VIA Rail

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I have not ignored anything. I have refuted it.

No you haven't. You haven't countered my question of why, for the same cost, a bus that is more frequent, faster and more reliable than a train would not be better? The only way to change that would be spending significant amounts of money on infrastructure, but that isn't what you are proposing, you are proposing pointless daily services that will serve no one adequately.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I didn't say a milk run to Regina. I have agreed a run between Edmonton and another between Winnipeg(Toronto, along the CP tracks) and Vancouver would be something that should be done.

Milk run to Regina, milk run to Winnipeg. Either way, a daily, unreliable, expensive train that takes 15-20 hours does not serve any market.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

No you haven't. You haven't countered my question of why, for the same cost, a bus that is more frequent, faster and more reliable than a train would not be better? The only way to change that would be spending significant amounts of money on infrastructure, but that isn't what you are proposing, you are proposing pointless daily services that will serve no one adequately.

In a word, Winter.

Right now, buses can be delayed due to weather.

And, if it is the same cost, why not rail? You aren't saving money.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Milk run to Regina, milk run to Winnipeg. Either way, a daily, unreliable, expensive train that takes 15-20 hours does not serve any market.

Well, if it can serve the 3rd, 6th and 8th most populated metros in Canada, why not one that can serve the 4th too?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

In a word, Winter.

Right now, buses can be delayed due to weather.

And, if it is the same cost, why not rail? You aren't saving money.

While the bus might suffer poor reliability occasionally in bad weather, a train running on CP's infrastructure will suffer poor reliability all of the time, as well as being slower. And I'm saying, for the same amount of dollars spent using buses buys you far more. It's the choice of maybe a daily rail service which is useless, or a bus every few hours which might have some utility.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Well, if it can serve the 3rd, 6th and 8th most populated metros in Canada, why not one that can serve the 4th too?

Because this is an unhelpful way to allocate intercity rail infrastructure. If it was not for the Canadian's tourist market, there would likely be no VIA service at all west of Ontario and neither the 3rd, 4th, 6th or 7th biggest metros would have it. All of those cities are isolated from each other, except for 4 and 6. So it would make sense that before you look at the city pairs which are far apart, you look at the two which are within a reasonable distance for rail. And then, you go back to my first point and see how much money you have to play with, and see what your options are. If there isn't much/any money to spend (like in the current version of Canada we live in), you look at improving the existing buses to build demand for an eventual rail service.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by milomilo

No you haven't. You haven't countered my question of why, for the same cost, a bus that is more frequent, faster and more reliable than a train would not be better? The only way to change that would be spending significant amounts of money on infrastructure, but that isn't what you are proposing, you are proposing pointless daily services that will serve no one adequately.



Milk run to Regina, milk run to Winnipeg. Either way, a daily, unreliable, expensive train that takes 15-20 hours does not serve any market.

We shouldn't consider any new rail service unless it can reliably run faster than driving. That should be possible but will require enormous investment. Mixed passenger and freight service is likely not going to work.

[MonctonRad]

A paradigm shift is necessary if passenger rail in this country is to have a future.

Personally, I think this is inevitable. As we wean ourselves off fossil fuels , the most efficient means to maintain high volume intercity transport networks is by passenger rail, ideally electrified and with dedicated trackage in the urban core of the country.

Service will need to be frequent, dependable and quick. Service should be at least hourly between Union Station and Ottawa and Montreal. Same thing for service to SW Ontario.

Cross country service and branch line service elsewhere will remain diesel, but again will have to be reliable (meaning well maintained trackage and priority of passenger trains over freight trains).

Toronto should be the hub for transcontinental train service. It is already the originating point for the "Canadian" to Vancouver. The "Ocean" to Halifax should also have it's terminus at Union Station, rather than in Montreal. Both the Ocean and the Canadian should be daily trains (rather than 3x weekly).

Here in the Maritimes, the Ocean should be supplemented by a 3x daily intercity service on the corridor connecting Halifax/Moncton/Saint John. If the Ocean were switched to the CNR mainline (via Grand Falls & Edmundston) rather than the current coastal route (Miramichi/Bathurst/Campbellton), then a once daily service along this line to Moncton should also be maintained.

