# VIA pandemic service reductions, restorations and consist (2022)



## jiml

VIA Rail has dropped Business Class from its corridor services and reduced the number of trains in response to the pandemic.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/via-rail-temporarily-cuts-service-between-ontario-and-quebec-1.6314864



Alcohol service had already been suspended on most trains. All VIA1 lounges will also close.


----------



## Bob Dylan

jiml said:


> VIA Rail has dropped Business Class from its corridor services and reduced the number of trains in response to the pandemic.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/via-rail-temporarily-cuts-service-between-ontario-and-quebec-1.6314864
> 
> 
> 
> Alcohol service had already been suspended on most trains. All VIA1 lounges will also close.


Wonder if Amtrak will follow suit?( at least VIA isn't Cancelling Trains for Months @ a time like Amtrak is doing!( with more to come per posts on Rail Forums).


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

jiml said:


> Alcohol service had already been suspended on most trains. All VIA1 lounges will also close.


Because serving alcohol transmits COVID but non alcoholic beverages don't?


----------



## jis

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> Because serving alcohol transmits COVID but non alcoholic beverages don't?


I wonder if VIA passengers were going as bonkers as US air passengers. Allegedly that was the reason for withdrawing alcohol service on several airlines.


----------



## jiml

The alcohol suspension happened prior to the latest service reductions. At the time Ontario had disallowed food and beverage sales at sports venues to prevent mask removal, so that might be a contributing factor, but more likely insufficient staff to sell and serve it. The frequency cuts started today and it sure is quiet near my local level crossing on the main line.


----------



## Urban Sky

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> Because serving alcohol transmits COVID but non alcoholic beverages don't?


Sipping a glass of wine over a period of 30 minutes of continuous mask removal vs. taking off your mask for 15 seconds to take a big gulp out of your water bottle.

Admittedly, this also makes the case for banning tea, coffee, juice and soft drinks (i.e. all drinks but water, preferably of the bottled kind), but that would have probably been too radical for most passengers...


----------



## jis

Any changes to the few longer distance service that may or may not have been running? I can't remember what the status of the Jonquierre and Senneterre service were even pre-pandemic. Did the pandemic change anything?


----------



## Urban Sky

jis said:


> Any changes to the few longer distance service that may or may not have been running? I can't remember what the status of the Jonquierre and Senneterre service were even pre-pandemic. Did the pandemic change anything?



ServicePre-pandemicRamp-downRamp-upMTRL-HLFX (Ocean)3 times per weeksuspended on 2020-03-13once per week as of 2021-08-11
2 times per week as of 2021-12-08MTRL-HERV-JONQ/SENN3 times per weekonce per week, as of 2020-03-23TRTO-WNPG-VCVR (Canadian)2 times per week
(3 times per week during summer between Edmonton and Vancouver)suspended on 2020-03-13once per week (WNPG-VCVR only) as of 2020-12-11
once per week (TRTO-VCVR) as of 2021-05-17SUDB-WHTR3 times per weekonce per week, as of 2020-03-23WNPG-CHUR2 times per week
(3 times per week between The Pas and Churchill)full service maintained throughout the pandemicJASP-PGEO-PRUP3 times per weekalready suspended in February 2020, due to blockades by indigenous protestersonce per week as of 2020-07-05


----------



## jis

Thanks @Urban Sky !


----------



## west point

Drinks? Just go back to grade school. === straws.


----------



## jiml

west point said:


> Drinks? Just go back to grade school. === straws.


Hmmm. Beer through a straw. Maybe not grade school, but...


----------



## John Bredin

Urban Sky said:


> ServicePre-pandemicRamp-downRamp-upMTRL-HLFX (Ocean)3 times per weeksuspended on 2020-03-13once per week as of 2021-08-11
> 2 times per week as of 2021-12-08MTRL-HERV-JONQ/SENN3 times per weekonce per week, as of 2020-03-23TRTO-WNPG-VCVR (Canadian)2 times per week
> (3 times per week during summer between Edmonton and Vancouver)suspended on 2020-03-13once per week (WNPG-VCVR only) as of 2020-12-11
> once per week (TRTO-VCVR) as of 2021-05-17SUDB-WHTR3 times per weekonce per week, as of 2020-03-23WNPG-CHUR2 times per week
> (3 times per week between The Pas and Churchill)full service maintained throughout the pandemicJASP-PGEO-PRUP3 times per weekalready suspended in February 2020, due to blockades by indigenous protestersonce per week as of 2020-07-05


Sounds exactly like 


Bob Dylan said:


> Cancelling Trains for Months @ a time like Amtrak is doing!


  
Except Amtrak never cut a thrice-weakly train, and the first set of thrice-weakly cuts plus this set of cuts until late March are still several months shorter than VIA's cuts.


----------



## neroden

Yeah, VIA's cuts are worse.

