VIA Rail

[roger1818]

Thank you so much for posting this, it is much less awkward for me if I don’t feel tempted to post such a table myself!

Thanks for your feedback! I really appreciate it.

Just two comments:

• The HEP I cars with a “Snack bar” (which is just a Galley like in the HEP II cars) are cars 8145-8147, which are used exclusively on the Jonquière and Senneterre services (to be able to offer snacks to passengers).

Ya. I didn't really like using 3 of the HEP I cars with a “Snack bar” in my count, but it was the only way I could get the seat count to add up. I wasn't sure if they were leftover from something else and had never had the seating reconfigured, but you would certainly know better than me. Without using them, I get 9126 seats, which would round up, not down (unless they are rounding to the nearest multiple of 32).

• There must have been a third HEP I Baggage car, to act as a back-up for the two in service (on Set 1 and Set 4).

Possibly. I didn't include any more because I already had the 7 HEP I cars the slide said there was. I see two possible explanations.

1. They were 2 spare HEP I baggage cars for corridor use, but when putting together the proposal, VIA was afraid that the government would insist VIA "dispose" of an cars that were replaced in the new order. Since the HEP I Baggage cars are of general use across the entire network, and they have more Renaissance baggage cars than they need, they "assigned" a couple to the corridor to be sacrificed.
2. Since the Canadian (out of Toronto) and the Northern Quebec trains (out of Montreal) both use HEP I Baggage cars, maybe the spares are a shared resource. Removal of the need for a spare along the corridor won't remove the need for a spare in either city's maintenance centres.

It could also be some combination of the two.

That said, even I struggle to exactly reconcile some of the subtotals with what I believe to have been the reality when the RFP was written (and I have been involved in determining the appropriate fleet size for the RFP!), but the bottom line is that none of the subtotals (number of cars per fleet type) is infeasible (i.e. larger than the number of cars in the actual fleet) and that the total seat count is plausible (i.e. it is possible to reconcile it with the subtotals provided without making outlandish assumptions and with a deviation of less than 0.1%).

Therefore, I can’t thank you enough for demonstrating that the size of the new fleet represents almost perfectly the “one for one” fleet replacement which was advertised, which should allow for a slight increase in seat miles, thanks to higher fleet availability and utilization...!

One thing it does show, is that VIA knows how to play the game. It gives me confidence that, while the original RFQ was for 32 x 285 passenger 5 car trains to match what they are replacing, VIA will have Siemens modify the quantity of each type of coach to match the number needed for the fleet of different length trains they are wanting, in hopes that the bean counters will only look at the number of cars received and not the number of seats (which would likely increase).

 

[trebello]

With The Canadian continuing its shortened Vancouver-Winnipeg run (removing Toronto - Sudbury entirely), what do people think the post-covid future of this train is? As has been mentioned, VIA's Corporate Plan notes that the current business model is "is no longer sustainable", but it seems unlikely VIA would cancel this train outright. I say this because the optics would likely be poor for the government to cancel the best-known service in Western Canada as inter-city bus services are cancelled and as the MMIWG notes the importance of intercity transit, plus with the carbon tax increasing it doesn't look great to remove transit options (even though almost no one actually uses The Canadian for regular inter-city travel). I could be wrong on this, but it seems like something people would use to get upset about, even if they have no intention of ever stepping on a train.

Many users on here seem much more knowledgeable than me on this, so assuming VIA keeps this service, is there any possibility of:

• Permanently breaking the train into different segments (e.g. Vancouver - Edmonton, Edmonton - Winnipeg, Winnipeg - Toronto). This would likely help OTP, but could decrease international tourists going from Toronto to Vancouver in Prestige Class
• Using the CP route from Toronto to Winnipeg. Transport Canada seems to suggest this route has seen declining traffic relative to the CN route and it would serve Thunder Bay, which has been requesting the return of train service. Not sure if VIA is mandated to serve many of the smaller communities along the CN line, but they could possibly do this using the Budd Cars from the Sudbury - White River train.
• Using other tracks in some places (looking at old timetables it looks like at one point VIA ran service from Winnipeg to Saskatoon via Regina instead of Melville). This seems rather unlikely, especially given part of the tracks are now owned by a small short-line railway.
• Working out an agreement with CN to help pay some capital costs of lengthening sidings (maybe in exchange for better OTP)

...or any other possibilities?

