VIA Rail

[milomilo]

Sorry. I'm not easily offended but don't appreciate abuse in PMs that I just received as it destroys the self regulation that happens when posts are public. If there are any mods reading this, feel free to delete my posts on this page.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'm an Ontarian. I find it patently ridiculous there's no Calgary-Edmonton train with hourly. I want VIA's attention on that as soon as they have shovels in the ground for HFR. I wish the provincial government would come in with money. But if not, I have no issues with the Feds making this work using a 50 yr business case, if they have to.

We can't say we're serious about cutting emissions and not do anything substantial to cut aviation and road emissions in our busiest corridors.

All that said, in my dealings with Albertans in person, I'm usually more enthusiastic about a train there, than they are.

I agree with you. But really, there is no need for a Calgary Edmonton train to be VIA. The provincial government could do it no problem, and that may indeed be preferable as it would be more locally controlled. But as you say, there is zero political will for it to happen.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I agree with you. But really, there is no need for a Calgary Edmonton train to be VIA. The provincial government could do it no problem, and that may indeed be preferable as it would be more locally controlled. But as you say, there is zero political will for it to happen.

Toronto-Ottawa doesn't need ti be VIA either.

But I'd argue that VIA's survival is dependent on being relevant to the bulk of Canada's population. Given that 50% of our population stays in the six largest metros, connecting and servicing them should be Priority Number One.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Why do you get so pissy every time anyone replies to one of your posts?

Here's the passenger kms by mode, only goes to 2009 unfortunately:

https://www144.statcan.gc.ca/nats-stna/tables-tableaux/tbl8-1/tbl8-1-CAN-eng.htm

And here is Canada's breakdown of CO2 emissions:



Do you have any alternative facts?

Wouldn't it be nice to lower the 2 larger transportation uses be lower? That is what can happen when we invest in rail. I''ll bet if we looked at transportation in the GTA, you would see most emissions are still cars, but due to the increased GO train service, the car number is lower over time.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Because you still want to get the best value per dollar spent, there isn't an infinite pot of money. How many times does this need repeating?

We could have gotten cheaper ships and planes had we outsourced them. Those more expensive ships will not make Canada any money. At least putting in a lower used train does bring in some money.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

You're right to point that out because there are some people who forget it. But I think most of us realize that government spending doesn't need to be profitable in the sense that the government gets more money back than it spends. But all expenditures - especially large ones - need to be justified in terms of cost vs benefits. We have to be certain that benefits are worth the cost and we have to be certain there aren't lower cost alternatives that can deliver all or most of the benefits. I think that's generally when people mean when they refer to profitability. Not something like "Police aren't justified if they don't make the government money" but more, "Is it really worth the money we're paying for a tiny community with little crime to have its own police force compared to having them served at lower cost by regional police."

And that basically mirrors the train vs bus vs electric car infrastructure etc. debates.

See my comment about ships. There are reasons why we are building them in our shipyards.

There are valid reasons why restoring that which has been cut in the 1990s would be a good idea. One of them is that all the areas have seen a growth in population. The other is it is a "greener" solution, if done right.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

What the heck is going on with this thread. Discussions about important topics such as infrastructure spending should happen in a way that people hear, understand, and reply to one another in as neutral as possible a tone. No one is going to listen and be convinced of other views if they come across as an attack.

Some people forget that. I try to not attack.

Originally Posted by milomilo

I agree with you. But really, there is no need for a Calgary Edmonton train to be VIA. The provincial government could do it no problem, and that may indeed be preferable as it would be more locally controlled. But as you say, there is zero political will for it to happen.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Toronto-Ottawa doesn't need ti be VIA either.

But I'd argue that VIA's survival is dependent on being relevant to the bulk of Canada's population. Given that 50% of our population stays in the six largest metros, connecting and servicing them should be Priority Number One.

A good example of a mess is Metrolinx/GO and ONR. Both are owned by the province, but one is under transportation and the other is not. One is being expanded, while the other is being cut.

For intercity transportation, VIA makes most sense, especially for rail. Just imagine GO coaches for the Windsor-Ottawa service.

The other thing; VIA could make the schedules for the trains work better to connect to other rail.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Sorry. I'm not easily offended but don't appreciate abuse in PMs that I just received as it destroys the self regulation that happens when posts are public. If there are any mods reading this, feel free to delete my posts on this page.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Some people forget that. I try to not attack.

