VIA Rail

[DirectionNorth]

Where is the source that Montreal to Toronto isn't getting HFR service?

It is - through Ottawa. I've seen zero evidence that suggest all T-M service will use the Winchester Sub.

Also, what about the chunk of Toronto-Ottawa that is on the Winchester sub from Perth to Smith Falls?

See previous post.

 

[kEiThZ]

Just to back this up with CMA/CA population figures from the Census 2016:

CWLL: 59,699
BRKV: 38,553
KGON: 161,175
BLVL: 103,472
CBRG: 19,440
PHOP: 16,753
Total CMA/CA population between MTRL and the GTHA served by the Kingston Sub: 399,092

OTTW: 1,323,783
Peterborough: 121,721
Total CMA/CA population between MTRL and the GTHA served by HFR: 1,445,504

MTRL: 4,098,927

....


This means that for every non-GTHA resident "skipped" along the Lakeshore (Kingston Sub), there are 3.6 living in Ottawa or Peterborough and 10.3 living in Montreal.

Your own previous gravity model showed how valuable Ottawa-Montreal is. I suspect that if one did a summation of major city pairs along each corridor, the northern corridor would show substantially more potential even with the slightly longer Toronto-Montreal travel time.

Even if they do decide to use the Ottawa bypass, I really don't think it would be high frequency. I see it as only being used during peak travel times, and off peak they route the trains through Ottawa for the improved ridership.

That maybe. But I tend to think this breaks the model of building infrastructure with the intent of high utilization. It's a setup for poor return on investment.

It is better to have frequent service on a route that takes slightly longer than it is to have infrequent service on a route that is slightly faster.

Agreed. Which is exactly why I do hope that their ultimate approved corridor sees the Winchester plan relegated to the circular filing drawer.

Without the Ottawa bypass, the relatively slow travel times to Montreal from Toronto will impact ridership too much. The transport demand modelling would demonstrate that - which is presumably why the bypass suddenly appeared on the maps - because it is critical to HFR.

It's a slightly improved travel time for one set of passengers (Toronto-Montreal), while cutting frequencies for another market (Ottawa-Montreal) which has substantially more ridership growth potential and is likely to be much more sensitive to frequency.

The VIA Fast solution that the Martin government killed, of the new link from Kingston up to Smith Falls would have been just as fast - if not faster - than running through Peterborough.

A proposal which never got to this stage of study, and required more new corridor development and substantial cooperation from the freight railways. You really going to argue that was the better idea?

 

[kEiThZ]

Frequency of service. Potentially running 2-4 express trains a day on the Winchester sub to bypass Ottawa during peak travel times (if VIA even goes with this option, which isn't a clear) is much easier than the full 15 trains a day that HFR would require.

Not to mention that 15 trains per day is the minimum. One hopes that we can double frequencies within 5 years of launch. I hope we can get to 15 min headways at peak and 20-30 mins off-peak. Whatever is built initially, should be designed to scale reasonably. Dependence on the freight cos, runs counter to that. As it is, I worry that our terminal approaches aren't designed for this.

 

[nfitz]

Because we're no longer running our main trains along the freight tracks.

Who is "we"? How isn't HFR not sharing with freight tracks along the Winchester and Belleville subs - even on the Ottawa-Toronto service? How is the Montreal-Quebec segment not sharing tracks?

For the record, I think passenger service should have dedicated tracks.

So do I - build them along the Kingston sub.

Ottawa and Peterborough isn't "most of the population" between T-M? The whole of the province east of Kingston isn't 2 million people.

Ottawa isn't between Toronto and Montreal, now that VIA has switched to the bypass.

We could do that. We would also need to expand grade separations, ROW, and buy the (more expensive) land along the Kingston Sub.

Expanded grade separations would be an issue. And more so on Kingston sub. Would have to do a cost comparison.

Show me this modelling.

I cant show you proprietary modelling that I don't have access to. But I did work with the proprietary 1980s modelling for the 1989(?) review and all the frequency in the world wasn't going to help Montreal-Toronto gain ridership - it was all about travel time for that distance.

I assume the statute of limitations has expired on that now! There didn't seem to be much demand either, as far as I can recall, for Peterborough - Ottawa service, by ANY mode ... let alone Peterborough - Montreal. Peterborough-Toronto was where the demand was; nor did it change with time (unlike Toronto-Ottawa). The one thing that jumped out at me was that the Trenton/Belleville to Jonquiere demand was much higher than one would have expected - the working theory was it was related to travel between the two air force bases (you'd think there'd be a plane or something ... ).

