Dedicated Tracks for the Corridor - An Overview of High Frequency Rail (HFR) in Canada
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 лют 2023
- On February 17, 2023, the Request for Qualifications for HFR was launched to pre-qualify up to 3 bidders for the Request for Proposals. As such, it is a great time to reflect on what is HFR and what it will mean for Canada.
High Frequency Rail (HFR) is the current plan to improve passenger rail in the Corridor. By using dedicated tracks between Quebec City and Toronto, the travel experience is bound to improve considerably. With more frequent, reliable and faster trains, it is expected that an increasing number of people will choose to ride the rails instead of flying or driving, an important element in addressing the climate crisis. HFR will be the most transformative change to passenger rail in Canada since the incorporation of VIA Rail in 1977.
Video by David Bellerive (@dbellerive15)
---------------
SUPPORT RAIL FANS CANADA - SOUTENEZ RAIL FANS CANADA: www.railfans.ca/support
---------------
Subscribe to our channel: www.railfans.ca/youtube
Join our Discord: www.railfans.ca/discord
---------------
Follow us Twitter (X): / railfanscanada
Instagram: www.instagram.railfans.ca
With the HFR, we remove buses on the road. But with the HSR we remove many cars and many air planes (the biggest polluter of them)
Back in the 1880's, almost 5000km of new track was laid in about five years across this country through wild virgin territory . Here we are 150 years later and we can't get a corridor of about 800km done and dusted before 2059? Isn't progress and red tape grand?!
Is it really red tape or just that our leaders today simply don't want to put their money where their mouth is?
Canada built Montreal to Vancouver is less time than the minister is spending just thinking about doing Québec to Toronto. Meanwhile, Montréal has already lost Windsor Station and in process of losing Centrral Station since it can no longer connect to tracks leading to Trois Rivières (and St-Jérome while we are at it) as was done in the 1980s before the big VIA cuts. So the first step is to either build a new tunnel through Place Ville Marie which would connect to the CP tracks at Park Ave (this way, it avoids CP's last remaining freight line in Québec to the port) and can thus be electrified). Or build a tunnel AND a new underground intercity train station ( I would think under Place du Canada or perhaps even in the soon to be vacated 1000 De La Gauchetiere (former Teleglobe tower with the south shore bus terminal).
Someone should have told CDPQ to get lost and build its onw station and tunnels. It got Central station and the tunnel for free and now we're stuck having to pay billions to pay for something we already had.
And when a government drags its feet with eternal studies it is because it has no intention to actually cough up the money to get this done. The ministers take many baby steps that go nowhere, but each baby step allows a great photo op which is good for the minister's political health.
We definitely agree that the timeline on this important project is quite prolonged. Hoping that the old adage “Good things come to those that wait” applies in the final results as there is plenty of opportunity and building excitement for something great to be done. Thanks for your comments and point of view on the Montreal portion.
Great video as always!
I do hope the final solution include some kind of HSR, I'd definitely use it to Quebec city or Toronto from Montreal and leave the car at home. It's time!
I hope so too! Definitely use it myself
-Shane
It seems completely baffling that there will be a 3-4 year development phase likely ending in 2028 before the feds will make a final decision on whether to approve the plan. Hopefully there will be early works like every other infrastructure project to get a head start on upgrading the alignments that we are confident will need to be used (for example, around toronto/ottawa/montreal/quebec)
The "good news" is the RFQ explicitly mentions that early works could be done during the co-development phase. What worries me though is to what extent will the work be done as the final approval won't even be in place by then. The timeline with HFR has become more and more vague, with dates changing at each step and the overall "completion date" somewhat static. Yet the scope keeps increasing... -David
Actually, I find it not to be baffling at all since any past attempts to impprove our passenger rail system were either twarthed or delayed indefinitely by our federal government, very likely due to intensely successful lobbying by competing forms of transportation, that of the status quo, comprised of the air and auto industries, who are scared to death of modernized passenger rail and its potential effects on their bottom line.
That's the main reason - political maneuvering - for these senseless delays leading nowhere!
That's also pretty despicable, considering the crucial need to drastically lower our carbon emissions due to climate change!