I think you guys are doing fine. I just didn't want to see a thread in the Canada section get bogged down with the outrageous behaviour in threads like the EV Revolution in the city discussions forum.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Show me the stats for rail travel that shows the southern route was the worst one. In fact, Urban Sky posted that it was less of a deficit than the CN route. Tells me it wasn't just money. It was politics too.
Actually, it was proven that the CP route was running less of a deficit than the CN route. That points to something other than money.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

And you cannot concede that CP's route was a lower deficit and had a higher population when it was canceled.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

There was less of a deficit on the southern line.

Unfortunately, my work and parenting duties leave me little time to engage into discussions on forums like here, which makes it even more frustrating if certain posters don’t seem to even make minimum effort to read my posts and to try to understand them before using them as evidence for their shaky claims.

So just to be very clear, I have never provided any financial data concerning the situation in 1990 nor concerning the CP route. All I did is approximating the subsidy need of a certain service by extrapolating the per-train-km subsidy (of figures provided in VIA’s Annual Report 2018) of whichever VIA service is the closest equivalent of whatever theoretical service we are looking at. Therefore, the only reason why my estimated subsidy need for the Canadian operating at the same 2.5 trains per week, but over CP rather than CN, would be 2.4% less ($47.7 vs. $48.9 million) is that the distance is 2.4% less (4,360 vs. 4,466 km). However, there are too many factors determining the costs and revenues of a service to make any safe assumptions about which route would have required the lower subsidy need to operate.

Nevertheless, the decision becomes a lot easier once you consider the implications for the rest of the network: If we split up the CN-vs-CP decision at Winnipeg and look only at west of Winnipeg, the CP route is 6% shorter than the CN route, which suggests that the Canadian’s operating subsidy would have been 6% less (equivalent to an annual saving of $2 million today, if we extrapolate its operating subsidy from the $42.03 per-train-km subsidy figure of the Canadian in 2018). However, having to extend the Skeena beyond Jasper to Edmonton would have increased its mileage by 33%, which suggests that the Skeena’s operating subsidy would have been 33% higher (equivalent to an incremental annual cost of $4.6 million, if we extrapolate its operating subsidy the $39.04 per-train-km subsidy of the Winnipeg-Churchill train in 2018). Therefore, this back-of-the-envelope-calculation suggests that keeping the CP route over the CN route west of Winnipeg would have resulted in an operating subsidy which might have been 5.6% higher (representing an annual value of $2.6 million in 2018):

Note: The Skeena was operated as an overnight train until 1996, which is why the per-train-km-subsidy assumed for the Skeena is that of the Winnipeg-Churchill train (i.e. the only overnight remote service still operating) rather than the Skeena (which operates without sleepers today). Also, click here for a high-resolution version of above table.

Moving on to east of Winnipeg, the CP route is actually 2.4% longer than the CN route, which suggests that the Canadian’s operating subsidy would have been 2.4% more (equivalent to an annual subsidy increase of $0.6 million, if we extrapolate its operating subsidy from the $42.03 per-train-km subsidy figure of the Canadian in 2018). Furthermore, routing the Canadian over the CP rather than CN route would obviate the need for the Sudbury-White River service, but require instead to reinstate the Capreol-Winnipeg service, which operated between 1979 and January 1990. Unfortunately, the distance between Capreol and Winnipeg is more than 3 times longer than Sudbury – White River (1,499 vs. 484 km) and requires the use of a locomotive-hauled coach-and-sleeper consist like on the Winnipeg-Churchill train, which suggests that the per-train-km subsidy would be twice as high than the current RDC service. Extrapolating the per-train-km subsidy of the Winnipeg-Churchill train onto the Capreol-Winnipeg route would therefore result in a deficit of $18.3 million (or 5.5 times the current RDC service). Therefore, this back-of-the-envelope-calculation suggests that keeping the CP route over the CN route east of Winnipeg would have resulted in an operating subsidy which might have been a whopping 53.9% higher (representing an annual value of $15.6 million in 2018):

Note: click here for a high-resolution version of above table.
 

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

In 1991
Calgary 710,795
Edmonton 616,741

Regina 179,178
Saskatoon 186,058

Southern route 889,973
Northern Route 802,799

The northern route in just 2 of their major cities has 87,174 LESS people. This is a FACT

[…]

Population is and was higher.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Yes, a line had to be removed to save money. The one that serves more people was the one that was cut.

I will happily adjust my figures to reflect 1991 values if you provide me with a source, but when using the CA/CMA figures from the 2016 Census, the difference between the CP and the CN route is 321,963, which translates only to 2.8% and is again not significant enough to conclude that this route would create significantly more ridership:

Note: click here for a high-resolution version of above table.


