VIA Rail

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I know that the single route is all they have to do. But does it mean they cannot do more? My answer is: providing that it meets the existing requirements.

See, you are not wanting VIA to follow it's mandate. I am. I want the line to fit into their requirements. That means it must meet one of the 3. We have already shown that it does not meet 2 of them. The real question is whether it can fit into the last one. You are Urbansky say no. I say, maybe. Again, it goes back to how much is too much of a subsidy. Unless you are a politician, you cannot answer that. And neither can I.



car =/= bus =/= plane =/= train
A busy highway does not mean a busy bus, train or plane.

The federal government had subsidized Greyhound. Once that was stopped, they left.

I know the prairies are not going to have Corridor service. I am not suggesting that. I don't think I have ever suggested that kind of frequency, even on the old Chinook line. There are at least 7 each way to Montreal from Toronto. I am suggesting about 4. Others talk like if there isn't one every hour it will fail. I say if there isn't one that is able to stick to the schedule, it will fail.

4 trains a day? LOL. That's all I can say.

You should look at the current per pax subsidy for The Ocean (the closest analogous service). Now imagine 7x the service and the hole that would make in VIA's service. Might as well just give out cash along the route for people to light on fire.

And if there's enough demand to pay for 4 trains a day along these corridors why aren't the provinces offering to subsidize the services? Why is it always down to the feds? Part of the huge problem that we have here is the unwillingness of provinces to simply pay VIA's subsidies.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

4 trains a day? LOL. That's all I can say.

You should look at the current per pax subsidy for The Ocean (the closest analogous service). Now imagine 7x the service and the hole that would make in VIA's service. Might as well just give out cash along the route for people to light on fire.

And if there's enough demand to pay for 4 trains a day along these corridors why aren't the provinces offering to subsidize the services? Why is it always down to the feds? Part of the huge problem that we have here is the unwillingness of provinces to simply pay VIA's subsidies.

Alberta is broke. The became broke when the oil prices tanked.

I don't know how much of a demand there is. But, 4 trains means 2 from Calgary and 2 from Edmonton - one in the morning and one in the evening. That would be enough that it could work for those wishing to use it for business trips who don't want to deal with the hassle of flying.

I know these routes all had a subsidy. The Corridor, the most profitable has a subsidy. When I have time, I will work with historical data and current trends to figure out how bad that subsidy would be, and whether it would work.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Alberta is broke. The became broke when the oil prices tanked.

Still the highest incomes in the country. And the highest revenue potential. Alberta isn't broke. It's a province full of cheapskates who don't want to pay the provincial taxes the rest of us pay.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Still the highest incomes in the country. And the highest revenue potential. Alberta isn't broke. It's a province full of cheapskates who don't want to pay the provincial taxes the rest of us pay.

I did mean the government, not the workers.
You are correct.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I did mean the government, not the workers.
You are correct.

A government elected with strong mandates by Albertans.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

See, you are not wanting VIA to follow it's mandate. I am. I want the line to fit into their requirements. That means it must meet one of the 3. We have already shown that it does not meet 2 of them. The real question is whether it can fit into the last one. You are Urbansky say no. I say, maybe. Again, it goes back to how much is too much of a subsidy. Unless you are a politician, you cannot answer that. And neither can I.

You want more funding for VIA, and perhaps even more service in my part of the world even if it doesn't make the most sense from a business perspective (compared, say, to spending all the money in Ontario)? Good, I agree, I want that too and I think others in this thread do too.

But let's say we want more service. We have to pick where that investment goes. If we say we are going to specifically spend money on VIA in the prairies, would you agree that the money should be spent where it would give the most benefit? I don't see how anyone would disagree with that.

Over 50% of the population of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba live in a 300km corridor. So it should be pretty obvious where the next VIA line in the prairies should go, should there be one. But the investment will be large. For it to be worth building, something similar to HFR will be needed, so rough estimate would be 2/3 the cost of that, seeing as it is 2/3 the length.

