VIA Rail

[wave46]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I am not sure, but even if you are right, does it really matter?

In a practical sense, no.

In another sense, yes. If I can't do something because legislation prevents me from doing it, that's an obstacle that has to be rectified first.

If we're subsidizing millions of dollars on routes because 'that's the way we've been doing it forever', taking a look at value for money is easier - I don't have to change the law first. If one is subsidizing a train for low-five figures of ridership per year at the cost of millions of taxpayer dollars better spent elsewhere, it begs the question.

Buying out a handful of properties may be the politically more expedient solution for something like the Sudbury-White River train, especially if we're not getting much value for it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I am not sure, but even if you are right, does it really matter?

I would argue it is relevant. Much easier to direct policy change than pass legislation.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Driving is about 12 hours. How much faster is this line, ignoring the border crossing?

It really depends on a bunch of factors, including:

• What types of upgrades CP is planning on the ROW,
• How much freight traffic will there be,
• Will CP be receptive to VIA adding passenger service, and
• Can VIA expedite the boarder crossings?

Back when VIA last operated the Atlantic it took just over 13 hours (adjusting for the change in time zone), but that was as an overnight train (which tend to be slower) and had stops in the US with the resulting boarder delays. With a daytime train, fewer stops and minimal boarder delays, a travel time under 11 hours should be possible (an average speed of about 70km/h for the 761km route). If CP is upgrading to class 3 track, that means VIA could run at a top speed of 60 mph (96 km/h) making that feasible. If they are only upgrading to Class 2, then VIA's tops speed would only be 30 mph (48 km/h) which would make that impossible.

What I mean is if Via decided to add another route to it's timetable, this would not be the first one that would best serve the most Canadians.

I tend to agree that it shouldn't be a priority. It is just an interesting possibility with unusual benefits and potentially less investment compared to other possible routes.

Trains mostly compete with cars and buses. You need a large investment for a train to compete with a 100+ km/h parallel freeway. When the parallel route is slower (with little hope of highway improvements), it becomes much easier to compete.

I'd say its about #5, if not further on my list of priority lines to bring back.

I am surprised it is that high on your list.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I am surprised it is that high on your list.

My list is:
1) Calgary-Edmonton
2) CP Vancouver-Toronto
3) CN/CP Thunder Bay-SSM-Sudbury
4) Toronto-Chicago
5) Halifax-Boston

Then there is this route, and the one between Winnipeg-St Paul.

There are others, but to me, that's roughly my order.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

My list is:
1) Calgary-Edmonton

For new origin-destination pairs, I agree 100%, that should be the top priority, but it needs to be done correctly. It doesn't need to be HSR or even HFR, but it needs to be at least competitive to driving or taking the bus. Using old, hand-me-down trains on the existing track with minimal upgrades just would flop.

2) CP Vancouver-Toronto

We have discussed this too many times before.

3) CN/CP Thunder Bay-SSM-Sudbury

Really? That is your number 3? A total distance of about 1,000 km, largely following the TCH, with the following populations:

Greater Sudbury		164,689

Thunder Bay		121,621

Sault Ste. Marie	78,159

Interestingly, the Sudbury/SSM train seems to have been cancelled around the same time as VIA took over CP's passenger service (it was on the 1976 combined CN/CP schedule, but not on the 1979 VIA schedule).

4) Toronto-Chicago

I can see that, though that would require co-operation from Amtrak. Because of the boarder, Toronto-Detroit would probably make more sense as customs and immigration could be done at Detroit station in both directions. The old route via Sarnia probably doesn't make sense these days.

5) Halifax-Boston

Before Montreal-Boston? Either way it would be mostly Amtrak, not VIA. The current Downeaster does the 233km from Boston to Brunswick, ME, but that is less than a third of the route you are proposing. Given that the I-95 and the TCH largely parallel that route, it will have stiff competition and both have the same disadvantage of having to drive around the Bay of Fundy (unless you take the Ferry from Saint John to Digby).

Montreal-Boston, while it has similar parallel highways, is connecting to a city of population 4 million (Halifax, Moncton and St. John have a combined population of less than 1 million) makes the demand higher and thus worth the cost of upgrades. The distance is also considerably less (between 500 and 600 km depending on the route), putting it in the sweet spot for rail.

Then there is this route, and the one between Winnipeg-St Paul.

There are others, but to me, that's roughly my order.

I may be wrong, but it seems like you are drawing lines on a map without any consideration of where most people actually want to travel.

[lrt's friend]

Then there is this route, and the one between Winnipeg-St Paul.

