[crs1026]

Thanks to the CanPassRail list, here’s an interesting FOI decision which is critical of VIA’s slow response to requests for release of documents, presumably including HFR.

VIA Rail Canada Inc. (Re), 2020 OIC 15

Date: 2020-12-14 OIC file number: 3217-00399 Institution file number: 16-1656

www.oic-ci.gc.ca

The most interesting point to me is VIA‘s response that they might be able to comply with the FOI request by mid 2021. I take that as a hint that they have been waiting for the Cabinet decision on HFR before ceasing radio silence.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

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.

Exactly. We are all recognizing that even with HFR we are counting on use of shared freight lines, possibly for 20-30 more years. It is inevitable that, whatever CN can accommodate in the short term, the trend is that they will gradually grow their business, and as that happens they will quite rightly want their capacity returned to them for their own use. Absent some intervention, VIA will be encouraged to prune its service.

That’s why the assurances that “service will be fine, don’t worry! “ isn’t washing. Skipping ahead a few chapters, the picture isn’t rosy.

The question is whether Ottawa just shrugs lets that happen, or recognises the inevitable and acts proactively to mitigate it. We can’t accelerate thirty years of railway building, but we can secure enforceable and transparent provisions that give VIA sufficient capacity and reliability for the next decades. That will come at a fair cost, I’m sure, I’m not suggesting CN provide a freebie.

The A-G report that criticised the failed 2008-2009 tracklaying project

VIA Rail Canada Inc.—Special Examination Report—2016

documents VIA’s business case for that expansion. It lays out what VIA was trying to buy (160 miles of track, of which only 70 km got built) and what that would give them (a certain number of train slots at a certain trip time - which btw compares favourably with HFR). (And BTW, one can’t deny that In effect, it is a business case for a reworked VIA Fast flavoured expansion). I give VIA credit for preparing that BCA just as competently, and just as thoroughly, as the work that got HFR going. The project failed, mostly due to the particular commercial relationship between VIA and CN, and due to VIA’s lack of project management capability. That failure does not imply the plan was unrealistic. Even at the final cost per mile, the cancelled work is not unaffordable. I trust those VIA-generated numbers.

It’s understandable why the government of that day did not throw good money after bad to finish the plan as a cost overrun: they were looking for a braggable political win, and the failure to manage cost deprived them of that. The realisation that shared use is unsustainable was a painful lesson learned, and HFR is the result. But - where shared use can’t be eliminated quickly - correct the execution flaws, improve CN’s accountability (with greater upside, perhaps).... the 90 km of unlaid track is not unaffordable as a bridge to a non-shared 2nd tier line some day.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

AECOM was also a principal contractor for the REM. They told me that they were studying how to optimally route the Quebec City - Montreal leg at a pre-covid job fair but did not provide any further details because they were only hiring for other projects. Given that they were not hiring anyone new, I assume that they have significant overlap between the REM and HFR teams. However, this is purely conjecture based of a single conversation in fall 2019.

I've also attached a picture I took tonight of the McGill REM station box to give context to the constrained tunnel environment. The green line tunnels pass above the Mont-Royal tunnel approximately below the Croix Bleue sign on the right.


View attachment 303465

Certainly interesting, but I am not quite sure what your point is. It is well known that the tunnel is height limited and AMT/EXO were unable to run bi-level cars through it, causing serious capacity limitations and one of the reasons for the REM project; however, VIA had previously run trains through it and the Charger/Venture trainsets will easily fit. For reference, VIA's former CP EMD FP7 shown here (UT won't let me display it, presumably for copyright reasons) being pulled into Mont Royal Station in 1987 is 10 ft 8 in (3.25 m) wide and 15 ft (4.57 m) high. By comparison, a Siemens Charger is only 10 ft 0 in (3.05 m) wide and 14 ft 4 in (4.37 m) high (including roof shroud) and a Siemens Venture is 10 ft 6 in (3.20 m) wide and 14 ft (4.3 m) high.

