VIA Rail

[crs1026]

I think this is true if one is talking about running 'The Canadian' or something similar, daily, on the current route.

But there are other more desirable services {potentially), servicing the same markets.

I would argue for a City-pair model (typically), with select intermediate stops.

Kenora-Thunder Bay; Thunder Bay-Sudbury (or Sault); Sault to North Bay, North Bay to Ottawa; Sudbury/NB to Toronto.

I'm not suggesting all of these are of equal or imminent priority, but that any business case for servicing this area would be based on this type of service, not a 'cruise ship' model.

Likewise, out west, Edmonton-Calgary; Regina-Saskatoon, Calgary-Banff, Calgary-Regina, Calgary-Lethbridge, Regina-Winnipeg etc. are where more reasonable potential exists.

I totally agree. Nobody really wants to drive the TCH in January.

Yes.....but............I would argue there was always an inherent onus on the freights not improve their model at the expense of passenger railway, which they did.

I would also argue they have not been pro-active in coming up with cost-effective solutions.

I would challenge this, on several grounds.

First, the railways have always cooperated with VIA becoming a standalone company with its own infrastructure. When VIA was formed, the railways did all the pax maintenance (in their own shops), provided operating and customer-facing staff, owned and maintained the stations, provided supervision and training, managed labour relations, funded pension and benefits, etc. All of these functions were transferred to VIA with the railways' agreement, including letting VIA run the trains with their own staff. There was originally a markup charged by the railways for doing this work, so this transition did cut into the railways' revenues.

Secondly, the funding model changed over the years, away from the "not at the expense of" proposition that you refer to. When VIA was formed, the costing model at that time treated passenger as just another line of business for the railways. Passenger trains had to support a share of railways' fixed costs and overheads. The (apt) joke at the time was that VIA was paying for x inches of CP's CEO's limousine.... if VIA was x% of the company's costs then it had to pay that % of the overheads. VIA successfully argued and negotiated away from that model towards a "strictly avoidable cost" model....the CEO was going to have a limousine with or without VIA, so VIA didn't owe CP anything for that. The implication in that change is that going forward, if the railways are carrying any assets by virtue of operating VIA, they are entitled to ROI on those assets. It is VIA who has extricated themselves wherever possible from using dedicated railway assets, thereby limiting its cost liability. If railways find better use for capacity or assets, VIA doesn't have claim to them.

I agree the railways have at times been excessively protective of their present and future capacity. The CTA award I cited earlier found that CP could not prove that running more VIA trains through the junction at Smiths Falls would delay CP freight. It's true that the railways may start a negotiation with a blanket "we can't manage that". The CTA award gives some optimism that there are levers to test this fairly, although they are embedded in a very legalistic process. The railways may be unwilling to negotiate because they figure they will always win in court. Perhaps that process ought to be made less legalistic and less provident to the railways.

We have to look at actual levers that matter to the railways rather than a general misconception that railways are anti-VIA. One has to assume, for instance, that Ontario is leveraging its support for the Halton Intermodal terminal to get CN willing to improve GO service, especially on the Halton line. You scratch my back, I will scratch yours.

Another good example is CP vs GO on the Milton line. People constantly mutter that the reason we don't have 2WAD is that CP is anti-GO. In fact, CP has entertained those trains for 40 years, and must recognize that there is absolutely no likelihood that anyone will ever cancel that service. CP is in that relationship for eternity. The relationship involves investment, and operational win-win... such as delivering the Davenport Diamond which clears the path for CP operations. Something as micro and mundane as agreeing to pay for installing a power switch and signalling at a particular location gets results.

There may have been times and places where CP/CN thought they could get VIA eliminated, but hopefully that too has passed. All VIA has to do is bring money.

The Stratford-Kitchener route is a further case study. There are real barriers to passenger in terms of the lack of sidings and operability. The track and crossings were in far worse shape than anyone would acknowledge. It's easy to look at a 1985 VIA timetable and say, hey just put things back to that standard.... but the current right of way simply does not permit that. It will have to be rebuilt, as GO is doing. By the way, freight operations on that line have turned into a cluster since GO bought the line and CN returned. CN has actually been pretty flexible and cooperative with GO, to its own detriment.

Other lines (Toronto-North Bay - Sudbury-Sault and North Bay- Timmins, and lines on the prairies, and the Maritimes) that are of interest to us in this forum have similar challenges. Just threatening the railways won't overcome these. Again, the issue is whether VIA can bring the money needed to install signalling, bring track speed back up to historical standards, build stations, and restore sidings and industrial trackage to protect freight capacity. If the money is there, I'm optimistic that the railways will at least come to the table

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

I agree that some of the things the railways do are questionable. But that does not mean that government should rush in to impose a fix.

