Urban Sky
Senior Member
You wouldn’t just lose the possibility to attract more high-paying passengers, you would lose almost all of them (except the odd aerophobe), as taking ordinary day trains and having to handle your own luggage during forced layovers in cities like Saskatoon or Winnipeg is as attractive as a substitute as crossing the Atlantic on a cargo ship is for cruise-ship passsengers.But there's a very, very serious problem with it that it can not possibly fix.
The sleeper passengers, and especially those in Prestige, are the ones paying the way for the rest of the passengers on the Canadian.
If you "fix" the train by running a series of regional trains, all you are doing is increasing the costs (dramatically) without allowing for more of those high-paying (and therefore subsidizing) trips in sleeper.
Dan
Therefore, you would distroy the one market which currently pays 90% of the cost (thus subsidising the „Remote Service“ and „Equipment Movement“ functions this train also serves), but without any chance of attracting any significant revenues from new customer, which would leave the taxpayer with significantly less value for a dramatically higher cost…
Maybe Europe is not the most relevant benchmark on this planet to compare Central and Western Canada with? I would rather compare it with Latin America and Africa and for these geographies, having any transcontinental rail links is unheard off…I am comparing to other places on the planet. In Europe, train is the preferred mode for intercity trips 100 km to 500 km long; flying is not much faster when the time to get to / from the airport is taken into account, while driving is tiresome. For distances > 500 km, flying is faster but train trips are easy for those who wish to take a train. No problems with scheduled frequencies, no multi-hour schedule padding to account for the freight priority.
Of course, the environment in Canada / North America is different. Lower density except within a few metropolitan areas, much fewer rail lines with 2+ parallel tracks, and a different ownership structure.