VIA Rail

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

The Corridor extends to Halifax now?

What I meant is that if you are traveling to or from a Corridor station, the system seems to be set up for booking for that. Hence why you could pick any Corridor station and not need to do multi city, but try a non Corridor station to another non Corridor station and it needs the multi city.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What I meant is that if you are traveling to or from a Corridor station, the system seems to be set up for booking for that. Hence why you could pick any Corridor station and not need to do multi city, but try a non Corridor station to another non Corridor station and it needs the multi city.

This has nothing to do with VIA’s reservation system treating Corridor or Non-Corridor connections differently and all with it being configured in a way which surpresses connections between any two VIA services which would require an overnight layover:

- It will allow you to book QBEC to SARN (a Corridor transfer) on weekdays, because train 33 connects with 65 in MTRL, which connects with 87 in TRTO.
- However, it will not allow you to book QBEC to SARN on weekends (because 35 as the earliest train from QBEC misses 65 and thus 87) or on any day from SARN to QBEC (because 87 arrives TRTO too late for 64, which is the latest train of the day to connect with train 28 as the last train to QBEC), even though these are also Corridor-to-Corridor connections.
- Similarly, it will allow you to book TRTO to HLFX (because 64 connects with 14 in MTRL) and HLFX to TRTO (because 15 connects with 65 in MTRL), a Corridor-to-Longhaul connection.
- However, it will not sell you MTRL to VCVR (because the Canadian departs TRTO before the first train from Montreal arrives) or VCVR to MTRL (because VIA apparently doesn’t think that 3.5 hours is long enough to allow for a reliable transfer to 668 as the last train of the day), which are Corridor-to-Longhaul connections just like TRTO-MTRL-HLFX.

Interestingly, it does allow you to book some connections with layover between the Canadian and Remote services (TRTO-WNPG-CHUR & v.v., TRTO-JASP-PRUP & v.v. or VCVR-JASP-PRUP), but not others (VCVR-WNPG-CHUR & v.v. or PRUP-JASP-VCVR). If anything, the reservation system is more accommodating with non-Corridor connections than with those involving Corridor trains, which is the opposite of what you claim…

[J81]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

This has nothing to do with VIA’s reservation system treating Corridor or Non-Corridor connections differently and all with it being configured in a way which surpresses connections between any two VIA services which would require an overnight layover:

- It will allow you to book QBEC to SARN (a Corridor transfer) on weekdays, because train 33 connects with 65 in MTRL, which connects with 87 in TRTO.
- However, it will not allow you to book QBEC to SARN on weekends (because 35 as the earliest train from QBEC misses 65 and thus 87) or on any day from SARN to QBEC (because 87 arrives TRTO too late for 64, which is the latest train of the day to connect with train 28 as the last train to QBEC), even though these are also Corridor-to-Corridor connections.
- Similarly, it will allow you to book TRTO to HLFX (because 64 connects with 14 in MTRL) and HLFX to TRTO (because 15 connects with 65 in MTRL), a Corridor-to-Longhaul connection.
- However, it will not sell you MTRL to VCVR (because the Canadian departs TRTO before the first train from Montreal arrives) or VCVR to MTRL (because VIA apparently doesn’t think that 3.5 hours is long enough to allow for a reliable transfer to 668 as the last train of the day), which are Corridor-to-Longhaul connections just like TRTO-MTRL-HLFX.

Interestingly, it does allow you to book some connections with layover between the Canadian and Remote services (TRTO-WNPG-CHUR & v.v., TRTO-JASP-PRUP & v.v. or VCVR-JASP-PRUP), but not others (VCVR-WNPG-CHUR & v.v. or PRUP-JASP-VCVR). If anything, the reservation system is more accommodating with non-Corridor connections than with those involving Corridor trains, which is the opposite of what you claim…

I was a bit surprised when they pushed the departure time of 87 back two hours which made it impossible to connect to Quebec City or even to the Ocean for that matter. It was when GO started running their London service out around the same time as 87 departed London.

