News   Mar 28, 2024
 901     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 526     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 827     0 

VIA Rail

Who has claimed that?

Via president and CEO Yves Desjardins-Siciliano has claimed that in the:

What is so difficult for some readers to understand what "shovel ready in three years" means?
He said "the $4-billion project will be "shovel ready'' a year from now".

What is so difficult about not be so utterly prickish in your responses? Please avoid the unnecessary attitude.

I know you are a newbie here, having only been here a few days, but I don't think your attitude is helping the discussion.
 
Presuming that comment is aimed at me, your comparison is very poor, by many metrics. Guelph isn't petitioning to get rail service, she already has it, and a reminder yet again: This *isn't* "High Speed". And Peterborough is *very* flat. The topographical comparison couldn't be more different unless it involved mountains. As to construction...compare that to along the Lakeshore. And if need be, yes a by-pass could be done around Peterborough. Where's the problem? And bridges will have to be built, grade separation in other spots. No matter how you stack it, it's a heck of a lot easier, cheaper, faster to complete and devoid of complicating *freight overlords* than doing it along the Lakeshore.

Anything is doable, with enough money. My point is - does the projected cost of running down the Havelock sub include a provision for this. I could see Peterboro being a half billion or more just for that short stretch around town.

No-one is claiming this is going to be a 'piece of cake'...but it appears some would prefer this to be a lot more difficult than this option.
And along the Lakeshore, that won't be the case? It'll be that *squared*!

I'm not so sure. The two rail lines along that route are already very busy, and people in those areas are accustomed to this presence. The current frequency is close to what it will be with HFR (the driver for HFR is reduced freight interference, not a quantum increase in frequency). In contrast, those inner areas of Peterboro will see a change from 6 trains a week to 200+. Noise impacts will be quantum change.

On the Lakeshore, there is already extensive grade separation with many of the most critical roads dealt with. Not the case on the Havelock route. Some of the existing grade separations on the Lakeshore line will accept more trackage, but on the Havelock there are virtually no grade separations. And, there are more environmental knowns on that route. The environmental impacts that will be raised on the Havelock line - which has been bereft of trains for the last 40 years, during which environmental standards have risen significantly - are unknowns at this point. I would be far more optimistic of quick EA approval on the Lakeshore, with mitigations much less extensive.

The reason for the swing-bridge was for river/canal traffic that is long gone. It is now a *pleasure craft* waterway. A level grade bridge can go in there. Take a look at the other bridges in Peterborough to get a perspective:
http://historicbridges.org/b_a_county.php?county=Peterborough County, Ontario
Bridges across the Trent waterway and associated rivers have long ago been barely high enough to clear your head when standing on a pleasure craft.

Actually, the standard minimum clearance on the Trent Severn Waterway is 22 feet, or 7 meters. So any new bridge that offers less presents a material impact for boaters. If Peterboro is flat, as you suggest, the grades required for a fixed bridge at that height will have a significant impact on the cityscape. The rooflines are pretty low through that part of town.

http://www.trentsevern.com/index.php/waterway-index/locks-index/distance-chart

It would be nice to be able to offer data speaking to the curvature/speed issues, but the Havelock line was abandoned so long ago that whatever engineering documents the railways had are not likely in anyone's collection around here. Just bear in mind that CP built the Belleville Sub as a replacement for the Havelock - in the 1920's - because it was cheaper to build a new line than to upgrade the Havelock to the engineering standards of that era. RDC's certainly ran 70 mph or more west of Peterboro, but there was never "speedy" service east of there, even by steam standards.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
Just bear in mind that CP built the Belleville Sub as a replacement for the Havelock - in the 1920's - because it was cheaper to build a new line than to upgrade the Havelock to the engineering standards of that era. RDC's certainly ran 70 mph or more west of Peterboro, but there was never "speedy" service east of there, even by steam standards.l
Yes. This is exactly why I'm befuddled by the idea of going back to this long-abandoned track.

Just look at the old timetables, compared to similar runs on the CN line at that time.
 
There are other issues with a Peterborough route that no one is discussing: much of it is in the middle of nowhere.

Now this is fine for express service with no stops in between, but it is not good from a safety perspective.

What if a train derails in the dead of january? I could just see the headline: "VIA passengers die due to non existent emergency services"
 
I know you are a newbie here, having only been here a few days, but I don't think your attitude is helping the discussion.

