VIA Rail

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

In the east, VIA could be involved in commuter rail in Halifax, and increased frequency rail between Halifax/Truro/Moncton and Saint John. Why not? If it is frequent and reliable, people will take it.

The fundamental problem with ideas like this is that you're asking the feds to subsidize and run a commuter service. Imagine, Ontario asking the feds to provide GO service to the Golden Horseshoe.

It'd be different if VIA was contracted by the Government of Nova Scotia to provide this service. But there doesn't seem to any real interest from the provincial government doing this.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

But VIA has to remain a coherent national railway system, so some form of transnational service will have to remain. If Amtrak can do it, then why not us too.............

Does it have to be? Why could/should it not be a coherent national surface transportation system with railways, buses and ferries?

Amtrak runs a lot of services in the US on behalf of the States. The states pay the capital costs, and cover operating subsidies. In Canada, the provinces have shown no interest in using VIA as a contracted operating agency. So maybe VIA doesn't need to run services per se. It could just be an interline ticketing agent. As it does with GO in the Golden Horseshoe.

We're dealing with a very simple reality. VIA Rail despite being our national rail operator has an operating budget that is in the same ballpark as transit systems in Quebec City, Winnipeg, Hamilton, etc. They are just barely a "coherent national railway system". Functionally, they are far less than such a title should imply. I hope someday we can actually fund VIA and get it to a role and mandate that is actually about connecting Canadians.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

But VIA has to remain a coherent national railway system, so some form of transnational service will have to remain. If Amtrak can do it, then why not us too.............

You keep saying this, but why? Other than it looking nice on a map, what does this actually achieve? The route VIA takes through most of Canada is functionally useless for anything other than a tourist train (and since it needs subsidy, it fails at that too). The bulk of people live in the prairies live in 5 cities, and their needs are met by local transportation, with two of the cities having light rail networks. Even if Calgary had a VIA line to Regina and Winnipeg, it wouldn't matter as the service it would provide would be terrible. Fit for 1930, not for a world where cars and planes exist.

The failure of communication is that us ignorant prairie dwellers are being told what's good for us by easterners, and when we tell them that an infrequent railway that goes nowhere useful is not needed or wanted by us, we're told we are wrong.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's a difference between those who advocate for proper public transport. And those who are railfans. This thread makes the difference very obvious where various interests lie. From railfans to actual rail operators pimping for their companies getting a nice cut from heavily subsidized passenger rail services running on tracks owned by their employers.

I mean, I think trains are awesome, you could call me a railfan. But they have a time and a place, and I grew up in a place where they were used well for the correct purpose. I know what good rail transit is, and it looks nothing like what VIA provides in the prairies or feasibly could without massive investment. If you squint a little, it does look something like what VIA is proposing with HFR though.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The fundamental problem with ideas like this is that you're asking the feds to subsidize and run a commuter service. Imagine, Ontario asking the feds to provide GO service to the Golden Horseshoe.

It'd be different if VIA was contracted by the Government of Nova Scotia to provide this service. But there doesn't seem to any real interest from the provincial government doing this.




Does it have to be? Why could/should it not be a coherent national surface transportation system with railways, buses and ferries?

Amtrak runs a lot of services in the US on behalf of the States. The states pay the capital costs, and cover operating subsidies. In Canada, the provinces have shown no interest in using VIA as a contracted operating agency. So maybe VIA doesn't need to run services per se. It could just be an interline ticketing agent. As it does with GO in the Golden Horseshoe.

We're dealing with a very simple reality. VIA Rail despite being our national rail operator has an operating budget that is in the same ballpark as transit systems in Quebec City, Winnipeg, Hamilton, etc. They are just barely a "coherent national railway system". Functionally, they are far less than such a title should imply. I hope someday we can actually fund VIA and get it to a role and mandate that is actually about connecting Canadians.

In BC WestCoast Express (commuter rail in Vancouver), contracts out operating the train to Bombardier and I believe Via rail provides some of the maintenance services. Translink owning the rolling stock. I suspect every few years that contract comes up for renewal and tender. Via is probably as welcome as anyone else to bid.

