[roger1818]

Assuming HFR gets built (admittedly not a done deal yet) and the lakeshore service becomes more regionally focused, I wonder if it would make sense to re-open the Prescott Railway Station? It seems a long stretch between Brockville and Cornwall without a stop. Granted, Prescott is a very small community.


(© Agence Parcs Canada/Parks Canada Agency, 1990.)

 

[crs1026]

That's my point. This is still a very substantial schedule. Why would CN be interested in accomodating cannon ball runs on top?

One has to think hard about what CN’s interests really are, as opposed to what they are simplistically cast as.
CN’s freight operation Toronto-Montreal is substantial, but it’s no different in magnitude than what CN runs on its Northern Ontario line with single track and full size passing sidings spaced only every 60 miles or more.
What that says to me is that the Kingston Sub is waaay overcapitalised for what is required for freight.
So what CN likely gets from VIA is enough remuneration to be made whole (by someone’s yardstick, not necessarily fulfilling CN shareholders’ wildest dreams) to retain the extra capitalisation.... from which CN derives considerable flexibility and efficiency, but which, should VIA depart, management would have to tear out to achieve numbers commensurate with its other lines. It’s not too hard to imagine the Kingston Sub reduced to largely single track, with greater use of fleeting and precision timing - as works remarkably well north of Toronto and east of Montreal.
So what CN needs from VIA is not “go away”, but “stay out of the way”. CN dispatching does a very good job of that, mostly by having VIA cross over for meets and follow slower freights rather than overtaking.
The key is that over time, VIA can only expect whatever throughput CN doesn’t need for itself. That implies that VIA will have to invest in further capacity on the line, to maintain whatever priority it needs even fir the notional service levels that are being proposed here.
We seem pretty happy putting HFR in CN and CP’s hands east of Coteau and west of Tapscott. It makes no sense to believe that something can’t be worked out in between. When the inevitability of that further investment sinks in, Ottawa may become more interested in a more binding arrangement in exchange for that investment.
A back of the envelope calculation says that paying shareholders some annual premium for their involvement is not a moon and stars proposition. We are just in the toe in the water phase where Ottawa can’t bring itself to Openly invest in rail passenger. We have to make do in the meanwhile, but let’s be sure that the strategy leaves the door open to that - and let’s not let HSR grab all the cash when that investment appetite arrives. A joint investment with CN may well be preferable to building whole new corridors.

- Paul

 

[tsm1072]

One has to think hard about what CN’s interests really are, as opposed to what they are simplistically cast as.
CN’s freight operation Toronto-Montreal is substantial, but it’s no different in magnitude than what CN runs on its Northern Ontario line with single track and full size passing sidings spaced only every 60 miles or more.
What that says to me is that the Kingston Sub is waaay overcapitalised for what is required for freight.
So what CN likely gets from VIA is enough remuneration to be made whole (by someone’s yardstick, not necessarily fulfilling CN shareholders’ wildest dreams) to retain the extra capitalisation.... from which CN derives considerable flexibility and efficiency, but which, should VIA depart, management would have to tear out to achieve numbers commensurate with its other lines. It’s not too hard to imagine the Kingston Sub reduced to largely single track, with greater use of fleeting and precision timing - as works remarkably well north of Toronto and east of Montreal.
So what CN needs from VIA is not “go away”, but “stay out of the way”. CN dispatching does a very good job of that, mostly by having VIA cross over for meets and follow slower freights rather than overtaking.
The key is that over time, VIA can only expect whatever throughput CN doesn’t need for itself. That implies that VIA will have to invest in further capacity on the line, to maintain whatever priority it needs even fir the notional service levels that are being proposed here.
We seem pretty happy putting HFR in CN and CP’s hands east of Coteau and west of Tapscott. It makes no sense to believe that something can’t be worked out in between. When the inevitability of that further investment sinks in, Ottawa may become more interested in a more binding arrangement in exchange for that investment.
A back of the envelope calculation says that paying shareholders some annual premium for their involvement is not a moon and stars proposition. We are just in the toe in the water phase where Ottawa can’t bring itself to Openly invest in rail passenger. We have to make do in the meanwhile, but let’s be sure that the strategy leaves the door open to that - and let’s not let HSR grab all the cash when that investment appetite arrives. A joint investment with CN may well be preferable to building whole new corridors.

- Paul

Could VIA use a funding approval to kind of strong-arm CN into a better deal? Essentially say: We can spend all this money on infrastructure and maintenance on our own line and corridor. Or, we can enter a more equal partnership and this money can upgrade some of your infrastructure, but we get more control over ROW ownership and scheduling.

