VIA Rail

[swimmer_spe]

All of this talk of hydrogen as a fuel source makes me wonder if it wouldn't be cheaper to build new power plants and begin stringing wires to have electric trains.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I understand what you are saying, and I think we are saying the same things.
My assumption is the order placed now will replace all existing rolling stock on the Windsor -Quebec City Corridor.You can correct me as to whether what is ordered will be enough.

According to VIA's most recent Corporate Plan (p.34), its annual train mileage is projected to exceed 2019 (i.e. pre-Covid) levels of 6,933,000 train-miles already this year (by 6.6% or 7,394,000 train-miles) and by even 9.9% (7,618,000 train-miles) in 2026. Given that I have no reason to believe that any frequency increases are in the card for the non-Corridor services, this suggests that Corridor services (some 5.4 million scheduled train miles in 2019) will solely account for that 685,000 increase in train miles, which would represent an increase in Corridor mileage by almost 13%.

I can't imagine that my former colleagues would budget for such an increase in train-mileage if the 32 Siemens trainsets were not able to support such an increase in timetable volume...

Could the P42s be used to replace the F40s that are needing to be retired? Could they be a stopgap till the new long distance fleet be brought online? Am I right that the replacement tender is just cars, not engines?

VIA's current fleet holds some 50 F40s, of which approximately 20 are used in the Corridor service (together with a similar number of P42s). With the 20 F40s being freed from their Corridor duties, there will be no shortage of F40s to run into the ground on non-Corridor routes, which makes the P42s redundant.

The more pressing reason for the non-Corridor fleet renewal, therefore, is the 70-year old HEP1 fleet, whereas VIA has enough F40s to burn through before the new non-Corridor fleet hopefully arrives...

So, if we assume HSR is built TOM, all of the existing rolling stock along there will have to go somewhere.

Nobody seems to have any idea what service-levels on the Kingston Subdivision will look like post-Covid, but let's take the frequency map Kingston's mayor Patterson posted six years ago:

If we compare with the June 2019 timetable, TRTO-OTTW would decreased 4 train pairs (i.e. from 10 to 6 tpd) and KGON-TRTO by 1 (i.e. from 1 to 0 tpd). Let's also assume that MTRL-OTTW gets absorbed by HSR (that is currently 6 tpd) and that MTRL-QBEC stays the way it is (as I honestly don't see a way to make that viable for HSR, given that the tunnel was enthusiastically surrendered to the REM), the train-mileage for the Siemens trainsets would be reduced (compared to 2019) by 6,320 km per day or 1.4 million train-miles per year:

MTRL-OTTW: 187 km * 6 tpd * 2 directions = 2,244 timetable-km per day
OTTW-TRTO: 446 km * 4 tpd * 2 directions = 3,568 timetable-km per day
KGON-TRTO: 254 km * 1 tpd * 2 directions = 508 timetable-km per day

Compared to the Corridor train-mileage observed in 2019 and projected for 2026, this only represents a decrease by 21% or 19%, respectively. At a fleet size of 32 trainsets, this translates to at most 6 trainsets you could deploy elsewhere...

Absolutely correct. Depending on the political landscape, one could see taking the extras and moving them elsewhere. If, for example the E&N survives the next few days, maybe one or 2 are sent there to replace the Budd RDC car. Maybe the same happens with the Sudbury -White River as well; then the RDCs can be retired.

The problem with sending Siemens trainsets elsewhere is that you would need to build a new maintenance facility for a tiny fleet of maybe 6 trainsets (or even less, if you split them between Sudbury-White River and Victoria-Courtenay). This requirement would most likely have killed the Northlander Revival, if there wasn't the possibility to simply send the trainsets to VIA's future Siemens maintenance facility in Toronto, but that's way too far from Sudbury or Victoria...

The good thing about Toronto, with Metrolinx owning the approaches, and their future plans of an electrified system, if HSR does happen, some of the infrastructure will be there and in the hands of a transit agency, instead of a freight carrier.

That's indeed correct, if we ignore the shameful destruction of any Heavy Rail capabilities in the Mont-Royal tunnel...

Even then, the energy costs to get hydrogen, regardless of where you get it will make it prohibitive. It isn't that we can't, but whether we should.

