VIA Rail

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The entire point of a real carbon tax is that it forces you to make hard decisions about the climate that would otherwise not have been made.

This is actually not the point of the carbon tax. The point is to put a price on an externality (GHG emissions in this case) so that economic calculus around them changes. It doesn't mean we kill the economy. It means we employ substitution where economical. And accept the cost of doing business where not.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The problem is, the government really hasn't done that. If they did, the price of somethings would be so high that it would no longer exist due to being priced out of the market.

The government's goal isn't to price activity out of the market. It's to promote alternatives. Let's use a corporate meeting as an example. There's three alternatives:

Web Meeting: Zero carbon tax incurred
Travel by road: 6 hrs, say $10 in carbon tax incurred.
Travel by rail: 5 hrs, $4 in carbon tax.
Travel by air: 1 hr, $30 in carbon tax.

What the government wants here is for travelers to understand that pollution has a price and to decide if the cost is worthwhile. Is it worth saving 4 hrs over rail to pay less in carbon tax over air? For some the answer will be yes. For others no. But this mix will change substantially from a situation with no carbon tax. Or maybe companies decide they really don't need to travel as much in the first place. And substantially cut corporate travel. Far less emissions.

This is why I have long argued that rail investment should be seen largely as economic, than environmental. Instead of private and public capital spending $5B building a new Pickering Airport, a billion on a new Pearson runway, and another billion expanding airports in Ottawa and Montreal, might as well spend $6-7B on a HxR from Toronto to Montreal (via Ottawa) that offers nearly the same convenience as air, for a lower operating and environmental cost. But this kind of logic only works in populated corridors. Can't make the same argument from Regina to Prince Albert.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Electric buses do not exist for long distance routes.

Says who? They aren't common. But they certainly do exist:

https://www.proterra.com/vehicles/proterra-powered-vehicles/coach-bus/

And I expect they'll get better and more common in the years to come. Electric buses are some exotic vehicle. They are just buses with a different powertrain.
Certainly for routes like Regina-Saskatoon or Lloydminster-Edmonton, vehicles like these could do quite well.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

How small is too small? How big is big enough?

Depends very much on the route and operating costs and capital investment required.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

For most of the Prairie cities once a day each way could be enough. Some places, more than that would be enough.

Most of the Prairies would actually be better off with a far more frequent bus service that covered more towns than 1-2 rail routes that pass through that will never be more than a daily.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Buses outrun the Corridor trains all the time. So, no, it does not need to be.

Umm. Not really. On a handful of routes, with express buses, maybe. And even then, not by a lot. VIA's Corridor trains on the whole are faster than most buses.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

And so it should be, just as flights from YYZ to London, ON, Kitchener, Kingston and Windsor should be. They are just to close together to require flights. We have been subsidizing air for far too long. How come the federal government could in the past find money to build airports in the past but ignore any improvements to rail?

5 Hours on a train isn't too bad. That is what the Northlander could do between Toronto and North Bay. Sudbury is about the same distance from Toronto, yet that train does it in 8 hours. Why? Changing this type of issue is what is important. The existing time is the bigger problem. That is bound to exist all over the non Corridor routes.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

You are assuming that only tourists ride the Canadian. The majority of riders might be tourists now, but that is because the local population enroute does not use the train because of irrelevant frequency, poor scheduling, very low on time performance, poor routing and very slow scheduled speeds. All transcontinental service has a history of late arrivals, high maintenance costs and a schedule that doesn't work. Things have only gotten worse, not better and they will never change unless we are prepared to accept change and cancel the Canadian as we know it. Even Via Rail says it is unsustainable.

Until we improve some of these reasons we will never achieve increased ridership. That does not mean that we should not try, but we must put the idea of a transcontinental train being of any practical use. Tourists will still ride trains even if they have to switch trains. Think of Eurail travel in Europe and how few long distance trains there are and how many people ride them in spite of having to change trains. Obviously they have a much higher frequency than here but even at a lower frequency with better OTP, routing and scheduling we can make it work. This is what is required to capture more riders in order to make a viable intercity system.

