VIA Rail

[kEiThZ]

Here's what I'd love to see (but it unlikely to happen):

1) VIA defers Montreal-Quebec City to Phase 2.

2) VIA spends $5-6B on the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal segment building a twin tracked corridor with as much straightening as they can afford and grade separations limited to where necessary and mostly urban areas. No electrification. Toronto-Ottawa 3 hrs max. Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal 4.5 hrs max. 45 min headways.

3) Phase 2 of $3-5B launched as most major construction on Phase 1 finishes. Montreal-Quebec City and Union-Pearson-Kitchener-London. Built by 2030. Coincides with the upgrades of GO Kitchener, REM Dorval station extension, Quebec City's LRT, London's Shift BRT and hopefully the first phase of the Pearson transit hub. As in Phase 1, twin tracked, maximum straightening, minimal grade separation and no electrification.

3) Phase 3. London-Windsor. Work with CN for dedicated passenger tracks in their corridor or a new corridor. $2-3B. Same as the other phases. No electrification, twin tracks, max straightening, minimal grade separation and no electrification. Done by 2035.

4) Phase 4. Conversion to higher speed electrified rail. Electrification. Grade-seaparation. New rolling stock. Something like GO RER but for the VIA network. $5-7B. Done by 2045. Travel Times for any trip of less than 500km competitive with air on trip times and single occupancy petrol driving on fares.

 

[robmausser]

Here's what I'd love to see (but it unlikely to happen):

1) VIA defers Montreal-Quebec City to Phase 2.

2) VIA spends $5-6B on the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal segment building a twin tracked corridor with as much straightening as they can afford and grade separations limited to where necessary and mostly urban areas. No electrification. Toronto-Ottawa 3 hrs max. Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal 4.5 hrs max. 45 min headways.

3) Phase 2 of $3-5B launched as most major construction on Phase 1 finishes. Montreal-Quebec City and Union-Pearson-Kitchener-London. Built by 2030. Coincides with the upgrades of GO Kitchener, REM Dorval station extension, Quebec City's LRT, London's Shift BRT and hopefully the first phase of the Pearson transit hub. As in Phase 1, twin tracked, maximum straightening, minimal grade separation and no electrification.

3) Phase 3. London-Windsor. Work with CN for dedicated passenger tracks in their corridor or a new corridor. $2-3B. Same as the other phases. No electrification, twin tracks, max straightening, minimal grade separation and no electrification. Done by 2035.

4) Phase 4. Conversion to higher speed electrified rail. Electrification. Grade-seaparation. New rolling stock. Something like GO RER but for the VIA network. $5-7B. Done by 2045. Travel Times for any trip of less than 500km competitive with air on trip times and single occupancy petrol driving on fares.

100% agree, and I rarely agree completely with anyone on here.

....are you single? haha

 

[Jeff Morgan]

Here's what I'd love to see (but it unlikely to happen):

1) VIA defers Montreal-Quebec City to Phase 2.

2) VIA spends $5-6B on the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal segment building a twin tracked corridor with as much straightening as they can afford and grade separations limited to where necessary and mostly urban areas. No electrification. Toronto-Ottawa 3 hrs max. Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal 4.5 hrs max. 45 min headways.

3) Phase 2 of $3-5B launched as most major construction on Phase 1 finishes. Montreal-Quebec City and Union-Pearson-Kitchener-London. Built by 2030. Coincides with the upgrades of GO Kitchener, REM Dorval station extension, Quebec City's LRT, London's Shift BRT and hopefully the first phase of the Pearson transit hub. As in Phase 1, twin tracked, maximum straightening, minimal grade separation and no electrification.

3) Phase 3. London-Windsor. Work with CN for dedicated passenger tracks in their corridor or a new corridor. $2-3B. Same as the other phases. No electrification, twin tracks, max straightening, minimal grade separation and no electrification. Done by 2035.

4) Phase 4. Conversion to higher speed electrified rail. Electrification. Grade-seaparation. New rolling stock. Something like GO RER but for the VIA network. $5-7B. Done by 2045. Travel Times for any trip of less than 500km competitive with air on trip times and single occupancy petrol driving on fares.

Curious, why do you believe electrification will be delayed?

 

[robmausser]

Curious, why do you believe electrification will be delayed?

The Siemens fleet can go 125mph, and until all grade separations are removed, and many sections straightened out, we won't see the fleet hit that speed very often. Corners reduce the speed and grade crossings limit the top speed to 110mph.

You really don't get the full benefits of electrification on long haul journeys until you hit speeds above 125mph, even if its in short stretches.

