[Urban Sky]

The rocky Montaner is a tourist train it has no sleeping cars and makes a stop during the night for the people on the train to go to a hotel, the service is not comparable to a via train.

Rocky Mountaineer's business model of bundling a daylight-only journey with overnight hotel stays was invented by VIA. The most significant thing RMR changed was to escalate the price level (even the top-price of $565 in 1989 prices translates to $1,150 today - good luck finding any RMR packages even for twice that price!):

Source: 1989-04-30 VIA schedule

Via gave up using that section of the line a d the Rocky mounter took it over

VIA did certainly not "give up" any of its network in 1990. The cuts were imposed on it by the federal government through an "Order Varying Certain National Transportation Agency Orders Respecting Railway Companies":

 

[Admiral Beez]

I sometimes wonder what VIA would look like if it gave less attention to the Toronto-Montreal corridor, where between the two cities each weekday we have over a hundred flights, eighteen VIA trains, dozens of buses and thousands of cars utilizing existing expressways, and more to connecting Canadians where fewer connections already exist. It must seem to the rest of Canada that to VIA the country starts at Windsor and ends at Quebec City.

 

[lenaitch]

If there is no "public" transportation on that route and they are the only carrier that provides services they should be mandated to. OR VIA should be allowed to operate the same route as a form of public transportation.

RMR isn't a "carrier" - it's a tourism operator. Should the accommodations in Lake Louise be government-mandated to hold some rooms at Super 8 rates?

VIA isn't disallowed from the route used by RMR. It operates the Canadian on the same trackage that RMR operates its Vancouver-Jasper route. RMR Canadian routes terminate in the nationally-connective hotspots of Banff/Lake Louise, Jasper and Whistler. To get from Vancouver to Banff takes roughly 36 hours with an overnight off-train stop in Kamloops.

I don't know if there are scheduled bus routes in the BC interior, but I'm not sure turning VIA into a federally-mandated and subsidized inter and intra-provincial ground transportation network is the viable answer.

 

[kEiThZ]

Whenever you see an article which asks Crazy Greg for his opinion, you can safely ignore and forget what you just read and go to the next article, as the sole purpose of his opinions (and the other expert opinions - like David Gunn’s - he volunteers to the authors) is to promote the narrative that VIA is in perpetual decline and that only his (almost as perpetually forthcoming book) knows the answers of how to solve it…

I think Gormick is full of it. But I also think it's highly likely that Cynthia Garneau left because she's disappointed by the lack of government support for her agency.

 

[Xav]

I sometimes wonder what VIA would look like if it gave less attention to the Toronto-Montreal corridor, where between the two cities each weekday we have over a hundred flights, eighteen VIA trains, dozens of buses and thousands of cars utilizing existing expressways, and more to connecting Canadians where fewer connections already exist. It must seem to the rest of Canada that to VIA the country starts at Windsor and ends at Quebec City.

That's where the population density and the money is...

 

[Admiral Beez]

That's where the population density and the money is...

Yes, but it's also the best served corridor in Canada. VIA Rail is a Crown corporation, service to the people should be ahead of money. The people in Toronto and Montreal already have dozens of options for getting to see one another. Meanwhile the VIA service within Atlantic Canada and from the region to Quebec City and beyond is abysmal.

 

[roger1818]

I sometimes wonder what VIA would look like if it gave less attention to the Toronto-Montreal corridor, where between the two cities each weekday we have over a hundred flights, eighteen VIA trains, dozens of buses and thousands of cars utilizing existing expressways, and more to connecting Canadians where fewer connections already exist. It must seem to the rest of Canada that to VIA the country starts at Windsor and ends at Quebec City.

It would be much more heavily subsidized and even less relevant than it is today. Also, given that VIA's long distance trains have a higher carbon footprint than either driving or flying (where as the opposite is true in the corridor), so we would see a higher national carbon footprint.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It would be much more heavily subsidized and even less relevant than it is today. Also, given that VIA's long distance trains have a higher carbon footprint than either driving or flying (where as the opposite is true in the corridor), so we would see a higher national carbon footprint.

That's meaningless nonsense. The carbon footprint every Canadian generates from the goods we all buy from China and South Asia far exceed whatever we're doing on a VIA train. We've just exported our pollution so that Canada's numbers can look good.

 

[Xav]

Yes, but it's also the best served corridor in Canada. VIA Rail is a Crown corporation, service to the people should be ahead of money. The people in Toronto and Montreal already have dozens of options for getting to see one another. Meanwhile the VIA service within Atlantic Canada and from the region to Quebec City and beyond is abysmal.

