# The Evolution of VIA Rail - a graphical history



## jiml

For those with an interest on how VIA Rail's route structure has evolved since its inception, here are a couple of well-done map videos explaining the timeline. They are fairly accurate and will show those who didn't have to endure the cuts how we got where we are. The creator also has a wide range of other historical transportation videos that are worth checking out.

Main network:



Eastern Canada:



Western Canada:


----------



## neroden

Good history. It seems clear that the 1990 cuts, under right-winger Brian Mulroney, were the most brutal, hostile anti-passenger cuts in Canada's history. They specifically ripped the heart out of the system; most of the previous, and most of the subsequent, cuts had been to weaker branch lines or related to damaged track or bridges (with some exceptions) -- while the Mulroney axe wrecked all service to any province other than Ontario and Quebec. And Ontario and Quebec were really only preserved by provincial takeover of a lot of the services. It really looks like an attempt to kill the system entirely.

In North America, only Mexico's destruction of its entire passenger train network under President Zedillo is worse. US cuts were bad, but never this bad.

It's particularly notable that these attacks were done during the time when passenger rail demand was starting a long, and sustained, upturn; rail demand rose continuously, and quickly, during the 1990s. I consider the Mulroney cuts to be sabotage.

Amtrak took advantage of the rising demand despite attacks from some sectors of government and the moronic "Mercer Consulting cuts" of 1996 which were reversed within a year. VIA couldn't, because Mulroney had sabotaged VIA.

Zedillo was President of Mexico in 1995; his sabotage of the Mexican system also stuck.

So there were concerted sabotage attempts against the passenger rail systems in Canada, the US, and Mexico all at around the same time. We were lucky to have Clinton as President when the sabotage attempt against Amtrak came; it got reversed as a result. Mexico and Canada were not so lucky.


----------



## jiml

More recent history tends to overwrite what happened before. While the Mulroney cuts were bad, the ones 10 years prior under the current PM's daddy were worse in actual quantity. Per Wikipedia:

In 1981, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's government endorsed Minister of Transport Jean-Luc *Pépin*'s plan which slash *Via's* budget, leading to a 40 percent reduction in the company's operations. 

So to paraphrase, the company was already 40% smaller when attacked by the Mulroney government as you described, making the proportional cut "less of the whole", if that makes sense. As a VIA supporter and historian, I find both equally distasteful and the lesson learned is that public funding for passenger rail does not advance nor decline solely on the political leanings of the government in power. There's a little wishful thinking in connecting leftist politics funding passenger rail and right-wing politics with its demise. Like most people familiar with Amtrak, I'm optimistic that "Amtrak Joe" will do what he can for its future. Do other Democrat politicians feel similarly? Don't be too sure. When funds are short for any government, passenger rail is an easy target.


----------



## Siegmund

I too rate the 1981 cuts as deeper than 1990, in terms of how much service was lost.

The difference was that there was enough of an outcry after the 1981 cuts that a good portion of the lost service had been restored by 1985 or so. Ironically, some of the restoration a _campaign promise by first-term Mulroney_ . In 1990 there was no compromising afterward, just squeezing VIA's neck tighter and tighter. Does that mean that 1990 cut it below critical mass? Or that 1981 hurt it badly enough that there was already no critical mass of riders and lobbyists to resist the 1990 cuts or do anything about it afterward?


----------



## railiner

Great video's. Wish someone with the talent would do a similar one on Amtrak, from the day before it started, until today...


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> Great video's. Wish someone with the talent would do a similar one on Amtrak, from the day before it started, until today...


That would be more than a 3-video series!


----------



## PaTrainFan

railiner said:


> Great video's. Wish someone with the talent would do a similar one on Amtrak, from the day before it started, until today...


 He very well may at some point. He's run out of Canadian cities to feature and recently did one on Pittsburgh's Port Authority. All of his videos are well done.


----------



## neroden

Siegmund said:


> I too rate the 1981 cuts as deeper than 1990, in terms of how much service was lost.
> 
> The difference was that there was enough of an outcry after the 1981 cuts that a good portion of the lost service had been restored by 1985 or so.


Yes, the difference here is notable. Not only did much of it come back, other parts were taken over by GO Transit.

Also, when I look at the pre-1981 network... I really wonder how some of those ultra-remote lines had survived until 1981. Train service thrives on volume (lots of passengers), and some of these lines just didn't have the population for it. I have to suspect that most of the branch lines in Manitoba which weren't daily in 1978 would have survived under *any* circumstances. Similarly, there hasn't been much outcry to restore the northern Quebec routes cut in 1981. Of the 1981 cuts, we all want service along both the CN and CP mainlines, and service to Havelock and on the north shore from Ottawa to Montreal, but a lot of the rest of the cuts? Nobody seems to care any more, probably because there are so few people in the places which lost service.



> Ironically, some of the restoration a _campaign promise by first-term Mulroney_ . In 1990 there was no compromising afterward, just squeezing VIA's neck tighter and tighter. Does that mean that 1990 cut it below critical mass? Or that 1981 hurt it badly enough that there was already no critical mass of riders and lobbyists to resist the 1990 cuts or do anything about it afterward?



There was definitely public outcry about the 1990 cuts; I remember it in the newspapers even in upstate NY. It didn't manage to attract support from enough politicians, however; there was a cross-party consensus on not caring about VIA's survival, from what I can tell.


----------



## jiml

PaTrainFan said:


> He very well may at some point. He's run out of Canadian cities to feature and recently did one on Pittsburgh's Port Authority. All of his videos are well done.


Cleveland RT just showed up this week.


----------



## jiml

neroden said:


> Yes, the difference here is notable. Not only did much of it come back, other parts were taken over by GO Transit.
> 
> Also, when I look at the pre-1981 network... I really wonder how some of those ultra-remote lines had survived until 1981. Train service thrives on volume (lots of passengers), and some of these lines just didn't have the population for it. I have to suspect that most of the branch lines in Manitoba which weren't daily in 1978 would have survived under *any* circumstances. Similarly, there hasn't been much outcry to restore the northern Quebec routes cut in 1981. Of the 1981 cuts, we all want service along both the CN and CP mainlines, and service to Havelock and on the north shore from Ottawa to Montreal, but a lot of the rest of the cuts? Nobody seems to care any more, probably because there are so few people in the places which lost service.
> 
> 
> 
> There was definitely public outcry about the 1990 cuts; I remember it in the newspapers even in upstate NY. It didn't manage to attract support from enough politicians, however; there was a cross-party consensus on not caring about VIA's survival, from what I can tell.


I think there's a market for some of the services you've mentioned, but let's not forget VIA suffers from the Amtrak problem of little spare equipment. "North Shore" service in Quebec, especially east of Montreal, should definitely have a future - there was even a private company running ex-German commuter trains on trackage east of Quebec City pre-pandemic. I'd been looking forward to riding it last year, but now wonder if they'll be able to come back. The previous federal government had also talked about funding the train to Havelock - more importantly to the larger communities enroute. Not sure whether it would have been through VIA or through GO, but unfortunately its biggest sponsor (the finance minister at the time) passed away and the idea more or less with him. I lived near the route at the time and local support was high.


----------



## fdaley

Siegmund said:


> The difference was that there was enough of an outcry after the 1981 cuts that a good portion of the lost service had been restored by 1985 or so. Ironically, some of the restoration a _campaign promise by first-term Mulroney_ . In 1990 there was no compromising afterward, just squeezing VIA's neck tighter and tighter. Does that mean that 1990 cut it below critical mass? Or that 1981 hurt it badly enough that there was already no critical mass of riders and lobbyists to resist the 1990 cuts or do anything about it afterward?



This is what I remember. The Mulroney government got elected the first time in part on a promise to restore some of the routes that were cut in 1981. So by the summer of '85, the Atlantic and Supercontinental (west of Winnipeg, anyway) were up and running again, along with local services to Edmundston, Sherbrooke and elsewhere. Then the same government, after winning a second mandate, completely gutted the system in 1990. And no amount of public outcry -- and there was a lot -- could dissuade them. Mulroney left office with terrible public opinion ratings, though it wasn't only because of this. 

The thing that still gets me is that, although there were some remote services that carried very few riders, a lot of the local trains that were eliminated were very heavily used. The Sydney and Yarmouth trains, when I rode them, were packed. And both of the transcon routes out of Vancouver ran daily and were well used.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

Sounds Trumpian, thankfully whoever wrote his rail plan didn’t succeed in anything except gutting food service.

QUOTE="fdaley, post: 881009, member: 17674"]
This is what I remember. The Mulroney government got elected the first time in part on a promise to restore some of the routes that were cut in 1981. So by the summer of '85, the Atlantic and Supercontinental (west of Winnipeg, anyway) were up and running again, along with local services to Edmundston, Sherbrooke and elsewhere. Then the same government, after winning a second mandate, completely gutted the system in 1990. And no amount of public outcry -- and there was a lot -- could dissuade them. Mulroney left office with terrible public opinion ratings, though it wasn't only because of this.

The thing that still gets me is that, although there were some remote services that carried very few riders, a lot of the local trains that were eliminated were very heavily used. The Sydney and Yarmouth trains, when I rode them, were packed. And both of the transcon routes out of Vancouver ran daily and were well used.
[/QUOTE]


----------



## Seaboard92

As I have posted before on this forum there is a way to get far better service in Canada using the existing rolling stock. The issue is you need to be creative about it. And the number one problem that VIA has is they run the Canadian way too long. The Canadian takes three sets which have the following equipment. 

