Minimum adequate service in Western Canada

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I like what you've done here. An observation - which I assume you were also making - was that the ideal timings at endpoints or key stops enroute don't always provide the most scenic experience and vice-versa. It's the balancing act between an "experiential" train and one that provides relevant transportation. That said, it would be fascinating to run various scenarios based on these charts IF the opportunity ever arose - which, as we both know, it won't. :(
Thank you, my intention was to show that even though there are a lot of different objectives you can achieve with a once-daily schedule, many of them are unfortunately mutually exclusive and therefore you are stuck with painful tradeoffs which decimate whatever markets you can actually serve:

For instance, the idea of serving all cities at daylight rather than some in the dead of the night is certainly appealing (and also allows for lower operating costs), but makes it impossible to be competitive on time and cost against the plane, car or bus. I mean: who is going to travel by train from Vancouver to Toronto if it requires forced layovers in Kamloops, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Thunder Bay and Sudbury, thus taking a week and costing you 6 hotel nights on top of the rail fare…?
 
Last edited:
It might, but the sheer ridership is just horridly low. Montana and North Dakota each managed to provide over 100k riders/yr pre-pandemic (though obviously, some of these were "double-counted" as someone could board and disembark within those two states). The Canadian failed to hit 100k riders for the entire year of 2019. Now, this isn't apples to apples (obviously) since the Builder has been daily while the Canadian has been 2-3x/week for the last decade or two, but I'd be hard-pressed to imagine getting more than 25k riders from that gap on the CN route even with daily service (the CP route, with Thunder Bay and Sault St. Marie, would probably do better - I think that routing could probably kick out about 50k riders/yr, maybe a bit more, with daily service given that those cities actually have like 200k people between them).
A train through Sault Ste. Marie might even attract US passengers from northern MN, WI, amd MI, to and from the East and West coasts…
 
A train through Sault Ste. Marie might even attract US passengers from northern MN, WI, amd MI, to and from the East and West coasts…
The weak link is east of Sault Ste. Marie on the ex-CP. Unless government (likely Ontario) steps in with big cash, I doubt that route will ever see passenger service again.
 
I mean: who is going to travel by train from Vancouver to Toronto if it requires forced layovers in Kamloops, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Thunder Bay and Sudbury, thus taking a week and costing you 6 hotel nights on top of the rail fare…?
I agree, although I guess an argument could be made that connecting a series of day trains with hotel stays wouldn't take that much longer or cost more than the current service - presuming there would be no sleepers or other "premium" features included. After all, the Rocky Mountaineer and VIA's own Skeena already do this on a smaller scale. It would certainly require more of a European mindset, where decent hotels are located in or next to train stations and major junctions. Still, connections could be a nightmare and the viability of some segments, unless they developed into standalone corridors, could be tenuous when compared to other modes of travel between the points.
 

VIA Rail should name a train after gord

VIA's policy is not to name trains, just call them by their endpoints ("Jasper to Prince Rupert train") except for the Canadian and the Ocean. IIRC, if I recall correctly the Ocean officially lost its name for awhile when they first started this policy, officially becoming the "Monteal to Halifax train".

Unofficially, of course, many still call the Skeena (or Rupert Rocket) and Hudson Bay by their names.

With that said, I think calling a train "the Lightfoot" is a wonderful idea.
 
VIA's policy is not to name trains, just call them by their endpoints ("Jasper to Prince Rupert train") except for the Canadian and the Ocean. IIRC, if I recall correctly the Ocean officially lost its name for awhile when they first started this policy, officially becoming the "Monteal to Halifax train".

Unofficially, of course, many still call the Skeena (or Rupert Rocket) and Hudson Bay by their names.

