VIA Rail

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by 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.

HFR works where they plan to put it, not because it is a good spot, but because it is free. Currently, east of Peterborough is abandoned. So, they do not have to expropriate land. If they had to the costs would skyrocket. So, no, HFR is not the answer.

In fact, this project highlights what happens when you do as much as you can to speed up the route. Eventually, it gets to be too busy for the existing infrastructure and needs to be upgraded to it's own ROW.

That is what I would want to see on all routes. For the long hauls, every day, each way should be a must. This would mean you can cross Canada on daily trains.

Routes that could be added, and could be viable are the ones that used to exist but were cancelled as they were not on CN ROW. The Canadian currently runs where it does, not due to usage, but due to the fact that both CN and Via were both owned by the Crown at the time they switched over.

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.

It would be using the CP Belleville and Havelock Subs

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well, with over 1000km in Ontario alone that is still 2 lanes, the cost to implement my ideas (that might stem western alienation) would be more cost effective.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

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.

In that case I didn't understand at all and that actually makes a lot less sense than how I was reading it. Why should we prioritize passenger rail funding on the sole basis of whether or not a place has rail service yet rather than on the basis of how useful and beneficial it would be in a particular setting? That reminds me of how people in suburban Toronto were against the desperately needed downtown relief subway line because downtown already had subway service while they thought the money would be better spent building subways in their low density suburbs.

I'm not sure why this even needs to be said, but Regina isn't a large city (I'd even call Calgary mid-sized) while the city proper of Toronto alone is larger than the two of them combined. I'm not saying that smaller cities or cities in the west shouldn't have service, but whether or not they have service now has no bearing on whether or not providing them with service makes more sense than service in a totally different market.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

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.

All I was saying is that if the line ever gets so busy that they've maxed out capacity (through longer trains as one example), the line will have been so successful that double tracking will be justifiable. I have no idea if the line would ever be that successful, but it will be a good news story if it ever is.

As for your last point, intercity and commuter train markets aren't completely independent of each other. Even today, GO runs trains significant distances to cities like Kitchener, and Via serves the commuter market in towns like Cobourg. In other countries the distinction between commuter and intercity are even more blurred. The more complex our rail network gets, the less easy and less desirable it is to place services into silos. It's all one big system and each part affects all the other parts.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

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.

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.

VIA is extremely starved of funds. It does not have the luxury of being able to stretch its resources even thinner, it absolutely must prioritize the route that will give the most bang for buck, and that will 100% be the place that is already somewhat successful - the corridor. If it manages to do a good enough job there then, and only then, can it look to the next most likely place for success, which could very well be Calgary - Edmonton. But not Regina. In the meantime, if we want to build ridership, then we should look to running buses. A bus between Calgary and Regina would offer far better service than a train running on the CP line.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

In that case I didn't understand at all and that actually makes a lot less sense than how I was reading it. Why should we prioritize passenger rail funding on the sole basis of whether or not a place has rail service yet rather than on the basis of how useful and beneficial it would be in a particular setting? That reminds me of how people in suburban Toronto were against the desperately needed downtown relief subway line because downtown already had subway service while they thought the money would be better spent building subways in their low density suburbs.

I'm not sure why this even needs to be said, but Regina isn't a large city (I'd even call Calgary mid-sized) while the city proper of Toronto alone is larger than the two of them combined. I'm not saying that smaller cities or cities in the west shouldn't have service, but whether or not they have service now has no bearing on whether or not providing them with service makes more sense than service in a totally different market.

I posted this elsewhere, about 15 minutes ago...

Ignoring Vancouver, Winnipeg and Toronto, cities over 50,000 are:
The Southern route would serve:
Calgary 1,300,000
Medicine Hat 76,000
Regina 230,000
Brandon 58,000
Thunder Bay 121,000
Sault Ste Marie 79,000
Greater Sudbury downtown station 164,000

Total: 2,028,000

The current route
Kamloops 103,000
Edmonton 1,300,000
Saskatoon 301,000
(in Greater Sudbury, it serves remote locations)

Total 1,704,000

A difference of over 324,000 This does not include the smaller places, but the southern route is more populated.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

VIA is extremely starved of funds. It does not have the luxury of being able to stretch its resources even thinner, it absolutely must prioritize the route that will give the most bang for buck, and that will 100% be the place that is already somewhat successful - the corridor. If it manages to do a good enough job there then, and only then, can it look to the next most likely place for success, which could very well be Calgary - Edmonton. But not Regina. In the meantime, if we want to build ridership, then we should look to running buses. A bus between Calgary and Regina would offer far better service than a train running on the CP line.

