VIA Rail

[Bordercollie]

Within 10 years of HFR's possible opening (let's say 2025)

Airport security screening will be as simple as walking through a millimetre wave scanner.

Evolv Express® - Security Screening for the New World

Revolutionary touchless security screening. 10x faster than metal detectors. Evolv Express offers a welcoming, line-free visitor experience.

evolvtechnology.com

There will be large zero-emissions aircraft in the skies to carry people between cities costing a fraction of the amount in fuel a similar flight does today.

Airbus reveals new zero-emission concept aircraft

Airbus has revealed three concepts for the world’s first zero-emission commercial aircraft which could enter service by 2035. These concepts each represent a different approach to achieving zero-emission flight, exploring various technology pathways and aerodynamic configurations in order to...

www.airbus.com

There will be zero-emissions air taxies shutting passengers from city centers to major airports.

United says it will buy up to 200 small electric aircraft to zip people to airports, avoid traffic

United could use the air taxi-type craft to carry passengers on short routes, such as from downtown Chicago to O’Hare International Airport.

www.chicagotribune.com

All of which will chip away at the value of HFR. Every day this project gets delayed makes this project less likely to succeed.

Why are you assuming that everyone is going from Toronto to Ottawa or Montreal?
What about from Kingston to Ottawa? Or Belleville to Montreal? What if you live in Oshawa and you want to travel to Kingston? Can you still fly to all of those places?

Likely not.

So even though air travel is great for distances over 100kms, train travel makes more sense for shorter distances.

So stop assuming that zero emissions air travel will solve the world's problems.

Before covid, what was the scheduled journey time for the express train from Ottawa to Toronto?

 

[kEiThZ]

Here's an idea of how a more locally-oriented schedule could look:
In this concept, the number of trains is significantly reduced, but the utility of the service for local communities is still comparable. There may be fewer trains, but the trains that remain are at more useful times.

That's my point. This is still a very substantial schedule. Why would CN be interested in accomodating cannon ball runs on top?

 

[kEiThZ]

So stop assuming that zero emissions air travel will solve the world's problems.

Like most such fantasies, he's also ignoring cost. Millimeter Wave scanners, electric air taxis and a whole new mainline fleet for all the airlines. Does this sound like a recipe for cheap mobility?

This is what I detest about a lot of the Musk fanboys. In their world, anybody not wealthy enough to afford the high end of travel should just stay home. And a lot of HSR and air travel fanatics have the same zeal when pushing their fantasies too.

 

[robmausser]

Within 10 years of HFR's possible opening (let's say 2025)

Airport security screening will be as simple as walking through a millimetre wave scanner.

Evolv Express® - Security Screening for the New World

Revolutionary touchless security screening. 10x faster than metal detectors. Evolv Express offers a welcoming, line-free visitor experience.

evolvtechnology.com

There will be large zero-emissions aircraft in the skies to carry people between cities costing a fraction of the amount in fuel a similar flight does today.

Airbus reveals new zero-emission concept aircraft

Airbus has revealed three concepts for the world’s first zero-emission commercial aircraft which could enter service by 2035. These concepts each represent a different approach to achieving zero-emission flight, exploring various technology pathways and aerodynamic configurations in order to...

www.airbus.com

There will be zero-emissions air taxies shutting passengers from city centers to major airports.

United says it will buy up to 200 small electric aircraft to zip people to airports, avoid traffic

United could use the air taxi-type craft to carry passengers on short routes, such as from downtown Chicago to O’Hare International Airport.

www.chicagotribune.com

All of which will chip away at the value of HFR. Every day this project gets delayed makes this project less likely to succeed.

If you honestly think any of this will be available in 10 years except for electric taxis I got some snake oil to sell you.

Its weird too that you think Zero emissions is what is the driving force behind why people would take the train over planes. Its honestly the last thing of importance to most people.

As for airport security, its only gonna get worse bub, new technology or not.

 

[drum118]

Why are you assuming that everyone is going from Toronto to Ottawa or Montreal?
What about from Kingston to Ottawa? Or Belleville to Montreal? What if you live in Oshawa and you want to travel to Kingston? Can you still fly to all of those places?

Likely not.

So even though air travel is great for distances over 100kms, train travel makes more sense for shorter distances.

