VIA Rail

[Allandale25]

^ good points and maybe CBC would accept this as a video so that there is a balanced view and another perspective. I worry there will be many who will see the video and miss some key pieces of context, i.e., CN and the logistics of the lakeshore route. Plus, Don River to Pickering Junction...

 

[crs1026]

The new video is pretty well made, and makes some good points about the changes in the country over the past decade, but I disagree about GO to Peterborough and reverting to the Ecotrain alignment, and not just because throwing all the cards in the air would further delay getting anything at all built.

Well, the three-year development phase already throws the cards in the air, as does having to plan the Highway 7 bypass around Sharbot Lake.

It's also fairly clear that the HFR Team are open to adjustments to the alignment, such as the diversion alongside highway 7 proposed by Sharbot Lake residents, that would solve the worst of the curvature problems and make a much faster running time to Glen Tay possible; but a complete rethink of the route is firmly off the table. That would be a harder thing to ask than saving VIA Rail from outsourced operations.

So, are the proponents free to offer any new fresh ideas or are they already constrained by a few things?

Are they free to propose the added up-speed to the Tapscott-Havelock portion to full HSR? That might put an end to freight on that line, and make GO service impractical......but the improved trip time might justify the extra $B or so.

I'm not arguing for an Ecotrainish alignment, but I would think the jury ought to still be out. One would assume that a non-Peterboro HSR route would have to use an existing corridor until it crossed Durham Region, so not really HSR in that zone....but once east of Newcastle, there's an awful lot of open space. I'm not sure the rationale for non-Peterborough is valid if about land costs or avoiding built up areas.... more about those level crossings and possibly what it would take to find a straight route. Certainly it would not work as HSR alongside CN/CP, but further north, south of the Shield? Let's see some data.

If the team has already converged on a solution that assumes a non-HSR Peterborough routing west of Havelock and new construction around Sharbot Lake, that's fine, but then one must accept that the only variables remaining for the proposals are how long the new section needs to be and whether the new section is HSR or not..

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

I'm insufficiently expert to completely judge the technical arguments on the major alignments. I can probably do the budgetary and political calculus better than many, but I need others to provide the basic facts that underlie that calculus .

On that note, I'm unpersuaded by the argument that 'x' route is so self-evidently better that we must preclude the proponent from considering another.

If 'x' route is indeed an order of magnitude better, presumably any proponent with a given set of constraints (minimum operating standards, and maximum public subsidy) would choose 'x' route. What then is the harm in theoretically allowing consideration of a different route by the proponent?

Set the standard; set the subsidy, allow the proponents open-ended choices on how to fulfill those requirements.

 

[reaperexpress]

^ One constraint I would impose though is that the plan should use its own dedicated tracks (outside of the GTA/Montreal), lest we fall into the same trap Via has fallen into so many times before, which is to just do a few little upgrades to the CN line and get fancy new trains. Because, sure we can make a deal with CN to run from Toronto to Montreal in 3h59 using the existing line, but the moment the spotlight is off them, CN (or CP) will go back to placing freight trains ahead of Via trains.

 

[Urban Sky]

This makes sense to me. Working backwards from a sensible position that competes with air and road travel is the only path that I can get my head around.

I'm always so surprised at how stingy politicians and rail enthusiasts are when it comes to Canadian HSR. I think it's wildly overestimated how much the cost of HSR would bother the general public. This is infrastructure that would directly impact millions of people. One of the many studies must have quantified the cost of not having HSR, I have not idea what it is, but if you told me billions are wasted annually on crappy travel between Toronto and Montreal I'd believe it. I have never talked to anyone that doesn't enthusiastically support the concept of HSR in Canada, and I don't live in a bubble. The same is true of my right leaning friends and family in Alberta when talking about rail between Calgary and Edmonton.

The appetite is there for the big project. I don't understand the lack of ambition. This is going to cost many billions of dollars because it's worth many billions of dollars.

[...]

When it comes to the obstacles that get discussed here, like who owns tracks and what route works best.... Nobody cares. People I've talked to all just think its absurd that they can't travel to visit their family in another city like they would in any other developed country. Instead they have to waste time and money and frustration at an airport or on the 401.

The question is not who is eager to see and ride a HSR train, but who is willing to cough up the $20+ billion to make that wish become reality...

The Shinkansen is estimated to contribute 5B$CAD annually to the Japanese economy before calculating any externalities like carbon emissions or improving the cost of housing. It seems to me that the cost of not doing enough is more than just biting the bullet and getting on with a proper train line.

