VIA Rail

[ShonTron]

There’s also the occasional train to L’Original, handled by a short line operator. I suspect CN will simply handle whatever’s left in Ottawa and Arnprior to a contractor; VIA of course will keep the rails in top shape for its trains; only the OLO and ex-Renfrew Sub track will need to be kept in minimal condition.

 

[smallspy]

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.

Sure, but that's only one option for two-story cars. And depending on how the specs are written, it may not even be an available option for any hypothetical tender.

That's why I specified "like-for-like". To do otherwise just overly complicates the issue.

Dan

 

[roger1818]

There’s also the occasional train to L’Original, handled by a short line operator. I suspect CN will simply handle whatever’s left in Ottawa and Arnprior to a contractor;

I gather that while CN did at one point spin off operations to the Ottawa Central, they later bought back the Ottawa Central and took over operations. CN has also indicated that they want to discontinue service on the Vankleek and / L'Orignal Spurs of the Alexandria Sub in their Three-Year Rail Network Plan. Someone else (like a short line) could come along and purchase the track from CN and continue providing the service, but CN is washing their hands of it.

Regarding Nylene, back when they were BASF, they formed the Arnprior-Nepean Railway (ANR) to maintain the track on the Renfrew Sub that CN was going to be abandoned by CN (the ROW is owned by the City of Ottawa). I expect a similar arrangement will be made for the Beachburg Sub (the city obtains ownership of the ROW and the ANR maintains the track) as well as CN's portion of the Walkley Yard. The question is if CN is no longer running trains to Ottawa, will it be worth running specials from either Smiths Falls or Montreal.

VIA of course will keep the rails in top shape for its trains;

Of course. As I said in a previous post, VIA owns all the track from Ottawa Station to both Smiths Falls and Coteau. While they might get a bit of revenue from CN operating trains on it, it is inconsequential to the maintenance of the track.

only the OLO and ex-Renfrew Sub track will need to be kept in minimal condition.

Not sure what the former Ontario L'Orignal Railway has anything to do with this (unless you are talking about trains to L’Original). I think you might be confusing it with the Beachburg Sub, which was built by the CNoR.

Edit: This discussion should probably be moved to the General railway discussions thread.

 

[Urban Sky]

The following video was posted today on Paul Langan's "High Speed Rail Canada" page on Facebook:

While the irony of someone who boasts of having created "the only national educational resource on high speed rail, TGV, trains, past studies and current information" posting a video by a Youtuber who seemingly hasn't heard of any of the HSR studies for which Canadians are supposedly famous for was obviously lost on poor Paul, one table caught my attention:

For quite a while, I have been looking for a formula to somehow compare the ridership potential of different rail corridors, this is the first time I've actually seen one and it makes sense that you multiply both cities' population figures (as the demand between two cities of 5 million people each should be much higher than between a city of 9.9 million and one of 0.1 million, even though in both cases both cities have a combined population of 10 million) and to divide it by the square of the distance by which they are apart.

I've therefore made a list of 30 (often overlapping) rail corridors, of which 11 are located in the Quebec-Windsor corridor (highlighted in yellow), 3 in Atlantic Canada (blue) and the remaining 16 in Western Canada. I also used a slightly paler color for all corridors which are not currently served by passenger rail services, which applies to 3 out of the 11 rail corridors in the Quebec-Windsor corridor, 1 out of 3 in Atlantic Canada and 13 out of 16 in Western Canada:

Compiled from: CMA/CA population figures provided by the 2016 Census, distances (in km) provided in various historic VIA/CN/CP schedules and frequencies from VIA's last pre-Covid schedule


The methodology used above has some obvious shortcomings (like using distance-by-rail rather than Euclidean distance), but while it's time for me to go to bed, I'll curiously check tomorrow what reactions and reflections this quick-and-dirty table will provoke...

 

[crs1026]

The methodology used above has some obvious shortcomings (like using distance-by-rail rather than Euclidean distance), but while it's time for me to go to bed, I'll curiously check tomorrow what reactions and reflections this quick-and-dirty table will provoke...

Interesting. I presume the formula isn’t backed by any documented validation, it's just somebody's intuitive attempt at a formula?

I won’t nitpick the model - we could spend a year debating that. But taking the numbers at face value, it's certainly interesting as a discussion point.

The big takeaway for me is the huge difference in order of magnitude between the various routes.... sure, we *could* run a train Moncton-Campbellton, but is that the best place to spend investment dollars? At the other extreme, every day spent waiting to begin upgrading Montreal-Ottawa is a huge opportunity cost. Ottawa can afford that investment without any elaborate resort to investment banks, etc. so why not just do it?

The one shortcoming I see that could be addressed just by changing the presentation is how the model treats each station pair as a discrete corridor. So Toronto-Windsor stands alone separate from Toronto-London, whereas a business case for investment on that corridor would want to capture both riderships. Similarly, I have always believed that if we ever see Calgary-Edmonton investment, there should also be service (of some lesser frequency, to be sure) to Lethbridge because Edmonton-Lethbridge will have some revenue potential that isn't captured by the E-C number.

Comparing the two Montreal-Toronto options (via Ottawa, or direct via Cornwall) is interesting - same numerator, but denominators favour the direct route. But how significant is the difference?

