VIA Rail

[ManyQuestions]

Was the HFR RFP put

Nope. Most recent update was in July.

The Government of Canada is taking the first steps in preparing for the procurement process to build a new train service in the Toronto to Quebec City Corridor

The Government of Canada is committed to modernizing intercity passenger rail services in a way that will best meet the transportation needs of travellers, while also creating jobs and economic growth.

www.canada.ca

Still progressing very slowly but I guess this means that in the spring when I finish my engineering degree I will be able to apply to work on this project that I first heard about in highschool.

 

[sacred]

Time to call our MPs again and remind them of what they said over the summer

 

[nfitz]

Still progressing very slowly but I guess this means that in the spring when I finish my engineering degree I will be able to apply to work on this project that I first heard about in highschool.

That's what I thought too when I was in high school/university! And an earlier VIA plan had it opening when I was still in university!

I'm approaching retirement now.

 

[allengeorge]

It’s (sadly) the classic Canadian way: talk a big game, but when it’s time to commit, slow-roll.

 

[p_xavier]

Nope. Most recent update was in July.

The Government of Canada is taking the first steps in preparing for the procurement process to build a new train service in the Toronto to Quebec City Corridor

The Government of Canada is committed to modernizing intercity passenger rail services in a way that will best meet the transportation needs of travellers, while also creating jobs and economic growth.

www.canada.ca

Still progressing very slowly but I guess this means that in the spring when I finish my engineering degree I will be able to apply to work on this project that I first heard about in highschool.

I said the same thing about the metro blue line extension and will be retired before (if) it's open.

 

[p_xavier]

It’s (sadly) the classic Canadian way: talk a big game, but when it’s time to commit, slow-roll.

And people ask Québecers why the CAQ is up so high still in polls. It's actually the first party to do practically what they said they were to do, good or bad.

 

[nfitz]

I said the same thing about the metro blue line extension and will be retired before (if) it's open.

1976 - most of this was on the map in the trains in the early 1980s when I was in school. I'm sure I'll be dead before Metro Lafleur opens.

And people wonder why I'm so cynical about VIA HFR.

 

[roger1818]

HFR is by no means a done deal and it certainly could fall through, but it seems to have more political support than any HSR plan VIA has had.

 

[Urban Sky]

That's what I thought too when I was in high school/university! And an earlier VIA plan had it opening when I was still in university!

I'm approaching retirement now.

Yet you demand your demands rely on exactly the kind of non-essential gimmicks (e.g. Ottawa Bypass, electrification, double-tracking or elimination of level crossings to allow speeds beyond 110 mph), which would escalate the capital costs to a point where the plan is almost guaranteed to become so politically unattractive that it will remain in a drawer so that it can be readily accessed when the next HSR study reviews all previous proposals…

 

[TerryJohnson]

Does anyone know if baggage car service will return to the corridor?

I'm not expecting it to, because it probably wouldn't be around long if they did. The new fleet won't have separate baggage cars, but they will have extra baggage towers including at least one bike space per car.

The ability to check baggage, particularly if connecting with the long distance trains or with airlines, will be missed. That said, it might not be gone for good. SBB offers tourists flying into major airports a through baggage service and they don't have separate baggage cars either... the bags just miraculously appear in your hotel room at your destination, and could be checked in at any staffed station for a return flight, at least when I was there - a few years ago now.

 

[Bordercollie]

I'm not expecting it to, because it probably wouldn't be around long if they did. The new fleet won't have separate baggage cars, but they will have extra baggage towers including at least one bike space per car.

The ability to check baggage, particularly if connecting with the long distance trains or with airlines, will be missed. That said, it might not be gone for good. SBB offers tourists flying into major airports a through baggage service and they don't have separate baggage cars either... the bags just miraculously appear in your hotel room at your destination, and could be checked in at any staffed station for a return flight, at least when I was there - a few years ago now.

It would be nice because currently only pets that fit under your seat are allowed. But in the baggage car as long as they are in a cage you can have any size pet travel for $50.

Would be nice if they could accommodate that with the new fleet.

 

[nfitz]

Yet you demand exactly the kind of non-essential gimmicks (e.g. Ottawa Bypass, electrification, double-tracking or elimination of level crossings to allow speeds beyond 110 mph), which would escalate the capital costs to a point where the plan is almost guaranteed to become so politically unattractive that it will remain in a drawer so that it can be readily accessed when the next HSR study reviews all previous proposals…

I don't see where I've demanded anything. Suggested, sure. Asked - maybe.

