Ontario Northland/Northern Ontario Transportation

[nfitz]

But the only freights that run between White River and Sudbury are through freights. Making and breaking up the manifest would play havoc with the the freight's schedule.

I'm not suggesting altering the freight schedule (other than allowing for flag stops). Whatever the schedule is - mandate a passenger car or two. Surely would be cheaper for the government than the dedicated passenger service.

According to the numbers posted in the VIA Rail thread by Urban Sky last month there was only 6,312 passengers all year on the Sudubry-White River run - with an average trip length of only 142 miles (less than half the route length). With 3 trips a week in both direction, that's an average of only 20 people per train ... and less given the average trip is less than half-way. The cost to run it is about $3.6 million a year, with only $0.2 million in revenue. How much would/should they compensate CP to do something like I'm suggesting? And heck, why not from Sudbury to Thunder Bay as well. And from Thunder Bay to Winnipeg.

Any passenger movement between Cochrane and Seneterre would have to be plugged onto multiple freight movements which likely don't line up.

I wouldn't think they'd line up at all, given it's three different railroads! But why not a CN service from Senneterre to Rouyan-Noranda, and then maybe a separte service from near there to Swastika. Okay, perhaps not the best example ... but start with Senneterre to wherever makes sense for the CN freight to end up (Cote-St-Luc?)

 

[micheal_can]

But the only freights that run between White River and Sudbury are through freights. Making and breaking up the manifest would play havoc with the the freight's schedule.
The tracks are lifted west of La Sarre QC. Any passenger movement between Cochrane and Seneterre would have to be plugged onto multiple freight movements which likely don't line up. This would, of course, assume there is any demand between the two communities. Such a slow, circuitous route would absolutely make driving faster.

I'm not suggesting altering the freight schedule (other than allowing for flag stops). Whatever the schedule is - mandate a passenger car or two. Surely would be cheaper for the government than the dedicated passenger service.

According to the numbers posted in the VIA Rail thread by Urban Sky last month there was only 6,312 passengers all year on the Sudubry-White River run - with an average trip length of only 142 miles (less than half the route length). With 3 trips a week in both direction, that's an average of only 20 people per train ... and less given the average trip is less than half-way. The cost to run it is about $3.6 million a year, with only $0.2 million in revenue. How much would/should they compensate CP to do something like I'm suggesting? And heck, why not from Sudbury to Thunder Bay as well. And from Thunder Bay to Winnipeg.

I wouldn't think they'd line up at all, given it's three different railroads! But why not a CN service from Senneterre to Rouyan-Noranda, and then maybe a separte service from near there to Swastika. Okay, perhaps not the best example ... but start with Senneterre to wherever makes sense for the CN freight to end up (Cote-St-Luc?)

It is sad the state we have let our railways get to. There used to be passenger lines everywhere, but through the desire for profit and through pinching more money, we have a pitiful passenger rail system. Fun Fact, between Sudbury and Thunder Bay, CP line was double track.

 

[AHK]

A couple of general comments on this thread. First of all, with respect to the Sudbury to White River service, both CN and CP are now operating on a 'precision railroading' model, with timed, rather than 'on demand' scheduling of their freight services. The freight trains can be up to 12,000 (or sometimes even more) feet in length. The cost of stopping, and then re-accelerating at 12,000 foot train, for one or more passengers at a flag stop, would vastly outweigh any reasonable prospects of the revenue that could be realized from said passengers. This is why is has fallen upon Via Rail to provide access to the remote communities which would otherwise have no connection (short of chartering a fly-out / fly in air service) to the major population centres and their services.

With respect to the service between Montreal and Senneterre - this is a local service to provide access for the communities along the route, primarily to Montreal, communities which have no other alternative means of reaching the major population centres. The idea of there being any viable through traffic between Seneterre and intermediary points (Amos, Micamic, LaSarre, or via the more southernly route via Val D'Or, Rouyn Noranda, and Kirkland Lake) through to Cochrane is unfortunately not realistic. (Being charitable with the wording here). First of all, there is minimal to no demand for through traffic in these areas - why on earth would anyone in Senetree or Amos ever want to go to Cochrane, or vice versa? Secondly, this entire area is reasonably well served with good quality roads, whose major function is to serve the local employees commuting between the many gold mines and the various residential communities in the area. Thirdly, even with all highway infrastructure, the only notable bus service is the Ontario Northland service between Cochrane and North Bay on to points south. If a bus service is not viable, what would be the prospects for rail?

