[kEiThZ]

If the trip from Toronto to Montreal with HFR will take 4:45 then really this doesn't help with driving more passengers on this route. Right now the route takes about 5hrs at best of times. A 15min savings even with more frequent services won't do much. It would increase more leisure passengers sure for the convenience and cost over flying but it won't tackle the business crowd. 5hrs is too long to get to Montreal by train. It needs to be between 3-4hr window to compete with flying. Get it under 4hrs and frequent service and people will take the train over flying this short distance.

1) Toronto-Montreal is not the only market that is important on the Corridor.

2) HFR was never intended to be competitive with flying. That it is on some segments is a bonus.

3) VIA has half a dozen direct trains to Montreal. The fastest is scheduled at 4:49. The slowest direct is 5:28. The average of the direct routings is 5:03. And all that is before accounting for regular delays. Buses take 6+ hrs. So a reliable 4:45 schedule with decent pricing will do decently enough. It's not going to take share from airlines. But will take share from buses and some drivers. Good enough.

 

[crs1026]

2) HFR was never intended to be competitive with flying.

3). VIA has half a dozen direct trains to Montreal. The fastest is scheduled at 4:49. The slowest direct is 5:28. The average of the direct routings is 5:03. And all that is before accounting for regular delays. Buses take 6+ hrs. So a reliable 4:45 schedule with decent pricing will do decently enough. It's not going to take share from airlines. But will take share from buses and some drivers. Good enough.

My observation is that VIA is already competitive with flying, sort of..... ie, I'm aware of lots of cases where myself and coworkers who had business in Ottawa or Montreal and could easily have decided to fly, and would have had that expense approved by their boss without a blink of the eye, including limo/taxi at each end, chose to take the train because it was just less hassle, the end to end time was good enough, and they saw greater opportunity for work productivity during the journey.

Other coworkers chose to head to the Island Airport and grab Porter, sure, and I suspect that a 4:45 timing to Montreal isn't fast enough to change that.
But I can believe that VIA can achieve a positive growth in market share even with a 4:45 timing.... especially if (similar to Porter) one can head to Union Station at any time of day and be confident of getting on the next hourly run.

PS - One hears that Westjet Porter etc are quietly lobbying the government against HFR. They wouldn't bother doing that if they thought 4:45 is so slow that they won't lose customers. I suspect they have a pretty clear view of what their market will look like with, and without, HFR.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Why? Can just change to the airport train at Pearson. Most passengers on the 5-car trainset, won't be heading to Pearson ... and you'd have to build additional platforms at Pearson.

Easier to extend to Aldershot, Milton, or Brampton ... or even Hamilton.

Having intercity rail service to the country's largest hub airport would be pretty logical. And pretty much what Pearson is planning for with their billion dollar transit hub. I would also assume this HFR extension, would become an effective replacement for the original HSR plan to London.

But I'm sure their analysis will tell them where to extend to. I just hope they don't terminate at Pearson. Stopping at Pearson means no West end stations.

 

[Urban Sky]

I have always said, that we can improve track sections to HSR standards so that speeds on those sections can be increased. I experienced that between Dresden and Berlin a few years ago, while the rest of that journey between Prague and Dresden was at standard VIA speeds.

I agree that the rail system in Germany is impressive, but this would make you a time traveller, because the upgrade of the Dresden-Berlin line to 200 km/h is only planned for 2021...

...as anything beyond 160 km/h would require the installation of LZB or ETCS, as PZB with its stationary signals is limited to 160 km/h:

Incremental HFR to HSR is likely the only way we get to HSR.

As long as there are are almost 10 Canadians for every single intercity rail passenger counted (in a given year), no politician will commit the equivalent of several percentage points of Canada’s GDP to such a (in a national context) niche mode...

 

[kEiThZ]

Good question.

