VIA Rail

[kEiThZ]

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.

Exactly. Flying is about 3 hrs downtown-to-downtown using Pearson and UPE. If 4 hrs was achieved from Union to Gare Centrale, I think the airlines might actually lose a chunk of passengers. There's some pax for whom the 1 hr saved isn't worth airfare. That's less likely at 4.5 hrs. But 4.5 hrs is going to steal plenty of drivers for the right fare. And really that is what it comes down to. As travel times get longer, fare sensitivity goes up. Also 5 hrs is closer to the minimum driving time from Union to Gare Centrale. Toronto and Montreal traffic are almost guaranteed to routinely make that closer to 6 hrs. Especially once we add in another decade of population and traffic growth in the Eastern GTA and West Island in Montreal.

 

[MisterF]

They can achieve 4.0 hours right now, simply by removing the freight. 3.75 actually if everything goes right.

And we can make pigs fly simply by giving them wings.

 

[nfitz]

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 don't see how I'm ignoring Toronto to Ottawa ... if I was doing that, why would advocate for VIA Fast?

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

Which documents? The most recent document I've seen is that map that the minister of Transport released, showing HFR both passing through Ottawa, and staying on the WInchester Sub from Smith Falls to near Dorion.

I'm not making an assumption that they are bypassing Ottawa.

I am making an assumption that the most recent (afaik) information that was released, by the new Minister, was correct. If they have released incorrect information - then all bets are off!

It makes service more frequent though.

HFR through Peterborough may service more frequent - at least to Montreal - if there's $billions spent on track upgrades along Havelock, etc. But not only does that ignore the comparison in what can be done by spending the same amount on the Kingston Sub - it ignores that making the Montreal service more frequent through Ottawa and Peterborough, won't necessarily give you enough passengers to provide you with those required to do a frequent service.

For how much money? I'd love more funding for intercity rail, but that's not reality.

That's the rub, isn't it? Where's the detailed assessment of various options, of costs versus frequencies, versus speeds, versus ridership? Why is everything VIA has done in the last 20 years on this file been kept secret - we only know the details of the 2002 study because someone leaked it to the media. The various studies in the 1970s, and even VIAs 1984 and 1989 studies were all publicly accessible - and did look at various options, etc.

IYou seem fixated on the Kingston Sub in favor of T-M at all costs.

Because that's what gave the fastest 200 km/hr service to both Ottawa and Montreal, with a single service, in VIA's 2002 study.

The cost of a brand new ROW would kill HFR immediately.

Not according to VIA in the 2002 study. So where's the source for that now? Why don't we have a detailed breakdown of the costs, on the same basis, of the various options.

Look, a press announcement. LOL.

As compared to what? Most people seem to be using the basis of what the VIA PR people have posted to VIA's website over the years - which often contradicts itself as time passes. There's been various presentations by VIA and TC personnel over the years, that also shifts. At least the press announcement we know has been vetted by all involved (or at least should have been).

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

On that basis, HFR doesn't exist. I doubt it will be built, once they crunch the numbers and/or take it to market. I expect we'll end up on the same path we've been on since the early 1980s, when as a first step, they built new tracks and reopened Gare du Palais. They've done precious little on the capital side since other than buying some of the Ottawa-area and southwestern subs - and maintenance yards.

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.

You sound as though I'm suggesting that trains from Montreal and Toronto don't serve Ottawa!

In my experience, 30 minutes is critical, if it pushes 3.5 hours to 4.0 hours. Will it move 100% of traffic? Of course not. Will there still be some services that take the longer milk run through Ottawa all the way from Montreal to Toronto ... yes.

Saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true.

And yet that does seem the approach here.

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.

My proposal? My proposal is VIA Fast - which has a single Toronto to Montreal line, that stops in both Kingston and Ottawa. Yeah, Brockville and Cornwall are screwed ... last modelling I saw predicted that demand from there would actually decrease over the years, as no one wants to live there, and the population ages.

