VIA Rail

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Yes, I agree that sweeping and banal generalizations, all of which would apply to most regions in the United States and points 4,5, and 6 really to all countries, even densely population European ones, are not by any definition technical knowledge, at any level whatsoever. And many of them are easily refuted whether in part or in full. Nonetheless, thanks for the answer.

Ciao guys.

Sure, they're banal. They're banal because they're the well-known parameters in which we have to operate. If you can't address those, then you really haven't addressed anything. It's like if a designer of a plane doesn't believe in gravity.

You want to run daily passenger trains to Regina. CP says no way. Now what?

Look, I'm all for daily passenger trains in the Prairies or even HSR to Alert or cities on the moon if people can convince me with clear reasoning as to how you could pull it off given the considerable headwinds we face.

I actually love reading about clever financing and payback schemes, people who realize an untapped opportunity that completely changes the ROI calculus, or people with inside political knowledge who can tell us how the sausage was made on what seemed like a political impossibility. Gimme some of that shit!

[someone123]

One rumour I heard privately for Halifax VIA and commuter rail is that CN put in a bid to purchase one of the container terminals there. They did not win but there's another owner that might have expansion plans. The port could grow considerably, or maybe not and then CN would be come more open to the idea of commuter rail.

In Halifax there are often these port development schemes and there's always an outside chance the rail line going in and out will become 2-4x busier overnight. If just one shipping company decides to move a tiny portion of NA traffic through Halifax it could dramatically change the utilization of that line.

There is also a project, part rail, part road work, happening around Fairview Cove that is designed to move rail and road traffic including trucks more efficiently around there. It's in the $100M+ range so not insubstantial. I wonder what impact it will have. The planning materials so far are incredibly vague (e.g. hour+ video conferences posted with abstract discussion of climate change and accessibility impacts without actually saying what might be built). In theory, there are a number of possibilities for expanding rail capacity inside the already-developed parts of the Halifax metro area, but I don't know if they'd change CN's calculus for allowing more passenger rail.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The highway is as good as you would expect it to be. For most of the length, most of the time, traffic is light to moderate although it's creeping up. Adding lanes would be cheaper than a railway though.

I don't think it's at the point where a rail link is a no brainer, TBH.

Not suggesting it's a no-brainer. But looking at the amount of air traffic between the two cities and the road traffic, and just the distance and economic ties, there's probably a case for a rail line. Especially if the population of both cities (and Red Deer) keep growing. I wish something other than HSR had been studied for this route.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Where we really are seeing issues though is in the mountains. Big problems with parking and the TCH can get very busy at peak periods.

It'll be interesting to see what comes out of the CIB study. And maybe if they do build a rail line to the airport, that could give a start to build a route to Edmonton from there.

Originally Posted by someone123

Years ago there was debate about mixing light and heavy rail, what was allowed around the world, and what was allowed by Transport Canada.

I wonder about trains that could use Calgary and Edmonton LRT systems plus a long-distance rail line between the two cities, maybe running alongside the highway.

The mixing usually refers to rolling stock running on freight tracks usually. I would assume any running on LRT tracks could be handled with decent signalling and temporal separation.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

You want to run daily passenger trains to Regina. CP says no way. Now what?

Well, that depends on how bad it is wanted. The federal government could change the regulations for railways such that asking for space for passenger service is more of a courtesy for them to move their trains out of the way. Then if it was really wanted, the line could be expropriated. These are all legal things that the government could do. I highly doubt CP would argue over 1 train a day though.

Originally Posted by someone123

One rumour I heard privately for Halifax VIA and commuter rail is that CN put in a bid to purchase one of the container terminals there. They did not win but there's another owner that might have expansion plans. The port could grow considerably, or maybe not and then CN would be come more open to the idea of commuter rail.

In Halifax there are often these port development schemes and there's always an outside chance the rail line going in and out will become 2-4x busier overnight. If just one shipping company decides to move a tiny portion of NA traffic through Halifax it could dramatically change the utilization of that line.

There is also a project, part rail, part road work, happening around Fairview Cove that is designed to move rail and road traffic including trucks more efficiently around there. It's in the $100M+ range so not insubstantial. I wonder what impact it will have. The planning materials so far are incredibly vague (e.g. hour+ video conferences posted with abstract discussion of climate change and accessibility impacts without actually saying what might be built). In theory, there are a number of possibilities for expanding rail capacity inside the already-developed parts of the Halifax metro area, but I don't know if they'd change CN's calculus for allowing more passenger rail.

