VIA Rail

[kEiThZ]

@steveintoronto

Why are you spamming the thread with all manner of rail project news that's not really relevant to VIA Rail?

 

[steveintoronto]

This is why, Keithz:

Is there an existing Via Rail thread? I've never seen it so I'm starting one.

Via Rail eyeing private capital to build its own dedicated rail lines

http://business.financialpost.com/2...apital-to-build-its-own-dedicated-rail-lines/

Btw: I'm fully prepared for those not wishing to see VIA replaced by a much more efficient and integrated model to be upset. Feel absolutely free not to read what I post, it will make both of us much happier evidently.

 

[crs1026]

@steveintoronto

Why are you spamming the thread with all manner of rail project news that's not really relevant to VIA Rail?

It's relevant, at least to the prospect of VIA needing to attract non-government investors. It's just hugely wordy and a bit of a lecture (and I'm no saint in that respect, so if I'm complaining.....)

P3 may be a step too far in VIA's case. P3 drives cost way up, because the private concern adds risk protection to its pricing. What may be sufficient would be some form of government-backed bonds, with more room for an upside if in fact the proposal runs profitably. At the worst, these amount to Canada Savings Bonds, with Ottawa assuming all the risk and in effect funding the project as deficit spending. At the best, they could be attractive to institutional investors who want a return better than CSB with only modestly greater risk, and with Ottawa retiring the debt more expeditiously than standard taxpayer debt.

VIA may have all sorts of documents showing in detail how profitable this plan will be. They may even have elements of their current operation's performance that support this. All the same, I would bet on the street rating this project as high-risk. Passenger rail has that traditional reputation. You can take the profit potential to the bank, but you can't get much money loaned to you just yet. For North America, this is still ground breaking.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

London Underground had a disaster with PPP (P3), but that was due to the implementation, not the model itself. (edit: Neutral overview here: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/...periment-dead-as-remaining-ppp-is-bought-out/ )(Btw: Bombardier was a partner in one of the P3 schemes) They went looking for private partners, which is what VIA is now doing, rather than the other way around. New York, on the other hand, has had great success. I think it would be far better for Morneau to shepherd this in the Market, ("we're open to investment and ideas") and then let investors approach the Gov't or VIA with concepts. FEC, having experience with soliciting funds, was much more adept at making this happen. It's a very interesting model we should be learning from.

At the worst, these amount to Canada Savings Bonds, with Ottawa assuming all the risk and in effect funding the project as deficit spending.

There's another massive pool of guaranteed bonds in this nation that remains mostly untouched....and this could be tricky, but on the other hand, massive pools of cash un-invested in a low rate environment means value is diminishing...and that's the CMHC underwritten ones. I'll detail further later with an edit. The housing market is slowing, and the demand for guaranteed bonds to stimulate mortgage lending could mean that pool is looking for investment elsewhere.

Edit: For VIA to approach the Market requires an Act of Parliament....which would also be required IIRC for Govt Bond Trusts to be invested too. A better idea might be for VIA, with that Act, and with P3 enabling in hand, to then issue their own bonds for their enterprise. Whether the Gov't in any way guarantees them or not is another matter. Historically, that was the precedent of the past.

However, here's an example of where it went terribly wrong a century ago:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/9852/index.do

Here's the Trust through which CMHC guarantees the bond program imposed on it a decade ago (a discussion in itself, as Canada, in effect, is underwriting the chartered banks' mortgage loan risk)(would it be much more of a stretch to do same for public transportation?):
https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/ar-ra/2013/en/mda/mda_007e.cfm

Note:
"CHT is self-sustaining and does not receive funding, in whole or in part, from Parliamentary Appropriations."

 

[mdrejhon]

stevetoronto's posts are still fascinating reading to me but I know they aren't liked by everyone
(...like me: remember people complaining about how long my posts are...).

If large amounts of less-VIA-related P3 discussion continues, a critical mass is hit -- if it happens, then it is sensible and prudent for a happy admin volunteer to move the P3 stuff into a new thread as it's a powderkeg unto itself because, really, like it or hate it, it appears P3's are a major part of our transportation infrastructure. Some good, some bad (...a moment of silence for Ontario's mournful loss of 407 West...)