I guess there most likely wouldnt be many passengers from Sarnia going to Quebec City or the east coast?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J81

I was a bit surprised when they pushed the departure time of 87 back two hours which made it impossible to connect to Quebec City or even to the Ocean for that matter. It was when GO started running their London service out around the same time as 87 departed London.

I guess there most likely wouldnt be many passengers from Sarnia going to Quebec City or the east coast?

I would guess to make it more appealing to leisure travellers going to Toronto.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by J81

I was a bit surprised when they pushed the departure time of 87 back two hours which made it impossible to connect to Quebec City or even to the Ocean for that matter. It was when GO started running their London service out around the same time as 87 departed London.

I guess there most likely wouldnt be many passengers from Sarnia going to Quebec City or the east coast?

With no passing location suitable for passenger trains available between Kellys Siding (a few kilometers Southwest of St. Marys) and Silver Jct (just West of Georgetown), the introduction of All-Day-2-Directions GO service only left very few gaps of which the slot chosen by VIA was the obvious choice, considering the alternatives:

Repost from: Urban Toronto

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

This has nothing to do with VIA’s reservation system treating Corridor or Non-Corridor connections differently and all with it being configured in a way which surpresses connections between any two VIA services which would require an overnight layover:

- It will allow you to book QBEC to SARN (a Corridor transfer) on weekdays, because train 33 connects with 65 in MTRL, which connects with 87 in TRTO.
- However, it will not allow you to book QBEC to SARN on weekends (because 35 as the earliest train from QBEC misses 65 and thus 87) or on any day from SARN to QBEC (because 87 arrives TRTO too late for 64, which is the latest train of the day to connect with train 28 as the last train to QBEC), even though these are also Corridor-to-Corridor connections.
- Similarly, it will allow you to book TRTO to HLFX (because 64 connects with 14 in MTRL) and HLFX to TRTO (because 15 connects with 65 in MTRL), a Corridor-to-Longhaul connection.
- However, it will not sell you MTRL to VCVR (because the Canadian departs TRTO before the first train from Montreal arrives) or VCVR to MTRL (because VIA apparently doesn’t think that 3.5 hours is long enough to allow for a reliable transfer to 668 as the last train of the day), which are Corridor-to-Longhaul connections just like TRTO-MTRL-HLFX.

Interestingly, it does allow you to book some connections with layover between the Canadian and Remote services (TRTO-WNPG-CHUR & v.v., TRTO-JASP-PRUP & v.v. or VCVR-JASP-PRUP), but not others (VCVR-WNPG-CHUR & v.v. or PRUP-JASP-VCVR). If anything, the reservation system is more accommodating with non-Corridor connections than with those involving Corridor trains, which is the opposite of what you claim…

Thank you for showing me that.That is odd.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Repost from: Urban Toronto

This is a minor nitpick, but why does VIA still run the same stopping pattern from decades past on its routes?

I would cut Malton out entirely. It probably made some sense back in the 1960s when it was a small exurban community and most of Brampton was farmland, but it's a station with very little connectivity or value today. Either stop at Weston (connection to UP Express/YYZ) or Bramalea (major node with a lot of GO and Brampton transit buses).

You can see this on a lot of other routes. VIA stops at Guildwood (a minor station on the Lakeshore east line with bad regional connectivity) instead of, say, Scarborough (Jct), where you could transfer to Markham-bound GO trains on the Stouffville line. It stops in St. Lambert, which is very close to downtown Montreal and inconvenient to get to for suburbanites on the south shore instead of somewhere like St. Bruno which is by a highway junction and mall, and things like that.

I'm not talking about building new VIA stations. I'm talking about using existing commuter rail stations that are better situated based on how people travel and where people live in the 21st century.

[J81]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

This is a minor nitpick, but why does VIA still run the same stopping pattern from decades past on its routes?

I would cut Malton out entirely. It probably made some sense back in the 1960s when it was a small exurban community and most of Brampton was farmland, but it's a station with very little connectivity or value today. Either stop at Weston (connection to UP Express/YYZ) or Bramalea (major node with a lot of GO and Brampton transit buses).

