News   Mar 28, 2024
 252     1 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 631     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 376     0 

VIA Rail

Here is a copy of the presentation the VIA Rail president gave in Peterborough to a local chamber of commerce in November 2016. The file is a PDF of the slide deck, 1.6MB, and includes a clearer version of the map. This was the map that was pictured in the article covering the event where the president is speaking and map is displayed in the background. There's not a lot of new information in the deck (as best I can tell) but it is helpful to have the complete context of the remarks that were discussed here.
 
Last edited:
VIA is hiring engineers. Someone posted in another group I belong to that this is the first time they can remember VIA hiring engineers in a long time.

It may be the first time they have put out an ad in a while.....but I know of both recent retirees and some youngish people who are training or running trains for VIA.... so intake hiring has been happening. In many cases it has been experienced RTE's moving over from CP/CN rather than true 'street hires'. IIRC one of the issues in the accident at Aldershot was that the locomotive was being operated by a trainee who had recently come aboard from a short line.

- Paul
 
VIA is hiring engineers. Someone posted in another group I belong to that this is the first time they can remember VIA hiring engineers in a long time.
It may be the first time they have put out an ad in a while.....but I know of both recent retirees and some youngish people who are training or running trains for VIA.... so intake hiring has been happening. In many cases it has been experienced RTE's moving over from CP/CN rather than true 'street hires'. IIRC one of the issues in the accident at Aldershot was that the locomotive was being operated by a trainee who had recently come aboard from a short line.

- Paul
It's been 27 years since the 1990 cuts and if my personal calculations are right, the total scheduled train mileage has increased (recovered) by more than 40% on the entire Corridor to almost the pre-1990 level since then. As LE's (like all employees) retire after x years, I am sure that you can do the maths... :)


Concerning your speculation about Aldershot, I refer to the Railway Investigation Report submitted by the Transport Safety Board:
Transport Safety Board said:
The LE for VIA 92 had more than 33 years of railway experience, including 28 years as a locomotive engineer. The LE had initially worked as a locomotive engineer for Canadian National (CN) for 24 years before moving to VIA where he had worked for the past 4 years. The ICLE had 34 years of railway experience, including 25 years as a locomotive engineer. The ICLE had initially worked as a locomotive engineer for CN for 21 years before moving to VIA where he had worked for the past 4 years. The LE and ICLE were qualified for their positions, met rest standards and were experienced with the territory. They had worked together as a crew on a regular basis over the previous 16 months.

On this trip, a 3rd operating crew member was in the cab. This crew member was a locomotive engineer trainee who was on this trip as part of VIA familiarization training for trainees. A 3rd person in the cab is usually seated in the jump seat located between the LE and the ICLE. When a trainee accompanies a VIA crew, signal recognition and rules compliance are responsibilities shared equally among all crew members.

The trainee was a qualified locomotive engineer. He had 22 years of railway experience, including 9 years as a locomotive engineer. He had worked as a locomotive engineer for the Ottawa Central Railway (7 years) and for CN (2 years). He had been hired as a trainee by VIA in October 2011. As part of VIA’s locomotive engineer training program, the trainee had completed several assignments between Niagara Falls and Toronto. On some of these assignments, the trainee had been paired with the LE. The trainee met fitness and rest standards.

All 3 operating crew members were based in Toronto. On the day before the accident, the crew had come on duty at 1545 Footnote 1 and had worked westward from Toronto to Niagara Falls on VIA train No. 95 before booking off duty at 2109.

[...]

To extricate the operating crew, the locomotive roof was cut away and removed. The LE, ICLE and trainee were located in the area of the locomotive cab control stand and had sustained fatal injuries. It was determined that the LE was at the controls at the time of the accident. [emphasis added]


