VIA Rail

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I don't.

Read my whole thing. Read it again. I do think there should be buses serving lower ridership areas.

So that would be virtually the entire country outside of Eastern Canada, cities and Edmonton - Calgary.

The existence of the Canadian is irrelevant. Even along that route, the residents would be better served by buses that could potentially come every few hours, rather than a train that comes every 2 days if you are lucky. And could very likely be delayed by many hours.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You are not for a subsidy, unless it is for buses, roads and airports. But not trains.... which you work for.....

He's being very sensible with his support for reducing VIA's reliance on government subsidy and increasing ridership of politically important demographics. The more VIA can fund itself, the less they have to go cap in hand to the government, and the less risk they have of having their funding cut. And the more people that ride those trains and like them, the more vocal the opposition to cutting service.

The way you get those large increases in ridership and revenue is on the sorts of routes where you can transport thousands of people an hour, not a handful of people a day.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by milomilo

So that would be virtually the entire country outside of Eastern Canada, cities and Edmonton - Calgary.

The existence of the Canadian is irrelevant. Even along that route, the residents would be better served by buses that could potentially come every few hours, rather than a train that comes every 2 days if you are lucky. And could very likely be delayed by many hours.

The Canadian's purpose is not transport Canadians. At least not in any practical way.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The Canadian's purpose is not transport Canadians. At least not in any practical way.

Agreed. Its existence makes the discussion on how best to provide public transit in the west more difficult. If it didn't exist, you would never say that a service that comes every two days, is really expensive to run, is usually late and can only serve a very limited route, is a good public transit solution.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I haven't ever seen any convincing case for the effectiveness of the US rail safety strategy of building trains like tanks. What difference does it make if a European DMU hits a 2km long CP freight train or a 400m Deutsche Bahn freight train head on? The end result is going to be similar, there's no way you can engineer any train to safely withstand thousands of tonnes travelling at 100+km/h. In Europe they use the amazing strategy of not having an atrocious safety record and not having the trains crash in the first place, which seems to work much better.

There is a significant difference. The mass of the "400m Deutsche Bahn freight train" will likely be within an order of magnitude of the DMU. As a result, you will see a significant reduction in speed of the freight train, meaning that all you have to worry about is surviving the rapid deceleration resulting from the crash. For this type of collision, crumple zones work well.

The mass of the "2km long CP freight train" will be significantly higher than the mass of any passenger train (likely more than 2 orders of magnitude (for those who don't know, an order of magnitude is a power of 10, 1 order of magnitude is 10 times, 2 orders of magnitude is 100 times, etc)). That type of collision is analogous to a bug on a windshield and the freight train will barely slow down. As a result, after the initial collision, the freight train is still moving with significant speed and it will push the passenger train out of the way. To survive that kind of collision, you need a ridged frame that will keep the passenger compartment intact until the freight train eventually comes to a stop. That makes the train significantly heavier.

The increased mass is a consequence of the design, not a desired effect. The use of lighter, high strength materials (like aluminum) can make the train lighter and still be just as safe, since the passenger train will always be significantly lighter than mainline freight trains.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Read this if you're interested, I'm heading out and haven't read it fully, but should give some insight:

Reducing Passenger Train Procurement Costs
The FRA’s Outmoded Safety Regulations Should Be Repealed

I have seen similar arguments. The problem is they completely ignore the differences in types of freight trains that exist in North America compared to Europe.

And the FRA did change the rules! So if you think the rules are good, the FRA says you are wrong.

You have to understand that the change in rules didn't actually change anything. The new rules don't allow the use of European DMUs everywhere and anywhere, but instead put strict conditions on when and where they can be used. Before these new rules came into effect, it was still possible to use European DMUs, but the rail operator needed to apply for an exemption and since the FRA hadn't made it clear when and where an exemption would be granted, this was considered a risk. As a result, some rail operators went with conventional trains to avoid that risk. These new rules make it clear where the FRA will allow European DMUs and where it won't.

TC does allow European DMUs, you just need to apply for an exemption (like the City of Ottawa did for its Trillium Line). They could publish rules similar to the FRA's, but there hasn't been much interest in using European DMUs here in Canada, so it hasn't been worth the effort. If that changes, we may see a similar policy here.

