VIA Rail

[lenaitch]

Regardless of the party, the feds need to make sure that the country is competitive by making sure that the country is open for business and can sell its products while at the same time move forward on international agreements that promote trade and protect the environment. Also, we need to support our largest industries so that they can compete.. The SNC-Lavalin so called scandal is based on a self-created policy that relates to business that took place in third world countries, which do not follow our ethical standards. I question, whether it is wise to put one of our biggest companies out of business based on this scenario. It is great that certain politicians took ethical stands but the country must come first..

The goal of the policy is not to make other countries follow our ethical standards, or even make Canadian companies follow ethical standards when offshore; it is to bar them from Canadian publicly-funded contracts when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Although it isn't directly related to the current deferred prosecution decision (which I think is still up in the air), let's not forget they were slapped for improper campaign contributions, for which they 'apologized' and were inplicated in a bribery involving, I believe, a Montreal hospital contract, for which another person was convicted. They don't exude ethical standards. The mafia and Hell's Angels are probably cleaner.

 

[kEiThZ]

Off-topic response warning.....

The federal government is in a tight spot and we see provinces infringing on federal responsibility, which is not in the public interest. There can only be one government setting national policy and we are seeing governments in BC, AB, SK and ON fighting battles that they cannot win, which is not helping you and I.

I agree with you. But the constitution says otherwise. Hence why Canada does not have a national securities regulator. It's why we actually have tariffs on interprovincial trade. And it's why we have ten different licensing bodies for many professions. By and large, Canadians agree with this setup. They may complain about the dysfunction, but tell them that the feds are going to decide xyz from now on and watch the uproar. Also, given our history and the exception we make for Quebec, it gets really, really hard to argue that other provinces shouldn't be given more independence.

The carbon pricing issue is a great example of the above. A fragmented strategy from the start, was a result of the Trudeau government caving to Ontario and Quebec and their participation in the emissions trading system with California. They should have imposed a national strategy. They didn't. And yet are bizarrely surprised that provincial governments which rolled over repealed various carbon pricing programs. Has nobody in that cabinet ever read a wiki article on the history of federal-provincial relations in this country?

Regardless of the party, the feds need to make sure that the country is competitive by making sure that the country is open for business and can sell its products while at the same time move forward on international agreements that promote trade and protect the environment.

Easy to say. Hard to do.

It's easy to sit in Ontario and tell Albertans to go pound sand on oil exports. If you're an Albertan dealing with a depressed economy, that's not a message that will be received sympathetically. And worse, by not supporting Kinder-Morgan till now, the federal Liberals sank a solid NDP government that had imposed a carbon tax as part of a specific effort to convince Albertans that the environment and the economy could go hand in hand. Let's not forget that Notley specifically argued that carbon taxes would be a good trade for getting Alberta oil to tidewater. If you sit in Alberta, it looks like Notley gambled and got played for a fool and like the rest of Canada is taking Alberta for a ride.

In a country where half the provinces have some dependency on oil and gas, arguing that they should starve by keeping the oil in the ground is not going to get you very far. Easier to convince them to go the Norway route: use that windfall to green the economy as much as possible. Imagine the feds announcing they'd build the pipeline but also spend billions on more mass transit and high speed rail in Alberta and BC, based on the additional revenue for the federal government that Kinder-Morgan was bringing in. That would have been smart policy....

The SNC-Lavalin so called scandal is based on a self-created policy that relates to business that took place in third world countries,

The Arthur Porter affair resulted in the largest fraud investigation in Canadian history and saw the CEO of SNC-Lavalin at the time, arrested and facing 16 charges. But sure, it's only because third world countries have lax standards.....

Thanks to SNC-Lavalin Canada started topping the World Bank's list of countries with the number of barred companies,with 117 entities from Canada barred. 115 of those were SNC-Lavalin affiliates.

The SNC-Lavalin so called scandal is based on a self-created policy that relates to business that took place in third world countries, which do not follow our ethical standards. I question, whether it is wise to put one of our biggest companies out of business based on this scenario.

