VIA Rail

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Fat chance. Ad J81 said, “ For whatever reason our government refuses to look into this avenue.”

It actually isn’t quite that cut and dry though. South of the border, the railroads asked for relief from the responsibility of operating passenger service, and the government agreed to take it over on the condition that they give passenger trains priority and that’s how Amtrak was formed.

North of the boarder, P.E.T. wanted to do the same thing so he split the passenger and freight devisions of CN into separate Crown Corporations and this formed VIA Rail. Since they were both Crown Corporations, VIA’s priority was assured. Within a couple years, it became obvious to VIA that to be successful they would also need to take over CP’s passenger services. As a negotiating tactic, CP pretended to not want to give it up. Sonce VIA seemed more desperate to awuire it than CP was to dispose of it, it was easy for CP to avoid that clause.

Years later, when CN was privatized under Mulroney, since VIA didn’t have priority on CP’s tracks, why should they have priority on CN’s tracks. Besides, Mulroney wasn’t a huge fan of VIA anyway and waving that right likely allowed them to sell it for more.

I don't assume it would be easy, or even straight forward. I do assume that he could get the support from the NDP for this. The cons will fight him tooth and nail.

It almost sounds like the one that axed Via and sold off CN is the real culprit.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by roger1818

As a negotiating tactic, CP pretended to not want to give it up. Sonce VIA seemed more desperate to awuire it than CP was to dispose of it, it was easy for CP to avoid that clause.

That account seems very unlikely to me given that CP was known to be trying to get rid of pretty well all of its intercity passenger services as far back as the 1960s, just that they couldn't do it in the then heavily-regulated environment.

Compared to CN which was actually trying hard with marketing, equipment improvements, etc., CP put almost no effort into their passenger services. It would have been abundantly clear by the 1970s that they were very eager to get out of that business.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am doing this exact thing. I am working on it with others. Want to join us?

Nope. I don't want to waste my time on what I know will be a futile effort. There's no business case for spending billions in capital to connect cities that are half the size of most GTA suburbs.

And I trust the professionals (like Urban_Sky) who do this for a living to come up with detailed modelling that allows decisionmakers to make fully informed decisions. You've seen what he's done here on his spare time with publicly accessible information. Now imagine the models he presents at work with proprietary data and 40 hrs/wk to work on them.

One of the huge downsides of the internet is that every amateur thinks he can be a pro just because he read a few articles on Wikipedia. I share Urban_Sky's frustrations when I discuss the F-35 or defence policy in forums. Because my dayjob gives me tons of knowledge about the how fighter ops works and the strengths and weaknesses of various platforms. But of course, every moron who saw a youtube video or read a Wikipedia article thinks they know the gospel truth. That experience has absolutely reinforced my faith in the competence of professionals and the ignorance of amateurs.

[J81]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Nope. I don't want to waste my time on what I know will be a futile effort. There's no business case for spending billions in capital to connect cities that are half the size of most GTA suburbs.

And I trust the professionals (like Urban_Sky) who do this for a living to come up with detailed modelling that allows decisionmakers to make fully informed decisions. You've seen what he's done here on his spare time with publicly accessible information. Now imagine the models he presents at work with proprietary data and 40 hrs/wk to work on them.

One of the huge downsides of the internet is that every amateur thinks he can be a pro just because he read a few articles on Wikipedia. I share Urban_Sky's frustrations when I discuss the F-35 or defence policy in forums. Because my dayjob gives me tons of knowledge about the how fighter ops works and the strengths and weaknesses of various platforms. But of course, every moron who saw a youtube video or read a Wikipedia article thinks they know the gospel truth. That experience has absolutely reinforced my faith in the competence of professionals and the ignorance of amateurs.

Oooh id love to know your thoughts on the F-35.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by J81

Oooh id love to know your thoughts on the F-35.

So would I. As an ex military member, there are some facts that even the most strongest opponents and proponents don't want to agree on.

