VIA Rail

[swimmer_spe]

If Via rail is selling out the seats/beds, should they add frequency?

For example, if Corridor trains frequently are full, does that mean that Via should look into adding 1 more a day?

If the long distance trains are consistently booked solid in a given season, should they move to a 4x a week service from 3x?

That may mean they need more rolling stock to do it, so not an immediate change.

[acottawa]

Via loses money on nearly every seat it sells. More seats means more taxpayer subsidies.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If Via rail is selling out the seats/beds, should they add frequency?

For example, if Corridor trains frequently are full, does that mean that Via should look into adding 1 more a day?

If the long distance trains are consistently booked solid in a given season, should they move to a 4x a week service from 3x?

That may mean they need more rolling stock to do it, so not an immediate change.

The main point of the HFR proposal to allow them to increase frequency beyond what's currently possible on the current alignment. Well, that along with the ability to maintain speed and reliability.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Via loses money on nearly every seat it sells. More seats means more taxpayer subsidies.

Selling more seats only increases the total subsidy, not the per passenger subsidy. Increasing train frequency increases the subsidy per passenger until the volume on the additional frequency is the same as the existing frequency if there is available rolling stock.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Via loses money on nearly every seat it sells. More seats means more taxpayer subsidies.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Selling more seats only increases the total subsidy, not the per passenger subsidy. Increasing train frequency increases the subsidy per passenger until the volume on the additional frequency is the same as the existing frequency if there is available rolling stock.

I am confused.

Lets say it costs $1000 to run a train a given distance. Lets say they have 100 seats. Lets say each seat costs $1. Wouldn't the subsidy be less for 100 people than for 1?

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The main point of the HFR proposal to allow them to increase frequency beyond what's currently possible on the current alignment. Well, that along with the ability to maintain speed and reliability.

So, right now, they cannot add on the Corridor?

What about the other routes? could they not add one more per week on the Canadian, Ocean and others, ignoring whether they have the rolling stock or not?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am confused.

Lets say it costs $1000 to run a train a given distance. Lets say they have 100 seats. Lets say each seat costs $1. Wouldn't the subsidy be less for 100 people than for 1?

It is probably a mixture of marginal and fixed costs. An empty train still needs a locomotive, crew, staffing at stations, track fees, insurance (and apparently the mall cops that seem to be mandatory now). They might be able to adjust the number of carriages and in car staff for fewer passengers.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is probably a mixture of marginal and fixed costs. An empty train still needs a locomotive, crew, staffing at stations, track fees, insurance (and apparently the mall cops that seem to be mandatory now). They might be able to adjust the number of carriages and in car staff for fewer passengers.

To be a train it needs rolling stock in addition to locomotives or DMU/EMU's which also increases both the subsidy per passenger and the total subsidy until the additional train carries the same volume as the existing train. If Via owned the ROW then the added cost would be lower because every train would be contributing to the maintenance costs. This is probably why GO Transit has been buying the ROW from CN where possible, allowing it to increase the frequency of the trains without increasing the rolling stock required to run the trains and does not have to pay avoidable costs to CN..

[J81]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If Via rail is selling out the seats/beds, should they add frequency?

For example, if Corridor trains frequently are full, does that mean that Via should look into adding 1 more a day?

If the long distance trains are consistently booked solid in a given season, should they move to a 4x a week service from 3x?

That may mean they need more rolling stock to do it, so not an immediate change.

Theres no equipment to add frequency. Simple.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by J81

Theres no equipment to add frequency. Simple.

Right now, you are correct. I am looking to the future. So, for example, if they are running 20 car trains for the Canadian, and they are selling out for the peak months, would it be worth it to buy more to add a 4th run?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Right now, you are correct. I am looking to the future. So, for example, if they are running 20 car trains for the Canadian, and they are selling out for the peak months, would it be worth it to buy more to add a 4th run?

First of all, are not selling out the Canadian with any regularity. They are selling out certain premium options between Edmonton and Vancouver. A full selection of seats and cabins is available for Wednesday”s departure from Toronto as far as Edmonton and economy seats are still available the entire trip. What they are doing is burning a lot of diesel to haul empty cabins from Toronto to Edmonton so it can fill up with affluent tourists in Edmonton.

Second of all, the Canadian loses money. “Worth it” means spending more money to lose more money.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

First of all, are not selling out the Canadian with any regularity. They are selling out certain premium options between Edmonton and Vancouver. A full selection of seats and cabins is available for Wednesday”s departure from Toronto as far as Edmonton and economy seats are still available the entire trip. What they are doing is burning a lot of diesel to haul empty cabins from Toronto to Edmonton so it can fill up with affluent tourists in Edmonton.

Second of all, the Canadian loses money. “Worth it” means spending more money to lose more money.

For the fun of it I tried booking between Toronto and Vancouver this year as I wanted to plan a trip in the future but did not know the price, Except for seats, everything else was booked. If what you are saying is true, that makes sense.

So, what about adding one more train a week just between Edmonton and Vancouver? Would that be a good idea?
What if this additional train was priced such that a full train had no subsidy?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, what about adding one more train a week just between Edmonton and Vancouver? Would that be a good idea?
What if this additional train was priced such that a full train had no subsidy?

That’s a good idea, if people were willing to pay for tickets at that price.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That’s a good idea, if people were willing to pay for tickets at that price.

Assume there are no just a seat tickets. How much would it cost? What does that same ticket cost now?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J81

Transfers are already simple. 64 from Toronto and 28 from Ottawa are both timed to arrive in Montreal to facilitate transfers onto the Ocean. The same holds true when the ocean arrives in Montréal for connections to Ottawa and Southern Ontario. You can leave Halifax tomorrow afternoon and be in Windsor Monday night and only change trains once in Montreal. So sending the ocean to toronto accomplishes nothing. In fact in order to do that you would need a 3rd trainset which Via does not currently possess.

Not only that, but VIA would be wasting energy dragging a bunch of mostly empty sleepers back and forth between Toronto and Montreal at a time of day when sleepers aren't needed. Better to move those passengers into coaches (which can carry about 4 times as many passengers per car) for daytime service.

One could argue that VIA would be better off having the Ocean's eastern terminus in Moncton and run one (or more) daylight trains a day between Moncton and Halifax. This might even make it easier to increase the frequency of the Ocean using existing equipment as they would be able to service and turn around the train in Moncton for the return trip that same day.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Not only that, but VIA would be wasting energy dragging a bunch of mostly empty sleepers back and forth between Toronto and Montreal at a time of day when sleepers aren't needed. Better to move those passengers into coaches (which can carry about 4 times as many passengers per car) for daytime service.

One could argue that VIA would be better off having the Ocean's eastern terminus in Moncton and run one (or more) daylight trains a day between Moncton and Halifax. This might even make it easier to increase the frequency of the Ocean using existing equipment as they would be able to service and turn around the train in Moncton for the return trip that same day.

What if they changed the schedule such that the train left Toronto in the night and arrived in Montreal around 6-8am? In fact, what if they did the same with the Canadian? You would effectively bring back the old Enterprise service which would mean someone could get to those cities without needing a hotel room.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What if they changed the schedule such that the train left Toronto in the night and arrived in Montreal around 6-8am?

Back when VIA ran an overnight train between Toronto and Montreal it was about half as long as The Ocean and they still had troubles filling it, so you would still end up with empty sleeper cars. Given the limited number of timeslots, it is better to use one when a large number of people actually want to travel.

Even if that was feasible, you would end up with daytime service through Quebec for stations that already have daytime service and then overnight stops in all the towns in NB and NS. A great idea if your objective is to minimize ridership on The Ocean.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

In fact, what if they did the same with the Canadian?

