[micheal_can]

Tracks get ripped up so the freight companies have less to maintain, to streamline their operations. If you one day choose to consider facts, freight is up.
In terms of being at capacity, if you reduce the maximum capacity by ripping up track, you will be at a higher utilization rate.

Yes. I actually understand that, but may have not said it well. It is just like if we rip up the 407, traffic on the 401 will go up. That does not mean overall traffic is up. It just means that it seems up.

You assume that any government intent on letting air carriers fail would also be supportive of VIA and broader investment in intercity rail. If our history is a guide, any government that was willing to let Air Canada and Westjet fail, is probably going to shutter VIA too. Be careful what you wish for, as they say....

Well, no, but it would be nice. I think all politicians are horrible and are much like a baby's diaper, and should be changed often, and for the very same reason.

You apparently don't get what a monopoly is. They aren't monopolizing a thing. If you show up with enough money, they will absolutely let you use their network and even build on it. Look at the sidings that VIA has built along the Lakeshore for example. It's just that it's neither economical nor efficient or effective to keep doing this in corridors where we want to run a substantial amount of service.

Via should not have had to build anything. CP/CN owns the tracks, they should be the ones footing the bill. It would be the same as if your landlord decided to build a new deck and then gave you the bill. That would get thrown out of court quite quickly.

Because it costs money to maintain tracks that aren't used. And because there are legal obligations that go along with owning track whether it is used or not. We're always changing what is dug up or manufactured where and where it is shipped to. The freight companies adjust to that. In the past, when costs were lower they might have just left a low traffic line or branch remain. Less incentive to do that if it's expensive.

Yup. So, in other words, freight traffic is down, not up.

I think it was the Beachburg sub that CN had from North Bay to Ottawa that part of it was abandoned so that the OVR couldn't run trains to bypass Toronto. Sounds liek more monopolizing there.

We shouldn't. And haven't. Repeating something doesn't make it true.

We have. Did the Canadian government pay for the first transcontinental line? Did the Canadian government buy up failing lines and create CN? Now we are building HFR. Sounds to me like we are paying for the same thing, 3 different times,.

They can change legislation all they want. But they'll quickly discover that the kind of uncompensated asset seizure or control you are suggesting to be found unconstitutional by the courts.

Again, the freight companies aren't really all that un-cooperative. Their business is freight. They prioritize it. If transport agencies show up with needs that impact the freight companies business, they'll cooperate if there's adequate compensation for it. I'd rather just have VIA build and own its own tracks where financially feasible. Other than the Corridor, all the long distance trains are daily or less. The amount pax impacted is a rounding error for VIA. Leave that to using the freight rail networks.

That makes sense between Toronto and Montreal. Outside of that, there isn't much that can be taken over.

 

[kEiThZ]

Via should not have had to build anything. CP/CN owns the tracks, they should be the ones footing the bill.

That is absurd logic. Especially given that we live in a country with a capitalist economy with private enterprise. Just because they own tracks, they should pay for new tracks for VIA?

It would be the same as if your landlord decided to build a new deck and then gave you the bill. That would get thrown out of court quite quickly.

No, it would be like insisting your landlord pay for a new house for you. And that kind of a demand would get laughed out of court.

Yup. So, in other words, freight traffic is down, not up.

No. Freight is up. It's just in different places, increasing demand on some lines and branches and reducing it on others. And utilization is up too.

Stats Canada: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/190408/dq190408b-eng.htm

Also freight traffic correlates with economic activity. It's down during recessions and up during global booms. It's why investors and economists actually use rail freight as an economic indicator.

I think it was the Beachburg sub that CN had from North Bay to Ottawa that part of it was abandoned so that the OVR couldn't run trains to bypass Toronto. Sounds liek more monopolizing there.

You really don't understand what a monopoly is. Owning an asset is not an economic monopoly. Your logic is akin to saying you have a monopoly on driving because you own a car. There is nothing stopping anybody from building a competing rail line. If they had a monopoly that wouldn't be true.

We have. Did the Canadian government pay for the first transcontinental line? Did the Canadian government buy up failing lines and create CN? Now we are building HFR. Sounds to me like we are paying for the same thing, 3 different times,.

