VIA Rail

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Those three guesses were using my own grey matter only. I probably won't be able to find another without cheating!

No worries, I also had to google "famous people called Johannes" to find a list where I happened to recognize the first 3 names which showed up, including an astronomer and mathematician who was born and educated in Germany, worked in Prague and taught in Austria...

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm not sure exactly where those areas are that Greyhound cancelled but are now covered by VIA, but it's almost certain that they would be much better served by a cheaper bus service that could run more frequently, closer to their house, than a very expensive tourist train that runs every other day to limited places.

This is the schedule of Rider Express, a new company which seems to replicate part of the former Greyhound network:

The network is still a bit odd, with a daily service Vancouver-Calgary and a route between Regina, Saskatoon and Edmonton with at least 12 departures per week, but both sub-networks only linked with a once-weekly overnight link between Calgary and Regina (which has only started operating this weekend), but on the days it operates, you can get from Vancouver to Saskatoon in approximately 28 hours, which is somewhere between 10 and 20 hours (depending on direction of travel) faster than the scheduled travel time for the Canadian, despite 2 transfers and the detour via Regina...

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If we are building it on a new ROW, Fredericton and Moncton would be good intermediarys.

Between Toronto-Winnipeg, Sudbury, SSM, and Thunder Bay would make sense.

Saskatoon and Regina also make sense.

Kelowna or Kamloops as well as Abbotsford make sense too.

If you believe that any route in Canada other than Quebec-Windsor or Calgary-Edmonton would make sense as an HSR corridor, I invite you to identify any HSR route anywhere in the world which the UIC lists in their "HIGH SPEED LINES IN THE WORLD" document as either "In operation" or "Under construction", which covers a similar distance and serves population centers of the same order of magnitude than what you are eyeing here in Canada. Because if such a HSR has not already been built elsewhere already, it would be highly unreasonable to expect it to happen here of all places...

But yet you are against putting daily rail out there?
See this is where you loose me. I start respecting you and your information, and then you seem to almost argue against exactly what you are for.

You are not for a subsidy, unless it is for buses, roads and airports. But not trains.... which you work for.....

You've seen the timetable for Rider Express I posted above. If that is what you can get without a subsidy, imagine what kind of service we could run with a moderate subsidy. You are really no different from the HSR freaks I mentioned: they rather wait another decade for HSR to magically become less hard sell to politicians than to grow the existing ridership on these corridors with faster, but still conventional trains today, whereas you rather wait another decade for non-Corridor intercity rail to become a political priority again than to re-establish any kind of public ground transportation between these cities. In both cases, the laudable causes are very ill-served by such highly (almost religiously) dogmatic and anti-pragmatic "supporters"...

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I was as good as you are at VIA....

Mind you, your lack of knowledge shows me that you have no idea what engineering is, and you just want to mock someone. Mock away.

I'm neither mocking you, nor do I necessarily think that you are a bad engineer. However, it always raises alarm bells if someone doesn't show any awareness of where the limits of his knowledge is and even more so if his profession is something like a doctor or, yes, an engineer, as them making judgements they are not sufficiently qualified for can easily result in bodily harm or even death...

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ghYHZ

I'm guessing it is. With the amount of service at Toronto Union now....I believe they need all the track capacity they can get.

It looks like something out of a 19th century coal mine.

[ghYHZ]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It looks like something out of a 19th century coal mine.

Have you been in Toronto Union recently? It's undergoing a major reconstruction (which some are wondering will ever be completed!) The Bay Concourse should be next to open. I was through Union last week and the new escalators are running and now provide much better access between VIA and the TTC.

[ghYHZ]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It looks like something out of a 19th century coal mine.

A couple of other views of the platform areas at Toronto Union Station.





The original train shed platform canopy above the tracks is a historically listed structure and there are restrictions on what alterations can be done.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ghYHZ

Have you been in Toronto Union recently? It's undergoing a major reconstruction (which some are wondering will ever be completed!) The Bay Concourse should be next to open. I was through Union last week and the new escalators are running and now provide much better access between VIA and the TTC.

I actually took the UPX a year or so ago, as far as I remember it was all covered in construction hoarding. I was more concerned with the wonky rails though!

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

If you believe that any route in Canada other than Quebec-Windsor or Calgary-Edmonton would make sense as an HSR corridor, I invite you to identify any HSR route anywhere in the world which the UIC lists in their "HIGH SPEED LINES IN THE WORLD" document as either "In operation" or "Under construction", which covers a similar distance and serves population centers of the same order of magnitude than what you are eyeing here in Canada. Because if such a HSR has not already been built elsewhere already, it would be highly unreasonable to expect it to happen here of all places...