So stop assuming that zero emissions air travel will solve the world's problems.

Before covid, what was the scheduled journey time for the express train from Ottawa to Toronto?

Like you stated, not everyone doing the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Windsor trips, but stop in between to get to Z that has no bus service or air.

Air travel cause more emission than any other mode of travel

With good rail service 7/24 you can have rail service in place of air over 300-500 km to the point air service will come a thing of the past or not have good service. This has happen in Europe already and why some airlines have stop service X unless it part of a 1-2 stop over trip.

People want to go to other location and like airlines, one is force by rail that doesn't get them there they must go to Y to get to where they want to go. There is a need to bring some lines back into service as well new lines only for passenger service and high speed trains.

GO Transit was a good example as everything had to go to Toronto Union Station and transfer to X that had a wait time between then to get to where one wanted to go to. Today, rail still goes to Union with 2 lines that doesn't require you to transfer if you need a point on the other side of Union on the same lines. Buses now go all over the place that don't need to go to Union anymore.

Until we start spending big bucks and gain the 40 years we are behind Europe, the car is the mode of travel to get one to where they want to go to.

Anything pertaining to rail travel improvement is 20 years out with some before then.

 

[reaperexpress]

That's my point. This is still a very substantial schedule. Why would CN be interested in accomodating cannon ball runs on top?

From CN's perspective, it's a vast improvement. The VIA service has dropped from roughly every hour along their line, to every two hours. That leaves huge buffers for freight train movement between each departure. Furthermore, the level of impact on CN is a function of speed differentials. The faster the VIA service, the sooner it will catch up to a freight train. If VIA and CN had the same average speed it wouldn't be as much of an issue, since they could simply run one in front of another. In this schedule, nearly all of the fastest VIA trips are eliminated: these are the ones which currently cause the biggest headaches for CN.

As for whether CN would accommodate a couple cannonball runs, I don't know. That's why I asked the question.

 

[roger1818]

Assuming HFR gets built (admittedly not a done deal yet) and the lakeshore service becomes more regionally focused, I wonder if it would make sense to re-open the Prescott Railway Station? It seems a long stretch between Brockville and Cornwall without a stop. Granted, Prescott is a very small community.


(© Agence Parcs Canada/Parks Canada Agency, 1990.)

 

[crs1026]

That's my point. This is still a very substantial schedule. Why would CN be interested in accomodating cannon ball runs on top?

One has to think hard about what CN’s interests really are, as opposed to what they are simplistically cast as.
CN’s freight operation Toronto-Montreal is substantial, but it’s no different in magnitude than what CN runs on its Northern Ontario line with single track and full size passing sidings spaced only every 60 miles or more.
What that says to me is that the Kingston Sub is waaay overcapitalised for what is required for freight.
So what CN likely gets from VIA is enough remuneration to be made whole (by someone’s yardstick, not necessarily fulfilling CN shareholders’ wildest dreams) to retain the extra capitalisation.... from which CN derives considerable flexibility and efficiency, but which, should VIA depart, management would have to tear out to achieve numbers commensurate with its other lines. It’s not too hard to imagine the Kingston Sub reduced to largely single track, with greater use of fleeting and precision timing - as works remarkably well north of Toronto and east of Montreal.
So what CN needs from VIA is not “go away”, but “stay out of the way”. CN dispatching does a very good job of that, mostly by having VIA cross over for meets and follow slower freights rather than overtaking.
The key is that over time, VIA can only expect whatever throughput CN doesn’t need for itself. That implies that VIA will have to invest in further capacity on the line, to maintain whatever priority it needs even fir the notional service levels that are being proposed here.
We seem pretty happy putting HFR in CN and CP’s hands east of Coteau and west of Tapscott. It makes no sense to believe that something can’t be worked out in between. When the inevitability of that further investment sinks in, Ottawa may become more interested in a more binding arrangement in exchange for that investment.
A back of the envelope calculation says that paying shareholders some annual premium for their involvement is not a moon and stars proposition. We are just in the toe in the water phase where Ottawa can’t bring itself to Openly invest in rail passenger. We have to make do in the meanwhile, but let’s be sure that the strategy leaves the door open to that - and let’s not let HSR grab all the cash when that investment appetite arrives. A joint investment with CN may well be preferable to building whole new corridors.

