[Darwinkgo]

I am reminded that YDS rolled out an enhanced service plan a few years back for Windsor-Sarnia-Stratford-Toronto. That initiative has vanished.... despite being given much more profile than a single meeting with a single Mayor.

It did certainly contributed maybe a bit to the Harper government’s election prospects. A brilliant piece of micro targeting that contributed to C wins except for 1 in London, 1 in Guelph, and Windsor’s 2 NDP bastions that cost them almost nothing. So yeah. Skepticism warranted!

 

[kEiThZ]

If this forum is interested in critical thinking, then one can’t simply gush over HFR‘s good points and dismiss every possible Con as irrelevant or small potatoes.

I agree. But we've moved from making up real downsides and pitfalls to strange hypotheticals.

The sharing thing will always be with us. Why is it a topic not to be addressed?

Address it. But it's quite the stretch to insist on hinging all future plans on a strategy of expropriation.

I would expect HFR to be packaged within a business case summary that would articulate a strategy to build service all the way from Windsor to Quebec City, and the
As much as I don’t trust a word Metrolinx utters, their RER Business Case document is a model of what Ottawa should be doing with Passenger Rail.

I expect substantially more detail from the JPO with a budget of $70M and a multi-year effort. Whether they'll be allowed to publish all their work is a different question. But I suspect they've done way more work than Metrolinx ever did for a BCA.

 

[MisterF]

I am going to suggest that a huge part of that ridership is simply the demand from Kingston being a university, garrison and retirement town that is also roughly equidistant to three major metros. Since Kingston is going to much of a cut in total trains serving it, there should not be much impact in a change in the number of trains. And more demand generated by a better schedule.

I think a large part of what we're seeing with Kingston is the F part of HFR in action and something that's been shown at the local, regional, and intercity level: frequency matters. Via Rail, Kingston Transit and Brampton Transit have all seen major ridership gains in the last decade through frequency improvements, in Kingston's case with very little population growth. GO Transit is starting to see the benefits of all day service, and one of the secrets to the TTC's ridership compared to most other North American transit systems is frequency. YRT, by contrast, has weak service and stagnant ridership.

It's not just Kingston, smaller towns along that line have higher Via ridership than you'd guess going by their size alone. While I agree that the obsession with Kingston is a little much considering its small size, I hope that the lakeshore communities continue to have frequent service post-HFR and that service is improved since it won't be catering to the big cities anymore.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think a large part of what we're seeing with Kingston is the F part of HFR in action and something that's been shown at the local, regional, and intercity level: frequency matters. Via Rail, Kingston Transit and Brampton Transit have all seen major ridership gains in the last decade through frequency improvements,

Anybody who has seen bus platooning with their bus route will understand that scheduling matters as much as frequency. There's no point having a dozen departures a day if most of them are clustered around 1-2 peaks in the day.

On the issue of frequency, Kingston isn't actually losing much from today. If what the Mayor posted is true, they are losing two trains per day, and getting a better tailored schedule in return. What nobody seems to want to discuss is frequency improvements for other communities en route. Presumably, what has been accomplished at Kingston, could be repeated at Belleville and Cobourg with the improved frequencies and schedules originating out of Kingston.

While I agree that the obsession with Kingston is a little much considering its small size, I hope that the lakeshore communities continue to have frequent service post-HFR and that service is improved since it won't be catering to the big cities anymore.

As long as VIA delivers the rumoured 12 departures each way from Toronto to Kingston and 6 each to Ottawa and Montreal, they'll all be substantially better off than today where service to them is treated as an obligation en route between the major metros.

It would be more concerning if the proposed service levels are substantially lower than today, or the Kingston hub doesn't materialize.

 

[Allandale25]

I don’t think we have crossed the line into trolling. But some of us certainly haven’t backed down over impacts that are unprovable but somewhere between credible and acknowledged, which are material to supporting or opposing HFR. If this forum is interested in critical thinking, then one can’t simply gush over HFR‘s good points and dismiss every possible Con as irrelevant or small potatoes.

