[crs1026]

Sure they are plenty of trips. But those trips aren't going away. People are pretending that we're shutting down Lakeshore. That's not in any of the documents we've seen. So really the discussion is about the marginal gain or loss arising from changes in services. And there's no way those million people can come close to the market potential of the big metros.

I completely agree - the million people along the way should not distract us from building the “virtual airport” between the big three. But I disagree that Ottawa’s assurance that “everything will turn out ok, trust us” is sufficient. There is a proven reality about how governments and bureaucracies behave that needs to be factored in. There is an obligation to explain how a proper service (which this particular route can justify) will be delivered and its marketability conserved and grown. Trust requires verification. The business case should be divulged - and if the intent is bad news, let that stand for debate.

I agree to a point. But this is broader question of public policy and state interference in market making. Is it a discussion we should have? Absolutely. Is it a discussion we will have? Definitely not. And so then we do hold all further passenger rail investment in the Corridor hostage to our immaturity. I think that's probably a bad idea. This is a situation where we should not let perfect be the enemy of good.

This policy doesn’t need to be a polarised, laissez-faire-vs-nationalise-the-entire-rail-network ideological choice. There is a lack of interest (courage?) to make some reasonable and pragmatic adjustments, perhaps on this corridor, as a somewhat “without prejudice” or compromise basis.

It baffles me how we allow CN and CP to pursue their interests knowing that there is likely enough spare capacity (in perpetuity, possibly, or at least for a couple of generations) on those two routes for regional service….if nothing else, why would they not see an opportunity in this? Why would we not find a way to extract that capacity with some defensible, publicly understood formula to make the railways whole, recognising that we are compensating for capacity that they can’t use and not for capacity that they are earning anything from?

At a minimum, I would like to see the investments made to date in CN’s line be recognized as a public asset and not a gift to CN. (There may be evidence that Ml may have taken a similar position with CN around past investments on the Georgetown GO line). I would argue that by virtue of those investments, Ottawa has bought in as a partner as opposed to being purely a tenant. Possibly, as freight volume grows, a modest further investment would maintain enough capacity to serve both needs.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

It baffles me how we allow CN and CP to pursue their interests knowing that there is likely enough spare capacity (in perpetuity, possibly, or at least for a couple of generations) on those two routes for regional service….

Doesn't surprise me in the least. The freight rail cos are national industrial champions. I get that a lot of the public and even a lot of us railfans might not always see it that away. But they are highly successful companies that do something even the Europeans can't: move a lot of goods profitably and efficiently. There will always be a reluctance from the government to mess with that. And fixating on what would essentially require an institutional culture change is probably to our detriment. Especially if we want something built in our lifetimes. Personally, I'd rather get shovels in the ground than litigate this for another two decades. If it costs a bit more to build another line (and there's no certainty that's actually true), so be it. Time saved has a certain value to us all too.

At a minimum, I would like to see the investments made to date in CN’s line be recognized as a public asset and not a gift to CN.

I think you are missing the implications here. There's massive sovereign risk if the government can just come in and expropriate your assets without fair compensation, by citing previously contracted investment. The implications for an action like this go well beyond the railways. And I wouldn't even bet on something like that surviving a constitutional challenge.

Ultimately, if we really want to work with CN we should recognize their business interests and cut them a cheque. And to the government's credit, the open process of HFR design actually allows bidders to do this. There's actually nothing stopping CN or CP joining one of the consortiums and proposing co-production, if they think there's opportunity.

 

[crs1026]

Doesn't surprise me in the least. The freight rail cos are national industrial champions. I get that a lot of the public and even a lot of us railfans might not always see it that away. But they are highly successful companies that do something even the Europeans can't: move a lot of goods profitably and efficiently. There will always be a reluctance from the government to mess with that. And fixating on what would essentially require an institutional culture change is probably to our detriment. Especially if we want something built in our lifetimes. Personally, I'd rather get shovels in the ground than litigate this for another two decades. If it costs a bit more to build another line (and there's no certainty that's actually true), so be it. Time saved has a certain value to us all too.

Fair enough, but I'd say that the railways are not just industrial champions but also expert at extracting more than their deserved return from the situation, and Ottawa seems afraid to challenge that extreme even where the problem is self evident. Kind of the MLSE of Canadian transportation, to put it in this morning's terms.

What I'm suggesting is fairly modest in boat-rocking terms. The railways and their investors make it sound like the boat will capsize. The railway industry is not that tippy a canoe, and I'm not arguing for that amount of rocking. I'm not sure we should rely on their advocacy as gospel. We do have negotiating levers. We can drive a harder bargain without the railways playing rough.

