[nfitz]

Yet you demand exactly the kind of non-essential gimmicks (e.g. Ottawa Bypass, electrification, double-tracking or elimination of level crossings to allow speeds beyond 110 mph), which would escalate the capital costs to a point where the plan is almost guaranteed to become so politically unattractive that it will remain in a drawer so that it can be readily accessed when the next HSR study reviews all previous proposals…

I don't see where I've demanded anything. Suggested, sure. Asked - maybe.

Though where have I ever proposed electrification? Or elimination of level crossings (other than an odd one here and there perhaps in remote locations, and crossings of other major railways). I've only suggested double-tracking where HFR shares with freight (which sadly, is the majority of the route - though perhaps not necessary on the low usage north-shore).

And I didn't suggest the Ottawa Bypass. To my surprise, VIA did. My post was to ask if it meant that VIA had decided that the proposed Toronto/Montreal times were untenable.

I'm not sure why you are saying these things. I've certainly expressed doubts that the budget, even for the work proposed, is realistic. That the travel times may be overly optimistic. And that demand would significantly increase enough to cover the financing with frequent, but not as fast service.

 

[TerryJohnson]

It would be nice because currently only pets that fit under your seat are allowed. But in the baggage car as long as they are in a cage you can have any size pet travel for $50.

Would be nice if they could accommodate that with the new fleet.

That's a good question. There ought to be a way to accommodate a larger pet in a crate either with the luggage towers or by using mobility aid spaces. Service dogs will certainly be welcomed.

 

[Urban Sky]

I don't see where I've demanded anything. Suggested, sure. Asked - maybe.

Though where have I ever proposed electrification? Or elimination of level crossings (other than an odd one here and there perhaps in remote locations, and crossings of other major railways). I've only suggested double-tracking where HFR shares with freight (which sadly, is the majority of the route - though perhaps not necessary on the low usage north-shore).

And I didn't suggest the Ottawa Bypass. To my surprise, VIA did. My post was to ask if it meant that VIA had decided that the proposed Toronto/Montreal times were untenable.

I'm not sure why you are saying these things. I've certainly expressed doubts that the budget, even for the work proposed, is realistic. That the travel times may be overly optimistic. And that demand would significantly increase enough to cover the financing with frequent, but not as fast service.

You might indeed not have explicitly demanded all those things I've listed as examples for the kind of features which would escalate the capital cost for HSR (and if you read my post carefully, I haven't claimed that you did), but you have consistently argued that HFR ought to be much faster than the 4:45 previously quoted as the target travel time - or even the 3:59 hours which were offered as a rather symbolic token travel time for a fraction of a year in the 1970s and then again during the late 1990s and early 2000s:

Example from Jun 24, 2019:

Given that VIA used to run it in just under 4 hours historically, before the freight issues started to become so significant, then surely if it's 45 minutes slower when this is finished then that would be a big failure!

And here two examples from Nov 17, 2021:

But the bottom line, is if the travel time doesn't get much better than 4 hours from Montreal to Toronto, then the increased frequency won't increase the demand enough to justify the increased frequency (not to mention the capital costs). And I think that VIA has finally realized this, given the bypass around Ottawa is now in play.

I don't think if you have a 4-hour travel time from Toronto to Montreal that you'll increase the modal split enough for it justify high-frequency service. Which is why I assume they have added that bypass to the map.

As I mentioned above, the rule of thumb is 3 hours. They need to push it down to closer to 3.5 hours I'd guess.

The thing is that if you want travel times to get significantly below 4:45, you will have to chose not just one, but multiple of the kind of gimmicks I described:

• Electrification (as it allows much faster acceleration, especially at high speeds)
• Grade Separations (as they are a legal requirement for operation beyond 177 km/h in this country)
• An Ottawa Bypass (to reduce the distance which needs to be covered within your target travel time and thus the required average speed)
• Double-tracking of most or even the entire alignment (to remove slack in the schedule which will be required when trains can only meet at certain locations and would need to slow down - or even wait - if they meet a delayed train)

Especially by repeatedly expressing your euphoria for VIAFast as a model to follow, you are implicitly demanding grade separations, as they are a legal requirement for the design speed of 200 km/h which is the only reason why VIAFast might have been able to achieve a travel time of somewhere around the 3.5 hours they advertised. Therefore, any attempt to satisfy your personal expectations in HFR will make it less likely that you will ever see hourly trains travelling between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto before your retirement, if at all. Thus, the sole purpose of my post was to highlight to you the irony behind your fear of a certain outcome, while feeding a narrative which directly contributes towards it…

***

Nevertheless, I have changed the opening words from "Yet you demand" to "Yet your demands rely on", to better indicate that I was rather describing the implications of your demands than their explicit content...