The Vancouver-Seattle-Portland service is subsidized by department of Transportation in Washington State and Oregon. BC has had some involvement, not certain if was just improvements on the Canadian side or actual operating subsidy.

Overall this model does work. Via should be seeking out collaborations with provincial government.

Getting back to improving the frequency of the Canadian. Perhaps what we should be looking at is keeping the Canadian as the "National" "Trans-continental" server geared to tourists looking for that 5 day service. Instead take some of the rolling stock they may have and use it to provide a different type of service geared to locals. Not to replace the Canadian but to add additional frequency.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by casper

Getting back to improving the frequency of the Canadian. Perhaps what we should be looking at is keeping the Canadian as the "National" "Trans-continental" server geared to tourists looking for that 5 day service. Instead take some of the rolling stock they may have and use it to provide a different type of service geared to locals. Not to replace the Canadian but to add additional frequency.

I hope you are aware that the consequence of stealing some of the Canadian's rolling stock is to turn one service which somewhat (even if barely) recovers its operating costs into two services which will cost the taxpayer substantial amounts, while providing him with rather limited value...

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Well no, because those highways are well used, they justify the the investment. If we proposed building a parallel highway for the same cost, but also said only a hundred cars could go on it at 50km/h at one time per day, while the 110km/h freeway exists alongside, that would be equivalent to what you are proposing..

Those highways are in fact not well used compared to Alberta Hwy 2, the 400 series Hwys in ON, the Autoroutes in QC or the TCH in NB and NS. The TCH east of Medicine Hat is not busy on a consistent basis in 24 hour periods. I am not against provinces paying for this if they wish or even the federal government contributing some money to this but the federal contribution should not be made at the expense of rail service.

Who is proposing to build separate rail lines beside the existing freight lines in western Canada other than between Calgary and Edmonton? The answer is no one. Using existing track and improving it is another thing. It is like adding an additional lane on a multi lane highway. You don't turn a 4 lane highway into a 6 lane highway all at once because only certain sections need the additional lanes.

Who pays for the cost of constructing and maintaining all those lanes of pavement. Truckers and buses only pay a small share and car owners, including myself pay even a smaller share. Truckers like to say they pay for the road through their licensing and fuel taxes. Fuel taxes are a consumption tax on fuel, not a tax on road consumption. Fuel taxes go into general revenue in all provincial governments. Only a few jurisdictions in the US have road taxes based on mileage used and the weight of cargo transported, but they all have fuel taxes that are also paid by railways and airlines.

Originally Posted by milomilo

The number of people using the Canadian and Ocean for actual transportation is miniscule, and it would still be miniscule even if you made them somewhat more useful by running them daily. If one actually cared about public transportation you'd scrap those service and invest money in buses on those routes, since they'd be better in every way except "being a train", and put in bus routes over the vast majority of the country that doesn't happen to sit on a rail line.

Realistically though, everyone in Canada has a car so attempting to provide public transit to Rosetown Saskatchewan just isn't high on people's priorities. We instead do what is sensible and provide good public transit, often trains, in areas of high population density, like cities.

No one is suggesting providing service to Rosetown. What is being suggested is linking the major centres and medium sized cities in between to those cities. Some of this can be done without adding any more trains than we currently have. Now Urban_sky will say that it is going to cost more and result in less contribution margin even though you are servicing more larger centres than the current small centres. If you shorten the routes, you increase reliability and will increase ridership. The problem is that there have been no origin destination studies done with respect to improved or revised ( what ever you want to call it) to determine what the ridership would probably be depending on different frequencies and routings. If you don't look for solutions, you will never find them.

No one is saying there isn't a place for intercity bus service. The public will say they prefer depending on speed, price, frequency, routing and reliability and comfort. Unfortunately the rail system has deteriorated to such an extent due to government negligence in regulating railways that you have to fix all of these factors, but it is impossible to do it all at once. The trick is to find the sweet spot for all of these factors in order to attract the most passengers at the least cost.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Those highways are in fact not well used compared to Alberta Hwy 2, the 400 series Hwys in ON, the Autoroutes in QC or the TCH in NB and NS. The TCH east of Medicine Hat is not busy on a consistent basis in 24 hour periods. I am not against provinces paying for this if they wish or even the federal government contributing some money to this but the federal contribution should not be made at the expense of rail service.