Once that Calgary - Edmonton line is built, then you can start thinking about extending it. But you need that core trunk of ridership first.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Right now I have too many irons in the fire, but in about 6 months, I am going to start on my own to come up with a real report on it. Something I can take to my MP to bring to Parliament to go forward. My desire will be that is shows it would be no worse than any existing lines, and that it wouldn't draw passengers from other existing rail routes.

Even though you may think I am not listening, I am. I al listening to every argument against it more than any argument for it.

I think it's great that you plan to do a research project on the topic and I'm sure it will be very informative. If you need any help I'm sure I and the others here will be happy to offer suggestions on ways to research, organize and present the information. If you're not familiar with writing research papers then perhaps we can be of use. I for instance am quite experienced in writing various types of research and general argumentative essays and I also have some experience creating policy briefs and reports.

[Dengler Avenue]

You see? I know it all along. Micheal (swimmer_spe) is no troll but actually wanna know why some seem to have always taken the short end of the stick. Unfortunately I have a big deadline tomorrow so I cannot offer a hand right now. In fact, I am planning to work through the night then sign off work tomorrow at 12 pm. After I land my next job, maybe I can help.
With all that said, I hope you enjoy your honeymoon, Micheal. Stay safe.
Bref, I'm the unofficial narrator of SSP now.

And, hehehe, since you mention research, I kinda want you to write one for another topic......

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

You want more funding for VIA, and perhaps even more service in my part of the world even if it doesn't make the most sense from a business perspective (compared, say, to spending all the money in Ontario)? Good, I agree, I want that too and I think others in this thread do too.

But let's say we want more service. We have to pick where that investment goes. If we say we are going to specifically spend money on VIA in the prairies, would you agree that the money should be spent where it would give the most benefit? I don't see how anyone would disagree with that.

Over 50% of the population of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba live in a 300km corridor. So it should be pretty obvious where the next VIA line in the prairies should go, should there be one. But the investment will be large. For it to be worth building, something similar to HFR will be needed, so rough estimate would be 2/3 the cost of that, seeing as it is 2/3 the length.

Once that Calgary - Edmonton line is built, then you can start thinking about extending it. But you need that core trunk of ridership first.

If there is an abandoned line between Calgary and Edmonton that could be rebuilt into an HFR, I am all ears. I do feel that adding the Chinook back would make sense.

In fact, I would say that after the HFR in Ontario, the Chinook would be the next one to add. It would be cheaper than the southern route, and it would instantly add a future piece to a business case for more rail where no rail is.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think it's great that you plan to do a research project on the topic and I'm sure it will be very informative. If you need any help I'm sure I and the others here will be happy to offer suggestions on ways to research, organize and present the information. If you're not familiar with writing research papers then perhaps we can be of use. I for instance am quite experienced in writing various types of research and general argumentative essays and I also have some experience creating policy briefs and reports.

PM me and we can chat more.

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

You see? I know it all along. Micheal (swimmer_spe) is no troll but actually wanna know why some seem to have always taken the short end of the stick. Unfortunately I have a big deadline tomorrow so I cannot offer a hand right now. In fact, I am planning to work through the night then sign off work tomorrow at 12 pm. After I land my next job, maybe I can help.
With all that said, I hope you enjoy your honeymoon, Micheal. Stay safe.
Bref, I'm the unofficial narrator of SSP now.

And, hehehe, since you mention research, I kinda want you to write one for another topic......

Thank you. Like I said, I have many irons in my fire. Some are work related, while others, like this are more of a pet project..

What project would you want me to do?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

A government elected with strong mandates by Albertans.

Yes. And the government keeps cutting...

That is why I see a federal government agency doing it.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If there is an abandoned line between Calgary and Edmonton that could be rebuilt into an HFR, I am all ears. I do feel that adding the Chinook back would make sense.

