VIA Rail

[casper]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm not sure if you actually disagree with my intended meaning - something less good than HSR may be viable. But I think to reach the threshold where rail can replace cars or planes, it will need significant investment on the Vancouver - Seattle corridor.

I had a look at the Amtrak Cascades schedule. At first I was surprised at a journey time of 3hr30, but then I realized I was looking at a bus. The train is over 4 hours - not good enough. And there are 4 buses a day, and 2 trains.

So just to be competitive with Amtrak's own bus, the train timing needs to be increased by at least an hour and the frequency at least doubled. Presumably with the existing infrastructure, there is no way to run more trains.

So your investment to get anything viable is going to be large regardless.

The problem is there is a single track rail bridge between New West and Surrey. It is owned by the federal government. It is very old. Everyone uses it including Via rail, Rocky Mountaineer, CP, CN, Burlington Northern, and Amtrak.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by casper

The problem is there is a single track rail bridge between New West and Surrey. It is owned by the federal government. It is very old. Everyone uses it including Via rail, Rocky Mountaineer, CP, CN, Burlington Northern, and Amtrak.

Yes. How much would that cost to replace, how much would it improve journey times and how many more trains could be run? And that bridge is not going to be the only bottleneck.

We do have some data here - that Cantrail bus Amtrak connects with (I was wrong to say they run it) runs 4 times a day with a 3hr30 journey time. Maybe there are other bus services, but that's not many people who will forgo the car to take public transit at that speed. So for a train to be competitive and worth providing, you're going to have to get the journey time we'l below that of the already provided bus.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm not sure if you actually disagree with my intended meaning - something less good than HSR may be viable. But I think to reach the threshold where rail can replace cars or planes, it will need significant investment on the Vancouver - Seattle corridor.

I had a look at the Amtrak Cascades schedule. At first I was surprised at a journey time of 3hr30, but then I realized I was looking at a bus. The train is over 4 hours - not good enough. And there are 4 buses a day, and 2 trains.

So just to be competitive with Amtrak's own bus, the train timing needs to be increased by at least an hour and the frequency at least doubled. Presumably with the existing infrastructure, there is no way to run more trains.

So your investment to get anything viable is going to be large regardless.

Have a look at my post 7 days ago:

Originally Posted by roger1818

I have said this before, but the problem with getting good Amtrak service to Vancouver is getting support north of the 49th. Looking at a timetable I have from 2018, it takes 2 hours to travel the 62 miles from Vancouver to Bellingham (an average of 31 mph) and then 1 hour 26 minutes to travel the 95km from Bellingham to Seattle (an average of 66 mph).

I gather part of the problem is that even with preclearance, they still need to stop at the boarder, but the bigger problem is that there is little to no political support in Canada to help upgrade the track to allow it to travel at more than a crawl Canada.

Optimally the track needs to be re-routed away from White Rock beach (the 99 corridor would be a great alternative), but an even greater barrier to more frequent service is the the New Westminster Rail bridge (which is owned by the Government of Canada and also used by CN, CP, SRY, BNSF and VIA). It is in desperate need of replacement, but the government can't seem to come up with the money (Est. cost ~ $110 million, though that may be out of date).

If we could get the average speed north of Bellingham the same as it is south of Bellingham, the total Vancouver-Seattle travel time would be under 2.5 hours. Amtrak has made it clear that these track upgrades are a prerequisite for increased frequency. In addition to increased frequency of Amtrak Cascades service they might even extend the Coast Starlight to Vancouver.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yes. How much would that cost to replace, how much would it improve journey times and how many more trains could be run? And that bridge is not going to be the only bottleneck.

We do have some data here - that Cantrail bus Amtrak connects with (I was wrong to say they run it) runs 4 times a day with a 3hr30 journey time. Maybe there are other bus services, but that's not many people who will forgo the car to take public transit at that speed. So for a train to be competitive and worth providing, you're going to have to get the journey time we'l below that of the already provided bus.

Prior to the pandemic, there were at least two additional bus services: one was Greyhound from Vancouver to Seattle (operated by Greyhound USA and not affected by the shutdown of Greyhound Canada in Western Canada in 2018); additionally there was also a bus connecting Vancouver with SeaTac Airport, though I'm not sure if it stopped in Seattle or Tacoma proper. I think that bus also went to Bellingham's airport.

There were quite a few buses per day running between Seattle and Vancouver, but they had inconvenient schedules for day trips to Seattle, and are also inconvenient for those who live east or south of Vancouver. When I drove to Seattle in early 2019 and was living in Burnaby, it was far more convenient to rent a car nearby and drive straight to the Pacific Highway border crossing, instead of having to take two SkyTrain lines into Vancouver to Pacific Central Station, and then catch a bus from there.

[roger1818]

I watched an interesting presentation made a couple weeks ago about "Brightline's Vision for Train Travel" by Ben Porritt, Senior Vice President Corporate Affairs. At at the 6:55 point he talks about how their company goal is to connect city pairs that are "too long to drive and too short to fly," and while he doesn't mention it specifically, the map does show Portland - Seattle - Vancouver. Now obviously this isn't one of their top priorities and it may never happen, but it certainly is interesting that it is under consideration.

