# VIA High Frequency Rail Project



## cbustrains

Yesterday, there was a significant announcement in Canada that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is funding "pre-procurement" activities that will lay the groundwork for a possible public-private partnership to develop dedicated passenger rail service from Toronto to Ottawa to Montreal to Quebec City. The estimated cost is C$4B for a diesel propelled solution and C$6B for an electrified solution.

Railway Age has a great article showing the details of this proposal, including the interesting interaction and connectivity with the Toronto and Montreal rail network. While not high speed rail, the proposed infrastructure investment would result in increased frequencies, improved on time performance, and reduced travel time (estimated at 25%) relative to current operations.

With this HFR proposal and the enhancements in Toronto and Montreal, it's impressive to see the commitment to creating a robust rail network in these large cities. It's also interesting to see Canada gaining traction using their Infrastructure Bank to fund these local, regional, and intercity projects; I could see this turning into a successful business case for including a similar (effective) utility in the U.S. (at least I could dream, right? )


----------



## jiml

This was on the news here the other night, although very little detail was given. I live close to the CN main east of Toronto and the VIA frequencies have increased to where they must be close to capacity when freight traffic is considered. An example is Toronto-Ottawa service, which used to be the poor step-child to Toronto-Montreal, now featuring 10-12 trains each way depending on day of the week.


----------



## jiml

VIA's got some damage control to do today after a report was released showing the Montreal - Quebec City portion would be a bad investment. For those of you unfamiliar with Canadian politics, this is the "elephant in the room" in these discussions. Current federal government will do anything to make that leg look important, where in reality they have far less service currently and much less potential than the rest of the route. A quick glance at the VIA timetable will illustrate the point. The plan under discussion already had those in the Toronto - Windsor portion of the "corridor" upset - they currently have more service than Montreal - Quebec City and weren't even a consideration in the new plan. This confirms it.


----------



## bretton88

jiml said:


> VIA's got some damage control to do today after a report was released showing the Montreal - Quebec City portion would be a bad investment. For those of you unfamiliar with Canadian politics, this is the "elephant in the room" in these discussions. Current federal government will do anything to make that leg look important, where in reality they have far less service currently and much less potential than the rest of the route. A quick glance at the VIA timetable will illustrate the point. The plan under discussion already had those in the Toronto - Windsor portion of the "corridor" upset - they currently have more service than Montreal - Quebec City and weren't even a consideration in the new plan. This confirms it.


While it might not be a great investment, without the QC leg it will be DOA politically in Quebec, who's support will be highly necessary.


----------



## Anderson

Well, is the item getting a "bad note" the idea of _any_ investment east of Montreal? Or just not investing in having two Montreal-Quebec City routes? FWIW when I was up there this past winter, I noticed two Business Class cars on the Ottawa-Quebec City trains.

Of course, if VIA is "blowing off" Ontario west of Toronto...well, let's just say that makes Amtrak's recent chatter about Detroit-Toronto slightly confusing.

Edit: On that last bit...is VIA trying to punt to Amtrak or is that stretch "falling through the cracks"?


----------



## jiml

bretton88 said:


> While it might not be a great investment, without the QC leg it will be DOA politically in Quebec, who's support will be highly necessary.


You are not wrong, but I believe the purpose of the new study was for the viability of adding private funding. It will be one thing if the government wants to pony up for Montreal - Quebec City all on their own, but the suggestion is that a private partnership may only be possible for the remainder.


----------



## jiml

Anderson said:


> Well, is the item getting a "bad note" the idea of _any_ investment east of Montreal? Or just not investing in having two Montreal-Quebec City routes? FWIW when I was up there this past winter, I noticed two Business Class cars on the Ottawa-Quebec City trains.
> 
> Of course, if VIA is "blowing off" Ontario west of Toronto...well, let's just say that makes Amtrak's recent chatter about Detroit-Toronto slightly confusing.
> 
> Edit: On that last bit...is VIA trying to punt to Amtrak or is that stretch "falling through the cracks"?


There are a couple of things to talk about there. I don't think there would be any consideration of having two Montreal to QC routes. The current route is fairly circuitous, makes 2 unnecessary crossings of the St. Lawrence River and at one time didn't even go to Quebec City, terminating in a suburb south of the river. A far more direct route is available on CP trackage north of the river the entire way. That is probably the target.

If the train you saw was a Renaissance consist, two Business cars are common. I'm not sure of their capacity compared to a standard corridor BC car, but they are somewhat smaller.

The route west of Toronto is similar to Montreal - Quebec City in traffic, number of trains, etc. It's just that without Detroit as an endpoint there is not much political motivation to improve service. As has been discussed elsewhere, there is not much chance of Detroit - Toronto becoming a reality anytime soon. Quebec City on the other hand, is voter-rich for the current government. I think VIA would be happy to drop both ends of the "corridor", but included the latter so the proposal would play better to the Feds.

