VIA Rail

[kEiThZ]

The transportation minister was quoted that he is asking those bidding on the project to show plans for 300km/h. I suspect the outcome of that will be that it will be extremely expensive, or so expensive to straighten the Havlock sub, that you would be better off buying farmland along a new corridor to the south of the Havlock line and to the North of the existing corridor. If it would cost 40 billion to engineer the Havlock line to 300kmh but only 20 billion to purchase land for a new route, why would you do the former?

More importantly if 300kph only saves you 45 mins from Toronto to Montreal over 200 kph service, is that worth an extra $10-20B?

I actually don't think they seriously asked for 300 kph. But if they did, they are quickly going to learn there's no market for it.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Again, if we do get 300km/h operations I doubt it will be a consistent top speed. More like smallish sections of the line may operate at that speed where it is a relatively small cost premium to introduce the speed.

Think 15-20km stretches that already more or less have the required geometry, or which already need to be built on a greenfield aligment where building it straighter has a relatively minor cost premium.

A lot of the Havelock sub has very poor geometry already which likely won't be suitable for 200km/h operations and will require greenfield alignments - upgrading those sections to HSR won't really need a huge premium. Similarly, the line between Barrhaven and Smith Falls is dead straight - provided the trains are capable of it, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to operate at 300km/h on that stretch.

The real question about 300km/h operations is what VIA plans to do with it's new chargers, which are not designed for that speed. Until now, my understanding was that VIA intended to more or less use the new train sets for HFR, but 300km/h operations would not allow for that.

 

[robmausser]

Again, if we do get 300km/h operations I doubt it will be a consistent top speed. More like smallish sections of the line may operate at that speed where it is a relatively small cost premium to introduce the speed.

Think 15-20km stretches that already more or less have the required geometry, or which already need to be built on a greenfield aligment where building it straighter has a relatively minor cost premium.

A lot of the Havelock sub has very poor geometry already which likely won't be suitable for 200km/h operations and will require greenfield alignments - upgrading those sections to HSR won't really need a huge premium. Similarly, the line between Barrhaven and Smith Falls is dead straight - provided the trains are capable of it, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to operate at 300km/h on that stretch.

The real question about 300km/h operations is what VIA plans to do with it's new chargers, which are not designed for that speed. Until now, my understanding was that VIA intended to more or less use the new train sets for HFR, but 300km/h operations would not allow for that.

I'm not sure why everyone seems to think the Chargers are destined for the HFR route. Not only will they need significant conversion to electric or dual mode, but the understanding is that there will be no reduction of service on the existing corridor. With the current Chargers replacing the Stainless and LRC fleet, I didn't think there was much left in terms of what was available to run on the HFR segment.

Even if there was, I'm sure they could be put to good use elsewhere. I know the Renaissance fleet is starting to show its age.

If we are going to plan for 90% electrified and 300kmh in sections, my vote would be for the Alstom Avelia Liberty being used for the Amtrak Northeast Corridor.

They solve some pretty similar issues on that corridor that HFR will have: many curves but with straight sections where 300kmh is possible.

For the twisty sections, the 8 degree active tilt and articulated bogies claim to allow them to travel through turns 20% faster than the previous Acela trains. Seems like they would be a good fit for HFR here.

 

[TerryJohnson]

Again, if we do get 300km/h operations I doubt it will be a consistent top speed. More like smallish sections of the line may operate at that speed where it is a relatively small cost premium to introduce the speed.

Think 15-20km stretches that already more or less have the required geometry, or which already need to be built on a greenfield aligment where building it straighter has a relatively minor cost premium.

A lot of the Havelock sub has very poor geometry already which likely won't be suitable for 200km/h operations and will require greenfield alignments - upgrading those sections to HSR won't really need a huge premium. Similarly, the line between Barrhaven and Smith Falls is dead straight - provided the trains are capable of it, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to operate at 300km/h on that stretch.

The real question about 300km/h operations is what VIA plans to do with it's new chargers, which are not designed for that speed. Until now, my understanding was that VIA intended to more or less use the new train sets for HFR, but 300km/h operations would not allow for that.

The presentation deck Alstom have been circulating, which of course has a lovely red maple-leaf liveried Avelia as the first slide, suggests that their thinking is to make Peterborough to Smith Falls a 300 km/h section, plus the north shore sections between Montreal and Quebec City:

Because the original vision was to build HFR-170 quickly - by the early 2020s to coincide with having new trains to run on it - and keep the options open to upgrade later, it is possible to see the Alstom plan as not such a bad idea. The federal government let the option for additional Chargers to run on HFR lapse and seems intransigently insistent on a mega-risk-bundle P3 megaproject, so an NEC-style corridor with 300 km/h segments by the mid-to-late 2030s would put us "back on schedule" at that point.

