micheal_can
Senior Member
Actually, the government can. They don't, but they can.
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
Actually, the government can. They don't, but they can.
lenaitch
Senior Member
It could be argued that 'the government' got what it funded - a single track transcontinental line (well, from Sudbury west anyway). I realize there a certain legislative levers that government may or may not be using, but 'the government' - tax dollars - funds my OAS, but it doesn't mean they get to tell me how to spend it. Public money backstops all sorts of things that the government deals 'in the national interest', but it doesn't necessarily mean that they get to dictate corporate direction.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Private citizens are not the same level of government control as corporations are. I get what you mean though. However, if the corporation is not working for the people, then it could be an argument for nationalization. It can be done, if it were needed.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Under free market capitalism, corporations represent the interests of their shareholders, not the people. Boards can be found in breach of their fiduciary responsibilites if they act otherwise. The success of CPP, RRSPs, pension plans and unregistered investmentfunds depend on it. For sure, they must act ethically and within the law. We, the people, used to own Air Canada, CN, PetroCanada and likely others. No doubt it made sense at the time but I don't support going back to that level of socialism, if for no other reason than, historically, governments are lousy business managers. I would also think some or many of our trade agreements might have a problem with it.
Besides, I can think of better things to do with the ~$35Bn that we don't have that would take to buy CP alone.
micheal_can
Senior Member
I don't suggest we do that, but I merely point out we can. It is kind of like "the nuclear option". In short, they can play nicely, or they can be without something. So, the real question is: How do we have them play nicely?
lenaitch
Senior Member
By using whatever legislative or regulatory tools that are available or that can legally be enacted; not by dangling a threat that is clearly unrealistic. A government can't run private industry by fiat. I don't recall the government telling GM to only built purple sedans in return for our money.
Chekhov's dramatic principle (paraphrased): A gun produced in Act I must be used by Act II; otherwise, don't produce it.
micheal_can
Senior Member
The government used to run a railway in Canada - CN. Don''t say cant. Instead, say that it is not the best option, but it can be an option if needed.
crs1026
Superstar
By recognizing their interests, and taking pains to not threaten or challenge their most fundamental needs. They are running a complex operation, and there is a lot riding on their doing it well. Fundamentally, we want freight to move efficiently in this country. A lot of jobs, and a lot of wealth creation, rides on the freight operation. We may want them to add a few trains, but not at the expense of running freight badly or at greater cost.
As an example, it would be ridiculous to penalize the railways for poor performance on hauling grain while demanding that they sidetrack grain trains to accommodate VIA. That’s almost certainly why Ottawa has been mute about the last few years’ timekeeping of the Canadian in the west. CN has owned up to needing to add capacity, and they are investing heavily to do so. When things stabilise, maybe VIA can seek a better deal.
Similarly, if there were an appetite to reinstate trains on other lines, there would have to be assurance that adequate freight capacity is maintained.
Maslow’s theory of the hierarchy of needs applies: we can haggle about higher level things, but don’t ask the freight railways to absorb fundamental hits to their operation.
The old negotiator’s maxim: don’t fight over who gets the best piece of the pie..... discuss how to make a bigger pie. Win-lose isn’t on.
- Paul
lenaitch
Senior Member
Sure. Assuming control of series of bankrupt or near bankrupt railways at a time when rail was the only extensive land-based transportation system connecting the people and economy of the country is exactly the same as as spending billions to acquire a profitable company so it will play nice. CN is currently valued at around $90Bn (or do we intend to seize it?).
This is becoming circular.
This is becoming circular.
micheal_can
Senior Member
How long should the government wait for the stabilization? The biggest issue I think on the line are the trains that are running over siding. Having a regulation that a train cannot pass a siding it cannot fit in might be the single biggest fix. The reality is, the rail companies cannot afford this as it means they need more people running more trains, which makes their shareholders sad they are not making more money.
No company can work outside of government regulations. The railway has many, some self imposed; written in blood. Some are government imposed, written before blood is spilled.
Again, CN and CP cannot continue with the the way they are doing things. It isn't sustainable. The CN strike spoke to that.
micheal_can
Senior Member
It is circular because we have differing views on what we should have. I like being educated on why it wouldn't work. The problem I am finding is many do not understand history.
crs1026
Superstar
I agree that some of the things the railways do are questionable. But that does not mean that government should rush in to impose a fix.
