VIA Rail

[kEiThZ]

CAA estimates that the per kilometre cost of maintenance and tire wear is roughly half the cost of gas, depending on the vehicle (ranging from 45-65% for the three vehicles in the document). So if your trip costs $100 in gas the true cost is more like $150. I don't know about you, but I'd say that adding 50% to the cost of anything is pretty substantial.

So pretty close to the $40-$50 I guesstimated.

People may consider maintenance costs to be marginal but they're wrong.

Telling people to do forward accounting before every road trip to included all deferred expenditures. That's bound to be a sure fire way to win ridership. I wonder why it hasn't worked so well for VIA till now?

Like I said earlier, these are deferred costs. Since you aren't incurring expenses at the time, you are likely to discount them as marginal. Nobody goes to their Jiffy Lube thinking well, 10% of my driving was for Montreal, 15% for Ottawa, and 10% for North Bay. They go in thinking this is the cost of owning a car. That's human nature. Argue against it all you want.

And this is all assuming single occupant. Put two or more people in that vehicle and the costs absolutely beat out every other mode.

Driving to Montreal is rarely faster than taking the train.

Only if you get your timings from Google Maps for driving or are using VIA's official schedule. Having driven and take the train every 2 weeks for years from Ottawa, I know for a fact that driving is always faster, if you're leaving outside rush hour and there's no weather. Here's reality. The trains were usually late, and often by more than 20 mins. I've had delays of 1 hr. And outside the GTA, I'm driving 120-130 the whole way. I could make it from my condo in Ottawa (2 stops from the station there) to my family home in Malvern (10 min drive from Guildwood) in 4.5 hrs with a 10-15 min stop. The train, with delays, and with transit time to/from the station at either end was rarely under 6 hrs in total travel time. Sometimes closer to 7 hrs.

This is why I argue that HFR needs to have speed targets based on REAL WORLD DRIVING TIMES. Nobody gives a shit about Google Maps times between stations. I would argue the threshold for marginal travel is about 20-25% beyond driving times, the car starts looking attractive. This is why HFR to Ottawa starts to look so good. If it's less than 3 hrs, I can take transit one either end and still do the trip from door-to-door in under 5 hrs.

The only major save for VIA here is weather. Nobody wants to drive in the winter. But again, if the ticket costs are high enough, and travel times long enough and trains unreliable enough, VIA doesn't come off looking like a substantially better alternative.

Nobody's going to deny the flexibility of driving but that wasn't really the point of my post.

The point of your post was that people don't consider all aspects of driving. I'd argue the premise of your post is wrong. People do what is best for them. The goal should not be to beat them into submission. The goal should be to offer an alternative that is soundly better on most aspects, so people choose it as a default choice.

The speed boost of HFR would be a benefit but frequency, reliability, and a predictable schedule would be just as important, IMO.

Certainly. And I've made the same points. But speed is a must. Hourly trains that take 4 hrs to get Ottawa and 5 hrs to get to Montreal, still won't sell that well. Especially if they still cost as much VIA does today.

I hope HFR allows VIA to cut ticket costs substantially.

 

[MisterF]

So pretty close to the $40-$50 I guesstimated.



Telling people to do forward accounting before every road trip to included all deferred expenditures. That's bound to be a sure fire way to win ridership. I wonder why it hasn't worked so well for VIA till now?

The point of your post was that people don't consider all aspects of driving. I'd argue the premise of your post is wrong. People do what is best for them. The goal should not be to beat them into submission. The goal should be to offer an alternative that is soundly better on most aspects, so people choose it as a default choice.

Like I said earlier, these are deferred costs. Since you aren't incurring expenses at the time, you are likely to discount them as marginal. Nobody goes to their Jiffy Lube thinking well, 10% of my driving was for Montreal, 15% for Ottawa, and 10% for North Bay. They go in thinking this is the cost of owning a car. That's human nature. Argue against it all you want.

I'm not telling people to do anything. I'm simply pointing out that most people significantly lowball the the cost of driving. People don't necessarily do what's best for them, they do what they think is best for them. A small but significant difference. People spend money on pointless bottled water, helicopter parent their kids, and spend millions on houses without doing even basic research into what may be built nearby. People make decisions that go against what's best for them all the time.

And this is all assuming single occupant. Put two or more people in that vehicle and the costs absolutely beat out every other mode.