But, that does not matter on VIA. It is not like they are going to use planes.... oh, wait, the government does pay for those too.....

[Truenorth00]

Feel free to post your data on here. It'll be real entertaining to watch the realization set in that most of these proposed fantasy proposals aren't within an order of magnitude of financial viability.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Feel free to post your data on here. It'll be real entertaining to watch the realization set in that most of these proposed fantasy proposals aren't within an order of magnitude of financial viability.

Naw. I'll bring it to my local MP and see what they can action on it. Maybe take a drive to Montreal and show it to some MPs there.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Naw. I'll bring it to my local MP and see what they can action on it. Maybe take a drive to Montreal and show it to some MPs there.

"Hey Local MP. Here's my multibillion dollar plan for trains to nowhere."

"Hi Constituent. I'll pass it on to someone who cares."

Thinking, "Oy vey. What the hell did I sign up for?"

But I'm happy you'll be making your MP earn his lunch money.....

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

"Hey Local MP. Here's my multibillion dollar plan for trains to nowhere."

"Hi Constituent. I'll pass it on to someone who cares."

Thinking, "Oy vey. What the hell did I sign up for?"

But I'm happy you'll be making your MP earn his lunch money.....

You know, for the average constituent, that is exactly how that goes.

But I am not your average constituent.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You know, for the average constituent, that is exactly how that goes.

But I am not your average constituent.

I’m afraid that this is actually the core of the problem: MPs care about whatever matters to its electorate (as a collective) enough to sway their voting decision towards one or the other candidate. The less you can convince your MP that your request resonates with the overall needs and desires of his constituents, the less he will feel inclined to consider it in his own list of priorities to lobby the government for...

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You know, for the average constituent, that is exactly how that goes.

But I am not your average constituent.

Imagine thinking that the average MP has the power to sway cabinet on multi-billion dollar proposals that don't boost electability.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Agreed, it is the scale of the relative difference. That is why I said:


I disagree with the dead part, but I agree with the part in bold. That is why I said North American trains don't rely on crumple zones, but instead:
ridged frame ≠crumple zone

A rigid frame can't just absorb all the impact, something has to give. Physics is a thing that exists. It's claimed the FRA rules require the rigid frame to be able to withstand 800,000lb of force (god I hate imperial), so let's look at that.

If you use newtonian equations and assume a 1000 ton freight train travelling at 100km/h hits another stationary train, and that train absorbs the impact in a 1m crumple zone at the front, that force is equal to about 380 million Newtons, or 87,000,000lb force. It's been a while, but I was able to calculate this myself and there is also a calcuator here.

87,000,000lb is quite a lot larger than that 800,000lb, so it's clear that having body frames that strong is irrelevant in a head on collision. Essentially, the entire front unit would become the crumple zone. If US trains are surviving impacts, it's not because of that rigid frame. And European freight trains can be heavier than 1000 ton, and the combined speed could be much larger, so that force number could get larger and larger, even though it's already 100x larger than the limit the FRA mandates a frame survive.

So one has to ask the question, if that rigid body frame rule is meaningless, what is the point of the rules? Why is it "better" than the European crash safety rules, which take into account many things to determine crashworthiness and safety? Which the FRA now apparently also will take into account?

Originally Posted by roger1818

Maybe that's because you don't actually read the opposing arguments?

If you know of any papers or articles which lay out good arguments for the old FRA rules being better with a scientific explanation, I'd love to see it but you have not presented any. I've tried to find some and honestly did try to dig up something that disagreed with what I thought. Yet there all I found are articles and papers saying the opposite.[/quote]

Originally Posted by roger1818

That is what Positive train control (PTC) is all about. The FRA has totally botched their requirement by letting each railway choose their own (incompatible) system, making interoperability extremely difficult. I think TC has been waiting for the dust to settle down south as there has been no standard by which they can follow.

