VIA Rail

[littlewill1166]

That is why we need a federal government who will make regulations that prevent this. Passenger trains should have priority.

Passenger trains do have priority when they run on time, however VIA does things (in southwestern Ontario) that cause trains to get delayed.

• Service Managers in London scanning tickets in the station instead of on board increasing dwell time.
• Packing all Toronto-London passengers into car 5 creating long line ups for the car and increasing dwell time.
• Controlled platform access at London, increasing dwell time.
• Holding trains so that people make their connections.

 

[micheal_can]

Passenger trains do have priority when they run on time, however VIA does things (in southwestern Ontario) that cause trains to get delayed.

• Service Managers in London scanning tickets in the station instead of on board increasing dwell time.
• Packing all Toronto-London passengers into car 5 creating long line ups for the car and increasing dwell time.
• Controlled platform access at London, increasing dwell time.
• Holding trains so that people make their connections.

I am not just talking the Corridor.

 

[littlewill1166]

I am not just talking the Corridor.

The railways do a crummy job maintaining their infrastructure resulting in constant signal/switch/track issues resulting in slow zones. A small delay 2 minute delay somewhere can reverberate throughout the network as trains wait on other sidings turning into a 2 day delay. Because most of the network is single track, the railways send swarms of trains down one direction, and a Canadian travelling in the opposite direction has to try to swim upstream. Overall, the railways aren't resilient at all.

If we're serous about having a better rail network, we shouldn't be framing it as a way to improve public transportation. Rather we should reuse the arguments that got the original railways built in the first place: national security and sovereignty. Single track railways with single points of failure do not support national defence. Government investments to improve the resilience of our railways under the pretence of national security could yield improved connectivity for Canadians, and get the orange guy down south to stop talking about how we're not spending enough on defence.

 

[littlewill1166]

This is why HFR shouldn't be single track:

.
With trains every 30 minutes, they'll all get bunched up like TTC 501 Queen Streetcar

 

[Allandale25]

^ Couldn't they solve this by adding more sidings? Do they not have enough?

 

[littlewill1166]

^ Couldn't they solve this by adding more sidings? Do they not have enough?

Not when the delay is on a single track portion of the line and there aren't ways for trains in the opposite direction to pass. Later today, these trains are going to be delayed even more by GO and freight trains because they they missed their time slots. HFR single track will help trains recover from delays since there won't be as much track sharing, but it's not as resilient to delays as HFR double track.

 

[micheal_can]

The railways do a crummy job maintaining their infrastructure resulting in constant signal/switch/track issues resulting in slow zones. A small delay 2 minute delay somewhere can reverberate throughout the network as trains wait on other sidings turning into a 2 day delay. Because most of the network is single track, the railways send swarms of trains down one direction, and a Canadian travelling in the opposite direction has to try to swim upstream. Overall, the railways aren't resilient at all.

If we're serous about having a better rail network, we shouldn't be framing it as a way to improve public transportation. Rather we should reuse the arguments that got the original railways built in the first place: national security and sovereignty. Single track railways with single points of failure do not support national defence. Government investments to improve the resilience of our railways under the pretence of national security could yield improved connectivity for Canadians, and get the orange guy down south to stop talking about how we're not spending enough on defence.

Prroblem is phrasing it so that the majority of voters agree.

 

[smallspy]

The Northlander was a 3 car train. It was shutdown not because of not being used, but because the province wanted to save money. In fact, ridership had been steadily growing on it to the point where the last year, and even the last run, it had 5 cars on it.

The Northlander had its subsidy revoked because the Government told ONR to shape up and smarten up, and bring their operations into the 21st century. They didn't, and thus had to pay the consequences.

The length of the last-run trains had nothing to do with ridership growing, and everything to do with many people taking a ceremonial last ride - myself included.

Dan

 

[micheal_can]

The Northlander had its subsidy revoked because the Government told ONR to shape up and smarten up, and bring their operations into the 21st century. They didn't, and thus had to pay the consequences.

The length of the last-run trains had nothing to do with ridership growing, and everything to do with many people taking a ceremonial last ride - myself included.

Dan

What did they need to shape up and what was out of date? There is a reason for my picture....

 

[robmausser]

^ Couldn't they solve this by adding more sidings? Do they not have enough?

The intent with HFR is single track with multiple sidings at key points to allow passing.

 

[micheal_can]

The intent with HFR is single track with multiple sidings at key points to allow passing.

The good thing with the ownership being Via is if they need another siding, they can put one in.

 

[smallspy]

What did they need to shape up and what was out of date? There is a reason for my picture....

They are, and continue to run an operation straight out of the 1950s, with antiquated fixed plant, inefficient in-house repair operations and operating contracts with their unions from a bygone era.

^ Couldn't they solve this by adding more sidings? Do they not have enough?

There are 2 sidings on the Brockville Sub, at Jasper (mile 6.28) and Bellamy (18.20). (Smiths Falls is mile 0, Brockville mile 27.8) There was also work ongoing to signalize the siding immediately north-east of the station - I don't know if this has been completed yet. On the Smiths Falls Sub, there are sidings at Fallowfield (mile 3.57), Richmond (12.70), Dwyer Hill (20.80) and Montague (34.09).

