VIA Rail

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Just like highways, airplane routes, power lines, oil pipelines, etc?

So, what does dictate good infrastructure?

Let me guess, when we stop using fossil fuels, you will complain about how few oil and gas pipelines there will be compared to today.

I dare you to look at the actual schedules in 1978 (that year's seems to be split into 3 separate schedules) and not just the map and see what you think of the service actually provided. I really believe VIA was stretch too thin and did lots of things poorly and nothing well.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Let me guess, when we stop using fossil fuels, you will complain about how few oil and gas pipelines there will be compared to today.

I dare you to look at the actual schedules in 1978 (that year's seems to be split into 3 separate schedules) and not just the map and see what you think of the service actually provided. I really believe VIA was stretch too thin and did lots of things poorly and nothing well.

Back in the 70s, the maximum speed limit on the highway was 55 mph. Should we just go back to that too?

I am actually a fan of getting off of fossil fuels. You can electrify a train for almost any distance. The same cannot be said for a plane.

I do have the stuff from the drop box. I know that service was not better as far as when they went, but at least your station had service.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Just like highways, airplane routes, power lines, oil pipelines, etc?

So, what does dictate good infrastructure?

Would a map of the country covered in pipelines be "good" just because there is more of it? No, there's no point building infrastructure where it isn't needed, we only build pipelines where there is demand. Same with rail, though there is not even demand for much of the reduced VIA map - the Canadian provides very little practical benefit.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

Why don't we have the 4th largest CMA connected to the rest of the country by rail?

There is no mystery about answering that question:

First of all, thanks to the complete lack of interest amongst the local politicians in Alberta to maintain passenger rail service between its two largest cities (note that Transport Minister Don Mazankowski was born in Viking/AB, held the seat in Vegreville/AB, retired in Calgary - and apparently died last Tuesday, aged 85), both cities lost all their intercity services at a time when many of the 1981 cuts were reversed (e.g. return of the Atlantic, Super Continental and commuter services to Havelock and Sherbrooke), while train frequencies in the Quebec-Windsor reached their all-time highs:

On January 15, 1984, Transport Minister Don Mazankowski announced the indefinite suspension of Edmonton-Calgary service. Eleven Dayliner accidents in the previous two years led Edmonton's mayor of the day Laurence Decore to state "It's a seedy, tacky service used by very few people. Its 200 level crossings make it an absolute calamity that has caused too many deaths." Even with $1,000,000 in Alberta government spending and the elimination of 12 grade crossings, the Dayliner made its last run on September 6, 1985. The unsuitability of the South Edmonton station, four miles from the VIA (ex-CN) Edmonton station, as well as competition from road and air travel contributed to the service's demise.

http://tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com/2014/04/vias-calgary-edmonton-rdcs-part-1.html

Secondly, the example of the Malahat (which was saved by the BC government filing a constitutional lawsuit against the federal government, which was eventually dismissed, yet still successful in preserving VIA service on Vancouver Island) and the Atlantic show that vigorous and passionate lobbying could save services which had already been slated for cancellation:

Author: Tom Box
Source: January 1995 issue of the Branchline Magazine

Thirdly, and contrary to urban legend, there was no discernable political gain to keep the CN line over the CP line and the example set by the Ocean and the Atlantic hints that it might have very well been possible to save both routes (at least west of Winnipeg):

Here's a map that shows which ridings were held by which parties
when the Canadian was moved from Canadian Pacific to Canadian National in January 1990. The Conservatives were in power in Ottawa at the time.

<http://ftp.geogratis.gc.ca/pub/nrcan_rncan/raster/atlas_5_ed/fra/peopleandsociety/politicalgeography/mcr4167.jpg>

From Toronto to Sudbury, the two lines parallel each other and are almost always in the same riding, mostly Liberal in Toronto and Vaughan, then Conservative from northern York Region most of the way to Sudbury. No opportunity to favor a party by choosing one line over the other.

From Sudbury to the Ontario-Manitoba border, the two railways diverge, but all the ridings were held by opposition parties, so again no opportunity to favor the government party.

All of the rural Manitoba ridings except Churchill (where neither railway's transcontinental line runs) were Tory. Winnipeg had five Grits, one Tory and one Dipper, but both the Canadian and the Super Continental had been using the same routing through Winnipeg since 1978, and I don't believe there was ever any consideration of changing that in 1990.

So we've gone from Toronto to the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border without finding a partisan advantage for either the CN or CP line.

