Via rail

[headhorse]

I think for the prairies at least, strictly speaking from a transitioning to a green economy (I think eventually planes will only be used in cases of long haul flights) it makes sense to have a high speed rail network connecting Edmonton - Saskatoon - Winnipeg and Banff - Calgary - Regina - Winnipeg, plus Calgary and Edmonton. I think we'll eventually see a 5-6 hour train ride replace planes between Winnipeg and Alberta. the rest of of the prairies should be served with bus connections to places along those routes

[rbt]

Originally Posted by headhorse

I think we'll eventually see a 5-6 hour train ride replace planes between Winnipeg and Alberta. the rest of of the prairies should be served with bus connections to places along those routes

Really? I expect electric aircraft to appear for short-haul trips (under 3 hours) before Canada takes an interest in building HSR through the prairies.

May well happen before HSR through the heavily populated (and potentially profitable) portion of Canada too.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by esquire

Those railway tracks are owned by private companies providing services to their own customers, I don't see how you can reasonably ask the feds to intervene and force the railways to run their trains a certain way at a disadvantage to their own business operations.

The government used to have its own railway, and for whatever reason they sold it off. It no longer has a say in how the railways should operate their business.

Not true.

Right now, if someone wanted to run a strictly mail only train, or a train that carries mail, all other rail traffic must yield to it. It is in the Railway Act from back when we had mail go by rail.

So, in short, the government could put into law that passenger trains must take priority over freight and there wouldn't be a thing CN, CP or any other railway company could do.

[Ottawaresident]

Well, except for breaking the law.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, in short, the government could put into law that passenger trains must take priority over freight and there wouldn't be a thing CN, CP or any other railway company could do.

Most freight carried by rail is bulk and not particularly time sensitive AFAIK. The idea of giving passenger traffic priority is attractive.

Of course, since freight trains are so much longer than passenger trains, this would mean that they would have to extend the length (and perhaps the frequency) of the railway sidings to accommodate them.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Not true.

Right now, if someone wanted to run a strictly mail only train, or a train that carries mail, all other rail traffic must yield to it. It is in the Railway Act from back when we had mail go by rail.

So, in short, the government could put into law that passenger trains must take priority over freight and there wouldn't be a thing CN, CP or any other railway company could do.

Originally Posted by Ottawaresident

Well, except for breaking the law.

The government can do anything it wants, just in this country it has been normalised that the two rail companies should have more power than the Federal government. In most countries the freight railways are just another utility beholden to the national railway operator, not gods like they are here.

We never question our governments when they change roads or laws that inconvenience trucking companies for the benefit of the public. What makes CN and CP so special?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Not true.

Right now, if someone wanted to run a strictly mail only train, or a train that carries mail, all other rail traffic must yield to it. It is in the Railway Act from back when we had mail go by rail.

So, in short, the government could put into law that passenger trains must take priority over freight and there wouldn't be a thing CN, CP or any other railway company could do.

Could the government legislate priority for passenger trains on privately owned tracks? Sure.

Would they, practically speaking, ever do such a thing in the absence of some kind of crisis like a war? Not a chance. And rightly so IMO. Why should railways lose money on their own rail lines so that the feds can run passenger trains that hardly anyone wants to take in the first place?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by esquire

Why should railways lose money on their own rail lines so that the feds can run passenger trains that hardly anyone wants to take in the first place?

I would imagine that if the feds seriously invested in passenger rail and legislated such that passenger rail travel were more reliable and time sensitive, that more people would consider taking the train.

It is blatantly obvious that government policies dramatically favour air passenger transportation over rail passenger. The resulting discrepancy in usage mirrors this bias........

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Most freight carried by rail is bulk and not particularly time sensitive AFAIK. The idea of giving passenger traffic priority is attractive.

Of course, since freight trains are so much longer than passenger trains, this would mean that they would have to extend the length (and perhaps the frequency) of the railway sidings to accommodate them.

Originally Posted by milomilo

The government can do anything it wants, just in this country it has been normalised that the two rail companies should have more power than the Federal government. In most countries the freight railways are just another utility beholden to the national railway operator, not gods like they are here.

We never question our governments when they change roads or laws that inconvenience trucking companies for the benefit of the public. What makes CN and CP so special?

Originally Posted by esquire

Could the government legislate priority for passenger trains on privately owned tracks? Sure.

Would they, practically speaking, ever do such a thing in the absence of some kind of crisis like a war? Not a chance. And rightly so IMO. Why should railways lose money on their own rail lines so that the feds can run passenger trains that hardly anyone wants to take in the first place?

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I would imagine that if the feds seriously invested in passenger rail and legislated such that passenger rail travel were more reliable and time sensitive, that more people would consider taking the train.

It is blatantly obvious that government policies dramatically favour air passenger transportation over rail passenger. The resulting discrepancy in usage mirrors this bias........