2028 for VIA still sounds better than “Indefinitely” for any rail in the US.🤷♂️
One of the biggest challenge yet is to find a way to deal with Montreal’s station and the Mt-Royal 100 years old tunnel
The frequency of the REM being 2.5-5 minutes pretty much precludes any other service operating on the same tracks. Any solution would almost certainly involve another tunnel. The costs to do that would be quite high so I am not optimistic that will be part of HFR or HSR. But once we see the bids and their proposals, maybe one will have a solution in budget.
In our previous video about Alstom's proposal, we discussed their plan to build a "Gare du Nord" on the north side of the Mount Royal tunnel, which would connect directly with the REM or Montreal Metro. We believe such an approach is viable, however the option is likely to not be as popular with the population. Another option would be second Mount Royal tunnel, though it would imply considerable costs.
I agree with Samuel. The great advantage of any train in the world is to go from Center Town to the Center Town Rail Stations. In Montreal it MUST be that way to.
@@RailFansCanada Yup and CDPQ now owns the rights for the tunnel; quite disappointing for VIA, who got shafted. For a TGV-like to be a success, we need a downtown station for the major hubs, and outside of the city for stops, like you see in Europe, for ex., with Marseille versus Avignon TGV.
@@RailFansCanada I feel like even with REM frequency being 2.5-5 min, it could still fit in a VIA train every hour with the right scheduling system. Japan Rail and Tokyo’s metro manage to do just that, with incredibly tight headways (think 60s betw trains). The technology is most certainly there to support this, just a matter of political will.
I assumed that the route would go fairly straight from smiths falls to Peterborough, but in that snapshot it looked like it will go through Perth. I know the point is to have fewer stops so they don't have to slow down, but it would be incredible for my little town to have high speed rail. Currently we don't have anything. The mayor has put out a survey to evaluate the interest for one bus a week as our "public transport". It's better than nothing but a far cry from what we need. We have the highest numbers of poor people in Lanark county, because we are cheaper than Carleton Place, etc and still very walkable so you can live without a car. We are also a tourist town, so we get very congested in the summer and fall. I would love if those visitors could come by train and then use public transportation around town. It would be great if we had busses running to the neighboring towns like smiths falls, CP, balderson etc.
Do not forget that none of those routes are definitive. From previous documents, those are the most likely alignment that would be acquired. As the tracks between Perth and Peterborough do not exist anymore (currently a trail), the final alignment could be much straighter in many parts. Each map also had slightly different number of stops, some omitting Laval, others a “Eglinton” one for the east of Toronto. The available documents really make it all confusing even when researching it.
The number of stops on that stretch will be an interesting thing to follow. I personally do see reasons for a Perth / Smiths Falls stop, even if it is every other train, but only time will tell if the private developer does see value (or the federal government in pushing for them).
Thank you for researching all of this. We do still have trains that come through Perth, but only freight. I wondered if via was going to make an agreement with cn to use it before branching out to head straight to Peterborough, etc. If that was the case, even if they didn't build a station right away, there would still be possiblity down the line. But it's still far in future and few details are nailed down. I will continue to dream and look forward to your videos. 😊
@@RailFansCanada // Are you talking of Laval City, North of Montreal, with close to 1/2 million in population?
That route is not so straight when you zoom in.
Shame it’ll take till 2035 but at least it’s happening.
I prefer TGV project
I'm less concerned about it being high speed vs other aspects, first being high frequency but also just a more express route, i.e. stopping at fewer stations which really is a much bigger factor in why taking Via a long distance is not so viable. And also Via needs to improve their boarding process, it is shamefully out of date.
I'm happy to see that there is interest from Deutsche Bahn in participating. They are one of the world's top passenger rail companies (I know that there will be Germans coming here to tell me that DB is overrated, but still a far cry better than any Canadian organisation that is for certain)
It will be interesting to know more!
Both my wife and I undertook a rail tour of Germany just a few years ago and found the experience simply amazing!
However, we also surprisingly noticed that far more Germans (90%) embarked on regular intercity and regional trains than on HSR-type (High Speed Rail) trains.
