VIA Rail

[Northern Light]

I really don't see the need/value in extending train to Chicago.

Chicago is a great city, and yes a lot of people make the jaunt/connection between Chicago and Toronto.....but this is a route that the airplane will always have a fairly clear advantage on.

I think Chicago is something that can only be looked at when the U.S. has also cut travel times substantially. I gather they are working on this now in the Chicago-Detroit corridor, but they are still a ways off from a decent trip time.

Before they get to Chicago, they should probably look at Buffalo.

Lots of Canadians from the GTA already travel that way, and the traffic, on our side of the border can be horrendous, as can customs waits at the bridges.

Right now this is only served by 'The Maple Leaf' which goes all the way to NYC and as such has real difficulties adhering to schedule.

A shorter shuttle run w/pre-clearance at Niagara Falls, NY and Union Stn, and possibly West Harbour in Hamilton would make more sense.

It also has to be more frequent in order to accommodate day trippers. A minimum of twice, each way, each day.

 

[crs1026]

I really don't see the need/value in extending train to Chicago.
Chicago is a great city, and yes a lot of people make the jaunt/connection between Chicago and Toronto.....but this is a route that the airplane will always have a fairly clear advantage on.

The Detroit-Chicago line is being upgraded and will offer a pretty fast ride soon throughout its length. The crossing from Windsor to Detroit to make the connection is barely possible at present. An improved connection would make the trip at least auto-competitive.

I agree that the market share won't ever be huge, just as VIA's current share of the Toronto-New York market isn't huge....but it will connect two major cities and carry enough people to cover the above the rail costs. That makes it viable. There are tourists from overseas who would ride it to see the country. Getting even one train on some of these hardscrabble routes is important to promoting the network, so I'd say it's worth the effort.

Edit: see http://www.southbendtribune.com/new...cle_d1ab3430-bdb5-5201-b71e-34c7651f826e.html

There are some interesting parallels to the D-S HFR proposal.

- Paul

 

[MisterF]

.
.
.
You can already do ~$75 today for Guildwood-Ottawa if you shop www.viarail.ca on a Tuesday approximately 8 weeks in advance. Not sure if it still qualifies for military, though...

The trick is
(1) Visit www.viarail.ca on a Tuesday and;
(2) Select an "Escape Fare" for a trip many weeks in advance
(generally easy to find the lowest fares few weeks in advance for a weekday trip, or ~8 weeks in advance for a weekend trip)

I would hope that HFR makes the low fares more common and easier to find, at least for regular travellers.

Not to mention that the cost of driving is significantly more than just the price of gas. A trip that costs $70 in gas likely costs north of $100 including wear and tear on the car and maintenance that has to be done sooner. Of course, when you have enough people in a car it truly is cheaper than the train...but too many people only account for the price of gas and ignore the other costs.

 

[steveintoronto]

There are some interesting parallels to the D-S HFR proposal.- Paul

Excellent link!

The two rail associations are asking Michigan Department of Transportation to include double-tracking in its plans for upgrades aimed at reducing travel times, boosting reliability, and adding daily roundtrips to the schedule.

What's immediately interesting about that, as you allude to 'parallels', is that it is the *State* jurisdiction, not Federal, for the RoW. This mimes the Ontario (so called) "HSR" proposal.

MDOT officials considered double-tracking all of the Wolverine route, but decided against it, according to Michael Frezell, an MDOT spokesperson.

“A capacity analysis concluded that double-tracking the entire corridor in Michigan was not necessary to accommodate full build-out service,” Frezell said in an interview prior to the community meeting.

Full build-out refers to the goal of having 10 daily roundtrips between Chicago and Detroit (of the 10, seven would go to Pontiac — a Detroit suburb), with trains traveling at an average speed of 58 miles per hour, and with travel time between Chicago and Pontiac at five hours and 16 minutes.

