VIA Rail

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

The beauty of the trains versus air travel is that you can pick up passengers at intermediate spots which adds revenue but very little expense to the journey between major centres. Cancel the Canadian as a transcontinental service and replace it with the following trains;

1. Toronto to Sudbury - Sault Ste Marie - Thunder Bay- Kenora-Winnipeg
2. Winnipeg- Portage la Prairie - Brandon- Regina-Moose Jaw - Swift Current - Medicine Hat- Brooks - Calgary
3. Winnipeg - Portage la Plraire- Regina - Saskatoon - North Battleford - Lloydminster-Fort Saskatchewan - Edmonton
4. Calgary - Banff- Golden - Revelstoke - Kamloops - Vancouver
5. Edmonton - Jasper - Kamploops - Vancouver
6. Edmonton - Calgary

Buses can also pick up passengers en route. And yet most of these routes can't sustain bus service without subsidies.

Expecting a train to do better is absurd. When you're losing money, you don't make it up in volume.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Running train # 1 via Sault Ste Marie adds another 73,000 potential customers and being close to the US border would attract more American tourists. Adding Thunder Bay adds another 173,000 potential customers. Let's run trains where people live and not to suit the whims of the railroads.

It's funny you say this while referring to cities of 73k and 173k that are 700 km apart. How much traffic do you think towns and cities of this size are actually generating between each other, let alone to the major metros that are even further away?

To be clear, I'm not against train service between these places. I just think there will never be a case for more than the 1 mandated train. Hopefully we can at least make these daily services. What I would like to see though is an effort to improve services to Sudbury and North Bay. Both should be able to support multiple dailies (albeit with shorter trains). But these are probably jobs for Ontario Northland. Not VIA.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J81

8-9hrs from QC to Halifax? LOL! Not ever ever going to happen!

Would take actual investment on track and cooperation from CN. But I don't think it'd be hard to pull off given that track up grades would benefit CN too.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Buses can also pick up passengers en route. And yet most of these routes can't sustain bus service without subsidies.

Hopefully we can at least make these daily services. What I would like to see though is an effort to improve services to Sudbury and North Bay. Both should be able to support multiple dailies (albeit with shorter trains). But these are probably jobs for Ontario Northland. Not VIA.

Which Ontario Northland does. With buses. Twice a day. It'll cost less than $35. Bonus: it stops at all the little towns on the way!

Far cheaper than a train would ever be.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Which Ontario Northland does. With buses. Twice a day. It'll cost less than $35. Bonus: it stops at all the little towns on the way!

Far cheaper than a train would ever be.

Fair enough. If there's no business case, so be it. They should just fund Northland to expand their bus services.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Economic efficiency doesn't scale with definitions.

You can call it anything you want. But the traffic between Winnipeg and the Albertan cities isn't going to be substantial. Couldn't even keep Greyhound in business.

Alberta on the other hand is actually developing a cohesive mega-region between Calgary and Edmonton. It's as integrated (or better) than Ottawa-Montreal.

Bus is not the same as train and is not the same as plane, and is not the same as car. Greyhound pulled out of ON as well. One could say that means Via should cancel the Corridor route then. If Greyhound can't make a go of the Corridor route, then the route shouldn't be served.... or maybe it isn't that simple. I think everyone is in agreement that the Canadian route does not work for good intercity transportation. The solution isn't to cancel it. The solution is to improve it. So, let's improve it.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Buses can also pick up passengers en route. And yet most of these routes can't sustain bus service without subsidies.

Expecting a train to do better is absurd. When you're losing money, you don't make it up in volume.

Expecting a 3x week train to build ridership is absurd. Expecting a train that can get up to 24 hours late to build ridership is absurd. What is not absurd is solving the problem. That is why chopping it up, and run those sections on a better timetable, and getting them to keep to a schedule as best as possible is the best solution. Just imagine if the Corridor had trains that only started in Windsor, Sarnia and Quebec City, and they were expected to serve the route and stay on time. Sounds absurd doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's funny you say this while referring to cities of 73k and 173k that are 700 km apart. How much traffic do you think towns and cities of this size are actually generating between each other, let alone to the major metros that are even further away?

