VIA Rail

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

By every metric, VIA is a failure. The gov't should just cut it's loses and get out and let the private sector run it with Ottawa only at arms length like the airlines. It would take the politics out of it which is what has sucked it dry in the last 40 years.

VIA has had nearly half a century to prove it's worth and it has progressively gotten worse. Trying to improve VIA at this point is just good money after bad. Let it die because whatever replaces it couldn't possibly be worse.

Ford didn't revolutionize transportation by building a better horse.

Yes, the privatized intercity bus model is something to be followed. Of course, it also progressively got worse over the years and then completely fell apart. At least VIA is still operating.

[J81]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Not only that, but VIA would be wasting energy dragging a bunch of mostly empty sleepers back and forth between Toronto and Montreal at a time of day when sleepers aren't needed. Better to move those passengers into coaches (which can carry about 4 times as many passengers per car) for daytime service.

One could argue that VIA would be better off having the Ocean's eastern terminus in Moncton and run one (or more) daylight trains a day between Moncton and Halifax. This might even make it easier to increase the frequency of the Ocean using existing equipment as they would be able to service and turn around the train in Moncton for the return trip that same day.

I dont disagree at all. But with the current times into and out of Moncton that will be impossible to flip ( if we’re talking about increasing the ocean to daily ) the train in time. Currently if you wanted daily service or 6x weekly like it was then you would need the 3rd set whether the trains terminus was Halifax or Moncton.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

By every metric, VIA is a failure.

And what metrics are those? It is easy to say those 7 words, but where is the analysis to back up the statement? I'm not saying it isn't true but unsubstantiated hand waving should be treated as FUD until proven otherwise.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The gov't should just cut it's loses and get out and let the private sector run it with Ottawa only at arms length like the airlines. It would take the politics out of it which is what has sucked it dry in the last 40 years.

That would be one option. At the same time all levels of governments should stop funding and maintaining all roads and streets and transfer full responsibility for funding and maintenance to private companies.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

VIA has had nearly half a century to prove it's worth and it has progressively gotten worse. Trying to improve VIA at this point is just good money after bad. Let it die because whatever replaces it couldn't possibly be worse.

Lack of funding and micromanaging tends to result in deteriorating performance. Significant changes are certainly required for VIA Rail to succeed, but I don't see how adding a layer of skimming money off to make a private company profitable will help.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Ford didn't revolutionize transportation by building a better horse.

Ford did not invent the automobile. He refined the manufacturing process to make it affordable. That is like saying Sir John A. MacDonald built Canada by inventing the steam train.

[Urban_Sky]

Just a quick reminder that a troll always wins if he manages to steal more time from everyone else than he expends into his own posts. Considering that he applies minimal changes between any two subsequent posts of himself and consequently abstains from any discussions his posts provokes, he’s clearly won once again…

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Just a quick reminder that a troll always wins if he manages to steal more time from everyone else than he expends into his own posts. Considering that he applies minimal changes between any two subsequent posts of himsef and consequently abstains from any discussions his posts provokes, he’s clearly won once again…

Yep. And it's all based on ugly resentment that the Corridor has service and Vancouver doesn't. Instead of advocating for service where he lives, he wants a way to destroy services elsewhere.

[MolsonExport]

Given the scant support VIA gets, the inadequate resources it has (rolling stock, trackage, stations, etc.), and the constraints it has to deal with (always subordinate to the freight trains, among many other things), I think it is nearly a miracle that VIA is able to function at all. It could and should be much better, but there is no possible way it can do it on its own. VIA is also coerced to providing service in places that will never come close to paying their way (who the fuck goes to Senneterre?). The mandate it is given is supremely flawed. Intercity travel is the best possible focus for VIA, and it should concentrate its activity into those corridors where intercity traffic is high enough to warrant passenger rail service. This means focusing on the Windsor-QC corridor and the Edmonton-Calgary corridor. It could partner with Provincial governments to operate feeder lines, or to offer service between more distant cities (like Vancouver, Winnipeg, Halifax, etc., which are just too far away from other big Canadian cities like Calgary and Edmonton, to compete with airlines) and more sparsely populated regions (e.g., Northern Ontario)

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yep. And it's all based on ugly resentment that the Corridor has service and Vancouver doesn't. Instead of advocating for service where he lives, he wants a way to destroy services elsewhere.