In eastern Sask., the CP line was in a Tory riding (e.g. see Moosomin on the map), while the CN line (e.g. Melville) was in an NDP riding. In central Sask., both were NDP (e.g. Moose Jaw and Watrous) and in the west both were Tory (e.g. Swift Current and Biggar). In the cities, Regina (CP) had two NDP and one Tory MP, while Saskatoon (CN) had three NDP. So in Sask., the CP route would be better for the Tories and CN better for the NDP.

Rural Alberta was solidly Tory. Calgary (CP) had six Tories, while Edmonton (CN) had five Tories and one Dipper. Again CP is slightly better for the Tories and CN better for the NDP.

From the Alberta-British Columbia border to Kamloops, both lines were entirely in NDP ridings. From Kamloops to Vancouver, the two lines parallel each other and are generally in the same riding. So no partisan advantage for one route or the other in BC.

So the move from CP to CN meant that the Canadian served slightly more NDP ridings in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and slightly fewer Conservative ones.

Tom Box

https://groups.io/g/Canadian-Passenger-Rail/topic/73234449#89368

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I have been asking that for years. The best answer seems to be "there is no demand for it because bus service is almost non existent."

The problem is not that you haven't received any plausible and well-reasoned answers, but that they weren't the one (disproven in the third point above) you were looking for...

Originally Posted by casper

What the map is missing is the old BC Rail passenger line.

All non-VIA routes are missing, including the Polar Bear, the Kaoam Shuttle (the only survivor of BC Rail's passenger operations) and the Tshiuetin Railway service from Sept-Iles through Labrador to Schefferville...

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Back in the 70s, the maximum speed limit on the highway was 55 mph. Should we just go back to that too?

No. You are the one saying we should be going back to the 70's, not me.

I am actually a fan of getting off of fossil fuels. You can electrify a train for almost any distance. The same cannot be said for a plane.

Yes, trains can be electrified. The freight railways are hesitant to have their ROWs electrified (even if someone else pays for it) because it reduces the clearance and the consequences of a collision with the catenary could be catastrophic. For long distance trains, I expect hydrogen fuel cells hold better promise.

As for electrifying flight, we are still in the early days, but there are some options that are being investigated.

I do have the stuff from the drop box. I know that service was not better as far as when they went, but at least your station had service.

Ya, I am sure it was great for rail fans, as they could go to a nearby station and watch the (nearly empty) passenger trains go by.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Would a map of the country covered in pipelines be "good" just because there is more of it? No, there's no point building infrastructure where it isn't needed, we only build pipelines where there is demand. Same with rail, though there is not even demand for much of the reduced VIA map - the Canadian provides very little practical benefit.

Lets say you need to transport another liquid/gas across Canada, wouldn't that old map of oil pipelines be a good starting point? Whether you are replacing it with new pipes, or putting a second pipe beside it, it saves on a lot of work.

Originally Posted by roger1818

No. You are the one saying we should be going back to the 70's, not me.

I am saying we should have certain routes back. I am saying that cutting routes just because the government is broke was a bad idea. Just like closing offices to balance a budget or selling off shares in a company to balance a budget is also a bad idea.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Yes, trains can be electrified. The freight railways are hesitant to have their ROWs electrified (even if someone else pays for it) because it reduces the clearance and the consequences of a collision with the catenary could be catastrophic. For long distance trains, I expect hydrogen fuel cells hold better promise.

Hydrogen is not the way of the future. if it were, we would all be riding in Zeppelins. There are more safety issues with hydrogen than with electrical wires and supports.

The reality is, Canada's 2 freight carriers are only interested in raising shareholder profits. This includes cutting back on maintenance. All new rail infrastructure in the last 20 years has all been done by the government.

Originally Posted by roger1818

As for electrifying flight, we are still in the early days, but there are some options that are being investigated.

Agreed, but a cross Canada electric flight is likely 20+ years away.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Ya, I am sure it was great for rail fans, as they could go to a nearby station and watch the (nearly empty) passenger trains go by.

Oh, you mean like at Calgary? Or Regina?

I have accepted that we will never see the coverage like they had in the 1970s. Doesn't mean I am not going to work on trying to restore parts of it, or improve the parts that we still have.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Lets say you need to transport another liquid/gas across Canada, wouldn't that old map of oil pipelines be a good starting point? Whether you are replacing it with new pipes, or putting a second pipe beside it, it saves on a lot of work.

I am not sure how an abandoned rusty old pipe that is full of holes would make things easier. Nor would a pipe that is currently being used to transport a different liquid/gas.

I am saying we should have certain routes back. I am saying that cutting routes just because the government is broke was a bad idea. Just like closing offices to balance a budget or selling off shares in a company to balance a budget is also a bad idea.

