VIA Rail

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

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

That is only a 10% difference. I would consider that only marginally more populous.

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?

When Pierre Poilievre came to my door about a year ago, I asked him about HFR. He hadn't even heard of it and seemed only concerned about what the annual subsidy would be.

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

Yes they now do serve Niagara Falls, but they didn't at the time those stats were generated.

Cheaper is the same argument for profitable.

You are missing the point. For those routes the bus would be better on almost every front so why do so desperately want vastly inferior service?

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.

We keep saying he could take the bus and your only counter argument was that he wants to ride "The Canadian." If he is so desperate to ride that train, he can either do like most do and take a hotel or if he can't afford that, he can take the 9:00pm Greyhound (via Ottawa) that gets in at 6:00am.

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.

You keep saying that and I don't know what that has anything to do with the topic at hand. It is like you are spewing out random, unrelated "facts."

Population is and was higher.

By only 10%

There was less of a deficit on the southern line.

By 2.5% ((48,937 - 47,775) / 47,775)

Added costs? Like what? A train that does not meet others?

Extending the Skeena to Edmonton, or do you think having it end at Jasper (population 4,590) without any connection would serve its users well enough?

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.

As you say, Sudbury Station and Sudbury Jct are less than 10km apart (an easy taxi or Uber ride). Jasper Station is 360km from Edmonton Station and over 400km from Calgary.

I agree that it would be nice if the White River train could be extended to Sudbury Jct, but the track layout doesn't currently work well for that (the CN and CP lines cross but don't connect near the airport).

I guess one option would be to move Sudbury Jct Station there and have 2 stations on separate tracks, but then there is the issue of aligning the schedules.

If you travel around the world, you will find many cities have multiple stations and require you to find your own way between them if you want to make a transfer.

You like to cherry pick too.

Give me an example. I try not to.

[Chadillaccc]

10% is fairly significant when talking about mid-sized populations like that, and you're not taking into consideration the key attraction along the southern route being Banff National Park, which even without rail sees about 2x as many visitors per year than Jasper (4.2 million vs. 2.4 million). Another addition to the stronger economic and population case for the southern route.

The end of the story is, them cancelling the southern route over the northern route really makes no sense, but the entire argument/conversation is inconsequential because without frequent service between the major cities (Edmonton and Calgary), the every-other-day service of either corridor would be virtually useless, as it is today.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

10% is fairly significant when talking about mid-sized populations like that,

I think we will have to agree to disagree on that one. It isn't irrelevent, but I wouldn't call it "fairly significant" either.

and you're not taking into consideration the key attraction along the southern route being Banff National Park, which even without rail sees about 2x as many visitors per year than Jasper (4.2 million vs. 2.4 million). Another addition to the stronger economic and population case for the southern route.

True, though:

1. It is west of Calgary. swimmer_spe was talking about east of Calgary (between it and Winnipeg).
2. I would argue it would be better served with dedicated service than as a stop on an infrequent long distance train.

The end of the story is, them cancelling the southern route over the northern route really makes no sense, but the entire argument/conversation is inconsequential because without frequent service between the major cities (Edmonton and Calgary), the every-other-day service of either corridor would be virtually useless, as it is today.

There are pros and cons. In many ways I agree the southern route would have been better if the objective was to provide the best service. However, the objective was to minimize operating expenditure.

Rereading post #804, another added cost to the Skeena if they had kept the southern route instead is increased maintenance costs. Currently, when a car or engine needs maintenance, they can just bring a new one in on the Canadian and take the old one away the same way. The cost to VIA for doing this would be minimal.

With the northern route abandoned, they would have to pay (likely CN) to have them shipped (or pay to deadhead it) to/from the maintenance yard. Those costs would certainly add up.

I am not sure how maintenance is handled for the White River RDCs (do they do it locally, somehow hook it up with the Canadian or have CP ship them to Toronto).

[milomilo]

In reality, neither the northern or southern Canadian routes are of great value to the country and there would be no huge loss if neither ran. The conversation today would be more productive if they had indeed scrapped both way back then.

During conversation about rail in the prairies today, the presence of the Canadian should be disregarded. It might as well not exist from a public transportation perspective. The question should be "which passenger rail line would give the most benefit for the least amount of money?". Forget about days long milk runs, the actual answer to that question would (my best guess) be either commuter rail around Calgary, a train to Banff, or Calgary - Edmonton intercity. Or a combination of all three. If we don't have the money or political will to do that, then fine, but no point throwing away money on anything else.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

10% is fairly significant when talking about mid-sized populations like that, and you're not taking into consideration the key attraction along the southern route being Banff National Park, which even without rail sees about 2x as many visitors per year than Jasper (4.2 million vs. 2.4 million). Another addition to the stronger economic and population case for the southern route.

