Urban Sky
Senior Member
Not sure I agree with your maths: 39 miles (62.8 km) in 45 minutes would be 83.7 km/h (not: 56 km/h) and 29 miles (46.7 km) in 25 minutes even 112.0 km/h, so almost twice your calculated values...
Last edited:
|
|
|
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
Not sure I agree with your maths: 39 miles (62.8 km) in 45 minutes would be 83.7 km/h (not: 56 km/h) and 29 miles (46.7 km) in 25 minutes even 112.0 km/h, so almost twice your calculated values...
felix123
Active Member
Nfitz meant mph. Maybe we can agree to just use metric measurements to avoid all the conversions.
We know that mainline railways in Canada use mph (not that they should), but we use metric everywhere else on this site and it's going to cause confusion to use a measurement that we don't use elsewhere on this site nor in daily life (stupid miles and stupid miles per hour).
DirectionNorth
Active Member
Sure, if you
20 years ago. 20 years ago, the Sheppard subway was under construction.
Things change. I could use this argument in favor of a lot of things that were cancelled by the gov't, and goodness knows that I'd love to.
I don't mean a concrete list of projects, I mean a plan politically.
I would be surprised if they didn't buy the Peterborough - Agincourt section.
Montreal sharing is unavoidable, unless you want to build a huge tunnel.
You're arguing for the Winchester Sub, so using that as an example is probably going the wrong way.
HFR to Quebec City can be debated; I don't think it should be included (to avoid sticker shock), but politics.
It's a difference of 9 km on a 400 km route.
I will leave this section to you and the other posters ... I feel a bit confused.It's the alignment shown in red in the EcoRail study. (alternative, using the EcoRail alignment is very similar)
But Urban Sky would know best - and probably has a better figure somewhere.
nfitz
Superstar
Yeah, I blew that. Thanks! Fixing the math ... 15 minutes extra travel time, add 5 minutes to stop ... so 20 extra minutes instead of 30.
No ... that wasn't the problem. I don't know what I did wrong ... probably the wrong conversion. This is how that Mars lander crashed!
Anyways, I fixed my original post.
kEiThZ
Superstar
So put in station bypasses at Casselman and Alexandria and cut over to Winchester before Coteaux. Then cut 15 mins elsewhere. Same effect. With every piece of information that comes this bypass looks worse, with similar travel times, achievable on a single HFR corridor.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
I thought I had already said everything which needed to be said about the "Ottawa Bypass" back in July (that it's better to document now why the Ottawa Bypass is a bad idea, then to have that question unexpectedly emerge at a later point where it could actually delay a funding decision), but if anyone wants to revisit why operating the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle with non-stop express services (i.e. like airlines) rather than a trunk network (like, you know, actual intercity rail corridors all over the planet), a good start would be here:
***
In the meanwhile, let's do a little thought experiment, based on a quick-and-dirty back-of-the-envelope calculation:
Let's consider first the HFR proposal as a single TRTO-OTTW-MTRL trunk line, with the cost figures the Globe and Mail mentioned back in 2019 ($2.1 billion for TRTO-OTTW and $91.5 million for OTTW-MTRL), together with the frequencies mentioned in the same article. In that case, if we divide the capital costs by the number of train-km these segments would see over an assumed asset life of 40 years, the capital costs would be equivalent $8.63 per train-km ($12 per train-km for TRTO-OTTW, $1.16 for OTTW-MTRL).
Now suppose that after construction of HFR for these 15 frequencies from Toronto via Ottawa to Montreal has begun, someone comes and proposes to build an Ottawa Bypass, in order to operate 6 additional trains skipping Ottawa (IIRC, this figure was suggested by @crs1026 in a previous post).
The important thing here is to understand that HFR has now become the base case and we are assessing only the incremental cost effect of the Ottawa Bypass.
