Opinion piece on intercity rail in Canada

[rapidotrains]

Hi guys,

 

When I'm not designing model trains or gallivanting around the UK pretending to be working, I can usually be found on my pro-passenger rail soapbox. In Canada, passenger rail  is perpetually under threat outside the three major cities of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.

 

Here's an op-ed that was printed in the Toronto Sun today:

 

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/12/intercity-rail-canada-should-get-on-board

 

Thanks for reading,

 

Jason

 

[Removed a/c]

Even a trip from Windsor to Toronto can have an hour delay. Single line and then having to wait for it to clear. It is appalling but our options are few. 

[davknigh]

Nice piece of work Jason. I fear that in the Sun your words will have fallen on barren ground but you have to start somewhere. Perhaps the agreement in Paris will stimulate more action on passenger rail in Canada. FWIW the vast majority of my trips to Toronto this year have been by train, most have been delayed but it's still better than driving the 401.

 

Cheers,

 

David

[srihaggis]

An interesting read, and I thought the UK railways were screwed up!

[Dava]

Canada has the mindset of a developing country that has stopped developing to many things, sadly rail is one of those. Canadians would rather be prisoners of Air Canada (a common experience) than fund a passenger rail system.

 

Dava

[Gerald Henriksen]

Canada has the mindset of a developing country that has stopped developing to many things, sadly rail is one of those. Canadians would rather be prisoners of Air Canada (a common experience) than fund a passenger rail system.

As someone who last flew about 25 years ago when I was around 20, and found it cramped and only somewhat bearable back then, I really have no desire to experience what economy class has become since then.

 

But if I had to travel I would likely to either fly, or rent a car, simply because in too many cases rail simply isn't a viable alternative.  And I say that with regret as a fan of trains, and one who used British Rail quite a bit in my 4 or so years living in England.

 

Would I like to see passenger rail better funded and supported in Canada?

 

Yes, and I may well put some more thoughts down later.

 

But, I can mention a relatively recent experience.  7 years ago I planned a trip from Toronto to Saint John to take my mother to her high school reunion.  For several reasons flying was out, which left the train or car.  It was no contest.  In either case it was about 2 days of travel each way, but the fact that a car would need to be rented for the stay in Saint John meant that the train simply wasn't competitive in cost.  It was cheaper to rent the car in Toronto and drive rather then rent a car in Moncton and take the train, and expanding VIA to Saint John wouldn't have changed things.

[dibber25]

I agree 200% with Jason's comments. I've been saying much the same things to anyone who will listen for the past 15 years and more. I've watched VIA slowly wound down and closed up. I've seen the travesties that pass for service withdrawal process in Canada - basically you let the railway fall apart then close it on safety grounds with a proviso that, once repairs are done, you'll re-open. What a piece of shallow nonsense! Name one that's re-opened. There's no new equipment on order and there's been attrition of the main locomotive class through accidents (at least 6 out of 58 scrapped). On that basis alone, VIA couldn't expand even if it wanted to. Most of its rolling stock is life-expired and kept going by a process of constant rebuilding, while its front-line diesel class (the 900s)  must be close to their mid-life and are clearly in need of serious cosmetic attention, and doubtless mechanical upgrades, too. VIA's president wants to buy new locos but even if he gets the money, he can't justify even a minimum order, so has to wait till he can bolt on to a US order for a suitable loco. There's a basic lack of understanding of what constitutes a train SERVICE. Six trains a day between your three major cities is not a SERVICE. And most of the other so-called 'services' consist of fewer than 7 trains a week! I rode the Canadian all the way every summer from 2011 to 2013. I would have continued to do so - as a tourist paying well over £1,000 per trip - had it not been for the 2013 trip on No. 2. It dropped 4.5 hours in the first night (due to a freight train failure), made it up by a break-neck, hair-raising, rough ride through the night (it was impossible to stay in bed in Stuart Manor, never mind sleep!) lost it again next day and arrived in Toronto after lunch instead of after breakfast, after a tedious 25mph crawl across the entire of Southern Ontario. A makeshift lunch of leftovers - roast beef, Yorkshire pudding and potato salad (so gravy and mayonnaise!) was served as that's all that was available. Sorry, but much as I love Canada and VIA Rail, I'll not spend sums like that until I get some assurance that I'll be buying an experience, not an ordeal. I understand that many tourists this year have missed flights and cruises because of the Canadian's persistent lateness. VIA's staff, like all the Canadians I've met, are just delightful people and I feel for them and wonder how long their jobs will last. Dare we hope that the new government's talk of spending on infrastructure will mean some investment in VIA beyond rebuilding stations that are hardly used. (CJL)

[davknigh]

Given the events in Paris last weekend there is now a better argument to be made for rail travel, in fact, if Canada is to be able to live up to its talk getting people out of cars and on to the rails should be a priority. But we've been here before so I'm not holding my breath but I am going to write to my newly minted MP, draw attention to Jason's op-ed and give him my, polite, two cents worth.

