VIA Rail

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

It's not like the government is being asked to write a check tomorrow for 10-15 billion dollars.

True. But politicians and partisans don't see it like that.

Simple thought exercise. What would the reaction be in various parts of the country if the Trudeau Liberals announced $16B for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal HSR tomorrow?

You're from London (so is my wife btw). I think we both know what the reaction would be. "Those big cities are always getting the money. Why can't they build something to London first?". And it's exactly this kind of reaction that compels governments to be cautious. That's just London. I expect folks out West to be utterly apoplectic if such an announcement was made. "He took our oil money and is using it to build Choo-Choos for those Soy Boys in Toronto and Montreal."

Originally Posted by Djeffery

How many years would HSR take to build out? The feds of either party always come out with wild-assed plans for things they plan to do a decade down the road.

Both parties? When was the last time a conservative government committed to even studying higher speed rail? They will occasionally shell out to protect rural rail services that impact their base. But that's about it. I fully expect any CPC government to scrap all of VIA's major capital projects, close the Canada Infrastructure Bank and refuse to release the JPO report on HFR. That's just how the CPC rolls.

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Surely a major economic boost like a several year construction project at a couple or three billion a year can be fit in the plans.

HSR would take closer to a decade to build. And that is exactly the problem. Nobody who approves it will be in office to benefit from it politically, while they'll have to take all kinds of shit for approving it.

HFR, however, can be substantially built in one term. There's a chance an approving government might benefit politically. And once HFR is built, various straightening or grade separation projects can all be done in one term, progressively upgrading it closer to HSR. Think of how GO is building towards RER right now.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

True. But politicians and partisans don't see it like that.

Simple thought exercise. What would the reaction be in various parts of the country if the Trudeau Liberals announced $16B for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal HSR tomorrow?

You're from London (so is my wife btw). I think we both know what the reaction would be. "Those big cities are always getting the money. Why can't they build something to London first?". And it's exactly this kind of reaction that compels governments to be cautious. That's just London. I expect folks out West to be utterly apoplectic if such an announcement was made. "He took our oil money and is using it to build Choo-Choos for those Soy Boys in Toronto and Montreal."

Soy Boys hehehe

But seriously though, would the reaction really be that negative? Did people out west get angry when the feds gave CN money to buy the Turbo trainsets in the 60s? Or when VIA was funded to buy LRC trainsets in the 80s? I'm not aware that was the case.

By the same token, did people in Bordeaux get angry when Paris-Lyon HSR was originally built or did they accept that this was simply a fact of life... that the largest, most densely populated cities were going to receive these services first?

I don't think the reaction in these parts would be outright anger so much as it might simply be "well, they're getting the trains... what are we getting?"

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by esquire

Soy Boys hehehe

But seriously though, would the reaction really be that negative? Did people out west get angry when the feds gave CN money to buy the Turbo trainsets in the 60s? Or when VIA was funded to buy LRC trainsets in the 80s? I'm not aware that was the case.

By the same token, did people in Bordeaux get angry when Paris-Lyon HSR was originally built or did they accept that this was simply a fact of life... that the largest, most densely populated cities were going to receive these services first?

I don't think the reaction in these parts would be outright anger so much as it might simply be "well, they're getting the trains... what are we getting?"

I don't disagree with you but this sort of argument happens all the time. HS2 in the UK has all sorts of debate over not building it the way it is, instead building it from north down, or improving local routes instead etc. But all it achieves is delaying the subject project.

As long as a similar proportion of funds is spent in the other provinces on infrastructure (likely not rail) I don't see why it being built in Ontario should be the biggest problem. I doubt many people would even pay much attention, it's not like anyone is talking about the billions of federal funds being invested in transport in Toronto.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

[...]

Whatever and good bye!

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by esquire

Soy Boys hehehe

But seriously though, would the reaction really be that negative? Did people out west get angry when the feds gave CN money to buy the Turbo trainsets in the 60s? Or when VIA was funded to buy LRC trainsets in the 80s? I'm not aware that was the case.

