News   Apr 02, 2026
Mount Celeste
 166     0 
News   Apr 01, 2026
UrbanToronto Explores the State of Environment with Special Features Throughout April
 373     0 
News   Apr 01, 2026
UTPro Crane Report Q1 2026: Year-to-Year Dip, But Quarterly Rise
 574     0 

VIA Rail

crs1026 said:
^I would want us to make changes (which really aren’t that expensive) rather than perpetuate what we have.

Take three track widths, make the inner track into a pair of short stub tracks, and install more escalators.

- Paul
Click to expand...
Many rail hub stations in Europe certainly cope with significantly more train movements and passenger numbers on a considerably lower number of platforms. Considering that some of these stations (Köln Hbf and Hamburg Hbf come to mind) are located in Germany, I have confidence that Deutsche Bahn is aware of ways to retrofit Union Station for higher passenger and train volumes... ;)
 
Allandale25 said:
globalnews.ca

Northumberland County, residents call on Via Rail to reinstate commuter link to Toronto | Globalnews.ca

Northumberland County is asking residents to weigh in on restoring the commuter rail link, between Kingston and Toronto, in an online survey.
globalnews.ca globalnews.ca
Click to expand...
I thought that they don't have enough equipment due to the retirement of the LRC'S.

I think the only other option would be to lease GO equipment to run that train. Or swap equipment on other runs to maximize Metrolinx territory.
 
Urban Sky said:
.....I have confidence that Deutsche Bahn is aware of ways to retrofit Union Station for higher passenger and train volumes... ;)
Click to expand...

Not to be that guy, but.....

(Oh who am I kidding. I am that guy.)

For all of your confidence in them in operations in a European sphere, what is your confidence in them being able to translate that knowledge to the North American sphere and rulebook? Keeping in mind that the recent experience of German organization trying to port their knowledge over to North American operations is not good.

Dan
 
smallspy said:
Not to be that guy, but.....

(Oh who am I kidding. I am that guy.)

For all of your confidence in them in operations in a European sphere, what is your confidence in them being able to translate that knowledge to the North American sphere and rulebook? Keeping in mind that the recent experience of German organization trying to port their knowledge over to North American operations is not good.

Dan
Click to expand...
It undoubtedly requires a broad alignment between how Metrolinx and DB envision Toronto‘s evolving regional rail network and as it happens, I closely work with both organizations as they collaborate together… 😀
 
Urban Sky said:
It undoubtedly requires a broad alignment between how Metrolinx and DB envision Toronto‘s evolving regional rail network and as it happens, I closely work with both organizations as they collaborate together… 😀
Click to expand...

Translating for Dan’s benefit: Stock up on popcorn. This will be interesting to watch.

- Paul
 
Allandale25 said:
nationalpost.com

Guilbeault's cross-country climate train tour derailed by lack of service

In November, Canada's environment minister announced that he would be hopping on Via to tour the country and discuss climate change
nationalpost.com nationalpost.com
Click to expand...

Via Rail’s limited service from Toronto to Vancouver dropped to once a week during the pandemic. It was then expected to jump to three times as pandemic public health measures dropped across the country, but as of now remains at two weekly departures.

According to Guilbeault’s office, that meant that as soon as the minister got off the train for a stop, he’d have to wait up to four days for the next train to pick him up.
Click to expand...
He is going to have a long wait if he is waiting for the Canadian to be running 3 days a week, It was cut to 2 days a week east of Edmonton well before the pandemic, initially because of track maintenance, but later due to lack of equipment. The pandemic only further exasperated the problem.
 
Bordercollie said:
I guess he didn't do his homework before opening his mouth.
Click to expand...

7 years in office and they still don't even have a bid package for HFR. No plan to recapitalize VIA's long haul fleet. No plans to finance transit hubs at major airports and VIA stations. Anemic funding for active transport. Fine, he's not the Transport Minister. But this stunt of trying to cross Canada by rail, goes to show how little they care on actually delivering. Just more talk. Also, how the heck does the Environment Minister not know that we don't have good nationwide passenger rail connectivity?
 
