Passenger Trains > Why does VIA have better trains?

Reading the article on VIA Canadian on page 22-23 in Trains September issue, it is so great how they can run a long distance train without government problems, why is America so backwards?

I just think the reason---at least in my honest opinion---why VIA has better trains is because the Canadian Government backs them up with needed funding (i.e., cash, moolah, dough........). That's something, sadly, that Amtrak may never see from our Federal Government---at least not in my lifetime!!!!!!

Just my two cents worth.......

bnsf100

Tourism represents a far greater portion of Canada's GNP than it does here in the USA.

Much of that tourism brings in "hard" currencies when comparted with the CD$ (or for that matter, the US$).

i think one of the solutions was that VIA was forced to cut most short hop trains unless along the quebec toronto windsor operations, saving a pile of cash , then only running a few trains outside that area, long hauls in most places.
cash from the government helps too

Have you seen how much it costs to ride the Canadian in sleeper? No wonder they aren't losing money, and I used to think viewliner fares on the Star were steap.

Regardless, VIA runs a better train service, in my opinion, than Amtrak. VIA made a dedicated effort to maintain the 50+ year old stainless steel Budd equipment - domes and all - which is a huge selling point. VIA's ratio of coaches to sleepers for its long distance trains is interesting. They can fill a 30 car train, add/subtract sleepers as needed, and charge what the market will bear. They go after the high end sleeper market - which Amtrak is unable to do, due to equipment shortage etc. The Canadian can operate with 3 coaches and 20+ sleepers. Whereas Amtrak can barely run two full Viewlier sleepers and four long distance Amfleet II coaches on its eastern long distance trains, as an example. VIA also has a totally different approach to onboard personnel. Even VIA's long distance trains in the East, the Ocean and Chaleur, sleepers out number coaches. The Ocean offers different service levels, which is quite interesting.

So power to them! I know VIA would like to restore some of is lost routes from the 1990s and continue a more aggressive overhaul of its fleet, but that depends on funding - sound familiar? But VIA does have the equipment to expand if they are given the green light to restore service, say from Vancouver, BC to Calgary or Halifax to Cape Breton. So they also have their funding issues from the government.

I think it's a bit misleading to say that VIA hasn't had "government" issues. If that were the case, the Canadian would still run seven days per week and would go through Calgary and Thunder Bay instead of Edmonton and Sioux Lookout.

The service on their trains does strike me as better than Amtrak's, though outside the Windsor-Quebec corridor they have similar problems with freight-train interference -- by my reckoning, both from a 1998 ride on the Canadian and observations just last month, CN dispatchers adore running VIA trains through sidings, seemingly preferring to do so even when the freight train arrives so far ahead of the passenger that it could be tucked away in the siding in plenty of time for a high-green on the main. Of course, part of that problem may stem from current management's obsession with running monster trains that don't fit in the sidings, in which case the opportunity to give the "window train" a high green doesn't exist anyway.

The big difference between VIA and Amtrak is that VIA has more focus on quality of service. VIA's philosphy is to charge higher fares but provide a service that makes the fare worth it. VIA took big cuts in the early 90s but since then the government has supported VIA to an equal level...so VIA has been able to focus on training its people and working out ways to do things properly, there are lots of fairly new hires who have a positive outlook on their jobs and try to do the best they can.

Whereas at Amtrak, there is evidence of cost cutting everywhere. The onboard people act like they are just trying to survive.

- Paul

One major difference between VIA and Amtrak long distance (non-corridor) trains is that VIA is primarily selling tourism while Amtrak is selling transportation. The Canadian is an almost entirely sleeper train with a couple of coaches and cafe car tacked onto the front. Amtrak trains, on the other hand, have at least as many coaches as sleepers and generally considerably more coach than sleeper passengers. People will pay the Canadian prices because it's part of a vacation--most of them aren't going anywhere that they have to go and think of the ride itself as the goal. In a sense it's a cheaper version of Grandluxe. Amtrak certainly has people who ride it for similar reasons, but the great majority of passengers are actually traveling from one place to another and, for whatever reason, decided to do so by train. And, of course, the Canadian government supports VIA far better than the US government supports Amtrak. At root cost cutting and equipment problems generally are the result of decades of underfunding, not of some overwhelming incompetence or desire to drive away passengers on Amtrak's part.

