SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
Wait... the Beachburg Subdivision? Isn't that abandoned?
Awesome maps and great ideas. Also, here is a link discussing the Beachburg Sub, of which VIA only uses a small portion.
Wait... the Beachburg Subdivision? Isn't that abandoned?
Awesome maps and great ideas. Also, here is a link discussing the Beachburg Sub, of which VIA only uses a small portion.
Whether a sealed carriage works or not to permit a stop at Hamilton or elsewhere would be up to CBSA and CBP/Homeland Security to approve irrespective of whether it is used elsewhere. Obviously one hopes for flexibility from government in these matters but the political realities (as well as logistical ones in respect of border guard costs) may say otherwise.
The easier option to my mind is to terminate Amtrak service at Niagara Falls ON (extending all Niagara Falls NY service, not merely the single Maple Leaf) and have a frequent enough service or services from there that if some people's immigration niceties takes longer than others such that the first train westward leaves, then their wait is not excessive. This reduces Amtrak equipment/labour hours while providing more through frequency.
All-day 2-way electrified express trains to Niagara -- and a billion dollar Wellamd Canal tunnel -- would permit a great connection. I really think this is 2040s stuff (early 2030s at best) but a natural progress of outwards GO electrification.Whether a sealed carriage works or not to permit a stop at Hamilton or elsewhere would be up to CBSA and CBP/Homeland Security to approve irrespective of whether it is used elsewhere. Obviously one hopes for flexibility from government in these matters but the political realities (as well as logistical ones in respect of border guard costs) may say otherwise.
The easier option to my mind is to terminate Amtrak service at Niagara Falls ON (extending all Niagara Falls NY service, not merely the single Maple Leaf) and have a frequent enough service or services from there that if some people's immigration niceties takes longer than others such that the first train westward leaves, then their wait is not excessive. This reduces Amtrak equipment/labour hours while providing more through frequency.
I'm not suggesting VIA does this: I am just curious to if it would be possible and how effective it would be.
Amtrak is looking to replace its Acela fleet.
I know Via is looking for new equipment, but im just curious how effective that fleet would be if VIA were to buy it, refurbish it and use it on the Toronto -> Montreal corridor (with electrification of course)
Its my understanding that the Acela was designed for "sub high speed" service on existing trackage.
However, the North east corridor is quite curvy, and thus it rarely meets its top speed.
Would it be more successful on the CN Mainline to Montreal?
Whether a sealed carriage works or not to permit a stop at Hamilton or elsewhere would be up to CBSA and CBP/Homeland Security to approve irrespective of whether it is used elsewhere. Obviously one hopes for flexibility from government in these matters but the political realities (as well as logistical ones in respect of border guard costs) may say otherwise.
The easier option to my mind is to terminate Amtrak service at Niagara Falls ON (extending all Niagara Falls NY service, not merely the single Maple Leaf) and have a frequent enough service or services from there that if some people's immigration niceties takes longer than others such that the first train westward leaves, then their wait is not excessive. This reduces Amtrak equipment/labour hours while providing more through frequency.
My dream is a new rail/bus station in Buffalo that would be the terminus of Toronto-Buffalo trains and through Amtrak trains and Greyhound/Megabus coaches, where there would be an airport-style customs and immigration check, with CBSA pre-clearance. VIA or GO trains would stop on a sealed platform similar to the Amtrak platform at Pacific Central Station in Vancouver. Buses to Canada would be on the Canadian side, and be sealed until they cross the Peace Bridge and a CBSA officer makes a quick check with the driver and removes the seal. (And vice-versa on the US side; a CBP officer checks in with the driver, seals the bus door, and the bus immediately proceeds to the new intermodal station and customers disembark. Buffalo Central Terminal in many ways would be ideal: the track access is great and it makes use of a neglected gem, but it is also too far from Downtown Buffalo and the border. So a new station, somewhere near the existing Exchange Street Station, is necessary.
Advantage is that most travellers aren't delayed when one or two passengers on the bus are held up for secondary inspection or other problems.
Wait... the Beachburg Subdivision? Isn't that abandoned?
Dropping all but one or two of the Canadian stops would obviously be a problem if VIA/Amtrak is the only rail service in the corridor, but once GO is serving the local destinations it wouldn't be such a big deal. In fact, regardless of customs requirements, it's better to have the long-distance trains make as few stops as possible to keep times competitive between major cities, while overlapping regional services provide service to the communities in between.
View attachment 84198
With current tracks, the travel time to Chicago would be about 10 hours. Toronto-Windsor currently takes 4h13 and Detroit-Chicago takes 5h24. A 10-hour trip is pretty long, but that's not necessarily a dealbreaker. The Chicago-Toronto route happens to have Detroit smack in the middle of it, which makes for a lot of ideal intercity rail-distance trips. Chicago-Detroit and Windsor-Toronto services already operate, and are both planned to get upgraded infrastructure and increased service. At least a couple of those trains should run the full route from Chicago to Toronto because they could attract some long-distance travellers who would otherwise be dissuaded by the transfer in Detroit. There doesn't need to be a full trainload of Chicago-Toronto customers to be worthwhile, because each half of the route is justified in its own right and would be operated regardless.
10 hours also happens to be the ideal duration for an overnight train. You can leave one city at around 10PM and arrive in the other at 8AM - with just enough time for a standard 8-hour sleep in between. Such trains could be more profitable than typical long-distance sleeper trains because they avoid the need for expensive dining and recreation facilities - a single café/lounge car would do. I think the prospect of falling asleep in Toronto and waking up in Chicago or New York would be very attractive even if sleeper tickets are several times more expensive than daytime train tickets, because they directly compete with an extra night in a hotel. Economy-class coach cars would also provide a budget overnight option and make the train able to serve short trips within the daytime segments (such as Toronto-Buffalo and Albany-New York).
Here's a graphic I made showing roughly what time an overnight train might arrive in various American cities if it left Toronto at 10pm.
View attachment 84206
Even with ordinary-speed rail I could see the following daily services operating out of a Toronto pre-clearance facility:
- Toronto-New York daytime (existing)
- Toronto-Buffalo daytime
- Toronto-New York overnight
- Toronto-Chicago daytime
- Toronto-Chicago overnight
That's 5 departures per day, which is more than the current pre-clearance facility in Vancouver and the proposed one in Montréal combined.
A pre-clearance facility would definitely make Amtrak an attractive option for Toronto-Buffalo travel. A single trip leaving Buffalo for Toronto in the morning and returning to Buffalo in the afternoon would nicely fill the gap between daytime and overnight services to New York:
View attachment 84227
Given the amount of Canadians that fly out of Buffalo, couldn't a case be made for hourly or bi-hourly service from Toronto or Hamilton to Buffalo?
There is a problem with the rationale - so we are going to subsidize (because the line isn't likely to ever break even) riders so that they can avoid added fees and higher prices at Canadian airports?
AoD
All the points above even satisfied, here's the bottom line:I would ask this differently..... what (after collecting user fees) is the subsidy paid on behalf of an air traveller using a GTA airport? Is the subsidy to take them to Buffalo by rail a better deal?
What pricing for the rail shuttle could be offered, minimising a subsidy, given that the user will still pay less overall than they would if they flew from the GTA airport and incurred the whopping user fees? (not to mention paying a mor competitive fare)
- Paul