I think you are missing the implications here. There's massive sovereign risk if the government can just come in and expropriate your assets without fair compensation, by citing previously contracted investment. The implications for an action like this go well beyond the railways. And I wouldn't even bet on something like that surviving a constitutional challenge.

Ultimately, if we really want to work with CN we should recognize their business interests and cut them a cheque. And to the government's credit, the open process of HFR design actually allows bidders to do this. There's actually nothing stopping CN or CP joining one of the consortiums and proposing co-production, if they think there's opportunity.

Perhaps I'm crying about spilt milk, but no reason why separate accounting of public and private investment in a railway line can't be applied going forward. Substantial effort, perhaps, but it would draw a more reasonable line. Is an imposed P3 equivalent to expropriation? I'm not sure, but I'm eager to say it is not.

Ironically, it's arguably a good thing that the VIA Fast project fell apart - if the proposed CN track expansion had been built on budget as planned, there might never have been the sober afterthought or the sense that we need to find another path, which led to VIA developing the HFR pitch. We would have been left with an upgraded Lakeshore line (which might or might not be all that much better than what we have) and a government that could rest on its oars and point to the project as sufficient.

I don't recall CN ever saying anything remotely remorseful about their management of that overspend, and the A-G cut them a lot of slack when it investigated the project. If that project had been properly contracted, CN would be eating the overspend and/or applying to a standard construction claims process to justify the outcome. There are other examples, but I think the problem is self-evident. Correcting an imbalance that allows unjust enrichment is not anti-private interests.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

Cause we are, a bit. Freight traffic is much higher than the 90s.

But is it higher now, that it was in 2019?

 

[cplchanb]

either way CN and CP has Via by the balls since the latter is technically a customer of them. Only federal legislation can force them to give them better priority,
but we all know that the feds are either too lazy, incompetent or in bed with CP/N to actually strongarm the necessary regulations.

 

[kEiThZ]

either way CN and CP has Via by the balls since the latter is technically a customer of them. Only federal legislation can force them to give them better priority,
but we all know that the feds are either too lazy, incompetent or in bed with CP/N to actually strongarm the necessary regulations.

Honestly, this fixation on the freight cos and exacting concessions needs to stop. It does nothing to advance passenger rail in Canada. At what point will people understand that decades of whining about the freight cos has done nothing and will do nothing. And if you can't get a Liberal government held up by the NDP to regulate the freight cos, I wouldn't hold out for substantial change.

GO/Metrolinx figured out and worked on buying up infrastructure. They realized they needed to own it and went out and did that. It's also a lot easier for governments to agree to spend money than it is to get them to undertake sweeping legislation on a sector that is broadly critical to the economy and doing well. VIA, Metrolinx and ARTM need to work on and figure out an exclusively passenger rail network for the Corridor. Make worrying about conflict with freight moot.

 

[cplchanb]

Honestly, this fixation on the freight cos and exacting concessions needs to stop. It does nothing to advance passenger rail in Canada. At what point will people understand that decades of whining about the freight cos has done nothing and will do nothing. And if you can't get a Liberal government held up by the NDP to regulate the freight cos, I wouldn't hold out for substantial change.

GO/Metrolinx figured out and worked on buying up infrastructure. They realized they needed to own it and went out and did that. It's also a lot easier for governments to agree to spend money than it is to get them to undertake sweeping legislation on a sector that is broadly critical to the economy and doing well. VIA, Metrolinx and ARTM need to work on and figure out an exclusively passenger rail network for the Corridor. Make worrying about conflict with freight moot.

Likely will never happen since the bean counters will always find leasing out track time from CP/N to be the more cost effective option. lets see how the HFR ROW will turn out. maybe that would be a blueprint for the future, but its something that my grandchildren MIGHT enjoy.

 

[nfitz]

Likely will never happen since the bean counters will always find leasing out track time from CP/N to be the more cost effective option. lets see how the HFR ROW will turn out. maybe that would be a blueprint for the future, but its something that my grandchildren MIGHT enjoy.

There's still a lot of shared ROW with freight (CP) on the HFR alignment between Toronto and Montreal.

I'm not sure what the solution is there - though CP would have a price to prioritize VIA - perhaps they just plan to pay more (more likely that's a left-hand and right-hand thing).

A lot of the current freight traffic is petroleum. I have to think that will drop quickly as oil use drops - the current pipelines are surely cheaper to use.

 

[MisterF]

There's still a lot of shared ROW with freight (CP) on the HFR alignment between Toronto and Montreal.

