Station Aficionado wrote:Ken V wrote:The Amtrak/VIA Maple Leaf is not affected by these cuts. but once all is said and done it will be the only VIA train left operating on that route. I haven't heard anything recently on the status of the Whirlpool Bridge so I presume nothing has changed there.
See this topic on the Amtrak forum for an update of sorts on the Whirlpool Bridge:http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 6&start=60
On the more general topic, long distance routes with service of once a day or three times a week or whatever are the passenger equivalent of long, low-density freight branch lines. Their economics are terrible. Sometimes they can be justified as providing an essential service (which, I gather, is the case with VIA's "remote" services). Likewise, if not strictly "essential," they may be a vital part of the transportation system for the communities they serve, and those communities use them heavily. That's the case with Amtrak's Empire Builder.
Based on what I've read here and elsewhere (I've never ridden either train), neither situation currently applies to the Canadian or the Ocean. While I recognize the historical and symbolic importance of the Canadian, my sense is that the train is now mostly a "land cruise" for the well-heeled, and doesn't serve much of a transportation purpose (indeed, I don't think tri-weeklies ever serve much of a transportation purpose). And I gather the Ocean is a paler (if more frequent) imitation of the same. It's hard for me to see the justification for government funding of either train in its current incarnation (although, coming from south of the border, my opinion is not of much consequence and I'm not familiar with many of the particulars). In this situation, I think there are two defensible choices: cut back/eliminate the services, or improve them to the point that patronage improves and they become an important part of the transportation system instead of glorified tourist trains. Mr. Harper's government has chosen the prior course. While we may have preferred the latter course, I can understand the view that the status quo is not acceptable.
In my opinion VIA really cemented the notion of the Canadian as a "toursit train" when they went to a "four night" schedule. I think it inconvenienced a lot of intermediate based passengers who now had to endure long layovers due to the train being "ahead of schedule."
Although the four night schedule was kinda "forced" onto VIA by CN due to scheduling and on-time performance issues, it cascaded into a much longer running train. Once the recession hit and some freight trains were eliminated, it sort of freed the railroad up to the point that the old schedule of the Canadian likely could have been maintained again. Now the Canadian often endures long layovers at intermediate stops - awaiting for necessary times of departure. Not sure how "popular" the four night schedule of the Canadian was.
Likewise, VIA invested a significant amount of money into upgrading the Budd fleet, particularly those cars running on the Canadian, only to have them see less service and more time "sitting" than being out on the road.
A lot of connections between say the Hudson Bay Train (train to Churchill) and Skeena (train to Prince Rupert) were also broken, forcing patrons to "overnight it" in hotels awaiting for the next day's departure (if that). Even up until the early 2000's I can recall a healthy amount of westbound Canadian passengers connecting with the evening's Hudson Bay Train (Canadian coming into Winnipeg in the late afternoon and the Hudson Bay Train leaving some time after 8 p.m.). This was a same day connection, as opposed to a relatively expensive layover.
VIA's interconnectivity of what trains it did have was more concentrated east-west than what limited trains ran north-south. And there's not that many too coordinate for the later! I can also remember connecting bus routes being printed in VIA timetables for the Canadian or Skeena in the late 1990s and early 2000s. That's either gone now due to lack of service, lack of connectivity, or lack of promotion.
Poor political move.
