VIA Rail

[Urban Sky]

Agreed. One also has to ask, with only 3 trains a week, how much is the government willing to spend to implement those upgrades and would that money be better spent somewhere else?

This question seems especially pertinent on the Ocean, where passenger revenues barely exceed $10 million, even in a good year (like 2018, see table further below)…

What if that investment could lead to the train running 7x per week in each direction?

As it happens (or as railfans keep bringing up the same topics), I’ve compared last week on a different forum the variable costs and revenues of the Ocean and Canadian in 1988 (when both still operated daily) and in 2018 (when both operated only 3 times per week, or in the case of the Canadian during winter even: only twice per week):

Cross-post from: SkyscraperPage
Compiled from: Office of the Prime Minister (1989, pp. 67+70 in the PDF), VIA Rail's Corporate Plan 2019-2023 (p.21) and VIA Rail's Annual Report 2018 (p.9)

As you can see above, the subsidy need for the Canadian (in 2018 prices) decreased by 77% per train-km and by 53% per passenger. Even though the respective figures for the Ocean were neutral (1.1% decrease) per train-km or a strong increase (+59%) per passenger, it doesn’t exactly support the theory cherished by many rail enthusiasts in this country that daily rather than less-than-daily trains would save rather than cost the taxpayer money…

 

[Bordercollie]

This question seem especially pertinent on the Ocean, where passenger revenues barely exceed $10 million, even in a good year (like 2018, see table further below)…


As it happens (or as railfans keep bringing up the same topics), I’ve compared last week on a different forum the variable costs and revenues of the Ocean and Canadian in 1988 (when both still operated daily) and in 2018 (when both operated only 3 times per week, or in the case of the Canadian during winter even: only twice per week):

Cross-post from: SkyscraperPage
Compiled from: Office of the Prime Minister (1989, pp. 67+70 in the PDF), VIA Rail's Corporate Plan 2019-2023 (p.21) and VIA Rail's Annual Report 2018 (p.9)

So if i understand this right the train running more often had better revenues and cost recovery? So it would actually make sense for it to run more often, which allows more people to take it. Also taking into consideration that Greyhound is now gone, and air travel is a mess, people may be more option to other options?

 

[Urban Sky]

So if i understand this right the train running more often had better revenues and cost recovery? So it would actually make sense for it to run more often, which allows more people to take it. Also taking into consideration that Greyhound is now gone, and air travel is a mess, people may be more option to other options?

I’m afraid that my figures rather show the opposite (if you refer to the additional paragraph I added under the table after I prematurely posted my reply), but to simply quote myself in said post on SSP:

Now, if your theory that revenues decrease faster than costs when cutting frequencies on non-Corridor routes was correct, the direct operating loss per train-km should have increased since 1990 (when frequencies were cut from daily service to 3 trains per week) and the cost-recovery rate (i.e. direct revenues divided by direct costs) should have decreased.

So what happens when we compare the figures from 1988 with those of 2018? On the Ocean, the direct operating loss per train-km decreased (rather than: increased) by 1.1%, whereas the cost-recovery rate improved (rather than: deteriorated) from 40.8% to 48.9%. On the Canadian, the direct operating loss per train-km even decreased dramatically (by 77.2%), whereas the cost-recovery rate almost doubled (from 48.3% to 90.3%).

 

[roger1818]

What if that investment could lead to the train running 7x per week in each direction?

AFAIK, it isn't the rail infrastructure that is preventing the Canadian from running 7x per week. VIA could do anything if given enough government funding. Once again the question becomes, are there better things we could do with that money?

 

[roger1818]

This question seems especially pertinent on the Ocean, where passenger revenues barely exceed $10 million, even in a good year (like 2018, see table further below)…


As it happens (or as railfans keep bringing up the same topics), I’ve compared last week on a different forum the variable costs and revenues of the Ocean and Canadian in 1988 (when both still operated daily) and in 2018 (when both operated only 3 times per week, or in the case of the Canadian during winter even: only twice per week):

Cross-post from: SkyscraperPage
Compiled from: Office of the Prime Minister (1989, pp. 67+70 in the PDF), VIA Rail's Corporate Plan 2019-2023 (p.21) and VIA Rail's Annual Report 2018 (p.9)

As you can see above, the subsidy need for the Canadian (in 2018 prices) decreased by 77% per train-km and by 53% per passenger. Even though the respective figures for the Ocean were neutral (1.1% decrease) per train-km or a strong increase (+59%) per passenger, it doesn’t exactly support the theory cherished by many rail enthusiasts in this country that daily rather than less-than-daily trains would save rather than cost the taxpayer money…

I assume the first 2018 column is the 1988 figures compensated for inflation and the second 2018 column is the real 2018 data?