In lack of exact cost estimates, let's assume that the construction of the Ottawa Bypass will incur the same per-km cost as the TRTO-OTTW-MTRL trunk line (i.e. $3.78 million), resulting in an additional capital cost of $552 million.
These 146 km of additional route-km would carry an annual volume of 4,380 trains and 639,480 train-km.
Therefore, the capital cost of the Ottawa Bypass is equal to $21.57 per train-km (thus 1.8 times the respective figure for TRTO-OTTW, 2.5 times for the entire Base Case and a whopping 19 times the OTTW-MTRL segment).
I'm 100% certain someone intelligent will now point out that the Express trains operate over the entire 546 km [calulation: 580 km TRTO-OTTW-MTRL plus 146 km Ottawa Bypass minus 180 km SMTF-OTTW-De Beaujeu] and therefore the $3,148 incremental capital costs for every train movement over the Ottawa Bypass should be divided by the entire 546 km, not just the 146 km of the Ottawa Bypass. However, if these Express trains were diverted via Ottawa instead, the incremental capital cost would be zero rather than $552 million. Therefore, the entirety of the capital costs of the Ottawa Bypass is caused excusively by the 146 km travelled on the Ottawa Bypass, not the 400 km traveled on the regular HFR network, (which is already under construction and thus a fait accompli in our thought experiment)...
Please find my calculations below:
Thank you and have a good night, everyone!
PS: Feedback of any kind is highly welcome, but with the expectation that objections include constructive suggestions of how to correct/expand/refine/improve above table...
***
In the meanwhile, let's do a little thought experiment, based on a quick-and-dirty back-of-the-envelope calculation:
Let's consider first the HFR proposal as a single TRTO-OTTW-MTRL trunk line, with the cost figures the Globe and Mail mentioned back in 2019 ($2.1 billion for TRTO-OTTW and $91.5 million for OTTW-MTRL), together with the frequencies mentioned in the same article. In that case, if we divide the capital costs by the number of train-km these segments would see over an assumed asset life of 40 years, the capital costs would be equivalent $8.63 per train-km ($12 per train-km for TRTO-OTTW, $1.16 for OTTW-MTRL).
Now suppose that after construction of HFR for these 15 frequencies from Toronto via Ottawa to Montreal has begun, someone comes and proposes to build an Ottawa Bypass, in order to operate 6 additional trains skipping Ottawa (IIRC, this figure was suggested by @crs1026 in a previous post).
The important thing here is to understand that HFR has now become the base case and we are assessing only the incremental cost effect of the Ottawa Bypass.
In lack of exact cost estimates, let's assume that the construction of the Ottawa Bypass will incur the same per-km cost as the TRTO-OTTW-MTRL trunk line (i.e. $3.78 million), resulting in an additional capital cost of $552 million.
These 146 km of additional route-km would carry an annual volume of 4,380 trains and 639,480 train-km.
Therefore, the capital cost of the Ottawa Bypass is equal to $21.57 per train-km (thus 1.8 times the respective figure for TRTO-OTTW, 2.5 times for the entire Base Case and a whopping 19 times the OTTW-MTRL segment).
I'm 100% certain someone intelligent will now point out that the Express trains operate over the entire 546 km [calulation: 580 km TRTO-OTTW-MTRL plus 146 km Ottawa Bypass minus 180 km SMTF-OTTW-De Beaujeu] and therefore the $3,148 incremental capital costs for every train movement over the Ottawa Bypass should be divided by the entire 546 km, not just the 146 km of the Ottawa Bypass. However, if these Express trains were diverted via Ottawa instead, the incremental capital cost would be zero rather than $552 million. Therefore, the entirety of the capital costs of the Ottawa Bypass is caused excusively by the 146 km travelled on the Ottawa Bypass, not the 400 km traveled on the regular HFR network, (which is already under construction and thus a fait accompli in our thought experiment)...
