[kEiThZ]

It's a really simple calculation. How many passengers does bypassing Ottawa add? And what does that do to the cost model?

As it stands, I'm not sure that bypassing Ottawa will actually yield a net increase in passengers if the bypass results in lower frequencies to Ottawa or Montreal, than a combined service would have. Meanwhile, the bypass increases VIA's operating costs and capital required, reducing profitability and damaging the business case for the overall service.

I don't think there's any sensible way to make the math work on this until we're at the point that HFR is running on 30 min departures and still facing substantial demand. And at that point, investment in upgrading towards higher speed rail will start looking more appealing.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Excellent!

I was trying to check quite what happened in the west on the Canadian Railway Atlas - but it doesn't seem to want to load for me this week.

Probably an issue with the atlas. It's not loading for me, either.

I believe the M&O has been converted into a trail.

 

[roger1818]

It's a really simple calculation. How many passengers does bypassing Ottawa add? And what does that to the cost model?

As it stands, I'm not sure that bypassing Ottawa will actually yield a net increase in passengers if the bypass results in lower frequencies to Ottawa or Montreal, that a combined service would have. Meanwhile, the cost of that bypass increases VIA's costs, reducing profitability and damaging the business case.

I don't think there's any sensible to make the math work on this until we're at the point that HFR is running on 30 min departures and still facing substantial demand. And at that point, investment in upgrading towards higher speed rail will start looking more appealing.

For HFR, I agree 100%. I have said it before and will say it again, but a bypass would only be useful once both of the following are true:

1. Demand increases on Montreal-Toronto, Montreal-Ottawa and Ottawa-Toronto increases to the point that they can all have a minimum of hourly train service, independently of each other.
2. VIA has the funding to build HSR.

Will this happen in the next decade? Probably not, but it certainly is an option in the future. From that perspective, it probably is a bit of a fantasy, but likely less so than some of the other things discussed on here.

EDIT: Fixed typo where I forgot the word "not"

 

[nfitz]

I believe the M&O has been converted into a trail.

It was, as a temporary use - but there was talk of closing it to. I'm not sure the status - but here's a story from a few years ago https://ottawacitizen.com/news/loca...-prescott-russell-may-be-in-danger-of-closing

I thought their agreement with VIA Rail to use it expired in 2020.

Edit - breaking news. There's an extension of the agreement until June 2021.

But the big news is that VIA Rail may be selling (that part of) the M&O sub to the county - http://en.prescott-russell.on.ca/news/what_s_new/ucpr_and_via_rail_canada_extend_lease

 

[lenaitch]

It was, as a temporary use - but there was talk of closing it to. I'm not sure the status - but here's a story from a few years ago https://ottawacitizen.com/news/loca...-prescott-russell-may-be-in-danger-of-closing

I thought their agreement with VIA Rail to use it expired in 2020.

Current land use aside, I would think the compelling point is who owns it, and if the ownership is continuous end-to-end.

 

[kEiThZ]

Demand increases on Montreal-Toronto, Montreal-Ottawa and Ottawa-Toronto increases to the point that they can all have a minimum of hourly train service, independently of each other.

I'm suggesting this won't be enough. Because at that point, the comparison will be against half hourly service on the whole route. And 30 min headways would be an absolute gamechanger. No more booking tickets on Tuesdays. Tap your Presto, Opus or credit card and board, 10 mins after you show up at the station. Traveling from Ottawa or Montreal to Toronto will be no different than taking a GO train from Union to Kitchener at that point. Weighing that kind of service against saving a few minutes for a subset of riders will not work well for that subset. The dead time saved for all passengers outweighs the trip time savings for a subset of passengers.

Keep in mind, too, the bypass doesn't just impact Ottawa-Toronto. It also reduces frequencies on Ottawa-Montreal, a stretch that would see several towns become notable exurbs to both metros as service increases.

VIA has the funding to build HSR.

If there's HSR funding, a bypass becomes even less important because the time savings from the bypass would be even lower, while the capital and operating costs go up. VIA would have to maintain the HSR bypass and the HSR Ottawa-Montreal mainline. All to save 10-15 mins? Not going to happen.

But if we're at the point that we have HSR trains leaving Union in Toronto every 30 mins and demand is still growing such that they need to increase frequencies, a bypass might start looking appealing. But that is realistically outside of any of our lifetimes here. And who knows what kind of technology will be there at that point.

 

[MisterF]

It's a really simple calculation. How many passengers does bypassing Ottawa add? And what does that do to the cost model?

As it stands, I'm not sure that bypassing Ottawa will actually yield a net increase in passengers if the bypass results in lower frequencies to Ottawa or Montreal, than a combined service would have. Meanwhile, the bypass increases VIA's operating costs and capital required, reducing profitability and damaging the business case for the overall service.

I don't think there's any sensible way to make the math work on this until we're at the point that HFR is running on 30 min departures and still facing substantial demand. And at that point, investment in upgrading towards higher speed rail will start looking more appealing.

I'd add one more variable to your formula: how many passengers would be lost? Considering that Ottawa is the second busiest Via station in the corridor, it seems likely that each train bypassing it would lose more Ottawa passengers than it would gain Montreal passengers.

Not to mention that trains using the CP mainline world be subject to the same reliability and scheduling issues that plague the current route. So we'd probably spend billions of dollars for fewer passengers, higher costs, worse reliability, and less revenue. This bypass idea is nuts.