I would have definitely done this last year, if there was a good connection to Chicago. This is route that did exist at one time.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Halifax, Moncton and St. John have a combined population of less than 1 million

This is correct, and they are much smaller than major metropolitan areas, but one point that is sometimes missed is that the Maritimes have a higher than normal proportion of rural residents, and many of those live in towns that are actually pretty easy to serve along a single route. Counting only the cities underestimates the total market of a rail route pretty significantly around the central part of the Maritimes.

For example Truro CA is about an hour north of Halifax and has 45,000 people yet towns like that tend not to get considered at all. I think Truro has a stop on the Ocean route. Rural Kings County NS actually has a higher population density than the Fredericton CMA and 60% as many people. Part of Hants County NS is getting added to the Halifax CMA next census period and people in that area would be able to take the train too.

[p_xavier]

Finally, semi normal service is coming back on the corridor as of September 1st, including Business Class.

https://www.viarail.ca/en/plan-your-trip/service-status

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

For new origin-destination pairs, I agree 100%, that should be the top priority, but it needs to be done correctly. It doesn't need to be HSR or even HFR, but it needs to be at least competitive to driving or taking the bus. Using old, hand-me-down trains on the existing track with minimal upgrades just would flop.

I agree on the idea of using old trains. Maybe a couple of the new trains coming could be sent west and be used for this.

Using existing lines, without much upgrades will show that the line is back and allows it to grow. Over time, removing level crossings, upgrading the rails, ties and ballast so it can run at Corridor speeds ~90mph would allow the line to grow into it's own.

Sometimes, starting with just running trains may be all that is needed to get some ridership. I do agree that the route should be improve to run at Class 1 speeds, but not doing this right away will not cause it to fail.

Originally Posted by roger1818

We have discussed this too many times before.

Yup. And we will continue to do so till it is back.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Really? That is your number 3? A total distance of about 1,000 km, largely following the TCH, with the following populations:

Greater Sudbury		164,689

Thunder Bay		121,621

Sault Ste. Marie	78,159

Interestingly, the Sudbury/SSM train seems to have been cancelled around the same time as VIA took over CP's passenger service (it was on the 1976 combined CN/CP schedule, but not on the 1979 VIA schedule).

Ahhh, but you likely did not fully understand this. The existing Sudbury-White River train would stay. The returned southern route would leave Sudbury and head for SSM, not Thunder Bay.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I can see that, though that would require co-operation from Amtrak. Because of the boarder, Toronto-Detroit would probably make more sense as customs and immigration could be done at Detroit station in both directions. The old route via Sarnia probably doesn't make sense these days.

Agreed. The first steps would be to Detroit.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Before Montreal-Boston? Either way it would be mostly Amtrak, not VIA. The current Downeaster does the 233km from Boston to Brunswick, ME, but that is less than a third of the route you are proposing. Given that the I-95 and the TCH largely parallel that route, it will have stiff competition and both have the same disadvantage of having to drive around the Bay of Fundy (unless you take the Ferry from Saint John to Digby).

Montreal-Boston, while it has similar parallel highways, is connecting to a city of population 4 million (Halifax, Moncton and St. John have a combined population of less than 1 million) makes the demand higher and thus worth the cost of upgrades. The distance is also considerably less (between 500 and 600 km depending on the route), putting it in the sweet spot for rail.

I actually forgot this route. I could see the Montreal-Boston be done sooner than Boston-Halifax. However, the Boston-Halifax route connects to a Canadian city with a population of 70,000.

Montreal is connected to NYC. That is connected to Boston. Adding a new connection would not add much intermediate passengers.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I may be wrong, but it seems like you are drawing lines on a map without any consideration of where most people actually want to travel.

Yes and no.
Talk to people in places like Calgary, Regina, Thunder Bay, SSM, and Saint John. All who don't have anything. Chances are, especially in winter, these people may decide to take the train over other modes.

Lets take the argument that cancelling the Northern route would have widowed the train to Prince Rupert. Right now(before covid), that train does not go to Edmonton. However, it needs to be serviced in Edmonton. If the southern route was kept, then that route could have simply gone to Edmonton, and then made it's way to Calgary. Had this been done, Via could have seen the demand between Calgary-Edmonton.

I am still compiling the data to see whether my "lines on a map" make sense. If they don't, the the idea dies. If they do, I will proceed. Simple as that.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I would have definitely done this last year, if there was a good connection to Chicago. This is route that did exist at one time.

