this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2026
173 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

12349 readers
474 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


🌐 Other Relevant Communities


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Stinky_Cheese@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Oh what I’d do to have a nice and efficient train from Montreal to Vancouver. I’d take it instead of the plane for sure!

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

Unfortunately the fastest passenger train currently available on the planet would still take roughly 6 hours to get from Montreal to Vancouver in basically a straight line so probably double or even triple that for a more realistic number with all the corners and ups and downs. We probably won't be making the fastest train on earth so it would likely still be a 20+ ride from Montreal to Vancouver in the best case scenario.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 16 hours ago

Via did add new rail cars on Montreal Toronto route about 2-3 years ago. Lighting is ridiculously bright and can't be turned down. No obvious improvements.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 38 points 1 day ago

I for one am positively shocked at this development.

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

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 45 points 1 day ago (9 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.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 3 points 15 hours ago

Isn't it a lack of rails that's the problem, not a lack of rail cars?

Thats one issue. This announcement addresses a different issue.

The current VIA long-haul fleet is 70 year old equipment. It's getting increasingly expensive to maintain, and if it isn't replaced it will become almost impossible to keep them safely operating.

[–] clanker_victim_555@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

[–] ImgurRefugee114@reddthat.com 40 points 1 day ago

I think freight priority over passenger is the perfect analogy for where we find ourselves today; the systems are wholly subservient to capital

[–] assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 day 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.

[–] CaperGrrl79@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day 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.

[–] oscarmeyer82@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] Trex202@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

[–] Trex202@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] digitalFatteh@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

And PQ (Québec) are poised to shiv it if elected:

PQ CBC

[–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

Support is dropping. I expect a minority.

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 1 points 15 hours ago

Twinning is a more cost-effective way to have passenger rail separated from freight

Sure, but if you want actual high-speed passenger rail, the track needs to be straight and level.

The current freight tracks are as level as possible, but to achieve that, they follow the terrain, leading to some very twisty lines that require lower speeds.

Simply twinning those won't get near as much of an improvement for passenger rail as is needed.

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

For anyone interested, this video give a good overview of some of the issues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1G0Lyh3uik

[–] YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago

We can all enjoy the new cars whilst sitting waiting for another train to pass.

[–] zikzak025@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Subscript5676@piefed.ca 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] zikzak025@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Essentially (assuming that project moves forward) but the shinkansen lines in Japan have higher speeds than that.

[–] allen@rail.chat 6 points 1 day 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

I assume this is primarily for the GTA commuter rail where that's less(?) of an issue.

But in any case, the VIA rolling stock is pretty old, AFAIK.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

Everything VIA is run down. But yeah the rail is the biggest issue and probably more expensive.

[–] Sunshine@piefed.ca 19 points 1 day ago

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

[–] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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

[–] 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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

[–] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah, yeah. Ontario first and everywhere else, never.