VIA Rail

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by roger1818

That's fair. Even with HFR I could see the province eventually taking over the Toronto-Kingston route, but I just don't see them extending to Ottawa. I could be wrong though.


Maybe. As I said, I am not holding my breath though.

So you don't think it's likely to happen because of your perception of the stakeholder (mainly Ontario gov) intentions. But what about a more prescriptive position, ie, what you think should happen if the various stakeholders were to be open to various options?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

So you don't think it's likely to happen because of your perception of the stakeholder (mainly Ontario gov) intentions. But what about a more prescriptive position, ie, what you think should happen if the various stakeholders were to be open to various options?

I think VIA Rail should operate intercity services (with appropriate support from the federal government) and the provinces should fund regional services.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I think VIA Rail should operate intercity services (with appropriate support from the federal government) and the provinces should fund regional services.

Where does regional service end and intercity service begin?

Personally, I really don't care what the paint scheme is on the side of the train. All that matters, is service that gets me to where I want to go, in time I think is reasonable, for a fare I think is affordable. If the feds really can't do the job with VIA, I'm okay with other agencies stepping up.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I think VIA Rail should operate intercity services (with appropriate support from the federal government) and the provinces should fund regional services.

Alright, fair enough!

I guess the only reason I find the idea of bypassing VIA somewhat appealing is that it helps minimize the often toxic frequency vs coverage debate because there wouldn't be as much pressure from provinces where high ridership corridors aren't viable since no one would expect coverage from an another province's agency. Although there are still remote areas in the provinces with high ridership corridors.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yep. He's talking about history from nearly three decades ago as though GO from 1990 bares much resemblance to GO today. Let alone what GO will be post-RER.

The way I see it, it's much easier for GO to build some kind of higher speed rail/HFR or even HSR as an express rail service that compliments its regional service, in an incremental fashion, than waiting a decade for VIA to study an idea, another half decade to possibly decide to implement it and then not implement it all.

GO is building a massive electrified and mostly grade separated heavy rail network that will eventually transport as many passengers in a fortnight than what VIA does in a year. And these plans haven't even slowed under a conservative government.

Meanwhile, the federal Liberals took half a decade to study HFR, haven't released the study and won't actually commit to the project with a launch. And nobody knows if HFR survives when the convent eventually flips back to the Conservatives, who have austerity at the top of their agenda.

If the feds can't commit to HFR later this year, I'll be petitioning my MPP to have Metrolinx start considering expansion to push for VIA to turn over the Corridor.

HFR will be started soon enough. The Liberals need to have it started for an election to happen, and they are itching to get a majority government.

Please show me the new rail line that GO has built.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Having Metrolinx take over VIA's corridor service in Ontario is an interesting idea, but I doubt if it will ever happen. Metrolinx's "mandate is transforming mobility across the GTHA" and I doubt if it will be expanded to include Ottawa and Windsor. They are gradually expanding beyond the GTHA to include more of the Golden Horseshoe, but London and Kingston (let alone Ottawa and Windsor) are still a long way off without a major change in mandate from Queens Park.

Look at who is doing the work to get the Northlander back up....

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Mandates and their interpretations can change. There's no reason for GO to run service to Niagara Falls and for OC Transpo to use Presto (managed by Metrolinx). Yet, here we are. Another decade of the feds and VIA — the dog on the Corridor and I bet the conversations will be very different.

I thought mandates were carved in stone? I thought you couldn't change what Via is supposed to do? I thought that all those who tote this line were right.......

Originally Posted by roger1818

I think VIA Rail should operate intercity services (with appropriate support from the federal government) and the provinces should fund regional services.

I do think the provinces should chip in for some of the route through their province. The issue I see is what happens if a province decided not to?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Where does regional service end and intercity service begin?

Personally, I really don't care what the paint scheme is on the side of the train. All that matters, is service that gets me to where I want to go, in time I think is reasonable, for a fare I think is affordable. If the feds really can't do the job with VIA, I'm okay with other agencies stepping up.

How GTA centric of you. Imagine someone from Alberta or Saskatchewan saying that.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Crookston is about 38 km east-south-east of Grand Forks. You are talking about having the train faster than driving and yet want to divert it on an Z shaped route?....