The Winnipeger was cancelled in 1967 (shortly after it lost its mail contracts), so it was one of the earlier routes to fail. It operated as an overnight train and took over 13 hours to travel its 747 km. Overnight trains are expensive to operate, less environmentally friendly (their reduced capacity per car results in 3 to 4 times the emissions per passenger) and less comfortable. As a result, it would almost definitely operate as daytime service.

If it were to come back as a daytime train, they might be able to beat the old time, if you look at the Adirondack as a comparison (another international daily train), it takes 11 hours to travel 613 km. Maybe some time could be saved by the flatter terrain, but I would expect it would still be in the 10 to 13 hour range (without significant track improvements).

As a result, you would arrive sometime in the mid to late evening, too late for "a good connection to Chicago." Instead, you would most likely have to overnight in Minneapolis–Saint Paul and catch a train the next morning.

Sure some rail fans might ride it once or twice in their lifetime as part of a big, North American, rail tour (I might even ride it once in my lifetime), but how many people would ride a 12 hourish train from Winnipeg to St. Paul (or points in between) on at lest a semi-regular basis?

Don't get me wrong. I like trains and want them to return where they make sense. The problem is many of these old routes were created when the train was the primary mode of transportation and people didn't have other options and now that we have highways and airplanes, these routes are no longer viable.

Originally Posted by someone123

This is correct, and they are much smaller than major metropolitan areas, but one point that is sometimes missed is that the Maritimes have a higher than normal proportion of rural residents, and many of those live in towns that are actually pretty easy to serve along a single route. Counting only the cities underestimates the total market of a rail route pretty significantly around the central part of the Maritimes.

Okay. Lets put it this way then: The population of Nova Scotia has is just under 975 thousand and New Brunswick is under 780 thousand, so if the Boston-Halifax train were to travel through all communities in both provinces (which it wouldn't), you have a total population served of less than 1.8 million. That is still less than half the population of greater Montreal for a route that is about twice as long. On top of that, both Ottawa and Quebec City are a short train ride from Montreal.

Then there is travel in the opposite direction. For the people who live in Boston, would those small towns en-route make the Halifax train significantly more desirable to them?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Okay. Lets put it this way then: The population of Nova Scotia has is just under 975 thousand and New Brunswick is under 780 thousand, so if the Boston-Halifax train were to travel through all communities in both provinces (which it wouldn't), you have a total population served of less than 1.8 million. That is still less than half the population of greater Montreal for a route that is about twice as long. On top of that, both Ottawa and Quebec City are a short train ride from Montreal.

I'm not arguing for anything one way or the other (though I'm more inclined to think a Boston train is unlikely to be worthwhile). Just pointing out the demographics of the area. I think a lot of people who aren't familiar with the Maritimes underestimate how developed they are because they see the much smaller city populations. The settlement patterns are not the same as, say, the Prairies, where there tends to be a more dramatic drop-off in density between urban and rural and a clearer distinction in general.

The main route through the middle of the Maritimes is also a bit of a backbone so there would be some extra traffic from the periphery, and there are bus routes today (some of them former train routes) that could feed into trains running through the region.

Mostly I think it would be good to have 1 train route that goes Halifax <-> Moncton and maybe onto Saint John. VIA rail has suggested running this service. If it had a semi-reasonable schedule (maybe start daily with 1 train each way, so people can head one way in the morning and another way in the evening), I think it would be popular. It could one day connect up with a Saint John to Boston train I suppose.

It is tempting to want to build impressive continent-spanning networks but I think the bread and butter, currently totally unserved in much of Canada (certainly unserved in the Maritimes by the Ocean, but covered by a mix of VIA and GO in Ontario), is boring regional stuff. Commuters outside of the range of normal transit, people who can't drive and are going to appointments, daytrippers or people doing a weekend visit one town over, regional business travelers who want to work instead of driving, etc.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I agree on the idea of using old trains.

I am glad we agree son something.

Maybe a couple of the new trains coming could be sent west and be used for this.

Maybe, though I don't think they have enough extra to do that. They would likely have to buy extra.

Using existing lines, without much upgrades will show that the line is back and allows it to grow. Over time, removing level crossings, upgrading the rails, ties and ballast so it can run at Corridor speeds ~90mph would allow the line to grow into it's own.

Sometimes, starting with just running trains may be all that is needed to get some ridership.

My view is you only have one chance to make a first impression. If it is unreliable and takes twice as long as driving (and thus significantly longer than the existing luxury bus), it will give people a bad impression of the train and there won't be any support for upgrades. Impress them with something that is half decent and they will want to make it even better.

I do agree that the route should be improve to run at Class 1 speeds, but not doing this right away will not cause it to fail.

