Opinion piece on intercity rail in Canada

[BR60103]

Problem is, they look at VIA as a business rather than a service.

Train has an advantage over air in that it goes through all the small towns (or used to). To fly somewhere, I have to get close to some big city.

And railroads used to have a collection of old but usable coaches that could be called upon in periods of intense demand. Now the fleet is barely big enough to handle the scheduled trains. Amtrak has it pared down so much that a mishap that takes a few cars out of service results in cancelled trains or even routes.

[Gerald Henriksen]

 

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.

 

 

So why do you feel we need that spine, as opposed to (sometimes isolated) intercity services where there is sufficient demand?

 

The way I currently see it VIA is currently divided up into 3 types of service:

 

1) Intercity (the Montreal / Ottawa / Toronto services)

 

2) Regional - trains west of Toronto, east of Montreal, and a handful of other places

 

3) Tourist cruises - Ocean and Canadian

 

I don't want to see trains like the Canadian disappear, but I don't think turning it into a daily service is going to accomplish much other than to require even more subsidy (and you may not like the word, but that's what VIA calls it in their annual report).

 

The Canadian required $55.5 million dollars from the taxpayer in 2014, so call it $120 million a year to run a daily service.  What exactly does that extra money get us?  And perhaps more importantly, why couldn't / shouldn't that extra $60 million be spent elswhere on the system, like perhaps running a Calgary - Edmonton service?

 

[edited to add]

 

I guess what I am trying to understand is this.

 

The corridor gets a subsidy of $50 per passenger, the Ocean / Canadian are more than 10 times that at $540 per passenger.  So if we assume a Christmas miracle and VIA gets the money to run your daily spine trains and somehow manages to have the equipment, we then move x years down the road, y governments later, and the y'th government is looking at cutting the federal budget and wants to know how VIA can justify needing a daily spine train service at those subsidy levels?  Why is daily service essential as compared to running say 6 more daily corridor services, or an Edmonton/Calgary service?

 

I am guessing it is something along the lines of allowing say a Calgary - Vancouver trip, or Regina - Montreal without needing to plan around no service days, but is there really going to be that much demand given the travel times?

[dibber25]

I'm playing devil's advocate here but there's another aspect of VIA operations which is archaic - the staffing levels on trains. Two engineers are absolutely essential because of the complexity of the operating system - the huge variety of instructions conveyed by lineside signals, for instance. Driving a train in Canada seems to require levels of training, comprehension, understanding, memory AND CONCENTRATION way beyond what modern systems recognise as reasonable. In the UK and on other modern systems there's universal one-person operation - and at much higher speeds, because there has been investment in systems. On train, VIA has hand-operated doors and an attendant for virtually every carriage. These attendants do also check tickets, so there are no TTIs to pay, but once your ticket is checked, they then identify where you're getting off by sticking a Post-It Note to the baggage rack above your seat! I've never seen anything this absurd on any other railway. On the Canadian, as an able-bodied person in a cabin near the door, I underwent instruction on how to open the door in the event of an emergency. I didn't mind at all, but on modern equipment it would not be necessary. Like BR its later days, VIA lacks any forward vision and any long term plan, presumably because it doesn't expect to be around in the longer term. (CJL)

[davknigh]

Perhaps the lack of vision lies in the fact that VIA was designed to fail? The terms of VIA's creation immediately saddled it with trackage fees that were a license to print money for the freight lines. Much of the subsidy is going to pay CN, and now to a much smaller extent CP, for running rights. But as Jason says, there is so much more that needs to be done. Loading a wheelchair passenger requires a hand cranked lift that, while effective, takes added crew time but is cheaper than the raised platform that would make the job so much easier. Grade crossings are still a problem that gets in the way of service that can go fast enough to compete with the airlines 'cos they take money to fix and the freight lines who own the track can't be bothered and the politicians won't spend the money. It is a tangled web and the only thing we can hope is that the Paris agreement will create a push to get mass transport moved to the top of the agenda.