I wonder if people who defend the Liberals in this would say the same if it was the Conservatives giving a pass to an Alberta O&G company. Also, prosecution of several directors was not going to put the company "out of business". It might have resulted in a merger where SNC-Lavalin left Quebec though.

Corruption is corruption. Why bother passing anti-corruption laws if you aren't going to prosecute them? Also, deferred prosecution agreements do happen elsewhere. Americans have them for example. But the penalties extracted are usually pretty severe. SNC-Lavalin wasn't even content with avoiding prosecution. They wanted a generous DPA. This is what got them into trouble.

 

[kEiThZ]

One thing that has struck me about this whole CIB/VIA thing is that they don't seem to be putting in any effort to study other corridors. I would think an HFR type of service would do really well in Calgary-Edmonton and would have at least helped Alberta cut emissions while making VIA actually relevant to Albertans. Surely at least worth a detailed look.

 

[dowlingm]

One thing that has struck me about this whole CIB/VIA thing is that they don't seem to be putting in any effort to study other corridors. I would think an HFR type of service would do really well in Calgary-Edmonton and would have at least helped Alberta cut emissions while making VIA actually relevant to Albertans. Surely at least worth a detailed look.

Difficult when scorn of federal undertakings is a virtual article of faith in Albertan politics. Also doesn't help that VIA's presence in Edmonton is awkwardly located to integrate with service to the south. Would be easier to get something like Brightline* going as a stand alone entity between Calgary-YYC-Red Deer-YEG-Edmonton

* and now they are part of Virgin Trains, it's not like Branson would be averse to parading around in a cowboy hat

 

[crs1026]

^It would be interesting to know what the most recent ridership and revenue projection might be for HFR between Calgary and Edmonton. These cities have grown, and continue to grow. I wonder how many smaller communities could be added to that spine to grow a network and increase the market.

The problem is likely routing. The optimal route, CP’s line, is razor-straight and would offer lots of opportunity for speed....but it’s too central to CP’s operation. Zero probability that CP would share it. Even twinning that line to give VIA its own path would be approaching a greenfield project. The alternative routes are much curvier, although they might be more easily acquired.

I can see Alberta and Ottawa actually finding common ground on this, if it’s a case of the infrastructure bank attractive private investment (as opposed to just being a foreign flag fund for government borrowing for federal spending). But it might be politically preferable for a non-federal entity to tackle the project.... VIA is too much of an Ottawa entity. If the bank were simply backstopping private investment, as a way of lowering the risk profile, the private investors might take the spotlight and Ottawa’s contribution could be seen as constructive.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

It would be interesting to know what the most recent ridership and revenue projection might be for HFR between Calgary and Edmonton.

As far as i know only HSR was studied between the two cities. And that was supposed to be $2.6 billion if the CP track/corridor was upgraded and used. Previously the contention was that 10 million annual riders was not there. I find that hard to believe going between the fourth and fifth largest city in the country, with strong industrial ties between them. And a city pair with 22 scheduled carrier flights between them and over 30 flights total per day.

 

[Urban Sky]

Okay, it's been a long time since I last wrote here, but let's try a little round-up:

The main CN rail line should be used for Montréal-Moncton. It would be so much faster. I'm always hoping that the CN discontinues the Newcastle sub. In 2014 the NB government agreed to finance repairs. CN said it will continue operating the line for 5 years (this year) to see if the sub line would be financially viable again, traffic has decreased from the last thing I've read on it. VIA had mentionned in 2012 that they would reroute through to the mainline if it happens.

The only scenario under which a re-route might happen is if CN indeed abandons the Newcastle Subdivision, as VIA is still legally obliged to operate the Gaspé train (it was only suspended due to how much track maintenance had deteriorated) and it seems that the province of Quebec (as the owner) is finally willing to invest the required scale of funds into their neglected assets. Whatever cost savings you might be able to achieve by re-routing via Edmundston would be lost the moment you restore rail service to Gaspé, as the segment where the Ocean and the Chaleur are jointly operated would be dramatically shortened (I'm actually not sure where the two trains could join/split, as there are no major stations between St-Andre Jct. and Sainte-Foy). Also, you would kill off the shuttle currently operated by the REGIM during the summer months, which connects passengers connecting from/to the Ocean in Campbellton with the Gaspésie.