I have advocated (at least on here) for better service outside the Corridor and always get shot down over it. I don't mind being told the challenges to bringing better service to where I feel it should be, but I have learned that doing so is a waste of time. So, maybe instead of shooting down ideas, we work together to come up with answers to how to improve things.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Given the scant support VIA gets, the inadequate resources it has (rolling stock, trackage, stations, etc.), and the constraints it has to deal with (always subordinate to the freight trains, among many other things), I think it is nearly a miracle that VIA is able to function at all. It could and should be much better, but there is no possible way it can do it on its own. VIA is also coerced to providing service in places that will never come close to paying their way (who the fuck goes to Senneterre?). The mandate it is given is supremely flawed. Intercity travel is the best possible focus for VIA, and it should concentrate its activity into those corridors where intercity traffic is high enough to warrant passenger rail service. This means focusing on the Windsor-QC corridor and the Edmonton-Calgary corridor. It could partner with Provincial governments to operate feeder lines, or to offer service between more distant cities (like Vancouver, Winnipeg, Halifax, etc., which are just too far away from other big Canadian cities like Calgary and Edmonton, to compete with airlines) and more sparsely populated regions (e.g., Northern Ontario)

Everyone thinks that Via cannot improve because the freight carriers dictate the lines that Via runs on. Nope. The federal government regulates all rail lines in Canada. They could make regulations that favour passenger service. However, it is unpalatable to do so,so they don't.
Imagine what would happen if the federal government put into a regulation that passenger trains have priority and all freight must yield to them.
Imagine if the regulation also stated that Via has the right to run passenger service on any rail line they see fit to.
Those 2 regulations would be enough to fix most of the problems with the existing service and to then be able to add the service that is needed elsewhere.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Yes, the privatized intercity bus model is something to be followed. Of course, it also progressively got worse over the years and then completely fell apart. At least VIA is still operating.

I believe privatized bus services can work very well. The problem we had in Canada is that most, if not all provinces provided a monopoly system that allowed certain companies to enjoy exclusivity on routes - for example, Greyhound Canada was the only company permitted to provide buses between London and Toronto, while Coach Canada had the exclusive rights for the Toronto-Kingston-Montreal route. This type of system meant that these companies had no incentive to provide quality service above the bare minimum.

If I'm not mistaken, Alberta did permit multiple companies to provide service between Edmonton and Calgary, which meant both Greyhound and Red Arrow were available. And of course, Ontario has public competitors in GO Transit and Ontario Northland that ran on the same routes as some Greyhound routes.

I remember when I travelled through Mexico on various occasions that they had a deregulated intercity bus system, and bus stations would have multiple companies offering services. The customer service was significantly better than Greyhound in both Canada and the US, and the buses were far more comfortable - for a fraction of the cost of either VIA Rail or Greyhound at the time. (Passenger rail is not a competitor in that country, as it was discontinued in 1997.)

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I believe privatized bus services can work very well. The problem we had in Canada is that most, if not all provinces provided a monopoly system that allowed certain companies to enjoy exclusivity on routes - for example, Greyhound Canada was the only company permitted to provide buses between London and Toronto, while Coach Canada had the exclusive rights for the Toronto-Kingston-Montreal route. This type of system meant that these companies had no incentive to provide quality service above the bare minimum.

If I'm not mistaken, Alberta did permit multiple companies to provide service between Edmonton and Calgary, which meant both Greyhound and Red Arrow were available. And of course, Ontario has public competitors in GO Transit and Ontario Northland that ran on the same routes as some Greyhound routes.

I remember when I travelled through Mexico on various occasions that they had a deregulated intercity bus system, and bus stations would have multiple companies offering services. The customer service was significantly better than Greyhound in both Canada and the US, and the buses were far more comfortable - for a fraction of the cost of either VIA Rail or Greyhound at the time. (Passenger rail is not a competitor in that country, as it was discontinued in 1997.)