Ouch on that speed stated! Hopefully that's not the corridor average. The "single track" and "GPS" (ostensibly CBTC) reference again mimes the VIA proposal for Tor-Mont HFT. More reference on that here:

Frezell said efficiencies in the use of in-locomotive train signaling, GPS, and other technological improvements can help coordinate trains, thereby reducing the need for continuous double track.

That's a very well-written article considering South Bend is not a major city. US rail blogs must be abuzz on this.

 

[kEiThZ]

You can already do ~$75 today for Guildwood-Ottawa if you shop www.viarail.ca on a Tuesday approximately 8 weeks in advance. Not sure if it still qualifies for military, though...

The military discount code gives me 25% any fare. So yes, it's great on Tuesday. My point is that I shouldn't have to plan 8 weeks in advance and book just on Tuesdays for a deal. When I lived in Ottawa, at best, I was planning 2-3 weeks out for some or the other friends or family occasion in Toronto. 8 weeks out is utterly impractical for anybody who isn't a tourist planning a vacation.

I did use my military discount to buy ten ride packs a few times. To give me the flexibility to travel any time. And I have a discount I can use. Imagine people who don't.

Not to mention that the cost of driving is significantly more than just the price of gas. A trip that costs $70 in gas likely costs north of $100 including wear and tear on the car and maintenance that has to be done sooner. Of course, when you have enough people in a car it truly is cheaper than the train...but too many people only account for the price of gas and ignore the other costs.

Railfans make this argument all the time. And it doesn't end up selling tickets because it simply doesn't line up with the reality of how people use cars. Especially in North America. If it did, VIA's corridor service would be minting.... A lot of people have a car. So a roadtrip is an incremental cost to them. And they have transport when they get to their destination. Sure, you can count usage dependent costs, like depreciation, and maintenance. But the average user doesn't. They look at fuel costs. And will accept x amount over and above fuel costs so they don't have to drive for hours. At two people in the car, driving is already on par with rail considering all costs. At 3-5, it gets a whole lot cheaper.

The only reason I took the train regularly was because I was by myself and didn't want to drive 4.5 hrs alone. I did drive when I had friends or my brother to share the drive with. If VIA wants any hope of actually capturing market share from the car, I'd argue that Toronto-Ottawa should be something like $60 per person. If not, anybody who's price sensitive with either use rideshare or the bus. Anybody who has the money and/or more than one passenger will drive.

 

[MisterF]

Railfans make this argument all the time. And it doesn't end up selling tickets because it simply doesn't line up with the reality of how people use cars. Especially in North America. If it did, VIA's corridor service would be minting.... A lot of people have a car. So a roadtrip is an incremental cost to them. And they have transport when they get to their destination. Sure, you can count usage dependent costs, like depreciation, and maintenance. But the average user doesn't. They look at fuel costs. And will accept x amount over and above fuel costs so they don't have to drive for hours. At two people in the car, driving is already on par with rail considering all costs. At 3-5, it gets a whole lot cheaper.

Well this is exactly my point. Most people just count the price of fuel even though the actual cost is quite a bit higher. Just because most people don't account for the extra costs that doesn't mean they don't exist. Yes, as I said, if you have enough people in the car it makes it cheaper than other travel modes. I don't see a problem with that.

Car ownership is irrelevant. Countries all over the world have shown that you can have high car ownership and a strong rail system. Canada is 12th in the world in per capita car ownership, between Italy and Spain. And those numbers don't include motorcycles and scooters, which are undoubtedly more common in Europe.

The only reason I took the train regularly was because I was by myself and didn't want to drive 4.5 hrs alone. I did drive when I had friends or my brother to share the drive with. If VIA wants any hope of actually capturing market share from the car, I'd argue that Toronto-Ottawa should be something like $60 per person. If not, anybody who's price sensitive with either use rideshare or the bus. Anybody who has the money and/or more than one passenger will drive.