This feels like you've opened the bag of potato chips, we've taken just a couple, and sealed the bag and put it back in the cupboard. That never lasts for long.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

Similar to many statistical formulas, it is like a bikini. What it shows is interesting, but what it hides is crucial. The population and distance are important factors to the potential demand, but there are other very significant ones. Language and culture are also very important factors. The population of intermediary cities can also play an important role when looking at train service in general (though admittedly HSR trains would likely skip them anyway). It also doesn't factor in acceleration/deceleration time.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Similar to many statistical formulas, it is like a bikini. What it shows is interesting, but what it hides is crucial. The population and distance are important factors to the potential demand, but there are other very significant ones. Language and culture are also very important factors. The population of intermediary cities can also play an important role when looking at train service in general (though admittedly HSR trains would likely skip them anyway). It also doesn't factor in acceleration/deceleration time.

Current demand is also very important (capacity of flights + highway demand?) , and the population figure needs to be adjusted for range.

 

[kEiThZ]

While the irony of someone who boasts of having created "the only national educational resource on high speed rail, TGV, trains, past studies and current information" posting a video by a Youtuber who seemingly hasn't heard of any of the HSR studies for which Canadians are supposedly famous...

That video was also promoted by Not Just Bikes. And the proponent of the video the thought there was no point serving Ottawa. It shows the limits of this kind of superficial analysis where one doesn't understand local geography, culture and economics.

 

[Mr Finish Line]

The following video was posted today on Paul Langan's "High Speed Rail Canada" page on Facebook:

I actually requested that video in a comment on one of his previous videos on HSR.

 

[ManyQuestions]

I won’t nitpick the model - we could spend a year debating that.

It is worth nitpicking though; that was an exam question for a class on economic geography I took last year. This model was used as the basis for much of that field's development in the 80s but it's lack of consideration of physical and human/political boundaries severely limit its utility in it's intended case of modelling commercial trade volumes. It was never meant as a tool for designing transportation networks.

It's with noting that a key assumption of the model is that transportation cost is purely a linear function of the direct distance between points, something the clearly isn't reflective of the real world.

I'd write more but I don't have much time. This kind of psuedo-academic hot-take really annoys me but I'll withhold judgement as I haven't yet watched the video. Can also add citations later.

Still, it's an interesting basis for a thought experiment; somewhat similar to the slime mold transportation network videos...

 

[ssiguy2]

One new development {and a damn scary one} is the new Amtrak proposal that would go ahead if the US Infrastructure Bill passes.

One of the new routes Amtrak is proposing is a Chicago/Detroit/Toronto one and it clearly shows on it's website that it would make stops in Canada including the big 2...........London & Windsor. They would never have planned such a new route into another country unless they had cleared it with VIA first. It makes you wonder if VIA has some plans to vacate {or at least greatly reduce} it's service to SWO and give the route to Amtrak. One wouldn't think so as it is the most profitable per km travelled in the system but VIA's purely political decision to forget HFR for London but not Quebec City despite the fact that London is the busier station gives one pause.

When you add that onto GO's plans to expand service to London via the Kitchener route is it so far fetched to think that VIA is abandoning SWO completely much like it effectively has for Niagara?

 

[crs1026]

One new development {and a damn scary one} is the new Amtrak proposal that would go ahead if the US Infrastructure Bill passes.

One of the new routes Amtrak is proposing is a Chicago/Detroit/Toronto one and it clearly shows on it's website that it would make stops in Canada including the big 2...........London & Windsor. They would never have planned such a new route into another country unless they had cleared it with VIA first. It makes you wonder if VIA has some plans to vacate {or at least greatly reduce} it's service to SWO and give the route to Amtrak. One wouldn't think so as it is the most profitable per km travelled in the system but VIA's purely political decision to forget HFR for London but not Quebec City despite the fact that London is the busier station gives one pause.

Hey, normally I’m the conspiracy guy…. in this case I think you are worried about nothing. VIA and Amtrak have plenty of experience with interoperation on a somewhat similar service with the same end points…. plus other routes also. The proposal is likely going to amount to one through train a day…. just like it was pre 2005. That hardly puts VIA service at risk.

Some of the fine details of the US plan seem a bit optimistic, and make me wonder how much was designed on a napkin in DC rather than by the two passenger agencies and the tenant railroads…. but that won’t undo the momentum of the plan with the current level of political support. The details can be made to work.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

Hey, normally I’m the conspiracy guy…. in this case I think you are worried about nothing. VIA and Amtrak have plenty of experience with interoperation on a somewhat similar service with the same end points…. plus other routes also. The proposal is likely going to amount to one through train a day…. just like it was pre 2005. That hardly puts VIA service at risk.

Some of the fine details of the US plan seem a bit optimistic, and make me wonder how much was designed on a napkin in DC rather than by the two passenger agencies and the tenant railroads…. but that won’t undo the momentum of the plan with the current level of political support. The details can be made to work.

- Paul

Agreed. Typically these types of routes are operated in Canada by VIA Rail on shared equipment. The only real concern is schedule reliability with a longer route (starting in Chicago rather than Windsor).

 

[Urban Sky]

Agreed. Typically these types of routes are operated in Canada by VIA Rail on shared equipment. The only real concern is schedule reliability with a longer route (starting in Chicago rather than Windsor).

So far I thought that the plan was to have Amtrak and VIA services meet in Detroit Michigan Central Station, where the border and customs facilities for both countries would be located. With a generous transfer time of, say, 2 hours, the connection should be reasonably stable, while the end-to-end travel time still stays acceptable...

 

[Bordercollie]

So far I thought that the plan was to have Amtrak and VIA services meet in Detroit Michigan Central Station, where the border and customs facilities for both countries would be located. With a generous transfer time of, say, 2 hours, the connection should be reasonably stable, while the end-to-end travel time still stays acceptable...

Maybe that will pay for some upgrades to the Dundas sub and Chatham sub could have additional sidings added to allow trains to pass each other more easily.

Currently some of the sidings have speed restrictions preventing the train to run at track speed.