You do realize that Class 1 track has a maximum speed of 15 mph (24 km/h) for passenger trains. You really don't want any Class 1 track on an intercity passenger line.

I don't know what the existing track is currently rated at, but I would guess it is a combination of Class 2 and 3 track. Class 2 track has maximum speed of 30 mph (48 km/h) for passenger trains. That is still too slow to be competitive except maybe at sidings and stations, where the train is slow anyway. To be at all competitive, the route needs to be at least class 3 (max 60 mph or 97 km/h). Even then it is going to struggle so you will want a plan to upgrade it to Class 4 (or 5).

As a comparison, CN's track along the Lakeshore is Class 5 (the best in the country) and has a maximum speed of 95 mph (153 km/h) for passengers trains (with an exception of 100 mph (161 km/h) for LRC trains). The track VIA owns (from Coteau to Brockville via Ottawa) I believe is rated at Class 4 (80 mph or 129 km/h for passenger trains). I expect most of the rest of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor is also Class 4, though there may be some Class 3 as well.

Yup. And we will continue to do so till it is back.

I have just given up debating this with you. I don't want VIA Rail to be viewed as an endless money pit.

Ahhh, but you likely did not fully understand this. The existing Sudbury-White River train would stay. The returned southern route would leave Sudbury and head for SSM, not Thunder Bay.

I see. You implied that this was a separate route from your number 2 priority. So your Number 2 & 3 priorities are Vancouver-Toronto on the CP route, with a detour to SSM?

Agreed. The first steps would be to Detroit.

We agree again! Amazing! To avoid customs delays it would be best to have the VIA train terminate in Detroit and have people connect to Chicago.
Amtrak already has trains from Detroit to Chicago. Any improvements to that service would be on them.

I actually forgot this route. I could see the Montreal-Boston be done sooner than Boston-Halifax.

However, the Boston-Halifax route connects to a Canadian city with a population of 70,000.

And your point is? 70,000 is hardly a thriving metropolis.

Montreal is connected to NYC. That is connected to Boston. Adding a new connection would not add much intermediate passengers.

One could equally say that Halifax is connected to Montreal, which is connected to NYC, which is connected to Boston. In either case the benefit of a direct train is a shorter route.

NYC is a significant detour for Boston-Montreal. While as I said previously, a direct train would be between 500 and 600 km, so I will split the difference and assume 550 km, the Adirondack is 613 km and NYC to Boston is 372 km, for a total of 985 km, or about 1.8 times further. You also end up with the additional problem that last I checked, the Adirondack was scheduled to arrive in NYC at 8:50 pm, which leads to a tight connection to a NE Regional train at 9:00 pm or a long connection at 1:40 am.

Talk to people in places like Calgary, Regina, Thunder Bay, SSM, and Saint John. All who don't have anything. Chances are, especially in winter, these people may decide to take the train over other modes.

So they might use it in winter, when there is bad weather, but otherwise they would drive, leaving the trains to run mostly empty?

I am still compiling the data to see whether my "lines on a map" make sense. If they don't, the the idea dies. If they do, I will proceed. Simple as that.

I look forward to reviewing your findings.

[Truenorth00]

$350 billion deficit. A Finance Minister resigning over a dispute on proposed spending. We will be lucky if HFR actually gets built to a capability that is half decent. At this point, even converting Corridor West to HFR standard is in jeopardy.

And this is all before a Conservative government gets in and slashes everything. If Trudeau delivers HFR, that's probably the most VIA will be able to do for the next 1-2 decades. If we have a change of government in the next 2 years, kiss HFR good bye too. Further expansion, especially on heavily subsidized regional routes will definitely be off the table. More than likely there will be quite a few cuts, with a future Conservative government. Calgary-Edmonton might the only idea that could be pitched to them. And that would be second to Corridor West if a business case is done.

[swimmer_spe]

This will be a long multi reply.....

Originally Posted by roger1818

The Winnipeger was cancelled in 1967 (shortly after it lost its mail contracts), so it was one of the earlier routes to fail. It operated as an overnight train and took over 13 hours to travel its 747 km. Overnight trains are expensive to operate, less environmentally friendly (their reduced capacity per car results in 3 to 4 times the emissions per passenger) and less comfortable. As a result, it would almost definitely operate as daytime service.

If it were to come back as a daytime train, they might be able to beat the old time, if you look at the Adirondack as a comparison (another international daily train), it takes 11 hours to travel 613 km. Maybe some time could be saved by the flatter terrain, but I would expect it would still be in the 10 to 13 hour range (without significant track improvements).