- Paul

 

[tsm1072]

One has to think hard about what CN’s interests really are, as opposed to what they are simplistically cast as.
CN’s freight operation Toronto-Montreal is substantial, but it’s no different in magnitude than what CN runs on its Northern Ontario line with single track and full size passing sidings spaced only every 60 miles or more.
What that says to me is that the Kingston Sub is waaay overcapitalised for what is required for freight.
So what CN likely gets from VIA is enough remuneration to be made whole (by someone’s yardstick, not necessarily fulfilling CN shareholders’ wildest dreams) to retain the extra capitalisation.... from which CN derives considerable flexibility and efficiency, but which, should VIA depart, management would have to tear out to achieve numbers commensurate with its other lines. It’s not too hard to imagine the Kingston Sub reduced to largely single track, with greater use of fleeting and precision timing - as works remarkably well north of Toronto and east of Montreal.
So what CN needs from VIA is not “go away”, but “stay out of the way”. CN dispatching does a very good job of that, mostly by having VIA cross over for meets and follow slower freights rather than overtaking.
The key is that over time, VIA can only expect whatever throughput CN doesn’t need for itself. That implies that VIA will have to invest in further capacity on the line, to maintain whatever priority it needs even fir the notional service levels that are being proposed here.
We seem pretty happy putting HFR in CN and CP’s hands east of Coteau and west of Tapscott. It makes no sense to believe that something can’t be worked out in between. When the inevitability of that further investment sinks in, Ottawa may become more interested in a more binding arrangement in exchange for that investment.
A back of the envelope calculation says that paying shareholders some annual premium for their involvement is not a moon and stars proposition. We are just in the toe in the water phase where Ottawa can’t bring itself to Openly invest in rail passenger. We have to make do in the meanwhile, but let’s be sure that the strategy leaves the door open to that - and let’s not let HSR grab all the cash when that investment appetite arrives. A joint investment with CN may well be preferable to building whole new corridors.

- Paul

Could VIA use a funding approval to kind of strong-arm CN into a better deal? Essentially say: We can spend all this money on infrastructure and maintenance on our own line and corridor. Or, we can enter a more equal partnership and this money can upgrade some of your infrastructure, but we get more control over ROW ownership and scheduling.

 

[kEiThZ]

One has to think hard about what CN’s interests really are, as opposed to what they are simplistically cast as.
CN’s freight operation Toronto-Montreal is substantial, but it’s no different in magnitude than what CN runs on its Northern Ontario line with single track and full size passing sidings spaced only every 60 miles or more.
What that says to me is that the Kingston Sub is waaay overcapitalised for what is required for freight.
So what CN likely gets from VIA is enough remuneration to be made whole (by someone’s yardstick, not necessarily fulfilling CN shareholders’ wildest dreams) to retain the extra capitalisation.... from which CN derives considerable flexibility and efficiency, but which, should VIA depart, management would have to tear out to achieve numbers commensurate with its other lines. It’s not too hard to imagine the Kingston Sub reduced to largely single track, with greater use of fleeting and precision timing - as works remarkably well north of Toronto and east of Montreal.
So what CN needs from VIA is not “go away”, but “stay out of the way”. CN dispatching does a very good job of that, mostly by having VIA cross over for meets and follow slower freights rather than overtaking.
The key is that over time, VIA can only expect whatever throughput CN doesn’t need for itself. That implies that VIA will have to invest in further capacity on the line, to maintain whatever priority it needs even fir the notional service levels that are being proposed here.
We seem pretty happy putting HFR in CN and CP’s hands east of Coteau and west of Tapscott. It makes no sense to believe that something can’t be worked out in between. When the inevitability of that further investment sinks in, Ottawa may become more interested in a more binding arrangement in exchange for that investment.
A back of the envelope calculation says that paying shareholders some annual premium for their involvement is not a moon and stars proposition. We are just in the toe in the water phase where Ottawa can’t bring itself to Openly invest in rail passenger. We have to make do in the meanwhile, but let’s be sure that the strategy leaves the door open to that - and let’s not let HSR grab all the cash when that investment appetite arrives. A joint investment with CN may well be preferable to building whole new corridors.

