[reaperexpress]

I wonder whether, if VIA shifts its primary trains to HFR, could CN allow 2-3 Turbo-like Toronto-Montreal schedules a day, so that the most time sensitive Toronto-Montreal passengers have options for a fast ride, perhaps at a premium fare.

I've been wondering about this too. On the one hand with fewer trains on the line it might be feasible to negotiate a generous path for a couple superexpress trips per day, but on the other hand, with fewer trains on the line, would CN drop the Kingston Sub from 100 mph to 80 mph to save on maintenance?

I assume there is some mechanism that VIA uses to get CN to maintain the track at 100 mph, since it doesn't benefit them at all. Does anyone know how this works currently?

 

[OntarioOnTheMove]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1377251391593398272

 

[SFO-YYZ]

Youre painting a false narrative. thing is though were not even arguing for Shinkansen levels of service here. If it were to be like the Nozomi,,Toronto to Montreal can be acheived in about 2.5hrs. Under 4hrs is what a charger on limited express can easily achieve at 160km/h avg.
I'm sure you wont be paying $300 round trip for that. Just because you have more trains doesnt mean it will be filled. You need an incentive, and as you said the current costs are a concern. What makes you think that running more frequent service will actually bring costs down?
There needs to be another more easily tangible incentive, which is speed. we dont need to have 300km/h trains. Hell even 200km or even 160km/h is plenty enough. the problem is that they are setting the bar so low that there is no real improvement over travel time

I took Beijing-Shanghai HSR route last year before the pandemic. It is probably the most heavily used route in the Chinese HSR network. Overall impression: I would definitely take it again due to the convenience and comfort. However, most of my Chinese friends balk at the high price tag (especially when compared with flying between Beijing and Shanghai which has a comparable price and is noticeably faster than HSR). Most people still prefer the somewhat slower sleeper T-category trains, which take more than 12 hours but are 50% cheaper and more economical than HSR options.

Beijing-Shanghai HSR:

Distance: 819 miles
Price: 950 RMB (or $182 CAD) for first class ticket one way (note that first class on Chinese HSR is equivalent in seating arrangement in economy on VIA, Amtrak, DB, and other western rail operators)
** for comparison, equivalent flight between 2 cities averages about $200 CAD one way.
** keeping in mind the Beijing-Shanghai route has been heavily subsidized by the state railway operator since inception in 2012 (as are most HSR routes in China), so the real ticket price could be substantially higher should subsidies go away in the near future
** further keeping in mind this is in a country where over 600 million people still make an income of less than $140 USD per month as admitted by the Chinese premier Li Keqiang at his 2020 news conference - so an HSR ticket of $182 CAD is clearly out of reach for nearly 50% of the population
Travel time: 6 hrs station to station at 300 kph for HSR vs. 2 hr 30 min for flight gate to gate

First Class seats on Beijing-Shanghai Fuxing HSR:

 

[kEiThZ]

What makes you think that running more frequent service will actually bring costs down?

Asset utilization. The 10% decrease in total travel times from Toronto to Montreal, along with the combination of Toronto-Ottawa and Ottawa-Montreal en route means a lot more seats occupied for the length of the route, with lower overall costs on personnel, rolling stock required, etc.

I would expect that a steady state HFR (say 5 yrs in) has a lower cost per rider than today's service.

the problem is that they are setting the bar so low that there is no real improvement over travel time

Because speed costs money. We saw that Torontonians weren't even willing to pay for a faster transferless train ride to the airport. And you think there's a case they'll pay for more speed? I don't see it.

But here's the great part. Toronto-Ottawa will be marginally competitive with air for a lot of travellers. If that ridership beats expectations substantially, we'll have a great case for investment in travel time reduction.

 

[kEiThZ]

Given that airfare between those two cities is around $180 to $200. We have a serious issue with competitiveness. Heavy subsidies would be needed (not like air travel isn't subsidized), could the answer be in the smaller communities along the way (Kingston, etc) since those places don't have to compete with air travel.