So while VIA CAN electrify the existing route/track, it would make more sense to do the curve straightening and grade crossing removals first, which is a big capital cost. Especially because doing electrification first would mean you would have to redo it in these areas over again.

 

[kEiThZ]

Curious, why do you believe electrification will be delayed?

Not so much why it will be delayed, so much as should be delayed. Mostly, the return on investment for the cost of electrification is lower. Let's take the current projected cost of the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal for HFR with rolling stock (exercised options for Siemens Chargers). It's about $3B. The cost of electrification is about $1.5B. With only 1-2 trains running per hour in each direction, the fuel cost savings (for these brand new highly efficient trains) is going to probably take decades to justify, once your include the cost of maintaining the electric infrastructure. On the other hand, $1.5B can buy plenty of straightening, twin tracks and grade separation which will help increase average operating speed, improve passenger comfort (less curves) and increase capacity (for more trains), which will all contribute to bolstering ridership.

If we're really worried about emissions, simply have VIA sign a contract to get biodiesel. Let's not forget that the alternative is those passengers driving and flying, so more emissions. And let's not forget that these trainsets will be substantially more efficient than what VIA is running today. And I don't see all that many people upset about their emissions today.

In short, building the network should take precedence over electrification. Because that has the best benefit to passengers and the environment.

 

[roger1818]

Electrification of HFR would be more about carbon footprint reduction than it would be about increasing speed or efficiency.

 

[kEiThZ]

Electrification of HFR would be more about carbon footprint reduction than it would be about increasing speed or efficiency.

There's cost savings to running electric. But that's minimal when you're running one train per hour in each direction out of each terminus. It's not enough to justify passing up all those nice negotiated options we have on the Siemens Chargers. In 2040, when HFR is built from Windsor to Quebec City (possibly beyond), and the Charger fleet is 15-20 years old, it'll be a great time to do a full fleet replacement and electrification. Maybe by then were also building other dedicated passenger rail corridors (Saint John-Moncton-Halifax!) the we can send the old Chargers to. Also, in 20 years ridership will be up, frequencies will be up and fuel prices will be up. The business case will look substantially better.

 

[roger1818]

If we're really worried about emissions, simply have VIA sign a contract to get biodiesel. Let's not forget that the alternative is those passengers driving and flying, so more emissions. And let's not forget that these trainsets will be substantially more efficient than what VIA is running today. And I don't see all that many people upset about their emissions today.

Biofuels (like biodiesel) are greenwashing. People use the argument that it has a lower carbon footprint because the carbon dioxide that is produced during burning is balanced by the carbon dioxide that is absorbed when growing the crops. The reality is regardless of the fuel source, you are taking carbon that is in captured form and releasing it into the atmosphere as CO2 along with other pollutants. For recycled biofuel (fuel from waste products), depending on the source, significant energy is often required to convert it into a useable fuel and we would be better off composting the waste and trapping the carbon in the humus. For virgin biofuel, we would be better off using the land to either produce food or grow trees (which are more effective at capturing CO2).

I wouldn't want an argument of electrifying HFR to get in the way of its construction as there are environmental benefits of reducing the number of cars on the road even if the train is diesel powered, but I do feel it is important to electrify our transportation and the construction of a new line is a good opportunity to move the yardsticks in this direction.

 

[nfitz]

You are forgetting the cost of having to add 4 lanes to the 401/A20 (among others to allow them to get to their origin/destination) to accommodate all the extra trucks to compensate for the reduced rail freight capacity (plus the hit to the economy stemming from the extra cost required to transport goods by trucks).

It's a thought exercise ... and also, that's not a federal cost.

What I'd actually expect to happen, is increased usage of the CP corridor - but also a reconnection and/or reacquisition of the old northern route from Hearst to into Quebec.

 

[roger1818]

It's a thought exercise ... and also, that's not a federal cost.

The provinces would love that sentiment I am sure.

What I'd actually expect to happen, is increased usage of the CP corridor

East of Belleville, the CP corridor would be good for freight (at least as far as Saint-Polycarpe). Through Belleville, the Belleville sub cuts through the middle of town at grade, isolating parts of town from emergency services when a train is passing through. It wouldn't be so bad with VIA trains as they are shorter and wouldn't cause as much of a delay (though it would be slower for VIA).

East of Saint-Polycarpe I would like to see trains not bound for Montreal as a final destination use the Alexandria and Valleyfield Subs to cross over onto the south shore, removing unnecessary rail traffic from the island.

