Definitely a difference of opinion, but it seems to reflect on Canadians' idea of what good rail service should look like, even though they've never experienced it in this country. Nostalgia for those clunky monsters running a couple times a day/week rather than smaller, more efficient trains running frequently.
I'm sure you're aware that there is a difference between appreciating milestones/methods of the past and recommending current/future service. Hint: they are two different things.
I was commenting on the past, and have no intention of getting into the 'debate' on what is appropriate for the future, but FWIW, Urban_sky seems to have the best handle on the situation...
Definitely a difference of opinion, but it seems to reflect on Canadians' idea of what good rail service should look like, even though they've never experienced it in this country. Nostalgia for those clunky monsters running a couple times a day/week rather than smaller, more efficient trains running frequently.
What difference does the size of the train make? FWIW all passenger trains are roughly the same size seeing that they run on standard gauge tracks, it's not like modern trains are half the size of the Turbos or something.
Turbos were meant to be the model going forward... I'm sure in 1967 the plan was for them to eventually run frequently, but obviously that never happened. I don't know how you can fault CN for at least trying to pave the way toward improved service...
What difference does the size of the train make? FWIW all passenger trains are roughly the same size seeing that they run on standard gauge tracks, it's not like modern trains are half the size of the Turbos or something.
They are built to different standards around the world. Here's an article on this:
I believe these regulations have since been updated in the US but not in Canada. Outdated safety regulations require that passenger trains that don't have their own dedicated tracks be built like tanks. This is not a good approach. If two trains fly into each other at hundreds of km an hour you are not going to save the people inside by reinforcing the cars. The only good approach is crash avoidance through better reliability, monitoring, and control.
What difference does the size of the train make? FWIW all passenger trains are roughly the same size seeing that they run on standard gauge tracks, it's not like modern trains are half the size of the Turbos or something.
Turbos were meant to be the model going forward... I'm sure in 1967 the plan was for them to eventually run frequently, but obviously that never happened. I don't know how you can fault CN for at least trying to pave the way toward improved service...
They obviously weren't a very good vision for the future though.
My point is Canadians seem to have an image in their head that the only version of passenger rail looks like that turbo train or a massive diesel GO train hauling 16 bi-level cars, and that when we talk about enhancing passenger rail service that's what it has to look like. But it doesn't have to look like that, and, indeed, shouldn't - if we want good transportation we should be aiming to make it look like modern Europe, not 60s Canada.
[QUOTE=Urban_Sky;8518621]
Quote:
Quote: Originally Posted by GoTrans
i agree with you. Many posters on the forum claim there is no recent history of demand in many parts of the country (ie AB,SK,MB) to support this.
This is not a claim, it's an obvious fact, given that there hasn't been any at-least-daily intercity rail service west of the Quebec-Windsor corridor for 29 years (and counting). [Quote]
You agree with me that it is a fact but you do not want to agree that there is any thing that can be done to improve the existing transcontinental service in for it to become more reliable, more convenient, more cost efficient, faster and relevant.
Quote: Originally Posted by GoTrans
You have to start somewhere and cancelling transcontinental service and replacing it with regional intercity service is the most practical way to prove there is a demand.
[QUOTE=Urban_Sky;8518621]
I agree that it is in the nature of a novice idea that there never is much past data to support it, but destroying an existing passenger service which has a cost-recovery rate at par with the Corridor despite extreme operational challenges is a rather counter-intuitive way to "prove that there is demand"...[Quote]
Quote: Originally Posted by GoTrans
The routings should serve the maximum population...
[QUOTE=Urban_Sky;8518621]
...in which case they would be focused on the Quebec-Windsor and Calgary-Edmonton Corridors, as these are the only places in this country where there significant population centers (250+k) can be found in a suitable distance to each other (<500 km): [Quote]
What I am saying is that given that you want to continue with the Canadian and I prefer a regional train network it would make more sense for improved cost recovery on either of our scenarios to change the routing and resulting in servicing higher populated centres on the prairie segment between Winnipeg and Edmonton. Here are the cities/towns that would be serviced by this change; Brandon, Regina. Warman,North Battleford, Lloydminster, Vermillon, Vegreville and Fort Saskatchewan. This would increase ridership compared to the existing route.
