VIA Rail

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Frankly, it's a thread he started, it's kind of arrogant to be telling others not to engage with that person or that person shouldn't post in a thread they started. If he blocked you, great, that's what you wanted. Why not block him too, and spare us all the condescending comments about how nobody else should interact. And referencing said person in replies to other people in totally unrelated questions really is immature (see reply to "stupid noob" above). But considering when you block someone, you still see their post there with the content removed, and a link to see the comments, I doubt you have the willpower to simply scroll past.

I think my countless and very patient attempts to maintain a serious and mature decision with this person are well documented over the last 40 pages (and I have refrained from calling his behaviour Trolling much longer than other people here have), just like I believe that attacking people you have blocked (and even if it is indirectly) is no less immature than what you criticized. I will refrain in the future from doing any remarks which could be interpreted as condescending, but I won’t stop to politely ask people to stop responding to him until he either starts showing respect towards his fellow contributors (I’m really not just talking about myself here) by demonstrating that he has actually bothered reading and tried to understand what they have written in response to him or he leaves the conversation to those people who are willing to do so. Also, I don’t think anybody cares who created which thread (and it was already established that he only created it, because he was unable to find any of the numerous existing threads), just as I don’t care that it was me who created a separate thread for discussions about his “vision” which accounts for at least one-quarter of the 1,200+ comments we’ve had here so far (and which he still has yet to comment in).

I think it’s rather unfortunate that there are no moderators or administrators here (at least none I am aware of), which could intervene and help to solve conflicts here, but I’m just trying to save myself and others time and frustration by attempting to minimize ever-circling discussions. If you haven’t yet felt tired of him, then maybe you have a remarkably large frustration tolerance - or it’s just that you haven’t participated in this discussion for nearly as long as the other people who still bother commenting here have...

In any case, have a great day!

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

I think the decision has to be answered from different perspectives: From the government’s (or even more: the taxpayer’s) perspective, the acquisition of the Renaissance fleet might not have been a worthwhile investment, but from VIA’s perspective, it was the only way to acquire a “new” fleet, as the government would not have been willing to pay for a truly new fleet and if you see that 160 cars and 40 locomotives for the Corridor cost the federal government close to a $1 billion, then spending $130 million for 139 “almost new” cars might appear like a bargain. In my personal appreciation, if it wasn’t for the Renaissance fleet, VIA would not have been able to grow its business on the Corridor and the Canadian, which allowed to improve VIA’s KPIs to the point where replacing its obsolete (Corridor) fleet became politically feasible. The achievement of the Renaissance fleet was therefore to provide badly needed extra capacity, which allowed to outgrow the risk of VIA’s operations being phased out together with its obsolete fleet…

Thanks for the perspective. When you put it in those terms, the acquisition makes more sense. I suppose it was a bargain, even when you factor in the operational shortcomings of the Renaissance equipment... just putting VIA in a position to make better use of the rest of its fleet and build a case for replacing the backbone of its equipment (corridor fleet) was helpful enough.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Off topic. Please post in the correct thread.

As I was the one who started this thread and it was on all of Via rail, not just someone else's view, I can post it here.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Frankly, it's a thread he started, it's kind of arrogant to be telling others not to engage with that person or that person shouldn't post in a thread they started. If he blocked you, great, that's what you wanted. Why not block him too, and spare us all the condescending comments about how nobody else should interact. And referencing said person in replies to other people in totally unrelated questions really is immature (see reply to "stupid noob" above). But considering when you block someone, you still see their post there with the content removed, and a link to see the comments, I doubt you have the willpower to simply scroll past.

I have blocked him. At first he did seem useful for knowledge. After a while, it was condescending. Now, it is just rude. If there was a way for him to be removed from here, I would do it.

So, back to all topics related to Via Rail.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

I think it’s rather unfortunate that there are no moderators or administrators here (at least none I am aware of), which could intervene and help to solve conflicts here, but I’m just trying to save myself and others time and frustration by attempting to minimize ever-circling discussions. If you haven’t yet felt tired of him, then maybe you have a remarkably large frustration tolerance - or it’s just that you haven’t participated in this discussion for nearly as long as the other people who still bother commenting here have...

In any case, have a great day!

You do need to listen to others too. You do sound arrogant, condescending and just seem to have little patience at all. This forum is not just for experts who have all the data available at their fingertips.