And a car with multiple people inside is using finite road space a lot more efficiently than single occupant vehicles, costs the government less, and pollutes less per person. But that's not always an option, as evidenced by the fact that most cars have only one person in them.

Only if you get your timings from Google Maps for driving or are using VIA's official schedule. Having driven and take the train every 2 weeks for years from Ottawa, I know for a fact that driving is always faster, if you're leaving outside rush hour and there's no weather. Here's reality. The trains were usually late, and often by more than 20 mins. I've had delays of 1 hr. And outside the GTA, I'm driving 120-130 the whole way. I could make it from my condo in Ottawa (2 stops from the station there) to my family home in Malvern (10 min drive from Guildwood) in 4.5 hrs with a 10-15 min stop. The train, with delays, and with transit time to/from the station at either end was rarely under 6 hrs in total travel time. Sometimes closer to 7 hrs.

This is why I argue that HFR needs to have speed targets based on REAL WORLD DRIVING TIMES. Nobody gives a shit about Google Maps times between stations. I would argue the threshold for marginal travel is about 20-25% beyond driving times, the car starts looking attractive. This is why HFR to Ottawa starts to look so good. If it's less than 3 hrs, I can take transit one either end and still do the trip from door-to-door in under 5 hrs.

The only major save for VIA here is weather. Nobody wants to drive in the winter. But again, if the ticket costs are high enough, and travel times long enough and trains unreliable enough, VIA doesn't come off looking like a substantially better alternative.

No, driving isn't always faster. Your absolute statement is absolutely false. Even your best case scenario of 4.5 hours from the east end of Toronto to Ottawa takes longer than Via going from Union Station to Ottawa, which take as little as 4h7m. Not everyone has the luxury of driving outside of peak times. Accidents can cause significant delays at any time, which is what happened on my drive home from Ottawa this past weekend. Same thing with construction. And weather is a real problem for several months out of the year. Yes, reliability is a problem with Via. But that's the whole point of HFR - Via recognizes that even with padding, they can't keep any kind of schedule as long as they're at the mercy of CN. You said it yourself, late trains are a big reason people don't take Via, so addressing that is a major part of building ridership.

The time savings are in the ballpark of what you're saying that they'd have to be - about a quarter.

 

[kEiThZ]

And a car with multiple people inside is using finite road space a lot more efficiently than single occupant vehicles, costs the government less, and pollutes less per person. But that's not always an option, as evidenced by the fact that most cars have only one person in them.

Yeah, and nobody cares about any of that. The problem for VIA is that the only people really driving alone for long distance trips, are usually business travelers. Which means, everybody else is sharing a vehicle and that brings their price threshold for train travel down.

No, driving isn't always faster. Your absolute statement is absolutely false.

You're right. I shouldn't have said "always faster". More accurately, driving is usually faster for most people in most situations.

Even your best case scenario of 4.5 hours from the east end of Toronto to Ottawa takes longer than Via going from Union Station to Ottawa, which take as little as 4h7m.

My 4.5 hrs was door-to-door. From the garage in my condo to the front door of my parents' home in Malvern. Your 4 h 7 min is station to station. You're not accounting for travel to/from the station on either end and pre-boarding time. Despite living close to the station in Ottawa (and right on the Transitway, 2 stops away), and getting a ride from Guildwood, my total travel time was usually close 5 hrs with that "express". Given that I often had delays and most often couldn't catch an express, I ended up with total transit times closer to 6 hrs.

Given that I had arguably the most ideal situation to take VIA, I stand by my assertion. Driving is faster for most people in most situations. If you don't live close to a station, the time to access the stations by transit is sometimes enough to get you up to 20% of the way to Ottawa in your car. And Ottawa is a rather rosy situation for VIA with well placed stations that are on the Transitway. In the GTA, getting to Union or Guildwood will take forever by transit. Heck, a bus ride from my folks to Guildwood is 30-40 mins by bus.

Most of the Western GTA writes off VIA on eastbound travel. Through service and that planned Pearson hub will do wonders for them. Ideally, HFR would be one long continuous service from Windsor to Quebec City. GO RER is no substitute for through service with better stations in the West.

And weather is a real problem for several months out of the year.

At best, it's a problem 4 months out of the year. That's a boost for VIA. Not enough to build a business case on.

