News   Mar 28, 2024
 980     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 549     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 843     0 

VIA Rail

I`m starting to think that VIA should just be sold to the highest bidder.

The whole system is so political now that, that I think the public would be better served. A private run passenger train system would get rid of these expensive lines like entire section east of Sudbury to Vancouver and the splinter lines which serve nearly no one yet suck up all the resources. A private business would be able to concentrate on the lines that make economic and financial sense. VIA would be a cash cow for Ottawa which could then turn around and put that money into urban infrastructure and needed highway expansion that people will actually use. The Canadian and other lines could be bought by private companies for tourist routes.

As it stands right now VIA offers passable service to a few and abysmal service outside The Corridor...……...no one gets served well where selling it would provide far superior service to a smaller area to people who actually use it. I am a Vancouverite so I certainly can`t be accused of being biased but the reality is that if VIA was to stop all service in Western Canada, 99% of the population wouldn`t even notice and even fewer would care. People here would far rather have VIA sold and the portion made by the sale in their province go towards the infrastructure they will use as opposed to subsidies they won`t.
 
I'm on the train from Toronto Union to Ottawa today, and was doing some thinking. The Belleville-Ottawa segment is owned by VIA and highlighted in their HFR map, so I'd assume that this corridor as well (specifically the Brockville-Smiths Falls segment) would get an upgrade too, including possibly electrification? VIA has their own tracks at the Brockville station so it could be a perfect place for dual mode trains to disconnect from wires and become diesel and vice versa. Thoughts?

QlM5dIj.png
Koodos for takig the VIA train and sharing your idea!

I believe that the elephant in the room is the question whether CP would allow electrification on the tracks that cross their main line in Smiths Falls, as I'd assume that most of the operational and economic benefits of electrifying the Brockville Sub would be offset by the need to switch between traction modes three times in 30 km...
 
I believe that the elephant in the room is the question whether CP would allow electrification on the tracks that cross their main line in Smiths Falls, as I'd assume that most of the operational and economic benefits of electrifying the Brockville Sub would be offset by the need to switch between traction modes three times in 30 km...

In the mid-to-long term, the current situation through Smiths Falls is not sustainable. VIA has permission from CP (and the CTA) for 20 train slots across their mainline there - and they're now using all of them. Any improvement in service is either going to require an agreement with CP for more slots (and as it is CP tried to take away some of the previously negotiated slots for VIA, to no avail) - which seems unlikely at this juncture. Therefore, it may be more prudent to simply bypass CP altogether and build a new (or reused) alignment allowing for grade separation with CP's line.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
In the mid-to-long term, the current situation through Smiths Falls is not sustainable. VIA has permission from CP (and the CTA) for 20 train slots across their mainline there - and they're now using all of them. Any improvement in service is either going to require an agreement with CP for more slots (and as it is CP tried to take away some of the previously negotiated slots for VIA, to no avail) - which seems unlikely at this juncture. Therefore, it may be more prudent to simply bypass CP altogether and build a new (or reused) alignment allowing for grade separation with CP's line.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
Thank you for making the case for HFR! :)
 
Koodos for takig the VIA train and sharing your idea!

I believe that the elephant in the room is the question whether CP would allow electrification on the tracks that cross their main line in Smiths Falls, as I'd assume that most of the operational and economic benefits of electrifying the Brockville Sub would be offset by the need to switch between traction modes three times in 30 km...

A grade separation or bypass would be required in Smiths Falls, I'm sure if the dedicated route through Peterborough is ever used. I still remain very skeptical of the idea - there are several reasons why CP built the Belleville Sub one hundred years ago for its through trains and abandoned the Havelock Sub - its original mainline - in the 1980s.
 