[swimmer_spe]

So, getting back to a question I had:

When was the last time Via proposed anything along the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor. It does seem like a no brainer. The distance is short enough to make it viable. The population exists. There are even existing ROW that might be able to be used.

In this recession/depression with an expected 25% of Albertans out of work, upgrading an ROW or building a new one would be a great stimulus package.

My only concern would be the storage of the trains overnight as well as a maintenance facility. However, both of those would also be great stimulus projects too.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Frankly, it's a thread he started, it's kind of arrogant to be telling others not to engage with that person or that person shouldn't post in a thread they started. If he blocked you, great, that's what you wanted. Why not block him too, and spare us all the condescending comments about how nobody else should interact. And referencing said person in replies to other people in totally unrelated questions really is immature (see reply to "stupid noob" above). But considering when you block someone, you still see their post there with the content removed, and a link to see the comments, I doubt you have the willpower to simply scroll past.

Frankly the rest of us don't give a shit. I don't want to read 50 fucking pages of whiny bullshit about how there's no milk run from Regina to Winnipeg. Move those 50 pages of self-pity to a different thread. Starting a thread doesn't mean you own it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I have blocked him. At first he did seem useful for knowledge. After a while, it was condescending. Now, it is just rude. If there was a way for him to be removed from here, I would do it.

So, back to all topics related to Via Rail.

There's only one person most of us want removed here. And it ain't him.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by p_xavier

You do need to listen to others too. You do sound arrogant, condescending and just seem to have little patience at all. This forum is not just for experts who have all the data available at their fingertips.

We live a world where facts offend people. Incredible.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, getting back to a question I had:

When was the last time Via proposed anything along the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor. It does seem like a no brainer. The distance is short enough to make it viable. The population exists. There are even existing ROW that might be able to be used.

In this recession/depression with an expected 25% of Albertans out of work, upgrading an ROW or building a new one would be a great stimulus package.

My only concern would be the storage of the trains overnight as well as a maintenance facility. However, both of those would also be great stimulus projects too.

To my knowledge VIA hasn't proposed Calgary-Edmonton and why would they? That proposal is absolutely guaranteed to have lower ROI/IRR than any investment in the Corridor. And certainly the case for all those decades where both cities were less than a million in population.

Your previous argument was that VIA Corporate wasn't innovative. In your world does innovative simply imply projects that tickle your feelings with no consideration of costs or returns at all?

Some of you still don't get it. Proposing projects which are not profitable is a recipe for more cuts as governments decide that VIA Corporate has their heads in the clouds. They can't run the Corridor profitably and with OTP in line with rail services elsewhere. And you want them to dig a deeper hole as a sign of "innovation"?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

To my knowledge VIA hasn't proposed Calgary-Edmonton and why would they? That proposal is absolutely guaranteed to have lower ROI/IRR than any investment in the Corridor. And certainly the case for all those decades where both cities were less than a million in population.

What is your the evidence that supports this claim of an absolute guarantee?

A Calgary-Edmonton route could be pretty good. The distance isn't long and both cities have LRT networks that a train could connect up with, making a train much more useful. There's no route like this along The Corridor©™ that does not already have service. Intermodal connections are an important aspect of this that is often overlooked. The current VIA trains are nearly useless for connecting with other services in most of Canada and so they are limited to being expensive tourism type services for rail enthusiasts.

I am also skeptical of the idea that the best strategy for VIA would be to leave all regions but 1 out of passenger rail investment so long as the other regions have a lower ROI, even if they might still have good potential routes. That's a recipe for many voters in the country to stop supporting VIA. I think the only thing saving VIA right now is that the rail corridors are so locked down by CN and CP and VIA is the only entity with exceptions already carved out. If they were run like the public infrastructure they are there would be other passenger rail services around the country.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, getting back to a question I had:

When was the last time Via proposed anything along the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor. It does seem like a no brainer. The distance is short enough to make it viable. The population exists. There are even existing ROW that might be able to be used.

In this recession/depression with an expected 25% of Albertans out of work, upgrading an ROW or building a new one would be a great stimulus package.

My only concern would be the storage of the trains overnight as well as a maintenance facility. However, both of those would also be great stimulus projects too.