As a result, you would arrive sometime in the mid to late evening, too late for "a good connection to Chicago." Instead, you would most likely have to overnight in Minneapolis–Saint Paul and catch a train the next morning.

Sure some rail fans might ride it once or twice in their lifetime as part of a big, North American, rail tour (I might even ride it once in my lifetime), but how many people would ride a 12 hourish train from Winnipeg to St. Paul (or points in between) on at lest a semi-regular basis?

Don't get me wrong. I like trains and want them to return where they make sense. The problem is many of these old routes were created when the train was the primary mode of transportation and people didn't have other options and now that we have highways and airplanes, these routes are no longer viable.

Or... you could have this one continue to Chicago. So, now, you can go all the way to Chicago in one trip.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Okay. Lets put it this way then: The population of Nova Scotia has is just under 975 thousand and New Brunswick is under 780 thousand, so if the Boston-Halifax train were to travel through all communities in both provinces (which it wouldn't), you have a total population served of less than 1.8 million. That is still less than half the population of greater Montreal for a route that is about twice as long. On top of that, both Ottawa and Quebec City are a short train ride from Montreal.

Then there is travel in the opposite direction. For the people who live in Boston, would those small towns en-route make the Halifax train significantly more desirable to them?

If we were not locked down, tourists would flock to it.

Originally Posted by someone123

I'm not arguing for anything one way or the other (though I'm more inclined to think a Boston train is unlikely to be worthwhile). Just pointing out the demographics of the area. I think a lot of people who aren't familiar with the Maritimes underestimate how developed they are because they see the much smaller city populations. The settlement patterns are not the same as, say, the Prairies, where there tends to be a more dramatic drop-off in density between urban and rural and a clearer distinction in general.

The main route through the middle of the Maritimes is also a bit of a backbone so there would be some extra traffic from the periphery, and there are bus routes today (some of them former train routes) that could feed into trains running through the region.

Mostly I think it would be good to have 1 train route that goes Halifax <-> Moncton and maybe onto Saint John. VIA rail has suggested running this service. If it had a semi-reasonable schedule (maybe start daily with 1 train each way, so people can head one way in the morning and another way in the evening), I think it would be popular. It could one day connect up with a Saint John to Boston train I suppose.

It is tempting to want to build impressive continent-spanning networks but I think the bread and butter, currently totally unserved in much of Canada (certainly unserved in the Maritimes by the Ocean, but covered by a mix of VIA and GO in Ontario), is boring regional stuff. Commuters outside of the range of normal transit, people who can't drive and are going to appointments, daytrippers or people doing a weekend visit one town over, regional business travelers who want to work instead of driving, etc.

A Saint John-Moncton-Halifax train would make sense.

I don't think most of my thoughts are 'impressive'. I think they are reasonable in a world where we are being asked to reduce our carbon footprint and to be greener. Yes, a train takes longer, but maybe in the end it is better.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I am glad we agree son something.

I think if we were ever to meet, and discuss this kind of stuff over coffee, you might ssee that we may agree on more than you might think.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Maybe, though I don't think they have enough extra to do that. They would likely have to buy extra.

They do have the option to buy more. What is 2-6 more trainsets?

Originally Posted by roger1818

My view is you only have one chance to make a first impression. If it is unreliable and takes twice as long as driving (and thus significantly longer than the existing luxury bus), it will give people a bad impression of the train and there won't be any support for upgrades. Impress them with something that is half decent and they will want to make it even better.

I agree, but the biggest thing that can draw people is the reliability, not speed. If it is on time, regardless of time of year or weather, or time of day, then it can draw more people to it. Sitting in traffic and watching a train go by can be all that is needed.

So, If you can ensure that it can be near 100% reliability, regardless of speed, it can grow.

However, getting it to be as fast as possible, and doing upgrades would cause the line to grow more rapidly.

Originally Posted by roger1818

You do realize that Class 1 track has a maximum speed of 15 mph (24 km/h) for passenger trains. You really don't want any Class 1 track on an intercity passenger line.

I don't know what the existing track is currently rated at, but I would guess it is a combination of Class 2 and 3 track. Class 2 track has maximum speed of 30 mph (48 km/h) for passenger trains. That is still too slow to be competitive except maybe at sidings and stations, where the train is slow anyway. To be at all competitive, the route needs to be at least class 3 (max 60 mph or 97 km/h). Even then it is going to struggle so you will want a plan to upgrade it to Class 4 (or 5).

