News   Mar 28, 2024
 46     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 153     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 242     0 

VIA Rail

If I understand the argument correctly, and there is an even chance I do not so apologies in advance, do you propose to remove on-route freight revenue customers so servicing them doesn't interfere with passenger movement? Industries choose their mode of supply and distribution based on several factors and, in some cases, road is simply not practical.

Just-in-time delivery is a major cause of the commercial truck traffic that clogs the 401, started primarily by the auto industry and copied by many. They essentially foisted their warehousing onto the public highways. A train could provide a week's worth of engines, frames or left front fenders, but they would have to warehouse them until needed. Now, a fleet of trucks parades down the highway to deliver parts that end up in a finished product probably by the end of that day. If rail traffic gets really clogged up on the LSW, do we simply shut down Ford Oakville?

If passenger rail traffic is improved by driving industry out of Ontario, then it could be consider a win by some, but a very Pyrrhic one.
No. What I am saying is the freight market changed significantly, and the railway industry adapted in response, and corridors that could be justified through a combination of long distance commodity transport, and service to local industry, just ended. For Ottawa valley service in particular, long haul commodity freight from the west was significantly diminished for deliveries to Montreal. Smaller volume commodity freight from local producers dried up. Production supply chain shifted mostly to trucks for reasons that left freight non-competitive. The shift to super distribution centres for economy of scale grew distribution centres and moved them to where service is optimized for their catchment rather than smaller ones for each population centre. All of these combined reduced demand on certain lines, and passenger service from Ottawa to North Bay and Sudbury just didn't justify maintaining that infrastructure.

The end result is that more freight is being moved than ever, but the patterns of movement only support certain corridors, and there were only a handful of corridors which were abandoned which parralell those corridors which should possibly be restored/maintained. And since those corridors are so busy, there isn't capacity to move passenger rail at useful speeds (the corridor), and in some places, move passenger rail nearly at all (the mountains).
 
Those interested in debating the history of the Ottawa Valley lines might be interested in this decision by the CTA with respect to a proposed joint operation by CN/CP from North Bay to Coteau, using (among other lines) the Alexandria Sub, which VIA occupies.

The proposal was also written up in Branchline magazine, page 17, with reference to the Ottawa Journal also.

It happens that at the moment I'm doing some work to scan some old rail enthusiast periodicals. I came across a shot from the 1960's of CP's Dominion, detouring through Brent on CN because of a derailment on the CP line. Yep, back then the detour needed its own backup routing. ironical.

- paul
 
I totally agree. Here are the population of the major towns on the way. Larger than I expected, but still hardly throbbing metropolises. I am also not sure how many people in those towns actually commute to Ottawa, or would building such a service be encouraging needless sprawl?

TownPopulation
(2016)
Driving Distance to Ottawa Station (km)
Petawawa17,187166
Pembroke13,882149
Renfrew8,22396.1
Arnprior8,79568.6

To build such a route, the Renfrew and Beachburg Subs would have to be upgraded (it is mostly Class 1&2 track) and extended to connect to CPR's abandoned valley line (the abandoned parts of the Renfrew sub have largely been built over). This wouldn't be all that hard to do, but the whole project wouldn't be cheap either.

The other big problem with commuter rail in Ottawa is that Ottawa no longer has a downtown train station. This means that almost everyone will have to transfer to the O-Train, with most of them traveling in the same direction as all the other commuters. With a downtown station, at least those who do have to transfer will be traveling contraflow. While it is theoretically possible to revive Ottawa's old Union Station, it would be expensive (and difficult) to do so, and without a huge demand from commuter rail, it wouldn't be worth the expense, especially considering VIA wouldn't likely want to use it, since it would be a detour from their existing route.

If Commuter rail were to come to Ottawa, it would probably start, after HFR is complete, with service from Perth to the two Ottawa stations via Smiths Falls and Richmond. Here is a similar chart for that route. The populations are lower, but the distances are shorter and high quality track would already there so a pilot project could be started rather inexpensively.

TownPopulation
(2016)
Driving Distance to Ottawa Station (km)
Perth5,93087.6
Smiths Falls8,78078.7 (only 66 km by train)
Richmond4,48237.1

Much would depend on an analysis of commute pattern, if there in fact is much, from these communities as well as Carleton Place. If they are to the tech hub (and now NDHQ) in Kanata/west end, it is closer, but I still can't see many people schlepping down from Pembroke/Petawawa on a daily basis.

