VIA Rail

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Abolishing the remote services would achieve nothing beyond adding to the long list of grievances of this country's First Nation communities, while freeing up a paltry $20 million in federal funding without any guarantee that any of that would be reinvested into passenger rail services, let alone: improved VIA services...

In my opinion the remote services shouldn't really exist, but the position you have stated here is a pragmatic approach.

I'd say the same about the Canadian and Ocean - I know I probably sound quite gung ho about scrapping them, but realistically the absolute value of the subsidy is tiny on the entire federal budget, so limping it on for now and trying to make the optimal service level to get the subsidy lowest makes sense. However when the time comes that they have to buy new equipment or some unexpected failure or problem happens, I just can't see new capital being spent on them. Unless some other country happens to be flogging some hand-me-downs.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I feel like this is a quibble on how usefulness is defined. Clearly a debate the British themselves are having on the topic. But if we're going to be more accurate, I guess the best way to look at this is that most of VIA's non-Corridor services run at frequencies similar to these Ghost Trains.

The difference is those UK ghost trains are a result of well meaning policy and I think everyone agrees they are a bad, unwanted outcome. But in the grand scheme of things, a handful of ghost trains out of tens of thousands of rail services per day is inconsequential, and if it means that it is hard for operators to scrap service then it could be a fine price to pay.

In Canada, ghost train describes a large portion of the service, and if we introduced swimmer's daily Calgary - Winnipeg train, that one would definitely fit the description.

[Truenorth00]

Have a minimal frequency service limp on to meet a governmental obligation. Sounds a lot like how the British ghosts trains are described in the video.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Have a minimal frequency service limp on to meet a governmental obligation. Sounds a lot like how the British ghosts trains are described in the video.

Yes - exactly. At least there seems to be some process for getting rid of them in the UK.

[casper]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The difference is those UK ghost trains are a result of well meaning policy and I think everyone agrees they are a bad, unwanted outcome. But in the grand scheme of things, a handful of ghost trains out of tens of thousands of rail services per day is inconsequential, and if it means that it is hard for operators to scrap service then it could be a fine price to pay.

In Canada, ghost train describes a large portion of the service, and if we introduced swimmer's daily Calgary - Winnipeg train, that one would definitely fit the description.

There is a fundamental difference. UK ghost trains are stops at stations that serve little purpose today. Stopping at a steel mill that is now non-existent or servicing a pier for a ferry that no longer exists. They are contractual obligations that private railway entered into a decade or two ago when they made sense.

Running a train between a Calgary and Winnipeg is about providing rail service to over a millions people. This is not a train to a ghost town or abandoned mine site.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I think a huge problem with these discussions is that a lot of people discuss the European and Asian Austin from the perspective of our times there as tourists.

Canadian in Europe: "These super fast trains are amazing. They get me anywhere."

Canadian in Europe: Doesn't understand that high gas prices, substantial highway tolls and parking charges in urban centres substantially narrow the cost difference between driving and taking the train.

When it's so cheap to drive in Canada, and the train is infrequent, slow and expensive, there's really no way to close the gap without massive subsidies. And that's why the number of routes and number of frequencies outside the Corridor is so low.

That is why it is time for the governments to put their big boy pants on and stop subsidizing the oil industry and the airline industry, as well as increase fuel costs to gasoline. Either that or we accept what we have is the best we will ever have. It really is that simple.

Originally Posted by milomilo

I figured it might be this - I'm not sure how you think this helps the argument, as these ghost trains are a rare occurrence, and we can all agree they are a result of broken policy and undesirable. But this sort of ghost train describes nearly the entirety of VIA's network outside of the corridor! No one uses the service because the alternatives are so superior, so it is run infrequently, thus making the service even worse! But the operator is forced to run the service because of government rules that haven't kept up with reality.

And look at what their definition of "ghost train" is - a service of once per day! Sound familiar?

Well, if you feel this is exactly what we should have, then by all means let's do it. Or, maybe we improve some of Via's ghost trains till it is at a decent frequency to be useful enough to be used.

There are places around the world where based on your license plate, you can only drive on certain days of the week. Beijing is one of those. What if we did that, would driving be that useful? What if you could only use your car on odd or even days, how would you get anywhere? Very shortly, you'd be looking for more reliable daily transportation options.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I feel like that $20M needs to be specifically booked by INAC instead of VIA so that people understand exactly why those intraprovincial routes are run. Maybe an en route announcement to help make it really obvious. "This adventure route service is brought to you by Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. We're helping connect Canada's remote First Nations communities to the world."

What I was getting at though, was that when it comes to the core mission of connecting provinces, there's really only three services that matter.