 

Cheers,

 

David

 

As a PS I have written to my MP (copied to the opposition) with a link to the article and a few pithy suggestions

[Theakerr]

Too many vested interests paying into party coffers for much to change.  Over the last x years I am afraid our system has become so Americanised with their lobby groups.

[JSpencer]

Personally, I think it is lack of space in Canada (it is a small country after all) that is stopping them building high speed railway links. The UK - a giant country - on the other hand, has lots of real estate and is projecting a few high speed rail links in the coming decades.

[Revolution Ben]

Hi Jason,.

 

A fair, reasonable and compelling argument expressed coherently and logically. They will never listen!

 

cheers

 

 

Ben A.

[pH]

A view from the west (and wet) coast.

 

Intercity passenger rail, as an everyday means of transportation, is finished in Canada outside the Quebec City-Windsor corridor, with possibly the exception of a few other services in southern Ontario. It may remain for some (short?) time as a tourist attraction and for those who cannot, for whatever reason, use alternatives.

 

Vancouver has commuter services, both light- and heavy- rail. They are well used, are currently being extended and are likely to be further extended in the future. There is no demand for rail service between Vancouver and any other Canadian city, as a regular means of travel, with the nearest Canadian city being Calgary (ignore Victoria!).

 

One of our sons and his family moved to Saskatoon this year. We’ve visited twice. Both times we flew. His in-laws have also visited twice from here. The first time they drove. The second time his FiL flew. His MiL, who cannot fly, travelled by train – that’s an example of what I referred to as someone who has to use rail as an alternative to another form of transport.

 

Here’s a comparison between the different modes of travel available between Vancouver and Saskatoon:

Flying – 2 hours by direct flight. Cost of one-way flight $200

Driving – 17-18 hours on the road. Assume 1 night in motel enroute. Cost approx. $200

Train - 34+ hours, assuming no delays. Seat only costs $214 (that’s senior rate). If you want a berth, which seems reasonable to include for comparison with driving, cost is $640 upper, $752 lower, again senior rate.   

Bus – 24 hours, with 2 changes enroute. Cost $170 (senior rate again)

As a means of transport i.e. getting from A to B, which one are you going to choose?

 

I don’t see any possibility of significantly improving the time taken by the train (ignoring delays). You are not going to have 70MPH running or double track through places like the Fraser Canyon. Perhaps speeds could be increased on the Prairies, but who will pay for CN to upgrade their track beyond what they deem adequate for their own needs? And there, I think, is the whole problem in the west. Passenger trains are just another type of freight to be fitted in with many others.    

 

With regard to the freight railways, whose tracks VIA must use, how can the government force them to do anything better for passenger trains? I feel that, if they were to try, CN and CP would say “You know what? Handling these trains is more trouble than they’re worth to us. We’re not going to do it any more.” I think, under the terms of NAFTA covering loss of commercial opportunity because of government action, the government wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I think loss of long-distance passenger service in Canada would be very sad. I’ve done Vancouver-Toronto by train, and want to do Vancouver-Saskatoon but it would be one way only as I wouldn’t ask my wife to travel both ways in coach, and we can’t justify what it would cost to do it both ways with berths. And I think we better do it quickly, as I’m not sure how much longer it will be possible.

 

Unless and until the costs of other forms of transportation increase significantly (since relative speeds aren’t likely to change much), long distance passenger rail will remain a niche form. At least the tracks should still be there if they’re needed again.

 

Sorry to be so down, but that’s how I see it from here.

[pH]

Personally, I think it is lack of space in Canada (it is a small country after all) that is stopping them building high speed railway links. The UK - a giant country - on the other hand, has lots of real estate and is projecting a few high speed rail links in the coming decades.

 

Yes, but look at the relative density of population. Also, remember the description of Canada as a country 4000 miles long and 200 miles wide. Bears and caribou don't take trains.

[Gerald Henriksen]

There's a basic lack of understanding of what constitutes a train SERVICE. Six trains a day between your three major cities is not a SERVICE. And most of the other so-called 'services' consist of fewer than 7 trains a week! 

 

I agree, the Toronto - Montreal - Ottawa is not a very good service, but in fairness to VIA trains like the Ocean and Canadian are a tourist attraction, not a train service. 

