VIA Rail

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by J81

Theres a train from Toronto to Ottawa every hour 5 days a week. Up to 10 trains a day between the two pairs. 6 trains a day between Toronto and Montreal. You can be from downtown Toronto into Ottawa in 4:15 minutes. Impossible to do driving.

Not hourly. While Via has increased frequencies and made them as close to hourly as possible, CN hasn't allowed them to achieve that. Six trains a day (it's actually 8 to Montreal) is okay service but not great. For example, there are 15 daily trains between Dublin and Cork. Stockholm to Gothenburg has 24. Edinburgh to Aberdeen has 16. All of these are less populated routes. And even if Via could manage to run that many trains, that still doesn't address the terrible on time performance that results from using CN track.

The Corridor has the best train service in Canada but it's still just okay at best. The fact that in other parts of Canada it's even worse doesn't change that.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I, of course, agree completely. It would actually benefit everybody. In areas with multiple now redundant rail lines, they could be repurposed for greater efficiencies, and where only one rail line exists, then actual competition could happen. Right now, if you have a building with a rail spur, then that rail company is the only one you can do business with.

Is there redundant rail lines in areas with little traffic, or are they there because there is lots of traffic on all of them?

Originally Posted by Mister F

Not hourly. While Via has increased frequencies and made them as close to hourly as possible, CN hasn't allowed them to achieve that. Six trains a day (it's actually 8 to Montreal) is okay service but not great. For example, there are 15 daily trains between Dublin and Cork. Stockholm to Gothenburg has 24. Edinburgh to Aberdeen has 16. All of these are less populated routes. And even if Via could manage to run that many trains, that still doesn't address the terrible on time performance that results from using CN track.

The Corridor has the best train service in Canada but it's still just okay at best. The fact that in other parts of Canada it's even worse doesn't change that.

And this is the problem, not just on the Corridor, but on all commuter lines throughout the country. Why has the WCE not expanded beyond it's original route and times?

[Dengler Avenue]

For WCE, getting own ROW is pretty difficult. One might as well extend skytrain lines.

By the way, personally I’m bothered when people use “it’s” for the possessive case. The actual word is “its” without the apostrophe...

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

For WCE, getting own ROW is pretty difficult. One might as well extend skytrain lines.

By the way, personally I’m bothered when people use “it’s” for the possessive case. The actual word is “its” without the apostrophe...

It is not about getting its own ROW, it is about having its own time slot.

[Dengler Avenue]

Using CN or CP corridor for passenger rail will always make sure that the latter gets the shorter end of the stick in terms of scheduling, which in turn affects frequency, so having own ROW is actually important. At least, it’s the most politically expedient solutions given that CN and CP aren’t fun to mess with.

[esquire]

^ As has been pointed out before, CN was government owned until 1995 and things weren't materially different for passenger rail in those years. In broad terms, CN stopped prioritizing passenger trains sometime in the early 70s. The idea that simply flipping the rails to government ownership will suddenly lead to revolutionary change in that regard is simply not on... it will take much more than just that.

[milomilo]

It's not the only thing, but it's a major and neccesary part of the solution. Either the government buys existing lines and rents them back out (unlikely), or has to build separate lines (more likely). Without either of those options, the problem will only get worse.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Is there redundant rail lines in areas with little traffic, or are they there because there is lots of traffic on all of them?

Well there's plenty of places where both CN and CP run lines close to each other. That isn't for capacity reasons, as they are often single track. It would be operationally better to have either railway operating on either line depending on destination, or upgrade one of them so they could both run on that one (with probably more capacity), and then have the other line put to use for non freight purposes. The rail companies have even figured out this was more efficient where they had no other option - in the Fraser River Canyon where they use one single track for up and the other for down.

This isn't controversial, it's normal practise in many/most countries. Imagine if every trucking company had their own road, and had monopolies on certain routes? That would be very silly, which is why we have the infrastructure (roads) in public hands while the users remain private.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It is not about getting its own ROW, it is about having its own time slot.

