VIA Rail

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

With the arguments presented by others, I decided it wasn't worth the time to try to advance my argument as it was already decided by others to be a non-valid point.

Please don't see others having opposing opinions as reason to not further the discussion. People grow when they have discussions with those with differing opinions. Just please try to minimize your assumptions and, where possible, back up your arguments with fact. Having a discussion with someone who won't listen to facts and reason and is basing their opinion on emotion is futile.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Please don't see others having opposing opinions as reason to not further the discussion. People grow when they have discussions with those with differing opinions. Just please try to minimize your assumptions and, where possible, back up your arguments with fact. Having a discussion with someone who won't listen to facts and reason and is basing their opinion on emotion is futile.

I don't think the bolded sentence describes me, or at least how I usually attempt to post (though I am human...).

I sometimes will toss out an idea that seems to hold some merit, almost in a brainstorming kind of methodology, and see what others think or comment about it. I don't expect agreement, nor do I reject disagreement necessarily.

However, I don't always have the time to go back and thoroughly research any point in order to attempt to disprove a statement by somebody who obviously has more experience or a higher degree of knowledge on a particular subject than I do. So, depending on the poster (if I'm familiar with their posts, and find them to be trustworthy based on other things of theirs that I've read), I will sometimes just take their word.

I have long had an interest in trains, but also see their value from a engineering/technical point of view, so I tend to be pro-train in my views. Perhaps that makes me a little biased, but I suspect (know, actually) that almost every poster on every messageboard brings their own personal biases to the table (as they should in a discussion type atmosphere).

In this case, I brought forth an idea that I thought had merit, it was immediately shot down by regular posters as almost being idiotic, and I did not have the time/energy to dig in and do some research to create a convincing argument backed up by facts, data, tables, diagrams, public opinions, psychological reports on the mental benefits of slower train travel, etc etc. So I dropped it, thinking that perhaps there was no merit to my suggestion, or that the majority of posters in this thread are closed minded and already think they know all the answers. In either case, it's not worth my time to create a rebuttal that would be accepted here.

Now, I've wasted too much time explaining myself, so...

No worries, it's just a messageboard, and I enjoy reading the discussions, and participating if I feel I have something to add, so no expectations, really. But if participation provides no value to myself or others, I won't bother...

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Please don't see others having opposing opinions as reason to not further the discussion. People grow when they have discussions with those with differing opinions. Just please try to minimize your assumptions and, where possible, back up your arguments with fact. Having a discussion with someone who won't listen to facts and reason and is basing their opinion on emotion is futile.

The problem is, people like you want to ignore most of the real facts and just use the ones that might fit your narrative.

Fact - there was a time that VIA operated both the current and southern Canadian lines.

Fact -one was canceled.

fact - the one chosen to be canceled was due to the other one running through the deciding MP's riding.

So.... argue away.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The problem is, people like you want to ignore most of the real facts and just use the ones that might fit your narrative.

Fact - there was a time that VIA operated both the current and southern Canadian lines.

Fact -one was canceled.

fact - the one chosen to be canceled was due to the other one running through the deciding MP's riding.

So.... argue away.

The problem is that you spread a long-debunked conspiracy theory because you can’t accept that the policy goal of minimizing VIA’s subsidy did make the CP route the obvious choice to cut, regardless of where the federal MPs at that time were seated, as I’ve explained previously to you:

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

I've indeed answered this question many times, but I'll try it again:


***

Why some routes are still served by VIA, whereas others aren't anymore


[...]


Transcontinental Mandate


[...]

This leaves 4 services (Ocean, Atlantic, Super-Continental and Canadian), of which 2 survive until today: the Ocean and the Canadian (though with the latter using the historic route of the Super-Continental).


But how did we get from these 4 full-scale transcontinental services to only 2? First, the overlapping branches of the Canadian and Super-Continental were rationalized in 1978 (at the expense of Ottawa-Capreol via CN and Toronto-Sudbury via CP) in order to stop operating two parallel branches, each, to Montreal and Toronto. Then, the Canadian (or at least its route) was eliminated in January 1990 (together with the Montreal branch). To understand this decision, one has first to acknowledge that VIA's mandate only specifies that it has to run a transcontinental service, but not at which exact route or frequency. This has been exploited by the federal government in 1989/90, by testing to the extreme how much VIA's operational expenses (and thus its federal subsidy) could be reduced without failing to deliver on its mandate.