I don't, but a I say, if we were going to, that is what I would suggest. Right now, I would only build one Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. No other stops. No other extensions and no other places.

I have not been advocating for HSR, or even HFR. I have been advocating for more routes, and all routes be dailies. If something cannot be a daily, then HSR would be just silly.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

You've seen the timetable for Rider Express I posted above. If that is what you can get without a subsidy, imagine what kind of service we could run with a moderate subsidy. You are really no different from the HSR freaks I mentioned: they rather wait another decade for HSR to magically become less hard sell to politicians than to grow the existing ridership on these corridors with faster, but still conventional trains today, whereas you rather wait another decade for non-Corridor intercity rail to become a political priority again than to re-establish any kind of public ground transportation between these cities. In both cases, the laudable causes are very ill-served by such highly (almost religiously) dogmatic and anti-pragmatic "supporters"...

Hence why I feel advocating for dailies and new routes is a better idea. With "a moderate subsidy" (your words), a daily train on some places where there is none might be possible.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

I'm neither mocking you, nor do I necessarily think that you are a bad engineer. However, it always raises alarm bells if someone doesn't show any awareness of where the limits of his knowledge is and even more so if his profession is something like a doctor or, yes, an engineer, as them making judgements they are not sufficiently qualified for can easily result in bodily harm or even death...

Remember, the only thing we have to go on is your words. Some of the ways you word things can be derogative. It is just like there is no sarcasm key.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It looks like something out of a 19th century coal mine.

The tracks and platforms basically haven't changed since the station was originally built in the 1920s, so you're not that far off. It's easily the most dismal part of Union Station and the awful narrow platforms constrain capacity. AFAIK, they're going to be gradually rebuilding the entire platform area over the next decade or so to have wider, more modern elevated platforms. They actually have to reduce the number of tracks to increase capacity.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If something cannot be a daily, then HSR would be just silly.

If a bus doesn't even operate daily, then intercity rail would be just silly.

Hence why I feel advocating for dailies and new routes is a better idea. With "a moderate subsidy" (your words), a daily train on some places where there is none might be possible.

As I've already demonstrated to you in a post on Urban Toronto more than 2 months ago, Ontario Northland apparently operates its coach services at an operating cost of approximately $4 per timetable-km, of which it recovers $3 from its revenues. A $1 per-timetable-km subsidy representing 25% of total costs is what I would call a moderate subsidy.

Conversely, I've shown to you in the same post that VIA operates its rail services at an operating cost of approximately $58, of which it recovers $34 from its revenues. A $24 per-timetable-km subsidy representing 41% of total costs is what I would call a significant subsidy:


Now consider the emerging network operated by Rider Express, which currently operates just under 40,000 timetable-km per week, which would translate to almost 2 million timetable-km per year: If we assume that Rider Express has the same cost structure as Ontario Northland (since that is the only intercity coach company for which we have such data), the operation of its current timetable would cost approx. $7.2 million per year. Conversely, the same timetable operated by an intercity railroad with the same cost structure as VIA Rail would incur operating costs of almost $110 million per year. This suggests that operating the two least frequently served routes of the Rider Express network (i.e. Calgary-Regina once per week and Saskatoon-Prince Albert three times per week) by rail would incur the same operating cost ($7.25 million) as operating the entire network by coach:


As you (or let’s be more realistic: everyone else than you) can see, a train having (assuming the average I approximated for VIA) 15 times the operating costs and 25 times the operating deficit of a coach (assuming the average I approximated for Ontario Northland) means that this mode is a choice which is very difficult to justify everywhere else than on the busiest corridors as long as the taxpayer is expected to pay the tab...

Remember, the only thing we have to go on is your words. Some of the ways you word things can be derogative. It is just like there is no sarcasm key.

I really wish I could say this in a more subtle and elegant way, but sometimes sarcasm is the only thing which prevents you from telling someone that you can not always stop yourself from thinking that his insistence on the same unmovable positions despite an abundance of arguments and evidence brought forward by various posters to debunk them touches the border towards the idiotic and moronic…

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

If a bus doesn't even operate daily, then intercity rail would be just silly.

