[Cultural Geography] On The Canadian

PART I (Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Travelling ‘Comfort’ Class on VIA Rail’s Cross-Country ‘Land Cruise’, and More…)

Welcome to The Canadian

VIA Rail is a crown corporation that owns and operates Canada’s only national-level passenger rail service. It is possible to travel across the country, on ten core route lines, which stretch from West Coast to East Coast, and as far north as Churchill, Manitoba. The majority of VIA’s passenger traffic occurs within the busy  ‘corridor’ between Québec City and Windsor, where journeys take place within a few hours and the trains (at present) offer free wireless internet service. The corridor sees multiple trips per day, and covers a region which serves as home to over half of Canada’s population.

However, it is quite a different experience to travel the multiple-overnight journey between Toronto and Vancouver. This cross-country journey is one of 4,466 kilometers, and is typically completed in over 82 hours (more below on why it takes so long). The Toronto-Vancouver line is called The Canadian, and it travels through numerous small towns and some bigger cities along the route, with planned rest stops in Capreol (near Sudbury), Hornepayne, Sioux Lookout, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Jasper and Kamloops (and sometimes other smaller towns if the train is ahead of schedule). The Canadian departs three times a week (leaving from Toronto at 10:00pm on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays; and leaving Vancouver at 8:30pm on Tuesdays, Fridays, and Sundays.

 Figure 1: VIA Rail Route Map

I have travelled on The Canadian four times (one trip between Toronto and Edmonton at the end of 2009, returning in the beginning of 2010; and the other between Toronto and Vancouver at the end of 2010, returning in the beginning of 2011). By no means does this make me an ‘expert’ – if you travel on The Canadian you are bound to meet others on board who regularly travel on this line (though typically not the entire length of the journey). However, having spent nearly two weeks of my life on this line, having spoken with other cross-country travelers, and having done a bit of additional research, I’ve learned a thing or two about this specific passenger rail experience. If you are considering taking the Canadian you may find some of this information useful (I encourage skipping the boring parts by using the subheadings below). 

Why do they take the train?

There are many reasons why one may decide to take the train between various towns or cities along The Canadian route, as opposed to driving, taking the bus, or flying, even though the latter three options are typically quicker. I’ve encountered many reasons when asking fellow passengers why they decided to take the Canadian, and classified these reasons into six archetypes:

• The Tourists: VIA’s corporate strategy is to make The Canadian a ‘land cruise’ – a quaint, early 20^th Century style, romantic journey across the country, enabling those on board to view the impressive vistas of Canada’s diverse landscapes. As such, the train, which is typically made up of just over 10 cars, is extremely ‘classed’ – with the tourism-focused elite class passengers in one section of the train, and the ‘lower class’ regular passengers in the other. One gets the impression that VIA makes the most profit from those ‘elite class’ travelers, many of whom – it seemed to me – were wealthy international or domestic tourists hoping to see the Rockies or the vast Canadian prairies. While the line typically carries two cars for economy class (ironically called ‘comfort class’) – which each hold up to 62 seats – the majority of the train’s cars are designated for the elite ‘Silver and Blue Class’ only [there is actually a sign on the door to the dining car which reminds comfort class passengers they are only allowed through if they have reservations for the dining car]. There are different types of Silver and Blue cars, also known as the ‘sleeper cars’ (which may give you a hint as to what you’re not reasonably expected to do in the economy class cars). Both the Manor Cars (each individual car is named after an influential Canadian of British origin) and the Chateau Cars (each named after an influential Canadian of French origin) typically hold up to 20 passengers. These elite cars provide different types of sleeping arrangements, ranging from private single, double and triple bedrooms, and less private berths (which are separated from the hallway by curtains). The sleeper car passengers have access to on-board showers and typically have all their meals included in their fare. They also have a private ‘dome car’ known as the Park Car (each car is named after a Canadian National Park), which offers an upper-level scenic dome. While economy passengers also have access to a dome car, the elite Park Car is located at the rear of the train and contains a bar and a rounded panoramic ‘bullet’ lounge, where passengers are treated to free coffee, wine and cheese tastings and other entertainment. This is about all I will say about travelling first class (which I have not yet had the luxury of doing)… such elite class tickets typically cost many thousands of dollars per passenger. Of course, some tourists with smaller budgets may opt for the comfort class. I have met a number of younger ‘backpacker’ types wanting to see Canada who have not had the budget for a sleeper car. 
•   Hassle Free Travelers: The next type of passenger I would call the ‘hassle free traveler’. This includes a number of different types of people. In some cases they may hate the extreme busyness and claustrophobic character of airports, or the sardine-packed nature of buses and planes; or perhaps they are not keen on having to ‘think’ about their travel, as one has to do in a vehicle. They like the idea of being able to sit back and relax, drink, walk around, not be bound by seatbelts and directions. I have met some hassle free travelers are genuinely afraid of flying or even driving long distances (especially in winter). While automobile and air travel is harrowing during a winter storm, the train seems to do just fine in a snowfall.
  