I'd love to see the line owner fined if Via is held up by anything not caused by Via. I feel the single biggest issue is over siding trains. These trains cannot fit in any sidings between yards. Get rid of that idea, and things may run better.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The airports pay rent. Hundreds of millions annually. The whole aviation sector pays numerous fees. Canada is not the US, where governments actually put in billions into airports. This is not the case here. Which is partly why governments in Canada, are so reluctant to fund a competing rail line. They would be subsidizing a competitor to a profitable revenue generating business.

Note that I fully agree that we should be substantially reducing short-haul flying. Just think it's not helpful when people don't understand that talking points from the US don't apply in Canada.

Canada does subsidize the smaller airports. So, yes, there are rent and other fees that airports and air carriers pay, but it is still a subsidized industry.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

The current schedule is so infrequent and the train so slow that it discourages ridership. The train averages 26 mph compared with 50 mph for Amtrak's daily Empire Builder. That train has about 5 or 6 times the ridership despite not serving any major cities from west of the Twin Cities to Spokane, in comparison The Canadian serves Edmonton, which has well over 1 million population. Why can they do it and we can't? And what is meant by unsustainable? Is it that the train receives a subsidy? In 2014 it was about $55 million. I'm sure that hasn't increased much. Perhaps non-Canadian residents should pay a premium. Heck, they take the train to experience one of the world's great railway journeys, not to go from Melville to Saskatoon. I'm sure a 25% premium would not discourage them. Maybe it's time too to remove some of the additional discounts. Why should former railway employees get an additional discount? They have excellent pensions! It's like giving civil servants cheaper admission to the museums.

The national museums also receive significant subsidy, as they are unsustainable they should be closed, and the upkeep at national historic sites such as Louisburg or Fort Henry in Kingston is quite expensive so close them too. Subsidies are also given to all municipal transit systems from their respective provinces. Shut 'em down. People can buy a car. Maybe the whole country is unsustainable. If the Canadian is ever pulled from the West then it's time to re-evaluate the purpose of keeping this country together.

Honestly, people from the west would be happy to form their own right wing led country. That doesn't mean that we should ignore there. Lets return service to 1989 levels. That would show we care about more than just Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree that "The Majority of he Corridor users are not likely land yacht riders." That is my whole point. You can't assume that having 67 times as many trains out of Vancouver will result in 67 times as many yacht riders.

I am suggesting that doubling the number of trains, which would be almost once a day would easily the number or users. Not all of them are yacht riders. They could be from Hope going to the big city for the weekend;for example. They could be from Blue River who hates to drive in the big city, but wants to go to a Canucks game.
The point is, there could be room to grow with better scheduling and daily service. I am not suggesting we add 400 trains a week. That is ludicrous.

Originally Posted by roger1818

But how much would those trains cost to operate and would the increased ridership come close to covering those costs?

Don't forget, trains can easily stop at stations along the way and not everyone travels from end to end. What makes the corridor work is the number of cities and large towns within a short distance of each other at which a large number of people can get on or off.

We don't nee 20 car trains with expensive bedrooms. We could have as little as 5 passenger cars plus sleeping berths and baggage cars for some of the quieter routes. The Corridor trains are not the same length throughout. why should the Canadian be?

Originally Posted by roger1818

What makes you think that the rated speed of CP's mainline would be lower than that of a branch line?

It is a mainline?

Originally Posted by roger1818

What existing tunnel could VIA use? Sure a tunnel could be dug at great expense, but I would count that as a significant upgrade. My point is that running trains on existing track without any significant upgrades would create an undesirable product.

It may be considered a significant upgrade, but for good service, it would be a necessary upgrade.

Originally Posted by milomilo

This is hyperbole. The Canadian is already worthless, it is not the single thing holding the country together. I wished we'd scrapped it long ago so this nonsensical conversation was dead and buried, and we could be looking at routes that actually make sense to put rail in.

