VIA Rail network developments

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There's no way to get the reductions in travel times (90 minutes) they're talking about on the Ottawa-Toronto route without taking a more direct route, which means either a greenfield railway from Kingston to Smiths falls (which as lrtfriend pointed out never existed as the old K&P took a direct route to Pembrooke and you pointed out involves major geographic impediments) or using the CPR from Belleville to Smiths Falls. Not sure which they're planning although with only a 1.5B track budget it sure looks like the latter.

The current route from Ottawa to Toronto is 446km. If upgraded to allow full speed, that route could be done in about 2 hours and 50 minutes with current equipment assuming a single stop in Kingston. 2 hours 30 minutes may be an exaggeration.

That inland CP route (the Belleville Subdivision, if I'm not mistaken), would be a pretty useful shortcut but it's in poor condition, very curvy (thus slowing down trains), and CP is hard to deal with (CP is much more hostile to passenger service on their lines than CN--this is a huge issue in the GTA with Metrolinx). I doubt $1.5B could do that one either.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by White Pine

That's interesting. Why is this? Easier to get to or something? Hopefully if they do move the station they could find a way to better integrate it with Kingston's express busses. A new station could also be an easy way to put more tracks at the station with minimal disruption.

However, I would have thought that the current location is more central...

The current location is seen by most in the city as out of the way and isolated. Because it's literally in a swamp, nothing else can really be built around it which the city feels is limiting its economic development potential; the KEDCO people (Kingston's equivalent of Invest Ottawa), want it relocated to one of the city's existing development hubs, it just so happens that the Kings Crossing area around Division Street is the only one on the mainline.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The current route from Ottawa to Toronto is 446km. If upgraded to allow full speed, that route could be done in about 2 hours and 50 minutes with current equipment assuming a single stop in Kingston. 2 hours 30 minutes may be an exaggeration.

That inland CP route (the Belleville Subdivision, if I'm not mistaken), would be a pretty useful shortcut but it's in poor condition, very curvy (thus slowing down trains), and CP is hard to deal with (CP is much more hostile to passenger service on their lines than CN--this is a huge issue in the GTA with Metrolinx). I doubt $1.5B could do that one either.

Ok, I agree with you if the assumption is that the 2.5 hours in the article is BS. If they do want to meet the 2.5 hours with conventional speeds then the Belleville sub knocks 54km of the trip from Ottawa to Toronto (which would be 2.45 hours at the very unlikely theoretical full speed).

[1overcosc]

I believe the maximum speed of the current equipment is about ~165km/h. I've measured the speed of trains using my phone GPS from Kingston to Ottawa before. VIA attains speeds of 160-165 between Smiths Falls and just southwest of Barrhaven, and between Ganonoque and Kingston Mills.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There's no way to get the reductions in travel times (90 minutes) they're talking about on the Ottawa-Toronto route without taking a more direct route, which means either a greenfield railway from Kingston to Smiths falls (which as lrtfriend pointed out never existed as the old K&P took a direct route to Pembrooke and you pointed out involves major geographic impediments) or using the CPR from Belleville to Smiths Falls. Not sure which they're planning although with only a 1.5B track budget it sure looks like the latter.

The Canadian Northern had a line from Napanee to Smiths Falls via Sydenham which connected to the existing line from Smiths Falls to Ottawa. This line also crosses the old K&P. The K&P crossed the current CP mainline at Tichborne and the old CP mainline to Peterborough at Sharbot Lake. CNOR had trackage rights over the old K&P from Harrowsmith to Kingston. The probabliity of reviving any portion of a rout from Kingston to Smiths Falls is likely nil since all the current landowners would protest the conversion from a recreational trail to a operating railway.
The cost of double tracking the CP Brockville sub and adding more triple track between Kingston and Brockville is much more cost effective than building a new route.

The problem with the previous capacity expansion on the Toronto Monreal mainline is that non of the triple track sections have been reserved exclusively for Via and they are built to a lower standard such as wooden ties as opposed to concrete ties. What we currently have is a subsidy to CN although it is referred to as an investment in Via Rail by the feds. With exclusive track the speed could be increased to achieve the times suggested.

[lrt's friend]

I really do hope that they maintain service on the Montreal-Toronto mainline and not divert all trains through Ottawa. This is a big detour and you will never be able to obtain optimal service speed with this detour. I think the potential demand will be sufficient to have separate service between all three cities.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I really do hope that they maintain service on the Montreal-Toronto mainline and not divert all trains through Ottawa. This is a big detour and you will never be able to obtain optimal service speed with this detour. I think the potential demand will be sufficient to have separate service between all three cities.