Calgary-Edmonton would make great sense if there was already a high quality route in place with adequate grade separations and that allowed for quick downtown to downtown connections. The problem is that such a thing doesn't exist... the existing lines between Calgary and Edmonton are not really main line quality, and there are tons of level crossings. Edmonton doesn't have tracks going downtown anymore... Whyte Avenue is as good as it gets right now. So you're basically forced to start almost from scratch when it comes to establishing the infrastructure. And I think that's where the case falls apart.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by someone123

What is your the evidence that supports this claim of an absolute guarantee?

Look at the Alberta government's own recent study on HSR. We're talking about two metros of say 1.5 million. That's not going to create enough traffic to be profitable unless they have access to cheap tracks already in existence. And they'd have to run at faster speeds than the bus to compete. Not happening without passenger rail priority.

I'm not opposed to building something in this corridor. And I've said before this has to be done after TOM HFR. But the economic model for doing something like that will be a tough sell. Especially with a provincial government that may not want to pitch in. I'm hoping that building TOM HFR will change how Canadians view intercity rail so that we can move to discussing HFR types of service in other corridors. I don't think a milk run would be profitable in AB. But HFR could steal lots of expensive fares from WestJet.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by someone123

What is your the evidence that supports this claim of an absolute guarantee?

A Calgary-Edmonton route could be pretty good. The distance isn't long and both cities have LRT networks that a train could connect up with, making a train much more useful. There's no route like this along The Corridor©™ that does not already have service. Intermodal connections are an important aspect of this that is often overlooked. The current VIA trains are nearly useless for connecting with other services in most of Canada and so they are limited to being expensive tourism type services for rail enthusiasts.

I am also skeptical of the idea that the best strategy for VIA would be to leave all regions but 1 out of passenger rail investment so long as the other regions have a lower ROI, even if they might still have good potential routes. That's a recipe for many voters in the country to stop supporting VIA. I think the only thing saving VIA right now is that the rail corridors are so locked down by CN and CP and VIA is the only entity with exceptions already carved out. If they were run like the public infrastructure they are there would be other passenger rail services around the country.

I agree with him that it is guaranteed the Toronto - Montreal Ottawa route would have a far better business case. Ottawa is about the same size as Edmonton or Calgary, whereas Montreal and Toronto are much bigger. So since both those cities are somewhat similar distances from Ottawa as from Calgary to Edmonton, each one of those lines (Ott-Tor and Ott-Mon) individually will have more demand than Calgary to Edmonton. And on top of that, you have the demand of Toronto - Montreal, plus the network effect of everything else in between and outside of the corridor.

If it was the case that Toronto - Montreal already had very well developed infrastructure, it might be the case that the point of diminishing returns was met and to improve service enough to generate more demand would cost too much money. But the corridor clearly is not at that point, the service is total bare bones and a world away from what even bad service between two major cities in Europe would look like.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Look at the Alberta government's own recent study on HSR. We're talking about two metros of say 1.5 million. That's not going to create enough traffic to be profitable unless they have access to cheap tracks already in existence. And they'd have to run at faster speeds than the bus to compete. Not happening without passenger rail priority.

I'm not opposed to building something in this corridor. And I've said before this has to be done after TOM HFR. But the economic model for doing something like that will be a tough sell. Especially with a provincial government that may not want to pitch in. I'm going that building TOM HFR will change how Canadians view intercity rail so that we can move to discussing HFR types of service in other corridors. I don't think a milk run would be profitable in AB. But HFR could steal lots of expensive fares from WestJet.

Your posts aren't very consistent though, so it's hard to know what you're arguing. swimmer_spe pointed out that VIA hasn't built "anything" along this corridor, then you replied about any project has a guaranteed worse ROI than service improvements in Ontario or Quebec, and now you are talking about HSR studies. "Anything" and "HSR" are two different proposals.

There is 0 rail service between Calgary and Edmonton right now. I just think that there's probably some > 0 service level that's justifiable. And it's a red flag that in Canada it's considered a big deal and controversial to build a functional passenger rail line between two major metros with LRT systems that are under 300 km apart. We would never have been able to build any major infrastructure prior to 1970 with that attitude.

There seems to be a pattern on this thread that people talk about how much the focus should be on Ontario and Quebec without much nuance or acknowledgement of the huge disparity in service levels. I agree that high-speed rail isn't going to make sense in many places, or maybe anywhere in Canada. But there's a wide range of possibilities between that and the ~0 service or ~useless service that exists in several well-populated regions.

