VIA Rail

[EnviroTO]

This means that in order for the train to be more environmentally friendly than the plane, you either need to transport almost 4 times as many people or (more likely) capture enough other O-Ds so that transporting all these passengers becomes less polluting than if all these intermediary had made alternative travel arrangements.

... or run a much lighter train with a modern locomotive. I have no doubt that a train could move passengers from Winnipeg to Churchill with less CO2 emissions than an ATR72 aircraft if that was a goal. Running trains made up of two older locomotives from the 1980s pulling steel train cars from 1950s isn't going to give you impressive numbers. They built those rail cars back when they were manufacturing the Lockheed L-1049 Super Constellation. If VIA Rail was to set goals of carbon footprint reduction and was given the money to make the fleet replacements necessary to achieve that goal they would be in a good place to deliver because the one clear truth is that the rolling resistance of rail (properly maintained), the typical low gradients on rail lines, and the scalability to add and remove cars as required make it easier to green than most modes.

On the economics side... they probably need to run the restaurant, lounge cars, sleepers, etc to make the train more profitable (really less loss because they don't break even) than if they ran the services with a few coach cars. Still, the train to Churchill with a sleeper is cheaper than the plane... suffer in coach and save a month in rent in Winnipeg.

 

[Urban Sky]

... or run a much lighter train with a modern locomotive. I have no doubt that a train could move passengers from Winnipeg to Churchill with less CO2 emissions than an ATR72 aircraft if that was a goal. Running trains made up of two older locomotives from the 1980s pulling steel train cars from 1950s isn't going to give you impressive numbers. They built those rail cars back when they were manufacturing the Lockheed L-1049 Super Constellation. If VIA Rail was to set goals of carbon footprint reduction and was given the money to make the fleet replacements necessary to achieve that goal they would be in a good place to deliver because the one clear truth is that the rolling resistance of rail (properly maintained), the typical low gradients on rail lines, and the scalability to add and remove cars as required make it easier to green than most modes.

On the economics side... they probably need to run the restaurant, lounge cars, sleepers, etc to make the train more profitable (really less loss because they don't break even) than if they ran the services with a few coach cars. Still, the train to Churchill with a sleeper is cheaper than the plane... suffer in coach and save a month in rent in Winnipeg.

Reality check: the second locomotive is required for safety reasons*, but even at a carbon price of US$100 per ton (which is at the higher end of the range researchers believe to be necessary to provide enough financial incentives to reach the climate targets), the entire 5825 tons of annual CO2 emissions caused by this rail service would still be worth less than $1 million, which is why I wouldn't waste a second looking at this service when trying to identify a decarbonization strategy for Canada's transportation sector. Some "fruits" hang so high that it's best to keep them where they are so that the Giraffes can find them...

*Having your locomotive (and thus your only source of heat) fail hundreds of kilometers away from the next road, with arctic exterior temperatures and a high risk of snow storms (during which helicopters can't really operate), would quickly become life-threatening. On a side note, even Metrolinx operates their London service with two locomotives, as they seem to deem their emergency response time to an incident West of Kitchener as unacceptably high...

 

[smallspy]

... or run a much lighter train with a modern locomotive. I have no doubt that a train could move passengers from Winnipeg to Churchill with less CO2 emissions than an ATR72 aircraft if that was a goal. Running trains made up of two older locomotives from the 1980s pulling steel train cars from 1950s isn't going to give you impressive numbers. They built those rail cars back when they were manufacturing the Lockheed L-1049 Super Constellation. If VIA Rail was to set goals of carbon footprint reduction and was given the money to make the fleet replacements necessary to achieve that goal they would be in a good place to deliver because the one clear truth is that the rolling resistance of rail (properly maintained), the typical low gradients on rail lines, and the scalability to add and remove cars as required make it easier to green than most modes.

While the emissions from the locos have gone down quite substantially in the past 30 years, the rolling stock that it is pulling behind will quite irrelevant to the matter. The loco doesn't care what it is pulling, just that it has something behind it.

This is not to say by any stretch of the imagination that we shouldn't be upgrading our rolling stock. But the reasons for doing so won't be to directly reduce carbon emissions - they will have no bearing on that. (There are certainly indirect effects regarding material choices or the advantages of a larger or homogeneous fleet, but most of those are also only borne out over the lifespan of the vehicle, not it's day-to-day usage.)

Dan

 

[Bordercollie]

Are you talking about the gross weight of the rolling stock we use today and what is available on the market?

