Lack of meaningful Passenger Rail service outside the Quebec-Windsor Corridor

[roger1818]

Notice how all routes are not the same. If what you said was true, they should be.

Not at all. The per passenger carbon emissions of a vehicle are directly proportional to its weight and inversely proportional to number of passengers transported. The vast majority of a passenger vehicle’s mass is the vehicle itself, so if it transports more passengers, the per passenger carbon emissions will be lower.

Sleeper cars are particularly inefficient as they can’t carry as many passengers per kg as a coach. Similarly, routes that aren’t very popular are also not very efficient, as you have a very heavy vehicle with few passengers.

 

[micheal_can]

Not at all. The per passenger carbon emissions of a vehicle are directly proportional to its weight and inversely proportional to number of passengers transported. The vast majority of a passenger vehicle’s mass is the vehicle itself, so if it transports more passengers, the per passenger carbon emissions will be lower.

Sleeper cars are particularly inefficient as they can’t carry as many passengers per kg as a coach. Similarly, routes that aren’t very popular are also not very efficient, as you have a very heavy vehicle with few passengers.

Then all the more reason to do a Corridor style service outside the Corridor. Take the Canadian, most of it could be broken into 12 hour or less sections that could potentially survive on their own.

 

[Urban Sky]

Then all the more reason to do a Corridor style service outside the Corridor. Take the Canadian, most of it could be broken into 12 hour or less sections that could potentially survive on their own.

You will never be able to achieve anything remotely close to Corridor-levels of fuel efficiency on rail „corridors“ which only serve a fraction of the population centers of the Q-W Corridor at (at-best) half the travel speeds of the Q-W Corridor.

The Northlander‘s business case is a case-in-point: Take the top end of rail ridership for 2041 (60,110), divide it by 365 days and 2 directions and you get 80 passengers per departure. Now divide that again by 2 (because the average passenger might only travel over half the distance, think: Toronto to North Bay) and you are at an average passenger load of 41 people: about a quarter of the corresponding figure for VIA‘s Corridor services (156), while running very similar trains (just with two coaches less).

Coincidently, 41 passengers still represents a respectable load factor for the transportation mode most suited for such medium passenger loads:

Spoiler

 

[micheal_can]

You will never be able to achieve anything remotely close to Corridor-levels of fuel efficiency on rail „corridors“ which only serve a fraction of the population centers of the Q-W Corridor at (at-best) half the travel speeds of the Q-W Corridor.

The Northlander‘s business case is a case-in-point: Take the top end of rail ridership for 2041 (60,110), divide it by 365 days and 2 directions and you get 80 passengers per departure. Now divide that again by 2 (because the average passenger might only travel over half the distance, think: Toronto to North Bay) and you are at an average passenger load of 41 people: about a quarter of the corresponding figure for VIA‘s Corridor services (156), while running very similar trains (just with two coaches less).

Coincidently, 41 passengers still represents a respectable load factor for the transportation mode most suited for such medium passenger loads:

Spoiler

I agree .

I agree that right now it doesn't look like there is much demand. Is that due to the poor service or is that due to real lack of demand? Part of what is driving me is a fact that it seems the Canadian sells out. It is hard for me to believe that is only rail fans riding a land yacht. I want to believe that most of those people would use it,and even more would use it if there was a more frequent service over the 2x a week.

For the return of the Northlander,I'd like to see it be 75% full for75% of the route, or about 120 passengers for most of the route.
I did notice you did not show how the carbon footprint of the Northlander could be. Having those same trains in the major city pairs out west would likely be a lower carbon footprint than the existing Canadian trains.[/spoiler]

 

[lenaitch]

Given the vagaries of long distance train scheduling, I think breaking up Canadian into segments would ruin it's tourism appeal when passengers would have to wait around for the next train in the direction of their journey. I don't know but imagine the level of on-board service is what attracts the tourist dollars.

The concept of city pairs needs a business case rather that hope. Without knowing the numbers, costs aside, it might well work between some pairs. Calgary-Edmonton seems to have potential. Calgary-Regina - I'm not so sure.

