Thursday, November 7, 2024

The two worst policy failures that plague Via Rail

Via Rail Canada's painfully public problems with its new Venture trainsets from Siemens are tough to watch, especially when it seems as though some of these problems could have been avoided. Having worked in the federal public service for 15 years now, I can say with some authority that I know how politics work. This experience is what made the recent federal government announcement that Canada will pursue high-speed rail laughable.

When you consider the Via-CN swipes over who's to blame for the Ventures speed restrictions and then consider the government's high-speed rail daydream, it all comes back to politics. That's unfortunate because we live in a time when passenger rail has become the norm in many parts of the world. It's the safest and most efficient means of moving people over short- to medium-length distances.

Yet, we here in Canada can only sit back and watch Via Rail push back its arrival times across the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, due to its Ventures being slapped with speed restrictions by CN. And all the while, the government is finally taking notice of high-speed rail as a possibility, but hardly in a serious way.

Via Rail has had plenty of turbulent moments in its history. What's happening now isn't all that different, but I think the stakes this time around are much, much higher. That is why we need to understand how the government has failed its own passenger rail system, if we are to prevent situations like this from happening again.

The beginnings: I asked Trackside Treasure blogger Eric Gagnon, my go-to expert on all matters Via Rail, to figure out if he could remember a time when the passenger railway was ever given better treatment by its host railways (CP and CN). The short answer is no. When Eric explained it to me, it made perfect sense. 

Passenger railway operations lose money and there's no reasonable way to fix that problem. When Via Rail was created, first as a rebranded passenger operation within CN, and then as a standalone operation, there was no incentive for CN to give Via Rail any preferential treatment on its tracks. After all, why should it? And there was even less incentive for CP to do the same, as it was not a Crown corporation at the time when Via was created, as CN was.

Here's where I wonder if the government could have done more. As CN was indeed a Crown corporation when Via Rail was created and spun off, doesn't it seem reasonable that the government of the day, led by Pierre Trudeau, would want to give Via every opportunity to succeed?

The answer, sadly, was no. The government of the day would have had more leverage in clearing a path for Via, as CN was a Crown corporation. But the creation of Via in some ways mirrored the creation of Amtrak in the United States. The goal was to get the freight railways back to profitability. I don't think the incentive was ever to create a successful passenger railway. It might have been a product of the times, when air travel and highways were generally seen as higher priorities by most governments. Those priorities have changes over the years, but rail is still very often an afterthought.

In hindsight, perhaps some government legislation arranging for better terms for a passenger railway might have given Via a better chance to establish itself with a good reputation. A recent article on CBC's website suggests Amtrak's better on-time record is a product of the U.S. government mandating more strict terms for its host freight railways. I don't know if that is necessarily true. I think the more meaningful point in the article is that Via claims is only owns 2 percent of the tracks it uses. I would think Amtrak's northeast corridor trackage, which it owns and where most of its trains run, would also account for its higher on-time percentage. However, I also think it is misleading for Via to say it only owns 2 percent of its trackage. Is it including the trackage it uses for the Canadian, Ocean and its Churchill trains? If so, that is a lot of trackage in its network that hosts essentially three trains.
 

Rail abandonment: Here's an area of government policy where I lean very heavily on people I know who are in the industry. As most know, Ottawa has seen its rail network shrink dramatically in the last 20 years, especially after CN took over the Ottawa Central Railway from the shortline operator that ran the operation. 

I have asked more than one person in the industry if Canada has strong policies in place that ensure rights-of-way can stay intact when a railway abandons operations on the line. Short answer is no, we don't. 

Ottawa witnessed a drawn-out struggle between CN and the municipalities of Renfrew County and the Pontiac region in Quebec when it announced plans to abandon the line from Pembroke all the way to Nepean Junction. 

The end result was fairly predictable as the local governments lost their fight to maintain the rail line, which they both sought to use as an economic driver in their regions. I recall the former head of the OCR telling me they already had a customer lined up with the promise of hundreds of car loads of freight each year. It was hardly enough to justify such a long stretch of track, but it was a beginning. 

