VIA Rail

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by roger1818

That certainly fits in well with the Downs–Thomson paradox. As Truenorth00 says though, this won't become an issue on the vast majority of the Trans-Canada Highway for a very long time.

Having said that, there is a big difference between twinning a highway and widening it for increased capacity. Two lane highways can be dangerous and all you need is one slow farm vehicle to cause all sorts of problems that aren't really congestion related. Once you have a 4 lane highway, we should be looking for transit related solutions to congestion issues before further widening the highway.

The problem is that governments like to do the incremental approach. As a result you can't currently stop highway expansion. The rail network needs more massive amounts of investment. We suffer from main lines that don't have enough double track to maintain a reasonable speed for passenger trains and branch lines that don't have enough freight or passenger traffic to recover capital investments on a commercial basis. We cut back passenger services that once had multiple daily service so the quality of the line is downgraded and allowed to degenerate so that it almost requires total rebuilding. Provinces only build roads and the federal government builds nothing.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Why not refurbish the High Level Bridge? The upper deck was built for triple track (1 central track for the CPR and 2 outer tracks for street cars). Only the central track on the upper deck is used today by the High Level Bridge Streetcar, a historic streetcar. It shouldn’t be too difficult to twin the track so that both VIA and the streetcar could use it.

Not possible, according to the city:

https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/lrt-would-tip-high-level-bridge-over-the-edge-city-1.3815378

Minor facts like this add to the reality people must face when thinking of reimplementing passenger rail between Calgary and Edmonton; it will be very expensive.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That's a great way of looking at it. But at this point, most of the Trans-Canada could be a century out from this....

Originally Posted by roger1818

That certainly fits in well with the Downs–Thomson paradox. As Truenorth00 says though, this won't become an issue on the vast majority of the Trans-Canada Highway for a very long time.

Having said that, there is a big difference between twinning a highway and widening it for increased capacity. Two lane highways can be dangerous and all you need is one slow farm vehicle to cause all sorts of problems that aren't really congestion related. Once you have a 4 lane highway, we should be looking for transit related solutions to congestion issues before further widening the highway.

In Ontario, there is about 1500km of untwinned highways between Manitoba and Southern ON. However, there is equally that much of the Trans Canada that is twinned.

Many cities in Canada have more than 4 lane highways, yet there is no sort of regional rail or commuter rail. So, the argument that we should look at it, at least on this forum is laughable. AB highway 2 is getting more congested. But the rail must be HFR or HSR. Makes no sense to me as there likely isn't enough demand to run 2WAD 12 Bilevel cars on 15 minute intervals. Toronto is working to do that to places like Hamilton, Barrie, Kitchener and Oshawa.

I was a scout leader up until life got too busy. One of the parts of The Scout Law is "Wise in the use of all resources". We as a country are not being very wise with out railways.

But it doesn't matter unless it is high speed and high frequency.....

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

In Ontario, there is about 1500km of untwinned highways between Manitoba and Southern ON. However, there is equally that much of the Trans Canada that is twinned.

Many cities in Canada have more than 4 lane highways, yet there is no sort of regional rail or commuter rail. So, the argument that we should look at it, at least on this forum is laughable. AB highway 2 is getting more congested. But the rail must be HFR or HSR. Makes no sense to me as there likely isn't enough demand to run 2WAD 12 Bilevel cars on 15 minute intervals. Toronto is working to do that to places like Hamilton, Barrie, Kitchener and Oshawa.

I was a scout leader up until life got too busy. One of the parts of The Scout Law is "Wise in the use of all resources". We as a country are not being very wise with out railways.

But it doesn't matter unless it is high speed and high frequency.....

If you read that Downs–Thomson paradox page (I'd never heard of it), it states "the equilibrium speed of car traffic on a road network is determined by the average door-to-door speed of equivalent journeys taken by public transport". Since a low quality passenger rail line would be far slower than a car, that alone makes it pointless to implement.

