micheal_can
Senior Member
From what I have heard, the Canadian has been sold out much of this last summer. So, if they can run it7x a week instead of 2, maybe it might be filled with those you speak of.
|
|
|
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
From what I have heard, the Canadian has been sold out much of this last summer. So, if they can run it7x a week instead of 2, maybe it might be filled with those you speak of.
roger1818
Senior Member
I’m feeling like a broken record since he said this before but I’ll try again anyways
Since land cruise customers don’t care how frequent the train is, It is cheaper to add extra cars to the existing train than it is to run an extra train. Besides, the biggest limitation to capacity for the Canadian his lack of equipment, especially sleepers, which is what the land cruise passengers want. Adding extra trains would ado extra cost, but keep the revenue almost the same.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Which is why although I want it to happen,I know we currently do not have the means to do it. Via is doing a Long Distance Fleet Renewal contract, so I wait to see what will happen with it. that is why I do suggest taking the HEP cars and the P42s and use them in the C-E and H-M-SJ corridors to improve service where it likely can reach a low subsidy, and maybe no subsidy.
Long-distance train fleet replacement inches forward
VIA Rail Canada has confirmed it is preparing a business case for the renewal of its aging long-haul locomotives and cars – some of which are more than 70 years old.
www.transportaction.ca
kEiThZ
Superstar
Nobody cares if their cruise ship is late. It's vacation. Not transport. And that's what the Canadian is to the majority of users. This is not the case with the Corridor.
Leaving your car in a lot for hours or days is not reducing car dependency. It's just parking.
That's not transit (which usually supports commuters as a fundamental part of their business). That's just intercity travel.
crs1026
Superstar
Sorry I can't paste the headline - but this is timely.
I take it as a good sign that VIA's CEO has the license to offer this viewpoint without being stifled by bureaucrats or the PMO. Or, maybe he was given permission to say this.
www.theglobeandmail.com
- Paul
I take it as a good sign that VIA's CEO has the license to offer this viewpoint without being stifled by bureaucrats or the PMO. Or, maybe he was given permission to say this.
Via Rail CEO calls for right of way over freight trains, passenger bill of rights
The head of Via Rail says the federal government should move toward a charter that would ensure train passengers receive compensation for long delays
www.theglobeandmail.com
- Paul
Urban Sky
Senior Member
It is absolutely pointless to compare the passenger subsidy-figures at fully-allocated costs, especially if one fulfills two of VIA‘s three mandates (in addition to acting as an equipment shuttle to link its Western routes with its maintenance centers) and would therefore need to run at the same frequency even if nobody wanted to ride it, whereas the other would only cater to railfans like yourself (as its long travel time and subterranean reliability would make it hopelessly uncompetitive againstthe established modes of transportation)…
Nobody needs „rail transport“. The need is „mobility“ and can be fulfilled with any transportation mode which ticks enough boxes.
Great! We‘ll remind you how much cash Ontarian taxpayers have to cough up for your personal entertainment…
You‘re welcome (and even dictionary definitions get this wrong)!
Almost every seasonal service sells out during its peak season, as procuring additional equipment is pointless when it would sit idle for most of the year. The correct way of dealing with this is to increase peak pricing, in which VIA already has a good track record…
Calgary-Edmonton will cost billions of upfront capital costs to transform that route into a viable intercity rail corridor and the last time VIA operated an intercity route between Halifax and Saint John, it bled $95 (or $210 in today‘s prices) per passenger:Which is why although I want it to happen,I know we currently do not have the means to do it. Via is doing a Long Distance Fleet Renewal contract, so I wait to see what will happen with it. that is why I do suggest taking the HEP cars and the P42s and use them in the C-E and H-M-SJ corridors to improve service where it likely can reach a low subsidy, and maybe no subsidy.
Long-distance train fleet replacement inches forward
VIA Rail Canada has confirmed it is preparing a business case for the renewal of its aging long-haul locomotives and cars – some of which are more than 70 years old.
Neither route is likely to ever get restored unless their respective provinces cough up a substantial proportion of its subsidy needs and I have yet to see any signs of political will to make this a provincial priority…
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
Really reducing car dependency there by forcing rail operators to now build millions of dollars of parking to cater to drivers like you.
Imagine thinking this is a good vision:
lenaitch
Senior Member
Slapdown memo from the Minister in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .Sorry I can't paste the headline - but this is timely.
I take it as a good sign that VIA's CEO has the license to offer this viewpoint without being stifled by bureaucrats or the PMO. Or, maybe he was given permission to say this.
Via Rail CEO calls for right of way over freight trains, passenger bill of rights
The head of Via Rail says the federal government should move toward a charter that would ensure train passengers receive compensation for long delays
- Paul
just east of the creek
Active Member
I like the idea, but I don’t like the idea. As a business case for CN/CP this does nothing. As a client (well, former client) of the railways seeking improved service times, I am not in favour. It takes long enough to get containers from either coast as it stands. And as a private entity, why should I be responsible for VIA‘s operations. The key here is that VIA owns 3% of the trackage it runs on. And in certain corridors, that is just not enough.
As a rider, it’s a great idea….but wait. Read the Amtrak report card on its Host Railways (where by law, Amtrak has the right of way over freight) and see how that is working. The devil is in the details. And maybe we should all thank the late Hunter Harrison for the issues being seen in freight service and spillover effects on passenger rail (or I do, and maybe I’m right and maybe I’m wrong, it’s a complex problem, but there is no question capacity and service are large issues for the major rail lines)
crs1026
Superstar
^It’s a bit like the wolf saying it will huff and puff and blow the house down.
