[micheal_can]

I think we agree that changes which would be fundamentally reasonable and respectful of the shareholder are theoretically possible if the mood were there. Personally, I think those changes are essential and long overdue notwithstanding the desire to put T-O-M on its own right of way. There will never be a fully segregated passenger system - VIA will always be a tenant in some critical places.

One reality-based question is, can the changes that have been raised and discussed here in this forum be justified and demonstrated in a way that voters and legislators see as compelling and urgent. Are they even really needed?

A second line of question would the necessary changes stand a chance of being imposed legislatively, without CN or CP seeing reason to oppose them in the courts - and would the courts support whatever legislation is imposed within our broader and unchangeable constitutional framework. And even with the Canadian courts agreeing, how would broader stakeholders react if Ottawa held the feet of two internationally-integrated rail systems with huge non-Canadian institutional investor and customer bases to a Canadian fire?

A third question would be - have we protected the effectiveness of the freight infrastructure, and are we appropriating capacity that might be best left alone in the interest of futureproofing? Some of the railways' resistance may just be talk, but we can't afford to impair the freight network in ways that are real.

While we grumble about what VIA's present lot in life isn't, the current schedule frequency between Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto is pretty darn good. It's the reliability and velocity we don't like. The point being - this was a freely negotiated agreement. When we say that "CN and CP are screwing VIA" that really isn't true, it's more like "this is the best we can offer you at the price you choose to pay". Some of that stance may be denial or antipathy, but some of it is business-sensible risk avoidance, and some of it is trying to take advantage.

We also have to recognize that there is already legislation that enables VIA to seek arbitration if it wants the railways to do something. That option is very seldom pursued.... which means we aren't confident that the arbitrator would be supportive. The old adage - don't ask a court a question unless you are willing to live with what the answer might be.

My own view is that there may be global levers Ottawa can threaten to pull, but it leads to a nuclear tension pretty quickly. But the better strategy might be to look at what specific demands the three proponents outline for CN/CP (and ML, who are just as hostile a landlord) and what the response to those is. And if those asks are reasonable, look at levers to compel the railways to comply.

- Paul

The best angle the government could use would be a climate change solution. Using the funds from the carbon tax as a way to fund Via could be palatable to voters. Using that carbon tax money to subsidize rail expansion to make passenger service better elsewhere can be a way to get companies like CN and CP on board.

Remember, much of Via is nothing but politics. So, to fix it, it needs to have the politics surrounding it change.

 

[Urban Sky]

The best angle the government could use would be a climate change solution. Using the funds from the carbon tax as a way to fund Via could be palatable to voters. Using that carbon tax money to subsidize rail expansion to make passenger service better elsewhere can be a way to get companies like CN and CP on board.

Remember, much of Via is nothing but politics. So, to fix it, it needs to have the politics surrounding it change.

Watch a few campaign ads of the Conservative party and try to identify anything which would resonate with what you believe (hope) the electorate cares about…

 

[lenaitch]

I may be wrong, but it is hard for me to believe that a relatively minor change in the operating rules is equivalent to buying out the whole rail network. There are many other cases where the government sets rules for the use of assets that otherwise remain in private hands.

For example, municipalities setting rules for the homeowners how high they can build, what they can/cannot rent out to tenants, or when they can/cannot evict those tenants. The house and the land remains private.

Or the government setting rules for businesses on how they must hire to ensure equality, the minimum required number of vacation days, and the minimum termination payments. The business remains private and operates as such.

The first question that popped into my mind was 'what "relatively minor change in the operating rules" could produce a significant improvement in capacity. The assumptions being that host railway/owner profitability can't be impaired and safety not compromised.

NL mentioned directional running, which I find intriguing but have no clue about operational details or implications. The few instances of directional running agreements seem to be prefaced on no, or very little, upfront costs, including points of connectivity.