To be clear, I'm not against train service between these places. I just think there will never be a case for more than the 1 mandated train. Hopefully we can at least make these daily services. What I would like to see though is an effort to improve services to Sudbury and North Bay. Both should be able to support multiple dailies (albeit with shorter trains). But these are probably jobs for Ontario Northland. Not VIA.

The problem is between Sudbury and North Bay, the line is in too bad of shape to be worth taking. The line is still owned by CP, but run by OVR. ONR really wouln't be involved. So, this could be a Via line.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Would take actual investment on track and cooperation from CN. But I don't think it'd be hard to pull off given that track up grades would benefit CN too.

If they don't want to keep Via on schedule on the Canadian when it is a major mainline, why would they care on the one the Ocean runs on.

Originally Posted by thewave46

Which Ontario Northland does. With buses. Twice a day. It'll cost less than $35. Bonus: it stops at all the little towns on the way!

Far cheaper than a train would ever be.

Then explain why the provincial government is planning on bringing the Northlander back? Hint: has nothing to do with costs.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Fair enough. If there's no business case, so be it. They should just fund Northland to expand their bus services.

Which Ontario Northland is doing. They've expanded from just serving Hearst-Sudbury/North Bay-Toronto in 2012 to including as far east as Ottawa and up though Thunder Bay and as far west as Winnipeg.

As for the Northlander train, I'll believe it as much as I believed Doug Ford's promise to balance the province's budget. It's a cute lie to keep Vic Fideli's constituents happy, the same as 'balancing the budget' is a cute lie to keep the fiscal conservative wing of the PC party happy.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Buses can also pick up passengers en route. And yet most of these routes can't sustain bus service without subsidies.

Expecting a train to do better is absurd. When you're losing money, you don't make it up in volume..

For longer distances, trains are much more comfortable than buses. that is why many people take the train. When you are losing money, you can make it up on volume by several different ways.

1. Running the train faster, which in the Canadian's case is making it run on time.

2. Change the routing so it services places with larger populations. Even if you did nothing else, you would get better financial performance.

3. Adding frequencies because it makes the service more convenient. In the case of the Canadian re-instituting daily service would be of great benefit. Adding frequencies also increases equipment utilization which in turn lowers costs. If you double frequencies you usually get more than a 50% increase in ridership and more than a 50% decrease when you cut frequencies in 1/2. the government and Via have taken the downward spiral to try to control costs, by ignoring revenue and ignoring investments that would improve services.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's funny you say this while referring to cities of 73k and 173k that are 700 km apart. How much traffic do you think towns and cities of this size are actually generating between each other, let alone to the major metros that are even further away?.

Compare the population on the CP route in general with the CN route. The population is much higher because the CN mainline misses the few larger centres that exist between Portage la Prairie and Edmonton.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Which Ontario Northland is doing. They've expanded from just serving Hearst-Sudbury/North Bay-Toronto in 2012 to including as far east as Ottawa and up though Thunder Bay and as far west as Winnipeg.

As for the Northlander train, I'll believe it as much as I believed Doug Ford's promise to balance the province's budget. It's a cute lie to keep Vic Fideli's constituents happy, the same as 'balancing the budget' is a cute lie to keep the fiscal conservative wing of the PC party happy.

If the Northlander isn't restarted it will be a fight for Fideli to keep his seat.

I am happy to see the expansion. However, it really only replaced the old Greyhound routes.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

For longer distances, trains are much more comfortable than buses. that is why many people take the train. When you are losing money, you can make it up on volume by several different ways.

1. Running the train faster, which in the Canadian's case is making it run on time.

2. Change the routing so it services places with larger populations. Even if you did nothing else, you would get better financial performance.

3. Adding frequencies because it makes the service more convenient. In the case of the Canadian re-instituting daily service would be of great benefit. Adding frequencies also increases equipment utilization which in turn lowers costs. If you double frequencies you usually get more than a 50% increase in ridership and more than a 50% decrease when you cut frequencies in 1/2. the government and Via have taken the downward spiral to try to control costs, by ignoring revenue and ignoring investments that would improve services.

That is a ore truer statement than most want to admit. If it wasn't, Greyhound wouldn't have left the Corridor.

1) That is where chopping it up except for a run or 2 a week. Chopping it up means that if there are delays on one area, the others are not affected. It also could indicate where to add more service.

2) Changing it to the CP line would make it hit larger populations, but removing it off the CN line isn't that good of an idea either.