Why? It's because their regular intercity and regional trains, very similar to the trains on the proposed HFR project in Canada, are both almost as fast as HSR trains with top speeds of 200 to 225 kph, but, most importantly, are far more affordable in terms of ticket costs than with HSR!
If we are to provide an effective, affordable, and environmentally-friendly alternative to driving, ticket costs must not end up being similar to that of flying, as would be the case with an HSR-type of project.
The facts speak for themselves in that over 2 billion passengers a year use the German railway system!
@@marclemieux8269 That's some great insight, thanks for sharing. Another thing to remember about HSR, is that trains don't always go at top speed, and in fact I've where often they run at pretty normal speed for most of the run since a lot of the trackage, even in places like Germany, isn't capable of handling over 250 km/h. That said, the trains and corridors in Canada could be faster than they are now.
@David Reichert You hit the nail right on the head regarding the need to build quality rail infrastructure, not exclusively HSR trackage, in order to affordably and effectively lower travel times.
If and when our federal government finally gives its approval to build HFR, it should focus on the construction of class 6-7 trackage wherever possible so as to achieve maximum permissible speeds of 200 kph or 125 mph, which is the threshold at which construction costs end up being far more expensive than those emanating from a HFR project due to the need to completely eliminate at-grade crossings.
Trains operating successfully at top speeds of 200 kph or 125 mph, as is the case in Britain and Sweden, should be the goal for HFR in Canada, not rehashing yet another HSR-type of endeavor that will just be shelved due to high costs as evidenced in the past 30 years or more!
You mean VIA's airplane boarding like process? Yes, it's horrible, let us just scan our pass or tap a card with any luggage and/or bike and let us get on.
Thanks for the explainer! Question re: the potential new stations - would the Eglinton station just be an expansion of the existing Eglinton GO station or would it be a new build on a different site? And what about Laval? Similarly, for the confirmed new stations ( Peterborough and Trois-Rivières) would the existing VIA stations be retrofitted or would new stations elsewhere in each respective city be constructed to service the new line? Thank you!
Regarding the other stations that are proposed, there is no firm commitment on any of them as of now, and also on their design and location. Ideally, we'd love to see integrated facilities with Eglinton and De la Concorde in Laval to enable greater connections.
As for Peterborough and Trois-Rivieres, passenger service has not happened for over 25 years at the very least, and the former facilities are being used for other purposes (both are historically significant and part of the Canadian Registry, though their ownership is not by VIA anymore). I'd expect a new station for each, or the existing facility to be renovated and brought to modern railway standards. Sadly, with more of the HFR things, your guess is likely as good as mine on what exactly will happen... -David
@@RailFansCanada fair shout! En tout cas merci pour votre réponse !
I think they should do what Brightline in the USA is doing by building new railway routes beside or in the median of existing highways like the 401. The money saved could be used to buy new train sets for The Canadian which is getting far too old.
where do you think the existing VIA corridor is?
@@SystemSmort The north shore of Lake Ontario.
@@jamesleslie2356 which just so happens to be where you find the 401 (mostly)
That should be done on the 401 west of Toronto to London. They recently made space for more lanes so we could easily remove 2 or 3 of the new and unnecessary lanes and build rail along the 401.
@@pbilk also Doreon, Quebec to Brockville, Ontario.
Should have started construction in 2019 like initially hoped. But hey, as long as we're getting more than talk and studies...
Scope creep is a really serious thing… And the need to do more studies that we don’t even get to see! -David
I didn't realize that 'VIA was suffering from the same issues with freight lines controlling the tracks, like with Amtrak down here. Is freight domination over passenger rail solely a North American thing?
It’s not exactly a North American thing, in the sense that many other countries have shared tracks between freight and passenger services. The difference here is that VIA does not have any priority throughout the network, nor an actual ability to “choose” their schedule as they are at the mercy of others. Shared tracks CAN work if there is an incentive or pressure to actually maintain and accommodate the needs of passenger services, which the freight operators have been particularly hostile to, all through America… Some European countries address it by having ownership of all tracks, or legislating priority for passenger trains, here we do neither! -David
@@RailFansCanada That's what I experienced in the Netherlands. Electrified freight and passenger rail services operated with little to no conflict.
