VIA Rail

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

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.

The cost is in multiple billions according to the last provincial study on a rail link, and the carbon aspect is objectively meaningless. This province generates an enormous amount of CO2 on an absolute scale and per capita, but it isn't transport between Edmonton and Calgary that causes that.

The reason we should build rail is as a quality of life improvement, saving time, increasing productivity and saving money on road upgrades. I personally am all for spending money on this, but we should not pretend it will be cheap nor pretend that our support is reflected in the wider population. And who can blame people? We live a good life out here and improved rail would hardly make a difference.

[GoTrans]

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.

Prior to WWI it was double track from somewhere near Brandon to Thunder Bay. West or Portage la Prairie, the double track was ripped out to provide steel to make tanks and shells for WWWI.

The double track between Winnipeg and Thunder Bay was ripped out when traffic declined due to the cancellation of the Crowsnest Pass grain rates. This made the westward movement of grain cheaper than it was previously and it served ice free ports. The subsequent installation of CTC and the desire to reuse track on less travelled routes coupled with so called precision railroading was the final impetus for removing track. Hunter Harrison did not help at CN or CP.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

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.

Railways are capital intensive and as a result of technology improvements like Centralized Train Control and Distributed Power they can move the same amount of freight with fewer trains and less track. The problem is that it probably takes more time to get the freight over the tracks because of congestion in yards and sidings spaced far apart. The average distance between extended sidings on the CN route in Northern Ontario is 80 miles.

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.

The demand for freight in Southern Ontario is only going to grow as a result of though trains passing through Ontario or the same trains terminating/originating in Ontario.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

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.

This is absolutely true. The government should not have allowed both railways to shut down the Ottawa Valley route. As a result there is no capacity for Via on the Lakeshore route and no alternative routes when the Mohawks have there bi-annual blockade on the mainline.

The Ottawa Valley route carried grain trains, potash trains and intermodal trains to Montreal, Quebec and the east cost for export, especially in winter months. If it were in existence today it would also be carrying oil trains.

There was always enough bridge traffic between CN and CP to make the route a viable option, but CN scrubbed the joint operation.

The diverted traffic off the Ottawa Valley took up the extra 900 million$ paid for by Ottawa absorbed the expanded triple tracking capacity resulting a net gain of ZERO for Via Rail. the government once again failed in reigning in CN and forcing it to keep the Ottawa Valley route.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

This is absolutely true. The government should not have allowed both railways to shut down the Ottawa Valley route.

The government shouldn't be forcing unnecessary costs on a private company without compensation.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

The demand for freight in Southern Ontario is only going to grow as a result of though trains passing through Ontario or the same trains terminating/originating in Ontario.

This is absolutely true. The government should not have allowed both railways to shut down the Ottawa Valley route. As a result there is no capacity for Via on the Lakeshore route and no alternative routes when the Mohawks have there bi-annual blockade on the mainline.

The Ottawa Valley route carried grain trains, potash trains and intermodal trains to Montreal, Quebec and the east cost for export, especially in winter months. If it were in existence today it would also be carrying oil trains.

There was always enough bridge traffic between CN and CP to make the route a viable option, but CN scrubbed the joint operation.

The diverted traffic off the Ottawa Valley took up the extra 900 million$ paid for by Ottawa absorbed the expanded triple tracking capacity resulting a net gain of ZERO for Via Rail. the government once again failed in reigning in CN and forcing it to keep the Ottawa Valley route.

This is why I feel the only way to reign them in is by having better regulations. Things like requiring mainlines be double tracked and getting rid of the over siding trains.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The government shouldn't be forcing unnecessary costs on a private company without compensation.

GoTrans just said they were compensated $900 million. I'd say that's pretty good compensation.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

GoTrans just said they were compensated $900 million. I'd say that's pretty good compensation.

That was for Lakeshore capacity. Nowhere were they paid to keep running through the Ottawa Valley.

And yes we know how Lakeshore turned out. Which is exactly why VIA wants its own passenger tracks now. And why GO is buying up track in the GTA.

[Curmudgeon]

WARNING: post may cause offence. Read at own risk.

I'm stumped. Can someone with technical knowledge explain to me how a proposed Calgary-Edmonton rail line would achieve only a rail average speed (RAS) of 60 mph? Those are conventional speeds. If a new line will be built at all, it will be built largely from scratch, with modern signalling and all new stock. If the investment is going to be made to achieve only conventional speeds, it's not worth it. Building a line to achieve just higher speed rail would not be markedly cheaper than simply making a high speed line at least to 125 mph, which though considered high speed for existing lines, is no longer considered high speed for new lines, that threshold is 160 mph (ie. HS1 and HS2 in the U.K.).