Can't help himself. That's why I blocked him. Try it out. This thread becomes so much more readable without his posts. And perhaps with fewer people feeding him, the troll might learn to drop his holier-than-thou attitude.
 
There are other issues with a Peterborough route that no one is discussing: much of it is in the middle of nowhere.

Now this is fine for express service with no stops in between, but it is not good from a safety perspective.

What if a train derails in the dead of january? I could just see the headline: "VIA passengers die due to non existent emergency services"

It wouldn't take fears of a dramatic derailment to make this an EA issue. As I understand it, the proposal is to retain level crossings. There will be some predictable rate of train-auto collisions. The local fire departments and EMS unit between Peterborough and Perth are pretty far flung. There was an article recently in the media about a zone of the Trans Canada Highway (I forget where I read this, iirc it's around Mattawa) which has no fire rescue coverage. This might be acceptable in the farther north, but not on an intercity rail line. At the very least, one can see VIA having to buy more rescue gear for communities along the way - but the response capability will still be pretty thin.

- Paul
 
The Peterborough route's biggest liability is political. How many Ontario MPPs and MPs will support a route that cuts out all the population between Toronto and Ottawa?

And I seriously doubt they'll buy the argument that VIA will maintain some slow regular service on the Lakeshore. Given VIA's performance in the rest of the country, everybody knows what that promise would be worth.
 
The attractiveness in some form of a revived Highway 7 rail corridor might increase in the event of Pickering Airport ever happening, either for passenger, intermodal or both.

An interesting idea. But if tracks were built for HFR, would VIA want freight slowing down the corridor and grinding down the track?

And the Pickering airport is a long ways off from being more than a general aviation airport, let alone a major destination (like Pearson). And that ignores the tradeoff of running rail through Peterborough vs. running rail along the Lakeshore and picking up passengers bound for Toronto centre and Pearson.
 
Just up at the National Post:
OTTAWA — If you thought VIA Rail’s service was getting worse, you’re right. And if you haven’t ridden on a train in recent years, you’re part of a growing trend.

In a report released Tuesday, the federal auditor general’s office found nearly a quarter of trains operated by the Crown corporation in 2014 were late. That was “significantly” worse than in previous few years, the report reads, when fewer than one in five were late.

Because of that worsening performance, the number of passengers has steadily declined from 4.1 million in 2010 to 3.8 million in 2014. “The on-time performance of trains is one of the key indicators of the effectiveness of VIA’s services and is the main factor in customer satisfaction,” the report reads.

The resulting flatlined revenues and rising operating costs means taxpayers have had to pump in millions more to keep VIA afloat. The government gave the Crown corporation $317 million for operating costs in 2014, which was $56 million more than in 2010.

VIA wasn’t entirely to blame for the increasing number of late arrivals. The auditor general noted that rail freight carriers and other railway companies own and are responsible for maintaining about 98 per cent of the tracks used by VIA trains. As a result, those other trains usually get the right of way.

“VIA’s trains are frequently required to yield to freight traffic, which sometimes results in significant delays,” the auditor general reported. “From 2010 to 2015, the overall on-time performance rate of VIA trains varied between 84 per cent and 63 per cent.”

VIA did try to negotiate new agreements with the other rail companies several years ago, but they ended up coming to naught.
[...]
Transport Minister Marc Garneau told reporters Tuesday that the Liberal government is looking at ways to ensure VIA Rail’s long-term sustainability, including the possibility of more high-frequency rail.
[...]
For example, the Crown corporation had planned in 2009 to invest $251 million to build 160 kilometres worth of dedicated tracks near Kingston, Ont. The hope was that it would allow for an additional 14 trains, which would generate $32 million in additional revenue and increase ridership by 23 per cent.

Five years later, the company had spent $318.5 million to build only 70 kilometres of track. And while eight more trains have been added, travel times have actually increased, trains are later than ever, and there has been a 17 per cent decrease in ridership.

“We found that project management systems and practices had not adequately supported the planning and implementation of a number of the projects examined,” the auditor general’s report said. “These deficiencies had a significant impact on VIA’s operations.”
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...r-of-trains-were-late-in-2014-auditor-general
 
There are other issues with a Peterborough route that no one is discussing: much of it is in the middle of nowhere.

Now this is fine for express service with no stops in between, but it is not good from a safety perspective.

What if a train derails in the dead of january? I could just see the headline: "VIA passengers die due to non existent emergency services"
??? That applies to 98% of the trackage across this nation. And even worse: Flying.
 