-6 Locomotives
-3 Baggage
-6-9 HP1 Coaches
-6 Diners
-9 Skyline Cars
-36 Manor Cars
-3 Regular Chateau 
-6 Prestige Chateau 
-3 Prestige Park Car

There is no reason you couldn't split that nonsense up and increase service back to daily, or start up some service over the CP route. Look at Amtrak the most popular tourist train the California Zephyr only runs with 3.5 Sleepers every day. The Empire Builder 2. 

Imagine if you were to cut down the consist down you could increase service back. The problem is no one is thinking critically about it and it shows. An American shouldn't be the one telling VIA Rail how to better service the west and the maritimes.


----------



## Urban Sky

Seaboard92 said:


> An American shouldn't be the one telling VIA Rail how to better service the west and the maritimes.


Just because you ignored almost every single constraint VIA faces (fleet, funding, mandate, infrastructure access, punctuality, line speeds, slots, operational priority, etc.), doesn’t mean that you solved any of the challenges which have for the last 3 decades (if not longer!) prevented us Canadians from having a meaningful intercity passenger rail service outside the Corridor...


----------



## Willbridge

fdaley said:


> This is what I remember. The Mulroney government got elected the first time in part on a promise to restore some of the routes that were cut in 1981. So by the summer of '85, the Atlantic and Supercontinental (west of Winnipeg, anyway) were up and running again, along with local services to Edmundston, Sherbrooke and elsewhere. Then the same government, after winning a second mandate, completely gutted the system in 1990. And no amount of public outcry -- and there was a lot -- could dissuade them. Mulroney left office with terrible public opinion ratings, though it wasn't only because of this.
> 
> The thing that still gets me is that, although there were some remote services that carried very few riders, a lot of the local trains that were eliminated were very heavily used. The Sydney and Yarmouth trains, when I rode them, were packed. And both of the transcon routes out of Vancouver ran daily and were well used.


The 1981 cuts, which I experienced while working for the City of Edmonton, provided a valuable lesson on what happens when a successful long-distance route is chopped into corridors requiring overnight layovers. The damage was gradually repaired but not enough to avoid being set up for the next round of cuts.

MP David Kilgour told the Mulroney team that they were going to lose western seats on this and other insensitive actions and he was kicked out of the PC caucus.


----------



## jiml

Willbridge said:


> MP David Kilgour told the Mulroney team that they were going to lose western seats on this and other insensitive actions and he was kicked out of the PC caucus.


Mulroney was an Easterner who cared little about the West. Ironically we're in a similar situation right now with a government that wins most everything east of the Manitoba border facing the PC's, who also have an Eastern leader focused mainly on taking their votes away. Both sides are taking the West for granted - one side that knows they can't win there and the other assuming that they will. It's kind of the perfect storm for the rise of Western separatism.


----------



## neroden

fdaley said:


> This is what I remember. The Mulroney government got elected the first time in part on a promise to restore some of the routes that were cut in 1981. So by the summer of '85, the Atlantic and Supercontinental (west of Winnipeg, anyway) were up and running again, along with local services to Edmundston, Sherbrooke and elsewhere. Then the same government, after winning a second mandate, completely gutted the system in 1990. And no amount of public outcry -- and there was a lot -- could dissuade them. Mulroney left office with terrible public opinion ratings, though it wasn't only because of this.
> 
> The thing that still gets me is that, although there were some remote services that carried very few riders, a lot of the local trains that were eliminated were very heavily used. The Sydney and Yarmouth trains, when I rode them, were packed. And both of the transcon routes out of Vancouver ran daily and were well used.


Yes, the Nova Scotia cuts were a blatant attack on heavily-used services. The Maritimes were really very badly shafted in 1990. And cutting the two transcons to one was also a straight out attack on rail service, particularly for Alberta.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

neroden said:


> Yes, the Nova Scotia cuts were a blatant attack on heavily-used services. The Maritimes were really very badly shafted in 1990. .....



That was 30 years ago and would those trains have lasted until today? Probably not. There has been a lot of highway twinning and freeway construction in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick since then. And don't say that highway money should have been put into rail. There is just not the population here along a couple of 'corridors' to justify the cost to provide a fast, frequent passenger rail service that might actually get people out of their cars. The new highways provide a much greater benefit to more of the population than could be served by rail.

I used to ride the Sydney-Halifax trains. (I live about the mid point on this route) Most of the passengers changed to the Atlantic/Ocean at Truro for Montreal and onto Toronto and Ottawa. Few used it as an intercity service to/fr Halifax. Even back then I could drive to Halifax (130 miles) a hour faster than the train could get me there and without frequent trains....it wasn't practical for a day trip.

Today (Covid aside!!) there's a lot of flights now that didn't exist when the VIA service ended that will get you to Toronto a lot cheaper....and in 2 hrs vs 30 hrs for the train.


----------



## neroden

I'll say it: the highway money shouldn't have been spent. What has it gotten the Maritimes? Economic decline, that's what it's gotten them, just as big highway spending has everywhere else. If your population is so thinly spread that you don't have the volume for rail, you don't have enough economic activity to afford freeways either, unless people are just driving past you -- which isn't good for your economy either -- and the Maritimes aren't on the way to anywhere. (In fact, Nova Scotia has very high population density. Probably mostly in Halifax.) Freeways are a convenience for rural people, but they're basically an economic drain for them.

Is it a coincidence that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick population flatlined right around the time the trains were removed, after growing pretty fast before that? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe the connectivity to Montreal mattered.

Demand for train service has been on a straight upswing since 1990. Worldwide. Would those trains have lasted to today? Yes. Maybe because everyone was connecting to the train to Montreal -- but branch lines *matter*! The loss of the fast route from Nova Scotia to Montreal via Maine and the downgrading of the Ocean to less-than-daily were certainly worse than the loss of the branch lines -- but they all happened in quick succession.

Going from two trunk lines and several branch lines to one three-a-week service is devastating.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

neroden said:


> I'll say it: the highway money shouldn't have been spent. What has it gotten the Maritimes? Economic decline, that's what it's gotten them, just as big highway spending has everywhere else.



I drive those highways every day. You don't!......and they are needed. They provide a much greater benefit to more of the population than could ever be served by rail. There is just not the population here along a couple of 'corridors' to justify the cost to provide a fast, frequent passenger rail service that might actually get people out of their cars. 

The only route that might have justified an intercity rail service is Halifax-Moncton-Saint John but even then without a large expenditure on rail upgrades to increase speeds.....it's going to take over 6 hrs. I can drive it in 4 hrs.


----------



## jiml

Not that the Maritime highway infrastructure is particularly robust either.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

jiml said:


> Not that the Maritime highway infrastructure is particularly robust either.




On the contrary! All the major routes where the vehicle counts require it are at least 4 lane-divided or upgraded 'Super-2'. In particular the 520km Trans-Canada through New Brunswick along with the NB95 connection to I95 at the US Border is certainly built to 'Interstate' standards and a real pleasure to drive.

Even in Newfoundland...the TCH is 4-lane where required. Below....in the Humber River Gorge near Corner Brook the TCH is built on the road bed of the old CN narrow-gauge railway that never had any potential for upgrading to a viable passenger rail route: A 22 hr train ride vs a 9 hr 900 km drive.


----------



## jiml

NS VIA Fan said:


> On the contrary! All the major routes where the vehicle counts require it are at least 4 lane-divided or upgraded 'Super-2'. In particular the 520km Trans-Canada through New Brunswick along with the NB95 connection to I95 at the US Border is certainly built to 'Interstate' standards and a real pleasure to drive.
> 
> Even in Newfoundland...the TCH is 4-lane where required. Below....in the Humber River Gorge near Corner Brook the TCH is built on the road bed of the old CN narrow-gauge railway that never had any potential for upgrading to a viable passenger rail route: A 22 hr train ride vs a 9 hr 900 km drive.
> 
> View attachment 21423


I have relatives in NB who would vigorously disagree with you, but haven't driven that way myself in several years so have no recent first-hand experience. You see there used to be this train that stopped in Moncton...


----------



## NS VIA Fan

jiml said:


> I have relatives in NB who would vigorously disagree with you, but haven't driven that way myself in several years so have no recent first-hand experience. You see there used to be this train that stopped in Moncton...



Yes.....everyone feels they should have a 4 lane highway right to their driveway.....and 'that train' is not running currently for a very good reason!


----------



## jiml

NS VIA Fan said:


> Yes.....everyone feels they should have a 4 lane highway right to their driveway.....and 'that train' is not running currently for a very good reason!


That's a little unfair. Just because the highway network serves your needs, doesn't mean everyone sees it the same way.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

jiml said:


> That's a little unfair. Just because the highway network serves your needs, doesn't mean everyone sees it the same way.



There's probably a much better network of highways in the Maritimes than you would find in other areas with a similar population.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

NS VIA Fan said:


> There's probably a much better network of highways in the Maritimes than you would find in other areas with a similar population.



And I'm specifically looking at New Brunswick where some have said the TCH with it's 'Interstate' type standards shouldn't have been built. I drove the old 2-lane TCH for years and it was greatly needed with it's disproportionate truck traffic. A lot of those trucks are 'just passing thru' but you're not going to get all of them on a train!


