The feds have promised that there will be no reduction in service from existing levels on the existing corridor. In fact you will probably see an increase in service at some stations, as less express trains are needed, those will be dedicated to the HFR routing.
The lines on the existing corridor are private railways that have the final say on expansions, amounts of trains etc.
These companies (CN/CP) are also some of the largest in Canada, and largest freight companies in the world. They hold significant clout in the government through lobbying etc.
They refuse to allow development of any reasonable passenger rail through this corridor.
What other options are there? I'd love to hear it.
Also: having a separate route is always advantageous for reliability. Lets say an issue happens on one line, while some stops and stations will be affected, you can still route trains around using the other line and offer some level of continued service.
I am aware of most of this and accept it to a degree
The feds may promise no reduction in service and we can accept that, although experience does not lend total credibility to that promise. I would argue that service to existing population areas should be increased both in frequency and speed.
CN and CP most likely have valid arguments. I am not an expert in their train frequencies over specific routes, but I would question how fully utilized they are, even the TOR/MTL route. I understand there are possibly other mitigating factors to allowing further trains on certain routs using todays train control technologies and the existing track.
I would ague the case that the fed's should use their powers to expand ROW's where needed to allow for additional track to be added to routes where geography already favours railways, allowing dedicated VIA usage at higher sustained speeds and frequencies. This could certainly be done incrementally and possibly incorporate new technologies (for VIA) in electric and/or hydrogen power. There might even be some benefits to others sharing an expanded row i.e. CP/CN
I believe that ridership figures would improve with speed and frequency. The service from MTL to TOR is ok, but shave some time off of that trip by enabling continuous sustained high speed use, say above 150 kmh, and closer to 200 kmh. At least to begin with. Could we enable and sustain higher speeds then that? In rugged climate and geography? China does it, and even in horrendous weather that I have experienced in locales in China, train speeds never fell to VIA levels (Although ALL highways would just shut down). But that is a vastly different economic model based on a country of 1.4 billion people. By comparison, Canada's current population is 38.4 million. although some would contend that our 'ideal' population would be 100 million.
Korea is also an interesting country to examine for comparisons.
The focus of these improvements should begin with the TOR to Quebec City corridor, with Ottawa added in (service from Brockville and Montreal).
I do not believe Ottawa will ever build a new rail line from Quebec City to Toronto via Montreal, Ottawa and Peterborough. Absolute fantasy. But I also think that the science and technology of railroading lags, and the entrepreneurial pizzaz is AWOL. Some of this might be due to the overreaching and stuffy nature of the governmental boards overseeing railroad operations, and some of it might be due to 'precision' railroading,. There appears to be much further potential for rail to be a greater part of our transportation mix and it is frustrating to see study after study over pie in the sky concepts.
Bring back the Turbo Train. Now that was adventurous fun.