Via Rail prices seem to be a bit higher than other countries if you book on short notice, but not by much. A trip from London to Newcastle, which is about the same distance as Toronto to Ottawa, costs $138 return if I travel tomorrow. Naples to Florence is US$176 return (that's a 2.5 hour trip - slower trains can be cheaper but take longer). The main reason that Via isn't more popular isn't price, it's because it's never been given a chance to be anything more than a marginal player. If the HFR proposal gets built I have no doubt that a lot more people would take the train.

 

[kEiThZ]

Well this is exactly my point. Most people just count the price of fuel even though the actual cost is quite a bit higher. Just because most people don't account for the extra costs that doesn't mean they don't exist. Yes, as I said, if you have enough people in the car it makes it cheaper than other travel modes. I don't see a problem with that.

Never said those costs don't disappear. Just that they are marginal at best to the decision on whether to use the car or not. If the argument is going to be to always factor depreciation and wear and tear, nobody would ever own a car. They'd take transit everywhere. Clearly, most people don't do that. They value their time and comfort substantially more than the cost of a vehicle. The only time people don't drive? When road congestion is high or parking charges are expensive.

If I own a car, a roadtrip is a marginal decision on usage. I already own the car. And it's going to depreciate sitting in my driveway. And for that, it's really gas (@$1/L and assuming 7L/100km) and wear and tear (which if you consider regular maintenance and mileage on tires, is about 4 cents per km). That's about $50 in costs for the average 450km road trip. And that's assuming a less efficient car. My hybrid does less than 5L/100km on such trips.

Car ownership is irrelevant.

It's quite relevant in our context. How much market share does VIA have on the Toronto-Ottawa sector? What you ignore in the European context is the price of fuel. It's much more expensive to drive in Europe than in Canada. If you're paying 1 pound per litre in the UK or 1.2 Euros per litre in France, driving 450 km becomes very pricey. Even with a fuel efficient vehicle. That's a fuel charge that's at least 50% higher than Canada. And that doesn't include more prevalent road tolls in Europe.

The main reason that Via isn't more popular isn't price, it's because it's never been given a chance to be anything more than a marginal player. If the HFR proposal gets built I have no doubt that a lot more people would take the train.

Anecdotal and personal experience to be sure. But I do think price is a much bigger factor that most railfans are willing to admit. I'd love to see actual studies on price sensitivity. But I fear if this mentality (the idea that VIA's prices are just fine and that only a frequency and speed boost is needed) keeps up, we'll have a multi-billion dollar version of UPE. And if that happens, it'll kill Canadian investment in inter-city rail for a century or more.

This article says we have some of the highest rail fares in the world:

http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/countr...eapest-transportation-one-infographic-1671246

So again, I'd dispute that fares aren't impacting ridership. High rail fares and low fuel prices, with no toll roads, makes for a bad combination for railway ridership.

 

[MisterF]

Never said those costs don't disappear. Just that they are marginal at best to the decision on whether to use the car or not. If the argument is going to be to always factor depreciation and wear and tear, nobody would ever own a car. They'd take transit everywhere. Clearly, most people don't do that. They value their time and comfort substantially more than the cost of a vehicle. The only time people don't drive? When road congestion is high or parking charges are expensive.

If I own a car, a roadtrip is a marginal decision on usage. I already own the car. And it's going to depreciate sitting in my driveway. And for that, it's really gas (@$1/L and assuming 7L/100km) and wear and tear (which if you consider regular maintenance and mileage on tires, is about 4 cents per km). That's about $50 in costs for the average 450km road trip. And that's assuming a less efficient car. My hybrid does less than 5L/100km on such trips.



It's quite relevant in our context. How much market share does VIA have on the Toronto-Ottawa sector? What you ignore in the European context is the price of fuel. It's much more expensive to drive in Europe than in Canada. If you're paying 1 pound per litre in the UK or 1.2 Euros per litre in France, driving 450 km becomes very pricey. Even with a fuel efficient vehicle. That's a fuel charge that's at least 50% higher than Canada. And that doesn't include more prevalent road tolls in Europe.



