# Restructuring Canadian Rail Service with existing equipment pools



## Seaboard92

A year ago I was bored at work and I was trying to stay awake on a long shift so I started a project redesigning the entire Canadian rail network. In that I have managed to get a far better utilization rate than what VIA has especially on the Chateau Fleet. I have also managed to grow service and add service over the CP Route across Canada. So please take a look at my proposal. 

I did fail at using the entire fleet because I am short one dining car, and three baggage cars. That being said I know a place where VIA could buy those. But to recap the service gains and reductions I'll type them here. 

Long Distance Service Gains
-Skeena extended from Jasper, AB-Edmonton, AB as there should be time in its schedule to make it to Edmonton. 
-6X Weekly service between Vancouver and Kamloops
-3X Weekly service between Kamloops and Calgary
-2X Weekly service between Calgary and Toronto via Winnipeg
-3X Weekly Service up from 2X between Toronto and Winnipeg on the CN routing
-Daily Service between Sudbury-Toronto
-6X Weekly Service between Montreal-Matapedia 
-3X Weekly Service to Gaspe

Corridor Service Gains
-3X Daily service between Calgary and Edmonton
-Daily Palmetto Style Day Train Calgary-Winnipeg
-Daily Palmetto Style Day Train Edmonton-Winnipeg
-Daily Service Thunder Bay-Winnipeg
-3X Daily Service Halifax-St. Johns, NB (also includes the Ocean Moncton-Halifax)

Unchanged Service
-3X Weekly Service Vancouver-Edmonton
-2X Weekly Service Edmonton-Winnipeg
-Hudson Bay Service
-Quebec Rural Trains
-Ontario RDC Service
-3X Weekly Matapedia -Halifax 

Service Reductions
-Loss of four Sleeping Car Lines on CN Vancouver-Winnipeg
-Loss of Prestige Service over the entire CN mainline
-Loss of seven Sleeping Car Lines on CN Toronto-Winnipeg
-Forced Connection at Winnipeg on trains on the CN Mainline
-Loss of Baggage Service on the Corridor

Room for Improvement
-Improved time keeping and track speed on the CN route could result in 3X weekly service between Vancouver and Winnipeg via CN
-Improved Run Time on CP between all points can result in 2 Sets operating Vancouver-Toronto, and one short turning Vancouver-Winnipeg instead of Calgary

Note I only worked with the HEP1 and HEP2 Fleets. If I would take some of the LRC fleet these are some other places I would attempt growth. 

-Prince Albert-Regina via Saskatoon
-Saskatoon-Calgary
-Winnipeg-St. Paul, MN
-Vancouver-Whistler
-Toronto-Chicago, IL
-Quebec City-Moncton Day Train

Of course some other things need to change and that is mostly CN time keeping on their mainline from Winnipeg to just west of Jasper. I don't think CP is as capacity constrained and could probably get passengers out and over the road reasonably close to schedule. 

I look forward to hearing everyones opinions and feedback.


----------



## Urban Sky

Thank you for sharing this interesting and detailed proposal! My apologies in advance for asking this, but what exactly is the problem you are trying to fix? This proposal might be good at what it’s aiming to do, but it’s difficult to tell if you don’t know its objectives...


----------



## Willbridge

Well, we were ready for Edmonton - Winnipeg "daylight" service with the LRC's when they were being delivered and somehow that's been overlooked by the Powers That Be.

It's hard to even talk about it now, but in the 1970's the _Skeena _was extended to Edmonton during peak travel periods because the capacity was needed. That happened again during the brief life of the Band-Aid _Panorama _(Winnipeg<>Melville<>Saskatoon<>Edmonton<>Prince Rupert). There is a European tourist market that would fly into Edmonton and ride the Skeena if it was not chopped into little pieces as it is now. Of course they'd have to find the station in Edmonton.

By the time I moved away there were people talking about provincial funding for Edmonton<>Calgary<>Lethbridge<>Shelby but the political people weren't ready for the message that would send.


----------



## Seaboard92

Urban Sky said:


> Thank you for sharing this interesting and detailed proposal! My apologies in advance for asking this, but what exactly is the problem you are trying to fix? This proposal might be good at what it’s aiming to do, but it’s difficult to tell if you don’t know its objectives...



My objective is the fact that the Canadian passenger rail network avoids a significant amount of towns, and provides an abysmal level of service where it does. 

Take the fact that Calgary, Regina, Thunder Bay, and Moose Jaw lack any passenger rail service of any kind. Then look at the Canadian east of Edmonton it only runs two times a day. I was able to upgrade the section to having a daily train as well as the twice weekly service to Winnipeg. Now if I could speed the timetable up over the CN I might be able to extend three times weekly Vancouver-Winnipeg service in addition to the daily corridor style train. 

The only section of the network that has less than daily in this proposal is Thunder Bay-White River, ON, Jasper, AB-Kamloops, BC, Calgary, AB-Kamloops, BC, and the two Atlantic trains east of Matapedia, QC. 



Willbridge said:


> Well, we were ready for Edmonton - Winnipeg "daylight" service with the LRC's when they were being delivered and somehow that's been overlooked by the Powers That Be.
> 
> It's hard to even talk about it now, but in the 1970's the _Skeena _was extended to Edmonton during peak travel periods because the capacity was needed. That happened again during the brief life of the Band-Aid _Panorama _(Winnipeg<>Melville<>Saskatoon<>Edmonton<>Prince Rupert). There is a European tourist market that would fly into Edmonton and ride the Skeena if it was not chopped into little pieces as it is now. Of course they'd have to find the station in Edmonton.
> 
> By the time I moved away there were people talking about provincial funding for Edmonton<>Calgary<>Lethbridge<>Shelby but the political people weren't ready for the message that would send.


I actually forgot about Lethbridge. I would definitely want to extend that corridor south to that. I think you could pull some ridership if the times were right. And you are absolutely right the Skeena would be a far more popular train if it was extended into Edmonton. Now for that CN would have to be better at dispatching that segment, but with them working on adding a second main that might just work out in a few years. 

I didn't even think about a Panorama train that actually would make a lot of sense, and it would give better mobility to the Skeena line where people complain about the overnight stop.


----------



## John Santos

Shelby as in Shelby MT? Connect to the EB? Would definitely have considered that when I went to Calgary in Jan/Feb 2018 for work.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

John Santos said:


> Shelby as in Shelby MT? Connect to the EB? Would definitely have considered that when I went to Calgary in Jan/Feb 2018 for work.



If a Winnipeg-Grand Forks connection to the EB has never been establish in the 50 years since Amtrak Day.......and not even a bus connection has lasted.......I see little chance for Calgary-Shelby!


----------



## Palmland

Interesting proposal and I like making Via a truly national network with the operation over the CP into Vancouver although I suspect Rocky Mountaineer wouldn’t be too happy. I assume there would still be through cars from Toronto to Vancouver.

And I‘d vote for a reduced service on one of your routes to support a U.S connection via Winnipeg-Grand Forks to Chicago, as NS Via suggests, or even farther west on the route of the Soo-Dominion. And while we’re dreaming, how about restoring narrow gauge service on PEI!


----------



## jiml

Palmland said:


> And while we’re dreaming, how about restoring narrow gauge service on PEI!


I believe it was all upgraded to standard gauge prior to abandonment. Were you perhaps thinking of the other island - Newfoundland?


----------



## NS VIA Fan

You'd have to go back to the 1920s to find narrow-gauge on PEI. There were through standard-gauge passenger cars handled on the ferry to the mainland until the late '60s and the railway was abandoned there in '89.

It was Newfoundland that had narrow-gauge passenger trains right up 'till 1988. They were never transferred to VIA but were still shown in the VIA Timetable with a note at the top of the page that they were operated by CN.







CN Newfoundland Roadcruiser Bus ticket from 1996.....20 years after nearly everything else had gone to VIA!




[


----------



## railiner

Palmland said:


> Interesting proposal and I like making Via a truly national network with the operation over the CP into Vancouver although I suspect Rocky Mountaineer wouldn’t be too happy. I assume there would still be through cars from Toronto to Vancouver.
> 
> And I‘d vote for a reduced service on one of your routes to support a U.S connection via Winnipeg-Grand Forks to Chicago, as NS Via suggests, or even farther west on the route of the Soo-Dominion. And while we’re dreaming, how about restoring narrow gauge service on PEI!





Palmland said:


> And while we’re dreaming, how about restoring narrow gauge service on PEI!


And how about Railiner Service on Vancouver Island, while we’re at it?


----------



## railiner

Remember?


----------



## NS VIA Fan

railiner said:


> Remember?



Yup!......and I had a couple of great rides on it! But that nice little station VIA constructed in Victoria is gone. It was demolished with the construction of the new Johnson Street bridge but the tracks are still in place to about 100 metres west of the bridge (in front of the Delta Hotel).









