General railway discussions

[crs1026]

Amtrak is suspending service to Montreal (which only re-started in April) due to CN imposing slow orders due to the heat.

CN's new-found angst over running trains on jointed rail at moderate summer temperatures has a lot of people scratching their heads. There hasn't been any track record of problems, and at the current track speeds a track defect would have pretty low potential for serious harm.

However, in this case, I see CN's point. Linking Montreal and New York over a route that isn't properly maintained is mostly trying to make something out of thin air.

If the right hands and left hands can't get together and find the money to bring the tracks to a credible minimum standard....which I would expect to be at least 40-50mph over the route....they really aren't interested in this route as a sustainable leg of a transportation network.

You get what you pay for, and there is no free lunch.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

The system that Canada once had in no way resembles the system that @Woodbridge_Heights experienced. I would not want it back.

The lament here was not for antiquated rolling stock, slow-moving trains, outmoded services, or sometimes circuitous routes, but for simple comprehsivity, and real consumer choice.

And it seems to me that Italians (and Europeans generally) are certainly still in love with their automobiles.

Sure, in many cases true; but they have options as to how to travel even when they own one, which many families do not.

We have to find alternatives to the auto, yes. But I push back on gratuitous car-hating. The auto isn't going away. It's a question of modal share, and investment alternatives.

- Paul

I didn't find anything car hating in the two posts above.

There was a reference to car addiction, which if fleshed out to say, having made a lifestyle and development pattern choice, which made passenger rail increasing less viable as an option, and lacking public servants/politicians w/vision to see virtue in alternatives and to invest as much in the extant rail system as they did the highway system would not seem at all unfair or hyperbolic.

 

[Northern Light]

CN's new-found angst over running trains on jointed rail at moderate summer temperatures has a lot of people scratching their heads. There hasn't been any track record of problems, and at the current track speeds a track defect would have pretty low potential for serious harm.

However, in this case, I see CN's point. Linking Montreal and New York over a route that isn't properly maintained is mostly trying to make something out of thin air.

If the right hands and left hands can't get together and find the money to bring the tracks to a credible minimum standard....which I would expect to be at least 40-50mph over the route....they really aren't interested in this route as a sustainable leg of a transportation network.

You get what you pay for, and there is no free lunch.

- Paul

Surely Amtrak pays access fees for use of this track that are in line w/industry norms? (I don't know, I'm asking)

If so, given that Amtrak is not the owner, I'm not sure why they should be asked to shell out money that would presumably benefit CN far more than they; in a foreign country no less (the optics of U.S. taxpayer dollars flowing to Canadian rail assets that Amtrak doesn't own may not be great)

My read of the piece is that Amtrak is trying to get NYSDOT to fork out. (New York State Department of Transportation); I'm trying to imagine the conversation in this country if Ontario were asked to shell out to upgrade the CSX tracks over which The Maple Leaf runs in the U.S.

 

[crs1026]

Surely Amtrak pays access fees for use of this track that are in line w/industry norms? (I don't know, I'm asking)

I don't know, but having seen analogous situations play out - CN has likely said, you can pay this much for 10 mph operation with our heat restrictions, or you can agree to capital improvements that remove/reduce the heat restriction, remove temporary slow orders, and give you a higher zone speed. The parties seem to have agreed they want the lowest cost option.

That says to me that there is a general consensus that this route is a secondary priority, and the service has been cobbled together using spare parts that don't cost much. If the service were seen as a critical link, presumably there would be acceptance that investment is required in the interest of long term sustainability and marketability.

If so, given that Amtrak is not the owner, I'm not sure why they should be asked to shell out money that would presumably benefit CN far more than they; in a foreign country no less (the optics of U.S. taxpayer dollars flowing to Canadian rail assets that Amtrak doesn't own may not be great)

My read of the piece is that Amtrak is trying to get NYSDOT to fork out. (New York State Department of Transportation); I'm trying to imagine the conversation in this country if Ontario were asked to shell out to upgrade the CSX tracks over which The Maple Leaf runs in the U.S.

Very definitely, various jurisdictions are sitting on their hands hoping others will pick up the cheque. While that's a time-honoured bureaucratic parlour game, it does in some ways ensure that people pay their fair share in the end, because nobody is rushing to pay for anyone else.

On a policy level - basically Canada and Quebec are saying, it's not worth it to us to subsidise this service. That strikes me as unwise, as Canada gets a lot of benefit from having rail links to the Northeast US.

Amtrak and NYDOT have a bit dicier situation as they face the need to spend US dollars in a foreign country, with the employment benefits therein accruing to the other country. I can understand how there would be political pushback on that proposition. In all likelihood they are already paying something for the use of this line, and for the terminal facilities in Montreal - but that's a pretty invisible expense for the US taxpayer.