So much faster? VIA stopped service on the main line (through Edmonston - at least on the Edmonston to Quebec leg) in the 1970s ... looking back at 1976, the travel time from St-Foy to Edmonston was about 7 hours, and then (after overnighting in Edmonston) it was 5 hours from there to Moncton. Perhaps a couple of hours faster than the current Ocean time. But back in 1976 the Ocean was a couple of hours faster too.

Probably a wash really ... I'd think the loss of service to many communities would be more significant. How many years since there was direct service through Edmonston that didn't require changing trains in Edmonston?

The only instance I could find in any timetable of a night train being routed via Edmundston rather than Campbellton was between October 1967 and January 1970, when CN routed the Ocean (and the through-sleeper to Sydney) over its mainline (the Scotian and the Chaleur maintained service via Campbellton):

Source: CN timetable (effective 1969-10-26)

In January 1970, the Ocean was routed back onto its regular route and service on the CN main line was replaced with a Montreal-Edmundston and a Edmundston-Moncton service, both operated with an RDC and only an overnight connection in Edmundston:

Source: CN timetable (effective 1971-02-01)

Through service from Edmundston beyond Charny/Sainte-Foy/Quebec ceased in October 1971 and both services were grandfathered by VIA Rail, which abandoned service west of Edmundston in October 1979 and between Edmundston and Moncton in November 1981:

Source: VIA Rail timetable (effective 1979-06-17)

In June 1984, passenger service to Edmundston was restored as a tri-weekly remote service from Moncton, which became one of the countless victims of the big January 1990 bloodbath:

Source: VIA Rail timetable (effective 1989-04-30)

This means that the Napadogan Subdivision has not seen any scheduled passenger service for almost 30 years, while the connection CN built to let the Pelletier Subdivision terminate at St-Andre Junction rather than Joffre yard has yet to see a single passenger service. You can therefore bet that you would require capital expenditure to upgrade the mainline to passenger standards and I wouldn't count on the provincial governments to provide funding to bypass some of their main tourist regions...

Rivière-du-Loup to Moncton is about 11h10 according to VIA and that's with no delays (lol). Going through Edmundston would probably be 6 hours; it's a significant difference. The speed on the Newcastle sub is often below 40kmph.

Actually, the Ocean has a surprisingly decent OTP (I estimate that less than 10% of departures scheduled in 2018 arrived more than 90 minutes late), while you want to reroute it onto exactly the kind of rail infrastructure which destroyed the OTP of the Canadian: a single-tracked transcontinental freight corridor - and for no apparent reason, as whatever time saving cutting through New Brunswick's interior might achieve will come at the cost of abandoning most of the current customer groups, while unlocking very limited new ridership potential...


The discussion about Edmundston has taken more time and space than I anticipated, but I'll try to answer to some other points over the weekend...

 

[Urban Sky]

I used to take VIA often in those days and I must say the trains very seldom met the 3.59 minute time! However, even after spending $$$ it will be sad if they cannot get (reliably) back to less than 4 hours.

MTRL-TRTO is only one of the four major O-Ds served by HFR (the other being QBEC-MTRL, MTRL-OTTW and OTTW-TRTO) and the airplane is only one of the three main competing modes used on them (the others being the car or the coach). This means that against 11 out of 12 route-mode combinations, HFR will be highly competitive, while on the 12th, it will still be more competitive than today, thanks to better trains, higher frequency, lower travel times and higher reliability...

On that note, what do they need to do other than the grade crossings to get the track to higher speed ready (200km/h+)?
They are right now aiming for a palsy 177km/h which in this age is actually quite slow even for HFR

I answered this question so many times, that I will simply refer to Post #5075:

Mostly agreed, except that in terms of construction costs (and thus economic and political feasibility) a design speed of 160 km/h and 200 km/h are orders of magnitudes apart: Up to 177 km/h (110 mph), level crossings are generally possible, whereas FRA regulations require "impenetrable barriers" for all level crossings in the 178-200 km/h (111-125 mph) band, while (as I already posted in in July and December) Transport Canada's Grade Crossing Regulations already explicitly prohibit the construction of any level crossing beyond 177 km/h (110 mph).