As far as I know, the Beachburg sub is torn up west of the junction with the line to Renfrew. Another complicating feature for use of the Beachburg ROW is it would have to be federally regulated since it hops into Quebec.
 
If that is the basis of your argument, you could have saved a lot of posts by laying it out earlier. Perhaps you did and I missed it.

If the government did find a pile-o-dough to buy up all the trackage, I don't see how that guarantees the corporations that would pay to run on them would necessarily use all of them the way you envision. If I have to pay a fee to use a line, and determine I can do all my business on one, why would I pay to use two? Or would the government direct operations as well; i.e. nationalization?

I may not have said it before on this forum. I do think that in the last few decades, CN and CP have been doing things only in the pursuit of higher profits. Yes, they are private corporations. Let's say that coal power plant that is regulated to put out a certain level of emissions. decides that that limit is hurting their bottom line? Should they just ignore it? No, what they will do is make it so that what they are doing becomes acceptable. Tearing up rail lines is the same idea. I had heard that OVR wanted to buy one of the lines between Mattawa and Ottawa. They were told No, as it would cut into the major carrier's bottom line for a shorter and faster connection between the west and Montreal.

The current system does not work well for all Canadians. Maybe it is time to start doing something to make it better instead of just reactivating a winding ROW that was abandoned in thee 1980s.

You do realize that CN was owned by the government when they abandoned the former OAPS line between Renfrew and Whitney don't you?

You mean the governments of the past are noble and wise?

If I understand the argument correctly, and there is an even chance I do not so apologies in advance, do you propose to remove on-route freight revenue customers so servicing them doesn't interfere with passenger movement? Industries choose their mode of supply and distribution based on several factors and, in some cases, road is simply not practical.

Just-in-time delivery is a major cause of the commercial truck traffic that clogs the 401, started primarily by the auto industry and copied by many. They essentially foisted their warehousing onto the public highways. A train could provide a week's worth of engines, frames or left front fenders, but they would have to warehouse them until needed. Now, a fleet of trucks parades down the highway to deliver parts that end up in a finished product probably by the end of that day. If rail traffic gets really clogged up on the LSW, do we simply shut down Ford Oakville?

If passenger rail traffic is improved by driving industry out of Ontario, then it could be consider a win by some, but a very Pyrrhic one.

There has to be a way to keep industry in Ontario, while increasing space for passenger trains. Maybe it is time to double track all mainlines.

Blockading of rail lines by FNs assumes their angst is against the railway; which it is not (or wasn't for the most recent event). It is (was) done to make a visible point. At Desoronto, they could have just as easily moved up the road and blocked the 401. There are (or were) fairly regular, relatively short-term 'informational' blockades of Hwy 17 in the Espanola area, plus the ongoing events in Caledonia (I don't know if the rail line there is currently in play - I don't follow).

As for the Ottawa Valley, I suppose I'd have to be convinced there is a market for commuter type rail as far as Pembroke. I quite frankly don't know the commute patterns out there. Folks are moving out to Carleton Place and Arnprior (literally on the border of Ottawa) and perhaps Renfrew, but Pembroke is 150km up the road. Our S-in-L is from there and I don't get the sense that a lot of folks do the commute. Could be wrong.

They did block the 401 at times.

Why does commuter rail have to exist to make a line needed?

It would be easier to build a larger yard in Northern ON to handle the marshaling needed to split trains going to Montreal and further east. Imagine building another MacMillan Yard in the GTA. Now, take the ones in Capreol, Sudbury and Cartier. They could be expanded, or, if needed, there could be a new yard built before the wye going south. In fact, there has been some plans to relocate the Sudbury CP Yard to allow the downtown to expand where the yard is.

If the government forced CN and CP to ensure Via, and all other passenger trains were kept on schedule, CN and CP would have to do something. This is where the lines in the Ottawa Valley become viable again.

No. What I am saying is the freight market changed significantly, and the railway industry adapted in response, and corridors that could be justified through a combination of long distance commodity transport, and service to local industry, just ended. For Ottawa valley service in particular, long haul commodity freight from the west was significantly diminished for deliveries to Montreal. Smaller volume commodity freight from local producers dried up. Production supply chain shifted mostly to trucks for reasons that left freight non-competitive. The shift to super distribution centres for economy of scale grew distribution centres and moved them to where service is optimized for their catchment rather than smaller ones for each population centre. All of these combined reduced demand on certain lines, and passenger service from Ottawa to North Bay and Sudbury just didn't justify maintaining that infrastructure.