Running oversize trains across Northern Ontario is a bit like watching someone wrestle a crocodile....one doesn’t know whether to admire their spunk or point out the stupidity of even trying. The solution is not to cut train length, which would just double labour costs. I would like to see more sidings lengthened, but they seem to move the freight acceptably with what they have. (Yes, with plenty of meltdowns, too....at some point perhaps they will address this out of pure self interest. But already, they have found other fallbacks that work reasonably well and may be cheaper eg they regularly reroute traffic via Chicago when the NOZ is plugged).

Meanwhile, we recently had a government wanting to buy a fleet of tank cars to run oil trains, to meet a demand that may only last for ten years ......when the payback period on that investment might be twenty years or more. The railways respected the political optics, but privately many railroaders were horrified....no way were they going to get dragged into making an investment where the revenue stream dries up before the infrastructure is only half paid for. Happily, government has retreated to a more commercialised solution which resp cts the underlying economics of shipping bulk commodities.

Much as I believe in passenger trains, If you weigh the actual value of transportation provided across Northern Ontario by the Canadian, a crash program to re-establish a daily passenger train with a best-ever schedule would not be cost justifiable. There is no justification, legal or moral, to demand that the railways eat that cost. Nor is there enough cost-benefit to pass this cost to the taxpayer. That might change, but we are talking one Airbus load per train. VIA is predominantly a cruise ship service anymore on that route.

Put it this way: suppose a cruise line decided to add a stop in Prince Rupert, or Churchill. Cruise ships are profitable, and they deliver undisputed economic benefit ie tourism dollars to a port. But these towns have no cruise terminal, or even a berth to offer outside of their bulk terminals. Would you order the grain terminals in town to clear space for the cruise ship visits, shutting down grain loading while the ship is in town? I hope not. One might ask the grain terminals whether they have idle periods....but even then, if a bulk cargo ship turns up to be loaded when the cruise ship arrives, the per-hour cost of having an empty ship sit at anchor is huge. Who eats that cost? The solution is to build a separate terminal for cruise traffic, and that will have a ROI case that may or may not discourage the cruise line.

I believe we should be looking to restore train service in many places, but that requires adding infrastructure, not imposing burdens on the freight businesses.

- Paul

Try to go from Thunder Bay to Winnipeg by passenger train? You cant. I am not suggesting we put more service on CN's norther route. I am suggesting s southern route through Sault St Marie and Thunder Bay be put it.

A daily is not a tourist train. A daily means you as a business or student person can take the train to where you need to.

If the government saw that there is enough demand, then yes, add a dock so they can fit and your grain can fit too.

Canada is too small of a population for it's size. We need to make things work for the people. We need to make it attractive for the businesses to invest here, but they both have to work together. We widen and divide highways so that people and goods move more freely. We should be doing the same for the rail lines. Yes, lets lengthen the sidings. But there has to be a point where the shareholders are no longer the most important people in the land. The customer should be the most important. That includes customers of the goods shipped, and customers who are riding the line.

 

[lenaitch]

I actually like the idea of rail-connected 'city-pairs' provided there is a travelling demographic to support them. It's one thing to say that people could take the train but quite another to say they would in sufficient numbers.
I'm not familiar with the prairie pairing, such as Calgary Edmonton and Regina Saskatoon, but assuming provincial capitals, major medical and commerce centres, etc. they seem likely. Winnipeg-Kenora perhaps. I used to live in both the N/E and N/W and I'm not convinced there would be sufficient ridership for Winnipeg-TBay or TBay-SSM (700 road km each). I simply don't see enough non-commercial traffic travelling between these pairs on a halfways regular basis to justify a frequent passenger rail connection (once or twice a week perhaps).
The centres in northern Ontario primarily serve the small communities scattered around them. If they are on the line and if a stop was included then it might be useful to them. The CP/CN connection east of White River to SSM goes essentially through the bush.
Even traffic between centres such as SSM-Sudbury and Sudbury seem questionable. A small sample admittedly, but the folks I know in SSM never travel to Sudbury and our daughter lives in NB and says they or their friends hardly ever go to Sudbury - the odd Costco run perhaps. NB-Ottawa now has bus service but I don't know the ridership.
Some of these links would require significant track work to make them viable. In the NB-Ottawa case, the lack of rail is a problem.
I think the west wins on this one.
Pushing long freight through northern Ontario, especially in the winter is the legacy of our land. Both CN and CP move a lot of traffic between eastern and western Canada via the US as it is.