  
  Remote Small Town Travelers: Sometimes The Canadian is literally the easiest way to get to or from a remote town. Many travelers from small towns in Northern Ontario or the Prairies seem to fit this description. For example, I met two travelers (siblings) who were taking the train from Toronto back home to a small town located two hours North of Sioux Lookout, simply because it was the easiest option. Another common short stint includes the leg between Edmonton and Jasper. By law, the train is required to stop anywhere along the route that a passenger desires (as long as the request is made in advance), so sometimes travelers wanting to go into the remote deep woods might take the train. 
• Discount Travelers: In Canada, the train is typically an expensive mode of travel. However, in some circumstances it can be relatively economical. VIA’s CanRail pass, for example, offers 7 trips within a span of 21 days for under $600 [$520 for students; $590 for adults; NOTE: these were the conditions at the time of writing – they have changed since 2009 and are apt to change again in 2011]. This can make a cross-country open-jaw trip much cheaper than air travel. Other discount travelers include those with special discount rights (such as CN employees – the relationship between VIA and CN is described below). I met one traveler who had worked for CN for decades, and when he retired acquired an impressive full discount travel pass with VIA. Finally, there are the lucky passengers who have got last minute discounts on the web. VIA posts its express deals online every Thursday morning between midnight and 3am. Deals are typically offered for various travel routes in the ensuing three weeks (so if you’re flexible this is likely the cheapest and best way to travel). The deals aren’t only for economy tickets; they also often include berths in the off-season (which I have seen for exceptionally low prices – in one instance as little as $300 per passenger, including two berths and all meals included!). The train is also an affordable option for families – and there seem to be quite a few parents with younger children willing to brave the comfort class accommodations over long distances. Parties of three or more are seated in two facing seat pairs (see ‘sleeping’ section below), which can offer two parents a space to put up their feet. 
• Outside the Box Travelers: There are always those travelers with particular quirks – there are some who take the train because it offers a rare opportunity to ‘disconnect’ from the humdrum of busy every-day life in society for four days. This disconnection offers time to sit and think, or do other time-consuming projects that just wouldn’t get done otherwise (there are a lot of knitters on the Canadian); this category of traveler also includes train fanatics, as well as adventurous types who like the idea of trying something new. Here I might also include travelers with pets: Although it costs $50 per trip to bring a dog on The Canadian, many travelers seem to prefer this option to airplane baggage compartments. At any train stop dog owners are allowed to take their dogs for a brief walk to get some exercise (though see the warning about bringing dogs below). Finally, some people take The Canadian when they are moving to another city, because the train offers each passenger to carry up to 6 bags (I met a woman who was moving all of her closest possessions, which included her bike, from a small town in Saskatchewan to Vancouver).
• Environmentalists: A small sample of the people I’ve talked to on The Canadian turned out to be taking it for the same reason as me – to yield a lower carbon footprint than the alternatives of air and automobile travel. Typically train travel is far more efficient than taking the train or driving. There is no doubt that rail travel in VIA’s corridor is more efficient (in terms of emissions) than automobile or air travel. This may be why VIA Rail has recently picked up the tagline “A Green Choice”. However, there can be exceptions, and I have been wary lately of whether The Canadian is actually as efficient as it is made out to be. At least once along the trans-continental journey you can see a large fuel truck pull up to the two locomotive engines to pump them full of diesel. This is reminiscent of a fuel truck filling up an airplane while docked at the airport. The Canadian typically uses two locomotives – one to haul and one to provide power and as a back-up – each locomotive is (usually) carrying a General Motors F40PH-2D engine – a 16 cylinder, 3000 horsepower, diesel-electric locomotive. These motors consume a lot of diesel, especially considering that they produce power for electric heating, air conditioning, cab lighting and power outlets for the entire train. Another woman I met on the train informed me that the train ‘idled’ for the full four hours while it was parked in Winnipeg’s Union Station. I’ve yet to do the calculations, but because the majority of the train’s cars are designated for elite passenger (and therefore less passengers are carried per overall train weight) it is very possible that the per passenger emissions on The Canadian, at present, are as high (if not higher) than bus travel [when I finally do the calculations I’ll be sure to post them here]. 