 

[kEiThZ]

One has to think hard about what CN’s interests really are, as opposed to what they are simplistically cast as.
CN’s freight operation Toronto-Montreal is substantial, but it’s no different in magnitude than what CN runs on its Northern Ontario line with single track and full size passing sidings spaced only every 60 miles or more.
What that says to me is that the Kingston Sub is waaay overcapitalised for what is required for freight.
So what CN likely gets from VIA is enough remuneration to be made whole (by someone’s yardstick, not necessarily fulfilling CN shareholders’ wildest dreams) to retain the extra capitalisation.... from which CN derives considerable flexibility and efficiency, but which, should VIA depart, management would have to tear out to achieve numbers commensurate with its other lines. It’s not too hard to imagine the Kingston Sub reduced to largely single track, with greater use of fleeting and precision timing - as works remarkably well north of Toronto and east of Montreal.
So what CN needs from VIA is not “go away”, but “stay out of the way”. CN dispatching does a very good job of that, mostly by having VIA cross over for meets and follow slower freights rather than overtaking.
The key is that over time, VIA can only expect whatever throughput CN doesn’t need for itself. That implies that VIA will have to invest in further capacity on the line, to maintain whatever priority it needs even fir the notional service levels that are being proposed here.
We seem pretty happy putting HFR in CN and CP’s hands east of Coteau and west of Tapscott. It makes no sense to believe that something can’t be worked out in between. When the inevitability of that further investment sinks in, Ottawa may become more interested in a more binding arrangement in exchange for that investment.
A back of the envelope calculation says that paying shareholders some annual premium for their involvement is not a moon and stars proposition. We are just in the toe in the water phase where Ottawa can’t bring itself to Openly invest in rail passenger. We have to make do in the meanwhile, but let’s be sure that the strategy leaves the door open to that - and let’s not let HSR grab all the cash when that investment appetite arrives. A joint investment with CN may well be preferable to building whole new corridors.

- Paul

We are right back to 2008. What guarantee can be extracted that we won't have a repeat of that boondoggle?

I think some folks are getting target fixation. You are so focused on keeping the status quo service that you will make any and every excuse and imagine any scenario where VIA and CN can make faster and more frequent Lakeshore service work, in spite of real world evidence where such co-operation was a spectacular failure.

I don't want VIA committing to any deal with CN unless they are literally willing to turn over control of the corridor to VIA. And something like 50 years should be the minimum on such an arrangement, to ensure adequate capital recovery. Anything less and VIA is better off spending more and even getting less from Havelock, simply because control of that route ensures that VIA is 100% aware of what performance it can deliver 100% of the time.

We can't keep repeating the madness where we keep paying to improve CN's infrastructure and get worse passenger service as a result. And despite all the hopes and dreams, our governments have a demonstrated antipathy towards regulating passenger service priority. So it's time to ensure that priority is guaranteed through infrastructure.

 

[roger1818]

Could VIA use a funding approval to kind of strong-arm CN into a better deal? Essentially say: We can spend all this money on infrastructure and maintenance on our own line and corridor. Or, we can enter a more equal partnership and this money can upgrade some of your infrastructure, but we get more control over ROW ownership and scheduling.

I doubt it. If VIA threatened to remove their trains from CN's mainline, CN would likely say good riddance.

 

[robmausser]

Could VIA use a funding approval to kind of strong-arm CN into a better deal? Essentially say: We can spend all this money on infrastructure and maintenance on our own line and corridor. Or, we can enter a more equal partnership and this money can upgrade some of your infrastructure, but we get more control over ROW ownership and scheduling.

Ill say it a different way than above:

CN is a bigger company than Rogers. And look at what their lobbying the government lets Rogers get away with in the telecommunications sector. Now imagine the lobbying power of a company even bigger than that.

CN isn't agreeing to anything that doesn't 100% benefit CN.

 

[kEiThZ]

Canadian railfans seem to have an abusive relationship with the freightcos. I swear.

"Maybe they've changed. They won't hurt us this time."

Every 10 years.....

 

[crs1026]

We are right back to 2008. What guarantee can be extracted that we won't have a repeat of that boondoggle?

I think some folks are getting target fixation. You are so focused on keeping the status quo service that you will make any and every excuse and imagine any scenario where VIA and CN can make faster and more frequent Lakeshore service work, in spite of real world evidence where such co-operation was a spectacular failure.

I don't want VIA committing to any deal with CN unless they are literally willing to turn over control of the corridor to VIA. And something like 50 years should be the minimum on such an arrangement, to ensure adequate capital recovery. Anything less and VIA is better off spending more and even getting less from Havelock, simply because control of that route ensures that VIA is 100% aware of what performance it can deliver 100% of the time.

We can't keep repeating the madness where we keep paying to improve CN's infrastructure and get worse passenger service as a result. And despite all the hopes and dreams, our governments have a demonstrated antipathy towards regulating passenger service priority. So it's time to ensure that priority is guaranteed through infrastructure.

And you presumably expect CN to agree to similar terms for the Coteau-Montreal and Montreal-Drummondville-Charny elements of HFR? (And maybe Mascouche-Ballantyne-Montreal, if the tunnel can't be made to work) And where does HFR sit if CN can't commit to anything better than the current level of reliability?

We are actually agreeing on most of this - whatever Lakeshore service remains post-HFR will exist at CN's mercy. So will HFR. So either we find a new arrangement, or that service slowly perishes as CN grows its business and conflicts with freight grow.

A few strokes of the Parliamentary pen, and a reasonable level of investment, and there might be a will to play nice, if the money is appropriate.

