VIA Rail

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

If you had actually read the link @acottawa posted, you would have realized that a submerged tunnel is unsuitable (and still seems to be about as unproven as a concept as the Hyperloop is)

I did read the link, I fully recognize the challenges and shortcomings they mention, and realize it's unproven. In the wild fantasy of "the government is building a fixed link to Vancouver Island, how might they do it", I happen to think a submerged tunnel has some advantages over all the other wildly impractical ideas. None of that means I think they *should* build a fixed link.

Maybe you need to unwind a bit and cool off.

[milomilo]

This thread every time swimmer_spe comes up with a fantastic new idea:

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

This thread every time swimmer_spe comes up with a fantastic new idea:

Speaking of American trains.... The infrastructure bill passed the Senate. Once it passes the House, Amtrak should see some improvements.

Still waiting on the HFR funding.....

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Speaking of American trains.... The infrastructure bill passed the Senate. Once it passes the House, Amtrak should see some improvements.

Still waiting on the HFR funding.....

Not gonna happen til King Justin has his majority

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I agree that the cities you listed are smaller that the the largest CMA's in Canada but to ignore them is foolish. You have an urban centric view of the country which much of the country would frown upon.

I hate to break this to rail fans like yourself, but people across the country (rural and urban folks alike) tend to care much more about how frequent, reliable, affordable or fast an intercity transportation link is (and how much taxpayer money its operation costs), than about whether it is a train or a bus. I'm all up for using my federal tax dollars to fund a national network with at least twice-daily service (spread out in a way that any stop is served with at least one service during daylight hours) to all the cities you named (and also those of comparable size which are no longer served by any active railroad), but of course not with the mode which incurs ten times the per-km operating cost of a bus and therefore requires ten times the number of riders on board to break even! You believe to already know the solution while refusing to even acknowledge the problem...

Via trains stop at places in the corridor that are smaller than Sault Ste Marie, Thunder Bay, Regina, Medicine Hat, Moose Jaw and Brandon.

VIA serves all kinds of small stations along the Corridor and beyond it, but only those where the incremental cost of serving them can be offset by the additional revenue they generate. As I've estimated in a separate thread with a back-of-the-enveloppe calculation for rerouting the Canadian between Saskatoon and Portage-la-Prairie via Regina rather than Melville, ridership in Regina and Brandon would be so insigificant that you would need to charge an average fare price of $272 to offset the incremental cost associated with lengthening the Canadian's route by 78 km. Even worse, that figure increases to $660 once you account for the ridership lost at the current stops in Rivers, Melville and Watrous:

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

First of all, any rail line which hasn't seen passenger rail service for almost 40 years* will require substantial capital expenditure to upgrade the infrastructure to a state which may allow the safe operation of passenger trains at travel speeds which allow travel times which are remotely competitive to driving and there is no reason to believe that CN will invest into a line which is of only tertiary importance within its network, just because VIA decides it wants to move its passenger trains onto that line. Even worse, the Southern half of the Saskatoon-Regina line (i.e. south of Davidson) appears to be owned by a Short Line (Last Mountain Railway), which usually indicates even worse track conditions and less eagerness (or rather: financial capability) of the host railroad to invest into these tracks...


*The last passenger train operated between Regina and Saskatoon in 1984, when the Winnipeg-Regina-Saskatoon day train was replaced by the “Panorama”, an overnight service which operated daily between Winnipeg and Edmonton on the route of today's Canadian (i.e. via Melville rather than Regina) and was extended three times per week via Jasper and Prince George to Prince Rupert (refer to the October 1983 and June 1984 schedules in my VIA timetable archive).


***

Concerning your actual question, track access charges and maintenance costs are directly dependent on train mileage, whereas a longer route usually also results in a longer travel time, which increases labour costs, especially if longer shift times increase the risk that Locomotive Engineers run out of hours and need to get relieved.

To estimate the impact on costs, let's just assume that all operating costs are proportional to distance. Thanks to VIA Rail's Summary of the 2019-2023 Corporate Plan, we know that the Canadian's direct costs were $66.7 million in 2018. By multiplying that figure with 78 km (i.e. the difference between the mileage Winnipeg-Regina-Saskatoon and Winnipeg-Melville-Saskatoon: 837-759=78) and dividing it by 4466 km (i.e. the total distance on the route of today's Canadian), we can estimate that the incremental costs of rerouting the Canadian between Winnipeg and Saskatoon via Regina (rather than Melville) would be $1.2 million.

To estimate the impact on ridership, let's take the annual ridership of Saskatoon (4,289 passengers boarding or deboarding in a city of 295,095 according to the 2016 Census) and adjust it proportionally to reflect the size of Regina and Brandon (i.e. the only two CAs or CMAs which would gain service by this re-route):

Regina
Population: 236,481 (i.e. 80.1% of Saskatoon)
Estimated ridership potential: 3,437 (i.e. 80.1% of Saskatoon's passenger count in 2018)

Brandon
Population: 58,003 (i.e. 19.7% of Saskatoon)
Estimated ridership potential: 843 (i.e. 19.7% of Saskatoon's passenger count in 2018)

This suggests that re-routing the Canadian through Regina and Brandon might gain 4,280 passengers, which means that every single of these 4,280 passengers would need to pay $272 to offset the incremental costs of the re-route. However, the re-routing would deprive Rivers, Melville and Watrous of their passenger rail service, which accounted for 722, 1438 and 354 passengers, respectively. If we deduct these 2,514 passengers, we only have a net increase of 1,766 passengers and the break-even ticket price would now rise to $660. Given that even a full-fare "Economy Plus" ticket between Saskatoon and Winnipeg (i.e. a longer distance than Regina-Winnipeg or Brandon-Winnipeg) costs only $188 while the cheapest fare is $106 (I checked for May 2021), I find it highly unlikely that such a high average fare could be achieved in such small cities which are mostly irrelevant to the kind of passengers which ride the Canadian in Sleeper Class.

It’s this kind of back-of-the-envelop analysis which makes me doubt that re-routing the Canadian onto a longer route (and with partly using branch lines) would be possible without increasing its need for operational subsidies...

You don't want to have regional trains that have major cities as their origin and destination and you don't want to service the above cities but you still want to run the Canadian on its existing route which has towns that are even smaller than the cities that I suggested in both Northern Ontario and the Prairies.

I welcome any transportation service as long as it is either run without operating subsidies or serves a clear objective in an economic way. The Canadian recovered 101% of its direct costs in 2017 and 90% in 2018, which means that it operates at very small (if any) marginal cost to the taxpayer, while simultaneously increasing tax revenues (by attracting high-end tourism which spends substantial amounts on accommodation, leisure and shopping) and decreasing VIA's subsidy need (by avoiding the need for running regularly equipment moves to link its maintenance facilities in Toronto, Winnipeg, Jasper and Vancouver and a separate Capreol-Winnipeg train to fulfill VIA's obligations towards remote communities). I have yet to hear any compelling suggestions of how the Canadian can better serve any policy goals without letting its operating deficit explode, which is why I fail to see the urgent need to "fix" it by drastically changing the Status Quo...

Having intermediate stops is all about increasing the occupancy rate on the train and gaining extra revenue with little extra cost.

Routing the Canadian via Thunder Bay, Dryden, Kenora, Brandon and Regina and on to Saskatoon would increase ridership and revenue at very little added cost.

Adding Sault Ste Marie to the mix would add additional riders, especially American tourists from upper Michigan. Depending on schedules the Agawa Canyon might be travelled in daylight. The trip would definitely take longer but it would be more reliable as there is little freight traffic between Sudbury an Franz via the Soo. Studies would have to be done to determine what the ridership , operational constraints, rolling stock and crew requirements would be but we should not just discount the idea without investigating this option.

The other advantage of the CP route is that it is much more scenic than the CN route as it hugs the shore of Lake Superior for a good portion of the route. This change would also provide better service to Sudbury as the CP station is downtown.

Since the Canadian runs 2- 3 times per week, make one of the trips go via the CN line and and the others via the CP line. Via must feel that it is indebted to CN as it refuses to discuss route changes with CP.

You know, I had the same arrogant attitude towards VIA (i.e. that their Planners, Managers and Executives neither know nor care enough to actually "turn around the Canadian" and to come up with creative and innovative solutions by daring to "think outside the box") when I left university, as the one you share with many rail fans across the country. The difference is that I actually decided to pitch my ideas directly to these people in charge at VIA by becoming their colleague and to listen to the explanations of those people far more knowledgable than myself, which made me eventually realize that my ideas had been far less realistic, actionable or even desirable than I had believed. You don't need to work 6 years for VIA to one day realize that coming up with solutions which intuitively appear to you as workable, desirable and almost indispensible is much easier the less you grasp the complexity of the problem...

Originally Posted by jamincan

I did read the link, I fully recognize the challenges and shortcomings they mention, and realize it's unproven. In the wild fantasy of "the government is building a fixed link to Vancouver Island, how might they do it", I happen to think a submerged tunnel has some advantages over all the other wildly impractical ideas. None of that means I think they *should* build a fixed link.

Maybe you need to unwind a bit and cool off.

*I'm re-writing my original response to avoid causing unnecessary offense*
Given the already excessive amount of off-topic and fantasy discussions, I would like to kindly ask you to take this discussion elsewhere, should you have the desire to pursue it. Thank you and have a great weekend!

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Floppa

Not gonna happen til King Justin has his majority

Which might just happen if the current polls are any indication.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by UrbanSky
Quote:
Via trains stop at places in the corridor that are smaller than Sault Ste Marie, Thunder Bay, Regina, Medicine Hat, Moose Jaw and Brandon.
VIA serves all kinds of small stations along the Corridor and beyond it, but only those where the incremental cost of serving them can be offset by the additional revenue they generate. As I've estimated in a separate thread with a back-of-the-enveloppe calculation for rerouting the Canadian between Saskatoon and Portage-la-Prairie via Regina rather than Melville, ridership in Regina and Brandon would be so insigificant that you would need to charge an average fare price of $272 to offset the incremental cost associated with lengthening the Canadian's route by 78 km. Even worse, that figure increases to $660 once you account for the ridership lost at the current stops in Rivers, Melville and Watrous:


Quote:GoTrans
You don't want to have regional trains that have major cities as their origin and destination and you don't want to service the above cities but you still want to run the Canadian on its existing route which has towns that are even smaller than the cities that I suggested in both Northern Ontario and the Prairies.
I welcome any transportation service as long as it is either run without operating subsidies or serves a clear objective in an economic way. The Canadian recovered 101% of its direct costs in 2017 and 90% in 2018, which means that it operates at very small (if any) marginal cost to the taxpayer, while simultaneously increasing tax revenues (by attracting high-end tourism which spends substantial amounts on accommodation, leisure and shopping) and decreasing VIA's subsidy need (by avoiding the need for running regularly equipment moves to link its maintenance facilities in Toronto, Winnipeg, Jasper and Vancouver and a separate Capreol-Winnipeg train to fulfill VIA's obligations towards remote communities). I have yet to hear any compelling suggestions of how the Canadian can better serve any policy goals without letting its operating deficit explode, which is why I fail to see the urgent need to "fix" it by drastically changing the Status Quo...

Quote: GoTrans
Having intermediate stops is all about increasing the occupancy rate on the train and gaining extra revenue with little extra cost.

Routing the Canadian via Thunder Bay, Dryden, Kenora, Brandon and Regina and on to Saskatoon would increase ridership and revenue at very little added cost.

Adding Sault Ste Marie to the mix would add additional riders, especially American tourists from upper Michigan. Depending on schedules the Agawa Canyon might be travelled in daylight. The trip would definitely take longer but it would be more reliable as there is little freight traffic between Sudbury an Franz via the Soo. Studies would have to be done to determine what the ridership , operational constraints, rolling stock and crew requirements would be but we should not just discount the idea without investigating this option.

The other advantage of the CP route is that it is much more scenic than the CN route as it hugs the shore of Lake Superior for a good portion of the route. This change would also provide better service to Sudbury as the CP station is downtown.

Since the Canadian runs 2- 3 times per week, make one of the trips go via the CN line and and the others via the CP line. Via must feel that it is indebted to CN as it refuses to discuss route changes with CP.

Originally Posted by UrbanSky
You know, I had the same arrogant attitude towards VIA (i.e. that their Planners, Managers and Executives neither know nor care enough to actually "turn around the Canadian" and to come up with creative and innovative solutions by daring to "think outside the box") when I left university, as the one you share with many rail fans across the country. The difference is that I actually decided to pitch my ideas directly to these people in charge at VIA by becoming their colleague and to listen to the explanations of those people far more knowledgable than myself, which made me eventually realize that my ideas had been far less realistic, actionable or even desirable than I had believed. You don't need to work 6 years for VIA to one day realize that coming up with solutions which intuitively appear to you as workable, desirable and almost indispensible is much easier the less you grasp the complexity of the problem...


Originally Posted by jamincan
I did read the link, I fully recognize the challenges and shortcomings they mention, and realize it's unproven. In the wild fantasy of "the government is building a fixed link to Vancouver Island, how might they do it", I happen to think a submerged tunnel has some advantages over all the other wildly impractical ideas. None of that means I think they *should* build a fixed link.

Originally Posted by UrbanSky
Maybe you need to unwind a bit and cool off.
*I'm re-writing my original response to avoid causing unnecessary offense*
Given the already excessive amount of off-topic and fantasy discussions, I would like to kindly ask you to take this discussion elsewhere, should you have the desire to pursue it. Thank you and have a great weekend!

Last edited by Urban_Sky; Aug 14, 2021 at 5:51 PM.

This is a response to your calculations of the ridership for the re-routing the Canadian via Barandon and Regina to Saskatoon.

You are basing your ridership levels for Regina and Brandon solely on the ridership in Saskatoon. You have to treat eastbound and westbound trains separately. More of the ridership for Brandon will be between Brandon and Winnipeg than Saskatoon. Regina will probably be split case with more going to Saskatoon than Winnipeg, but Winnipeg will still be an important origin or destination. It is the geographical location of cities coupled with their population and the service level that induces demand.

The same is true with Winnipeg, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste Marie and Sudbury. Many people would be travelling between these places for medical appointments, visiting relatives or attending colleges and universities. You cannot base the total ridership merely on the population of the so called end points.

You are also ignoring longer distance through traffic such as Regina to Edmonton, Jasper and Vancouver or Regina to points east. The intervening points attract more traffic than just the nearest large city. Most of your traffic on your tourist train aka the Canadian is through traffic so the size of intervening cities is less important. Running trains at inconvenient hours only reduces ridership regardless of the population of the stop.

Riders in Saskatoon, Regina, Brandon, Portage La Prairie and Winnipeg are more likely to travel between these destinations that they are to places east or west of the same locations. People don’t go on a holiday trip weekly but they may take a business trip weekly if it is convenient and reliable. That doesn't mean however that they never take a trip to Toronto or Vancouver.

This is where your back of the envelope calculations falls apart. What is required is an in-depth origin/destination demand study is required. You have to do the study before you can discount the ridership as not being of any economic value.

With respect to your suggestion that all of us that have a different idea should get a job with Via all I can say we all don’t want live in Montreal, we are all not bilingual, and we don’t all want to deal with the politics of government agencies. Just because someone lives outside of the political centre of the Canadian universe doesn’t mean new ideas should be considered. Don’t discount the suggestions of people outside of your former realm. A lot of the problems with Via political in nature and always have been, so don’t try to explain everything away as being based on solely economic factors. It doesn’t cost money to force the railways to provide priority to Via trains especially when they are only handling a couple of trains a week.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Originally Posted by UrbanSky
Quote:
Via trains stop at places in the corridor that are smaller than Sault Ste Marie, Thunder Bay, Regina, Medicine Hat, Moose Jaw and Brandon.
VIA serves all kinds of small stations along the Corridor and beyond it, but only those where the incremental cost of serving them can be offset by the additional revenue they generate. As I've estimated in a separate thread with a back-of-the-enveloppe calculation for rerouting the Canadian between Saskatoon and Portage-la-Prairie via Regina rather than Melville, ridership in Regina and Brandon would be so insigificant that you would need to charge an average fare price of $272 to offset the incremental cost associated with lengthening the Canadian's route by 78 km. Even worse, that figure increases to $660 once you account for the ridership lost at the current stops in Rivers, Melville and Watrous:


Quote:GoTrans
You don't want to have regional trains that have major cities as their origin and destination and you don't want to service the above cities but you still want to run the Canadian on its existing route which has towns that are even smaller than the cities that I suggested in both Northern Ontario and the Prairies.
I welcome any transportation service as long as it is either run without operating subsidies or serves a clear objective in an economic way. The Canadian recovered 101% of its direct costs in 2017 and 90% in 2018, which means that it operates at very small (if any) marginal cost to the taxpayer, while simultaneously increasing tax revenues (by attracting high-end tourism which spends substantial amounts on accommodation, leisure and shopping) and decreasing VIA's subsidy need (by avoiding the need for running regularly equipment moves to link its maintenance facilities in Toronto, Winnipeg, Jasper and Vancouver and a separate Capreol-Winnipeg train to fulfill VIA's obligations towards remote communities). I have yet to hear any compelling suggestions of how the Canadian can better serve any policy goals without letting its operating deficit explode, which is why I fail to see the urgent need to "fix" it by drastically changing the Status Quo...

Quote: GoTrans
Having intermediate stops is all about increasing the occupancy rate on the train and gaining extra revenue with little extra cost.

Routing the Canadian via Thunder Bay, Dryden, Kenora, Brandon and Regina and on to Saskatoon would increase ridership and revenue at very little added cost.

Adding Sault Ste Marie to the mix would add additional riders, especially American tourists from upper Michigan. Depending on schedules the Agawa Canyon might be travelled in daylight. The trip would definitely take longer but it would be more reliable as there is little freight traffic between Sudbury an Franz via the Soo. Studies would have to be done to determine what the ridership , operational constraints, rolling stock and crew requirements would be but we should not just discount the idea without investigating this option.

The other advantage of the CP route is that it is much more scenic than the CN route as it hugs the shore of Lake Superior for a good portion of the route. This change would also provide better service to Sudbury as the CP station is downtown.

Since the Canadian runs 2- 3 times per week, make one of the trips go via the CN line and and the others via the CP line. Via must feel that it is indebted to CN as it refuses to discuss route changes with CP.

Originally Posted by UrbanSky
You know, I had the same arrogant attitude towards VIA (i.e. that their Planners, Managers and Executives neither know nor care enough to actually "turn around the Canadian" and to come up with creative and innovative solutions by daring to "think outside the box") when I left university, as the one you share with many rail fans across the country. The difference is that I actually decided to pitch my ideas directly to these people in charge at VIA by becoming their colleague and to listen to the explanations of those people far more knowledgable than myself, which made me eventually realize that my ideas had been far less realistic, actionable or even desirable than I had believed. You don't need to work 6 years for VIA to one day realize that coming up with solutions which intuitively appear to you as workable, desirable and almost indispensible is much easier the less you grasp the complexity of the problem...


Originally Posted by jamincan
I did read the link, I fully recognize the challenges and shortcomings they mention, and realize it's unproven. In the wild fantasy of "the government is building a fixed link to Vancouver Island, how might they do it", I happen to think a submerged tunnel has some advantages over all the other wildly impractical ideas. None of that means I think they *should* build a fixed link.

Originally Posted by UrbanSky
Maybe you need to unwind a bit and cool off.
*I'm re-writing my original response to avoid causing unnecessary offense*
Given the already excessive amount of off-topic and fantasy discussions, I would like to kindly ask you to take this discussion elsewhere, should you have the desire to pursue it. Thank you and have a great weekend!

Last edited by Urban_Sky; Aug 14, 2021 at 5:51 PM.

This is a response to your calculations of the ridership for the re-routing the Canadian via Barandon and Regina to Saskatoon.

You are basing your ridership levels for Regina and Brandon solely on the ridership in Saskatoon. You have to treat eastbound and westbound trains separately. More of the ridership for Brandon will be between Brandon and Winnipeg than Saskatoon. Regina will probably be split case with more going to Saskatoon than Winnipeg, but Winnipeg will still be an important origin or destination. It is the geographical location of cities coupled with their population and the service level that induces demand.

The same is true with Winnipeg, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste Marie and Sudbury. Many people would be travelling between these places for medical appointments, visiting relatives or attending colleges and universities. You cannot base the total ridership merely on the population of the so called end points.

You are also ignoring longer distance through traffic such as Regina to Edmonton, Jasper and Vancouver or Regina to points east. The intervening points attract more traffic than just the nearest large city. Most of your traffic on your tourist train aka the Canadian is through traffic so the size of intervening cities is less important. Running trains at inconvenient hours only reduces ridership regardless of the population of the stop.

Riders in Saskatoon, Regina, Brandon, Portage La Prairie and Winnipeg are more likely to travel between these destinations that they are to places east or west of the same locations. People don’t go on a holiday trip weekly but they may take a business trip weekly if it is convenient and reliable. That doesn't mean however that they never take a trip to Toronto or Vancouver.

This is where your back of the envelope calculations falls apart. What is required is an in-depth origin/destination demand study is required. You have to do the study before you can discount the ridership as not being of any economic value.

With respect to your suggestion that all of us that have a different idea should get a job with Via all I can say we all don’t want live in Montreal, we are all not bilingual, and we don’t all want to deal with the politics of government agencies. Just because someone lives outside of the political centre of the Canadian universe doesn’t mean new ideas should be considered. Don’t discount the suggestions of people outside of your former realm. A lot of the problems with Via political in nature and always have been, so don’t try to explain everything away as being based on solely economic factors. It doesn’t cost money to force the railways to provide priority to Via trains especially when they are only handling a couple of trains a week.

There i a reason I blocked him over a year ago. You are experiencing those reasons. I almost feel he is here to simply quash all conversations on improvement outside of what Via has announced. Also realize he is just the guy organizing when things go in for maintenance. He doesn't have the ear of the senior management.

So, will anything more than HFR be promised from the parties now that an election has been called?

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

There i a reason I blocked him over a year ago. You are experiencing those reasons. I almost feel he is here to simply quash all conversations on improvement outside of what Via has announced. Also realize he is just the guy organizing when things go in for maintenance. He doesn't have the ear of the senior management.

So, will anything more than HFR be promised from the parties now that an election has been called?

I am not surprised as a lot of people have sense of self importance.

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

You are basing your ridership levels for Regina and Brandon solely on the ridership in Saskatoon. You have to treat eastbound and westbound trains separately. More of the ridership for Brandon will be between Brandon and Winnipeg than Saskatoon. Regina will probably be split case with more going to Saskatoon than Winnipeg, but Winnipeg will still be an important origin or destination. It is the geographical location of cities coupled with their population and the service level that induces demand.

It's also the ease of getting around the city without a car once you step off the train. What's going to have better ridership: a train going to a metro of 500K that's very walkable with fantastic transit or one going to a city of 2 million with no transit and a sprawling, auto-centric layout (like all the cities you list)?

Originally Posted by GoTrans

The same is true with Winnipeg, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste Marie and Sudbury. Many people would be travelling between these places for medical appointments, visiting relatives or attending colleges and universities. You cannot base the total ridership merely on the population of the so called end points.

There's no reason those people travelling between cities for medical appointments, visiting family or school couldn't just as easily have their needs served with coach buses. And unlike the train, the buses don't need specific slots alocated. They can just drive whenever it's convenient.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

With respect to your suggestion that all of us that have a different idea should get a job with Via all I can say we all don’t want live in Montreal, we are all not bilingual, and we don’t all want to deal with the politics of government agencies. Just because someone lives outside of the political centre of the Canadian universe doesn’t mean new ideas should be considered. Don’t discount the suggestions of people outside of your former realm. A lot of the problems with Via political in nature and always have been, so don’t try to explain everything away as being based on solely economic factors. It doesn’t cost money to force the railways to provide priority to Via trains especially when they are only handling a couple of trains a week.

No one's arguing that people outside of Eastern Canada shouldn't get anything nice. Just that they should be served with the most appropriate mode of transit, even if it's not the shiniest. You wouldn't put a subway in Moose Jaw, because you would never see a positive ROI. And I don't really see a good reason to subsidize a tourist train when we could be investing that money in improving the local transit in Winnipeg, Edmonton, Regina etc.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I am not surprised as a lot of people have sense of self importance.

Even when I see his quotes in other's posts, I see how he still tows the company line. He hates to be proven wrong using his own information against him.

Originally Posted by Floppa

It's also the ease of getting around the city without a car once you step off the train. What's going to have better ridership: a train going to a metro of 500K that's very walkable with fantastic transit or one going to a city of 2 million with no transit and a sprawling, auto-centric layout (like all the cities you list)?

Let's take a city that is sort of served by the Canadian, but if it were a better route, it would actually show why adding the southern route, especially to SSM.... Sudbury. Sudbury has 3 Via stations, 2 of which are served by the Canadian. Capreol and Sudbury Junction. Sudbury Junction has no city bus service. It requires a 2+km walk, where no sidewalks exist to transit. Capreol, does have transit. Its a 45minute ride to downtown Sudbury.
https://www.greatersudbury.ca/live/t...05-valley-pdf/


Now, if they used the southern route, and went to SSM, that would mean they would use the downtown station, of which the Budd car uses. It is about 5 blocks from the main terminal for the city buses. several routes use the street the Via station is located at.
https://www.greatersudbury.ca/live/t...and-schedules/

Do I really need to show SSM and Thunder Bay, and even Regina? I won't even go into Calgary.

Originally Posted by Floppa

There's no reason those people travelling between cities for medical appointments, visiting family or school couldn't just as easily have their needs served with coach buses. And unlike the train, the buses don't need specific slots alocated. They can just drive whenever it's convenient.

Typically, those people tend to have more mobility issues. This means getting on/off a bus and even the spacing of the seats can be problematic. Think of your grandmother/grandfather going to the city for a medical appointment. What would they rather ride? What would be better for them to ride?

Originally Posted by Floppa

No one's arguing that people outside of Eastern Canada shouldn't get anything nice. Just that they should be served with the most appropriate mode of transit, even if it's not the shiniest. You wouldn't put a subway in Moose Jaw, because you would never see a positive ROI. And I don't really see a good reason to subsidize a tourist train when we could be investing that money in improving the local transit in Winnipeg, Edmonton, Regina etc.

No, lots of people have been basically arguing that everything outside the Corridor must be shut down. A few of us are telling those people no. The reason it has become a tourist train is because it has been scheduled into irrelevance.

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Even when I see his quotes in other's posts, I see how he still tows the company line. He hates to be proven wrong using his own information against him.