Therefore, I would expect anyone who still wants to maintain the conspiracy theory (that the CN rather than the CP route was kept due to political interference rather than financial merit) to provide his answers (yes/no) to all of the following statements, so that we can at least work out where the disconnect is, while ensuring that my arguments are at least acknowledged:

1. Do we agree that the overarching policy goal of the 1990 cuts was to minimize VIA’s deficit as much as politically and legally feasible?
2. Do we agree that the length covered and the population served by the CP route is not significantly (>5%) different than for the CN route?
3. Do we agree that the operating subsidy of the Canadian alone would have most probably been very similar for the CN and the CP route?
4. Do we agree that the total subsidy need for keeping the Canadian on CP rather than CN west of Winnipeg would still have resulted in a slightly higher subsidy, due to the need to extend the Skeena to Edmonton?
5. Do we agree that the total subsidy need for keeping the Canadian on CP rather than CN east of Winnipeg would still have resulted in a significantly higher subsidy, due to the supplementary remote service on CN being much longer and costlier to operate than on CP?
6. Do we agree that the total subsidy need for keeping the Canadian on CP rather than CN (east and west of Winnipeg) would still have resulted in a significantly higher subsidy, due to the necessary expansions of the remote services mentioned above?

***

Just two little remarks to posts made by other posters:

Originally Posted by roger1818

I am not sure how maintenance is handled for the White River RDCs (do they do it locally, somehow hook it up with the Canadian or have CP ship them to Toronto).

I will refer to an answer I have provided to a similar question on Urban Toronto, with the second part (minus the reference to cars 8145-8147) being also applicable to operating the Skeena out of Edmonton without any connection to the remainder of the VIA network:

The equipment is maintained and stored overnight in Sudbury, and it would be punitively expensive to do so in Capreol, as deadheading between Capreol and Sudbury before and after every roundtrip would add more than an hour to every LE's shift (with the chance of additional delays from CN mainline traffic), which would make it much more difficult to reach White River from Capreol via Sudbury before they run out of hours. And the key word is "White River equipment", as it's a dedicated fleet with the RDCs, which are not used anywhere else in VIA's network or for that matter: anywhere else in Canada. They are therefore taken care place at the only company in Canada which has expertise in maintaining them and only need to be sent to Toronto or Montreal for major maintenance, which is still a pain as they need to be deadheaded to Capreol and shunted into or out from the Canadian...

Montreal-Jonquierre and Montreal-Senneterre, on the other hand, use a fleet which is shared with the rest of the network, except for the 3 HEP 1 cars (8145-8147) exclusively, which have been equipped with galleys (mini-kitchens, which are normally only found in Business class cars). Therefore, the locomotives and baggage cars (1 F40 and baggage car per train) are shared with the rest of the network and the fact that these trains operate out of Montreal allows to add additional coach cars or even a Skyline car onto the consist, without having to hold that fleet at wherever you want to terminate these services...

Originally Posted by roger1818

I tend to agree with you. The primary reason it was kept was because BC joined confederation with the promise of a railway and keeping passenger rail service is considered important from a "constitutional" point of view (not actually in the constitution AFAIK, but I can't think of a better word).

I remember when the Mulroney government initially proposed cancelling all passenger trains out west, BC's media was all over this aspect, and Mulroney backpedalled and kept the northern route. That is my recollection anyway.

That is correct, except that this pertained the Victoria-Courtenay route and neither of the two VIA routes linking Vancouver with the rest of the country:

After the federal government announced plans to shut down the E & N in 1989, the B.C. government sued Ottawa on constitutional grounds. [The Victoria-Courtenay service was therefore spared from the cuts in a decision made only 4 days prior to the planned cuts]

In 1991, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that the federal government had a constitutional obligation to keep rail service on Vancouver Island. Ottawa appealed the case.

In 1994, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal government does not have a constitutional responsibility to maintain the service in perpetuity.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat...6-years-of-service-in-bc/article4141951/

[Tetsuo]

LOL of course there were political reasons that came into play as to why Via chose the northern route over the southern route back in the day.

CN was a crown corp, also under the Canadian Gov, is it really surprising that at the time they decided to go with another entity under their control over dealing with the whims of a private company alone (CP)

^^^I do applaud the effort and work you put in your post, but mind you your calculations is completely based off of current subsidies per/km and adding a bunch of modern day assumptions (route extensions, train composition, schedules) while ignoring history.

Trains back then weren't run as long as there are today, for example common in the 80's VIA's super continental (CN route) would only leave Vancouver with 5 cars (+2locomotives) and double in size coupling up with The Skeena (5 cars) in Jasper.

You did point out that VIA would have to provide service to rural communities (route to Capreol), which means the route chosen was influenced by politics! The CN route happens to hit more rural/indigenous communities. Which helps justify it's subsidies/existence, in addition to the existence of The Skeena.

