[kEiThZ]

well I guess it all depends on the network and usage. I'm pretty sure that JR and their vast network is very profitable. Then again they are on another planet when it comes to rail.
I guess NA rail is still in catchup mode to the rest of the developed world.

Comparisons to Asia are just ridiculous. Do people really not understand the contextual difference between North American cities and their Japanese, Korean or Chinese equivalents?

There's a lot of things they can do and achieve in Japan that we just can't here. The culture is different. The built form is different. The regulatory framework is different. The cost of fuel is different. The landscape is different. Heck, even the climate in many parts is different.

There are things that we can and should learn from their experiences. But the idea that we can simply achieve or what they have or blatantly copy what they have is ludicrous. There is no North American city where commuter rail has generated a net profit for the operator.

And getting back to Japan. How quickly everyone forgets what a disaster their rail companies were:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_National_Railway_Settlement_Corporation

They only needed over $200 billion in bailout money from Japanese taxpayers to be viable after privatization.

 

[kEiThZ]

People think that because it's true. The value of the train is that it should be cheaper for the much slower service. VIA charges rates that are often on par with flying, especially if booking last minute or on weekends (especially long weekends). I've often seen prices as high as $250-$300 per person to travel Toronto-Montreal return. That's on par with flying but much slower. The problem is VIAs pricing strategy. They use an airline model instead of a train model. Prices for trains should be a lot lower. VIA needs to offer more cars on their trains during busy times to lower fare.

Except that this is blatantly not true unless you compare VIA's last minute prices to an airlines price two weeks from now. Just look at one-way fares for Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal as an example:

If you look at next day travel:

VIA: $125+tax
Airfare: $300-$400 including tax.

If you look a month away:

VIA: Escape fares at $44-75 + tax. You can get VIA 1 for $99 + tax.
Airfares: Usually around $120.

So where the heck are people getting this impression. Even VIA 1 is almost always cheaper than economy airfare. And all this is before we take into account luggage charges and travel time/cost to the core. The only thing I can surmise is that these people are ignorant because they don't travel regularly and probably never take the train. If the complaint is that VIA uses revenue management instead of fixed fares, I find that complaint ridiculous too. Why should VIA leave money on the table?

 

[crs1026]

So where the heck are people getting this impression. Even VIA 1 is almost always cheaper than economy airfare. And all this is before we take into account luggage charges and travel time/cost to the core. The only thing I can surmise is that these people are ignorant because they don't travel regularly and probably never take the train. If the complaint is that VIA uses revenue management instead of fixed fares, I find that complaint ridiculous too. Why should VIA leave money on the table?

VIA uses demand management a little too wisely. The culprit is its undersize fleet, and the limited track slots, which creates a capacity that is much smaller than true demand. When you are managing demand but only have a three car train to offer every couple of hours, you will set your price higher than it might be and still fill every seat you have.. But your price will be turning away people who might otherwise ride. i suspect that, rather than the absolute cost comparison, is what people react to.

If and when VIA reequips, their fleet needs to be larger. The goal should be modal share rather than filling small trains. I would hope that leads to many more seats offered at lower prices. That will be fiercely opposed by bus and air operators, but it's good overall transportation policy. The old adage, lose a dollar per customer but make it up on volume, has some applicability here.

I think it was VIA's first president, Frank Roberts, who commented that the pre-VIA CN passenger strategy was to carry a hundred people at a dollar a head, where CP's traditional strategy was to carry ten people at ten dollars a head and enjoy a much lower cost structure. The private-funded model that HFR is heading towards may favour the CP demand strategy, but I would argue that as public infrastructure we need VIA to get back to the old CN model.... low cost trains for everyone.

PS - VIA's Business Class is a phenomenally good value for money, even at today's frequency and trip speed. I would put it up against any first class day intercity service anywhere. It's better food and service than Virgin or TGV, and just as nice to ride. It's Proof that VIA is world class, IMHO. Can't praise it enough.

- Paul

 

[lead82]

Except that this is blatantly not true unless you compare VIA's last minute prices to an airlines price two weeks from now. Just look at one-way fares for Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal as an example:

If you look at next day travel:

VIA: $125+tax
Airfare: $300-$400 including tax.

If you look a month away:

VIA: Escape fares at $44-75 + tax. You can get VIA 1 for $99 + tax.
Airfares: Usually around $120.

So where the heck are people getting this impression. Even VIA 1 is almost always cheaper than economy airfare. And all this is before we take into account luggage charges and travel time/cost to the core. The only thing I can surmise is that these people are ignorant because they don't travel regularly and probably never take the train. If the complaint is that VIA uses revenue management instead of fixed fares, I find that complaint ridiculous too. Why should VIA leave money on the table?