To give VIA a miniscule amount of credit, 
(1) they have not received giant piles of funding comparable to what Amtrak got, and the special funding they did get was dedicated to the Corridor, unlike the funding for Amtrak;
(2) unlike the supposedly-money-losing but actually-marginally-profitable trains Amtrak runs, some of these VIA trains (not the Ocean or the Canadian; the "remote services") actually have large marginal costs net of revenues on operations due to extremely low ridership; that is, suspending them actually gains money for VIA, whereas suspending Amtrak trains is documented to not gain money for Amtrak.

Canadian politics in regard to this has always been odd, and arguably malicious. The combination of slashing services to high-population areas while retaining infrequent service as "essential" to low-population areas plays against the strengths of trains (which are good at high-volume, scaling up) and towards their weaknesses (they don't scale down well and are expensive to operate if small and low-capacity), thus guaranteeing financial instability.


----------



## GAT

I would argue (though not maliciously  ) that Canadian politics realizes that retaining infrequent service to remote and low-population areas is one essential element of maintaining national unity in a country as large and geographically diverse as Canada.


----------



## neroden

It's one thing to retain infrequent remote service, it's another to retain it *while* cutting service to major cities


----------



## jiml

neroden said:


> It's one thing to retain infrequent remote service, it's another to retain it *while* cutting service to major cities


I believe they are required to maintain a minimum service to those remote locations regardless of the level to other destinations. VIA and Amtrak are quite different in that regard.


----------



## neroden

jiml said:


> I believe they are required to maintain a minimum service to those remote locations regardless of the level to other destinations. VIA and Amtrak are quite different in that regard.


Which is, indeed, why I am pointing the finger at the Canadian federal government for this policy (VIA's management has no control).


----------



## Urban Sky

neroden said:


> Canadian politics in regard to this has always been odd, and arguably malicious. The combination of slashing services to high-population areas while retaining infrequent service as "essential" to low-population areas plays against the strengths of trains (which are good at high-volume, scaling up) and towards their weaknesses (they don't scale down well and are expensive to operate if small and low-capacity), thus guaranteeing financial instability.





neroden said:


> It's one thing to retain infrequent remote service, it's another to retain it *while* cutting service to major cities


What exactly should VIA (on behalf of the federal government) be doing in your opinion? Cutting the last remaining weekly (as in once every seven days) service to communities without road access, just because the demand is currently not there to offer the cities along the Quebec-Windsor corridor (paralleled by the 401 Highway) the up to 10 departures daily of the full pre-Covid schedule? 

I really don't understand the railfans who are seemingly willing to sacrifice non-Corridor rail services just in the unfounded hope that its subsidies might pay for more Corridor service (Corridor services are already profitable on a direct-cost basis - except for the odd pandemic, of course - and what's preventing more service is the lack of slots and intercity-suitable fleet to schedule them)...


----------



## John Bredin

The absurdity isn't in paying for the essential trains but in *not *being willing to pay for trains in more populated areas. A train serving as the only non-flight access to an isolated community is essential, but so are trains serving places with good roads. The problem is when people and governments consider *only* the former as worthy of government expenditure.

I'm not a Canadian, but if I was, I would want the same out of that federal government as I want out of the U.S. one (and IMHO have *started* to get): more public money for passenger rail generally, and official recognition that passenger service is not expected to be profitable but to bring economic benefits to communities, regions, and the nation well in excess of what the government spends on it.

Also, there are major cities other than on the Corridor. Outside of Covid, a daily Canadian doesn't sound like overkill. I would argue that (again, outside of Covid) a daily train each on the old CP and CN transcontinental lines isn't outlandish.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> I wonder if VIA passengers were going as bonkers as US air passengers. Allegedly that was the reason for withdrawing alcohol service on several airlines.


Violent attacks were listed as a reason for not bringing alcohol back to _coach_ cabins. Alcoholic drinks returned to First Class a long time ago and coach passengers simply get drunk in the airport instead. Not sure if that is helping or not.


----------



## neroden

John Bredin said:


> The absurdity isn't in paying for the essential trains but in *not *being willing to pay for trains in more populated areas. A train serving as the only non-flight access to an isolated community is essential, but so are trains serving places with good roads. The problem is when people and governments consider *only* the former as worthy of government expenditure.
> 
> I'm not a Canadian, but if I was, I would want the same out of that federal government as I want out of the U.S. one (and IMHO have *started* to get): more public money for passenger rail generally, and official recognition that passenger service is not expected to be profitable but to bring economic benefits to communities, regions, and the nation well in excess of what the government spends on it.
> 
> Also, there are major cities other than on the Corridor. Outside of Covid, a daily Canadian doesn't sound like overkill. I would argue that (again, outside of Covid) a daily train each on the old CP and CN transcontinental lines isn't outlandish.


What he said. And daily service to Halifax too.


----------



## neroden

To elaborate, Canadian government policy has created this bonkers situation where:
(1) you can go from White River to Sudbury, but if you want to continue from any of those places to Toronto, get a car! (Or walk five miles to Sudbury Junction, I guess)
(2) during the first Covid service suspension -- you can go from Churchill to Winnipeg, but if you want to continue to Toronto or Edmonton, get a car or fly!