Looking at that photo of McGill College Avenue ... I wonder if possible to squeeze a third track through the narrowest section by running it above the other two tracks. Probably require a huge amount of excavation - and presumably a big hole to just north of Sherbrooke.

Though perhaps the new platforms for the new McGill station probably eliminate that option (I haven't seen the design).

What is this obsession with having a third track. As posted earlier, VIA and REM have made it clear that they are willing to share the track and Transport Canada has said it is okay for them to do so if they use an automatic train control system that would prevent collisions due to operator error.

 

[roger1818]

Exactly. We are all recognizing that even with HFR we are counting on use of shared freight lines, possibly for 20-30 more years. It is inevitable that, whatever CN can accommodate in the short term, the trend is that they will gradually grow their business, and as that happens they will quite rightly want their capacity returned to them for their own use. Absent some intervention, VIA will be encouraged to prune its service.

That’s why the assurances that “service will be fine, don’t worry! “ isn’t washing. Skipping ahead a few chapters, the picture isn’t rosy.

The question is whether Ottawa just shrugs lets that happen, or recognises the inevitable and acts proactively to mitigate it. We can’t accelerate thirty years of railway building, but we can secure enforceable and transparent provisions that give VIA sufficient capacity and reliability for the next decades. That will come at a fair cost, I’m sure, I’m not suggesting CN provide a freebie.

The A-G report that criticised the failed 2008-2009 tracklaying project

VIA Rail Canada Inc.—Special Examination Report—2016

documents VIA’s business case for that expansion. It lays out what VIA was trying to buy (160 miles of track, of which only 70 km got built) and what that would give them (a certain number of train slots at a certain trip time - which btw compares favourably with HFR). (And BTW, one can’t deny that In effect, it is a business case for a reworked VIA Fast flavoured expansion). I give VIA credit for preparing that BCA just as competently, and just as thoroughly, as the work that got HFR going. The project failed, mostly due to the particular commercial relationship between VIA and CN, and due to VIA’s lack of project management capability. That failure does not imply the plan was unrealistic. Even at the final cost per mile, the cancelled work is not unaffordable. I trust those VIA-generated numbers.

It’s understandable why the government of that day did not throw good money after bad to finish the plan as a cost overrun: they were looking for a braggable political win, and the failure to manage cost deprived them of that. The realisation that shared use is unsustainable was a painful lesson learned, and HFR is the result. But - where shared use can’t be eliminated quickly - correct the execution flaws, improve CN’s accountability (with greater upside, perhaps).... the 90 km of unlaid track is not unaffordable as a bridge to a non-shared 2nd tier line some day.

- Paul

You are forgetting that as a federally licenced railway, CN is required to allow other federally licenced railways access to their track (that is why MOOSE rail has been a thorn on the City of Ottawa's side as the Capital Railway is federally licensed and MOOSE hopes to become one). It is true that how much access they are required to give isn't clear, but I expect precedent is on VIA's side. It would be difficult for VIA to insist on additional departures, but conversely it would be difficult for CN to cancel some of VIA's departures.

I do agree that in the long run something will have to be done about the lakeshore, but that is a battle for another day. Lets not scuttle HFR because of fear that sometime in the unknown future there may be additional capacity limitations on the Lakeshore. The reduction in both number of departures and the average speed (no express trains that bypass most if not all of the Lakeshore cities) along the Lakeshore should buy VIA a significant amount of time.

 

[crs1026]

I do agree that in the long run something will have to be done about the lakeshore, but that is a battle for another day. Lets not scuttle HFR because of fear that sometime in the unknown future there may be additional capacity limitations on the Lakeshore. The reduction in both number of departures and the average speed (no express trains that bypass most if not all of the Lakeshore cities) along the Lakeshore should buy VIA a significant amount of time.

Just to be clear, I have never argued to scuttle HFR. I wish it well. I have certainly jumped to point out that some of the comparisons to other options might have been close, not necessarily by a nose, but closer than some more extreme posters may have claimed.

