VIA Rail

[DSC]

The problem is that GO train service isn't well co-ordinated with VIA.

As GO service gets even more frequent I think that will solve the coordination issues. Ideally you would be able to buy a ticket from, say, Montreal to Ajax and get off VIA at Oshawa and get next GO train.

 

[crs1026]

Guildwood and Oshawa might have made sense in 1967, when the former replaced Danforth as the short-of-Union stop, and Oshawa was a sizable community compared to Pickering Whitby and Ajax. But the suburbs have filled in since then, and we have 30 minute GO headways. I wonder if Oshawa serves Durham Region all that well. Similarly, I wonder if Guildwood is the best place to stop in Scarborough.

If one approached the problem with a clean slate, perhaps one of Pickering, Whitby or Ajax might replace both stops. One would want good connections to Durham Transit (which isn't that frequent, actually). Having the VIA run non-stop west of Durham Jct is helpful, to keep the timing clear of GO trains altogether.

Adding a stop while retaining Oshawa and Guildwood is not helpful. If we do see the Havelock route take away through service, a Pickering stop will put one more stop on the remaining milk runs, making these even slower. If the investment is on the Kingston, adding the Pickering stop won't help the goal of 2:40 to Ottawa.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

I wonder if they do HFR what the stops will be. It'll be turning north before Guildwood.

 

[Fritter]

The problem is that GO train service isn't well co-ordinated with VIA.

With 1/2 hour GO service, I would assume the worst you would have to wait for the next GO Train would be 29 minutes.

 

[dowlingm]

As GO service gets even more frequent I think that will solve the coordination issues. Ideally you would be able to buy a ticket from, say, Montreal to Ajax and get off VIA at Oshawa and get next GO train.

Wait no longer:

 

[nfitz]

Why do you wait 63 minutes for the GO Train? 3 minutes might be tight, but what about 33 minutes?

 

[Fritter]

Must be an error in schedules in VIA's system. If train 63's arrival in Oshawa is 13:33, then GO has westbound departures at 13:38 and 14:08 before the 14:36 departure.

 

[gweed123]

I wonder if they do HFR what the stops will be. It'll be turning north before Guildwood.

That was my thought too. If Via switches to using the Peterborough route, this may all be academic.

And FWIW, I'd include VIA stops at one of either Don Mills north of Eglinton, or Lawrence & Victoria Park, and at 407 & Donald Cousens Parkway.

 

[jcam]

Guildwood and Oshawa might have made sense in 1967, when the former replaced Danforth as the short-of-Union stop, and Oshawa was a sizable community compared to Pickering Whitby and Ajax. But the suburbs have filled in since then, and we have 30 minute GO headways. I wonder if Oshawa serves Durham Region all that well. Similarly, I wonder if Guildwood is the best place to stop in Scarborough.

If one approached the problem with a clean slate, perhaps one of Pickering, Whitby or Ajax might replace both stops. One would want good connections to Durham Transit (which isn't that frequent, actually). Having the VIA run non-stop west of Durham Jct is helpful, to keep the timing clear of GO trains altogether.

Adding a stop while retaining Oshawa and Guildwood is not helpful. If we do see the Havelock route take away through service, a Pickering stop will put one more stop on the remaining milk runs, making these even slower. If the investment is on the Kingston, adding the Pickering stop won't help the goal of 2:40 to Ottawa.

- Paul

When Eglinton East LRT is built, it will have a GO/VIA/LRT interchange at Guildwood, which could be useful for VIA passengers.

 

[smallspy]

Why do you wait 63 minutes for the GO Train? 3 minutes might be tight, but what about 33 minutes?

I do believe that VIA's online booking system will only allow connections for more than 45 minutes. There is definitely some sort of time limit built into it, although I could have sworn it was 30 minutes.

In any case its entirely academic, as the GO trains are not sold on a per-seat basis. If the VIA train gets there in time, you take that train 3 minutes later. If not, you take the next one.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Urban Sky]

In any case its entirely academic, as the GO trains are not sold on a per-seat basis. If the VIA train gets there in time, you take that train 3 minutes later. If not, you take the next one.

The terms and conditions of the tickets sold by VIA Rail for GO trains can be found here:
Source: http://www.viarail.ca/en/travel-info/transport-services/intermodality/go-transit

 

[chrisvazquez7]

A train between Calgary and Edmonton seems like such a no brainer. But starting up a service where none exists is a complicated task. Probably a long term goal for Via, but I wouldn't expect anything to happen anytime soon. Does an abandoned or underused rail line existing between the two cities?