 

[Urban Sky]

The first question that popped into my mind was 'what "relatively minor change in the operating rules" could produce a significant improvement in capacity. The assumptions being that host railway/owner profitability can't be impaired and safety not compromised.

“Relative minor changes in the operating rules” will only invite endless litigation about how these rules are to be interpreted. The only way to solve this is by having independent dispatchers, at which point you are very close to outright expropriation…

NL mentioned directional running, which I find intriguing but have no clue about operational details or implications. The few instances of directional running agreements seem to be prefaced on no, or very little, upfront costs, including points of connectivity.

Correct, and the DRZs (directional routing zones) were formed without any government intervention, formed merely from the realization that splitting traffic over parallel tracks by direction rather than company would result in a win-win-situation where both companies reduce cost (by requiring less sidings), while operating faster (no need for train meets).

With CN already owning a double-tracked ROW between Montreal, Toronto and London, it will be very difficult to compell it into any track-sharing agreement with CP…

 

[roger1818]

Mulroney was the destroyer of much of VIA. His government was the fork in the road, invest and expand VIA or divest and shrink it into a corridor service.

It’s all a matter of perspective. At the time VIA with bleeding money like crazy and the cuts brought that under control. As a rail fan, I certainly would love to see trains from everywhere to everywhere, but that isn’t necessarily feasible with our sprawling nation and car dependent culture. Maybe the cuts went to deep, but given that VIA still exist today, it’s hard to argue that has been destroyed.

 

[micheal_can]

It’s all a matter of perspective. At the time VIA with bleeding money like crazy and the cuts brought that under control. As a rail fan, I certainly would love to see trains from everywhere to everywhere, but that isn’t necessarily feasible with our sprawling nation and car dependent culture. Maybe the cuts went to deep, but given that VIA still exist today, it’s hard to argue that has been destroyed.

Governments have allowed our country to become car centric. Because of that, we are addicted to oil. Now, the government wants us to quit our addiction. The problem is, there are no viable ways to do so.

Via's bleeding was because it started off being an excuse for railway companies to do what they wanted to to become profitable. Profits are great for the shareholders, but not really for the country they serve.

 

[Urban Sky]

Governments have allowed our country to become car centric. Because of that, we are addicted to oil. Now, the government wants us to quit our addiction. The problem is, there are no viable ways to do so.

Running daily passenger trains along a limited number of rural corridors won’t change this an inch. What you’d actually need are much better transit and intercity bus networks serving and linking non-metropolitan areas and regions…

Via's bleeding was because it started off being an excuse for railway companies to do what they wanted to to become profitable. Profits are great for the shareholders, but not really for the country they serve.

The countries where citizens consistently report the highest quality of life are those where clever taxation and laws create incentives and mechanisms to let profits trickle down from individual citizens and companies to the society, whereas the citizens of those countries where the governments and their cronies monopolize all profits for their own narrow interests tend to be much less satisfied and try their best to emigrate into countries which closer ressemble the other camp.

Would you rather we followed Norway or Cuba?

 

[just east of the creek]

Instead of taking the train back from Montreal this week, I drove. I spent a 12 hour day day giving a once over to communities on the existing Via line. A larger (if cursory) look, then one gets from the train. I was intrigued by the signs of growth in all of the communities (maybe excepting Cornwall), growth that included various forms of densification and sprawl, both residential and commercial. And growth that should be encouraged through policy to take some of the pressure off of the GTA.

And always I return to my earlier thoughts on the Feds attempt to spend billions (80 or more at the very least) to connect Troia Rivière and Sharbot Lake. I still believe this is a political puff job, it would not be the first, and if we’re lucky, the result will end up with another government agency that will bite the dust, and the government of the day can crow about how it is saving the taxpayers from another governmental quagmire of never ending cost (think pipelines such as Trans Mountain,
large hydroelectric projects like Muskrat Falls, nuclear power to date etc.)