How about cutting routes that the local government are demanding be cut?

Hydrogen is not the way of the future. if it were, we would all be riding in Zeppelins. There are more safety issues with hydrogen than with electrical wires and supports.

There is a lot of FUD over hydrogen. It isn't as if trains, plains and automobiles have never exploded, yet one early design airship with inadequate containment or safety measures explodes and the fuel is deemed dangerous by the uneducated. In many ways hydrogen is safer than most other fuels. For one it is much lighter than air, so if there is a leak, it will dissipate very quickly. It also isn't toxic.

Sure there are challenges, but they can be overcome, and it is safer than people think. Check out this article on the safe use of hydrogen.

The reality is, Canada's 2 freight carriers are only interested in raising shareholder profits. This includes cutting back on maintenance. All new rail infrastructure in the last 20 years has all been done by the government.

And your point is?

Agreed, but a cross Canada electric flight is likely 20+ years away.

And you believe the trans-Canada rail network could be electrified in less time?

Oh, you mean like at Calgary? Or Regina?

I agree that a Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton train would make sense, but we need local support (we aren't a draconian country that says "you must have a train whether you like it or not"). Unfortunately the Alberta government has backed the hyperloop "horse" and until that plays out, there isn't much we can do.

As for Regina, I will refer to my most recent post in the Rail Service Between Winnipeg and Brandon thread to which Urban_Sky replied (I do still plan to follow-up to it when I get a chance).

I have accepted that we will never see the coverage like they had in the 1970s. Doesn't mean I am not going to work on trying to restore parts of it, or improve the parts that we still have.

The key is, where does it make sense? Population is a good starting point, but even more important is to find out where people are frequently traveling (or want to travel) by other modes of transport and how many of those you could lure away with a competitive rail offering.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I am not sure how an abandoned rusty old pipe that is full of holes would make things easier. Nor would a pipe that is currently being used to transport a different liquid/gas.

Let's say it is water you need to pipe. Obviously, that oil pipeline no matter the condition would never be used. However, the ROW for that existing line can be used. No expropriation, no moving major infrastructure, no major hurdles.

Originally Posted by roger1818

How about cutting routes that the local government are demanding be cut?

So, Calgary, Regina and Thunder Bay were for the cuts in the 80s/90s? Please cite this.

Originally Posted by roger1818

There is a lot of FUD over hydrogen. It isn't as if trains, plains and automobiles have never exploded, yet one early design airship with inadequate containment or safety measures explodes and the fuel is deemed dangerous by the uneducated. In many ways hydrogen is safer than most other fuels. For one it is much lighter than air, so if there is a leak, it will dissipate very quickly. It also isn't toxic.

Sure there are challenges, but they can be overcome, and it is safer than people think. Check out this article on the safe use of hydrogen.

I know they are working towards a completely safe fuel cell and hydrogen system. I just don't see it happening widespread within 50 years. Yes,, they have cars, buses, trains, and eventually planes may be deemed safe, but I see this like I see nuclear. It is a very good idea with some really bad press.

Originally Posted by roger1818

And your point is?

Why are trains that Via runs late?
Well, for starters, longer trains that don't fit in sidings (oversiding trains) are run to make a profit. Less train crews saves money.
There is very little double track. Where there used to be, much of it has been torn down. This has been done to save maintenance costs. It also means that trains have to wait for the other one going the opposite way to pass.

Get rid of those 2 things, and CP and CN will cry fowl.

Originally Posted by roger1818

And you believe the trans-Canada rail network could be electrified in less time?

I believe that before the first Vancouver-Toronto nonstop electric flight happens, the Corridor will be electrified.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree that a Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton train would make sense, but we need local support (we aren't a draconian country that says "you must have a train whether you like it or not"). Unfortunately the Alberta government has backed the hyperloop "horse" and until that plays out, there isn't much we can do.

As for Regina, I will refer to my most recent post in the Rail Service Between Winnipeg and Brandon thread to which Urban_Sky replied (I do still plan to follow-up to it when I get a chance).

So, first off, I have blocked all posts from urban sky. He cannot admit when the proof he gives proves him wrong. I admit all the time when someone shows me something that I had wrong.
So, I have no idea what he says, nor do I care to anymore.

Originally Posted by roger1818

The key is, where does it make sense? Population is a good starting point, but even more important is to find out where people are frequently traveling (or want to travel) by other modes of transport and how many of those you could lure away with a competitive rail offering.

