The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by DirectionNorth

I pose the same question here as to those who proposed this on UT.

1) How much will that cost?

2) What will need to be done to ensure freight shipments (trucks are more carbon intensive than cars) will continue to be shipped in an efficient manner?

3)Finally, what will this say about the business climate of Canada ("we'll just expropriate because we feel like it")?

1) Depends on the methods used. For example, the CP mainline was paid for by taxpayers. Have they ever paid that back? We could use that against them to lower the cost.

2) Regulations. Some regulations, such as not allowing goods to be transported over provincial lines with trucks. Another good way is road taxes and levies and tolls on commercial vehicles. Trucks are used due to 2 reasons a) lower cost, and/or b) JIT

We would need to prepare companies that need to change their manufacturing methods to remove the Just In Time deliveries from their business plan.

3) Many countries how the model that the government either own the railways, or they own the tracks and lease the operations. So, it would tell other companies that we are doing what most countries are doing. NA is special in a lot of ways.

We can dream of it, but really, all we really want is rail service that runs on time and is frequent enough to use without being stuck somewhere for an unreasonable time. There is no reason we cannot live in a smaller city and not need a car, and never have to fly unless crossing an ocean. We just don't have the political climate for that.

[MalcolmTucker]

I don’t know in whose mind the railroads have extra capacity. Because maybe they do around some eastern cities, but definitely they don’t on mainlines, where they’ve squeezed every bit of capacity out of the tracks.

In most instances extra capacity will need to be added. Cutting the pie up differently or changing who owns the pie will not add extra capacity.

Nationally, at least over the Rockies, we’re nearing the point where a large capacity expansion is needed. Due to the nature of railway capacity and railway capital spending after a certain point adding capacity is no longer somewhat linear but lumpy—a second or third track will need to be added.

Instead of fighting last battles, why not have the huge incremental capacity be government owned as part of a massive expansion scheme. I’d rather if spending government resources be getting something more for it that just reshuffling asset ownership for little purpose.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I don’t know in whose mind the railroads have extra capacity. Because maybe they do around some eastern cities, but definitely they don’t on mainlines, where they’ve squeezed every bit of capacity out of the tracks.

In most instances extra capacity will need to be added. Cutting the pie up differently or changing who owns the pie will not add extra capacity.

Nationally, at least over the Rockies, we’re nearing the point where a large capacity expansion is needed. Due to the nature of railway capacity and railway capital spending after a certain point adding capacity is no longer somewhat linear but lumpy—a second or third track will need to be added.

Instead of fighting last battles, why not have the huge incremental capacity be government owned as part of a massive expansion scheme. I’d rather if spending government resources be getting something more for it that just reshuffling asset ownership for little purpose.

You mean the capacity that used to be there but was torn up to save on maintenance costs?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You mean the capacity that used to be there but was torn up to save on maintenance costs?

Who should have paid for that? I guess we could have nationalized the loss making lines. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ that would have made everyone happy. And the extra capacity over northern Ontario would have really helped who? Over the western mountains the southern route was severed in the 60s - and it is unlikely to be a choice to recommission as its elevation changes are more numerous than the retained routes.

We really should have supported these lines for 30, 40, 60 years with losses until they were needed.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Who should have paid for that? I guess we could have nationalized the loss making lines. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ that would have made everyone happy. And the extra capacity over northern Ontario would have really helped who? Over the western mountains the southern route was severed in the 60s - and it is unlikely to be a choice to recommission as its elevation changes are more numerous than the retained routes.

We really should have supported these lines for 30, 40, 60 years with losses until they were needed.

Or, what about the abandonment of the CN and CP lines through the Ottawa Valley? You want more space through the busy Lakeshore Corridor? Don't send all Western traffic through Toronto.

Point is, a lot of this was done to maximize profit with no real benefit to the average Canadian citizen who is now feeling it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Or, what about the abandonment of the CN and CP lines through the Ottawa Valley? You want more space through the busy Lakeshore Corridor? Don't send all Western traffic through Toronto.

