VIA Rail

[APTA-2048]

Whatever they call out, It's such a better station to connect to other transit, than Guildwood.

Also the way Guildwood is located, it looks more difficult to improve TTC service to the station. Right now it’s a bit of a walk from the TTC buses. If they route buses into the station, it adds to travel time. Eglinton is basically just off the street.

 

[kEiThZ]

Also the way Guildwood is located, it looks more difficult to improve TTC service to the station. Right now it’s a bit of a walk from the TTC buses. If they route buses into the station, it adds to travel time. Eglinton is basically just off the street.

This is exactly the problem I'm referring to. And unfortunately, even as part of the RER effort, they didn't shift the station closer to Kingston.

Ellington GO or Kennedy GO are so much better. And about to get even better with the LRT.

 

[Bordercollie]

This is exactly the problem I'm referring to. And unfortunately, even as part of the RER effort, they didn't shift the station closer to Kingston.

Ellington GO or Kennedy GO are so much better. And about to get even better with the LRT.

How would VIA serve Kennedy? Unless there really is a plan to use the Uxbridge sub to get to the Havelock Sub?

 

[nfitz]

How would VIA serve Kennedy? Unless there really is a plan to use the Uxbridge sub to get to the Havelock Sub?

There is indeed talk of the HFR using the Stouffville line from Union to reach the CP line to Peterborough. Especially now that the Don valley is out, with Metrolinx building a rail yard on the track that VIA would need.

 

[kEiThZ]

How would VIA serve Kennedy? Unless there really is a plan to use the Uxbridge sub to get to the Havelock Sub?

I was referring to this hypothetical.

Broadly, what I mean is that VIA needs to have stations wherever they cross Eglinton (and Bloor-Danforth). On HFR and the current Lakeshore service. Ditto West of Union too.

 

[roger1818]

I saw the link to this article on SSP.

Cross-border rail tunnel passenger service moves step closer

Amtrak and CP Rail have reached an agreement that would allow passenger service through Detroit River Rail Tunnel after a 50-year hiatus.

windsorstar.com

One quote of interest by Marc Magilari, spokesman for Amtrak:

Magiari when asked about the company’s next steps. “We have had preliminary conversations with VIA. We also would be interested in talking with (the provincial government) and Ministry of Transportation on what are their ideas.”

 

[Urban Sky]

I saw the link to this article on SSP.

Cross-border rail tunnel passenger service moves step closer

Amtrak and CP Rail have reached an agreement that would allow passenger service through Detroit River Rail Tunnel after a 50-year hiatus.

windsorstar.com

One quote of interest by Marc Magilari, spokesman for Amtrak:

I only see any chance of this happening if Ford really goes ahead with refurbishing Detroit's Michigan Central Station with all the border facilities needed to clear US and Canadian customs. And even then, I only see existing VIA trains extended to Detroit, where passengers would clear customs before boarding / after detraining a VIA train in Detroit.

In order to allow for sufficient time to clear customs (and account for delayed inbound trains) a transfer time of 90-120 minutes seems desirable. If we look at the pre-Covid schedules (and assume that VIA trains still serve the station in Walkerville, with a 15 minute dwell time and a 45 minute travel time onwards to Detroit), this would result in a transfer time of 3 hours Eastbound, but 6 hours Westbound:

Not that easy to schedule convenient connections in Detroit with only three trains operating to Chicago, but I believe I read that Amtrak wants to increase that to six round-trips, which should provide for much more flexibility...

 

[Northern Light]

I only see any chance of this happening if Ford really goes ahead with refurbishing Detroit's Michigan Central Station with all the border facilities needed to clear US and Canadian customs.

There's been nothing specific on restoring the train depot components to active use, that I'm aware of; but to be clear, the project of restoring the building is well under way and has been for some time.
Ford has also expressly suggested retaining some future ability for train service, though by no means as a major station (they contemplated removing several tracks/platforms as I recall, but don't hold me to that)

And even then, I only see existing VIA trains extended to Detroit, where passengers would clear customs before boarding / after detraining a VIA train in Detroit.

