VIA Rail

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by DirectionNorth

I don't think anyone is proposing a train that runs in the middle of the night, not if there's upgrades to CN track/bypasses.

It was just an example. The point here is that cost and comfort aren't the only considerations.

Originally Posted by DirectionNorth

With intercity rail in general, the only province with any leadership on this at all is Ontario (with ONR and GO expansion), and our "leadership" is at such a low standard that you could find it in an archaeological dig. Our provinces really should be shaming the federal government into providing funding by proposing projects and funding some of them, but as always, they just sit and wait and blame Ottawa to try and get them to pay for 100% of project costs.

Shaming the federal government? How about they actually start finding public transport sufficiently? They can find billions for roads, but balk at tens of millions per year for buses or rail. To build any sort of inter-provincial corridor actually requires some intra-provincial investment. There's no point in the feds jumping in, without the provinces showing some level of interest and effort.

[Acajack]

This talk about trains running in the middle of the night (well I guess an overnight train does have to do this) made me think of a discussion I had a few days ago on another forum.

Someone was talking about taking the Ocean from Montreal to Halifax, and when the topic of scenery came up, I realized that the prettiest scenery of the entire trip (from Mont-Joli to Campbellton in the Matapédia valley) was always traversed in the dark, in both directions.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This talk about trains running in the middle of the night (well I guess an overnight train does have to do this) made me think of a discussion I had a few days ago on another forum.

Someone was talking about taking the Ocean from Montreal to Halifax, and when the topic of scenery came up, I realized that the prettiest scenery of the entire trip (from Mont-Joli to Campbellton in the Matapédia valley) was always traversed in the dark, in both directions.

Correct (though, in Eastbound direction during the summer months, you can usually catch the Matapedia Valley by daylight if you rise with the sun),but what do you want VIA to do about it? The timings in Sainte-Foy are already uncomfortably enough in the night…

[ssiguy]

Over the mid-longer terms, I think one of the biggest hurdles VIA is going to face is having to reach net-zero by 2050.

Go to their website and they state that is the goal in keeping with all gov't agencies and currently talks about his current efforts to greatly reduce wastage and plastic usage. Those are good initiatives and I applaud them for it but that still doesn't reduce their emissions and their website is very silent about how they will get there. There is no way Ottawa will be able to force freight companies to reach net-zero while giving their own rail company a pass.

This is not a small issue for VIA but a major one that is going to cost a bundle. I know how I think they could get there but I won't state it lest I get racked over the coals again. How do you guys think they will get there?

[J81]

Originally Posted by someone123

I would imagine lots of SSPers have been on trains in Europe or Asia and seen them perform much better than VIA. The Maritimes won't be getting high-end trains but there's a wide spectrum between that and the current VIA trains used on that route.

I wonder how much of the difference between Canada and countries with better service is consistent gradual upgrading over time. The cost per year of upgrading to a good quality rail corridor through Truro during the 1880-2020 timeframe would have been very low. And traffic there is so light that closing a street down once in a while to build a bridge isn't a big deal. We basically gave up on rail around the 80's but now with the population exploding (Moncton growing at 6% per year, so any medium-term infrastructure project has to be built for a larger city) and congestion worsening with little appetite for road building in existing urban areas that decision isn't looking so great.

NS is considering spending multiple billions on the 102 corridor around Halifax. I wonder how that compares to money spent on transit, freight (to cut truck traffic; there's a plan to build an inland rail terminal), and intercity passenger rail. For the same budget you could do streetcars with some dedicated ROWs and lots of rail upgrades.

Ive been on many trains all over Europe and its like night and day compared to here. We live in the stone ages and that is truly unfortunate. I dont see it ever changing unfortunately. We were too obsessed with the car for the last half century

[J81]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

You never mentioned anything about being an employee in this exchange until just now so there was no indication where your counter information came from.

That said, when i search the scheduled time just for Halifax to Truro and Truro to Amherst segments, the train is actually faster than the bus from Halifax - Truro while the segment from Truro to Amherst is 34 min longer. So the extra 1/2 hr isn't from the Halifax station being farther. The longer distance is made up by the fact that the bus stops in Dartmouth and has to deal with red lights and traffic between stations. What makes the trip longer is the segment from Truro - Amherst which is over 1/2 hr longer on the train. So yes, the train route itself being slower in that section is what adds the extra time, not that the bus leaves from Dartmouth. Leaving from Dartmouth just makes the overall trip time shorter for those who can get to that stop faster.

