VIA Rail

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Yeah, that's right. Everything other than the Great Hall/Headhouse is expendable.

I think they should have staged it in such a way that they completely closed off half of the shed and the underground supports, tore them out, rebuilt them to modern wide-platform standards, and then moved on. It would have been even more of a headache than today, but it would have paid off long term, because I don't see how GO will run a Parisian or Berlin-style RER system using the low floor, narrow bush shed platforms we have today.

The Bi-level coaches have low doors and won't work with high platforms, so I don't see that being a problem for them, but the narrow platforms are certainly a problem. I expect they will want high platforms for VIA and low platforms for GO.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Lets compare a service that is private funded and gets no government funds to one that is a government agency and has a subsidy? That does not make sense. For many reasons, the ONR bus is does not compare to one that connects the major cities of the West.

You have tried to make your point and only help me prove you wrong. Why not quit while you feel you are ahead and move on? Then in 2-10 years, you can see my name on something that is used to bring back rail service across Canada.



Why not just be respectful. You have insulted me a few times, I have not done the same thing. Mind you, you may take my arguments or showing how your own information shows many things, not just your agenda, as disrespectful may be part of your problem.

At this point, you are faced with four options:

1. You finally start correcting whoever you happen to disagree with rather than simply claiming that they are wrong.
2. You finally acknowledge the arguments you are confronted with and concede that you are either unwilling or unable to prove them wrong.
3. You abstain from further participating in this discussion.
4. You keep on telling everyone that they are wrong without even trying to prove them wrong (and face the consequences of doing so).

My preferred choice would be Option 1, in which you go through any arguments you disagree with and tell us where exactly we err and suggest better sources or values so that your constructive criticism may enhance the discussion we are having. However, the expectation would be that you put a similar level of research, effort and detail into your work as have been put into the arguments you are trying to disprove.

My second-most preferred choice would be Option 2, in which you would acknowledge the arguments and evidence you have been confronted with and concede that you are either unwilling or unable (or both) to invest the effort and energy to prove them wrong to the degree I outlined in Option 1.

My next-most preferred choice would be Option 3, in which you would simply abstain from participating whenever you would otherwise have to disagree with me or anyone else here. I would regret if you chose this option, but I will respect whichever of these three options you choose.

Then, there is of course Option 4, which means that you continue doing what you have been doing for the last few months and that is telling everyone not only that they are wrong, but also that you have proven them wrong, despite not presenting a shred of evidence nor making any effort to counter the arguments you refuse to acknowledge. Unfortunately, if your next posts (either here or on Urban Toronto) don’t demonstrate a credible commitment to move from simply lecturing us here on that you are right and we are all wrong towards explaining what makes you conclude that you are right and we are wrong, I urge you to refresh your memories of what happened when ssiguy or LakeLocker also tried to test my patience for far too long, because I can promise you that you are facing the same fate if you continue going down that road.

The choice is yours’ and there is no rush to make a decision tonight, so if you are not sure how to choose, I would strongly suggest to go with Option 3 until you have made up your mind which route you want to go. I will be waiting here…



***



In the meanwhile, I will provide quick responses to four posters who have repeatedly demonstrated their commitment to a constructive discussion and their desire to move away from the ever-circling arguments about reviving rural intercity rail services in Canada:

Originally Posted by esquire

The platforms at Toronto Union Station made sense 100 years ago when baggage, mail and express were a significant part of passenger trains and needed their own designated platform away from people walking around. It is obsolete now, but they're stuck with it.

The same obsolete service platforms waste precious space (which would be much better used for passenger platforms) in major German rail stations, such as Frankfurt Hbf, Köln (Cologne) Hbf or Hamburg Hbf.

Originally Posted by milomilo

The wide platforms at Paddington were there from the start, circa 1850, and the height seems to have been present during the steam days also. So it's had modern platforms for a long time - the Paddington of 1850 was better designed than the Toronto Union station of 2020.

Indeed, some stations from the 19th century were surprisingly well designed and the single platform height of 915 mm makes universal accessibility much easier to implement than in, for instance, Germany with its three different boarding heights (55, 76 or 96 cm).

