VIA Rail

[wopchop]

As someone who used to ride these trains regularly its too many stops.

Wyoming, Woodstock, Ingersoll, Glencoe stops are a joke.

You can't just stop at every town, you gotta cross reference projected potential ridership of said stops versus how many riders you will dissuade from taking the train.

Like me for example, they added more and more stops and got rid of any 'express' service until it was no longer worth it taking the milk-run 5 hour train to Sarnia. So I bought a car.

I don't disagree that some stops might have to be eliminated. But ssiguy should cut out the hyperbole. There aren't a huge number of stops at all. Even with the stops that you mentioned, Ingersoll & Glencoe are only served by 2 trains a week.

I also disagree that the stops are the biggest hindrance on VIA's schedule. I believe that there was a good analysis done on this (maybe in this very thread) by reaperexpress. The CEO himself admitted that trains currently average 112 km/h, and that poor infrastructure is preventing them from traveling closer to their top speed of 170km/h. The best way to speed up the service would be to invest in the infrastructure, which the managers of the railway seem to agree with.

To see this, all you need to do is look at the schedule, compare train #71 to train #83. Train #71 makes all station stops to London and takes 2:10 minutes. Train #83 skips 2 station stops (Oakville & Ingersoll) and takes 2:12 minutes. Obviously the two trains are operating at two different times of the day, but to me, that only reinforces the point that the schedule is limited by the infrastructure. The PM Peak Train #83 is competing with local GO PM Peak service for track time.

 

[nfitz]

As someone who used to ride these trains regularly its too many stops.

Wyoming, Woodstock, Ingersoll, Glencoe stops are a joke.

You can't just stop at every town, you gotta cross reference projected potential ridership of said stops versus how many riders you will dissuade from taking the train.

Like me for example, they added more and more stops and got rid of any 'express' service until it was no longer worth it taking the milk-run 5 hour train to Sarnia. So I bought a car.

Looking at the (only) Sarnia train VIA runs - train 87. It only takes a bit longer than it used than the same train in 1988 - mostly between Kitchener and London (oddly London to Sarnia is quicker than it used to be!). Probably some major track maintenance issues. There's actually less stops than there used to be, now that Watford is gone.

The real issue is that's now only train. Back in 1988 there used to be 3 trains a day from Toronto to Sarnia through Kitchener and one through Brantford (which was the one to Chicago).

Montreal-Ottawa, Montreal-Quebec, Montreal-Windsor, Ottawa-Toronto, and Toronto-Windsor services have fared pretty well. But the Sarnia service hasn't.

 

[crs1026]

I'm looking back at the 82-83 schedule, when there were 11 trains daily from Toronto to London on the Brantford route alone. Four of these were 2:05 and one was 2:00. One of these was non-stop and the other four made one stop, either Oakville or Brantford. At that time, there was unidirectional block signalled track from Paris to London versus today's CTC. And there were fewer medium-speed turnouts en route. Windsor saw six trains per day.

I have to admit I'm pinching myself - in contrast to today it seems almost absurdly fast and frequent.

There are more track constraints now - today's longer freight trains creep up the Dundas hill, and frequently stall. So that section is effectively limited to single track for VIA - check the current schedules and you'll note that while VIA is less frequent than in the past, there is one VIA train on the Dundas hill for good portions of the day. There is a permanent slow order west of Aldershot, and at Copetown, too. And VIA frequently needs to cross over (at 30 mph) to access stations en route.

On the Stratford route, VIA ran five trains each way in 82-83, and they were packed. Right now, there is signalling and crossing protection upgrading going on along that route. Hopefully we will see higher speeds and more schedules when that is finished.

Fares are much higher than in the past - I was quoted $34 for a Toronto-Guelph ride recently - I walked across the street and found a GO bus for much less than that!

VIA's current reality is much more equipment-constrained than previously. VIA can't cultivate Toronto-Brantford business if seats will then be empty all the way to Windsor. The most recent LRC overhauls do not address life expectancy.

