If the map posted by @roger1818 with 12 runs Toronto-Kingston with 6 each to Ottawa and Montreal is authoritatively coming from VIA, and they have confidence that CN will allow that post-HFR, then I'm definitely out to lunch. That's a reasonable service pattern. But I would want signatures in blood ;-) (And, is that 6 trains each direction, or total?)

I have no idea what the precise DMU-Charger threshold is. Since VIA doesn't have data with either post-RDC DMU's or the Chargers I doubt they have a firm position either. The issue is likely moot - until HFR changes some political and bureaucratic minds about the value of the investment, I can't see VIA going back to the well a second time. But they might some day.... all the more reason to wean our mindset away from pulling aged Budd RDC's out of the museums where they belong.

- Paul

 

[ManyQuestions]

That would defeat the entire purpose of the Kingston hub; avoiding cascading delays and optimizing schedules for Kingston. Given that Kingston will still on a freight corridor, the only way to do that is to have train service originate and terminate in Kingston.

Has the HFR planning included anything about the construction of a layover facility in Kingston or station upgrades? Given that the station is currently located directly on the mainline, leaving trains at the platforms between runs will likely be impossible. Likewise, forcing passengers to transfer in Kingston if traveling through would likely require some significant station capacity and comfort upgrades.

The solution to Niagara Falls NY getting GO service is allow walk-overs across the bridge

Why would Niagara NY even get GO service? That seems to be well within the distance that should be better served by intercity rail? I do not see why I train from Toronto to Niagara or Buffalo should use urban transit vehicles rather than coaches configured for intercity travel. Traveling between Ottawa and Montreal by VIA rail takes about as long at present and will be further accelerated with the completion of HFR. I know that there is not a defined crossover between local and intercity trains, but a route designed for end-to-end travel with a trip time of about two hours seems to be solidly within the intercity category. The reason for my earlier question about what units GO used for their weekend Niagara service was that I thought that it was strange that such a route be operated with commuter equipment.

 

[roger1818]

My thoughts go to what Eastern ON will look like post HFR. Will we see a drop in trains outside the HFR? ill they be shorter? Will they be so short that DMUs make sense?

Yes they will be shorter (VIA currently uses 5-7 car trains along these routes). The question is will they be short enough for DMUs to make sense? VIA will have the best information for determining this, but looking at VIA's Total passengers at stations (boarding and deboarding) in 2018 for the top 6 stations along the "lakeshore" corridor (ignoring Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Fallowfield and Dorval as they will have HFR, but including Oshawa as it won't).

Rank	Station	Total Passengers
5	KINGSTON	456,586
9	OSHAWA	207,037
12	BELLEVILLE	146,395
13	COBOURG	136,541
18	BROCKVILLE	61,305
20	CORNWALL	55,890
	Total	1,063,754

Now if you divide that by 52, you get 20,457 passengers per week. Assuming ridership remains the same, and that there will be 12 trains a day weekdays, 10 trains on Saturdays and 8 trains on Sundays (a guesstimate) each way, that is a total of 78 train each way or 156 trains total per week. Divide that out and you get an average of 131 passengers per train, using 2018 ridership. With a schedule that tailored for the lakeshore service rather than to/from Ottawa and Montreal, that number should grow significantly (this is just a starting point). One of VIA's new "Extra short," 3 car trains will have a capacity of 176 passengers, so that will be a good starting point, and more cars can be added seasonally as ridership grows.

I admit these calculations assume that no one is traveling between those stations (instead they are going to/from Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa or one of the other stations not listed), but I also ignored the smaller stations (like PORT HOPE, GUILDWOOD, TRENTON JCT, etc.), so that should balance out reasonably well.