In fact, I would say that after the HFR in Ontario, the Chinook would be the next one to add. It would be cheaper than the southern route, and it would instantly add a future piece to a business case for more rail where no rail is.

I don't know the exact nature of what a Calgary - Edmonton HFR would be, if it would use existing tracks etc. But I do know that it is much more important to run public transit where there is demand, rather than where it is easy to do so.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If there is an abandoned line between Calgary and Edmonton that could be rebuilt into an HFR, I am all ears. I do feel that adding the Chinook back would make sense.

I don't know of any abandoned lines, but both CN and CP have spur lines. Given that they aren't part of their main lines, I would expect (admittedly an assumption on my part) that traffic will be lower than on their main lines and I can see one of them being willing to sell (while obviously retaining operating rights). Even if they aren't, the lower traffic would make keeping a reasonably reliable schedule easier.

In fact, I would say that after the HFR in Ontario, the Chinook would be the next one to add. It would be cheaper than the southern route, and it would instantly add a future piece to a business case for more rail where no rail is.

I am glad you are coming around. You were strongly opposed to HFR not to long ago. I am still skeptical that a Calgary-Regina-Winnipeg route would be feasible, but its only hope would be as an incremental extension of a Calgary-Edmonton service.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

4 trains a day? LOL. That's all I can say.

You should look at the current per pax subsidy for The Ocean (the closest analogous service). Now imagine 7x the service and the hole that would make in VIA's service. Might as well just give out cash along the route for people to light on fire.

And if there's enough demand to pay for 4 trains a day along these corridors why aren't the provinces offering to subsidize the services? Why is it always down to the feds? Part of the huge problem that we have here is the unwillingness of provinces to simply pay VIA's subsidies.

Provinces don't offer these services for the same reason why the federal government only builds roads on an exception basis. Their exceptions have become much more frequent in recent years. Roads are have generally been viewed as a local matter. Railways are viewed as federal responsibility except for commuter railroads because they are local. If you wish to have the federal government pay for everything then get ready for a standard fuel tax across the country and even more companies of catering to certain regions of the country. Provinces don't want to pay for things they think someone else should pay for. Even Ontario with the crown corporation, Ontario Northland Railroad was not funded to operate Northlander passenger service when the provincial liberals cut the service.


When the frequency increases by a certain % the demand usually increases by a larger %. When you cut frequencies by 50% you get more than a 50% decrease in demand. This is obviously dependant upon the population served along the route and other factors such as on time performance and scheduling. You cannot cut your way to better financial performance but you can build your way to better performance. The sweet spot is somewhere in-between where demand is never quite totally satisfied. This does not mean that some basic level of service is not required as a starting point. I hate to harp on this but Calgary to Winnipeg is a no brainer.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

When the frequency increases by a certain % the demand usually increases by a larger %. When you cut frequencies by 50% you get more than a 50% decrease in demand. This is obviously dependant upon the population served along the route and other factors such as on time performance and scheduling. You cannot cut your way to better financial performance but you can build your way to better performance. The sweet spot is somewhere in-between where demand is never quite totally satisfied.

I agree. The problem is when the population base is too small to deliver enough demand to make economic or environmental sense.

This does not mean that some basic level of service is not required as a starting point. I hate to harp on this but Calgary to Winnipeg is a no brainer.

How so? As my back of the napkin math in posts #798 and #805 show, 6 trains a day from Calgary to Winnipeg is likely to transport less than 20 people each (on average). Now I admit this isn't very accurate, but I haven't seen any evidence to prove my math to be wrong.

If my math is even close to being correct, based on other similarly "popular" routes, we will likely see it operating at a cost recovery of 25% (or less) and GHG emissions above 300 g per pax km (double that of an average single occupant vehicle). This is operational costs only and doesn't include the upfront economic and environmental costs.

As much as I would love to see more trains, Calgary to Winnipeg would be best served by buses for the foreseeable future.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

car =/= bus =/= plane =/= train
A busy highway does not mean a busy bus, train or plane.