The time savings are in the ballpark of what you're saying that they'd have to be - about a quarter.

I was referring to time savings over driving times. Not VIA's schedule. HFR as proposed is pushing it for being competitive Toronto-Montreal (though competitive with air on Toronto-Ottawa). And I don't trust they'll come in at their pledged travel times. I foresee 3 hrs Toronto-Ottawa and 4.5 hrs Toronto-Montreal. But of course, this comes with changes in station locations. Like trading Guildwood for Eglinton.....

But that's the whole point of HFR - Via recognizes that even with padding, they can't keep any kind of schedule as long as they're at the mercy of CN. You said it yourself, late trains are a big reason people don't take Via, so addressing that is a major part of building ridership.

The time savings are in the ballpark of what you're saying that they'd have to be - about a quarter.

One of the major concerns I have is that HFR is simply not being positioned to compete with the coming boom in EVs and automation. At the rate we're going, it's entirely feasible that EVs and automation will be a substantial portion of the Ontario car fleet by the end of the next decade. And at the rate the government is going, HFR won't be in service till the middle of the next decade. Once people figure out that EVs cost about $80 in fuel and wear and tear for a round trip Toronto-Ottawa, and the driving aids substantially reduce fatigue, it will be that much more difficult to attract customers.

For HFR to be attractive, they need to implement sooner, have travel times that are substantially competitive with total door-to-door driving, for a price that beats two passengers in an EV. Any less, and failure is a real risk in my opinion.

I think they have for something like hourly departures from 6am - midnight for each of Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal. $70 roundtrip fares. 3 hrs Ottawa-Toronto or 4 hrs Toronto-Montreal.

 

[crs1026]

Yeah, and nobody cares about any of that. The problem for VIA is that the only people really driving alone for long distance trips, are usually business travelers. Which means, everybody else is sharing a vehicle and that brings their price threshold for train travel down.

I take your point, but one has to look at this a bit wholistically. A family of four with young kids will pick the car, because it is not only transport but rolling tote bag. Diaper bag, electronics, teddy bears, maybe a family pet. Speed and cost are still variables butone has to think about what the thresholds are. Comparisons may not be linear math.

Doing business trips, especially day trips, getting there quickly is paramount and cost is flexible. For "average individuals", trip time may be flexible but cost will take greater importance. If Pearson is to offer rail Connections to overseas flights, it will require a service that is fast, logistically simple, includes baggage handling, and more.

Most of the Western GTA writes off VIA on eastbound travel. Through service and that planned Pearson hub will do wonders for them. Ideally, HFR would be one long continuous service from Windsor to Quebec City. GO RER is no substitute for through service with better stations in the West.

VIA has made token efforts to run through. There is a real opportunity to do better. One driver for this is actually equipment and platform utilisation at Union Station. Through trains will need fewer platforms and trains won't park in the depot. In this country we have a real 'nanny state' attitude about getting people on the right train. There is all sorts of barrier control at Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal that you just don't see in other continents. Of course, on Virgin there is an electronic display over each seat that gives the name of the passenger holding the reservation for that seat, and it changes en route....no reason VIA can't run London to Ottawa with a 10 minute stop in Toronto.

One of the major concerns I have is that HFR is simply not being positioned to compete with the coming boom in EVs and automation. At the rate we're going, it's entirely feasible that EVs and automation will be a substantial portion of the Ontario car fleet by the end of the next decade.

Yes, but the roads will be full. Try the analysis again with a far more congested assumption about travel times once the self-driving ev hits the GTA. At that point the car ceases to be a enabler and becomes a tomb. You hit Port Union, you have another 90 minutes to 2 hours to reach home, traffic is flowing in a nice smooth automated way, but it's thick ......and you have to pee. You are now a prisoner. The car may have a 'find a pitstop' button, but there goes your time advantage. I'm far less optimistic that the roads will expand to fill the demand even if the vehicles transform as they are predicted to.

So, I agree with much of what you are saying, but I don't agree that it can be reduced to a single 'people value x over y' equaition. There are complexities, paradoxes, and thresholds.

- Paul

 

[MisterF]

Yeah, and nobody cares about any of that. The problem for VIA is that the only people really driving alone for long distance trips, are usually business travelers. Which means, everybody else is sharing a vehicle and that brings their price threshold for train travel down.