The other key element to remember here is that this is not a traditional corridor as would be defined on Amtrak. It is simply a collection of several train routes that share one endpoint each. There is limited crossover from one route to the other and certainly no end-to-end service as would be the case with Amtrak. Historically the key segment was Toronto - Montreal and Ottawa was somewhat of an afterthought, since it does not really fall in the straight line between the other two. Recently traffic between Toronto and Ottawa has grown by leaps and bounds (almost triple) and Ottawa - Montreal does reasonable business as well. The trackage is mostly single on both sides of Ottawa and, although there is little competition from freight, there is no room for expansion and using that route adds considerable time to a Toronto - Montreal trip vs. the direct route. (Visualize Amtrak sending all NYC - Boston trains via Springfield.) This brings us to the proposal - draw a straight line between Toronto and Ottawa (hello CP), remove all freight trains from that route and send all VIA service from Toronto to Montreal via Ottawa.

I don't have any illusions that the result will actually be High Speed Rail on non-standard tracks. It will be Higher Speed more in line with the Virgin/Brightline project. I only hope something happens in my lifetime.


----------



## Anderson

The trains in question have also included mixed consists (rather than "just" Rens). IIRC one had an LRC Business Class car and a Budd Business Class car.

Notwithstanding weakness east of Montreal, over the years I've tended to see plenty of "through Montreal" traffic from Ottawa into Quebec (which is likely why those trains got reworked the way they did).

I know this isn't going to be HSR (though getting MAS up from 90 to 100 or 110 would be nice)...but in my experience, if nothing goes haywire the run _is_ drive-time competitive (at least Montreal-Toronto).


----------



## Anderson

So, I don't have time to get into all the details, but looking at VIA's ridership/revenue data over the last few years is fascinating...but there's a quirky blurring going on in one place: Their annual reports indicate two "main" corridor markets. One is "Tornoto-Ottawa-Montreal" and the other is "Quebec-Montreal-Ottawa". Obviously this means that trains between Ottawa and Montreal get allocated between the two (presumably on the basis of their eastern endpoint), but it does mean that there's room for ridership to have been moved over.

Still, VIA has managed to add about a million riders in the last five years, which is quite the reversal from the prior five years (as far as I can tell). I'll try to work up some charts tonight.


----------



## jiml

There is no argument that VIA has improved its revenue, although not exactly making money. Run-through trains are quite common, such as Toronto - Ottawa - Montreal (50 series trains) and Ottawa - Montreal - Quebec (30 series trains), but this gets further blurred when equipment is re-used for an onward route rather than being turned at destination. Some examples are Toronto - Ottawa becoming an Ottawa - Montreal (or Quebec) train under another number. Also, short Ottawa (or Montreal) - Toronto consists often change crews and train numbers in Toronto to become Windsor (or London/Sarnia) trains. VIA are masters of not turning equipment until they absolutely have to, but lack sufficient resources to do the Amtrak Michigan practice of a loco on either end. I am surprised they haven't looked into "cabbages" or control cars of some sort. The new Siemens equipment will resolve this however.


----------



## Urban Sky

Anderson said:


> So, I don't have time to get into all the details, but looking at VIA's ridership/revenue data over the last few years is fascinating...but there's a quirky blurring going on in one place: Their annual reports indicate two "main" corridor markets. One is "Tornoto-Ottawa-Montreal" and the other is "Quebec-Montreal-Ottawa". Obviously this means that trains between Ottawa and Montreal get allocated between the two (presumably on the basis of their eastern endpoint), but it does mean that there's room for ridership to have been moved over.


The two markets are clearly separated by train numbers:

"Quebec-Montreal-Ottawa" are the 20/30/620/630 series trains.
"Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal" are the 40/50/60/640/650 series trains.
Maybe renaming "Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal" to "Toronto-Ottawa/Montreal" would make things slightly clearer, but there is still train #51 as the last surviving Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto train...



> Still, VIA has managed to add about a million riders in the last five years, which is quite the reversal from the prior five years (as far as I can tell). I'll try to work up some charts tonight.


Thank you for noticing!


Source: VIA Rail Annual Report 2018 (p. 8)


----------



## Anderson

Well, my point is more that the move to run most of the Ottawa-Montreal trains through to Quebec raises the question of whether those trains got switched from one group to the other (particularly if, as I think I recall, some of them were being run Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal). It just makes tracking data clearly a bit harder.


----------



## Anderson

_sighs_

I've got the analysis done, and it is fascinating. Unfortunately, I can't upload Excel files. A few observations, though:
-The _Canadian_ had a major improvement in cost recovery between 2014 and 2017 (from 45.95% to 64.81%). This actually coincided with improvement on the part of the Winnipeg-Churchill train as well as the Jasper-Prince Rupert train for the first few years. I suspect there was some through traffic at play (e.g. connecting tourists). The Winnipeg-Churchill train's disruption probably did not help the _Canadian_, particularly off-season (in their report for 2019Q1, VIA notes an increase in regional services traffic being driven by the restoration of that train; this times out with the _Canadian_ performing extremely well as well, and I don't think that is coincidental).
-It looks like the expansion of Go Transit service towards Niagara is actually _helping_ that train's performance. Ridership is higher now than it was in 2013 (the start of the data set) and is up about 70% in the last two years. Something something connectivity? Of note, the removal of the "opposite" train that VIA ran seems to have had zero impact on ridership.
-The relative performance of the other Corridor trains is also quite fascinating to look at. Going back to 2013-16, Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto is the best-performing of the three segments (aside from Niagara, that is). As of now, it is the weakest of the three. Of course, converting almost all of the Quebec City trains to run through probably helped (if only by moving some ridership over between the categories; Quebec-Montreal-Ottawa is now the best-performing segment in the system), as did dropping the second train to Sarnia (Toronto-London-Windsor is #2 by a whisker). The reshuffled schedules do seem to be working out.


