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

[micheal_can]

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.

I feel they will be the last to leave the Corridor as they are the ones in the 'best' shape. I am guessing 5-10 years.

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.

I know that as it stands, nothing indicates anything will happen.

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.

I would like to know if there is any indications that any of those crossings have been improved. If that is all that is needed, it wouldn't be the most horrible thing to spend money on.

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.

Very true. However, in the 5-10 years till the HEP are to be retired, who knows what the political climate will be.

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.

Also, very true. We shall see what happens with the return of the Northlander. If it goes well, it maybe a reason for the province to continue to add provincially funded rail. Also, if they were to do that, there is a good chance the Siemens fleet would be what they would use.

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.

That is a good point. They would be happy for Ontario hand me downs. Funny thing is, doing this first could create a buzz in AB for it and then the political hit would actually be a gain.

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.

Replacing an aging fleet or expanding those lines would be a good thing. I hope they are not set out of Canada.

 

[roger1818]

I feel they will be the last to leave the Corridor as they are the ones in the 'best' shape. I am guessing 5-10 years.

5-10 years? The new fleet was scheduled to be complete in 2024, but with the delays, I wouldn't be surprised if that gets pushed back by a year, so we are talking 1-2 years (maybe 3 at the absolute most).

I would like to know if there is any indications that any of those crossings have been improved. If that is all that is needed, it wouldn't be the most horrible thing to spend money on.

Crossings upgrades are only one factor (albeit a major one). Track upgrades are another, as are new stations.

Very true. However, in the 5-10 years till the HEP are to be retired, who knows what the political climate will be.

You mean 1-2 or at most 3 years. The political climate will likely be the same or worse.

Also, very true. We shall see what happens with the return of the Northlander. If it goes well, it maybe a reason for the province to continue to add provincially funded rail. Also, if they were to do that, there is a good chance the Siemens fleet would be what they would use.

If it happens, you are right and they would most likely try to buy more Siemens trainsets, though it might take some time as there is a huge backlog with Amtrak's order.

Replacing an aging fleet or expanding those lines would be a good thing. I hope they are not set out of Canada.

It would be nice to keep the ex-Canadian Pacific HEP I coaches (nos. 8100-8129) and HEP I baggage coaches (nos. 8600-8617) in Canada. The other HEP I coaches (nos. 8130-8147) and baggage coaches (nos. 8618-8623), along with the HEP II coaches (nos. 4000-4009 and 4100-4125) don't matter as much of they stay in Canada. As I said, they were originally purchased by American railroads and thus aren't as significant to Canadian history.

By my estimation, in the corridor fleet, VIA has (had?):

• 5 HEP I Coaches,
• 2 HEP I Baggage cars,
• 23 HEP II Coaches, and
• 10 HEP II Club cars.

 

[micheal_can]

5-10 years? The new fleet was scheduled to be complete in 2024, but with the delays, I wouldn't be surprised if that gets pushed back by a year, so we are talking 1-2 years (maybe 3 at the absolute most).

1-3years? I did not think they would be coming that fast. Good to hear.

Crossings upgrades are only one factor (albeit a major one). Track upgrades are another, as are new stations.

They would need to designate stops/stations and have some sort of safe waiting area. What it looks like in the end may be quite simplistic, but I do agree it is not as simple as simply running trains. No different really than what is happening with the Northlander. Since many of the old stations are now being used for other things, they are doing what they can.

You mean 1-2 or at most 3 years. The political climate will likely be the same or worse.

If JT needs something to throw at AB to get a seat or 2, this might be just the thing, if his party survives the next election,but that is a whole other topic.

If it happens, you are right and they would most likely try to buy more Siemens trainsets, though it might take some time as there is a huge backlog with Amtrak's order.

So, 2030 arrival? If that is the case, that is within the time needed to see whether the Northlander is successful and the fate of the HCR.

It would be nice to keep the ex-Canadian Pacific HEP I coaches (nos. 8100-8129) and HEP I baggage coaches (nos. 8600-8617) in Canada. The other HEP I coaches (nos. 8130-8147) and baggage coaches (nos. 8618-8623), along with the HEP II coaches (nos. 4000-4009 and 4100-4125) don't matter as much. As I said, they were originally purchased by American railroads and thus aren't as significant to Canadian history.