You can see this on a lot of other routes. VIA stops at Guildwood (a minor station on the Lakeshore east line with bad regional connectivity) instead of, say, Scarborough (Jct), where you could transfer to Markham-bound GO trains on the Stouffville line. It stops in St. Lambert, which is very close to downtown Montreal and inconvenient to get to for suburbanites on the south shore instead of somewhere like St. Bruno which is by a highway junction and mall, and things like that.

I'm not talking about building new VIA stations. I'm talking about using existing commuter rail stations that are better situated based on how people travel and where people live in the 21st century.

Why wouldnt you stop there considering youre going right past through the station anyway? FYI if there are no passengers on the manifest getting on or off at Malton the train just bypasses it anyway so why not continue to provide the option?

[J81]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

With no passing location suitable for passenger trains available between Kellys Siding (a few kilometers Southwest of St. Marys) and Silver Jct (just West of Georgetown), the introduction of All-Day-2-Directions GO service only left very few gaps of which the slot chosen by VIA was the obvious choice, considering the alternatives:

Repost from: Urban Toronto

Thats a great table. Thanks for sharing. Werent we running 84 on slot B and 88 on slot E until covid?

Also, theres a passing track at Kitchener that is still in service and used infrequently. If service on the Guelph sub is ever going to expand there needs to be two more sidings built.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by J81

Thats a great table. Thanks for sharing. Werent we running 84 on slot B and 88 on slot E until covid?

Before the introduction of All-Day-2-Direction (AD2D) GO service, there weren’t any slots to observe, as long as VIA avoided GO’s peak-only services: Therefore, 84 operated after the last AM peak service (in the slot labelled “Today” in my table), 85 operated before the first and 88 after the last pm peak service. Only train 87 sneaks out of Toronto between two PM peak services (which only works because a VIA train originating in Toronto is much more likey to enter the Georgetown-Kitchener segment on time than one leaving Sarnia or London…

Also, theres a passing track at Kitchener that is still in service and used infrequently. If service on the Guelph sub is ever going to expand there needs to be two more sidings built.

In order to use a yard track as a siding, you need much more than just the tracks and switches: the track has to be classified as “main line tracks” and the signals have to be in place to safely signalize all moves. To the best of my knowledge, no siding was available in October 2021 (when VIA had to adjust train 84 after GO introduced AD2D), but they will soon install the second platform track at Guelph, which is where hourly GO services at their existing slots would meet…

[J81]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

In order to use a yard track as a siding, you need much more than just the tracks and switches: the track has to be classified as “main line tracks” and the signals have to be in place to safely signalize all moves. To the best of my knowledge, no siding was available in October 2021 (when VIA had to adjust train 84 after GO introduced AD2D), but they will soon install the second platform track at Guelph, which is where hourly GO services at their existing slots would meet…

This is incorrect. In CTC you have two types of sidings. Signalled sidings and non signalled sidings. In Signalled sidings, main track rules may apply. Non signalled sidings are most common in CTC single track territory where Siding Control territory exists and non main track rules apply on those. It just means you can get a signal into or out of a non signalled siding but the RTC has no control over the track within that siding so Non main track rules apply. Basically if u hit something youre at fault. This is the type of siding that exists in Kitchener I believe. There are signals at either end of Kitchener yard and a passing track the entire length between them. GO trains use it to access the small GO yard at the west end of Kitchener. In almost all cases sidings are just two switches with a length of track between them and in most cases a light at either end to authorize you to enter the main track. Some dont even have lights and the switches are handthrows. You get a written authority from the rtc to enter the main track at one of these types of switches. Beachville siding near Ingersoll Ontario comes to mind.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by J81

