VIA Rail

[J81]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

latter obviously - but there are limits. How useful is a service really if demand could be satisfied by a daily Ford Transit van trip?

The Corridor and Canadian/Ocean need subsidies, but have clear demand patterns. Services like Sudbury>White River have limited utility, and even more limited demand, yet are subsidized to the tune of millions per year. Those communities would likely be better off seeing that money spent elsewhere to help them. We are talking about thousands in subsidies for every passenger, the bleed rate is nothing short of insane.

Even services like Churchill would probably be far better off by closing the rail line and converting it to a gravel access road.

Most of you dont seem to understand that VIA provides essential services for many remote communities across the country and some of you dont even know that the Gaspe train hasnt run since 2012.

The Sudbury/White River and Churchill routes bring supplies to/from remote camps and lodges that are not accessible by road or float plane even in some cases. Canoes, kayaks, appliances, furniture, building supplies even Moose get transported by those trains.

[casper]

Originally Posted by J81

Most of you dont seem to understand that VIA provides essential services for many remote communities across the country and some of you dont even know that the Gaspe train hasnt run since 2012.

The Sudbury/White River and Churchill routes bring supplies to/from remote camps and lodges that are not accessible by road or float plane even in some cases. Canoes, kayaks, appliances, furniture, building supplies even Moose get transported by those trains.

That is yet another use case for Via.

You tailer that service around that fact. I think we need to accept there is zero chance that via will make a profit doing that. That is ok.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by J81

Most of you dont seem to understand that VIA provides essential services for many remote communities across the country and some of you dont even know that the Gaspe train hasnt run since 2012.

The Sudbury/White River and Churchill routes bring supplies to/from remote camps and lodges that are not accessible by road or float plane even in some cases. Canoes, kayaks, appliances, furniture, building supplies even Moose get transported by those trains.

This is one of the reasons why VIA fails at being an effective and reliable transportation service for anywhere outside the Corridor.

Yes, these rail lines do provide supplies from other areas but that is NOT the responsibility of VIA. VIA is a PASSENGER rail service and NOT a gov't subsidized version of FedEx. VIA has been told to provide a service that it is not equipped to provide thus becoming more of a political apparatus more than a passenger rail service. This has led to a obscene amounts of money going to subsidize routes into little places in the middle of no where. This is why you can get from Winnipeg to Churchill but can't get from Edmonton to Calgary.

[savevp]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

This is why you can get from Winnipeg to Churchill but can't get from Edmonton to Calgary.

One does not preclude the other. Via Rail, if funded to do so, could very capably provide both types of services.

[J81]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

This is one of the reasons why VIA fails at being an effective and reliable transportation service for anywhere outside the Corridor.

Yes, these rail lines do provide supplies from other areas but that is NOT the responsibility of VIA. VIA is a PASSENGER rail service and NOT a gov't subsidized version of FedEx. VIA has been told to provide a service that it is not equipped to provide thus becoming more of a political apparatus more than a passenger rail service. This has led to a obscene amounts of money going to subsidize routes into little places in the middle of no where. This is why you can get from Winnipeg to Churchill but can't get from Edmonton to Calgary.

It actually is. Lol

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by savevp

One does not preclude the other. Via Rail, if funded to do so, could very capably provide both types of services.

It could, but it would probably be best handled by being completely separate crown corporations that don't need to share the same budget, corporate governance, etc. because they have completely different mandates and priorities.

Right now, I see VIA doing 3 things:

1. Running luxury tourist trains that don't cater to locals. The focus here is on experience and hospitality. Honestly, they could hire an executive from a cruise ship company or major resort brand to lead things, and they might have good ideas.

2. Running essential services for remote settlements not connected to roads. This is basically VIA as a social program. The hotel/cruise ship CEO would do an awful job here, yet s/he would not only have to consider this service, but the very train that is their flagship luxury cruise (the Canadian) has to fulfill the essential service role in Northern Ontario.

3. Running a passenger rail service that is supposed to compete with airlines and driving on speed and convenience, but only in southern Ontario and Quebec. Ignoring the fact that only one part of the country gets this privilege, to do things right you need to scale up dramatically and take advantage of network effects. This is the same principle for any other mode of transportation: bike lanes, airlines, roads. You build a network that's reliable, dense and frequent across the whole system; you integrate with local public transit, intercity bus services, and your own trains both in terms of fares and timetables, otherwise you never vault past obscurity. This takes a lot of dedicated resources and a very different mode of thinking than either running a land cruise or providing a shoestring social service for remote communities.

[TorontoDrew]

Saw this thought it was worth posting here. They look pretty nice parked next to each other.

Lumi and company by Adrian Badaraco, on Flickr

[Curmudgeon]

I am likely one of the greatest advocates for investment in Canada's passenger rail system, including high speed services Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal (with extensions if justifiable) and Calgary-Edmonton, as well as massive improvements in frequencies and speeds on the transcontinental route. At present few use the Canadian at all as it is so painfully slow, slower than 100 years ago, and it is very expensive.

The Winnipeg-Churchill passenger service though, should be abandoned and replaced by a paved highway from Gillam that would continue up to Rankin Inlet and Baker Lake in Nunavut. At present the line is in such a deteriorated state that the c. 400 km journey from Thompson to Churchill takes 16 hours, an average speed of 25 km/h, slower than the speeds on the Manchester-Liverpool railway when it opened in 1830. Would you take a train from Toronto to Ottawa if it took 16 hours? Faster to ride your bike. From Winnipeg it takes 43 hours. There is not anywhere near the population or ridership in northern Manitoba to justify the service, Churchill having only about 1000 people, and apart from Gillam, there are no towns with over 1000 pop. between Thompson and Churchill. Very few use the service, he vast majority, even tourists, choose to fly.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I am likely one of the greatest advocates for investment in Canada's passenger rail system, including high speed services Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal (with extensions if justifiable) and Calgary-Edmonton, as well as massive improvements in frequencies and speeds on the transcontinental route. At present few use the Canadian at all as it is so painfully slow, slower than 100 years ago, and it is very expensive.