Point is, a lot of this was done to maximize profit with no real benefit to the average Canadian citizen who is now feeling it.

Those Canadian citizens (through their governments) should have paid to buy or maintain the track, if it was that valuable. They didn't. Clearly not as valuable to the average citizen as you suggest.

Contrast that with Metrolinx who has actually purchased a whole lot of track in the GGH for GO and is now investing further capital to fully grade separate and electrify those corridors.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Or, what about the abandonment of the CN and CP lines through the Ottawa Valley? You want more space through the busy Lakeshore Corridor? Don't send all Western traffic through Toronto.

Point is, a lot of this was done to maximize profit with no real benefit to the average Canadian citizen who is now feeling it.

Not many trains are coming from west of Sudbury to Montreal and Halifax. And those trains would still bottleneck south/west of Montreal with the corridor.

And a real benefit: lower taxes; lower deficit; money available to spend elsewhere for the past 60 years. Think of all the mass transit projects the government wouldn’t have funded with needing to fund loss making freight rail lines.

Even if there is a case for a ‘grand bypass’ today (there isn’t) which would provide more capacity for less cost than just expanding capacity in Toronto and in the corridor (which isn’t the case)—you still need to compare the cost of building the bypass today versus decades of retaining what we did have. Like do you think maintaining rail to a high standard is cheaper than it actually is? Or think that building new rail is much more expensive than it is? Or have little conception of the time value of money?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Those Canadian citizens (through their governments) should have paid to buy or maintain the track, if it was that valuable. They didn't. Clearly not as valuable to the average citizen as you suggest.

Contrast that with Metrolinx who has actually purchased a whole lot of track in the GGH for GO and is now investing further capital to fully grade separate and electrify those corridors.

... you mean back when we paid to build the first intercontinental railroad, or the time we collected all the failing lines into one government agency?

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Not many trains are coming from west of Sudbury to Montreal and Halifax. And those trains would still bottleneck south/west of Montreal with the corridor.

And a real benefit: lower taxes; lower deficit; money available to spend elsewhere for the past 60 years. Think of all the mass transit projects the government wouldn’t have funded with needing to fund loss making freight rail lines.

Even if there is a case for a ‘grand bypass’ today (there isn’t) which would provide more capacity for less cost than just expanding capacity in Toronto and in the corridor (which isn’t the case)—you still need to compare the cost of building the bypass today versus decades of retaining what we did have. Like do you think maintaining rail to a high standard is cheaper than it actually is? Or think that building new rail is much more expensive than it is? Or have little conception of the time value of money?

Do you have any data to back that up?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

... you mean back when we paid to build the first intercontinental railroad, or the time we collected all the failing lines into one government agency?

And then sold that agency as a public company in the stock market collecting a ton of revenue.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And then sold that agency as a public company in the stock market collecting a ton of revenue.

Are you going to try to say we got a great deal from that?

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Those Canadian citizens (through their governments) should have paid to buy or maintain the track, if it was that valuable. They didn't. Clearly not as valuable to the average citizen as you suggest.

Contrast that with Metrolinx who has actually purchased a whole lot of track in the GGH for GO and is now investing further capital to fully grade separate and electrify those corridors.

The average Canadian citizen does not have any knowledge of the rail network now or before and the traffic flows that on each of the lines. Unfortunately most of them want pavement, but that may change with climate change. Even the towns along the route in the Ottawa Valley wanted the railway out of town for their own co called local benefit. The local MP, Conservative Cheryl Gallant was in favour of getting rid of the railways in the valley. There was an agreement between CN and CP to operate a joint venture between Montreal and Sudbury but CN scuttled the deal because they did not want to operate it with unionized labour. There was sufficient traffic between the 2 railways to have a profitable operation with maintenance and capital costs focused only on one route.

