VIA Rail

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

It is time the federal government took climate change seriously. A moderate intercity network with daily links between the regional intercity networks is a bare minimum that is required. The feds are responsible for regulating all federal railways and such should be responsible for funding infrastructure and rolling stock to improve the network.

If rail development was part of the climate calculus, we might actually never invest in slow long distance trains like the Canadian.

Getting emissions down is first and foremost about reducing the emissions involved in local travel. And next regional travel. And finally transcontinental and transoceanic travel. From that perspective, VIA's priorities basically get reduced to QW and CalEd corridors.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Running through Gare du Palais before switching to the south shore would be challenging as it is a terminal station. Since the Renaissance equipment doesn't support remote control, VIA can't have an engine at each end (like they do on some corridor trains), so they would have to have them run around the train, which would slow things down.

I am thinking we will have to wait until new equipment arrives, both power and rolling stock from Seimens before we see any changes to Ocean. At that time Via could either use the locomotives that run bi-directionally or convert some from the current fleet that do that. In addition to that, the Budd cars are seriously past their best before date.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I wouldn't really call it "improving the trackage." All they did was do some mandatory repairs and maintenance to make it safe. Also, the only reason the federal government contributed any money is that New Brunswick didn't fund a middle section (between Nelson Junction (milepost 62) and Nepisquit Junction (milepost 106)) and it was to be discontinued because it was considered too expensive.

Regardless, a VIA train did derail (at mile 15.27) on the Newcastle Sub in 2019 due to a broken rail.

This is incredible that the federal government can only make a face saving gesture for it's lack of living up to its responsibilities.

[foolworm]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Or is most of it better handed to the provinces in order for them to maximize the use of sections that actually could work?

What is there to hand to the provinces though? Via owns a bunch of stations and trains, but very limited bits of track that are not continuous or serviceable as-is. The provinces can't really do much as they'd still have to negotiate with CN, except now they have even less bargaining power.

There is a lot of talk in this thread about the Calgary-Edmonton corridor, so let's make this clear: VIA will NEVER be allowed to operate any intra-provincial service in Alberta.

Ever.

Either the operator is an arm of the provincial government, or it is privatized.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by foolworm

What is there to hand to the provinces though? Via owns a bunch of stations and trains, but very limited bits of track that are not continuous or serviceable as-is. The provinces can't really do much as they'd still have to negotiate with CN, except now they have even less bargaining power.

There is a lot of talk in this thread about the Calgary-Edmonton corridor, so let's make this clear: VIA will NEVER be allowed to operate any intra-provincial service in Alberta.

Ever.

Either the operator is an arm of the provincial government, or it is privatized.

What is the basis for your opinion that the feds won't do anything? I am not holding out a lot of hope for either level of government to do much, but maybe jointly they could build a phased in higher level service.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by foolworm

VIA will NEVER be allowed to operate any intra-provincial service in Alberta.

Since when does a federal regulated rail operator need permission from provincial authorities to operate?

What is likely, however, is that Alberta simply refuses to pitch in to any VIA led initiative and that lack of funding and interest is what makes these a non-starter. That said, I find it hard to imagine that e even Alberta would turn down a large federal investment just for spite. Especially if it comes after similar investments in Ontario and Quebec.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

It is time the federal government took climate change seriously. A moderate intercity network with daily links between the regional intercity networks is a bare minimum that is required. The feds are responsible for regulating all federal railways and such should be responsible for funding infrastructure and rolling stock to improve the network.

The problem is, just like most citizens, the governments across Canada re not really wanting to do what is needed to lower GHGs. The carbon tax on a plane ticket should be high enough that for all but the ultra wealthy, a train trip is the way to go for places along the Corridor. You put short haul trips at $1000 each way and you'll see the demand for other options.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Using intercity rail to reduce Canada's emissions would be a terrible strategy - you'd spend a vast amount of money and the amount of emissions you could realistically eliminate (especially considering you can electrify road transport) would be minimal. Internal air travel is a whopping 1% of emissions in Canada.