A daily service to Banff and Lake Louise would be a lot like one to Collingwood and also seems like a no brainer. But I'm a skier so maybe I'm biased.

CP has a direct line between Calgary and Edmonton with most of the line being 50-55 mph. And that's for freight, so the track would be good enough for 70 - 80 mph passenger most likely. The line goes directly through the large towns and cities between as well such as Wetaskiwin, Ponoka, Red Deer, Airdrie, etc.

It amazes me that VIA doesn't have a service between Calgary and Edmonton as the infrastructure is there, and the ridership would be there (Air Canada and WestJet have hourly flights between the two cities). Usually when intercity train service is talked about in Alberta, it immediately goes straight to HSR, and so it's always dismissed as too expensive and not feasible. It's unfortunate.

Also not 100% certain, but I believe the Rocky Mountaineer runs trains between Vancouver and Calgary with stops in Banff and Lake Louise. Not sure how frequent they are though. And I'm sure they're very expensive.

 

[gweed123]

CP has a direct line between Calgary and Edmonton with most of the line being 50-55 mph. And that's for freight, so the track would be good enough for 70 - 80 mph passenger most likely. The line goes directly through the large towns and cities between as well such as Wetaskiwin, Ponoka, Red Deer, Airdrie, etc.

It amazes me that VIA doesn't have a service between Calgary and Edmonton as the infrastructure is there, and the ridership would be there (Air Canada and WestJet have hourly flights between the two cities). Usually when intercity train service is talked about in Alberta, it immediately goes straight to HSR, and so it's always dismissed as too expensive and not feasible. It's unfortunate.

Also not 100% certain, but I believe the Rocky Mountaineer runs trains between Vancouver and Calgary with stops in Banff and Lake Louise. Not sure how frequent they are though. And I'm sure they're very expensive.

I think if the Via HFR model is successful in the TOM triangle, the same model could be applied between Edmonton and Calgary. Not quite HSR, but better than a "conventional" Via service.

 

[dowlingm]

CP has a direct line between Calgary and Edmonton with most of the line being 50-55 mph. And that's for freight, so the track would be good enough for 70 - 80 mph passenger most likely. The line goes directly through the large towns and cities between as well such as Wetaskiwin, Ponoka, Red Deer, Airdrie, etc.

It amazes me that VIA doesn't have a service between Calgary and Edmonton as the infrastructure is there, and the ridership would be there (Air Canada and WestJet have hourly flights between the two cities). Usually when intercity train service is talked about in Alberta, it immediately goes straight to HSR, and so it's always dismissed as too expensive and not feasible. It's unfortunate.

I think an 80mph (maximum) stop everywhere service does not sufficiently distinguish itself from road alternatives to gain traction. Given the likelihood of having to operate over slow freight approaches to central Calgary and Edmonton, all the more reason to make the track outside urban constraints at least HFR/125mph, albeit at significant capital cost to acquire the land for such an alignment.

 

[MisterF]

CP has a direct line between Calgary and Edmonton with most of the line being 50-55 mph. And that's for freight, so the track would be good enough for 70 - 80 mph passenger most likely. The line goes directly through the large towns and cities between as well such as Wetaskiwin, Ponoka, Red Deer, Airdrie, etc.

It amazes me that VIA doesn't have a service between Calgary and Edmonton as the infrastructure is there, and the ridership would be there (Air Canada and WestJet have hourly flights between the two cities). Usually when intercity train service is talked about in Alberta, it immediately goes straight to HSR, and so it's always dismissed as too expensive and not feasible. It's unfortunate.

Also not 100% certain, but I believe the Rocky Mountaineer runs trains between Vancouver and Calgary with stops in Banff and Lake Louise. Not sure how frequent they are though. And I'm sure they're very expensive.

As far as I know that train is a private tourist train. Basically a land cruise. Far more expensive than regular Via trains and not very useful for everyday transportation.

I think if the Via HFR model is successful in the TOM triangle, the same model could be applied between Edmonton and Calgary. Not quite HSR, but better than a "conventional" Via service.

The problem is that Via would need its own corridor or else it would be subject to the same interference it puts up with on the rest of its network. The CP line that was mentioned earlier would probably be perfectly viable for conventional service though, it just wouldn't be the same as what they're proposing in Ontario and Quebec.