Please find my calculations below:
| Metric | HFR TRTO-OTTW | HFR OTTW-MTRL | HFR TRTO-OTTW-MTRL (Base Case) | Ottawa Bypass | vs. HFR without Ottawa Bypass |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capital Cost | $2.1 billion | $91.5 million | $2.19 billion | $552 million | +25% |
| Segment length | 400 km | 180 km | 580 km | 146 km | +25% |
| Frequencies/day | 15 | 15 | 15 | 6 | +40% |
| Trains/year | 10,950 | 10,950 | 10,950 | 4,380 | +40% |
| Train-miles/year | 4,380,000 | 1,971,000 | 6,351,000 | 639,480 | +10% (ignoring everything outside the Ottawa Bypass) |
| Capital cost per km | $5.25 million | $0.51 million | $3.78 million | $3.78 million | same (assumed) |
| Capital cost per year (assuming 40-year asset life) | $52.5 million | $2.29 million | $54.79 million | $13.79 million | +25% |
| Capital cost per train movement | $4,794 | $208.90 | $5,003 | $3,148 | 63% (ignoring everything outside the Ottawa Bypass) |
| Capital cost per train-km | $11.99 | $1.16 | $8.63 | $21.57 | 250% |
Thank you and have a good night, everyone!
PS: Feedback of any kind is highly welcome, but with the expectation that objections include constructive suggestions of how to correct/expand/refine/improve above table...
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
Your ability to construct these analyses and back your arguments with credible numbers never ceases to impress me. Awesome.
I won't debate the numbers, but I will offer a bit of railway business context. This may sound cynical, but I would argue it's on the mark.
As we know, the railways are insistent that new construction on their lines be managed by themselves at a price they set. Suppose CP were to look at your table and say, OK, let's match or beat some of these numbers as a lump sum offer to VIA. (For sake of argument, I will pick the $8.63M base case number). $8.63 x 88 miles SF-De Beaujeu = $759M... now, can we offer VIA use of our route for less than amount, and how much of that $759 do we actually have to spend to deliver that service for 40 years? How much can we extract as retained earnings?
Among the things railways are good at, is the ability to instruct their managers to stand on their heads and walk on their hands to save on replacing shoes. In other words, just how many trains will VIA delay over 40 years that will cost CP money? Can we just pressure our managers to find ways to get around those delays? How loose can we structure the contract so that if we miss our performance targets, there is minimal pain?
To CP, the true base case of the bypass is simply the cost of the connecting track and interlocking at Smiths Falls, and whatever surfacing and crossing protection enhancements are needed to provide a minimal speed capacity. And the cost of delays to their own trains. Even the old 1965 timing provided 1:35 trip time SF-Dorval. That represents a 40-minute savings over the Ottawa route, mostly because whatever speed the improvements to HFR trackage will deliver, they are offset by meet delays between HFR trains SF-Ottawa-De Beaujeu on the Alexandria route. The Winchester Sub has been reduced to single track, but it's good rail on a very level and straight alignment.
Being generous, suppose the 40-year capital cost is $259M. CP has an opportunity for $500M of retained earnings.
Is that realistic/sufficient enough to interest CP? I am not saying it is. But it's a notional price point that can be applied against your model to see what's in it for CP. Maybe the price point that is presented to VIA is less than $21.57, and that's why the bypass looks attractive.
But it's still a dumb idea imho, whatever the numbers are.
- Paul
roger1818
Senior Member
Thanks for the great analysis! Certainly if the capital cost to build the bypass per km is the same as the entire TOM HFR project, your calculations are correct. The problem is I don't think that is a valid assumption. CP removed 2/3 of the double track (leaving 1/3 as passing tracks) less than 1.5 years ago, meaning that the base should still be in good condition. Also, most of the ROW is very straight, so little if any adjustments to the curves will be necessary.
