VIA Rail

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

How long ago was that "many years"? This is what I keep referring to about these random ideas based around some vague sense of fairness and nostalgia.

Rail investment isn't going to be built because railfans want it. It's going to be built because there's a cost-benefit to some goal (economic development, cost avoidance of highways, emissions reductions, etc). On that front one train a day does squat.

In 2011 there were only 3 trains a day in each direction between Ottawa and Toronto. In 1998 there were 4, but the overnight train, the Cavalier was cancelled.

When you speak of nostalgia, it is the posters who don't think anything should be done to change change the service of Canadian. Why wouldn't you want to change the routing as a minimum in order to attract more riders. Route it through Thunder Bay and through Regina and then to Saskatoon. This is change that would add more riders and improve on time performance and would probably reduce travel time due to fewer delays.

Even though CP has torn up much of its double track between Thunder Bay and Winnipeg it is still blessed with plenty of long sidings and multiple double track sections unlike CN. CN only has 1 section of double track 9 miles long on the north route and only has 10 sidings over 10,000 ft between Winnipeg and Capreol over a distance of 931 miles. That means there is a siding approximately every 85 miles that can handle so called over length trains. How can you expect a passenger train to run on time when there are this much potential for delays?

VIA routes trains more in line with the traditional railways, that being either CN or CP but little switching between railway companies in-between except on share trackage in the Fraser Canyon and between Parry Sound and Sudbury. Let's take the routes that make sense.

We need to service remote areas with a different format so they they continue to have access to large centres.

I would like to know how you can call this fantasy. This will not solve all the problems but it would be an improvement operationally and financially. This is not rocket science.

In the longer term, it still makes more sense to add regional trains in the west, make the frequency at least 6 trains per week in each direction and scrap the Canadian. The Canadian is only a name, history and a myth and is useless as it is now. I wish the supporters of the Canadian would accept this reality. Even Via Rail says it is not sustainable.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by J81

You guys would flip your lid if i told you where that government money actually went. Hint** it didnt go where it was supposed to go.!

i am not surprised at all. Governments are creatures of political parties which are creatures of the elected members who generally look after themselves and the party first. Why should we be surprised. I am not saying it is right and that it should not be changed but it is not surprising.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

In 2011 there were only 3 trains a day in each direction between Ottawa and Toronto. In 1998 there were 4, but the overnight train, the Cavalier was cancelled.

Let me correct this statement for you:

In 2011 there were only 3 5 trains a day in each direction between Ottawa and Toronto. In 1998 1988 there were 4, but the overnight train, the Cavalier, was cancelled replaced by a 4th day train.

Here is the full evolution since CP abandoned the Toronto-Ottawa/Montreal corridor east of Havelock:

• As of February 1966: 3 trains per day (2 day + 1 night)
• As of October 1984: 4 trains per day (3 day + 1 night)
• As of October 1988: 4 trains per day (night train replaced by 4th day train)
• As of January 1990: 3 trains per day
• As of January 1992: 4 trains per day
• As of September 1996: 5 trains per day
• As of January 2012: 6 trains per day
• As of December 2012: 7 trains per day
• As of October 2014: 8 trains per day
• As of October 2016: 9 trains per day
• As of November 2017: 10 trains per day

When you speak of nostalgia, it is the posters who don't think anything should be done to change change the service of Canadian.

At least if you are a railway company, every major change in your network incurs substantial costs. Therefore, you need to have a clear idea of what exactly is the problem you are trying to fix and what are the desirable results you can realistically expect. Nobody knows how the Canadian will recover from the current pandemic, but if it returns to recovering close to its variable (direct) costs, I don't see the urgency for dramatic changes, just like I don't see any chance of unlocking any of the lofty benefits you and @swimmer_spe keep dreaming up...

Why wouldn't you want to change the routing as a minimum in order to attract more riders. Route it through Thunder Bay and through Regina and then to Saskatoon. This is change that would add more riders and improve on time performance and would probably reduce travel time due to fewer delays.

I'm afraid that as long as you insist on ignoring the limited nature of VIA's fleet, funding, mandate and infrastructure access, you will never understand this.

