Via rail

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

[continued]
My apologies for this long post and kudos for everybody who read it in its entirety...

No apology neccesary, thanks for the informative posts!

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

I’m convinced that should HFR be remotely as successful as I believe that it will be, then Calgary-Edmonton would be the logical second corridor to roll HFR out, which is why Western Canadians might want to keep their fingers crossed for HFR – it’s their best chance in restoring intercity passenger rail service which actually deserves that name…

Realistically though, would VIA ever have the political will to do this? There is nothing in place to begin with, so there is no service to upgrade - it would be a brand new route. To us westerners, it seems unlikely the powers that be in the east would push for a large scale provincial railway in the west.

As others have said, I don't think waiting for VIA is the best choice. Even if they might help us in the future, we have to wait for the corridor HFR to be approved, then be built, then be successful, then wait for VIA to start pushing for Albertan HFR, then be approved etc. That'll take decades. Better we look into doing it ourselves (which at the current rate might decades too, sadly).

[esquire]

Further to the Canadian, I am following a guy on Twitter (@joechurchill) who is on train #2. It was supposed to arrive in Winnipeg yesterday at 19:00. Here we are 16 hours past an already extremely generously padded arrival time which allows over 24 hours to get from Edmonton to Winnipeg (you can drive the distance in about 12 hours), and they're still in SASKATCHEWAN. Take a moment and think this through... that train is moving at a speed that a reasonably in shape person could probably match on a bicycle.

He says once the train gets to Winnipeg they're just going to turn the train around and fly the passengers the rest of the way.

[Ottawaresident]

VIA Rail needs to own tracks ... that are at least 150 km/h

[ssiguy]

Canada does not need VIA..........it's a 19th century solution in a 21st century world.

What Canada needs is a TRANSPORTATION provider which provides services that work best for the area where government subsidies are needed to provide the service. Some of this may indeed but rail but also bus services that connects communities together or provides connections to the local train station. Right now we have a disjointed SERVICE instead of a coordinated SYSTEM and it is the travelling public who suffer from this lack of vision.

[Ottawaresident]

You see, in places like Europe China Japan etc the rail network is fast efficient and usable and serves many people. I know Canada does not have the density but averages are misleading. There is no HSR in Tibet or places without the density. A Trans Canada line and connections to populated cities ie. over 250000 for rail should work well.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

My apologies in advance for a very long post, it’s just that there have been so many posts during the last week, which deserve a response:

Never a need to apologize for that. Your posts are most informative and while I may not agree with you all the time, your arguments are well thought out. It is also nice having someone on the inside to provide a different perspective.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Agreed, but neither is having to change the train 5 times and spending as many nights in the Hotel for simply travelling from Collins to Vancouver…

First of all, I would suggest that one would only have to change trains 3 maybe 4 times. As I said in post #276:

Originally Posted by roger1818

One option (westbound) would be:

Day 1&2 - Toronto-Winnipeg,
Overnight in Winnipeg [#1]
Day 3 - Winnipeg-Saskatoon
Overnight in Saskatoon [#2]
Day 4 Saskatoon-Edmonton
Overnight in Edmonton [#3]
Day 5&6 Edmonton-Vancouver*

*Edmonton-Vancouver could also be split, but daylight service is already offered by the Rocky Mountaineer, and they might complain about a VIA competing with them with subsidized service.

Secondly, would anyone actually take the train from Collins all the way to Vancouver? Not only would it take 3 days, but a 1-way economy ticket looks like it starts at $331 +tax +meals (picking a random date in late November). More likely, that person would take the 11 hour trip to Winnipeg for $77+tax+meals and then fly to Vancouver (which seems to start at about $255). So for about the same price (minus the cost of all the extra meals you would need to buy on the train) a person who lives in Collins could get to Vancouver in less than a day.

Granted there are those with phobias, but what percentage of them actually refuse to fly and are we subsidizing long distance rail service for them specifically? That person could still take the train, it would just take a little longer, but they are already expecting it to take a long time.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

The projected cost for HFR is $4 billion for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec or $4.65 million per km for a route of which a large chunk is already operated by passenger trains and at speeds of up to 100 mph, with a considerable portion (Coteau-Ottawa-Smiths Falls) even being already owned by VIA (and with CN currently abandoning its trackage rights). Calgary to South Edmonton (Strathcona) is 307 km, which would translate to $1.43 billion.