Google Maps


Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.




goo.gl


----------



## jiml

Wasn't the Vancouver Island service the victim of very bad track more than low ridership? The passenger numbers weren't great, but the rehab cost just couldn't be justified IIRC.


----------



## Palmland

jiml said:


> Wasn't the Vancouver Island service the victim of very bad track more than low ridership? The passenger numbers weren't great, but the rehab cost just couldn't be justified IIRC.


That's what I heard. At the time we had a nephew living in Victoria. We were able to see it a few years earlier in Nanaimo and walked through it. I believe it was a crew change there. 



jiml said:


> I believe it was all upgraded to standard gauge prior to abandonment. Were you perhaps thinking of the other island - Newfoundland?


Thanks for the correction. I had just read an article on the Newfoundland trains but was thinking of PEI as a place still on our bucket list.



Seaboard92 said:


> -3X Weekly Service to Gaspe


Absolutley! We had a camping trip to Gaspe and loved it. Gorgeous country. But with the small population probably better suited to a DMR rather than a full consist.


----------



## Seaboard92

Palmland said:


> Interesting proposal and I like making Via a truly national network with the operation over the CP into Vancouver although I suspect Rocky Mountaineer wouldn’t be too happy. I assume there would still be through cars from Toronto to Vancouver.
> 
> And I‘d vote for a reduced service on one of your routes to support a U.S connection via Winnipeg-Grand Forks to Chicago, as NS Via suggests, or even farther west on the route of the Soo-Dominion. And while we’re dreaming, how about restoring narrow gauge service on PEI!



The goal was to make VIA a truly national network to give the western and Atlantic provinces better mobility. And I think I did a fairly good job. In my proposal the train on CP goes all the way from Vancouver-Toronto two days a week and Vancouver-Calgary once weekly. Now if I could speed the timetable up enough I could potentially get three days service as far as Winnipeg before I start needing cars. I stretched it fairly thin. In the winter when the need for trains is higher due to winter weather condition I might be able to run trains all the way to Toronto three days a week with the seasonal consist shrinking. 

Honestly I would love to see the Mountaineer come back to get a Chicago-Vancouver, BC train. To me that would be worth buying more equipment.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

Palmland said:


> Absolutley! We had a camping trip to Gaspe and loved it. Gorgeous country. But with the small population probably better suited to a DMR rather than a full consist.



VIA's Gaspe trains were always substantial and heavy on sleepers. When VIA restructured the routes to the Maritimes in Oct 1979.....the Gaspe train became an RDC reacquiring a connection with the Montreal – Halifax trains at Matapedia. But after 3 years VIA went back to a full service train.....'The Chaleur' and it lasted until 2014 (technically the Chaleur is still only suspended until the track is restored)


----------



## jiml

NS VIA Fan said:


> (technically the Chaleur is still only suspended until the track is restored)


Proving that Amtrak doesn't have a monopoly on that strategy. 






Question about truncation of Sunset Limited


What was the reason that service on the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans was never restored? There seem to be be a ton of articles talking about proposal to restore train service between New Orleans and Jacksonville, but I haven't found anything that explains why service was never restored...




www.amtraktrains.com


----------



## sttom

Temporarily suspended 6 years ago? What is the record for North American trains being temporarily suspended and never returning?


----------



## Seaboard92

NS VIA Fan said:


> VIA's Gaspe trains were always substantial and heavy on sleepers. When VIA restructured the routes to the Maritimes in Oct 1979.....the Gaspe train became an RDC reacquiring a connection with the Montreal – Halifax trains at Matapedia. But after 3 years VIA went back to a full service train.....'The Chaleur' and it lasted until 2014 (technically the Chaleur is still only suspended until the track is restored)



I actually would have liked to have had more sleepers on it but I can't do it because then you have to start making some difficult calls. You can't cut the two cars allotted to the Hudson Bay because that's a political football I wouldn't want to touch. 

Then you have the rural CN line from Winnipeg-Toronto where I don't really want to touch the sleepers there because it's a long enough route it's worth the upgrade. That being said however the load factor for sleepers boarding at those stations is probably low enough to justify dropping to one car. 

The only place I could see where I could get a total of four sleepers which would give each Gaspe Train two cars in addition is the Canadian if I can cut the four cars in crew dorm status. 

The issue then becomes less revenue space for passengers which could be fixed if we went to buying four former crew dorms from private owners off the Amtrak auction. Of course you have to find four owners willing to sell you a perfectly good Budd car. I know for a fact I wouldn't be willing. But you might be able to get some takers. 

That being said if VIA would call them and ask for a long term lease I can't imagine anyone balking at it. 

VIA is constrained by it's equipment at the moment, and as the Ocean goes back to being a HEP train it's going to be even more constrained. 

Personally I don't see why we can't run a daily Canadian with far shorter consist.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

jiml said:


> Proving that Amtrak doesn't have a monopoly on that strategy.



VIA suspended the Chaleur due to track conditions but said they would return when the track is again safe to operate on.

This year there has been major track work completed along the Gaspe Coast including new ties and re-ballasting as well as new bridges and trestles constructed.

Check out this site (it's bilingual) and scroll about half way down for pictures of the major work done constructing a new bridge at the Cascapedia River and also new trestle work:






Coalition des Gaspésiens pour le retour du train passager de VIA Rail – Tous ensemble pour le retour du service de VIA Rail à New Carlisle en 2023







www.gaspetrain.org





And if you're on Facebook......search for this group _”Help Save the Railway on the Gaspe Coast”_ for more photos.


----------



## jiml

Interesting. Is there much industry beyond the fan blade company?

As an aside, those fan blade trains are something to see - all across North America. You wonder how they make it around some curves and pass other trains on non-straight track.


----------



## Urban Sky

Finally had the time to take a look at your proposal. You really have to start with a timetable before you determine how many sets you need per service:

Hudson Bay with two sets: How do you do maintenance and repairs with less than 20 hours scheduled between arrival time of #692 in WNPG and departure of #693, let alone with #692 routinely arriving many hours late?
"Daily Palmetto Style Day Train Edmonton-Winnipeg" with two sets: How do you run a daily train with a scheduled one-way run time of (currently) 24-26 hours (and subject to frequent delays of multiple hours) with only two trainsets and without any sleeper accommodation?
"Daily Palmetto Style Day Train Calgary-Winnipeg" with two sets: How do you run a daily train with a scheduled one-way run time of 15-16 hours (back in 1989, so likely much longer today, especially if the timings on the CN line are any indication) with only two trainsets and without any sleeper accommodation?
When do you perform extensive maintenance (i.e. the kind of maintenance which takes multiple days and sometimes even weeks to perform) or repairs if you assign 100% of your fleet for revenue service?
I'm looking forward to see a more refined version of your proposal, but I would suggest to first start with an assessment of what kind of transportation options are already available on the markets you are contemplating to serve and then determine what kind of travel times and frequencies you would need to become somewhat commercially relevant, before determining what markets might support the reintroduction of passenger rail services... 

Oh yeah, about these LRC cars you want to re-deploy in the West once the new Corridor fleet arrives:


> Via’s LRC (Light, Rapid, Comfortable) fleet was built by Bombardier between 1981 and 1984. The LRCs are in the final phase of a major refurbishment program, but this does not alter the fact that these lightweight train cars were not designed to operate for 36 years and counting. Many are exhibiting structural problems and will need to be replaced soon for safety and reliability reasons.











Shron: Via Rail's fleet is obsolete. Can't we do better?


Some of our nation’s busiest trains are 70 years old, and this is a disgrace.




ottawacitizen.com








jiml said:


> Proving that Amtrak doesn't have a monopoly on that strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question about truncation of Sunset Limited
> 
> 
> What was the reason that service on the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans was never restored? There seem to be be a ton of articles talking about proposal to restore train service between New Orleans and Jacksonville, but I haven't found anything that explains why service was never restored...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.amtraktrains.com


Just because you don't grasp the difference between operational funding (i.e. the deficit between train revenues and operating costs, which is automatically paid by the taxpayer) and capital funding (i.e. funding which needs to be approved by the government _before_ it can be used to pay for infrastructure/fleet acquisitions/upgrades), doesn't mean that that there is a conspiracy against restoring services which the federal government has deemed as being part of the mandate of its Crown Corporation. If you insist on blaming someone for the seven years (and counting!) without passenger rail service to the Gaspé peninsula, why not start with the provincial government which could (until very recently) not be bothered to allocate any significant investments into the derelict rail infrastructure it owns...?


----------



## west point

Your solution will work once Canada passes proper legislation ? p


----------



## NS VIA Fan

sttom said:


> Temporarily suspended 6 years ago? What is the record for North American trains being temporarily suspended and never returning?



VIA is at the mercy of the owners of the infrastructure. If the track has deteriorated.....they can't operate until it's safe and that might take years for the stakeholders to tap funding sources before reconstruction starts.

