[crs1026]

I would tend to think of it more like extended commuter rail, that Thunder Bay is the hub of so much in its area. Many need to go there for Health Care, but there's also all the university students at Lakehead, and many other like services both for those who may commute daily, but also for those who simply want to come home on weekends, or for holidays.

Of course, the argument goes, virtually all, certainly 99.5% of all persons using T-Bay as a hub will have a car, if not two in their household as that's pretty much necessary.

I think we sometimes dwell too much on the supposed isolation of Northwestern Ontario, as if it's wilderness that has no penetrability. In terms of linkages between where people actually live, there are now as useable road and air linkages between all of the Nipigon, Thunder Bay, and Winnipeg axix as between, say, Winnipeg, Regina, and Saskatoon. Some of the roads to the outlying places may be unimproved, or weather dependent.... but is that really any more of a barrier as, say, getting to Winnipeg from Flin Flon or Lloydminster?

I would be curious whether the proportion of students attending Lakehead U who have a car available in T Bay is greater than the number who attend say U of Winnipeg.... or even Trent U or UWO. We may be assuming a need that is already met.

It's entirely compelling to me that we look to rail to link many more communities, and if the service were there I'm sure people would gravitate to it. The issue is - it would have to be an entire network build, and that goes beyond the CP main line as a backbone. It encompasses stations and first/last mile needs and existing practices for these..

And built form and amenities in those communities: I'm sure if i flew into Dryden on business, there would be ready access to rental cars or taxi's to get me around to my motel or whatever office or business I might need to visit. But if we put back a train station - it's off what has become the beaten track. Will the car rental agency serve the train station the way it is accustomed to serving the airport, for instance?

If the Canadian ran through T Bay, I'm sure it would board and let off plenty of local riders there.... as it currently does in Hornepayne and Sioux Lookoout. But (like the Peterborough discussion) that is conflating an incremental ridership on a service that has its own sustainability proposition. Whether we are ready to alter our built form in all these places to have a standalone rail network I'm not so sure.

- Paul

 

[DSC]

In France they’ve canceled all flights where a train can go. Maybe that’s something Ontario should follow.

France's ban on short-haul domestic flights comes into force today (23 May 2022). Under a government decree, any journeys that are possible in less than two-and-a-half hours by train cannot be taken as a flight - connecting flights are unaffected by the new law. See: https://www.euronews.com/green/2022...know-from-a-week-of-green-transport-proposals.

 

[lenaitch]

I think we sometimes dwell too much on the supposed isolation of Northwestern Ontario, as if it's wilderness that has no penetrability. In terms of linkages between where people actually live, there are now as useable road and air linkages between all of the Nipigon, Thunder Bay, and Winnipeg axix as between, say, Winnipeg, Regina, and Saskatoon. Some of the roads to the outlying places may be unimproved, or weather dependent.... but is that really any more of a barrier as, say, getting to Winnipeg from Flin Flon or Lloydminster?

I would be curious whether the proportion of students attending Lakehead U who have a car available in T Bay is greater than the number who attend say U of Winnipeg.... or even Trent U or UWO. We may be assuming a need that is already met.

It's entirely compelling to me that we look to rail to link many more communities, and if the service were there I'm sure people would gravitate to it. The issue is - it would have to be an entire network build, and that goes beyond the CP main line as a backbone. It encompasses stations and first/last mile needs and existing practices for these..

And built form and amenities in those communities: I'm sure if i flew into Dryden on business, there would be ready access to rental cars or taxi's to get me around to my motel or whatever office or business I might need to visit. But if we put back a train station - it's off what has become the beaten track. Will the car rental agency serve the train station the way it is accustomed to serving the airport, for instance?

If the Canadian ran through T Bay, I'm sure it would board and let off plenty of local riders there.... as it currently does in Hornepayne and Sioux Lookoout. But (like the Peterborough discussion) that is conflating an incremental ridership on a service that has its own sustainability proposition. Whether we are ready to alter our built form in all these places to have a standalone rail network I'm not so sure.

- Paul

In Dryden it's actually the other way around; the airport is out of town by about 8km, a train station would be right in town. I'm sure if there were regular scheduled service into the airport connecting other major centres, local businesses would rise to serve them.

The problem with thinking about anything approaching commuter-type service, or anything beyond what might piggyback on a re-routed Canadian is the sheer lack of density. The only community anywhere near Thunder Bay with a population over 5,000 is Dryden, at about 7700 and 350km away. In between, there is a lot of nothing. It's not like most of the rural south where there scattered village, farms, etc. outside of town. No doubt people might want to avail themselves of the train for shopping, medical, etc. reasons but, given the low population density of the surrounding area, how many could that be. Any service, regardless of frequency, would have to be heavily subsidized. When I lived in the northwest, I would trek into the big city (either TBay or Winnipeg) maybe twice a year.

