News   Apr 01, 2026
Transit Progress and Tall Towers Made Headlines in March, 2026
 55     0 
News   Apr 01, 2026
News Roundup for April 1, 2026
 261     0 
News   Apr 01, 2026
Lombard Canyon
 456     1 

VIA Rail

The map with the Ottawa by-pass is bizarre. It shows it on the CP mainline. I can see what CP gains from giving up control of the Havelock sub, but their mainline is a different story. So we'd end up with one of two scenarios: either Via runs on the line with the same scheduling and reliability problems that plague the current CN route, or they put a lot of money into expanding the line with guarantees that freight trains never delay passenger trains. To make the latter worth it the passengers gained from a faster trip to Montreal would have to not only have to make up for the cost of expanding the line, but also the passengers lost from skipping Ottawa. Putting a lot of money into by-passing one of your biggest revenue sources to slightly improve travel times to Montreal seems like a razor thin business case to me.

innsertnamehere said:
given the mention of 200km/h, I suspect we are looking at a primarily new alignment between Peterborough and Smith Falls. The area is too curvy as is to really be useable, and the isolated location means a grade separated 200km/h line wouldn't be too much additional in cost over a 177km/h line as minimal grade separations are required.

That would inch up construction costs closer to that $6-12 billion number and would allow trains to clear Toronto-Ottawa much quicker.

If you could get Fallowfield-Peterborough mostly into 200km/h territory, you could theoretically clear that stretch in 1:30 or so, giving 1:30 for Peterborough through Toronto and access into Ottawa.

3 hours for Toronto-Ottawa is an average speed of 130km/h or so - fast, but not crazy if you can get a good chunk of the line up to 200km/h.
Click to expand...
The isolated section is less than half of that actually. East of Peterborough you still have frequent concession roads and farm lanes for another ~100 km. Same thing between Perth and Ottawa. The grade crossings do thin out in the remote section though, especially in the Kaladar area.
 
Urban Sky said:
...if the desired travel times between Montreal and Quebec City can be achieved without building a new tunnel underneath the Mont-Royal tunnel...
Click to expand...


Which is required because they simply aren't going to use the REM tunnels. I don't have any insider information, but I've been working on documenting the project and it's impacts. From what I understand, the REM project is being built with no consideration for mixed heavy rail operations. Both because of required 90s train spacing with no space for passing tracks in the central segment and because of the modified loading gauge that arises from the installation of modern ventilation and fire suppression equipment despite ongoing tunnel widening - see image below.

2020-05_Tunnel Mont Royal_EN.png


While this isn't a guarantee, I simply don't know how else they fulfill the promises and also reach the the up to 12b cost. This is why I'm feeling very optimistic about this announcement.
 
^The CP Winchester Sub is in wide open countryside all the way to Dorion. Lots of room for VIA to add trackage. Cutting the corner at De Beaujeu makes eminent sense both to avoid the crossing of CP and to stay away from CN freight operations at Coteau.

I don't believe for a moment that VIA will build new bridges at Ile Perrot, but sharing with somebody must be possible. From that point eastwards, something needs to be done to avoid conflicts with freight. We will see what VIA proposes.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
Urban Sky said:
According to the tax calculator of Indeed.ca, a salary of $100,000 (68,040€) would be taxed at 32.5% in Quebec (marginal rate: 45.7%), but 42.2% (marginal rate: 52.0%) in my German home state of Hessen....
Click to expand...

Worth adding; few people in that pay bracket pay the posted rate or anything close.

Even before factoring in a given year's tax deductions/credits; most people will have income stashed in tax shelters like RRSPs and TFSAs; on top of which capital gains are taxed at 1/2 the rate of salaried income, and there's also a standard credit reducing tax on dividend income.

Then there's the raft of deductions/credits for having children or being over 65, or working from home or being self-employed etc etc.

I don't mind if people state that they prefer not to see tax dollars spent on project 'x'; even if I might support it. Preferences will vary.

