VIA Rail

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

If I may interject as a non-Canadian:

................

2) The next logical place to connect Winnipeg to is not Regina/Calgary, but probably cooperating with Amtrak to get a Winnipeg/Grand Forks/Fargo/Minneapolis/(Chicago?) train running. Amtrak already operates the Empire Builder between Grand Forks and Chicago, so it would be relatively little additional trackage (would probably require restoring some now abandoned track though). Even though it would likely be an 8-hour train ride to MSP, flights between YPG and MSP seem to be ridiculously expensive (though still popular). If the train were significantly cheaper it could probably do well.

Historically there were three trains up to Winnipeg from the Twin Cities. The track remains from two of the old routes, the old GNR route via Crookston, Minn. and Hallock to Canada and also the Soo Line/CPR route via Thief River Falls, Minn. and following US 59 to Canada. The track has been removed at St. Thomas, N.D. on the old NP route from Grand Forks up through Grafton.

I believe there is demand for a second Empire Builder service from Chicago to the Twin Cities, esp. an overnight service in both directions to supplement the existing daytime service. That train would serve both Saint Paul and Minneapolis early in the morning, attracting business travellers, and continue west via Fargo and Grand Forks as a daytime train after leaving some of the sleepers at Saint Paul. A daytime train would see good patronage from St. Cloud, Fargo and Grand Forks. In the summer months it would even see high ridership to/from Detroit Lakes. Currently the train rolls through Fargo and Grand Forks in both directions in the middle of the night.

The most logical existing route using current track would be to cut back from Grand Forks to Crookston and then up to Winnipeg. The idea though for the Midwest Rail Initiative (aka Chicago Hub) is to implement near high-speed service (110 mph) for routes in the region. From Grand Forks Amtrak depot to Winnipeg-Union Station is about 140 miles so may make sense just to construct modern track and signalling on that portion to avoid potential service delays esp. around the St. Vincent (Pembina)/Emerson border crossing. Trains could then run non-stop from Grand Forks to Winnipeg in 90-105 minutes. Both U.S. and Canadian customs would be in Winnipeg as it is for air travel. With near high speed service the run to/from the Twin Cities could be achieved in 5 1/2 to 6 hours.

I like the names Red River Limited or Northern Lights, though I think the latter might be used if rail service is re-established between the Twin Cities and Duluth.

As for airfares between YWG and MSP they have always been extortionate for the under 400 mile route as the crow flies. This is because Delta has a monopoly and Air Canada wants to funnel passengers connecting to international through the nightmare airport that is Toronto. That place can't deal with even a few inches of snow so always delays in the winter. It is usually cheaper to travel to an international destination connecting in MSP than simply to go to the Twin Cities. I once booked a return Cancun ticket via MSP and MEM for considerably less than it would have cost just to go to MSP. The vast majority of people just do the 7 hour drive.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by thewave46

GO Transit seems to have a stronger mandate for its services than VIA. Maybe because it's more focused? I wonder if expanding its writ to include from Windsor to Ottawa might actually give service a boost. That, combined with Ontario Northland, provides a comprehensive travel network through the province.

If VIA still wants to run a train across the country, let them run one without all the hassle of trying to be a regional service. Just make life easier for someone coming from London (or wherever) and going to Toronto by way of giving control to the province instead of a distant federal government. It might also improve GO's image as a truly Ontario-based network, instead of a GTA-centric thing.

Eventually cooperate with Quebec and voila! A useful inter-region transport option.

GO Transit probably has more of a mandate because it is more useful and thus more valuable to voters, same as how the respective transit agencies in Edmonton, Saskatoon and Winnipeg are more valuable to their residents than VIA is. As you say, those agencies are also more focused.

It's why I agree with the consensus that HFR is VIA's best shot at long term relevance. If they pull it off, then they will have a core of users that like the service, want more of it and be upset if funding is cut.

