VIA Rail

[Filip]

If HFR is a resounding success and Ontario carries through with true (300km/h+) HSR then upgrading segments of HFR to HSR would logically frame the discussion moving forward.

Regular intercity trains in Europe operate at 200km/h. In the realm of VIA's plans.

 

[CapitalSeven]

From article on HFR service plan "Via would repurpose existing rail beds or rail lines in a corridor that is already secured". Looks more and more like HFR is going to be routed through Peterborough on the active and inactive parts of the Havelock Sub, as predicted a few months back.

Doubt it. If you add it up, hundreds of thousands live in the cities and towns along the lakeshore route. Fewer than 100K live in Peterborough and that's it for that route. If it's not going to be full high speed, what is the point of a segregated route that avoids potential customers in smaller centers?

 

[nfitz]

Thanks. Two different alignments between Ottawa and Montreal! Didn't know that.

 

[wolfewood]

I'm not sure I get some of the complaints about HFR over HSR. I get that people want high speed service but surely we need to start somewhere? I for one would be ecstatic with electrified service and the 177km service in the Corridor, especially if it can be done for relatively cheap ($4 billion) and quick (starting in the next couple years). Surely we can upgrade later? Especially if people get a chance to see the benefits of increased service from HFR.

 

[crs1026]

We do not need HSR (although we should aspire to it). A dedicated right of way with grade separation and cab signalling/PTC would allow speeds up to about 200 kph. That's enough to match or beat air travel and car travel, while keeping operating costs within reach.

We are close to making the same mistake as we just made with UP - ie, demanding an unreasonable level of cost recovery in the short term. While rail should be economically competitive over the longer term, it will take a while to build ridership and change habits. Building a super-expensive, super-high-speed train will require super-high subsidy in the short term. That's sure to rally the opposition. Building something cheaper, with the eye to one day upgrading when the population density is there, makes more sense.

- Paul

 

[reaperexpress]

I'm not sure I get some of the complaints about HFR over HSR. I get that people want high speed service but surely we need to start somewhere? I for one would be ecstatic with electrified service and the 177km service in the Corridor, especially if it can be done for relatively cheap ($4 billion) and quick (starting in the next couple years). Surely we can upgrade later? Especially if people get a chance to see the benefits of increased service from HFR.

The proposed 177 km/h is only marginally faster than than the current 153 km/h speed limit (which was 160 km/h back when we were using tilting trains). And given the meandering alignment of the route via Peterborough, chances are there would be countless curves where trains would have to slow down to below 153 km/h, thereby negating the time savings.

People (and VIA) seem to be downplaying the investment involved with re-activating the route through Peterborough. It's not just a question of laying track, there are numerous areas where track would need to be realigned and/or grade-separated to support any level of decent speed. Once you're building new alignments and grade separations then the cost differential between HSR and conventional rail drops quite a bit.

The question is whether frequency and reliability alone are enough to justify the massive investment required to bring the Havelock sub up to a 177 km/h standard, especially given VIA would need to keep running the existing routing as well in order to serve the intermediate cities.

I also fail to see how building a new line through Peterborough is any more supportive of future upgrading to HSR than the status quo. Either way it's a matter of building a completely new line from scratch. In contrast to the arrow-straight railways in Southwestern Ontario, no part of the Havelock sub has any potential to be upgraded to HSR.

Rather than building 350 km of new conventional track from Toronto to Ottawa via Peterborough, I wonder how the cost would compare if we built 200 km of new high-speed track from Bowmanville to Kingston and double-tracked the existing 160 km/h VIA lines through Smiths Falls and Alexandria. Obviously it would be more expensive, but then at least we'd definitely see substantial time savings.

 

[gweed123]

It sounds like what is being talked about here is a lot like Acela, which isn't really true HSR, but it could be with the necessary corridor upgrades. I'd be fine with doing that, and upgrading the corridor piece by piece over time to gradually transition to what could be classified as an HSR service.

 

[crs1026]

I also fail to see how building a new line through Peterborough is any more supportive of future upgrading to HSR than the status quo. Either way it's a matter of building a completely new line from scratch. In contrast to the arrow-straight railways in Southwestern Ontario, no part of the Havelock sub has any potential to be upgraded to HSR..

There really hasn't been any authoritative source that would establish that the Havlelock line is VIA's true preference.

I'm still wondering if it's the Plan B that injects some reality into what CP and CN can ask for the real plan, which might involve purchase of land or their entire right of way along the Lakeshore.

- Paul

 

[dunkalunk]

The proposed 177 km/h is only marginally faster than than the current 153 km/h speed limit (which was 160 km/h back when we were using tilting trains). And given the meandering alignment of the route via Peterborough, chances are there would be countless curves where trains would have to slow down to below 153 km/h, thereby negating the time savings.

People (and VIA) seem to be downplaying the investment involved with re-activating the route through Peterborough. It's not just a question of laying track, there are numerous areas where track would need to be realigned and/or grade-separated to support any level of decent speed. Once you're building new alignments and grade separations then the cost differential between HSR and conventional rail drops quite a bit.

The question is whether frequency and reliability alone are enough to justify the massive investment required to bring the Havelock sub up to a 177 km/h standard, especially given VIA would need to keep running the existing routing as well in order to serve the intermediate cities.

I also fail to see how building a new line through Peterborough is any more supportive of future upgrading to HSR than the status quo. Either way it's a matter of building a completely new line from scratch. In contrast to the arrow-straight railways in Southwestern Ontario, no part of the Havelock sub has any potential to be upgraded to HSR.

