VIA Rail

[littlewill1166]

No, they don't.

The reason why its so delayed is because there simply isn't enough capacity on CN's lines. CN's own trains are subject to the same delays as the Canadian is. It just happens to be more obvious as the freight doesn't have a Twitter account.

A CN retiree who sat next to me on the train told me they categorized it as a tourist train. He also told me that he takes the Canadian twice a year. Also CN's freight can't be as delayed because their trains are too long to sit on the short sidings that the Canadian has to sit on.

 

[smallspy]

A CN retiree who sat next to me on the train told me they categorized it as a tourist train. He also told me that he takes the Canadian twice a year. Also CN's freight can't be as delayed because their trains are too long to sit on the short sidings that the Canadian has to sit on.

And a friend of mine who happens to be the RTC chief in Toronto has shown me the paperwork and computer screens. The train is very clearly labelled "P001 - Passenger or P002 - Passenger". It's the same rating that they give all of GO's trains, and the runs on the Corridor.

As for CN's freights not getting delayed - why is it that trains were being parked outside of major terminals for 2 and 3 days at a time last winter then?

Just because the trains are too long for the majority of the sidings doesn't mean that they can't get held for meets. There are lots of other ways to do it, such as splitting trains, or holding them in yards and terminals.

Dan

 

[Allandale25]

What's the latest with REM and the Mount Royal tunnel and how it could impact HFR? I don't follow Montreal news closely so not sure if there have been any updates this fall.

 

[littlewill1166]

And a friend of mine who happens to be the RTC chief in Toronto has shown me the paperwork and computer screens. The train is very clearly labelled "P001 - Passenger or P002 - Passenger". It's the same rating that they give all of GO's trains, and the runs on the Corridor.

As for CN's freights not getting delayed - why is it that trains were being parked outside of major terminals for 2 and 3 days at a time last winter then?

Just because the trains are too long for the majority of the sidings doesn't mean that they can't get held for meets. There are lots of other ways to do it, such as splitting trains, or holding them in yards and terminals.

Dan

CN has been responsible for the second most number of freight train interference minutes for on Amtrak years now. If this was really a capacity problem it should have been fixed by now. It doesn't really matter if you categorise a train as P001 or P002 if you treat it like a tourist train (for which your friend at RTC is partially responsible).

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/HostRailroadReports/September-2019-Amtrak-Host-Railroad-Report.pdf

 

[smallspy]

CN has been responsible for the second most number of freight train interference minutes for on Amtrak years now.

Which just goes to reinforce my point that they don't have enough capacity on their system.

Fixing that means spending money. I don't know how well you know the North American rail system, but there was a storm that swept through half of it named E. Hunter Harrison for the past 30 years from which the whole of the network is only just starting to recover from. The railroads have become extremely adverse to spending money if they don't absolutely have to. Shareholder happiness is now the name of the game.

If this was really a capacity problem it should have been fixed by now.

Easier said than done. See above.

It doesn't really matter if you categorise a train as P001 or P002 if you treat it like a tourist train (for which your friend at RTC is partially responsible).

P001 is the train number - it has nothing to do with categorization. The "- Passenger" that is appended to it is its categorization.

But sure, go with the anecdotal evidence of a former railroad employee who likely was not high up enough the food chain to know how they operated to take your information from.

(For the record, yes, my friend has been responsible for delays to the Canadian from time-to-time. He does, however, have to account for said delays to his superiors. Everything has a metric nowadays.)

Dan

 

[p_xavier]

What's the latest with REM and the Mount Royal tunnel and how it could impact HFR? I don't follow Montreal news closely so not sure if there have been any updates this fall.

There are new sidings/switches currently being installed in the Turcot yard to accommodate the Mascouche train to Gare-Centrale directly. It will add about 15 minutes to go around the mountain. HFR could be routed in the same way. The CDPQi has said that tracks installed in the tunnel will support heavy rail, but I doubt that we will ever see VIA Rail trains again in the tunnel.

I always saw the Mount Royal tunnel used exclusively for the REM as a non-issue for HFR even if rail fanatics think otherwise.

