VIA Rail

[Urban Sky]

A bit of an aside but it affected me personally so I have to vent. As someone who used to take the Sarnia train, it was incredibly bone-headed for VIA to cancel the faster of the two trains from Sarnia, leaving just one train that meanders through the slow milk run north line.

The south route through Woodstock etc took just shy of 3 hours to Sarnia from Toronto. About the same as driving. The current one takes nearly FIVE hours.

Currently there are 4 daily trains to and from Windsor. They couldn't have routed ONE of those Windsor trains through to Kitchener and kept the faster Sarnia train to Toronto? No one takes the train in Sarnia and its a common joke because of how ridiculous it is. Its so bad, that on the odd occasion I have to take it, I always opt to transfer at London and wait for the Windsor train. Even with the 30 minute connection, its STILL faster.

I decided to dive into my timetable database for you to compare the May 2004 with the May 2005 schedules:

Basically, what happened is that prior to May 2005, VIA operated a very different morning schedule on weekdays and weekends, where the morning train from Sarnia would operate on weekdays via Brantford (Train 82) and on weekends via Kitchener (Train 682). In May 2005, Train 682 became daily (and was renumbered 84), which was the opportunity to systemize the timetable by operating the early morning Sarnia train daily via Kitchener, like it already operated on weekends. Nevertheless (and as you already remarked), a connection was offered in London to transfer between Train 84 and 70, which lasted until November 2021 (when the departure time of Train 84 in Sarnia was delayed at the request of Metrolinx from then 06:10 to 08:40):

Train #	May 2004 (weekdays)	May 2004 (weekends)	May 2005 (weekdays)	May 2005 (weekends)
86	05:25 LNDN 06:44 KITC 08:20 TRTO		05:20 LNDN 06:41 KITC 08:20 TRTO
82	05:25 SARN 06:34 LNDN 07:26 BRTF 08:25 LNDN		05:25 SARN 06:34 LNDN 07:26 BRTF 08:25 LNDN
682 (May 2005: 84)		06:10 SARN 07:18 LNDN 08:40 KITC 10:05 TRTO	06:45 SARN 07:44/54 LNDN 09:11 KITC 10:52 TRTO	06:45 SARN 07:44/54 LNDN 09:11 KITC 10:52 TRTO
70	06:00 WDON 07:58 LNDN 08:59 BRTF 10:04 TRTO	06:00 WDON 07:58 LNDN 08:59 BRTF 10:04 TRTO	06:00 WDON 07:53/58 LNDN 08:59 BRTF 10:15 TRTO	06:00 WDON 07:53/58 LNDN 08:59 BRTF 10:15 TRTO

And for what it's worth, offering a SARN-TRTO train via Brantford rather than Kitchener was really an anomaly, which only lasted from June 1998 until May 2005, as a curious deviation from the division of all SWO services into a northern (SARN-LNDN-KITC-TRTO) and southern route (WDON-LNDN-BRTF-TRTO) which has persevered since the 1990 cuts:

Spoiler

To make matters worse there is no bus service to Sarnia either, so its the only option there besides flying, which is prohibitively expensive. Maybe thats why VIA decided to give Sarnia the worse option; no competition so who cares...

Well, there actually is regular bus service between London and Sarnia (The Municipality of Strathroy-Cardoc operates a bus 2-3 times per day from London and Flixbus operates 6 times a week all the way from Toronto via London):

Spoiler

 

[reaperexpress]

I’ve been reminded in the meanwhile that virtually all these stations alomg the Dundas and Kingston Subdivisions already have a platform on the second (outer) track and whereas priority is understandably given to boarding from the main platform (at the closer track), trains can stop at the outer track, provided that passengers crossing the inner track are protected as required by Rule 107.

Why exactly would, say, creating another side platform with a passenger tunnel like in DORV or KGON increase capacity? The chances of freight traffic on the closer track exactly during the 5 times 5 minutes a VIA train seems to be rather low to me at a given day, so the inconvenience to CN should be rather manageable…

Yes they can load from the further track from the platform, across the other track. Installing an actual second platform with a tunnel/bridge increases capacity and reduces delays because it eliminates the conflict between trains in opposite directions. This is the same effect as double tracking a segment of single track.

Could the line survive with 7 Via trains per day in its current configuration? Almost certainly. But that means 2 more trains obstructing the opposite track for 5 min at 2 stations (20 min total). It would increase impacts on CN's operations so CN would likely not approve it. But if a proper second platform is built in Woodstock, Via could add 2 more trains while actually reducing the net impact on CN's operations (as well as CN's impact on their own operations). It shouldn't be hard to see how a proper double-track operation would reduce delays for both operators compared to the status quo where the oncoming track is obstructed when loading passengers.