If you run a train on the route of the original Canadian on CP trackage you would service the following cities between Calgary and Winnipeg; Brooks, Medicine Hat, Swift Current, Moose Jaw, Regina, Brandon and Portage la Prairie.
Note: shown are all Canadian CMAs with a population of at least 250,000, ranked from the largest to the smallest...
Quote:
…and not be designed to benefit the railways and appropriate equipment is required to control costs.
[QUOTE=Urban_Sky;8518621]
A cost-recovery rate of roughly 75% does not really suggest that the Canadian is designed around the needs of the railroads and has a massive problem with controlling its costs.
Quote:
Here are some of the ways that the network has been designed around the wishes of railroads related to the Canadian;
1. The train stops at Sudbury Junction which is in the middle of the bush instead of downtown Sudbury via CP’s Parry Sound sub. The passenger cars could be run backwards to Sudbury and the locomotives switched to the other end of the train at Sudbury. Trains could still access the CN line again with all cars on the train headed the normal direction. This would also provide access to Via’
2. The train could service Barrie by using Metrolinx to Barrie and the Barrie-Collingwood Railroad to Utopia on the CP mainline. CP mainline has fewer freights than the CN mainline meaning less delays.
3. The train could run between Toronto and Washago via Barrie and Orillia via the Newmarket sub which would provided an added benefit of providing access to for ONR and Via to operate on a high quality secondary line and avoid freight train congestion on the Bala sub. This would also increase the chances of the ONR Northlander being re-instituted.
4. Trains between Toronto and Winnipeg should run 5-6 days a week with the CP route between Sudbury and Winnipeg via Thunder Bay running the majority of the days while the CN route frequency is at a minimum.
5. Trains between Winnipeg and Calgary and/or Edmonton could be DMU’s to reduce costs or be single locomotive hauled trains versus current multiple locomotive hauled trains.
6. Trains between Winnipeg and Edmonton should run via CP to Regina, then on ex CN sub Last Mountain Rail / CN Rail to Saskatoon and via Warman and north CN line via North Battleford and Lloydminster to Edmonton. This be subject to less freight train congestion, increasing reliability and serve larger population centres.
7. All passenger should transfer trains at either Winnipeg, Edmonton or Calgary depending on their direction of travel. This will increase reliability as all trains would at least depart on time and the routes are shorter and therefore the delays will be less.
8. Trains should terminate in Edmonton and/or Calgary. Re-instated Calgary-Edmonton service would provide connections for passengers off the CP mainline.
9. Reliable connections at all transfer points where scheduling allows.
10. The government needs to force CN to re-install double track previously ripped up by the former CEO Hunter Harrison.
Routes should generally be a maximum of 24 hours in length except through northern Ontario
[QUOTE=Urban_Sky;8518621]
What is so difficult for you and the other proponents of your idea of destroying the Canadian for some short succession of day trips which make the travel time (and costs, once including accommodation!) for any longer distance even less competitive against other available (car, plane) or potentially available (intercity bus) modes? Quote:
The object is not to destroy anything, it is to improve the reliability, travel time, service a larger population and provide better scheduling and an increased coverage area for increased convenience. All these factors should increase cost recovery compared to the current situation, not decrease it. The day of transcontinental train service has effectively ended due to freight requirements, air service and multiple lane highways. Trains can only compete in their mid distance service.
Let’s take the train to Churchill MB as an example. How many of the passengers taking the train are residents outside MB? Of those passengers how many took the train to Winnipeg? I would bet that most people fly to Winnipeg to take the train to Churchill. Since Via knows the ticket purchaser’s address it should not be too difficult to figure this out.
It would be great to see an origin-destination matrix for all passengers on the Canadian to see how many take the train the whole way from Vancouver to Toronto versus how many embark or disembark at intermediate points and which individual points.
They obviously weren't a very good vision for the future though.
My point is Canadians seem to have an image in their head that the only version of passenger rail looks like that turbo train or a massive diesel GO train hauling 16 bi-level cars, and that when we talk about enhancing passenger rail service that's what it has to look like. But it doesn't have to look like that, and, indeed, shouldn't - if we want good transportation we should be aiming to make it look like modern Europe, not 60s Canada.
Why would I as a passenger care what the train looks like, and specifically, how big it is? That would be a trivial consideration at most for nearly everyone.
Totally missing the point. They will care because smaller trains arriving more frequently is much more useful than a behemoth arriving once a day, yet until recently that was essentially the only type of train running passenger services in Canada. It's no coincidence that you see nothing like a GO train in Europe, with trains like Ottawa's O-Train being more prevalent on lightly used lines, but the networks are far better used.
i agree with you. Many posters on the forum claim there is no recent history of demand in many parts of the country (ie AB,SK,MB) to support this. You have to start somewhere and cancelling transcontinental service and replacing it with regional intercity service is the most practical way to prove there is a demand. The routings should serve the maximum population and not be designed to benefit the railways and appropriate equipment is required to control costs. Routes should generally be a maximum of 24 hours in length except through northern Ontario.
I agree. Just because there is low demand right now doesn’t mean there’s going to be low demand in the future. From what I’ve read the Canada Line in Vancouver was controversial because of the ridership on the existing B-Line bus route supposedly didn’t justify it, and the projected ridership for the trains wasnt that great. Ridership on the Canada Line has greatly exceeded expectations and is now busier than the Millennium Line.
Obviously this is urban transit versus an inter-city rail line, but it’s meant to illustrate there can be pent-up demand. Same principle as induced demand for roads, basically.
Totally missing the point. They will care because smaller trains arriving more frequently is much more useful than a behemoth arriving once a day, yet until recently that was essentially the only type of train running passenger services in Canada. It's no coincidence that you see nothing like a GO train in Europe, with trains like Ottawa's O-Train being more prevalent on lightly used lines, but the networks are far better used.
It appears you may be unaware that trains can be reconfigured by adding or removing cars as necessary. That is exactly what happened with the Turbo Train.
I'm not expressing myself well. It's not about the specific trains as much as the general mindset and style of operations, whenever people here think of what restoring passenger service means they just think it's bringing back the same services that we had in the 60's - you see it in this thread - "why can't we just have a once per day service between every major city". Or large, infrequent commuter trains like the GO or the West Coast Express.
What good passenger rail looks like is not those things. Good service is frequent, reliable trains, and is why we have had much more success with light rail and subways than we've had with heavy rail.
^ No one is advocating for bringing back the TurboTrain or other such 1960s technologies. Speaking for myself, I would still hold it up as an example of fairly bold, audacious thinking... the TurboTrain was practically revolutionary for its time, and even though it didn't really work out, it represented a willingness to take a big step, which is something we don't see much of now.
A similarly big step might look different these days... it could be higher frequency, it could be more multitracking, it could be whatever, but it certainly wouldn't look like the Turbo. However, it would be nice to see a return to the era when governments were willing to think big on intercity rail.
^ No one is advocating for bringing back the TurboTrain or other such 1960s technologies. Speaking for myself, I would still hold it up as an example of fairly bold, audacious thinking... the TurboTrain was practically revolutionary for its time, and even though it didn't really work out, it represented a willingness to take a big step, which is something we don't see much of now.
You might not be, but it does seem like people have nostalgia for trains like that and view going back to some imagined railway golden age in the 50s or 60s as the way forward. But it isn't, trains are competing with cheap travel by car and air now, so few are going to spend 12 hours sat on a once daily train between Regina and Calgary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire
A similarly big step might look different these days... it could be higher frequency, it could be more multitracking, it could be whatever, but it certainly wouldn't look like the Turbo. However, it would be nice to see a return to the era when governments were willing to think big on intercity rail.
Seeing as they are unwilling to go big though, could we at least go medium and fund HFR? If we can't even support that, then there is little hope.
I have yet to see you respond to any question directed at you so what makes you feel entitled to receive answers for the questions you are asking?
I directly answered your question about what I hoped to learn from Via lifting its veil of secrecy. I made a list and explained why these things were important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban_Sky
I have yet to see you providing any methodology to any of the many claims you are making, so what makes you feel entitled to demand from other people to provide and defend their methodology?
I am not demanding anything of anyone. If people are going to introduce their own research into an internet forum they open themselves to critique of that research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban_Sky
...so why would anyone believe you that even the most detailed report from the most reputed engineering firm could compel you to reconsider your already entrenched views and opinions?
Whether you believe me or not is of little interest to me. It does not seem like a radical idea that someone would treat a detailed report provided by the most reputable engineering firm differently from the infographic Via provides on its website or the statements of a Via employee provided on an internet forum.
The interesting thing is there has been a detailed report done by a reputable
(as far as I know) engineering form on the corridor Via is proposing to use.
This study estimated a cost of about 1.5B 2010 dollars to provide a two hour service between Peterborough and Toronto. This is more than 40% (plus inflation) of Via's proposed track budget for the entire line for about 10% of the route from Toronto to Quebec city at a speed that would be far too low to meet Via's proposed travel times.
So pending more detailed information from Via I am far more likely to believe the GO study than believe Via's infographic. I suspect I am not the only one.
VIA has still not published any examples of any cost comparisons between the Peterborough track proposal and the idea of dedicated tracks (through adding more tracks) in the existing Lakeshore corridor. I find it hard to believe the former is cheaper than the latter.
I thought it was a given that the lack of equipment was due to lack of funding. Pretty obvious.
You are talking about capital funding, I’m talking about operational funding.
Quote:
Not sure i agree with the mandate excuse though.
Even though VIA has still no explicit mandate, all its services which have survived beyond the 15th January of 1990 are falling into one of the following three categories:
• Intercity services on a near-commercial basis: Quebec City-Drummondville-Montreal-Ottawa/Cornwall-Toronto-Aldershot/Kitchener-London-Sarnia/Windsor and Toronto-Niagara Falls
• Remote services to communities without year-round road access (and which were inherited by CN or CP): (Montreal-)Matapedia-Gaspe (currently suspended), Montreal-Harvey-Jonquierre and Montreal-Harvey-Senneterre-(until 1997: Cochrane), Sudbury-White River, Winnipeg-The Pas-Thompson-Churchill, The Pas-Pukatawagan-(until 2004: Lynn Lake) and Jasper-Prince George-Prince Rupert
Given that most of the possible routes in Western Canada don’t seem able to support intercity coach service, I don’t see any route apart from Calgary-Red River-Edmonton, which could possibly fall under VIA’s mandate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghYHZ
HSR in the ‘60s and ‘70s….the TURBO! Original schedule was 3hr59 then extended to 4hr10 in the ‘70s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire
For what it's worth, LRCs did for a while match the Turbotrain's 4 hour pace between Montreal and Toronto, but not anymore.
Indeed, after the introduction of the TEMPO trains in October 1965 had reduced the fastest scheduled travel time from 6:15 hours (2 years before) to 4:59, the TURBO trains were scheduled at 3:59 hours only during their first appearance in December 1968, 4:05 hours during their second appearance in 1970/71 and 4:10 hours during their final introduction in 1973. This travel time was subsequently extended to 4:25 and was eventually matched by the LRC trains which replaced the TURBOs in 1982 and improved their travel time further to achieve a minimum scheduled travel time of 3:59 hours between October 1992 and May 1999 and between May 2000 and May 2005…
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
IMO, that Turbotrain is a ghastly abomination compared to proper, electrified high speed rail. It looks like a ship, and probably weighs the same.
I had a colleague explain to me the problem with the Turbotrain and he made me aware that the tear and wear (and thus maintenance requirements) of a turbine was proportional to the number of “cycles” and that whereas a flight consists of a very low number of cycles (low throttle while taxiing – high during take-off – medium during the flight – reverse during landing – low while taxiing), the number of cycles required during a train trip required a high multiple of the number of cycles required during a flight, as the train needs to brake before each curve and accelerate directly after it. With that in mind, the following account (and the TURBO's fate) becomes a lot less bewildering:
Source: “The Railway Game” by Julius Lukasiewicz (1976, pp. 151-153)
In the end, it was an interesting experiment with a technology, which proved to be helplessly unsuitable for any railway application…
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbt
Now, this entire discussion started because someone said VIAs capacity was limited. I attempted to explain why capacity wasn't limited (train lengthening being an option), but Quality of Service (which HFR attempts to improve) was the main problem.
If you’ve ever tried to use VIA on Thanksgiving weekend or in the final days before Christmas, you would understand that VIA’s capacity is of course limited because, guess what, you can’t increase train lengths beyond what you have available in fleet and ready for revenue service…
Quote:
So anyway, back to train lengthening. I'm using a number of very rough approximations for pricing to try to convey the concept, so assume 50% error bars. "Reasonable price" for a car is ultimately determined by what the customer will pay. When the primary customer is a federal politician seeking re-election, that price is quite low and everything you said applies to that situation; which is the real situation.
[…]
I'm fairly confident VIA could have placed a 40 car (1 to 2 car expansion per train) order with a value of $320M. I think vendors would have been falling over themselves for that tender despite custom design requirements. That's double the value of a UPX car, for a larger order, but without the motors, controls, etc. However, if they still didn't want it, find out what the line of waiting customers aggressively throwing cash at VIA ticket agents for a seat will pay, and offer vendors 2/3rds of that value for a design + build + finance tender.
You can’t specify a modest fleet extension to be compatible with your future fleet if you don’t even know yet whether you will be given the budget to just replace the cars or also (as the current government has announced last year) entire trainsets. Also, the last thing VIA needs is a fourth fleet type to operate on the Corridor and contributing to a multitude of interoperability and product standardisation challenges…
Quote:
Reality is VIA runs empty seats with tickets at obtainable prices, so customer driven train length expansion was not a real-world option. They're not capacity constrained; quality of service compared to other transportation options restricts demand for VIA corridor seats.
Yes, quality of service (e.g. a target load factor, which is reasonably high, but low enough that passengers willing to pay a full-fare ticket in the last minute don’t have to be turned away) restricts the number of tickets sold, but that metric in itself is dependent on the available fleet size. You just have to look into VIA’s Annual Reports to see how more and more train, car and seat miles are squeezes out of the same number of cars…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer
One idea I've had is that VIA could carve out a very useful niche for itself in economy overnight travel in the 1000km/8-12h range. Instead of the land-cruise-type service which appeals mostly to tourists, a low-cost, no-frills sleeper would be very competitive with the bus and driving.
For example, I had to get from Ottawa to Halifax last week for some meetings;
- Fly: $600 round. Fastest, but takes half a day per way when you factor in getting to the airport and security. 2pm - 7:30pm.
- Car rental: $300-400 round. Fast, but takes up a full day per way. 9am - 9pm.
- Bus: $250 round. Overnight, but in very cramped seats. 9pm - 6pm.
- Current VIA economy: $300 round. Overnight, but in a seat. 7pm - 6pm.
- Current VIA sleeper: $700-1000 round. Overnight with an individual cabin and dining. 7pm - 6pm.
- "Economy sleeper": $300 round. Overnight with a bed in a shared cabin. 6pm - 12pm.
Currently, the train is basically a slightly more comfortable version of the bus. But unlike the bus, the train allows you to put beds in. The problem is that currently, VIA only offers two extremes of service; either nothing or total luxury. The no-bed option isn't viable for anyone older than 30 (and under that, it's only tolerable), and the bed+luxury is so expensive that you may as well fly unless you're on vacation.
An economy sleeper could be the perfect middle, offering a product which is both comfortable and affordable. With improvements to speed (perhaps by cutting through Maine and/or improving tracks to allow for higher speeds), a 6pm-12pm train would also be competitive in terms of how many daylight hours it takes (only 6-8h compared to 12h for driving and 5-6h for flying).
Europe has a number of these, such as Thello's Paris-Venice trains which offer these 6-person couchettes for $150-200 round trip for the same distance as Montreal-Halifax.
I think that a service like this could make rail competitive in the 1000-km range. Routes like Halifax-Montreal, Montreal-NYC, Toronto-NYC, Toronto-Chicago. Perhaps some of the regional routes like Montreal-Jonquière, and Montreal-Abitibi. It could even offer a completely new product in the sub-800 range, like an slowed-down overnight between Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto, allowing people to spend a full day and evening in one city before overnighting back.
It may be a bit ambitious, but in any case, I think that VIA should better leverage the inherent advantages of its mode to offer products that others can't.
It makes no sense to cancel an existing service that generates significant ridership and a has a known market and replace it with a new service, with little or no proven ridership.
The Turbo trains had many technical problems that affected their reliability. This is why they were taken out of service long before the normal service life of passenger trains.
Amen (to both statements).
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoTrans
What I am saying is that given that you want to continue with the Canadian and I prefer a regional train network it would make more sense for improved cost recovery on either of our scenarios to change the routing and resulting in servicing higher populated centres on the prairie segment between Winnipeg and Edmonton. Here are the cities/towns that would be serviced by this change; Brandon, Regina. Warman,North Battleford, Lloydminster, Vermillon, Vegreville and Fort Saskatchewan. This would increase ridership compared to the existing route.
For the one-thousandth time: what competitive edge would the train have over the intercity bus, which has not been commercially successful despite a significantly lower cost structure and dramatically higher operational flexibility?
Quote:
If you run a train on the route of the original Canadian on CP trackage you would service the following cities between Calgary and Winnipeg; Brooks, Medicine Hat, Swift Current, Moose Jaw, Regina, Brandon and Portage la Prairie.
The Census 2016 counts 2,663,659 people in the population centers you mentioned. The population centers along the Quebec-Windsor Corridor count more than five times as many people over a slightly shorter total distance (1264 vs. 1340 km):
Quote:
Here are some of the ways that the network has been designed around the wishes of railroads related to the Canadian;
1. The train stops at Sudbury Junction which is in the middle of the bush instead of downtown Sudbury via CP’s Parry Sound sub. The passenger cars could be run backwards to Sudbury and the locomotives switched to the other end of the train at Sudbury. Trains could still access the CN line again with all cars on the train headed the normal direction. This would also provide access to Via’
Theoretically, you could back-up all the way from Toronto to Vancouver, but special regulations apply to such move (such as very restrictive speed limits), which cause a significant time penalty to backing up 14 km from Sudbury Station to east of Coniston.
Quote:
2. The train could service Barrie by using Metrolinx to Barrie and the Barrie-Collingwood Railroad to Utopia on the CP mainline. CP mainline has fewer freights than the CN mainline meaning less delays.
This is of course a possible routing, but even if Metrolinx was supportive, fitting the Canadian into a schedule which will see GO trains run every 15 minutes in the near future (or even more frequent), will be very challenging.
Quote:
3. The train could run between Toronto and Washago via Barrie and Orillia via the Newmarket sub which would provided an added benefit of providing access to for ONR and Via to operate on a high quality secondary line and avoid freight train congestion on the Bala sub. This would also increase the chances of the ONR Northlander being re-instituted.
4. Trains between Toronto and Winnipeg should run 5-6 days a week with the CP route between Sudbury and Winnipeg via Thunder Bay running the majority of the days while the CN route frequency is at a minimum.
5. Trains between Winnipeg and Calgary and/or Edmonton could be DMU’s to reduce costs or be single locomotive hauled trains versus current multiple locomotive hauled trains.
Sure, but with which funding and fleet?
