News   Apr 01, 2026
 117     0 
News   Apr 01, 2026
 353     0 
News   Apr 01, 2026
 622     0 

VIA Rail

Looks like you are reading from

The intent of the speed restriction is as you suggest - crew has more time to potentially spot the misaligned switch, more reaction time to initiate a brake application, and hopefully reduction of momentum.

Not really a guarantee that the train will stop safely, but lowers the potential for harm as even in worst case the force of impact or derailment is probably somewhat less than if there were no speed restriction.

- Paul


The above is what all started this.
 
So, what is needed to fix the existing routing?

Nothing. The question was about the risk inherent in hand operated switches in unsignalled territory for passenger trains.

The answer is, we can live with the risk, or we can spend a lot of money to reduce it, or we can remove the risk by eliminating the service.

Guess which priority ordering of those three options Ottawa would choose.

Nothing about having privatized CN impacts that decision.

PS rerouting the Ocean falls into the category of spending a lot of money and risking poorer service performance (by putting the Ocean in conflict with freight). The conflict with freight is about passing the burden of the Ocean on to shippers, it's not about shareholder profit.

- Paul
 
Or shifted to the CN mainline through New Brunswick northwest of Moncton, which is fully CTC. It’d be a faster trip but a less scenic one.
Probably faster, but also much more vulnerable to delays due to freight conflicts. The current route has the huge advantage that it has minimal freight traffic, the problem is just that it has primitive equipment and is poorly maintained. If the government wanted to invest in passenger rail in Atlantic Canada they could acquire the underutilized freight railways and upgrade them up so trains could operate at normal speeds again.
Capture1.PNG

This is of course a purely hypothetical concept, and would have a very poor cost-benefit ratio so it would be hard to justify over other competing projects. It would only really make sense as part of political pandering, similar to how the Northlander is being revived primarily for political reasons.
 
Last edited:
What's wrong with the Ventures? The first of a three-part series covering the past three years. This is the shortest post including some additional information and terms.
 
What's wrong with the Ventures? The first of a three-part series covering the past three years. This is the shortest post including some additional information and terms.

This is awesome work. So great to separate real data from railfan gossip and sandhouse speculation. A million thanks !

- Paul
 
What's wrong with the Ventures? The first of a three-part series covering the past three years. This is the shortest post including some additional information and terms.
So isn't it good that there are more available than required?
 
Considering that Amtrak (and Amtrak California) have also done the same with their new trainsets, it seems that someone has crunched the numbers and figured that in the long run it is worthwhile.
From today’s NYT on Amtrak’s new sets. Click to enlarge.

IMG_3828.png
IMG_3830.png
 
Last edited:

Back
Top