VIA Rail

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by JHikka

First i've ever heard of this being considered. Who's taking the HSR between Sudbury and QC? Or from Halifax to QC?

HSR in Canada is only remotely feasible Quebec City-Windsor, Calgary-Edmonton, and Vancouver-Portland-Seattle.

It's not being considered. I said that in the future, you MAY get support for HSR to expand beyond the Quebec-Windsor Corridor out to Halifax. and I said a spur HSR to Sudbury, and obviously just from Toronto.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I disagree that it is inevitable or even 100% neccesary. Given that the Canadian public is completely ambivalent or hostile to building any large infrastructure, it seems highly unlikely that Canada's infrastructure will be fundamentally rebuilt in the coming decades. So long as electric vehicles keep progressing at the current pace, they should be able to replace gas ones in a similar timeframe, and then the GHG argument for passenger rail becomes redundant.

And, (even if we move heaven and earth and build HSR and other significant rail infrastructure in Alberta (to focus on that), it still will only represent a small fraction of passengers on a small fraction of the road network. Its contribution to the GHG emissions reductions will be negligible, the biggest impact will be from supplanting short haul air travel. Even in countries with highly developed rail systems like Japan and France, their share of total ridership is not enormous.

That's not to say I don't support rail or that we shouldn't build it, but the benefits are far more to do with the economy and quality of life than reducing emissions.

That is not how your posts read. You want status quo, if not less. That is not very supportive.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That is not how your posts read. You want status quo, if not less. That is not very supportive.

I disagree with your interpretation. A few pages back, milomilo suggested building up demand with hourly bus services (though I would say half-hourly) first then moving onto rail (if the demand could really be built up). I’m behind him for that one because that’s how it’s done everywhere else (at least on a regional scale). It’s like having B-Lines before building skytrains in Vancouver.

In this case, if we can consistently pack the northland buses between Sudbury and Toronto, then we can definitely make a case for regular train service (be it Via or Ontario Northland) between the two.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I disagree with your interpretation. A few pages back, milomilo suggested building up demand with hourly bus services (though I would say half-hourly) first then moving onto rail (if the demand could really be built up). I’m behind him for that one because that’s how it’s done everywhere else (at least on a regional scale). It’s like having B-Lines before building skytrains in Vancouver.

In this case, if we can consistently pack the northland buses between Sudbury and Toronto, then we can definitely make a case for regular train service (be it Via or Ontario Northland) between the two.

Thank you. Exactly, though I'd say I'm speaking generally when it comes to frequencies. Your comparison to B-Line --> Skytrain is accurate too.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That is not how your posts read. You want status quo, if not less. That is not very supportive.

I'm sorry you read them that way, but it is not what I think. I support strong public transit infrastructure, but that has to mean getting the best bang for buck. Which means you focus the most resources where it will get the most return - rail can only be reserved for the routes most in demand. If you can't fill a train leaving every hour or so, then spending oodles of money to give that route rail is a waste, and would be better spent on places where the money will give a good ROI.

This conversation has happened in Alberta and the usual response from the government as to why they aren't focusing on intercity rail is because they'd rather focus on the LRTs in the cities. And can you really disagree with that reasoning? Edmonton and Calgary both have well used LRTs, but there are still areas of the city where they more LRT is justified, and would be well used. Any dollar spent on intercity rail is a dollar that could have been spent on city transit.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I disagree with your interpretation. A few pages back, milomilo suggested building up demand with hourly bus services (though I would say half-hourly) first then moving onto rail (if the demand could really be built up). I’m behind him for that one because that’s how it’s done everywhere else (at least on a regional scale). It’s like having B-Lines before building skytrains in Vancouver.

In this case, if we can consistently pack the northland buses between Sudbury and Toronto, then we can definitely make a case for regular train service (be it Via or Ontario Northland) between the two.

Bus=/=train.

The deadly crashes on the 401 in the last month would stop all buses.

There was a point last winter where highway's 11, 144 and 17 were completely closed....at - the - same - time. This was due to weather conditions. Trains just keep going.