We did have a private bus for most of Canada and they are now gone.....

Tell me again how privatization is a good idea.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

We did have a private bus for most of Canada and they are now gone.....

Tell me again how privatization is a good idea.

As I explained, private buses in Canada didn't work because of government monopolies. A lot of people were not aware that Greyhound had exclusivity on most of its routes in Canada, and this was a disincentive for them to improve their services. People think that "another competitor would've moved in if it was profitable", but they legally couldn't. In Ontario there were companies that tried and Greyhound always exercised their veto rights to prevent competition. Greyhound Canada was doomed to fail because of their government-guaranteed monopolies - they could get away with very poor service, they met their obligations with the provincial governments but passengers found every way possible to avoid them.

As I also explained, private buses can work in jurisdictions where there is deregulation and competition is allowed.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

As I explained, private buses in Canada didn't work because of government monopolies. A lot of people were not aware that Greyhound had exclusivity on most of its routes in Canada, and this was a disincentive for them to improve their services. People think that "another competitor would've moved in if it was profitable", but they legally couldn't. There were companies that tried and Greyhound always exercised their veto rights. Greyhound Canada was doomed to fail because of their government-guaranteed monopolies.

As I also explained, private buses can work in jurisdictions where there is deregulation and competition is allowed.

So, we should let Via be privatized? Since we have seen what happens when private buses operate.

[acottawa]

Privatization can mean 3 entirely different things when it comes to rail transport. It would be helpful if advocates of privatization said what they wanted.

1) A private company operates a service, assumes all costs, risks and profits. This is extremely rare in the rail transportation business. There are only a handful of such services, very few are profitable except for a few tourism type services.
2) The government puts route up for auction, companies bid on the lowest subsidy (train services operated like this in the UK for many years).
3) A government operator contracts a private company to provide a specific service. GO Transit operated this way for many years.

I am not convinced Via is doing a particularly efficient job operating services in house (the massive staff required to administer super complicated boarding procedures is an example of this), so maybe another model should be considered.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Privatization can mean 3 entirely different things when it comes to rail transport. It would be helpful if advocates of privatization said what they wanted.

1) A private company operates a service, assumes all costs, risks and profits. This is extremely rare in the rail transportation business. There are only a handful of such services, very few are profitable except for a few tourism type services.
2) The government puts route up for auction, companies bid on the lowest subsidy (train services operated like this in the UK for many years).
3) A government operator contracts a private company to provide a specific service. GO Transit operated this way for many years.

I am not convinced Via is doing a particularly efficient job operating services in house (the massive staff required to administer super complicated boarding procedures is an example of this), so maybe another model should be considered.

Just to highlight the crucial difference between the three models:

1) Un-regulated service levels, revenue risk assumed by railroad. (example: Rocky Mountaineer)
2) Regulated service levels, revenue risk assumed by railroad. (example: most franchises in the UK pre-Covid)
3) Regulated service levels, revenue risk assumed by the government. (example: Public Service Obligations for regional services in Germany and other European countries)

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Privatization can mean 3 entirely different things when it comes to rail transport. It would be helpful if advocates of privatization said what they wanted.

1) A private company operates a service, assumes all costs, risks and profits. This is extremely rare in the rail transportation business. There are only a handful of such services, very few are profitable except for a few tourism type services.
2) The government puts route up for auction, companies bid on the lowest subsidy (train services operated like this in the UK for many years).
3) A government operator contracts a private company to provide a specific service. GO Transit operated this way for many years.

I am not convinced Via is doing a particularly efficient job operating services in house (the massive staff required to administer super complicated boarding procedures is an example of this), so maybe another model should be considered.

1) That would be the Rocky Mountaineer model.

2) That sounds like Highway 407.

3) That sounds like Translink.

The real problem via faces is one most government agencies and ministries face - a bloated management sector. Imagine that the government cut half the non service level personnel. Imagine how much money would be saved. I wonder if they would even be missed.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The real problem via faces is one most government agencies and ministries face - a bloated management sector. Imagine that the government cut half the non service level personnel. Imagine how much money would be saved. I wonder if they would even be missed.