For reference, here are the projected HFR travel times vs current vs automobile.
View attachment 167078

Quoting this again as a reminder of what the projected travel times are. Every segment will be competitive with driving from downtown-to-downtown. 3 of 4 will be pretty competitive with air. If they can achieve that for even double the projected $4 billion budget, that would be impressive.

Toronto-Ottawa at 3:10 is pretty strong. With the new LRT, it would be 3.5 hrs from Union station to downtown Ottawa. It's about 2.5 hrs for the same with Porter. And if you're traveling from the eastern 416 or 905, HFR wins. No contest.

Likewise, HFR will take a chunk out of AC's Montreal-Quebec City flights. 45 mins gate to gate. But in both cases you have 15-20 mins of traveling to the airport in traffic. Add in pre-boarding time and the train looks really competitive.

Ottawa-Montreal effectively is commutable.

 

[lrt's friend]

I agree that the rail system in Germany is impressive, but this would make you a time traveller, because the upgrade of the Dresden-Berlin line to 200 km/h is only planned for 2021...
View attachment 195139
...as anything beyond 160 km/h would require the installation of LZB or ETCS, as PZB with its stationary signals is limited to 160 km/h:
View attachment 195141



As long as there are are almost 10 Canadians for every single intercity rail passenger counted (in a given year), no politician will commit the equivalent of several percentage points of Canada’s GDP to such a (in a national context) niche mode...

I don't know what speed we were travelling at but it was really fast (I was being mesmerized just looking out the window) and the track was very straight, no level crossings and highly segregated with high fences. Perhaps, they needed new trains to reach a full 200 km/hr or part of the route between the two cities was not yet upgraded to that standard. I don't remember how far from Dresden I was before we hit that stretch that was super fast. As I said, track upgrades can be incremental.

 

[robmausser]

If we get the current HFR plan built, I can see HFR being extended to London and Windsor in some format. In the long-term, run this to Detroit and Chicago. This will generate more ridership if we can find effective border crossings.

I have always said, that we can improve track sections to HSR standards so that speeds on those sections can be increased. I experienced that between Dresden and Berlin a few years ago, while the rest of that journey between Prague and Dresden was at standard VIA speeds.

Incremental HFR to HSR is likely the only way we get to HSR.

Also, I have spoken of using the Winchester sub east of Smiths Falls for Montreal express trains. Who says we can't upgrade that section of track to HSR standards right away? It is a great opportunity given how straight that track is and could further speed up service to Montreal.

Hey, I can dream.

The GEXR railway that was bought by CN recently that serves the Toronto - Kitchener - London train could easily be bought by VIA and used for HFR. Its not heavily used. That would be a relatively easy addition to HFR.

The portion from London to Windsor would be more difficult. Thats a CN mainline. A portion is owned by VIA already, but not much.

 

[smallspy]

The portion from London to Windsor would be more difficult. Thats a CN mainline. A portion is owned by VIA already, but not much.

Most of the trip to Windsor is spent on a CN secondary line, almost half of which was sold off to VIA years ago. Less than 10 miles of the 110+ mile run to Windsor from London is spent on CN's freight main.

Dan

 

[44 North]

This is interesting. I never knew VIA owned key chunks of actual rail lines.

 

[rbt]

This is interesting. I never knew VIA owned key chunks of actual rail lines.

I've seen maps of GTA before (for GO ownership).

This site seems to have all bits of ownership Canada wide and there is a flag to highlight VIAs operations.

RAC Canadian Rail Atlas

rac.jmaponline.net

 

[Urban Sky]

I have always said, that we can improve track sections to HSR standards so that speeds on those sections can be increased. I experienced that between Dresden and Berlin a few years ago, while the rest of that journey between Prague and Dresden was at standard VIA speeds.

I don't know what speed we were travelling at but it was really fast (I was being mesmerized just looking out the window) and the track was very straight, no level crossings and highly segregated with high fences. Perhaps, they needed new trains to reach a full 200 km/hr or part of the route between the two cities was not yet upgraded to that standard. I don't remember how far from Dresden I was before we hit that stretch that was super fast. As I said, track upgrades can be incremental.