 

[Urban Sky]

I’m I assume the first 2018 column is the 1988 figures compensated for inflation and the second 2018 column is the real 2018 data?

Should have made it clearer, but that’s exactly the case. Had the annual subsidy levels of both trains remained unchanged and only risen by inflation, they would have cost the taxpayer $111 million by 2018. Instead, the burden to the taxpayer decreased by 84% (to just under $18 million), whereas the train-mileage only decreased by 64%…

 

[Northern Light]

Here is an excellent resource from Amtrak which highlight's the discussion points above but at another level of scale, across more routes, which helps, I think, reinforce the points being made above:

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/position-papers/white-paper-amtrak-long-distance-financial-performance.pdf

From the above:

Here, we clearly see that 'Long Distance' services are a severe drag on the bottom line.

***

Now they also show something else..........but its important to read it correctly.

They show that their 'Corridor' service is actually profitable; and, indeed, that is in part due to the frequency of service, which drives high levels of passenger traffic.

But as @Urban Sky has so often pointed out, it also has a great deal to do with serving more than one large market, and being able to do so with comparatively short (non-overnight) trip times.

Bringing this back to Canada, it helps bolster the case for investing in our 'Corridor'.....and might make the case for a comparable investment in the Edmonton-Calgary space in the west.

The problem, thereafter, is that there are relatively few places in Canada where additional service could be delivered cost-effectively. The exceptions might be for short, tourist-focused services such as Calgary-Banff; and perhaps, in the future,
a Toronto-Wasaga-Collingwood type run, as well as services such as Niagara, (were GO not serving this already); and might also make the case (if we could sort out customs) for a Toronto-Buffalo service.

But it doesn't show an economic case (from the rail operator point-of-view) for greater frequencies on long-distance runs. There may be a case to made there in terms of economic development or public service, but that merits
a subsidy arrangement from government rather than more service paid out of VIA's existing budget.

 

[kEiThZ]

I always wonder if the problem with routes like the Ocean is that they perform the regional rail function poorly. The Maritimes don't need some thrice weekly train from Montreal to Halifax. What they could really use is a thrice daily train from Saint John to Halifax via Moncton. I suspect the cost recovery on such a service would be better than the Ocean.

 

[lenaitch]

In terms of something like the Canadian, for a train that runs three days a week CN should be able to accomodate it without much impact on their operations. The question is why should they?

What the Government and VIA could do is work together to find a better solution. It's partially CN's fault for running so many trains too large to fit in their own sidings to make a profit. Not enough investment in their own infrastructure.

When I took the Canadian from Edmonton to Banff it took 5 hours for it to get into the yard and run around to the station. Stupid things like this could be fixed to help the trains on time performance. 5 hours is not much on a 4 day journey but it's just one example.

CN is profitable. I suppose if they felt running shorter trains, building longer sidings or any other infrastructure improvement would improve their balance sheet they would already be doing it. The fact that train or siding lengths impact on VIA operations is not their concern so long as they are meeting their contract obligations (whatever they are).

 

[lenaitch]

I always wonder if the problem with routes like the Ocean is that they perform the regional rail function poorly. The Maritimes don't need some thrice weekly train from Montreal to Halifax. What they could really use is a thrice daily train from Saint John to Halifax via Moncton. I suspect the cost recovery on such a service would be better than the Ocean.

Agree. Getting between the population centres in the Maritimes on public transportation doesn't look easy. There is one bus connection per day between Saint John and Halifax (via Moncton) and it takes over seven hours. No doubt there is a tourism component to the Ocean but I doubt it serves the residents all that well, particularly after the Bras d"Or was cancelled and Gaspe suspended.

 

[kEiThZ]

I doubt it serves the residents all that well, particularly after the Bras d"Or was cancelled and Gaspe suspended.

All of Cape Breton has a population of little over 132k and is 4 hrs from Halifax. The Gaspe is about 140k and 5-7 hrs from everywhere. These places are not adding significant ridership. At some point, we gotta get over the romantic notion of small far away centres being significant trip generators. Those places should be served by buses. Not trains. But tying Saint John, Moncton and Halifax (including the airport) would actually have a reasonable case for regular service.

