High speed vs slow speed

Ken V wrote:...and now the latest RMR report on high speed rail ... http://www.youtube.com/user/MercerRepor ... 0cXpd8haQQ

Meh... When I take the train, it's not to go to my destination as fastly as I can. I take the train to look at the scenery. Slower trains fits me more =D Although I did like how he made his video.

If you want to get somewhere fast, fly! If you want to relax, make new friends and not worry about traffic, take the train.

The journey is more important than the destination.

NeoArashi wrote:Meh... When I take the train, it's not to go to my destination as fastly as I can. I take the train to look at the scenery. Slower trains fits me more =D Although I did like how he made his video.

I agree substantially. But we have to remember that VIA exists not just for railfans or sightseers, but to take people places with the exception of the Canadian. An extra night on the Canadian may sound like an opportunity to better appreciate the scenery, but this is not the case east of Winnipeg. There are two pockets of gorgeous scenery on the Toronto-Winnipeg portion: Muskoka and the area just west of Sioux Lookout. Now that the transcontinental service is back on a four-night schedule (for the third time since VIA took it over) these areas are traversed during the night. That tremendous view of the harbour at Parry Sound from the CPR bridge is now lost. If you're awake at 0240 you could see some lights and during the height of summer you might see a bit of Muskoka on the eastbound run. Fortunately most of the best scenery west of Winnipeg can be viewed during daylight because the extra night was added to the eastern portion. Although I don't have the figures, everyone I know at VIA in WInnipeg and aboard the train admits that ridership on the Canadian has plunged over the past few years. Part of that has been caused by the recession, of course, but VIA staff will tell you that the extra night has not helped.

warwgn3 said: "If you want to get somewhere fast, fly! If you want to relax, make new friends and not worry about traffic, take the train. The journey is more important than the destination."

Again, I agree with that but most people will not. It seems that every year the speed of corridor trains gets slower. I'm sure most of us remember that VIA once had a semi-express train at 1700 hours that travelled between Toronto and Montreal in 3 hours 59 minutes. I took that train a few times and it was usually on time or just a few minutes late. Currently it takes 4 hours 51 minutes w/b and 4 hours 48 minutes e/b. As with the Canadian, it is not VIA's fault that these trains are getting slower. CN just can't handle trains at the speeds that they did in the 1990s - or even the 1940s on the transcontinental route!

For the sake of the environment VIA should be able to persuade people to get off the planes and out of their cars. Running trains slower is not going to do it. We are going in the opposite direction to the rest of the world. VIA runs just six trains each way between Toronto and Montreal on Mondays through Fridays. I had no idea how many flights there were between those cities until I looked it up: 64 each way, 33 of which use the Toronto Island Airport. On a recent visit to Britain I found out that a modest increase in speed on the London-Edinburgh route resulted in a substantial increase in passengers, mostly in first class, and a significant reduction in the number of air passengers on that route. I fear for the long-term future of VIA, which could fade into irrelevancy if they cannot keep a reasonable market-share. The infrastructure improvements in the corridor will help, but I hope its not a case of "too little too late."

The Canadian and Ocean will always be slow trains. But it can and should be different for Corridor trains between Toronto and Montreal. I'll leave Corridor extensions to Quebec or Windsor in the debatable column.
If the planes flying between Toronto and Montreal are mostly full today, there's plenty of traffic demand to support running true HSR between them. The question to be asked and answered is there sufficient passenger demand to finance the capital costs to build true HSR. I believe there is a study underway for HSR on the Corridor, does anyone know when the report is supposed to be published? That should make an interesting evening read.
Electrification of the city "approaches" of the existing Corridor needs to be accomplished first, GO's planned electrification of its first rail lines into Toronto's city center will be a great first step.

electricron wrote:The Canadian and Ocean will always be slow trains. But it can and should be different for Corridor trains between Toronto and Montreal. I'll leave Corridor extensions to Quebec or Windsor in the debatable column.
If the planes flying between Toronto and Montreal are mostly full today, there's plenty of traffic demand to support running true HSR between them. The question to be asked and answered is there sufficient passenger demand to finance the capital costs to build true HSR. I believe there is a study underway for HSR on the Corridor, does anyone know when the report is supposed to be published? That should make an interesting evening read.
Electrification of the city "approaches" of the existing Corridor needs to be accomplished first, GO's planned electrification of its first rail lines into Toronto's city center will be a great first step.