Moving it to a different department, whether by money or wholly was shown to be problematic for the ONTC. They were under the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. They are a transportation agency, not a mine or development agency. They have now been moved to the Ministry of Transportation, the same place as Metrolix and GO Transit are.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I feel like this is a quibble on how usefulness is defined. Clearly a debate the British themselves are having on the topic. But if we're going to be more accurate, I guess the best way to look at this is that most of VIA's non-Corridor services run at frequencies similar to these Ghost Trains.

So, lets move it to something useful.

Originally Posted by milomilo

In my opinion the remote services shouldn't really exist, but the position you have stated here is a pragmatic approach.

I'd say the same about the Canadian and Ocean - I know I probably sound quite gung ho about scrapping them, but realistically the absolute value of the subsidy is tiny on the entire federal budget, so limping it on for now and trying to make the optimal service level to get the subsidy lowest makes sense. However when the time comes that they have to buy new equipment or some unexpected failure or problem happens, I just can't see new capital being spent on them. Unless some other country happens to be flogging some hand-me-downs.

The fleet is old, from the 50s/60s. They can only be rebuilt so many times before they are too stressed to be worth fixing. The fleet does need to be replaced. My hope is in about 5 years an announcement is made about a replacement for the Canadian and Ocean fleet. It would be interesting how much they invest. If they invest enough to turn both of those into dailies or better, that will give me hope that we have turned the corner away from just Ghost Trains, and into the start of real transportation solutions.

Originally Posted by milomilo

The difference is those UK ghost trains are a result of well meaning policy and I think everyone agrees they are a bad, unwanted outcome. But in the grand scheme of things, a handful of ghost trains out of tens of thousands of rail services per day is inconsequential, and if it means that it is hard for operators to scrap service then it could be a fine price to pay.

In Canada, ghost train describes a large portion of the service, and if we introduced swimmer's daily Calgary - Winnipeg train, that one would definitely fit the description.

It would if you did not have it at least once a day each way. The key is to make it useful, if it is going to be done. Every second day is not useful for most travelers.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Have a minimal frequency service limp on to meet a governmental obligation. Sounds a lot like how the British ghosts trains are described in the video.

Wouldn't it be better not to just limp along?
Wouldn't it be better if it was useful for most travelers?

Originally Posted by casper

There is a fundamental difference. UK ghost trains are stops at stations that serve little purpose today. Stopping at a steel mill that is now non-existent or servicing a pier for a ferry that no longer exists. They are contractual obligations that private railway entered into a decade or two ago when they made sense.

Running a train between a Calgary and Winnipeg is about providing rail service to over a millions people. This is not a train to a ghost town or abandoned mine site.

Some people, like Milomilo, Truenorth and Urbansky seem to feel it is. Some of us feel that you shouldn't have to live in the Corridor to have reasonably reliable service. I doubt anything will change their minds.

[Truenorth00]

What would change my mind is actual public support for rail in the places you want to build rail. I don't see it.

I imagine that if we went to towns and cities between Calgary and Winnipeg and told them that we could offer them daily VIA service but we need to up fuel taxes or toll the Trans Canada, they'd probably tell us very colorfully where to stick that train. This is very different from Southern Ontario and Quebec which have both voted repeatedly for carbon taxes (for example) and strongly value public transit in their urban centres.

I'm a realist. I think pushing rope is an utter waste of time and political effort. It's also why, outside forums like this one you'll literally never see discussion on building cross-Canada rail service. The muggles don't care. What they might actually express frustration on, is not being able to get between Toronto and Montreal or Calgary and Edmonton in a reasonable amount of time. But that's kind of where their concerns end.

It's going to take nearly $2 billion to recapitalize the non-Corridor fleet (double what was spent on the Siemens order). Will indeed be interesting to see what the government commitment is to these routes and how long they are kept limping on till such an investment is made. Or if that investment ever comes.....

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by casper

There is a fundamental difference. UK ghost trains are stops at stations that serve little purpose today. Stopping at a steel mill that is now non-existent or servicing a pier for a ferry that no longer exists. They are contractual obligations that private railway entered into a decade or two ago when they made sense.

Running a train between a Calgary and Winnipeg is about providing rail service to over a millions people. This is not a train to a ghost town or abandoned mine site.

Fully agreed, "ghost trains" are a specific UK phenomenon, which only exists as a byproduct of their (thankfully now collapsed) franchising system and have no resemblance with anything which operates in this country or is proposed to operate here:
• Video Link

However, "would serve a million people" does by no means guarantee that more than a minuscule minority would find such a service useful...

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Some people, like Milomilo, Truenorth and Urbansky seem to feel it is. Some of us feel that you shouldn't have to live in the Corridor to have reasonably reliable service. I doubt anything will change their minds.

The only reason why we have these endless debates is that fellow commenters like @GoTrans or this compulsive spammer don't grasp that people chose whichever transportation option corresponds best with their needs and that "being a train, not a bus" doesn't trump "being reasonably fast, frequent, reliable and affordable". As @milomilo has correctly remarked, the obsession about "restoring trains, nothing but trains" is rooted in an ignorance about what the actual needs of neglected Western communities are.

