VIA Rail

[dowlingm]

I imagine if I told a European they were morons for moving so much freight be road and that they should just nationalize their railroads to make it easier to move freight, they'd think I was nuts.

An open access regime would not require government to nationalize the infrastructure (even though it is exactly what was done with roads), even if the "it would be unconstitutional !!1!" assertions are set aside (after all, until 1994 some people were convinced that the cessation of Vancouver Island passenger service was unconstitutional).

It would merely be a change in how a public utility was regulated, obliging railway companies to fairly allocate paths their infrastructure by cooperation with a rail regulatory agency in exchange for access charges, and to separately account their infrastructure expenses from their railway operation expenses so that the charges passed on to open access operators were fair. We have seen Bell and Rogers obliged (yes, with bad grace, footdragging and arguable undermining) to accommodate new entrants into telecoms into their infrastructure. I cannot see how this would be beyond the legislative power of Parliament. The question for this thread of course would be to what extent this leaves VIA in a better position compared to their existing agreements with CN and CP - which are not public documents, I believe.

I will also note @kEiThZ that we had a railway professional invited onto this forum by another railway professional, and your chippy responses in particular to an understandable getting-up-to-speed on what is being discussed could be held up as a reason for such professionals not to bother in future.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm probably a royal pain, but pardon my pedantry. Every time I cycle through the whole topic, HFR appeals in many ways.... but there is always one non-sequitur that remains. If I change my point of view to resolve that one non-sequitur, I can do it... but the resolving explanation creates some other non-sequitur that pops up in its place. It's an intellectual whack-a-mole, that never gets me to all cylinders firing.

1) Context matters (for example on co-, production).

2) Ideas evolve as they develop over time. Such as the Kingston hub.

Not sure how insisting that everything be neatly wrapped in a bow from day one is ever going to drive actual change.

This country has now spent over half a century talking high speed rail in the Corridor. And that time has brought us more capacity but slower services and rising costs. I don't see why entangling ourselves with the freight cos further with all kinds of complicated contractual agreements will help. With the double digit billions being spent on suburban and regional rail in Toronto and Montreal, this is the perfect time to build an intercity passenger rail backbone that is independent of the freight cos. Reduces reliance on CN in the Corridor to just Lakeshore services and reduces cascading delays by terminating in Kingston.

 

[kEiThZ]

I will also note @kEiThZ that we had a railway professional invited onto this forum by another railway professional, and your chippy responses in particular to an understandable getting-up-to-speed on what is being discussed could be held up as a reason for such professionals not to bother in future.

If all they are going to do is come in and crap on the locals based on their assumptions, then, it's no loss anyway. They aren't adding much.

You'll notice this is not how Urban Sky is treated here even though we all have disagreements and spirited discussions with him from time to time. He takes the time to explain his point of view. Presents data and evidence to support it. And remarkably for a non-Canadian (originally) understands the history and context of our railways more than most Canucks.

 

[ssiguy2]

There are also other advantages of hydrogen namely far lower maintenance costs, superior time efficiency over batteries, and more reliability.

Catenary are not only expensive to build but also expensive to maintain and offer lower reliability due to the potential damage from wind/snow/ice storms. As for batteries, time is money whether it be passenger or freight rail. Even if you can get batteries to last much longer, go much further, and weigh much less there is still the problem of recharging them. It will take hours to recharge the sheer number o'f large batteries that would be required for even medium distance VIA routes. Of course they are completely useless for long distance trains. Battery trains also have a hard time in cold weather which Canada has in abundance.

Just because something works in Italy doesn't mean it's going to work here.

 

[robmausser]

I will also note @kEiThZ that we had a railway professional invited onto this forum by another railway professional, and your chippy responses in particular to an understandable getting-up-to-speed on what is being discussed could be held up as a reason for such professionals not to bother in future.

That person might get paid for what they do and thus be considered a professional from the technical use of the term, but in terms of the cultural and societal understanding of the term professional, they were anything but.

I saw very little getting-up-to-speed and more cramming-their-ideologies down peoples throats.

 

[kEiThZ]

I cannot see how this would be beyond the legislative power of Parliament.

It's not beyond the power of Parliament. Doing so at little to no cost, however, probably is. Our courts aren't in the habit of allowing governments to seize assets at will without substantial justification and substantial compensation. Our government knows this. The freight companies know this. VIA knows this. They've moved on to an idea that they think works. And yet here we are discussing this fantasy every 3 months, even though we all know it's not going to happen.

Maybe those of you who have a fetish for freight rail nationalization should start another thread, so we can save this thread for actually discussing ideas and topics that involve VIA right now.

 

[ec_traindriver]

You have this strange habit of presuming instead of asking. Why would you presume that service from Kingston would only go to Toronto and not to Ottawa or Montreal?

