News   Jul 12, 2024
 1.1K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 958     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 361     0 

Lack of meaningful Passenger Rail service outside the Quebec-Windsor Corridor

I went to the information session for the return of the Northlander in North Bay on Friday.

Of the many things I got out of it, I learned that 4 buses a day along a route is enough for the province to invest in rail.
 
I went to the information session for the return of the Northlander in North Bay on Friday.

Of the many things I got out of it, I learned that 4 buses a day along a route is enough for the province to invest in rail.
I take it that's a good thing since it's a pretty low threshold?
 
I went to the information session for the return of the Northlander in North Bay on Friday.

Of the many things I got out of it, I learned that 4 buses a day along a route is enough for the province to invest in rail.
A motor coach has approximately 50 seats, and the three car trains that Ontario Northland will be using have roughly 175 seats,. So doing the math, once demand has passed what can be handled by 3 buses (approx 150 passengers) , thus 4 buses are required, they are approaching the capacity of a train. I suspect they would still keep one or two buses, running on the route to handle extra demand, and to keep the schedule convenient.

The other factor is operating costs, and I have no idea how much a train cost to operate, compared to 4 buses.

So are you going to start taking the bus to Toronto regularly bolster demand?
 
The other factor is operating costs, and I have no idea how much a train cost to operate, compared to 4 buses.
My comparison of VIA‘s rail with ONTC‘s bus services suggests that one train-kilometer equals the operating costs of ten bus-kilometers. Replacing a four-buses-per-day schedule with a single train per day would thus translate to a 150% increase in operating costs - while achieve a far inferior service frequency…

I take it that's a good thing since it's a pretty low threshold?
It certainly would be a very low threshold, but you are assuming now that the king of only-hears-what-he-wants-to-hear has correctly understood and paraphrased whatever that ONTC official has actually said…
 
Last edited:
I take it that's a good thing since it's a pretty low threshold?

A motor coach has approximately 50 seats, and the three car trains that Ontario Northland will be using have roughly 175 seats,. So doing the math, once demand has passed what can be handled by 3 buses (approx 150 passengers) , thus 4 buses are required, they are approaching the capacity of a train. I suspect they would still keep one or two buses, running on the route to handle extra demand, and to keep the schedule convenient.
I would expect that they would keep all to gauge the need, but it would make sense to go down to 2 buses.

The other factor is operating costs, and I have no idea how much a train cost to operate, compared to 4 buses.
The added cost is whether it is running on their own owned lines vs other company's lines.

So are you going to start taking the bus to Toronto regularly bolster demand?

Why? The one from here to Toronto is 4 times a week.

My comparison of VIA‘s rail with ONTC‘s bus services suggests that one train-kilometer equals the operating costs of ten bus-kilometers. Replacing a four-buses-per-day schedule with a single train per day would thus translate to a 150% increase in operating costs - while achieve a far inferior service frequency…
It is going to be a daily train. While that is not 4x a day like the bus, the fact that weather will be less of a factor and the fact that you can get off at `11am and get back on at 630pm, that will give the people up north what they want.

It certainly would be a very low threshold, but you are assuming now that the king of only-hears-what-he-wants-to-hear has correctly understood and paraphrased whatever that ONTC official has actually said…
That is a fair point. They did say that this service will not be priced to break even or do better. Once it is running, it would be nice to see the costs to see just how bad the cost is.
 
The way I got the answer was asking about expansion beyond the Northlander. That answer could be genuine or a way to brush me off. This is why waiting to see how it operates will matter. If this is the beginning of Ontario expanding rail throughout the province then within 5 years of the Northlander running, I would expect some sort of political photo op. And all of this may depend on what happens to HCR with the closure of Domtar. They keep asking for a subsidy from the government. It may just buy the line and then that will change things too.
 
Via HEP.jpg


On Facebook, it was asked what to do with these coaches. These are the Via HEP Budd coaches. Via owns 43 of them. Since they are still in decent enough condition, what could be done with these once the Siemens trains are all delivered?

Here are some options:
1) used to add even more service in the QC - W corridor.
2) Used to supplement the LD Fleet to add more coaches on the routes where they are needed
3) Add new service else where.

Personally,I feel that adding new service elsewhere would be a good idea. You could make 14 3 car trains with them. Couple the P42s to them and run them as corridor like service. If they were divided among 3 routes, the routes I would suggest are Calgary - Edmonton, Halifax - Saint /John, and Toronto - Sudbury

For Calgary - Edmonton service, start them off running several times a day each way. It used to do it in under 4 hours, so 2 trains could leave each end and then for about 12 hours do 3 runs each day and have a spare for breakdowns and maintenance.

For the other 2 routes, a single daily service each way would be more than plenty to start.
 
I would take 4 buses per day over 1 train per day. But then again I care about effective public transport and not about railfanning. Multiple departures per day is much easier to plan around and offer redundancy.
My comparison of VIA‘s rail with ONTC‘s bus services suggests that one train-kilometer equals the operating costs of ten bus-kilometers. Replacing a four-buses-per-day schedule with a single train per day would thus translate to a 150% increase in operating costs - while achieve a far inferior service frequency…

Good to see that ONTC is being prudent with taxpayer dollars and not jumping headfirst into rail service.

Any idea what the break-even math is? I assume, a route would need at least 300 PDEW to justify flipping one frequency to rail.
 
Any idea what the break-even math is? I assume, a route would need at least 300 PDEW to justify flipping one frequency to rail.

I suspect there isn't actually a fixed formula, because the capital costs will vary so much between routes.

Things like station costs, state of the current rail line, and the amount of interference from freight will all affect the pricetag.