Source? Every stat I've ever seen is that car occupancy is in the 1.2 range. In other words, the vast majority of cars has only one person. That's what I observe on the 401 as well.

You can continue to dismiss the extra costs by saying people don't care, but that doesn't change the fact that they're there.

At best, it's a problem 4 months out of the year. That's a boost for VIA. Not enough to build a business case on.

Of course you don't build your business case on four months of the year; I never said we should. But it's a piece of the puzzle. You shouldn't design a transportation system primarily around a mode that's horrendously unreliable and dangerous for a significant amount of the year, yet that's what we've done.

I was referring to time savings over driving times. Not VIA's schedule. HFR as proposed is pushing it for being competitive Toronto-Montreal (though competitive with air on Toronto-Ottawa). And I don't trust they'll come in at their pledged travel times. I foresee 3 hrs Toronto-Ottawa and 4.5 hrs Toronto-Montreal. But of course, this comes with changes in station locations. Like trading Guildwood for Eglinton.....

You don't have to believe it if you don't want to but a time savings of 1/4 isn't all that farfetched. It wasn't that long ago that Via had a run to Montreal in 3:59, something that increased CN traffic no longer allows. If 3:59 was possible while dealing with CN, there's no reason to think that Via couldn't reliably match or beat that with dedicated tracks and zero freight interference. Getting to Montreal in less than 4 hours and Ottawa in less than 3 is doable.

 

[Urban Sky]

It wasn't that long ago that Via had a run to Montreal in 3:59

Just to feed your argument with timetable data, the fastest travel times I've found for the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto in any VIA timetable are:

• Montreal-Ottawa: 1:35h (Train 36, October 2002 until April 2005)
• Ottawa-Toronto: 3:46h (Train 56/646, January to July 2014)
• Montreal-Toronto: 3:59h (Trains 166/167, October 1992 to October 1993 and Trains 66/67, November 1993 until May 1999 and May 2000 until April 2005)

 

[kEiThZ]

Just to feed your argument with timetable data, the fastest travel times I've found for the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto in any VIA timetable are:

• Montreal-Ottawa: 1:35h (Train 36, October 2002 until April 2005)
• Ottawa-Toronto: 3:46h (Train 56/646, January to July 2014)
• Montreal-Toronto: 3:59h (Trains 166/167, October 1992 to October 1993 and Trains 66/67, November 1993 until May 1999 and May 2000 until April 2005)

What was their on-time performance like back then? This is a huge part of the problem. Nobody actually trust VIA's schedules. Not saying it's VIA's fault of-course. But those schedules are useless, if they aren't reflective of real world performance.

 

[steveintoronto]

What was their on-time performance like back then? This is a huge part of the problem. Nobody actually trust VIA's schedules. Not saying it's VIA's fault of-course. But those schedules are useless, if they aren't reflective of real world performance.

And thus the HFR case...

 

[kEiThZ]

Source? Every stat I've ever seen is that car occupancy is in the 1.2 range. In other words, the vast majority of cars has only one person. That's what I observe on the 401 as well.

I am curious on your source. Just for knowledge sake. That number sounds like it's rolling in rush hour traffic with long distance driving.

But your stat doesn't contradict anything I said. That number would just indicate that the majority of driving on the 401 is single occupancy. I never said that most driving was multiple occupancy. What I said was the multi-occupancy situation really reduces the price threshold of those drivers.

You can continue to dismiss the extra costs by saying people don't care, but that doesn't change the fact that they're there.

Where have I said those costs were not there? Would you stop using strawman arguments? I even gave an estimate close to what your CAA post stated. I stated that people ignore them because they are deferred costs. Can you prove that is not true?

You shouldn't design a transportation system primarily around a mode that's horrendously unreliable and dangerous for a significant amount of the year, yet that's what we've done.

I support HFR and HSR. But the counter argument to this is easy:

Why should anyone support billions of dollar in investment to build reliability for only a third of the year...and possibly less with climate change?

This is an argument that will come up more and more with electric cars in the next decade.

You don't have to believe it if you don't want to but a time savings of 1/4 isn't all that farfetched.

We'll see. I mean so far, all they have are lines on a map. So serious feasibility studies done. So we'll see what happens. But 25% savings of their current schedule would be in line with my estimate of 3 hrs from Toronto to Ottawa. And would see Toronto-Montreal at 3 hrs and 45 mins. I don't see that Toronto-Montreal express making that time without them cutting out intermediate stops and some serious investment in the Ottawa-Montreal sector. They are saying the Ottawa-Montreal train 1:20 hr and Toronto-Ottawa 2:30 hrs. So I am curious how they get from Toronto to Montreal in 3:45 hrs.

