News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 934     3 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 261     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 769     0 

VIA Rail

The running theory among some rail fans is that industry will come in with a top up. Apparently, the last TGV line built had 40% financing from private sector. So it's not entirely far fetched that the government's contribution of $8-12B attracts additional capital that results in something that is between that is between HFR, as originally envisioned and full HSR.

My concern is:

1) Everybody is vastly underestimating cost and performance. What happens when the bids come back and $20B reduces Toronto-Montreal to 4 hrs, and industry is just not willing to put up more to get shorter trip times because they doubt the business case? By the government's own estimate full HSR from Toronto to Quebec would cost $65B.

2) The ticket costs. YDS originally pitched HFR as a low cost, low risk alternative that would be affordable for the middle class. HSR that has to compete with airplanes will require fares on par with airplanes. What happens when we give industry a low cost $12B loan and end up with $200 HSR tickets that most of the population can't afford? The alternative will now be even longer trips through the Kingston hub. Imagine 7 hrs from Toronto to Montreal via Kingston for the same fares as today. Two tier service after a massive taxpayer subsidized loan. And this is all coming right as EVs further reduce the marginal cost of driving and automation reduces the stress of doing so.

Politically, they can try to box in Pierre Poilievre. I'm not sure it will work. Ultimately, governments have a lot of sovereign authority to get themselves out of contracts they don't like. And he may be willing to spend billions in penalties just out of spite. Wouldn't be the first time a leader did that. I do expect he'll run against any rail proposal. That's what opposition does. He'll probably argue that industry should be able to do it all on its own. He'll probably argue that this is all some Liberal insider play. The appointment of Pritchard isn't helping here. For example, imagine if SNC Lavalin is part of the winning bid. The hope among some railfans is that these large institutional investors and global infrastructure players being in the project will dissuade cancellation. Nobody will want to hurt Canada's reputation as a place for business. I guess we'll see. But I've not seen politicians place long term national interest ahead of petty partisan politics in a long time. And I have doubts that PP will be in the vanguard on this.
 
kEiThZ said:
2) The ticket costs. YDS originally pitched HFR as a low cost, low risk alternative that would be affordable for the middle class. HSR that has to compete with airplanes will require fares on par with airplanes. What happens when we give industry a low cost $12B loan and end up with $200 HSR tickets that most of the population can't afford? The alternative will now be even longer trips through the Kingston hub. Imagine 7 hrs from Toronto to Montreal via Kingston for the same fares as today. Two tier service after a massive taxpayer subsidized loan. And this is all coming right as EVs further reduce the marginal cost of driving and automation reduces the stress of doing so.
Click to expand...

A very big point.

If the intent is simply to shift T-O-M-Q air travel to a "better" mode, then the whole business case needs to fit within a model that describes the cost of the T-O-M-Q air infrastructure (which includes terminals, runways, air traffic control, as well as airline capital and operating costs) and shows how it can compete with that, either in terms of today's market or some assumed growth level.

It all goes back to the comment Garth Campbell made decades ago - you can sell one ticket for $200 or four tickets for $50. In this case, the greater good and better use of money may be the 4-at-50 proposition, even if the one-for-200 is profitable. The economic leverage in creating mobility at a cheaper price is much greater than restricting mobility to those who can pay the higher fare.

- Paul
 
lenaitch said:
There is no lack of examples of governments paying millions to cancel contracts and projects that their predecessor started.
Click to expand...
some say that we are still paying the penalties for dropping the Eurocopter that the Chretien govt cancelled in 1993... 🤣
 
cplchanb said:
some say that we are still paying the penalties for dropping the Eurocopter that the Chretien govt cancelled in 1993... 🤣
Click to expand...

We certainly are. Loss of capability. Loss of industrial opportunity. Higher costs for worse performing replacements. Higher costs because of a lack of planned commonality. All for easy politicking and vanity because the public doesn't care about defence spending. I struggle to see why Poilievre couldn't do the same on a rail project that the majority of the country does not care about.
 
