VIA Rail network developments

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Not a military expert, but hard to see a scenario where military helicopters can”t fly and roads are impassible but railways are operational.

Exactly. There's really no national security justification for a railway up the Ottawa Valley. And really, the definition of passable road is very different for the average family sedan and a 20 ton LAV or 70 ton Leopard. Also, for any real and immediate threat, the Hill with the black pajama guys to the Hill with the suits and goatees is 51 km by road (38 km straight line). I bet they can load up and get to any point in the city inside an hour without using their fancy driving skills. Any scenario where they can't do that is most definitely not one where rail is going to useful.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Just because a rail transport option is provided for 2:45, that doesn't prove that there is an intention to build such an option. It can also be used to prove that the additional demand for such a short travel time does not justify the incremental capital costs required for achieving it...

Fair point. I most definitely had not considered that this may not be a realistic offering but polling to help inform future investment.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Exactly. There's really no national security justification for a railway up the Ottawa Valley. And really, the definition of passable road is very different for the average family sedan and a 20 ton LAV or 70 ton Leopard. Also, for any real and immediate threat, the Hill with the black pajama guys to the Hill with the suits and goatees is 51 km by road (38 km straight line). I bet they can load up and get to any point in the city inside an hour without using their fancy driving skills. Any scenario where they can't do that is most definitely not one where rail is going to useful.

True. On top of that, the only way to make rail a viable contingency plan would be for the forces to purchase and maintain rail equipment to use in that contingency. Waiting for VIA to send equipment to Petawawa would make that option impracticable, especially if the track wasn't regularly used for passenger service.

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by mxg308

I believe he's referring to the CTA allowing CN to remove the Beachburg sub through the Ottawa Valley in 2013. During the protests in February, all I kept thinking was that CN and CP really put all their eggs in that one basket along the lakeshore and destroyed any backup route. Also, no direct rail link from Petawawa to Ottawa anymore seems like national security mistake but what do I know. $$$>all

Really putting all our eggs in one basket. Especially considering the recent railway blockades it would be really good to have some redundancy in the network.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

Really putting all our eggs in one basket. Especially considering the recent railway blockades it would be really good to have some redundancy in the network.

redundancy is a thing of the past. Now, it is thin margins and maximizing profits. Redundancy costs money.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

redundancy is a thing of the past. Now, it is thin margins and maximizing profits. Redundancy costs money.

That's the biggest problem with having private railways. It can vary largely depending on which CEO is in charge. Some are more visionary and others only focus on the bottom line. The same can be said about politicians as well though.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

That's the biggest problem with having private railways. It can vary largely depending on which CEO is in charge. Some are more visionary and others only focus on the bottom line. The same can be said about politicians as well though.

A public railway would probably also have trouble justifying maintaining 500km of track on a redundancy basis.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

redundancy is a thing of the past. Now, it is thin margins and maximizing profits. Redundancy costs money.

One positive from the pandemic might be that organizations put a renewed emphasis on redundancy. At least for a while.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Exactly. There's really no national security justification for a railway up the Ottawa Valley. And really, the definition of passable road is very different for the average family sedan and a 20 ton LAV or 70 ton Leopard. Also, for any real and immediate threat, the Hill with the black pajama guys to the Hill with the suits and goatees is 51 km by road (38 km straight line). I bet they can load up and get to any point in the city inside an hour without using their fancy driving skills. Any scenario where they can't do that is most definitely not one where rail is going to useful.

What was the plan when those guys were moving to Trenton?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

A public railway would probably also have trouble justifying maintaining 500km of track on a redundancy basis.

If the sole purpose of the track was redundancy and would otherwise go unused, I would agree with you. If it also serves an alternate purpose, then threshold for tearing up the track might be different with public ownership, especially if all rail ROWs are publicly owned.

The key difference is with two private railways, both wanted to keep their tracks along the lakeshore as they each needed a route from Toronto to Montreal, so if they were each to keep one ROW, it would be that one.

With a single authority responsible for ROWs, they could be more easily shared between the railways, and there would be a stronger argument to kept a ROW along the lakeshore and a more northern ROW.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

If the sole purpose of the track was redundancy and would otherwise go unused, I would agree with you. If it also serves an alternate purpose, then threshold for tearing up the track might be different with public ownership, especially if all rail ROWs are publicly owned.

The key difference is with two private railways, both wanted to keep their tracks along the lakeshore as they each needed a route from Toronto to Montreal, so if they were each to keep one ROW, it would be that one.

With a single authority responsible for ROWs, they could be more easily shared between the railways, and there would be a stronger argument to kept a ROW along the lakeshore and a more northern ROW.