The effect of this is to increase congestion on the Lakeshore route and delay Via trains so that their average speed is less than it was in the 1980's and more unreliable. This is after the Harper government spent 900$ million to triple track part of the route. We could have taken part of that money and relaid the tracks in the Valley, forced the railways to maintain some reasonable train service and avoid the blockades on the Lakeshore route put in place by the Mohawks of Tyendinaga every time they want to protest anything. The only reroute for freight trains is to use the CP route as they do not run through the reservation but it is only single track.

Other routes which have impacted the rail network in a similar fashion are;
1) the Newmarket sub through Barrie and Orilla where the few passenger trains that formerly used the route are stuck in traffic on the Bala sub on the east side of Lake Simcoe,
2) the BCR route where CN has downgraded the route and the operating employees that were certified on the route have either retired, quit, laid off or been reassigned to different terminals so it is not possible for CN to quickly divert trains to Vancouver via Prince George. Although the track profile might not allow for the long trains that CN runs on its mainline it could change the size of trains on the BCR. CN has done this for short term gain but until the route through the Fraser Canyon is rerouted to avoid the ever present mudslides, rock slides and avalanches they will always be subject to disruptions.
3) Ste Foy QC where the route along the south shore has be cut. This is mostly due to the federal government cutting back on Via service to the Gaspe and the Maritimes.

You cannot expect citizens in different parts of the country to be aware of these actions allowed by the federal government or to feel they have any vested interest in protecting these routes, which as a country we should have to protect the redundancy of the network. This is particularly important as long as railways are transporting important exports and imports not only to/from Canada but also goods transiting Canada destined to the US.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Even the towns along the route in the Ottawa Valley wanted the railway out of town for their own co called local benefit. The local MP, Conservative Cheryl Gallant was in favour of getting rid of the railways in the valley.

An inconvenient fact that railfans love to ignore is that local support is not always as universal as they believe.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

The average Canadian citizen does not have any knowledge of the rail network now or before and the traffic flows that on each of the lines. Unfortunately most of them want pavement, but that may change with climate change......

....

You cannot expect citizens in different parts of the country to be aware of these actions allowed by the federal government or to feel they have any vested interest in protecting these routes, which as a country we should have to protect the redundancy of the network. This is particularly important as long as railways are transporting important exports and imports not only to/from Canada but also goods transiting Canada destined to the US.

You're correct that we shouldn't expect the public to be railfans or rail network experts. But we've come about to this sorry state, because the public has broadly voted in governments that either cut funding for public transport or limited their support largely to incremental upgrades. The public is getting exactly what they voted and paid for, sadly.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Do you have any data to back that up?

Yes.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Yes.

Now, what if those 14 million tons did not go through Toronto?
I'd like to see how much of the 10 million could bypass Toronto.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Now, what if those 14 million tons did not go through Toronto?
I'd like to see how much of the 10 million could bypass Toronto.

Not much, considering 3 tracks through the Mountains moves 67,571,305 tonnes.



Plus we have anecdotal evidence in the CP east west connection through Toronto - 4 mixed trains a day. Pretty minimal.



Plus you'd need to remove most of the 4 million of those 14 million from Ontario - those aren't forest or metal products from the north moving to Montreal to be shipped out.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I don’t know in whose mind the railroads have extra capacity. Because maybe they do around some eastern cities, but definitely they don’t on mainlines, where they’ve squeezed every bit of capacity out of the tracks.

In most instances extra capacity will need to be added. Cutting the pie up differently or changing who owns the pie will not add extra capacity.

Nationally, at least over the Rockies, we’re nearing the point where a large capacity expansion is needed. Due to the nature of railway capacity and railway capital spending after a certain point adding capacity is no longer somewhat linear but lumpy—a second or third track will need to be added.

Instead of fighting last battles, why not have the huge incremental capacity be government owned as part of a massive expansion scheme. I’d rather if spending government resources be getting something more for it that just reshuffling asset ownership for little purpose.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Not much, considering 3 tracks through the Mountains moves 67,571,305 tonnes.