I also don't mind value-for-money arguments about whether the details of a program or project get the most out of the money on offer.

However, I have relatively little patience for the argument that taxes in Canada are particularly onerous as a percentage of income.

If one is merely irked at how needlessly complex we've made taxes, as opposed to the amount collected, on that, I'm happy to agree.
 
Last edited:
TFSAs are not tax free at deposit, only at withdrawal. investments grow tax free but the if the initial capital comes from income it is taxed before being deposited. Important distinction. It does allow for some very low tax growth in retirement savings though, and allows for very low taxable incomes in retirement.

Canada also has surprisingly few tax deductions and a relatively simple tax structure compared to many countries.

Most people will have deductions of some sort, mainly RRSPs, but otherwise there aren't a whole ton of eligible deductions.

A big difference between Canada and Europe is lower sales taxes - Germany has a 19% sales tax while Ontario is 13%. Corporate taxes are also much lower in Canada.

Canada does have relatively high income taxes compared to globally but the overall tax burden isn't anything crazy.
 
innsertnamehere said:
TFSAs are not tax free at deposit, only at withdrawal. investments grow tax free but the if the initial capital comes from income it is taxed before being deposited. Important distinction. It does allow for some very low tax growth in retirement savings though, and allows for very low taxable incomes in retirement.

Canada also has surprisingly few tax deductions and a relatively simple tax structure compared to many countries.

Most people will have deductions of some sort, mainly RRSPs, but otherwise there aren't a whole ton of eligible deductions.

A big difference between Canada and Europe is lower sales taxes - Germany has a 19% sales tax while Ontario is 13%. Corporate taxes are also much lower in Canada.

Canada does have relatively high income taxes compared to globally but the overall tax burden isn't anything crazy.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, we will disagree, as we so often do.

First off, I specifically noted TFSA is a tax shelter (income generated inside them is not taxable), not that its a deduction/credit, so there was no need to correct my accurate statement.

Second........as someone who its fair to say is 'comfortable', I pay well less as a % of income on my tax than the sticker rate.

Its not a percent or two less.........its a lot less.

If your paying more, fire your accountant.

I would strongly advocate for a zero-deduction model, where 100% of income is taxed identically; but with a higher tax-free exemption and a lower rate structure; albeit, I'd be content to see more revenue collected as well.
 
MisterF said:
The map with the Ottawa by-pass is bizarre. It shows it on the CP mainline. I can see what CP gains from giving up control of the Havelock sub, but their mainline is a different story. So we'd end up with one of two scenarios: either Via runs on the line with the same scheduling and reliability problems that plague the current CN route, or they put a lot of money into expanding the line with guarantees that freight trains never delay passenger trains. To make the latter worth it the passengers gained from a faster trip to Montreal would have to not only have to make up for the cost of expanding the line, but also the passengers lost from skipping Ottawa. Putting a lot of money into by-passing one of your biggest revenue sources to slightly improve travel times to Montreal seems like a razor thin business case to me.
Click to expand...

I agree the map is bizarre and I won't put a lot of faith in it until I see it from an official source. Then again, I thought the same thing about HFR using the Havelock sub when the first leaks came out. The only way the map could make any sense is if VIA plans to only run a couple trains a day on the Winchester Sub during peak periods when both both the Montreal and Ottawa could easily fill their own trains, and have all other Montreal-Toronto trains run through Ottawa. While this routing may not be any faster than running on the Lakeshore route, it might be much more reliable as most of the route would be on dedicated tracks. With only a couple trains a day, VIA likely wouldn't have dedicated tracks for the aprox. 140 km between De Beaujeu and Smiths Falls (though they might pay for a few upgrades), so the question is, would the travel time improvements from the shorter, straighter route outweigh not having dedicated track?
 
