VIA Rail

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by milomilo

In the past, people were poorer and roads and cars were worse. So the train was a better option.

True. The TCH through NB was only twinned about 20 years ago. Before that it was a 2 lane highway so the train would have been a much more attractive option. Having said that, the TCH takes a southerly route and bypasses the northern NB communities served by the Ocean, which I gather drives a large percentage of its ridership.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Let's not worry about running trains 2-3 x per day when we can't even have a train running daily. We should make the train daily and speed it up. One thing that could be done is IF HFR is implemented the Ocean could run via Trois Rivieres to either Ste Foy or to the Gare du Palais before switching to the south shore. That would shorten the travel time to QC and make it more reliable.

Running through Gare du Palais before switching to the south shore would be challenging as it is a terminal station. Since the Renaissance equipment doesn't support remote control, VIA can't have an engine at each end (like they do on some corridor trains), so they would have to have them run around the train, which would slow things down.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I was not aware that the NB and the Feds actually spent some money on improving the trackage. I find it disgusting that NB, a poorer province put up 25Million$ while the federal government, whose responsibility it is for railways only put up 10Million$. What is wrong with this picture? All the federal MP's need to be taken to task for this. The repairs to the track obviously did little to increase the speed, showing how much more needs to be done.

I wouldn't really call it "improving the trackage." All they did was do some mandatory repairs and maintenance to make it safe. Also, the only reason the federal government contributed any money is that New Brunswick didn't fund a middle section (between Nelson Junction (milepost 62) and Nepisquit Junction (milepost 106)) and it was to be discontinued because it was considered too expensive.

Regardless, a VIA train did derail (at mile 15.27) on the Newcastle Sub in 2019 due to a broken rail.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Having said that, the TCH takes a southerly route and bypasses the northern NB communities served by the Ocean, which I gather drives a large percentage of its ridership.

I'd really like to see numbers supporting this because I hear this often but have never seen anything to back it up. Anecdotally, from my trips on the Ocean, it seems like an even split between people going from Ottawa/Montreal/Quebec to Moncton/Halifax and vice versa and people boarding from the communities in between.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by JHikka

I'd really like to see numbers supporting this because I hear this often but have never seen anything to back it up. Anecdotally, from my trips on the Ocean, it seems like an even split between people going from Ottawa/Montreal/Quebec to Moncton/Halifax and vice versa and people boarding from the communities in between.

Have a look at this post by Urban_Sky.

EDIT: Regarding the northern communities, it is anecdotal, but I am sure one could extract the data from VIA Rail's 2018 Passenger Boarding and Deboarding stats.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Should be noted, I think it only makes sense from Quebec City to Halifax. Going to Montreal drives up the investment requirement and lengthens the travel time, making it impossible to actually reach and turn the train around in half a day. It also forces a southern routing. Terminating at Quebec City, let's passengers take advantage of whatever HxR is built. It should be possible to get from Halifax to Toronto within 20 hrs. That would substantially change how we view travel to the Maritimes.

You are pressed if you can drive Toronto Halifax in 20 hours. Even right now, driving is faster than the train along the Corridor.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You are pressed if you can drive Toronto Halifax in 20 hours. Even right now, driving is faster than the train along the Corridor.

That time estimate was contingent on HxR reducing Toronto-Quebec City to ~8 hrs and investment that makes Quebec City to Halifax possible in 12 hrs on the Ocean.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That time estimate was contingent on HxR reducing Toronto-Quebec City to ~8 hrs and investment that makes Quebec City to Halifax possible in 12 hrs on the Ocean.

I guess you did not read what I posted about Windsor to QC currently cannot achieve better than 12 hours, and it is the same distance as QC to Halifax.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That time estimate was contingent on HxR reducing Toronto-Quebec City to ~8 hrs and investment that makes Quebec City to Halifax possible in 12 hrs on the Ocean.

Would be an incredible feat to achieve a 57 mph rail speed average on a curving 680 mile route with ancient track and around 20 intermediary stops. The tens, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars in investment would not be justifiable for what would be at best a daily train.