----------



## neroden

NS VIA Fan said:


> I drive those highways every day. You don't!......and they are needed. They provide a much greater benefit to more of the population than could ever be served by rail. There is just not the population here along a couple of 'corridors' to justify the cost to provide a fast, frequent passenger rail service that might actually get people out of their cars.
> 
> The only route that might have justified an intercity rail service is Halifax-Moncton-Saint John but even then without a large expenditure on rail upgrades to increase speeds.....it's going to take over 6 hrs. I can drive it in 4 hrs.


Your attitude is why the Ocean is probably going to be reduced to 0 days a week, and why the population of the Maritimes is unlikely to ever grow much again.  And eventually your provincial government will wonder why it has to keep raising taxes to maintain its overbuilt roads. It'll take a while. 

Twinning highways is a *bad idea*. But hey, it's your choice. You're the voter there.

I happen to live in the largest-population conurbation in the US where all the roads out of town are two lanes. It works great.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

neroden said:


> Twinning highways is a *bad idea*. But hey, it's your choice. You're the voter there.



And I'll repeat it again! I drive those highways every day. You don't!......and they are needed. They provide a much greater benefit to more of the population than could ever be served by rail.



> I happen to live in the largest-population conurbation in the US where all the roads out of town are two lanes. It works great.



I see you are in Ithaca. Perhaps your drive out of town is on a 2--Lane but within 23 miles you're on I-81, 27 miles to I-86 or 45miles to the NY Thruway. That's no different here: it's a long drive on 2-lane for many to reach the 4-Lane TCH or the 101/102 etc. The problem is the disproportionate truck traffic using those roads and no.....an upgraded railway wouldn't get those trucks of the road to PEI or Newfoundland where there's no other option.


----------



## fdaley

I am not sure it needs to be an either-or proposition, but it's worth noting that the cost of these highway "twinning" projects is a couple of orders of magnitude above the sum it would likely have cost to maintain network of rail service the Maritimes enjoyed prior to 1990. 

There is a twinning project under way now in the Pictou area that is budgeted to cost $718 million for 38 kilometers of road. That's more than VIA's entire subsidy for all of Canada was in 1988, when they actually still served lots of places well. That cost of this one comparatively small highway project would likely have been more than enough to keep the Sydney trains running for the past 30 years. So it might have been possible to find the money to preserve decent rail service for the Maritimes if there had been the political will to do it. 

Of course, as you say, there likely wouldn't have been much ridership left for the Sydney trains if they continued to operate after rail service was decimated in the rest of Canada. They were part of system that depended on connectivity, and that system is mostly long gone outside of Ontario and Quebec. But that's ultimately the result of government policy that has made it much easier to travel by highway, through massive new investments in infrastructure, while making it difficult or impossible to travel by rail.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

fdaley said:


> There is a twinning project under way now in the Pictou area that is budgeted to cost $718 million for 38 kilometers of road........



It is not $718 million going to the consortium to design/build and finance just 38km of new highway (opening in 2023).....but it also includes an operate and maintain contract (repaving, winter plowing etc) for 20 years of this new 38km section of highway plus another 25 km of existing divided highway. Roughly New Glasgow to Taylors's Road east of Antigonish.


----------



## fdaley

NS VIA Fan said:


> It is not $718 million going to the consortium to design/build and finance just 38km of new highway (opening in 2023).....but it also includes an operate and maintain contract (repaving, winter plowing etc) for 20 years of this new 38km section of highway plus another 25 km of existing divided highway. Roughly New Glasgow to Taylors's Road east of Antigonish.


 
Do you know the breakdown of the construction vs. the operation/maintenance portions of that?


----------



## NS VIA Fan

fdaley said:


> Do you know the breakdown of the construction vs. the operation/maintenance portions of that?



_"The project cost consists of $364.3 million for construction and $196.4 million for ongoing operations and maintenance as well as a major upgrade of the existing stretch of highway during the 20-year operating period." "including two new interchanges and about 24 new bridges."_


----------



## NS VIA Fan

neroden said:


> Your attitude is why the Ocean is probably going to be reduced to 0 days a week........



It should be noted that between Moncton and Riviere-du-Loup the Ocean does not parallel a 4-lane highway and this is where it has always been busiest (Covid aside!) at stops like Bathurst, Campbellton, Rimouski (and the old Chaleur section to the Gaspe)

Other than for a short section the Trans Canada Highway in New Brunswick is not parallel to the Ocean's route. The TCH roughly follows CN's main freight route to the Maritimes across central New Brunswick that hasn't seen a passenger train since 1990.....and only a tri-weekly RDC for several years before that.

And as I noted above....the Ocean is always busiest from Moncton and west. During the summer and holidays you do see an increase in sleeper traffic to/fr Halifax but there is a lot of airline competition at YHZ so most are on that cheaper 2 hr flight to Toronto vs 28 hrs on the train.


----------



## Seaboard92

Moncton seams to have always been a big point whenever I have been traveling on the Ocean. Even the holiday extra I rode did a lot of work in Moncton. But what was interesting about the holiday extra however was the train completely dumped almost three coaches in Moncton, and picked up four coaches worth of people going eastbound. So it is a rather big market. And one with significantly less air service than the others. 

I would rather have the rural routes too. But in the ideal world you have both the twinning of roads and the rail routes.


----------



## jiml

Seaboard92 said:


> Moncton seams to have always been a big point whenever I have been traveling on the Ocean. Even the holiday extra I rode did a lot of work in Moncton. But what was interesting about the holiday extra however was the train completely dumped almost three coaches in Moncton, and picked up four coaches worth of people going eastbound. So it is a rather big market. And one with significantly less air service than the others.


We were booked to go to Moncton last fall and we all know what happened to that.  Back in the day it was nice to be be able to alternate routes, whether going there or all the way to Halifax. Each route had its particular charms and quirks.


----------



## Seaboard92

I still think there is a market for a St. Johns, NB to Halifax corridor train. While it won't be faster than a car, it does add some connectivity and not everyone wants to drive. After all there is some air service between the two as well. When you add in Moncton in the middle of it it's not a super bad corridor. And with CN down to what is it four trains out of Halifax shouldn't be too bad delay wise.


----------



## Urban Sky

Seaboard92 said:


> I still think there is a market for a St. Johns, NB to Halifax corridor train. *While it won't be faster than a car, it does add some connectivity and not everyone wants to drive.* After all there is some air service between the two as well. When you add in Moncton in the middle of it it's not a super bad corridor. And with CN down to what is it four trains out of Halifax shouldn't be too bad delay wise.


What is the problem you are trying to fix and why can’t it be adequately achieved with a higher frequency and at a much lower subsidy need by using an intercity bus instead of a train?


----------



## jiml

Urban Sky said:


> What is the problem you are trying to fix and why can’t it be adequately achieved with a higher frequency and at a much lower subsidy need by using an intercity bus instead of a train?


This seems like a strange response, and not because you're wrong. From a purely economic perspective buses make sense, however doesn't service on a short corridor like this play right into the whole "eco-green" light in which VIA likes to portray itself? Personally I'd prefer to see that route served by a return of the Atlantic or an extended service southward to connect with Amtrak's Downeaster at some point, and I'd expect criticism of those ideas, but a short corridor train seems to be a tailor-made opportunity for VIA with a view to the future. It's not always about defending the status quo. Where are the rest of those restored RDC's not needed for Sudbury stored anyway?


----------



## NS VIA Fan

jiml said:


> ..............but a short corridor train seems to be a tailor-made opportunity for VIA with a view to the future. It's not always about defending the status quo. Where are the rest of those restored RDC's not needed for Sudbury stored anyway?




If VIA was to start a new Intercity route it has to be with new equipment. Not 65 year old RDCs that had already reached their best before date when they last ran in the Maritimes 31 years ago!

Portray a modern image a la 'Brightline' and perhaps it might attract new passengers. Not just railfans out for a nostalgic ride.

But the return of a Maritime Intercity train appears to be a moot point. Refer to Item 2.1.6 (page 13)



https://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/our-company/corporate-plan/Summary_2020-2024_Corporate_Plan.pdf


----------



## jiml

While there is some similarity with the Alberta discussion vis-a-vis new equipment, my thought process behind the RDC's was availability. The ideal opportunity to start a service like this would be during the current situation, with the Maritime bubble and reduced air service. Build the market with a captive clientele, then get new equipment. 

I'm familiar with VIA's statement and, where the infrastructure argument certainly applies for example on the Sydney route, my understanding was CP was spending some money on this leg since reacquiring it. Whether they'd co-operate is another discussion. VIA spends a lot of time trying to hang onto what they have, rather than showing any real vision or passion for the future. Meanwhile those same RDC's are perfectly fine for northern Ontario and we have two trains that meander through northern Quebec, while larger markets have no service.


----------



## Seaboard92

Well using that same argument why do we even have the corridor trains. After all the highway infrastructure between Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec is light years better than the rest of the country. So why don't we just defund the whole system because it is cheaper to subsidize busses on already subsidized roads. 

