[kEiThZ]

Doesn't have to be via owned property. Density equals to more riders which equals more revenue.

Development will certainly happen near stations. But VIA has no control over that. Also, development isn't usual a substantial driver of intercity travel demand.

 

[ec_traindriver]

Guess we're going to ignore how little aviation is subsidized in Canada. Or the billions being invested annually these days in transit....

Billions invested in transit will never be enough to solve the problems that have arisen in the last decades due to suburbanization. Road- and pollution-related fatalities are difficult to "monetize", in this sense, and one shouldn't overlook the fact that the lack of transit is a hindrance to social mobility. And yes, on this topic I'll always be defending a particular world-view.

The relationship between transportation and social mobility is stronger than that between mobility and several other factors, like crime, elementary-school test scores, or the percentage of two-parent families in a community. (Nathaniel Hendren)

The investment transit is receiving since the 2000s is just a fraction of the resources private and unsustainable mobility have sucked since the beginning of the car-era.

 

[ec_traindriver]

Development will certainly happen near stations. But VIA has no control over that. Also, development isn't usual a substantial driver of intercity travel demand.

Paradoxically, some of the JR (private) companies are actively pursuing this business model in anticipation of future transit scenarios. They're literally building new stations along their rail corridors, sometimes in the middle of nowhere, with provision for future development. Japan has a serious problem with its aging population, and different companies are coming up with many different ideas in order to secure their financial future.

It's a digression, I know.

 

[roger1818]

True, with current tech. But if we're going all in on hydrogen for long distance services (which we are), the marginal cost of hydrogen for less than optimal services will be way less just due to economies of scale. It will also be easier to implement, and cheaper on an incremental basis since the entire hydrogen ecosystem is being built anyways. Whether it is blue, green, or the weird extract hydrogen directly from hydrocarbons in the ground while leaving carbon in the ground, I don't care. It is that the government has decided to throw billions into the tech, and to carve out a Canadian niche in the tech. If it is a dead end we will know far before the electrification question for the corridor comes up. Do we think the corridor will be able to resist the easiest option when it comes along when the Chargers are ready to go even if CAT is more efficient from an energy use perspective? I really doubt it.

What you are saying makes sense when talking about CN and CP, since the vast majority of the miles travelled are in regions that the installation of catenary doesn't make sense and the massive weight of each train and long distances traveled makes batteries impractical.

However, for Metrolinx, if they can save about 50% in energy costs by not having to convert it to hydrogen and back. Directly feeding the electricity to the train (be it via catenary or other method) makes more economic sense on the main lines and batteries could be used on the less used branches.

VIA is somewhere in the middle. For their their regional and long distance trains, hydrogen would be a better option, but (according to their 2017 Corporate Plan), less than half (33 of their 73) of their locomotives are used on those routes. The remaining 40 (19 F40s and 21 P32s) are assigned to the Corridor, and that number stands to grow with HFR. For the Corridor, some combination of direct feed and batteries makes more economic sense.

 

[crs1026]

^I wonder what constraints will be placed on VIA to use its HFR line for revenue other than people.

At one point Amtrak attempted, but abandoned, a package delivery service. Lots of mail/express trains on HSRish lines elsewhere.

I’m not saying such a service would be viable here, and it’s a distraction from getting HFR off the ground......but.... it’s a good test of whether VIA is being given a mandate to generate all possible revenue from the line, as a true bottom-line focused business should.

I would predict there would be screams if this happened, and the freight railways would be leading the protest. Probably airlines too.

While we pretend that Canada is a country of free markets, Canada’s standard model for privatised infrastructure is to packaged as a disguised semi- monopoly with a pair of competing private firms, with a cumbersome overbuilt regulatory process that is a meal ticket for lawyers. Watch as startup airlines or telco’s try to enter the market, and listen to the objections - impossible !

If we have a freight railway system that has been polished to perfection, with a commendable modal share and volume higher than the European Union..... then we have reached the point where the market will support new competitors, just as we are allowing new telco’s to challenge Rogers and Bell. And new startup airlines.

HFR will be built to a standard that precludes grain trains or even double stacks, but maybe it can partner with parcel services.....or establish a border connection that would bring some commodity brought there by a competing US railway. But will this be allowed?

Like I said, this thought is not likely to go anywhere... but just trying to put the mandate on paper and in law would be a good test of CN and CP’s true colours, and of government’s commitment to placing infrastructure in the hands of a competitive free market.

- Paul

 

[ec_traindriver]

Also, and I beg you to pardon my ignorance... but what exactly would be CP and CN's business case against leasing, or transferring, the ROW to a publicly-subsidized agency? From a commercial and practical point of view, nothing would change except the fact that engineers would have to call a "foreign" RTC. Also, the "loss" of ROW property would mean reducing operative costs, and everybody knows that infrastructure costs are among the biggest red figures in the bill at the end of the year.