Though where have I ever proposed electrification? Or elimination of level crossings (other than an odd one here and there perhaps in remote locations, and crossings of other major railways). I've only suggested double-tracking where HFR shares with freight (which sadly, is the majority of the route - though perhaps not necessary on the low usage north-shore).

And I didn't suggest the Ottawa Bypass. To my surprise, VIA did. My post was to ask if it meant that VIA had decided that the proposed Toronto/Montreal times were untenable.

I'm not sure why you are saying these things. I've certainly expressed doubts that the budget, even for the work proposed, is realistic. That the travel times may be overly optimistic. And that demand would significantly increase enough to cover the financing with frequent, but not as fast service.

 

[TerryJohnson]

It would be nice because currently only pets that fit under your seat are allowed. But in the baggage car as long as they are in a cage you can have any size pet travel for $50.

Would be nice if they could accommodate that with the new fleet.

That's a good question. There ought to be a way to accommodate a larger pet in a crate either with the luggage towers or by using mobility aid spaces. Service dogs will certainly be welcomed.

 

[Urban Sky]

I don't see where I've demanded anything. Suggested, sure. Asked - maybe.

Though where have I ever proposed electrification? Or elimination of level crossings (other than an odd one here and there perhaps in remote locations, and crossings of other major railways). I've only suggested double-tracking where HFR shares with freight (which sadly, is the majority of the route - though perhaps not necessary on the low usage north-shore).

And I didn't suggest the Ottawa Bypass. To my surprise, VIA did. My post was to ask if it meant that VIA had decided that the proposed Toronto/Montreal times were untenable.

I'm not sure why you are saying these things. I've certainly expressed doubts that the budget, even for the work proposed, is realistic. That the travel times may be overly optimistic. And that demand would significantly increase enough to cover the financing with frequent, but not as fast service.

You might indeed not have explicitly demanded all those things I've listed as examples for the kind of features which would escalate the capital cost for HSR (and if you read my post carefully, I haven't claimed that you did), but you have consistently argued that HFR ought to be much faster than the 4:45 previously quoted as the target travel time - or even the 3:59 hours which were offered as a rather symbolic token travel time for a fraction of a year in the 1970s and then again during the late 1990s and early 2000s:

Example from Jun 24, 2019:

Given that VIA used to run it in just under 4 hours historically, before the freight issues started to become so significant, then surely if it's 45 minutes slower when this is finished then that would be a big failure!

And here two examples from Nov 17, 2021:

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 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.

The thing is that if you want travel times to get significantly below 4:45, you will have to chose not just one, but multiple of the kind of gimmicks I described:

• Electrification (as it allows much faster acceleration, especially at high speeds)
• Grade Separations (as they are a legal requirement for operation beyond 177 km/h in this country)
• An Ottawa Bypass (to reduce the distance which needs to be covered within your target travel time and thus the required average speed)
• Double-tracking of most or even the entire alignment (to remove slack in the schedule which will be required when trains can only meet at certain locations and would need to slow down - or even wait - if they meet a delayed train)

Especially by repeatedly expressing your euphoria for VIAFast as a model to follow, you are implicitly demanding grade separations, as they are a legal requirement for the design speed of 200 km/h which is the only reason why VIAFast might have been able to achieve a travel time of somewhere around the 3.5 hours they advertised. Therefore, any attempt to satisfy your personal expectations in HFR will make it less likely that you will ever see hourly trains travelling between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto before your retirement, if at all. Thus, the sole purpose of my post was to highlight to you the irony behind your fear of a certain outcome, while feeding a narrative which directly contributes towards it…

***

Nevertheless, I have changed the opening words from "Yet you demand" to "Yet your demands rely on", to better indicate that I was rather describing the implications of your demands than their explicit content...

I hope this clarifies my previous post for you, but please write me a personal message if you still feel unfairly characterized...

 

[nfitz]

You might indeed not have explicitly demanded all those things ...

This is a discussion - not a court of law.

Personally I think HFR is a horrific idea. I certainly don't support spending that amount of money - let alone more. The stuff I've mentioned isn't to spend more on HFR. It's to kill the white elephant, and go to something like VIA Fast, with incremental upgrades, and new legislation. It's still not clear how they are going to get in and out of Montreal and Toronto for the meagre budget they have. Let alone how they are going to share with freight for much of the alignment without having the exact same issues they have now.

You are never going to agree with me. And I'll have to see it to believe it. I see no value in TMIing in response to me.

Personally I think that once the agencies run all the numbers on it, it's dead.