Not really. There's some in Montreal, potentially some in Toronto depending on the route, and the section between Perth and Smiths Falls. The rest would be controlled by whoever is running passenger trains. Hopefully something can be done to ensure that those small sections don't cause delays, which is plausible considering CP benefits from HFR.

 

[crs1026]

Honestly, this fixation on the freight cos and exacting concessions needs to stop. It does nothing to advance passenger rail in Canada. At what point will people understand that decades of whining about the freight cos has done nothing and will do nothing. And if you can't get a Liberal government held up by the NDP to regulate the freight cos, I wouldn't hold out for substantial change.

GO/Metrolinx figured out and worked on buying up infrastructure. They realized they needed to own it and went out and did that. It's also a lot easier for governments to agree to spend money than it is to get them to undertake sweeping legislation on a sector that is broadly critical to the economy and doing well. VIA, Metrolinx and ARTM need to work on and figure out an exclusively passenger rail network for the Corridor. Make worrying about conflict with freight moot.

ML was in the happy position where they wanted to buy certain assets and the railways wanted to sell them. One will note that if the railways saw an asset as having continuing value, they declined to sell. Hence the GO network is a tenant in some places.

I don’t see this as “whining”, any more than I see criticising the down sides of any other government policy to be whining. At some point, of course, the line gets built and the criticism (even if valid) becomes irrelevant -it is what it is, one has to suck it up and move on. I’m not holding my breath…. just pointing out that the railways’s success is happening on the backs of other things.

I do think Ottawa has options beyond just laying down and taking it. Maybe one day.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

Not really. There's some in Montreal, potentially some in Toronto depending on the route, and the section between Perth and Smiths Falls. The rest would be controlled by whoever is running passenger trains. Hopefully something can be done to ensure that those small sections don't cause delays, which is plausible considering CP benefits from HFR.

I reckoned it was about 50% of the route - though I haven't measured it.

Even more as if on some maps they can bypass Ottawa by staying on CP.

 

[MisterF]

I reckoned it was about 50% of the route - though I haven't measured it.

Even more as if on some maps they can bypass Ottawa by staying on CP.

Other than the sections I mentioned, none of the route will be controlled by CP, including the rebuilt Havelock sub. That's something like 90% of the route that they won't control.

Bypassing Ottawa (the second busiest Via Rail station) is and always has been a terrible idea. There's a reason that the Alstom proposal doesn't include it.

 

[ssiguy2]

Megabus has just stated that it is going double the number of services between London to Toronto with 18 departures per day from London. There are also 2 other major carriers between the 2 cities.

Yet more passengers VIA is not going to get due to it's infrequent and slow service between the 2 cities. If VIA doesn't provide quality service then others will fill the gap.

 

[robmausser]

Honestly, this fixation on the freight cos and exacting concessions needs to stop. It does nothing to advance passenger rail in Canada. At what point will people understand that decades of whining about the freight cos has done nothing and will do nothing. And if you can't get a Liberal government held up by the NDP to regulate the freight cos, I wouldn't hold out for substantial change.

GO/Metrolinx figured out and worked on buying up infrastructure. They realized they needed to own it and went out and did that. It's also a lot easier for governments to agree to spend money than it is to get them to undertake sweeping legislation on a sector that is broadly critical to the economy and doing well. VIA, Metrolinx and ARTM need to work on and figure out an exclusively passenger rail network for the Corridor. Make worrying about conflict with freight moot.

Its not that simple. GO was created out of a unique opportunity where CN wanted to leave downtown Toronto. It was just pure luck.

Our entire economy is dependent on freight in Canada. So much so that we can predict economic outcomes from it.

Megabus has just stated that it is going double the number of services between London to Toronto with 18 departures per day from London. There are also 2 other major carriers between the 2 cities.

Yet more passengers VIA is not going to get due to it's infrequent and slow service between the 2 cities. If VIA doesn't provide quality service then others will fill the gap.

The issue is that GEXR/CN track between London and Kitchener. Unless that gets fixed, nothing will change.

VIA and GO need to buy it up and replace it with Class 6 rail.

The advantage of bypassing traffic is diminished when the track has a top speed of 60kmh.

 

[Bordercollie]

Its not that simple. GO was created out of a unique opportunity where CN wanted to leave downtown Toronto. It was just pure luck.

Our entire economy is dependent on freight in Canada. So much so that we can predict economic outcomes from it.


The issue is that GEXR/CN track between London and Kitchener. Unless that gets fixed, nothing will change.

VIA and GO need to buy it up and replace it with Class 6 rail.

The advantage of bypassing traffic is diminished when the track has a top speed of 60kmh.

There is probably work going on for the province to buy that corridor.