VIA Rail

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Which aren't free. Those merely impart the obligation to sell. Courts would enforce fair market value.

How much are Canadians with to pay for this? The combined market capitalization of CN and CP is over CA$150 billion as of today's close.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Expensive

Very expensive

CP has a market cap of $50B and CN $100B.

I'm not a fan of the railway ownership model in Canada, but you have to play the cards in your hand.

CN used to be private. Then the government bought out the lines. Then it sold it off.

I'd say that was a good investment for Canada. Those lines would have been gone.

Now, lets say the government decided to buy the rails up in Canada. This way the rails themselves are a public thing, much like roads. There is no reason that they couldn't then lease the rails out to a company, and even contract out the maintenance.

I know it is likely never going to happen, at least in the near future, but it has happened before, and could happen again.

Ironically, when did Via do a major service cut? When did CN become private?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Trains are not perfect, however, they are by far the better option when our weather turns ugly. It's no fun crawling at 40km/hr in a whiteout to get home. Trains, generally don't need to slow down except for extreme weather.

It's a rarity to have to drive in such conditions and a train is by no means immune to snow and suffers its own reliability problems. At least when driving you will almost always get there eventually whereas trains frequently get cancelled alltogether.

Besides, a twice daily train is still not a practical alternative even for those 1% of trips that are made during a blizzard.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Did I say fast? Did I even say frequent? I only said reliable. Whether it is 1 train a week or 2WAD, reliability is not dependent on speed or frequency. It is dependent on proper scheduling of the various traffic on the line.

A bargain basement service won't be reliable. It will be stuck behind freight trains, crash into cars, derail and otherwise suffer issues. Along with being slow and infrequent.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If you have a train that is scheduled 2WAD and it is always late, is it any better than no service?

No, nothing is better. But what you are insisting on is the worse than nothing option.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Just imagine if we had a government that demanded that all major cities that have existing rail infrastructure must be served. We might see nothing much better out of the Corridor, or, if the government pushed that service must meet a minimum level, we might see better.

Why not just demand public transit? Cheaper, better and doesn't only serve routes that were laid out 100 years ago.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That train could be put into a siding when it is stationary. If the line was doubled, with extra sidings, and only that new part was for passengers, it would move fairly freely.

Each one of those freight train has millions of dollars of freight on it, your proposed train would have a handful of poor people onboard. Which one do you think it is more costly to delay?

CP and CN run their railways about efficiently as they can (not perfectly, they're monopolies of course), so if you want to use their capacity it's going to cost. Or you build more capacity, which is expensive and unfortunately basically pointless trying with these railways.

Yes, legislation could be made to change some the laws, but the political effort for this would be huge, and to what benefit? like it or not, the freight railways are far more valuable to the economy than any potential passenger railways would be. Better to just avoid the problem as much as possible and build new lines that the public can operate.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Now, lets say the government decided to buy the rails up in Canada. This way the rails themselves are a public thing, much like roads. There is no reason that they couldn't then lease the rails out to a company, and even contract out the maintenance.

I'd be quite happy for the government to buy up certain track and operate it with CP or CN as customers - it would be more efficient especially where lines run parallel, but the cost to do so is likely prohibitive. Additionally, Canada does not have a proper railway operator like network rail with the expertise to run them, we only have VIA which would not be the best fit.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Not when there is a freight train in front, which there always will be. And worse still, the majority of the time I see a train on the line between Calgary and Edmonton it is stationary. Even doubling the track probably wouldn't be enough to let a passenger train travel freely.

A halfway decent rail network lets passenger trains pass freight trains. That's exactly what happens in the Corridor, despite the reliability and scheduling problems that using CN track presents.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Mister F

A halfway decent rail network lets passenger trains pass freight trains. That's exactly what happens in the Corridor, despite the reliability and scheduling problems that using CN track presents.

But that's not what some are proposing on this thread. To build that between Calgary and Edmonton would be highly expensive, not the cheap incremental daily train that's been suggested.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by milomilo

But that's not what some are proposing on this thread. To build that between Calgary and Edmonton would be highly expensive, not the cheap incremental daily train that's been suggested.

To be clear, my post had nothing to do with swimmer_spe's proposal.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Mister F

To be clear, my post had nothing to do with swimmer_spe's proposal.