As a comparison, CN's track along the Lakeshore is Class 5 (the best in the country) and has a maximum speed of 95 mph (153 km/h) for passengers trains (with an exception of 100 mph (161 km/h) for LRC trains). The track VIA owns (from Coteau to Brockville via Ottawa) I believe is rated at Class 4 (80 mph or 129 km/h for passenger trains). I expect most of the rest of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor is also Class 4, though there may be some Class 3 as well.

My mistake. I get the classes mixed up. I did mean Class 5. Does it need to all be class 5 from the get go? Not even the HFR route will be class 5. Some parts will be much lower. Doesn't mean it will be a flop.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I have just given up debating this with you. I don't want VIA Rail to be viewed as an endless money pit.

I also agree that Via should not be a money pit. Part of the problem is how unreliable Via is out of the Corridor. somehow, that needs too be fixed. Being 12 hours late for a 3.5 day trip is unreasonable and unrealistic for anything but the long distance tourists to accept. That would be like doing Toronto-Montreal and regularly adding 0.5-1 hour to the trip. How long till it became unused.

Hence why on time reliability must be #1.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I see. You implied that this was a separate route from your number 2 priority. So your Number 2 & 3 priorities are Vancouver-Toronto on the CP route, with a detour to SSM?

Yes. You add over 200,000 people to the catchment for ridership. It might show there is more demand between certain city pair that currently go unserved.

Originally Posted by roger1818

We agree again! Amazing! To avoid customs delays it would be best to have the VIA train terminate in Detroit and have people connect to Chicago.
Amtrak already has trains from Detroit to Chicago. Any improvements to that service would be on them.

Yes... we do agree. That has been my point with many people on here. I may think big, but we actually do see eye to eye on many things. I wouldn't doubt Amtrak might look at changing their Wolverine line once a day to go across the border to Toronto.

Originally Posted by roger1818

And your point is? 70,000 is hardly a thriving metropolis.

My point is, it may justify rail to a city of over 300,000.

Originally Posted by roger1818

One could equally say that Halifax is connected to Montreal, which is connected to NYC, which is connected to Boston. In either case the benefit of a direct train is a shorter route.

NYC is a significant detour for Boston-Montreal. While as I said previously, a direct train would be between 500 and 600 km, so I will split the difference and assume 550 km, the Adirondack is 613 km and NYC to Boston is 372 km, for a total of 985 km, or about 1.8 times further. You also end up with the additional problem that last I checked, the Adirondack was scheduled to arrive in NYC at 8:50 pm, which leads to a tight connection to a NE Regional train at 9:00 pm or a long connection at 1:40 am.

Montreal-Boston wasn't really on my radar. Besides, there is some talk it seems that it may eventually come back. This isn't a Via issue, it's an Amtrak issue. The Boston-Halifax is more of a combination of both.

Originally Posted by roger1818

So they might use it in winter, when there is bad weather, but otherwise they would drive, leaving the trains to run mostly empty?

During the winter, it would be residents of the area. During the summer, the tourists. The Agawa Canyon train has between 500-900 passengers a day just to go to the canyon and back. To be able to go along the shores of Lake Huron and Superior may not draw quite that number, but it still could be a major draw.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I look forward to reviewing your findings.

For your Consideration...

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

$350 billion deficit. A Finance Minister resigning over a dispute on proposed spending. We will be lucky if HFR actually gets built to a capability that is half decent. At this point, even converting Corridor West to HFR standard is in jeopardy.

And this is all before a Conservative government gets in and slashes everything. If Trudeau delivers HFR, that's probably the most VIA will be able to do for the next 1-2 decades. If we have a change of government in the next 2 years, kiss HFR good bye too. Further expansion, especially on heavily subsidized regional routes will definitely be off the table. More than likely there will be quite a few cuts, with a future Conservative government. Calgary-Edmonton might the only idea that could be pitched to them. And that would be second to Corridor West if a business case is done.

I hate to say it, but he only think that can save it is an NDP government. Mind you, Trudeau doesn't seem to mind the large deficit.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

$350 billion deficit. A Finance Minister resigning over a dispute on proposed spending. We will be lucky if HFR actually gets built to a capability that is half decent. At this point, even converting Corridor West to HFR standard is in jeopardy.

And this is all before a Conservative government gets in and slashes everything. If Trudeau delivers HFR, that's probably the most VIA will be able to do for the next 1-2 decades. If we have a change of government in the next 2 years, kiss HFR good bye too. Further expansion, especially on heavily subsidized regional routes will definitely be off the table. More than likely there will be quite a few cuts, with a future Conservative government. Calgary-Edmonton might the only idea that could be pitched to them. And that would be second to Corridor West if a business case is done.