If one reads back through the years of this thread, the HFR proposal began with skepticism over whether the line was even technically feasible, and whether its minimal envelope fit the work required. @UrbanSky has been incredibly helpful in speaking to that. The premise that HFR can run in the black has also been discussed and accepted. The challenge of the Mount Royal tunnel have been discussed, but not allowed to naysay the whole plan. That is great, one continues to kick the tires on other details...it’s ok to challenge things and not to assume on faith.

I don’t see Kingston as a hill for HFR to die on, but it does illustrate some of the flimsier assumptions and less pleasant truths that are being avoided in sub-HFR places. So it’s a good hill for a substantial encounter.

VIA is not Metrolinx, but it too is vulnerable to letting rhetoric gloss over valid concerns. Placing so much credence on Kingston becoming a hub, for example. Aa single placemat graphic rolled out to a local politician, without any supporting proof of intent, or any confidence that decisionmaking is advancing, is not proof of concept or a commitment to act. It’s a deflection.

I would expect HFR to be packaged within a business case summary that would articulate a strategy to build service all the way from Windsor to Quebec City, and the timing of this. As much as I don’t trust a word Metrolinx utters, their RER Business Case document is a model of what Ottawa should be doing with Passenger Rail.

I am reminded that YDS rolled out an enhanced service plan a few years back for Windsor-Sarnia-Stratford-Toronto. That initiative has vanished.... despite being given much more profile than a single meeting with a single Mayor. Similarly, the promising start that was offered when VIA broached its 2008 triple tracking plan has been abandoned. So yes one has the right to be skeptical of promises from VIA. Lots of things in VIA’s broader environment may override all their hard work.

Am I taking HFR for granted and asking for more? Yes. Call me greedy, or call me impatient. There are things Ottawa could be doing to improve sub-HFR service, and isn’t. If you can rest easy knowing HfR is coming, great, but some of us see further needs.

As described, HFR will likely pave the way for two business proposals - one to extend HFr westwards, the second to invest further to move the initial HFR network towards HSR. Will these be advanced sequentially or concurrent? How many years for each? In a perfect world, HFR enthusiam will be contagious, and everyone will be begging for more investment. I’m not so sure that will happen in one go. And, while I’m sure that new separated passenger lines will be pursued wherever they can, the elephant in the room is still with us: no scenario gives VIA its own end-to-end infrastructure. The sharing thing will always be with us. Why is it a topic not to be addressed?

Today’s paper has an article about Canada’s submarine Navy, which hasn’t been to sea in years. Muddling around while promising better soon is the Canadian way. Pedantically reminding the optimists that time’s ticking is part of the ying-yang of the Canadian way of getting things done.

- Paul

This is why I really hope the JPO HFR material becomes public. It would really help provide some specifics for the conversation here, which has really picked up in recent years. Even if HFR doesn't get funding/shoveles in the ground (which I hope does happen), given the public money provided to the JPO it would be great to see the data/maps/reports.

Hopefully the material would be the most extensive and detailed to date compared to any of the previous HSR reports over the years.

 

[crs1026]

As long as VIA delivers the rumoured 12 departures each way from Toronto to Kingston and 6 each to Ottawa and Montreal, they'll all be substantially better off than today where service to them is treated as an obligation en route between the major metros.

A rather important point...and why we may have been at odds all along ... did YDS say 12 Departures each way? or 12 trains total in the corridor?

I had read the proposal to mean 12 trains total.

If it’s 12 trains each way, if immediate and not “some day”, then I have some serious backpedalling to do, that’s a really good service... but I honestly read the various tweets and posts to say half of that.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Kingston would go from 17 trains westbound to 12 trains. That's a 30% cut. I can't imagine the Mayor would be supportive if this was actually 6 trains (a 65% cut). Likewise, interpreting the 6 trains to Ottawa and Montreal, as single trips to yield 3 round trips would be quite the cut in service.

I am doubtful the Lakeshore can support this much service. But we'll see.

 

[robmausser]

I've never hidden my political frustration with them not launching HFR or at least their preliminary studies earlier.

Honestly I wouldn't doubt the delay in the fact that this HFR plan has proven to be more complicated and difficult from an engineering perspective than anticipated.

