I consider Jakob Mueller to be something of a wunderkind. His encyclopedic knowledge of VIA Rail Canada and its rolling stock is what got me started creating my first book on Canada's passenger railway. While I often noticed his 'handle' on the Can-Pass-Rail yahoo group (now groups dot io) in the past, it hasn't been there in nearly five years, or roughly 10,978 group messages! What brought Jakob's insightful experience back online? VIA, er, High Frequency Rail (HFR), er, High Speed Rail (HSR), er, ALTO, that's what! This massive Corridor boondoggle that I will finally likely ride accompanied by my guide dog having arrived at Sharbot Lake station in the Access Bus - that's how long it'll be before it ever arrives. I will be Canada's oldest citizen, perhaps, at the ripe old age of...124?
When I read Jakob's post about ALTO, I immediately knew it should be shared widely, starting with not only Can-Pass-Rail's readership, but also the hundreds, okay dozens, okay two-hands'-worth of Trackside Treasure's readers exercising their eyes this winter, just to stay warm. To say I'm highly skeptical of ALTO is an understatement, and I'm already tired of reading the half-baked pie-in-the-sky proponent promises, political pronouncements, plus private-citizen pining and pillorying. I've resisted publishing Trackside Treasure posts on the project - goodness knows VIA has enough on its plate right now to contemplate its future vis-a-vis ALTO.
It's been two years since I openly opined in the opening salvo of the HFR, er, HSR (oh, never mind) wars. In the meantime, I re-read a project proposed for high-speed rail in the Corridor and Edmonton-Calgary in 1984. There have been a shelf-full of similar project proposals** since then.
ALTO proudly proclaims that it's Shaping the Canada of tomorrow with high-speed rail and posting Interactive map with comments that actually seems to work and is chock-full of comments for wayside communities. Or, communities that may be along the line. Not only is the final routing not chosen, but a second, southern sweep has been included to further confuse us!
Without editing, comment or otherwise dilution - except for a few images - here is Jakob Mueller's post:
We got [to ALTO] by trying to answer the question: how do we make VIA's intercity network better? Somehow the answer became "with a ground-up service that in no way improves regional rail or addresses its problems".
Let's not pretend that ALTO is truly, fully costed. They don't even have a route between Toronto and Ottawa, just two broad paintbrush strokes across a map that lacks understanding of the terrain and the reality of the ground. Just two different awkward ways to get to Peterborough. That part of the planet is very much not flat, full of knobs of precambrian rock and wetlands. Making an HSR alignment there that actually works will be technically very difficult, necessarily very destructive, inevitably very expensive, and bring ecological damage we will regret later. But why would we think about all of this when we are building for "the future"? I digress.
In this and so many other areas we see the same pattern: politicians chase the shiny bauble (HSR, in this case) because it captures attention and "we need to dream big again" or whatever sloganeering nonsense, rather than practical, achievable, pragmatic things that drive incremental improvement over time. So a consulting firm gets hired to write a report, but they are dopes that don't thoroughly understand the subject matter, or the wider issues, or the world outside mom's basement, but the report is so official and expensive that it is treated as definitive scripture. And then when members of the public try to participate in consultations, or raise valid questions, or make practical suggestions, they get dismissed with this infuriating mix of ego and closed-minded condescension: well we can't change it now, we already did the report, it took sooo long we wouldn't want to take any longer to make it better, or do it right the first time or anything. It's not as if this is being built with the people's money and for their purported benefit. (This disdain is fully intended as non-partisan; the absence of competence afflicts all parties and all levels of government.)
The HSR mistake is at the beginning: failing to consider all rail as integral transportation infrastructure. Freight and "conventional" passenger rail matter too, and are really part of this same conversation. We don't have a proper rail strategy, we haven't ever bothered to give VIA a proper mandate or proper funding in almost 50 years, and in every economic downswing, we let rail lines with regional strategic importance get abandoned and sold off by their private owners to become ATV trails and cornfields, rather than enabling rail banking. Yet we think HSR and just HSR fixes something? Give me a break.