The advantage of not having a preset policy is that safety is relative and there are many different factors that contribute. With an exception process, if you can provide a convincing argument that your operation will be safe, it will be approved even if it wouldn't have met the letter of the law of a set policy.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I saw that. But my question remains unanswered. Where does Toronto -Montreal lie?

The real numbers are likely not publicly available, but if you consider it is about a 5 hour train ride, the chart shows that it should be about a 25% rail-air market %.

See, I am a reasonable freak. I know there is no good reason to spend trillions on something when it is not needed. Billions, maybe....

Where "it is not needed?" As a tax payer, I would want the government to not spend any money anywhere it is unnecessary to spend it.

If we are building it on a new ROW, Fredericton and Moncton would be good intermediarys.

The big problem with a Montreal-Halifax HSR would be the routing. Since both the Bay of Fundy and the State of Maine are in the way, the route jumps from about 800km by air to over 1200km by land. That means, regardless of everything else, the train needs to be 50% faster than normal to be equally competitive to air (as others have said, HFR primarily competes with cars, HSR primarily competes with airplanes)

Between Toronto-Winnipeg, Sudbury, SSM, and Thunder Bay would make sense.

I knew you would say that. The thing is, have a look at their CMA populations:

• Sudbury 164,689
• SSM 78,159
• Thunder Bay 121,621

Hardly what I would call large metropolises that would significantly influence ridership.

Saskatoon and Regina also make sense.

They are a bit better, but still small:

• Saskatoon 295,095
• Regina 236,481

Kelowna or Kamloops as well as Abbotsford make sense too.

First of all Abbotsford (my home town) is an exurb of Vancouver (only about 70km away) so it is too close for HSR to be of any benefit.

As for Kelowna and Kamloops, they are not in line with each other, so you would have to pick one (I think you tried to imply that by your use of "or" but I wanted to make that clear).

The biggest problem is the mountains. HSR needs straight, reasonably level track. Curves require the train to slow down, as do steep grades. It isn't impossible to resolve but it is extraordinarily expensive (you would need to tunnel most of the way).

However, I also know that the reality is, we are going to build it between the largest cities first. That does mean Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal.

And the best way to get to HSR there is stepping stones. Lets get dedicated tracks with trains that can run at the higher end of conventional speeds.

The second corridor would be Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton. A similar approach should be taken, but there are additional challenges, since they don't have an existing service to build off of and there aren't other large population bases nearby that can help feed the line (like Quebec City and London).

So, that dirt road that has a level crossing, putting a barrier to prevent people crossing would not work? Would it also not be economically viable? For that matter, dump a couple of dump truck loads of dirt and be done with it.

If you do that, how do people cross the track? There are cases where they could detour to an alternate crossing, but that isn't always feasible.

But yet you are against putting daily rail out there?
See this is where you loose me. I start respecting you and your information, and then you seem to almost argue against exactly what you are for.

You are not for a subsidy, unless it is for buses, roads and airports. But not trains.... which you work for.....

He argues for the mode of travel that makes the most economic sense. Towns that have no roads to connect them to the rest of the country rely on rail service. Everywhere else, a decision needs to be made as to which mode of travel makes the most sense both economically and environmentally.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

So that would be virtually the entire country outside of Eastern Canada, cities and Edmonton - Calgary.

The existence of the Canadian is irrelevant. Even along that route, the residents would be better served by buses that could potentially come every few hours, rather than a train that comes every 2 days if you are lucky. And could very likely be delayed by many hours.

First, let's connect all major cities. Then, let's connect buses to those cities. Anywhere they follow the train is a good spot to work the schedules so that those that wish to take the train the last leg can. Where it doesn't, then it doesn't matter. So, if every 2 days a train stops at noon somewhere, and a bus goes there too, it should be there at noon to meet the train.

Originally Posted by milomilo

He's being very sensible with his support for reducing VIA's reliance on government subsidy and increasing ridership of politically important demographics. The more VIA can fund itself, the less they have to go cap in hand to the government, and the less risk they have of having their funding cut. And the more people that ride those trains and like them, the more vocal the opposition to cutting service.

The way you get those large increases in ridership and revenue is on the sorts of routes where you can transport thousands of people an hour, not a handful of people a day.

Can we start reducing road reliance on subsidies? I do agree that we should not just throw money at something, but all transportation is subsidized. The gas tax does not cover the cost of the road maintenance and construction.

