VIA Rail

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yes, I'm only using the loosest interpretation of the word for argument's sake.

What's important is that; if government support/subsidies/protection for both air and for rail were lowered, that would highly favour air travel vs rail. Ticket prices on domestic airlines would become lower, while rail would become effectively unviable.

That's not to say I think we shouldn't subsidise rail, just the argument needs to be made in a factual way.

But there are no subsidies (as that word is understood) on air travel. The airports, navigation, security, and costs of the flight are all fully paid by users (along with the airport rent).

Even if the barriers to foreign competition were lowered, I doubt the ticket prices would come down much. Ryanair (and similar airlines) are able to offer cheap fares because they get subsidies from the EU or local authorities to use airports in the middle of nowhere (and then use fake names to make people think these airports are actually distant cities). In Canada this business model has not gained much traction.

[ghYHZ]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Yeah I should correct myself there, when I said "rinkydink," I was broadly sweeping all the towns. Though of course I do know that Saguenay is over 160 000 people. However, that really is the only considerable sized city routes on any of the 4 random routes that the east gets.

The remote service is not running specifically to serve Saguenay per say......but it provides a link for the settlements without any other access between the end of the road network near Riviere a Pierre and Lac Bouchette. Passengers can travel into the larger communities (Jonquiere etc) for supplies, medical appointments etc.

Same for Senneterre and no different than Sudbury being the endpoint for the remote service between there and White River.

Here's a trip report for a ride I took on the 'Saguenay' several years ago:

http://www.railroad.net/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=59982&p=647749&hilit

The Canadian also provides access to remote communities. Look at the schedule (link below) and the number of stops across northern Ontario to get those residents into Capreol, Hornepayne, Sioux Lookout etc......compared to other areas along it's route that DO have road access.

https://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/m...41_Toronto-Winnipeg-Jasper-Vancouver.pdf

Some other remote services are The Pas – Churchill, The Pas – Pukatawagan, Sept Iles – Schefferville, Cochrane - Moosonee.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Remote rail service is provided where there is no road alternative, as simple as that. The Calgary-Edmonton route did not have enough passengers to be viable when it was cancelled. Remote service is subsidized, while interurban service needs to have reasonable cost recovery. They are two different things.

As discussed earlier in this thread, that is not the reason the service was cancelled. It was cancelled because of local pressure to have it cancelled due to several fatal train-car collisions. A better option would have been to upgrade the most dangerous crossings, but the the government at the time was wanting to reduce spending, not increase it.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by roger1818

As discussed earlier in this thread, that is not the reason the service was cancelled. It was cancelled because of local pressure to have it cancelled due to several fatal train-car collisions. A better option would have been to upgrade the most dangerous crossings, but the the government at the time was wanting to reduce spending, not increase it.

I have to say that even though I think trains are an innefficient and unfair way to provide resources to low demand routes, it still would usually be better off keeping them in some way than scrapping them completely (I'm not actually as absolute as my posts come off as). As soon as you scrap the route, then the capacity is filled, the demand finds another mode of transport and the case for reinstating passenger rail evaporates. Had different decisions been made in Alberta, and passenger rail muddled through we might be talking today about incremental upgrades that build on each other. Instead we have to start from scratch.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But there are no subsidies (as that word is understood) on air travel. The airports, navigation, security, and costs of the flight are all fully paid by users (along with the airport rent).

Even if the barriers to foreign competition were lowered, I doubt the ticket prices would come down much. Ryanair (and similar airlines) are able to offer cheap fares because they get subsidies from the EU or local authorities to use airports in the middle of nowhere (and then use fake names to make people think these airports are actually distant cities). In Canada this business model has not gained much traction.

Honestly I agree, just wanted to point out there is likely no downward subsidy pressure on airline ticket prices. Except perhaps low fuel taxes, but I doubt VIA is paying much either.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Honestly I agree, just wanted to point out there is likely no downward subsidy pressure on airline ticket prices. Except perhaps low fuel taxes, but I doubt VIA is paying much either.