I don't think I need to tell you that you can't just divide up the costs like that. The new track (the approximately 140km from Havelock to Glen Tay) will be the most expensive part. Unfortunately the public is not privy to numbers on how much the different legs will cost to get a better estimate though. Even if it is $1.5 billion, I think that would be a worthwhile investment to:

1. Improve connectivity between two major cities,
2. Work towards our Paris Agreement commitments,
3. Show the western provinces that they are important to Canada at a time when western separation is starting to rear its ugly head again.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

I’m convinced that should HFR be remotely as successful as I believe that it will be, then Calgary-Edmonton would be the logical second corridor to roll HFR out, which is why Western Canadians might want to keep their fingers crossed for HFR – it’s their best chance in restoring intercity passenger rail service which actually deserves that name…

I am glad you agree. It sounded like you were arguing that Alberta should never have HFR.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Exactly! The back-of-the-envelop calculation I provided in one of my previous posts suggests that running a “remote” Capreol-Winnipeg service would already require a subsidy of $18.3 million (or almost half the Canadian’s entire subsidy of $41.2 million in 2017)…

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't those calculations assume the Capreol-Winnipeg train wouldn't have any tourists and be strictly a local service? My proposal is to work with tour operators to devise a schedule and service that they can use to build a luxury tour across the country, so the trains would still be double purposed.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

You seem to believe that the monetary budget is the only constraint tourists have. However, time is the constraint you seem to completely neglect. So why haven’t I taken the Canadian again during the last four years, despite the very generous discounts we employees enjoy? Because vacation days are not for free for people who haven’t retired yet. Giving passengers the choice to spend any increment of 24 hours at any city served along the route (as Amtrak does, thanks to its ability to offer daily service on almost all its long-distance routes) is a feature, while forcing passengers to waste increments of half-days in cities they have no intention of visiting is clearly a bug, which basically turns a “rail cruise” experience to that of a hitchhiking backpacker and deprives Canadians with an aversion against flying from the only practical alternative for traveling across the country…

Most people take vacations 1 week at a time to take advantage of 2 weekends so that you get 9 days vacation with only 5 vacation days. That is why 7 day cruises (and vacations in general) tend to be most popular. As a result, the difference between a 4 day tour and a 6 day tour, is going to make minimal difference in terms of schedule.

Granted it will make a difference if the person is wanting to use it as a form of long distance transportation, but even then, if they are time sensitive, they will likely fly, so the number of people who would accept 4 days but reject 6 is minimal. Also, when I took it, the largest demographic was retirees, for whom time is not a significant factor.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

I suggest to browse along CP’s Calgary-Edmonton line on RAC’s excellent rail map to appreciate the volume of active freight rail terminals, freight spurs and branch lines, all of which suggests that the rail freight volume along this corridor (and thus its importance within CP’s national network) is orders of magnitudes higher than in the areas around Ottawa or Peterborough…

That is an excellent railway map. Thanks!

Considering rail-freight traffic in Ottawa in near non-existent, an order of magnitude increase would mean only a couple trains a day (and in a few years it would mean no trains since zero times ten is zero).

Seriously though, it is hard to say for sure how valuable it is to CP. More than the Havelock Subdivision? Probably, but I am sure it is no where near as important as the Winchester Sub, which VIA wants to obtain (east of de Beaujeu) from CP for HFR.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

I should have indeed looked up TC’s track classes, but a rail speed limit of 95 km/h is much less competitive with a road speed limit of 100 km/h as it might appear: whereas cars may travel up to 20 km/h above that limit without any risk of getting pulled over (and many drivers exceed the speed limit by more than that) railway speed limits must be taken at face value. I took a look at the route with Google Earth Pro and measured the radius of a few dozen curves before modelling travel times. My calculations suggest that the non-stop travel time between Calgary and Edmonton South (Strathcona) would be at least 3:39:

Assumptions: track speed limit of 60 mph, acceleration value of 0.39 m/s^2, deceleration value of 0.5 m/s^2, train length of 300 meters and a travel time supplement of 5% plus 1 minute per 100 km.

Note that Google Earth quotes a travel time of 2:57 (3:00-3:40 even for a weekday 5pm departure) and that adding only 3 more stops (Calgary Airport, Red Deer, Edmonton Airport) would increase the travel time to 3:45, at which time the rail service would not be time-competitive against the bus with a scheduled downtown-to-downtown travel time of 3:30-4:05, considering the decentral location of Strathcona station in South Edmonton…

Thanks for the amazing calculations!!! I never knew what acceleration and deceleration values to use for trains. Very helpful!

You are acting as if time is the only important factor though. You are forgetting that price, comfort and convenience are also important.

• Compared to driving, the train wins on price (for single riders) and comfort,
• Compared to the bus, the train has a huge advantage in comfort, and speed can be, but is not always, an advantage,
• Compared to flying, the train wins on comfort, convenience and price (for short flights),

Being time competitive with cars, would give the train a huge advantage, but even if it isn't, some will be won over by the improved comfort and the fact that they can be more productive (even if driving is faster, the time spent driving is wasted, which is why I almost always take the train to Montreal instead of driving).

