Renewed passenger rail service between Banff and Calgary?

[woob]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I know I don't. I hate renting cars on vacation. Being able to vacation in a place where I don't have to drive is a big selling point.

While I love to drive in new countries and experience different driving environments, I totally agree. Being able to go somewhere and easily get from airport to hotel and then have an entire trip's worth of adventures available to me via walking or well organized public transit/uber is so nice.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Really? I've never found it any harder in Europe than renting one here. It's always an adventure driving in a foreign country.

I guess I probably should have said on vacation not in a foreign country. I've rented in Europe/Australia a number of times, and it isn't harder than here particularly, but I don't enjoy it here either.

I don't find driving relaxing, so on vacation I'd rather not do it. If I don't have to, that improves a destination, imo.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Dozens drove a train today, but not to work. Most drove a vehicle to their job driving a train.

i don't disagree. but i thought we were talking about a rail line to canmore, banff, lake lousie versus the ROI on a highway?

personally i find it hard to beleive that a private investor is willing to kick in $300m for track, which means that another $300m for track, plus who knows how many more $100's of million for other stuff is really out there and they think that $15 per trip is reasonable.

google tells me that 4,000,000 people per year visit banff - how many would you expect to take the train? even if 25% of them did then that is $15,000,000 in revenue per year - how much of that revenue could go to paying off the original $300,000,000?

maybe this investor is hoping that somehow the government will buy this rail line to go along with their pipeline.

also, if the estimated cost is say $1,000,000 what is the real cost? Would be at lest $1.25B for sure, and they would likely buy the rail cars from bombardier, and they would not work, be delivered late so more delays and cost overrruns there.

this is a cool sounding project, and the idea of taking the train to banff for a day of skiing is cool - but would likely not be practical in real life as it would mean driving to the train station, getting on a bus in banff, going to sunshine and then doing it all in reverse on the way home - the trip would likely take more time than just driving there.

[powderjunkie]

IF there is any chance this actually goes ahead, it needs to connect right up to the airport.

What type of trains are we talking about here? is there any possibility they could run on existing CP tracks for short portions where adding the new line would be particularly expensive (even if reduced speed)? For instance, from Elbow River bridge near Fort Calgary to where it goes under Memorial Drive?

Is there enough room for another line from 14th street west to the true core? Or would the old science centre be a smart place for the station?

Better yet, this station could be directly north of the Sunalta station (also just south of Greyhound station for now...)

[Northendzone]

I'd assume that we are talking about something a little more substaintial than a c-train car, as presumably passengers will have more baggage. I am not sure you would need to go all the way to a VIA rail car setup though, but i have not gone train shopping for quite a while now and am unsure what is out there.

if you were to run on existing freight train tracks, then those freight trains would have the right of way, so you could build sidings, but then you lengthen the trip time, as the banff fireball may have to wait up to 30 minutes for the freight train to clear (i beleive that you need to add some time to the train clearing as i don't beleive that freight trains run on a schedule and a frieght train and the fireball could potentially meet at a spot where there is no siding).

also, if you had a stop at the airport, then something in the city, then cochrane, morley , canmore - at say 20 minutes per stop - you are likely looking at a total trip time of 2 to 2.5 hrs (just to get to banff - never mind more time getting to whatever you want to see in banff) easily as i am allowing for 1 hr of moving time without any delays for a freight train.

plus what would the fireball run on from the airport to the whatever station - you would need to build track for that as well, unless there is some way to run something on the c-train track - but that would add another layer on the city system.

would you drive from your house in suburban calgary to the train station (at the airport or downtown) to then take this trip to go hiking for the day? or would you just go to banff in your car, where you can be in complete control of departure times?

[Bigtime]

As I understand it CPR is not interested in sharing their track at all, but is open to the idea of giving part of their right of way for these folks to lay their track. But the issue of what happens in the core would still need to be figured out.

[sleepingmoose]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

As I understand it CPR is not interested in sharing their track at all, but is open to the idea of giving part of their right of way for these folks to lay their track. But the issue of what happens in the core would still need to be figured out.

CP probably figures they’ll be able to buy this extra track for pennies on the dollar once it’s built and goes bankrupt - I’m not sure I’d blame them. They’d throw in a few more turnouts to join this track to theirs, and they’re laughing.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by sleepingmoose

CP probably figures they’ll be able to buy this extra track for pennies on the dollar once it’s built and goes bankrupt - I’m not sure I’d blame them. They’d throw in a few more turnouts to join this track to theirs, and they’re laughing.

