VIA Rail

[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.

 

[kEiThZ]

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.

To avoid one time capital costs of $4B you want the government to nationalize rail infrastructure of currently profitable railways and spend several hundred million dollars in subsidies annually?

You know what's even easier to do and won't involve decade long court fights (possibly even a declaration of such nationalization as unconstitutional since it is unprecedented in Canadian history) and the government probably losing power because of such a controversial tactic? Simply spending that same subsidy money on a dedicated rail line.

 

[Darwinkgo]

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.

Why do you think the public would want to give a subsidy? Plus then you lose competition between the two companies on the maintenance side.

 

[kEiThZ]

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?

English may not be your first language, but do you know what a strawman is?

Nobody has suggested Canada didn't have issues with passenger rail. But crazy ideas like nationalizing infrastructure is not the solution. Not in the least because such ideas have never happened in Canadian history and could well be declared unconstitutional by the courts. We have no idea how that court fight would go. Nor would most Canadians agree to dismembering profitable railways to create entities now dependent on federal subsidies for the benefit of travelers in just one region of the country. Freight is pretty damn important to Western Canada. Disrupting it in any way, especially to benefit passengers 3000 km away in Southern Ontario could well result in a political crisis. And all for what? Just to avoid building dedicated passenger rail, which we're now largely building anyway?

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

Aside from legislative support, Amtrak gets way more funding, in large part because Senators from rural states won't tolerate a cut to service. There's no equivalent political actors in Canada. And VIA has never had the same influence on provinces here. There's only one service that arguably comes close: The Ocean.

 

[ec_traindriver]

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

A digression is a digression. As far as I am concerned, it doesn't have to necessarily add anything to the discussion.

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.

That's a legitimate concern, I agree. I wouldn't be here if, in my little way, I didn't care. I hope my presence here isn't disturbing.

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.

You're right, and I'm also very concerned about the future of freight transportation in my own country as well. The EU is helping with infrastructure projects, but until the mentality changes, we will continue to see more freight on trucks than on trains. A few local governments, though, are steering the change: the opening of the 55 km-long BBT (Brenner Base Tunnel) will coincide with the ban of all through truck movements through South Tyrol.

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.

So, you think Canadians shouldn't even give it a try?

 

[kEiThZ]

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.

This is worth repeating. Our freight railways are a massive economic advantage. It is cheaper to move goods across the continent than to put it on a ship and go through the Panama canal. And you can ship practically anything, practically anywhere in North America inside a week or two, for a relatively cheap cost. For all the discussion of passenger rail, not enough credit is given to how great our freight railways are for our economy. And Europeans will never be able to build anything close to that in our lifetimes, at least.

To bolster passenger service, we also don't need to cover the bulk of Canada. Just the populated corridors. Quebec-Windsor. Calgary-Edmonton. Vancouver-Chilliwack. Etc. Do that and we can actually achieve the bulk of what Europeans do without the centuries of investment they made on passenger rail.

 

[kEiThZ]

So, you think Canadians shouldn't even give it a try?

No we shouldn't. It's a waste of time (long court fights), money (legal cost + court ordered settlements aren't cheap for expropriation) and political capital (government would probably lose election based on controversial intrusion).

Way easier to simply build HFR and connect the passenger networks Metrolinx and ARTM are building.

 

[roger1818]

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.

It isn't an issue of how much money is spent but what that money is spent on. North American railways have upgraded their ROWs to handle heavier axil loads and increased clearances. These upgrades have allowed improved efficiency and lower operating costs. For example, double stacks allow a train to transport twice as many containers per rail car.

These types of upgrades are few and far between in Europe because there is no incentive for a publicly-subsidized agency to make them. Instead they focus on increasing speed (which is what the tax paying public want), but that actually decreases their efficiency for the freight railways.

 

[ec_traindriver]

You know what's even easier to do and won't involve decade long court fights (possibly even a declaration of such nationalization as unconstitutional since it is unprecedented in Canadian history) and the government probably losing power because of such a controversial tactic? Simply spending that same subsidy money on a dedicated rail line.