If I look at the kind of scale of where Hydrogen trains are currently rolled out (relatively short routes covered by self-propelled multiple-unit trainsets), it would indeed be absolutely utopic to bank on the Canadian railway industry to simply swap out diesel locomotives for Hydrogen ones...

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Here is how I feel this could play out.

Alston's HSR (or any other company's plan for HSR) is approved between TOM.
This would mean 2 things:
1) not ordering the extra 16 trainsets for the Corridor service.
2) New rolling stock between TOM

The rest of the 32 trainsets are moved to the rest of the Corridor to be able to add frequency.

If Via can get funding, and if it is seen that the Corridor has a surplus of trainsets, they may expand. The Prairies and the Mairitimes are the most likely places to see additional service.
Using the Northlander as a template for the number of trainsets needed, the Maritime service would need 3 sets, C-E would need 2-3, and the rest of the Prairies would need 5-10.

And then there is the possibility that the RDCs for the Sudbury - White River and the E&N are replaced with these as well.

Yes, a lot of this is fantasy, but much of that fantasy is rooted in real possibilities based on the reality of the rolling stock of Via and the desire to change parts of Via into better service.

As we've seen above, we are talking about at most 6 trainsets which could be redeployed, provided we are prepared to build a brand-new maintenance facility ($$$).

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

All of this talk of hydrogen as a fuel source makes me wonder if it wouldn't be cheaper to build new power plants and begin stringing wires to have electric trains.

The impact of rail electrification on national energy consumption would be rather negligible. To provide some figures from Germany, Deutsche Bahn consumes some 10 terawatt-hours of electricity every year, less than 2% of German's total electricity consumption of approximately 560 terawatt-hours...

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

VIA's current fleet holds some 50 F40s, of which approximately 20 are used in the Corridor service (together with a similar number of P42s). With the 20 F40s being freed from their Corridor duties, there will be no shortage of F40s to run into the ground on non-Corridor routes, which makes the P42s redundant.

The more pressing reason for the non-Corridor fleet renewal, therefore, is the 70-year old HEP1 fleet, whereas VIA has enough F40s to burn through before the new non-Corridor fleet hopefully arrives...

Begs the question as to whether it is better to keep the newer P42s and sell off the older F40s? Which ones are in better shape? Which ones are more environmentally friendly? Can they both do the same job or is one superior than the other for long distance service?

The P40s are about 10-20 years newer than the F40s.If Via is trying to economically replace it's aging fleet, selling off the older engines may be the smart thing to do.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Nobody seems to have any idea what service-levels on the Kingston Subdivision will look like post-Covid, but let's take the frequency map Kingston's mayor Patterson posted six years ago:

If we compare with the June 2019 timetable, TRTO-OTTW would decreased 4 train pairs (i.e. from 10 to 6 tpd) and KGON-TRTO by 1 (i.e. from 1 to 0 tpd). Let's also assume that MTRL-OTTW gets absorbed by HSR (that is currently 6 tpd) and that MTRL-QBEC stays the way it is (as I honestly don't see a way to make that viable for HSR, given that the tunnel was enthusiastically surrendered to the REM), the train-mileage for the Siemens trainsets would be reduced (compared to 2019) by 6,320 km per day or 1.4 million train-miles per year:

MTRL-OTTW: 187 km * 6 tpd * 2 directions = 2,244 timetable-km per day
OTTW-TRTO: 446 km * 4 tpd * 2 directions = 3,568 timetable-km per day
KGON-TRTO: 254 km * 1 tpd * 2 directions = 508 timetable-km per day

Compared to the Corridor train-mileage observed in 2019 and projected for 2026, this only represents a decrease by 21% or 19%, respectively. At a fleet size of 32 trainsets, this translates to at most 6 trainsets you could deploy elsewhere...

As we've seen above, we are talking about at most 6 trainsets which could be redeployed, provided we are prepared to build a brand-new maintenance facility ($$$).

The problem with sending Siemens trainsets elsewhere is that you would need to build a new maintenance facility for a tiny fleet of maybe 6 trainsets (or even less, if you split them between Sudbury-White River and Victoria-Courtenay). This requirement would most likely have killed the Northlander Revival, if there wasn't the possibility to simply send the trainsets to VIA's future Siemens maintenance facility in Toronto, but that's way too far from Sudbury or Victoria...