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Yeah, that's right. Everything other than the Great Hall/Headhouse is expendable.

I think they should have staged it in such a way that they completely closed off half of the shed and the underground supports, tore them out, rebuilt them to modern wide-platform standards, and then moved on. It would have been even more of a headache than today, but it would have paid off long term, because I don't see how GO will run a Parisian or Berlin-style RER system using the low floor, narrow bush shed platforms we have today.

The issue with GO is not just the lack of platform height of its stations. It's also the poor door-to-train-length ratio. Doors usually account for one-third to one-quarter of a trains' length with RER services like in Paris or the S-Bahnen in and around Germany (as opposed to the tiny doors on the Bombardier Bilevels), as exemplified by this picture of the DB AG Class 423.

Originally Posted by roger1818

The Bi-level coaches have low doors and won't work with high platforms, so I don't see that being a problem for them, but the narrow platforms are certainly a problem. I expect they will want high platforms for VIA and low platforms for GO.

In many parts of Europe, doubledecker cars tend to be multilevels with the doors above the trucks (and thus a boarding height which is in the middle between the upper and the lower deck), as shown on this interior photo of a Bombardier Twindexx train, which speeds up boarding and deboarding by improving the passenger flows significantly.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

In many parts of Europe, doubledecker cars tend to be multilevels with the doors above the trucks (and thus a boarding height which is in the middle between the upper and the lower deck), as shown on this interior photo of a Bombardier Twindexx train, which speeds up boarding and deboarding by improving the passenger flows significantly.

Sorry. I wasn’t clear. My reference was to the bi-level coaches that GO Transit currently own. I agree that they could be designed to have higher doors, none of the coaches they own do. Given that,AFAIK, every GO train stops at union station, raising the height of all platforms there would require they replace (or modify) all of their coaches. Not a very practical option and I’m not convinced it would lead to significant improvements in passenger flow for them (what makes you claim otherwise?).

It would also lead to accessibly issues for them as none of the other stations have high platforms, so a passenger with mobility issues would need help at those stations, where as today they can both board and alight at the same level.

Does anyone know why both Union station and Ottawa’s “new” station (build in the 60’s were built with low platforms but Central Station has high platforms? In Ottawa, at least, there is a project underway to raise the platforms and remove their service platforms.

[J81]

Originally Posted by roger1818

It was taken in 2007 (I chose it because it showed the platforms well) but the layout hasn't changed since then.



How many supplies do GO trains need (they use most of the tracks)? Even for VIA, Central Station in Montreal doesn't have this layout, so while, "wasted" may not be the correct word, "inefficient" is probably a better description. With much wider platforms, they could do both on the same platform, giving more room for passengers when the service trucks aren't driving by.

The fact that Toronto still has low platforms likely contributes to the problem as it takes longer to load and unload both people and supplies/baggage.

Via uses 4 tracks. 8-11. GO transit uses the rest. 8 and 9 use the same platform for passengers. 10 and 11 also share the same platform. The only “wasted space is the service platform between 9 and 10 which is the only none passenger platform ( between 7 and 8 might also be a service platform, ill double check when i get in tomorrow) And as i said its not wasted. You think that because u don’t understand the operation. Central station was built long after Union with wide raised platforms. Its not a fair comparison as theyre two completely different designs.

[J81]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Yeah, that's right. Everything other than the Great Hall/Headhouse is expendable.

I think they should have staged it in such a way that they completely closed off half of the shed and the underground supports, tore them out, rebuilt them to modern wide-platform standards, and then moved on. It would have been even more of a headache than today, but it would have paid off long term, because I don't see how GO will run a Parisian or Berlin-style RER system using the low floor, narrow bush shed platforms we have today.

The Bi level coaches GO uses dont work with raised platforms.

[Mister F]

GO platforms can still be higher than they are now, to eliminate the step to get onto the train and make it truly level.

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Yeah, that's right. Everything other than the Great Hall/Headhouse is expendable.