[Regardless of whether] one agrees with the requirement to reduce VIA's transcontinental services (and its subsidy) to the bare minimum, this logic clearly favored focusing on one single route and ditching the CP route: West of Winnipeg, because the CN route connected with the Skeena, thus avoiding to extend that service to Edmonton and to either build a maintenance facility there or to pay CN market rates to either maintain VIA's equipment at their own facilities or to deadhead equipment across the country to VIA's other maintenance facilities (all of which would have needlessly escalated the operating costs). And east of Winnipeg, because it reduced the length over which a remote service would need to be operated (by only operating over one line, the remote sections of the other line would need to be covered by a separate remote service) from 1499 km (Capreol-Hornepayne-Winnipeg) to 484 km (Sudbury-White River, i.e. by two-thirds), which allowed the service to be operated with one single trainset formed by frugal RDC's rather than by two trainsets of HEP cars with sleeper facilities (given the scheduled travel time between Capreol and Winnipeg of approximately 24 hours).

To highlight this, I've extrapolated from VIA's current per-train-km subsidy figures what simply rerouting the Canadian onto CP route would cost and while it would save just over a $1 million in operating costs by itself, the obligation to extend the Skeena to Edmonton and run a separate Capreol-Winnipeg sleeper service (like between 1981 and 1990) would increase the annual subsidy need of all 3 services by $16.5 million (or more than a quarter):


Therefore, I'm inclined to agree with equire that the calculations which led to the decisions of which transcontinental route to keep was driven by cold mathematical considerations much more than by any political motivations.

Therefore, can we finally agree on the following?

Fact - the overarching policy goal of the 1990 cuts was to minimize VIA’s deficit as much as politically and legally feasible.

Fact - keeping the CP rather than the CN route would have increased VIA’s deficit and isolated the Skeena from the rest of VIA’s network.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Well, the southern route was dropped due to politics.

No, we keep saying that it was cut to save money.

So, maybe the strongest argument is the same - politics. Could you imagine if Trudeau said they would restore the southern route. Do you think the Conservatives would vote against it? With more unionized jobs, the NDP wouldn't dare vote against it either.

Given how expensive it would be, and its dependence on subsidies forever, the Conservatives would almost definitely vote against it.

What is the purpose of the train for the Corridor?

Transportation.

I would argue that it is time for VIA to look at all routes as transportation of people first and tourism second. That means that a delay is unacceptable.

The question is, how many billions of dollars would it take to fix it? In return, how many people benefit? HFR is expected to cost at least $4 billion for an 800km route (some of which VIA already owns) and serves a population base of close to 12 million people. These costs will be amortized over an planned 17 trains a day. The end result is expected to reduce if not eliminate annual subsidies for travel along the corridor.

The Canadian follows a 4500km route (and VIA doesn't own any of the track), which is about 5.5 times a long and serves a much smaller population base. Assuming the cost per km is the same (it would probably be more), you are looking at a cost of $22 billion for only 1 train a day at most? The economics just don't make sense.

Given that (as Urban_Sky calculated) the carbon footprint of the Canadian is about 194 g per pax km, which is about the same as flying from Toronto to Vancouver including high-altitude impacts (647,000g / 3,348.5 km = 193 g per pax km)ref. As a result, environmental benefits of long distance trains just aren't there.

Lets talk bigger. Lets talk Corridor, not just city pairs.
Windsor to Quebec City is 1161km
https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/windsor/q...3f0e83a03!2m2!1d-71.2079809!2d46.8138783
Calgary to Winnipeg is 1332km.
https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/Calgary,+...fac6b9ca64!2m2!1d-97.1383744!2d49.895136

The Western Corridor is less than 200km longer than the current Corridor.