Thank you for making the case for HFR! :)

But what HFR doesn't happen? There are some projects that will be needed - such as additional track on the Kingston Sub, or more sidings on the Alexandria and Chatham Subs, or high-level platforms at any number of possible stations - if HFR ends up being a no-go. At least in a couple of those cases the investments can be made independently of HFR and won't be wasted. But how long do we wait until we say "look, this has to happen now"?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
But what HFR doesn't happen? There are some projects that will be needed - such as additional track on the Kingston Sub, or more sidings on the Alexandria and Chatham Subs, or high-level platforms at any number of possible stations - if HFR ends up being a no-go. At least in a couple of those cases the investments can be made independently of HFR and won't be wasted. But how long do we wait until we say "look, this has to happen now"?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

I had dinner with Trudeau (don't mean to name drop, sorry) in January and he seemed pretty keen on it, and was familiar with the project (but didn't commit). If it doesn't happen, I'd be pretty disappointed on numerous levels, but I think it checks a few boxes for the government's priorities. At least we should know by end of year.

I'd also keep my eyes open for VIA buying the London-Kitchener line as previously discussed (CN regains control of the line in November, thus can sell it then if they so desire), and if that goes through I could see upgrades there being part of a larger project to also upgrade the Chatham sub for VIA's proposed hub service from London. But who knows!
 
I`m starting to think that VIA should just be sold to the highest bidder.
And what sort of private investor exactly would pay the government money to acquire a business unit which requires $265.3 Million per year [1] in federal subsidies just to cover its operational expenses? What kind of assets would they sell to recover the acquisition price? An obsolete fleet which is between 23 and 75 years old? Trust me, if VIA owned any assets which the federal government could gain significant privatization revenues from, they would have already sold them in 1990...

The whole system is so political now that, that I think the public would be better served.
Why should a business which relies on the federal taxpayer to cover 42% of its operating expenses [2] not be political? The taxpayers need to be assured that such a company is accountable to the Nation which ensures its existence and rightly expects a reasonable level of service in return...

VIA would be a cash cow for Ottawa which could then turn around and put that money into urban infrastructure and needed highway expansion that people will actually use.
These "splinter line" only account for 46.6% of VIA's deficit [3], meaning that more than half of VIA's operating subsidies (and a much higher share of its operational funding) go to the Corridor.

VIA would be a cash cow for Ottawa which could then turn around and put that money into urban infrastructure and needed highway expansion that people will actually use.
Can you name one country in the world where the passenger railway system is profitable from a government/national point of view and allows them to cross-subsidize other modes? Also, how would the federal government be able to extract these profits from VIA if they follow your recommendation to privatize it?

The Canadian and other lines could be bought by private companies for tourist routes.
Why would a private operator buy a service like the Canadian which currently looses $41.2 million per year (representing a deficit of 35.2% of its operating costs) [3] for any other reason than to terminate the competition to its own tourist operations and how would this benefit this country as a major tourist destination? By the way, the other non-Corridor routes even lost $97.95 million last year or 84.1% of their operating costs [4]...

As it stands right now VIA offers passable service to a few and abysmal service outside The Corridor...……...no one gets served well where selling it would provide far superior service to a smaller area to people who actually use it.
How would a private owner of VIA circumvent the challenges under which VIA operates, such as the very constrained frequencies, travel times and punctuality its host railways are willing to provide?

I am a Vancouverite so I certainly can`t be accused of being biased [...]
Why exactly would you residing in a certain corner of this country exempt you from any suspicion of bias? Quite on the contrary, it's difficult to understand VIA's national importance if you are living so peripheral to this country's population and rail passengers...

[..] but the reality is that if VIA was to stop all service in Western Canada, 99% of the population wouldn`t even notice and even fewer would care. People here would far rather have VIA sold [...]
Then how do you explain that VIA Rail is regarded as most trusted, most sustainable and environmental responsible and most socially responsible and ethical among transportation providers in the Dalhousie's Social License to Operate (SLO) ranking if non-users (which are admittedly the overwhelming majority of Canadians in any given year) don't care about it?
upload_2018-6-24_10-46-51.png

upload_2018-6-24_10-45-59.png

Source: Dalhousie University (2017, pp. 6+8)

[..] and the portion made by the sale in their province go towards the infrastructure they will use as opposed to subsidies they won`t.
How many km of Subway could you actually build every year if you were to somehow remove VIA's operating subsidy of $265.3 million and why would it matter on a national scale ($7.31 per Canadian)?