Excuse me, that is exactly what I did. I asked whether through trains were going to remain on the Lakeshore line or not.

It was a genuine question because to me the verb "to originate" means that services literally come into being from a place and, since Kingston is more or less halfway between the TOM, therefore in my understanding of the English language, it means that a train originating from Kingston doesn't come from anywhere else. It literally begins its journey from there. Hence the remark on the lack of future through services. To my understanding, a resident from, say, Belleville, going to Ottawa would have to change train in either Toronto or, despite being on the same stretch of tracks, Kingston.

I'll quote you directly:

You also seem to ignoring that there will be plenty of trains left on Lakeshore. They'll just be originating in Kingston.

To which I asked you, assuming you knew what I was looking for, whether those services originating from Kingston were Toronto-bound only or else.

 

[kEiThZ]

Just because something works in Italy doesn't mean it's going to work here.

This same logic should apply to hydrogen tech too. The handful of European trials to date have effectively been on suburban rail services (slower speeds), with lighter trainsets (not FRA compliant rolling tanks we need here) at ranges that would be more in line with GO service here. Have any of these trials even broken 150 km in service?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but hydrogen seems reserved for rail lines that are infrequent. I don't see any operator dropping electrification plans in favour of exclusively deploying hydrogen.

Arguably the best case for hydrogen could be the freight railways in Canada. Too expensive to electrify thousands of kms of track. No need for speed. And very little limitation on train length or weight.

It will take hours to recharge the sheer number o'f large batteries that would be required for even medium distance VIA routes.

Guessing you aren't aware of the last decade of battery improvements or things like supercapacitors to boost charging speeds. You won't find a single BEMU on offer from a major rolling stock maker that takes "hours to charge". The actual concern for the distances VIA would want to cover won't be charging speeds but battery lifecycles.

In any event, VIA has 18 options for full trainsets it can (and will) exercise for HFR. Discussion on hydrogen vs. batteries is moot for at least another two decades till the whole Siemens fleet has to be renewed or replaced.

 

[ec_traindriver]

Catenary are not only expensive to build but also expensive to maintain and offer lower reliability due to the potential damage from wind/snow/ice storms. As for batteries, time is money whether it be passenger or freight rail. Even if you can get batteries to last much longer, go much further, and weigh much less there is still the problem of recharging them. It will take hours to recharge the sheer number o'f large batteries that would be required for even medium distance VIA routes. Of course they are completely useless for long distance trains. Battery trains also have a hard time in cold weather which Canada has in abundance.

Just because something works in Italy doesn't mean it's going to work here.

While I completely agree with you on the topic of hydrogen vs batteries, in that batteries have only been substantially tried and tested over very short distances and very light consists, I'll have to remind you that Europe is not only Southern Italy. There are countries whose railways enjoy all the benefits of electrification even in more remote lands, including through harsh winters, storms, snow and ice. One is Sweden, for example, where 8600 tonnes iron ore trains run through the Malmbanan (also known as Iron Ore line) well above the Arctic Circle. (Actually, lake Torneträsk in the picture is located above the 68° parallel North, well into the northern parts of Yukon/Northwest Territories/Nunavut area.) The other is Russia, of course, which has had its Trans-Siberian railway entirely double-tracked and electrified in the 1980s.

Should Canada do the same? It's not up to me to say and I'll abstain from further remarks on the topic of electrification. I'm just saying it's not technically impossible.

 

[Bordercollie]

Regarding Kingston, it can be served by both routes by running a shuttle between Kingston and Sharbot lake Station. It can have some stops downtown as well to help people get to either station. It says the journey will take 54min by car from station to station (assuming they build it there).

 

[kEiThZ]

Regarding Kingston, it can be served by both routes by running a shuttle between Kingston and Sharbot lake Station. It can have some stops downtown as well to help people get to either station. It says the journey will take 54min by car from station to station (assuming they build it there).

Would a shuttle + HFR be as fast as a direct train from Kingston?

Also, if an HFR connection is that important, just boost Ottawa service and time it to connect. Heck, they could even run Kingston-Smiths Falls-Ottawa-Montreal trains hourly if they really wanted, doubling Smiths Falls to Montreal frequencies. There's ways to tackle this problem.

 

[Bordercollie]

That would depend. From Toronto it would not be. From Peterborough, yes it would be. It depends on where you are travelling from.

 

[Allandale25]

Hi everyone. I'm new to the forum and to the discussion. As my username might suggest, I work as a train driver, or locomotive engineer, on higher-speed, long-distance international services in Europe — which run under the generic term of EuroCity.

I've been invited on the platform by Urban Sky to present a couple of issues I see with the whole HFR project, in their various declensions.