Agreed. 30 years ago, Via had to cut to save the government. The trips those people used to take, people still take the very same trips. For example, living in Sudbury, I take trips to Toronto frequently (outside of the pandemic). This is not much different than the older generation did, and are for the very same reasons; medical, better shopping, sports games, etc. With the ind of security in place for flying vs the train, it makes sense to take the train.

I am hopeful that after the pandemic, Via's timetable and coverage looks different, and better.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Lets say you need to transport another liquid/gas across Canada, wouldn't that old map of oil pipelines be a good starting point? Whether you are replacing it with new pipes, or putting a second pipe beside it, it saves on a lot of work.

But if this metaphoric new gas/liquid doesn't exist, then you don't replace the pipes. Same with VIA - there isn't enough demand to justify all the existing routes, let alone increase the coverage where demand is weakest.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, first off, I have blocked all posts from urban sky. He cannot admit when the proof he gives proves him wrong. I admit all the time when someone shows me something that I had wrong.
So, I have no idea what he says, nor do I care to anymore.

So the person that has by far the most knowledge of VIA of any of us is the one you will listen to the least? That does not reflect well on your respect for reasoned thinking. It's not like he hides his identity, he definitely works for VIA in a role that would give him in depth knowledge of its operation.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

So the person that has by far the most knowledge of VIA of any of us is the one you will listen to the least? That does not reflect well on your respect for reasoned thinking. It's not like he hides his identity, he definitely works for VIA in a role that would give him in depth knowledge of its operation.

Ye, he does work for Via, but not in much of a role. Maintenance scheduler. He makes sure the trains get to where they need to be serviced on time.

We had the discussion as to the cancellation of the Southern Canadian route. He tried to argue it was financially better to do when the existing route back then was needing a higher subsidy. That was when I lost respect for him. After a while, I simply blocked him on 3 separate platforms, including Facebook. He seemed to want to get into pissing matches but could never admit he was wrong, or that something showed he was wrong. He is the only one on here I have blocked.

You and I seem to be closer to the same thinking. That is why we can discuss things without it becoming a pissing match.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Ye, he does work for Via, but not in much of a role. Maintenance scheduler. He makes sure the trains get to where they need to be serviced on time.

We had the discussion as to the cancellation of the Southern Canadian route. He tried to argue it was financially better to do when the existing route back then was needing a higher subsidy. That was when I lost respect for him. After a while, I simply blocked him on 3 separate platforms, including Facebook. He seemed to want to get into pissing matches but could never admit he was wrong, or that something showed he was wrong. He is the only one on here I have blocked.

You and I seem to be closer to the same thinking. That is why we can discuss things without it becoming a pissing match.

That's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

That's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

Do you really want me to show you all the times I have admitted when I as wrong? I know I don't know everything. I know that I learn with most new posts.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Between Sudbury and Winnipeg, the train is the only way in or out. There are no roads to some of these places. These people still need medical care. They still need supplies.



I wonder, what would happen if we ran shorter trains, but more often. The Corridor, our busiest route, one would think they would have the longest trains. That is most certainly not the case.

Just like how Toronto is not the highest city, yet it has some of the best ridership, size does not matter, it is what you do with it....

Originally Posted by esquire

Bit of a misconception. The permanent communities along that route have road access. There are a lot of cottages and camps and such that don't have direct road access, but the actual towns have roads.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Oh, I didn't know those weren't permanent communities.

2 pages back... that is the most recent.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

2 pages back... that is the most recent.

I stand corrected. Of course you weren't the one who was wrong in that case, but you wouldn't know that as you would have blocked that post.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I stand corrected. Of course you weren't the one who was wrong in that case, but you wouldn't know that as you would have blocked that post.

I was technically wrong in that I claimed there were no permanent communities without road access, but even so, my point still stands. You don't need a Toronto-Vancouver full service, cross country train to serve the apparently one tiny community along the line in northern Ontario that doesn't have road access.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by esquire

I was technically wrong in that I claimed there were no permanent communities without road access, but even so, my point still stands. You don't need a Toronto-Vancouver full service, cross country train to serve the apparently one tiny community along the line in northern Ontario that doesn't have road access.

That is true, but if you are going to have a "Toronto-Vancouver full service, cross country train," it might as well use a route that will serve that community, rather than have a separate train just for that.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I stand corrected. Of course you weren't the one who was wrong in that case, but you wouldn't know that as you would have blocked that post.

Originally Posted by roger1818

From VIA Rail's website:
It doesn't help you argument if you don't have your facts straight.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Thank you for educating me.

Here is another one where I was wrong, and even thanked someone for it. This was in Sept.