The end result is that more freight is being moved than ever, but the patterns of movement only support certain corridors, and there were only a handful of corridors which were abandoned which parralell those corridors which should possibly be restored/maintained. And since those corridors are so busy, there isn't capacity to move passenger rail at useful speeds (the corridor), and in some places, move passenger rail nearly at all (the mountains).

One thing that really hurt the rail freight has been the race to the bottom with the various trucking companies. I have trucker friends who have been saying more companies are paying their drivers less per km than they did in the past. The problem also is, immigrants who need a job to support their family will work for those low wages, which only pushes the wages lower.

Sadly, as you dig to figure out why we are left in this mess, it seems that the race for more profit at all costs are the underlying reasons.
 
Blockading of rail lines by FNs assumes their angst is against the railway; which it is not (or wasn't for the most recent event). It is (was) done to make a visible point. At Desoronto, they could have just as easily moved up the road and blocked the 401. There are (or were) fairly regular, relatively short-term 'informational' blockades of Hwy 17 in the Espanola area, plus the ongoing events in Caledonia (I don't know if the rail line there is currently in play - I don't follow).
At Deseronto, they could have blocked the CP line as well, which also runs through the reserve. But they didn't.

The 401 is a legitimate target, as it's built on that unceded block of land that was part of their original treaty with the crown. It's been decades since the government accepted that - it's been the question of what to do about compensation that's plagued this since the 1990s (government wants to pay out in cash - but law says they have to offer land).

I can tell you, if I'd been waiting 30 years for someone to offer a legal settlement on land they never owned, and were squatting on, I'd have done more than blocking one railway.


They did block the 401 at times.
That's not even the same people, and was hundreds of miles away. That was in sympathy with the pipeline in BC. The protests at Tyendinaga date back years. If not to the mid-1800s. I'm not sure when after the 1796 treaty that the government resold the land that they never owned, removing the Mowhawks.

 
Last edited:
Much would depend on an analysis of commute pattern, if there in fact is much, from these communities as well as Carleton Place. If they are to the tech hub (and now NDHQ) in Kanata/west end, it is closer, but I still can't see many people schlepping down from Pembroke/Petawawa on a daily basis.

The Carleton Place Sub was completely torn up in 1985. Given that it has always ended in Carleton Place (intersecting the perpendicular Chalk River Subdivision), it would end up being a rather short line (Carleton Place is only about 55km from Ottawa Station). With the population of Carleton Place, Stittsville and Bridalwood, trains could return to it one day, but I am not holding my breath.

As far as I know, the Beachburg sub is torn up west of the junction with the line to Renfrew.

Yes, they were removed in 2013 and 2014, but the part that connects the Renfrew Sub to Ottawa is still intact. A couple years ago, CN put on its 3 year plan that it intends to discontinue the remaining section of the Beachburg Sub, but I expect there will be a similar deal as the Renfrew Sub whereby the City of Ottawa buys the ROW and the ANR buys the track.

Another complicating feature for use of the Beachburg ROW is it would have to be federally regulated since it hops into Quebec.

Or at least it did until all of the track in Quebec was discontinued. I am not sure how much of a complication that is though. The O-Train's Trillium line runs on federally regulated track (it continued across the Prince of Wales Bridge into Quebec, until the track was torn up without properly applying for discontinuance :oops:).
 
Last edited:
As of 1970, there was capacity for both freight and passenger in Canada, and the two coexisted reasonably well. Technological change combined with railways' pruning their assets is what has made passenger service more difficult. The perfect example is the Kingston Sub - when CN procured the Turbos, they also installed CTC with sidings every 20-30 miles, specifically to allow the faster passenger trains to overtake freights by shifting the freights into the sidings. Over the last 50 years, freight trains outgrew the sidings, so CN removed them.... and then CN walked back its commitment to expedite the Turbo and its LRC successor.

The article makes a valid point that European freight has been constrained by a rigid passenger train template. Here, the pendulum was swung in exactly the opposite direction, and just as far over..... freight productivity has been pursued without regard for preserving passenger capability. That's an equally harmful result. There is no reason to believe that we will make the same mistake if we try to land somewhere in the middle.

Some of the promotion of freight productivity was appropriate and probably unavoidable - for example, removing cabooses from freight trains changed operating procedures in ways that impacted passenger operations.... and no one is arguing to put back the caboose. Safety standards have demanded investment - moderate to heavy passenger train operation over unsignalled lines is not longer acceptable. The point is, the people who have been overseeing the infrastructure for the last 50 years have not taken an evenhanded approach to expediting passenger and freight. They have allowed the passenger side to be sacrificed for the freight side. And they allowed the railways to remove assets that should have been left in place and expanded as freight business grew. VIA is hamstrung by this lax regulation.