It's pretty ***. If you expect everyone to fly once they get to Winnipeg, why not have them fly all the way to Churchill? Or perhaps the Canadian government expects people who live in Churchill to buy, register, and store cars in Winnipeg?

I mean really. This attitude doesn't even provide real service to the people from these remote communities. It neglects the very concept of a network.


----------



## jiml

neroden said:


> To elaborate, Canadian government policy has created this bonkers situation where:
> (1) you can go from White River to Sudbury, but if you want to continue from any of those places to Toronto, get a car! (Or walk five miles to Sudbury Junction, I guess)
> (2) during the first Covid service suspension -- you can go from Churchill to Winnipeg, but if you want to continue to Toronto or Edmonton, get a car or fly!
> 
> It's pretty ***. If you expect everyone to fly once they get to Winnipeg, why not have them fly all the way to Churchill? Or perhaps the Canadian government expects people who live in Churchill to buy, register, and store cars in Winnipeg?
> 
> I mean really. This attitude doesn't even provide real service to the people from these remote communities. It neglects the very concept of a network.


I'm not one to defend many government decisions, however the two examples you've chosen are defensible. In both cases those trains exist to serve remote (and sometimes otherwise inaccessible) communities, whether the endpoints or the stops in-between. The fact that these routes are able to attract occasional riders from outside their service areas (e.g. tourists during non-pandemic times) is a bonus as opposed to their "raison d'etre". Connections are not a concern. The fact that VIA allocates the minimum resources to the Sudbury train (refurbished RDC's) indicates how little it is valued and they would likely stop operating both if permitted, perhaps maintaining a summer-only train to Churchill at inflated prices like the Canadian. The Churchill train has a disproportionate benefit to indigenous communities (and in fact partly runs on native-owned rails), so even if discontinuance was once a possibility it's not going to fly in a time of reconciliation.


----------



## Urban Sky

jiml said:


> The fact that VIA allocates the minimum resources to the Sudbury train (refurbished RDC's) indicates how little it is valued and they would likely stop operating both if permitted, perhaps maintaining a summer-only train to Churchill at inflated prices like the Canadian.


Whereas I do agree with the rest of your post, I am struggling to understand how you imagine running Sudbury-White River with anything else than the RDCs: Given that a) there remains only one place in Canada which maintains expertise in how to maintain RDCs and that happens to be located in Sudbury, b) there is no other corner in VIA's network from which it is so labor-intensive to retrieve fleet for maintenance than that route (where you need to call in a crew to DH the equipment to Capreol, where it can be attached) and c) there is no longer a wye available at White River, why would you assign anything else than your RDCs (which happen to be bidirectional and only require to see one of VIA's maintenance centers on an annual basis) on that route?

Also, why would VIA have any interest in discontinuing any of its remote (or actually: any of its remaining) routes? There is absolutely no reason to believe that any of that freed-up funding would be reallocated elsewhere at VIA and nobody has less interest in providing individual provinces with a reason to question the need for a federal passenger railroad than VIA itself...


----------



## neroden

jiml said:


> I'm not one to defend many government decisions, however the two examples you've chosen are defensible. In both cases those trains exist to serve remote (and sometimes otherwise inaccessible) communities



It doesn't serve those communities properly if they aren't able to get from their communities to their destinations, such as Toronto. It's a very non-service-oriented attitude to say "Well, you can go to Winnipeg but nowhere else." Very Tsarist.


----------



## Urban Sky

neroden said:


> It doesn't serve those communities properly if they aren't able to get from their communities to their destinations, such as Toronto. It's a very non-service-oriented attitude to say "Well, you can go to Winnipeg but nowhere else." Very Tsarist.


Both, Ontario Northland Motor Coach Services and Air Canada, link the terminal cities of both services, Winnipeg and Sudbury, with Toronto. I know this is a forum for rail fans, but other modes than rail and car do exist, even here in "Tsarist" Canada...


----------



## neroden

Urban Sky said:


> Both, Ontario Northland Motor Coach Services and Air Canada, link the terminal cities of both services, Winnipeg and Sudbury, with Toronto. I know this is a forum for rail fans, but other modes than rail and car do exist, even here in "Tsarist" Canada...



It does show an anti-train attitude, doesn't it?


----------



## John Bredin

I was looking at VIA's Covid-reduced schedules, and apparently Napanee and Port Hope, ON, on the Toronto-Kingston-Ottawa route have "won" the You Can't Get Theah From Heah award. Both towns have two trains *daily* eastward from Toronto to Ottawa but only one train a day *on weekends only* westward to Toronto.  And if you looked at a map and thought "Go east to Kingston and then west from there" the reduced schedule is almost perfectly MIStimed to give only one chance to do that, with a layover of about five hours. 

It seems like VIA dropped trains without thinking about stops that every train doesn't stop at. It *could* add stops to one or two of the westward weekday trains for the duration of the reduction, but that would entail actually adjusting the schedule instead of mechanically dropping columns from the timetable and leaving the remaining columns untouched. To be fair, I think Amtrak did this too with some of the 2020 corridor Covid cuts (the Wolverine service with its morning express train in one direction comes to mind), but the mismatches weren't so egregious.


