[Urban Sky]

At every service you hear that has been cancelled in Canada and the USA, they were typically running Budd cars.

Someone needs to come out with a cheap, economical, TC/FRA compliant DMU that can replace the Budds, as I feel like this is whats holding back reinstating a lot of these routes; they arent economical to run with existing loco/car rolling stock for the service levels.

Either that or TC/FRA need to change their requirements to allow for European DMUs, which already have a history of working in remote, low ridership areas.

Indeed. This article highlights the absurdity of the current FRA regulations, by looking what equivalent rules would require for the Highways and Airlines in North America...

Assuming, like the article says, that the line sits empty most of the time, it would not be very difficult to obtain a waiver to operate non-compliant DMUs on the line with the use of appropriate safety systems.
It would be much like how the Trillium Line operates in Ottawa, heck they can just take our Bombardier Talents (for the low low cost of $100k + whatever it would cost to get them into operational shape again...)
Slap the Indusi system onto those tracks, build some platforms and ask CN kindly to avoid daytime freight runs and you're all good to go. All for a few million?

Obtaining a waiver requires "temporal separation" and I'm afraid you are severely overestimating the amount of goodwill CN (or any sane railroad) would be willing to invest to help the province to address transportation needs for the cheap...

 

[OCCheetos]

Indeed. This article highlights the absurdity of the current FRA regulations, by looking what equivalent rules would require for the Highways and Airlines in North America...


Obtaining a waiver requires "temporal separation" and I'm afraid you are severely overestimating the amount of goodwill CN (or any sane railroad) would be willing to invest to help the province to address transportation needs for the cheap...

I'm not very familiar with that rail corridor, but from the article: "She said the rail line, which is now owned by Canadian National Railway and used for freight, sits empty most of the time". Assuming that it does sit empty most of the time, then I don't think it's that big of a stretch.

 

[Urban Sky]

I'm not very familiar with that rail corridor, but from the article: "She said the rail line, which is now owned by Canadian National Railway and used for freight, sits empty most of the time". Assuming that it does sit empty most of the time, then I don't think it's that big of a stretch.

There is a subtle difference between "has the capacity to support a passenger train" (according to a layman) and "has the capacity to allow a passenger train to monopolise the entire line during daytime". Drawing from the BC Rail schedule in its final years, imagine that the entire line was off-limits between 6:45am and 10pm on operation days. Given that the passenger train takes almost 15 hours for the entire run, it seems impossible that a freight train could cover the same distance in the remaining 8-9 hour window. Maybe you could split the temporal separation at Lilooet (i.e. Prince George-Lilooet is off-limit for freight trains Monday, Thursday and Saturday between 6:45am and 4pm and Wednesday, Friday and Sunday between 12:30pm and 10pm, while Lilooet-North Vancouver is off-limit for freight trains daily between 6:45am and 1:30pm and between 3:15pm and 10pm, so effectively the entire day), but this still forces you to find a solution for separating your non-compliant passenger train from the freight trains waiting in Lilooet and to not unduly constrain the operations at North Vancouver and Prince George, both of which are busy yards...

Source: official VIA Rail schedule (effective 2000/10/29)

 

[steveintoronto]

I'd be fine with VIA operating this route as "VIA BC". Amtrak California is funded by the state, but uses Amtrak expertise. It would be interesting if provinces followed a similar model for less profitable routes.

The answer there is what BC has already proposed to do: Run their own bus line to replace Greyhound. For the same cost, it could serve vastly more communities and in a much more flexible way.

heck they can just take our Bombardier Talents (for the low low cost of $100k + whatever it would cost to get them into operational shape again...)

I didn't know that they hadn't been sold! They are very good units, at least the ones used in Europe, where I think those were shipped from, but they had problems IIRC with the bogies on the Ottawa tracks, especially switches, and other issues due to local conditions.

Interesting...

 

[crs1026]

The equipment regulations are not the issue here. There is already a sort of non-compliant passenger service on this line, as documented here.

The issue, as @Urban Sky indicates, is how much productive track time a passenger train consumes. The fact that freights are not running does not mean that maintainers are not out on the line doing work. For a remote line with a dearth of passing sidings, one passenger train means a fair proportion of the asset is being used for passenger. The price paid to CN would not properly compensate for this.

There isn't a lot of VIA infrastructure available to support the service in Prince George. Heavy maintenance would require taking the equipment the long way round to Kamloops (RMRT) or Vancouver.

The reality is, when the BC government sold BC Rail, they effectively waived any interest in passenger service on that line. Those decisions are not easily reversed.

- Paul

 

[cplchanb]

The answer there is what BC has already proposed to do: Run their own bus line to replace Greyhound. For the same cost, it could serve vastly more communities and in a much more flexible way.

