Talk:Via Rail/Archives/2013

Locomotive roster

The roster is a dog's breakfast of past and present with nothing to distinguish between. Use of "streamline" to describe ex CPR Budd built stainless steel equipment is a questionable term. This whole section needs some serious work.

R.L.Kennedy 21:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, this is definitely a mess. Before I put some time in cleaning it up, would anyone like to weigh in as to whether they'd like to see this sort of information in this article? For Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway we've resisted having the roster in the article, but VIA Rail might be different because (a) its locomotive count is in the dozens, not the thousands and (b) it's a bit easier to compile a complete roster since VIA's under 30 years old. I'm kind of undecided about the locomotive roster, although I feel that the passenger car roster isn't significant/useful enough for inclusion in this article. JYolkowski // talk 01:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't checked in here in a while as I was just browsing through to add a railroad infobox, something which I'll do shortly. I'm in total agreement on trying to clean things up - I like how the Amtrak article is organized, perhaps it could be adopted as a template? The way I originally organized the information (ie. by "cuts") is probably a tad bit negative, although unfortunately they do seem to point out the historic timeline of events for VIA. Perhaps a separate article could be created for the roster information, grouped under a new category called VIA Rail or just VIA?Plasma east 14:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Categories

I noticed that several categories have been added to the article, showing "Transportation in <province name>"... I would have thought having VIA under "Railway companies of Canada", which itself is duplicated under "Transportation in Canada" and "Transportation companies of Canada", would have sufficed rather than placing VIA under every province? Also, this category listing isn't entirely accurate as it shows PEI... PEI and NL are included under VIA's national timetable, but only through bus and bus/ferry connections. No passenger trains have ever operated in those provinces under VIA, and the last time CN operated passenger trains in PEI and NL was 1968 and 1988 respectively.Plasma east 14:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that since the "Category:[province] Railways" is a subcategory of "Category:Transportation in [province]", it probably makes sense to categorize it in "Category:[province] Railways" (removing PE and NL of course) and remove the existing categories. JYolkowski // talk 21:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VIA Rail route map

Someday, when one of us wikipedian get time, we should have a map of the route this carrier serve, something similar to what CN page carries.

Maps are really handy on this kind of articles due to their high information density, saving minutes parsing over the entire article. Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wk muriithi (talk • contribs)

I already have a schematic map of the Windsor-Québec corridor - is that the sort of thing you mean, or are you thinking of a geographically-accurate map showing only major cities? David Arthur 16:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Something like Image:CanadianPacificRailwayNetworkMap.png or Image:CanadianNationalRailwayNetworkMap.png would be perfect. -- Beland 02:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I just created a network map for VIA rail. I am the creator of the maps mentioned by Beland above so I made it along the similar style. I have the raw map in GIMP format so it is easy to change. Please let me know of any changes you think that should be made, comments or suggestions. The location of the track is approximate and obviously I had to be selective on which stations/cities appeared on the map. Did I miss any routes or add routes that no longer exist? Al guy 05:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice addition. The only route that I see missing is the Sudbury - White River one. Also, it looks like you'd probably have room to list a few more end-point cities like Jonquière and Courtenay. Cas510 14:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I added the missing route and some more labels. Al guy 01:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Cost of sleepers

I just reverted a new paragraph which seemed to awkwardly point out that sleepers are expensive ($3000+) but still sell out early. I couldn't find a nice NPOV way to change this, and looking at VIA's web site, it looks like the most expensive sleeper, Toronto to Vancouver for next July is $1958. I reverted using pop-ups, but I wish I had reverted and made this comment in the edit summary instead. Cas510 23:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you got your information, but I just did a search from Toronto-Vancouver, and came up with a price of $4150.96 for a double sleeper return fare, so I am reinstating my entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.186.226 (talk)

The double sleeper is for two people. VIA charges extra for a single person to occupy the space for two people. The fare for a single person in a single bedroom is $1958. I'm afraid I'm going to have to revert back. Cas510 15:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