Fuel is a much more significant portion of an airline's budget than a railway's budget. The problem is Canada is dependant on aviation more than most countries because of our size, location and population distribution:

1. We need international flights to promote business and tourism. Yes this is true for most countries, but given the average distance visitors will be travelling to visit us is further, aviation is more important here than for most (though there are exceptions like Australia). European countries have many large, foreign cities within a short drive/train ride.
2. As the second largest country, with most of our population spread out along our southern boarder, distances for domestic travel are large and aviation is the most feasible/affordable way for people to travel. On the flip side, this means that rail transport is far more economical for freight transport here for exactly the same reason (unlike passengers where labour costs are continuous, for freight, most labour costs are only when you need to "touch" it).
3. We have many small, northern communities without access to good roads, that rely on aviation for the transport of both people and goods.

As a result, aviation is arguably more important for Canada than most countries (yes there may be exceptions). As a result, governments are very leery about making changes that might disrupt the airlines' business model. I am not saying that we shouldn't make changes, but you can see why governments aren't rushing in to increase fuel taxes on airlines.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Fuel is a much more significant portion of an airline's budget than a railway's budget. The problem is Canada is dependant on aviation more than most countries because of our size, location and population distribution:

1. We need international flights to promote business and tourism. Yes this is true for most countries, but given the average distance visitors will be travelling to visit us is further, aviation is more important here than for most (though there are exceptions like Australia). European countries have many large, foreign cities within a short drive/train ride.
2. As the second largest country, with most of our population spread out along our southern boarder, distances for domestic travel are large and aviation is the most feasible/affordable way for people to travel. On the flip side, this means that rail transport is far more economical for freight transport here for exactly the same reason (unlike passengers where labour costs are continuous, for freight, most labour costs are only when you need to "touch" it).
3. We have many small, northern communities without access to good roads, that rely on aviation for the transport of both people and goods.

As a result, aviation is arguably more important for Canada than most countries (yes there may be exceptions). As a result, governments are very leery about making changes that might disrupt the airlines' business model. I am not saying that we shouldn't make changes, but you can see why governments aren't rushing in to increase fuel taxes on airlines.

Put a snowstorm in and then air travel becomes a challenge at best, but the trains have minimal problems.

[Nouvellecosse]

Great, so if there's ever a case where flights from Winnipeg to Calgary are delayed due to a snow storm, if there was rail service people would be able to use the train as an alternative! Except that it's over 1300km between them to a train at speeds similar to the highway would take 13 hours. Even if the departures schedule worked out perfectly and you didn't have to wait many hours for the next train, it's unlikely that you'd get there any faster than if you just waited for flights to resume.

The point Roger was making is that with the huge distances in this country, many trips are made by air because rail or highway simply aren't well suited to them. There are exceptions of course. You could argue that in the Corridor one could reasonably use all three options. Perhaps you were advocating for improved service there? Yes... i"m sure that was it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

….aviation is arguably more important for Canada than most countries (yes there may be exceptions). As a result, governments are very leery about making changes that might disrupt the airlines' business model. I am not saying that we shouldn't make changes, but you can see why governments aren't rushing in to increase fuel taxes on airlines.

Unlike other countries, aviation is a moneymaker for Canadian governments. It's the only transport sector that pays its bills and then some.

Since 1992, when Ottawa began transferring responsibility for operating large airports to local groups, Ottawa has become hooked on revenue from air terminals, according to the committee. From 1992 through 2009, the 14 leading Canadian airports paid a total of $3.3-billion in rent to Ottawa, plus those facilities have invested billions of dollars over the years in new buildings, runways and other infrastructure.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o...enate-panel-urges-ottawa/article4232748/

Before the Conservatives were elected in Ontario, this was the provincial Liberals:

In 2014 the Government of Ontario made the decision to phase in a 148 per cent increase to Ontario’s aviation fuel tax.

