There are routes, and rolling stocks issues that have left the freights w/o ability to move product (freight) in a timely way, notably grain in western Canada.
I was not suggesting they maintain routes to far-flung places that have neither the freight nor passenger demand to justify such; or they retain capacity solely as a charitable exercise.
The failure to retain twin track, or some sidings, or to lengthen said siding to merely allowed two freights to pass one another has hampered the industry at times.
That's what I was noting.
Additional capacity for the sole or primary benefit of passenger travel is something that would either have to be funded by passenger rail/gov't or legislated.
*****
The idea is not to retain a route that can't be made to work economically, nor do so, in the context of this discussion, for any reason other than self-interest.
Retaining an E-W option across the near-north to Ottawa was entirely workable.
It was justified, if nothing else, by the disruption causes to freight service (and passenger) along the CN mainline in particular just last year.
But certainly you don't want that alternate line have 1-2 runs per week.
But an examination of CN Traffic shows an awful lot of traffic that passes through Toronto but is not bound for Toronto.
That makes a case for routing some of that traffic more directly to Ottawa, and points east.
****
There are other ways to address this; I have no objection to nationalizing all the track; and let the freights own and managing the rolling stock and pay for running rights.
I also have no objection to logical streamlining (there was no justification for 2 routes across the north); its frankly dubious whether CN and CP should both having mainlines running in tight parallel from Durham Region eastwards.
seanmarshall.ca