The line would achieve downtown to downtown in no more than 2h 15m, calling at Olds, Red Deer and Leduc. I'm not convinced of the need to have a stop for YYC which is only about 8 miles from downtown Calgary, but I'd defer to a study that would consider expected passenger numbers at that station. In any event a 2.5 mi/4km LRT extension from Saddletowne C-Train to YYC is long overdue. This proposal would result in an unquestionable competitive advantage over bus and air travel. As I've stated before, within ten years of opening the Acela Express , Amtrak doubled it's share of passenger traffic between New York City and Washington, to 74%. In fact, I can see most of the daily flights between Calgary and Edmonton being eliminated.

I'm really going to be in the dog house now, I know. Not only did I mention two other countries for insight, but as an outsider I wrote about Alberta. I bet he's never even been to Alberta they'll say at the Can't Do Club meeting. Oh gosh. I don't know, maybe it's better just to widen the Trans-Canada to 4 lanes each direction through Banff, N.P., I can't provide an estimate of any sort but it would be way cheaper and the ROI would be unbelievable, that debate is settled and closed, and as an aside the parking is terrible there, so there needs to be many more parking lots. Was I ever upset when I was last in the park and discovered that Lake Louise doesn't even have a Tim Horton's drive-thru. What good is a little road trip in your F-150 when there is not a Timmy's within a few minutes drive? Honestly people.

And by the way since CN and CP have acquired American lines, more freight moves south of the lakes. Even for truck transport, the vast majority of freight from southern Ontario to the West, moves in transit. You guys will know that term with your vast knowledge, but for others who happen to be looking at this thread it means via the U.S. usually crossing either at Detroit or Port Huron, and re-entering Canada at Emerson or N. Portal.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I'm stumped. Can someone with technical knowledge explain to me how a proposed Calgary-Edmonton rail line would achieve only a rail average speed (RAS) of 60 mph? Those are conventional speeds. If a new line will be built at all, it will be built largely from scratch, with modern signalling and all new stock. If the investment is going to be made to achieve only conventional speeds, it's not worth it. Building a line to achieve just higher speed rail would not be markedly cheaper than simply making a high speed line at least to 125 mph, which though considered high speed for existing lines, is no longer considered high speed for new lines, that threshold is 160 mph (ie. HS1 and HS2 in the U.K.).

The line would achieve downtown to downtown in no more than 2h 15m, calling at Olds, Red Deer and Leduc. I'm not convinced of the need to have a stop for YYC which is only about 8 miles from downtown Calgary, but I'd defer to a study that would consider expected passenger numbers at that station. In any event a 2.5 mi/4km LRT extension from Saddletowne C-Train to YYC is long overdue. This proposal would result in an unquestionable competitive advantage over bus and air travel. As I've stated before, within ten years of opening the Acela Express , Amtrak doubled it's share of passenger traffic between New York City and Washington, to 74%. In fact, I can see most of the daily flights between Calgary and Edmonton being eliminated.

I'd speculate that the number of level crossings could be a concern - agricultural regions tend of have high numbers of crossings. I don't think curve radii or land acquisition would be an issue, relatively speaking.

Most freight trains travel slow enough that level crossings offer ample warning for crossing traffic. I think some of the limited speed sections on the Acela route are due to the level crossings present.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I'm stumped. Can someone with technical knowledge explain to me how a proposed Calgary-Edmonton rail line would achieve only a rail average speed (RAS) of 60 mph?

Probably, if you can be bothered to specify which study or proposal you are referring to...

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The government shouldn't be forcing unnecessary costs on a private company without compensation.

Railways while currently privately owned are in effect public utilities which are subject to all sorts of government regulation across north america. We are just too afraid to use the power of government to the greater good. This does not mean that the railways should be required to shoulder huge costs solely for the public good. In the case of the Ottawa Valley, both lines on all 3 sides of the triangle between Montreal, Toronto and Sudbury were already paid for and were operating at a profit, although a small one on the Ottawa Valley Route. This was the whole reason for rationalizing the network through the Ottawa Valley..

The big gainer in allowing this to happen was CN as they got miles of triple track at very little cost and costing the government an inflated price for the constuction and absolutely no benefit to Via Rail. So how can you claim that any unnecessary costs were foisted upon the railways?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Railways while currently privately owned are in effect public utilities which are subject to all sorts of government regulation across north america. We are just too afraid to use the power of government to the greater good. This does not mean that the railways should be required to shoulder huge costs solely for the public good. In the case of the Ottawa Valley, both lines on all 3 sides of the triangle between Montreal, Toronto and Sudbury were already paid for and were operating at a profit, although a small one on the Ottawa Valley Route. This was the whole reason for rationalizing the network through the Ottawa Valley..