Who is proposing to build separate rail lines beside the existing freight lines in western Canada other than between Calgary and Edmonton? The answer is no one. Using existing track and improving it is another thing. It is like adding an additional lane on a multi lane highway. You don't turn a 4 lane highway into a 6 lane highway all at once because only certain sections need the additional lanes.

The highways exist. Running slow VIA trains won't get rid of them, and those slow VIA trains haev to compete with those fast highways. Without massive investment, using the highway to travel will win every time.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

No one is suggesting providing service to Rosetown.

Correct - because your priorities are completely wrong. You are not interested in providing useful transportation options, you are only interested in providing a train only for the sake of it being a train. If you actually cared about giving rural residents public transit, you'd be asking why only the residents along the old railway routes are deserving of any service.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

What is being suggested is linking the major centres and medium sized cities in between to those cities. Some of this can be done without adding any more trains than we currently have. Now Urban_sky will say that it is going to cost more and result in less contribution margin even though you are servicing more larger centres than the current small centres. If you shorten the routes, you increase reliability and will increase ridership. The problem is that there have been no origin destination studies done with respect to improved or revised ( what ever you want to call it) to determine what the ridership would probably be depending on different frequencies and routings. If you don't look for solutions, you will never find them.

No one is saying there isn't a place for intercity bus service. The public will say they prefer depending on speed, price, frequency, routing and reliability and comfort. Unfortunately the rail system has deteriorated to such an extent due to government negligence in regulating railways that you have to fix all of these factors, but it is impossible to do it all at once. The trick is to find the sweet spot for all of these factors in order to attract the most passengers at the least cost.

Until you spend massively (far more money than would be worth it) then a long distance train will always be worse by important measures than a bus, train or car. You need to accept this, because what you wish for is never going to happen and this conversation is incredibly tired, boring and annoying.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Again, who cares? .

Who cares? Everyone looking ahead to the future.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Or, better still, two wildly divergent views on the future of passenger rail in the country, with the gulf between these divergent views so wide and deep, that it will never be bridged.

It is interesting how you state that. It is a very true statement and a fact of the political landscape these days. Some people on here, I now know which way they lean politically, just by various comments. The problem is that we are dividing further apart more and more. It is the only way certain parties can get elected.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's a difference between those who advocate for proper public transport. And those who are railfans. This thread makes the difference very obvious where various interests lie. From railfans to actual rail operators pimping for their companies getting a nice cut from heavily subsidized passenger rail services running on tracks owned by their employers.

Most of Canada does not have proper public transit. If we did, we would not need a relief line in Toronto. We wouldn't be squabbling over a singular commuter rail out west, and highways would not need to constantly be widened or new ones built. We have the best that our political landscape can do with what it wants to do to get elected. What if every time a line opened it was like adding a new bus route? No fanfare. No politician cutting tape, etc. Then I would agree we have proper public transit.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The fundamental problem with ideas like this is that you're asking the feds to subsidize and run a commuter service. Imagine, Ontario asking the feds to provide GO service to the Golden Horseshoe.

It'd be different if VIA was contracted by the Government of Nova Scotia to provide this service. But there doesn't seem to any real interest from the provincial government doing this.

This may surprise you, but the 3 commuter rail services in Canada are subsidized by the federal government. So are most, if not all public transit. Look next time on a bus, and you will see the city, the province and the federal governments all listed there. There is a reason for that.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Does it have to be? Why could/should it not be a coherent national surface transportation system with railways, buses and ferries?

Amtrak runs a lot of services in the US on behalf of the States. The states pay the capital costs, and cover operating subsidies. In Canada, the provinces have shown no interest in using VIA as a contracted operating agency. So maybe VIA doesn't need to run services per se. It could just be an interline ticketing agent. As it does with GO in the Golden Horseshoe.