You have said the only real argument that is true.... Via does not have the money. Maybe Via should have a higher budget with the requirement that it goes to new routes.

[milomilo]

Maybe, but they don't, and wishing it to be true does not make it so. If you don't believe me my argumentw, read the thread below, Urban Sky works for VIA and comprehensively details why VIA is constrained the way it is:

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...8#post-1507414

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Maybe, but they don't, and wishing it to be true does not make it so. If you don't believe me my argumentw, read the thread below, Urban Sky works for VIA and comprehensively details why VIA is constrained the way it is:

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...8#post-1507414

Scroll down to the end and you will see someone who has a different name, but says that there is everything except for the actual funding for it.

(It's me!)

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

In that case I didn't understand at all and that actually makes a lot less sense than how I was reading it. Why should we prioritize passenger rail funding on the sole basis of whether or not a place has rail service yet rather than on the basis of how useful and beneficial it would be in a particular setting? That reminds me of how people in suburban Toronto were against the desperately needed downtown relief subway line because downtown already had subway service while they thought the money would be better spent building subways in their low density suburbs.

I'm not sure why this even needs to be said, but Regina isn't a large city (I'd even call Calgary mid-sized) while the city proper of Toronto alone is larger than the two of them combined. I'm not saying that smaller cities or cities in the west shouldn't have service, but whether or not they have service now has no bearing on whether or not providing them with service makes more sense than service in a totally different market.

You have not explained your above mentioned point. On one hand you say that you don't disagree that smaller cities should not have service but you say it makes more sense to provide service in a different market. The point here is that relatively speaking there is lots of service in the corridor, even though it is inadequate but no daily service anywhere west from Toronto. Why are any points between Toronto and Vancouver regardless of their size not entitled to passenger rail service. You wonder why the West feels alienated. This is a classic example. The total funding envelope needs to be expanded, but not at the expense of providing service on a reasonable basis through out the country.

You cannot say that Regina does not deserve service because it only has 228,928 people. It is the travel demand between Calgary and Regina, including the points in between. Here is a list of all the cities that you say do not deserve to have the service back that they once had in order that we can service towns on the current route from Winnipeg to Edmonton that for the most part have populations less than 10,000. Why does this make sense? Are the northern prairies any more scenic than the southern?

Calgary 1,336,000
Brooks 14,451
Medicine Hat 63,260
Swift Current 16.604
Moose Jaw 33,890
Regina 228,928
Brandon 48,859
Portage la Prairie 13,304
Winnipeg 808,419
Total 2,563,685 Note: this is not a small number in comparison with service currently provided on some Via routes.

Some of these potential travellers would also access rail service to Red Deer and Edmonton.

This is about addressing western alienation, climate change and providing accessible public transport. Nobody is suggesting running trains on a daily basis to smaller towns.

[milomilo]

Providing only daily rail service is about as good as doing nothing (actually, it's worse), the market for that service will be tiny. It will be too inconvenient for most people, unreliable, slower than a bus and expensive to run so will need subsidy to keep ticket prices low. The only people served would be the less well off, and they would be better served by buses, which would be faster, more frequent and more reliable. If it wasn't for the Canadian's tourist customers, we likely wouldn't run the northern route either.

Providing a super crappy rail service to western cities isn't going to solve western alienation, all it will do is worsen VIA's financial situation. If there is to be spending by VIA in the west, the only place that makes sense is Calgary - Edmonton, then build out from there. But that could, and perhaps should, be done by Alberta, if the people gave a crap about it, which they don't.

[esquire]

On the list of issues triggering western alienation, the lack of passenger rail service would have to be somewhere around page 20.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by esquire

On the list of issues triggering western alienation, the lack of passenger rail service would have to be somewhere around page 20.

