[crs1026]

Exactly. There are all these solutions being pitched to high express trains on the Toronto-Kingston-Montreal on the CN freight corridor, and other express Ottawa by-pass trains on the main CP freight corridor, missing the point that there are can be no express on the freight corridor because it is owned by freight companies which prioritize freight. The scheduled times for VIA are set to the lame timings they are, not because the trains aren't capable of doing the trip faster, but because they will not be going full speed the whole way because they will be slowed down in between freight trains, on sidings waiting for trains to pass, slowed because the track geometry doesn't support it in that location, etc and there is nothing they can do about it because it isn't their tracks and the improvements that would be made on those tracks would be made to benefit freight.

Somehow when we point out that HfR is a good, but not optimum, solution, we are accused of totally missing the point. I think that’s an unbalanced and somewhat extreme response. I get the point, but that doesn’t mean I’m prepared to pretend there are no low points.

There is nothing good about constraining the marketability of rail service between the nation’s two largest cities. One viewpoint suggests that HFR will be “good enough” to meet this market for now, with potential to improve over time, and perhaps that will be true. But it is not “missing the point” to acknowledge that this is a retreat in expectations. Even if we have to take a few hits to win HFR funding, I fail to see any cause for celebrating that tradeoff, nor for rationalising it away.

I do get that the historical benchmarks for direct express Toronto-Montreal service are no longer achievable - and in fact the 3:59 - 4:20 timings were never really sustained reliably “back in the day”. We do need to separate the urban legend from the reality.

I continue to harp on the Lakeshore service because I do believe there is a role for second-tier passenger service in the country’s most densely populated region. Having HFR but not advancing this second tier is not a step forward, IMHO. VIA has hinted at a service model for the Lakeshore, but this plan has not been articulated in any detail, beyond some PR utterances....and Ottawa, who have the ultimate control, hasn’t made any commitment. I appreciate @urban Sky’s efforts to give us insight into this concept, but he can’t speak for his employer nor can he reveal details that might matter. So until that plan emerges, we have to balance what we know about the cost and operational difficulty of mixing this service with CN freight against what might be intended conceptually. Again, I don’t think it’s “missing the point” to observe that this service faces obstacles. Nor is it wrong to be concerned that expectations eg trip times are being eroded - again, let’s not rationalise away the tradeoff.

As to the practicality and cost-efficiency of this second tier of rail service, consider how easily government finds the land and funding to expand 400-series highways. The second tier is an affordable and prudent use of public capital.

Lastly, we seem to all agree that HFr will improve the acceptability of paassenger rail such that a more substantial flow of investment capital will happen in the next decade. I don’t see the problem with considering how that investment might be deployed. Don’t assume that HFR will continue to soak up this money stream to the exclusion of other projects. As to the Lakeshore - investing capital in the CN line to offset CN’s freight impacts, and sustain this shared line until we can afford to build a dedicated passenger line, may be a good strategy for the next 20 years. Whatever VIA plans, we should not set this plan up to “paddle harder to stand still” as CN builds its own business. We may need to invest to sustain and improve reliability and trip timing here also.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

I continue to harp on the Lakeshore service because I do believe there is a role for second-tier passenger service in the country’s most densely populated region. Having HFR but not advancing this second tier is not a step forward, IMHO.

- Paul

Totally agree with you Paul. I fully support HFR and want to see it happen as soon as possible, but as part of the deal there should be good and improved Lakeshore service. Just like in Toronto it's possible for advocates to want to see multiple LRT/BRT/relief lines constructed (in addition to State of Good Repair) at the same time. I don't see this as HFR or Lakeshore improvements. Both should happen.

 

[robmausser]

Totally agree with you Paul. I fully support HFR and want to see it happen as soon as possible, but as part of the deal there should be good and improved Lakeshore service. Just like in Toronto it's possible for advocates to want to see multiple LRT/BRT/relief lines constructed (in addition to State of Good Repair) at the same time. I don't see this as HFR or Lakeshore improvements. Both should happen.

Its not what should happen, its what CAN happen.

You can give Lakeshore nicer new trains, new stations, but train frequency is dictated by CN, and the trains still will be behind schedule and slow due to CN and their freight. Full Stop.

 

[Urban Sky]

Its not what should happen, its what CAN happen.

Which is why I tried multiple times to create a separate thread to have one for what can happen (i.e. this thread) and then one for what should happen (which could be called “fantasy rail discussions”), as the two discussions are based on completely different assumptions and environments, but Paul has regrettably shot down and undermined every single attempt of doing so for some reason...

