[smallspy]

The only real fix would seem.to be bringing in a series of regional trains in addition to through runs…. whicih with alternate day schedules does start to open a path to increased frequency without having to run the actual transcon daily.

Rainforests actual proposal would seem to be treating the route as series of basically point to point operations rather than a true corridor, and frankly it seem the only way to provide an even marginally viable service for both transcontinental and intercity passengers.

But there's a very, very serious problem with it that it can not possibly fix.

The sleeper passengers, and especially those in Prestige, are the ones paying the way for the rest of the passengers on the Canadian.

If you "fix" the train by running a series of regional trains, all you are doing is increasing the costs (dramatically) without allowing for more of those high-paying (and therefore subsidizing) trips in sleeper.

Dan

 

[Rainforest]

I am comparing to other places on the planet. In Europe, train is the preferred mode for intercity trips 100 km to 500 km long; flying is not much faster when the time to get to / from the airport is taken into account, while driving is tiresome. For distances > 500 km, flying is faster but train trips are easy for those who wish to take a train. No problems with scheduled frequencies, no multi-hour schedule padding to account for the freight priority.

Of course, the environment in Canada / North America is different. Lower density except within a few metropolitan areas, much fewer rail lines with 2+ parallel tracks, and a different ownership structure.

 

[Urban Sky]

But there's a very, very serious problem with it that it can not possibly fix.

The sleeper passengers, and especially those in Prestige, are the ones paying the way for the rest of the passengers on the Canadian.

If you "fix" the train by running a series of regional trains, all you are doing is increasing the costs (dramatically) without allowing for more of those high-paying (and therefore subsidizing) trips in sleeper.

Dan

You wouldn’t just lose the possibility to attract more high-paying passengers, you would lose almost all of them (except the odd aerophobe), as taking ordinary day trains and having to handle your own luggage during forced layovers in cities like Saskatoon or Winnipeg is as attractive as a substitute as crossing the Atlantic on a cargo ship is for cruise-ship passsengers.

Therefore, you would distroy the one market which currently pays 90% of the cost (thus subsidising the „Remote Service“ and „Equipment Movement“ functions this train also serves), but without any chance of attracting any significant revenues from new customer, which would leave the taxpayer with significantly less value for a dramatically higher cost…

I am comparing to other places on the planet. In Europe, train is the preferred mode for intercity trips 100 km to 500 km long; flying is not much faster when the time to get to / from the airport is taken into account, while driving is tiresome. For distances > 500 km, flying is faster but train trips are easy for those who wish to take a train. No problems with scheduled frequencies, no multi-hour schedule padding to account for the freight priority.

Of course, the environment in Canada / North America is different. Lower density except within a few metropolitan areas, much fewer rail lines with 2+ parallel tracks, and a different ownership structure.

Maybe Europe is not the most relevant benchmark on this planet to compare Central and Western Canada with? I would rather compare it with Latin America and Africa and for these geographies, having any transcontinental rail links is unheard off…

 

[Bureaucromancer]

You wouldn’t just lose the possibility to attract more high-paying passengers, you would lose almost all of them (except the odd aerophobe), as taking ordinary day trains and having to handle your own luggage during forced layovers in cities like Saskatoon or Winnipeg is as attractive as a substitute as crossing the Atlantic on a cargo ship is for cruise-ship passsengers.

Therefore, you would distroy the one market which currently pays 90% of the cost (thus subsidising the „Remote Service“ and „Equipment Movement“ functions this train also serves), but without any chance of attracting any significant revenues from new customer, which would leave the taxpayer with significantly less value for a dramatically higher cost…


Maybe Europe is not the most relevant benchmark on this planet to compare Central and Western Canada with? I would rather compare it with Latin America and Africa and for these geographies, having any transcontinental rail links is unheard off…

You need to re-read the original post. It wasn't replace the Canadian with regionals, it was let the Canadian be entirely optimized FOR high paying and true long haul while supplementing frequencies on the city pairs that work on their own.

 

[reaperexpress]

With the tracks in their current state (very slow), there are only 3 types of trips where rail service along the route of The Canadian could be viable:
- Long-distance tourist travel, because it's basically a cruise so time is not a huge issue
- Access to remote communities, because there's no alternative
- Overnight service between cities 8-12h apart by train, because passengers' value of time is very low while they're sleeping anyway.

Daytime service connecting cities <8h apart is not a viable target because with current tracks the train would be much slower and more expensive than a bus. In order to outcompete a bus, the railway would need to be heavily upgraded. The only corridor in Western Canada with sufficient traffic to justify that investment is Calgary - Edmonton, which is perpendicular to the route of the Canadian.