Figure 2: The Canadian with Three Locomotives

Think of the diesel! Photo from Cal Murray's Flickr Account

(Lack of) Speed

As mentioned above, the train travels at a slow average speed. While the F40PH-2D locomotive can reach speeds of 145 kilometers per hour, The Canadian typically does not travel that fast. Often (approximately once every few hours during the entire four day trip), the train will come to a complete stop alongside the tracks and wait. “Wait for what?” you might ask… and herein lies the story of VIA Rail’s present sad state of affairs (of which I will discuss in more detail in a future post)…. We wait for freight trains to go by. As VIA Rail’s travel guide, Canada by Train, written by Chris Hanus and John Shaske, suggests, some freights are “up to two miles long. Usually their size exceeds the length of siding tracks enabling trains to pass each other. Inevitably, the mammoth freights are given priority and passenger trains must wait on siding tracks until it is clear to continue” (120). However, there is a simpler reason why VIA is required to wait on the side of the tracks – it doesn’t own them! The freight companies own the tracks. As a CN employee told me, VIA currently rents track time from CN, thanks to a 3-year contract worth $60 million (this is obscene considering the legacy of CN as a nationally owned rail enterprise, now bilking money from the Canadian taxpayer for VIA’s mediated rail access).  This is one of the main reasons why The Canadian is so slow. Given the 82 hour journey and the distance of 4,466 km, the train travels at an average speed of 54.5 km/h (this, of course, includes stops). Freight shipments, meanwhile, are guaranteed to travel from Vancouver’s port to Chicago in no more than 48 hours – it just goes to show how much of a priority is passenger rail in Canada!

Sleeping

For the so-called comfort class, VIA’s sleeping arrangements are, by far, the WORST part of the journey. The seats recline to about 45 degrees, and an angled stool unfolds from under the seat. Light sleepers out there will have trouble getting some shut-eye! When the train is full, sleeping is difficult and at best uncomfortable. When the train is not full, however, a somewhat restless sleep can be attained by finding one’s own pair of seats and folding the body into various configurations. I never sleep well the first night of a journey on The Canadian, but luckily, because I am so exhausted and tired on the second night, sleep comes easier, regardless of the uncomfortable arrangements and all the stimuli (shaking cars, the loud humdrum of the train, the constants overhead lights, etc.). On my most recent journey I asked one of the attendants if she’d every seen passengers sleep in the main isle. She answered that she has seen just about every possible inch of the train taken for a sleeping location. After a few days on the train, many travelers are just pining for a flat place to lie down… a few odd places may provide such a space, aside from the main isle: The large overhead baggage shelves, the rectangular baggage storage area at the back of each economy car, the café car, and the dome car (by lying across the dividing aisle) – the VIA attendant confirmed she had seen passengers trying to sleep in all of these locations.

END OF PART I (Stay tuned for Part II)

[Good News] See Ya!