Nevertheless, I will still try to provide some reasons for the benefit of everyone else:


Some pre-requisites for re-routing the Canadian between Wannup Junction (Northern end of the DRZ between Parry Sound and Sudbury) and Winnipeg

• CP has to grant infrastructure access
• CP has to inspect the rail infrastructure to determine whether it's safe for passenger operations
• The federal government has to approve whatever capital funding CP requests in order to restore track quality and capacity to grant VIA track access
• The federal government has to either cancel Capreol-Winnipeg from VIA's mandate or to approve the operating funding required to run a separate (remote) Capreol-Winnipeg service (just like VIA did between 1981 and 1990)

Just to provide a price estimate for that Capreol-Winnipeg service. In 1988, VIA's operating deficit for this route was $12.4 million [1] or $23.9 million in 2019 values [2]. Even if we subtract the operating subsidy of the Sudbury-White River run (if we assume that it would be obviated by re-routing the Canadian over the same tracks), this subsidy need only decreases by $3.7 million to still just over $20 million. To put things into perspective: the combined annual train revenues of Toronto-Niagara Falls, the Ocean and all Remote services was $19.94 million in 2019 [3]. Do you really believe that the stations between Sudbury and Winnipeg can collectively generate more revenues than all these services combined?

[1]54,101 passengers * $229.10 subsidy per passenger
[2]54,101 passengers * $229.10 subsidy per passenger * 1.9263
[3]$1.488 million + $12.829 million + $5.623 million


Some pre-requisites for re-routing the Canadian between Portage-la-Prairie and Saskatoon

• CP has to grant infrastructure access (for Portage-la-Prairie to Regina)
• LMR has to grant infrastructure access (for Regina to Davidson)
• CN has to grant infrastructure access (for Davidson to Saskatoon)
• All three host railroads have to inspect their rail infrastructure to determine whether it's safe for passenger operations
• The federal government has to approve whatever capital funding any of the three host railroads requests in order to restore track quality and capacity to grant VIA track access

Again, I've extrapolated in a separate thread the potential extra ridership and incremental operating costs from replacing the Canadian's existing stops in Melville, Rivers and Watrous through new stops in Brandon and Regina, which yielded an net increase by 1766 riders and $1.2 million in operating costs, which means that you would need an average fare of $660 paid by each of these riders, just to offset the higher operating costs resulting from the detour. If you don't like these figures, come back with a refined methodology to show me where I'm wrong...

Even though CP has torn up much of its double track between Thunder Bay and Winnipeg it is still blessed with plenty of long sidings and multiple double track sections unlike CN. CN only has 1 section of double track 9 miles long on the north route and only has 10 sidings over 10,000 ft between Winnipeg and Capreol over a distance of 931 miles. That means there is a siding approximately every 85 miles that can handle so called over length trains. How can you expect a passenger train to run on time when there are this much potential for delays?

VIA routes trains more in line with the traditional railways, that being either CN or CP but little switching between railway companies in-between except on share trackage in the Fraser Canyon and between Parry Sound and Sudbury. Let's take the routes that make sense.

We need to service remote areas with a different format so they they continue to have access to large centres.

I would like to know how you can call this fantasy. This will not solve all the problems but it would be an improvement operationally and financially. This is not rocket science.

In the longer term, it still makes more sense to add regional trains in the west, make the frequency at least 6 trains per week in each direction and scrap the Canadian. The Canadian is only a name, history and a myth and is useless as it is now. I wish the supporters of the Canadian would accept this reality. Even Via Rail says it is not sustainable.

Bla bla bla, life as an armchair analyst is easy if you can just cherry-pick whichever facts are convenient to your claim and don't have to back up any of these lofty and hopelessly optimistic claims...!


TLDR: 1) It helps to actually look into timetables before making uninformed guesses, 2) Re-routing the Canadian via Thunder Bay rather than Sioux Lookout may increase VIA's operating subsidy need by $20 million and 3) re-routing the Canadian via Regina rather than Melville may not even recover the incremental operating costs from increasing the train mileage

[roger1818]

This thread is getting out of control and I don't have time to respond to everything, but I will pick a couple points.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I don't see why ideas such as cutting the Canadian into several regional trains and routing them via more densely populated areas is not a reasonable idea.

