VIA Rail

[esquire]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The best thing folks could have done to keep rail service would have been to use it when it was offered. Clearly not many did. I know that the old Calgary Edmonton service that was cancelled was down to only ~150 people a day. If it had been more than that then it might have been kept and improved, but it wasn't so it's gone forever.

One could make the case that the Calgary-Edmonton train had no hope of succeeding in its 1980s state. You can read this blogpost for detailed information on why:

http://tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com/2014/04/vias-calgary-edmonton-rdcs-part-1.html

I agree with your general point, though... in the words of Mulroney, "use it or lose it".

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I'll bet there was lots back in the late 90s when it was cut, but now they have just given up.

What happened 30 years ago is all but irrelevant today. We are about a decade away from highly automated electric vehicles being affordable. It's a completely different era.

Why in 2030 would I be advocating for a once day train when my $40k Gen 3 F150 Lightning has enough driver assist features to make the drive incredibly easy, with far less fatigue than the past?

At least in urban mega-regions the argument for rail service is the avoidance of investment in additional road infrastructure and traffic avoidance. What's the case going to be in the Prairies where none of this is an issue and where electrification and automation is about to make driving cheaper and easier?

Oh and if I don't want to drive? The same tech is about to make running coach buses much cheaper and safer too. And instead of one train a day, I might get half a dozen bus departures instead.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by esquire

One could make the case that the Calgary-Edmonton train had no hope of succeeding in its 1980s state. You can read this blogpost for detailed information on why:

http://tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com/2014/04/vias-calgary-edmonton-rdcs-part-1.html

I agree with your general point, though... in the words of Mulroney, "use it or lose it".

In a world where it was thousands of people using the service rather than barely more than a hundred though, the response could have been to upgrade the infrastructure. But since no one was using it, few must have cared - they kept voting in the same government.

If that service is ever to "return", it won't start with where it previously ended. It will have to be something different entirely - a service that is better than the alternatives. Something the old train clearly was not.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What happened 30 years ago is all but irrelevant today. We are about a decade away from highly automated electric vehicles being affordable. It's a completely different era.

Why in 2030 would I be advocating for a once day train when my $40k Gen 3 F150 Lightning has enough driver assist features to make the drive incredibly easy, with far less fatigue than the past?

At least in urban mega-regions the argument for rail service is the avoidance of investment in additional road infrastructure and traffic avoidance. What's the case going to be in the Prairies where none of this is an issue and where electrification and automation is about to make driving cheaper and easier?

Oh and if I don't want to drive? The same tech is about to make running coach buses much cheaper and safer too. And instead of one train a day, I might get half a dozen bus departures instead.

"Because train"

That's all there is to it. There is no logic on the other side of this debate.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by esquire

One could make the case that the Calgary-Edmonton train had no hope of succeeding in its 1980s state. You can read this blogpost for detailed information on why:

http://tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com/2014/04/vias-calgary-edmonton-rdcs-part-1.html

I agree with your general point, though... in the words of Mulroney, "use it or lose it".

And restarting this is tough.

Can't be as slow as the bus, because then it has to be as cheap as the bus. Has to be at least as fast as driving and cost as much as single occupancy driving to compete. That's about 3 hrs and $40 (might be down to $10 if comparing to EVs).

So the question is what would it cost in capex to build a service that achieves the above travel time and can they come close to breaking even with that fare? How big does the subsidy have to be to close that gap?

[Curmudgeon]

Their is a citizens advocacy group for passenger rail, Transport Action Canada.

The link south from Winnipeg has been discussed for years in conjunction with the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative which plan was released in 2004. I don't know if it will ever be completed, probably no time soon, and a Toronto-Montreal HSR link is probably well off into the future as well, but they are good and viable ideas. Here's a 9 year old article, maybe to some it's just an impossible fantasy, to others not. Probably was a fantasy 150 years ago when it was suggested that some day people in Montreal would be able to speak directly with people in Vancouver, or in 1927 when Lindbergh made the first non-stop flight from New York to Paris that within a half century people would be flying that route at supersonic speeds. There was massive opposition in Japan in the 1950s to the development of the bullet trains as it was questioned why massive amounts of money would be expended when railways were a thing of the past and will be replaced entirely by air and highway travel. Fortunately for Japan, the naysayers lost the argument.