The southern route was a better money maker for VIA, more direct while being a much more scenic route, once VIA started to realize the tourism potential of their rail lines, private interests caused a stink and raised a fit, and acquired the Rocky Mountaineer branding and have been widely successful (Vancouver to Banff being the most profitable)

Go ask any older of your older coworkers (if there are any left from that period) about this and quit being such a drama llama "CONSPIRACIES OMG"

[swimmer_spe]

I will snip.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Unfortunately, my work and parenting duties leave me little time to engage into discussions on forums like here, which makes it even more frustrating if certain posters don’t seem to even make minimum effort to read my posts and to try to understand them before using them as evidence for their shaky claims.

1. 1) Do we agree that the overarching policy goal of the 1990 cuts was to minimize VIA’s deficit as much as politically and legally feasible?
2. 2) Do we agree that the length covered and the population served by the CP route is not significantly (>5%) different than for the CN route?
3. 3) Do we agree that the operating subsidy of the Canadian alone would have most probably been very similar for the CN and the CP route?
4. 4) Do we agree that the total subsidy need for keeping the Canadian on CP rather than CN west of Winnipeg would still have resulted in a slightly higher subsidy, due to the need to extend the Skeena to Edmonton?
5. 5) Do we agree that the total subsidy need for keeping the Canadian on CP rather than CN east of Winnipeg would still have resulted in a significantly higher subsidy, due to the supplementary remote service on CN being much longer and costlier to operate than on CP?
6. 6) Do we agree that the total subsidy need for keeping the Canadian on CP rather than CN (east and west of Winnipeg) would still have resulted in a significantly higher subsidy, due to the necessary expansions of the remote services mentioned above?

First, I get my population data from the various wikipedia articles.

1) Yes, as both are why things are done, not just financial.

2) Yes to the first, but no to the second. As stated, it is a decent sized city difference. That is not even including Thunder Bay or a proper downtown station in Sudbury.

3) No, as there would be a potential for more ridership due to the more than 80,000 extra residents just between Calgary and Winnipeg. Considering that east of Winnipeg, Thunder Bay would also be served, and it has a population of over 100,000, there is a good chance that it would be a major station.

4) I can agree that there may be a slight increase to the Skeena service subsidy due to the need for a longer trip. This however would not change the subsidy to the Canadian.

5) I can agree that the cost to move the RDC to the CN line and extend it to Winnipeg would raise the costs, however, the government might have just cancelled it, which would remove it all together. It could have gone to court, but it would have failed to be successful. So, it might have actually seen a lower overall subsidy due to the lack of the RDC run.

6) No, but I understand more about what was meant and have learned a lot.

To fully understand east of Winnipeg, think of having a train station not accessible by local transit servicing a population of over 150,000. Think of how there is a city that is over 100,000 that would be added.

The reality is, it is a pointless argument as we cannot go back in time and change what has happened.

That does not mean we cannot change the future. That is what we should discuss, as it might be a nation building prospect.

[J81]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Something I posted in another thread fits well here too.

Maybe the first thing that needs to be done is get out of the thinking that government services need to be profitable.

Are the police profitable? If they aren't, why do we keep them?

The military isn't profitable, yet we still have one.

Our roads aren't making us money, yet they still exist.

We need to move away from thinking any government service makes money. The only part that should make money is the CRA.

I dont agree with many of your points of view but this one i am 100 percent in agreement with. If someone can give me an example of a public rail system that generates a profit id love to see it. Its about moving people efficiently. Not making a profit.

[misher]

Originally Posted by J81

I dont agree with many of your points of view but this one i am 100 percent in agreement with. If someone can give me an example of a public rail system that generates a profit id love to see it. Its about moving people efficiently. Not making a profit.

There are private railways like CP Rail that were successful and competed with publicly owned CNR which itself was private until bought out by the government. Japan's rail network is private and very successful. Their public rail "JNR" did awful. Switzerland's publicly owned SBB turns a tidy profit.

They are arguing over making the rail in Britain public and the below is interesting:

Yet in Japan, the sale of JR East and its regional siblings is regarded as a triumph. The bulk of Japan’s ultra-reliable railway network operates without a single yen of public subsidy. Pricing is straightforward, and apart from consumption tax hikes, JR East has never raised fares once in 31 years as a private operator. “Of course we regard the privatisation of JR as a success,” says Shohei Ishii, deputy director-general in charge of railways at the transport ministry. “I think there’s no chance of a return to nationalisation in Japan.”

