[crs1026]

Am I correct in saying that the only evidence of major changes VIA is making is focused on HFR/Kingston hub and any plans for non-Corridor service are either minor or haven't been publicly released yet?

One does indeed have to “read the chicken bones” to discern what is going on. The reality is, much of the ”plan” seems to be ad hoc, with government dealing with things one-of and only reactively when a crisis is reached, and many decisions being evident only as between the lines inferences. The three most concrete of these, excluding HFR, are likely the following:

VIa has issued a business plan document which is pretty detailed and outlines the intent of their ”best foot forward”. It is noteworthy because it does lay out a few destiny areas where government has no option but to make a decision. It also points out areas where decisions happened in spite of best efforts - for instance, the proposal to improve Maritime service has been shelved.

There was a government report not too many years back which looked at the long term future of both the Canadian and the Ocean. (Sorry, I’m on mobile otherwise I would try to find and cite these documents). That amounts to a policy paper that puts the isssue on government’s front burner. Nothing concrete has been said since, but VIA continues to secure funding to maintain and renew its long distance fleet. I guess that’s a decision of sorts.

I would cite the government’s decision to repair the Churchill line as a confirmation that remote community access is viewed as a continuing mandate.

While I appreciate @UrbanSky’s efforts to keep the discussion focussed and away from “fantasy” level discussion, the reality is that government policy and behaviour constrains (obstructs is not too strong a word) what VIA can accomplish. It’s inevitable that we will have to point to some of these constraints when we suggest options for VIA. It’s not helpful to have to move to another thread just to ask if these constraints could be changed. Some can, others are unlikely to ever change.... but in a forum like UT where people continue to debate the best route and method for new rapid transit lines that are already nearing completion, a little blue skying comes with the territory.

- Paul

 

[Bordercollie]

The current rail cruise on the CP line, the Rocky Mountaineer overnights in Kamloops where everyone gets off and stays in various classes of hotels according to the class of their ticket. Their setup ensures that no trip passes through the mountains at night. The Rocky Mountaineer makes money, on a full cost basis.

Do we want the Canadian to be the best rail cruise? Because calling in Jasper in the middle of the night (the last mention I remember from years back when a politician used the Canadian as an unofficial campaign prop) doesn’t accomplish that. Of course that use is entirely counter to the efficient transportation use.

The primary reason why the two trains exists is totally different. The purpose of the Canadian is to ensure that there is cross country rail service for the general public, not for people who want a luxury vacation. For the Canadian the Prestiege customers are a bonus, not their primary focus.

 

[smallspy]

I would like to address the 2 different things.

1) One of the biggest problems with trains being delayed is over siding trains. These trains force all others to take the siding. So, if you ever meet one of these, whether it is scheduled or not, it can delay a train.

No, it's not.

Both CN and CP have operating plans that call for, and make allowances for, over-siding trains. In fact, in the 1990s and early 2000s CP utilized an operating plan across Northern Ontario that worked quite efficiently, by using smaller trains in one direction that could fit into sidings and longer trains in the other that didn't. The problem with it was that the costs for moving the crews and locomotives back and forth to equalize everything was felt to be too great, and so they went away from it.

2) shooting ideas out there is easy. Making it work is the hard part. Unless there was a daily train for each part of the entire route, splitting it up would be worse than leaving it as is. Since Via has no plans of going to a daily Canadian train, there is no expectations on my part that it would be implemented. Mind you, there is no reason they can't leave then existing truncated Canadian routes added with the normal full length one that runs 3x a week.

This is a bit of an ironic statement coming from you. The experience built into the operations departments of either of the two freight railways in Canada greatly outweighs - likely by several times over - the knowledge base of posters on forums like this, myself included. Just because you don't like a decision doesn't mean that it isn't the right one for the company involved.

Dan

 

[crs1026]

The current rail cruise on the CP line, the Rocky Mountaineer overnights in Kamloops where everyone gets off and stays in various classes of hotels according to the class of their ticket. Their setup ensures that no trip passes through the mountains at night. The Rocky Mountaineer makes money, on a full cost basis.

Do we want the Canadian to be the best rail cruise? Because calling in Jasper in the middle of the night (the last mention I remember from years back when a politician used the Canadian as an unofficial campaign prop) doesn’t accomplish that. Of course that use is entirely counter to the efficient transportation use.

RMTR’s service plan is well suited to the Rockies, but I doubt their model would be successful east of Calgary/Jasper. Two days, one night is perfect, but add in a night in Calgary/Edmonton, and then Regina/Saskatoon, and the three-night journey Vancouver-Winnipeg would be both tedious and unaffordable for many. If it were viable, I’m sure RMTR would already be there.

