[cplchanb]

All I needed to say about that highly unconstructive fixation about that 3:59 figure was already said in a previous post:

All I needed to say about that highly exaggerated and unconstructive fixation on that 3:59 figure was already said in this post from just over 2 years ago:

You said it yourself in your long post. the reason why Berlin and Munich is that expensive for smaller gains is because its so much more indirect. so upgrading the corridor route would be a much more straightforward endeavour (you cant compare costs because of inflation). Look at Tokyo to Osaka. Its a more direct route and they can do it in under 330 back in 1965. youre just simply making excuses that theres no point to upgrade because its an inconvenient objective.

"we can't have faster train service now because we once had even faster train service"

so once again youre comparing standards set in the last century vs what can be achieved now.are you saying that an emu travelling at 250-300km/h cannot go faster than a train doing 160? please explain.

your arguments for stagnation is just like TTC was in the 80s. they sat still while everyone else improved and well surpassed them and now we are just staring at the world like that pikachu meme. youre right in that 3:59 number. It may sound stupid but that number will resonate in peoples heads when they realize that they can go faster than driving and flying. people dont care as much for more frequent service than to get there as fast as possible. you think just having more trains will attract more drivers and flyers who get to pt a to b much faster? simple minded people dont give a damn about business cases which only cares about data. i heavily suspect that if a service that can get people in 3:30 or better droves will come.

how would we look 30 years from now when similar distance routes in the US and every other continent in the world has rapid transit that can make that trip in 3 hours while we are still trying scrape with a time set in the 90s.
at that point to catch up it will take double the costs and the cons will once again say its too expensive. its all cyclical until someone decides to step out of it. we need to set our future generations up for success, not just drivel around in excuses and pretending we are still a developed country.

 

[Urban Sky]

You said it yourself in your long post. the reason why Berlin and Munich is that expensive for smaller gains is because its so much more indirect. so upgrading the corridor route would be a much more straightforward endeavour (you cant compare costs because of inflation). Look at Tokyo to Osaka. Its a more direct route and they can do it in under 330 back in 1965. youre just simply making excuses that theres no point to upgrade because its an inconvenient objective.

"we can't have faster train service now because we once had even faster train service"

so once again youre comparing standards set in the last century vs what can be achieved now.are you saying that an emu travelling at 250-300km/h cannot go faster than a train doing 160? please explain.

your arguments for stagnation is just like TTC was in the 80s. they sat still while everyone else improved and well surpassed them and now we are just staring at the world like that pikachu meme. youre right in that 3:59 number. It may sound stupid but that number will resonate in peoples heads when they realize that they can go faster than driving and flying. people dont care as much for more frequent service than to get there as fast as possible. you think just having more trains will attract more drivers and flyers who get to pt a to b much faster? simple minded people dont give a damn about business cases which only cares about data. i heavily suspect that if a service that can get people in 3:30 or better droves will come.

how would we look 30 years from now when similar distance routes in the US and every other continent in the world has rapid transit that can make that trip in 3 hours while we are still trying scrape with a time set in the 90s.
at that point to catch up it will take double the costs and the cons will once again say its too expensive. its all cyclical until someone decides to step out of it. we need to set our future generations up for success, not just drivel around in excuses and pretending we are still a developed country.

You seem to assume that if we refuse what is on the table now, we will be offered a more appealing offer instead. I believe that this would be a dangerous miscalculation and sincerely hope we‘ll never find out…

 

[cplchanb]

You seem to assume that if we refuse what is on the table now, we will be offered a more appealing offer instead. I believe that this would be a dangerous miscalculation…

well that is why despite the many faults of the liberal govt I am at least somewhat pleased that they are willing to explore HSR speeds. My advocacy is that they need to action it and people who are just willing to accept the
bare minimum of what hfr can deliver are only setting up via or whatever passenger rail entity it will be in 2050 for failure, possibly irreparable.

 

[DirectionNorth]

You said it yourself in your long post. the reason why Berlin and Munich is that expensive for smaller gains is because its so much more indirect. so upgrading the corridor route would be a much more straightforward endeavour (you cant compare costs because of inflation). Look at Tokyo to Osaka. Its a more direct route and they can do it in under 330 back in 1965. youre just simply making excuses that theres no point to upgrade because its an inconvenient objective.

"we can't have faster train service now because we once had even faster train service"

so once again youre comparing standards set in the last century vs what can be achieved now.are you saying that an emu travelling at 250-300km/h cannot go faster than a train doing 160? please explain.

your arguments for stagnation is just like TTC was in the 80s. they sat still while everyone else improved and well surpassed them and now we are just staring at the world like that pikachu meme. youre right in that 3:59 number. It may sound stupid but that number will resonate in peoples heads when they realize that they can go faster than driving and flying. people dont care as much for more frequent service than to get there as fast as possible. you think just having more trains will attract more drivers and flyers who get to pt a to b much faster? simple minded people dont give a damn about business cases which only cares about data. i heavily suspect that if a service that can get people in 3:30 or better droves will come.

how would we look 30 years from now when similar distance routes in the US and every other continent in the world has rapid transit that can make that trip in 3 hours while we are still trying scrape with a time set in the 90s.
at that point to catch up it will take double the costs and the cons will once again say its too expensive. its all cyclical until someone decides to step out of it. we need to set our future generations up for success, not just drivel around in excuses and pretending we are still a developed country.

Alright, then you get the train slots from CN and CP for faster speeds with the snap of a finger. I want to see you try.