If HFR fails, then GO and others could inevitably fill the vacuum and VIA will become irrelevant. I think this would be a failure though and you'd end up with inter provincial squabbles over service and funding. And of course the rest of the country would have no chance, although realistically there is little need for interprovincial rail travel west of Ontario.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by esquire

Just a couple of notes: it would be tough to get Winnipeggers heading down to Minneapolis out of their cars. It is a long but relatively easy drive and driving gives you the benefit of having a car in MSP which is pretty much a necessity... MSP is not the kind of town where you can easily get around without a car like NYC or even Chicago. It's the same going the other way, I think Minnesotans heading north would be inclined to take their cars with them.

Sounds legit. And this applies to all the prairie cities. Driving is easy, distances are large and having a car at the other end is a massive convenience. Some might long for the days where the train was the best option, but those days are gone forever, just like the days of using ships to travel across oceans are gone forever.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by esquire

Just a couple of notes: it would be tough to get Winnipeggers heading down to Minneapolis out of their cars. It is a long but relatively easy drive and driving gives you the benefit of having a car in MSP which is pretty much a necessity... MSP is not the kind of town where you can easily get around without a car like NYC or even Chicago. It's the same going the other way, I think Minnesotans heading north would be inclined to take their cars with them.

You are correct that DL's fares on YWG-MSP are very high... it's funny, but you can often fly to another DL hub like ATL via MSP for less than just flying to MSP itself. YWG-MSP is basically the domain of business travelers, unless they're connecting to somewhere else.

Tracks between Winnipeg and Fargo are secondary lines which would probably have some impact on operating speed.

Winnipeg-Minneapolis trains haven't operated since the late 60s and trains basically ceased being a mainstream form of transportation in Winnipeg with the 1990 VIA cuts, so it would be really tough to get people into the habit of taking the train again. Perhaps Minnesotans might be a bit more used to the idea?

This isn't to say that it couldn't be done, just that it would be very difficult.

If it would be faster than a car it would be highly used. Fargo (250,000) and Grand Forks (100,000) need better service to the Twin Cities anyways. Also you really don't need a car in Minneapolis as the Blue Line provides service to both the airport and the Mall of America and the Green Line to Saint Paul if you want to see a Wild game. The downtown area in Minneapolis is quite compact and walkable in any event. And Americans would come up too and rent a car if need be (you usually can't take rentals across the border). Canadians are always so negative and have a real "can't-do" attitude about everything. You've got posters here wanting to cancel one of the world's greatest train journeys to save $55 million dollars so it can go into some other bottomless pit. A seeming preference too to spend $5 on a hot dog rather than $7 on a nice steak (re: rapid transit in Winnipeg). Perhaps that is why Canada has now slipped to 20th in GDP per capita. It's truly exhausting.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

If it would be faster than a car it would be highly used. Fargo (250,000) and Grand Forks (100,000) need better service to the Twin Cities anyways. Also you really don't need a car in Minneapolis as the Blue Line provides service to both the airport and the Mall of America and the Green Line to Saint Paul if you want to see a Wild game. The downtown area in Minneapolis is quite compact and walkable in any event. And Americans would come up too and rent a car if need be (you usually can't take rentals across the border). Canadians are always so negative and have a real "can't-do" attitude about everything. You've got posters here wanting to cancel one of the world's greatest train journeys to save $55 million dollars so it can go into some other bottomless pit. A seeming preference too to spend $5 on a hot dog rather than $7 on a nice steak (re: rapid transit in Winnipeg). Perhaps that is why Canada has now slipped to 20th in GDP per capita. It's truly exhausting.

I'm not trying to be negative, I'm just not convinced that there really is a critical mass of potential train travellers heading in both directions to justify the existence of the service. Toronto-Chicago is an example of two cities a similar distance apart with far greater population than Winnipeg and Minneapolis and even that pair has struggled to sustain any kind of through train service.

A second competing airline on the YWG-MSP route that drives down prices a bit would do more to improve connectivity between the two cities than any train ever could.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Sounds legit. And this applies to all the prairie cities. Driving is easy, distances are large and having a car at the other end is a massive convenience. Some might long for the days where the train was the best option, but those days are gone forever, just like the days of using ships to travel across oceans are gone forever.