Outside of the C0E route, where else would you think makes sense outside the Corridor

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

shut down the highways too. Next to none are viable without subsidies. All schools and hospitals should be shuttered. And all those other industries that benefit from government contracts and subsidies.

Now, now now now, don't be stating the obvious.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am suggesting that doubling the number of trains, which would be almost once a day would easily the number or users. Not all of them are yacht riders. They could be from Hope going to the big city for the weekend;for example. They could be from Blue River who hates to drive in the big city, but wants to go to a Canucks game.
The point is, there could be room to grow with better scheduling and daily service. I am not suggesting we add 400 trains a week. That is ludicrous.

It would certainly increase the number of local users. My point is it won't significantly affect the number of "yacht riders." Since the "yacht riders" are the vast majority on the train, the overall increase as a percentage will be very small.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

We don't nee 20 car trains with expensive bedrooms. We could have as little as 5 passenger cars plus sleeping berths and baggage cars for some of the quieter routes. The Corridor trains are not the same length throughout. why should the Canadian be?

I never suggested they be massive trains. Even short trains are expensive to run and you need a lot of passengers to cover the cost (or very expensive fares).

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It is a mainline?

Yes, the White River train runs on CP's mainline.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It may be considered a significant upgrade, but for good service, it would be a necessary upgrade.

So now you now finally agree with what the rest of us that running trains on the existing track would not be successful?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Canada does subsidize the smaller airports. So, yes, there are rent and other fees that airports and air carriers pay, but it is still a subsidized industry.

The amount spent on smaller airports by the federal government is actually lower than the rents it collects from the larger airports. And user fees fully fund Nav Canada, CATSA and airport development at most airports. Just look at the fees the next time you book a ticket. Again, this is very different than Europe and the US, where governments will pay for navigation services, security and even airport development.

[MolsonExport]

It is nearly impossible to envision a brighter future for VIA without a massive upgrade in infrastructure and rolling stock, which could never be self-financed by VIA

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

It is nearly impossible to envision a brighter future for VIA without a massive upgrade in infrastructure and rolling stock, which could never be self-financed by VIA

Yep. A case needs to be made for substantial public investment. And that can only be done by starting with busy corridors.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

It would certainly increase the number of local users. My point is it won't significantly affect the number of "yacht riders." Since the "yacht riders" are the vast majority on the train, the overall increase as a percentage will be very small.

Do you know that for sure? We all know that pre covid, the train is running a shorter train in the winter than the summer. That makes me feel that adding more service is not going to fail. It would fail if the number don't go up during peak service. I have heard the Canadian has gotten as long as 20 cars. Maybe a daily would see only 15 cars, and still be as full. It might even see a return to the longer car length once people see it a having a more regular service.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I never suggested they be massive trains. Even short trains are expensive to run and you need a lot of passengers to cover the cost (or very expensive fares).

The Northlander was running 5 cars including a snack car. I think the far was about $200 between Cochrane and Toronto. For end to end on the Canadian, maybe a bump in pricing is needed.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Yes, the White River train runs on CP's mainline.

I meant the C-E line, not the CP mainline across Canada.

Originally Posted by roger1818

So now you now finally agree with what the rest of us that running trains on the existing track would not be successful?

Not quite. If they announced a train that would run from south Edmonton to Calgary and had a shuttle to downtown, that would be a good start, and build ridership while a tunnel was planned/built.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

It is nearly impossible to envision a brighter future for VIA without a massive upgrade in infrastructure and rolling stock, which could never be self-financed by VIA

Kinda like all public transit. the TTC subway is not fully fare supported. Neither are any of the other RTs in Canada. Same with GO and all the other commuter rail in Canada. That is the same with every local/municipal bus. Even the airlines ask for grants and other monies from the government to fund their operations. Right now, just look at Air Canada, Westjet and other air carriers. They are all wanting bail outs due to the market collapse.

Why should Via be any more different?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yep. A case needs to be made for substantial public investment. And that can only be done by starting with busy corridors.