[1] 2017 Annual Report, p.8
[2] 2017 Annual Report, p.8: Operating loss ($265.3 million) divided by Total Operating expenses ($631.0 million)
[3] 2017 Annual Report, p.9: Shortfall ($41.23 million) divided by Costs ($117.17 million)
[4] 2017 Annual Report, p.9: Shortfall ($265.33-$141.74-$41.23=$82.35 million) divided by Costs ($631.00-$415.87-$117.17=$97.95 million)

A grade separation or bypass would be required in Smiths Falls, I'm sure if the dedicated route through Peterborough is ever used. I still remain very skeptical of the idea - there are several reasons why CP built the Belleville Sub one hundred years ago for its through trains and abandoned the Havelock Sub - its original mainline - in the 1980s.
I've read this claim (that CP saw the Belleville Sub as much superior to the Havelock Sub for passenger operations) quite frequently, but I struggle to back it up with actual timetable data: as you can see below, the number of inter-city trains operated via Belleville was only higher than those routed via Havelock around the 1920s, while passenger service was abandoned on both routes on the same day (January 23, 1966) and service between Toronto and Havelock still survived (with one interruption in the 1980s) until the fatal 1990 cuts. Also, even though the trains routed via Belleville tended to take less travel time than those via Havelock, the record set by the October 1965 CP timetable (i.e. the last timetable for this service) for both routes are only 5 minutes apart.

upload_2018-6-24_11-11-55.png

Sources: official Canadian Pacific Railway timetables from 1913/06/01, 1915/06/27, 1920/04/01, 1930/05/18, 1939/02/05, 1945/06/25, 1950/04/30, 1955/04/24, 1960/04/24, 1962/04/29 and 1965/10/31.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-6-24_10-45-59.png
    upload_2018-6-24_10-45-59.png
    170.7 KB · Views: 830
  • upload_2018-6-24_10-46-51.png
    upload_2018-6-24_10-46-51.png
    90.5 KB · Views: 820
  • upload_2018-6-24_11-11-55.png
    upload_2018-6-24_11-11-55.png
    297.7 KB · Views: 583
Last edited:
I've read this claim (that CP saw the Belleville Sub as much superior to the Havelock Sub for passenger operations) quite frequently, but I struggle to back it up with actual timetable data: as you can see below, the number of inter-city trains operated via Belleville was only higher than those routed via Havelock around the 1920s, while passenger service was abandoned on both routes on the same day (January 23, 1966) and service between Toronto and Havelock still survived (with one interruption in the 1980s) until the fatal 1990 cuts. Also, even though the trains routed via Belleville tended to take less travel time than those via Havelock, the record set by the October 1965 CP timetable (i.e. the last timetable for this service) for both routes are only 5 minutes apart.

I agree with much of your post above, but on this point I think you are not hearing the comparison of the lines in the context it is being offered.

We know as fact that the base engineering envelope of the Havelock line didn't even meet 1910 standards, and that after building the Belleville line, CP never attempted to match that design spec for the Havelock line. In its best form, it was only built to a low performance branch line standard, applying technology of at best about 1960.

There are lots of reasons why the higher engineering standard on the Belleville line did not turn up in the historical passenger timings. Until 1966, neither line was typified by a "express train" passenger service design. Service to many intermediate stops was mandatory. Dwell times reflected heavy volumes of railway post and express traffic, and steam propulsion - eg water and coal stops. The premier trains were overnight runs, with schedules timed to fit marketable departure and arrival times. The pool train agreements meant that CP was not attempting to compete on speed.

One reads plenty of first-hand accounts of fast running on the Belleville Sub, but that doesn't translate to favourable end to end timing.