I'm thinking here of the Chaleur, Malahat and Churchill (Hudson Bay) trains. While CN and CP still owed the track on these branchline routes it was maintained to an acceptable standard. Once the routes passed to short-line freight operators the track was then maintained to their requirements and once the freight disappeared......maintenance deteriorated.

In the case of the Churchill route the shortline operator just walked away after major damage to the track structure from flooding.

The Bras d'Or ended when the CBNS advised they would be applying to abandon the track east of Port Hawkesbury to Sydney.

The Atlantic ended when CP applied to abandon the route across Maine.....and it was actually abandoned for several days before a deal was struck with a short-line operator. Interesting to see CP taking back this route now after 25 years but I don't see the Atlantic returning!

And VIA was forced to move the Canadian to the Bala Subdivision from the more populated route through Barrie and Orillia north of Toronto when CN abandoned the Newmarket Subdivision.

VIA is usually given the option to purchase the routes prior to abandonment but it doesn't make sense when a train is only running tri-weekly. VIA has exercised this option where it does make sense and now owns nearly the entire 230 km line from Brockville to Coteau through Ottawa and also from Chatham to Windsor.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

Seaboard92 said:


> VIA is constrained by it's equipment at the moment, and as the Ocean goes back to being a HEP train it's going to be even more constrained.



Everything I've seen about the Ocean when it returns......is that it will be a 'Hybrid Train' with a mixture of both Budd and Renaissance equipment. VIA needs the Rens to provide the accessible accomodations. The Ren coaches have wheelchair spaces and accessible washrooms and the sleepers have accessible bedrooms.


----------



## jiml

Urban Sky said:


> Just because you don't grasp the difference between operational funding (i.e. the deficit between train revenues and operating costs, which is automatically paid by the taxpayer) and capital funding (i.e. funding which needs to be approved by the government before it can be used to pay for infrastructure/fleet acquisitions/upgrades), doesn't mean that that there is a conspiracy against restoring services which the federal government has deemed as being part of the mandate of its Crown Corporation. If you insist on blaming someone for the seven years (and counting!) without passenger rail service to the Gaspé peninsula, why not start with the provincial government which could (until very recently) not be bothered to allocate any significant investments into the derelict rail infrastructure it owns...?


I'm not really sure why a one-line comment justifies a personal attack, since there was nothing inaccurate in comparing the suspended Gaspe service to the suspended Amtrak service in north Florida. Let's see:
Deteriorating track conditions contribute to timekeeping and scheduling issues. Check.
Shortline involvement compounds problem. Check.
Passing responsibility for upgrades between various levels of government. Check.
Takes an advocacy group to draw attention. Check.

The real issue is that it has taken an objective observer - in this case an American with no "horse in the race" - to point out what VIA apologists have never grasped: it is not a national network. It certainly once was, but its political masters in the past reduced it to a point where it served only vote-rich Quebec and Southern Ontario with only one train east of Quebec and 2 1/2 (the Skeena is the half) west of Ontario. That leaves large segments of the country, including many major cities, not served. If a way can be found to better utilize existing resources to better serve the whole country, I would think VIA supporters would back the proposal and make constructive additions, rather than say why it can't be done.


----------



## Seaboard92

jiml said:


> The real issue is that it has taken an objective observer - in this case an American with no "horse in the race" - to point out what VIA apologists have never grasped: it is not a national network. It certainly once was, but its political masters in the past reduced it to a point where it served only vote-rich Quebec and Southern Ontario with only one train east of Quebec and 2 1/2 (the Skeena is the half) west of Ontario. That leaves large segments of the country, including many major cities, not served. If a way can be found to better utilize existing resources to better serve the whole country, I would think VIA supporters would back the proposal and make constructive additions, rather than say why it can't be done.



Thank you for that Jim. And every point you made is pretty much what my attempts were. But Now I'm going to address the concerns. I might argue I have a horse in a small town NE of Saskatoon at the moment.

As far as the Hudson Bay question how does VIA currently handle it? As I see how the operation runs right now from the outside that there are two consists that run on the Hudson Bay and that is very much how VIA handles the train. Every time I have passed the WMC when in Winnipeg there hasn't been any equipment visible. And the fact that a late arriving train has turned as a late departing train in the past I find it hard to believe they aren't doing this operation. In theory you can get quite a few things done in a 20 hour turn around time. 

I'm looking at the Edmonton-Winnipeg (800.9 Miles) and Calgary-Winnipeg (831.6 Miles) now lets look at some Amtrak example routes. The Palmetto (830 Miles), and the Carolinian (704 Miles). Now you can make the argument that both of those trains take advantage of the NEC's 225 miles above 100 miles an hour. But I would argue that the average speed isn't much better than the diesel sections especially on the Palmetto which makes eight intermediate stops in that market. On average of once every thirty miles. 

Now let's look at VIA's Western Route when I look at the timetable I see a large dwell time at Saskatoon which could easily be cut down, and some other spots where a large amount of fluff has been added to the timetables. 

Now if you could get CN to agree to reasonable timekeeping and restricting their train lengths so that everything fits in the sidings. Or better yet fully double tracking their route which it sorely needs you just need to average 50 miles an hour to make the run in 16 hours. And if I remember correctly speed in Canada is much higher than the arbitrary 79 mph we have in the USA. So if you could get a clean run at it I wouldn't be surprised if you could make it in 16 hours. 

Now lets turn to CP. You would have to average 51 miles an hour. Now their railroad is much more fluid than CN's. So it could potentially be done relatively easily. Remember part of the problem with CN is that the Chicago-Pacific Ports intermodal train run concurrent Jasper to Winnipeg. Whereas the ones on CP run to Moose Jaw. So you are fighting less traffic. 

Now lets turn and look at the third page of my report and look at VIA's current utilization rates specifically on the higher end. 
-Manor Sleepers: 90 Percent
-Skyline Domes: 93 Percent

But once we convert the Ocean into a HEP train which is going to happen one of these days. Even if a few hybrids run in the intermittent time. 
-Diners: 83 Percent (and in tourist peak season the Hudson Bay throws it to 100)
-Skylines will likely move to 100 percent. But you'll be short a car somewhere. 

You should also note on page nine of my report I listed the equipment that VIA would need to acquire to be successful in this. Which for a reminder was. 
-3 Diners (1 Revenue service, 2 Protect)
-10 Baggage Cars (3 for Service, 7 for Protect)
-2 Skylines (For Protect Service)
-5 Crew Dorms (4 for Service, 1 for Protect): This then brings down the Chateau utilization rate, or provides a surge fleet for additional sleepers. 

The LRC cars have recently been rebuilt I didn't initially want to use them either. But my good friend Jim has told me several have been rebuilt and they could provide good interim service while we look for more rolling stock, or order more. 

Note I only did the peak season consists on trains because I full well expect consists to shrink in the off peak times allowing a long maintenance period in the winter. 

I actually thought out every part of this proposal backwards and forwards from an operations stand point. I'm not an academic I've been on the ground in rail operations I have a firm grasp of the situation on the ground. 

That being said I also understand the academic arguments to argue them with those who are academics.


----------



## Willbridge

NS VIA Fan said:


> If a Winnipeg-Grand Forks connection to the EB has never been establish in the 50 years since Amtrak Day.......and not even a bus connection has lasted.......I see little chance for Calgary-Shelby!


Edmonton <> Calgary <> Shelby was an Albertan political statement that I heard from time to time as VIA slashed one Prairie province service after another.


----------



## Willbridge

Seaboard92 said:


> ''''
> I'm looking at the Edmonton-Winnipeg (800.9 Miles) and Calgary-Winnipeg (831.6 Miles) now lets look at some Amtrak example routes. The Palmetto (830 Miles), and the Carolinian (704 Miles). Now you can make the argument that both of those trains take advantage of the NEC's 225 miles above 100 miles an hour. But I would argue that the average speed isn't much better than the diesel sections especially on the Palmetto which makes eight intermediate stops in that market. On average of once every thirty miles.
> 
> Now let's look at VIA's Western Route when I look at the timetable I see a large dwell time at Saskatoon which could easily be cut down, and some other spots where a large amount of fluff has been added to the timetables.
> 
> Now if you could get CN to agree to reasonable timekeeping and restricting their train lengths so that everything fits in the sidings. Or better yet fully double tracking their route which it sorely needs you just need to average 50 miles an hour to make the run in 16 hours. And if I remember correctly speed in Canada is much higher than the arbitrary 79 mph we have in the USA. So if you could get a clean run at it I wouldn't be surprised if you could make it in 16 hours.
> 
> Now lets turn to CP. You would have to average 51 miles an hour. Now their railroad is much more fluid than CN's. So it could potentially be done relatively easily. Remember part of the problem with CN is that the Chicago-Pacific Ports intermodal train run concurrent Jasper to Winnipeg. Whereas the ones on CP run to Moose Jaw. So you are fighting less traffic. ....