The '12-hour segment' concept works between Sudbury and Winnipeg. Assuming (a big assumption) that there would be trainload of people who would need or want to travel between those communities on a halfways regular basis. Just for fun, I added up the populations of the communities that the route passes through, not counting the terminus communities. For those that I could even find population numbers, that segment would serve not quite 13,000 people over its roughly 1250 km route. Not particularly impressive.

 

[Urban Sky]

I agree that right now it doesn't look like there is much demand. Is that due to the poor service or is that due to real lack of demand? Part of what is driving me is a fact that it seems the Canadian sells out. It is hard for me to believe that is only rail fans riding a land yacht. I want to believe that most of those people would use it,and even more would use it if there was a more frequent service over the 2x a week.

Compare the number of flights or buses scheduled and the highway traffic volumes between Toronto and Sudbury (400 km) with those of Toronto-Ottawa (440 km) or Toronto-Windsor (360 km) and you will see that the demand on your pet "corridor" is dramatically lower, which means that you quickly experience diminishing returns, which prevent you from obtaining a fuel-efficiency comparable to what you see on the actual Corridor...

For the return of the Northlander,I'd like to see it be 75% full for75% of the route, or about 120 passengers for most of the route.

You'd struggle to achieve these ridership figures, even if you give away the tickets for free...

I did notice you did not show how the carbon footprint of the Northlander could be.

Quick back-of-the-envelope calculation:
Estimated fuel efficiency on the Q-W Corridor: 2.1 litres per 100 km
Assumed train weight on the Q-W Corridor: 420 tonnes (1*120+5*60)
Assumed train weight for the Northlander: 300 tonnes (1*120+3*60)
Assumed average passenger load for the Q-W Corridor: 156 passengers
Assumed average passenger load for the Northlander: 41 passengers
Estimated fuel efficiency of the Northlander: 5.7 litres per 100 km (2.1/420t*300t*156pax/41pax, i.e. 2.7 times the Q-W figure)

To compare: a North American bus achieves 6.4 mpg, which translates to 36.8 litres per 100 km, which means that it only needs to transport a paltry 7 (!) passengers to beat the Northlander, whereas at a passenger load of 41 passengers, you'd consume 0.9 litres per 100 km (or six times less than the Northlander).

At the same time, the Northlander's Business Case shows that $574.1 million need to be invested over a 60-year period (thus $9.57 million per year). At projected "Annual Car GHG Reductions by 2041" of 4400 tonnes, the cost of avoiding a single ton of GHG emissions would be a staggering $2,175. To compare: the federal carbon price is expected to rise to only $170 per tonne by 2030 (i.e., 16 times less) and that's already close to political suicide...

Having those same trains in the major city pairs out west would likely be a lower carbon footprint than the existing Canadian trains.[/spoiler]

As you've just seen, the Northlander's fuel efficiency might only be marginally better than the Canadian's (5.7 vs. 6.3 litres per 100 km). I'd be rather sceptical that this will be the case for all the other segments, which have a much worse passenger potential (due to an even bigger lack of significant population centres and the much bigger exposure to CN delays) than the Northlander...

 

[micheal_can]

Given the vagaries of long distance train scheduling, I think breaking up Canadian into segments would ruin it's tourism appeal when passengers would have to wait around for the next train in the direction of their journey. I don't know but imagine the level of on-board service is what attracts the tourist dollars.

Leave the 2x a week full length Canadian in place. Add the segmented runs the rest of the week. Then add more to the segments if there is a need for it.I'd almost argue that the Canadian should no longer have an economy fare if this happened.

The concept of city pairs needs a business case rather that hope. Without knowing the numbers, costs aside, it might well work between some pairs. Calgary-Edmonton seems to have potential. Calgary-Regina - I'm not so sure.

It is not just about the terminal city to terminal city, but it is about all those places in between.

The '12-hour segment' concept works between Sudbury and Winnipeg. Assuming (a big assumption) that there would be trainload of people who would need or want to travel between those communities on a halfways regular basis. Just for fun, I added up the populations of the communities that the route passes through, not counting the terminus communities. For those that I could even find population numbers, that segment would serve not quite 13,000 people over its roughly 1250 km route. Not particularly impressive.

I'll admit the existing route between Sudbury and Winnipeg could be almost ignored if segmenting it. But a Sudbury- Thunder Bay - Winnipeg, or a Sudbury - SSM - TBay - Winnipeg may be more attractive. As just those major cities in between total close to 200,000k.

