VIA Rail

[1overcosc]

They are one, but I was thinking of the whole Montreal- Toronto - Ottawa area. And the population living off reserve who may be from further afield. It's a case of looking for the opportunity and seeing what's possible. There may be leverage to ongoing land claims settle,ent as well.

I can't imagine any significant federal infrastructure project being initiated without a statement of what FN advancement is contemplated. It's the business we are in these days, and rightly so.

- Paul

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte government is very adamant on return of land as the solution to their land claim north of Deseronto. They've turned down huge sums of money over it.

Complicating the matter is governance. On many Iroquois reserves, there's a widespread belief that the band governments established by Canada are illegitimate, and that only a traditional council of clan mothers should have power. A large segment of the Tyendinega population will refuse to accept any land claim resolution negotiated by the band council.

 

[crs1026]

What I meant was that, as a community with only 2,000 people, they might not have enough of a labour force available to be doing all the track maintenance and such.

There are enough running small businesses already - not necessarily based on the reserves proper - who would be in a position to bid on civil construction and maintenance type work. There are many people in the larger urban centers ( Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa, Montreal ) who might be able to fill out the workforce.

I was involved in a consultation a few years back for a non-rail project (that ultimately never got funded) where this kind of opportunity was explored . Some of the Hydro projects in the north have had FN partnerships, with comparable labour requirements. It's becoming pretty standard.

I raised the First Nations issue primarily in the context of whether 2019 is possible. Whether there is a partnership proposed or not, it will require time and effort to hold consultations and reach understandings. VIA can't pull a Metrolinx and just plunk a new line down without this step. Treaty status in the GTA is much clearer than in parts of Eastern Ontario. As noted, some may feel that VIA is not welcome on their land at all.

- Paul

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

You misinterpret what I'm saying. (Rest assured I'm very sympathetic on these fronts; I've always been a big champion for FN treaty rights).

What I meant was that, as a community with only 2,000 people, they might not have enough of a labour force available to be doing all the track maintenance and such.

My bad, missed that completely. Ongoing Aboriginal involvement would be great to see.

 

[kEiThZ]

Are these native lands and/or reserves really that much of an obstacle to any routing? Could they not be routed around?

 

[crs1026]

Are these native lands and/or reserves really that much of an obstacle to any routing? Could they not be routed around?

It depends on the area and the First Nation. See

https://files.ontario.ca/firstnationsandtreaties.pdf

The obligation to consult does not end at the fence line of the reserve, and it is typical for a First Nation to assert an interest in a project that may be many miles from its reserve, based on traditional patterns of migration or land use, or based on explicit dispute of the treaty in question. The areas of interest may be fairly wide, so it's not a matter of just building a bypass around a particular town or locality.

Toronto and the area immediately east (the Williams Treaty areas) are fairly innocuous, but further east there are significant disputes and settlement discussions proceeding. Lots of things go forward in spite of this, but one must be alert to possible intersections of interest.

Consultation does not necessarily imply FN would oppose or obstruct VIA, but the Supreme Court has given this term weight, so what's raised has to be considered appropriately. That takes some time and work.

- Paul

 

[Euphoria]

For once can we not get the watered down version of transportation infrastructure? I see the advantages of having a designated passenger rail line, but can it please be high-speed? Sorry, but I'm not inspired by a new train that only shaves 45 minutes off the trip to Montreal. This is the most populous and economically important part of the country. Let's do it right.

 

[kEiThZ]

@Euphoria I wish. But we're Canadian. Compromise and mediocrity are kind of in our DNA. I can honestly see Trump building High Speed Rail before any Canadian government.

But I remain eternally optimistic that some Canadian government will surprise me.

 

[TOareaFan]

 

[ShonTron]

View attachment 69798

That would be a very late Canadian. It takes the Richmond Hill corridor into Union Station.

 

[robmausser]

View attachment 69798

It would be so cool if there was some way to ... link the material posted rather than a picture.

It makes me all hyper just thinking about it, so I will name it a...hyperlink! Yeah, that sounds like a good name for this thing I just invented right now.

Oh well, if only such a thing existed. We could have a whole bunch of them together, like a web of them. An Internetworked web of "hyperlinks"

Then we could continue the forum of debate and discussions with such people, and like their stuff and whatnot.

Oh well, maybe someday.

Until then I guess we are just relegated to pictures of content.

 

[TOareaFan]

^i have pretty thick skin....so let's make a deal...if you don't like the way I post just tell me and ask me to stop posting....no need to contort yourself into knots of "cuteness"...

