[roger1818]

Here are my thoughts with all of this.

1) All existing lines are required by the government. Generally, the remote ones, even if they only serve one province, are because they serve communities with no road access. Keeping existing lines running would be cheaper than building and maintaining an all weather, year round road.

I tend to agree.

2) The 5 routes could be converted to a DMU set up. There is no reason a DMU cannot be set up for sleeping.

Just because a DMU could be setup for sleeping, doesn't mean it should. First of all it would be the only sleeping DMU in the country, so the utilization of the required spare train would be very low. Secondly, DMUs tend to only be beneficial for short 1 or 2 car trains. At 3 cars they are a toss up and at 4 or more cars, a conventional train is more economical. A sleeper train needs at least 1 baggage car, 1 coach car, 1 dinning car and 1 sleeper, so you are at 4 cars and you haven't added any for excess capacity. If you look at the following video of a train entering Churchill, it has 7 cars, so it is no where close to the size a DMU would be beneficial.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=320653578757693

3) Buses hold between 40-80 passengers. An RDC-1 holds 90 passengers, and an RDC=-2, which is a baggage car holds 70.passengers. The regular coaches can hold 68 passengers. So, if you just run an RDC-1 and it is full, you need 2 buses to meet the demand.

The key phrase in that point is "if it is full." Even if it is full, having double the number of departures isn't a bad thing when service intervals are infrequent?

In short, it is not as simple as anything running short trains should just be converted to bus routes. There are many factors that take into account why it is still running.

I agree it isn't a simple. There are many factors, some you like to highlight, and some you like to ignore.

 

[Urban Sky]

Well aware of that.

My point here is that the decision on which roadless communities (Indigenous or otherwise) are served is entirely arbitrary.

Moreover, the duty of care the Feds have says nothing about specific modes of transport, frequencies or levels of service. There are communities in the North that get nothing more than a few flights in from an RCAF Twin Otter a few times a year.

I’m not too sure what is so arbitrary about how communities who are connected to the rail but not road network are served: those communities along lines formerly served by federally regulated railroads get funded by the federal government (and in most cases served directly by VIA Rail), whereas the provincial governments are responsible to fund passenger rail services to roadless communities along their respective provincially regulated railroads (which seems to only be the Polar Bear Express in Northern Ontario and the Koaham Shuttle along the former BC Rail line). As a service frequency, 2-3 round trips per week have been the established standard for federally regulated railroads, whereas BC and Ontario offer more frequent services.

Obviously, these services create inequalities between those communities which are connected to the rail network and those which are not, but maintaining a passenger rail service might be a lot cheaper than offering an air service, while the picture changes completely if you would need to build a rail line in the first place. And with a negative contribution of only $20 million (i.e. $0.50 per Canadian per year), this is simply a rounding error compared to the wealth we’ve derived from the lands which belonged to First Nations like those which are most dependent on remote passenger rail services...

 

[roger1818]

My point here is that the decision on which roadless communities (Indigenous or otherwise) are served is entirely arbitrary.

It isn't arbitrary, it is based on which communities already have tracks.

Moreover, the duty of care the Feds have says nothing about specific modes of transport, frequencies or levels of service. There are communities in the North that get nothing more than a few flights in from an RCAF Twin Otter a few times a year.

And your point is?

 

[micheal_can]

Just because a DMU could be setup for sleeping, doesn't mean it should. First of all it would be the only sleeping DMU in the country, so the utilization of the required spare train would be very low. Secondly, DMUs tend to only be beneficial for short 1 or 2 car trains. At 3 cars they are a toss up and at 4 or more cars, a conventional train is more economical. A sleeper train needs at least 1 baggage car, 1 coach car, 1 dinning car and 1 sleeper, so you are at 4 cars and you haven't added any for excess capacity. If you look at the following video of a train entering Churchill, it has 7 cars, so it is no where close to the size a DMU would be beneficial.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=320653578757693

So, as I see it, any non sleeper, under 4 car train could be DMU. That could not only include Sarnia - London, Sudbury - White River, Montreal- Jonquière, and Montreal - Senneterre, but also Toronto- Kington, Ottawa Kingston and Montreal Kingston after HFR is built. There will likely be a need for service, but not at the current amount. This would give an easy way to upgrade those sections served by RDCs and short trains.

The key phrase in that point is "if it is full." Even if it is full, having double the number of departures isn't a bad thing when service intervals are infrequent?

Agreed. I'll bet there is a number of seats needed filled to be considered successful.

I agree it isn't a simple. There are many factors, some you like to highlight, and some you like to ignore.

I don't ignore them. If anything, I look into why those factors exist and what can be done to mitigate them. The Northlander is a great example of this. I don't ignore all the reasons it shouldn't come back. I try to figure out how to resolve them.

 

[micheal_can]

It isn't arbitrary, it is based on which communities already have tracks.

I wonder, if the line to Churchill didn't exist, but, a fixed link was to be built today, would a road be chosen over rail?

 

[lenaitch]

It isn't arbitrary, it is based on which communities already have tracks.

