Via rail

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Define "large investment"

$5-10B would be my guess. However much it costs to build a dedicated line with stations between Calgary and Edmonton and it was in that ballpark in the last study by the Alberta government. If you don't spend that, then the line wouldn't be competitive with existing modes and thus would have no ridership. Any other line would have a worse business case.

To put things in perspective, VIA carries about 5 million passengers annually while Calgary Transit alone carries 105 million. Is it any wonder that local transit gets more investment than in intercity?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

$5-10B would be my guess. However much it costs to build a dedicated line with stations between Calgary and Edmonton and it was in that ballpark in the last study by the Alberta government. If you don't spend that, then the line wouldn't be competitive with existing modes and thus would have no ridership. Any other line would have a worse business case.

To put things in perspective, VIA carries about 5 million passengers annually while Calgary Transit alone carries 105 million. Is it any wonder that local transit gets more investment than in intercity?

Well, that may be a true statement a few months ago, however, if the line is a reasonably close second to driving or the bus, it could start to generate enough ridership to warrant more.

HFR is not the be all end all.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Well, that may be a true statement a few months ago, however, if the line is a reasonably close second to driving or the bus, it could start to generate enough ridership to warrant more.

HFR is not the be all end all.

Even getting close to competitive will cost a lot of money, and thus it makes sense to spend more to actually make something that will actually compete.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Even getting close to competitive will cost a lot of money, and thus it makes sense to spend more to actually make something that will actually compete.

Ok, between Calgary and Edmonton, find a route that could be HFR....

[swimmer_spe]

https://www.narcity.com/news/ca/via-...arting-in-june

Good to see more trips added as well as the safety measures being added.

They still say the Canadian and Ocean will be suspended till Nov 1. I suspect that is largely due to the length of travel. It does make me more convinced that chopping up those routes into shorter lengths might be in order. Everyone will tout the Corridor as a success. If that is the case, lets model the other routes after it as much as possible. You could never go from Windsor to QC without a transfer, so why not do the same?


And while I am at it... why the heck does a mainline run take longer than a branchline run take? The Canadian takes about 8 hours to go between Sudbury and Toronto. The old Northlander used to do North Bay to Toronto in 5 hours.

For starters, the branchline was in rougher shape, so that should mean a slower run. It also had 2 more stops, so that should make it slower. They were both owned by the same carrier - CN.

Glad I didn't plan on the Canadian for my honeymoon this summer.

[swimmer_spe]

Information can lead to some great discoveries....

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3wx7vr93sq...FINAL.pdf?dl=0

This was shared on Urban Toronto with regards to 2018 Via Rail boardings and deboardings. When you dig through it, you start to see some patters that are only apparent on a map.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/drive?...7D&usp=sharing


I put all stations with over 1000 on the map.
The colours are as follows:
over 1 million, red
500,000 - 1 mill, green
100,000-500,000, yellow
50,000-100.000, orange
10,000-50,000 purple
under 10,000, blue

Zooming in and out, and looking at more than just the numbers, what we see are some obvious things, and some things we can extrapolate from.

1) The 3 highest cities are Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. Makes sense. They have the most trains to them. They are also among the top 5 cities in Canada.

2)The busiest stations are all along the Corridor, where it has the most trains.

3) London is the 4th and Kingston is the 5th in ridership. They are both about 2 hours drive to Toronto. This also means that one day if GO is extended to them, it will likely do well, and these numbers would drop. There is already murmurs that this will happen.

4) All terminals, except for Churchill are on the map. Churchill has 494.

5)Smith Falls is on the map, and likely would grow due to HFR going to it. It might be a good way to get to Kingston from places along the HFR route.

--------------------

Now it is time to have some fun. It is time for.... math.

Lets take the major cities outside of the Corridor and see what more service might look if the growth was linear.
The cities we will look at are: Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Moncton and Halifax.

I have suggested a few things:
1)Daily service
2) cutting the long haul lines up
3) Adding additional service as needed between those terminal cities.

Lets start with the 1st one. It is simple math.
Currently, with 3 days a week service, the cities have:
Vancouver - 42,838
Edmonton -14,858
Winnipeg - 15,089
Moncton -18,823
Halifax -29,865

So, simply doubling it would give
Vancouver - 85,676
Edmonton - 29,716
Winnipeg - 30,178
Moncton - 37,646
Halifax -59,730

Ahhh, but you see, in my idea of daily service, you actually have in and out, both ways. Which means each day is 2 trains, not 1.

Vancouver - 171,352
Edmonton - 59,432
Winnipeg - 60,356
Moncton - 75,292
Halifax - 119,460

So, now it comes to cutting the long hauls up and running services like they do on the Corridor.

So, lets say we still keep the daily service, but we have alternative routes. Lets say they are also only 1 a day, both ways

For the Canadian, only Vancouver and Winnipeg would change
Vancouver - 342,704
Winnipeg - 120,712

For the Ocean, there are alternatives. So, here is how Moncton and Halifax would fair:
Moncton - 150,584
Halifax - 238,920

What about Edmonton? Well, lets say we had service down to Calgary. lets say it was really horrible, and was only 4 times a day. Lets also assume that the amount would be equal to the numbers on the Canadian getting on or off.
Edmonton - 237,728 + 59,432 = 297,160

Realize, we have not added an HFR route on any of these routes. We have not made them faster. We have just added daily service plus adding 1 new route that could draw more service.

So, our new numbers are:
Vancouver - 342,704
Edmonton - 297,160
Winnipeg - 120,712
Moncton - 150,584
Halifax - 238,920

On the map, that would make all of these go yellow. That would move Vancouver to the 6th spot.

Now, one could argue that adding the southern route across the Prairies would actually add more than this as there is more population than the northern route. And if we ever saw a return of the Gull/Downeaster to Halifax, then the numbers for Moncton and Halifax would jump too.

This is basic math. I did not even do it where I bumped the numbers up for that 7th day. So,there is a buffer in these numbers. As an engineer, whenever we do math calculations,w e always have some sort of buffer/safety factor built into the math.

Numbers don't lie. They are numbers.. They do not care about your motives.
So, once HFR frees up subsidy money, we should add services elsewhere to build up the numbers.

[headhorse]

Build the train

[swimmer_spe]

From another page:

https://cptdb.ca/topic/9584-via-rail...comment-896014
Sounds like they have found a solution, one that removes the park car.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Information can lead to some great discoveries....