 

[Urban Sky]

Just FYI I have reached out to Via Rail to get more details about the recent interviews done with its CEO about getting HFR going. Expect a story on the site in the next few days - probably an opinion piece. I moved back to Toronto from London UK in 2014 so perhaps you can imagine my views on Via's current service!

I distinctly remember in college taking the Via home and a british dude quite vocally complaining on how slow the train was haha.

What if I told you that there are quite a few HSR (!) services in Europe, which operate at lower average speeds than VIA Rail's Corridor trains or Amtrak's Acela Express, despite a significantly higher maximum speed?

There have been so many scenarios. My lowest cost scenario:
- Coproduction on CP from De Beaujeu to Beare
- New heavy duty freight track Coteau to De Beaujeu ( only 6 miles)
- CTC on CP Winchester Sub, not necessarily retaining all double track
- Eight new siding extensions on CP Smiths Falls to Cherrywood, three mile siding length
- Connecting track CN to CP at Beare, and near Belleville
- Complete a third track on Kingston Sub Belleville to Kingston, 40 mph freight speed, not signalled, dedicated to CN roadswitchers, passing track every 20 miles
- Possibly short third track for CN Oshawa to Bowmanville, in Cobourg and Port Hope
VIA takes posession of CN line Liverpool to Coteau. CN retains trackage rights for local shipments only east of Kingston. CN serves Kingston and Bath via local track from Belleville. CN serves customers east of Kingston by roadswitchers based in Brockville, accessed via trackage rights from Smiths Falls

At this point, VIA has eliminated freight interference, which is sufficient to achieve a 4 hour schedule to Montreal and less to Ottawa, on greater frequency, with existing track and signals. From that point, you can incrementally upgrade with gradual growth in ridership.
[..]

[...]
Co-production could be in place by late 2019. One year of design and two summers to build the junctions at Beare and De Beaujeau, and lengthen the sidings. CTC on the Winchester is doable in this time frame.

Once you get the bulk of the freight off the CN Kingston line, you get an immediate timetable improvement thru both faster schedules and more frequent trains, and you can work at your own pace from there. CN can run its road switchers at night to serve on line customers - the freight tonnage would not be enough to degrade tracks. [...]

What legal precedents and government reports or statements from CN, CP or Transport Canada make you so confident that CN and CP could be enticed to commit to "co-production" or that the government has any intentions to force such practices?

[..]
- ViA slowly upgrades Toronto- Kingston to 120 mph service on the two former CN tracks, which become passenger-only.
- Later, the Gananoque connection is constructed as an incremental project.
- Later, Smiths Falls Sub is double tracked.
- Later, this line is electrified

- Paul

[...]
Once you have a third track for CN, you upgrade the two existing tracks and install PTC to give you 125 mph capability. The line needs to be grade separated so this might take a while as crossings are eliminated. CN won't need a third track end to end - there are only customers in a handful of places.

If the Kingston-Smiths Falls short cut is part of the plan (and it should be) the Kingston-Brockville-Coteau leg might only need to be 100 mph or so. That's enough for direct Montreal-Toronto service to be improved. CN can stay on the existing rails. I would plan for 125 mph Oshawa-Kingston-Smiths Falls - Ottawa - Coteau only.

- Paul

You seem to either not be aware of the level crossing regulations in Canada which force grade separations for speeds above 110 mph or underestimate the cost premium of having to grade separate every single level crossing.

2019 is not possible if the Peterboro line is the route. Huge amount of environmental and design work required, and then lots of construction. Let's not pretend this is "fixing" an old rail line. It would be a total new construction job. And some of the land has been sold and might require expropriation. There are buildings on the old ROW in places. I don't believe this is actually the preferred route. [..]
[...]

As far as I know, the entire former ROW section of the Havelock subdividison has been sold to the counties it traversed, which now host the Trans Canada Trail on it. As long as the trial is preserved and just moved by few meters, I don't believe this to be that problematic. Furthermore, reusing a former ROW ensures that there are no big earthworks to be done to re-accommodate rail services (unless where realignments are deemed necessary)...

[...]
I predict that First Nations consultation and negotiation will be part of the deal. There is a real opportunity to do something positive in this regard, on whatever route. VIA contracts out track maintenance already, and this could be an opportunity for a partnership - set up a First Nations run contracting firm to do the civil construction work and then the track maintenance. The First Nations along the Lakeshore are sophisticated and could manage this. Could lead to skills development and job opportunities. I would predict that Cabinet would insist on leveraging this project along these lines.
[...]