Running oversize trains across Northern Ontario is a bit like watching someone wrestle a crocodile....one doesn’t know whether to admire their spunk or point out the stupidity of even trying. The solution is not to cut train length, which would just double labour costs. I would like to see more sidings lengthened, but they seem to move the freight acceptably with what they have. (Yes, with plenty of meltdowns, too....at some point perhaps they will address this out of pure self interest. But already, they have found other fallbacks that work reasonably well and may be cheaper eg they regularly reroute traffic via Chicago when the NOZ is plugged).
Meanwhile, we recently had a government wanting to buy a fleet of tank cars to run oil trains, to meet a demand that may only last for ten years ......when the payback period on that investment might be twenty years or more. The railways respected the political optics, but privately many railroaders were horrified....no way were they going to get dragged into making an investment where the revenue stream dries up before the infrastructure is only half paid for. Happily, government has retreated to a more commercialised solution which resp cts the underlying economics of shipping bulk commodities.
Much as I believe in passenger trains, If you weigh the actual value of transportation provided across Northern Ontario by the Canadian, a crash program to re-establish a daily passenger train with a best-ever schedule would not be cost justifiable. There is no justification, legal or moral, to demand that the railways eat that cost. Nor is there enough cost-benefit to pass this cost to the taxpayer. That might change, but we are talking one Airbus load per train. VIA is predominantly a cruise ship service anymore on that route.
Put it this way: suppose a cruise line decided to add a stop in Prince Rupert, or Churchill. Cruise ships are profitable, and they deliver undisputed economic benefit ie tourism dollars to a port. But these towns have no cruise terminal, or even a berth to offer outside of their bulk terminals. Would you order the grain terminals in town to clear space for the cruise ship visits, shutting down grain loading while the ship is in town? I hope not. One might ask the grain terminals whether they have idle periods....but even then, if a bulk cargo ship turns up to be loaded when the cruise ship arrives, the per-hour cost of having an empty ship sit at anchor is huge. Who eats that cost? The solution is to build a separate terminal for cruise traffic, and that will have a ROI case that may or may not discourage the cruise line.
I believe we should be looking to restore train service in many places, but that requires adding infrastructure, not imposing burdens on the freight businesses.
- Paul
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
In fairness, solutions have been required for at least 2 decades now; I think the 'rush' has come and gone. Its procrastination that's the issue now.
Should solutions be thoughtful, reasonable, not cause undue damage to the freight side; and have a compelling business/environmental/social case; of course.
But the solutions are known. Here, I'm not speaking of The Canadian (cruise ship business) in a narrow sense, but the deficiencies in the rail network more broadly and in particular those that conflict with running a useful, justifiable and
desirable passenger service in some locations.
I think this is true if one is talking about running 'The Canadian' or something similar, daily, on the current route.
But there are other more desirable services {potentially), servicing the same markets.
I would argue for a City-pair model (typically), with select intermediate stops.
Kenora-Thunder Bay; Thunder Bay-Sudbury (or Sault); Sault to North Bay, North Bay to Ottawa; Sudbury/NB to Toronto.
I'm not suggesting all of these are of equal or imminent priority, but that any business case for servicing this area would be based on this type of service, not a 'cruise ship' model.
Likewise, out west, Edmonton-Calgary; Regina-Saskatoon, Calgary-Banff, Calgary-Regina, Calgary-Lethbridge, Regina-Winnipeg etc. are where more reasonable potential exists.
Yes.....but............I would argue there was always an inherent onus on the freights not improve their model at the expense of passenger railway, which they did.
I would also argue they have not been pro-active in coming up with cost-effective solutions.
I would not advocate for government becoming their enemy; but neither do I feel it needs to be their partner.
It ought to be their regulator; and to fulfil its mandate of ensuring the public interest. A good deal of that may require public investment, which does need to be carefully considered and thoughtfully executed.
But some of the solutions are achievable within existing operating protocols and existing freight capital works; with a little bit of 'encouragement'
crs1026
Superstar
I totally agree. Nobody really wants to drive the TCH in January.
I would challenge this, on several grounds.