I think they should have staged it in such a way that they completely closed off half of the shed and the underground supports, tore them out, rebuilt them to modern wide-platform standards, and then moved on. It would have been even more of a headache than today, but it would have paid off long term, because I don't see how GO will run a Parisian or Berlin-style RER system using the low floor, narrow bush shed platforms we have today.

According to Urban Toronto, the entire platform area is going to be rebuilt:

• Ten tracks with wide platforms for twelve car trains.

• Additional escalators, elevators, and stairs to platforms.

• Provision for additional passengers bridges on the east and west end of the platforms.

• Two bay (dead-end) platforms, west-facing, for four-car UP Express and GO trains.

• Four bay platforms, east facing, for eight-car VIA trains and GO trains.

I believe the first two new platforms are set to start construction this year.


https://www.on-sitemag.com/construction/...s-rfq-for-next-phase-of-work/1003965780/

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

At this point, you are faced with four options:

1. You finally start correcting whoever you happen to disagree with rather than simply claiming that they are wrong.
2. You finally acknowledge the arguments you are confronted with and concede that you are either unwilling or unable to prove them wrong.
3. You abstain from further participating in this discussion.
4. You keep on telling everyone that they are wrong without even trying to prove them wrong (and face the consequences of doing so).

My preferred choice would be Option 1, in which you go through any arguments you disagree with and tell us where exactly we err and suggest better sources or values so that your constructive criticism may enhance the discussion we are having. However, the expectation would be that you put a similar level of research, effort and detail into your work as have been put into the arguments you are trying to disprove.

My second-most preferred choice would be Option 2, in which you would acknowledge the arguments and evidence you have been confronted with and concede that you are either unwilling or unable (or both) to invest the effort and energy to prove them wrong to the degree I outlined in Option 1.

My next-most preferred choice would be Option 3, in which you would simply abstain from participating whenever you would otherwise have to disagree with me or anyone else here. I would regret if you chose this option, but I will respect whichever of these three options you choose.

Then, there is of course Option 4, which means that you continue doing what you have been doing for the last few months and that is telling everyone not only that they are wrong, but also that you have proven them wrong, despite not presenting a shred of evidence nor making any effort to counter the arguments you refuse to acknowledge. Unfortunately, if your next posts (either here or on Urban Toronto) don’t demonstrate a credible commitment to move from simply lecturing us here on that you are right and we are all wrong towards explaining what makes you conclude that you are right and we are wrong, I urge you to refresh your memories of what happened when ssiguy or LakeLocker also tried to test my patience for far too long, because I can promise you that you are facing the same fate if you continue going down that road.

The choice is yours’ and there is no rush to make a decision tonight, so if you are not sure how to choose, I would strongly suggest to go with Option 3 until you have made up your mind which route you want to go. I will be waiting here…

I have done all of them, but you do not like how your facts can and do point to other things that does not fit with your agenda.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Sorry. I wasn’t clear. My reference was to the bi-level coaches that GO Transit currently own. I agree that they could be designed to have higher doors, none of the coaches they own do. Given that,AFAIK, every GO train stops at union station, raising the height of all platforms there would require they replace (or modify) all of their coaches. Not a very practical option and I’m not convinced it would lead to significant improvements in passenger flow for them (what makes you claim otherwise?).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any trains anywhere in the world (not even in Japan), which would reach anywhere near the passenger capacity of a 12-car GO train (almost 2000 seats alone). At the same time, the doors of their bilevels are among the tiniest train doors I have seen on any commuter train and this results in the crowding issues, which are exacerbated by the fact that passengers on the upper level have to fight themselves through no less than 2 sets of stairs, before they can finally reach the doors.

It would also lead to accessibly issues for them as none of the other stations have high platforms, so a passenger with mobility issues would need help at those stations, where as today they can both board and alight at the same level.

Which is why the accessible cars (usually the cab car) have the doors on the lower level, whereas all other cars have the doors above the trucks, as this picture exemplifies:

Source: Wikipedia (Uploaded by user "Qualle", own work)

Does anyone know why both Union station and Ottawa’s “new” station (build in the 60’s were built with low platforms but Central Station has high platforms? In Ottawa, at least, there is a project underway to raise the platforms and remove their service platforms.