What makes more sense to me is to bring Brightline/Acela/Venture train sets in increasing quantities and to a ROW that can allow consistent top speeds of 200-240 kmh. And to a route that currently exists and serves the majority of the population. (Peterborough is an extension of GO, Ottawa served via Smith Falls and from Montreal, and then the north shore to Quebec City as well)

Take those dollars, add in Federal Powers and improve, acquire, expropriate, expand, partner and build a dedicated VIA ROW in stages, capable of running a higher frequency service on those routes, at the speeds current train sets are capable of.

Examine the design requirements required to run even higher speed future trains via electric or hydrogen ( although I am getting a sense that hydrogen does not necessarily make sense in this application ), over shorter (Toronto to London for example) and longer sections, and make those design accommodations to allow for future upgrades as Canadian and specifically VIA rail technology, catch up to so many other rail services worldwide within a cold climate operating Enviroment.

I know this topic is under discussion and will be debated for months, which is a good thing. I do not expect to see the Governments HSR proposals ever built, but I think there is plenty of room for Higher Frequency, Higher Speed Rail incorporating existing routes.

The Government ( really most Canadian governments) are feeling ever increasing financial challenges re current and future debt financing in the current financial markets. Cheap money may return one day, but interest rates have long studied historical cycles and one cannot assume that will happen shortly. In the meantime, the Feds debt charges are approaching/exceeding 10% of its revenue base. A technical number to be sure, but one that could accelerate given interest rates and rising program spending now, and for programs to come in the areas of social and health services ( and government operating expenses, which is another story) . Dollars are going to be in short supply and program spending under all sorts of pressure. For this and other reason, I believe the HSR project is a pipe dream and it’s time to recognize worthy alternatives.

(Thanks to all who contribute. The forum is always an interesting and educational read while waiting for my chance on a Venture set - no luck so far!)

 

[DirectionNorth]

Instead of taking the train back from Montreal this week, I drove. I spent a 12 hour day day giving a once over to communities on the existing Via line. A larger (if cursory) look, then one gets from the train. I was intrigued by the signs of growth in all of the communities (maybe excepting Cornwall), growth that included various forms of densification and sprawl, both residential and commercial. And growth that should be encouraged through policy to take some of the pressure off of the GTA.

And always I return to my earlier thoughts on the Feds attempt to spend billions (80 or more at the very least) to connect Trois Rivière and Sharbot Lake. I still believe this is a political puff job, it would not be the first, and if we’re lucky, the result will end up with another government agency that will bite the dust, and the government of the day can crow about how it is saving the taxpayers from another governmental quagmire of never ending cost (think pipelines such as Trans Mountain, large hydroelectric projects like Muskrat Falls, nuclear power to date etc.)

$80 billion? This is 4x the estimated cost to bring 300 km/h HSR from Toronto to Montreal.

What makes more sense to me is to bring Brightline/Acela/Venture train sets in increasing quantities and to a ROW that can allow consistent top speeds of 200-240 kmh. And to a route that currently exists and serves the majority of the population. (Peterborough is an extension of GO, Ottawa served via Smith Falls and from Montreal, and then the north shore to Quebec City as well)

Take those dollars, add in Federal Powers and improve, acquire, expropriate, expand, partner and build a dedicated VIA ROW in stages, capable of running a higher frequency service on those routes, at the speeds current train sets are capable of.

Where do you think this 200 km/h ROW is going to go, without spending the $80 billion cost you've invented? Through the places where you don't need grade separation every few kilometres, which means the Canadian Shield.

You will never be able to build a new ROW in the Lakeshore Corridor.

Examine the design requirements required to run even higher speed future trains via electric or hydrogen ( although I am getting a sense that hydrogen does not necessarily make sense in this application ), over shorter (Toronto to London for example) and longer sections, and make those design accommodations to allow for future upgrades as Canadian and specifically VIA rail technology, catch up to so many other rail services worldwide within a cold climate operating environment.

