VIA Rail

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

The Canadian is only a tourist train because it never runs on time because the high probability of delays due to the length of its run, it has to stop somewhere at 3am in the morning even if it not convenient, it doesn't service larger centres of population, and it only runs 2-3 times a week. If you make something unreliable and inconvenient enough people take different options, it doesn't mean there isn't a demand for service. It is more of a case that demand is unsatisfied and therefore ignored.

You ruin the train by the reasons listed above, not by segmenting it. We should be subsidizing our citizens, not tourists. It is time for environmentally train service, more frequent, faster, more convenient train service and more funding.

Then scrap it. The route doesn't justify frequent trains as a passenger railway, so if you think it isn't worth running for the tourism purpose alone (as you must, if you intend to segment it), then it serves no purpose. For the small amount of demand that is left, buses are a far better option.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That's not how it works... or even a reasonable idea. Why would the federal government give up something that makes them money?

You actually believe this???

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

There is more than one way to skin a cat. I never expected that southern Florida would build a modern 21st century high frequency intercity passenger rail line before southern Ontario, but here we are. The FEC didn’t build it because it was profitable, but because it was a real estate development vehicle. I think Metrolinx is pursuing a similar strategy in the GTA. I also don’t think that institutional investors will invest only in infrastructure that turns a conventional profit. How or when will Montreal’s REM system be profitable? I really think there’s a lot of avenues a passenger rail agency can explore to build better infrastructure and provide decent service, but VIA is not the way to do it.

The other reason I think VIA should be dismantled is because provinces have more of a sense of the regional transit needs. someone123’s example of Maritime bus operating a decent service because it is locally controlled rather than centrally controlled out of VIA’s hq in Montreal is a good one. Closer to me, Metrolinx bought the Kitchener line from a short line operator that didn’t even have signaling. VIA was running two tin can trains a day over this route for years until Metrolinx took it over, and began making incremental improvements to allow all-day two way service. It’s still a work in progress, but at least they’re up to 8 trains a day.

The mandate for running services to places like White River and Churchill should be given to the a Ministry of Northern Affairs or their provincial equivalents. Trains like the Canadian and Atlantic are land cruises for boomers and we shouldn’t be subsidizing them. There are markets within the routes of the Atlantic and the Canadian that are viable for locals, and those should be locally (or at least provincially) run.

Well it's possible you could replace VIA with something more focused (as in, entirely in Ontario and Quebec) but otherwise identical, and hand the other operations over to separate entities. I really don't know what that achieves though, given that the problems are not VIA itself, but lack of political will, the laws governing railways, and lack of funding. Those problems would still be there.

If provinces or private entities wish to make a new railway, they are free to do so - the existence of VIA is irrelevant to that. I'm sure if the prairies or atlantic provinces wanted to make their own crown corporation rail companies, that would be fine too.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

No. I'm not at all. The Canadian's purpose is as a tourist train, it is not intended for general transport, and the route would be useless for that as it goes almost entirely through wilderness. The corridor, on the other hand, is intended for general passenger transport as it goes through a high density region. They're intended for completely different purposes. If there are portions of the Canadian route that justify frequent rail (and there probably are not), there's no reason we can't run those as well. And if running the Canadian is not seen as a worthwhile cost, we can scrap it. But there is no reason to try to combine the products.

3 letters

H

F

R

It goes through bush Basically, between Peterborough and Ottawa, a distance of about 275km, there is nothing. Show me where else in the Corridor you go so far between stations on a non express train.

[milomilo]

Not sure what point you're trying to make. HFR is a great project. I'd prefer more, but Canadians do not prioritize spending money on rail projects at the ballot box.

[Nouvellecosse]

He's saying that if HFR can be justified given the rural nature of the route, then the segments of the Canadian that you wrote off as being wilderness can also support high frequency. I agree that if a corridor is connecting two or more major population centres then the route can be viable without a lot of population in between. It all comes down to the total population of the market compared to the total length of the route. A 500km route with 4 mil on one end and 6 mil on the other is totally different than a 500km route with 1.5 mil on one end and .75 on the other.

[milomilo]

Even if those lower population routes did justify rail, HFR has to come first. If we can't make HFR work, then there is no justification for routes with worse business cases.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Then scrap it. The route doesn't justify frequent trains as a passenger railway, so if you think it isn't worth running for the tourism purpose alone (as you must, if you intend to segment it), then it serves no purpose. For the small amount of demand that is left, buses are a far better option.

I think that it's worth pointing out that the Canadian isn't really that much of a money loser. It's about on-par with the corridor routes on a cost recovery basis, and beats the system average by a healthy margin. Urban Sky compiled the numbers from 2017 (and I think 2018, but I can't find them anymore.