One of such points relates to the fact that VIA publicly stated that HFR is imperative if we want to eliminate congestion and conflicts with CN. It's now late December 2020 and we haven't seen — yet! — a detailed account of the route selected for the Corridor.

At present, and given the data available to the public, their claim remains unsubstantiated: VIA trains would still need to access Union Station in Toronto, would still need to pass through Metrolinx/GO territory (possibly via Bala Sub), would need to run on CP Belleville Sub and avoid CP Toronto Yard before getting on the (renewed/rebuilt) Havelock Sub. The same map also seems to suggest a route from Montréal to Québec via the Mount Royal Tunnel, which — AFAIK — will be used exclusively by the REM.

Welcome to UT. Just wanted to note that it has been discussed in this thread that VIA may use the Uxbridge Sub/GO Stouffville Line to access the CP Belleville Sub to get to the Havelock Sub. Could have several advantages. cc @alexanderglista

 

[micheal_can]

More proof that you are the king of strawman arguments.



From VIA's website (note that the Lakeshore route is part of the proposed network):

View attachment 290463

You notice they say "Current shared tracks""? One can assume they will keep it. However, one could assume that it will be replaced with the HFR. Another assumption is that the service along it will be reduced. Absence of information is not a good thing.

Let's just ignore cost, technical feasibility (with regulations on track sharing, curve radii, grade separations, etc), and the willingness of freight cos to cooperate in substantial modification of their corridors. Other than that....

You also seem to ignoring that there will be plenty of trains left on Lakeshore. They'll just be originating in Kingston.

I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were one saying that the Lakeshore trains will be shuttered.

I'm probably a royal pain, but pardon my pedantry. Every time I cycle through the whole topic, HFR appeals in many ways.... but there is always one non-sequitur that remains. If I change my point of view to resolve that one non-sequitur, I can do it... but the resolving explanation creates some other non-sequitur that pops up in its place. It's an intellectual whack-a-mole, that never gets me to all cylinders firing.

Perhaps I am nitpicking things that are thrown out as supporting premises, rather than the proposal itself.

Anyways, here are my non-sequiturs.

- Service to Kingston will remain sufficient, but no subsidy will be required
- Service to Kingston will remain sufficient, but continuing conflict with freight will no longer create a problem, notwithstanding the likelihood of further growth in freight traffic
- Service to Kingston will remain reliable, notwithstanding no change in the relationship between CN and VIA, which has not shown a good balance of incentives and penalties to date to assure reliability
- Coproduction between freight railways works well in BC and in Northern Ontario, but contemplating it as part of a HFR solution is unreasonable and contrary to prudent transportation policy
- Coteau to Montreal is a viable zone for VIA to raise its operation to hourly Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto service, plus sufficient Lakeshore trains to Kingston.... notwithstanding no change in either the pattern of freight conflicts, or the balance of power with CN over operational priority.
- A change in contractual relationships with CN to clear the track for VIA (where sharing is unavoidable) is in the offing, but it cannot be applied to other parts of the network to resolve the freight-passenger operational conflicts elsewhere.
- Changes in contractual relationships between VIA and CN can only be struck through mutual agreement, and not by legislation or by placing disputes before an impartial third party

I am not going to prolong the discussion - but perhaps you see my confusion. I can't make it all align. Hence my prolonged and energetic pursuit of other solutions, and my willingness to push back on supposed immovables. I don't have all the answers - but I remain skeptical, somehow, about something.

- Paul

Welcome to Canada.
What I find works is proof. Mind you, using someone else's proof against them seems to work too, but upsets that person.

So, do you have proof of any of your issues? Once you present the proof, then it can be put to rest. Otherwise, the speculation will continue on both sides of the discussion.

I just wanted to comment regarding the back and forth of the past few pages. While I am certainly not as informed as all of you on the history of passenger and freight operations in Canada, but I do want to remark that things have gotten more hostile than they should be on here. I'm completely happy to admit ignorance, and learn from others on this forum, but I do think the attitude has gotten a bit too abrasive. Just my two cents as a relative newbie on here as well.

Many people tend to have strong views, even when evidence shows they are wrong. Sometimes those views then cause issues because no one want's to support them when the evidence shows the opposite of what they are saying.

Maybe when someone posts that something will or will not happen, they need to cite a source. It would cut down on the arguing.

 

[Urban Sky]

Spoiler

An open access regime would not require government to nationalize the infrastructure (even though it is exactly what was done with roads), even if the "it would be unconstitutional !!1!" assertions are set aside (after all, until 1994 some people were convinced that the cessation of Vancouver Island passenger service was unconstitutional).

