micheal_can
Senior Member
Think of it another way, those improvements would have a net benefit to the company too. Now those freight trains could move faster, and even stay on a better schedule.
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
Think of it another way, those improvements would have a net benefit to the company too. Now those freight trains could move faster, and even stay on a better schedule.
lenaitch
Senior Member
What improvements (I've honestly lost track). No doubt both carriers have bottlenecks or other traffic limitations, some exacerbated by present or past leadership, money, etc. , but forcing shorter trains or longer sidings, particularly where freight traffic runs just fine, solely to improve passenger rail seems like passenger rail's (aka taxpayer/farepayer) problem, not a free market corporation's.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Grain backlog still looms large as CN Rail returns to normal service after strike | Globalnews.ca
The eight day-work stoppage by 3,200 conductors and yard workers in November reduced CN to 10 per cent operating capacity and stopped it from taking new orders.
globalnews.ca
Well,, for starters, a week long strike at CN is still being felt. Now imagine that bottlenecks and other limitations did not exist. Imagine being able to maintain a steady speed throughout most of the route. Imagine trains can yield each other, not based on length of siding, but based on what needs to get where, when. That makes their operation better for them, and for Via.
crs1026
Superstar
This is the reality. I have family in two different locations in Alberta, a five hour drive apart. They would never be able to use passenger rail on any foreseeable route to replace highway trips. It’s not a case of first mile/last mile..... more like first 50 miles/last 50 miles.
Still, having to drive is daunting. Already, one close relative nearly lost their life in a car-moose collision on just such a trip. Being tied to highways very much limits mobility.
I find the concept of a network of rail services tying the smaller centers together very compelling, but I doubt the cost would be politically sellable, and it would only serve the interests of communities lucky enough to be situated on those specific lines. The remainder are stuck with roads. Their habits aren’t changeable.
I would certainly err on the side of including smaller communities in any city-pair lines that emerge. For instance, while one can conceive of a HFR style service between Edmonton and Calgary, I would insist that some trains stop in Red Deer, and I would propose a modest extension to Lethbridge. The more smaller stations one can serve, the more opportunity there is to spread the value proposition (The same rationale can apply in Ontario, by the way.....eg stops in Perth, Peterboro, and Casselman are desirable even if HFR is conceived as a Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto trunk). But the numbers carried will be very modest.
I would rather see a Toronto-Timmins train, even if it carries the equivalent of two busloads of passengers per day, for the same reason that I would rather see LRT than BRT.....but the costs are very different. How much one can afford to spend is debatable....a couple of billions spent to start a western passenger network may seem frivolous, but one can probably find the equivalent amount of frivolity in highway improvements. So I would not be ashamed to divert the money to rail. But the economic case would likely fail a ROI analysis, using prevailing tests. The preference is subjective, and may not make for good public policy.
- PUl
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
Grain backlog still looms large as CN Rail returns to normal service after strike | Globalnews.ca
The eight day-work stoppage by 3,200 conductors and yard workers in November reduced CN to 10 per cent operating capacity and stopped it from taking new orders.
Well,, for starters, a week long strike at CN is still being felt. Now imagine that bottlenecks and other limitations did not exist. Imagine being able to maintain a steady speed throughout most of the route. Imagine trains can yield each other, not based on length of siding, but based on what needs to get where, when. That makes their operation better for them, and for Via.
But that's the conundrum. Freight 'bottlenecks' can be any number if things; track capacity, car availability, terminal capacity, weather, etc (labour issues can impact any of them, including VIA). How they are managed or mitigated is based on corporate decisions involving cash flow, profit margins, etc. They need to deliver product in a manner and cost that doesn't drive customers away but doesn't sent their debt spiralling. The "what needs to get where, when" between freight and passenger rail are not necessarily mutually exclusive but they are calculated differently by the different players. An acceptable level 'product delay' in freight world is totally different than the passenger world. The main freight carriers might be able to manage their business through traffic flow management or perhaps a handful of new sidings, but if a large number of new sidings are needed to enable passenger rail to run consistently on time, then it seems to be a different calculation.
micheal_can
Senior Member
CP wanted to make more profit, so they removed double track to save on maintenance.
