Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Excited to see the last piece come together soon (replacement of the long-distance passenger car fleet).

I'll be very sad to see the Budd cars originally built for Canadian Pacific's "The Canadian" go. They're old, but they're a true classic and an iconic piece of history. I suspect they're no small part of the reason why today's "The Canadian" is still such a popular service for tourists.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I'll be very sad to see the Budd cars originally built for Canadian Pacific's "The Canadian" go. They're old, but they're a true classic and an iconic piece of history. I suspect they're no small part of the reason why today's "The Canadian" is still such a popular service for tourists.

I agree that there is something quite special about having these literal museum pieces still plying the country after three quarters of a century in the role they were designed to fulfill.

If I had my druthers, VIA would maintain The Canadian as a discrete luxury land cruise experience using the Budd cars (with a comprehensive internal modernization to improve comfort and functionality while preserving as much of their character as possible). They would also launch a new modern inter-city/national passenger service priced and functioning as a credible alternative to air travel and driving (i.e. a North Americanized version of Europe's famous night trains).

[ssiguy]

It's obviously nothing but good news that areas outside the Corridor will be getting some new and modern trains. The old ones, despite their nostalgic value, are more polluting, less comfortable, and more expensive to both operate and maintain.

The problem, of course, is that this does nothing for the travelling public. The service is just too poor and slow to be considered a viable transportation option. Anyone viewing the service as such needs professional help. The Canadian is still just a tourist train and service would have to increase exponentially to change that scenario and it certainly won't be in my life time.

[SpongeG]

109,547 views 24 Jul 2026 #amtrak #pacificnorthwest #trains
Amtrak's new AIRO train sets are nearing their revenue service debut! After months of testing on the Northeast Corridor, the new trains, built by ‪@SiemensMobilityGlobal‬ in Sacramento, have begun testing on the Amtrak Cascades route between Seattle, WA and Vancouver, BC and between Seattle and Eugene, OR. Initial full corridor test runs were conducted by ‪@amtrak‬ on July 21st and July 23rd. In this video, we will follow the very first test trip on its journey between Seattle and Vancouver and return.

• Video Link

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by madog222

The Sounder definitely gets the commuter crowd. It runs earlier and is far cheaper than Amtrak.
The difference is what time the trains come, the last sounder leaves Everett at 745 and the morning Amtrak leaves around 1030.

Yeah, i think that's the issue. If you're in Everett and not working downtown or just want to in for an afternoon meeting, you're on the Cascades. It's more expensive, but it also makes one less stop (doesn't stop at Mukilteo).

I guarantee if the Sounder ran a later train that left around the same time or a little later that people would take that instead as it's WAY cheaper.

If you have a pass, you can actually ride the Cascades for no additional fee (IF there's space on the train).

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Vantage

I've taken Amtrak Cascades 4 times between Vancouver and Seattle, and Vancouver and Portland. I don't own a car and I like trains so I don't mind the extra cost and time compared to the bus. The worst part is there is only 2 trains a day, so you either need to be at Pacific Central at the crack of dawn or take the train that leaves Vancouver at 22:00 (if it's on time).

The part of the journey in Canada is by far the slowest, once you get into The States the train goes much faster.

I've also taken public transit all the way back from Seattle, it is doable, takes about 8 hours, but only costs around $12.

I've taken it from Seattle when I went on a Vancouver-Seattle repositioning cruise. I've always wanted to go to Seattle on public transit.

And I agree that there really NEEDs to be a train that leaves mid-day. That would change so much.

A stop in Surrey would also be on my wishlist, despite the cross-border complications involved.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

It's obviously nothing but good news that areas outside the Corridor will be getting some new and modern trains. The old ones, despite their nostalgic value, are more polluting, less comfortable, and more expensive to both operate and maintain.

The problem, of course, is that this does nothing for the travelling public. The service is just too poor and slow to be considered a viable transportation option. Anyone viewing the service as such needs professional help. The Canadian is still just a tourist train and service would have to increase exponentially to change that scenario and it certainly won't be in my life time.