This is indeed an interesting question. Only other intercity rail station in Canada with high-level platforms I'm aware of would be Gare du Palais in Quebec City...



***

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I have done all of them, but you do not like how your facts can and do point to other things that does not fit with your agenda.

I really hate to say this, but you tragically remind me of Donald Trump, who also presents 2 new falsehoods for every incorrect claim on which he gets called out on, while sprouting conspiracy theories about everyone and everything he disagrees with (or who disagrees with him). However, unlike Donald Trump, you haven’t got any people gathered around you (at least not in this discussion), which would be willing to believe everything you say and regardless from how counter-intuitive or just obviously false it is.

When everyone in a discussion disagrees with the same person, but that individual still insists on his contested positions despite all their detailed explanations where exactly he errs, there are only three possibilities: he is right (in which case he would be either the most educated person on this topic, a lucky guesser or a genius), he is fully aware that he is wrong (in which case he would be a troll) or he is unaware that he is wrong (in which case he would be a moron). Since myself and other posters in this discussion are sufficiently familiar with the matters on which we happen to disagree with you (and have some of the professional or other credentials relevant to the discussion, while you don’t even claim to hold any), we can safely dismiss the possibility that you are either the expert on this topic, a lucky guesser or a genius. Therefore, it doesn’t matter whether you are aware that you are wrong or not, because neither a troll nor a moron can contribute anything constructive to the discussion we are trying to have here.

You can continue insisting on being right and having proven everyone wrong or you may at some point be able to figure out the real reason why you reliably find yourself here arguing against everyone else: because you are exactly like the person who drives down the Highway in the opposing direction of the traffic – while honking at every single car and shouting at their drivers that they are incapable of reading the traffic signs correctly. However, for as long as you can’t find a way out of the alternative reality in which you are living, I strongly suggest to you that you create a separate thread where you can gather people who want to believe you when you insist that you are right and that everyone who disagrees with you is either uneducated or biased. Because until the moment where you finally become willing to seriously consider the possibility that it might just be you who was wrong all this time, there unfortunately is nothing of value which you could possibly contribute here…



PS: you are now one "Option 4" post closer to joining "ssiguy" and "LateLocker" at the graveyard of former, but already forgotten contributors to this discussion...

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Mister F

According to Urban Toronto, the entire platform area is going to be rebuilt:

• Ten tracks with wide platforms for twelve car trains.

• Additional escalators, elevators, and stairs to platforms.

• Provision for additional passengers bridges on the east and west end of the platforms.

• Two bay (dead-end) platforms, west-facing, for four-car UP Express and GO trains.

• Four bay platforms, east facing, for eight-car VIA trains and GO trains.

I believe the first two new platforms are set to start construction this year.

Very interesting... do you know if that accounts for the whole trainshed or will any platforms be left in their current configuration?

[rbt]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any trains anywhere in the world (not even in Japan), which would reach anywhere near the passenger capacity of a 12-car GO train (almost 2000 seats alone). At the same time, the doors of their bilevels are among the tiniest train doors I have seen on any commuter train and this results in the crowding issues, which are exacerbated by the fact that passengers on the upper level have to fight themselves through no less than 2 sets of stairs, before they can finally reach the doors.

While not a situation we want to replicate or would tolerate, you can find commuter lines entering Howrah Junction which significantly pass GO for both per-train ridership and constraints (doors, etc.) also in a 12-car format. They're not officially double-decker (crowding in the cheaper cars may make it seem that way though), and they've spent the last ~25 years moving away from diesel to increase throughput at stations.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

I really hate to say this, but you tragically remind me of Donald Trump, who also presents 2 new falsehoods for every incorrect claim on which he gets called out on, while sprouting conspiracy theories about everyone and everything he disagrees with (or who disagrees with him). However, unlike Donald Trump, you haven’t got any people gathered around you (at least not in this discussion), which would be willing to believe everything you say and regardless from how counter-intuitive or just obviously false it is.