And regardless, even if it was shorter due to the Dartmouth departure point being closer, I don't see how using Dartmouth for the comparison is somehow invalid. Halifax is a single city with two bus departure points and anyone is free to choose either one. And the Dartmouth one is closer or equally close for a large portion of people. And it's the passenger experience that's relevant here; it isn't about trying to be fair to different modes and place them on equal footing since a passenger has no reason to do that as part of their journey. No one in their right mind is going to say, "Well my overall trip will take 1/2 hr longer if I leave on the train from the Halifax side, but I'll force myself to do it anyway since it's unfair to the train to take the bus from Dartmouth." No, as members of the traveling public we're going to choose whatever option works best so if you want to compare the options you compare the best of each. But as the schedule shows, it's the train route itself that's slower.

Train departed Halifax on-time today at 1300 and arrived in Moncton at 1701. 4:01 trip time. Im not gonna argue with you anymore because its pointless. You have your opinion and thats that

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Over the mid-longer terms, I think one of the biggest hurdles VIA is going to face is having to reach net-zero by 2050.

Go to their website and they state that is the goal in keeping with all gov't agencies and currently talks about his current efforts to greatly reduce wastage and plastic usage. Those are good initiatives and I applaud them for it but that still doesn't reduce their emissions and their website is very silent about how they will get there. There is no way Ottawa will be able to force freight companies to reach net-zero while giving their own rail company a pass.

This is not a small issue for VIA but a major one that is going to cost a bundle. I know how I think they could get there but I won't state it lest I get racked over the coals again. How do you guys think they will get there?

VIA will reach net-zero the same way as the freight railroads: As most of VIA’s network is owned by freight railroads, these host railroads need to figure out how to decarbonize their own operations (OLE, Hydrogen, bio-fuels) and VIA will have little choice but to adopt their solution…

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J81

Ive been on many trains all over Europe and its like night and day compared to here. We live in the stone ages and that is truly unfortunate. I dont see it ever changing unfortunately. We were too obsessed with the car for the last half century

The car obsession is certainly part of it, but there is also a lack of population density. In Europe you are going to encounter a million+ city every 100 km or so from the 60th parallel to the Mediterranean coast.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

VIA will reach net-zero the same way as the freight railroads: As most of VIA’s network is owned by freight railroads, these host railroads need to figure out how to decarbonize their own operations (OLE, Hydrogen, bio-fuels) and VIA will have little choice but to adopt their solution…

I don't think you should take somebody who gleefully trumpets every setback on EVs seriously, when they are talking about Net Zero. Also, despite him posting this nonsense every few months, I have never seen a specific mandate to VIA or any other government department to hit Net Zero. Just a generic goal to work towards with green procurement rules. It's not like VIA gets shut down if they don't achieve Net Zero.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The car obsession is certainly part of it, but there is also a lack of population density. In Europe you are going to encounter a million+ city every 100 km or so from the 60th parallel to the Mediterranean coast.

Can we stop with this?

Nobody is suggesting that we build trains on Ellesmere Island. The QW and CalEd corridors are dense enough and we lack appropriate service in these corridors. And a huge part of why is because this BS about lacking population density nationally comes up as a red herring all the time. Same nonsense with with why we can't have cheaper cell rates while our telcos have some of the highest per user revenue and profits in the world. When will Canadians stop being so gullible with excuses of geography?

[jammer139]

High Speed Rail in today's LFP article.


https://lfpress.com/opinion/columnis...igh-speed-rail

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Can we stop with this?

Nobody is suggesting that we build trains on Ellesmere Island. The QW and CalEd corridors are dense enough and we lack appropriate service in these corridors. And a huge part of why is because this BS about lacking population density nationally comes up as a red herring all the time. Same nonsense with with why we can't have cheaper cell rates while our telcos have some of the highest per user revenue and profits in the world. When will Canadians stop being so gullible with excuses of geography?

These aren’t corridors, they are population centres separated by hundreds of km. CE and OT are cites separated by hundreds of km of nothing, roughly the distance between Paris and Amsterdam. There is no equivalent of Lille, Brussels, Antwerp and Rotterdam en route. Detroit-QC is plausibility a corridor in that there are multiple population centres en route, but the distance is huge, roughly the distance from Brussels to Florence.