So, let's get off the "reliance on subsidy" stupidity, and instead, make them as low as is reasonable. So, how can we make existing routes rely on less of a subsidy? Where could we add more routes that will be no worse than any other existing route? If we do that, we would have better service, and might even be able to get them improved to the point that it is as good as the Corridor is, if not better.

Originally Posted by Acajack

The Canadian's purpose is not transport Canadians. At least not in any practical way.

And, that is part of the problem. That is why cutting it up and improving those sections would be good. You cannot take the same train from Windsor to QC, so why should Vancouver to Toronto be any different? Maybe the Edmonton - Winnipeg section could be run every day, whereas the rest stays at 2-3x a week. I was already shown that Vancouver-Edmonton is run 3x a week where the rest is only 2x a week in the winter.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Agreed. Its existence makes the discussion on how best to provide public transit in the west more difficult. If it didn't exist, you would never say that a service that comes every two days, is really expensive to run, is usually late and can only serve a very limited route, is a good public transit solution.

So, why not fix the issues instead of get rid of it?

[Truenorth00]

It's pretty damn easy to see where to invest. Take Urban_Sky's air/rail marketshare graph and then look at the level of traffic between potential city pairs in the <4 hr range and you get a sense of how much return a rail investment would have. I daresay, it's really looking like the first round has to be exclusively reserved for corridors with > 3 million in population.

Take a city pair like Sasktoon-Regina or Moncton-Halifax. How many flights a day are there that you could steal highly lucrative business travellers from? How much road traffic is there that you could displace? And most importantly how much does it end up costing if there isn't a corridor you can commandeer? If it's costing us $4 billion to get non-electrified non-grade separated single track on an old corridor between Toronto and Ottawa, just imagine what it would cost in places with no corridor. And those places also come with at least one order of magnitude less traffic too. A simple metric here is capital $/forecast pax. I suspect looking at like this well cull the number of proposals very quickly.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The real numbers are likely not publicly available, but if you consider it is about a 5 hour train ride, the chart shows that it should be about a 25% rail-air market %.

Those are good numbers. I'll be seeing if that is the case. I don't like those wiggle words (would, could, should, might, etc) I like firm things, like: are, can, will, does, etc. Then there is no argument, as it is a fact.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Where "it is not needed?" As a tax payer, I would want the government to not spend any money anywhere it is unnecessary to spend it.

Which is why we will never see it across the country. Between Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal makes sense. Any more than that would need to be provincially funded, but as we can see, all provinces are broke.

Originally Posted by roger1818

The big problem with a Montreal-Halifax HSR would be the routing. Since both the Bay of Fundy and the State of Maine are in the way, the route jumps from about 800km by air to over 1200km by land. That means, regardless of everything else, the train needs to be 50% faster than normal to be equally competitive to air (as others have said, HFR primarily competes with cars, HSR primarily competes with airplanes)

Yes, and that is why it won't happen. Mind you, 1200km at 300 km/hr is 4 hours, which isn't that bad. A flight is about 1.5-2 hrs.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I knew you would say that. The thing is, have a look at their CMA populations:

• Sudbury 164,689
• SSM 78,159
• Thunder Bay 121,621

Hardly what I would call large metropolises that would significantly influence ridership.

I merely put them there as they are the 3 largest cities between Barrie and Winnipeg. They are also a decent distance from each other that traveling between them would improve, which may cause them to grow.

Originally Posted by roger1818

They are a bit better, but still small:

• Saskatoon 295,095
• Regina 236,481

One is a provincial capital.

Originally Posted by roger1818

First of all Abbotsford (my home town) is an exurb of Vancouver (only about 70km away) so it is too close for HSR to be of any benefit.

As for Kelowna and Kamloops, they are not in line with each other, so you would have to pick one (I think you tried to imply that by your use of "or" but I wanted to make that clear).

The biggest problem is the mountains. HSR needs straight, reasonably level track. Curves require the train to slow down, as do steep grades. It isn't impossible to resolve but it is extraordinarily expensive (you would need to tunnel most of the way).

I did mean one or the other, depending on alignment. You might even be able to connect them both as tunnels through the mountains would be the only way to do it. Look around the world and that is how it is done. Mind you, yes, it would be expensive. Remember, I did say Trillions. I am not naive to the costs.