Almost all of these benefits will accrue at the busiest HSR corridors, which see ridership levels (up to 14 trains per hour, IIRC), which are many times anything we can expect in Canada...

Also... On the note of sleeper trains. I've also always wondered about a car/sleeper train. My parents often ride a popular car train from Virginia to Florida. I could see 2 potential routes in Canada that would make sense for this model during the summer months. Toronto to Halifax, and Calgary/Edmonton to Vancouver. Those are both popular vacation spots where a lot of people drive 2-3 days and stay for extended periods of time in rural and natural settings.

The Rocky Mountains at least have a clear vacation value during winter, but how many people are going to ride a night train between Toronto and Halifax outside the two-and-a-half months of summer school vacation...? Also, whoever is driving such long distances rather than flying and renting a car/van clearly travels on a tight budget and would struggle to afford Sleeper fares (plus car transport fees) for an entire family...

Your comments are quite on the point. So often Canadian Politicians seem to cater to the most vocal and strident yelling of opinion as opposed to actually taking a stand for constructive reasons and showing non-partisan leadership.

We may argue about the route but build the damn thing, just not study it to death as it the norm in this country.

Also agree with your comment re car/sleeper trains and the Auto Train (which is a great and convenient ride). My extension to the comment would be to say that there is so much more that could be done re the Canadian as well. It is a prized tourist train above all and should be treated as so. Time to change the route to North of Superior. Add an Auto Train mix as well and begin to build a better franchise. People come from around the world to ride those cars and experience that story and it’s high time to upgrade our game.

Despite all the conspiracy theories many Canadian railfans will all too happily share surrounding the 1990 cuts, once we acknowledge that the federal government felt the pressing need to rein into public spending which escalated interest payments on federal debt, it becomes clear why the Canadian ended up on the CN line East of Winnipeg: Because choosing the CP line would have only allowed the elimination of the Sudbury-White River run (annual direct deficit: $943k in 1988), whereas choosing the CN line allowed to eliminate the much longer (1498 km vs. 484 km) and much more expensive to operate (locomotive-hauled Coach-plus-Sleeper HEP train vs. RDCs) Capreol-Winnipeg remote overnight service (annual direct deficit: $6.7 million in 1988, i.e. almost seven times more than SUDB-WHTR). (Similarly, choosing CN West of Winnipeg allowed the Skeena to connect with the Canadian in Jasper, rather than extending the Skeena's route by some 300 km towards Kamloops.)

I seriously struggle to identify any indications that this economic and political calculus might have fundamentally changed...

Of course, VIA had an overnight Montreal-Toronto train for many years and I often used to take it (with a bed) when I lived in Montreal but had meetings here. It departed Montreal about 11pm, stopped en route near Brockville (?) and arrived at Union about 7.30. Just time for a good breakfast at the Royal York, a meeting and time to catch the 5pm 'express' home. VERY convenient and far less than a flight.

I would have taken such a night train more than a dozen trains in the last two years alone for very similar business purposes, but the fact remains that the same reason which contributed to the decade-long decline in Europe (though partly reversed in recent years) apply much stronger to North America...

^ One constraint I would impose though is that the plan should use its own dedicated tracks (outside of the GTA/Montreal), lest we fall into the same trap Via has fallen into so many times before, which is to just do a few little upgrades to the CN line and get fancy new trains. Because, sure we can make a deal with CN to run from Toronto to Montreal in 3h59 using the existing line, but the moment the spotlight is off them, CN (or CP) will go back to placing freight trains ahead of Via trains.

I believe we can safely assume that no private company would commit itself to assume any revenue (or other commercial) risks, if it wasn't able to secure a credible and legally enforceable guarantee of operational priority over freight movements...

 

[CapitalSeven]

I'm not trying to discourage creative speculation about route alternatives, but I'm not sure everyone is taking full account of the terrain in northeastern Ontario. The original line between Havelock and Glen Tay has all those 2000 foot curves for a reason. I've driven Hwy 7 and most of the roads that go south from it a number of times. Its beautiful country and difficult to run a railway through in a straight line. There aren't any easy alignments south of the Sheild either, with a lot of lakes in the way.

I would suggest going over the route on Google Earth with the altitude function enabled, and you'll see that every curve goes around a significant hill, pond, or bog. There are some possible diversions along 7 which are straighter, but with vertical challenges requiring overpasses or trenching. Upgrading this from HFR to HSR would cost billions, which might be worth it. I guess we'll see what the bidders come up with.