VIA's original proposal was to take all the current segments, and then add Toronto - Smith Falls. The latest version also seems to add Smith Falls direct to Coteau. I'm proposing less alignments than VIA currently uses, eliminating the triangle. HFR keeps those, and adds even more!

Let's move the Toronto end to Main St as well!

A) I was being facetious in response to kEiThZ's claim that there was "literally no way to achieve a 3.5 hr travel time without HSR" when VIA Fast was literally the way to achieve a 3.5 hr travel time without HSR.

B) Main to Union is about 8.5 km - and well outside the downtown core. St. Henri to the old Bonaventure Station is less than 2.8 km. The joke I made was that by removing that short (and dead-straight) piece of track, CN added 15-minutes to the Montreal-Toronto travel time! An equivalent comparison would be terminating the Montreal to Toronto service at East Harbour station.

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

I've felt I've been suggesting just that in this thread since 2016. And you feel that I keep repeating the same thing too often!

VIA proposed it, and the Prime Minister promised it in 2002 - and then Paul Martin came to power and cancelled it (almost as if he owned the competitor or something ... )

So was VIA wrong about it being the best approach doable in 2002, or they wrong about it be better to spend more money, going a different route, and taking longer now?

Is VIA wrong then, or wrong now?

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.

Sorry - who is YDS? I've lost track of something.

I'm not sure the relevance of HSR - no one has proposed it for decades. I keep talking about VIA Fast - which is pretty much the same speed as being discussed now ... and presumably the same frequencies. All HFR is, is a rebranding along a different route (that's longer, with more speed restrictions).

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.

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

You said that that 3.5 hours was "literally impossible without HSR". And yet in 2002, VIA proposed 3.5 hours without HSR - and WITH running through Ottawa station. Meaning that if you went for the 2002 plan AND detoured along the Winchester Sub (which wasn't the proposal), you may even be able to do nearly 3 hours Toronto to Montreal, "without HSR".

Why do you believe that VIA is wrong about being able to do 3.5 hours without HSR? Of course it's not trivial ... but that non-trivial does not equal impossible!

It's apparently $6-12B now, depending on the final configuration.[/URL] 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.

Thanks for the link. Yeah, always more expensive ... which is why we need a clear, simple, apples-to-apples comparison of the various options, travel times, frequencies, etc. I hope both TC and CIB have insisted on this. And my fear is that to make everything work, they've had to throw in the Ottawa bypass at the last minute.

Delusional.

Is that any more delusional than insisting for a long time, that all the Montreal-Toronto service will go through Ottawa to stay on VIA-owned track, and suddenly having (at least) some of it go over the Winchester Sub, and missing all the VIA-owned track?

And we can make pigs fly simply by giving them wings.

Ah, you've been reading the Ontario Liberals HSR plan!

 

[Urban Sky]

Just a friendly reminder that we actually do have a very comprehensive engineering report providing very detailed capital cost estimates for achieving a travel time of approximately 3:30h at a design speed of 200 km/h:

Source: Ecotrain Study (Deliverable 6 - Part 2 of 2, p.16)

In case anyone wants to compare the capital cost esimates with those of the VIA Fast Study, here it is...

 

[kEiThZ]

it ignores that making the Montreal service more frequent through Ottawa and Peterborough, won't necessarily give you enough passengers to provide you with those required to do a frequent service.

Frequency yields passengers. Especially, when adding new markets and substantially boosting speeds to some markets. You can argue that this might now be true. But show one example where increasing frequencies hasn't delivered additional ridership.

Also, let's not forget that HFR through Ottawa still yields a trip time that is faster than virtually every VIA train between Toronto and Montreal, except for maybe 1-2 express trips per day. And even that can be improved upon. So are you suggesting that faster and more frequent service to Montreal than what exists today, wouldn't yield higher ridership?

In my experience, 30 minutes is critical, if it pushes 3.5 hours to 4.0 hours. Will it move 100% of traffic? Of course not. Will there still be some services that take the longer milk run through Ottawa all the way from Montreal to Toronto ... yes.

