[micheal_can]

The CP/CN decision was a point in time that may not matter any more and I don’t see why it is always revisited. It was a cost minimization exercise not a marketing exercise. There were differences in costs for employee severance and pension obligations, both one time and ongoing. CP had more employees of pensionable age who could go straight to retirement where abandoning CN would have led to higher ongoing job security costs.
To make a change today is a whole new ball game - again potentially dislodging workers home bases and creating issues for the physical plant and operating side of CP, plus stations etc
No one would argue that there is no potential to sell tickets on the Banff-Calgary-Regina route over Jasper-Edmonton-Saskatoon, but the barriers to moving the route are nothing to do with 1990. They stand on their own. Safe to say, the startup costs of that move would sink the economics of the Canadian even if the end Ridership were as good or greater.

- Paul

I have been hearing that the Canadian has been near or at sold out regardless of train length for the last few years. If this is true,it may support a more local, shorter service. Or, it may support adding more frequency of the existing service.

 

[micheal_can]

What I am 'pushing' for is in essence,the lack of a need for owning your own personal vehicle unless you want to. This ties into the carbon footprint and climate change.

There was a time when cars were popular, but you didn't need them for most of Canadian cities. It wasn't the 1980s, or even the 1960s. It was around the 1920s-40s. Back then, heavy rail passenger service went everywhere. Back then, most cities, even the one I live in, had some sort of streetcar system. So, you had options. Then as the car became king, we saw the lack of investment and closure of most of those streetcar lines. We then started to seethe reduction of passenger rail. And now, we are stuck with no options and no easy way out.

So, when I suggest things it is because there is a lack of options and there was an option at one time.

We do not build for the future. We build for the past. Every single line here has to be shown as there was a need and that need still exists. That keeps us stuck. The CPR transcontinental was not built because there was a past or existing need. It was built for a future need.

 

[roger1818]

If the province isn't paying for it, why would they say what to cancel?

It was nicknamed The death train or the flying coffin and former mayor of Edmonton, Laurence Decore, was quoted as saying "It's a seedy, tacky service used by very few people. Its 200 level crossings make it an absolute calamity that has caused too many deaths."

 

[micheal_can]

It was nicknamed The death train or the flying coffin and former mayor of Edmonton, Laurence Decore, was quoted as saying "It's a seedy, tacky service used by very few people. Its 200 level crossings make it an absolute calamity that has caused too many deaths."

I get how it was viewed. I am guessing it was the ridership, not the nicknames that sealed its fate.

 

[roger1818]

I get how it was viewed. I am guessing it was the ridership, not the nicknames that sealed its fate.

It was mostly the fatalities. One media report indicated that it killed 15 people over 3 years.

 

[micheal_can]

It was mostly the fatalities. One media report indicated that it killed 15 people over 3 years.

The challenge to bring this back is to make the level crossings safer.

 

[roger1818]

The challenge to bring this back is to make the level crossings safer.

Agreed. The point is we can’t just resume service using retired HEP cars as a trial without significant upgrades, and those would cost a significant amount of money.

The level crossing’s only part of the challenge. Back when the train was running, it would reach a maximum speed of 90mph, which requires Class 5 track. I don’t know what it’s rated for now, but with only freight service, it’s probably much lower than that.

 

[micheal_can]

Agreed. The point is we can’t just resume service using retired HEP cars as a trial without significant upgrades, and those would cost a significant amount of money.

The level crossing’s only part of the challenge. Back when the train was running, it would reach a maximum speed of 90mph, which requires Class 5 track. I don’t know what it’s rated for now, but with only freight service, it’s probably much lower than that.

So, lets play ...
They take some HEP cars and use them there. Part of the return budget would be to upgrade crossings and possibly rail bed. That isn't an extreme amount. They may also want to change the rules for whistles for the unprotected crossings; for instance, the whistle need to happen sooner and more often. If the federal government gave them the money, all of this is within the realm of normal railway operations.

 

[crs1026]

So, lets play ...
They take some HEP cars and use them there. Part of the return budget would be to upgrade crossings and possibly rail bed. That isn't an extreme amount. They may also want to change the rules for whistles for the unprotected crossings; for instance, the whistle need to happen sooner and more often. If the federal government gave them the money, all of this is within the realm of normal railway operations.

Ummmm...... that *is* "an extreme amount". Never mind that the sidings have changed a lot thanks to CP freight.

I have no data on how many of those crossings remain unprotected, as they were before the Dayliner was cancelled.... but I'm confident that the number of crossings that would be considered less than properly equipped for passenger is substantial.

Whistling sooner? You're really whistling in the dark with that idea. Crossing protection is, at minimum, investment in full gates and lights..... now go tell Albertans that with all their concerns and issues, this is where you are spending money. I think they would laugh you out of the room.

- Paul

 

[Wm Perkins Bull]

Ummmm...... that *is* "an extreme amount". Never mind that the sidings have changed a lot thanks to CP freight.

I have no data on how many of those crossings remain unprotected, as they were before the Dayliner was cancelled.... but I'm confident that the number of crossings that would be considered less than properly equipped for passenger is substantial.

Whistling sooner? You're really whistling in the dark with that idea. Crossing protection is, at minimum, investment in full gates and lights..... now go tell Albertans that with all their concerns and issues, this is where you are spending money. I think they would laugh you out of the room.