 

[Urban Sky]

I'm not trying to discourage creative speculation about route alternatives, but I'm not sure everyone is taking full account of the terrain in northeastern Ontario. The original line between Havelock and Glen Tay has all those 2000 foot curves for a reason. I've driven Hwy 7 and most of the roads that go south from it a number of times. Its beautiful country and difficult to run a railway through in a straight line. There aren't any easy alignments south of the Sheild either, with a lot of lakes in the way.

I would suggest going over the route on Google Earth with the altitude function enabled, and you'll see that every curve goes around a significant hill, pond, or bog. There are some possible diversions along 7 which are straighter, but with vertical challenges requiring overpasses or trenching. Upgrading this from HFR to HSR would cost billions, which might be worth it. I guess we'll see what the bidders come up with.

I can’t speak for other people here, but trust me, I know how curvy the Havelock Subdivision is and how to model travel times, as the latter is my day job, which gives me access to the specialist modelling and simulation softwares the entire industry uses (so that I no longer have to rely on my own Excel templates, as during my Bachelor and Master Thesis).

East of Tweed, the alignment becomes like you describe, but all the way from Toronto to Bonarlaw, it would be my preferred alignment, which should be in principle upgradable to the limits which still allow cohabitation with light freight traffic (160 mph, according to FRA regulations).

Whatever you do East of Bonarlaw depends on whether you are building a HFR or directly an HSR alignment: if you cheap out and stick to HFR (for now), you should build it as cheap as possible (to ensure that building a Bypass later has a high BCR while mitigating the risks arising from the Sunk Cost Fallacy) and that means sticking to the admittedly suboptimal alignment as much as much as possible. If you build HSR, however, you should bite the bullet and build an approximately 200 km long new greenfield alignment to bridge the gap between Bonarlaw and Smiths Falls, which has the added advantage that avoiding the Canadian Shield means that you almost have no choice but to serve Kingston and thus offers the opportunity to connect between HSR and local Lakeshore services:

PS: the existing Havelock alignment is not that bad: I‘ve plugged all curves and grades into our Simulator and yielded a travel time of almost exactly 3 hours (i.e. the initial promissed HFR travel time) between Ottawa and Toronto using the Acela Express as rolling stock…

 

[CapitalSeven]

Thanks Urban Sky, that's a really interesting perspective. We all wish VIA would get into the specifics on these issues but they are actually more secretive than Metrolinx on all of this. If I understand correctly you would run HSR to somewhere between Bonarlaw and Tweed, then divert all the way down to Kingston and back to Smith Falls roughly parallel to Hwy 15. The last part figured in previous proposals. That's all doable but it's a ton of new ROW and adds about 60 kilometres to the routing. What would you think of diverting instead to the CP ROW around Reidville and then working with CP to upgrade and straighten the section between there and Perth to HSR? I think that would be a lot easier and involve half the land taking.

EDIT BTW, there's a flat straight hydro corridor running about half of the link I'm suggesting.

 

[crs1026]

Whatever you do East of Bonarlaw depends on whether you are building a HFR or directly an HSR alignment: if you cheap out and stick to HFR (for now), you should build it as cheap as possible (to ensure that building a Bypass later has a high BCR while mitigating the risks arising from the Sunk Cost Fallacy)

Your reference to the Sunk Cost Fallacy reminded me of another issue - is HSR most readily compatible with the Alexandria Sub east of Ottawa ie is the (land-banked) M+O Sub route now off the table for good?

I don't have a view one way or the other - but it would be interesting to see whether either proponent looks at that segment.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

Thanks Urban Sky, that's a really interesting perspective. We all wish VIA would get into the specifics on these issues but they are actually more secretive than Metrolinx on all of this.

It no longer is VIA which is secretive, as it‘s the Infrastructure Bank which has completely taken over the project and created its own HFR company.

If I understand correctly you would run HSR to somewhere between Bonarlaw and Tweed, then divert all the way down to Kingston and back to Smith Falls roughly parallel to Hwy 15. The last part figured in previous proposals. That's all doable but it's a ton of new ROW and adds about 60 kilometres to the routing.

I would leave the Havelock Sub exactly at Bonarlaw, where the Havelock turns East towards Tweed and get to the 401 in a line as straight as possible:

Agreed, building a 200 km long greenfield HSR segment would be expensive, but the point is that you would avoid such expensive construction for the remaining 400 km. Upgrading the existing (relatively straight alignments) for Toronto-Bonarlaw and Smiths Falls-Montreal would be the by far cheapest way to achieve HSR between Montreal and Toronto…

What would you think of diverting instead to the CP ROW around Reidville and then working with CP to upgrade and straighten the section between there and Perth to HSR? I think that would be a lot easier and involve half the land taking.

