[robmausser]

You do realise that the exisisting VIA fleet already hits an average speed of 150km/h?

But yes, I agree with a lot of what you're suggesting.

VIA fleet has a MAX speed of 160kmh. The average speed is much lower than that. On my last trip to MTL from Toronto we averaged 90kmh when you include stops and slow downs for freight.

There would still be an improvement with even the original HFR plan. Not to mention the current on time performance of VIA is 59%. Largely due to freight traffic.

Getting the on time performance to 90% or above would mean people could rely on VIA. Right now we cant.

 

[Urban Sky]

VIA fleet has a MAX speed of 160kmh. The average speed is much lower than that. On my last trip to MTL from Toronto we averaged 80kmh when you include stops and slow downs for freight.

I suspect he wanted to say that the average of the maximum speeds of all pieces of rolling stock VIA has in its roster is somewhere around 95 mph, which would be just as plausible as that metric is trivial…

 

[robmausser]

I suspect he wanted to say that the average of the maximum speeds of all pieces of rolling stock VIA has in its roster is somewhere around 95 mph, which would be just as plausible as that metric is trivial…

Right, this is actually what I dislike about a lot of information that gets tossed around about many transit related things in the media, and even by experts and rail fans etc.

Numbers on paper are not numbers in reality.

Saying the original HFR is useless because it only gets to Montreal from Toronto in 4.5 hours and has a top speed of 110mph because thats "basically what VIA does already and it isn't a big improvement" is absurd.

On paper, VIA has one train that gets to Montreal in 5 hours from Toronto, and has a top speed of 100mph...ish. Sure.

That train reaches that top speed for maybe 15% of the trip. Half the other time its crawling at 60mph behind a freight train. That train has an on time performance of 59%. 41% of the time, the train takes 6 hours or more to get to Montreal.

Of the other 8 or so trains to Montreal, only one gets there in 5. Otherwise they take anywhere from 6-8 hours, on paper. Sometimes that 8 hour train takes 12 hours.

The HFR plan would hit its target of 4.5 hours much more reliably due to dedicated tracks etc.

I'm all in favour of the HSR plan, but the reality is that we don't currently in Canada have regular speed trains, let alone a high speed train. We don't even have trains that Europe and Asia had over 40 years ago. We don't even have trains that CANADA had over 40 years ago. Stop pretending we do.

 

[Bojaxs]

VIA fleet has a MAX speed of 160kmh. The average speed is much lower than that. On my last trip to MTL from Toronto we averaged 90kmh when you include stops and slow downs for freight.

There would still be an improvement with even the original HFR plan. Not to mention the current on time performance of VIA is 59%. Largely due to freight traffic.

Getting the on time performance to 90% or above would mean people could rely on VIA. Right now we cant.

Freight was never a factor during my recent VIA trip from MTL-TOR. GO trains were more problematic than CN.

Train #67 traveled an average speed of 120km/h along stretches of Ontario until it got to the GO network in Pickering and traveled at an average speed of 90km/h

Saying the original HFR is useless because it only gets to Montreal from Toronto in 4.5 hours and has a top speed of 110mph because thats "basically what VIA does already and it isn't a big improvement" is absurd.

Is that what you took away from my post? I'm a supporter of HFR because it'll allow the Chargers to travel at an average top speed of 200km/h vs the current average top speed of 150km/h.

 

[Frank_Lee]

Freight was never a factor during my recent VIA trip from MTL-TOR. GO trains were more problematic than CN.

Train #67 traveled an average speed of 120km/h along stretches of Ontario until it got to the GO network in Pickering and traveled at an average speed of 90km/h


Is that what you took away from my post? I'm a supporter of HFR because it'll allow the Chargers to travel at an average top speed of 200km/h vs the current average top speed of 150km/h.

average top speed doesn't matter is what they're saying; average speed for the entire journey is what matters. Plus reliability, or equivalently the consistency with which trips reach that average speed.

 

[Bojaxs]

average top speed doesn't matter is what they're saying; average speed for the entire journey is what matters. Plus reliability, or equivalently the consistency with which trips reach that average speed.

My point being is if we construct this properly, then the average top speed COULD be the average speed.

 

[Urban Sky]

My point being is if we construct this properly, then the average top speed COULD be the average speed.

I’m still not sure what the metric “average top speed” measures and what its utility is supposed to be..

 

[Bojaxs]

I’m still not sure what the metric “average top speed” measures and what its utility is supposed to be..

I was referring to your previous post where you mentioned the "average of the maximum speeds". My wording was different or I misunderstood you.

That train reaches that top speed for maybe 15% of the trip. Half the other time its crawling at 60mph behind a freight train.

This doesn't happen as often as it used to. CN's RTCs have gotten much better at coordinating their trains with VIA's. Now MX on the other hand...

Here are the screenshots from my speedometer app on my recent trip from Dorval to Toronto. As you can see the average speed for the train plummets once it gets off of CN tracks and onto GO tracks. We were travelling at the top speed on CN tracks for much more than just 15% of the time.

*The average speed between Coburg and Oshawa is probably higher than what the app is showing. I forgot to stop the trip when we pulled into Oshawa.

