VIA Rail

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Nobody travels end to end in the Corridor by train. Anybody going that far is driving for vacation or flying for business. This is exactly why HFR is needed. It expands the range of train users.

Nobody? Can you prove that? I think we both cannot for sure show that someone does or does not. However, in the Corridor anything to appeal to those that might fly or drive to take the train is a good idea.

Now, if only that could be done outside of the Corridor too. The 5 major prairie provinces are close enough that Corridor speeds could make them more appealing to people going between them. Sadly, the train has to yield to slower freight.

Just imagine that the only people who could use the passing lanes of a highway was the transport trucks? Or, larger planes land before the smaller ones do? After the first few small planes crashed due to running out of fuel, waiting for yet another big important plane to land, people might demand all planes land within their schedule.

It is interesting to apply the rail realities to other modes of transportation to start to see how silly things really are.

[Truenorth00]

1) The three Prairie provinces are not "close" by any definition especially when talking about their major cities. Winnipeg to Calgary is almost 200 km longer than Windsor to Quebec City.

2) The three Prairie provinces combined have about the same population as the GTHA. Drill that down to a corridor and the Winnipeg-Calgary route has maybe 3 million along a 1300+ km route. Not nearly enough of a market for any rail infrastructure investment. Which means trains have to rely on freight rail infrastructure. Having those trains run slower further reduces the serviceable market.

3) There will never be more than the occasional daily train because there's no rail capacity for it without dedicated passenger rail tracks. And the freight rail companies will never allow service levels which interfere with their freight business.

Our geography will never make rail viable cross-country. Those same dollars are better spent improving regional rail service in pockets of density. The cost of building single track from Winnipeg to Calgary could fund high speed rail from Calgary to Edmonton. I can guess what Albertans would prefer.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

1) The three Prairie provinces are not "close" by any definition especially when talking about their major cities. Winnipeg to Calgary is almost 200 km longer than Windsor to Quebec City.

2) The three Prairie provinces combined have about the same population as the GTHA. Drill that down to a corridor and the Winnipeg-Calgary route has maybe 3 million along a 1300+ km route. Not nearly enough of a market for any rail infrastructure investment. Which means trains have to rely on freight rail infrastructure. Having those trains run slower further reduces the serviceable market.

3) There will never be more than the occasional daily train because there's no rail capacity for it without dedicated passenger rail tracks. And the freight rail companies will never allow service levels which interfere with their freight business.

1) I am well aware of the distances. I drove between them this last month.

2) They also make up the 4th, 6th and 8th largest CMAs in Canada. Simply adding longer passing sidings to fit the massive container trains would be a good start.

3) That is the most correct statement. Let's be real for a moment. The demand could be there, but unless it is fast, and reliable, it will never be successful. If CN/CP agreed to treat all Via trains as "over siding" trains, and Via were to go the maximum speed permitted, it might be a success. Unfortunately, that would cost CN/CP too much, and so, it will never get the success it could have.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

2) They also make up the 4th, 6th and 8th largest CMAs in Canada.

Edmonton would not be on a Winnipeg-Calgary line.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Simply adding longer passing sidings to fit the massive container trains would be a good start.

Pointless without freight operators agreeing to specific schedules and facilitation of rail priorities. The Lakeshore experience should already tell you how that is going to go. And this would be hundreds of millions to billions for what would still be a max of 2-3 trains a day carrying less than a thousand passengers each way per day. Just but defensible when there are so many other rail proposals that would move more pax.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Unfortunately, that would cost CN/CP too much, and so, it will never get the success it could have.

Which is why it's just dumb to waste time talking about things that have no chance of happening.

[tkoe]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

1) I am well aware of the distances. I drove between them this last month.

2) They also make up the 4th, 6th and 8th largest CMAs in Canada. Simply adding longer passing sidings to fit the massive container trains would be a good start.

3) That is the most correct statement. Let's be real for a moment. The demand could be there, but unless it is fast, and reliable, it will never be successful. If CN/CP agreed to treat all Via trains as "over siding" trains, and Via were to go the maximum speed permitted, it might be a success. Unfortunately, that would cost CN/CP too much, and so, it will never get the success it could have.

I am not sure what the travel patterns are between Calgary and Winnipeg, but my guess is that they would likely be dwarfed by the number of travellers between Calgary and Edmonton. That is by far the most populous city pair in the prairies and clearly should be the focus before any East-West routes.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

3) That is the most correct statement. Let's be real for a moment. The demand could be there, but unless it is fast, and reliable, it will never be successful. If CN/CP agreed to treat all Via trains as "over siding" trains, and Via were to go the maximum speed permitted, it might be a success. Unfortunately, that would cost CN/CP too much, and so, it will never get the success it could have.