The concept of Northwestern Ontario being isolated is a southern Ontario perspective. When you live in the northwest, southern Ontario is 'down east' and there is very little linkage to it in the day-to-day life of most people. One advantage is just about every community of any size is on either CN or CP trackage.

 

[MisterF]

@MisterF seems to have lost sight of why I brought this line up in the first place.

My point was not to suggest that restoring a line to Owen Sound would be practical, or desirable.

My point was to point out that the Peterborough line is so decrepit that it barely exists - and therefore the cost of its restoration approaches the same magnitude as other hypothetical rebuilds.

If you're using the term order of magnitude literally that doesn't really say much. Something being 9x more expensive is still a vastly different scale. But even then I have my doubts about that argument. The route to Owen Sound through Fergus, Palmerston, etc. is far from intact - in many spots the ROW is interrupted by homes, businesses, and farm fields. All the problems I mentioned in my other post apply just as much to this route. Plus it's longer, roughly double the length, and leads to a town with 1/4 the population. All that could easily create an order of magnitude difference.

The state of the Havelock sub isn't all that relevant to my point. What matters is that it can be rebuilt much more easily than a line with all the constraints I just talked about. Again, that's why Via Rail chose it.

The Peterborough rebuild makes eminent sense in terms of an addition to an intercity line linking T-O-M that could carry millions of passengers per year and greatly impact the cost of roadbuilding and airport upgrades between these metro cities. Serving local passengers at Peterborough is gravy to that plan, which is sustainable even if the trains all zoomed through Peterborough without stopping.

GO trains to Peterborough are an affordable and scalable extension to the T-O-M plan - however one would have difficulty justifying the cost of the rebuild considering only GO ridership on a standalone basis.

There are, in fact, 11-12 GO buses a day in each direction between Peterborough and Oshawa GO, 7 days a week.

- Paul

I'm not arguing against any of this.

 

[crs1026]

The state of the Havelock sub isn't all that relevant to my point. What matters is that it can be rebuilt much more easily than a line with all the constraints I just talked about. Again, that's why Via Rail chose it.

Well, this is where we disagree. The Bill of Materials for the Peterborough rebuild will include:
- all new rail
- all new crossties, fasteners and associated hardware
- all new signalling
- all new crossing components
- all new bridge spans and girders
- potentially new culverts and bridge abutments
- all new subgrade and track level granular material

In effect, it is laying a new railway on a green field.

The only money saved is in land acquisition and perhaps civil work related to the embankments and cuts….. and, as noted, for any of the ghost railways out there, most of that is still in place, or at worst it’s recoverable.

If you consider what it cost for GO to replace the trackage from Bradford to Allandale, or Stouffville to Lincolnville, or (potentially)
Guelph to Galt…. And now extrapolate all the way from Don to Peterborough….. for how many riders?

I’m pushing back on the premise that one can look at a dying railway and say, oh the rails are still there, let’s put a passenger train on that line…. In reality, it’s pretty close to designing a new line from scratch. Just as many zeroes in the cost equation.

- Paul

 

[MisterF]

Well, this is where we disagree. The Bill of Materials for the Peterborough rebuild will include:
- all new rail
- all new crossties, fasteners and associated hardware
- all new signalling
- all new crossing components
- all new bridge spans and girders
- potentially new culverts and bridge abutments
- all new subgrade and track level granular material

In effect, it is laying a new railway on a green field.

The only money saved is in land acquisition and perhaps civil work related to the embankments and cuts….. and, as noted, for any of the ghost railways out there, most of that is still in place, or at worst it’s recoverable.

If you consider what it cost for GO to replace the trackage from Bradford to Allandale, or Stouffville to Lincolnville, or (potentially)
Guelph to Galt…. And now extrapolate all the way from Don to Peterborough….. for how many riders?

Significantly more than would be generated from Owen Sound. I think you're making too little of recovering the lost ROW sections on that line. As I said, there are homes, businesses and farm fields on the missing sections. They run through the middle of many towns along the route, which have become accustomed to a lack of trains. There would be significant extra costs for trying to expropriate people's homes and livelihoods and dealing the the inevitable public blowback. Plus double the distance of new track. It would be all the costs of rebuilding the Havelock sub and a lot more on top. Doubtful that it would be the same number of zeros.

I’m pushing back on the premise that one can look at a dying railway and say, oh the rails are still there, let’s put a passenger train on that line…. In reality, it’s pretty close to designing a new line from scratch. Just as many zeroes in the cost equation.

- Paul

I never argued that in the fist place so the premise you're pushing back on is a straw man. We're talking about hypothetical projects here.

 

[Urban Sky]

Significantly more than would be generated from Owen Sound. I think you're making too little of recovering the lost ROW sections on that line. As I said, there are homes, businesses and farm fields on the missing sections. They run through the middle of many towns along the route, which have become accustomed to a lack of trains. There would be significant extra costs for trying to expropriate people's homes and livelihoods and dealing the the inevitable public blowback. Plus double the distance of new track. It would be all the costs of rebuilding the Havelock sub and a lot more on top. Doubtful that it would be the same number of zeros.