I really wish I could be more optimistic. But I fear our political polarization is such that there's a strong incentive and urge to weaponize any large infrastructure proposal for political gain.

Originally Posted by esquire

By the same token, did people in Bordeaux get angry when Paris-Lyon HSR was originally built or did they accept that this was simply a fact of life... that the largest, most densely populated cities were going to receive these services first?

Europe is very different. They don't really have provincial governments the way that we do. And their capital cities are highly dominant. Governments just don't care that much about what the rurals think. They build what is in the national interest first.

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't think the reaction in these parts would be outright anger so much as it might simply be "well, they're getting the trains... what are we getting?"

That's the problem though. A government committing to $16B for TOM HSR isn't going to have much in the tank for anything else. At least not for a few years. So that's going to inevitably be spun as Laurentian favoritism.

Conversely, the government would have to announce some insane $30-40B rail plan with a chicken in every pot. Just imagine how that would get spun by those screaming about the spendthrift Liberals.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

....it's not like anyone is talking about the billions of federal funds being invested in transport in Toronto.

Because every city in Canada gets transit funding. Small towns get funding for buses and bus garages. A large rail infrastructure committment would necessarily be restricted to the largest cities. And that's really easy to spin as favoritism. This would be especially if true if any HSR announcement didn't come with other commitments for rail investments elsewhere.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I still say a 3 1/2 rail journey is the more attractive option even if in your example the A to B journey comes in at 3 hours, or just a bit quicker.

It's marginally quicker to go from Central London to Edinburgh by air in comparison the fastest Flying Scotsman, but the railway completely dominates that market. The idea is to dramatically increase the market share. Railways have a marked advantage on trips at or below about 4 hours.

I am not sure “completely dominates” is the right description, rail has a 33% market share (or did 4 years ago).

https://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/virgintrai...ines-between-scotland-and-london-2114238

My example was 2.5 post REM.

3.5 would require pretty much full dedicated track conventional if bypassing Ottawa or HSR if routed through Ottawa. That’s a lot of money to still be an hour longer than flying.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I am not sure “completely dominates” is the right description, rail has a 33% market share (or did 4 years ago).

https://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/virgintrai...ines-between-scotland-and-london-2114238

Marginal faster to Central London is also nonsense. Maybe if you fly from Heathrow and take the Tube to the airport. Fly from London City and it's a max of 3 hrs from city centre to city centre. Including security.

There's a reason why they are building HS2.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Both parties? When was the last time a conservative government committed to even studying higher speed rail? They will occasionally shell out to protect rural rail services that impact their base. But that's about it. I fully expect any CPC government to scrap all of VIA's major capital projects, close the Canada Infrastructure Bank and refuse to release the JPO report on HFR. That's just how the CPC rolls.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant big ticket long term spending plans in general, not rail specific. The "you better elect us for 2 more terms if you want to see it done" kind of stuff.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant big ticket long term spending plans in general, not rail specific. The "you better elect us for 2 more terms if you want to see it done" kind of stuff.

The provincial Liberals tried to do that with the Toronto-Kitchener-London HSR. How'd that work out?

The reality is that there's not enough of a constituency for rail in Canada. Other than some nutters like us on forums like these, nobody is voting according to start rail investment is offered. And certainly not in enough numbers and concentration to flip any seats.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's a reason why they are building HS2.

There is - capacity on the WCML. Speed is secondary but improves the business case.

Point being, the UK waited until the WCML was absolutely rammed, one of the busiest railways there is, before investing in HSR. They probably should have invested earlier, but the takeaway is that you don't invest in the most expensive solution when the cheaper solution isn't at capacity.

[Truenorth00]

Good point. From that perspective, HFR can be seen as the Corridor reliever. Our logical next step.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Good point. From that perspective, HFR can be seen as the Corridor reliever. Our logical next step.

