News   Jan 07, 2025
Galleria III Approaches Topping off at Dufferin and Dupont
 1K     2 
News   Jan 07, 2025
67 Storeys Proposed Across from Eaton Centre at Yonge and Shuter
 4.2K     14 
News   Jan 07, 2025
News Roundup for January 7, 2025
 538     1 

VIA Rail

You can actually see where the federal government spends its money here, and it's really not to Ontario. It's mostly above average in the east, Manitoba and Quebec on a per capita basis.


As for equalization, it's not Ontario either. It's the east (and Manitoba) on a per capita basis and probably Quebec on a gross basis.
 
evandyk said:
You can actually see where the federal government spends its money here, and it's really not to Ontario. It's mostly above average in the east, Manitoba and Quebec on a per capita basis.


As for equalization, it's not Ontario either. It's the east (and Manitoba) on a per capita basis and probably Quebec on a gross basis.
Click to expand...
Notice how in Canada there is no "Eastern Alienation"?

How I feel Via/the federal government should handle that request from those Saskatchewan communities is they should talk to them and then some sort of feasibility study. Put the effort in to not just brush it off. Then when they have a dollar value and a scope of work needed to make it happen, it can be seriously discussed with the ones that can decide on doing it.
 
crs1026 said:
A very American business tactic (which we saw Trump use in NAFTA negotiations, but EHH used it repeatedly in railway matters, and I have seen other CEO's use it quite skillfully) is to look at negotiations as a coercive process rather than looking only for win-win. That is, what can I do that will really hurt you if I don't get what I want. And look, I'm already starting to do that. Now give me what I want or I will continue to dish out more of the same.

It's not necessarily a "nice" way to behave, but I have come to realise that it is how business is often done, and maybe we ought to use it to our own best interest and worry less about looking or being "nice".

So I would ask, what do the railways really, really fear rather than what do they really, really want.

My thoughts
- They really, really don't want to have to replace the Westinghouse air brake
- They really, really don't want interswitching
- They really, really don't want US railroads reaching across the border to compete for business
- They really, really don't want a stringent safety regime run by civil servants, let alone intrusive accountability when bad things happen
- They don't want to have to string wires
- They don't want to serve some sorts of customers (branch lines, single car shipments, mixed car manifest traffic generally)

What do they really, really want?
- The ability to set prices and service standards in a way that enriches them (to a level that some of us might consider "unjust enrichment", another legal principle)
- One person crewing (and immediately, implementing it on the fly rather than proactively working out how it should operate)
- Control. Of everything. (Period.)

I do think that Ottawa could, if they were clever, create a set of levers that would motivate the railways to be more flexible - but it would mean not playing nice. And maybe offering some enrichment that might require holding our noses.



(Now I am the one sounding like the broken record.....) The flaw in the line of thinking of people saying "we need legislation" is - we already have it. The law says that anyone wanting passenger trains on our railways can have it, provided they pay what an impartial third party (the CTA) says is a fair price.

The interesting thing is just how rarely anyone troops off to the CTA and asks for anything. (VIA has in fact done this, successfully, but in rare circumstances.)

Apparently, the Law School 101 teaching has sunk in: Don't ask a question unless you are prepared to live by the answer.

I would argue that the railways and Ottawa and VIA are already in an environment where the railways offer an outcome that is more beneficial than what anyone would get by going to the CTA. So in that respect, we are already at win-win. We just want to win more, and the railways want us to win less. A good compromise pleases no one, and that's what we are already getting, more than we acknowledge.

- Paul
Click to expand...
Paul

Is it possible you have at hand (or can steer us to the appropriate source) some information on one person crewing? Cost implications for the railways etc etc. I think I understand the current safety considerations/concerns. However as we move further (even if tentatively) into an automation stage for transport, surely this is something that we should be considering? At least on some rail lines, on some specific routes with the technologies in place to support this level of crewing.

Thanks
 
just east of the creek said:
Paul

Is it possible you have at hand (or can steer us to the appropriate source) some information on one person crewing? Cost implications for the railways etc etc. I think I understand the current safety considerations/concerns. However as we move further (even if tentatively) into an automation stage for transport, surely this is something that we should be considering? At least on some rail lines, on some specific routes with the technologies in place to support this level of crewing.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Two Words

Lac Megantic
If any politician were to suggest single person manning for trains this disaster will come up. That doesn't mean it should not happen, or that automation should not happen. This is more of a fantasy than my suggestion of reversing the 1990s cuts.
 
just east of the creek said:
Paul

Is it possible you have at hand (or can steer us to the appropriate source) some information on one person crewing? Cost implications for the railways etc etc. I think I understand the current safety considerations/concerns. However as we move further (even if tentatively) into an automation stage for transport, surely this is something that we should be considering? At least on some rail lines, on some specific routes with the technologies in place to support this level of crewing.