In all - yes, it would be nicer for trains to go a little faster, but 2-hour travel time to London is auto competitive. Train frequency, and price, are probably the main deterrents to hauling more people. There is probably a point where more trains at less price would generate more ridership and more net revenue than at present. I question whether VIA has enough equipment to offer that many seats. But a very small number of BBD bilevels, fitted with long distance seats and better washrooms, would create new opportunities.... not that big an expense in the scheme of Ontario's infrastructure spending.

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

I question whether VIA has enough equipment to offer that many seats. But a very small number of BBD bilevels, fitted with long distance seats and better washrooms, would create new opportunities.... not that big an expense in the scheme of Ontario's infrastructure spending.

The newer accessible-washroom GO bilevels now have better washrooms than all the older VIA trains already. With GO (RER) about to be vastly out-spending VIA by an order of magnitude, and trainsets get replaced, it might even make sense to someday (in the further future) offload a few bilevels to VIA for refurbishment to intercity service, when getting a number of EMUs.

It would probably have to be a distinct kind of "economy" VIA service designed to bring more frequencies to VIA's intercity network. The widths of the corridors make it hard to bring large bags upstairs. The upper levels of bilevels aren't very accessible for baggage-toting people with the narrow stairways, and it would be very difficult to do snack carts on the multiple levels. Although it could be made to work with a higher-frequency economy discount VIA route, using concession-tray-carrying attendants, with some luxury seating on one of the levels, baggage stow and accessible seating on the lower level, and plusher seats and softer lighting than GO, while running a new high-frequency economy intercity service. I doubt VIA would be very interested in the bilevels as they were really designed for commuter operation, and VIA would want to run a very distinct train service.

 

[crs1026]

The upper levels of bilevels aren't very accessible for baggage-toting people with the narrow stairways, and it would be very difficult to do snack carts on the multiple levels.

You make a good point, I hadn't thought about the snack carts. Although, I have always preferred the snack bar model - getting up and walking around is one of the nice things about train travel. VIA went with the snack cart thing in part because the LRC interior is a bit narrower than the older coach dimensions. Might not be a problem in a different railcar. Bilevel TGV's do just fine with snack bars and no cart service.

I doubt VIA would be very interested in the bilevels as they were really designed for commuter operation, and VIA would want to run a very distinct train service.

VIA hasn't minded borrowing bilevels in a pinch I brought them up because they are an in-production, available locally product that will have parts available and possibly would be good enough with some modifications from the commuter design (different doors, luggage racks, and maybe the stairs could be modified somehow to be a bit wider?) Superliners and California Cars have the same constraints, and they are popular. In the quantity needed, any other solution is likely much more expensive.

VIA may want a brand that is differentiated from GO, and more high end, but a funded mongrel brand is better than a sophisticated pure brand that has no funding. Again, Amtrak provides examples of how state funding/branding and Amtrak branding can be combined. Having VIA and GO work collaboratively is critical. I don't mind seeing provincial tax money flow to VIA - if anyone thinks that Ottawa is taxing Saskatchewan to pay for rail passenger in Ontario, they should think again. It would be Ontario tax money no matter which level of government it comes from.

- Paul

 

[gabe]

Fares are much higher than in the past - I was quoted $34 for a Toronto-Guelph ride recently - I walked across the street and found a GO bus for much less than that!

That's crazy. I paid $35 for a one way Amtrak ticket from Detroit to Chicago.

I take the GO bus/train or Greyhound. VIA's times and prices are horrible.

 

[dowlingm]

A 5.30ish train would be fantastic ex London. At present when visiting for business I'm resigned to rushing through the day or getting back into Toronto at all hours. How fast a train is isn't all that relevant if you can't depart near to the time you would like.

As for VIA prices, remember they have minimum fares they are obliged to adhere to. Funnily enough while VIA's site does mention minimum fares, I can't actually find what they are in the current site design. Transport 2000 wrote about this in 2004:

v) Eliminate Minimum Fares – See example below of how this pricing practice discourages riders.Example - Between Kitchener and Guelph is a busy transportation corridor. Fare structuring at VIA prohibits VIA from capturing some of this market. Via charges the high price of $29.96 for a return Kitchener Guelph trip. This trip is approximately a twenty minute ride. There is little to nil local traffic between these cities as a result of Via fares.

