New service cuts announced

neroden wrote: Of course. They're cutting trains which are *full* (while retaining the implausible Gaspe service).

The Gaspe service outlived the Atlantic, which had higher ridership, and it still is apparently alive. The surprising thing is that it isn't a political move, since the Gaspe region is represented in parliament by the rival NDP party. VIA is apparently the sole user of line, the station had a fire and the service has been bustituted for a long while, but the service will be continued, the line repaired and maintained and the station rebuilt, and absolutely nobody has a clue as to why?

Everyone: In the Amtrak forum I noted that VIA has discontinued the last pair of peak-hour runs from
Niagara Falls to Toronto in the Maple Leaf/Whirlpool Bridge topic...

AM peak to Toronto,PM peak to Niagara Falls...leaving the VIA/Amtrak "Maple Leaf" the only remaining
train pair on this route...

I wanted to ask there about the patronage of this train and noticing this is about VIA Rail cutbacks it
would be the appropriate place...What reason did VIA give to end these trains?

Were there regular daily commuters using these runs and did high fare prices affect this train?

I now feel that this opens the line for a permanent GO Transit Rail extension from Hamilton...

MACTRAXX

MACTRAXX wrote: I wanted to ask there about the patronage of this train and noticing this is about VIA Rail cutbacks it
would be the appropriate place...What reason did VIA give to end these trains?

VIA made claims of "low ridership" but when asked, refused to actually provide ridership numbers. Which means, VIA didn't actually give any explanation at all.

From past trips and, sadly, what appears to be my final one aboard the VIA Rail train(s) between Niagara Falls and Toronto on Oct. 18th and 23rd, the ridership began with a mix of tourists and commuters at Niagara, then at St. Catherines the commuters began to file aboard in large numbers. At Grimsby, the same procession continued, with others coming on at Aldershot and Oakville before arriving in Toronto at 8:25am. I don't know what VIA considers "low ridership" but from all my experiences quite the opposite was true. There were many sad faces on the regular commuters on the return trip on the 23rd, along with a poignant moment of a farewell hug given by a lady to the car attendant at St. Catherines before she detrained.
VIA Rail must've sent the train east to either Montreal or Ottawa in the "Corridor", I suspect, as the train I rode east from Montreal to Toronto continued on west after my detraining.
From what I've seen, I'm afraid, things look very ominious for the passenger train in Canada, looking more and more like the decision from above is that outside of Toronto and Montreal is that it's either drive or fly, despite the numbers on the trains showing that there are numbers of Canada's public who still desire to choose the train. Over the next two years, things are only going to get uglier for the train also.

I really don't think there's much good logic behind VIA's decisions to cut, apart from the fact that their budget continues to be reduced by the federal government.

Take, for example, The Ocean. VIA has reduced its frequency from 6 trips a week to 3. They have gone so far as to claim that this is not because of budget cuts, but instead an effort to "better meet customer demand". Really? The Ocean is one of the only routes on which ridership has been continuously increasing over the last several years, and trains are consistently selling out (especially at peak times). VIA cites ridership declines vs. numbers from 15 years ago. That's all well and good, except that a lot has changed in those 15 years. The trip duration has increased due to speed restrictions, making the trip less convenient. VIA has introduced the Renaissance equipment, which has been less than popular with many travellers (and removed the more affordable single-occupancy sleeper options). The new highway through NB was completed, and more flights are available (Porter has been added into the mix more recently). A lot of things have changed. VIA has had ridership issues all across the system, but the Ocean is one that has finally stabilized and started to increase. Yet it needs to be cut...

The nonsense doesn't stop there. VIA president Marc Laliberte actually suggested that he believed they could *increase* ridership by running longer trains on the 3 days a week. ???? To put it bluntly, that has never worked in any instance elsewhere in the world. Experience in places such as Australia and the US has shown that tri-weekly services drop at least 50% of riders, while restoring those services to 6 or 7 days a week almost always brings more than 50% increases, coupled with greater operational efficiencies.

I am convinced though, that VIA does not understand their market. Laliberte has also claimed that most of the Ocean's patrons are travelling for "leisure" (which according to VIA's poorly-constructed customer surveys includes things like students travelling home for Christmas or other breaks, among other things), and that these customers are "flexible" in terms of when they travel, therefore allowing them to choose to travel on one of those 3 days. Riiiiigght....