I will defer to others regarding discussions of other branch line operations elsewhere in Canada aside from restating the obvious - there should be intercity service between Calgary/Edmonton and Regina/Saskatoon. A passenger train from Winnipeg to Vancouver via Regina/Calgary/Banff is also a no brainer.

This will be expensive, but if you build it they will come. In the carbon neutral future 20 years down the road, transportation alternatives will have to be found. Passenger rail is an obvious choice........

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

A paradigm shift is necessary if passenger rail in this country is to have a future.

Personally, I think this is inevitable. As we wean ourselves off fossil fuels , the most efficient means to maintain high volume intercity transport networks is by passenger rail, ideally electrified and with dedicated trackage in the urban core of the country.

Service will need to be frequent, dependable and quick. Service should be at least hourly between Union Station and Ottawa and Montreal. Same thing for service to SW Ontario.

Cross country service and branch line service elsewhere will remain diesel, but again will have to be reliable (meaning well maintained trackage and priority of passenger trains over freight trains).

Toronto should be the hub for transcontinental train service. It is already the originating point for the "Canadian" to Vancouver. The "Ocean" to Halifax should also have it's terminus at Union Station, rather than in Montreal. Both the Ocean and the Canadian should be daily trains (rather than 3x weekly).

Here in the Maritimes, the Ocean should be supplemented by a 3x daily intercity service on the corridor connecting Halifax/Moncton/Saint John. If the Ocean were switched to the CNR mainline (via Grand Falls & Edmundston) rather than the current coastal route (Miramichi/Bathurst/Campbellton), then a once daily service along this line to Moncton should also be maintained.

I will defer to others regarding discussions of other branch line operations elsewhere in Canada aside from restating the obvious - there should be intercity service between Calgary/Edmonton and Regina/Saskatoon. A passenger train from Winnipeg to Vancouver via Regina/Calgary/Banff is also a no brainer.

This will be expensive, but if you build it they will come. In the carbon neutral future 20 years down the road, transportation alternatives will have to be found. Passenger rail is an obvious choice........

Which is why I think the Canadian and Ocean need to go to daily service. They also need to bring back the southern route across Canada, and have a Calgary-Edmonton train.

.... anyone want to work with me on a study of the viability of it?

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

.... anyone want to work with me on a study of the viability of it?

Sounds like fun, let's do it

[lio45]

I think slow can be acceptable if it's overnight, though. Take a train at 9 pm in Calgary, sleep comfortably in it, and wake up the next morning in Edmonton. Then when your business there is done, at the end of your last day in Edmonton, take the train back, and you'll be starting your next day in Calgary.

This of course only works if the cost is also competitive with driving... but then that's pretty much always going to be true.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by lio45

I think slow can be acceptable if it's overnight, though. Take a train at 9 pm in Calgary, sleep comfortably in it, and wake up the next morning in Edmonton. Then when your business there is done, at the end of your last day in Edmonton, take the train back, and you'll be starting your next day in Calgary.

This of course only works if the cost is also competitive with driving... but then that's pretty much always going to be true.

That scenario is really, really slow considering you can drive between the two cities in three hours.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Look, I like the idea of HSR in Canada, but it doesn't make sense cross-country. Nor does a daily Canadian that goes across the country while it has to be sidelined for freight trains. Planes are simply the best overall choice for reaching many corners of this country. The best-case scenario for HSR in Canada is throughout the Quebec-Windsor Corridor, between Edmonton and Calgary, and between Calgary and Vancouver.

Beyond that, you MAY get support for an HSR line that goes Halifax - Truro - Moncton - Saint John - Riviere du Loup - Quebec City, and MAYBE a QWC spur out to Sudbury, but that's it.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Beyond that, you MAY get support for an HSR line that goes Halifax - Truro - Moncton - Saint John - Riviere du Loup - Quebec City, and MAYBE a QWC spur out to Sudbury, but that's it.

First i've ever heard of this being considered. Who's taking the HSR between Sudbury and QC? Or from Halifax to QC?

HSR in Canada is only remotely feasible Quebec City-Windsor, Calgary-Edmonton, and Vancouver-Portland-Seattle.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by JHikka

First i've ever heard of this being considered. Who's taking the HSR between Sudbury and QC? Or from Halifax to QC?