Now consider what is today technically known as the Renfrew Subdivision or Spur, owned by Nylene Canada in Arnprior. CN has long wanted to abandon this line and sought more than once to discontinue service. The only measure to stop it was a government mandate to maintain service to Nylene under the terms of the arrangement where Nylene owns the line and the City of Ottawa owns the land where the line sits. It is possible to save rails. The government just doesn't seem to want to do it very often.

How does this relate to Via Rail?

Consider the fact that the government dreams of having a high speed rail line between Toronto and Quebec City, which sits largely on a former rail line that once connected Toronto and Ottawa. The process to reacquiring this right-of-way will be expensive and likely time consuming, as people who are affected will no doubt fight any attempts to re-establish rails. 

Consider as well that the Canadian once travelled through Ottawa and Carleton Place on the old Carleton Place Subdivision, before heading up the Chalk River Sub and onto the northern transcontinental route. This was back when this service had an eastern terminus in both Montreal and Toronto.

Both the Carleton Place and Chalk River Subs are gone, and with them, any chance to re-establish routes that Via Rail could use. I'm not saying that we need to keep every abandoned line for Via, but I think an argument can be made to strengthen government policy to prevent scenarios like the one the government now faces. Once a rail line is abandoned and sold off, there is no going back. Not easily anyway.

Now consider that Via Rail uses the old CN Smiths Falls Sub and the CP Brockville Sub for its service between Ottawa and Brockville. Both of these lines were deemed surplus by the railways and both were kept to maintain Via's busy operations between Toronto and Ottawa. The same is true of the Alexandria Sub, between Ottawa and Coteau, Quebec. Via controls and maintains all these lines.

What if the CP line through Peterborough had been kept and the connection to Ottawa via Smiths Falls was intact? Would we be talking about operational delays with the Ventures right now? Possibly not as many.

My point is government policy, from what I'm told, is not as strong as it is elsewhere, like in the United States. This is from what I read and from what I am told. I tend to agree with this point of view.

The obvious failures: I'm purposely leaving out obvious failures on the part of Via Rail, like the purchase of the notoriously unreliable Renaissance fleet from Europe, which proved to be a disaster that was quickly buried. These cars, which never operated properly in the corridor, were essentially demoted to the Ottawa-Montreal route, along with service on the Ocean between Montreal and Halifax. When I talk about government failures, I'm talking about the failures of the elected governments of the day and the public servants who inform those governments, in their jobs to support Via Rail. 

The obvious cuts: I'm also putting aside the decisions of governments past to chop Via Rail service. Yes, this is a failure in a way, although a counter argument can usually be made that some of the cuts were necessary. It depends how you look at them. Most people who follow the railway industry would argue the cuts were far too deep and caused lasting damage that Via was never able to recover from, but I can see the logic behind some of the cuts. I think the cuts Via Rails suffered can only qualify as a failure if they were made to routes where there was robust demand and good revenue margins. Cutting underserved routes is painful to the communities along that line, but sometimes they were necessary. And to be fair, passenger rail has seen cuts since the Second World War. This is nothing new.

My point is, if you want to have a successful passenger rail system in Canada, you need to give the railway sound policy for it to succeed. That starts with better prioritization of passenger trains when possible. This was a missed opportunity from Via's creation in the late 1970s. The other element is you need sound policy to ensure that rail lines are not torn up without a robust process in place to ensure their future use, if deemed necessary.

I could go on extensively about cuts or about the various minsters of transportation that didn't 'get' railways. To me, the easiest policy fixes for Via are federal mandates ensuring a higher priority on freight lines and a process that doesn't result in lost rail lines that might be of future use.

Those two elements, to me, should be on the mind of the government, not some high speed rail pipe dream that will never survive under the next government.