Note: repost from #2,807
Source: FRA (2011, p.20)

If you refer to above table, the dilemma is as follows:

• Everything until 177 km/h (110 mph, Tiers 0/IA/IB) is relatively straightforward,
• Level crossings: whereas TC regulations outright ban them beyond 177 km/h (110 mph), FRA regulations allow a work-around in the 178-200 km/h (111-125 mph) band (Tier IC), but the necessary investments into "impenetrable barriers" under FRA regulations will become useless the moment you upgrade beyond 200 km/h (125 mph).
• Corridor-sharing with freight is still allowed beyond 200 km/h (125 mph), but only until 240 km/h (150 mph, Tier II), so moving beyond that speed requires a dedicated HSR Corridor which again renders prior investment useless.
• Track alignment: according to the Ecotrain Study, 200 km/h requires a minimum radius of 2,500 meters (2,000 meters with tilting trains), whereas 300 km/h requires a minimum radius of 6,000 meters. Investments in less generous track realignments therefore risks becoming useless when design speed is increased towards 300 km/h.

For all above reasons, investing in any infrastructure to reach speeds beyond 177 km/h only makes sense if you make sure that the investment is HSR-ready, i.e. compatible with a later upgrade to 300 km/h. For exactly that reason, I would strongly object upgrading any rail segments beyond 177 km/h, unless they overlap with Ecotrain's E-300 alignment and as far as I see that is only the case for parts of the Trois-Rivières Subdivision, Montreal-De Beujeu, Casselman West-Ottawa-Smiths Falls North and Port Hope West-Toronto.

Looking at the distance - the old Smith Falls to Toronto on the CP through Havelock was 338 km. Add in the 66 km from Smith Falls to Ottawa and current 187 km from Ottawa to Montreal, though from the G&M map, it looks like is shaves off about 5 km north of Coteau, presumably by running along the CP Winchester Subdivision, instead of coming down to Coteau.

The total distance from Toronto to Montreal is 586 km (compared to 539 km on the current route).

The average speed then, for the 4.75 hour journey, would be 123 km/hr. Presumably then great extents of the trip wouldn't even be at 177 km/hr.

Compare to the average 135 km/hr speed on the existing track when VIA used to run it in under 4 hours.

[...]

Certainly Ottawa to Toronto service should significantly improve. Currently from Smith Falls to Toronto is 380 km as fast as about 3.4 hours. It's only 338 km through Peterborough.

I'm still scratching my head on timings. The best Ottawa to Montreal time is about 1:50. Perhaps this drops to 1:45? Then about an 45 minutes to stop in Ottawa and get to Smith Falls? That leaves about 2:15 to get from Smith Falls to Toronto. I'm scratching my head on how it does Montreal to Toronto in much less than 5:15.

The current timings are meaningless, as they rather reflect the state of freight traffic than the travel time potential in the current alignments. If you refer back to the travel times posted here, MTRL-OTTW is advertised at 1:35h and OTTW-TRTO at 3:10h, for a total travel time of 4:45h for MTRL-TRTO.

1:35h happens to be identical with the shortest travel time which was ever scheduled for MTRL-OTTW, so no need to further debate its feasibility:


First of all, you count 404 km from Toronto to Ottawa, I measured 399 km (using the existing alignments with a curve connecting the Smiths Falls (VIA) and Belleville (CP) Subdivisions).
Second, you assume a travel time of 45 minutes between Ottawa and Smiths Falls, I model less than 30 minutes (let's assume that the station dwell time in Ottawa is already included in the advertised travel time for MTRL-OTTW):

Therefore, you assume that there is 2:15h left to cover 338 km, whereas I would argue that there is 2:40h left to cover 334 (399-65) km, but that is of course still not enough information to verify the travel time claim of 3:10h...