- Paul

We are right back to 2008. What guarantee can be extracted that we won't have a repeat of that boondoggle?

I think some folks are getting target fixation. You are so focused on keeping the status quo service that you will make any and every excuse and imagine any scenario where VIA and CN can make faster and more frequent Lakeshore service work, in spite of real world evidence where such co-operation was a spectacular failure.

I don't want VIA committing to any deal with CN unless they are literally willing to turn over control of the corridor to VIA. And something like 50 years should be the minimum on such an arrangement, to ensure adequate capital recovery. Anything less and VIA is better off spending more and even getting less from Havelock, simply because control of that route ensures that VIA is 100% aware of what performance it can deliver 100% of the time.

We can't keep repeating the madness where we keep paying to improve CN's infrastructure and get worse passenger service as a result. And despite all the hopes and dreams, our governments have a demonstrated antipathy towards regulating passenger service priority. So it's time to ensure that priority is guaranteed through infrastructure.

 

[roger1818]

Could VIA use a funding approval to kind of strong-arm CN into a better deal? Essentially say: We can spend all this money on infrastructure and maintenance on our own line and corridor. Or, we can enter a more equal partnership and this money can upgrade some of your infrastructure, but we get more control over ROW ownership and scheduling.

I doubt it. If VIA threatened to remove their trains from CN's mainline, CN would likely say good riddance.

 

[robmausser]

Could VIA use a funding approval to kind of strong-arm CN into a better deal? Essentially say: We can spend all this money on infrastructure and maintenance on our own line and corridor. Or, we can enter a more equal partnership and this money can upgrade some of your infrastructure, but we get more control over ROW ownership and scheduling.

Ill say it a different way than above:

CN is a bigger company than Rogers. And look at what their lobbying the government lets Rogers get away with in the telecommunications sector. Now imagine the lobbying power of a company even bigger than that.

CN isn't agreeing to anything that doesn't 100% benefit CN.

 

[kEiThZ]

Canadian railfans seem to have an abusive relationship with the freightcos. I swear.

"Maybe they've changed. They won't hurt us this time."

Every 10 years.....

 

[crs1026]

We are right back to 2008. What guarantee can be extracted that we won't have a repeat of that boondoggle?

I think some folks are getting target fixation. You are so focused on keeping the status quo service that you will make any and every excuse and imagine any scenario where VIA and CN can make faster and more frequent Lakeshore service work, in spite of real world evidence where such co-operation was a spectacular failure.

I don't want VIA committing to any deal with CN unless they are literally willing to turn over control of the corridor to VIA. And something like 50 years should be the minimum on such an arrangement, to ensure adequate capital recovery. Anything less and VIA is better off spending more and even getting less from Havelock, simply because control of that route ensures that VIA is 100% aware of what performance it can deliver 100% of the time.

We can't keep repeating the madness where we keep paying to improve CN's infrastructure and get worse passenger service as a result. And despite all the hopes and dreams, our governments have a demonstrated antipathy towards regulating passenger service priority. So it's time to ensure that priority is guaranteed through infrastructure.

And you presumably expect CN to agree to similar terms for the Coteau-Montreal and Montreal-Drummondville-Charny elements of HFR? (And maybe Mascouche-Ballantyne-Montreal, if the tunnel can't be made to work) And where does HFR sit if CN can't commit to anything better than the current level of reliability?

We are actually agreeing on most of this - whatever Lakeshore service remains post-HFR will exist at CN's mercy. So will HFR. So either we find a new arrangement, or that service slowly perishes as CN grows its business and conflicts with freight grow.

A few strokes of the Parliamentary pen, and a reasonable level of investment, and there might be a will to play nice, if the money is appropriate.

As reported here (edit - and here)- Amtrak, CSX, and NS seem to have found reason to play nice... but Amtrak has a bit more government clout behind it.

- Paul

 

[ssiguy2]

Today Biden announced his new $2 trillion infrastructure plan and Amtrak plays a big part. It proposes many new routes and one that sticks out is a new route from Detroit to Toronto.

I think such a route finally connecting the 2 cities and places further west like Chicago would greatly increase traffic on the SWO lines which are already heavily used to the point of being the least subsidised corridor in the entire system on a per-passenger level.