While air and car are quite different forms of travel, bus and train are very similar. Having said that, in the absence of either bus or train options, people will have to either drive or fly. If there isn't high demand on either of those, one has to question if there is demand for bus or train service.

The federal government had subsidized Greyhound. Once that was stopped, they left.

Actually it was declining ridership that caused Greyhound to cancel their service. It had declined 41% since 2010 ref. There was no mention in the press release of funding cuts.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't know the exact nature of what a Calgary - Edmonton HFR would be, if it would use existing tracks etc. But I do know that it is much more important to run public transit where there is demand, rather than where it is easy to do so.

I am not sure what you mean by this. It would be easy to run a train between Calgary - Edmonton on the CP or CN lines. To build a new line for HFR would be hard to do. The existing lines are likely not busy enough that HFR couldn't be done as needed. That is why I suggest a few times a day. Enough to generate ridership.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I don't know of any abandoned lines, but both CN and CP have spur lines. Given that they aren't part of their main lines, I would expect (admittedly an assumption on my part) that traffic will be lower than on their main lines and I can see one of them being willing to sell (while obviously retaining operating rights). Even if they aren't, the lower traffic would make keeping a reasonably reliable schedule easier.

I am glad you are coming around. You were strongly opposed to HFR not to long ago. I am still skeptical that a Calgary-Regina-Winnipeg route would be feasible, but its only hope would be as an incremental extension of a Calgary-Edmonton service.

I would be against starting a HFR line where no rail service is. However, if there is an old line and we can use it, and it be a reasonable cost, then yes, lets do it.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree. The problem is when the population base is too small to deliver enough demand to make economic or environmental sense.

How so? As my back of the napkin math in posts #798 and #805 show, 6 trains a day from Calgary to Winnipeg is likely to transport less than 20 people each (on average). Now I admit this isn't very accurate, but I haven't seen any evidence to prove my math to be wrong.

If my math is even close to being correct, based on other similarly "popular" routes, we will likely see it operating at a cost recovery of 25% (or less) and GHG emissions above 300 g per pax km (double that of an average single occupant vehicle). This is operational costs only and doesn't include the upfront economic and environmental costs.

As much as I would love to see more trains, Calgary to Winnipeg would be best served by buses for the foreseeable future.

I plan to flush out numbers not on napkins to make sense of what might be best. The key for the long hauls is to be on time.

Originally Posted by roger1818

While air and car are quite different forms of travel, bus and train are very similar. Having said that, in the absence of either bus or train options, people will have to either drive or fly. If there isn't high demand on either of those, one has to question if there is demand for bus or train service.

Actually it was declining ridership that caused Greyhound to cancel their service. It had declined 41% since 2010 ref. There was no mention in the press release of funding cuts.

I know it declined.
My mistake. I just reread a few news articles. It was about the government not wanting to subsidize them.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I hate to harp on this but Calgary to Winnipeg is a no brainer.

And we will continue to point out that you are totally, 100% wrong in this estimation. It would be a catastrophic waste of money that would bleed VIA of funds that it could use on lines that are actually useful.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am not sure what you mean by this. It would be easy to run a train between Calgary - Edmonton on the CP or CN lines. To build a new line for HFR would be hard to do. The existing lines are likely not busy enough that HFR couldn't be done as needed. That is why I suggest a few times a day. Enough to generate ridership.

I'm not sure how easy it would be to run any service at all on the CP line given existing traffic. But I definitely do know that it would be impossible to run anything that would be provide even close to the level of service a bus would provide without serious upgrades.

What exists at present could only provide service that is very slow and unreliable, and there is no downtown station in Edmonton. To provide a service faster than a bus to downtown, you need track upgrades and a bridge across the North Saskatchewan to some undetermined station location there. And you need to rebuild the other stations. And buy trains.