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3wx7vr93sq...FINAL.pdf?dl=0

This was shared on Urban Toronto with regards to 2018 Via Rail boardings and deboardings. When you dig through it, you start to see some patters that are only apparent on a map.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/drive?...7D&usp=sharing


I put all stations with over 1000 on the map.
The colours are as follows:
over 1 million, red
500,000 - 1 mill, green
100,000-500,000, yellow
50,000-100.000, orange
10,000-50,000 purple
under 10,000, blue

Certainly interesting. It does remind me of a saying I once heard: "Statistics are like bikinis. What they show is interesting but what they hide is crucial.

Zooming in and out, and looking at more than just the numbers, what we see are some obvious things, and some things we can extrapolate from.

1) The 3 highest cities are Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. Makes sense. They have the most trains to them. They are also among the top 5 cities in Canada.

They are also physically close to each other. Intercity service doesn't serve individual cities but pairs of cities. According to a 1991 VIA timetable (the schedules may have changed, but routes haven't changed):

• Montreal-Ottawa: 187 km
• Montreal-Toronto: 539 km
• Ottawa-Toronto: 446 km

2)The busiest stations are all along the Corridor, where it has the most trains.

It also has the highest population density and those stations are close to 3 of Canada's 5 largest cities, so they have a place to go to/from.

3) London is the 4th and Kingston is the 5th in ridership. They are both about 2 hours drive to Toronto.

Kingston is closer to 3 hours from Toronto (2:45 without traffic to be precise), so it isn't as close as you imply. It does hit well above its population though, in part because of Queens University, and in part because it is on a route that connects Toronto with both Montreal and Ottawa, so it has very frequent service (if you count arrivals and departures separately, it is one of VIA's busiest stations).

London has a population of close to half a million, and is the 11th largest city in Canada (ahead of Halifax, Regina and Saskatoon) so when combined with its proximity to Toronto, its high ridership is to be expected.

This also means that one day if GO is extended to them, it will likely do well, and these numbers would drop. There is already murmurs that this will happen.

If GO were to extend to London, it would be primarily for those travelling to places west of Toronto. It would also most likey be using the northern route (via Kitchener). VIA (before COVID) only had 2 trains a day on that route. The other 5 trains a day between Toronto and London used the shorter, southern route (via Brantford), so the two really wouldn't be competing with each other.

4) All terminals, except for Churchill are on the map. Churchill has 494.

The train to Churchill is operated as an essential service, as there are no roads, so the train is the only alternative to flying.

5)Smith Falls is on the map, and likely would grow due to HFR going to it. It might be a good way to get to Kingston from places along the HFR route.

Smiths Falls does suffer from infrequent service and HFR should improve things, but I can't see it being a significant transfer station. Ottawa and Montreal will have direct service to Kingston and it is a large detour to go to Kingston via Smiths Falls from points west. That just leaves those coming from Alexandria and Castleman.

Now it is time to have some fun. It is time for.... math.

Lets take the major cities outside of the Corridor and see what more service might look if the growth was linear.
The cities we will look at are: Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Moncton and Halifax.

I have suggested a few things:
1)Daily service
2) cutting the long haul lines up
3) Adding additional service as needed between those terminal cities.

Lets start with the 1st one. It is simple math.
Currently, with 3 days a week service, the cities have:
Vancouver - 42,838
Edmonton -14,858
Winnipeg - 15,089
Moncton -18,823
Halifax -29,865

So, simply doubling it would give
Vancouver - 85,676
Edmonton - 29,716
Winnipeg - 30,178
Moncton - 37,646
Halifax -59,730

You can't just assume that double the frequency will result in double the ridership. While this can be true for typical intercity service, the vast majority of those taking the Canadian are tourists using it as a Land Cruise. That type of traveller are taking it for the experience and will happily adjust their plans to catch the train on a different day. This is very different from the typical intercity train traveller who is comparing the train's schedule to taking a car, bus or airplane.

As for Moncton and Halifax, they are less of a land cruise and more transportation based, so increasing frequency would help that more. The thing your stats are saying is are those people travelling to/from Montreal or Quebec or are they travelling withing the maritime. If the latter, the proposed new service with RDCs will help, otherwise, VIA would have to increase frequency to Montreal to have much of an effect.

Ahhh, but you see, in my idea of daily service, you actually have in and out, both ways. Which means each day is 2 trains, not 1.

Vancouver - 171,352
Edmonton - 59,432
Winnipeg - 60,356
Moncton - 75,292
Halifax - 119,460

All of VIA's routes offer round trip service, so that is nothing new that will change anything. Sure you are forcing people to alight and board a new train where previously they just stayed on the train would increase foot traffic in the station, but it results in the same number of passenger overall.

So, now it comes to cutting the long hauls up and running services like they do on the Corridor.

So, lets say we still keep the daily service, but we have alternative routes. Lets say they are also only 1 a day, both ways

For the Canadian, only Vancouver and Winnipeg would change
Vancouver - 342,704
Winnipeg - 120,712

Once again, you are assuming that offering new destinations will increase the number of people who will take the land cruse. Some might choose to do both routes, but for many, you will be dividing the passengers between two routes, resulting in the same number of passengers but more trains to operate.

For the Ocean, there are alternatives. So, here is how Moncton and Halifax would fair:
Moncton - 150,584
Halifax - 238,920

How so? You just waved your magic wand and doubled the number of predicted passengers with no justification.

What about Edmonton? Well, lets say we had service down to Calgary. lets say it was really horrible, and was only 4 times a day. Lets also assume that the amount would be equal to the numbers on the Canadian getting on or off.
Edmonton - 237,728 + 59,432 = 297,160

Before it was cancelled, there were only 2 trains a day weekdays, and 1 train on weekends, so I wouldn't call 4 trains "really horrible." Its all a mater of perspective.

Also, I don't think you can use the number of those taking the land cruse from Vancouver to Edmonton (because they only wanted to see the Rockys) as any type of indication as to how many would want to travel between Edmonton and Calgary. Those are totally different markets with totally different demands.

Now, one could argue that adding the southern route across the Prairies would actually add more than this as there is more population than the northern route.

No, you are just going to steal land cruse passengers from the northern route. Sure you might see a very slight increase in passenger count overall (maybe 5% if you are lucky), but you will have double the operating costs, so the Canadian would go from close to breaking even (on purely operational costs) to operating at a significant loss.

