VIA Rail

[Urban Sky]

So, what I mean is that if the eastbound is scheduled to arrive at 8am on Monday, then the eastbound won't leave till Tuesday at 8am. However, if a daily of each leg was run, then they could all just leave at a specific time and then it can be your resposibility to figure out what to do for the next one.

Mind you, I doubt any of this will happen.

Congratulations, @Bordercollie, for serving Micheal a pretext to steer the discussion for the two-hundredth time to his favourite topic which is running daily trains across Western Canada with layovers in Winnipeg and Edmonton and a fleet requirement which far exceeds the fleet VIA owns!^^

Now can we please stop feeding the Spammer or do I have to create yet another thread (Intercity passenger rail services in Western Canada, or better: Fantasy Rail Discussions) to save ourselves from this never-ending spam discussion?

 

[crs1026]

But then there is no set schedule. Unless you mean that the train is scheduled to leave, 24 hours after the other train is scheduled to arrive.

But then how long is it going to take to cross the country? Is it even worth it?

How about making the host railway keep VIA on time 97% of the time or face a financial penalty. The government has the power to do that
Plus it's 15? trains outside of the carrier vs hundreds of freight trains. I'm sure if the dispatcher wanted to, they could let the Canadian run on schedule.

With respect to @Urban Sky, this is worth a rational rebuttal, rather than just shuffling off to another thread.

There is no point imagining a financial penalty when the desired outcome is not achievable, and where the penalty would have to be enormous to have any effect. One might as well penalize CN for its failure to levitate the train over any obstruction.

The problem the Canadian faces is the dearth of places where it can overtake a slower freight train. Even where there is double track, there are enough opposing freights that the second track isn’t sitting empty. At the volumes of freight being carried, there just isn’t the capacity to run the Canadian any faster than the flow of freight traffic allows. Intercity, as opposed to transcontinental passenger trains, would encounter the very same problem.

How big a penalty would be needed? It might still be cheaper for CN to plead guilty and eat the fine than to delay all the freights it would have to delay to make things work. And if CN did comply, holding those freights would impair service to, say, grain shippers.... a sector that matters much more to Western Canada’s economy than passenger trains. Be careful what you ask for.

As to scheduling trip legs around 24 hour layovers, that would pretty much kill any through market. How many travellers would schlep their baggage around all day after checking out of their hotel in the morning? As noted, there are too many trip segments and too little equipment to offer day trains across the total distance with nightly layovers.

It has been disappointing to watch VIA water down its schedules again and again, with the hope each time that timekeeping would stabilise. One has to accept that freight volumes have risen just that much, and the trend to longer freight trains and wider spaced passing points was a sound economic choice. CN may have left track expansion too long, but the incremental cost to VIA to keep capacity growing ahead of freight growth enough for the old schedules......, well, that simply wouldn’t have ever flown.

- Paul

 

[trebello]

I'm new here, although I have tired to read through past posts, I don't know if I fully understand the dynamics between posters. I'm taking away that there isn't actually a lot of publicly available specifics, even within a group that is knowledgeable about VIA, about their long-term plans outside of The Corridor (aside from an acknowledgement they will need to make some changes to ensure continued sustainable operations). I am surprised by this as I thought there would be some reports hidden somewhere outlining potential options (given there is a lot of info on The Corridor plans). While there is obviously an appetite by some to see drastically improved Western Canada services, keeping with what @Urban Sky said given the requirement to stay within VIA's current subsidy, service remote communities, and use their existing fleet, I'm taking away that most changes are likely to be relatively minor.

My understanding of the problem (based on VIA's own reports) is that they would like to focus on The Corridor (and rightly so), where the largest market for train travel is, however they have several mandated remote services and some of these are becoming increasingly unsustainable to manage. Changes to The Canadian, specifically would likely be focused at the existing mix of passengers (tourists and remote communities) who have some degree of schedule flexibility. Working within the constraints listed previously, my takeaway is VIA's most likely course of action is potential schedule adjustments (that don't add to the fleet requirement). A more drastic possibility is moving the transcontinental service to CP between Winnipeg and Sudbury and the Budd service to the more congested CN line. Doing so could use existing resources to provide the tourist passenger group a more scenic trip along the lake, provide access from remote communities to Thunder Bay, and hopefully address some of the delays causing the service to be "unsustainable". If switching to CP tracks didn't reduce delays this would just be a solution looking for a problem and we could speculate on things like this endlessly (but shouldn't); I was interested in if there was any concrete evidence of practical measures VIA was exploring to ensure their non-corridor services, and therefore the corporation as a whole, remain sustainable.