In practice from what I've seen they try to avoid loading across tracks, and route trains onto the track adjacent to the platform. So the impact of Via's single-platform operations is actually far more than the 5 min per stop I used in the table above.

 

[reaperexpress]

I decided to dive into my timetable database for you to compare the May 2004 with the May 2005 schedules:
View attachment 617620

Basically, what happened is that prior to May 2005, VIA operated a very different morning schedule on weekdays and weekends, where the morning train from Sarnia would operate on weekdays via Brantford (Train 82) and on weekends via Kitchener (Train 682). In May 2005, Train 682 became daily (and was renumbered 84), which was the opportunity to systemize the timetable by operating the early morning Sarnia train daily via Kitchener, like it already operated on weekends. Nevertheless (and as you already remarked), a connection was offered in London to transfer between Train 84 and 70, which lasted until November 2021 (when the departure time of Train 84 in Sarnia was delayed at the request of Metrolinx from then 06:10 to 08:40):

Train #	May 2004 (weekdays)	May 2004 (weekends)	May 2005 (weekdays)	May 2005 (weekends)
86	05:25 LNDN 06:44 KITC 08:20 TRTO		05:20 LNDN 06:41 KITC 08:20 TRTO
82	05:25 SARN 06:34 LNDN 07:26 BRTF 08:25 LNDN		05:25 SARN 06:34 LNDN 07:26 BRTF 08:25 LNDN
682 (May 2005: 84)		06:10 SARN 07:18 LNDN 08:40 KITC 10:05 TRTO	06:45 SARN 07:44/54 LNDN 09:11 KITC 10:52 TRTO	06:45 SARN 07:44/54 LNDN 09:11 KITC 10:52 TRTO
70	06:00 WDON 07:58 LNDN 08:59 BRTF 10:04 TRTO	06:00 WDON 07:58 LNDN 08:59 BRTF 10:04 TRTO	06:00 WDON 07:53/58 LNDN 08:59 BRTF 10:15 TRTO	06:00 WDON 07:53/58 LNDN 08:59 BRTF 10:15 TRTO

And for what it's worth, offering a SARN-TRTO train via Brantford rather than Kitchener was really an anomaly, which only lasted from June 1998 until May 2005, as a curious deviation from the division of all SWO services into a northern (SARN-LNDN-KITC-TRTO) and southern route (WDON-LNDN-BRTF-TRTO) which has persevered since the 1990 cuts:

Spoiler

View attachment 617621

Well, there actually is regular bus service between London and Sarnia (The Municipality of Strathroy-Cardoc operates a bus 2-3 times per day from London and Flixbus operates 6 times a week all the way from Toronto via London):

Spoiler

View attachment 617615
View attachment 617618

Rob's experience of deteriorating Via service to/from Sarnia is indisputably supported by Via's schedules over the past few decades. Since Via took over passenger operations, Toronto-Sarnia service has experienced far more severe decline than any other Corridor service.

 

[Urban Sky]

Rob's experience of deteriorating Via service to/from Sarnia is indisputably supported by Via's schedules over the past few decades. Since Via took over passenger operations, Toronto-Sarnia service has experienced far more severe decline than any other Corridor service.

View attachment 617657

Sure, but there is no segment across the entire Corridor which (even remotely!) serves such a minimal ridership potential as Sarnia-London. That it once had more departures than even Toronto-Ottawa is just a relict from all the Toronto-Chicago through trains, but the moment "The International" (as the last remaining cross-border service) was cancelled (in 2004), even justifying a counter-peak train (85 and 88) in addition to the token peak train (84 and 87) became impossible and thus an obvious target for the 2012 cuts.

Sarnia's city population is just 72,047, which makes it not that much larger than Herten (pop. 62,204) and Nordhorn (pop. 55,242), both of which are German cities which didn't have any passenger rail service for 39 (between May 1983 and December 2022) and 45 years (between May 1974 and July 2019), respectively. In the meanwhile, Bergkamen (pop. 49,475) has permanently lost its passenger rail service in 1983 and Garbsen (pop. 61,594) never had a rail station (though it has been connected to Hannover's tram network since 1996).

 

[reaperexpress]

Sure, but there is no segment across the entire Corridor which (even remotely!) serves such a minimal ridership potential as Sarnia-London. That it once had more departures than even Toronto-Ottawa is just a relict from all the Toronto-Chicago through trains, but the moment "The International" (as the last remaining cross-border service) was cancelled (in 2004), even justifying a counter-peak train (85 and 88) in addition to the token peak train (84 and 87) became impossible and thus an obvious target for the 2012 cuts.