That is basically the argument you just walked yourself into. It's not just the elites of Quebec and Ontario that deserve rail it is the whole country. The railroad built Canada and can provide a decent service to communities where development is passed over in favor of the Ontario-Quebec corridor. Canada is a really interesting country because the rural areas are for the most part neglected in development compared to that sliver of land between Windsor and Quebec City. 

As far as using the RDCs and other older equipment I'm in full support of it because of the way I look at things. We have the old equipment, we don't even have the new equipment for outside the corridor ordered. So that at most is five years away while we already have the old stuff now. Sure it's a bit tattered, a bit dirty, and she's definitely been used over the years. But compared with the Amtrak heritage fleet VIA has maintained their equipment well so it should be doable to get five more years out of it. But you can use the equipment you have now for a trial and a justification for why you need to order new equipment. 

It is far easier to get funding from any government when you can show you already produced results. Once you prove there is a demand it is far easier to get that investment level needed for old equipment. I've been making that argument in my city for light rail and commuter train projects. I can go to Russia and buy a brand new tram for 178,000 dollars but if I buy what is purpose built for the American market the Siemens S70 it's costing 3 million per car. My city can't afford to buy a 20 car fleet of S70s. But we sure can afford the new Russian trams that are designed to work with subpar electricity and track reliably. So once you provide the service and demonstrate that it is a success then you can work on buying the more modern S70s and you can sell your now used Russian trams to some other city wanting to experiment in rail. 

Use what you can get now, or use what you can get cheap to demonstrate and prove why you deserve the funding. Once you've proved why it becomes a lot easier to get the system that Canada deserves because last I checked Ontario and Quebec weren't the only places people lived. 

It is a real shame that both Amtrak and VIA Rail have cultivated an us vs. them culture with their national network trains and their corridor trains.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

Seaboard92 said:


> Well using that same argument why do we even have the corridor trains. After all the highway infrastructure between Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec is light years better than the rest of the country. So why don't we just defund the whole system because it is cheaper to subsidize busses on already subsidized roads.




You have the population and the density in the Ontario-Quebec Corridor that can support multiple train frequencies per day......and a track infrastructure permitting speeds that are competitive with road and air.

Halifax-Moncton which might be your best bet for intercity rail in the Maritimes is 188 track miles with twists and turns and a long climb up to Folly Lake......vs 160 highway miles on a fast, relatively straight tollway you can drive in about 2 1/2 hrs or 3 hrs by bus. The Ocean takes 4 1/4 hrs. You'd have to offer 2 or 3 frequencies a day to make it attractive and still only get about a bus load on a ancient RDC.

As a railfan I'd love to see all those RDCs routes we had 30 years ago running to Yarmouth, Sydney, Saint John, Frederiction, Edmundston ect.....but it's just not practical and a lot of that track is gone also.


----------



## jiml

Actually the mini fleet of restored RDC's are pretty nice. There were originally 7 in the project, of which I believe 4 were completed. Two were near Windsor a couple of years ago, two are running between White River and Sudbury, and presumably the remainder are stored at one of the maintenance centers in an unknown state.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

This TCA (Air Canada) Super Constellation of the same mid '50s vintage is also nicely restored like those RDCs.....but could you imagine anyone other than an AVgeek wanting to fly in it?


----------



## jiml

NS VIA Fan said:


> This TCA (Air Canada) Super Constellation of the same mid '50s vintage is also nicely restored like those RDCs.....but could you imagine anyone other than an AVgeek wanting to fly in it?


And yet they're okay for some parts of the country? Superliners would be nice on the Canadian too, but sometimes you have to work with what you have. The work done on the RDC's was fairly extensive and the plan was to use them elsewhere as well.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

jiml said:


> And yet they're okay for some parts of the country? ..................



Didn't say that at all! In a perfect world they should have been gone 30 years ago.


----------



## Urban Sky

Seaboard92 said:


> Well using that same argument why do we even have the corridor trains. After all the highway infrastructure between Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec is light years better than the rest of the country. *So why don't we just defund the whole system because it is cheaper to subsidize busses on already subsidized roads.*
> 
> That is basically the argument you just walked yourself into. [...]


Buses can’t run to places like Churchill and that’s why the federal government is going to stay in the non-Commuter passenger rail business. However, in the Corridor, the justification for running services in parallel to highways and privately operated bus services is simple: because they generate approximately 30% _more_ revenues than what they cause in direct operating costs. In 2018, they contributed $77 million towards VIA’s overheads (like, for instance, my own salary), while non-Corridor services a negative contribution of $37.8 million ($6.5 million for the Canadian, $11.3 million for the Ocean and $20 million for the regional services to remote areas):






For sources and explanations, click here.

Unlike the fully allocated figures (which spread VIA’s overheads across the entire network), looking at the contribution (i.e. direct revenues minus direct costs) gives you an indication whether running more trains will decrease or increase VIA’s subsidy need. Therefore, the only viable strategy to reduce VIA’s subsidy need is to outgrow it in the Corridor and VIA’s exceptional performance between 2014 and 2019 is testament that running more Corridor services increases revenues much faster than costs:



Note: re-post from Urban Toronto (VIA Rail’s 2019 Annual Report has been published in the meanwhile, with even stronger figures)


I will never understand why so-called “rail enthusiasts” refuse to understand that Corridor services are what keeps VIA afloat rather than draining its resources. Therefore, the relative success of the Corridor services is the only thing which keeps your dreams for drastically improved rail service outside the Corridor alive...


----------



## NS VIA Fan

jiml said:


> The work done on the RDC's was fairly extensive and the plan was to use them elsewhere as well.



Do you remember the original scheme to link Toronto Union Station to Pearson Airport? It was to have been called 'Blue-22'...(_taking 22 min_)... and was to use similar 60 year old re-built Budd RDCs. Now that would have been a great first impression for International travelers arriving in Toronto!

The Union-Pearson Express - Transit Toronto - Content

Eventually UP Express (Union-Pearson) was started using the same type Nippon Sharyo DMUs that SMART uses in Sonoma, Calif. And I remember UP got off to a rough start with it's $27 fare and hardly anyone riding. The fare was cut in half and riders soared!


----------



## jiml

NS VIA Fan said:


> Do you remember the original scheme to link Toronto Union Station to Pearson Airport? It was to have been called 'Blue-22'...(_taking 22 min_)... and was to use similar 60 year old re-built Budd RDCs. Now that would have been a great first impression for International travelers arriving in Toronto!
> 
> The Union-Pearson Express - Transit Toronto - Content
> 
> Eventually UP Express (Union-Pearson) was started using the same type Nippon Sharyo DMUs that SMART uses in Sonoma, Calif. And I remember UP got off to a rough start with it's $27 fare and hardly anyone riding. The fare was cut in half and riders soared!
> 
> View attachment 21498
> View attachment 21499


There's so many layers to that it could be its own topic. As it relates to RDC's however, it's important to note that the rebuild of the 4-7 VIA RDC's did not take place until Blue-22 was dead and buried. That's not to say it wouldn't have happened earlier and to more units in order to provide rolling stock for the airport train, but it didn't. At the time the rebuild was commissioned the Victoria, BC, train was still being discussed, as was using RDC's during off-peak times on the Skeena route. (Note the pic of them in Jasper before or after the test run.) Neither of those came to fruition of course, leaving the Sudbury route as their sole recipient. Although started with a single unit, demand - especially for baggage - required the addition of a second and that's what was running pre-Covid AFAIK.

The enhancements the RDC's received were as follows:
- Fully-rebuilt diesel engines that meet Euro II emission standards
- Fully-rebuilt air brakes
- New controls, electrical wiring, and heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems
- New interiors and fully-rebuilt seating with improved accessibility for passengers with special mobility needs
- New, fully-accessible washrooms and toilets
- New LED interior lighting.

We can probably debate all day whether these would have been "nice enough" to greet arriving airline passengers - they'd certainly need more luggage space, however I'd probably go with the argument that it's better than what was there before - the Pacific-Western contracted Airport "Express" buses to downtown. (Think 45 minutes in rush hour.) Obviously you'd prefer shiny new trains and I would too, but sometimes you have to play with the cards available.

As I said above, the UP Express is probably a whole new topic, with enough "rabbit trails" to keep us and other historians busy for awhile. Collenette and his cronies saw this a premium service modelled on the Heathrow Express and that mentality carried over to Metrolinx in the early days. Factor in that the thing was greatly overbuilt from the originally-envisioned spur line off the Georgetown Sub. Someone had to pay for the monorail-style approach tracks, the high-end stations and brand new rolling stock. After the "farebox rebellion" that someone turned out to be taxpayers. That said, it's an excellent service and the fact that you can through-ticket to most GO stations is a bonus - something I exploited when living in the eastern 'burbs and flying on business.


----------



## Seaboard92

Urban Sky said:


> I will never understand why so-called “rail enthusiasts” refuse to understand that Corridor services are what keeps VIA afloat rather than draining its resources. Therefore, the relative success of the Corridor services is the only thing which keeps your dreams for drastically improved rail service outside the Corridor alive...



I personally find that remark quite offensive. Unlike the vast majority on this board I have done more physical work in the industry than most. I have crawled under the cars and taken the brake valves, cylinders, hoses, and other appliances off and replaced them with refreshed items. I've been all over the roof of cars patching and fixing leaks. I've also pulled marathon OBS shifts that have ran from 4 AM to 12 AM in a twin unit diner serving over 1,000 meals in a day. I've also made the bunks up, loaded the supplies, gathered the trash, and done basically every mission critical job other than operate the locomotive. And if given the training and license I'm sure I could learn that skill set. Now if you want to experience what brake work is call me in four years I have a set of 26C valves to do then and I'm happy to teach. After all I was taught how to do things the military way from my father "watch one, do one, teach one".