So you want to have two overnight trains between Toronto and Montreal (except for the times when the Canadian arrives in Toronto 8+ hours late, in which case it becomes a daytime sleeper train)? Given the trains on The Canadian are even longer than on The Ocean, you would end up with even more empty sleeper cars deadheading between Toronto and Montreal. A great way to waste a limited resource (sleeper cars) and fuel.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You would effectively bring back the old Enterprise service which would mean someone could get to those cities without needing a hotel room.

Once HFR is complete (giving VIA as many timeslots as they want) and a new long distance fleet has been purchased (with an increase in sleeper capacity) then maybe VIA might consider bringing back the Enterprise. If so, it would be best as a dedicated train that can be built to the length required and not be affected by delays to an incoming long distance train.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Back when VIA ran an overnight train between Toronto and Montreal it was about half as long as The Ocean and they still had troubles filling it, so you would still end up with empty sleeper cars. Given the limited number of timeslots, it is better to use one when a large number of people actually want to travel.

Even if that was feasible, you would end up with daytime service through Quebec for stations that already have daytime service and then overnight stops in all the towns in NB and NS. A great idea if your objective is to minimize ridership on The Ocean.

I see how that would not work. With the current Ocean schedule, since you can get to Montreal from Toronto and get the Ocean, that may not be needed. Mind you, if they ever did want to run a night service from Toronto, using the Ocean fleet may work, and then have it out of service for a few hours.

Originally Posted by roger1818

So you want to have two overnight trains between Toronto and Montreal (except for the times when the Canadian arrives in Toronto 8+ hours late, in which case it becomes a daytime sleeper train)? Given the trains on The Canadian are even longer than on The Ocean, you would end up with even more empty sleeper cars deadheading between Toronto and Montreal. A great way to waste a limited resource (sleeper cars) and fuel.

... I forgot about getting the Canadian to Montreal.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Once HFR is complete (giving VIA as many timeslots as they want) and a new long distance fleet has been purchased (with an increase in sleeper capacity) then maybe VIA might consider bringing back the Enterprise. If so, it would be best as a dedicated train that can be built to the length required and not be affected by delays to an incoming long distance train.

Now that you pointed out the mess it may cause, I agree.

[ssiguy]

By every metric, VIA is a failure. The gov't should just cut it's loses and get out and let the private sector run it with Ottawa only at arms length like the airlines. It would take the politics out of it which is what has sucked it dry in the last 40 years.

VIA has had nearly half a century to prove it's worth and it has progressively gotten worse. Trying to improve VIA at this point is just good money after bad. Let it die because whatever replaces it couldn't possibly be worse.

Ford didn't revolutionize transportation by building a better horse.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

By every metric, VIA is a failure. The gov't should just cut it's loses and get out and let the private sector run it with Ottawa only at arms length like the airlines. It would take the politics out of it which is what has sucked it dry in the last 40 years.

VIA has had nearly half a century to prove it's worth and it has progressively gotten worse. Trying to improve VIA at this point is just good money after bad. Let it die because whatever replaces it couldn't possibly be worse.

Ford didn't revolutionize transportation by building a better horse.

I hope you copied and pasted your rant from one of the last dozen times you vomited it on us…

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

By every metric, VIA is a failure. The gov't should just cut it's loses and get out and let the private sector run it with Ottawa only at arms length like the airlines. It would take the politics out of it which is what has sucked it dry in the last 40 years.

The private sector will not pick it up. That will end up with no rail service outside of Canada besides the stuff that Amtrak or the commuting rail does.
You cannot use any of the private rail services for transportation. Example, you cannot take the Rocky Mountaineer to get to/from any city they serve outside of their packaged trips.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

VIA has had nearly half a century to prove it's worth and it has progressively gotten worse. Trying to improve VIA at this point is just good money after bad. Let it die because whatever replaces it couldn't possibly be worse.

Via has shown that with political meddling, you get failure. Maybe it should transition to something like Canada Post. That would mean focusing on making it break even or generate revenue. That may mean the return of other services to help gain revenue to be able to serve other services.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Ford didn't revolutionize transportation by building a better horse.

He revolutionized it by making the product more available to the masses. If you want to compare Via to Ford, then you need more services, and more frequency.