I hope this clarifies my previous post for you, but please write me a personal message if you still feel unfairly characterized...

 

[nfitz]

You might indeed not have explicitly demanded all those things ...

This is a discussion - not a court of law.

Personally I think HFR is a horrific idea. I certainly don't support spending that amount of money - let alone more. The stuff I've mentioned isn't to spend more on HFR. It's to kill the white elephant, and go to something like VIA Fast, with incremental upgrades, and new legislation. It's still not clear how they are going to get in and out of Montreal and Toronto for the meagre budget they have. Let alone how they are going to share with freight for much of the alignment without having the exact same issues they have now.

You are never going to agree with me. And I'll have to see it to believe it. I see no value in TMIing in response to me.

Personally I think that once the agencies run all the numbers on it, it's dead.

 

[Urban Sky]

The stuff I've mentioned isn't to spend more on HFR. It's to kill the white elephant, and go to something like VIA Fast, with incremental upgrades, and new legislation.

Good luck waiting for a government which would be receptive for the tremendous financial and legislative efforts which would be required to transform your vague and flimsy vision into something feasible and viable and actual shovels in (and tracks on) the ground…

Have a good night and never stop dreaming!

 

[kEiThZ]

It's still not clear how they are going to get in and out of Montreal and Toronto for the meagre budget they have.

If $10-12B is a "meagre budget", I'm not sure I want to know what your rail fantasies would actually cost.

 

[kEiThZ]

Personally I think that once the agencies run all the numbers on it, it's dead.

They already have. And we're on the cusp of procurement. So I'm not sure where you this idea that there's no institutional support for this.

 

[nfitz]

If $10-12B is a "meagre budget", I'm not sure I want to know what your rail fantasies would actually cost.

Gosh, I knew that they'd increased it to $4 billion ... and there were some hints that it had increased to $6 billion.

I hadn't realized (or forgotten) it had doubled again. Maybe starting to get realistic then.

Federal budget earmarks money for next steps in high-frequency rail project through Peterborough - Peterborough | Globalnews.ca

The federal budget is proposing $491.2 million over six years to VIA Rail for infrastructure investments to support its high-frequency rail project from Toronto to Quebec City.

globalnews.ca

They already have. And we're on the cusp of procurement. So I'm not sure where you this idea that there's no institutional support for this.

My idea came from that suddenly the Ottawa bypass was being shown in official documents.

 

[Xav]

Gosh, I knew that they'd increased it to $4 billion ... and there were some hints that it had increased to $6 billion.

I hadn't realized it had doubled again. Maybe starting to get realistic then.

Federal budget earmarks money for next steps in high-frequency rail project through Peterborough - Peterborough | Globalnews.ca

The federal budget is proposing $491.2 million over six years to VIA Rail for infrastructure investments to support its high-frequency rail project from Toronto to Quebec City.

globalnews.ca

My idea came from that suddenly the Ottawa bypass was being shown in official documents.

We don't really know yet what 12 billion implies, other that it's an option that's fully electrified. Maybe it includes improvements to approaches to Montreal and Toronto...

 

[kEiThZ]

Gosh, I knew that they'd increased it to $4 billion ... and there were some hints that it had increased to $6 billion.

I hadn't realized it had doubled again. Maybe starting to get realistic then.

The Minister himself said $6-12B when announcing they would launch procurement later in the year.