It's not more than 50 km longer, and improvements on the Ottawa segment would benefit T-M trains too.

I'm not sure it's even any longer now they are bypassing Ottawa!

VIA promises to keep service to Kingston. If you don't believe them, I don't blame you ... but this seems to be a NIMBY attitude and very much a "minority holding the majority hostage" situation.

I'm all in favour of bypassing Kingston if it means significantly improved Montreal to Toronto travel times. But it doesn't.

The goal of HFR is not speed. It's to get a relatively cheap, basic service that can be upgraded in the future (including the Ottawa bypass) to a better service.

True, it's not speed. But the bottom line, is if the travel time doesn't get much better than 4 hours from Montreal to Toronto, then the increased frequency won't increase the demand enough to justify the increased frequency (not to mention the capital costs). And I think that VIA has finally realized this, given the bypass around Ottawa is now in play.

I criticized HFR in this thread years ago, saying that VIA had been sold a bill of goods by someone. I believe my criticism back then is that travel times - particularly for Montreal-Toronto would be very poor, and that the cost from Toronto to Smith Falls must be significantly underestimated. I'm theorizing that VIA has now figured out the former - will be interesting to see how the final $ come out. Though I wouldn't be surprised to see VIA spike this themselves, and go back to a variant on VIA Fast.

A new alignment would be expensive. That would kill the plan entirely. The Havelock Sub is at least usable for the most part.

It could well kill it, and will certainly be more expensive. Though the distance of about 70 km is a lot less of the 130 km of missing track, and can be built for 175 km/hr operation from day one - which is certainly not the case for Havelock. Heck, they might as well design it for 250 km/hr operation, and safeguard it for removing level crossings in the future.

Have they? It's no longer than the Lakeshore route. I've only seen a map in Quebec media outlets.

Look back at the map that Transport Canada was tweeting when they made the July announcement.

The Winchester Sub is no more than 50 km out of Ottawa.

But it's one side of a triangle instead of two. Not to mention dead straight, and no stops or cities.

 

[roger1818]

Where is the source that Montreal to Toronto isn't getting HFR service?

Where is the source that Montreal to Toronto is getting HFR service that bypasses Ottawa? All I have seen is a map that shows that VIA might run some trains on an alignment that looks to be similar to the Winchester Sub. VIA isn't going to run both half empty trains that bypass Ottawa and also half empty trains via Ottawa when they can be combined for only a small time penalty. At times they can reliably fill both trains, the express service is more feasible.

Also, what about the chunk of Toronto-Ottawa that is on the Winchester sub from Perth to Smith Falls?

The Winchester sub doesn't run between Perth and Smiths Falls. It is the Belleville Sub that runs west of Smiths Falls.

Nit-picking aside, VIA has three options:

1. Pay CP to double track the Belleville sub between Smiths Falls and Glen Tay (where the Havelock Sub begins) and lease the track from them.
2. Lease the unused portion of CP's ROW north of their track and build their own dedicated track on the ROW.
3. Purchase their own ROW that is parallel to CP's ROW

You seem to be assuming option 1 is the only option, but I feel this is the least likely option as it would put VIA in significant risk. Option 2 is more likely if they can convince CP to let them do it. If not, Option 3 would be the best option as acquiring rural land wouldn't be that difficult or expensive.

 

[kEiThZ]

True, it's not speed. But the bottom line, is if the travel time doesn't get much better than 4 hours from Montreal to Toronto, then the increased frequency won't increase the demand enough to justify the increased frequency (not to mention the capital costs). And I think that VIA has finally realized this, given the bypass around Ottawa is now in play.

Travel time is just a function of investment here. It is entirely possible to achieve a 4 hrs travel time, with stops, without the Ottawa bypass. In due course, we'll see the analysis of alternatives that the project office must have undertaken, I'm sure. Not that I think 4 hrs is some necessarty target for Toronto-Montreal HFR service to be successful.

I am willing to bet that whoever this is tendered to, will not be building two corridors 50 km apart. They'll just invest whatever is necessary to achieve the target travel times they want, on a single corridor. The math on spending hundreds of millions on a separate corridor for maybe a dozen trains per day, while effectively reducing asset utilization across the rest of the system isn't going to very positive.

