VIA Rail

[crs1026]

I don't doubt any of that; and have no wish to throw good money after bad.

I was more or less fixated on the (potential) once in a generation opportunity of a new 400-series corridor here, already being built and financed by the province; and whether the accretive cost of grafting on rail row would make economic sense.

It would be interesting to look at the grades and curvature of the highway to see what might be possible. You raise an interesting idea in that in theory one could establish a policy that any new divided highway must be engineered to accommodate or rough-in a rail corridor also. I suspect that would greatly raise the cost of the highway construction and constrain the design of civil structures eg centre-supported overpasses.
The problem becomes, if one can’t overcome limitations somewhere along the route, having 80% of the length rail-ready doesn’t help anything. In this case, limitations south of Parry Sound might be showstoppers even if the alignment north of there were possible.
A section of new HFR construction alongside Highway 7 was proposed as a solution to the Sharbot Lake issues - certainly the idea has merit where everything lines up. I’m not sure one can extrapolate from that to an entire route.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

I was more or less fixated on the (potential) once in a generation opportunity of a new 400-series corridor here, already being built and financed by the province; and whether the accretive cost of grafting on rail row would make economic sense.

That may work for a passenger line - especially a higher-speed or high-speed one - but freight railways need to be built with a minimum of gradient change in order to maximize their efficiency (in whichever form the freight railways choose to apply that term this week).

Especially when dealing with the Canadian shield in the northern stretches of Ontario, I don't think that highway alignments are a viable option.

Dan

 

[Urban Sky]

Placing railway tracks into Highway medians will always escalate Highway construction costs substantially, as Railways require much more gentle horizontal and vertical curvatures due to operating at higher design speeds (160+ vs. 120 km/h) and with much lower rolling resistance (steel-steel vs. rubber-asphalt). The most costly parts, however, are the bits where you enter or leave the Highway median, as you‘ll invariably cross over or under one set of Highway lanes at a very acute angle, which is why most of the time, you’ll find railways built adjacent to Highways rather than in their median.

You can read here a lot more about these challenges:

Putting Rail Lines in Highway Medians

North Americans are in love with trains that go in highway medians. A large fraction of urban rail construction since World War Two, both light rail and full metro, has used highway medians as chea…

pedestrianobservations.com

 

[Bordercollie]

Works great, so long as there is cellular or Internet service. They are called 'remote' for a reason.


Many bus services, such as Ontario Northland, no longer use ticket agents (or, at least very few). Tickets are purchased online with a few seats held on some routes for true flag stops.


All it would take is new greenfield ROWs. Even if by some miracle of miracles the parent ROW owners agreed to allowing additional trackage, the alignments don't come close to allowing that kind of speed (whatever a 'kmph' is). It's only tax dollars.

But bus service is usually for people who may not have access to the internet, especially in rural areas.

Having a ticket agent provides shelter to the elements making bus travel more attractive.

Or having ticket kiosks would be nice.

Greyhound had a rule where the primary card holder needed to travel. That made it harder for parents to buy tickets for their kids half way across the country. Why was that rule in place? And why do they require ID to ride a bus? Those things made it less attractive to ride the bus.

 

[lenaitch]

^The CP route to Sudbury is actually the better of the two, in the sense that it was engineered more thoughtfully to reduce grades and achieve speed. The CN route was pushed through with more haste and is more tortuous, with stretches of 35mph annd 45 mph running.

Any move to 2-way running in the directional running zone would require substantial investment, because signals and sidings have been changed with DR. So picking just one route to invest in is a fantasy proposition, operationally and cost-wise.

Could one engineer a new route or upgrade one of the existing routes for more speed ? Sure…. just bring money. But I would predict that a few as-yet-unattended environmental issues might jump out - nobody cared about those in 1906. Add in the interests of indigenous as well as recreational property owners, and finding an acceptable new route would be a lot of work and might involve some tradeoffs. It could be done…. but the expense would probably exceed the cost of free bus tickets for everyone for a lifetime. Linking Sudbury and North Bay and the Soo to Southern Ontario by rail is just not the same as linking T-O-M with a new line and we apparently aren’t really in a hurry even there.

- Paul

If nothing else, the CP route was built by CP itself between 1905-08; the CN route was built piecemeal by several iterations of companies between the 1850s and 1880s.

As far I can picture, I don't think there is any on-route revenue traffic for CP north of Honda Alliston.

Besides the fact that the right of way for the new 69/400 has already been largely assembled and engineered, assembling a wider corridor to accommodate rail would obviously increase land acquisition costs and I'm also not convinced that matching the grades and curves between the two modes is all that practical.