For investing in rail to make sense, it either has to be cheaper and/or faster than a plane or car.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

If you read that Downs–Thomson paradox page (I'd never heard of it), it states "the equilibrium speed of car traffic on a road network is determined by the average door-to-door speed of equivalent journeys taken by public transport". Since a low quality passenger rail line would be far slower than a car, that alone makes it pointless to implement.

For investing in rail to make sense, it either has to be cheaper and/or faster than a plane or car.

Try using any mode in winter.
Planes are grounded.
Roads get closed.

Trains, they travel at.... track speed.

If we had reliable schedules, then we would potentially see a net gain due to the fact that very little stops a train.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Trains, they travel at.... track speed.

Ice blocks in switches, cold temperature track breaks, hot weather bends, fallen leaves making tracks slippery, pedestrians doing incredibly stupid things (which can disable an entire section with no option to route around it), the occasional derailment due to inevitable maintenance lapses, ...

I'm a big fan of trains but they're not without faults. They do handle deep fluffy snow very well.

[ssiguy]

I got tons of flak for saying this before but I don't care, VIA rail service should be stopped completely outside of the Corridor and should be brought back for Cal/Edm, Outside of those 2 area, rail makes absolutely no sense both financially and as a viable transportation option. PERHAPS, some route could run in summer tourist seasons like the Canadian or Ocean but only if the demand is there after a trial period.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Try using any mode in winter.
Planes are grounded.
Roads get closed.

Trains, they travel at.... track speed.

If we had reliable schedules, then we would potentially see a net gain due to the fact that very little stops a train.

The only way to get that speed and reliability is through massive upgrades. No way around it, otherwise it will be slow, unreliable and infrequent.

I was driving past a CP train on flat ground in a construction zone the other day so was able to match the speed. 70km/h. That's a lot slower than 110.

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

As far as I understand it, doing so would be a mess. The Via trains would need to meet TC standards for a mainline train, and be bi mode. And then it brings into question the crash worthiness of the LRVs. I have heard of it being done elsewhere, but I cannot remember where or how they do it. However, if we are talking about one day having high frequency on Via, it would be a choke point. If it must go downtown, a better answer is to have it's own tunnel in.

I thought the Siemens Chargers VIA bought for the corridor were bi-mode?

In any case, VIA or CN should be electrifying their rail networks. It's actually ridiculous that in 2020, a G7 country still has basically no electrified railroads.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by rbt

Ice blocks in switches, cold temperature track breaks, hot weather bends, fallen leaves making tracks slippery, pedestrians doing incredibly stupid things (which can disable an entire section with no option to route around it), the occasional derailment due to inevitable maintenance lapses, ...

I'm a big fan of trains but they're not without faults. They do handle deep fluffy snow very well.

All of those are much smaller problems than what happens to road and air traffic when it snows. Rail is easily the most reliable in snow of the three modes.

I was driving past a CP train on flat ground in a construction zone the other day so was able to match the speed. 70km/h. That's a lot slower than 110.

Passenger trains typically go significantly faster than freights on the same track.

[J81]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I got tons of flak for saying this before but I don't care, VIA rail service should be stopped completely outside of the Corridor and should be brought back for Cal/Edm, Outside of those 2 area, rail makes absolutely no sense both financially and as a viable transportation option. PERHAPS, some route could run in summer tourist seasons like the Canadian or Ocean but only if the demand is there after a trial period.

So how long a trial period would satisfy you because we’re going on 100 years now! The demand is there and thats why the trains run! Imagine that!

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by J81

So how long a trial period would satisfy you because we’re going on 100 years now! The demand is there and thats why the trains run! Imagine that!

The demand generally isn't there outside the corridor, which is why the subsidies are so large. The reason the trains run is because the government tells VIA to run them.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The demand generally isn't there outside the corridor, which is why the subsidies are so large. The reason the trains run is because the government tells VIA to run them.

Yep. And context is lacking here. People look at European countries that are a fraction of the size of our provinces and see national rail service, wondering why we can't do that here. The closest equivalent would be running continent wide service with only 1% of the continent's population along the line. I doubt Europeans would argue that's good spending.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Passenger trains typically go significantly faster than freights on the same track.