Did you forget about the money made when the government privatized those corporations and sold their shares? So no we haven't paid for it three times. Heck, the government didn't even entirely fund the first transcontinental railroad entirely. There was private investment in the project too. If the government wants to use an asset, they shouldn't privatize it.

That makes sense between Toronto and Montreal. Outside of that, there isn't much that can be taken over.

And outside of the Corridor there really isn't much of relevance in rail travel anyway. At best, something can be built in Southern Alberta and the Maritimes. The rest of the network exists to meet minimal obligations on servicing remote communities. So no investment is needed beyond rolling stock. Leave the track maintenance to CN and CP.

And not just because it's Urban Toronto, but I genuinely don't give a damn about anything but service in our population corridors. For anything outside that, let people take the bus or move. Infrastructure needs to prioritize the bulk of the population and taxpayers first. I'm tired of cities getting milked to subsidize rural areas. And this concern for some "national" rail network is just another excuse to leech the productivity of our urban centres. Not one "national" or "regional" service should be expanded before there is hourly service from Quebec City to Windsor, Calgary to Edmonton, Moncton to Halifax and Vancouver to Chilliwack.

Personally, I wouldn't give a damn if the Canadian got cancelled. Or the Ocean. They aren't economically impactful at all. And the vast, vast majority of Canadians will have never used them in their lifetimes.

 

[Urban Sky]

Let's try to resist the attempts of one compulsive spammer to have his ever-same dubious claims monopolize our discussion and instead move back to comments from people who actually bother to consider facts and acknowledge reality before writing here:

^@nfitz That’s a good start to how to look at things. I have the back of an envelope handy.

Let’s assume that 40% of that CN capitalization is in the track - the rest pertains to locomotives, railcars, yards, and other things that VIA doesn’t encroach on. CN has 19,500 route miles. The Kingston Sub is double track and high quality, so give its capitalization a factor of 2x the average per-route mile value. On that back of envelope basis, the market value of the Kingston Sub is about 3% (600/19,500) of CN’s market value for track of $39.8B (40%x $99.5B). or roughly $1.22 B.

If one assumes that expropriating CN (and presumably) forcing it onto CP will not hurt CN’s ability to attract customers and earn an equal return, then there is no need to compensate CN for loss of future opportunity. And so long as we assume that the Kingston line will always be a railway, and has no potential growth in property value,, the loss of the land itself has no opportunity cost. So it would be reasonable to guesstimate that expropriating the 300 miles of the Kingston Sub, in its current condition, would cost Ottawa $1.22B.

That leaves two issues. One is how much CP would expect to share its line with CN. We could do a similar per-mile market assessment of CP’s assets and determine what it would cost CN to become a 50% partner with CP between Oshawa and Dorval. CN would likely come out ahead. We would have to pay to enlarge sidings on the Belleville Sub to assure CP of no adverse operational impact and assure CN of roughly equal freight throughput and velocity. Let’s assume that is 50 miles of new sidings at $10M per mile - $0.5B Having made that gift to CP and CN, we have effectively made them whole and provided wVIA with a high quality, freight-free right of way that is vastly superior to the Havelock Sub.

The second issue is, what should we do about the potential for the shared freight line to fill up and require a second freight line.... say, in 40-50 years. In theory one would force that issue into local land planning today, before land is developed in other ways, dealing with any property owners’ claims for harm now while their land remains relatively cheap.( Let’s call that initiative “Pickering Airport 2.0”). To be conservative, let’s budget $1B for that new ROW. There are two options - the new route becomes HSR some day, and CN gets the Kingston Sub back, or the new ROW becomes a super-quality freight line perhaps with totally different technology in 40 years.

This scenario does not offend any principle that I hold dear, and it is not an intrusion into free enterprise or capitalism as generally practised in Canada. I don’t believe CN’s shareholders would claim hardship (although they might perceive the imposition of greater risk, due to CP’s involvement....railways are not that good at cooperating) The only obstacle I can see is that the legal work to declare the expropriation, haggle with CN over final price, and then to haggle with CP over its compensation, would take a JPO full of lawyers and force a decade of delays.

So yes, I think the cost is roughly comparable to HFR, and would deliver a higher-performing infrastructure to VIA without harming freight railways.....it is a more rational and economical solution. Unfortunately there is no public appetite for this, and no political will. So VIA’s HFR strategy is the only option we have that has a realistic chance of success. So I’m learning to love it.