As I've already demonstrated to you in a post on Urban Toronto more than 2 months ago, Ontario Northland apparently operates its coach services at an operating cost of approximately $4 per timetable-km, of which it recovers $3 from its revenues. A $1 per-timetable-km subsidy representing 25% of total costs is what I would call a moderate subsidy.

Conversely, I've shown to you in the same post that VIA operates its rail services at an operating cost of approximately $58, of which it recovers $34 from its revenues. A $24 per-timetable-km subsidy representing 41% of total costs is what I would call a significant subsidy:


Now consider the emerging network operated by Rider Express, which currently operates just under 40,000 timetable-km per week, which would translate to almost 2 million timetable-km per year: If we assume that Rider Express has the same cost structure as Ontario Northland (since that is the only intercity coach company for which we have such data), the operation of its current timetable would cost approx. $7.2 million per year. Conversely, the same timetable operated by an intercity railroad with the same cost structure as VIA Rail would incur operating costs of almost $110 million per year. This suggests that operating the two least frequently served routes of the Rider Express network (i.e. Calgary-Regina once per week and Saskatoon-Prince Albert three times per week) by rail would incur the same operating cost ($7.25 million) as operating the entire network by coach:


As you (or let’s be more realistic: everyone else than you) can see, a train having (assuming the average I approximated for VIA) 15 times the operating costs and 25 times the operating deficit of a coach (assuming the average I approximated for Ontario Northland) means that this mode is a choice which is very difficult to justify everywhere else than on the busiest corridors as long as the taxpayer is expected to pay the tab...

Lets compare a service that is private funded and gets no government funds to one that is a government agency and has a subsidy? That does not make sense. For many reasons, the ONR bus is does not compare to one that connects the major cities of the West.

You have tried to make your point and only help me prove you wrong. Why not quit while you feel you are ahead and move on? Then in 2-10 years, you can see my name on something that is used to bring back rail service across Canada.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

I really wish I could say this in a more subtle and elegant way, but sometimes sarcasm is the only thing which prevents you from telling someone that you can not always stop yourself from thinking that his insistence on the same unmovable positions despite an abundance of arguments and evidence brought forward by various posters to debunk them touches the border towards the idiotic and moronic…

Why not just be respectful. You have insulted me a few times, I have not done the same thing. Mind you, you may take my arguments or showing how your own information shows many things, not just your agenda, as disrespectful may be part of your problem.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Mister F

The tracks and platforms basically haven't changed since the station was originally built in the 1920s, so you're not that far off. It's easily the most dismal part of Union Station and the awful narrow platforms constrain capacity. AFAIK, they're going to be gradually rebuilding the entire platform area over the next decade or so to have wider, more modern elevated platforms. They actually have to reduce the number of tracks to increase capacity.

Most of the tracks seem to have platforms on both sides (one for passengers and one for loading baggage. Considering most trains don't have baggage, this wastes a lot of space.

The platforms certainly are very narrow, which explains VIA's practice of not letting people onto the platform while the train is approaching. If you compare the picture taken by ghYHZ with one I took of Paddington Station in London, the difference is quite significant (I know the scale is different, but look at the people to get a sense of scale). I would estimate the platforms at Paddington to be almost triple the width.

Originally Posted by ghYHZ

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Lets compare a service that is private funded and gets no government funds to one that is a government agency and has a subsidy? That does not make sense.

Do you really think the operating cost (before subsidies) of a private company would be higher than a unionized crown agency?

For many reasons, the ONR bus is does not compare to one that connects the major cities of the West.

True, Rider Express doesn't have to pay union wages or have to deal with an inefficient bureaucracy, so their costs will be much lower.

You have tried to make your point and only help me prove you wrong. Why not quit while you feel you are ahead and move on? Then in 2-10 years, you can see my name on something that is used to bring back rail service across Canada.

You have not done anything to prove him wrong.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Filthy diesel! Was that taken recently, I thought they had cleaned the roof?

[J81]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Most of the tracks seem to have platforms on both sides (one for passengers and one for loading baggage. Considering most trains don't have baggage, this wastes a lot of space.

The platforms certainly are very narrow, which explains VIA's practice of not letting people onto the platform while the train is approaching. If you compare the picture taken by ghYHZ with one I took of Paddington Station in London, the difference is quite significant (I know the scale is different, but look at the people to get a sense of scale). I would estimate the platforms at Paddington to be almost triple the width.

