VIA Rail

[crs1026]

I'm curious why they would go with both a panorama lounge and a dome. It seems like the dome is made redundant. Having a car that will only be used for the Canadian is a wasteful extravagance. Not sure why they wouldn't want the dome on the Ocean as well if they are going to order them. Otherwise having a uniform fleet of Panorama lounges on all services seems like the right choice.

The dome gives a much superior view and is a drawing point for socialisation. I would want enough of them in a trainset so there is not excessive competition for seats, and if there are distinct classes of service (eg Prestige vs sleeper vs coach) I would want enough so that all classes have 24/7 access. One token dome on a long train is not optimal.

I wonder what amenities are intended for dome and Panorama - snack or bar service ?

I am not an expert in how the old domes were constructed - the earliest demonstration versions had a conventional center sill with the raised dome simply sitting on risers - were the production models a more complex body style with upper and lower compartments ? Likely a more costly car to qualify and build, but a signature feature for VIA. I would want them on the Ocean also.

- Paul

 

[reaperexpress]

There is a near-universal phenomenon to differentiate between short-distance modes like buses, streetcars, subways and urban/suburban/regional trains (which have generally a flat fare and don’t require advance booking, reflecting that most trips made are spontaneous and recurring) and long-distance modes like intercity coach or ferry services (which usually need to be booked in advance and often vary their fares according to demand, reflecting that most all trips are pre-planned and occasional).

The former are usually called “transit” and run and funded by the government (either directly - like TTC or STM - or indirectly - like ONxpress or the REM), whereas long-distance modes are usually run by private or nominally profit-oriented state companies. Using “transit” for VIA or Amtrak services including their long-distance routes renders this term useless. If everything is transit, also nothing is transit…


1. Baggage car
2. Coach
3. Dining car (with panoramic windows)
4. Room sleeper (all 2-person accommodations - no more roomettes)
5. Accessible sleeper (all accessible bedrooms)
6. Berth sleeper (all berths - and based on comments on other car types, presumably with upper berth windows)
7. Prestige sleeper
8. Panorama lounge (wrap around windows, lounge space, cafe)
9. Dome lounge (apparently only for the Canadian)

Re: Via news release: New trains from coast to coast

groups.io

I don't think it's hard to understand why the distinction regional rail (transit) intercity rail (not transit) would be unclear to most citizens in a country with very little rail service per capita. People generally agree that a subway train is "transit" but an airplane is not. But between a subway train and a Via long distance train there's basically a continuous spectrum through regional trains and intercity trains. You and I know that the GO train that connects Toronto and Niagara Falls in 2h15 is "transit" while the Via train that connects those stations in 1h58 is not. But to the average citizen, they're both just trains.

Even in countries like Germany where people generally have decent familiarity with how trains work, I don't imagine that people think of a DB Regional Express train (transit) as a fundamentally different mode of transport as a DB Intercity train (not transit) running on the same line and making similar stops.

 

[micheal_can]

I'm curious why they would go with both a panorama lounge and a dome. It seems like the dome is made redundant. Having a car that will only be used for the Canadian is a wasteful extravagance. Not sure why they wouldn't want the dome on the Ocean as well if they are going to order them. Otherwise having a uniform fleet of Panorama lounges on all services seems like the right choice.

Has it been stated where it would or would not be used?

 

[turbanplanner]

I don't think it's hard to understand why the distinction regional rail (transit) intercity rail (not transit) would be unclear to most citizens in a country with very little rail service per capita. People generally agree that a subway train is "transit" but an airplane is not. But between a subway train and a Via long distance train there's basically a continuous spectrum through regional trains and intercity trains. You and I know that the GO train that connects Toronto and Niagara Falls in 2h15 is "transit" while the Via train that connects those stations in 1h58 is not. But to the average citizen, they're both just trains.

Even in countries like Germany where people generally have decent familiarity with how trains work, I don't imagine that people think of a DB Regional Express trains (transit) as a fundamentally different mode of transport as a DB Intercity train running on the same line and making similar stops.

IMO the two reasons I never saw GO and VIA as comparable (for transit) is the scheduling and the cost. If I want to go to the falls it cost me $10 round trip with GO and there were 3 direct trains AND bus + train trips if the timing didn't work out.

for the same trip via is $54 and has ONE trip per day!

 

[drum118]

VIA Rail Canada issues RFQ

 

[Admiral Beez]

I wonder if it’s a uniquely Canadian thing that most of our provincial capitals have no passenger rail connections to another - I believe all of Australia's state capitals are connected via passenger rail (if you have weeks to do it). Only Halifax, Quebec City, Toronto and Winnipeg have such intercity rail connections, leaving the 1.5 million residents of the other six provincial capitals cut out. Meanwhile in the mainland USA, my quick check shows that thirty out of 49 US state capitals have Amtrak service. Mind you, if for example the governor of California is invited to visit the governor of Vermont they’d best be prepared for an epic Amtrak journey, as I calculate it's 80–85 hours, not accounting for layovers, transfers, or delays between Sacramento and Montpelier, with transfers in Chicago and Albany. Now, I don’t mean to trigger our resident contrarians into telling us why intercity passenger rail between provincial capitals would not, should not or could not be provided. I'm just having a bit of fun.