I think that with a bit of investment, the Canadian could actually become a useful, perhaps even profitable train. Considering how expensive flights are, a more frequent, faster (return to the 3-day schedule), and reliable Canadian with improved coach (think European-style shared couchettes) could be an option for many people making medium-distance overnight trips (12-18h trips). Trips like Edmonton-Vancouver and Edmonton-Winnipeg were in that range in the old timetable, allowing you to, say, leave Edmonton after work and get to Vancouver by noon, or leave Winnipeg after work and get to the Rockies by the early afternoon. If you have a long weekend and the train travels overnight, it could conceivably become a practical option for spending as much time at your destination without having to resort to a red-eye flight (or drive).

It's definitely not a replacement for regular, frequent daytime intercity service (e.g. Calgary-Edmonton). But I think that the Canadian, far from being a lost cause, already performs decently well from a cost perspective, and has lots of room to grow.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Then scrap it. The route doesn't justify frequent trains as a passenger railway, so if you think it isn't worth running for the tourism purpose alone (as you must, if you intend to segment it), then it serves no purpose. For the small amount of demand that is left, buses are a far better option.

1. Just because you split 1 train into different sections does not mean that the trips in whole or in part would not be of interest to tourists. Look at the Rocky Mountaineer, all their trains to/from Jasper and Banff stop overnight in Kamloops. This has not had a negative impact on their ridership volumes. By stopping overnight you are in fact segmenting the trip. For the Canadian we could do Toronto- Winnipeg, Winnipeg- Edmonton and Edmonton = Vancouver or Winnipeg - Vancouver. If the train through northern Ontario was routed on CP along Lake Superior and through Thunder Bay you would gain more ridership.

2. If you ran a regional train from Winnipeg - Calgary you would also gain ridership because you are serving larger population centres and service 2 provincial capitals.

3. Buses are not better. For long trips they are not as comfortable as trains that run on time and offer a reasonable frequency. The proof is in the pudding as Greyhound has pulled out of the inter-city market in most of Canada. In northern Ontario, Greyhound has been replaced by Ontario Northland buses in many locations. So you can either subsidize the train or the bus. I choose the train for its better longer haul characteristics.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I think that it's worth pointing out that the Canadian isn't really that much of a money loser. It's about on-par with the corridor routes on a cost recovery basis, and beats the system average by a healthy margin.

Urban Sky compiled the numbers from 2017 (and I think 2018, but I can't find them anymore.

Yeah, I've learned a lot form Urban Sky, and I hope what I post is accurate. For $41M/year, I don't see any need to get rid of it, and it very well might bring in more money from overseas.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

1. Just because you split 1 train into different sections does not mean that the trips in whole or in part would not be of interest to tourists. Look at the Rocky Mountaineer, all their trains to/from Jasper and Banff stop overnight in Kamloops. This has not had a negative impact on their ridership volumes. By stopping overnight you are in fact segmenting the trip. For the Canadian we could do Toronto- Winnipeg, Winnipeg- Edmonton and Edmonton = Vancouver or Winnipeg - Vancouver. If the train through northern Ontario was routed on CP along Lake Superior and through Thunder Bay you would gain more ridership.

2. If you ran a regional train from Winnipeg - Calgary you would also gain ridership because you are serving larger population centres and service 2 provincial capitals.

3. Buses are not better. For long trips they are not as comfortable as trains that run on time and offer a reasonable frequency. The proof is in the pudding as Greyhound has pulled out of the inter-city market in most of Canada. In northern Ontario, Greyhound has been replaced by Ontario Northland buses in many locations. So you can either subsidize the train or the bus. I choose the train for its better longer haul characteristics.

That's probably true. I mean, yes there are probably tourists who value the unique experience of the multi-day sleeper car trip as a sort of romantic anachronism, but there are probably others would would like to take in a train trip as part of their "Canada" experience without devoting so much time to it. They could still have the old-timey "land cruise" as a special tourist service maybe a few times a month during peak tourist season while the rest of the time there would only be modern day transportation oriented service. I mean, as it stands it's almost like trying to combine a tourist cruise ship service with a transportation ferry for locals. As far as i know, most successful cruise ships don't run a high frequency service with multiple departures per day, while most successful ferry services don't have tourists traveling from long distances to revel in their rustic charm.

They could even have separate branding for the two different types of services on the Canadian route. The one for locals could be Canadian "Connection" while the one for tourists could be Canadian "Experience" or someting.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

They could even have separate branding for the two different types of services on the Canadian route. The one for locals could be Canadian "Connection" while the one for tourists could be Canadian "Experience" or someting.