[Ozexpatriate]

Also, remember the description of Canada as a country 4000 miles long and 200 miles wide. Bears and caribou don't take trains.

You'd think that nothing would be better for a high-speed rail link that something essentially linear and only 200 miles wide.

 

4,000 miles long is the kicker. Even the 'insiders' who promote high-speed rail know there are limits.

[Gerald Henriksen]

You'd think that nothing would be better for a high-speed rail link that something essentially linear and only 200 miles wide.

 

4,000 miles long is the kicker. Even the 'insiders' who promote high-speed rail know there are limits.

 

Just for fun, the UK has a population density of 661.9 people per square mile per Wikipedia.

 

That 4,000 x 200 mile strip of Canada yields 800,000 square miles (compare the UK at 93,500 square miles), but with a population of 36 million that gives you a population density of 45 people per square mile.

 

Even the best case scenario still leaves a lot of empty space in that 200 mile wide strip.

 

(and even more fun, the relatively for Europe empty France still comes in at 300 per square mile)

[Ozexpatriate]

Just for fun, the UK has a population density of 661.9 people per square mile per Wikipedia.

 

That 4,000 x 200 mile strip of Canada yields 800,000 square miles (compare the UK at 93,500 square miles), but with a population of 36 million that gives you a population density of 45 people per square mile.

The issue isn't population density. Arguably having big cities separated by emptiness makes a good case for effective rail connections. In a high-speed scenario stations need to be >50km apart anyway so a low average density between towns actually works better.

 

The big issue related to high speed rail is distance. High speed rail is not effective in North American transcontinental distances. High speed rail is most effective under 500km with diminishing returns in competitiveness up to 1,500km.  Greater than that distance, high speed is not competitive at all.

 

Even Toronto to Winnipeg would be too far by that standard. Of course a corridor between Toronto and Québec City makes complete sense.

 

(My comments are confined to high-speed because that is the only way to compete with air travel, but only up to 1,500km and 4,000 miles is 6,400km.)

 

The 'cruise ship on rails' model for vacationers is still feasible, but as pointed out earlier, this is different from normal passenger rail service. Just like the cruise ship industry there are budget and deluxe cruises.

[davknigh]

Just for fun, the UK has a population density of 661.9 people per square mile per Wikipedia.

 

That 4,000 x 200 mile strip of Canada yields 800,000 square miles (compare the UK at 93,500 square miles), but with a population of 36 million that gives you a population density of 45 people per square mile.

 

Even the best case scenario still leaves a lot of empty space in that 200 mile wide strip.

 

(and even more fun, the relatively for Europe empty France still comes in at 300 per square mile)

True, but the Quebec Windsor corridor has a much higher density and continues to grow. High speed would be VIAble (pun intended) but needs to be started sooner rather than later to avoid the likes of HS2  land procurement. The thing is, we've been talking about improving passenger rail in Canada since the '60s (probably before) and apart from trying to run the Turbo along a line with level crossings protected by wooden crossbucks and the LRC in the same territory talk is all we've done 'cos talk is cheap. Politicians are dead scared of anything that's going to cost money and only serves a small portion of the country geographically regardless of the population living there and the overall benefits to society as a whole. Why? Because "Johnny Taxpayer" in  Obscurity Alberta, is going to write his MP and say "Why should I have to pay taxes for something I'll never use?". The concept of the greater good is lost on people and politicians seem incapable or unwilling to explain it.

 

Cheers,

 

David

 

edited to remove redundant signature

[pH]

Apologies - the flying distance from Vancouver to Halifax is 4000 KILOMETRES (actually closer to 4500), but not 4000 miles.

[Gerald Henriksen]

I will start out by saying I support passenger rail in Canada.

 

Yes, on time performance thanks to the freight operators is an issue.

 

I do however disagree with Jason saying that VIA outside of the corridor is threatened, and instead feel even the corridor is threatened.  VIA, in simple terms, serves far too few people to have the political power to survive any budget issues the federal level of government has in the future where an easy saving of money is looked for.

 

Simply throwing money at VIA and having them rebuild the network to their "glory" years of the 80s by adding additional cities to the network is asking for trouble without first building the support of the electorate, and that means Southern Ontario and Montreal.

 

The problem is that most of the electorate don't care about VIA, and I doubt they would be impressed if they ever tried it.

 

VIA's biggest problem is they are still operating a 1940's train service 15 years into the next century.  Nothing of the way VIA operates says customer friendly, and that sadly includes the stations they have spent all that money on in the last 10 years.

