Urban_Sky |
Apr 3, 2020 12:48 AM |
Could daily intercity passenger rail service be revived across Western Canada?
Given that the discussions in the main thread ( VIA Rail) keeps circling around the question whether daily intercity passenger rail could (and/or should) return to Western Canada and since certain contributors (myself included) are getting increasingly frustrated and exasperated that this topic suffocates all other topics, I am now creating a new thread dedicated exclusively to this topic, so that we can hopefully quarantine this topic from the main thread.
Therefore (and in absence of moderator/admin rights), I am moving this discussion here by quoting (rather than moving) just today's posts which touch this topic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe
(Post 8882426)
The problem for some of the routes is that they are too long with no good place to cut them. For example, the Canadian; between Toronto and Vancouver, Winnipeg would be the closest to Toronto to stop it at. As per their current schedule: https://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/fil...-Vancouver.pdf It takes a day and a half to go there. That means that someone going the entire route would be in a chair for 36 hours.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe
(Post 8882592)
So, using the example of a 36 hour trip between Winnipeg and Toronto, what do you suggest to get rid of the sleepers?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe
(Post 8882762)
The Ocean really would be hard to split it up. Some might suggest Moncton, but that is too close to Halifax, and too far from Montreal. Maybe if other routes were added, it might make sense, but a thru train Montreal-Halifax makes the most sense.
If other services between Vancouver-Toronto were ever added, where those additional services meet, having a split might also make sense. It might be the same train that just continues but breaking it up might make things better for the schedule and the overall on time possibility, Right now, the Canadian leaves an hour after it arrives. Maybe it is extended to 4 hours. Give them different train numbers, but a passenger would stay on it. It would all depend on how it was done.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
(Post 8882782)
That was the argument for the Canadian, and if it is the case for The Ocean too, fine. However, when the time comes for an expensive replacement or refurbishment of equipment, that calculus may change. And the loss of that turnaround must affect the decision too.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
(Post 8882791)
As I understand it, the current setup of the Canadian is the cheapest way to fulfill VIA's mandates. I have no reason to question Urban_sky on this - I'm not going to re input all his data into spreadsheets to double check, as everything he has said is logical and sourced. If there were glaring errors, it would be easy to go down a rabbit hole and pick it apart, but I have seen no evidence of errors.
I personally have little opinion on the continued existence of the Canadian - I don't think it is valuable for public transit, but if it brings in tourism money, fine. It's such a small amount of money that it's not worth spending too much time discussing. But its existence is also irrelevant to future public transit. If you had a blank slate and were designing a passenger rail network from scratch, you wouldn't put any trains on that route until all the other more deserving routes got rail first.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe
(Post 8882797)
I agree that much of the Canadian route isn't the best for much more than tourists. That is why adding the CP route, plus going through SSM might be better. Mind you, that would be much longer of a route.
I feel adding a route between Calgary and Edmonton would be the best thing to go after next. The challenges are to make it safe and efficient and frequent enough to be useful.
I do think that all routes should be looked at and improved so they are no longer useful for just tourism.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
(Post 8882826)
Eventually, the lower priority routes should be looked at. However if you start with them, rather than the routes that have the greatest chance of success on their own merits, then everything will end in failure. What VIA is trying to do is both to get a firm financial footing, so that it is less at the mercy of the federal government, and to become important to enough users that cutting it back becomes politically unfeasible.
This is why all their effort has to go towards making HFR successful - without HFR there can be no Calgary - Edmonton route, no CP route etc. HFR will give ~10+ million Canadians access to intercity passenger rail that is actually good, and they might then actually support expanding it.
Anywhere outside of the corridor will remain with a raw deal when it comes to VIA for quite some time, but short of a political revolution, there is not enough political capital (or money) to push for VIA service in Alberta and HFR at the same time. I think VIA have the right plan here - all in on HFR.
|
This topic has long deserved its own, dedicated thread. Here it is!
|