VIA Rail

[Bordercollie]

It isn't the long-distance cars that are problematic. Well, they are....but they are less so than the HEP II cars.

Remember, many of them are almost 10 years older than the ex-CP fleet, and due to their heritage have always been more questionable from a longevity standpoint. Even despite CP's passenger death throes of the 1970s, it has long been felt that the ex-CP cars are in far better shape structurally than the HEP II cars. Several of them had been sidelined for multi-month periods over the years for remedial structural work.

Dan

So then why does Transport Canada paint them with the same brush?

Was this recent rebuild include only cosmetic repairs or was there structural work done as well?

 

[crs1026]

I'm sure that there are some initiatives through the investment bank that could be used to fund this procurement.

That would require a prospectus and business case showing some quantifiable return, or at least non-loss. And an organizational plan laying out what kind of an enterprise is neededto sustain long distance service.

VIA has likely written more than one such prospectus over the years, to justify its costs to date and no doubt in hopes of convincing Ottawa to invest in new equipment.

In a perfect world, VIA would put its best foot forward by releasing these and enabling a public debate.

The decision to advance HFR through a P3 and not by sustaining VIA as a corporation very much changes the organizational plan. Maybe a whole new scenario is needed.

Call me grumpy, but I doubt we will see such a perfect world. Ottawa has become an agency that mostly writes cheques and accepts little responsibility for operationalising things. This hiccup with the old fleet may force a decision. If there is no investor willing to assume the risk, can Ottawa design a P3 format that is sellable ?

It’s a political decision, and there will be pro’s and con’s expressed - we train advocates should be careful to watch public sentiment, and how a public debate may proceed…. and not simply preach to each other.

- Paul

 

[Bordercollie]

That would require a prospectus and business case showing some quantifiable return, or at least non-loss. And an organizational plan laying out what kind of an enterprise is neededto sustain long distance service.

VIA has likely written more than one such prospectus over the years, to justify its costs to date and no doubt in hopes of convincing Ottawa to invest in new equipment.

In a perfect world, VIA would put its best foot forward by releasing these and enabling a public debate.

The decision to advance HFR through a P3 and not by sustaining VIA as a corporation very much changes the organizational plan. Maybe a whole new scenario is needed.

Call me grumpy, but I doubt we will see such a perfect world. Ottawa has become an agency that mostly writes cheques and accepts little responsibility for operationalising things. This hiccup with the old fleet may force a decision. If there is no investor willing to assume the risk, can Ottawa design a P3 format that is sellable ?

It’s a political decision, and there will be pro’s and con’s expressed - we train advocates should be careful to watch public sentiment, and how a public debate may proceed…. and not simply preach to each other.

- Paul

By changing the mandate and allowing provincial governments to fund VIA services like Amtrak does would make a difference.

 

[Bordercollie]

When the manor sleepers were rebuilt in 2028/2019 were they brought down to the frame to see if there was any corrosion?

VIA Rail announces more Long Distance car renovations

 

[ssiguy2]

One way VIA could save a crap load of money is by bringing some sanity to it's business model. That would mean getting rid of every single route outside the Corridor and only offer service if it can be reasonably justified ie only peak summer service.

 

[APTA-2048]

One way VIA could save a crap load of money is by bringing some sanity to it's business model. That would mean getting rid of every single route outside the Corridor and only offer service if it can be reasonably justified ie only peak summer service.

That's a terrible idea.

 

[Bordercollie]

One way VIA could save a crap load of money is by bringing some sanity to it's business model. That would mean getting rid of every single route outside the Corridor and only offer service if it can be reasonably justified ie only peak summer service.

Do you understand the reason why a national railway exists in the first place? It's mandate is to provide services to those remote communities that don't have other forms of transportation. The revenue collected from the corridor pays for those services. This is how is works all over the world.

Removing those essential services would mean those people would not have any other mode of transportation.

The funding required to keep the train running is a drop in the bucket compared to all of the wasteful projects that the government has.

Considering that the Biden administration is spending billions on its national railway, it is an embarrassment that we can't even keep ours running.

 

[SashaLemon]

That's a terrible idea.

This is a bit crazy. The per person cost to provide all this service outside of the corridor, and we can't even properly invest in the corridor with HSR?
I don't have the solution, but it seems a pretty unfair. Is there any way to make these remote services cost less to operate? Busses are cheap because the government already owns the roads. Maybe force the freight railroads to allow small VIA trains to use track for free as long as they are not frequent. (aka, regional services) And use some fuel efficient DMU trains.

