VIA Rail

[Bordercollie]

Northumberland County, residents call on Via Rail to reinstate commuter link to Toronto | Globalnews.ca

Northumberland County is asking residents to weigh in on restoring the commuter rail link, between Kingston and Toronto, in an online survey.

globalnews.ca

I thought that they don't have enough equipment due to the retirement of the LRC'S.

I think the only other option would be to lease GO equipment to run that train. Or swap equipment on other runs to maximize Metrolinx territory.

 

[smallspy]

.....I have confidence that Deutsche Bahn is aware of ways to retrofit Union Station for higher passenger and train volumes...

Not to be that guy, but.....

(Oh who am I kidding. I am that guy.)

For all of your confidence in them in operations in a European sphere, what is your confidence in them being able to translate that knowledge to the North American sphere and rulebook? Keeping in mind that the recent experience of German organization trying to port their knowledge over to North American operations is not good.

Dan

 

[Urban Sky]

Not to be that guy, but.....

(Oh who am I kidding. I am that guy.)

For all of your confidence in them in operations in a European sphere, what is your confidence in them being able to translate that knowledge to the North American sphere and rulebook? Keeping in mind that the recent experience of German organization trying to port their knowledge over to North American operations is not good.

Dan

It undoubtedly requires a broad alignment between how Metrolinx and DB envision Toronto‘s evolving regional rail network and as it happens, I closely work with both organizations as they collaborate together…

 

[crs1026]

It undoubtedly requires a broad alignment between how Metrolinx and DB envision Toronto‘s evolving regional rail network and as it happens, I closely work with both organizations as they collaborate together…

Translating for Dan’s benefit: Stock up on popcorn. This will be interesting to watch.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

Guilbeault's cross-country climate train tour derailed by lack of service

In November, Canada's environment minister announced that he would be hopping on Via to tour the country and discuss climate change

nationalpost.com

 

[roger1818]

Guilbeault's cross-country climate train tour derailed by lack of service

In November, Canada's environment minister announced that he would be hopping on Via to tour the country and discuss climate change

nationalpost.com

Via Rail’s limited service from Toronto to Vancouver dropped to once a week during the pandemic. It was then expected to jump to three times as pandemic public health measures dropped across the country, but as of now remains at two weekly departures.

According to Guilbeault’s office, that meant that as soon as the minister got off the train for a stop, he’d have to wait up to four days for the next train to pick him up.

He is going to have a long wait if he is waiting for the Canadian to be running 3 days a week, It was cut to 2 days a week east of Edmonton well before the pandemic, initially because of track maintenance, but later due to lack of equipment. The pandemic only further exasperated the problem.

 

[kEiThZ]

Guilbeault's cross-country climate train tour derailed by lack of service

In November, Canada's environment minister announced that he would be hopping on Via to tour the country and discuss climate change

nationalpost.com

This is basically gaslighting at this point.

 

[Bordercollie]

This is basically gaslighting at this point.

I guess he didn't do his homework before opening his mouth.

 

[kEiThZ]

I guess he didn't do his homework before opening his mouth.

7 years in office and they still don't even have a bid package for HFR. No plan to recapitalize VIA's long haul fleet. No plans to finance transit hubs at major airports and VIA stations. Anemic funding for active transport. Fine, he's not the Transport Minister. But this stunt of trying to cross Canada by rail, goes to show how little they care on actually delivering. Just more talk. Also, how the heck does the Environment Minister not know that we don't have good nationwide passenger rail connectivity?

 

[roger1818]

7 years in office and they still don't even have a bid package for HFR. No plan to recapitalize VIA's long haul fleet. No plans to finance transit hubs at major airports and VIA stations. Anemic funding for active transport. Fine, he's not the Transport Minister. But this stunt of trying to cross Canada by rail, goes to show how little they care on actually delivering. Just more talk. Also, how the heck does the Environment Minister not know that we don't have good nationwide passenger rail connectivity?

Or, as Environment Minister, how does he know that taking the train across Canada is worse for the climate than flying (both The Canadian and to a lesser extent The Ocean)? The study was only done by the University of Ottawa.

 

[Urban Sky]

Or, as Environment Minister, how does he know that taking the train across Canada is worse for the climate than flying (both The Canadian and to a lesser extent The Ocean)? The study was only done by the University of Ottawa.

To translate this study into a more relatable setting:

Imagine you drive a Honda Civic and your neighbor drives a Ford F250. Everyone would agree that your car is much greener to drive.

Now imagine that you both happen to work similar hours and in the same part of the next city, would it be a greener choice to accept your neighbors' offer to drive you in his car or to continue commuting in your own car? Well, if we go by this study, you should insist on driving your own car and refuse having him drive you in his, because (to borrow from the title of said "study"), "Driving in a Ford F250 is worse for the climate than driving in a Honda Civic".

You just have to imagine what would happen if both, VIA Rail and Air Canada would see their ridership numbers double between Toronto and Vancouver: In the case of VIA Rail, they would add three more coaches to the train, which would increase the train's footprint by maybe 10%, thus decreasing its per-passenger carbon footprint by approximately 45%. Conversely, Air Canada's carbon footprint would roughly double, as they would need to double their number of flights, thus increasing their footprint proportionally to their passenger numbers.

The fallacy of all such studies is that they focus on average costs (in this case: environmental costs) rather than marginal costs. The first perspective is perfectly acceptable when assessing the Status Quo, but only the second one is relevant when advising individuals what to do. It's no surprise when journalists miss this subtlety, but I expect university researchers to refrain from publishing bullshit-headlines like "Taking the train across Canada is worse for the climate than flying", when this is simply not a valid summary of their own findings...

