Via rail

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Ottawaresident

And for some of them, (like Calgary, St John, Sherbrooke) they are too right wing for the Liberals to run trains there.

FWI...….it was the Mulroney Tories who cut Calgary service, not the Liberals.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

FWI...….it was the Mulroney Tories who cut Calgary service, not the Liberals.

Very true! People are quick to blame political posturing for the choice of routes that were cancelled, but in most cases the choices were made for valid reasons. It is just the public often wasn't made aware of those reasons.

I do believe VIA ended up throwing the baby out with the bathwater when doing all those cuts under Mulroney, but they may not have had much choice due to the magnitude of the cuts.

[swimmer_spe]

I have always wondered what it would take to see an expansion of service to places like Calgary and Regina.

Seriously, why is there never been a push to return rail to the West?

In this green political environment, this could be seen as a win.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by ghYHZ

The w/b Ocean departing Halifax through the trench.

For those interested, there has been a little more info posted about the Halifax rail cut/rail station in the Halifax section at this thread:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=143037&page=42

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I have always wondered what it would take to see an expansion of service to places like Calgary and Regina.

Seriously, why is there never been a push to return rail to the West?

In this green political environment, this could be seen as a win.

Between Calgary and Regina, you'd be better off running a bus. It would be faster, more frequent and more reliable than a train running on the CP line along with being far cheaper. If you filled up that bus line, then it might be a good idea to make the large investment to allow good rail service between the cities.

I agree the political will is disappointing.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I have always wondered what it would take to see an expansion of service to places like Calgary and Regina.

Seriously, why is there never been a push to return rail to the West?

In this green political environment, this could be seen as a win.

1. What would it take? A viable business case.
2. Why hasn’t it happened? Because obtaining the travel times and frequencies necessary to make passenger rail relevant again requires a level of taxpayer-funded infrastructure upgrades, which is orders of magnitudes higher than what we have so far been able to secure for the Quebec-Windsor Corridor...
3. Would rail be greener than the alternatives? As long as passenger volumes are low, transporting these passengers is certainly greener by bus than by rail...

[esquire]

^ The fact that Greyhound pulled out of the Winnipeg-Regina-Calgary bus travel market tells you a little about the state of affairs along that route. For better or for worse the numbers just aren't there.

And even if you could solve that, I'm not sure how you overcome the twin obstacles of a) the massive capital and operating cost of operating a new passenger service and b) freight railways that own the tracks and clearly don't want passenger trains there as evidenced by the now routine 24 hour+ Edmonton-Winnipeg travel times, a distance that can be driven in half the time.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ The fact that Greyhound pulled out of the Winnipeg-Regina-Calgary bus travel market tells you a little about the state of affairs along that route. For better or for worse the numbers just aren't there.

What makes sense for a private business though is not the same as what is good for a country or province. Just because something can't run without subsidy or government support does not always mean it is a bad idea.

IMO, between every half decent sized destination there should be some option of travel that isn't a car or plane.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by milomilo

What makes sense for a private business though is not the same as what is good for a country or province. Just because something can't run without subsidy or government support does not always mean it is a bad idea.

IMO, between every half decent sized destination there should be some option of travel that isn't a car or plane.

So make it a bus, the mode that accomplishes the same goals as the train with a much lower startup capital requirement.

Trains would make sense if there already were buses and they were jam packed all the time and more capacity was urgently needed. But for now, just filling one or two buses a day on the TCH run would be enough of a challenge.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by esquire

So make it a bus, the mode that accomplishes the same goals as the train with a much lower startup capital requirement.

Trains would make sense if there already were buses and they were jam packed all the time and more capacity was urgently needed. But for now, just filling one or two buses a day on the TCH run would be enough of a challenge.

Most people on this thread agree with that, but even implementing an adequate bus network in the prairies appears to be beyond the pale politically, sadly.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Most people on this thread agree with that, but even implementing an adequate bus network in the prairies appears to be beyond the pale politically, sadly.

That just speaks to how little demand there is. If people were calling their MLAs on the regular demanding something, it would happen.