Quote:
6. Trains between Winnipeg and Edmonton should run via CP to Regina, then on ex CN sub Last Mountain Rail / CN Rail to Saskatoon and via Warman and north CN line via North Battleford and Lloydminster to Edmonton. This be subject to less freight train congestion, increasing reliability and serve larger population centres.
Regina has a CMA population of 236,481, but Lloydminster and North Battleford have CA populations of 34,583 and 19,569 (the equivalent to Sherbrooke, Brockville and Cobourg), so hardly the population centers you make them sound like. Also, reinstating passenger service over secondary freight lines which haven’t seen any passenger services in many decades can be much more expensive and challenging than you might imagine.
Quote:
7. All passenger should transfer trains at either Winnipeg, Edmonton or Calgary depending on their direction of travel. This will increase reliability as all trains would at least depart on time and the routes are shorter and therefore the delays will be less.
No, this just breaks travel chains and unnecessarily adds accommodation costs to passengers. If you wanted to improve reliability, you would just add dwell time at the big stations to act as a timetable buffer…
Quote:
8. Trains should terminate in Edmonton and/or Calgary. Re-instated Calgary-Edmonton service would provide connections for passengers off the CP mainline.
9. Reliable connections at all transfer points where scheduling allows.
Passenger service can be restored between Calgary and Edmonton and reliable connections to whatever intercity service you want to run can be established irrespectively of what happens with the Canadian.
Quote:
10. The government needs to force CN to re-install double track previously ripped up by the former CEO Hunter Harrison.
CN has already announced that it will be investing approximately $1 billion this summer to increase the capacity of its transcontinental rail line, which will also benefit passenger operations.
Quote:
Routes should generally be a maximum of 24 hours in length except through northern Ontario
So you still want to rely on sleeping accommodation, but without the kind of ridership who is willing to pay premium prices for it?
Quote:
The object is not to destroy anything, it is to improve the reliability, travel time, service a larger population and provide better scheduling and an increased coverage area for increased convenience. All these factors should increase cost recovery compared to the current situation, not decrease it.
Running daily (or more frequent) trains rather than tri-weekly trains does nothing to improve the reliability or travel time (you would need significant infrastructure investments for that). Serving larger population is mute, as shown below. You can't use the cost-recovery rate of a service as starting point for your extrapolations, if you plan to effectively abandon its key ridership...
Quote:
The day of transcontinental train service has effectively ended due to freight requirements, air service and multiple lane highways. Trains can only compete in their mid distance service.
You are talking about intercity rail. The Canadian is de facto a combination of land cruise and essential transportation for remote communities and for both trip purposes, air service and multiple lane highways are not a suitable (or available) alternative…
Quote:
Let’s take the train to Churchill MB as an example. How many of the passengers taking the train are residents outside MB? Of those passengers how many took the train to Winnipeg? I would bet that most people fly to Winnipeg to take the train to Churchill. Since Via knows the ticket purchaser’s address it should not be too difficult to figure this out.
It would be great to see an origin-destination matrix for all passengers on the Canadian to see how many take the train the whole way from Vancouver to Toronto versus how many embark or disembark at intermediate points and which individual points.
The Annual Report of 2016 (last available year with uninterrupted service all the way to Churchill) shows a subsidy of $599.77 per passenger and $2.02 per passenger-mile, which translates to an average distance traveled of 296 miles (or 477 km, i.e. 28% of Winnipeg-Churchill). For any more detailed figures, you would need to file an access-to-information request…
Quote:
It is time to think outside the box.
Yes, but thinking outside the box does not help you avoid the unfavorable environment for passenger rail services in Western Canada. Also (on a side note): the readability of your post would have dramatically benefited of using the correct HTML code to close a quote: "[/QUOTE]"
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
Seeing as they are unwilling to go big though, could we at least go medium and fund HFR? If we can't even support that, then there is little hope.
Amen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa
If people are going to introduce their own research into an internet forum they open themselves to critique of that research.