Anecdotal and personal experience to be sure. But I do think price is a much bigger factor that most railfans are willing to admit. I'd love to see actual studies on price sensitivity. But I fear if this mentality (the idea that VIA's prices are just fine and that only a frequency and speed boost is needed) keeps up, we'll have a multi-billion dollar version of UPE. And if that happens, it'll kill Canadian investment in inter-city rail for a century or more.

This article says we have some of the highest rail fares in the world:

http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/countr...eapest-transportation-one-infographic-1671246

So again, I'd dispute that fares aren't impacting ridership. High rail fares and low fuel prices, with no toll roads, makes for a bad combination for railway ridership.

The cost of wear and tear including tires is 5.13 cents/km for a Honda Civic according to the CAA. Plus depreciation costs that work out to 17 cents/km. So those costs could be as high as 23 cents/km, or $104 on top of the price of gas for a 450 km round trip. Realistically the number would be lower since the car will depreciate even if it's just sitting in the driveway, but it still depreciates faster the more it's driven. The cost is hardly marginal.

Canada is pretty much in the middle when it comes to gas prices. Gas here is comparable to Australia (which also has higher car ownership) and closer to several European countries than to the United States. And no, car ownership really isn't relevant. Most Europeans own cars, maybe even more so than Canadians if you count motorcycles and scooters. Most people who take the train in any developed country own a car.

I think you're missing the point. Via's modal share is very low and people don't flock to intercity transit because it hasn't been allowed to compete. Trains have seen very little investment and because of that they're slow, unreliable, and infrequent. The option for the masses to switch to transit simply doesn't exist. That's what Via is trying to change.

UPX was extremely expensive by any standard and they ignored multiple reports that concluded fares should be lower. The only thing Via has that comes close is business class, but that of course is just the most expensive of several price options. And it's not as if their fares are set in stone. Like any transportation service, fares are constantly adjusted to maximize revenues and ridership. They're not going into uncharted territory here.

 

[crs1026]

You can present scenarios for either extreme. Both extremes are true, but this doesn't prove either argument. The question is would better VIA service capture a sustainable market share. You only need enough riders, you don't need 100% market share, or even 50%.

I have attempted a family vacation in Ottawa without a private vehicle. It sucked, in spite of Ottawa's relatively good public transit. Attractions are spread out and hauling kids around by taxi/bus is stressful at the best of times. Parking is relatively good. With a car, you pile the kids into the back seat between stops and they fall asleep.

In contrast, I have also taken my family to the Big Apple. Bring a car into Manhattan? You'd be nuts to try.

So, it depends. Absolute and relative cost is traded off with convenience and time. It's wholistic. VIA are already proficient at fare management, so I'm sure they will try both ends of the equation. Intuitively, lower fares can only help. But the underlying value proposition of (trip slightly faster than car + not having to drive + not having to endure airports + many choices of scheduled trip timing) likely would be the best choice for many, enough to build market share. The rest is tinkering.

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

I look forward to the day (hopefully not too distant) when trains go whoosh through Canada-US border, with no stopping.

Once that happens, goodbye boring 2 hour stop at border.

Presumably this is initially Union pre-clearance. Unfortunately that may eliminate being able to stop in Hamilton and Niagara Falls. But they're trialing Montreal first, so why not get a better system here because of the existence of Hamilton and Niagara Falls?

If customs clearance can even be done on-board a moving train (favourable Trudeau-Clinton agreement?) and if Amtrak begins stopping at Hamilton West Harbour, then visiting NYC finally becomes preferable by train given you don't need the car once you've driven into Manhattan. So might as well spend parking on the train.

-- U.S. Customs would board at Union and begin clearing after departure
In this theoretical scenario of clearance-in-motion, U.S. customs could board at Toronto Union (could even easily be covered by Amtrak/VIA as an "enhanced customs clearance upgrade" at just a dollar or two extra per passenger. with increased passenger volume), and begin clearing all Toronto travellers. At West Harbour, one or two coach sealed off from the rest of the train, would pick up Hamilton travellers, and then customs would clear these people before the border, and so on.

