[Bordercollie]

They still use specialized caterers. There's strict rules on flight kitchens for both food safety and security reasons. The meals have gotten worse because the airlines simply pay less than they used to.

Not sure who VIA uses but wouldn't be surprise if it's a caterer like Gategroup (old Cara foods).

To be honest, the food was really good, and the free alcohol is also worth it.

 

[roger1818]

Not sure who VIA uses but wouldn't be surprise if it's a caterer like Gategroup (old Cara foods).

Cara is now Recipe Unlimited not Gategeroup.

Recipe Unlimited - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Gategroup - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Darwinkgo]

This is jumping back, but Superliners are 16 feet 2 inches and Dome cars are either 15 ft 6 inches or 15 foot 10 inches. Are people super sure that 8 — 8! Inches max is a deal breaker? Seriously.

 

[kEiThZ]

Cara is now Recipe Unlimited not Gategeroup.

Recipe Unlimited - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Gategroup - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Cara sold their flight catering division to Gategroup. They aren't in that business anymore. What was left over has been renamed Recipe Unlimited. So if VIA is getting catering from the old Cara transport catering divisions, that's likely Gategroup/Gate Gourmet.

 

[roger1818]

This is jumping back, but Superliners are 16 feet 2 inches and Dome cars are either 15 ft 6 inches or 15 foot 10 inches. Are people super sure that 8 — 8! Inches max is a deal breaker? Seriously.

A picture (or video) is worth a thousand words. Not saying this would happen, but this is what difference a few inches can make.

 

[lenaitch]

They still use specialized caterers. There's strict rules on flight kitchens for both food safety and security reasons. The meals have gotten worse because the airlines simply pay less than they used to.

Not sure who VIA uses but wouldn't be surprise if it's a caterer like Gategroup (old Cara foods).

Yup - aware of that. Also unique/specialized galley/cart handling. I don't fly much anymore - I don't think I've ever flown other that coach, economy or whatever they call it. The last time was a few years ago from St. John's; nothing, and I don't recall seeing anybody getting anything other than booze/pop/peanuts. I used to get a meal flying from Wpg/Dryden/TBay but that's when the icecaps were still receding.

 

[Urban Sky]

I get the idea. But I wonder if the promotional and aspirational value is lost in the analysis. I mean Amtrak manages a cafe car on a 304 seat/5 pax coach Acela. And they must see value in it, if they included it in the Avelia Liberty refresh.

I'm just wondering how Acela makes it work.

Acela Express doesn't even offer an Economy Class and its Business Class (as its lowest class) is priced above Business Class on its regional trains, which means that its passengers are hardly the kind of crowd which would stock up on sandwiches, chips and soda cans before boarding the train:

no because people already assume they will be charged an arm and a leg for snacks and drinks, just like airlines do. They would rather have convenience of time and speed with individual seat comfort over a snack car. This is especially true for short intercities where people would rather watch a movie on their laptop than wander around to a snack car.

This unfortunately matches my own experiences from traveling across Europe, as the restaurant/bistro cars were reliably empty despite offering surprisingly decent and really reasonably priced meals, snacks and beverages - and it actually took me years to start discovering (and appreciating) them, as I had fallen victim of exactly the prejudice (that their offerings would be overpriced and of inferior quality) you described...

Still, having a kitchen in every car must have its costs. There will be a more distributed handling and accounting for cash (although touchless is likely here to stay), liquor must be inventoried in every car, there must be more food wastage (as every coach must be stocked, and one would expect more unsold items returned), handling costs and logistics would be more complex. Many more refrigerators and microwaves and coffee makers to maintain.

When I add up the linear feet of space consumed by the galley in an LRC coach, however, I wonder if a discrete cafe counter really consumes more space.... especially on longer consists.

The galley currently present in every LRC and HEP2 car (also in 8145-8147, but these HEP1 coaches are only used in Northern Quebec) displaces at least 8 seats (if not more) and having one in every single car on the Corridor is certainly an overkill. Fortunately, one of the advantages of having semi-permanent trainsets is that you can much better size the galley space to match the number of seats they serve...

There must be a break-even point. However, having to marshall consists so there is always one snack car will be less flexible so that alone might tilt the equation.

This is exactly the problem of having a dedicated snack/bar car (regardless of whether shares the car with revenue seats or not): whereas it might be worth it on longer trains which usually have maybe 6 revenue cars (wich would equal approximately 42+5*68=382 seats), having a dedicated attendant serving that car would be an overkill on trains 85 and 88 (which usually operate with only 2 coaches).

What I do suspect, given the LRC's inside dimensions, is that VIA and/or Transport Canada also had a keep-em-seated agenda when the LRC came out. If so, that has to go. The ability to move around is important, and it's a way that VIA can differentiate from other modes. Even if there's no snack car to walk to, stretching likely sells.

Nobody stops you from walking around in the train, but indeed, it's more rewarding if the train has a "destination" worth visiting...