-> My fare WAS based on TWO people for a DOUBLE bedroom, round-trip from Toronto-Vancouver. Quit playing games and misquoting me. I'm reinstating my opinion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.186.226 (talk)

That's the problem though. Wikipedia isn't the place for your opinion. If you think Via is too expensive, then Wikipedia isn't the place to lodge that complaint. The typical way to compare fares for different services would be to compare one-way travel for one person before taxes, which would be $1958. I don't mind you adding some words to the effect that Silver & Blue class costs a certain amount of money, but that information belongs in the Silver & Blue section, not the Comfort Sleeper section, it should be phrased in a Neutral Point-Of-View way, and it should not refer to the discussion page. We should, in fact, be using this discussion page to come up with the wording of this section. Cas510 18:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry if I came off a little rude, but I just thought that I would advise anyone travelling Via to be aware of their relatively high prices on the Canadian. I can fly to Australia 1st class for that price! Nonetheless, you also have to remember that the trip is only three days and three nights-which I still find rather costly. The bedrooms are nothing special. Just two beds, two chairs and small table, and a private toilet. Not worth the $3000+ in my opinon, but I digress. My apologies.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.186.226 (talk)

Thanks for your reply. I agree with your opinion that it is expensive, but we need to keep opinion out of Wikipedia. I don't have time right now, but I'll take a crack later today at adjusting the wording of this to make it Neutral Point-of-View and moving it to the Silver & Blue section. Cas510 19:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank-You.  :) Please forgive my curt reply to you earlier.

Hi speed service

How fast do the trains run between montreal and toronto? Is it considered high speed? Are there plans to add new high speed service?

The locomotives can reach a maximum speed of 175 km/h, and the lines limit them to still lower speeds. There was a proposal for ‘high-speed’ service using Bombardier’s JetTrain, but it was never funded; in any case, it would have still been using the same lines, like the Acela Express across the border, rather than a purpose-built high-speed line as in France or Germany, and the fastest it would have reached at any point is 240 km/h. David Arthur 21:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The budget speech by the Finance Minister on 2009 January 27th talked about adding a third track in places to reduce the express trip between Montreal and Toronto by 30 minutes. It is currently scheduled for 4 hours 33 minutes. In the past, Via often had an express trip scheduled for 3 hours 59 minutes (1973 for Turbo Train) so the improvement is basically an attempt to get back to the scheduled times of 30 years ago.

Travel on VIA

I have been traveling on via for some time now through 'The Corridor'. What do other editors think of a new section within the article on 'Traveling on VIA'? Possibly it could compare VIA's service to other train systems (like the European one, or Japan / China) - the types of travel 'experiences' customers could expect on its different classes of service.

I will work on a section - if others are interested could they please post ideas / comments here in the discussion side. Perhaps, as others have noted, this might be an opportunity for a major rewrite - addressing some POV concerns as well.

I'll post my brief section to see if it sparks any debate. Doingmorestuffonline (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The section has several sentences that would need a rewrite to conform with NPOV standards. Here are some examples: "the 68 & 69 trains can be tedious", "While travel on VIA can be very pleasant", "(...) traveling on VIA trains something of an odd experience". Rather than add a tag to this newly created section, I thought I'd give my two cents on this here. AirOdyssey (Talk) 03:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected those POV concerns as much as possible, but with train travel experience elsewhere I do believe that VIA's boarding procedures are quite orchestrated affairs that are more similar to plane travel than train travel elsewhere in the world. In talking with fellow travelers this appears to be a consensus, especially when waiting in line with tourists - they often seem quite confused as to what is going on - it has to be explained to them since, especially the Europeans, are used to simply boarding trains at their leisure once they're on the platform.142.157.87.54 (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This entire section is strictly POV. I suppose it is "tedious" to be on a train that stops at insignificant places like Belleville - unless you happen live there. To suggest that Europeans, esp. Spanish and British tourists, would be confused about security concerns related to rail travel is utterly ridiculous. Idesofmontreal (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's a question of travel experience and so yes, ultimately it is POV, you're correct - however, describing the colours used on Via's coaches is also POV - so the arugment is potentially an ad infinitum problem. The aims of this section are to illustrate to readers the types of issues involved in Via travel.