----------



## jis

When I was on the Maple Leaf in Canada a week or two back, there were dozens and dozens of people on the US bound Maple Leaf going out for a day trip to Niagara Falls ON, who planned to spend the day at the Falls and then take the Maple Leaf back to Toronto in the evening. VIA is doing significant local business on that train as far as I could tell.

Incidentally, the border crossing, though off the train, was a relatively pleasant experience both ways this time. I managed to not burst out in a smile when I saw that the name of the CBSA agent who inspected me was Ms. Coward. That would have been unkind.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Glad to hear that the US Border Crossing Expierence is improved from the East Berlin type of Expierence we used to go through @ the Old Amtrak Station on the NY side.


----------



## jis

Bob Dylan said:


> Glad to hear that the US Border Crossing Expierence is improved from the East Berlin type of Expierence we used to go through @ the Old Amtrak Station on the NY side.


I did mention the improvement to the CBP Agent. He agreed that it used to be "rough" before the new facility opened at the new station at NFL. They had four agent positions open and seemed to process people quite quickly. They could improve the flow of US and Canadian citizens (Passport, Passport Card, NEXUS, Globa Entry, Green Card) if they dedicated a couple to just those, like they do for US citizens and Green Card holders at airports. The holdups happened each time someone who required a visa came up for inspection. But truth be told, there is barely room for a single queue to form, so this is not going to happen.


----------



## Bob Dylan

They should go back to doing it on the Train like they used to do on the Canadian side! Worked great!


----------



## jiml

Bob Dylan said:


> They should go back to doing it on the Train like they used to do on the Canadian side! Worked great!


They used to do it on-train in both directions. The thwarted attempt to blow up the train while on the Whirlpool Bridge ended all such courtesies. The initial reason was to get everyone off so that sniffer dogs could walk the train and it just continued. US CBP started, Canada followed shortly after (as usual).


----------



## jis

Bob Dylan said:


> They should go back to doing it on the Train like they used to do on the Canadian side! Worked great!


I very much doubt it will ever go back to doing it on the train again in case of Maple Leaf. In case of the Adirondack it will move to processing at Montreal Central and then running a sealed train to/from Rouses Point. No such possibility with the Maple Leaf since it will always be a VIA train with local stops in Canada.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> I very much doubt it will ever go back to doing it on the train again in case of Maple Leaf. In case of the Adirondack it will move to processing at Montreal Central and then running a sealed train to/from Rouses Point. No such possibility with the Maple Leaf since it will always be a VIA train with local stops in Canada.


The only hope is when GO Transit replaces the Canadian stops on the Maple Leaf. There is a provision for a US CBP office in the Union Station never-ending construction. US Border officers would come in from Pearson Airport, 21 minutes away on the express train, specifically to handle the departure of the Maple Leaf, which would then run sealed to the border similar to the Adirondack proposal from Montreal. The GO part is going to happen; the rest is somewhere between possible and flying pigs.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> The only hope is when GO Transit replaces the Canadian stops on the Maple Leaf. There is a provision for a US CBP office in the Union Station never-ending construction. US Border officers would come in from Pearson Airport, 21 minutes away on the express train, specifically to handle the departure of the Maple Leaf, which would then run sealed to the border similar to the Adirondack proposal from Montreal. The GO part is going to happen; the rest is somewhere between possible and flying pigs.


If VIA has no income possibility with all Canadian stops removed, then the Canadian run of the Maple Leaf will essentially have to be funded by New York State. It would be interesting to see what the New York legislature thinks of directing funds to run a service in Canada. For the Adirondack it is a relatively short run handled by Amtrak crew. That is unlikely to be the case for the Maple Leaf. They are already having problems with getting agreement from CN labor unions on allowing Amtrak crew to run the extended Vermonter to Montreal, and most likely it will be CN T&E crew in Canada for that while Amtrak OBS likely will go through to Montreal as it looks now, and that will cost more.

All in all it will be interesting to see what happens, if it ever comes to pass.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> If VIA has no income possibility with all Canadian stops removed, then the Canadian run of the Maple Leaf will essentially have to be funded by New York State. It would be interesting to see what the New York legislature thinks of directing funds to run a service in Canada. For the Adirondack it is a relatively short run handed by Amtrak crew. That is unlikely to be the case for the Maple Leaf. They are already having problems with getting agreement from CN labor unions on allowing Amtrak crew to run the extended Vermonter to Montreal, and most likely it will be CN T&E crew in Canada for that while Amtrak OBS likely will go through to Montreal as it looks now, and that will cost more.
> 
> All in all it will be interesting to see what happens, if it ever comes to pass.


