VIA Rail

[smallspy]

In what way does the bag of an Economy class passenger pose a greater occupational risk than an equivalent sized bag of a Business class passenger?

It doesn't.

But with more Economy class passengers per car versus business class passengers, there is also a reduced number of bag capacity per passenger available, considering the baggage capacity is fixed by the volume available in each car.

Plus, business class passengers are (generally) paying more for the privilege. Just like on the airlines, with that privilege comes perks.

Dan

 

[Urban Sky]

It doesn't.

But with more Economy class passengers per car versus business class passengers, there is also a reduced number of bag capacity per passenger available, considering the baggage capacity is fixed by the volume available in each car.

Plus, business class passengers are (generally) paying more for the privilege. Just like on the airlines, with that privilege comes perks.

Dan

I would also assume that unlike in Economy Class, Business Class passengers travelling with 2 large pieces of luggage are dwarfed by those travelling with zero such items, meaning that they take less luggage space even on a per-passenger basis…

 

[smallspy]

I would also assume that unlike in Economy Class, Business Class passengers travelling with 2 large pieces of luggage are dwarfed by those travelling with zero such items, meaning that they take less luggage space even on a per-passenger basis…

To be honest, I was assuming the opposite - but you would have better access to that data than I would.

Dan

 

[kEiThZ]

That's true. My concern is not that they restrict the luggage amount, but that they surprise the passengers with a relatively small but probably unexpected fee.

Many Canadians have more experience travelling by rail while in Europe and/or East Asia than travelling by VIA. Moreso for tourists from overseas.

That $25 fee is not enough to convince the passengers not to take a suitcase, but enough to create confusion if they don't read the conditions carefully when booking, or decide to bring a larger bag after they have booked.

They're not really trying to grow their customer base. Just trying to milk the one they have a bit more.

Decisions like this will continue until they have more capacity they need to fill: HFR.

 

[roger1818]

I suspect that the bag 23kg (50lb) weight issue could be related to the load bearing capacity of the luggage racks than anything else. One overweight bag probably isn't a problem, but if they are all overweight, it can add up.

As for the charging for large bags, it is likely a strategy to reduce the number of them, to ensure there is enough luggage rack space. Since the bike racks on the Venture coaches replace luggage racks, its possible that VIA is concerned that if they allow bikes onboard, they might not have enough luggage space.

 

[crs1026]

If you have flown lately, you probably have been weighing your luggage and know that 23 kg is an awfully heavy bag. I doubt anyone's grandmother is travelling with more. And I doubt that such bags are being placed in overhead racks.

Air fares have all sorts of permutations about what amount of luggage you can bring, from none to some.

I'm a little surprised about the "under the seat in front of you" statement - which sounds very airlineish - do all VIA equipment configurations now offer storage under the seat ahead?

Please don't get me started on carryon baggage rules on airlines..... I also suspect the policy change may relate to how much luggage rack space VIA is planning to provide, and not wanting bags left in the aisles or vestibules.

It becomes pretty obvious that the provision of bicycle space is a PR gesture, not an amenity or a service offering. They are counting on a very minimal uptake - just ask Metrolinx.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

IMO you should be allowed to bring bags that are as large as you want, but with the understanding that it's your stuff, and no one but you or the people in your party should be in any way concerned with it. But then, as someone who has spent far too long working in customer service, I'm very much over people who try to make their problem your problem.

The problem is there is limited baggage space per car. Unless they are willing to add a baggage car (which they won't), if were a free-for-all, what would passengers do, pile it in the aisle? Then you are into a passenger safety situation.

Once airlines started charging for checked baggage, the whole issue of carry-on became more important as more people started resorting to carry-on only and began pushing the rules which, prior, were poorly and rarely enforced. The weight and space capacity of the overhead bins started to become an issue.

Weight and balance aside, at least airlines have baggage capacity; nobody is left on the ramp with a bag they simply won't take.

 

[kEiThZ]

The problem is there is limited baggage space per car.

They can sacrifice a few seats and add luggage space per car. Are they really getting swamped with luggage? Outside of peak holiday travel, I really haven't seen this on VIA.

Weight and balance aside, at least airlines have baggage capacity; nobody is left on the ramp with a bag they simply won't take.

Really? I've arrived without my bags when traveling by small regional jets. It happens.

Once airlines started charging for checked baggage,

Making train travel more like air travel is just going to encourage people to drive and fly. These fees only make rail travel that much more expensive than driving and start making flying look less relatively expensive.

 

[lenaitch]

They can sacrifice a few seats and add luggage space per car. Are they really getting swamped with luggage? Outside of peak holiday travel, I really haven't seen this on VIA.

I suppose they could and, admittedly, I don't really know how significant the issue is.