Not true. Car ownership is declining and you can rent a car for as little as $20/day if you need one. Even if the current service has a very lousy schedule I always leave the car at GFK and take the train if visiting the Twin Cities. It is far cheaper than the gas and saves 600 miles of wear and tear. And I love the experience of meeting people for breakfast in the dining car. Americans are so friendly and talkative. Also, you do not need a car in Mpls. and nor do you need one in Chicago.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by esquire

I'm not trying to be negative, I'm just not convinced that there really is a critical mass of potential train travellers heading in both directions to justify the existence of the service. Toronto-Chicago is an example of two cities a similar distance apart with far greater population than Winnipeg and Minneapolis and even that pair has struggled to sustain any kind of through train service.

A second competing airline on the YWG-MSP route that drives down prices a bit would do more to improve connectivity between the two cities than any train ever could.

Probably because the service was so piss-poor. Demolition by neglect.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

If it would be faster than a car it would be highly used. Fargo (250,000) and Grand Forks (100,000) need better service to the Twin Cities anyways. Also you really don't need a car in Minneapolis as the Blue Line provides service to both the airport and the Mall of America and the Green Line to Saint Paul if you want to see a Wild game. The downtown area in Minneapolis is quite compact and walkable in any event. And Americans would come up too and rent a car if need be (you usually can't take rentals across the border). Canadians are always so negative and have a real "can't-do" attitude about everything. You've got posters here wanting to cancel one of the world's greatest train journeys to save $55 million dollars so it can go into some other bottomless pit. A seeming preference too to spend $5 on a hot dog rather than $7 on a nice steak (re: rapid transit in Winnipeg). Perhaps that is why Canada has now slipped to 20th in GDP per capita. It's truly exhausting.

You've got it all wrong. Right now we have the taxpayer paying $20 for some people to have a $7 steak and $1000 for a handful of arbitrability selected people to have $1 worth of scrapings off the floor. What would be better is to have limited resources distributed where it gives the most valuable, thus making the country richer and allowing more people to have more.

If the Canadian was so valuable as "the greatest train journey in the world" then it wouldn't be breaking even, at best. It would be able to charge a ticket price high enough such that it could buy new equipment and pay the rail companies enough to let the trains run on time.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Probably because the service was so piss-poor. Demolition by neglect.

That was 50+ years ago, though...an era when train travel was still fairly relevant even if it was in decline. If trains couldn't compete with Interstate highways then, I'm not sure what the odds are likely to be now.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Not true. Car ownership is declining and you can rent a car for as little as $20/day if you need one. Even if the current service has a very lousy schedule I always leave the car at GFK and take the train if visiting the Twin Cities. It is far cheaper than the gas and saves 600 miles of wear and tear. And I love the experience of meeting people for breakfast in the dining car. Americans are so friendly and talkative. Also, you do not need a car in Mpls. and nor do you need one in Chicago.

Which part is not true?

• Driving in the prairies is easy - true
• Distances are large - true
• Having a car is a massive convenience - true

You might like the train experience, but we're not going to spend big on a few dozen people a day with the same priorities when we could spend that money on places that actually justify the investment. Long distance routes in the prairies are bottom of the pile for investment in passenger rail, and if you believe otherwise you are going to have a lifetime of disappointment.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

If it would be faster than a car it would be highly used. Fargo (250,000) and Grand Forks (100,000) need better service to the Twin Cities anyways. Also you really don't need a car in Minneapolis as the Blue Line provides service to both the airport and the Mall of America and the Green Line to Saint Paul if you want to see a Wild game. The downtown area in Minneapolis is quite compact and walkable in any event. And Americans would come up too and rent a car if need be (you usually can't take rentals across the border). Canadians are always so negative and have a real "can't-do" attitude about everything. You've got posters here wanting to cancel one of the world's greatest train journeys to save $55 million dollars so it can go into some other bottomless pit. A seeming preference too to spend $5 on a hot dog rather than $7 on a nice steak (re: rapid transit in Winnipeg). Perhaps that is why Canada has now slipped to 20th in GDP per capita. It's truly exhausting.