The only good which could possibly come out of this debate (if it ever reaches the federal level, which it would have already if it really was a pressing local concern, as certain people here insist) would be if the subsidy requirement of running such a daily coast-to-coast passenger rail service was estimated and an equivalent funding envelope was given to the provinces to design an intercity transportation network which actually suits their needs...

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Fully agreed, "ghost trains" are a specific UK phenomenon, which only exists as a byproduct of their (thankfully now collapsed) franchising system and have no resemblance with anything which operates in this country or is proposed to operate here:
• Video Link

However, "would serve a million people" does by no means guarantee that more than a minuscule minority would find such a service useful...



The only reason why we have these endless debates is that fellow commenters like @GoTrans or this compulsive spammer don't grasp that people chose whichever transportation option corresponds best with their needs and that "being a train, not a bus" doesn't trump "being reasonably fast, frequent, reliable and affordable". As @milomilo has correctly remarked, the obsession about "restoring trains, nothing but trains" is rooted in an ignorance about what the actual needs of neglected Western communities are.

The only good which could possibly come out of this debate (if it ever reaches the federal level, which it would have already if it really was a pressing local concern, as certain people here insist) would be if the subsidy requirement of running such a daily coast-to-coast passenger rail service was estimated and an equivalent funding envelope was given to the provinces to design an intercity transportation network which actually suits their needs...

Thanks for this video, I'm watching it now. One very interesting titbit so far - it was the EU that encouraged the separation of operating rail services vs operating the track - something that I think is the greatest failing of Canada's rail network. If it was something akin to Network Rail owning the railways, VIA would likely be in a much better position without disadvantaging the freightcos.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by casper

There is a fundamental difference. UK ghost trains are stops at stations that serve little purpose today. Stopping at a steel mill that is now non-existent or servicing a pier for a ferry that no longer exists. They are contractual obligations that private railway entered into a decade or two ago when they made sense.

Running a train between a Calgary and Winnipeg is about providing rail service to over a millions people. This is not a train to a ghost town or abandoned mine site.

VIA running a Calgary - Winnipeg train would only happen through government compulsion, and the numbers of people using it would be closer to zero than millions. So very similar to the UK ghost trains.

If a hypothetical Calgary - Regina train travelled at the same speed as a Saskatoon train, by my quick estimate about 60km/h, it would take over 12 hours to make the trip, and Regina isn't a whole lot larger than Red Deer. The amount of people that would take an unreliable train at an ungodly hour to arrive in a small city with no car, when they could take their own vehicle at the time of their choosing in 8 or 9 hours will be miniscule. It will not justify the cost, at minimum, of buying new trains. And it will not provide useful service to people who live in these provinces.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

The only good which could possibly come out of this debate (if it ever reaches the federal level, which it would have already if it really was a pressing local concern, as certain people here insist) would be if the subsidy requirement of running such a daily coast-to-coast passenger rail service was estimated and an equivalent funding envelope was given to the provinces to design an intercity transportation network which actually suits their needs...

If Alberta did have money forced on it to spend on intercity public transit, the best place to start would probably be where it is already going - regional buses around Calgary and the Bow Valley/national parks. If swimmer, Go_Trans and the rest actually cared, they'd listen to the people that live here and discover what our actual problems are right now. There is very little need for public transit outside of cities in the prairies, the roads are not constrained at all. But what is constrained is parking and roads in the mountains - so the fewer cars we send out there the better. Improve the buses, and a train could easily follow - indeed the CIB are working on just that.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What would change my mind is actual public support for rail in the places you want to build rail. I don't see it.

I imagine that if we went to towns and cities between Calgary and Winnipeg and told them that we could offer them daily VIA service but we need to up fuel taxes or toll the Trans Canada, they'd probably tell us very colorfully where to stick that train. This is very different from Southern Ontario and Quebec which have both voted repeatedly for carbon taxes (for example) and strongly value public transit in their urban centres.

I'm a realist. I think pushing rope is an utter waste of time and political effort. It's also why, outside forums like this one you'll literally never see discussion on building cross-Canada rail service. The muggles don't care. What they might actually express frustration on, is not being able to get between Toronto and Montreal or Calgary and Edmonton in a reasonable amount of time. But that's kind of where their concerns end.

It's going to take nearly $2 billion to recapitalize the non-Corridor fleet (double what was spent on the Siemens order). Will indeed be interesting to see what the government commitment is to these routes and how long they are kept limping on till such an investment is made. Or if that investment ever comes.....

Show me that a study has been done to find out how frequent of a train would be useful where none currently runs. Pick any route.

