Talk:The Canadian

VIA takeover

VIA did not assume responsibility for The Canadian on January 12 1977. This was the date when CN created VIA as a subsidiary company for its passenger services. VIA did not become a separate Crown corporation until April 1978 (when it still only operated CN's passenger services). It wasn't until October 1978 that CP gave control of its passenger services to VIA (along with equipment and stations), and it wasn't until mid-1979 that the VIA brand actually was implemented on the CP trains. Plasma east 04:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Route shift

Change of the route from CPR to mostly CNR was simply due to the fact the Federal government was paying for 100% of the losses of VIA Rail and Canadian National Railways. They did not want to pay money to the private shareholder-owned Canadian Pacific Railway. Under the old system, 80% of the losses were paid out. (Likely, the CPR in particular could cook the books sufficiently to get at least 100%) Furthermore, the CNR route ran through the Riding of many sitting MP's, moreso than CPR. The CPR was happy to get rid of the nusiance of passenger trains operating on their single-track mainline and made no complaint. R.L.Kennedy 20:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Popular culture

What do we think of adding a reference to the Eric Wilson children's mystery novel Murder on the Canadian, set on the train? Mgriffin 03:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added it to my draft. Should be published in <6hrs. 128.135.98.233 (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"Stopping anywhere"

Does the Canadian still stop just about anywhere a passenger requests for pick up and drop off? Back in 1999, I was able to board this train in the middle of nowhere north of Thunder Bay with a canoe and got dropped off at a bridge ~50 miles down the line. All for a pretty small fee (maybe $20). If I were a through-passenger I'd be pretty pissed about all the time lost for a dude and his canoe. Toiyabe 18:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it stops on request during the Northern Ontario portion of the route; I suppose their reasoning is that on a journey of several days, the lost time is not significant, and that request stops are more valuable than a few designated stations in such a sparsely-populated area. Some Ontario Northland and Algoma Central trains will stop anywhere along their routes. David Arthur 00:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The term that I've always heard for this practice is "flag stop". In many pre-Amtrak US timetables, flag stops are designated with an "f" character to indicate that the train will not stop in the town unless requested by a passenger aboard or waiting to board the train. It's derived from the practice of waving a flag to signal to the engineer that a stop is requested, also known as "flagging the train". Some Amtrak trains still do this at limited locations, indicated in the timetables with a picture of two flags (such as on the Empire Builder). Slambo (Speak) 11:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that I remember it, there was a 'flag stop' for someone else at a fishing camp - they hoisted a flag about a mile up the track from where they wanted to get picked up and the train stopped. My outfitter called a few days ahead, and asked them to be pick me up at a certain station where the train doesn't have a scheduled stop. After I boarded I told the conductor that I wanted to be left off at Bridge #XYZ, and she looked up the milage, calculated the price and sold me a ticket.

It was a great experiance, but I can understand why they lose money. Toiyabe 14:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ticket prices

How much do tickets typically cost? TastyCakes (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a pretty big range, depending on how far you're going, whether you're an adult/senior/student/child, what kind of seating/sleeping arrangements you've got, and what season it is. With a one way trip, it's significantly cheaper to take Amtrak's Empire Builder across the continent, though IMHO, not as pretty. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper

There is a newspaper of the same name. [1] 69.157.229.153 (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

move back

From what I see on the VIA rail website, it is called "The Canadian". - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

They're just using "the" for grammar: They say "the Ocean", but the train's name isn't "The Ocean". Same for the Canadian. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. At the top of the page, below the banner, the text reads:

Home > Trains > Rockies and Pacific > Toronto-Vancouver (the Canadian) 

The word "the" here serves no grammatical purpose, because it's not a sentence. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Then why isn't the "the" capitalized? See the page for the Ocean, it does read "Montréal-Halifax (the Ocean)", yet the name is not "The Ocean" — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why it's not capitalized, and you don't know why it's there at all. =) Pretty inclusive. I would suggest that the name is "The Ocean". - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

my copy of rail canada vol 4 calls the ocean "ocean" and it does say "the canadian" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.233.74 (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Correct name of train under VIA Rail Canada is Canadian. Under the CPR it was The Canadian. R.L.Kennedy 20:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

westbound

Is that train in the photo really westbound ? The description of the photo doesn't actually say that.122.106.205.74 (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The description says "VIA #1", so that makes it westbound, the eastbound is train number 2. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Image use