This is basic math. I did not even do it where I bumped the numbers up for that 7th day. So,there is a buffer in these numbers. As an engineer, whenever we do math calculations,w e always have some sort of buffer/safety factor built into the math.

The math might be basic, but your assumptions that led to the math are flawed. Sure its easy to double numbers, but you have yet to provide an argument that the numbers would double.

Numbers don't lie. They are numbers.. They do not care about your motives.
So, once HFR frees up subsidy money, we should add services elsewhere to build up the numbers.

Numbers don't lie, but incorrect assumptions do. If we ran 10 trains a day to Churchill, MB (up from the 3 trains a week) would the number of passengers at the station jump from 494 to 7904 (16 times, leaving some room for error)? Of course not! The math didn't lie, but the assumption that doubling the number of trains will always double the number of passengers did. In your case, the flaw in the assumption may not be so blatant, but it still affects the result.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Certainly interesting. It does remind me of a saying I once heard: "Statistics are like bikinis. What they show is interesting but what they hide is crucial.

Good thing I am comfortable in a speedo.

Originally Posted by roger1818

They are also physically close to each other. Intercity service doesn't serve individual cities but pairs of cities. According to a 1991 VIA timetable (the schedules may have changed, but routes haven't changed):

• Montreal-Ottawa: 187 km
• Montreal-Toronto: 539 km
• Ottawa-Toronto: 446 km

Fine. Then lets see the run between Sudbury and Toronto get to less than 5 hours. Its only 400km. It should not take EIGHT hours.

Toronto to Winnipeg: 2,026km
Winnipeg to Edmonton: 1,303km
Edmonton to Vancouver: 1,154Km

You notice that I never "padded" any numbers? That is because I know that it will not be a simple double, but it be a lot more than it has been.

Originally Posted by roger1818

It also has the highest population density and those stations are close to 3 of Canada's 5 largest cities, so they have a place to go to/from.

The Top 6 cities in Canada has rail... oh, wait, no, it does not.
Toronto
Montreal
Vancouver
Calgary
Ottawa
Edmonton are the top cities.

5 are served by intercity rail. 3 are served by service that is multiple times a day. The ones that are served by regular daily service also has the highest ridership. Maybe it is a fluke, or maybe it is because people in larger cities tend to use public transportation more.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Kingston is closer to 3 hours from Toronto (2:45 without traffic to be precise), so it isn't as close as you imply. It does hit well above its population though, in part because of Queens University, and in part because it is on a route that connects Toronto with both Montreal and Ottawa, so it has very frequent service (if you count arrivals and departures separately, it is one of VIA's busiest stations).

London has a population of close to half a million, and is the 11th largest city in Canada (ahead of Halifax, Regina and Saskatoon) so when combined with its proximity to Toronto, its high ridership is to be expected.

But that high? That did surprise me.

Originally Posted by roger1818

If GO were to extend to London, it would be primarily for those travelling to places west of Toronto. It would also most likey be using the northern route (via Kitchener). VIA (before COVID) only had 2 trains a day on that route. The other 5 trains a day between Toronto and London used the shorter, southern route (via Brantford), so the two really wouldn't be competing with each other.

If the province could give Brantford GO service and give London GO service, all at once, and it be shorter route, why not? My only thought would be how packed the train would be after Aldershot.

Originally Posted by roger1818

The train to Churchill is operated as an essential service, as there are no roads, so the train is the only alternative to flying.

I know. All the other ones have some sort of road service. That almost seems counter productive.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Smiths Falls does suffer from infrequent service and HFR should improve things, but I can't see it being a significant transfer station. Ottawa and Montreal will have direct service to Kingston and it is a large detour to go to Kingston via Smiths Falls from points west. That just leaves those coming from Alexandria and Castleman.

I partially agree. It all depends on the frequency and ease of access to the rest of the network.

Originally Posted by roger1818

You can't just assume that double the frequency will result in double the ridership. While this can be true for typical intercity service, the vast majority of those taking the Canadian are tourists using it as a Land Cruise. That type of traveller are taking it for the experience and will happily adjust their plans to catch the train on a different day. This is very different from the typical intercity train traveller who is comparing the train's schedule to taking a car, bus or airplane.

As for Moncton and Halifax, they are less of a land cruise and more transportation based, so increasing frequency would help that more. The thing your stats are saying is are those people travelling to/from Montreal or Quebec or are they travelling withing the maritime. If the latter, the proposed new service with RDCs will help, otherwise, VIA would have to increase frequency to Montreal to have much of an effect.

How can you argue one route is less of one thing and more of another? Do you have the data for it hidden in your thong?

The Regional routes that have been suggested would make these numbers go up. Places like Saint John and Halifax using these routes would see higher ridership. They are within similar distance as Toronto and Montreal

Originally Posted by roger1818

All of VIA's routes offer round trip service, so that is nothing new that will change anything. Sure you are forcing people to alight and board a new train where previously they just stayed on the train would increase foot traffic in the station, but it results in the same number of passenger overall.

So, is that what makes Toronto so busy is those thru passengers? Would those numbers drop by half if that's the case?

Originally Posted by roger1818

Once again, you are assuming that offering new destinations will increase the number of people who will take the land cruse. Some might choose to do both routes, but for many, you will be dividing the passengers between two routes, resulting in the same number of passengers but more trains to operate.

That is normally how any transportation company works. Same as buses or air travel. More routes = more people.

Originally Posted by roger1818

How so? You just waved your magic wand and doubled the number of predicted passengers with no justification.

Think of people within a few hours of the major cities. If they knew there was daily service passing by that goes to those major cities, a weekend trip to the city would be a normal event. That would make those numbers go up. That is how convenience works.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Before it was cancelled, there were only 2 trains a day weekdays, and 1 train on weekends, so I wouldn't call 4 trains "really horrible." Its all a mater of perspective.

Also, I don't think you can use the number of those taking the land cruse from Vancouver to Edmonton (because they only wanted to see the Rockys) as any type of indication as to how many would want to travel between Edmonton and Calgary. Those are totally different markets with totally different demands.

Do you have those ridership numbers?

Originally Posted by roger1818

No, you are just going to steal land cruse passengers from the northern route. Sure you might see a very slight increase in passenger count overall (maybe 5% if you are lucky), but you will have double the operating costs, so the Canadian would go from close to breaking even (on purely operational costs) to operating at a significant loss.