Admittedly, given the prospect of a serving of HFR, I'm immediately asking for a second helping, and a side order of something else.....

For now, I am mostly eager to see the CN-VIA relationship be made transparent. There isn't as much commercial sensitivity in the slots and performance guarantees as is argued. CN could release that information without harm, as it pertains to the entry into Montreal in particular, which is a relevant deliverable that HFR's performance relies on. I have to presume that being this close to a HFR decision, VIA and CN must have an agreement on how the shared use will happen there. Similarly VIA and CP must have an agreement on how VIA will use CP lines in Toronto, and entering Montreal from Quebec.

Some folks talk about the goal of VIA having its own tracks as guaranteeing that sharing will be eliminated. It won't, in lot of places. So that other-thread discussion about a more level playing field ought to be on the table today.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Sharing can never be eliminated. Would be nice though for TOM passengers to not be added to CN's hostage pile.

 

[roger1818]

Just to be clear, I have never argued to scuttle HFR. I wish it well. I have certainly jumped to point out that some of the comparisons to other options might have been close, not necessarily by a nose, but closer than some more extreme posters may have claimed.

True, though others on this forum seem to have a different opinion. I apologise if my "scuttling" point appeared to be directed at you.

Admittedly, given the prospect of a serving of HFR, I'm immediately asking for a second helping, and a side order of something else.....

I think many of us are hoping for a seconds and thirds.

For now, I am mostly eager to see the CN-VIA relationship be made transparent. There isn't as much commercial sensitivity in the slots and performance guarantees as is argued. CN could release that information without harm, as it pertains to the entry into Montreal in particular, which is a relevant deliverable that HFR's performance relies on. I have to presume that being this close to a HFR decision, VIA and CN must have an agreement on how the shared use will happen there. Similarly VIA and CP must have an agreement on how VIA will use CP lines in Toronto, and entering Montreal from Quebec.

Some folks talk about the goal of VIA having its own tracks as guaranteeing that sharing will be eliminated. It won't, in lot of places. So that other-thread discussion about a more level playing field ought to be on the table today.

- Paul

There is a difference between a shared ROW and shared track. Many (though maybe not all) of those places could have dedicated track on a shared ROW.

Having said that, a dedicated ROW is always better than shared whenever practical, as you aren't at the mercy of the ROW owner to renew the lease of the ROW at a reasonable rate.

 

[SFO-YYZ]

Random question - if VIA were to share the Mont Royal tunnel with REM, will a VIA train be passing by the (enclosed) platforms of underground REM stations such as Eduard-mont-petit or Mcgill? Or are they able to bypass those stations with a third track?

It would pretty cool if passengers waiting for an REM could actually see the new VIA Siemens fleet passing by their platforms through the platform screen doors, like this underground HSR line in China:

 

[Darwinkgo]

I'd imagine the second - why bother with the expense? Underground adding volume to station boxes in ruinous.

It isn't uncommon around the world. I was surprised witnessing it in Kyoto, but it seemed to work just fine. Only issue is displacing a frequency on the REM.

 

[Darwinkgo]

HFR is initially 1 train per hour with potential for eventually 2?

REM seems to have a peak frequency of 24 per hour per direction through the tunnel (once every 2.5min). Are there any important considerations that would impact adding one VIA train per hour due to not being an REM train (i.e. train length or switching tracks at Central station)? If it were just an REM train, an automated system could probably get to 35-40 trains per hour without problems.

Should be in the technical parts of the JPO reports whenever they're developed. Whether we get a technical answer, or just a summary, who knows.

 

[roger1818]

HFR is initially 1 train per hour with potential for eventually 2?

According to this article, for Montreal-Quebec while the plan is for 18 trains a day, only 10 will be on the north shore (and thus use the tunnel). So, if that article is correct (which is uncertain), that will likely be less than 1 train an hour. I also don't think there are any plans to increase frequency, as to do so would mean doubling the number of passing tracks (they will be spaced for a set departure interval, so the only reasonable option is to double the frequency, or at least half the standard departure interval).