[casper]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Prior to the pandemic, there were at least two additional bus services: one was Greyhound from Vancouver to Seattle (operated by Greyhound USA and not affected by the shutdown of Greyhound Canada in Western Canada in 2018); additionally there was also a bus connecting Vancouver with SeaTac Airport, though I'm not sure if it stopped in Seattle or Tacoma proper. I think that bus also went to Bellingham's airport.

There were quite a few buses per day running between Seattle and Vancouver, but they had inconvenient schedules for day trips to Seattle, and are also inconvenient for those who live east or south of Vancouver. When I drove to Seattle in early 2019 and was living in Burnaby, it was far more convenient to rent a car nearby and drive straight to the Pacific Highway border crossing, instead of having to take two SkyTrain lines into Vancouver to Pacific Central Station, and then catch a bus from there.

A good percentage of the passengers on both the train and these busses were cruise ship passengers. A number of the buses would depart from the cruise ship terminal and head straight to the Seattle Airport.

This is a captive market. There are exceptions to this rule but generally Americans like to take 7 day cruises. The cruises that home port in Seattle are mostly 7 day returns. The cruise ships that home port in Vancouver are mostly 14 day returns that can also be booked as a 7 day one-way.

From the US it is almost always cheaper to fly domestic than cross boarder. End result is you end with a lot of one-way trips from Seattle to/from Vancouver in summer. `

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Have a look at my post 7 days ago:
If we could get the average speed north of Bellingham the same as it is south of Bellingham, the total Vancouver-Seattle travel time would be under 2.5 hours. Amtrak has made it clear that these track upgrades are a prerequisite for increased frequency. In addition to increased frequency of Amtrak Cascades service they might even extend the Coast Starlight to Vancouver.

I agree that 2.5 hours would be a great option, provided there is good frequency at useful times.

That New Westminster Rail bridge alone though is a big problem. They quote $110 million, but that must be for a one for one replacement and still seems low. But in reality, when replacing that bridge it will be designed to last 50 or 100 years, or more, like the current bridge. When looking at the geography there, it's hard to see how you could make it better without huge changes. It might be that a tunnel would be better. I think it's reasonable to say the scope and cost would be on the same order of magnitude as the Pattullo Bridge replacement.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I agree that 2.5 hours would be a great option, provided there is good frequency at useful times.

That New Westminster Rail bridge alone though is a big problem. They quote $110 million, but that must be for a one for one replacement and still seems low. But in reality, when replacing that bridge it will be designed to last 50 or 100 years, or more, like the current bridge. When looking at the geography there, it's hard to see how you could make it better without huge changes. It might be that a tunnel would be better. I think it's reasonable to say the scope and cost would be on the same order of magnitude as the Pattullo Bridge replacement.

I wonder if this would be part of a stimulus package?

[casper]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I agree that 2.5 hours would be a great option, provided there is good frequency at useful times.

That New Westminster Rail bridge alone though is a big problem. They quote $110 million, but that must be for a one for one replacement and still seems low. But in reality, when replacing that bridge it will be designed to last 50 or 100 years, or more, like the current bridge. When looking at the geography there, it's hard to see how you could make it better without huge changes. It might be that a tunnel would be better. I think it's reasonable to say the scope and cost would be on the same order of magnitude as the Pattullo Bridge replacement.

Not certain we should be talking about replacing it but adding a second bridge perhaps at the current site or just west of Pattillo Bridge. Basically finding a way of removing trains having to wait to cross by doubling capacity or allocating one. The new bridge should be designed so the line can be electrified as that is the long term plan for the Cascadia anyway.

[Truenorth00]

There's a disturbing article in Journal de Montreal that suggests Michael Sabia, now Deputy Minister of Finance, wants to scrap the whole HFR plan and just build high speed rail between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. He wants to cut the Montreal-Quebec segment too.

Ridiculous. Two years and $70M worth of work later. I'll be pissed if they go back to the drawing board, instead of getting shovels in the ground.

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/20...e-de-derailler

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I wonder if this would be part of a stimulus package?

Don't know how - Biden isn't going to spend stimulus money on Canada and Trudeau isn't going to spend money on Amtrak.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's a disturbing article in Journal de Montreal that suggests Michael Sabia, now Deputy Minister of Finance, wants to scrap the whole HFR plan and just build high speed rail between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. He wants to cut the Montreal-Quebec segment too.

Ridiculous. Two years and $70M worth of work later. I'll be pissed if they go back to the drawing board, instead of getting shovels in the ground.

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/20...e-de-derailler

Idiocy. Good way to ensure neither get built.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's a disturbing article in Journal de Montreal that suggests Michael Sabia, now Deputy Minister of Finance, wants to scrap the whole HFR plan and just build high speed rail between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. He wants to cut the Montreal-Quebec segment too.