Am I correct in saying that the only evidence of major changes VIA is making is focused on HFR/Kingston hub and any plans for non-Corridor service are either minor or haven't been publicly released yet?

 

[micheal_can]

With respect to @Urban Sky, this is worth a rational rebuttal, rather than just shuffling off to another thread.

There is no point imagining a financial penalty when the desired outcome is not achievable, and where the penalty would have to be enormous to have any effect. One might as well penalize CN for its failure to levitate the train over any obstruction.

The problem the Canadian faces is the dearth of places where it can overtake a slower freight train. Even where there is double track, there are enough opposing freights that the second track isn’t sitting empty. At the volumes of freight being carried, there just isn’t the capacity to run the Canadian any faster than the flow of freight traffic allows. Intercity, as opposed to transcontinental passenger trains, would encounter the very same problem.

How big a penalty would be needed? It might still be cheaper for CN to plead guilty and eat the fine than to delay all the freights it would have to delay to make things work. And if CN did comply, holding those freights would impair service to, say, grain shippers.... a sector that matters much more to Western Canada’s economy than passenger trains. Be careful what you ask for.

As to scheduling trip legs around 24 hour layovers, that would pretty much kill any through market. How many travellers would schlep their baggage around all day after checking out of their hotel in the morning? As noted, there are too many trip segments and too little equipment to offer day trains across the total distance with nightly layovers.

It has been disappointing to watch VIA water down its schedules again and again, with the hope each time that timekeeping would stabilise. One has to accept that freight volumes have risen just that much, and the trend to longer freight trains and wider spaced passing points was a sound economic choice. CN may have left track expansion too long, but the incremental cost to VIA to keep capacity growing ahead of freight growth enough for the old schedules......, well, that simply wouldn’t have ever flown.

- Paul

I would like to address the 2 different things.

1) One of the biggest problems with trains being delayed is over siding trains. These trains force all others to take the siding. So, if you ever meet one of these, whether it is scheduled or not, it can delay a train.

2) shooting ideas out there is easy. Making it work is the hard part. Unless there was a daily train for each part of the entire route, splitting it up would be worse than leaving it as is. Since Via has no plans of going to a daily Canadian train, there is no expectations on my part that it would be implemented. Mind you, there is no reason they can't leave then existing truncated Canadian routes added with the normal full length one that runs 3x a week.

 

[Darwinkgo]

The current rail cruise on the CP line, the Rocky Mountaineer overnights in Kamloops where everyone gets off and stays in various classes of hotels according to the class of their ticket. Their setup ensures that no trip passes through the mountains at night. The Rocky Mountaineer makes money, on a full cost basis.

Do we want the Canadian to be the best rail cruise? Because calling in Jasper in the middle of the night (the last mention I remember from years back when a politician used the Canadian as an unofficial campaign prop) doesn’t accomplish that. Of course that use is entirely counter to the efficient transportation use.

 

[crs1026]

Am I correct in saying that the only evidence of major changes VIA is making is focused on HFR/Kingston hub and any plans for non-Corridor service are either minor or haven't been publicly released yet?

One does indeed have to “read the chicken bones” to discern what is going on. The reality is, much of the ”plan” seems to be ad hoc, with government dealing with things one-of and only reactively when a crisis is reached, and many decisions being evident only as between the lines inferences. The three most concrete of these, excluding HFR, are likely the following:

VIa has issued a business plan document which is pretty detailed and outlines the intent of their ”best foot forward”. It is noteworthy because it does lay out a few destiny areas where government has no option but to make a decision. It also points out areas where decisions happened in spite of best efforts - for instance, the proposal to improve Maritime service has been shelved.

There was a government report not too many years back which looked at the long term future of both the Canadian and the Ocean. (Sorry, I’m on mobile otherwise I would try to find and cite these documents). That amounts to a policy paper that puts the isssue on government’s front burner. Nothing concrete has been said since, but VIA continues to secure funding to maintain and renew its long distance fleet. I guess that’s a decision of sorts.

I would cite the government’s decision to repair the Churchill line as a confirmation that remote community access is viewed as a continuing mandate.