3) That is something people don't want to understand. Even if they shortened the actual train, it would likely still be full.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Compare the population on the CP route in general with the CN route. The population is much higher because the CN mainline misses the few larger centres that exist between Portage la Prairie and Edmonton.

They should have kept both running. Even if they both were 3x a week, and ran on opposite days, that would be better than what is there now.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

They should have kept both running. Even if they both were 3x a week, and ran on opposite days, that would be better than what is there now.

That is quite true and if trains were added between Calgary and Edmonton you would have service 6 days a week between Winnipeg and Vancouver. What a lot of people on this forum fail to realize is that you phase in incremental improvements. As the volume grows you can then add additional frequencies on both routes.

I still say however that there should be no transcontinental service. Have service from Vancouver to Edmonton/Calgary and then from Edmonton/Calgary to Winnipeg.

As far as service rom Winnipeg to Toronto there should be 2 on the CN mainline to the CP station in downtown Sudbury either ending there or continuing on to Toronto. There should be 5 a week on the CP line between Sudbury and Thunder Bay. I think routing the train via Sault Ste Marie would make sense even though it would increase journey time between Sudbury and Winnipeg. This would provide daily service between Sudbury and Toronto.

With respect to the Edmonton-Calgary route there should be service starting 3 times per day between the city pairs. Improvements should be made to the routing, grade separations and signalling so that frequencies can be increased with out interference from freight trains. The High Level bridge should be used to access a station at Grandin and the LRT.

Instead of handing out money for free to cities for transit, especially in the GTHA where to local citizenry don't have to contribute to the capital cost, the federal government should take some of that money to improve intercity passenger rail across the country. I am suggesting we have HSR all over the country, but we can certainly have a better rail system than we are currently have.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

That is quite true and if trains were added between Calgary and Edmonton you would have service 6 days a week between Winnipeg and Vancouver. What a lot of people on this forum fail to realize is that you phase in incremental improvements. As the volume grows you can then add additional frequencies on both routes.

I still say however that there should be no transcontinental service. Have service from Vancouver to Edmonton/Calgary and then from Edmonton/Calgary to Winnipeg.

As far as service rom Winnipeg to Toronto there should be 2 on the CN mainline to the CP station in downtown Sudbury either ending there or continuing on to Toronto. There should be 5 a week on the CP line between Sudbury and Thunder Bay. I think routing the train via Sault Ste Marie would make sense even though it would increase journey time between Sudbury and Winnipeg. This would provide daily service between Sudbury and Toronto.

With respect to the Edmonton-Calgary route there should be service starting 3 times per day between the city pairs. Improvements should be made to the routing, grade separations and signalling so that frequencies can be increased with out interference from freight trains. The High Level bridge should be used to access a station at Grandin and the LRT.

Instead of handing out money for free to cities for transit, especially in the GTHA where to local citizenry don't have to contribute to the capital cost, the federal government should take some of that money to improve intercity passenger rail across the country. I am suggesting we have HSR all over the country, but we can certainly have a better rail system than we are currently have.

No real argument from me. I'd rather more frequency throughout, but having them running more places is more important.

For the Calgary - Edmonton route, I'd have 2 trains running back and forth each day, doing 4 trips each. Hypothetically, Leaving at 5am, each way every 4 hours, it would run till 9pm and. That would work for most people who would want to use it.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That would be the most shortsighted thing I have heard. There is no reason with existing funding as well as what was announced in the budget that they cannot build the HfR from Toronto. Right now... there isn't a demand for rail in Alberta. So, using your own metrics, why build it?

There isn't any demand for rail in Alberta because other than the Canadian there is no service. Don't buy into government speak after they have made a system that is pathetic. Start with incremental improvements. As new sections of track are built passenger trains can be diverted on their own ROW. Here are a few of my suggestions:

1. Re-introduce 3 daily trains from Edmonton South to Calgary.

2. Fund expansion to run trains across the High Level bridge to the Grandin LRT station,

3. Build a separate ROW from the Edmonton South Station to YEG and reconnect to the CP tracks south of Leduc. This would avoid freight traffic in CP's rail yard in South Edmonton.

4. Re-build the rail line through downtown Red Deer for passenger trains only. This would allow for freight trains to pass on the existing route while passenger trains are stopped at Red Deer and provide a central station in the heart of the city.