I think you could probably do a "talking to Ontarians" style interview series where you ask people on the street (outside of a pandemic) whether or not finally building an electrical grid in Alberta or Newfoundland would be a good idea and many would easily come up with reasons for why it can't be done.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by someone123

There seems to be a pattern on this thread that people talk about how much the focus should be on Ontario and Quebec without much nuance or acknowledgement of the huge disparity in service levels. I agree that high-speed rail isn't going to make sense in many places, or maybe anywhere in Canada. But there's a wide range of possibilities between that and the ~0 service or ~useless service that exists in several well-populated regions.

I don't think that's the case. People just understand that the reality is that the government are total tightwads when it comes to investing in VIA, and also understand that implementing rail between Calgary - Edmonton that is worthwhile will cost a lot of money. While it would be desirable, and totally within the fiscal means of Canada to be able to build both HFR and a Calgary - Edmonton railway at the same time, the federal government has shown ambivalence to VIA. So I think that while people may not be totally happy about the state of affairs, they agree with VIA that HFR is the best, last shot at making at least one railway the type of railway Canadians deserve. And with that done, maybe the rest of the country can start being upgraded.

And TBH, there is nothing stopping Alberta building that line. Or at least there wasn't. Now our economy is totally screwed and I'm not overly confident our population will keep growing. And in that world, of stagnant economic and population growth, the business case for passenger rail looks pretty weak.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by someone123

Your posts aren't very consistent though, so it's hard to know what you're arguing. .

A consequence of a certain poster taking all the oxygen out of the fucking room is that less of us want to participate.

You can scour my history. I've repeatedly said that Calgary-Edmonton should be next after TOM HFR. That said, I recognize that any current milk run service running on CP/CN tracks has zero chance at being competitive with the buses. As such I don't see how it would be anything but a huge money pit. Calgary-Edmonton can only succeed with something that is faster, more frequent and cost competitive with the buses. That requires something like HFR. And several billion dollars. That's an easier sell after VIA can show that the model works on the TOM corridor.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, getting back to a question I had:

When was the last time Via proposed anything along the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor. [...]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

To my knowledge VIA hasn't proposed Calgary-Edmonton and why would they? [...]

Originally Posted by someone123

What is your the evidence that supports this claim of an absolute guarantee?

A Calgary-Edmonton route could be pretty good. [...]

Originally Posted by esquire

Calgary-Edmonton would make great sense if there was already a high quality route in place with adequate grade separations and that allowed for quick downtown to downtown connections. [...]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Look at the Alberta government's own recent study on HSR. We're talking about two metros of say 1.5 million. That's not going to create enough traffic to be profitable unless they have access to cheap tracks already in existence. And they'd have to run at faster speeds than the bus to compete. Not happening without passenger rail priority.

I'm not opposed to building something in this corridor. And I've said before this has to be done after TOM HFR. But the economic model for doing something like that will be a tough sell. Especially with a provincial government that may not want to pitch in. I'm hoping that building TOM HFR will change how Canadians view intercity rail so that we can move to discussing HFR types of service in other corridors. I don't think a milk run would be profitable in AB. But HFR could steal lots of expensive fares from WestJet.

Originally Posted by milomilo

I agree with him that it is guaranteed the Toronto - Montreal Ottawa route would have a far better business case. Ottawa is about the same size as Edmonton or Calgary, whereas Montreal and Toronto are much bigger. So since both those cities are somewhat similar distances from Ottawa as from Calgary to Edmonton, each one of those lines (Ott-Tor and Ott-Mon) individually will have more demand than Calgary to Edmonton. And on top of that, you have the demand of Toronto - Montreal, plus the network effect of everything else in between and outside of the corridor.

If it was the case that Toronto - Montreal already had very well developed infrastructure, it might be the case that the point of diminishing returns was met and to improve service enough to generate more demand would cost too much money. But the corridor clearly is not at that point, the service is total bare bones and a world away from what even bad service between two major cities in Europe would look like.

Originally Posted by someone123

Your posts aren't very consistent though, so it's hard to know what you're arguing. swimmer_spe pointed out that VIA hasn't built "anything" along this corridor, then you replied about any project has a guaranteed worse ROI than service improvements in Ontario or Quebec, and now you are talking about HSR studies. "Anything" and "HSR" are two different proposals.