 

[micheal_can]

Compare the number of flights or buses scheduled and the highway traffic volumes between Toronto and Sudbury (400 km) with those of Toronto-Ottawa (440 km) or Toronto-Windsor (360 km) and you will see that the demand on your pet "corridor" is dramatically lower, which means that you quickly experience diminishing returns, which prevent you from obtaining a fuel-efficiency comparable to what you see on the actual Corridor...

Flights are a bit of a red herring, and I'll give a real world example of why.
You are a business professional who lives in Timmins. The bus is seen as beneath you, so you will either drive or fly. You need to go to SSM for business.
1) There are no direct flights SSM - Timmins.
2) The only flight would be Timmins - Toronto - SSM.
3) Precovid, there was a flight Timmins - Sudbury - SSM.

Why did that fight not return? Pilot shortage.

So, would a business professional in Toronto or Ottawa take a Megabus? Likely not.

Quick back-of-the-envelope calculation:
Estimated fuel efficiency on the Q-W Corridor: 2.1 litres per 100 km
Assumed train weight on the Q-W Corridor: 420 tonnes (1*120+5*60)
Assumed train weight for the Northlander: 300 tonnes (1*120+3*60)
Assumed average passenger load for the Q-W Corridor: 156 passengers
Assumed average passenger load for the Northlander: 41 passengers
Estimated fuel efficiency of the Northlander: 5.7 litres per 100 km (2.1/420t*300t*156pax/41pax, i.e. 2.7 times the Q-W figure)

To compare: a North American bus achieves 6.4 mpg, which translates to 36.8 litres per 100 km, which means that it only needs to transport a paltry 7 (!) passengers to beat the Northlander, whereas at a passenger load of 41 passengers, you'd consume 0.9 litres per 100 km (or six times less than the Northlander).

At the same time, the Northlander's Business Case shows that $574.1 million need to be invested over a 60-year period (thus $9.57 million per year). At projected "Annual Car GHG Reductions by 2041" of 4400 tonnes, the cost of avoiding a single ton of GHG emissions would be a staggering $2,175. To compare: the federal carbon price is expected to rise to only $170 per tonne by 2030 (i.e., 16 times less) and that's already close to political suicide...

I am missing something in your calculations. Without the passengers calculated into it, what is the fuel consumption of a train?

As you've just seen, the Northlander's fuel efficiency might only be marginally better than the Canadian's (5.7 vs. 6.3 litres per 100 km). I'd be rather sceptical that this will be the case for all the other segments, which have a much worse passenger potential (due to an even bigger lack of significant population centres and the much bigger exposure to CN delays) than the Northlander...

The CN delays need to be fixed before any expansion of Via outside of the Corridor. It is the single biggest problem that will cause people to not use it.

Ottawa should consider train passenger bill of rights, Via Rail CEO says - National | Globalnews.ca

In an interview, CEO Mario Peloquin says the federal government should move toward a charter that would ensure train passengers receive compensation for long delays.

globalnews.ca

 

[lenaitch]

It is not just about the terminal city to terminal city, but it is about all those places in between.

True, but the more you make something into a milk run, the less attractive it becomes. Besides, it all goes back to business cases. If there is a demand for regular service between Calgary and Regina (and all the burgs in between apparently) then there is a case.

I'll admit the existing route between Sudbury and Winnipeg could be almost ignored if segmenting it. But a Sudbury- Thunder Bay - Winnipeg, or a Sudbury - SSM - TBay - Winnipeg may be more attractive. As just those major cities in between total close to 200,000k.

Sorry; I thought you were still talking about making a case with you MP. This is back to fantasyland.

 

[micheal_can]

True, but the more you make something into a milk run, the less attractive it becomes. Besides, it all goes back to business cases. If there is a demand for regular service between Calgary and Regina (and all the burgs in between apparently) then there is a case.

When the C-E ran there were 5 stops in between. That is not much of a milk run. In an ideal world, you would have milk runs and express trains. We do not live in that world.

Sorry; I thought you were still talking about making a case with you MP. This is back to fantasyland.

I want 2 conversations with him. The first one will be change all existing Via routes to dailies and restore the 1990s cuts. If I get a second conversation, then I will dive into "Corridor like service" such as this. By then,the idea of restoring this route would not be quite a fantasy.