[Nouvellecosse]

For intercity rail, it can actually be better to have fewer larger population centres rather than more smaller centres with the same total population. The fewer/larger scenario allows you to connect them without as many intermediate stops slowing things down. As long as the distance between the centres are well suited to allow rail travel times to compete with flying the intermediate stops don't help things. The way intermediate stops help is by increasing the total population and demand if the cities on either end aren't quite large to support the cost of infrastructure or service on their own since the track can serve double or triple duty providing longer distance intercity, regional shorter distance service, as well as short distance commuter.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

These aren’t corridors, they are population centres separated by hundreds of km. CE and OT are cites separated by hundreds of km of nothing, roughly the distance between Paris and Amsterdam. There is no equivalent of Lille, Brussels, Antwerp and Rotterdam en route. Detroit-QC is plausibility a corridor in that there are multiple population centres en route, but the distance is huge, roughly the distance from Brussels to Florence.

Explain to me how Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal would be substantially different from Barcelona-Zaragoza-Madrid, one of the most successful HSR lines anywhere. Similar distance. Similar population centres. And unlike us, they have cheap flights and don't get poor driving conditions a third of the year.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

For intercity rail, it can actually be better to have fewer larger population centres rather than more smaller centres with the same total population. The fewer/larger scenario allows you to connect them without as many intermediate stops slowing things down. As long as the distance between the centres are well suited to allow rail travel times to compete with flying the intermediate stops don't help things. The way intermediate stops help is by increasing the total population and demand if the cities on either end aren't quite large to support the cost of infrastructure or service on their own since the track can serve double or triple duty providing longer distance intercity, regional shorter distance service, as well as short distance commuter.

Canadians are full of excuses for why something can't get built. Same mentality is contributing to a housing crisis in another area. It's incredible to imagine that this is the same country that built a railroad across the country or mobilized massively for WWII. Would definately not happen with the current lot.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Explain to me how Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal would be substantially different from Barcelona-Zaragoza-Madrid, one of the most successful HSR lines anywhere. Similar distance. Similar population centres. And unlike us, they have cheap flights and don't get poor driving conditions a third of the year.

To me the most obvious difference is cost. If we could get a 500+ km HSR for 8 billion 2008 euros I think it would be a very different discussion. That would be cheaper than the Eglinton LRT, for example.

The other difference is the massive flight volume before HSR was built. It was by far the busiest flight pairing in Europe.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/docume...f-e36deaf4de8e

I can’t find comparable city pair stats for Canada, but just based on the number of weekly flights and size of plane used, I would expect it is a fraction of that.

A business model based on filling trains with former fliers is pretty straightforward, you can still charge a significant premium on the ticket and don’t have to worry about the price sensitive.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Explain to me how Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal would be substantially different from Barcelona-Zaragoza-Madrid, one of the most successful HSR lines anywhere. Similar distance. Similar population centres. And unlike us, they have cheap flights and don't get poor driving conditions a third of the year.

The main difference between intercity rail corridors in Europe and those in Canada is that whereas cities of almost all tiers have highly developped urban, suburban, regional and intercity rail networks which turn their downtown rail termini into buzzing hubs, only Toronto Union offers a remotely comparable connectivity, very unlike Montreal and the cruel joke we call our capital.

If we look at Berlin-Munich (because it has exactly the same distance as-the-crow-flies as Toronto-Montreal), Halle, Leipzig and Nürnberg have an impressive level of interconnections and even small nests like Ingolstadt (population: 142k, i.e., sinilar to Brantford) have a regional rail network which leaves Montreal in the dust.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Canadians are full of excuses for why something can't get built. Same mentality is contributing to a housing crisis in another area. It's incredible to imagine that this is the same country that built a railroad across the country or mobilized massively for WWII. Would definately not happen with the current lot.

To be fair, Ontario is the one jurisdiction in this country which spends on transit (at least in the GTHA) like there is no tomorrow. Granted, even after all of these projects have been completed, Toronto will have only narrowed the massive gap which separates it from its European peers, but the list is still sheer impressive:

• Scarborough Subway Extension
• Yonge North Subway Extension
• Ontario Line
• Regional Express Rail
• Eglinton Crosstown (incl. Western Extension)
• Finch LRT
• Hurontario LRT

Despite all the shortcomings, I don’t think Ontarians give themselves enough credit for how their steady stream of (funded and approved!) projects occupies a massive proportion of the transit-related Architecture, Construction and Engineering industry not just in the country, but in all of North America, and even more so for nurturing and building these capabilities within the GTHA, as I can attest first-hand…

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

To me the most obvious difference is cost. If we could get a 500+ km HSR for 8 billion 2008 euros I think it would be a very different discussion. That would be cheaper than the Eglinton LRT, for example.