Your personal experience is pretty irrelevant here. VIA has done surveys of regular riders (I filled one out personally) and I'm sure they have all kinds of models done in the contracts they gave out, to determine what kind of travel time sensitivity there is. Insisting that the only viable trip is a travel time requiring HSR, is not a bet you're likely to win.

My proposal? My proposal is VIA Fast - which has a single Toronto to Montreal line, that stops in both Kingston and Ottawa. Yeah, Brockville and Cornwall are screwed ... last modelling I saw predicted that demand from there would actually decrease over the years, as no one wants to live there, and the population ages.

The VIA Fast proposal was little more than a back of the napkins idea. It didn't have a nine digit budget for study, consultation and modeling behind it. That proposal was also put forward two decades ago. How much have freight volumes gone up since?

Is VIA wrong then, or wrong now?

Times change. And plans change with them.

Sorry - who is YDS? I've lost track of something.

Yves Desjardins-Siciliano. VIA's last CEO. The guy who pushed the HFR plan.

You said that that 3.5 hours was "literally impossible without HSR". And yet in 2002, VIA proposed 3.5 hours without HSR - and WITH running through Ottawa station.

Like I said earlier, I think they made some very optimistic assumptions that they would have found challenging, when it came to execution. We've already seen how much travel times and costs have changed with HFR, as detailed study was done. To expect, that VIA Fast wouldn't have had a similar evolution, is naive. And that proposal had substantially more reliance on the freight rail cos than HFR.

Why do you believe that VIA is wrong about being able to do 3.5 hours without HSR?

Mostly because I don't think they could pull it off without a massive budget and I don't think they would have gotten the necessary cooperation from the freight cos. The fiasco on the Kingston sub should tell you how that would have gone.

And my fear is that to make everything work, they've had to throw in the Ottawa bypass at the last minute.

I'm not happy about the bypass. But I suspect they need options to achieve a decent travel time to Montreal. I think it's a massive waste building infrastructure that will be under-utilized by definition. All because they don't want to spend a bit more to achieve their target travel time through Ottawa. That's Penny wise Pound foolish.

Is that any more delusional than insisting for a long time, that all the Montreal-Toronto service will go through Ottawa to stay on VIA-owned track, and suddenly having (at least) some of it go over the Winchester Sub, and missing all the VIA-owned track?

Expecting VIA to drop a plan they've spent nine figures now, studying and taking to procurement, for an idea from two decades ago, with no real studies behind it, is pretty delusional.

 

[DirectionNorth]

I don't see how I'm ignoring Toronto to Ottawa ... if I was doing that, why would advocate for VIA Fast?

I'm not familiar with VIA Fast ... but freight volumes have increased while trackage has decreased.

Which documents? The most recent document I've seen is that map that the minister of Transport released, showing HFR both passing through Ottawa, and staying on the WInchester Sub from Smith Falls to near Dorion.

VIA, as far as we know, has been studying it without a bypass. There's one instance of that showing up that I'm aware of. It could have just been a clueless graphic designer ...

I'm not making an assumption that they are bypassing Ottawa.

I am making an assumption that the most recent (afaik) information that was released, by the new Minister, was correct. If they have released incorrect information - then all bets are off!

Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, third time's a pattern. What's your second time?

HFR through Peterborough may service more frequent - at least to Montreal - if there's $billions spent on track upgrades along Havelock, etc. But not only does that ignore the comparison in what can be done by spending the same amount on the Kingston Sub

I haven't seen a comparison, except "it's half an hour slower so there's no more demand.'

Current trip times on VIA, from Toronto to Montreal, are a little over 5 hours. HFR will increase reliability and reduce trip times by up to 90 minutes, if you want to believe the politicians (it won't be 90 minutes, though VIA isn't exactly reliable today), and there's plenty of demand today.

Baseless statement from someone who should know better.

- it ignores that making the Montreal service more frequent through Ottawa and Peterborough, won't necessarily give you enough passengers to provide you with those required to do a frequent service.

More useless statements with zero proof.