The Winnipeg-Churchill passenger service though, should be abandoned and replaced by a paved highway from Gillam that would continue up to Rankin Inlet and Baker Lake in Nunavut. At present the line is in such a deteriorated state that the c. 400 km journey from Thompson to Churchill takes 16 hours, an average speed of 25 km/h, slower than the speeds on the Manchester-Liverpool railway when it opened in 1830. Would you take a train from Toronto to Ottawa if it took 16 hours? Faster to ride your bike. From Winnipeg it takes 43 hours. There is not anywhere near the population or ridership in northern Manitoba to justify the service, Churchill having only about 1000 people, and apart from Gillam, there are no towns with over 1000 pop. between Thompson and Churchill. Very few use the service, he vast majority, even tourists, choose to fly.

Can you cite your sources for your statement? Because Churchill gets around 23,000 visitors a year, and the annual ridership for the VIA route is 26,000 passengers, made up of a mix of recreational travelers and passengers traveling to northern local communities using the train as an essential lifeline.

A road would be very difficult to build - it would be heavier than the tracks, and have to be wider. All the problems associated with running the tracks over muskeg and permafrost would be worse for a road. The wash out of the tracks in 2017 would have also washed out a road. The guestimates for a road are over a billion dollars - spending a proportion of it on track improvements would offer a more economic solution. Grain and Potash trains are starting to use the line again, with cargoes moving through the port. Those wouldn't be cost effective to move by road, so the idea of opening up the port wouldn't be possible.

Looking at travel to Churchill from Winnipeg in mid November, a return flight on Calm Air would be $2,500, and take two and a half hours each way, and the train would be $700 in economy class. Apart from the fact that it takes two days, the biggest problem with the train is that the sleeper class is already fully sold out - if you could book it would be around $1,400.

[J81]

He also falsely stated that few use the Canadian because it is so painfully slow yet sleeper class has been sold out for months for departures into December. Im not counting Prestige class.

He is literally a Curmudgeon lol

[Curmudgeon]

76,000 total passengers on the Canadian in FY 2025, mostly international tourists, who sustain the service. Without them the subsidy would need to be gargantuan. About 1/6 of Amtrak's daily Empire Builder which apart from the Twin Cities does not serve any city of over 100,000 between Fargo and Spokane on its run from Chicago to Seattle/Portland.

What percentage of Toronto-Vancouver or Winnipeg-Vancouver or Edmonton-Vancouver travellers do you think take the train? A very low percentage I'd be certain. I have many times, the entire line and the two halves, in coach (quite awful after about 12 hours, and sometimes excruciating if there are crying kids or loud snorers) , berth (not bad, depending on whether or not someone has the other berth, and esp. if they snore or stink) and roomette (quite good, but very expensive for most people) but the service needs improvements in routing, frequencies and speed.

Trains should leave both Montreal (via Ottawa) and Toronto six days a week, combining at Sudbury. The CP tracks are the better route through Northern Ontario as they serve the Sault, Thunder Bay and Kenora. The current route serves essentially nowhere. West of Winnipeg, half of the trains should go via Calgary and the others via the current route through Edmonton. Speeds need to be substantially improved, the current service is slower than the trains of the Great War era and far slower (about half the average speed) than the aforementioned Empire Builder, which I have also used a number of times, boath coach and sleeper. Their fares are lower, esp. in coach. I have many times oaid just around $40 from Grand Forks to Saint Paul. Cheaper than driving.

As for the Churchill train, the 26,000 total annual passengers are not all going to Churchill, many only to Dauphin, The Pas, Thompson or other communities. Freight is another matter, and is not the subject of his thread. I'm referring to passenger traffic north of Thompson. Except for Gillam there is virtually nothing between Thompson and Churchill, A paved highway to Nunavut is needed and people in Churchill, Rankin and Baker Lake would be over the moon if one was built. It would be a 12 hour drive instead of 45 hours now from Winnipeg to Churchill via Thompson and Gillam (where the road ends now). $1 billion doesn't spund too bad. Some stadiums cost more than that. If Russia can build roads to the far northern reaches of Siberia I'm sure Canada can build a highway. Just do it. Remember, elbows up!

[Curmudgeon]

It can be cheaper to rent a car for a week or two and drive to Vancouver and back, even with gas, meals and two nights' hotels (not including accommodation in Vancouver), than to buy a return sleeper ticket. That should not be the case. Of course it is cheapest to fly, but the train or driving are a true journey.

[Curmudgeon]

J81 has a made a false claim! Oh my goodness, should he be cancelled? I can get a berth on Monday's train for $1534 o/w and this is still high season. Literally, he is a bit slow, lol. Do keep up.

BTW, that is quite pricey.

[casper]

I have done the Canadian twice in my life. About twenty years ago in economy from Saskatoon to Vancouver and again earlier this year in sleeper. In both cases there were lots of Canadians on the train. Yes there were foreigners. Many of them tourists that were spending money before/after the train trip.

In economy there are lots of passengers in their early 20s looking to explore Canada.

The Vancouver to/from Jasper run has extra cars added and is clearly the segment targeting tourists.

I am almost tempted to say perhaps part of the problem is how infrequent the service is. Maybe the need to double the number of trips per week using fewer cars. It is an extremely long train.