- but also a reconnection and/or reacquisition of the old northern route from Hearst to into Quebec.
View attachment 288278

That would be one option. Another would be to rebuild CP's Ottawa Valley line (from Smiths Falls to Coniston, just east of Sudbury), to bypass Toronto.

 

[kEiThZ]

Biofuels (like biodiesel) are greenwashing. People use the argument that it has a lower carbon footprint because the carbon dioxide that is produced during burning is balanced by the carbon dioxide that is absorbed when growing the crops. The reality is regardless of the fuel source, you are taking carbon that is in captured form and releasing it into the atmosphere as CO2 along with other pollutants.

The greenwashing argument relies on the fact that it blends in fossil fuels and usually is sourced from agricultural output that used significant fossil fuel inputs to grow. Using carbon stored in a plant is not an issue. You and I literally do that everyday. It's releasing the carbon stored up underground that is the issue. Were we to come up with 100% biofuel that was somehow sourced only from farming that used electrified machinery it wouldn't be as much of a greenwashing argument. And to that end, sectors like aviation are working on sourcing such fuels. Would work for VIA's diesel trains, if there really is such concern. That said, I think the concern is ridiculously overblown in the context of the alternative which is driving and flying. Even a diesel train sips fuel at something like 0.5 - 1 L/100 pax-km. Amtrak at low occupancy and with lots of very old trains is over 71 pmpg (3.3 L/100 pax-km) network wide. Absent an electric train that is powered by almost 100% non-emitting electricity, diesel trains are some of the most efficient transportation systems we have.

I wouldn't want an argument of electrifying HFR to get in the way of its construction as there are environmental benefits of reducing the number of cars on the road even if the train is diesel powered, but I do feel it is important to electrify our transportation and the construction of a new line is a good opportunity to move the yardsticks in this direction.

It's really important to put the environmental and economic benefits in their proper context. Electrification early on will most likely come at the cost of network expansion which means more folks driving and flying. Moving new ridership onto the rail network does a lot more for the environment than electrification does. Consider someone driving a reasonable efficient vehicle doing say 7 L/100km. Compare that to a train doing about 1 L/100km. Even with double occupancy in the car, the train would be about 3.5x more fuel efficient. Those passengers using the train save 3.5x more fuel than electrifying their train would.

Cost wise, electrification would also be a poor proposition early on. A project built on borrowed money requires their investment to pay off. And the savings from not having diesel operations is going to a very long time to return the capital invested. On the other hand, investing that same capital in network expansion or enabling higher speeds attracts new passengers and boosts revenue.

Electrification is important. But it should be saved for a logical time, once the corridor is finished building. I would argue that electrification is better suited to a project in the 2040s when the corridor is finished Quebec City to Windsor, and the now 15+ yr old Chargers can be parted out economically, Demand will be up and VIA will probably be at semi-hourly service through the full day. At that point with costs rising from increasing demand and no ability to add customers through expansion, the obvious investment is electrification both to speed up the train (to add frequency) and to reduce operating costs. And in 15-20 years with cars having been substantially electrified, VIA will probably be at a point where they need electrification to compete with EVs. A corollary is that in 20 year battery tech may also be substantially developed that we won't need to spend money on installing catenary across the entire length of the corridor. So there might be opportunities for savings.

 

[micheal_can]

You seem to think there's no consequences to the economy or actual survival in some parts of the country, if we let our airlines fail. You may believe this. Most of the country, economists and politicians don't. And again, aviation brings in far more money to the government that whatever they have paid out in subsidies and bailouts, which is exactly why there's bipartisan consensus across the political spectrum on supporting the sector.

I know there will be massive consequences to our economy. Millions out of work, Millions not able to travel. Millions worried about rent.... oh, wait, those are the very same things we are experiencing now. People need to learn that their company is there to make money. All that "family" stuff is to make you think they are good.

The Great Depression did not teach us. The Great Recession didn't teach us. Maybe we should use this pandemic to teach us.

I don't think you understand what a strawman argument is. It is highly relevant that our two major freight operators move more cargo in a country of 38 million than all of the freight operators in the European Union (~446 million) COMBINED. And it's not even close. They move substantially more. And this is something that has a massive environmental benefit for this country. Moving that much freight by trucks as the Europeans do would be massively expensive and extremely polluting. As much as we fantasize about European passenger rail, they are desperately trying to build a freight rail network like ours, both to be economically competitive and to reduce emissions. We have a better shot of providing decent rail services in our dense population corridors than they will ever have of building freight rail networks like what we have.

Cop out? Excuse? In short, what they are doing is monopolizing their ownership. So, nope, not going to agree that what they are doing is right.

