[dowlingm]

Google is your friend

- Paul

I was hoping for the actual subdivision acquisition costs. Where those pieces refer to sums expended, it is in signalling and track improvement not what consideration went CN’s way.

 

[dowlingm]

Were it not for the CPKC merger, Borealis might not have happened at all. But clearly the volumes of potential passengers - catchments in the million or millions even with conservative catchment calculations, at start middle and end of the run were worth using the bargaining chip the merger offered out of the entire CPKC network (aside from Baton Rouge-New Orleans), and overlaying an existing LD and an existing Milwaukee-Chicago inter regional corridor.

They didn’t pick three cities in rural Kansas or wherever to connect where a train hasn’t been for decades.

https://ctrf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2022Nov_CPKCPresentation_web.pdf

 

[Admiral Beez]

Maybe people should just not commute daily between London and Toronto because that is an absurd distance for any commuter

VIA is not intended for daily commuting. Isn’t that GO Train’s job?

 

[C_Johnson_1995]

To pivot a bit, I have wondered this for a while. Why was the Sault - Hearst train cut, but Sudbury - White River train retained? They seem to be in a nearly identical financial and socioeconomic position, serving similar markets. Both were/are also funded by the federal government. It doesn't seem logical to keep one and cut another.

If one remote service serving settlements with no alternative can be cut, what keeps the others around?

 

[Urban Sky]

VIA is not intended for daily commuting. Isn’t that GO Train’s job?

VIA’s mandate is divided into geographical markets (routes), not trip types. All the Corridor trains which arrive their destination before 9am and leave between 4 and 6pm are clearly operated with frequent passengers returning the same day in mind, which of course includes commuters…

To pivot a bit, I have wondered this for a while. Why was the Sault - Hearst train cut, but Sudbury - White River train retained? They seem to be in a nearly identical financial and socioeconomic position, serving similar markets. Both were/are also funded by the federal government. It doesn't seem logical to keep one and cut another.

If one remote service serving settlements with no alternative can be cut, what keeps the others around?

SSM-Hearst was never operated by VIA, but subsidized directly by the federal government (like the Sept-Îles-to-Schefferville train). If I recall correctly, when the operator demanded a higher subsidy, the federal government decided that that train was not really serving any remote communities (a claim which is contentious until this day).

Anyways, the total direct deficit of VIA’s remote services was $20 million pre-Covid and at least the most costly of these services (WNPG-CHUR) is “remote” by any definition of that word, which makes this kind of service not worth agonizing about (as you already concluded yourself), especially considering that these services are disproportionately used by the most marginalized groups to be found in this country: indigenous communities.

 

[lenaitch]

SSM-Hearst was never operated by VIA, but subsidized directly by the federal government (like the Sept-Îles-to-Schefferville train). If I recall correctly, when the operator demanded a higher subsidy, the federal government decided that that train was not really serving any remote communities (a claim which is contentious until this day).

The definition of 'remote' is a moving target and no doubt defined in self-serving terms. Although there are few actual remote/rail access-only communities, settlements, hamlets, etc. on the VIA route, there are none on the former ACR SSM-Hearst route (which may have the federal government's argument). Both served remote hunting and fishing outposts, which is significant tourism dollars in the north.

Additionally, the CPKC trackage between Sudbury and White River is economically sound. The track between SSM and Hearst, much less so. I guess the owner wanted more subsidy to keep it open (which is not - it is severed at the CPKC diamond).

 

[micheal_can]

Jasper National park is being evacuated due to wildfires. Train 2 has turned around.Train 1 is still heading that way, and is currently in SK.

 

[dowlingm]

VIA is not intended for daily commuting. Isn’t that GO Train’s job?

Did you miss the fuss about train 643 651 not coming back after COVID?

 

[micheal_can]

VIA is not intended for daily commuting. Isn’t that GO Train’s job?

Remember when GO tried to do a London - Toronto service and it failed?
Maybe if the 2 could work together, commuter service from further than 100km could work.An express train, like what Via is in the GTA would be faster than the local trains of GO.

 

[Urban Sky]

Did you miss the fuss about train 643 not coming back after COVID?