So, besides the Corridor, how do you define busy corridors?
.Is having a train grow twice as long in the summer considered busy?
Is lack of service all together considered busy?

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yep. A case needs to be made for substantial public investment. And that can only be done by starting with busy corridors.

That is true but not at the total expense to cities outside the corridor. There are taxpayers all across this country that fund the federal government and the services we receive. It is just that the distribuiton of services and funding is not equal all across the country. This is why western alienation is part myth and part fact. The same is true with voters in Northern Ontario vs those in the GTHA.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

That is true but not at the total expense to cities outside the corridor. There are taxpayers all across this country that fund the federal government and the services we receive. It is just that the distribuiton of services and funding is not equal all across the country. This is why western alienation is part myth and part fact. The same is true with voters in Northern Ontario vs those in the GTHA.

This is something that no one wants to understand. My house is near the CP mainline. I am not expecting 10 passenger trains a day. However, one a day each way that is on time and gets to places in a reasonable time isn't much to ask.

What is really bad is that the undeserved areas of the country also are the major economic drivers. So, asking for some reasonable return for our economic input isn't too much to ask, is it?

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

This is something that no one wants to understand. My house is near the CP mainline. I am not expecting 10 passenger trains a day. However, one a day each way that is on time and gets to places in a reasonable time isn't much to ask.

What is really bad is that the undeserved areas of the country also are the major economic drivers. So, asking for some reasonable return for our economic input isn't too much to ask, is it?

On a sarcastic note, many people from the GTHA think that there is no life outside of the GTHA. Why are we portrayed as unreasonable wishing we have 1 train daily or less for that matter while GO Transit provides train service every 30 minutes and Via provides approximately 10/day to Ottawa from Toronto? Meanwhile the rest of the country has either 3x/wk service or NO Service.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

On a sarcastic note, many people from the GTHA think that there is no life outside of the GTHA. Why are we portrayed as unreasonable wishing we have 1 train daily or less for that matter while GO Transit provides train service every 30 minutes and Via provides approximately 10/day to Ottawa from Toronto? Meanwhile the rest of the country has either 3x/wk service or NO Service.

That isn't sarcasm, it is fact.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, besides the Corridor, how do you define busy corridors?

Sufficient ridership to support multiple daily departures. The kind of service one might see in Europe or Asia on a regular rail line.

If a line can't support bi-hourly or better departures in both direction, a business case can't be made for a dedicated passenger rail line. In that case, these routes go to the back of the line. Investment limited to updated rolling stock till the priority routes can be addressed.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

That is true but not at the total expense to cities outside the corridor. There are taxpayers all across this country that fund the federal government and the services we receive. It is just that the distribuiton of services and funding is not equal all across the country. This is why western alienation is part myth and part fact. The same is true with voters in Northern Ontario vs those in the GTHA.

Over half the country's population lives in the corridor. The vast majority of federal taxes are collected in the Corridor. And yet, we underinvest in Corridor rail services based on this weird Canadian mythology that Flin Flon should get the same service as London or Ottawa.

The non-Corridor routes thankfully don't cost that much. So they can be kept as is. Maybe invest in better rolling stock. But all the investment on track upgrades? That should go to the Corridor before any other route.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

This is something that no one wants to understand. My house is near the CP mainline. I am not expecting 10 passenger trains a day. However, one a day each way that is on time and gets to places in a reasonable time isn't much to ask.

Yes it is. How much would it cost in capital and annual subsidy to deliver this level of service?

Heck, I've just been told that getting a portion of the Ocean to be marginally faster than a car would be tens of billions supposedly. So what would it cost to do this to multiple lines in the country?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Over half the country's population lives in the corridor. The vast majority of federal taxes are collected in the Corridor. And yet, we underinvest in Corridor rail services based on this weird Canadian mythology that Flin Flon should get the same service as London or Ottawa.