Having the running out of Sudbury isn't that horrible for maintenance. They could either bring one down on the back of the Canadian, or just send it down with a freight train, or run it alone. Or.... service to White River from Toronto? I know the plan is the Northlander to be serviced with Via, so, it does make sense to service them in the Toronto facility.

Or, send all 6 to Calgary/Edmonton and build a facility out there.

As far as Victoria, how did they service the RDC while it was out there?

None of this takes into an account that Via would exercise their right to order more. That would mean more than the 6 spares to go where they may think it would work. There are plenty of shops across Canada that could be contracted with Via for servicing what is out wherever as needed.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

If I look at the kind of scale of where Hydrogen trains are currently rolled out (relatively short routes covered by self-propelled multiple-unit trainsets), it would indeed be absolutely utopic to bank on the Canadian railway industry to simply swap out diesel locomotives for Hydrogen ones...

I think you and I are on the same page on this.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

The impact of rail electrification on national energy consumption would be rather negligible. To provide some figures from Germany, Deutsche Bahn consumes some 10 terawatt-hours of electricity every year, less than 2% of German's total electricity consumption of approximately 560 terawatt-hours...

https://www.google.ca/search?q=canad...client=gws-wiz
Total electricity generation in Canada was 632.2 terawatt hours in 2019.

We have almost 100 tW more generation. Or about 22% more than they do.

Canada has 49,422 kilometres (30,709 mi) total trackage, of which only 129 kilometres (80 mi) is electrified (all urban rail transit networks).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Canada
As of 2015, Germany had a railway network of 33,331 kilometres (20,711 mi), of which 19,983 kilometres (12,417 mi) were electrified and 18,201 kilometres (11,310 mi) were double track.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Germany

We have about 16,000km more than them. Or about 33%.

What this tells me is that while it is not going to be a major hit, it would be foolhardy to not add to our generation to prepare for this.

[manny_santos]

More consultations coming on the future of the railway on Vancouver Island:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...2023-1.6778609

I also see mention of passenger service from "Parksville to Port Alberni" up until 2011. I have never heard of that branch line being used for passenger service within the past 65 years, unless there was someone other than CP or VIA operating it at one point more recently?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

More consultations coming on the future of the railway on Vancouver Island:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...2023-1.6778609

I also see mention of passenger service from "Parksville to Port Alberni" up until 2011. I have never heard of that branch line being used for passenger service within the past 65 years, unless there was someone other than CP or VIA operating it at one point more recently?

I am confused. The article says that they are giving the land back to the FN. Does that now mean that section or ROW is now no longer going to be rails, even if the rest is restored?

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am confused. The article says that they are giving the land back to the FN. Does that now mean that section or ROW is now no longer going to be rails, even if the rest is restored?

I was confused by it too, there's a lack of detail in the story, however it sounds like they're only being given back a small amount of land. If I could guess, it could be land immediately adjacent to the tracks no longer in railway use - for example, land previously used for a station or railway offices.

EDIT: It looks like it's a section of track north of Nanaimo being transferred: https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/p...tion-1.6312561

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I was confused by it too, there's a lack of detail in the story, however it sounds like they're only being given back a small amount of land. If I could guess, it could be land immediately adjacent to the tracks no longer in railway use - for example, land previously used for a station or railway offices.

EDIT: It looks like it's a section of track north of Nanaimo being transferred: https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/p...tion-1.6312561

Sounds like this line will not be coming back.

[Truenorth00]

I took a look at the recently released HFR Request for Qualification. There are some interesting expectations in the Project Outcomes section:

Significantly Increase Intercity Rail Passengers


• Increase annual passenger trips in the Corridor to at least 17 million by
2059 (up from 4.8 million in 2019), including both HFR Services and Local
Services

• Operational and fleet strategies include increased annual seat capacity to
enable expected growth in passengers


Enhance Passenger Experience in the Corridor

• Faster service with shorter journey times between Major Cities (Québec
City, Montréal, Ottawa and Toronto) that are less than:

o 4h10 between Toronto and Montréal
o 2h55 between Toronto and Ottawa
o 1h45 between Ottawa and Montréal
o 2h50 between Montréal and Québec City

• More reliable service with improved on-time performance within the
Corridor (up to 95 per cent on dedicated tracks from an average of 68 per
cent in 2019)
• More frequent departures (e.g., minimum 12 departures per day) between
Major Cities
• Add new services to Peterborough and Trois-Rivières
• Maintain connectivity between cities currently serviced by meeting or
exceeding minimum service requirements to be established by Canada/the
Project Authority for Local Services
• Improve integration with other modes of transportation (e.g., regional and
local public transit, non-Corridor services, airports) by engaging
collaboratively with municipal stakeholders, transit authorities and other
orders of government or service providers
• Provide a passenger rail system that is significantly less dependent on
sharing tracks with Host Railways

...