Okay. Lets compare those two corridors. The eastern current corridor has the following CMAs (ignoring places like Hamilton and St. Catharines – Niagara which are just off of the main route).

• Toronto - 5,928,040
• Montreal - 4,098,927
• Ottawa–Gatineau - 1,323,783
• Quebec City - 800,296
• Kitchener–Cambridge–Waterloo - 523,894
• London - 494,069
• Oshawa - 379,848
• Windsor - 329,144
• Kingston - 161,175

Total: 14,039,176

Your proposed Western Corridor has the following CMAs:

• Calgary - 1,392,609
• Winnipeg - 778,489
• Regina - 236,481
• Lethbridge* - 117,394

Total: 2,524,973

* a stretch, but I will be generous.

The eastern corridor is still 5.5 times larger than your proposed western one, so my point still stands.

Calgary is bigger than Edmonton. Regina is about the same size as Saskatoon. So, the southern western Corridor makes sense.

Here are the populations:

• Calgary - 1,392,609
• Edmonton - 1,321,426
• Saskatoon - 295,095
• Regina - 236,481

Calgary is 71k larger than Edmonton and Saskatoon is 59k larger than Regina, so it all comes out in the wash. Maybe the other communities on the southern route are larger, but that is nickle and dimes compared to the CMAs.

Start with a train a day each way. Build it up. This head in the sand attitude is why nothing is happening.

That is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Where are the stats that justify the route's viability? Any stats Urban_sky or I provide are ignored and countered by a "wouldn't it be nice."

The Ocean and Canadian run about as often. However, the Canadian goes through a lot more larger population. So, why would the lower population run be more viable to be improved upon?

Not sure why, but people on the route seem to use it. Maybe it is because Montreal (at one end of the route) has a population of 4,098,927, and it is on the edge of the eastern corridor, which includes both Toronto and Ottawa.

But it is a very valid point. A line that shut down - the Northlander did have service daily... except on SUNDAYS!!! This means no one could use it for a weekend trip.

Not sure how that relates, but okay.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

fact - the one chosen to be canceled was due to the other one running through the deciding MP's riding.

That is a theory, not a fact. That it ran through his riding may be a fact, but it being the reason why it was kept is just a theory without evidence to prove otherwise.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I don't think the bolded sentence describes me, or at least how I usually attempt to post (though I am human...).

Sorry. I didn't intend to imply that.

In this case, I brought forth an idea that I thought had merit, it was immediately shot down by regular posters as almost being idiotic, and I did not have the time/energy to dig in and do some research to create a convincing argument backed up by facts, data, tables, diagrams, public opinions, psychological reports on the mental benefits of slower train travel, etc etc. So I dropped it, thinking that perhaps there was no merit to my suggestion, or that the majority of posters in this thread are closed minded and already think they know all the answers. In either case, it's not worth my time to create a rebuttal that would be accepted here.

I am sorry about that.

Now, I've wasted too much time explaining myself, so...

Sometimes it is good to clear the air.

No worries, it's just a messageboard, and I enjoy reading the discussions, and participating if I feel I have something to add, so no expectations, really. But if participation provides no value to myself or others, I won't bother...

I hope you do feel free to contribute. I value multiple opinions, especially if they are well researched.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Sorry. I didn't intend to imply that.



I am sorry about that.



Sometimes it is good to clear the air.



I hope you do feel free to contribute. I value multiple opinions, especially if they are well researched.

Thanks for your replies, and no worries... I will contribute when/if I feel I have something to add that is interesting/valuable or has not already been covered here. At the moment I don't really have the time and headspace to dig into it that deeply.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

No, we keep saying that it was cut to save money.

Yes, a line had to be removed to save money. The one that serves more people was the one that was cut.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Given how expensive it would be, and its dependence on subsidies forever, the Conservatives would almost definitely vote against it.

So, they would vote down something that the government would do for that area? The would lose some support, which might see a smaller margin for some ridings.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Transportation.

Then why is it that we keep hearing that Canadian is for tourists? Why not focus on transportation first and tourism second?