I believe that having HSR bypass Kingston is a non-starter. The only way the original HFR alignment could have been made acceptable to Kingston is that the alignment bypassing Kingston (i.e. the Eastern half of the Havelock Sub) is so bad that it would naturally become the biggest bottleneck and thus the first segment to be bypassed by a proper HSR alignment (and that that Bypass wouldn‘t ignore Kingston).

 

[Urban Sky]

Your reference to the Sunk Cost Fallacy reminded me of another issue - is HSR most readily compatible with the Alexandria Sub east of Ottawa ie is the (land-banked) M+O Sub route now off the table for good?

I don't have a view one way or the other - but it would be interesting to see whether either proponent looks at that segment.

- Paul

I would argue that the HSR light scenario (i.e. 200 mph greenfield where unavoidable, upgrades up to 160 mph where within existing Corridors) with the best value-for-money would be to use the Alexandria Sub up to Moose Creek, then build a connection to the CP line at Monkland and then follow the Winchester Sub all the way to Dorval, just like I outlined in my Bachelor Thesis:

Obviously, CP would need to agree to this kind of Corridor (not: track) sharing, but given that they seem to have accepted this East of De Beaujeu (which indeed renders the old CP line via Vanleek Hill and Rigaud superfluous), I don’t see why whatever arrangement was agreed could not be extended further West…

 

[lrt's friend]

All true... but if the urban areas already exist along the Lakeshore, and if that is where the population growth will be, then we need to make that investment and build infrastructure to serve thap population regardless of whether HSR happens or not.

In that respect, building a regional service between London and Kingston is a separate project which imho offers equal or better use of public funds and equal or better carbon reduction than T-O-M-Q rail... so why are we not building that infrastructure first? Again, five Kitchener-Toronto cars removed from the 401 is more value created than taking one Toronto-Ottawa driver away.

When the air industry (and more specifically the air terminal industry) gets its act together, they may eventually find a "virtual airport" HSR to be a better use of capital than adding runways and terminal slots. A air competitive HSR would look nothing like a road competitive regional rail network, and would price very different.

The fallacy is when we consider the route through the Shield as performing the same function, and achieving the same result, as a regional railway along the Lakeshore. Quite probably, we need both - and the question is - given limits to affordability, which we should build first.

- Paul

Hmmm. What are we trying to do? Isn't it intercity service between the big cities? This is where the benefits of HFR/HSR are derived. HSR cannot serve multiple small cities relatively close together. Also, we are a lot further off in dealing with southwestern Ontario cities. So, delay all of this for further decades to wait for a London/Windsor leg to catch up?

Any analysis of costs and benefits need to assess time savings, potential customer base, and the distance travelled. 1 passenger travelling 100 km is not equivalent 1 passenger travelling 500 km. In fact, you need 5 passengers travelling 100km to equal 1 passenger travelling 500 km. If we say 1 passenger at both distances is the same, this is looking at this strictly from a local Toronto viewpoint, and not the overall benefit.

This whole project is not about an enhanced Go service travelling between Kingston and London. As I said, between Kingston and Toronto, this not a best use of HSR if we hope to serve the many cities in between. Also, is there a sufficient population base in Kingston to justify HSR between the two cities. I highly doubt it. The only basis of potential success for a high investment HSR project is to connect both Ottawa and Montreal, a 6 million population base versus less than 200K if we build only to Kingston.

 

[crs1026]

Hmmm. What are we trying to do? Isn't it intercity service between the big cities? This is where the benefits of HFR/HSR are derived. HSR cannot serve multiple small cities relatively close together. Also, we are a lot further off in dealing with southwestern Ontario cities. So, delay all of this for further decades to wait for a London/Windsor leg to catch up?

Any analysis of costs and benefits need to assess time savings, potential customer base, and the distance travelled. 1 passenger travelling 100 km is not equivalent 1 passenger travelling 500 km. In fact, you need 5 passengers travelling 100km to equal 1 passenger travelling 500 km. If we say 1 passenger at both distances is the same, this is looking at this strictly from a local Toronto viewpoint, and not the overall benefit.

This whole project is not about an enhanced Go service travelling between Kingston and London. As I said, between Kingston and Toronto, this not a best use of HSR if we hope to serve the many cities in between. Also, is there a sufficient population base in Kingston to justify HSR between the two cities. I highly doubt it. The only basis of potential success for a high investment HSR project is to connect both Ottawa and Montreal, a 6 million population base versus less than 200K if we build only to Kingston.

