VIA Rail

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by [B

ssiguy[/B]
What really ticks me off about this whole conversation, is that this conversation proceeds from a false asumptiion................that people want better rail service. I think that assumption is true in The Corridor but outside of it, no so much. If it was put to a national vote outside The Corridor and the question was whether you want to see the same losy VIA rail service continue at a $500 subsidy or would you rather have that subsidy used for other local/provincial transportation needs, I'm willing to bet most people would prefer the latter.

I know in BC where VIA is no more than an illusion, people would FAR rather have that subsidy go towards reducing the BC Ferry fares. In Alberta, I bet most would rather have that subsidy diverted to getting rail back where it's needed........the Ed/RD/Ca corridor. Manitoban and Sask would probably rather use that subsidy for better bus connections, and Atlantic Canadians would probably prefer using their portion to get rid of/reduce their tolled roads and bridges. Go ask the people of Moncton or PEI whether they would rather have The Ocean or a toll-free Confederation or ask Haligonians if they would rather have The Ocean or a free McKay & MacDonald bridges and I bet we wouldn't even be having this conversation about what to do with VIA service in The Maritimes

Nobody is disputing that Edmonton - Calgary should not be a priority in improving rail service in the west. This is not an Alberta centric problem, it relates not only to the whole west but the whole country. As a country we need some basic land based public transportation linking the country together. It is the cost of being a large country, but since we are a country with "too much geography" we need to recognize those costs.

Your claim that Saskatchewan wants more buses is refuted by the fact the provincial government was the one that cancelled ALL of the provincially owned Saskatchewan Transportation Company's bus services. People want things but they don't want to pay for them, hence why they want all roads to be "freeways".

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

A $500 subsidy on passengers between Vancouver and Toronto is not really so different from a $50 subsidy on passengers between Calgary and Edmonton. You have to consider the distance. A better view of this is % fare recovery. The Canadian's fare recovery is not much different from the corridor routes. It is already comparable or better than most public transit systems in Canada.

LRT's friend is correct and there are things that we can do to test various options. We can shorten the train length on the Canadian down to winter levels year round and use those cars and locomotives to run trains such as Edmonton-Calgary and/or Calgary-Regina-Winnipeg. We can change the routing of the existing Canadian to run via Regina to Saskatoon and via North Battleford and Lloyminster to reach Edmonton. We can also move the Sudbury-White River RDC to Sudbury-Winnipeg via CN Sioux Lookout and operate the Canadian via CP Thunder Bay to determine what the comparative ridership would be on that route with the existing route.

When the new fleet arrives on the corridor we can use the Budd stainless steel fleet of cars to increase the frequency of the Ocean to 6 days a week minimum or preferably daily.

None of this precludes buying new equipment which is badly needed across the country to reduce costs, but it is a chance to buy more market oriented equipment that results in lower operating costs. The government's feet need to be held to the fire as they are good at making long to promises and not keeping them.

All this can be done with little additional capital cost. Running trains from Calgary to Winnipeg would also be a test in addition to ridership levels of the economics of shorter trains, their reliability AND their reduction of greenhouse gases.

We have to think out side of the box.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

What really ticks me off about this whole conversation, is that this conversation proceeds from a false asumptiion................that people want better rail service. I think that assumption is true in The Corridor but outside of it, no so much. If it was put to a national vote outside The Corridor and the question was whether you want to see the same losy VIA rail service continue at a $500 subsidy or would you rather have that subsidy used for other local/provincial transportation needs, I'm willing to bet most people would prefer the latter.

I know in BC where VIA is no more than an illusion, people would FAR rather have that subsidy go towards reducing the BC Ferry fares. In Alberta, I bet most would rather have that subsidy diverted to getting rail back where it's needed........the Ed/RD/Ca corridor. Manitoban and Sask would probably rather use that subsidy for better bus connections, and Atlantic Canadians would probably prefer using their portion to get rid of/reduce their tolled roads and bridges. Go ask the people of Moncton or PEI whether they would rather have The Ocean or a toll-free Confederation or ask Haligonians if they would rather have The Ocean or a free McKay & MacDonald bridges and I bet we wouldn't even be having this conversation about what to do with VIA service in The Maritimes.

If you were to put it to a vote whether they would want Corridor style service with fast trains going to major cities multiple times a day that run on time, I think many would vote for it.

If you were to ask whether they would want another service similar to what they currently have, just going to other places, of course they would vote it down.