Probably just figured out the private backing...

No way CP gets permission to double their track through the national parks. But a tourism based rail line might.

[Sliver]

This doesn't solve the problem. What we actually need - and I've said this before - is a new Banff-like town in the national park. Start with a new GoC campground between Banff and Louise, and build the town site up around that. Banff shouldn't get bigger as it's already perfect the way it is. Louise is maxed out, too. Time for a new town.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

also, if you had a stop at the airport, then something in the city, then cochrane, morley , canmore - at say 20 minutes per stop - you are likely looking at a total trip time of 2 to 2.5 hrs (just to get to banff - never mind more time getting to whatever you want to see in banff) easily as i am allowing for 1 hr of moving time without any delays for a freight train.

20 mins per stop? More like 3-4mins stationary, and an extra min on each side to get back up to speed. I would imagine a few express trains would skip Cochrane and Morley...


Even if the economics were closer to reasonable, self driving cars seem like an awfully big threat in the medium-long term.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Sliver

This doesn't solve the problem. What we actually need - and I've said this before - is a new Banff-like town in the national park. Start with a new GoC campground between Banff and Louise, and build the town site up around that. Banff shouldn't get bigger as it's already perfect the way it is. Louise is maxed out, too. Time for a new town.

That new town is Canmore. We're not going to see national parks turned into large-scale tourism developments.

[Harry Lime]

If they are laying new line, I wonder if they would slide the track south of Cochrane, and reconnect with the main line closer to Morley. It's an absolute joke that Cochrane shuts down completely when a train runs through, and a realignment is long overdue.

Down the road, CPR may get on board a full relocation to the new line, if the government has already done the heavy lifting for them.

[Fuzz]

dp

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That new town is Canmore. We're not going to see national parks turned into large-scale tourism developments.

Canmore is full. Move along, move along.

[Sliver]

The charm/magic that attracts people is the quaint smallish towns. Canmore barely has that as is and if it gets bigger will lose it completely. It's been a hundred years or so since we started a new town in the mountains. Using 0.00001% of the land in Banff National Park to start a new town for people to enjoy is our best move, not a rail line that is pointless and uneconomical.

Unfortunately, we seem to have developed a culture in this country that balks at progress and infrastructure. The trait in Canadians that blocks pipelines is the same trait that doesn't want a new town in the Parks just manifesting itself in a different issue.

[CliffFletcher]

How many towns are in Yellowstone? The Grand Canyon? Joshua Tree?

You apparently don't understand the purpose of national parks.

Originally Posted by Sliver

Using 0.00001% of the land in Banff National Park to start a new town for people to enjoy is our best move...

That "0.00001%" would be in a valley floor, which are the highways for wildlife, and easily blocked from that use by even modest development. Imagine if the city got permission to create a new public park in Calgary, taking up only 0.00001% of it's territory... and put it at the intersection of Deerfoot and Glenmore. That's what your new town would do to Banff's wildlife.

[Sliver]

Wildlife will eventually adapt just like it'll adapt after a pipeline goes through. There isn't only one valley; there are hundreds or thousands. Humans are allowed to have a footprint, too.

We really have to stop soliciting so much feedback from progress-stoppers on project proposals. There's nothing you can do to make them happy. Push forward and let them squawk on the sidelines.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

20 mins per stop? More like 3-4mins stationary, and an extra min on each side to get back up to speed. I would imagine a few express trains would skip Cochrane and Morley...

3-4 minutes per stop for a passenger train? this is not a c-train where the only thing folks are carrying is a backpack. You could be looking at folks loading up a few pieces of luggage, ski gear etc. the stuff would need to be effieiently stowed - perhaps 20 minutes is too long, but i would have to think you would need to allow for 10 minutes easily.

as much as i would love to live int eh bow valley, the area does not need more towns - facepalm

[Fuzz]

If you can't get a few bags and skis on a train in 5 minutes, you are to big a struggler to be out in public. Plenty of trains in Europe only stop for a minute or 2 with people who have airport luggage, bikes etc.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Probably just figured out the private backing...

No way CP gets permission to double their track through the national parks. But a tourism based rail line might.

I honestly don't know, but given that CP was their first, and given the land rights they have elsewhere on the prairie it would not surprise me if the process they would need to go through to add another line would be quite different than for any other project. Not sure the government would even be able to do much to stop it (??).