But when using someone else's infrastructure (even if that infrastructure was originally paid for by Canada), then WCE has no power to get those slots. So it, in fact, does need its own ROW, short of a change of ownership or rules.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Well there's plenty of places where both CN and CP run lines close to each other. That isn't for capacity reasons, as they are often single track. It would be operationally better to have either railway operating on either line depending on destination, or upgrade one of them so they could both run on that one (with probably more capacity), and then have the other line put to use for non freight purposes. The rail companies have even figured out this was more efficient where they had no other option - in the Fraser River Canyon where they use one single track for up and the other for down.

This isn't controversial, it's normal practise in many/most countries. Imagine if every trucking company had their own road, and had monopolies on certain routes? That would be very silly, which is why we have the infrastructure (roads) in public hands while the users remain private.

Actually, private logging roads do exist in Northern Ontario, but that’s something else~

[lrt's friend]

Running the Skytrain the full length of the WCE is no answer. This is far too long for urban transit and will have far too many stops to reach downtown Vancouver in a reasonable time frame.

Part of the problem is political. We have decided to not develop Prince Rupert as a Western port and as an alternative to Vancouver. As a result, freight congestion just keeps getting worse going into Vancouver making passenger options very difficult to fit in.

[casper]

Originally Posted by milomilo

But when using someone else's infrastructure (even if that infrastructure was originally paid for by Canada), then WCE has no power to get those slots. So it, in fact, does need its own ROW, short of a change of ownership or rules.

I don't remember the details, but I though when WCE first started there was some statement that to be able to operate in both directions during the day that would be possible but require WCE to pay to add an extra track.

It may not need it is own ROW if it can double track an existing single track ROW to become a partial owner.

I have been to one or two presentation where an executive from CN makes a big deal about CN being the only scheduled railway in North America. My understanding of this is CN usually operates the same train on the same route at the same time. CP runs trains more dynamically. Not being a railway guy I don't know how accurate that assumption is. You would think the scheduled model would work better in an environment that also had passenger trains.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by casper

I don't remember the details, but I though when WCE first started there was some statement that to be able to operate in both directions during the day that would be possible but require WCE to pay to add an extra track.

It may not need it is own ROW if it can double track an existing single track ROW to become a partial owner.

I have been to one or two presentation where an executive from CN makes a big deal about CN being the only scheduled railway in North America. My understanding of this is CN usually operates the same train on the same route at the same time. CP runs trains more dynamically. Not being a railway guy I don't know how accurate that assumption is. You would think the scheduled model would work better in an environment that also had passenger trains.

CP have shown no interest in being cooperative though, and why would they? They have no incentive to help WCE out, they hold all the cards. Should WCE want to pay for upgrades, they can only do it on CP's terms, and will get shafted.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by casper

It may not need it is own ROW if it can double track an existing single track ROW to become a partial owner.

WCE will never become a partial owner because the railway owner can charge access fees for ever in addition to WCE paying for the expansion. Freight trains will use the same track with no compensation back to the entity paying for the expansion. Look at the expansion of the 3rd track on the CN Kingston sub where the government funded the construction but Via trains do not operate any faster.

Originally Posted by casper

I have been to one or two presentation where an executive from CN makes a big deal about CN being the only scheduled railway in North America. My understanding of this is CN usually operates the same train on the same route at the same time. CP runs trains more dynamically. Not being a railway guy I don't know how accurate that assumption is. You would think the scheduled model would work better in an environment that also had passenger trains.

Scheduled freights were not the invention of CN. The schedules are approximate and really only work when there is sufficient track capacity, yard capacity, locomotives and available crews. This means that when ever there are delays caused by weather, traffic volumes and maintenance shut downs the schedule is thrown out the window.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It is not about getting its own ROW, it is about having its own time slot.

It is about getting your own ROW or separate set of tracks in a ROW. The entity that owns the tracks controls the use of the available capacity. Since CN sold the Lakeshore sub from Union Station to Pickering to GO Transit many eastbound Via trains are late getting to Oshawa. Via has to contend with some GO trains crossing the tracks to access the Stouffvile line and then CN freights
crossing over tracks access the York sub to reach MacMillan Yard.