When everyone in a discussion disagrees with the same person, but that individual still insists on his contested positions despite all their detailed explanations where exactly he errs, there are only three possibilities: he is right (in which case he would be either the most educated person on this topic, a lucky guesser or a genius), he is fully aware that he is wrong (in which case he would be a troll) or he is unaware that he is wrong (in which case he would be a moron). Since myself and other posters in this discussion are sufficiently familiar with the matters on which we happen to disagree with you (and have some of the professional or other credentials relevant to the discussion, while you don’t even claim to hold any), we can safely dismiss the possibility that you are either the expert on this topic, a lucky guesser or a genius. Therefore, it doesn’t matter whether you are aware that you are wrong or not, because neither a troll nor a moron can contribute anything constructive to the discussion we are trying to have here.

You can continue insisting on being right and having proven everyone wrong or you may at some point be able to figure out the real reason why you reliably find yourself here arguing against everyone else: because you are exactly like the person who drives down the Highway in the opposing direction of the traffic – while honking at every single car and shouting at their drivers that they are incapable of reading the traffic signs correctly. However, for as long as you can’t find a way out of the alternative reality in which you are living, I strongly suggest to you that you create a separate thread where you can gather people who want to believe you when you insist that you are right and that everyone who disagrees with you is either uneducated or biased. Because until the moment where you finally become willing to seriously consider the possibility that it might just be you who was wrong all this time, there unfortunately is nothing of value which you could possibly contribute here…


PS: you are now one "Option 4" post closer to joining "ssiguy" and "LateLocker" at the graveyard of former, but already forgotten contributors to this discussion...

I have had other agree with "my view of the facts".

DT sticks to his mantra and will not listen to others. That i more how you are. If you cannot concede that there were political reasons then you are no better than he is. Just like how I no longer pay attention to sonysnob on the highway forums because he is narrow minded, I may do that with you as you are narrow minded.

Guess what, with this mess going on in the world right now, an investment in Via would stimulate the economy more than a bailout of the airlines.

Nothing is ever just about one fact or another. You keep hammering it is, and that is why I keep arguing with you. Mind you, I feel it has been beaten beyond a bloody pulp. Now it is time to ignore the past. It is time to look to the future. It is time to look at what could exist and whether it is worth doing. Not just about the bottom line, but about serving Canadians.

[roger1818]

^^^I challenge you to take a step back, take time, do your research and present an argument that is backed real statistics and not emotional opinions.

I don’t believe you are a troll or a moron. A while back you said you won’t take no for an answer and I think that’s your problem. That can lead to persistence (refusing to give up) and that can be a good trait. The problem is it can also lead to stubbornness (refusing to change your opinion), and that is a bad trait. While it is important to fight for what you believe in it is also important to have an open mind that you might sometimes be wrong.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

^^^I challenge you to take a step back, take time, do your research and present an argument that is backed real statistics and not emotional opinions.

I don’t believe you are a troll or a moron. A while back you said you won’t take no for an answer and I think that’s your problem. That can lead to persistence (refusing to give up) and that can be a good trait. The problem is it can also lead to stubbornness (refusing to change your opinion), and that is a bad trait. While it is important to fight for what you believe in it is also important to have an open mind that you might sometimes be wrong.

I actually am doing just that. If the numbers show that it would be a disaster to add lines and add frequency, then I will accept that. Just from what has been posted, the numbers don't seem that clear cut. Just the fact that it has been posted that the southern route was slightly better when it come to subsidies than the current northern route. That singular fact shows that there is not a clear reason financially to bring it back.

If we only had routes that paid for themselves, the Corridor wouldn't even have a chance.

If safety improvements is what would be needed to bring back a line, then it would be a matter of whether the cost warrants it. Again, not a clear example.

And, now with the mess we are in, rail travel within Canada may be more palatable than air travel.

In short, don't try to argue with someone unless your facts clearly support your argument.