 

[Bordercollie]

This is a bit crazy. The per person cost to provide all this service outside of the corridor, and we can't even properly invest in the corridor with HSR?
I don't have the solution, but it seems a pretty unfair. Is there any way to make these remote services cost less to operate? Busses are cheap because the government already owns the roads. Maybe force the freight railroads to allow small VIA trains to use track for free as long as they are not frequent. (aka, regional services) And use some fuel efficient DMU trains.

View attachment 433954

How are you going to run a bus to Churchill when there is no road?
And DMU'S are not any cheaper to run because it's not the cost of the fuel that's the problem.

Two F40ph locomotives pulling 20+ cars across 5000km's carrying 200 people is pretty efficient. Newer locomotives may get you 20% more fuel economy. Lighter newer more efficient cars might achieve another 10 and a bit more savings on maintenance.

But the track slots, crews, maintenance facilities and operating costs would be the same.

The cost to subsidize a national railway is peanuts vs our GDP. The problem is that there is no political will to get it done.

 

[Urban Sky]

That's a terrible idea.

*PSA*

Perfect answer and a friendly reminder to everyone else who has replied to the same message that every time you invest more time and energy into replying to a troll than what the troll himself has expensed, the troll wins…

 

[SashaLemon]

How are you going to run a bus to Churchill when there is no road?
And DMU'S are not any cheaper to run because it's not the cost of the fuel that's the problem.

Two F40ph locomotives pulling 20+ cars across 5000km's carrying 200 people is pretty efficient. Newer locomotives may get you 20% more fuel economy. Lighter newer more efficient cars might achieve another 10 and a bit more savings on maintenance.

But the track slots, crews, maintenance facilities and operating costs would be the same.

The cost to subsidize a national railway is peanuts vs our GDP. The problem is that there is no political will to get it done.

I don't recall saying in my post that I support stopping all services everywhere! Calm down. I was merely saying that the government owns the roads. That being said, there are plenty of services to places that do actually have roads. So, I don't see what you're trying to say.

This is how is works all over the world

Yes, and they own the tracks that are used to provide this service. They do not need to pay themselves for track slots. But in Canada we have private freight railroad companies. In places where there ARE ACTUALLY roads, it costs less to just use a bus. What is the biggest cost? Is it using the private tracks? Again, maybe the government can mandate that these infrequent services are important and so the railroads must waive fees. It's not like we are trying to blast the Accela through every hour, it's a 2-3 train a week deal. These companies already screw up our national logistics, we need better performance from them.

That being said though, I of course get frustrated with the lack of funding in our passenger rail network compared to things like highways. But if we can wrestle some money for trains, we actually need to build stuff, not give it all to CN/CP. A proper HSR route between our largest cities might be able to pay for all the other routes. Hell, maybe a "profitable VIA" would get government to invest in it even more. (Even if being profitable is not something a national passenger railway should have to do.)

 

[Mr Finish Line]

Is it potentially cheaper to subsidize air fare to Churchill vs subsidizing a train? I'm sure the people of Churchill would rather get there faster.

 

[dowlingm]

Do you understand the reason why a national railway exists in the first place? It's mandate is to provide services to those remote communities that don't have other forms of transportation. The revenue collected from the corridor pays for those services. This is how is works all over the world.

Removing those essential services would mean those people would not have any other mode of transportation.

The funding required to keep the train running is a drop in the bucket compared to all of the wasteful projects that the government has.

Considering that the Biden administration is spending billions on its national railway, it is an embarrassment that we can't even keep ours running.

But we don’t have a national passenger
railway nor are essential services met. We have a federally owned railway which serves *some* unserved/underserved communities but for budgetary reasons other remote regions, even those with rail available, are left unserved or like Northlander devolved to provincial responsibility. .

I think railfans overestimate the degree of backlash should reductions follow as a result of this situation - look at Vancouver Island, or how long Gaspé has been fallow. Some fuss, particularly from local media (shrinking as that is) and from groups like Transport Action, but nothing to make a minister or member fear for their career.

 

[dowlingm]

Is it potentially cheaper to subsidize air fare to Churchill vs subsidizing a train? I'm sure the people of Churchill would rather get there faster.

The thought is that the rising tides of global warming (or more specifically the diminution of sea ice) will lift the “boat” of Churchill Port, if not to Rotterdam levels then at least to reasonable use and resulting prosperity. Of course the permafrost melting all the while will do a number on the track a few times in the meantime.

 

[Mr Finish Line]

The thought is that the rising tides of global warming (or more specifically the diminution of sea ice) will lift the “boat” of Churchill Port, if not to Rotterdam levels then at least to reasonable use and resulting prosperity. Of course the permafrost melting all the while will do a number on the track a few times in the meantime.

Uhhh how does that relate to subsidizing air fare instead of a train?