With that said, I think calling a train "the Lightfoot" is a wonderful idea.
Can’t check my timetable database right now, but VIA stopped naming their Corridor trains in 1997 (IIRC) and its Remote trains soonafter, leaving only the Canadian and the Ocean. I don’t know when they dropped the name for the Ocean, but that must be a very recent change…
 
Can’t check my timetable database right now, but VIA stopped naming their Corridor trains in 1997 (IIRC) and its Remote trains soonafter, leaving only the Canadian and the Ocean. I don’t know when they dropped the name for the Ocean, but that must be a very recent change…
Probably bad memory on my part. I thought it initially lost its name when most of the rest did and it was reinstated shortly thereafter. I could be wrong and the "IIRC" on my post maybe should be changed to "IDNRC" (I did not recall correctly)🤔
 
I don’t know if they briefly dropped the name, but I always thought they took pride in running the oldest named train in North America. In any case, I received this Email from them today, where they still call it “the Ocean”:
F7C68610-2216-439B-919B-E0A95A51D6A1.jpeg
 
I sense some kind of consensus here that VIA ought to operate Toronto-Winnipeg, Winnipeg-Calgary-Vancouver, Winnipeg-Edmonton-Vancouver, Regina-Saskatoon and Edmonton-Calgary at-least daily. Let's ignore Edmonton-Calgary for now, but as someone who has been lucky enough to get exposure to the constraints under which VIA operates, I would like to provide tables for three different passenger rail services (Toronto-SSM-Winnipeg, Winnipeg-Calgary-Vancouver and Winnipeg-Regina-Saskatoon-Edmonton-Vancouver):

Train A: Toronto-Sudbury-SSM-White River-Thunder Bay-Winnipeg
View attachment 32302

Train B: Winnipeg-Regina-Saskatoon-Edmonton-Jasper-Kamloops-Vancouver
View attachment 32303

Train C: Winnipeg-Regina-Calgary-Kamloops-Vancouver
View attachment 32304

If anyone is interested in developing their scenarios further, I'd invite them to propose their preferred departure times (preferably for all station highlighted in bold) and let's see where this takes us...
I agree, although I guess an argument could be made that connecting a series of day trains with hotel stays wouldn't take that much longer or cost more than the current service - presuming there would be no sleepers or other "premium" features included. After all, the Rocky Mountaineer and VIA's own Skeena already do this on a smaller scale. It would certainly require more of a European mindset, where decent hotels are located in or next to train stations and major junctions. Still, connections could be a nightmare and the viability of some segments, unless they developed into standalone corridors, could be tenuous when compared to other modes of travel between the points.
More like a CP mindset...
 
VIA's policy is not to name trains, just call them by their endpoints ("Jasper to Prince Rupert train") except for the Canadian and the Ocean. IIRC, if I recall correctly the Ocean officially lost its name for awhile when they first started this policy, officially becoming the "Montreal to Halifax train".
Of course back when the Atlantic was still running via Maine and St. John NB, you would need the name (or train number) to differentiate between the 2 trains with the same endpoints. Not a problem anymore of course.
 
Back when VIA was using names, one issue was the need to pick names that worked well in both official languages. When T-2000 cooked up the Winnipeg<>Edmonton<>Prince Rupert train to stop some of the bleeding created by the 1981 cutbacks, I labeled it Panorama for two reasons:
  • 1.) It worked in both languages.
  • 2.) CN had used it before.
They went with it. I can understand why it's an issue that can be avoided by just using train numbers.
 
There was a period maybe 15+/- years ago when VIA gave names to all of the regional trains, so in addition to the Skeena and Hudson Bay, the Senneterre train was "Abitibi," the Jonquiere train was "Saguenay," the Sudbury-White River run was "Lake/Lac Superior." It seemed like a good idea, something that gave more of an identity to these routes and had potential for marketing them to visitors, so I'm not sure why they backed away from it.
 
I agree, although I guess an argument could be made that connecting a series of day trains with hotel stays wouldn't take that much longer or cost more than the current service - presuming there would be no sleepers or other "premium" features included. After all, the Rocky Mountaineer and VIA's own Skeena already do this on a smaller scale. It would certainly require more of a European mindset, where decent hotels are located in or next to train stations and major junctions.
Under the current schedule, the Canadian departs Vancouver at 15:00 on Day 1 and spits you out in Vancouver almost exactly 4 days later, with a minimum fare of $549 in Economy Class:
1683251819770.png

With a connection of day trains, you would depart Vancouver in the morning and arrive in Toronto 6-and-a-half days later. You would therefore spend almost 3 entire days more on your journey and $549 wouldn't even cover your 6 hotel stays (in Kamloops, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Thunder Bay and SaultSteMarie):