Bottom line, maybe the schedule could be shifted slightly to optimise for overnight service between Edmonton and Saskatoon (dep 22:00, arr 08:00), but other than that, the current setup for the Canadian seems to be the most viable.

 

[Bordercollie]

With the tracks in their current state (very slow), there are only 3 types of trips where rail service along the route of The Canadian could be viable:
- Long-distance tourist travel, because it's basically a cruise so time is not a huge issue
- Access to remote communities, because there's no alternative
- Overnight service between cities 8-12h apart by train, because passengers' value of time is very low while they're sleeping anyway.

Daytime service connecting cities <8h apart is not a viable target because with current tracks the train would be much slower and more expensive than a bus. In order to outcompete a bus, the railway would need to be heavily upgraded. The only corridor in Western Canada with sufficient traffic to justify that investment is Calgary - Edmonton, which is perpendicular to the route of the Canadian.

Bottom line, maybe the schedule could be shifted slightly to optimise for overnight service between Edmonton and Saskatoon (dep 22:00, arr 08:00), but other than that, the current setup for the Canadian seems to be the most viable.

If you could negotiate something with the railways to alleviate the bottle necks in exchange for on time performance that may be more valuable.

Places like the yard in Edmonton and some spots over the mountains. But I thought CN was working on double tracking Edmonton to Vancouver in a lot of places anyways?

I don't think the travel time is such an issue but the fact that it only runs 3x per week is more of an issue.

 

[Urban Sky]

If you could negotiate something with the railways to alleviate the bottle necks in exchange for on time performance that may be more valuable.

Places like the yard in Edmonton and some spots over the mountains. But I thought CN was working on double tracking Edmonton to Vancouver in a lot of places anyways?

The issue is any attempt to travel between any two major yards in a travel time which is less than what CN‘s own freight trains achieve. To achieve that, you would need to triple-track and not just double-track certain segments.

I don't think the travel time is such an issue but the fact that it only runs 3x per week is more of an issue.

Are you really trying to tell me that it is possible to lose less money with a rail service traveling a certain distance in 8 hours (with a good chance of being 2 more hours late) than with a bus which travels the same distance in 6 hours with much less delays and an operating cost which is one order of magnitude lower*? Because if you don’t, then what is the point of this discussion…?

*Note that revenues must increase much faster than operating costs to match the subsidy need: if the bus would recover 50% of its operating costs and the train’s operating costs are really 10 times higher (as my comparison of VIA Rail with Ontario Northland’s bus services suggests), then you would need not just 10, but 19 times the revenues of the bus to break even…

 

[Bordercollie]

The issue is any attempt to travel between any two major yards in a travel time which is less than what CN‘s own freight trains achieve. To achieve that, you would need to triple-track and not just double-track certain segments.


Are you really trying to tell me that it is possible to lose less money with a rail service traveling a certain distance in 8 hours (with a good chance of being 2 more hours late) than with a bus which travels the same distance in 6 hours with much less delays and an operating cost which is one order of magnitude lower*? Because if you don’t, then what is the point of this discussion…?

*Note that revenues must increase much faster than operating costs to match the subsidy need: if the bus would recover 50% of its operating costs and the train’s operating costs are really 10 times higher (as my comparison of VIA Rail with Ontario Northland’s bus services suggests), then you would need not just 10, but 19 times the revenues of the bus to break even…

Does anyone know what the cost recovery for Greyhound was for Toronto to Vancouver before they shut down?

With the shutdown of greyhound and bus service in Saskatchewan, doesn't that show that even subsidized bus service cannot service in Canada? Or is it the lack of political will to do so?

 

[Urban Sky]

Does anyone know what the cost recovery for Greyhound was for Toronto to Vancouver before they shut down?

This CBC article quotes Greyhound claiming a loss of $70 million over six years, which alledgedly relates to its BC operations alone (and just like $35000 of daily losses works out to $12 million of losses per year). However, considering that First Group’s total revenues in Canada dropped by only £80m (C$126m with today’s exchange rate) between FY 2017 and FY 2020 (note that First Group still operates in Canada through its First Student brand), I have trouble believing that the total losses Greyhound Canada sustained over its entire network was significantly more than that amount:

'It leaves a lot of people unsafe'​

Greyhound makes final passenger trip on B.C.'s Highway of Tears

[...]

When Greyhound applied to the Passenger Transportation Board last August to cease operations in the region, it argued it was losing close to $35,000 a day due to low ridership in northern B.C. and parts of Vancouver Island.

The company said it lost $70 million over the last six years, making certain runs unsustainable without government subsidies.