----------



## John Bredin

John Bredin said:


> I was looking at VIA's Covid-reduced schedules, and apparently Napanee and Port Hope, ON, on the Toronto-Kingston-Ottawa route have "won" the You Can't Get Theah From Heah award. Both towns have two trains *daily* eastward from Toronto to Ottawa but only one train a day *on weekends only* westward to Toronto.  And if you looked at a map and thought "Go east to Kingston and then west from there" the reduced schedule is almost perfectly MIStimed to give only one chance to do that, with a layover of about five hours.
> 
> It seems like VIA dropped trains without thinking about stops that every train doesn't stop at. It *could* add stops to one or two of the westward weekday trains for the duration of the reduction, but that would entail actually adjusting the schedule instead of mechanically dropping columns from the timetable and leaving the remaining columns untouched. To be fair, I think Amtrak did this too with some of the 2020 corridor Covid cuts (the Wolverine service with its morning express train in one direction comes to mind), but the mismatches weren't so egregious.


I may be a vexatious pain in the *** but I decided rather than idly grousing about this on the Internet to send a message to VIA asking about this oddity. I will post if I get a substantive answer.


----------



## Urban Sky

neroden said:


> It does show an anti-train attitude, doesn't it?


If anything, it's an anti-bus attitude, because as much as I prefer trains and would love to explore every corner of this country by rail, as a taxpayer I'm realistic enough to concede that buses offer much better value-for-money, except where you have to transport very high passenger loads, and that clearly favors bus services .

Just have a look at these figures, comparing the financials of VIA's Corridor rail operations with those of Ontario Northland's bus operations:


MetricVIA Rail
(2018, entire network)VIA Rail
(2018, Corridor only)Ontario Northland
(2018, Motor Coach Services only)VIA Rail (rail)
vs. ONTC (bus)Scheduled timetable volume10,983,773 km8,701,131 km3,821,706 km2.9 (Corridor: 2.3) timesDirect operating expenses$328.8 million$217.0 million$11.6 million28.3 (18.7) times- per timetable-km$29.94$24.94$3.049.9 (8.2) timesFully-allocated operating expenses$665.2 million$448.8 million$14.5 million45.9 (31.0) times- per timetable-km$60.56$51.58$3.8015.9 (13.6) timesOperating deficit (Subsidy)$272.6 million$143.4 million$3.6 million76.5 (40.3) times- per timetable-km$24.82$16.48$0.9326.7 (17.7) times
Compiled from: cross-post from previous posts on Urban Toronto, using figures from VIA Rail's Summary of the 2019-2023 Corporate Plan (pp. 18-22) and Annual Plan 2018 (p.9), as well as Ontario Northland's 2017-2018 Annual Report (p. 34)


As much as I personally hate myself whenever I have to take intercity buses, I can't stop myself when reading all these passenger rail proposals brought forward by fellow contributors like @Seaboard92 (I thought I had just seen him posting an interesting comparison of Canada's transcontinental network with that of the Trans-Siberian Railway just below your post, but did he delete it?) from imagining what kind of tightly knit intercity bus network could be funded if the required incremental subsidy need for such a passenger rail service expansion was instead used towards setting up a public nationwide bus service. Even though I'm still waiting for nothing more impatiently than HFR finally being approved and funded, I fault the current Prime Minister for nothing more than for letting his cabinet sit on its hands rather than saving Greyhound's routes and transferring them under a public agency like VIA Rail, but with a proper mandate and framework which allows federal and provincial governments to jointly fund the network according to their priorities...


----------



## neroden

Well, I think we can agree that it's fundamentally an anti-bus *and* anti-train attitude!

The attitude I see is "let them fly".

Thankfully this isn't the attitude of *city* governments in Canada, but it has been the federal government attitude.


----------



## jiml

Urban Sky said:


> Even though I'm still waiting for nothing more impatiently than HFR finally being approved and funded, I fault the current Prime Minister for nothing more than for letting his cabinet sit on its hands rather than saving Greyhound's routes and transferring them under a public agency like VIA Rail, but with a proper mandate and framework which allows federal and provincial governments to jointly fund the network according to their priorities...


You're not wrong. Federally, the priority is getting and keeping votes in urban areas, and the points in-between are unimportant. Limited stop HFR gets the most attention, the most media coverage, etc. (This is not a criticism of any one political party either, since Canada's electoral system favors an urban focus and the result would be the same no matter which party was in power.) A robust national bus network that serves rural areas and their small towns is a money-pit - otherwise the private operators would still be in the picture. Regional bus networks that fill a niche can be successful, e.g. Maritime Bus, Ontario Northland, but even those that aren't fully government-supported sometimes require a shot in the arm: Maritime Bus gets $720,000 in funding to operate routes in northern New Brunswick - Orillia News (orilliamatters.com)


----------



## Seaboard92

Urban Sky said:


> If anything, it's an anti-bus attitude, because as much as I prefer trains and would love to explore every corner of this country by rail, as a taxpayer I'm realistic enough to concede that buses offer much better value-for-money, except where you have to transport very high passenger loads, and that clearly favors bus services .
> 
> Just have a look at these figures, comparing the financials of VIA's Corridor rail operations with those of Ontario Northland's bus operations:
> 
> 
> MetricVIA Rail
> (2018, entire network)VIA Rail
> (2018, Corridor only)Ontario Northland
> (2018, Motor Coach Services only)VIA Rail (rail)
> vs. ONTC (bus)Scheduled timetable volume10,983,773 km8,701,131 km3,821,706 km2.9 (Corridor: 2.3) timesDirect operating expenses$328.8 million$217.0 million$11.6 million28.3 (18.7) times- per timetable-km$29.94$24.94$3.049.9 (8.2) timesFully-allocated operating expenses$665.2 million$448.8 million$14.5 million45.9 (31.0) times- per timetable-km$60.56$51.58$3.8015.9 (13.6) timesOperating deficit (Subsidy)$272.6 million$143.4 million$3.6 million76.5 (40.3) times- per timetable-km$24.82$16.48$0.9326.7 (17.7) times
> Compiled from: previous posts posted on Urban Toronto, using figures from VIA Rail's Summary of the Corporate Plan and Annual Plans 2017 and 2018, as well as Ontario Northland's 2017-2018 Annual Report (p. 34)
> 
> 
> As much as I personally hate myself whenever I have to take intercity buses, I can't stop myself when reading all these passenger rail proposals brought forward by fellow contributors like @Seaboard92 (I thought I had just seen him posting an interesting comparison of Canada's transcontinental network with that of the Trans-Siberian Railway just below your post, but did he delete it?) from imagining what kind of tightly knit intercity bus network could be funded if the required incremental subsidy need for such a passenger rail service expansion was instead used towards setting up a public nationwide bus service. Even though I'm still waiting for nothing more impatiently than HFR finally being approved and funded, I fault the current Prime Minister for nothing more than for letting his cabinet sit on its hands rather than saving Greyhound's routes and transferring them under a public agency like VIA Rail, but with a proper mandate and framework which allows federal and provincial governments to jointly fund the network according to their priorities...



I did not delete it it was deemed off topic and deleted by the moderator. Even though if you ask me comparing the trans con Canadian routes to the Trans Siberian very much on topic because Canada is a country much like Russia it only has two mainlines across the country with a dense region around the area of most population. In Russia that is the Golden Ring while Canada is really just Quebec and Southern Ontario. What irks me is I took thirty minutes to make a good conclusive argument about the similarities and needs that required some timetable research. So I am somewhat upset that it was deleted. 

But the basic point I made is this. 

You have two mainlines across Canada the CN route which hits the following major cities or ridership draws Toronto, Greater Sudbury, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Jasper, and Vancouver. 

The CP route hits these locations. Toronto, Greater Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, Brandon, Regina, Medicine Hat, Calgary, Banff/Lake Louise, Vancouver. 

When you look at the two countries they are remarkably similar as most of the population lives in the same general line across the country with not much north or south of that. Partially because the further north you go the more inhospitable the climate is. 

Now the Trans Siberian has a higher population on it than both the CN or CP routes but it's also like what twice the length. 

I mean the Trans Siberian has Moskva, Yaroslavl, Kirov, Yekaterinburg, Tyumen, Omsk, Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk, Irkutsk, Ulan Ude, Chita, Khabarovsk, and Vladivostok. And a whole lot of nothing in between just like the CN route between Greater Sudbury and Winnipeg. 

Now the Russians have some advantages the Canadians don't have namely RZD runs both the passengers and the freight, it's all double tracked, and electric. But over the entire length of the Trans Sib you have only two trains that run the full length (one of which is every other day), then from Moskva east you have several trains that run halfway ish or to one of the intermediates. From Omsk on to Vladivostok you gain an additional train that has a ton of thru cars on it (Basically imagine if the Canadian ran Winnipeg-Vancouver but with thru cars coming from Chicago, Churchill, Calgary, Medicine Hat, ETC) that train was massive it was at least 20 cars when I was on it (but when I boarded it was only 4). Then you have a few trains that run parts in the middle like the Adler-Tomsk Train. 

So if we were making that about Canada that would be like having three-five trains a day over various portions of the route some with different stopping patterns and destinations. Now that would make it a much better for western Canada but I can't imagine it would draw enough ridership to make it work. 

Now Russia has just as many airports and a well developed civil aviation sphere (arguably better than Canada and USA in terms of on board experience) and a well developed bus network. Now the roads are supposed to be super crappy but I didn't find them too terrible when I was on them in rural Siberia. Now Canada probably has better roads however I haven't been on them to prove it. 

So making a Canada-Russia comparison I think is somewhat on topic when we are discussing VIA Rail and service expansion in the western provinces. I would say VIA has the better rolling stock, and the Canadian has a significantly better on board experience, but the staff are equal at both railroads. 

As far as making an inter-city bus network in Canada I agree with you too it is needed. The trains can't service everywhere and you've lost a lot of branch lines that once had service, and even some of those don't make economic sense right now. But those people do need some form of a transport system. I think with Greyhound imploding that was a bad day for the citizens of Canada and the mobility especially in the rural areas. 