-- Marking-off coaches as "cleared"
Simple solutions keeping the train security-sealed, such as doors with seal indicators (only customs can affix/remove, or turn on/off) can just simply be quickly checked at the border and expeditiously waved through. That way, if someone unexpectedly disembark or embark a sealed coach at West Harbour, an indicator on the door shows, and that coach needs to be re-cleared at Niagara. You wouldn't lock the doors due to safety issues -- just that customs would know if a door was opened (necessitating re-processing at the border). There are many low-tech tamper-resistant options, and electronic solutions also can be done too.

-- No more 2 hour wait at border. Quicker path to further time savings.
With elimination of the 2 hour wait at the border and train customs more convenient than driving through customs -- Amtrak finally competing with car driving trip lengths, train traffic levels may raise enough without needing faster trains -- that electrification of the Empire Corridor accelerates and ties-up with GO RER electrification to Niagara Falls in a couple of decades, then train trips accelerate even more...

Logistics of pre-locating customs officers abound (e.g. officers boarding a Toronto-bound Amtrak, so that they can begin clearing a return trip) but the increase in Amtrak+VIA traffic that will definitely occur, will easily pay for the extra costs, but I'd happily pay a fare surcharge (even $10) as an onboard clearance fee if that's what it takes to entice this to happen.

This might not happen quickly. But US-Canada should at least get the ball rolling on a process that leads up to this Ultimate custom-clearance-in-motion solution.

 

[cplchanb]

I look forward to the day (hopefully not too distant) when trains go whoosh through Canada-US border, with no stopping.

Once that happens, goodbye boring 2 hour stop at border.

Presumably this is initially Union pre-clearance. Unfortunately that may eliminate being able to stop in Hamilton and Niagara Falls. But they're trialing Montreal first, so why not get a better system here because of the existence of Hamilton and Niagara Falls?

If customs clearance can even be done on-board a moving train (favourable Trudeau-Clinton agreement?) and if Amtrak begins stopping at Hamilton West Harbour, then visiting NYC finally becomes preferable by train given you don't need the car once you've driven into Manhattan. So might as well spend parking on the train.

-- U.S. Customs would board at Union and begin clearing after departure
In this theoretical scenario of clearance-in-motion, U.S. customs could board at Toronto Union (could even easily be covered by Amtrak/VIA as an "enhanced customs clearance upgrade" at just a dollar or two extra per passenger. with increased passenger volume), and begin clearing all Toronto travellers. At West Harbour, one or two coach sealed off from the rest of the train, would pick up Hamilton travellers, and then customs would clear these people before the border, and so on.

-- Marking-off coaches as "cleared"
Simple solutions keeping the train security-sealed, such as doors with seal indicators (only customs can affix/remove, or turn on/off) can just simply be quickly checked at the border and expeditiously waved through. That way, if someone unexpectedly disembark or embark a sealed coach at West Harbour, an indicator on the door shows, and that coach needs to be re-cleared at Niagara. You wouldn't lock the doors due to safety issues -- just that customs would know if a door was opened (necessitating re-processing at the border). There are many low-tech tamper-resistant options, and electronic solutions also can be done too.

-- No more 2 hour wait at border. Quicker path to further time savings.
With elimination of the 2 hour wait at the border and train customs more convenient than driving through customs -- Amtrak finally competing with car driving trip lengths, train traffic levels may raise enough without needing faster trains -- that electrification of the Empire Corridor accelerates and ties-up with GO RER electrification to Niagara Falls in a couple of decades, then train trips accelerate even more...

Logistics of pre-locating customs officers abound (e.g. officers boarding a Toronto-bound Amtrak, so that they can begin clearing a return trip) but the increase in Amtrak+VIA traffic that will definitely occur, will easily pay for the extra costs, but I'd happily pay a fare surcharge (even $10) as an onboard clearance fee if that's what it takes to entice this to happen.