I find that Via's Ontario and Quebec corridor trains are better than Amtrak's corridor trains. Via has a stress on customer service and dependability that Amtrak has never had. It also helps that Coteau-Ottawa and Ottawa-Brockville are nearly freight-free and that the CN main Toronto-Montreal is maintained to a high standard and is dispatched with concern for Via.

If you had asked me about airlines prior to 2000, I would have said that Air Canada and Canadian were both superior to the U.S. airlines. Sadly, once CP failed and AC had no serious competition, AC deteriorated quickly.

BobB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One major difference between VIA and Amtrak long
> distance (non-corridor) trains is that VIA is
> primarily selling tourism while Amtrak is selling
> transportation. The Canadian is an almost
> entirely sleeper train with a couple of coaches
> and cafe car tacked onto the front. Amtrak
> trains, on the other hand, have at least as many
> coaches as sleepers and generally considerably
> more coach than sleeper passengers. People will
> pay the Canadian prices because it's part of a
> vacation--most of them aren't going anywhere that
> they have to go and think of the ride itself as
> the goal. In a sense it's a cheaper version of
> Grandluxe. Amtrak certainly has people who ride
> it for similar reasons, but the great majority of
> passengers are actually traveling from one place
> to another and, for whatever reason, decided to do
> so by train. And, of course, the Canadian
> government supports VIA far better than the US
> government supports Amtrak. At root cost cutting
> and equipment problems generally are the result of
> decades of underfunding, not of some overwhelming
> incompetence or desire to drive away passengers on
> Amtrak's part.

My recent trips in the past few years have been to Canada, and I have used VIA Rail as means of travel to get from point A to point B etc. I've seen some interesting observations among ridership.

Yes, VIA goes after the tourism market heavily. Amtrak could too if they would get their act together. However, the Ocean and Chaleur, in particular carry a significant amount of Canadians. For example, I was recently a minority on the Chaleur - out numbered by Canadian travellers.

As for the Canadian, I think there's a switch in off-peak periods. That is Canadians are more likely to take the Canadian in off-peak when fares are cheaper.

But that's still not to say Canadians don't travel aboard during peak season. I've seen native Canadians get off with their canoes in Ontario and others get on/off at Parry Sound (heavy vacation areas for Canadians living in the Tornto area). Same for Edmonton and Winnipeg specifically. Jasper is largely the tourist destination with travellers aboard the Canadian, as this is where many tour groups seem to depart the train and resort to motor coach.

However, one eastbound peak-period summer trip I was on, the Canadian was late getting into Toronto, and many native Canadians missed their corridor connection to get home and were frantically calling relatives to come and pick them up. I also was outnumbered at my table in the diner during peak period summer traveller - Canadians from Newfoundland and Toronto.

So if we assume the majority of Canadians are in coaches (that's three coaches) and maybe four sleepers, that's nearly equivalent to an Amtrak train capacity. Amtrak provides much less sleeper capacity compared to a VIA train - and they can get the price for it.

There are many towns in VIA's long distance system that rely chiefly on VIA rail service - particularly the Skeena and Hudson Bay train.