In the moment, when there is a real 14,000 foot train going 40 mph in front of a VIA train trying to go 95 - all the legislation in the world is not going to make a difference if there is no siding that can accommodate the freight train.
But when VIA says, we would like a slot, and a railway says, you aren’t getting it and that’s the end of the story….. some legislative oomph might change the response from a flat ‘no’ to a “can do, ‘in order to accommodate that, we need x at your expense and here’s why”.
Which is a more constructive response, and eminently reasonable to allow for that ask from the freight railways.
I suspect that more often than not, that is already how VIA and the railways manage their relationship, and the stucking point is actually Ottawa balking at coughing up any money. Maybe that process just needs more openness - the blame game when inadequacies come to light is what should be banned.
- Paul
In the moment, when there is a real 14,000 foot train going 40 mph in front of a VIA train trying to go 95 - all the legislation in the world is not going to make a difference if there is no siding that can accommodate the freight train.
But when VIA says, we would like a slot, and a railway says, you aren’t getting it and that’s the end of the story….. some legislative oomph might change the response from a flat ‘no’ to a “can do, ‘in order to accommodate that, we need x at your expense and here’s why”.
Which is a more constructive response, and eminently reasonable to allow for that ask from the freight railways.
I suspect that more often than not, that is already how VIA and the railways manage their relationship, and the stucking point is actually Ottawa balking at coughing up any money. Maybe that process just needs more openness - the blame game when inadequacies come to light is what should be banned.
- Paul
micheal_can
Senior Member
Sadly, you are right, and that is the problem. Imagine if that was how the Corridor service was. Imagine how useless it would become.
For big cities like Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver,you are right. These places, you do not need a car, and, you can get anywhere from them without one. The same cannot be said about smaller cities. A lot of local transit does not serve their airport. If they do, the service is infrequent.
To me, the point of not being car dependent is not where you park the car, but that you can park the car and do your journey by something else.
Sorry I can't paste the headline - but this is timely.
I take it as a good sign that VIA's CEO has the license to offer this viewpoint without being stifled by bureaucrats or the PMO. Or, maybe he was given permission to say this.
Via Rail CEO calls for right of way over freight trains, passenger bill of rights
The head of Via Rail says the federal government should move toward a charter that would ensure train passengers receive compensation for long delays
- Paul
If this can get through, this would be a great start to better passenger service for the existing services.
It isn't a good vision, but it sadly is a step to the good vision. Technically,I have a 'station' within a much shorter distance, and technically, local transit almost comes within walking distance of my home. There is a Via flag stop within 10 km of my home on the S-WR train. Sadly, it does not connect to the Canadian, so I am unable to make the transfer. There is a "dial a bus" that comes near here, but does not come much closer than those tracks. BTW, that bus used to not exist a few years ago.Really reducing car dependency there by forcing rail operators to now build millions of dollars of parking to cater to drivers like you.
Imagine thinking this is a good vision:
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Yet, you insist on running Corridor-style services on routes which have infrastructure characteristics which make it impossible to offer a useful service, rather than accepting that investments into the expansion of passenger rail services should be focused on routes where they stand a chance of becoming a useful service…
Yet, you waste your efforts on passenger rail fantasies rather than trying to lobby for transit improvements which would allow people living in your community to better access the services and facilities they need to access…
If you depend on your car to get to a place where you have access to other modes of transport, then by any sensible definition, you are car-dependent…
It wouldn’t. Host railroads will only have every incentive to outright deny any train slot requests which might have a high risk of getting delayed or causing interferences with other traffic already present…
roger1818
Senior Member
Fortunately there is enough traffic (by all modes, not just rail) in the Corridor to draw riders riders from to make the service self sustainable, and VIA doesn't have to look for alternate revenue streams, like land cruisers, to cover costs.
The point is it needn't be limited to big cities. Any town or city can develop walkable neighbourhoods, where venues for all of one's daily tasks are within an easy walk. The beauty of this approach is that it doesn't cost any extra money and the density that comes from this makes transit much more sustainable.
The problem is we keep on building car dependant, sprawling monstrosities and many people are ignorant to this when choosing where to live. If you truly want to make a difference, start to "think globally, act locally" and push for denser neighbourhoods to be built within your community.
turbanplanner
Senior Member
Visit any city park or highway off ramp, and look at all the litter? Go on a bus and listen to people playing youtube out loud. A huge percent of people in the country or at least cities are really selfish, imagine sharing a building with them? I've lived in a townhouse and for years my neighbours music shakes the walls
lenaitch
Senior Member
Greater openness when it involves financial matters is tricky when one side is a competitive, for-profit entity. On non-financial or regulatory issues, it might indeed help VIA's case, particularly when the answer to an ask is little more than obstructionist (I say that not knowing a thing about the day-to-day relationship between the parties).
It seems 'precision railroading' left both CN and CP with limited capacity for flexibility.
Easier to do when actual growth is involved. "Building" implies growth. For many communities, particularly smaller, outlying ones, growth can be slow at best so you are stuck with the existing layout. Nobody is expecting existing towns to be bulldozed and replaced with a highrise.