Are there other places federal money could go? Absolutely. That doesn't mean it should be done by cutting or even stagnating something else.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

A $500 subsidy on passengers between Vancouver and Toronto is not really so different from a $50 subsidy on passengers between Calgary and Edmonton. You have to consider the distance. A better view of this is % fare recovery. The Canadian's fare recovery is not much different from the corridor routes. It is already comparable or better than most public transit systems in Canada.

Quick math - Vancouver - Toronto is about 4 times longer than Windsor - Quebec City. So, 4 times $50 is about $200. For a service that runs twice a week, that isn't erroneous.

Fun fact - Amtrak runs 2 routes in Canada, Maple Leaf and Cascades. One of those is run twice a day.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Nobody is disputing that Edmonton - Calgary should not be a priority in improving rail service in the west. This is not an Alberta centric problem, it relates not only to the whole west but the whole country. As a country we need some basic land based public transportation linking the country together. It is the cost of being a large country, but since we are a country with "too much geography" we need to recognize those costs.

Your claim that Saskatchewan wants more buses is refuted by the fact the provincial government was the one that cancelled ALL of the provincially owned Saskatchewan Transportation Company's bus services. People want things but they don't want to pay for them, hence why they want all roads to be "freeways".

LRT's friend is correct and there are things that we can do to test various options. We can shorten the train length on the Canadian down to winter levels year round and use those cars and locomotives to run trains such as Edmonton-Calgary and/or Calgary-Regina-Winnipeg. We can change the routing of the existing Canadian to run via Regina to Saskatoon and via North Battleford and Lloyminster to reach Edmonton. We can also move the Sudbury-White River RDC to Sudbury-Winnipeg via CN Sioux Lookout and operate the Canadian via CP Thunder Bay to determine what the comparative ridership would be on that route with the existing route.

When the new fleet arrives on the corridor we can use the Budd stainless steel fleet of cars to increase the frequency of the Ocean to 6 days a week minimum or preferably daily.

None of this precludes buying new equipment which is badly needed across the country to reduce costs, but it is a chance to buy more market oriented equipment that results in lower operating costs. The government's feet need to be held to the fire as they are good at making long to promises and not keeping them.

All this can be done with little additional capital cost. Running trains from Calgary to Winnipeg would also be a test in addition to ridership levels of the economics of shorter trains, their reliability AND their reduction of greenhouse gases.

We have to think out side of the box.

Lets refurbish the old Corridor cars for the shorter trips.

Right now is prime for doing anything in Western Canada. The Liberals lost Big Time out there. By doing what you suggest, they might be able to get a few more seats out there by showing that Ottawa hasn't forgotten them.

[le calmar]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Fun fact - Amtrak runs 2 routes in Canada, Maple Leaf and Cascades. One of those is run twice a day.

You forgot the Adirondack, so three routes.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by le calmar

You forgot the Adirondack, so three routes.

You are right.... this one is a daily....

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Right now is prime for doing anything in Western Canada. The Liberals lost Big Time out there. By doing what you suggest, they might be able to get a few more seats out there by showing that Ottawa hasn't forgotten them.

Thanks for stating a major undercurrent of this whole conversation. Federal governments that ignore various parts of the country the long run do so at their own peril. The federal government is responsible for railways, ports and aviation.They need to step up to the plate and make sure they regulate AND fund these adequately before spending money on items of provincial jurisdiction and do so equitably.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Thanks for stating a major undercurrent of this whole conversation. Federal governments that ignore various parts of the country the long run do so at their own peril. The federal government is responsible for railways, ports and aviation.They need to step up to the plate and make sure they regulate AND fund these adequately before spending money on items of provincial jurisdiction and do so equitably.

Yet people here are not getting that. I would rather a $1000 per person subsidy on the western lines if it meant on time daily service than the prospect of more division in our country. It is time to spend our tax dollars outside of the Corridor.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Yet people here are not getting that. I would rather a $1000 per person subsidy on the western lines if it meant on time daily service than the prospect of more division in our country. It is time to spend our tax dollars outside of the Corridor.

So would I. As a rather off topic remark; Too many people think about what is in it for them rather than what is in it for us , with us being the whole country. I was born in Ontario and currently live here but lived in Alberta for about 10 years so I do have a bit of an understanding on how westerners feel even if I don't always agree with them.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

So would I. As a rather off topic remark; Too many people think about what is in it for them rather than what is in it for us , with us being the whole country. I was born in Ontario and currently live here but lived in Alberta for about 10 years so I do have a bit of an understanding on how westerners feel even if I don't always agree with them.