Do I want to ride 4 hours on a cramped bus? Nope. I'll fly or drive. Buses are not comfortable for long distances.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Thank you. Exactly, though I'd say I'm speaking generally when it comes to frequencies. Your comparison to B-Line --> Skytrain is accurate too.

I'm sorry you read them that way, but it is not what I think. I support strong public transit infrastructure, but that has to mean getting the best bang for buck. Which means you focus the most resources where it will get the most return - rail can only be reserved for the routes most in demand. If you can't fill a train leaving every hour or so, then spending oodles of money to give that route rail is a waste, and would be better spent on places where the money will give a good ROI.

This conversation has happened in Alberta and the usual response from the government as to why they aren't focusing on intercity rail is because they'd rather focus on the LRTs in the cities. And can you really disagree with that reasoning? Edmonton and Calgary both have well used LRTs, but there are still areas of the city where they more LRT is justified, and would be well used. Any dollar spent on intercity rail is a dollar that could have been spent on city transit.

Actually, yes I can. Via is a national passenger service. The conversation could be between them instead of having their own service.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

There was a point last winter where highway's 11, 144 and 17 were completely closed....at - the - same - time. This was due to weather conditions. Trains just keep going.

I used to think the same too, but can trains really keep going in heavy drifting snow?

I understand the first part though. When the Nipigon Bridge failed in 2016, I was baffled as to why no train ferries existed when the track was right next to the bridge. Well, now I know all the nasty politics behind. Precisely because of that, I want Northland to take over Huron Central too especially now that the latter will be sold. This is so that Northland Rail can run train ferries along 17 and 11 in case of highway closure (if it’s safe to do so). I guess I’ll reserve this for the rail thread in Ontario subforum.

Do I want to ride 4 hours on a cramped bus? Nope. I'll fly or drive. Buses are not comfortable for long distances.

Are the Northland coaches that bad? Or do you just love your truck too much?
I mean, I do too.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I used to think the same too, but can trains really keep going in heavy drifting snow?

You tell me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yja2VmZOfdA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6acPX_00M9Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-Cb9x70gYQ

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Are the Northland coaches that bad? Or do you just love your truck too much?
I mean, I do too.

They are cramped. A bit more room than economy on Air Canada, but not by much.

[J81]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Indeed.

This is one of the reasons for relocating the Ocean to the CNR mainline rather than the coastal route along the Baie des Chaleurs. The mainline is more direct and much better maintained, with fewer milk run stops, You could lop at least five hours off the trip from Halifax to QC, making it much more competitive to driving.

What you guys who are proposing this do not understand is that all the communities between Riv de loup and Moncton along the current route are the reason the train exists to begin with. Campbellton and Bathurst are big business stops. Take the train off the northern route and say goodbye to it all together.

Also, its 1250km between Montreal and Halifax. Not 800.

[J81]

Originally Posted by p_xavier

I still have hope that the Newcastle sub will be closed. The numbers are under what the NB government signed for with the CN. It theory the line could be discontinued next year.

What makes you say that?

[J81]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I used to think the same too, but can trains really keep going in heavy drifting snow?:

Absolutely. But as with every mode of transportation sometimes weather does slow you down. With rail it’s usually due to a track signalling or infrastructure issue such as snow packing into a switch, ice affecting signal systems. Once in a while a traction motor will fail on a locomotive. Electric motors dont care for moisture!

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Bus=/=train.

The deadly crashes on the 401 in the last month would stop all buses.

There was a point last winter where highway's 11, 144 and 17 were completely closed....at - the - same - time. This was due to weather conditions. Trains just keep going.

Do I want to ride 4 hours on a cramped bus? Nope. I'll fly or drive. Buses are not comfortable for long distances.

A train running on CP rail tracks will suffer unreliability more though, and be slower by default. And if the train only comes once a day, it might as well not exist at all.

And what of all the routes that don't have a railway in between? If we have decided that Calgary - Regina deserves service, why not Calgary - Saskatoon? That's a shorter journey with a larger city at the other end. Transit should be based on need and the most cost effective way to serve that need, not arbitrary factors.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by J81

What makes you say that?