Regarding the dwell in the outskirts of Saskatoon: the 29 October 1971 CN timetable shows the dwell was 25 minutes in both directions.

CN Train 1 from Winnipeg to Edmonton took* 17:16* and Train 2 returned in *16:55*. I found my 26 October 1975 CP Rail schedule and it shows their Train 1 from Winnipeg to Calgary in *16:40* and Train 2 made the return in *16:10*. It appears that on this long a stretch that we can actually see the effect of the directional priority rule of dispatching. And keep in mind that the CN trains still had some heavyweight cars in the consists. In the summer and around holidays they were handling trains of two dozen cars, including time to service them at Saskatoon or Moose Jaw.

Both railways were running what we referred to as the "three-night schedule" between Montreal/Toronto and Vancouver. During the transition to VIA they dropped back to the "four-night schedule" formerly operated by the CN _Continental_ and the CP _Dominion _with steam power and heavy head-end traffic. This was done to improve on-time performance. I don't have statistics but for over a year my trolley coach on 101 Street was supposed to go under the westbound Super during my morning commute and there were many days that it was not there.

There are some advantages to a four-night schedule. However, schedule adherence does not seem to be one of them. As the Boxing Day 1977 photo in Vancouver shows, it was a great schedule for cinematic steamy farewells. Winter daylight was from Kamloops (already a bit late) to Edson.

Regarding the LRC Daylights idea there were a lot of pros and cons. Arriving in Winnipeg at midnight is not the same experience as the _Shasta Daylight _in San Francisco or the _City of New Orleans _in New Orleans. Eastbound with the time change bites. But they would have nicely complemented a three-night transcon on the CP and a _Panorama / Skeena _on the CN west of Winnipeg. It was an experiment worth researching and then trying.


----------



## Urban Sky

jiml said:


> I'm not really sure why a one-line comment justifies a personal attack


You wrote:


jiml said:


> Proving that Amtrak doesn't have a monopoly on that strategy.


... and linked to a post in the thread "Question about truncation of Sunset Limited":


jis said:


> Locally there is considerable support for development of the corridor NOL - JAX - ORL, though no state government level support from Florida yet. There is very little support however for an extension of the Sunset Limited. The lead outfit navigating all this is the Southern Rail Commission.


Following the definition of the word "strategy" as "a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim", you are blaming the three main factors preventing the resumption of service on the most-Eastern section of the Sunset Limited (lack of funding, lack of political support and lack of cooperation by the host railways) on Amtrak, even though Amtrak neither approves its own funding, commands politicians nor exercises any legislative or ownership control on private railroads. I'm sorry if you perceived my comment as an attack, but I really struggle to see much signs that you grasp what is within the control of public intercity passenger rail operators in North America and what isn't...



jiml said:


> , since there was nothing inaccurate in comparing the suspended Gaspe service to the suspended Amtrak service in north Florida. Let's see:
> Deteriorating track conditions contribute to timekeeping and scheduling issues. Check.
> Shortline involvement compounds problem. Check.
> Passing responsibility for upgrades between various levels of government. Check.
> Takes an advocacy group to draw attention. Check.


Agreed, there is little difference between the suspension of passenger rail service between New Orleans and Jacksonville and that onto the Gaspé peninsula, which means that your accusations in the latter case are just as unjustified and baseless as when blaming the continued partial suspension of the Sunset Limited on Amtrak.



> The real issue is that it has taken an objective observer - in this case an American with no "horse in the race" - to point out what VIA apologists have never grasped: it is not a national network. It certainly once was, but its political masters in the past reduced it to a point where it served only vote-rich Quebec and Southern Ontario with only one train east of Quebec and 2 1/2 (the Skeena is the half) west of Ontario. That leaves large segments of the country, including many major cities, not served. If a way can be found to better utilize existing resources to better serve the whole country, I would think VIA supporters would back the proposal and make constructive additions, rather than say why it can't be done.


I don't know who in his right mind would deny the obvious fact that VIA ceased to operate a national network on January 15, 1990, when the federal government of that time cut all intercity routes outside the Quebec-Windsor Corridor and all transcontinental services beyond thrice-weekly service on the Ocean, Atlantic and the what used to be the Super-Continental and that the remaining network deprives 13* out of the 41 Census Metropolitan Areas (i.e. metropolitan areas with a population of more than 100,000 people in the 2016 Census) of passenger rail service, but it certainly wasn't me. Apart from five "regional" services providing an essential transport link into remote communities (JONQ, SENN, WHTR, CHUR and PRUP), VIA's rail network outside of the Quebec-Windsor Corridor only consists of two tourist trains, which provide very limited mobility options to non-tourists...

*for those interested, we are talking about Calgary (5th-largest CMA), Victoria (#15), Regina (#18), Sherbrooke (#19), St. John's (#20), Kelowna (#22), Saint John (#31), Peterborough (#32), Thunder Bay (#33), Lethbridge (#34), Nanaimo (#35), Fredericton (#39) and Red Deer (#41) - with a combined population of 3,403,854 or 9.7% of Canada's total population in the 2016 Census


----------



## Seaboard92

If you want to get a good grasp at why the Canadian runs late all the time may I suggest the game Train Dispatcher 3.5 and downloading the territories made by Crossbunk Productions. So far they have done the Canadian route from Toronto to Capreol and Capreol to Armstrong. Other Canadian routes they have done are Toronto Union Station, and the entire VIA corridor from Montreal to the west. 

I just tried the Capreol to Armstrong section and over that entire territory No. 2 the Canadian ran 25 minutes late at it's latest. And that was mainly due to having to meet several freight trains that were too long to fit in any siding. There are frequent sidings on the route but most of them are too short to do any good. On the freight side I delayed a few trains just because I had to hold them for trains 50 miles away because there weren't long enough sidings between the two massive trains. It would really behoove CN's management to try this game so they can understand the jigsaw puzzle they've built for their dispatchers to play with day in and day out. 

It isn't just the Canadian that gets messed up with these long freights it is the freights as well.


----------



## WWW

Seaboard92 said:


> If you want to get a good grasp at why the Canadian runs late all the time may I suggest the game Train Dispatcher 3.5 and downloading the territories made by Crossbunk Productions. So far they have done the Canadian route from Toronto to Capreol and Capreol to Armstrong. Other Canadian routes they have done are Toronto Union Station, and the entire VIA corridor from Montreal to the west.
> 
> I just tried the Capreol to Armstrong section and over that entire territory No. 2 the Canadian ran 25 minutes late at it's latest. And that was mainly due to having to meet several freight trains that were too long to fit in any siding. There are frequent sidings on the route but most of them are too short to do any good. On the freight side I delayed a few trains just because I had to hold them for trains 50 miles away because there weren't long enough sidings between the two massive trains. It would really behoove CN's management to try this game so they can understand the jigsaw puzzle they've built for their dispatchers to play with day in and day out.
> 
> It isn't just the Canadian that gets messed up with these long freights it is the freights as well.



It would be easy enough to park the Canadian train on any siding waiting for the passing freight - but what about two freights 1 eastbound and
1 westbound meeting on the same track - with neither having negotiable room to use the siding - now you have some real serious logistics in solving
the puzzle of course time is a wasting in any event.

Extend the sidings - or moreover double track the line and then switching in places to allow the fast Canadian to pass the slow moving freight !

But then you have the "Dilberts" in the front office with the "non compos mentis (brain)" syndrome worrying about money over scheduling matter.


NOTE:
Post #26 - - -
There is a train set parked at Gaspe (museum piece probably never to run again) photo images from cruise trip September '16

Latest Google map shows it is still parked at the (tender) port of Gaspe - weathered tracks lead out of the Gaspe Peninsula to a junction with
existing rail service to Sydney. How serviceable the tracks are is questionable - ahem very questionable.

Gaspe is for the Wiki folks is the Birth Place of Canada


----------



## Willbridge

Seaboard92 said:


> If you want to get a good grasp at why the Canadian runs late all the time may I suggest the game Train Dispatcher 3.5 and downloading the territories made by Crossbunk Productions. So far they have done the Canadian route from Toronto to Capreol and Capreol to Armstrong. Other Canadian routes they have done are Toronto Union Station, and the entire VIA corridor from Montreal to the west.
> 
> I just tried the Capreol to Armstrong section and over that entire territory No. 2 the Canadian ran 25 minutes late at it's latest. And that was mainly due to having to meet several freight trains that were too long to fit in any siding. There are frequent sidings on the route but most of them are too short to do any good. On the freight side I delayed a few trains just because I had to hold them for trains 50 miles away because there weren't long enough sidings between the two massive trains. It would really behoove CN's management to try this game so they can understand the jigsaw puzzle they've built for their dispatchers to play with day in and day out.
> 
> It isn't just the Canadian that gets messed up with these long freights it is the freights as well.