Now at 6.7 cents per litre, Ontario has the highest provincial aviation fuel tax in the country–more than double the aviation fuel tax in any other province, and it applies to all flights: domestic, international and transborder.

https://www.skiesmag.com/press-releases/...uncil-lobbies-ontario-aviation-fuel-tax/

The Ford PCs cut the aviation fuel tax (paid on top of carbon taxes) by nearly 60% for Northern Ontario only. But this is not a minor issues given one of North America's largest hubs is in Toronto and 3 of the 10 busiest passenger airports, and two of the busiest cargo airports are in Ontario.

This is why the idea that aviation is subsidized is pure ignorance. It's some random American/European talking point applied in Canada without any context. And since there aren't really any subsidies to cut, there's not much that could impact prices. Liberalization may slightly lower prices if anything. But it won't substantially change the comparison to rail.

What's needed for rail is actual investment to create and operate services where economically viable. Hopefully, HFR proves this along the Corridor and they can then duplicate this in the Calgary-Edmonton corridor.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The point Roger was making is that with the huge distances in this country, many trips are made by air because rail or highway simply aren't well suited to them.

This isn't just a Canadian thing. Rail has a certain sweetspot that's been demonstrated elsewhere. Beyond a normal comfortable driving distance and less than a distance where flying becomes more practical. Generally about 300-800km for standard rail (closer to what we'd get with HFR) and maybe closer 1000 km on the upper end with high speed rail.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Great, so if there's ever a case where flights from Winnipeg to Calgary are delayed due to a snow storm, if there was rail service people would be able to use the train as an alternative! Except that it's over 1300km between them to a train at speeds similar to the highway would take 13 hours. Even if the departures schedule worked out perfectly and you didn't have to wait many hours for the next train, it's unlikely that you'd get there any faster than if you just waited for flights to resume.

Exactly! Unless the distances and population justify fast frequent rail service, rail isn't a viable backup plan for bad weather. In most cases you will be better off waiting for the storm to pass.

I also dispute swimmer_spe's acertain that trains have minimal problems in a snow storm. Sure in most cases the train will get through where other modes of transport are cancelled, but even then, the train will often be delayed.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This isn't just a Canadian thing. Rail has a certain sweetspot that's been demonstrated elsewhere. Beyond a normal comfortable driving distance and less than a distance where flying becomes more practical. Generally about 300-800km for standard rail (closer to what we'd get with HFR) and maybe closer 1000 km on the upper end with high speed rail.

The sweetspot of rail itself isn't a Canadian thing. What is a Canadian thing is that few of our popular origin/destination pairs are in the sweetspot of rail.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Exactly! Unless the distances and population justify fast frequent rail service, rail isn't a viable backup plan for bad weather. In most cases you will be better off waiting for the storm to pass.

I also dispute swimmer_spe's acertain that trains have minimal problems in a snow storm. Sure in most cases the train will get through where other modes of transport are cancelled, but even then, the train will often be delayed.



The sweetspot of rail itself isn't a Canadian thing. What is a Canadian thing is that few of our popular origin/destination pairs are in the sweetspot of rail.

People always seem to forget how concentrated our population is. The entire Windsor-Quebec corridor, which includes most of our population, is in the sweet spot for rail. So is Calgary-Edmonton. So it's not so much how few city pairs are in that sweet spot, but how little of our population isn't.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

When was a Corridor train late by more than a few hours?
If outside of the corridor all mainlines were double tracked, it would not only be good for Via on time, but also allow the freight carrier to move more goods.

It is all relative. A delay of a couple hours on a 4 hour trip (about the Toronto-Ottawa travel time) is a 50% delay. That would be equivalent a 48 hour delay on the Canadian. Back in the 90's the fastest train between Toronto and Montreal was 3:59. Now, due to higher freight traffic, the fastest trip is 4:49. That is about a 20% reduction in speed. Not that far off the reduction in speed to the Canadian.

[Dengler Avenue]

VIA’s temporarily laying 1000 people off due to blockade.

