[drum118]

September 3
Just up loaded photos for this day and still running a month behind doing so

In all the years I shot from the Islington overpass, never seen a VIA train do a wye for one, but saw one today doing.

Tracks are being removed to allow new alignment for the new complex and a possible yard beside it

 

[crs1026]

Agreed. VIA may also want separate cars for economoy sleeping accomodations (i.e. upper and lower births) instead of having them in the same car as the cabins (like they currently are). This would make it easier to provide different services to different accomodation classes, giving more value to for money to those who upgrade and making it more affordable for those who don't.

Being enthusiasts at heart, we always go to equipment as the thing dearest to us - but perhaps in discussing the LD replacement we are missing the need to start with a service model and work back from it to equipment design.
As it happens I am writing this while riding Amtrak’s Empire Builder. It’s a humbling experience in the sense that it closely resembles the kind of train service that we have been ridiculing a certain poster for advocating.
Having said that, it’s clear that the Builder route works because it has received an enormous investment in off-train infrastructure including both track and signalling and station and support facilities. We stopped making that investment thirty years ago, so that certain poster’s belief that we can make it instantly appear is a bit naive. And there are huge differences between the air travel options of VIA’s city points versus northern Montana and North Dakota….so I’m not switching sides and taking back every thing I have argued in this forum recently. But I do wonder if we have fallen victim to a sort of Stockholm syndrome where we are defending past decisions to structure VIA around Prestige abd Silver and Blue where the Amtrak ssrvice model might actually make sense.
So before we second guess what VIA might be planning for its fleet spec - I wonder if this is an opportunity to recalibrate the goal…. And perhaps that certain poster is simply a tad naive, but not necessarily wrong. I will say, I’m mighty impressed with the Empire Builder, and I’m not too proud to say that changes my views in some reapects.
The point being - is Silver and Blue/Prestige what we most want the new train to offer? Would this
More basic service plan be better value for the country?

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

Whereas I do concede that the Empire Builder model might be relevant for the Ocean, which has population centers (although mostly small ones) spread along its route, I simply don’t see these population centers along the Canadian, at least not East of Winnipeg…

 

[lenaitch]

Being enthusiasts at heart, we always go to equipment as the thing dearest to us - but perhaps in discussing the LD replacement we are missing the need to start with a service model and work back from it to equipment design.
As it happens I am writing this while riding Amtrak’s Empire Builder. It’s a humbling experience in the sense that it closely resembles the kind of train service that we have been ridiculing a certain poster for advocating.
Having said that, it’s clear that the Builder route works because it has received an enormous investment in off-train infrastructure including both track and signalling and station and support facilities. We stopped making that investment thirty years ago, so that certain poster’s belief that we can make it instantly appear is a bit naive. And there are huge differences between the air travel options of VIA’s city points versus northern Montana and North Dakota….so I’m not switching sides and taking back every thing I have argued in this forum recently. But I do wonder if we have fallen victim to a sort of Stockholm syndrome where we are defending past decisions to structure VIA around Prestige abd Silver and Blue where the Amtrak ssrvice model might actually make sense.
So before we second guess what VIA might be planning for its fleet spec - I wonder if this is an opportunity to recalibrate the goal…. And perhaps that certain poster is simply a tad naive, but not necessarily wrong. I will say, I’m mighty impressed with the Empire Builder, and I’m not too proud to say that changes my views in some reapects.
The point being - is Silver and Blue/Prestige what we most want the new train to offer? Would this
More basic service plan be better value for the country?

- Paul

Does the Empire Builder (at least the one you are on) seem to have the same national and international tourist demographic? The quality of the services and amenities abord Canadian seem to be the cachet they are marketing.

I read one review that said doing Coach for 40+ hours is not for the faint of heart (or butt, apparently). While that train traverses roughly the same area, rural US, with 10x our population, is likely still 'less rural'. I wonder if there is also a different domestic demographic in the sense that there may be a stronger 'see America' attitude down there than we have in 'see Canada'. I get the sense that to a lot of urban Canadians, 'see Canada' is limited to daytrips and only if they have a Starbucks.