That's why nowadays I often post them mostly within the Hamilton threads when I have lots of new Hamilton info.
Fewer people complaining that way than if I continually post Hamilton all over the place.

There is a lot of overlap, yes, but that's why we have separate "GO service improvements" AND "GO construction" threads, along with a few separate other circumstantially-GO-related threads (like GO-versus-VIA high speed rail which often spillovers since it's hard to silo that topic). It's the way things go but once many posts become long on topics that are only circumstantially related.

 

[steveintoronto]

MD: This string was premised on private partnership:

Is there an existing Via Rail thread? I've never seen it so I'm starting one.

Via Rail eyeing private capital to build its own dedicated rail lines
http://business.financialpost.com/2...apital-to-build-its-own-dedicated-rail-lines/

As to 407 West, it never was PFI or PPP. It was built completely on the taxpayers' dime, (albeit intended to be toll from the start) and leased off later for a century. That, in effect, is "Privatization".

The entire HFR discussion revolves around Desjardin-Siciliano's appeal for private investment. It appears that's been missed by some too busy trainspotting.
(Edit to Add ) And the claim of "0% subsidy" to affect that investment happening. I think the complete opposite, private investors are going to want to see some degree of underwriting by the government to make their investment work. That's the the major difference, btw, of PPP to PFI. How that guarantee is affected is a question in itself, but this thread is predicated upon discussing exactly that.

If anyone thinks you can have a super-duper trainset without someone paying for it, you live in a fantasy world. The Market takes no prisoners.

Edit to Add: "The entire HFR discussion revolves around Desjardin-Siciliano's appeal for private investment." It suddenly occurred to me as to D-S' bold approach. Paul and others have commented as to how out of character this is for a CEO to 'go rogue', and it's to be admired as well as potentially dangerous for him, but if there *is* a good deal of private investor interest, and Transport puts the kibosh on him...he's perfectly placed to become CEO of a private consortium to enact the plan he envisages. The man may yet prove to be a corporate genius.

Railway Age has an interesting article on D-S:
[...]
[Stay tuned for our April issue, where we’ll describe VIA’s project in detail. Here’s a teaser:][...]
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/william-vantuono/lets-keep-spinning-our-wheels.html

 

[mdrejhon]

Finally had the time to read the new document...

In the backgrounder
http://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/Backgrounder_HFT_EN_FINAL.pdf

Thanks for this new March 29, 2016 document.

"Next Steps: VIA Rail will soon be submitting its project for consideration by the Government of Canada"

So, they apparently didn't submit the project on time for Budget 2016, but they are going to submit something possibly well within this federal government's mandate. No wonder the government didn't award anything big to them during the 2016 Budget cycle. Perhaps in one of the next budgets?

And it certainly looks like they are aiming for electrification for HFR.

 

[steveintoronto]

Finally had the time to read the new document...

Thanks for this new March 29, 2016 document.

"Next Steps: VIA Rail will soon be submitting its project for consideration by the Government of Canada"

So, they apparently didn't submit the project on time for Budget 2016, but they are going to submit something possibly well within this federal government's mandate. No wonder the government didn't award anything big to them during the 2016 Budget cycle.

I was taken aback at that too, surmising that it was 'already submitted':

In the backgrounder

http://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/Backgrounder_HFT_EN_FINAL.pdf

"This is a VIA Rail management initiative. It does not reflect Government of Canada policy of (sic) decisions."
and
"Disclaimer - all numbers are preliminary estimates and are intended to be directional only"

- Paul

"VIA Rail will soon be submitting its project for consideration by the Government of Canada".

Very curious....

Note the date mentioned by Garneau in the following:

NatPost (Ottawa Citizen) March 3, 2016
[...][Garneau said the government is taking “a little bit of time” to examine Via’s proposal and whether there’s a good business case, including the “all-important” element of how many people would transition from vehicles or air travel to the train. The government also wants to gauge the investment community’s potential interest.

Asked whether funding could be coming in the budget for Via’s request for new rail cars, Garneau said: “That’s something that will become apparent on March 22. I can’t say any more.”][...]
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...kes-sense-but-liberals-studying-cost-minister

The backgrounder? Dated March 29, 2016. Garneau stated: "“That’s something that will become apparent on March 22."

Something is very odd about the sequence of events.

Note he talks of the "proposal" in that NatPost article dated March 3! So has he seen it or not?

I've been searching for any clarification as to the 'viability' in Garneau's consideration of this proposal, but the trail appears to have gone cold. I'll keep digging. It may well be that Garneau has a team on it behind the scenes, in fact, he should, but not much is leaking out. But one must still wonder why VIA released that Backgrounder after the cat was already out of the bag?

 

[steveintoronto]

Reading back on some of the earlier posts, and there's some gems. Can't quote them all, some of them were very prescient, but this one is especially so, about a year and a half ago:

Vegeta quotes then answers:

innsertnamehere said: ↑
The most interesting thing about that article is the comment about possibly opening up VIA rail funding to allow the provinces to give money. It may allow VIA to operate the HSR.

Doubt the province is interested in that and it doesn't make much sense for Ontario to pay the feds more to run a service they could do themselves at lower rate. Its only natural that the CEO of VIA would put a positive spin on the VIA's future prospects. But the reality is their future is far more murky. Inside shop talk here at Bombardier is of us taking over more and more VIA routes and expanding outwards in the coming decades. And when it finally happens I fully expect the initial Ontario only portion of HSR to be a Metrolinx only entity(under a new division) with the trains themselves operated by an outside contractor(Bombardier).

MD answers the same 'insertnamehere' quote that Vegeta does above:

If you're gambling with a bet -- "Who runs the first electricified HSR service in Canada?" -- then I am tempted -- very tempted to put it on that green-colored provincial agency that begins with a "M" and ends with an "X".

I'd do a side bet on that with provisos: It's not Metrolinx alone, it's in conjunction with an operating consortium, and it isn't HSR, it's HFR....with the same rolling stock used for distance commuter, perhaps with better seats (like they get on the same cars down the States, and with a slightly better pitch, in other words, their 'express' stock when they get it.) Same locos too. (And I presume electric, where effective final drive ratio is irrelevant in this usage, high or low speed) And AMT and Metrolinx start to procure together where possible, at the least as a shared corporation for the corridor runs. Ottawa could even be served by AMT from Montreal, and Metrolinx from Toronto. Politically complicated? No more so than the present VIA structure. Look to NY to see how this is done with Connecticut and NJ.

The more I think about it, the more Dejardins-Siciliano has set himself up to see his vision through *outside of VIA*! He has a choice, either Transport/Cabinet agree with him, and set-up his 'company within the Corporation', or he joins forces with an outside organization as anything from Operating Manager to CEO to run it. It all comes down to financing based on a sound business plan. And I too think the provinces (Ont and Que) will do an end run on VIA for exactly the reasons Vegeta states. Why compromise an almost perfect symbiosis with electrification already extant, albeit limited, in Montreal, and what Metrolinx plans for Ontario? The missing link can be provided by the private sector and either sell overhead rights per movement, or outright lease running the operation to a corporation of Metrolinx, AMT and perhaps the Min of Transport directly, no VIA involvement. VIA would be relegated to operating at a steep loss to service parts of Canada with no other transport options.

Both Fitz and Dowling make excellent points:

Surely starting a local service like that should be the responsibility of the provincial government, the same way Ontario is taking responsibility for Toronto to London.

In the US the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) basically says that. This is a simplification, but under 750 miles, it's up to the States to cover losses for trains in their territory, over 750 miles (for services that existed before PRIIA) it's up to Amtrak. Personally I prefer an approach which would make provincial governments have to contribute to long distance services too, but with a lower degree of responsibility than for regional/corridor services. There are a mixed bag of "essential services" which should be looked at on a regular basis and provinces should be able to put forward business cases for new ones. At present, these are seen solely as legacy obligations, retained on the fear of losing the local federal seat(s).

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Finally had the time to read the new document...

Thanks for this new March 29, 2016 document.

"Next Steps: VIA Rail will soon be submitting its project for consideration by the Government of Canada"

So, they apparently didn't submit the project on time for Budget 2016, but they are going to submit something possibly well within this federal government's mandate. No wonder the government didn't award anything big to them during the 2016 Budget cycle. Perhaps in one of the next budgets?