Now I think VIA should also serve in some meaningful way to these smaller towns. Small towns need service in proportion to their needs, just like the larger metropolitan areas do as well.


----------



## John Bredin

John Bredin said:


> I may be a vexatious pain in the *** but I decided rather than idly grousing about this on the Internet to send a message to VIA asking about this oddity. I will post if I get a substantive answer.


VIA responded to my email:


VIA said:


> Since the beginning of the pandemic the health and safety of our passengers and employees have been our number one priority. VIA Rail announced on January 13th 2022, that given the impact on travel demand of tighter COVID-19 restrictions due to the rapid spreading of the Omicron Variant, VIA is temporarily reducing frequencies in the Québec City-Windsor corridor starting Wednesday, January 19, 2022.
> 
> This temporary service reduction in the Corridor has been carefully planned in order to continue to provide essential intercity service on all routes. As we continue to closely monitor the evolution of the pandemic, VIA Rail is ensuring that we can offer our customers options for essential travel in all regions of the country. There will be no reduction in frequencies for the moment on any other routes, but some on-board services have been modified.



This schedule was not "carefully planned," at least not on this particular point. While it may provide essential intercity service on all routes as stated, it clearly doesn't to all stations. Not being Canadian or familiar with the area, perhaps these two stops are sufficiently low-traffic to merit only weekend service, or indeed no service at all with Covid-reduced demand. But then why two trains every day in the other direction? That's clearly a mistake, not the result of conscious planning.


----------



## Urban Sky

John Bredin said:


> VIA responded to my email:
> 
> 
> This schedule was not "carefully planned," at least not on this particular point. While it may provide essential intercity service on all routes as stated, it clearly doesn't to all stations. Not being Canadian or familiar with the area, perhaps these two stops are sufficiently low-traffic to merit only weekend service, or indeed no service at all with Covid-reduced demand. But then why two trains every day in the other direction? That's clearly a mistake, not the result of conscious planning.


No worries, there are also Canadians familiar with the area who seem to agree with what you are saying:



> Last week's press release claimed that "This temporary service reduction in the Corridor has been carefully planned in order to continue to provide essential intercity service on all routes." It's hard to see how stops by 2 westward vs. 14 eastward trains per week constitute careful planning.








Re: VIA corridor frequency reduction, Jan 19







groups.io


----------



## neroden

I agree that the comparison of the Canadian transcontinental routes and the Trans-Siberian is appropriate; they are very similar in population structure (and history of colonization for that matter). On this matter, Russia has done better than Canada; they have always understood that maintaining the railway is necessary to keep the country intact.

This was an explicitly stated govenment reason for the First Canadian Transcontinental (CP) when it was built, stated both by John Macdonald and Alexander Mackenzie -- but more recent Canadian governments seem to have forgotten. And during a time of rising separatism, too. You'd think they'd recognize the importance of it but apparently not.


----------



## Seaboard92

neroden said:


> I agree that the comparison of the Canadian transcontinental routes and the Trans-Siberian is appropriate; they are very similar in population structure (and history of colonization for that matter). On this matter, Russia has done better than Canada; they have always understood that maintaining the railway is necessary to keep the country intact.
> 
> This was an explicitly stated govenment reason for the First Canadian Transcontinental (CP) when it was built, stated both by John Macdonald and Alexander Mackenzie -- but more recent Canadian governments seem to have forgotten. And during a time of rising separatism, too. You'd think they'd recognize the importance of it but apparently not.



Don't forget part of the reason the CP was built on the routing it was built on was to prevent US Expansion into Canada. The original CP Main line in places is actually abandoned because it did not run thru Calgary. It ran via Crowsnest Pass and Kelowana. 

I think it is a major disservice not to have service out towards Calgary and the closer to the border cities. 

The thing about the comparison is it's very much true except you have the ability to go daily over the entire route. And any of the intermediates have more than one train a day to get between them. You have quite a few secondary trains that run half way from Moskva to the east, and one that picks up in Omsk and goes eastward. Combine that with some trains coming from other parts of European Russia going to the halfway points you have a decent service level. 

To relate that to Canada it is like extending the Skeena to Winnipeg. And the Hudson Bay to like Thunder Bay or Toronto. And then throwing some other little trains in like Edmonton-Winnipeg.


----------



## Urban Sky

John Bredin said:


> I was looking at VIA's Covid-reduced schedules, and apparently Napanee and Port Hope, ON, on the Toronto-Kingston-Ottawa route have "won" the You Can't Get Theah From Heah award. Both towns have two trains *daily* eastward from Toronto to Ottawa but only one train a day *on weekends only* westward to Toronto.  And if you looked at a map and thought "Go east to Kingston and then west from there" the reduced schedule is almost perfectly MIStimed to give only one chance to do that, with a layover of about five hours.
> 
> It seems like VIA dropped trains without thinking about stops that every train doesn't stop at. It *could* add stops to one or two of the westward weekday trains for the duration of the reduction, but that would entail actually adjusting the schedule instead of mechanically dropping columns from the timetable and leaving the remaining columns untouched. To be fair, I think Amtrak did this too with some of the 2020 corridor Covid cuts (the Wolverine service with its morning express train in one direction comes to mind), but the mismatches weren't so egregious.