In summary - the rail services which are currently in place in this area serve the mining and forestry industries, with local passenger services between Seneterre and Montreal for those communities without road access. Similarly, the passenger services between Sudbury and White River are for those areas without effective road access. Both services are massively subsidized, and would never hope to be economically viable - but they do provide a vital community service. Any thought that there might be an expansion of passenger rail services, to provide through service connectivity in these areas on a commercially viable basis would be IMHO completely unrealistic.

(Qualifications for these comments - while not involved in the railway or transportation industries, have been to Cochrane several times, and on Highway 11 from North Bay to Nipigon a couple of times in recent years. Also traveled to the Temiscaming Shores, Kirkland Lake, Rouyan Noranda, LaSarre, Amos, Val D'Or, and Seneterre a couple couple of times over the past two years, most recently earlier this month.)

 

[lenaitch]

I'm not suggesting altering the freight schedule (other than allowing for flag stops). Whatever the schedule is - mandate a passenger car or two. Surely would be cheaper for the government than the dedicated passenger service.

According to the numbers posted in the VIA Rail thread by Urban Sky last month there was only 6,312 passengers all year on the Sudubry-White River run - with an average trip length of only 142 miles (less than half the route length). With 3 trips a week in both direction, that's an average of only 20 people per train ... and less given the average trip is less than half-way. The cost to run it is about $3.6 million a year, with only $0.2 million in revenue. How much would/should they compensate CP to do something like I'm suggesting? And heck, why not from Sudbury to Thunder Bay as well. And from Thunder Bay to Winnipeg.

I wouldn't think they'd line up at all, given it's three different railroads! But why not a CN service from Senneterre to Rouyan-Noranda, and then maybe a separte service from near there to Swastika. Okay, perhaps not the best example ... but start with Senneterre to wherever makes sense for the CN freight to end up (Cote-St-Luc?)

The less-the-full-route trip lengths suggests interim flag stops, which tends to support the rationale for the service. I'll leave it to others to wonder how much fun it would be to repeated stop and start a mile+ freight train and what it would do to their overall traffic management. Hostling passenger cars once detached would require a switcher, and I'm not sure if there are any at White River anymore (stand to be corrected).

I would think turning mainline freights into mixed trains would significantly alter their operating rules, but I'll leave that to others as well.

I would imagine CN runs freights in northern Quebec in a manner that suits their business. As a guess, I doubt they are frequent and possibly not even scheduled. (ONR runs freight Englehart-Noranda QC 6 days a week).

It is sad the state we have let our railways get to. There used to be passenger lines everywhere, but through the desire for profit and through pinching more money, we have a pitiful passenger rail system. Fun Fact, between Sudbury and Thunder Bay, CP line was double track.

CP has never been double track between Sudbury and Thunder Bay. It used to be between TBay and Winnipeg but much of that has been downgraded to single mainline, albeit with some very long sidings.

 

[AHK]

It is sad the state we have let our railways get to. There used to be passenger lines everywhere, but through the desire for profit and through pinching more money, we have a pitiful passenger rail system. Fun Fact, between Sudbury and Thunder Bay, CP line was double track.

Having driven between Sudbury and Thunder Bay a number of times, I can assure you that other than the pass by sidings, this is not, and never has been, a double track route. CP did double track the section between Thunder Bay and Winnipeg (I believe in the late 1960's or in the 1970's), but with advances in technology, combined with the increasing flow of Prairie crop exports through Vancouver, the need for double tracking has diminished, and the original track has now long been abandoned, and only the new track is in use. The TransCanada Highway parallels the CP rail line pretty much the entire distance from White River to Thunder Bay, so this is something you can easily see for yourself.

 

[micheal_can]

CP has never been double track between Sudbury and Thunder Bay. It used to be between TBay and Winnipeg but much of that has been downgraded to single mainline, albeit with some very long sidings.

