all 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 33 points 21 hours ago

I for one am positively shocked at this development.

If they do passenger priority, that'll send me to the ER.

  • source
  • [–] 41 points 22 hours ago (8 children)

    Isn't it a lack of rails that's the problem, not a lack of rail cars? Passenger trains have to give way to cargo trains, and dedicated tracks are the solution.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 22 hours ago* (3 children)

    It's just as much who owns the rails. In Vancouver we have a commuter rail service that runs on lines owned by the freight companies. So sometimes people have to watch as they wait in a siding while stuff goes by first.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 21 hours ago

    This is the overall issue with Via rail (and interestingly enough, Amtrak). Canada theoretically mandates that passenger rail traffic has priority for rail segments under contention, and freight must sit on the siding. This is by statute. However, rail companies often/always say "lol fuck off" and go anyways, arguing either the train length exceeds the siding length or essentially "we're already here".

    The result is Via rail (and Amtrak) service is literally always late, almost always because of freight traffic. Until they actually start enforcing passenger rail priority (or building dedicated passenger rail lines like adult countries) I don't see how rail transit can possibly become viable in North America.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 18 hours ago

    Yeah same in the Maritimes. Going from Halifax to Montréal, aside from the expense, is brutally slow along one track in New Brunswick because CN haven't maintained the tracks. Because they don't move freight anymore, from what I understand.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 22 hours ago (1 child)

    Ideally this is just one of several rail related initiatives and we have more announcements coming.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 22 hours ago (1 child)

    Hopefully we'll start prioritizing Passenger Cars over freight like the rest of the world

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 22 hours ago* (2 children)

    We will be building a new high speed rail from Quebec to Toronto so passenger rail will finally be separate from freight rail. Finally drag our asses out of the 1800’s.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 21 hours ago (1 child)
  • [–] -1 points 20 hours ago (1 child)

    The amount of money planned for that could probably cover twinning a much larger amount of existing track, with less environmental impact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 19 hours ago (1 child)

    Why just twin the line and still have something designed in the 1800’s. Canadians are so damn cheap to do anything properly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 19 hours ago* (1 child)

    Twinning is a more cost-effective way to have passenger rail separated from freight, and it could make rail travel more practical for a larger part of the country than just that one corridor the high speed rail plan covers. A new route over new land is so much worse for the environment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

    It would be dumb to put in new lines and not make them high speed. We are so far behind the rest of the world it’s shocking. Not sure if you travel the world at all, but when you see what is available in other countries, you realize how embarrassing our country is in that regard. It would not be worth it to just put in more low speed rail lines, kinda pointless IMHO.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 22 hours ago (1 child)

    Canada could also benefit from a shinkansen line or two. With population centers mostly along a straight line in the south, it would allow for rapid transit between major cities on dedicated passenger rail.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 20 hours ago

    Freight right-of-way ownership is also a problem, but the car set they are replacing/adding to is 75+ years old, they are sturdy and reliable, but having more cars means that they could increase service beyond 3 trips a week on these routes. At the moment, occasional breakdowns and maintenance periods mean they face long distance equipment shortages sometimes.

    @ryper @radish6367

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 19 hours ago

    Restore the glory days of Via Rail. We need to save resources when the American embargo hits.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

    Where are these cars going to be used? Ontario and Quebec only?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago* (1 child)

    Half of the country lives in a straight line between windsor and quebec city, so it would be a great start to improve rail there first (even if it feels unfair to the rest of the country)..

    Even just toronto to montreal would be a great place to start in terms of bringing canada in line with other developed nations

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

    Hopefully this spurs more rail in the rest of the country.

    I was just watching city talk yesterday about Switzerland's rail network and how interconnect it is.

    What shocked me the most was this overlay of Switzerland over Quebec and how inexistent rail is Canada.

    1000064699

    Worth a watch for anyone interested:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zpSSkkpTrY

    Map of the rail network not including buses or light rail, meanwhile we in Canada are debating if high-speed rail should exist between Quebec and Montreal.

    1000064701

  • source
  • parent