It was only in 1966 that any of the timings were targeted towards diesel propulsion, no intermediate stops, and lowest possible end to end times. Those timings didn't last long enough to be proven.

The 1966 Budd timing for the Havelock was impressive for this route. In that era, CP tended to extract high performance from its RDC equipment, and CP was rather fearless about running it fast. We don't know if CP actually adhered to those schedules in practice. We especially don't know whether TC would permit the same speeds today, even if newer equipment is capable of similar or better speed on comparable track.

The 1966 Belleville timings factored in operation over a busier main line with more opposing traffic, so that similar timing actually reflects a more difficult operating environment and a higher quality infrastructure.

I would agree that the short-lived RDC timing on the Havelock is probably a reasonable benchmark of the best-possible timing for "conventional" equipment performance on that line, under most-favourable conditions of the day.

The question is not, can that standard be reinstated.... the question is, how much will it cost to achieve HFR, given that VIA's HFR performance spec is beyond that best-of-the-past level.... and given current regulatory and environmental standards are also higher.

One would expect the cost projection for the Havelock to be at the upper end, given what we are starting from. VIA's estimate seems awfully optimistic to the sidewalk observer.

- Paul
 
The usual suspects then. It's a bit of a shame that CRRC didn't get the chance since they are the largest in the world. I suspect a bit of politics played into this shortlist
Thursday's Times of London, front page lead story:

upload_2018-6-28_0-36-54.png


Here's the digital print copy: (I'd provide just the link, but this is subscription only)

China in driving seat to control HS2 trains
Chaos among British bidders leaves state-run rail firm favourite for contract

Robert Lea, Industrial Editor
June 28 2018, 12:01am, The Times

methode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F9ccf967e-7a4c-11e8-9c4a-473552a1b7c8.jpg

Potential domestic bidders are not in a position to take on the financial risks involved in such a massive projectGRIMSHAW ARCHITECTS/PA

Chinese railway companies are the frontrunners to operate HS2 trains because two domestic bidders are beset by crises and unwilling to take on the financial risk, The Times has learnt.

Guangshen Railway Co, an arm of the Chinese state rail company, and MTR, which runs Hong Kong’s rail network, are on course to win the contract, sources said.

Their bid is the most likely to win the tender to run the 220mph trains from a shortlist of three that also includes two British-led entries — one from a consortium involving Virgin and another led by First Group.

Virgin Trains handed back control of the east coast main line last Sunday after overbidding for the franchise. First Group has reported losses of £326 million and its chief executive resigned last month.

Terms in the tender for the West Coast Partnership, which includes HS2, could be too onerous for both. A senior rail source said that the companies’ issues “could let in the Chinese as they have deep, state-backed pockets and would have a blank cheque”.

The comments are likely to cause concern. Two years ago Theresa May delayed signing off government support for the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant, partly over the security implications of Chinese involvement.

In April, the National Cyber Security Centre wrote to telecoms providers to warn them that equipment and services from the Chinese state-owned company ZTE could pose a national security risk. MPs also expressed concern after Chinese investors acquired Global Switch, the £5 billion London-based sensitive data storage company. [...]
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/china-in-driving-seat-to-control-hs2-trains-cmr0tkjg0

I'm going to have to leave it at that in respect of the Fair Use Doctrine (not actually in force in Canada), unless discussing the content, and so:
[...]
At issue is the amount of capital the bidders are expected to put up in bonds to run HS2, when its future popularity is far from clear. It is also understood that the government wants the final salary pension scheme for employees on the west coast main line to revert to the winner of the bid. The liabilities would be very difficult for the likes of Stagecoach, which is part of the Virgin consortium, and First Group to bear.
[...]
MTR is regarded as a safe pair of hands. It used to run the London Overground, is First Group’s partner on South Western Railway and has the contract to run the trains on Crossrail. All three bidders declined to comment, as did the Department for Transport.
[..]
This may at first seem abstract to relate to VIA Rail, but trust me, it isn't. Rather than get myself into hot water before it hits the press here, this does go much deeper than VIA just running a fair and monitored RFQ. I highly suspect that CRRC (or branches of, it's a huge family store, CRRC itself being a branch) was blocked from bidding....and that in itself was due to....errrr...sensitive matters both abroad and to the south. Got to leave it at that.