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/fyi/fast-tracks-139567258.html

Here's a voice from the Maritimes

https://warktimes.com/2018/02/18/sackvil...re-via-rail-service-before-its-too-late/

And I agree to a certain extent that the thread has moved away from a discussion about national passenger rail service, which I think was the original premise, along with a broad discussion of rail travel in general, even discussions of rail systems in other countries for comparisons sake. And of course the Crown corporation itself, but has become a more of group-think club for local transport issues where increasingly the subject matter is Presto and GO Trains. That is passenger rail travel nonetheless so it isn't out of place here.

There are also assertions such as that people are not free to comment because they are outsiders, whatever that means, and then there are those who have appointed themselves to set the parameters of the subject matter and to dismiss any consideration of ideas and discussion that for whatever reason offends their sensibilities (and then they call others snowflakes!). Also nonsensical concerns that the debate has become too emotional. I've read nothing that suggests that, I've read no swearing, and despite some catty and passive aggressive commentary, such as the assertion that "Pensioners and students" are not middle class (again that has so many different meanings, are plumbers who didn't attend university middle class if they have a higher income than a manager with the civil service?), and are in some way lesser, because why wouldn't they just drive? Debate is expected to be passionate, have some backbone. Many have little knowledge of the subject matter, either anecdotally or from study so everything that doesn't fit within their blinders is simply dismissed. It's very difficult to have a free exchange of ideas when so many hold true to an unquestionable dogma that there is generally no place for trains at all in Canada except perhaps on a few Corridor routes, and certainly not at all if they require any public investment and/or subsidy whatsoever. Countries are not run like a fast-food restaurant. Oh well.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

There are also assertions such as that people are not free to comment because they are outsiders, whatever that means, and then there are those who have appointed themselves to set the parameters of the subject matter and to dismiss any consideration of ideas and discussion that for whatever reason offends their sensibilities (and then they call others snowflakes!).
...
It's very difficult to have a free exchange of ideas when so many hold true to an unquestionable dogma that there is generally no place for trains at all in Canada except perhaps on a few Corridor routes, and certainly not at all if they require any public investment and/or subsidy whatsoever. Countries are not run like a fast-food restaurant. Oh well.

People can come on here as newbies and say things that are passionate but maybe a bit misinformed. That's okay.

But after a few hundred posts, you'd expect some substantive knowledge of the real issues to implementing passenger rail in Canada to sink in.

It's like if I went to a space forum and as a non-physicist/non-astronaut/non-human biologist casually asked "why don't we have colonies on the moon?" I'd expect the first few people to calmly explain some of the biological, physical and economic constraints to why we it's not easy to build self-sustaining colonies for humans in outer space. But after my 500th time stubbornly trying to ask the same question, I think people would get upset too. There would be some expectation of a basic level of technical knowledge and not acknowledging those realities just lowers the level of discourse for everyone else.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

People can come on here as newbies and say things that are passionate but maybe a bit misinformed. That's okay.

But after a few hundred posts, you'd expect some substantive knowledge of the real issues to implementing passenger rail in Canada to sink in.

It's like if I went to a space forum and as a non-physicist/non-astronaut/non-human biologist casually asked "why don't we have colonies on the moon?" I'd expect the first few people to calmly explain some of the biological, physical and economic constraints to why we it's not easy to build self-sustaining colonies for humans in outer space. But after my 500th time stubbornly trying to ask the same question, I think people would get upset too. There would be some expectation of a basic level of technical knowledge and not acknowledging those realities just lowers the level of discourse for everyone else.

Thank you.

I know most of the regulars on this thread are probably more interested in trains than most. We're not against the idea of long distance trains through the prairies because we're libertarian cranks or anything like that. We're against those services because they don't make sense in a world where resources are limited, there are much better ways to spend the money, and better ways to transport rural residents.

Once there are high quality railways that are self sustaining around Calgary and Edmonton, then maybe we can talk about extending them east. But you'd never start with the routes that offer the least cost benefit.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Once there are high quality railways that are self sustaining around Calgary and Edmonton, then maybe we can talk about extending them east. But you'd never start with the routes that offer the least cost benefit.

Worse. I really fear what highly subsidized rail routes would do to the political consensus on supporting VIA. Supporting an agency that costs $300M/yr is one thing. Supporting one that costs a billion is another.

I would bet money that VIA itself would not survive a change of government if subsidies got that high.

On the other hand, if VIA is running $300-400M in subsidies for daily service on every long haul service and they have HFR in the Corridor and CalEd, even conservative governments might give them a pass.

This is also why I'm coming around to Ontario and Quebec taking over the Corridor. Would make VIA a much smaller target.

[someone123]

I do also think there are "values" questions and questions of planning horizons that have a big impact on what's considered viable. Canada doesn't seem to plan much for multi-generational transformative infrastructure these days and many people seem to get sticker shock without realizing the time periods the investment would be amortized over. It often feels like the provinces or cities need to champion long-term infrastructure development but I don't know how that could work out for something like VIA.

If there were more of a "what would we build for 2030-2080" zeitgeist (how much is this due to current demographics?) I don't think we'd build a web of high speed trains all around Canada but officials probably would look a more land assembly and strategic construction of corridors plus governments would have retained control of the railways themselves. Lots of provincial highway departments operate in this manner.

Another factor is that often the service comes down to relatively minor or historical political or technical issues that don't get considered in the debate. Or at least this is the case in the Maritimes. The services people actually ask for there are not up around the realm of what is or isn't technically possible. Often the request is for some subset of 1994 level service.

Food for thought: the town of Gaspé in Quebec, population 15,000, is the terminus for 3 trains a week that run for 100-200 km along a sparsely populated corridor. It is not like Churchill; there are roads there and they could run buses.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Worse. I really fear what highly subsidized rail routes would do to the political consensus on supporting VIA. Supporting an agency that costs $300M/yr is one thing. Supporting one that costs a billion is another.

I would bet money that VIA itself would not survive a change of government if subsidies got that high.

On the other hand, if VIA is running $300-400M in subsidies for daily service on every long haul service and they have HFR in the Corridor and CalEd, even conservative governments might give them a pass.

This is also why I'm coming around to Ontario and Quebec taking over the Corridor. Would make VIA a much smaller target.

Well I too don't see any need to have VIA be the operator of any Alberta routes. And the chance of us getting any form of new passenger rail in this province this decade is slim to none. By the time we can have the discussion of where to extend it the world will be a different place.

Maybe HFR will be running then. But I just can't see what the incentive would be for them to propose anything in Alberta. Any new operation would require more subsidy, on top of the capital cost of building the thing.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Maybe HFR will be running then. But I just can't see what the incentive would be for them to propose anything in Alberta. Any new operation would require more subsidy, on top of the capital cost of building the thing.

What is the highway situation between Calgary and Edmonton?

Could a rail line negate highway and airport expansions?

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

People can come on here as newbies and say things that are passionate but maybe a bit misinformed. That's okay.

But after a few hundred posts, you'd expect some substantive knowledge of the real issues to implementing passenger rail in Canada to sink in.

It's like if I went to a space forum and as a non-physicist/non-astronaut/non-human biologist casually asked "why don't we have colonies on the moon?" I'd expect the first few people to calmly explain some of the biological, physical and economic constraints to why we it's not easy to build self-sustaining colonies for humans in outer space. But after my 500th time stubbornly trying to ask the same question, I think people would get upset too. There would be some expectation of a basic level of technical knowledge and not acknowledging those realities just lowers the level of discourse for everyone else.