Here's a question for any of you "leisure" travellers: If you have a fairly short period of time allocated for a vacation or other trip, are you willing to sacrifice as much as 3 days on either end of that period just so you can catch the train when it is running? Say for example your time off starts on a Wednesday. You can't take a train out from Halifax until Friday. Do you wait around those extra days, or do you go by another means that will get you to Montreal (or your destination along the line) before that train even leaves the station? Now assume you need to be back in Halifax on a Wednesday. Do you take the train from Montreal on Sunday, arriving back on Monday and effectively losing another two days you could have had on that vacation?

It was bad enough when the train didn't run on Tuesdays. I know plenty of people who thought that only 6 days a week, or even only one train a day, was enough of an inconvenience to justify flying or driving, or even a bus.

What can we take from all of this? My guess, along with that of many others here in the east, is that VIA does not want to run the eastern route. By making it horrendously inconvenient, they will kill off most of the ridership that is left. Once it is little more than a shell of its former self, carrying a handful of tourists and those few of us dedicated to the train (or with no other means of travelling to certain small points on the route), they can justify spinning it off to a tourist operator or simply scrap it altogether. It wouldn't be the first time they've scrapped what was once a well-used route. The cancellation of the Atlantic, and more significantly the daily Halifax-Sydney RDC services, are just a few of the examples of poor decisions. And once it's gone, it's nearly impossible to bring back.

I try not to be a pessimist, but I've lost any faith that I had left in VIA's management, and I fear for the future of the entire passenger rail system in Canada. For now at least, I'll just keep riding the trains while I still can.

timberley wrote:I really don't think there's much good logic behind VIA's decisions to cut, apart from the fact that their budget continues to be reduced by the federal government.

When every ticket to ride doesn't pay the costs to run the train, and every train relies upon a subsidy, a cut in funds to subsidize the trains means cutting trains. The Canadian has already been cut to three days a week, doesn't if follow the other long distance train, the Ocean, gets the same treatment? The other alternative is to cut the number of corridor trains in Ontario and Quebec.

Or the fares charged to ride the trains are increased to cover the costs to run them or the subsidy remains the same. The subsidy can't remain the same if those funds are cut.

electricron wrote:

timberley wrote:I really don't think there's much good logic behind VIA's decisions to cut, apart from the fact that their budget continues to be reduced by the federal government.

When every ticket to ride doesn't pay the costs to run the train, and every train relies upon a subsidy, a cut in funds to subsidize the trains means cutting trains. The Canadian has already been cut to three days a week, doesn't if follow the other long distance train, the Ocean, gets the same treatment? The other alternative is to cut the number of corridor trains in Ontario and Quebec.

Or the fares charged to ride the trains are increased to cover the costs to run them or the subsidy remains the same. The subsidy can't remain the same if those funds are cut.

Absolutely. The obvious fact is that with the subsidy cut, VIA has to cut services or increase revenues. It would be nice though if VIA would actually acknowledge that fact, and stop lying about the motives behind their decisions.

When he was in Halifax to discuss these cuts, Laliberte was asked whether the decision to cut the Ocean to 3 days a week was the result of budget cuts from the federal government. His answer? No. He claimed it was solely to "better meet demand". That's the line VIA management keeps spinning, despite the obvious truth that it's because of the budget cuts.

"The Canadian has already been cut to three days a week, doesn't if follow the other long distance train, the Ocean, gets the same treatment?"

-It doesn't necessarily follow. I think it bears noting that the Ocean is a fundamentally different service from the Canadian. The single-night trip actually makes it a practical business travel option (I do know people who, up until the most recent cut, used the Ocean to travel to Montreal for business purposes), as well as a more practical service for people travelling in the region. The Canadian does serve primarily tourists, when it comes down to it. The Ocean, despite VIA's insistence to the contrary, serves a lot of general travelling people. Students, for example, make up a substantial portion of the travelling clientele (I suspect many of these will likely be lost with the reduced frequency).

Simply put, the Canadian can afford to be a tri-weekly service oriented towards a more touristy crowd. The Ocean, by contrast, can actually be a "practical" transportation service, competing with road and air services over the Halifax-Moncton-Montreal route. If VIA wants it to actually grow, it needs to at least be maintained at its 6/week schedule, and be better marketed than it has been in recent times. By cutting it to 3/week, VIA is basically guaranteeing it will become a mostly-tourist route, and have plummeting ridership.

It wouldn't be the first time VIA has essentially set themselves up to kill ridership. Prior to the 1990 cuts, VIA was able to sustain two separate 7/week western transcontinental trains... now, noone would imagine that such a service could be sustained.

But yes, back to the original point...it isn't really VIA's fault. They can only do what the government gives them money to do.