There is 0 rail service between Calgary and Edmonton right now. I just think that there's probably some > 0 service level that's justifiable. And it's a red flag that in Canada it's considered a big deal and controversial to build a functional passenger rail line between two major metros with LRT systems that are under 300 km apart. We would never have been able to build any major infrastructure prior to 1970 with that attitude.

There seems to be a pattern on this thread that people talk about how much the focus should be on Ontario and Quebec without much nuance or acknowledgement of the huge disparity in service levels. I agree that high-speed rail isn't going to make sense in many places, or maybe anywhere in Canada. But there's a wide range of possibilities between that and the ~0 service or ~useless service that exists in several well-populated regions.

I think you could probably do a "talking to Ontarians" style interview series where you ask people on the street (outside of a pandemic) whether or not finally building an electrical grid in Alberta or Newfoundland would be a good idea and many would easily come up with reasons for why it can't be done.

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't think that's the case. People just understand that the reality is that the government are total tightwads when it comes to investing in VIA, and also understand that implementing rail between Calgary - Edmonton that is worthwhile will cost a lot of money. [...]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

A consequence of a certain poster taking all the oxygen out of the fucking room is that less of us want to participate.

You can scour my history. I've repeatedly said that Calgary-Edmonton should be next after TOM HFR. [...]

Hello, everyone,

I would like to kindly ask you to move this discussion to the appropriate thread, so that we can preserve some breathing space for topics which haven't already been discussed over dozens of pages:

Could daily intercity passenger rail service be revived across Western Canada?

Please also provide above link to @swimmer_spe, as he unfortunately doesn't seem to have discovered yet that there finally is a separate thread dedicated to discussions about the very topics he loves.

Thank you very much and have a great day!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't think that's the case. People just understand that the reality is that the government are total tightwads when it comes to investing in VIA, and also understand that implementing rail between Calgary - Edmonton that is worthwhile will cost a lot of money. While it would be desirable, and totally within the fiscal means of Canada to be able to build both HFR and a Calgary - Edmonton railway at the same time, the federal government has shown ambivalence to VIA. So I think that while people may not be totally happy about the state of affairs, they agree with VIA that HFR is the best, last shot at making at least one railway the type of railway Canadians deserve. And with that done, maybe the rest of the country can start being upgraded.

Maybe, but I don't see people articulating this very often. Such as a couple posts ago when one poster pointed out that maybe more than 0 Edmonton-Calgary service would be good and the first reply shot that down.

I would also argue that there's a world of difference between an opinion like (1) "it'll never work" and (2) "it could be a viable project but is held back due to VIA-related political factors that could or should be resolved". (1) reveals a stick-in-the-mud attitude.

And TBH, there is nothing stopping Alberta building that line. Or at least there wasn't. Now our economy is totally screwed and I'm not overly confident our population will keep growing. And in that world, of stagnant economic and population growth, the business case for passenger rail looks pretty weak.

I agree it's not going to happen right now. But rail lines are 30-50 year+ infrastructure projects. That's part of what's lacking in the assessment of these possibilities. Capital investments to expand rail ROWs and the like really increase the flexibility in our infrastructure, and their cost is amortized over a long period of time.

$1B for a 50-year project is not a significant portion of tax revenues in an AB-scale context for example, and it can't be compared directly to different types of expenses like spending $1B on transfers or wages this fiscal year.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

And TBH, there is nothing stopping Alberta building that line. Or at least there wasn't. Now our economy is totally screwed and I'm not overly confident our population will keep growing. And in that world, of stagnant economic and population growth, the business case for passenger rail looks pretty weak.

I think Calgary-Edmonton happens in the next two decades.

But there's no way to sell anybody on any major passenger rail project in Canada without first showing that it can be profitable in a corridor with tens of millions of annual pax.

Keep in mind that HFR was first meant to be executed with private sector funding. And the proposal was pitched that way after VIA Corporate realized that asking for government funding wasn't going anywhere. Ironically, it now looks like a great public sector project for stimulus. Let's hope it actually gets built by 2025. That construction and operational experience will give VIA enough knowledge to start bidding for a Calgary-Edmonton line.