For those of you, who don't recall the 2012 accident near Burlington:
Transport Safety Board said:
Summary
On 26 February 2012, VIA Rail Canada Inc. passenger train No. 92 (VIA 92) was proceeding eastward from Niagara Falls to Toronto, Ontario, on track 2 of the Canadian National Oakville Subdivision near Burlington, Ontario. VIA 92, which was operated by 2 locomotive engineers and a locomotive engineer trainee, was carrying 70 passengers and a VIA service manager. After a stop at the station at Aldershot, Ontario (Mile 34.30), the train departed on track 2. The track switches were lined to route the train from track 2 to track 3, through crossover No. 5 at Mile 33.23, which had an authorized speed of 15 mph. At 1525:43 Eastern Standard Time, VIA 92 entered crossover No. 5 while travelling at about 67 mph. Subsequently, the locomotive and all 5 coaches derailed. The locomotive rolled onto its side and struck the foundation of a building adjacent to the track. The operating crew was fatally injured and 45 people (44 passengers and the service manager) sustained various injuries. The locomotive fuel tank was punctured and approximately 4300 litres of diesel fuel was released.
 
Last edited:
I've been following the thread for awhile and enjoying the discussion about the HFR project or the catchier French tagline "TGF - Train à grand fréquence"

Similar to the whispers out of Peterborough and tunnel-gate in Montreal, there is a growing optimism in the Québec press that this project will soon be confirmed. Specifically in Trois-Rivière discussions at the municipal government level have been taking place with VIA and have even progressed as far as identifying station locations and forging freight agreements with CN.

http://www.tvanouvelles.ca/2017/01/13/le-train-a-grande-frequence-sen-vient

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle...onomique-a-trois-rivieres-rouler-vers-lavenir

«Les messages que je reçois c'est que le train est sur les rails.»
Trois Rivière mayor Yves Leveque saying that the message he is getting [from the feds] is that the the project is on track. The article also suggests that the money is earmarked in the Spring budget for this project.


http://www.lapresse.ca/le-nouvellis...1701/18/01-5060868-la-gare-au-district-55.php
Further evidence today from another outlet discussing the two station locations on the table for Trois-Rivière.

The key quote is found near the end:
"Le maire confirme que les deux projets ont d'ailleurs déjà été présentés à Via-Rail, dans une optique où le train à grande fréquence devait être confirmé ce printemps. La Ville devrait prendre part à la décision finale en collaboration avec Via-Rail lorsque le moment sera venu."

Basically it said that the station locations have already being considered by VIA with an eye to approval this spring.
 
Montreal's REM is back in the news, and not in a good way. The connection of this to VIA is of course their plan to take over the Mt Royal tunnel, and deny VIA and AMT the use of that tunnel, throwing a huge wrench into VIA's access to Central Station from the North.

Here's two of a series of La Presse articles:
Electric train: the project must go ahead, says Denis Coderre
And a second:
Power train: BAPE throws cold water on the project of the Caisse http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/p...-douche-froide-sur-le-projet-de-la-caisse.php
Edit: English version:
Exclusive
Publié le 20 janvier 2017 à 05h00 | Mis à jour le 20 janvier 2017 à 11h58

Electric train: BAPE launches a cold shower on the Caisse's project
https://translate.google.ca/transla...de-sur-le-projet-de-la-caisse.php&prev=search
 
Last edited:
At present, VIA doesn't use the tunnel and can't until they get into the dual mode propulsion business using equipment Montreal fire authorities will sign off on, which took a while with the ALPs. That said, it is a bit much for the Caisse to trumpet "reusing infrastructure" which most people would interpret as additive, not merely converting it from one mode of transit to a different one.
 
This route has so much potential ridership for a day-tripper or dinner-train style service. It's a hugely popular travel destination and hotels in Banff are often full up in high Season. The ability to bring more people in each day from Calgary, and to then run a variety of day excursions fanning out from the depot at Banff will get rapt attention from much of the local tourist industry.

The problem is......operating cost, and cost of any added trackage. There is not much available capacity for a new passenger train on this route. The Rocky Mountaineer pays a pretty penny for their use of CP's tracks (just check out their fares!). They are not likely to oppose this service, since the two services target different markets, and if anything it may open the doors to shared economies by sharing terminal facilities in Calgary and Banff.....but they will certainly be unhappy if the new service is charged a lesser rate. Nor will they accept competition for the available track time. Maybe the new service would just take the RMR schedule slots on the days the RMR doesn't run....maybe it actually uses RMR equipment that would otherwise lay over in Calgary. Maybe it's a combined train that drops cars at Banff to be picked up by the eastbound Rocky later that same day for the return to Calgary.