The NB government had agreed to pay for continued operations of the sub for 15 years, but if traffic wasn't good, the sub could be discontinued after 5. The traffic is worse than anticipated thus the CN could start the discontinuing process.

https://www.cn.ca/en/news/2014/01/pr...new-brunswick/

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by milomilo

A train running on CP rail tracks will suffer unreliability more though, and be slower by default. And if the train only comes once a day, it might as well not exist at all.

Would a train 2x per week as currently exists between Winnipeg and Edmonton not be more irrelevant? It is not the train that is irrelevant but the service and routing as currently operated. Get rid of the transcontinental service, it is not reliable and never will be reliable over such a long distance. Even tourists want some measure of reliability.

Originally Posted by milomilo

And what of all the routes that don't have a railway in between? If we have decided that Calgary - Regina deserves service, why not Calgary - Saskatoon? That's a shorter journey with a larger city at the other end. Transit should be based on need and the most cost effective way to serve that need, not arbitrary factors.

There is no direct line between Calgary and Saskatoon. CN has mothballed the line and diverts freights to Calgary via Edmonton instead of the direct route. The difference in population between Saskatoon and Regina is not that significant. Passengers from Calgary could transfer in Regina to go to Saskatoon. Passengers from Edmonton to Calgary could take a train to Saskatoon that continued on to Regina. If you added a Saskatoon to Winnipeg train via Regina you would have 2 trips a day between Regina and Saskatoon which compared to the current non-existent system would be a huge bonus. This would allow daily round trips to both cities with the benefit of carrying people originating in other markets such as Winnipeg and Edmonton.

Your idea of going directly to Saskatoon ignores most of the larger centres of population on the CP mainline between Calgary and Regina. This is like people who expect transit to give them door to door service without any transfers. You have to create a network with reliable transfers even if the frequencies are not particularly high. It can be done but it takes work, investment, appropriate equipment, routing and most importantly, long term funding.

The main problem is not that rail service can't be improved. It is that the federal government provides funding for all sorts of transportation projects in Canada, even outside of its area of jurisdiction but ignores adequate funding to Via or rail in general. The government loves to draw lines on a map and say that they fund service across the county when in reality it really only has subpar service in the corridor. Cities are creatures of the provincial governments and as such the federal government should be funding its own areas of responsibility before funding provincial areas such as roads and transit to buy votes. If the federal government had provided funding years ago to improve rail infrastructure we probably would not be in the current situation.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Would a train 2x per week as currently exists between Winnipeg and Edmonton not be more irrelevant? It is not the train that is irrelevant but the service and routing as currently operated. Get rid of the transcontinental service.

So, get rid of service? There should be service between Vancouver and Toronto. It needs to be improved, not cancelled.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

There is no direct line between Calgary and Saskatoon. CN has mothballed the line and diverts freights to Calgary via Edmonton instead of the direct route. The difference in population between Saskatoon and Regina is not that significant. Passengers from Calgary could transfer in Regina to go to Saskatoon. Passengers from Edmonton to Calgary could take a train to Saskatoon that continued on to Regina. If you added a Saskatoon to Winnipeg train via Regina you would have 2 trips a day between Regina and Saskatoon which compared to the current non-existent system would be a huge bonus. This would allow daily round trips to both cities with the benefit of carrying people originating in other markets such as Winnipeg and Edmonton.

This is why I keep saying more service is needed. The following are ones I feel might work:
Edmonton - Calgary
Winnipeg - Vancouver via Calgary
Regina - Saskatoon.
They should be dailies or better, and timed to meet each other.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

The main problem is not that rail service can't be improved. It is that the federal government provides funding for all sorts of transportation projects in Canada even outside of its area of jurisdiction but ignores adequate funding to Via or rail in general. Via loves to draw lines on a map and say that they have service across the county when in reality it really only has subpar service in the corridor.

Which is why right now is a prime time for expansion. Pressuring the minority government to invest in rail service to the Prairies is a great way to show them that they care.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by J81

What you guys who are proposing this do not understand is that all the communities between Riv de loup and Moncton along the current route are the reason the train exists to begin with. Campbellton and Bathurst are big business stops. Take the train off the northern route and say goodbye to it all together.