While I appreciate @UrbanSky’s efforts to keep the discussion focussed and away from “fantasy” level discussion, the reality is that government policy and behaviour constrains (obstructs is not too strong a word) what VIA can accomplish. It’s inevitable that we will have to point to some of these constraints when we suggest options for VIA. It’s not helpful to have to move to another thread just to ask if these constraints could be changed. Some can, others are unlikely to ever change.... but in a forum like UT where people continue to debate the best route and method for new rapid transit lines that are already nearing completion, a little blue skying comes with the territory.

- Paul

 

[Bordercollie]

The current rail cruise on the CP line, the Rocky Mountaineer overnights in Kamloops where everyone gets off and stays in various classes of hotels according to the class of their ticket. Their setup ensures that no trip passes through the mountains at night. The Rocky Mountaineer makes money, on a full cost basis.

Do we want the Canadian to be the best rail cruise? Because calling in Jasper in the middle of the night (the last mention I remember from years back when a politician used the Canadian as an unofficial campaign prop) doesn’t accomplish that. Of course that use is entirely counter to the efficient transportation use.

The primary reason why the two trains exists is totally different. The purpose of the Canadian is to ensure that there is cross country rail service for the general public, not for people who want a luxury vacation. For the Canadian the Prestiege customers are a bonus, not their primary focus.

 

[smallspy]

I would like to address the 2 different things.

1) One of the biggest problems with trains being delayed is over siding trains. These trains force all others to take the siding. So, if you ever meet one of these, whether it is scheduled or not, it can delay a train.

No, it's not.

Both CN and CP have operating plans that call for, and make allowances for, over-siding trains. In fact, in the 1990s and early 2000s CP utilized an operating plan across Northern Ontario that worked quite efficiently, by using smaller trains in one direction that could fit into sidings and longer trains in the other that didn't. The problem with it was that the costs for moving the crews and locomotives back and forth to equalize everything was felt to be too great, and so they went away from it.

2) shooting ideas out there is easy. Making it work is the hard part. Unless there was a daily train for each part of the entire route, splitting it up would be worse than leaving it as is. Since Via has no plans of going to a daily Canadian train, there is no expectations on my part that it would be implemented. Mind you, there is no reason they can't leave then existing truncated Canadian routes added with the normal full length one that runs 3x a week.

This is a bit of an ironic statement coming from you. The experience built into the operations departments of either of the two freight railways in Canada greatly outweighs - likely by several times over - the knowledge base of posters on forums like this, myself included. Just because you don't like a decision doesn't mean that it isn't the right one for the company involved.

Dan

 

[crs1026]

The current rail cruise on the CP line, the Rocky Mountaineer overnights in Kamloops where everyone gets off and stays in various classes of hotels according to the class of their ticket. Their setup ensures that no trip passes through the mountains at night. The Rocky Mountaineer makes money, on a full cost basis.

Do we want the Canadian to be the best rail cruise? Because calling in Jasper in the middle of the night (the last mention I remember from years back when a politician used the Canadian as an unofficial campaign prop) doesn’t accomplish that. Of course that use is entirely counter to the efficient transportation use.

RMTR’s service plan is well suited to the Rockies, but I doubt their model would be successful east of Calgary/Jasper. Two days, one night is perfect, but add in a night in Calgary/Edmonton, and then Regina/Saskatoon, and the three-night journey Vancouver-Winnipeg would be both tedious and unaffordable for many. If it were viable, I’m sure RMTR would already be there.

While I don’t favour asking CN to run VIA at a loss, one has to be careful in analysing how much VIA’s existence as a subsidised service harms RMTR. RMTR does pay to secure priority handling, VIA clearly does not. RMTR’s fare “bundle” has different things in it - closer to a package tour, often with before and after amenities built in. RMTr’s view of how much VIa cuts into their business is overstated, IMHO. And if the Canadian were eliminated and VIA’s operating subsidy were redirected to support for BC-Alberta tourism more broadly, RMTR would see little of that. Still, RMTR’s ticket price is an informative benchmark about what rail passenger really costs....although VIA gives us enough detail on that directly.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

Both CN and CP have operating plans that call for, and make allowances for, over-siding trains. In fact, in the 1990s and early 2000s CP utilized an operating plan across Northern Ontario that worked quite efficiently, by using smaller trains in one direction that could fit into sidings and longer trains in the other that didn't. The problem with it was that the costs for moving the crews and locomotives back and forth to equalize everything was felt to be too great, and so they went away from it.

As a spectator, and as a CN shareholder, even if VIA is not a consideration, I am still convincced that what CN has been doing in Northern Ontario by doubling oversize trains between sidings for meets is dumb, dumb, dumb.