That's the rub, isn't it? Where's the detailed assessment of various options, of costs versus frequencies, versus speeds, versus ridership? Why is everything VIA has done in the last 20 years on this file been kept secret - we only know the details of the 2002 study because someone leaked it to the media. The various studies in the 1970s, and even VIAs 1984 and 1989 studies were all publicly accessible - and did look at various options, etc.

The transport file has changes quite dramatically since 1989, and even 2002. The GTA has grown by a million, Ottawa-Gatineau by 300,000, the Montreal area by 500,000.

Because that's what gave the fastest 200 km/hr service to both Ottawa and Montreal, with a single service, in VIA's 2002 study. Not according to VIA in the 2002 study. So where's the source for that now? Why don't we have a detailed breakdown of the costs, on the same basis, of the various options.

And cost more? Again, VIA Fast could have worked in 2002, but as freight traffic grew, you'd either need more upgrades or decrease service.

As compared to what? Most people seem to be using the basis of what the VIA PR people have posted to VIA's website over the years - which often contradicts itself as time passes. There's been various presentations by VIA and TC personnel over the years, that also shifts. At least the press announcement we know has been vetted by all involved (or at least should have been).

Have politicians ever misled the public? Nope, can't think of a single instance (other than, like, every politician ever).

On that basis, HFR doesn't exist. I doubt it will be built, once they crunch the numbers and/or take it to market. I expect we'll end up on the same path we've been on since the early 1980s, when as a first step, they built new tracks and reopened Gare du Palais. They've done precious little on the capital side since other than buying some of the Ottawa-area and southwestern subs - and maintenance yards.

Except HFR is a plan we've been

You sound as though I'm suggesting that trains from Montreal and Toronto don't serve Ottawa!

In my experience, 30 minutes is critical, if it pushes 3.5 hours to 4.0 hours. Will it move 100% of traffic? Of course not. Will there still be some services that take the longer milk run through Ottawa all the way from Montreal to Toronto ... yes.

Is there enough demand for 15 trains on the corridor? Probably. There's 17 trains on T-O and T-M today, which is slower than HFR (which you seem unable to comprehend).

And yet that does seem the approach here.

My proposal? My proposal is VIA Fast - which has a single Toronto to Montreal line, that stops in both Kingston and Ottawa. Yeah, Brockville and Cornwall are screwed ... last modelling I saw predicted that demand from there would actually decrease over the years, as no one wants to live there, and the population ages.

Your proposal is 20 years old in a different climate. Unless you can magic down the freight traffic and magic back the tracks they took out over the years?

VIA's original proposal was to take all the current segments, and then add Toronto - Smith Falls. The latest version also seems to add Smith Falls direct to Coteau. I'm proposing less alignments than VIA currently uses, eliminating the triangle. HFR keeps those, and adds even more!

A) I was being facetious in response to kEiThZ's claim that there was "literally no way to achieve a 3.5 hr travel time without HSR" when VIA Fast was literally the way to achieve a 3.5 hr travel time without HSR.

Was ≠ is. There also was good passenger train service. We don't have good passenger train service.

I haven't read VIA Fast, but skimming the internet, it has assumptions that we can't use today.

B) Main to Union is about 8.5 km - and well outside the downtown core. St. Henri to the old Bonaventure Station is less than 2.8 km. The joke I made was that by removing that short (and dead-straight) piece of track, CN added 15-minutes to the Montreal-Toronto travel time! An equivalent comparison would be terminating the Montreal to Toronto service at East Harbour station.

Incremental improvements are fine, but there's a point where you can't go any further with them. Last time we tried that, we ended up without any improvements (Kingston Sub triple tracking).

I'm not sure the relevance of HSR - no one has proposed it for decades. I keep talking about VIA Fast - which is pretty much the same speed as being discussed now ... and presumably the same frequencies. All HFR is, is a rebranding along a different route (that's longer, with more speed restrictions).

Do you have a time machine? It's as if you live in 2002, while the world has evolved to 2021. Plans from 2002 cannot work in today's climate, because of increased demand, decreased trackage, and freight railway non cooperation.