Contrast with northern regions on the prairies where air travel is not always a practical alternative as fares are very high, and car ownership rates are quite often a lot lower. You do see governments stepping up to assist bus services up there.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I have always wondered what it would take to see an expansion of service to places like Calgary and Regina.

Seriously, why is there never been a push to return rail to the West?

In this green political environment, this could be seen as a win.

I would speculate that most of the passenger traffic between Vancouver and Calgary, or Calgary and Regina, or Regina and Winnipeg is by air. However this is hardly a green alternative.

[esquire]

^ Not sure about the other two, but for Regina-Winnipeg I'd be surprised if most of the traffic between the two cities wasn't by car. There are only 4 flights a day in each direction between Winnipeg and Regina, and it's all on small turboprops. So maybe 200-250 seats a day each way?

Air traffic is probably a lot higher between Regina and Calgary since YYC is a hub.

[Ottawaresident]

What is Regina Airport's capacity and passenger level anyways?
What is Winnipeg Airport's capacity and passenger level anyways?
What is Calgary Airport's capacity and passenger level anyways?
Sorry, Copy Paste to save effort.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Between Calgary and Regina, you'd be better off running a bus. It would be faster, more frequent and more reliable than a train running on the CP line along with being far cheaper. If you filled up that bus line, then it might be a good idea to make the large investment to allow good rail service between the cities.

I agree the political will is disappointing.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

1. What would it take? A viable business case.
2. Why hasn’t it happened? Because obtaining the travel times and frequencies necessary to make passenger rail relevant again requires a level of taxpayer-funded infrastructure upgrades, which is orders of magnitudes higher than what we have so far been able to secure for the Quebec-Windsor Corridor...
3. Would rail be greener than the alternatives? As long as passenger volumes are low, transporting these passengers is certainly greener by bus than by rail...

Originally Posted by esquire

^ The fact that Greyhound pulled out of the Winnipeg-Regina-Calgary bus travel market tells you a little about the state of affairs along that route. For better or for worse the numbers just aren't there.

And even if you could solve that, I'm not sure how you overcome the twin obstacles of a) the massive capital and operating cost of operating a new passenger service and b) freight railways that own the tracks and clearly don't want passenger trains there as evidenced by the now routine 24 hour+ Edmonton-Winnipeg travel times, a distance that can be driven in half the time.

Originally Posted by milomilo

What makes sense for a private business though is not the same as what is good for a country or province. Just because something can't run without subsidy or government support does not always mean it is a bad idea.

IMO, between every half decent sized destination there should be some option of travel that isn't a car or plane.

Originally Posted by esquire

So make it a bus, the mode that accomplishes the same goals as the train with a much lower startup capital requirement.

Trains would make sense if there already were buses and they were jam packed all the time and more capacity was urgently needed. But for now, just filling one or two buses a day on the TCH run would be enough of a challenge.

Originally Posted by esquire

That just speaks to how little demand there is. If people were calling their MLAs on the regular demanding something, it would happen.

Contrast with northern regions on the prairies where air travel is not always a practical alternative as fares are very high, and car ownership rates are quite often a lot lower. You do see governments stepping up to assist bus services up there.

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I would speculate that most of the passenger traffic between Vancouver and Calgary, or Calgary and Regina, or Regina and Winnipeg is by air. However this is hardly a green alternative.

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Not sure about the other two, but for Regina-Winnipeg I'd be surprised if most of the traffic between the two cities wasn't by car. There are only 4 flights a day in each direction between Winnipeg and Regina, and it's all on small turboprops. So maybe 200-250 seats a day each way?

Air traffic is probably a lot higher between Regina and Calgary since YYC is a hub.

Some very valid points.

First off, what we need is a federal government that is willing to change the Railway Act to force freight to yield to passenger service. That would mean that most services would be sped up.

Believe it or not, the government subsidizes air travel too. Canada is not a place where you can have a unsubsidized passenger service. Greyhound proved that.