 

[nfitz]

Perhaps we should move the fantasy HFR discussions to another thread!

Seriously though ... this is a Toronto forum, not a rail forum. One thread for inter-city national rail service is more than enough.

 

[SFO-YYZ]

Which is why I tried multiple times to create a separate thread to have one for what can happen (i.e. this thread) and then one for what should happen (which could be called “fantasy rail discussions”), as the two discussions are based on completely different assumptions and environments, but Paul has regrettably shot down and undermined every single attempt of doing so for some reason...

The difference between could and should. Though in VIA's context, it's more that we are overly preoccupied with whether or not we should that we didn't stop to think if we could.

 

[crs1026]

Which is why I tried multiple times to create a separate thread to have one for what can happen (i.e. this thread) and then one for what should happen (which could be called “fantasy rail discussions”), as the two discussions are based on completely different assumptions and environments, but Paul has regrettably shot down and undermined every single attempt of doing so for some reason...

Respectfully, my impression of your agenda in trying to separate the VIA discussion is to have one thread that speaks to “All the great things ViA is doing and has in the works and has gotten right” and a different thread for “what are the risks and deficiencies and things in passenger rail that ought to change”. Apparently voicing the latter is somehow inappropriate or of lesser concern?

I don’t consider the question of “How should VIA structure its Lakeshore service post-HfR” to be a fantasy discussion. Nor is “What ought to happen next after HFR launches”. Those questions have no mandated answer yet, but they are meaningful to get our heads around. We may be spectators and not professionals or decisionmakers, but isn’t that what public forums are for?

In my experience strategy generally involves exploration of strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities. Personally, I’m a lot more interested in discussing the strategy and execution of strategy around rail passenger especially in Ontario, than just observing on models of trains etc. As to execution, that discussion always starts with identifying risks. It’s not a constructive discussion if we are obliged to assume that VIA and Ottawa have figured everything out and nothing might be done differently and nothing will go wrong.

Admittedly, some of the discussions get loopy, and because nothing changes quickly in this space, we often circle back into topics that have been beaten to death before. I do try to stay focused. But if challenging anything status quo means jumping to another thread....

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

No, you are "totally missing" my point: I'm not saying that there is no economic case to build the Ottawa bypass from the outset, I'm saying that it's not worth building at all.

To explain this, let's look at an actual real-world example of the Bremen Freight Bypass:


Basically, an 11.7 km long bypass (from Sagehorn to Bremen-Gabelung) avoids a 45.6 km long trip through Bremen (Germany's 11th-largest city and smallest city-State with just over 500k people), thus shaving 33.9 km off the route or 2.9 km for every km bypass built:

View attachment 303124
Adapted from: DB Netz Register of Inftastructure

Note that out of 21 intercity (IC/EC/ICE) trains running daily between Cologne and Hamburg, only 6 make use of this bypass, whereas 15 trains (i.e. one per hour) use the regular (longer) line to serve Bremen Central Station:

View attachment 303125
Source: Fernbahn.de

Consequently, the Bypass line is unlikely to be upgraded beyond its current speed limit of 100 km/h (even though the regular line is capable of 120-200 km/h), as even at an assumed average speed of 160 km/h on the regular line (a unrealistically high estimate!), an average speed of 100 km/h on the bypass route would save exactly 10 minutes, whereas even an upgrade to 300 km/h (the fastest speed of any train reached in Germany while in revenue service) would fail to save another 5 minutes):

View attachment 303130
Note: speed figures highlighted in red means that the average speed required to achieve the desired travel time saving exceeds the average speed assumed for the regular route.

Now, let's look at the Ottawa bypass and assume an average speed of 120 km/h (i.e. roughly the average speed implied by the latest travel times we've seen for HFR) for the segment you want to bypass (i.e. De Beaujeu to Smiths Falls): This time, the regular route is 214 km and the bypass route is 146 km, meaning that the bypass would save 68 km or about 450 meter for every kilometer of Bypass built. Note that the bypass is 12 times longer than the Bremen Freight Bypass, but shaves only twice as much of distance off the route. Note also that upgrading the Winchester subdivision to HFR standards means building new tracks and passing loops, whereas the existing route via Ottawa is already mostly straight and requires very minor upgrades for HFR. Anyways, let's still assume we would build that bypass and chose an average speed so that it saved 30 minutes of travel time (i.e. at 113.8 km/h, see table below), every subsequent upgrade on the Ottawa route would reduce that travel time advantage and would eventually make the whole bypass redundant once the average speed on the "regular route" exceeds 160 km/h (i.e. an increase of only one-third compared to HFR speeds).

