Rail in Canada

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

I’m assuming you work for CP so I won’t dispute. But the two engines I saw did not have the flared intakes (at least that is what I think they are) that the modern diesels have. They looked exactly like the one pictured above. So a different type of diesel?

It could have been an SD 40 or GP 38. Those do not have the flair and do kind of look like the one pictured.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It could have been an SD 40 or GP 38. Those do not have the flair and do kind of look like the one pictured.

Okay, thanks.

[David1gray]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It could have been an SD 40 or GP 38. Those do not have the flair and do kind of look like the one pictured.

You are probably correct. There are also a few SD40F units wandering around. One of which was recently repainted into CP colours (They had CMQ paint previously after that line was repurchased by CP). The SD40F is also what the hydrogen unit was converted from.

[ssiguy]

I have long been a critic of VIA serving remote locations with near no ridership due to strictly political reasons. This is why you can go from Edmonton to Price Rupert on a train but not to Calgary.

VIA {and this Northern Ontario route} should be given a substantial increase in short-term funding so that all areas served are provided a more reliable and frequent service that is an actual transportation alternative to what is offered now but with one big caveat...............use it or lose it.

If after this 5 years period the service is not providing a 'reasonable" return on investment to something that can be justified then the people of the region cannot bitch when the service is discontinued. They had a chance to prove that people will actually take the service when it's provided but if they don't then they have no one to blame but themselves.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I have long been a critic of VIA serving remote locations with near no ridership due to strictly political reasons. This is why you can go from Edmonton to Price Rupert on a train but not to Calgary.

VIA {and this Northern Ontario route} should be given a substantial increase in short-term funding so that all areas served are provided a more reliable and frequent service that is an actual transportation alternative to what is offered now but with one big caveat...............use it or lose it.

If after this 5 years period the service is not providing a 'reasonable" return on investment to something that can be justified then the people of the region cannot bitch when the service is discontinued. They had a chance to prove that people will actually take the service when it's provided but if they don't then they have no one to blame but themselves.

The “use it or lose it” was Brian Mulroney’s motto but he cancelled service or frequencies regardless. The idea was to retain remote services and cancel or reduce services elsewhere except the corridor. People do not have to blame themselves for low ridership as the provider’s of the service and or the infrastructure can use inappropriate equipment, unreliable equipment, poor schedules, inadequate track capacity, inadequate track maintenance, poor speeds and as in the case of the Edmonton - Calgary route inadequate grade separations and level crossing improvements.

[J81]

The regional routes in the maritimes were all timed for connections onto the Ocean so that someone from SJ or Fredericton or Sydney for example could get on the Ocean to MTL at Truro or Moncton. Before the cuts they changed the times so that you could no longer connect. So of course ridership dropped and theres your government justification for cutting service. That happened everywhere. If the service isn’t convenient it isnt going to be used.

[MonctonRad]

Indeed.

"Use it or lose it" can easily be made a self fulfilling prophesy.

If you want to decrease ridership, then make connections inconvenient, or decrease frequency with station stops at odd hours - then watch ridership plummet, shrug your shoulders and say "oh well, they didn't want a rail service in the first place".

This strategy is classic.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

VIA {and this Northern Ontario route} should be given a substantial increase in short-term funding so that all areas served are provided a more reliable and frequent service that is an actual transportation alternative to what is offered now but with one big caveat...............use it or lose it.

Did you guys actually read that or not? I never insinuated that Ottawa should pull a Mulroney but quite the opposite. I said INCREASE the funding so it can be a viable transportation alternative and give it 5 years for people to try it out, tourist agencies to promote it, and cities to attract business and workers.

If the service sees a significant amount of increased traffic to where the subsidy provided by VIA/Ottawa/QP can be reasonably justified as a good return on investment then keep the service and perhaps even expand it. For those routes that see no major increase in ridership or where ridership is so low that the operational subsidy cannot be justified then the service should be cancelled. If the service is offered and people still don't take it then they have made their choice.

People can't demand a service and then once provided not use it but insist the service remain. If a community will not use an offered service then why should Ottawa continue to pay for it? Governments are not a bottomless pit and all funding {regardless of the use} has to be directed towards the most need. For every dollar sunk into these routes that no one is using, that's a dollar not being spent in the areas where people will.

[Urban_Sky]

“Use it or lose it” is an awefully inappropriate mechanism for determining the appropriate service level for remote services: they don’t exist because they address a commercial need, but because there are people who depend on these services. Also, even a doubling of ridership would have a negligible impact on the required subsidy for these services, since they typically recover only something like 10% of their costs - doubling the revenues for a hypothetical service with an operating cost of $1 million and a cost-recovery rate of currently 10% would only decrease the subsidy from $900k to $800k, i.e. by 11%. With a direct deficit of only $20 million per year (i.e. $0.50 per Canadian per year), the taxpayer cost of providing VIA’s remote services is nothing but a rounding error.