5. Build a section of single line track on a separate ROW between Leduc and Red Deer.

6. Double track existing CP track from the bridge over the Bow River to a point where the new ROW would diverge from CP's track.

6. Build a section of single line track on a separate ROW between Red Deer and a location north of Calgary where the line would rejoin the CP track in order to gain access to the station in downtown Calgary.

7. After the whole new single track ROW is built the trackage could be double tracked in much smaller projects over time.

Some of these sections could be made into smaller projects if the new ROW is close enough to the existing CP ROW to allow for temporary connections to existing CP trackage.

I know a lot of people would say this is a fantasy plan but it is less of a fantasy than trying to build HSR or any new rail line from start to finish in one project. What is needed is a long term commitment from the federal government and the province to fund the project. The feds could build the track and the province could build any road overpasses to have a continuous grade separated route. We need to get serious about climate change and improving our rail service in this country.

[Truenorth00]

Imagine the arguments being used here if applied to air travel.

"Nobody is going to fly from Toronto to Halifax, if they have to transfer in Montreal."

"Airlines should use the biggest train they can and run as few frequencies as possible. We shouldn't send 15 flights from the Pearson to Ottawa. We should send two A380s per day instead."

I'm being a little bit extreme intentionally. I want to highlight how useless the current mindset of serving routes with low service is. Even daily is pretty much useless to anybody who isn't compelled to use it for some reason (no vehicle or road access). If they can, they'll choose to drive. And of course, the long trains lose spectacular sums of money per rider, so no government (regardless of political affiliation) is going to be motivated to increase service and lose more.

But there are places where service can be modified and invested in to be made better with sufficient return. I would argue that Moncton-Halifax is such a corridor and would in turn benefit the Ocean. Calgary-Edmonton is another one.

The Canadian and various proposals for just as long parallel routes aren't going to get funded. And if they do, the losses might just enough for the next round of austerity to justify permanently dismantling VIA.

Will add too that what matters with network completion isn't how much territory is covered but how many people. Calgary is way more important than Caperol. And not being able to take VIA between the 4th and 5th largest city, which are only 300 km apart is way more relevant to most of the public than hope often the Canadian runs.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

There isn't any demand for rail in Alberta because other than the Canadian there is no service. Don't buy into government speak after they have made a system that is pathetic. Start with incremental improvements. As new sections of track are built passenger trains can be diverted on their own ROW. Here are a few of my suggestions:

1. Re-introduce 3 daily trains from Edmonton South to Calgary.

2. Fund expansion to run trains across the High Level bridge to the Grandin LRT station,

3. Build a separate ROW from the Edmonton South Station to YEG and reconnect to the CP tracks south of Leduc. This would avoid freight traffic in CP's rail yard in South Edmonton.

4. Re-build the rail line through downtown Red Deer for passenger trains only. This would allow for freight trains to pass on the existing route while passenger trains are stopped at Red Deer and provide a central station in the heart of the city.

5. Build a section of single line track on a separate ROW between Leduc and Red Deer.

6. Double track existing CP track from the bridge over the Bow River to a point where the new ROW would diverge from CP's track.

6. Build a section of single line track on a separate ROW between Red Deer and a location north of Calgary where the line would rejoin the CP track in order to gain access to the station in downtown Calgary.

7. After the whole new single track ROW is built the trackage could be double tracked in much smaller projects over time.

Some of these sections could be made into smaller projects if the new ROW is close enough to the existing CP ROW to allow for temporary connections to existing CP trackage.

I know a lot of people would say this is a fantasy plan but it is less of a fantasy than trying to build HSR or any new rail line from start to finish in one project. What is needed is a long term commitment from the federal government and the province to fund the project. The feds could build the track and the province could build any road overpasses to have a continuous grade separated route. We need to get serious about climate change and improving our rail service in this country.

It is as much a fantasy as everything else. If done right, it would work well.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Imagine the arguments being used here if applied to air travel.

"Nobody is going to fly from Toronto to Halifax, if they have to transfer in Montreal."

"Airlines should use the biggest train they can and run as few frequencies as possible. We shouldn't send 15 flights from the Pearson to Ottawa. We should send two A380s per day instead."