First, the railways have always cooperated with VIA becoming a standalone company with its own infrastructure. When VIA was formed, the railways did all the pax maintenance (in their own shops), provided operating and customer-facing staff, owned and maintained the stations, provided supervision and training, managed labour relations, funded pension and benefits, etc. All of these functions were transferred to VIA with the railways' agreement, including letting VIA run the trains with their own staff. There was originally a markup charged by the railways for doing this work, so this transition did cut into the railways' revenues.
Secondly, the funding model changed over the years, away from the "not at the expense of" proposition that you refer to. When VIA was formed, the costing model at that time treated passenger as just another line of business for the railways. Passenger trains had to support a share of railways' fixed costs and overheads. The (apt) joke at the time was that VIA was paying for x inches of CP's CEO's limousine.... if VIA was x% of the company's costs then it had to pay that % of the overheads. VIA successfully argued and negotiated away from that model towards a "strictly avoidable cost" model....the CEO was going to have a limousine with or without VIA, so VIA didn't owe CP anything for that. The implication in that change is that going forward, if the railways are carrying any assets by virtue of operating VIA, they are entitled to ROI on those assets. It is VIA who has extricated themselves wherever possible from using dedicated railway assets, thereby limiting its cost liability. If railways find better use for capacity or assets, VIA doesn't have claim to them.
I agree the railways have at times been excessively protective of their present and future capacity. The CTA award I cited earlier found that CP could not prove that running more VIA trains through the junction at Smiths Falls would delay CP freight. It's true that the railways may start a negotiation with a blanket "we can't manage that". The CTA award gives some optimism that there are levers to test this fairly, although they are embedded in a very legalistic process. The railways may be unwilling to negotiate because they figure they will always win in court. Perhaps that process ought to be made less legalistic and less provident to the railways.
We have to look at actual levers that matter to the railways rather than a general misconception that railways are anti-VIA. One has to assume, for instance, that Ontario is leveraging its support for the Halton Intermodal terminal to get CN willing to improve GO service, especially on the Halton line. You scratch my back, I will scratch yours.
Another good example is CP vs GO on the Milton line. People constantly mutter that the reason we don't have 2WAD is that CP is anti-GO. In fact, CP has entertained those trains for 40 years, and must recognize that there is absolutely no likelihood that anyone will ever cancel that service. CP is in that relationship for eternity. The relationship involves investment, and operational win-win... such as delivering the Davenport Diamond which clears the path for CP operations. Something as micro and mundane as agreeing to pay for installing a power switch and signalling at a particular location gets results.
There may have been times and places where CP/CN thought they could get VIA eliminated, but hopefully that too has passed. All VIA has to do is bring money.
The Stratford-Kitchener route is a further case study. There are real barriers to passenger in terms of the lack of sidings and operability. The track and crossings were in far worse shape than anyone would acknowledge. It's easy to look at a 1985 VIA timetable and say, hey just put things back to that standard.... but the current right of way simply does not permit that. It will have to be rebuilt, as GO is doing. By the way, freight operations on that line have turned into a cluster since GO bought the line and CN returned. CN has actually been pretty flexible and cooperative with GO, to its own detriment.
Other lines (Toronto-North Bay - Sudbury-Sault and North Bay- Timmins, and lines on the prairies, and the Maritimes) that are of interest to us in this forum have similar challenges. Just threatening the railways won't overcome these. Again, the issue is whether VIA can bring the money needed to install signalling, bring track speed back up to historical standards, build stations, and restore sidings and industrial trackage to protect freight capacity. If the money is there, I'm optimistic that the railways will at least come to the table
- Paul
Last edited:
micheal_can
Senior Member
Try to go from Thunder Bay to Winnipeg by passenger train? You cant. I am not suggesting we put more service on CN's norther route. I am suggesting s southern route through Sault St Marie and Thunder Bay be put it.
A daily is not a tourist train. A daily means you as a business or student person can take the train to where you need to.
If the government saw that there is enough demand, then yes, add a dock so they can fit and your grain can fit too.
Canada is too small of a population for it's size. We need to make things work for the people. We need to make it attractive for the businesses to invest here, but they both have to work together. We widen and divide highways so that people and goods move more freely. We should be doing the same for the rail lines. Yes, lets lengthen the sidings. But there has to be a point where the shareholders are no longer the most important people in the land. The customer should be the most important. That includes customers of the goods shipped, and customers who are riding the line.