News   Dec 20, 2024
 2.7K     8 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 1K     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 1.9K     0 

General railway discussions

That the government of Canada funded the tracks, let them offload their passenger requirements, and has the good grace not to nationalize them.

This argument gets tiring.

WRT CPKC, the government wanted a railway to BC, but didn't want to build it themself, so they worked out a deal, with the CPR, if you build a railway, we will give you land. Quid pro quo. Later, when VIA took over CP's passenger service, it was VIA who approached CP and asked something like, "Can we please take over your passenger service? We don't want to compete with you."

WRT CN, the Canadian government sold the railway, and all of its ROWs with it. Q.E.D.
 
This argument gets tiring.

WRT CPKC, the government wanted a railway to BC, but didn't want to build it themself, so they worked out a deal, with the CPR, if you build a railway, we will give you land. Quid pro quo. Later, when VIA took over CP's passenger service, it was VIA who approached CP and asked something like, "Can we please take over your passenger service? We don't want to compete with you."

WRT CN, the Canadian government sold the railway, and all of its ROWs with it. Q.E.D.

This is going back a long way - CP was trying to get out of its passenger services even before VIA was established - CP abandoned its Montreal / Toronto passenger service leaving the field to CN I believe in the 1960's. CN at the time increased its service as a consequence, publicly announcing its commitment to it. Both CN and CP operated transcontinental train services - in the summer of 1964 I was on a student exchange trip (program sponsored by by the federal government as part of the run-up the the centennial celebrations on 1967) in Winnipeg, our group travelled on the CN line from Montreal.

As time progressed, basically both CN and CP wanted completely out of the passenger business in the latter half of the 20th century. The federal government created VIA in 1977 to take over their remaining long distance / intercity passenger services, and the two transcontinental lines were combined into the one current service operated by VIA. CP continued to operate its West Island commuter service while CN maintained its Two Mountains and South Shore services, until after several service cutbacks both were finally taken over by the Montreal Urban Community Transportation Corporation (MUCTC) agency of the Montreal in 1982.
 
Last edited:
This is going back a long way - CP was trying to get out of its passenger services even before VIA was established - CP abandoned its Montreal / Toronto passenger service leaving the field to CN I believe in the 1960's. CN at the time increased its service as a consequence, publicly announcing its commitment to it.

It is quite possible that CP agreed not to compete with CN on this route. I suspect it happened when CN started operating Turbo, though I could be proven wrong.

Both CN and CP operated transcontinental train services - in the summer of 1964 I was on a student exchange trip (program sponsored by by the federal government as part of the run-up the the centennial celebrations on 1967) in Winnipeg, our group travelled on the CN line from Montreal.

Not quite sure what your point is, but okay.

As time progressed, basically both CN and CP wanted completely out of the passenger business in the latter half of the 20th century. The federal government created VIA in 1977 to take over their remaining long distance / intercity passenger services, and the two transcontinental lines were combined into the one current service operated by VIA. CP continued to operate its West Island commuter service while CN maintained its Two Mountains and South Shore services, until after several service cutbacks both were finally taken over by the Montreal Urban Community Transportation Corporation (MUCTC) agency of the Montreal in 1982.

Canadian Rail fans often confuse VIA Rail's and Amtrak's histories. Don't forget CN was a crown corporation and under no pressure to be profitable. As for CP Rail, they were receiving government subsidies to operate their passenger services, so weren't losing money the way the American Railroads were.

VIA was originally created as a rebranding of CN's passenger services. In VIA's first schedule, (April 25, 1976) said, "VIA - Heralding the birth of a new error at CN. New name, new colours. Lively. Dynamic. Now on Turbo, VIA will progressively appear on all CN passenger trains"

In VIA's October 31, 1976 Timetable, VIA combined CN's and CP Rail's trains into one schedule, both using the VIA prefix (VIA CN and VIA CP Rail), saying, "This fall-winter edition of the VIA 1976-77 timetable marks the first time that Canada's two major railways have combined the presentation of their national schedules. The merging of passenger train information is intended to help you and your travel agent to an easier and faster way to plan your rail travel. We are proud to jointly present it under our new shared name, VIA, and as a symbol of closer co-ordination and co-operation between our two companies."

