VIA Rail

[micheal_can]

The framing of videos is indeed quite important. Ideally they are framed as drawing attention to the changes that are required, rather than making accusations about why those changes haven't happened.

The framing is on point for an opinion piece with facts. The swearing sprinkled into it is the sounds of frustration with the crown corporation and how it is a shell of what it was, and could disappear.

 

[kEiThZ]

See, I would. How are they actually supposed to know how good or bad it is if they do not experience it. Every flight in Canada they take should mean 1% of their pay,plus the cost of the flight should be taken from them. If they are as good as people here speak of, they would be quite content with being at the mercy of which they are in charge of.

I would not expect the owner of a cruise line to get from Canada to Europe by cruise ship either. Similarly, I don't expect VIA execs to waste days of wages getting to a job by the rail equivalent of a cruise, just because their company offers it. If they want to travel a portion of it to check out the product? Sure. But people making $1k per day in salary should not generally be wasting their time sitting in a train seat just to know what the product is like. They should have better ways of gaining awareness.

 

[micheal_can]

I would not expect the owner of a cruise line to get from Canada to Europe by cruise ship either. Similarly, I don't expect VIA execs to waste days of wages getting to a job by the rail equivalent of a cruise, just because their company offers it. If they want to travel a portion of it to check out the product? Sure. But people making $1k per day in salary should not generally be wasting their time sitting in a train seat just to know what the product is like. They should have better ways of gaining awareness.

This is where you (and others) and I differ.

Imagine they had a meeting at 1pm in Vancouver and the train and the amenities are not reliable enough to allow them to work remote and to get there on time,then that would hit them more than some on time report.

 

[reaperexpress]

He specifically framed the alleged overstaffing in financial terms when asking VIA whether they were investigating ways to reduce the $77.7 million spent on „station and on-train staff“, when even a (highly unrealistic) 10% cut in these costs would only reduce VIA‘s operating costs by 1%. It clearly is a non-issue and he should have rather poked questions about the remaining $600 million in operating expenses…

His evidence that Via is overstaffed is not that staffing is the largest line item, it is that they visibly use unnecessarily labour-intensive practices. Then, given that staffing is the largest line item, reducing it would have a measureable effect on the budget.

Even if we can save 1% of the budget by eliminating unnecessary practices, that's 1% of the budget that can be spent on other more useful things.

Here is the transcript from that part of the video:

You have to use access to information requests to get any reasonable breakdown on what they do with over a quarter of a billion dollars each year. They sent back these 3D pie charts that indeed show high on-train staffing costs. It’s not a surprise they’re high, VIA has a lot of very labour-intensive customer service practices. VIA still makes you line up to check your ticket before boarding, staff stand to point you to your train car like you can’t read, then when you get on the train, you have to show them your ticket again and then do a safety briefing if you’re sitting beside the smashing hammer. It gives the staff something to do, because they staff every single carriage, but when you realize that staffing is by far their largest expense, you can see they’re not even trying to spend money efficiently, and keeping things this manual is making it worse for citizens

I also asked VIA for any reports or analysis they have done on how on-train operations could be more efficient and... That analysis does not exist. They spend $77.7 million dollars a year for on-train and station staff who perform some pretty weird tasks by international standards, and they haven’t even looked into it. Even to ask the government to fund faregates, ticketing systems upgrades or electronic signage to reduce long term costs.

 

[micheal_can]

His evidence that Via is overstaffed is not that staffing is the largest line item, it is that they visibly use unnecessarily labour-intensive practices. Then, given that staffing is the largest line item, reducing it would have a measureable effect on the budget.

Even if we can save 1% of the budget by eliminating unnecessary practices, that's 1% of the budget that can be spent on other more useful things.

My experience in the RCN has taught me that most government agencies have a hard time at being efficient with their budget. On an unrelated note, we did 'need' those BBQs, TVs and couches.

 

[kEiThZ]

I did notice a lot of comments that were problematic like that, and lots of "make Paige CEO of Via" comments, which are equally stupid.