Rather than building 350 km of new conventional track from Toronto to Ottawa via Peterborough, I wonder how the cost would compare if we built 200 km of new high-speed track from Bowmanville to Kingston and double-tracked the existing 160 km/h VIA lines through Smiths Falls and Alexandria. Obviously it would be more expensive, but then at least we'd definitely see substantial time savings.

From the viaFast study as well as the Ecotrain Report, I remember that one critical piece of infrastructure for both 200km/h and 300km/h service on a single Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal route was a new ~70km right-of-way connecting the CN rail line near Ganonoque to VIA's track north of Smiths Falls roughly following Highway 15. It was also determined that 200km/h would be possible switching between existing CP/CN rail right-of-ways between Oshawa and Kingston, while a 300km/h route was depicted in a greenfield alignment north of the 401. Even without a new right-of-way between Toronto and Kingston, building the Ganonque Cutoff and upgrading the Alexandira Subdivision should be considered a top priority for VIA TOM corridor service.

Link to Ecotrain report map depicting routes.

While 200km/h service was investigated as diesel, I don't see reason why the corridor couldn't be electrified.

 

[kEiThZ]

Listen to VIA's CEO on a CBC interview. He talked a lot about rail enabling smaller communities. If he means any of that, this Peterborough route would be a poor sell since there are more viable stops along the lakeshore. He also mentioned that students were a substantial market. Probably true for London and Kingston. That certainly means they can't skip those university towns.

I agree with gweed. This is starting to look a lot like Acela. They'd spend $4 billion and do TOM. And then maybe another $2-3 billion to extend to Windsor and Quebec City.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr.../via-plans-for-high-frequency-train-1.3366844

@MisterF is going to be disappointed. He was hoping to have rail service that's competitive with aviation. Not going to happen. But it's nice to take a lot of cars off the road.

 

[gweed123]

Listen to VIA's CEO on a CBC interview. He talked a lot about rail enabling smaller communities. If he means any of that, this Peterborough route would be a poor sell since there are more viable stops along the lakeshore. He also mentioned that students were a substantial market. Probably true for London and Kingston. That certainly means they can't skip those university towns.

I agree with gweed. This is starting to look a lot like Acela. They'd spend $4 billion and do TOM. And then maybe another $2-3 billion to extend to Windsor and Quebec City.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr.../via-plans-for-high-frequency-train-1.3366844

@MisterF is going to be disappointed. He was hoping to have rail service that's competitive with aviation. Not going to happen. But it's nice to take a lot of cars off the road.

Politically, it's also easier to fund incremental improvements than it is to build an entire HSR system in one go. Electrify and buy new rolling stock first. Then improve a couple key sections of corridor. Then do a few more. Then do a few more. Shave 5 minutes here, 10 minutes there.

 

[kEiThZ]

The TOM HFR proposal is already a massive improvement.

2.5 hrs Toronto-Ottawa is a 44% improvement.
3.5 hrs Toronto-Montreal is 36% improvement.
1 hr Ottawa-Montreal is a 50% improvement.

All that is $3-4 billion.

Another $2-3 billion for Windsor and Quebec City extension each. So $10 billion overall for HFR from Windsor to Quebec City. That's half to a third of what HSR would cost. So cheaper even with cost raises for HFR.

The return on HFR is decent enough. So are the effects. London has an employment zone from Windsor to Toronto. Toronto has an employment zone from London to Kingston. Montreal has an employment zone from Ottawa to Quebec City.

I wish we had HSR. But if that's no public appetite to spend that much, let's have HFR and let VIA become profitable.

 

[MisterF]

@MisterF is going to be disappointed. He was hoping to have rail service that's competitive with aviation. Not going to happen. But it's nice to take a lot of cars off the road.

What an odd thing to say. Why would you think that I'd be disappointed? Arguing in favour if HSR doesn't mean that I wouldn't still be ecstatic about Via's plan, which would finally give this part of the country something resembling a modern intercity rail system. And it would make a true HSR system more likely in the future.

For someone who supposedly wishes we had HSR you sure spend a lot of effort arguing against it.

 

[kEiThZ]

For someone who supposedly wishes we had HSR you sure spend a lot of effort arguing against it.

Hardly, Would love HSR. What I argue against is the idea that we should start limiting other plans (like expanding airports) today, contingent on delivery of an HSR program that would take 15 years as a minimum to build.

Also, a bit of cynicism on my part. I find it hard to believe we'll ever build HSR, simply because I don't believe the political will is there.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm not sure I get some of the complaints about HFR over HSR. I get that people want high speed service but surely we need to start somewhere? I for one would be ecstatic with electrified service and the 177km service in the Corridor, especially if it can be done for relatively cheap ($4 billion) and quick (starting in the next couple years). Surely we can upgrade later? Especially if people get a chance to see the benefits of increased service from HFR.

Honestly, I wish it was more of a Plan B. Push HSR first with this government. If not, pull Plan B out of backpocket. If the government spends nearly $8-10 billion on HFR, there's virtually no way we'll see HSR in our lifetime. Not just that, escalating construction costs mean that HSR would already be $30 billion in 2030 dollars by the time construction is done. Imagine what it will cost if we start in 2040 or later. I wish VIA's CEO was pushing hard for HSR first. He seems to have given up by this point.