Ridiculous. Two years and $70M worth of work later. I'll be pissed if they go back to the drawing board, instead of getting shovels in the ground.

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/20...e-de-derailler

The article seems to indicate that the $70 million report recommended HSR from Toronto to Montreal instead of the HFR proposal, but maintaining HFR from Montreal to Quebec.

Which honestly makes a lot of sense. The HFR plan always over assumed the ability to use the Havelock corridor given its existing condition and terrible alignment. It probably isn’t as much of a cost difference between the two options than the previous HFR plan made it out to be.

[J81]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

The article seems to indicate that the $70 million report recommended HSR from Toronto to Montreal instead of the HFR proposal, but maintaining HFR from Montreal to Quebec.

Which honestly makes a lot of sense. The HFR plan always over assumed the ability to use the Havelock corridor given its existing condition and terrible alignment. It probably isn’t as much of a cost difference between the two options than the previous HFR plan made it out to be.

So your belief is that building a brand new double track high speed line 300 miles long will be similar in price as upgrading an existing roadbed and adding sidings for meets?

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by J81

So your belief is that building a brand new double track high speed line 300 miles long will be similar in price as upgrading an existing roadbed and adding sidings for meets?

Havelock subdivision already cuts through a significant part of Canadian Shield. (For those of you that have driven on ON-7 between Peterborough and Kanata, you’ll remember how rocky it is as soon as you enter Hastings County coming from the west.)
I’m guessing that adding siding requires rock blasting too. Once that’s needed, due to economy of scale, you may as well go (reasonably) big on it.
It’s just my conjecture.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

The article seems to indicate that the $70 million report recommended HSR from Toronto to Montreal instead of the HFR proposal, but maintaining HFR from Montreal to Quebec.

I interpret the article as recommending High Performance Rail. Better than HFR. But not full blown HSR. It was always clear there was room for some upgrading without spending the full $15-20B on HSR from Toronto to Quebec City.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher-speed_rail

I don't think the report recommended a change in routing. Just some additional investment where the return is warranted.

What I find upsetting is the suggestion by Sabia and apparently McKenna to simply ditch the report and build HSR.

[Innsertnamehere]

My point is that via underestimated how much of the Havelock sub could be used, and the condition it is in.

It would need lots of alignment changes and a 100% reconstruction to be usable. Even the part from Peterborough to Agincourt is in terrible condition, trains crawl along the stretch today.

It’s not “existing corridor vs new corridor”, it’s “new corridor partially using an existing alignment or new corridor”.

The right solution isn’t necessarily 300 miles of 300km/h line, it’s likely 200km/h line close to city cores and 150-200 miles of high speed line in the parts of the corridors that need full reconstruction anyway.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's a disturbing article in Journal de Montreal that suggests Michael Sabia, now Deputy Minister of Finance, wants to scrap the whole HFR plan and just build high speed rail between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. He wants to cut the Montreal-Quebec segment too.

Ridiculous. Two years and $70M worth of work later. I'll be pissed if they go back to the drawing board, instead of getting shovels in the ground.

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/20...e-de-derailler

I'd be more pissed if they could spend a little more, and we have true HSR and we don't. I almost wonder if they did any legwork for HSR, but shelved it. If they did, they can dust it off, update the new information, and start building it.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Don't know how - Biden isn't going to spend stimulus money on Canada and Trudeau isn't going to spend money on Amtrak.

I mentioned it because of this post:

Originally Posted by casper

The problem is there is a single track rail bridge between New West and Surrey. It is owned by the federal government. It is very old. Everyone uses it including Via rail, Rocky Mountaineer, CP, CN, Burlington Northern, and Amtrak.

So, if everyone is using it, the stimulus would be from the Canadian government and serve Canadians better.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by casper

Not certain we should be talking about replacing it but adding a second bridge perhaps at the current site or just west of Pattillo Bridge. Basically finding a way of removing trains having to wait to cross by doubling capacity or allocating one. The new bridge should be designed so the line can be electrified as that is the long term plan for the Cascadia anyway.

How much life is left in that bridge?

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I'd be more pissed if they could spend a little more, and we have true HSR and we don't. I almost wonder if they did any legwork for HSR, but shelved it. If they did, they can dust it off, update the new information, and start building it.

I mentioned it because of this post:

So, if everyone is using it, the stimulus would be from the Canadian government and serve Canadians better.

The government will only fund projects that exist. I'm sure federal dollars would be used for a project as important as replacing the New Westminster Bridge, but before that the various stakeholders need to decide they even want to upgrade it, then take years to develop the project (all with Vancouver NIMBYs interfering) before a project is on the table and the funding can be arranged.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

How much life is left in that bridge?



The government will only fund projects that exist. I'm sure federal dollars would be used for a project as important as replacing the New Westminster Bridge, but before that the various stakeholders need to decide they even want to upgrade it, then take years to develop the project (all with Vancouver NIMBYs interfering) before a project is on the table and the funding can be arranged.

I guess I am assuming they have done preliminary work on it to figure out a replacement for it. I do agree with your point though.