VIA Rail Canada Inc. wasn't created until 1977. As per VIA's April 24, 1977 Schedule, "Exactly one year ago CN introduced the new VIA logo and colour scheme to reaffirm its commitment to the rail passenger business. In October 1976, VIA became a symbol of closer co-operation between CN and CPR Rail when both companies presented their first joint passenger timetable, Just recently, the VIA designation took on added significance with the Canadian Government announced the creation of VIA Rail Canada Inc., a company which will gradually assume responsibility for the provision and management of passenger railway services presently operated by CN and CP Rail."

I've heard some say that Pierre Elliot Trudeau saw the creation of Amtrak in the USA and wanted to do the same thing here, creating VIA Rail Canada, with the mandate to assume passenger rail responsibilities nation wide.
 
I've heard some say that Pierre Elliot Trudeau saw the creation of Amtrak in the USA and wanted to do the same thing here, creating VIA Rail Canada, with the mandate to assume passenger rail responsibilities nation wide.

It's worth digging for the actual story - one reads a lot of fact and a lot of fiction.

VIA's first CEO Frank Roberts appeared before the Transport Committee in late 1977 and gave this interesting and detailex explanation of where VIA was heading, and why. Some interesting comments on the difference between Amtrak at inception and Canada. Also of note, the original VIA network was greatly affected by a CTC study conducted around 1976.


There are any number of interesting statements in Hansard over the years, if one has the time to go looking.

- Paul
 
It is quite possible that CP agreed not to compete with CN on this route. I suspect it happened when CN started operating Turbo, though I could be proven wrong.
It definitely predates the Turbo.

During the Great Depression, CN and CP were allowed to pool their services between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal as a cost saving measure. This arrangement was kept until the early 1960s - I think 1962 was the exact year that the arrangement ended.

Dan
 
It definitely predates the Turbo.

During the Great Depression, CN and CP were allowed to pool their services between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal as a cost saving measure. This arrangement was kept until the early 1960s - I think 1962 was the exact year that the arrangement ended.

Dan

Fact check: The Pool Agreement terminated October 30 1965. At that point, CP and CN attempted to compete head to head.... the Rapido was introduced on CN vs the Champlain/Royal York on CP. That arrangement lasted only a few months before CP (understandably) threw in the towel.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
Screenshot_2024-08-07_163044.jpg
 
Wrong direction for the economic development of the north.

That was my knee jerk reaction also, but then I got on Google Maps and started looking at the highway network up that way. Hay River is not a "remote" community - the whole area is serviced by the MacKenzie Highway, a 2-lane hard surfaced road. The highway continues another 400 kms on to Yellowknife, with many branches and serving many communities along the way. It's 1009 kms Enterprise to Edmonton, so not an easy drive and likely very expensive to truck things in.... but not comparable to say Churchill where absent the railway, things would have to be flown in.

One could take a technocratic approach and try to rationalise the overall transportation expense of the entire transportation network north of, say, High Level AB ( which is where the highway meets the provincial road network) and ask if we are paying too much for roads and too little for rail....but.... I suspect the road is a must-have for the First Nations and other communities up that way. So the question becomes, is the rail link really worthwhile to maintain as an incremental resource given that the highway will always remain available (and its ongoing cost cannot be avoided or minimised by encouraging rail use instead).

And that begs the question, what are the economics of a transload at Enterprise versus maintaining the rail to Hay River.

Even without CN's allegedly greedy paws in the mix, I can see the economics saying the Hay River portion is expendable. It doesn't feel good giving it up, but I suspect few shippers transload from train to barge to cross the Slave Lake any more. So the harbour connection at Hay River is already abandoned.

- Paul
 
Last edited:

Back
Top