And it certainly looks like they are aiming for electrification for HFR.

I'd love to see

I was taken aback at that too, surmising that it was 'already submitted':



Note he talks of the "proposal" in that NatPost article dated March 3! So has he seen it or not?

I've been searching for any clarification as to the 'viability' in Garneau's consideration of this proposal, but the trail appears to have gone cold. I'll keep digging. It may well be that Garneau has a team on it behind the scenes, in fact, he should, but not much is leaking out. But one must still wonder why VIA released that Backgrounder after the cat was already out of the bag?

This may be irrelevant, but when I chatted with Marc Garneau when he was running for Liberal leader, I asked him about his views on high speed rail. He said he was very supportive, but an analysis of operational costs/cost recovery was important to him. One can only presume this attitude continues to this day and will be applied to HFR.

Also, VIA has been meeting with lots of MPs recently (over the mast month and a bit) to discuss their HFR plan and try to pitch it to them. Not just ministers, but back benchers too. VIA is clearly trying very hard to get their plan off the ground.

 

[kEiThZ]

This is why, Keithz:


Btw: I'm fully prepared for those not wishing to see VIA replaced by a much more efficient and integrated model to be upset. Feel absolutely free not to read what I post, it will make both of us much happier evidently.

The condescenion isn't going to help your credibility.

We're all here because we have a passion for better public infrastructure. Instead of debating the merits of different ideas, you seem adamant on attacking others and insist that they accept your viewpoints outright. Beyond that you simply spam tons of links. A lot of which has already been covered or discussed in various threads, which only leads to derailing the thread at hand.

Keep it up and you'll be talking to yourself as you end up on other member's ignore lists....

 

[mdrejhon]

Fair enough, I like the "raw details" steveintoronto posts, but I know not everyone does, and I've already been warned about my posts in past years.

So to bring it back on track (pun), without further ado....here goes.

Reading back on some of the earlier posts, and there's some gems. Can't quote them all, some of them were very prescient, but this one is especially so, about a year and a half ago:

The pieces make sense.
- Metrolinx electrification Kitchener thru Oshawa/Bowmanville
- VIA electrification Oshawa/Bowmanville thru Ottawa thru Montreal
- AMT electrification in Quebec

With this, you can run a single compatible train (voltage range, CBTC signalling, pantograph height range, loading gauge), through all of these systems. VIA could run all the way. Higher performing AMT trains could connect to Ottawa and Quebec City. Maybe even GOtrains (177-240kph RER) could bring Belleville and Kingston into commute distance as a natural peak-period extension beyond Bowmanville, paying VIA favorable rates (yet roughly similar net profit to VIA running a VIA train) for their owned electrified corridor.

Speed easily incrementally upgradeable ... some sections/stretches have few public crossings except farm crossings and might sustain a few good sprints above 177kph eventually, even before 300kph HSR becomes viable. (Incidentially, some of the RER EMUs that Metrolinx is considering, have sub-models capable of ~200kph operation).

It is a viable 2030s scenario ("2030s" = 2030-2039) depending on long term funding and compatibility considerations.

As demand warrants, future infra projects could eliminate at-grade crossings and refurbish track in batches once every few years, speeding up the trains and improving HFR safety, and bring sections to true HSR spec this century (earlier or later depending on demand). Bare minimum CN-side elements of Missing Link is a wildcard -- needing fed funding, or a widening through Brampton.

So my question is... what commonality is going to happen with VIA HFR electrification/signalling and GO RER electrification/signalling?
We need interoperability.

 

[steveintoronto]

Keep it up and you'll be talking to yourself as you end up on other member's ignore lists....

You know Keith, no-one's stopping you from writing whatever you wish save for yourself. I'd be delighted if you ignored me, we'd both be happier, so just do it.

 

[steveintoronto]

With this, you can run a single compatible train (voltage range, CBTC signalling, pantograph height range, loading gauge), through all of these systems. VIA could run all the way. Higher performing AMT trains could connect to Ottawa and Quebec City. Maybe even GOtrains (177-240kph RER) could bring Belleville and Kingston into commute distance as a natural peak-period extension beyond Bowmanville, paying VIA favorable rates (yet roughly similar net profit to VIA running a VIA train) for their owned electrified corridor.
[...]
So my question is... what commonality is going to happen with VIA HFR electrification/signalling and GO RER electrification/signalling?
We need interoperability.