It is absolutely true for long weekends. I usually book several weeks in advance. For example, look at Toronto-Montreal for Thanksgiving weekend October 6-9. If I leave on afternoon of 6th and return on 9th. Here are my quotes:
VIA:
Train 66 on Oct 6, return Oct. 9 on Train 69
Total: $247.47
(Economy fare there, Escape back).

AC YTZ-YUL:
AC7954 Oct 6, return Oct 9. on AC7977
Total: $259.54

Price difference is negligible. Flight wins. I normally travel with carry on so no extra charges. Also, with the flight, I can save more money by flying on Saturday morning to avoid a night in hotel.

This is what I mean by train being not competitive. Why does it cost almost the same to plan a trip almost 8 weeks out? Makes no sense. I have faster travel by plane and more flight options.

For sure that last minute flights are super expensive. However, I often find that for long weekends the train is too expensive if booked in advance. Maybe a random weekend it is cheaper and you could find $100-$150 round trip prices but I never seem to find them at convenient train times (Friday afternoon departure and Holiday Monday afternoon returns).

 

[kEiThZ]

It is absolutely true for long weekends.

And that may well be the only time it's true. I would guess that seats for long weekends book up well in advance on VIA. So they price the remaining seats more dearly. And in that case, yes you should fly.

But for the vast majority of days in the year, VIA is not just a little cheaper. It's substantially cheaper. And hopefully, HFR makes that difference even larger.

 

[kEiThZ]

Does anyone know who designed VIA's refurb of the LRC?

I hope that when they do HFR, they get a solid firm for once. Check out what Priestmangoode (one of my favourite design shops) did for OBB:

http://www.priestmangoode.com/project/new-intercity-and-nightjet/

I really hope VIA doesn't blow the opportunity to absolutely rebrand themselves with HFR.

 

[cplchanb]

Does anyone know who designed VIA's refurb of the LRC?

I hope that when they do HFR, they get a solid firm for once. Check out what Priestmangoode (one of my favourite design shops) did for OBB:

http://www.priestmangoode.com/project/new-intercity-and-nightjet/

I really hope VIA doesn't blow the opportunity to absolutely rebrand themselves with HFR.

Looks good but they should aim for swivel seats so that they can all face the same direction and can be flipped around when going the other way

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/H5_Series_Shinkansen#/media/File:H5・H515-3.jpg

 

[SaugeenJunction]

What to do with VIA Rail? Ottawa weighs multibillion-dollar boost to passenger rail - Globe and Mail

To get around the paywall, refresh then stop loading the page before the paywall pops up (esentially refresh then stop immediately). Not too much new, but more of an overview of the project. It highlights that many MPs and municipalities along the line are in favour. Also, they provide a clean map of the route.

Some interesting tidbits:

• "For instance, it is not clear how trains would get from Peterborough to Toronto’s Union Station. Via says there are several options under consideration. A spokesperson said the company is working to secure federal approval for the general concept before more detailed plans can be released to the public." - this sounds like the Don Branch is the option they want (according to the map, inclusion of Eglinton Station), however they don't want to stir up opposition in Toronto to the plan before approval. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if I was VIA I'd do it this way.

• "There is also the possibility that some of VIA’s proposed new routes to Montreal won’t reach the city’s Central Station. Via says a technical team is working on this issue, but the company has previously said that some passengers may have to use the light rail line through the tunnel to connect to a Via rail line for some trips."

 

[kEiThZ]

It does beg the question though. If we're going to spend $6 billion for HFR, why not $11 billion for HSR, for more ridership and reduced aviation GHG emissions and higher economic impact.

 

[SamStar]

• "There is also the possibility that some of VIA’s proposed new routes to Montreal won’t reach the city’s Central Station. Via says a technical team is working on this issue, but the company has previously said that some passengers may have to use the light rail line through the tunnel to connect to a Via rail line for some trips."

They should really build a stop in Laval at the current De La Concorde intermodal station served by the metro and the RTM (former AMT) St-Jerôme line. All the infrastructures are there already.
This would allow for a quick connection for the metro network before having to transfer via the REM if the final stop is not the central station.

 

[Urban Sky]

If we're going to spend $6 billion for HFR, why not $11 billion for HSR [...]