What? How do you figure that, outside of Windsor-Quebec City? Compare the final VIA (October 2005) schedule from 2005 before Harper was elected, to the final (October 2015) schedule just before he was defeated. Cuts include:

• Montreal-Halifax reduced from 6 trains a week to 3 trains a week
• Only one train a day to Sarnia instead of two
• Two Kitchener trains a day instead of three
• One Niagara Falls train a day instead of two
• Two trains a week from Winnipeg to The Pas instead of three
• Vancouver Island train eliminated

No one votes Conservative to improve national rail service!

Fool me once ... okay, but fool me 5 times?

The first four points were part of Harper's 2012 cuts, but the last two items I disagree as they are related to the infrastructure (and thus concern capital funding for the host railway rather than operational funding for VIA):

• Winnipeg-Churchill was cut in January 2008 to twice weekly south of The Pas after the travel time increased significant (from 36 in 2006 to 45 hours), and restored to 3 frequencies end-to-end in the same year (December 2008) with a scheduled travel time of 40 hours. The third frequency was again cut in January 2011, when the scheduled travel time increased to 43 hours (it is at 45 hours currently). The frequency cut south of The Pas was simply necessary to run the schedule despite deteriorating track infrastructure, while ensuring that the schedule could still be run with only two cycles.
• Victoria-Courtenay was suspended in 2011 due to deteriorating track quality and the city of Victoria has removed the rail station in the meanwhile.
• Similarly, Matapedia-Gaspé was suspended in 2013 due to deteriorating track quality, but the prospects for a return looks much more promising than on Vancouver Island

I've worked ten years in the federal government and the mentality was the public servants work for the government and not the people. I'm definitely not surprised what I'm seeing here.with the BIC, it's just an extension of that mentality.

^The bureaucracy has done more to stifle VIA than either political party. Mostly the pols just squeezed VIA’s subsidy and left it to VIA to figure out what remained affordable.

I have been told this story by VIA employees more than once, and figured it was an urban legend - until I witnessed this for myself last week. [...]

This kind of sniping from the bushes is what holds VIA back. The pols would probably support VIA if the bureaucrats weren’t raising a million objections and potential “concerns” that make the pols think the voters might not approve.

My personal observation is that the biggest breaks on a comprehensive passenger rail growth strategy are those parts of the government which you can't vote out of their offices in a general election...

Evergreen video

At least they are now studying a project which is not politically infeasible due to its funding requirements...

[Post continues below]

 

[Urban Sky]

The best way to guarantee HFR will never be built is to vote Conservative. I have already heard their first campaign ad, which talks about Liberal waste and how their solution is more tax cuts. Shrinking the tax base is not the answer towards improving our infrastructure. Liberal waste and tax cuts are totally separate issues. If we can't afford existing projects and programs, how can we afford tax cuts? It is about pandering to our basic desires to pay less for everything.

Considering that HFR is primarily pitched to private (not public) funding sources, I'm not too concerned about this general election (in terms of HFR and VIA, at least).

All while VIA started consuming more and more in subsidies. The fundamental problem is this. VIA cannot change its business model without large amounts of capital to change Corridor services. And VIA cannot do that without a supportive government in power. With the Conservatives, I know what I get on this file. They'll keep status quo on VIA. The Liberals made a big show of needing to run "small deficits" to fund large amounts of infrastructure. Then ran large deficits to fund social programs instead and have basically done pretty much close to what the Conservatives would have on infrastructure. All their large promises on infrastructure were beyond this term and caveated on the infrastructure bank leveraging large amounts of private and institutional capital. I personally feel like this is strikingly similar to the bait and switch on electoral reform. And confirm to me that the Trudeau Liberals are not even close to sincere about infrastructure.

I don't want to vote for a government that will run another hundred billion dollar deficit without most of it going to infrastructure. That will end up in huge cuts a decade down the road and even less investment in infrastructure. Others may see it differently. But this is where I stand. I can't vote for yet another study.

And apparently I can't vote Liberal to improve national rail service either.

