[micheal_can]

Correct, but unfortunately there seems to be a strong inverse relationship between how viable a potential rail service would be and how interested you are in allowing us to have any focussed discussion about it…

Discuss away. Let's here how horrible that would be for a regular passenger rail service. Or, would you think it should happen?

 

[Urban Sky]

Discuss away. Let's here how horrible that would be for a regular passenger rail service. Or, would you think it should happen?

I think it’s rather telling that only after 39 pages of imposing ever-circling Sudbury-centric discussions on us, you suddenly discover that there actually are currently unserved passenger rail corridors in this country which would link large population centres over a distance highly suitable for intercity passenger rail services…

 

[micheal_can]

I think it’s rather telling that after 39 pages of ever-circling discussions here, you suddenly discover that there actually are currently unserved passenger rail corridors in this country which would link large population centres over a distance highly suitable for intercity passenger rail services…

Not at all. Since this is called Urban Toronto, I focused on closer routes that are under served. Go back a few pages and we were discussing the ones out of Montreal to Northern Quebec and the Chaleur's return with the Ocean. I am not naive to think that the most important thing would be a daily Canadian if Via could expand.

 

[Urban Sky]

Not at all. Since this is called Urban Toronto, I focused on closer routes that are under served.

This thread is called “Lack of meaningful Passenger Rail service outside the Quebec-Windsor Corridor” and thus deliberately placed beyond the normal geographic focus of the “Urban Toronto” forum. There is no excuse for obsessing about your pet projects while drowning all discussions about those routes and projects which actually serve a perceivable passenger market and are not hopelessly inferior to any bus solution.

As I already remarked on the previous page:

Correct, but unfortunately there seems to be a strong inverse relationship between how viable a potential rail service would be and how interested you are in allowing us to have any focussed discussion about it…

 

[micheal_can]

This thread is called “Lack of meaningful Passenger Rail service outside the Quebec-Windsor Corridor” and thus deliberately placed beyond the normal geographic focus of the “Urban Toronto” forum. There is no excuse for obsessing about your pet projects while drowning all discussions about those routes and projects which actually serve a perceivable passenger market and are not hopelessly inferior to any bus solution.

As I already remarked on the previous page:

OK

Lets discuss AB's plan for HSR.

 

[Urban Sky]

OK

Lets discuss AB's plan for HSR.

Why don’t you quickly present and summarize their plan, so that we have a foundation for such discussion?

 

[roger1818]

Absent exceptional circumstances the gravity model tends to be a fairly decent indicator of demand.

Those "exceptional circumstances" are more common than one might think. Banff and Niagara Falls are two examples of tourist destinations that would punch higher than their populations would suggest. Capital cities (and business capitals) also tend to punch a bit higher than their population would suggest, but typically only within their jurisdiction (with some exceptions).

The problem with modeling is that you need to apply to gravity model to every stop en route and add it all up to get to total potential. That's going to be rare on forums.

In a perfect world, yes. However, in Canada, "outside the Quebec-Windsor Corridor" the intermediary stops are typically so small, that their influence is miniscule compared to the cities the route would connect. There are likely exceptions, but calculating using the gravity between city pairs is a good enough approximation for determining relative viability and thus priorities.

 

[kEiThZ]

Those "exceptional circumstances" are more common than one might think. Banff and Niagara Falls are two examples of tourist destinations that would punch higher than their populations would suggest. Capital cities (and business capitals) also tend to punch a bit higher than their population would suggest, but typically only within their jurisdiction (with some exceptions).

When those exceptions happen, we tend to have good data though. So it's not hard to determine viability. The gravity model is good for making predictions where substantial service doesn't already exist and/or we have no idea what would pan out. For example, assessing Peterborough-Toronto.

 

[ARG1]

Calgary to Edmonton is a reasonable distance. Both are major cities.

The 40 pages on this thread haven't been discussing Calgary to Edmonton, they've mostly been about service to Sudbury, or connecting small towns/cities to nearby miniscule/irrelevant villages.

 

[micheal_can]

Why don’t you quickly present and summarize their plan, so that we have a foundation for such discussion?

Edmonton - Calgary High Speed Rail Line

Prairie Link Rail Partnership (EllisDon & AECOM) is proposing to build a high speed rail link between Edmonton and Calgary. The project would allow passengers and freight to travel between the two cities at speeds up to 400 km/h. On June 8, 2021, Prairie Link Rail Partnership announced an MOU...

majorprojects.alberta.ca

The AB government did it for us.

 

[micheal_can]

When/if the LDF is replaced, how will they retire the existing fleet?
Will the do the short routes or long routes first?
Will the do it by maintenance centre?

 

[dowlingm]

When/if the LDF is replaced, how will they retire the existing fleet?
Will the do the short routes or long routes first?
Will the do it by maintenance centre?

VIA seems to have reserved certain heavy maintenance functions to MMC, which then complicates a "start in the east and work west" strategy since even if the Ocean and Northern Quebec services were fully replaced in the first wave of deliveries and in theory MMC could be cleared of all HEP vehicles and parts, they would still have legacy LD equipment trundling up the corridor needing work.

On the other hand, their current strategy involves vendor-delivered servicing which the vendor may consider more cheaply done somewhere else, so that adds an other layer of "pointless to speculate" beyond the fact that no contracts have been signed to acquire such equipment.

 

[micheal_can]

VIA seems to have reserved certain heavy maintenance functions to MMC, which then complicates a "start in the east and work west" strategy since even if the Ocean and Northern Quebec services were fully replaced in the first wave of deliveries and in theory MMC could be cleared of all HEP vehicles and parts, they would still have legacy LD equipment trundling up the corridor needing work.

Would that mean that starting in the west would be less complicated for rolling stock movements?

 

[crs1026]

Would that mean that starting in the west would be less complicated for rolling stock movements?

You are speculating on something that has too many unknowns to say with any confidence. Wait and see what the order looks like and what the business plan for the long distance trains looks like when the order is placed. We could have a debate and reach consensus, only to have some need or constraint emerge.
It’s not really a serious problem, either. Look at the Venture rollout - so long as all 32 trains arrive, is there really anything wrong with how the trains were rolled out? Is there some different way that would have worked better? We can debate, but so what?
It will be interesting to watch if (we are still at if, not when) it happens.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

You are speculating on something that has too many unknowns to say with any confidence. Wait and see what the order looks like and what the business plan for the long distance trains looks like when the order is placed. We could have a debate and reach consensus, only to have some need or constraint emerge.
It’s not really a serious problem, either. Look at the Venture rollout - so long as all 32 trains arrive, is there really anything wrong with how the trains were rolled out? Is there some different way that would have worked better? We can debate, but so what?

I was kinda surprised at how they did it. I would have expected that they would be put on the busiest sections first.However, learning how they did it this way and the potential reasons why does help me understand and speculate what could happen when/if the LDF is replaced. With the Corridor fleet, we all knew what the worst cars were. Do we even have any indication which are the worst current LDF? That could signal what gets replaced first.

It will be interesting to watch if (we are still at if, not when) it happens.

- Paul

That is why I asked when/if, as nothing is singed and within the next 2 years, we will have an election and that could change everything.