Watch for the Globe especially to pick up the story after the Financial Times examines the UK permutations.

Take careful note of this:
Terms in the tender for the West Coast Partnership, which includes HS2, could be too onerous for both. A senior rail source said that the companies’ issues “could let in the Chinese as they have deep, state-backed pockets and would have a blank cheque”.
That *SO* applies to HFR! Nuff said for now...except that HFR+ would be a breeze to finance, build and operate compared to HS2.

Related but relevant to Canada's affected situation (we've been caught up in this)

FT reports:
US trade
Trump drops new restrictions on China investments
White House decides against moves to block Beijing’s acquisition of US technology

Canada is getting jerked around on this like a float on a stormy ocean. To cut a long story short, @cplchanb, you've hit a sore nerve. It might well be that the 'soother' for CRRC is that they will be allowed to to do a sole finance, build and operate HFR (perhaps) plus the Ontario "HSR" combined, since it would be campaign promises kept both federally and provincially, and unless there's a mandated Infrastructure Bank or Build Ontario partnership, it will be completely 'off the books'...no taxpayer involvement necessary.

I can't see any other way for HFR and/or HSR, yet both governments have campaigned heavily on transit. The demand is there, they will get built.

Addendum: To clarify, CRRC didn't bid on the rolling stock for HS2.
[...]
HS2 has made it clear that it expects the trains to be, if not manufactured in the UK, at least assembled in the country with the contracts demanding that bids boost British jobs and skills.

That means that Bombardier, and its historic plant in Derby, and Hitachi, with its more recently built facility in Co Durham, immediately clear the made-in-Britain hurdle. Bombardier makes trains for across the network including the new Aventra high-frequency electric trains for the London Crossrail. Hitachi has started delivering the new intercity express trains for Great Western and the London Kings Cross-Edinburgh Waverley line.

Alstom, the company behind Virgin Trains’ Pendolino tilting train fleet, has been developing a new train upgrade and maintenance facility in Widnes and it is understood that should the Alstom or Siemens bid win, that could be the base for building HS2 trains.

Alstom, a French company, has not built trains in the UK since it closed its Washwood Heath facility more than a decade ago. That site is instead going to be the main dedicated HS2 depot run for the new trains when they are in service.

Siemens, despite being awarded major UK rolling stock contracts over the years, notably for South Western Railway and Thameslink, has always made the trains in its homeland of Germany.

It is understood that Talgo made the shortlist after pledging to build a UK facility and it is reported to have started scouting for sites.

The new trains for HS2 are likely to be wholly new-build designs despite all the bidders having high-speed trains in service around the world.

There are currently only seven companies in the world capable of manufacturing high-speed trains, which makes CRRC of China and another Spanish company, CAF, the big losers in the HS2 tender. It is a knock back for CAF as it had recently won tenders to build trains for the north of England, around Birmingham and for the Caledonian Sleeper and had recently committed itself to building a manufacturing facility in Newport. [...]
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/five-trainmakers-shortlisted-for-2-75bn-hs2-contract-tk6t6db8h
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-6-28_0-36-54.png
    upload_2018-6-28_0-36-54.png
    647.9 KB · Views: 543
Last edited:
^ If I had to guess (and I really don't have any experience or insider knowledge in the slightest on this): I think the reason so little money has been spent is because the Minister hasn't said yes to starting the EA.
 
Oh dear. Trying to find a silver lining in this, and maybe the remainder is actually earmarked for EAs for segments of the line? I'd love to hear the forum's thoughts on this article.

