Proposal for more passenger rail in Saskatchewan

[railiner]

Saskatoon-Alsask-Calgary (cooperating on GLC in Alberta).

Did they actually run a thru pool, or just a coordinated connection on that route?

 

[west point]

There is not enough infrastructure. However, if the Canadian would operate 3 days a week on say CN and 4 days a week on CP that would give both routes better coverage. Every 4 months numbers would swap RRs so neither route would monopolize certain days.

 

[danasgoodstuff]

Saskatoon-Alsask-Calgary

I think passenger rail would be theoretically possible thing that way too, but likely not worth doing. If I had the choice, I'd go rail over bus every time. and I've done Saskatoon to Van both ways in the '70s and despite bus being shorter and faster and costing a little less, rail was a better choice.

 

[Willbridge]

Did they actually run a thru pool, or just a coordinated connection on that route?

I never found out. The Greyhound Table 714 shows one SAS daylight trip each way year round and one SAS overnight trip for the summer. The SAS Table 6352 matches, except that the daylight westbound trip shows as a connection at Alsask! I checked in 1994 and GLC showed them as thru trips with GLC numbers and shown in the route map as a GLC route. SAS showed the trips. with their numbers, as connecting at Alsask!

We can be reminded that in the age of paper schedules sometimes you had to make the trip to find out what really was happening. The confusion may indicate that the methods of running this route changed from time to time.

For rail history, this route replaced a CN train between Saskatoon and Calgary.

 

[Urban Sky]

I have also wondered why VIA Rail chose the CN route over the CP route for its remaining western service. I am thinking that it may have been for similar reasons Amtrak chose its former GN route over the more populated NP route across the west, because it served an area lacking a good highway and thru bus service as well as air service. Could be because VIA Rail was a creation of CN, and was staffed mainly by former CN officials. Could be for political reasons, as well...

Once you refer to the "Order Varying Certain National Transportation Agency Orders Respecting Railway Companies" as the actual legislation mandating the 1990 cuts, your question becomes rather simple to answer:

Schedule III mandated that VIA abandons the entire CP route: "VIA Rail Canada Inc., CN and CP shall discontinue the operation of the following passenger-train services effective January 15, 1990: [...] (c) the Montréal-Ottawa, Ottawa-North Bay, North Bay-Sudbury, Sudbury-White River, White River-Thunder Bay, Thunder Bay-Winnipeg, Winnipeg-Regina, Regina-Calgary, Calgary-Kamloops, and Kamloops-Vancouver segments of the Montréal/Toronto-Vancouver service."

At the same time, Schedule I mandated a minimum frequency of 3 trains per weeks for the entire CN route, namely: Toronto-Barrie, Barrie-Washago, Washago-South Parry, South Parry-Capreol, Capreol-Hornepayne, Hornepayne-Nakina, Nakina-Armstrong, Armstrong-Sioux Lookout, Sioux Lookout-Farlane, Farlane-Winnipeg, Winnipeg-Saskatoon, Saskatoon-Edmonton, Edmonton-Jasper, Jasper-Kamloops Jct. and Kamloops Jct.-Vancouver.

***

Now, to understand why the government chose to axe the CP route and keep the CN route, I suggest to consider the context of these cuts, as summarized by Tom Box on Groups.io:



Once we've established that the overarching objective stated by the government of that time was to minimize VIA's deficit, we know how to compare the two corridors. Granted, both corridors are virtually the same distance, so operating the same train over the same distance will cost roughly the same amount and generate similar deficits. Therefore, we need to consider the network effects of choosing either route:

Choosing the CN route allowed to have the Skeena connect with the Canadian in Jasper (with initially very good connections in all directions!) and to get rid of the Capreol-Winnipeg service (which generated a direct loss of $6.7 million in 1988).

Conversely, choosing the CP route would have required an extension of the Skeena to Kamloops and to keep the Capreol-Winnipeg service, while getting rid of the Sudbury-White River service (which generated a much lower direct loss of $943,000 in 1988).

The above suggests that choosing the CN route over the CP route might have saved the federal government C$7.2 million in annual subsidies ($1.4 million* West of Winnipeg and $5.8 million East of Winnipeg), which translates to almost C$16 million today (or some US$12 million).

Despite all the conspiracy theories Canadian railfans will all too happily share, once we accept that the federal government wanted to reduce VIA's burden on its taxpayers while still maintaining some minimal service (as outlined in the legislation I quoted above), I find it impossible to argue that they ought to have kept the CP route and axed the CN route instead...

*calculation:
Deficit for Prince Rupert - Prince George - Jasper - Edmonton (1540 km): $6.6 million in 1988
Deficit assumed for Prince Rupert - Prince George - Jasper (1160 km): $5.0 million ($6.6 million / 1540 km * 1160 km)
Deficit assumed for Prince Rupert - Prince George - Kamloops (maybe 1490 km): $6.4 million ($6.6 million / 1540 km * 1490 km)
Incremental assumed deficit for choosing Kamloops as end point over Jasper: $1.4 million ($6.4 million - $5.0 million)