 

[micheal_can]

I actually like the idea of rail-connected 'city-pairs' provided there is a travelling demographic to support them. It's one thing to say that people could take the train but quite another to say they would in sufficient numbers.
I'm not familiar with the prairie pairing, such as Calgary Edmonton and Regina Saskatoon, but assuming provincial capitals, major medical and commerce centres, etc. they seem likely. Winnipeg-Kenora perhaps. I used to live in both the N/E and N/W and I'm not convinced there would be sufficient ridership for Winnipeg-TBay or TBay-SSM (700 road km each). I simply don't see enough non-commercial traffic travelling between these pairs on a halfways regular basis to justify a frequent passenger rail connection (once or twice a week perhaps).
The centres in northern Ontario primarily serve the small communities scattered around them. If they are on the line and if a stop was included then it might be useful to them. The CP/CN connection east of White River to SSM goes essentially through the bush.
Even traffic between centres such as SSM-Sudbury and Sudbury seem questionable. A small sample admittedly, but the folks I know in SSM never travel to Sudbury and our daughter lives in NB and says they or their friends hardly ever go to Sudbury - the odd Costco run perhaps. NB-Ottawa now has bus service but I don't know the ridership.
Some of these links would require significant track work to make them viable. In the NB-Ottawa case, the lack of rail is a problem.
I think the west wins on this one.
Pushing long freight through northern Ontario, especially in the winter is the legacy of our land. Both CN and CP move a lot of traffic between eastern and western Canada via the US as it is.

Is it a case o don't due it due to the drive, the distance, the time, or other? A bus isn't much better than a car for comfort. They also face the same weather issues as a car. The HCR and OVR are both in need of maintenance to allow trains to travel at a reasonable speed.

You might get the elderly travelers that are going to places like Sudbury for medical appointments.

The highway between TBay and the Soo might be 700km, but in winter, that highway becomes deadly.

Bringing back the old Canadian route, including the split in North Bay would take putting the rails back down. It is doable, but not likely something that will be done within the next few decades.

Doing what is done on the Corridor to Western Canada would work, but likely would not be something anyone would suggest.

 

[lenaitch]

Is it a case o don't due it due to the drive, the distance, the time, or other? A bus isn't much better than a car for comfort. They also face the same weather issues as a car. The HCR and OVR are both in need of maintenance to allow trains to travel at a reasonable speed.

You might get the elderly travelers that are going to places like Sudbury for medical appointments.

The highway between TBay and the Soo might be 700km, but in winter, that highway becomes deadly.

Bringing back the old Canadian route, including the split in North Bay would take putting the rails back down. It is doable, but not likely something that will be done within the next few decades.

Doing what is done on the Corridor to Western Canada would work, but likely would not be something anyone would suggest.

Medical needs for sure, and that will be at least a continuing issue. I lived in two towns in the north, both about 3K population; one on the TCH, one not. A lot of small town folks don't go to the city very often because they don't feel a need to. The odd blast down to do some shopping (Walmart, Sears back in the day), maybe catch a restaurant and a movie. Towns that size have grocery, hardware, etc., a few doctors and basic health facilities. It's a different lifestyle. Needs and wants are fairly basic, nobody pines to go the theatre or a club. In more recent years, I imagine Amazon and their ilk has made life even easier. When I lived in the N/W I went to Wpg or TBay maybe once or twice a year. In the N/E, I went to the Soo maybe 4 or 5 times a year (work notwithstanding).
I've driven Hwy 17 literally hundreds of times and it surely can be a white-knuckler in the winter, but unless it's something really important, you stay home - or stay an extra day in the city before heading home. Long haul trucking, for sure, a closed highway is a cost (not turnin' - not earnin') but many take Hwy 11 in the winter to avoid the weather.

As for the HCR, interesting article in Northern Ontario Business:

Sudbury industrial services company eager to fix short-line rail problems

Diesel Electric Services wants to partner in regional solution for Huron Central Railway if Genesee & Wyoming walks in 2020

www.northernontariobusiness.com

As for OVR, I'm surprised it's hung on as long as it has since they lost the bridge traffic to Smiths Falls. They only have a couple of customers east of NB, although I don't know what their traffic is west to Sudbury.

 

[micheal_can]

Medical needs for sure, and that will be at least a continuing issue. I lived in two towns in the north, both about 3K population; one on the TCH, one not. A lot of small town folks don't go to the city very often because they don't feel a need to. The odd blast down to do some shopping (Walmart, Sears back in the day), maybe catch a restaurant and a movie. Towns that size have grocery, hardware, etc., a few doctors and basic health facilities. It's a different lifestyle. Needs and wants are fairly basic, nobody pines to go the theatre or a club. In more recent years, I imagine Amazon and their ilk has made life even easier. When I lived in the N/W I went to Wpg or TBay maybe once or twice a year. In the N/E, I went to the Soo maybe 4 or 5 times a year (work notwithstanding).
I've driven Hwy 17 literally hundreds of times and it surely can be a white-knuckler in the winter, but unless it's something really important, you stay home - or stay an extra day in the city before heading home. Long haul trucking, for sure, a closed highway is a cost (not turnin' - not earnin') but many take Hwy 11 in the winter to avoid the weather.