"The other alternative is to cut the number of corridor trains in Ontario and Quebec."

-VIA has already opted to do that as well in this round of cuts. It seems more that they've decided Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec City is safe, other routes...not so much.

timberley wrote:... VIA has introduced the Renaissance equipment, which has been less than popular with many travellers (and removed the more affordable single-occupancy sleeper options)...

What can we take from all of this? My guess, along with that of many others here in the east, is that VIA does not want to run the eastern route...

From my conversations with passengers on the Ocean, the aspect of Renaissance equipment that is unpopular is the lack of cheap sections (upper and lower berths.) Every passenger travelling alone or wanting their own room (except for most railfans) I have talked to in the years since the Ren. trains began operation have enjoyed their double "cabins" more than the roomettes. The surcharge for single use of the double room is a modest 15% and not one person has told me that is unreasonable. A double bedroom in the Budd sleepers costs 50% more for single use. In fact, some people have been "over the moon" with delight at having so much more space - and in six of every ten rooms a private shower in their toilet annex.

Regarding my second brief quote from "timberley", Marc Laliberte, VIA's CEO, in several speeches has made it quite clear that the train is the best option only for trips of between 160 and 800 kilometres. For short trips the best way is car, bus or commuter train. For longer trips it is the airplane. Here is a brief quote from one of his speeches made on the 1st of May in Montreal. All of the rumours that arose after this speech came true. I was not surprised when the Niagara Falls train and a few others were cancelled and the Ocean and Canadian cut back.

"Last December, the President and CEO of Lufthansa airlines (Christoph Franz) investigated on how often his customers asked themselves the following question when they had to travel: should I go by car, train, or plane? According to Mr. Franz, the answer is very simple. It depends. According to his findings, road and rail are the best options for a 300 kilometer trip, while for trips over 500
kilometers, a plane is the most appropriate mode of transportation.
Mr. Franz’s analysis is interesting. Let’s transpose it to the Canadian context, adding some nuance.
To optimize transportation modes in the country, from our standpoint, the train is the best option for trips between 160 and 800 kilometers. Why? Besides being affordable cost-wise, travel times are reasonable and can be put to productive use (mobile devices always connected to our Wi-Fi, for work or relaxation, in a comfortable environment).
For trips less than 160 kilometres, the most suitable transportation modes are, according to our analyses, car, bus and commuter train. They cost less, and the trip time is reasonable.
Beyond 800 kilometres, planes are obviously the best option, because of the travel time and also because they have a greater range.
So we can draw the following conclusion: every transportation mode has its benefits, and it’s in the best interests of travellers that the partners agree on how to take advantage of their strengths and promote intermodality."

The entire speech, and several others, is available on VIA's Website under "Media Room."

XC Tower wrote:From past trips and, sadly, what appears to be my final one aboard the VIA Rail train(s) between Niagara Falls and Toronto on Oct. 18th and 23rd, the ridership began with a mix of tourists and commuters at Niagara, then at St. Catherines the commuters began to file aboard in large numbers. At Grimsby, the same procession continued, with others coming on at Aldershot and Oakville before arriving in Toronto at 8:25am. I don't know what VIA considers "low ridership" but from all my experiences quite the opposite was true.......

...........Over the next two years, things are only going to get uglier for the train also.

What I’ve experienced between Niagara Falls and Toronto is just the opposite. Once GO started the all day (every 1 to 2 hours) bus from NF to Burlington connecting to the train to Toronto plus the summer weekend train service, many deserted VIA for the more frequent and cheaper GO service. Sure there are those that continued to ride VIA for the convenience of the one seat ride and perhaps VIA jumped the gun before GO establishes an all day train service at least as far as St. Catharines.....but NF to Toronto is definitely commuter territory and VIAs equipment is better utilized elsewhere......

Like the new corridor trains being added December 10:

Ottawa – Toronto: 7 trains per day each way (up from 6)

Montreal – Quebec City: 5 trains per day each way (up from 4)

Everyone: The one thing that I neglected to mention previously is the use of the Welland Canal bridge if GO takes
over operations of the NFS-HML route...Is there a limit to the amount of trains that can use that bridge if GO as
an example runs 8 round trips per day on this route meaning that 20 passenger trains daily would run to NFS?
What times of day do ships have priority there?

I also found interesting that VIA's website has no news or mention whatsoever of the service cutbacks on the
TOR-NFS route...Was there any media mention elsewhere when these cutbacks went into effect recently?