Now that I'm retired I try not to think of projects like working out meets! Four-car LRT trains were tricky enough.  Seriously, I understand your point. Is BNSF the only Class I that double-tracks long stretches to improve fluidity?


----------



## jiml

WWW said:


> There is a train set parked at Gaspe (museum piece probably never to run again) photo images from cruise trip September '16
> 
> Latest Google map shows it is still parked at the (tender) port of Gaspe - weathered tracks lead out of the Gaspe Peninsula to a junction with
> existing rail service to Sydney. How serviceable the tracks are is questionable - ahem very questionable.
> 
> Gaspe is for the Wiki folks is the Birth Place of Canada
> 
> View attachment 19435
> View attachment 19434


Historical note: Those are the very first GO Transit coaches they bought new from Hawker-Siddeley, later transferred to Montreal Regional Transit when GO went bi-level. Obviously they've found a new home.

At least one is archived at the Toronto downtown roundhouse museum and brewery.


----------



## jiml

Willbridge said:


> Now that I'm retired I try not to think of projects like working out meets! Four-car LRT trains were tricky enough.  Seriously, I understand your point. Is BNSF the only Class I that double-tracks long stretches to improve fluidity?


It's not hard to see the late Hunter Harrison legacy on CSX - especially in the south, which suffers the same problem as his previous projects (CN and CP): enormous trains and too-short sidings.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

WWW said:


> There is a train set parked at Gaspe (museum piece probably never to run again) photo images from cruise trip September '16
> 
> Latest Google map shows it is still parked at the (tender) port of Gaspe - weathered tracks lead out of the Gaspe Peninsula to a junction with existing rail service to Sydney. How serviceable the tracks are is questionable - ahem very questionable.



Thanks for those photos of the L'Amiral Tour Train at Gaspe. It's been about 10 years since I was there. When the Chaleur was running it was an easy train to railfan along a very scenic route.

A little geographical info here...The Gaspe line goes to Matapedia, Quebec (200 miles) where it meets VIA's 'Ocean' route between Montreal and Halifax.

The Gaspe line is currently undergoing extensive rebuilding (link to photos in post #20 above) and the plan is to resume VIA service to Gaspe and also operate the L'Amiral Tour Train again for cruise ship passengers.....but it's probably a couple of years away yet!

The Sydney line is on Cape Breton Island and the track east of Port Hawkesbury (owned by CBNS/Genesee & Wyoming) is now all but abandoned and I see little chance of that reopening.


----------



## Seaboard92

Willbridge said:


> Now that I'm retired I try not to think of projects like working out meets! Four-car LRT trains were tricky enough.  Seriously, I understand your point. Is BNSF the only Class I that double-tracks long stretches to improve fluidity?



I think it is a really good teaching tool with this game. It shows that with every action management takes in train length increasing how it cascades down hill. I was playing it last night and I held up a 12,000 ft stack train for such a long time waiting on two other 12,000 foot trains that it had to be recrewed prior to the crew change point. It isn't that hard to see how these train lengths are hurting the overall health and utility of the rail line. They worry about locomotive and crew utilization but what they fail to see is how they don't utilize the physical plant well. If trains are getting stuck for extended periods of time they aren't running smoothly. 

That is what I thought too Jim that those are EX Go Transit cars. I have never heard of that tourist train before. Something to research.


----------



## jis

Urban Sky said:


> Following the definition of the word "strategy" as "a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim", you are blaming the three main factors preventing the resumption of service on the most-Eastern section of the Sunset Limited (lack of funding, lack of political support and lack of cooperation by the host railways) on Amtrak, even though Amtrak neither approves its own funding, commands politicians nor exercises any legislative or ownership control on private railroads. I'm sorry if you perceived my comment as an attack, but I really struggle to see much signs that you grasp what is within the control of public intercity passenger rail operators in North America and what isn't...


You found me saying all that about Amtrak, strategy etc. etc in the statement:


> jis said:
> Locally there is considerable support for development of the corridor NOL - JAX - ORL, though no state government level support from Florida yet. There is very little support however for an extension of the Sunset Limited. The lead outfit navigating all this is the Southern Rail Commission.


That is a pretty remarkable piece of ascribing motives etc. etc. based on nothing.

I am stating a fact as I know it having worked in the field for years.. It has nothing to do with what I feel is right or wrong. I have not even mentioned Amtrak anywhere, let alone blaming it. How do you see the statement of a fact as an attack beats me. 

Are you sure you are not responding to something else? Could you please clarify what your intentions are? 

Thanks.


----------



## Urban Sky

*Edit: I obviously confused “jis” with “jiml”, as noted two posts down*



jis said:


> You found me saying all that about Amtrak, strategy etc. etc in the statement:
> 
> That is a pretty remarkable piece of ascribing motives etc. etc. based on nothing.
> 
> I am stating a fact as I know it having worked in the field for years.. It has nothing to do with what I feel is right or wrong. I have not even mentioned Amtrak anywhere, let alone blaming it. How do you see the statement of a fact as an attack beats me.
> 
> Are you sure you are not responding to something else? Could you please clarify what your intentions are?
> 
> Thanks.



If I keep misunderstanding you, why don’t you take the opportunity to explain with your own words what exactly you meant with the following comment?

Thanks.


jiml said:


> Proving that Amtrak doesn't have a monopoly on that strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question about truncation of Sunset Limited
> 
> 
> What was the reason that service on the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans was never restored? There seem to be be a ton of articles talking about proposal to restore train service between New Orleans and Jacksonville, but I haven't found anything that explains why service was never restored...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.amtraktrains.com


----------



## NS VIA Fan

Further to the post on Gaspe. This is the VIA Station that burnt in 2010.....






Afterwards.....VIA built this attractive new station that has yet to see the arrival of a VIA train! It was completed after the 'Chaleur' was suspended and used for the 'L'Amiral' (The Admiral) Tour Train for a couple of years. It's now a Tourist Info Centre.










Hopefully with the rebuilding of the track infrastructure we'll see the 'Chaleur' along side the 'L'Amiral' at this nice little two track terminal!




WWW said:


> Latest Google map shows it is still parked at the (tender) port of Gaspe..........
> 
> View attachment 19435


----------



## jis

Urban Sky said:


> If I keep misunderstanding you, why don’t you take the opportunity to explain with your own words what exactly you meant with the following comment?
> 
> Thanks.


You need to first understand that "jis" is not"jiml". Put on your glasses, and if you don't have them get some and then read carefully before reacting.


----------



## Urban Sky

jis said:


> You need to first understand that "jis" is not"jiml". Put on your glasses, and if you don't have them get some and then read carefully before reacting.


Fair enough, and my apologies for not noticing that it wasn’t “jiml” responding this time! I was still talking to “jiml” in Post 30 even after quoting you (I only quoted you to make clear for all readers that he was referring to the Sunset Limited’s partial truncation and ironically a post which clearly acknowledged all the reasons for its continued service suspension east of New Orleans), but I do acknowledge that it could be interpreted differently. In any case, none of my criticism was directed at you, but it unfortunately doesn’t seem like I’m still able to clarify this better in Post 30...

Have a great day!


----------



## jis

Urban Sky said:


> Fair enough, and my apologies for not noticing that it wasn’t “jiml” responding this time! I was still talking to “jiml” in Post 30 even after quoting you (I only quoted you to make clear for all readers that he was referring to the Sunset Limited’s partial truncation), but I do acknowledge that it could be interpreted differently. In any case, none of my criticism was directed at you, but it unfortunately doesn’t seem like I’m still able to clarify this better in Post 30...
> 
> Have a great day!


OK.

But why is this discussion about Sunset limited happening in the "Restructuring Canadian Rail Service" thread? Most of the quotations appear to be from a different thread pulled into this one.


----------



## Urban Sky

jis said:


> OK.
> 
> But why is this discussion about Sunset limited happening in the "Restructuring Canadian Rail Service" thread? Most of the quotations appear to be from a different thread pulled into this one.


You’d need to ask “jiml” why the temporary suspension of the Gaspé service reminded him of how Amtrak supposedly treated the truncation of the Sunset Limited, as it was him who inserted a link to your post from an entirely different thread. Other then that, I didn’t notice any quotes which originate from other threads on this forum...

PS: I was first a bit surprised by your strong words, but I agree that had I really intended to criticize you for supposedly saying the exact opposite of what I just quoted you with directly above, then this would have indeed raised some serious doubts about my visual capabilities...


----------



## Mailliw

Regarding sleeping cars; my understanding is that VIA has an option for additional trainsets from Siemens on top of what they've already ordered for the Corridor. Could that option be used for additional sleeping cars? I don't see why Siemens would have difficulty making sleeping car versions of the Ventures.