I lived in Halifax and Victoria. I am from Ontario, and am back living in Ontario. Once you leave Ontario, you start understanding why everyone hates Ontario. Where is most of the rail money spent? Ontario. Where should it be spent? Everywhere.

[Nouvellecosse]

Cringing from earlier on the page. This discussion is not "proceeding from a false assumption" that everybody, or even a majority of people care about or want rail service improvements. That's completely irrelevant as nobody thinks or expects everyone to switch and start using it. Some people will and some won't. The relevant question is whether a sufficiently large number of potential riders wants improved rail service in a particular corridor in order for there to be a strong benefit in making the expenditure. The more potential riders, the greater the potential benefit, the greater the expenditure that can be justified. That's it.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Cringing from earlier on the page. This discussion is not "proceeding from a false assumption" that everybody, or even a majority of people care about or want rail service improvements. That's completely irrelevant as nobody thinks or expects everyone to switch and start using it. Some people will and some won't. The relevant question is whether a sufficiently large number of potential riders wants improved rail service in a particular corridor in order for there to be a strong benefit in making the expenditure. The more potential riders, the greater the potential benefit, the greater the expenditure that can be justified. That's it.

So, let's start simple.... on time. If your plane was always hours late, ho long till that company saw their demise?

So, how can on time performance be fixed?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I lived in Halifax and Victoria. I am from Ontario, and am back living in Ontario. Once you leave Ontario, you start understanding why everyone hates Ontario. Where is most of the rail money spent? Ontario. Where should it be spent? Everywhere.

Where is most of it spent? Ontario and Quebec where the majority of the population and the largest, densest metro areas are located. Where should most of it be spent? Ontario and Quebec where the majority of the population and the largest, densest metro areas are located.

Btw, I'm not sure what clique you hung with in Halifax but I don't recall ever encountering anyone who hates Ontario. I've encountered many people who'd never want to live in Toronto because of "big, scary, expensive, congested city" perceptions, but that's about it.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Where is most of it spent? Ontario and Quebec where the majority of the population and the largest, densest metro areas are located. Where should most of it be spent? Ontario and Quebec where the majority of the population and the largest, densest metro areas are located.

Btw, I'm not sure what clique you hung with in Halifax but I don't recall ever encountering anyone who hates Ontario. I've encountered many people who'd never want to live in Toronto because of "big, scary, expensive, congested city" perceptions, but that's about it.

I am ex navy... so, you make your own judgments.

If you agree that there should be rail to the most populated and most dense areas, then why is the 4th largest metro not have any Via rail service?

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am ex navy... so, you make your own judgments.

If you agree that there should be rail to the most populated and most dense areas, then why is the 4th largest metro not have any Via rail service?

*facepalm*

Geography and population density are a thing, my guy.

Sorry that I happen to live in the part of Canada that contains about 60% of all Canadians within a geographic span that is comparable with the distance between Winnipeg and Lloydminster.

There's about as many people in my region (Ottawa-Gatineau CMA) as there are in all of Manitoba. There are more people living in Mississauga than all of Saskatchewan's recognized cities combined. There's about as many people living in the Greater Montreal Area as there are in all of Alberta.

And guess what, we live in a federation where everyone and their mother love to bitch incessantly about taxes, so governments are going to focus where the majority of people are. Sorry that it happens to be the part of Canada I live in. This is the sad reality of life in a representative democratic federation.

BC politics and money overwhelmingly revolved around the densely populated Lower Mainland. Alberta politics revolve around the oilsands, and the two big cities of Edmonton and Calgary. This is how politics and economics work.

Do I wish it was different? Absolutely. But Ontario is not to blame just for winning the geography and population lottery in Canadian history.

[Mikemike]

Edmonton/Calgary is almost too short to attract large numbers of riders. There’s already regular and premium bus options, and 3hrs isn’t so long that the bus is uncomfortable.

There should be rail eventually, but it would have to be new ROW, and if all new it would need to be HSR to be worth the money.

All the long-distance routes need to be made reliable, but i would focus expansion/improvement money on Edmonton-Vancouver and Calgary-Vancouver. Both long enough that the bus sucks, driving sucks, and with Most of the intermediate population concentrated right near the route. With how many Albertans Ski there should be an excellent market for train trips linked to a shuttle bus to on-mountain accommodations. If that existed and were convenient -say 2 trains per day running 12 hours end to end I would be using it instead of maintaining a second larger vehicle just for things like this.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Mikemike

Edmonton/Calgary is almost too short to attract large numbers of riders. There’s already regular and premium bus options, and 3hrs isn’t so long that the bus is uncomfortable.