Even with government input, any new acquisition and construction costs would have result in very significant improvements in rail operating costs. If nothing else, their current ROWs are bought and paid for.

 

[crs1026]

But bus service is usually for people who may not have access to the internet, especially in rural areas.

Definitely not a sound generalization, especially since we started this conversation talking about services on main highways on the prairies, and/or between Toronto and the North, which while unpopulated may not fall under "remote". There is wireless all along major corridors, and across a great deal of the prairies. Dead zones, sure, and true "remote" areas do exist with no coverage. But it varies greatly. Similar for landline based internet. Ask most farmers - heck, text 'em .

Having a ticket agent provides shelter to the elements making bus travel more attractive.

Or having ticket kiosks would be nice.

Suppose we establish ten ticket kiosks between, say, Sudbury and Toronto. Without them, we pay one salary - the driver. With them, we pay eleven salaries. And ten of those people are only needed for two short periods each day (assuming one round trip each day). Ten ticket machines, ten internet connections, ten stores of fare media and possibly ten cash trays to collect, account, and audit. Do you see why the economics and administrative costs would go up to an unsustainable level?

I agree that one should have a bus stop that's more than a sign. But again, consider ten stops with a shelter. Unlike a city bus, people won't be getting off the bus and walking a short distance. They will likely be met or dropped off by someone with a car. That implies a certain amount of parking and pulloff space. Each one needs to be paved (capital), plowed and salted in winter, possibly with lighting to install and maintain. And an information display showing times and status of the incoming bus. This too has a cost.

Once you get to the scope of a heated shelter, you may wonder about a toilet. And a garbage can. And those likely require someone to clean periodically. Each stop is at a distance from the next - do you contract with a different local person to manage each one, or do you hire someone to drive the whole route and look after them all? Again, a significant cost and coordinative effort.

Greyhound had a rule where the primary card holder needed to travel. That made it harder for parents to buy tickets for their kids half way across the country. Why was that rule in place? And why do they require ID to ride a bus? Those things made it less attractive to ride the bus.

Some of those post-9/11 rules made little sense then and still don't. We have pretty much accepted that any intercity traveller must present government ID on any trip, regardless of mode. I'm not sure that makes sense, but it's likely beyond repeal.
I don't see that this precludes buying a ticket for someone else and transferring it to them electronically.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

But bus service is usually for people who may not have access to the internet, especially in rural areas.

Having a ticket agent provides shelter to the elements making bus travel more attractive.

Or having ticket kiosks would be nice.

Greyhound had a rule where the primary card holder needed to travel. That made it harder for parents to buy tickets for their kids half way across the country. Why was that rule in place? And why do they require ID to ride a bus? Those things made it less attractive to ride the bus.

Fair points, but this is the way ONR has gone (admittedly I don't know all the fine details). The advantage of an agent was they typically accessed the booking system via a landline. The disadvantages were it required a business to exist in said remote location and be willing to be the agency. The fact that there was an agent didn't necessarily imply that they would be open at all bus times or that you could use them as a waiting room; it depended on the business.

Some type of kiosk (as in machine not simply a small shelter) is an interesting option and I don't know if any carrier has them as stand-alone services in remote locations. They are an obvious expense and require some kind of data connection.

 

[Bordercollie]

Definitely not a sound generalization, especially since we started this conversation talking about services on main highways on the prairies, and/or between Toronto and the North, which while unpopulated may not fall under "remote". There is wireless all along major corridors, and across a great deal of the prairies. Dead zones, sure, and true "remote" areas do exist with no coverage. But it varies greatly. Similar for landline based internet. Ask most farmers - heck, text 'em .



Suppose we establish ten ticket kiosks between, say, Sudbury and Toronto. Without them, we pay one salary - the driver. With them, we pay eleven salaries. And ten of those people are only needed for two short periods each day (assuming one round trip each day). Ten ticket machines, ten internet connections, ten stores of fare media and possibly ten cash trays to collect, account, and audit. Do you see why the economics and administrative costs would go up to an unsustainable level?

I agree that one should have a bus stop that's more than a sign. But again, consider ten stops with a shelter. Unlike a city bus, people won't be getting off the bus and walking a short distance. They will likely be met or dropped off by someone with a car. That implies a certain amount of parking and pulloff space. Each one needs to be paved (capital), plowed and salted in winter, possibly with lighting to install and maintain. And an information display showing times and status of the incoming bus. This too has a cost.

Once you get to the scope of a heated shelter, you may wonder about a toilet. And a garbage can. And those likely require someone to clean periodically. Each stop is at a distance from the next - do you contract with a different local person to manage each one, or do you hire someone to drive the whole route and look after them all? Again, a significant cost and coordinative effort.