 

[Islington Express Bus]

I wonder if it’s a uniquely Canadian thing that most of our provincial capitals have no passenger rail connections to another - I believe all of Australia's state capitals are connected via passenger rail (if you have weeks to do it). Only Halifax, Quebec City, Toronto and Winnipeg have such intercity rail connections, leaving the 1.5 million residents of the other six provincial capitals cut out. Meanwhile in the mainland USA, my quick check shows that thirty out of 49 US state capitals have Amtrak service. Mind you, if for example the governor of California is invited to visit the governor of Vermont they’d best be prepared for an epic Amtrak journey, as I calculate it's 80–85 hours, not accounting for layovers, transfers, or delays between Sacramento and Montpelier, with transfers in Chicago and Albany. Now, I don’t mean to trigger our resident contrarians into telling us why intercity passenger rail between provincial capitals would not, should not or could not be provided. I'm just having a bit of fun.

You forgot Edmonton.

Also, three of our capitals are on islands, so it's really only an exclusion of Regina and Frederickton.

 

[lenaitch]

You forgot Edmonton.

Also, three of our capitals are on islands, so it's really only an exclusion of Regina and Frederickton.

And the territorial capitals. Rail to Iqaluit !!! Where's Michael?

 

[Admiral Beez]

You forgot Edmonton.

I did. Back in the 1980s I took the VIA from Toronto to Calgary. I forgot that VIA now goes via Edmonton instead. It's a shame that both Alberta cities couldn't have VIA service.

Also, three of our capitals are on islands, so it's really only an exclusion of Regina and Frederickton.

A fixed link from St. John's NL and the ROC would have been doable, though I can't see it being financially viable, especially a tunnel! Where did all that NL oil wealth go?

We'd need to lay 1,600 kms of standard gauge (1,435 mm) track from St. John's to Labrador. Heck, I'd take that train just for fun, once.

 

[crs1026]

^Do a count of US state capitals served by Amtrak and the results aren't that different.

Government centers are not necessarily a good criterion for passenger demand, or for access to rail infrastructure. Ottawa has virtually no freight access, either. Do federal civil servants' lifestyles not generate a need for goods and materiel ?

BTW in the case of Victoria, the transportation options and infrastructure linking it to Vancouver and beyond are well developed and involve considerable taxpayer investment. Not having a train service in the mix simply doesn't matter.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

A fixed link from St. John's NL and the ROC would have been doable, though I can't see it being financially viable, especially a tunnel! Where did all that NL oil wealth go?

It has not disappeared, but it's not a growth industry. Probably paying off the investment debt, but not a lot of margin.

We'd need to lay 1,600 kms of standard gauge (1,435 mm) track from St. John's to Labrador. Heck, I'd take that train just for fun, once.

Been to NL plenty - and every time, seeing the trackless ROW tugs at my heart, but that's nostalgia and not business sense.

Let's not draw lines on a map and dream. It's gone, gone, gone.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

When it comes to North American State/Provincial capitals, Victoria and St. John’s really compete with Juneau and Honolulu for the title of the most disadvantageous location for justifying non-urban rail operations…

 

[Mihairokov]

When it comes to North American State/Provincial capitals, Victoria and St. John’s really compete with Juneau and Honolulu for the title of the most disadvantageous location for justifying non-urban rail operations…

Lots of countries don't have any rail at all, most of them smaller islands, but the one that sticks out most and is most relevant here is Iceland, which at one point had short freight rail lines but today has none.

I consider it similar to PEI in that regard. For those who may not know, PEI's debt from building their initial railways in the 1860s basically paved the way for them joining Confederation, as when they did the railway and its debt became a federal responsibility in exchange for PEI joining confederation.

 

[micheal_can]

And the territorial capitals. Rail to Iqaluit !!! Where's Michael?

I am letting others fantasize about rail serving places it doesn't. I have beat that horse deader than anyone thought possible. Anything can be done with enough money and political will. Id rather focus my thoughts on places that still have rail to it.

 

[lenaitch]

I did. Back in the 1980s I took the VIA from Toronto to Calgary. I forgot that VIA now goes via Edmonton instead. It's a shame that both Alberta cities couldn't have VIA service.

A fixed link from St. John's NL and the ROC would have been doable, though I can't see it being financially viable, especially a tunnel! Where did all that NL oil wealth go?

We'd need to lay 1,600 kms of standard gauge (1,435 mm) track from St. John's to Labrador. Heck, I'd take that train just for fun, once.

I want what they're smoking. All that to serve a population of about 1/2 million (all-in, Labrador included), much of which lives on the Avalon Peninsula (greater St. John's).

Running across Labrador in the winter wouldn't be any problem.