VIA Rail

[lenaitch]

I get that any material improvement in the Toronto-Sudbury corridor (alignment) is unlikely; I've never suggested otherwise.

I have also not linked that to material changes in Toronto-Sudbury passenger rail service.

*****

I equally understand frustration with endless fantasies.

However............

*****

If this thread is going to be limited entirely to the status quo, or highly realistic near-term changes to VIA the entire thread will be reduced to ' Oooh, a Charger sighting'
Which you'll have to forgive me if I can't get excited over, notwithstanding the long time need for new rolling stock.

There needs to be some room to discuss what could reasonably be in terms of VIA/passenger service in this country, in this thread, or we might as well shut it down; because there's precious little to discuss otherwise.
That's not an invitation to endlessly harp about HSR from Yellowknife to Whitehorse; or whatever bizarre unrealistic thought passes through someone's head. It is a suggestion that considering the relative opportunity for infrastructure improvements which may benefit existing, or future passenger rail; even if their impetus were primarily or solely advance the interest of the Class 1s, is fair game.

The relative merit of such potential can't be logically discussed if every time it is raised in any way shape or form its met with derision.

How about this:

When ideas for potential improvement are discussed, they ought to:

a) Not be entirely outlandish, and if they are, they should be ignored.
b) If logically, they would be a low priority and face obstacles, the reasons for that can be discussed.
c) When an idea is explained to be a likely low priority, its important to highlight the higher priorities. We should all share in common a desire to improve transportation service in Canada, by both bus and rail. I think we can all get that the corridor, possibly followed by some logical spurs therefrom (ie. Niagara); Vancouver to the U.S. border and Edmonton-Calgary constitute the vast majority of viable projects for HFR/HSR or other major upgrade primarily to serve passenger rail. That should not preclude reasonable consideration of smaller-scale projects for conventional services from time to time.

*************

In line w/the above. May I propose that our expert commentators here identify the best opportunities of which they are aware, outside of the 3 projects I identified above.
Then we have something useful to discuss.

Perhaps, a reexamination of services VIA itself considered running but was unable to deliver for any number of reasons:

Saint John - HFX

London-Sarnia

Some discussion in the past of Sudbury-White River becoming Sudbury- Thunder Bay.

Do any of these have near-term merit? What is the gap between the current state of things and what would be required to launch such services?

Note I am not advocating for any of the above, its simply a jumping off point to discuss something other than what we apparently shouldn't discuss in this thread, which is all this thread has been about for awhile now.

Measured, as always.

The problem with this type of discussion on an open forum like this is that the territory between the two extreme points (pure, unadulterated fantasy and status quo) becomes completely subjective and very gray the closer you get to the centre. We're not comparing research papers here (well, most of us).

Any service enhancement needs to satisfy a business case. Agree with the numbers and conclusions or not, the government did just that with the proposed return of the Northlander. Outside of a public good mandate, such as VIA's remote service responsibility, any service enhancement needs to be supported by some kind of analysis to see if there is a potential ridership that is strong, and consistent enough to justify the upfront cost and ongoing subsidy and that can't be satisfied by a cheaper mode. Spending millions of public money on the basis of 'let's see what happens' seems like a poor way to run a railroad.

I suppose I could pass an opinion on any of the three exampled routes, but I don't know enough about the travelling demographics. For all, the question becomes 'how many people want or need to travel between the two points or any of the stops along the way. If enough Londoners want to go to Sarnia (I can't imagine why), then good.

The one I really do question is Sudbury-Thunder Bay. Having lived in the area and now living kinda close, I really do question how many people it would serve (outside of the current remote service mandate area), that aren't currently being served by other modes, including the bus. In relation to the two end points, how many people have a burning desire to travel from Sudbury to Thunder Bay? It's a long run and I can't imagine it would fare any better than VIA in terms of scheduling consistency. On that note, a question would be is this service proposed in addition to the VIA or instead of (the swooned return of VIA to CP). If instead of, then VIA would likely have to maintain a remote service on parts of the CN, and that remote area is much longer.

As for ONR operating it, only if the Ontario government decides to take on the role of 'VIA - Ontario' or GO-provincewide' and I'm not sure I see that happening. ONR is a transportation corporation operating several services, not just passenger/commuter rail. The only reason they operate off their own trackage now (or, rather, will . . . again) is to connect their service with a major market. Had the Northlander been a VIA route, I suggest it would be long gone years ago.

 

[micheal_can]

I am very suspicious as to there being a market for such a service.

That's a very long trip that is not at all competitive w/air travel and only marginally w/the car, insofar as if you have only 1 driver, you're going to have to stop at motels en route.

***

Shorter segments are more likely to have merit; the challenge w/those is whether rail is the right choice.

There would be more usage for a Toronto- Sudbury train and a Winnipeg - Thunder Bay train if we are talking real usage. The gap in between, may not be that useful. That gap could be shortened to the existing service as that is the most remote section of the route.

 

[Northern Light]

There would be more usage for a Toronto- Sudbury train and a Winnipeg - Thunder Bay train if we are talking real usage. The gap in between, may not be that useful. That gap could be shortened to the existing service as that is the most remote section of the route.

I think we've discussed the limitations and challenges of Toronto-Sudbury sufficiently for the time being; I haven't seen Thunder Bay - Winnipeg explored.

Aside from serving that need via shifting the route of the Canadian with all the attendant implications therein; I'm not sure what the numbers would indicate in terms of whether a service offered a modest subsidy would be viable and whether or not the currently available infrastructure is sufficient to purpose. I will leave that to others.

