News   Nov 27, 2024
Menkes Welcomes First Occupants to Festival at Assembly Park in Vaughan
 391     0 
News   Nov 27, 2024
News Roundup for November 27, 2024
 457     0 
News   Nov 27, 2024
Better Buy a Boat
 697     0 

VIA Rail

crs1026 said:
It's amazing how we in this country agonize about whether we can ever get passenger service above 95 mph, even with electrification .... while in the UK they just go out and do this

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/ne...ark_speed_clocked_by_Darlington_loco_Tornado/

Maybe we just ought to set our aim a little higher.

- Paul
Click to expand...

In fairness....

The hoops that need to be jumped through just to get to 100mph here pale in comparison to what it turns out they need to do in the U.K. just to get above 125mph.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
VIA (and more importantly Parliament) need to look at where it can make the most impact. The Canadian is needed. It's a commitment to our rural economies in a vast country.

But they should have built up the Quebec-Windsor corridor a long time ago. Ditto the Edmonton-Calgary corridor. And Saskatoon-Regina. And Kelowna-Vancouver. And Halifax-Fredricton (via Moncton). What good is calling VIA a national rail service when it focuses on Quebec-Windsor and tosses out a handful of long-distance trains elsewhere?

There are regional markets all over this country that VIA should have been tackling a long time ago. And these markets could be very profitable. If and when HFR goes through, I hope it prompts them to tackle other regional markets. VIA would attract much more public support if it actually served more of the country. And there are market where that could happen without huge subsidies (beyond initial capital).
 
^^^ but that notion is what, in part, got VIA into the state it is in today......using the same 19th century legal requirements in a 21st century reality. Contrary to what many believe, just because you build it does not mean they will come. Rural areas and small towns have already voted with their feet and it's on the accelerator. By trying to serve everyone, no one gets served well and the treasury is drained limiting service on busy routes so people in Churchill and Prince Rupert can have a train service.

You wouldn't build a subway between Sorel and Tracy for the sole reason to say they have one and to be "treated equally" with those spoiled urbanites in Montreal. VIA should be run as a business and if that means getting rid of 90% of the routes then so be it.
 
urbanfan89 said:
Ideally Via Rail will have two divisions: an "intercity" for fast and frequent journeys between cities, which could be complete in a few hours. Even routes like Toronto-Sudbury or Halifax-Quebec would deserve three trains a day. The other would be "long-distance" with a mandate to serve remote northern communities without affordable means of transportation, like Winnipeg-Churchill, Toronto-CN line-Winnipeg, etc, where one train per day will be more than sufficient. And with the growth of e-commerce, Via could partner with Amazon or other platforms to provide last-mile solutions. In China, high speed trains are already being used for fulfillment.

Are you in Cochrane and ordered from Amazon's Mississauga warehouse? Get it on tomorrow's Via Rail/resuscitated Ontario Northland train from Toronto for only $5 extra.
Click to expand...

Honestly one of the smartest ideas I've heard on here in a longtime.
 
crs1026 said:
It's amazing how we in this country agonize about whether we can ever get passenger service above 95 mph, even with electrification .... while in the UK they just go out and do this

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/ne...ark_speed_clocked_by_Darlington_loco_Tornado/

Maybe we just ought to set our aim a little higher.

- Paul
Click to expand...
And other European nations. I also learned recently that Germany not only has ICE trains running on single track stretches between some smaller cities, but does so on a half-hourly schedule...*both directions*. The answer is signalling, passing loops and train control. I'll reference that more later, but the following makes my point:
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Spain plans single-track high-speed lines to cut costs
Written by Fernando Puente
  • David Gubler


    SPAIN is planning to install only single track on most new sections of high-speed line in a bid to reconcile ambitious plans to extend the reach of the standard-gauge network with the budgetary restraints imposed by the economic crisis.

    The Ministry of Public Works and Transport and the newly-created high-speed infrastructure manager Adif-AV have decided that several high-speed lines currently under construction will have single track installed despite having been designed and built for double track, including tunnels and bridges. Passing loops will ensure that the infrastructure can be used at capacity, if needed.

    The plans will affect the Olmedo – Zamora section of the Madrid – Galicia high-speed line, which is expected to open in 2015. Single track will be installed on 70km of the 95km route, with only the Olmedo – Medina and Coreses – Zamora sections being double-track.

    Furthermore, the new strategy will affect the lines connecting Valladolid with Leon and Burgos, which are currently under construction. Double track will be installed from Valladolid to Venta de Baños and Palencia, but roughly half of the 110km stretch from Palencia to Leon will be single track. The 75km-long Venta de Baños – Burgos section, which is expected to connect in the future with the Basque Y and France, will be almost entirely single-track (67km).

    Adif-AV, whose debt is expected to reach €15.2bn in 2014, has also considered completing the Antequera – Granada branch off the Madrid – Malaga line and the Murcia – Lorca section on the Mediterranean Corridor as single-track lines.

    In addition, consideration is being given to the possibility of opening two more lines not only single-track but with broad gauge instead of standard-gauge track, due to the slower-than-expected development of other parts of the high-speed network. This concerns the Pajares Base Tunnel between Leon and Asturias, and an isolated section of line between central Extremadura and the Portuguese border, which would not be even electrified.
Click to expand...
 
ssiguy2 said:
^^^ but that notion is what, in part, got VIA into the state it is in today......using the same 19th century legal requirements in a 21st century reality. Contrary to what many believe, just because you build it does not mean they will come. Rural areas and small towns have already voted with their feet and it's on the accelerator. By trying to serve everyone, no one gets served well and the treasury is drained limiting service on busy routes so people in Churchill and Prince Rupert can have a train service.