-Paul

I'm not sure why you consider CP to be more resistant against co-production than CN. When you consider the two areas where they already share tracks (Parry Sound to Sudbury and Ashcroft to Mission City), both railroads had a single-tracked line and co-production allowed three very tangible benefits:

1. Decreased track maintenance costs by reducing the number of sidings.
2. Increased fluidity by gaining the benefits of double-tracking without the actual expense of double-tracking.
3. Increased operational stability in case of an interruption (e.g. landslide) on the railroad's own line by having a diversion route nearby.

When looking at CP, they stand to win in points 2) and 3) by having the taxpayer pay for double-tracking and presumably obtaining running rights on the Kingston Sub in the case of disruptions on the Belleville Sub, but in case of CN, its only point 3), as they already own a multiple-tracked rail corridor on which they can dispatch the passenger trains in a way which keeps their adverse effects on its own freight operations at a minimum. If CN was so eager to relinquish control of the Kingston Sub in return for financial advantages, why don't they approach the federal government and offer them to allow frequent passenger service with dispatching priority in return for giving them an amount which is just less than HFR's price tag?

Cost wise, electrification would also be a poor proposition early on. A project built on borrowed money requires their investment to pay off. And the savings from not having diesel operations is going to a very long time to return the capital invested. On the other hand, investing that same capital in network expansion or enabling higher speeds attracts new passengers and boosts revenue.

Electrification is important. But it should be saved for a logical time, once the corridor is finished building. I would argue that electrification is better suited to a project in the 2040s when the corridor is finished Quebec City to Windsor, and the now 15+ yr old Chargers can be parted out economically, Demand will be up and VIA will probably be at semi-hourly service through the full day. At that point with costs rising from increasing demand and no ability to add customers through expansion, the obvious investment is electrification both to speed up the train (to add frequency) and to reduce operating costs. And in 15-20 years with cars having been substantially electrified, VIA will probably be at a point where they need electrification to compete with EVs. A corollary is that in 20 year battery tech may also be substantially developed that we won't need to spend money on installing catenary across the entire length of the corridor. So there might be opportunities for savings.

Once you electrify a rail corridor in Canada, you will be eternally stuck with it (as it is so visible as a "sunk investment" if you choose to abandon any stretch of it). Better to wait with electrification until there we are building HSR segments (which are almost by definition future-proof)...

 

[tmlittle]

Once you electrify a rail corridor in Canada, you will be eternally stuck with it (as it is so visible as a "sunk investment" if you choose to abandon any stretch of it). Better to wait with electrification until there we are building HSR segments (which are almost by definition future-proof)...

Better to wait forever, then. The Metrolinx approach of slowly electrifying shorter regional lines seems like the obvious approach that gets the ball rolling. We can slowly push electrification to places like Kitchener and fully electrify the high-traffic commuter lines while GO shifts toward an electric fleet. By then Via will hopefully be in its next purchasing cycle and we can talk about partial Corridor electrification, especially if more "midrange" type services arise like Peterborough to Toronto, London to Toronto, etc.

 

[crs1026]

I'm not sure why you consider CP to be more resistant against co-production than CN. When you consider the two areas where they already share tracks (Parry Sound to Sudbury and Ashcroft to Mission City), both railroads had a single-tracked line and co-production allowed three very tangible benefits:

I don’t see CP as more problemmatic, and if I implied that I wrote poorly. While the railways have adopted co-production where their was sufficient mutual interest, they apparently don’t see the value on the London-Toronto-Montreal segment. A nudge might help..

What I was trying to say is, if CP is the line where the freight ends up, and if CP sees CN being incented to shift to CP, they will want an equal share of the incentive and the opportunity. I see that as likely a fierce and lawyer-intense negotiation. If anything, one would expect the railways to suddenly find new common ground: ie how to jointly extract the most money from Ottawa.

That’s one reason why I positioned the deal as expropriation. Ottawa would have to seize the CP line (for compensation), share control of that line between the two railways (which might imply giving each a 50% equity share, or in some other manner), then make the railways whole in terms of making the line as operable as what each has today, and then seize the CN line, again for compensation.

This country’s laws do allow government to seize private assets, over the objections of the owner, for public works - subject to making the owners whole for fair market value. This is an adversarial transaction, but neither CN nor CP would get the sun and the moon.... they get what the law allows as determined by a third party (or, more commonly, negotiated among the parties as safer alternative to putting this to a court).