Paige may not have set out with that goal. But the same tone that gives voice to frustrated railfans, will also be very useful for the lot that wants to argue this entire endeavour is wasteful and doomed. They'll be happy to point to all his videos saying xyz detail is wasteful (with zero context). And nothing sells better with this lot than arguing that lazy, overpaid public servants are wasting their money.

Imagine what happens when the price tag for HFR comes out and a Conservative government has to sign the contract. Paige's videos are going to be absolutely fantastic excuses for justifying why the whole project should be scrapped. It's going to be interesting when anti-rail advocates use them to argue that VIA is wasteful and the whole HFR endeavour is pointless and flawed. Even though VIA has no involvement in the RFP.

With friends like these....

 

[micheal_can]

Paige may not have set out with that goal. But the same tone that gives voice to frustrated railfans, will also be very useful for the lot that wants to argue this entire endeavour is wasteful and doomed. They'll be happy to point to all his videos saying xyz detail is wasteful (with zero context). And nothing sells better with this lot than arguing that lazy, overpaid public servants are wasting their money.

Imagine what happens when the price tag for HFR comes out and a Conservative government has to sign the contract. Paige's videos are going to be absolutely fantastic excuses for justifying why the whole project should be scrapped. It's going to be interesting when anti-rail advocates use them to argue that VIA is wasteful and the whole HFR endeavour is pointless and flawed. Even though VIA has no involvement in the RFP.

With friends like these....

With the CPC in position to become the next Government, Via could be on the chopping block for the 2026 budget. I doubt anyone here doesn't see that as a possibility.

 

[kEiThZ]

His evidence that Via is overstaffed is not that staffing is the largest line item, it is that they visibly use unnecessarily labour-intensive practices. Then, given that staffing is the largest line item, reducing it would have a measureable effect on the budget.

Even if we can save 1% of the budget by eliminating unnecessary practices, that's 1% of the budget that can be spent on other more useful things.

First, the comments show that how you perceive this segment, is not how a lot of viewers saw it.

Next, your point here is very subjective. We have no evidence that saving this 1% creates funds that could be employed elsewhere. If, as @Urban Sky is suggesting, so much of the ridership is casual, that 1% savings from staffing could actually bring about a drop in ridership, if service is then perceived as inadequate. They could cut 1% in cost and end up with more than 1% lost in revenue.

Personally, I am open to the idea of a lot less service. But I am not sold that this is some straightforward slam dunk that a lot of railfans argue it is. I think a lot of railfans forget who VIA's actual customer base is and what their expectations of service actually are. Along with a lot of other expensive mandates (like being able to serve all customers in both official languages, and serving impaired persons, etc.). Is there evidence that other intercity rail operators in the North American context (VIA's peers) are doing things substantially differently?

 

[micheal_can]

Is there evidence that other intercity rail operators in the North American context are doing things substantially differently?

Is all aspects of the North American model the best and we should emulate them?

 

[kEiThZ]

Is all aspects of the North American model the best and we should emulate them?

Whether it's best or not isn't really relevant here. It's the most applicable yardstick. They are the operators working in the same cultural, operational, and political context. What is the point of comparison to some European operator who gets 10x the funding and owns all their tracks? Or to some Asian rail operator whose real estate operations make a larger profit than rail operations?

With the CPC in position to become the next Government, Via could be on the chopping block for the 2026 budget. I doubt anyone here doesn't see that as a possibility.

Here? No. But apparently on YouTube creators like Saunders either don't understand or are deliberately choosing to ignore political realities. And they are pushing content that will enable the slashing of VIA.

 

[micheal_can]

Whether it's best or not isn't really relevant here. It's the most applicable yardstick. They are the operators working in the same cultural, operational, and political context. What is the point of comparison to some European operator who gets 10x the funding and owns all their tracks? Or to some Asian rail operator whose real estate operations make a larger profit than rail operations?

For somethings, I agree, but for others, I don't. Ticketing for the Corridor trains should not require proof at the station. Removing just that could not only make it easier, but could speed things up at some stations. I should be able to arrive at Union, for example, a half hour before my trip, hand them my luggage in the station and then proceed to the platform to board the train. No checked baggage? No need to ever show anyone anything unless fare inspectors are on board.