There are some comparisons to be made. The UK chose not to invest in HSR earlier like France did and instead upgrade its existing lines. This was mostly fine on the flat, straight and less busy ECML but the WCML is busier and windier. The upgrade program for the WCML was extremely complicated and went over budget and late but did deliver capacity improvements but not enough. Trying to upgrade it more has been suggested but the UK made the correct decision to just build a new line which will increase capacity massively, improve journey times and allow better local service on the old route.

The corridor is analogous in one sense in that upgrading the existing route is a losing battle. Better to build a new route that is future proofed, and maintain the old one for more local service.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That's the problem though. A government committing to $16B for TOM HSR isn't going to have much in the tank for anything else. At least not for a few years. So that's going to inevitably be spun as Laurentian favoritism.

Conversely, the government would have to announce some insane $30-40B rail plan with a chicken in every pot. Just imagine how that would get spun by those screaming about the spendthrift Liberals.

The feds spend enough in every region that I don't think it would be that hard to pick and choose a particular project, which was likely going to happen anyway, point at it and say "here you go, here's your project".

To relate this to my personal parenting experiences... when I buy my son a soccer jersey or some other thing he likes, I don't go out and get my daughter the exact same thing so it's fair. She doesn't need it and more to the point, she doesn't care about soccer. I get her a doll or something else she wants, and I give them their stuff at the same time. Everyone gets something, everyone's happy. This is basically the principle that Liberal infrastructure programs have been run on going back to the Chretien years.

It's not at all out of the realm of political possibility... I simply don't see there being any likelihood of massive regional blowback to the federal government.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by esquire

The feds spend enough in every region that I don't think it would be that hard to pick and choose a particular project, which was likely going to happen anyway, point at it and say "here you go, here's your project".

To relate this to my personal parenting experiences... when I buy my son a soccer jersey or some other thing he likes, I don't go out and get my daughter the exact same thing so it's fair. She doesn't need it and more to the point, she doesn't care about soccer. I get her a doll or something else she wants, and I give them their stuff at the same time. Everyone gets something, everyone's happy. This is basically the principle that Liberal infrastructure programs have been run on going back to the Chretien years.

It's not at all out of the realm of political possibility... I simply don't see there being any likelihood of massive regional blowback to the federal government.

I see your point and agree with it, but I don't think it's the issue at large.

I think the real reason is that the feds don't actually care much at all. I don't think they want to spend anything more than they have to on inter-city rail, because there's not much political advantage to do so.

VIA withered and nobody cared enough to change the political calculus of the country at large.

Which is why I've given up on the federal government. They're happy to spend money when they can milk some political advantage - see how we've they put tons of money into public transit within cities. I don't think we've seen this sustained investment in public transit in decades.

Hence, I'm advocating for a provincial transfer. Let Quebec and Ontario decide what to do with the Corridor, because those provinces seem willing to expand and provide rail service in a meaningful way that the feds aren't. GO/Exo have expanded their mandates, so I could see the next step being to connect their largest cities together by rail (London-Toronto-Ottawa and Montreal-Quebec). Sure, there might be some negotiating for inter-provincial service, but I don't think it's an insurmountable thing.

VIA can have the Ocean go all the way to Toronto and meet the Canadian there and focus on long-haul combined with the mandatory services.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by thewave46

I see your point and agree with it, but I don't think it's the issue at large.

I think the real reason is that the feds don't actually care much at all. I don't think they want to spend anything more than they have to on inter-city rail, because there's not much political advantage to do so.

VIA withered and nobody cared enough to change the political calculus of the country at large.

Totally agree that this is the real reason. The feds spend money on all kinds of things all the time so the ability to do so is not the issue at all here. It comes down to political will which is totally lacking.