It's kind of like the Canadian. A lot of people rude to travel between stations along the route, few actually do the full 4 day trip.

Pre-Covid, Kingston actually had air service.

And aviation is actually not substantially subsidized in Canada. Which is partly why ticket prices are so high. The major airports pay hundreds of millions in ground rent to the federal government annually and fully fund their own infrastructure. This is partly why Ottawa is so reticent to build HSR. They would have to subsidize something that literally cuts into federal revenue.

 

[kEiThZ]

I've been wondering about this too. On the one hand with fewer trains on the line it might be feasible to negotiate a generous path for a couple superexpress trips per day, but on the other hand, with fewer trains on the line, would CN drop the Kingston Sub from 100 mph to 80 mph to save on maintenance?

I assume there is some mechanism that VIA uses to get CN to maintain the track at 100 mph, since it doesn't benefit them at all. Does anyone know how this works currently?

Paul and you are forgetting about the Kingston hub. We'll still be running the equivalent of a half to full dozen trains the length of the Lakeshore corridor. Only now they start in Kingston.

 

[SFO-YYZ]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1377251391593398272

Thanks for this. Captured a few screenshots below. Looks like they've made some updates to the originally published designs. It feels more "streamlined" than the prior version released in 2018. Good job to VIA Rail team for not ruining the Siemens charger unlike Amtrak or other U.S. operators determined to make every new rolling stock look like they are out of the 50s.

 

[robmausser]

Thanks for this. Captured a few screenshots below. Looks like they've made some updates to the originally published designs. It feels more "streamlined" than the prior version released in 2018. Good job to VIA Rail team for not ruining the Siemens charger unlike Amtrak or other U.S. operators determined to make every new rolling stock look like they are out of the 50s.

View attachment 309331
View attachment 309333

There are some minor differences but that swooped nose cone has always been part of the design, even in 2018

 

[robmausser]

Btw I can't wait to ride these 200kmh speed daemons.... at 60kmh stuck behind a CN freight train.

HFR or bust!

 

[crs1026]

Paul and you are forgetting about the Kingston hub. We'll still be running the equivalent of a half to full dozen trains the length of the Lakeshore corridor. Only now they start in Kingston.

I hadn't forgotten, and in fact if you read up you will note that I observed that there might be tradeoffs, that made me queasy about the idea.

But I think you have formed a vision of the "Hub" that is beyond proven intentions. The "Hub" was something only vaguely spelled out in a single interaction with some local politicians who may not remember and who may not still be in office when HFR arrives. I wouldn't run with this thought just yet. Maybe after HFR is brought forward officially, VIA will say more.

I'm admittedly jaundiced about the term. In the GTA, transit "Hubs" are regularly announced only to amount to adding a second newspaper box at a minor bus loop. We don't know if VIA has a business case for the model, or if it's a napkin based thing that some hack floated.

I am not debating the value of a hub model, I just don't have confidence it will emerge as what you claim. I do anticipate Kingston will see a "layover facility", meaning enough platform or siding addition to permit nightly layover of 3-4 trainsets. I'm not so confident that VIA will move to turnbacks, partly for operational reasons and partly because there is valid through business (Cobourg-Ottawa, or Cornwall-Toronto, for instance). A "hub" might simply be a trainset arriving in Kingston as eastbound Train A, dwelling for some time (10-15 minutes) to asure schedule compliance, then departing for Montreal as Train B with through passengers remaining on board. Perhaps with a different crew, so that crews turn back and avoid overnight layover costs as is incurred today. In my view, that's just a padded schedule - as a "hub", it's just lipstick on a pig, although it might be a good plan.

For purely optical reasons I doubt VIA would offer a competing (and potentially superior) service on the very line that it just spent billions to avoid, so the express train suggestion may be a fantasy. But short-duration curfews for freight for 2 or three through trains a day may actually be easier to operate than continued frequent all-day passenger service competing with freight. The local service that has been floated is just more of what everyone recognizes is not sustainable.