MACTRAXX

My first rides aboard VIA Rail from Niagara Falls to Toronto began in the mid-1980's. The equipment were the "Liners"/RDC's, even a mid-day run, making three total when added to Amtrak's Maple Leaf. Perhaps it's a "is the glass half-full or half-empty (or in this case, train), but the ridership seemed very consistant to me on the morning run to Toronto with mostly tourists at Niagara then commuters thereafter (St. Katherines, Grimby, former Hamilton station before Aldershot). On my last rides to and from Toronto, there was one car attendant/conductor (forgive me in forgetting VIA's terminology for him), whom I wish I had spoke to more regarding the ridership numbers, but they seemed consistant in all my travels. It was a gateway train for me to connect to Toronto in order to travel in both directions. I even took some of my friends (who aren't rail buffs) on this very train when they mentioned that they wanted to ride "the train" for a day trip to Toronto. These folks loved the experience. I even ran into one recently who mentioned doing it again. Imagine the look on his face when I said that the train was cancelled.....There were riders whose conversations I heard in the coach coming back that used to commute on GO Transit that had switched to VIA! One of the sad ones was a young man who was riding to Niagara for the first time, loving it, while heading to Youngstown, NY(or close to that....across from Queenston, ON) to visit his sick father. I felt bad that he'd may have to take the bus back, although possibly the Maple Leaf....
Regarding GO taking over the service to Niagara: I thought that CN wanted extensive track improvements, even a new bridge over the Welland Canal and possible more, as a condition to run their trains. Am I correct on that?
Sad to say, once again, the words of that old-timer Amtrak conductor in the Northeast Corridor, who so long ago told me , "All passenger rail is political and all politics are local" come to mind. I do wish that talking to David Gunn or reading of what Graham Claytor, former heads of Amtrak or past VIA Rail folks in charge were/was possible on this subject. The old cartoon showing an electric commuter train with the words underneath "wasteful subsidy" while another scene below depicts a jammed highway system in gridlock,complete with the pollution, referred to as "infrastructure improvement" or something close the those words. It still applies today.
My understanding is that the cuts to VIA's funding next year is nearly triple this years, then there is a third year also.....It sure looks like downsizing VIA to a "corridor" plan has begun. I hope that time proves me wrong, but my feeling is that the opposite hs been decided for Canada at the top in the political realm.

NS VIA FAN wrote: ...but NF to Toronto is definitely commuter territory and VIAs equipment is better utilized elsewhere......

)

The Toronto-Niagara Falls trains that were cut were very well used. Although I didn't commute on them, I used them several times to or from Niagara Falls and sometimes shorter journeys. When LRC equipment was used there were usually three coaches that were crowded, even if not absolutely full. When VIA used Renaissance equipment there were usually four coaches occupied (with the generous 2+1 seating the coaches have less capacity than the old cars.)
Eliminating those trains #90, 92 and 95 has not freed up equipment for other use. Those trains were extensions of Montreal/Ottawa-Toronto trains that would otherwise sit overnight at the Toronto Maintenance Centre. It was easier to track the usage of these NF trains when VIA used Renaissance trains. The Ren. train that arrived in Toronto in mid-afternoon was used as #95 to NF. When train #90 arrived at Toronto Union in the morning it was coupled to an LRC consist as part of the "J" train to Ottawa/Montreal. The LRC equipment had the same rotation, so I am told, but as I say it was easier to track the Ren. trains as there were so few of them.

The service cuts from Toronto to Niagara Falls and also to Sarnia and Windsor are unjustifiable for any reason other than "the government cut our budget so we decided to cut service", which Laliberte, being a good trooper for Harper, refuses to admit.

Sure, the routes are arguably more suitable for GO commuter trains. But the commuter trains *aren't running right now*; VIA *is not funding them* and neither is anyone else. It makes no sense to say "These train services are really popular with commuters and are in the right distance range for commuter trains -- so let's cancel all the trains and force people onto the roads!" That's asinine, but that's exactly what Laliberte is saying.

neroden wrote:Sure, the routes are arguably more suitable for GO commuter trains. But the commuter trains *aren't running right now*; VIA *is not funding them* and neither is anyone else. It makes no sense to say "These train services are really popular with commuters and are in the right distance range for commuter trains -- so let's cancel all the trains and force people onto the roads!" That's asinine, but that's exactly what Laliberte is saying.

Asinine maybe.....but the people that actually use the service seem to have voted on what they want in the Niagara to Toronto Corridor......Frequent affordable service even if it involves a bus to train transfer in Burlington for now. Sure there are those that like and continued to use the one-seat ride but after GO extended the frequent service......those using VIA had dropped.