You guys clamouring for return of long distance rail should give it up - it doesn't make sense, and for that reason it is never going to happen. At least before we've done all the routes that actually justify rail. You're just going to be disappointed.

Ok. Let's shut down all oil sands operations. Oh, wait, that is too much. Investing in greener technologies is a good thing. We should bring back the shorter routes between city pairs. We should chop up the existing Canadian between city pairs. We should run daily service on all routes.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If rail development was part of the climate calculus, we might actually never invest in slow long distance trains like the Canadian.

Getting emissions down is first and foremost about reducing the emissions involved in local travel. And next regional travel. And finally transcontinental and transoceanic travel. From that perspective, VIA's priorities basically get reduced to QW and CalEd corridors.

The various city pairs on the Prairies, beside C-E could help as well.

Originally Posted by foolworm

What is there to hand to the provinces though? Via owns a bunch of stations and trains, but very limited bits of track that are not continuous or serviceable as-is. The provinces can't really do much as they'd still have to negotiate with CN, except now they have even less bargaining power.

There is a lot of talk in this thread about the Calgary-Edmonton corridor, so let's make this clear: VIA will NEVER be allowed to operate any intra-provincial service in Alberta.

Ever.

Either the operator is an arm of the provincial government, or it is privatized.

The lines are federally regulated. They are owned by private companies. What is stopping Via from running a line in AB?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Since when does a federal regulated rail operator need permission from provincial authorities to operate?

What is likely, however, is that Alberta simply refuses to pitch in to any VIA led initiative and that lack of funding and interest is what makes these a non-starter. That said, I find it hard to imagine that e even Alberta would turn down a large federal investment just for spite. Especially if it comes after similar investments in Ontario and Quebec.

I agree. Kenny needs to look good, but also not look stupid at the same time.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Ok. Let's shut down all oil sands operations. Oh, wait, that is too much. Investing in greener technologies is a good thing. We should bring back the shorter routes between city pairs. We should chop up the existing Canadian between city pairs. We should run daily service on all routes.

Uh no, that's a baseless comparison. CO2 producers they may be, but the oilsands generate an absolute shit ton of economic output, we'd be massively poorer if they were shut down. Whereas every dollar spent on the worst of the long distance VIA routes makes us all poorer. Investment in VIA should only be where there is a credible business case

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Uh no, that's a baseless comparison. CO2 producers they may be, but the oilsands generate an absolute shit ton of economic output, we'd be massively poorer if they were shut down. Whereas every dollar spent on the worst of the long distance VIA routes makes us all poorer. Investment in VIA should only be where there is a credible business case

It is not baseless. Well, it is no less baseless than your constant screaming HSR in AB or nothing!

Moving to daily service on all existing routes has credibility to it.
Adding the CP Canadian route has credibility to it.
Adding some service, but not HSR to C-E has credibility to it.

Shutting down all oil sands to meet our CO2 targets has credibility to it.

Just because you don't like it, does not mean it is true.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It is not baseless. Well, it is no less baseless than your constant screaming HSR in AB or nothing!

Moving to daily service on all existing routes has credibility to it.
Adding the CP Canadian route has credibility to it.
Adding some service, but not HSR to C-E has credibility to it.

Shutting down all oil sands to meet our CO2 targets has credibility to it.

Just because you don't like it, does not mean it is true.

Shutting down our oilsands to reduce CO2 has credibility, but it would come at a massive cost. Spending massively on VIA to reduce CO2 does not have credibility, because the amount of emissions it could reduce are very small. Yet it would cost a lot of money and not produce much benefit, hence why it won't be done.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Shutting down our oilsands to reduce CO2 has credibility, but it would come at a massive cost. Spending massively on VIA to reduce CO2 does not have credibility, because the amount of emissions it could reduce are very small. Yet it would cost a lot of money and not produce much benefit, hence why it won't be done.