 

[nfitz]

Where is the source that Montreal to Toronto is getting HFR service that bypasses Ottawa? All I have seen is a map that shows that VIA might run some trains on an alignment that looks to be similar to the Winchester Sub.

The map - which I've included above - shows that alignment as HFR. It's clearly the Alexandria Sub in the map - look how it does that little north-south segment through Smith Falls. Looks to me like the small hiccups in the line near Kemptville and Goldfield are there as well.

I suppose it's possible that this map is incorrect - but it seems to have been a deliberate change from the earlier versions. I can't see a proper map on the VIA Rail site anymore - only a schematic.

VIA isn't going to run both half empty trains that bypass Ottawa and also half empty trains via Ottawa when they can be combined for only a small time penalty.

It's not a small time penalty though - the slowing down, curves, and stop in Ottawa alone add too much time ... the penalty for the extra distance is almost negligeable in comparison. Most importantly it puts the Montreal-Toronto further away from the 3-hour rule of thumb where rail can dominate other modes.

It's a catch-22. If you bypass Ottawa, you don't get the economy of scale to make it economical. If you don't bypass Ottawa you don't get the demand from Toronto to Montreal to make it economical.

The Winchester sub doesn't run between Perth and Smiths Falls. It is the Belleville Sub that runs west of Smiths Falls.

Oops - I always thought that all 3 subs (Havelock, Belleville, Winchester) met at Glen Tay. Corrected!

You seem to be assuming option 1 is the only option, but I feel this is the least likely option as it would put VIA in significant risk. Option 2 is more likely if they can convince CP to let them do it. If not, Option 3 would be the best option as acquiring rural land wouldn't be that difficult or expensive.

I'm thinking some hybrid between Option 1 and 2. Basically operate like 2, but build like 1, and have the federal government force CP (and CN) to co-operate. I'm not unconvinced thought that 3 tracks wouldn't be necessary ... on the other hand, CP seems hell bent on reducing the number of tracks rather than increasing ...

Travel time is just a function of investment here. It is entirely possible to achieve a 4 hrs travel time, with stops, without the Ottawa bypass. In due course, we'll see the analysis of alternatives that the project office must have undertaken, I'm sure. Not that I think 4 hrs is some necessarty target for Toronto-Montreal HFR service to be successful.

I don't think if you have a 4-hour travel time from Toronto to Montreal that you'll increase the modal split enough for it justify high-frequency service. Which is why I assume they have added that bypass to the map.

As I mentioned above, the rule of thumb is 3 hours. They need to push it down to closer to 3.5 hours I'd guess.

I am willing to bet that whoever this is tendered to, will not be building two corridors 50 km apart.

I'm willing to bet that whoever this is tendered to, will not be getting to choose where they build corridors! Any more than whoever gets the design/build/operate for the Ontario line (is that the current plan - can't keep track of all the changes) gets the alignment between East Harbour and Gerrard stations.

 

[crs1026]

Who is "we"? How isn't HFR not sharing with freight tracks along the Winchester sub - even on the Ottawa-Toronto service? How is the Montreal-Quebec segment not sharing tracks?

You raise a valid point that VIA is not fully extricated from sharing with CN/CP. As I said earlier, don't take your eyes off this just yet.... but I can accept that reducing VIA's presence to a de minimus sharing, mostly in Montreal, may encourage the freight railways to say, OK, this is better, and unavoidable, so we can play ball. Especially since it's assumed that Ottawa will invest in that location to ease any conflict or congestion.

Whereas - occupying the full length of the Winchester Sub (or any other Subdivision, we were discussing the Dundas when this conversation started) is a much bigger thorn in the railways' side - the relationship likely turns on this above all.

So do I - build them along the Kingston sub.

There's the rub. I am curious whether you believe the Winchester can be occupied, even for only a few trains a day, in its current state? If not, how much investment do you think CP would require to absorb those few trains?

I happen to think CP would demand new investment, and the moment anyone suggests investment in the Winchester line, with the goal of faster Toronto-Montreal through trains, I will take exactly that same envelope and ask what can be done to the Kingston line for that sum, and how much that could improve trip times. Especially since VIA says it will remain present there anyways. ...CP has every grounds to ask why we are making things harder rather than better by then having 3 parallellish lines converging on Montreal instead of 2. And thus diffusing the investment over three routes. And even there, CN loses the carrot of finally not having express VIA trains in its hair.