In the 1990s, VIA actually had good on-time performance. It could run a train from Montreal to Toronto in 4 hours. That's good. You can't drive that. Because of all the airport nonsense involved with flying, that's competitive there too. This was possible with a collaborative relationship with CN, and with more freight trains on the line (which were not as long - as PSR is another elephant in this room). HFR as proposed was indeed stupid, but if VIA could regularly achieve those "Metropolis" kinds of times, with more frequency, AND with ticket prices that were more accessible, you would get a lot more people out of their cars. Convenience and price speak to people, so take away those concerns. Price in particular is not being discussed enough for how much it matters.
I think diverting through freight to an upgraded Winchester-Belleville alignment is a great idea. If freight getting in the way is a roadblock to frequency, reliability, and good passenger train speeds, shifting some of that freight away will help. (So would giving VIA legislative priority, but there I go, digressing again.) The Winchester was single-tracked only a few years ago, which seemed incredibly short-sighted, as do most railway decisions of late. The whole route is under-utilized, and adding a second conventional track to much of it would not be that difficult (with a few tricky spots, i.e. Bolingbroke Trestle, reminiscent of Halton Sub constrictions). Without modifications, it (quietly) handled some detouring CN traffic during the blockades in 2019. If track becomes public infrastructure and the freight railways get a fair deal, it's in their benefit, and ours. (We subsidize the heck out of highways for trucks, why not facilitate transportation that has wider social and economic benefits too?) It's important, too, to maintain access to local freight service on both lines.
Also: looking back, the TurboTrain concept was to get higher speed out of the Kingston Subdivision, at least 125 mph. That's 200 km/h, and that's pretty darn good. It's better than anything we've ever actually had in Canada. The LRC was built to be 125 mph capable. The Chargers are able to achieve 125 mph (uh... in the summer, I assume). It's an interim step to true high speed and far less costly. We've had the rolling stock to do this since, in theory, 1968. Could we, I don't know, maybe try and get that to work somewhere first? It doesn't need special track, although we should replace some level crossings (another thing we should be doing anyway, but also not politically sexy). Too much too soon? How about baby steps: Amtrak's Michigan Corridor is cleared for 110 mph operation (on CN lines that also have freight trains, believe it or not). Practical, incremental improvement that increases use of, and builds demand for rail service, then makes HSR make more sense - but as an add-on compliment to a robust regional network, not something built without it, or in lieu of it.
Lastly, Peterborough: It clearly ought to have a decent intercity/commuter connection to Toronto, if nothing else. But the Peterborough-centric nature of this is frankly weird, and theoretical at best. It is the biggest sunk cost fallacy here: it is a through line from the original HFR concept. Peterborough hasn't had passenger service for 36 years and counting. The last trains took commuters to Toronto and the youngest people who used those trains as commuters have retired. Everyone who works in Peterborough today somehow gets on without rail service. Not that it shouldn't be there, but again, why not start with regional rail? A GO train with GO train pricing? A new use for displaced HEP2 coaches? Going from zero to HSR overnight - without a regional network - isn't a recipe for widespread adoption and success. Perhaps the Peterborough HSR station becomes a white elephant, lightly used by Trent students with rich parents. Alternatively, HSR access intensifies the degree to which Peterborough is a bedroom community for Toronto, driving up housing prices and rapidly gentrifying the city. As much as Peterborough needs a figurative coat of paint, I don't see how HSR brings back manufacturing jobs or otherwise helps laid-off GE workers.
HSR hasn't ever materialized because to do it right, we have to build up the anemic rail infrastructure, and the culture of actually using passenger rail, that supports it. Doing it right away would be a boondoggle, doing it the right way is a generational investment that, because of the time needed, doesn't have a political payoff for the people who launch it. So it hasn't happened. Now we're in this moment where there may be political will and opportunity, which is great, but the desire for immediate progress and the fallacy of sunk cost is creating the opportunity for error. If this is done wrong, it will sour another generation on trying to invest in rail. Some of you optimistically think we're building the Shinkansen, but so far I think this is Tren Maya*.