As reported here (edit - and here)- Amtrak, CSX, and NS seem to have found reason to play nice... but Amtrak has a bit more government clout behind it.

- Paul

 

[ssiguy2]

Today Biden announced his new $2 trillion infrastructure plan and Amtrak plays a big part. It proposes many new routes and one that sticks out is a new route from Detroit to Toronto.

I think such a route finally connecting the 2 cities and places further west like Chicago would greatly increase traffic on the SWO lines which are already heavily used to the point of being the least subsidised corridor in the entire system on a per-passenger level.

 

[Northern Light]

Today Biden announced his new $2 trillion infrastructure plan and Amtrak plays a big part. It proposes many new routes and one that sticks out is a new route from Detroit to Toronto.

I think such a route finally connecting the 2 cities and places further west like Chicago would greatly increase traffic on the SWO lines which are already heavily used to the point of being the least subsidised corridor in the entire system on a per-passenger level.

Enhanced service to Toronto is also proposed in the NYC-Buffalo-Niagara segment (Empire Corridor) but that isn't defined.

Apparently a further announcement will be coming shortly ahead of the 're-authorization' bill for Amtrak's operating budget.

***

New and enhanced services to Montreal are also in the plan; and enhanced services to Vancouver.

I thought the logical home of a discussion about this might the the General Railway thread.

That's where I posted on this.

That said, since, I'm here, I'll share the map.

http://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Amtrak-Connects-Us-Fact-Sheet-for-Statement.pdf

 

[kEiThZ]

A few strokes of the Parliamentary pen, and a reasonable level of investment, and there might be a will to play nice, if the money is appropriate.

Easier said than done. Especially against CN lobbying.

Today Biden announced his new $2 trillion infrastructure plan and Amtrak plays a big part.

I'm really excited for the proposal. But let's just wait to see what survives Congress before popping the champagne.

 

[roger1818]

As reported here (edit - and here)- Amtrak, CSX, and NS seem to have found reason to play nice... but Amtrak has a bit more government clout behind it.

A bit off topic, but, for those who are interested, there is a really interesting talk by Daniel L. Plaugher, Executive Director, Virginians for High Speed Rail about this (the actual presentation is only about 23 minutes long and the rest is Q&A, though the whole thing is worth watching). They are basically building HFR from Washington to Richmond, VA (and on to Raleigh) by buying dedicated track and increasing the frequency of service. Speed will only be marginally increased to be competitive with driving.

I wish we had a similar advocacy group that was willing to take a staged approach like this and realize that the best way to HSR is to first build the fundamentals.

 

[MisterF]

And you presumably expect CN to agree to similar terms for the Coteau-Montreal and Montreal-Drummondville-Charny elements of HFR? (And maybe Mascouche-Ballantyne-Montreal, if the tunnel can't be made to work) And where does HFR sit if CN can't commit to anything better than the current level of reliability?

We are actually agreeing on most of this - whatever Lakeshore service remains post-HFR will exist at CN's mercy. So will HFR. So either we find a new arrangement, or that service slowly perishes as CN grows its business and conflicts with freight grow.

A few strokes of the Parliamentary pen, and a reasonable level of investment, and there might be a will to play nice, if the money is appropriate.

As reported here (edit - and here)- Amtrak, CSX, and NS seem to have found reason to play nice... but Amtrak has a bit more government clout behind it.

- Paul

Coteau to Montreal is something like 60 km, a fraction of the length of the corridor. Dealing with CN for 60 km is a huge improvement over dealing with them for 500.

The line through Drummondville isn't part of the HFR plan.

If "a few strokes of the Parliamentary pen" were as easy as you imply it would have happened a long time ago.

 

[SFO-YYZ]

Today Biden announced his new $2 trillion infrastructure plan and Amtrak plays a big part. It proposes many new routes and one that sticks out is a new route from Detroit to Toronto.

I think such a route finally connecting the 2 cities and places further west like Chicago would greatly increase traffic on the SWO lines which are already heavily used to the point of being the least subsidised corridor in the entire system on a per-passenger level.

Show me shovels in the ground otherwise this didn't happen.

I remember living in DC back in 2009 when Biden (as VP) also announced a similar HSR expansion for Amtrak corridors (around $100 billion investment) - we all know how far HSR progressed in the U.S. since then.

 

[Bordercollie]

Show me shovels in the ground otherwise this didn't happen.

I remember living in DC back in 2009 when Biden (as VP) also announced a similar HSR expansion for Amtrak corridors (around $100 billion investment) - we all know how far HSR progressed in the U.S. since then.

People keep comparing airtravel to rail travel and they miss the stops in-between.

Yes you can fly from Toronto to Kingston or London, but does it fly hourly?

Is it as cost effective? How do you get from Airport to your final destination? The benefit of the train is that it's from downtown to downtown (not so much with Kingston, but the airport isn't exactly downtown either).

What if you want to go from Belleville to Brockville? Are you going to drive to Kingston and the fly to Ottawa and then rent a car?

Stop thinking that all trips start and end in Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal.