VIA Rail

[J81]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

From what I’ve gathered from what most have been saying, VIA isn’t even making money on the Corridor...? Plus, unlike VIA, Metrolinx doesn’t have the mandate to serve remote area. If anything, it’s quite the opposite.

Edit: roger1818 had commented on similar topic in the rail thread in Ontario’s subforum, but I couldn’t find it now...

What would change? Metrolinx service is possible because they control the majority of tracks they’re operating on. If they took over the same lines from Via they would run into the same issues. Not to mention have to buy an entire fleet of trains because you cant run commuter trains over those kind of distances.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by J81

What would change? Metrolinx service is possible because they control the majority of tracks they’re operating on. If they took over the same lines from Via they would run into the same issues. Not to mention have to buy an entire fleet of trains because you cant run commuter trains over those kind of distances.

I mean running Metrolinx trains on the proposed corridor, not the current one. Perhaps using the type of trains that we are currently using for UPX will do?

[milomilo]

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.

Maybe, to me it would seem that the Rocky Mountain section would be more in demand than the other sections so running that separately could make sense.

This is a red herring though really, the Canadian and that route is not the part of VIA we need to be worried about, as the demand is not there for normal passenger rail. If we're worried about the cost, privatize it or scrap it.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

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.

If given the chocie, everything else being equal, between a journey on a train or a journey on a bus, yes I'd prefer a train and it's 'better'.

But do you know what's worse than a train? No train. And worse still, no train, and no bus. That's the reality you will get if you only want trains.

Buses are:

• Cheaper
• Simpler to operate
• Aren't delayed by other trains so are more reliable
• Faster
• Can run anywhere there are roads
• Due to all this, can be run more frequently

For places that don't have the demand to fill up a frequent (every few hours) train service, buses are the far better option. There are a few places that only have rail access, but there are far more that have road access. Buses should be used as feeders for the main rail routes, and any bus routes that fill up enough to demand rail should get rail. If you support rail, you should support buses.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I mean running Metrolinx trains on the proposed corridor, not the current one. Perhaps using the type of trains that we are currently using for UPX will do?

If VIA can't get the funding to build the route, would Metrolinx be able to? And would they not be better off spending the money on their existing network, rather than increasing their workload?

[lrt's friend]

While bus service across the western province is not economically viable, slower and more expensive rail will be much less economically viable. VIA cannot afford to even investigate a service that will likely have 10% or 15% fare recovery.

We need to focus on the services that have over 50% fare recovery and work towards even higher fare recovery. The answer to that is HFR. We cannot even consider an Edmonton-Calgary route (currently with 0% fare recovery because there is no service) until HFR proves viable.

At the present time, the Canadian has over 50% fare recovery so we shouldn't fiddle too much with a reasonably successful service that supports the tourist trade in Western Canada. We certainly should not replace it with a service that will like generate poorer fare recovery results.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

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.

It could also make sense to have some runs that only go from, say, Perth to Ottawa. In the early days of VIA they did just that between Barrie and Toronto; the Super Continental branch to Toronto stopped in Barrie as well as an ONR train from Toronto to North Bay, but there was also an additional Barrie-Toronto commuter train on the same tracks.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by J81

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

I believe portions of The Canadian also fill this role in Northern Ontario, particularly in Northwestern Ontario.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

It could also make sense to have some runs that only go from, say, Perth to Ottawa. In the early days of VIA they did just that between Barrie and Toronto; the Super Continental branch to Toronto stopped in Barrie as well as an ONR train from Toronto to North Bay, but there was also an additional Barrie-Toronto commuter train on the same tracks.

If VIA will be using dedicated tracks, I wonder what the actual frequency limit will be? Even if there was just one or two commuter specials heading into town in the morning and the reverse again in the evening, it could help a lot of people.

Also, do we know what the HFR route would be through the GTA? I'm assuming it wouldn't be using the LSE corridor as that would present potential capacity problems as RER and/or Smart Track ramps up.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

If VIA will be using dedicated tracks, I wonder what the actual frequency limit will be? Even if there was just one or two commuter specials heading into town in the morning and the reverse again in the evening, it could help a lot of people.

Also, do we know what the HFR route would be through the GTA? I'm assuming it wouldn't be using the LSE corridor as that would present potential capacity problems as RER and/or Smart Track ramps up.

