CN's "Turbo." What goes around comes around.

The new Board of Directors at Via Rail decided to look back fifty years in the history of rail travel in Canada and ask the question, "What are we doing to build a high-speed link between Toronto and Montreal?" Why look back you ask? Well, a lot of people don't remember that Canadians once led the world—sort of—in fast trains. Remember the "Turbo?" In the sixties it actually plied the rails between Canada's then two greatest cities at an average speed of between 160 to 200 k. Here is what the Wikipedia says about the train:

Canada placed some early hopes with the United Aircraft Turbo train, in the 1960s, which was a true HST. The train sets achieved speeds as high as 200 km/h in regular service, but for most of its service life (marred with lengthy interruptions to address design problems and having to cope with the track poor quality), it ran at a more realistic 160 km/h. The Turbo Train featured the latest technology advances such as passive coach tilting, Talgo attachment for rigid coach articulation and gas turbine power.

So, in the typical Canadian fashion of blowing technological leads (remember the Avro Arrow and its Orenda engine), we stopped investing in our passenger rail system and poured billions into aviation infrastructure. The result is our world-leading national airline—excuse the snark.

Liberal leader Dion thinks improved trains are one part of the solution towards sustainability. We agree and so apparently does the board of Via. Does that mean anything will actually happen? Well, have you read the book, "Why Mexicans Don't Drink Molsons?" According to the book's author, Andrea Mandel-Campbell:

Canada has all the makings of a global leader, yet it has opted to become a global laggard, preferring to fritter away its jackpot of rich resources rather than build viable multinationals that are ultimately the country’s best defence in a globalized world.

If we continue our comfortable status quo, the answer is no. Global warming is the variable that might change our laggardly habits. Anyone care to wager on the outcome?

1. As a nation, Canadians are poor and leaderless. The lack of federal power means that anything that involves infrastructure benefitting more than one province has no chance of happening. Example – What other nation lacks a federal highway system and allows provinces or states to determine what routes should be built, or how they should be signed? If you can’t get a simple 4-lane highway built across the country, forget something as complicated as high-speed rail.

   Air Canada is another example. As an airline, it is actually not so bad (seriously, try flying dozens of airlines and then compare). It’s main fault is that it has no competition due to, again, poor political leadership regulating the industry and lack of willingness to find and spend money on decent airport infrastructure and services (so that fees could be lowered).

   These national examples pollute and affect the thinking of the smaller governments, leaving a city like Toronto the only one in the world in its peer group without a rail connection to an airport. If they can’t lay tracks to Pearson, don’t expect them to get to Montreal anytime soon.

   There is no money, no vision and no will to bind the nation together with great, and expensive, works of infrastructure. High speed rail will only come to Canada once everyone else has it and the country looks foolish without it. At that point we can buy some used train sets from a rich, advanced, self-investing nation like Brazil or Slovakia and finally connect up our cities. Laggards indeed.

   Posted by  on  10/15  at  01:56 PM
3. Ouch. Sadly, I think you're right. The airport to core link—or lack thereof—speaks volumes about who we are.
   
   Posted by Editor  on  {comment_date format=’%m/%d’}  at  {comment_date format=’%h:%i %A’}
Posted by Editor  on  10/15  at  02:23 PM

4. Here’s how it will play out:

   VIA will restart high-speed service only if it means they can get massive government subsidies (which ultimately come out of our pockets).

   Then they will turn around and charge us $2,000 a ticket for the privilege of getting to Montreal in 2 hours.

   When it turns out nobody thinks the price is worth the service, VIA will then tell us the fault lies with us for not sharing their vision.

   (This is the Air Canada business model: 1. Lobby gov’t for subsidies paid out of the taxpayers’ pockets). 2. Gouge the public anyway. 3. Bite the hand that feeds you. 4. Repeat.)