Our national railways cannot do things to make the shareholders happy, as the only think they are happy with is more profit. They do need to make decisions based on staying in the black, but if that means ripping up rail or a strike, or anything else that is not good for the country, then they should be removed from Canada's business sphere. Just imagine if the 407 was down to 2 lanes in winter to save money how upset people would be.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Well, I'm happy with my investment income, which includes CPP which is invested in the open market.
There have been many posts in the recent past making arguments for some form of corporate national responsibility paid for out of their bottom lines, but I think your clear desire is nationalization of any corporation that isn't seen as a full and compliant partner in government policy of the day. A subdivision is operating at a loss? Keep running it at a loss.. And apparently banning collective bargaining to boot. With that sword raised over the heads of corporate Canada, I await a cogent argument to either fund their purchase (a couple of hundred billion for two national railways) or perhaps their seizure, I'm not sure which.
Regardless, with this wide chasm in social perspective, I think any further discussion is rather pointless.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Certain things should be a race to the bottom all for profit, but transportation of goods and people cannot. Yes, CN/CP should be profitable. However, they should not be allowed to rip up track just to save money/make more money. CN did that so that the OVR couldn't run trains to Ottawa.
I am all for collective bargaining, but, as someone who has been part of a union and also not part of one, there is something I have learned. If someone says you need a union, then, they need it or they would be fired. For those that say you don't need a union, you likely do. Ironically, the military cannot be unionized. They are the only public service employment that cannot be unionized.
The reason many of these companies cut things is purely based on getting more profit for the shareholders, not to improve service. It would be like McDonald's taking their Quarter Pounder and shaving it to 1/8th and calling it better.
crs1026
Superstar
What are you referring to here? If the OVR had ever wanted to go to Ottawa, they had regulatory processes that would enable this. There is no freight traffic in Ottawa.
I can’t think of a single case where ripping up track was anything other than the right business decision. Harrison’s decision to strip out CN’s double track within the western national parks was a miscalculation, perhaps....but even that just reflects a catch-22 in conflicting legal Nd public policy priorities, not a profit vs people tradeoff). London-Sarnia was a gong show at first, but with schedule adjustments and longer trains, one doesn’t hear that it is congested very often any more.
Canada has not been at all astute about railbanking abandoned lines, and there are examples where the regulatory regime has let us down. But virtually every torn-out line that I can think of sat idle and rotting, sometimes for a decade or more, before the rails were lifted. ( Cue John Cleese delivering the punch line....”THIS IS A DEAD PARROT!”)
As for CP in Northwestern Ontario, it was eminently clear that there were useful assets tied up unnecessarily in the old double track. Plus, the signalling system reached end of life. Plus, traffic volumes changed. The old double track ABS was less flexible than CTC anyways, in the sense that it took a lot of written orders to manage overtakes or track blocks. CP has held off singletracking the Winchester Sub, but that won’t last forever. Perhaps they are waiting for VIA to share some costs.
It makes no sense to let an asset sit and rot just because VIA *might* want to run on it some day. I can’t fault the railways for managing their asset base.
- Paul
micheal_can
Senior Member
First, the tracks between Mattawa and Arnprior were ripped up so that OVR couldn't use them to haul freight to Montreal and cut out Toronto from the freight business.
Second, Arguing end of life signals is a sad excuse when the other signals would have been end of life too. Did they rip out the mainlines due to the signals being at the end of their life too? You're grasping at straws.
What useful assets? Or do you mean you want to cut the workforce to make more profit for your shareholders?
Stating that the regulatory regime let us down, then listing excuses that the companies use to make them look good is mind boggling.
The rotting you talk about is happening all over the place, but, you don't hear of it. Look up the E&N.
This is not about Via. This is about efficient movement of trains keeping scheduled trains on time. Let's face it, rail freight movements are going up. The current infrastructure is at or close to maximum capacity. If something isn't done, we will have ships waiting longer in our ports. We will have rail cars loaded in our ports and yards not moving, all due to the desire to maximize profit for the shareholders.
Northern Light
Superstar
@micheal_can and @crs1026
You both have good points.
