VIA Rail network developments

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

If they are planning full grade separation. That isn’t obvious from the documents they have posted so far.

Grade separation is more important where population density and traffic is higher. In more remote areas, some grade crossings can simply be closed and traffic rerouted.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Grade separation is more important where population density and traffic is higher. In more remote areas, some grade crossings can simply be closed and traffic rerouted.

Exactly! Two of the key factors in Canada’s new Grade separation assessment guidelines are traffic volume (both directly and as a “Cross product” with train traffic) as well as “Queuing.” Both of these are much more likely to be an issue in an urban area than on a rural road in the middle of nowhere.

Regardless of the guidelines, I can’t imagine at a location where the CPKC track is grade separated, VIA being allowed to construct a parallel track, on the same ROW without grade separation.

Also as a combination of the two, if the guidelines say that an at grade crossing should now be grade separated, VIA would likely need to pay to not only grade separate their new track, but CPKC’s existing track, potentially with design considerations for future doubling of CPKC’s track. It should be obvious that a wider grade separation for additional tracks would further increase costs (not to mention the cost of potentially having to change the elevation of an active rail line).

[Truenorth00]

^ Aside from the above, at least one of the bidders is proposing a substantially high speed development. This means a substantial portion of the corridor, where they intend to operate above 125 mph / 201 kph has to be fully grade separated. This would be impossibly expensive if they are forced to grade separate another set of freight tracks at the same time.

Even using Siemens Venture trains to run at close to 200 kph requires a lot more grade separation than exists on the Lakeshore corridor now. There's no way regulators would allow those speeds without more grade separation. Though it's probably not as much as the full separation HSR requires.

Using parts of Havelock with some new portions does make the most sense. Less grade separation. Shorter distance between Ottawa and Toronto and shorter total distance for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. Easier geometry from curve radii to superelevation.

There's also the issue of electrification which is a whole other ball of wax, with the freight railways substantially opposed to using catenary and insisting that nothing be installed overhead.

[DarthVader_1961]

Was speaking to a few Chinese friends the other day. I was telling them how well China does at building high speed rail..

They told me something that I shouldn’t be surprised about but I was,

Most of china’s rail network don’t make a profit, in fact most of the high speed runs lose money.

I recall seeing this mentioned on a YouTube video but cannot find it.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by DarthVader_1961

Was speaking to a few Chinese friends the other day. I was telling them how well China does at building high speed rail..

They told me something that I shouldn’t be surprised about but I was,

Most of china’s rail network don’t make a profit, in fact most of the high speed runs lose money.

I recall seeing this mentioned on a YouTube video but cannot find it.

China State Railway Group is more than a trillion dollars (CAD) in debt. They've basically overbuilt just to prop up GDP figures.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Tra...y%20the%20debt.

[sseguin]

Behind the Scenes at VIA Rail Canada's Montreal Maintenance Centre
• Video Link

Also available in the original French language
Dans les coulisses de VIA Rail Canada au Centre de Maintenance de Montréal
• Video Link

[rocketphish]

Freeland's new federal budget hikes taxes on the rich to cover billions in new spending
With interest rates running high, cost to service the national debt surpasses federal health care spending

John Paul Tasker · CBC News
Posted: Apr 16, 2024 4:02 PM EDT | Last Updated: 24 minutes ago

HIGHLIGHTS:

• Ottawa to spend $52.9 billion more than planned over the next five years.
• Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland projects Ottawa will post a $40 billion deficit this fiscal year.
• The budget includes $8.5 billion in new spending for housing.
• Other big-ticket budget items include a $6 billion Canada Disability Benefit and a $1 billion national school food program.
• Freeland will hike capital gain taxes paid by the rich and corporations to collect an estimated $19 billion in new revenue.
• The cost to service the growing national debt has increased substantially — it's now about $2 billion more than it was projected to be just a few months ago.
• The government will spend more on servicing its debt than on health care this year.