Plus we have anecdotal evidence in the CP east west connection through Toronto - 4 mixed trains a day. Pretty minimal.



Plus you'd need to remove most of the 4 million of those 14 million from Ontario - those aren't forest or metal products from the north moving to Montreal to be shipped out.

So, do they or don't they have capacity? Pick one.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, do they or don't they have capacity? Pick one.

Yes and no. Generally they don't have capacity to run long slow trains which makes many of the smaller passing sidings irrelevant. The capacity to operate more smaller trains is taken up by having fewer trains running on fewer sidings in theory. In practice it doesn't work with the current number of extended sidings and longer storage tracks in yards for long trains. In order to save more money, many of the small sidings are removed and the rail reused on siding extensions. Typically all the railways care about is the the financial benefits of having fewer train starts with fewer locomotives to operate, moving more slowly to burn less fuel, fewer crews and living under the burden of trying to obtain lower operating ratios to keep the institutional investors happy such as TCI. Double tracking adds to the depreciation expense and increased maintenance expense which in turn increases the Operating Ratio. Investors need a dose of reality as there is a limit to how low the OR can go and still maintain a fluid network.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Yes and no. Generally they don't have capacity to run long slow trains which makes many of the smaller passing sidings irrelevant. The capacity to operate more smaller trains is taken up by having fewer trains running on fewer sidings in theory. In practice it doesn't work with the current number of extended sidings and longer storage tracks in yards for long trains. In order to save more money, many of the small sidings are removed and the rail reused on siding extensions. Typically all the railways care about is the the financial benefits of having fewer train starts with fewer locomotives to operate, moving more slowly to burn less fuel, fewer crews and living under the burden of trying to obtain lower operating ratios to keep the institutional investors happy such as TCI. Double tracking adds to the depreciation expense and increased maintenance expense which in turn increases the Operating Ratio. Investors need a dose of reality as there is a limit to how low the OR can go and still maintain a fluid network.

With the network set up the way it is, I feel it may be long bast the days of short sidings. Some off the supply chain problems we are facing are due to the short sidings.Whether it be the blockades, or the floods/mudslides, the railway companies are learning the hard way how removing redundancy can hurt them. Hopefully, the shareholders are learning this fast enough too want change.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

With the network set up the way it is, I feel it may be long bast the days of short sidings. Some off the supply chain problems we are facing are due to the short sidings.Whether it be the blockades, or the floods/mudslides, the railway companies are learning the hard way how removing redundancy can hurt them. Hopefully, the shareholders are learning this fast enough too want change.

I don't quite believe that shareholders are learning fast enough in regards to change. CN scaled back their capital expansion for 2022 due to pressure from TCI in order to improve their operating issue. The railways should have learned long ago about having some redundancy to the network but they continue to do the same thing year after year by abandoning or downgrading lines. Why route trains from Prince George by going east first to go south on the CN route rather than sending trains south on the ex BCR route. They also put too much faith in Centralized Train Control as a method of shedding double trackage and increasing density on the lines. CN has still not replaced all the track they ripped up in Jasper National Park under Hunter Harrison. All they have to do is relay the rail since the roadbed already exists.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I don't quite believe that shareholders are learning fast enough in regards to change. CN scaled back their capital expansion for 2022 due to pressure from TCI in order to improve their operating issue. The railways should have learned long ago about having some redundancy to the network but they continue to do the same thing year after year by abandoning or downgrading lines. Why route trains from Prince George by going east first to go south on the CN route rather than sending trains south on the ex BCR route. They also put too much faith in Centralized Train Control as a method of shedding double trackage and increasing density on the lines. CN has still not replaced all the track they ripped up in Jasper National Park under Hunter Harrison. All they have to do is relay the rail since the roadbed already exists.

They still think that wiggling trains in between each other going opposite directions works. .... and we wonder why thing are in such a disarray.