Source? Freight traffic is up substantially over the last few decades. Tracks have also been removed and lines decommissioned. So capacity utilization is most definitely higher than it has been in the past.

Why rip up tracks if freight is up? It sounds like you just proved that freight is down. If freight was up, they wouldn't be ripping up tracks. So, maybe traffic is not up overall, but they have created extreme capacity by removing links.

Which is exactly why we should build a rail network exclusively for passengers. So we don't have to rely on CN and CP to move passengers. As a bonus we get rail corridors that are actually designed for faster passenger operations instead of the carnival ride that is most freight rail corridors. Trying to run trains on freight rails is always going to be a compromise solution, that where possible we should avoid.

People need to understand that moving cargo by rail is far more profitable, economically vital and environmentally friendly than moving people by rail. In no small part because there's no need to move freight quickly. As such, there is no government (of any party) in power that is going to start demanding that CN and CP take massive financial hits to facilitate VIA. We will have to spend more money to pay for the track we need for passengers. In dedicated passenger rail corridors, or in CN and CP's corridors. It's just that simple. And once everyone finally gets around to accepting this reality, we can get around to building more dedicated passenger rail corridors where it makes economic sense, finally leaving sharing freight rail corridors to tourist trains and infrequent regional services.

As I have asked before: Why pay for something 3 times? We did it to get a line across Canada in the 1880s. We did it with CN in the 90s. So, now we have to build it a 3rd time? That makes no sense on a taxpayer basis.

That is the business they are in; to move the product of their customers on their own property, and turn a profit. VIA is a tenant when operating on their property. This condition will exist unless some legislation changes that, and it would be interesting how any hypothetical legislation would square prioritizing (or increasing the priority) of passenger over their core business without subsidy. Dragging up the argument that they were built with public money or backing 150 years ago won't carry much weight. We got our money back in settlement and economic activity years ago.

Hopefully politicians will consider changing the legislation.

 

[sacred]

Why rip up tracks if freight is up? It sounds like you just proved that freight is down. If freight was up, they wouldn't be ripping up tracks. So, maybe traffic is not up overall, but they have created extreme capacity by removing links.

Tracks get ripped up so the freight companies have less to maintain, to streamline their operations. If you one day choose to consider facts, freight is up.
In terms of being at capacity, if you reduce the maximum capacity by ripping up track, you will be at a higher utilization rate.

 

[kEiThZ]

I know there will be massive consequences to our economy. Millions out of work, Millions not able to travel. Millions worried about rent.... oh, wait, those are the very same things we are experiencing now. People need to learn that their company is there to make money. All that "family" stuff is to make you think they are good.

The Great Depression did not teach us. The Great Recession didn't teach us. Maybe we should use this pandemic to teach us.

You assume that any government intent on letting air carriers fail would also be supportive of VIA and broader investment in intercity rail. If our history is a guide, any government that was willing to let Air Canada and Westjet fail, is probably going to shutter VIA too. Be careful what you wish for, as they say....

what they are doing is monopolizing their ownership.

You apparently don't get what a monopoly is. They aren't monopolizing a thing. If you show up with enough money, they will absolutely let you use their network and even build on it. Look at the sidings that VIA has built along the Lakeshore for example. It's just that it's neither economical nor efficient or effective to keep doing this in corridors where we want to run a substantial amount of service.

Why rip up tracks if freight is up?

Because it costs money to maintain tracks that aren't used. And because there are legal obligations that go along with owning track whether it is used or not. We're always changing what is dug up or manufactured where and where it is shipped to. The freight companies adjust to that. In the past, when costs were lower they might have just left a low traffic line or branch remain. Less incentive to do that if it's expensive.

Why pay for something 3 times?

We shouldn't. And haven't. Repeating something doesn't make it true.

Hopefully politicians will consider changing the legislation.

They can change legislation all they want. But they'll quickly discover that the kind of uncompensated asset seizure or control you are suggesting to be found unconstitutional by the courts.

Again, the freight companies aren't really all that un-cooperative. Their business is freight. They prioritize it. If transport agencies show up with needs that impact the freight companies business, they'll cooperate if there's adequate compensation for it. I'd rather just have VIA build and own its own tracks where financially feasible. Other than the Corridor, all the long distance trains are daily or less. The amount pax impacted is a rounding error for VIA. Leave that to using the freight rail networks.

 

[Urban Sky]

Can we move this troll discussion somewhere else?

Also, if there was a way to make Micheal acknowledge anything which doesn’t fit his ever-same talking points, he would have stopped repeating them after the first 20 times it was explained to him...