I'm optimistic that once this genie leaves the bottle, it will eventually come to be. It's just too good for the tourist business out that way.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
Just forwarded the emailed copy of Alexander's post on the Banff scheme to an ex-Calgarian friend who revisits often and is an avid skier. He replies:
That's interesting. I've often wondered if a ski train would make sense. It could stop and at Banff, put a siding at the base of Sunshine Road and go on to Lake Louise. Bus people to the hill from there. On weekend mornings the traffic to Banff is incredibly heavy. Cars are more convenient but if they could make the train work we could have a few beers on the way home and relax.

That reference to "a few beers" indicates a market more like VIA's present price-structure as opposed to a commuter service. All things considered, I wonder if this isn't VIA's option to claim rather than a private provider?
 
Just forwarded the emailed copy of Alexander's post on the Banff scheme to an ex-Calgarian friend who revisits often and is an avid skier. He replies:


That reference to "a few beers" indicates a market more like VIA's present price-structure as opposed to a commuter service. All things considered, I wonder if this isn't VIA's option to take rather than a private provider?

I had assumed (for no good reason) that the train would be similar to the Denver Ski train, which is incredibly popular for exactly the same reasons. (but was cancelled for a few years due to insurance and other costs and difficulties working with Amtrak)

The suburb communities west of Calgary may have grown to the point where a commuter train is marketable as an alternative to Calgary traffic. But running that train all the way to Banff would be hugely expensive. That sounds more like Calgary to Cochrane or so.

However, there are an awful lot of well-oiled people with chalets near Canmore and Banff. Many have jobs in Calgary but do a fair bit of telecommuting. Others are plain retired. Maybe they would use an upscale long distance commuter train on an irregular to regular basis, for the days they need to be in the office.

I have wondered if Muskoka might represent a similar market, btw. So many folks living up there in upscale year-round cottages, with offices in the city. Come into town three or four days a week, work from the cottage the rest of the time. A train from Bala or Bracebridge, express south of Washago on CN or south of Mactier on CP, fare high enough to be an actual revenue opportunity that would interest the railways rather than annoy them. NOT your typical GO or VIA train.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
I have wondered if Muskoka might represent a similar market, btw. So many folks living up there in upscale year-round cottages, with offices in the city. Come into town three or four days a week, work from the cottage the rest of the time. A train from Bala or Bracebridge, express south of Washago on CN or south of Mactier on CP, fare high enough to be an actual revenue opportunity that would interest the railways rather than annoy them. NOT your typical GO or VIA train.

- Paul

I think the issues for Cottage and/or Park service are substantial. Not to say they aren't worth looking at.

If I wanted to use such a service, the first thing I want is a time that's competitive w/car travel (or better, ideally)

In looking at old Ontario Northland Schedules, I was not impressed. Best times in the range of just over three hours.

I think if left from work and caught a 5:30pm train, It would be close to 9pm to make Huntsville. There's then the matter of a last leg to a cottage/resort/Algonquin etc.

***

After timing, I'm looking my ability to make the trip, including last-mile support.

I have to have a car of my own at the cottage country end, OR carshare/car-rental, in all likelihood.

If going to a specific large resort or campground a bus might be viable. But I don't see that as a practical option for most cottagers.

Even then, w/the park/resort, the person is 'trapped' at that location if they lack a car, unless there is sustained by service linking various camping/hiking locations and probably local grocery as well.

***

I think the more meaningful opportunity for tourist services in Toronto are to Niagara (where there is local transit and a critical mass of attractions within walking distance), and Wasaga Beach and Blue Mountain/Collingwood. I think there's enough traffic to the latter, at least in their respective high seasons, and both feature walkable areas that it would work. Though, substantial track upgrades, and new spurs would be required. Whether the economics are there to support that I'm not so sure.
 
I have wondered if Muskoka might represent a similar market, btw. So many folks living up there in upscale year-round cottages, with offices in the city. Come into town three or four days a week, work from the cottage the rest of the time. A train from Bala or Bracebridge, express south of Washago on CN or south of Mactier on CP, fare high enough to be an actual revenue opportunity that would interest the railways rather than annoy them. NOT your typical GO or VIA train.