The application was approved in February this year to eliminate seven routes by the end of May.

In its ruling, the B.C. Transportation Board said it "cannot compel a private business to sustain significant financial losses indefinitely."

With the shutdown of greyhound and bus service in Saskatchewan, doesn't that show that even subsidized bus service cannot service in Canada? Or is it the lack of political will to do so?

VIA’s direct operating loss in 2018 was some $38 million in 2018 ($11.3 million on the Ocean, $6.5 million on the Canadian and $20 million on its Remote Services). A similar amount ($1 per Canadian!) would have for sure saved Greyhound’s network and allowed to gradually move to a Public Service Obligation (PSO) model, where private companies bid the lowest subsidy requirements to operate a certain prescribed.

That this didn’t happen speaks volumes about the impotence of Transport Canada and infighting with the provinces which called Transport Canada’s offer to free up $10 million of federal cash as “too little too late”:

The Saskatchewan government refused the federal government's cost-sharing deal to replace Greyhound routes​

The proposed deal would see the federal government contribute $10 million to subsidize Western Canadian routes abandoned last October.

Author of the article:
Alex MacPherson • Saskatoon StarPhoenix
Publishing date:
Feb 06, 2019 • February 6, 2019 • 4 minute read •

[...]


Transport Minister Marc Garneau, in an about-face from the federal government’s previous position that it would not fund inter-city transit operations, extended the offer to the four provinces affected by Greyhound’s departure in October and renewed it last month.

[...]

The arrangement, to which Ottawa is prepared to contribute a total of $10 million, would “ensure that Canadians have safe, sustainable and efficient transportation options that enhance their quality of life,” Garneau added in the letter.

[...]

Crown Investments Corp. Minister Joe Hargrave said the offer of a share of the $10-million federal pot is “too little, too late,” and offer of a straight subsidy on former Greyhound routes “is not fair to the rest of the province, either.”

 

[Bordercollie]

This CBC article quotes Greyhound claiming a loss of $70 million over six years, which alledgedly relates to its BC operations alone (and just like $35000 of daily losses works out to $12 million of losses per year). However, considering that First Group’s total revenues in Canada dropped by only £80m (C$126m with today’s exchange rate) between FY 2017 and FY 2020 (note that First Group still operates in Canada through its First Student brand), I have trouble believing that the total losses Greyhound Canada sustained over its entire network was significantly more than that amount:




VIA’s direct operating loss in 2018 was some $38 million in 2018 ($11.3 million on the Ocean, $6.5 million on the Canadian and $20 million on its Remote Services). A similar amount ($1 per Canadian!) would have for sure saved Greyhound’s network and allowed to gradually move to a Public Service Obligation (PSO) model, where private companies bid the lowest subsidy requirements to operate a certain prescribed.

That this didn’t happen speaks volumes about the impotence of Transport Canada and infighting with the provinces which called Transport Canada’s offer to free up $10 of federal cash as “too little too late”:

Using vehicle tracking like the one used on VIA would help remote stops and attract more people. Not knowing if the bus was 10min early and you missed it or if it's 4 hours late sucks especially if there is no shelter in the middle of the winter.

Or actually paying your ticket agents would help keep stops the same avoiding confusion for passengers.

And then drivers would abandon passengers at a stop without a relief driver didn't help either.

The train is an essential service and if they wanted to they could make it a lot better without even significant investment.

It's not even about travel time.

And when electric vehicles become more common I think there will be a shift. I think that people will use other forms of transportation to travel long distances. Even with Canadian tire and Petro Canada are building EV charging stations across the country waiting 2 hours every 350km to charge your car isn't going to be very attractive. Plus there is going to be a lineup when you get there.

With that said Toronto to Northbay and Toronto to Sudbury should have daily direct high speed train service (maybe not 250kmph but 150kmph would be ideal) with stops in-between.

I don't know if Sudbury to Winnipeg makes sense...

 

[lenaitch]

Using vehicle tracking like the one used on VIA would help remote stops and attract more people. Not knowing if the bus was 10min early and you missed it or if it's 4 hours late sucks especially if there is no shelter in the middle of the winter.

Works great, so long as there is cellular or Internet service. They are called 'remote' for a reason.

Or actually paying your ticket agents would help keep stops the same avoiding confusion for passengers.

Many bus services, such as Ontario Northland, no longer use ticket agents (or, at least very few). Tickets are purchased online with a few seats held on some routes for true flag stops.

With that said Toronto to Northbay and Toronto to Sudbury should have daily direct high speed train service (maybe not 250kmph but 150kmph would be ideal) with stops in-between.