CN has absolutely no skin in this game. They don't need the line except as a very marginal user, and any investment or maintenance does not benefit CN at all. Perhaps they would even be happy to sell it for a fair price. I would be equally unhappy if Amtrak were to buy a rail line in Canada, although the US could buy right up to the Border. Amtrak and VIA seem to have found a workable agreement at Niagara, so presumably they could do so again south of Montreal.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

The lament here was not for antiquated rolling stock, slow-moving trains, outmoded services, or sometimes circuitous routes, but for simple comprehsivity, and real consumer choice.

Fair enough - but that's something Canada never really had. The lines on the map that people remember fondly (although few of us were actually old enough to experience them) consisted of a) a mixed train network that was never really connective, and b) a set of usually solitary passenger trains, many only three days a week.

In many cases trains operated at odd hours as a matter of the railways' operational needs. And the combine or coach on a mixed train was never a solid transportation infrastructure - it was an extension of the freight and mail operation. In today's terms, it was pretty close to Fedex and UPS offering rides in back of the driver on their highway 18-wheelers.

What is needed going forward is mostly - a well planned, organized, and operated bus network covering broad parts of the hinterland. And a few backbone rail corridors where there is critical mass and justification to offer multiple trains per day with the choices and overall ridership inherent in that.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

CN has absolutely no skin in this game. They don't need the line except as a very marginal user, and any investment or maintenance does not benefit CN at all. Perhaps they would even be happy to sell it for a fair price. I would be equally unhappy if Amtrak were to buy a rail line in Canada, although the US could buy right up to the Border. Amtrak and VIA seem to have found a workable agreement at Niagara, so presumably they could do so again south of Montreal.

- Paul

As it stands, Amtrak has plans for an additional train to Montreal (restoring the old Vermonter).

The U.S. political motivation is both some Americans enjoy access to Montreal via rail; but also the local service it provides on the U.S. side, which is subsidized by the tourists to Montreal.

But 2 trains a day (ultimately) strikes me as a challenging case for ownership unless CN sells for a song.

If Montreal-Boston were put back and ran over the same track, the case might get more interesting.

 

[Northern Light]

What is needed going forward is mostly - a well planned, organized, and operated bus network covering broad parts of the hinterland. And a few backbone rail corridors where there is critical mass and justification to offer multiple trains per day with the choices and overall ridership inherent in that.

- Paul

Agreed.

But it will require a highway-like investment strategy on the rail side in which the rail itself is not expected to pay back the investment, the resulting employment/development/tourism etc will, over time).

I continue to think there are many City pairs, and select tourism-market trains that can make sense (Calgary-Banff is getting lots of recent attention out west), but they can't be asked for full or near-full cost recovery anymore than
Highway 11/17 is up north. Its the cost of doing business.

Obviously, however, it only makes sense to do this where the ultimate product will recover a good chunk of its day to day operating costs and will do so by offering trips competitive to or better than the comparable trip by car.

But lets not get lost in running down a hypothetical list. I think its sufficient to say that having allowed service to deteriorate by an order of magnitude over the last few decades and many corridors to disappear, the challenge for delivering new services is greater than it would have been, had things evolved differently.

 

[kalis0490]

As it stands, Amtrak has plans for an additional train to Montreal (restoring the old Vermonter).

The U.S. political motivation is both some Americans enjoy access to Montreal via rail; but also the local service it provides on the U.S. side, which is subsidized by the tourists to Montreal.

But 2 trains a day (ultimately) strikes me as a challenging case for ownership unless CN sells for a song.

If Montreal-Boston were put back and ran over the same track, the case might get more interesting.

I think Amtrak's strategy of paying several hundred million dollars for maybe 2-3 trains a day in the ConnectsUS plan should not be replicated in Canada

Fair enough - but that's something Canada never really had. The lines on the map that people remember fondly (although few of us were actually old enough to experience them) consisted of a) a mixed train network that was never really connective, and b) a set of usually solitary passenger trains, many only three days a week.

In general I think the old interurbans should be idealized more: hourly or better service seven days a week and fully electrified. (see old London -Port Stanley www.trainweb.org/elso/lps_tt85.htm) Generally speaking they had much better service than mainline rail.

I remember checking out an old 1940s schedule of Toronto-Ottawa trains and there were only 3 trains per day. Generally bus services like Southwest Community transit (where they exist) probably already offer more frequent and faster service than their predecessor train routes. Of course there are problems with balkanization of services and lack of initiative by certain municipalities (Elgin, and Huron counties).

edit:link fixed

 

[Urban Sky]

I think Amtrak's strategy of paying several hundred million dollars for maybe 2-3 trains a day in the ConnectsUS plan should not be replicated in Canada


In general I think the old interurbans should be idealized more: hourly or better service seven days a week and fully electrified. (see old London -Port Stanley http://www.trainweb.org/elso/lps_tt85.htm) Generally speaking they had much better service than mainline rail.

I remember checking out an old 1940s schedule of Toronto-Ottawa trains and there were only 3 trains per day. Generally bus services like Southwest Community transit (where they exist) probably already offer more frequent and faster service than their predecessor train routes. Of course there are problems with balkanization of services and lack of initiative by certain municipalities (Elgin, and Huron counties).

