Not sure of the quality or accuracy of the reporting of this website. But I came across an article on TrainsMagazine.com (Link attached) talking about the corporate business plan for VIA rail and the next 5 years.
The article is a not bad precis of a
Business Plan document on VIA's web site, so it's based on straight goods. The source document is well written and presents a very candid view of VIA's situation. I would suggest the source document is the better one to work from.
- Via wants to increase its budget from 148 million to 300 million. I don't think I truly realized how shoestring of a budget that is to try and operate a rail network for a country as large as we are geographically. I understand that they get revenue from their ticket sales, ads, etc but I hope they see the increased government funding.
There are actually two components to this. One is covering VIA's costs. The other is firewalling VIA's cash flow from the ridiculously apathetic government processes, which refuse to process VIA's business plans in time for an annual fiscal cycle. When it takes two years to approve an annual Business Plan, you know the government couldn't care less about VIA. This is such an egregious bit of not attending to basic chores, I'm disgusted in our current government, even more than its foot dragging on HFR.
But yeah, in the big scheme this is a trivial amount of money to be nickel and diming over. We need better.
The Canadian won't see the third run return because of the actions of host rail networks. Is this a matter of saying to CN/CN; build us some more rail capacity here so we can make this work for both parties? or is Via a burden to their business models that they want off their networks as much as possible (hence HFR proposal)?
Via is very much a burden in CN's eyes. While CN is adding track capacity in Western Canada, they will probably never be in a surplus capacity situation, as it's all private capital so investment is carefully ratoned. The cost of adding further capacity to let VIA stay ahead of growth in freight traffic is huge. And why would the government pay for capacity that will inevitably be usurped by CN for its own needs? VIA would have to paddle faster just to stand still. I'm pleased to see VIA has taken the courageous route by plainly stating that the business model for the Canadian just isn't sustainable (Section 3.6.1)
I am pleased to see VIA bravely laying out just how constraining its relationship with CN and CP is. They are plainly arguing for government to change national transportation policy. I'm not optimistic, but it shows a lot more integrity than just cow-towing to the pols and bureaucrats.
One interesting new item in the document is the outline of the challenge of working with REM and with Metrolinx to retain terminal capacity in both Montreal and Toronto. I recently overheard a VIA guy remark that "Metrolinx treats VIA like a trespasser". To be a bit less partisan, Metrolinx has capacity issues both at Union and on its LSE/LSW lines. VIA can't take its use of these lines for granted, and it certainly seems logical that VIA ought to be assessed a share of the capital expension costs (just like with CN in Western Canada) if it proposes to expand its use of these resources.
- They would like an additional 110 million (I'm assuming to bring the total to ask to $410 million). Would this be for infrastructure deficits they have/projects (redoing the Budd cars) or is this more to cover their budget after the horrid year they have had because of Covid?
It's hard to tell exactly where the money is going, but there are some nuggets in the article.
- It sounds like the base operating envelope just wasn't enough in the first place, and COVID no doubt has strained that further
- VIA is projecting its non-manageable costs will grow faster than revenue or inflation (section 4.1)
- It sounds like VIA will have to pay for enhanced crossing protection requirements where they use CN lines, likely as a result of government regulation
- Stations are aging and need work
So no, this increase is not about additional equipment refurbishment. If anything, refurb is being cut back, in part because of recent mysterious discoveries about how bad the equipment condition may be.
- They talk about needing to look into the replacement of these units as part of the proposal for making these routes more viable. WIthout knowing anything about trainsets at all. Would a potential addition to the Charger order be viable if they can find the money or is rebuilding the better units coming off the Toronto - Montreal corridor the more likely option?
Only part of their existing fleet can be further life extended. The source article notes that the base Charger order is expected to arrive ahead of schedule, reducing the need to refurbish long-distance equipment that is "loaned" to the Corridor service to augment capacity.
VIA has options to acquire additional Chargers if it can find the justification. The highest priority growth opportunity pointed to (also a new nugget) is Toronto-Kitchener-London. I'm really happy to see that highlighted. It's possible that VIA could meet some of that by running its base Charger equipment through Toronto, but obviously, at some point they might need more trains, and their options enable that.
My typically verbose response!
- Paul