----------



## Urban Sky

Mailliw said:


> Regarding sleeping cars; my understanding is that VIA has an option for additional trainsets from Siemens on top of what they've already ordered for the Corridor. Could that option be used for additional sleeping cars? I don't see why Siemens would have difficulty making sleeping car versions of the Ventures.


I’m afraid it can’t: Sleeping cars have cabins which need to align with the windows and in order to have en-suite bathrooms, you’ll need piping throughout the car (as opposed to just the car ends). Just look at ÖBB and how different the cars for its RailJet and its NightJet are.

Also, the second batch of the Corridor Fleet Renewal is required for if and when HFR is approved, as HFR is a service expansion, whereas the first batch is just a one-for-one replacement of the existing (and mostly obsolete) Corridor fleet...

That said, it’s of course not impossible to procure new Sleeping Cars (provided that the federal government approves the necessary funding), but you’d realistically need again to chose and adapt a design which is already in production for the North American market, just like the Ventures and Chargers were...


----------



## Mailliw

OK, the second point about trainsets being reserved for HFR is valid, but I fail to see how making a sleeping version of a Venture coach is beyond Siemens ability. Window placement seems like it'd be trivial to modify in an order and Siemens has plenty of experience building sleeping cars in Europe. Presumably if VIA is ordering new sleepers it'd opt for at least some cheaper accommodation
sans ensuite. Maybe something like Superliner or VI roomettes.


----------



## Urban Sky

Mailliw said:


> OK, the second point about trainsets being reserved for HFR is valid, but I fail to see how making a sleeping version of a Venture coach is beyond Siemens ability. Window placement seems like it'd be trivial to modify in an order and Siemens has plenty of experience building sleeping cars in Europe. Presumably if VIA is ordering new sleepers it'd opt for at least some cheaper accommodation
> sans ensuite. Maybe something like Superliner or VI roomettes.


All I’m saying is that the interior (and the window placing) would be a completely different design and thus have a completely different procurement and price. That said, increasing the seat pitch and opting for more comfortable and more reclining seats for overnight seating accommodations would likely require less modifications than if the second batch had to be made interoperable to share tracks with the new Light Metro scheme (REM) occupying the Mont-Royal tunnel for operation between Montreal Gare Centrale and Quebec City (which would require a smaller train width, lower axle weights and compatibility with the catenary electricity and CBTC systems chosen by the REM).

But anyways, any Sleeper trains will have to be a separate order because they don’t fall under the ongoing “Corridor Fleet Renewal Programme” and the funding which has been released by the federal government...


----------



## sttom

Even on OBB's services, the Night Jet and Rail Jet cars aren't from the same series anyways. The newer sleepers are a variant of the older Siemens Viaggio Classic. Some of them are left overs from other operators and older orders. So Siemens does have designs it can adapt, but someone would need to ask and no one is asking the question at the moment. 

I also highly doubt that Via would go with the same accomodations that Amtrak has. Considering how much they try to attract the tourist market on their flagship trains, I'd imagine they'd want rooms as close to the old Budd cars as can be built. Which will be needed someday....whenever that day might come.


----------



## Mailliw

The Budd sleepers have both sections and single person roomettes; an Amtrak style roomette is essentially a merger of the 2. I do agree that the mix of accommodations would tilt more in the direction of bedrooms than Amtrak's.


----------



## sttom

I understand that the two "roomettes" are different. One advantage the older equipment had over the newer Amtrak equipment and even some of OBB's trains is that you can put a real mattress on the Murphy beds which is generally better than what Amtrak has. Given that Via trades more on their service being a "premium service" a real bed would be a bigger selling point than it would be for Amtrak. And its not like it would be less difficult for them to use Amtrak's designs since either way, the contractor would be starting from 0 unless CAF somehow got this proverbial contract from Via. 

As for changing Via to be a more national system, assuming Canada's leaders would care to do that, I think its a good idea, but it should hinge on getting newer cars instead of trying to squeeze the last bits of life out of their existing equipment. Expanding services would also require a bigger federal commitment to trains which, as an outsider, it seems like Canadian politicians are way less train friendly than politicians in the US are. I also remember reading that one of the main differences between Amtrak and Via is that Via doesn't have an equivalent to section 403 in its enabling legislation, which is the part that allows the states to fund more services. Via would need clarity on that front to have a hope of starting new services with what comes off as a federal government that bounces around a spectrum of hostility.


----------



## Seaboard92

Mailliw said:


> The Budd sleepers have both sections and single person roomettes; an Amtrak style roomette is essentially a merger of the 2. I do agree that the mix of accommodations would tilt more in the direction of bedrooms than Amtrak's.



Fun fact the Heritage Roomette, and the Viewliner/Superliner Roomette are actually the same dimensions. The only difference is a heritage roomette is it seats/sleeps one. But both are 6'6" long and 3'6". I'm actually in the process of figuring out how to fit a second seat in a heritage roomette. That's going to be a lot of trial and error experimentation. 



sttom said:


> As for changing Via to be a more national system, assuming Canada's leaders would care to do that, I think its a good idea, but it should hinge on getting newer cars instead of trying to squeeze the last bits of life out of their existing equipment. Expanding services would also require a bigger federal commitment to trains which, as an outsider, it seems like Canadian politicians are way less train friendly than politicians in the US are. I also remember reading that one of the main differences between Amtrak and Via is that Via doesn't have an equivalent to section 403 in its enabling legislation, which is the part that allows the states to fund more services. Via would need clarity on that front to have a hope of starting new services with what comes off as a federal government that bounces around a spectrum of hostility.



I would make the argument the best way to get more federal money is to serve more Canadians. It's really the same argument we make with Amtrak in the USA. If Mr. Stephen Gardner and the board get their way and eliminate the national network trains but want to keep the NEC. Why should a state like Colorado or Nebraska fund a train they will never use, when it doesn't pose any local benefit. The argument in Canada is why should politicians from Calgary, or Regina, or any other western city support rail funding. It has no benefit to them. I would argue that the schedules VIA has now don't really provide good service to any other western districts because of the abysmal time keeping, and twice weekly service. Why should Alberta, or Saskatchewan tax dollars help pay for the VIA Corridor? They will never personally benefit from them. 

My argument is the more VIA you have the higher chance you will have the support it needs to maintain national service. And until you have the support to buy new equipment the only alternative is to run the wheels off of the existing equipment. The good thing about Budds is they don't die, if you keep them current on regular repairs which in my proposal is the off season when the cars aren't nearly as utilized. Budds are fantastic cars.


----------



## neroden

Willbridge said:


> Now that I'm retired I try not to think of projects like working out meets! Four-car LRT trains were tricky enough.  Seriously, I understand your point. Is BNSF the only Class I that double-tracks long stretches to improve fluidity?


Yes. :-( Everyone else is obsessed with next quarter's financial statement, which means avoiding making any investments.


----------



## Urban Sky

Seaboard92 said:


> Thank you for that Jim. And every point you made is pretty much what my attempts were. But Now I'm going to address the concerns. I might argue I have a horse in a small town NE of Saskatoon at the moment.
> 
> 
> As far as the Hudson Bay question how does VIA currently handle it? As I see how the operation runs right now from the outside that there are two consists that run on the Hudson Bay and that is very much how VIA handles the train. Every time I have passed the WMC when in Winnipeg there hasn't been any equipment visible.


I'll post this photo of the Winnipeg Maintenance Center (WMC) below, so that maybe someone else can suggest to you places where equipment could be hidden outside of your view:


Source: VIA Rail's Winnipeg Maintenance Centre Part 5


You can choose to believe someone who plans and deploys the non-Corridor fleet for a living that there are of course 3 consists in use on the Churchill service, or you can watch the Monday arrival of train #692 and compare the consist with that of the following day's departure of train #693.




> And the fact that a late arriving train has turned as a late departing train in the past I find it hard to believe they aren't doing this operation.


What if I told you that equipment is only swapped once per week (i.e. the Sunday departure is usually the same consist as which arrived the previous afternoon/night)? Or that Locomotive Engineers have mandatory rest times between two shifts?




> In theory you can get quite a few things done in a 20 hour turn around time.


Indeed, there are hundreds of things which can be done in 20 hours. However, there are three problems:

*First*, scheduled arrival or departure time at Winnipeg Station does not equal the time the train arrives or leaves WMC, so add 30 minutes for passengers to leave the train and on-train staff to offload supplies, an hour for the crews to wye (turn) the train and bring it to WMC and then the next morning 30 minutes to bring the (already turned train) to the station and an hour hour for on-train staff to load supplies and for passengers to board the train and your maintenance window shrinks from "20 hours" to 16:20 hours (i.e. from 18:15 to 10:35).