That's good. I don't think anyone disagrees that trains can't be fast, frequent and reliable, but without adequate investment, they won't be any of those. A train between Calgary and Edmonton without significant track upgrades would likely be scheduled to take over 4 hours and would frequently be an hour late.

[J81]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The demand generally isn't there outside the corridor, which is why the subsidies are so large. The reason the trains run is because the government tells VIA to run them.

So why isnt the government telling them to run the ocean and canadian at the moment? You guys all act like those trains are running empty all the time. Its routinely sold out during the high seasons. So clearly there is demand!

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J81

So why isnt the government telling them to run the ocean and canadian at the moment? You guys all act like those trains are running empty all the time. Its routinely sold out during the high seasons. So clearly there is demand!

Both services cater primarily to foreign tourists who are not allowed into the country. Both services are subsidized over $500 per passenger, so the demand is pretty artificial.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by J81

So why isnt the government telling them to run the ocean and canadian at the moment? You guys all act like those trains are running empty all the time. Its routinely sold out during the high seasons. So clearly there is demand!

You can't claim there is demand when it is subsidized. You can get anyone to do something if you pay them to do it. I don't particularly care about the tourist trains though, they're basically a novelty and separate to our transportation requirements.

I think most people are comfortable with some level of subsidy - roads are 100% subsidized at point of use after all. But if a service is over 50% or so subsidized, that's a problem.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Both services cater primarily to foreign tourists who are not allowed into the country. Both services are subsidized over $500 per passenger, so the demand is pretty artificial.

The media likes using that $500 per passenger figure as a way of stirring up descent, but it really is oversimplified and misleading.

First of all, as Urban_Sky showed in post #1167, if you look strictly at variable revenue vs. costs, The Canadian recovered 90.3% and 101.2% of its costs in 2018 and 2019 respectively. It is true that if The Canadian were cancelled, many of the semi-variable costs would also go away (like operating and maintaining stations along the route), but the fixed costs would remain and have to be divided up among the reaming services.

Secondly, it assumes that the passengers that are paying thousands of dollars for a sleeper are equally subsidized as the passengers paying a few hundred dollars for an economy ticket. The reality is there is no good way to divide up those subsidies as different people are traveling different distances and costing VIA different amounts in in fuel, labour and infrastructure costs, but dividing them equally isn't necessarily fair.

As for The Ocean, while it is used by tourists, it is also heavily used by locals. From what I have read on here, the train really fills up (or empties out depending on the direction) at the stops between Moncton and Campbellton. I highly doubt if those are tourists using those stops.

Originally Posted by milomilo

I think most people are comfortable with some level of subsidy - roads are 100% subsidized at point of use after all. But if a service is over 50% or so subsidized, that's a problem.

That approximately 50% is a decent guideline. The question is are you talking about variable or total revenue/costs? Using Urban_Sky's post I reference above, even if you look at the total revenue/costs (variable, semi-variable and fixed combined), The Canadian recovered 59.7% and 64.8% in 2018 and 2017 respectively, so it would make the cut either way.

As for the Ocean, using variable revenue/cost, it recovered 48.9% and 46.5% respectively, so very close to your arbitrary threshold. If you look at its total revenue/costs, it recovered 21.5% and 21.6% respectively, but many of those semi-variable or fixed costs wouldn't go away if you cancelled the route (probably even more proportionally than The Canadian). It is also possible that HFR (with the leg to Quebec City), could reduce its costs in several ways.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The media likes using that $500 per passenger figure as a way of stirring up descent, but it really is oversimplified and misleading.

First of all, as Urban_Sky showed in post #1167, if you look strictly at variable revenue vs. costs, The Canadian recovered 90.3% and 101.2% of its costs in 2018 and 2019 respectively. It is true that if The Canadian were cancelled, many of the semi-variable costs would also go away (like operating and maintaining stations along the route), but the fixed costs would remain and have to be divided up among the reaming services.

Secondly, it assumes that the passengers that are paying thousands of dollars for a sleeper are equally subsidized as the passengers paying a few hundred dollars for an economy ticket. The reality is there is no good way to divide up those subsidies as different people are traveling different distances and costing VIA different amounts in in fuel, labour and infrastructure costs, but dividing them equally isn't necessarily fair.

As for The Ocean, while it is used by tourists, it is also heavily used by locals. From what I have read on here, the train really fills up (or empties out depending on the direction) at the stops between Moncton and Campbellton. I highly doubt if those are tourists using those stops.