Plan for faster train travel in Ontario and Quebec sputters – only 10% of $3.3M spent
As you can imagine, I'm not very impressed by the article, but I will have to comment only on the points which don't touch HFR directly:

Claim: "The proposal [...] would allow trains in the densely populated corridor to reach top speeds of 177 km/h [...]. That’s still not nearly as fast as some of the “bullet trains” in other parts of the world, which have reached speeds of between 300 km/h and 600 km/h."

Reality: The author confuses maximum speed test reached in tests (with modified train sets which are ready to get scrapped afterwards) with commercial speeds. The fastest commercial train speeds I'm aware of are 350 km/h in China and this is just twice as fast as 177 km/h. I've also argued previously that it's average speed and not maximum speed what matters when reducing travel times, but that's a different story...

Claim (actually a quote from our one-post member Paul Langan): "“Via Rail is suggesting this option of travelling through sparsely populated areas and only achieving trip times from the 1970s [...] I’m not sure what justification anybody could use to spend $4 billion to get trip times from 1973.”"

Reality: For the vast majority of train travellers in the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto triangle, train travel is already today faster (!) than it was in 1973 (and, by the way, it is also much more frequent today)…
upload_2018-6-30_10-50-29.png

Source: CN timetable from 1973/04/29 and VIA Rail timetable from 2017/11/05.

Amazing, what a difference that one single Turbo train made for business folks travelling between Montreal and Toronto for a meeting (pick your favourite meeting time and check how long you would have been gone from home)^^:
upload_2018-6-29_22-29-48.png

Source: CN timetable from 1973/04/29

And don't get me started about when the unavoidable Hyperloop-pipedream get's its mention as just another alternative proposal...^^
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-6-29_22-29-48.png
    upload_2018-6-29_22-29-48.png
    1.8 MB · Views: 544
  • upload_2018-6-30_10-50-29.png
    upload_2018-6-30_10-50-29.png
    19.8 KB · Views: 547
Last edited:
Agreed with Urban on the (special interest piqued and inebriated) so called 'experts' offering their definitive opinions dripping with obvious bias. This debate is far from over. More than ever, I see a form of HFR+ and Ontario HSR combined into one project (albeit probably in stages) but where I probably differ from Urban is in my seeing it being a *Private Initiative* such that the gist of Desjardins-Siciliano's vision is achieved including the rolling stock (being considerably more able than the present Fleet Replacement entries and completely electric) with VIA considered, or required as a condition of Federal/Provincial(s) share of shepherding the project through the legal and commercial hoops, to operate it as part of the VIA system, and/or with VIA running a "Corridor Corp" as a separate division from the money losing lines. The two really aren't compatible from a business sense.

Is there a demand to fulfill this vision with a private finance initiative? Absolutely, that's where I completely disagree with the self proclaimed
"experts". Will Government step up to finance this themselves? No, that's been clear for some time now. And Government hasn't been involved in the airline business for about a generation now either. And it's doing fine with a few exceptions, with private finance initiatives.

VIA doesn't want to 'own' much of anything. And with track, it's only because they're forced to due to intransigence with the bloodsuckers. VIA would be delighted to *lease* a ROW where they are the prime tenants, not bedraggled hangers-on to freight minded haulers who shaft them then charge them for it. Shaft them twice as bad, and charge twice as much.

D-S will see his dream materialize, but not with Gov't money save for it being a minority share.
 
Hopefully some journalist will eventually do a FOI request on the ‘alternatives’ study and we will have some hard data to pore over. It is ridiculous that these studies are being kept under wraps.

I would hope that this study has looked at the realistic options (eg upgrade the existing route as mixed freight/passenger, impose freight coproduction to secure the existing route as a dedicated passenger line, Gananoque bypass, the HFR as packaged by VIA) plus a couple of tranches of speed performance (110 mph, 125 mph, 150 mph)..... and not the less realistic options such as hyperloop etc.

- Paul
 

Back
Top