 

[micheal_can]

I think we've discussed the limitations and challenges of Toronto-Sudbury sufficiently for the time being; I haven't seen Thunder Bay - Winnipeg explored.

Aside from serving that need via shifting the route of the Canadian with all the attendant implications therein; I'm not sure what the numbers would indicate in terms of whether a service offered a modest subsidy would be viable and whether or not the currently available infrastructure is sufficient to purpose. I will leave that to others.

https://www.ontarionorthland.ca/communications/schedules/new/2023-09-15-SCHED-603-604-EN.PDF

https://www.ontarionorthland.ca/communications/schedules/new/2023-09-15-SCHED-601-602-EN.PDF

If we go by bus service, there is a singular bus running both ways a day or less. I don't know if that is enough to warrant a train 'by the numbers'.

 

[lenaitch]

https://www.ontarionorthland.ca/communications/schedules/new/2023-09-15-SCHED-603-604-EN.PDF

https://www.ontarionorthland.ca/communications/schedules/new/2023-09-15-SCHED-601-602-EN.PDF

If we go by bus service, there is a singular bus running both ways a day or less. I don't know if that is enough to warrant a train 'by the numbers'.

I don't know passenger data, but even if every bus is full every day, unless there is a clamour of people missing out, a full bus =/= a full train.

 

[micheal_can]

I don't know passenger data, but even if every bus is full every day, unless there is a clamour of people missing out, a full bus =/= a full train.

Which is why,as much as I would want this, I doubt it would be on the radar of Via.

 

[micheal_can]

Here is something on topic...
The Canadian seems hard pressed to stay on schedule. Currently,it is stopped south of Parry Sound due to a known derailment.

 

[PL1]

Here is something on topic...
The Canadian seems hard pressed to stay on schedule. Currently,it is stopped south of Parry Sound due to a known derailment.

There is some padding in the schedule. They can shorten the stops in Winnipeg and Jasper to make up time. Anecdotally, both times I took it, we had longish stops (once due to a broken rail) and we still made it to Vancouver on time (or within a couple of hours of the scheduled arrival).

 

[micheal_can]

There is some padding in the schedule. They can shorten the stops in Winnipeg and Jasper to make up time. Anecdotally, both times I took it, we had longish stops (once due to a broken rail) and we still made it to Vancouver on time (or within a couple of hours of the scheduled arrival).

It is about 8 hours late.

 

[lenaitch]

Which is why,as much as I would want this, I doubt it would be on the radar of Via.

So, you advocate for something even though there would be no empirical evidence to support it?

Here is something on topic...
The Canadian seems hard pressed to stay on schedule. Currently,it is stopped south of Parry Sound due to a known derailment.

Pretty hard to blame that on VIA, scheduling or passenger trains in general.

 

[micheal_can]

So, you advocate for something even though there would be no empirical evidence to support it?

Reread what I have written. I do not think this is something we will ever see from Via. That does not mean the province shouldn't do it. I have put that over on the Ontario Northland thread as that is who it should be done by.

Pretty hard to blame that on VIA, scheduling or passenger trains in general.

It things like this that make me wish the physical rails and the people in charge of rail movements were nationalized and not under a private company's responsibility. I know it is never going to happen, so I just look at this and wonder about options that could be explored that are realistic.

 

[lenaitch]

Reread what I have written. I do not think this is something we will ever see from Via. That does not mean the province shouldn't do it. I have put that over on the Ontario Northland thread as that is who it should be done by.

Regardless of the operator, you are still advocating for something that you seem to admit has no business case to support it. Why? just 'cuz? The communities 'deserve it'?

It things like this that make me wish the physical rails and the people in charge of rail movements were nationalized and not under a private company's responsibility. I know it is never going to happen, so I just look at this and wonder about options that could be explored that are realistic.

I don't know for certain, but I imagine countries that have nationalized rail networks also have derailments. It would be interesting to see comparative safety data between public and private railways,

 

[micheal_can]

Regardless of the operator, you are still advocating for something that you seem to admit has no business case to support it. Why? just 'cuz? The communities 'deserve it'?

I do think it has a business case, but, if we were to look across Canada at the other business cases for passenger rail service, this would be a lower priority than others. That is why I feel it is something the province should do. Better chance of it happening sooner. Most of it would also be within the province, so they could do it.

I don't know for certain, but I imagine countries that have nationalized rail networks also have derailments. It would be interesting to see comparative safety data between public and private railways,

That would be a good thing to see. Maybe our system is better. Maybe theirs are better.
Anyone know how to find that data?

 

[lenaitch]

I do think it has a business case, but, if we were to look across Canada at the other business cases for passenger rail service, this would be a lower priority than others. That is why I feel it is something the province should do. Better chance of it happening sooner. Most of it would also be within the province, so they could do it.

My point from the beginning was that the Northlander's return had an actual business case to support it, and any other proposed enhancements, particularly the ones exampled by @Northern Light in his post, should have the same scrutiny. Whether you or I think something does, or does not, have a business case, should be immaterial, they are no more than subjective opinions.

 

[micheal_can]

My point from the beginning was that the Northlander's return had an actual business case to support it, and any other proposed enhancements, particularly the ones exampled by @Northern Light in his post, should have the same scrutiny. Whether you or I think something does, or does not, have a business case, should be immaterial, they are no more than subjective opinions.

Which goes to why I participated in the conversation, but was not pushing for it.
My guess is those that were behind the return of the Northlander will try to the same with something like this and other routes that may have a similar business case.