I always think "If you need to be told a minimum wage to pay your employees then you do not have a good business plan." If you have to run "over siding" trains to break even, then you do not have a good business plan.

Currently, the only thing standing in the way of the government doing this is political will. I doubt that will change any time soon.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Not true.

Right now, if someone wanted to run a strictly mail only train, or a train that carries mail, all other rail traffic must yield to it. It is in the Railway Act from back when we had mail go by rail.

So, in short, the government could put into law that passenger trains must take priority over freight and there wouldn't be a thing CN, CP or any other railway company could do.

Originally Posted by milomilo

The government can do anything it wants, just in this country it has been normalised that the two rail companies should have more power than the Federal government. In most countries the freight railways are just another utility beholden to the national railway operator, not gods like they are here.

We never question our governments when they change roads or laws that inconvenience trucking companies for the benefit of the public. What makes CN and CP so special?

Because the federal government has decided back in the early 1990s to completely transfer the burden to invest into the national rail network to the private sector, which even generated some one-off privatisation revenues, while most countries in Europe or Asia invest massive amounts of public funds into their own networks.

I don't know what's so shocking about the observation that the track standards and capital expenditure maintained by private-sectors freight railroads only reflects the needs of their own freight trains, instead of those for passenger trains which require track standards and consume more track capacity the faster they operate. IMHO, the government and the taxpayer get no more and no less than what they pay for...

[hipster duck]

When you think about it, it's obvious that Canada would prioritize freight over passenger railroads. We are a physically large country, with few navigable rivers, whose primary exports - particularly in western Canada - are bulk commodities. We have 2 of the 7 Class I railroads in North America, which is pretty impressive given our size, and both CN and CP extend their network well into the US.

We obviously know how to run freight railroads, and so our governments support them the best way they can, which is to get out of their way.

The bad news is that we have designed a railway system where moving anything other than non time-sensitive cargo would incur massive investment. It's a good example of a "market failure". Even if there's a huge pent up demand for passenger rail, and even if passenger services were still run by CN or CP, would these companies invest billions of dollars to build a totally parallel system of trackage so that they could run high frequency passenger trains? Probably not. It's better for them to stick to doing what they already do well, given that they know it makes money for them and that they have some natural monopoly over the transport of many of those commodities.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Because the federal government has decided back in the early 1990s to completely transfer the burden to invest into the national rail network to the private sector, which even generated some one-off privatisation revenues, while most countries in Europe or Asia invest massive amounts of private funds into their own networks.

I don't know what's so shocking about the observation that the track standards and capital expenditure maintained by private-sectors freight railroads only reflects the needs of their own freight trains, instead of those for passenger trains which require track standards and consume more track capacity the faster they operate. IMHO, the government and the taxpayer get no more and no less than what they pay for...

Definitely agree with that.

Originally Posted by hipster duck

When you think about it, it's obvious that Canada would prioritize freight over passenger railroads. We are a physically large country, with few navigable rivers, whose primary exports - particularly in western Canada - are bulk commodities. We have 2 of the 7 Class I railroads in North America, which is pretty impressive given our size, and both CN and CP extend their network well into the US.

We obviously know how to run freight railroads, and so our governments support them the best way they can, which is to get out of their way.

Well, while the railroads do seem to be very effective at moving large volumes of freight, they also have a very poor safety record, even with regulation. So the government does need to get in the way and make them change - but they won't of course. Normally, after a tragedy such as Lac-Megantic a country and people would be so shocked that they would be forced to change - see how quickly NZ changed their gun laws. But in this country, atrocious safety of the railroads is so normalised that the people don't care, and there is no point wasting political capital on making them change.

Originally Posted by hipster duck

The bad news is that we have designed a railway system where moving anything other than non time-sensitive cargo would incur massive investment. It's a good example of a "market failure". Even if there's a huge pent up demand for passenger rail, and even if passenger services were still run by CN or CP, would these companies invest billions of dollars to build a totally parallel system of trackage so that they could run high frequency passenger trains? Probably not. It's better for them to stick to doing what they already do well, given that they know it makes money for them and that they have some natural monopoly over the transport of many of those commodities.

Yep, railways are the perfect example of market failures. It is near impossible to have true competition - CN and CP don't compete with each because their railways go to different places, and it would be inefficient to build multiple parallel railway lines. And trying to use them for anything else is near impossible. If we had a properly managed system, the government owner of the track would be able to build investment that would benefit all users, but under the current system it is to CP/CNs advantage to make the railways as attractive to passenger rail as possible.

At this point, I think we are too far gone to do what should be done and nationalise the track. But we at least need to stop the attitude that the railroads can do whatever they want - they serve and owe us, not the other way around. A good start would be for the government to say that in ten years time, no more dangerous goods can move through populated areas (like downtown Calgary). It's going to cost them money to ensure the safety of Canadians? Tough. They've benefited handsomely from their arrangements and can afford the investment, and they are a monopoly anyway so they can make it work.