I agree. The only known in the process is that by this time next year GO Transit will have 4 trains on the Canadian side of the Falls. One will be in the same timeframe as the Maple Leaf - I heard 9:00-ish departure from Toronto, since that is when equipment starts to free up from rush hour. They already have a westbound near that time - presume it will simply be extended. It will be interesting to see what VIA (and by proxy Amtrak) does. They could alter the Maple Leaf's departure time (earlier or later), go to fewer stops (to justify higher fare) or just annul the train on the Canadian side and offer a bus transfer. Customs preclearance and a sealed train are very much "pie-in-the-sky", and although possible, they will take years to implement. The Toronto Union Station reconstruction is years behind schedule and there is significant discussion about GO wanting more capacity and wider platforms (so fewer tracks), raising the spectre of VIA moving out entirely. All these issues will have to be addressed before any attention is given to one lonely train that few Canadians even know exists.


----------



## neroden

bretton88 said:


> While it might not be a great investment, without the QC leg it will be DOA politically in Quebec, who's support will be highly necessary.



Hrrrrm? So Quebec doesn't care about getting from Montreal to Ottawa, or Montreal to Toronto? I would think they would.

I understand that rerouting the Quebec City - Montreal trains to north of the river would be a major improvement; shorter, straighter, and has a larger intermediate population points; but also expensive and with a lower payoff than finishing Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto (partly because VIA already owns a great hunk of Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto).


----------



## Anderson

I think this is a classic case of "If we don't get something in our neighborhood then we don't want the entire thing". If Quebec were getting a package of improvements to the existing routing (perhaps allowing faster access on the Quebec City end to shave some time off) that might cut it. The issue is if they get _nothing_ in "their area".


----------



## bretton88

neroden said:


> Hrrrrm? So Quebec doesn't care about getting from Montreal to Ottawa, or Montreal to Toronto? I would think they would.
> 
> I understand that rerouting the Quebec City - Montreal trains to north of the river would be a major improvement; shorter, straighter, and has a larger intermediate population points; but also expensive and with a lower payoff than finishing Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto (partly because VIA already owns a great hunk of Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto).


They do care, but Quebec City has a big pull in the local politics and the other 2 cities you mentioned, Ottawa and Toronto, are not their voters or their problem. So they definitely won't agree to funding unless they get something thrown their way for the Montreal to QC leg.


----------



## Urban Sky

bretton88 said:


> They do care, but Quebec City has a big pull in the local politics and the other 2 cities you mentioned, Ottawa and Toronto, are not their voters or their problem. So they definitely won't agree to funding unless they get something thrown their way for the Montreal to QC leg.


You seem to forget that this project is primarily pitched towards private investors and if these deem the business case for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal as superior to that of the same route but extended beyond Montreal, then that Eastern segment won’t be built unless the taxpayer steps in to narrow the gap between the investor’s estimated ROI for this segment and that of the T-O-M core. And given that that segment is entirely interprovincial, it’s much more likely to be the provincial than the federal taxpayer who will have to absorb at least part of the capital costs for that segment...


----------



## jiml

Anderson said:


> I think this is a classic case of "If we don't get something in our neighborhood then we don't want the entire thing". If Quebec were getting a package of improvements to the existing routing (perhaps allowing faster access on the Quebec City end to shave some time off) that might cut it. The issue is if they get _nothing_ in "their area".


Welcome to Canadian politics. The current federal government's survival depends on votes from this portion of the route. VIA knows they will never "sell" the proposal to them unless QC is front and center. Windsor and the rest of southwestern Ontario are irrelevant, hence their exclusion.


----------



## MikefromCrete

All politics is local .


----------



## jiml

The other "elephant in the room" when it comes to politics is that the Canadian federal government and the Ontario provincial (state) government don't like each other at all. Before they began sinking into a swamp of other controversies, the Ontario government had proposed taking over the Toronto - Windsor portion of the corridor with a view to track and other improvements, including a potential connection to Detroit. The yield would have been Higher Speed Rail on that portion, which is entirely within Ontario. (This subject was covered in a thread on another forum and may have been touched on elsewhere here.) It was part of a larger focus on rail infrastructure throughout the province. VIA was well aware of this - another reason why the southwestern leg may have been excluded from the proposal in the first place. It was unclear who the train operator would be on the route - continuing with VIA or taken over by GO. I have to admit that 3-4 hours in an uncomfortable GO seat without food or beverage service would not be a major attraction. (VIA currently does a nice Business Class similar to the rest of the corridor - often with two BC cars on Fridays and Sundays.)


----------



## Anderson

Of course, mentioning that I wonder if the plan might not be to entangle Amtrak somehow. Amtrak's talk of putting a large amount of money into that corridor in a presentation in Richmond a few months ago (I would need to check my notes but I think it was $1.5bn) suggests the possibility of something being afoot. Taking the context of these two things, I suspect that if Amtrak invested in such an operation it would be in the context of a contract with the province.

I can't speak to the politics or the logic really lining up, but the possibility of there being some sort of a deal to have Amtrak run a higher-speed corridor in the lurking makes sense in the context of a provincial/federal pissing match. Now, if only we could get an annoyed state to bring VIA in under contract...


----------



## Anderson

So, I checked my notes. It was $1.8bn, not $1.5bn. As I said, it was an oddball proposal and it struck me as very odd, but if Ontario doesn't want to deal with VIA for some reason (and TBH I don't know why _anyone_ would want to deal with Amtrak over VIA) Amtrak is well-positioned to jump in here.