... The auditor general found that the government has refused to sign off on the rail company’s business plan for several years.
What?

I really shouldn't be surprised at just how incompetent the previous administration was ... but once again, I'm surprised.
 
The Auditor General's Report is at http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201602_07_e_41251.html

It's a pretty succinct document, a little light on assessment of root causes.

This is the first time I have seen documented that the original intent of the Kingston Sub upgrading was to add 160 km of new track. If we had known that from the beginning, I suspect we armchair VIA observers would have reacted much more vocally as the lesser amount was completed

The foibles of the LRC upgrades have been documented (not necessarily objectively) by a Transport Action Canada paper. Again, I wonder why nothing leaked out as this project proceeded.

I find it appalling that the A-G faulted VIA for its inability to get government approval of its business plan. What leverage did VIA have to gain attention for what it was trying to accomplish? Similarly, I find it amazing that the lateness of its trains is declared to be VIA's fault, when the A-G plainly recognises that the issue lies with freight railways.

Having had to draft responses to the odd A-G finding in my day, I know that nothing good comes of sounding defensive and rejecting the recommendations. Even so, VIA's mute acceptance of all of the findings, and its rather submissive stance on what it will do about them, seems like a funny way to respond. The need for legislation to address the governance deficiency, and the timekeeping deficiency, should have been stressed as enabling prerequisites tbefore VIA can be held accountable for improvement. VIA fell on its sword rather amiably.

I'm leaning to conspiracy theory at this point. This report is good ammunition for anyone lining up to oppose the HFR plan. "How can we trust you with $4 billion in new capital when you have mismanaged all your past capital projects?" will be the refrain. I can see the bureaucracy wringing its hands and saying, "Gee, it was a nice proposal, you gave it a good try, sorry it didn't work". I have yet to see any affirmative action or statement from either the Minister or his staff suggesting they are committed to a sustainable passenger rail operation. All the action items lie with VIA, and if VIA fails it is their accountability, not the government's.

It seems like VIA is being set up for the knife.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
^It amazes me how hostile the federal government has been to Via over the decades. It's like they're determined to make it as marginal as possible, Liberal and Conservative alike. I don't get it. Industries that benefit from the status quo don't have the lobbying powers here that they do in the States, and they can't buy votes with outrageous campaign spending either (in theory at least). So why, in the face of the billions readily spent on highway subsidies, solid business cases for rail, and broad voter support, does this hostility continue? Is the government just an old boy's club? Hopefully a seemingly progressive prime minister like Trudeau can change things. A plan like Via's is a drop in the bucket for government spending.

I had to laugh when someone brought up emergency services in remote areas. In Europe they have frequent service mainlines through the Alps, northern Scandinavia, and Scotland. I'm sure we could find a way.

Would anyone care to put a price estimate on what it will take to install a passenger-speed ROW through this part of Peterborough? And deal wih all the level crossings?

Failing that, would anyone care to suggest a route for a bypass around the south end of town? And how much would that cost?

And presumably your suggestions would be consistent with how you'd manage things in Guelph?

- Paul

Anything is doable, with enough money. My point is - does the projected cost of running down the Havelock sub include a provision for this. I could see Peterboro being a half billion or more just for that short stretch around town.
It's proposed to be a conventional speed line, not high speed. The trains would obviously slow down through downtown like in any other downtown area. As far as I know nobody has proposed to grade separate any of the grade crossings (there are close to 20 of them in Peterborough), only upgrade them and, in all likelihood, close some. A new bridge over the canal might be needed though. As for noise, many communities have agreements with the railways not to blow the horns through town.

It would be nice to be able to offer data speaking to the curvature/speed issues, but the Havelock line was abandoned so long ago that whatever engineering documents the railways had are not likely in anyone's collection around here. Just bear in mind that CP built the Belleville Sub as a replacement for the Havelock - in the 1920's - because it was cheaper to build a new line than to upgrade the Havelock to the engineering standards of that era. RDC's certainly ran 70 mph or more west of Peterboro, but there was never "speedy" service east of there, even by steam standards.

- Paul
That was before tilting trains, especially modern ones, which can go faster over curvy track than the old trains could. If trains can go well into the 200s on Switzerland's mountain main lines, it seems likely that a line through the Canadian Shield could achieve 177 km/h.
 

Back
Top