While I don’t favour asking CN to run VIA at a loss, one has to be careful in analysing how much VIA’s existence as a subsidised service harms RMTR. RMTR does pay to secure priority handling, VIA clearly does not. RMTR’s fare “bundle” has different things in it - closer to a package tour, often with before and after amenities built in. RMTr’s view of how much VIa cuts into their business is overstated, IMHO. And if the Canadian were eliminated and VIA’s operating subsidy were redirected to support for BC-Alberta tourism more broadly, RMTR would see little of that. Still, RMTR’s ticket price is an informative benchmark about what rail passenger really costs....although VIA gives us enough detail on that directly.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

Both CN and CP have operating plans that call for, and make allowances for, over-siding trains. In fact, in the 1990s and early 2000s CP utilized an operating plan across Northern Ontario that worked quite efficiently, by using smaller trains in one direction that could fit into sidings and longer trains in the other that didn't. The problem with it was that the costs for moving the crews and locomotives back and forth to equalize everything was felt to be too great, and so they went away from it.

As a spectator, and as a CN shareholder, even if VIA is not a consideration, I am still convincced that what CN has been doing in Northern Ontario by doubling oversize trains between sidings for meets is dumb, dumb, dumb.

CN people are very proud of how much they wring out of that line. My career experience says, when your management culture is proud of workarounds, you’re in dangerous territory. So I’m doubly convinced that the status quo is unsustainable. But for now it works.

Having said that, the numbers tell the story. CN has 720 million shares, and it is paying $2 and change per share annually in dividends. Fixing the oversize siding thing up north sufficiently to help VIA would easily consume a quarter of the dividend payout for a year, maybe more. Pretty obvious why CN chips away at it, rather than attacking that challenge more aggressively. VIA has no money to offer, so they are dependent on what their landlord can offer. The oversize trains are here to stay..

One man’s workaround is another’s creative innovation, I guess.

- Paul

 

[Darwinkgo]

The purpose of the Canadian is to ensure that there is cross country rail service for the general public, not for people who want a luxury vacation. For the Canadian the Prestiege customers are a bonus, not their primary focus.

You get so close that I have to finish he thought. The purpose is for the general public to know Canada has a long distance train. Because trains have a certain romance to them and a lot of people can imagine maybe one day using it even if they never will. That extends to international prestige and tourism promotion (in the broader sense - not for itself, but in the creation of an image of Canada in peoples mind).

The easiest way to see the practical result of this: the Finance department approved putting a picture of the Canadian on our money, but never approved a recapitalization of the equipment.

 

[lenaitch]

While I have neither expertise nor a dog in the hunt, moving Canadian to CP through Northern Ontario would provide a better customer experience (more scenic) and might even generate bookings for that leg alone (subject to scheduling). However I'm not sure running a couple of aging Budd RDCs from Sudbury all the way to Winnipeg to fulfill the remote service mandate would be sustainable.

 

[sacred]

While I have neither expertise nor a dog in the hunt, moving Canadian to CP through Northern Ontario would provide a better customer experience (more scenic) and might even generate bookings for that leg alone (subject to scheduling). However I'm not sure running a couple of aging Budd RDCs from Sudbury all the way to Winnipeg to fulfill the remote service mandate would be sustainable.

Yeah, speaking personally, I would absolutely use such a service from Toronto to somewhere along Superior. What issues are involved with switching the Canadian from CN to CP here? Is there additional infrastructure needed?

 

[Bordercollie]

It should be able to at Sudbury since they already have shared bi-directional running in that area.

 

[Urban Sky]

New Schedules in effect for the Corridor as of today

https://twitter.com/x/status/1346969407902384133

Further to above Tweet (not the response to it), VIA has released new schedules effective today, according to which trains 46, 55, 65 and 66 will no longer operate. Given that these trains only operated on Mondays, Fridays and Sundays, this is a rather minor change, but it is still the second service reduction (after the third frequency between Quebec, Montreal and Ottawa was cancelled on October 27) during the ongoing second wave. Effective today, the service offerings in the Corridor will be as follows:

• Quebec-Montreal (and v.v.)
  • leaving QBEC at 08:00 (#35) and 13:00 (#37)
  • leaving MTRL at 12:45 (#24) and 18:25 (#28)
• Montreal-Ottawa (and v.v.)
  • leaving MTRL at 12:04 (#35) and 16:50 (#37)
  • leaving OTTW at 10:15 (#24) and 16:10 (#28)
• Montreal-Toronto (and v.v.)
  • leaving MTRL at 08:55 (#63), 11:05* (#65), 13:28 (#67) and 17:10 (#69)
  • leaving TRTO at 08:32 (#62), 11:32 (#64), 15:17* (#66) and 17:02 (#68)
• Ottawa-Toronto (and v.v.)
  • leaving OTTW at 08:40 (#643), 11:50 (#53), 15:23* (#55) and 18:25 (#59)
  • leaving TRTO at 08:32 (#52), 12:17 (#42), 15:32* (#46) and 18:47 (#48)
• Toronto-Windsor (and v.v.)
  • leaving TRTO at 08:40 (#71) and 17:30 (#75)
  • leaving WDON at 09:00 (#72) and 17:45 (#78)
• Toronto-Sarnia (and v.v.)
  • leaving TRTO at 17:40 (#84)
  • leaving SARN at 06:10 (#87)

Note: all trains operate daily, except trains marked with an asterisk (*), which will operate on Mondays, Fridays and Sundays only.

The new PDF schedules can be found here:

https://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/schedules/VIARAIL_Timetable-2021_v20_Temporary_Schedule.pdf

 

[crs1026]

Yeah, speaking personally, I would absolutely use such a service from Toronto to somewhere along Superior. What issues are involved with switching the Canadian from CN to CP here? Is there additional infrastructure needed?

There might be specific points on the route that needed servicing or station facilities, and perhaps track usage might have to be adjusted or track added in spots where freights are stopped or staged and where yard work is done.

Obviously, it would depend on whether CP felt it could accommodate the schedule. So there might be basic operability challenges, or VIA might have to alter the service to meet CP's available slots. One hears stories of the Budd Car not keeping to schedule, so the prospects for the Canadian time-wise might be no better on CP.

All of the engine crews Toronto-Winnipeg are VIA employees. They would have to be relocated. The length of their runs, and their changeoff points, would have to be worked out. Some might seek employment with CN rather than move. There would be a differential in housing prices. If the length of each run was different, there would be winners and losers in income. From a people perspective, one would have to be very confident that it's a good long term switch.

And then there's the question of whether remote service is needed on the CN line anyways, and whether the Canadian and the White River Budd Car were both needed.

And of course what CP would charge vs CN.

I have been led to believe that VIA and CP have looked at this in detail. If all the ducks lined up, I'm sure the change would have happened - intuitively the CP route is more marketable. Either the merits were nice-to-have but not compelling, or there was a showstopper or two.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

If they are to compete with intercity buses in the BC/Alberta region as mentioned earlier, the first thing they need to do is address the causes of delays instead of hiding it.

Are there still intercity (and interprovincial) bus services to compete with VIA in BC/Alberta? And if there is, will there be in 5 to 10 years? The trend seems to be to eliminate them all, as they aren't profitable, with provinces subsidizing regional services instead.

I wonder if (post-Covid) we'll see a VIA uptick if bus services continue to vanish.

 

[roger1818]

What issues are involved with switching the Canadian from CN to CP here? Is there additional infrastructure needed?

If nothing else, the track would need to be safety certified for passenger service where no passenger service currently exists. There may be other upgrades as well, I am not sure.

I have been led to believe that VIA and CP have looked at this in detail. If all the ducks lined up, I'm sure the change would have happened - intuitively the CP route is more marketable. Either the merits were nice-to-have but not compelling, or there was a showstopper or two.

There may be other factors, but I gather one factor in the choice of the northern (CN) route in Ontario in the first place (which still applies), was it would be more expensive to provide supplementary rail service along that route than it is between Sudbury and White River, mostly because of the longer distances involved. The question then becomes, will they make more money from the "nicer" route than they will spend in extra expenses. If the federal government decides that service on the northern route in Ontario is no longer mandatory, then the balance sheet changes significantly.

 

[crs1026]

If the federal government decides that service on the northern route in Ontario is no longer mandatory, then the balance sheet changes significantly.

The interesting thing about that is, during COVID all the other remote services have been cut back, but still are operated at least once a week. Whereas the CN route in Northern Ontario has been eliminated totally. While COVId is an exceptional situation, one wonders if that implies a lower concern for remote service on the Canadian’s current route.

- Paul

 

[Bordercollie]

The interesting thing about that is, during COVID all the other remote services have been cut back, but still are operated at least once a week. Whereas the CN route in Northern Ontario has been eliminated totally. While COVId is an exceptional situation, one wonders if that implies a lower concern for remote service on the Canadian’s current route.

- Paul

It's likely because Northern Ontario has Bus service with ONR, and then train service in the far north.