VIA Rail

[ec_traindriver]

It's not HSR. Has never been pitched as such. [...omissis...] It's a shorter path than the Lakeshore route. It's a corridor that connects major cities, yet doesn't run through expensive populated areas. And it should habitualize intercity train travel a bit more, helping build the social, political and economic case.

[...omissis...]

How dare they prioritize connecting the first largest, second largest and sixth largest metros in the country with a combined catchment population of at least 6 million (conservative estimate) or 15% of the country's population, and the country's financial and political centres.

You can't reasonably be talking about "habitualizing" intercity train travel, and then pretend that they mostly connect Toronto, Ottawa, and Montréal only. I'm sorry, that's not intercity travel: it's a poor man's HSR.

You must have missed the part of the HFR proposal that includes a new hub in Kingston and train service better tailored to those Lakeshore communities. They most certainly aren't going down to 1-2 trains a day.

Oh, I would actually love to see such a proposal. I couldn't find it anywhere. According to the last pre-Covid VIA timetable in my hands, there were only 10 services/day between Toronto and Ottawa, with most intermediate stations already getting as little as 2 services only. If services like #40, #42, and #646 were to be re-routed on the new line, would their place be taken by newer services?

Yes the goal of HFR is to improve connectivity between those centres because VIA has done a sub-par job of this to date. It's why so many people drive and fly between these cities. For a guy who loves to talk about Europe and Asia, you seem clueless to the value of connecting large metros.

VIA has done a sub-par job to date? Let's throw the baby out with the bathwater, then!

You also seem to ignoring that there will be plenty of trains left on Lakeshore. They'll just be originating in Kingston.

Bound for Toronto only, I suppose? So no more through trains to Ottawa or Montréal on the Kingston Sub, right?

I imagine if I told a European they were morons for moving so much freight be road and that they should just nationalize their railroads to make it easier to move freight, they'd think I was nuts.

On the contrary. I perfectly know we are morons.

 

[roger1818]

Oh, I would actually love to see such a proposal. I couldn't find it anywhere. According to the last pre-Covid VIA timetable in my hands, there were only 10 services/day between Toronto and Ottawa, with most intermediate stations already getting as little as 2 services only. If services like #40, #42, and #646 were to be re-routed on the new line, would their place be taken by newer services?

In addition to the link provided by @kEiThZ a few posts back, I posted this about a month ago.

Kingston Mayor Bryan Paterson tweeted this map in 2017 about post HFR frequency of service in Kingston. It shows 12 trains a day to Toronto and 6 trains to each of Ottawa and Montreal. That is down slightly from the pre COVID service of 17 westbound and 13 eastbound trains on weekdays.

https://twitter.com/x/status/890579315255123968

 

[roger1818]

The periodic new posters who endlessly jump to, "why can't the federal government simply nationalize the railways to make my trip between Toronto and Montreal easier" is getting annoying as hell. Used to just be Canadians. But now we've seem to have attracted foreigners who seem to be equally clueless to the history of this country and the context in which our existing railways were built and operate.

I imagine if I told a European they were morons for moving so much freight be road and that they should just nationalize their railroads to make it easier to move freight, they'd think I was nuts.

It is kind of the nature of the beast with forums. While it is good practice to go back and read old posts before posting, this thread is up to 548 pages which makes that a challenge.

 

[kEiThZ]

Oh, I would actually love to see such a proposal.

See the Tweet from the Mayor of Kingston posted above. And service originating from Kingston and timed for their trips is worth a hell of a lot than stops on the way between the major metros.

VIA has done a sub-par job to date? Let's throw the baby out with the bathwater, then!

I'm beginning to think all you have to offer to the discussion are strawman arguments.

VIA does a less than adequate job connecting the big metros. HFR addresses this problem somewhat. How you took that mean we should "throw out the baby with the bathwater" is beyond me.

Bound for Toronto only, I suppose? So no more through trains to Ottawa or Montréal on the Kingston Sub, right?

You have this strange habit of presuming instead of asking. Why would you presume that service from Kingston would only go to Toronto and not to Ottawa or Montreal?

It is kind of the nature of the beast with forums. While it is good practice to go back and read old posts before posting, this thread is up to 548 pages which makes that a challenge.

Then ask. This new member seems to be making a habit of of constantly assuming the worst or even the nonsensical. And then there's the moving goalposts.

So first we heard how HFR was bad. Then that it was cheap HSR. And then that it wouldn't serve the Lakeshore communities. And then that it would have trains between Kingston and Toronto. At some point, being new stops being an excuse for being presumptive, lazy and incurious.

Not willing to read 500+ pages? Sure. But then ask about the topic and learn, instead of jumping right to conclusions about an idea.

 

[crs1026]

I'm probably a royal pain, but pardon my pedantry. Every time I cycle through the whole topic, HFR appeals in many ways.... but there is always one non-sequitur that remains. If I change my point of view to resolve that one non-sequitur, I can do it... but the resolving explanation creates some other non-sequitur that pops up in its place. It's an intellectual whack-a-mole, that never gets me to all cylinders firing.

