News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.4K     0 

Travel advisory
Nov 14, 2024: It has been confirmed that, following the freight train derailment, tracks will not be accessible in time for our trains to travel.

Consequently, we have had to cancel trains 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 37 and 39 between Montreal and Quebec City on November 14th. We are contacting affected passengers, who will receive a full refund and travel credit.

We do not anticipate any impacts on our operations of November 15th.
 
Travel advisory
Nov 14, 2024: It has been confirmed that, following the freight train derailment, tracks will not be accessible in time for our trains to travel.

Consequently, we have had to cancel trains 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 37 and 39 between Montreal and Quebec City on November 14th. We are contacting affected passengers, who will receive a full refund and travel credit.

We do not anticipate any impacts on our operations of November 15th.

This is the advantage of HSR/HFR on a separate route than the existing lines.

With HSR on the north side of the St.Lawerence between quebec and Montreal, this would read like

"Trains 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 37 and 39 will be diverted onto our dedicated railway tracks and instead stopping at stations Montreal, X X and Quebec City. For anyone going to infill stations, shuttles will be provided from the new station locations" Or something similar.
 
"Trains 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 37 and 39 will be diverted onto our dedicated railway tracks and instead stopping at stations Montreal, X X and Quebec City. For anyone going to infill stations, shuttles will be provided from the new station locations" Or something similar.
They could detour right now - but I wonder how long the run-time would take to go along the Trois-Rivieres sub.

I suppose in theory they could go out of Lucien l'Allier (if it was open) and take the St. Guillaume sub from Farnham to St. Hyacinthe, and then reverse out of the station to Quebec City. :)
 
They could detour right now - but I wonder how long the run-time would take to go along the Trois-Rivieres sub.
My rough estimate would be 8 hours and the need to arrange the move 8 days in advance and without any passengers on board.
I suppose in theory they could go out of Lucien l'Allier (if it was open) and take the St. Guillaume sub from Farnham to St. Hyacinthe, and then reverse out of the station to Quebec City. :)
Not even „in theory“:
IMG_7239.jpeg
 
My rough estimate would be 8 hours and the need to arrange the move 8 days in advance and without any passengers on board.

Not even „in theory“:
View attachment 612128
LOL! I didn't know that CPKC had abandoned that. Have they received approval? Normally they could do a similar move switching to the Rouses Point sub at Delson Junction, but the reverse motion onto the St-Hyacinthe sub would have brough them into the derailment area.

I guess the advance notice is how VIA does the various construction detours in Ontario and southwestern Ontario.

Perhaps with better funding, VIA could have contingencies in place to allow for quicker operation of such detours. Obviously cancellation is their only option then.
 
My rough estimate would be 8 hours and the need to arrange the move 8 days in advance and without any passengers on board.
Which is one of the reasons I think VIA should be sending Ocean along the North Shore route *now*, upgraded to reasonable running time to send divert trains the same way when needed, and at the same time get some time back by eliminating the reverse move at Sainte-Foy.
 
CBC did a report on Via's great performance
Disappointing to hear that while VIA's profits were up, it's operating costs were as well. Also that basically every rider is subsidised by the tax payers.

The video states, more than once, that VIA rail is a public service and therefore doesn't need to generate a profit. While that may be true, it's difficult to approach the private sector for funds for HFR/HSR with this kind of mentality.
"Invest your capital in this passenger rail project, and don't expect a return."

I would be curious to find out if this is the case for passenger rail in Japan and European countries.

If VIA rail chooses to go down the private public partnership route, and has to resort to constructing it's own tracks for HFR/HSR, don't expect "affordable" tickets once up and running. Investors will want a return.
 
CBC did a report on Via's great performance

I saw that too.
Our resident expert has continuously saying the Corridor and Canadian break even or make a profit. What costs are the ones that were not included?

Which is one of the reasons I think VIA should be sending Ocean along the North Shore route *now*, upgraded to reasonable running time to send divert trains the same way when needed, and at the same time get some time back by eliminating the reverse move at Sainte-Foy.

For that matter, they could have a few Corridor trains use it too.

Disappointing to hear that while VIA's profits were up, it's operating costs were as well. Also that basically every rider is subsidised by the tax payers.

The video states, more than once, that VIA rail is a public service and therefore doesn't need to generate a profit. While that may be true, it's difficult to approach the private sector for funds for HFR/HSR with this kind of mentality.
"Invest your capital in this passenger rail project, and don't expect a return."

I would be curious to find out if this is the case for passenger rail in Japan and European countries.

If VIA rail chooses to go down the private public partnership route, and has to resort to constructing it's own tracks for HFR/HSR, don't expect "affordable" tickets once up and running. Investors will want a return.

