VIA Rail

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The question is would the faster route drum up enough traffic to make up for the loss of local traffic. We also get back to the idea that if the desire is for a shorter, faster route, that doesn't serve any local communities, why not substitute it for the Atlantic (assuming customs delays can be mitigated somehow).

I think the era of the friendly customs agent who waves passengers perfunctorily across the border is gone forever. The Atlantic route required two border crossings. I would prefer an all Canadian route.

The only advantage for the Atlantic route was that it served Saint John. I would prefer to see a new daily train route from Saint John to Moncton, connecting to the Ocean at the Moncton VIA rail station. A local train from Saint John to Moncton could make the trip in two hours, and the route would be on a well maintained CNR main line.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

There might be an interesting opportunity to return daily-ish service to the Maritimes. I'm assuming the Ocean runs thrice weekly (either on the Mainline or the current routing) and the Montreal-Gaspé train can run separately on the other days. Regular regional service between Campbellton and Halifax could coordinate with the Montreal-Gaspé train on the days when the Ocean doesn't run.

So for example, leaving Halifax to Montreal on the Monday would be a direct train on the Ocean. On the Tuesday, it would be a regional train up to Campbellton, then a connection on the Gaspé-Montreal.

Except the Gaspé-Montreal hasn't run since 2013 because of rail infrastructure problems. Even when it was operational, it ran as split service with the Ocean. There are talks of fixing the track though, so we will see.

[Aylmer]

More than talk - the rails are already undergoing repair and should be operational within a few years. MTQ says 2024 for passenger service.

And yes, it was combined before. However, I wonder whether it actually translates into significant savings to do so. The Gaspé portion still needs its own cars and locomotive and staff. I hope UrbanSky can answer that (if he still checks in on this thread).

It didn't make sense to run them separately when the Ocean ran daily and there weren't any regional services to connect to. But a staggered schedule with a regional connection would make a big difference to usability in the Maritimes today.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I think the era of the friendly customs agent who waves passengers perfunctorily across the border is gone forever. The Atlantic route required two border crossings. I would prefer an all Canadian route.

As I said before, it might be feasible if it didn't have any stops in the USA.

The only advantage for the Atlantic route was that it served Saint John.

I wouldn't call that the only advantage. It also stooped in Sherbrooke, QC, which is almost twice the size of Saint John. The significantly shorter route could also be an advantage, if the customs issues can be sorted out.

I would prefer to see a new daily train route from Saint John to Moncton, connecting to the Ocean at the Moncton VIA rail station. A local train from Saint John to Moncton could make the trip in two hours, and the route would be on a well maintained CNR main line.

The question is, is there enough demand between Saint John and Moncton to warrant such a train? Maybe, as they are New Brunswick's two largest cities, but both are small and there aren't any other significant towns between the two. More important than population though is synergy, and for that I can't judge.

[Coldrsx]

Any idea when The Canadian starts again?

[Aylmer]

November 1 is the date they've been using. With international travel off the table and flying being decidedly unattractive right now, the Canadian is sounding mighty fine.

[esquire]

Seems hard to imagine The Canadian starting up again when its biggest spenders, the Americans and Europeans who book pricy sleeping car accommodations, still can't come here...

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by roger1818

That approximately 50% is a decent guideline. The question is are you talking about variable or total revenue/costs? Using Urban_Sky's post I reference above, even if you look at the total revenue/costs (variable, semi-variable and fixed combined), The Canadian recovered 59.7% and 64.8% in 2018 and 2017 respectively, so it would make the cut either way.

As for the Ocean, using variable revenue/cost, it recovered 48.9% and 46.5% respectively, so very close to your arbitrary threshold. If you look at its total revenue/costs, it recovered 21.5% and 21.6% respectively, but many of those semi-variable or fixed costs wouldn't go away if you cancelled the route (probably even more proportionally than The Canadian). It is also possible that HFR (with the leg to Quebec City), could reduce its costs in several ways.

The Ocean and Canadian are novelties IMO and their data shouldn't distract us too much from what should be the future priorities of VIA - intercity mass transportation. That said though Urban_Sky's numbers do show that there is a world of difference between the moderate and (IMO) acceptable subsidy of approximately 40% for the Corridor and Canadian, and the 80% and 92% on the Ocean and regional services.