Tuesday, October 29, 2024

Grand slam in Stratford (Part I)

I love being able to visit the rail yard in Stratford. Not only does it allow for a glimpse of a longstanding short line operation, the Goderich Exeter Railway, it also now gives you a chance to see a secondary operation in Canadian National's vast North American network. The trick here, as you would find on any secondary line, is to be there when the trains are operating, which is not terribly frequent. When you are along the main line in Kingston or in Toronto, you don't always have to wait long. In Stratford, there are long gaps you need to endure between trains sometimes. In my case, I did have some inside information from someone who is familiar with CN's operations.

But, as is often the case, when I arrived at the yard, it was quiet. Neither CN nor the GEXR was operating and the yard was only scattered with cars. As is often the case, there were a few strings of covered hoppers and some coil cars (unseen, but to the right of the hoppers).

Here's where being able to read railway signals helped me figure out that it was worth sticking around. The two signals to the left of the photo are what are commonly known as "searchlights." They are only activated when there is a train relatively close. On the Guelph Subdivision, even when these signals are activated, it doesn't mean you will see action imminently. The Guelph Subdivision often sees a more leisurely pace with its freight trains.

But a train did eventually appear on the main line, to the left. At first, it didn't seem like anything special. It was a string of covered hoppers pulled by the usual CN power on this line, which appeared to be a GP38-2 minus the wide safety hood. The train, which is usually 568, was pulling onto the secondary track leading to the yard. It was a sign that the consist was likely due to be switched, positioned in the yard, or added to cars already parked. Either way, it was great to know I'd be able to watch some freight action without any rush.

When it approached the Stratford Station platform, I was quite surprised to see that the leading geep was trailed by an old Grand Trunk Western and BNSF unit. Three liveries in one train. Talk about great luck.

The power, for the record, was CN GP38-2 4732, CN (GTW) GP40-2 6420 and BNSF GP38-2 2317. There were two tank cars immediately trailing, followed by a string of covered hoppers. I was surprised to see tank cars in tow directly behind the power, as they are usually separated by a buffer car. 

I waited for the train to move past the parked GEXR unit, so I could capture four liveries in one shot. This was a first for me. I would have to look through my photo archives to see if I have a shot with even three liveries. I know have a few shots with two liveries. But four? Well, this was a first.

I stuck around to watch the switching for a while, trying to get a few different shots as the crew did its switching duties.

And one last shot of the train in reverse.

I tried one last image with all four units and the Masterfeeds grain elevator in the same shot. When I was searching around a bit to get information on the units on CN 568, I saw that there were a few other railfans that caught this unique consist in Kitchener and elsewhere along the Guelph Subdivision. CN put on quite a show.

It was definitely the highlight of my time at the yard in Stratford.

Sunday, October 20, 2024

Via Rail: All dressed up and nowhere to go

Does it seem strange (ironic? unlucky? typical?) that, within days of the federal government reaffirming its support for a Via Rail high-speed rail corridor in Ontario and Quebec, the passenger railway was hit with new regulations by CN? The new rules were brought in due to fears that its new Siemens Venture trains run the risk of not activating CN's grade crossing guards and signals. I won't get into the finer details of this new wrinkle for Via. Eric Gagnon of Trackside Treasure broke the story and did an excellent job of describing the problem. Check out his post on this issue here

As Eric points out, Via does not have a lot of great choices in the short term, as its Ventures alone run the risk of not activating signals at grade crossings (this is an oversimplification). The choices the railway faced were bad no matter what, so Via decided in the interim to slow its speed in the corridor to allow for these new trains to cross all grade crossings safely by properly activating the crossing guards and signals. 

It should be pointed out, and Eric did of course, that Via's legacy equipment, like its LRC and HEP cars, led by F40s and P42s, are not affected by this new rule. They have no operational issues with CN grade crossing equipment.