According to a RAC report, in 2018, Canada's railways spent a combined 2.38 billion CA$ for the maintenance of its 49 422 km network (~ 48 160 CA$/km).
To make a comparison, the AAR estimated, for the same year, an expenditure of roughly 29 billion CA$ for the maintenance of the 225 000 km American network (~ 129 000 CA$/km), while Rete Ferroviaria Italiana (RFI), subsidiary of the state-owned holding company Ferrovie dello Stato (FS), spent 6.5 billion CA$ for the maintenance of the 16 781 km railway network (~ 387 400 CA$/km). (The Italian figures shouldn't be surprising, considering that more than 70% of the network is electrified and 45% of it is double-track.)

Now, taking into account a core-network of roughly 2 103 km of Corridor lines, we could make three expenditure hypothesis: the first, with RAC costs/km, would see an annual government subsidy of 101.3 million CA$/year; the second, with ARR costs/km, would see an annual government subsidy of 271.3 million CA$/year; and the third, with the Italian ones, a subsidy of 814.7 million CA$/year.

Except for the Italian-scenario subsidy, which is clearly unrealistic considering the aforementioned characteristics of the Italian railway network, a publicly-owned Corridor infrastructure wouldn't really shake the economic stability of the government.

 

[roger1818]

The point is for those long distance trains the infrastructure which would be used to support hydrogen for marginal uses where you wouldn't build a dedicated ecosystem will already exist, so they'll be able to leverage existing infrastructure instead of building a dedicated one. Can't really look at the corridor in isolation, in the case of the energy system. Sure, hydrogen might be a bust. But it might also upend the entire mobile end user of energy market where batteries won't work universally. and we can't translate our extreme skepticism that accompanied efforts to force Metrolinx to go to Tier 4 engines along with belief that hydrogen is just a delaying tactic to electrification, to blind us to the possibility that when we are ready, an entirely new tech is available to us.

Sure they could leverage the infrastructure, but if the energy costs twice as much, it might be worth the added infrastructure costs to save on operating costs.

 

[lenaitch]

^I wonder what constraints will be placed on VIA to use its HFR line for revenue other than people.

At one point Amtrak attempted, but abandoned, a package delivery service. Lots of mail/express trains on HSRish lines elsewhere.

I’m not saying such a service would be viable here, and it’s a distraction from getting HFR off the ground......but.... it’s a good test of whether VIA is being given a mandate to generate all possible revenue from the line, as a true bottom-line focused business should.

I would predict there would be screams if this happened, and the freight railways would be leading the protest. Probably airlines too.

While we pretend that Canada is a country of free markets, Canada’s standard model for privatised infrastructure is to packaged as a disguised semi- monopoly with a pair of competing private firms, with a cumbersome overbuilt regulatory process that is a meal ticket for lawyers. Watch as startup airlines or telco’s try to enter the market, and listen to the objections - impossible !

If we have a freight railway system that has been polished to perfection, with a commendable modal share and volume higher than the European Union..... then we have reached the point where the market will support new competitors, just as we are allowing new telco’s to challenge Rogers and Bell. And new startup airlines.

HFR will be built to a standard that precludes grain trains or even double stacks, but maybe it can partner with parcel services.....or establish a border connection that would bring some commodity brought there by a competing US railway. But will this be allowed?

Like I said, this thought is not likely to go anywhere... but just trying to put the mandate on paper and in law would be a good test of CN and CP’s true colours, and of government’s commitment to placing infrastructure in the hands of a competitive free market.

- Paul

Interesting concept. VIA does not have enabling legislation defining its mandate; it is what the government says it is, but I agree that I don't see it going anywhere. If for no other reason than the requirement for different rolling stock and handling and marshalling requirements. I can't see the mainline carriers caring much one way or the other since I am not aware that they are not in that game anyway, that I am aware of.

 

[kEiThZ]

Paradoxically, some of the JR (private) companies are actively pursuing this business model in anticipation of future transit scenarios. They're literally building new stations along their rail corridors, sometimes in the middle of nowhere, with provision for future development.

VIA isn't Japan Rail. And Canada isn't Japan. We could never afford to do what the Japanese did. Nor would Canadians ever tolerate this kind of bailout:

Japanese National Railway Settlement Corporation - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Do you have any ideas that would actually work in Canada? Or are you just here to wish we were Europe or Asia, because there's plenty of pages of that line is discussion rehashed every year.

 

[ec_traindriver]

VIA isn't Japan Rail. And Canada isn't Japan. [...omissis...] Or are you just here to wish we were Europe or Asia, because there's plenty of pages of that line is discussion rehashed every year.

I mean, English is not my first language, but I've clearly stated that was a digression. Haven't I?

 

[kEiThZ]

^I wonder what constraints will be placed on VIA to use its HFR line for revenue other than people.

At one point Amtrak attempted, but abandoned, a package delivery service. Lots of mail/express trains on HSRish lines elsewhere.

