Bordercollie
Senior Member
For that kind of distance you would need a dining car and a sleeper coach. You could ask Siemens to make a Sleeper version using the Venture coach platform.
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
roger1818
Active Member
I don't think there is an official list of what the mandatory services are. AFAIK, it is more like they must continue to provide the services that they are "currently" providing and any abandoning of service requires crown approval. Obviously VIA has the flexibility to temporary suspend service due to situations outside of their control. Interestingly both the Victoria-Courtney and Montreal-Gaspe routes are both still listed as suspended and have not been officially abandoned.
Obviously the government is reluctant to abandon any service for fear that it will cost them in the next election. As a result, they would rather see VIA die a death of a thousand paper cuts than pull off the Band-Aid (to mix my metaphors) and fix the problems.
Without intervention from the federal government, that is about all they can do unfortunately. Given that VIA had to ask the federal government for money to do a proper feasibility study for HFR, I expect they don't have enough money to do much more than a back of the napkin study on how to fix the long distance and regional services. They do know that the HEP and Renaissance cars are rapidly reaching the end of their life. As for on time performance, they have fixed it for now, but how long will it last with increasing freight volume is anyone's guess.
Also, the longer schedule is fine for those wanting the train experience as they get more time on the train but it makes the train less attractive as a mode of transportation and it can actually hurt VIA's reputation nationwide. It also results in increased costs as the longer trip is, the more labour costs and the less utilization they can get out of their fleet is, meaning they need to buy and maintain a larger fleet to provide the same service.
It might seem easy, but they would need a large order to cover the NRE costs of designing a sleeper variant. If VIA is replacing the rest of its fleet, that might be feasible, but not as a onesie-twosie order.
Another option would be to ask CAF to build some Viewliner IIs (they only just finished building the last one in August). They have already been designed and were recently built, so they could order a small number as is, or with a few minor tweaks (not major changes without a significant order).
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,405
- Reaction score
- 9,063
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
Though CN still has mainline track into Thunder Bay, it only has the old Canadian Northern line through Fort Frances and northwestern Minnesota left. It abandoned the route through Nipigon and Geraldton twenty years ago, and the route between Sioux Lookout and Thunder Bay at least ten years ago.
Passenger train interchanges between CN & CP tracks anywhere between Sudbury and Winnipeg just won’t happen.
crs1026
Senior Member
^Once the Challengers start arriving, there might be enough leftover HEP equipment in the fleet to cough up two baggage + coach sets and run the CN train similar to the Skeena, as suggested above.
I would not assume that every traveller of such a service needs to reach the far end of the line. So if the route is broken in the middle, with no layover amenities, some of the territory would be served from Winnipeg and some from Capreol, and that might be all the ridership needs.
But that is hypothetical. The question is whether the line needs to be served at all.
Personally, I doubt it. I know CN workers up that way, and while they face some commuting challenges, the communities along the railway have other means to reach civilization, and those commuting challenges (multi-hour drives along rough roads) are generic to all of the communities north of the TCH. The railway workforce has gravitated to a few spots, and the rest is bush, and the hamlets on the railway are outnumbered by hamlets with no transportation at all. There is nothing differentiating the on-line hamlets and there is little development enabled by giving them a service that off-rail hamlets don’t enjoy. (I’m drifting into “policy” here, but that shows that the two threads are best allowed some overlap)
I can’t imagine VIA underwriting the engineering and maufacturing effort to design and build a new overnight train for the remote market, to the exclusion of the long distance trains. The only way we will ever see new long distance trains procured for remote service is with the economy of scale of a larger production run. The pols seem happy to feed VIA enough money to nurse the existing equipment along, but that can’t continue forever. Having said that, pols being what they are, and lacking a commitment to any sort of national vision for either the long distance service or supporting remote communities (again, a policy digression) the decision probably won’t be taken seriously until the equipment becomes unfixable.
- Paul
I would not assume that every traveller of such a service needs to reach the far end of the line. So if the route is broken in the middle, with no layover amenities, some of the territory would be served from Winnipeg and some from Capreol, and that might be all the ridership needs.
But that is hypothetical. The question is whether the line needs to be served at all.
