VIA Rail

[crs1026]

The methodology used above has some obvious shortcomings (like using distance-by-rail rather than Euclidean distance), but while it's time for me to go to bed, I'll curiously check tomorrow what reactions and reflections this quick-and-dirty table will provoke...

Interesting. I presume the formula isn’t backed by any documented validation, it's just somebody's intuitive attempt at a formula?

I won’t nitpick the model - we could spend a year debating that. But taking the numbers at face value, it's certainly interesting as a discussion point.

The big takeaway for me is the huge difference in order of magnitude between the various routes.... sure, we *could* run a train Moncton-Campbellton, but is that the best place to spend investment dollars? At the other extreme, every day spent waiting to begin upgrading Montreal-Ottawa is a huge opportunity cost. Ottawa can afford that investment without any elaborate resort to investment banks, etc. so why not just do it?

The one shortcoming I see that could be addressed just by changing the presentation is how the model treats each station pair as a discrete corridor. So Toronto-Windsor stands alone separate from Toronto-London, whereas a business case for investment on that corridor would want to capture both riderships. Similarly, I have always believed that if we ever see Calgary-Edmonton investment, there should also be service (of some lesser frequency, to be sure) to Lethbridge because Edmonton-Lethbridge will have some revenue potential that isn't captured by the E-C number.

Comparing the two Montreal-Toronto options (via Ottawa, or direct via Cornwall) is interesting - same numerator, but denominators favour the direct route. But how significant is the difference?

This feels like you've opened the bag of potato chips, we've taken just a couple, and sealed the bag and put it back in the cupboard. That never lasts for long.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

Similar to many statistical formulas, it is like a bikini. What it shows is interesting, but what it hides is crucial. The population and distance are important factors to the potential demand, but there are other very significant ones. Language and culture are also very important factors. The population of intermediary cities can also play an important role when looking at train service in general (though admittedly HSR trains would likely skip them anyway). It also doesn't factor in acceleration/deceleration time.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Similar to many statistical formulas, it is like a bikini. What it shows is interesting, but what it hides is crucial. The population and distance are important factors to the potential demand, but there are other very significant ones. Language and culture are also very important factors. The population of intermediary cities can also play an important role when looking at train service in general (though admittedly HSR trains would likely skip them anyway). It also doesn't factor in acceleration/deceleration time.

Current demand is also very important (capacity of flights + highway demand?) , and the population figure needs to be adjusted for range.

 

[kEiThZ]

While the irony of someone who boasts of having created "the only national educational resource on high speed rail, TGV, trains, past studies and current information" posting a video by a Youtuber who seemingly hasn't heard of any of the HSR studies for which Canadians are supposedly famous...

That video was also promoted by Not Just Bikes. And the proponent of the video the thought there was no point serving Ottawa. It shows the limits of this kind of superficial analysis where one doesn't understand local geography, culture and economics.

 

[Mr Finish Line]

The following video was posted today on Paul Langan's "High Speed Rail Canada" page on Facebook:

I actually requested that video in a comment on one of his previous videos on HSR.

 

[ManyQuestions]

I won’t nitpick the model - we could spend a year debating that.

It is worth nitpicking though; that was an exam question for a class on economic geography I took last year. This model was used as the basis for much of that field's development in the 80s but it's lack of consideration of physical and human/political boundaries severely limit its utility in it's intended case of modelling commercial trade volumes. It was never meant as a tool for designing transportation networks.

It's with noting that a key assumption of the model is that transportation cost is purely a linear function of the direct distance between points, something the clearly isn't reflective of the real world.

I'd write more but I don't have much time. This kind of psuedo-academic hot-take really annoys me but I'll withhold judgement as I haven't yet watched the video. Can also add citations later.

Still, it's an interesting basis for a thought experiment; somewhat similar to the slime mold transportation network videos...

 

[ssiguy2]

One new development {and a damn scary one} is the new Amtrak proposal that would go ahead if the US Infrastructure Bill passes.

One of the new routes Amtrak is proposing is a Chicago/Detroit/Toronto one and it clearly shows on it's website that it would make stops in Canada including the big 2...........London & Windsor. They would never have planned such a new route into another country unless they had cleared it with VIA first. It makes you wonder if VIA has some plans to vacate {or at least greatly reduce} it's service to SWO and give the route to Amtrak. One wouldn't think so as it is the most profitable per km travelled in the system but VIA's purely political decision to forget HFR for London but not Quebec City despite the fact that London is the busier station gives one pause.

When you add that onto GO's plans to expand service to London via the Kitchener route is it so far fetched to think that VIA is abandoning SWO completely much like it effectively has for Niagara?

 

[crs1026]

One new development {and a damn scary one} is the new Amtrak proposal that would go ahead if the US Infrastructure Bill passes.

One of the new routes Amtrak is proposing is a Chicago/Detroit/Toronto one and it clearly shows on it's website that it would make stops in Canada including the big 2...........London & Windsor. They would never have planned such a new route into another country unless they had cleared it with VIA first. It makes you wonder if VIA has some plans to vacate {or at least greatly reduce} it's service to SWO and give the route to Amtrak. One wouldn't think so as it is the most profitable per km travelled in the system but VIA's purely political decision to forget HFR for London but not Quebec City despite the fact that London is the busier station gives one pause.

