VIA Rail

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I thought the part through Northern ON is considered mandatory.

I might be wrong, but I think just the Sudbury to White River is mandatory in Northern Ontario.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I might be wrong, but I think just the Sudbury to White River is mandatory in Northern Ontario.

That’s on the CP line, and is a separate via service today on what was once the old Canadian route. There are remote flag stops on the CN line that the current Canadian takes too.

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What VIA wants is irrelevant. The Government of Canada pays the bills. And they aren't interested in expanding much outside the Corridor. It's amazing that you don't understand this basic concept after years of this discussion.

This. And frankly, why should they? Trains should be for commuters. Investments in rail should be in places where there will be a significant return, from lowering emissions to reducing traffic congestion and even making VIA a profitable business.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

Trains should be for commuters.

I wonder how many nations in the world have abandoned their national rail passenger systems, especially comparable continent spanning nations such as Russia, the United States and Australia? Have any?? Should Canada be the first???

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I wonder how many nations in the world have abandoned their national rail passenger systems, especially comparable continent spanning nations such as Russia, the United States and Australia? Have any?? Should Canada be the first???

It's already abandoned, the Canadian is not a functional passenger rail line, it is an anachronistic tourist train. It's way past time that VIA killed it so that we can have a more productive conversation.

[Dengler Avenue]

I mean, worst comes to worst, one can relive the experience of trainhoppers during the Great Depression.
JK. Don’t do it.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I wonder how many nations in the world have abandoned their national rail passenger systems, especially comparable continent spanning nations such as Russia, the United States and Australia? Have any?? Should Canada be the first???

Originally Posted by milomilo

It's already abandoned, the Canadian is not a functional passenger rail line, it is an anachronistic tourist train. It's way past time that VIA killed it so that we can have a more productive conversation.

So, maybe it is time to admit that what we are doing is counter productive, and stop gutting it. What is the difference between an empty train, and no train? One we pay for. In reality, we do pay for no train system by higher car and plane emissions.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, maybe it is time to admit that what we are doing is counter productive,

Correct question, wrong solution. It's a waste of money and provides little value. Kill it. The money can then be put where it actually would be useful, and for the millionth time that is not daily milk runs that no one will use.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Correct question, wrong solution. It's a waste of money and provides little value. Kill it. The money can then be put where it actually would be useful, and for the millionth time that is not daily milk runs that no one will use.

Ok, where do you think it would be actually useful?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I wonder how many nations in the world have abandoned their national rail passenger systems, especially comparable continent spanning nations such as Russia, the United States and Australia? Have any?? Should Canada be the first???

Australia doesn’t even have a national rail gauge, let along a national passenger rail system. The Indian Pacific service is operated by a private tourist company.

[casper]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It's already abandoned, the Canadian is not a functional passenger rail line, it is an anachronistic tourist train. It's way past time that VIA killed it so that we can have a more productive conversation.

The Canadian should be profitable. We don't know if it is because it is operated within VIA and where and how VIA allocates overhead cost can be used to paint different pictures.

The reason I say that is the private sector operator Rocky Mountaineer looks to have a viable business, mostly using old VIA rolling stock on an old route that VIA abandoned. The Rocky Mountaineer is trying to be a tourist train. It may very well have the odd passenger trying to get from A to B which is fine.

VIA needs to shift the management of the Canadian out of Montreal/Toronto and run that program out of Vancouver or Edmonton with a mandate to being a world leading tourist train operator. That involves building bundles with hotel operators. Partnering with cruise ship operators to offer packages. Creating an on board premium experience that sell. The current management team focused on the corridor is running a very different kind of business.

Once it decides what days and schedule it is operating the premium service, I would be cool with them adding a few economy cars to the train and selling those seats off as a normal non-tourist passenger service to make some incremental revenue but that can't be the primary focus.

There may be some routes that require regular passenger service, but those could be served by Bud cars connecting them to the nearest population center.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by casper

The Canadian should be profitable. We don't know if it is because it is operated within VIA and where and how VIA allocates overhead cost can be used to paint different pictures.

The reason I say that is the private sector operator Rocky Mountaineer looks to have a viable business, mostly using old VIA rolling stock on an old route that VIA abandoned. The Rocky Mountaineer is trying to be a tourist train. It may very well have the odd passenger trying to get from A to B which is fine.

VIA needs to shift the management of the Canadian out of Montreal/Toronto and run that program out of Vancouver or Edmonton with a mandate to being a world leading tourist train operator. That involves building bundles with hotel operators. Partnering with cruise ship operators to offer packages. Creating an on board premium experience that sell. The current management team focused on the corridor is running a very different kind of business.

Once it decides what days and schedule it is operating the premium service, I would be cool with them adding a few economy cars to the train and selling those seats off as a normal non-tourist passenger service to make some incremental revenue but that can't be the primary focus.

There may be some routes that require regular passenger service, but those could be served by Bud cars connecting them to the nearest population center.