The reduction in Venture speed, however, means delays across the corridor, since Via Rail depends on its tenancy on CN rails for much of its routes. In the Ottawa area, Via enjoys much greater autonomy as it controls its schedule on the Smiths Falls and Brockville Subs between Ottawa and Brockville, via Smiths Falls. Also, Via largely runs unopposed most of the time on the Alexandria Sub from Ottawa into Quebec. In Southern Ontario, Via has more leeway between Chatham and Windsor as well as on the old Goderich Exeter Railway between London and Guelph, since CN does not use its Guelph Subdivision with the same regularity as it does its busier routes. 

For much of its operations in Quebec and Ontario, however, Via Rail depends on CN rails, many of which are its main routes.

Last week, I witnessed some of these challenges in real life as I was waiting to catch westbound Via Train 59, which usually passes through Nepean at 6 p.m. Instead, I saw an eastbound corridor train, Via Train 42, coming through the Merivale Road crossing nearly an hour late at a time when the westbound 59 usually has the all clear signal all the way to Fallowfield Station. The light was getting pretty dim, so I didn't stick around for Train 59, which might have been holding at the siding at Wass, closer to the Tremblay Road station in Riverside Park. 

Speaking of Wass, I noticed when I caught Train 59 in September on Hunt Club Road that Via has erected a sign on the right hand side of the track alerting crews that the Wass siding is ahead, although not before the train passes through Federal Junction, taking it onto the Beachburg Sub. 

Here's a shot from 2016 of a westbound Via Rail LRC consist overtaking a slower moving CN freight train on the Kingston Sub near Highway 401 through Kingston. Via Rail has always had to make do with its status among CN's freight traffic on this trackage. There was a time when a few of its long distance trains could make use of CN's Northern Transcontinental route through Algonquin Park and onto the Beachburg Sub through the Upper Ottawa Valley, but those days are long gone. With everything heavily concentrated on this right-of-way, Via Rail is at the mercy of CN, which has had an impact on its on-time performance since its very founding. 

So, in theory, re-establishing a route from Ottawa through Tweed, Marmora and Havelock sounds great, as this right-of-way still exists up to Havelock, and much of the path to the east would be salvageable, albeit at a cost. This line once connected Toronto and Ottawa via Peterborough, but has long since been severed and exists now as the more leisurely moving Kawartha Lakes Railway into Havelock and north into Nephton. This line has been the subject of political interest for more than a decade.

You might recall efforts to re-establish rail service between Peterborough and Toronto during the Stephen Harper years in power. First, there was talk of Via RDC service. At some point, the talk shifted to the possibility of a GO Train link, not unlike what you see in Kitchener today. But nothing has come of it. 

Given the complexity and cost of a high-speed rail line along the Kawartha Lakes Railway route and the former CP trackage to the east, I would put the chances of this happening as very low, especially given the fact that we are likely headed for a change in government in the coming year. The arguably profligate spenders at the wheel now will likely give way to a government of restraint, as is the normal case in this country. We tend to go back and forth and it seems the pendulum is swinging back toward fiscal conservatism.

So where does this week's headache leave Via? To me, it seems it leaves the railway pretty much where it's always been, which is in limbo. Try as its leadership might, it's an operation that just cannot seem to catch a break and it just can't seem to be able to realize its dreams. I'm trying to be fair here, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention some of the railway's missteps along the way, and there have been a few. But that is for another time.

 
It's a shame, really, since there seems to be a lot of factors that, in theory, are all aligning in Via Rail's favour. Canada is a geographically enormous country, so a fast, efficient railway network makes sense, especially at a time when fuel prices are high, airlines are anything but stable, and people are rethinking their travel habits. The addition of the new Siemens equipment should play a factor in making Via more reliable and less prone to mechanical failure. 

Finally, it seems as though much of the world is embracing rail as the greenest, most efficient mode of transportation. So, you would think we could make it work in a country like ours. But it seems as though Via is now at a point where it's all dressed up with new equipment, but the same problems it's always had continue to haunt it.

So you'll more than likely be late if you are taking the train in the corridor these days, but at least you'll look good getting there.