May I suggest that while some aren't bridgeable, some should be.
CRS may put a bit more emphasis on a right to profitability relative to Micheal
But surely we can agree that operating ratios today are historically and perhaps stupidly low.
www.railwayage.com
This article discusses how lowering expenses to increase profitability can actually impede growth and notes how Harrison's successor has had to spend precious capital actually reinstalling second tracks that Harrison spent money removing.
That is unquestionably wasteful.
There is room to accept private companies having a profit-goal; and to question whether they are pursuing short-term, quarterly profits at the expense of medium and longer term ones.
Its not unreasonable to note that government could play a more constructive role through policy and regulators with certain forms of intervention; but equally fair to note that the regulator often gives the appearance of being very cozy w/those they
regulate and that would seem to shift the onus back on to the operators who wield outsized influence over the regulations they face.
There is little question that with longer trains, and moves toward greater distance freight, but less short-haul, that some routes had unneeded capacity, even into the forseeable future.
Further that some routes just had no foreseeable economic rationale for their existence, and no great public policy one either.
But that doesn't take away the reality that some segments of double-track removed were still useful in the moment; or likely will be again soon.
It also doesn't take away that some routes could have been made viable again, perhaps with government intervention; and that in some cases the argument for doing so was compelling, while in others it was marginal.
A more constructive approach, in my opinion looks at which routes/segments fall into which category; and which 'mistakes' are worth correcting after the fact, and which are lamentable, but done.
You both have good points.
May I suggest that while some aren't bridgeable, some should be.
CRS may put a bit more emphasis on a right to profitability relative to Micheal
But surely we can agree that operating ratios today are historically and perhaps stupidly low.
Beware the operating ratio trap - Railway Age
Watching Washington, February 2019: Sizzle sells product. No wonder the sizzle of ever-lower operating ratios is leading to remarkably higher railroad share prices. But as operating ratios—operating expenses as a percentage of operating revenue—flirt with a sub-60%, the meaning for the longer...
www.railwayage.com
This article discusses how lowering expenses to increase profitability can actually impede growth and notes how Harrison's successor has had to spend precious capital actually reinstalling second tracks that Harrison spent money removing.
That is unquestionably wasteful.
There is room to accept private companies having a profit-goal; and to question whether they are pursuing short-term, quarterly profits at the expense of medium and longer term ones.
Its not unreasonable to note that government could play a more constructive role through policy and regulators with certain forms of intervention; but equally fair to note that the regulator often gives the appearance of being very cozy w/those they
regulate and that would seem to shift the onus back on to the operators who wield outsized influence over the regulations they face.
There is little question that with longer trains, and moves toward greater distance freight, but less short-haul, that some routes had unneeded capacity, even into the forseeable future.
Further that some routes just had no foreseeable economic rationale for their existence, and no great public policy one either.
But that doesn't take away the reality that some segments of double-track removed were still useful in the moment; or likely will be again soon.
It also doesn't take away that some routes could have been made viable again, perhaps with government intervention; and that in some cases the argument for doing so was compelling, while in others it was marginal.
A more constructive approach, in my opinion looks at which routes/segments fall into which category; and which 'mistakes' are worth correcting after the fact, and which are lamentable, but done.
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
^I’m certainly in agreement that many of the things that railways have done to get those low operating ratios and high short term performance ratios are short sighted and dysfunctional. They don’t even help the freight business, they just look good on the shortest term of vision.
One of the Precision Railroading tenets which bothers me the most is the premise that it’s OK to turn away low-value (ie low ROI, but not money losing) business. You need far less assets that way - you earn the same profit from a smaller capital base by serving fewer customers who pay you the most. That’s great for the shareholders, but bad for the public because it saddles the country’s remaining infrastructure (foremost being roads) with the costs of shipping these less profitable commodities at much higher cost and risk than if shipped by rail. Ottawa has not done nearly enough to enforce a “duty to serve” for freight that might be profitable but not high ROI. Had that happened, the railways might have had to leave more slack in their network. I’m not sorry if that affects their ROI.