So, why not shut down the less scenic route? Oh, right, political reasons.

Originally Posted by roger1818

The math might be basic, but your assumptions that led to the math are flawed. Sure its easy to double numbers, but you have yet to provide an argument that the numbers would double.

Well, now you are not reading things. I did not actually just double trains. Technically, In order to properly double it, we would need 8 days. 3x2 is 6, but there is one more day each week. Your math and understanding a calendar is weak.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Numbers don't lie, but incorrect assumptions do. If we ran 10 trains a day to Churchill, MB (up from the 3 trains a week) would the number of passengers at the station jump from 494 to 7904 (16 times, leaving some room for error)? Of course not! The math didn't lie, but the assumption that doubling the number of trains will always double the number of passengers did. In your case, the flaw in the assumption may not be so blatant, but it still affects the result.

Silliness is strong on this. I could understand you saying that doubling it would not see double the ridership, but 10 times a day?

Ah, well, the math is weak with you.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Fine. Then lets see the run between Sudbury and Toronto get to less than 5 hours. Its only 400km. It should not take EIGHT hours.

It is rather strange that it takes 7:12 to go from Toronto to Sudbury Jct. and 9:40 to go from Sudbury Jct. to Toronto. That averages to 8:26.

I agree that is to long, but getting it under 5 hours is a bit of wishful thinking. Why? It is hard to compare travel times on a route with occasional service to a heavily used passenger corridor. When you have multiple trains a day running along it, upgrade investments can be amortized over more trains to accelerate the ROI.

It would be better to compare it to routes line the Adirondack and the Vermonter (formerly the Montrealer) as they offered (before COVID) daily service and were the only trains on much of their route. I'll start south of the boarder to rule out any extra time needed to cross it.

Toronto-Sudbury Jct.: 438km (7:12 or 9:40)
Rouses Point, NY-Poughkeepsie, NY: 418km (6:20 each way)
St. Albans, VT-Hartford Union Station: 436km (6:09 or 6:39)

In my mind, if we can get it under 6 1/2 hours, we are doing very well. The question is this is one leg on one route. How much pent up demand is there from Sudbury (pop. 165 thousand, and Canada's 24th largest CMA) to Toronto?

The data you provided show 1,994 total passengers in 2018.
In 2018 there were 150 trains each way (3 trains a week for 46 weeks and 2 trains a week for 6 weeks) or 300 total trains.

Assuming they are all going to/from Toronto (not a good assumption), that works out to an average of 6.65 passengers per train.

While it is true that all passengers on the train would benefit from the upgrade, this is just one small section of a very long route on one of many routes. Should this segment be VIA's highest priority?

Toronto to Winnipeg: 2,0261,958km
Winnipeg to Edmonton: 1,3031,278km
Edmonton to Vancouver: 1,1541,231Km

and Calgary to Vancouver: 1031km (on CPR route)

Corrected it for you using CN's track (might be slightly different in the direction where they use CP's track). Either way, those distances are way to long for frequent intercity rail service to be feasible.

You notice that I never "padded" any numbers? That is because I know that it will not be a simple double, but it be a lot more than it has been.

Yes, but a small padding doesn't help when your assumptions are off by an order of magnitude.

The Top 6 cities in Canada has rail... oh, wait, no, it does not.
Toronto
Montreal
Vancouver
Calgary
Ottawa
Edmonton are the top cities.

You keep saying that, and I agree. The problem is that you keep forgetting the inter in intercity rail, the "inter" means between. Thus you need two cities for intercity rail. The only major city near Calgary is Edmonton, and the people of Alberta petitioned VIA to cancel that route. Maybe things have changed in the intervening 30 years, but given how oil-centric the province is, I wouldn't be surprised if the interest is still small.

5 are served by intercity rail. 3 are served by service that is multiple times a day. The ones that are served by regular daily service also has the highest ridership. Maybe it is a fluke, or maybe it is because people in larger cities tend to use public transportation more.

Actually, Vancouver had (before COVID) 2 trains a day to/from Seattle and Portland, so 4 are served by service that is multiple times a day.

The only hope for multiple trains a day for Edmonton and Calgary is a train between them. You need local support for that to happen. If you can get that, then I would definitely support it.

But that high? That did surprise me.

Not sure if you were referring to my comments about Kingston or London.

Kingston is about 260km (depending on your destination) from Toronto. I don't have the report from when I last checked. Now it is saying about 2:30-3:10 if you leave Kingston at midnight, so lets say 2 1/2 hours rather than the 2 3/4 I previously said.

As for London, you can find a list of Canada's largest CMAs here.

If the province could give Brantford GO service and give London GO service, all at once, and it be shorter route, why not? My only thought would be how packed the train would be after Aldershot.

Details are scarce so anything is possible. I doubt it though as it would be much more expensive and provides fewer options for London residents. The northern route would give them access to KW and Guelph, which are both significant destinations. Having people who board in London alight there will free up seats for more commuters.

Besides, if you read this article, the service could be operated by either GO or VIA. Details and timelines are uncertain.

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if once VIA gets its new fleet, they will use LRC/HEP cars to restore and supplement service between London and Toronto (they took some trains away in southern Ontario to increase frequency between Ottawa and Toronto).

I know. All the other ones have some sort of road service. That almost seems counter productive.

So tear up the roads?

How can you argue one route is less of one thing and more of another? Do you have the data for it hidden in your thong?

I do know the Canadian has two types of passengers:

1. Intercity rail passengers
2. Tourist on a land cruise

The first are very schedule sensitive (they want the train to match their schedule, and if it doesn't, they will likely find another mode of transport). The second are not (they will modify their schedule to match the train's). For that reason, boosting the frequency of service will only significantly boost the ridership of those in the first group. If (drawing numbers of of my thong, as you say) 10% of passengers are in the first group and 90% are in the second, the increase in passengers when you "double" the frequency of service will be very small.

The Regional routes that have been suggested would make these numbers go up. Places like Saint John and Halifax using these routes would see higher ridership. They are within similar distance as Toronto and Montreal

Similar distance, but less that 1/10 the population. Both are important.

Toronto: 5,928,040
Montreal: 4,098,927
Halifax: 403,390
Moncton: 144,810
Saint John: 126,202

So, is that what makes Toronto so busy is those thru passengers? Would those numbers drop by half if that's the case?