I know this topic is under discussion and will be debated for months, which is a good thing. I do not expect to see the Governments HSR proposals ever built, but I think there is plenty of room for Higher Frequency, Higher Speed Rail incorporating existing routes.

The Government ( really most Canadian governments) are feeling ever increasing financial challenges re current and future debt financing in the current financial markets. Cheap money may return one day, but interest rates have long studied historical cycles and one cannot assume that will happen shortly. In the meantime, the Feds debt charges are approaching/exceeding 10% of its revenue base. A technical number to be sure, but one that could accelerate given interest rates and rising program spending now, and for programs to come in the areas of social and health services ( and government operating expenses, which is another story) . Dollars are going to be in short supply and program spending under all sorts of pressure. For this and other reason, I believe the HSR project is a pipe dream and it’s time to recognize worthy alternatives.

The point of setting HFR/HSR up as a public-private-partnership is to reduce the chance of cancellation. A CPC government will probably be less willing to sabotage a privately-led consortium; Poilievre has also, at least on the surface, been supportive of public transit.

It's up to the companies to propose what they think will be most successful.

(Thanks to all who contribute. The forum is always an interesting and educational read while waiting for my chance on a Venture set - no luck so far!)

I am not a rolling stock expert - but I believe the Ventures are only operating between Ottawa and Quebec City. I am sure other members will know more!

 

[Urban Sky]

I am not a rolling stock expert - but I believe the Ventures are only operating between Ottawa and Quebec City. I am sure other members will know more!

You will find below my post from last week, which allegedly shows the Siemens deployment as of next Tuesday (24th), with one Set (“Set 4”) visiting Toronto six times per week:

I’m not sure where Eric Gangon got this cycling from (presumably: by observing ReserVIA), but I read this as follows:

	Set 1	Set 2	Set 3	Set 4
Mon	Q-35-O-28-Q	Q-33-O-26-Q	M-31-O-38-M	O-45-T-48-O
Tue	Q-35-O-38-M	Q-33-O-26-Q	M-31-O-28-O	O-41-T-48-O
Wed	M-31-O-28-O	Q-35-O-38-M	Q-33-O-26-Q	O-41-T-48-O
Thu	Q-35-O-28-Q	M-20-Q-37-O	Q-33-O-26-Q	O-41-T-646-O
Fri	Q-35-O-38-M	O-22-Q-39-O	Q-33-O-26-Q	O-43-T-668-M
Sat	M-622-Q-39-O	O-24-Q-29-M	Q-37-O	M-633-O
Sun	O-28-Q	M-633-O-26-Q	O-24-Q-29-M	O-43-T-646-O

View attachment 513946

Ventures are Coming! The Ventures are Coming!

No, it's not the British that are coming ( see also Paul Revere - Revolutionary War), although the new Siemens Venture sets are revolution...

tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com

 

[just east of the creek]

$80 billion? This is 4x the estimated cost to bring 300 km/h HSR from Toronto to Montreal.

Where do you think this 200 km/h ROW is going to go, without spending the $80 billion cost you've invented? Through the places where you don't need grade separation every few kilometres, which means the Canadian Shield.

You will never be able to build a new ROW in the Lakeshore Corridor.

The point of setting HFR/HSR up as a public-private-partnership is to reduce the chance of cancellation. A CPC government will probably be less willing to sabotage a privately-led consortium; Poilievre has also, at least on the surface, been supportive of public transit.

It's up to the companies to propose what they think will be most successful.

I am not a rolling stock expert - but I believe the Ventures are only operating between Ottawa and Quebec City. I am sure other members will know more!

My typo re cost. I had seen a report where the initial 8 plus billion figure was used, an extra 0 crept in there. Others are now forecasting 11 billion (Munk) and more. And the cost figure will depend on the extent of the system. Add in that by the time this project would get underway and most importantly finish, the figure will jump further.

