kEiThZ
Superstar
The problem with the Mount Royal Tunnel isn't necessarily infrastructure. Batteries on the train could handle the short distance. It's the high frequency operations of REM.
|
|
|
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
The problem with the Mount Royal Tunnel isn't necessarily infrastructure. Batteries on the train could handle the short distance. It's the high frequency operations of REM.
crs1026
Senior Member
I don't believe that CN will easily handle those 12 trains with no real issue. Maybe for a while, but not for that long. The same issues - catching up to slower freights, being unable to overtake due to opposing traffic, having to cross over frequently through slower speed crossovers, will happen at 12 trains a day. That's pretty close to a train an hour during daylight hours.
No, I'm saying the reverse. The lack of cooperation will remain. That's the non-sequitur in the Lakeshore plan.... that service will stay on the same line that VIA is well served to move away from. I'm not arguing that it will work out....I'm arguing that the plan will fail. Either VIA is insincere about wanting to build this business, and figures it will fade away as other services always have.... or the 12-train figure is aspirational but may never happened. If pursued sincerely, something will eventually be needed to correct the very deficiencies that make HFR a good move. That likely will look like VIA Fast, yes, because more triple track and changes to signalling are what would likely be seen as the solution.
I don't dispute that going after Ottawa traffic as a first step makes sense. However, the direct Montreal-Toronto segment is too big to serve less aggressively, and it is the growth segment that would logically be added once HFR proves itself.
What I am challenging is the premise that one day, the cheapest way to add that next segment will be to upgrade the initial HFR line to make Toronto-Montreal faster. The cost of the upgrade, or the cost of a whole new alignment, may be in the same ballpark. The business case for fixing those slow sections Toronto-Ottawa might be less attractive than leaving Toronto-Ottawa as first built, and putting the money into new track somewhere else. That could lead to the third side of the triangle.... not on CN or on CP, but somewhere along the Lakeshore.
- Paul
Last edited:
crs1026
Senior Member
Absent HFR, the layover yard that GO proposes to build will let GO park three trainsets. Should VIA want that route for HFR, then GO will have to move the layover for those three trains somewhere else, possibly incurring new land acquisition costs.
I would expect ML to ask VIA for compensation for that added expense, especially if Ml can’t wait for the federal decision and begins to build the layover yard.
- Paul
kEiThZ
Superstar
Except that, as @Urban Sky pointed out this is both hard to justify and not done in most places with high speed rail. What makes Toronto-Montreal special?
Everyone loves to compare Toronto-Montreal to Madrid-Barcelona. A lot of the folks citing that example forget this line isn't direct either. There's the city of Zaragoza en route. And Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal has a smaller catchment population than Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona. There will never be a case for a direct Toronto-Montreal service that bypasses Ottawa. The math just doesn't work without it. It's not just that Toronto-Ottawa has a ton of ridership. It's also because Ottawa-Montreal has tremendous ridership density, making it the most obvious choice for any investment to get improvements.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Sure investment might be needed. But to be honest since the trip ends at Kingston the tolerance for delays is higher. And the investment is going to be enough passing tracks to make the level of service tolerable. No more. No less.
These trains might even run a little slower to be more accommodating.
With respect to HFR route vs Lakeshore route for the Montreal service: Given that some Via service would be retained on the Lakeshore corridor even after HFR is implemented, could Via not just continue to run a few express trains per day between Toronto and Montreal along the Lakeshore corridor?
Continue to run Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal for the vast majority of the runs of the day, but pick the arrival and departure time slots where speed is the most important factor, and run those trains express via Lakeshore instead of the HFR corridor.
Continue to run Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal for the vast majority of the runs of the day, but pick the arrival and departure time slots where speed is the most important factor, and run those trains express via Lakeshore instead of the HFR corridor.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Ugggh. People really don't get the point of HFR.
It's specifically to avoid this. Any thru train faces compounding delays because there's no schedule flex with the Kingston break. There probably won't be enough demand to run a Montreal express train if travel time isn't faster than HFR. And if it succeeds it damages the business case of HFR because we're back to splitting Ottawa and Montreal ridership. Not to mention we're also taking a valuable lakeshore train slot away from lakeshore communities who are supposed to benefit from increased frequencies with more all stop trains.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
Exactly. There are all these solutions being pitched to high express trains on the Toronto-Kingston-Montreal on the CN freight corridor, and other express Ottawa by-pass trains on the main CP freight corridor, missing the point that there are can be no express on the freight corridor because it is owned by freight companies which prioritize freight. The scheduled times for VIA are set to the lame timings they are, not because the trains aren't capable of doing the trip faster, but because they will not be going full speed the whole way because they will be slowed down in between freight trains, on sidings waiting for trains to pass, slowed because the track geometry doesn't support it in that location, etc and there is nothing they can do about it because it isn't their tracks and the improvements that would be made on those tracks would be made to benefit freight.