John Bredin said:


> VIA responded to my email:
> 
> 
> This schedule was not "carefully planned," at least not on this particular point. While it may provide essential intercity service on all routes as stated, it clearly doesn't to all stations. Not being Canadian or familiar with the area, perhaps these two stops are sufficiently low-traffic to merit only weekend service, or indeed no service at all with Covid-reduced demand. But then why two trains every day in the other direction? That's clearly a mistake, not the result of conscious planning.





Urban Sky said:


> No worries, there are also Canadians familiar with the area who seem to agree with what you are saying:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Re: VIA corridor frequency reduction, Jan 19
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> groups.io


Rather coincidentally, I've seen that train #51 has been stopping at Port Hope since February 4, which restores the weekday westbound stop in Port Hope (but not Napanee):



Also, frequencies will increase again, as of March 1:





Re: March 1 VIA corridor frequency changes







groups.io


----------



## Northwestern

Here is a VIA train update from TRAINS magazine:









VIA’s ‘Canadian’ restores dome access, will add second round trip in April - Trains


MONTREAL — Without fanfare, VIA Rail Canada this week began allowing passengers on the Canadian and other trains to again sit under glass in dome car seats and have access to onboard lounge facilities. Both had been off limits as a result of health restrictions imposed by the carrier and various...




is.gd





It looks like the Chateau sleepers, on the "Ocean", will return. Also, there will eventually be twice a week runs for the "Canadian", in each direction, from Toronto and Vancouver.

Looking at the table for accommodations and prices on the "Canadian", it seems that only 4 "cabins for one" (roomettes) on Manor sleeping cars are not nearly enough, especially considering the popularity of the Canadian. It also seems like the Canadian needs the Amtrak equivalent of a bedroom accommodation (maybe they do, I can't tell). The price tags also seem excessive. Do they get a lot of passengers taking "prestige class"?

Richard


----------



## jiml

Current Canadian consist departing Toronto on Sunday:

(3) VIA Rail The Canadian Train No 1 Departing Toronto Union Station - March 13, 2022 - YouTube


----------



## Bob Dylan

jiml said:


> Current Canadian consist departing Toronto on Sunday:
> 
> (3) VIA Rail The Canadian Train No 1 Departing Toronto Union Station - March 13, 2022 - YouTube


Now there's a True LD Train Consist!

Compare that to the Sad Sack Consists that Amtrak is running on most of its LD Trains!


----------



## zephyr17

Bob Dylan said:


> Now there's a True LD Train Consist!
> 
> Compare that to the Sad Sack Consists that Amtrak is running on most of its LD Trains!


At least VIA apparently maintained its 1955 Budd fleet in roadworthy condition, which Amtrak failed to do.


----------



## MikefromCrete

First of all, it's a once-a-week train. So total ridership comes nowhere close to even Amtrak's current five days a week LD schedule.

The fact that VIA is still running 70 year old cars is pitiful. Eventually even those Budds will wear out and become unsafe to operate. And VIA has no plans to replace them. Within 10 years there will be no Canadian.


----------



## joelkfla

MikefromCrete said:


> The fact that VIA is still running 70 year old cars is pitiful.


I call it historic, or nostalgic. Is it any way to run a railroad? Maybe not, but I'm glad I got to experience it.


----------



## Urban Sky

MikefromCrete said:


> First of all, it's a once-a-week train. So total ridership comes nowhere close to even Amtrak's current five days a week LD schedule.
> 
> The fact that VIA is still running 70 year old cars is pitiful. Eventually even those Budds will wear out and become unsafe to operate. *And VIA has no plans to replace them.* Within 10 years there will be no Canadian.


You literally were three mouse-clicks away from discovering what VIA's replacement plan is:

#1: Return to the "VIA Rail Canada Discussion" Sub-forum



#2: Select the appropriate thread



#3: Scroll down to the 3rd post



Answer:

They are preparing a Business Case and consulting potential suppliers, before they approach the government to start the procurement process:


----------



## jis

MikefromCrete said:


> First of all, it's a once-a-week train. So total ridership comes nowhere close to even Amtrak's current five days a week LD schedule.
> 
> The fact that VIA is still running 70 year old cars is pitiful. Eventually even those Budds will wear out and become unsafe to operate. And VIA has no plans to replace them. Within 10 years there will be no Canadian.