Perhaps I am nitpicking things that are thrown out as supporting premises, rather than the proposal itself.

Anyways, here are my non-sequiturs.

- Service to Kingston will remain sufficient, but no subsidy will be required
- Service to Kingston will remain sufficient, but continuing conflict with freight will no longer create a problem, notwithstanding the likelihood of further growth in freight traffic
- Service to Kingston will remain reliable, notwithstanding no change in the relationship between CN and VIA, which has not shown a good balance of incentives and penalties to date to assure reliability
- Coproduction between freight railways works well in BC and in Northern Ontario, but contemplating it as part of a HFR solution is unreasonable and contrary to prudent transportation policy
- Coteau to Montreal is a viable zone for VIA to raise its operation to hourly Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto service, plus sufficient Lakeshore trains to Kingston.... notwithstanding no change in either the pattern of freight conflicts, or the balance of power with CN over operational priority.
- A change in contractual relationships with CN to clear the track for VIA (where sharing is unavoidable) is in the offing, but it cannot be applied to other parts of the network to resolve the freight-passenger operational conflicts elsewhere.
- Changes in contractual relationships between VIA and CN can only be struck through mutual agreement, and not by legislation or by placing disputes before an impartial third party

I am not going to prolong the discussion - but perhaps you see my confusion. I can't make it all align. Hence my prolonged and energetic pursuit of other solutions, and my willingness to push back on supposed immovables. I don't have all the answers - but I remain skeptical, somehow, about something.

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

I imagine if I told a European they were morons for moving so much freight be road and that they should just nationalize their railroads to make it easier to move freight, they'd think I was nuts.

An open access regime would not require government to nationalize the infrastructure (even though it is exactly what was done with roads), even if the "it would be unconstitutional !!1!" assertions are set aside (after all, until 1994 some people were convinced that the cessation of Vancouver Island passenger service was unconstitutional).

It would merely be a change in how a public utility was regulated, obliging railway companies to fairly allocate paths their infrastructure by cooperation with a rail regulatory agency in exchange for access charges, and to separately account their infrastructure expenses from their railway operation expenses so that the charges passed on to open access operators were fair. We have seen Bell and Rogers obliged (yes, with bad grace, footdragging and arguable undermining) to accommodate new entrants into telecoms into their infrastructure. I cannot see how this would be beyond the legislative power of Parliament. The question for this thread of course would be to what extent this leaves VIA in a better position compared to their existing agreements with CN and CP - which are not public documents, I believe.

I will also note @kEiThZ that we had a railway professional invited onto this forum by another railway professional, and your chippy responses in particular to an understandable getting-up-to-speed on what is being discussed could be held up as a reason for such professionals not to bother in future.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm probably a royal pain, but pardon my pedantry. Every time I cycle through the whole topic, HFR appeals in many ways.... but there is always one non-sequitur that remains. If I change my point of view to resolve that one non-sequitur, I can do it... but the resolving explanation creates some other non-sequitur that pops up in its place. It's an intellectual whack-a-mole, that never gets me to all cylinders firing.

1) Context matters (for example on co-, production).

2) Ideas evolve as they develop over time. Such as the Kingston hub.

Not sure how insisting that everything be neatly wrapped in a bow from day one is ever going to drive actual change.

This country has now spent over half a century talking high speed rail in the Corridor. And that time has brought us more capacity but slower services and rising costs. I don't see why entangling ourselves with the freight cos further with all kinds of complicated contractual agreements will help. With the double digit billions being spent on suburban and regional rail in Toronto and Montreal, this is the perfect time to build an intercity passenger rail backbone that is independent of the freight cos. Reduces reliance on CN in the Corridor to just Lakeshore services and reduces cascading delays by terminating in Kingston.

 

[kEiThZ]

I will also note @kEiThZ that we had a railway professional invited onto this forum by another railway professional, and your chippy responses in particular to an understandable getting-up-to-speed on what is being discussed could be held up as a reason for such professionals not to bother in future.

If all they are going to do is come in and crap on the locals based on their assumptions, then, it's no loss anyway. They aren't adding much.

You'll notice this is not how Urban Sky is treated here even though we all have disagreements and spirited discussions with him from time to time. He takes the time to explain his point of view. Presents data and evidence to support it. And remarkably for a non-Canadian (originally) understands the history and context of our railways more than most Canucks.

 

[ssiguy2]

There are also other advantages of hydrogen namely far lower maintenance costs, superior time efficiency over batteries, and more reliability.

Catenary are not only expensive to build but also expensive to maintain and offer lower reliability due to the potential damage from wind/snow/ice storms. As for batteries, time is money whether it be passenger or freight rail. Even if you can get batteries to last much longer, go much further, and weigh much less there is still the problem of recharging them. It will take hours to recharge the sheer number o'f large batteries that would be required for even medium distance VIA routes. Of course they are completely useless for long distance trains. Battery trains also have a hard time in cold weather which Canada has in abundance.