It might be worth comparing how much VIA's subsidy is vs other countries', but it isn't trivially easy. According to this document the UK subsidises an average passenger-km by 6.4p (11c CAD). VIA runs 955 million passenger-miles apparently, so comparing that to the subsidy of $270m in Urban Sky's data, that's 18c/passenger-km by my math - not a world away from the UK's subsidy and I would say many in the UK would happily have the railway's funding increased, especially if it brought down fares. To add to that, the breakdown of subsidy per operator in the UK shows huge variances, so it's likely that the Corridor and Ocean outperform many UK operator's subsidy.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

More than talk - the rails are already undergoing repair and should be operational within a few years. MTQ says 2024 for passenger service.

That is good to hear.

And yes, it was combined before. However, I wonder whether it actually translates into significant savings to do so. The Gaspé portion still needs its own cars and locomotive and staff. I hope UrbanSky can answer that (if he still checks in on this thread).

Urban_Sky is the better person to answer that, but I am sure there are savings to be had. For one they don't need a second engineer between Montreal and Matapédia. Also, I am sure they don't have to pay CN as much to operate one longer train on their tracks than it does to operate two shorter ones.

Just look at the Northern Quebec trains. They operate as split trains 3 days a week rather than alternating days. Here is a picture I took of it leaving Montreal back in 2018. I assume the front section is the Jonquière and the rear section is the Senneterre.

It didn't make sense to run them separately when the Ocean ran daily and there weren't any regional services to connect to. But a staggered schedule with a regional connection would make a big difference to usability in the Maritimes today.

Possibly. It all depends what time the transfer is in Matapédia. Currently it is at 22:52 ET westbound and 6:10 ET eastbound (it looks like the schedule is designed to avoid rush hour in Montreal). Not horrible, but not good either.

It will also be interesting to see what affect HFR has on The Ocean (and the Chaleur). Currently it crosses the river to Sainte-Foy and then reverses back across again to continue on the south side. It might make more sense to have it travel on the HFR tracks north of the river between Montreal and Sainte-Foy to not only save having to do that revering maneuver, but to allow faster speeds.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by esquire

Seems hard to imagine The Canadian starting up again when its biggest spenders, the Americans and Europeans who book pricy sleeping car accommodations, still can't come here...

But don't forget Canadians who want to travel but are afraid to go abroad. I gather the Rocky Mountaineer is doing very well as there aren't many other options for Canadians.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by roger1818

But don't forget Canadians who want to travel but are afraid to go abroad. I gather the Rocky Mountaineer is doing very well as there aren't many other options for Canadians.

If that's true re: the Rocky Mountaineer, I would be very surprised.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The Ocean and Canadian are novelties IMO and their data shouldn't distract us too much from what should be the future priorities of VIA - intercity mass transportation.

This conversation is usually in the weeds with its massively disproportionate focus on Campbellton and Gaspé, etc.

Canada is an overwhelmingly urban country (80%+) and the urbanization rate is only going to go up in the future. The cities will drive most demand while rural areas too far from cities will continue to shrink. Campbellton lost 9% of its population during the last census period.

Air travel is going to dominate over long distances like for cross-country trips because it is faster. Not many people want to sit on a train for 20 hours when they could fly for 3 hours. However, trains are competitive at shorter distances.

Some of the trains running in Canada today nominally serve cities but do not provide useful service to them and so the passenger numbers are meaningless. This is true of the Ocean and Canadian. I'd guess that only a few cities in Ontario and Quebec have useful service.

[esquire]

^ As an example, I seldom ever hear about any of my friends or relatives in Manitoba ever taking VIA Rail anywhere. And there are a good number of travellers in my circles.

On the rare occasion that someone does take VIA, it's almost always to Churchill which is an appealing tourism destination but one where airfares are exorbitant... it is never to Toronto or Vancouver. The Canadian is pretty well irrelevant to most travellers here except a tiny handful of people who have some reason to travel to small towns along the line and can't/won't drive.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ As an example, I seldom ever hear about any of my friends or relatives in Manitoba ever taking VIA Rail anywhere. And there are a good number of travellers in my circles.

On the rare occasion that someone does take VIA, it's almost always to Churchill which is an appealing tourism destination but one where airfares are exorbitant... it is never to Toronto or Vancouver. The Canadian is pretty well irrelevant to most travellers here except a tiny handful of people who have some reason to travel to small towns along the line and can't/won't drive.