 

[Allandale25]

^ Cool thanks for the update. Thoughts @Urban Sky ?

 

[robmausser]

There are new sidings/switches currently being installed in the Turcot yard to accommodate the Mascouche train to Gare-Centrale directly. It will add about 15 minutes to go around the mountain. HFR could be routed in the same way. The CDPQi has said that tracks installed in the tunnel will support heavy rail, but I doubt that we will ever see VIA Rail trains again in the tunnel.

I always saw the Mount Royal tunnel used exclusively for the REM as a non-issue for HFR even if rail fanatics think otherwise.
View attachment 212793

The only issue with this is that VIA isnt planning to use the Mascouche line, which does end up on the CFQG line further north.

Going the Mascouche EXO route would add even more than 15 minutes to the VIA route, and im not even sure EXO wants this.

Getting to the CFQG line earlier and without the tunnel is hard, there is currently no connection from the CN Kingston Sub around like this; all tracks point to L'ucien station.

EDIT: nevermind, it looks like the tunnel doesnt get to the CFQG line either.

If Via could figure out a routing directly to the CFQG line within Montreal and avoid the Mascouche line, the extra 15 or so minutes that take around Mont Royal might be saved off of the backtracking the Mascouche line takes later to the CFQG

 

[SamStar]

The only issue with this is that VIA isnt planning to use the Mascouche line, which does end up on the CFQG line further north.

Going the Mascouche EXO route would add even more than 15 minutes to the VIA route, and im not even sure EXO wants this.

Getting to the CFQG line earlier and without the tunnel is hard, there is currently no connection from the CN Kingston Sub around like this; all tracks point to L'ucien station.

EDIT: nevermind, it looks like the tunnel doesnt get to the CFQG line either.

If Via could figure out a routing directly to the CFQG line within Montreal and avoid the Mascouche line, the extra 15 or so minutes that take around Mont Royal might be saved off of the backtracking the Mascouche line takes later to the CFQG

The only option I see that does not require expropriation or massive infrastructure work is to approach Montreal via Laval on CP line and change to CN at St-Luc Yard.

Alternatively, an interchange could be built there https://goo.gl/maps/6avgS9wZNK7SsLSW7 and requires a partial expropriation of the Home Depot parking.

 

[p_xavier]

The only issue with this is that VIA isnt planning to use the Mascouche line, which does end up on the CFQG line further north.

Going the Mascouche EXO route would add even more than 15 minutes to the VIA route, and im not even sure EXO wants this.

Getting to the CFQG line earlier and without the tunnel is hard, there is currently no connection from the CN Kingston Sub around like this; all tracks point to L'ucien station.

EDIT: nevermind, it looks like the tunnel doesnt get to the CFQG line either.

If Via could figure out a routing directly to the CFQG line within Montreal and avoid the Mascouche line, the extra 15 or so minutes that take around Mont Royal might be saved off of the backtracking the Mascouche line takes later to the CFQG

The Via plan is/was to use the St-Jérôme line. Thing is, it still needed to connect to the main ex-AMT line to access the Mount Royal tunnel. I don't know what their plans are, even the CN lines to connect to Ottawa/Toronto are maxing out in capacity from Central Station.

 

[p_xavier]

The only option I see that does not require expropriation or massive infrastructure work is to approach Montreal via Laval on CP line and change to CN at St-Luc Yard.

Alternatively, an interchange could be built there https://goo.gl/maps/6avgS9wZNK7SsLSW7 and requires a partial expropriation of the Home Depot parking.

That's the only way I see it too.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Honestly it's not even the rail fanatics who think REM is a disaster for VIA as the naysayers of the type who run the country... How many times have we heard in the last few years that installing a few switches to run around the mountain is obviously impossibly expensive?

At least rail fans see possibilities, politicians and cynics have been laughing nearly every project out of serious discussion for far too long.

 

[littlewill1166]

Which just goes to reinforce my point that they don't have enough capacity on their system.

Fixing that means spending money. I don't know how well you know the North American rail system, but there was a storm that swept through half of it named E. Hunter Harrison for the past 30 years from which the whole of the network is only just starting to recover from. The railroads have become extremely adverse to spending money if they don't absolutely have to. Shareholder happiness is now the name of the game.