As will the timing of the demand. If you have three busloads of demand leaving North Bay for Toronto at 9 AM, and one bus leaving at 1 PM, replacing the 9AM bus with a train will net you three busloads of passengers, not four. And if you have one bus at 9, one at 11, one at 1, and 1 at 3 PM.... how many train riders will you have at 9 AM? Certainly not four busloads.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
I would take 4 buses per day over 1 train per day. But then again I care about effective public transport and not about railfanning. Multiple departures per day is much easier to plan around and offer redundancy.

This is not a rail fan thing.Sure, I may be one, but the people who will be using this the most are people who, for various reasons would not want to take the bus.

I suspect there isn't actually a fixed formula, because the capital costs will vary so much between routes.

Things like station costs, state of the current rail line, and the amount of interference from freight will all affect the pricetag.

- Paul
I would guess that you are right that there are no hard fast metric. My guess is that someone gave a metric and it has been met and now they can say that their metric is what didn't exist before.
 
I suspect there isn't actually a fixed formula, because the capital costs will vary so much between routes.

Things like station costs, state of the current rail line, and the amount of interference from freight will all affect the pricetag.
Just for the records: I was only talking about operating costs, not any form of capital costs, but these are of course yet another example where rural passenger rail corridors are at a monumental cost disadvantage against the bus…

As will the timing of the demand. If you have three busloads of demand leaving North Bay for Toronto at 9 AM, and one bus leaving at 1 PM, replacing the 9AM bus with a train will net you three busloads of passengers, not four. And if you have one bus at 9, one at 11, one at 1, and 1 at 3 PM.... how many train riders will you have at 9 AM? Certainly not four busloads.
Exactly, you need at least 3 departures to have anything close to a usable schedule…
 
On Facebook, it was asked what to do with these coaches. These are the Via HEP Budd coaches. Via owns 43 of them. Since they are still in decent enough condition, what could be done with these once the Siemens trains are all delivered?

Here are some options:
1) used to add even more service in the QC - W corridor.

It is certainly possible and while I wouldn't rule it out, I wouldn't hold my breath on this option happening either. VIA would likely want to wait until the dust settles with the new fleet and then if they can find a route with extra capacity that they could add a train to, and they could make the economics work, then maybe they might. Of course the HFR/HSR plan might make this impossible as the new consortium likely wouldn't inherit the old HEP coachers.

2) Used to supplement the LD Fleet to add more coaches on the routes where they are needed

They certainly might use some of the corridor HEP I coaches to help supplement the regional and long distance fleet, but I am not sure they need more coaches and baggage cars for those trains. They could use them to increase frequency on some of the daytime regional trains, but that would require government approval (and funding) to cover the operational deficit, so it isn't likely.

3) Add new service else where.

Personally,I feel that adding new service elsewhere would be a good idea. You could make 14 3 car trains with them. Couple the P42s to them and run them as corridor like service. If they were divided among 3 routes, the routes I would suggest are Calgary - Edmonton, Halifax - Saint /John, and Toronto - Sudbury

This option falls in two categories:
  1. Routes that already have long distance passenger trains running along them (like Toronto - Sudbury Jct. and Halifax - Moncton), and
  2. Routes that don't have passenger trains running along them (like Calgary - Edmonton and Moncton - St. John).
For the first category, the tracks are already approved for passenger use and stations already exist, so the up front cost shouldn't be too bad. Of course this assumes that there is sufficient capacity and the speeds along the tracks are suitable for intercity passenger use. Government approval (and funding) would definitely be required, as those routes would be operating at a deficit (otherwise VIA would be operating those routes today).

For the second category, a significant amount of up front funding would be required to upgrade the tracks and get them approved for passenger use, as well as building stations along the way. Further funding would be required to the subsidize their operations.

As a result, neither of these categories are something VIA could just do on their own, as they would additional funding. Given how unenthusiastic the government has been about HFR, which has a much higher chance of being successful, I don't see VIA being keen on pushing any of these projects.

For Calgary - Edmonton service, start them off running several times a day each way. It used to do it in under 4 hours, so 2 trains could leave each end and then for about 12 hours do 3 runs each day and have a spare for breakdowns and maintenance.

First of all, that was over 35 years ago and was with RDCs, not locomotive hauled coaches. The Alberta government pressured the federal government into cancelling the train, because at those speeds, the trains caused several fatal collisions. One can only assume the infrastructure has degraded since then, so without significant investment, a new train service today would be significantly slower than it was back then.

While I do think that passenger servicer should be brought back to the Calgary - Edmonton corridor, using old trains nearing the end of their life is not a good way to earn votes out west. The western media, the Danielle Smith government and Pierre Poilievre would have a field day, claiming that getting castoff trains from Ontario and Quebec is an insult and the people of Alberta deserve better.

For the other 2 routes, a single daily service each way would be more than plenty to start.

I feel as though Toronto - Sudbury is best left for Ontario Northland as it is intra-provincial and they do already provide bus service. I'm not convinced that it will happen, but feel it is the route's best shot.

Halifax - St. John might actually be the best option. While there is the risk of it backfiring politically, I don't see there being as much political unrest in the marmites, so they might just be happy to get the service. Half of the route already has passenger rail service, so fewer infrastructure upgrades will likely be needed. For it to happen, I do feel as though there needs to be buy in (both politically and financially) from both the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick governments though.

I think the most likely option though is:

4) VIA sells/gives away the HEP coaches.

Tshiuetin Rail Transportation has several Budd coaches and they may want more. Also the Keewatin Railway Company operates ex VIA/CN CC&F cars and they may want an upgrade.
There are also many tourist railways in the USA that may want to operate these coaches. The HEP II coaches came from Amtrak, so it would make sense for them to go back home to the USA. Various railway museums may also want some of them.
 

Back
Top