I didn't know that they hadn't been sold! They are very good units, at least the ones used in Europe, where I think those were shipped from, but they had problems IIRC with the bogies on the Ottawa tracks, especially switches, and other issues due to local conditions.

Interesting...

At this rate Via might as well split their entities to central, east and west. That way each region can manage their own services without affecting the budget for the other ones.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

The Canada Infrastructure Bank seems to have made its first investment as an entity, in Montreal's REM project. Relevant because it has been discussed as a funding mechanism for VIA Dedicated Tracks project.

 

[steveintoronto]

The Canada Infrastructure Bank seems to have made its first investment as an entity, in Montreal's REM project. Relevant because it has been discussed as a funding mechanism for VIA Dedicated Tracks project.

There's something odd about this I can't identify yet, to do with the Feds already committing to a loan/investment in lieu of the "Bank" not "being up and running yet" (gist).

Infrastructure Bank makes first investment, loaning Montreal REM project $1.3B

More News
Canada Infrastructure Bank aims to take P3s ‘a step further’
MONTREAL—The Canada Infrastructure Bank has announced its first, long awaited investment, awarding a $1.28 billion loan to Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec’s Réseau express métropolitain (REM) project.

Part of the federal Liberal government’s infrastructure plan unveiled in 2016, the arms-length government institution is designed to coax private investors into the public works business.

The CIB said payments on the loan will start at one per cent and eventually escalate to three per cent over the 15-year term. Under the terms of the deal, CDPQ Infra Inc., a subsidiary of Caisse, will maintain its 70 per cent equity stake in the REM project. The government of Quebec owns the remaining 30 per cent interest.

Loan in hand, the $6.3 billion, 67 kilometre light rail project is now fully-funded. Plans for the system include 26 stations and electric, fully-automated trains.

With public transit being one of the bank’s priority areas, CIB president and CEO Pierre Lavallée said the rail project fits the new institution’s mandate.

“Our role is to invest alongside private sector and institutional investors, and other public-sector partners to facilitate the development of strategic projects like the REM,” he said in a statement.

Related: Canada Infrastructure Bank aims to take P3s ‘a step further’Construction on the project is already underway. SNC-Lavalin, Dragados Canada, Inc., Aecon Group Inc., Pomerleau Inc. and EBC Inc. were all part of the winning consortium and broke ground on the project in April.


Crews are expected to ramp up work this fall, while trains are scheduled to begin running in summer 2021.

Though critics have been skeptical about the role the CIB has to play in Canada’s infrastructure landscape, Lavallée says the bank will support projects that may otherwise not have been built.

https://www.on-sitemag.com/infrastr...loaning-montreal-rem-project-1-3b/1003960045/

I have a lot of questions on this...something just isn't sitting right. More on this later...

Edit to Add: Here's a clue, and I think this was disbursed:

BILL CURRY
GREG KEENAN
AUTO AND STEEL AND AIRLINE INDUSTRY REPORTER
OTTAWA AND TORONTO
PUBLISHED MARCH 29, 2017UPDATED APRIL 15, 2017

[...]Brook Simpson, a spokesman for federal Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi, said Ottawa has the ability to approve specific projects even though its full, long-term infrastructure plan has not yet launched.

"We will be able to meet their required timelines," he said in an e-mail in relation to the REM light-rail plan.
[...]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...-sector-infrastructure-plans/article34482281/

 

[steveintoronto]

^Further to above:

Globe has this article up now:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...ank-loaning-128-billion-to-montreal-electric/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/pol...-as-ottawa-spends-more-on-infrastructure-pbo/

 

[TOareaFan]

The Canada Infrastructure Bank seems to have made its first investment as an entity, in Montreal's REM project. Relevant because it has been discussed as a funding mechanism for VIA Dedicated Tracks project.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

New article on HFR (these regional papers really have provided the best coverage of the project so far):

Via Rail station for Perth still in play: Fenik

Things/quotes of note:

• Mariam Diaby, representing media relations for Via Rail in Montreal, emailed that the proposed “(HFR) route would lead from Toronto to Ottawa via Peterborough and Smiths Falls, mostly along the existing railway corridor"
• Previous federal budgets “provided funds to Transport Canada to further study the HFR proposal. Their analysis is expected to be concluded this fall leading to a government decision shortly thereafter.”
• Fenik noted that he did not want a “phone-booth type station,” he said, preferring a station made “out of limestone, like the station we once had,” in Perth
• Why does the media even listen to Paul Langan anymore?

