VIA Discussion Thread - Page 21

Innsertnamehere · #**401** Posted **Mar 2, 2017, 6:31 PM**

the single largest city in the country with the largest airport and busiest rail station in Canada is a horrible location for a rail hub? what?

FFX-ME · #**402** Posted **Mar 2, 2017, 6:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

the single largest city in the country with the largest airport and busiest rail station in Canada is a horrible location for a rail hub? what?

Yes. It's a great place for an airline hub but not rail. It's a detour south for all east-west routes. The older route made more sense:

WhipperSnapper · #**403** Posted **Mar 2, 2017, 7:05 PM**

It's not a detour when you're talking about the largest customer base in the nation

Aylmer · #**404** Posted **Mar 2, 2017, 7:09 PM**

It may be a detour, but transcontinental rail is essentially just for tourism at this point. If someone wanted to get from Halifax to Vancouver, they probably aren't taking the train.

With that in mind, it's much less important for the route to be direct and much more important that it connect important tourism hubs. As such, Toronto's role as Canada's main air hub makes it an important end point for people who are, say, flying in to Vancouver, taking the train for the experience, and then flying back out of Toronto.

That said, I think it would be really cool to have a Halifax-Vancouver train - the first true Atlantic-to-Pacific transcontinental and a full week of travel

esquire · #**405** Posted **Mar 2, 2017, 9:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

Why the Hell was the old Canadian route changed anyway. It makes no sense to route all trains through Toronto, it's at a horrible location for a rail hub. Ottawa-west rail should still be offered and so should rail service to Calgary.

I don't think VIA ever answered this question categorically, but at the time of the infamous service cuts in 1989/90 there was some reference to the CN route allowing VIA to kill two birds with one stone by allowing continued service to remote areas in Northern Ontario, as well as the fact that it would link up with VIA's service from Jasper to Prince Rupert. I don't know how accurate this was/is, but at the time CN there was some reference made to CN being generally more predisposed to accommodating VIA trains on their tracks.

casper · #**406** Posted **Mar 2, 2017, 9:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't think VIA ever answered this question categorically, but at the time of the infamous service cuts in 1989/90 there was some reference to the CN route allowing VIA to kill two birds with one stone by allowing continued service to remote areas in Northern Ontario, as well as the fact that it would link up with VIA's service from Jasper to Prince Rupert. I don't know how accurate this was/is, but at the time CN there was some reference made to CN being generally more predisposed to accommodating VIA trains on their tracks.

I don't know very much about how railways operate. However I have sat in on some presentations by CN executives over the years. They make a big deal about being the only major scheduled railway in Canada. As I understand it it sounds like they pre-determine which routes will run and when using a fixed scheduled. They then add what ever railcars are going on that route. The other railways are more fixed on running trains where and where required. Someone who know the industry may be able to comment on how accurate that is.

If that is true I would expect the CN model to fix better with a scheduled passenger railway.

The Fraser valley heading into Vancouver is one stretch where the Canadian uses both CN and CP. CN and CP have some time of weird agreement where one railway line is used for trains heading into Metro Vancouver and the other line is used for trains leaving Metro Vancouver.

ue · #**407** Posted **Mar 2, 2017, 10:41 PM**

I've heard rumblings political pressure from Central Albertan politicians pushing for the route through Edmonton, though I'm a bit fuzzy on the details now.

Aylmer · #**408** Posted **Mar 2, 2017, 10:52 PM**

I don't quite understand - the route already passes through (/around) Edmonton. Or are you saying that there was pressure for the Edmonton route back when they had to chose between them and Calgary?

ssiguy · #**409** Posted **Mar 2, 2017, 10:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't think VIA ever answered this question categorically, but at the time of the infamous service cuts in 1989/90 there was some reference to the CN route allowing VIA to kill two birds with one stone by allowing continued service to remote areas in Northern Ontario, as well as the fact that it would link up with VIA's service from Jasper to Prince Rupert. I don't know how accurate this was/is, but at the time CN there was some reference made to CN being generally more predisposed to accommodating VIA trains on their tracks.

The reason VIA has never answered the question about why they choose the northern route over the southern one is because it had nothing to do with providing rail and everything to do with politics.

Mulroney cut the service but knew one route had to be maintained to BC. The southern route was chosen because the Minister of Transportation at the time was part of Mulroney's inner circle and "just happened" to be a from Edmonton............Don Mazonkowski. {sp?}. Rest assured that if he was from Calgary the southern route would have been chosen.

ue · #**410** Posted **Mar 2, 2017, 11:02 PM**

^ Mazankowski. Right. I was mixing him up with Manning but knew that wasn't right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I don't quite understand - the route already passes through (/around) Edmonton. Or are you saying that there was pressure for the Edmonton route back when they had to chose between them and Calgary?

Yes, when the cutbacks occurred and the choice was between the northern and southern route.

roger1818 · #**411** Posted **Mar 4, 2017, 4:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't know how accurate this was/is, but at the time CN there was some reference made to CN being generally more predisposed to accommodating VIA trains on their tracks.

I had heard this as well. At the time, CN was still at least partially owned by the Canadian Government, so they had a larger incentive to keep things favourable to VIA. Part of it might also go back further to when VIA was formed. CN wanted to loose their passenger services, but CP at least played the part of not wanting to give them up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by casper

The Fraser valley heading into Vancouver is one stretch where the Canadian uses both CN and CP. CN and CP have some time of weird agreement where one railway line is used for trains heading into Metro Vancouver and the other line is used for trains leaving Metro Vancouver.

That is because both railways have single track in the Fraser Canyon and double tracking would be prohibitively expensive. By having trains run in only one direction on the track, there are fewer conflicts, requiring a train to wait at a siding. They have a similar arrangement in Ontario between Waterfall (near Sudbury) and Parry Sound.

roger1818 · #**412** Posted **May 29, 2017, 7:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by roger1818

As far as I can tell, the only locomotive that fits is the Bombardier ALP-45DP. It could have a top speed of 160 km/h diesel and 200 km/h electric.

I discovered another possibility, the Siemens Charger (used by Amtrak, MARC and soon Brightline). While the current SC-44 is a diesel-electric passenger locomotive, Siemens has indicated the possibility of producing a dual-mode variant of the Charger for use by Metro-North and Long Island Rail Road and Amtrak. If it comes to fruition, it could be another option for VIA. The SC-44 has a top speed of 201 km/h, so the dual-mode variant should be at least as fast.

roger1818 · #**413** Posted **May 29, 2017, 8:23 PM**

duplicate post