The $500 number is the number Via publishes in its annual report. Via does not publish its variable costs. The post you are referencing suggests things like backoffice costs are being included in the subsidy number, but there is no way of knowing how many of these backoffice costs are directly associated with the operation of the route and which are general (the former certainly should be included in the subsidy costs, the latter seems like a questionable accounting choice).

I think everyone understands that the per passenger number is an average. Reporting an average is a reasonable way to convey information. Restaurants will report growth in same store sales, for example. I guess they could break it out by class or something to provide more detail.

If the main use of the Ocean is local traffic in New Brunswick then Via should have a good think about why it is organizing services in Atlantic Canada the way it does.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The $500 number is the number Via publishes in its annual report. Via does not publish its variable costs. The post you are referencing suggests things like backoffice costs are being included in the subsidy number, but there is no way of knowing how many of these backoffice costs are directly associated with the operation of the route and which are general (the former certainly should be included in the subsidy costs, the latter seems like a questionable accounting choice).

I think everyone understands that the per passenger number is an average. Reporting an average is a reasonable way to convey information. Restaurants will report growth in same store sales, for example. I guess they could break it out by class or something to provide more detail.

If the main use of the Ocean is local traffic in New Brunswick then Via should have a good think about why it is organizing services in Atlantic Canada the way it does.

They probably do this due to the fact that spending money here in their view may not give them as much of a benefit as, say a twisting route in Central Ontario.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by acottawa

If the main use of the Ocean is local traffic in New Brunswick then Via should have a good think about why it is organizing services in Atlantic Canada the way it does.

There have been rumblings over the last several years about VIA being interested in daily intercity passenger service between Moncton and Campbellton, and Moncton and Halifax, but nothing has come of this.

Even if this were to transpire, I would still be in favour of keeping the Ocean, but perhaps switching it to the CN main line between Moncton and Montreal.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The $500 number is the number Via publishes in its annual report. Via does not publish its variable costs.

If you had read the post I linked to, you would have read:

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

The release of (the summary of) VIA's most recent (i.e. 2019-2023) Corporate Plan has already been noted and discussed here a few weeks ago, but while most of you were discussing and worrying about the potential effect of the loss of the possibility to turn the Ocean's equipment through the Port of Halifax, I read something in the plan which made me really excited and that was the release of direct costs and revenues figures.
. . .

As you've might have noticed, VIA refers to direct costs and expenses as "variable", indirect costs and expenses as "semi-variable" and to overheads as "fixed", but this is just a different way to say the same.

The post you are referencing suggests things like backoffice costs are being included in the subsidy number, but there is no way of knowing how many of these backoffice costs are directly associated with the operation of the route and which are general (the former certainly should be included in the subsidy costs, the latter seems like a questionable accounting choice).

I would argue that any back office cost that could directly associated with a specific route would be a variable cost. As for the General costs, How did you expect them to be paid for?

I think everyone understands that the per passenger number is an average.

Do you really believe that Joe Canadian, who knows nothing about finance, understands that?

Reporting an average is a reasonable way to convey information. Restaurants will report growth in same store sales, for example. I guess they could break it out by class or something to provide more detail.

I never said it wasn't reasonable. I said it isn't fair.

If the main use of the Ocean is local traffic in New Brunswick then Via should have a good think about why it is organizing services in Atlantic Canada the way it does.

I never said it was its "main use," I said, "while it is used by tourists, it is also heavily used by locals." I don't know which type of passenger is the majority, and it still may be the tourist, but I suspect it is a lot closer than it is on the Canadian.

I would also suspect that a tourist taking the Ocean is likely to spend more time (and money) touring the Atlantic provinces, than the average tourist taking the Canadian will do in either Vancouver or Toronto.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

There have been rumblings over the last several years about VIA being interested in daily intercity passenger service between Moncton and Campbellton, and Moncton and Halifax, but nothing has come of this.

Even if this were to transpire, I would still be in favour of keeping the Ocean, but perhaps switching it to the CN main line between Moncton and Montreal.

Not sure if you know, but are the people using the Ocean who live between Moncton and Campbellton traveling east (to Moncton) or west (to Montreal)? I was under the impression it was the latter, but I could be mistaken. If so, the local service VIA is proposing won't help them much, and switching the Ocean to the CN main line would hurt (if they are traveling east to Moncton anyway, they might as well fly out of Moncton rather than change trains).