Just because something works in Italy doesn't mean it's going to work here.

 

[robmausser]

I will also note @kEiThZ that we had a railway professional invited onto this forum by another railway professional, and your chippy responses in particular to an understandable getting-up-to-speed on what is being discussed could be held up as a reason for such professionals not to bother in future.

That person might get paid for what they do and thus be considered a professional from the technical use of the term, but in terms of the cultural and societal understanding of the term professional, they were anything but.

I saw very little getting-up-to-speed and more cramming-their-ideologies down peoples throats.

 

[kEiThZ]

I cannot see how this would be beyond the legislative power of Parliament.

It's not beyond the power of Parliament. Doing so at little to no cost, however, probably is. Our courts aren't in the habit of allowing governments to seize assets at will without substantial justification and substantial compensation. Our government knows this. The freight companies know this. VIA knows this. They've moved on to an idea that they think works. And yet here we are discussing this fantasy every 3 months, even though we all know it's not going to happen.

Maybe those of you who have a fetish for freight rail nationalization should start another thread, so we can save this thread for actually discussing ideas and topics that involve VIA right now.

 

[ec_traindriver]

You have this strange habit of presuming instead of asking. Why would you presume that service from Kingston would only go to Toronto and not to Ottawa or Montreal?

Excuse me, that is exactly what I did. I asked whether through trains were going to remain on the Lakeshore line or not.

It was a genuine question because to me the verb "to originate" means that services literally come into being from a place and, since Kingston is more or less halfway between the TOM, therefore in my understanding of the English language, it means that a train originating from Kingston doesn't come from anywhere else. It literally begins its journey from there. Hence the remark on the lack of future through services. To my understanding, a resident from, say, Belleville, going to Ottawa would have to change train in either Toronto or, despite being on the same stretch of tracks, Kingston.

I'll quote you directly:

You also seem to ignoring that there will be plenty of trains left on Lakeshore. They'll just be originating in Kingston.

To which I asked you, assuming you knew what I was looking for, whether those services originating from Kingston were Toronto-bound only or else.

 

[kEiThZ]

Just because something works in Italy doesn't mean it's going to work here.

This same logic should apply to hydrogen tech too. The handful of European trials to date have effectively been on suburban rail services (slower speeds), with lighter trainsets (not FRA compliant rolling tanks we need here) at ranges that would be more in line with GO service here. Have any of these trials even broken 150 km in service?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but hydrogen seems reserved for rail lines that are infrequent. I don't see any operator dropping electrification plans in favour of exclusively deploying hydrogen.

Arguably the best case for hydrogen could be the freight railways in Canada. Too expensive to electrify thousands of kms of track. No need for speed. And very little limitation on train length or weight.

It will take hours to recharge the sheer number o'f large batteries that would be required for even medium distance VIA routes.

Guessing you aren't aware of the last decade of battery improvements or things like supercapacitors to boost charging speeds. You won't find a single BEMU on offer from a major rolling stock maker that takes "hours to charge". The actual concern for the distances VIA would want to cover won't be charging speeds but battery lifecycles.

In any event, VIA has 18 options for full trainsets it can (and will) exercise for HFR. Discussion on hydrogen vs. batteries is moot for at least another two decades till the whole Siemens fleet has to be renewed or replaced.

 

[ec_traindriver]

Catenary are not only expensive to build but also expensive to maintain and offer lower reliability due to the potential damage from wind/snow/ice storms. As for batteries, time is money whether it be passenger or freight rail. Even if you can get batteries to last much longer, go much further, and weigh much less there is still the problem of recharging them. It will take hours to recharge the sheer number o'f large batteries that would be required for even medium distance VIA routes. Of course they are completely useless for long distance trains. Battery trains also have a hard time in cold weather which Canada has in abundance.

Just because something works in Italy doesn't mean it's going to work here.

While I completely agree with you on the topic of hydrogen vs batteries, in that batteries have only been substantially tried and tested over very short distances and very light consists, I'll have to remind you that Europe is not only Southern Italy. There are countries whose railways enjoy all the benefits of electrification even in more remote lands, including through harsh winters, storms, snow and ice. One is Sweden, for example, where 8600 tonnes iron ore trains run through the Malmbanan (also known as Iron Ore line) well above the Arctic Circle. (Actually, lake Torneträsk in the picture is located above the 68° parallel North, well into the northern parts of Yukon/Northwest Territories/Nunavut area.) The other is Russia, of course, which has had its Trans-Siberian railway entirely double-tracked and electrified in the 1980s.

Should Canada do the same? It's not up to me to say and I'll abstain from further remarks on the topic of electrification. I'm just saying it's not technically impossible.

 

[Bordercollie]

Regarding Kingston, it can be served by both routes by running a shuttle between Kingston and Sharbot lake Station. It can have some stops downtown as well to help people get to either station. It says the journey will take 54min by car from station to station (assuming they build it there).