 

[MisterF]

I am curious on your source. Just for knowledge sake. That number sounds like it's rolling in rush hour traffic with long distance driving.

But your stat doesn't contradict anything I said. That number would just indicate that the majority of driving on the 401 is single occupancy. I never said that most driving was multiple occupancy. What I said was the multi-occupancy situation really reduces the price threshold of those drivers.

No single source, just numbers that I've seen repeatedly over the years. If stats on the average occupancy for intercity trips exist I'd be interested in seeing them. In any case, you didn't provide a source for the claim that "the only people really driving alone for long distance trips, are usually business travelers", so I suppose we're even.

Where have I said those costs were not there? Would you stop using strawman arguments? I even gave an estimate close to what your CAA post stated. I stated that people ignore them because they are deferred costs. Can you prove that is not true?

Oh come on. Your lengthy posts have been a response to my simple statement that there are extra costs that people usually don't consider. You've said "the premise of your post is wrong" and called the extra costs marginal. I don't know why this is such an issue for you; my statement is easily verifiable and hardly controversial.

I support HFR and HSR.

Well you sure spend a lot of energy arguing against it.

Why should anyone support billions of dollar in investment to build reliability for only a third of the year...and possibly less with climate change?

As long as we're calling each other out on straw men, this one is a doozy. At no point did I suggest that we should spend billions to build reliability for a third of the year. Driving reliability is abysmal for a lot more than a third of the year. It takes a hit whenever there's an accident. Or construction. Or rush hour traffic. Or long weekend traffic. Or regular weekend traffic. Or, as we've discussed, winter weather. That all adds up to a highly unreliable mode of transportation throughout the year. Via's HFR plan would make trains much more reliable than driving.

Reliability is just one of many reasons to invest in better intercity rail.

We'll see. I mean so far, all they have are lines on a map. So serious feasibility studies done. So we'll see what happens. But 25% savings of their current schedule would be in line with my estimate of 3 hrs from Toronto to Ottawa. And would see Toronto-Montreal at 3 hrs and 45 mins. I don't see that Toronto-Montreal express making that time without them cutting out intermediate stops and some serious investment in the Ottawa-Montreal sector. They are saying the Ottawa-Montreal train 1:20 hr and Toronto-Ottawa 2:30 hrs. So I am curious how they get from Toronto to Montreal in 3:45 hrs.

Even if they don't meet those times it would be a substantial improvement over the situation today. Any trip to Montreal in less than 4 hours and Ottawa in less than 3 would be a major advantage over driving. As I said before, not everyone would decide that the train is better for them of course, but the number of people who do would definitely increase. I too hope fares will go down.

 

[kEiThZ]

Well you sure spend a lot of energy arguing against it.

Somebody has to be the voice of reason here. Some of the folks here sound like they've never left the basement and talked to an actual human who uses the services being discussed.

Case in point. Arguing that people are morons for not counting car wear and tear.

Also, you have no issues quoting my posts when they are in support (such as in the TKL thread). But somehow, anything short of joining the circle jerk means I don't support HSR?

Your insinuations are utterly absurd. And I find them offensive. Especially given the fact that I've spent thousands annually on VIA (enough to reach VIA Pref Premier for years). But apparently, you know my travel times better than me? Get bent. I'd like to know who appointed you UT's saintly authority on Intercity rail. You seem to think that you're the only one who takes trains around here and the only one allowed to have an opinion. Anybody who doesn't share your opinion entirely is automatically not supportive of rail?

If stats on the average occupancy for intercity trips exist I'd be interested in seeing them.

This is what I'd like to see too. The 1.2 occupancy figure is utterly useless and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Because the context of intercity travel is completely different. I am sure there's a lot of single occupancy vehicles on the 401. Tractor trailers, farmers in pick up trucks, etc. What's not known are how many intercity passenger trips are single-occupancy. And I strongly suspect that when we're talking about 5 hr long trips, it's going to be higher than 1.2.

Even if they don't meet those times it would be a substantial improvement over the situation today.