There are dozens of ways to travel from Toronto to Montreal because there are more people between those two cities than anywhere else in the country. There are busses too between Halifax in Moncton...

 

[nfitz]

The people in Toronto and Montreal already have dozens of options for getting to see one another. Meanwhile the VIA service within Atlantic Canada and from the region to Quebec City and beyond is abysmal.

Tell it to the government - particularly those of Mulroney and Harper that kept cutting such services.

 

[roger1818]

That's meaningless nonsense. The carbon footprint every Canadian generates from the goods we all buy from China and South Asia far exceed whatever we're doing on a VIA train. We've just exported our pollution so that Canada's numbers can look good.

An increase in emissions is an increase in emissions even if it is a small increase.

 

[crs1026]

Canada benefits far more by allowing its rail corridors to be intensively utilized for freight than by forcing a different mix. Given our distances, and the volume of raw and finished materials to be transported, and the dearth of places where high-volume people moving is actually required, there would be little value created - and much value wasted - by sacrificing the freight network to prioritise passenger.

If I were inclined to lean on the railways to open their lines to other operations or markets, it would be to encourage shipping freight commodities or serving customers that the railways currently see as not worth pursuing. One more freight train of “low-return” manifest every day would benefit the country much more than restoring a passenger train on one of our major lines.

Passenger rail only makes sense where there is sufficient need to justify dedicated tracks. That has been true for longer than many remember - many routes retained their daily passenger train only because there was a mail or express component that subsidized the people moving. Many of those old runs were not about carrying passengers, and the need to subsidise them only arrived later and was never really all that pressing. They were fun to ride, certainly, but that was not the core function.

- Paul

 

[Bordercollie]

Canada benefits far more by allowing its rail corridors to be intensively utilized for freight than by forcing a different mix. Given our distances, and the volume of raw and finished materials to be transported, and the dearth of places where high-volume people moving is actually required, there would be little value created - and much value wasted - by sacrificing the freight network to prioritise passenger.

If I were inclined to lean on the railways to open their lines to other operations or markets, it would be to encourage shipping freight commodities or serving customers that the railways currently see as not worth pursuing. One more freight train of “low-return” manifest every day would benefit the country much more than restoring a passenger train on one of our major lines.

Passenger rail only makes sense where there is sufficient need to justify dedicated tracks. That has been true for longer than many remember - many routes retained their daily passenger train only because there was a mail or express component that subsidized the people moving. Many of those old runs were not about carrying passengers, and the need to subsidise them only arrived later and was never really all that pressing. They were fun to ride, certainly, but that was not the core function.

- Paul

There are other corridors that could be profitable, just needs government support and investment.

 

[ssiguy2]

So Rocky Mountaineer was a VIA train, a daylight tourist train. The franchise to operate it was sold or leased or somesuch with the goal of not providing a subsidy to an explicitly tourist service. My understanding is that soon afterwards, the Montreal-Vancouver via Edmonton route was shutdown, and the Toronto-Vancouver route via Calgary was shifted to via Edmonton.

That is not how it happened and I remember it well. It had nothing to do with the Rocky Mountaineer but it did make for a good excuse.

The Mulroney government was intent on shutting down as many VIA routes as humanely possible while taking in to account political considerations. The Calgary/Vancouver route enjoyed much higher ridership and was much faster to get to Vancouver and was the natural one to save but alas,, like all things VIA, politics won over sound transportation policy. The ONLY reason that the Edmonton route was chosen is that the Minster of Transportation at the time who was in charge of VIA was from Edmonton............Don Mazonkowski. He didn't want to get the political flack in Edmonton and put his riding at risk and hence the route we see today.

 

[Bordercollie]

That is not how it happened and I remember it well. It had nothing to do with the Rocky Mountaineer but it did make for a good excuse.

The Mulroney government was intent on shutting down as many VIA routes as humanely possible while taking in to account political considerations. The Calgary/Vancouver route enjoyed much higher ridership and was much faster to get to Vancouver and was the natural one to save but alas,, like all things VIA, politics won over sound transportation policy. The ONLY reason that the Edmonton route was chosen is that the Minster of Transportation at the time who was in charge of VIA was from Edmonton............Don Mazonkowski. He didn't want to get the political flack in Edmonton and put his riding at risk and hence the route we see today.

So is that when they closed the calgary union station?