The divergent fortunes of these two systems raises an obvious question: is private ownership really the problem with Britain’s railways? If not, can nationalisation cure their ills? For every excellent public railway, such as Switzerland’s SBB, there is a shabby and decayed public equivalent, such as Amtrak in the US. Ownership, per se, has little correlation with results.

https://www.ft.com/content/9f7f044e-1f16-11e9-b2f7-97e4dbd3580d

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by J81

I dont agree with many of your points of view but this one i am 100 percent in agreement with. If someone can give me an example of a public rail system that generates a profit id love to see it. Its about moving people efficiently. Not making a profit.

So, maybe it is time for you and others who agree with this to look at what I am suggesting:
A restoration of the Chinook route.
A restoration of the southern Canadian route
Daily on all routes.

Originally Posted by misher

There are private railways like CP Rail that were successful and competed with publicly owned CNR which itself was private until bought out by the government. Japan's rail network is private and very successful. Their public rail "JNR" did awful. Switzerland's publicly owned SBB turns a tidy profit.

They are arguing over making the rail in Britain public and the below is interesting:



https://www.ft.com/content/9f7f044e-1f16-11e9-b2f7-97e4dbd3580d

CP and CN are freight carriers. None have kept any of their passenger services. One of the things that made those routes successful was they were mail carriers.

[Urban_Sky]

This post responds extensively to three different post. However, in order to make this long response easier to read, digest and quote, I will post all three responses as separate comments:

***

#1

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

LOL of course there were political reasons that came into play as to why Via chose the northern route over the southern route back in the day.
CN was a crown corp, also under the Canadian Gov, is it really surprising that at the time they decided to go with another entity under their control over dealing with the whims of a private company alone (CP)

I don’t deny that there were circumstances (such as the location of the seats of key MPs and ministers at that time or the fact that CN was still a Crown Corporation, just like VIA itself) which facilitated the political decision to keep CN rather than CP. What I call a “conspiracy theory” is the claim that the obvious choice would have been CP otherwise, because whereas there was basically no difference (<5%) between CN or CP in terms of distance covered and population served, choosing the CP route west of Winnipeg would have left the Skeena completely isolated from the rest of VIA’s network, whereas choosing the CP route east of Winnipeg would have increased the subsidy need (for serving a transcontinental service on one route and a mandatory service on the other) by approximately 50% (if we extrapolate from per-train-km-subsidy figures from the closest comparable VIA service in 2018).

^^^I do applaud the effort and work you put in your post, but mind you your calculations is completely based off of current subsidies per/km and adding a bunch of modern day assumptions (route extensions, train composition, schedules) while ignoring history.

As much as I appreciate the compliment, you seem to be only marginally better of a reader than “swimmer_spe” or did you see me claiming in at least three separate posts that my figures would show the pre-1990 Canadian’s financials? Or did you not see me pointing out to that person that these figures were always presented as an attempt to approximate what a certain design of VIA’s Western Transcontinental network would have costed today (by extrapolating the per-train-km-subsidy figures from the closest comparable VIA service in 2018)?

Trains back then weren't run as long as there are today, for example common in the 80's VIA's super continental (CN route) would only leave Vancouver with 5 cars (+2locomotives) and double in size coupling up with The Skeena (5 cars) in Jasper.

Given that the route of the CN and CP route are only insignificantly (<5%) different in length, it doesn’t matter whether the per-train-km-subsidy figure I use is two or even three time higher than what would be appropriate for a pre-1990 transcontinental trainset. If you refer to the second table of my previous post, you will see that I estimated the cost disadvantage of choosing the CP route for the transcontinental service east of Winnipeg at only $0.6 million, whereas I estimated the cost-disadvantage of leaving the CN route to be covered by a mandatory service at $15 million. So even if I had overstated the per-train-km-subsidy requirement of the transcontinental service by factor 100, the incremental cost of choosing CP over CN for the transcontinental service would still have been $15 million ($0.6M/100+$15M).

You did point out that VIA would have to provide service to rural communities (route to Capreol), which means the route chosen was influenced by politics! The CN route happens to hit more rural/indigenous communities. Which helps justify it's subsidies/existence, in addition to the existence of The Skeena.

As I explained already earlier in this post, I was only slamming the claims that political interference was the reason why the CN route was kept instead of the CP route. The laws governing which routes are mandated to be operated at the expense of the federal government didn’t change in 1990 and therefore, these mandatory routes (From east to west: (Montreal-)Matapedia-Gaspe, Montreal-Hervey-Jonquiere/Cochrane, Sudbury-White River, Winnipeg-Churchill, The Pas-Lynn Lake and Jasper-Prince Rupert) were not subject to any cuts below the mandated service levels (usually: 3 trains per week).