One platform for passengers and the other for loading and unloading supplies. ie food and drinks as well as unloading trash and the previous trains food carts. And as you stated some baggage. The space is not wasted as you say.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Filthy diesel! Was that taken recently, I thought they had cleaned the roof?

It was taken in 2007 (I chose it because it showed the platforms well) but the layout hasn't changed since then.

Originally Posted by J81

One platform for passengers and the other for loading and unloading supplies. ie food and drinks as well as unloading trash and the previous trains food carts. And as you stated some baggage. The space is not wasted as you say.

How many supplies do GO trains need (they use most of the tracks)? Even for VIA, Central Station in Montreal doesn't have this layout, so while, "wasted" may not be the correct word, "inefficient" is probably a better description. With much wider platforms, they could do both on the same platform, giving more room for passengers when the service trucks aren't driving by.

The fact that Toronto still has low platforms likely contributes to the problem as it takes longer to load and unload both people and supplies/baggage.

[esquire]

The platforms at Toronto Union Station made sense 100 years ago when baggage, mail and express were a significant part of passenger trains and needed their own designated platform away from people walking around. It is obsolete now, but they're stuck with it.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by esquire

The platforms at Toronto Union Station made sense 100 years ago when baggage, mail and express were a significant part of passenger trains and needed their own designated platform away from people walking around. It is obsolete now, but they're stuck with it.

Well, they spent $1b and the better half of ten years renovating everything from top to bottom. A decision could have been made to rip out the entire track system and shed as is and replace it with a modern, high-floor, wide-platform setup like in the London picture above but, for various reasons, including lack of foresight in the mid-2000s, bad project management and misguided heritage rules, we're stuck with a platform system that was meant to serve long distance train riders in a city of 500,000 100 years ago.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Well, they spent $1b and the better half of ten years renovating everything from top to bottom. A decision could have been made to rip out the entire track system and shed as is and replace it with a modern, high-floor, wide-platform setup like in the London picture above but, for various reasons, including lack of foresight in the mid-2000s, bad project management and misguided heritage rules, we're stuck with a platform system that was meant to serve long distance train riders in a city of 500,000 100 years ago.

Just going to speculate here, but I suspect that the configuration of the train shed with pillars aplenty probably made it impossible to reconfigure the tracks while still maintaining capacity here. At the end of the day you're talking about a 100+ year old structure.

Probably would have made more sense in the long term to have scrapped the entire trainshed and started with a clean slate. It's the station building itself with the Great Hall that really matters anyway.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by esquire

Just going to speculate here, but I suspect that the configuration of the train shed with pillars aplenty probably made it impossible to reconfigure the tracks while still maintaining capacity here. At the end of the day you're talking about a 100+ year old structure.

Probably would have made more sense in the long term to have scrapped the entire trainshed and started with a clean slate. It's the station building itself with the Great Hall that really matters anyway.

I think hipster duck was suggesting that the train shed should have been scrapped (he did say "rip out the entire track system and shed"). As you say, it is the station itself that matters. The shed is rather ugly and not worth saving IMHO.

The bigger problem is doing the upgrade in such a way as to allow trains to continue running. Possible, but much more expensive and time consuming. It still could be done today though.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Well, they spent $1b and the better half of ten years renovating everything from top to bottom. A decision could have been made to rip out the entire track system and shed as is and replace it with a modern, high-floor, wide-platform setup like in the London picture above but, for various reasons, including lack of foresight in the mid-2000s, bad project management and misguided heritage rules, we're stuck with a platform system that was meant to serve long distance train riders in a city of 500,000 100 years ago.

The wide platforms at Paddington were there from the start, circa 1850, and the height seems to have been present during the steam days also. So it's had modern platforms for a long time - the Paddington of 1850 was better designed than the Toronto Union station of 2020.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I think hipster duck was suggesting that the train shed should have been scrapped (he did say "rip out the entire track system and shed"). As you say, it is the station itself that matters. The shed is rather ugly and not worth saving IMHO.

The bigger problem is doing the upgrade in such a way as to allow trains to continue running. Possible, but much more expensive and time consuming. It still could be done today though.

Yeah, that's right. Everything other than the Great Hall/Headhouse is expendable.

I think they should have staged it in such a way that they completely closed off half of the shed and the underground supports, tore them out, rebuilt them to modern wide-platform standards, and then moved on. It would have been even more of a headache than today, but it would have paid off long term, because I don't see how GO will run a Parisian or Berlin-style RER system using the low floor, narrow bush shed platforms we have today.