Go on Deutsche Bahn's Register of infrastructure (requires Java Script), click on the "Select by rectangle" option, select the same area as in the screenshot below (Berlin is exactly at the top left of that rectangle, whereas Dresden is at the exactly opposite corner) and scroll to the right until you've reached the "permissible speed" column and then scroll down until the last object:

You will not find a single object with a permissible speed beyond 160 km/h (i.e. the maximum speed for PZB), because none of the segments has been equipped with LZB or ETCS, which are the only train control systems which are certified in Germany for operations beyond 160 km/h:

And this is why I find your praise of track segments which have been upgraded "to HSR standards" so ironic: because the line you were presenting to us as a role model of what you can do when you go beyond HFR (i.e. towards HSR), is in reality exactly between present-day VIA's corridor services and what HFR promises to deliver in the future - with a maximum speed (160 km/h) of what you call "standard VIA speeds", a minimum travel time (1:46) representing an average speed which is (very marginally) surpassed (111.51 vs. 111.90 km/h) by present-day's Montreal-Toronto service (which is of course 50 minutes slower than the famous "3:59") and a frequency (8) which lies exactly between present-day Montreal-Toronto or Montreal-Ottawa (6 each) and Ottawa-Toronto (8) services:

Source: Gahnert.de (for Berlin-Dresden), official VIA Rail timetable (effective 2019-06-02) and official VIA Rail presentation (for HFR)

 

[lead82]

1) Toronto-Montreal is not the only market that is important on the Corridor.

2) HFR was never intended to be competitive with flying. That it is on some segments is a bonus.

3) VIA has half a dozen direct trains to Montreal. The fastest is scheduled at 4:49. The slowest direct is 5:28. The average of the direct routings is 5:03. And all that is before accounting for regular delays. Buses take 6+ hrs. So a reliable 4:45 schedule with decent pricing will do decently enough. It's not going to take share from airlines. But will take share from buses and some drivers. Good enough.

I agree. My point was that we should be aiming to have VIA take more passengers from airlines. If we want to reduce our carbon footprint, then reducing the need to fly short distances will be a good thing. HFR is a big improvement if it ever gets built but Canadians should push for more and better rail services.

 

[kEiThZ]

One hears that Westjet Porter etc are quietly lobbying the government against HFR. They wouldn't bother doing that if they thought 4:45 is so slow that they won't lose customers.

I think they are less worried about Toronto-Montreal than Toronto-Ottawa. Porter is very dependent on Toronto-Ottawa. And at 3:10, HFR is massively damaging to the airlines on this route.

 

[kEiThZ]

My point was that we should be aiming to have VIA take more passengers from airlines.

Can't really do that without HSR at 3x the cost. And time after time, Canadians have not shown any real desire to press governments to spend that.

HFR is a big improvement if it ever gets built but Canadians should push for more and better rail services.

Cart before horse. VIA needs to not only build HFR but offer up ridership numbers that beat estimates and bring in the dough. That will change the conversation.

 

[lrt's friend]

I stand by what I said. As was presented, they are aiming to upgrade track between Dresden and Berlin to 200 km/hr. Obviously, they had not achieved that when I used the service in 2015, however, trains did run on the section of track I was referring to at a speed considerably faster than VIA. This may have not covered even half the distance between Dresden and Berlin at that time, but it was very noticeable. Does VIA provide speed of 160 km/hr in reality on any section of track? Bravo, if they achieve that in the future. Nevertheless, what I was describing was a stepping stone towards 200 km/hr service. HFR is not going to deliver that. Regardless, the route to HSR at 200 km/hr or higher is by upgrading track section by section. This is exactly what was going on between Dresden and Berlin. I don't understand the point of trying to disprove my experience.