View attachment 303146
Note: as in the last table, the speed figures highlighted in red means that the average speed required to achieve the desired travel time saving exceeds the average speed assumed for the regular route.


In the end, the fact that the incremental costs to upgrade an alignment raise exponentially with the design speed, it is clear that the bypass would never be upgraded to HSR standards and that's the point where even you should realize that it would be a costly mistake to ever build it...



This is complete nonsense: the GJT model shows that a decrease in headway from 60 to 30 is equivalent to a reduction of travel time by 13 minutes (i.e. the perceived penalty decreases from 39 to 26 minutes). Therefore, having that second hourly train stop in Ottawa has the same effect to demand for Ottawa-Montreal and Ottawa-Toronto than upgrading the lines to shave off 13 minutes on both sides of Ottawa. This extra demand might not matter for stations like Kingston or Peterborough, but in the case of Ottawa, it would be huge...



I'm always happy to lay down why bypassing Ottawa would be extremely wasteful in terms of capital and operating costs, but I do start to wonder what still remains to be explained...

Interesting analysis, even if it is a strawman argument. You said, "for the segment you want to bypass (i.e. De Beaujeu to Smiths Falls)" yet I never said anything about De Beaujeu. In fact, I said:

While using the Winchester Sub would technically be an option, I don't think it is a very likely one given that I don't think CP would be willing to have their network disconnected from the Atlantic ports.

If I wasn't suggesting the use of the Winchester sub, I am not quite sure what other bypass route you had in mind that would extend all the way to De Beaujeu. One of the other problems with using the Winchester sub form De Beaujeu as a bypass, is it runs parallel and within 7.5 km to VIA's own Alexandria Sub for almost 50 km. It seems kind of a waste to me. Better to have trains to/from Ottawa use the same track as the Toronto-Montreal trains whenever feasible.

As I said before, I do agree that for HFR, an Ottawa bypass doesn't make sense. When we are ready to upgrade to HSR (and demand warrants it for high frequency on both routes), things change, but not because the route is shorter, but because the train won't have to slow down for Ottawa. Even if there was the political will to have trains drive through Ottawa station without stopping, they would still have to slow down for the curves in and out of the station, which could be tough to upgrade. As a result, ignoring any extra distance traveled, I could easily see a 20 minute time savings (if not more) from avoiding speed reductions alone, ignoring any additional distance (50 km at 300km/h is 10 minutes instead of 30 minutes at a 100km/h average speed over the same distance). When you take that into account, you realize that the bypass doesn't even have to take the shortest route, but could be further north to maximise the amount of shared track. The key is the bypass needs to be faster, not just shorter.

Since strawman arguments seem so popular on this forum, I will say this again, none of this is feasible until there is demand for at least 15 trains a day on each of the Toronto-Montreal, Toronto-Ottawa and Ottawa-Montreal routes and VIA has the money to upgrade HFR to HSR.

 

[EnviroTO]

Somehow when we point out that HfR is a good, but not optimum, solution, we are accused of totally missing the point. I think that’s an unbalanced and somewhat extreme response. I get the point, but that doesn’t mean I’m prepared to pretend there are no low points.

I don't know what is extreme about a response that says "pitching express services on the freight corridor" as an alternate solution to HFR is "missing the point". VIA had express on the Lakeshore line pre-Covid, and probably will again in the future, but it isn't that fast and wasn't allowing VIA to meet its targets (which are often reduction in operating cost targets).

I continue to harp on the Lakeshore service because I do believe there is a role for second-tier passenger service in the country’s most densely populated region. Having HFR but not advancing this second tier is not a step forward, IMHO.

They have committed to retaining connections to Kingston and Belleville. The HFR isn't a plan to advance service on the Lakeshore line, it is an admittance that they can't make headway on the Lakeshore line, the line they have been 100% committed to for many decades, and the admittance that the biggest obstacle is they don't own the tracks. This second tier will continue to exist, but I'm unsure what you expect a project to deal with the issue of "not owning tracks" and to deal with the issue of "chronic under funding of operations" would be expected to do on Lakeshore.

VIA has hinted at a service model for the Lakeshore, but this plan has not been articulated in any detail, beyond some PR utterances....and Ottawa, who have the ultimate control, hasn’t made any commitment.

