The problem in my opinion is the focus on branding Via around “luxury” travel. As nice as the comfy seats are (even for the cheapest econo fare), it really should be more like GO in terms of being cheap, “boring,” and fairly reliable. Euro-trains have very basic bus-like interiors, and that’s really where we need to be. Make the trains boring, fast, reliable, and cheap.
The funny thing is, high-speed rail actually has a much lower op-ex than our sluggish system. The biggest expense (other than building the system) is the cost of labour for staffing the cabins. The energy costs are pennies per passenger, the trains need very little maintenance (compared to a jet aircraft), the tracks need even less (again, compared to roads, runways, etc), so the real op-ex cost is just having human beings on it. A train that goes twice as fast pays out half as much human-hours per fare, so it starts to make sense why JR’s Sinkansen, SNCF’s TGV, or Renfe are basically the only forms of transport that are actually cashflow positive once externalities are considered. (“free” access to roads, free pollution, subsidies for air travel, etc)
Outside of a relatively small part of this country’s geography, that’s pretty much all it can be.
Yeah, by geography. However, by population, Via Rail could be relevant to vast majority of Canadians. Over 50% of our population lives in the Corridor alone.
Nobody is expecting it to be competitive or high speed between … St John’s and Montreal.
Crossing part of the Ocean isn’t really doable for a train?
The problem in my opinion is the focus on branding Via around “luxury” travel. As nice as the comfy seats are (even for the cheapest econo fare), it really should be more like GO in terms of being cheap, “boring,” and fairly reliable. Euro-trains have very basic bus-like interiors, and that’s really where we need to be. Make the trains boring, fast, reliable, and cheap.
The funny thing is, high-speed rail actually has a much lower op-ex than our sluggish system. The biggest expense (other than building the system) is the cost of labour for staffing the cabins. The energy costs are pennies per passenger, the trains need very little maintenance (compared to a jet aircraft), the tracks need even less (again, compared to roads, runways, etc), so the real op-ex cost is just having human beings on it. A train that goes twice as fast pays out half as much human-hours per fare, so it starts to make sense why JR’s Sinkansen, SNCF’s TGV, or Renfe are basically the only forms of transport that are actually cashflow positive once externalities are considered. (“free” access to roads, free pollution, subsidies for air travel, etc)
Outside of a relatively small part of this country’s geography, that’s pretty much all it can be.
Nobody is expecting it to be competitive or high speed between Vancouver and Edmonton. Or between Winnipeg and Regina. Or St John’s and Montreal.
Yeah, by geography. However, by population, Via Rail could be relevant to vast majority of Canadians. Over 50% of our population lives in the Corridor alone.
Crossing part of the Ocean isn’t really doable for a train?
You can take a train from London to Paris…