VIA Rail

[DSCToronto]

My (admitedly limited) understanding of the French “ban” is that it bans the sale of non-connecting tickets for flights where the TGV operates in less than two-and-a-half hours, whereas connecting tickets are still allowed. Given that the TGV has already all but eclipsed the demand for flights on such shorthaul routes, the ban will only affect a tiny fraction of air travel originating or terminating in France, which would make it a purely symbolic measure rather than being any meaningful contribution towards France’s climate targets…

Yes, but symbols are important - here we are talking about it!

 

[Admiral Beez]

What are you smoking?

How’s is this dismissive retort either congenial or useful?

So Toronto to Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec city, London, Windsor, north Bay, Sudbury, Winnipeg would all loose flight in favor of 4-6 hour train trips.

France has HSR. Canada would need HSR to make such a plan work here. It’s not feasible for the more rural, distant and underused routes you suggest above, but if we could get Toronto to Montreal or Ottawa to three hours or less such a flight ban could be justified.

High-speed train between Toronto and Montreal one step closer to becoming reality

A high-speed train between Toronto and Montreal could be one step closer to becoming a reality.

toronto.ctvnews.ca

 

[Rainforest]

A meaningful option for Canadian travel is to set minimum prices on routes where a viable rail alternative exists. That will both shift some travel from air to rail and provide a certain revenue stability for the major airlines, so they do not get undercut on popular routes like Toronto to Montreal.

Long transcontinental will never swich to trains. If you ban flights Toronto to Vancouver, people will stop taking such trips altogether. Tourists will fly to overseas destinations. Business types will switch to teleconferencing, or will set meetings in Caribean islands where they can get within hours rather than days.

But more local trips, including shorter interprovincial, certainly can switch to rail if the infrastructure is upgraded. The Corridor is obvious, but even Toronto to Halifax is not out of question. That's 1,800 km; at 80 kph average speed, would take 23 hours. Business types will fly in the latter case, but many tourists will be OK with an overnight train.

Longer term, wouldn't rule out Winnipeg - Regina - Calgary - Banff, Winnipeg - Saskatoon - Edmonton, and Edmonton - Red Deer - Calgary. The landscape should make it easier to add dedicated passenger rail tracks and avoid the dependence on freight railways, which in turn could permit more frequent service with smaller trains.

 

[lenaitch]

set minimum prices

So . . . regulated prices? I'm not sure any government would be willing to spend the political capital required to impose that on shareholder-owned airlines.

The landscape should make it easier to add dedicated passenger rail tracks and avoid the dependence on freight railways, which in turn could permit more frequent service with smaller trains.

Are you proposing cutting new ROWs or adding tracks to existing corridors, which are owned by said railways? The landscape might be wide open spaces but built-up areas would likely be more restricted.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Are you proposing cutting new ROWs or adding tracks to existing corridors, which are owned by said railways?

I suspect you’re just asking so to tell us why it won’t work.

 

[Rainforest]

So . . . regulated prices? I'm not sure any government would be willing to spend the political capital required to impose that on shareholder-owned airlines.

Isn't that happening all the time these days? And in this case, shareholders of major airlines will actually benefit. They will be protected from the new entrants, who otherwise could undercut the prices on most popular routes.

Are you proposing cutting new ROWs or adding tracks to existing corridors, which are owned by said railways? The landscape might be wide open spaces but built-up areas would likely be more restricted.

I guess, using the existing corridors will be easier in most cases. Just like GO has its own Lakeshore East 3-rd track in the CN's corridor.

I am not in the position to design the route. My guess, the ease of adding another track or two between towns can make the whole project more viable, even though widening the ROW inside towns will be challenging (and in some cases not possible).

 

[roger1818]

Yes, but symbols are important - here we are talking about it!

While we could easily pass legislation prohibiting air travel between cities that have HSR service that takes less than 2.5 hours, that would guarantee that we will never get HSR trains, as the airlines would fight tooth and nail against any such project.

The last time Canada was considering HSR, Air Canada and the CPR jointly funded a study to show how bad it would be for Canada, and that was with only the threat of competition. Imagine what they would do if they knew HSR would force them to cancel profitable flights.