That’s a separate issue, however. What we were talking about here was the argument that the railways had an obligation to implement technological change and asset management in a way that preserved capacity for passenger services. Given that government has generally signalled a lack of appetite for passenger outside of the Windsor-Quebec corridor, one can’t criticise the railways for taking Ottawa at its word, and not making this a priority.
The Thunder Bay-Winnipeg singletracking is a good example. Why would CP retain passenger capacity on a line that Ottawa showed no interest in pursuing as a VIA line? Why leave roughly 300 miles of second track rail in place, when it can be used as relay rail on other lines? If you are going to replace the signals, why not buy bidirectional signals ( the old ones were unidirectional, one track operated each direction) and thereby need to only buy enough signals for one track instead of two? The new version of the line is quite suitable for the longer freights. (In fact, it is easier for a passenger train to overtake freights on single track with good sidings than on 2-track ABS with OCS operation. The issue would be whether restoring passenger service might demand additional passing points). There is no reason why CP should have foregone the opportunity to transform its infrastructure as it did.
CN’s singletracking has actually been pretty minimal in absolute track miles. More effort has gone into removing sidings generally, eg in the Directional running zones. And actually, it’s not expensive to relay rail if the underlying roadbed is already wide enough for double track. The only reason they got bit in the National Parks is that the environmental laws changed. That’s a conflict for public policy to resolve. But considerable money was saved in the years that the track was torn up. Only CN knows if they broke even in the longer term.
I also disagree that had the railways maintained that added capacity somehow, the cost would have been taken back from the “greedy and overcompensated” side of capitalism, if such a side exists. It might have been passed on to shippers, at least in part. That would impact the price of goods, which passes the burden onto all of us, and risks loss of business in world markets. It is a lot more appropriate to let any such cost accrue directly to VIA, to be borne by government and passed to the taxpayer. That way the support is explicit and can be managed transparently. Telling the railways to leave slack in their operation, without providing a clear plan for where that slack will be needed some day, is wasting somebody’s money....theirs or ours.
- Paul
One of the Precision Railroading tenets which bothers me the most is the premise that it’s OK to turn away low-value (ie low ROI, but not money losing) business. You need far less assets that way - you earn the same profit from a smaller capital base by serving fewer customers who pay you the most. That’s great for the shareholders, but bad for the public because it saddles the country’s remaining infrastructure (foremost being roads) with the costs of shipping these less profitable commodities at much higher cost and risk than if shipped by rail. Ottawa has not done nearly enough to enforce a “duty to serve” for freight that might be profitable but not high ROI. Had that happened, the railways might have had to leave more slack in their network. I’m not sorry if that affects their ROI.
That’s a separate issue, however. What we were talking about here was the argument that the railways had an obligation to implement technological change and asset management in a way that preserved capacity for passenger services. Given that government has generally signalled a lack of appetite for passenger outside of the Windsor-Quebec corridor, one can’t criticise the railways for taking Ottawa at its word, and not making this a priority.
The Thunder Bay-Winnipeg singletracking is a good example. Why would CP retain passenger capacity on a line that Ottawa showed no interest in pursuing as a VIA line? Why leave roughly 300 miles of second track rail in place, when it can be used as relay rail on other lines? If you are going to replace the signals, why not buy bidirectional signals ( the old ones were unidirectional, one track operated each direction) and thereby need to only buy enough signals for one track instead of two? The new version of the line is quite suitable for the longer freights. (In fact, it is easier for a passenger train to overtake freights on single track with good sidings than on 2-track ABS with OCS operation. The issue would be whether restoring passenger service might demand additional passing points). There is no reason why CP should have foregone the opportunity to transform its infrastructure as it did.
CN’s singletracking has actually been pretty minimal in absolute track miles. More effort has gone into removing sidings generally, eg in the Directional running zones. And actually, it’s not expensive to relay rail if the underlying roadbed is already wide enough for double track. The only reason they got bit in the National Parks is that the environmental laws changed. That’s a conflict for public policy to resolve. But considerable money was saved in the years that the track was torn up. Only CN knows if they broke even in the longer term.