The big gainer in allowing this to happen was CN as they got miles of triple track at very little cost and costing the government an inflated price for the constuction and absolutely no benefit to Via Rail. So how can you claim that any unnecessary costs were foisted upon the railways?

Everyone would rather see Via spend more of taxpayer's dollars on a route that is twisty and avoids Kingston, a major station.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Everyone would rather see Via spend more of taxpayer's dollars on a route that is twisty and avoids Kingston, a major station.

No. We want to see a route that connects the 10M people living in the GTA, Ottawa and Montreal in a reasonable amount of time. You know, the actual plurality (if not majority) of VIA's Corridor passengers.

You're making my point though of why the Corridor needs to be turned over to the province. Having Kingston hold a total catchment of 10M hostage is pretty ridiculous.

Also, if Kingston really is a major station, it should be able to anchor service to the large metros just fine. Shouldn't need inter-metro traffic to fill the trains.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

No. We want to see a route that connects the 10M people living in the GTA, Ottawa and Montreal in a reasonable amount of time. You know, the actual plurality (if not majority) of VIA's Corridor passengers.

You're making my point though of why the Corridor needs to be turned over to the province. Having Kingston hold a total catchment of 10M hostage is pretty ridiculous.

Also, if Kingston really is a major station, it should be able to anchor service to the large metros just fine. Shouldn't need inter-metro traffic to fill the trains.

450,000 was the ridership of Kingston in 2018. That is about 3 times the population of the city. Moving away from it is silly.

I also do not understand how a triple track cannot fit more passenger service.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

450,000 was the ridership of Kingston in 2018. That is about 3 times the population of the city. Moving away from it is silly.

I also do not understand how a triple track cannot fit more passenger service.

Cool. And how much ridership would the big 3 metros generate if skipping the Lakeshore gets travel time down to competitive with air on some segments?

I'm not suggesting that Kingston not be served. But it's bullshit to argue that they have to be on the same line as the big metros and have the same level of service. That is an argument that forces reliance on CN or CP and negates any ability to improve service between the large metros.

If we're going to build infrastructure, maximizing value means making difficult choices. That is just how the real world works. If cutting an hour off Toronto-Ottawa generates more ridership than Kingston in a year, then tough bananas, that is the sensible choice to be made. Kingston can get Lakeshore service and HFR can be routed through Peterborough.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

450,000 was the ridership of Kingston in 2018. That is about 3 times the population of the city. Moving away from it is silly.

I also do not understand how a triple track cannot fit more passenger service.

I'd be curious in which direction the Kingston traffic was headed. It is Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal bound?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by thewave46

I'd be curious in which direction the Kingston traffic was headed. It is Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal bound?

If I had to guess, it'd be something like 50% West, 30% towards Ottawa and 20% towards Montreal.

They'll be alright with 6-8 trains per day to Toronto and 4-6 trains each to Ottawa and Montreal.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Cool. And how much ridership would the big 3 metros generate if skipping the Lakeshore gets travel time down to competitive with air on some segments?

I'm not suggesting that Kingston not be served. But it's bullshit to argue that they have to be on the same line as the big metros and have the same level of service. That is an argument that forces reliance on CN or CP and negates any ability to improve service between the large metros.

How many billions will be spent to straighten the Havelock subdivision? It will be in the 10s of billions, if not higher to achieve the same average speeds as they get on the existing lakeshore line. I am not saying to not do it, but I am saying that it does not make sense, especially when it bypasses a major station. Kingston is the 5th busiest station. Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, London Are, in order the top stations above it.

I am all for expansion, and I am all for HFR. I just have my doubts that it can be done on the cheap and deliver. Let's be fair, it will be done on the cheap.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

How many billions will be spent to straighten the Havelock subdivision? It will be in the 10s of billions, if not higher to achieve the same average speeds as they get on the existing lakeshore line.

We all know your years of engineering experience and insider knowledge of the JPO study has let you know exactly how much they are going to invest in straightening.

The fact that you think HFR is going to cost more than the last HSR estimate should tell everybody what kind of bad faith bullshit this is.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am not saying to not do it,

... I'm just going to make every argument against it and resort to all kinds of unsubstantiated and unfounded FUD instead.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

. Kingston is the 5th busiest station.

I look forward to HFR East and West dropping Kingston below the Top 10 on VIA's network with skyrocketing ridership from every Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal core and suburban station, along with Peterborough, Pearson, Kitchener and London.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am all for expansion, and I am all for HFR.