Let's take a city that is sort of served by the Canadian, but if it were a better route, it would actually show why adding the southern route, especially to SSM.... Sudbury. Sudbury has 3 Via stations, 2 of which are served by the Canadian. Capreol and Sudbury Junction. Sudbury Junction has no city bus service. It requires a 2+km walk, where no sidewalks exist to transit. Capreol, does have transit. Its a 45minute ride to downtown Sudbury.
https://www.greatersudbury.ca/live/t...05-valley-pdf/


Now, if they used the southern route, and went to SSM, that would mean they would use the downtown station, of which the Budd car uses. It is about 5 blocks from the main terminal for the city buses. several routes use the street the Via station is located at.
https://www.greatersudbury.ca/live/t...and-schedules/

Do I really need to show SSM and Thunder Bay, and even Regina? I won't even go into Calgary.



Typically, those people tend to have more mobility issues. This means getting on/off a bus and even the spacing of the seats can be problematic. Think of your grandmother/grandfather going to the city for a medical appointment. What would they rather ride? What would be better for them to ride?



No, lots of people have been basically arguing that everything outside the Corridor must be shut down. A few of us are telling those people no. The reason it has become a tourist train is because it has been scheduled into irrelevance.

You have got to be kidding me

You are either trolling or seriously deluded if you think that we should spend billions of dollars so that we can run empty milk-run trains across the continent in case someone's grandma decides to use it one day.

Nevermind cost or any actual studies or the fact that the GTA and Montreal are drowning in traffic even with 14 lanes of traffic and nowhere to expand NOOOOOOOO we should INSTEAD have milk run trains between cities with two-lane country roads connecting them because a bus isn't good enough for Swimmer_spe's grandma, right?

In a perfect world, we could run bullet trains to every little Podunk in Canada. But this is the real world, where we have to spend the money where it makes sense. What we want to happen is irrelevant. What will happen is that the government will spend money for rail where it will get them votes, and that's in the swing ridings of the St Lawrence Valley. Fortunately, this is also where it makes sense to invest in rail.

It's not that I want the Canadian to stop running. I just don't think very many people would miss it.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Floppa

You have got to be kidding me

You are either trolling or seriously deluded if you think that we should spend billions of dollars so that we can run empty milk-run trains across the continent in case someone's grandma decides to use it one day.

Nevermind cost or any actual studies or the fact that the GTA and Montreal are drowning in traffic even with 14 lanes of traffic and nowhere to expand NOOOOOOOO we should INSTEAD have milk run trains between cities with two-lane country roads connecting them because a bus isn't good enough for Swimmer_spe's grandma, right?

In a perfect world, we could run bullet trains to every little Podunk in Canada. But this is the real world, where we have to spend the money where it makes sense. What we want to happen is irrelevant. What will happen is that the government will spend money for rail where it will get them votes, and that's in the swing ridings of the St Lawrence Valley. Fortunately, this is also where it makes sense to invest in rail.

It's not that I want the Canadian to stop running. I just don't think very many people would miss it.

You're wasting your time, he and Go Trans will not listen to reason and insist on spamming any thread that might be related to VIA with these silly ideas of milk run trains across the prairies.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, will anything more than HFR be promised from the parties now that an election has been called?

Large parts about their platforms are out. Except for the Greens, nobody is interested in more cross-Canada rail. Even the NDP is pushing intra-city bus. Their rail priorities are HFR and restoring the Northlander.

And given the 36 day campaign, I really doubt rail is going to make the hit list of campaign promises and debate ideas. HFR is out there. Every party will simply pledge to support that.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Floppa

You have got to be kidding me

You are either trolling or seriously deluded if you think that we should spend billions of dollars so that we can run empty milk-run trains across the continent in case someone's grandma decides to use it one day.

Nevermind cost or any actual studies or the fact that the GTA and Montreal are drowning in traffic even with 14 lanes of traffic and nowhere to expand NOOOOOOOO we should INSTEAD have milk run trains between cities with two-lane country roads connecting them because a bus isn't good enough for Swimmer_spe's grandma, right?

In a perfect world, we could run bullet trains to every little Podunk in Canada. But this is the real world, where we have to spend the money where it makes sense. What we want to happen is irrelevant. What will happen is that the government will spend money for rail where it will get them votes, and that's in the swing ridings of the St Lawrence Valley. Fortunately, this is also where it makes sense to invest in rail.

It's not that I want the Canadian to stop running. I just don't think very many people would miss it.

I am not a troll. I am also not deluded. I also know that if Via were to do it smartly, like truncating them at Winnipeg, it might serve better. Let's face it, outside the Corridor, train travel is irrelevant, and it is by design.

BTW, my grandparents have long since passed. However, I do have elderly parents.