Alstom's position is that if you're going to invest in electrification, going the rest of the way to high speed isn't much more expensive. However, even with tilt-capable Avelias, the implication is a greenfield build between Havelock and Glen Tay, through very unfavourable and ecologically sensitive terrain. Part of that would probably have to be done anyway to avoid downtown Sharbot Lake, but dynamiting through the Canadian Shield will maybe cost slightly less per mile than Toronto subways... in my mind almost all the other sections are much better candidates for high speeds.

However, the main concern at this point is continued prevarication and then getting nothing at all, because the incorporation of a HFR subsidiary and all the announcements and appointments that go with it lay precisely zero feet of track. I have no confidence in a P3 being the best value for money, but if they ever actually get on with building something I'll be celebrating while the ink is still wet on the contract.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm not sure why everyone seems to think the Chargers are destined for the HFR route. Not only will they need significant conversion to electric or dual mode, but the understanding is that there will be no reduction of service on the existing corridor. With the current Chargers replacing the Stainless and LRC fleet, I didn't think there was much left in terms of what was available to run on the HFR segment.

Mostly because the rest of us don't see how the math adds up. When you take away all the passengers traveling between the major metros themselves, there's probably not enough to sustain the current schedule. At least not without reducing all the trains to 2-3 cars and running them at much higher subsidies. So what do they do with all the extra carriages and possibly even surplus locomotives, if the schedule gets trimmed?
It makes sense to the rest of us that these get used as rolling stock for HFR. Much cheaper to buy the add-ons and make the modifications necessary than buy a whole new fleet.

If we are going to plan for 90% electrified and 300kmh in sections, my vote would be for the Alstom Avelia Liberty being used for the Amtrak Northeast Corridor.

Taking 300 kph at face value, based on literally one line from a Minister, and literally nothing else in the process, is pretty bold of you. At least on electrification, it's been discussed repeatedly over the years and was even an option in the early iterations of HFR.

There's also the issue of how difficult it is to build 300 kph rail, that is not 100% electrified. Everything that runs at these speeds is completely electrified. That alone should tell you how little they've thought about this 300 kph idea.

Ultimately, if you read the REFOI and responses, it's pretty clear that their ambitions are pretty wide. They are fishing to see what industry is willing to deliver. But their highest ambitions don't come close to their regularly started budget. We'll know more after the RFP. But I'll be shocked if anybody comes back with 800 km of 90% electrified track, designed to run at 300 kph (requiring a whole new fleet) for $12B.

 

[kEiThZ]

Because the original vision was to build HFR-170 quickly - by the early 2020s to coincide with having new trains to run on it - and keep the options open to upgrade later, it is possible to see the Alstom plan as not such a bad idea. The federal government let the option for additional Chargers to run on HFR lapse and seems intransigently insistent on a mega-risk-bundle P3 megaproject, so an NEC-style corridor with 300 km/h segments by the mid-to-late 2030s would put us "back on schedule" at that point.

Alstom's position is that if you're going to invest in electrification, going the rest of the way to high speed isn't much more expensive. However, even with tilt-capable Avelias, the implication is a greenfield build between Havelock and Glen Tay, through very unfavourable and ecologically sensitive terrain. Part of that would probably have to be done anyway to avoid downtown Sharbot Lake, but dynamiting through the Canadian Shield will maybe cost slightly less per mile than Toronto subways... in my mind almost all the other sections are much better candidates for high speeds.

However, the main concern at this point is continued prevarication and then getting nothing at all, because the incorporation of a HFR subsidiary and all the announcements and appointments that go with it lay precisely zero feet of track. I have no confidence in a P3 being the best value for money, but if they ever actually get on with building something I'll be celebrating while the ink is still wet on the contract.

Alstom's reasoning is correct. But this is also the exact scope creep, that has killed every single proposal in the past. And it's what HFR was specifically designed to avoid.

Having a ~200 km stretch (Peterborough to Smith's Falls) run at 300 kph instead of 177 kph saves 28 mins. And the cost for that will probably be an additional $5B. I'm curious what happens in 2028, if they insist on 300 kph top design speed, and the estimate for TOMQ comes in at $20-25B, more than twice their current $8-12B. By that point, they'll also have spent several billion on design and preparatory works too.

 

[Willybru21]

The presentation deck Alstom have been circulating, which of course has a lovely red maple-leaf liveried Avelia as the first slide, suggests that their thinking is to make Peterborough to Smith Falls a 300 km/h section, plus the north shore sections between Montreal and Quebec City:

Where can I find this presentation?

 

[innsertnamehere]

Alstom's reasoning is correct. But this is also the exact scope creep, that has killed every single proposal in the past. And it's what HFR was specifically designed to avoid.

