VIA Rail

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

To be fair, the EU is bringing back the Trans European Express trains, this time with overnight HSR. They plan on connecting every capital city in Western Europe at launch in 2025. ÖBB's upgrade of their Railjet service was part of this plan. Great article on Bloomberg here:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...epers-are-back



That said. Took the Europeans half a century of building HSR to even get to the point where they can consider something like this. We don't have HSR from Toronto to Montreal. So the idea that rail could be an alternative from Toronto to Winnipeg is kinda hilarious.

Thanks for the link. Something to check out when such things are possible again (if the price is reasonable).

[ssiguy]

[QUOTE=lrt's friend;9281495 So, once we get rid of the transcontinental service, there is no hope to improve rail service and introducing new routes. Plus, we eliminate a major tourist attraction.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that part of VIA's problem to begin with?

VIA is suppose to be a rail transportation company and that's it. It's not VIA's responsibility to subsidize tourist attractions. If the demand was there then VIA would already well serve such areas.

Why should Joe & Jane taxpayers be forced to subsidize well healed tourists so they can go enjoy a hot spring at Banff or look at some polar bears in Churchill? If we want VIA to to be funded as what it is, an essential service, then it should only be funded for that purpose. This is akin to asking health authorities to cut back on surgeries so some chick can get a boob-job.

[acottawa]

Overseas visitors spent 1.9 billion a year in Canada before the pandemic.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, forced transfers on LRT are bad, but forced transfers on intercity trains are good?

Yes. Different purposes and trade-offs. Cutting the length of the Ocean allows for an increase in frequency. Would you rather have one train a day to Toronto or three trains a day to Quebec City?

I would suggest that if ever VIA is going to be actually viable alternative to a car, it needs to have multiple frequencies where possible. This isn't the 1800s where the one departure per day is the event of the day in the town.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

There would need to be more than just 3x trains a week for Via to think it's a good idea to build a maintenance facility. The Budd is only parked in Sudbury. It doesn't get maintained here.

All depends on what they want to do and how much it costs. They could build a small shed just for daily maintenance and cleaning. And save the heavier work for the depot in Montreal. In any event that's a rather minor detail. They'd first have to get to the point where they can operate 3x per day. And that ain't happening in our lifetimes if all they do is operate from Montreal. Quebec City to Halifax is just long enough that some upgrades and track work can get that trip to the 8-9 hr ballpark. Feasible to make it within a day or overnight.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I do agree. However, with people driving from places between to Toronto or Winnipeg anyways, that is a group that could be capitalized on.

There's not close to enough people who do this to justify regular service. Let's not forget that Winnipeg is smaller than Mississauga and over 2000 km away. Most of the in-between ridership is bound to be regional. Between Sudbury and Toronto or between Thunder Bay and Winnipeg. This would all be better served by regional trains than an intercontinental that can be delayed by half a day.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Overseas visitors spent 1.9 billion a year in Canada before the pandemic.

And I'm going to guess over 90% of that was within a 100 km radius of the 10 largest CMAs.

The train most relevant to foreign tourists, ironically, will be the one our resident train fans love to ignore: Corridor service.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

VIA is suppose to be a rail transportation company and that's it. It's not VIA's responsibility to subsidize tourist attractions.

As I understand it, it is VIA's responsibility to do that. It has a specific set of functions mandated, and VIA will do the bare minimum required to meet the ones that they know are pointless (ie most of their service).

I don't agree with the mandate, and they should be freed of it. Focus on the routes that make sense for rail, and abandon everything else. The longer they are forced to maintain the worthless routes, the worse VIA's long term prospects are.

[MonctonRad]

If VIA doesn't operate The Canadian or The Ocean, then it ceases to be a "network" or a "system".

If there is no interconnectedness, then it is nothing more than a loose grouping of federally subsidized intercity routes.

I do not think this is acceptable.

I do not have a problem with VIA putting it's primary emphasis on corridor routes in central Canada, and developing a new system of HFR. This seems appropriate. I also think that VIA should establish new corridor routes connecting Halifax/Moncton/Saint John, Edmonton/Red Deer/Calgary and Vancouver/Kamloops/Banff/Calgary.