Xav
Active Member
In 2016, the population of the lakeshore urban areas (Coteau to Oshawa) served by Via was 850,612 people, with almost half of it in Oshawa alone.
By comparison, Ottawa and Peterborough together had a population of more than 1.4 million.
Those communities obviously deserve to be served by Via, but there's no point in investing that much capital into the lakeshore route when HFR provides a more reliable ride to large areas with much more transit connectivity. That's why Via's best bet will be to keep some corridor trains on the lakeshore doing the milk run and investing in improving speed, reliability and frequency on the HFR
By comparison, Ottawa and Peterborough together had a population of more than 1.4 million.
Those communities obviously deserve to be served by Via, but there's no point in investing that much capital into the lakeshore route when HFR provides a more reliable ride to large areas with much more transit connectivity. That's why Via's best bet will be to keep some corridor trains on the lakeshore doing the milk run and investing in improving speed, reliability and frequency on the HFR
crs1026
Senior Member
Somehow when we point out that HfR is a good, but not optimum, solution, we are accused of totally missing the point. I think that’s an unbalanced and somewhat extreme response. I get the point, but that doesn’t mean I’m prepared to pretend there are no low points.
There is nothing good about constraining the marketability of rail service between the nation’s two largest cities. One viewpoint suggests that HFR will be “good enough” to meet this market for now, with potential to improve over time, and perhaps that will be true. But it is not “missing the point” to acknowledge that this is a retreat in expectations. Even if we have to take a few hits to win HFR funding, I fail to see any cause for celebrating that tradeoff, nor for rationalising it away.
I do get that the historical benchmarks for direct express Toronto-Montreal service are no longer achievable - and in fact the 3:59 - 4:20 timings were never really sustained reliably “back in the day”. We do need to separate the urban legend from the reality.
I continue to harp on the Lakeshore service because I do believe there is a role for second-tier passenger service in the country’s most densely populated region. Having HFR but not advancing this second tier is not a step forward, IMHO. VIA has hinted at a service model for the Lakeshore, but this plan has not been articulated in any detail, beyond some PR utterances....and Ottawa, who have the ultimate control, hasn’t made any commitment. I appreciate @urban Sky’s efforts to give us insight into this concept, but he can’t speak for his employer nor can he reveal details that might matter. So until that plan emerges, we have to balance what we know about the cost and operational difficulty of mixing this service with CN freight against what might be intended conceptually. Again, I don’t think it’s “missing the point” to observe that this service faces obstacles. Nor is it wrong to be concerned that expectations eg trip times are being eroded - again, let’s not rationalise away the tradeoff.
As to the practicality and cost-efficiency of this second tier of rail service, consider how easily government finds the land and funding to expand 400-series highways. The second tier is an affordable and prudent use of public capital.
Lastly, we seem to all agree that HFr will improve the acceptability of paassenger rail such that a more substantial flow of investment capital will happen in the next decade. I don’t see the problem with considering how that investment might be deployed. Don’t assume that HFR will continue to soak up this money stream to the exclusion of other projects. As to the Lakeshore - investing capital in the CN line to offset CN’s freight impacts, and sustain this shared line until we can afford to build a dedicated passenger line, may be a good strategy for the next 20 years. Whatever VIA plans, we should not set this plan up to “paddle harder to stand still” as CN builds its own business. We may need to invest to sustain and improve reliability and trip timing here also.
- Paul
Allandale25
Senior Member
Totally agree with you Paul. I fully support HFR and want to see it happen as soon as possible, but as part of the deal there should be good and improved Lakeshore service. Just like in Toronto it's possible for advocates to want to see multiple LRT/BRT/relief lines constructed (in addition to State of Good Repair) at the same time. I don't see this as HFR or Lakeshore improvements. Both should happen.
robmausser
Senior Member
Its not what should happen, its what CAN happen.
You can give Lakeshore nicer new trains, new stations, but train frequency is dictated by CN, and the trains still will be behind schedule and slow due to CN and their freight. Full Stop.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Which is why I tried multiple times to create a separate thread to have one for what can happen (i.e. this thread) and then one for what should happen (which could be called “fantasy rail discussions”), as the two discussions are based on completely different assumptions and environments, but Paul has regrettably shot down and undermined every single attempt of doing so for some reason...
nfitz
Superstar
Perhaps we should move the fantasy HFR discussions to another thread! 
Seriously though ... this is a Toronto forum, not a rail forum. One thread for inter-city national rail service is more than enough.
Seriously though ... this is a Toronto forum, not a rail forum. One thread for inter-city national rail service is more than enough.
SFO-YYZ
Active Member
The difference between could and should
. Though in VIA's context, it's more that we are overly preoccupied with whether or not we should that we didn't stop to think if we could.