You found the statistics. How would I know if they counted thru passengers? Even if they did, we don't the ratio of thru passengers to O/D passengers. This is a perfect example of, "what statistics hide is crucial." Not knowing that you don't have enough information is dangerous.

That is normally how any transportation company works. Same as buses or air travel. More routes = more people.

My argument is The Canadian is part transportation service part scenic tour. Adding more tour routes does not open up a new target market, it gives your existing target market more choice.

If I want to see the Rockies by train, if there is one route, I will take it. If there are two routes, I will pick one.

Think of people within a few hours of the major cities. If they knew there was daily service passing by that goes to those major cities, a weekend trip to the city would be a normal event. That would make those numbers go up. That is how convenience works.

First of all, you are assuming that the schedule works well for weekend trips and does that schedule work well for the other 5 days of the week?

Secondly, how many people live "few hours of the major cities" outside of the corridor? Enough to fill a train each way 7 days a week?

A good comparison is probably Sarnia as it has daily service to Toronto (via London). Sarnia is quite small (Canada's 43rd largest city with a population of 96 thousand and falling); however, it is only 290km from Toronto. Moreover, it is only 95km from London, which already has frequent service to Toronto, so the incremental cost of extending the train from London to Sarnia is small.

Despite daily service and close proximity to Canada's largest city, the "Total passengers at stations (boarding and deboarding)" on the extension are:

SARNIA: 19,490
WYOMING: 1,650
STRATHROY: 2,361
Total: 23,501

With daily, bidirectional service, we can divide the total by 730 (365x2) and get an average of 32 passengers per train. That is less than half the capacity of an LRC coach (68 seats).

Granted every situation is different, but that should give you an idea of what demand would be like for daily service from those living "within a few hours" of major cities. Other Canadian cities are much smaller than Toronto, and there are only a few places with populations similar to Sarnia.

Do you have those ridership numbers?

I do not. Even if I did, it would be so old that it would be irrelevant anyway.

So, why not shut down the less scenic route? Oh, right, political reasons.

I never said that tourists don't travel east of Edmonton (the less scenic part), just that some only want to take it through the Rockies. Besides, while they haven't shut it down, but they do only have 2 trains a week east of Edmonton but 3 trains a week west of Edmonton.

Well, now you are not reading things. I did not actually just double trains. Technically, In order to properly double it, we would need 8 days. 3x2 is 6, but there is one more day each week. Your math and understanding a calendar is weak.

Sorry. While my father was a mathematician and he would be pedantic about people saying things like "the larger half" (if one of 2 pieces is larger, it isn't a half), engineers tend to approximate things when the error is within your tolerance (the key is knowing your tolerance for error). So while 7/3 isn't exactly double (it is 2.33...), when rounded to the nearest integer, it is 2, and thus the term double is a reasonable approximation.

Silliness is strong on this. I could understand you saying that doubling it would not see double the ridership, but 10 times a day?

It was a hyperbole intended to make a point. I also included your "buffer" (7 is more than double 3 and 10 is more than 8 times 1, so I multiplied by 16 (2 x 8) not 23 1/3 (10 x 7 / 3) to create even more of a buffer than you did.

Ah, well, the math is weak with you.

Resorting to insults eh? People tend to do that when they are loosing an debate and unwilling to admit defeat.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

It is rather strange that it takes 7:12 to go from Toronto to Sudbury Jct. and 9:40 to go from Sudbury Jct. to Toronto. That averages to 8:26.

I agree that is to long, but getting it under 5 hours is a bit of wishful thinking. Why? It is hard to compare travel times on a route with occasional service to a heavily used passenger corridor. When you have multiple trains a day running along it, upgrade investments can be amortized over more trains to accelerate the ROI.

It would be better to compare it to routes line the Adirondack and the Vermonter (formerly the Montrealer) as they offered (before COVID) daily service and were the only trains on much of their route. I'll start south of the boarder to rule out any extra time needed to cross it.

Toronto-Sudbury Jct.: 438km (7:12 or 9:40)
Rouses Point, NY-Poughkeepsie, NY: 418km (6:20 each way)
St. Albans, VT-Hartford Union Station: 436km (6:09 or 6:39)

In my mind, if we can get it under 6 1/2 hours, we are doing very well. The question is this is one leg on one route. How much pent up demand is there from Sudbury (pop. 165 thousand, and Canada's 24th largest CMA) to Toronto?

The data you provided show 1,994 total passengers in 2018.
In 2018 there were 150 trains each way (3 trains a week for 46 weeks and 2 trains a week for 6 weeks) or 300 total trains.

Assuming they are all going to/from Toronto (not a good assumption), that works out to an average of 6.65 passengers per train.

While it is true that all passengers on the train would benefit from the upgrade, this is just one small section of a very long route on one of many routes. Should this segment be VIA's highest priority?

I am pointing out the flaw in something so simple as a distance that should reasonably get someone to Toronto and home in a reasonable amount of time. It would take me double the time by train each way. So, why take it? It is almost like this is set up purposely to fail. I know it likely isn't, but it does look that way.

Should it be the highest priority? That is an odd question. A better question is: Should Via find ways to improve all services they offer? Yes. They should not be focusing on one area and ignoring others to the point they become irrelevant.

There may be little demand, especially when it doesn't go to the downtown station. There is where Via could fix things first. Go downtown, take the wye, then go up or down. All of that keeps the train pointing the right direction. It also would connect the 2 lines.

Originally Posted by roger1818

and Calgary to Vancouver: 1031km (on CPR route)

Corrected it for you using CN's track (might be slightly different in the direction where they use CP's track). Either way, those distances are way to long for frequent intercity rail service to be feasible.

I was using google driving distances. Most times, people choose between driving, flying and train based on distance and time. Thank you for those edits.

They are, but so is Windsor to Quebec City, but they have made that work well.

For example, SSM to Sudbury on a train is no further than Toronto - Windsor. The difference is, up here, people would take the train for medical appointments and shopping.... oh, wait, people do that too down there. I know that line is not a fast line. I am just showing that there is lots of opportunities to improve the service, but for a variety of reasons, including money, they aren't.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Yes, but a small padding doesn't help when your assumptions are off by an order of magnitude.

How much are they off? Do you have those figures?