Correct, but the fuzz was about train #651 (KGON@05:32/TRTO@08:25), which was eventually revived as #641 (OTTW@04:19/TRTO@08:48). #643 operates much later (OTTW@08:34/TRTO@13:18).

 

[Bojaxs]

Translink is struggling financially. They're looking at major service cuts across Vancouver if they don't get financial support from the government. Including the possibility of completely scrapping "The West Coast Express".

TransLink could axe 50% of buses and 30% of SkyTrain service | Urbanized

Drastic cuts could be made to Metro Vancouver's bus, SkyTrain, SeaBus, and West Coast Express services due to TransLink's funding issues.

dailyhive.com

Under the first scenario, the West Coast Express commuter rail would revert to its previous pandemic-time frequencies of three roundtrip trains per weekday instead of the current normal five roundtrips. But if the second scenario were pursued, the West Coast Express would be completely eliminated. Out of all TransLink services, the commuter rail lags the most in ridership recovery coming out of the pandemic, with its ridership returning to slightly over 50% of 2019 levels as of the end of 2023.

 

[micheal_can]

Translink is struggling financially. They're looking at major service cuts across Vancouver if they don't get financial support from the government. Including the possibility of completely scrapping "The West Coast Express".

TransLink could axe 50% of buses and 30% of SkyTrain service | Urbanized

Drastic cuts could be made to Metro Vancouver's bus, SkyTrain, SeaBus, and West Coast Express services due to TransLink's funding issues.

dailyhive.com

The Lower Mainland did not bounce back with transit like most other places did.

 

[micheal_can]

Something I was thinking....
When/if new cars for the LDF is ordered, would to be a bad idea that for all cars, except the sleepers be panoramic type cars with 2 levels? The upper levels could be just seating, a lounge or a dining section. The lower sections could be regular seating, a lounge, a dining car of the kitchen. They could use things known as dumbwaiters to move meals and supplies from the top level and bottom level.
Could this be used to shorten the train, but still have the same seating spaces?
Could this save on total equipment needed?

 

[ARG1]

I have read the article, which is why I found it relevant to this discussion. The whole "private competition" thing is very clearly a smokescreen. The current CPC is very anti-public institutions, and anti-crown corporation. The petition is also filled to the brim with platitudes about fiscal responsibility. And it's not as if austerity ideology follows any sort of coherent logical stance. The remote services could easily be cut in the same way the Sault - Hearst train was cut (and if we're being honest, if that train doesn't exist, the Senneterre train should definitely not exist either).

But operating under the assumption that VIA survives the next government, which is a likely but not certain possibility, it certainly will not be empowered or given the resources required to for it to fill the role we need it to fill. The portion of VIA to be "privatised" will still be owned by VIA and requires massive capital investment and that certainly isn't "fiscally conservative" because it's rail and it's in Ontario and Quebec. It also doesn't help that HxR is a mess of a project with no coherent scope or timeline.

It really boils down to this: Why should I as an Ontarian accept that my province be deprived of necessary investment in transport infrastructure because of a national government elected to serve the interests of the western provinces and rural voters that view the urban majority with contempt? When it comes to transit and passenger rail, only the province has a record that can be trusted to deliver what is needed.

To be honest, I feel no paranoia and would welcome VIA's demise since it would likely be a catalyst for the provincialisation of intercity rail.

It's not helpful to discuss the wishes and plans of a political party based off your own characterization of their beliefs and ideas. "The current CPC is very anti-public institutions, and anti-crown corporation" isn't an in-depth of analysis of their plans and rhetoric, its a conspiracy theory where you attach hidden motives and a hidden agenda that is contrary to public written policy.

 

[Urban Sky]

It's not helpful to discuss the wishes and plans of a political party based off your own characterization of their beliefs and ideas. "The current CPC is very anti-public institutions, and anti-crown corporation" isn't an in-depth of analysis of their plans and rhetoric, its a conspiracy theory where you attach hidden motives and a hidden agenda that is contrary to public written policy.

I keep asking here what evidence there actually is for the theory of PP or the Conservatives hating HFR (or VIA) and all I got was a newspaper article from 2012, when VIA’s subsidy need was higher than today and its ridership substantially lower, while proposing something like HFR would have looked outlandish…