 

[robmausser]

To see this, all you need to do is look at the schedule, compare train #71 to train #83. Train #71 makes all station stops to London and takes 2:10 minutes. Train #83 skips 2 station stops (Oakville & Ingersoll) and takes 2:12 minutes.

Once you fix the issues of freight and other delays by having dedicated tracks, and the trains can run closer to their top speeds, all these stations will make much more of an impact.

I don't mind having one milk run a day, but if you spend billions on new trackage for higher speeds, then the majority of the trips should not stop so often as it will negate the reason for having new trackage.

 

[ssiguy2]

VIA has not changed with the times. When train travel began it was something that everyone used. From big cities to small towns to rural areas, trains connected the country. VIA {and services before it} were based and grew on that model and it worked well. The problem is that it now longer reflects the way we move and yet the service type has stayed the same.

In VIA's attempt to offer some service to everyone the result is that no one gets served well.

 

[ehlow]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/06/05/via-rail-ceo-says--demogr_n_7513370.html
Via Rail CEO Pushes For Expansion Amid 'Renaissance Of Train Culture In Canada'

 

[mdrejhon]

An emerging railroad renaissance is true in Ontario from what we're seeing:

- GO electrification
- 7 new LRTs funded and/or under construction
- Union revitalization
- UPX airport train

Population will be more used to taking trains in 10 years from now.

Kitchener-Waterloo (ION LRT), Ottawa (Confederation LRT), and perhaps London (proposed LRT), will have rail rapid transit to their main city train stations, making the VIA profitable corridor even more potentially profitable.

VIA is wanting in this train renaissance action. Private funding will be difficult to come by unless many concessions are made, much like Virgin Trains (another PPP thing) in the United Kingdom. Government help in expropriating corridor, but more private operated and branded trains. A possible new subsidiary of VIA, with cheaper employees, much like Rouge of Air Canada. That may be the only way to get private onboard.

Now Virgin Trains operate every 20 minutes on some routes. And more economically viable than VIA. Imagine walking to a train and hopping onto an Ottawa-Toronto or Ottawa-Montreal train subway-style -- almost as conveniently as tapping a Presto card, using a branded budget trainset different from VIA's regular trainsets. Heck, Presto could be adopted!

PPP screwed up is problematic (see 407) but if VIA is desparate, there's ways to make a satisfactory PPP happen. Not everyone's preferred option. But workable. Private companies are actually interested and attended VIA's marketing pitch which hopefully pointed out Ontario's emerging train renaissance. $3 billion funding *could* eventually be attracted, preferably more to cover cost overruns. Could work!

We are jaded and doubt VIA, but a corner is definitely being turned over the next 10 years in Ontario train renaissance, so we shouldn't dismiss this fully, especially if the next government is supportive.

 

[crs1026]

We are jaded and doubt VIA, but a corner is definitely being turned over the next 10 years in Ontario train renaissance, so we shouldn't dismiss this fully, especially if the next government is supportive.

Ottawa will definitely be in a much different situation as so many new transit investments come on line in Ontario, with demonstrated support and popularity. It will be much harder to downplay VIA's potential role when there are stellar successes all around it. Let's hope the contrast is apparent to the voter.

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

I think if the Province had made their high speed rail southwest Ontario contingent on cooperation with VIA rather than any notion of going it alone, it would be a) more likely to end up happening and b) be a shot in the arm for VIA since it might spark QC into similar moves between Montreal and Quebec City. A possible issue would be interference from Ottawa because of political considerations since it would be both supportive of a Liberal government and of state transportation as opposed to private involvement.

 

[mdrejhon]

I think if the Province had made their high speed rail southwest Ontario contingent on cooperation with VIA rather than any notion of going it alone, it would be a) more likely to end up happening and b) be a shot in the arm for VIA since it might spark QC into similar moves between Montreal and Quebec City. A possible issue would be interference from Ottawa because of political considerations since it would be both supportive of a Liberal government and of state transportation as opposed to private involvement.

It's not mutually exclusive, and probably should not be. I think the door is still open on this. It all depends on what happens in the next federal election.