There have been no plans for HFR in general articulated in any detail, and no commitment to funding HFR, so again I'm not sure why you would expect that there should have been significant commitments on Lakeshore when there is no commitment to anything at all. HFR is really VIA's last kick at the can to propose a workable solution forward. Off and on various governments have toyed with pulling the plug completely on VIA. If VIA can't sell this level of one-time infrastructure funding commitment, which is really focused on reusing old railway beds to keep costs as low as possible, then it will not likely survive because brand new HSR would cost far more, and the freight lines aren't going to move out of the way.

 

[ManyQuestions]

Posting this here because I believe VIA is getting a similar model? Interesting to see the 3rd rail contact shoe. I wonder if that could be added to the Mount Royal tunnel for HFR if a 3rd rail in the tunnel was added?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1367279659344347140

I see no realistic scenarios where a new tunnel is constructed. It would need to be a fantastically expensive new bore that may not even be possible given the existing building foundations. The existing tunnel was already widened to its maximum possible extent without encroaching on building foundations in order to fit the platforms of the McGill REM station. Furthermore, widening a metro/subway tunnel to accommodate heavy rail running non-stop along the route and bypassing multiple stations would be akin to a total rebuild and be correspondingly disruptive.

 

[EnviroTO]

Which is why I tried multiple times to create a separate thread to have one for what can happen (i.e. this thread) and then one for what should happen (which could be called “fantasy rail discussions”), as the two discussions are based on completely different assumptions and environments

Yes. Seriously, who actually believes that VIA got all its top people in a room and said "dream big, what should we do", and ideas like HSR point-to-point were discussed but ruled and as not being good enough or bold enough and the ultimate winner in the conversation was diesel service through Tweed?? It is clearly a solution to accept a totally different version of reality to a solution where HSR is in the picture at all, let alone a mix of HSR direct Toronto-Montreal by-passing everything, plus HSR in Peterborough, plus HSR in Ottawa, plus HSR in Kingston.

 

[roger1818]

I see no realistic scenarios where a new tunnel is constructed. It would need to be a fantastically expensive new bore that may not even be possible given the existing building foundations. The existing tunnel was already widened to its maximum possible extent without encroaching on building foundations in order to fit the platforms of the McGill REM station. Furthermore, widening a metro/subway tunnel to accommodate heavy rail running non-stop along the route and bypassing multiple stations would be akin to a total rebuild and be correspondingly disruptive.

You may have missed it, but back in post #8,710 I made the following post, so a new or wider tunnel is not necessary:

Not true. $71 million was awarded for the JPO, which is appropriate given the complexity and scope this project involves. It's natural that a detailed study is needed before any government for any project commits the full amount and launches a RFP process.

CIB working on the High Frequency Rail project | Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB)

The Government of Canada and CIB are committing a total of $71.1M to further explore VIA Rail Canada’s proposal for High Frequency Rail in the Quebec City-Toronto Corridor.

cib-bic.ca

I beleive this has been mentioned before, but given some of the comments here it is worth repeating. If you you click on the "READ MORE" button on the link you provided, it says (among other things):

It will also fund technical work to ensure the interoperability and integration of High Frequency Rail with operating tracks used by local and regional transit providers in Montreal and Toronto. This includes track work in Montreal’s Mont-Royal Tunnel to enable VIA Rail Canada’s heavy rail trains to operate on this segment of the Réseau express métropolitain (REM) light rail system. This important piece of preliminary work is needed so that the different rail systems work together should High Frequency Rail proceed in the future.

So VIA will be able to use the tunnel in Montreal. Also, the "and Toronto" comment implies that they are have money to preserve access to Union Station from the Havelock Sub. This isn't a guarantee that HFR will happen, but it does indicates that current local development won't block HFR.

 

[nfitz]

Yes. Seriously, who actually believes that VIA got all its top people in a room and said "dream big, what should we do", and ideas like HSR point-to-point were discussed but ruled and as not being good enough or bold enough and the ultimate winner in the conversation was diesel service through Tweed?? It is clearly a solution to accept a totally different version of reality to a solution where HSR is in the picture at all, let alone a mix of HSR direct Toronto-Montreal by-passing everything, plus HSR in Peterborough, plus HSR in Ottawa, plus HSR in Kingston.

Story that I heard was they were sold a sales pitch by a consultant that underestimated both travel times and construction costs. But that's just what I heard ...

An in-depth FOI request would be nice.

 

[Allandale25]

^ For clarity, you're saying the sales pitch was for HFR (and the associated travel times/construction costs)?

 

[nfitz]

^ For clarity, you're saying the sales pitch was for HFR (and the associated travel times/construction costs)?

Frequent diesel operation from Montreal to Toronto through Leaside, Peterborough, and Ottawa.

I sure hope Transport Canada is having an expert check the design and costing before writing a cheque.