So my take on this is: The Peterborough route seems to be a go (we've known this for a while), but the "mostly along the existing rail corridor" comment could mean some sharp turns are eliminated, and some smaller towns bypassed to avoid disruption. Glad to see these seemingly endless "studies" culminating this fall, and the dedicated tracks project seems like a perfect project for the Infrastructure Bank to fund before an election. If Fenik expects a limestone station for PERTH of all places, he is clearly celebrating October 17th a little early. I'd expect these smaller towns are getting stations to keep local opposition at a minimal, but they will most likely only see 1 or 2 trains per day actually stop there.

 

[steveintoronto]

^ You're far less cynical than I am. Article not written that well, for instance:

Not so fast?

While Fenik may have been assured, Paul Langan, president of High Speed Rail Canada, is less so. The leader of the “citizens advocacy group for educating Canadians on high speed rail,” pointed out that the map that circulated in 2017, with proposed stations shown for Peterborough, Sharbot Lake, and Tweed, culminating in Smiths Falls, was never disavowed by Via Rail.

I think the author meant "avowed". I'm no fan of Langan, but in this case, I tend to agree with him.

Make no mistake, I think this will get built, but not the way it's being touted. And I think whoever builds and finances it will offer Desjardins-Siciliano first shot at CEO. They then dictate the terms to the Investment Bank et al, not the other way around, if they even allow anyone from the Gov't to have a smelly foot stuck in the door. If you have the monies to fully fund it, why in hell would you want incompetents having a say in how it's going to work? You sign an understanding, and the legalities necessary, and comply with them. That's the way the railways were built in this nation, and not much has changed. I suspect VIA would be offered a 'senior tenant' option and perhaps one to operate and dispatch the line, but other tenants would have descending seniority for access, Metrolinx being offered one after VIA, and temporally operated freight at night and perhaps premium express freight too. A lot would depend on how many passing loops would exist, and whether state-of-the-art CBTC is mandated.

It's almost a given that it would be electrified since the cost of doing so would be an acceptable fraction of the overall project.

 

[Urban Sky]

At this rate Via might as well split their entities to central, east and west. That way each region can manage their own services without affecting the budget for the other ones.

As indicated by its name, mandatory services (which this new service would presumably be, if it were to become part of the VIA network) are mandated by the federal government, which assumes any of VIA Rail's operational deficits through operational subsidies. Their operating costs therefore don't affect other services, unless the federal government demands the overall operational subsidy to be reduced by cutting the service levels provided (as happened in 1981, 1990 and 2012). Also, VIA Rail does have regional directors, which are responsible for their own service groups, such as the Corridor, The Ocean, The Canadian or the regional services. Therefore, I neither understand what exactly you want to see changed, nor what potential benefits you hope to unlock...

I'd expect these smaller towns are getting stations to keep local opposition at a minimal, but they will most likely only see 1 or 2 trains per day actually stop there.

Which would be in line with comparable communities along the Corridor: Gananoque, for instance, has a marginally smaller population size than Perth (5159 vs. 5930), a rail station which is almost 6 km away from its centre (while Perth's station could hardly be more centrally located) and has one scheduled stop per day and direction (Train 47, OTTW=>TRTO, stops at 14:47 and Train 48, TRTO=>OTTW, stops at 21:38)...

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Which would be in line with comparable communities along the Corridor: Gananoque, for instance, has a marginally smaller population size than Perth (5159 vs. 5930), a rail station which is almost 6 km away from its centre (while Perth's station could hardly be more centrally located) and has one scheduled stop per day and direction (Train 47, OTTW=>TRTO, stops at 14:47 and Train 48, TRTO=>OTTW, stops at 21:38)...

Which is a good thing. Perth doesn't need trains every hour. @Urban Sky one thing that surprises me is that there is (that we know of) no station planned in York Region? The area isn't currently served by VIA and it would be a good chance to get more riders. The Havelock sub passes through Markham near Highway 407, and it would be a missed opportunity to not have a station there. I'm all for the proposed Eglinton station, but if that is part of the plan I'd think a Markham/York Region station is very very much warranted to.

 

[Urban Sky]

Which is a good thing. Perth doesn't need trains every hour. @Urban Sky one thing that surprises me is that there is (that we know of) no station planned in York Region? The area isn't currently served by VIA and it would be a good chance to get more riders. The Havelock sub passes through Markham near Highway 407, and it would be a missed opportunity to not have a station there. I'm all for the proposed Eglinton station, but if that is part of the plan I'd think a Markham/York Region station is very very much warranted to.

If you know any representatives which believe that a certain new station (or improved service at an existing station) would be important to their communities, you could encourage them to get in contact with Jacques Fauteux, the Director of Government and Community Relations at VIA Rail...