But that said, it seems to me that they could stand to put another 2 sidings on each of the Brockville Sub and Smiths Falls Subs which would greatly help their operations for when things go pear-shaped. As it is right now a train that is delayed can delay an oncoming train, but there are enough sidings that they generally only cause delays of about 10 minutes. But when things go really sideways, the majority of the sidings are so short that they can only place one train in each.

Dan

 

[micheal_can]

They are, and continue to run an operation straight out of the 1950s, with antiquated fixed plant, inefficient in-house repair operations and operating contracts with their unions from a bygone era.

Dan

They had the TEE, but that got canned in the early 90s. They refurbished old GO cars because the government wouldn't let them spend money on new equipment. GO had a contract, as did AMT/EXO and Rocky Mountaineer to refurbish their fleets.

Almost sounds like you are either a politician, or someone who doesn't know their operations very well.

 

[micheal_can]

Rise and Fall of Passenger Rail in Central Alberta - Forth Junction Project

Historic background highlighting the role of trails, railways and transit in the development and settlement of Red Deer and Central Alberta

www.forthjunction.ca

I am going to leave this here for everyone to make arguments for not bringing back many canceled services.

 

[lenaitch]

First, I wish you would be more measured in your responses. I specifically said in my post that I as not arguing for any specific pair that I listed, but rather a service model under which such services would be evaluated.

I think you are a very knowledgeable poster, but you do let your passion get the better of you, you want to win arguments you aren't even having!

That said, I think you're too quick dismissive of some city pairs. Again, its not that I'm advocating for them, but rather than I think they merit careful study to consider what options may be appropriate; and that there is at least some need to be fulfilled in some manner by public transport (it may well be a bus); but its a need not being met today.

You're quick to look at say Kenora-TBay and think about how small Kenora is; here's what I'm looking at.

Kenora is the hub community for about 70,000 in its area of north-western Ontario; it has the hospital, high school, community college etc. Accordingly it needs to be seen as 70,000.

Second, still being relatively small, many in the community travel for MRIs/Surgeries to eithe TBay or Winnipeg and the province actually provides a travel grant to cover these costs.

This travel pattern also holds for university studies and some employment.

The distance between TBay and Kenora is just over 400km.

The only and only bus trip that comes up takes a whopping 8 hours to traverse that section; clearly not a reasonable travel time, nor competitive w/the car in the least.

This is where examining the alternatives comes in. I'm not suggesting a 5-car loco-hauled VIA train makes sense.

It may be a revised bus route, but it also may make sense to look at 2-car DMU that makes no more than 1 intermediate stop, providing sufficient track speeds are attainable with out excessive capital investment.

The same sort of review is required of a host of different routes that I think you are simply too dismissive of; because you tire of what you see as rail-fan arguments rather that credible analysis.

That is surely fair in many scenarios. But it is equally fair, unless you can correct me on this point, that VIA hasn't studied most of the City-pair routes in any detail, in a generation or more.

Its also true that in that time circumstances have changed (much lower rates of driver's licenses among young people, especially in big cities) and much worse traffic near those same centres, along with deteriorated bus services.

Many of these will doubtless not justify rail, and I wasn't advocating that; merely a well thought out solution, rather than reactionary inaction.

I absolutely agree that the 'city'pairs' concept should be studied, but the demographics and current and potential travel patterns need to properly understood.

In your example, Kenora may well be the administrative seat of the District of Kenora (pop ~66K; Wiki) but that area is vast, over 30% of Ontario and extending to the coast of Hudson's Bay (whose residents typically relate and travel to Timmins for their 'higher end' services). Kenora does not have "the" hospital or high school, these facilities are also located in other area towns. True, that medical services are tiered, with Kenora likely offering more than the others and less than Winnipeg or Thunder Bay. The bottom line is that ~70,000 people do not depend on regular travel to Kenora. When I lived in the District, I would travel to Kenora once, perhaps twice a year, and I still had to drive an hour to get to the TCH.

All the passenger rail in the world is not going to 'get people out of their cars' in a region such as this, as some advocate, particularly if you don't live along the rail corridor. It would ease long distance travel for some, particularly in the winter. How that would benefit others scattered around the District without interim stops would remain to be seen.

This is not meant as a counterpoint to your argument, merely an indication of how difficult an assessment of travel patterns and needs is in this area.

A Winnpeg/Kenora/Thunder Bay might well be viable if there is a potential passenger load, primarily to provide access to the two end points. Between Kenora and Thunder Bay the CP line virtually parallels Hwy. 17. It used to be double track but, if I recall correctly, one track was made discontinuous and downgraded from main track status for a large portion; however, it does have some very long sidings (former main track). It is the CP mainline and much traffic terminates and the Port of Thunder Bay.

I do have trouble with the concept, as advocated by others, of railways - the property owners - being forced, at their cost, to make a tenant user a higher priority than their own. Perhaps there is some legislation that is available that the government is not exploiting sufficiently. Nationalization if they don't tow the government line is not in my genes.