I will keep repeating the point, if you cannot provide better service than a bus, then there is no point spending money on rail.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

And we will continue to point out that you are totally, 100% wrong in this estimation. It would be a catastrophic waste of money that would bleed VIA of funds that it could use on lines that are actually useful.

I think this horse has been beaten to a bloody pulp. It is time to work on a business plan for it that can show who is right. If it is no worse than existing service, then it might be worth doing.

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm not sure how easy it would be to run any service at all on the CP line given existing traffic. But I definitely do know that it would be impossible to run anything that would be provide even close to the level of service a bus would provide without serious upgrades.

What exists at present could only provide service that is very slow and unreliable, and there is no downtown station in Edmonton. To provide a service faster than a bus to downtown, you need track upgrades and a bridge across the North Saskatchewan to some undetermined station location there. And you need to rebuild the other stations. And buy trains.

I will keep repeating the point, if you cannot provide better service than a bus, then there is no point spending money on rail.

Wait, I thought there is no bus service in Saskatchewan. So, having no service on bus, but service on rail means that it automatically would be better. Therefore your argument about going Calgary-Winnipeg is moot.

There is much that would need to be factored into returning any service to any route. This includes, but is not limited to: rolling stock, stations, rail upgrades, employees, and more.

Better is a great argument. But you have to define better. It is not just about speed. Comfort, amenities, security clearance issues, weather issues, etc can make one mode better than the others.
Would you ride something that takes longer, but is more comfortable? Maybe.
Would you ride something that allows you to take things and not worry about the security issues? Maybe.
What about making sure you get there even in the blizzard? Maybe.

It is not just about speed, or just about profitability, or any one issue. It is about the right mix.

My goal is to dive into the stats and see what they show. Maybe they show everything more than what we have would be worse, maybe they show everything I have suggested and more are better than the Corridor. I am going into this with the need for the numbers to show me something, not for me to skew them my way. Once I have compiled it, it could show me you are right. If so, I will accept that, and even admit it.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I think this horse has been beaten to a bloody pulp. It is time to work on a business plan for it that can show who is right. If it is no worse than existing service, then it might be worth doing.

You are right, until you have numbers to back your claims, there is no point debating it any further.

Wait, I thought there is no bus service in Saskatchewan.

No. There are a few different bus lines in Saskatchewan. A quick Google had me find: Rider Express, KCTI Travels, and Affordable Rides.

So, having no service on bus, but service on rail means that it automatically would be better. Therefore your argument about going Calgary-Winnipeg is moot.

Even with no bus service, as long as there are highways, it would be best to start with that.

There is much that would need to be factored into returning any service to any route. This includes, but is not limited to: rolling stock, stations, rail upgrades, employees, and more.

Agreed, which is why it’s so expensive.

Better is a great argument. But you have to define better. It is not just about speed. Comfort, amenities, security clearance issues, weather issues, etc can make one mode better than the others.

Also frequency of service and cost.

Would you ride something that takes longer, but is more comfortable? Maybe.
Would you ride something that allows you to take things and not worry about the security issues? Maybe.
What about making sure you get there even in the blizzard? Maybe.

Ir maybe not. People will only pay so much in time, money and convenience for a bit more comfort.
Buses have the same or fewer security issues as trains.
Blizzards only happen a few days a year. Sure the rains may have more riders those days but will they still be popular on days that there isn’t a storm?

It is not just about speed, or just about profitability, or any one issue. It is about the right mix.

The key is can you convince enough people that the mix is that it’s worth the price, time, and reduced convenience (I’d the frequency is low)? I have my doubts.

My goal is to dive into the stats and see what they show. Maybe they show everything more than what we have would be worse, maybe they show everything I have suggested and more are better than the Corridor. I am going into this with the need for the numbers to show me something, not for me to skew them my way. Once I have compiled it, it could show me you are right. If so, I will accept that, and even admit it.

I wis you the best of luck and look forward to reading your results. The key is backing up your results with real data.