If CN was so eager to relinquish control of the Kingston Sub in return for financial advantages, why don't they approach the federal government and offer them to allow frequent passenger service with dispatching priority in return for giving them an amount which is just less than HFR's price tag?

That’s a very good question, and as a minor CN shareholder I would expect that someone at CN has crunched those numbers!

Obviously I’m guessing, but it’s likely a combination of several things

a) VIA represents long term risk. What if they need half hourly headways some day? What if they do insist on electrification? What if VIA can’t answer these questions today, because they don’t know their needs and/or don’t know what Ottawa will fund a decade from now? As we have seen with Metrolinx’ master P3 procurement, the problem may be in being unable to write the service agreement to anybody’s satisfaction, given it has to be a multi decade deal with huge unknowns.
b) A general principle of private enterprise is, don’t let somebody else take control.
c) Someone (or many somebodies throughout the food chain) in Ottawa has told them, don’t bother, this will never sell, and we aren’t interested anyways
d) Their lawyers (and maybe the investment community) may have told them, hold out for more. (When Peterboro HFR first surfaced I honestly thought it was VIA’s BATNA to a negotiation with CN.... how do you bring down CN’s asking price if you don’t know the price of your other options? If Peterboro was just a bluff, it somehow got called)
e) CP would not sit idle and watch a private deal between VIA and CN that cuts them out of the opportunity and reward. That might tip the scales towards a sudden interest in coproduction. CN would need to partner with CP before it could pitch to VIA.... but we are back to the aggressive negotiating thing.
f) At the end of the day, Peterboro HFR is a more barebones asset.... so comparing price alone HFR would be Ottawa’s choice.
g)(PS) CN’s investors expect a rate of return well above what VIA’s bank (the CIB) is offering....

I maintain that the CN line is the optimal solution, and the best value for money for the country.... but it’s more ambitious, more complex, and would need far more backbone than Ottawa can muster. HFR for all its complexity is a simpler and more sellable project. Less risk, but less return.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

I maintain that the CN line is the optimal solution, and the best value for money for the country.... but it’s more ambitious, more complex, and would need far more backbone than Ottawa can muster. HFR for all its complexity is a simpler and more sellable project. Less risk, but less return.

I am curious, in your "optimal solution," how would you deal with trains between Toronto and Ottawa? Using the Brockville Sub creates a significant detour, not only for Ottawa-Toronto but also for Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto, if you want to boost frequencies by sharing trains.

 

[crs1026]

I am curious, in your "optimal solution," how would you deal with trains between Toronto and Ottawa? Using the Brockville Sub creates a significant detour, not only for Ottawa-Toronto but also for Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto, if you want to boost frequencies by sharing trains.

Assuming the Kingston line could be modestly upgraded, and freight can be cleared off, I would tolerate whatever improved trip times could be extracted, for the moment, using the Brockville route. I would keep the express Montreal service on the existing route rather than detouring through Ottawa.

I would like to see a Phase II that builds a new line to HSR standards from Kingston to Smiths Falls, using as much of the abandoned Canadian Northern right of way eastwards from Elgin or Portland. If we are going to build HSR some day, we should not bypass Kingston. The length of new line I am suggesting is pretty modest. This segment would be the logical "first step" towards HSR.

- Paul

 

[Catenary]

The provinces would love that sentiment I am sure.



East of Belleville, the CP corridor would be good for freight (at least as far as Saint-Polycarpe). Through Belleville, the Belleville sub cuts through the middle of town at grade, isolating parts of town from emergency services when a train is passing through. It wouldn't be so bad with VIA trains as they are shorter and wouldn't cause as much of a delay (though it would be slower for VIA).

East of Saint-Polycarpe I would like to see trains not bound for Montreal as a final destination use the Alexandria and Valleyfield Subs to cross over onto the south shore, removing unnecessary rail traffic from the island.



That would be one option. Another would be to rebuild CP's Ottawa Valley line (from Smiths Falls to Coniston, just east of Sudbury), to bypass Toronto.

CP only removed the tracks from Smiths Falls to Mattawa. The OVR still runs the line from Mattawa (and up to Temiscaming) over to Sudbury.

 

[kEiThZ]

I maintain that the CN line is the optimal solution, and the best value for money for the country.... but it’s more ambitious, more complex, and would need far more backbone than Ottawa can muster. HFR for all its complexity is a simpler and more sellable project. Less risk, but less return.

Disagree. A line designed for freight and owned by freight operators will never be ideal. While the Havelock corridor is a repurposed freight line, VIA's control and ownership of it means VIA can steadily improve it in a manner suited to VIA (electrification, straightening, grade separations) And more importantly, VIA can use most of the capacity offered.

Even a swapped line is a compromise. The Lakeshore is so much more populated. That makes it so much more challenging to do straightening. It means a lot more grade separations eventually. And all kinds of other costs and restrictions.

If we are going to build HSR some day, we should not bypass Kingston.

Why? To be honest, I just don't see it as essential for any future HSR to serve Kingston. The primary value of HSR would be connecting the major metros. The cost of serving Kingston is always going to exceed whatever ridership it would benefit.

Let's be honest here. Presuming HFR is built on the Havelock sub, the most obvious plan going forward is progressive upgrading of that corridor to Class 7 (125 mph) and Class 8 (160 mph). Building a whole new corridor to Kingston in addition to this would be insanely expensive. A better solution would be upgrading the Brockville sub and working to do the same with the track from Smiths Falls to Ottawa to enable traffic from Kingston to access the higher speed corridor.

 

[Urban Sky]

I am curious, in your "optimal solution," how would you deal with trains between Toronto and Ottawa? Using the Brockville Sub creates a significant detour, not only for Ottawa-Toronto but also for Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto, if you want to boost frequencies by sharing trains.

Assuming the Kingston line could be modestly upgraded, and freight can be cleared off, I would tolerate whatever improved trip times could be extracted, for the moment, using the Brockville route. I would keep the express Montreal service on the existing route rather than detouring through Ottawa.

Let's compare both approaches and assume that HFR means 15 frequencies (i.e. round-trips) per day on all primary markets (i.e. MTRL-OTTW, MTRL-TRTO and OTTW-TRTO), as suggested by this graphic released by the Globe and Mail:

Source: Globe and Mail (2019)


In the case of operating one single HFR route, operating 15 MTRL-OTTW-TRTO round trips to serve the end-to-end markets (refer to the “HFR (A)” column) has virtually the same train-mileage as the Status Quo (i.e. 6 round trips each MTRL-OTTW and MTRL-TRTO and 10 round-trips OTTW-TRTO). Conversely, operating 15 round trips each on all sides of the triangle (refer to the “HFR (B)” column) exactly doubles your daily train mileage. Granted, you would still have to operate some Local services with the "single HFR corridor" approach, but even if you operated all the current Lakeshore frequencies (i.e. in addition to the actual HFR services), your train-mileage would still be slightly lower than with the "HFR on all sides of the triangle" approach:

Maybe the above explains why I have such a hard time imagining how HFR over the Kingston Sub could possibly be more viable than over the Havelock Sub (and how any such proposal could be made acceptable to CN)...

 

[crs1026]

Even a swapped line is a compromise. The Lakeshore is so much more populated. That makes it so much more challenging to do straightening. It means a lot more grade separations eventually. And all kinds of other costs and restrictions.

The past investment in grade separations is one of the reasons why I think the Kingston line is under-appreciated. More of the main roads are already grade separated. Bridging the farmers' crossings and concession roads does not imply large overpasses - many of the bridges over the TGV line are remarkably modest.

Some curves may have to be left alone, but they are already at 80-90 mph, and if they can be further banked once freight is shifted, they may not need straightening so long as we are comparing options for the HFR level speed and performance paradigm. Even accepting your premise that the line may not be adaptable to anything further, at base case we would have Kingston at 100 mph versus Havelock more frequently at 80.

The Kingston bypass route would require 50 km's or so of new line. That expense could be a rough-in of a HSR level segment. Or, it could be similar to the standard that VIA projects for the Havelock line. It would amount to 50 kms of new, plus 30 kms of rebuild Portland-Smiths Falls, versus 150kms of raw unimproved rebuild (Perth to Havelock) plus 150ish kms of simpler rebuild (West of Havelock). That differential may be closer in cost than we think. Run time to Ottawa would be equivalent with a faster run directly to Montreal. More trains run per day, I recognize, but ridership would be higher on the Montreal-Toronto leg.

(I'm still confused about HFR's best time Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. If only one route is used, Toronto-Ottawa 3:15 + dwell in Ottawa + 1:33 Ottawa-Montreal is more than 4:45 - it approaches the current 5:04)

Let's be honest here. Presuming HFR is built on the Havelock sub, the most obvious plan going forward is progressive upgrading of that corridor to Class 7 (125 mph) and Class 8 (160 mph). Building a whole new corridor to Kingston in addition to this would be insanely expensive. A better solution would be upgrading the Brockville sub and working to do the same with the track from Smiths Falls to Ottawa to enable traffic from Kingston to access the higher speed corridor.

Are we discussing a plan to achieve HFR, and live with it until economics favour a HSR quality new build....or are we picking the future route for that new build and using it in the interim for HFR?

I can't see the Havelock route as the best candidate to achieve even Class 7. If that's what you are proposing, and if the Kingston route is not critical to the business case, then I would still argue that it must be better to put VIA on the CP line today, and force CP onto CN. (putting freight on the Havelock would be utterly uneconomic and non-operable). That would be more expensive than the base HFR plan, because CP's freight line has much higher market value than the Havelock line. But much less would be needed to upgrade the CP line to the same performance spec as VIA can buy initially on the Havelock route, with future use of the line for HSR assured. More money now, perhaps, but the net present value might be as good or better.

I'm guessing that west of Smiths Falls, the Class 7 upgrade you envision is further away than we think. Assume HFR initially does a raw rebuild Havelock to Perth, Class 6 at best. Assume that with all possible banking, VIA achieves its projected trip timing. At that point, upgrading Smiths Falls - Ottawa-Montreal from 100 mph to 125 mph is probably less money overall than upgrading the Havelock from Class 6 to anything higher. Same gain in time, likely similar ridership boost. So that project would have a better business case than improving the line west of Perth.

VIA's business case is likely the least possible cost alternative to generate a positive return. It just doesn't have much up side beyond that. I'm looking for more up side, and I think the alternatives may not prove more expensive particularly over the longer term. That may be irrelevant for the initial investors, but it's better public policy.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

Let's compare both approaches and assume that HFR means 15 frequencies (i.e. round-trips) per day on all primary markets (i.e. MTRL-OTTW, MTRL-TRTO and OTTW-TRTO), as suggested by this graphic released by the Globe and Mail:

View attachment 288433
Source: Globe and Mail (2019)


In the case of operating one single HFR route, operating 15 MTRL-OTTW-TRTO round trips to serve the end-to-end markets has virtually the same train-mileage as the Status Quo (i.e. 6 round trips each MTRL-OTTW and MTRL-TRTO and 10 round-trips OTTW-TRTO). Conversely, operating 15 round trips each on all sides of the triangle exactly doubles your daily train mileage. Granted, you would still have to operate some Local services with the "single HFR corridor" approach, but even if you operated all the current Lakeshore frequencies (i.e. in addition to the actual HFR services), your train-mileage would still be slightly lower than with the "HFR on all sides of the triangle" approach:

View attachment 288438


Maybe the above explains why I have such a hard time imagining how HFR over the Kingston Sub could possibly be more viable than over the Havelock Sub (and how any such proposal could be made acceptable to CN)...

What's the difference between HFR(A) and (B)?

 

[Urban Sky]

What's the difference between HFR(A) and (B)?

Sorry, I should have specified it more explicitly: “HFR (A)” assumes that there is one single HFR Corridor between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto, whereas “HFR (B)” is the “all three sides of the Triangle” approach proposed by Paul...

 

[roger1818]

The greenwashing argument relies on the fact that it blends in fossil fuels and usually is sourced from agricultural output that used significant fossil fuel inputs to grow. Using carbon stored in a plant is not an issue. You and I literally do that everyday. It's releasing the carbon stored up underground that is the issue. Were we to come up with 100% biofuel that was somehow sourced only from farming that used electrified machinery it wouldn't be as much of a greenwashing argument. And to that end, sectors like aviation are working on sourcing such fuels. Would work for VIA's diesel trains, if there really is such concern. That said, I think the concern is ridiculously overblown in the context of the alternative which is driving and flying. Even a diesel train sips fuel at something like 0.5 - 1 L/100 pax-km. Amtrak at low occupancy and with lots of very old trains is over 71 pmpg (3.3 L/100 pax-km) network wide. Absent an electric train that is powered by almost 100% non-emitting electricity, diesel trains are some of the most efficient transportation systems we have.

Got to love how you completely ignore my arguments against biofuels, come up with one of your own and dismiss your own argument as irrelevant with a general one day in the future we might have a solution for it. It doesn't matter when the carbon was removed from the atmosphere but that we are putting copious quantities of CO2 back into the atmosphere. Were we to not burn the plant matter, and compost it instead, the carbon would be remain locked up in the ground for a very long time.

As for the argument that "using carbon stored in a plant is not an issue" because we all do it every day, there is a huge difference in magnitude. "The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds [1.04 kg] of carbon dioxide on an average day " As a comparison, a VIA Rail train from Toronto to Montreal generates 14.76 kg of CO2 per seat. That means that the train (per passenger) is emitting significantly more CO2 per passenger than the people who are ridding on it are exhaling, and that is using one of the most efficient modes of transport.

It's really important to put the environmental and economic benefits in their proper context. Electrification early on will most likely come at the cost of network expansion which means more folks driving and flying.

If you read what you quoted me saying, I said, " I wouldn't want an argument of electrifying HFR to get in the way of its construction as there are environmental benefits of reducing the number of cars on the road"

Moving new ridership onto the rail network does a lot more for the environment than electrification does. Consider someone driving a reasonable efficient vehicle doing say 7 L/100km. Compare that to a train doing about 1 L/100km. Even with double occupancy in the car, the train would be about 3.5x more fuel efficient. Those passengers using the train save 3.5x more fuel than electrifying their train would.

Can you provide references to those figures? Also you can't compare liters of diesel to liters of gasoline as diesel is more energy dense and produces more CO2 (and other pollutants) per liter (3.00715 Kg of CO2 equivalent per Liter of diesel No. 2. vs. 2.500 Kg of CO2 equivalent per Liter of gasoline).

Cost wise, electrification would also be a poor proposition early on. A project built on borrowed money requires their investment to pay off. And the savings from not having diesel operations is going to a very long time to return the capital invested. On the other hand, investing that same capital in network expansion or enabling higher speeds attracts new passengers and boosts revenue.

I suspect the Canadian government will pay for electrification using stimulus money and will have the CIB fund the remainder of HFR, but that is just a guess.

Electrification is important. But it should be saved for a logical time, once the corridor is finished building. I would argue that electrification is better suited to a project in the 2040s when the corridor is finished Quebec City to Windsor, and the now 15+ yr old Chargers can be parted out economically, Demand will be up and VIA will probably be at semi-hourly service through the full day. At that point with costs rising from increasing demand and no ability to add customers through expansion, the obvious investment is electrification both to speed up the train (to add frequency) and to reduce operating costs. And in 15-20 years with cars having been substantially electrified, VIA will probably be at a point where they need electrification to compete with EVs.

HFR will require the purchase new trainsets and the Chargers purchased for the new fleet can be used on existing routes. One could have a counter argument that if we are planning to electrify VIA anyway, why not do it before cars have been substantially electrified and not throw away the HFR Chargers half way through their lifecycle.

A corollary is that in 20 year battery tech may also be substantially developed that we won't need to spend money on installing catenary across the entire length of the corridor. So there might be opportunities for savings.

If you use the argument that we shouldn't do it now because the technology might be better in the future might be better, you will never do anything. The timeline for battery powered intercity trains being feasible is uncertain at the moment.

 

[roger1818]

The past investment in grade separations is one of the reasons why I think the Kingston line is under-appreciated. More of the main roads are already grade separated. Bridging the farmers' crossings and concession roads does not imply large overpasses - many of the bridges over the TGV line are remarkably modest.

So you feel it is important for VIA to compromise operational costs in the long run to save on initial capital costs?

The Kingston bypass route would require 50 km's or so of new line. That expense could be a rough-in of a HSR level segment. Or, it could be similar to the standard that VIA projects for the Havelock line. It would amount to 50 kms of new, plus 30 kms of rebuild Portland-Smiths Falls, versus 150kms of raw unimproved rebuild (Perth to Havelock) plus 150ish kms of simpler rebuild (West of Havelock). That differential may be closer in cost than we think. Run time to Ottawa would be equivalent with a faster run directly to Montreal. More trains run per day, I recognize, but ridership would be higher on the Montreal-Toronto leg.