Neither a conventional nor a high speed train would ever be comparable with flying. A full HSR system would still take 5ish hours to get from Winnipeg to Calgary. That is more than double a flight. A system that allowed a conventional train to get close to their top speed would take somewhere in the 8-10 hour range. HSR doesn't make sense for distances over 800 km. Conventional rail (as a service people will find usable) doesn't make sense over about 500.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by tkoe

I am not sure what the travel patterns are between Calgary and Winnipeg, but my guess is that they would likely be dwarfed by the number of travellers between Calgary and Edmonton. That is by far the most populous city pair in the prairies and clearly should be the focus before any East-West routes.

If Vi were only adding one route, yes. Let's be honest, Via isn't doing anything outside the Corridor

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Neither a conventional nor a high speed train would ever be comparable with flying. A full HSR system would still take 5ish hours to get from Winnipeg to Calgary. That is more than double a flight. A system that allowed a conventional train to get close to their top speed would take somewhere in the 8-10 hour range. HSR doesn't make sense for distances over 800 km. Conventional rail (as a service people will find usable) doesn't make sense over about 500.

8-10 hours is faster than driving. How many people drive that distance? The reality is, HSR isn't going to be built on the prairie provinces until a line is built and operational for over a decade between Toronto and Montreal. That is not going to happen till HFR is built and shown to be successful. So, that is at least 30+ years from now before the prairies will even be considered for it. Should 2 of the 5 largest cities in the west wait 30+ years for rail to return? Should 5 of the largest cities have virtually no real service because "HSR or nothing?"

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

8-10 hours is faster than driving. How many people drive that distance? The reality is, HSR isn't going to be built on the prairie provinces until a line is built and operational for over a decade between Toronto and Montreal. That is not going to happen till HFR is built and shown to be successful. So, that is at least 30+ years from now before the prairies will even be considered for it. Should 2 of the 5 largest cities in the west wait 30+ years for rail to return? Should 5 of the largest cities have virtually no real service because "HSR or nothing?"

I can't imagine there are significant numbers of people driving between Winnipeg and Calgary on a given day. The AADT on Highway 1 entering Saskatchewan is only 4200. Unless nearly all of those people are going to Calgary (which they certainly aren't) there is nowhere near the passenger volume to justify a major investment in rail infrastructure. There is only one daily bus.

I don't think rail services should be built for the sake of having rail services. Rail services (or any infrastructure for that matter) should be built because there would be reasonable benefit from the investment.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Should 5 of the largest cities have virtually no real service because "HSR or nothing?"

If passenger rail doesn't make sense, then yes, nothing is the sensible option. You said it yourself that conventional rail makes no sense over 500km, so that rules out Winnipeg being connected to any major city by rail, with only Calgary - Edmonton, and maybe Edmonton - Saskatoon and Saskatoon - Regina (though those latter two would certainly not be worth the money).

The obvious middle ground if you want to provide public transport is to provide buses, which will be cheaper, more frequent, faster and more reliable. If those buses start filling up to the point where they could fill frequent trains and justify huge spending on track upgrades, then that is the time to do so.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Should 2 of the 5 largest cities in the west wait 30+ years for rail to return? Should 5 of the largest cities have virtually no real service because "HSR or nothing?"

Yes. There's no business case for it. Ask residents in those cities how much more they're willing to pay in taxes to fund such frivolity. You'll find that they aren't as sentimental about rail services as you are.

There's only one corridor out west worth investing in, for rail infrastructure. Everything else? A daily Canadian is enough.

[milomilo]

A daily Canadian is too much, in fact. But whatever, it's a trivial irrelevance in terms of expenditure but its existence should not be used as a justification for more pointless rail service.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I can't imagine there are significant numbers of people driving between Winnipeg and Calgary on a given day. The AADT on Highway 1 entering Saskatchewan is only 4200. Unless nearly all of those people are going to Calgary (which they certainly aren't) there is nowhere near the passenger volume to justify a major investment in rail infrastructure. There is only one daily bus.

I don't think rail services should be built for the sake of having rail services. Rail services (or any infrastructure for that matter) should be built because there would be reasonable benefit from the investment.

Unlike a plane, trains have intermediate stops. Explain why Kingston has such high usage, yet, is smaller than the top 5 cities of the prairies. It is so high because it is connected to larger cities. A train between Calgary-Regina-Wnnipeg would be stopping at Moose Jaw, Swift Current, and Portage La Prairie, among others. Those citizens now have another way to get to the major cities.