Roughly (with overlap), there's a lot of potential for cost-sharing.
Ontario handles London-Kitchener-Toronto
Quebec handles Montreal-Quebec City
Federal handles Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal

There may be overlap in funding, and fudge factors (e.g. Ontario could end up being responsible for corridor to Kingston, etc) depending on government, but this will be roughly how the high speed funding will probably align, by European precedent where each country were responsible for their section of high speed corridor. This way, Metrolinx runs high speed commuter GOtrains in Ontario, VIA runs high speed intercity trains along the whole corridor, and AMT (or some other Quebec agency) runs high speed commuter trains between Montreal and Quebec City.

It's wholly possible that at least one or two agencies proceeds with a section (e.g. Ontario doing London-Kitchener-Toronto) before any agreement at the federal level, especially if the next few governments aren't fully aligned between Ontario/Federal, but that does not preclude them from sharing the high speed express corridor over time.

See Europe where multiple train companies run high speed trains on somebody's else high speed corridor (e.g. Eurostar highspeed international EU trains using TGV highspeed track in France).

About the commuter train perspective -- a lot of Canadians still don't realize this -- high speed trains often attract a very large commuter audience. France's TGV high speed trains also double as commuter trains, so it is highly probable that any Ontario-funded highspeed will have a commuter-focussed perspective, given the previous mention of "could be as low as $10" highspeed train fares for frequent commuters. Anything between Toronto and Ottawa is going to cause eventual massive population booms between them, such as an accelerated increase of Kingstons' population -- which is very attractive from a government taxpayer funding perspective if Toronto/Ottawa are only an hour away from Kingston. Properly planned high speed trains have generally profitted governments, even if the high speed train itself only barely broke even.

Agreements can probably happen quickly after an election, in either direction -- "Ontario going at it alone with Metrolinx high-speed GO trains" versus a massive "Metrolinx, AMT, and VIA partnership $17.9 billion high speed train funding announcement" versus "Massive P3 consortium now building express VIA passenger tracks between Toronto and Ottawa, to save an hour off train journey and quadruple train frequency". Ontario will have already done their EA for their section, so they'll be ahead of the game and construction can begin sooner on this section of the HSR corridor.

 

[gweed123]

It's not mutually exclusive, and probably should not be. I think the door is still open on this. It all depends on what happens in the next federal election.

Roughly (with overlap), there's a lot of potential for cost-sharing.
Ontario handles London-Kitchener-Toronto
Quebec handles Montreal-Quebec City
Federal handles Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal

There may be overlap in funding, and fudge factors (e.g. Ontario could end up being responsible for corridor to Kingston, etc) depending on government, but this will be roughly how the high speed funding will probably align, by European precedent where each country were responsible for their section of high speed corridor. This way, Metrolinx runs high speed commuter GOtrains in Ontario, VIA runs high speed intercity trains along the whole corridor, and AMT (or some other Quebec agency) runs high speed commuter trains between Montreal and Quebec City.

It's wholly possible that at least one or two agencies proceeds with a section (e.g. Ontario doing London-Kitchener-Toronto) before any agreement at the federal level, especially if the next few governments aren't fully aligned between Ontario/Federal, but that does not preclude them from sharing the high speed express corridor over time.

See Europe where multiple train companies run high speed trains on somebody's else high speed corridor (e.g. Eurostar highspeed international EU trains using TGV highspeed track in France).

About the commuter train perspective -- France's TGV high speed trains also double as commuter trains, so it is highly probable that any Ontario-funded highspeed will have a commuter-focussed perspective, given the previous mention of "could be as low as $10" highspeed train fares for frequent commuters.

I proposed this during the Ontario election, and quite a few people raised some questions about my theory. I basically contended that there was a deal worked out between the Ontario Liberals and the Federal Liberals that Ontario would build Toronto-London or Toronto-Windsor, and the Feds would build Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, with the Quebec Liberals potentially adding on and building Montreal-QC. I admit that I have no inside info on such a plan, I'm just reading the tea leaves. Ontario's election came a bit earlier than expected, so they had to announce their part of the plan before the Federal Liberals had a chance to announce theirs.

The split certainly makes sense though, considering that Toronto-London and Montreal-QC are really only beneficial to Ontario and Quebec respectively, whereas Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal is a corridor of national significance, and is also trans-Provincial.