Although the northern plains are seeing temperatures colder than the corridor would typically see, it is disappointing; particularly considering the recent announcement regarding the ONR and any future orders for other routes. Although I don't think any of our trainsets will have dining cars, frozen water could also impact washrooms. Maybe there is a 'cold weather kit' option that Amtrak didn't order.
 
lenaitch said:
Although the northern plains are seeing temperatures colder than the corridor would typically see, it is disappointing; particularly considering the recent announcement regarding the ONR and any future orders for other routes. Although I don't think any of our trainsets will have dining cars, frozen water could also impact washrooms. Maybe there is a 'cold weather kit' option that Amtrak didn't order.
Click to expand...
They may not have done enough cold weather testing. But the fact that the pipes in the dining car froze has nothing to do with the locomotive, unless it was a problem with the HEP system which caused it to freeze.
 
Bordercollie said:
They may not have done enough cold weather testing. But the fact that the pipes in the dining car froze has nothing to do with the locomotive, unless it was a problem with the HEP system which caused it to freeze.
Click to expand...
Hopefully the venture cars won't have this issue and all exposed water lines are heat traced and insulated properly
 
Bordercollie said:
They may not have done enough cold weather testing. But the fact that the pipes in the dining car froze has nothing to do with the locomotive, unless it was a problem with the HEP system which caused it to freeze.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. The Empire Builder continues to use Superliner coaches, which it has since it became the first long-distance train to use Superliners in 1979. Amtrak did announce in 2022 that they will be replacing all of their Superliner (and Viewliner I) passenger cars by 2032, but AFAIK, a replacement hasn’t been announced. as a result, is unlikely that the freezing pipes have anything to do with the ALC-42.

Reading the issues with the ALC-42, this isn’t the first reported issue with the it in cold weather, but I’m sure Siemens is looking into the issues and coming up with a resolution. Regardless, there are differences between it and VIA’s SCV-42 locomotives. Also, the demands on a long distance locomotive are significantly different than those on a daytime, intercity locomotives. So while hearing about these issues isn’t good news, I wouldn’t be too concerned just yet.
 
Last edited:
crs1026 said:
My suspicion is that the Liberals have painted themselves into a corner where their dream-like vision of HxR has morphed into something so grandiose that when the bids come in, they will get sticker shock and drop the whole idea, in the process abdicating any sense of accountability to build the country in a fact-based way ie proper infrastructure to meet demonstrable needs and agendas.

I don’t have any confidence that PP would understand what infrastructure we need in the East . I suspect he will fixate on solutions that may suit other parts of the country but don’t work in an increasingly urban and densified Central Canada ….. Doug Ford on steroids. Think sprawl, bigger roads, pickup trucks, and “carbon is a myth”.

But maybe PP‘s appeal has indeed peaked, and Canadians will reluctantly hold our noses and choose another term of a free-spending Liberal government that isn’t really wanted but is the less awful alternative. In that case, a vision-deficient Liberal government might gratefully allow a HxR czar to guide them to a more pragmatic and parsimonious form of better train network that is within the public purse.

It’s like getting from Quebec City to central Montreal by train….you can’t get there directly, you have to take a circuitous route that winds all the way round the mountain

- Paul
Click to expand...
I think its worth remembering that Ford (and Legault for that matter - and maybe even Smith in AB?!) are spending a lot of money on transit. Way more than the previous governments were, So the idea that the Conservatives are forever ideologically opposed, especially if they are aligned with people like Ford seems questionable.

The reality is that Toronto and Montreal are growing and Canada is not going to stop becoming more urban. Being anti urban transport and congestion relief is not going to be an election winner.
 
superelevation said:
I think its worth remembering that Ford (and Legault for that matter - and maybe even Smith in AB?!) are spending a lot of money on transit. Way more than the previous governments were, So the idea that the Conservatives are forever ideologically opposed, especially if they are aligned with people like Ford seems questionable.

The reality is that Toronto and Montreal are growing and Canada is not going to stop becoming more urban. Being anti urban transport and congestion relief is not going to be an election winner.
Click to expand...

The pendulum is moving, for sure. But as yet none of the people you mention are willing to declare leadership. More a matter of “let’s invest in transit (for the poor, especially) so we ‘normal’ folks can continue to drive everywhere”.

Has Ford ever tried to use public transit?

- Paul
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top