The key thing from it is something we really need to accept - no transportation is actually fully paid for by the users, including roads. So, instead of trying to only focus on routes that will make money, the focus should be on ensuring the most Canadians have adequate access to passenger rail service. So, a good example above is the North Shore service. Trois Riviere has a higher population than Kingston and we are still trying to figure out how to service it post Havelock Sub HxR.
 
Disappointing to hear that while VIA's profits were up, it's operating costs were as well. Also that basically every rider is subsidised by the tax payers.

The video states, more than once, that VIA rail is a public service and therefore doesn't need to generate a profit. While that may be true, it's difficult to approach the private sector for funds for HFR/HSR with this kind of mentality.
"Invest your capital in this passenger rail project, and don't expect a return."

I would be curious to find out if this is the case for passenger rail in Japan and European countries.

If VIA rail chooses to go down the private public partnership route, and has to resort to constructing its own tracks for HFR/HSR, don't expect "affordable" tickets once up and running. Investors will want a return.
VIA Rail isn’t just the Corridor. There are public service routes for which the government compensates VIA to operate them. It’s hard to compare VIA against operators in other countries - some of them own their tracks and can increase frequency on profitable route pairs to maximize revenue whereas VIA is throttled at places like Smiths Falls (CP) and Coteau (CN). VIA does have a commercial mandate from the government to minimize subsidy and have adopted stuff like dynamic pricing which causes people to complain on social media about how expensive it is to travel.

HSR, if built (yes I said if) won’t have to serve Jonquiere or St Mary’s or Matapedia and will have much better access to track time. Their business model isn’t comparable.

Edit - there was a question above re route profitability. Routes are profitable if their direct revenues exceed direct costs. Organizational profitability has to include costs which can’t be directly connected to specific routes - overhead.
 
LOL! I didn't know that CPKC had abandoned that. Have they received approval?
You don‘t need approval to cease operations and let a line fall into disarray. You just need to continue paying property taxes for any lands you own and tracks laid on them.
Normally they could do a similar move switching to the Rouses Point sub at Delson Junction, but the reverse motion onto the St-Hyacinthe sub would have brough them into the derailment area.
Not necessarily, but the speed restriction of 15 mph while reversing (IIRC) would have added a considerable delay.
I guess the advance notice is how VIA does the various construction detours in Ontario and southwestern Ontario.
Detouring via the York Sub or the Halton Sub is orders of magnitudes easier, as these CN lines see much more traffic (and thus inspections) and VIA already employes (ex-CN) LEs which are qualified on them.
Perhaps with better funding, VIA could have contingencies in place to allow for quicker operation of such detours. Obviously cancellation is their only option then.
Which is one of the reasons I think VIA should be sending Ocean along the North Shore route *now*, upgraded to reasonable running time to send divert trains the same way when needed, and at the same time get some time back by eliminating the reverse move at Sainte-Foy.
The governments already scramble to keep the Newcastle Subdivision (in NB) on life support and you seriously suggest upgrading a redundant 270 km long ROW (which, btw, goes through Taschereau Yard, so expect CN presenting you an eyewatering bill) just in case VIA might need to detour its teibs one or two days per year?!?
the trackside guide says St Guillaume Spur is embargoed from 0.29 (Farnham) to 24.70 (St Hyacinthe) and “CP intends to discontinue entire spur”
The RAC rail atlas also shows the Spur as „Planned to discontinue“.
 
Last edited:
Detouring via the York Sub or the Halton Sub is orders of magnitudes easier, as these CN lines see much more traffic (and thus inspections) and VIA already employes (ex-CN) LEs which are qualified on them.
Nitpick: Despite having employees that are technically still qualified to run on those (and other) subdivisions, CN still requires the use of a pilot.

Dan
 
Disappointing to hear that while VIA's profits were up, it's operating costs were as well. Also that basically every rider is subsidised by the tax payers.

The video states, more than once, that VIA rail is a public service and therefore doesn't need to generate a profit. While that may be true, it's difficult to approach the private sector for funds for HFR/HSR with this kind of mentality.
"Invest your capital in this passenger rail project, and don't expect a return."

I would be curious to find out if this is the case for passenger rail in Japan and European countries.

If VIA rail chooses to go down the private public partnership route, and has to resort to constructing it's own tracks for HFR/HSR, don't expect "affordable" tickets once up and running. Investors will want a return.
look at brightline as a model. they are working fine as a private entity and prices are not as doomsday as some people here are dreading. im not sure why people are so afraid of a private ownership.
you can see all around the world that the general trend is favourable. if anything the budget of via wont be at the whim of the political tides so large projects wont be driven by empty election promises.
 
Nitpick: Despite having employees that are technically still qualified to run on those (and other) subdivisions, CN still requires the use of a pilot.

Dan
Which makes me curious of how they handled this requirement when they had to detach 42 from 64 (which should have required an additional pilot on the now separated Siemens Train 42):
 

Back
Top