[Rainforest]

On Facebook, someone posted about the trains from Montreal to Senneterre and Jonquiere
One simple change that could make a world of difference would be to split them entirely. Still keep the 3 day a week, but instead of running them the same days, run them opposite. So, currently they run M,W,F out of Montreal. Keep one on that schedule, and have the other run T,Th and Sat. This would give a 6 day a week service to
Hervey-Jonction where they currently split.

Another thought along these lines is the return of the Gaspe train. Have it run opposite the Ocean in much the same way. That would give that section from Charny to Matapedia 6 days a week service as well.

I know doing so would add fuel costs and crew costs.What other challenges would doing this bring?

If the line has a lot of freight traffic, then getting 6 timeslots a week (instead of 3) from the host railway may be a challenge ..

 

[micheal_can]

If the line has a lot of freight traffic, then getting 6 timeslots a week (instead of 3) from the host railway may be a challenge ..

That was a concern of mine to. However, for most of both lines, there are other ways around it. I also don't think that area is that busy. Hopefully someone may know how busy those lines are for freight.

 

[Urban Sky]

Quick reminder that the point of the Jonquiérre and Senneterre is to provide service north of Rivière-la-Prierre and west of La Tuque (both happen to be the first station after the train splits at Hervey Junction). Almost nobody (except rail fans) takes these trains from Montreal, as a starting point in Quebec City would be much more useful for these trains. There is already daily bus service from Trois-Rivières to Shawinigan and La Tuque and up to 13 departures for Montreal to Joliette, so nobody in these cities depends on this train, regardles of on how many days a week it operates!

Also a quick reminder that these services only recover some 5% of their operating costs. So if you don‘t want to increase the subsidy need (and this is the logic under which TC decides whether to allow VIA to expand its operations), even a modest increase in operating costs by 10% would need to be met by a corresponding increase of revenues by 200%…

 

[crs1026]

On Facebook, someone posted about the trains from Montreal to Senneterre and Jonquiere
One simple change that could make a world of difference would be to split them entirely. Still keep the 3 day a week, but instead of running them the same days, run them opposite. So, currently they run M,W,F out of Montreal. Keep one on that schedule, and have the other run T,Th and Sat. This would give a 6 day a week service to
Hervey-Jonction where they currently split.

Another thought along these lines is the return of the Gaspe train. Have it run opposite the Ocean in much the same way. That would give that section from Charny to Matapedia 6 days a week service as well.

I know doing so would add fuel costs and crew costs.What other challenges would doing this bring?

What "world of difference" would this make?

I give VIA credit for likely knowing what the potential ridership draw would be if the service were doubled to six days a week.

If they are not moving in that direction, it's likely hinting that the net benefit isn't there. Makes perfect sense considering that the line is lightly populated beyond the Montreal commuting zone. And if one did have to add coaches that are carried to the end of the line but only fill closer to Montreal....utilization goes down and costs go up, not down, notwithstanding better ridership.

PS - if you make the train six or seven days a week, you remove any day where the maintenance forces have all-day work windows for track maintenance. I bet they get a lot more done on the no-train days. That cost will find its way to VIA.

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

Quick reminder that the point of the Jonquiérre and Senneterre is to provide service north of Rivière-la-Prierre and west of La Tuque (both happen to be the first station after the train splits at Hervey Junction). Almost nobody (except rail fans) takes these trains from Montreal, as a starting point in Quebec City would be much more useful for these trains.

I have often wondered about redirecting these trains to terminate in Quebec City, but aside from the mostly discontinued rail alignments in that region, such as the St Raymond Subdivision which was turned over to a biking trail causing a circuitous route (and thus reducing the saving of time or fuel), wouldn’t the counter argument be that running the equipment in service to Montreal facilitates cycling the equipment to/from MMC?

 

[Urban Sky]

I have often wondered about redirecting these trains to terminate in Quebec City, but aside from the mostly discontinued rail alignments in that region, such as the St Raymond Subdivision which was turned over to a biking trail causing a circuitous route (and thus reducing the saving of time or fuel), wouldn’t the counter argument be that running the equipment in service to Montreal facilitates cycling the equipment to/from MMC?