[...]
I raised the First Nations issue primarily in the context of whether 2019 is possible. Whether there is a partnership proposed or not, it will require time and effort to hold consultations and reach understandings. VIA can't pull a Metrolinx and just plunk a new line down without this step. Treaty status in the GTA is much clearer than in parts of Eastern Ontario. As noted, some may feel that VIA is not welcome on their land at all.

- Paul

At least in the map you provided in a later post, I cannot see how the Havelock subdivision conflicts with any First Nation areas.

For once can we not get the watered down version of transportation infrastructure? I see the advantages of having a designated passenger rail line, but can it please be high-speed? Sorry, but I'm not inspired by a new train that only shaves 45 minutes off the trip to Montreal. This is the most populous and economically important part of the country. Let's do it right.

Ever wondered how Canada has avoided building HSR while studying it for 30 years by now? I can't help myself to at least partly blame compulsion of "thinking big", "don't compromise" and "let's do it right". Shouldn't we passenger rail enthusiasts finally start to acknowledge that almost all HSR nations' main motivation for building HSR were severe capacity issues in their conventional passenger (not: freight!) rail networks (while travel time savings only played a secondary role - at least for the initial HSR network) and that all these countries started at roughly a third of the distance we are obsessing about with Quebec-Windsor, which would instantly catapult Canada from zero to the second-most dense HSR network in the world (if it was only ever built)?

That would be a very late Canadian. It takes the Richmond Hill corridor into Union Station.

I can't deny that delayed arrivals of the Canadian at an extent of the 5 hours suggested here (or even more) have happened in the past, but it seems like it arrived Toronto less than 1 hour late yesterday, so maybe that Metrolinx spokeswoman was already up a lot earlier yesterday morning than you assume...

 

[innsertnamehere]

I don't think anyone is advocating HSR all the way from Quebec to Windsor. Toronto - Ottawa - Montreal would be a much simpler first phase. It would put canada around 15km per million, or in place with other developed nations.

Besides, km per capita is a rather bullcrap metric. Infrastructure isn't measured by how many people live in an entire nation, but rather what cities are connected and how it affects economic prosperity. I could say that Canada is the least densely populated nation of north america, but that would be ignoring regional differences and obvious climate issues. One number for an entire nation does not relate to infrastructure that effects only parts of it.

 

[crs1026]

What legal precedents and government reports or statements from CN, CP or Transport Canada make you so confident that CN and CP could be enticed to commit to "co-production" or that the government has any intentions to force such practices?

The precedent is that we have DRZ in Northern Ontario, and in British Columbia.

The path forward is not "forcing" such practices. It's a matter of revenue per dollar of capital. They can meet the current and future Montreal-Toronto business with one third of the current capital investment. If the government put an offer on the table to buy out CN, with the prospect that CN would in turn buy their way onto the CP line, the shareholders would insist on it.

You seem to either not be aware of the level crossing regulations in Canada which force grade separations for speeds above 110 mph or underestimate the cost premium of having to grade separate every single level crossing.

No, I'm quite aware of it. My point was that once VIA owns the line, they can proceed to grade separate it incrementally at whatever pace the funding allows. And upgrade the track speed as that permits. Like others, I lament that Ottawa is unwilling to plunk down the money to do the whole line from end to end. If all they are going to offer is small change, then VIA has to devise a strategy to work incrementally. That's what I was proposing.

As far as I know, the entire former ROW section of the Havelock subdividison has been sold to the counties it traversed, which now host the Trans Canada Trail on it. As long as the trial is preserved and just moved by few meters, I don't believe this to be that problematic. Furthermore, reusing a former ROW ensures that there are no big earthworks to be done to re-accommodate rail services (unless where realignments are deemed necessary)...

There are buildings on the line in Tweed, for instance.

"Reusing a former ROW" which was never double track and was never engineered for speeds over 75 mph? And whose original engineering met the standards of what, the 1880's? We're just going to go out and lay concrete ties on the gravel that the bike trail uses? Use the culverts that date from the early 1900's? Retain the bridge piers that were last used in the 1960's, when plate diagrams and axle loadings were not what they are today? Assume that electrification won't require any new clearances that weren't thought through when the line was operated with steam engines?

Get serious. It will have to be re-engineered from end to end. Not to mention reassessing the impact on flora and fauna, which by the way has encroached on the right of way throughout. Who knows how many vulnerable species live in the trees that have grown on the ROW since the line was abandoned?

At least in the map you provided in a later post, I cannot see how the Havelock subdivision conflicts with any First Nation areas.

We're talking about entities with a history of nomadic and periodic movement throughout very broad reaches of land, with legal rulings and treaty rights (not to mention a national Constitution) enshrining their standing in the conservation of these areas. The tracks do not have to run through the center of a specific reserve to create the need to consult and address the issues raised. You can't do an EA without consultation.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

I don't think anyone is advocating HSR all the way from Quebec to Windsor. [...]

