steveintoronto
Superstar
Which severely undermines prior claims that Kingston's passengers would be inconvenienced by the Havelock route.
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
kEiThZ
Superstar
I should add that's why I believe that any HFR service will see the Lakeshore corridor shrunk down to 2-3 car DMU trains. That's about the demand you'd see if you took away Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal passengers.
Also at that point, hubbing in Kingston makes sense, since Kingston will probably be the highest demand station other than Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal themselves.
In an ideal world, HFR would be on the Lakeshore servicing Kingston. But this is Canada, so we have to have the train running in the back country. So be it. Something better than nothing. I think the Lakeshore would do alright with say $200-$300 million of investment to provide about 15 two-car DMUs and associated facilities.
Also at that point, hubbing in Kingston makes sense, since Kingston will probably be the highest demand station other than Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal themselves.
In an ideal world, HFR would be on the Lakeshore servicing Kingston. But this is Canada, so we have to have the train running in the back country. So be it. Something better than nothing. I think the Lakeshore would do alright with say $200-$300 million of investment to provide about 15 two-car DMUs and associated facilities.
crs1026
Superstar
Your 2-car trainload assessment is right on in most respects. Kingston however has the potential to fill one or more of those cars on every train. The volume there is high, partly because it's a university and civil service town and partly because the service today is so damn good, with the combination of frequent departures, fast trip times, and distances that make for a tiring drive but expensive/unproductive air service. I do worry about whether that would be sustainable if Kingston loses the express component of its service.
I don't see Kingston becoming a true hub in the sense of someplace that everyone transfers at and all trains originate and terminate at. But more trains doing that would fit the traffic pattern well. Adding the Ottawa-Kingston day trip scenario makes enormous sense. Using DMU's that terminate at Kingston might enable more service towards Toronto than through trains can offer. More schedules making overnight layovers in Kingston is intuitively appealing.
I just can't see VIA being allowed to ride two horses in the same territory, new DMU's or not. A 'slot' probably costs the same regardless of whether it's a two car train or a twelve car train. One of the selling points of HFR is that it allows Ottawa to back out of paying a subsidy to VIA, which is the true political end game in all this IMHO. Just as the Kitchener and Brantford routes were pared back from frequent service to "barely enough", there will be a huge pressure to downsize the Kingston Sub service so that it looks superficially adequate but is run on a shoestring. Once HFR is in place, it may be easier for Ottawa to download the secondary route to Ontario without political backlash.
I truly hope I'm proven wrong. The idea of a consistent service, say every 120 minutes, running Toronto-Kingston with an appropriate fleet makes eminent sense. HFR is a clever end run around government policy, rather than a change in that policy. There is too much history in the other direction for me to be optimistic that a two-line scenario will be sustainable, even if it's a good idea. Don't say I didn't warn ya.
- Paul
I don't see Kingston becoming a true hub in the sense of someplace that everyone transfers at and all trains originate and terminate at. But more trains doing that would fit the traffic pattern well. Adding the Ottawa-Kingston day trip scenario makes enormous sense. Using DMU's that terminate at Kingston might enable more service towards Toronto than through trains can offer. More schedules making overnight layovers in Kingston is intuitively appealing.
I just can't see VIA being allowed to ride two horses in the same territory, new DMU's or not. A 'slot' probably costs the same regardless of whether it's a two car train or a twelve car train. One of the selling points of HFR is that it allows Ottawa to back out of paying a subsidy to VIA, which is the true political end game in all this IMHO. Just as the Kitchener and Brantford routes were pared back from frequent service to "barely enough", there will be a huge pressure to downsize the Kingston Sub service so that it looks superficially adequate but is run on a shoestring. Once HFR is in place, it may be easier for Ottawa to download the secondary route to Ontario without political backlash.
I truly hope I'm proven wrong. The idea of a consistent service, say every 120 minutes, running Toronto-Kingston with an appropriate fleet makes eminent sense. HFR is a clever end run around government policy, rather than a change in that policy. There is too much history in the other direction for me to be optimistic that a two-line scenario will be sustainable, even if it's a good idea. Don't say I didn't warn ya.
- Paul
smallspy
Senior Member
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that passengers have to change trains, but rather that we should be looking at improving service to Kingston by starting/ending more trains there. And on that, I agree. Kingston is either the 4th or 5th busiest station on the network, after Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. (Dorval has very similar ridership numbers, but I haven't seen the most recent ones yet so I don't know who's on top at this moment.)