Really? I've arrived without my bags when traveling by small regional jets. It happens.

Ha. So have a lot of people on not-so-small and not-so-regional flights, but for different reasons. Did you show up at the airport and told 'nope, we're not taking that'?

 

[crs1026]

Making train travel more like air travel is just going to encourage people to drive and fly. These fees only make rail travel that much more expensive than driving and start making flying look less relatively expensive.

Agreed, and having had the noplace-for-bags experience on some of those foreign high (whatever) trains that we wish Canada had more of, I can say that it's a trend happening elsewhere that I hope VIA doesn't emulate.

There is a difference however in that our railways did have a traditional practice of allowing close to unlimited baggage, dating all the way back to the days when people travelled with steamer trunks. So I can't fault VIA for implementing a policy that has a clearer limit provided that limit is reasonable.

The LRC and HEP II corridor fleets set a precedent for how much luggage space a passenger coach provides, and I would expect VIA to maintain that benchmark in the new fleet. That benchmark is what Corridor travellers are accustomed to. If they are trying to shrink that standard, it's unwise.

The difference with airlines is, they will fly all sorts of large objects (one regularly observes skis, hockey equipment, and golf clubs at the airports) - for a price. Larger aircraft are generally hauling tons of air freight, so a little hold space for larger items is more normal.

VIa either has the space, or they don't.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

I'm a little surprised about the "under the seat in front of you" statement - which sounds very airlineish - do all VIA equipment configurations now offer storage under the seat ahead?

- Paul

It is very airline-ish. And unfortunately, also reads as if written by someone who has never been on a VIA train.

The legrests prevent a bag from going under the seat in front of you. They can go under your own seat, however. I do this all the time, and in fact the Ren cars were built with this specifically as additional luggage areas.

Dan

 

[TerryJohnson]

We've seen this pantomime before, with changes in 2012 that brought in a $20 surcharge for bags between 40lb and 50lb.
https://globalnews.ca/news/293455/via-rail-cuts-allowable-baggage/
That asinine surcharge vanished in 2014, except for Escape fares where the 40lb limit lingered until 2017.
The free second bag for youth/students in Economy seems to have been introduced in 2017.

Also, going back to 1999, the Thamesville accident report mentions dimensional limits that are almost identical to the new "Medium" bag policy:

VIA Rail Canada Inc.'s (VIA) policy regarding carry-on baggage recommends that passengers limit themselves to two pieces of carry-on baggage. On corridor trains, items of carry-on baggage should not exceed 61 cm by 41 cm by 25 cm (24 inches by 16 inches by 10 inches) in size or weigh more than 23 kg (50 pounds).
However, if no checked-baggage service is available (i.e., if a train consist does not include a baggage car), certain items that are normally prohibited, such as sports equipment and strollers, will be accepted.

Coincidentally, the "medium" carry-on size is still permitted on some airlines like Southwest and Frontier, but not Air Canada or Westjet.

 

[roger1818]

Coincidentally, the "medium" carry-on size is still permitted on some airlines like Southwest and Frontier, but not Air Canada or Westjet.

It comes down to the size of the overhead bins in the airline’s smallest aircraft. AC’s CRJs have an extremely small bins, and if it doesn’t fit in the measurement gauge, it won’t fit in the bin. Having different specifications for different aircraft would create lots of confusion.

For VIA, all their trains have either large overhead bins or (in the case of the Renaissance cars) large under seat compartments.

 

[Urban Sky]

As is already discussed over at Groups.io, Windsor‘s mayor seems convinced that VIA will pay (together with Amtrak) $44 million (in capital funding it hasn’t even requested from the federal government yet) to build a joint Canadian/American customs facility at its Windsor station in Walkerville and to upgrade the level crossings along the Essex Terminal Railway line, in order to reach the railway tunnel and continue further to Chicago. I assume the plan would be to extend #71 to Chicago and #78 from Chicago and then to run the train as an additional frequency between the existing Amtrak station in Detroit and Chicago.

I wouldn’t hold my breath, given how long such a pre-clearance facility has been discussed for Gare Centrale in Montreal, but it‘s certainly an interesting proposal, since it relies on the existing stations in Windsor and Detroit:

Cross-border passenger rail service may return to Windsor

Cross-border passenger rail service could be returning to Windsor should a proposed expansion involving Amtrak and Via Rail Canada move ahead.

windsor.ctvnews.ca

 

[reaperexpress]

It makes sense that Windsor would want the customs facility to be on their side, but to minimize passenger inconvenience, the customs facility should be located where there is the highest passenger turnover. Given that Detroit is several times larger than Windsor I suspect there would be more Canadians going to Detroit than Americans going to Windsor.

As such, Michigan Central Station would be the logical location for the facility.