We're dealing with a very simple reality. VIA Rail despite being our national rail operator has an operating budget that is in the same ballpark as transit systems in Quebec City, Winnipeg, Hamilton, etc. They are just barely a "coherent national railway system". Functionally, they are far less than such a title should imply. I hope someday we can actually fund VIA and get it to a role and mandate that is actually about connecting Canadians.

We are dealing with a country where some provinces would rather not even offer universal healthcare. So, to say give money for Via to run or we wont, it would see that line no longer run, or at least stop there. That is not how a federation works.

I do agree the budget is far too lo. I feel it should be doubled, but that is wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by milomilo

You keep saying this, but why? Other than it looking nice on a map, what does this actually achieve? The route VIA takes through most of Canada is functionally useless for anything other than a tourist train (and since it needs subsidy, it fails at that too). The bulk of people live in the prairies live in 5 cities, and their needs are met by local transportation, with two of the cities having light rail networks. Even if Calgary had a VIA line to Regina and Winnipeg, it wouldn't matter as the service it would provide would be terrible. Fit for 1930, not for a world where cars and planes exist.

The failure of communication is that us ignorant prairie dwellers are being told what's good for us by easterners, and when we tell them that an infrequent railway that goes nowhere useful is not needed or wanted by us, we're told we are wrong.

It has been made functionally useless due to the cuts in the past by politicians. They cut the line that was busy and left the other one. They could have done work arounds. They could have planned for the need to move rolling stock for maintenance. It could have been contracted out locally. So, they have made it functionally useless to the point that it being shut down would not be missed.

Originally Posted by milomilo

I mean, I think trains are awesome, you could call me a railfan. But they have a time and a place, and I grew up in a place where they were used well for the correct purpose. I know what good rail transit is, and it looks nothing like what VIA provides in the prairies or feasibly could without massive investment. If you squint a little, it does look something like what VIA is proposing with HFR though.

Where did you grow up in?

HFR is not the saviour for Via or for the rest of the country. HFR is what happens when you have a busy line that needs to grow beyond what existing infrastructure can offer. I'd bet if you cut the Corridor down to 1 train the whole length every second day it would become irrelevant too. The fact that in the summer there is a demand for the train to be extended to 20 cars tells me that there is a need for more frequency that currently offered. So, a daily would be HFR for the Canadian route.

Originally Posted by casper

In BC WestCoast Express (commuter rail in Vancouver), contracts out operating the train to Bombardier and I believe Via rail provides some of the maintenance services. Translink owning the rolling stock. I suspect every few years that contract comes up for renewal and tender. Via is probably as welcome as anyone else to bid.

The Vancouver-Seattle-Portland service is subsidized by department of Transportation in Washington State and Oregon. BC has had some involvement, not certain if was just improvements on the Canadian side or actual operating subsidy.

Overall this model does work. Via should be seeking out collaborations with provincial government.

It does work, but right now is not the time for that. With provinces like AB cutting doctors to save money, now is not the time to ask the provinces for money. If you told the AB government that you would bring HFR to Calgary - Edmonton, but they must pay 1/4 the operating costs, it wouldn't happen

Originally Posted by casper

Getting back to improving the frequency of the Canadian. Perhaps what we should be looking at is keeping the Canadian as the "National" "Trans-continental" server geared to tourists looking for that 5 day service. Instead take some of the rolling stock they may have and use it to provide a different type of service geared to locals. Not to replace the Canadian but to add additional frequency.

That's what I have been saying.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Those highways are in fact not well used compared to Alberta Hwy 2, the 400 series Hwys in ON, the Autoroutes in QC or the TCH in NB and NS. The TCH east of Medicine Hat is not busy on a consistent basis in 24 hour periods. I am not against provinces paying for this if they wish or even the federal government contributing some money to this but the federal contribution should not be made at the expense of rail service.

Highway 11 and 17 in Northern ON have about the same frequency as a lot of the 4 lane highways on the Prairies. They are still 2 lane for much of the way.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Who is proposing to build separate rail lines beside the existing freight lines in western Canada other than between Calgary and Edmonton? The answer is no one. Using existing track and improving it is another thing. It is like adding an additional lane on a multi lane highway. You don't turn a 4 lane highway into a 6 lane highway all at once because only certain sections need the additional lanes.