There is a plan to connect Kitchener to Toronto with a HSR. It is just over 100km. I would expect if there are any major cities about 100km away, they would get a station. Chilliwack is about that distance, so maybe moving it there.

However, I am someone who knows that none of this will happen.

Originally Posted by roger1818

And the best way to get to HSR there is stepping stones. Lets get dedicated tracks with trains that can run at the higher end of conventional speeds.

The second corridor would be Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton. A similar approach should be taken, but there are additional challenges, since they don't have an existing service to build off of and there aren't other large population bases nearby that can help feed the line (like Quebec City and London).

You really need to get out more.

Look at highways that used to be 2 lanes and were twinned. There are many sections that had to be bypassed due to the twisted nature o the road. The HFR corridor is twisted enough that get to an average speed of HSR (300km/hr or higher) would be more of a challenge.

Originally Posted by roger1818

If you do that, how do people cross the track? There are cases where they could detour to an alternate crossing, but that isn't always feasible.

I know. But that is what I am getting at. The cases that could be detour, do that. It might be enough on it's own.

Originally Posted by roger1818

He argues for the mode of travel that makes the most economic sense. Towns that have no roads to connect them to the rest of the country rely on rail service. Everywhere else, a decision needs to be made as to which mode of travel makes the most sense both economically and environmentally.

Which does not really show. Get rid of all the government money to the small airports, then service them with a reliable, regular train, and the next thing you would know, it would be well used, which would make them economically and environmentally smart.

Pearson is getting close to a crunch and there are groups of people trying to get the government to pay for a new airport in Pickering. If they got rid of the planes coming from places that fly in those little turbo prop planes, then Pearson would be fine.

"but how would those places get to the airport?!?" Well, most of those places are served by rail lines. have regular, reliable passenger service, and have a Union West station that people can still use to get to the airport.... Oh, wait, that has been suggested.

This is not as simple as a subsidy or not.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's pretty damn easy to see where to invest. Take Urban_Sky's air/rail marketshare graph and then look at the level of traffic between potential city pairs in the <4 hr range and you get a sense of how much return a rail investment would have. I daresay, it's really looking like the first round has to be exclusively reserved for corridors with > 3 million in population.

Take a city pair like Sasktoon-Regina or Moncton-Halifax. How many flights a day are there that you could steal highly lucrative business travellers from? How much road traffic is there that you could displace? And most importantly how much does it end up costing if there isn't a corridor you can commandeer? If it's costing us $4 billion to get non-electrified non-grade separated single track on an old corridor between Toronto and Ottawa, just imagine what it would cost in places with no corridor. And those places also come with at least one order of magnitude less traffic too. A simple metric here is capital $/forecast pax. I suspect looking at like this well cull the number of proposals very quickly.

I am doing this exact thing. I am working on it with others. Want to join us?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

And, that is part of the problem. That is why cutting it up and improving those sections would be good. You cannot take the same train from Windsor to QC, so why should Vancouver to Toronto be any different? Maybe the Edmonton - Winnipeg section could be run every day, whereas the rest stays at 2-3x a week. I was already shown that Vancouver-Edmonton is run 3x a week where the rest is only 2x a week in the winter.

What's the point of running additional Winnipeg-Edmonton frequencies when the best that VIA can do right now is almost 24 hours between the city pair?

If you're willing to minimize your stops you could literally drive to Edmonton and back (approximately 12 hour drive) in the time it takes VIA just to get from Winnipeg to Edmonton.

I don't remember exactly what the schedule was in the early 2000s when I rode the Winnipeg-Edmonton route, but to the best of my recollection the train left Winnipeg at 18:00 or 18:30, and arrived in Edmonton at something like 07:00. It was a convenient 14 or so hour overnight trip... not an entire 24 hour period on the train. An air traveller could leave Winnipeg and make it to Singapore before the VIA train leaving at the same time makes it to Edmonton.

I guess that's why we're seeing what we're seeing... wealthy foreign tourists who aren't in a rush riding the sleeping cars, people who have absolutely no other alternative riding the coaches.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by esquire

What's the point of running additional Winnipeg-Edmonton frequencies when the best that VIA can do right now is almost 24 hours between the city pair?

If you're willing to minimize your stops you could literally drive to Edmonton and back (approximately 12 hour drive) in the time it takes VIA just to get from Winnipeg to Edmonton.

