[lenaitch]

Yes, and the one who ponied up was the federal government as Via is a federal crown corporation.Those 3 other lines were also part of Via. So, that would mean that the federal government, not a provincial government should be ponying up. Especially for the E&N and Gaspe, they were shut down simply due to track conditions, not due to budget cuts. As I understand it, they will run again if the line gets to a point where it becomes safe to run Via equipment. As I understand it, in 2026, Gaspe should be returning.

What confused me is adding the line between Calgary and Edmonton into that mix. So, yes,please spell this out as I have no idea what is meant by it.

I'll take a shot at it. VIA's corridor service serves a lot of customers (profitably as I understand) so the money benefitted a lot of people. The trackage was otherwise serviceable and profitable for its owners; the effort was to make it better. Both the Gaspe and Vancouver Island services were low volume regional services using trackage that were otherwise not profitable and became unserviceable. Other than VIA, they no longer had a reason to exist.

Quebec has chosen to toss money at the Gaspe ROW, I will assume (allegedly) for tourism reasons; I don't think there is a non-tourism economic reason past Chandler. Conversely, BC has chosen not.

I don't know about the Calgary-Edmonton corridor. I get the sense that the trackage is serviceable, just not to the level to support inter-city rail, which probably wants better speed and reliability than, say, the Sudbury-White River regional service.

Ontario has chosen to put inter-city passenger rail money into its own railway. It has also chosen to backstop freight service on Huron Central. I suppose it could have thrown money at OBR or given money to upgrade Toronto-London, return Peterborough service. It did not. I doubt the railways of the federal government would have objected.

 

[Urban Sky]

Quebec has chosen to toss money at the Gaspe ROW, I will assume (allegedly) for tourism reasons; I don't think there is a non-tourism economic reason past Chandler. Conversely, BC has chosen not.

Absolutely correct: VIA service to the Gaspé peninsula has a future because QC doles out the big bucks. Vancouver Island doesn’t because BC refuses to do the same…

I don't know about the Calgary-Edmonton corridor. I get the sense that the trackage is serviceable, just not to the level to support inter-city rail, which probably wants better speed and reliability than, say, the Sudbury-White River regional service.

The problem with that service were the string of dangerous and at times deadly level crossing incidents. AB apparently couldn’t be motivated to spend more than a paltry million to fix some level crossings, which was only a drop into the bucket considering the large number of level crossings and that‘s how that service was „indefinitely suspended“ and that was the end of that story:

On January 15, 1984, Transport Minister Don Mazankowski announced the indefinite suspension of Edmonton-Calgary service. Eleven Dayliner accidents in the previous two years led Edmonton's mayor of the day Laurence Decore to state "It's a seedy, tacky service used by very few people. Its 200 level crossings make it an absolute calamity that has caused too many deaths." Even with $1,000,000 in Alberta government spending and the elimination of 12 grade crossings, the Dayliner made its last run on September 6, 1985. The unsuitability of the South Edmonton station, four miles from the VIA (ex-CN) Edmonton station, as well as competition from road and air travel contributed to the service's demise.

VIA's Calgary-Edmonton RDCs, Part 1

Often referred to as the 'Death Train', CP's perilous Calgary-Edmonton passenger service was a quick dash at speeds reaching 90 mph. For...

tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com

 

[crs1026]

I don't know about the Calgary-Edmonton corridor. I get the sense that the trackage is serviceable, just not to the level to support inter-city rail, which probably wants better speed and reliability than, say, the Sudbury-White River regional service.

Unlike Gaspe and Victoria, Calgary-Edmonton has always been a high quality main line with ample freight traffic to sustain the maintenance. VIiA service was terminated because a) the prevailing standard of unsignalled level crossings - of which the line had a large number - ceased to be acceptable for high speed train use and b) in a province that was investing in better roads and air connections, no one wanted to ride.
Since the cancellation of service, freight use has grown and the line has been reconfigured to maximise the efficiency and minimise the cost of freight operations. It is no longer capable of accommodating passenger traffic without considerable investment in new capacity.
In that same period, the urban areas in the Province have grown considerably and there may - i repeat may - be a market demand for rail in preference to air or auto.
As
Much as that may make rail passenger viable on paper, I would not expect VIA to be able to just jump in and spend the large capital investment. Maybe someday someoone will figure out a pitch that would nake the funding appear.