*Second*, scheduled arrival time of WMC does not equal actual arrival time at WMC, as this overview over the last few arrivals of #692 into WNPG highlights:

Arrival of #692 scheduled for October 26 was at 01:00 (i.e. 8:15 hours late)
Arrival of #692 scheduled for October 24 was at 18:28 (i.e. 1:43 hours late)
Arrival of #692 scheduled for October 19 was at 19:16 (i.e. 2:31 hours late)
Arrival of #692 scheduled for October 17 was at 18:59 (i.e. 2:14 hours late)
Arrival of #692 scheduled for October 12 was at 01:29 (i.e. 8:44 hours late)
Arrival of #692 scheduled for October 10 was at 19:05 (i.e. 2:20 hours late)
Arrival of #692 scheduled for October 05 was at 09:24 (i.e. 16:39 hours late)
Arrival of #692 scheduled for October 03 was at 21:42 (i.e. 4:57 hours late)
Arrival of #692 scheduled for September 28 was already terminated in The Pas
Arrival of #692 scheduled for September 26 was at 18:55 (i.e. 2:10 hours late)
Arrival of #692 scheduled for September 21 was at 07:43 (i.e. 15:58 hours late)
Arrival of #692 scheduled for September 19 was at 19:36 (i.e. 2:51 hours late)
Arrival of #692 scheduled for September 14 was at 23:06 (i.e. 6:21 hours late)
*Third*, it is impossible to have all parts which might break on a car in stock or to do major repairs like repairing (or replacing) a defect toilet or seat in a few hours, let alone: conduct periodical maintenance which requires the interiors of the cars to be removed. Therefore, you need at least one spare of every car type as a back-up for defects and another one for periodically inspections. This means that you are short two cars for each car types at WMC, which need to be available at WMC to perform long-term maintenance (or to compensate for any cars which require time-consuming repairs before they can be put back in service).




> I'm looking at the Edmonton-Winnipeg (800.9 Miles) and Calgary-Winnipeg (831.6 Miles) now lets look at some Amtrak example routes. The Palmetto (830 Miles), and the Carolinian (704 Miles). Now you can make the argument that both of those trains take advantage of the NEC's 225 miles above 100 miles an hour. But I would argue that the average speed isn't much better than the diesel sections especially on the Palmetto which makes eight intermediate stops in that market. On average of once every thirty miles.


The fastest travel time from Edmonton to Winnipeg I found in any timetable was 15:00 hours (back in 1996). Even if you could somehow reliably obtain such a travel time, a departure time of 07:00 in Edmonton would yield an arrival time of 22:00, which unfortunately is 23:00 in local time. What kind of market are you trying to serve with such highly unattractive timings? To compare: the Palmetto has much more attractive travel times, at least between Savannah and Washington DC: 

Train 89: dep. WAS 10:00 => arr. SAV 21:04
Train 90: dep. SAV 08:20 => arr. WAS 19:42




> Now let's look at VIA's Western Route when I look at the timetable I see a large dwell time at Saskatoon which could easily be cut down, and some other spots where a large amount of fluff has been added to the timetables.


What if I told you that that dwell time is currently required as a buffer against delays or to go around the yard (if freight trains on the yard tracks block access to the station from one side) before or after the station stop?




> Now if you could get CN to agree to reasonable timekeeping and restricting their train lengths so that everything fits in the sidings. Or better yet fully double tracking their route which it sorely needs you just need to average 50 miles an hour to make the run in 16 hours. And if I remember correctly speed in Canada is much higher than the arbitrary 79 mph we have in the USA. So if you could get a clean run at it I wouldn't be surprised if you could make it in 16 hours.


Maybe before you try to rein into how CN manages its networks, you should at least try to understand their business, which is not to move their freight as fast (and with as much operational flexibility) as possible, but to maximize the shareholder value (e.g. by minimizing operating and capital costs). This certainly sucks as a passenger railroad depending on infrastructure access, but if you want to dramatically improve the on-time performance of passenger rail service in Western Canada, I'm afraid you'll have to find more convincing reasons that doing so is also in the interest of CN...




> Now lets turn to CP. You would have to average 51 miles an hour. Now their railroad is much more fluid than CN's. So it *could potentially be done relatively easily.* Remember part of the problem with CN is that the Chicago-Pacific Ports intermodal train run concurrent Jasper to Winnipeg. Whereas the ones on CP run to Moose Jaw. So you are fighting less traffic.


I can hardly think of a more fitting way to sum up how speculative and mindlessly optimistic this train of thought is than with the words "could potentially be done relatively easily"...


[post continues below, due to character limit]


----------



## Urban Sky

[continued from above]



Seaboard92 said:


> Now lets turn and look at the third page of my report and look at VIA's current utilization rates specifically on the higher end.
> 
> [...]


I hate to say this, but you cannot expect to draw relevant conclusions from incorrect or unrealistic assumptions...




> You should also note on page nine of my report I listed the equipment that VIA would need to acquire to be successful in this.
> 
> [...]


But where exactly is the market to purchase any of the cars you've listed in a serviceable (and presentable) condition and a configuration which allows interoperability with VIA's existing heritage fleet?




> The LRC cars have recently been rebuilt I didn't initially want to use them either. But my good friend Jim has told me several have been rebuilt and they could provide good interim service while we look for more rolling stock, or order more.


You can tell your good friend Jim that your good friend John disagrees that there will be any lifespan left for the LRCs once they get finally replaced by the new Corridor fleet.




> Note I only did the peak season consists on trains because I full well expect consists to shrink in the off peak times allowing a long maintenance period in the winter.


You can't schedule all time-consuming maintenance tasks into the winter, as you can't just defer them until you find yourself in a time of the year which happens to be more convenient for you...




> I actually thought out every part of this proposal backwards and forwards from an operations stand point. I'm not an academic I've been on the ground in rail operations I have a firm grasp of the situation on the ground.


I'm not criticizing your analysis (or trying to doubt whatever foundations or experiences you claim to have acquired in the railroad industry), but it is unfortunately severely constrained by the inaccuracy (and striking over-optimism) of some of your assumptions...




> That being said I also understand the academic arguments to argue them with those who are academics.


None of the arguments we've exchanged here so far was academic. Examples for statements shaped by academic arguments are:

"In order to be competitive against the airplane, a train needs to have a travel time of no less than 4 hours."
"In order for electrification to repay its capital costs through operating cost savings, you need to operate at least 4 trains per hour or trains at speeds of more than 100 mph."
”The main competitor of conventional rail is the car, whereas the main competitor for HSR is the plane”
We really have yet to reach the point here where we could discuss academic arguments, as we are still trying to establish what the Status Quo is...


Anyways, have a good night and I’ll try to reply to your more recent comments over the weekend!


----------



## sttom

Seaboard92 said:


> I would make the argument the best way to get more federal money is to serve more Canadians. It's really the same argument we make with Amtrak in the USA. If Mr. Stephen Gardner and the board get their way and eliminate the national network trains but want to keep the NEC. Why should a state like Colorado or Nebraska fund a train they will never use, when it doesn't pose any local benefit. The argument in Canada is why should politicians from Calgary, or Regina, or any other western city support rail funding. It has no benefit to them. I would argue that the schedules VIA has now don't really provide good service to any other western districts because of the abysmal time keeping, and twice weekly service. Why should Alberta, or Saskatchewan tax dollars help pay for the VIA Corridor? They will never personally benefit from them.



My question would be why would representatives from the provinces other than Quebec or Ontario vote to increase service with ancient cars that belong in a museum when the later 2 are getting shiny new equipment? It would be one thing if the other provinces were promised new service in conjunction with track improvements and a new fleet guaranteed, but using the existing fleet in the mean time. If you want to compare this to the US, I live in California, I would have no incentive to vote for a bill paying for new cars for the NEC when the rest of the country has to grovel for at best 25% of our orders funded by the federal government and our long distance trains being stuck with fairly old equipment. If you want something to be "national" some people in power are going to need to have equivalent service to the rest of the country to even be able to risk voting for something. And expanding service with old equipment and not promising them improvements and a new fleet would sink this plan.


----------



## neroden

Voting? Voting? Remember that VIA rail has no statutory basis -- there is no law passed by parliament making it exist. It exists based on an emergency order-in-council issued by a past prime minister. While this is legit, and there are still Royal Decrees from before the English Civil War which are considered good law in England, it's.... not exactly a rousing endorsement by the voters.

Canada's situation is very different from the US. First of all, there's no equivalent of the US Senate (the Canadian Senate is something different) -- and there are serious restrictions on gerrymandering -- so each person's vote is worth about the same no matter where they live.

When you look at Canada's population, it's Ontario, Quebec, and in a very distant third and fourth, British Columbia and Alberta. Ontario, Quebec, and BC account for fully 3/4 of the country's population, with Alberta being another 12%. The other provinces and territories have very small percentages of the country's population.

Canada's *entire* population is smaller than that of California.

The shrinking population of Atlantic Canada gives it little political power, the low population density has reduced train service demand, and as a result, frankly it hasn't been campaigning for train service. I think it would get it if it campaigned for it.