Having a ~200 km stretch (Peterborough to Smith's Falls) run at 300 kph instead of 177 kph saves 28 mins. And the cost for that will probably be an additional $5B. I'm curious what happens in 2028, if they insist on 300 kph top design speed, and the estimate for TOMQ comes in at $20-25B, more than twice their current $8-12B. By that point, they'll also have spent several billion on design and preparatory works too.

The question is if it will really be a $5 billion premium. If you need a brand new corridor anyway, will the incremental cost really be that high?

The existing Havelock corridor is extremely windy and likely won't be able to support 177km/h rail in the first place.

The options for that stretch may be more like:

1. $200m - rebuild existing corridor, operate at 100km/h
2. $3 billion - build new corridor, operate at 200km/h
3. $4 billion - build new corridor, operate at 300km/h

If you are going to pick #2, is it really that crazy to go for #3?

 

[crs1026]

The scope creep sure sounds like the LPC wanting to have nice things, or at least gravitating to the sexy over the practical.

Once one puts new segments of 300 kph capable row in the mix, the rationale for using the Havelock line over another route alignment disappears. Land may be more expensive closer to the lake, but costs of construction are much lower in better terrain. An entire new Toronto-Kingston line can probably be built for what it would cost just to build the new routing east of Havelock over to Perth.

The beauty of the original HFR was that it was realistic relative to the equipment on order and the capability of the existing roadbed. Once one goes to 300km/h, then even the existing roadbed needs upgrading end to end. It’s no longer possible to operate with grade crossings. Count the number of grade crossings between Peterborough and Agincourt, and add the incremental cost of grade separating those to the cost of HFR over that same alignment.

If we are serious about building through the Shield, then I would go back to the relative cost of a Kingston - Elgin - Smiths Falls alignment versus Havelock - Perth. Take the remainder of the budget and see what’s possible west of Kingston.

- Paul

 

[just east of the creek]

The scope creep sure sounds like the LPC wanting to have nice things, or at least gravitating to the sexy over the practical.

Once one puts new segments of 300 kph capable row in the mix, the rationale for using the Havelock line over another route alignment disappears. Land may be more expensive closer to the lake, but costs of construction are much lower in better terrain. An entire new Toronto-Kingston line can probably be built for what it would cost just to build the new routing east of Havelock over to Perth.

The beauty of the original HFR was that it was realistic relative to the equipment on order and the capability of the existing roadbed. Once one goes to 300km/h, then even the existing roadbed needs upgrading end to end. It’s no longer possible to operate with grade crossings. Count the number of grade crossings between Peterborough and Agincourt, and add the incremental cost of grade separating those to the cost of HFR over that same alignment.

If we are serious about building through the Shield, then I would go back to the relative cost of a Kingston - Elgin - Smiths Falls alignment versus Havelock - Perth. Take the remainder of the budget and see what’s possible west of Kingston.

- Paul

For 300 kph roadbed, would they be considering elevated stretches through the more difficult miles (many miles) of this route? Or is that just another 'billion' added to the cost numbers being floated?

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

Was just reading up on Sweden's plans for a high speed train that recently got shelved for being too expensive. The Swedish government wanted to contain the cost of the project to 205 billion Swedish Krona (20 billion EUR, 2017) but was revised to about 29 Billion EUR (2021). That's about 42 Billion CAD. The large cost was due to having centrally located stations.

https://www.railtech.com/infrastruc...too-expensive-to-go-through-cities/?gdpr=deny

Gives you an idea of the costs that the Canadian project might be headed.

 

[robmausser]

The scope creep sure sounds like the LPC wanting to have nice things, or at least gravitating to the sexy over the practical.

Once one puts new segments of 300 kph capable row in the mix, the rationale for using the Havelock line over another route alignment disappears. Land may be more expensive closer to the lake, but costs of construction are much lower in better terrain. An entire new Toronto-Kingston line can probably be built for what it would cost just to build the new routing east of Havelock over to Perth.

The beauty of the original HFR was that it was realistic relative to the equipment on order and the capability of the existing roadbed. Once one goes to 300km/h, then even the existing roadbed needs upgrading end to end. It’s no longer possible to operate with grade crossings. Count the number of grade crossings between Peterborough and Agincourt, and add the incremental cost of grade separating those to the cost of HFR over that same alignment.

If we are serious about building through the Shield, then I would go back to the relative cost of a Kingston - Elgin - Smiths Falls alignment versus Havelock - Perth. Take the remainder of the budget and see what’s possible west of Kingston.

- Paul

I tend to agree, although the line wouldnt be on the existing CN corridor. They would probably need to expropriate farm land just north. But still, that area is relatively flat and less rocky.
That is, if 300kmh is a serious thing.