Originally Posted by roger1818

The question is, how many billions of dollars would it take to fix it? In return, how many people benefit? HFR is expected to cost at least $4 billion for an 800km route (some of which VIA already owns) and serves a population base of close to 12 million people. These costs will be amortized over an planned 17 trains a day. The end result is expected to reduce if not eliminate annual subsidies for travel along the corridor.

The Canadian follows a 4500km route (and VIA doesn't own any of the track), which is about 5.5 times a long and serves a much smaller population base. Assuming the cost per km is the same (it would probably be more), you are looking at a cost of $22 billion for only 1 train a day at most? The economics just don't make sense.

Given that (as Urban_Sky calculated) the carbon footprint of the Canadian is about 194 g per pax km, which is about the same as flying from Toronto to Vancouver including high-altitude impacts (647,000g / 3,348.5 km = 193 g per pax km)ref. As a result, environmental benefits of long distance trains just aren't there.

I have never proposed HFR. In fact, I have been pounding the idea of a daily service.

The economics of all of the lines tells us that they all should be canceled. They should also shut down all transit period. They are not profitable.

But then neither is the roads and highways too.

Maybe it is more than just profit to concern about.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Okay. Lets compare those two corridors. The eastern current corridor has the following CMAs (ignoring places like Hamilton and St. Catharines – Niagara which are just off of the main route).

• Toronto - 5,928,040
• Montreal - 4,098,927
• Ottawa–Gatineau - 1,323,783
• Quebec City - 800,296
• Kitchener–Cambridge–Waterloo - 523,894
• London - 494,069
• Oshawa - 379,848
• Windsor - 329,144
• Kingston - 161,175

Total: 14,039,176

Your proposed Western Corridor has the following CMAs:

• Calgary - 1,392,609
• Winnipeg - 778,489
• Regina - 236,481
• Lethbridge* - 117,394

Total: 2,524,973

* a stretch, but I will be generous.

The eastern corridor is still 5.5 times larger than your proposed western one, so my point still stands.



Here are the populations:

• Calgary - 1,392,609
• Edmonton - 1,321,426
• Saskatoon - 295,095
• Regina - 236,481

Calgary is 71k larger than Edmonton and Saskatoon is 59k larger than Regina, so it all comes out in the wash. Maybe the other communities on the southern route are larger, but that is nickle and dimes compared to the CMAs.

That is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Where are the stats that justify the route's viability? Any stats Urban_sky or I provide are ignored and countered by a "wouldn't it be nice."

Not sure why, but people on the route seem to use it. Maybe it is because Montreal (at one end of the route) has a population of 4,098,927, and it is on the edge of the eastern corridor, which includes both Toronto and Ottawa.

Not sure how that relates, but okay.

Show me the stats for rail travel that shows the southern route was the worst one. In fact, Urban Sky posted that it was less of a deficit than the CN route. Tells me it wasn't just money. It was politics too.

Originally Posted by roger1818

That is a theory, not a fact. That it ran through his riding may be a fact, but it being the reason why it was kept is just a theory without evidence to prove otherwise.

Actually, it was proven that the CP route was running less of a deficit than the CN route. That points to something other than money.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I don't think the bolded sentence describes me, or at least how I usually attempt to post (though I am human...).

I sometimes will toss out an idea that seems to hold some merit, almost in a brainstorming kind of methodology, and see what others think or comment about it. I don't expect agreement, nor do I reject disagreement necessarily.

However, I don't always have the time to go back and thoroughly research any point in order to attempt to disprove a statement by somebody who obviously has more experience or a higher degree of knowledge on a particular subject than I do. So, depending on the poster (if I'm familiar with their posts, and find them to be trustworthy based on other things of theirs that I've read), I will sometimes just take their word.

I have long had an interest in trains, but also see their value from a engineering/technical point of view, so I tend to be pro-train in my views. Perhaps that makes me a little biased, but I suspect (know, actually) that almost every poster on every messageboard brings their own personal biases to the table (as they should in a discussion type atmosphere).