Indeed, that may be the net outcome. But there is a plan that is maybe gelling, maybe not. There is another thread where this has been discussed and the conclusion has been all over the place ranging from "there will be no overnight trains" to "things should be OK". See:






VIA long distance fleet replacement


It looks like VIA is finally starting the process of replacing its long distance (eg Ocean, Canadian, etc) routes. This is exciting news and the time frame seems to line up with Amtrak so maybe we could see them work together on a joint order? Mostly the requirements would be the same, with VIA...




www.amtraktrains.com


----------



## slasher-fun

"As travel demand continues to progress, VIA Rail Canada is pursuing its gradual service resumption plan and is pleased to be returning most of its services across the country by the end of June 2022. "





BACK ON TRACK - VIA RAIL INCREASES SERVICES ACROSS CANADA IN TIME FOR SUMMER


/CNW Telbec/ - As travel demand continues to progress, VIA Rail Canada (VIA Rail) is pursuing its gradual service resumption plan and is pleased to be...




www.newswire.ca






*Date**Route**Service*April 29th*The _Canadian_2 full frequenciesJune 3rd*The Ocean3 full frequenciesJune 9th*Québec City-Windsor corridorAdditional frequencies across the CorridorJune 10th*Jasper-Prince Rupert3 full frequenciesJune 14th*Sudbury-White River3 full frequenciesJune 29th*Montreal-Senneterre3 full frequenciesJune 29th*Montreal - Jonquière3 full frequencies
(*Specific dates are subject to change slightly as VIA Rail is currently finalizing details, including access to the infrastructure.)


----------



## Northwestern

I just received an email, from VIA, regarding the new schedule for the VIA Canadian.

The new schedule is supposed to start after April 29.

Toronto to Vancouver

Departs Toronto on Sunday and Wednesday:

Leave TOR 0945
Arrive VAN 0800, 4 days later.

Vancouver to Toronto

Departs Vancouver on Monday and Friday

Leave VAN 1500
Arrive TOR 1429, 4 days later.


----------



## zephyr17

The times are the same as they have been.

The Friday departure from Vancouver and Wednesday departure from Toronto are the change.

PS, VIA's station codes for Vancouver and Toronto are VCVR and TRTO. Amtrak's are VAC and TWO. VAN is Amtrak's station code for Vancouver, WA, across the Columbia River from Portland, OR.


----------



## Northwestern

zephyr17 said:


> The times are the same as they have been.
> 
> The Friday departure from Vancouver and Wednesday departure from Toronto are the change.
> 
> PS, VIA's station codes for Vancouver and Toronto are VCVR and TRTO. Amtrak's are VAC and TWO. VAN is Amtrak's station code for Vancouver, WA, across the Columbia River from Portland, OR.



Yeah, you're right. Pardon my laziness in not looking up the correct codes for Toronto and Vancouver.

Well, I'm glad to see the Canadian running twice a week, in each direction. I can remember when it ran 3X/week in each direction. But, 2x a week is fine. I'm glad it is no longer once a week, eastbound and westbound , along with the craziness with Edmonton. I can, however, understand the Covid restrictions..

I have a friend who is of the belief the Canadian might be discontinued altogether. I can't believe that would happen, with the allure of a train ride through the Canadian Rockies. and the tourism dollars involved. If the Canadian goes under, what would take its place? Maybe an inexpensive version of the Rocky Mountaineer? I don't think that the words "inexpensive" and "Rocky Mountaineer" belong in the same sentence.


----------



## zephyr17

I was just onboard earlier this month. The last couple of years before COVID they ran a Vancouver-Edmonton turn as trains 3&4 instead of the 3rd full train that had run in summer months. They are not going to be doing that this year. Two trains is going to be it.

I haven't heard recent rumors of discontinuation. About five years ago (maybe a bit more) there were rampant rumors of turning it over to the Rocky Mountaineer people. That appears to have gone by the board, haven't heard anything about that in years.

Unfortunately, the treatment of the train during COVID has pretty decisively proven the train does not serve a "basic transportation" function. If you don't run it at all for a year, then just once a week, it is pretty clear people can do without it. If discontinuance talk comes up again, basic transportation isn't a useful argument against it any more. It can be rebutted in two words: 2020 and 2021.

Always remember that VIA's entire existence itself is somewhat tenuous. Unlike Amtrak, it has no statutory basis. It exists solely on the basis of an "Order in Council", the Canadian equivalent of an Executive Order. In theory the Prime Minister and Cabinet could abolish it at any time. Imagine if Amtrak existed solely at the will of the sitting President?

Heck, I can remember (and rode it) when it was _daily _(and on its CP home rails)


----------



## jiml

zephyr17 said:


> Heck, I can remember (and rode it) when it was _daily _(and on its CP home rails)


...with another train doing the same distance on CN rails.


----------



## Donald

Planning Westbound on the Canadian Toronto to Vancouver in May 23. Any one know the
consist arrangement ?


----------



## Urban Sky

Donald said:


> Planning Westbound on the Canadian Toronto to Vancouver in May 23. Any one know the
> consist arrangement ?


Here is a consist from almost exactly 3 years ago (i.e. the last pre-Covid summer):

2 F40 locomotives
Baggage car
2 coaches
Skyline
3 Manors
Skyline
Dining car
6 Manors
Skyline
Dining car
Château (regular - crew car)
Château (Prestigie)
Château (Prestigie)
Park (Prestige)






Consist of VIA #2(May 20)







groups.io


----------