The end of the story is, them cancelling the southern route over the northern route really makes no sense, but the entire argument/conversation is inconsequential because without frequent service between the major cities (Edmonton and Calgary), the every-other-day service of either corridor would be virtually useless, as it is today.

Y'know... when you mention Banff it rings a bell with me. When we tried to visit there on a weekend in the summer a few years ago, there were lineups just to get to the exit off the main highway. We actually decided to bypass visiting Banff/Lake Louise because we figured that there would be no parking once we got there, and continued on our way through the Rockies to BC. I don't know if that was typical car traffic on the weekends, but if it is, rail would be a great way to access it, that would reduce car traffic as well.

I know, just one anecdotal story with no other information besides noting that you made a valid point regarding a popular destination that would be served well by rail, IMHO.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

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

Because we are not discussing GO. We are discussing VIA. However, saying a city is served by both is a good conversation starter, but mistaking that one does makes you lose credibility.

Originally Posted by roger1818

That is only a 10% difference. I would consider that only marginally more populous.

So, would adding 40,000+ people be small? That is what adding 10% population to Toronto would look like. To me, that is a small city. That is huge.

88,000 people; the difference is like putting Prince George on the line. It is not small. Saying that it is insignificant shows your ignorance.

Originally Posted by roger1818

When Pierre Poilievre came to my door about a year ago, I asked him about HFR. He hadn't even heard of it and seemed only concerned about what the annual subsidy would be.

Just like a Conservative. I'll bet his tune is changing due to the horrible loss.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Yes they now do serve Niagara Falls, but they didn't at the time those stats were generated.

And you cannot concede that CP's route was a lower deficit and had a higher population when it was canceled.

Originally Posted by roger1818

You are missing the point. For those routes the bus would be better on almost every front so why do so desperately want vastly inferior service?

Well, there is a snowstorm blowing in tonight. The highways get closed regularly. Trains usually are not hindered by weather, so long as they can build their air.

Originally Posted by roger1818

We keep saying he could take the bus and your only counter argument was that he wants to ride "The Canadian." If he is so desperate to ride that train, he can either do like most do and take a hotel or if he can't afford that, he can take the 9:00pm Greyhound (via Ottawa) that gets in at 6:00am.

Originally Posted by roger1818

You keep saying that and I don't know what that has anything to do with the topic at hand. It is like you are spewing out random, unrelated "facts."

I use the Northlander to show how poor frequency can kill a service. Just like having the Canadian leave before the first Corridor from Montreal/Windsor arrive.

Originally Posted by roger1818

By only 10%

By 2.5% ((48,937 - 47,775) / 47,775)

So, they would serve more people and save money? Isn't that why the Corridor works? It serves more people and it has a better fare return rate?

Originally Posted by roger1818

Extending the Skeena to Edmonton, or do you think having it end at Jasper (population 4,590) without any connection would serve its users well enough?

They could take the bus to Edmonton, right? By your own admission, bus is better. Problem solved.

However, I am not silly enough to think that. I know hat having a major city connected to rail is a good thing, so going to Edmonton where all the maintenance could be done would make sense.

Originally Posted by roger1818

As you say, Sudbury Station and Sudbury Jct are less than 10km apart (an easy taxi or Uber ride). Jasper Station is 360km from Edmonton Station and over 400km from Calgary.

I agree that it would be nice if the White River train could be extended to Sudbury Jct, but the track layout doesn't currently work well for that (the CN and CP lines cross but don't connect near the airport).

I guess one option would be to move Sudbury Jct Station there and have 2 stations on separate tracks, but then there is the issue of aligning the schedules.

If you travel around the world, you will find many cities have multiple stations and require you to find your own way between them if you want to make a transfer.

If you knew the railway infrastructure in Sudbury, you would know how silly you are.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1J61WkPHnh-XqMC2ElotW5luuM7mKInUU&usp=sharing

That is how it can be done. Remember the Budd cars can travel both directions without turning around. How I know the route is because CN and CP will transfer cars that way.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Give me an example. I try not to.

I give you many that you want to brush off.

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

10% is fairly significant when talking about mid-sized populations like that, and you're not taking into consideration the key attraction along the southern route being Banff National Park, which even without rail sees about 2x as many visitors per year than Jasper (4.2 million vs. 2.4 million). Another addition to the stronger economic and population case for the southern route.