 

[Allandale25]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1369358999838220291

 

[roger1818]

Not to mention that trains using the CP mainline world be subject to the same reliability and scheduling issues that plague the current route. So we'd probably spend billions of dollars for fewer passengers, higher costs, worse reliability, and less revenue. This bypass idea is nuts.

Why do people keep assuming that the CP mainline would be the only option? Be it strawman arguments or just poor short term memory, it gets tiring when people keep bringing up fake arguments to prove their point.

 

[Urban Sky]

Why do people keep assuming that the CP mainline would be the only option? Be it strawman arguments or just poor short term memory, it gets tiring when people keep bringing up fake arguments to prove their point.

If you allow me to guess: maybe because that’s the only alignment which has been proposed by anyone in this thread so far, yourself included? So, if you can think of a different one, please provide a map and start looking for a “fair comparison” anywhere else in the world...

 

[kEiThZ]

Why do people keep assuming that the CP mainline would be the only option?

Whatever the option, bypassing Ottawa has a substantially narrow business case. Well past the point of hourly service and HSR.

We're discussing marginal return when we're in bypass territory. And let's say we're at the point where Toronto-Montreal is 3.5 hrs with HSR. At that point, the gains on saving 10-15 mins are so minimal, it's probably not worth the increased cost of another corridor and reduction in overall frequencies.

A lot of the old plans (like ViaFast) were made when Ottawa was substantially smaller than it is today. And I suspect was relatively less important to VIA than Montreal. This is not the case today. And won't be the case going forward.

 

[roger1818]

I'm suggesting this won't be enough. Because at that point, the comparison will be against half hourly service on the whole route. And 30 min headways would be an absolute gamechanger. No more booking tickets on Tuesdays. Tap your Presto, Opus or credit card and board, 10 mins after you show up at the station. Traveling from Ottawa or Montreal to Toronto will be no different than taking a GO train from Union to Kitchener at that point. Weighing that kind of service against saving a few minutes for a subset of riders will not work well for that subset. The dead time saved for all passengers outweighs the trip time savings for a subset of passengers.

I am not convinced that an upgrade from hourly service to 30 minute service is the "gamechanger" you are implying. The law of diminishing returns kicks in at some point.

Presto, Opus or credit card and tap and board could be done without need for half hourly service. VIA already has various rail passes which are competitive with the Tuesday rates for frequent travelers.

Besides, if a last minute, peak period ticket from "Ottawa or Montreal to Toronto" is regularly as cheap as a "GO train from Union to Kitchener" (which is 1/4 the distance), that is a sign that HFR is failing miserably. Prices are based on demand and if HFR is successful, peak period trains will frequently sell out. As a result, the last tickets will be not only be expensive but they may not always be available on the day of departure during peak periods.

Keep in mind, too, the bypass doesn't just impact Ottawa-Toronto. It also reduces frequencies on Ottawa-Montreal, a stretch that would see several towns become notable exurbs to both metros as service increases.

That is why I said, "Montreal-Toronto, Montreal-Ottawa and Ottawa-Toronto."

If there's HSR funding, a bypass becomes even less important because the time savings from the bypass would be even lower, while the capital and operating costs go up. VIA would have to maintain the HSR bypass and the HSR Ottawa-Montreal mainline. All to save 10-15 mins? Not going to happen.

As I said before, it isn't the shorter distance but the faster speed from not having to slow down and stop in Ottawa. And if you think that an HSR train could wiz through Ottawa Station at 300km without slowing down, I don't know what to say. Straightening out track in an urban setting is not easy.

But if we're at the point that we have HSR trains leaving Union in Toronto every 30 mins and demand is still growing such that they need to increase frequencies, a bypass might start looking appealing. But that is realistically outside of any of our lifetimes here. And who knows what kind of technology will be there at that point.

Maybe. Demand might grow faster than you think.

 

[kEiThZ]

@Urban Sky has brought this up before and I'll remind again that frequency matters a lot. All those European and Asian HSR lines are frequent. That's what makes them so great. If the choice is saving 10-15 mins on Toronto-Montreal or doubling frequency on Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, it's the rare analysis that would show the former yielding higher ridership over the latter.

 

[Urban Sky]

I am not convinced that an upgrade from hourly service to 30 minute service is the "gamechanger" you are implying. The law of diminishing returns kicks in at some point.

Which part of my previous post (see below) did you not understand?

[...]

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...

Increasing frequency is the by-far most cost-effective way to decrease perceived travel times...

 

[kEiThZ]

I am not convinced that an upgrade from hourly service to 30 minute service is the "gamechanger" you are implying. The law of diminishing returns kicks in at some point.

Diminishing returns sure. But hourly service is still far from that point. And again we're talking about relative return. A bypass would have to yield more ridership than a frequency increase. And that's a tall order for the kinds of savings that we're talking about.

Also, I don't get why you think going to 30 min headways isn't notable. The airlines do this at peak on the Corridor. There's clearly a demand for it. And it clearly makes a difference. Would you rather wait half an hour or an hour for the next train?

Presto, Opus or credit card and tap and board could be done without need for half hourly service.

Besides, if a last minute, peak period ticket from "Ottawa or Montreal to Toronto" is regularly as cheap as a "GO train from Union to Kitchener"

My point here was not the fare medium or that fares would be as low as GO (never said that) but rather that it's possible to have a very low friction service concept that is as easy to use as a GO or Exo train today. And this is what a lot of European intercity rail service is actually like. Especially non-HSR services.

Maybe. Demand might grow faster than you think.

Demand on Toronto-Montreal would have to grow faster than the rest of the line to justify a bypass. I don't see much probability of that. But sure, if that happens, I'm sure a bypass will be considered.