Thanks for the link. Yeah, always more expensive ... which is why we need a clear, simple, apples-to-apples comparison of the various options, travel times, frequencies, etc. I hope both TC and CIB have insisted on this. And my fear is that to make everything work, they've had to throw in the Ottawa bypass at the last minute.

I still don't see what you mean, because an Ottawa bypass increases cost significantly while not decreasing travel time for 2/3 of users. Somebody seems unable to comprehend that money for the bypass could be spent improving trackage in other areas, speeding up all trains instead of 1/3 of them.

Is that any more delusional than insisting for a long time, that all the Montreal-Toronto service will go through Ottawa to stay on VIA-owned track, and suddenly having (at least) some of it go over the Winchester Sub, and missing all the VIA-owned track?

Yes, it really is.

Ah, you've been reading the Ontario Liberals HSR plan!

Oink!

 

[Urban Sky]

ou said that that 3.5 hours was "literally impossible without HSR". And yet in 2002, VIA proposed 3.5 hours without HSR - and WITH running through Ottawa station. Meaning that if you went for the 2002 plan AND detoured along the Winchester Sub (which wasn't the proposal), you may even be able to do nearly 3 hours Toronto to Montreal, "without HSR".

Why do you believe that VIA is wrong about being able to do 3.5 hours without HSR? Of course it's not trivial ... but that non-trivial does not equal impossible!

It all comes down to which report you want to trust more:

• A 83-page report prepared in 2002 by the passenger railroad promoting the project with zero experience in operating anything beyond 160 km/h, concluding that you can achieve a travel time of 3:30 hours by mostly upgrading existing alignments over a distance of 598.4 km for a design speed of 200 km/h at a capital cost of $1.825 billion ($2.59 billion in 2021 prices):

Source: VIA Fast report (p.37)

... or ...

• A 1718-page report (spread over 12 deliverables) prepared 8 years later by probably the most renown accounting firms & one of the most successful integrated rail companies (from steam trains over commuter rail to HSR, from operation over construction to consulting) on this planet and a few engineering firms, which concludes that a slightly longer travel time of 3:38 hours is indeed feasible at a design speed of 200 km/h. Unfortunately, in order to sustain that speed, you would basically end up with almost the same level of expensive infrastructure as much faster full-scale HSR, resulting in a capital cost of $9.067 billion ($11.38 billion in 2021 prices) over a distance of 589.465 km:

Source: Ecotrain Study (2011, Deliverable 6 - Part 1 of 2, p.48)


Have a great week!

 

[kEiThZ]

What's striking too is that both those proposals are for Quebec-Windsor. We're now at the point, where we're going to spend $6-12B to get from Toronto to Quebec City on a non-high speed line, with a discontinuity in Montreal. Kinda shows the inflation at play, and how much past proposals probably underestimated real world costs. Seems like costs go up as soon as the fidelity and granularity of the analysis rises.

On the other hand, VIA's latest HFR estimates (that are in the public domain) are in the same ballpark as the Ecotrain study, so hopefully, this should provide reassurance that we we won't see massive escalation once the shovels hit the ground.

 

[kEiThZ]

Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, third time's a pattern. What's your second time?

I wouldn't discount the bypass. The Minister's office and Transport Canada are tweeting it out. They probably gave it to journalists in their press brief. And it seems clear to me that at some point, they decided it needs to be considered to get T-M travel times down. That said, it seems like a poor economic investment and I am really curious to see their analysis of alternatives here. Splitting the traffic has massive implications for asset utilization across the entire project. Split the traffic and they end up needing more trains, with a higher ratio of locomotives to coaches, more crews, more trackage to maintain, possibly more tracks/berths at each terminus, etc. All while total frequencies offered to Ottawa and Montreal drop, offering fewer options to passengers. I am genuinely interested in knowing how much they'll save in capital over this, and what will be the impact on operational costs and ridership over a 20 year lifecycle.