I would never suggest bullet trains to anywhere. I am suggesting modern trains to major centres.

Originally Posted by milomilo

You're wasting your time, he and Go Trans will not listen to reason and insist on spamming any thread that might be related to VIA with these silly ideas of milk run trains across the prairies.

And you spam here by arguing. If no one argued with us, we wouldn't continue.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Large parts about their platforms are out. Except for the Greens, nobody is interested in more cross-Canada rail. Even the NDP is pushing intra-city bus. Their rail priorities are HFR and restoring the Northlander.

And given the 36 day campaign, I really doubt rail is going to make the hit list of campaign promises and debate ideas. HFR is out there. Every party will simply pledge to support that.

Well, at least that is something.....

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Floppa

No one's arguing that people outside of Eastern Canada shouldn't get anything nice. Just that they should be served with the most appropriate mode of transit, even if it's not the shiniest. You wouldn't put a subway in Moose Jaw, because you would never see a positive ROI. And I don't really see a good reason to subsidize a tourist train when we could be investing that money in improving the local transit in Winnipeg, Edmonton, Regina etc.

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t examine options that may provide a higher ROI than the current service by changing the route to service more cities. If you make anything inconvenient you will destroy the demand, which is exactly what the government and Via have done. This not only applies to the West but also the Maritimes and the Gaspe.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t examine options that may provide a higher ROI than the current service by changing the route to service more cities. If you make anything inconvenient you will destroy the demand, which is exactly what the government and Via have done. This not only applies to the West but also the Maritimes and the Gaspe.

I'd say leave the existing one as is an add the southern route on opposite days.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Well, at least that is something.....

If your complaint is that nobody is funding cross-Canada rail, it's not.

Moreover, every party supports some form of funding for intra-city bus. The NDP is just a bit more explicit about it. But they don't mention setting up anything. Just support for it. Which I take to mean the same thing as the LPC and CPC: cutting cheques to the provinces to subsidize existing intra-city bus services like GO and Maritime Bus. And whatever their promises, nobody other than the Greens seems interested in cross-Canada rail. And even their commitment is minimal. Something like bring back the Canadian to daily. So if you're harbouring visions of parties competing to invest in cross-Canada rail, prepare to be disappointed.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I'd say leave the existing one as is an add the southern route on opposite days.

I would start with the reroute in the prairies first. Then add any additional frequencies to the Canadian via Thunder Bay even if it leaves the CN route with only per week. As more frequencies are added to bring the total Winnipeg Toronto frequencies to 3/wk they should be added to the CP route. After that I would add Vancouver - Winnipeg via Calgary or Calgary to Winnipeg at a minimum. You could run the trains daily but alternate between North and South routes as you suggest. I think all trains should terminate in Winnipeg to improve reliability.

The reroute via Regina to Saskatoon sets up the potential for more frequent and faster service between them for future increases in frequency and speed. I have never been suggesting that all of this be done at once. I believe if we have reasonable partial service the public will buy in and demand more.

Similarly the same thing needs to be done in the Maritimes to establish better service between St John, Moncton, Truro and Halifax.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If your complaint is that nobody is funding cross-Canada rail, it's not.

Moreover, every party supports some form of funding for intra-city bus. The NDP is just a bit more explicit about it. But they don't mention setting up anything. Just support for it. Which I take to mean the same thing as the LPC and CPC: cutting cheques to the provinces to subsidize existing intra-city bus services like GO and Maritime Bus. And whatever their promises, nobody other than the Greens seems interested in cross-Canada rail. And even their commitment is minimal. Something like bring back the Canadian to daily. So if you're harbouring visions of parties competing to invest in cross-Canada rail, prepare to be disappointed.

If you think they are just disappointing me in how they handle Via, you really don't know me.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I would start with the reroute in the prairies first. Then add any additional frequencies to the Canadian via Thunder Bay even if it leaves the CN route with only per week. As more frequencies are added to bring the total Winnipeg Toronto frequencies to 3/wk they should be added to the CP route. After that I would add Vancouver - Winnipeg via Calgary or Calgary to Winnipeg at a minimum. You could run the trains daily but alternate between North and South routes as you suggest. I think all trains should terminate in Winnipeg to improve reliability.

The reroute via Regina to Saskatoon sets up the potential for more frequent and faster service between them for future increases in frequency and speed. I have never been suggesting that all of this be done at once. I believe if we have reasonable partial service the public will buy in and demand more.

Similarly the same thing needs to be done in the Maritimes to establish better service between St John, Moncton, Truro and Halifax.

For the Canadian, are you suggesting getting rid of the northern route?

For the Maritimes, return the Gull.