- Paul

 

[DSC]

Unlike Gaspe and Victoria, Calgary-Edmonton has always been a high quality main line with ample freight traffic to sustain the maintenance. VIiA service was terminated because a) the prevailing standard of unsignalled level crossings - of which the line had a large number - ceased to be acceptable for high speed train use and b) in a province that was investing in better roads and air connections, no one wanted to ride.
Since the cancellation of service, freight use has grown and the line has been reconfigured to maximise the efficiency and minimise the cost of freight operations. It is no longer capable of accommodating passenger traffic without considerable investment in new capacity.
In that same period, the urban areas in the Province have grown considerably and there may - i repeat may - be a market demand for rail in preference to air or auto.
As
Much as that may make rail passenger viable on paper, I would not expect VIA to be able to just jump in and spend the large capital investment. Maybe someday someoone will figure out a pitch that would nake the funding appear.

- Paul

There are 16 or 17 buses a day running between Calgary & Edmonton - most make few if any stops. The trips take between 3 and 4 hours. Though I would have thought the demand for a train might exist, I wonder whether, even if all bus passengers switched to rail and they picked up a few air passengers too, this would make a passenger train service viable, certainly not one with multiple daily trips. I prefer train travel but an express bus with frequent service is really not too bad!

 

[micheal_can]

Absolutely correct: VIA service to the Gaspé peninsula has a future because QC doles out the big bucks. Vancouver Island doesn’t because BC refuses to do the same…

The problem with that service were the string of dangerous and at times deadly level crossing incidents. AB apparently couldn’t be motivated to spend more than a paltry million to fix some level crossings, which was only a drop into the bucket considering the large number of level crossings and that‘s how that service was „indefinitely suspended“ and that was the end of that story:

VIA's Calgary-Edmonton RDCs, Part 1

Often referred to as the 'Death Train', CP's perilous Calgary-Edmonton passenger service was a quick dash at speeds reaching 90 mph. For...

tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com

Unlike Gaspe and Victoria, Calgary-Edmonton has always been a high quality main line with ample freight traffic to sustain the maintenance. VIiA service was terminated because a) the prevailing standard of unsignalled level crossings - of which the line had a large number - ceased to be acceptable for high speed train use and b) in a province that was investing in better roads and air connections, no one wanted to ride.
Since the cancellation of service, freight use has grown and the line has been reconfigured to maximise the efficiency and minimise the cost of freight operations. It is no longer capable of accommodating passenger traffic without considerable investment in new capacity.
In that same period, the urban areas in the Province have grown considerably and there may - i repeat may - be a market demand for rail in preference to air or auto.
As
Much as that may make rail passenger viable on paper, I would not expect VIA to be able to just jump in and spend the large capital investment. Maybe someday someoone will figure out a pitch that would nake the funding appear.

- Paul

So,right now, if that C-E corridor was upgraded to make it safer, Via would return to it automatically, like the other 2? I thought it was part of the 1990s cuts never to come back. If that is not the case, this does change a lot.

 

[crs1026]

So,right now, if that C-E corridor was upgraded to make it safer, Via would return to it automatically, like the other 2? I thought it was part of the 1990s cuts never to come back. If that is not the case, this does change a lot.

Some upgrading of crossing protection has happened gradually as Alberta's roads have expanded and as CP has invested in the line over the past decades, but you miss the point. VIA has no ability to raise the funding to build capacity back into the line. There is only the capacity that CP uses to run its freight. The safety thing is why historically the service was discontinued. Crossing protection is only one of the investments required. The case for restoring it turns on other matters also.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

Some upgrading of crossing protection has happened gradually as Alberta's roads have expanded and as CP has invested in the line over the past decades, but you miss the point. VIA has no ability to raise the funding to build capacity back into the line. There is only the capacity that CP uses to run its freight. The safety thing is why historically the service was discontinued. Crossing protection is only one of the investments required. The case for restoring it turns on other matters also.

- Paul

A member mentioned 3 different routes that he said would come back if they were upgraded.Of the 3, this one was cutback with the rest in the 1990s cuts. The others, as I understand it, will come back once they are safe. The rolling stock exists for it. The funding exists for it. The C-E is not in the same situation, so it confuses me why it was in that mix.

 

[crs1026]

A member mentioned 3 different routes that he said would come back if they were upgraded.Of the 3, this one was cutback with the rest in the 1990s cuts. The others, as I understand it, will come back once they are safe. The rolling stock exists for it. The funding exists for it. The C-E is not in the same situation, so it confuses me why it was in that mix.

I believe the original context was, the potential for provincial funding. Alberta has lately been willing to study the topic, although whether that urge sticks around remains to be seen.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

I believe the original context was, the potential for provincial funding. Alberta has lately been willing to study the topic, although whether that urge sticks around remains to be seen.