I think you are underestimating the cost of a greenfield route between Portalnd and Kingston. The region is flooded with lakes and finding an affordable route would be challenging and would likely be filled with compromises.

(I'm still confused about HFR's best time Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. If only one route is used, Toronto-Ottawa 3:15 + dwell in Ottawa + 1:33 Ottawa-Montreal is more than 4:45 - it approaches the current 5:04)

My guess is that they plan to have Phase 1B of the Elevated Passenger Platforms plan, which will have wider platforms with escalators running in both directions (important since many passengers are carrying luggage). This will help speed up boarding and alighting process.

Are we discussing a plan to achieve HFR, and live with it until economics favour a HSR quality new build....or are we picking the future route for that new build and using it in the interim for HFR?

If I had to guess, it would be the former. When we get to the point where separate Montreal-Toronto and Ottawa-Toronto are not only feasible, but necessary to handle the passenger demand, an upgraded Havelock Sub (combined with an upgraded Winchester Sub) would make an excellent long distance, shared, dedicated freight ROW that could be given to CN and CP as part of a deal to obtain the CN's Kingston Sub and the eastern part of CP's Belleville Sub to provide a better route from Ottawa to the Kingston Sub (though it would bypass Kingston, so reginal service would still be needed).

Some might say, if that is the plan, why not just do that now and there are several good arguments for a 2 staged approach:

1. Initial investment would be much higher, which is a tough sell without proven demand,
2. Operational costs would be higher initially, while demand is too low to support split triangle HFR,
3. It is easier to sell an existing, proven ROW to CN and CP than a theoretical plan, and
4. There is flexibility to change the plan if a better option becomes available.

I can't see the Havelock route as the best candidate to achieve even Class 7. If that's what you are proposing, and if the Kingston route is not critical to the business case, then I would still argue that it must be better to put VIA on the CP line today, and force CP onto CN. (putting freight on the Havelock would be utterly uneconomic and non-operable).

Why do you say that? It is slightly shorter than the Belleville Sub and freight operators aren't concerned about high speed. Most of the freight is travelling straight through Montreal an points further east. Deliveries along the lakeshore could be done via either the Belleville Sub or overnight on the Kingston Sub.

That would be more expensive than the base HFR plan, because CP's freight line has much higher market value than the Havelock line. But much less would be needed to upgrade the CP line to the same performance spec as VIA can buy initially on the Havelock route, with future use of the line for HSR assured. More money now, perhaps, but the net present value might be as good or better.

Any plan that assumes freight would be completely removed from one of the ROWs 24/7 would be a non-starter. A Havelock sub that has been upgraded to HFR standards would be significantly more valuable than it is today, especially if the freight railways retain access overnight to the passenger ROWs for local trains.

I'm guessing that west of Smiths Falls, the Class 7 upgrade you envision is further away than we think. Assume HFR initially does a raw rebuild Havelock to Perth, Class 6 at best. Assume that with all possible banking, VIA achieves its projected trip timing. At that point, upgrading Smiths Falls - Ottawa-Montreal from 100 mph to 125 mph is probably less money overall than upgrading the Havelock from Class 6 to anything higher. Same gain in time, likely similar ridership boost. So that project would have a better business case than improving the line west of Perth.

I do tend to agree that it likely isn't feasible for the Havelock Sub will be upgraded beyond class 6. When we eventually go to HSR, an alternate route will be needed. I do think the HFR plan has significant value and is our best option of getting funding today.

VIA's business case is likely the least possible cost alternative to generate a positive return.

I agree. After decades of the government rejecting grand, filed of dreams HSR projects, I believe this is what it has come to. The alternative is to led VIA die a death of a thousand paper cuts.

It just doesn't have much up side beyond that. I'm looking for more up side, and I think the alternatives may not prove more expensive particularly over the longer term. That may be irrelevant for the initial investors, but it's better public policy.

HFR shows that there is demand for passenger rail in Canada. While "the alternatives may not prove more expensive particularly over the longer term," they will cost more in the short term (in either capital or operational costs, or both), which is key. Getting public or private investors to bet on a dark horse is not easy.