Nah. You just have an anti-metro bias. It's just a different variation of the usual bullshit of someone in a podunk town complaining about why they have to pay for subways in Toronto.

And decades of this bullshit is finally coming home to roost with literally nothing getting built because everything has to be held hostage to some interest somewhere. Wilful and confident ignorance like yours is definitely a part of the reason we're in this mess.

I'm at the point where I don't care. I really don't give a shit about any city that doesn't make the list of top 15 CMAs. And even that's generous. Time to put some balance back in our decision-making. I'm sick of and pissed at the lack of progress in this country.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We all know your years of engineering experience and insider knowledge of the JPO study has let you exactly how much they are going to invest in straightening.

The fact that you think HFR is going to cost more than the last HSR estimate should tell everybody what kind of bad faith bullshit this is.

That estimate is going to bring the line back on. I do not feel it is high enough to take out many of the tight curves, which means a slower train. Now, if that price estimate is for a track that can sustain a speed of over 75 mph, I will be impressed.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

... I'm just going to make every argument against it and resort to all kinds of unsubstantiated and unfounded FUD instead.

I am allowed to be skeptical.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I look forward to HFR East and West dropping Kingston below the Top 10 on VIA's network with skyrocketing ridership from every Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal core and suburban station, along with Peterborough, Pearson, Kitchener and London.

Why would you want a station to have lower use? That is counter intuitive.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Nah. You just have an anti-metro bias. It's just a different variation of the usual bullshit of someone in a podunk town complaining about why they have to pay for subways in Toronto.

And decades of this bullshit is finally coming home to roost with literally nothing getting built because everything has to be held hostage to some interest somewhere. And wilful and confident ignorance like yours is definitely a part of the reason we're in this mess.

I'm at the point where I don't care. I really don't give a shit about any city that doesn't make the list of top 15 CMAs. And even that's generous. Time to put some balance back in our decision-making. I'm sick of and pissed at the lack of progress in this country.

Yet you want to cut service along the Canadian which serves 3 of the top 15 metros. And we still don't have service connecting them to the 4th biggest one. I at least want to improve it all. I don't want to cut. I don't want to cancel HFR or anywhere else. You really only care about Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal.

[Nouvellecosse]

The interesting thing about the current corridor route through Kingston is that the kind of frequency proposed by HFR would allow a greater mix of local and express trains (which already exist), meaning that many trains would not be stopping at intermediate stations such as Kingston. I would argue that there should be many express trains because it isn't reasonable to inconvenience everyone traveling between the major centres with lots of unnecessary delays. So Kingston wouldn't necessarily get any more trains than they currently do. And even if Kingston's service was improved, Peterborough, a city not all that much smaller, would continue to not get any service. Yet with the HFR plan, Peterborough would be served and Kingston's service would improve due to better scheduling.

Honestly, the whole "won't somebody think of Kingston?!?" angle doesn't make any sense - especially considering that Kingston council endorsed the proposal.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That estimate is going to bring the line back on. I do not feel it is high enough to take out many of the tight curves, which means a slower train. Now, if that price estimate is for a track that can sustain a speed of over 75 mph, I will be impressed.

If the line is "tens of billions" as you have asserted (which is more than the last HSR estimate for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal), I'll stop posting in this thread. If the HFR estimate comes in at under $10B, would you do the same?

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am allowed to be skeptical.

You're well past skeptical.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Why would you want a station to have lower use? That is counter intuitive.

Who said anything about lower use. I said they would drop in rankings as other stations saw ridership skyrocket. If HFR doubles traffic, that means there will be a hell of a lot of ridership at HFR stations and Kingston goes down the list, rendering another one of your talking points useless.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Yet you want to cut service along the Canadian which serves 3 of the top 15 metros.

Source where I said that? I have repeatedly suggested that the Canadian should be daily. I have repeatedly suggested the Ocean should be daily. I have argued for terminating the Ocean at Quebec City and investing in that corridor to allow for multiple dailies. And I have strongly advocated for Calgary-Edmonton, arguing that a JPO should be commenced to study it in-depth immediately.

Says a lot that you have to lie about my positions to defend your own.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I at least want to improve it all. I don't want to cut. I don't want to cancel HFR or anywhere else.

Bullshit. Your FUD on HFR gives you away. "I want to improve it all. But I'm just sooooo skeptical." Fuck off with that nonsense. You think we can't see through it?

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You really only care about Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal.

And Calgary-Edmonton, and Quebec City-Halifax. Etc. I care about providing service where investment delivers return and the most riders can benefit. You're just shy of advocating High Speed Rail between Whitehorse and Yellowknife with a special dining car for Moose.