Having the head office somewhere other than Montreal would make absolutely no difference. The problem is the federal government, the provincial government, politicians and the public at large. Changing the location of the head office will not change anything. Via is only given so much cash. It is the funding that in part needs to be addressed.

The Rocky Mountaineer makes money but it only runs part of the year. They also charge a fortune for the ride/ experience. Nobody who just wants to get from A to B would be willing to pay their price. Their trains are still delayed by freights.

Not all their equipment is old, some of it is new. That is a sign they are making money.

A tourist train is not general public transportation, but a non-tourist train can still carry tourists.

[acottawa]

To me the long period where the Canadian isn't running provides a perfect opportunity for a little experimentation. They could try running a more premium experience (at a higher price) on a Toronto-Jasper-Vancouver route that might stop at the odd tourist attraction en route but not try to make scheduled stops, try running a Budd car through Northern Ontario at a more convenient time or try a daytime service on the prairies. The problem now is they are trying to use one train to accomplish too many contradictory objectives and doesn't serve anyone particularly well (and loses a lot of money in the process).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, maybe it is time to admit that what we are doing is counter productive, and stop gutting it. What is the difference between an empty train, and no train? One we pay for. In reality, we do pay for no train system by higher car and plane emissions.

I wouldn't necessary assume 5 days worth of diesel fuel dragging along a hotel on wheels is the lower emission option.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by acottawa

To me the long period where the Canadian isn't running provides a perfect opportunity for a little experimentation. They could try running a more premium experience (at a higher price) on a Toronto-Jasper-Vancouver route that might stop at the odd tourist attraction en route but not try to make scheduled stops, try running a Budd car through Northern Ontario at a more convenient time or try a daytime service on the prairies. The problem now is they are trying to use one train to accomplish too many contradictory objectives and doesn't serve anyone particularly well (and loses a lot of money in the process).

I think that's VIA's problem in general. It was a dumping ground for all rail passenger transport, regardless of what it served.

So, there's one ill-funded organization trying to provide:
- A semblance of realistic inter-city train service (The Corridor) in a limited portion of the country.
- A bunch of cross-country train "service" that has the conflicting demands of serving isolated places, tourism and a viable transport option for people.
- Serving isolated places with no other mode of transport.

Its only shareholder doesn't particularly care to provide it any guidance, except for whatever is politically expedient (i.e. cheap).

At the end of the day, until the Government of Canada regards it with more than a passing interest and provides an actual mandate - whatever that may be - the sorry state of affairs shall continue.

I suspect it'll take a major breakdown/capital replacement problem to initiate change for better or worse. Just like the Navy's destroyers basically being run until they broke down permanently. It won't be a problem until it is.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by casper

The Canadian should be profitable. We don't know if it is because it is operated within VIA and where and how VIA allocates overhead cost can be used to paint different pictures.

If that's the case - put it up for sale. Either the private sector buys it and does a better job of it, or (probably) no one does and we can see clearly that the service has no economic value, and we can scrap it. Either way, Canada is better off.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I wouldn't necessary assume 5 days worth of diesel fuel dragging along a hotel on wheels is the lower emission option.

This is where knowing more about the equipment and less about the fuel would help you understand that if the train is full, it actually is. Gas Turbines are horribly inefficient and the fuel burns at a hotter temperature, which causes more emissions.

Want to know something more crazy? From Thunder Bay to Montreal, a train would use more fuel and put out more emissions than a ship in the Great Lakes.

In short, slow does not equal inefficient.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

This is where knowing more about the equipment and less about the fuel would help you understand that if the train is full, it actually is. Gas Turbines are horribly inefficient and the fuel burns at a hotter temperature, which causes more emissions.

Want to know something more crazy? From Thunder Bay to Montreal, a train would use more fuel and put out more emissions than a ship in the Great Lakes.

In short, slow does not equal inefficient.

The train isn't full. That's where the inefficiency is fuel-wise for many VIA routes. The amount of energy expended per passenger over the course of the trip goes up hugely if the train is underutilized. It's like flying a jumbo jet with few passengers.

Slow doesn't mean inefficient, no. Efficiency is a total cost perspective. Shipping stuff by train might be more inefficient per ton than a boat, but the costs of transshipment (unless you're only shipping from Montreal to Thunder Bay) add to logistical costs.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by milomilo

If that's the case - put it up for sale. Either the private sector buys it and does a better job of it, or (probably) no one does and we can see clearly that the service has no economic value, and we can scrap it. Either way, Canada is better off.

The private sector got its hands on the only long distance western train it wanted a long time ago:

[wave46]

Originally Posted by esquire

The private sector got its hands on the only long distance western train it wanted a long time ago:

Pretty much.

Given what the cost of the Rocky Mountaineer is (go have fun on their website!) it doesn't really bode well for any of VIA's other lines.

Paying thousands for the scenic tour of the Prairies is a hard sale.

Like I mentioned in my post before, VIA's trying to be everything to everybody and is nothing to nobody. It needs a real mandate and commitment from its owner to follow through on its mandate. Given that it falls down near the bottom of things government needs to care about, I expect nothing will change until something forces change.