Sure, the only reason these trains originate in Montreal rather than Shawinigan, Quebec City (if the tracks still existed) or Trois-Rivières is the lack of a maintenance facility in any of these smaller cities. Same thing for the Churchill train terminating in Winnipeg rather than The Pas…

 

[micheal_can]

Quick reminder that the point of the Jonquiérre and Senneterre is to provide service north of Rivière-la-Prierre and west of La Tuque (both happen to be the first station after the train splits at Hervey Junction). Almost nobody (except rail fans) takes these trains from Montreal, as a starting point in Quebec City would be much more useful for these trains. There is already daily bus service from Trois-Rivières to Shawinigan and La Tuque and up to 13 departures for Montreal to Joliette, so nobody in these cities depends on this train, regardles of on how many days a week it operates!

Also a quick reminder that these services only recover some 5% of their operating costs. So if you don‘t want to increase the subsidy need (and this is the logic under which TC decides whether to allow VIA to expand its operations), even a modest increase in operating costs by 10% would need to be met by a corresponding increase of revenues by 200%…

RAC Canadian Rail Atlas

rac.jmaponline.net

It shows the line is still active from QC.

Does no one depend on the train because it runs 3 days a week?
Would people depend on it if it ran 6 days a week?

I also mentioned the Ocean/Gaspe route which is set to return in the next few years.

If it is just cost and that Via does not want to increase that, then the question of why is answered.

 

[dowlingm]

If it is just cost and that Via does not want to increase that, then the question of why is answered.

As was pointed out up thread, since VIA does not print its own money, the issue is more that their funder does not want costs to increase.

Were the Quebec Assembly to open their wallet, who know what might be afforded.

 

[Urban Sky]

Quick reminder that there is the RAC Map and then there is Google Street View:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

 

[micheal_can]

As was pointed out up thread, since VIA does not print its own money, the issue is more that their funder does not want costs to increase.

Were the Quebec Assembly to open their wallet, who know what might be afforded.

I wanted to find out if there were any other reasons besides money. That is why, if that is the only reason, then it is a simple answer.


As far as RAC, thank you for clearing that up.

 

[micheal_can]

So, that takes care of the northern QC routes.

What about the Ocean Gaspe routes? The Gaspe train is expected to return in 2025, if the work is done on time. Can we expect that once the work is done that if that route returns that it will run like it did, where it gets connected to the Ocean between Montreal and Matapedia? Would the expectation be that it could not be run separate for the same reason - costs?

 

[Urban Sky]

When the Chaleur still operated, it operated at the same days as the Ocean. I don’t believe that it would be reasonable to expect anything else when it resumes…

 

[micheal_can]

Deteriorating CN track adds time to VIA’s Ocean: Analysis - Trains

MONTREAL — Beginning June 19, VIA Rail Canada is adding 90 minutes to the westbound schedule of its Montreal-Halifax, N.S. Ocean and 45 minutes to the eastbound train, “to provide passengers with a schedule which better reflects actual travel times,” according to a statement provided by VIA in...

www.trains.com

 

[lenaitch]

Deteriorating CN track adds time to VIA’s Ocean: Analysis - Trains

MONTREAL — Beginning June 19, VIA Rail Canada is adding 90 minutes to the westbound schedule of its Montreal-Halifax, N.S. Ocean and 45 minutes to the eastbound train, “to provide passengers with a schedule which better reflects actual travel times,” according to a statement provided by VIA in...

www.trains.com

If it was up to CN alone, the run between Mont-Joli and Moncton would have been abandoned years ago.

 

[micheal_can]

If it was up to CN alone, the run between Mont-Joli and Moncton would have been abandoned years ago.

This is why the federal government needs to move forward with some sort of regulations regarding lines that passenger trains operate over. The worst part is, what is needed to save some of our passenger rail lines is exactly what CN was set up to do.