And unlike most of the "rail enthusiasts" I have a 4.0 GPA in political science and understand how public services are supposed to operate. The problem that I see with VIA is you have 2 provinces that get frequent and great service while the other 6 provinces VIA services are lucky to get a train every other day. If you continue to neglect these other 6 provinces eventually those people and their politicians can't be counted to vote for continued funding for VIA. So yes most of their revenue comes from the corridor I won't disagree with you there and I knew that before your fancy chart. 

But you have to see where I'm coming from that there is a lot of political clout in these outlying provinces that could very easily be won over to VIA's camp as opposed to where they are which is a bit ambivalent as it stands. How can we say VIA services Saskatewan, or Alberta well? What about British Columbia? Yes the population is not nearly as dense but it doesn't mean these people don't matter. 

No form of transportation exists without some form of a subsidy. Busses and cars drive on public roads, airlines fly into public airports, and ferry service exists because governments fund it's continued existence. Trains are no different they were subsidized too even in the 1950s under CN and CP Management. The difference was up until the 1960s and 70s the ridership was high enough that it was basically breaking even. Railroads operated these trains because it was a public service, part of their government charter, and as a way to market their freight service and real estate arms. It was once the ridership started tanking that the losses started to become untenable in the old format. 

So does a service between St. John and Halifax have to make a profit. No it doesn't because that's not the mission. The mission is to be a public service and recover as much of the loss as possible in revenue. But it's still supposed to be subsidized. 

I love VIA and I understand her unique issues but you really need the rural support if you want to maintain the network in it's current form. VIA still has good ridership on the Ocean all things considered. The Canadian unfortunately has morphed into a tourist train which is only going to hurt it because it's use as a usable mode of transportation has waned. That is partially due to the crappy schedule you can't really expect ridership if your running two days a week east of Edmonton. And with that it makes the argument really hard to keep the service if politicians are looking for something to cut. 

To make the Canadian a better service just cut some of the sleeper lines off the train does one trainset really need 12 sleeper lines. You could cut the number of sleepers per set which also limits the amount of diners and skylines you need and get up to daily service. CN would cause some problems but again VIA needs the support in the federal government to force the issue preferably getting the same treatment and statutory power that Amtrak has. But to get that you need to win over parliament and you will need as many as you can get which means you need those rural areas. 

In the western world we look at things differently we think everything needs to make a profit when in reality the place of a government run service is to run a good service.


----------



## GoAmtrak

The videos are quite interesting, something I was looking for.

I'm quite interested in change and development of passenger rail in North America in general.


neroden said:


> Good history. It seems clear that the 1990 cuts, under right-winger Brian Mulroney, were the most brutal, hostile anti-passenger cuts in Canada's history. They specifically ripped the heart out of the system; most of the previous, and most of the subsequent, cuts had been to weaker branch lines or related to damaged track or bridges (with some exceptions) -- while the Mulroney axe wrecked all service to any province other than Ontario and Quebec. And Ontario and Quebec were really only preserved by provincial takeover of a lot of the services. It really looks like an attempt to kill the system entirely.
> 
> In North America, only Mexico's destruction of its entire passenger train network under President Zedillo is worse. US cuts were bad, but never this bad.
> 
> It's particularly notable that these attacks were done during the time when passenger rail demand was starting a long, and sustained, upturn; rail demand rose continuously, and quickly, during the 1990s. I consider the Mulroney cuts to be sabotage.
> 
> Amtrak took advantage of the rising demand despite attacks from some sectors of government and the moronic "Mercer Consulting cuts" of 1996 which were reversed within a year. VIA couldn't, because Mulroney had sabotaged VIA.
> 
> Zedillo was President of Mexico in 1995; his sabotage of the Mexican system also stuck.
> 
> So there were concerted sabotage attempts against the passenger rail systems in Canada, the US, and Mexico all at around the same time. We were lucky to have Clinton as President when the sabotage attempt against Amtrak came; it got reversed as a result. Mexico and Canada were not so lucky.


I tried to jump into detail a little bit and I realized there were just very minor expansions of railway lines in Canada for the past 30 (!) years. The horrible service cuts of about 55% on Via Rail in 1990 heavily influenced this sharp decline.

And the decline continues, with the abandon of about half a dozen of passenger services well into the 21st century. There were cuts of passenger rail services of relatively long distances (Courtenay BC - Victoria BC, Cochrane ON - Washago ON , Matapédia QC - Gaspé QC) as well as of short distances (Sarnia ON - Port Huron MI, Hudson QC - Rigaud QC, among others) even since 2004.

Re-opening of old or new lines for passenger railway? Quite hard to find! I didn't find a single line being operated by Via Rail which serves a line not already being served before 1990. There were those brutal service cuts and since then it seems no single mile of expansion has been made on the Via Rail network (improve frequency on existing lines is nice, but that's not the focus here). I looked more into details and I discovered some expansions in the last 30 years which were of minor nature, all executed by Go (Toronto) and Exo (Montréal). Sometimes the expansion was of just 2 miles  ! If expansion continues at this pace, we'll wait for another 50 years for any large expansion.

In the US in contrast, I noticed some minor improvements in the 30 years, and not that much service cuts and abandon like in Canada. Even if we take only the last 15 years, I have the impression there is more decline on the side of Canadian passenger railway than on the US side.

I also ask myself which passenger railway system is worse (also taking population density into account): Passenger railway in Canada or the US? Currently, I'm tending towards the Canadian passenger railway services being weaker than their US counterparts, but I'm not sure because of the higher population density in the US. I'm interest in discussion this! What do others think about it?

Neroden rightly mentioned Mexico here which perhaps has one of the worst passenger railway systems in the World regarding its population. The Canadian passenger railway network is not that bad as that in Mexico, but I also doubt it's better than the US system.


----------



## Willbridge

GoAmtrak said:


> The videos are quite interesting, something I was looking for.
> 
> I'm quite interested in change and development of passenger rail in North America in general.
> 
> I tried to jump into detail a little bit and I realized there were just very minor expansions of railway lines in Canada for the past 30 (!) years. The horrible service cuts of about 55% on Via Rail in 1990 heavily influenced this sharp decline.
> 
> And the decline continues, with the abandon of about half a dozen of passenger services well into the 21st century. There were cuts of passenger rail services of relatively long distances (Courtenay BC - Victoria BC, Cochrane ON - Washago ON , Matapédia QC - Gaspé QC) as well as of short distances (Sarnia ON - Port Huron MI, Hudson QC - Rigaud QC, among others) even since 2004.
> 
> Re-opening of old or new lines for passenger railway? Quite hard to find! I didn't find a single line being operated by Via Rail which serves a line not already being served before 1990. There were those brutal service cuts and since then it seems no single mile of expansion has been made on the Via Rail network (improve frequency on existing lines is nice, but that's not the focus here). I looked more into details and I discovered some expansions in the last 30 years which were of minor nature, all executed by Go (Toronto) and Exo (Montréal). Sometimes the expansion was of just 2 miles  ! If expansion continues at this pace, we'll wait for another 50 years for any large expansion.
> 
> In the US in contrast, I noticed some minor improvements in the 30 years, and not that much service cuts and abandon like in Canada. Even if we take only the last 15 years, I have the impression there is more decline on the side of Canadian passenger railway than on the US side.
> 
> I also ask myself which passenger railway system is worse (also taking population density into account): Passenger railway in Canada or the US? Currently, I'm tending towards the Canadian passenger railway services being weaker than their US counterparts, but I'm not sure because of the higher population density in the US. I'm interest in discussion this! What do others think about it?
> 
> Neroden rightly mentioned Mexico here which perhaps has one of the worst passenger railway systems in the World regarding its population. The Canadian passenger railway network is not that bad as that in Mexico, but I also doubt it's better than the US system.


There were other mass cutbacks in Canada before 1990, most notably in 1981. Prior to that the regulatory process dealt with routes or regions more than the whole system. For example, the CP and CN RDC runs in the Prairie provinces took big hits in or just after 1971.

There were interesting changes in the process used for the cutbacks. In 1981 the federal government just ordered the cutbacks. However, the Edmonton<>Calgary corridor service had been put before the CTC (Canadian Transport Commission) prior to the 1981 package and so it continued as a conventional "train-off" case. Transport 2000 Alberta was able to cross-examine rail executives under the rules at that time. It was a remarkable experience for all concerned. My understanding is that after that it never has been permitted since.

After the hearings and before the CTC could rule, the Minister of Transport (a Vegreville auto dealer) ordered the service discontinued on safety grounds. At that point it became clear that Ottawa would use any method to rid itself of the passenger train problem. Little has happened since to controvert that.