I said if you were going to use existing track, but that is far from ideal if near high speed is the goal given the potential delays from heavy freight traffic at Emerson. Either new track close to the I-29 corridor or via Grafton and connect the tracks between St. Thomas, N.D. and Altona, Man. (about 40 miles) which may have advantages given the greater distance from the Red River which is prone to spring flooding in the northern RR Valley.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by roger1818

VIA Rail has revealed the Final Design of it’s New Fleet.

• Video Link

There website also has updated renderings.

These do actually look very nice. It still annoys me that they have to be overbuilt to meet regulations, but they look closer to nice modern European trains than ever before. And if the renderings are accurate, they look very spacious inside which is definitely one area North American trains excel over the ones I am used to.

Even if they can't make much of a measurable difference to journeys now, having nice equipment always makes the user appreciate the experience much more.

It's actually shocking how old VIA equipment is. It looks like the rotting Nightstar cast offs are the youngest of the lot and are still a quarter of a century old. Most of the rest is older than me, and some older than my parents.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Yeah I looked at that and concluded that the abandoned (but as far as I can tell unencroached) ROW through Pembina would have to be restored, which is a big ask of course.

As for people preferring to have their own cars, it depends on what the plan is. There is also a strong preference to NOT to drive 7 hours if you can help it or fork $400/person to Delta. Depending on what someone's plans are, public transit or Uber are decent options. I don't have a strong sense of the travel market between Winnipeg / Grand Forks / Fargo / Minneapolis though.

Are you talking about the gap between St. Thomas and Altona? That could be rebuilt, it's only 40 miles. Both CN and CP trains cross at on the Minnesota side with CN trains crossing the Red at Emerson and running up on the Letellier sub and CP trains staying east of the River and running up on the Emerson sub.

There are always going to be people who prefer to drive, the idea is to get a larger share of the market. There is a lot of traffic between southern Manitoba and Grand Forks and Fargo, esp. Grand Forks as that is the "Bellingham" or the "Buffalo" for this market. You should have seen the line-ups at the border when the C$ was closer to par. That city is really hurting right now as the border is closed. Many hotels were built for Canadian tourists. Fargo is much bigger so many go the extra 70 miles for the increased choices, plus it has a Costco and people here just love Costco. And it's a Costco with wine, beer and liquor, lol! It's rumoured that the Kirkland Vodka is actually Grey Goose, 60 oz. for around $20. Then there's some with money who go for medical treatments if they don't want to wait and also many Canadians use Grand Forks and Fargo for the airports as both are served by Allegiant. Yeah, it's a bargain basement airline but I've flown to Vegas for well under $100 return. I think I paid something like $139 for LAX return. The long term parking is a fraction of what is charged at YWG. So 1 3/4 hrs to GF or a 2 1/2 hour trip to Fargo, no line ups at the border, no weather, no construction, an uber to the airport, no parking fees, many would jump on board for that.

The Twin Cities are the regional metropolis for the Upper Midwest and many Canadians go there for a short vacation or even to go to a Vikes game, or to see the Jets play in Saint Paul. And there's so much to do there and it's not far to Wis. Dells. And then of course there's the North Shore which is absolutely beautiful. Americans come up to Manitoba because they can drink at 18, they like our beer for some reason, they absolutely love the pot shops, for concerts and culture, to see the Wild or the Hawks play here, they like the casinos and the beaches and then of course there are the many fly-in fishing lodges up north. I think a daily train would be well used, and again both Grand Forks and Fargo need better connections to the Twin Cities anyways, and the Cities themselves need a second daily train to Chicago. The needed improvements are about 140 miles, of which just about 65 are in Canada, although I would think Amtrak would expect a contribution for the section in the U.S. north of Grand Forks.

Manitoba needs to get on board with the Midwest Rail Initiative now. This project offers huge benefits for the province, plus for Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota and North Dakota.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

How GTA centric of you. Imagine someone from Alberta or Saskatchewan saying that.

Gladly. And my pitch to them would be simple.