I personally share your concern that the Montreal-Toronto timing is too long. Possibly that's why that illogical line ended up on that map (although I suspect it's more likely a poorly informed communication staffer on the Hill trying to "improve" the political message, without ever reading the business case). But, not having any modelling data to offer, I have to swallow hard and accept that going the long way is a necessary tradeoff to seal a HFR deal.

Asking either railway to continue supporting the long haul of VIA's corridor operation is the worst thing we can do.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't think if you have a 4-hour travel time from Toronto to Montreal that you'll increase the modal split enough for it justify high-frequency service. Which is why I assume they have added that bypass to the map

What modal split are we talking about here? HFR isn't really targeting air/rail. All their rhetoric has said, they want to pull from drivers. That doesn't require a 4 hr travel time.

As I mentioned above, the rule of thumb is 3 hours. They need to push it down to closer to 3.5 hours I'd guess.

There's literally no way to achieve a 3.5 hr travel time without HSR. You seem to be suffering from scope creep here and ignoring the very foundational premise of HFR, that it should not evolve into a capital intensive HSR proposal with the same fate as those HSR proposals.

I'm willing to bet that whoever this is tendered to, will not be getting to choose where they build corridors!

Depends on the procurement model. We'll see.

 

[nfitz]

There's the rub. I am curious whether you believe the Winchester can be occupied, even for only a few trains a day, in its current state? If not, how much investment do you think CP would require to absorb those few trains?

I'm assuming that it couldn't, and there'd be hundreds of millions$ to billions$ of work. On the other hand perhaps it's already there and CP doesn't need it?!?

I happen to think CP would demand new investment, and the moment anyone suggests investment in the Winchester line, with the goal of faster Toronto-Montreal through trains, I will take exactly that same envelope and ask what can be done to the Kingston line for that sum, and how much that could improve trip times. Especially since VIA says it will remain present there anyways. ...CP has every grounds to ask why we are making things harder rather than better by then having 3 parallellish lines converging on Montreal instead of 2. And thus diffusing the investment over three routes. And even there, CN loses the carrot of finally not having express VIA trains in its hair.

I generally agree. Though I think that we need to stop making this a matter of negotiation, and make the changes in law necessary that it only becomes a question of cost.

I personally share your concern that the Montreal-Toronto timing is too long. Possibly that's why that illogical line ended up on that map (although I suspect it's more likely a poorly informed communication staffer on the Hill trying to "improve" the political message, without ever reading the business case).

If there was no thought to that line, it wouldn't have followed some of the curves of the Winchester subdivision so well! But I'm guessing at that ... and simply taking it at face value.

Asking either railway to continue supporting the long haul of VIA's corridor operation is the worst thing we can do.

I'm very much convinced that asking isn't the right approach. Something close to directing, on threat of nationalization and/or expropriation.

 

[nfitz]

What modal split are we talking about here? HFR isn't really targeting air/rail. All their rhetoric has said, they want to pull from drivers. That doesn't require a 4 hr travel time.

Air/rail/bus/car.

But if you plan to get it entirely from cars, the only way to do it is make the fares so low, that it's not economically viable (or I suppose toll the 401 ) I've never heard before that it's not targeting air ... one of the previous studies that looked at various options was literally called "Alternative to Air".

There's literally no way to achieve a 3.5 hr travel time without HSR.

They can achieve 4.0 hours right now, simply by removing the freight. 3.75 actually if everything goes right. No way to achieve another 15 minutes? You could do that alone by moving the Montreal terminal to St. Henri metro.

If 3.5 hours is "literally" impossible without HSR, how did VIA plan to do this in 2002 without HSR and using only 200 km/hr trains - and NOT bypassing Ottawa station?

When we started talking about HFR in this thread - over six years ago - it was going to cost $4 billion. Is that still the current amount?

VIA Fast was to do 3.5 hours from Toronto to Montreal, through Ottawa, for $2.6 billion in 2002 dollars, using 200 km/hr trains.

I remain unconvinced that VIA is even going to get HFR from Union station to Agincourt for under $1 billion!

 

[DirectionNorth]

Who is "we"? How isn't HFR not sharing with freight tracks along the Winchester sub - even on the Ottawa-Toronto service? How is the Montreal-Quebec segment not sharing tracks?

So do I - build them along the Kingston sub.

Ottawa isn't between Toronto and Montreal, now that VIA has switched to the bypass.

Expanded grade separations would be an issue. And more so on Kingston sub. Would have to do a cost comparison.