Then explain why the bridges all single track but the concrete at the ends are all double track width? O,h, and a local Sudbury historian has photographic evidence.

 

[Urban Sky]

Great post!

Yeah, I was thinking more the White River to Sudbury type runs, than the Canadian. Stuff like Seneterre to Cochrane - which the tracks is partially gone now - though you could do it in bits through Val D'or, etc.

I referred to the distance these freight trains running on the CP mainline west of Sudbury cover, not the small proportion of that distance for which you want to force CP to transport passengers. There is little else left for me to add to @AHK’s excellent comment...

 

[nfitz]

The cost of stopping, and then re-accelerating at 12,000 foot train, for one or more passengers at a flag stop, would vastly outweigh any reasonable prospects of the revenue that could be realized from said passengers.

Currently VIA's revenue on Sudbury-White River is almost nothing. The costs are 18 times more than the revenue. You wouldn't have to break even, or anywhere close, to save money on the current set up.

First of all, there is minimal to no demand for through traffic in these areas - why on earth would anyone in Senetree or Amos ever want to go to Cochrane, or vice versa?

What was VIA's ridership on their Senteterre to Val D'or and Seneterre to Cochrane services previously? I doubt anyone would travel from one end to the other - I thought the idea of remote services was to get those in the middle to elsewhere. Obviously can't get all the way directly from Seneterre to Cochrane any more - the line only goes about half-way these days.

I referred to the distance these freight trains running on the CP mainline west of Sudbury cover, not the small proportion of that distance for which you want to force CP to transport passengers

I don't see any need to cover most of the mainline. Mostly to find cheaper ways to cover existing services. Would it really cost CP $3.6 million a year to add a passenger car to 3 existing freight trains a week from Sudbury to White River?

 

[Urban Sky]

Currently VIA's revenue on Sudbury-White River is almost nothing. The costs are 18 times more than the revenue. You wouldn't have to break even, or anywhere close, to save money on the current set up.

The entirety of VIA Rail’s operating expenditure (i.e. including overheads like my own salary) are absorbed by spreading them across its routes. Therefore, the “avoidable costs” might be significantly lower than the figures provided in its Annual Reports, which of course understates whatever cost-recovery rate you calculate from them...

What was VIA's ridership on their Senteterre to Val D'or and Seneterre to Cochrane services previously? I doubt anyone would travel from one end to the other - I thought the idea of remote services was to get those in the middle to elsewhere. Obviously can't get all the way directly from Seneterre to Cochrane any more - the line only goes about half-way these days.

The only section between Senneterre and Cochrane which lacks year-round road access was between La Sarre and Cochrane and it is so devoid of population that service west of Taschereau was already cut from three-times-a-week to only once-a-week in December 1990:

Source: VIA Rail timetable (effective 1990/12/09)

The eastbound departure time was moved into the middle of the night when the connecting Montreal-Senneterre service (which was run with the same equipment) was transformed from an overnight train to a daytime-only service in April 1996:

Source: VIA Rail timetable (effective 1996/04/28)

Only four months later, the service was abandoned west of Senneterre after CN had imposed a 10-mph speed limit over a distance of 80 miles, which made it impossible to reach Cochrane on any viable schedule and therefore led to the cancellation of apparently the only remaining rail service of that stretch of the Taschereau Subdivision (refer to: Branchline Magazine, March 1997, pp. 8-16). Interestingly, the approval to abandon this section had already been given in a CTA ruling dated September 1990, but service somehow survived for another 6 years...

I don't see any need to cover most of the mainline. Mostly to find cheaper ways to cover existing services.

This doesn't change the fact that even a freight service departing Vancouver or Calgary at a fixed time every 3 days could show up in White River at basically any time of the week, which makes it impossible for passengers to catch the one freight train which happens to have passenger cars without basically setting up a tent next to the tracks and waiting with a few days' worth of food supplies until it eventually arrives...

Would it really cost CP $3.6 million a year to add a passenger car to 3 existing freight trains a week from Sudbury to White River?