That is a big if. Looking at Amtrak's ambitious ConectUs proposal (which is dependant on receiving both state and federal funding), they have no upgrades planed on the line from St. Paul to Fargo and on to Grand Forks. Even if they did, the direct line from Grand Forks to Winnipeg is gone. It is unlikely for this to be replaced for an occasional passenger train and the detour to get to a main line (for faster operation) is not trivial.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by milomilo

You've got it all wrong. Right now we have the taxpayer paying $20 for some people to have a $7 steak and $1000 for a handful of arbitrability selected people to have $1 worth of scrapings off the floor. What would be better is to have limited resources distributed where it gives the most valuable, thus making the country richer and allowing more people to have more.

If the Canadian was so valuable as "the greatest train journey in the world" then it wouldn't be breaking even, at best. It would be able to charge a ticket price high enough such that it could buy new equipment and pay the rail companies enough to let the trains run on time.

Countries are not businesses and do not operate on a for profit basis. Many, many things get subsidized. I don't see schools and hospitals, police departments, the military or museums making money either.

At the moment the equipment is dated but it is in good condition. More important is to get the service operating daily and to close to double the rail average speed. 60 1/2 hours Winnipeg-Vancouver is not only unacceptable, it is a joke.

Also, I said "one of", not "the", certainly up there with the Trans-Siberian, Empire Builder and California Zephyr. I would put it above the Indian Pacific which certainly is considered one of the greatest but with markedly less impressive scenery.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

At the moment the equipment is dated but it is in good condition. More important is to get the service operating daily and to close to double the rail average speed. 60 1/2 hours Winnipeg-Vancouver is not only unacceptable, it is a joke.

What a tremendous waste of money that would be. Yes, subsidy is OK, but why should we prioritise subsidising a tiny number of foreigners when there are many times more Canadians that could benefit from that spending on improved transit?

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Which part is not true?

• Driving in the prairies is easy - true
• Distances are large - true
• Having a car is a massive convenience - true

You might like the train experience, but we're not going to spend big on a few dozen people a day with the same priorities when we could spend that money on places that actually justify the investment. Long distance routes in the prairies are bottom of the pile for investment in passenger rail, and if you believe otherwise you are going to have a lifetime of disappointment.

Driving in the prairies is easy - often not in winter

Distances are large - they are everywhere in Canada save within southern Ontario and southwestern Quebec, it is quite a haul from Vancouver to Prince George or from Toronto to Timmins.

Having a car is a massive convenience - yes, but if you really consider it only occasionally essential and poor value for money. I accept the reality that all Canadian cities, except just a few of the inner cores, are auto-centric which is to their detriment. Most people use their vehicles to commute to work and pay for parking, when they really don't have to, for the odd shopping trip and the occasional outing. A know a lady in Toronto who doesn't own a car and rents one maybe a half dozen times a year if she wants to go up to Algonquin or Georgian Bay, or wants to do a big shop at Costco. Very smart lady! More and more younger people are saying to heck with owning a car and with driverless vehicles coming on stage in the coming decade I think that will become more commonplace.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by milomilo

What a tremendous waste of money that would be. Yes, subsidy is OK, but why should we prioritise subsidising a tiny number of foreigners when there are many times more Canadians that could benefit from that spending on improved transit?

I proposed above in this thread that perhaps non-residents of Canada should pay a higher fare or Canadian residents get a discount from full fare, either/or. Many Canadians use the services, I have a number of times. It is amazing. The subsidies are trifling.

What a tremendous waste of money schools are, esp. when a significant number of high school grads are functionally illiterate. Do you believe that we should close them?

As Joe Biden says, "Come on Man".

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

At the moment the equipment is dated but it is in good condition.

Not true. According to VIA Rail's Summary 2020-2024 Corporate Plan (pg.23):

VIA Rail recognizes that despite the inherent quality of construction and intrinsic longevity of the stainless steel used, it is no longer reasonable to expect an extended service life from the Budd manufactured rolling stock equipment (HEP cars) that is approaching or has exceeded 70 years of age.

At some point the effectiveness, usefulness and maintenance costs of any product will reach a point where replacement must be considered and unfortunately this also includes the HEP cars.