Well, the Ocean wasn't exactly slow, to be honest. But of course, it's not as fast as dome coridor trains. If you want a slow train, try the Montreal - Senneterre train. Thanks to the fact that there are a stop at almost every 10 KM (especially on the summer) between La Tuque and Senneterre, the train is always extremely slow. But I'm hapy with that. Anything past Hervey-Jonction from Montreal is very nice to see.

Off topic: I don't remember starting this thread... what happened? Did a modrator moved our posts here?

EDIT: Never mind my off-topic question. A mod confirmed that our posts were moved here.

I too am not a fan of the "four night Canadian" that is now in place. The current schedule is just too slow, especially with the extended layover at Winnipeg. It has really morphed into a "tourist" train.

I have to wonder if VIA is now trying to make-up for it by introducing its "deluxo Chateau sleeper and Park Car" to be launched in 2012. The scenery westbound was better when it had a "three night" schedule (for reasons mentioned above - daytime scenery in Perry Sound and also west of Sioux Lookout). This latest schedule also broke the connection with the train to Churchill at Winnipeg (when it operated on its "evening departure" out of Winnipeg).

Course when the change was made on the Canadian to a "four night schedule" a few years ago, this was also when rail traffic was particular high, the "recession" hadn't hit, and on-time performance of the Canadian was causing VIA (and CN) a lot of headaches, especially eastbound. CN also seemed to prefer a "four night operating schedule" of the Candian. I had hoped that the eastbound schedule only would get adjusted. But both east and west were.

I can recall being hours late into Winnipeg on the "three night schedule," - largely on a trip where we had an engine failure enroute after Sioux Lookout - but by the time we had pulled into Jasper and Vancouver (heading westbound) we were right on time - to VIA or CN's credit! There was even built in padding and recover time with the "three night schedule." At Winnipeg we were able to pickup an additional engine to replace the one that had failed.

With the "three night Canadian" I especially looked forward to day-time running leaving Toronto, breakfast near Sioux Lookout, and the westbound trek after leaving Sioux Lookout (travelling to Winnipeg). If the economy hadn't bottomed out around the same time VIA made the "four night schedule" change, I wonder if it would be clearer as to what schedule for the Canadian was preferred by passengers (three nights or four nights). VIA had reasoned that a four night schedule would also provide better connectivity at Toronto. One could travel from Halifax to Toronto on the Ocean and a corridor train without necessarily getting off a train to overnight in a hotel). Yet, this seemed to be detrimental to communities like Perry Sound and Sunbry, which appeared to have a descent ridership count when the Canadian had a more "passenger friendly" timetable through these communities. I am sure other communities experienced a reversal though. Moreover, with the "three night schedule," passengers eastbound could leave Vancouver Friday evening eastbound and be into Jasper before lunch on Saturday. Those eastbound passengers were less interested in spending more daylight time in the Canadian Rockies between say Kamloops and Jasper (as VIA was also trying to promote). And then it would be back to Vancouver on the Canadian - on the late afternoon westbound out of Jasper - it was scheduled to be in time for the work day (if needed). Vancouver to Jasper was always a popular extended weekend trip for those living in Vancouver. VIA will still drop and add cars at Jasper for the increased ridership between the two stations.

electricron wrote:The Canadian and Ocean will always be slow trains. But it can and should be different for Corridor trains between Toronto and Montreal. I'll leave Corridor extensions to Quebec or Windsor in the debatable column.
If the planes flying between Toronto and Montreal are mostly full today, there's plenty of traffic demand to support running true HSR between them. The question to be asked and answered is there sufficient passenger demand to finance the capital costs to build true HSR. I believe there is a study underway for HSR on the Corridor, does anyone know when the report is supposed to be published? That should make an interesting evening read.
Electrification of the city "approaches" of the existing Corridor needs to be accomplished first, GO's planned electrification of its first rail lines into Toronto's city center will be a great first step.

GO's planned electrification won't ever be extended to the so-called "corridor." Passenger traffic and population densities simply don't justify it. Truth be known, GO doesn't have a justification for electrification either.

If airplanes are full, it's most likely a matter of the airlines keeping capacity low to keep ticket prices high. Canada really needs more discount competition in the airline sector.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:
GO's planned electrification won't ever be extended to the so-called "corridor." Passenger traffic and population densities simply don't justify it. Truth be known, GO doesn't have a justification for electrification either.

No justification for electrification ?

Presently, GO handles 47 million train riders per year and growing, over 7 routes. On the basis of a recent extensive study, three routes will be first electrified.......Georgetown, Lakeshore and the link to Pearson International Airport......the airport route which is to be completed in 2015, will be initially diesel powered, then converted.

A large cost savings in fuel and locomotive maintenence will be acheived with electrifying a majority of GO's routes.