I don’t know how bloated Via’s management is. The bloat most riders see is front line personnel (in comparison to nearly every train service).

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don’t know how bloated Via’s management is. The bloat most riders see is front line personnel (in comparison to nearly every train service).

I'd bet they have at least 1 manager for every train that runs per week. And then you have upper managers, and more. It would be nice to see the breakdown of the employees of Via.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Given the scant support VIA gets, the inadequate resources it has (rolling stock, trackage, stations, etc.), and the constraints it has to deal with (always subordinate to the freight trains, among many other things), I think it is nearly a miracle that VIA is able to function at all. It could and should be much better, but there is no possible way it can do it on its own. VIA is also coerced to providing service in places that will never come close to paying their way. The mandate it is given is supremely flawed. Intercity travel is the best possible focus for VIA, and it should concentrate its activity into those corridors where intercity traffic is high enough to warrant passenger rail service. This means focusing on the Windsor-QC corridor and the Edmonton-Calgary corridor. It could partner with Provincial governments to operate feeder lines

Exactly!!!

Contrary to what urban_sky may think, I don't blame VIA for it's lousy frequencies and abysmal on-time performance, having to wait for freight traffic in a country that moves more goods by freight than all of Western Europe combined, highly unreliable service due to owning none of the track they provide service on, nor having to serve Churchill at the expense of serving Calgary due having to negotiate political influence and being used by the party in Ottawa as a strategic vote buying machine.

This is the task VIA was asked to do and it's an impossible one. Whether one thinks train service is a essential one or not doesn't make any difference, the VIA model will never work no matter how much money Ottawa throws at it.

An effective train service must have all political considerations taken out of it and that will be impossible for VIA because it's a crown corporation....you can never take the government out of a government agency.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Exactly!!!

Contrary to what urban_sky may think, I don't blame VIA for it's lousy frequencies and abysmal on-time performance, having to wait for freight traffic in a country that moves more goods by freight than all of Western Europe combined, highly unreliable service due to owning none of the track they provide service on, nor having to serve Churchill at the expense of serving Calgary due having to negotiate political influence and being used by the party in Ottawa as a strategic vote buying machine.

This is the task VIA was asked to do and it's an impossible one. Whether one thinks train service is a essential one or not doesn't make any difference, the VIA model will never work no matter how much money Ottawa throws at it.

An effective train service must have all political considerations taken out of it and that will be impossible for VIA because it's a crown corporation....you can never take the government out of a government agency.

If they could take a model from Canada Post, another Canadian Crown Corporation that serves everywhere in Canada, they could be better than they are now.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Exactly!!!

Contrary to what urban_sky may think, I don't blame VIA for it's lousy frequencies and abysmal on-time performance, having to wait for freight traffic in a country that moves more goods by freight than all of Western Europe combined, highly unreliable service due to owning none of the track they provide service on, nor having to serve Churchill at the expense of serving Calgary due having to negotiate political influence and being used by the party in Ottawa as a strategic vote buying machine.

This is the task VIA was asked to do and it's an impossible one. Whether one thinks train service is a essential one or not doesn't make any difference, the VIA model will never work no matter how much money Ottawa throws at it.

An effective train service must have all political considerations taken out of it and that will be impossible for VIA because it's a crown corporation....you can never take the government out of a government agency.

Nearly every passenger train service on earth is operated by governments or dependent on subsidies from government. There is no such thing as apolitical passenger rail (certainly not in Canada). If you don’t think passenger rail should exist in Canada then just say so. If you think think the government should do things differently then say what you think should happen.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

As I explained, private buses in Canada didn't work because of government monopolies.

If they didn't work with monopolies, I struggle to see how they would work with more competition. Bus service in Canada primarily gets its competition from driving. Not other bus services.

It was better in Mexico because Mexico has more demand. Simple as that. Fewer private vehicles. More of the population is sensitive to fuel prices. Etc.