HSR in Canada is only remotely feasible Quebec City-Windsor, Calgary-Edmonton, and Vancouver-Portland-Seattle.

There is so much talk of high-speed rail but actually just normal-speed rail would be a big upgrade. And something like 160-200 km/h would handily beat driving on the highway. That doesn't require exotic technology to achieve.

The Montreal-Halifax train takes 22.5 hours while the drive takes 12 hours. The two cities are just under 800 km apart.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Sounds like fun, let's do it

Message me....

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by someone123

There is so much talk of high-speed rail but actually just normal-speed rail would be a big upgrade. And something like 160-200 km/h would handily beat driving on the highway. That doesn't require exotic technology to achieve.

The Montreal-Halifax train takes 22.5 hours while the drive takes 12 hours. The two cities are just under 800 km apart.

Like, as it stands today Saint John doesn't even have passenger rail service. HSR is the biggest of pipedreams.

Normal-speed rail would be great to connect to the rest of the country but I still don't think a 10 hour train from Montreal-Halifax is reasonably feasible for travellers. For distances of that length it simply makes more sense to fly, at least IMO. As someone that's taken the Ocean from Montreal to Moncton I can attest that a day-long train ride is very, very draining.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by JHikka

First i've ever heard of this being considered. Who's taking the HSR between Sudbury and QC? Or from Halifax to QC?

HSR in Canada is only remotely feasible Quebec City-Windsor, Calgary-Edmonton, and Vancouver-Portland-Seattle.

Originally Posted by someone123

There is so much talk of high-speed rail but actually just normal-speed rail would be a big upgrade. And something like 160-200 km/h would handily beat driving on the highway. That doesn't require exotic technology to achieve.

The Montreal-Halifax train takes 22.5 hours while the drive takes 12 hours. The two cities are just under 800 km apart.

Look at place that have both. That is no different than Canada. HSR Between Detroit and QC does make sense.

All major cities not on islands should be connected to each other by at least a daily regular passenger service.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by someone123

There is so much talk of high-speed rail but actually just normal-speed rail would be a big upgrade. And something like 160-200 km/h would handily beat driving on the highway. That doesn't require exotic technology to achieve.

The Montreal-Halifax train takes 22.5 hours while the drive takes 12 hours. The two cities are just under 800 km apart.

Indeed.

This is one of the reasons for relocating the Ocean to the CNR mainline rather than the coastal route along the Baie des Chaleurs. The mainline is more direct and much better maintained, with fewer milk run stops, You could lop at least five hours off the trip from Halifax to QC, making it much more competitive to driving.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Indeed.

This is one of the reasons for relocating the Ocean to the CNR mainline rather than the coastal route along the Baie des Chaleurs. The mainline is more direct and much better maintained, with fewer milk run stops, You could lop at least five hours off the trip from Halifax to QC, making it much more competitive to driving.

I still have hope that the Newcastle sub will be closed. The numbers are under what the NB government signed for with the CN. It theory the line could be discontinued next year.

[ssiguy]

Canada will NEVER have an effective rail service due to being a crown corporation and therefore at the whime of politicians.

The rail system in Canada was built for both trade and transit. Contrary to popular belief however, the vast majority of people using the service were not those going from Montreal to Vancouver but rather Chilliwack to Vancouver and Sorel to Montreal. There were no cars and our road system was almost non-existent and people outside the cities used the rail to get to the bigger cities for shopping, business, entertainment, and social/governmental/health/educational needs as those services were very limited {if even existent} in small towns/rural areas at the time.

Now those same people have cars {or public transit} to take them to their big regional cities much faster and more conviently that the current rail service.................VIA is going after a passenger constituency that no longer exists. Due to small city/town and rural politicians {90% of whom have never boarded a train and never will} however, those services are forced to continue at staggering per-person loses bleeding the subsidies where the service is needed the most. In short, Ottawa has forced VIA to provide a 21st century rail service on a 19th century business model and to no one's surprise, it isn't working. This is why we have passenger rail connecting Prince George to Prince Rupert but not Edmonton to Calgary.

Canada needs a national transportation system but that does not neccessarily mean a national rail one.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Canada will NEVER have an effective rail service due to being a crown corporation and therefore at the whime of politicians.