There is a section of The Canadian (between Capreol and Sioux Lookout) that has a bunch of stops that you can't drive to, but I believe everywhere else is accessible by road.

I have been wondering lately if VIA should be divided up into separate divisions for the three types of trains they operate (transcontinental, regional, and corridor) and then have each division's funding be provided by different government departments (Canadian Heritage, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, and Transport Canada respectively). That way the value of each of these services can be evaluated independently by the government department most related it.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I have been wondering lately if VIA should be divided up into separate divisions for the three types of trains they operate (transcontinental, regional, and corridor) and then have each division's funding be provided by different government departments (Canadian Heritage, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, and Transport Canada respectively). That way the value of each of these services can be evaluated independently by the government department most related it.

This might not be a bad idea actually. VIA does have three different mandates in a sense. Corridor service could be operated under funding supplied by Transport Canada. Regional service could be partly funded by Indian & Northern Affairs (and perhaps by regional development agencies). The trancontinental services could be funded by Tourism Canada, since many (not all) travellers on the Canadian and the Ocean are tourists.

Sometime in the next five years, I am going to take the Canadian to the west coast. It has always been a dream of mine.

[swimmer_spe]

HFR has me thinking about what is the goal. Yes, I know it is to have more trains per day between Toronto and Ottawa. But is that it? Is it simply to get as many trains in and out of those cities each day?

As I understand, it is more to do with shortening the train trip between Toronto and Montreal to compete with flying. So, why did they chose the twisted mess they have? If Via were smart, they would try to straighten as many curves so they can run at the top speed that they can. If the road bed geometry is going to slow them down, this will become another white elephant.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If Via were smart, they would try to straighten as many curves so they can run at the top speed that they can. If the road bed geometry is going to slow them down, this will become another white elephant.

Roger quoted Urban sky's very convincing rationale in the other thread. It makes perfect sense:

Originally Posted by roger1818

I was trying to find a reference to this and so far all I found was this post on Urban Toronto that said, "I believe it was noted before that getting this portion up to HFR standards would cost $90 million." referring to the Alexandria Sub (not the the entire Montreal-Ottawa leg). Now this is hardly conclusive and the poster may have been mistaken, or I could be interpreting it incorrectly. Either way further digging will be required.

More interestingly, this was in reply to this post by Urban Sky (who I believe is the same as our Urban_Sky, not to be confused with Urban Sky from Miami). Anyone who hasn't read this post, I highly recommend doing so!

The points I found most interesting were (but please read the original to get the full context):

This to me indicates that the upgrades planned for the Alexandria Sub are minimal (thus explaining the low cost) but in isolation, those upgrades would also have minimal effect on the total Montreal-Ottawa travel time. My guess is its upgrades would be limited to moving the sidings to line up with the hourly departures of HFR. Different departure intervals would require sidings at different locations, thus upgrades done now would likely not be reusable by HFR.

The upgrades that will have the biggest effect would be from obtaining dedicated tracks east of the Alexandria Sub, and that would likely cost much more than the quoted price. Could it be done ahead of time? Yes, but it takes time to negotiate the appropriate deals with the rail line owners. (CN & CP). There is a big difference to the owners being interested in making a deal and actually signing a deal. It all comes down to what does that $90 million actually include and is it a real quote?

The other interesting quote from the post was related to the approach into Toronto:None of this is conclusive, but it is food for thought.

They are trying to get the most benefit at least cost, with the minimum amount of wasted money, such that any upgrades are also as cost effective as possible.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Roger quoted Urban sky's very convincing rationale in the other thread. It makes perfect sense:



They are trying to get the most benefit at least cost, with the minimum amount of wasted money, such that any upgrades are also as cost effective as possible.

So, yup, another white elephant.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, yup, another white elephant.

What? That is not what a white elephant is. HFR is the opposite (as planned at least). It is intended to provide the maximum benefit to users for the minimum cost, within the maximum budget that is politically sellable.

A white elephant would be something very expensive that is useless. Like spending money implementing inferior rail services where buses would adequately serve demand, with better service quality.

[Nouvellecosse]

What?? A white elephant isn't the most efficient allocation of funds based on the outcome of detailed cost-benefit analyses?