News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.2K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 999     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 371     0 

VIA Rail

Urban Sky said:
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
Click to expand...
Yeah, it will be funny to have to explain that you must catch a specific GO train.

Ideally, I'd treat the online VIA purchase like a timed GO ticket -- you have a few hours to catch any GO train at the moment of payment. Rather, you have a few hours to catch any GO train after the moment of the arrival of the VIA train. Intermodal should be improved with an asterik, especially in the upcoming 15-min 2-way RER era. So I would suggest gradually migrating the intermodal fine print to something roughly like...

"*Suggested GO RER boarding time. Since this commuter train runs every 15-minutes, you are allowed to board an earlier or later GO RER train. Your ticket allows you to complete your GO RER ride anytime within 4 hours after arrival of the VIA train."

Hopefully the GO inspectors already defacto treats it that way, if you decide to board a GO train 1 hour early... Because I would!
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
smallspy said:
I'm aware of that passage, and to be honest I think that it's frankly unenforceable. GO fares are valid for a specified amount of time - 2 and a half hours - and not for specific trains.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
Click to expand...
Catch 22

Technically, one needs to ask "two and a half hours from what."
People buy GO tickets one month in advance as part of a connecting fare to a VIA train.
And what if the VIA train arrives three hours late...Etc.

VIA ideally should clarify the connecting rules in the RER era. Unenforceable or not, it becomes non-sequitur as a requiring a scheduled subway train time, in the coming RER era...
 
MisterF said:
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.
Click to expand...

Private, and paying CP at a pricing level well above what VIA pays - well enough, in fact, to secure it priority over CP's most urgent freight trains.

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.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that for many years, the record speed for a Canadian train was set on this very line. It has the longest tangent segment of any rail line in Canada.

Passenger service was cancelled in part because of the high capital cost of improving safety at the many unprotected level crossings en route. I don't know how many of these have been upgraded over the years. It may be a simpler proposition than when service was cancelled.

CP's traffic on the line is not heavy but it is high priority. There would have to be adequate siding capacity to handle CP's freights. But it's probably easier to fit HFR with a 95-110 mph top speed than it is in Ontario.

The issue is - price. CP will want top dollar to allow passenger on this line. Co-production options exist, and there are restorable banked lines parallel to the CP line. Overall, it's eminently doable. The question is what the ridership projection would be, and does Alberta need/want it. If there is no gain for Trudeau's Liberals, it won't get funded.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
Private, and paying CP at a pricing level well above what VIA pays - well enough, in fact, to secure it priority over CP's most urgent freight trains.



Don't forget that for many years, the record speed for a Canadian train was set on this very line. It has the longest tangent segment of any rail line in Canada.

Passenger service was cancelled in part because of the high capital cost of improving safety at the many unprotected level crossings en route. I don't know how many of these have been upgraded over the years. It may be a simpler proposition than when service was cancelled.

CP's traffic on the line is not heavy but it is high priority. There would have to be adequate siding capacity to handle CP's freights. But it's probably easier to fit HFR with a 95-110 mph top speed than it is in Ontario.

The issue is - price. CP will want top dollar to allow passenger on this line. Co-production options exist, and there are restorable banked lines parallel to the CP line. Overall, it's eminently doable. The question is what the ridership projection would be, and does Alberta need/want it. If there is no gain for Trudeau's Liberals, it won't get funded.

- Paul
Click to expand...

And there should only be five stops: Calgary Downtown, Calgary North (with a shuttle to YYC), Red Deer, Edmonton South/Leduc (with a shuttle to YEG), Edmonton Centre (probably in Old Strathcona, just short of Downtown Edmonton unless the High Level Bridge is reopened to heavy rail.) An additional commuter run could stop at Innisfail, Olds, and/or Airdrie.

There are two bus operators on this route: Greyhound and Red Arrow. Red Arrow is a higher-end service, with upgraded 2+1 seating, assigned seats, and refreshments on board. That market would likely switch to rail.
 
There is also a CN line from Calgary to Edmonton.

Via could setup a milkrun on one line and an express service on the other.

koAoyt0.png
 
alexanderglista said:
Two interesting VIA-related articles:

Housakos: The federal government must boost VIA Rail security
http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/co...deral-government-must-boost-via-rail-security

Collenette, Gunn urged to apply for VIA board posts
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php...-gunn-urged-to-apply-for-via-board-posts.html
Click to expand...

Though I am all in favour of "increased security" for VIA, I am not sure if it is any more vulnerable to terrorist attacks than other far more critical and heavily travelled rail operations like GO, TTC and STM in Montreal. Housakos recommends "enhanced background checks on employees and contractors. Random screenings also provide spontaneity to security that is both effective and a powerful detractor for potential wrongdoers." Are TTC and GO employees screened? Passengers are certainly not screened, and it would be impossible to do so.
 
Security people I have dealt with have told me that for any infrastructure operation, the embittered or mentally ill employee remains their most likely threat scenario. It's prudent to have this area managed well.

The whole railway right of way is porous, as anyone who hears about "pedestrian contact" incidents knows. That is unlikely to change in this country, although much of the key hardware and control points (e.g. dispatch centers and signal installations) are already hardened and secured. Railway police are a pretty thinly stretched force, and even if they were beefed up there's a limit to their ability to be everywhere all the time.

If VIA were to implement airport-style screening for passengers, it would put a big part of their face-to-cutomers at risk. Having security presence at stations, with random screening and/or sniffing dogs etc, is all for the good, but their personnel had better be damn polite about it. Air travellers often don't have other options - train travellers do. (PS - I'm actually a bit suspicious of a Senator advocating extensive and expensive added security - that sort of kindness may actually be a sneaky way to undermine VIA's profile altogether.)

- Paul
 
robmausser said:
There is also a CN line from Calgary to Edmonton.

Via could setup a milkrun on one line and an express service on the other.

koAoyt0.png
Click to expand...

The CN line is far inferior in many ways. First of all it is way less of a straight line, and built to lesser standards. The maximum speed on the Camrose Sub is 40 mph, but a lot of it is 25 mph. Not sure about the Three Hills Sub, but I believe it's similar. CP's line is much better in terms of the towns it services, and the speeds/standards it's built to.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top