Manitoba and Saskatchwan are equally unpopulated and also don't campaign for train service. Manitoba's population is 1/3 of Iowa's population, though twice that of North Dakota. Iowa has a stronger lobby for train service than Manitoba, and this shouldn't be surprising.

BC does campaign for train service. But mostly it's looking inward, or towards the US, not towards Alberta. Ontario and Quebec also campaign for train service, and having large populations, they actually get train service. As they should. But not nearly enough.

Theoretically Alberta is populous enough to want train service, and they have local rail in Edmonton and Calgary. But despite a couple of campaigns they haven't managed to get a rail line between the two cities, which is the obviously-most-useful intercity line there, so I don't expect much from them. Maybe the politics there will change as the oil bust takes hold.









Thousands move away from Alberta and Saskatchewan in second quarter of 2020


Alberta and Saskatchewan lost significantly more people to interprovincial migration than any other province and region.




tnc.news


----------



## Willbridge

neroden said:


> Voting? Voting? Remember that VIA rail has no statutory basis -- there is no law passed by parliament making it exist. It exists based on an emergency order-in-council issued by a past prime minister. While this is legit, and there are still Royal Decrees from before the English Civil War which are considered good law in England, it's.... not exactly a rousing endorsement by the voters.
> 
> Canada's situation is very different from the US. First of all, there's no equivalent of the US Senate (the Canadian Senate is something different) -- and there are serious restrictions on gerrymandering -- so each person's vote is worth about the same no matter where they live.
> 
> When you look at Canada's population, it's Ontario, Quebec, and in a very distant third and fourth, British Columbia and Alberta. Ontario, Quebec, and BC account for fully 3/4 of the country's population, with Alberta being another 12%. The other provinces and territories have very small percentages of the country's population.
> 
> Canada's *entire* population is smaller than that of California.
> 
> The shrinking population of Atlantic Canada gives it little political power, the low population density has reduced train service demand, and as a result, frankly it hasn't been campaigning for train service. I think it would get it if it campaigned for it.
> 
> Manitoba and Saskatchwan are equally unpopulated and also don't campaign for train service. Manitoba's population is 1/3 of Iowa's population, though twice that of North Dakota. Iowa has a stronger lobby for train service than Manitoba, and this shouldn't be surprising.
> 
> BC does campaign for train service. But mostly it's looking inward, or towards the US, not towards Alberta. Ontario and Quebec also campaign for train service, and having large populations, they actually get train service. As they should. But not nearly enough.
> 
> Theoretically Alberta is populous enough to want train service, and they have local rail in Edmonton and Calgary. But despite a couple of campaigns they haven't managed to get a rail line between the two cities, which is the obviously-most-useful intercity line there, so I don't expect much from them. Maybe the politics there will change as the oil bust takes hold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thousands move away from Alberta and Saskatchewan in second quarter of 2020
> 
> 
> Alberta and Saskatchewan lost significantly more people to interprovincial migration than any other province and region.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tnc.news


That's a good summary. Americans tend to assume that Canada works about the same way as the U.S. Sometimes the results are the same but are reached by a different path. I was involved in fighting the Pepin cutbacks in 1981 and I read the minutes of the Senate debate on it. The Liberal senator from Rive Gauche stood up and eloquently attacked the deletion of the M&O line through his community and then voted to support the cutbacks.

When the Edmonton-Calgary corridor service was up for discontinuance there was a hint that the CTC might rule in our favor. So, BEFORE THEY COULD RULE, the Conservative Transport Minister (a Vegreville, Alberta car dealer) ordered the service discontinued.

Pro-rail passenger MP David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona) theorized that some of the problem came in the Prime Minister's Office. For American readers, it's the equivalent of the OMB on steroids. That helps to understand why whichever party is in power in Ottawa the result for VIA is the same. That especially explains the failure to pass a VIA Rail Act. As Americans have learned, an unrestrained executive branch wants to stay unrestrained.

As for provincial funding we in Alberta were concerned about a lack of transparency and consistency at VIA. American states have some aspects of Amtrak nailed down by legislation. Contracting for service with VIA would be like nailing Jello to a wall. Either the Alberta contribution would be for infrastructure that would remain in the province or follow the Northern Ontario approach and set up our own service.


----------



## sttom

Canada could pass their own Rail Passenger Service Act if they wanted to, the problem is our Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 wouldn't promise a larger system should the Canadian Parliament pass it with the Canada appropriate edits. One of my biggest gripes with the Act we created Amtrak with was that it had mandates for a "balanced transportation system" and a "national network" but doesn't define what that means in terms of service levels or funding. If Canada passed a comparable act, the most it would do is allow the provinces to sponsor services and give Parliament more oversight. Oversight is a good thing, but its not the same as mandating service levels and appropriate funding. There is a reason why passenger rail was cut more than in half when Amtrak took over. There were over 400 trains per day in the US and it was cut to around 180 on May 1, 1971. The Act didn't mandate anything such as maintaining the same number of connections between cities, studying if basing the system around service levels in any preceding year would make for a "more balanced system" in the early days of Amtrak or what would constitute a national network. All of this was left on the Department of Transportation and is part of the reason why Amtrak is in the state it is today. Considering how much service was lost when Amtrak was created, even with Via's pathetic levels of service, it could be argued that it would meet the mandate of a "national system" despite it not being particularly useful.


----------



## Willbridge

I ran across something that fits with this discussion. Sorry I didn't unearth it sooner. It's a catalog of VIA Rail equipment spanning the period of the 1981 Pepin service cutbacks and it indirectly shows why the system has been so stressed since.


----------



## jiml

Willbridge said:


> I ran across something that fits with this discussion. Sorry I didn't unearth it sooner. It's a catalog of VIA Rail equipment spanning the period of the 1981 Pepin service cutbacks and it indirectly shows why the system has been so stressed since.
> 
> View attachment 20269
> View attachment 20270
> 
> View attachment 20271
> View attachment 20272


Amazing list. Lots of memories there.


----------



## Palmland

Seaboard92 said:


> Fun fact the Heritage Roomette, and the Viewliner/Superliner Roomette are actually the same dimensions. The only difference is a heritage roomette is it seats/sleeps one. But both are 6'6" long and 3'6". I'm actually in the process of figuring out how to fit a second seat in a heritage roomette.


Good idea for day trips. I know it’s easier said than done but take out the toilet and use one of those collapsible chairs used in heritage bedrooms. That way you can still sell for night use for one person.


----------



## Seaboard92

Palmland said:


> Good idea for day trips. I know it’s easier said than done but take out the toilet and use one of those collapsible chairs used in heritage bedrooms. That way you can still sell for night use for one person.



Believe it or not I'm actually trying to figure out how to do the top bunk. So far I haven't found something that'll work just yet. I'm thinking if I can get my hands on a Slumbercoach's upper duplex beds. Or a Chateau's then I might be able to do what I want.


----------



## railiner

Seaboard92 said:


> Believe it or not I'm actually trying to figure out how to do the top bunk. So far I haven't found something that'll work just yet. I'm thinking if I can get my hands on a Slumbercoach's upper duplex beds. Or a Chateau's then I might be able to do what I want.


I don't see how you could possibly add a Slumbercoach bed to a Roomette, unless you first removed the original Roomette bed, and then basically created a Double Slumbercoach. Another way might be to somehow lower the original Roomette bed entirely, and then add a slide down from ceiling bed like in a Viewliner Roomette... 
Either way would require almost complete gutting of the original space...


----------



## sttom

Isn't the dimensions of the Amtrak Roomette equivalent to that of a Section, which was the same size as a Pullman Roomette? Why would Via want to convert a space designed for 1 person into a space for 2 people when they already have Sections and Double Bedrooms to fit that role and do it more effectively?


----------



## jiml

sttom said:


> Isn't the dimensions of the Amtrak Roomette equivalent to that of a Section, which was the same size as a Pullman Roomette? Why would Via want to convert a space designed for 1 person into a space for 2 people when they already have Sections and Double Bedrooms to fit that role and do it more effectively?


I don't think they were talking about VIA; rather suspect Seaboard is looking for a way to add additional beds to his own car.


----------



## Seaboard92

jiml said:


> I don't think they were talking about VIA; rather suspect Seaboard is looking for a way to add additional beds to his own car.



You would be correct I am looking for how to make a few rooms doubles. 

I'm going to try using a Superliner lower that's getting scrapped and a Slumbercoach upper. I'm a one tracked mind right now.


----------



## jiml

FYI, from Wikipedia:
In the late 1970s Amtrak converted two Amfleet I coaches into sleepers (Nos. 22900 and 22901). Two prototype Superliner roomette modules were installed, displacing twelve seats. The cars were used on the Washington, D.C.—Cincinnati, Ohio _Shenandoah_. Regular sleepers returned to the _Shenandoah_ in 1979 and the two coaches were returned to a standard configuration. These conversions were termed "Ampad.


----------