The more I think about this, and I'll quote Alex after, is that VIA won't carry the can on this, but Desjardins-Siciliano will. His bravado only makes sense when you realize he fully believes in the concept, he's done his homework, he's the one soliciting and currying favour, and he's put his credibility on the line. I suspect if he does get some serious interest, the investors take the lead on proposing what would suit them best, and that's being a *common carrier* for whatever operating org leases overhead rights....and VIA is not going to be in a position to monopolize that. I think if there are any serious investors (and it is a great concept) they'll head-hunt him to run it for them, not for VIA. A private consortium would be in the best position to do public share offerings too, in whatever form.

That might leave Transport in a difficult situation on one hand, but offer a huge sigh of relief on the other: The VIA albatross might be solved for them. Let the provinces do it, and do it much more efficiently, and the provinces get the Fed's side of investment in rolling stock. I've got absolutely nothing against VIA, historically they've been given a poisoned chalice, and they're not noted for efficiency, but it appears the provinces can do this far better since it fits into their commuter express plans, and not have to pretend that it can be done without an operating subsidy. Suppose for a moment the present GO model sets the precedent (and it *saves* huge amounts of money in the big scheme of things), the farebox return would be about 75%. That alone puts GO/AMT at a business advantage over VIA, let alone much tighter run organizations. No matter what VIA could propose once the case is proven as per investors and private track, the provinces could do it better, and on their terms as per meshing it in with commuter.

This may be irrelevant, but when I chatted with Marc Garneau when he was running for Liberal leader, I asked him about his views on high speed rail. He said he was very supportive, but an analysis of operational costs/cost recovery was important to him. One can only presume this attitude continues to this day and will be applied to HFR.

Also, VIA has been meeting with lots of MPs recently (over the mast month and a bit) to discuss their HFR plan and try to pitch it to them. Not just ministers, but back benchers too. VIA is clearly trying very hard to get their plan off the ground.

This is very interesting, any more leads on this most welcome. Garneau claims to be a regular rider on VIA to Ottawa, he is genuinely intrigued to find a model that will work, but wisely, he's being cagey. To most of us, it's obvious something has to come out of this, and that will be the case with him too, or it wouldn't have gotten this far without an official proposal even submitted. That might also be on purpose, everyone including D-S might be pulling their punches to see what starts to gel first. Which is all good actually...the question grows in my mind though: Is it with or without VIA?

VIA is clearly trying very hard to get their plan off the ground.

Urban Sky has posted some intricate, detailed and earnest pieces, and fully divulges he/she works for VIA. What he/she doesn't state is if that's with the PR department. In all due respect, and they're intriguing posts, I get the tinge of if being mercenary. VIA might be fighting for its life as we know it.

Maybe even GOtrains (177-240kph RER) could bring Belleville and Kingston into commute distance as a natural peak-period extension beyond Bowmanville,

Metro-North and LIRR do those kinds of distances: (NJT also does co-shares)
[The New Haven Line is operated through a partnership between Metro-North and the State of Connecticut. The Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) owns the tracks and stations within Connecticut, and finances and performs capital improvements. MTA owns the tracks and stations and handles capital improvements within New York State. MTA performs routine maintenance and provides police services for the entire line, its branches and stations. New cars and locomotives are typically purchased in a joint agreement between MTA and ConnDOT, with the agencies paying for 33.3% and 66.7% of costs respectively. ConnDOT pays more because most of the line is in Connecticut.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro-North_Railroad

The template is alive and well to do same with Ont/Que, AMT serving Ottawa with regional express, GO to Belleville and a joint operation to link them.

 

[mdrejhon]

While I agree that the commuter rail will take over more of certain short-haul VIA markets, I think VIA will still play a veryimportant role, especially as GO will not go to Quebec City, nor AMT will go to London.

It's sort like longer distance Eurostar trains transiting through shorter-haul TGV lines...

It is not very profitable for VIA to lose a few seats on a long-haul train to satisfy low-priced short-haul, lest these seats stay empty for the rest of the long haul.