You do bring up some good points. A couple other things to consider:

1. The current plan is to have HFR funded by the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The Conservatives might not be opposed to that, since it isn't coming from the taxpayer.
2. If VIA can show that HFR will reduce its need for taxpayer subsidies down the line, the Conservatives might not be opposed even if it the project funding did come from the taxpayers.

This is just speculation on my part though. They could just blindly kill the project without understanding the ramifications.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I hate to say it, but he only think that can save it is an NDP government.

The likelihood of which is pretty low. The best the NDP will ever do is help the Conservatives get elected by splitting the vote on the left.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Mind you, Trudeau doesn't seem to mind the large deficit.

Irrespective of what he minds, there's a limit to how much capital can be deployed and an infinite number of demands on the federal treasury. Trudeau is not going to sacrifice any social spending to boost infrastructure spending. We have half a decade of him in office to know that. And the infrastructure spending itself will have to spread itself across the country and across multiple domains of investment.

After HFR is built, the demand for further capital for lower returning projects is going to be a tough sell. Corridor West is the obvious second investment. And Calgary-Edmonton after that. And even then those projects may not happen in the next two decades if the capital required is too high. Best case scenario is that HFR is successful enough that VIA can borrow from the CIB or institutional investors on its own. Worst case scenario? HFR goes so poorly that all future intercity rail investment is dropped by the Feds and some conservative government privatizes VIA.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

You do bring up some good points. A couple other things to consider:

1. The current plan is to have HFR funded by the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The Conservatives might not be opposed to that, since it isn't coming from the taxpayer.
2. If VIA can show that HFR will reduce its need for taxpayer subsidies down the line, the Conservatives might not be opposed even if it the project funding did come from the taxpayers.

This is just speculation on my part though. They could just blindly kill the project without understanding the ramifications.

We're talking about the same conservatives that want to scrap the CIB and pledged to do so last election. The NDP also promised to scrap the CIB last election. Also the CIB is a Crown Corp supposed to be endowed with $120+ billion in capital over the next 15 years. So those are mostly taxpayer dollars, unless VIA can pull in private investors.

And I don't see any sophisticated thinking coming from our conservatives. They'll do blanket cuts. Just see what Doug Ford is doing in Ontario. And you get the idea.

Moreover, if what we've read about airlines lobbying against a highly capable HFR is true, you can bet that they will go hard on pressuring any conservative government to cancel the project.

This is exactly why I'm so angry with the Liberals for putting this off for years. It was obvious that an eventual recession would imperil the project.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Or... you could have this one continue to Chicago. So, now, you can go all the way to Chicago in one trip.

You could, but then there would be no hope of running it as a day train, as you would be adding about an extra 8 hours to the trip.

If we were not locked down, tourists would flock to it.

Do you really think Boston tourists have ever heard of McAdam, Sussex, Sackville, Amherst, Springhill or even Truro (the smaller stations that might be on the route), let alone want to go to them as a destination?

I don't think most of my thoughts are 'impressive'. I think they are reasonable in a world where we are being asked to reduce our carbon footprint and to be greener. Yes, a train takes longer, but maybe in the end it is better.

You are assuming that the carbon footprint of these trains would be lower. Trains are great when they are full, but when running mostly empty, they are worse than cars, let alone buses.

I think if we were ever to meet, and discuss this kind of stuff over coffee, you might ssee that we may agree on more than you might think.

Proabably.

They do have the option to buy more. What is 2-6 more trainsets?

They do, but you would have to include that in the startup cost. At $989 million for 32 trainsets, that works out to over $30 million each, so for 2-6 more, you are looking at 60 to 180 million dollars. As part of a solid business plan, it would be worth it, but not something you would spend as a random experiment to get trains on the rails ASAP.

I agree, but the biggest thing that can draw people is the reliability, not speed. If it is on time, regardless of time of year or weather, or time of day, then it can draw more people to it. Sitting in traffic and watching a train go by can be all that is needed.

You are forgetting that VIA Rails on-time performance network wide is abysmal and without any upgrades, this would be no different. According to their 2019 Annual Report, their "On-time performance of all VIA Rail trains" was 67%, the lowest in 20 years, and with increasing freight traffic, it will only get worse if nothing is done. That is why HFR is so important.

So, If you can ensure that it can be near 100% reliability, regardless of speed, it can grow.

That would require dedicated tracks, which would be a huge investment.