How would this cause CN wanting even more passenger service on the line? If anything, it sounds like this would make getting it even harder.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Not suggesting it's a no-brainer. But looking at the amount of air traffic between the two cities and the road traffic, and just the distance and economic ties, there's probably a case for a rail line. Especially if the population of both cities (and Red Deer) keep growing. I wish something other than HSR had been studied for this route.

It'll be interesting to see what comes out of the CIB study. And maybe if they do build a rail line to the airport, that could give a start to build a route to Edmonton from there.

I think there is a good case for spending money on rail north and or west of Calgary. Probably not so much around Edmonton until it is linked to Calgary. Not for anything bad about Edmonton, just the geography doesn't make much sense for to build rail there in isolation.

But it's probably not so good of a case that it would win many votes. Realistically spending billions on a Calgary - Edmonton railway isn't going to gain much traction currently when you could just add another lane to Highway 2 for some hundreds of millions. Maybe if the economy turns around and that extra lane is packed too, then the case for a rail link may be more compelling.

If the stars align, maybe the CIB report will come out praising the YYC - Banff link in a few years as Kenney falters in the polls, just in time for the NDP to put it in their platform. Perhaps even with Kenney's policy failures plain to see, he'll change tack and try offering some carrots.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Well, that depends on how bad it is wanted. The federal government could change the regulations for railways such that asking for space for passenger service is more of a courtesy for them to move their trains out of the way. Then if it was really wanted, the line could be expropriated. These are all legal things that the government could do. I highly doubt CP would argue over 1 train a day though.

Like it or not the freight is much more valuable to the economy than a half empty train of low income people. The freight train gets priority.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

If the stars align, maybe the CIB report will come out praising the YYC - Banff link in a few years as Kenney falters in the polls, just in time for the NDP to put it in their platform. Perhaps even with Kenney's policy failures plain to see, he'll change tack and try offering some carrots.

I'm hoping so too. Getting that going would signal the start of expansion of Via outside of the Corridor.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Like it or not the freight is much more valuable to the economy than a half empty train of low income people. The freight train gets priority.

That isn't the case in Europe.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That isn't the case in Europe.

Because less freight goes by train, there are far more people on the trains and the people on the trains are high productivity citizens whose time is valuable, unlike the people who are forced through poverty to waste their time on a 12 hour prairie milk run. Same as how it makes financial sense in Toronto to build infrastructure to separate your commuters from the freight traffic.

[Truenorth00]

Canada alone moves more freight by rail than the entire EU (with nearly 12x our population).

Canada: ~ 451B freight tonne-km in 2019

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=2310005701

EU: 400B freight tonne-km in 2019.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics...tle=Railway_freight_transport_statistics

For better or worse, history worked out such that our railways dedicated themselves to moving freight and European railways dedicated themselves to moving people.

From an emissions perspective, our policy is actually better. From a quality of life perspective, we probably should build rail in our major urban agglomerations.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Canada alone moves more freight by rail than the entire EU (with nearly 12x our population).

Canada: ~ 451B freight tonne-km in 2019

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=2310005701

EU: 400B freight tonne-km in 2019.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics...tle=Railway_freight_transport_statistics

For better or worse, history worked out such that our railways dedicated themselves to moving freight and European railways dedicated themselves to moving people.

From an emissions perspective, our policy is actually better. From a quality of life perspective, we probably should build rail in our major urban agglomerations.

It is great that the majority of our freight is on rails. I just don't understand the rational of ripping up double track to save money. Had they left it and slowly expanded it, outside of BC, much of the line would be double track.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I just don't understand the rational of ripping up double track to save money. Had they left it and slowly expanded it, outside of BC, much of the line would be double track.

The CP line between Winnipeg and Thunder Bay used to be totally double tracked but it was reduced to one track a long time ago, like maybe even before WWII?

I'm assuming that it was because someone ran the numbers and determined that the revenue didn't justify the maintenance costs, but I always thought it was a bit weird that they built it and then got rid of it.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by esquire

The CP line between Winnipeg and Thunder Bay used to be totally double tracked but it was reduced to one track a long time ago, like maybe even before WWII?

I'm assuming that it was because someone ran the numbers and determined that the revenue didn't justify the maintenance costs, but I always thought it was a bit weird that they built it and then got rid of it.