The question is not what operating expenses CP would incur, but what level of extra revenue could motivate them to alter their operations to allow for picking up passengers at flag stops. Even a payment representing the full deficit of $3.6 million would represent a mere 0.05% (or one-two-thousandth) of CP's revenues of $7.3 billion in 2018. There certainly is a price-point at which CN and CP would be willing to re-enter the passenger rail business, but it would be insane to expect that this could yield any cost reductions for the taxpayer...

 

[nfitz]

The entirety of VIA Rail’s operating expenditure (i.e. including overheads like my own salary) are absorbed by spreading them across its routes. Therefore, the “avoidable costs” might be significantly lower than the figures provided in its Annual Reports, which of course understates whatever cost-recovery rate you calculate from them.

That's a good point.

The question is not what operating expenses CP would incur, but what level of extra revenue could motivate them to alter their operations to allow for picking up passengers at flag stops. Even a payment representing the full deficit of $3.6 million would represent a mere 0.05% (or one-two-thousandth) of CP's revenues of $7.3 billion in 2018. There certainly is a price-point at which CN and CP would be willing to re-enter the passenger rail business, but it would be insane to expect that this could yield any cost reductions for the taxpayer...

If we let market forces do it, then the question would be what extra revenue. There are other tools.

From White River to Sudbury, CP in many ways created the problem we have today, as much of that population wouldn't be there needing service, had not the railway been created.

One could argue that CP has a social responsibility to deal with the issue, without looking for any profit. After all, they received the land they occupy from the crown for free, and they use it to make money. As such, one could argue that the amount paid to CP to operate the service, would be only that to keep them whole - to cover their additional costs with no profit.

Though this perhaps a discussion we should have been having 50 years ago, rather than today. Or maybe even 125 years ago.

 

[AHK]

Then explain why the bridges all single track but the concrete at the ends are all double track width? O,h, and a local Sudbury historian has photographic evidence.

There are bypass sidings which are, of course, double track. The stretches leading into and out of the major yards and service points, such as Sudbury itself, and Thunder Bay, may be double track to alleviate congestion at those specific points I am sure there are many pictures, photographic evidence, of these areas. But long sections around northern Lake Superior, where there are frequent cuts through the rock, tunnels, and bridges, are single track. A quick look at Google Maps / Images of the CP rail line from Marathon to Red Rock, from which this sample is taken (at Mink Harbour, Ontario), will confirm the line is single track.

Mink Harbour · Thunder Bay, Unorganized, ON, Canada

Harbor

www.google.ca

 

[nfitz]

There are bypass sidings which are, of course, double track.

I suppose technically one could say that.

Though isn't the technical term for that usually "siding" rather than "double-track"?

 

[smallspy]

I suppose technically one could say that.

Though isn't the technical term for that usually "siding" rather than "double-track"?

Depends. A siding is generally a lower-quality track than the main one and may or may not be signalized, whereas double track will have two tracks of roughly equal quality, speed and signalled capacity.

Dan

 

[crs1026]

One could argue that CP has a social responsibility to deal with the issue, without looking for any profit. After all, they received the land they occupy from the crown for free, and they use it to make money. As such, one could argue that the amount paid to CP to operate the service, would be only that to keep them whole - to cover their additional costs with no profit.

Though this perhaps a discussion we should have been having 50 years ago, rather than today. Or maybe even 125 years ago.

CP has pretty much been explicitly relieved of that obligation thanks to regulatory reform over the years. Even in older days, there was a right to subsidy for unprofitable services. Quite unlikely that could be reversed.

Putting passenger cars on a modern freight train just ain’t gonna happen. Liability lawyers and slack action don’t mix.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

CP has pretty much been explicitly relieved of that obligation thanks to regulatory reform over the years. Even in older days, there was a right to subsidy for unprofitable services. Quite unlikely that could be reversed.

Sure, if CP is losing money on the White River to Sudbury freight operation, then that's valid. But if CP is losing money on the White River to Sudbury freight, they might as well exit Canada.

Putting passenger cars on a modern freight train just ain’t gonna happen. Liability lawyers and slack action don’t mix.

Then why is it already being done on some other runs in Canada that don't involve VIA, CN, or CP? I only raised the suggestion after someone pointed out which passenger runs in Canada already worked like this.