Who pays for the cost of constructing and maintaining all those lanes of pavement. Truckers and buses only pay a small share and car owners, including myself pay even a smaller share. Truckers like to say they pay for the road through their licensing and fuel taxes. Fuel taxes are a consumption tax on fuel, not a tax on road consumption. Fuel taxes go into general revenue in all provincial governments. Only a few jurisdictions in the US have road taxes based on mileage used and the weight of cargo transported, but they all have fuel taxes that are also paid by railways and airlines.

Some on here have first been pushing HSR or nothing. Now they are pushing HFR or nothing. Switching to once or twice, each way every day would be HFR.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

No one is suggesting providing service to Rosetown. What is being suggested is linking the major centres and medium sized cities in between to those cities. Some of this can be done without adding any more trains than we currently have. Now Urban_sky will say that it is going to cost more and result in less contribution margin even though you are servicing more larger centres than the current small centres. If you shorten the routes, you increase reliability and will increase ridership. The problem is that there have been no origin destination studies done with respect to improved or revised ( what ever you want to call it) to determine what the ridership would probably be depending on different frequencies and routings. If you don't look for solutions, you will never find them.

No one is saying there isn't a place for intercity bus service. The public will say they prefer depending on speed, price, frequency, routing and reliability and comfort. Unfortunately the rail system has deteriorated to such an extent due to government negligence in regulating railways that you have to fix all of these factors, but it is impossible to do it all at once. The trick is to find the sweet spot for all of these factors in order to attract the most passengers at the least cost.

Where the heck is Rosetown?

Find the shortest rail line between the 5 major Prairie cities. and link them up. They would basically follow the major highways. They would also follow airline routes that are well served.

We are stuck in the loop of: No service means no data. No data means no need for service. Reality is, all of us on here, including the ones working for Via are all low people in the world without access to the resources to show the data that does exist for those corridors. I am slowly working on figuring out that data.

Originally Posted by milomilo

The highways exist. Running slow VIA trains won't get rid of them, and those slow VIA trains haev to compete with those fast highways. Without massive investment, using the highway to travel will win every time.

This isn't about getting rid of highway or planes. Fact is, a plane is much faster than a car, but are we suggesting lone distances should not be done in a car because we have planes?

Originally Posted by milomilo

Correct - because your priorities are completely wrong. You are not interested in providing useful transportation options, you are only interested in providing a train only for the sake of it being a train. If you actually cared about giving rural residents public transit, you'd be asking why only the residents along the old railway routes are deserving of any service.

I made a long list of questions that once you piece together the facts of those answers you start to see where the need actually is.

The need is in the regulations. Imagine that the Via train cannot be held up for any reason by a freight carrier. What you could see is the travel time cut in half due to increased average speed.

The people along the old railway lines are not the only ones deserving of it, but since it is there, let's utilize it first. Let's have it run on time. Let's have it run every day. Then let's look where else can be utilized.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Until you spend massively (far more money than would be worth it) then a long distance train will always be worse by important measures than a bus, train or car. You need to accept this, because what you wish for is never going to happen and this conversation is incredibly tired, boring and annoying.

You cannot match a car when you can get delayed for much of the route for things you have no control over. So, it sounds like you want Via to take that control. Good to hear.

[milomilo]

I grew up in the UK, a high population density country where rail makes sense everywhere.

The fact is, the routes you are suggesting that need "daily service" cannot justify rail service at all on their own. This is where the debate ends. So few people would take a Calgary - Regina - Winnipeg service that you couldn't justify running many frequencies, thus making it worse. Same with the Edmonton - Winnipeg portion, that only exists because the federal government forces VIA to do it out of some misguided priorities.

This will be the case forever. The only places that will get rail are high density areas - around cities and in a handful of cases, between them. If you want to go incrementally, start there, with the most viable routes. Not the least viable routes.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I grew up in the UK, a high population density country where rail makes sense everywhere.