Originally Posted by roger1818

You keep saying that, and I agree. The problem is that you keep forgetting the inter in intercity rail, the "inter" means between. Thus you need two cities for intercity rail. The only major city near Calgary is Edmonton, and the people of Alberta petitioned VIA to cancel that route. Maybe things have changed in the intervening 30 years, but given how oil-centric the province is, I wouldn't be surprised if the interest is still small.

Do you have more information on this?

Originally Posted by roger1818

Actually, Vancouver had (before COVID) 2 trains a day to/from Seattle and Portland, so 4 are served by service that is multiple times a day.

The only hope for multiple trains a day for Edmonton and Calgary is a train between them. You need local support for that to happen. If you can get that, then I would definitely support it.

I am going to need to see what the Cascades bring to Vancouver. I know, you are going to say it is because Seattle is a close distance away that it gets 2 trains a day.
I am really only suggesting 1 train a day, but on both CN and CP. So, 2 trains, serving different parts of the country. I do know that CN/CP lines through the canyon is used as one way traffic.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Not sure if you were referring to my comments about Kingston or London.

Kingston is about 260km (depending on your destination) from Toronto. I don't have the report from when I last checked. Now it is saying about 2:30-3:10 if you leave Kingston at midnight, so lets say 2 1/2 hours rather than the 2 3/4 I previously said.

As for London, you can find a list of Canada's largest CMAs here.

Both. London really surprised me.Kingston, at least makes some sense due to the number of thru trains.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Details are scarce so anything is possible. I doubt it though as it would be much more expensive and provides fewer options for London residents. The northern route would give them access to KW and Guelph, which are both significant destinations. Having people who board in London alight there will free up seats for more commuters.

Besides, if you read this article, the service could be operated by either GO or VIA. Details and timelines are uncertain.

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if once VIA gets its new fleet, they will use LRC/HEP cars to restore and supplement service between London and Toronto (they took some trains away in southern Ontario to increase frequency between Ottawa and Toronto).

See, you hit something that has happened elsewhere. The cut back everywhere to get more service between Toronto-Montreal. When someone cries fowl, some like to point out it is about money. We all pay taxes, so we all should have some benefit to it. I don't think daily service on Canadian and Ocean is much to ask, is it?

Originally Posted by roger1818

So tear up the roads?

No, but now you are starting to see the ironies.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I do know the Canadian has two types of passengers:

1. Intercity rail passengers
2. Tourist on a land cruise

The first are very schedule sensitive (they want the train to match their schedule, and if it doesn't, they will likely find another mode of transport). The second are not (they will modify their schedule to match the train's). For that reason, boosting the frequency of service will only significantly boost the ridership of those in the first group. If (drawing numbers of of my thong, as you say) 10% of passengers are in the first group and 90% are in the second, the increase in passengers when you "double" the frequency of service will be very small.

Last I heard, there was no mention in any documents that they have land cruises. The do have Mandatory or Long Distance service.

Does the Canadian need to be as long as it is? What if it were every day, but a shorter train? Would that actually grow ridership?

Originally Posted by roger1818

Similar distance, but less that 1/10 the population. Both are important.

Toronto: 5,928,040
Montreal: 4,098,927
Halifax: 403,390
Moncton: 144,810
Saint John: 126,202

Using Via's timetables, I count about 30 trains a day int and out of Montreal. So, for 1/1th, that would be 3 trains a day. I am asking for 1 giong both ways. If your math makes sense to you,t hen this math should also make sense too.

Originally Posted by roger1818

You found the statistics. How would I know if they counted thru passengers? Even if they did, we don't the ratio of thru passengers to O/D passengers. This is a perfect example of, "what statistics hide is crucial." Not knowing that you don't have enough information is dangerous.

I agree. Lets be honest, the only way numbers are known is by butts in the seats. Just like the polls I care about are the final ones on election day. But, just like polls, these numbers can point us to something that makes reasonable sense.

Originally Posted by roger1818

My argument is The Canadian is part transportation service part scenic tour. Adding more tour routes does not open up a new target market, it gives your existing target market more choice.

If I want to see the Rockies by train, if there is one route, I will take it. If there are two routes, I will pick one.

True, if it is only for scenic routes.
Just like one day, I will ride all of the Corridor. I will pick one route and then ride it. Repeat till all are done.

Now, If I had a route that could provide some usefulness, then I would use it.

Originally Posted by roger1818

First of all, you are assuming that the schedule works well for weekend trips and does that schedule work well for the other 5 days of the week?

Secondly, how many people live "few hours of the major cities" outside of the corridor? Enough to fill a train each way 7 days a week?

A good comparison is probably Sarnia as it has daily service to Toronto (via London). Sarnia is quite small (Canada's 43rd largest city with a population of 96 thousand and falling); however, it is only 290km from Toronto. Moreover, it is only 95km from London, which already has frequent service to Toronto, so the incremental cost of extending the train from London to Sarnia is small.

Despite daily service and close proximity to Canada's largest city, the "Total passengers at stations (boarding and deboarding)" on the extension are:

SARNIA: 19,490
WYOMING: 1,650
STRATHROY: 2,361
Total: 23,501

With daily, bidirectional service, we can divide the total by 730 (365x2) and get an average of 32 passengers per train. That is less than half the capacity of an LRC coach (68 seats).

Granted every situation is different, but that should give you an idea of what demand would be like for daily service from those living "within a few hours" of major cities. Other Canadian cities are much smaller than Toronto, and there are only a few places with populations similar to Sarnia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ions_in_Canada

Sarnia is 43rd. Sudbury is 24th.
But then you have Thunder Bay that is close to Winnipeg. You have Regina which is close to Winnipeg. You are looking at the large cities, but not at the cities that regularly have people traveling to those cities.

Just in Ontario, you could have the old Northlander along with the Canadian line advertised to cottagers. And before you say Via does not run the Northlander..... it did.....

Originally Posted by roger1818

I do not. Even if I did, it would be so old that it would be irrelevant anyway.

It would be a starting point.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I never said that tourists don't travel east of Edmonton (the less scenic part), just that some only want to take it through the Rockies. Besides, while they haven't shut it down, but they do only have 2 trains a week east of Edmonton but 3 trains a week west of Edmonton.

Then get it back on the southern route as it is even more scenic. The Spiral tunnels alone are a wonder of the area.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Sorry. While my father was a mathematician and he would be pedantic about people saying things like "the larger half" (if one of 2 pieces is larger, it isn't a half), engineers tend to approximate things when the error is within your tolerance (the key is knowing your tolerance for error). So while 7/3 isn't exactly double (it is 2.33...), when rounded to the nearest integer, it is 2, and thus the term double is a reasonable approximation.