[J81]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I actually am doing just that. If the numbers show that it would be a disaster to add lines and add frequency, then I will accept that. Just from what has been posted, the numbers don't seem that clear cut. Just the fact that it has been posted that the southern route was slightly better when it come to subsidies than the current northern route. That singular fact shows that there is not a clear reason financially to bring it back.

If we only had routes that paid for themselves, the Corridor wouldn't even have a chance.

If safety improvements is what would be needed to bring back a line, then it would be a matter of whether the cost warrants it. Again, not a clear example.

And, now with the mess we are in, rail travel within Canada may be more palatable than air travel.

In short, don't try to argue with someone unless your facts clearly support your argument.

Urban Sky’s facts do exactly that. You just refuse to accept that because it doesnt fit your narrative.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by J81

Urban Sky’s facts do exactly that. You just refuse to accept that because it doesnt fit your narrative.

Actually, his information showed that the southern Canadian route had less of a subsidy. So, that means it was cheaper to run. That means that it makes some sense to look at restoring it.

So, it seems that things can fit both of our narratives.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I actually am doing just that. If the numbers show that it would be a disaster to add lines and add frequency, then I will accept that.

Good to hear. I am looking forward to hearing your results. I just hope you derive your conclusions from your research and not derive your research from your conclusions.

If we only had routes that paid for themselves, the Corridor wouldn't even have a chance.

The route doesn't need to completely pay for itself, but the costs need to be reasonable compared to other transportation options.

If safety improvements is what would be needed to bring back a line, then it would be a matter of whether the cost warrants it. Again, not a clear example.

Safety improvements are one of many factors.

And, now with the mess we are in, rail travel within Canada may be more palatable than air travel.

Which mess are you referring to?

• For COVID-19, rail offers little to no advantage over air travel.
• For climate change, the train is only better if there is significant ridership. You also need to compare it to other options (like driving or bus transport), which in many cases can produce fewer GHG than trains (if ridership isn't high enough).

In short, don't try to argue with someone unless your facts clearly support your argument.

Worse yet, don't try to argue with someone if you have to twist and distort the facts to back up your case.

Just from what has been posted, the numbers don't seem that clear cut. Just the fact that it has been posted that the southern route was slightly better when it come to subsidies than the current northern route. That singular fact shows that there is not a clear reason financially to bring it back.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Actually, his information showed that the southern Canadian route had less of a subsidy. So, that means it was cheaper to run. That means that it makes some sense to look at restoring it.

So, it seems that things can fit both of our narratives.

If VIA only operating one route in western Canada then his rough approximations indicated that there might have been a slight cost advantage to the southern route.

However (and please read this part), VIA has a second western route and the cost of operating that route would skyrocket. So looking at the big picture, the total cost of operating the two routes would have been much higher if they had abandoned the northern route in favour of the southern one.

Since you seem to have troubles understanding this, let me provide an example. Lets say you need to take a bus to work and there are 2 different bus passes you can get. One costs $100 a month and the other costs $80 a month but you have to pay an extra $1 each time you take a bus.

Your argument would be, "The $80 pass is $20 cheaper so get that. QED." However if you have to go to work 20 times (40 round trips), you would have to pay $40 in additional fees, so the total cost of that pass is actually $120 a month. Thus the $100 pass, while more expensive up front, is cheaper overall.

You can't look at individual costs in isolation, but have to look at the big picture. That is what we have all been trying to tell you, but so far you seem incapable of understanding.

[J81]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Actually, his information showed that the southern Canadian route had less of a subsidy. So, that means it was cheaper to run. That means that it makes some sense to look at restoring it.

So, it seems that things can fit both of our narratives.

Theres your singular focus again.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by J81

Theres your singular focus again.

No, there is me pointing out a singular thing. There are many reasons for each thing, but I selected the one.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Good to hear. I am looking forward to hearing your results. I just hope you derive your conclusions from your research and not derive your research from your conclusions.

I am going into this that I want the evidence to stand on it's own. I want it to be as clear as it can be that either it should, or should not happen, or that there is nothing conclusive. I am trying to not sway this with my bias.