Indeed, the Havelock Sub is very effient at avoiding any population centers between Peterborough and the GTHA - which is also why it would be such a terrible route for GO…

 

[nfitz]

Indeed, the Havelock Sub is very effient at avoiding any population centers between Peterborough and the GTHA - which is also why it would be such a terrible route for GO…

If GO wants to provide service that way (presumably up the Don Branch), would probably be best to stay on the Belleville sub to Whitby - much denser population.

 

[Bordercollie]

In France they’ve canceled all flights where a train can go. Maybe that’s something Ontario should follow.

What are you smoking? So Toronto to Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec city, London, Windsor, north Bay, Sudbury, Winnipeg would all loose flight in favor of 4-6 hour train trips.

So today you can fly from Billy bishop to Quebec city in about 90min. And make it back before dinner if you fly. Your answer is to force people to take the train? Even Windsor is a 4.5 hour train ride so if you catch the 6am train you can be in Windsor by 11 and the last train leaves at 5pm so you have 5 hours to conduct business and be home at like 10pm. Meanwhile if you fly you could be home by dinner. Or you could drive and be there whenever you want and be home by whenever.

Imagine you force people to take the train to Thunderbay instead of flying? That's like a 18 hour train ride one way. But flying is about 2 hours.
You do understand that Ontario is approximately double the size of the entire country of France? What you are proposing is just not feasible AT ALL.

 

[evandyk]

what France actually did is ban flights if the train takes less than 2.5 hours. Which from Toronto is London and Niagara Falls? Maybe Belleville or Kingston? Nowhere people actually fly to.

 

[crs1026]

France's policy makes eminent sense because France has spent huge amounts of money building high speed rail. If we did likewise, the same policy might make similar sense here.
It's a bit pointless however to compare what France can do in 2023 with what Canada might be able to do in say 2043, if we start building now..
Having said that, Pearson might already be able to make better use of its terminal and runway slots today if there were no flights to Kingston or London.
And in a decade?.....maybe adding Ottawa and Windsor to that list would be very attractive. We have some work to do first.

- Paul

 

[DSC]

France's policy makes eminent sense because France has spent huge amounts of money building high speed rail. If we did likewise, the same policy might make similar sense here.
It's a bit pointless however to compare what France can do in 2023 with what Canada might be able to do in say 2043, if we start building now..
Having said that, Pearson might already be able to make better use of its terminal and runway slots today if there were no flights to Kingston or London.
And in a decade?.....maybe adding Ottawa and Windsor to that list would be very attractive. We have some work to do first.

- Paul

Yes, it is totally pointless to compare the situation in France (most of Europe) with ours. As you note, France has a large network of fast trains and its population density is VASTLY different and distances here are much greater between population centres. IF there were fast frequent trains between Toronto and London (or even Windsor) I doubt many would chose to fly and I doubt that Kingston (which is reasonably well served by VIA has many air passengers flying to Toronto unless they are then connecting to other flights) If I read it right, the "French System" excludes connecting flights. (Though this is, I assume, flights that start at A, go to B and then go on to C.)

 

[crs1026]

I doubt that Kingston (which is reasonably well served by VIA has many air passengers flying to Toronto unless they are then connecting to other flights) If I read it right, the "French System" excludes connecting flights. (Though this is, I assume, flights that start at A, go to B and then go on to C.)

I had to look it up.... it seems that Kingston no longer has any flights to Pearson or Billy Bishop (I recall there being such a service in past years, but apparently it's gone). It does have a daily B190 flight to Hamilton.

Kingston also sees a Dash 8 flight to Montreal - an Air Creebec flight from Moosonee that makes an intermediate stop in Kingston.

London sees four Jazz flights a day to Pearson.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

If I read it right, the "French System" excludes connecting flights. (Though this is, I assume, flights that start at A, go to B and then go on to C.)

My (admitedly limited) understanding of the French “ban” is that it bans the sale of non-connecting tickets for flights where the TGV operates in less than two-and-a-half hours, whereas connecting tickets are still allowed. Given that the TGV has already all but eclipsed the demand for flights on such shorthaul routes, the ban will only affect a tiny fraction of air travel originating or terminating in France, which would make it a purely symbolic measure rather than being any meaningful contribution towards France’s climate targets…

 

[DSC]

My (admitedly limited) understanding of the French “ban” is that it bans the sale of non-connecting tickets for flights where the TGV operates in less than two-and-a-half hours, whereas connecting tickets are still allowed. Given that the TGV has already all but eclipsed the demand for flights on such shorthaul routes, the ban will only affect a tiny fraction of air travel originating or terminating in France, which would make it a purely symbolic measure rather than being any meaningful contribution towards France’s climate targets…

Yes, but symbols are important - here we are talking about it!