Abandoning carbon emissions targets and going full steam ahead in fossil fuel consumption and extraction has been the death knell for HSR in North America. Most HSR planning came when we were worried about climate change and thought we had reached peak-oil. Vehicle based transportation is heavily promoted and subsidized and will remain that way indefinitely.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Abandoning carbon emissions targets and going full steam ahead in fossil fuel consumption and extraction has been the death knell for HSR in North America. Most HSR planning came when we were worried about climate change and thought we had reached peak-oil. Vehicle based transportation is heavily promoted and subsidized and will remain that way indefinitely.

1 in 3 newly created CO2 emissions come out of China and they seem to have no issues getting HSR planning done. We can't blame big oil for this one, it's just a lack of leadership. The US is even more gung-ho on O&G than we are, and they're building HSR.

[Migrant_Coconut]

It helps that Alto is backed by the feds and entirely within their jurisdiction... whereas Cascadia will have to make do without any funding from DC (or Victoria) for the time being. Haven't heard a thing about Vancouver-Portland since the '24 election and the trade war.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Haven't heard a thing about Vancouver-Portland since the '24 election and the trade war.

Funding was secured in 2024 to prepare a Service Development Plan which is due for completion in 2028. With that they can move to environmental impact studies and final design and costing. It's still a ways away from construction funding commitments.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It helps that Alto is backed by the feds and entirely within their jurisdiction... whereas Cascadia will have to make do without any funding from DC (or Victoria) for the time being. Haven't heard a thing about Vancouver-Portland since the '24 election and the trade war.

California HSR is arguably opposed by the US federal government and is still going ahead. Again, it's just a leadership difference.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by madog222

Funding was secured in 2024 to prepare a Service Development Plan which is due for completion in 2028. With that they can move to environmental impact studies and final design and costing. It's still a ways away from construction funding commitments.

... 2028. I'm all for measuring thrice and cutting once, but Alto's planned to be shovel-ready by '29, and it was definitely announced later.

Originally Posted by chowhou

California HSR is arguably opposed by the US federal government and is still going ahead. Again, it's just a leadership difference.

Fair.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by chowhou

1 in 3 newly created CO2 emissions come out of China and they seem to have no issues getting HSR planning done. We can't blame big oil for this one, it's just a lack of leadership. The US is even more gung-ho on O&G than we are, and they're building HSR.

Yes and no. The O&G and auto industry have worked in tandem to be as anti-rail as they can be and this goes back to the 1930s. Every true HSR project gets heavily watered down due to a lack of funding and there's a true expectation for rail/transit agencies to be self-sufficient in the USA while we continue to design communities for vehicular traffic and heavy subsidize the road networks (especially in the USA).

[mcj]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

while we continue to design communities for vehicular traffic and heavy subsidize the road networks (especially in the USA).

We do that here too. Our road network is nothing but subsidized since we got rid of the few tolls that were in place to bring in some funding for it from direct users. While the inner communities of Metro Vancouver are building TOD due to a lack of otherwise available land, we are still clear cutting forests and paving over farmland for more sprawl in Maple Ridge, Surrey, Langley and beyond. This absolutely happens here just as much as it does in the US. With the only difference being that we fund transit slightly more.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Yes and no. The O&G and auto industry have worked in tandem to be as anti-rail as they can be and this goes back to the 1930s. Every true HSR project gets heavily watered down due to a lack of funding and there's a true expectation for rail/transit agencies to be self-sufficient in the USA while we continue to design communities for vehicular traffic and heavy subsidize the road networks (especially in the USA).

This is pure coping, if you ask me. Tell me why Honda and Toyota allowed the Shinkansen to be built? Why did Kia allow Korean HSR? Why did the Norwegian O&G industry allow HSR in that country? The UK is home to some of the world's top O&G companies and a top auto manufacturer and they've been able to build HSR.

And aren't these O&G companies supposed to be multinational? Why haven't they worked to block HSR rail development in Europe or Asia or elsewhere?

There's no greater conspiracy here than a failure of political leadership with respect to HSR in Canada.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by chowhou

This is pure coping, if you ask me. Tell me why Honda and Toyota allowed the Shinkansen to be built? Why did Kia allow Korean HSR? Why did the Norwegian O&G industry allow HSR in that country? The UK is home to some of the world's top O&G companies and a top auto manufacturer and they've been able to build HSR.