Huh? I'm not aware of any city outside the corridor that even has daily VIA train service including Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Halifax, let alone anything close to corridor levels.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by esquire

Huh? I'm not aware of any city outside the corridor that even has daily VIA train service including Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Halifax, let alone anything close to corridor levels.

Doesn't stop the insistence that this disparity should be closed Especially on this thread. There seems to be this entitlement idea that all Canadians should get rail service. Regardless of the economics involved. And irrespective of whether other modes (like buses) would suit them better.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by esquire

Huh? I'm not aware of any city outside the corridor that even has daily VIA train service including Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Halifax, let alone anything close to corridor levels.

He was obviously talking about the ever-same daydreaming presented by people like @GoTrans and @swimmer_spe, which has escalated this thread's page count to almost 140 pages in only 18 months, without giving discussions about any topic other than "We want daily passenger rail services into every corner of this country!" any chance of thriving...

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Sufficient ridership to support multiple daily departures. The kind of service one might see in Europe or Asia on a regular rail line.

If a line can't support bi-hourly or better departures in both direction, a business case can't be made for a dedicated passenger rail line. In that case, these routes go to the back of the line. Investment limited to updated rolling stock till the priority routes can be addressed.

Comparing us to Europe or Asia is always going have us lose. We have such a lower population density that it is a horrible comparison.

Bi hourly? So, ~12 trains a day? Most of the Corridor doesn't have that. If you want to wiggle in the between 6am and midnight, that's 9 trains, and much of the Corridor has even less than that too ! Maybe we should shut down all rail service... or maybe it isn't quite that simple.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yes it is. How much would it cost in capital and annual subsidy to deliver this level of service?

Heck, I've just been told that getting a portion of the Ocean to be marginally faster than a car would be tens of billions supposedly. So what would it cost to do this to multiple lines in the country?

The problems are not as simple as line upgrades. They are not simple as spend money.

The line near me is the one the Budd runs along. I'd be willing to be it takes every siding when it meets a freight train. So, maybe we spend the money on requiring the freight takes the siding. That may mean we pay more for via to operate without lifting a shovel.

Originally Posted by esquire

Huh? I'm not aware of any city outside the corridor that even has daily VIA train service including Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Halifax, let alone anything close to corridor levels.

Shhhhh he wants you to think that the service is the same even though it isn't.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Doesn't stop the insistence that this disparity should be closed Especially on this thread. There seems to be this entitlement idea that all Canadians should get rail service. Regardless of the economics involved. And irrespective of whether other modes (like buses) would suit them better.

Well, how about this, why not start with regular daily service between all major cities within a day's drive with populations over 1 million taxpaying citizens in them. Then, let's connect each provincial capital with each other, providing they are within a day's drive of each other and those cities over 1 million, and so long as there is existing rail infrastructure safe enough to use. Then, let's connect the biggest city in each province with the highest number of taxpayers in them to the rest of these cities. All of these must have at least a daily service.

What would our network look like if the largest cities in Canada of taxpayers, and the capitals, and the largest cities of taxpayers in each province were all connected by rail?

[J81]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Lots of communities in Canada have no transportation options other than a car, should we provide rail to every single one of them too? Does the fact someone has something once mean they have the right for the government to give it to them forever?

Rail is a large investment, so it needs a large reward for whoever is building it. Keeping a service running just because it's "nice to have", nostalgic or to serve a tiny number of people so unproductive they cannot afford a car is not a good use of limited funds, and it deprives far more people, more deserving of rail transportation through this faulty reasoning.

Yes we all know how much you want to kill the Ocean even though it is well used and even more so before it was halved for no good reason. But carry on with your wayward agenda!

[J81]

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.

This actually makes no sense!! It accomplishes absolutely nothing. The Ocean arrives in Montreal around 930am. It departs around 1900 the next evening currently. If it ran every day 12 hours is plenty of time to turn the train. Why cut it at QC? By doing that you eliminate any connections for anyone from southern Ontario coming off of train 64. Please have some sort of understanding of scheduling before suggesting such outlandish ideas.