Minimize Financial Costs to Taxpayers

• Eliminate operating subsidies by the Government of Canada in the Corridor
while achieving defined levels of customer satisfaction
• Provide a Solution that yields best value for money for taxpayers, through:

o the integration of design, construction, maintenance, and
operations; and
o optimal revenues and cost management

• Establish and adhere to an affordability range for the Project throughout
the project lifecycle
• Contribute positively to the Government of Canada’s priorities on economic
growth by generating jobs, creating new supply chains and supporting
training and skills development while respecting trade obligations and
ensuring cost efficiencies

....

https://hfr-tgf.ca/wp-content/upload...DDQ-TGF-EN.pdf [PDF Warning]

This is definitely leaning towards the low end of high speed rail or towards some kind of higher speed rail operation with substantial stretch of high speed, if those travel times are the minimum objectives. I think we're looking at something like Acela Express, as the likely outcome.

[MolsonExport]

by
2059

I will only be 90.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I will only be 90.

That’s not the project completion date (I hope), but rather a long-off date where ridership is hoped to have matured.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I took a look at the recently released HFR Request for Qualification. There are some interesting expectations in the Project Outcomes section:




https://hfr-tgf.ca/wp-content/upload...DDQ-TGF-EN.pdf [PDF Warning]

This is definitely leaning towards the low end of high speed rail or towards some kind of higher speed rail operation with substantial stretch of high speed, if those travel times are the minimum objectives. I think we're looking at something like Acela Express, as the likely outcome.

The maximum travel times are interesting:

o 4h10 between Toronto and Montréal
o 2h55 between Toronto and Ottawa
o 1h45 between Ottawa and Montréal

If you combine the Toronto-Ottawa and Ottawa-Montreal times, that combines to a total of 4 hours and 40 minutes - 30 minutes longer than the Toronto-Montreal time.

This means that the HFR solution we've all been expecting - a single Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal line - might not actually happen.

The proponent has two choices:

1) Make the Toronto-Ottawa and Ottawa-Montreal considerably faster than the minimum to also meet the 4h10 Toronto-Montreal requirement through a single line - about 15% faster. That would mean reducing Ottawa-Montreal to 1h30m and Ottawa-Toronto to 2h30m, allowing for Toronto-Montreal service to be 4h, plus allowing for a few minutes for dwell time at an Ottawa station (meeting the 4h10m requirement).

2) Have some trains bypass Ottawa. The easiest would be to use the CP tracks through the South Keys area, but this wouldn't actually save 30 minutes of travel time. They'd likely have to do a much more complicated bypass - like using the CP tracks from Smiths Falls through Winchester/Alexandria bypassing Ottawa 50km to the south - this would violate the requirement to avoid dependency on host railways, however, unless enormous sums were spent on additional tracks in this corridor. This would also mean a lot more operational spending as Toronto-Ottawa, Toronto-Montreal, and Toronto-Ottawa services would all have to be separate services as opposed to one Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal service.

I suppose this is deliberate; the proponent can weigh the different options.

[Truenorth00]

It's actually good practice to give proponents options.

But as it stands, once you add in the requirement to serve Peterborough and the minimum of 12 departures per day, I think it's leading to a preferred solution.

Will add that the actual RFQ presentation is worth looking at too:

https://hfr-tgf.ca/wp-content/upload...A-March-20.pdf

There's some real opportunity here for the CIB to deliver something substantial with the private sector. Not just a rail project. But possibly real estate development with stations.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's actually good practice to give proponents options.

But as it stands, once you add in the requirement to serve Peterborough and the minimum of 12 departures per day, I think it's leading to a preferred solution.

Yeah, I think the only logical option based on those requirements is to plan for a 2h30m Toronto-Ottawa service and 1h30m Ottawa-Montreal service, so a combined Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal service is under 4h10m. 2h55m for Toronto-Peterborough-Ottawa means an average speed of around 130km/h, versus 155km/h for 2h30m. I think the marginal cost of adding an extra 25km/h to that route is a lot cheaper than a bypass option, especially when adding the operational savings from having only one HFR service instead of 3.