Those mail trains are being dropped elsewhere though. I don't think CN and CP would have an issue at all. They aren't in the parcel business. I just don't think there's a business case to have to drop off your parcels to a rail depot just to ship them a few hundred kms. I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Would love to see a few Canada Post trains on there. But for the price of that rolling stock, Canada Post could buy lots of electric semis and run them periodically through the day with no intermodal complexity to deal with.

 

[kEiThZ]

I mean, English is not my first language, but I've clearly stated that was a digression. Haven't I?

Your digressions aren't really adding as much to the discussions as you think. That is what I was implying.

We're concerned with what can be accomplished in Canada in our lifetimes. Not what can be theoretically accomplished studying a foreign model after we're dead.

 

[roger1818]

Well, then if the Canadian railway system is so effective, why bothering with passenger transportation at all? Ditch all long-distance trains, just pump more billions in the highway system, or fatten up airlines even more. Things would come out just as fine, right?

The Canadian system is great for freight, but not so good for passengers, while in Europe it is exactly the opposite. In Europe over 4 times as much freight is transported by truck than it is by train. In the USA (I assume Canada is similar) it is only about 1.3 times. The thing is while Canada's rail system is broken for passengers, Europe's rail system is broken for freight. Replacing one broken system with a different broken system is not a good solution.

BTW, one should not start talking about "world views", because in the capitalist nation you share a border with host railroads like BNSF treat Amtrak long-distance trains far better than the self-serving private corporations that delay train departures, say, from Vancouver by some 2 hours because they needed the mainline to get together their monsters-on-rails (#118).

Why does Amtrak manage to do so, and VIA gets constantly bullied? And does the answer necessarily require the so-called HFR treatment?

One has to understand the history of how Amtrak and VIA were formed. Amtrak was formed because the freight railways were begging the US government to let them get out of the responsibility to transport passengers, so the government agreed to take over that responsibility (in the form of Amtrak), if, in return, the railways would be required to give Amtrak priority on their rails.

VIA was formed because CN (a crown corporation at the time) split their passenger and freight operations and formed VIA Rail. Since both were crown corporations, there was no need for a requirement of priority. VIA then went to CP and asked to take over their passenger rail services. Presumably since the request came from VIA, not CP, VIA was in a position of weakness and they weren't able to negotiate priority access. Later when CN was privatized, since priority access for VIA was never a thing in Canada, it was not made a requirement.

While theoretically it would be possible to legislate priority access for VIA now, it would be a very dangerous thing to do politically as CN and CP would apply significant political pressure to prevent it from happening.

 

[crs1026]

Also, and I beg you to pardon my ignorance... but what exactly would be CP and CN's business case against leasing, or transferring, the ROW to a publicly-subsidized agency? From a commercial and practical point of view, nothing would change except the fact that engineers would have to call a "foreign" RTC. Also, the "loss" of ROW property would mean reducing operative costs, and everybody knows that infrastructure costs are among the biggest red figures in the bill at the end of the year.

Part of this is intra-railway culture, and part of it is the reality of Canadian politics.

In theory, CN or CP could contract out their lines, paying some combination of flat fee and/or per use payment. Whether the line owner is a private firm or a public entity is theoretically irrelevant, so long as the railways can run when they want as reliably as they want at a price no greater than what they would pay by themselves.

However, North American railroads operate in a win-lose mentality. So, even if well served themselves, they would object if that same corridor was handling their competitors’ movements, simply because they feel enabled to use any and all available levers to gain advantage. It’s the equivalent to Pepsi refusing to pay road taxes once they see a Coke truck on the highway.

There is a legitimate perception that a publicly owned entity will not be as innovative or responsive as a business that can control itself. North American railroads are control freaks, so that concern runs deep. But there is no reason why a third party RTC allocating track and time and moving competing trains fairly would materially harm their operations.

As I was trying to illustrate with my package freight comments, the Canadian approach to public infrastructure is only superficially to relinquish it to the private sector. Governments have balked at going all the way - the Ontario electricty sector is a good example. There are always public policy considerations -such as where to build a line, whether to route through towns or around them, etc - which belong in the hands of elected people and not investors.

Canadian Auditors General have inspected past transactions where CN and CP performed work for government around passenger rail, and found very loose accountability and questionable pricing. A lot of the arguments put forward for the status quo are simply aimed at preserving a cozy arrangement. While private investors deserve to be made whole for the impacts of public policy, the Canadian regulatory environment is very loose and gives CN and CP the upper hand. If a more level playing field were achieved, these problems wouldbbe more easily solved.

- Paul

 

[Darwinkgo]

Sure they could leverage the infrastructure, but if the energy costs twice as much, it might be worth the added infrastructure costs to save on operating costs.

Catenary is pretty expensive if you have to justify the cost on the efficiency delta alone. Electricity is already pretty cheap compared to diesel.