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Exactly: Anytime (the equivalent to "Economy Plus" or "Business Plus" fares at VIA) fares and season pass prices (i.e. the prices which establish the maximum cost of commuting) are set by the regulator, not the franchisees. However, British voters have not exactly the best track record these days in identifying appropriate remedies to the problems it sees as most pressing...
Well, Spain has the luxury of having its HSR trains completely on dedicated infrastructure, while Germany and Switzerland have 6 times more rail freight per capita and Austria even 10 times as much - both of which make train delays in Spain much less likely than elsewhere:
Speaking of compensations for delay, this is how VIA Rail's compensation policy on the Corridor compares with the European Union's rail passenger charta:
Trains 650/651/655 already operate between Kingston and Toronto exclusively and this is what happens whenever the fourth (!) car is unavailable:
Tweet 1: "@VIA_Rail what's up with the shortened 651 train? One car short and people have to stand on the way in to TO."
Tweet 2: "@VIA_Rail 651 train absolutely needs another car on Monday mornings."
Tweet 3: "Hey Via, any news on where the fourth car went off 651 this morning? I know it's 70 yr old technology, but it was there last week"
Tweet 4: "@VIA_Rail Great stuffed Morning. End of long weekend and Via takes a car off 651. Make for a way too cozy trip. Just nutty planning!!"
Tweet 5: "@VIA_Rail please put an extra car on the 651 on a Monday morning. Tickets are sold out tomorrow and commuters need to be in work before 9am"
There certainly is a reason why 30 trains stop in Kingston on an average weekday...
Attachments
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
This is where yield management and public policy need a tweak.
You can run a four-car train at a price point that assures that the train will be full but there will not be an x+1th customer. Or, you can run a six-car train and set your fares lower with the expectation that you will have empty seats in the short turn but the combination of more space plus lower fare will create demand and fill those empty seats as the business grows.
VIA is forced to the full-train scenario, by its fleet constraints. VIA doesn't have a fifth car to add to the train - it is lucky to find the fourth car. But the full-train experience is itself a demand killer. So, after a while the full four car train becomes less than full. And the yield management model says, raise the fares and make do with a three car train. The demand will correct itself.
Does this look like success?
- Paul
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Unless I read the tweets incorrectly, they are referring to situations where the fourth car was unavailable - the allocation of fare classes can only be adjusted for bookings made AFTER the unplanned capacity reduction is known (and rail cars unfortunately don't give advance notice before they break down). Also, the Economy Plus fare poses the upper limit on the price for any Economy seat (just like it is the case with Anytime tickets in the UK). Finally, the price of the cheapest available ticket is not relevant to Commuter Pass holders (among which trains which arrive in cities like Toronto before 9am - like train 651 - are highly popular) and does therefore not affect their decision to travel on a certain train (provided that a seat is still available):
VIA Rail said:
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
My tumble into the rabbit hole of fare pricing was probably quite muddled, and I guess it isn't my real point anyways. Sorry!
The tweets simply left me thinking, there are probably potential customers in this scenario that are left thinking "Aw, why take the train - it's probably full anyways". And I wondered whether this fact could be masked by a yield management strategy that pegs fares to what cars are available (over the long term), when the market might be much more elastic (and revenue-laden) if additional cars could be found.
I certainly don't fault VIA for not having more cars. They have certainly asked for permission to get new ones, and they have tested the rental market too. My point was, this is a good example of where VIA is being held back knowing the result will be stagnation and starvation. The tweets just demonstrate that the hold back strategy is working.
We need a policy that gives more credit to gains in modal share, and not revenue yield in isolation (although money always matters).
- Paul
crs1026
Superstar
dowlingm
Senior Member
In the rest of the country, being asked to pay a toll for a road leads to the response "omg we paid for it already". We throw hundreds of millions at saving suburban commuters minutes (Gardiner East). Manitoba should buy the damn railroad and the Feds pay for the train just as they do for White River and Jonquiere instead of downloading this onto low wealth low density communities. Then the Feds, province and those communities along the route can figure out how to create revenue opportunities for the public asset.
Allandale25
Senior Member
MisterF
Senior Member
I was thinking the same thing. The government should just take over the damn thing and fix it. But articles like this raising the idea of building a road illustrate just how messed up our society's priorities are when it comes to transportation. You have existing infrastructure that could be fixed for $60 million, but a lot of people would rather build a road. The road to Tuktoyaktuk cost $300 million and any road to Churchill would be significantly longer, so a road would probably cost ten times as much as fixing the rail line. The road would probably be unpaved, as is the existing Highway 280 past Thompson. So instead of a comfortable train ride you'd be faced with driving or taking a bus on 500+ km of gravel road - not a very inviting prospect. Plus a road would be no less prone to flood damage than the rail line and would cost just as much to maintain and operate.