VIA doesn't want to risk reducing the revenue of the cash cow "land cruse" passengers who help subsidize the service for the local riders. If VIA were to split the route, there is a good chance that a much higher portion of them would only take the leg of the trip that travels though the Rockies where otherwise they would have continued on the train to Toronto. It is unlikely that the increase in domestic ridership would compensate for this loss in high yielding tourist revenue.

Originally Posted by esquire

However, I do have to wonder... if the train has been able minimize losses fairly successfully relative to the rest of the network, why haven't there been any increased frequencies? The train has been moving in the other direction with frequency reductions instead... a few years ago The Canadian went to 2x a week service on the Edmonton-Toronto segment (staying at 3x a week from Edmonton-Vancouver). But why wouldn't VIA add more instead? A daily train would become much more useful to prospective train travellers as you wouldn't be forced to plan your journey around the 2 days a week the train runs. It wouldn't require a ton of extra capacity either as the summer Canadian is comically long (like upwards of 25 cars, to the point where it maxes out due to platform lengths) in the spring and summer, so if you split those typical long summer trains in two and ran them on different days you'd get an additional frequency.

First of all, the drop of service to 2 trains a week east of Edmonton was supposed to be temporary while some track work was being done, but (according to VIA's 2020 – 2024 Corporate Plan) they no longer have "enough cars to assemble a fifth train consist to reinstate the partially suspended peak-season frequency on the Canadian between Toronto and Edmonton."

As for the idea of splitting up the existing equipment to make more shorter trains instead of fewer longer ones, because there is an overall lack of equipment, that wouldn't increase their capacity. That means it wouldn't increase their revenue, yet the cost of running more, shorter trains would be higher than running fewer longer ones.

Even if they had enough equipment to increase capacity, tourists (VIA's primary source of revenue on the Canadian) have a flexible schedule and will adjust to the schedule of the train, so increasing the number of departures wouldn't significantly increase the number of tourists (which The Canadian makes most of its money off of). Yes there might be more local travelers, but not likely enough to cover the cost of running the extra trains. Having said that, there is an upper limit to the length of trains VIA can practically run because of the length of the platforms at the major stations (the platform at Jasper, for example, appears to be over 700m long).

[esquire]

^ Thank you. Can someone explain how there is a lack of equipment to run additional Canadian frequencies? I remember riding The Canadian 20-25 years ago when the train was already running super long in the summer 3x a week and the equpiment was still being used on the Ocean at the time as well (this was before the Renaissance equipment arrived) which was a 6x a week a train.

So with the Ocean being mostly (exclusively?) Renaissance now and no longer relying on the ex-CP HEP1 fleet, how can there not be enough of the ex-CP equpiment to run The Canadian at least 3 if not more times a week? Did VIA retire a bunch of that equipment? I don't get it.

As for the tourists comment, well yeah, people who need transportation aren't going to be using a train that runs 2x a week to get from point A to point B. That's the point... you run it daily and suddenly it becomes useful to a segment of the travelling public that ignores The Canadian right now. If The Canadian runs on a nearly break-even basis as we are being told it does, then why wouldn't you expand service?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Thank you. Can someone explain how there is a lack of equipment to run additional Canadian frequencies? I remember riding The Canadian 20-25 years ago when the train was already running super long in the summer 3x a week and the equpiment was still being used on the Ocean at the time as well (this was before the Renaissance equipment arrived) which was a 6x a week a train.

So with the Ocean being mostly (exclusively?) Renaissance now and no longer relying on the ex-CP HEP1 fleet, how can there not be enough of the ex-CP equpiment to run The Canadian at least 3 if not more times a week? Did VIA retire a bunch of that equipment? I don't get it.

In the Corporate Plan I referenced it explains that there are two factors which contribute to this problem.