This might not happen quickly. But US-Canada should at least get the ball rolling on a process that leads up to this Ultimate custom-clearance-in-motion solution.

The only thing that could be of concern is for those who have been refused entry? Who has legal authority to detain them and what if there are several onboard? Surely they can't keep track of all of them and they could easily slip off at arrival. Or do you just kick them off at the nearest station?

 

[mdrejhon]

The only thing that could be of concern is for those who have been refused entry? Who has legal authority to detain them and what if there are several onboard? Surely they can't keep track of all of them and they could easily slip off at arrival. Or do you just kick them off at the nearest station?

Obviously, a process would need to be developed. Tech has made things easier. Look at the VIA Bluetooth scanners. Some of them can now do passport scanning to catch common stuff like expiry dates, reducing issues before customs needs to clear you (with a mobile version of a more advanced scanner). VIA/Amtrak can just pre-scan you at Union while scanning your boarding pass, and inform you of issues.

Even if you boarded the train before realizing there was an issue, I would see that you could still get a choice where to disembark before the border (e.g. unstaffed West Harbour of fully staffed Niagara Falls with accesibility/amenities) with optional GO Transit "vocher" provided for free return to Toronto (Also good on any returning Amtrak or VIA trains to point of origin), good for the day. This can be a regulatory requirement and condition for 100% full, fair, humane accommodations of denied passengers, including a family saddled with disabled children and special needs.

If a specific coach has had a door unsealed to have a person (or people) disembarking witnessed by customs being present (rescanning as they disembarked to delete them from manifest), then all customs would need to do is simply get a quick passport scan again (with a little scanner type thing) to make sure only cleared individuals remained. A handheld Customs scanner would have already memorized who was on which coach, and can flag if there's a mix-up (requiring full clearance check again). Only then, the coach can be resealed. Passage between coaches would be temporarily not allowed until you passed Niagara Falls, marked via the "seals" once customs exited that particular coach.

There would need to be a process to resist tampering, mix-ups, lazy customs staff, etc. A central supervisor unit (or central server, or other) would inform if something is amiss (passport mismatch with transmitted passenger roster as an example, surplus passengers, etc) forcing a full 2-hour pause. You work the rate until it happens only once a week (or less). You pad train turn-around time to accomodate such unexpected stalls.

It's also possible a nominal number of seats could also remain empty (e.g. 8) to permit complicated situations like needing to reposition denied individuals out of cleared coaches, for operational efficiency sake (to make it more likely that customs clearing can finish before Niagara Falls, and avoid a stall). Those seats can be sold to Buffalo-NYC, just not to Toronto -- basically locked for sale on Toronto-Niagara Falls for the purpose of operational efficiencies to allow customs to keep working the train and "sealing" coaches as they left them.

_____________

Regarding complexity and technology:

Such an idea is somewhat problematic but technology has helped simplify things a lot. Bikesharing/Carsharing wasn't practical until technology made it simple. Now we've got Uber thanks to technology. We've got Google Navigation routing around traffic blockages (Cue the old 1980's AT&T advertisement mentioning a car computer with an electronic map that tells you to go around traffic -- no longer pie in the sky!). We've got Transit App, and everything. Today, we now have the tech to make on-the-fly customs clearance work in a tamper resistant way with full auditing ability, little need for customs workers to keep track thanks to transmitted manifests needing to match up with scanner data, as well as supervisors checking seals.

Tiny pocket scanners, tiny cheap doorway cameras (ability to audit of board/unboard), quick reverification processes for integrity of a coach seal / coach roster change. Yes, the snack bar might need to be closed for an hour when the doors between coaches are marked with the clearance integrity "seal". But that's better than a 2 hour wait at the border.