 

Cheers,

 

David

[dibber25]

So why do you feel we need that spine, as opposed to (sometimes isolated) intercity services where there is sufficient demand?

 

The way I currently see it VIA is currently divided up into 3 types of service:

 

1) Intercity (the Montreal / Ottawa / Toronto services)

 

2) Regional - trains west of Toronto, east of Montreal, and a handful of other places

 

3) Tourist cruises - Ocean and Canadian

 

I don't want to see trains like the Canadian disappear, but I don't think turning it into a daily service is going to accomplish much other than to require even more subsidy (and you may not like the word, but that's what VIA calls it in their annual report).

 

The Canadian required $55.5 million dollars from the taxpayer in 2014, so call it $120 million a year to run a daily service.  What exactly does that extra money get us?  And perhaps more importantly, why couldn't / shouldn't that extra $60 million be spent elswhere on the system, like perhaps running a Calgary - Edmonton service?

 

[edited to add]

 

I guess what I am trying to understand is this.

 

The corridor gets a subsidy of $50 per passenger, the Ocean / Canadian are more than 10 times that at $540 per passenger.  So if we assume a Christmas miracle and VIA gets the money to run your daily spine trains and somehow manages to have the equipment, we then move x years down the road, y governments later, and the y'th government is looking at cutting the federal budget and wants to know how VIA can justify needing a daily spine train service at those subsidy levels?  Why is daily service essential as compared to running say 6 more daily corridor services, or an Edmonton/Calgary service?

 

I am guessing it is something along the lines of allowing say a Calgary - Vancouver trip, or Regina - Montreal without needing to plan around no service days, but is there really going to be that much demand given the travel times?

There's a quote - "if you build it, they will come." Similarly if you offer a train service that's attractive enough, people will use it. VIA's main problem is that its service isn't attractive - it's slow, late, infrequent etc.

Before I use the Canadian again, there would need to be a Passengers Charter with Government backing that gives human beings priority over metal boxes. If people are missing their cruise departures because the passenger trains run many hours late, it won't take long before tour operators start writing Canada out of their itineraries, with a significant impact on the country's tourist economy. Remember the old Canadian Pacific ethos from the 19th century - "If we can't export the scenery, we'll have to import the tourists." Most of those tourists will prefer the train to the bus or the rental car. 

There are trips that I'd like to take but it is impossible to plan around the timetable. If the Canadian and the Ocean are REALLY considered as tourist operations, they should not be 'subsidised'. I've used them and seen canoes loaded and off-loaded and people who are clearly locals using the train. If they are tourist trains then they clearly bring a benefit to the Canadian economy, as passengers like me spend a lot more money in Canada than just the train fare. (CJL) 

[jjb1970]

I really don't see a spine service as being attractive. I think to be successful a rail service needs to offer a minimum level of service and acceptable transit times as well as reliability. Also, trains really need to connect places. A spine service across Canada is most likely to be attractive to people using it to connect relatively tightly spaced stations but the timings will be determined by the end to end needs and will mean that for most intermediate links departure and arrival times are likely to be unattractive. I do think there is a market for inter-city rail travel in Canada but I see it as being limited to the corridor and a handful or other relatively closely spaced cities where it will be viable to offer a reasonable service frequency, sensible journey times (including an in-day out and back service level for both business and leisure users) and where rail travel can become embedded as a working mode of transport rather than a bit of a curiosity for those who will go out of their way to use a passenger train. I just don't see trans-continental rail services as making any sense other than as a land cruise train for tourists.

[Gerald Henriksen]

There's a quote - "if you build it, they will come." Similarly if you offer a train service that's attractive enough, people will use it. VIA's main problem is that its service isn't attractive - it's slow, late, infrequent etc.

 

 

But that's the point, it's slow even if running to schedule.

 

If I want to travel Toronto to Winnipeg I have 3 options:

 

1) VIA - 1.5 days and $208 adult fare (April 19th)

 

2) fly - under 3 hours - both Air Canada and Westjet are in the $225 range for April 19th

 

3) drive - 22 hours according to Google, hotels in Thunder Bay are around $110

 

For a single person the train is simply not competitive in time, and the price difference is insignificant.