A substantial improvement sure. My concern is that this might not be enough to save VIA. And that's why I keep harping on the fact that it really need to be competitive with driving in the real sense, not on some hypothetical google map times from station to station.

And that it needs to be implemented soon. Before driver automation and electric vehicles really take off later next decade. I voted for third government thinking it would be a year 1 priority. Now I'm sure they won't have shovels in the ground before their next term.

 

[MisterF]

Somebody has to be the voice of reason here. Some of the folks here sound like they've never left the basement and talked to an actual human who uses the services being discussed.

Case in point. Arguing that people are morons for not counting car wear and tear.

Also, you have no issues quoting my posts when they are in support (such as in the TKL thread). But somehow, anything short of joining the circle jerk means I don't support HSR?

Your insinuations are utterly absurd. And I find them offensive. Especially given the fact that I've spent thousands annually on VIA (enough to reach VIA Pref Premier for years). But apparently, you know my travel times better than me? Get bent. I'd like to know who appointed you UT's saintly authority on Intercity rail. You seem to think that you're the only one who takes trains around here and the only one allowed to have an opinion. Anybody who doesn't share your opinion entirely is automatically not supportive of rail?

Wow. For someone who calls out others for using straw man arguments you’ve sure made liberal use of them here. Look, I’m sorry that you feel the need to resort to childish put downs to try to discredit my posts. Everything I’ve posted is factual and I have no idea why that’s so offensive to you. When you're ready to have a grownup discussion let me know.

 

[nfitz]

What was their on-time performance like back then? This is a huge part of the problem. Nobody actually trust VIA's schedules. Not saying it's VIA's fault of-course. But those schedules are useless, if they aren't reflective of real world performance.

Probably better than it is now. I recall being on one of the 3:59 trains, and it was near 10 minutes early - as it never had to sit anywhere to wait until the departure time, once it left Dorval. This was in the 1980s though, using LRC equipment.

As far as I recall, the best time was 4.5 hours using the Turbo equipment and then the LRC equipment in the early 1980s, so this would have been mid to late-80s.

Which means that with a bit of upgrade between Dorval and Central, no freight to worry about, and the speed upgrade heading into Union Station, they could achieve a Montreal-Toronto at 3:45 with an express non-stop service.

 

[kEiThZ]

Wow. For someone who calls out others for using straw man arguments you’ve sure made liberal use of them here. Look, I’m sorry that you feel the need to resort to childish put downs to try to discredit my posts. Everything I’ve posted is factual and I have no idea why that’s so offensive to you. When you're ready to have a grownup discussion let me know.

We can have great adult discussions when you stop being a pompous prick who thinks your opinions are worth substantially more than others and that anyone who doesn't agree with you is secretly opposed to mass transport. Let me know when your down for that.

Not as bad as steveintoronto. But starting to get there....

Let us know too. What level of criticism of VIA is tolerable before you think people are opposed to HFR or HSR? I wanna know the threshold for your insinuations.

And if you are going to claim something as "fact", how about sourcing it. Like your claim for 1.2 passenger occupancy. Can't source it. And conflate statistics for car occupancy during rush hour in cities with long distance travel along the entire length of the 401. Was that based on "facts"?

Lastly, for someone who talks a lot about VIA, I am curious how often you actually take VIA. I don't know any actual regular VIA use who has such a rosy view which excuses every issue with the service. Every time I take the train, I am abundantly aware of every flaw in the intercity rail transport policy of this country and it's grating. Makes me wonder if you only take VIA every few months and talk about VIA more than actually use it. Or maybe you just have low standards, who knows....

 

[kEiThZ]

Probably better than it is now. I recall being on one of the 3:59 trains, and it was near 10 minutes early - as it never had to sit anywhere to wait until the departure time, once it left Dorval. This was in the 1980s though, using LRC equipment.

As far as I recall, the best time was 4.5 hours using the Turbo equipment and then the LRC equipment in the early 1980s, so this would have been mid to late-80s.

Which means that with a bit of upgrade between Dorval and Central, no freight to worry about, and the speed upgrade heading into Union Station, they could achieve a Montreal-Toronto at 3:45 with an express non-stop service.

I honestly wish I knew what that felt like. In my experience, trains arriving within 10 mins of schedule is more exception than rule. But admittedly improved over the last few years. And to be fair, I end up taking the end of the day milk runs more often than their express services, so....