This is exactly the problem I keep having with you: a forum is a community of people, which happen to share a certain interest. Even though most people chose to hide behind pseudonyms which make them unidentifiable, they are still humans which deserve appreciation for the time they dedicate to make fill this community with life thanks to their contributions. As much as I wonder why some people don’t seem able to understand that intercity passenger rail cannot succeed where intercity coach services have failed, I must acknowledge their respect for those arguments and ideas they might not share. What I’m completely missing from your side is any constructive contribution in this community: you just seem to criticize and discredit, but I don't recall you ever volunteering your own ideas or concepts into the discussions or acknowledging the validity of arguments which don’t happen to match with the point you are trying to make. I appreciate your ability to find holes in arguments (even if some of them turn out to be nothing but black shadows), but I warmly invite you to reflect on what your contribution to this community currently is and whether it is conducive to make this community the place you would want it to be…
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityTech
VIA has still not published any examples of any cost comparisons between the Peterborough track proposal and the idea of dedicated tracks (through adding more tracks) in the existing Lakeshore corridor. I find it hard to believe the former is cheaper than the latter.
To volunteer some cost figures which pertain the Lakeshore corridor and are readily available on VIA’s website: the triple-tracking of 70 km along the Kingston Subdivision has cost the taxpayer $318.5 million (or $4.5 million per km). The distance between Montreal and Kingston is 539 km, of which approximately 33 km is owned by Metrolinx. If we extrapolate these $4.5 million per km over the remainder of the CN-owned part of the Kingston Subdivision, you would get a price tag of almost $2 billion ((539-33-70)*$4.5 million=$1,962 million) and that is before inflation or expensive engineering works like widening bridges over rivers like in Port Hope and between Vaudreuil and Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue. Add to that the 272 km of CN’s Saint-Hyacinthe and Drummondville Subdivisions and you are at $3.2 billion. I know these numbers are far from perfect, but the reason we have them is that your solution (investing money into CN’s infrastructure) has already been tried before – with results I would describe as underwhelming:
Source: 2016 OAG Special Examination Report https://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/governance-and-reports/corporate-information
Last edited by Urban_Sky; Mar 28, 2019 at 12:26 PM.
Even though VIA has still no explicit mandate, all its services which have survived beyond the 15th January of 1990 are falling into one of the following three categories:
• Intercity services on a near-commercial basis: Quebec City-Drummondville-Montreal-Ottawa/Cornwall-Toronto-Aldershot/Kitchener-London-Sarnia/Windsor and Toronto-Niagara Falls
• Remote services to communities without year-round road access (and which were inherited by CN or CP): (Montreal-)Matapedia-Gaspe (currently suspended), Montreal-Harvey-Jonquierre and Montreal-Harvey-Senneterre-(until 1997: Cochrane), Sudbury-White River, Winnipeg-The Pas-Thompson-Churchill, The Pas-Pukatawagan-(until 2004: Lynn Lake) and Jasper-Prince George-Prince Rupert
Given that most of the possible routes in Western Canada don’t seem able to support intercity coach service, I don’t see any route apart from Calgary-Red River-Edmonton, which could possibly fall under VIA’s mandate.
Firstly - thank you for another interesting post!
The only thing I have issue with is that 'most possible routes don't support intercity coaches'. Well, that may be true on a pure profit basis, but that would be true for VIA if it too was ran on the same model with no subsidies. Sadly, subsidy is a dirty word out here so there is no political interest in supporting regional public transportation, so we have little good way of knowing how much demand there would be between each node.
The only thing I have issue with is that 'most possible routes don't support intercity coaches'. Well, that may be true on a pure profit basis, but that would be true for VIA if it too was ran on the same model with no subsidies. Sadly, subsidy is a dirty word out here so there is no political interest in supporting regional public transportation, so we have little good way of knowing how much demand there would be between each node.
I’m fully aware that I owe my employment to the government’s commitment to subsidise intercity transportation, but as a taxpayer, I also fully understand the necessity to ensure an efficient use of taxpayer money. Given that buses are much cheaper to operate at low passenger loads than trains, I prefer the government to offer road rather than rail transportation on intercity routes where neither can operate profitably...
Prev
Linear Mode