It still is a contributing factor. Calgary lost VIA Rail service and also its local CBC TV news in 1990 (though the latter was later restored). That was a double-whammy for them and it illustrated the neglect they felt from Crown corporations.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by esquire

On the list of issues triggering western alienation, the lack of passenger rail service would have to be somewhere around page 20.

Right. I do not understand why spending billions on a route with no current service and unknown market potential would be priority, versus spending that money on routes with growing ridership, and known pent up demand. It seems to be a no-brainer.

If HFR is truly successful, which means that it generates a profit, then other routes can be explored. However, even then, the next priority will almost certainly be southwestern Ontario with a potential Amtrak connection to Detroit and Chicago. This connects far more population than any western connection can possibly achieve.

I am not against studying a Calgary-Edmonton connection but we need to prove that the HFR model is successful first. Canada does not have the financial resources to be building dedicated passenger rail lines all over the country.

There continues to be pressure from the Conservative movement to cut taxes which limits what infrastructure that can be built.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

HFR works where they plan to put it, not because it is a good spot, but because it is free. Currently, east of Peterborough is abandoned. So, they do not have to expropriate land. If they had to the costs would skyrocket. So, no, HFR is not the answer.

In fact, this project highlights what happens when you do as much as you can to speed up the route. Eventually, it gets to be too busy for the existing infrastructure and needs to be upgraded to it's own ROW.

That is what I would want to see on all routes. For the long hauls, every day, each way should be a must. This would mean you can cross Canada on daily trains.

Routes that could be added, and could be viable are the ones that used to exist but were cancelled as they were not on CN ROW. The Canadian currently runs where it does, not due to usage, but due to the fact that both CN and Via were both owned by the Crown at the time they switched over.



It would be using the CP Belleville and Havelock Subs

To my understanding most of the former trackage between Havelock and Perth is no longer under railway ownership and much of it was re-purposed as part of the Trans Canada Trail. The tracks were abandoned between Glen Tay and Tweed way back in 1971 and then from Tweed to Havelock in 1987. I was in Tweed a couple years ago and saw the Trans Canada Trail, it goes right through the heart of the town and would need to be removed in order to re-establish a railway there.

At the Toronto end, they would need to reactivate the abandoned CP tracks that connect the Belleville Sub to the Bala Sub east of Union Station. To my understanding there are also capacity issues at CP's Agincourt Yard which would present a problem for any new passenger rail; it was ultimately the roadblock to Metrolinx introducing a GO line to Peterborough.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

It still is a contributing factor. Calgary lost VIA Rail service and also its local CBC TV news in 1990 (though the latter was later restored). That was a double-whammy for them and it illustrated the neglect they felt from Crown corporations.

I thought that western Conservatives hated the CBC and couldn't care less if VIA existed. The current Alberta government wants to eliminate as much federal (Eastern) control as possible. That seems to show actual hostility towards federal and national institutions.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

It still is a contributing factor. Calgary lost VIA Rail service and also its local CBC TV news in 1990 (though the latter was later restored). That was a double-whammy for them and it illustrated the neglect they felt from Crown corporations.

The loss of the Calgary VIA service has NOTHING to do with being a crown corporation nor Ottawa as it was very much the result of an action taken by an Albertan, namely Don Mazonkowski.

He was the Minister of Transportation during the Mulroney administration when the VIA cuts took place. One of the Western routes had to go and logic would dictate that the Southern/Calgary route would be the one that would still operate but logic was trumped by politics. Mazonkowski represented an Edmonton riding and hence the northern route was chosen to guarantee his re-election.

I know it's fashionable to blame Ottawa for all of Albertans woes but VIA choosing the northern route was very much a consequence of an Albertan.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The loss of the Calgary VIA service has NOTHING to do with being a crown corporation nor Ottawa as it was very much the result of an action taken by an Albertan, namely Don Mazonkowski.

He was the Minister of Transportation during the Mulroney administration when the VIA cuts took place. One of the Western routes had to go and logic would dictate that the Southern/Calgary route would be the one that would still operate but logic was trumped by politics. Mazonkowski represented an Edmonton riding and hence the northern route was chosen to guarantee his re-election.