Originally Posted by roger1818

The route doesn't need to completely pay for itself, but the costs need to be reasonable compared to other transportation options.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Safety improvements are one of many factors.

Yup.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Which mess are you referring to?

• For COVID-19, rail offers little to no advantage over air travel.
• For climate change, the train is only better if there is significant ridership. You also need to compare it to other options (like driving or bus transport), which in many cases can produce fewer GHG than trains (if ridership isn't high enough).

The Covid mess. The one thing rail has over flying is that their seats usually have more space. When the dust settles, I have no doubt that this might be a side effect; people choosing not to fly due to the cramped space.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Worse yet, don't try to argue with someone if you have to twist and distort the facts to back up your case.

I didn't twist or distort anything. I merely showed that one number was lower.

Originally Posted by roger1818

If VIA only operating one route in western Canada then his rough approximations indicated that there might have been a slight cost advantage to the southern route.

However (and please read this part), VIA has a second western route and the cost of operating that route would skyrocket. So looking at the big picture, the total cost of operating the two routes would have been much higher if they had abandoned the northern route in favour of the southern one.

Since you seem to have troubles understanding this, let me provide an example. Lets say you need to take a bus to work and there are 2 different bus passes you can get. One costs $100 a month and the other costs $80 a month but you have to pay an extra $1 each time you take a bus.

Your argument would be, "The $80 pass is $20 cheaper so get that. QED." However if you have to go to work 20 times (40 round trips), you would have to pay $40 in additional fees, so the total cost of that pass is actually $120 a month. Thus the $100 pass, while more expensive up front, is cheaper overall.

You can't look at individual costs in isolation, but have to look at the big picture. That is what we have all been trying to tell you, but so far you seem incapable of understanding.

Once it was pointed out, I accepted that the second route may have played a role in which one was kept. Again, as many have said, including you and I, there is no one reason. However, when something is presented, then it is a good idea to look at that as a black and white thing. Then, you add that to the other reasons for and against. In the end, if there were more reasons for or against, then that is what happens.

[Urban_Sky]

Quite honestly, I have no idea anymore what actually the argument is you are trying to defend:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am going into this that I want the evidence to stand on it's own.

What exactly do you mean by that?

I want it to be as clear as it can be that either it should, or should not happen, or that there is nothing conclusive.

What exactly is the project for which you want to determine whether it should or should not happen? Also, evidence alone can't recommend you any course of action. You have to first define what your objectives are, i.e. what is the problem you are trying to fix and what is the amount of resources (mostly: money) you are willing to allocate for solving it?

I am trying to not sway this with my bias.

What exactly is your bias? You cannot mitigate your bias without acknowledging what exactly it is...

I didn't twist or distort anything. I merely showed that one number was lower.

Which number was lower than what?

Once it was pointed out, I accepted that the second route may have played a role in which one was kept. Again, as many have said, including you and I, there is no one reason. However, when something is presented, then it is a good idea to look at that as a black and white thing. Then, you add that to the other reasons for and against. In the end, if there were more reasons for or against, then that is what happens.

I have no idea anymore what exactly the point is you are trying to prove here. Instead, let me restate my two main claims which I'm defending against your relentless criticism:

1. That under the publicly stated policy objectives of the 1990 cuts (to cut VIA's subsidy needs as much as possible, without abandoning any of its three mandates), abandoning the CP route was the inevitable choice, therefore it doesn't matter if local politicians or host railroads had a strong preference back in 1989 to save the CN rather than the CP route (because it apparently didn't distract from the stated objectives).
2. That the operating cost (per timetable-km) of a bus is a small fraction of that of a train and that therefore a train needs a multiple of ridership revenue (i.e. the product of passenger count, average distance traveled and yield [i.e. average fare per km traveled]) compared to a bus to operate with the same subsidy need, which cannot be realistically achieved on any thinkable rail corridor in Western Canada, except (maybe) Calgary-Edmonton.

What are your two counter-claims which put you in opposition to these two claims and what is the evidence you claim to have presented to defend your refusal to acknowledge and accept them?