dowlingm
Senior Member
Shinkansen
A traveler's guide to the shinkansen, Japan's high speed trains (aka bullet trains).
Imagine - giving passengers a choice!
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
crs1026
Senior Member
I suspect the issue is partly purchase and maintenance cost, partly underseat space, partly the cost (time and attention more than wages) of having crew attend to this detail at turnaround points. But more importantly - configuration control and a predictable rider experience. The seating has to exactly match whatever was offered on line and what customers anticipate when they board. One balky or mis-pointed seat that faces the wrong way is all it takes to ruin some traveller's day and confuse a bunch more.
(Have you ever been on a plane when somebody's seat isn't as expected? Some people go incredibly ballistic, which is the last thing the cabin crew need when they are trying to get everyone seated and luggage stowed - even if another seat can be found).
I have been on so many trains facing backwards in enough countries that it no longer bothers me. However my observation would be that it sure bothers North American travellers. The dilemma is whether to force them through a transition (which 90% will eventually adapt to) versus entrenching their mindset and making it harder to transition.
A good online system that lets you know at time of booking which way you face, coupled with an operating culture and system that delivers exactly the train you booked to, is the best solution imho. Heck, Norwegian Railways even tell you if there is a pillar facing your seat, or if you have the full picture window. Seatguru.com likewise.
My personal preference is - I hate quads. Don't turn your seat to face mine. But half the railways in the world insist on 'em. People in other places sure seem to get by that way.
- Paul
(Have you ever been on a plane when somebody's seat isn't as expected? Some people go incredibly ballistic, which is the last thing the cabin crew need when they are trying to get everyone seated and luggage stowed - even if another seat can be found).
I have been on so many trains facing backwards in enough countries that it no longer bothers me. However my observation would be that it sure bothers North American travellers. The dilemma is whether to force them through a transition (which 90% will eventually adapt to) versus entrenching their mindset and making it harder to transition.
A good online system that lets you know at time of booking which way you face, coupled with an operating culture and system that delivers exactly the train you booked to, is the best solution imho. Heck, Norwegian Railways even tell you if there is a pillar facing your seat, or if you have the full picture window. Seatguru.com likewise.
My personal preference is - I hate quads. Don't turn your seat to face mine. But half the railways in the world insist on 'em. People in other places sure seem to get by that way.
- Paul
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
Not quite. It's a government agency. Procurement is written with an eye to value. Making turnable seats mandatory and paying a premium for them or limiting rolling stock selection is hard to justify unless you can show that passengers are more likely to travel or pay for a premium for it. The goal in most government contract writings is to minimize the number of mandatory requirements.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I disagree that this will be a huge deal.
We've learned enough from the airlines. Passengers book by price and schedule before anything else. The reason air travelers go bonkers when seating is screwed up, is because they've usually paid a premium for that specific seat. The vast majority though are booking tickets on which they might not even have a say on which seat they take. And a 4-abreast train car means you will always have an aisle or window seat, with nobody one side of you.
I would bet that the percentage of the public who won't take VIA specifically because of rear facing seats will be very small. And VIA can simply allow seat selection or even charge for it to give passengers who truly want a front facing seat a chance to pay for that choice.
Moi aussi. It's the poor man's solution to the actually meeting space that's offered on higher end services. But it sucks to get assigned that seat when you don't want it.
crs1026
Senior Member
I may have related a Toronto-Ottawa trip this year that opened my eyes. Our coach was roughly half full on leaving Toronto, with plenty of people seated facing the rear. When the Service Manager came through the car, they were immediately pounced on by people wanting to switch seats. The SM replied that sure, the car was not slated for further boarding en route, so pick any seat you like. There was an immediate stampede for the forward seats, with people cramming in to sit two to a seat just to face forward. Having lost my seatmate, I stretched out and enjoyed the rear-facing space (and the picture window) to myself. To each their own !
Charging for seat selection is an interesting idea... I bet the new consists will prove to have some more desirable and some less desirable seats. Maybe we won’t know until they have seen a good amount of service.
I have seen airline passengers lose it because the window seat they booked turned out to be a row with a blank wall and no window... although these days one gets glared at if one leaves the blind up, causing glare in the entertainment screens. Air travel has long lost its allure for me, so I book aisle seats where I can stretch and use the loo without bothering anyone. I regularly pay the premium for the added legroom seats. The added cost is usually no more than a dinner out somewhere. Why people book those super cheap seats with no space astounds me, unless they are 5 feet tall.
- Paul
dowlingm
Senior Member
Somehow missed out on VIA losing access to Halifax Terminal (Halterm) loop in November 2020 (previously announced in 2018 and a deferral was negotiated). Gonna be interesting to see how VIA works around that issue.
kEiThZ
Superstar
And an old one. Airlines have monetized so much of the experience. And for all the whining, passengers still pay up. If the service is hourly and the fare is more or less what it is today, VIA could absolutely get away with charging for seat selection.
And once you put a price on something, people react very differently. Airlines these days have preferred seats in Economy. I've been on flights with a good bit of the preferred section was empty. One person bothered asking if they could sit there. And after being denied, they simply went back to playing with their phone in a normal Y seat. Would the folks on the train have bombarded that service manager to take up other seats if they were compelled at booking time to pay more for front facing seats? Also, VIA could then use free seat selection as a perk or even reserve front facing seats for preferred customers.