 

[Urban Sky]

Friendly reminder to anyone dreaming about establishing new (e.g. at-least daily) intercity passenger rail seevices outside of the densely populated Quebec-Windsor Corridor that a comparison of VIA Rail and Ontario Northland’s bus operations suggests that the per-timetable-km cost of providing intercity passenger rail services in this country are roughly one order of magnitude higher than for intercity bus services and that therefore whatever rail service we might dream up would consume an amount of operating subsidies, which could fund a far superior transportation network (i.e. faster, more frequent and dramatically more reliable) if invested in intercity bus services, while completely avoiding the need for costly infrastructure investments…

 

[C_Johnson_1995]

Friendly reminder to anyone dreaming about establishing new (e.g. at-least daily) intercity passenger rail seevices outside of the densely populated Quebec-Windsor Corridor that a comparison of VIA Rail and Ontario Northland’s bus operations suggests that the per-timetable-km cost of providing intercity passenger rail services in this country are roughly one order of magnitude higher than for intercity bus services and that therefore whatever rail service we might dream up would consume an amount of operating subsidies, which could fund a far superior transportation network (i.e. faster, more frequent and dramatically more reliable) if invested in intercity bus services, while completely avoiding the need for costly infrastructure investments…

I think this really needs to be said more. What we are seeing in so many provinces with the restoration of rail routes that have no justification is really a step backwards no matter how some people try to spin it.

The Northlander will be a costly, politically motivated mistake and will never be worth the investment.

The decision to restore rail to Gaspe and bring back the Chaleur is absolutely baffling, especially given the pricetag, and VIA's limited equipment pool. Even the projections for freight traffic are highly underwhelming.

At least the government of BC was smart in ruling out the E&N for future rail use. It wasn't the popular decision, but it was the correct one given all the evidence and studies available. The only feasible use of that poor alignment in the 21st century is as a multi-use trail.

It's not popular, but passenger rail only has a narrow use case and in most cases, is outmoded by busses.

 

[roger1818]

Well, this is where we disagree. The Bill of Materials for the Peterborough rebuild will include:
- all new rail
- all new crossties, fasteners and associated hardware
- all new signalling
- all new crossing components
- all new bridge spans and girders
- potentially new culverts and bridge abutments
- all new subgrade and track level granular material

In effect, it is laying a new railway on a green field.

The only money saved is in land acquisition and perhaps civil work related to the embankments and cuts….. and, as noted, for any of the ghost railways out there, most of that is still in place, or at worst it’s recoverable.

If you consider what it cost for GO to replace the trackage from Bradford to Allandale, or Stouffville to Lincolnville, or (potentially)
Guelph to Galt…. And now extrapolate all the way from Don to Peterborough….. for how many riders?

I’m pushing back on the premise that one can look at a dying railway and say, oh the rails are still there, let’s put a passenger train on that line…. In reality, it’s pretty close to designing a new line from scratch. Just as many zeroes in the cost equation.

- Paul

I should add that upgrading an active ROW has the additional cost of keeping the ROW open while performing the upgrade. They can’t just close the ROW for a few years while they rip out the tracks, upgrade the sub-roadbed and lay new tracks. Instead they need to either do small enough portions that they can complete the work between trains (difficult to do) or more likely build a temporary bypass. Both of these options add significant expense. With an abandoned (or greenfield ) ROW, they don’t have to worry about any of this.

Also, all other things being equal, the land on an active ROW would be more valuable than that of an abandoned ROW, so it would likely be more expensive to acquire. While CPKS may be more than happy to let someone else pay to improve the track and take over responsibility for maintenance,, they are a business and will negotiate the best deal they can get (they will likely want cash help pay off the debt from the acquisition of KCS).

 

[roger1818]

I think this really needs to be said more. What we are seeing in so many provinces with the restoration of rail routes that have no justification is really a step backwards no matter how some people try to spin it.

The Northlander will be a costly, politically motivated mistake and will never be worth the investment.

The decision to restore rail to Gaspe and bring back the Chaleur is absolutely baffling, especially given the pricetag, and VIA's limited equipment pool. Even the projections for freight traffic are highly underwhelming.

At least the government of BC was smart in ruling out the E&N for future rail use. It wasn't the popular decision, but it was the correct one given all the evidence and studies available. The only feasible use of that poor alignment in the 21st century is as a multi-use trail.

It's not popular, but passenger rail only has a narrow use case and in most cases, is outmoded by busses.

Agreed. People often overly romanticize passenger trains and show distain for freight trains. In reality our priority should be to subsidize and expand freight rail service to get even more trucks off of the road. In terms of road damage (and thus road maintenance coats), trucks cost taxpayers a significant amount, so a freight rail subsidy could be beneficial if targeted well.