In this case, I brought forth an idea that I thought had merit, it was immediately shot down by regular posters as almost being idiotic, and I did not have the time/energy to dig in and do some research to create a convincing argument backed up by facts, data, tables, diagrams, public opinions, psychological reports on the mental benefits of slower train travel, etc etc. So I dropped it, thinking that perhaps there was no merit to my suggestion, or that the majority of posters in this thread are closed minded and already think they know all the answers. In either case, it's not worth my time to create a rebuttal that would be accepted here.

Now, I've wasted too much time explaining myself, so...

No worries, it's just a messageboard, and I enjoy reading the discussions, and participating if I feel I have something to add, so no expectations, really. But if participation provides no value to myself or others, I won't bother...

There are posters on this board that I wouldn't feel guilty about calling an idiot, but you definitely are not one of them, so apologies if I came off that way. There are times when this thread has been like banging one's head against a brick wall, especially since we have someone that openly works for VIA and has gone to great length of explaining why decisions were made. So some might be lacking in patience.

I too love trains, so I don't criticise rail ideas because of some anti rail bias. In fact, it's because I see the value in rail that I only want the government to build rail projects that give good value for money. If they build crap, then it decreases the likelihood more will be built in the future.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by milomilo

There are posters on this board that I wouldn't feel guilty about calling an idiot, but you definitely are not one of them, so apologies if I came off that way. There are times when this thread has been like banging one's head against a brick wall, especially since we have someone that openly works for VIA and has gone to great length of explaining why decisions were made. So some might be lacking in patience.

I too love trains, so I don't criticise rail ideas because of some anti rail bias. In fact, it's because I see the value in rail that I only want the government to build rail projects that give good value for money. If they build crap, then it decreases the likelihood more will be built in the future.

I full heatedly agree on all points. I to love rail transport and while it might be nice to go back to the glory days of transcontinental and regional rail service, there is limited money and it needs to be spent where you can get the best bang for the buck.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Yes, a line had to be removed to save money. The one that serves more people was the one that was cut.

As I pointed out, it only serves marginally more people (at least today).

So, they would vote down something that the government would do for that area? The would lose some support, which might see a smaller margin for some ridings.

How much local support would there actually be? Most conservatives don't care about trains and are more concerned about fiscal responsibility.

Then why is it that we keep hearing that Canadian is for tourists? Why not focus on transportation first and tourism second?

Because the vast majority of those riding the Canadian are tourists. On the corridor, the vast majority are using it as a form of transportation. There is some wisdom in focusing on your largest customer base to keep them happy and grow the base.

I have never proposed HFR. In fact, I have been pounding the idea of a daily service.

Okay. You were comparing it to the eastern corridor, which has multiple trains a day, so I tried to do an apples to apples comparison.

As I said before:

Originally Posted by roger1818

Some might suggest reducing the number of trains in a day to have everyone travelling in the same day to take the same train, but if you decrease the frequency of service, it makes it less convenient, and a large number of people would otherwise have taken the train, would find a different option. VIA has actually noticed on their Ottawa-Toronto corridor, that increasing the number of trains by x% results in a greater than x% increase in passengers (obviously there are limits to this, but it holds true when going from what is perceived as infrequent to frequent service). Conversely, decreasing the the number of trains by y% will result in a greater than y% reduction in passengers.

VIA does operate a daily train from Toronto to Niagara. It isn't a great comparison, as it is only 130km, but it is the best I can find on the current schedule. The populations are as follows:

• Toronto - 5,928,040
• St. Catharines–Niagara - 406,074

(I ignored Hamilton as it is so close and has GO service).

That is a total population of 6,334,114. If you compare that to the 1,014,970 I previously showed for Winnipeg-Regina, Toronto-Niagara has 6 times the population. According to Urban_Sky's earlier post, the average pax-load on the Toronto-Niagara route is 70. If we divide that by 6, we would get an average pax-load of only 12.

I realize this isn't a great comparison because of the differences in distances, but you also have to realize that Niagara Falls is a major, international, tourist destination and Toronto is a major, international transportation hub, which neither Winnipeg or Regina are, so that will add to the demand.

The economics of all of the lines tells us that they all should be canceled. They should also shut down all transit period. They are not profitable.

But then neither is the roads and highways too.