Considering the fact that the last meaningful progress towards HSR in the corridor was the purchase of Turbo trainsets in the 60s, the two provinces might as well step in and take over... it's not like they would really do any worse than Ottawa/VIA have over the last 40+ years.

[Truenorth00]

I've been saying exactly this. And I get accused of wanting to cut rail services.

This isn't the 90s or even 2000s. Ontario and Quebec are going through a rail renaissance. We have conservative governments in both provinces who have actually expanded both transit and ex-urban rail services. Ontario is looking at restoring Northland without much federal support. So what exactly do the feds bring to the table here?

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by esquire

Totally agree that this is the real reason. The feds spend money on all kinds of things all the time so the ability to do so is not the issue at all here. It comes down to political will which is totally lacking.

Considering the fact that the last meaningful progress towards HSR in the corridor was the purchase of Turbo trainsets in the 60s, the two provinces might as well step in and take over... it's not like they would really do any worse than Ottawa/VIA have over the last 40+ years.

VIA's mission is so conflicted that it does nothing successfully, much less can advocate for something meaningful.

It's not dissimilar to trying to mandate that Air Canada do everything from bush fly-in and fly-out to intercontinental service. Sometimes, smaller specific operators with focus (Perimeter, Bearskin, Provincial Airlines, Canadian North) can do the job better, because they can actually focus on one thing and be good at that one thing.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

A comparison between two transcontinental routes:

Amtrak Empire Builder

Chicago to Seattle (or Portland), we'll use the Seattle leg as that is more patronised.

2,206 miles, 46 hours, rail average speed (RAS) 48 mph.

Chicago - Saint Paul 417 mi., , 7h48m, RAS 53 mph
Saint Paul - Shelby, Mont., 1054 mi., 19h57m, RAS 53 mph
Shelby - Seattle, 735 mi., 17h03m, RAS 43 mph

VIA Canadian

Toronto to Vancouver

2,775 miles, 97h15m, RAS 28 mph

Toronto - Capreol 276 mi., , 7h37m, RAS 36 mph
Capreol - Winnipeg, 931 mi., 26h38m, RAS 35 mph
Winnipeg - Edmonton, 794 mi., 24h20m, RAS 33 mph
Edmonton -Vancouver, 774 mi., 33h00m, RAS 23 mph

So whether the Canadian should run daily, or six days per week, or two days per week, or not at all, the question that everyone should ask is why the service on the Canadian is so inferior to the a similar train in the United States? Is the answer that we are a second-rate country that should just forget about passenger rail? I don't know, but if that's what it is, that's what it is, and move on with it. But I don't believe it for a minute.

If RAS were roughly similar, Toronto-Capreol would be 5 1/2 hours, Capreol-Winnipeg would be 19 hours, Winnipeg-Edmonton would be 15 hours, and Edmonton-Vancouver 18 hours. so including stops, the entire journey would come in at just over 60 hours, a 36 hour reduction.

We don't even need to look outside of ON for a comparison. When the Northlander was operating, with ex GO coaches, it was able to do about the same distance in 5 hours. The problem is the lines are busy and because of various reasons, it usually takes the siding.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Where are your relevant facts? Beyond saying can't do this, can't do that. I've seen none. I've seen no argument, no refutation, nothing. As for expertise, I'm wondering if you've ever been on an intercity train. I suppose you didn't know either that the Toronto-Montreal route had faster service in the 1970s. You offer no knowledge of railway travel or systems in other countries. You offer no proposals, no ideas, to improve VIA's service. If you don't like random internet forums about passenger rail travel in Canada, then go elsewhere. You offer nothing anyways but vapid, scripted and negative commentary.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Whatever these credentials are, and if there are any at all, have no relation to passenger rail travel or systems. Your main issue appears to be that I arrived on this thread after you, an extreme example of pettiness. You don't have to read my posts and I would ask that you do not reply to them again. You're too negative for me and offer nothing interesting.