Current trip times on VIA, from Toronto to Montreal, are a little over 5 hours. HFR will increase reliability and reduce trip times by up to 90 minutes, if you want to believe the politicians (it won't be 90 minutes, though VIA isn't exactly reliable today), and there's plenty of demand today.

Looking at the website for departures from Union to Gare Centrale, the average scheduled travel times of the direct trains are 5 hrs 10.33 mins. There's only two trains close to 5 hrs on the schedule. And only one train under 5 hrs. And even that train (668) is scheduled for 4 hrs 53 mins. And all of this is before we account for the routine delays on VIA. So, despite what Nick says, travel times under 5 hrs with high reliability, would be a substantial improvement over today's offerings. If they get down to 4.5 hrs and can keep fares the same or even slightly lower them (thanks to higher asset utilization) that would be massively competitive with driving. If they get down to 4 hrs, with about the same fares, they could possibly kill Porter and YTZ.

 

[nfitz]

Frequency yields passengers. Especially, when adding new markets and substantially boosting speeds to some markets. You can argue that this might now be true. But show one example where increasing frequencies hasn't delivered additional ridership.

Also, let's not forget that HFR through Ottawa still yields a trip time that is faster than virtually every VIA train between Toronto and Montreal, except for maybe 1-2 express trips per day. And even that can be improved upon. So are you suggesting that faster and more frequent service to Montreal than what exists today, wouldn't yield higher ridership?

Of course it will yield higher ridership. And could do very well on the Ottawa-Toronto run. But you won't see the same level of increases on the Toronto-Montreal service.

Insisting that the only viable trip is a travel time requiring HSR, is not a bet you're likely to win.

Why are you still claiming that 3.5 hours can only be achieved with HSR? The post above yours does put that to bed. (yeah, it's 8 minutes short - but they could achieve that by switching the VIA service from CN to CP near Dorval, and using Lucien-L'Allier Station instead of Central Station (yeah, it's a lousy station, and the link to the metro is almost comical ... so might as well reconnect it to Windsor Station, and bulldoze that hockey rink they've built in the way.

Expecting VIA to drop a plan they've spent nine figures now, studying and taking to procurement, for an idea from two decades ago, with no real studies behind it, is pretty delusional.

Expecting the same department to drop Mirabel Airport after all the studies, and money spent on design would also have been delusional. Do you suggest we rebuild Mirabel too?

VIA, as far as we know, has been studying it without a bypass. There's one instance of that showing up that I'm aware of. It could have just been a clueless graphic designer ...

I don't completely discount that. Or it could be the figure was adapted from the reports for some ultimate future when population growth allows for HFR (or better) for both services. Given how much they are hiding (and won't even release under a FOIA) for a public undertaking, who is really to know.

Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, third time's a pattern. What's your second time?

I thought we'd seen some sub-4 hour travel times somewhere, that could only be explained by a by-pass - but I can't find them now.

But no rush ... we've been discussing this proposal in particular for 5 years now.

Unfortunately, in order to sustain that speed, you would basically end up with almost the same level of expensive infrastructure as much faster full-scale HSR, resulting in a capital cost of $9.067 billion ($11.38 billion in 2021 prices) over a distance of 589.465 km:

So a similar spend, for slower travel times to Montreal (or lack of through Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal if the bypass is for real) - and about double the track in the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto triangle that they need to keep maintained.

We can sit and argue here forever ... perhaps just drop it or another couple of years, and see what develops. You know what I think ... and it's very similar to what I said here earlier in the thread in 2016 ... I'm sorry to repeat myself.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Of course it will yield higher ridership. And could do very well on the Ottawa-Toronto run. But you won't see the same level of increases on the Toronto-Montreal service.

OK, true, but you're ignoring the fact that HFR will increase T-M speeds and frequencies. Not exactly a demand reducer, really.

Why are you still claiming that 3.5 hours can only be achieved with HSR? The post above yours does put that to bed. (yeah, it's 8 minutes short - but they could achieve that by switching the VIA service from CN to CP near Dorval, and using Lucien-L'Allier Station instead of Central Station (yeah, it's a lousy station, and the link to the metro is almost comical ... so might as well reconnect it to Windsor Station, and bulldoze that hockey rink they've built in the way.