Agreed. Diverting all trains through Ottawa makes sense only when talking about real HSR (250-350km/h type stuff). At the 160km/h speed that's achievable with this dedicated tracks project, the added kilometres through Ottawa would make the Toronto-Montreal trip only marginally faster than driving even with the faster speed.

That said, if improved to 160km/h the whole way, a detour through Ottawa would be able to roughly match current travel time on the mainline... but it's not an improvement, which is what we want out of this.

[eternallyme]

Is there any way they could rebuild the Government Conference Centre as Union Station? The challenge is reconnecting the tracks from Hurdman over to the GCC...

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Is there any way they could rebuild the Government Conference Centre as Union Station? The challenge is reconnecting the tracks from Hurdman over to the GCC...

We are already doing that with the Confederation Line. It will be faster than trying to return heavy rail to Union Station. VIA Rail should include a transit ticket with every fare coming into Ottawa. The cost is minimal and I am sure VIA could negotiate a significant discount with OC Transpo knowing that many will not use the option.

[1overcosc]

I'm still on the fence about whether or not reviving Union is a good idea.

This is Ottawa, and there is a healthy demand for driving into the train station; the area around Union would not be able to handle such parking demand unless some serious coin was chipped in for underground parking.

Furthermore, the current train station is highly accessible by transit, about to become more so. It's not a huge burden. Also, its presence just southeast of downtown could help kickstart urbanization of that area.

[Aylmer]

A counterpoint:

- Parking: This is one of the original arguments for moving the station, but it's not like there's a tremendous number of spaces at Tremblay either. My sense is that most people don't really drive and park to take the train - If you're going to take the train, you take transit or get dropped off - otherwise, you drive all the way. It's not like an airport where people probably can't drive to their destinations.

My thinking for Union is that it would do more than just make intercity travel easier and much more attractive; a central link would also allow us to develop a regional system akin to those found in places like Germany, Australia or New Zealand. With a rapid and direct connection to the centre of the city, we could start to restructure the region's growth around rail stations in places like Vars, Carp, Richmond and Greeley instead of letting those places sprawl around clogged highways. For that to happen, a central rail station is very important, as Auckland's Brittomart station revival demonstrated; after rail was brought back to the core, ridership shot up immediately and a station which was criticized for being overbuilt and unnecessary reached its 2030 capacity before even 2010.

I think that a new central station would soon become one of those "why-didn't-we-have-this-before?" things.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

A counterpoint:

- Parking: This is one of the original arguments for moving the station, but it's not like there's a tremendous number of spaces at Tremblay either. My sense is that most people don't really drive and park to take the train - If you're going to take the train, you take transit or get dropped off - otherwise, you drive all the way. It's not like an airport where people probably can't drive to their destinations.

I know by observation that only a very small amount of VIA passengers--something like 10%-20% at most--take transit to and from Ottawa train station. I don't know about the rest though, not sure whether its mostly taxi/drop-off or drive-and-park.

[Norman Bates]

When on personal business I use Fallowfield station - and park there.

I haven't travelled on business business in a very long time, but when I did I cabbed it to Fallowfield.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

When on personal business I use Fallowfield station - and park there.

I haven't travelled on business business in a very long time, but when I did I cabbed it to Falliwfield.

Most likely with a Union Station downtown, more people would use Fallowfield from suburban areas since that station would likely have additional parking. But overall ridership of those who want to go to downtown would more than make up the difference.

Too bad the VIA line doesn't go into Orleans, that would be a great place for a station for the east end as well.

[MountainView]

So any idea if this plan would include double tracking the entire line through Ottawa? Or is that not needed as trains would probably not overlap through this stretch?

I ask because there are quite a few bridge's that would need to be replaced to allow double tracks over them.
- Prince of Wales (will happen when road is widened anyways)
- Rideau River (single only)
- Riverside (double can fit)
- Walkley (single only)
- Bronson (single only)
- Heron (might fit two)
- Transitway (might fit two)
- Bank (single only)
- Smyth (double can fit)
- Riverside near Hurdman (double can fit)

Not to mention the handful of pedestrian underpasses that may require retrofitting to allow double tracks to pass over top.

Thanks

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by MountainView

So any idea if this plan would include double tracking the entire line through Ottawa? Or is that not needed as trains would probably not overlap through this stretch?

I ask because there are quite a few bridge's that would need to be replaced to allow double tracks over them.
- Prince of Wales (will happen when road is widened anyways)
- Rideau River (single only)
- Riverside (double can fit)
- Walkley (single only)
- Bronson (single only)
- Heron (might fit two)
- Transitway (might fit two)
- Bank (single only)
- Smyth (double can fit)
- Riverside near Hurdman (double can fit)

Not to mention the handful of pedestrian underpasses that may require retrofitting to allow double tracks to pass over top.