Day 1: dep. Vancouver 08:00, arr. Kamloops 17:17
Day 2: dep. Kamloops 08:00, arr. Calgary 19:31
Day 3: dep. Calgary 08:00, arr. Regina 21:49 (i.e. max. 8 hours rest in Hotel)
Day 4: dep. Regina 08:00, arr. Winnipeg 17:36
Day 5: dep. Winnipeg 08:00, arr. Thunder Bay 20:18
Day 6: dep. Thunder Bay 08:00, arr. Sault-Ste-Marie 21:34 (i.e. max 8 hours rest in Hotel)
Day 7: dep. Sault-Ste-Marie 08:00, arr. Toronto 19:52

Still, connections could be a nightmare and the viability of some segments, unless they developed into standalone corridors, could be tenuous when compared to other modes of travel between the points.
Of the 7 daytime services mentioned above, only the Toronto to Sault Ste. Marie segment has any remote chance of being viable, as the ridership potential (estimated with the gravity model) roughly matches that of London-Sarnia (as the only Corridor segment which VIA operates only once per day*). Conversely, the other 6 daytime services generate a similar ridership potential only collectively:

1683253451758.png

*Note that I don't count the Maple Leaf as a Corridor train, as it only exists on the Canadian side due to its function as an international train service.
 
Last edited:
Under the current schedule, the Canadian departs Vancouver at 15:00 on Day 1 and spits you out in Vancouver almost exactly 4 days later, with a minimum fare of $549 in Economy Class:
View attachment 32376
Yes, I was thinking more of an average sleeper fare than basic coach as justification for hotel nights. You're probably right to compare "apples with apples" however. Of course it's possible to go down all sorts of other tangents on this particular aspect, but I wasn't disagreeing with you in the first place - just addressing the scenario that someone would likely propose and the existing precedent. As for the second point, we're in complete agreement. There would be no point maintaining some of the segments of a divided Canadian if there was no way to grow regional traffic to supplement the through passengers. I thought that was clear.

You've certainly done your homework though.
 
Of the 7 daytime services mentioned above, only the Toronto to Sault Ste. Marie segment has any remote chance of being viable, as the ridership potential (estimated with the gravity model) roughly matches that of London-Sarnia (as the only Corridor segment which VIA operates only once per day*).
As your chart shows, the weak link in this route is between Sudbury and the Sault. The cost of upgrading/restoring the track on the HCRR would dwarf growth potential - the same conclusion the Ontario Government made in its study. The only practical way to serve Sault Ste. Marie via rail in the short term is from the north on CN/ACR (prior VIA service) or south, but service in Northern Michigan is a whole other discussion. I would presume that a Canadian restored to CP would simply bypass SSM on the route of the White River train north of Sudbury, as it did previously.
 
Last edited:
As your chart shows, the weak link in this route is between Sudbury and the Sault. The cost of upgrading/restoring the track on the HCRR would dwarf growth potential - the same conclusion the Ontario Government made in its study. The only practical way to serve Sault Ste. Marie via rail in the short term is from the north on CN/ACR (prior VIA service) or south, but service in Northern Michigan is a whole other discussion. I would presume that a Canadian restored to CP would simply bypass SSM on the route of the White River train north of Sudbury, as it did previously.
Agreed, I dropped SSM and converted Toronto-Sudbury-Thunder Bay-Winnipeg into a night train. As you can see, the TRTO-WNPG night train's estimated ridership potential is not even twice that for LNDN-SARN and it feeds almost exclusively (94%) from Toronto-centric traffic:

1683422929707.png

I would assume that such a TRTO-WNPG overnight train would have to depart at 8pm 8am to not arrive too late in the evening, but the risk of delays would of course be considerable:

1683422981874.png
 
Last edited:
Agreed, I dropped SSM and converted Toronto-Sudbury-Thunder Bay-Winnipeg into a night train. As you can see, the TRTO-WNPG night train's estimated ridership potential is not even twice that for LNDN-SARN and it feeds almost exclusively (94%) from Toronto-centric traffic:

View attachment 32412

I would assume that such a TRTO-WNPG overnight train would have to depart at 8pm 8am to not arrive too late in the evening, but the risk of delays would of course be considerable:

View attachment 32413
There's a second possibility which could work: Depart at 2200-2230 from Toronto. Sudbury would be at 0600-0630, and Thunder Bay's arrival would be around 2200-2230. Arrival in Winnipeg would be around 0945-1015.