The other difference is the massive flight volume before HSR was built. It was by far the busiest flight pairing in Europe.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/docume...f-e36deaf4de8e

I can’t find comparable city pair stats for Canada, but just based on the number of weekly flights and size of plane used, I would expect it is a fraction of that.

A business model based on filling trains with former fliers is pretty straightforward, you can still charge a significant premium on the ticket and don’t have to worry about the price sensitive.

1) Those cheap costs didn't just magically happen for the Spanish. A continuous pipeline of projects reinforced their learning curve. Something we will never achieve without actually building things. The only jurisdiction actually getting somewhere here is Ontario. And HxR could leverage that.

2) That flight volume in Spain is a result of their cheap flights. What would their flight volumes be if they charged our taxes and fees for flying? We don't have really cheap ways to actually travel between our major cities. Especially without a car. And that lack of connection is most assuredly impacting our economic productivity and competitiveness. Turning the TOM corridor in a single large employment and services market would almost certainly leave all of us better off.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

The main difference between intercity rail corridors in Europe and those in Canada is that whereas cities of almost all tiers have highly developped urban, suburban, regional and intercity rail networks which turn their downtown rail termini into buzzing hubs, only Toronto Union offers a remotely comparable connectivity, very unlike Montreal and the cruel joke we call our capital.

If we look at Berlin-Munich (because it has exactly the same distance as-the-crow-flies as Toronto-Montreal), Halle, Leipzig and Nürnberg have an impressive level of interconnections and even small nests like Ingolstadt (population: 142k, i.e., sinilar to Brantford) have a regional rail network which leaves Montreal in the dust.

The connectivity isn't European levels and will never be. But it's definitely going to be good enough to feed riders to HxR. And that's all that matters to get underway.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

To be fair, Ontario is the one jurisdiction in this country which spends on transit (at least in the GTHA) like there is no tomorrow. Granted, even after all of these projects have been completed, Toronto will have only narrowed the massive gap which separates it from its European peers, but the list is still sheer impressive:

• Scarborough Subway Extension
• Yonge North Subway Extension
• Ontario Line
• Regional Express Rail
• Eglinton Crosstown (incl. Western Extension)
• Finch LRT
• Hurontario LRT

Despite all the shortcomings, I don’t think Ontarians give themselves enough credit for how their steady stream of (funded and approved!) projects occupies a massive proportion of the transit-related Architecture, Construction and Engineering industry not just in the country, but in all of North America, and even more so for nurturing and building these capabilities within the GTHA, as I can attest first-hand…

I've always said what Ontario is doing here is impressive. Especially given that they are dealing with a more suburban environment and governments that aren't normally inclined to really support transit.

But something to keep in mind is that post RER, there isn't going to be a ton of opportunity for that talent to be used. Ideally a lot of that heavy rail expertise should get rolled into HxR. And I say HxR because we clearly don't need full HSR end to end. We need a Higher Speed Rail system with some high speed stretches in a system designed for growth. A lot of the core competency to build that is actually working on RER (or will ramp up) for the next few years.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

1) Those cheap costs didn't just magically happen for the Spanish. A continuous pipeline of projects reinforced their learning curve. Something we will never achieve without actually building things. The only jurisdiction actually getting somewhere here is Ontario. And HxR could leverage that.

2) That flight volume in Spain is a result of their cheap flights. What would their flight volumes be if they charged our taxes and fees for flying? We don't have really cheap ways to actually travel between our major cities. Especially without a car. And that lack of connection is most assuredly impacting our economic productivity and competitiveness. Turning the TOM corridor in a single large employment and services market would almost certainly leave all of us better off.

1). That is no doubt a factor, but I don’t think it is the main one. You could also get the same expertise by hiring Spanish companies. Look at differences in labour costs, the need in Canada for endless consultations, etc. We have the California model of infrastructure development. Hell, the CPR was built with hand tools in the time it has taken Trudeau to think about the HFR project.

2) Most of Europe has cheap flights, yet this was still the most popular one by a huge margin. The 85 million tourists a year no doubt contribute to this demand.