To bolster passenger service, we also don't need to cover the bulk of Canada. Just the populated corridors. Quebec-Windsor. Calgary-Edmonton. Vancouver-Chilliwack. Etc. Do that and we can actually achieve the bulk of what Europeans do without the centuries of investment they made on passenger rail.

Well, if the main preoccupation is to connect Toronto to Ottawa and Montréal only, HFR is great. You should go for it! But VIA, or anyone for that matter, shouldn't sell it as a measure to solve mobility on the Corridor. It's just a cheap HSR, you've proved my point.

If HFR goes cash flow positive, subsidy free, I could see the government setting the objective of making all services subsidy free and killing those that can't do it soon after.

Peterborough (121 721) and Trois-Rivières aside (156 042), the new line runs in the middle of nowhere, and I don't see any good reason why they should be preferred to Drummondville (96 118), Kingston (161 175), Belleville (103 472), Trenton/Quinte West (43 577), Cobourg/Northumberland County (85 598), and Bowmanville/Clarington (92 013).

But if the HFR really proves successful, and the majority of trains get diverted on the new line, leaving barely one or two trains/day on the Kingston Sub, then the Corridor will have a negative balance in terms of potential ridership. Leaving the big three aside, the catchment area diminishes by more than 300 000 units.

But again, if the objective is to connect Toronto to Ottawa and Montréal only, I rest my case!

 

[roger1818]

Well, if the main preoccupation is to connect Toronto to Ottawa and Montréal only, HFR is great. You should go for it! But VIA, or anyone for that matter, shouldn't sell it as a measure to solve mobility on the Corridor. It's just a cheap HSR, you've proved my point.



Peterborough (121 721) and Trois-Rivières aside (156 042), the new line runs in the middle of nowhere, and I don't see any good reason why they should be preferred to Drummondville (96 118), Kingston (161 175), Belleville (103 472), Trenton/Quinte West (43 577), Cobourg/Northumberland County (85 598), and Bowmanville/Clarington (92 013).

But if the HFR really proves successful, and the majority of trains get diverted on the new line, leaving barely one or two trains/day on the Kingston Sub, then the Corridor will have a negative balance in terms of potential ridership. Leaving the big three aside, the catchment area diminishes by more than 300 000 units.

But again, if the objective is to connect Toronto to Ottawa and Montréal only, I rest my case!

You forgot Ottawa-Gatineau (1 323 783) in your list of intermediary cities that HFR supports. Yes it does have service today, but it is on a separate alignment, requiring duplication of service. One of the big benefits of HFR is Frequency (the middle F) and having a single train that serves Montreal-Ottawa, Montreal-Toronto and Ottawa-Toronto will allow what are currently 3 different routes to piggyback off of each other.

The other cities you mentioned will still have service. In fact, in most cases it will be improved from today since it will operative as a reginal (a.k.a. stopping) train that is optimized for them rather than an occasional stop on a intercity train and thus an afterthought.

 

[ec_traindriver]

You forgot Ottawa-Gatineau (1 323 783) in your list of intermediary cities that HFR supports. Yes it does have service today, but it is on a separate alignment, requiring duplication of service. One of the big benefits of HFR is Frequency (the middle F) and having a single train that serves Montreal-Ottawa, Montreal-Toronto and Ottawa-Toronto will allow what are currently 3 different routes to piggyback off of each other.

The other cities you mentioned will still have service. In fact, in most cases it will be improved from today since it will operative as a reginal (a.k.a. stopping) train that is optimized for them rather than an occasional stop on a intercity train and thus an afterthought.

I've mentioned Ottawa twice, BTW.

Anyway, had it not been for the O-train in Ottawa, one could have imagined an HFR corridor running beside the Kingston Sub and on a rebuilt B&PR alignment from Prescott to Ottawa. That way the losses in terms of catchment area would have been minor and the whole service could have been put on the new alignment.

I am very curious to see what they will solve the conflicts in Montréal, now that the Mount Royale Tunnel is (and will be) technically out of use due to the REM.