The rail system in Canada was built for both trade and transit. Contrary to popular belief however, the vast majority of people using the service were not those going from Montreal to Vancouver but rather Chilliwack to Vancouver and Sorel to Montreal. There were no cars and our road system was almost non-existent and people outside the cities used the rail to get to the bigger cities for shopping, business, entertainment, and social/governmental/health/educational needs as those services were very limited {if even existent} in small towns/rural areas at the time.

Now those same people have cars {or public transit} to take them to their big regional cities much faster and more conveniently that the current rail service.................VIA is going after a passenger constituency that no longer exists. Due to small city/town and rural politicians {90% of whom have never boarded a train and never will} however, those services are forced to continue at staggering per-person loses bleeding the subsidies where the service is needed the most. In short, Ottawa has forced VIA to provide a 21st century rail service on a 19th century business model and to no one's surprise, it isn't working. This is why we have passenger rail connecting Prince George to Prince Rupert but not Edmonton to Calgary.

Canada needs a national transportation system but that does not necessarily mean a national rail one.

I would argue that we have the perfect storm to give Via a reason to expand - Paris Accord. Rail is 4 times less emitting than flying. Those shorter trips, they should be rail. The HFR that is planned will help, however, there are places all over Canada where a daily service would be enough.

Anything that is less than a 6 hour drive, if timed right, could be enough for people to take the train. Currently,, it is about a 10 hour train ride from here to Toronto. I can drive it in 4. While that seems like a ridiculous time difference, being able to leave the car at home and not worry about the traffic, the parking, and other things, you end up able to relax. Now, if they could speed it up, it would be great, but between Netflix, a good bock and a laptop, I can keep myself busy for hours. If it left such that I get on Friday evening and get into Toronto in the morning, even better - 10 hours of sleep.

Why not look for the benefits instead of the challenges. Then you can see the good and work on the bad.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

A paradigm shift is necessary if passenger rail in this country is to have a future.

Personally, I think this is inevitable. As we wean ourselves off fossil fuels , the most efficient means to maintain high volume intercity transport networks is by passenger rail, ideally electrified and with dedicated trackage in the urban core of the country.

Service will need to be frequent, dependable and quick. Service should be at least hourly between Union Station and Ottawa and Montreal. Same thing for service to SW Ontario.

Cross country service and branch line service elsewhere will remain diesel, but again will have to be reliable (meaning well maintained trackage and priority of passenger trains over freight trains).

Toronto should be the hub for transcontinental train service. It is already the originating point for the "Canadian" to Vancouver. The "Ocean" to Halifax should also have it's terminus at Union Station, rather than in Montreal. Both the Ocean and the Canadian should be daily trains (rather than 3x weekly).

Here in the Maritimes, the Ocean should be supplemented by a 3x daily intercity service on the corridor connecting Halifax/Moncton/Saint John. If the Ocean were switched to the CNR mainline (via Grand Falls & Edmundston) rather than the current coastal route (Miramichi/Bathurst/Campbellton), then a once daily service along this line to Moncton should also be maintained.

I will defer to others regarding discussions of other branch line operations elsewhere in Canada aside from restating the obvious - there should be intercity service between Calgary/Edmonton and Regina/Saskatoon. A passenger train from Winnipeg to Vancouver via Regina/Calgary/Banff is also a no brainer.

This will be expensive, but if you build it they will come. In the carbon neutral future 20 years down the road, transportation alternatives will have to be found. Passenger rail is an obvious choice........

I disagree that it is inevitable or even 100% neccesary. Given that the Canadian public is completely ambivalent or hostile to building any large infrastructure, it seems highly unlikely that Canada's infrastructure will be fundamentally rebuilt in the coming decades. So long as electric vehicles keep progressing at the current pace, they should be able to replace gas ones in a similar timeframe, and then the GHG argument for passenger rail becomes redundant.

And, (even if we move heaven and earth and build HSR and other significant rail infrastructure in Alberta (to focus on that), it still will only represent a small fraction of passengers on a small fraction of the road network. Its contribution to the GHG emissions reductions will be negligible, the biggest impact will be from supplanting short haul air travel. Even in countries with highly developed rail systems like Japan and France, their share of total ridership is not enormous.

That's not to say I don't support rail or that we shouldn't build it, but the benefits are far more to do with the economy and quality of life than reducing emissions.