roger1818 said:
I agree the map is bizarre and I won't put a lot of faith in it until I see it from an official source. Then again, I thought the same thing about HFR using the Havelock sub when the first leaks came out. The only way the map could make any sense is if VIA plans to only run a couple trains a day on the Winchester Sub during peak periods when both both the Montreal and Ottawa could easily fill their own trains, and have all other Montreal-Toronto trains run through Ottawa. While this routing may not be any faster than running on the Lakeshore route, it might be much more reliable as most of the route would be on dedicated tracks. With only a couple trains a day, VIA likely wouldn't have dedicated tracks for the aprox. 140 km between De Beaujeu and Smiths Falls (though they might pay for a few upgrades), so the question is, would the travel time improvements from the shorter, straighter route outweigh not having dedicated track?
Click to expand...
I believe that the positive take-away is that all these "nice-to-haves" like 200 km/h, electrical operation, second tunnel under the Mont-Royal and a bypass south of Ottawa seem to be under study, which gives hope that governments, politicians, bureaucrats, private investors (and hopefully also the public!) will soon have realistic cost estimates, which will allow them to determine whether or not their incremental benefits outweigh their incremental costs...
 
roger1818 said:
With only a couple trains a day, VIA likely wouldn't have dedicated tracks for the aprox. 140 km between De Beaujeu and Smiths Falls (though they might pay for a few upgrades), so the question is, would the travel time improvements from the shorter, straighter route outweigh not having dedicated track?
Click to expand...

Murphy’s Law says that if CP needs to run a freight, it will happen just when VIA needs the track. And even if the freight ran hours ago, it will have broken down and blocked the line just when VIA show up.
I would far prefer to have VIA stick to its own dedicated tracks.
If there’s a budget to pay for upgrades to enable sharing, then why not spend that money on the existing line (where we’ve spent some money in the past) and get the biggest bang for those bucks on that line, instead of spreading the investment in VIA and the operating cost out over a greater number of freight lines, thus diffusing the impact?
- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
Murphy’s Law says that if CP needs to run a freight, it will happen just when VIA needs the track. And even if the freight ran hours ago, it will have broken down and blocked the line just when VIA show up.
I would far prefer to have VIA stick to its own dedicated tracks.
If there’s a budget to pay for upgrades to enable sharing, then why not spend that money on the existing line (where we’ve spent some money in the past) and get the biggest bang for those bucks on that line, instead of spreading the investment in VIA and the operating cost out over a greater number of freight lines, thus diffusing the impact?
- Paul
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, though it ends up being a pay me now or pay me later situation. VIA could have a contract with CP that would require priority for a few, high yielding trains a day. Having a similar contract for almost 10 times as many trains on the same track becomes significantly more expensive and building dedicated tracks is likely the cheaper option.

In the case of a breakdown or derailment, VIA could detour the express train to follow the dedicated track through Ottawa. Even with dedicated tracks, certain segments of the track will still be used by the freight railways, so it doesn't completely eliminate the risk. The key is to have redundancy, so that if one route is blocked, they can use another.

What will actually happen is still very uncertain, but as @Urban Sky said, it is good that VIA is looking at all of these options.
 
innsertnamehere said:
The Toronto-Montreal travel time continues to be disappointing, but it is still a not insignificant improvement over today.
Click to expand...
On paper, not a significant improvement. But in reality will be much better than today.

Ive taken the 4H 40 minute train from Toronto to Montreal about 12 times. Only once was it actually on time. 6 of those times it was around 1.5 hours late. Once it was 8 hours.

If they can make the reliability 95% with HFR, its a MASSIVE improvement.
 
roger1818 said:
In a perfect world, yes. However, given that the Dundas Sub is CN's mainline, I don't know how feasible it is for VIA to have dedicated tracks or any sort of HFR along it.
Click to expand...

and skipping the Kitchener/Waterloo area and Pearson Airport would never ever happen. It would be like skipping Ottawa in the east. Its GEXR line or nothing IMO.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top