Some people work for Via, but they are not a high up person and feel they know everything. I blocked him and have been happy not to see the ramblings of someone who, after pointing out what their own data says.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Exactly. And this is why rail in the Corridor will need substantial investment to compete and a separation of TOM traffic from the Lakeshore. Can't be competitive without it.

Even HFR can only hope to be an hr slower than air door-to-door for Toronto-Ottawa. And only competitive with driving Toronto-Montreal. Anything more requires high speed rail.

Wait, I thought you said that 4.4 billion will get the train to Ottawa within 4 hours.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ah yes. A guy who worked as a planner and scheduler at VIA knows nothing about passenger rail travel or systems.

We've gotten to the point where railfans think they know more than the pros by virtue of fandom. Ridiculous.

Trust me, I met many people who do a job that have no idea how to do their job but do it good enough not to get fired. Someone who posts data and cannot see how their data does not support their line they are holding is not someone who sounds like a pro.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

You know nothing about me and so suggesting that I am purely a railfan has no basis in evidence. Anyways doesn't matter, the posts speak for themselves. See ya.

Too many people here think that if you want better rail for all Canadians, and not just the ones in the T-O-M that we must be rainfans.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Last one for you I meant. And just so you know, there's no seniority here.

We all must bow to urbansky and his infinite wisdom. You are new here. They don't like it when you don't bow down to the 20 something kid who thinks he knows everything. Isn't there a 20 something kid that rules with an iron fist in a country in Asia?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yep. Nobody has done more to make VIA's decision-making process less opaque. And thanks to his efforts, we at least understand that a lot of issues are less about management of resources than VIA just being substantially under-resourced. Yet all we get are railfans talking casually about $10B rail lines as if nobody has thought of just asking the government to fork over $10 billion dollars before....

Wait, it took hi for you to figure that out? What rock have you been living under? I knew it before signing up here. The fact that most of our equipment is older than me tells me that there is a funding issue.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's alright. I get why basement dwelling neckbeards have to insult others on an internet forum. It's all you've got, when you don't even have facts.

Also, I'm curious how old of a grandpa you must be to not understand the cultural reference made?

Look in the mirror. I think you need a shave.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We've had a half century of high speed rail talk and studies. And every time they study the price goes up, the government gets sticker shock and shelves the whole idea till another generation of politicians comes along a decade later. How long are we going to put up with this shit? I'd like to ride a moderately fast service in the Corridor in my lifetime. And I'm in my early 40s and not sure that's going to happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10cXpd8haQQ

BTW, we are about the same age.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Sorry, what? What was wrong with my answer? If one wants traffic data its just as easy as for you as it is for me to look that up but I gave an anecdotal description which I thought was appropriate to the context. If anyone wants more information they can ask.

Define heavy traffic. Define light traffic.
It is much better to give data and comparisons than your feelings.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Simple thought exercise. What would the reaction be in various parts of the country if the Trudeau Liberals announced $16B for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal HSR tomorrow?

"Ontario and Quebec get everything, when we pay high taxes..."
It is the sound of the oil workers when anything happens. If you got out of the GTA and out of the large cities you might hear it.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Both parties? When was the last time a conservative government committed to even studying higher speed rail? They will occasionally shell out to protect rural rail services that impact their base. But that's about it. I fully expect any CPC government to scrap all of VIA's major capital projects, close the Canada Infrastructure Bank and refuse to release the JPO report on HFR. That's just how the CPC rolls.

Who did the HSR study in AB? I thought that was a conservative government.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

HSR would take closer to a decade to build. And that is exactly the problem. Nobody who approves it will be in office to benefit from it politically, while they'll have to take all kinds of shit for approving it.

HFR, however, can be substantially built in one term. There's a chance an approving government might benefit politically. And once HFR is built, various straightening or grade separation projects can all be done in one term, progressively upgrading it closer to HSR. Think of how GO is building towards RER right now.