- Paul

It really is too bad Barrie has developed the train ROW north of its station. It would have been prime for a Niagara-type weekend train to see how it progresses (the other prime candidate is Stratford).

The only way you could get into Muskoka now is to continue out of the Barrie west towards Essa. Then a connection needs to be built just before Essa to transfer you onto the line that takes you to Horseshoe Valley/Severn Falls/Bala.

There are a lot of people who's family stays up in Muskoka for most of the summer while the other spouse works downtown. Would be a way to relieve the 400 traffic (they can be picked up at the train station by their family). But economically is it worth it for the 2-3 months that it would be needed?

But there are others who take their private helicopter to avoid traffic. Would a train service just be for the huddled masses? :)
 
I think the issues for Cottage and/or Park service are substantial. Not to say they aren't worth looking at.

If I wanted to use such a service, the first thing I want is a time that's competitive w/car travel (or better, ideally)

In looking at old Ontario Northland Schedules, I was not impressed. Best times in the range of just over three hours.

I think if left from work and caught a 5:30pm train, It would be close to 9pm to make Huntsville. There's then the matter of a last leg to a cottage/resort/Algonquin etc.

***

After timing, I'm looking my ability to make the trip, including last-mile support.

I have to have a car of my own at the cottage country end, OR carshare/car-rental, in all likelihood.

If going to a specific large resort or campground a bus might be viable. But I don't see that as a practical option for most cottagers.

Even then, w/the park/resort, the person is 'trapped' at that location if they lack a car, unless there is sustained by service linking various camping/hiking locations and probably local grocery as well.

***

I think the more meaningful opportunity for tourist services in Toronto are to Niagara (where there is local transit and a critical mass of attractions within walking distance), and Wasaga Beach and Blue Mountain/Collingwood. I think there's enough traffic to the latter, at least in their respective high seasons, and both feature walkable areas that it would work. Though, substantial track upgrades, and new spurs would be required. Whether the economics are there to support that I'm not so sure.
Niagara has infrequent Via trains and seasonal GO trains but it needs much better rail service. Unlike the resort areas, Niagara Region is an urban centre in its own right with several cities and 430,000 people. Tourist traffic is just a small part of the travel demand to that area. Regular GO commuter trains are planned.

Collingwood/Wasaga Beach/Blue Mountain is a prime candidate for rail because there's already a rail line and the highway to that area hasn't been upgraded to an expressway. It's a rare opportunity for the government to put its money where its mouth is and prioritize rail over driving for a change. If the money that might have otherwise been spent on further upgrades to Highway 26 were spent on upgrading the rail line instead, the cost suddenly wouldn't seem so prohibitive. The Barrie GO line is being upgraded already and a Collingwood train would simply be an extension of that. Wasaga Beach and Blue Mountain are compact areas where people tend to stay in one location, and between them and Collingwood they attract a lot of traffic year round. And they're all a pain to get to.

I also think that regular rail service would be feasible from Vancouver to Whistler and Montreal to Mont-Tremblant, assuming the tracks could be re-laid in the case of the latter. The fact that we're talking about these in hypothetical terms shows just how much our governments have favoured driving over the decades.
 
Collingwood/Wasaga Beach/Blue Mountain is a prime candidate for rail because there's already a rail line and the highway to that area hasn't been upgraded to an expressway. It's a rare opportunity for the government to put its money where its mouth is and prioritize rail over driving for a change. If the money that might have otherwise been spent on further upgrades to Highway 26 were spent on upgrading the rail line instead, the cost suddenly wouldn't seem so prohibitive. The Barrie GO line is being upgraded already and a Collingwood train would simply be an extension of that. Wasaga Beach and Blue Mountain are compact areas where people tend to stay in one location, and between them and Collingwood they attract a lot of traffic year round. And they're all a pain to get to.

.

I'm mostly in agreement.

Though, keep in mind this line is in the shambles and is total rebuild.

Also, the spur to Wasaga has challenges.

You do a short 3-4km spur into the south/west end of town. But that's the opposite end as most of the non-beach attractions, and the biggest, most used beaches.

There's really no where to run the train into town from that side.

So either its a bus connection;

Or you bring the spur around to the logical side, though their downtown, by Beach #1.

But that's a much longer spur.
 

Back
Top