Your link unfortunately doesn’t seem to work, but I‘ve made publicly accessible my entire Canadian Timetable Archive through Timetable World.

That said, I still struggle to name a single intercity passenger rail line in Canada and year for which the service offering of that year would today be competitive against driving and flying…

 

[crs1026]

But lets not get lost in running down a hypothetical list. I think its sufficient to say that having allowed service to deteriorate by an order of magnitude over the last few decades and many corridors to disappear, the challenge for delivering new services is greater than it would have been, had things evolved differently.

I agree. My somewhat pedantic kneejerk against the use of the term "addiction" was more objecting to the claim that the "addiction" killed the passenger train.

One would have to ask whether the national investment in a highway network was an avoidable choice, or an unwise one.

I would argue that even by WWII, the need to connect every community through a hard surface road network was generally accepted by Canadians (and thus a social policy, democratically arrived at) and an economic necessity. The construction of that initial highway network is what killed the passenger train, rather than later excesses in highway construction. Once those roads existed, there was no reason to retain a single daily (at best) train when the automobile offered flexibility, economy, and delinking from mail and parcel express businesses (which were what actually supported the passenger trains beyond that point).

The only place where I can think that there was an explicit conscious decision was Newfoundland, where Smallwood had to choose between retaining the railway or building the TCH.

The later excesses of the car fixation mostly played out as the initial highway network filled up, and we foolishly kept adding capacity in the belief that we could keep ahead of induced demand. That mostly impacted urban areas through expressways, overbuilt arterial roads, car-reliant suburbs, and underbuilt mass transit (Those wonderful interurbans required reinvestment by that point). But by then, outside of urban areas the passenger train had already been replaced by highway transportation.

The wisdom of managing widespread change says that change happens easier if one creates a dissatisfaction with the current state. We can be dissatisfied with the present, but we should not rewrite the narrative to accomplish that. Hence my objection to "restoring" anything - we need new build. Even if we could go back, the old passenger trains don't fit our current or future needs.

- Paul

 

[Bordercollie]

I agree. My somewhat pedantic kneejerk against the use of the term "addiction" was more objecting to the claim that the "addiction" killed the passenger train.

One would have to ask whether the national investment in a highway network was an avoidable choice, or an unwise one.

I would argue that even by WWII, the need to connect every community through a hard surface road network was generally accepted by Canadians (and thus a social policy, democratically arrived at) and an economic necessity. The construction of that initial highway network is what killed the passenger train, rather than later excesses in highway construction. Once those roads existed, there was no reason to retain a single daily (at best) train when the automobile offered flexibility, economy, and delinking from mail and parcel express businesses (which were what actually supported the passenger trains beyond that point).

The only place where I can think that there was an explicit conscious decision was Newfoundland, where Smallwood had to choose between retaining the railway or building the TCH.

The later excesses of the car fixation mostly played out as the initial highway network filled up, and we foolishly kept adding capacity in the belief that we could keep ahead of induced demand. That mostly impacted urban areas through expressways, overbuilt arterial roads, car-reliant suburbs, and underbuilt mass transit (Those wonderful interurbans required reinvestment by that point). But by then, outside of urban areas the passenger train had already been replaced by highway transportation.

The wisdom of managing widespread change says that change happens easier if one creates a dissatisfaction with the current state. We can be dissatisfied with the present, but we should not rewrite the narrative to accomplish that. Hence my objection to "restoring" anything - we need new build. Even if we could go back, the old passenger trains don't fit our current or future needs.

- Paul

You would think the Quebec government would pitch in the cash using tourism money. I'm sure that the 40millon could be recouped by additional tax revenue in the form of additional tourism. Not to mention the jobs that it creates or supports.

 

[Allandale25]

Strong opposition to Lac-Megantic rail bypass 10 years after tragedy

Bypass plans have become a source of division in the community over concerns that include expropriation, safety and environmental impacts

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[Allandale25]

 

[rbt]

Wabtec sold a few more of their battery locomotives.

"The plan is to convert the Vale train into a hybrid. The first of its kind in Brazil, the new train will ditch the two dynamic helpers and replace them with three FLXdrive electric locomotives, leaving just one diesel locomotive to carry the torch for fossil energy."​

Wabtec Sends Electric Train Love Letter To Iron Mine

Wabtec is taking its FLXdrive electric train on the road, sending three zero emission locomotives off to the world's biggest iron ore mine.

cleantechnica.com

 

[crs1026]

While chasing down a different rabbit hole, I stumbled upon this TSB investigation report from 2004 regarding rail condition on the GEXR Guelph Sub (now CN-GO).

It's interesting reading, and it gives a bit of background context to things GEXR-ish including when speed restrictions were imposed (1996!).

I cite it here in the context of posters who see an old railway line with tracks in the weeds and imagine that it would be simple to put a passenger train back, because hey the rails are still there.

The point being - those old rails on a former branch line may not meet today's standards. Replacement rail isn't cheap. An example of how the cost of restoring an old line may not be that much less than building a new one.

- Paul