I don't remember exactly what the schedule was in the early 2000s when I rode the Winnipeg-Edmonton route, but to the best of my recollection the train left Winnipeg at 18:00 or 18:30, and arrived in Edmonton at something like 07:00. It was a convenient 14 or so hour overnight trip... not an entire 24 hour period on the train. An air traveller could leave Winnipeg and make it to Singapore before the VIA train leaving at the same time makes it to Edmonton.

I guess that's why we're seeing what we're seeing... wealthy foreign tourists who aren't in a rush riding the sleeping cars, people who have absolutely no other alternative riding the coaches.

So, why was the train able to do it much faster before. We need to look into it.

[Curmudgeon]

^^^ Amtrak's daily Empire Builder service takes roughly 13 1/2 hours to travel from Grand Forks, N.D. to Shelby, Mont., a distance similar to that of Winnipeg to Edmonton. The entire route achieves 65% of operating cost from fare revenue despite the fares being significantly lower than those for the Canadian.

I last took the Canadian to Vancouver in 2014. I believe it left Winnipeg around 4:00 p.m. and arrived in Edmonton around 9:00 a.m., which is 18 hours including the time change, so it's now running over 6 hours slower.

Canada doesn't do passenger rail well, even in the densely populated corridor. I've used both VIA and Amtrak extensively and Amtrak is better in every respect especially with on-time performance.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by roger1818

There is a significant difference. The mass of the "400m Deutsche Bahn freight train" will likely be within an order of magnitude of the DMU. As a result, you will see a significant reduction in speed of the freight train, meaning that all you have to worry about is surviving the rapid deceleration resulting from the crash. For this type of collision, crumple zones work well.

The mass of the "2km long CP freight train" will be significantly higher than the mass of any passenger train (likely more than 2 orders of magnitude (for those who don't know, an order of magnitude is a power of 10, 1 order of magnitude is 10 times, 2 orders of magnitude is 100 times, etc)). That type of collision is analogous to a bug on a windshield and the freight train will barely slow down. As a result, after the initial collision, the freight train is still moving with significant speed and it will push the passenger train out of the way. To survive that kind of collision, you need a ridged frame that will keep the passenger compartment intact until the freight train eventually comes to a stop. That makes the train significantly heavier.

The absolute difference doesn't matter, because whether you are in a European train or an American train, if you collide with a 2km freight train head on the front part of the train is completely dead. No amount of crumple zone can save that, and indeed from what I have read the European trains rely more on distributed crumple zones than American trains. I have yet to see any argument for the American crash standards being safer than European ones even in a crash with an American freight train, before you even factor in the controversial European idea of not crashing in the first place.

Originally Posted by roger1818

The increased mass is a consequence of the design, not a desired effect. The use of lighter, high strength materials (like aluminum) can make the train lighter and still be just as safe, since the passenger train will always be significantly lighter than mainline freight trains.

I have seen similar arguments. The problem is they completely ignore the differences in types of freight trains that exist in North America compared to Europe.

And as I point out, that difference in freight train weight is irreverent. If there is any actual academic study showing the FRA standards being safer, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Originally Posted by roger1818

You have to understand that the change in rules didn't actually change anything. The new rules don't allow the use of European DMUs everywhere and anywhere, but instead put strict conditions on when and where they can be used. Before these new rules came into effect, it was still possible to use European DMUs, but the rail operator needed to apply for an exemption and since the FRA hadn't made it clear when and where an exemption would be granted, this was considered a risk. As a result, some rail operators went with conventional trains to avoid that risk. These new rules make it clear where the FRA will allow European DMUs and where it won't.

TC does allow European DMUs, you just need to apply for an exemption (like the City of Ottawa did for its Trillium Line). They could publish rules similar to the FRA's, but there hasn't been much interest in using European DMUs here in Canada, so it hasn't been worth the effort. If that changes, we may see a similar policy here.

The advantage of not having a preset policy is that safety is relative and there are many different factors that contribute. With an exception process, if you can provide a convincing argument that your operation will be safe, it will be approved even if it wouldn't have met the letter of the law of a set policy.