Here? No. But apparently on YouTube creators like Saunders either don't understand or are deliberately choosing to ignore political realities. And they are pushing content that will enable the slashing of VIA.

Just because the politics could mean anything you say is futile to a current sitting politician, that does not mean you shouldn't voice your concerns. A lot can happen in less than 2 years.

 

[drum118]

For somethings, I agree, but for others, I don't. Ticketing for the Corridor trains should not require proof at the station. Removing just that could not only make it easier, but could speed things up at some stations. I should be able to arrive at Union, for example, a half hour before my trip, hand them my luggage in the station and then proceed to the platform to board the train. No checked baggage? No need to ever show anyone anything unless fare inspectors are on board.


Just because the politics could mean anything you say is futile to a current sitting politician, that does not mean you shouldn't voice your concerns. A lot can happen in less than 2 years.

Every train I have ridden in Europe, been asked to show my ticket either my paper or e-tickets for both local and high speed lines. As for luggage, its a free for all and first come gets space to the point it can end up in the aisle way including first class. Only travel first class in Europe.

VIA asked twice at the gate and on the train for the last 2 years between Oakville and London.

 

[EnviroTO]

I get a lot of stupid comments on my videos too, and they are often based on total misunderstandings of the content of the video, or are mostly unrelated to the actual points made in the video. The most common comment on my video about how to calculate red clearance times for traffic signals was that all signals should be replaced with roundabouts, even though I think that's an incredibly stupid oversimplification and it has nothing to do with the things I actually talked about in that video.

I wouldn't say it has "nothing to do with the things talked about in that video". You have a video about tuning the stop cycles to reduce red light waits. Certainly the best way to get rid of waiting at a red light is to get rid of the red light. Doesn't work everywhere without significant cost though. Even better, an interchange at every intersection .

 

[reaperexpress]

I wouldn't say it has "nothing to do with the things talked about in that video". You have a video about tuning the stop cycles to reduce red light waits. Certainly the best way to get rid of waiting at a red light is to get rid of the red light. Doesn't work everywhere without significant cost though. Even better, an interchange at every intersection .

My video discusses how traffic signals can be programmed. It does not discuss the decision of whether or not to install traffic signals in the first place. The only reason my video would become irrelevant is if every traffic signal on the entire planet is replaced with some other type of intersection, which is clearly absurd.

This is one of the classic types of ignorance among video watchers, they think that every video is capable of covering every possible item even remotely related to the topic of the video. It represents an impressive lack of common sense regarding how to create any piece of media. You need to be selective about what you include otherwise your video will be twenty hours long and people will fall asleep before you've made your point. That's why I am making a series of videos where each one is roughly 10 minutes about a very specific topic. Then at the end I'll make a video which explains the relationship between the various topics.

In the comments of most transport videos you'll find comments like "you forgot to mention...". No I didn't forget to mention it, it simply wasn't relevant enough to make the cut.

 

[kEiThZ]

Ticketing for the Corridor trains should not require proof at the station. Removing just that could not only make it easier, but could speed things up at some stations. I should be able to arrive at Union, for example, a half hour before my trip, hand them my luggage in the station and then proceed to the platform to board the train. No checked baggage? No need to ever show anyone anything unless fare inspectors are on board.

If you're saying we should learn from elsewhere, what you suggest doesn't happen elsewhere either. Most places have some kind of control to either restrict the entire station or at least the platforms to paid passengers. This is done with either employees checking tickets or automated fare gates. As for luggage? Gotta love the scramble for the luggage racks on the trains. Somehow worse than VIA.

Can you give an example of an operation which does what you suggest?

Just because the politics could mean anything you say is futile to a current sitting politician, that does not mean you shouldn't voice your concerns. A lot can happen in less than 2 years.

They are free to share opinions. They should make it clear those are opinions. And shouldn't misrepresent facts. I would suggest trying to insinuate that VIA is massively inefficient on employees is an example of this. This kind of misinformation does nothing but harm VIA and passenger rail more broadly in Canada.