The end of the story is, them cancelling the southern route over the northern route really makes no sense, but the entire argument/conversation is inconsequential because without frequent service between the major cities (Edmonton and Calgary), the every-other-day service of either corridor would be virtually useless, as it is today.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I think we will have to agree to disagree on that one. It isn't irrelevent, but I wouldn't call it "fairly significant" either.

True, though:

1. It is west of Calgary. swimmer_spe was talking about east of Calgary (between it and Winnipeg).
2. I would argue it would be better served with dedicated service than as a stop on an infrequent long distance train.

There are pros and cons. In many ways I agree the southern route would have been better if the objective was to provide the best service. However, the objective was to minimize operating expenditure.

I am trying to have buy in on the entire southern route being restored, but I use parts of it to prove my point as needed. That is why I picked the Calgary-Edmonton and Regina-Saskatoon pairs. The are 2 major cities in their provinces, one with and one without service.

As you like to point out, the Canadian is a tourist train.(I would argue that it shouldn't just be that) That means that you should be all for it, as it would generate even more revenue for VIA there by making it more profitable.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Rereading post #804, another added cost to the Skeena if they had kept the southern route instead is increased maintenance costs. Currently, when a car or engine needs maintenance, they can just bring a new one in on the Canadian and take the old one away the same way. The cost to VIA for doing this would be minimal.

With the northern route abandoned, they would have to pay (likely CN) to have them shipped (or pay to deadhead it) to/from the maintenance yard. Those costs would certainly add up.

I am not sure how maintenance is handled for the White River RDCs (do they do it locally, somehow hook it up with the Canadian or have CP ship them to Toronto).

The maintenance of the RDC is done locally in the CP Sudbury Yard, or has been done at the shops in North Bay's ONR.

The same idea could have been set up in Edmonton or Prince Rupert. Edmonton would make sense as they have shops for CN there.

Are you starting to see the many holes in your argument? Face it, it was more politics than economics.

So, instead of festering more on this, why not help us all figure out a good reason it should be restored, and even improved.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Y'know... when you mention Banff it rings a bell with me. When we tried to visit there on a weekend in the summer a few years ago, there were lineups just to get to the exit off the main highway. We actually decided to bypass visiting Banff/Lake Louise because we figured that there would be no parking once we got there, and continued on our way through the Rockies to BC. I don't know if that was typical car traffic on the weekends, but if it is, rail would be a great way to access it, that would reduce car traffic as well.

I know, just one anecdotal story with no other information besides noting that you made a valid point regarding a popular destination that would be served well by rail, IMHO.

One of the many reasons to advocate for the return of the southern route.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

In reality, neither the northern or southern Canadian routes are of great value to the country and there would be no huge loss if neither ran. The conversation today would be more productive if they had indeed scrapped both way back then.

During conversation about rail in the prairies today, the presence of the Canadian should be disregarded. It might as well not exist from a public transportation perspective. The question should be "which passenger rail line would give the most benefit for the least amount of money?". Forget about days long milk runs, the actual answer to that question would (my best guess) be either commuter rail around Calgary, a train to Banff, or Calgary - Edmonton intercity. Or a combination of all three. If we don't have the money or political will to do that, then fine, but no point throwing away money on anything else.

I agree with the sentiment. Restoring the Chinook would likely be a great way to expand the rail in the west. It meets most of the criteria that make the Corridor successful. Run it a couple times a day each way and let the ridership grow. We need the political will, and some capital investments to make it work. Right now with the country as fractured as it is, something like this could get support from most politicians.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by milomilo

In reality, neither the northern or southern Canadian routes are of great value to the country and there would be no huge loss if neither ran. The conversation today would be more productive if they had indeed scrapped both way back then.

During conversation about rail in the prairies today, the presence of the Canadian should be disregarded. It might as well not exist from a public transportation perspective. The question should be "which passenger rail line would give the most benefit for the least amount of money?". Forget about days long milk runs, the actual answer to that question would (my best guess) be either commuter rail around Calgary, a train to Banff, or Calgary - Edmonton intercity. Or a combination of all three. If we don't have the money or political will to do that, then fine, but no point throwing away money on anything else.

I tend to agree with you. The primary reason it was kept was because BC joined confederation with the promise of a railway and keeping passenger rail service is considered important from a "constitutional" point of view (not actually in the constitution AFAIK, but I can't think of a better word).

I remember when the Mulroney government initially proposed cancelling all passenger trains out west, BC's media was all over this aspect, and Mulroney backpedalled and kept the northern route. That is my recollection anyway.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I agree with the sentiment. Restoring the Chinook would likely be a great way to expand the rail in the west. It meets most of the criteria that make the Corridor successful. Run it a couple times a day each way and let the ridership grow. We need the political will, and some capital investments to make it work. Right now with the country as fractured as it is, something like this could get support from most politicians.