I also disagree that had the railways maintained that added capacity somehow, the cost would have been taken back from the “greedy and overcompensated” side of capitalism, if such a side exists. It might have been passed on to shippers, at least in part. That would impact the price of goods, which passes the burden onto all of us, and risks loss of business in world markets. It is a lot more appropriate to let any such cost accrue directly to VIA, to be borne by government and passed to the taxpayer. That way the support is explicit and can be managed transparently. Telling the railways to leave slack in their operation, without providing a clear plan for where that slack will be needed some day, is wasting somebody’s money....theirs or ours.
- Paul
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
Interesting that a railway can turn down 'low value' loads; I didn't think a common carrier could do that.
At least with abandonments, regulatory approval is required. True that customers are abandoned but there are usually few if any by that point (if they were numerous, the line would remain profitable).
Rail in the Ottawa Valley has been referenced several times. I will assume folks are referencing the more recent CP abandonment; CN torn up their valley route several years ago (they apparently tried unsuccessfully to come to a directional running agreement). The traffic OVR was moving east of Mattawa was solely CP bridge traffic. There was no online revenue north (west) of Pembroke and precious little there as well. CP decided they could route it through Toronto. I really can't see how a government could demand the line be retained (for a passenger service that didn't exist) without ponying up the money.
As for a national security/defence argement, we aren't western Europe needing to rush troops and materiel to the border to hold off invading hordes. I'm not sure about western Canada but none of the eastern Canada bases that house heavy vehicles have rail. We have very little expeditionary capacity and virtually no sealift without using civilian contractors. Keep in mine the sum total of Canadian Army combat arms trades could likely fit into the Air Canada Centre.
At least with abandonments, regulatory approval is required. True that customers are abandoned but there are usually few if any by that point (if they were numerous, the line would remain profitable).
Rail in the Ottawa Valley has been referenced several times. I will assume folks are referencing the more recent CP abandonment; CN torn up their valley route several years ago (they apparently tried unsuccessfully to come to a directional running agreement). The traffic OVR was moving east of Mattawa was solely CP bridge traffic. There was no online revenue north (west) of Pembroke and precious little there as well. CP decided they could route it through Toronto. I really can't see how a government could demand the line be retained (for a passenger service that didn't exist) without ponying up the money.
As for a national security/defence argement, we aren't western Europe needing to rush troops and materiel to the border to hold off invading hordes. I'm not sure about western Canada but none of the eastern Canada bases that house heavy vehicles have rail. We have very little expeditionary capacity and virtually no sealift without using civilian contractors. Keep in mine the sum total of Canadian Army combat arms trades could likely fit into the Air Canada Centre.
Last edited:
micheal_can
Senior Member
It sounds like we all see the issues. I think we are all not naive to the issues that have lead us to the point that passenger service cannot maintain the schedule they have, let alone serve the greater population of Canada.I'd like to be negative and say "We can't put back track that isn't there", but we can. We also can work with the common carriers to bring better service, even with shorter trains and more track miles to maintain.
Would a fine for causing a passenger train to be late cause the common carriers to wise up?
Would bringing new service back to old routes be enough to get the common carriers to wise up?
Would a fine for causing a passenger train to be late cause the common carriers to wise up?
Would bringing new service back to old routes be enough to get the common carriers to wise up?
Northern Light
Superstar
The are arguments to be made for the above; but they are premature in many respects.
What's needed first a is a key analysis of different markets, both new and existing on what optimized service would look like (passenger); whether that is viable/justifiable; whether altertanives (bus) may be preferable and so on.
Once we have clarity that a given area really does make more sense with rail service, likely 2x daily or better; then we can decide how to achieve that.
There is room to negotiate w/carriers; while carrying the big stick of government power if negotiations are unduly cumbersome or delayed.
The reality is government hasn't seen fit to threaten yet, never mind take punitive action.
And really, in most cases, the justification isn't there for a 3x per week transcontinental tourist train.
The justification would be there in the corridor; or in other key areas where better service might be (re) established.
Let's get the facts on the table; look at the costs, and fund and negotiate solutions when we really know what we want and what's justified.
Surely, we can all agree that there are routes that appear to justify consideration for reinstatement, and other existing routes which would perform better w/more, more frequent, faster, more reliable services.
But which routes, in which order, at what cost is what needs sorting.