 

Driving is likely cheaper, about the same time as the train, and the benefit of not needing to pay to rent a car or using taxis/public transit.

 

Now add in another adult, maybe a couple of kids, and the car wipes out both flying and train for cost, and if you are going to pay the cost you may as well get the 3 hour trip.

 

Yes, I know some people take the train, but for most people it will never be considered for either cost or time reason, and I don't see how spending a significant amount of money for daily service will change anything.

 

Simply put, the urban centres served by either the Canadian or the Ocean are typically too far apart, and too few people, to make high speed rail an option.  A regular train is too slow to compete.

 

To me, a sudden windfall of money to VIA would be better spent on other things, whether it being making the corridor competitive or even introducing new intercity services like Edmonton - Calgary that would hopefully fall into the you build it and they will come category.

[JSpencer]

So would this Montreal hockey team song best some up VIAs condition today?

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cZpW2ssbsGM

[davknigh]

So would this Montreal hockey team song best some up VIAs condition today?

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cZpW2ssbsGM

It is a pretty accurate reflection of the way government has gone about funding VIA. The net result can be summed up by the classic acronym FUBAR. Fortunately Les Canadiens play hockey much, much  better than they sing.

 

 

Cheers,

 

David

[Gerald Henriksen]

Some random thoughts and replies.

 

1) the world has changed since VIA was formed and getting a law forcing the freight carriers to treat VIA better likely problematic.  A better approach may be the carrot version where you legislate property tax breaks if VIA is treated fairly.  This has the added advantage of helping to cover the freight railways costs for the extra trackage/capacity/whatever that allows the passenger trains to get through, and doesn't cost the federal government anything - though it would upset the local governments.

 

2) subsidy for the "rail cruise" tourists.  This one is difficult without a lot more data.  The subsidy itself is not inherently bad - all around the world a lot of what we like in terms of culture and events would disappear without either corporate sponsorship or government subsidy, and the saying you have to spend money to make money also applies to tourism.  The question is how much direct and indirect money the tourists taking the long distance trains bring in to the economy, and we simply don't have access to the data to make that guess.

 

3) I would argue that if VIA is to have any future they need a commitment to capital costs for new trains now (ie 12 to 18 months).  It turns out Amtrak is working on a replacement for the Acela, a US version of the IEP/Class 800 concept.  While Amtrak is obviously going for an electric train there is no reason VIA couldn't get a bi-mode version that could at least run under the wires when it hits GO Transit's area.  This really is a golden opportunity to get a new train without having to shoulder the design and testing costs entirely by themselves.  Besides, I can think of at least one model train maker who would like a model with cross border appeal in 20 years when it actually arrives 

 

4) related to 3, hopefully VIA is considering for an annual capital grant for electrification.  Ontario is about to pay to electrify a significant portion of the GO network and it would a shame to waste the developed expertise to not electrify x km of the corridor a year after GO is finished with the contractors.

 

5) It will likely be difficult to provide all the new services suggested.  Using existing trains or RDC won't likely be allowed, I would have to guess the courts would be against any attempt at starting a new service that doesn't meet current accessibility needs.  This means high level platforms (or low level boarding & seating), and if you want to connect to the existing network then you really need to upgrade the existing network first.  To this end something like the UP Express DMU would be required. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nippon_Sharyo_DMU

 

6) it has been talked about elsewhere, but perhaps an alternative to the plan for a privately financed high speed line.  One of the problems with building a new line would be serving the stops on the existing lines.  A better option might instead be to keep VIA on the existing tracks and move the freight instead.  This might be politically more appealing given the desire many communities have to get the freight out of their communities since Lac Megantic (it may be irrational, but use it if you can).  This would have the added benefit of perhaps making the alternate cheaper to build as you wouldn't have to try and stay near the population centres.