The buses that are only 3:20, are express and don't stop in Red Deer or YYC. Those that do, Take over 4 hours, so even if your 3:45 estimate is optimistic, and it takes 4 hours, the train would still be time competitive. Everything else being equal, most would choose the train over the bus. Many would even make some compromises to do so, so it doesn't have to be faster.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Exactly, it will always be difficult to secure the necessary capital funding for a modern (i.e. at least semi fast and frequent) passenger rail corridor without any pre-existing rail ridership…

That's why baby steps might be a better approach. Once VIA has received deliver of all of its new trainsets, there will be some life left in many of the LRCs (they were somewhat recently refurbished). A pilot project could be introduced whereby the LRCs are run on existing tracks and stop and temporary stations. While not ideal, it wouldn't be that different from what we see in Southern Ontario currently. Popularity of the service could be judged, and you would then have numbers that can be used to show how the system could grow with improved infrastructure (better stations, better track, better trains).

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Honorary mention to Paul Langan…

Yup. He falls into the category of, "with friends like those, who needs enemies."

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

My apologies for this long post and kudos for everybody who read it in its entirety...

Ditto.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Ottawaresident

VIA Rail needs to own tracks ... that are at least 150 km/h

That is basically what the Dedicated tracks plan is all about. Giving VIA Rail its own tracks along the busiest travel corridor in the country and upgrading them, not to High Speed Rail standards, but fast enough that it will lour people out of their cars.

Will we see that from coast to coast to coast? No. That isn't feasible, but it doesn't mean we can't have it where it is feasible.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Canada does not need VIA..........it's a 19th century solution in a 21st century world.

What Canada needs a TRANSPORTATION provider which provides services that work best for the area where government subsidies are needed to porovide the service. Some of this may indeed but rail but also bus services that connects communities together or provides connections to the local train station. Right now we have a disjpointed service instead of a coordinated system and it is the travelling public who suffer from this lack of vision.

VIA Rail is what it is because of decades of neglect from the federal government. Even when it was created by P.E. Trudeau, it wasn't given the resources or teeth needed to make it successful. Since then there has been a string of cutbacks that have resulted in it limping along, trying to keep its competing mandates with as little money as possible.

I would argue that the Dedicated Tracks plan, if approved, will revolutionize VIA Rail and bring it closer to what most other countries take for granted. Will it still have heavily subsidized lifeline services to communities that don't have roads? Yes, but at least it we will start to have fast, frequent, affordable travel in our most densely populated region.

By "Transportation provider" I assume you mean they should also be offering bus services to places that rail doesn't make sense. On this I disagree and instead agree with Urban_Sky and believe they should partner with local transportation providers to create an integrated network. The trend these days is find something you are good at and do it well and let others do what they are good at. VIA is good at running trains. Let them do that and have someone who is good at running buses do that. The key is to have the two work together, not compete.

[ssiguy]

I have no problem with VIA contracting out bus services to local providers but the system must still be that, a system. One should be able to buy a VIA ticket from Sydney to Salmon Arm, Lachine to London, or Medicine Hat to Moncton.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I have no problem with VIA contracting out bus services to local providers but the system must still be that, a system. One should be able to buy a VIA ticket from Sydney to Salmon Arm, Lachine to London, or Medicine Hat to Moncton.

Do you hear anyone disagreeing?

[SaskOttaLoo]

Originally Posted by esquire

Further to the Canadian, I am following a guy on Twitter (@joechurchill) who is on train #2. It was supposed to arrive in Winnipeg yesterday at 19:00. Here we are 16 hours past an already extremely generously padded arrival time which allows over 24 hours to get from Edmonton to Winnipeg (you can drive the distance in about 12 hours), and they're still in SASKATCHEWAN. Take a moment and think this through... that train is moving at a speed that a reasonably in shape person could probably match on a bicycle.

He says once the train gets to Winnipeg they're just going to turn the train around and fly the passengers the rest of the way.

Oh man, I just read his twitter points. I didn't actually believe it, but you're right - they're actually going to fly people from Winnipeg to Toronto. How pathetic for a country who's founding myth involves the glory of a coast to coast rail line.

[ghYHZ]

Heading to Charlottetown from Moncton in April 1986. (You can still do that today.....connecting to or from the ‘Ocean’ at Moncton but it’s now on ‘Maritime Bus’)

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I have no problem with VIA contracting out bus services to local providers but the system must still be that, a system. One should be able to buy a VIA ticket from Sydney to Salmon Arm, Lachine to London, or Medicine Hat to Moncton.