   Oh, and Air Canada’s service sucks mightily, uskyscraper. WestJet service/price is merely reasonable, and they make Air Canada look like some third world dictatorship’s first attempt at air travel.

   Posted by  on  10/16  at  10:02 AM
6. I find myself in the awkward situation of agreeing with everything "Diane" says—at least on the surface. Subsidies can be instrumental in helping a sector get market traction and are more than offset—when done right—by increased economic activity. The car industry is one example. The issue of creating an affordable, sustainable transit system is so important that I for one am willing to take the risk that there is enough best practice expertise out there today that even Via can't screw the pooch too much. ;-D
   
   Posted by Editor  on  {comment_date format=’%m/%d’}  at  {comment_date format=’%h:%i %A’}
Posted by Editor  on  10/16  at  10:35 AM

7. I didn’t mean to put anyone in an awkward position. :->

   I will temper my cynicism enough to say that I am in favour of subsidies, in principal, so long as the recipients understand and remember that it’s the public they have to thank for such windfalls.

   Posted by  on  10/16  at  11:22 AM

8. I have some confidence that VIA would not screw it up completely, having travelled VIA on shorter journeys recently. However, one of the reasons I was uneasy about David Collenette’s boosting of HSR under Chretien was the likelihood that instead of using existing proven, electric-powered technology like ICE, TGV or Shinkansen we would provide Bombardier with a market for JetTrain which runs off a fossil powered aircraft turbine engine and throw hundreds of millions into re-inventing the wheels. The Europeans and Japanese have proven tech, let’s licence-build it in Canada and the sooner the better.

   However, for political reasons, it would be important to do Calgary-Edmonton at the same time so that they didn’t start leaning on their Tory MPs to let the Eastern Bastards Freeze on the 401.

   Posted by Mark Dowling  on  10/16  at  01:14 PM

9. A high speed train track requires that no level crossings exist. Building one in Ontario would require either huge numbers of flyovers (anyone carbon-price concrete lately) or major disruptions to local traffic (driving a tractor kilometers out of the way also produces carbon). Not to mention that the cost of sch a line would also come out of the pot for commuter rail and urban transit.

   Don’t get me wrong. I love trains and support them when I can. But rail, particularly high speed rail, also has its share of environmental consequences. Maybe we could start with slightly less expensive and sexy measures to improve VIA rail performance and reliability and protect our existing transportation infrastructure and rail lines.

   In other words, go for the best solution, not just the high tech solution.

   Posted by John Spragge  on  10/18  at  06:47 AM

10. South Korea just opened there high speed rail recently and I had the privilege of taking it. it was amazing. It only cost about 33 Canadian to take it, granted there are more people there.

    They have been able to put crossings and it minimally disrupted traffic just like any old train would. Your reasoning isn’t legit Spragge.

    I just took the train from Windsor to Toronto yesterday (it was packed!)and maybe it is sad to note that I can fly from Toronto to Vancouver or Victoria faster.

    VIA needs a major overhaul and high speed service from Windsor to Quebec.
    Posted by  on  10/22  at  12:17 PM

11. According to this railway industry website, almost half the Korean high speed rail route runs through tunnels. I stand by my statement that we should focus on the project of improving VIA reliability and speed now, rather than depending on long-range solutions.

    Posted by John Spragge  on  11/02  at  07:44 AM

12. Korea is 70% hills…of course it is going to go through tunnels, but the cost to plow through rock is crazy absurd. We don’t have any hills to plow through, therefore, it should be cheaper to build a high speed train from Windsor to Quebec.

    A majority of my 2.5 train ride in Korea isn’t through hills, but through farmland and runs parallel with the old locomotives.

    I agree on the focusing on speed and reliability now, but in order to do that we have to replace tracks. why not just save the money and build the high speed now instead of putting a band-aid on it now, paying for it, then paying for the same thing down the road. Your long range goals are lacking.

    Posted by  on  11/02  at  02:41 PM

<< Back to main