Good news for once: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2011/01/25/edmonton-stelmach-resigns.html

[Confusion] Historical Geography or Environmental History

Historical Geography and Environmental History share some common threads; the line between them is perhaps more accurately described as a permeable gradient.

Take these Wikipedia statements:

"Historical geography is the study of the human, physical, fictional, theoretical, and 'real' geographies of the past"

"Environmental history can be divided into three key components... First, nature itself and its change through time... Second, how we use nature... Thirdly, how we think about nature"

"Historical geography studies a wide variety of topics. A common theme is the study of the geographies of the past and how a place or region changes through time"

"Environmental history, a relatively new branch of historiography, is the study of human interaction with the natural world over time"

"Historical geography seeks to determine how cultural features of various societies across the planet emerged and evolved, by understanding their interaction with their local environment and surroundings"

"Environmental history is history written with the acknowledgment that we shape our environment and it shapes us. Environmental historians maintain that as nature is a key influence on human affairs then it is both an appropriate and necessary subject for historical analysis"

In reading these definitions over, I get somewhat lost and confused, but that's only because I have a tendency to want to build barriers around these 'fields' and differentiate them from one another - a tendency I imagine is shared by many in the modern academy who feel a need to systematize and categorize different forms of inquiry into disciplines, fields, subfields, schools of thought, etc.

However, arguably there is no real substantive difference in these two 'fields', aside from their name and perhaps the way their practitioners may refer to themselves. The reason why they are so similar is because they are both broadly focused on similar types of questions regarding both space and time. More particularly, the interest in space, in both of these fields, is particularly focused on the relationship of/between humans and nature, or as some would call it, 'society-nature relations'. In other words, for the most part, environmental historians and historical geographers share a similar approach. This doesn't mean that they hold the same presuppositions, but rather than the plane of focus upon which they presuppose questions of reality lies in a similar area.

Take, for example, the presuppositional level of ontology, as Harrison and Livingstone (1980) would call it. This is a level of presupposition at which theorists presuppose answers to questions on the character of reality. The point I am trying to make is that both environmental historians and historical geographers, in sharing a similar approach, tend to be attempting to answer the same types of questions (at an implicit level of cognition). The question might be something like "What is the real character of society-nature relations?"

While the question may be similar, the answers are quite diverse. Luckily, the introduction to Noel Castree and Bruce Braun's Social Nature is particularly helpful in characterizing three different types of answers to this question. In other words, Castree and Braun provide three types of ontological presuppositions regarding the reality of society-nature relations. They refer to these three perspectives as the 'people and environment', the 'ecocentric', and the 'social' approaches. The key word in the dominant 'people and environment' approach is the joiner 'and' - characterizing the interpreted disjuncture seen between humans and nature. This approach tends to equate nature with 'environmental problems', thereby often advocating technocratic solutions based in the 'management' of resources and ecological systems. The other two ontologies find fault with the 'people and environment' approach because it fails to incorporate the social processes and structures that have transformed nature itself. The dominant ontology thus "leads to policy geared to ameliorating environmental problems without ever addressing the deeper causes responsible for those problems in the first place" (3), suggests Castree (revealing his own allegiance to the 'social' approach).

In contrast, the 'ecocentric' approach offers a nature-first ontology wherein the environment is an overarching system of which humans are merely a small part (though admittedly with a large impact). A exemplary author of the ecocentric approach is James Lovelock (who came up with the Gaia hypothesis).

Finally, the 'social' approach, which Castree notes is becoming increasingly popular with critical human geographers, sees nature as inescapably social: "Nature is defined, delimited, and even physically reconstituted by different societies, often in order to serve specific, and usually dominant, social interests. In other words, the social and the natural are seen to intertwine in ways that make their separation - in either thought or practice - impossible" (3). Thus, drawing from Castree it is possible to typify three distinct categories of ontological presupposition that affect how a social scientist will interpret the reality of society-nature relations.

It is no wonder, then, that environmental historians and historical geographers seem to easily fade into the same crowd; while their methods, theoretical beliefs and ideological biases and presuppositions about reality may differ, the focus of interest upon which they make presuppositions in the first place is a shared space.