- Paul

 

[reaperexpress]

Thanks for this. Captured a few screenshots below. Looks like they've made some updates to the originally published designs. It feels more "streamlined" than the prior version released in 2018. Good job to VIA Rail team for not ruining the Siemens charger unlike Amtrak or other U.S. operators determined to make every new rolling stock look like they are out of the 50s.

Here's the 2018 livery for reference:

I think both versions look great, unlike some of the American designs which don't seem to complement the shape of the locomotive:

Also thank heavens we're not getting a version which looks like its nose was chopped off, like the Amtrak Corridor and MARC versions.

 

[robmausser]

Here's the 2018 livery for reference:

I think both versions look great, unlike some of the American designs which don't seem to complement the shape of the locomotive:

Also thank heavens we're not getting a version which looks like its nose was chopped off, like the Amtrak Corridor and MARC versions.

I call them Micheal Jackson trains.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think you have formed a vision of the "Hub" that is beyond proven intentions. The "Hub" was something only vaguely spelled out in a single interaction with some local politicians who may not remember and who may not still be in office when HFR arrives. I wouldn't run with this thought just yet. Maybe after HFR is brought forward officially, VIA will say more.

Fair enough.

I am actually optimistic that something close to what VIA promised the Mayor of Kingston (and probably Belleville, Coburg, etc. too) is achievable. A schedule that originates in Kingston timed for them, should boost ridership. And shorter trains should be filled more easily.

This may be a difference in outlook. But I don't get why it should be discounted just because of a label that has a poor connotation in the GTA.

For purely optical reasons I doubt VIA would offer a competing (and potentially superior) service on the very line that it just spent billions to avoid, so the express train suggestion may be a fantasy.

Not just optical reasons. Post HFR, I would imagine that CN and VIA will basically keep Lakeshore service to whatever level is required for the Lakeshore. Neither party is going to be interested in more traffic than necessary. Especially not a run that is faster every other operation on the corridor.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think both versions look great, unlike some of the American designs which don't seem to complement the shape of the locomotive

The Amtrak version is nauseating.

 

[reaperexpress]

Paul and you are forgetting about the Kingston hub. We'll still be running the equivalent of a half to full dozen trains the length of the Lakeshore corridor. Only now they start in Kingston.

I don't think the 'hub' concept necessarily means that the number of trains will be maintained or increase. It may simply be a redesign of schedules to optimise for the local segments (e.g. Toronto-Kingston, Kingston-Ottawa) rather than the end-to-end routes (e.g. Toronto-Ottawa).

I think @crs1026 's suggestion of a layover yard in Kingston is spot-on, since it would enable some early morning commuter services to depart from Kingston towards Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. In the January 2018 schedule below (the most recent schedule I happen to have a spreadsheet of) the first train from Kingston to Ottawa didn't arrive there until 11:29, which is rather late.

With so many of the current trains running skip-stop patterns, there are a lot of missed connections along the line. For example, there's only one train per day which you can use to travel from Brockville to Cornwall (#64), despite there being 6 trains along that segment.

I colour-coded the services by approximate service type:
red = superexpress
yellow = intercity/regional
green = commuter

Here's an idea of how a more locally-oriented schedule could look:
In this concept, the number of trains is significantly reduced, but the utility of the service for local communities is still comparable. There may be fewer trains, but the trains that remain are at more useful times.

I removed most of the express services, but I kept two express runs per day between Toronto and Montreal, which would supplement the hourly service via Ottawa during the busier times of day.

I also added a couple shuttle trips between Ottawa and Kingston rather than continuing them the whole way to Toronto, since I figure that the HFR route will capture the entire demand between Toronto and Ottawa themselves. Most of these shuttle trips have a timed connection in Kingston to a train running between Toronto and Montreal.