A lot of its parts, from using the CP Don Branch to get into Toronto, which Metrolinx has now wanted to use for storing GO trains and stated the bridge over the brickworks would need a lot of work to refurbish, a currently used rail trail that would have to be re-converted into a rail line, bypassing some small towns or appropriating property that is currently on the old abandoned rail corridors, old bridges that need replacement, the Mont Royal Tunnel being used by REM now, CP rail lines and corridors that need purchasing or access agreements etc.

I'm sure theres lots of "alternative options" that need to be explored, like building a connection to the Stouffville line instead of the CP Don Branch, routing around Mont Royal, and new headaches that need to be resolved around these "solutions".

I'm still supportive over this idea, since I really think any type of service and reliability increase on the current CN corridor is a total non-starter. Its just going to be more difficult than originally planned. But VIA having their own dedicated tracks is huge. Thats a game changer.

 

[Bordercollie]

The original GO transit plan for operations to Peterborough included building a bi-pass through Agincourt yard. But they would need to don branch to get there. Could they not just remove the old bridge and install a new steel bridge on the existing pillars?

Or use the Stouffville line and build a connecting track where it meets the Belleville sub. You would need to expropriate a building to make it work.

 

[crs1026]

Kingston would go from 17 trains westbound to 12 trains. That's a 30% cut. I can't imagine the Mayor would be supportive if this was actually 6 trains (a 65% cut). Likewise, interpreting the 6 trains to Ottawa and Montreal, as single trips to yield 3 round trips would be quite the cut in service.

I am doubtful the Lakeshore can support this much service. But we'll see.

As red faced as I am about not reading these charts this way, I think you can see the reasoning that took my brain there. If the through T-O-M revenue is (hypothetically) more than 50% of all revenue gained in the corridor, then post HFR I would predict that with that traffic removed the subsidy for this route would be reduced by the same proportion. That would drive a reduction in trains more than 30% from today.
Even if VIA sincerely intends to repattern the service along the hub model, it may not be able to retain the funding to do so at this level of service.
If the new service model causes an uptick in revenue, as it may, all may be well.... but I’m not assuming anything.
6 Kingston trains each way, plus the hourly Ottawa HFR’s, is a more intense use of the line east of Coteau than before. I can’t help wondering what CN’s threshold for tolerating passenger in this section might be.
West of Brockville, twelve trains each way is not so much of a reduction to assume less impact from conflict with freight, hub pattern or not. I wonder about both the pure operability and the likelihood of greater cooperation from CN.
I’m encouraged by the prospect of a 12ish train schedule, but some of the good arguments for moving HFR off this line cut both ways.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

As red faced as I am about not reading these charts this way, I think you can see the reasoning that took my brain there. If the through T-O-M revenue is (hypothetically) more than 50% of all revenue gained in the corridor, then post HFR I would predict that with that traffic removed the subsidy for this route would be reduced by the same proportion. That would drive a reduction in trains more than 30% from today.
Even if VIA sincerely intends to repattern the service along the hub model, it may not be able to retain the funding to do so at this level of service.
If the new service model causes an uptick in revenue, as it may, all may be well.... but I’m not assuming anything.
6 Kingston trains each way, plus the hourly Ottawa HFR’s, is a more intense use of the line east of Coteau than before. I can’t help wondering what CN’s threshold for tolerating passenger in this section might be.
West of Brockville, twelve trains each way is not so much of a reduction to assume less impact from conflict with freight, hub pattern or not. I wonder about both the pure operability and the likelihood of greater cooperation from CN.
I’m encouraged by the prospect of a 12ish train schedule, but some of the good arguments for moving HFR off this line cut both ways.

- Paul

It makes me think that if they could do a new rail line from Kingston to Smith Falls, they could use Kingston as a good hub and 1 train to each Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal would keep the 3 separate and allow then to expand as needed.

 

[ssiguy2]

To most non-VIA rail users, HFR will mean squat unless it comes with significantly higher speeds/shorter trip times. Winning over NEW riders will require VIA to offer a service that is truly enticing and if it doesn't then people will simply view it as more frequent slow boat to China. Unfortunately both those things will require money and political will both of which are lacking.