Wouldn't it be great that VIA has to worry less about the Corridor, where 95% of its ridership and 77% of its revenue comes from? You want better service between Winnipeg and Regina? I want better Corridor service to Ottawa, London, Peterborough, etc. Let's allow the provinces to pursue projects in their best interest. You don't need Ottawa dictating where routes run and how frequent they are. Build what you need and can afford.

[J81]

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.



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.

In what way is a bus better than a train? Please explain.? Ive been on both and will take the train 100% of the time. The busses that run the same routes as the Ocean are empty. So please do tell how people would be better off with busses?

[J81]

Originally Posted by 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.

The last half of this statement quite possibly is the most ridiculous statement ive read on this thread. A thread SSIGUY pops into once in a while. Bravo!

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J81

In what way is a bus better than a train? Please explain.? Ive been on both and will take the train 100% of the time. The busses that run the same routes as the Ocean are empty. So please do tell how people would be better off with busses?

More frequent. And usually cheaper.

You have a source that Maritime Bus is running empty? And was that before or after Covid.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Gladly. And my pitch to them would be simple.

Wouldn't it be great that VIA has to worry less about the Corridor, where 95% of its ridership and 77% of its revenue comes from? You want better service between Winnipeg and Regina? I want better Corridor service to Ottawa, London, Peterborough, etc. Let's allow the provinces to pursue projects in their best interest. You don't need Ottawa dictating where routes run and how frequent they are. Build what you need and can afford.

It would only solidify how the West and East think of people from Ontario.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by J81

In what way is a bus better than a train? Please explain.? Ive been on both and will take the train 100% of the time. The busses that run the same routes as the Ocean are empty. So please do tell how people would be better off with busses?

Advantages of bus:
Faster
More reliable
More frequent
Cheaper
Can go on routes laid out less than a century ago
Exists

Advantages of train:
Is a train

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It would only solidify how the West and East think of people from Ontario.

No it wouldn't. Stop this patronising — and listen to us.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by J81

In what way is a bus better than a train? Please explain.? Ive been on both and will take the train 100% of the time. The busses that run the same routes as the Ocean are empty. So please do tell how people would be better off with busses?

The route a bus can take can be tailored to anywhere the road goes. A train requires a railway first.

A bus has much lower operating costs than a train.

A bus doesn't have to wait for a freight train to pass before proceeding. It can pretty much travel at highway speed for most of the trip.

I will concede that the train is more comfortable for long journeys, but will point out that most consider air travel beyond a certain number of hours' journey. That interval is slightly longer for trains, but not so much so as to usually make a huge difference.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It would only solidify how the West and East think of people from Ontario.

We are pretty awesome in Ontario.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Advantages of bus:
Faster
More reliable
More frequent
Cheaper
Can go on routes laid out less than a century ago
Exists

Advantages of train:
Is a train

Buses get stopped by snow storms. Trains keep going.

Originally Posted by milomilo

No it wouldn't. Stop this patronising — and listen to us.

Do you speak for everyone? That is rather big of you.

Originally Posted by thewave46

The route a bus can take can be tailored to anywhere the road goes. A train requires a railway first.

A bus has much lower operating costs than a train.

A bus doesn't have to wait for a freight train to pass before proceeding. It can pretty much travel at highway speed for most of the trip.

I will concede that the train is more comfortable for long journeys, but will point out that most consider air travel beyond a certain number of hours' journey. That interval is slightly longer for trains, but not so much so as to usually make a huge difference.

You know what Buses can't do as easily as trains? They cannot get to the downtown parts of the major cities without being stuck in heavy congestion.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by thewave46

We are pretty awesome in Ontario.

We are, but so is the rest of the country.

[J81]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Advantages of bus:
Faster
More reliable
More frequent
Cheaper
Can go on routes laid out less than a century ago
Exists

Advantages of train:
Is a train

A bus is not faster unless its express. You clearly have never been on a bus in the maritimes. They arent more reliable in fact the argument could be made they are less reliable especially with the current emissions engines. Bad weather? Not even close. Would you rather spend all night on a bus or all night on a train? How about an all day trip? How about a business trip? You know anyone that takes the bus to a business meeting? Keep going though!