 

[cplchanb]

anyone know whats the status of the new fleet testing?

any update on whats happening at the factory?

 

[Bordercollie]

To translate this study into a more relatable setting:

Imagine you drive a Honda Civic and your neighbor drives a Ford F250. Everyone would agree that your car is much greener to drive.

Now imagine that you both happen to work similar hours and in the same part of the next city, would it be a greener choice to accept your neighbors' offer to drive you in his car or to continue commuting in your own car? Well, if we go by this study, you should insist on driving your own car and refuse having him drive you in his, because (to borrow from the title of said "study"), "Driving in a Ford F250 is worse for the climate than driving in a Honda Civic".

You just have to imagine what would happen if both, VIA Rail and Air Canada would see their ridership numbers double between Toronto and Vancouver: In the case of VIA Rail, they would add three more coaches to the train, which would increase the train's footprint by maybe 10%, thus decreasing its per-passenger carbon footprint by approximately 45%. Conversely, Air Canada's carbon footprint would roughly double, as they would need to double their number of flights, thus increasing their footprint proportionally to their passenger numbers.

The fallacy of all such studies is that they focus on average costs (in this case: environmental costs) rather than marginal costs. The first perspective is perfectly acceptable when assessing the Status Quo, but only the second one is relevant when advising individuals what to do. It's no surprise when journalists miss this subtlety, but I expect university researchers to refrain from publishing bullshit-headlines like "Taking the train across Canada is worse for the climate than flying", when this is simply not a valid summary of their own findings...

Also take into consideration that one additional passenger on a train that is already running has a marginal increase in carbon footprint. Even if you had an extra 50 passengers requiring to add an additional car would still be marginal.

If you split that between per passenger per mile it's such a small amount.

Is it less than flying? Probably not. But it sure is better than driving your own car.

 

[roger1818]

To translate this study into a more relatable setting:

Imagine you drive a Honda Civic and your neighbor drives a Ford F250. Everyone would agree that your car is much greener to drive.

Now imagine that you both happen to work similar hours and in the same part of the next city, would it be a greener choice to accept your neighbors' offer to drive you in his car or to continue commuting in your own car? Well, if we go by this study, you should insist on driving your own car and refuse having him drive you in his, because (to borrow from the title of said "study"), "Driving in a Ford F250 is worse for the climate than driving in a Honda Civic".

You just have to imagine what would happen if both, VIA Rail and Air Canada would see their ridership numbers double between Toronto and Vancouver: In the case of VIA Rail, they would add three more coaches to the train, which would increase the train's footprint by maybe 10%, thus decreasing its per-passenger carbon footprint by approximately 45%. Conversely, Air Canada's carbon footprint would roughly double, as they would need to double their number of flights, thus increasing their footprint proportionally to their passenger numbers.

The fallacy of all such studies is that they focus on average costs (in this case: environmental costs) rather than marginal costs. The first perspective is perfectly acceptable when assessing the Status Quo, but only the second one is relevant when advising individuals what to do. It's no surprise when journalists miss this subtlety, but I expect university researchers to refrain from publishing bullshit-headlines like "Taking the train across Canada is worse for the climate than flying", when this is simply not a valid summary of their own findings...

That is a valid point (though given the low capacity of sleepers, I am not sure that doubling the number of passengers on the Canadian would only result in only 3 more sleeping cars, and thus only a 10% increase in emissions). Having said that, that argument is only valid if you assume that the Canadian will be running regardless. If we are discussing if The Canadian should exist, we need to look at the total emissions.

Your argument also works for AC, as if there were double the number of passengers from Ottawa to Vancouver, they would likely use larger aircraft (they currently use narrow body planes on that route) and not double the number of flights.

The other consideration is the study was done with existing, ≈70 year old equipment. If the Canadian is to survive, replacement equipment will be necessary, which should be lighter and thus result in more fuel efficient operation.

 

[Rainforest]

The Canadian, or any transcontinental service, might never again achieve high ridership. It is just impractical. The one way trip from Toronto to Vancouver takes 4 days. I remember that back in the late 199x, it was running faster and taking 3 days. Still - you can take a 7-days vacation, allocate 2 of those days for the air travel, and have 5 days remaining for your destination. But traveling by train, you would need 11 days in total to get the same 5 days at the destination. Who has time for that?

The Canadian can remain in place as a niche service, partly for the rail fan tourists, and partly for places that have no highway connection. As such, its total carbon footprint will remain a very tiny drop in the whole bucket, even if the CO2 output per passenger-mile is high.

But speaking of rail services as a way to reduce the carbon emission by air travel, the focus should be on medium length corridors, up to 1,000 - 1,500 km total length and the whole trip taking less than 24 hours. Obviously, Quebec City - Montreal - Toronto - Windsor / Niagara Falls is the prime choice. Other candidates could be:

Banff - Calgary - Edmonton ( - Jasper)
Ontario Northland
Maybe, "The Ocean" is not hopeless. The distance from Montreal to Halifax is 1,200 km, a reasonably fast train (80 kph) could cover it in just 15 h or less. An evening + night. There are many destinations in between, too.
Winnipeg - Regina - Calgary - Banff, and Regina - Saskatoon - Edmonton - Jasper might work as well. Many small towns in between, and the landscape is generally friendly for adding extra tracks where needed.