We are saying the same thing, mostly. I was not saying HFR or HSR (whichever emerges) should address Lakeshore regional service.
My point - which followed from the podcast’s comments about Calgary/Edmonton choosing local transit projects over intercity rail as a first step - was to ask which will take more car-miles off the highway: T-O-M High (whatever) rail,, or regional rail centered on the GTA.
We agree on the math, my point is getting many short-distance cars off the 401 has a bigger impact on teamsportation around the GTA than getting a certain number of Ottawa- bound cars off the highways.
Obviously, I don’t have data - but it would be interesting to do the comparison. If the VIA decision leans more to a higher priced HSR, which clearly can’t meet those shorter distance needs, it’s fair to ask how that investment
In that respect, the business case is not between T-O-M HSR versus HFR, it’s between either of those and the same money spent on regional services (…. Or local subways…..or LRT….) Maybe the T-o-M project comes in second. Less hlamourous, perhaps…. But a fair question to ask for data on.

- Paul

 

[lrt's friend]

I am not sure what we gain (other than trying to avoid most of the shield country) by diverting trains from the Havelock/Tweed area down to Kingston and then back to Smiths Falls. It lengthens the track significantly between Toronto and Ottawa and ultimately to Montreal, which negatively affects scheduled times.

Likewise trying to sort of include Cornwall with a bus transfer.

All these crazy diversions will just create enormous distances of new greenfield railways and will completely defeat rail service along the Lakeshore. Once Kingston is taken out of the equation, there will be not a sufficient market to serve the remaining cities along the lakefront and St. Lawrence. The only possibility remaining is a GO Service extension perhaps to Belleville and Brockville and Cornwall will lose rail service entirely.

Let's understand that this project will not be HFR versus HSR. It will likely be a combination of the two. Certain sections running at HSR speed and other sections running at slower speeds. It seems to me that we complicate matters greatly if we try to run HSR and local service using the same track, and this will add costs. All the stations along the Lakeshore will likely have to be moved.

When we try to combine Lakeshore/HFR service, we start compromising the whole project and we end up doing things more like we did in the past, where we throw a tremendous amount of money a project with dubious benefits particularly for passengers travelling longer distances.

Also, the further east we try to connect Ottawa to the Lakeshore, the bigger the diversion becomes. The current connection at Brockville is non-starter. It just makes the diversion into Ottawa too great for Montreal bound passengers. A diversion at Napanee skips Kingston entirely, so why bother?

 

[lrt's friend]

We are saying the same thing, mostly. I was not saying HFR or HSR (whichever emerges) should address Lakeshore regional service.
My point - which followed from the podcast’s comments about Calgary/Edmonton choosing local transit projects over intercity rail as a first step - was to ask which will take more car-miles off the highway: T-O-M High (whatever) rail,, or regional rail centered on the GTA.
We agree on the math, my point is getting many short-distance cars off the 401 has a bigger impact on teamsportation around the GTA than getting a certain number of Ottawa- bound cars off the highways.
Obviously, I don’t have data - but it would be interesting to do the comparison. If the VIA decision leans more to a higher priced HSR, which clearly can’t meet those shorter distance needs, it’s fair to ask how that investment
In that respect, the business case is not between T-O-M HSR versus HFR, it’s between either of those and the same money spent on regional services (…. Or local subways…..or LRT….) Maybe the T-o-M project comes in second. Less hlamourous, perhaps…. But a fair question to ask for data on.

- Paul

I think there is no equivalency with the Calgary-Edmonton debate. There is an already established market for rail service between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. That does not exist between Calgary and Edmonton. This is also a totally a within Alberta project. TOM is interprovincial and therefore is entirely a federal concern. So, Alberta chose to focus on local LRT. Does this apply to the TOM HFR/HSR debate? No. Ontario already has the choice to improve the London-Toronto rail line if they so choose. Are they between Kitchener and London? Going east, it becomes more complicated because it is the main CN and CP freight line to Montreal. This again becomes a federal issue as well affecting major private businesses, the freight railways. I think this goes nowhere, as has been demonstrated with past failed projects. Even if we found a way to work with CN or CP, there is a further barrier at Oshawa with GO Train service potentially delaying longer distance trains. I am sure it has already happened countless times.

Sorry, but the Toronto focus of your argument does not serve the overall interests of the greater corridor population. And that is the point of HFR/HSR. It is not a Toronto project.