As for capacity, between Montreal and Toronto there is still plenty, but it is not leveraged in the most win-win manner. Leaving this alone, while spending public money on a sub optimal HFR configuration, is not the right solution.

- Paul
It really strikes me how you can write an elaborate comment in which I could put my signature under almost every single word and yet end up with a completely different conclusion. Yes, with the same capital cost of the present HFR proposal you might be able to get the travel time between Montreal and Toronto back to the magical 4 hours, but to get much lower than that you will basically have to rebuild large parts of the Montreal-Toronto corridor to HSR standards, which is so expensive that it is only economically sensible to do it on one consolidated route between the two cities (and eventually across the entire Quebec-Windsor Corridor) and all routing maps in the various HSR studies have shown very little overlap with the Kingston Sub.

In short, spending further public money on the Kingston Sub is an even more short-sided (i.e. suboptimal) HFR configuration and an even less right solution. But maybe I'm just failing to see the strategic plan behind your argument, which somehow shows a way to make the billions of investment into the Kingston Sub you propose future-proof and HSR-ready...
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, what are the routes that HSR studies have proposed for Toronto-Montreal?
Gosh ... what routes haven't been proposed.

What have there been ... about a dozen corridor studies in the last 45 years? Some with multiple options. Some studies had many sub-studies.

Were there any pre-VIA studies (though some weren't VIA, I'm not aware of any before VIA was created ... though that may speak more to my ignorance than reality.
 
Out of curiosity, what are the routes that HSR studies have proposed for Toronto-Montreal?
Have a look at Deliverable 5 ("Review of Representative Routing Options") of the Ecotrain Study. You can also find an even more detailed map of the Ecotrain alignment at the end of Appendix 9 ("Analysis of Environmental and Social Impacts").
 
Have a look at Deliverable 5 ("Review of Representative Routing Options") of the Ecotrain Study. You can also find an even more detailed map of the Ecotrain alignment at the end of Appendix 9 ("Analysis of Environmental and Social Impacts").
There's a list of 24 studies at https://www.highspeedrailcanada.com/p/all-canadian-hsr-studies.html - many of which are available online.

In particular, one of the 1990 studies, has a lot of information on the previous studies - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mnL4D_rYR2hzRxa9rLy6HLxPU7PVtT51/view - though is lacking a good figure. The VIA 1984 report has up to 5 options (in addition to Edmonton-Calgary), while the 1980 CIGGT report has at least 3, one being Maglev.
 
Those interested in debating the history of the Ottawa Valley lines might be interested in this decision by the CTA with respect to a proposed joint operation by CN/CP from North Bay to Coteau, using (among other lines) the Alexandria Sub, which VIA occupies.

The proposal was also written up in Branchline magazine, page 17, with reference to the Ottawa Journal also.

It happens that at the moment I'm doing some work to scan some old rail enthusiast periodicals. I came across a shot from the 1960's of CP's Dominion, detouring through Brent on CN because of a derailment on the CP line. Yep, back then the detour needed its own backup routing. ironical.

Certainly interesting, but according to Tracing the Lines, page 13, "The Partnership seems to have sunk almost immediately, but its end was officially announced by the parties in 1995, just as CN was being sold to private investors." It would be interesting to know why the partnership failed. Of course there was nothing forcing them to work together and any little disagreement could have sunk the entire joint operation.
 
There's a list of 24 studies at https://www.highspeedrailcanada.com/p/all-canadian-hsr-studies.html - many of which are available online.

In particular, one of the 1990 studies, has a lot of information on the previous studies - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mnL4D_rYR2hzRxa9rLy6HLxPU7PVtT51/view - though is lacking a good figure. The VIA 1984 report has up to 5 options (in addition to Edmonton-Calgary), while the 1980 CIGGT report has at least 3, one being Maglev.

You have to love that there were 7 studies between 1989 and 1991 with another in 1992. Of particular interest is that a private study was done by Air Canada/CP Rail. The cynic in me can't help but wonder if they were trying to gain ammunition fight HSR.
 
From the 1984 VIA Rail Study
700DBE16-EB90-4884-8E29-146809C31A64.png
090DC689-BCC4-4621-A067-1AE0641175D8.png
F867CB1F-6C6F-4B3B-9737-CA6C2BA20AB8.png
C16824E2-8BE3-4084-8447-4C73C568AF34.png
 
In short, spending further public money on the Kingston Sub is an even more short-sided (i.e. suboptimal) HFR configuration and an even less right solution. But maybe I'm just failing to see the strategic plan behind your argument, which somehow shows a way to make the billions of investment into the Kingston Sub you propose future-proof and HSR-ready...