 

I don't know why VIA decided to build bridges to the island platforms instead of tunnels, but how many people would take this view as a sign the operator cared about you as a customer, as opposed to trying to give you your cardio workout for the week -

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/35635444@N04/8110113786/

 

Yes, the tall glassed in view makes railfans happy, but otherwise those bridges are customer hostile compared to a tunnel with far fewer steps (half?) required.

 

Or another picture from Belleville -

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/bobolink/6997647427/in/album-72157629106373907/

 

I don't know if the woman with the rollerator is a passenger or not, but if she is do you think she would be impressed with a train service in 2015 that requires all those steps to get on board?

 

Or how about the lack of shelter from the weather?

 

Or how unfriendly that station is from the road, being a huge 4 story flat sided box?

 

I get that VIA inherited infrastructure that is 60 or more years old, and that the freight nature of rail in North America makes moving into the 21st century problematic, but given the money spent they really should have been finding a way to provide high level platforms that are not only more wheelchair friendly, but more friendly in general.

 

Which of course comes to the next negative experience, dealing with the randomness of which will be the lucky door on the train that will actually be opened at your stop by a member of staff, and the likely resulting shuffle through the train to either reach said door or your assigned seat.

 

As a fan of trains, none of this would deter me.  But when trying to win over the casual person who instead would be flying or driving?

 

It is 2015, you should be able to directly board the coach that has your assigned seat, and then depart from it.

 

In the last 20 years we in Southern Ontario at least have seen a dramatic change is public transit.  Buses have moved to being low floor models, not only allowing wheelchairs to drive on but being dramatically more friendly to kids and others who find stairs either difficult or impossible.  The TTC is finally, if Bombardier can actually deliver anything, moving to low floor streetcars that offer those same advantages.  GO Transit has made their trains wheelchair accessible, and now provide significant overhead shelter at most stations to keep people dry or out of the hot sun, and uses customer friendly tunnels.  They are even shockingly moving towards electric trains.

 

Despite spending $1.5 billion, VIA has done nothing to bring the service into the 21st century and make it more customer friendly.

 

Until these basic issues are dealt with VIA is not going to attract the casual person to its trains, and thus not gain the political support to ensure its future.

[jjb1970]

I used to sometimes have to go between Burlington and Ottawa. I once asked my office to book my the trip by rail using GO from Burlington to connect with VIA to Ottawa and they looked at me like I was insane and told me it would be much better to fly in the sort of way you'd address somebody who was psychologically unbalanced. The thought of using VIA was utterly alien, to be honest I'm not sure if any of the people in the Burlington office ever use GO never mind VIA.

 

Unfortunately the demographics of Canada are not in favour of rail travel with few exceptions. Long thin routes tend to favour air travel and some of the distances are huge. Many routes are in that awkward position where to be genuinely attractive as a normal means of working transport they'd need high speed lines but the potential market would struggle to offer anything like enough traffic to justify a high speed line. That said the Toronto - Montreal corridor should be viable.

[Grovenor]

Ah yes, will the Gov't then tell CP and CN, in that case we'll keep you to your legal obligation to provide daily passenger trains at your own expense, as VIA Rail was why you got exempt from that part of the Law.

 

Somehow, I don't think either RR will find that an attractive alternative

Sounds like our parliamentary trains! I doubt that that "legal obligation" has much in the way of a service level specification. They could just hang an old coach on the back of a freight, job done.

Regards

[pH]

Sounds like our parliamentary trains! I doubt that that "legal obligation" has much in the way of a service level specification. They could just hang an old coach on the back of a freight, job done.

Regards

Now that would be fun!

[rapidotrains]

 

Sorry to be so down, but that’s how I see it from here.

 

Obviously I disagree. When Canada looks around and notices that the rest of the world has embraced intercity passenger trains, we'll finally get on board. But it will probably take that long.

 

We need a strong spine - daily services between Halifax and Vancouver - with shorter intercity services coming off that spine. It can be done, and it won't cost the moon.

 

-Jason

[rapidotrains]

 

Despite spending $1.5 billion, VIA has done nothing to bring the service into the 21st century and make it more customer friendly.

 

 

 

You make some very good points.

 

The point I was making was $1.5 billion over 15 years is not enough to do anything - it's not even enough to keep VIA in a state of good repair. Go have a look at a P42DC locomotive today - they paint is all flaked off and there is literally no money to fix it.

 

Many of your recommendations should be followed eventually, but they are a bit like trying to give a dying man a makeover. The first thing we need to do is make sure he is breathing. Right now VIA is barely breathing.

 

-Jason