- Paul

I trust Albertans to avoid getting killed by the Dayliner as much as I trust Floridians to avoid getting killed by Brightline. I assume them both to engage in suicide by train and that you need not just regular crossings, but quad crossings.

 

[crs1026]

I trust Albertans to avoid getting killed by the Dayliner as much as I trust Floridians to avoid getting killed by Brightline. I assume them both to engage in suicide by train and that you need not just regular crossings, but quad crossings.

I figured this was just a backhanded cheap shot, until I looked for the data. The prairies do seem to account for a disproportionate share of things, on a rough per capita basis.

From here, Table 11.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

Ummmm...... that *is* "an extreme amount". Never mind that the sidings have changed a lot thanks to CP freight.

I have no data on how many of those crossings remain unprotected, as they were before the Dayliner was cancelled.... but I'm confident that the number of crossings that would be considered less than properly equipped for passenger is substantial.

Whistling sooner? You're really whistling in the dark with that idea. Crossing protection is, at minimum, investment in full gates and lights..... now go tell Albertans that with all their concerns and issues, this is where you are spending money. I think they would laugh you out of the room.

- Paul

For those crossings that are literally from one field to the other,having a whistle being blown much sooner likely would be better than the gates and lights. For any passenger or mainline freight line, all crossing should have at least lights.

As far as attitudes, the only thing Albertans seem to want is to simply not pay taxes for anything.

I figured this was just a backhanded cheap shot, until I looked for the data. The prairies do seem to account for a disproportionate share of things, on a rough per capita basis.

From here, Table 11.

- Paul

View attachment 520934

That is odd. You'd think Ontario with more population and more km of rail would be higher, but maybe it is because of the protections at the crossings that it has been kept lower.

 

[lenaitch]

For those crossings that are literally from one field to the other,having a whistle being blown much sooner likely would be better than the gates and lights. For any passenger or mainline freight line, all crossing should have at least lights.

If a crossing is "literally one field to another" is is likely a private crossing. I don't think I've ever seen a private crossing protected with anything more than perhaps a stop sign. We don't know how much of the prairie crossing collisions are with farm equipment. For them, ambient noise level and hearing protection would likely negate any benefit of longer horns.

It would take a deeper dive into the numbers to attempt to reveal predominant causes of crossing collisions. One would think that in the prairies, sightlines aren't a big concern. The prairies still have a fair amount of branchlines, unlike much of the rest of the country. While Ontario certainly has the population and rail traffic to facilitate conflicts, the majority of both the population and trackage is in the south which perhaps suggests comparatively fewer unprotected crossings.

 

[micheal_can]

If a crossing is "literally one field to another" is is likely a private crossing. I don't think I've ever seen a private crossing protected with anything more than perhaps a stop sign. We don't know how much of the prairie crossing collisions are with farm equipment. For them, ambient noise level and hearing protection would likely negate any benefit of longer horns.

It would take a deeper dive into the numbers to attempt to reveal predominant causes of crossing collisions. One would think that in the prairies, sightlines aren't a big concern. The prairies still have a fair amount of branchlines, unlike much of the rest of the country. While Ontario certainly has the population and rail traffic to facilitate conflicts, the majority of both the population and trackage is in the south which perhaps suggests comparatively fewer unprotected crossings.

A scheduled train that stays on time may be key for the safety of those crossings.

 

[Urban Sky]

No. If it’s the post, I’m thinking of the problem was you had trouble understanding the difference between revenue and profit (or loss in this case).

If you sell a glass of lemonade for $1 and it cost you $2 to make it and you sell a glass of beer for $2 and it cost you $4 to make it, which one is losing you more money? The one you sold for $1 the one you sold for $2?

Whatever I posted back then answered the wrong question: it's not about with which route (CN or CP) the Canadian would have had the lowest operating subsidy, but which routing would have allowed VIA to sustain its entire network with the lowest subsidy. Given that I extrapolated the Canadian's current subsidy by distance covered, the CP route showed a marginally lower subsidy need, solely because it is marginally shorter.

So, you posted something inaccurate in another forum? You put up one a few years ago that showed differently.

No, he very clearly said it was a lower subsidy to run the CP route. He has always been a thorn to me. I try to be respectful. I ask things that he does not like someone asking. I have sometimes ignored him, and sometimes just scroll on by.

Do the following six questions look familiar to you?

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?

Because I wrote them to you almost four years ago and yet they describe exactly what I wrote to you in my last post and many, many dozen times before, despite you pretending to having read it for the first time:

Spoiler

So maybe, just maybe, if you hadn't put your fingers in your ears and sang like a toddler (or: "sometimes ignored [me], and sometimes just scroll on by", as you euphemistically put it in your own words) every time I increasingly impatiently and exasperatingly explained this to you, I would still feel any inclination to treat you with respect.

But since only me insulting you seems to have motivated you to finally read and acknowledge my debunking of your stupid Mulroney-hated-the-CP conspiracy rather than just vomiting it out again and again at every possible occasion, I would just recommend everyone else here to also spice up their responses to you with whatever insults and abuse they can think of. The responses they would get from you as results can't possibly be worse than what they got when they still treated you as if it was actually possible to have adult-level discussions with you. And in any case: you certainly wouldn't deserve any better...

Have a good night, everyone, and may the sun never rise over Sudbury again!