----------



## bretton88

I feel like there's some misunderstanding with that Amtrak corridor idea. Amtrak is looking at upgrading the US sides (NY and Michigan) of the corridor. The Canadian side is either VIAs or the provincial responsibility. Especially in the Toronto to Montreal corridor where VIA owns a lot of the proposed trackage, so you can't exactly cut VIA out of the picture.


----------



## bretton88

That whole Amtrak involvement thing reminds me of a scheme floated years ago to have Amtrak "acquire" VIA. As all crazy ideas, there was a grain of sense to it. The idea was that a committed entity would have the scale to decrease costs, especially in the purchasing department, where VIA is just to small to get any good pricing. It was also seen as a good way to develop the Corridor since Amtrak has expertise in house for developing and running a corridor. Politically in the USA this was a non starter and quietly dropped.


----------



## jis

Amtrak seems to have the ability to evoke all sorts of crazy brain activity among us railfans and even advocates from time to time. 

I suspect that politically in Canada would be as much a non starter as it was in the USA. There is often not much love lost between the US and Canada. The situation is probably considerably worse now with tariff wars and what not.


----------



## bretton88

jis said:


> Amtrak seems to have the ability to evoke all sorts of crazy brain activity among us railfans and even advocates from time to time.
> 
> I suspect that politically in Canada would be as much a non starter as it was in the USA. There is often not much love lost between the US and Canada. The situation is probably considerably worse now with tariff wars and what not.


This came from VIAs side of things. I think we forget how close VIA was to completely dying under the Harper government. There was no hope of acquiring new equipment, and operating funds where extremely limited. Since VIA is not created by legislation, it would have been extremely simple politically on the Canadian side, the Harper government would have loved to unload it. On the US side, politics, the fact that Amtrak wasn't exactly thriving at the time, and the fact that VIA had very little to bring to the table guaranteed it was going to be DOA. I have a friend who worked in VIAs management at the time. These where the kind of ideas they came up with when they weren't even sure if they'd be operational the next year. In the end, prestige class, a doubling down on the corridor service, and a decent amount of debt is The solution VIA made happen.


----------



## jis

Yeah, I don't think that would have flown in the US (as it didn't) unless VIA came with enough money to cover its cost of operation, which is of course the very thing they lacked. When Amtrak is unable to fulfill its stated mission in the US due to lack of funds it would have been mind boggling for it to spend money to prop up operations in Canada.


----------



## jiml

bretton88 said:


> I feel like there's some misunderstanding with that Amtrak corridor idea. Amtrak is looking at upgrading the US sides (NY and Michigan) of the corridor. The Canadian side is either VIAs or the provincial responsibility. Especially in the Toronto to Montreal corridor where VIA owns a lot of the proposed trackage, so you can't exactly cut VIA out of the picture.


Other than portions of Brockville - Ottawa, what corridor trackage east of Toronto does VIA own? It's all CN.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> Amtrak seems to have the ability to evoke all sorts of crazy brain activity among us railfans and even advocates from time to time.
> 
> I suspect that politically in Canada would be as much a non starter as it was in the USA. There is often not much love lost between the US and Canada. The situation is probably considerably worse now with tariff wars and what not.


This is unfortunately true. I am older and retired, but have lived through many generations of US - Canada relations. Historically we've been great friends, allies and trading partners. Heck, I even studied American history in high school. Lately the situation has deteriorated to the lowest level I can remember. As I posted on another thread, the respective governments have a lot to do with the current situation and as people with longer memories become less relevant, we can only hope that saner heads prevail on both sides of the border and things return to "normal".


----------



## jiml

bretton88 said:


> This came from VIAs side of things. I think we forget how close VIA was to completely dying under the Harper government. There was no hope of acquiring new equipment, and operating funds where extremely limited. Since VIA is not created by legislation, it would have been extremely simple politically on the Canadian side, the Harper government would have loved to unload it. On the US side, politics, the fact that Amtrak wasn't exactly thriving at the time, and the fact that VIA had very little to bring to the table guaranteed it was going to be DOA. I have a friend who worked in VIAs management at the time. These where the kind of ideas they came up with when they weren't even sure if they'd be operational the next year. In the end, prestige class, a doubling down on the corridor service, and a decent amount of debt is The solution VIA made happen.


There are not a lot of real facts in this post. While your speculation that the Harper government would have preferred to reduce costs in every area (including VIA) is correct, they actually made significant investments in the railroad. Most initiatives that are successful today were undertaken during their tenure - locomotive and rolling stock refurbishments, increased frequencies and the acquisition of trackage facing abandonment by the freight railroads. In the past 3 years the current government has shown little real interest in VIA. The current proposal being discussed in this thread is not going to happen - everyone knows it and it's little more than a fun subject to speculate on. The new equipment purchase was intended as a "bone" thrown to Bombardier that backfired when VIA did the smart thing and chose Siemens. Let's not give too much credit until those trains actually materialize and go into service (and let's see how many of the original order get delivered).


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> So, I checked my notes. It was $1.8bn, not $1.5bn. As I said, it was an oddball proposal and it struck me as very odd, but if Ontario doesn't want to deal with VIA for some reason (and TBH I don't know why _anyone_ would want to deal with Amtrak over VIA) Amtrak is well-positioned to jump in here.