Not when there is a freight train in front, which there always will be. And worse still, the majority of the time I see a train on the line between Calgary and Edmonton it is stationary. Even doubling the track probably wouldn't be enough to let a passenger train travel freely.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by rbt

Ice blocks in switches, cold temperature track breaks, hot weather bends, fallen leaves making tracks slippery, pedestrians doing incredibly stupid things (which can disable an entire section with no option to route around it), the occasional derailment due to inevitable maintenance lapses, ...

I'm a big fan of trains but they're not without faults. They do handle deep fluffy snow very well.

Trains are not perfect, however, they are by far the better option when our weather turns ugly. It's no fun crawling at 40km/hr in a whiteout to get home. Trains, generally don't need to slow down except for extreme weather.

Originally Posted by milomilo

The only way to get that speed and reliability is through massive upgrades. No way around it, otherwise it will be slow, unreliable and infrequent.

I was driving past a CP train on flat ground in a construction zone the other day so was able to match the speed. 70km/h. That's a lot slower than 110.

Did I say fast? Did I even say frequent? I only said reliable. Whether it is 1 train a week or 2WAD, reliability is not dependent on speed or frequency. It is dependent on proper scheduling of the various traffic on the line.

If you have a train that is scheduled 2WAD and it is always late, is it any better than no service?

Originally Posted by Mister F

All of those are much smaller problems than what happens to road and air traffic when it snows. Rail is easily the most reliable in snow of the three modes.


Passenger trains typically go significantly faster than freights on the same track.

Originally Posted by milomilo

The demand generally isn't there outside the corridor, which is why the subsidies are so large. The reason the trains run is because the government tells VIA to run them.

Just imagine if we had a government that demanded that all major cities that have existing rail infrastructure must be served. We might see nothing much better out of the Corridor, or, if the government pushed that service must meet a minimum level, we might see better.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Not when there is a freight train in front, which there always will be. And worse still, the majority of the time I see a train on the line between Calgary and Edmonton it is stationary. Even doubling the track probably wouldn't be enough to let a passenger train travel freely.

That train could be put into a siding when it is stationary. If the line was doubled, with extra sidings, and only that new part was for passengers, it would move fairly freely.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Just imagine if we had a government that demanded that all major cities that have existing rail infrastructure must be served.

Such a demand would be laughed out of court. Followed by a ton of private investment fleeing Canada, fearing similar attempts at imposing on their sector. I could also CN and CP responding to any such legislation by ripping up rails near cities and moving to last mile service with trucks.

You do get that governments can't just randomly impose massively expensive obligations on private companies?

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by J81

So how long a trial period would satisfy you because we’re going on 100 years now! The demand is there and thats why the trains run! Imagine that!

The demand outside The Corridor is NOT there. The populations are simply too small and the distances to great to be of use to anyone who doesn't have a one month vacation time to burn.

The ONLY reason these routes are still running is because Ottawa tells them to. It's purely a political decision and not one based upon financial viability little alone providing a viable transportation option.

These obscene subsidies drain operation funding from the only place where the demand is there.......the Windsor-QC corridor.

I live in Greater Vancouver but I sure as hell wouldn't support further government funding for VIA in BC, i know a waste of money when I see one.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Such a demand would be laughed out of court. Followed by a ton of private investment fleeing Canada, fearing similar attempts at imposing on their sector. I could also CN and CP responding to any such legislation by ripping up rails near cities and moving to last mile service with trucks.

You do get that governments can't just randomly impose massively expensive obligations on private companies?

2 simple words.

Expropriation

Nationalization.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

2 simple words.

Expropriation

Nationalization.

Which aren't free. Those merely impart the obligation to sell. Courts would enforce fair market value.

How much are Canadians with to pay for this? The combined market capitalization of CN and CP is over CA$150 billion as of today's close.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

2 simple words.

Expropriation

Nationalization.

Expensive

Very expensive

CP has a market cap of $50B and CN $100B.

I'm not a fan of the railway ownership model in Canada, but you have to play the cards in your hand.