In comparison the quickest Toronto-Montreal run gets a 64 mph average with 8 stops. The fastest Acela New York City-Washington trip averages 75 mph. GNER's fastest Flying Scotsman does the 393 miles on London-Edinburgh averaging 91 mph with four stops. France's quickest TGV Paris-Lyon trip averages 132 mph on a straight shot. Not suggesting the service can't be improved, esp. on the Halifax-Moncton section. Unsure of ridership levels, but perhaps that segment would warrant a daily service coach only.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Would be an incredible feat to achieve a 57 mph rail speed average on a curving 680 mile route with ancient track and around 20 intermediary stops. The tens, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars in investment would not be justifiable for what would be at best a daily train.

In comparison the quickest Toronto-Montreal run gets a 64 mph average with 8 stops. The fastest Acela New York City-Washington trip averages 75 mph. GNER's fastest Flying Scotsman does the 393 miles on London-Edinburgh averaging 91 mph with four stops. France's quickest TGV Paris-Lyon trip averages 132 mph on a straight shot. Not suggesting the service can't be improved, esp. on the Halifax-Moncton section. Unsure of ridership levels, but perhaps that segment would warrant a daily service coach only.

This is a crazy thought, but stick with me.

Imagine if you got rid of the tracks. Or being on land itself. Imagine - if you will - soaring through the air, free of all the obstacles. No other freight trains. You could potentially travel at hundreds of miles per hour from Quebec City to Halifax.

You could be there in less than a couple of hours!

Just imagine.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by thewave46

This is a crazy thought, but stick with me.

Imagine if you got rid of the tracks. Or being on land itself. Imagine - if you will - soaring through the air, free of all the obstacles. No other freight trains. You could potentially travel at hundreds of miles per hour from Quebec City to Halifax.

You could be there in less than a couple of hours!

Just imagine.

Even that route is not viable, you'd have to connect in Montreal.

Air travel is a faster, if much less civilized, option yes, but the country needs to preserve a national passenger rail system.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's amazing how you can write that much with literally not one actual substantiated number and you want us to think that @Urban_sky is the unreasonable one?

Bullshit like this is why people who know about a topic rarely post on forums.

I apologize for not posting this in a timely fashion. I was just reviewing some older posts and found this. I don't believe my original posts were BS. You are entitled to your opinion but perhaps you could do it with out vitriol and swearing. I will gladly discuss facts, which I agree Urban_sky has more access to.

Here are some facts:

1. There is a higher population on the CP route in Ontario,
2. There is a higher population on the CP route between Calgary and Winnipeg than on the CN route between Edmonton and Winnipeg.
3. There is a higher population on the CP route between Calgary and Vancouver.
4. There is a higher population on CN route via North Battleford and Lloydminster than via Unity and Wainwright.
5. More population means more riders, resulting in more revenue and a higher contribution margin even without changing the frequency.
6. There is no data to show what ridership would be in Western Canada ( or at least publicly available ) with improvements because there are basically no useful trains to ride.



Questions:
1. Why not change the route of the Canadian, or at least certain segments?
2. Why not use trackage that has a medium freight volume resulting in less interference and has a reasonable level of track quality?
3. Why not at least try different routings?
4. Do you live in western Canada?

That is all I have to comment on. Your comments would actually be appreciated. I would gladly appreciate anything that shows my facts are wrong in order to correct any inaccuracies.

Thank you

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Even that route is not viable, you'd have to connect in Montreal.

Air travel is a faster, if much less civilized, option yes, but the country needs to preserve a national passenger rail system.

I honestly don't know at this point.

Is VIA viable in the long-term? Or is most of it better handed to the provinces in order for them to maximize the use of sections that actually could work? GO Transit seemingly gets more done in terms of usefulness. A GO/AMT agreement might actually come up with a solution because it would have one focus only - a Corridor link.

In a certain sense, VIA will exist as an essential service to places like Churchill, where no other option really exists. Or is it condemned to stay in the twilight zone of competing missions forever?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Air travel is a faster, if much less civilized, option yes, but the country needs to preserve a national passenger rail system.

Why? Just because? The vast majority of the country doesn't have any practically functional passenger rail, even those nominally "served" by a VIA line.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I apologize for not posting this in a timely fashion. I was just reviewing some older posts and found this. I don't believe my original posts were BS. You are entitled to your opinion but perhaps you could do it with out vitriol and swearing. I will gladly discuss facts, which I agree Urban_sky has more access to.