 

7) related to 6, I don't think the Toronto / Montreal / Ottawa service needs a TGV/ICE type service.  While 200mph or better might be nice, it also comes with a lot of additional expense.  A more conventional 140mph type service would likely be achievable using the existing track alignment if freight disappeared at a significantly lower capital and subsidy, and would still offer a very competitive sub 3 hour Toronto - Montreal service (and having enough equipment for an hourly service would also help to make up for the slightly slower speeds).

[autocoach]

Would any major investment be really practical before a hyperloop type transportation system would render upgraded high speed rail obsolete except to fail fans.  I would suggest only a 20 year horizon before such disruptive technology becomes reality. It may even work in the frozen north. 

[Gerald Henriksen]

Would any major investment be really practical before a hyperloop type transportation system would render upgraded high speed rail obsolete except to fail fans.  I would suggest only a 20 year horizon before such disruptive technology becomes reality. It may even work in the frozen north. 

 

While hyperloop is interesting, it is not at all clear that it will work, be safe, or even cost effective.  So far it seems to be a lot of hand waving to explain all of the issues surrounding it which doesn't exactly lead to a great deal of confidence.  The test systems being built will be very interesting, though it is worth noting that at least one of them isn't even full size.

 

The other issue is that if you wait for the next great thing there will often be something else even better to wait for, resulting in nothing being built.

 

But the biggest issue is this - if VIA does nothing then there won't be a VIA in 20 years to worry about a hyperloop.

[Adrian Wintle]

That already exists, but is even more expensive (and disruptive) then HS rail: magnetic levitation trains. The Germans developed it to market, then the Chinese bought it (who else).   Theoretically, Mach 3 should be feasible. Adding some time for getting up to speed and braking, Vancouver to Toronto should take some 2.5 hrs

Not highly practical in areas where there is solid precipitation (unless you build it all in a tunnel). Light weight high-speed trains vs. big icy snowdrifts likely doesn't end well.

 

This is one of the issues with the VIA corridor. There are areas along it where you can get drifting combined with lake-effect snowfall that can be measured in inches/hour and it can be combined with freezing rain to ensure that the resulting mess is very solid.

 

Adrian

[jjb1970]

I'm sceptical about some of the claims made for the hyperloop concept. Certainly the principle of making high speed transport more efficient by eliminating or reducing air resistance is completely valid. Even cyclists appreciate that aerodynamics and wind air resistance make a noticeable difference to the energy needed to pedal at a certain speed or alternatively how fast you can move. As speed goes up it becomes the principal source of increased energy demand. Aerodynamics can do an awful lot but fundamentally you are still using an awful lot of energy to overcome air resistance even with a very aerodynamic train or aircraft. So the idea of an evacuated tube makes perfect sense in many ways.

That said I see quite a few significant obstacles. For one the cost estimate offered for the first California proposal was hopelessly optimistic to the point that I felt it could only be explained by either incompetence or a deliberate effort to mislead. Anybody thinking that a California hyperloop was doable for $6 billion was living in a dream world. The safety issues often mentioned would be manageable but would need quite a bit of detailed design work. Passenger acceptance is one of the things that I think are perhaps overblown. People accept urban subway trains which are effectively not that much difference from flying down a tube in a hyperloop car in some ways so I think that passengers could take to it. I certainly think the concept is worth further research and development but think it premature to write off conventional high speed rail based on the potential that a working hyperloop system may be able to offer.

On maglev, that's been around for decades. As well as the German's the Japanese had mastered the basic technology for a high speed inter-city maglev system many years ago. They're pressing on with their Tokyo - Nagoya link. Interestingly, most of that link will be tunnelled indicating that the issues around whether people would accept sitting in a hyperloop car are perhaps over blown.

[rapidotrains]

The drum continues to be banged:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/letting-canadian-women-sell-their-eggs-passenger-trains-and-ending-elections-for-school-trustees-1.3368081/the-most-passionate-case-you-ll-hear-for-train-travel-in-canada-1.3368299

 

-Jason