Thanks
Click to expand...

If you are looking for information I would start here

www.aar.org

Freight Rail & Crew Size - AAR

The Federal Railroad Administration proposed rolling back the clock on train crew staffing – with no safety justification.
www.aar.org www.aar.org

This is obviously a partisan document, and I am not saying I agree with it....but the AAR is the biggest and most credible industry voice in the US, and they are clearly pushing for it. So this is a very mainstream explanation of rail management input on the topic.

Canada's equivalent is the Railway Association of Canada, which maintains a very close working relationship with Transport Canada. You won't find as much on line on their position on the subject, they are treading a little more carefully - but obviously anything that happens in the US will be closely watched for precedent.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
You won't find as much on line on their position on the subject, they are treading a little more carefully....

- Paul
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely sure that is true.

Transport Canada has certainly allowed one-man operations in the past where applicable. They signed off on Cartier's move to one-man operations years ago, and of course there was the MMA. They were apparently willing to let Metrolinx go that way too should the requirements that they laid out be met.

Yes, Lac Mégantic happened. And it's given everyone some pause on the matter. But that was temporary, and I have no doubt that the railroads are looking for avenues with which to go about it. In some ways, they already have gotten around it and snuck it past TC in some ways. Look at the increase in beltpack operations, and especially those servicing industries near yards - that wasn't a thing 10 years ago.

Dan
 
smallspy said:
Transport Canada has certainly allowed one-man operations in the past where applicable. They signed off on Cartier's move to one-man operations years ago, and of course there was the MMA. They were apparently willing to let Metrolinx go that way too should the requirements that they laid out be met.

Yes, Lac Mégantic happened. And it's given everyone some pause on the matter. But that was temporary, and I have no doubt that the railroads are looking for avenues with which to go about it. In some ways, they already have gotten around it and snuck it past TC in some ways. Look at the increase in beltpack operations, and especially those servicing industries near yards - that wasn't a thing 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

All true, what I was trying to convey is that both RAC and TC are flying a little lower under the radar screen than AAR with the US regulators. Whether Lac Megantic actually is a relevant case study or not, certainly if Canada were pushing ahead with one-man crews faster than the US is, the public would not understand why and it would be politically dangerous. It does seem that RAC and TC are letting the Americans break the trail.... but with CN and CP having extensive US operations, obviously if they get crew sized cut in the US they will apply that quickly to Canada. And even the US debate is not going smoothly, with ten states now having imposed 2-person crew minimums through state laws.

Probably time to move this to the General Railways thread, my original point was just that one-person crews is an example of a lever that Ottawa has in its inventory when negotiating with CP/CN over many things, one being VIA.... whether they would play this card just for VIA's benefit is certainly debatable.

(And to be clear, I am pretty skeptical that one-person crews are a good idea under present railway conditions.... certainly a move for the future, but railroading would have to be done a whole lot different than it is today before it would be safe)..

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
All true, what I was trying to convey is that both RAC and TC are flying a little lower under the radar screen than AAR with the US regulators. Whether Lac Megantic actually is a relevant case study or not, certainly if Canada were pushing ahead with one-man crews faster than the US is, the public would not understand why and it would be politically dangerous. It does seem that RAC and TC are letting the Americans break the trail.... but with CN and CP having extensive US operations, obviously if they get crew sized cut in the US they will apply that quickly to Canada. And even the US debate is not going smoothly, with ten states now having imposed 2-person crew minimums through state laws.

Probably time to move this to the General Railways thread, my original point was just that one-person crews is an example of a lever that Ottawa has in its inventory when negotiating with CP/CN over many things, one being VIA.... whether they would play this card just for VIA's benefit is certainly debatable.

(And to be clear, I am pretty skeptical that one-person crews are a good idea under present railway conditions.... certainly a move for the future, but railroading would have to be done a whole lot different than it is today before it would be safe)..

- Paul
Click to expand...
Thanks for all the input…..lots of reading to be done. I agree that Lac Megantic, while casting a shadow, really has nothing to do with crewing, the train was parked and unattended at the time of the incident. It does seem that you could see crewing changes on certain lines becoming a fact, certainly where PTC is fully utilized. A friend indicated that study is shifting to fully automated trains or train controlling systems, and as we are currently looking at fully automated trucking, he is not suprised. Obviously in selected lines where capacities and controlling imfrastructure merit a case for automation. Still, as we are currently examining further levels of automation in our agricultural practice here at home - seed bed preparation, seeding etc, none of this surprises anymore and one would be foolish that the major class one railways will not continue to advance their case.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top