Here are some facts:

1. There is a higher population on the CP route in Ontario,
2. There is a higher population on the CP route between Calgary and Winnipeg than on the CN route between Edmonton and Winnipeg.
3. There is a higher population on the CP route between Calgary and Vancouver.
4. There is a higher population on CN route via North Battleford and Lloydminster than via Unity and Wainwright.
5. More population means more riders, resulting in more revenue and a higher contribution margin even without changing the frequency.
6. There is no data to show what ridership would be in Western Canada ( or at least publicly available ) with improvements because there are basically no useful trains to ride.

And hare are a few more:

7. The vast majority of those riding the Canadian are tourists who don't live in/near any of the cities along the route.
8. Those tourists tend to pay significantly higher fares, making the revenue from them an even higher percentage of the train's total revenue.
9. Lengthening routes increases operating costs.
10. Any changes VIA might make need to be run through the filter, "will this change reduce the number of tourists taking the train."
11. Any major changes VIA makes need to be approved by the federal government.

Questions:

Urban_sky is a much better person to answer the following, but I will do my best:

1. Why not change the route of the Canadian, or at least certain segments?

East of Winnipeg the northern route has a long stretch that doesn't have access to roads which (rightly or wrongly) the government has decided needs to be served. It is too long to be feasible to serve with daytime service so an overnight train is required and it was cheaper to have it served by the Canadian than to have a separate, dedicated, overnight train.

West of Winnipeg, the Canadian intersects with the Skeena in Jasper. Its locomotive and coaches need to be sent to Vancouver for servicing and having the Canadian intersect it there, allows them to swap out freshly serviced equipment with almost no transportation charges. This saves VIA a significant amount of money.

2. Why not use trackage that has a medium freight volume resulting in less interference and has a reasonable level of track quality?

I am not sure which trackage you are talking about, but typically tracks with less freight volume are maintained to a lower track class. This means either the train would have to operate at a significantly slower speed or VIA would have to pay the railway a significant amount to maintain the tracks to a higher class.

3. Why not at least try different routings?

Not all track is approved for passenger use and it costs money to get that approval. VIA doesn't have a lot of spare cash to just try different routings on a whim. They would need to get approval from the government to make the changes, and they would need a strong argument to get such approval.

4. Do you live in western Canada?

As for myself, I grew up in BC's Lower Mainland and went to university in Victoria. I only moved to Ottawa after receiving my bachelor's degree and the rest of my family still lives in BC.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I apologize for not posting this in a timely fashion. I was just reviewing some older posts and found this. I don't believe my original posts were BS. You are entitled to your opinion but perhaps you could do it with out vitriol and swearing. I will gladly discuss facts, which I agree Urban_sky has more access to.

Here are some facts:

1. There is a higher population on the CP route in Ontario,
2. There is a higher population on the CP route between Calgary and Winnipeg than on the CN route between Edmonton and Winnipeg.
3. There is a higher population on the CP route between Calgary and Vancouver.
4. There is a higher population on CN route via North Battleford and Lloydminster than via Unity and Wainwright.
5. More population means more riders, resulting in more revenue and a higher contribution margin even without changing the frequency.
6. There is no data to show what ridership would be in Western Canada ( or at least publicly available ) with improvements because there are basically no useful trains to ride.



Questions:
1. Why not change the route of the Canadian, or at least certain segments?
2. Why not use trackage that has a medium freight volume resulting in less interference and has a reasonable level of track quality?
3. Why not at least try different routings?
4. Do you live in western Canada?

That is all I have to comment on. Your comments would actually be appreciated. I would gladly appreciate anything that shows my facts are wrong in order to correct any inaccuracies.

Thank you

I'll answer your questions:

1) I am all for west of Winnipeg it being on both CN and CP routes. East of Winnipeg, I'd like to see them add the route on the CP/ACR/HCR

2)That exists? Where?

3) No equipment to add any new routings.

4) No, but I did.

Originally Posted by thewave46

I honestly don't know at this point.

Is VIA viable in the long-term? Or is most of it better handed to the provinces in order for them to maximize the use of sections that actually could work? GO Transit seemingly gets more done in terms of usefulness. A GO/AMT agreement might actually come up with a solution because it would have one focus only - a Corridor link.

In a certain sense, VIA will exist as an essential service to places like Churchill, where no other option really exists. Or is it condemned to stay in the twilight zone of competing missions forever?

GO is not fully fare box funded. Neither is AMT/EXO. So, all 3 of them will always be on the twilight zone.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Would be an incredible feat to achieve a 57 mph rail speed average on a curving 680 mile route with ancient track and around 20 intermediary stops. The tens, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars in investment would not be justifiable for what would be at best a daily train.