There should be rail eventually, but it would have to be new ROW, and if all new it would need to be HSR to be worth the money.

All the long-distance routes need to be made reliable, but i would focus expansion/improvement money on Edmonton-Vancouver and Calgary-Vancouver. Both long enough that the bus sucks, driving sucks, and with Most of the intermediate population concentrated right near the route. With how many Albertans Ski there should be an excellent market for train trips linked to a shuttle bus to on-mountain accommodations. If that existed and were convenient -say 2 trains per day running 12 hours end to end I would be using it instead of maintaining a second larger vehicle just for things like this.

As someone who rode both the CP and CN routes from Vancouver last spring, the problem is that freight traffic focuses on the Vancouver port. There is rail congestion through the mountains and this will be by far the most expensive rail to upgrade.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

*facepalm*

Geography and population density are a thing, my guy.

Sorry that I happen to live in the part of Canada that contains about 60% of all Canadians within a geographic span that is comparable with the distance between Winnipeg and Lloydminster.

There's about as many people in my region (Ottawa-Gatineau CMA) as there are in all of Manitoba. There are more people living in Mississauga than all of Saskatchewan's recognized cities combined. There's about as many people living in the Greater Montreal Area as there are in all of Alberta.

And guess what, we live in a federation where everyone and their mother love to bitch incessantly about taxes, so governments are going to focus where the majority of people are. Sorry that it happens to be the part of Canada I live in. This is the sad reality of life in a representative democratic federation.

BC politics and money overwhelmingly revolved around the densely populated Lower Mainland. Alberta politics revolve around the oilsands, and the two big cities of Edmonton and Calgary. This is how politics and economics work.

Do I wish it was different? Absolutely. But Ontario is not to blame just for winning the geography and population lottery in Canadian history.

I am not saying Ontario is to blame. I am saying that we can do better, and should do better. You talk about population density, yet cannot fathom the 4th largest city without rail connections. Hint, it is larger than the Ottawa area. So, imagine removing service from Ottawa. Would Ottawans be pissed?

We do have places where Intercity rail makes sense due to density, but we also have other areas where something would be better than nothing.

Originally Posted by Mikemike

Edmonton/Calgary is almost too short to attract large numbers of riders. There’s already regular and premium bus options, and 3hrs isn’t so long that the bus is uncomfortable.

There should be rail eventually, but it would have to be new ROW, and if all new it would need to be HSR to be worth the money.

All the long-distance routes need to be made reliable, but i would focus expansion/improvement money on Edmonton-Vancouver and Calgary-Vancouver. Both long enough that the bus sucks, driving sucks, and with Most of the intermediate population concentrated right near the route. With how many Albertans Ski there should be an excellent market for train trips linked to a shuttle bus to on-mountain accommodations. If that existed and were convenient -say 2 trains per day running 12 hours end to end I would be using it instead of maintaining a second larger vehicle just for things like this.

Calgary - Edmonton is within the right distance that might move people away from flying, as the time between arrival/departure at the airport, not just flying would be about the same as driving or taking a train.

The Edmonton-Vancouver and Calgary-Vancouver runs also make sense for what you say. Like I have said many times, you cannot get from Windsor to Quebec City without at least 1-2 transfers. It makes sense do the same between Vancouver - Toronto.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As someone who rode both the CP and CN routes from Vancouver last spring, the problem is that freight traffic focuses on the Vancouver port. There is rail congestion through the mountains and this will be by far the most expensive rail to upgrade.

Status quo is not a solution. They do not widen it because it is not within their business plan.

The entire Transcontinental route took only 4 years to build:
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia....ailway-history
So, arguing that it is expensive is just one more excuse not to have a rail system that we should have.

Trade is only going to be increasing from the west, and if nothing is done, they will have problems with bottle necks too big to be affordable anymore.

There are many places in the mountains where they could easily put double track, or another passing siding, but they would rather cut costs then add them.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As someone who rode both the CP and CN routes from Vancouver last spring, the problem is that freight traffic focuses on the Vancouver port. There is rail congestion through the mountains and this will be by far the most expensive rail to upgrade.