Not my understanding of the word "arbitrary" but that's how I interpreted what he meant.

I wonder, if the line to Churchill didn't exist, but, a fixed link was to be built today, would a road be chosen over rail?

With your thought exercise, if a rail line didn't exist, the port wouldn't exist and if a link was considered, in my view it would likely be a road. In reality, a remote community of about 900 people approx. 300 km from the nearest road would likely get neither. It's difficult to project how things would be different under different circumstances, but I imagine that, without the port and tourism, both enabled by the rail line, the town would likely be smaller.

 

[micheal_can]

With your thought exercise, if a rail line didn't exist, the port wouldn't exist and if a link was considered, in my view it would likely be a road. In reality, a remote community of about 900 people (which would likely be smaller without the port/rail employment and tourism enabled by the railway) approx. 300 km from the nearest road would likely get neither.

It makes me wonder what the point of the T&NO extended to Moosonee. Now a days, We don't build much into the hinterland.

 

[lenaitch]

It makes me wonder what the point of the T&NO extended to Moosonee. Now a days, We don't build much into the hinterland.

Different times. The final northern stretch (north from Abitibi Canyon GS) was built as Depression-era work project. I guess if nothing else it facilitated the construction of Otter Rapids farther down river

The original Algoma Central charter was for the 'Algoma Central and Hudson's Bay Railway'. A different era before roads.

 

[roger1818]

So, as I see it, any non sleeper, under 4 car train could be DMU. That could not only include Sarnia - London, Sudbury - White River, Montreal- Jonquière, and Montreal - Senneterre, but also Toronto- Kington, Ottawa Kingston and Montreal Kingston after HFR is built. There will likely be a need for service, but not at the current amount. This would give an easy way to upgrade those sections served by RDCs and short trains.

In theory you could, but to what benefit? It woud decrease VIA’s operational flexibility and force a transfer in London for those in Sarnia (and points in between) to provide a product that is less comfortable for passengers.

 

[crs1026]

I wonder, if the line to Churchill didn't exist, but, a fixed link was to be built today, would a road be chosen over rail?

That’s a very interesting question. Having not the slightest idea how costs would compare, I would bet the road would win. Certainly that’s the case elsewhere.

The original Algoma Central charter was for the 'Algoma Central and Hudson's Bay Railway'. A different era before roads.

And before due diligence. Imagine if the old time investors had a JPO and a CIB to study the proposal. So much of our rail network was built on dreams and aspirations alone.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

In theory you could, but to what benefit? It woud decrease VIA’s operational flexibility and force a transfer in London for those in Sarnia (and points in between) to provide a product that is less comfortable for passengers.

There are already forced transfers in Toronto and Montreal. You cannot go from Windsor to Quebec City without at least 1 transfer.

 

[Urban Sky]

There are already forced transfers in Toronto and Montreal. You cannot go from Windsor to Quebec City without at least 1 transfer.

Indeed, but unlike London and Kingston, Toronto and Montreal are VIA’s two busiest stations and thus either the origin or destination of the vast majority of VIA passengers in the Corridor...

 

[ManyQuestions]

There are already forced transfers in Toronto and Montreal. You cannot go from Windsor to Quebec City without at least 1 transfer.

This is one of the areas where, hopefully, HFR could have the most benefit. Transfer become much less disruptive when trains are both reliable and frequent. One of the most notable features I observed when using the Swiss rail network is that there were relatively few direct long distance trains. While most major cities were indeed linked by direct trains, many smaller ones were not. However, these transfers were generally timed very well and often conveniently arranged as cross platform connections. I imagine that this was designed to both improve system reliability and simplify the network into a smaller number of direct routes versus providing more connection-free routes at lower frequencies.

 

[roger1818]

Indeed, but unlike Toronto and Montreal, London and Kingston are not VIA’s two busiest stations and thus either the origin or destination of most VIA passengers in the Corridor...

Agreed! One also has to ask what would be the benefit of doing such a thing? Prior to COVID, there was only 1 train a day between Toronto and Sarnia (via London) and the London-Sarnia leg only took less than 75 minutes each way. Switching that to a DMU would mean having a piece of equipment that is only for about 2.5 hours a day. VIA would have to at least quadruple the frequency of service to get a reasonable amount of service use out of the DMUs. It isn't as if VIA can teleport the DMU from London to another city that might be able to use it, so it would end up sitting idle most of the day.

 

[micheal_can]

Agreed! One also has to ask what would be the benefit of doing such a thing? Prior to COVID, there was only 1 train a day between Toronto and Sarnia (via London) and the London-Sarnia leg only took less than 75 minutes each way. Switching that to a DMU would mean having a piece of equipment that is only for about 2.5 hours a day. VIA would have to at least quadruple the frequency of service to get a reasonable amount of service use out of the DMUs. It isn't as if VIA can teleport the DMU from London to another city that might be able to use it, so it would end up sitting idle most of the day.

Are the RDCs doing that?

Sarnia - Toronto may be one of those things that could stay as is.