Easier said than done. See above.



P001 is the train number - it has nothing to do with categorization. The "- Passenger" that is appended to it is its categorization.

But sure, go with the anecdotal evidence of a former railroad employee who likely was not high up enough the food chain to know how they operated to take your information from.

(For the record, yes, my friend has been responsible for delays to the Canadian from time-to-time. He does, however, have to account for said delays to his superiors. Everything has a metric nowadays.)

Dan

I think that the Amtrak stats demonstrate that CN is especially bad in terms of delaying passenger trains and that the Hunter Harrison effect doesn't fully explain the delays given that he also ran CP and CSX which don't seem to experience this issue to the same degree. Looking deeper into the Amtrak stats, many of CN's delays can also be attributable to slow orders and signal issues. Long story short, it's a maintenance issue and I find it hard to believe that CN wouldn't see a return on its investment (through a reduction in delays and overtime) just by properly maintaining its infrastructure.

 

[crs1026]

I think that the Amtrak stats demonstrate that CN is especially bad in terms of delaying passenger trains and that the Hunter Harrison effect doesn't fully explain the delays given that he also ran CP and CSX which don't seem to experience this issue to the same degree. Looking deeper into the Amtrak stats, many of CN's delays can also be attributable to slow orders and signal issues. Long story short, it's a maintenance issue and I find it hard to believe that CN wouldn't see a return on its investment (through a reduction in delays and overtime) just by properly maintaining its infrastructure.

You have this totally backwards. CN's track is maintained well enough. Growth in business, and the drive to longer trains, is what turned the optimal configuration of the physical plant on its head. The track capacity is barely adequate to keep freight moving because of the dearth of passing sidings long enough to accommodate today's "land barge" trains, along with the huge increase in the amount of freight being moved.
If you look at their capital program, it's apparent that they are in crash catchup mode. That program was a reaction to the system reaching near meltdown, along with rethinking and recovery from some of Harrison's more extreme constraints. Certainly, CN should have been adding track all along, instead of diverting capital to the shareholders. But that's now water under the bridge. The surplus capacity that made it possible to serve VIA from the seventies until the last decade has disappeared as freight business has grown.
CN is adding only enough capacity to stabilise its operations and prepare for further growth in business. To accommodate VIA, they would have to add further capacity. To return to operating the Canadian on a traditional timing and timeliness, someone would have to provide that capital or at least guarantee a return on it. The price tag for that would kill passenger service for good.

- Paul

 

[littlewill1166]

You have this totally backwards. CN's track is maintained well enough. Growth in business, and the drive to longer trains, is what turned the optimal configuration of the physical plant on its head. The track capacity is barely adequate to keep freight moving because of the dearth of passing sidings long enough to accommodate today's "land barge" trains, along with the huge increase in the amount of freight being moved.
If you look at their capital program, it's apparent that they are in crash catchup mode. That program was a reaction to the system reaching near meltdown, along with rethinking and recovery from some of Harrison's more extreme constraints. Certainly, CN should have been adding track all along, instead of diverting capital to the shareholders. But that's now water under the bridge. The surplus capacity that made it possible to serve VIA from the seventies until the last decade has disappeared as freight business has grown.
CN is adding only enough capacity to stabilise its operations and prepare for further growth in business. To accommodate VIA, they would have to add further capacity. To return to operating the Canadian on a traditional timing and timeliness, someone would have to provide that capital or at least guarantee a return on it. The price tag for that would kill passenger service for good.

- Paul

If you also look at CN and VIA's corridor operations, and the CN corridors where Amtrak trains operate, there are maintenance issues. Riding from Toronto to London, the signalling system is so fragile that it doesn't work in sections if the weather gets a little worse. If you look at the capital program on a systemwide basis, a lot of it is state of good repair (rail tie replacement, new rails, etc) proving my point that there a maintenance issue on CN. I find it hard to believe that signal issues and slow orders (as outlined in the Amtrak report) don't delay the Canadian as they do for other passenger trains on other parts of the network.