So I have mixed feelings on the Canadian being perceived as a major "tourist train operation."

jp1822 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BobB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > One major difference between VIA and Amtrak
> long
> > distance (non-corridor) trains is that VIA is
> > primarily selling tourism while Amtrak is
> selling
> > transportation. The Canadian is an almost
> > entirely sleeper train with a couple of coaches
> > and cafe car tacked onto the front. Amtrak
> > trains, on the other hand, have at least as
> many
> > coaches as sleepers and generally considerably
> > more coach than sleeper passengers. People
> will
> > pay the Canadian prices because it's part of a
> > vacation--most of them aren't going anywhere
> that
> > they have to go and think of the ride itself as
> > the goal. In a sense it's a cheaper version of
> > Grandluxe. Amtrak certainly has people who
> ride
> > it for similar reasons, but the great majority
> of
> > passengers are actually traveling from one
> place
> > to another and, for whatever reason, decided to
> do
> > so by train. And, of course, the Canadian
> > government supports VIA far better than the US
> > government supports Amtrak. At root cost
> cutting
> > and equipment problems generally are the result
> of
> > decades of underfunding, not of some
> overwhelming
> > incompetence or desire to drive away passengers
> on
> > Amtrak's part.
>
> My recent trips in the past few years have been to
> Canada, and I have used VIA Rail as means of
> travel to get from point A to point B etc. I've
> seen some interesting observations among
> ridership.
>
> Yes, VIA goes after the tourism market heavily.
> Amtrak could too if they would get their act
> together. However, the Ocean and Chaleur, in
> particular carry a significant amount of
> Canadians. For example, I was recently a minority
> on the Chaleur - out numbered by Canadian
> travellers.
>
> As for the Canadian, I think there's a switch in
> off-peak periods. That is Canadians are more
> likely to take the Canadian in off-peak when fares
> are cheaper.
>
> But that's still not to say Canadians don't travel
> aboard during peak season. I've seen native
> Canadians get off with their canoes in Ontario and
> others get on/off at Parry Sound (heavy vacation
> areas for Canadians living in the Tornto area).
> Same for Edmonton and Winnipeg specifically.
> Jasper is largely the tourist destination with
> travellers aboard the Canadian, as this is where
> many tour groups seem to depart the train and
> resort to motor coach.
>
> However, one eastbound peak-period summer trip I
> was on, the Canadian was late getting into
> Toronto, and many native Canadians missed their
> corridor connection to get home and were
> frantically calling relatives to come and pick
> them up. I also was outnumbered at my table in the
> diner during peak period summer traveller -
> Canadians from Newfoundland and Toronto.
>
> So if we assume the majority of Canadians are in
> coaches (that's three coaches) and maybe four
> sleepers, that's nearly equivalent to an Amtrak
> train capacity. Amtrak provides much less sleeper
> capacity compared to a VIA train - and they can
> get the price for it.
>
> There are many towns in VIA's long distance system
> that rely chiefly on VIA rail service -
> particularly the Skeena and Hudson Bay train.
>
> So I have mixed feelings on the Canadian being
> perceived as a major "tourist train operation."

I don't necessary disagree with these comments; in the remote areas the Canadian (the only LD Canadian train that I've taken) does provide transportation, although that's largely through the few coaches that it carries, not the many sleepers. My main point is that VIA seems to focus on the cruise train aspect, including in its pricing, something that Amtrak doesn't do and probably doesn't have the equipment to do.

I sat for dinner aboard VIA's Canadian and got seated with a group tour director - she had about 40 or so in her group on the summer peak-period train. She said her company gave up on trying to book travel tours using Amtrak because they are so unreliable and VIA is far superior, ranging from onboard staff to equipment. She also commented that with 40 of her guests on the tour, who were all in sleeper, Amtrak would likely have trouble accommodating them, since Amtrak has limited sleeper capacity space. Whereas VIA could be convinced to add a sleeper if they know they are getting a tour group business. She also related that many other tour companies have done the same regarding their relations with Amtrak. They have come to perceive Amtrak as unreliable at multiple levels. Those are comments I got in 2001, when I was not as familiar with VIA as I am now.

Amtrak used to have tour group bookings with tour companies, but this has largely been absent from the Amtrak scene for many years now, from what I've seen.