--Jakob
There you have it. I think you'll agree that was an excellent, engaging encapsulation of the chances, challenges and chagrin that ALTO is facing. I'd like to thank Jakob for readily agreeing to the sharing of his prescient, perceptive post.
*The Tren Maya or Maya Train, is a 966-mile inter-city railway in Mexico that traverses the Yucatán Peninsula. Construction began in June 2020 and the Campeche–Cancún section began operation on December 15, 2023, with the rest of the railway opening in subsequent stages, with the final segment from Escárcega to Chetumal beginning operation on December 15, 2024. The project aims to connect tourist destinations in the Caribbean with lesser-known sites inland, including historic Mayan sites from which it derives its name. By linking the main towns in the region, with 42 trains carrying up to three million passengers a year, the line is intended to redistribute tourist flows that are currently concentrated on the coast, and to encourage the development of a region that has historically been neglected by the state. It also may not have had enough engineering, procurement and commission time for adequate operational testing. Experts also worry that the accelerated construction could be hiding structural problems. So far, the project has been linked to more than 60 workplace deaths, multiple route changes, and allegations of purchasing faulty materials from corrupt networks!
**A partial list of HSR studies over the years:
- 1984 - High Speed Passenger Rail in Canada, VIA Rail Canada.
- 1989 - Review of Passenger Rail Transportation in Canada, VIA Rail Canada.
- 1989 - Pre-feasibility Study of High Speed Rail Services in the Quebec-Montreal- Ottawa/Hull-Toronto Corridor, Bombardier.
- 1990 - Sprintor, Pre-feasibility Study, Windsor-Quebec Rail Corridor, ABB Canada Inc.
- 1990 - The Canadian TGV Project - Bombardier, GEC, Alstom.
- 1991 - Ontario/Quebec Rapid Train Task Force, Ontario and Quebec Governments.
- 1991 - High Speed Rail Market Assessment - Air Canada/CP Rail.
- 1992 - Fast Tracks - Options for High Speed Rail in Canada - VIA Rail Canada
- 1995 - Quebec-Ontario High Speed Rail Project - Government of Canada, Ontario and Quebec Governments.
- 1995 Quebec Ontario High Speed Rail Project - Preliminary Routing Assessment and Costing Study SNC-Lavalin.
- 2002 - VIAFast- VIA Rail Canada.
- 2003 - High Speed Passenger Rail Analysis - Environmental and Socio- Economic Impacts of VIAFast - IBI Group for Transport Canada.
- 2011 - Updated Feasibility Study of a High Speed Rail Service Quebec City-Windsor - EcoTrains for Ministry of Transport Ontario,Quebec and Transport Canada.
- 2017 - Special Advisor Report Ontario High Speed Rail - David Collenette.
- 2022 - Alstom TGV Presentation Ontario-Quebec.
- 2023 - Build it Right - A Study of HFR/HSR in Canada - Cambia Consulting.
- 2025 - All Aboard: The Benefits of Faster, More Frequent Passenger Trains between Ontario and Québec and The Costs of Delay - C.D. Howe Institute.
- BILL C-15 - An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025 for FIRST READING, November 18, 2025 in it Under Part 5 Various Measures - Division 1 is the the High-Speed Rail Network Act.
Running extra...
To paraphrase The Man in Black, Johnny Cash
"Well if you ride it/
you got to ride it/
if you ever find it/
get your ticket online/
for the AL-TO Line."
First past the post...
Thanks to the nice lady who stopped to offer us a toonie so our granddaughter could ride Mickey's golf cart at the mall food court. We assured her that the motion is not enjoyable for her, so a gentle manual shake is all she needs from the machine. I didn't have the heart to tell her all the machines are card-only. Talk about pay-to-play, or perhaps tap-for-a-trip!
No comments:
Post a Comment