When a road gets washed out by flooding it's just assumed that the government will fix it immediately. This rail line should be no different.
Edit - I see from the CBC article that Allandale25 posted that Omnitrax's estimate to fix the tracks is actually $20-60 million. If the cost is at the lower end of that it makes even more of a no brainer to fix it. And it makes the idea of building a road even crazier. The article also seems to show that the government can force the owner to fix it, which is good news. It should never have been privatized in the first place.
Last edited:
Allandale25
Senior Member
It would be fascinating if the Feds did force them to fix it. Can anyone think of examples where this has happened? I assume they have the power to do it under the Canadian Transportation Act?
I think I recall they forced CN and CP to do better on grain hauling but it'd be interesting to know if they've ever done this for infrastructure.
Has the private owner started the abandonment process via the legislation?
crs1026
Superstar
There are certainly precedents (I'm scratching my dusty memory, I know they are there......) where the CTA ordered railways to repair and continue to operate lines that had fallen into disrepair and then experienced this kind of natural calamity, where the railway truly believed that the track failure was the "death knell" for the line.
What's interesting in this case is the Prime Minister making a preemptive declaration as a matter of public policy. It's a bit like certain Executive Orders in the US. The more proper course of action would let the whole thing play out in front of the CTA and government only exercising its authority to issue a course correction if the CTA doesn't see things as they do.
I disagree with posters who say it's wrong to download this infrastructure into the hands of local indigenous groups who may not have deep pockets to sustain it. I'm hopeful that the government would ensure this got proper recognition in the broader process of reconciliation, perhaps with a lump sum stipend that gave short term relief to operating deficits.
The bigger challenge is - if there is no sustaining freight traffic on this line, what next? Permanent subsidy does return us to the question of whether a road would serve the greater good in the long term. I'm not arguing that, I'm just pointing out that a promise to support the line for the longer term is a promise of perpetual sunshine, and that's never wise.
- Paul
What's interesting in this case is the Prime Minister making a preemptive declaration as a matter of public policy. It's a bit like certain Executive Orders in the US. The more proper course of action would let the whole thing play out in front of the CTA and government only exercising its authority to issue a course correction if the CTA doesn't see things as they do.
I disagree with posters who say it's wrong to download this infrastructure into the hands of local indigenous groups who may not have deep pockets to sustain it. I'm hopeful that the government would ensure this got proper recognition in the broader process of reconciliation, perhaps with a lump sum stipend that gave short term relief to operating deficits.
The bigger challenge is - if there is no sustaining freight traffic on this line, what next? Permanent subsidy does return us to the question of whether a road would serve the greater good in the long term. I'm not arguing that, I'm just pointing out that a promise to support the line for the longer term is a promise of perpetual sunshine, and that's never wise.
- Paul
ssiguy2
Senior Member
I say let the damn thing die. Pouring millions to serve a tiny little village of 180 people is an obscene waste of money. How will the people get their supplies?......................sorry but that's their problem. They CHOOSE to live in a very remote place and that is their right but to expect the rest of the country to subsidize them to such a huge amount for their CHOICE of residence is irresponsible and selfish.
If small towns or companies {or both together} want to buy and run the system then more power to them but they should be doing it on their own. As far as people saying "they don't have options" that is a lie as they do have options............either fly or move. As far as not having the money to move remember this is a Native village who pay very little rent and no taxes so their income goes MUCH MUCH further than would their urban counterparts.
Canadians have this deluded idea that VIA should run like railways where in the 19th century. Then they sewed the country and people together but today they are or complete irrelevance to anyone outside The Corridor with the slight exception of the Maritimes.
If small towns or companies {or both together} want to buy and run the system then more power to them but they should be doing it on their own. As far as people saying "they don't have options" that is a lie as they do have options............either fly or move. As far as not having the money to move remember this is a Native village who pay very little rent and no taxes so their income goes MUCH MUCH further than would their urban counterparts.
Canadians have this deluded idea that VIA should run like railways where in the 19th century. Then they sewed the country and people together but today they are or complete irrelevance to anyone outside The Corridor with the slight exception of the Maritimes.