 

[Richard White]

With The Canadian continuing its shortened Vancouver-Winnipeg run (removing Toronto - Sudbury entirely), what do people think the post-covid future of this train is? As has been mentioned, VIA's Corporate Plan notes that the current business model is "is no longer sustainable", but it seems unlikely VIA would cancel this train outright. I say this because the optics would likely be poor for the government to cancel the best-known service in Western Canada as inter-city bus services are cancelled and as the MMIWG notes the importance of intercity transit, plus with the carbon tax increasing it doesn't look great to remove transit options (even though almost no one actually uses The Canadian for regular inter-city travel). I could be wrong on this, but it seems like something people would use to get upset about, even if they have no intention of ever stepping on a train.

Many users on here seem much more knowledgeable than me on this, so assuming VIA keeps this service, is there any possibility of:

• Permanently breaking the train into different segments (e.g. Vancouver - Edmonton, Edmonton - Winnipeg, Winnipeg - Toronto). This would likely help OTP, but could decrease international tourists going from Toronto to Vancouver in Prestige Class
• Using the CP route from Toronto to Winnipeg. Transport Canada seems to suggest this route has seen declining traffic relative to the CN route and it would serve Thunder Bay, which has been requesting the return of train service. Not sure if VIA is mandated to serve many of the smaller communities along the CN line, but they could possibly do this using the Budd Cars from the Sudbury - White River train.
• Using other tracks in some places (looking at old timetables it looks like at one point VIA ran service from Winnipeg to Saskatoon via Regina instead of Melville). This seems rather unlikely, especially given part of the tracks are now owned by a small short-line railway.
• Working out an agreement with CN to help pay some capital costs of lengthening sidings (maybe in exchange for better OTP)

...or any other possibilities?

If they substantially lowered the cost more people would use it. If nothing else the Canadian has iconic views and is truly an experience but the cost is insane. I looked at taking it years ago for the experience but I had no desire to pay over 5000 dollars each way for a proper bed as opposed to sleeping in my seat.

It should be extended to Halifax from Vancouver (with no transfer in Toronto or Quebec). Tying it in with the ocean would make it truly a national experience.

 

[cplchanb]

With The Canadian continuing its shortened Vancouver-Winnipeg run (removing Toronto - Sudbury entirely), what do people think the post-covid future of this train is? As has been mentioned, VIA's Corporate Plan notes that the current business model is "is no longer sustainable", but it seems unlikely VIA would cancel this train outright. I say this because the optics would likely be poor for the government to cancel the best-known service in Western Canada as inter-city bus services are cancelled and as the MMIWG notes the importance of intercity transit, plus with the carbon tax increasing it doesn't look great to remove transit options (even though almost no one actually uses The Canadian for regular inter-city travel). I could be wrong on this, but it seems like something people would use to get upset about, even if they have no intention of ever stepping on a train.

Many users on here seem much more knowledgeable than me on this, so assuming VIA keeps this service, is there any possibility of:

• Permanently breaking the train into different segments (e.g. Vancouver - Edmonton, Edmonton - Winnipeg, Winnipeg - Toronto). This would likely help OTP, but could decrease international tourists going from Toronto to Vancouver in Prestige Class
• Using the CP route from Toronto to Winnipeg. Transport Canada seems to suggest this route has seen declining traffic relative to the CN route and it would serve Thunder Bay, which has been requesting the return of train service. Not sure if VIA is mandated to serve many of the smaller communities along the CN line, but they could possibly do this using the Budd Cars from the Sudbury - White River train.
• Using other tracks in some places (looking at old timetables it looks like at one point VIA ran service from Winnipeg to Saskatoon via Regina instead of Melville). This seems rather unlikely, especially given part of the tracks are now owned by a small short-line railway.
• Working out an agreement with CN to help pay some capital costs of lengthening sidings (maybe in exchange for better OTP)

...or any other possibilities?

I agree with breaking it up to east and west branches. Perhaps they can throw in a couple full segment trips per week but it will greatly help keep trains on time and lower cost if it wasnt a a single long route.
That way they can also increase frequency and decrease train size to cater for the region.

 

[cplchanb]

If they substantially lowered the cost more people would use it. If nothing else the Canadian has iconic views and is truly an experience but the cost is insane. I looked at taking it years ago for the experience but I had no desire to pay over 5000 dollars each way for a proper bed as opposed to sleeping in my seat.