The southern route was a better money maker for VIA, more direct while being a much more scenic route, once VIA started to realize the tourism potential of their rail lines, private interests caused a stink and raised a fit, and acquired the Rocky Mountaineer branding and have been widely successful (Vancouver to Banff being the most profitable)

The term “money maker” normally refers to a profitable route and if the CP route had been profitable, it would have of course been kept (and probably been privatized, if we look at the fate of the only profitable business unit of that time, the “Rocky Mountains by Daylight"). However, you seem to use that term to just refer to either the absolute level of revenues or the cost-recovery rate (i.e. revenues divided by cost), but both metrics don’t play a role if your sole objective is to minimize the operating subsidy while satisfying the legal requirements for the provision of mandatory and transcontinental services.

Go ask any older of your older coworkers (if there are any left from that period) about this and quit being such a drama llama "CONSPIRACIES OMG"

You seem to forget that I’m presumably the only person in this thread who actually has access to the government report which made the analysis and recommendation based on which the federal government decided which routes (and at which frequency) to keep and which ones to cut. Therefore, I would suggest that you quit being such a drama queen which insists on theories you are unable to support with any compelling arguments…

[Urban_Sky]

***

#2

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I will snip.
First, I get my population data from the various wikipedia articles.

You would need to provide me with a link if you want me to update the CMA/CA figures to reflect 1991 rather than 2016 data…

1) Yes, as both are why things are done, not just financial.

Good to know we won’t have to discuss about this point again…

2) Yes to the first, but no to the second. As stated, it is a decent sized city difference. That is not even including Thunder Bay or a proper downtown station in Sudbury.

3) No, as there would be a potential for more ridership due to the more than 80,000 extra residents just between Calgary and Winnipeg. Considering that east of Winnipeg, Thunder Bay would also be served, and it has a population of over 100,000, there is a good chance that it would be a major station.

If we ignore any CMA/CAs west of Winnipeg, the CP route serves 136,717 people (i.e. Kenora and Thunder Bay combined) more than the CN route, which represents an increase by only 1.9%. Such a minuscule difference does not justify increasing the operating subsidy by an order-of-magnitude of 50% by rerouting a service.

Similarly, if we ignore any CMA/CAs west of Winnipeg, the CP route serves 185,246 people more than the CN route, which represents an increase by only 3.5%. Again, such a minuscule difference does not justify running a costly overnight service in complete isolation of the rest of the network (thus denying it any synergies).

4) I can agree that there may be a slight increase to the Skeena service subsidy due to the need for a longer trip. This however would not change the subsidy to the Canadian.

Nobody cares about isolated subsidy figures of individual routes, when the objective is to minimize the overall subsidy need of the entire network. When weighing the CN route against the CP route, the politicians needed to consider the incremental effects of ditching one versus ditching the other and (whether for the right reasons or “wrong” ones) they went for what was unfortunately the obvious choice, given the objective they had chosen.

5) I can agree that the cost to move the RDC to the CN line and extend it to Winnipeg would raise the costs, however, the government might have just cancelled it, which would remove it all together. It could have gone to court, but it would have failed to be successful. So, it might have actually seen a lower overall subsidy due to the lack of the RDC run.

I don’t know why a self-declared rural rail advocate would be so dismissive of providing rail service to communities without road access, but the federal government’s responsibility for providing passenger rail services to remote communities is well documented:

Historically, the federal government has recognized that it has a responsibility to ensure that remote communities have reasonable access to the national transportation system (i.e., highways and roads). The recognition of this responsibility has been demonstrated in a variety of ways: through historic governmental decisions (e.g., the creation of VIA Rail in 1977), findings from parliamentary reviews, and internal policy documents that articulate and rationalize passenger rail services. Communities are considered to be remote if they do not have access to a year-round, all weather road access link to the surface national transportation system (Internal funding document). In 1998, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport published The Renaissance of Passenger Rail in Canada report and made clear that a continued subsidy for rail service to remote communities was essential to ensure that individuals residing in those communities could access Canada’s surface transportation network.

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/corporate-services/des-reports-1506.html

Therefore, let me ask you (all questions relate to the 1990 cuts):

• Was Montreal-Gaspé eliminated or cut to less than 3 times per week?
• Was Montreal-Jonquiere eliminated or cut to less than 3 times per week?
• Was Montreal-Senneterre-Cochrane eliminated or cut to less than 3 times per week?
• Was Sudbury-White River eliminated or cut to less than 3 times per week?
• Was Winnipeg-Churchill eliminated or cut to less than 3 times per week?
• Was The Pas-Lynn Lake eliminated or cut to less than 3 times per week?
• Was Jasper-Prince Rupert eliminated or cut to less than 3 times per week?
• Was any service which could have been considered to “not have access to a year-round, all weather road access link to the surface national transportation system” eliminated or cut to less than 3 times per week?