The last time a railroad tried to attract a premium customer segment with superior catering ("superlative cuisine in the Deluxe Dining Room Car") was in October 1965:

View attachment 287343
Source: official CP timetable (effective 1965-10-31)

The experiment lasted less than 3 months before CP completely abandoned its Toronto-Montreal and Toronto-Ottawa routes, as explained by R.L.Kennedy on Trainweb:

I have been made aware of this quite different account of what motivated the end of CPs Corridor operations between Toronto and Ottawa/Montreal and this is not the first time I've seen conflicting accounts which were more plausible than the one provided by R.L.Kennedy:

CP's decision to cancel the Royal York/Chateau Champlain in January 1966 was not really voluntary and did not amount to a concession that they couldn't compete for passengers in the corridor. CP had not wanted to discontinue the pool trains, and wanted to continue the Royal York/Chateau Champlain. There was pressure on both railways and the government to reinstate Ottawa-Toronto night service, discontinued with the pool trains in October 1965. Overnight Pool trains 33 and 34 on that route had been losing a million dollars a year and CP had no confidence in the future of overnight service in the corridor. It had not given up on the day service. However CN would not agree to start up its own Ottawa-Toronto night service unless CP would concede the rest of the corridor market to CN. Understandably CN didn't want to initiate an unprofitable night train if it couldn't have the more promising day trains to itself. CP bowed to government pressure and took off its day trains.

What really signalled CP's change of heart in the passenger business was the death of president Robert Emerson later in 1966, and his replacement by Ian Sinclair.

Makes somewhat more sense (if you ask me) than CP loosing its nerves without waiting for the summer...

I take from @Urban Sky post that they don't see value in a coach that doesn't generate revenue. But I wonder how that compares to say one that saves cost, by combining kitchens and freeing up floor space in other coaches for more seating. That said, it may be less pressing as travel times drop with HFR.

I'm afraid that the one attendant stuck in the catered section would still be a deal-breaker, as it simply can't be justified on certain Corridor services (not just on 85-88). Repeated customers expect a standardized travel experience and that precludes having wildly different catering facilities and offerings across the Corridor. However, in the case that HFR becomes so popular that customers recognize it as a brand which is distinct from VIA's other corridor services, you could start pondering such amenities. In a lucky coincidence, the approval of HFR will trigger the second batch of Corridor trainsets and that could be an opportunity to include additional car types to operate longer trainsets with improved facilities on the HFR route, which could also include whichever features you list in your next quote aren't already included in the first batch:

I'd argue that the best bang for buck would be podded seats in business class that allow for privacy and bookable conference rooms that let a whole team work while travelling.

Nitpick: CN attempted an “Executive Class” service on the Rapido a few years later - private accommodations in a sleeper-lounge car, with table service in the lounge area. It didn’t last either, and unlike the CP train I have never even seen a trip report about it.

Less elite but more popular was CN’s Bistro car, coaches converted to full length bar cars which ran on the Rapido in the early seventies. They had pianos and piano players, were modeled as night clubs. The problem (other than the need to switch the cars in and out of their afternoon-only runs) was their mixed success.... pouring a carload of beer into your clientele so they could run amok the rest of the way was not necessarily a good idea. Bar cars attracted a harder drinking clientele. CN didn’t need quite that much alcohol served, even when the Rapido was sold out.

- Paul

I unfortunately have never heard about CN's "Executive Class" (and all Google results seem to be "polluted" by Air Canada having stolen that name in the meanwhile), but I would appreciate any details on this!

This is jumping back, but Superliners are 16 feet 2 inches and Dome cars are either 15 ft 6 inches or 15 foot 10 inches. Are people super sure that 8 — 8! Inches max is a deal breaker? Seriously.

According to this post on Amtrak Unlimited by a usually very knowledgeable source, the catenary wire had to be removed to ensure sufficient clearance for the domes:

A Superliner is 16'-2” and a Park Car is 15'-10”. When VIA started operating Domes at Central Station back in the late '70s the electric catenary had to be removed over several tracks to provide clearance.

If you now look at this picture, you will appreciate how close the catenary wires in Gare Centrale are to the ceiling:

Source: Wikipedia

So yes, 8 (or even: 4) inches can be the difference between clearing the ceiling or scraping on it...

 

[Northern Light]

I unfortunately have never heard about CN's "Executive Class" (and all Google results seem to be "polluted" by Air Canada having stolen that name in the meanwhile), but I would appreciate any details on this.

Not sure if this helps, but this is a discussion of pre-VIA service.

The discussion includes some equipment tables from 1965.

VIA Rail Canada

cptdb.ca

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

This is interesting insight, thank you. For North America, anyways, the cafe car dates from an era where trains didn’t sell out all the time, and maximising seats per car operated really wasn’t an issue. The cafe car was just a sunk cost towards running the train. I suppose that’s an outdated paradigm - the more things that are scalable, and the more consistent the fleet can be, the better the economics will be. One certainly can’t advocate for DMU and snack bar car in the same breath!

