lenaitch
Senior Member
I do wish them luck, but they have been at this for a number of years with no progress and I simply don't see the economic viability under current conditions.
|
|
|
General railway discussions
- Thread starter Urban Sky
- Start date
micheal_can
Senior Member
Define economic viability please. As I see this, there is no plans for anything but a passenger train that would serve tourist camps. All of that is an economic driver for the area. That to me sound like an economic viable thing.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Economic viability in the sense that the handful of seasonal passengers pay a significant portion of the line's capital and operating costs, and this assumes either level of government has indicated a willingness to subsidize it. The federal government used to subsidize the former ACR passenger train until it determined that it was outside of the mandate because the line served no communities that didn't have road access (or whatever the actual terms were). Nobody live on the line that doesn't have a road. Even the camp operators pack up and go home offseason. Maybe one or two packed up since the former service was discontinued, but it seems the ones that I recall are still there.
People complain that the former Northlander cost around $400/passenger, and that was on a line that had freight revenue. I don't know how much it costs to run a railroad, let alone what it would cost to bring the line up to minimum standards, but I'll bet the passenger revenue would be rounding error.