----------



## jiml

Willbridge said:


> There were other mass cutbacks in Canada before 1990, most notably in 1981. Prior to that the regulatory process dealt with routes or regions more than the whole system. For example, the CP and CN RDC runs in the Prairie provinces took big hits in or just after 1971.
> 
> There were interesting changes in the process used for the cutbacks. In 1981 the federal government just ordered the cutbacks. However, the Edmonton<>Calgary corridor service had been put before the CTC (Canadian Transport Commission) prior to the 1981 package and so it continued as a conventional "train-off" case. Transport 2000 Alberta was able to cross-examine rail executives under the rules at that time. It was a remarkable experience for all concerned. My understanding is that after that it never has been permitted since.
> 
> After the hearings and before the CTC could rule, the Minister of Transport (a Vegreville auto dealer) ordered the service discontinued on safety grounds. At that point it became clear that Ottawa would use any method to rid itself of the passenger train problem. Little has happened since to controvert that.


Unfortunately the VIA '81 cuts get lost in the same recency bias as Amtrak's "Carter cuts". People also tend to assume that left-leaning governments don't cut public transportation whereas right-leaning ones do. In truth it's actually been fairly balanced on both sides of the border during the history of both agencies.


----------



## neroden

The 1981 VIA rail cuts were, to be fair, during a period of dropping rail demand. The Carter cuts during a sort of flatlined period. This is why I tend to consider the 1990s cuts significantly more heinous, as they were during a period of documented sharply-rising rail demand. They really felt like a last-ditch effort to kill the passenger railroads before they became too popular to kill. Though I hadn't realized that it was coordinated between the US, Mexico, and Canada until I wrote my previous comment.


----------



## Willbridge

neroden said:


> The 1981 VIA rail cuts were, to be fair, during a period of dropping rail demand. The Carter cuts during a sort of flatlined period. This is why I tend to consider the 1990s cuts significantly more heinous, as they were during a period of documented sharply-rising rail demand. They really felt like a last-ditch effort to kill the passenger railroads before they became too popular to kill. Though I hadn't realized that it was coordinated between the US, Mexico, and Canada until I wrote my previous comment.


The reason that the 81 cuts were important is that the network was screwed up by the cuts and they couldn't say that. Instead, changes were made step by step later on, but a lot of customers were turned off in the meantime. Elsewhere I've explained how the transcon passengers arrived at South Edmonton and their baggage arrived later at the CN Tower Station, as just one example.

I'm not certain that demand was dropping on some routes. When we rode the real _Canadian _in 1979, VIA had rented extra space in Calgary because the modern CP Rail station was over-flowing. And _Super Continental _consists held up till '81 when the consist went from scenes like these to a 3x car Railiner with a snack bar. Thanks to reservation requirements the ridership dropped accordingly.


----------



## neroden

Urban Sky said:


> Buses can’t run to places like Churchill and that’s why the federal government is going to stay in the non-Commuter passenger rail business. However, in the Corridor, the justification for running services in parallel to highways and privately operated bus services is simple: because they generate approximately 30% _more_ revenues than what they cause in direct operating costs. In 2018, they contributed $77 million towards VIA’s overheads (like, for instance, my own salary), while non-Corridor services a negative contribution of $37.8 million ($6.5 million for the Canadian, $11.3 million for the Ocean and $20 million for the regional services to remote areas):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For sources and explanations, click here.
> 
> Unlike the fully allocated figures (which spread VIA’s overheads across the entire network), looking at the contribution (i.e. direct revenues minus direct costs) gives you an indication whether running more trains will decrease or increase VIA’s subsidy need. Therefore, the only viable strategy to reduce VIA’s subsidy need is to outgrow it in the Corridor and VIA’s exceptional performance between 2014 and 2019 is testament that running more Corridor services increases revenues much faster than costs:
> 
> 
> 
> Note: re-post from Urban Toronto (VIA Rail’s 2019 Annual Report has been published in the meanwhile, with even stronger figures)
> 
> 
> I will never understand why so-called “rail enthusiasts” refuse to understand that Corridor services are what keeps VIA afloat rather than draining its resources. Therefore, the relative success of the Corridor services is the only thing which keeps your dreams for drastically improved rail service outside the Corridor alive...


I am just noticing this and must remark that Via actually publishes its contribution figures, unlike Amtrak which tries to conceal them. (This is generally surmised to be because publishing the contribution figures would show that most of Amtrak's so-called long distance trains make positive contributions.)

I do question whether the Ocean and Canadian would have higher contributions if run daily, however. Trains usually do.


----------



## Urban Sky

neroden said:


> I am just noticing this and must remark that Via actually publishes its contribution figures, unlike Amtrak which tries to conceal them. (This is generally surmised to be because publishing the contribution figures would show that most of Amtrak's so-called long distance trains make positive contributions.)


Indeed, I’m not aware of any other railroads publishing that kind of Management Accounting figures, which would allow to estimate whether a service increase would let revenues rise faster than costs or not…



> I do question whether the Ocean and Canadian would have higher contributions if run daily, however. Trains usually do.


I highly doubt it: in peak season, almost all available revenue cars (Sleepers and seats) are already assigned and sold out regularly, which suggests that it is close to impossible to rise revenues in line with costs, given that they are to a large part proportional to train-miles. Add to that that Tourists (i.e. the one customer segment which keeps VIA’s transcontinental services alive) are not that much bothered by service frequency - especially those which are retired - and I don’t see any chance of generating incremental revenues which are remotely as high as the incremental costs of, for instance, daily service…


----------



## neroden

There are significant economies of scale even in the variable costs from running daily, primarily in layover time for crew (which is excessive on less than daily schedules). While the Canadian sells out routinely, the Ocean does not so often and daily service quite likely would see outsized increases in ridership sufficient to generate economies of scale from more passengers per train. Unless more cars are available it is a moot point though; it can't be done without more cars.


----------



## Gary Behling

Seaboard92 said:


> I personally find that remark quite offensive. Unlike the vast majority on this board I have done more physical work in the industry than most. I have crawled under the cars and taken the brake valves, cylinders, hoses, and other appliances off and replaced them with refreshed items. I've been all over the roof of cars patching and fixing leaks. I've also pulled marathon OBS shifts that have ran from 4 AM to 12 AM in a twin unit diner serving over 1,000 meals in a day. I've also made the bunks up, loaded the supplies, gathered the trash, and done basically every mission critical job other than operate the locomotive. And if given the training and license I'm sure I could learn that skill set. Now if you want to experience what brake work is call me in four years I have a set of 26C valves to do then and I'm happy to teach. After all I was taught how to do things the military way from my father "watch one, do one, teach one".
> 
> And unlike most of the "rail enthusiasts" I have a 4.0 GPA in political science and understand how public services are supposed to operate. The problem that I see with VIA is you have 2 provinces that get frequent and great service while the other 6 provinces VIA services are lucky to get a train every other day. If you continue to neglect these other 6 provinces eventually those people and their politicians can't be counted to vote for continued funding for VIA. So yes most of their revenue comes from the corridor I won't disagree with you there and I knew that before your fancy chart.
> 
> But you have to see where I'm coming from that there is a lot of political clout in these outlying provinces that could very easily be won over to VIA's camp as opposed to where they are which is a bit ambivalent as it stands. How can we say VIA services Saskatewan, or Alberta well? What about British Columbia? Yes the population is not nearly as dense but it doesn't mean these people don't matter.
> 
> No form of transportation exists without some form of a subsidy. Busses and cars drive on public roads, airlines fly into public airports, and ferry service exists because governments fund it's continued existence. Trains are no different they were subsidized too even in the 1950s under CN and CP Management. The difference was up until the 1960s and 70s the ridership was high enough that it was basically breaking even. Railroads operated these trains because it was a public service, part of their government charter, and as a way to market their freight service and real estate arms. It was once the ridership started tanking that the losses started to become untenable in the old format.
> 
> So does a service between St. John and Halifax have to make a profit. No it doesn't because that's not the mission. The mission is to be a public service and recover as much of the loss as possible in revenue. But it's still supposed to be subsidized.
> 
> I love VIA and I understand her unique issues but you really need the rural support if you want to maintain the network in it's current form. VIA still has good ridership on the Ocean all things considered. The Canadian unfortunately has morphed into a tourist train which is only going to hurt it because it's use as a usable mode of transportation has waned. That is partially due to the crappy schedule you can't really expect ridership if your running two days a week east of Edmonton. And with that it makes the argument really hard to keep the service if politicians are looking for something to cut.
> 
> To make the Canadian a better service just cut some of the sleeper lines off the train does one trainset really need 12 sleeper lines. You could cut the number of sleepers per set which also limits the amount of diners and skylines you need and get up to daily service. CN would cause some problems but again VIA needs the support in the federal government to force the issue preferably getting the same treatment and statutory power that Amtrak has. But to get that you need to win over parliament and you will need as many as you can get which means you need those rural areas.
> 
> In the western world we look at things differently we think everything needs to make a profit when in reality the place of a government run service is to run a good service.



I've been looking for someone who can give me advice on the Canadian "tourist train" so that I can benefit from the experience of someone who actually has ridden this train recently. This is going to be a "Bucket List" deal for my wife and I and I would like to do this right. We are "all in" on this and I have zero experience with Canada or VIA rail. I have been a regular rider on Amtrak since 1977. 

We are going to take an around the country Amtrak/Via rail in Deluxe bedrooms and Prestige room on the Canadian from Toronto. Our trip is going to start in Tucson, Az and go to Los Angeles, then up to San Francisco. Then the Zephyr to Chicago and the Lake Shore Limited to Buffalo. Visit Niagara Falls and then Toronto. Next-- The Canadian all the way to Vancouver. We want to get a Prestige room for us and my wife will sleep there. I can't sleep with her because I move around too much so I will have to get a cheap room with a bed. And not an upper bunk. 