By my estimation, in the corridor fleet, VIA has (had?):

• 5 HEP I Coaches,
• 2 HEP I Baggage cars,
• 23 HEP II Coaches, and
• 10 HEP II Club cars.

I feel if they are sold off, places like Exporail will get one.

 

[Urban Sky]

For those who want to count how many level crossings there are between Edmonton and Calgary (and compare that number to Washago-Timmins, where speeds will be much slower), you can count them here:

RAC Canadian Rail Atlas

rac.jmaponline.net

 

[micheal_can]

For those who want to count how many level crossings there are between Edmonton and Calgary (and compare that number to Washago-Timmins, where speeds will be much slower), you can count them here:

RAC Canadian Rail Atlas

rac.jmaponline.net

View attachment 518761

The goal for the Northlander is 60 mph/100kmph. Given than Calgary and Edmonton are under 400km away from each other, if the train could do the same as the Northlander, it would compete with driving.

 

[Urban Sky]

I‘m afraid it‘s pointless to discuss with someone who apparently doesn‘t grasp the less-than-subtle differences between maximum and average speed…

 

[micheal_can]

I‘m afraid it‘s pointless to discuss with people who apparently don‘t grasp the less-than-subtle differences between maximum and average speed…

With what you said, I took it to mean that the speeds of the 2 routes would be the same. At the information session,they said the average speed would be 60mph. So, if you are saying they would be the same,then the Calgary - Edmonton run should be roughly the same. If that is not what you are saying,then why not say what the average speed likely would be?

 

[Kitsune]

For those who want to count how many level crossings there are between Edmonton and Calgary (and compare that number to Washago-Timmins, where speeds will be much slower), you can count them here:

RAC Canadian Rail Atlas

rac.jmaponline.net

View attachment 518761

a lot of these crossings are either a) private driveway or b gravel roads to service the farms, and is also mostly flat flat flat with fairly straight track.. Its not an apple to apple comparison to northern ontario, where the grade crossings are highway 11, local roads within towns, or logging roads while goes through the canadian shield with many curves and grade changes.

 

[crs1026]

With what you said, I took it to mean that the speeds of the 2 routes would be the same. At the information session,they said the average speed would be 60mph. So, if you are saying they would be the same,then the Calgary - Edmonton run should be roughly the same. If that is not what you are saying,then why not say what the average speed likely would be?

You might want to find and read some of the past proposals for these new lines you envision eg Calgary-Edmonton and try to offer an informed view of these, rather than just opining your personal view of what sells.

Calgary-Edmonton is an interesting case study. Past proposals are all over the map (poor use of a figure of speech, I'm sure) in terms of what they propose. Some assume a new ROW (not unrealistic given the amount of open land available), some assume a new track build alongside an existing freight line, some assume shared or primary use of the freight line itself. Some assume higher end technology, others don't.

Each of these had its own view of what would sell to a potential ridership. And its own view of what was standing in the way. Care to explain what these studies and proposals got wrong?

So far, none have gotten off the ground let alone gained any political momentum. Maybe one will some day.... but if building a passenger rail network were as simple as spotting large cities on the map and drawing a 60 mph line between them, we'd be in a different universe.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

You might want to find and read some of the past proposals for these new lines you envision eg Calgary-Edmonton and try to offer an informed view of these, rather than just opining your personal view of what sells.

Calgary-Edmonton is an interesting case study. Past proposals are all over the map (poor use of a figure of speech, I'm sure) in terms of what they propose. Some assume a new ROW (not unrealistic given the amount of open land available), some assume a new track build alongside an existing freight line, some assume shared or primary use of the freight line itself. Some assume higher end technology, others don't.

Each of these had its own view of what would sell to a potential ridership. And its own view of what was standing in the way. Care to explain what these studies and proposals got wrong?

So far, none have gotten off the ground let alone gained any political momentum. Maybe one will some day.... but if building a passenger rail network were as simple as spotting large cities on the map and drawing a 60 mph line between them, we'd be in a different universe.

- Paul

The only studies I have seen is for a new greenfield HSR construction. While there is merit for it, since our discussion currently is on what to do with the HEP fleet if they are retained, HSR is not part of it. That is not to say that HSR should or shouldn't be built, but it is not part of this current conversation. I have not seen anything on regular rail studies for that corridor. If there are,and it can be linked here,I would gladly go over it to learnt he challenges before continuing the discussion on it.