- Paul

Ok. Now I fully understand.

 

[Urban Sky]

I believe the original context was, the potential for provincial funding. Alberta has lately been willing to study the topic, although whether that urge sticks around remains to be seen.

- Paul

The point I made was that all three routes (Gaspé, YEG-YYC and VICT-COUR) were discontinued because the respective provincial governments sat on their hands while the infrastructure deteriorated beyond the point where safe passenger operations were possible.

VIA has indicated that it will restore service to Gaspé once they are able to safely operate with „competitive timings“ (presumably meaning: similar timings as before the service suspension) and presumably the same would apply to Vancouver Island. As for Calgary-Edmonton, this service was suspended in 1984 and even though it‘s in my view very reasonable to expexct it would have survived the 1990 cuts, the service was not mentioned when the CTA amendment defined the new network. Given the difficulties to interconnect with VIA‘s existing network and maintenance facilities (and of course the fact that it‘s an interprovincial rather than interprovincial service), I don’t think that the federal government would be enthusiastic to revive this rpute as a VIA service…

 

[micheal_can]

The point I made was that all three routes (Gaspé, YEG-YYC and VICT-COUR) were discontinued because the respective provincial governments sat on their hands while the infrastructure deteriorated beyond the point where safe passenger operations were possible.

VIA has indicated that it will restore service to Gaspé once they are able to safely operate with „competitive timings“ (presumably meaning: similar timings as before the service suspension) and presumably the same would apply to Vancouver Island.

And, in a few years the Gaspe one will be safe enough to have Via return. As I understand it, this is expected.

As for Calgary-Edmonton, this service was suspended in 1984 and even though it‘s in my view very reasonable to expexct it would have survived the 1990 cuts, the service was not mentioned when the CTA amendment defined the new network. Given the difficulties to interconnect with VIA‘s existing network and maintenance facilities (and of course the fact that it‘s an interprovincial rather than interprovincial service), I don’t think that the federal government would be enthusiastic to revive this rpute as a VIA service…

This is the one that is confusing me. I felt you had stated that it would come back automatically like the first 2. Now I understand, it is a fantasy. That line could become completely grade separated and Via likely is not doing anything with it. That does not mean they shouldn't, but it does mean that the reality is, it is not going to happen without more funding. (Welcome to my world.)

 

[lenaitch]

(Welcome to my world.)

Welcome to everyone's world. You can't do stuff if you haven't got the money to do stuff.

 

[micheal_can]

Welcome to everyone's world. You can't do stuff if you haven't got the money to do stuff.

I know. However, it isn't bad to discuss what money could be spent on to improve the network.

 

[micheal_can]

Thinking more on my confusion and the ideas put forth here by me and others(Including Mr Ubransky) What it sounds like is an allocation of money problem. Some routes need infrastructure fixes to run. Others just need enough rolling stock. Others would need a guaranteed subsidy, and others would need a mix. For instance, if we look at an idea I have had of changing all existing routes to dailies, they would need enough rolling stock and a guaranteed subsidy to run. Some of the existing routes are close enough to breaking even or being profitable, they might really only need the additional rolling stock to run. Whereas, something such as the C-E route would need rolling stock and upgrades to the line to bring it back. The challenge becomes how to convince the government any of these would be worth it. For instance,how do you convince a federal government to spend the money to upgrade the line between C-E so that passenger service could run? It is one route that could see multiple trains a day and could be profitable if it were running.

 

[micheal_can]

So, to talk about what it would take to make more useful services, I'd like to focus it on East and West. Generally speaking, that is how the LDR are laid out. Basically based out of the MMC and TMC. So, lets look at the ones currently operating out of the MMC.

There are 3 current LDR operating out of the MMC: Senneterre, Jonquiere, and the Ocean. There is also the Gaspe train that once it returns will also operate out of the MMC. Of the 3(4) 2 of them are about 12 hours long; the Senneterre and Jonquiere. The other 2 are more than 12 hours long and would need sleepers. Since these 2 would not need sleepers, what could be done is when the HFR is built, and new trains get ordered, several of the current Siemens trains could be transferred to these lines. This would mean that those lines could have newer trains and they could still be serviced at the MMC. The existing 5 car married cars would have more than enough space to grow the route's ridership. They could even convert one car of each setinto a snack/dining car.

For the Ocean and Gaspe (when it returns), they are both well over12hours long and would need sleeper cars. Due to this,they would need to have their cars replaced by the future LDF renewal contract.

Of course, all of this would be dependent on funding secured to do this. That is, and will always be the biggest challenge.