[esquire]

I guess it boils down to whether you think it's a good idea for government to step in and help itself to someone else's property.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by esquire

I guess it boils down to whether you think it's a good idea for government to step in and help itself to someone else's property.

Firstly, there is no such thing as property rights, it's a fictional concept. I'm not saying that as a naive socialist, it's just a fact.

Secondly, these companies are not pure creations of innovation, they exist from the product of massive gifts from the Canadian government. The Canadian government should make decisions that are in the best interests of Canadians, not two monopolies.

Third, most first world countries other than the USA and Canada have the railway infrastructure in the hands of government bodies. It's perfectly normal, because it is quite obviously the most efficient and safest way to do things.

So please, spare me the Ayn Randian bullshit.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by esquire

I guess it boils down to whether you think it's a good idea for government to step in and help itself to someone else's property.

I think this is an appeal to intuitions that are mostly misguided. "Helping yourself to somebody's property" sounds like the old story about stealing an apple pie from a kitchen window ledge. CN was a crown corporation that inherited a bunch of public infrastructure then was privatized and turned into a publicly traded company in 1995. Ownership in CN is diffuse, it exists as a complicated legal entity backed by government, and people who bought into CN knew that it could be subject to antitrust and other regulations that in many cases predated it by decades. There was never any promise of absolute property rights granted to CN, and there's no single person or group who created or owns CN.

CN's largest shareholder (~10%) is Bill Gates and CN accounts for a small share of his overall wealth. CN shares have also gone up by about 20x in the past 20 years (!).

[esquire]

The last couple of posts demonstrate that there is nothing easier than rationalizing the act of taking what belongs to someone else.

The fact that CN used to be a crown corporation is irrelevant here. That ceased over 20 years ago. It's a private company (publicly owned, but you get my drift). Same for the grants that CP received nearly 150 years ago... that may have been the case, but CP doesn't continue to owe the Canadian state for those.

Besides, I'm not sure that countries like Venezuela are the ones to model ourselves after in this instance. Because that's effectively what you're talking about when you propose telling companies to shunt aside mile long freight trains loaded with the goods of paying customers so that trains with a handful of people who don't feel like flying can ride the rails from Winnipeg to Edmonton.

[Doug]

The amount of capital required to build efficient passenger rail in Canada would be enormous, well beyond the capacity of even the federal government. The cost of California high speed rail is over $70B and counting. Building something similar in even the Quebec-Windsor corridor would cost more due to more extreme weather and longer distance, and have less ridership potential due to less population and a less productive economy.

Only a fool would be willing to increase federal debt by say 25% for something as marginal as intercity passenger rail.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Doug

The amount of capital required to build efficient passenger rail in Canada would be enormous, well beyond the capacity of even the federal government. The cost of California high speed rail is over $70B and counting. Building something similar in even the Quebec-Windsor corridor would cost more due to more extreme weather and longer distance, and have less ridership potential due to less population and a less productive economy.

Only a fool would be willing to increase federal debt by say 25% for something as marginal as intercity passenger rail.

Luckily, most of the serious posters in this thread have not proposed doing such. VIA rail's HFR proposal is what, $5B, something like that? So even if that was entirely funded through debt, it would be 0.35% of it. But it won't be entirely funded by debt, and investment in infrastructure improves productivity so the country will almost certainly come out ahead.

California's HSR has obviously been an epic failure, but there is no need to repeat that in Ontario. The failures would have been easy to predict, although perhaps still hard to avoid. It's always NIMBYs, on any project, that cause the big cost increases.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by milomilo

California's HSR has obviously been an epic failure, but there is no need to repeat that in Ontario. The failures would have been easy to predict, although perhaps still hard to avoid. It's always NIMBYs, on any project, that cause the big cost increases.

I think Via is repeating a number of the mistakes of the California gong show, including running the route through underpopulated areas and not having a clear plan to get the service to the central parts of cities.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Luckily, most of the serious posters in this thread have not proposed doing such. VIA rail's HFR proposal is what, $5B, something like that? So even if that was entirely funded through debt, it would be 0.35% of it. But it won't be entirely funded by debt, and investment in infrastructure improves productivity so the country will almost certainly come out ahead.

California's HSR has obviously been an epic failure, but there is no need to repeat that in Ontario. The failures would have been easy to predict, although perhaps still hard to avoid. It's always NIMBYs, on any project, that cause the big cost increases.

$5B wouldn’t even move the needle. $50B wouldn’t move the needle. For passenger rail to succeed, it would need to match air travel in terms of price and total travel time. That would mean grade separated service through Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto at the very least.