In describing Via's approach to travel experience and organization it is necessary to compare it to other train systems. In many other parts of the world there are different classes of trains depending upon the destination. I thoroughly support Via stopping at what you call 'insignificant' places like Belleville - however, it should take into account expediency for other customers as well. Other train systems resolve this type of problem by having 'local' and 'express' services - even Greyhound and GO Transit do it with their buses. So why not Via? For European travellers especially used to InterCityExpress or ICE trains, the idea that there would even BE a stop in between Montreal and Toronto, for instance, is confusing because places like Belleville do not form part of the ICE system.

If you've travelled Via with people used to other systems you can actually see the confusion on their faces - they are used to platform boarding, used to express trains, and used to rush seating. This section attempts to illustrate the difference Via has with other major train systems around the world, thereby fulfilling Wikipedia's mandate of presenting useful concise information. For such customers, Via's procedures might appear tedious because they are, in comparison to systems like the ICE, overly orchestrated and complex.

Line-ups at Via stations like Toronto and Montreal have absolutely no security implications at all - in case this is your main point. If their purpose WAS security, the lines would have screening. The idea that by describing Via's boarding procedure as time consuming is an attack on Via's security policy and initiatives is a bit confounding since if you'd every been through one of those line-ups, you'd know first hand it has nothing to do about security checks at all.Doingmorestuffonline (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

After having read this article, I find it blatantly violates the NPOV rules. VIA's service is not really comparable with Germany's ICE system. ICE is one of the best high-speed rail services in the world, whereas VIA is a traditional heavy-rail Diesel-Electric train service. The article discuses things like long line-ups at major train stations, but fails to mention that the reason for said line-ups is due to the design of the stations. At Montreal, for instance, the platforms are located in such a way that it's only practical to have people wait in the main concourse before boarding. I realize it's been a while since anybody's paid attention to this article, and If no one else wants to take initiative, I plan on commencing a major over-haul in the near future. Jmajeremy (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Naming

Why is this page titled "Via Rail" and not "VIA Rail". Seems that the former is correct, and could avoid a whole lot of redirs. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The proper name of the cmopany is, in fact, "VIA Rail", and this entire article should really be moved. Jmajeremy (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

New Service Names

It has come to my attention that "Comfort" and "VIA1" are now referred to as simply "Economy class" and "Business class". I have made some of these changes already. On top of that, they are eliminating the names of all their routes (i.e. Skeena, Hudson Bay, Malahat), to be replaced with a naming convention based on the termini of the routes (Jasper-Prince Rupert, Winnipeg-Churchill, Courtenay-Victoria), with the exceptions of the Ocean and the Canadian. This will require some major changes, including the moving of entire articles pertaining to these individule routes. Jmajeremy (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Need info on finances

Is the company generally self-sufficient, or does it have an operating subsidy? What is the size of its operating budget? Capital budget? -- Beland (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

---

VIA Rail → Via Rail — Per WP:MOSTM, trademarks that are rendered in uppercase as a matter of corporate policy rather than because of an underlying linguistic reason are to be converted to the same regular sentence case that any other proper noun would appear in. As such, we have articles at Telus, not TELUS; Kiss (band), not KISS; Time (magazine), not TIME, and so on.

I believe the repeated use of "VIA Rail" across Wikipedia rather than "Via Rail" is a straightforward contravention of this MoS convention. Via is not an acronym, nor is the uppercasing rooted in bilingualism policy, as "Via" is a cognate and homophone in both English and French. The decision to self-style in uppercase is a matter of marketing, likely undertaken to correspond with the company's logo.