Even a train a couple times a day between Calgary and Edmonton represents poor value for money. The cost to upgrade the railway to something capable of a few trains a day at a speed comparable with a bus would be similar to the cost to upgrade it to something capable of hourly service.

Anything built without expensive upgrades would be slower, less reliable and more expensive than a bus, and much slower than a plane or car. So you can't start with something cheap, you'll just end up with massive subsidy, lower ridership and the line being scrapped after a few years.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Y'know... when you mention Banff it rings a bell with me. When we tried to visit there on a weekend in the summer a few years ago, there were lineups just to get to the exit off the main highway. We actually decided to bypass visiting Banff/Lake Louise because we figured that there would be no parking once we got there, and continued on our way through the Rockies to BC. I don't know if that was typical car traffic on the weekends, but if it is, rail would be a great way to access it, that would reduce car traffic as well.

I know, just one anecdotal story with no other information besides noting that you made a valid point regarding a popular destination that would be served well by rail, IMHO.

It may just be a personal anecdote but you're certainly not alone. You know what's fucked up too? There is a private consortium that has nearly raised $600 million for a train from Calgary to Banff with stops at Cochrane and Canmore, and Parks Canada is kiboshing the proposed transit network's Gondola portion (which would ferry travellers from Banff Station to Norquay Mountain) thereby reducing further need for vehicles. This country is just ridiculous, a parody of itself when it comes to emissions reduction and effective transport.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

It may just be a personal anecdote but you're certainly not alone. You know what's fucked up too? There is a private consortium that has nearly raised $600 million for a train from Calgary to Banff with stops at Cochrane and Canmore, and Parks Canada is kiboshing the proposed transit network's Gondola portion (which would ferry travellers from Banff Station to Norquay Mountain) thereby reducing further need for vehicles. This country is just ridiculous, a parody of itself when it comes to emissions reduction and effective transport.

Wow, that is fucked up!

The flavour of the day seems to be a lot of talk but very little action...

[Nouvellecosse]

With Calgary being such a major tourist gateway for the Rockies a train might make real sense going to Banff, depending on how much it would cost of course. Maybe it could stop directly at the airport.

[Chadillaccc]

There is no "might" about it. It's the only option that makes real sense for the future of Banff National Park. Especially with both the GoC and Parks Canada's mandate towards ecological protection. The cost of it should be irrelevant if they're actually meaning what they say.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Wow, that is fucked up!

The flavour of the day seems to be a lot of talk but very little action...

And it's even crazier because this is private investment, they're not even asking for government money for something that SHOULD be funded by the goddamn government.

Lots of ignorant/arrogant eastern people make jokes about "western alienation" and how only crybabies talk about it, but there are a loooot of things that go into it more than just ridiculous underrepresentation in the senate. This is one of those countless examples that swirl into a mess of widespread frustration out here.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Even a train a couple times a day between Calgary and Edmonton represents poor value for money. The cost to upgrade the railway to something capable of a few trains a day at a speed comparable with a bus would be similar to the cost to upgrade it to something capable of hourly service.

Anything built without expensive upgrades would be slower, less reliable and more expensive than a bus, and much slower than a plane or car. So you can't start with something cheap, you'll just end up with massive subsidy, lower ridership and the line being scrapped after a few years.

So, don't be like a GO train that started out with single level cars on 2 lines?

I am not against improving the line, but I doubt that more than a few trains a day would be needed before you have empty cars.

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

It may just be a personal anecdote but you're certainly not alone. You know what's fucked up too? There is a private consortium that has nearly raised $600 million for a train from Calgary to Banff with stops at Cochrane and Canmore, and Parks Canada is kiboshing the proposed transit network's Gondola portion (which would ferry travellers from Banff Station to Norquay Mountain) thereby reducing further need for vehicles. This country is just ridiculous, a parody of itself when it comes to emissions reduction and effective transport.

We don't know the full details. Maybe the business plan is weak. Maybe the construction will do more damage than the road is.

I do find it funny that private, for profit companies can make a go of something that the government won't touch.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

With Calgary being such a major tourist gateway for the Rockies a train might make real sense going to Banff, depending on how much it would cost of course. Maybe it could stop directly at the airport.

That would actually be a great idea.

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

There is no "might" about it. It's the only option that makes real sense for the future of Banff National Park. Especially with both the GoC and Parks Canada's mandate towards ecological protection. The cost of it should be irrelevant if they're actually meaning what they say.