That $1.8 billion has nothing to do with Canada or VIA. It is a fraction of what is needed for the Empire Corridor/Adirondack and Michigan. There will not be a penny left to spend on anything to do with running trains in Canada. Another example of crazy brain activity evoked by Amtrak perhaps? LOL!


----------



## Michigan Mom

Granted I've only ridden VIA from Windsor-Toronto in the summer (and will be again shortly) but it's always seemed that the trains are packed and there would be demand to fill a fourth roundtrip.


----------



## Urban Sky

jiml said:


> Other than portions of Brockville - Ottawa, what corridor trackage east of Toronto does VIA own? It's all CN.


In addition to Windsor-Chatham (i.e. the Western part of the otherwise still CN-owned Chatham Sub), VIA owns Brockville-Smiths Falls (ex-CP Brockville Sub), Smiths Falls-Federal Jct. (ex-CN Smiths Falls Sub), Federal Jct.-Ottawa (ex-CN Beachburg Sub) and Ottawa-Coteau (ex-CN Alexandria Sub).



Michigan Mom said:


> Granted I've only ridden VIA from Windsor-Toronto in the summer (and will be again shortly) but it's always seemed that the trains are packed and there would be demand to fill a fourth roundtrip.


Except for Saturdays (when train 75 terminates as train 81 in London) and Sunday (when train 70 originates as train 80 in London), there are already four roundtrips offered every day, with trains 70/71, 72/73, 75/76 and 78/79.


----------



## jis

Urban Sky said:


> In addition to Windsor-Chatham (i.e. the Western part of the otherwise still CN-owned Chatham Sub), VIA owns Brockville-Smiths Falls (ex-CP Brockville Sub), Smiths Falls-Federal Jct. (ex-CN Smiths Falls Sub), Federal Jct.-Ottawa (ex-CN Beachburg Sub) and Ottawa-Coteau (ex-CN Alexandria Sub).


That is basically the loop through Ottawa/Fallowfield, connecting to the Toronto - Montreal main line at Brockville and Coteau, right?


----------



## Anderson

The $1.8bn figure seems high for the Michigan side of "just" Detroit-Toronto (versus Chicago-Toronto), though as an all-in cost including funding from Ontario (and possibly limited kick-in from Amtrak in exchange for a long-term operating contract and/or equipment leasing) it probably makes sense (even if the figure would probably grow). $1.8bn was the starting figure for Washington-Richmond, so I can buy into that being what's covered.


----------



## jis

Yeah that makes slightly more sense, as long as it is Ontario pitching in. Though I still find it hard to believe since I can see a royal fisticuff over Union rules in Canada. Amtrak may have to contract with CN and VIA crew for operating in Canada, which throws in an additional twist. If Amtrak is operating with Canadian crew using Canadian rules etc., what is Amtrak about it at that point?

Which raises the question in my mind, does Rocky Mountaineer have their own T&E crew or doe they simply use CP? I don't know how things work in Canada, but I do know Amtrak is having a bit of an issue with extending the Vermonter to Montreal, and it looks like they won;t be able to use their own T&E crew and will have to shell out the bucks to use CN crew.


----------



## jiml

Urban Sky said:


> In addition to Windsor-Chatham (i.e. the Western part of the otherwise still CN-owned Chatham Sub), VIA owns Brockville-Smiths Falls (ex-CP Brockville Sub), Smiths Falls-Federal Jct. (ex-CN Smiths Falls Sub), Federal Jct.-Ottawa (ex-CN Beachburg Sub) and Ottawa-Coteau (ex-CN Alexandria Sub).


You just confirmed my point, there is no VIA-owned trackage east of Toronto except Brockville - Ottawa. I was simply disputing the previous comment: " in the Toronto to Montreal corridor where VIA owns a lot of the proposed trackage".


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> Which raises the question in my mind, does Rocky Mountaineer have their own T&E crew or doe they simply use CP? I don;t know how things work in Canada, but I do know Amtrak is having a bit of an issue with extending the Vermonter to Montreal, and it looks like they won;t be able to use their own T&E crew and will have to shell out the bucks to use CN crew.


RM was CP-operated at first, but are now advertising for locomotive engineers (among other positions). Do Amtrak engineers/conductors operate the Adirondack all the way into Montreal?


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> RM was CP-operated at first, but are now advertising for locomotive engineers (among other positions). Do Amtrak engineers/conductors operate the Adirondack all the way into Montreal?



Yes. The Adirondack is Amtrak crewed the whole way.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> Yes. The Adirondack is Amtrak crewed the whole way.


Thanks, I did not know that. Presumed a CN crew took over at some point, similar to the Montrealer back in the day.


----------



## Urban Sky

jiml said:


> You just confirmed my point, there is no VIA-owned trackage east of Toronto except Brockville - Ottawa. I was simply disputing the previous comment: " in the Toronto to Montreal corridor where VIA owns a lot of the proposed trackage".


There is no VIA-owned trackage east of Toronto except Brockville - Ottawa - Coteau.


----------



## neroden

Query which I don't know the answer to: how much CP freight traffic is there on the line from Montreal to QC? Is buying it outright a possibility, or would this be a case where VIA would have to build its own tracks adjacent to the CP tracks?