I'm being a little bit extreme intentionally. I want to highlight how useless the current mindset of serving routes with low service is. Even daily is pretty much useless to anybody who isn't compelled to use it for some reason (no vehicle or road access). If they can, they'll choose to drive. And of course, the long trains lose spectacular sums of money per rider, so no government (regardless of political affiliation) is going to be motivated to increase service and lose more.

But there are places where service can be modified and invested in to be made better with sufficient return. I would argue that Moncton-Halifax is such a corridor and would in turn benefit the Ocean. Calgary-Edmonton is another one.

The Canadian and various proposals for just as long parallel routes aren't going to get funded. And if they do, the losses might just enough for the next round of austerity to justify permanently dismantling VIA.

Will add too that what matters with network completion isn't how much territory is covered but how many people. Calgary is way more important than Caperol. And not being able to take VIA between the 4th and 5th largest city, which are only 300 km apart is way more relevant to most of the public than hope often the Canadian runs.

"Let's cancel a connection from Eastern Canada to Western Canada"

"Let's have everyone transfer to another plane to get to Montreal."

"Let's remove all first class seats"

Using your flying comparisons that is what you are doing.

You effectively want to cancel the section between Winnipeg and Toronto.

You want to truninate the Ocean at Quebec City.

You want to cancel the Canadian all together.

Leave the Ocean and Canadian as they are. Put in the Calgary - Edmonton route. Put in the Saint John - Moncton route. Put in the CP route in. Put in extra trains per week/day as needed in between major cities.

In other words, reverse the cuts of the 1990s.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

In other words, reverse the cuts of the 1990s.

Find a government willing to do that.

Most have moved on. And they ain't coming back. And I will argue that most Canadians won't care because VIA is largely irrelevant to them.

This was always the unspoken goal is HFR. Make rail so useful to Corridor residents that VIA will finally have a constituency. The same way that GO and and TTC do. Could also be why it's so damn hard to get it approved. And this is also why a lot of us say that if HFR doesn't happen this decade, VIA is done.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Find a government willing to do that.

Most have moved on. And they ain't coming back. And I will argue that most Canadians won't care because VIA is largely irrelevant to them.

This was always the unspoken goal is HFR. Make rail so useful to Corridor residents that VIA will finally have a constituency. The same way that GO and and TTC do. Could also be why it's so damn hard to get it approved. And this is also why a lot of us say that if HFR doesn't happen this decade, VIA is done.

I feel that the one we have now, and successive future "left wing" governments will. HFR sounds like it is going to be built.

The Charger equipment is getting built.

Most may have moved on, but once the pandemic is over and lock downs are a thing of the past, people will be traveling again. The airlines have shown how they will act when times are tough. If Via were able to capitalize on this view, they stand to fill every train.

If I were a betting man, I feel that once HFR is built, the network will get expanded. I think that right now, there isn't enough equipment to expand the network beyond it's current capability. It'd be different if the Renaissance equipment were still usable. If they could send a few train sets to Alberta, the Calgary - Edmonton corridor could get up and running quickly.

[MolsonExport]

When you boil everything down, there are essentially two corridors that could generate the volumes of passengers necessary to have high frequency (and hopefully, high speed) passenger rail: (1) of course, the corridor between Quebec City and Windsor (or at least, for starters, between Montreal and Toronto with a slight jig north for Ottawa, then extensions east and west to Quebec and London/Windsor, respectively); and (2) the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor.

That is basically all there is, unless you want to talk about the possibility of HSR for Vancouver to Seattle/Portland, and Toronto/Montreal to NYC.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

When you boil everything down, there are essentially two corridors that could generate the volumes of passengers necessary to have high frequency (and hopefully, high speed) passenger rail: (1) of course, the corridor between Quebec City and Windsor (or at least, for starters, between Montreal and Toronto with a slight jig north for Ottawa, then extensions east and west to Quebec and London/Windsor, respectively); and (2) the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor.

That is basically all there is, unless you want to talk about the possibility of HSR for Vancouver to Seattle/Portland, and Toronto/Montreal to NYC.

Does that mean all other passenger rail with Via should be shut down?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Does that mean all other passenger rail with Via should be shut down?

Nope. Not what I said. I am a proponent of Via.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Nope. Not what I said. I am a proponent of Via.

Hard to tell. That's why I asked. Some here would want the rest shut down, and only places where HSR could work to be running.