This is incorrect. In CTC you have two types of sidings. Signalled sidings and non signalled sidings. In Signalled sidings, main track rules may apply. Non signalled sidings are most common in CTC single track territory where Siding Control territory exists and non main track rules apply on those. It just means you can get a signal into or out of a non signalled siding but the RTC has no control over the track within that siding so Non main track rules apply. Basically if u hit something youre at fault. This is the type of siding that exists in Kitchener I believe. There are signals at either end of Kitchener yard and a passing track the entire length between them. GO trains use it to access the small GO yard at the west end of Kitchener. In almost all cases sidings are just two switches with a length of track between them and in most cases a light at either end to authorize you to enter the main track. Some dont even have lights and the switches are handthrows. You get a written authority from the rtc to enter the main track at one of these types of switches. Beachville siding near Ingersoll Ontario comes to mind.

I’m not saying that it’s impossible to use these tracks as siding, but operational requirements (like maximum axle loads or relying on manual switches or written orders which have to be transmitted somehow) or very low speed limit (e.g. 10 or 15 mph) might make it impractical to use them.

To be clear: I don’t know why none of the already existing sidings is currently used by any revenue passenger trains, but I’d assume that there are very valid reasons for not using them…

[Nouvellecosse]

Let's look at the new trains.

• Video Link

[swimmer_spe]

I listened to the Via Rail APM.

They mentioned that they did not have the rolling stock to return the Corridor service to prepandemic levels. What happened to the stuff they had?

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I listened to the Via Rail APM.

They mentioned that they did not have the rolling stock to return the Corridor service to prepandemic levels. What happened to the stuff they had?

My understanding is that LRC cars are experiencing some natural form of attrition, as condemnable cracks are detected during routine inspections. Also, the HEP cars used for the structural testing are no longer fit for revenue service…

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

My understanding is that LRC cars are experiencing some natural form of attrition, as condemnable cracks are detected during routine inspections. Also, the HEP cars used for the structural testing are no longer fit for revenue service…

I read that four HEP cars were destroyed for structural testing... I know they're just rail cars, but it was kind of saddening. The pool of stainless steel cars is dwindling (some were never converted to HEP, some have been wrecked in accidents, now these ones were destroyed deliberately) so the fleet just keeps getting smaller and smaller, limiting even the possibility of service improvements with the existing fleet.

[J.OT13]

• Video Link

[ssiguy]

If GO begins to become much more regional {ie Windsor to Kingston} then they are going to have to purchase a new fleet. The current trains are fine for commuter purposes but not longer distance travel as they are simply too uncomfortable for such longer travel times. It takes an absurd 4 hours to get from London to Union and most we need hip surgery right after they arrive.

I think GO way eventually take over all routes to SWO as VIA seems content on simply letting the service rot and VIA, despite their talk, really have no intention of extending it further West to London/Windsor. Perhaps this is why they are not sinking any money into SWO in the first place, they know that eventually it's going to be run by GO so don't see the point.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

If GO begins to become much more regional {ie Windsor to Kingston} then they are going to have to purchase a new fleet. The current trains are fine for commuter purposes but not longer distance travel as they are simply too uncomfortable for such longer travel times. It takes an absurd 4 hours to get from London to Union and most we need hip surgery right after they arrive.

I think GO way eventually take over all routes to SWO as VIA seems content on simply letting the service rot and VIA, despite their talk, really have no intention of extending it further West to London/Windsor. Perhaps this is why they are not sinking any money into SWO in the first place, they know that eventually it's going to be run by GO so don't see the point.

I really don't see the advantage for GO of trying to get into the long distance train business. Its business model is pretty no frills, which becomes harder to maintain if their service starts looking more like Via for long distance trains (the same reason Ryanair doesn't fly to Asia).

The London "pilot" clearly exists for political reasons only, they are selling very few tickets.

[esquire]

^ It wouldn't take much for GO to start running longer-distance regional trains. Some cars oriented to longer distances (softer seats, food service, etc.), more staff, but GO already has the fundamentals.

GO runs rings around VIA in terms of having the political buy-in for fleet acquisition. VIA fights for scraps while GO actually gets what it needs... it might well make sense to let GO take over SWO in that regard.