I actually did not suggest the ROW needed to be completely new. Building a completely new ROW through the Lakeshore corridor for every kilometre is not possible, especially through urbanized areas, but for very long stretches, I cannot see a reason why not. The land is mostly rural or undisturbed. So why not?

And in other urbanized areas there appears to be plenty of room to add an additional track or two.

And as for P.P. - let’s see him win an election and find where his priorities are. Scaleable public transit may be his ticket. Building a ground up, new service through the Canadian Shield may be another story. If he embraces some version of pharmacare his revenue dollars will be quickly spoken for - public/private partnership or not.

The bottom line is that I believe these improvements to the Lakeshore line ( and beyond) are feasible, scalable, will serve greater %’s of the population, and a developing population, and are worthy of examination.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It’s all a matter of perspective. At the time VIA with bleeding money like crazy and the cuts brought that under control. As a rail fan, I certainly would love to see trains from everywhere to everywhere, but that isn’t necessarily feasible with our sprawling nation and car dependent culture. Maybe the cuts went to deep, but given that VIA still exist today, it’s hard to argue that has been destroyed.

Fair points, and if you travel the Windsor-Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec corridor, what exists today is useful. But other areas of the country have been neglected where an investment might have turned things around. Fredericton to Montreal or Halifax, for example. Or Calgary to Edmonton. Every provincial capital less Victoria and St. John’s should have a passenger rail connection to other towns within its region.

 

[Urban Sky]

Fair points, and if you travel the Windsor-Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec corridor, what exists today is useful. But other areas of the country have been neglected where an investment might have turned things around. Fredericton to Montreal or Halifax, for example. Or Calgary to Edmonton.

Yes, the public intercity transportation networks of these areas have indeed been neglected, but the appropriate means of transportation would have been the bus. The federal and provincial governments were given a golden opportunity when Greyhound finally left the market to set up a franchise system, where the federal government defines and funds a national network and the provinces chip in to supplement it with additional regional routes, but everyone cried crocodile tears while firmly sitting on their hands…

Every provincial capital less Victoria and St. John’s should have a passenger rail connection to other towns within its region.

PEI (and NL) explicitly waived their rights to passenger (or any) rail services, by accepting federal road funding instead. They have nobody than themselves (and their unfavourable geography) to blame for the absence of any rail services (same with Fredericton, which removed all its rail lines)…

 

[lenaitch]

Yes, the public intercity transportation networks of these areas have indeed been neglected, but the appropriate means of transportation would have been the bus. The federal and provincial governments were given a golden opportunity when Greyhound finally left the market to set up a franchise system, where the federal government defines and funds a national network and the provinces chip in to supplement it with additional regional routes, but everyone cried crocodile tears while firmly sitting on their hands…


PEI (and NL) explicitly waived their rights to passenger (or any) rail services, by accepting federal road funding instead. They have nobody than themselves (and their unfavourable geography) to blame for the absence of any rail services (same with Fredericton, which removed all its rail lines)…

In New Brunswick, the Trans-Canada Highway is a multi-lane, controlled access divided highway from end to end, all with federal funding. I'm sure if you ask the population, politicians and businesses in that province, they are likely much happier with that than they would have been with similar federal funding to support maintaining a passenger rail service to Fredericton (considering the host freight railway saw no continued economic need for it).

There is apparently a need to upgrade road, rail and telco infrastructure in the connecting isthmus being NB and NS, and the provinces want the feds to pay for all of it. Milk cows have limits.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/premiers-ottawa-isthmus-funding-1.6910179

 

[Admiral Beez]

PEI (and NL) explicitly waived their rights to passenger (or any) rail services, by accepting federal road funding instead. They have nobody than themselves (and their unfavourable geography) to blame for the absence of any rail services (same with Fredericton, which removed all its rail lines)…

Oh, I forgot the Spuds. Them too.

When I lived in Fredericton I often had to be in Halifax or Moncton and sometimes Saint John for meetings. On those winter days driving in blizzards I would have paid top dollar for a train ticket.