 

[robmausser]

To most non-VIA rail users, HFR will mean squat unless it comes with significantly higher speeds/shorter trip times.

Important: significantly higher speeds/shorter trip times of the ACTUAL current service, not the posted schedules. As in: reliable trains that get to their destination on time.

Its not hard with even HFR to achieve this. The current via trips along the corridor hardly ever make their destination on time.

Lets not kid ourselves, this isn't 4:30h for HFR and 5h for current Via travel from Toronto to Montreal. Only one train a day actaully advertises that speed, and it rarely if ever makes it on time.

I've had a 6h (posted time) VIA train arrive 2 hours late.

On paper, HFR doesn't look that much better than the existing times, but the existing times only exist on paper.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

The GEXR corridor is a good candidate for HFR.

It was just sold to CN, but they bought it almost out of the fact that they didn't want to lose it. Its really underused for freight and is not a mainline by any stretch of the imagination.

Not only that, but it would make more sense for the HFR route to go through Kitchener.

I could easily see VIA buying the GEXR from CN between Kitchener and London, and putting passenger rail priority over freight on it, or adding another track from Kitchener to London in the corridor. The tracks are in bad shape and would need replacement anyways, and it was at one time double tracked, so theres room. Lots of at-grade crossings though, so for the time being would be 177kmh max.

^^ Its also important to note that this is no different than the portion of HFR from Toronto to Peterborough. That's not an abandoned corridor, its a currently owned and operated CP branch line, just like the GEXR line and CN. They share many similarities, its a lightly used corridor with tracks in poor shape.

In fact, the GEXR line has one advantage over the CP one to Peterborough, and that is that VIA already is operating trains on it, it gives them some clout.

The portion from Union to Kitchener is owned by Metrolinx (except the portion we all know between Bramalea and Georgetown) and would be easy to negotiate schedules with. Passenger rail lines, even if not owned by the rail company requesting their use, are always more accommodating to other passenger rail services. They already have the infrastructure in place, and while you might get stuck behind another train, its not a huge freight going 20kmh, its another passenger train trying to make good time.

Wanted to loop back on this. CN actually just terminated/didn’t renew its long-term lease with GEXR on the Kitchener-London portion, rather than buying it back. There were rumours that they wanted to use it as a double stack bypass, but that never came to fruition. We have seen them run longer thru-trains on the corridor however.

VIA has mused about buying this section of track in a few of its annual plans. The biggest obstacle to running an HFR-type service here would be the congested CN-owned and GO used Georgetown-Bramalea portion as you note. With Ontario stating that they’re exploring extending GO to London, they could make a move for this track also.

The southern London-Toronto route isn’t bad for an HFR candidate either, if dedicated VIA tracks could be built beside CN’s. Other laundry list items would include rebuilding the Brantford bypass for CN’s use, and a difficult but doable 3rd track along the Dundas Peak area.

Longer term, dedicated tracks from Windsor to Toronto would help with on-time operation of Amtrak’s Chicago-Detroit-Toronto service. That’s something that I’d love to see return.

 

[kEiThZ]

Important: significantly higher speeds/shorter trip times of the ACTUAL current service, not the posted schedules. As in: reliable trains that get to their destination on time.

Its not hard with even HFR to achieve this. The current via trips along the corridor hardly ever make their destination on time.

Lets not kid ourselves, this isn't 4:30h for HFR and 5h for current Via travel from Toronto to Montreal. Only one train a day actaully advertises that speed, and it rarely if ever makes it on time.

I've had a 6h (posted time) VIA train arrive 2 hours late.

On paper, HFR doesn't look that much better than the existing times, but the existing times only exist on paper.

The most important point that folks who don't use VIA Corridor services regularly don't seem to understand. They turn off a lot of users with poor performance. Which makes published times sort of useless, because mentally you're always budgeting for a delay.

A 3:15 train from Toronto to Ottawa and 4:45 train from Toronto to Montreal with > 90% on time performance (± 5 mins) will be worth more than the fastest trains on the schedule today, because it will be reliable, faster (compared to today) service for every train. No more mental schedule adjustments.