That's a ridiculous straw man analogy, the disparity of degree should have been obvious to you. To even bring that to within any range of similarity I'd have to be advocating for a HSR route from Edmonton to Alert (via Yellowknife and Cambridge Bay). Regarding humans colonising outer space there are some who think humans could one day live on Mars. I find it interesting but I suppose it's just a fantasy and it's not worth reading their various ideas or how they propose to do it, just dismiss them outright because it's just not part of our settled dogma and it's not how a McDonald's franchise would be run. Good grief, they might not even be middle class and they have no technical knowledge, that's for sure.

Perhaps you might fulfill our expectation and enlighten us as to what basic level of technical knowledge you have about railways and in particular passenger rail travel in Canada, because I don't see it in any of your several thousand posts. Heck, rail travel abroad too if you like, it's okay if you're an outsider, I don't mind.

Anyways, this is boring. You guys enjoy your little Can't Do club.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Anyways, this is boring. You guys enjoy your little Can't Do club.

Good bye!

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What is the highway situation between Calgary and Edmonton?

Could a rail line negate highway and airport expansions?

The highway is as good as you would expect it to be. For most of the length, most of the time, traffic is light to moderate although it's creeping up. Adding lanes would be cheaper than a railway though.

I don't think it's at the point where a rail link is a no brainer, TBH.

Where we really are seeing issues though is in the mountains. Big problems with parking and the TCH can get very busy at peak periods.

Never mind that though, what we really need is a daily train to Winnipeg!

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Perhaps you might fulfill our expectation and enlighten us as to what basic level of technical knowledge you have about railways and in particular passenger rail travel in Canada, because I don't see it in any of your several thousand posts. Heck, rail travel abroad too if you like, it's okay if you're an outsider, I don't mind.

Well, I know this:

1. The Prairies have large distances and low populations
2. Most of Canada is built around the automobile, and the automobile and road-based transportation operations (like buses) have a significant edge, especially in delivering the last mile to trips
3. Canada's rail lines are almost wholly owned by private freight operators who have designed the infrastructure and scheduling around their own freight needs. Passenger operators have to lease time on these lines and are beholden to freight interests unless they want to build a parallel passenger rail infrastructure from scratch
4. New rail infrastructure is costly to build
5. Economic resources are finite and new rail projects have to compete for money with other things
6. New rail infrastructure has to provide a similar or better value proposition to driving or taking the bus. Not including the distances and population challenge (#1), road infrastructure has a significant advantage wrt point #2
7. Prairie cities don't have road congestion or capacity issues

This isn't insider knowledge or opinion. These are pretty simple facts that have been reiterated ad nauseam on this thread. You don't have to be a civil engineer or work for VIA to understand these things, but there are people who are both on this thread.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What is the highway situation between Calgary and Edmonton?

Years ago there was debate about mixing light and heavy rail, what was allowed around the world, and what was allowed by Transport Canada.

I wonder about trains that could use Calgary and Edmonton LRT systems plus a long-distance rail line between the two cities, maybe running alongside the highway.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Well, I know this:

1. The Prairies have large distances and low populations
2. Most of Canada is built around the automobile, and the automobile and road-based transportation operations (like buses) have a significant edge, especially in delivering the last mile to trips
3. Canada's rail lines are almost wholly owned by private freight operators who have designed the infrastructure and scheduling around their own freight needs. Passenger operators have to lease time on these lines and are beholden to freight interests unless they want to build a parallel passenger rail infrastructure from scratch
4. New rail infrastructure is costly to build
5. Economic resources are finite and new rail projects have to compete for money with other things
6. New rail infrastructure has to provide a similar or better value proposition to driving or taking the bus. Not including the distances and population challenge (#1), road infrastructure has a significant advantage wrt point #2
7. Prairie cities don't have road congestion or capacity issues

This isn't insider knowledge or opinion. These are pretty simple facts that have been reiterated ad nauseam on this thread. You don't have to be a civil engineer or work for VIA to understand these things, but there are people who are both on this thread.