Now different administrations (Canada-USA) may be willing to adopt something good enough that works without inconveniencing too many people. Over the years, the border has been more strict and less strict. In the right era, a bi-national agreement then leads to on-the-fly customs clearing.

We (Canada) have the skills and technology. We are a perfect candidate country to begin trialing on-the-fly customs clearance for international rail travel. The tech already exists, some of it cheap, some of it off the shelf, some even already in use by VIA. And your existing smartphone already can read your passport RFID chip with an app. Various militaries already has private in-house face recognition apps that can recognize you as a person of interest, directly from the camera of a hardened smartphone. What's in the airport security clearance (cameras, fingerprint scanners, passport scanners) is already 100% all mobile off the shelf now. What's stopping Customs from simply using a ruggedized/hardened Symbol handheld (Canada Customs/Homeland Security approved) ten or twenty years from now in a future era where thousands go across the border per day by rail instead of car?

If customs balks at even trying this, variants can happen, like a 2-stage clearance process. You'd do the on-the-go customs clearance as described all the above. Then you'd still do a stop at the border, but it'd be much shorter (5-minutes) by a fleet of customs officers, to check for a perfect 1-on-1 mapping with a transmitted manifest (airline style), as a supervisory scan of the earlier on-the-fly customs clearance. This redundancy may make Homeland Security accept such a plan, for example...

The off-the-shelf tech's here today and falling fast in price, and would be important at Vancouver-Seattle, Chicago-Toronto, Detroit-Windsor, Toronto-Buffalo, Montreal-NYC, etc. It is no longer an IT megaproject like it may have been considered yesterday, and a $5 onboard clearance surcharge for a few years easily pays for the capital/development costs of all this, and then continuing $5 surcharge would cover operations costs including the continual re-positioning of customs officers to points of origin.

Any incidents (fights, etc) could result in immediate stop at the nearest station (GO station, etc) and removal by local law enforcement -- just as it would for all kinds of altercations today (whether on train or at airport in the unsecure area). It happens sufficiently rarely.

Yes, customs would balk today at the concept of on-the-go clearance, but 10 or 20 years from now?

 

[SaugeenJunction]

More HSR vs HFR talk out of London:

Rail needs speed, not own track, group says
London Free Press - http://www.lfpress.com/2016/04/27/rail-needs-speed-not-own-track-group-says

"Via is trying to acquire from CN the segment between Waterloo and London to improve speed, reliability, frequency of trains and comfort, spokesperson Mariam Diaby said. “Via is committed to facilitating interconnection between its service and any future (high speed rail) service,” she wrote in response to Free Press questions."

I wasn't aware that VIA was trying to acquire this section of track. What are the chances of CN selling it to them?

 

[crs1026]

I wasn't aware that VIA was trying to acquire this section of track. What are the chances of CN selling it to them?

The line is leased long-term to Genessee +Wyoming (GEXR). I'm told that CN may have buyback rights, but this may apply only if CN wants to resume operations itself. One suspects the lease would not allow CN to evict GEXR for a higher bidder.

In the end - money talks. The line continues to generate healthy interchange revenue for CN, and they won't give that up. Nor will G+W hand over their future earnings without compensation. It's all in what the buyer is prepared to offer.

- Paul

 

[ShonTron]

The track between London and Stratford has been deteriorating from what I've heard. Most GEXR traffic is between Stratford and Silver (Georgetown). There are few good customers on the Goderich and Exeter Subdivisions, and of course the Waterloo (Elmira) Spur, but very little traffic between Stratford and London. Looking at recent satellite imagery, it appears that there are only two elevators left with active spurs - one in St. Marys and one near Thorndale. Other customers, like 3M in London and St. Marys Cement no longer use rail service and their rails disconnected, or closed altogether, like Dana in St. Marys.

I could see VIA buying Stratford-London or even Kitchener-London and giving freight running rights as needed (it does this between Coteau QC and Ottawa already). You never know, as GEXR/CN sold Silver-Kitchener to Metrolinx.