CN people are very proud of how much they wring out of that line. My career experience says, when your management culture is proud of workarounds, you’re in dangerous territory. So I’m doubly convinced that the status quo is unsustainable. But for now it works.

Having said that, the numbers tell the story. CN has 720 million shares, and it is paying $2 and change per share annually in dividends. Fixing the oversize siding thing up north sufficiently to help VIA would easily consume a quarter of the dividend payout for a year, maybe more. Pretty obvious why CN chips away at it, rather than attacking that challenge more aggressively. VIA has no money to offer, so they are dependent on what their landlord can offer. The oversize trains are here to stay..

One man’s workaround is another’s creative innovation, I guess.

- Paul

 

[Darwinkgo]

The purpose of the Canadian is to ensure that there is cross country rail service for the general public, not for people who want a luxury vacation. For the Canadian the Prestiege customers are a bonus, not their primary focus.

You get so close that I have to finish he thought. The purpose is for the general public to know Canada has a long distance train. Because trains have a certain romance to them and a lot of people can imagine maybe one day using it even if they never will. That extends to international prestige and tourism promotion (in the broader sense - not for itself, but in the creation of an image of Canada in peoples mind).

The easiest way to see the practical result of this: the Finance department approved putting a picture of the Canadian on our money, but never approved a recapitalization of the equipment.

 

[lenaitch]

While I have neither expertise nor a dog in the hunt, moving Canadian to CP through Northern Ontario would provide a better customer experience (more scenic) and might even generate bookings for that leg alone (subject to scheduling). However I'm not sure running a couple of aging Budd RDCs from Sudbury all the way to Winnipeg to fulfill the remote service mandate would be sustainable.

 

[sacred]

While I have neither expertise nor a dog in the hunt, moving Canadian to CP through Northern Ontario would provide a better customer experience (more scenic) and might even generate bookings for that leg alone (subject to scheduling). However I'm not sure running a couple of aging Budd RDCs from Sudbury all the way to Winnipeg to fulfill the remote service mandate would be sustainable.

Yeah, speaking personally, I would absolutely use such a service from Toronto to somewhere along Superior. What issues are involved with switching the Canadian from CN to CP here? Is there additional infrastructure needed?

 

[Bordercollie]

It should be able to at Sudbury since they already have shared bi-directional running in that area.

 

[Urban Sky]

New Schedules in effect for the Corridor as of today

https://twitter.com/x/status/1346969407902384133

Further to above Tweet (not the response to it), VIA has released new schedules effective today, according to which trains 46, 55, 65 and 66 will no longer operate. Given that these trains only operated on Mondays, Fridays and Sundays, this is a rather minor change, but it is still the second service reduction (after the third frequency between Quebec, Montreal and Ottawa was cancelled on October 27) during the ongoing second wave. Effective today, the service offerings in the Corridor will be as follows:

• Quebec-Montreal (and v.v.)
  • leaving QBEC at 08:00 (#35) and 13:00 (#37)
  • leaving MTRL at 12:45 (#24) and 18:25 (#28)
• Montreal-Ottawa (and v.v.)
  • leaving MTRL at 12:04 (#35) and 16:50 (#37)
  • leaving OTTW at 10:15 (#24) and 16:10 (#28)
• Montreal-Toronto (and v.v.)
  • leaving MTRL at 08:55 (#63), 11:05* (#65), 13:28 (#67) and 17:10 (#69)
  • leaving TRTO at 08:32 (#62), 11:32 (#64), 15:17* (#66) and 17:02 (#68)
• Ottawa-Toronto (and v.v.)
  • leaving OTTW at 08:40 (#643), 11:50 (#53), 15:23* (#55) and 18:25 (#59)
  • leaving TRTO at 08:32 (#52), 12:17 (#42), 15:32* (#46) and 18:47 (#48)
• Toronto-Windsor (and v.v.)
  • leaving TRTO at 08:40 (#71) and 17:30 (#75)
  • leaving WDON at 09:00 (#72) and 17:45 (#78)
• Toronto-Sarnia (and v.v.)
  • leaving TRTO at 17:40 (#84)
  • leaving SARN at 06:10 (#87)

Note: all trains operate daily, except trains marked with an asterisk (*), which will operate on Mondays, Fridays and Sundays only.

The new PDF schedules can be found here:

https://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/schedules/VIARAIL_Timetable-2021_v20_Temporary_Schedule.pdf