With their own infrastructure, it has as much capacity as they want it to have. A double track railway has a huge amount of capacity, and if the point is reached that it isn't enough, HFR was a huge success and will easily justify more investment.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by milomilo

With their own infrastructure, it has as much capacity as they want it to have. A double track railway has a huge amount of capacity, and if the point is reached that it isn't enough, HFR was a huge success and will easily justify more investment.

Will it be double tracked, or will they have strategically located passing tracks? This will greatly impact the possibility of adding frequency or commuter runs. The current study will likely give us some idea of how much double tracking will be built.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Will it be double tracked, or will they have strategically located passing tracks? This will greatly impact the possibility of adding frequency or commuter runs. The current study will likely give us some idea of how much double tracking will be built.

Mostly single track at first I believe. But to build on milomilo's point, if the point ever comes when that line is at capacity, it will have been a huge success and double tracking will be easily justifiable.

[lrt's friend]

delete

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Mostly single track at first I believe. But to build on milomilo's point, if the point ever comes when that line is at capacity, it will have been a huge success and double tracking will be easily justifiable.

I don't know about that. I suspect the HFR service will start out with fairly short trains (maybe 3-6 cars) compared to the monster long distance trains, and double tracking would need to justify its cost not just compared to doing nothing, but also compared to instead running longer trains which would theoretically only have the possible expenses of platform lengthening and electrification (extra rolling stock would also be needed to increase frequency) not to mention bridges and overpasses that may need widening or twinning. I'm skeptical that the route would ever get to the point that GO-sized trains cannot satisfy demand under the already frequent HFR service.

That cost difference could be significant, especially if HFR is indeed electrified and we're looking at the cost of installing a second caternary across hundreds of km of new track. Theoretically the HFR trains could get as long or longer than GO trains before new track is needed to increase capacity. And if we're just talking about extra tracking for the sections where the commuter trains were running, the business case to justify the extra track would depend solely on them rather than on the HFR overall if the HFR wouldn't need the track without the commuter services.

[milomilo]

Right, with HFR they can build as much capacity with double tracking and signalling as they require, they're not limited by factors outside their control any more. I'd guess they'll have double tracking near the GTA and other urban centres, and single track elsewhere, at first.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Right, with HFR they can build as much capacity with double tracking and signalling as they require, they're not limited by factors outside their control any more. I'd guess they'll have double tracking near the GTA and other urban centres, and single track elsewhere, at first.

That seems reasonable. I expect GO to piggyback on the line by running a few commuters from Peterborough to Toronto.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

I am saying that with large cities like Calgary and Regina in the west completely cut off from passenger rail, we should spend the money there, not on the HFR.

Originally Posted by 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.

HFR is not the same as adding service to places not served at all, yet have a large population. For example, the 4th largest metro is not served by passenger rail. That is almost ridiculous.

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.




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.

They moved away from the 3 days schedule to get better at being on time. So, to fix that, we need to get CN to let the Canadian pass.

[swimmer_spe]

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.

I would actually route it through Sault St Marie, then on to Thunder Bay. Then the 3 highest populated cities north of the GTA are served.

[Dengler Avenue]

Urban Sky on UrbanToronto: “ I believe Greg Gormick has a point when he keeps quoting a former CP CEO lamenting that the completion of the Trans-Canada Highway turned the launch of "The Canadian" in April 1955 (and its luxurious stainless steel fleet which serves VIA's name-sake reliably until this day) into the most costly mistake in its corporate history and prompted CP to pursue its total exit out of the passenger business. Nevertheless, if the Trans-Canada Highway continues to pose a barrier to make passenger rail viable (again), then this is a fact we need to accept sooner or later...”

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...21060/page-418 #6264

@swimmer_spe, I know that you wanna see TCH upgraded too, just as I am (hence my profile picture). From the sound of it, it can only be one or the other at this point.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

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.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

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.

If you had a train leave and arrive Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, alternating CN/CP, that might make it more idea. Ultimately,, it should be a daily service each way for all along the route.

Whether splitting the train or keeping it all as 1 service is irrelevant.

People book connecting flights for various reasons, why not connecting train travel? On the Corridor, you cannot travel from Windsor to Quebec City without a transfer. No reason that has to be unique to the Corridor.

[swimmer_spe]

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.

My argument is that, you would not expect the trains Via service Toronto stop at different stations and not connect. Why is the train not extended some how so they can connect? The tracks are there.