I would unblock someone that can show that they are able to admit when wrong.

[roger1818]

Point taken.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Let's say it is water you need to pipe. Obviously, that oil pipeline no matter the condition would never be used. However, the ROW for that existing line can be used. No expropriation, no moving major infrastructure, no major hurdles.

But if the demand is for only a few hundred litres of water a day, it may be cheaper and easier to truck it in than it would be to rehabilitate the pipe.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, Calgary, Regina and Thunder Bay were for the cuts in the 80s/90s? Please cite this.

I was referring to the Calgary-Edmonton train.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I know they are working towards a completely safe fuel cell and hydrogen system. I just don't see it happening widespread within 50 years. Yes,, they have cars, buses, trains, and eventually planes may be deemed safe, but I see this like I see nuclear. It is a very good idea with some really bad press.

AFAIK, the issues with hydrogen fuel cells are not related to hydrogen storage, but more related to cost. I don't think fuel cells will catch up to batteries for cars, but for long distance freight transport, the economics are completely different.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Why are trains that Via runs late?
Well, for starters, longer trains that don't fit in sidings (oversiding trains) are run to make a profit. Less train crews saves money.
There is very little double track. Where there used to be, much of it has been torn down. This has been done to save maintenance costs. It also means that trains have to wait for the other one going the opposite way to pass.

Get rid of those 2 things, and CP and CN will cry fowl.

But what does that have to do with electrifying the national rail network?

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I believe that before the first Vancouver-Toronto nonstop electric flight happens, the Corridor will be electrified.

Possibly true, but how does electrification of the Corridor help someone wanting to travel to Vancouver?

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Agreed. 30 years ago, Via had to cut to save the government. The trips those people used to take, people still take the very same trips. For example, living in Sudbury, I take trips to Toronto frequently (outside of the pandemic). This is not much different than the older generation did, and are for the very same reasons; medical, better shopping, sports games, etc. With the ind of security in place for flying vs the train, it makes sense to take the train.

How often does the average person in Sudbury travel to Toronto? If in the TOM corridor (where trains are significantly more frequent than what you could expect between Sudbury and Toronto) only 5% of travel is by train, what percentage do you think would take the train between Sudbury and Toronto?

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am hopeful that after the pandemic, Via's timetable and coverage looks different, and better.

Here is hoping.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Point taken.

I am here to learn. I am also here to talk about all stuff related to Via. When I learn something or when I am taught something that goes against what I know, I willingly acknowledge it. That is how we have good discussions and we can move forward.

Originally Posted by roger1818

But if the demand is for only a few hundred litres of water a day, it may be cheaper and easier to truck it in than it would be to rehabilitate the pipe.

Very true. But what if there was demand if only the pipe had the abiltiy to get the water to you when you need it, not just when they think you can have it?

Originally Posted by roger1818

I was referring to the Calgary-Edmonton train.

So, Calgary and Edmonton agreed and still agree that they should not have regular service?

Originally Posted by roger1818

AFAIK, the issues with hydrogen fuel cells are not related to hydrogen storage, but more related to cost. I don't think fuel cells will catch up to batteries for cars, but for long distance freight transport, the economics are completely different.

I do agree that we likely could see a hydrogen sooner in a train than a car. Mind you, I don't see why they would not just go electric instead. Trains are effectively electric, but they carry a generator with them.

Originally Posted by roger1818

But what does that have to do with electrifying the national rail network?

Originally Posted by roger1818

Possibly true, but how does electrification of the Corridor help someone wanting to travel to Vancouver?

I have accepted that if anything is going to happen with Via, it will first happen in the Corridor. So, if they electrify the Corridor, then, maybe it will happen elsewhere.

Originally Posted by roger1818

How often does the average person in Sudbury travel to Toronto? If in the TOM corridor (where trains are significantly more frequent than what you could expect between Sudbury and Toronto) only 5% of travel is by train, what percentage do you think would take the train between Sudbury and Toronto?

People travel there likely every few months for a weekend, or even the day. Having a daily service could capture some of that. Bus is considered low class, so you cannot use the bus as a direct comparison. Prior to covid, there were about 4 flights or more a day from Toronto.

A unique comparison would be the old Northlander, that in the last few years were using more than they used to -- more than 2 cars + snack car for the entire route. It was a daily, and it served less than the population of just Sudbury. I could see a smaller train being a good thing for a daily. Maybe if ONR runs the HCR, a daily train from SSM-Sudbury-Toronto would work. That is well over 200,000 besides anything in the GTA.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Here is hoping.

I am hoping they have sorted out the Ocean turning around in Halifax.