I cant show you proprietary modelling that I don't have access to. But I did work with the proprietary 1980s modelling for the 1989(?) review and all the frequency in the world wasn't going to help Montreal-Toronto gain ridership - it was all about travel time for that distance.

Well, did you model T-O? Or are you conveniently ignoring the fact that their demand is similar (and T-O and O-M demand combined is higher than T-M)?

I assume the statute of limitations has expired on that now! There didn't seem to be much demand either, as far as I can recall, for Peterborough - Ottawa service, by ANY mode ... let alone Peterborough - Montreal. Peterborough-Toronto was where the demand was; nor did it change with time (unlike Toronto-Ottawa).

Sure, that's probably true (unlike Kingston which has demand both ways).

The one thing that jumped out at me was that the Trenton/Belleville to Jonquiere demand was much higher than one would have expected - the working theory was it was related to travel between the two air force bases (you'd think there'd be a plane or something ... ).

Yep, I remember seeing that demand somewhere too.

I'm not sure it's even any longer now they are bypassing Ottawa!

The documents, and VIA Rail, do not say that. You make the assumption that were bypassing Ottawa, which I dispute.

I'm all in favour of bypassing Kingston if it means significantly improved Montreal to Toronto travel times. But it doesn't.

It makes service more frequent though.

True, it's not speed. But the bottom line, is if the travel time doesn't get much better than 4 hours from Montreal to Toronto, then the increased frequency won't increase the demand enough to justify the increased frequency (not to mention the capital costs). And I think that VIA has finally realized this, given the bypass around Ottawa is now in play.

Is it? Seems like a ton of assumptions.

I criticized HFR in this thread years ago, saying that VIA had been sold a bill of goods by someone. I believe my criticism back then is that travel times - particularly for Montreal-Toronto would be very poor, and that the cost from Toronto to Smith Falls must be significantly underestimated. I'm theorizing that VIA has now figured out the former - will be interesting to see how the final $ come out. Though I wouldn't be surprised to see VIA spike this themselves, and go back to a variant on VIA Fast.

It could well kill it, and will certainly be more expensive. Though the distance of about 70 km is a lot less of the 130 km of missing track, and can be built for 175 km/hr operation from day one

For how much money? I'd love more funding for intercity rail, but that's not reality. You seem fixated on the Kingston Sub in favor of T-M at all costs. The cost of a brand new ROW would kill HFR immediately.

- which is certainly not the case for Havelock. Heck, they might as well design it for 250 km/hr operation, and safeguard it for removing level crossings in the future.

We can also build HSR between our major cities. Useless statement.

I can make as many proposals as I want, but without an implementation plan, it's useless.

Look at the map that Transport Canada was tweeting when they made the July announcement.

Look, a press announcement. LOL.

We've also seen maps without the bypass. I could bring one up, but it's not proof.

I'll believe the bypass is being built when I see it.

But it's one side of a triangle instead of two. Not to mention dead straight, and no stops or cities.

In other words, bypassing Ottawa (which creates the most demand). The three sides of the triangle are roughly equal, and you're getting rid of two sides in favor of the third, when the base proposal has that third side at most, at 30 minutes longer.

The map - which I've included above - shows that alignment as HFR. It's clearly the Alexandria Sub in the map - look how it does that little north-south segment through Smith Falls. Looks to me like the small hiccups in the line near Kemptville and Goldfield are there as well.

I can bring up other maps. Still a useless statement unless there's more concrete evidence that T-M services will all be on the Winchester Sub.

I suppose it's possible that this map is incorrect - but it seems to have been a deliberate change from the earlier versions. I can't see a proper map on the VIA Rail site anymore - only a schematic.

Which also inconveniently doesn't include your bypass, so it's obviously a fake.

It's not a small time penalty though - the slowing down, curves, and stop in Ottawa alone add too much time ... the penalty for the extra distance is almost negligeable in comparison. Most importantly it puts the Montreal-Toronto further away from the 3-hour rule of thumb where rail can dominate other modes.

I've never seen a "3 hour rule of thumb." Faster service is obviously better, but if that faster service gets you a rejection from Ottawa, then it's not better.

I also haven't seen any concrete time comparisons from you, nor any proof that it would drive away 100% of T-M riders as you suggest.

It's a catch-22.

But Catch-22 actually used "sound" (as much is any logic can be sound in that situation) logic, while your argument is based on false assumptions:

If you bypass Ottawa, you don't get the economy of scale to make it economical. If you don't bypass Ottawa you don't get the demand from Toronto to Montreal to make it economical.