Sarnia's city population is just 72,047, which makes it not that much larger than Herten (pop. 62,204) and Nordhorn (pop. 55,242), both of which are German cities which didn't have any passenger rail service for 39 (between May 1983 and December 2022) and 45 years (between May 1974 and July 2019), respectively. In the meanwhile, Bergkamen (pop. 49,475) has permanently lost its passenger rail service in 1983 and Garbsen (pop. 61,594) never had a rail station (though it has been connected to Hannover's tram network since 1996).

How many through trains to Chicago via Sarnia were there in 1979?

 

[Urban Sky]

How many through trains to Chicago via Sarnia were there in 1979?

Zero, but you are accidentally making my main point, which was:

That it once had more departures than even Toronto-Ottawa is just a relict from all the Toronto-Chicago through trains, [...]

If we compare the timetables of post-war Canada in steps of approximately 15 years:

1945/04/29	1960/04/24	1976/04/25	1986/06/01	2005/05/01
#14 ("The International") 20:00 CHI 04:20 PTH 04:40 SARN 05:47 LNDN 07:05 BRTF 08:50 TRTO	#14 ("The International") 20:10 CHI 04:20 PTH 04:40 SARN 05:52 LNDN 07:09 BRTF 08:55 TRTO	(cancelled as of 1971/01/02)
#606 (Motor Coach) 05:20 SARN 06:55 LNDN	#82 05:50 SARN 07:05 LNDN 08:01 BRTF 09:10 TRTO	#82 (TEMPO) 05:40 SARN 06:40 LNDN 07:45 BRTF 08:55 TRTO	#80 ("St. Clair") 06:50 SARN 07:55 LNDN 08:50 BRTF 10:10 TRTO	#84 06:45 SARN 07:52 LNDN 09:11 KITC 10:52 TRTO
#6 ("The Inter City Limited") 23:00 CHI 09:35 PTH 10:20 SARN 12:10 LNDN 13:32 BRTF 15:25 TRTO	#6 ("Inter-City Ltd.") 22:50 CHI 09:35 PTH 10:00 SARN 12:10 LNDN 13:28 BRTF 15:25 TRTO	#84 (TEMPO) 09:00 SARN 10:10 LNDN 11:12 BRTF 12:30 TRTO	#682 08:00 SARN 09:15 LNDN 10:11 BRTF 11:35 TRTO	(cancelled as of 1990/01/15)
#620 (Motor Coach) 16:40 SARN 18:15 LNDN	(cancelled as of 1959/10/25)	#86 (TEMPO) 13:50 SARN 14:50 LNDN 16:00 BRTF 17:14 TRTO	#84 12:20 SARN 13:30 LNDN 14:35 BRTF 16:00 TRTO	(cancelled as of 1990/01/15)
#20 (Maple Leaf) 09:40 CHI 18:05 PTH 18:25 SARN 19:45 LNDN 21:00 BRTF 22:15 TRTO	#20 (Maple Leaf) 10:00 CHI 18:05 PTH 18:25 SARN 19:35 LNDN 20:43 BRTF 22:05 TRTO	#88 (TEMPO) 18:31 SARN 19:35 LNDN 21:11 OAKV 21:40 TRTO	#88 ("The International") 10:05 CHI 17:20 PTH 18:10 SARN 19:15 LNDN 20:07 BRTF 21:25 TRTO	#88 19:00 SARN 20:00 LNDN 21:26 KITC 23:01 TRTO

As you can see above, all trains VIA operated from Sarnia until the 1990 cuts can trace themselves back to Chicago-Toronto trains, even if the overnight #14 had morphed into a midday departure. The only exception is the morning commuter train, which coincidentally is the only train to survive until this day. The other train to survive the 1990 cuts was the (by that time: last) cross-border train, which only survived until the next round of cuts (2012) after it was cut back to a national train in 2004...

Oh, and when we talk about Sarnia's morning commuter train (at that time: #80), that train was already rerouted via Kitchener (rather than Brantford) in October 1986 and thus even before the 1990 cuts:

TLDR: We can hate the 1990 and 2012 cuts all we want, but I don’t have to run the gravity model to find it indefensible to argue that SARN-LNDN is underserved in comparison to any other Corridor segment. The rise and fall of passenger rail service to Sarnia was always linked to cross-border rail services and with these gone for good its current service level is adequate when comparing with the single train between London and Kitchener and the complete absence of services to cities like Peterborough, Trois-Riviéres and Sherbrooke…

 

[robmausser]

Sure, but there is no segment across the entire Corridor which (even remotely!) serves such a minimal ridership potential as Sarnia-London. That it once had more departures than even Toronto-Ottawa is just a relict from all the Toronto-Chicago through trains, but the moment "The International" (as the last remaining cross-border service) was cancelled (in 2004), even justifying a counter-peak train (85 and 88) in addition to the token peak train (84 and 87) became impossible and thus an obvious target for the 2012 cuts.