I know it's fashionable to blame Ottawa for all of Albertans woes but VIA choosing the northern route was very much a consequence of an Albertan.

I've heard this repeated over the years but I frankly doubt it.. it sounds like an urban myth. Not that Mazankowski was the kingpin there during the Mulroney years, but that he somehow engineered things to screw Calgary. For one thing, the CN route had operational advantages given that VIA still needed to run the route to Prince Rupert that branched off from it, and VIA also historically had a closer relationship with CN than with CP - even now, almost no VIA service is left on CP tracks. Also, VIA never had much of a presence in Alberta to begin with so it's not like we're talking about hundreds of jobs that were at stake. It would have had a fairly minor impact.

Either way Calgary or Edmonton would have been left out and if it had gone the other way, we'd be hearing about how the provincial capital of Alberta has no rail service, etc.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Providing only daily rail service is about as good as doing nothing (actually, it's worse), the market for that service will be tiny. It will be too inconvenient for most people, unreliable, slower than a bus and expensive to run so will need subsidy to keep ticket prices low. The only people served would be the less well off, and they would be better served by buses, which would be faster, more frequent and more reliable. If it wasn't for the Canadian's tourist customers, we likely wouldn't run the northern route either.

Providing a super crappy rail service to western cities isn't going to solve western alienation, all it will do is worsen VIA's financial situation. If there is to be spending by VIA in the west, the only place that makes sense is Calgary - Edmonton, then build out from there. But that could, and perhaps should, be done by Alberta, if the people gave a crap about it, which they don't.

You do know that the Corridor was crappy? You do know that over time, the need was seen and it has been improved upon over the decades?

Nothing will solve Western Alienation, but things like this could lower it, even slightly. By arguing it, you are effectively doing what they complain about them, being ignored. Quit ignoring them. Put it in, see if it is used. I'll bet it will be used.

Originally Posted by esquire

On the list of issues triggering western alienation, the lack of passenger rail service would have to be somewhere around page 20.

Go out west... if you are from Ontario or Quebec, you have no understanding of what they complain about, but as an Ontarian, I lived out there for a few years. the Government of Canada barely exists as an entity out there. Putting something, like another Via service out there would make the Canada brand exist there more.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Right. I do not understand why spending billions on a route with no current service and unknown market potential would be priority, versus spending that money on routes with growing ridership, and known pent up demand. It seems to be a no-brainer.

If HFR is truly successful, which means that it generates a profit, then other routes can be explored. However, even then, the next priority will almost certainly be southwestern Ontario with a potential Amtrak connection to Detroit and Chicago. This connects far more population than any western connection can possibly achieve.

I am not against studying a Calgary-Edmonton connection but we need to prove that the HFR model is successful first. Canada does not have the financial resources to be building dedicated passenger rail lines all over the country.

There continues to be pressure from the Conservative movement to cut taxes which limits what infrastructure that can be built.

HFR is not what I am suggesting, nor would be be a good idea out there anyways. HFR makes sense on routes that are well used and have too much traffic on the line.

Why do we build new highways? Why do we build new transit routes? Because they don't exist and there is no ridership. I'll bet a study could be done, and most likely could show that there could be a demand for service. Just like how they show a demand exists for an LRT or subway where none is.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

To my understanding most of the former trackage between Havelock and Perth is no longer under railway ownership and much of it was re-purposed as part of the Trans Canada Trail. The tracks were abandoned between Glen Tay and Tweed way back in 1971 and then from Tweed to Havelock in 1987. I was in Tweed a couple years ago and saw the Trans Canada Trail, it goes right through the heart of the town and would need to be removed in order to re-establish a railway there.

At the Toronto end, they would need to reactivate the abandoned CP tracks that connect the Belleville Sub to the Bala Sub east of Union Station. To my understanding there are also capacity issues at CP's Agincourt Yard which would present a problem for any new passenger rail; it was ultimately the roadblock to Metrolinx introducing a GO line to Peterborough.

https://rac.jmaponline.net/canadianrailatlas/

Zoom into Peterborough. Follow the line east till it ends. That is where it would continue. Not on the Bala Sub. Yes, it is a rail trail, but, that is a placeholder status for it to be held as needed for the future. That is one of the many purposes of having a rail trail.