Per their internal style guides, the Canadian media universally recognizes this and downcases "Via". I rounded up these examples from several different major news outlets: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

If this move is undertaken, there will be numerous follow-up revisions to body text and pagemoves for other articles and templates that include "VIA" in their title that I feel comfortable pursuing on my own as uncontroversial. In light of the subject's notability, however, I figured it would be best to establish a consensus first on the primary article. The Tom (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Comment Via Rail has the disadvantage of being confused with the phrase via rail, and since it is common practice outside of Wikipedia to capitalize every word in a title, would mean that it would be equivalent to via rail. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I do not quite see how the two would be confused. Anyhow, the company would be capitalized "Via Rail" and the term "via rail" would not even occur at the beginning of a sentence, so this is a non-issue.Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support, I have wondered why this article was at the "wrong" place before, per MOS. I am not sure that all media outlets use lower-case "Via", but the rules on Wikipedia are clear because "Via" is not an abbreviation, we cannot capitalize it no matter how few or many media outlets (who probably follow a different MOS than us) do. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:ABN AMRO :| --NE2 13:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The rules do NOT prevent us from using VIA. We must form a consensus on the best way to name the page. However, given that many mainstream news sources have standardized the style to Via Rail, I don't really see a consensus forming here to ignore that standardization. DigitalC (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Thing is, the same applies to ABN Amro/AMRO. This could get just as ugly as Talk:ABN AMRO, since enough people either don't like MOS:TM or believe it doesn't apply. --NE2 15:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
      • If people don't like MOSTM, they can discuss it at the talk page there. MOSTM is a guideline, and is very strict on the matter of all-caps on non-abbreviated trademarks and company names: there is no room for misinterpretation in this case (though I can imagine a few other instances where there could be a debate where there is disagreement if a former abbreviation has fallen into disuse and is now a regular name). Normally this proposal should be snow, but I fear not all editors are fully aware of the rules, and do not understand the finer parts of the English language and that all-caps is essentially a typographical matter (like the choice of font). Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree the same applies to ABM AMRO, and that it should be AMB Amro from what I have read. I know this isn't a deletion discussion, but othershitexists. In that case, there was a consensus to go against the guideline. I don't see such a consensus developing here - so far no one has really argued against renaming the article, and no reason to keep it at the current name has been provided. DigitalC (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support, VIA is not an acronym, so IMO the proposed change appears to be reasonable. Good catch. --Labattblueboy (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per my previous comments DigitalC (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I don't see "universal" recognition by the Canadian media: [9] --NE2 10:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Even with a better search, which removes the press releases on NewsWire, VIA Rail still comes up. Canoe.ca, Globe & Mail, Oshawa Express, Winnipeg Sun, The Province, etc. all used "VIA Rail". However, from my reading of MOSTM, I'm not sure it matters what the media calls them? I'll have to review it again. DigitalC (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just for background, a quick web search of government websites for "VIA Rail Canada Act" indicates that the Canadian federal government seems to consistently regard "VIA Rail Canada Inc." as its legal name. (Is that an independent source for the purposes of WP:MOSNAME w/r/t a crown corporation?) A search of the corporation records database yields this record, which is (stupidly) in full-uppercase, so it's of no help to us. TheFeds 19:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, there's no piece of legislation on the books called the "VIA Rail Canada Act". It crops up in both forms across the current body of federal legislation, for instance the Maintenance of Railway Operations Act, 1995 has it in mixed case, while the Canada Transportation Act, 1996 has it uppercased. In any event, even if there were a foundational document laying it out it uppercase, I think WP:MOSTM would still come down on the side of house style, as this is about typographic rendering preferences rather than, say, spelling. Indeed, as that example shows, as far as the laws of Canada are concerned, you can write it out as "VIA" or "Via" and it's equally binding. The Tom (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• To be precise, that title was—on at least two occasions—part of proposed federal legislation (which received first reading, but went no further). Examples include bills C-26 (37th parliament) & C-44 (38th parliament).