I don't round to whole numbers. That is how explosions happen. However, I understand.

Originally Posted by roger1818

It was a hyperbole intended to make a point. I also included your "buffer" (7 is more than double 3 and 10 is more than 8 times 1, so I multiplied by 16 (2 x 8) not 23 1/3 (10 x 7 / 3) to create even more of a buffer than you did.

The silliness is that I am not talking 10 trains a day anywhere. I am talking 1 train, each way a day. So, using 494, double that would be 988. That would be one train a day.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Resorting to insults eh? People tend to do that when they are loosing an debate and unwilling to admit defeat.

No, more like frustration. When you have to show people that the numbers they used are actually showing the opposite, you get a little more "bitey" with everyone. No insult intended.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am pointing out the flaw in something so simple as a distance that should reasonably get someone to Toronto and home in a reasonable amount of time. It would take me double the time by train each way. So, why take it? It is almost like this is set up purposely to fail. I know it likely isn't, but it does look that way.

If it doesn't work for you, don't take it. VIA isn't setup to fail but has been a victim of budget cuts by the federal government and is operating surprisingly well considering. Could it be improved? Definitely, but it will take money, which takes political will.

Should it be the highest priority? That is an odd question. A better question is: Should Via find ways to improve all services they offer? Yes. They should not be focusing on one area and ignoring others to the point they become irrelevant.

Fixing issues costs money and if you ask for too much at once, the federal government will just laugh at you and say no. It is better to ask for one thing, successfully complete it and use the positive experience to back your case for another.

There may be little demand, especially when it doesn't go to the downtown station. There is where Via could fix things first. Go downtown, take the wye, then go up or down. All of that keeps the train pointing the right direction. It also would connect the 2 lines.

Which wye are you referring to? The closest one I see on the Canadian Rail Atlas is at the branch of the Perry Sound and Cartier Subdivisions. That one is over 10km from Sudbury Station (a long way to be running backwards). This would then result in more than a 20km detour (there and back) for all those onboard not going to downtown Sudbury.

I was using google driving distances. Most times, people choose between driving, flying and train based on distance and time. Thank you for those edits.

Okay. Your welcome.

They are, but so is Windsor to Quebec City, but they have made that work well.

There are no trains that run all the way from Windsor to Quebec City (and hardly anyone would take the train all that way). Windsor and Quebec City are extensions of the main Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor and the largest cities are in the middle, making typical journeys much shorter. They western corridors you are proposing have the major cities at the end.

For example, SSM to Sudbury on a train is no further than Toronto - Windsor. The difference is, up here, people would take the train for medical appointments and shopping.... oh, wait, people do that too down there. I know that line is not a fast line. I am just showing that there is lots of opportunities to improve the service, but for a variety of reasons, including money, they aren't.

Once again, lets look at populations:

Toronto 5,928,040
Windsor 329,144
Sudbury 164,689
SSM 78,159

Windsor has a larger population than Sudbury and SSM combined, and it is minuscule compared to Toronto. You can't look at just population or just distance, it is a combination of the two. Sure it might be useful for those who live there, but you need to justify the cost.

How much are they off? Do you have those figures?

I don't have specific numbers. I was just pointing out that your calculations are based on assumptions that are highly probable to be wrong.

Do you have more information on this?

On what? That "the inter in intercity rail, the "inter" means between?" Here you go:

Definition of Inter-

I am going to need to see what the Cascades bring to Vancouver. I know, you are going to say it is because Seattle is a close distance away that it gets 2 trains a day.

That and population:
Vancouver: 2,463,431
Seattle: 3,979,845
Portland: 2,753,168

I am really only suggesting 1 train a day, but on both CN and CP. So, 2 trains, serving different parts of the country. I do know that CN/CP lines through the canyon is used as one way traffic.
...

Last I heard, there was no mention in any documents that they have land cruises. The do have Mandatory or Long Distance service.

...

Then get it back on the southern route as it is even more scenic. The Spiral tunnels alone are a wonder of the area.

Even though you posted these separately, I will combine them together as the response is related.

Part of VIA's mandate is to provide is to provide transcontinental rail service. They are also required to operate in a cost effective manner, to save taxpayers money. Transcontinental rail service is very expensive to operate and to help pay for this, they market the train to tourists. To my knowledge, VIA doesn't call it a land cruise, but many others do, since the description fits.

As for service between Vancouver and Calgary, it does not fit under the requirement to provide transcontinental rail service, nor would it provide essential, lifeline service to communities without access to other modes of transportation. As a result, it would need to show some reasonable return on investment (not necessarily profitable). The only way to do that would be to attract tourists.

Here is where things get ugly. Since the Rocky Mountaineer provides a tourist train on the CPR route, having a crown corporation create a new competing product would not go over well politically. On top of that, there may have been (and I am speculating here) some verbiage in the contract not to compete when VIA sold the Rocky Mountaineer to the Armstrong Group in 1990 (does that year look familiar?).

I agree that the Spiral tunnels are wonderful works of engineering and Banff and Lake Louise are beautiful. If you want to see them by train the Rocky Mountaineer might be a better option anyway.

See, you hit something that has happened elsewhere. The cut back everywhere to get more service between Toronto-Montreal. When someone cries fowl, some like to point out it is about money. We all pay taxes, so we all should have some benefit to it. I don't think daily service on Canadian and Ocean is much to ask, is it?

And you are hitting on something here. The false sense of fairness whereby people believe that "if you have something, I should also have it." This is not always feasible or warranted.

No, but now you are starting to see the ironies.

Only if you believe that rail service 3 days a week is better than having road access.

Does the Canadian need to be as long as it is?

By length, do you mean train length or route length? Either way, need is a harsh word. VIA believes this is the most cost effective way to operate the route. It could be operated differently, but it would probably need more subsidies.

What if it were every day, but a shorter train?

Costs would likely increase more than revenue. One long train is cheaper to operate than 2 smaller ones, especially when you need to pay a 3rd party to use their track.

Would that actually grow ridership?

There would probably be a small increase, but not enough to recover the extra costs.

Using Via's timetables, I count about 30 trains a day int and out of Montreal. So, for 1/1th, that would be 3 trains a day. I am asking for 1 giong both ways. If your math makes sense to you,t hen this math should also make sense too.