Sarnia's city population is just 72,047, which makes it not that much larger than Herten (pop. 62,204) and Nordhorn (pop. 55,242), both of which are German cities which didn't have any passenger rail service for 39 (between May 1983 and December 2022) and 45 years (between May 1974 and July 2019), respectively. In the meanwhile, Bergkamen (pop. 49,475) has permanently lost its passenger rail service in 1983 and Garbsen (pop. 61,594) never had a rail station (though it has been connected to Hannover's tram network since 1996).

Ha I appreciate this discussion everyone, but I just want to be clear that I only would want one train a day from Sarnia; the return of the 3:20 train, even if it was at the expense of the 5 hour one through the GEXR sub.

At the very least, until the track conditions are fixed to be faster.

I agree that 4 trains a day in todays age is too much for Sarnia's population.

However its also my opinion that no one takes the 5 hour train. Ridership would quadruple if the 3:20 train was reinstated.

 

[reaperexpress]

Ha I appreciate this discussion everyone, but I just want to be clear that I only would want one train a day from Sarnia; the return of the 3:20 train, even if it was at the expense of the 5 hour one through the GEXR sub.

At the very least, until the track conditions are fixed to be faster.

I agree that 4 trains a day in todays age is too much for Sarnia's population.

However its also my opinion that no one takes the 5 hour train. Ridership would quadruple if the 3:20 train was reinstated.

Yeah I was also talking about 2 trains/day to Sarnia, which is why I've been talking about increasing the London-Brantford-Toronto frequency from 5/day to 7/day.

Regardless of how much background transport demand there is from Sarnia to London and Toronto, the train would capture a much greater proportion of that demand if it didn't take such an absurdly long time to get to Toronto, and if it had more than just one possible departure time. Cutting an hour off the travel time to Toronto and doubling the frequency should be able to double the ridership between Sarnia and London, without doubling the operating cost (since shorter travel times translate to lower operating expenses per trip).

 

[robmausser]

Yeah I was also talking about 2 trains/day to Sarnia, which is why I've been talking about increasing the London-Brantford-Toronto frequency from 5/day to 7/day.
View attachment 617793

Regardless of how much background transport demand there is from Sarnia to London and Toronto, the train would capture a much greater proportion of that demand if it didn't take such an absurdly long time to get to Toronto, and if it had more than just one possible departure time. Cutting an hour off the travel time to Toronto and doubling the frequency should be able to double the ridership between Sarnia and London, without doubling the operating cost (since shorter travel times translate to lower operating expenses per trip).

Agreed. But looking at your chart, I still would make the 6:10 sarnia train the express and not the 6:25 London. Its my opinion that the longer the trip, the more express the service should be. 3:54 is still not great, although better than 5 hours for sure haha.

Perhaps that 6:25 London trip is a commuter service though, and they are trying to get in before 9am work start.

 

[Urban Sky]

The RFQ has apparently started for the new non-Corridor fleet:

NEW TRAINS FROM COAST TO COAST | VIA Rail

media.viarail.ca

 

[Willybru21]

Concept art for the new equipment:

 

[cplchanb]

Concept art for the new equipment:

Whos concept art is this? the renderings align the canadian to more of a tourist train feel like the rocky mountaineer. then again most ride it for tourism purposes unlike when it was running in the 70s.
looks vaguely like a venture shell customized.

that is such a low bar ........

its also quite depressing that this project is picking up pace simply because the current govt is at risk of falling. where were they for the last 10 years?

 

[Willybru21]

Whos concept art is this?

VIA Rails? I wouldn’t be posting random concept art from another service here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1866190132530864307

 

[Bojaxs]

Whos concept art is this? the renderings align the canadian to more of a tourist train feel like the rocky mountaineer. then again most ride it for tourism purposes unlike when it was running in the 70s.
looks vaguely like a venture shell customized.

View attachment 618402
that is such a low bar ........

its also quite depressing that this project is picking up pace simply because the current govt is at risk of falling. where were they for the last 10 years?

Ain't nobody using this train for transit purposes. Let's be realistic.

 

[Urban Sky]

Ain't nobody using this train for transit purposes. Let's be realistic.

I find the use of “transit” for any VIA services rather confusing: TTC and STM are transit, VIA is intercity or regional passenger transport.