VIA Rail

[nfitz]

How much reduction in luggage space on the Ventures is there compared to the LRC and 1950s equipment?

 

[Bordercollie]

How much reduction in luggage space on the Ventures is there compared to the LRC and 1950s equipment?

The cab car should have been a cabbage car. And baggage does generate revenue so it should be justified.

 

[Ratazana]

How much reduction in luggage space on the Ventures is there compared to the LRC and 1950s equipment?

You can see the layout of Venture here showing the luggage space. It depends on the car type.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ViaRail/comments/17z1oah/venture_fleet_window_seat_opinions

Existing LRC layout on via website.

LRC car (Economy class)

Diagram of the LRC car in Economy class

corpo.viarail.ca

Only 1 of 3 types of Venture cars has comparable luggage areas. Also, it has less rack space vs LRC. You can see that on the virtual walk through here:

VIA 1.1

Tour

tourmkr.com

 

[ownthesky]

For those who ride regularly, how busy is the AM London to Toronto train? I’ve always been curious how frequently that stop in Brantford is being used by commuters vs taking the drive to Aldershot.

 

[Urban Sky]

For those who ride regularly, how busy is the AM London to Toronto train? I’ve always been curious how frequently that stop in Brantford is being used by commuters vs taking the drive to Aldershot.

I assume you are talking about train 82. All I know is that it became significantly less busy at Brantford ever since GO expanded its bus network to include that city…

 

[micheal_can]

With the reduced baggage on the Corridor trains, can we expect the same on the Northlander since they are the same trains?

 

[lenaitch]

The thing I have learned is that although on the surface they are quite different, to some people, they tend to be identical. They want nothing to change. Whether or not there is enough of them to stop a project like you suggest would remain to be seen.

I tend to agree - sort of. You are correct that some people don't want anything to change. Others are less comfortable with non-incremental or non-gradual change. When you increase the size of a community by a significant percentage virtually all at once as a development or subdivision would, sure, some would benefit; others would see deteriorated traffic and congestion, inadequate infrastructure, higher taxes (to pay for infrastructure improvements), etc. If population is driven up by some increase in local employment, housing prices and rents drive up.

Statis is comfortable to many.

 

[micheal_can]

I tend to agree - sort of. You are correct that some people don't want anything to change. Others are less comfortable with non-incremental or non-gradual change. When you increase the size of a community by a significant percentage virtually all at once as a development or subdivision would, sure, some would benefit; others would see deteriorated traffic and congestion, inadequate infrastructure, higher taxes (to pay for infrastructure improvements), etc. If population is driven up by some increase in local employment, housing prices and rents drive up.

Statis is comfortable to many.

The sad thing is, we need a housing boom across Canada.The Ottawa area is no different. Personally, if the developer will pay for all the needed infrastructure, including establishing a transit system, then go for it. Somehow we need to fix the system that allows the NIMBY to win against everything.

 

[lenaitch]

if the developer will pay for all the needed infrastructure, including establishing a transit system,

Really now. Where does that happen? Do you know a developer that would do that?

Housing needs to go where housing is needed, not where some developer can assemble some cheap land and gets to turn a massive profit then walk away.

If the issue is just 'build housing, there are gobs of cheap (like . . . free) Crown land up north. Build a thousand homes in Hornpayne and see how well it works out.

 

[micheal_can]

Really now. Where does that happen? Do you know a developer that would do that?

Housing needs to go where housing is needed, not where some developer can assemble some cheap land and gets to turn a massive profit then walk away.

If the issue is just 'build housing, there are gobs of cheap (like . . . free) Crown land up north. Build a thousand homes in Hornpayne and see how well it works out.

Go for it. But, if your goal is more than just build homes, then the infrastructure needs to be in place. The challenge is that the infrastructure is usually put on to the existing taxpayer. The price of that house/condo you buy should include everything to get it there, not just what is on the lot. I know locally, there are "development fees" but that does not cover the actual costs of bringing the services to the lot line.

 

[Frank_Lee]

Really now. Where does that happen? Do you know a developer that would do that?

Housing needs to go where housing is needed, not where some developer can assemble some cheap land and gets to turn a massive profit then walk away.

If the issue is just 'build housing, there are gobs of cheap (like . . . free) Crown land up north. Build a thousand homes in Hornpayne and see how well it works out.

The fact that the land is cheap or expensive is irrelevant. The scale is what's important. Coordination and negotiation costs are likely to be prohibitive in existing urban areas. Depending on the jurisdiction developers pay huge amounts towards infrastructure. Obviously historically this wasn't necessarily the case, but in Toronto and Vancouver fully 1/3 of the cost of the average new development is Community-amenity-contributions.

In this case, Via rail *is* the valuable infrastructure they'd want to contribute to and would de facto make commuting from a lot more places both possible and convenient.

 

[Frank_Lee]

Really now. Where does that happen? Do you know a developer that would do that?

Housing needs to go where housing is needed, not where some developer can assemble some cheap land and gets to turn a massive profit then walk away.

If the issue is just 'build housing, there are gobs of cheap (like . . . free) Crown land up north. Build a thousand homes in Hornpayne and see how well it works out.

I feel like you're being deliberately obtuse. Real estate development plus public transportation is a tried and true economic model that we have somehow forgotten in Canada. Economically they are massively complementary.

 

[Frank_Lee]

Any proposal to substantially improve passenger rail in this country will create billions of dollars of new wealth for the property owners around station locations. The question is whether or not we want to try to tap that to actually make something happen. The political will doesn't seem to be there for the feds or Ontario (not sure about quebec) to do anything more than leave Via on dialysis.

 

[smallspy]

How much reduction in luggage space on the Ventures is there compared to the LRC and 1950s equipment?

None that I can tell.

The cab car should have been a cabbage car. And baggage does generate revenue so it should be justified.

Baggage does not generate enough revenue to cover its costs. That's why there are no baggage cars unless absolutely necessary.

I think what you're thinking of is courier services. And again, no they don't.

Dan

 

[nfitz]

The cab car should have been a cabbage car. And baggage does generate revenue so it should be justified.

My recollection is that they removed baggage cars from all but one daily Montreal to Toronto train around when the LRC was introduced (did the Turbo have a baggage car - I can't remember?). I don't recall much uproar at the time. In decades of travel, I only recall using the baggage car once for a cat - but these days you can just bring them in the train with you.