Personally, I doubt it. I know CN workers up that way, and while they face some commuting challenges, the communities along the railway have other means to reach civilization, and those commuting challenges (multi-hour drives along rough roads) are generic to all of the communities north of the TCH. The railway workforce has gravitated to a few spots, and the rest is bush, and the hamlets on the railway are outnumbered by hamlets with no transportation at all. There is nothing differentiating the on-line hamlets and there is little development enabled by giving them a service that off-rail hamlets don’t enjoy. (I’m drifting into “policy” here, but that shows that the two threads are best allowed some overlap)
I can’t imagine VIA underwriting the engineering and maufacturing effort to design and build a new overnight train for the remote market, to the exclusion of the long distance trains. The only way we will ever see new long distance trains procured for remote service is with the economy of scale of a larger production run. The pols seem happy to feed VIA enough money to nurse the existing equipment along, but that can’t continue forever. Having said that, pols being what they are, and lacking a commitment to any sort of national vision for either the long distance service or supporting remote communities (again, a policy digression) the decision probably won’t be taken seriously until the equipment becomes unfixable.
- Paul
Last edited:
crs1026
Senior Member
I do wonder if that's what is keeping the Canadian on the CN line, in spite of (hypothetically) having documented a better business case for using CP.
Status quo - nobody is unhappy, but VIA eats extra cost and provides a less than optimal rider experience
Change plan - VIA has a healthier and more marketable long distance train service, but some citizens are unhappy and communities are protesting their loss of service (which they may not really use)
As a voter (not living in Thunder Bay), I might even accept the status quo in spite of my enthusiasm for VIA, if that decision were reached transparently and if pols took accountability for that, so that it is not held against VIA. If I were a Thunder Bay voter, I would want transparency to understand what I'm foregoing in the interest of folks further north. It's so hard to talk about VIA without drifting into the politics.
- Paul
lenaitch
Senior Member
You are correct; I suppose I was thinking of interchange points between continuous east-west lines. Besides, having Canadian go through the US would be a bit of an oxymoron. CN TBay-Nipigon-Longlac (Kinghorn sub) was abandoned around 2010, TBay-Sioux Lookout (Graham sub) was abandoned in the early-mid '90s.
lenaitch
Senior Member
You are right that it is often hard to separate the two. Without some kind of analysis regarding how many permanent residents would lose and how willing the the government is to deal with that it's impossible to tell. The only place I could find a population number for was Collins (west of Nakina) - about 30. They would have to either build a road or build and airport (for those not on a body of water). I suppose they could do the same analysis for the northern Quebec remote service and Sudbury-White River as well. I suspect, but don't know, that there would be as much or even more impact on outfitters and remote camps as there would be on permanent residence.
micheal_can
Senior Member
I did not think of the crew resting. There is no reason they couldn't convert part of the car into a bunk area for them.
Eventually, the 50+ year old cars on the Canadian will need a major refurbishment or replacement. This may mean that there are not enough cars to operate the line. So, I feel that after Via receives the current fleet ordered, they might be able to either add to it, or a new order to get more cars to replace the older stuff. I could see all of the older stainless steel sided cars being moved to the Canadian while the other lines get the replacements as needed.
Why did Via cancel the southern CP route? It had less of a subsidy per km. The person making the decision as voted in in Edmonton. Everything is politics. The HFR is politics.It is a winding and twisiting route that is not designed for speeds in excess of 60mph. However, the politics of it is great.
Wait... are you suggesting we have a route that could be bought and run by Via? That might be what is needed to improve service on that route. It also sounds like the gap between Sioux Lookout and Longlac could be run with a Budd, if there is enough of them available. It looks like it's about 4-5 hours long. So, it could be a day trip both ways.
roger1818
Active Member
Good point! I noticed that error and forgot to reply. Below is a snip from the Canadian Rail Atlas showing the different existing routes east of Winnipeg. Having it travel through Minnesota would also add customs delays. I guess it could switch from CP's Keewatin Sub to CN's Redditt Sub where they cross near Brereton Lake, but I don't see much advantage to that.
roger1818
Active Member
I am sure that would go over like a lead balloon.
So basically put all the junk cars that will break down every few days on the Canadian where it runs through remote areas, far from a maintenance centre.
Here we go again. It isn't as if we haven't beaten this dead horse enough.