The train currently only makes sense for people living in these areas. As a subsidy for Campbellton and Bathurst it is incredibly inefficient. We could probably fly them around whenever they wanted for less.

The distance between Montreal and Halifax is 800 km. The various routes that exist add a huge amount of extra distance on top. It's particularly egregious if you look at Fredericton-Montreal. 540 km apart over land, but 800 km by road. And the train route is even worse than this.

I don't think the Montreal-Halifax train is very useful and I don't think subsidizing tourist trains is a good use of public funds. If it were up to me I would cut it and overhaul the regulatory environment so that it is feasible for a private business or some kind of regional operator to run a passenger rail service. I think in this environment there would be passenger rail around the central part of the Maritimes, which has 1.5 million people in a small and easily-served area.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by someone123

The train currently only makes sense for people living in these areas. As a subsidy for Campbellton and Bathurst it is incredibly inefficient. We could probably fly them around whenever they wanted for less.

The distance between Montreal and Halifax is 800 km. The various routes that exist add a huge amount of extra distance on top of this. It's particularly egregious if you look at Fredericton-Montreal. 540 km apart over land, but 800 km by road. And the train route is even worse than this.

I don't think the Montreal-Halifax train is very useful and I don't think subsidizing tourist trains is a good use of public funds. If it were up to me I would cut it and overhaul the regulatory environment so that it is transparent and anybody can bid on schedules to run passengers trains. I think in this environment there would be passenger rail around the central part of the Maritimes, which has 1.5 million people in a small and easily served area.

Do you notice how no private company in Canada is running passenger service? Maybe there is a reason ....

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by someone123

The train currently only makes sense for people living in these areas. As a subsidy for Campbellton and Bathurst it is incredibly inefficient. We could probably fly them around whenever they wanted for less.

The distance between Montreal and Halifax is 800 km. The various routes that exist add a huge amount of extra distance on top of this. It's particularly egregious if you look at Fredericton-Montreal. 540 km apart over land, but 800 km by road. And the train route is even worse than this.

I don't think the Montreal-Halifax train is very useful and I don't think subsidizing tourist trains is a good use of public funds. If it were up to me I would cut it and overhaul the regulatory environment so that it is transparent and anybody can bid on schedules to run passengers trains. I think in this environment there would be passenger rail around the central part of the Maritimes, which has 1.5 million people in a small and easily served area.

I think N.B. should just twin Highway 11 (then 8 through Miramichi then 11 again through Bathurst) from Shediac to Campbellton when the liberals return. In all fantasy, twin N.B. 17 too. (Not that it’ll happen).

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Do you notice how no private company in Canada is running passenger service? Maybe there is a reason ....

Large regulatory barriers to entry.

The same issues have come up with inter-city bus transportation in Ontario. Some people mistakenly believe that there’s only one bus company between some cities (such as London-Toronto) because “if there was demand another company would also operate”, but in fact the Ministry of Transportation has secret deals with Greyhound that guarantees them a monopoly on various inter-city routes. I can’t start my own private bus company to compete with Greyhound between London and Toronto because of the monopoly deal Greyhound has with the MTO. My understanding is that similar deals exist in other provinces. Greyhound’s only competition in Southwestern Ontario is VIA, which they must compete with because the MTO has no jurisdiction over a federal Crown corporation.

The fact is our federal and provincial governments have never prioritized travel by anything other than private car. Less regulatory barriers would mean more bus, and possibly rail companies. The private sector is getting involved with rail in the United States (including proposed HSR to Vancouver), I’m sure there would be more private investment in inter-city bus and rail transportation if there were fewer barriers to entry and if this country let go of the rampant protectionism that we have. (The sad thing is, Greyhound isn’t even a Canadian company and yet our provincial governments fiercely protect a foreign company from competition. That, to me is even worse than the protectionism of Bell, Rogers, and Telus.)

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I think N.B. should just twin Highway 11 (then 8 through Miramichi then 11 again through Bathurst) from Shediac to Campbellton when the liberals return. In all fantasy, twin N.B. 17 too. (Not that it’ll happen).

That would be way more expensive than continuing to run the train. Or even expanding it. Much more effective to retain and expand an existing piece of infrastructure than abandon it and build something new.