1. In an attempt to improve on time performance, VIA has extended the schedule of the Canadian to add some float. This has reduced the equipment utilization efficiency and thus now requires an additional consist to provide the same frequency of service.
2. The loss of the wye in Halifax in 2020 has required some of the HEP equipment used on the Canadian to be cascaded to the Ocean, since some of the Renaissance equipment doesn't support bi-directional operation.

Each of these factors on their own would have been manageable, but together they create the problem.

Originally Posted by esquire

As for the tourists comment, well yeah, people who need transportation aren't going to be using a train that runs 2x a week to get from point A to point B. That's the point... you run it daily and suddenly it becomes useful to a segment of the travelling public that ignores The Canadian right now. If The Canadian runs on a nearly break-even basis as we are being told it does, then why wouldn't you expand service?

I agree it would become more useful, but I estimate there wouldn't be enough demand to for an east-west route to have revenue cover even half of the variable costs (I don't even think it would cover 1/3, but that is just my gut feeling after looking at Urban_Sky's stats). As a result, adding this service would increase the amount of subsidy VIA would require, and up to now, no government has been willing to foot the bill for this.

The only possible exception would be a Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton train, but that has been well discussed in this thread.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

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

Maybe nowhere. What does it matter? The objective should be useful infrastructure, not lines on a map.

Originally Posted by J81

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!

My "wayward agenda" is a desire for good public infrastructure, not drawing lines on a map. Money spent on long distance routes useless for actually transporting Canadians gets in the way of that.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Thank you. Can someone explain how there is a lack of equipment to run additional Canadian frequencies? I remember riding The Canadian 20-25 years ago when the train was already running super long in the summer 3x a week and the equpiment was still being used on the Ocean at the time as well (this was before the Renaissance equipment arrived) which was a 6x a week a train.

Prior to 2008, the Canadian operated on a three-night schedule, which allowed it to operate three frequencies per week with as many consists (spending the seventh night in Vancouver, while leaving Toronto the same day). In 2008, the schedule was lengthened to four nights, which required a fourth trainset and when some cars were converted for Prestige Class service, only these four trainsets were considered, which is why there are only 4 Prestige Park and 8 Prestige Chateau cars. The schedule was lengthened again in July 2018, but even though the number of nights was not changed, one or two additional nights of layover were added in Toronto as of April 2019.

Just as with the previous schedule (in place between 2008 and 2019), it was possible to operate two weekly frequencies with three trainsets, but to add a third weekly frequency, you would need two additional consists. This is not a problem as long as the third frequency is temporarily suspended east of Edmonton, but whenever CN finishes its ongoing capacity upgrades, VIA will be faced with the tough choice between either returning to a schedule which had caused massive delays and thus frustration amongst its customers and tour operators or to just stick to the current two-trains-per-week schedule complemented by the once-weekly summer-only short cycle through the Rockies.

So basically, the short answer to your question is that operating three frequencies all-the-way from Vancouver to Toronto on a somewhat reliable schedule would require two trainsets more than when you took the train 20-25 years ago - and there are only enough Prestige Park cars to operate four consists...

So with the Ocean being mostly (exclusively?) Renaissance now and no longer relying on the ex-CP HEP1 fleet, how can there not be enough of the ex-CP equpiment to run The Canadian at least 3 if not more times a week? Did VIA retire a bunch of that equipment? I don't get it.

The Ocean operates with Renaissance fleet, requiring two (prior to the service cuts in 2012: three) trainsets. However, one trainset has sustained severe damage after hitting debris in March 2019 and remained out of service ever since.

I unfortunately can't comment on what the bidirectional consists on the Ocean will look like, but a lineup has been posted recently on the Amtrak Unlimited forum, which suggests that both consists may rely heavily on HEP cars...

As for the tourists comment, well yeah, people who need transportation aren't going to be using a train that runs 2x a week to get from point A to point B. That's the point... you run it daily and suddenly it becomes useful to a segment of the travelling public that ignores The Canadian right now. If The Canadian runs on a nearly break-even basis as we are being told it does, then why wouldn't you expand service?