I am not suggesting they need to be profitable, but in places where the bus is a greener, cheaper, and faster option, the arguments for rail service don't make sense. To make rail the greener, cheaper, and faster option, you need a lot of passengers.

Maybe it is more than just profit to concern about.

I agree. But you have yet to provide what those other considerations are in the case of a Winnipeg-Regina-Calgary rail corridor.

Show me the stats for rail travel that shows the southern route was the worst one. In fact, Urban Sky posted that it was less of a deficit than the CN route. Tells me it wasn't just money. It was politics too.

Actually, it was proven that the CP route was running less of a deficit than the CN route. That points to something other than money.

You are cherry picking Urban_Sky's figures. You need to look at the big picture. On its own operated at a slightly lower deficit, but when combined with added costs to the Skeena that would result from cancellation of the northern route, overall, cancelling the southern route saved VIA Rail more money.

[Mister F]

Establishing a new Via line between Calgary and Winnipeg isn't necessarily a bad idea, but we shouldn't be cancelling other projects to make it happen as people on here have argued for in the past. If HFR is successful then other new routes become more likely.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Okay. Lets compare those two corridors. The eastern current corridor has the following CMAs (ignoring places like Hamilton and St. Catharines – Niagara which are just off of the main route).

• Toronto - 5,928,040
• Montreal - 4,098,927
• Ottawa–Gatineau - 1,323,783
• Quebec City - 800,296
• Kitchener–Cambridge–Waterloo - 523,894
• London - 494,069
• Oshawa - 379,848
• Windsor - 329,144
• Kingston - 161,175

Total: 14,039,176

Your proposed Western Corridor has the following CMAs:

• Calgary - 1,392,609
• Winnipeg - 778,489
• Regina - 236,481
• Lethbridge* - 117,394

Total: 2,524,973

* a stretch, but I will be generous.

The eastern corridor is still 5.5 times larger than your proposed western one, so my point still stands.

Hamilton and Brantford are on the main Via line to southwestern Ontario (although it only goes through the outskirts of Hamilton). Belleville is now a CMA. Peterborough and Trois-Rivieres are on the proposed HFR route. And short feeder lines (both GO and Via) serve Niagara and Barrie. That adds almost 2 million people to your number.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by milomilo

There are posters on this board that I wouldn't feel guilty about calling an idiot, but you definitely are not one of them, so apologies if I came off that way. There are times when this thread has been like banging one's head against a brick wall, especially since we have someone that openly works for VIA and has gone to great length of explaining why decisions were made. So some might be lacking in patience.

I too love trains, so I don't criticise rail ideas because of some anti rail bias. In fact, it's because I see the value in rail that I only want the government to build rail projects that give good value for money. If they build crap, then it decreases the likelihood more will be built in the future.

Thanks for your note. I better understand your point of view, for certain.

Looking back, there were a number of holes in my 'proposal' that deservedly should have been pointed out - I didn't really have the time to put together a decent post on that day (which is why I hurriedly included an article from Europe)... so totally justified and understood. I became frustrated at the time but often reflection can reveal the real truth...

I will continue read this thread - it is actually fascinating to learn about the processes and details involved with operating a large scale rail service.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Establishing a new Via line between Calgary and Winnipeg isn't necessarily a bad idea, but we shouldn't be cancelling other projects to make it happen as people on here have argued for in the past. If HFR is successful then other new routes become more likely.

I'm not going to disagree with you, but it would be quite low on the priority list though, with Calgary-Edmonton being much higher. I do agree that HFR should be the top priority to get a win under VIA's belt.

Hamilton and Brantford are on the main Via line to southwestern Ontario (although it only goes through the outskirts of Hamilton).

Agreed, along with Gwelph. I discarded them because to do an apples to apples comparison, I needed to pick one branch, so I picked the northern one. I likely would have ended up with similar results if I picked the southern branch.

Belleville is now a CMA.

True. I thought I had included it, but I somehow missed it.

Peterborough and Trois-Rivieres are on the proposed HFR route.

I chose to follow the existing route (once again I picked a branch).

And short feeder lines (both GO and Via) serve Niagara and Barrie. That adds almost 2 million people to your number.