REM seems to have a peak frequency of 24 per hour per direction through the tunnel (once every 2.5min). Are there any important considerations that would impact adding one VIA train per hour due to not being an REM train (i.e. train length or switching tracks at Central station)? If it were just an REM train, an automated system could probably get to 35-40 trains per hour without problems.

Assuming the maximum capacity of REM is 40 trains a day, that is a minimum spacing of every 1.5 minutes. To insert a VIA train, it would leave 1.5 minutes after a REM train and then the next REM train would have to leave 1.5 minutes after that, which is 30 seconds later than normal, which really is not a big deal.

The only issue I can see is southbound, where VIA train would need to cross the northbound track twice, requiring more precise timing. It isn't impossible to deal with though.

Off peak, when the REM will be running fewer trains, all of this becomes a non-issue, so only a few trains a day require this extra effort.

 

[kEiThZ]

REM interlining is just way too difficult. Those are some tight numbers to work with. Having two stations is not ideal. But Montreal wouldn't be the first city in the world to have two intercity rail stations.

Also, 10 trains on the northern route seems low. They could probably run this route hourly with at least 15 departures a day.

 

[Allandale25]

^ I note that the article above is from 2018, so there is a possibility things could have changed since then or the JPL will provide an update when it's publicly released (fingers crossed it's publicly released).

 

[roger1818]

REM interlining is just way too difficult. Those are some tight numbers to work with. Having two stations is not ideal. But Montreal wouldn't be the first city in the world to have two intercity rail stations.

Also, 10 trains on the northern route seems low. They could probably run this route hourly with at least 15 departures a day.

While I don't disagree with you regarding having two stations, I really think VIA will try to make this work, and I don't think it will be as hard as you seem to think. Off peak, REM will be running at much lower frequencies, so interlining will be easy. During peak, if VIA's 18 departures a day are split between the north and south shores, VIA could have most of the peak period arrival and departures use the south shore and thus don't need the tunnel.

For eastbound AM departures, they could have one departure use the tunnel in the morning before peak and then the next tunnel train after peak since it is when the train arrives at its destination that matters the most in the AM.

For westbound AM departures, they could try squeeze an arrival in before the peak, taking advantage of the shorter, more reliable travel times on the north shore, and the next one could be after.

For eastbound PM departures, they could have either have a train through the tunnel just before and just after peak (with a south shore train in peak), or they might try to squeeze one train in through peak, as northbound is easier to deal with and PM peak tends to be more spread out and peak transit frequencies tend to be lower to compensate (meaning a longer interval between departures).

For westbound PM departures, it is the departure time that is important, and a departure during peak wouldn't arrive at the tunnel until well after peak is over.

Interestingly, I just noticed that the article I previously referenced, says the REM will be "running every six to 12 minutes on the line." If that is the case, there will only be 5 to 10 trains an hour, less than half the 24 @jelbana said, and sharing will be easy.

 

[crs1026]

^I don't know what kind of signalling system REM has specified, presumably a moving block system? Anyways, the critical constraint would be the braking capability of the new VIA equipment as compared to REM stock. The VIA train would have to hang back as far as needed to assure safe braking distance as the REM ahead makes its stops, and/or in an unplanned stop situation.

There might be a desire/need for the VIA train to "creep" rather than follow closely so that it does not have to come to a full stop behind the REM at each station. That, in turn, might affect the bunching of following LRV's if the line is at maximum capacity.

Also, all transit systems have to anticipate a "bunching" situation where one LRV is delayed and the next one is following on its block. Some margin of delay might be assumed as the LRV ahead may not be proceeding at the full rated speed.

What that means is that a VIA train might not fit neatly into a REM "slot" at 40 trains per hour - the gap might be a little longer. Probably not important outside of peak periods.

- Paul