There should be flyovers built for passenger trains. Another example of the is the Beachburg sub from Ottawa to Coteau where it crosses the CP mainline.

The only equitable option to individual ownership is to have all track owned by and independent entity that also provides all the dispatching. Britain's experience with Network Rail has shown that there are some troubles with that too.

[QUOTE=milomilo;8760441] The rail companies have even figured out this was more efficient where they had no other option - in the Fraser River Canyon where they use one single track for up and the other for down./QUOTE]

The use of shared tracks only works when you have willing partners and an arbitrator. The Ottawa valley route from Capreol/Sudbury to Ottawa/Smiths Falls is an example of what happens when the parties are not willing play the game. In the 1990's CN & CP made an agreement to run a joint line but CN scuttled the deal because they did not want to use unionized crews. There was enough through traffic at the time to make the line viable. CP went ahead and leased the line from Sudbury to Smith Falls to a short line railway. In 1995 CN abandoned their trackage in the Ottawa Valley. CP ultimately abandoned the line from Mattawa to Smiths Falls in the early 2000's.

CN in its wisdom ran all freights through Toronto and onto the Kingston sub to Montreal. So instead of having a shared shorter stand alone line through the Ottawa Valley we ended up with more traffic on the Kingston sub causing delays to Via trains. This is why Via trains operate a slower speeds than in the 1980's between Toronto and Montreal or Ottawa. The 3rd track on the Kingston sub is handling more Via trains, more CN freight trains and detoured CN freight trains from the Ottawa Valley resulting in congestion.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Using CN or CP corridor for passenger rail will always make sure that the latter gets the shorter end of the stick in terms of scheduling, which in turn affects frequency, so having own ROW is actually important. At least, it’s the most politically expedient solutions given that CN and CP aren’t fun to mess with.

Originally Posted by esquire

^ As has been pointed out before, CN was government owned until 1995 and things weren't materially different for passenger rail in those years. In broad terms, CN stopped prioritizing passenger trains sometime in the early 70s. The idea that simply flipping the rails to government ownership will suddenly lead to revolutionary change in that regard is simply not on... it will take much more than just that.

Originally Posted by milomilo

But when using someone else's infrastructure (even if that infrastructure was originally paid for by Canada), then WCE has no power to get those slots. So it, in fact, does need its own ROW, short of a change of ownership or rules.

There is a regulation out there right now that says that a mail train takes priority over all. The regulation is from the heydays of rail transportation, but is still in law.

Now, the government could simply put in regulation that passenger service has priority over freight trains. This would then legally force the changes.

[ssiguy]

VIAs problem go far beyond the CN & CP issues because the premise of VIA itself is wrong. VIA is strictly a rail service but what it needs to be in order to be a viable transportation option for all Canadians is a TRANSPORTATION service.

As it stands now, VIA is completely useless for anyone outside The Corridor because train travel is not financial viable outside of it save the Cal/Edm corridor. If VIA was to cancel all passenger rail service in BC and not tell the media, 99.9% of BCers wouldn't even notice the difference. In BC VIA is as much part of our transportation system as the Maid of the Mist is to Niagarans.

VIA should be a complete system using both trains and buses where appropriate. So buses in nearly all of Western Canada save Cal/RD/Ed, continue the Corridor but not to Subdury or Chicotomi or AC. It should work as a system. Currently there are hundreds of thousands of Ontarians and Quebecers who live with 50 to 100 km of a VIA station but can't access it because they can't get to the stations. People in Sarnia can't get to Windsor without going completely out of their way and transferring back at London. Hell, there are 100,000 people in Elgin county that are within a short trip to London and can't get to the train station making the service useless to them. You can't even get from Hamilton to Kitchener on VIA yet they are only 30km apart. VIA should not only provide long distance trips but also regional ones to connect cities/town that have no service and use as fedder routes to the cities that do.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

VIAs problem go far beyond the CN & CP issues because the premise of VIA itself is wrong. VIA is strictly a rail service but what it needs to be in order to be a viable transportation option for all Canadians is a TRANSPORTATION service.