Ya, sure. VIA could spend billions of dollars up front and millions of dollars a year in maintenance costs for a ROW that they will only use a few times a week. Great value for taxpayers money.
crs1026
Senior Member
I suspect that at best, it's more a squeaky-wheel analysis than hard numbers. And any threshold or formula would set precedent for other lines. Note that "Ottawa" declined to support the former Algoma Central route, which has a few minor hamlets but plenty of recreational/seasonal camps. For that matter, nobody had difficulty watching the Northlander disappear. And by any measure, adding service to Thunder Bay and the Marathon area would far outvote the CN route in terms of ridership.
Each route may have some unique pluses and minuses, and there will be differences between main lines and branch lines in terms of the impact on freight operations.. so hard to compare apples to apples.
Nobody seems to be serious about rail for the Ring of Fire, and that's the only growth opportunity I can see where rail might support development up that way.
- Paul
crs1026
Senior Member
I don't know why one would rest crews on train. It's easy enough to have layover points for crews (as opposed to passengers). Winnipeg and Capreol are VIA crew centers, so crews would logically work out of those. Only one remote crew home base exists at the moment, Hornepayne.
There is a history to the decision to put the Canadian on the CN line in the 1990 cuts. There was plenty of analysis done. I don't know all the fine details, but I do know (from conversation with a union official who participated) that there was a significant difference in the labour costs involved in shutting down each of the two routes, based on the differing demographics and impacts on each affected workforce in terms of severance and pension.
This was in the era where both lines had a locomotive hauled train, and freight railroads did more of the crewing. I was told that CP could absorb the staffing impacts better, as more CP employees were eligible to retire anyways. Had the CN route been eliminated, more bumping, relocation, and employment guarantee support of junior employees would have been involved, at VIA's expense.
How that stacked up with the railways' relative willingness to run the trains, or what they would charge, I don't know. CN at the time was still a crown corporation so more malleable from the capitol.
The point is, it was a decision that made sense at a point in time - 30 years ago - and catchment area population and/or need for remote service was not necessarily the primary criterion.
- Paul
Last edited:
trebello
New Member
This is interesting. It sounds like if VIA was designing this service now, it's possible they would use the CP line. But its well documented that people react far more strongly to a loss than to an equal gain, so it's likely not worth causing a backlash by removing service in an area when the credit you'd get for bringing it to new communities, even if larger in population, would be minimal. At least that seems to be what explains the situation so far ...but if things have deteriorating to the point servicing the CN line is no longer practical, I guess it's possible revisiting decisions like this will be forced on VIA. It seems their options are quite limited, and they are getting pressure from multiple sides.
nfitz
Superstar
Wouldn't they also have to provide service on the northern line, for remote communities have no roads.
If I recall correctly, that was the logic when the Progressive Conservative government cancelled the southern route.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Having a separate bunk area for the crew? If they already do that on some of the other routes, what would be the issue. Instead of a snarky comment, why not explain it.
So basically put all the junk cars that will break down every few days on the Canadian where it runs through remote areas, far from a maintenance centre.
Well, no. You take the car from another route, do a complete refurbishment of it, and then put it out on the line. Or, new cars, but, if we are to believe that this is more of a tourist route and a land yacht, then putting newer cars might ruin that.
Here we go again. It isn't as if we haven't beaten this dead horse enough.
... not on here. It is interesting, I was not the one bringing the Canadian up. I can speak here to what a layman can see from the data. Of course, there may be more to it, but prove to me that Via has done something that is not political. Short of the new rolling stock, there isn't much. Even then, it was used as a political platform item.
Ya, sure. VIA could spend billions of dollars up front and millions of dollars a year in maintenance costs for a ROW that they will only use a few times a week. Great value for taxpayers money.
Right now, there is nothing due to covid. Prior to, yes, it was 2-3x a week.
Look at it like the Corridor. You cannot get a 1 seat ride between Windsor-Quebec City. Some parts have more service, some have less. Prior to covid, there was a additional service between Edmonton and Vancouver. That means that there is the beginnings of Corridor type service prior to covid. Now, they are running a Vancouver - Winnipeg train. Once the full service is restored, if they kept the 2 services running now, then we would have the beginnings of service that can grow with need. There might be a need for more service to/from Thunder Bay if the old line is reactivated.
Now that both companies are not government owned or run, it is a good time to look at where service would be needed. It is interesting that between Vancouver and Toronto, most of the larger cities, which is on the CP main are not served. I wonder if the decision was made today, with the current ownership of the lines, which line would have been cancelled?