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree it would become more useful, but I estimate there wouldn't be enough demand to for an east-west route to have revenue cover even half of the variable costs (I don't even think it would cover 1/3, but that is just my gut feeling after looking at Urban_Sky's stats). As a result, adding this service would increase the amount of subsidy VIA would require, and up to now, no government has been willing to foot the bill for this.

The only possible exception would be a Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton train, but that has been well discussed in this thread.

The utility of the Contribution Margin (i.e. sales revenues divided by variable costs) is that it informs whether increasing output will improve or deteriorate the company's finances and this logic can also be applied when assessing VIA's network:

• When the Contribution Margin is significantly larger than 1, revenues increase much faster than costs as output increases. A contribution margin of 130% on the Corridor suggests that expanding frequencies on the Corridor will generate more revenues and costs and these excess revenues can be used to "contribute" towards its overheads, thus reducing its overall subsidy need.
• Conversely, when the contribution margin is significantly lower than 1, costs increase much faster than revenues as output decreases. A contribution margin of 50% on the Ocean and 15% for Remote services strongly suggest that an increase in frequency will only increase VIA's overall subsidy need, whereas reducing (or eliminating) the service would reduce it.
• Finally, at a Contribution Margin of somewhere around 1, revenues and costs rise at approximately the same pace when output is increased. Here, the Canadian's contribution margin of 101% in one year (2017) and 90% in the next (2018) suggests that neither increasing nor decreasing its frequency will have a significant change on VIA's overall subsidy need.

In short, if VIA's only mandate was to minimize its subsidy need (which thankfully isn't the case!), it would expand its Corridor services, leave the Canadian unchanged and eliminate all other services (incl. the Ocean)...


Finally, the main problem with increasing the Canadian's frequency is that it would just spread the same capacity over more departure, as the following example illustrates:

• VIA's fleet holds 40 Manor Sleepers.
• VIA's current schedule would require 5 consists to operate 3 trains per week and 10 consist to operate daily.
• A significant part of VIA's operating costs is directly related to train-miles, as every train-mile incurs track access charges and wages for Locomotive Engineers and Service Managers, regardless of whether 5 or 500 passengers are on board.
• With 3 departures per week, the 40 cars are spread across 5 consists, thus 8 cars per consist and 24 cars (3*8) per week and direction.
• With 7 departures per week, the 40 cars are spread across 10 consist, thus 4 cars per consist and 28 cars (7*4) per week and direction.
• Consequently, the cost drivers for a significant part of your operating expenses more than doubles (+133%), whereas your capacity only increases by a paltry 17%.
• If we now consider the current schedule with 3 frequencies per week through the Rockies and 2 frequencies east of Edmonton, the 40 cars are spread across only 4 consists, thus 10 cars per consist and 30 cars (3*10) per week and direction.
• This suggests that increasing the current schedule is unlikely to increase revenues faster than costs (given that capacity is constrained and Sleepers frequently sell out during the peak months - especially in the Rockies).

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

VIA doesn't want to risk reducing the revenue of the cash cow "land cruse" passengers who help subsidize the service for the local riders. If VIA were to split the route, there is a good chance that a much higher portion of them would only take the leg of the trip that travels though the Rockies where otherwise they would have continued on the train to Toronto. It is unlikely that the increase in domestic ridership would compensate for this loss in high yielding tourist revenue.

That is why I suggest that on top of the 1 train a day each way from each major city, you keep 1 train a week each way. This would keep the tourists happy, and keep the travelers happy too.

Originally Posted by roger1818

First of all, the drop of service to 2 trains a week east of Edmonton was supposed to be temporary while some track work was being done, but (according to VIA's 2020 – 2024 Corporate Plan) they no longer have "enough cars to assemble a fifth train consist to reinstate the partially suspended peak-season frequency on the Canadian between Toronto and Edmonton."

As for the idea of splitting up the existing equipment to make more shorter trains instead of fewer longer ones, because there is an overall lack of equipment, that wouldn't increase their capacity. That means it wouldn't increase their revenue, yet the cost of running more, shorter trains would be higher than running fewer longer ones.