And aren't these O&G companies supposed to be multinational? Why haven't they worked to block HSR rail development in Europe or Asia or elsewhere?

There's no greater conspiracy here than a failure of political leadership with respect to HSR in Canada.

History suggests otherwise. Rails to rubber was orchestrated by GM and big oil to scrap rail ROW's across North America and restructure the built form for vehicular use. It's rooted in history here.

There is no political leadership in North America as large corporations dictate policies here.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

History suggests otherwise. Rails to rubber was orchestrated by GM and big oil to scrap rail ROW's across North America and restructure the built form for vehicular use. It's rooted in history here.

And yet:

Originally Posted by chowhou

This is pure coping, if you ask me. Tell me why Honda and Toyota allowed the Shinkansen to be built? Why did Kia allow Korean HSR? Why did the Norwegian O&G industry allow HSR in that country? The UK is home to some of the world's top O&G companies and a top auto manufacturer and they've been able to build HSR.

Originally Posted by logicbomb

There is no political leadership in North America as large corporations dictate policies here.

I don't think I can "logic" with you here on this. Do we really believe that Canadian politics are dictated by large corps more than countries like South Korea or the UK?

[mcj]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I don't think I can "logic" with you here on this. Do we really believe that Canadian politics are dictated by large corps more than countries like South Korea or the UK?

Does this really need to be a question? The history that logic was referencing did indeed happen here, auto corps were behind large political influence campaigns that made North American development so car centric. The same did happen in the UK and other countries, however those countries had significantly more established large cities and rail networks compared to North America, especially Western North America. Do you really deny that influence?

As far as the Korean example is concerned, having the chaebols control so much of the economy, they benefited whether it was private automobiles or railways. They do both, the Canada Line rolling stock is made by Hyundai for a direct local example in case you didn't notice. Unlike North American or European companies that were specific to one or the other.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by mcj

Does this really need to be a question? The history that logic was referencing did indeed happen here, auto corps were behind large political influence campaigns that made North American development so car centric. The same did happen in the UK and other countries, however those countries had significantly more established large cities and rail networks compared to North America, especially Western North America. Do you really deny that influence?

I don't deny that the automotive industry put their boots on the ground to take down trams. In cities like London (closed 1952), Paris (closed 1938), Hamburg (closed 1978), Madrid (closed 1972), and Copenhagen (closed 1972), of course. How odd then that all these countries have HSR? I guess big-auto decided to stop controlling those countries at some point.

Let's not pretend that North American cities and European cities were all that different in the early 20th century. I do deny that influence, yes. Do we believe that in the 1930s every Canadian owned a car and all the poor Europeans were just taking the train everywhere? My grandmother born in raised in Canada didn't even ever learn to drive as she grew up with the railroads and interurban.

I don't accept the "woe is us, we can't control our destiny since all our politicians are corrupt malicious demons bought and paid for by the corpos, voting doesn't matter, the events of your life were decided in a board room years ago" crap.

As far as the Korean example is concerned, having the chaebols control so much of the economy, they benefited whether it was private automobiles or railways. They do both, the Canada Line rolling stock is made by Hyundai for a direct local example in case you didn't notice. Unlike North American or European companies that were specific to one or the other.

I didn't say Hyundai did I? Why did Kia (separate from Hyundai before 1998) let South Korea build HSR? Since the auto manufacturers are so capable of killing rail completely in a country supposedly and the rail manufacturers don't matter?

[MIPS]

Wasn't it a thing in the Regan or Nixon Administration that alluded to fund high-capacity rail transit was akin to supporting communism and that alone in the cold war could seed opposition?

There was some really weird fearmongering at play and not just heavy lobbying like we saw with The Motorcycle Wars. (Harley was being outperformed by Japanese imports of smaller, lighter and faster motorcycles, so Regan implemented import restrictions on engines above a certain CC to prop up Harley, so Japan started bolting turbochargers and fuel injection to their engines to skirt it)