Then why don’t you just accept that the price of routing the Canadian over CP east of Winnipeg would have been to fund a thrice-weekly overnight remote service between Winnipeg and Capreol, which would have been costly to operate, rather than making absurd claims, just to avoid admitting that you can’t defend your claims?

Also, which minister seated in Hornepayne or Sioux Lookout would have intervened to make sure that the Canadian would be routed through his home town rater than Kenora and Thunder Bay? And why would he have lobbied against the Southern route, given that the Northern communities are in the same riding as the Southern communities, with the latter accounting for the overwhelming share of votes? I hope this just shows you how absurd your claims are...

6) No, but I understand more about what was meant and have learned a lot.

If you refuse to accept my conclusions, even though you are unable to defend your own, then we will of course be never able to find agreement on this point.

To fully understand east of Winnipeg, think of having a train station not accessible by local transit servicing a population of over 150,000. Think of how there is a city that is over 100,000 that would be added.

Absolutely fascinating idea to abandon communities which have no other transportation links than the rail service you would have cut in 1990, just to increase the population served by the Canadian by a measly 1.2% (136,717 over 11,605,377)…^^

The reality is, it is a pointless argument as we cannot go back in time and change what has happened.

The reality is, it is a pointless argument as you insist on a conspiracy theory, regardless of how many times it gets debunked. If you want to discuss beliefs rather than facts, you might be happier in a religious forum…

That does not mean we cannot change the future. That is what we should discuss, as it might be a nation building prospect.

Of course we can change the future, but I’m not sure how you want to change it if you don’t even want to acknowledge the political, financial, economic and legal constraints of the past or present?

[Urban_Sky]

***

#3

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Something I posted in another thread fits well here too.

Maybe the first thing that needs to be done is get out of the thinking that government services need to be profitable.

Are the police profitable? If they aren't, why do we keep them?

The military isn't profitable, yet we still have one.

Our roads aren't making us money, yet they still exist.

We need to move away from thinking any government service makes money. The only part that should make money is the CRA.

I’m not surprised that you apparently never attended a class in Economics, but this is what you would have learnt in the second session of Economics 101:

Key Points

• Private goods are excludable and rival. Examples of private goods include food and clothes.
• Common goods are non-excludable and rival. A classic example is fish stocks in international waters.
• Club goods are excludable but non-rival. Cable television is an example.
• Public goods are non-excludable and non-rival. They include public parks and the air we breathe.

Key Terms

• Rival: A good whose consumption by one consumer prevents simultaneous consumption by other consumers
• Excludable: A good for which it is possible to prevent consumers who have not paid for it from having access to it.

Source: Lumen Learning

Is safety (achieved through law enforcement) rival (i.e. does consumption by one consumer prevent simultaneous consumption by other consumers)? No. Is the safety excludable (i.e. can consumers be prevented from accessing it if they haven't paid for it)? No. Therefore, safety provided by the Police is a public good - just like the defence provided by the military is:

National defense provides an example of a good that is non-excludable. America’s national defense establishment offers protection to everyone in the country. Items on sale in a store, on the other hand, are excludable. The store owner can prevent a customer from obtaining a good unless the customer pays for it. National defense also provides an example of a good that is non- rivalrous. One person’s protection does not prevent another person from receiving protection. In contrast, shoes are rivalrous. Only one person can wear a pair of shoes at a time.

Safety, defense and, yes, also roads are public goods and as the name suggests generally provided by the public (the government) and collectively funded through taxpayer money.

What about passenger rail services? Are they rival? Yes. Are they excludable? Yes. Therefore, they are a private good and usually provided by private actors. However, passenger rail services have some positive externalities, which are benefits (such as lower road congestion and environmental damages) enjoyed by the general public (i.e. by users and non-users alike, as opposed to being limited to users only) and this unfortunately results in an under-provision of these goods. The resulting market failure is the reason why governments subsidize passenger rail services, but it of course expects that these services provide a reasonable money-for-value, as its financial resources are limited and there are alternative means of achieving the same benefits with less subsidy need...

[J81]

Originally Posted by misher

There are private railways like CP Rail that were successful and competed with publicly owned CNR which itself was private until bought out by the government. Japan's rail network is private and very successful. Their public rail "JNR" did awful. Switzerland's publicly owned SBB turns a tidy profit.

They are arguing over making the rail in Britain public and the below is interesting:





https://www.ft.com/content/9f7f044e-1f16-11e9-b2f7-97e4dbd3580d

CP is a freight road and is a terrible example. So is Japan due to its dense population and incredibly high ridership. Put Japans population into an area the size of the QC-Windsor corridor and See how easy it is to make money.