 

[kEiThZ]

... or run a much lighter train with a modern locomotive. I have no doubt that a train could move passengers from Winnipeg to Churchill with less CO2 emissions than an ATR72 aircraft if that was a goal. Running trains made up of two older locomotives from the 1980s pulling steel train cars from 1950s isn't going to give you impressive numbers. They built those rail cars back when they were manufacturing the Lockheed L-1049 Super Constellation. If VIA Rail was to set goals of carbon footprint reduction and was given the money to make the fleet replacements necessary to achieve that goal they would be in a good place to deliver because the one clear truth is that the rolling resistance of rail (properly maintained), the typical low gradients on rail lines, and the scalability to add and remove cars as required make it easier to green than most modes.

On the economics side... they probably need to run the restaurant, lounge cars, sleepers, etc to make the train more profitable (really less loss because they don't break even) than if they ran the services with a few coach cars. Still, the train to Churchill with a sleeper is cheaper than the plane... suffer in coach and save a month in rent in Winnipeg.

Railfans are like a man with hammer who sees every problem as a nail. Not every single city pair needs rail service. And given how fast short haul electric passenger planes are coming along, the business case for a lot of these Western Canadian routes that are thin on demand, will be gone in about 15 years. Capital needs to be focused on the highest demand and some strategic corridors.

 

[smallspy]

Are you talking about the gross weight of the rolling stock we use today and what is available on the market?

More or less, yes.

Like-for-like, railcar weights haven't changed substantially since the advent of the lightweight passenger car design in the 1930s. Even bearing technology hasn't changed substantially in that same timeframe, so the cost to move a single railcar in terms of force is more-or-less the same.

(I use the term "like-for-like" as I'm trying to show the comparison of a hypothetical average 85 foot long single-level coach from then and now. Want to compare with a two-story coach like a Superliner or a BiLevel car, and the comparisons get murky because you now have to start figuring out things like seats-per-tonne and factoring the additional drag and weight of a physically bigger car.)

One thing that has changed is the electrical requirements - modern railcars need more electrical power for all of the additional services that they are required to have as passenger amenities, such as wifi, electrical outlets, etc. And this power is being provided from the leading loco, either using a separate diesel engine or by increasing the parasitic load on the main diesel engine (where the locos are powered by diesel).

Dan

 

[Bordercollie]

More or less, yes.

Like-for-like, railcar weights haven't changed substantially since the advent of the lightweight passenger car design in the 1930s. Even bearing technology hasn't changed substantially in that same timeframe, so the cost to move a single railcar in terms of force is more-or-less the same.

(I use the term "like-for-like" as I'm trying to show the comparison of a hypothetical average 85 foot long single-level coach from then and now. Want to compare with a two-story coach like a Superliner or a BiLevel car, and the comparisons get murky because you now have to start figuring out things like seats-per-tonne and factoring the additional drag and weight of a physically bigger car.)

One thing that has changed is the electrical requirements - modern railcars need more electrical power for all of the additional services that they are required to have as passenger amenities, such as wifi, electrical outlets, etc. And this power is being provided from the leading loco, either using a separate diesel engine or by increasing the parasitic load on the main diesel engine (where the locos are powered by diesel).

Dan

But a Bombardier Bi-level is a similar weight to a BUDD car and can carry almost double the number of customers. Is that not a gain in efficiency? Again you would need to convert it to long distance seats but that's still a 1.5 times increase in passenger count.

 

[Urban Sky]

But a Bombardier Bi-level is a similar weight to a BUDD car and can carry almost double the number of customers. Is that not a gain in efficiency? Again you would need to convert it to long distance seats but that's still a 1.5 times increase in passenger count.

Thanks to the very low rolling resistance of steel-on-steel, weight matters much less for energy efficiency in railroading than it does in aviation (with gravity as its perpetual enemy) or road transport. Again, we are focusing on the extreme fringes of the actual issue (i.e. how to decarbonize Canada's intercity travel sector)...

 

[crs1026]

Thanks to the very low rolling resistance of steel-on-steel, weight matters much less for energy efficiency in railroading than it does in aviation (with gravity as its perpetual enemy) or road transport. Again, we are focusing on the extreme fringes of the actual issue (i.e. how to decarbonize Canada's intercity travel sector)...

Exactly.... the difference in energy consumption between different types of passenger railcars is trivial compared to other factors affecting total energy consumption and carbon output in operating a train. A train made of heavy railcars may use less fuel and produce less carbon than one made of light railcars, depending on duty cycle, terrain, wind, weather and other factors. Choosing among existing railcars is one of the last places to look for a greener train.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

One thing that has changed is the electrical requirements - modern railcars need more electrical power for all of the additional services that they are required to have as passenger amenities, such as wifi, electrical outlets, etc. And this power is being provided from the leading loco, either using a separate diesel engine or by increasing the parasitic load on the main diesel engine (where the locos are powered by diesel).