[Nouvellecosse]

Trains wouldn't be delayed as often by the route becoming impassable since being on a fixed guideway eliminates the issue of slippery surfaces making it slide off course or a lack of visibility not allowing the operator to "steer" in the right direction. But there are issues with things like employees getting to work if roads get too bad for them to safely get to/from the station, or even if there are just significant delays caused by traffic. It's possible that the station might not even be able to function normally. I don't know what it's like in the rest of the country, but here, when there's any significant amount of snowfall there are always major traffic problems. And if it's an outright storm, the buses often stop running and police request people stay off the roads if possible. Maybe the rest of the country is just more rugged.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Mister F

People always seem to forget how concentrated our population is. The entire Windsor-Quebec corridor, which includes most of our population, is in the sweet spot for rail. So is Calgary-Edmonton. So it's not so much how few city pairs are in that sweet spot, but how little of our population isn't.

Exactly. That is why I said (and underlined) "popular city pairs." We might have lots of cities within that range, but how much travel is there between them. The exceptions are the Windsor-Quebec corridor and Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton. Even Vancouver-Calgary (a popular city pair) is approaching 1000 km and with all the mountains in between, anything approaching high speed would be very expensive.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Mister F

People always seem to forget how concentrated our population is. The entire Windsor-Quebec corridor, which includes most of our population, is in the sweet spot for rail. So is Calgary-Edmonton. So it's not so much how few city pairs are in that sweet spot, but how little of our population isn't.

Yep! And this is exactly why HFR is critical to VIA's long term survival. It needs to make itself relevant to most of the population. Hopefully, after HFR in The Corridor, they do the same for Calgary-Edmonton. Though admittedly, it's more difficult to pull off over there.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Great, so if there's ever a case where flights from Winnipeg to Calgary are delayed due to a snow storm, if there was rail service people would be able to use the train as an alternative! Except that it's over 1300km between them to a train at speeds similar to the highway would take 13 hours. Even if the departures schedule worked out perfectly and you didn't have to wait many hours for the next train, it's unlikely that you'd get there any faster than if you just waited for flights to resume.

I don't think anyone here was discussing a line from Calgary to Winnipeg in this conversation, it's been about re-establishing train service on the Alberta Corridor and from Calgary to Banff. Essentially Edmonton to Banff passing through downtown Calgary.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I don't think anyone here was discussing a line from Calgary to Winnipeg in this conversation, it's been about re-establishing train service on the Alberta Corridor and from Calgary to Banff. Essentially Edmonton to Banff passing through downtown Calgary.

The HFR plan takes advantage of an old unused rail corridor. Is there anything similar that could be used between Calgary and Edmonton? I've read the provincial reports on high speed rail. Even something like HFR would be several billion dollars. Would that have a business case with only 3 million?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

It is all relative. A delay of a couple hours on a 4 hour trip (about the Toronto-Ottawa travel time) is a 50% delay. That would be equivalent a 48 hour delay on the Canadian. Back in the 90's the fastest train between Toronto and Montreal was 3:59. Now, due to higher freight traffic, the fastest trip is 4:49. That is about a 20% reduction in speed. Not that far off the reduction in speed to the Canadian.

Around Christmas, the Canadian was actually 48 hours late at one point due to engine failures. Now, if they separated services at Winnipeg, they could have kept some of it on time.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Exactly. That is why I said (and underlined) "popular city pairs." We might have lots of cities within that range, but how much travel is there between them. The exceptions are the Windsor-Quebec corridor and Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton. Even Vancouver-Calgary (a popular city pair) is approaching 1000 km and with all the mountains in between, anything approaching high speed would be very expensive.

Right now, Calgary is isolated from the passenger rail network. Even returning regular rail passenger service to it would be a good start.

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I don't think anyone here was discussing a line from Calgary to Winnipeg in this conversation, it's been about re-establishing train service on the Alberta Corridor and from Calgary to Banff. Essentially Edmonton to Banff passing through downtown Calgary.

Actually, I am someone who will argue for a return of the old CP The Canadian route. Why should the cities in the Prairies be ignored?