Still, having a kitchen in every car must have its costs. There will be a more distributed handling and accounting for cash (although touchless is likely here to stay), liquor must be inventoried in every car, there must be more food wastage (as every coach must be stocked, and one would expect more unsold items returned), handling costs and logistics would be more complex. Many more refrigerators and microwaves and coffee makers to maintain.

Still, given the choice between a made-to-order Norwegian Rail panini-style toasted cheese sandwich, and the traditional stone cold cellophane wrapped Canadian equivalent, I know which I’d pick.

- Paul

I don't know why this would be such a big issue. Airlines typically operate with at least 2 galleys for storing and preparing food (front/back or biz/economy classes). Why couldn't the cars be coupled in such a way that the kitchens are close to each other (just a cross over to the other car away) and share some inventory?

 

[Northern Light]

Just taking a moment to thank @crs1026 and @Urban Sky amongst others here for another excellent discussion! I''m enjoying learning.

 

[crs1026]

^I had a copy of the old CN Executive Class brochure, but it seems to be hiding!

CN had two sleeper-observation cars, Burrard and Bedford, that had iirc 7ish double bedrooms and a lounge with kitchen. (and an open observation platforms, but I don’t know if these were available). These two cars were used for the service, which was limited to the afternoon Rapidos between Montreal and Toronto.. The lounge area was set up with tables for dining. Used two cars that were mostly used for charter service, (which meant they were lightly utilised otherwise).

I don’t have the dates handy, but my dusty memory thinks that this service coincided with one of the periods where CN had to withdraw the Turbos due to their teething troubles. It may have been a way of maintaining some cachet to the first class/business market at a time where their sexy new Turbos weren’t available. In any event, the service didn’t last long. I will see if I can find the exact date in old timetables. iirc one or two of the ex-Milwaukee tail end sleeper-lounges were also used on occasion.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

Like @crs1026 I would describe myself as an atypical customer.

I recognize, of course, that any service decisions need to either have a business case in which they substantially pay for themselves or one in which government sees the wisdom in subsidizing said plan.

Personally, I'm more motivated by comfort and convenience, in that order, than I am by price.

That's not to say price is irrelevant, its not.

But in my case, aside from enjoying life's small luxuries, particularly of the culinary variety; my back gets plaintive if I spend too much time in any chair, no matter how comfortable. So the idea of a dining car and/or other destination/activity car that provide a compelling reason to stand and move about mid-trip is something that's worth a bit extra to me.

 

[crs1026]

I don't know why this would be such a big issue. Airlines typically operate with at least 2 galleys for storing and preparing food (front/back or biz/economy classes). Why couldn't the cars be coupled in such a way that the kitchens are close to each other (just a cross over to the other car away) and share some inventory?

They could..... but that’s added switching work, and hence expense, and hence down time for the trainset. One more detail for yardmasters to pay attention to. Ican appreciate why one would choose to keep it simple.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

They could..... but that’s added switching work, and hence expense, and hence down time for the trainset. One more detail for yardmasters to pay attention to. Ican appreciate why one would choose to keep it simple.

- Paul

Marshalling every second car the other way around is not really a problem unless the physical process of turning cars around becomes a regular occurrence in the cycling plan, but I suspect that having no train doors for almost two car lengths might raise some safety concerns in case of a need to evacuate the train. But even outside of emergencies, detraining might take more time as passengers can only detrain towards one end of the coach. In both cases, this wouldn’t be a problem if VIA’s fleet had doors at both ends, as is standard in many intercity fleets around the world...

 

[roger1818]

Like @crs1026 I would describe myself as an atypical customer.

I recognize, of course, that any service decisions need to either have a business case in which they substantially pay for themselves or one in which government sees the wisdom in subsidizing said plan.

Personally, I'm more motivated by comfort and convenience, in that order, than I am by price.

That's not to say price is irrelevant, its not.

But in my case, aside from enjoying life's small luxuries, particularly of the culinary variety; my back gets plaintive if I spend too much time in any chair, no matter how comfortable. So the idea of a dining car and/or other destination/activity car that provide a compelling reason to stand and move about mid-trip is something that's worth a bit extra to me.

You may not be as atypical as you think. The Baby Boomers, who are now mostly in their golden years, tend to be "more motivated by comfort and convenience" than the 3 generations before them (who were influenced by the two world wars and the great depression) and thus tend to be more thrifty. The boomers also represent a larger percentage of the overall population than the previous generations did.

The Millennials (the echo of the boomer bump), are now solidly in the workforce, and they also tend to like the finer things in life (like their boomer parents). It is the smaller Gen X and Gen Z generations that tend to be more thrifty.

Making decisions about what might work today based on what did or didn't work even 30 years ago (let alone the 50 or 60 years ago we are disusing) can be problematic as society changes.