micheal_can
Senior Member
This is where planning your trip is important. Maybe the train going between each is actually a thru train, but not marked as one. Maybe this makes each section a daily. There are lots of options.
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
This is where planning your trip is important. Maybe the train going between each is actually a thru train, but not marked as one. Maybe this makes each section a daily. There are lots of options.
Allandale25
Senior Member
Wonder what this could mean for HFR?
Bordercollie
Senior Member
So if the train from Edmonton is set to depart on Monday at 12pm.
The train from Vancouver is supposed to arrive on Monday at 8am. If this train is late and doesn't arrive until 5 pm and the next train isn't for 3 days, what happens then? Who's going to pay for their hotel for 3 days? Or do you match the departure time of the train to match the one arriving? But then the train might as well be continuous.
This only works of there is twice daily service on this route.
The train from Vancouver is supposed to arrive on Monday at 8am. If this train is late and doesn't arrive until 5 pm and the next train isn't for 3 days, what happens then? Who's going to pay for their hotel for 3 days? Or do you match the departure time of the train to match the one arriving? But then the train might as well be continuous.
This only works of there is twice daily service on this route.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
Ultimately the direction of the government is decided by the prime minister. The mister in the individual areas as only appointed to follow the Prime Minister's direction.
I'm sure most of the legwork has been done.
Shouldn't make an impact.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Please don’t get this sad spammer excited when people don’t immediately rebuke his alternative facts: Trains 3 and 4 are not an extra train operating between Vancouver and Edmonton, but the remainder of a partially suspended third frequency which normally operates between Vancouver and Toronto during the summer months only. You may refer to the shaded train in the table I already posted two posts ago:
Concerning your ideas regarding a potential redesign of the Canadian, you need to ask yourself three questions:
- What passenger groups are you targeting?
- What are the needs and expectations of these passengers?
- To which extent can these needs and expectations be accommodated within the available resources and applicable constraints?
Concerning the last point, you have to acknowledge the political and operational reality in which VIA operates and that means you need to satisfy the following:
- Stay within VIA’s current subsidy needs.
- Work with VIA’s existing fleet.
- Ensure that the Skeena connects with other services so that equipment can be swapped out periodically and maintained at one of VIA’s maintenance centers (e.g. Vancouver or Winnipeg).
- Maintain some service between Capreol and Winnipeg and between Sudbury and White River to provide connectivity to remote communities.
Anything which doesn’t satisfy these constraints is just a fantasy discussion for which I have created a more appropriate thread to keep this one clear from discussions which needlessly escalate this thread’s page count even further...
Last edited:
micheal_can
Senior Member
Part of the problem is that Via has not set their network up to work well. Try to plan a trip from coast to coast. No matter how you plan it, you are spending at least 1 night, if not 2 in a hotel. So, already there are issues.
A simple fix could be that the train leaves 24 hours after one arrives.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
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.
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.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Which of course instantly obviates the need to stay in an Hotel in Micheal’s La-la-Land, because who really needs to sleep in any given 24 hour period.^^
This is a Transport Policy suggestion. Please discuss this in the appropriate thread!
micheal_can
Senior Member
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.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Generally speaking, a Cabinet Minister merely executes the Budget, Thrown Speech and the Platform set out by the Party Leader, whom is the Prime Minister. So, if HFR gets cancelled, it was on direction of the PM.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
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?
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
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
New Member
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?
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
Senior Member
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
Active Member
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.
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.