VIA Rail

[reaperexpress]

Marvel at the trains and service you will NEVER get in Sarnia!

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. It's a bit rich for them to be holding a celebration in Sarnia of all places:

(TBT this post)

 

[crs1026]

I would, however, pay to ride the dome of the Skyline car to Sarnia

Wonder if it will be an equipment move, or on the rear of the regular train.

- Paul

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Lillooet proposes provincial study for passenger rail line between North Van, Prince George

 

[Urban Sky]

Lillooet proposes provincial study for passenger rail line between North Van, Prince George

As much as I would love to see passenger rail service return to Whistler and the other communities between North Vancouver and Prince George, I don't see that route fit into any of VIA Rail's current three mandates (i.e. intercity operations in the Corridor, coast-to-coast transcontinental service and essential services where no year-round ground transportation alternative is available) and it was in fact never served by VIA...

 

[crs1026]

VIA’s mandate was never to maintain remote services to all of Canada, wherever these were needed. It was only to maintain whatever remote services CP and CN were previously operating at the point where VIA inherited the CP/CN network (ie 1978ish) and only if these continued to be needed.

There will also be opposition from private tour operators especially on the Whistler segment. I can’t imagine RMRT staying silent about this proposal.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

VIA’s mandate was never to maintain remote services to all of Canada, wherever these were needed. It was only to maintain whatever remote services CP and CN were previously operating at the point where VIA inherited the CP/CN network (ie 1978ish) and only if these continued to be needed.

There will also be opposition from private tour operators especially on the Whistler segment. I can’t imagine RMRT staying silent about this proposal.

- Paul

I'm not intrinsically opposed to VIA running these types of services, indeed I can several strong arguments for them.

However, VIA has been cash-starved for a long time.

Its rolling stock is dire, as we all know, hopefully that's on the verge of being addressed; but it also faces countless issues having to do w/track-standards, conflicts w/freights, and simply finding the budget to run a useful number of frequencies.

So much VIA ridership was lost due to services losing 3x a day service, or even daily service to the point that demand was diminished rather than induced.

If VIA were to be given greater subsidy dollars, I think the first order of business is to ensure services are sufficient to meet demand, and to upgrade existing routes to a level that reactivates latent demand.

Thereafter it would be about adding the most compelling services, that typically, would require the lowest subsidies (ie. Edmonton-Calgary).

Only after that should 'tertiary service be added'; and then only if the subsidy is forthcoming.

That said, there is a strong case to be made for a useful service network, reaching a much of the country as is practical.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

I'm not intrinsically opposed to VIA running these types of services, indeed I can several strong arguments for them.

However, VIA has been cash-starved for a long time.

Its rolling stock is dire, as we all know, hopefully that's on the verge of being addressed; but it also faces countless issues having to do w/track-standards, conflicts w/freights, and simply finding the budget to run a useful number of frequencies.

So much VIA ridership was lost due to services losing 3x a day service, or even daily service to the point that demand was diminished rather than induced.

If VIA were to be given greater subsidy dollars, I think the first order of business is to ensure services are sufficient to meet demand, and to upgrade existing routes to a level that reactivates latent demand.

Thereafter it would be about adding the most compelling services, that typically, would require the lowest subsidies (ie. Edmonton-Calgary).

Only after that should 'tertiary service be added'; and then only if the subsidy is forthcoming.

That said, there is a strong case to be made for a useful service network, reaching a much of the country as is practical.

I'd be fine with VIA operating this route as "VIA BC". Amtrak California is funded by the state, but uses Amtrak expertise. It would be interesting if provinces followed a similar model for less profitable routes.

 

[ShonTron]

I'd be fine with VIA operating this route as "VIA BC". Amtrak California is funded by the state, but uses Amtrak expertise. It would be interesting if provinces followed a similar model for less profitable routes.

Without full autonomy that many crown corporations enjoy (like CBC, Canada Post, and CN and Air Canada before privatization), VIA is limited by what it can do. Provincial partnerships with Ontario/Quebec, Alberta and BC would make a lot of sense.

 

[rbt]

I'd be fine with VIA operating this route as "VIA BC"... It would be interesting if provinces followed a similar model for less profitable routes.