  (I concur that the case of the name is not relevant to its legal effect.) TheFeds 02:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Long-winded History section

The history section is long-overdue for a major rewrite. The focus on service cuts is excessive, I believe. At a bare minimum this should be moved to an different article. The entire thing needs a complete rewrite in my opinion. Other thoughts? Nfitz 18:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I find the information about the number of trains confusing. The article starts off by mentioning that there are 480 trains but does not mention the measurement period (weekly?). Later the article mentions that when VIA took over from CN and CP it ran more than 150 trains per week. Since VIA runs fewer trains now the two numbers appear confusing.

It might be helpful if the historical section included information about the absolute decline in passenger levels (today's level of 4 million per year is very low compared to historical figures). Passenger miles would be a good measurement to include. These could show the relative importance of rail passenger travel in Canada compared to that in other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rev40 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, do we need to retain the information about old service classes? Can these be shunted off to a history page? Bootofthebeast (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The history of VIA seems to be a history of service cuts. So the focus on service cuts is appropriate. It could contain more information on passengers per year and passenger-miles per year, of course. 24.59.149.223 (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

POV concerns

The extensive history section is rife with much political speculation that borders on libel (twice claiming that politicians spitefully cut certain routes because they serviced their opponents' ridings), and finally asserting that the new Renaissance trains are failure-prone without any citation. While these claims may be true (VIA has indeed seen service cutbacks), the reasons are given without link or evidence to back it up.

There is a lack of NPOV; the general tone paints a picture of relentless and malicious political persecution, going so far as calling VIA a "political football". - quanta 02:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of the remarks are factual; but they need citing. This article has clear POV problems (and I'm a rail fan myself). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This has to be one of the longest-lasting most-horrible Wikipedia pages I've seen. The endless orgy of information about cutbacks, and of equipment, much of which it isn't clear if still runs (some sent to the junk yard a quarter-century ago) — no one has made any comment here about these issues, or the POV concerns. As far as I can tell, someone needs to take a knife to entire article. Is there anyone who actually objects - or cares? Nfitz (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In case your question (above) was not rhetorical, I care. That is to say, I agree that the article should be edited by someone with the requisite knowledge, but I do feel that the subject is worthy of such an effort.CanRuby (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would go as far to say this page needs a criticism section against vias practices to make it fair. I recently had a ticket stolen ( just the ticket portion and not the reciept) I was forced to buy a new ticket, same reservation number, same seat and the cost for via rail to investigate the issue and issue me a refund was 40 dollars charged to me, which was the price of the ticket. Its a policy that isnt right by the carriers. Not to make this sound like a blog, but many customers have had very negative experiences with via rail services in terms of ticket refunds, late trains no refunds, etc that seemingly arent mentioned as much as you think in the article, it reads as a poor me corportation article where people are meant to feel sorry for the government cut backs the corporation has had.Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ottawa4ever on the question of POV concerns - if VIA's customer service, and over all experience is of a certain character, indicating that online shouldn't be an issue. It is, as wikipedia aims to be, factual. A POV concern would come out of going overboard in presentation of those facts. If VIA's ticket refund system can catch people 'off guard' or 'un-awares' that that's the truth - it's merely stating VIA policy. Equally, if traveling on VIA is is remarkable or it isn't, presenting both sides of factual observations is the key to objectivity. Doingmorestuffonline (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but most of the information about cutbacks is neutral point of view, and rather important for a historical presentation of VIA. Unfortunately. It would be lovely if there were lots of things other than cutbacks to talk about in VIA's history, but there aren't. 24.59.149.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Revisiting the VIA/Via question

The logo and business name both use the capitalized version. (So does the stock exchange, although that means nothing by itself.) Given that the mass media is divided, shouldn't we go with the business name as it is used on all business documents? (Yes, I saw the archived discussion above. I also noticed that it was four years old. Consensus can be revisited, especially where there is strong reason to believe that a different consensus is now appropriate.)