At the same time though, the railway needs to maintain interconnectivity in the system. Sure, nobody is going to take the train from Toronto to Vancouver for a business meeting. I agree that 95% of the people taking transcontinental service will be tourists - but who cares?

Land cruising on a train across the continent is a valid means of travel. It is an adventure, and a way to rediscover your passion for the country. You will see Canada in a way that you never could on a six hour cross country flight. I personally intend to take The Canadian across Canada the first summer after my retirement. Hell, I might even take the damned train both ways!

All other continent sized nation states (US, Russia, China, Australia) maintain some form of transcontinental service. Canada should too.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

If VIA doesn't operate The Canadian or The Ocean, then it ceases to be a "network" or a "system".

If there is no interconnectedness, then it is nothing more than a loose grouping of federally subsidized intercity routes.

I do not think this is acceptable.

I do not have a problem with VIA putting it's primary emphasis on corridor routes in central Canada, and developing a new system of HFR. This seems appropriate. I also think that VIA should establish new corridor routes connecting Halifax/Moncton/Saint John, Edmonton/Red Deer/Calgary and Vancouver/Kamloops/Banff/Calgary.

At the same time though, the railway needs to maintain interconnectivity in the system. Sure, nobody is going to take the train from Toronto to Vancouver for a business meeting. I agree that 95% of the people taking transcontinental service will be tourists - but who cares?

Land cruising on a train across the continent is a valid means of travel. It is an adventure, and a way to rediscover your passion for the country. You will see Canada in a way that you never could on a six hour cross country flight. I personally intend to take The Canadian across Canada the first summer after my retirement. Hell, I might even take the damned train both ways!

All other continent sized nation states (US, Russia, China, Australia) maintain some form of transcontinental service. Canada should too.

VIA is everything and nothing at the same time.

It's a tourist train, boonies train and actual intercity mode of transit depending on the line and service.

We're coming up on a big fiscal squeeze in the next decade. The relative good times of the past when governments could just spend to their heart's content has come to an end. When deficits are in the hundreds of billions and the trillion dollar debt load combined with all those promises we have made the elderly, we're in a jam.

VIA loses something on the order of ~$400m (source: 2018/2019 financial statements: Operating loss before Government of Canada funding) per year. If we come to a point where either financing becomes a problem for government, or a big capital injection is required, it might be the end.

VIA's problem is that it needs to decide what it wants to be. However, as it is a political football, that basically eliminates any ability for it to decide its own fate. That's fine, as long as the government of Canada shovels in the money. Until it isn't.

My bet: VIA basically ceases to exist long-term as anything other than the mandated routes where there's no other option. They lose the least amount of money by simply keeping those routes open overall. Per rider they're a disaster, but these are places where there is simply no other transportation option. VIA is simply irrelevant enough that pulling the plug is mostly the simplest option and distributes the pain of loss of service evenly.

It simply cannot exist as-is being everything to nobody and its political masters won't take the bold step of making it something for somebody.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's not close to enough people who do this to justify regular service. Let's not forget that Winnipeg is smaller than Mississauga and over 2000 km away. Most of the in-between ridership is bound to be regional. Between Sudbury and Toronto or between Thunder Bay and Winnipeg. This would all be better served by regional trains than an intercontinental that can be delayed by half a day.

The beauty of the trains versus air travel is that you can pick up passengers at intermediate spots which adds revenue but very little expense to the journey between major centres. Cancel the Canadian as a transcontinental service and replace it with the following trains;

1. Toronto to Sudbury - Sault Ste Marie - Thunder Bay- Kenora-Winnipeg
2. Winnipeg- Portage la Prairie - Brandon- Regina-Moose Jaw - Swift Current - Medicine Hat- Brooks - Calgary
3. Winnipeg - Portage la Plraire- Regina - Saskatoon - North Battleford - Lloydminster-Fort Saskatchewan - Edmonton
4. Calgary - Banff- Golden - Revelstoke - Kamloops - Vancouver
5. Edmonton - Jasper - Kamploops - Vancouver
6. Edmonton - Calgary

Running train # 1 via Sault Ste Marie adds another 73,000 potential customers and being close to the US border would attract more American tourists. Adding Thunder Bay adds another 173,000 potential customers. Let's run trains where people live and not to suit the whims of the railroads.