All it would take is new greenfield ROWs. Even if by some miracle of miracles the parent ROW owners agreed to allowing additional trackage, the alignments don't come close to allowing that kind of speed (whatever a 'kmph' is). It's only tax dollars.

 

[crs1026]

Using vehicle tracking like the one used on VIA would help remote stops and attract more people. Not knowing if the bus was 10min early and you missed it or if it's 4 hours late sucks especially if there is no shelter in the middle of the winter.

VIA’s train location infrastructure works, in part, on satellite links, but that in no way implies that it has sufficient bandwidth for anything else.

I do agree that customer-facing location information can be provided on an intercity bus route, and that would suffice to solve this problem.

If I were running a long distance intercity bus service, I would certainly explore airline-style at-seat entertainment systems. Personally, I like to look out the window, but spending a long bus ride bingeing on movies will appeal to many. Streamed internet is not realistic outside of Southern Ontario, or even within it in some spots. Bus operators don’t have the resources to fix dead zones that the telco’s can’t fix economically.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

All it would take is new greenfield ROWs. Even if by some miracle of miracles the parent ROW owners agreed to allowing additional trackage, the alignments don't come close to allowing that kind of speed (whatever a 'kmph' is). It's only tax dollars.

You know, this got me looking at the MacTier (Sudbury to Toronto CP) and how much it winds in places........presumably to deal with grade-issues or to avoid the need to extended length trestles......

And without any particular ambitions on HSR to Sudbury.........though perhaps some incidental benefit to passenger rail service of some description........

I was wonder.........could greenfield corridor not be effectively added where the province is upgrading '69' to Highway 400?

The upgrade is large undertaking in terms of widening and grade-separating interchanges.......

If the grading would otherwise permit it or could be altered within a rail ROW to work; I was thinking that some cost-efficient straightening might be plausible.

That would obviously be of primary benefit to CP who ought to be required to co-invest were the idea taken seriously.

I don't know how many customers CP has between large urban centres here, but I'm assuming it isn't huge.

A straighter alignment, even at freight speeds, could surely shave an hour off the Toronto-Sudbury run; maybe more.

I'm sure those of you with greater knowledge will advise on the challenges and costs, as well you ought; I just wondered if the numbers might be there if the province essentially provided the space for the ROW for free in the project
while cost-sharing the construction.

We're the idea pursued, it might have the side benefit of making passenger service in this corridor viable (at a loss); but a less steep one, with a more competitive offer.

 

[crs1026]

^The CP route to Sudbury is actually the better of the two, in the sense that it was engineered more thoughtfully to reduce grades and achieve speed. The CN route was pushed through with more haste and is more tortuous, with stretches of 35mph annd 45 mph running.

Any move to 2-way running in the directional running zone would require substantial investment, because signals and sidings have been changed with DR. So picking just one route to invest in is a fantasy proposition, operationally and cost-wise.

Could one engineer a new route or upgrade one of the existing routes for more speed ? Sure…. just bring money. But I would predict that a few as-yet-unattended environmental issues might jump out - nobody cared about those in 1906. Add in the interests of indigenous as well as recreational property owners, and finding an acceptable new route would be a lot of work and might involve some tradeoffs. It could be done…. but the expense would probably exceed the cost of free bus tickets for everyone for a lifetime. Linking Sudbury and North Bay and the Soo to Southern Ontario by rail is just not the same as linking T-O-M with a new line and we apparently aren’t really in a hurry even there.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

^The CP route to Sudbury is actually the better of the two, in the sense that it was engineered more thoughtfully to reduce grades and achieve speed. The CN route was pushed through with more haste and is more tortuous, with stretches of 35mph annd 45 mph running.

Any move to 2-way running in the directional running zone would require substantial investment, because signals and sidings have been changed with DR. So picking just one route to invest in is a fantasy proposition.

Could one engineer a new route or upgrade one of the existing routes for more speed ? Sure…. just bring money. But I would predict that a few as-yet-unattended environmental issues might jump out - nobody cared about those in 1906. Add in the interests of indigenous as well as recreational property owners, and finding an acceptable new route would be a lot of work and might involve some tradeoffs. It could be done…. but the expense would probably exceed the cost of free bus tickets for everyone for a lifetime. Linking Sudbury and North Bay and the Soo to Southern Ontario by rail is just not the same as linking T-O-M with a new line and we apparently aren’t really in a hurry even there.

- Paul

I don't doubt any of that; and have no wish to throw good money after bad.

I was more or less fixated on the (potential) once in a generation opportunity of a new 400-series corridor here, already being built and financed by the province; and whether the accretive cost of grafting on rail row would make economic sense.