The fact is, the routes you are suggesting that need "daily service" cannot justify rail service at all on their own. This is where the debate ends. So few people would take a Calgary - Regina - Winnipeg service that you couldn't justify running many frequencies, thus making it worse. Same with the Edmonton - Winnipeg portion, that only exists because the federal government forces VIA to do it out of some misguided priorities.

This will be the case forever. The only places that will get rail are high density areas - around cities and in a handful of cases, between them. If you want to go incrementally, start there, with the most viable routes. Not the least viable routes.

You are from the UK and have never heard of the Ghost Trains?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Most of Canada does not have proper public transit. If we did, we would not need a relief line in Toronto. We wouldn't be squabbling over a singular commuter rail out west, and highways would not need to constantly be widened or new ones built. We have the best that our political landscape can do with what it wants to do to get elected. What if every time a line opened it was like adding a new bus route? No fanfare. No politician cutting tape, etc. Then I would agree we have proper public transit.

Those is bordering on the No True Scotsman fallacy. Yes, Canada is lacking on transit investment. But Canada is also not the US or Australia, and has substantially higher ridership than comparable size metros in those countries.

And when it comes to the topic at hand, transit in cities is not very relevant. Certainly most of the cities VIA serves have decent enough transit for any short term visitor.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

This may surprise you, but the 3 commuter rail services in Canada are subsidized by the federal government. So are most, if not all public transit. Look next time on a bus, and you will see the city, the province and the federal governments all listed there. There is a reason for that.

And the school my kid goes to got a federal grant, does that mean the schoolboard in the next town should be 100% federally managed?

There's a huge difference between getting some federal support and expecting the federal government to effectively take on continuous liability for a service. And any such startup service in Halifax, would require federal contributions that are proportionately well beyond what is provided to GO, Exo and WCE.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

We are dealing with a country where some provinces would rather not even offer universal healthcare. So, to say give money for Via to run or we wont, it would see that line no longer run, or at least stop there. That is not how a federation works.

That is how service provision works though. And it is what allowed Amtrak to grow substantially in the US. Alternatively, we can keep as the starving bastard child, barely supported by the feds and not even really acknowledged by the provinces.

Looking at the routes, it's pretty clear there are only three services that are genuinely core to VIA connectivity mandate: Corridor, Ocean, Canadian. They should be allowed to divest from the rest.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You are from the UK and have never heard of the Ghost Trains?

What are you referring to?

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You are from the UK and have never heard of the Ghost Trains?

I have no idea what the UK's "ghost trains" have to do with anything which has been discussed here lately, but just to save people from wasting more thoughts on this lazy non-reply than necessary:
• Video Link

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

What are you referring to?

Something that our British cousins think is supremely wasteful and stupid:

There is no single definition of what constitutes a ghost train, although the general consensus is that it’s when a service is so infrequent, the train becomes effectively useless. Slippery or not, though, the term “ghost train” seems apt. It implies a service that is not exactly whole – something that whispers through towns and countryside, leaving barely a dent in its wake.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...t-ghost-trains

A definition that would apply to basically all of VIA's network outside the Corridor. But apparently, some railfans think we should expand the number of Ghost Trains in Canada.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Those is bordering on the No True Scotsman fallacy. Yes, Canada is lacking on transit investment. But Canada is also not the US or Australia, and has substantially higher ridership than comparable size metros in those countries.

And when it comes to the topic at hand, transit in cities is not very relevant. Certainly most of the cities VIA serves have decent enough transit for any short term visitor.

Sudbury has great transit for the size of city it is. Now, get off at the Sudbury stop called Sudbury Junction. Where is the nearest bus stop? What is the route to the bus stop from the station like to walk? At least the bus does go to the Capreol station, but what if you didn't know that?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And the school my kid goes to got a federal grant, does that mean the schoolboard in the next town should be 100% federally managed?

There's a huge difference between getting some federal support and expecting the federal government to effectively take on continuous liability for a service. And any such startup service in Halifax, would require federal contributions that are proportionately well beyond what is provided to GO, Exo and WCE.

I am not talking about grants. I am talking about regular federal payments to cover regular operating costs. Also, The federal government does not pay the same percentage across the board for all systems. Even within the province it is different.