Can you show me this modelling (or an approximate of this modelling using modern travel times) where adding 1/2 hour drives away 100% of T-M riders?

I'm thinking some hybrid between Option 1 and 2. Basically operate like 2, but build like 1, and have the federal government force CP (and CN) to co-operate. I'm not unconvinced thought that 3 tracks wouldn't be necessary ... on the other hand, CP seems hell bent on reducing the number of tracks rather than increasing ...

I don't think if you have a 4-hour travel time from Toronto to Montreal that you'll increase the modal split enough for it justify high-frequency service. Which is why I assume they have added that bypass to the map.

Is there evidence? Driving is at least 5 hours, and probably more. How is 4 hours not competitive? Maybe Urban Sky has load factor information on Corridor services.

 

[DirectionNorth]

As I mentioned above, the rule of thumb is 3 hours. They need to push it down to closer to 3.5 hours I'd guess.

Saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true.

I'm willing to bet that whoever this is tendered to, will not be getting to choose where they build corridors! Any more than whoever gets the design/build/operate for the Ontario line (is that the current plan - can't keep track of all the changes) gets the alignment between East Harbour and Gerrard stations.

Under your proposal, to improve travel times, you need to improve multiple alignments. Under the original proposal, an improvement on the Ottawa section would also improve T-M times. Probably enough to mitigate *most of the time savings.

I'm assuming that it couldn't, and there'd be hundreds of millions$ to billions$ of work. On the other hand perhaps it's already there and CP doesn't need it?!?

It's gone. They've pulled it out, to my knowledge.

I generally agree. Though I think that we need to stop making this a matter of negotiation, and make the changes in law necessary that it only becomes a question of cost.

If there was no thought to that line, it wouldn't have followed some of the curves of the Winchester subdivision so well! But I'm guessing at that ... and simply taking it at face value.

I'm very much convinced that asking isn't the right approach. Something close to directing, on threat of nationalization and/or expropriation.

How much money will that cost? We don't have unlimited money ... unless we got a genie bottle, and in that case, you might as well wish for true HSR.

But if you plan to get it entirely from cars, the only way to do it is make the fares so low, that it's not economically viable (or I suppose toll the 401 ) I've never heard before that it's not targeting air ... one of the previous studies that looked at various options was literally called "Alternative to Air".

Driving is 5 hours at best, and 6-7 hours otherwise ... what do you think about demand?

They can achieve 4.0 hours right now, simply by removing the freight. 3.75 actually if everything goes right. No way to achieve another 15 minutes? You could do that alone by moving the Montreal terminal to St. Henri metro.

Let's move the Toronto end to Main St as well! That's not a dumb idea, at all ...

If 3.5 hours is "literally" impossible without HSR, how did VIA plan to do this in 2002 without HSR and using only 200 km/hr trains - and NOT bypassing Ottawa station?

We can do that? Is that what you're suggesting?

 

[kEiThZ]

But if you plan to get it entirely from cars, the only way to do it is make the fares so low, that it's not economically viable (or I suppose toll the 401 ) I've never heard before that it's not targeting air ... one of the previous studies that looked at various options was literally called "Alternative to Air".

Go look at YDS' past presentations. He specifically mentions targeting drivers. And he specifically downplays HSR, arguing that the fares for such projects were too high, and did not cater to the middle class. Of course, that doesn't mean, they can't target air travelers in specific segments where they can be competitive like Toronto-Ottawa, and Montreal-Quebec City. But I do think there's definitely some optimization going on in the background, between fares, travel time and ridership to get a viable project proposal.

They can achieve 4.0 hours right now, simply by removing the freight.

You say this, as though it's a trivial ask.

If 3.5 hours is "literally" impossible without HSR, how did VIA plan to do this in 2002 without HSR and using only 200 km/hr trains - and NOT bypassing Ottawa station?

By making very optimistic assumptions that would have fallen apart, they minute they had to actually build the thing and share the infrastructure with the freight railways.

When we started talking about HFR in this thread - over six years ago - it was going to cost $4 billion. Is that still the current amount?

It's apparently $6-12B now, depending on the final configuration. As we're seeing, real world costs are a lot more expensive than napkin math. Which is why you should take off the rose tinted glasses when looking back dreamily at VIA Fast.

 

[kEiThZ]

Though I wouldn't be surprised to see VIA spike this themselves, and go back to a variant on VIA Fast.

Delusional.