I see continuing to run the Canadian at 2 days a week east of Edmonton and 3 days between Edmonton and Vancouver. There should however be daily service across the prairies, especially between Calgary and Winnipeg. East of there a separate train should travel via Thunder Bay and Sudbury to Toronto 4 or 5 days a week so that Winnipeg ends up with almost daily service to Toronto. Other service gaps on the prairies could be filled by other regional trains, especially between Regina-Saskatoon-North Battleford-Lloydminster-Fort Saskatchewan and Edmonton.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

They could even have separate branding for the two different types of services on the Canadian route. The one for locals could be Canadian "Connection" while the one for tourists could be Canadian "Experience" or someting.

They already do this, there are coach cars for budget travel, sleeping cars, and a new class of deluxe sleeping cars which is obviously going after the premium segment (even though regular sleeping cars are not exactly cheap).

I honestly don't know how much room there is to grow this service... there has been a fairly slow and steady decline in western transcontinental rail service basically since WWII ended, despite the best efforts of CN and CP, and later on, VIA. I think at this point the absolute best case scenario is somehow getting back to near daily or daily service on one route, compared to the current 2x a week. (In the 60s, there were 4 a day in each direction between Toronto/Montreal and Vancouver... 2 on CN, 2 on CP.)

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Arguably, the single biggest problem is government financial support. Ignoring the Corridor service, the rest are set up such that they will never really generate more customers. For a simple example, the Sudbury - White River train does not connect to the Canadian, even though they are within 10-20 km of each other.

While a lack of proper funding is certainly an issue, the biggest one is where they have to put the funding they've got. Your Sudbury - White River train exemplifies this beautifully. VIA shouldn't be running a train on that route to begin with nor most others but because of politics, VIA has to offer the service draining much needed funds from the only routes that are remotely financially viable...…..Calgary/Edmonton and The Corridor.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

On the subject of VIA's HFR plan, it actually has the possibility of transforming transit patterns in the Ottawa region. Assuming a "best-case" scenario, higher frequency will come to Smith's Falls, Brockville, Alexandria, and maybe even Perth. With higher frequency to and from Ottawa, we may see a building boom in some of these places, and perhaps the start of an unofficial commuter rail system for Ottawa.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

On the subject of VIA's HFR plan, it actually has the possibility of transforming transit patterns in the Ottawa region. Assuming a "best-case" scenario, higher frequency will come to Smith's Falls, Brockville, Alexandria, and maybe even Perth. With higher frequency to and from Ottawa, we may see a building boom in some of these places, and perhaps the start of an unofficial commuter rail system for Ottawa.

AND we can put off extending the freeway portion of Highway 7 from Carleton Place to Perth for a goooood while.

By "higher frequency" though, what do we mean? Every hour, every half an hour, or what?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

On the subject of VIA's HFR plan, it actually has the possibility of transforming transit patterns in the Ottawa region. Assuming a "best-case" scenario, higher frequency will come to Smith's Falls, Brockville, Alexandria, and maybe even Perth. With higher frequency to and from Ottawa, we may see a building boom in some of these places, and perhaps the start of an unofficial commuter rail system for Ottawa.

Economics require that intercity and commuter trains be separate. It makes no sense to sell a ticket between Smiths Falls and Ottawa, while the same seat is empty for the rest of the trip from Toronto to Smiths Falls. This is why VIA tickets between Ottawa and Toronto and Brockville and Toronto are sold at the same price.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Economics require that intercity and commuter trains be separate. It makes no sense to sell a ticket between Smiths Falls and Ottawa, while the same seat is empty for the rest of the trip from Toronto to Smiths Falls. This is why VIA tickets between Ottawa and Toronto and Brockville and Toronto are sold at the same price.

While there would be some seats vacated by people getting off at Smith's Falls, I'm sure there would also be people getting on at Smiths Falls and other intermediate destinations heading toward Toronto. Probably not a huge number, but then how many people would be commuting by train to/from Ottawa to begin with considering these are very small towns over 70km away.

[J81]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

While a lack of proper funding is certainly an issue, the biggest one is where they have to put the funding they've got. Your Sudbury - White River train exemplifies this beautifully. VIA shouldn't be running a train on that route to begin with nor most others but because of politics, VIA has to offer the service draining much needed funds from the only routes that are remotely financially viable...…..Calgary/Edmonton and The Corridor.

That route sustains tourism in the area by supplying remote camp locations that cant be reached by vehicle.

[J81]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Economics require that intercity and commuter trains be separate. It makes no sense to sell a ticket between Smiths Falls and Ottawa, while the same seat is empty for the rest of the trip from Toronto to Smiths Falls. This is why VIA tickets between Ottawa and Toronto and Brockville and Toronto are sold at the same price.

Most of The late afternoon and evening departures out of Toronto for Ottawa do just that. They cater to commuters and make all the stops between Toronto and Kingston. 54, 48 and 650 stop everywhere. 46 and 68 stop at the largest towns like Cobourg and Belleville. 300 ppl board at Union and only around 100-150 get off in Ottawa.