To be clear, I defer to your knowledge in this area, but ask sincerely:

Why would it be organized that way?

The Maple Leaf doesn't unload all its passengers to be picked up by a separate train (though the customs situations is terrible and there is a crew change).
Amtrak runs (relatively) seemless service on the west coast to Vancouver and to Montreal.
There's clearly a customs issue to work out; but I would imagine using a single train set and switching crews if required).

{***

By no means am I opposed to have VIA start a run in Detroit, if the business case is there and travel times can be reliable; but that's not what I was imagining in terms of an Amtrak service to Toronto.

In order to allow for sufficient time to clear customs (and account for delayed inbound trains) a transfer time of 90-120 minutes seems desirable. If we look at the pre-Covid schedules (and assume that VIA trains still serve the station in Walkerville, with a 15 minute dwell time and a 45 minute travel time onwards to Detroit), this would result in a transfer time of 3 hours Eastbound, but 6 hours Westbound:

View attachment 376412

Not that easy to schedule convenient connections in Detroit with only three trains operating to Chicago, but I believe I read that Amtrak wants to increase that to six round-trips, which should provide for much more flexibility...

As noted, I'm imagining this differently.

I also imagine, if VIA were to service Detroit, it would make far more sense to return the station to its original site and then transfer to owned trackage along existing or new connections as appropriate.
Serving Walkerville would seem cumbersome, but perhaps that's just me.

 

[reaperexpress]

Why would it be organized that way?

The Maple Leaf doesn't unload all its passengers to be picked up by a separate train (though the customs situations is terrible and there is a crew change).
Amtrak runs (relatively) seemless service on the west coast to Vancouver and to Montreal.
There's clearly a customs issue to work out; but I would imagine using a single train set and switching crews if required).

{***

By no means am I opposed to have VIA start a run in Detroit, if the business case is there and travel times can be reliable; but that's not what I was imagining in terms of an Amtrak service to Toronto.



As noted, I'm imagining this differently.

I also imagine, if VIA were to service Detroit, it would make far more sense to return the station to its original site and then transfer to owned trackage along existing or new connections as appropriate.
Serving Walkerville would seem cumbersome, but perhaps that's just me.

Because it's logistically simpler and more robust. The main advantages are that Via service is less vulnerable to delays at the border and it allows for a physical separation of customs areas in the station without the need to physically shunt a train from one track to the other. Keeping each train in a single customs zone improves security and border control.

Additional advantages include:
- Via equipment is permitted to operate 100 mph (161 km/h) in Canada, Amtrak equipment is only permitted 79 mph (127 km/h)
- Allows Via crews to stay in Via equipment (and Amtrak in Amtrak), simplifying crew training and certification.

As you mentioned, the existing situation in Niagara Falls is terrible and should not be emulated.

 

[crs1026]

^I’m not optimistic about Windsor-Detroit, because

a) the customs process, as noted, is problemmatic.
b) even with reconstruction, at best the approach to both Windsor and Detroit, and the passage between these termini, will be slow speed -this plus customs layover will make for slow trip times
c) much of the investment needed in track etc is in Canada, and while Amtrak may have capital at the moment, it’s unlikely that it would be allowed to spend it on this side of the border, and there is no sign that Ottawa is willing to fund on this side….hence the hint that Ontario might have to do so
d) a single train per day looks nice on the map, but as a matter of modal share it’s only a cosmetic victory.… a single Dash-8 carries as many people.

The route has huge potential, but only if we eliminate the very things we are admitting will be baked into the design - change of trains in Detroit, inability to leverage the high speed running currently available in Michigan,, and train frequency.

If the passage to Detroit could become a 15-minute addition to current VIA schedules, then one could easily run three trains a day each way and have a much greater market penetration. Extend those train even part way across Michigan, and that market share can become even higher…. whereas, while the Ford reno will be fantastic, I can’t see many people driving to Ford and parking their cars for even a day trip. While Detroit is on the road to recovery, the siting of Ford as a terminal is unproven for today’s travellers… Detroit/Southern Michigan is still an autocentric metropolis, downtown Detroit is still intimidationg, and will be for a long time.