I'm sure it is complicated and am glad for any progress, but things are far too slow. Rail safety is a joke in this country.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

I’m afraid that this is actually the core of the problem: MPs care about whatever matters to its electorate (as a collective) enough to sway their voting decision towards one or the other candidate. The less you can convince your MP that your request resonates with the overall needs and desires of his constituents, the less he will feel inclined to consider it in his own list of priorities to lobby the government for...

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Imagine thinking that the average MP has the power to sway cabinet on multi-billion dollar proposals that don't boost electability.

Interestingly, you both see it as opposite of each other, and of me too.

MPs should be doing what is best for their constituents , but we don't live in that perfect world.

MPs should support that which is good for the country as well, but we don't live in that perfect world either. Fortunately, My local MP is Liberal, so it is more likely that it might happen.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Interestingly, you both see it as opposite of each other, and of me too.

We are both highlighting the same problem, just different aspects of it: I was pointing out that an MP will tend to be more receptive for ideas which have actually the potential to buy votes, whereas Truenorth00 took note of the fact that the same is true for the government's receptiveness for ideas brought forward by a single MP. We are not contradicting each other, we are contradicting you (as pretty much always)...

MPs should be doing what is best for their constituents , but we don't live in that perfect world.

MPs should support that which is good for the country as well, but we don't live in that perfect world either.

I don't know what your responsibility was as an engineer at the military, but I wouldn't want to sit/drive/fly/enter/use anything you have signed off, as your complete incapability to critically reflect on the limits of your knowledge and the pretension and hubris with which you decide what's good for this country (and what isn't) cast serious doubt on your judgement and anything which results from it...

Fortunately, My local MP is Liberal, so it is more likely that it might happen.

The only thing this coincidence makes more likely is that your MP will assure you that "enhancing rural mobility options" is of course an important priority for this government, while he will have already forgotten about your proposal by the time you leave his office...

[ghYHZ]

Here's a VIA Corridor Trip Report......

With some VIA Preference Points to burn......I headed out on a 'Business Class' trip from Quebec City to Toronto last weekend.

VIA's Business Class is an excellent product......offering a hot meal along with complementary beer, wine and liquor. It's available on just about every train in the Quebec City to Windsor Corridor and very popular with some trains even running with two Business Class cars. Weekends see fewer travellers....so I've found this the best time to travel on an award ticket with a bit more personal service offered......along with your choice of a better selection of seats. In the refurbished cars there are single seats in a 2+1 configuration....but half the car is set up with seats either forward facing or back to travel.

My trip began at the beautifully restored Gare du Palais in Quebec City:













Before we even departed a round of drinks was offered......and then the meal: I chose the Almond Crusted Chicken. (no that sauce is not pink!....it's just the lighting)









Continuing onto Toronto......I waited in the Business Lounge in Gare Centrale Montreal.





And again a beverage service followed by a hot meal. This time I chose the Pollock. All meals were very good.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

I don't know what your responsibility was as an engineer at the military, but I wouldn't want to sit/drive/fly/enter/use anything you have signed off, as your complete incapability to critically reflect on the limits of your knowledge and the pretension and hubris with which you decide what's good for this country (and what isn't) cast serious doubt on your judgement and anything which results from it...

I was as good as you are at VIA....

Mind you, your lack of knowledge shows me that you have no idea what engineering is, and you just want to mock someone. Mock away.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ghYHZ

Cool pictures - something I will never experience in this part of Canada!

Is the track on the left in use?

[esquire]

Great trip report, ghYHZ!

[ghYHZ]

Originally Posted by esquire

Great trip report, ghYHZ!

Thanks!

We certainly talk a lot about VIA here so thought I post an actual trip. I did the 'remote service' run up to Jonquiere on the way to Quebec and I'll post that shortly. An interesting trip!

[ghYHZ]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Is the track on the left in use?

I'm guessing it is. With the amount of service at Toronto Union now....I believe they need all the track capacity they can get.