Even if they had enough equipment to increase capacity, tourists (VIA's primary source of revenue on the Canadian) have a flexible schedule and will adjust to the schedule of the train, so increasing the number of departures wouldn't significantly increase the number of tourists (which The Canadian makes most of its money off of). Yes there might be more local travelers, but not likely enough to cover the cost of running the extra trains. Having said that, there is an upper limit to the length of trains VIA can practically run because of the length of the platforms at the major stations (the platform at Jasper, for example, appears to be over 700m long).

So, it sounds like they need to set pricing at a higher amount to cover the costs, but not so high to deter ridership. I am wondering how the price per km/mile is calculated when it comes to a fare. Looks like one more thing I'll be figuring out one day.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Maybe nowhere. What does it matter? The objective should be useful infrastructure, not lines on a map.

It matters because it is not as simple as numbers. For a great example, on the Prairies, the 5 major cities all have 4 lane divided highways that connect to each other. From your own assessment, that is a waste of money and should not have been done.

Originally Posted by milomilo

My "wayward agenda" is a desire for good public infrastructure, not drawing lines on a map. Money spent on long distance routes useless for actually transporting Canadians gets in the way of that.

I now understand exactly your thinking and thought process. Thank you.

[J81]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Maybe nowhere. What does it matter? The objective should be useful infrastructure, not lines on a map.



My "wayward agenda" is a desire for good public infrastructure, not drawing lines on a map. Money spent on long distance routes useless for actually transporting Canadians gets in the way of that.

But thats the issue i have with your agenda. These trains do transport Canadians. So we eliminate these trains to run them in other parts of the country that dont currently have trains? Or you want to eliminate these trains so the equipment can be deployed in the corridor thus reducing the the ability to transport more Canadians? Which is it?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That is why I suggest that on top of the 1 train a day each way from each major city, you keep 1 train a week each way. This would keep the tourists happy, and keep the travelers happy too.

So would you make that train 3 times as long as the current one to handle all those tourists or would you only allow 1/3 as many tourists (significantly reducing revenue)?

So, it sounds like they need to set pricing at a higher amount to cover the costs, but not so high to deter ridership.

Picking a random date in November (to try and get the lowest base economy fare), an economy one way ticket between Saskatoon and Edmonton is $75. Do you really think they could significantly increase the fares washout deterring ridership? As a comparison, the bus is $57.14 for the latest date in November I could book.

[esquire]

I just wanted to thank roger1818 and Urban_Sky for their very informative answers to my earlier question!

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

So would you make that train 3 times as long as the current one to handle all those tourists or would you only allow 1/3 as many tourists (significantly reducing revenue)?

On that train, remove all the low fares. Run it as a tourist thing. Get rid of the idea of sleeping in your seat. In fact, as new cars are added to those hubs take the old fleet, refurbish them and make them part of the land yacht. Maybe one can run along the Corridor once a week too.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Picking a random date in November (to try and get the lowest base economy fare), an economy one way ticket between Saskatoon and Edmonton is $75. Do you really think they could significantly increase the fares washout deterring ridership? As a comparison, the bus is $57.14 for the latest date in November I could book.

Compare that to somewhere on the Corridor, like Toronto - Ottawa or Toronto - Montreal. What is the price difference as a percentage?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It matters because it is not as simple as numbers. For a great example, on the Prairies, the 5 major cities all have 4 lane divided highways that connect to each other. From your own assessment, that is a waste of money and should not have been done.

Well no, because those highways are well used, they justify the the investment. If we proposed building a parallel highway for the same cost, but also said only a hundred cars could go on it at 50km/h at one time per day, while the 110km/h freeway exists alongside, that would be equivalent to what you are proposing.

Originally Posted by J81

But thats the issue i have with your agenda. These trains do transport Canadians. So we eliminate these trains to run them in other parts of the country that dont currently have trains? Or you want to eliminate these trains so the equipment can be deployed in the corridor thus reducing the the ability to transport more Canadians? Which is it?