The real question here is how much does VIA get hurt by rear-facing seats. And I see no evidence, it's genuinely hurting VIA's bookings.
Because they are booking on price, as I said earlier. Expedia, Travelocity, etc. wouldn't exist if the average customer was even a bit more discriminating.
The only rarity are certain airlines like Southwest (does not allow booking on any engine) or JetBlue (effectively an upgraded economy experience). And that market clearly has a limit.
This where trains can really sell. Brightline offers 39" of seat pitch in Economy and Business Class. VIA's existing seating must be somewhat close. Compare this to 30-31" in Y and 36-39" in J on Air Canada and WestJet. This is the real advantage of a train.
I wish train cabin designers would leverage some of their knowledge from aviation to build better train cabins. It's always been bizarre to me that economy is comparatively luxurious on a train compared to a bus or airplane, and yet business class is such a marginal upgrade over economy, and barely on par with air. I would think trains would be able to offer fantastic business class seating. I am not a trainco economist, but I've always wondered why trains can't offer podded seats/suites like you would see on airline long haul. Airlines now see enough value to do this on routes as short as 5 hrs (YYZ-YVR, YYZ-SFO, etc.). So surely, there would be a case for something close on a 4 hr Union-Gare Centrale HFR ride. Not even necessarily a lie-flat seat. Just a podded cabin with good recline and infotainment/IFE (or I guess it's En Route Entertainment for a train?). If I'm going to pay as much as air fare for Via 1, I don't see why I can't get a private space to do work for a few hours en route.
I am sure @Urban Sky will crush my dreams shortly. LOL. But this should be way easier to pull off on a train than an airplane:
ANA unveils meter-wide business-class seats to squeeze out rivals
Self-contained spaces to feature industry-first 4K screens
asia.nikkei.com
And I can imagine could command a relatively healthy premium, if not schedule constrained (ie hourly service....).
Last edited:
crs1026
Senior Member
I must be the exception, but I would never book airfare on anything but an airline web site. One gets plenty of access to seat sales, advance booking price reductions, etc on the airline websites, and it’s easier to validate the extra charges for baggage, seats, cancellation, etc. I wonder about the elasticity of budgets too - how many people would decide not to travel if they did not have the ability to save $50 by changing planes in say Raleigh NC? It’s astounding to me but apparently I’m the only one not hetting it!
As much as I enjoy the experience when I’m on expenses, when on my own tab I can’t justify the value added by VIA Business Class. The meals are tasty but are effectively still airline food, or at least the grade of airline food that one remembers. Business fare is a lot of money to pay for That meal and a couple of free drinks. VIA isn’t the first business to figure out that people will pay a lot more than the cost of alcohol actually consumed for the sense that the “bar is open” - but I certainly find plenty of people who seem to go Business class for this experience alone. A really usable workspace might indeed make the difference.
- Paul
crs1026
Senior Member
I can't say I'm overjoyed with the velocity (Final Cabinet approval is said to be aimed for March 2021), but it does appear that this project may indeed have some momentum that may get it across the goal line. First encouraging word in a while:
Via Rail, Canada Infrastructure Bank look to hire engineering team for new Quebec City-Toronto line
- Paul
Via Rail, Canada Infrastructure Bank look to hire engineering team for new Quebec City-Toronto line
- Paul
mdrejhon
Senior Member
March 31, 2021 -- the deadline to complete all HFR design & engineering documents before a Cabinet Decision to approve VIA HFR or not.
I wonder what government mix will be seated on that date!
I wonder what government mix will be seated on that date!
littlewill1166
Active Member
No more freight delays (at least for a couple of days). https://www.cbc.ca/news/cn-rail-1.5364440
kEiThZ
Superstar
" I take the train" does not equal a business case for VIA.
You know what is flippant? Your concern for responsible government spending.
Also, with nearly two decades in the CAF, I've had plenty of time in rural Canada and am just one province short of my Canadian bingo card.
Since when is VIA in the business of providing social services? If the bleeding heart argument is there, why only Sudbury? How many other towns should VIA service, and how many billions do you think the government should commit to that cause?
What's ignorant is pretending that what was true in the era before everyone had a car and when air travel was extremely expensive, is just as true today.
I suggest you do the same on public finances.
kEiThZ
Superstar
March 2020 is the more interesting date. Target for getting the routing and stations scrubbed.
crs1026
Senior Member
I was encouraged by the comment that a first task will be to assess curves and the potential for easing some. This strikes me as a desirable sanity check especially for the Peterboro- Perth segment. There is an impact on both cost and timekeeping here, and as one who just can’t shake reservations about the route, this is useful and possibly reassuring analysis even if it takes some time. Likewise, it seems that tunnel sharing with REM is not dead yet.
Whether it’s strategy or unintentional outcome, it’s beginning to feel like this work might just roll on to the point where everyone is so gradually acclimatised that it leads to a decision to proceed.....
- Paul
tmlittle
Active Member
I think virtually every populated place in Canada should have passenger rail. I don't particularly care about finances. These are political choices and there is plenty of money here if there was a government aggressive enough to take something from mining, logging, and petrochemical companies for a change.
Ah, I see another cost that could be cut...