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland's fourth budget delivers a big-ticket housing program for millennials and Generation Z voters — a multi-billion dollar commitment to be paid for in part with a tax hike on the rich and corporate Canada.

Freeland's document calls for about $52.9 billion in new spending over the next five years — a significant jump over what Ottawa had said it would spend in the fall economic statement released just a few months ago.

<snip>

VIA Rail Canada stands to gain about $400 million over the next few years to turn the dream of high-frequency rail in central Canada into a reality.

<snip>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fed...main-1.7175052

[skyscraperaccount]

Originally Posted by DarthVader_1961

Was speaking to a few Chinese friends the other day. I was telling them how well China does at building high speed rail..

They told me something that I shouldn’t be surprised about but I was,

Most of china’s rail network don’t make a profit, in fact most of the high speed runs lose money.

I recall seeing this mentioned on a YouTube video but cannot find it.

There are a few that go over it, I saw this one a while back


https://youtu.be/ITvXlax4ZXk?si=tb3ju4SfU4mAKoZk

Not sure where EE lands on the trust scale so grain of salt.

[Richard Eade]

Whether high-speed passenger rail lines make a profit is a bit of a funny question. Highway 401 is reported to be one of the busiest highways in North America. Does it make a profit?

There is a certain minimum (and that level changes with time) of infrastructure that needs to be provided to support economic viability. Governments tax the population to provide that infrastructure.

I have seen arguments that the road pays for itself because of the gas tax charged and licencing fees. My question would be; How much would a person VOLUNTARILY pay to use those roads? That is, if they had to buy a ticket every time they wanted to travel on a road – any road – would they be willing to pay the full cost? Maybe for some main, high-speed roads, but likely not for smaller roads.

The private highway 407 is a good example. It is paid for through tolls. That makes it easy to say that “Yes, people would pay the full cost of roads.” But, again, that is a large, high-speed road. It offers the user a much easier commute than the over-crowded 401. A subset of people is willing to pay a premium for a specific thing that makes their life easier. But there is a larger portion that is not willing to pay extra, and they will endure the 401.

Are there enough people who are willing to pay a premium for fast train service; and does the train provide enough of a benefit to justify the premium cost? These may sound like the same question, but they are different aspects. Going back to the 407 example; there seems to be a large enough pool of people who are paying the toll; but only because they get enough benefit. If the traffic on the 407 becomes congested, the benefit decreases; thus, fewer people will find it worth the extra cost.

Back to discussing high-speed passenger trains:

Apparently, the most profitable lines in China are their fastest lines. As the train speed drops, so does the revenue. There are likely many reasons for that. As the speed of the line decreases, it provides less benefit; therefore, fewer people ride it and they are not willing to pay a very high premium. It is also likely that the higher-speed routes are newer, and require less maintenance (for now).

Bringing the discussion to Ontario/Quebec:

If the train is truly high-SPEED, then it might be able to provide enough benefit that it can command very high prices. For example, if it can truly compete with air travel, it could demand ‘air prices’. There might be enough revenue to cover costs - provided that the pool of travelers willing to pay a premium is large enough.

I question, though, whether a high-FREQUENCY rail line will offer enough benefit that it can command enough of a price premium to cover its cost. I suggest that the answer would be “No more than any public transit route.” That is, it will get only a small revenue per passenger, so it will need to rely on high ridership. Unfortunately, high ridership can require even higher operating costs; which means that even higher ridership is required. This can become a spiral that means that the costs will never be covered.

Whether or not the line makes a profit may be a moot point. Like the roadways, it may simply be that there is enough economic and societal benefit to having the train that the government is willing to tax people to pay its cost.

And there might be other options for income. The government could introduce legislation to allow the new ‘Passenger-Only’ line to schedule in freight service in off-times. (Basically, reverse what happens on the current freight lines.) This would set up two networks; one with freight as the priority (but still allowing low-priority passenger trains); and a passenger rail network (that could still offer lower priority freight movement).