This sounds pesssimistic, I admit, and I’d like to be much less so, but I see these obstacles as far from being movable.

Lastly, I do not share other posters acceptance of the hub design, here and elsewhere. I agree that it permits greater operational reliability… but that’s strictly cosmetic. Dwell time is toxic to the passenger experience. If I’m going to cool my heels somewhere for 90 minutes, I might as well do it in an airport where there are more amenities. We should be fixing Niagara Falls and then using it as a model for other through services, not declaring defeat and propagating a bad model. Changing trains, especially crowded trains, is a losing proposition for the customer… a reliable service that doesn’t attract riders is no victory..

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Yeah. I'm not a fan of this once a day virtue signaling regional service. I honestly think all cross-border services should transfer to a VIA train at an integrated customs, immigration and transfer station on the US side. Even the Maple Leaf should terminate in Niagara Falls.

This allows VIA to substantially ramp up services to border towns without relying substantially on Amtrak. It also allows alternatives to Amtrak to develop from those cities, for onward service. For example, I imagine a bi-hourly VIA service to Niagara Falls, NY would be very popular. Might even replace bus service to Buffalo airport with easy shuttles from Niagara.

 

[crs1026]

Yeah. I'm not a fan of this once a day virtue signaling regional service. I honestly think all cross-border services should transfer to a VIA train at an integrated customs, immigration and transfer station on the US side. Even the Maple Leaf should terminate in Niagara Falls.

This allows VIA to substantially ramp up services to border towns without relying substantially on Amtrak. It also allows alternatives to Amtrak to develop from those cities, for onward service. For example, I imagine a bi-hourly VIA service to Niagara Falls, NY would be very popular. Might even replace bus service to Buffalo airport with easy shuttles from Niagara.

Buffalo has reinvigorated itself to the point where an extended GO Niagara service to the downtown station would see good demand, especially on weekends. Detroit is reaching that point, especially when the Leafs and Jays play there. The bus service across the border for special events is so good (albeit jam packed) that maybe a train isn’t needed. I wonder whether a high quality bus link running direct station to station would suffice.

I have experiences both in Canada and Europe with change-en-route. At one point, the Swiss railways refused to handle high speed Italian trainsets on the Milan-Zurich run because they were not built to their electrical code (and did catch fire once or twice). The reserved seat train we had booked came to a halt in Chiasso, and we were ushered across the platform - no passport check, just a trainstitution. The Swiss trainset, of a different design, was unreserved and not even car-numbers applied. Nothing like an entire train of passengers with luggage vieing for seats with crew urging everyone to get on board quickly!

I experienced similar back in the day when CN turned its Ottawa-Brockville trains at Brockville, sending an entire Thanksgiving weekend load of customers to wait on the platform for a Montreal-Toronto train to arrive.

Maybe a pet peeve, but I really think the change-trains idea is sub-optimal for these cross-border routes.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Maybe a pet peeve, but I really think the change-trains idea is sub-optimal for these cross-border routes.

Should be less of an issue in this day and age with electronic bookings. They should be able to do more integrated ticketing too.

 

[Bordercollie]

Should be less of an issue in this day and age with electronic bookings. They should be able to do more integrated ticketing too.

The only way to get from Windsor Station to the tunnel is by using the Essex Terminal Railway, you would need to integrate their tracks with VIA/Amtrak CTC or dispatch. Or run their own dedicated tracks along their right of way. It's not an easy process.

 

[roger1818]

The only way to get from Windsor Station to the tunnel is by using the Essex Terminal Railway, you would need to integrate their tracks with VIA/Amtrak CTC or dispatch. Or run their own dedicated tracks along their right of way. It's not an easy process.

The only way to get to/from Windsor Station is to tunnel under (or demolish) the Bell Centre.