If you ran train # 1 5 times a week you could still run the remote service from Sudbury to White River 2x per week and run a service between Sudbury and Winnipeg or some other intermediate point via Capreol - Hornepayne - Armstorng - Sioux Lookout - Winnipeg 2x per week. Trains should originate and end at centres of demand, not the middle of the bush as in Sudbury Jct or Capreol miles from Sudbury.

If you stop train # 3 at Saskatoon, you could have a train starting in Regina going to Saskatoon and then on to North Battleford and Edmonton providing 2x daily service between Regina and Saskatoon.

if you ran the service from Winnipeg to Calgary or Edmonton tri-weekly, you could still run tri-weekly service to Vancouver from Calgary and Edmonton and provide service 6x per week to Vancouver. Having daily service between Edmonton and Calgary would provide daily connecting service to Alberta - Vancouver trains.

Obviously the big issue is to reinstate service ( train #6) between Calgary and Edmonton. To begin with, service should be 2 per day in each direction. What is required is a long term plan that is implemented over time in stages so the ultimate plan is mostly a separate from freight grade separated right of way servicing YEG and downtown Edmonton. As the frequency of services increases, more and more of the exclusive ROW placed into to service would result in increased speeds, shortening travel time.

[J81]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yes. Different purposes and trade-offs. Cutting the length of the Ocean allows for an increase in frequency. Would you rather have one train a day to Toronto or three trains a day to Quebec City?

I would suggest that if ever VIA is going to be actually viable alternative to a car, it needs to have multiple frequencies where possible. This isn't the 1800s where the one departure per day is the event of the day in the town.




All depends on what they want to do and how much it costs. They could build a small shed just for daily maintenance and cleaning. And save the heavier work for the depot in Montreal. In any event that's a rather minor detail. They'd first have to get to the point where they can operate 3x per day. And that ain't happening in our lifetimes if all they do is operate from Montreal. Quebec City to Halifax is just long enough that some upgrades and track work can get that trip to the 8-9 hr ballpark. Feasible to make it within a day or overnight.



There's not close to enough people who do this to justify regular service. Let's not forget that Winnipeg is smaller than Mississauga and over 2000 km away. Most of the in-between ridership is bound to be regional. Between Sudbury and Toronto or between Thunder Bay and Winnipeg. This would all be better served by regional trains than an intercontinental that can be delayed by half a day.

8-9hrs from QC to Halifax? LOL! Not ever ever going to happen!

[J81]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

If VIA doesn't operate The Canadian or The Ocean, then it ceases to be a "network" or a "system".

If there is no interconnectedness, then it is nothing more than a loose grouping of federally subsidized intercity routes.

I do not think this is acceptable.

I do not have a problem with VIA putting it's primary emphasis on corridor routes in central Canada, and developing a new system of HFR. This seems appropriate. I also think that VIA should establish new corridor routes connecting Halifax/Moncton/Saint John, Edmonton/Red Deer/Calgary and Vancouver/Kamloops/Banff/Calgary.

At the same time though, the railway needs to maintain interconnectivity in the system. Sure, nobody is going to take the train from Toronto to Vancouver for a business meeting. I agree that 95% of the people taking transcontinental service will be tourists - but who cares?

Land cruising on a train across the continent is a valid means of travel. It is an adventure, and a way to rediscover your passion for the country. You will see Canada in a way that you never could on a six hour cross country flight. I personally intend to take The Canadian across Canada the first summer after my retirement. Hell, I might even take the damned train both ways!

All other continent sized nation states (US, Russia, China, Australia) maintain some form of transcontinental service. Canada should too.

What he said! ^^^

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

If the Toronto Winnipeg service has value in boosting tourism that justifies the expense than it is probably be worth it. Otherwise some shorter daytime Budd car or DMU service would probably provide better access to the remote communities the line serves.

I am not sure how a train is less risky than a plane. Unless Via is going to start installing operable windows.

I still don’t see the market for 12- 24 hour train rides on the prairies.

Most trains I have been on tend to have larger seats spaced more apart than a plane. To get the same spacing and size, the planes would need to have the first class only seating.

Are people doing the whole section, or just from one area to another. For instance, it is doubtful someone is traveling from Winnipeg to Edmonton. That is the good thing with the train, if done right, it can take those people getting on at the intermediate stops and bring them to the local city.

The air in a plane is recirculated more than a train.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Having regional trains promotes tourism in what are now intermediate cities such as Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary and Edmonton. If you have a 6-10 hour layover in Edmonton/Calgary and Winnipeg tourists that don't want to spend several days in theses cities and don't want to or can't afford to spend money on another night in a hotel can still explore these cities. Eurail passes in Europe promote tourism there even though there are very few trains that even Europeans would consider to be long distance trains.

Regional services should be designed to travel to at least the next province since the next largest city going east to west with the exception of Alberta is in a neighbouring province. I would run trains from Winnipeg through Regina to connect with Saskatoon.

My idea of regional services is more like the length of the Ocean only faster.

Zigzaging trains is not faster. Each of the 5 major cities on the Prairies could be made into hubs and have the trains meet each other so that you can do thru service, but not necessarily without a transfer.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Isn't that part of VIA's problem to begin with?

VIA is suppose to be a rail transportation company and that's it. It's not VIA's responsibility to subsidize tourist attractions. If the demand was there then VIA would already well serve such areas.

Why should Joe & Jane taxpayers be forced to subsidize well healed tourists so they can go enjoy a hot spring at Banff or look at some polar bears in Churchill? If we want VIA to to be funded as what it is, an essential service, then it should only be funded for that purpose. This is akin to asking health authorities to cut back on surgeries so some chick can get a boob-job.

The bigger problem is Via has been mandated to those and people want to ignore that. We have learned that the general public is stupid and do not understand what essential means. So, to some, that route is essential, but to others it is a frivolous luxury.

Funny thing is, we are being asked to wear a mask to allow room so that they can do surgeries and people are fighting that. These same people would cancel all service outside of the Corridor if they knew it existed.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yes. Different purposes and trade-offs. Cutting the length of the Ocean allows for an increase in frequency. Would you rather have one train a day to Toronto or three trains a day to Quebec City?

I would suggest that if ever VIA is going to be actually viable alternative to a car, it needs to have multiple frequencies where possible. This isn't the 1800s where the one departure per day is the event of the day in the town.

3 trains a day?

T-H-R-E-E trains a day?

In what would is that even possible? It barely does 3 trains a week.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

All depends on what they want to do and how much it costs. They could build a small shed just for daily maintenance and cleaning. And save the heavier work for the depot in Montreal. In any event that's a rather minor detail. They'd first have to get to the point where they can operate 3x per day. And that ain't happening in our lifetimes if all they do is operate from Montreal. Quebec City to Halifax is just long enough that some upgrades and track work can get that trip to the 8-9 hr ballpark. Feasible to make it within a day or overnight.

Driving, with the 4 lanes, it is hard to get to QC within 8-9 hours. The tracks are not in that great of shape. CN likely isn't going to spend the money on it as it is good enough for their freight operations. I doubt Via will either.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's not close to enough people who do this to justify regular service. Let's not forget that Winnipeg is smaller than Mississauga and over 2000 km away. Most of the in-between ridership is bound to be regional. Between Sudbury and Toronto or between Thunder Bay and Winnipeg. This would all be better served by regional trains than an intercontinental that can be delayed by half a day.

The idea is not to segment the network to where you cannot get there from here. Imagine if the section between Sudbury and Thunder Bay did not exist. It would only make things worse for Western Alienation.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

If VIA doesn't operate The Canadian or The Ocean, then it ceases to be a "network" or a "system".

If there is no interconnectedness, then it is nothing more than a loose grouping of federally subsidized intercity routes.

I do not think this is acceptable.

I do not have a problem with VIA putting it's primary emphasis on corridor routes in central Canada, and developing a new system of HFR. This seems appropriate. I also think that VIA should establish new corridor routes connecting Halifax/Moncton/Saint John, Edmonton/Red Deer/Calgary and Vancouver/Kamloops/Banff/Calgary.

At the same time though, the railway needs to maintain interconnectivity in the system. Sure, nobody is going to take the train from Toronto to Vancouver for a business meeting. I agree that 95% of the people taking transcontinental service will be tourists - but who cares?

Land cruising on a train across the continent is a valid means of travel. It is an adventure, and a way to rediscover your passion for the country. You will see Canada in a way that you never could on a six hour cross country flight. I personally intend to take The Canadian across Canada the first summer after my retirement. Hell, I might even take the damned train both ways!

All other continent sized nation states (US, Russia, China, Australia) maintain some form of transcontinental service. Canada should too.

Agreed. If it were broken up, adding 1 train a wee to go across the country would work well.

Originally Posted by thewave46

VIA is everything and nothing at the same time.

It's a tourist train, boonies train and actual intercity mode of transit depending on the line and service.

We're coming up on a big fiscal squeeze in the next decade. The relative good times of the past when governments could just spend to their heart's content has come to an end. When deficits are in the hundreds of billions and the trillion dollar debt load combined with all those promises we have made the elderly, we're in a jam.

VIA loses something on the order of ~$400m (source: 2018/2019 financial statements: Operating loss before Government of Canada funding) per year. If we come to a point where either financing becomes a problem for government, or a big capital injection is required, it might be the end.

VIA's problem is that it needs to decide what it wants to be. However, as it is a political football, that basically eliminates any ability for it to decide its own fate. That's fine, as long as the government of Canada shovels in the money. Until it isn't.

My bet: VIA basically ceases to exist long-term as anything other than the mandated routes where there's no other option. They lose the least amount of money by simply keeping those routes open overall. Per rider they're a disaster, but these are places where there is simply no other transportation option. VIA is simply irrelevant enough that pulling the plug is mostly the simplest option and distributes the pain of loss of service evenly.

It simply cannot exist as-is being everything to nobody and its political masters won't take the bold step of making it something for somebody.

Via does not set its mandate, the Federal Government does. So, it is forced to make due with what it can, all the while, the politicians are basically ignoring it except for the token photo shoot.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

The beauty of the trains versus air travel is that you can pick up passengers at intermediate spots which adds revenue but very little expense to the journey between major centres. Cancel the Canadian as a transcontinental service and replace it with the following trains;

1. Toronto to Sudbury - Sault Ste Marie - Thunder Bay- Kenora-Winnipeg
2. Winnipeg- Portage la Prairie - Brandon- Regina-Moose Jaw - Swift Current - Medicine Hat- Brooks - Calgary
3. Winnipeg - Portage la Plraire- Regina - Saskatoon - North Battleford - Lloydminster-Fort Saskatchewan - Edmonton
4. Calgary - Banff- Golden - Revelstoke - Kamloops - Vancouver
5. Edmonton - Jasper - Kamploops - Vancouver
6. Edmonton - Calgary

Running train # 1 via Sault Ste Marie adds another 73,000 potential customers and being close to the US border would attract more American tourists. Adding Thunder Bay adds another 173,000 potential customers. Let's run trains where people live and not to suit the whims of the railroads.

If you ran train # 1 5 times a week you could still run the remote service from Sudbury to White River 2x per week and run a service between Sudbury and Winnipeg or some other intermediate point via Capreol - Hornepayne - Armstorng - Sioux Lookout - Winnipeg 2x per week. Trains should originate and end at centres of demand, not the middle of the bush as in Sudbury Jct or Capreol miles from Sudbury.