It should be extended to Halifax from Vancouver (with no transfer in Toronto or Quebec). Tying it in with the ocean would make it truly a national experience.

they can have perhaps a single train like per week or biweekly. it makes no sense to do this for every train. it would cost way too much for return and not to mention the potential delays would be to risky long term. Given that Tor to Van is already exprecting 24hr delay avg, youre looking at possibly 48hr delay from coast to coast, which honestly would be unacceptable to any rider.

 

[Richard White]

I agree with breaking it up to east and west branches. Perhaps they can throw in a couple full segment trips per week but it will greatly help keep trains on time and lower cost if it wasnt a a single long route.
That way they can also increase frequency and decrease train size to cater for the region.

If you break it up into smaller segments it would be a death knell for the train. Those who take the train take it for the same reasons they take The Ocean or the Rocky Mountaineer. It is a land cruise, not a commuter service.

Those who take it, know it is a long trip but take it for the experience. If they wanted a faster travel time they would fly for a fraction of the cost.

 

[sacred]

they can have perhaps a single train like per week or biweekly. it makes no sense to do this for every train. it would cost way too much for return and not to mention the potential delays would be to risky long term. Given that Tor to Van is already exprecting 24 delay avg, youre looking at possibly 48hr delay from coast to coast, which honestly would be unacceptable to any rider.

Agreed! The end-to-end Canadian is not useful enough as a transportation tool to the areas it travels by. Do I want to take the Canadian? Yes, as a luxury/cruise experience when I have the time and money. Do I want my fellow Canadians to be able to access a more frequent, reliable service, and accessible service? Especially yes. Western Canada needs great transportation that serves their needs.

 

[cplchanb]

If you break it up into smaller segments it would be a death knell for the train. Those who take the train take it for the same reasons they take The Ocean or the Rocky Mountaineer. It is a land cruise, not a commuter service.

Those who take it, know it is a long trip but take it for the experience. If they wanted a faster travel time they would fly for a fraction of the cost.

you do know that many small communities rely on it as their only viable means of transporation. They need to preserve the service for those people and most likely themajority dont need to go more than 1 provice across to do their business. They need to
have reliable eervice for those people and imo smaller more frequent regional trains are the answer. You can still have the Canadian running once every week or biweekly, but until theres reliable cheaper service it makes no sense to continue breaking the bank for a train that is often 24 hrs late and cost prohibitive to most except for retired folk

 

[trebello]

Those are good points. Perhaps I should have added an additional option of having one weekly Canadian trip all the way from Toronto to Vancouver, with additional trips on segments where there is more demand (perhaps even near daily on some sections, such as through the Rockies during the summer months). This could not only make it more practical (and reliable) for inter-city travel, but would also give tourists the opportunity to get off in a city like Jasper and not be forced to stay for longer than they want to catch the next train.

 

[Urban Sky]

they can have perhaps a single train like per week or biweekly. it makes no sense to do this for every train. it would cost way too much for return and not to mention the potential delays would be to risky long term. Given that Tor to Van is already exprecting 24hr delay avg, youre looking at possibly 48hr delay from coast to coast, which honestly would be unacceptable to any rider.

You are describing a situation which was true in previous years, but no longer reflects the reality since the schedule changes which took place in June 2018 and April 2019:

Please refer to post #6708 for sources and explanations...

Agreed! The end-to-end Canadian is not useful enough as a transportation tool to the areas it travels by. Do I want to take the Canadian? Yes, as a luxury/cruise experience when I have the time and money. Do I want my fellow Canadians to be able to access a more frequent, reliable service, and accessible service? Especially yes. Western Canada needs great transportation that serves their needs.

Couldn’t agree more, but I don’t understand why Western Canadians would favour an infrequent, slow and unreliable intercity rail service over the kind of much faster, more frequent and flexible coach (i.e. intercity bus) service which could be run for the same (or even smaller) operating subsidy...

In any case, all discussions about the creation of an intercity rail service across Western Canada or a publicly funded national coach service belong in the Transport Policy thread, as neither falls within VIA’s current mandate...