Yes, I agree that sweeping and banal generalizations, all of which would apply to most regions in the United States and points 4,5, and 6 really to all countries, even densely population European ones, are not by any definition technical knowledge, at any level whatsoever. And many of them are easily refuted whether in part or in full. Nonetheless, thanks for the answer.

Ciao guys.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Yes, I agree that sweeping and banal generalizations, all of which would apply to most regions in the United States and points 4,5, and 6 really to all countries, even densely population European ones, are not by any definition technical knowledge, at any level whatsoever. And many of them are easily refuted whether in part or in full. Nonetheless, thanks for the answer.

Ciao guys.

The difference with building very expensive rail infrastructure in Europe vs building very expensive rail infrastructure in Canada is that in Europe that railway will be packed on day 1 and will both give a large economic boost and save money building roads. That is not the case for daily trains in the prairies.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by esquire

Not sure what you're getting at exactly... there were obviously ways to disseminate information before the internet. There were public rallies (I even attended one of them myself), news stories, talk radio, letters to the editor, brochures, a book was even written about the 1990 VIA cuts and their impact. All of that was very prominent in 1989 but barely a peep was heard after the 1990 cuts took effect.

My point is that it is much easier to gather and get the government to change their ways. Now a days, if the government were going to cancel something, say the Canadian, there would be lots of social media about it and even if it was cut, those platforms would be used to bring it back. Personally, I belong to 2 Facebook groups intent on getting the Northlander back, as well as 2 groups regarding the Dayliner. It is much easier to advocate for something when you have all the information at your fingertips and your audience is the world.

Originally Posted by milomilo

The best thing folks could have done to keep rail service would have been to use it when it was offered. Clearly not many did. I know that the old Calgary Edmonton service that was cancelled was down to only ~150 people a day. If it had been more than that then it might have been kept and improved, but it wasn't so it's gone forever.

Forever is a long time.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What happened 30 years ago is all but irrelevant today. We are about a decade away from highly automated electric vehicles being affordable. It's a completely different era.

Why in 2030 would I be advocating for a once day train when my $40k Gen 3 F150 Lightning has enough driver assist features to make the drive incredibly easy, with far less fatigue than the past?

At least in urban mega-regions the argument for rail service is the avoidance of investment in additional road infrastructure and traffic avoidance. What's the case going to be in the Prairies where none of this is an issue and where electrification and automation is about to make driving cheaper and easier?

Oh and if I don't want to drive? The same tech is about to make running coach buses much cheaper and safer too. And instead of one train a day, I might get half a dozen bus departures instead.

History is relevant.
If you love buses so much, maybe the train services offered by Via, GO, WCE, Translink, TTC, etc should be converted into buses. After all, they can go anywhere at anytime and are cheaper. Maybe there are better reasons. Maybe it is you that is stuck in the past, and cannot see what the future has in store for us.

Originally Posted by hipster duck

People can come on here as newbies and say things that are passionate but maybe a bit misinformed. That's okay.

But after a few hundred posts, you'd expect some substantive knowledge of the real issues to implementing passenger rail in Canada to sink in.

It's like if I went to a space forum and as a non-physicist/non-astronaut/non-human biologist casually asked "why don't we have colonies on the moon?" I'd expect the first few people to calmly explain some of the biological, physical and economic constraints to why we it's not easy to build self-sustaining colonies for humans in outer space. But after my 500th time stubbornly trying to ask the same question, I think people would get upset too. There would be some expectation of a basic level of technical knowledge and not acknowledging those realities just lowers the level of discourse for everyone else.

(I think you mean me...) Is someone forcing you to reply? You know you are welcome to just ignore the posts. But you don't. As don't others.

Why don't we have people living on the moon?
The same reason we don't have good rail in Canada - politics. It is technically feasible to do it, but there isn't the political will to do it.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Thank you.

I know most of the regulars on this thread are probably more interested in trains than most. We're not against the idea of long distance trains through the prairies because we're libertarian cranks or anything like that. We're against those services because they don't make sense in a world where resources are limited, there are much better ways to spend the money, and better ways to transport rural residents.