I agree with your second sentence, but disagree that VIA should make the decision as to which towns get bus service and which towns don't. Rather than have VIA contract bus service, I would rather see them partner with bus services. That way the bus service makes the decision as to which routes make the most sense and local governments can subsidize routes as needed. The other thing is contracting the service gives exclusivity to one company, where as partnering allows multiple carriers to provide bus service in a region.

A perfect example of what I would like to see done on a national scale is VIA's partnership with Maritime Bus. You can book a ticket from any of the cities that Maritime Bus provides connecting bus service, to any city on VIA Rail's network.

EDIT: I just discovered that VIA Rail has a similar partnership with Robert Q's Airbus for service to Sarnia, ON. They also supposedly have a partnership with Red Arrow Motorcoach in Alberta, but you have to buy separate tickets and take a taxi as part of the connection.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by SaskOttaLoo

Oh man, I just read his twitter points. I didn't actually believe it, but you're right - they're actually going to fly people from Winnipeg to Toronto. How pathetic for a country who's founding myth involves the glory of a coast to coast rail line.

Two and a half days to get from Edmonton to Winnipeg. This is to cover a distance of 1,300 km. So we're talking an average speed of about slightly under 22 km/h, or a moderate urban cycling pace.

The sad thing is that this is not an exception, either. Maybe worse than normal but by no means some incredible aberration.

[ghYHZ]

Originally Posted by roger1818

A perfect example of what I would like to see done on a national scale is VIA's partnership with Maritime Bus. You can book a ticket from any of the cities that Maritime Bus provides connecting bus service, to any city on VIA Rail's network.

Maritime Bus shares the VIA Rail Station in Halifax which is directly connected to the Westin Hotel (a former CN Hotel) and right across the street from the Cruise Ship Terminal…..

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ghYHZ

Maritime Bus shares the VIA Rail Station in Halifax which is directly connected to the Westin Hotel (a former CN Hotel) and right across the street from the Cruise Ship Terminal…..

It's old and not really that central to transportation now but Halifax's Ocean Terminal project and the related hotel construction etc. was a great multi-modal transportation accomplishment in its day.

For those who don't know the rail line it connects to also runs in a trench and all of the streets that cross it go over bridges (maybe 12 or so in total?). There are no at-grade crossings. The route ran through solid rock under the existing city. It was built in the 1910's. It was much more ambitious than a lot of projects people say are impossible today.

[Taeolas]

Just eyeballing it with Google Maps, but starting at the end of the line at the cruise ship terminal/VIA rail station, this seems to be the first at grade railway crossing on the line. There are maybe 2 or 3 gravel roads (driveways) before that, and one at grade crossing for a siding a little bit before this point. But otherwise the rail line is completely separated from the road traffic from here to the harbour.

[Ottawaresident]

Sad ... If HSR was implemented rail would probably be more popular.

[Nouvellecosse]

It would be interesting if there was a second Via stop in Bedford in a similar manner to how there are stops in Greater Toronto and Montreal outside downtown. I can't see myself living in Bedford or Sackville and wanting to go all the way downtown to get on the train and then re-trace my steps all the way up the basin. Would seem like a massive and frustrating waste of time. A stop in Bedford might even be more convenient coming from parts of Dartmouth or other places like Tantallon or Fall River. Maritime bus has a similar set up with its second stop in Dartmouth (not sure if there's anything out in Bedford/Sackville) but serving both sides wouldn't be very practical for a train due to lack of rail crossing.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Taeolas

Just eyeballing it with Google Maps, but starting at the end of the line at the cruise ship terminal/VIA rail station, this seems to be the first at grade railway crossing on the line. There are maybe 2 or 3 gravel roads (driveways) before that, and one at grade crossing for a siding a little bit before this point. But otherwise the rail line is completely separated from the road traffic from here to the harbour.

I was talking about the new route that was created, which was the portion that runs west of the fork near Fairview Cove. The eastern route running through the North End is the older route that existed prior to the 1910's (maybe the original ICR route?).

Bedford existed as a town 100 years ago but Sackville basically did not. The Old Cobequid Road probably did exist but it would have been way out in the boonies.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It would be interesting if there was a second Via stop in Bedford in a similar manner to how there are stops in Greater Toronto and Montreal outside downtown.

There used to be one. It is now a small red building near the Bedford Highway and First Ave. I think it might have been used up until the 90's or so. I think there might have been a Rockingham stop at one point too.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

There used to be one. It is now a small red building near the Bedford Highway and First Ave. I think it might have been used up until the 90's or so. I think there might have been a Rockingham stop at one point too.

That is the right location, but the buildings that are there now are relatively new, built in the 2000s, I believe. They are styled after old railway buildings and actually look quite nice there IMHO.

I remember the old station being there in the 1990s, but can't recall when it finished being used as a passenger stop. I'm thinking probably in the 1980s or early '90s when dayliner/short run service stopped.

Bedford Station