 

[micheal_can]

Alright, then you get the train slots from CN and CP for faster speeds with the snap of a finger. I want to see you try.

One word

Legislation.

That is all that is needed if we as a country really wanted better passenger service. We don't, so we get what we have,

 

[roger1818]

Via will still be losing money overall if they cant take drivers off the road and passenger off airplanes.

Given that (at least pre-Covid) VIA covers all operating costs (plus more) in the Windsor-Quebec corridor with its current speeds and frequencies, I am not sure why you think increasing speed slightly and drastically increasing frequency will result in that profitability to turn into a loss.

In your rant you are also ignoring Ottawa-Toronto, which will see a dramatic increase in both speed and frequency with HFR. Given that more people travel between Ottawa and Toronto than Montreal and Toronto (due to better synergy between the cities), this is by far the more important city pair.

 

[roger1818]

One word

Legislation.

That is all that is needed if we as a country really wanted better passenger service. We don't, so we get what we have,

And how many millions of trucks would be added to the the highways as a result just so that we can remove thousands of cars form those same roads?

 

[micheal_can]

And how many millions of trucks would be added to the the highways as a result just so that we can remove thousands of cars form those same roads?

That could also be fixed by the same thing.In fact, most of the trucking could be removed from the highways with legislation. We, as a country don't want it.

 

[roger1818]

That could also be fixed by the same thing.In fact, most of the trucking could be removed from the highways with legislation. We, as a country don't want it.

So you want to reduce the number of fright trains to allow more passenger trains, but want to legislate that freight off of the highways as well? Is your plan to somehow reduce the amount of freight or are you proposing some other method of transporting it?

A better option might be to legislate pickup trucks and SUVs off of the highways.

 

[Urban Sky]

well that is why despite the many faults of the liberal govt I am at least somewhat pleased that they are willing to explore HSR speeds. My advocacy is that they need to action it and people who are just willing to accept the
bare minimum of what hfr can deliver are only setting up via or whatever passenger rail entity it will be in 2050 for failure, possibly irreparable.

It‘s easy to explore things if you have no intentions of actually following through on it unless someone else magically shows up and volunteers to pay for it. But now please stop interrupting me, I really need to plan a 4 weeks excursion on board VIA‘s Prestige Class and Rocky Mountaineer‘s Gold Leaf service for my next annual vacation…

 

[Rainforest]

So you want to reduce the number of fright trains to allow more passenger trains, but want to legislate that freight off of the highways as well? Is your plan to somehow reduce the amount of freight or are you proposing some other method of transporting it?

A better option might be to legislate pickup trucks and SUVs off of the highways.

I don't know if legislating passenger trains priority over freights is a good idea, as I have no data.

But, just one note: lower priority of freights doesn't necessarily mean lower cargo volume. It could be the same volume, but delivery taking longer on average, plus a bit less predictable due to the loss of ability to make up for earlier delays at the expense of passenger trains.

No free lunch of course, the operations will become somewhat more expensive for CN / CP, and they will have to pass those extra costs to their customers. Thus the ratio of pros vs cons isn't known beforehand, and should be calculated.

 

[MisterF]

One word

Legislation.

I don't think you quite understand the power dynamics in this country.

 

[Urban Sky]

I don't know if legislating passenger trains priority over freights is a good idea, as I have no data.

But, just one note: lower priority of freights doesn't necessarily mean lower cargo volume. It could be the same volume, but delivery taking longer on average, plus a bit less predictable due to the loss of ability to make up for earlier delays at the expense of passenger trains.

No free lunch of course, the operations will become somewhat more expensive for CN / CP, and they will have to pass those extra costs to their customers. Thus the ratio of pros vs cons isn't known beforehand, and should be calculated.

Whenever someone says „legislation“ would fix the issue of operational priority, they are oblivious about the fact that they actually mean: „money“. Because you would need billions of taxpayer dollars to buy out CN (because you can’t override core principles of property rights and countless decades of legal precedents with simple „legislation“) and substitute the massive capital expenditure they pump into our national rail infrastructure every year (because why would they continue investing into assets they no longer control?)…

 

[cplchanb]

I don't know if legislating passenger trains priority over freights is a good idea, as I have no data.

But, just one note: lower priority of freights doesn't necessarily mean lower cargo volume. It could be the same volume, but delivery taking longer on average, plus a bit less predictable due to the loss of ability to make up for earlier delays at the expense of passenger trains.

No free lunch of course, the operations will become somewhat more expensive for CN / CP, and they will have to pass those extra costs to their customers. Thus the ratio of pros vs cons isn't known beforehand, and should be calculated.

why are we fixated with the idea that only CN can own track on the corridor and we must use theirs? why cant we also build track and why are we so afraid of investing in future infrastructure beyond the bare minimum? besides arent we proposing an exclusive RoW for vast sections of HFR? can they not design their own corridor for HSR? if costs are a concern just look at the cool billion that we just threw away to ukraine without even batting an eyelash.

 

[crs1026]

One word

Legislation.

That is all that is needed if we as a country really wanted better passenger service. We don't, so we get what we have,

Followed by one other word :

Litigation.

I agree that the power balance between host railways and VIA is off kilter, but let's not devolve into fantasy scenarios. It's a very complicated equation. For every action, there will be a reaction.

The bidders are explicitly being asked for higher speed proposals. Wait til we see the price tag for those bids. The reality of public sticker shock can't be ignored. When those proposals are tabled, very many voters may prefer not to have nice things.

- Paul