[jawagord]

An article about the Canadian, how timely:

The Canadian, which in theory links Vancouver to Toronto. It has been shut down almost since the blockade began, and hardly anyone has noticed. It’s time we talk about this crazy thing.

What, you may ask, is the most ridiculous thing about The Canadian? Some might point to the astonishing level of subsidy: In 2018, the average corridor passenger enjoyed a subsidy of $32, or 17 cents per mile. The average passenger on The Canadian: $596, or 48 cents a mile, for a total of $49 million.

But never mind the price for a second; look what it’s buying. Fifty years ago, CN’s Super Continental was scheduled to take 67 hours. Today The Canadian, plying the same route and giving way to every freight train, is budgeted a mind-boggling 85 hours eastbound and 97 westbound.

VIA padded out the timetable in 2018 hoping to make the trip more “predictable,” after impudent passengers started complaining about being taken hostage for hours or days, thus ruining their onward travel plans. In 2017’s peak summer season, more than half of eastbound arrivals were at least eight hours late. The average westbound delay between November 2017 and March 2018 was 19 hours; the maximum was 43 hours!

The Canadian is eye-wateringly expensive. For the full one-way trip, a cabin for two will set you back $3,824, meals included. You can take a five-day mid-range Caribbean cruise for that, and that’s no coincidence: The Canadian is essentially a cruise ship on rails. It’s just that, well, Canadian taxpayers don’t subsidize cruise lines. Because that would be nuts.

At time of writing, Air Transat was offering one-way next-day tickets from Toronto to Vancouver for less than $400. With three days’ notice, Swoop will fly you from Hamilton to Abbotsford for $200. And you’ll still get there before The Canadian

Theoretically The Canadian might provide a useful link between intermediate cities like Edmonton, Saskatoon and Winnipeg — especially since there’s no bus service between the latter two cities.But it takes 13 hours overnight Mondays and Thursdays to get from Winnipeg to Saskatoon on the train, and 14 hours all day Mondays and Wednesdays to get back, and costs a minimum of $223 return — $574 if you want a berth. You can rent a car for less and drive it in eight-and-a-half hours, any time you want.

When the blockade lifts, let’s resolve to leave this stupid money-pit train parked where it is.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-s...he-first-worlds-most-dysfunctional-train

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Sorry. I'm not easily offended but don't appreciate abuse in PMs that I just received as it destroys the self regulation that happens when posts are public. If there are any mods reading this, feel free to delete my posts on this page.

Abusive PMs should be reported to the mods.

[misher]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Abusive PMs should be reported to the mods.

I agree that PMs go too far.

[milomilo]

I'm not sure there are mods. I don't mind being attacked (sometimes I deserve it!), it should just be out in the open as then everybody can see it and if you post something too outlandish it's embarrassing and hopefully restrains you.

But anyway, let's talk about trains.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

***

#3


I’m not surprised that you apparently never attended a class in Economics, but this is what you would have learnt in the second session of Economics 101:

Source: Lumen Learning

Is safety (achieved through law enforcement) rival (i.e. does consumption by one consumer prevent simultaneous consumption by other consumers)? No. Is the safety excludable (i.e. can consumers be prevented from accessing it if they haven't paid for it)? No. Therefore, safety provided by the Police is a public good - just like the defence provided by the military is:

Safety, defense and, yes, also roads are public goods and as the name suggests generally provided by the public (the government) and collectively funded through taxpayer money.

Nope, never took economics. However, we have had MPs with economic degrees and that really did no good for Canada. A degree is not the same as understanding the real world applications. For example, some of the stupidest designed things have been designed by people with an engineering degree. Before you spout crap about your degree in economics I want you to look into the connection between the ring professional engineers wear and the Quebec Bridge.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

What about passenger rail services? Are they rival? Yes. Are they excludable? Yes. Therefore, they are a private good and usually provided by private actors. However, passenger rail services have some positive externalities, which are benefits (such as lower road congestion and environmental damages) enjoyed by the general public (i.e. by users and non-users alike, as opposed to being limited to users only) and this unfortunately results in an under-provision of these goods. The resulting market failure is the reason why governments subsidize passenger rail services, but it of course expects that these services provide a reasonable money-for-value, as its financial resources are limited and there are alternative means of achieving the same benefits with less subsidy need...

Do we subsidize the air travel industry - yes.
Do we subsidize roads - yes
do we subsidize passenger service? - yes

All I am suggesting is we subsidize it more initially to get other, new services. Kinda like a new airport (Pickering) or new highways/wider highways