And If I get a 3rd one?
I am diving into the world of crazy....

 

[Garuda]

Your local member and VIA will come up with the solutions that Katie Telford and rest of the gang in the PMO tell them to come up with. With the current government's plan to cut $500Mn this year and $15.4Bn in the next five, I wouldn't pack any bags yet.

Danielle Smith would probably howl about federal interference in sovereign provincial commuting and vow to start her own railway with the money she saves from the new APP.

The truth hurts so much.

 

[lenaitch]

When the C-E ran there were 5 stops in between. That is not much of a milk run. In an ideal world, you would have milk runs and express trains. We do not live in that world.


I want 2 conversations with him. The first one will be change all existing Via routes to dailies and restore the 1990s cuts. If I get a second conversation, then I will dive into "Corridor like service" such as this. By then,the idea of restoring this route would not be quite a fantasy.

And If I get a 3rd one?
I am diving into the world of crazy....

Plan to fire all your rounds in meeting one. Subsequent requests might fall victim o protracted 'scheduling conflicts'.

 

[just east of the creek]

Flights are a bit of a red herring, and I'll give a real world example of why.
You are a business professional who lives in Timmins. The bus is seen as beneath you, so you will either drive or fly. You need to go to SSM for business.
1) There are no direct flights SSM - Timmins.
2) The only flight would be Timmins - Toronto - SSM.
3) Precovid, there was a flight Timmins - Sudbury - SSM.

Why did that fight not return? Pilot shortage.

So, would a business professional in Toronto or Ottawa take a Megabus? Likely not.



I am missing something in your calculations. Without the passengers calculated into it, what is the fuel consumption of a train?



The CN delays need to be fixed before any expansion of Via outside of the Corridor. It is the single biggest problem that will cause people to not use it.

Ottawa should consider train passenger bill of rights, Via Rail CEO says - National | Globalnews.ca

In an interview, CEO Mario Peloquin says the federal government should move toward a charter that would ensure train passengers receive compensation for long delays.

globalnews.ca

There is no business or political case that supports CN ( or CPKC) slowing, diverting, or stopping a profit generating freight rail business on their very own tracks for fare subsidized, taxpayer funded VIA. Now if VIA wants to add to, or augment existing ROW, or perhaps just build their own over the majority of the distance between station destinations, then you have something to discuss.

I fully support VIA, and a regional GO service, but I also fully support the existing railways rights to run the business they have built in the way they feel is economically wise, subject to my ’asks’ as both an investor and a customer. And our continuing ask as a customer, is for faster service from both coasts.

I’d even argue for a reduction in quarterly dividends if those funds were directly invested in infrastructure improvements directed at improving speed and services (Thereby enhancing opportunities to grow the business, revenues etc etc)

 

[micheal_can]

Plan to fire all your rounds in meeting one. Subsequent requests might fall victim o protracted 'scheduling conflicts'.

I don't want to come off as a fanatic. I want to come off as a voter who would like options that are reasonable. I want to be taken serious. That is why daily and reversing cuts are all I am going after. If that was the only thing that was to happen, I would be quite happy.

There is no business or political case that supports CN ( or CPKC) slowing, diverting, or stopping a profit generating freight rail business on their very own tracks for fare subsidized, taxpayer funded VIA. Now if VIA wants to add to, or augment existing ROW, or perhaps just build their own over the majority of the distance between station destinations, then you have something to discuss.

I fully support VIA, and a regional GO service, but I also fully support the existing railways rights to run the business they have built in the way they feel is economically wise, subject to my ’asks’ as both an investor and a customer. And our continuing ask as a customer, is for faster service from both coasts.

I’d even argue for a reduction in quarterly dividends if those funds were directly invested in infrastructure improvements directed at improving speed and services (Thereby enhancing opportunities to grow the business, revenues etc etc)

The problem we have is when a government agencies needs to work with private companies. Going down the crazy rabbit hole is me suggesting that the tracks get nationalized and corporations lease it.

 

[crs1026]

Reatoring VIA to daily and restoring the 1990 transcon cuts will get you labelled as crazy then and there. I would lead with the 1990 intercity cuts and leave the transcons for later in the discussion.

- Paul