Very true! Back when VIA's stainless steel cars were first built, they were steam heated (historically from a steam locomotive, but later requiring a steam generator either in the locomotive or in a separate steam generation car). This wasn't very efficient, so in the late 80's and early 90's, VIA converted them to use electrical Head-End Power (HEP). HEP1, was primarily ex. CP rolling stock from "The Canadian," though also included 24 cars acquired from American roads (such as NYC, RF&P and UP). HEP 2 included more rolling stock acquired from American roads (SP, et al.).

VIA's Head End Power Program

As early as 1981, VIA had considered following Amtrak’s example of switching from steam heat for its passenger cars to electric heat. ...

tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com

 

[OCCheetos]

VIA is transferring ownership of the old M&O Subdivison to the Prescott-Russell Trail Corporation, though only the 74km of it that are located within Prescott-Russell.

VIA RAIL AND THE PRESCOTT-RUSSELL RECREATIONAL TRAIL CORPORATION SIGN AN AGREEMENT TO SECURE THE FUTURE OF THE TRAIL | VIA Rail

MONTREAL, November 9, 2021 – In a bid to ensure that users and the community can keep enjoying the Prescott‑Russell Recreational Trail well into the future, VIA Rail Canada (VIA Rail) and the Prescott-Russell Recreational Trail Corporation (the Corporation) are announcing an agreement in...

media.viarail.ca

I think VIA was holding onto this in case of a high-speed rail plan?

 

[Bordercollie]

VIA is transferring ownership of the old M&O Subdivison to the Prescott-Russell Trail Corporation, though only the 74km of it that are located within Prescott-Russell.

VIA RAIL AND THE PRESCOTT-RUSSELL RECREATIONAL TRAIL CORPORATION SIGN AN AGREEMENT TO SECURE THE FUTURE OF THE TRAIL | VIA Rail

MONTREAL, November 9, 2021 – In a bid to ensure that users and the community can keep enjoying the Prescott‑Russell Recreational Trail well into the future, VIA Rail Canada (VIA Rail) and the Prescott-Russell Recreational Trail Corporation (the Corporation) are announcing an agreement in...

media.viarail.ca

I think VIA was holding onto this in case of a high-speed rail plan?

So I guess this part is not needed as part of their HFR plan?

 

[ShonTron]

VIA is transferring ownership of the old M&O Subdivison to the Prescott-Russell Trail Corporation, though only the 74km of it that are located within Prescott-Russell.

VIA RAIL AND THE PRESCOTT-RUSSELL RECREATIONAL TRAIL CORPORATION SIGN AN AGREEMENT TO SECURE THE FUTURE OF THE TRAIL | VIA Rail

MONTREAL, November 9, 2021 – In a bid to ensure that users and the community can keep enjoying the Prescott‑Russell Recreational Trail well into the future, VIA Rail Canada (VIA Rail) and the Prescott-Russell Recreational Trail Corporation (the Corporation) are announcing an agreement in...

media.viarail.ca

I think VIA was holding onto this in case of a high-speed rail plan?

Yes it was, to preserve the corridor. As VIA now owns the ex-CN Alexandria Sub, and there is very limited freight traffic left, I guess they feel there's no advantage of a M&O alignment over the existing route.

With a few grade separations (particularly with the CP Winchester Sub) and upgrades, the Alexandra Sub should suit their needs for more frequent and higher speed service.

 

[crs1026]

So I guess this part is not needed as part of their HFR plan?

No, and it paves the way for VIA to seek reciprocity so that it can take the Havelock line back from various trail groups.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

Yes it was, to preserve the corridor. As VIA now owns the ex-CN Alexandria Sub, and there is very limited freight traffic left, I guess they feel there's no advantage of a M&O alignment over the existing route.

Even then, according to CN's 2019 Three-Year Rail Network Plan, they plan to discontinue operations on the Alexandria (and Smiths Falls) Subs. Of course someone will have to take over the delivery of caprolactum to Nylene in Arnprior (apparently train is the only feasible way to deliver it). The only remaining tracks to Arnprior are via Ottawa. That is only about 1 train a week I think (I tend to see/hear it go by in the distance from my office on Thursdays).

With a few grade separations (particularly with the CP Winchester Sub) and upgrades, the Alexandra Sub should suit their needs for more frequent and higher speed service

There is still the possibility that VIA will run parallel to the Winchester Sub and take a shortcut to Montreal.