It seems like it might be a problem in some parts of Australia, and the reverse actually happens in Europe
So, VIA Rail won’t be designing or controlling the HFR trains? Will they still be VIA trains? Hope the Kingston-Belleville-Cobourg section won’t be shortchanged and still at the mercy of CN.
All trains within the Corridor, including those on the HFR tracks and “local” (essentially the existing Corridor services) would be operated and maintained by the private consortium.
Our understanding is that the VIA branding / name would only apply to the routes OUTSIDE the Corridor. The government will require the consortium to deal in “good faith” with the existing unions and employees and have a plan to integrate them in their operations, but nothing is really definitive beyond that.
Existing services along Lakeshore / South Shore of the Saint Lawrence should continue to exist, and it was suggested that improvements to them might happen, though nothing is, as always, definitive or clear. We’d expect the timetables to be arranged to fit with connections onto HFR, but we doubt that CN would accept to give additional timeslots to passenger trains. -David
This is such a bad idea.
I think it’s a good thing to have different passenger rail operators. A single national rail monopoly is bad for business and bad for passengers. Just look at the poor state of Amtrak to the south.
@@RailFansCanada So VIA rail trains will just be used elsewhere? How will VIA survive without the Montreal to Toronto Corridor? Or will VIA rail just need to schedule inbetween the private owner?
@@kiddo817 But it seems that if you are to have different passenger rail operators its ideal for the rail to be owned nationally so private owners don't boot out competition. Isn't that what happened because private freight owners own most of the tracks in Canada?
It's gotta be HSR. Would be a mistake not to push for the best we can build and end up with an expensive legacy system
Do the new Siemens Charger come with pantographs?
No they are presently not equipped with a pantograph.
@@RailFansCanada Seems pretty short-sighted considering Amtrak is deploying the Airo trainsets on NEC?
The line is not currently electrified and the trains were ordered prior to HFR. It is possible if they are used on the future electrified HFR line, that they would be retrofit for electric operation by adding a pantograph. It is the same for the O-Train Line 2 in Ottawa with the Stadler FLIRT. They use diesel electric power packs, but can be switched over to electric only operation in the future if and when that change takes place.
@@RailFansCanada Thank you for response!
@@RailFansCanadaI recall the original tender was for diesel-electric locomotives that could be retrofitted for electric operation with a transformer and pantograph at a later time, right?
The HFR is perfect for some line as Montreal-Ottawa, Ottawa-Smiths Falls, all the south Shore of the St-Lawrence with frequent stops,
also all the South of Ontario with the 6 stops from Montreal to Toronto. (It should skip Ottawa completely, to save a lots of time from start and go with the reach the High Speed Rail effectiveness from Ottawa)
But the HSR is a must from Quebec City, Montreal, Toronto.
I would add the HSR should be own by Quebec and Ontario Gouvernement, private investment and finally by the Federal (not more then 20%). And the VIA Rail should be care with HFR only, the project would be more faster to do.
The VIA Rail have already plenty of job to do with HFR across Canada to work on.
As an experienced traveller, I'd like to offer you some perspectives from my own experiences using modernized passenger rail in Europe.
Did you know that most of the advanced countries in Europe only migrated to HSR upon having reached full capacity of their existing passenger rail infrastructure?
Did you also know that so-called HSR-type trains in European countries such as England and Sweden actually operate at top speeds of 200 kph or 125 mph?
If you look at real-world travel times for some of the above-mentioned trains running in Sweden, for example, such as for the route between Stockholm and Gothenburg, a distance of approximately 400 kilometers or 250 miles, the resulting travel times of 3 hours coincide exactly with those of the proposed HFR involving 200 kph maximum speeds.
A three-hour travel time using HFR would even compete favourably with travel by air, considering the downtown-to-downtown convenience of modernized passenger rail!
Let's also have a look at the fastest travel times by rail for the popular Stockholm to Malmo route, a distance of 513 kilometers, which can be done in 4 hours and 22 minutes; this timeframe is even greater than the 4 hours and 10 minutes envisaged for the HFR Toronto-Peterborough-Montreal route, an even longer distance of 580 kilometers.