Let's say the next federal budget has the money earmarked for HFR, The next election has to happen by 2023. There is no way substantial work will be done by then.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Because every city in Canada gets transit funding. Small towns get funding for buses and bus garages. A large rail infrastructure committment would necessarily be restricted to the largest cities. And that's really easy to spin as favoritism. This would be especially if true if any HSR announcement didn't come with other commitments for rail investments elsewhere.

If the feds announced HSR along with other projects for other provinces, like HFR for C-E, it wouldn't look like favouritism. Just like how announcing a subway extension and then a few weeks later, a new Skytrain extension doesn't look like favouritism.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The provincial Liberals tried to do that with the Toronto-Kitchener-London HSR. How'd that work out?

The reality is that there's not enough of a constituency for rail in Canada. Other than some nutters like us on forums like these, nobody is voting according to start rail investment is offered. And certainly not in enough numbers and concentration to flip any seats.

When they were trying to get that going, the province of Ontario was broke. So bad that they were getting equalization payments. There was no money for it. If Ford wanted it to be built, he could probably get it paid partly by the feds.

Originally Posted by esquire

The feds spend enough in every region that I don't think it would be that hard to pick and choose a particular project, which was likely going to happen anyway, point at it and say "here you go, here's your project".

To relate this to my personal parenting experiences... when I buy my son a soccer jersey or some other thing he likes, I don't go out and get my daughter the exact same thing so it's fair. She doesn't need it and more to the point, she doesn't care about soccer. I get her a doll or something else she wants, and I give them their stuff at the same time. Everyone gets something, everyone's happy. This is basically the principle that Liberal infrastructure programs have been run on going back to the Chretien years.

It's not at all out of the realm of political possibility... I simply don't see there being any likelihood of massive regional blowback to the federal government.

With the fact that AB has no liberal MPs, I'd say there is lots of blow back. Buying a pipeline wasn't good enough.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I've been saying exactly this. And I get accused of wanting to cut rail services.

This isn't the 90s or even 2000s. Ontario and Quebec are going through a rail renaissance. We have conservative governments in both provinces who have actually expanded both transit and ex-urban rail services. Ontario is looking at restoring Northland without much federal support. So what exactly do the feds bring to the table here?

They are not restoring the Northland. They are restoring the Northlander. One ends in Hearst, the other in Cochrane. They are also going from a 6 trips a week to 4. I wouldn't call that a renaissance. I'd call that a "shut up and leave us alone" thing. Going back to the comparison to kids, it is the "I bought you the damn toy, now leave me alone."

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by thewave46

VIA's mission is so conflicted that it does nothing successfully, much less can advocate for something meaningful.

It's not dissimilar to trying to mandate that Air Canada do everything from bush fly-in and fly-out to intercontinental service. Sometimes, smaller specific operators with focus (Perimeter, Bearskin, Provincial Airlines, Canadian North) can do the job better, because they can actually focus on one thing and be good at that one thing.

Interesting comparison. I like it. Let's go a few steps further. Those smaller air carriers do not usually fly into the busiest airport, such as YYZ due to many reasons, including the act that there are only so many slots to fit aircraft in. They fly to smaller airlines and work with other airlines to get the rest of the way. My wife, an RN has done the fly in fly out northern nursing things and sometimes her baggage is checked once the whole way into those FN reserves, even though she is starting her flight on AC. Currently to access those areas, those air carriers are flying into smaller GTA airports and then charters to those communities. Even still, they are not flying into YYZ due to the business of it and covid isolation requirements.

Via could be broken up for different types of service, but that isn't the problem. The problem is that all rail lines are very busy. Some of that is due to shear increase in goods being moved by train, while other reasons have more to do with the fact that where there once was double track, some of it has been removed simply to save costs. Having a little plane land at YYZ during normal times is no different than adding more VIA service. Something has to change before anything better can happen outside the Corridor. HFR route is the answer for the Corridor. It won't be the answer elsewhere.