Let's say that the government bought enough rolling stock to cover: Vancouver-Edmonton-Winnipeg-Toronto
Vancouver -Calgary-Regina - Winnipeg - Thunder Bay - Sault St Marie - Toronto
Calgary-Edmonton
such that the trains ran once a day, each way both directions, would that not see an increase in ridership? Right now, many places are inaccessible by rail for people, and the trains are late that run, and they don't run daily outside of the Corridor.

VIA has been set up for failure by past governments. Hopefully that changes.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

First off, what we need is a federal government that is willing to change the Railway Act to force freight to yield to passenger service. That would mean that most services would be sped up.

Those railway tracks are owned by private companies providing services to their own customers, I don't see how you can reasonably ask the feds to intervene and force the railways to run their trains a certain way at a disadvantage to their own business operations.

The government used to have its own railway, and for whatever reason they sold it off. It no longer has a say in how the railways should operate their business.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by esquire

Those railway tracks are owned by private companies providing services to their own customers, I don't see how you can reasonably ask the feds to intervene and force the railways to run their trains a certain way at a disadvantage to their own business operations.

The government used to have its own railway, and for whatever reason they sold it off. It no longer has a say in how the railways should operate their business.

If there was only a way to explain this to Greg (“Crazy Greg”) Gormick and the media outlets which still give him coverage for whatever reason...

[esquire]

^ Who is Greg Gormick?

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Who is Greg Gormick?

A self-proclaimed “rail consultant” who believes that the government just needs to tell CN to “fuck off, please” and they will happily move from their own double-tracked Kingston onto CP’s single-tracked Belleville Sub:

5.2.4 Shannonville-NewcastleLineConsolidation

The largest corridor infrastructure project would consolidate and expand the capacity of the parallel CN and CP Montreal-Toronto lines from Shannonville, just east of Belleville, to the east side of Newcastle, at the CP siding known as Lovekin. The result would be a 71-mile, passenger-only line for VIA and an adjacent, freight-only line shared by CN and CP; both would be double-tracked.
This project would also allow for the elimination of CP’s route along Belleville’s waterfront, shiOing the CP freight traffic to the CN corridor north of downtown and eliminating 18 grade crossings within the city limits.

Combined with the triple-tracking VIA funded on the CN Kingston Subdivision as part of the 2007-2012 capital program, this project would greatly reduce freight conflicts and remove several speed restric=ons. With the separa=on of the passenger and freight traffic, and the elimination of all grade crossings, VIA would operate at 110 mph.

In combination with the previous improvements to the Kingston Subdivision and those to be undertaken elsewhere under The VIA 1-4-10 Plan, the Shannonville-Newcastle project would greatly assist in reducing VIA’s Toronto-OKawa and Toronto-Montreal running times by up to 30 minutes, making them much more air competitive.

This project is estimated to cost approximately $1 billion, with the total capital cost to be borne by VIA. A full EA would be required. As well, it would be contingent on gaining the approval of CN and CP, which would have no reason to contemplate a project of this nature based purely on their own freight operating needs.

One of the points that should help sell this project to the two freight railways is the potential reduction in costs that both would enjoy by consolidating their operations on a single, upgraded line that will involve no capital outlay on their part. CN would also benefit from not having to deal with any VIA-related conflicts and delays on what amounts to roughly one-fifth of its Montreal-Toronto route.

https://www.transportaction.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/VIA_1-4-10_Plan_Feb2016.pdf

[milomilo]

(Replying here instead of the transit thread)

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Who is your target?

Think of it this way, the Northlander used to be used for people going to Toronto for medical appointments. Those people are now getting a ride with someone as the bus is uncomfortable for them.

I do feel all VIA trains should be 1 a day, each way every day as a minimum.

VIA service should be looked more like transit and less like tourism.

The target would be anyone, but primarily people who can't afford or don't have a a car, and can't afford to fly. Yes a train does have the advantage of being a train, but in every other way a bus will be superior without massive, unjustified expenditure on infrastructure. A 1 train a day service would be garbage as well as being astronomically expensive, but a bus every hour or so is much more attractive.

The only routes that might justify investment in passenger rail for now are commuter routes around Calgary and Calgary - Edmonton.