A quick history of changes to VIA services and the federal government responsible at that time:

• 1976/77: Creation of VIA Rail (Trudeau, liberal)
• 1978/79: Rationalisation of transcontinental routes (Trudeau, liberal)
• 1981: First wave of service cuts (Trudeau, liberal)
• 1985: Return of some services cut in 1981 such as Super Continental, Atlantic and service to Havelock or Sherbrooke (Mulroney, conservative)
• 1990: Second (and by far most drastic) wave of service cuts (Mulroney, conservative)
• 2002: Acquisition of "Renaissance" fleet (Chretien, liberal)
• 2004: Killing off "VIA Fast" plan (Martin, liberal)
• 20??: Funding for upgrade of Sleepers for Prestige class and for third track on Kingston Subdivision (Harper, conservative)
• 2012: Service cuts on Canadian, Ocean and Southwestern Ontario (Harper, conservative)
• 2018: Funding for new fleet (J. Trudeau, liberal)

It's impossible to determine whether a government is friendly or hostile towards VIA by only looking at their party affiliation...

As long as there are freight trains in the way, VIA can't make it to Montreal in less than 4 hrs. Even with a direct route and fewer stops.

Amen.

I am staring to wonder if this why Desjardin-Siciliano left. He must have seen the writing on the wall, that the government wasn't really serious about HFR.

He left because his contract and term was up. It was up to VIA if they wanted to renew his term and bring him back. And to be honest, I can't recall any president in VIA's history that has stayed for more than one term.

Dan

For the records, he of course ran for a second mandate and was determined to push HFR towards the green light for funding and construction, but the government exercised their right as only shareholder to stick with the tradition of not renewing the mandate of any VIA CEO...

That's already been tried. The Harper government spent something along the lines of $400 million (IIRC) building third or fourth tracks in several locations specifically so that Via trains wouldn't be delayed by freight trains so much. The problem is that the new tracks are on CN property and belong to CN, which uses them for their own purposes. And Via trains end up getting delayed just as much as before. As long as the government shows zero appetite for giving Via trains priority on CN tracks, the only solution is to build Via its own corridor. Besides, going by the cost to build those sidings, it would cost several billion dollars to build an extra track for the entire corridor, with no guarantee that anything would improve.

Lest we forget how disastrously bad that turned out.

We represent the interests of rail and bus passengers and advocate for public transport services in Canada.

Transport Action Canada, founded as Transport 2000 Canada in 1977, is the nation’s leading citizen transportation advocacy group. We represent the interests of consumers or users of public transport services in Canada.

www.transportaction.ca

Budgeted $250 million. Spent way more than that. Got half the tripled track they initially planned for. 17% drop in on-time performance.

There's no bargaining with CN and CP. And never will be. VIA is additional revenue for them. And if VIA gets too bothersome, they'd gladly forego that additional revenue. VIA does not survive without its own corridor. Simple as that. As the Corridor gains population and cargo traffic increases, VIA's problems will only get worse.

This table (refer to post #4,920) says it all:

Source: OAG report (2016, p.18)

By the way, the per-km figure of $4.5 million would suggest that adding a track for the remainder of the CN-owned part of the Montreal-Kingston corridor would cost almost $2 billion alone ($1.962 billion for 436 km, that is for: 539 km - 70 km triple tracked in 2007-09 - 33 km owned by Metrolinx) without any guarantee that any tangible benefit will materialize (that’s why I call this approach “pay-and-pray”)...

The Arthur Porter affair resulted in the largest fraud investigation in Canadian history and saw the CEO of SNC-Lavalin at the time, arrested and facing 16 charges. But sure, it's only because third world countries have lax standards.....

Thanks to SNC-Lavalin Canada started topping the World Bank's list of countries with the number of barred companies,with 117 entities from Canada barred. 115 of those were SNC-Lavalin affiliates.

I wonder if people who defend the Liberals in this would say the same if it was the Conservatives giving a pass to an Alberta O&G company. Also, prosecution of several directors was not going to put the company "out of business". It might have resulted in a merger where SNC-Lavalin left Quebec though.