Originally Posted by milomilo

If passenger rail doesn't make sense, then yes, nothing is the sensible option. You said it yourself that conventional rail makes no sense over 500km, so that rules out Winnipeg being connected to any major city by rail, with only Calgary - Edmonton, and maybe Edmonton - Saskatoon and Saskatoon - Regina (though those latter two would certainly not be worth the money).

The obvious middle ground if you want to provide public transport is to provide buses, which will be cheaper, more frequent, faster and more reliable. If those buses start filling up to the point where they could fill frequent trains and justify huge spending on track upgrades, then that is the time to do so.

We tried that with subsidizing a private company which has now since pulled out.

If the traffic is so low, why is it 4 laned between those cities?

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Unlike a plane, trains have intermediate stops. Explain why Kingston has such high usage, yet, is smaller than the top 5 cities of the prairies. It is so high because it is connected to larger cities.

What 2 cities on the Prairies have combined 7 or 8 million people and are less than 400 miles apart?

[MolsonExport]

HSR only makes sense in two corridors in Canada: Quebec City to Windsor (via Trois Rivieres, Montreal, Ottawa, Kingston, Toronto, Hamilton, KW, London), and Calgary-Edmonton (via Red Deer). The other routes lack the population and are too distant.

That is it. Unless we are talking about possible international routes (e.g., Montreal to Boston, Montreal to NYC, Toronto to Detroit/Chicago, Vancouver to Seattle/Portland).

[esquire]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

HSR only makes sense in two corridors in Canada: Quebec City to Windsor (via Trois Rivieres, Montreal, Ottawa, Kingston, Toronto, Hamilton, KW, London), and Calgary-Edmonton (via Red Deer). The other routes lack the population and are too distant.

Anything other than those two combinations could only possibly exist as political vanity projects doomed to a costly failure.

Prairie HSR is as pie in the sky as it gets. Fortunately there's plenty of room to improve on what's there without having to bring HSR into the picture, though.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

We tried that with subsidizing a private company which has now since pulled out.

Well if a bus route that is superior in every way to an entry-level train can't be justified, then there surely is not enough demand to implement said train.

But Greyhound was a poor model for bus routes. The goverment should decide what routes should have bus service and either provide it itself, or contract it out, with subsidy.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If the traffic is so low, why is it 4 laned between those cities?

Because the cost benefit of cheaply twinning those highways was deemed worth it. If it was expensive to build road in the prairies, then they likely would still be 2 lanes.

The traffic is relatively light and the vast majority of what is travelling won't change if an infrequent, slow, unreliable and expensive rail alternative was offered. Or even if a good rail service was offered. Much of what is on the road is transport trucks, work/farm vehicles or passengers travelling from places other than the near vicinity of a handful of railway stations. And anyone that is travelling without a car is better off taking a plane.

Why do we have to keep going over the same ground?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Explain why Kingston has such high usage,

Because it's a university and garrison town within 2.5 hrs of three of the largest metros in the country.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

What 2 cities on the Prairies have combined 7 or 8 million people and are less than 400 miles apart?

Last I checked I haven't said we should have HFR between the cities, unless by HFR you think I mean once a day, and on time.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

HSR only makes sense in two corridors in Canada: Quebec City to Windsor (via Trois Rivieres, Montreal, Ottawa, Kingston, Toronto, Hamilton, KW, London), and Calgary-Edmonton (via Red Deer). The other routes lack the population and are too distant.

That is it. Unless we are talking about possible international routes (e.g., Montreal to Boston, Montreal to NYC, Toronto to Detroit/Chicago, Vancouver to Seattle/Portland).

Even those routes would never break even. The Corridor still requires a subsidy, just like that road you will drive on. And .... just like the plane you get on.

Originally Posted by esquire

Anything other than those two combinations could only possibly exist as political vanity projects doomed to a costly failure.

Prairie HSR is as pie in the sky as it gets. Fortunately there's plenty of room to improve on what's there without having to bring HSR into the picture, though.

I have never suggested HSR or even HFR. Others do, because it is HSR or bust. Having a daily between the major cities would be an improvement.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Unlike a plane, trains have intermediate stops. Explain why Kingston has such high usage, yet, is smaller than the top 5 cities of the prairies. It is so high because it is connected to larger cities. A train between Calgary-Regina-Wnnipeg would be stopping at Moose Jaw, Swift Current, and Portage La Prairie, among others. Those citizens now have another way to get to the major cities.

Those cities have a combined population of 60,000 and the largest (Moose Jaw) is a 45 minute drive from Regina. I don’t want to say nobody, but the number of Moose Jaw residents who are going to want to take an intercity train service to get to Regina is so close to zero it is basically zero. Trains need something to drive passengers to want to take the train. That doesn’t exist most places on the prairies.