As we move away from an oil driven world, eventually our oil sands will be as worthless as our asbestos mines.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The problem is, just like most citizens, the governments across Canada re not really wanting to do what is needed to lower GHGs. The carbon tax on a plane ticket should be high enough that for all but the ultra wealthy, a train trip is the way to go for places along the Corridor. You put short haul trips at $1000 each way and you'll see the demand for other options.

That's not how a carbon tax works. The entire point of a carbon tax is to price the carbon and let consumers decide how they much they value the activity after the cost of polluting is included.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The various city pairs on the Prairies, beside C-E could help as well.

These cities are so small and the traffic so light that actual new construction of lines might not have a net carbon return for half a century or more. There will always be city pairs where an electric bus running on existing roads makes more sense. And again, the pricing of carbon let's operators figure out which is better.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I agree. Kenny needs to look good, but also not look stupid at the same time.

Kenney probably won't be Premier by the time we're discussing how to find a Calgary-Edmonton line in 7-8 years.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

As we move away from an oil driven world, eventually our oil sands will be as worthless as our asbestos mines.

Eventually. But that date is decades away. And I say that as one of the people most bullish on renewables in this forum.

Our move away from oil doesn't mean shutting down the sector today. We'll have to build up the alternatives first. The oil sands will still exist and be selling oil in 2050. They probably will sell less of it. And employ less people. But they'll be around.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

As we move away from an oil driven world, eventually our oil sands will be as worthless as our asbestos mines.

Sure but this is irrelevant to the subject of building railways. The fact remains, even if you covered the nation with rails such that every trip could be made on them, it still couldn't reduce Canada's emissions all that much, especially considering we can make cars, trucks and eventually maybe plains carbon neutral.

[thewave46]

VIA is diesel powered, so its effect on reducing carbon emissions is not fantastic. Especially when it is using heavy trainsets and passenger cars that aren't full.

VIA's claimed carbon emissions are on par with a passenger car with two occupants - I'm using this as my source (page 4) that references Amtrak, but is reasonably comparable.

Ironically, a motor coach does a much better job reducing emissions, so plowing money into bus services would be a better benefit than trains.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I've already said it would require investment. Tens to hundreds of billions? Now I have to ask what you're smoking....

That was a range and would depend on what was desired for the end result. If the desired outcome was a 12 hour journey time, which would be a 57 mph rail average speed (from the current of around 34 mph), we are talking about semi high-speed (or higher speed rail, or almost high speed rail, whatever term you like) and the required investment would be well north of $100 billion over 680 miles of track.

If you disagree with a comment then it's best to state why you do rather than to simply be outright dismissive.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by thewave46

VIA is diesel powered, so its effect on reducing carbon emissions is not fantastic. Especially when it is using heavy trainsets and passenger cars that aren't full.

VIA's claimed carbon emissions are on par with a passenger car with two occupants - I'm using this as my source (page 4) that references Amtrak, but is reasonably comparable.

Ironically, a motor coach does a much better job reducing emissions, so plowing money into bus services would be a better benefit than trains.

All true. Even if you electrified VIA though, it is not capable of reducing Canada's emissions all that much, When you consider that cars and buses will be mostly electric soon with trucks following either with batteries or hydrogen. That leaves planes, but they are only a % or so of Canada's emissions and there is the potential to make them carbon neutral though bio/synthetic fuels, hydrogen or carbon capture.

So when the claim is made that Canada will have to build out ultra long distance rail routes that will never have much ridership, because of climate change, it's a red herring.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

That was a range and would depend on what was desired for the end result. If the desired outcome was a 12 hour journey time, which would be a 57 mph rail average speed (from the current of around 34 mph), we are talking about semi high-speed (or higher speed rail, or almost high speed rail, whatever term you like) and the required investment would be well north of $100 billion over 680 miles of track.