There is freight congestion every where. The Canadian is often several hours late by the time it gets from Toronto to Sudbury. The trip across northern Ontario with long sidings for long trains far apart leads to more delays. Between Portage La Prairie and Saskatoon there are many more delays due to freight congestion caused by a shortage of double track. Current expansion will result in 50% double track on the Rivers sub, 43% on the Watrous sub and 42% on the Wainwright sub between Portage La Prairie and Edmonton. The busiest sub which is the Edson sub between Edmonton and Jasper still only has 51% double track. This subdivision also has sections of double track that were ripped out by Hunter Harrison when he was CEO of CN that still have not been replaced. Once the trains get pass the Yellowhead Pass to go through Blue River and Valemont, the % of double track declines to 38%. As a result trains get later and later and later, even with long station dwell times to compensate for their tardiness. The trackage between Winnipeg and Vancouver/Prince Rupert carries over 100 million Gross Ton Miles per year. Clearly more has to be done especially if we are going to operate passenger trains on mainline track.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

There is freight congestion every where. The Canadian is often several hours late by the time it gets from Toronto to Sudbury. The trip across northern Ontario with long sidings for long trains far apart leads to more delays. Between Portage La Prairie and Saskatoon there are many more delays due to freight congestion caused by a shortage of double track. Current expansion will result in 50% double track on the Rivers sub, 43% on the Watrous sub and 42% on the Wainwright sub between Portage La Prairie and Edmonton. The busiest sub which is the Edson sub between Edmonton and Jasper still only has 51% double track. This subdivision also has sections of double track that were ripped out by Hunter Harrison when he was CEO of CN that still have not been replaced. Once the trains get pass the Yellowhead Pass to go through Blue River and Valemont, the % of double track declines to 38%. As a result trains get later and later and later, even with long station dwell times to compensate for their tardiness. The trackage between Winnipeg and Vancouver/Prince Rupert carries over 100 million Gross Ton Miles per year. Clearly more has to be done especially if we are going to operate passenger trains on mainline track.

take this, and add the first cold snap of the year. Then you have trains going into emergency due to loss of air. Which then cause other trains to have to stop. Which then has train crews over their time. Which means rescue crews need to be dispatched. Which means.... yet another reason Via is late.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am not saying Ontario is to blame. I am saying that we can do better, and should do better. You talk about population density, yet cannot fathom the 4th largest city without rail connections. Hint, it is larger than the Ottawa area. So, imagine removing service from Ottawa. Would Ottawans be pissed?

Ottawa isn't isolated and an "island metropolis" the way Calgary is. It's 2 hours by car to downtown Montreal, and 4.5 to downtown Toronto for us. Calgary is 3 hours from Edmonton, and that's about it. The next closest metros to Calgary are Regina, Saskatoon, Kamloops, and Kelowna. Those last two are smaller than Regina and Saskatoon. According to Google, it takes just over 7.5 hours to get to Regina from Calgary. Just over 6 hours to Saskatoon. It's 7 hours to Kamloops and Kelowna. This is the problem Calgary faces; it takes forever to get nowhere in particular. Unless you're going to Edmonton.

And for the record, we Ottawans are used to being largely ignored because our next biggest neighbouring cities happen to be the two largest metros in the country. We only just now got LRT. We've had to fight in the past for museums to be located here.

And to again reiterate my initial point, we live in a federation where people bitch about taxes. No one's really going to give Calgary a rail station unless they really clamour for one, which no one is really seeing since the oilsands dominate so much of Albertan politics. Again, because we live in a federation.

Should Calgary have service? Yes, absolutely. Hell, in my ideal world, there would be a Vancouver-Edmonton Corridor, with stops throughout the Lower Mainland, then on to Kamloops, Revelstoke, Golden, Banff, Canmore, and then on to Calgary followed by stops between Calgary and Edmonton such as Airdrie and Red Deer.

But no one is pushing for that, and our precious tax dollars need to go elsewhere to keep the bulk of the population happy, because that's sadly how representative democracy works.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

And to again reiterate my initial point, we live in a federation where people bitch about taxes. No one's really going to give Calgary a rail station unless they really clamour for one, which no one is really seeing since the oilsands dominate so much of Albertan politics. Again, because we live in a federation.

But no one is pushing for that, and our precious tax dollars need to go elsewhere to keep the bulk of the population happy, because that's sadly how representative democracy works.

You are partly correct because there has not been multi frequency service in most of the west since the 1960's so when service is cut there is not much to complain about because service gradually deteriorated over time due to neglect by the railways, the government and huge investments in roads and airports. When the cuts in 1990 occurred there were complaints but people have long since given up because they have had successive federal governments that totally ignore them. The provincial governments, even those with money have not adequately funded grade separations that keep rail and automobile traffic flowing smoothly and safely. The point now is that the populous on the Prairies getting fed up with the actions and/or inactions of the federal government and we have an issue of climate change which like it or not we all contribute too, especially the resource sector in the west. It is the time to change the status quo. Improving rail service is a good way to help take care of both issues.