Last edited:
kEiThZ said:
7 years in office and they still don't even have a bid package for HFR. No plan to recapitalize VIA's long haul fleet. No plans to finance transit hubs at major airports and VIA stations. Anemic funding for active transport. Fine, he's not the Transport Minister. But this stunt of trying to cross Canada by rail, goes to show how little they care on actually delivering. Just more talk. Also, how the heck does the Environment Minister not know that we don't have good nationwide passenger rail connectivity?
Click to expand...

Or, as Environment Minister, how does he know that taking the train across Canada is worse for the climate than flying (both The Canadian and to a lesser extent The Ocean)? The study was only done by the University of Ottawa.
 
roger1818 said:
Or, as Environment Minister, how does he know that taking the train across Canada is worse for the climate than flying (both The Canadian and to a lesser extent The Ocean)? The study was only done by the University of Ottawa.
Click to expand...
To translate this study into a more relatable setting:

Imagine you drive a Honda Civic and your neighbor drives a Ford F250. Everyone would agree that your car is much greener to drive.

Now imagine that you both happen to work similar hours and in the same part of the next city, would it be a greener choice to accept your neighbors' offer to drive you in his car or to continue commuting in your own car? Well, if we go by this study, you should insist on driving your own car and refuse having him drive you in his, because (to borrow from the title of said "study"), "Driving in a Ford F250 is worse for the climate than driving in a Honda Civic".

You just have to imagine what would happen if both, VIA Rail and Air Canada would see their ridership numbers double between Toronto and Vancouver: In the case of VIA Rail, they would add three more coaches to the train, which would increase the train's footprint by maybe 10%, thus decreasing its per-passenger carbon footprint by approximately 45%. Conversely, Air Canada's carbon footprint would roughly double, as they would need to double their number of flights, thus increasing their footprint proportionally to their passenger numbers.

The fallacy of all such studies is that they focus on average costs (in this case: environmental costs) rather than marginal costs. The first perspective is perfectly acceptable when assessing the Status Quo, but only the second one is relevant when advising individuals what to do. It's no surprise when journalists miss this subtlety, but I expect university researchers to refrain from publishing bullshit-headlines like "Taking the train across Canada is worse for the climate than flying", when this is simply not a valid summary of their own findings...
 
Last edited:
anyone know whats the status of the new fleet testing?

any update on whats happening at the factory?
 
Urban Sky said:
To translate this study into a more relatable setting:

Imagine you drive a Honda Civic and your neighbor drives a Ford F250. Everyone would agree that your car is much greener to drive.

Now imagine that you both happen to work similar hours and in the same part of the next city, would it be a greener choice to accept your neighbors' offer to drive you in his car or to continue commuting in your own car? Well, if we go by this study, you should insist on driving your own car and refuse having him drive you in his, because (to borrow from the title of said "study"), "Driving in a Ford F250 is worse for the climate than driving in a Honda Civic".

You just have to imagine what would happen if both, VIA Rail and Air Canada would see their ridership numbers double between Toronto and Vancouver: In the case of VIA Rail, they would add three more coaches to the train, which would increase the train's footprint by maybe 10%, thus decreasing its per-passenger carbon footprint by approximately 45%. Conversely, Air Canada's carbon footprint would roughly double, as they would need to double their number of flights, thus increasing their footprint proportionally to their passenger numbers.

The fallacy of all such studies is that they focus on average costs (in this case: environmental costs) rather than marginal costs. The first perspective is perfectly acceptable when assessing the Status Quo, but only the second one is relevant when advising individuals what to do. It's no surprise when journalists miss this subtlety, but I expect university researchers to refrain from publishing bullshit-headlines like "Taking the train across Canada is worse for the climate than flying", when this is simply not a valid summary of their own findings...
Click to expand...
Also take into consideration that one additional passenger on a train that is already running has a marginal increase in carbon footprint. Even if you had an extra 50 passengers requiring to add an additional car would still be marginal.

If you split that between per passenger per mile it's such a small amount.

Is it less than flying? Probably not. But it sure is better than driving your own car.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top