And it's even crazier because this is private investment, they're not even asking for government money for something that SHOULD be funded by the goddamn government.

Lots of ignorant/arrogant eastern people make jokes about "western alienation" and how only crybabies talk about it, but there are a loooot of things that go into it more than just ridiculous underrepresentation in the senate. This is one of those countless examples that swirl into a mess of widespread frustration out here.

Why is there no Conservative MP trying to get this fixed?

[Truenorth00]

Counting on the Conservatives to expand passenger rail services substantially? Are you people ignorant of Harper's entire tenure. Sure, Via didn't collapse on his watch. That's about all we can say. They even refused to fund the fleet renewal.

The Liberals have been better. But seemingly reluctantly. Despite all the rhetoric about climate change and infrastructure, they didn't even fund the full HFR business case development and pre-procurement till 2019. The fleet replacement was only funded in 2018. A full three years into their term.

All of you here clamouring for additional services need to understand this: if HFR doesn't happen, you'll eventually be getting cuts, not additions.

I can already see a future Conservative government cancelling HFR citing fiscal concerns. I can even see cutbacks beyond that.

[canucklehead2]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Counting on the Conservatives to expand passenger rail services substantially? Are you people ignorant of Harper's entire tenure. Sure, Via didn't collapse on his watch. That's about all we can say. They even refused to fund the fleet renewal.

The Liberals have been better. But seemingly reluctantly. Despite all the rhetoric about climate change and infrastructure, they didn't even fund the full HFR business case development and pre-procurement till 2019. The fleet replacement was only funded in 2018. A full three years into their term.

All of you here clamouring for additional services need to understand this: if HFR doesn't happen, you'll eventually be getting cuts, not additions.

I can already see a future Conservative government cancelling HFR citing fiscal concerns. I can even see cutbacks beyond that.

You're gonna need the BQ-GREEN-NDP to sack up and demand green energy investments if this nation has any hope of making a significant dent in its carbon footprint...

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Even a train a couple times a day between Calgary and Edmonton represents poor value for money. The cost to upgrade the railway to something capable of a few trains a day at a speed comparable with a bus would be similar to the cost to upgrade it to something capable of hourly service.

Anything built without expensive upgrades would be slower, less reliable and more expensive than a bus, and much slower than a plane or car. So you can't start with something cheap, you'll just end up with massive subsidy, lower ridership and the line being scrapped after a few years.

I'm an Ontarian. I find it patently ridiculous there's no Calgary-Edmonton train with hourly. I want VIA's attention on that as soon as they have shovels in the ground for HFR. I wish the provincial government would come in with money. But if not, I have no issues with the Feds making this work using a 50 yr business case, if they have to.

We can't say we're serious about cutting emissions and not do anything substantial to cut aviation and road emissions in our busiest corridors.

All that said, in my dealings with Albertans in person, I'm usually more enthusiastic about a train there, than they are.

[canucklehead2]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'm an Ontarian. I find it patently ridiculous there's no Calgary-Edmonton train with hourly. I want VIA's attention on that as soon as they have shovels in the ground for HFR. I wish the provincial government would come in with money. But if not, I have no issues with the Feds making this work using a 50 yr business case, if they have to.

We can't say we're serious about cutting emissions and not do anything substantial to cut aviation and road emissions in our busiest corridors.

All that said, in my dealings with Albertans in person, I'm usually more enthusiastic about a train there, than they are.

Oh no it has support amongst the 45% that don't support UCP, myself included. I think like the DNC mess in America you see a huge gap between what the elites want and what the masses want. If you put HSR up for a public vote it would pass. I'd personally be happy for upgraded 200 km/h mixed traffic along the CP ROW since that would be significantly less that building a new greenfield system yet connect all the towns and cities along the way which house 80% of Alberta's population...

[canucklehead2]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'm an Ontarian. I find it patently ridiculous there's no Calgary-Edmonton train with hourly. I want VIA's attention on that as soon as they have shovels in the ground for HFR. I wish the provincial government would come in with money. But if not, I have no issues with the Feds making this work using a 50 yr business case, if they have to.

We can't say we're serious about cutting emissions and not do anything substantial to cut aviation and road emissions in our busiest corridors.

All that said, in my dealings with Albertans in person, I'm usually more enthusiastic about a train there, than they are.

But yes talking to the UCP crowd is like talking to a brick wall except you'd be a lot less frustrated with the wall... And it would probably make a lot more logical sense too! Again just my experience living in Alberta for 37 years...