----------



## NS VIA Fan

VIA also owns the abandon CPR M&O Subdivision right-of-way from near Rigaud, Quebec thru Vankleek Hill and onto Ottawa. VIA still uses the ‘wye’ to turn trains where the M&O joined the Alexandria Subdivision just east of the Ottawa Station. This was the route CP’s Canadian used between Montreal and Ottawa.

The M&O was ‘banked’ in anticipation of future needs before VIA had the opportunity to acquire the Alexandria Subdivision, their current Montreal-Ottawa route. CN had put the Alexandria up for sale after the ice-storm in Jan 1998 took out the CTC signaling system. VIA purchased it from CN then completely rebuilt the track and signaling system.


----------



## jiml

NS VIA Fan said:


> VIA also owns the abandon CPR M&O Subdivision right-of-way from near Rigaud, Quebec thru Vankleek Hill and onto Ottawa. VIA still uses the ‘wye’ to turn trains where the M&O joined the Alexandria Subdivision just east of the Ottawa Station. This was the route CP’s Canadian used between Montreal and Ottawa.
> 
> The M&O was ‘banked’ in anticipation of future needs before VIA had the opportunity to acquire the Alexandria Subdivision, their current Montreal-Ottawa route. CN had put the Alexandria up for sale after the ice-storm in Jan 1998 took out the CTC signaling system. VIA purchased it from CN then completely rebuilt the track and signaling system.


That route always seemed more direct (even in an RDC) than the current routing between Montreal and Ottawa. Logically it should be part of the project, connecting to a mostly CP path from Toronto through Peterborough, etc. If you're only running express trains the lack of intermediate population is not important.


----------



## jiml

Urban Sky said:


> There is no VIA-owned trackage east of Toronto except Brockville - Ottawa - Coteau.


Of course, I tend to forget that piece. I was only disputing the original post which stated "in the Toronto to Montreal corridor where VIA owns a lot of the proposed trackage", which simply isn't true - even if the new route follows the existing path from Brockville to Ottawa to Coteau the remainder is all CN. I thought the whole purpose of this study was to "straighten out" that diversion by using the CP ROW, which is the most direct from Toronto to Ottawa (then on to Montreal by one of the two routes they do own). The current VIA practice of running separate trains Toronto - Ottawa and Toronto - Montreal makes more sense if they have to divert a through train via Smith's Falls and Coteau (which of course has been tried).


----------



## jiml

neroden said:


> Query which I don't know the answer to: how much CP freight traffic is there on the line from Montreal to QC? Is buying it outright a possibility, or would this be a case where VIA would have to build its own tracks adjacent to the CP tracks?


Interesting question. This was the sensible route for Montreal - Quebec City from the outset, since for the longest time VIA's QC service terminated south of the river without actually crossing back to Gare de Palais. However, at the time "CP" trains didn't terminate at Montreal Central either, VIA had several other long-distance trains also using the CN tracks on the south shore and AFAIK there is still no connector between the commuter tracks north of Gare Central to the CP line. Currently all VIA services out of Montreal - even the Northern Quebec routes - use the one, sometimes more circuitous, routing to get where they're going.


----------



## jis

Basically everything to the east and northeast goes through St. Lambert after crossing the St. Lawrence River across the same bridge that the Adirondack uses, AFAIR.


----------



## Urban Sky

jiml said:


> That route always seemed more direct (even in an RDC) than the current routing between Montreal and Ottawa. Logically it should be part of the project, connecting to a mostly CP path from Toronto through Peterborough, etc. If you're only running express trains the lack of intermediate population is not important.


The goal is to build a dedicated corridor and since there already exists a rail line (ex-CN Alexandria Sub) which is already built essentially to HFR standards, the M&O route offers little advantages which could possibly justify the cost of rebuilding it (it is a cycling path currently, at least west of Rigaud)...


----------



## jiml

Urban Sky said:


> The goal is to build a dedicated corridor and since there already exists a rail line (ex-CN Alexandria Sub) which is already built essentially to HFR standards, the M&O route offers little advantages which could possibly justify the cost of rebuilding it (it is a cycling path currently, at least west of Rigaud)...


It's not more direct?


----------



## Urban Sky

jiml said:


> It's not more direct?


More direct than via Alexandria and Coteau? Yes: 180 vs. 187 km.
More direct than via Alexandria and St-Clet (i.e. Winchester Sub between De Beaujeu and Dorval)? No: 180 vs. 180 km.


----------



## neroden

A check of CP's national railmap shows that they've leased the entire Montreal-Quebec City line to a short line, the Quebec-Gatineau railway.

I surmise that it is quite practical for a government agency to purchase the line outright.

CP ownership resumes within Montreal at St-Martin Jct, but the line within Montreal hosts commuter service, on the Saint-Jerome line. It's probably viable, perhaps with some extra tracks. If CP won't play nice it could also follow the route of the Mascouche commuter rail into Montreal, which is sort of switchbacky; would require CN to play nice, of course.

So this actually seems eminently doable, given funding.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

I recall seeing a map awhile back (‘90s?) that included the M&O in a new HSR routing between Montreal and Ottawa. Trains would have run northwest out of Montreal Gare Centrale through the Mount Royal Tunnel......basically following the current EXO (AMT) electric route to Deux-Montagnes….stopping at a new station at Mirabel Airport….then crossing the Ottawa River to pick up the M&O into Ottawa.