I am a realist. That is why I laugh when someone was HSR or nothing. I also now nothing will change in the short term.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Thanks for this video, I'm watching it now. One very interesting titbit so far - it was the EU that encouraged the separation of operating rail services vs operating the track - something that I think is the greatest failing of Canada's rail network. If it was something akin to Network Rail owning the railways, VIA would likely be in a much better position without disadvantaging the freightcos.

Just imagine if the federal government announce that it would be nationalizing all railways in Canada.

Originally Posted by milomilo

VIA running a Calgary - Winnipeg train would only happen through government compulsion, and the numbers of people using it would be closer to zero than millions. So very similar to the UK ghost trains.

If a hypothetical Calgary - Regina train travelled at the same speed as a Saskatoon train, by my quick estimate about 60km/h, it would take over 12 hours to make the trip, and Regina isn't a whole lot larger than Red Deer. The amount of people that would take an unreliable train at an ungodly hour to arrive in a small city with no car, when they could take their own vehicle at the time of their choosing in 8 or 9 hours will be miniscule. It will not justify the cost, at minimum, of buying new trains. And it will not provide useful service to people who live in these provinces.

The Corridor travels at around 90mph, or about 145 km/hr. The speed limit on the 401/20 is 100km/hr. How is it that it is still faster for me to drive than to take a train. It's about a 6 hour train trip and a 5 hour drive. 9 hours vs 12 hours isn't much worse than 6 hours vs 5 hours.

Originally Posted by milomilo

If Alberta did have money forced on it to spend on intercity public transit, the best place to start would probably be where it is already going - regional buses around Calgary and the Bow Valley/national parks. If swimmer, Go_Trans and the rest actually cared, they'd listen to the people that live here and discover what our actual problems are right now. There is very little need for public transit outside of cities in the prairies, the roads are not constrained at all. But what is constrained is parking and roads in the mountains - so the fewer cars we send out there the better. Improve the buses, and a train could easily follow - indeed the CIB are working on just that.

But I thought Calgary and Edmonton have great transit? I guess they don't. Maybe Calgary and Edmonton should start running a commuter train on the railways around it. They won't. Instead they will just keep building their LRTs as they think that is the solution. People have said that the federal government doesn't invest in regional transit outside of big ticket items. The federal government has tried to give money and have it go to health care. The province fought over that. "You can't tell me what to do. That is my jurisdiction."

[milomilo]

Calgary and Edmonton are building LRTs because they are more useful for their purposes than commuter rail. They essentially are commuter rail anyway, but they don't have to deal with running on other people's infrastructure. No one here wants a train to Regina and it's pretty insulting to keep being told that's what is best for us.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The Corridor travels at around 90mph, or about 145 km/hr. The speed limit on the 401/20 is 100km/hr. How is it that it is still faster for me to drive than to take a train. It's about a 6 hour train trip and a 5 hour drive. 9 hours vs 12 hours isn't much worse than 6 hours vs 5 hours.

Nobody drives from Toronto Union station to Montreal Central station in 5 hours. It's 554 km, so you're not going to do this unless you average 111 km/h including obligatory stops to fill gas and pee.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Show me that a study has been done to find out how frequent of a train would be useful where none currently runs. Pick any route.

I am a realist. That is why I laugh when someone was HSR or nothing. I also now nothing will change in the short term.

I'm on my phone so I'm not digging up the links, but there are studies publicly available on passenger rail from Calgary to Banff and Calgary to Edmonton, both suggesting fairly frequent, high quality service, not the decrepit daily trains you suggest.

There are no studies on a Calgary - Winnipeg route, as it is so obviously a terrible idea.

[Truenorth00]

Isn't the CIB examining a Calgary-Banff proposal right now?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm on my phone so I'm not digging up the links, but there are studies publicly available on passenger rail from Calgary to Banff and Calgary to Edmonton, both suggesting fairly frequent, high quality service, not the decrepit daily trains you suggest.

There are no studies on a Calgary - Winnipeg route, as it is so obviously a terrible idea.

Exactly. And if no one has ever acted on those intra Alberta studies (not even when the NDP was in power), what is the point of funding a study of a longer inter provincial route that serves a smaller population?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Isn't the CIB examining a Calgary-Banff proposal right now?

I think so, but until construction gets funded, it is just yet another study.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Isn't the CIB examining a Calgary-Banff proposal right now?

Yes. So we'll have another one in time. This one is the most interesting and feasible to me.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Calgary and Edmonton are building LRTs because they are more useful for their purposes than commuter rail. They essentially are commuter rail anyway, but they don't have to deal with running on other people's infrastructure.

Ottawa is doing the same thing as Edmonton and Calgary. They are all in the same boat as none of them are large enough to support commuter rail (the exurb communities are tiny). Vancouver is a special case in this regard, since the mountains and ocean have forced much of its growth up the Fraser Valley.