The sections west of Sudbury were around in the 50s/60s. You can see from the bridges that it was double tracks. As I understand it, at the time it was maintenance costs. The issue is that now the revenue is up and they want to move more freight but soon will be hitting their max. I'll dream for a moment and say that adding double track, especially where it was and where it is busiest will happen in the next 10-20 years.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It is great that the majority of our freight is on rails. I just don't understand the rational of ripping up double track to save money. Had they left it and slowly expanded it, outside of BC, much of the line would be double track.

Cost. By law, track and right of ways must be maintained to a certain standard. So not only did the railway then have underutilized assets on their books, they also are a recurring liability (due to maintenance cost). Unsurprising that they were removed. Businesses are not generally in the habit of paying to maintain infrastructure they aren't using.

To be honest, Canada actually has the easier job here. It is far easier for us to build dedicated passenger rail in the areas where most of our population lives than it ever will be for the Europeans to move proportionally as much freight by rail as we do.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Cost. By law, track and right of ways must be maintained to a certain standard. So not only did the railway then have underutilized assets on their books, they also are a recurring liability (due to maintenance cost). Unsurprising that they were removed. Businesses are not generally in the habit of paying to maintain infrastructure they aren't using.

To be honest, Canada actually has the easier job here. It is far easier for us to build dedicated passenger rail in the areas where most of our population lives than it ever will be for the Europeans to move proportionally as much freight by rail as we do.

Then why aren't they doing that to the Corridor along the current routing along the Lakeshore?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Then why aren't they doing that to the Corridor along the current routing along the Lakeshore?

I'm wouldn't be so sure they won't.

But also with Southern Ontario gaining in population, demand for freight will grow. So there will be a tipping point where business growth is just enough to pay the maintainenance for additional track. And well, they also get money from other users like VIA, so there's a way to monetize that excess capacity.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'm wouldn't be so sure they won't.

But also with Southern Ontario gaining in population, demand for freight will grow. So there will be a tipping point where business growth is just enough to pay the maintainenance for additional track. And well, they also get money from other users like VIA, so there's a way to monetize that excess capacity.

If CN and CP kept their Ottawa Valley routing they could make the yards in Northern ON work better for getting freight where it needs to go instead of having to marshal everything in Toronto. This would relieve the section between Montreal and Toronto.Yes, I know this is fantasy, but if the lines wee still active, this might work well to get more space for Via on the Lakeshore.

[Truenorth00]

You're ignoring how much freight goes to/from industry in Southern Ontario.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You're ignoring how much freight goes to/from industry in Southern Ontario.

Actually I am not. Think of the Port of Montreal being able to send a train to Western Canada without going through Toronto. Also, think of the grain that goes through Toronto when it doesn't need to.That is the traffic I am thinking of. If that is only 1 train between Toronto and Montreal, that is one more Via that might fit in the slot. I suspect it is more.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The highway is as good as you would expect it to be. For most of the length, most of the time, traffic is light to moderate although it's creeping up. Adding lanes would be cheaper than a railway though.

It looks like there were 175 flights/week between Calgary and Edmonton pre-pandemic. Now, some of these may be multi-hop flights and not necessarily easily displaced by a train unless the train actually stopped at the airports (which it could, mind you, and it might even be worth it to do that just for local traffic). I'm sure someone has O&D traffic between the two. But either way, it hardly needs to be high-speed rail service for the train to be a better option than flying (it's 260 km highway miles between the airports), which it seems many people are already choosing over driving or taking a bus, provided it's not made inconvenient in some other way.

On the other hand it looks like current downtown-to-downtown bus service takes over 4 hours based on the schedules I'm seeing, so maybe that's why flying is still so popular.

I bet if downtownish-to-downtownish rail service could be done in 3 hours and for $50 coach tickets and 7-10 frequencies a day, which doesn't seem like a huge ask (but I don't really know what sort of upgrades would be required to the existing track for that service... looks like it's pretty much all single track right now?), it would be very popular and worth it just from a carbon footprint perspective, not to mention convenience for Albertans.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Actually I am not. Think of the Port of Montreal being able to send a train to Western Canada without going through Toronto. Also, think of the grain that goes through Toronto when it doesn't need to.That is the traffic I am thinking of. If that is only 1 train between Toronto and Montreal, that is one more Via that might fit in the slot. I suspect it is more.

It's really striking how almost every suggestion of this hopeless daydreamer fails to address the most basic tests about identifying workable solutions:

1. What is the problem you are trying to fix?
2. Is this really the problem which needs attention now?
3. Does your solution actually solve your problem?
4. Does your solution solve the actual problem at hand (identified in Question 2)?
5. Is there a good reason to believe that your solution will work in the real world?