Regardless, its a bit annoying that what was essentially supposed to be a fast and cheap way to get reliable trains in the corridor has become this huge behemoth. The liberals really are leaning into that stereotype of bloat they are so known for.

I still would wish for the project to have been done in phases. With the first being a simple relaying of Class 6 rail and stations, removal of some grade crossings etc. And use the Siemens Venture trains.

Then electrification as Phase 2. And a Phase 3 of straightening some sections and increasing speed.

 

[kEiThZ]

The scope creep sure sounds like the LPC wanting to have nice things, or at least gravitating to the sexy over the practical.

The sensible approach would be to target travel times on city pairs. Not peak design speeds. A minister talking about 300 kph tells me he's incompetent, even if he wants to sound ambitious.

This is apparently the article where he said he wanted 300 kph:

Train à grande fréquence | Le projet est bien « réel », dit le ministre des Transports

Le projet de train à grande fréquence commence à prendre un peu plus forme. À un point tel que le gouvernement fédéral prévoit lancer l’automne prochain un appel d’offres aux entreprises désirant mener à bien ce projet, le plus important de l’histoire du pays.

www.lapresse.ca

But yet they say about HSR, "The federal government assessed this option, but ruled it out because of the prohibitive cost (at least $65 billion for the Quebec-Toronto corridor) and the risks associated with operating a TGV during the winter season." So I have no idea what asking for 300 kph speed means when they have assessed the cost and thought it was too much. But yet he still wants it? Bizarre.

 

[TerryJohnson]

The sensible approach would be to target travel times on city pairs. Not peak design speeds. A minister talking about 300 kph tells me he's incompetent, even if he wants to sound ambitious.

This is apparently the article where he said he wanted 300 kph:

Train à grande fréquence | Le projet est bien « réel », dit le ministre des Transports

Le projet de train à grande fréquence commence à prendre un peu plus forme. À un point tel que le gouvernement fédéral prévoit lancer l’automne prochain un appel d’offres aux entreprises désirant mener à bien ce projet, le plus important de l’histoire du pays.

www.lapresse.ca

But yet they say about HSR, "The federal government assessed this option, but ruled it out because of the prohibitive cost (at least $65 billion for the Quebec-Toronto corridor) and the risks associated with operating a TGV during the winter season." So I have no idea what asking for 300 kph speed means when they have assessed the cost and thought it was too much. But yet he still wants it? Bizarre.

There are some very confusing narratives around this project for sure, and Ottawa has squandered at lot of the opportunities in the original proposal, including by not securing access to the Mount Royal Tunnel or doing any corridor protection. At this point, seven years in, they don't seem to have even secured access to Toronto Union Station, even though the whole industry knows that if they delay much longer the track designs for GO Expansion will be locked down. If they finally come to Metrolinx in 2025 with their requests, I wouldn't blame Metrolinx for telling them exactly how much the raft of change orders is going to cost.

I'm not sure where they get the idea there's any risk associated with running a TGV in snow that doesn't apply equally to something slower, but having the highest top speed is primarily interesting to young boys. Transit planners care about reliability, frequency, actual travel time, ease of transfers, network effects, etc.

Dropping Toronto-Ottawa to two hours and Toronto-Montreal to three would wipe the floor with the airlines, and would no doubt be the subject of fierce lobbying them, a fight HFR was also designed to avoid by targeting the much larger number of drivers between those city pairs. My question is different: What's the opportunity cost of the "High Speed" buff for one corridor relative to using the same amount of cash to provide a halfway decent conventional rail that relieves car dependency across a much larger number of city pairs across a lot more provinces?

 

[kEiThZ]

Dropping Toronto-Ottawa to two hours and Toronto-Montreal to three would wipe the floor with the airlines, and would no doubt be the subject of fierce lobbying them, a fight HFR was also designed to avoid by targeting the much larger number of drivers between those city pairs.

The narrative I've seen is that they'll bundle it all in with the privatized Corridor and this should make it immune to politics. This is what Reece Martin is suggesting in his video today:

Colour me skeptical. I don't think a change of government, especially to a party whose leader favours expansion of the Island Airport and eschews most concerns about climate change, means that cancellation is possible because there's private sector participation.

My question is different: What's the opportunity cost of the "High Speed" buff for one corridor relative to using the same amount of cash to provide a halfway decent conventional rail that relieves car dependency across a much larger number of city pairs across a lot more provinces?

Based on that La Presse article, I'm pretty much convinced that sober policy and well considered opportunity costs are not part of the decision-making at all. They are being driven by optics. And yet bizarrely are neither willing to admit they are pursuing HSR or to announce a full upgrade to HSR. They are basically hoping that industry will take the $12B the government wants to spend and then put in the rest and build HSR. It could work. Or we'll find out in 2024, that industry wants $20B and since the government doesn't want to commit to that, we just wasted another 9 years.