 

[DSCToronto]

I think this really needs to be said more. What we are seeing in so many provinces with the restoration of rail routes that have no justification is really a step backwards no matter how some people try to spin it.

The Northlander will be a costly, politically motivated mistake and will never be worth the investment.

The decision to restore rail to Gaspe and bring back the Chaleur is absolutely baffling, especially given the pricetag, and VIA's limited equipment pool. Even the projections for freight traffic are highly underwhelming.

At least the government of BC was smart in ruling out the E&N for future rail use. It wasn't the popular decision, but it was the correct one given all the evidence and studies available. The only feasible use of that poor alignment in the 21st century is as a multi-use trail.

It's not popular, but passenger rail only has a narrow use case and in most cases, is outmoded by busses.

Yes, it is similar to the 'subway, subway, subway' crowd. Passenger rail (like subways) is fantastic IN SOME LOCATIONS but bus is often far more cost effective (and can offer more service flexibility.) If a route can generate 100 passengers a day, would you rather have one train or 3 buses?

 

[lenaitch]

I suspect you’re just asking so to tell us why it won’t work.

Nope, the marketplace will determine that. Buying or renting space on existing corridors would obviously be cheaper, but VIA would still be a tenant; albeit one with better access, but many of the current problems with VIA being a tenant won't go away.

Buying up land for a greenfield ROW? Anything is possible with cubic dollars - taxpayer dollars. If a government can convince the voting public that is it good economics to spend billions to support frequent passenger rail between Saskatoon and Winnipeg, good for them.

Isn't that happening all the time these days? And in this case, shareholders of major airlines will actually benefit. They will be protected from the new entrants, who otherwise could undercut the prices on most popular routes.

Regulated airline prices are happening now? I wasn't aware. Our daughter was recently booking a flight to Kelowna and the prices were changing seemingly hourly.

I realize the industry itself is regulated, but not to the point of restraining trade. Provided he meets all the safety and financial requirement of the various regulatory agencies, if Elon Musk decided to whittle away his billions in a low cost domestic carrier, I doubt anyone would stop him. I doubt restraining trade and competition is on any mainstream political party's agenda.

I think this really needs to be said more. What we are seeing in so many provinces with the restoration of rail routes that have no justification is really a step backwards no matter how some people try to spin it.

The Northlander will be a costly, politically motivated mistake and will never be worth the investment.

The decision to restore rail to Gaspe and bring back the Chaleur is absolutely baffling, especially given the pricetag, and VIA's limited equipment pool. Even the projections for freight traffic are highly underwhelming.

At least the government of BC was smart in ruling out the E&N for future rail use. It wasn't the popular decision, but it was the correct one given all the evidence and studies available. The only feasible use of that poor alignment in the 21st century is as a multi-use trail.

It's not popular, but passenger rail only has a narrow use case and in most cases, is outmoded by busses.

At least for the ONTC, the business case for the infrastructure is there. Passenger rail will always be subsidized; the bickering is always over how much. I agree the business case for the Gaspe ROW is dodgy, but I suppose that's for Quebec voters to decide. Has VIA been definitive that they will reinstate Chaleur if the line is brought back into standards?

 

[roger1818]

The YKDFN member helping to steer a huge Canadian rail project

Fiona Blondin, a member of the Yellowknives Dene First Nation, has joined the board of a major project to transform passenger rail in Quebec and Ontario.

cabinradio.ca

 

[Urban Sky]

At least for the ONTC, the business case for the infrastructure is there. Passenger rail will always be subsidized; the bickering is always over how much. I agree the business case for the Gaspe ROW is dodgy, but I suppose that's for Quebec voters to decide.

Given that the VIA service was just suspended, not withdrawn, the business case will eventually become positive for the Quebec taxpayer, as the investment will reap benefits without incurring any costs (other than the upfront capital expenditure) to them. No such thing can be said about the Northlander…

Has VIA been definitive that they will reinstate Chaleur if the line is brought back into standards?

I read the following as if they will resume service once track conditions allow travel times similar to prior to the suspension (i.e. easily achievable within a single LE shift):

https://corpo.viarail.ca/sites/default/files/media/pdf/APA-APM/VIA%20Rail_2023%20Annual%20Public%20Meeting%20-%20Q%26A.pdf