I can't comment on the costs for HFR for obvious reasons, but where did you get your $11 billion figure from? The Ecotrain study (as the most recent HSR study I'm aware of) predicted costs of $13.98-$15.99 billion for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec, which equals $15.90-$18.18 billion in 2017 Dollars:

Source: Ecotrain Study (2011, Deliverable 13, p.149)

For any questions regarding HFR, I refer to the current Infographic on the VIA Rail website:

Source: http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/governance-and-reports/dedicated-tracks

 

[steveintoronto]

Some interesting tidbits:

• "For instance, it is not clear how trains would get from Peterborough to Toronto’s Union Station. Via says there are several options under consideration. A spokesperson said the company is working to secure federal approval for the general concept before more detailed plans can be released to the public." - this sounds like the Don Branch is the option they want (according to the map, inclusion of Eglinton Station), however they don't want to stir up opposition in Toronto to the plan before approval. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if I was VIA I'd do it this way.

What Metrolinx decides will have a lot to do with the chosen route in. Sharing track and stations will make things much easier for both. And I agree on the Don Valley chord being the most obvious choice. Metrolinx aren't spending money and effort on it for nothing.

As a footnote: I'm astounded but shouldn't be surprised at how little commenters to the Globe article miss the P3 aspect of the project. It's key to making this work, and private investment even more than government approval will shape how the finished project will look, including whether speeds will eventually approach 'High Speed' definitions along some stretches, especially if some of the sharper curves are eventually straightened outside of the 100 metres from the RoW centre line (Transportation and other Acts) as already allowed without an EA as a later upgrade.

From the article:

[...]
The project could be a potential contender for funding through the new Canada Infrastructure Bank, which will launch later this year with a mandate to pool public money and private dollars from institutional investors such as pension funds.
[...]
“There is inherent incompatibility between freight and passenger trains,” Mr. Emerson’s report stated. “A dedicated track would be good for Canada: it would allow for additional passenger rail frequencies and more freight rail capacity in the long term and would help to lower highway congestion in Ontario and Quebec. However, any proposal from Via Rail would have to be carefully assessed to ensure that the elements relating to ridership and attracting private investment are viable.”

Ostensibly the whole point of utilizing the IB is to leverage public money with private, to a ratio of about 4:1, (private to public) while the government still retains the ability to shape the project, albeit by assuming some of the risk beyond the 1:4 financial cost it takes.

This might all change radically if an offer is made....if a *proposal to build is made* for the whole thing by private capital. Ostensibly VIA would be leased the operation, with sub-leases by VIA or the owners to Metrolinx and CP, if not a separate freight operator that operates temporally...and might even use electric locos for freight too. If VIA offered a leasing arrangement that guaranteed a minimum fixed income for the line for X number of years, something it's doing now with CN and CP for questionable value anyway, it would guarantee VIA slots and available clear track, and ballast the financial case for private investors, who could then consider other aspects to add additional value later (real estate, for instance)(Yes, the MOOSE model again, which is in fact the basis for many extant rail systems already)

And if an outright private investment offer is made, outside of the IB, (which would mean complying only to federal regulations, not the IB's mandate) the symbiosis would be there for them to source their rolling stock from their own (perhaps even owned) suppliers. This would add vertical value to their investment. It would also remove the inevitable howls of opposition from private air and bus carriers that "the government is subsidizing the competition".

The point is that more revolves around the private investment aspect for this that many appreciate. And the capital to finance this is a relative pittance, believe it or not, to what a number of potential investment orgs are used to doing.

 

[kEiThZ]

@Urban Sky

Figures from here:

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/acg-acgb-high-speed-rail-2956.htm

It looks like you're referencing numbers from Quebec to Toronto. I'm talking about Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. Of course, I may have misunderstood. And it needs to be corrected for construction inflation.

I'm still skeptical that VIA can get to Quebec City for $4 billion.

 

[crs1026]

One of Greg Gormick's comments to the Globe which rang true is the issue of Montreal to Toronto via Ottawa. VIA's promise of a 25% decrease in trip time is indeed undone if you route Montreal-Toronto business over this longer route.

On a totally gut level, to me the impact Toronto-Montreal trip time is the acid test of whether the new plan is an improved value proposition over today's auto, rail, and air options. Toronto-Ottawa is a piece of that, and improved Toronto-Ottawa times will improve that market segment, but without the benefit to Montreal as well, the proposal doesn't hang together IMHO.

And if you go to all this trouble of building a new line to Ottawa, but leave Montreal-Toronto trains on CN, why are we talking this through at all? Just offer CN $4B lump sum plus some share of net revenue to upgrade the Kingston and Drummondville lines, instead of spending $5B for the HFR route....I'm confident they will see that as a business opportunity, and figure out how to get the track upgraded sufficiently while retaining the greatest amount of the lump sum as their reward.