As for the HCR, interesting article in Northern Ontario Business:

Sudbury industrial services company eager to fix short-line rail problems

Diesel Electric Services wants to partner in regional solution for Huron Central Railway if Genesee & Wyoming walks in 2020

www.northernontariobusiness.com

As for OVR, I'm surprised it's hung on as long as it has since they lost the bridge traffic to Smiths Falls. They only have a couple of customers east of NB, although I don't know what their traffic is west to Sudbury.

OVR is east o Sudbury. HCR is west of Sudbury. OVR hasn't been in the news. HCR has been. I am surprised that ONR hasn't tried to bring them into their ownership.

 

[lenaitch]

OVR is east o Sudbury. HCR is west of Sudbury. OVR hasn't been in the news. HCR has been. I am surprised that ONR hasn't tried to bring them into their ownership.

You're correct. I said I didn't know what OVR traffic was west to Sudbury. In-house, maybe the ONR would love to take it on, but their operating mandate is controlled by Queen's Park.

 

[micheal_can]

You're correct. I said I didn't know what OVR traffic was west to Sudbury. In-house, maybe the ONR would love to take it on, but their operating mandate is controlled by Queen's Park.

Sorry, I thought you were getting the 2 mixed up.

 

[Allandale25]

Via Rail high-frequency passenger service a high priority for feds

Trudeau has tasked his transport minister to make the new passenger rail service through Peterborough a reality.

www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com

 

[dowlingm]

You're correct. I said I didn't know what OVR traffic was west to Sudbury. In-house, maybe the ONR would love to take it on, but their operating mandate is controlled by Queen's Park.

Would OVR relinquish control of the Sudbury-North Bay segment without requiring ONR to buy them out of North Bay-Mattawa-Témiscaming also? Not that I wouldn't like to see ONR own that segment as a first step to restoring rail service back towards Ottawa, but it would be a substantial financial and operational change I would think?

 

[lenaitch]

Would OVR relinquish control of the Sudbury-North Bay segment without requiring ONR to buy them out of North Bay-Mattawa-Témiscaming also? Not that I wouldn't like to see ONR own that segment as a first step to restoring rail service back towards Ottawa, but it would be a substantial financial and operational change I would think?

Without knowing the revenue and operating costs of each subdivision that's impossible to answer. As far as I am aware, CP still owns both OVR and HCR trackage, so purchase isn't really necessary. The parent company expects all of its shortlines to be profitable in its own right (which has caused some to wonder why the government gave money to HCR when its parent is profitable).
The industry has already determined that freight service down the Ottawa Valley wasn't profitable. I really don't see how the cost of re-creating the infrastructure solely for a passenger service of unknown frequency could be justified. I'm not of the 'build it and they will come' school; there has to be a market. There hasn't been passenger rail down the valley in decades, no flights and I think one bus per day each way.

 

[Allandale25]

Someone posted this to The Canadian Facebook group.

I created a little app for checking arrivals/departures at any Via station because I didn’t like the existing tools on Via’s website... just want to share in case anyone else finds it useful! Please let me know if you notice any bugs or have feature requests

VIA Rail Live Data

Unfortunately VIA Rail has stopped providing a public API with data on their consists and arrivals/departures. If this data once again becomes available, we will restore this website. Sadly for now it appears there is no way for us to see this data. VIA does still publish live status of their

viarail.live

 

[Allandale25]

Transportation advocates still waiting for regional plan

Originally expected for release this fall, advocates are now anticipating that a regional transportation plan for Southwestern Ontario will be pushed into the new y…

lfpress.com

 

[Cobra]

Via Rail high-frequency passenger service a high priority for feds

Trudeau has tasked his transport minister to make the new passenger rail service through Peterborough a reality.

www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com

I'll say it again...

One of the most short-sighted project ever.

Best to build true HSR in today's dollars than in 20 years dollars.

 

[Allandale25]

^ That implies they can build it "today". The only way to do it would be to pass legislation/use other legal tools to force CN/CP to agree. They would likely retaliate and it would end up in the courts for years and even if the gov one, the courts would probably say that CN/CP have to be fully compensated. CN could also retaliate in other parties of the country, threaten to move their HQ, or pull out of any Metrolinx discussions. No political party has proposed in the recent federal election any specific legal strategy or legislation or process to get HSR done quickly and deal with the freight operators. I'm sure the Greens had broad language but nothing specific.

So, how long do we have to wait to hope for the best?