You wouldn't build a subway between Sorel and Tracy for the sole reason to say they have one and to be "treated equally" with those spoiled urbanites in Montreal. VIA should be run as a business and if that means getting rid of 90% of the routes then so be it.
Click to expand...

Firmly disagree. I've seen nine of ten provinces in my military career. There's a market for rail outside the QW corridor. It's just that VIA puts up crap and unreliable services (like the Ocean) that simply dissuade usage. Lots of traffic between Halifax and Moncton for example. But almost nobody is going to use a train that comes once a day (or less) to do that. There are some markets that VIA has never even tried for some strange reason. Yet, city pairs like Edmonton-Calgary (a supposed HSR contender) and Regina-Saskatoon see so much car and bus traffic. Common sense would tell you they can support regular rail service.

I hope HFR in KW gives them a base to build on.

The real problem with VIA is that they are sooo Ontario-Quebec centric that they think a handful of slow, infrequent, long-distance trains makes them a national rail service. In rest of Canada, almost nobody would notice if VIA disappeared, which makes it very hard for their MPs to support rail investment. I'd trade the Canadian for a national rail strategy that focused on building rail lines in all the regional corridors I mentioned. Look at how Amtrak does regional rail services. And they are popular. No reason why VIA can't do the same.
 
I totally agree with the Calgary/Edmonton Corridor which I have stated before but admittedly should have stated here.

The fact that there is no service between Cal/Edm exemplifies why the current model doesn't work...........to much being spend on rural ultra-low ridership routes inhibiting the expansion of service that people would actually use. In Alberta VIA is too concerned aboutserving Vegreville and hence has no funding left to serve the 98% of Albertans who would actually embrace the service.
 
Admiral Beez said:
I imagine there are people here who feel the fix to that issue is to somehow drive up the price of airfare through taxes or fees in some sort of "level the playing field" idea, to make train travel more attractive.

I wonder if those distant routes are even profitable. Is VIA mandated to provide them?
Click to expand...
Levelling the field would be to reduce transportation costs in Canada. It's way cheaper to fly to Europe than it is to fly within Canada. Sad but true. Via rail is not profitable at all. They could be in the corridor but outside of that the long distance trains are heavily subsidized. The Canadian I believe is not too bad given that it's a tourist train and tourists pay a hefty price to ride it. Last I heard that the Ocean is costing more to run now on 3x a week then when it was running 6x a week. The Ocean or trains out east could be profitable if they ran more frequently. There is a lot of travel between the maritime cities but the train runs too infrequently to be useful. I hope the infrastructure bank gives VIA money to build their HFR plan. It would be a huge improvement.
 
What's the downside of breaking up VIA, and running only the Corridor? VIA gets $400 - $500 million a year in subsidies from Ottawa, keep this cash and throw it at electrification, upgrades, etc.

1024px-CorridorVia.svg.png


Meanwhile sell off the tourist trains and the non-profitable routes. Private firms will make the tourist runs, like the https://www.rockymountaineer.com/

The Canadian, from Toronto to Vancouver could be a real money-maker if updated and supporting top dollar fares, like these guys do http://www.goldeneagleluxurytrains.com/trains/golden-eagle/ and these other tourism trains globally https://www.luxurytrainclub.com/trains/royal-canadian-pacific/

Get government out of the tourist-train biz.
 
Last edited:
The Canadian is not just a tourist train. It actually stops in communities in Canada that have no road access, especially outside of the winter months. It's considered an essential service. The Canadian doesn't require a large subsidy because the tourist passengers help offset most of the costs. It's the other remote trains that to remote and rural areas that are heavily subsidized.
 
The Canadian is essential for communities in Northern Ontario, but elsewhere (the Prairies, even BC), all its stops are already accessible by highways. There's a good case to run a daily train between just Toronto and Winnipeg (and also a daily train between Toronto and Thunder Bay on the CP line, and two daily trains between Thunder Bay and Winnipeg), while allowing more room on board for packages. It would make the First Nations-heavy communities much more accessible, which should be a national priority regardless of any other partisan leanings.

The entire journey between Toronto and Vancouver, as a mere luxury tourist attraction, can be privatized.
 
ssiguy2 said:
In Alberta VIA is too concerned aboutserving Vegreville and hence has no funding left to serve the 98% of Albertans who would actually embrace the service.
Click to expand...

Again. The fault of Parliament. Not VIA.

This is something I (as a public servant of sorts) often have to explain to people. Government agencies aren't making decisions on their own. They adhere strictly to their mandate.

Where I fault VIA is for not having the vision to seize low hanging fruit. For example, I think Halifax-Moncton is an easy one. Do it with DMUs. These are the types of low investment routes they should be jumping on. Instead, I believe there's always been a focus on running larger trains that require a full crew and more maintenance and support.
 
All those proposals require significant levels of capital investment, and VIA is as far as I know prohibited from working with private investors or provincial governments to raise funds.

For Saskatoon-Regina the Craik sub would have to be essentially rebuilt for passenger service (it's currently unsignalled, single track, with a whopping 30MPH speed limit). Saskatchewan just killed it's publicly owned intercity bus system (which means most of the province will likely have no public transportation of any kind), good luck getting them to pay for any passenger rail improvements. Edmonton-Calgary is not much better.

There's probably demand for more frequent service between Vancouver and Kamloops on the mainline through the rockies, but freight traffic is very heavy on that stretch, and it's single track, with CN/CP directional running which is not conducive to passenger service.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top