To be clear, I am not arguing for the Kingston line as the choice for HSR. I am arguing it is a better interim solution for now, recognising that whatever we build now will be an interim network that will be abandoned as a “stranded asset” once there is an appetite for a “next step” advance.

My preference to stick with that route is because
- The timing of “what comes next” is uncertain and may be further away than we believe. So the “interim” solution has to be good enough to serve us for a generation, or more.
- I do not see the proposed interim Montreal-Toronto service as adequate for up to 40 years, and indeed may burn a bridge by removing appetite and reinforcing the use of other alternatives for travel on that route. That elusive 4-hour timing is a dealbreaker in my view, we need it now. These end point are Canada’s two largest cities, after all.
- The “next step“ after HFR may only be 200km/hr UK-ish non electric HST. We may be 40 years or more away from a 300km/hr TGV-ish solution. The UK is outgrowing HST, but it served them well. Our vision should not fixate on high end HSR as the next step.
- While the Kingston is not 300km/hr capable, I see it as 200 km/hr capable....., whereas the Havelock line is clearly not, for the same money. So it’s a better mid term investment.
- There is stranded public investment already in the Kingston line. Its current level of grade separation (which the parallel CP line does not enjoy, let alone the Havelock). was predicated on the frequency of higher-speed passenger use. And there is the $400M trip,e tracking, which CN might not use after HFR.
- The Lake Ontario corridor requires a transportation infrastructure that is not merely de minimus or sufficient for 2020, but adequate for growth in population and enabling substantial movement away from highway travel. Eastern Ontario is the logical place for Ontario to develop as the west-of-GTA areas fill up. An assurance that VIA will not abandon those towns is not sufficient commitment to grow that service commensurate with those communities’ needs.
- All the arguments that the Lake Ontario local service can be assured on CN tracks assume resolution of the very freight conflicts that are forcing VIA to move away. What if in 25 years, CN’s freight business has doubled? At the same point where population is growing along the Lakeshore? The local service can only encounter more restrictions over time. Investment now in the Kingston line might bridge the gap.... after all, VIA’s 2008 capital plan wasn’t wrong, it just didn’t deliver enough of the additional tracks that were planned. Co-production can be a constructive part of that, with no adverse impact to freight or CN/CP investors.

There are two opposing realities in my argument that I can’t overcome, I will admit
- Public, investor, and political appetite for investment in rail passenger is so weak that we have to grasp at any attainable proposition that attracts investors, regardless of how much of the overall transportation needs of the Ontario-Quebec region are served.
- The desire to remain hands-off to freight railways is apparently immovable, so VIA has to find its own path somewhere else. Those options are limited and costly, some are out of reach.

So long as these realities remain, then VIA is better served to just get on with HFR. But that’s not a good transportation strategy.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
You have to love that there were 7 studies between 1989 and 1991 with another in 1992. Of particular interest is that a private study was done by Air Canada/CP Rail. The cynic in me can't help but wonder if they were trying to gain ammunition fight HSR.

The High-Speed Rail Story says the following about the Air Canada/CP Rail study. This study explains why HSR has struggled to get funding. It also seems to be the foundation of the HFR plan to focus on getting cars off the road instead of planes out of the air. After all, they say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Following the publication of the Ontario-Quebec Task Force report in May 1991, Air Canada and CP Rail initiated a joint study of the market for high-speed service in the Quebec-Windsor corridor to assess the impact on other modes. The goal was to take the work of the Task Force to a higher level of confidence by seeking a finer calibration of demand, based on consumer preference. The difference is that it used a forecasting model which maximized high-speed rail revenues by finding the best combination of ridership and fare. The research confirmed that high-speed rail would attract many business travellers away from planes. It would not, however, achieve a significant diversion of auto travellers. The study concluded that 30% of the HSR ridership would be diversions from existing air trips, representing a market share loss of 45% and revenue loss exceeding $200 million for air carriers on the major points of origin and destination in the Quebec-Windsor corridor. These diversion estimates were, in fact, at the lower end of the projections generated during the demand forecasting process. The results of this study created considerable concern among the airlines, given the huge public investment required to implement high-speed rail. It is believed that the ensuing lobby was a major factor in the lack of support for follow-up action on HRS proposals.
 

Back
Top