Other than a coveted Sudbury to Toronto commute, I don't see a daily Canadian anything other than a hole into which we throw money. Even if we went Amtrak's model of provincial/local financial support, I don't see many provincial governments jumping aboard. Why would Ontario financially support travelling between Hornpayne and Sioux Lookout?

 

[Northern Light]

Whereas I do concede that the Empire Builder model might be relevant for the Ocean, which has population centers (although mostly small ones) spread along its route, I simply don’t see these population centers along the Canadian, at least not East of Winnipeg…

The Empire Builder has 3 major population centres on the eastern portion of its route, Chicago, Milwakee, and Minneapolis; along its western termini of Seattle/Portland.

It then has a couple of moderate sized centres (towns) like Fargo and Grand Forks as well, in the eastern 1/2, and Spokane towards the west.

Grand Forks to Spokane is pretty thin.

I don't know what the traffic numbers look like when broken down regionally, but I imagine a lot of the non-tourist traffic is concentrated in the Chicago to Minneapolis section.

I do know that Wilmington has inordinate traffic with migrant workers heading to/from the oil fields. As the Canadian doesn't hit Ft. McMurray I'm not sure there's a comparable opportunity.

I think if you look at the non-tourist traffic, you'd have to break the Canadian down into the origin/destination components and consider a smaller sub-route (or routes); and even then, I imagine we are looking at substantial per-rider subsidy to make that viable from a traffic perspective.

 

[crs1026]

Whereas I do concede that the Empire Builder model might be relevant for the Ocean, which has population centers (although mostly small ones) spread along its route, I simply don’t see these population centers along the Canadian, at least not East of Winnipeg…

The Builder has its share of through travellers, and the on/off loads in any one smaller station are not that enormous, although a fair number of seats and berths do turn over along the route. I don’t see the segment east of Winnipeg as inconsistent with this format, especially on the CP route through Thunder Bay and Winnipeg. What I find harder to imagine is drawing many people from planes in Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon, or Winnipeg - the number of flights and fare options are just too convenient.
On this run the demographics run to many elderly people, and a disproportionate number of retirees who have the time to enjoy themselves. Most are going someplace (family visits especially) as opposed to “taking a cruise”. No “foreign” tourists in evidence.
What impresses me is the investment in working stations with newish platforms, lighting, etc. And the retention of working rail plant to speed operations (no backing into station platforms !) East of Marias, the track speed has consistently been 79 mph and only once did we hold for 10 mins for a hotshot freight (the crew called it “The Megatrain”.) This route is heavily congested, mostly with grain trains and plenty of intermodals, but all are consistently around 130 cars and never the longer land barges that one sees in Canada. Amtrak consistently takes priority. The trackbed is far more well built than either Canadian main line, with more graded and level spots for track equipment. I wonder if their MOW productivity is higher, as there seems to be more thought about how to get crews close to the track. It’s a very differently invested railway - not wasteful, but the assets haven’t been picked over the way EHH run railways have been stripped.
My conclusion is that the off-train investment and the railway operating philosophy are key elements and just replacing the rolling stock isn’t going to change anything (although riding Superliners drives home just how obsolete and worn out VIA’s Budd fleet has become… both in design and worn out bolsters, draft gear, and trucks). So even for the Ocean route, an envelope for track upgrades and station amenities is critical.
It’s a bit of a tortoise and hare story - VIA took a fork in the road thirty years ago that looked profitable, where Amtrak has struggled through different regimes and budgets but has gradually attained a sustainable long distance network. I’m just less convinced that Canada made the right choice.
Having said that, I see no likelihood that we will ever undo our choice…. But I will be more vocal that the fleet investment alone is not sufficient to lead to success. And I’m absolutely convinced that we ought to insist on proper track speed and better dispatching than VIA is provided.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