Feds set to begin procurement process for Toronto-Quebec City high-frequency rail corridor | Globalnews.ca

Transport Minister Omar Alghabra said the final cost could be between $6 billion and $12 billion depending on the final scope. It's currently slated to be done by 2030.

globalnews.ca

My idea came from that suddenly the Ottawa bypass was being shown in official documents

And what does that have to do with institutional support for the project? Adding a bypass in no way suggests that the CIB, VIA and TC are all planning to dump HFR and go back to VIA Fast. What was the thought process that led to you imagining that several government agencies would dump years and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of work down the drain, on a whim?

 

[nfitz]

And what does that have to do with institutional support for the project?

Based on everything I know, 5-hour Montreal-Toronto travel times, even with frequent service, won't boost ridership much without significantly higher fare subsidies than today. Thus making me wonder if the sudden appearance of the by-pass is because of institutional concerns. Though if it only saves half-an-hour or less, as we discussed above, I still doubt it's enough.

Adding a bypass in no way suggests that the CIB, VIA and TC are all planning to dump HFR and go back to VIA Fast.

Of course not - it's a Go-No Go decision. But if they get a No Go (or can't get bidders that will operate within the budget), then they'll probably have to think up a different plan.

What was the thought process that led to you imagining that several government agencies would dump years and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of work down the drain, on a whim?

Because we've done it many times already on this particular project alone. How much did VIA 84 cost? How much did VIA 89 cost? How much did VIA Fast cost?

Though hundreds of millions? The 2019 announcement for $70 million wasn't for design, but to explore the possibility of HFR. Have they even done a preliminary design, let alone a 90% design?

And even the $70 million included other things, such as the track work in the Mount Royal tunnel to enable VIA trains to share with the REM. I'm hard pressed to think the current project is up to $100 million yet.

 

[kEiThZ]

Because we've done it many times already on this particular project alone. How much did VIA 84 cost? How much did VIA 89 cost? How much did VIA Fast cost?

A lot less than what is being spent on HFR. None of those plans ever did the amount of work that VIA contracted for, with HFR. Let alone forming a multi-department project office with an eight figure budget.

I'm hard pressed to think the current project is up to $100 million yet.

I'm willing to bet they are close. They had budget allocations before 2019. And VIA seems to have at least spent some money internally. I would expect TC and maybe the CIB have also done so.

It's really interesting to see how much you're minimizing this project and even rooting for it to fail. Just for the sake of being able to say, "I told you so," on an internet forum.

 

[roger1818]

Based on everything I know, 5-hour Montreal-Toronto travel times, even with frequent service, won't boost ridership much without significantly higher fare subsidies than today. Thus making me wonder if the sudden appearance of the by-pass is because of institutional concerns. Though if it only saves half-an-hour or less, as we discussed above, I still doubt it's enough.

I suspect it was put forward for political reasons, not economic ones.

The reality is, the alternative to HFR is to do nothing, not VIA Fast. Doing nothing will likely see a Montreal-Toronto travel time well over 6 hours (possibly 7 or 8) by 2040.

 

[kEiThZ]

The reality is, the alternative to HFR is to do nothing, not VIA Fast. Doing nothing will likely see a Montreal-Toronto travel time well over 6 hours (possibly 7 or 8) by 2040.

Yep. Not many people seem to understand that the current situation is untenable end likely to get worse. Not only will VIA Corridor reliability get worse and scheduled trip times get longer, but the highways and airports are going to get more clogged too.

 

[Bordercollie]

Yep. Not many people seem to understand that the current situation is untenable end likely to get worse. Not only will VIA Corridor reliability get worse and scheduled trip times get longer, but the highways and airports are going to get more clogged too.

I think everyone is missing the point. In order for us to become less dependent on the automobile, we need alternatives and when we will need to charge our electric cars at the ONROUTE for 40 minutes to go from Toronto to Montreal in a snow storm travelling by train will look more attractive.

Plus you will likely need to wait an hour in line for the people ahead of you to charge their cars.

I don't think there is any high speed rail service in the world that was build on private finds and runs a profit. Even the Japanese Shinkansen looses tons of money to operate into communities that don't break even.

So a few billion dollars to own their own infrastructure to run trains reliably and not at the mercy of host railways is a good investment.

Unless you want to run it like the Canadian and have people only take it for novelty reasons.