Since we will need to settle this at some point, CN demanded partial triple-planning at a time (2007-2009) when VIA operated 12 frequencies per day along the Lakeshore (5tpd to Ottawa, 6tpd to Montreal and 1tpd to Kingston):
When HFR was still a VIA project, VIA communicated its intention to run the same 12 frequencies per day as it did between 1996 and 2012:
Why would the same frequency which was considered by CN 15 years ago as the upper limit with only two tracks now be too little to justify keeping the second track and maintaining it to Track Class 5?
All of this I have said before, and I suspect we simply have to agree to disagree and wait for the outcome...but to provide the explanation....
I have lost track of whether the 12 K-T trains in that graphic are each way versus both ways added together.. I suspect (without proof) that this is a notional "someday" number rather than the committed plan for HFR's Opening Day. CN may be comfortable with that vision, but may be prepared to play it out - if VIA starts out at a lower footprint, and CN makes gradual changes that make that target number harder to achieve, it's not CN's problem.
Even at the more optimistic number....
The tonnage CN hauls between Toronto and Montreal is roughly of the same magnitude as the tonnage that it hauls between Toronto and Winnipeg. Any velocity increment derived T-M from having double track is minimal, especially with all the VIA trains currently in the way. So absent VIA, CN's business model would likely prefer a less capital intensive main line consisting of single track with sidings. Some double track zones will be operationally desirable, but the overriding mentality will be to haul the tonnage at the lowest possible capital investment. So CN likely regards some of the double track as expendable, once VIA reduces its footprint.
CN has inherited the historical burden of VIA T-O-M service...., even a hardnosed private business would not go head-to-head with public opinion by trying to kill a successful service between the nation's most important major cities in Eastern Canada. But move that T-O-M business to another line, and maybe CN can push the envelope more aggressively on service to the Lakeshore.
Post-HFR, the bureaucracy in Ottawa (and possibly every future government, regardless of party stripe) will be far more fixated on reducing subsidy than on meeting the Lakeshore corridor's transportation needs. So, again, nobody is going to stand up to CN if it erodes the regional service.
My personal fixation with the Lakeshore service is based on my belief that there will be considerable population growth along the Lakeshore and therefore we will eventually want that full 12-train-each-way regional service. While it may not need to be as speedy as the present service, it will need to be operationally efficient and roughly auto-competitive.
I foresee HFR leading to an interim scenario where VIA removes its service to some de minimus level, CN downsizes the infrastructure accordingly, and VIA (or government) later has to pressure CN to restore it as service needs grow.
The fundamental nonsequitur in the whole plan as you have portrayed it is.... how will anybody operate a full regional service in a mixed corridor under the very conditions that justify moving T-O-M traffic to its own line. If we can rectify the freight-passenger conflicts so easily to preserve a full Lakeshore service, then we don't need HFR at all. The difference in train speed is not a deciding factor - at a headway of 12 fairly speedy trains daily each way, freights will get in the way, and the taxpayer will be paying CN to build and maintain the same amount of triple track that was requested to sustain the "old" plan.
I expect that one day (not right away, but eventually) we will build a new line along the Lakeshore for regional service for the very same reasons that we need to move HFR to its own line. Let's not pretend that a quality regional service can be delivered on CN's tracks.
Lastly I would point to the downgrading of Toronto-London service between the early eighties and the late 1990's as a precedent. That corridor has greater urgency for better regional and intercity service than east of Toronto. It would be unrealistic to say to CN, hey, we used to run this many trains, let's just put them back. That is the same scenario that I foresee east of Toronto. We need to protect the eventual capacity without the same erosion that happened elsewhere between 1990 and today.
- Paul