As it stands now, VIA is completely useless for anyone outside The Corridor because train travel is not financial viable outside of it save the Cal/Edm corridor. If VIA was to cancel all passenger rail service in BC and not tell the media, 99.9% of BCers wouldn't even notice the difference. In BC VIA is as much part of our transportation system as the Maid of the Mist is to Niagarans. .

Via outside of the corridor is slower but not impractical primarily because of the Canadian Shield and the Rocky Mountains. These areas have difficult terrain, heavy freight traffic and/or sparse populations. Generally service that only operates 2 or 3 times a week is not relevant and will not attract riders unless it is more of a tourist train. Most importantly trains need to run on time, on reasonable schedules and need to be routed where the population is. All these things contribute to higher revenues. This means that you need to cancel transcontinental service and replace it with regional service. There has been much discussion on this forum of routes in the prairies that people think would form the backbone of a regional system. Equipment that has lower operating and maintenance cost needs to be used instead of legacy equipment.

VIA should be a complete system using both trains and buses where appropriate. So buses in nearly all of Western Canada save Cal/RD/Ed, continue the Corridor but not to Subdury or Chicotomi or AC. It should work as a system. Currently there are hundreds of thousands of Ontarians and Quebecers who live with 50 to 100 km of a VIA station but can't access it because they can't get to the stations. People in Sarnia can't get to Windsor without going completely out of their way and transferring back at London. Hell, there are 100,000 people in Elgin county that are within a short trip to London and can't get to the train station making the service useless to them. You can't even get from Hamilton to Kitchener on VIA yet they are only 30km apart. VIA should not only provide long distance trips but also regional ones to connect cities/town that have no service and use as fedder routes to the cities that do.[/QUOTE]

You seem to want to set up a much broader system more like Europe, California or Ontario Northland services before they cancelled the Northlander. This would cost a lot of money for services which would often be solely within provincial boundaries which should be the responsibility of the provincial governments. When private enterprise is involved they tend to scoop passengers from the more highly populated centres and not coordinate with the rail system and the rail system then ends up losing riders. With all public transport you will have the last mile(s) problem.

Contrary to your belief, I believe Via should operate long distance trips of 1 or 2 night maximums because trains are more comfortable than buses and more reliable in bad weather. Examples of this would be Vancouver to Edmonton, Vancouver to Calgary, Montreal to Halifax and Toronto to Winnipeg via Thunder Bay.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Running the Skytrain the full length of the WCE is no answer. This is far too long for urban transit and will have far too many stops to reach downtown Vancouver in a reasonable time frame.

Part of the problem is political. We have decided to not develop Prince Rupert as a Western port and as an alternative to Vancouver. As a result, freight congestion just keeps getting worse going into Vancouver making passenger options very difficult to fit in.

Prince Rupert and Kitimat are growing faster than Vancouver the last few years for port traffic. Mr Hays' dream for the Grand Trunk Pacific is finally starting to pay dividends but primarily only to CN. Prince Rupert has had frequent expansions the last several years and is continuing to expend over the next several years building roads, railways, wharves and container cranes.

[swimmer_spe]

Just imagine if your city bus was to only run once a day, one way and once a day the other way. How well would that be used?

What about if a place that has lots of apartments is not on the bus routes? Or a major employer isn't served?

In short, that is what VIA has done. We need to invest in it. Make all the routes dailies at least going both ways. That alone would make the rest of the network usable.

[SpongeG]

maybe this fits in here

Alberta hyperloop isn't 'science fiction:' Company urges government to climb aboard

CEO says TransPod will submit updated proposal to province next week
Tony Seskus · CBC News · Posted: Nov 27, 2019


An illustration of what TransPod's hyperloop system might look like running beside a highway. ( Radio-Canada/TransPod Hyperloop)

The chief executive of Canadian hyperloop company, TransPod, believes he can have Albertans shuttling between Calgary and Edmonton — at speeds up to 1,000 kilometres an hour — in magnetic tubes by 2030.

That's provided the provincial government gets on board.

...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...-41Hc2bIcrtuTc