Being enthusiasts at heart, we always go to equipment as the thing dearest to us - but perhaps in discussing the LD replacement we are missing the need to start with a service model and work back from it to equipment design.
As it happens I am writing this while riding Amtrak’s Empire Builder. It’s a humbling experience in the sense that it closely resembles the kind of train service that we have been ridiculing a certain poster for advocating.
Having said that, it’s clear that the Builder route works because it has received an enormous investment in off-train infrastructure including both track and signalling and station and support facilities. We stopped making that investment thirty years ago, so that certain poster’s belief that we can make it instantly appear is a bit naive. And there are huge differences between the air travel options of VIA’s city points versus northern Montana and North Dakota….so I’m not switching sides and taking back every thing I have argued in this forum recently. But I do wonder if we have fallen victim to a sort of Stockholm syndrome where we are defending past decisions to structure VIA around Prestige abd Silver and Blue where the Amtrak ssrvice model might actually make sense.
So before we second guess what VIA might be planning for its fleet spec - I wonder if this is an opportunity to recalibrate the goal…. And perhaps that certain poster is simply a tad naive, but not necessarily wrong. I will say, I’m mighty impressed with the Empire Builder, and I’m not too proud to say that changes my views in some reapects.
The point being - is Silver and Blue/Prestige what we most want the new train to offer? Would this
More basic service plan be better value for the country?

- Paul

I know you are speaking of me. I am not naive to think that it can come back. I know no snap of the finger will bring it back. The first step would be to have all passenger trains in Canada have priority over freight. That takes an act of parliament. That would mean that all via trains would be on time unless they break down. That would build confidence in the existing routes and the existing schedule. At this point, with this government and the likeliness of what is to come, I am just hoping Via survives.

 

[micheal_can]

Whereas I do concede that the Empire Builder model might be relevant for the Ocean, which has population centers (although mostly small ones) spread along its route, I simply don’t see these population centers along the Canadian, at least not East of Winnipeg…

Well then,why not extend the Vancouver - Edmonton train to Winnipeg?

 

[micheal_can]

The Empire ,Builder has 3 major population centres on the eastern portion of its route, Chicago, Milwakee, and Minneapolis; along its western termini of Seattle/Portland.

Chicago 2,600,000
Milwaukee 577,000
Minneapolis 425,000

It then has a couple of moderate sized centres (towns) like Fargo and Grand Forks as well, in the eastern 1/2, and Spokane towards the west.

Fargo 126,000
Grand Forks 59,000
Spokane 230,000

Grand Forks to Spokane is pretty thin.

I don't know what the traffic numbers look like when broken down regionally, but I imagine a lot of the non-tourist traffic is concentrated in the Chicago to Minneapolis section.

I do know that Wilmington has inordinate traffic with migrant workers heading to/from the oil fields. As the Canadian doesn't hit Ft. McMurray I'm not sure there's a comparable opportunity.

I think if you look at the non-tourist traffic, you'd have to break the Canadian down into the origin/destination components and consider a smaller sub-route (or routes); and even then, I imagine we are looking at substantial per-rider subsidy to make that viable from a traffic perspective.

Run a separate service between Edmonton and Winnipeg. To avoid sleepers, split it in Saskatoon. The problem is it has become irrelevant except for tourists. A lot would need to change to change that. I doubt Canada wants to dump the needed resources into Via to change that.

 

[Northern Light]

Chicago 2,600,000
Milwaukee 577,000
Minneapolis 425,000

The Metro numbers for the above are material.

Chicago: 9,400,000

Milwaukee: 1,600,000

Minneapolis/St Paul: 3,000,000

 

[micheal_can]

The Builder has its share of through travellers, and the on/off loads in any one smaller station are not that enormous, although a fair number of seats and berths do turn over along the route. I don’t see the segment east of Winnipeg as inconsistent with this format, especially on the CP route through Thunder Bay and Winnipeg. What I find harder to imagine is drawing many people from planes in Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon, or Winnipeg - the number of flights and fare options are just too convenient.

Convenience comes at a cost. These days, that cost is comfort. The fact that an airline executive has the balls to suggest stand up seats tells you all you need to know.

If I had the power, one of the first things I would do is return the CP route, but have it routed through SSM. This would connect all the major cities. Also, you would need something between Regina -Saskatoon and Calgary-Edmonton To really drive passengers to it.