I don't agree with this definition of fairness. Montreal is a rail hub, with trains going east, west, north and south. Halifax is the end of the line. Also, the frequency of service isn't always going to be proportional to the local population. You also need to look at the population of the nearby cities and the distance to them. I am sure an economist could come up with a model, but you can't just use a simple formula like that.

Having said that, there are plans to offer RDC service to/from Halifax on days the Ocean isn't running, so you might get your wish.

I agree. Lets be honest, the only way numbers are known is by butts in the seats. Just like the polls I care about are the final ones on election day. But, just like polls, these numbers can point us to something that makes reasonable sense.

Agreed. But this is the information we have, so we have to do the best with it, and understand its limitations.

True, if it is only for scenic routes.
Just like one day, I will ride all of the Corridor. I will pick one route and then ride it. Repeat till all are done.

Now, If I had a route that could provide some usefulness, then I would use it.

Do you think that is typical for a tourist or passenger?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ions_in_Canada

Sarnia is 43rd. Sudbury is 24th.

But then you have Thunder Bay that is close to Winnipeg. You have Regina which is close to Winnipeg. You are looking at the large cities, but not at the cities that regularly have people traveling to those cities.

First of all, I mentioned Sarnia to give an example of what demand would look like for daily service to a small nearby city. I am skeptical that the Sarnia train is worth while, but its saving grace is that for the cost of extending service from London (95km) they get direct service to Toronto (Canada's largest city). For the majority of the trip, the train will be well used.

To provide service from Sudbury-Toronto, Thunder Bay-Winnipeg or Regina-Winnipeg, local demand would have to cover the cost of operating the train over the entire distance, as there is no corridor train could piggyback service off of.

Another advantage the Sarnia extension has is that it has several other major destinations en-route to Toronto (like London (494,069), Kitchener (523,894), and Guelph (151,984)). By comparison, Regina has Brandon (58,003), Thunder Bay has Kenora (15,096), and Greater Sudbury has Parry Sound (6,408).

Just in Ontario, you could have the old Northlander along with the Canadian line advertised to cottagers. And before you say Via does not run the Northlander..... it did.....

Interesting. I wasn't aware that VIA ran the Northlander before Ontario Northland did. Not sure how feasible a route it would be, but still interesting.

I don't round to whole numbers. That is how explosions happen. However, I understand.

LOL. As I said, the key is to know your tolerance for error.

The silliness is that I am not talking 10 trains a day anywhere. I am talking 1 train, each way a day. So, using 494, double that would be 988. That would be one train a day.

Hyperboles are supposed to be silly. Using 1 train a day wouldn't get the point across.

No, more like frustration. When you have to show people that the numbers they used are actually showing the opposite, you get a little more "bitey" with everyone. No insult intended.

You are starting to sound like Urban_Sky.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

This was shared on Urban Toronto with regards to 2018 Via Rail boardings and deboardings. When you dig through it, you start to see some patters that are only apparent on a map.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/drive?...7D&usp=sharing

I should have said this earlier, but I really like your map! You did a really good job with it. I have been working on something similar but it isn't nearly as detailed.

With your permission, I would like to copy it and enhance it using colour codes for different routes.

I know we have been at odds with each other, but I hope you know that I am supportive of VIA Rail. We just have different visions for it and ideas of what their priorities should be.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I should have said this earlier, but I really like your map! You did a really good job with it. I have been working on something similar but it isn't nearly as detailed.

With your permission, I would like to copy it and enhance it using colour codes for different routes.

I know we have been at odds with each other, but I hope you know that I am supportive of VIA Rail. We just have different visions for it and ideas of what their priorities should be.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/drive?...7D&usp=sharing

This is actually the full one I have been working on.

You are more than welcome to use any of them. I don't see us at odds, but I do see we have different ideas. That is not a bad thing. People like you do make me stop and think, and then go digging for information. That is why this map exists.

If only certain people weren't so hardlined, I could unblock them and have a civil discussion with them.

[Djeffery]

I'm actually disappointed reading this, as all this time I was under the impression our Via station in London was third busiest. Disappointed to see we are 4th. Maybe I'm mixing it up with the bus depot lol.

I was also surprised to see that when our 2 730am departures to Toronto were pared down to 1, that it was the much slower north route that was kept. I guess hooking up with Kitchener makes sense, but I gotta think that many London users decided to hit the highway rather than the rails, especially with highway traffic being somewhat reduced now as well.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

https://www.google.com/maps/d/drive?...7D&usp=sharing

This is actually the full one I have been working on.

You are more than welcome to use any of them. I don't see us at odds, but I do see we have different ideas. That is not a bad thing. People like you do make me stop and think, and then go digging for information. That is why this map exists.

Thanks. BTW, looking closer at it I noticed an error. The Jonquière and Senneterre don't use the tunnel but circle south and west of the city, through the Côte Saint-Luc rail yard.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

I'm actually disappointed reading this, as all this time I was under the impression our Via station in London was third busiest. Disappointed to see we are 4th. Maybe I'm mixing it up with the bus depot lol.

Maybe London's station was at one point, back when Ottawa had poor rail service. It does have triple London's population and is conveniently located between Toronto and Montreal.

I was also surprised to see that when our 2 730am departures to Toronto were pared down to 1, that it was the much slower north route that was kept. I guess hooking up with Kitchener makes sense, but I gotta think that many London users decided to hit the highway rather than the rails, especially with highway traffic being somewhat reduced now as well.

As I said earlier, once VIA gets its new fleet, they will have more capacity to expand their service, so London may very well get more trains. It will get worse before it gets better though as VIA will be forced to retire their corridor Renaissance fleet soon.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Thanks. BTW, looking closer at it I noticed an error. The Jonquière and Senneterre don't use the tunnel but circle south and west of the city, through the Côte Saint-Luc rail yard.

I'll have to edit it. I wonder if more Montreal stops could be added?

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Maybe London's station was at one point, back when Ottawa had poor rail service. It does have triple London's population and is conveniently located between Toronto and Montreal.



As I said earlier, once VIA gets its new fleet, they will have more capacity to expand their service, so London may very well get more trains. It will get worse before it gets better though as VIA will be forced to retire their corridor Renaissance fleet soon.

I figure it's just Covid related schedule reduction. It was up until this started that the 2 trains left within a minute of each other.