 

[Urban Sky]

With what you said, I took it to mean that the speeds of the 2 routes would be the same. At the information session,they said the average speed would be 60mph.

Toronto-North Bay is approximately 350 km and North Bay-Timmins (via Matheson) is roughly another 350 km. The schedule I‘ve seen shared shows a travel time of 5 hours for Toronto-North Bay and 5:30 hours for North Bay-Timmins, which translates to an average speed of 63-70 km/h. 60 mph (96 km/h) is the maximum allowable speed of Track Class 3 and these travel times suggest that ONR has no ambition to exceed them, which suggests that they were refering to it as a maximum and not average speed.

So, if you are saying they would be the same,then the Calgary - Edmonton run should be roughly the same. If that is not what you are saying,then why not say what the average speed likely would be?

Calgary-Edmonton is approximentely 300km. Assuming the ONTC‘s average speed of 63-70 km/h, you get a travel time of between 4:17 and 4:43 hours. To compare: Google Maps shows a regular driving time of 3:05 hours and the fastest scheduled travel time is 3:30h for the bus…

 

[micheal_can]

Toronto-North Bay is approximately 350 km and North Bay-Timmins (via Matheson) is roughly another 350 km. The schedule I‘ve seen shared shows a travel time of 5 hours for Toronto-North Bay and 5:30 hours for North Bay-Timmins, which translates to an average speed of 63-70 km/h.

Calgary-Edmonton is approximentely 300km. Assuming an average speed of 63-70 km/h, you get a travel time of between 4:17 and 4:43 hours. To compare: Google Maps shows a regular driving time of 3:05 hours and the fastest scheduled travel time is 3:30h for the bus…

Thank you for that clarification. I wonder if I misheard them say km/hr instead of mph.

So, it would not be as fast as driving. I wonder where the biggest bang for buck is to get an average speed closer to 60 mph.

 

[micheal_can]

One thing I hope this forum thread can be about is not just about saying there is a lack, but also to get down to why there is a lack and what is needed. In the end it is just money. However, understanding where that money would need to go is important.

 

[crs1026]

So, it would not be as fast as driving. I wonder where the biggest bang for buck is to get an average speed closer to 60 mph.

The biggest risk to schedule is on the section south of Washago where freight interference is greatest. The grass-roots study that preceded the ONR announcement did suggest adding track in that section. There may be merit to that suggestion.

Intuitively, getting speed out of the lesser-quality section from Washago to Huntsville and then to North Bay would attract the greatest number of riders, as opposed to increasing speed further north. The problem is that this line never really had much speed. Using 1978 as the benchmark - there was only one section of 10 miles with a 70 mph top speed. But even within that zone, there was a 2-mile slow order for 55 mph and 1.2 miles at 25. There were many long stretches with 55 or 50 mph top speed, and some PSO's of 40, 45 and even 25. No doubt these are related to curves and I'm not at all optimistic that they could be eased without a HFR-level investment. And I just don't see that happening.

Even with nice new Siemens trainsets, the line has some real obstacles to higher ridership.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

The biggest risk to schedule is on the section south of Washago where freight interference is greatest. The grass-roots study that preceded the ONR announcement did suggest adding track in that section. There may be merit to that suggestion.

Intuitively, getting speed out of the lesser-quality section from Washago to Huntsville and then to North Bay would attract the greatest number of riders, as opposed to increasing speed further north. The problem is that this line never really had much speed. Using 1978 as the benchmark - there was only one section of 10 miles with a 70 mph top speed. But even within that zone, there was a 2-mile slow order for 55 mph and 1.2 miles at 25. There were many long stretches with 55 or 50 mph top speed, and some PSO's of 40, 45 and even 25. No doubt these are related to curves and I'm not at all optimistic that they could be eased without a HFR-level investment. And I just don't see that happening.

Even with nice new Siemens trainsets, the line has some real obstacles to higher ridership.

- Paul

Since Via'sc Canadian also uses the line south of Washago, would a joint provincial/federal funding to cover the costs to double track that section be warranted?

I thought the slow sections these days are more due to track condition as apposed to track geometry.