I don't know what a good cost per km would be, but (reverse engineering your calculations) if we used the same as OTTW-MTRL, you would get the following results. As I said, I don't know if this would be correct either, so if anyone wants to try anything other values, send me a PM, and I will send you the link to the Google Sheets sheet I made.
| Metric | HFR TRTO-OTTW | HFR OTTW-MTRL | HFR TRTO-OTTW-MTRL (Base Case) | Ottawa Bypass | vs. HFR without Ottawa Bypass | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capital Cost | $2.1 billion | $91.5 million | $2.2 billion | $74.2 million | +3% | |
| Segment length (km) | 400 | 180 | 580 | 146 | +25% | |
| Frequencies/day | 15 | 15 | 15 | 6 | +40% | |
| Trains/year | 10,950 | 10,950 | 10,950 | 4,380 | +40% | |
| Train-km/year | 4,380,000 | 1,971,000 | 6,351,000 | 639,480 | +10% (ignoring everything outside the Ottawa Bypass) | |
| Capital cost per km | $5.3 million | $508.3 thousand | $3.8 million | $508.3 thousand | ||
| Capital cost per year (assuming 40-year asset life) | $52.5 million | $2.29 million | $54.75 million | $1.86 million | +3% | |
| Capital cost per train movement | $4,795 | $208.90 | $5,000 | $424 | +8% (ignoring everything outside the Ottawa Bypass) | |
| Capital cost per train-km | $11.99 | $1.16 | $8.62 | $2.90 | +34% |
Bordercollie
Senior Member
What makes you think CP would allow VIA to run on their tracks regardless of how much investment$$ they would get?
Havelock sub is a different story, VIA would be rebuilding the entire corridor and own the ROW.
roger1818
Senior Member
What makes CN and CP allow VIA to run on their tracks anywhere else in the country? The answer is a combination of money and legal requirement. The freight railways aren't required to give VIA whatever they want, but the railways can't deny VIA access to their tracks. Having said that, VIA might not be running on CP's tracks, but might lease a portion of the ROW and build their own tracks where CP removed them. At this point what is planned (if anything) is about as clear as mud.
I agree. CP has a lot to gain from VIA taking over the Havelock sub. VIA will take over all maintenance costs, so it will likely cost CP less to run their 3 trains a week on VIA owned track than it currently costs CP to maintain them. However, just because it is different, doesn't mean it isn't possible.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
Then I suggest you start to lobby the minister of transportation about via getting rights to use CP trackage.
roger1818
Senior Member
No need. It is the minister of transportation that is suggesting that they will.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Turning the Havelock Sub over to VIA in exchange for money or some kind of quid pro quo for their use of it or some other consideration for CP ROW elsewhere on the HFR route would seem to me to make corporate sense to CP. How they handle running through/around the Agincourt Yard and elsewhere in the city will be another issue.
Regarding the Winchester Sub, I haven't seen it recently but if it is anything like what they did west of Thunder Bay, they turned sections of the second mainline into very (very) long passing tracks to allow their long freights to pass efficiently. If Winchester is similar, the ROW will have to wide enough to allow a third track in many locations.
roger1818
Senior Member
CP's Toronto Yard in Agincourt is a pale reflection of its former self (over 3/4 of its tracks have been removed), so getting through it shouldn't be a problem. The old hump could be used for the foundation for an overpass to get to the south side of the Belleville Sub.
It isn't so much how long the passing tracks are but what percentage of the ROW still has passing tracks. According to this article, they removed
"60 miles of double track on the 104.9-mile Winchester Subdivision," so that works out to 57% (between a 1/2 and 2/3). VIA could either build new track parallel to the passing tracks or they could use the passing tracks for their dedicated track in exchange for CP being able to use the VIA's track as double track when VIA isn't using it (or a combination of the two).
ShonTron
Moderator
Business class isn't quite as nice as it was pre-pandemic. The liquor service has been reduced to beer, wine, or soft drinks only; previously they served broad choice of drinks prior to meal service and liqueurs afterwards. I understand the need for the change - it limits their interaction with passengers - but I miss it.
I won't miss the HEP-II coaches used on the corridor though.