It's also interesting that there seems to be no requirement to add any new intermediate stations on the HFR line other than Peterborough and Trois-Rivieres. The draft plan from VIA proposed adding a few extra small town stations - IIRC Sharbot Lake and Tweed, and I think a few others as well. In the case of Sharbot Lake, the local municipality has already gone ahead and incorporated a future HFR station into its economic development plan and has invested money into its waterfront public spaces in anticipation of tourism from such a station, so they're gonna be mad if they don't get a station after all.

[Truenorth00]

Avoiding hamlets demanding HSR stations is yet another benefit of this project being privatized. The private sector can say no where politicians can't.

I don't think we'll see a stop between Peterborough and Smiths Falls. This stretch is the best portion to build a 200+ kph run and cut down travel times. Any stop on such a fast running stretch adds about 10 mins to total travel time. If there's to be any stop midway, they might as well spend the dough and build a Y connection to Kingston. At least they'll get decent ridership for the added delay.

[Truenorth00]

If they are expecting the whole system to be profitable and to eliminate subsidies in the Corridor, they're only one higher yielding market to steal from: the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal air travel market.

They are going to have to offer services (schedule and trip time) that is competitive with air.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Avoiding hamlets demanding HSR stations is yet another benefit of this project being privatized. The private sector can say no where politicians can't.

I don't think we'll see a stop between Peterborough and Smiths Falls. This stretch is the best portion to build a 200+ kph run and cut down travel times. Any stop on such a fast running stretch adds about 10 mins to total travel time. If there's to be any stop midway, they might as well spend the dough and build a Y connection to Kingston. At least they'll get decent ridership for the added delay.

Agreed - but I think there'd be value in having a having a paralleling local service with a handful of trains a day between Toronto and Ottawa on the new route, that would stop in these hamlets. The local populations in these villages are very small, but there's a lot of potential for tourism - right now it's difficult to impossible to explore Canada's natural features without a car. Railway service to places like Sharbot Lake would go a long way to making activities like camping and kayaking accessible to car-free urbanites.

European countries have low-frequency regional trains in rural areas for this exact purpose.

[Truenorth00]

^ At what cost though? The government isn't paying the winning bidder to build a rail line that supports hamlet tourism. It's saying that they need to a build a rail line between the large metros that serves Peterborough and gets enough profit to end subsidies to the Corridor. Adding more requirements is expensive scope creep.

These towns, or the province, need to start thinking about bus connections to HSR stations or to the nearest Lakeshore VIA station. A HWY 7 service been Peterborough and Smiths Falls could serve lots of communities and be coordinated with the HSR arrivals. Sharbot Lake should also have regular bus service to Kingston. We need to stop relying on trains to solve every transportation problem, where buses would be better. It makes intercity train service, while not providing enough frequency. It's like using a Sledgehammer to drive in a nail.

[1overcosc]

If you look at a map, you'll see that the former CPR corridor passes right through some of these towns. In Sharbot Lake for example, a revival of the old line would mean having to tear down several buildings, including the village's medical centre, and cut off the entire village from the waterfront.

You're not going to get people in these towns to accept tearing apart their communities to accommodate trains blaring through at 240km/h without some sort of service given to the towns themselves.

[Truenorth00]

Oh I think a few of them are getting bypassed or will end up having the train just run in a trench through town. There's no way a private developer is serving all of them. And I think it's a good thing.

[1overcosc]

A bypass of Sharbot Lake would be difficult. The eponymous lake is in the way, meaning you'd likely need something like 15km of an entirely new ROW to get around the village, through terrain that is swampy/rocky. A trench through the town would still create many of the same dentrimental effects on the community (and would again be expensive due to rocky terrain). I imagine the original VIA plans put a station in Sharbot Lake precisely because they knew there was no way to get the line through the area without causing massive local disruption so they needed to give something to the locals in exchange.

Looking at the line though, it seems that none of the other hamlets present nearly as big of a problem as Sharbot Lake. The ROW through Tweed has been built on (there's a residential street taking up the former route) but a bypass of that village would be easy enough. And for other towns on the abandoned ROW section of the line, like Kaladar and Arden, the ROW doesn't really disturb anything if restored.