The number of people using the Canadian and Ocean for actual transportation is miniscule, and it would still be miniscule even if you made them somewhat more useful by running them daily. If one actually cared about public transportation you'd scrap those service and invest money in buses on those routes, since they'd be better in every way except "being a train", and put in bus routes over the vast majority of the country that doesn't happen to sit on a rail line.

Realistically though, everyone in Canada has a car so attempting to provide public transit to Rosetown Saskatchewan just isn't high on people's priorities. We instead do what is sensible and provide good public transit, often trains, in areas of high population density, like cities.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Well no, because those highways are well used, they justify the the investment. If we proposed building a parallel highway for the same cost, but also said only a hundred cars could go on it at 50km/h at one time per day, while the 110km/h freeway exists alongside, that would be equivalent to what you are proposing.

That is actually how 4 laning works. They make faster highways alongside slower roads. The reason those highways are as busy as the are is due to them being built. TBH, those highways are quite quiet compared to the 401. Maybe they should rip up 1 lane per side as it isn't that busy. r maybe it isn't that simple.

Originally Posted by milomilo

The number of people using the Canadian and Ocean for actual transportation is miniscule, and it would still be miniscule even if you made them somewhat more useful by running them daily. If one actually cared about public transportation you'd scrap those service and invest money in buses on those routes, since they'd be better in every way except "being a train", and put in bus routes over the vast majority of the country that doesn't happen to sit on a rail line.

Realistically though, everyone in Canada has a car so attempting to provide public transit to Rosetown Saskatchewan just isn't high on people's priorities. We instead do what is sensible and provide good public transit, often trains, in areas of high population density, like cities.

What happens in blizzards?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What happens in blizzards?

What happens when CP derails a train in front? Who cares? No one is using the trains anyway, and no one still until it is faster or cheaper than the other modes of transportation.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

What happens when CP derails a train in front? Who cares? No one is using the trains anyway, and no one still until it is faster or cheaper than the other modes of transportation.

How often are roads closed due to weather in the last year?
How often are speeds reduced on roads due to weather in the last year?
How often do trains slow down due to weather in the last year?
How often do trains stop due to weather in the last year?

How often are roads shut down due to accidents in the last year?
How often are trains stopped due to accidents in the last year?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

How often are roads closed due to weather in the last year?
How often are speeds reduced on roads due to weather in the last year?
How often do trains slow down due to weather in the last year?
How often do trains stop due to weather in the last year?

How often are roads shut down due to accidents in the last year?
How often are trains stopped due to accidents in the last year?

Again, who cares? People actually use roads, they do not use infrequent VIA trains and will not until they are better in some way to the other options available. Even if you ran them daily or a couple of times a day, they would still be worse in every way than the other options available, so people will still drive, fly or take a bus. If they even live near a railway station on a VIA line that they probably don't.

Give it up, it's never going to happen.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Again, who cares? People actually use roads, they do not use infrequent VIA trains and will not until they are better in some way to the other options available. Even if you ran them daily or a couple of times a day, they would still be worse in every way than the other options available, so people will still drive, fly or take a bus. If they even live near a railway station on a VIA line that they probably don't.

Give it up, it's never going to happen.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Or, better still, two wildly divergent views on the future of passenger rail in the country, with the gulf between these divergent views so wide and deep, that it will never be bridged.

Personally, I have no problem with investing in HFR in the corridor, and no problem with reestablishing passenger rail between Calgary and Edmonton. Hell, there should be better commuter rail in the lower mainland too, out as far as Langley and Chilliwack, if not Hope. If there is a role for VIA in this, I have no problem with this too.

In the east, VIA could be involved in commuter rail in Halifax, and increased frequency rail between Halifax/Truro/Moncton and Saint John. Why not? If it is frequent and reliable, people will take it.

But VIA has to remain a coherent national railway system, so some form of transnational service will have to remain. If Amtrak can do it, then why not us too.............

[Truenorth00]

There's a difference between those who advocate for proper public transport. And those who are railfans. This thread makes the difference very obvious where various interests lie. From railfans to actual rail operators pimping for their companies getting a nice cut from heavily subsidized passenger rail services running on tracks owned by their employers.