More important is to get the service operating daily

But VIA doesn't even have enough equipment to bring back 3 trains a week between Edmonton and Vancouver, let alone daily service (or add new routes).

and to close to double the rail average speed. 60 1/2 hours Winnipeg-Vancouver is not only unacceptable, it is a joke.

How do you propose doing that without constraining freight rail services (and thus putting hundreds (if not thousands) of more trucks on the road)? All I hear is "VIA should do X" without any feasible solutions.

The reality is VIA is constrained by the budget they are given from the Federal and Provincial governments (hint, the latter don't give VIA any money). If you want better passenger rail service, lobby the government (or give VIA the money from your own bank account); don't complain on a forum which isn't read by any politicians.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by roger1818

That is a big if. Looking at Amtrak's ambitious ConectUs proposal (which is dependant on receiving both state and federal funding), they have no upgrades planed on the line from St. Paul to Fargo and on to Grand Forks. Even if they did, the direct line from Grand Forks to Winnipeg is gone. It is unlikely for this to be replaced for an occasional passenger train and the detour to get to a main line (for faster operation) is not trivial.

There is an existing line from Grand Forks to Crookston, Minn. and then up to Winnipeg. New track would be best to handle 110 mph trains. We are talking about 140 miles of track . Funny how you didn't seem to complain when I said that the c.330 mile Toronto-Montreal run should be upgraded to full high speed, at least to InterCity 125 standards and achieve the trip in 3 1/2 hours, which would result in a net profit (see Acela Express percentage of NYC-WSH market vs. pre-opening) which could be used to subsidize the outer less profitable routes. Is the Sheppard Line profitable or is it subsidized by Yonge-University and Bloor trains? Meh, just close it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by thewave46

GO Transit seems to have a stronger mandate for its services than VIA. Maybe because it's more focused? I wonder if expanding its writ to include from Windsor to Ottawa might actually give service a boost. That, combined with Ontario Northland, provides a comprehensive travel network through the province.

If VIA still wants to run a train across the country, let them run one without all the hassle of trying to be a regional service. Just make life easier for someone coming from London (or wherever) and going to Toronto by way of giving control to the province instead of a distant federal government. It might also improve GO's image as a truly Ontario-based network, instead of a GTA-centric thing.

Eventually cooperate with Quebec and voila! A useful inter-region transport option.

Stronger mandate and better funding. VIA's plans for the Corridor and particularly those for connecting the larger centres seem to be getting held hostage to the kinds of whining we see on here. "Why are they building more in the Corridor when they haven't even connected Winnipeg and Regina yet?"

If that is the case, may be it's time to ditch VIA and reduce them to only running long distance trains. Ontario and Quebec do need to start thinking about integration anyway. Ottawa needs to better connected with Montreal. And the Toronto ex-urban shed needs to be extended to a London, Kingston and Peterborough. And GO and Exo are becoming agencies that are capable of building such connections.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

GO Transit probably has more of a mandate because it is more useful and thus more valuable to voters, same as how the respective transit agencies in Edmonton, Saskatoon and Winnipeg are more valuable to their residents than VIA is. As you say, those agencies are also more focused.

It's why I agree with the consensus that HFR is VIA's best shot at long term relevance. If they pull it off, then they will have a core of users that like the service, want more of it and be upset if funding is cut.

If HFR fails, then GO and others could inevitably fill the vacuum and VIA will become irrelevant. I think this would be a failure though and you'd end up with inter provincial squabbles over service and funding. And of course the rest of the country would have no chance, although realistically there is little need for interprovincial rail travel west of Ontario.

The conversations in this thread are starting to convince me that it should be GO and Exo that build HFR and that VIA needs to moved on from the Corridor. It's ridiculous to have the interests of a region with half the country's population and economy held hostage by the needs of Medicine Hat and Riviere du Loup.

If VIA can't deliver actual improvements in the next few years, it'll be time for Ontario and Quebec to move past VIA.

[manny_santos]

Not VIA Rail, but related to passenger rail nonetheless:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/ontario-northland-passenger-rail-2025-1.6039373

The aim is for the Northlander to return in 2025, with service from Toronto to North Bay and Timmins/Cochrane.