I've dramatically reduced the number of images in this article. All the images are still available for use; those that weren't on WP:COMMONS already I moved there. I want to be clear that I think they're all great images, and I appreciate the time that went into (a) taking them, (b) uploading them, and (c) providing descriptions. I don't think it worked with the article though--we need a balance between images and text (see also WP:Galleries). I think we can work more of them in with an expanded route description (besides British Columbia) and perhaps a section on the Canadian's equipment. Mackensen (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes to images

Before I grumble about the substantive nature of Trekphiler (talk · contribs)'s changes to the images in the article, I want to point out that the first edit introduced stray markup (check the Via Rail section header) and the second edit, despite ostensibly being a revert, does not. I'm sorry that he didn't notice this issue the first time, but that's what I reacted to.

Anyway, on to the grumbling. The image of the Canadian Pacific version of the train was deliberatively included in the Canadian Pacific portion of the history section, on the assumption that readers would appreciate the context. Far from being "silly" it's a common practice and I think a desirable one. Having a general image gallery in the Via Rail section doesn't make much sense to me. These images now intrude into the route section. This doesn't strike me as an improvement. I've bumped the infobox image up to 300px; 350px was originally needed because of spacing problems in the route map and I agree that it was no longer justified. Mackensen (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

♠I did miss the stray markup, but that's hardly "broken" nor IMO grounds for rv.

♠As for the image positioning, I agree, it's a good idea, except when it crams the image between an infobox & the text. That, in the name of nearness, IMO is silly, & that's what bugged me about it. If it's possible to keep it in without that, I'd have no objection...but it doesn't look likely, given the number of column-inches that infobox is filling.

♠The main image sizing I'm not terribly troubled by; the 350px looked too big to me, but that appears to be a function of infobox width as much as image, so I'll withdraw any objection there. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, we'll agree to differ on what constitutes grounds for a reversion. I was in a hurry and didn't have time to find out if anything else looked wrong. With infobox rail service image width is indeed used to control the size of the infobox, and as I said I suspect that in the past 350px was necessary but it's not now. How would you feel about the image left-aligned at the start of the article, instead of right? Then it's not lined up next to the infobox. Best. Mackensen (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of sandwiching text between images. I take the images as supplementary, not primary. Do you have a strong objection to how it is now? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer that there's an image within the text; your revision with the images pushed down by the infobox doesn't look right to me and it detaches the images from context. Incidentally, this works well on a mobile device. Elements get displayed in this order: infobox, lead paragraph, CP image, History text. Mackensen (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It may be fine on a mobile, but it looks really stupid on my desktop. Is there a way to narrow the infobox? That would help reduce the "sandwiching". If not, I'm not seeing it's essential the pic & text be directly connected, TBH, so long as the pic is present. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Going below 300px means the text within the infobox gets scrunched, sometimes splitting over multiple lines. The project has found that 300 is a good balance in most cases. I have a desktop with pretty standard resolution and it looks pretty good to me. I'm left wondering what your screen resolution is or whether there's some other problem. Is it possible for you to post a screenshot? Alternatively I could post what I'm seeing. Mackensen (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the latest version, I'm not thrilled with it, but I can probably live with it. Thx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't use this source!

On 26 November 2018, this article cited

"Train of the Week: The Super Continental". Retrieved 13 September 2014.

This is just a friendly reminder to not use Train of the Week as a source. The author has openly admitted that his posts are summaries of Wikipedia pages. (For why that's problematic, see Circular reporting#Examples involving Wikipedia.) 128.135.98.233 (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Restoration of removed link to present schedule

An editor has removed the train's current westbound and eastbound schedules. There is no practical reason to remove this valuable resource. Saying that users may go to the company's site is placing an undue obstacle to this information. Not all users are adept at searching for the information. So, this editor has restored the links. Westbound schedule

Eastbound schedule  Dogru144 (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I am the editor that removed the schedules from the External Links section with my earlier edit. Its important to remember that Wikipedia is not a travel guide. WP:NOTTRAVEL Such information would be better suited for WikiVoyage. FFM784 (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Not quite accurate

The Sudbury Junction leg to Montreal was eliminated when the track to Pembroke was eliminated. Peter Horn User talk 23:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• VIA Canadian.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Template discussion

I've opened a discussion regarding recent changes to the Canadian's route map template at Template talk:VIA Canadian#Former routing. 162 etc. (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)