Eastbound, I'd probably go for a departure just before midnight (with early boarding permitted) and slip in an extra half-hour or so of pad at Sudbury. A departure around 0600 isn't great but I think it's at least "sellable".
 
There's a second possibility which could work: Depart at 2200-2230 from Toronto. Sudbury would be at 0600-0630, and Thunder Bay's arrival would be around 2200-2230. Arrival in Winnipeg would be around 0945-1015.
That's very close to my first ever trip on a VIA-branded "Canadian" in 1981. Super Continental to Sudbury, where it was merged with the Canadian from Montreal and arrived in Winnipeg at 0945. Sleeper passengers were offered the opportunity to freshen up at the adjacent hotel while the train was reconfigured to continue west.
 
Last edited:
That's very close to my first ever trip on a VIA-branded "Canadian" in 1981. Super Continental to Sudbury, where it was merged with the Canadian from Montreal and arrived in Winnipeg at 0945. Sleeper passengers were offered the opportunity to freshen up at the adjacent hotel while the train was reconfigured to continue west.
We took the Canadian in March 1984 it had a similar schedule except that it ran Montreal - Toronto then after much switching in of additional cars ran overnight to Sudbury similar to the quoted schedule. I don't recall any merging with the Super Continental. We also had the option to freshen up at the hotel in Winnipeg which we took advantage of.
 
We took the Canadian in March 1984 it had a similar schedule except that it ran Montreal - Toronto then after much switching in of additional cars ran overnight to Sudbury similar to the quoted schedule. I don't recall any merging with the Super Continental. We also had the option to freshen up at the hotel in Winnipeg which we took advantage of.
I remember that iteration of the schedule well. It coincided with the replacement of the Super Continental with a series of generic numbered trains (not unlike the discussion earlier in this thread). Only two years earlier the Super C was "the" train out of Toronto and the Canadian was the superior Montreal product. In my mind your reroute marked the beginning of the end of Montreal-Vancouver direct service. The replacement Montreal-Sudbury train on CP wasn't even daily IIRC, and I believe the Sudbury CN station closed around the same time.

Of course this all eliminated the need to shuffle cars in Sudbury, which had previously been a big deal. In early 1981 there were actually two Super Continentals departing Toronto minutes apart. The first was essentially a stub train for the Canadian, travelling on CP rails to Sudbury CP where it met the Canadian from Montreal. The second (full) Super C departed minutes later on CN and went all the way to Winnipeg on the route of the current Canadian. The budget cuts heading into 1982 precipitated most of the changes.:(
 
I remember that iteration of the schedule well. It coincided with the replacement of the Super Continental with a series of generic numbered trains (not unlike the discussion earlier in this thread). Only two years earlier the Super C was "the" train out of Toronto and the Canadian was the superior Montreal product. In my mind your reroute marked the beginning of the end of Montreal-Vancouver direct service. The replacement Montreal-Sudbury train on CP wasn't even daily IIRC, and I believe the Sudbury CN station closed around the same time.

[…]
You are correct, though direct Montreal-Vancouver service of course briefly reemerged between June 1985 and January 1990. Here the November 1981 schedules of the replacement trains for the cancelled transcontinental services:

Ottawa-Sudbury (indeed only 3 trains per week):
B8C72EF8-576E-4D67-A3A7-D0FC66EB8A5F.jpeg

Capreol-Winnipeg (again, 3 trains per week):
D9259F7B-1C1D-4C1F-9BF6-3CD2BADCAE82.jpeg

Winnipeg-Regina-Saskatoon (daily):
E615B70E-C0CA-4D8A-B9D2-35BE133669CB.jpeg

Saskatoon-Edmonton (daily):
E6E28680-F393-4842-AB6B-F6AF965E7B44.jpeg

Edmonton-Jasper(-Prince Rupert) (3 times per week):
4216741F-BF06-47DD-9B24-C37490F8CAB3.jpeg

No replacement service was offered between Jasper and Kamloops until the revival of the Super-Continental in June 1985…
 
Back
Top