Some of those post-9/11 rules made little sense then and still don't. We have pretty much accepted that any intercity traveller must present government ID on any trip, regardless of mode. I'm not sure that makes sense, but it's likely beyond repeal.
I don't see that this precludes buying a ticket for someone else and transferring it to them electronically.

- Paul

VIA doesn't require photo ID to travel. Except in a situation where you are required to show a vaccine passport.

 

[Urban Sky]

VIA doesn't require photo ID to travel. Except in a situation where you are required to show a vaccine passport.

Even though I don’t recall having been photo IDed onboard VIA trains outside of vaccine mandates, but at least tickets bought electronically require photo IDs:

Boarding pass | VIA Rail

VIA is now phasing boarding passes on its trains. You will need to present a printed version of this boarding pass or display its barcode on your mobile device to board the train directly.

www.viarail.ca

 

[Bordercollie]

I think they reserve the right to do that but is not required. Greyhound was super strict. Had to be government ID and had to match your ticket exactly. But when purchasing it at the agent no name is required. How does that make sense.

 

[CapitalSeven]

I had to ride Greyhound in the prairies a couple of times pre-pandemic. Not only had the service deteriorated significantly over the decades, but the security measures put in place in reaction to the horrific decapitation incident seemed designed to discourage ridership. Instead of putting bags through a scanner, they lined passengers up, opened the bags, and pulled out items for all to see. One time the agent opened my toiletries kit, held up personal things, and laughed. The message was You're trash because you're taking the bus and you have no rights. Next time I rented a car. The pandemic has only reinforced the notion in much of Canada that not having a vehicle is shameful.

 

[Bordercollie]

I had to ride Greyhound in the prairies a couple of times pre-pandemic. Not only had the service deteriorated significantly over the decades, but the security measures put in place in reaction to the horrific decapitation incident seemed designed to discourage ridership. Instead of putting bags through a scanner, they lined passengers up, opened the bags, and pulled out items for all to see. One time the agent opened my toiletries kit, held up personal things, and laughed. The message was You're trash because you're taking the bus and you have no rights. Next time I rented a car. The pandemic has only reinforced the notion in much of Canada that not having a vehicle is shameful.

What a disaster. Towards the end it seemed like the lowest common denominator took the bus, at least that's how they treated people.

 

[roger1818]

And when electric vehicles become more common I think there will be a shift. I think that people will use other forms of transportation to travel long distances. Even with Canadian tire and Petro Canada are building EV charging stations across the country waiting 2 hours every 350km to charge your car isn't going to be very attractive. Plus there is going to be a lineup when you get there.

Way off topic I know, but even today you don't need to wait 2 hours every 350km, and charging rates are getting faster and faster. Today many EVs can charge at an average rate of 120 kWh (and some are much faster) and on the coldest winter day the vast majority can travel more than 4km/kWh (in summer it is over 6). Doing some simple math, 350km ÷ 4km/kWh ÷ 120 kWh x 60 min/hour ≈ 45 min. In warmer weather, that drops to 30 minutes charging. As that charging rate gets up to 350 kWh, that charging time drops down to about 15 min in frigid weather or 10 minutes above freezing, which is enough time to go to the washroom and grab something to eat/drink. Also, most modern EVs have a range well over 350 km, but given that it takes 3-4 hours to drive that distance, most people will want to stop after that amount of time driving anyway, and you might as well charge while the car is parked anyway. They key will be getting rapid charging ubiquitous enough that it is everywhere you want to stop when on a road trip (restaurants, rest areas, etc.).

The bigger problem will be affordability. While for many, the lease payment on a new EV plus the cost of electricity is often the same or less than the cost of gas alone, many people can't afford to buy a new car (gas or electric) and it will be a while before there are enough used EVs on the market so that everyone can buy one. With gas prices skyrocketing, those people won't be able to afford to buy gas for the same reason they can't afford to buy a new car, so driving a gas car won't be feasible and they will be forced to shift to away from owning a vehicle to using public transportation, be it bus or train.

Back to our regular scheduled programming about VIA Rail.

 

[WillTo]

VIA doesn't require photo ID to travel. Except in a situation where you are required to show a vaccine passport.

I have been checked for ID. It is not all the stations but I do distinctly remember using VIA last year but before vaccination was mandatory. They would have two people checking ids and then funnel you to the one person who scanned tickets.

 

[Bordercollie]

I didn't know that the star was such a prominent promoter if high speed rail. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/con...at-are-we-waiting-for-on-high-speed-rail.html