Conversely, when discussing expanded non-corridor, non-remote intercity services, taxpayers will rightly ask whether the same subsidy amount invested in improved intercity bus network wouldn’t achieve a much faster, denser, more reliable and dramatically more useful transportation network, but we’ve had this discussion many times before…

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I have long been a critic of VIA serving remote locations with near no ridership due to strictly political reasons. This is why you can go from Edmonton to Price Rupert on a train but not to Calgary.

VIA {and this Northern Ontario route} should be given a substantial increase in short-term funding so that all areas served are provided a more reliable and frequent service that is an actual transportation alternative to what is offered now but with one big caveat...............use it or lose it.

If after this 5 years period the service is not providing a 'reasonable" return on investment to something that can be justified then the people of the region cannot bitch when the service is discontinued. They had a chance to prove that people will actually take the service when it's provided but if they don't then they have no one to blame but themselves.

Things were cut to save money. It was not about keeping the best routes or the worst, but saving money. I hope with gas over $2 a litre, our federal politicians do something positive with Via outside the Corridor.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

The “use it or lose it” was Brian Mulroney’s motto but he cancelled service or frequencies regardless. The idea was to retain remote services and cancel or reduce services elsewhere except the corridor. People do not have to blame themselves for low ridership as the provider’s of the service and or the infrastructure can use inappropriate equipment, unreliable equipment, poor schedules, inadequate track capacity, inadequate track maintenance, poor speeds and as in the case of the Edmonton - Calgary route inadequate grade separations and level crossing improvements.

My favourite is their own numbers showed the southern Canadian route was less subsidized, and yet they kept the one that went through the riding of the one doing the cuts. Tell me it's very political without telling me it is very political.

Originally Posted by J81

The regional routes in the maritimes were all timed for connections onto the Ocean so that someone from SJ or Fredericton or Sydney for example could get on the Ocean to MTL at Truro or Moncton. Before the cuts they changed the times so that you could no longer connect. So of course ridership dropped and theres your government justification for cutting service. That happened everywhere. If the service isn’t convenient it isnt going to be used.

Designed to fail so that it can be shown to be a failure to cancel it. It is how too much is done with most government things.

[Luisito]

Does anyone know if there is still a train running between Halifax and Sydney NS? I remember taking that train as a child would like to do so again if possible.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Does anyone know if there is still a train running between Halifax and Sydney NS? I remember taking that train as a child would like to do so again if possible.

Hasn't been one for years.

The trackage now belongs to an American short line company and is only partially in use. I saw pictures of the line in a CBC article the other year showing saplings growing up between the ties on the Cape Breton portion of the ROW.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Hasn't been one for years.

The trackage now belongs to an American short line company and is only partially in use. I saw pictures of the line in a CBC article the other year showing saplings growing up between the ties on the Cape Breton portion of the ROW.

Oh that's unfortunate, I used to love taking that trip. Thanks for the reply.

[MonctonRad]

Here's the link:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...cted-1.5982062

And the photo:

[Luisito]

Sad to see that. Thanks for the link.

[ssiguy]

The entire concept of VIA being a rail service is a good chunk of the problem. VIA should not be a rail service but rather a transportation one. This is particularly true now that Greyhound is out of the equation.

The idea that all citizens {at least in the provinces} should have access to reliable car-alternative transportation options is a valid one. The problem is that people think that this should automatically include rail, why not buses? Personally I would rather have a bus coming by everyday than a train arriving twice a week so that I could actually use the service if I had a mobility problem or no car.

Such a system would not only offer far superior transportation options but would also see traffic on VIA rail routes rise significantly. There are millions of Canadians who have no access to VIA and yet live relatively close to a VIA station. These VIA bus routes could act as a connector for those people to actually get to station. People in Leamington or St.Thomas are very close to VIA rail station on a frequent {by VIA standards} route and both have about 50,000 but there is no way to get to the station except if you own a car. Ditto for Victoriaville.

This is much like urban transit. You can build a big subway or LRT system but if you don't have any buses to get you to the station then those new transit lines are essentially useless to the vast majority of potential passengers.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The entire concept of VIA being a rail service is a good chunk of the problem. VIA should not be a rail service but rather a transportation one. This is particularly true now that Greyhound is out of the equation.

The idea that all citizens {at least in the provinces} should have access to reliable car-alternative transportation options is a valid one. The problem is that people think that this should automatically include rail, why not buses? Personally I would rather have a bus coming by everyday than a train arriving twice a week so that I could actually use the service if I had a mobility problem or no car.

Such a system would not only offer far superior transportation options but would also see traffic on VIA rail routes rise significantly. There are millions of Canadians who have no access to VIA and yet live relatively close to a VIA station. These VIA bus routes could act as a connector for those people to actually get to station. People in Leamington or St.Thomas are very close to VIA rail station on a frequent {by VIA standards} route and both have about 50,000 but there is no way to get to the station except if you own a car. Ditto for Victoriaville.

This is much like urban transit. You can build a big subway or LRT system but if you don't have any buses to get you to the station then those new transit lines are essentially useless to the vast majority of potential passengers.

The problem is that over the decades we have made the car king. The networks we had, the inter-connectivity, is gone. The reality is this bump in gas prices will not do a thing to promote Via, as people will just keep paying it.