Indeed, the actual rule changes were less drastic than was the initial headlines implied. If there are rules though that more easily allow the use of proper passenger trains though, that is a good thing.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The absolute difference doesn't matter,

Agreed, it is the scale of the relative difference. That is why I said:

Originally Posted by roger1818

The increased mass is a consequence of the design, not a desired effect. The use of lighter, high strength materials (like aluminum) can make the train lighter and still be just as safe, since the passenger train will always be significantly lighter than mainline freight trains.

Originally Posted by milomilo

because whether you are in a European train or an American train, if you collide with a 2km freight train head on the front part of the train is completely dead. No amount of crumple zone can save that, and indeed from what I have read the European trains rely more on distributed crumple zones than American trains.

I disagree with the dead part, but I agree with the part in bold. That is why I said North American trains don't rely on crumple zones, but instead:

Originally Posted by roger1818

To survive that kind of collision, you need a ridged frame that will keep the passenger compartment intact until the freight train eventually comes to a stop.

ridged frame ≠crumple zone

In fact they are completely opposite.

Originally Posted by milomilo

I have yet to see any argument for the American crash standards being safer than European ones even in a crash with an American freight train,

Maybe that's because you don't actually read the opposing arguments?

before you even factor in the controversial European idea of not crashing in the first place.

That is what Positive train control (PTC) is all about. The FRA has totally botched their requirement by letting each railway choose their own (incompatible) system, making interoperability extremely difficult. I think TC has been waiting for the dust to settle down south as there has been no standard by which they can follow.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

^^^ Amtrak's daily Empire Builder service takes roughly 13 1/2 hours to travel from Grand Forks, N.D. to Shelby, Mont., a distance similar to that of Winnipeg to Edmonton. The entire route achieves 65% of operating cost from fare revenue despite the fares being significantly lower than those for the Canadian.

I last took the Canadian to Vancouver in 2014. I believe it left Winnipeg around 4:00 p.m. and arrived in Edmonton around 9:00 a.m., which is 18 hours including the time change, so it's now running over 6 hours slower.

Canada doesn't do passenger rail well, even in the densely populated corridor. I've used both VIA and Amtrak extensively and Amtrak is better in every respect especially with on-time performance.

What are they doing differently that we should start doing?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What are they doing differently that we should start doing?

They are backed by legislation that ensures their priority over freight trains. We can blame P.E.T. for that mistake.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

They are backed by legislation that ensures their priority over freight trains. We can blame P.E.T. for that mistake.

Well, maybe his son could undo his father's mistakes.

[J81]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

^^^ Amtrak's daily Empire Builder service takes roughly 13 1/2 hours to travel from Grand Forks, N.D. to Shelby, Mont., a distance similar to that of Winnipeg to Edmonton. The entire route achieves 65% of operating cost from fare revenue despite the fares being significantly lower than those for the Canadian.

I last took the Canadian to Vancouver in 2014. I believe it left Winnipeg around 4:00 p.m. and arrived in Edmonton around 9:00 a.m., which is 18 hours including the time change, so it's now running over 6 hours slower.

Canada doesn't do passenger rail well, even in the densely populated corridor. I've used both VIA and Amtrak extensively and Amtrak is better in every respect especially with on-time performance.

Amtrak also has Laws that grant them priority on their host railroads which VIA does not enjoy. For whatever reason our government refuses to look into this avenue! Levying stiff penalties to host railroads for avoidable delays would definitely help VIAs OTP.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Well, maybe his son could undo his father's mistakes.

Fat chance. Ad J81 said, “ For whatever reason our government refuses to look into this avenue.”

It actually isn’t quite that cut and dry though. South of the border, the railroads asked for relief from the responsibility of operating passenger service, and the government agreed to take it over on the condition that they give passenger trains priority and that’s how Amtrak was formed.

North of the boarder, P.E.T. wanted to do the same thing so he split the passenger and freight devisions of CN into separate Crown Corporations and this formed VIA Rail. Since they were both Crown Corporations, VIA’s priority was assured. Within a couple years, it became obvious to VIA that to be successful they would also need to take over CP’s passenger services. As a negotiating tactic, CP pretended to not want to give it up. Sonce VIA seemed more desperate to awuire it than CP was to dispose of it, it was easy for CP to avoid that clause.

Years later, when CN was privatized under Mulroney, since VIA didn’t have priority on CP’s tracks, why should they have priority on CN’s tracks. Besides, Mulroney wasn’t a huge fan of VIA anyway and waving that right likely allowed them to sell it for more.