I could sure use some advice on these questions. Best time of year to go. What car to get our room in. Can you bring your own DVD's to play in the wall mounted TV. How far in advance do I need to make the reservations. The best way to deal with the issue of my needing a separate bed. The most important question is what questions should I actually be asking that I really should be asking? Sometimes you don't know what to ask until you've done something and then realize the mistakes you made after it is too late. 

Any help will be very much appreciated. 

PS--- Is there a website like this Amtrak Forum that deals with VIA Rail?


----------



## Urban Sky

neroden said:


> There are significant economies of scale even in the variable costs from running daily, primarily in layover time for crew (which is excessive on less than daily schedules). While the Canadian sells out routinely, the Ocean does not so often and daily service quite likely would see outsized increases in ridership sufficient to generate economies of scale from more passengers per train. Unless more cars are available it is a moot point though; it can't be done without more cars.


Indeed, the current schedule forces on-train staff (based in Halifax, IIRC) to layover for 36 (Thu/Fri, Sat/Sun) or even 50 (Mon/Tue/Wed) hours in Montreal before returning and similar staffing inefficiencies exist with Locomotive Engineers (though not between Sainte-Foy and Campbellton, as crews swap when their trains meet half-way). However, with revenues currently recovering (even before Covid!) less than half of their direct costs, I don't see how a return to, say, daily frequencies could be cost-neutral, especially given that the Ocean's largest revenue source (apart from subsidies, of course) are tourists which are largely insensitive to changed in service frequency...




Gary Behling said:


> I've been looking for someone who can give me advice on the Canadian "tourist train" so that I can benefit from the experience of someone who actually has ridden this train recently. This is going to be a "Bucket List" deal for my wife and I and I would like to do this right. We are "all in" on this and I have zero experience with Canada or VIA rail. I have been a regular rider on Amtrak since 1977.
> 
> We are going to take an around the country Amtrak/Via rail in Deluxe bedrooms and Prestige room on the Canadian from Toronto. Our trip is going to start in Tucson, Az and go to Los Angeles, then up to San Francisco. Then the Zephyr to Chicago and the Lake Shore Limited to Buffalo. Visit Niagara Falls and then Toronto. Next-- The Canadian all the way to Vancouver. We want to get a Prestige room for us and my wife will sleep there. I can't sleep with her because I move around too much so I will have to get a cheap room with a bed. And not an upper bunk.
> 
> I could sure use some advice on these questions. Best time of year to go. What car to get our room in. Can you bring your own DVD's to play in the wall mounted TV. How far in advance do I need to make the reservations. The best way to deal with the issue of my needing a separate bed. The most important question is what questions should I actually be asking that I really should be asking? Sometimes you don't know what to ask until you've done something and then realize the mistakes you made after it is too late.
> 
> Any help will be very much appreciated.
> 
> PS--- Is there a website like this Amtrak Forum that deals with VIA Rail?


I took the Canadian in both directions(westbound in May/June 2015 and eastbound in April/May 2019) in a cabin for 2 and I certainly recommend to start with a westbound trip, as it creates a nice build-up for the Rockies, starting with the monotonous trees-and-lakes-and-trees-and-lakes of Northern Ontario and suddenly transitioning into the not-as-flat-as-everyone-claims prairies until you eventually find yourself in the Rockies and (my favorite part) the Fraser canyon...!

As for the booking, you should be aware that Prestige Class and Sleeper Plus are not in the same cars and that you therefore want to be booked which is as close to your wife as possible (i.e. as far to the train end as possible). I sense that you expect more privacy than a bunk bed, but a Cabin for 1 should be more than fine for your purposes, as you will presumably spend most of your day with you wife either in her cabin or in the shared areas of the train.

I never traveled in Prestige Class, but I believe that they have a DVD player which would allow you to watch your own DVDs; however, in my personal opinion, the best thing about traveling by train is the scenery and that naturally makes the number of daylight hours a major consideration. The train gets quite busy and pricey in summer, but I really enjoyed our trips being in mid/late-spring. During the winter, you may want to time your trip with full moon for a very atmospheric experience.

I hope that helps you a bit, but I'm happy to answer more questions...


----------



## neroden

So, it is a severe mistake to assume that tourists are insensitive to frequency. Tourists are extremely sensitive to frequency. Most Americans only get a few days off work or school at a time, or a week at a time not of their choice, and cannot schedule around less-than-daily service. Daily service massively increases tourist numbers.

You may be thinking of retirees. Most tourists are NOT retirees.

I mostly travel for leisure reasons. And I can set my own schedule to some extent, being self-employed. Still never managed to fit a less-than-daily route into my schedule.


----------



## Urban Sky

neroden said:


> So, it is a severe mistake to assume that tourists are insensitive to frequency. Tourists are extremely sensitive to frequency. Most Americans only get a few days off work or school at a time, or a week at a time not of their choice, and cannot schedule around less-than-daily service. Daily service massively increases tourist numbers.
> 
> You may be thinking of retirees. Most tourists are NOT retirees.
> 
> I mostly travel for leisure reasons. And I can set my own schedule to some extent, being self-employed. Still never managed to fit a less-than-daily route into my schedule.


Those Sleeper passengers I met on board my two trips on board the Canadian and half a dozen trips on the Ocean overwhelmingly fitted the „Retirees“ category, but I do concede that we must consider a Survivor Bias, as you will only meet people on board a train which can make its schedule work for themselves…




neroden said:


> Unless more cars are available it is a moot point though; it can't be done without more cars.


Indeed, as long as you reach your capacity limit during peak periods, there is no point to spread your limited fleet across more departures. Let‘s wait and see what this announcement means:



> VIA Rail is pleased to invite all tier 1 original equipment manufacturers of intercity and long-distance rail cars and locomotives to attend the virtual VIA Rail non-corridor fleets renewal market day.
> The day will be dedicated to both informing the market about the fleet renewal opportunity and addressing the context of the Government of Canada’s 2022-2023 Budget.








Non-corridor Fleets Renewal Market Day - 202112030 | MERX







www.merx.com


----------



## neroden

Ooh... Possibility of real improvement if they manage to order enough cars!

I do think the 'remote services' are always going to be a massive expense and although daily service would sure help the locals, may not be justifiable. Is Churchill or Prince Rupert ever going to attract more than a niche ridership? Likely not any time soon. The Canadian and Ocean just seem to have more potential to me (I think that survivor bias is real).


----------



## toddinde

Seaboard92 said:


> I personally find that remark quite offensive. Unlike the vast majority on this board I have done more physical work in the industry than most. I have crawled under the cars and taken the brake valves, cylinders, hoses, and other appliances off and replaced them with refreshed items. I've been all over the roof of cars patching and fixing leaks. I've also pulled marathon OBS shifts that have ran from 4 AM to 12 AM in a twin unit diner serving over 1,000 meals in a day. I've also made the bunks up, loaded the supplies, gathered the trash, and done basically every mission critical job other than operate the locomotive. And if given the training and license I'm sure I could learn that skill set. Now if you want to experience what brake work is call me in four years I have a set of 26C valves to do then and I'm happy to teach. After all I was taught how to do things the military way from my father "watch one, do one, teach one".
> 
> And unlike most of the "rail enthusiasts" I have a 4.0 GPA in political science and understand how public services are supposed to operate. The problem that I see with VIA is you have 2 provinces that get frequent and great service while the other 6 provinces VIA services are lucky to get a train every other day. If you continue to neglect these other 6 provinces eventually those people and their politicians can't be counted to vote for continued funding for VIA. So yes most of their revenue comes from the corridor I won't disagree with you there and I knew that before your fancy chart.
> 
> But you have to see where I'm coming from that there is a lot of political clout in these outlying provinces that could very easily be won over to VIA's camp as opposed to where they are which is a bit ambivalent as it stands. How can we say VIA services Saskatewan, or Alberta well? What about British Columbia? Yes the population is not nearly as dense but it doesn't mean these people don't matter.
> 
> No form of transportation exists without some form of a subsidy. Busses and cars drive on public roads, airlines fly into public airports, and ferry service exists because governments fund it's continued existence. Trains are no different they were subsidized too even in the 1950s under CN and CP Management. The difference was up until the 1960s and 70s the ridership was high enough that it was basically breaking even. Railroads operated these trains because it was a public service, part of their government charter, and as a way to market their freight service and real estate arms. It was once the ridership started tanking that the losses started to become untenable in the old format.
> 
> So does a service between St. John and Halifax have to make a profit. No it doesn't because that's not the mission. The mission is to be a public service and recover as much of the loss as possible in revenue. But it's still supposed to be subsidized.
> 
> I love VIA and I understand her unique issues but you really need the rural support if you want to maintain the network in it's current form. VIA still has good ridership on the Ocean all things considered. The Canadian unfortunately has morphed into a tourist train which is only going to hurt it because it's use as a usable mode of transportation has waned. That is partially due to the crappy schedule you can't really expect ridership if your running two days a week east of Edmonton. And with that it makes the argument really hard to keep the service if politicians are looking for something to cut.
> 
> To make the Canadian a better service just cut some of the sleeper lines off the train does one trainset really need 12 sleeper lines. You could cut the number of sleepers per set which also limits the amount of diners and skylines you need and get up to daily service. CN would cause some problems but again VIA needs the support in the federal government to force the issue preferably getting the same treatment and statutory power that Amtrak has. But to get that you need to win over parliament and you will need as many as you can get which means you need those rural areas.
> 
> In the western world we look at things differently we think everything needs to make a profit when in reality the place of a government run service is to run a good service.