Originally Posted by milomilo

What are you referring to?

Type in "UK Ghost Trains". Read about how passenger trains are running on routes that pick up no passengers. Then help me understand why you feel that is great. After all, you did state the UK is doing it right.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Something that our British cousins think is supremely wasteful and stupid:



https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...t-ghost-trains

A definition that would apply to basically all of VIA's network outside the Corridor. But apparently, some railfans think we should expand the number of Ghost Trains in Canada.

... those trains don't actually take passengers. You cannot book them. You cannot board them......

I feel that is stupid. I feel that if there i a train running, people should be able to use it.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Looking at the routes, it's pretty clear there are only three services that are genuinely core to VIA connectivity mandate: Corridor, Ocean, Canadian. They should be allowed to divest from the rest.

Abolishing the remote services would achieve nothing beyond adding to the long list of grievances of this country's First Nation communities, while freeing up a paltry $20 million in federal funding without any guarantee that any of that would be reinvested into passenger rail services, let alone: improved VIA services...

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Something that our British cousins think is supremely wasteful and stupid:



https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...t-ghost-trains

A definition that would apply to basically all of VIA's network outside the Corridor. But apparently, some railfans think we should expand the number of Ghost Trains in Canada.

Wrong, see the video I just posted! "Ghost trains" are train services run either at their absolute minimum frequency (say: weekly) or have been "temporarily" suspended (often for decades), simply to help rail companies in the UK to avoid going through the absurdly bureaucratic process of abandoning rail services, even if nobody needs them anymore...

[Truenorth00]

I think a huge problem with these discussions is that a lot of people discuss the European and Asian Austin from the perspective of our times there as tourists.

Canadian in Europe: "These super fast trains are amazing. They get me anywhere."

Canadian in Europe: Doesn't understand that high gas prices, substantial highway tolls and parking charges in urban centres substantially narrow the cost difference between driving and taking the train.

When it's so cheap to drive in Canada, and the train is infrequent, slow and expensive, there's really no way to close the gap without massive subsidies. And that's why the number of routes and number of frequencies outside the Corridor is so low.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

I have no idea what the UK's "ghost trains" have to do with anything which has been discussed here lately, but just to save people from wasting more thoughts on this lazy non-reply than necessary:
• Video Link

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Type in "UK Ghost Trains". Read about how passenger trains are running on routes that pick up no passengers. Then help me understand why you feel that is great. After all, you did state the UK is doing it right.

I figured it might be this - I'm not sure how you think this helps the argument, as these ghost trains are a rare occurrence, and we can all agree they are a result of broken policy and undesirable. But this sort of ghost train describes nearly the entirety of VIA's network outside of the corridor! No one uses the service because the alternatives are so superior, so it is run infrequently, thus making the service even worse! But the operator is forced to run the service because of government rules that haven't kept up with reality.

And look at what their definition of "ghost train" is - a service of once per day! Sound familiar?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Abolishing the remote services would achieve nothing beyond adding to the long list of grievances of this country's First Nation communities, while freeing up a paltry $20 million in federal funding without any guarantee that any of that would be reinvested into passenger rail services, let alone: improved VIA services...

I feel like that $20M needs to be specifically booked by INAC instead of VIA so that people understand exactly why those intraprovincial routes are run. Maybe an en route announcement to help make it really obvious. "This adventure route service is brought to you by Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. We're helping connect Canada's remote First Nations communities to the world."

What I was getting at though, was that when it comes to the core mission of connecting provinces, there's really only three services that matter.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Wrong, see the video I just posted! "Ghost trains" are train services run either at their absolute minimum frequency (say: weekly) or have been "temporarily" suspended (often for decades), simply to help rail companies to avoid going through the absurdly bureaucratic process of abandoning rail services, even if nobody needs them anymore...

I feel like this is a quibble on how usefulness is defined. Clearly a debate the British themselves are having on the topic. But if we're going to be more accurate, I guess the best way to look at this is that most of VIA's non-Corridor services run at frequencies similar to these Ghost Trains.