 

[C_Johnson_1995]

All of Cape Breton has a population of little over 132k and is 4 hrs from Halifax. The Gaspe is about 140k and 5-7 hrs from everywhere. These places are not adding significant ridership. At some point, we gotta get over the romantic notion of small far away centres being significant trip generators. Those places should be served by buses. Not trains. But tying Saint John, Moncton and Halifax (including the airport) would actually have a reasonable case for regular service.

This is the uncomfortable truth for transit advocacy. Most of the trains people want restored are better as busses.

The parts of the VIA network that disappeared, for the most part didn't do so without good reason.

I also believe this to be true about the Northlander but despite all the same reasoning holding true for that example, it remains a spectacularly unpopular position.

 

[lenaitch]

All of Cape Breton has a population of little over 132k and is 4 hrs from Halifax. The Gaspe is about 140k and 5-7 hrs from everywhere. These places are not adding significant ridership. At some point, we gotta get over the romantic notion of small far away centres being significant trip generators. Those places should be served by buses. Not trains. But tying Saint John, Moncton and Halifax (including the airport) would actually have a reasonable case for regular service.

Perhaps it was my imperfect phraseology - I admit to being imperfect - but I intended my last sentence to be read in its entirety:

"No doubt there is a tourism component to the Ocean but I doubt it serves the residents all that well, particularly after the Bras d"Or was cancelled and Gaspe suspended."

That the tourism component of the Ocean, whatever that may be but I'm not sure it is significant to the Maritimes, has likely been diminished by those two other passenger routes, which had a large tourism component and connected to the Ocean.

 

[kalis0490]

I have a theory that one of the reasons that never had the right footing is thata lot of initial routes were in less densely populated parts of Atlantic Canada, rather than adding commuter like service in southern Ontario, ex why weren't Toronto-London-St thomas or Hamilton-St Catherine-Welland "VIA" Routes while Saguenay , Sydney were VIA routes? Many of the routes in Southern ontario that VIA did abandon ex Barrie are very popular right now.

 

[Urban Sky]

I have a theory that one of the reasons that never had the right footing is thata lot of initial routes were in less densely populated parts of Atlantic Canada, rather than adding commuter like service in southern Ontario, ex why weren't Toronto-London-St thomas or Hamilton-St Catherine-Welland "VIA" Routes while Saguenay , Sydney were VIA routes? Many of the routes in Southern ontario that VIA did abandon ex Barrie are very popular right now.

VIA's initial network was identical with what it inherited from CN and CP in 1976. If you are missing any route in its October 1976 timetable, you should ask when and why CN or CP abandoned these routes. If you wonder why VIA didn't reinstate these services, that was never within its mandate (neither was "adding commuter like service").

As for London-St.Thomas, that service was provided by the London & Port Stanley Railway and ceased around 1957:

Source: CN timetable effective 1950/04/30

As for Toronto-Welland-Buffalo, I refer to the discussion we had on page 495 (tldr: the service became redundant when Amtrak and VIA introduced their cross-border "Maple Leaf" service in 1981).

As for "Many of the routes in Southern ontario that VIA did abandon ex Barrie are very popular right now", have a look at the VIA 1976/10/31 timetable and let me know which services you are talking about...

I previously provided an overview over the Corridor routes which were cut by VIA and as you can see, only two were operating within Ontario:

Never let facts get in the way of a compelling story, but there are at least 8 abandoned routes in the Quebec-Windsor Corridor which still existed when VIA took over operations from CN and CP, as testified by VIA's October 1976 schedule:

Route	Service in October 1976 (frequencies per week)
Quebec - Trois-Rivières - Montreal	20
Quebec - Victoriaville - Richmond	5
Coaticook - Sherbrooke - Richmond - Montreal	7 (Coaticook - Sherbrooke: 1)
Sherbrooke - Farnham - Montreal	7 (Farnham - Montreal: 12)
Montreal - Rigaud - Ottawa	7
Montreal - Montebello - Ottawa	7 (westbound: 8)
Havelock - Peterborough - Toronto	7
Toronto - Welland - Buffalo	7

Furthermore, these routes have lost at least half their scheduled service since 1976:

Route	Service in October 1976 (freq/week)	Service in 2019 (freq/week)
Toronto - Niagara Falls	21	7
Toronto - Kitchener - London	34 (Stratford - London: 27)	14
Toronto - Brantford - London	64	33*
(Toronto -) London - Sarnia	28	7

* Not exactly a reduction by one half, but a decrease by 48% nonetheless...