Thanks

The big expense on this list is the rail bridge over the Rideau River. If the Beachburg sub is ever converted to O-Train service to Kanata or Stittsville this will probably have to be double tracked. I would think this would be the last bridge to be reconstructed/replaced.

The one grade separation you forgot is the the rail/rail crossing of the O-Train. This is crucial especially if the frequency of the O-Train is ever increased to 5 minute intervals or less.
Clearly avoiding level crossings is the most important priority, followed by doubling existing single track rail bridges.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by MountainView

So any idea if this plan would include double tracking the entire line through Ottawa? Or is that not needed as trains would probably not overlap through this stretch?

I ask because there are quite a few bridge's that would need to be replaced to allow double tracks over them.
- Prince of Wales (will happen when road is widened anyways)
- Rideau River (single only)
- Riverside (double can fit)
- Walkley (single only)
- Bronson (single only)
- Heron (might fit two)
- Transitway (might fit two)
- Bank (single only)
- Smyth (double can fit)
- Riverside near Hurdman (double can fit)

Not to mention the handful of pedestrian underpasses that may require retrofitting to allow double tracks to pass over top.

Thanks

Good question. I imagine VIA would probably include this kind of detailed info about the infrastructure improvements needed in the prospectus (if I were investing billions in VIA, I'd want to know specifically what projects they were building so I can judge whether it will be a success or not!), but that info may or may not be made public. Here's hoping it is.

Current travel time between Ottawa Central and Fallowfield is 18 minutes normally although it can vary. The track east of the point where the tracks from Barrhaven merge in with the tracks from the west (near Colonnade), has a very slow speed limit, so I imagine VIA's first priority is to speed it up. If they do that, they can reduce the travel time from Tremblay to the inner edge of the Greenbelt to about 10 minutes or so. That's low enough that VIA can schedule around it--especially if the dedicated tracks project improves on-time reliability elsewhere in the system (which it should).

Within the Greenbelt, double tracking is obviously easy. In Barrhaven, it's also easy as all the crossings are still level (with the exception of Greenbank where a separation is being built; it protects for two tracks).

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

A counterpoint:

- Parking: This is one of the original arguments for moving the station, but it's not like there's a tremendous number of spaces at Tremblay either. My sense is that most people don't really drive and park to take the train - If you're going to take the train, you take transit or get dropped off - otherwise, you drive all the way. It's not like an airport where people probably can't drive to their destinations.

My thinking for Union is that it would do more than just make intercity travel easier and much more attractive; a central link would also allow us to develop a regional system akin to those found in places like Germany, Australia or New Zealand. With a rapid and direct connection to the centre of the city, we could start to restructure the region's growth around rail stations in places like Vars, Carp, Richmond and Greeley instead of letting those places sprawl around clogged highways. For that to happen, a central rail station is very important, as Auckland's Brittomart station revival demonstrated; after rail was brought back to the core, ridership shot up immediately and a station which was criticized for being overbuilt and unnecessary reached its 2030 capacity before even 2010.

I think that a new central station would soon become one of those "why-didn't-we-have-this-before?" things.

How would parking be improved by using Union Station downtown? The transit connection would not be much better downtown compared to the current station. For rail service, the current location makes much more sense because it is a through station and not a stub station requiring back up moves. In Avignon and Lyon all TGV's stop at suburban stations and not at the downtown stations. The main benefit of using Union Station is that there are several hotels within walking distance from the station.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

How would parking be improved by using Union Station downtown? The transit connection would not be much better downtown compared to the current station. For rail service, the current location makes much more sense because it is a through station and not a stub station requiring back up moves. In Avignon and Lyon all TGV's stop at suburban stations and not at the downtown stations. The main benefit of using Union Station is that there are several hotels within walking distance from the station.

I agree, while ripping up all the rail infrastructure downtown was probably a bad idea, trying to put it back would entail enormous cost because it would be mostly underground (I can't imagine getting agreement to tear up Colonel By, Nicholas and the grass). Terminal stations cause all sort of problems (particularly in North America where they are not designed for bidirectional travel) and given the speed heavy rail trains go as they approach stations, I can't image train getting downtown faster than an LRT vehicle.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

How would parking be improved by using Union Station downtown?

I think you misunderstood me - Parking was an argument used in the 1960s to move the station to Tremblay, not an argument for moving it back to downtown.