The current Montreal-Quebec schedule is heavily padded, simply because some trains encounter meets with freights but others don't. If you follow the VIA Moving Map page for a bit, you will spot trains arriving at Drummondville as much as 25 minutes ahead of schedule - and sitting there waiting for the departure time. That reflects the commercial terms CN has with VIA today. If you sweetened the pot, I'm sure CN could figure out how to cut the trip times while still moving their freights. It may not take a whole new route to achieve that, and the 'sweetener' might be less than the capital investment in the new route, with all its warts.

The more we dwell on the investment bank, and what it will take to woo investors that way, the more I think we should just talk to CN. Are they not just as interested in new business opportunities? The challenge is to demonstrate that their risk and their reward are aligned.

Lastly, I wonder if the ex CP M+O Sub figures in this anywhere. VIA's current Montreal-Ottawa route, the former CN Alexandria Sub, is curvy and likely a challenge to upgrade. The M+O sub was banked for eventual HSR use, and it's dead straight. This might be the right time to switch routes. Perhaps more expensive in the short run, but leaving the door open to things down the road.

VIA has done an excellent job of generating what is undoubtedly the lowest-cost option for renewing the Corridor. We all know what happens if you buy the absolutely cheapest car on the market, or the cheapest suit. Cheapest doesn't last longest, has the most painful tradeoffs, is always unsatisfying in the end. Cheap only works when you intend to flog it for a defined term and then throw away. I'm not sure we should be procuring infrastructure on that premise.

- Paul

 

[cplchanb]

One of Greg Gormick's comments to the Globe which rang true is the issue of Montreal to Toronto via Ottawa. VIA's promise of a 25% decrease in trip time is indeed undone if you route Montreal-Toronto business over this longer route.

On a totally gut level, to me the impact Toronto-Montreal trip time is the acid test of whether the new plan is an improved value proposition over today's auto, rail, and air options. Toronto-Ottawa is a piece of that, and improved Toronto-Ottawa times will improve that market segment, but without the benefit to Montreal as well, the proposal doesn't hang together IMHO.

And if you go to all this trouble of building a new line to Ottawa, but leave Montreal-Toronto trains on CN, why are we talking this through at all? Just offer CN $4B lump sum plus some share of net revenue to upgrade the Kingston and Drummondville lines, instead of spending $5B for the HFR route....I'm confident they will see that as a business opportunity, and figure out how to get the track upgraded sufficiently while retaining the greatest amount of the lump sum as their reward.

The current Montreal-Quebec schedule is heavily padded, simply because some trains encounter meets with freights but others don't. If you follow the VIA Moving Map page for a bit, you will spot trains arriving at Drummondville as much as 25 minutes ahead of schedule - and sitting there waiting for the departure time. That reflects the commercial terms CN has with VIA today. If you sweetened the pot, I'm sure CN could figure out how to cut the trip times while still moving their freights. It may not take a whole new route to achieve that, and the 'sweetener' might be less than the capital investment in the new route, with all its warts.

The more we dwell on the investment bank, and what it will take to woo investors that way, the more I think we should just talk to CN. Are they not just as interested in new business opportunities? The challenge is to demonstrate that their risk and their reward are aligned.

Lastly, I wonder if the ex CP M+O Sub figures in this anywhere. VIA's current Montreal-Ottawa route, the former CN Alexandria Sub, is curvy and likely a challenge to upgrade. The M+O sub was banked for eventual HSR use, and it's dead straight. This might be the right time to switch routes. Perhaps more expensive in the short run, but leaving the door open to things down the road.

VIA has done an excellent job of generating what is undoubtedly the lowest-cost option for renewing the Corridor. We all know what happens if you buy the absolutely cheapest car on the market, or the cheapest suit. Cheapest doesn't last longest, has the most painful tradeoffs, is always unsatisfying in the end. Cheap only works when you intend to flog it for a defined term and then throw away. I'm not sure we should be procuring infrastructure on that premise.

- Paul

you have some interesting points, but i think its in the best interests of via to pursue ROW HFR where possible if it is to compete with the other forms of transportation. Any partnership with CN/CP is always a losing one as their own interests are always going to be first. Since they have the money, they have the perpetual bargaining chip. Itd be better if they find private investors to band the money together to get this thing built right the first time. A billion more to already a multi billion dollar project in the end isnt the end of the world vs the potential gains. Besides as you mentioned theres a large buffer zone just to accommodate CN; they wont need that buffer if they had their own track. If the worry is about alignment couldnt they make a parallel double track and have it just for themselves save for crossovers?