Furthermore, unbeknownst to most people, Via Rail's busiest and most successful route is between Toronto and Ottawa, not Toronto and Montreal.
What conclusions may be drawn from the above-mentioned examples?
If Via Rail's HFR project encompassing top speeds of 200 kph or 125 mph can be implemented along with even more, hourly frequencies, operating on dedicated trackage, we should end up with very similar ridership as in the case of Sweden, a country with no actual, typical HSR speeds of 300 kph or 180 mph as in other countries throughout the world!
There is a very good reason as to why our federal government is calling for a 200 kph or 125 mph passenger rail system called HFR, since upscaling to the higher speeds of HSR would dramatically escalate construction costs to the point whereby HSR would end up being cancelled entirely just like numerous other high speed rail proposals in the past thirty or more years!
Additionally, much higher construction costs would also entail vastly-more-expensive ticket costs for the passenger, thereby limiting HSR use to a very limited demographic comprised of business executives, high-end tourists, politicians, etc. rather than HFR which would be more affordable and subsequently used by everyone, including drivers who take over 90 million carbon-emitting trips alone between Toronto and Montreal!
In Sweden, you can take a 200 kph or 125 mph Flixtrain operating between Stockholm and Gothenburg for the very reasonable sum of around 30 Canadian dollars.
In Canada, the present HFR proposal involves a partnership with private sector companies who will have to recoup the costs of building modernized passenger rail infrastructure, be it HFR or HSR, resulting in far-higher fares than the Swedish example indicated above.
As such, would you be prepared to potentially pay a 200-250 dollar one-way fare for a HSR trip from Toronto to Ottawa, rather than a far-more-affordable fare based on HFR?
Personally, I'd gladly take a trip with HFR between Toronto and Montreal taking just an hour longer in order to save a rather substantial amount in ticket costs!
It's just not worth spending that much more money for HSR rather than for HFR!
And that is precisely the reason as to why approximately 90 percent of Germans who travel by rail, choose to embark on regular intercity and regional trains rather than the 10 percent who take HSR trains.
Take it from someone who has visited five continents and witnessed these results while watching passenger travel patterns in several German railway stations!
@@marclemieux8269 HSR is very efficient on straight line where the geography where countries permitted.
@@marclemieux8269 / The VIA Rail management is costing huge $$$$. We are paying for all Canada for a bad service. Need a major administration from any country in the world with HSR system.
@Ctrèsbeau Claude The typical annual cost of operating Via Rail amounts to approximately 400 million, or about the cost of a cup of coffee per month per Canadian, or about 1 percent of the annual cost of building and maintaining our highways and roads (over 30 billion a year)!
As such, allocating proper spending towards a vibrant, modernized passenger rail network ends up costing far less overall than continuing to build, expand and maintain highways and roads!
I want 15-45 second headways.
Don't we all. :)
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I'd like to see improved passenger rail in this country on par with the rest of the developed world, on the other hand what I've heard so far about HFR leaves much to be desired and has me wondering whether all we're hearing is yet more lip service.
As I said in another video, what makes these new dedicated tracks so great exactly if they were abandoned in the first place? Wouldn't they still be in use and not have been converted into rail trails if there was a use case for them?
Wait wait wait ... 2059 ????
To be clear: 2059 for the tripling of the ridership compared to current levels. I think this is far from ambitious, but at the same time I think it is a low bar to say "here we achieved it". -David
I'm all for HFR but the route they'll take is going to take out A LOT of recreational trails up north.
It is wrong to say that the interest in high speed rail is being shown " for the first time in decades." The discussion has been going on for about 50 years but, just like today, no one has been willing to step up and pay for it. This project, unless they money and commitment to got to a genuine HSR system is made, will likely be doomed to fail. The video mentions tripling ridership by 2059 (!!!!!), that's over 30 years away !!!! By then conventional rail as we know it wont exist and will probably be replaced by maglev. Unfortunately this project will likely get bogged down by bickering, bureacracy and logistical issues.