I've already said it would require investment. Tens to hundreds of billions? Now I have to ask what you're smoking....

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Have a look at this post by Urban_Sky.

EDIT: Regarding the northern communities, it is anecdotal, but I am sure one could extract the data from VIA Rail's 2018 Passenger Boarding and Deboarding stats.

Thanks for these. Without previous years numbers it's difficult to see how much historic weight or trending some of these stations are heading in, though, but I know VIA ridership has been fluctuating the past few years prior to COVID. I thought Rimouski and Montmagny would be busier, but alas.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Here are some facts:

1. There is a higher population on the CP route in Ontario,
2. There is a higher population on the CP route between Calgary and Winnipeg than on the CN route between Edmonton and Winnipeg.
3. There is a higher population on the CP route between Calgary and Vancouver.
4. There is a higher population on CN route via North Battleford and Lloydminster than via Unity and Wainwright.
5. More population means more riders, resulting in more revenue and a higher contribution margin even without changing the frequency.
6. There is no data to show what ridership would be in Western Canada ( or at least publicly available ) with improvements because there are basically no useful trains to ride.

As others have mentioned, these facts are entirely irrelevant. The Canadian is being run as a barebones public service which happens to get higher revenue generation from tourists. And apparently the feds picked the route to cover areas that had limited air and/or road access. The added concern was access to First Nations communities for whom the Feds have actual responsibility.
Thiss is apparently why routes that are entirely intraprovincial are still run by VIA: White River, Joncquiere, Seneterre, Churchill, etc.

What you're asking for then is essentially a whole new service where the feds see no requirement for them to invest. In a country that had good public transport, this would make sense. In Canada? I'm not sure, how you convince the feds that they should be involved in getting travelers from Winnipeg to Calgary, when their own provincial governments seem wholly unconcerned in this problem.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

1. Why not change the route of the Canadian, or at least certain segments?
2. Why not use trackage that has a medium freight volume resulting in less interference and has a reasonable level of track quality?
3. Why not at least try different routings?

See above. These plans don't address federal priorities. I'm not saying things shouldn't change. Just that, I'm not sure how they can be changed.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

4. Do you live in western Canada?

No. But I have been previously posted to Moose Jaw. And my military career has seen plenty of time in the Prairies.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Running through Gare du Palais before switching to the south shore would be challenging as it is a terminal station. Since the Renaissance equipment doesn't support remote control, VIA can't have an engine at each end (like they do on some corridor trains), so they would have to have them run around the train, which would slow things down.

I am thinking we will have to wait until new equipment arrives, both power and rolling stock from Siemens before we see any changes to the Ocean. At that time Via could either use the locomotives that run bi-directionally or convert some from the current locomotives that do that and Budd equipment from the corridor.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I wouldn't really call it "improving the trackage." All they did was do some mandatory repairs and maintenance to make it safe. Also, the only reason the federal government contributed any money is that New Brunswick didn't fund a middle section (between Nelson Junction (milepost 62) and Nepisquit Junction (milepost 106)) and it was to be discontinued because it was considered too expensive.

Regardless, a VIA train did derail (at mile 15.27) on the Newcastle Sub in 2019 due to a broken rail.

It is time the federal government took climate change seriously. A moderate intercity network with daily links between the regional intercity networks is a bare minimum that is required. The feds are responsible for regulating all federal railways and such should be responsible for funding infrastructure and rolling stock to improve the network.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I am thinking we will have to wait until new equipment arrives, both power and rolling stock from Siemens before we see any changes to the Ocean. At that time Via could either use the locomotives that run bi-directionally or convert some from the current locomotives that do that and Budd equipment from the corridor.



It is time the federal government took climate change seriously. A moderate intercity network with daily links between the regional intercity networks is a bare minimum that is required. The feds are responsible for regulating all federal railways and such should be responsible for funding infrastructure and rolling stock to improve the network.

Using intercity rail to reduce Canada's emissions would be a terrible strategy - you'd spend a vast amount of money and the amount of emissions you could realistically eliminate (especially considering you can electrify road transport) would be minimal. Internal air travel is a whopping 1% of emissions in Canada.

You guys clamouring for return of long distance rail should give it up - it doesn't make sense, and for that reason it is never going to happen. At least before we've done all the routes that actually justify rail. You're just going to be disappointed.