 

[trebello]

Thanks for the graphs @Urban Sky ! I couldn't agree more re: train vs coach travel ...VIA will never be competitive with bus service in speed/frequency on sections such as Vancouver to Kamloops. It seems train speed is quite good on the prairies, so if it wasn't for reliability I can see people using VIA more on Edmonton - Winnipeg (although I don't see reliability drastically changing anytime soon). Plus some sections (such as Kamloops to Jasper) don't have intercity bus service since Greyhound left. I wonder if VIA would consider doing overnight stops on the Canadian like they do with The Skeena

 

[cplchanb]

Thanks for the graphs @Urban Sky ! I couldn't agree more re: train vs coach travel ...VIA will never be competitive with bus service in speed/frequency on sections such as Vancouver to Kamloops. It seems train speed is quite good on the prairies, so if it wasn't for reliability I can see people using VIA more on Edmonton - Winnipeg (although I don't see reliability drastically changing anytime soon). Plus some sections (such as Kamloops to Jasper) don't have intercity bus service since Greyhound left. I wonder if VIA would consider doing overnight stops on the Canadian like they do with The Skeena

Tbh the new schedule sort of paints a false narrative as they are allowing for more train travel time, thus accounting for the delays into the schedule. So while it looks good for the OTP chart in reality, the trains are still much slower than bus and need a better long term solution.
Its like trying to hide dirt under the carpet. As mentioned above they need to solve the problem of travel times and delays instead of hiding it behind false metrics.

On the note of the canadian itself, if we were to have regional regular service and the single canadian trip, perhaps the latter can just stop at the major and popular stops (major cities, jasper etc). that can help with maintaining performance and being a tourist train.

 

[sacred]

Tbh the new schedule sort of paints a false narrative as they are allowing for more train travel time, thus accounting for the delays into the schedule. So while it looks good for the OTP chart in reality, the trains are still much slower than bus and need a better long term solution.
Its like trying to hide dirt under the carpet. As mentioned above they need to solve the problem of travel times and delays instead of hiding it behind false metrics.

On the note of the canadian itself, if we were to have regional regular service and the single canadian trip, perhaps the latter can just stop at the major and popular stops (major cities, jasper etc). that can help with maintaining performance and being a tourist train.

How is it a false narrative if the new schedule accounts for delays and more closely reflects service...??

 

[Urban Sky]

Tbh the new schedule sort of paints a false narrative as they are allowing for more train travel time, thus accounting for the delays into the schedule. So while it looks good for the OTP chart in reality, the trains are still much slower than bus and need a better long term solution.
Its like trying to hide dirt under the carpet. As mentioned above they need to solve the problem of travel times and delays instead of hiding it behind false metrics.

Just for the records: I only responded to your claim that 24 hours of delay are still a common occurrence without any suggestion that the OTP observed since the most recent schedule change would be adequate for anyone else than the (mostly international) rail cruise crowd.

Also, the post I linked clearly mentioned that the schedules were extended, even though the more important stabilizer was the substantial increase of turnaround time in Toronto:

 

[crs1026]

^Just about everybody I know has a revised post-COVID bucket list of travel destinations that they hope to visit when travel resumes. I have to assume that the Canadian remains a valued travel experience, not only for Canadians but for those overseas who see Canada as a travel destination.

The "K-shaped recovery" thing gives a lot of optimism that there will be customers willing to pay. While COVID is hitting many hard, there are just as many who are actually accumulating disposable income because they can't find anything to spend it on.

So - what VIA should be doing (and, by all indications they are) is taking the time to put their fleet in absolute top condition, so that they are ready to run the service to the hilt once COVID travel restrictions ease. As a tourist train, it has a very strong future. COVID is just building up demand for later.

With so many Canadian riders coming from afar, cancelling the train would affect airlines hotels, and other parts of the tourist industry. All of these are in desperate need of resuscitation as soon as travel is possible. I just can't see "Ottawa" touching the Canadian for a few years hence. The question will be whether the travel appetite eases, or remains heavy. At some point the boomers as a cohort will become too old to travel.... although VIA remains a "cruise experience" and may attract lots of repeat customers who are in their 70's and 80's. It's certainly on my bucket list (and I'm not in that category....yet). Pricing may change, but already Prestige Class is here to stay.

Personally, my travel hopes/expectations are to resume travel within Canada well before the borders reopen. The Canadian is on my list, and I gather others see it equally favourably. CN's ability to move the train reliably is certainly a make or break matter for VIA. But beyond that, the service is viable. Leave the debate for later, let's see what 3-5 years of post-covid operations delivers.

PS - the Ocean is more debatable, and with the Ren fleet in such poor shape the Canadian's fleet will be eroded to protect the Ocean. Let's start the discussion there.

- Paul