In other words, it's not happening.

Expecting the same department to drop Mirabel Airport after all the studies, and money spent on design would also have been delusional. Do you suggest we rebuild Mirabel too?

Except Mirabel was a bad idea, which split services like you're proposing to do.

I don't completely discount that. Or it could be the figure was adapted from the reports for some ultimate future when population growth allows for HFR (or better) for both services. Given how much they are hiding (and won't even release under a FOIA) for a public undertaking, who is really to know.

It's really shady ... I mean, most projects are like that nowadays.

I thought we'd seen some sub-4 hour travel times somewhere, that could only be explained by a by-pass - but I can't find them now.

Tell is when you find it.

But no rush ... we've been discussing this proposal in particular for 5 years now.

So a similar spend, for slower travel times to Montreal (or lack of through Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal if the bypass is for real) - and about double the track in the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto triangle that they need to keep maintained.

Did you read what I wrote? The money used for the bypass could be plowed into speed improvements for all 3 services, instead of one.

Besides, you keep posting it's slower, when that's not the case.

We can sit and argue here forever ... perhaps just drop it or another couple of years, and see what develops. You know what I think ... and it's very similar to what I said here earlier in the thread in 2016 ... I'm sorry to repeat myself.

I also didn't have an account in 2016 ... and VIA Fast was a stupid proposal, when I started to read about it. $2.5 billion and VIA doesn't own the tracks? Who really thinks the freight carriers will let them run without slowing them down?

 

[kEiThZ]

Of course it will yield higher ridership. And could do very well on the Ottawa-Toronto run. But you won't see the same level of increases on the Toronto-Montreal service.

Cool. So you can stop acting like HFR doesn't improve Toronto-Montreal at all?

The project isn't predicated on improving just Toronto-Montreal ridership or providing equal improvements on every segment. It's predicated on achieving a total improvement on ridership. To that end, an uneven distribution of benefits is irrelevant.

Why are you still claiming that 3.5 hours can only be achieved with HSR? The post above yours does put that to bed.

Because the Ecotrain study was literally a High Speed Rail study?

Expecting the same department to drop Mirabel Airport after all the studies, and money spent on design would also have been delusional. Do you suggest we rebuild Mirabel too?

What does this ridiculous Mirabel red herring have to do with anything? You're just resorting to random moved goalposts now.

So a similar spend, for slower travel times to Montreal (or lack of through Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal if the bypass is for real) - and about double the track in the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto triangle that they need to keep maintained.

A similar level of spend to get from Toronto to Quebec City. The figure that @Urban Sky cited was just for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal and with 200 kph diesel trains. The $6-12B for HFR is for an electrified rail service from Toronto to Quebec City. I fail to see how these are similar, other than the nominal dollars allocated.

We can sit and argue here forever ... perhaps just drop it or another couple of years

So we're at the point now where you will actually oppose investment, if it doesn't fit your narrow definition of preferred routing or form. You're no friend of public transport.

 

[kEiThZ]

OK, true, but you're ignoring the fact that HFR will increase T-M speeds and frequencies. Not exactly a demand reducer, really.

Speed, frequency and most importantly reliability. The Toronto-Montreal route, is so dependent on freight corridors, that it has ridiculous delays all the time. The average published time of 5:10 hrs is closer to real world travel time of 5:30 hrs. 90% reliability on say 4:50 hrs with HFR, would literally be better than every train VIA offered to Montreal today. The idea that faster, more frequent and more reliable service won't generate increases in ridership is patently ridiculous.

Did you read what I wrote? The money used for the bypass could be plowed into speed improvements for all 3 services, instead of one.

Yep. Arguably the best investment that could be made is upgrading the Ottawa-Montreal segment to full HSR standard. Get that trip down to 1-1:15 hrs would 15-30 mins for Toronto-Montreal riders and Ottawa-Montreal riders. It make the latter, much more commutable, expanding a whole market beyond just intercity travel.