Go back 100 years and the Canadian Northern Railway….builders of the Mount Royal Tunnel had a very similar route to Ottawa. Their trains used the electric line to Deux-Montagnes then continued to Hawkesbury…crossing the Ottawa River there, then onto Ottawa. The Canadian Northern line between Hawkesbury and Ottawa was abandoned in the 1930s.


----------



## jiml

NS VIA Fan said:


> I recall seeing a map awhile back (‘90s?) that included the M&O in a new HSR routing between Montreal and Ottawa. Trains would have run northwest out of Montreal Gare Centrale through the Mount Royal Tunnel......basically following the current EXO (AMT) electric route to Deux-Montagnes….stopping at a new station at Mirabel Airport….then crossing the Ottawa River to pick up the M&O into Ottawa.


That's probably why it sounded familiar.


----------



## jis

AFAICT Bombardier has become entirely incapable of delivering anything on time and on budget at least in North America. In the US they have now been shunned by almost everyone for any further orders except for NJTransit which now boasts a management team even more incompetent than Bombardier’s. I don’t know if this says anything specific about NJ and QC in general [emoji57]

Bombardier is activating their plant in Plattsburgh for final assembly of cars in some of their existing orders as I understand it.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

jiml said:


> Interesting question. This was the sensible route for Montreal - Quebec City from the outset, since for the longest time VIA's QC service terminated south of the river without actually crossing back to Gare de Palais. However, at the time "CP" trains didn't terminate at Montreal Central either, VIA had several other long-distance trains also using the CN tracks on the south shore and AFAIK there is still no connector between the commuter tracks north of Gare Central to the CP line. Currently all VIA services out of Montreal - even the Northern Quebec routes - use the one, sometimes more circuitous, routing to get where they're going.



Quebec City’s Gare du Palais was closed from August 1976 to November 1985 but VIA’s Montreal-Quebec City trains via Drummondville on the south shore continued to cross the river and terminated in suburban Ste-Foy. After VIA acquired the CP ‘Dayliners’ on the north shore route via Trois-Riviere in 1979 they also started terminating in Ste-Foy.

Only the trains to Gaspe and Halifax didn’t cross the river and stopped in Levis with a one mile ferry connection over to Quebec City. The line thru Levis was abandoned in 1998 and the Gaspe/Halifax trains began using Charny (on the south shore) as their Quebec City stop with a shuttle bus to Gare du Palais. Then in 2012, Charny closed and the Halifax trains started crossing the Quebec Bridge over to Ste-Foy.

(But if you go way back ……CN did not have a Montreal to Quebec City (Gare du Palais) train until that launched the ‘Champlain’ (the x Reading Crusader) in 1964. This was Pool Train territory......

https://discuss.amtraktrains.com/threads/the-end-of-the-pool-agreement.66087/

...... and operated exclusively on Canadian Pacific via the north shore through Trois-Riviere.)

And on the Montreal end…..VIA moved the xCP north shore ‘Dayliners’ from Windsor Station to Central Station in April 1984 and they took an interesting route to get back on CP. One of those ancient CN Box-Cab Electrics would haul the RDC ‘Dayliners’ out through the Mount Royal Tunnel to Eastern Jct where they cut-off….then the RDC proceeded down a connecting track from near Ahuntsic Station (on the CN line used today by VIA trains to northern Quebec and EXO commuter trains to Mascouche)…..to Jacques Cartier Jct which was located between Gare Chabanel and Gare-de-Boulogne on todays xCP route to Saint-Jerome.

You can still see the remains of that connecting track from Ahuntic Station where an overpass crossed over Boulevard l’Acadie. Today a ‘Home Depot’ stands on the old right-of-way.


https://goo.gl/maps/hBAXFRqtygq1WjcG8


----------



## jiml

That is a fascinating history lesson! I had no idea about the latter part - thought the CP Dayliners had always used Windsor until their demise. Thank you also for correcting my inaccuracy regarding the Quebec City stations. In my haste to point out that the south shore route did not serve Gare de Palais I incorrectly thought of only Charny and forgot Levis.

Although I have not travelled through the tunnel from Central Station, I have spent some time studying maps to see how VIA's northern Quebec trains could connect from there to their target trackage. It doesn't look that difficult, but a Home Depot in the way would be a significant obstacle. As an aside, I am also fascinated by what appears to be the remnants of a rail crossing of the 401 highway near Bowmanville, ON. If intact it might have been an interesting solution to GO Transit's eastern extension dilemma. Unfortunately they've built a large Tractor Supply Company warehouse on the north side. Oddly similar to the situation you've described. Thanks!


----------



## Michigan Mom

Urban Sky said:


> Except for Saturdays (when train 75 terminates as train 81 in London) and Sunday (when train 70 originates as train 80 in London), there are already four roundtrips offered every day, with trains 70/71, 72/73, 75/76 and 78/79.



Traveling on a Sunday, Windsor-Toronto so mistaken assumption by not searching other days. I see that in addition to the 905, 1345, and 1745 departures there is a 530.


----------