As I showed in post #1671, CN's main line avoids most of the population west of Moncton.

[MonctonRad]

It is my understanding that most of the locally generated Ocean traffic is from Campbellton/Bathurst/Miramichi to Moncton and back. There are a lot of cultural, business and family ties between the Acadian North and Moncton.

I'm quite aware that the CN main line in NB passes through the wilderness between Moncton and Grand Falls. My point of view is that this is a well maintained track, which allows for faster and more reliable travel to Montreal, and would return passenger service to northwestern NB. After all, if there is potentially going to be a local service from Moncton to the Chaleur region, then why duplicate that with the Ocean??

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

If you had read the post I linked to, you would have read:


I would argue that any back office cost that could directly associated with a specific route would be a variable cost. As for the General costs, How did you expect them to be paid for?

It doesn't explain what they are counting. In the annual report they report a large subsidy. In the planning document they report a small loss. The assumption being made is they are counting something else in the subsidy. A more transparent way would be to include a total of costs directly associated with the line (maintenance, marketing, insurance, station operations, etc). and list Via's general overhead at the HQ (legal, general marketing, accounting) as a separate line item.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I never said it was its "main use," I said, "while it is used by tourists, it is also heavily used by locals." I don't know which type of passenger is the majority, and it still may be the tourist, but I suspect it is a lot closer than it is on the Canadian.

I would also suspect that a tourist taking the Ocean is likely to spend more time (and money) touring the Atlantic provinces, than the average tourist taking the Canadian will do in either Vancouver or Toronto.

You said the train filled up or emptied out along that corridor. A reasonable understanding of that description would suggest most of the passengers were on that corridor.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It doesn't explain what they are counting. In the annual report they report a large subsidy. In the planning document they report a small loss. The assumption being made is they are counting something else in the subsidy. A more transparent way would be to include a total of costs directly associated with the line (maintenance, marketing, insurance, station operations, etc). and list Via's general overhead at the HQ (legal, general marketing, accounting) as a separate line item.

I don't disagree that knowing more information about where the money is going would be nice.

You said the train filled up or emptied out along that corridor. A reasonable understanding of that description would suggest most of the passengers were on that corridor.

Sorry, I shouldn't have said "empties out," though I am struggling to find a better phrase that says "a lot of people alight without it necessarily being a majority" (that is kind of a mouthful).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

It is my understanding that most of the locally generated Ocean traffic is from Campbellton/Bathurst/Miramichi to Moncton and back. There are a lot of cultural, business and family ties between the Acadian North and Moncton.

I stand corrected.

I'm quite aware that the CN main line in NB passes through the wilderness between Moncton and Grand Falls. My point of view is that this is a well maintained track, which allows for faster and more reliable travel to Montreal, and would return passenger service to northwestern NB.

The question is would the faster route drum up enough traffic to make up for the loss of local traffic. We also get back to the idea that if the desire is for a shorter, faster route, that doesn't serve any local communities, why not substitute it for the Atlantic (assuming customs delays can be mitigated somehow).

After all, if there is potentially going to be a local service from Moncton to the Chaleur region, then why duplicate that with the Ocean??

I gather that the idea is that the new service would run on days that the Ocean isn't running.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

It is my understanding that most of the locally generated Ocean traffic is from Campbellton/Bathurst/Miramichi to Moncton and back. There are a lot of cultural, business and family ties between the Acadian North and Moncton.

I'm quite aware that the CN main line in NB passes through the wilderness between Moncton and Grand Falls. My point of view is that this is a well maintained track, which allows for faster and more reliable travel to Montreal, and would return passenger service to northwestern NB. After all, if there is potentially going to be a local service from Moncton to the Chaleur region, then why duplicate that with the Ocean??

There might be an interesting opportunity to return daily-ish service to the Maritimes. I'm assuming the Ocean runs thrice weekly (either on the Mainline or the current routing) and the Montreal-Gaspé train can run separately on the other days. Regular regional service between Campbellton and Halifax could coordinate with the Montreal-Gaspé train on the days when the Ocean doesn't run.

So for example, leaving Halifax to Montreal on the Monday would be a direct train on the Ocean. On the Tuesday, it would be a regional train up to Campbellton, then a connection on the Gaspé-Montreal.