Close second to that would be investments on the Havelock sub. Delivers time savings to both Toronto-Ottawa (making this competitive with air) and Toronto-Montreal markets.

 

[crs1026]

I wouldn't discount the bypass. The Minister's office and Transport Canada are tweeting it out. They probably gave it to journalists in their press brief. And it seems clear to me that at some point, they decided it needs to be considered to get T-M travel times down. That said, it seems like a poor economic investment and I am really curious to see their analysis of alternatives here. Splitting the traffic has massive implications for asset utilization across the entire project. Split the traffic and they end up needing more trains, with a higher ratio of locomotives to coaches, more crews, more trackage to maintain, possibly more tracks/berths at each terminus, etc. All while total frequencies offered to Ottawa and Montreal drop, offering fewer options to passengers. I am genuinely interested in knowing how much they'll save in capital over this, and what will be the impact on operational costs and ridership over a 20 year lifecycle.

I have to confess that I have been in denial about the bypass as a serious idea, because it’s just so dumb - for the reasons posters have raised here. It diverts investment away from VIA’s own line, where the money can be used better. It perpetuates the conflict with freight. And, while it might improve end to end timings a little, it does so at the margin rather than organically. I would rather see VIA add capacity and speed to its own route. If the choice is even a single mile of new track along the Winchester, or the same amount along the HFr line, there’s more benefit to HFR getting the investment.

However, if it is a serious proposal, one has to suppose that it’s there for a reason.

I can’t discount the possibility that VIA’s modelling does show that shaving a few minutes off the default routing will add revenue either by raising a price point or by adding more riders. We are getting distracted by the 3.5 hour debate when the Winchester idea may well be about getting to 4.5ish instead of 5+.. Perhaps anything that matches or improves on today’s timings is politically sellable/necessary even if it’s trivial and not prudent. Perhaps there’s a time threshold that is material, especially for higher-fare business class travel. We don’t have data, but that premise at least fits common knowledge and general assumptions.

If somebody has made the numbers work that we don’t know about (which may not imply using VIA’s standard BCA parameters… it’s not beyond government to have hired some new consultant at the 11th hour to patch a perceived flaw in the talking points),……

I discount that anyone is thinking of putting huge amounts of money into the CP line, but with lesser investment (eg in tweaking crossing protection and perhaps superelevating the few curves) it might be all that’s required. The Winchester is underutilised and I can’t say that it is unusable as a passenger line. A deal with CP would definitely be a lot cheaper than, say, bringing part of the VIA line up to 125mph standard to squeeze out the same number of minutes more constructively

A service pattern of six express trains a day (morning, midday, and afternoon in each direction) works out to a single ViA train on the Winchester at any point in time, and no 2-passenger train meets - all meets would happen west of Smiths Falls. I suppose I can see CP looking at its operating pattern and agreeing to clear its line on that formula. CP would likely want cash…., not for capital investment, but as retained earnings.

But, no upsizing potential. Huge risk that CP fails to deliver and the expresses are delayed by freight. Maybe somebody thinks that this is all we need for a decade or so? Maybe CN has said, absolutely no commitment to even current timings going forward on the Kingston, so even investment there is off the table?

All speculation…. all I’n saying (regretfully) is, it may actually have a serious rationale, even without a serious business case.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't doubt there's some rationale behind the Ottawa bypass. I am deeply suspicious of the ROI on the idea though. That said, they are probably balancing between capital demands, scope creep, etc. Maybe it's easier to toss a few hundred million at CP for a decade or two than squeeze in the extra $1-2 billion to make the Ottawa routing get them their desired trip time to Montreal. That's good for avoiding growth in the capital envelope. It's terrible for ROI in the long run though.

There's also some major issues here. It's not going to be a scalable solution that allows for substantial increases in frequency. It also adds complexity to the service programme, making it more challenging to make VIA's Corridor service more of a walk-up service like we see in Europe and Asia. But politics is what it is. And maybe they can't swing the extra capital to get through Ottawa fast enough. Who knows. We'll see when the RFP hits the street.