If you want to add feeder routes, then yes, but ratio between corridors was high enough as it was. I didn't want to have to get into potential feeder routes on the other corridor.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

As I pointed out, it only serves marginally more people (at least today).

In 1991
Calgary 710,795
Edmonton 616,741

Regina 179,178
Saskatoon 186,058

Southern route 889,973
Northern Route 802,799

The northern route in just 2 of their major cities has 87,174 LESS people. This is a FACT

Originally Posted by roger1818

How much local support would there actually be? Most conservatives don't care about trains and are more concerned about fiscal responsibility.

You are right, most don't. However, those that are moderates that gave Trudeau the majority out there might. Do you think the Conservatives want to loose those votes and potentially those seats?

Originally Posted by roger1818

Because the vast majority of those riding the Canadian are tourists. On the corridor, the vast majority are using it as a form of transportation. There is some wisdom in focusing on your largest customer base to keep them happy and grow the base.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Okay. You were comparing it to the eastern corridor, which has multiple trains a day, so I tried to do an apples to apples comparison.

As I said before:VIA does operate a daily train from Toronto to Niagara. It isn't a great comparison, as it is only 130km, but it is the best I can find on the current schedule. The populations are as follows:

• Toronto - 5,928,040
• St. Catharines–Niagara - 406,074

(I ignored Hamilton as it is so close and has GO service).

That is a total population of 6,334,114. If you compare that to the 1,014,970 I previously showed for Winnipeg-Regina, Toronto-Niagara has 6 times the population. According to Urban_Sky's earlier post, the average pax-load on the Toronto-Niagara route is 70. If we divide that by 6, we would get an average pax-load of only 12.

I realize this isn't a great comparison because of the differences in distances, but you also have to realize that Niagara Falls is a major, international, tourist destination and Toronto is a major, international transportation hub, which neither Winnipeg or Regina are, so that will add to the demand.

Well, now GO does too. In fact the services are the same between Hamilton and Niagara Falls as far as stations.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I am not suggesting they need to be profitable, but in places where the bus is a greener, cheaper, and faster option, the arguments for rail service don't make sense. To make rail the greener, cheaper, and faster option, you need a lot of passengers.

Cheaper is the same argument for profitable.

I suspect that frequency and delays are the reason that the longer route. I have talked about how a friend who wants to use the train to visit me cannot as the Canadain is lined up not to meet any inbound VIA trains in Toronto.

Also, a line that got canceled; the Northlander had no Sunday service. It ran 6 days a week. This means that using it on the weekends was not possible.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree. But you have yet to provide what those other considerations are in the case of a Winnipeg-Regina-Calgary rail corridor.

Population is and was higher.
There was less of a deficit on the southern line.

Originally Posted by roger1818

You are cherry picking Urban_Sky's figures. You need to look at the big picture. On its own operated at a slightly lower deficit, but when combined with added costs to the Skeena that would result from cancellation of the northern route, overall, cancelling the southern route saved VIA Rail more money.

Added costs? Like what? A train that does not meet others? Well, the Sudbury -White River train that goes by my house does not connect with any other train, even though the Canadian does go within 10km of the route.

You like to cherry pick too.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Establishing a new Via line between Calgary and Winnipeg isn't necessarily a bad idea, but we shouldn't be cancelling other projects to make it happen as people on here have argued for in the past. If HFR is successful then other new routes become more likely.


Hamilton and Brantford are on the main Via line to southwestern Ontario (although it only goes through the outskirts of Hamilton). Belleville is now a CMA. Peterborough and Trois-Rivieres are on the proposed HFR route. And short feeder lines (both GO and Via) serve Niagara and Barrie. That adds almost 2 million people to your number.

VIA does not serve Barrie.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

VIA does not serve Barrie.

I think he meant GO for Barrie.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I think he meant GO for Barrie.

I hope so. Many might be mistaken to think that VIA stops there.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I hope so. Many might be mistaken to think that VIA stops there.

Why would that be consequential anyways? It's a city of 200 000 people, and regardless is connected to the intercity rail network.