If you disagree with a comment then it's best to state why you do rather than to simply be outright dismissive.

That sounds a bit high, but yeah it would be very expensive. And still be a terrible option vs flying after the fact. Hence why it won't be built any time soon, not before other viable, shorter, passenger services are plying parts of the line.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by milomilo

All true. Even if you electrified VIA though, it is not capable of reducing Canada's emissions all that much, When you consider that cars and buses will be mostly electric soon with trucks following either with batteries or hydrogen. That leaves planes, but they are only a % or so of Canada's emissions and there is the potential to make them carbon neutral though bio/synthetic fuels, hydrogen or carbon capture.

So when the claim is made that Canada will have to build out ultra long distance rail routes that will never have much ridership, because of climate change, it's a red herring.

I'd say that keeping very heavy but efficient freight trains moving would be the best option, which we already do. Something like 70% of the freight (by bulk weight) travels by rail in this country; that's quite high compared to other first world nations. Some of that is due to what we export - a lot of raw materials and cars, but the fact that our rail network is freight oriented helps.

Stopping and starting freight trains so that underused passenger services could pass is backwards from a carbon emission point of view.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by thewave46

I'd say that keeping very heavy but efficient freight trains moving would be the best option, which we already do. Something like 70% of the freight (by bulk weight) travels by rail in this country; it's quite high, compared to other first world nations. Some of that is due to what we export - a lot of raw materials and cars, but the fact that our rail network is freight oriented helps.

Stopping and starting freight trains so that underused passenger services could pass is backwards from a carbon emission point of view.

Super agree. You can look at it similarly from an economic perspective also - a freight train with 100 cars cold be carrying millions of dollars worth of goods and the train itself worth a lot too. Delaying that train so a handful of people on a VIA train can get past doesn't make sense.

This all changes in situations where rail is actually worth it, like in Toronto. When there is demand such that you can fill up big trains with passengers, high productivity workers going to work in skyscrapers, then it does make sense that you spend the money to separate the freight from the passenger trains.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Why? Just because? The vast majority of the country doesn't have any practically functional passenger rail, even those nominally "served" by a VIA line.

For so many economic and political reasons. The subsidy to VIA Rail is not terribly large in comparison to other modes of transportation. Many things are subsidized. Should we shutter all of the national museums as they are not self-sufficient? And what about national pride, or are we not a real country after all?

The underlying assertion I think in your post is that the country's fourth city is not served by passenger rail. I too find that appalling. Pre 1981 service levels need to be restored. So trains would leave both Toronto and Montreal (trains originating in Montreal operating via Ottawa) daily as either The Canadian or The Super-Continental depending on day of week, combine at Sudbury Jct., and then Canadian trains via Thunder Bay and Kenora, Super-Continental via the northern route to Winnipeg and then Canadian trains via Regina and Calgary and Super-Continentals via Saskatoon and Edmonton to Vancouver. The service would be much better used if the on-time performance and frequencies were better (60 1/2 hours and an average rail speed of 26 mph Winnipeg to Vancouver?). In Canada there is still perception that rail is "poor man's travel", that needs to change.

In any transport system, whether it be national passenger rail, air routes or urban transit, there are always profitable routes and routes that lose money. VIA must improve Corridor services as its first priority. For rail journeys, 4 hours is about the journey length beyond which rail loses its competitive edge with air travel. If for example VIA was able to offer a few daily high speed 3 1/2 hour trips on the lucrative Toronto-Montreal run (calling only at Kingston) and offer a true premium first class experience it would capture a much higher share of that market, esp. with business travel. Remember that with air travel you have to get to the airport, then you have to get there about an hour early, then there's the flight time, then deplaning and then the journey back into the city from the destination airport.

A good comparison is with Amtrak, which captured a 75% share of air/train commuters between New York and Washington in 2011, up from 37% in 2000. So doubled within 10 years of the opening of the Acela Express. Revenues from that service are used to sustain other routes on the system.