Let me caveat this by saying I use all rail service, and corridors and rural service have tremendous value. The reality is that if any particular rail corridor in North America went away, it would be sad, but mobility would not be appreciably impacted. On the other hand, the rural community that loses rail service is likely losing its only public transportation option. If anyone looks at market penetration, they’ll see that some Amtrak stations that serve a county of say 20,000 people will board 8,000 passengers a year at that station. I guarantee that Washington or New York aren’t matching 40% riding Amtrak (I understand this isn’t a direct market penetration because of visitors and drawing from outside the area, but still) The “value” of passenger rail to underserved communities is exponentially greater as is the relative economic impact. The costs of running long distance trains are much less as well. The infrastructure is shared with freight, and much less intensive. Need proof? The western railroads in the US did much better with their passenger business than the eastern railroads did in the ‘60s. My point is not to argue against corridors, but to make the case for the long distance trains.


----------



## Gary Behling

Urban Sky said:


> Indeed, the current schedule forces on-train staff (based in Halifax, IIRC) to layover for 36 (Thu/Fri, Sat/Sun) or even 50 (Mon/Tue/Wed) hours in Montreal before returning and similar staffing inefficiencies exist with Locomotive Engineers (though not between Sainte-Foy and Campbellton, as crews swap when their trains meet half-way). However, with revenues currently recovering (even before Covid!) less than half of their direct costs, I don't see how a return to, say, daily frequencies could be cost-neutral, especially given that the Ocean's largest revenue source (apart from subsidies, of course) are tourists which are largely insensitive to changed in service frequency...
> 
> 
> 
> I took the Canadian in both directions(westbound in May/June 2015 and eastbound in April/May 2019) in a cabin for 2 and I certainly recommend to start with a westbound trip, as it creates a nice build-up for the Rockies, starting with the monotonous trees-and-lakes-and-trees-and-lakes of Northern Ontario and suddenly transitioning into the not-as-flat-as-everyone-claims prairies until you eventually find yourself in the Rockies and (my favorite part) the Fraser canyon...!
> 
> As for the booking, you should be aware that Prestige Class and Sleeper Plus are not in the same cars and that you therefore want to be booked which is as close to your wife as possible (i.e. as far to the train end as possible). I sense that you expect more privacy than a bunk bed, but a Cabin for 1 should be more than fine for your purposes, as you will presumably spend most of your day with you wife either in her cabin or in the shared areas of the train.
> 
> I never traveled in Prestige Class, but I believe that they have a DVD player which would allow you to watch your own DVDs; however, in my personal opinion, the best thing about traveling by train is the scenery and that naturally makes the number of daylight hours a major consideration. The train gets quite busy and pricey in summer, but I really enjoyed our trips being in mid/late-spring. During the winter, you may want to time your trip with full moon for a very atmospheric experience.
> 
> I hope that helps you a bit, but I'm happy to answer more questions...



Thank you for your reply to my post. We definitely for sure want the Prestige room. How many cars away from the Prestige Rooms are the cabins for one or a LOWER BUNK BED. I'm only going to use it for sleeping but I know this is a really long train. 

When you make your reservations, do you ask for specific cars? I noticed that the last car not only has Prestige rooms, but also an upper domed scenic viewing seating and below has a bar and live entertainment. Do you know anything about that?


----------



## Seaboard92

toddinde said:


> Let me caveat this by saying I use all rail service, and corridors and rural service have tremendous value. The reality is that if any particular rail corridor in North America went away, it would be sad, but mobility would not be appreciably impacted. On the other hand, the rural community that loses rail service is likely losing its only public transportation option. If anyone looks at market penetration, they’ll see that some Amtrak stations that serve a county of say 20,000 people will board 8,000 passengers a year at that station. I guarantee that Washington or New York aren’t matching 40% riding Amtrak (I understand this isn’t a direct market penetration because of visitors and drawing from outside the area, but still) The “value” of passenger rail to underserved communities is exponentially greater as is the relative economic impact. The costs of running long distance trains are much less as well. The infrastructure is shared with freight, and much less intensive. Need proof? The western railroads in the US did much better with their passenger business than the eastern railroads did in the ‘60s. My point is not to argue against corridors, but to make the case for the long distance trains.



This is exactly my argument. The smaller places are just as important as the larger cities. And even regional cities are just as important as a small town. You have some really good regional cities in Midwestern/Western Canada like Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw, etc. If you can make these better connected you are really helping their local economy. 

As far as the Canadian I'm taking my Russian friends sometime this year once we can figure out the visa situation for Canada for them, and when they can "Afford it". More than likely I'll end up subsidizing the fare a bit out of my own money. I make good money at this point.


----------



## Urban Sky

Gary Behling said:


> Thank you for your reply to my post. We definitely for sure want the Prestige room. How many cars away from the Prestige Rooms are the cabins for one or a LOWER BUNK BED. I'm only going to use it for sleeping but I know this is a really long train.
> 
> When you make your reservations, do you ask for specific cars? I noticed that the last car not only has Prestige rooms, but also an upper domed scenic viewing seating and below has a bar and live entertainment. Do you know anything about that?


The consist of the Canadian is described in a fair bit of detail on VIA's webpage for the Canadian:








Toronto-Vancouver train – Train cars


Toronto-Vancouver train (the Canadian) – Train cars




www.viarail.ca





The last car of the Canadian is the Park car (car number #39), which houses the iconic bullet lounge, a dome, one Prestige bedroom and the accessible bedroom):



Directly in front of the Park car are the Prestige Chateaus (car numbers #31 - if there is a second one - and #30), which offer 6 Prestige bedrooms each:



The next car is an ordinary Chateau car, which is usually only used for crews:



If I recall correctly, the next two cars are a Dining car...



...followed by a Skyline car (a lounge car with a dome):





It is only then that you reach the Manor cars (which is where Sleeper Plus passengers are accommodated and hosts 4 cabins for 1 ("Roomettes"), 6 cabins for 2 and 3 "Sections" (consisting of one Upper and Lower berth each, each separated from the corridor by only a curtain):



Consist sizes are adjusted to match demand and thus variable, but during the summer you usually find 6 Manors (starting with #15 and followed by #14/13/12/11/10), another Diner and Skyline a few more Manors (#22/21/20), leading to the third Skyline (for Economy passengers), two coaches (#03/02) and the baggage car (right behind the locomotives).

Clearly, you would want to be as close to your wife as possible, which is why you probably should request car #15 (i.e. #115 on Train 1 or #215 on Train 2) for yourself and #30 (i.e. #130/230) for your wife. However, the numbering is different on an off-peak consist and you will anyways have to call in to request a certain car, so just ask the agent to book you as close to the train end as possible...


***




Seaboard92 said:


> This is exactly my argument. The smaller places are just as important as the larger cities. And even regional cities are just as important as a small town. You have some really good regional cities in Midwestern/Western Canada like Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw, etc. If you can make these better connected you are really helping their local economy.
> 
> As far as the Canadian I'm taking my Russian friends sometime this year once we can figure out the visa situation for Canada for them, and when they can "Afford it". More than likely I'll end up subsidizing the fare a bit out of my own money. I make good money at this point.


Your Russian friends can surely call themselves lucky to travel with you and I'm sure you all will have a very memorable trip!

I couldn't agree more on your statement about the need to provide reliable, frequent and affordable public transportation links to all major population centers across Western Canada, which makes me wonder what we keep arguing about. The only point I'm trying to make is that as a taxpayer, I'm happy with funding either mode, as long as the choice of mode to be funded is based on a rational decision and that favors a train if 300 people happen to want to travel into the same direction at roughly the same time, but a bus if it's only 30.

Having estimated and compared the per-timetable-km costs of Ontario Northland's bus services ($3.80 in 2017-18) with those of VIA's services ($26-$130 if using fully allocated costs or $17-$57 if using direct costs only), it just makes me sad whenever I imagine what kind of intercity bus network could be funded with a federal subsidy equivalent to what is already spent on VIA's remote services:


Maybe that explains why I find it rather patronizing towards the residents of the kind of underserved cities you’ve listed when certain rail enthusiasts/advocates seemingly insist that these cities should not accept anything less than a train and certainly not by a bus (unless the latter serves as a feeder service to the former), while a very modest operating subsidy could pay for a service standard (say, at least 3 buses per day between these cities) which would never be financially justifiable as a rail service...

In any case, have a good night and a happy new year!


----------



## neroden

Of course, VIA's remote services go to places with no roads, where buses are simply not an option.

Meanwhile, the Canadian and Ocean go to places where 300+ people per day would want to travel if there was daily, on-time service.

Of course, the bus system in Canada should have been nationalized when Greyhound Canada collapsed; it covered the feeder routes to a lot of places where there are roads but which aren't Edmonton or Winnipeg sized. But it wasn't.


----------