Hey, normally I’m the conspiracy guy…. in this case I think you are worried about nothing. VIA and Amtrak have plenty of experience with interoperation on a somewhat similar service with the same end points…. plus other routes also. The proposal is likely going to amount to one through train a day…. just like it was pre 2005. That hardly puts VIA service at risk.

Some of the fine details of the US plan seem a bit optimistic, and make me wonder how much was designed on a napkin in DC rather than by the two passenger agencies and the tenant railroads…. but that won’t undo the momentum of the plan with the current level of political support. The details can be made to work.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

Hey, normally I’m the conspiracy guy…. in this case I think you are worried about nothing. VIA and Amtrak have plenty of experience with interoperation on a somewhat similar service with the same end points…. plus other routes also. The proposal is likely going to amount to one through train a day…. just like it was pre 2005. That hardly puts VIA service at risk.

Some of the fine details of the US plan seem a bit optimistic, and make me wonder how much was designed on a napkin in DC rather than by the two passenger agencies and the tenant railroads…. but that won’t undo the momentum of the plan with the current level of political support. The details can be made to work.

- Paul

Agreed. Typically these types of routes are operated in Canada by VIA Rail on shared equipment. The only real concern is schedule reliability with a longer route (starting in Chicago rather than Windsor).

 

[Urban Sky]

Agreed. Typically these types of routes are operated in Canada by VIA Rail on shared equipment. The only real concern is schedule reliability with a longer route (starting in Chicago rather than Windsor).

So far I thought that the plan was to have Amtrak and VIA services meet in Detroit Michigan Central Station, where the border and customs facilities for both countries would be located. With a generous transfer time of, say, 2 hours, the connection should be reasonably stable, while the end-to-end travel time still stays acceptable...

 

[Bordercollie]

So far I thought that the plan was to have Amtrak and VIA services meet in Detroit Michigan Central Station, where the border and customs facilities for both countries would be located. With a generous transfer time of, say, 2 hours, the connection should be reasonably stable, while the end-to-end travel time still stays acceptable...

Maybe that will pay for some upgrades to the Dundas sub and Chatham sub could have additional sidings added to allow trains to pass each other more easily.

Currently some of the sidings have speed restrictions preventing the train to run at track speed.

 

[Urban Sky]

Maybe that will pay for some upgrades to the Dundas sub and Chatham sub could have additional sidings added to allow trains to pass each other more easily.

Currently some of the sidings have speed restrictions preventing the train to run at track speed.

I'm not sure how much of a sell it would be to American taxpayers to fund infrastructure improvements abroad which (unlike pre-clearance facilities at Montreal's Gare Centrale) mostly benefit domestic travel...

 

[Bordercollie]

I'm not sure how much of a sell it would be to American taxpayers to fund infrastructure improvements abroad which (unlike pre-clearance facilities at Montreal's Gare Centrale) mostly benefit domestic travel...

I wonder if this would be suitable for F40's if it works.

Tier 4, ‘All Notches, All the Time’ - Railway Age

Fullerton, Calif.-based technology company Rail Propulsion Systems LLC (RPS), partnering with the North Carolina DOT, the North Carolina State Clean Tech Center and the Federal Highway Administration, has demonstrated what it’s describing as “the first diesel passenger locomotive in the United...

www.railwayage.com

 

[Urban Sky]

I wonder if this would be suitable for F40's if it works.

Tier 4, ‘All Notches, All the Time’ - Railway Age

Fullerton, Calif.-based technology company Rail Propulsion Systems LLC (RPS), partnering with the North Carolina DOT, the North Carolina State Clean Tech Center and the Federal Highway Administration, has demonstrated what it’s describing as “the first diesel passenger locomotive in the United...

www.railwayage.com

Not sure how this relates to my reply to your previous comment you quoted, but the F40s have already been throughoutly rebuilt and are approaching 40 years, which is generally considered the end of the economic life for locomotives...

 

[ssiguy2]

I would not think this is an issue if it weren't for the latest developments.

VIA has given the GO ahead for GO service to London and obviously that service will increase dramatically over the next decade and beyond and due to GO service from KW all day soon coming, VIA has effectively begun the slow retreat from the service entirely. All one has to do is look at the same scenario that is taking place in Niagara where the VIA website now simply mentions rail service by working with it's "partners" at GO & Amtrak. When you now go to VIA's schedules for Niagara service you will find that there no longer is one.

Amtrak will find the Chicago/Detroit/Toronto a very lucrative one as Detroit to Toronto ridership explodes and very high ridership numbers at London and Windsor. When you combine this with VIA's purely political decision to provide HFR to QC and not London, it does make one wonder. When it comes to revenue per km the Union/London route requires the least amount of subsidy in the entire VIA system so financially it should be the very first line to get HFR yet VIA seems content to do absolutely nothing with this key corridor.

It certainly is not an "oversight" but possibly a long-term plan for VIA to not spend the money on a service that they are trying to retreat from?