 

[MisterF]

I just assumed the 3 hours vs 2.5 hours is because there is no direct Montreal-Toronto route, but it is routed through Ottawa? Rather than having a straightish line from Montreal to Toronto with a branch up to Ottawa, which would obviously be faster?

All of the previous HSR plans that I'm aware of went through Ottawa. None of them skipped it. Bypassing the third busiest trip generator on the corridor to save 40ish km never made sense.

There was an article in Lapresse about the project's potential costs where experts provided cost projections basically just using CAHSR costs multiplied by the distance covered here, which makes them extremely high (120 Billion+) and extremely suspect (geography and political economy seems a lot easier in Ontario and Quebec than California).

Based on the data from the Transit costs project database of HSR costs, do any of our resident experts (Urbansky, smallspy etc) have more reasonable forecasts?

Even if our HSR would cost the same per km as California, that's still assuming the whole route would be full HSR. We don't know if it will be our only certain sections. Picking the most expensive HSR system for the longest possible distance seems like a deliberate attempt to publish the most shocking number.

But now we are really comparing apples and bananas, as we could also remove the regions without HSR in France and Spain and then the population denisty of these countries rises significantly…

Compared to Ontario and Quebec the density of Spain and France is relatively uniform. Just in Ontario something like 95% of the population lives on 10% of the land. I can't think of anywhere in Europe where the population is that concentrated.

 

[robmausser]

Freight was never a factor during my recent VIA trip from MTL-TOR. GO trains were more problematic than CN.

Train #67 traveled an average speed of 120km/h along stretches of Ontario until it got to the GO network in Pickering and traveled at an average speed of 90km/h


Is that what you took away from my post? I'm a supporter of HFR because it'll allow the Chargers to travel at an average top speed of 200km/h vs the current average top speed of 150km/h.

You got lucky. One anecdotal trip evidence does not make.

 

[Allandale25]

I'm surprised given the impact there hasn't been more news lately on the efforts to resolve the shunting issue. I would have to assume VIA is working behind the scenes with the Siemens on a fix/something that could be added to address CN's concern, or fix the shunting issues at specific crossings? cc @smallspy

 

[smallspy]

If HSR does not use the trackage between Scarborough Junction and the USRC, (which I'm rather certain it will not), then VIA can be squeezed in, based on current or modestly improved service levels; providing, that GO doesn't substantially exceed published frequency projections.

I very strongly disagree. And as always, it comes down to the signalling.

As I've said before, the Weston Sub can operate 90mph trains every 3 minutes (and slower trains more frequently than that). That is a considerably higher potential frequency than anywhere in North America as far as anyone in the industry can figure, and rivals a lot of the high-zoot wayside signal installations on mainline railways elsewhere in the world.

I would love to live in a universe where GO will be operating express trains every 3 minutes, but that seems excruciatingly unlikely in any event horizon that includes my lifetime. And so there will be room to slot in any potential half-hourly VIAs.

I do think we need to clarify whether you're including HSR in that assumption. I will assume you are not; because I would come to a different number of train movements if HSR and VIA service to Kingston are being reported out as a consolidated number.

My assumptions are including HSR, and considering the same reasons as above.

Dan

 

[smallspy]

I'm surprised given the impact there hasn't been more news lately on the efforts to resolve the shunting issue. I would have to assume VIA is working behind the scenes with the Siemens on a fix/something that could be added to address CN's concern, or fix the shunting issues at specific crossings? cc @smallspy

There's lots going on behind the scenes. But even I'm not privy to the discussions happening at these levels - at least not until word travels down to the lower echelons of the organizations.

Dan

 

[Northern Light]

I very strongly disagree. And as always, it comes down to the signalling.

As I've said before, the Weston Sub can operate 90mph trains every 3 minutes (and slower trains more frequently than that). That is a considerably higher potential frequency than anywhere in North America as far as anyone in the industry can figure, and rivals a lot of the high-zoot wayside signal installations on mainline railways elsewhere in the world......

Dan

I trust your wisdom Dan; I think I'm just a bit skeptical of the parties involved executing at that level, and behaving cooperatively with one another as we've seen so many problems with in the recent past.

That said, I don't expect HSR on that trackage (east of Don Branch)

 

[crs1026]

This is what I don't understand. The 407 corridor stretches all the way across the city from Milton to Pickering, right? Couldn't you just build a purely CP bypass along the 407 from Milton to Pickering, maybe with a couple GO tracks added on too, and avoid the York subdivision entirely? I mean, I know the Ontario Liberals original plan was to have CP and CN share the 407 corridor between Milton and Bramalea and then have CP use the York subdivision, but if we accept that as flawed, then why not scrap the part about CN tracks and then have CP stay within the 407 corridor for the Bramalea-Pickering section. If you don't involve CN, then you'd only need to persuade CP, right?

We are in the wrong thread for this discussion (which has cycled ad nauseum already in the correct thread) so I won't belabour here.

But the short answer to your question is - what's in it for either CPKC or CN? And what might befall CN or CPKC, or appear to them to be the likely result, in terms of their interests and competitive positions?

A bypass makes a lot of technocratic sense. Now try selling it to shareholders. At the same time, try to fund it.

- Paul