A public owner (which would probably have a fixed budget and therefore strong pressure to reallocate) would look at the maintenance costs and the revenue generated by the northern route to determine whether the benefits justified the cost. I think there is a good chance they would come to the same conclusion CN and CP did, that there was not enough traffic generated in the Ottawa Valley to justify the cost.

[Dengler Avenue]

By the way, I was studying M.T.O.'s proposal of Highway 17 Matawa Bypass the other day. What I noticed was that the North-Bay-bound lanes would utilize the ROW of Ottawa Valley Rail. That said, once the bypass is built, the ship really will have sailed for rail transportation in Upper Ottawa Valley.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

A public owner (which would probably have a fixed budget and therefore strong pressure to reallocate) would look at the maintenance costs and the revenue generated by the northern route to determine whether the benefits justified the cost. I think there is a good chance they would come to the same conclusion CN and CP did, that there was not enough traffic generated in the Ottawa Valley to justify the cost.

A public owner would have three possible sources of income:

• Usage fees charged to the railways operating on their track,
• Access fees to industries that want sidings on the line, and
• Government subsidies (if necessary).

It is possible that they would come to the same conclusion, but there are two possibilities that might have saved it:

1. With the current model, both CN and CP each had their own ROW. With both railways using one northern ROW, the economics would be different then when only one is. While track sharing arrangements can be negotiated, the deals are complicated and in this case it was probably easier just to stick to their own ROWs.
2. Even if the economics didn't quite work out, governments are much more susceptible to public pressure and would have been less likely to tear up the tracks. It is much easier for the government to do nothing and let a private company take the heat.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

A public owner would have three possible sources of income:

• Usage fees charged to the railways operating on their track,
• Access fees to industries that want sidings on the line, and
• Government subsidies (if necessary).

It is possible that they would come to the same conclusion, but there are two possibilities that might have saved it:

1. With the current model, both CN and CP each had their own ROW. With both railways using one northern ROW, the economics would be different then when only one is. While track sharing arrangements can be negotiated, the deals are complicated and in this case it was probably easier just to stick to their own ROWs.
2. Even if the economics didn't quite work out, governments are much more susceptible to public pressure and would have been less likely to tear up the tracks. It is much easier for the government to do nothing and let a private company take the heat.

That is certainly possible. But railways are heavily regulated and the government could have intervened in the face of strong local pressure, but there wasn’t much. Local governments or any shoreline operator also could have purchased the track, but choose not to. I think a public entity would have faced similar considerations.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

What was the plan when those guys were moving to Trenton?

They would have had airlift across the street in Trenton. So they could mount up and make it Ottawa in about an hour by helicopter. Half that if they parachute in. Keep in mind, the main idea behind the move, was making SOF globally deployable with C-17s. And to get them used to more regularly operating with C-17s. Turns out it's just cheaper to accept less capabilities and locate in Petawawa and the Hill.

[Truenorth00]

Would there even be close to enough ridership to support an Ottawa Valley line sans some very heavy subsidies?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Source: VIA timetable (effective 1989-04-30)



Source: CP timetable (effective 1956-09-30)


Source: CP timetable (effective 1961-04-30)



Source: CN timetable (effective 1960-04-24)



Source: VIA Rail timetable (effective 1984-10-28)




Source: CN timetable (effective 1954-04-25)

...

OT but seeing those made me nostalgic for the old Thomas Cook rail timetable books. I travelled much of the world with those in my youth!

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Would there even be close to enough ridership to support an Ottawa Valley line sans some very heavy subsidies?

See my comment in #1931.
Ps: Ottawa Valley Line was officially abandoned in 2011. Then M.T.O. drew up Mattawa Bypass in 2012. Coincidence? Maybe not.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Would there even be close to enough ridership to support an Ottawa Valley line sans some very heavy subsidies?

Ridership? We are talking freight. I don't know how much freight traffic there is from the west to Montreal and points east (and vice versa), but it likely isn't insignificant.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Ridership? We are talking freight. I don't know how much freight traffic there is from the west to Montreal and points east (and vice versa), but it likely isn't insignificant.

I am certainly no expert on the upper Valley, but can’t think offhand of what sources of rail freight are there. There is no heavy industry, I don’t think there are large mines and there is no commodity-type agriculture. The largest employer in Pembroke is a call centre and the second largest is an office furniture manufacturer (which I assume ships by truck).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I am certainly no expert on the upper Valley, but can’t think offhand of what sources of rail freight are there. There is no heavy industry, I don’t think there are large mines and there is no commodity-type agriculture. The largest employer in Pembroke is a call centre and the second largest is an office furniture manufacturer (which I assume ships by truck).

The primary intent wouldn't be for local service but as I said, it would be a way of bypassing Toronto for freight from the west.