On this run the demographics run to many elderly people, and a disproportionate number of retirees who have the time to enjoy themselves. Most are going someplace (family visits especially) as opposed to “taking a cruise”. No “foreign” tourists in evidence.
What impresses me is the investment in working stations with newish platforms, lighting, etc. And the retention of working rail plant to speed operations (no backing into station platforms !) East of Marias, the track speed has consistently been 79 mph and only once did we hold for 10 mins for a hotshot freight (the crew called it “The Megatrain”.) This route is heavily congested, mostly with grain trains and plenty of intermodals, but all are consistently around 130 cars and never the longer land barges that one sees in Canada. Amtrak consistently takes priority. The trackbed is far more well built than either Canadian main line, with more graded and level spots for track equipment. I wonder if their MOW productivity is higher, as there seems to be more thought about how to get crews close to the track. It’s a very differently invested railway - not wasteful, but the assets haven’t been picked over the way EHH run railways have been stripped.
My conclusion is that the off-train investment and the railway operating philosophy are key elements and just replacing the rolling stock isn’t going to change anything (although riding Superliners drives home just how obsolete and worn out VIA’s Budd fleet has become… both in design and worn out bolsters, draft gear, and trucks). So even for the Ocean route, an envelope for track upgrades and station amenities is critical.
It’s a bit of a tortoise and hare story - VIA took a fork in the road thirty years ago that looked profitable, where Amtrak has struggled through different regimes and budgets but has gradually attained a sustainable long distance network. I’m just less convinced that Canada made the right choice.
Having said that, I see no likelihood that we will ever undo our choice…. But I will be more vocal that the fleet investment alone is not sufficient to lead to success. And I’m absolutely convinced that we ought to insist on proper track speed and better dispatching than VIA is provided.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

Friendly reminder that we have an entire thread dedicated to railfan fantasies like reviving dedicated Calgary-Saskatoon and Saskatoon-Winnipeg trains, the market for which has died on both sides of the border soon after WWII…:

Lack of meaningful Passenger Rail service outside the Quebec-Windsor Corridor

Lack of meaningful Passenger Rail service outside the Quebec-Windsor Corridor As indicated in its title, this thread is dedicated to the discussion of any passenger rail services outside the Quebec-Windsor Corridor, which lost passenger rail service or have it seen reduced to a less-than-daily...

urbantoronto.ca

 

[ARG1]

The Empire Builder has 3 major population centres on the eastern portion of its route, Chicago, Milwakee, and Minneapolis; along its western termini of Seattle/Portland.

It then has a couple of moderate sized centres (towns) like Fargo and Grand Forks as well, in the eastern 1/2, and Spokane towards the west.

Grand Forks to Spokane is pretty thin.

I don't know what the traffic numbers look like when broken down regionally, but I imagine a lot of the non-tourist traffic is concentrated in the Chicago to Minneapolis section.

I do know that Wilmington has inordinate traffic with migrant workers heading to/from the oil fields. As the Canadian doesn't hit Ft. McMurray I'm not sure there's a comparable opportunity.

I think if you look at the non-tourist traffic, you'd have to break the Canadian down into the origin/destination components and consider a smaller sub-route (or routes); and even then, I imagine we are looking at substantial per-rider subsidy to make that viable from a traffic perspective.

Its worth noting that the Minneapolis <--> Chicago segment has been so successful, that Amtrak launched a 2nd train between these cities a few months ago and called it the Borealis: https://www.amtrak.com/borealis-train

 

[micheal_can]

Its worth noting that the Minneapolis <--> Chicago segment has been so successful, that Amtrak launched a 2nd train between these cities a few months ago and called it the Borealis: https://www.amtrak.com/borealis-train

Which is what should happen with the existing Vancouver - Edmonton train. Ifthe demand is there in the more populated areas,then extend that one train. Of course the funding would need to be there too.

 

[ARG1]

Which is what should happen with the existing Vancouver - Edmonton train. Ifthe demand is there in the more populated areas,then extend that one train. Of course the funding would need to be there too.

Are you really comparing the 7.5 hour ride from Chicago to St. Paul, with the 32 hour ride from Edmonton to Vancouver? That's like adding an extra train from Denver to San Francisco, and even then at least that service runs through major cities like Salt Lake City and Reno...