Corruption is corruption. Why bother passing anti-corruption laws if you aren't going to prosecute them? Also, deferred prosecution agreements do happen elsewhere. Americans have them for example. But the penalties extracted are usually pretty severe. SNC-Lavalin wasn't even content with avoiding prosecution. They wanted a generous DPA. This is what got them into trouble.

It always surprises me that SNC-Lavalin has gotten through this scandal without anyone ever pointing out who their main shareholder is and who is leading the consortium which builds the REM project (with the taxpayer being on the hook for at least $3 billion of its construction costs and guaranteeing an annual return of $240 million, partly thanks to an obscene $0.72 per-passenger-km subsidy)...

^It would be interesting to know what the most recent ridership and revenue projection might be for HFR between Calgary and Edmonton. These cities have grown, and continue to grow. I wonder how many smaller communities could be added to that spine to grow a network and increase the market.

[...]

As far as i know only HSR was studied between the two cities. And that was supposed to be $2.6 billion if the CP track/corridor was upgraded and used. Previously the contention was that 10 million annual riders was not there. I find that hard to believe going between the fourth and fifth largest city in the country, with strong industrial ties between them. And a city pair with 22 scheduled carrier flights between them and over 30 flights total per day.

If HFR is implemented on the Corridor, Edmonton-Calgary is the obvious next HFR corridor. If we can't implement it here, forget about Alberta...

 

[littlewill1166]

Is there any particular reason why VIA uses Guildwood as its Scarborough stop versus Eglinton GO?

There may be more parking available at Guildwood but, other than that, I am not certain.

There's also an extra track with platform access at Guildwood.

 

[Urban Sky]

Is there any particular reason why VIA uses Guildwood as its Scarborough stop versus Eglinton GO?

Sometimes, a simple visit to Wikipedia can provide you with some clues:

Guildwood GO Station
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[...]

History
The station was meant to provide an easy connection to Toronto Transit Commission buses along Kingston Road, as well as car parking. Since the commuter train service was initially only a demonstration, the land close to the overpass, and the bus stop, could not be acquired due to the cost. This resulted in quite a long walk for pedestrians using local transit.

[...]

Connecting transit
Bus route 86 Scarborough and all of its branch routes, operated by the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), stop on Kingston Road and Celeste Drive, the intersection closest to the station. The route operates between Kennedy station on Line 2 Bloor-Danforth and the Toronto Zoo. The stop is also served by the 905 Eglinton East Express, an express bus route that terminates at the University of Toronto Scarborough and the 986 Scarborough Express, an express bus route that terminates at the Meadowvale Loop.

Wikipedia lists May 23, 1967 as opening date, which coincides with the date at which CN consolidated all stops between Toronto and Oshawa:

Before the opening of Guildwood

Source: CN timetable (effective 1966-10-30)

After the opening of Guildwood

Source: CN timetable (effective 1967-04-30)

 

[nfitz]

Sometimes, a simple visit to Wikipedia can provide you with some clues:


Wikipedia lists May 23, 1967 as opening date, which coincides with the date at which CN consolidated all stops between Toronto and Oshawa:

That only tells you when they did it (when GO service started). Not why they chose Guildwood GO.

Gosh, 3 trains a day from Toronto to Montreal, all running in under 4 hours.

 

[kEiThZ]

Guildwood makes so much more sense than Eglinton to me.

Closer to Scarborough Campus (students are a big demand driver for VIA). Covers Scarborough and Pickering better. Large parking lot. Decent TTC and GO services.

 

[lrt's friend]

That only tells you when they did it (when GO service started). Not why they chose Guildwood GO.

Gosh, 3 trains a day from Toronto to Montreal, all running in under 4 hours.

Passenger service was still run by CN. There was an incentive to move passenger trains fast. Now, CN couldn't care less. That is why a segregated VIA route is so important.

 

[nfitz]

Passenger service was still run by CN. There was an incentive to move passenger trains fast. Now, CN couldn't care less. That is why a segregated VIA route is so important.

Yeah, because spending $billions to run almost 5-hours to Montreal is better than finding ways to again run less than 4 hours along the existing alignment.