If you stop train # 3 at Saskatoon, you could have a train starting in Regina going to Saskatoon and then on to North Battleford and Edmonton providing 2x daily service between Regina and Saskatoon.

if you ran the service from Winnipeg to Calgary or Edmonton tri-weekly, you could still run tri-weekly service to Vancouver from Calgary and Edmonton and provide service 6x per week to Vancouver. Having daily service between Edmonton and Calgary would provide daily connecting service to Alberta - Vancouver trains.

Obviously the big issue is to reinstate service ( train #6) between Calgary and Edmonton. To begin with, service should be 2 per day in each direction. What is required is a long term plan that is implemented over time in stages so the ultimate plan is mostly a separate from freight grade separated right of way servicing YEG and downtown Edmonton. As the frequency of services increases, more and more of the exclusive ROW placed into to service would result in increased speeds, shortening travel time.

I like you idea. Now, how do we make it happen?

[casper]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

The beauty of the trains versus air travel is that you can pick up passengers at intermediate spots which adds revenue but very little expense to the journey between major centres. Cancel the Canadian as a transcontinental service and replace it with the following trains;

1. Toronto to Sudbury - Sault Ste Marie - Thunder Bay- Kenora-Winnipeg
2. Winnipeg- Portage la Prairie - Brandon- Regina-Moose Jaw - Swift Current - Medicine Hat- Brooks - Calgary
3. Winnipeg - Portage la Plraire- Regina - Saskatoon - North Battleford - Lloydminster-Fort Saskatchewan - Edmonton
4. Calgary - Banff- Golden - Revelstoke - Kamloops - Vancouver
5. Edmonton - Jasper - Kamploops - Vancouver
6. Edmonton - Calgary

Running train # 1 via Sault Ste Marie adds another 73,000 potential customers and being close to the US border would attract more American tourists. Adding Thunder Bay adds another 173,000 potential customers. Let's run trains where people live and not to suit the whims of the railroads.

If you ran train # 1 5 times a week you could still run the remote service from Sudbury to White River 2x per week and run a service between Sudbury and Winnipeg or some other intermediate point via Capreol - Hornepayne - Armstorng - Sioux Lookout - Winnipeg 2x per week. Trains should originate and end at centres of demand, not the middle of the bush as in Sudbury Jct or Capreol miles from Sudbury.

If you stop train # 3 at Saskatoon, you could have a train starting in Regina going to Saskatoon and then on to North Battleford and Edmonton providing 2x daily service between Regina and Saskatoon.

if you ran the service from Winnipeg to Calgary or Edmonton tri-weekly, you could still run tri-weekly service to Vancouver from Calgary and Edmonton and provide service 6x per week to Vancouver. Having daily service between Edmonton and Calgary would provide daily connecting service to Alberta - Vancouver trains.

Obviously the big issue is to reinstate service ( train #6) between Calgary and Edmonton. To begin with, service should be 2 per day in each direction. What is required is a long term plan that is implemented over time in stages so the ultimate plan is mostly a separate from freight grade separated right of way servicing YEG and downtown Edmonton. As the frequency of services increases, more and more of the exclusive ROW placed into to service would result in increased speeds, shortening travel time.

I think this makes a lot of sense for a daily service, or close to daily service.

You can still keep the Canadian as a special tourist trail service, that is operated at a frequency and price driven by market conditions. It can be setup as a much more premium service.

[ssiguy]

^^ That is what the Rocky Mountaineer does between Calgary & Edmonton and it is well patronized by tourists and that's great.

Outside of the QC-Windsor Corridor, they should just can the whole system and turn it over to private operators. They could use those funds to create a REAL rail system in the Corridor and re-open the Cal/Edm route which is the only one outside Ont/Quebec that makes any sense.

[Chadillaccc]

The Rocky Mountaineer doesn't serve Edmonton, least of all the corridor between the cities. Edmonton is on "The Canadian" and Calgary is on the Mountaineer. Both are shit services ill fitted to two nearby major cities.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

The Rocky Mountaineer doesn't serve Edmonton, least of all the corridor between the cities. Edmonton is on "The Canadian" and Calgary is on the Mountaineer. Both are shit services ill fitted to two nearby major cities.

They are completely different products.