My mistake. I get the classes mixed up. I did mean Class 5. Does it need to all be class 5 from the get go? Not even the HFR route will be class 5. Some parts will be much lower. Doesn't mean it will be a flop.

I never said it needed Class 5. I said Class 3. Even then you will be lucky to match the 3 1/2 hour travel time it previously had between Calgary and South Edmonton. With all the extra freight traffic, 4 hours would be more likely and it would still have a poor on-time performance. For reference, Red Arrow does this in between 3 and 4 hours (I don't know their on-time performance).

I also agree that Via should not be a money pit. Part of the problem is how unreliable Via is out of the Corridor. somehow, that needs too be fixed.

It is bad both in and out of the Corridor. Fixing it inside the Corridor will have a much better chance of a significant increase in revenue.

Being 12 hours late for a 3.5 day trip is unreasonable and unrealistic for anything but the long distance tourists to accept.

I agree. The only realistic solution would be legislative changes to force the freight railways to give VIA priority. Unfortunately, given how important freight delivery is to our economy, I don't see that happening.

People often complain about how bad the railways are in Canada (and the USA), but they forget about all the freight that is moved by rail here in North America. If that freight was transferred to trucks, our GHG emissions would skyrocket.

That would be like doing Toronto-Montreal and regularly adding 0.5-1 hour to the trip. How long till it became unused.

That delay isn't as uncommon as you might think and one of the key motivators to HFR. I can't find a reference, but I seem to remember hearing that when calculating on-time performance, a train is only considered late by VIA if it is more than 15 minutes behind schedule.

Hence why on time reliability must be #1.

I agree. So how is adding routes which are doomed to be unreliable going to help with this objective?

Yes. You add over 200,000 people to the catchment for ridership. It might show there is more demand between certain city pair that currently go unserved.

But if the service is equally unreliable to the northern route, would the locals use it? It would become a second tourist train.

I wouldn't doubt Amtrak might look at changing their Wolverine line once a day to go across the border to Toronto.

I don't think this would happen. It would suffer from the same issues at the boarder the Maple Leaf has, resulting in unreliable service beyond the boarder. It would be best to have the train clear customs in Detroit station.

My point is, it may justify rail to a city of over 300,000.

I'm getting lost. What cities of 70,000 and 300,000 are you talking about?

Montreal-Boston wasn't really on my radar. Besides, there is some talk it seems that it may eventually come back. This isn't a Via issue, it's an Amtrak issue.

I agree it is an Amtrak issue.

The Boston-Halifax is more of a combination of both.

It would still be more of an Amtrak issue even if it operated like the Maple Leaf. I don't think it is even on Amtrak's radar. Even if it was, it would still have the same issue at the boarder though.

During the winter, it would be residents of the area. During the summer, the tourists. The Agawa Canyon train has between 500-900 passengers a day just to go to the canyon and back. To be able to go along the shores of Lake Huron and Superior may not draw quite that number, but it still could be a major draw.

The Agawa Canyon train is a scenic day trip. How many of the other routes you are proposing have the same breathtaking vistas and could offer reliable, round-trip service in a day?

[Truenorth00]

Boston-Halifax if it were to exist, should be a high speed ferry. Not a train.

Swimmer_spe thinks it's the 1960s when flying was expensive for most people, crossing land borders was easy, freeway networks weren't as developed, governments had loads of capital and most families didn't have multiple cars. I support him dumping all these proposals on his local MP, so that we can spend more time discussing realistic ideas.

1) Anything cross-border is out. The border is getting thicker. A far better idea is transfer stations to facilitate an easy transfer to an Amtrak service.

2) A strict focus on corridors with the highest rates of return. Quebec-Windsor. And probably Calgary-Edmonton. Regional routes? Except for the Canadian and the Ocean, if the provinces aren't willing to subsidize them, they should be fair game for termination.

3) Work with the freight cos to create a minimum infrastructure plan to boost speed and reliability of the Canadian and the Ocean. And boost frequencies. Canadian should be daily. Ocean should be double daily at least.

4) Start up connecting shuttle services that connect to Corridor, Canadian and Ocean services. Buses and even vans where warranted.

5) Maximum emphasis on interconnectivity. Aviation at Pearson and Trudeau. Ferries where possible.

VIA needs to think more like a national passenger transportation service and less like a regional rail operating conglomerate. I should be able to fly in to Toronto and book a combined train and shuttle ticket that gets me to Charlottetown, PEI with stops en route. If they have to cut far-flung regional routes that 90% of Canadians don't even know exist, so be it.

HFR is evidence that they are starting to think like this. I hope it continues.