The tendency of passenger rail supporters, city councils and business groups from Quebec all the way to Windsor to reject any major passenger rail investment project which doesn't reach their city from day one, effectively means that they are advocating for the entire Quebec-Windsor route.

[...] Toronto - Ottawa - Montreal would be a much simpler first phase. It would put canada around 15km per million, or in place with other developed nations.

Besides, km per capita is a rather bullcrap metric. Infrastructure isn't measured by how many people live in an entire nation, but rather what cities are connected and how it affects economic prosperity. I could say that Canada is the least densely populated nation of north america, but that would be ignoring regional differences and obvious climate issues. One number for an entire nation does not relate to infrastructure that effects only parts of it.

580 km divided by 35.16 million Canadian residents equals 16 km per million capita, a metric which took France 13 years and Germany 19 years to achieve and that is from the year the first segment opened (which in the case of France's LGV sud-ouest was 10 years after the construction was approved by the government), making HSR the preferred choice for rail enthusiasts which can wait until 2039 for fast and modern trains to serve the entire Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal route. I agree that km per capita is a "bullcrap metric" to determine an appropriate road or rail infrastructure length, but I still deem it appropriate for measuring the scale and pace of the construction of an extremely expensive form of infrastructure which HSR undoubtedly is. Since building HSR has been primarily a responsible of the national government in all countries where it has been built so far, this is the population level it should be compared against.

The precedent is that we have DRZ in Northern Ontario, and in British Columbia.

The path forward is not "forcing" such practices. It's a matter of revenue per dollar of capital. They can meet the current and future Montreal-Toronto business with one third of the current capital investment. If the government put an offer on the table to buy out CN, with the prospect that CN would in turn buy their way onto the CP line, the shareholders would insist on it.
[...]

Directional routing zones have made obvious sense to CN and CP on these longhaul routes, as they allowed them to reduce the number of sidings while increasing the fluidity of their trains dramatically (given that both routes are single-tracked). What incentive, however, should CN have to provide CP with the advantage of overcoming the shortcomings of its single-tracked Belleville subdivision if they already enjoy the advantages of their entirely multiple-tracked Kingston subdivision? It would take more than soft pressure and I don't see any sign that the government or Transport Canada were considering to interfere into CN's access to its Kingston subdivision...

[...]
No, I'm quite aware of it. My point was that once VIA owns the line, they can proceed to grade separate it incrementally at whatever pace the funding allows. And upgrade the track speed as that permits. Like others, I lament that Ottawa is unwilling to plunk down the money to do the whole line from end to end. If all they are going to offer is small change, then VIA has to devise a strategy to work incrementally. That's what I was proposing.[...]

From all HSR studies I've seen for North America, the requirement to grade-separate all level crossings causes a huge jump in costs, which can hardly be justified unless speeds are increased to 240 km/h (150 mph), by which time you cannot share any longer your ROW with freight trains and will have to go greenfield alignments for substantial segment lengths. This is why VIA HFR costs $3 billion or $4 billion if electrified, whereas the Ecotrain study estimated the cost premium for full HSR to be only 20% higher than 200 km/h ($10,952 vs. $9,067 million, using the T-O-M figures) and that already included the costs for electrifying.

[...]
There are buildings on the line in Tweed, for instance.

"Reusing a former ROW" which was never double track and was never engineered for speeds over 75 mph? And whose original engineering met the standards of what, the 1880's? We're just going to go out and lay concrete ties on the gravel that the bike trail uses? Use the culverts that date from the early 1900's? Retain the bridge piers that were last used in the 1960's, when plate diagrams and axle loadings were not what they are today? Assume that electrification won't require any new clearances that weren't thought through when the line was operated with steam engines?

Get serious. It will have to be re-engineered from end to end. Not to mention reassessing the impact on flora and fauna, which by the way has encroached on the right of way throughout. Who knows how many vulnerable species live in the trees that have grown on the ROW since the line was abandoned?

We're talking about entities with a history of nomadic and periodic movement throughout very broad reaches of land, with legal rulings and treaty rights (not to mention a national Constitution) enshrining their standing in the conservation of these areas. The tracks do not have to run through the center of a specific reserve to create the need to consult and address the issues raised. You can't do an EA without consultation.

- Paul

All these issues are valid and serious, but pale in comparison to having to build any greenfield segments (especially in such difficult areas as with the Gananoque bypass between Kingston and Smith Falls)...