Once there are high quality railways that are self sustaining around Calgary and Edmonton, then maybe we can talk about extending them east. But you'd never start with the routes that offer the least cost benefit.

So, don't improve what you already have till you bring in something that someone thinks might be better? That is about the silliest suggestion I have heard.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Worse. I really fear what highly subsidized rail routes would do to the political consensus on supporting VIA. Supporting an agency that costs $300M/yr is one thing. Supporting one that costs a billion is another.

I would bet money that VIA itself would not survive a change of government if subsidies got that high.

On the other hand, if VIA is running $300-400M in subsidies for daily service on every long haul service and they have HFR in the Corridor and CalEd, even conservative governments might give them a pass.

This is also why I'm coming around to Ontario and Quebec taking over the Corridor. Would make VIA a much smaller target.

Whether it is subsidized by the feds or the provinces, it is still subsidized. But, I already fully understand you more than you think.

Originally Posted by someone123

I do also think there are "values" questions and questions of planning horizons that have a big impact on what's considered viable. Canada doesn't seem to plan much for multi-generational transformative infrastructure these days and many people seem to get sticker shock without realizing the time periods the investment would be amortized over. It often feels like the provinces or cities need to champion long-term infrastructure development but I don't know how that could work out for something like VIA.

Sadly, the way the governments of acted in the last 30 years, Via is not alone and only highlights the real problem. Why did we have 50 year old ships and planes protecting Canada? Because each successive government has to meddle with what was done to put their name on it. Close down Veterens Affairs offices to balance a budget. Cut the GST by a percent to get voted back in.....

Originally Posted by milomilo

Well I too don't see any need to have VIA be the operator of any Alberta routes. And the chance of us getting any form of new passenger rail in this province this decade is slim to none. By the time we can have the discussion of where to extend it the world will be a different place.

Maybe HFR will be running then. But I just can't see what the incentive would be for them to propose anything in Alberta. Any new operation would require more subsidy, on top of the capital cost of building the thing.

Think of it this way, if any party wants to break into AB, they would need to show the government is spending money. Maybe a train can do it, maybe it cannot.

Originally Posted by milomilo

The highway is as good as you would expect it to be. For most of the length, most of the time, traffic is light to moderate although it's creeping up. Adding lanes would be cheaper than a railway though.

I don't think it's at the point where a rail link is a no brainer, TBH.

Where we really are seeing issues though is in the mountains. Big problems with parking and the TCH can get very busy at peak periods.

Never mind that though, what we really need is a daily train to Winnipeg!

When it becomes a no brainer, it becomes too expensive and too challenging to bring in. Prices always are going up.

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Well, I know this:

1. The Prairies have large distances and low populations
2. Most of Canada is built around the automobile, and the automobile and road-based transportation operations (like buses) have a significant edge, especially in delivering the last mile to trips
3. Canada's rail lines are almost wholly owned by private freight operators who have designed the infrastructure and scheduling around their own freight needs. Passenger operators have to lease time on these lines and are beholden to freight interests unless they want to build a parallel passenger rail infrastructure from scratch
4. New rail infrastructure is costly to build
5. Economic resources are finite and new rail projects have to compete for money with other things
6. New rail infrastructure has to provide a similar or better value proposition to driving or taking the bus. Not including the distances and population challenge (#1), road infrastructure has a significant advantage wrt point #2
7. Prairie cities don't have road congestion or capacity issues

This isn't insider knowledge or opinion. These are pretty simple facts that have been reiterated ad nauseam on this thread. You don't have to be a civil engineer or work for VIA to understand these things, but there are people who are both on this thread.

The problem is when those people do not want understand their own data.



I know a lot of people here don't like what I have to say. Guess what, I am not forcing you to reply. I am not making you put your opinion in. There are about 10 of us who reply on a regular basis. That is less than the number of provinces in Canada. So, if for a minute you think anyone here actually speaks for Canada, our province, any province, or any rail operator, you are just being silly. Don't like what someone says? Don't respond. If you really don't like it, you can block them. We are not children.....