I am sure that would go over like a lead balloon.
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.
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
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?