It would merely be a change in how a public utility was regulated, obliging railway companies to fairly allocate paths their infrastructure by cooperation with a rail regulatory agency in exchange for access charges, and to separately account their infrastructure expenses from their railway operation expenses so that the charges passed on to open access operators were fair. We have seen Bell and Rogers obliged (yes, with bad grace, footdragging and arguable undermining) to accommodate new entrants into telecoms into their infrastructure. I cannot see how this would be beyond the legislative power of Parliament. The question for this thread of course would be to what extent this leaves VIA in a better position compared to their existing agreements with CN and CP - which are not public documents, I believe.

It's not beyond the power of Parliament. Doing so at little to no cost, however, probably is. Our courts aren't in the habit of allowing governments to seize assets at will without substantial justification and substantial compensation. Our government knows this. The freight companies know this. VIA knows this. They've moved on to an idea that they think works. And yet here we are discussing this fantasy every 3 months, even though we all know it's not going to happen.

Maybe those of you who have a fetish for freight rail nationalization should start another thread, so we can save this thread for actually discussing ideas and topics that involve VIA right now.

Given that some of us (myself obviously included) are getting tired of certain topics being discussed here again and again, I've created a new thread called "Transportation Policy in Canada":

Given that certain commenters in the VIA Rail thread (myself included) grow increasingly frustrated that the discussions are flooded with arguments which challenge the entire structure which defines this nation's transportation systems, I would like to create a new thread where these big questions can be discussed, while allowing the discussions which remain in the VIA Rail thread to stay within the framework which has emerged from transport policy decisions made since the first settlers established their companies and institutions and which narrow the scope of what measures are considered politically feasible in a way which is unique to this country.

In the following, I will try to provide an (explicitly non-exhaustive) list of questions which directly concern transportation policy rather than the respective threads about VIA Rail, GO Transit or Ontario Northland:

1. Passenger rail policy
   1. VIA Rail
      1. Mandate
         1. Intercity services
            1. Should daily-or-better service be expanded beyond this Nation's most populated corridors?
            2. Should the Corridor operations be abandoned, privatized or handed over to a different operator?
         2. Transcontinental services
            1. Should new routes be added to its transcontinental network or existing routes expanded to daily service?
            2. Should the transcontinental operations be abandoned, privatized or handed over to a different operator?
         3. Remote services
            1. Should new routes be added to its remote network or existing routes expanded to daily service?
            2. Should the remote operations be abandoned, privatized or handed over to a different operator?
      2. Legislation
         1. Should VIA Rail (or parts of it) be privatized or abolished?
         2. Should there be a VIA Rail Act?
         3. Should VIA Rail enjoy statutory (and enforceable) rights towards its host railroads?
         4. Should private operators have the right to operate as "open access" operators in direct competition with VIA Rail?
   2. Non-VIA intercity rail
   3. Commuter rail
   4. Non-VIA tourist rail
2. Freight rail policy
   1. Vertical integration
      1. Should the freight railroads be restructured into rail operating companies (ROCs) and rail infrastructure companies (RICs), which operate independently from each other?
   2. Nationalization
      1. Should the networks and/or the operations of freight railroads be nationalized?
      2. Should stations (or any other passenger facilities) owned by freight railroads be nationalized?
   3. Regulation
      1. Should freight railroads be compelled into granting passenger operations operational priority?
      2. Should freight railroads be compelled into sharing corridors, thus freeing up rail corridors for passenger operations?
      3. Should freight railroads be compelled into ensuring that all trains fit into all sidings?
3. Aviation policy
   1. Taxation
      1. Should airlines be taxed in a way that internalizes the external costs of flying?
   2. Regulation
      1. Should airlines be banned from competing with passenger trains?
      2. Should airlines be compelled into replacing short-haul flights through code-share agreements with passenger train companies?
4. Road policy
   1. Taxation
      1. Should driving be taxed in a way that internalizes the external costs of driving?
   2. Regulation
      1. Should coach (i.e. intercity bus) companies be banned from competing with passenger trains?
   3. Legislation
      1. Should a national bus operator (or regulator) be created to establish a comprehensive national bus network?

Admittedly, above list is rather centered around passenger rail (and especially VIA Rail), but I've deliberately chosen a broad thread title to acknowledge that this is not a second VIA Rail thread and that there is much more overlap of these discussions with similar discussions in non-rail threads than with issues pertinent to the VIA Rail thread (where almost all of the questions I just listed are currently discussed).

Anyways, if you like the idea of this thread, I would like to encourage you to use it and the more distinctively different the discussions here and in the VIA Rail thread become, the more this new thread fulfills its purpose...

Thank you for your interest in this new thread and let the discussion begin!

If you agree that it's better for everyone to have transportation policy discussions separate from discussions which are more pertinent to the topic of this thread, then I encourage you to continue the discussion there by hitting the quote button on the comment you want to reply to, visiting the new thread and inserting the quote there.

Thank you very much for your consideration and let's hope we can make this thread less "abrasive"...