The Rocky Mountaineer is a summer only server, you don't sleep on the train, at night your transferred to a hotel and then back on the train in the in the morning. There are guides on the train the interpret and speak to what is passing by. You have to book the full journey, usually hotel at both ends.

The Canadian is a real transpiration service. Yes, it does have people who get on and off along the way. When I have done it from Saskatoon to Vancouver there is a morning departure from Edmonton and there are quite a few people who board in Edmonton and are only taking it as far as Jasper. Some people doing it as an overnight service between Saskatoon and Edmonton. Some people doing it as a service between Jasper and Vancouver.

The people who are doing short segments are typically in Economy.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

^^ That is what the Rocky Mountaineer does between Calgary & Edmonton and it is well patronized by tourists and that's great.

Outside of the QC-Windsor Corridor, they should just can the whole system and turn it over to private operators. They could use those funds to create a REAL rail system in the Corridor and re-open the Cal/Edm route which is the only one outside Ont/Quebec that makes any sense.

That would be the most shortsighted thing I have heard. There is no reason with existing funding as well as what was announced in the budget that they cannot build the HfR from Toronto. Right now... there isn't a demand for rail in Alberta. So, using your own metrics, why build it?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Amtrak is investing in more routes including international routes. Maybe Via should be doing the same.

Just a clarification. Amtrak has a plan to expand service in what they classify as "Urban Megaregions." This is still very much in the proposal stage (it's probably where HFR was 5 years ago) and will need a combination of federal and state funding before it can proceed. I don't know if any of Canada, outside of the Quebec City-Windsor corridor (and maybe Calgary-Edmonton), would fall under their classification as an "Urban Megaregion."

If you want to watch an interesting video on this, the High Speed Rail Alliance had a "Brown Bag Lunch" on Amtrak’s 2035 Vision presented by Derrick James, Director, Government Affairs at Amtrak (to save time you can skip the fluff by jumping to 4:31. You can also skip the Q&A as it is not really worth watching, so the actual presentation only about 18 minutes long).

• Video Link

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Just a clarification. Amtrak has a plan to expand service in what they classify as "Urban Megaregions." This is still very much in the proposal stage (it's probably where HFR was 5 years ago) and will need a combination of federal and state funding before it can proceed. I don't know if any of Canada, outside of the Quebec City-Windsor corridor (and maybe Calgary-Edmonton), would fall under their classification as an "Urban Megaregion."

If you want to watch an interesting video on this, the High Speed Rail Alliance had a "Brown Bag Lunch" on Amtrak’s 2035 Vision presented by Derrick James, Director, Government Affairs at Amtrak (to save time you can skip the fluff by jumping to 4:31. You can also skip the Q&A as it is not really worth watching, so the actual presentation only about 18 minutes long).

• Video Link

I would argue that the triangle that makes up Winnipeg, Calgary, and Edmonton would be an urban mega region by Canada's population.

The Windsor - Quebec City corridor makes up 6 of the top 10 cities by population and stretches about 1200 km. It has 5 of the next 10 largest cities

The Prairie Triangle corridor makes up 3 of the 10 largest cities and stretches about 1300 km. It has 2 of the next 10 largest cities

Now, here is the fun part, spurs of train travel.... Not including commuter rail, the W-QC has 2 main routes, with 2 spurs. The PT has 1 main routes. If it were expanded to fit potential ridership, it could have no dead ended routes, but would have a total of 4 lines.

Yes, the W-QC corridor has a higher population, but in roughly the same area, there is a sizable population in the PT. So, dailies on those routes as a minimum makes sense. On some busier sections, do more than once a day.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I would argue that the triangle that makes up Winnipeg, Calgary, and Edmonton would be an urban mega region by Canada's population.

Economic efficiency doesn't scale with definitions.

You can call it anything you want. But the traffic between Winnipeg and the Albertan cities isn't going to be substantial. Couldn't even keep Greyhound in business.

Alberta on the other hand is actually developing a cohesive mega-region between Calgary and Edmonton. It's as integrated (or better) than Ottawa-Montreal.