Using VIA is a sure-fire way of ensuring they're less profitable too; the overhead VIA brings with it is non-trivial. It would be considerably cheaper to tender operations/maintenance out to Bombardier Transportation or similar companies (if VIA wants they can bid on an open tender).

There is no good reason for BC or Ontario to subsidize Quebec employment, especially if it means reduced service levels to achieve the same level of subsidies.

 

[crs1026]

Without full autonomy that many crown corporations enjoy (like CBC, Canada Post, and CN and Air Canada before privatization), VIA is limited by what it can do. Provincial partnerships with Ontario/Quebec, Alberta and BC would make a lot of sense.

One of those things that makes eminent sense.... which is why it will never happen. Ottawa will never share any of its present power to constrain or eliminate passenger rail at its sole discretion. And CN/CP will never agree to a reasonable balance of negotiating power with provinces over local rail passenger initiatives.

It gets back to the need for a National Passenger Rail Act, which would put a whole bunch of things in the public domain that the entrenched powers-that-be prefer to have under their thumbs. Even Doug Ford couldn't improve on the status quo.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

VIA’s mandate was never to maintain remote services to all of Canada, wherever these were needed. It was only to maintain whatever remote services CP and CN were previously operating at the point where VIA inherited the CP/CN network (ie 1978ish) and only if these continued to be needed.

Which is why provincial agencies such as AMT, GO Transit, Translink, and Ontario Northland also run passenger rail services.

BC Transit started rail service from Vancouver to Mission in 1995. No reason they couldn't be responsible for a service to Prince George.

 

[dowlingm]

Using VIA is a sure-fire way of ensuring they're less profitable too; the overhead VIA brings with it is non-trivial. It would be considerably cheaper to tender operations/maintenance out to Bombardier Transportation or similar companies (if VIA wants they can bid on an open tender).

There is no good reason for BC or Ontario to subsidize Quebec employment, especially if it means reduced service levels to achieve the same level of subsidies.

The flip side of this is that for the cost of that overhead, VIA has economies of scale which can be leveraged such as their ticketing system and maintenance facilities.

 

[robmausser]

Lillooet proposes provincial study for passenger rail line between North Van, Prince George

Lampman envisions a service similar to the Cariboo Prospector, which ran for 46 years using diesel-powered Budd cars.

At every service you hear that has been cancelled in Canada and the USA, they were typically running Budd cars.

Someone needs to come out with a cheap, economical, TC/FRA compliant DMU that can replace the Budds, as I feel like this is whats holding back reinstating a lot of these routes; they arent economical to run with existing loco/car rolling stock for the service levels.

Either that or TC/FRA need to change their requirements to allow for European DMUs, which already have a history of working in remote, low ridership areas.

 

[OCCheetos]

At every service you hear that has been cancelled in Canada and the USA, they were typically running Budd cars.

Someone needs to come out with a cheap, economical, TC/FRA compliant DMU that can replace the Budds, as I feel like this is whats holding back reinstating a lot of these routes; they arent economical to run with existing loco/car rolling stock for the service levels.

Either that or TC/FRA need to change their requirements to allow for European DMUs, which already have a history of working in remote, low ridership areas.

Assuming, like the article says, that the line sits empty most of the time, it would not be very difficult to obtain a waiver to operate non-compliant DMUs on the line with the use of appropriate safety systems.
It would be much like how the Trillium Line operates in Ottawa, heck they can just take our Bombardier Talents (for the low low cost of $100k + whatever it would cost to get them into operational shape again...)
Slap the Indusi system onto those tracks, build some platforms and ask CN kindly to avoid daytime freight runs and you're all good to go. All for a few million?

 

[dowlingm]

Assuming, like the article says, that the line sits empty most of the time, it would not be very difficult to obtain a waiver to operate non-compliant DMUs on the line with the use of appropriate safety systems.
It would be much like how the Trillium Line operates in Ottawa, heck they can just take our Bombardier Talents (for the low low cost of $100k + whatever it would cost to get them into operational shape again...)
Slap the Indusi system onto those tracks, build some platforms and ask CN kindly to avoid daytime freight runs and you're all good to go. All for a few million?

a 700km+ route is obviously comparable to the O-Train...