[micheal_can]

I would finally take that “Economics 101” class and review the chapters on “Fixed Costs” and how to account for them in your business plan before daring to approach any potential investor…

I think the first thing I would need to do is first figure out the legal licensing before any of that.

Point is, things like that could appeal to some. No different than how driving themselves appeals to some. People stopped relying on the train once an all weather road was built. Now those all weather roads are getting badly congested. So, if they are willing to take a train to work, they may be willing to take a train to the cottage.

 

[lenaitch]

I think the first thing I would need to do is first figure out the legal licensing before any of that.

Well you're in luck. You no longer need a Public Vehicle Operating Permit in Ontario, so all you need is money, insurance, the proper driver's licence and a willingness to drive up and down whichever cottage laneway the customer wants you to. Hint: it's a really large, scattered area. I'm sure the people going to Port Sydney won't mind going to Mactier first, or are you envisioning lots of buses?

If you are operating between points within a municipality you might need a taxi licence. You might want to check into that as I don't know how Muskoka handles it. You could start your fledgling operation when Northlander starts up again.

 

[micheal_can]

Well you're in luck. You no longer need a Public Vehicle Operating Permit in Ontario, so all you need is money, insurance, the proper driver's licence and a willingness to drive up and down whichever cottage laneway the customer wants you to. Hint: it's a really large, scattered area. I'm sure the people going to Port Sydney won't mind going to Mactier first, or are you envisioning lots of buses?

If you are operating between points within a municipality you might need a taxi licence. You might want to check into that as I don't know how Muskoka handles it. You could start your fledgling operation when Northlander starts up again.

The other thing to check is if there already exists something there. If there is, then it would be a waste to put the effort in when someone already has.

 

[micheal_can]

So... now for something different.

The 1990s cuts did not happen because they needed to cut routes.The happened because they could not replace the fleet. Think of that era. They ran anything with anything. Most of that stuff is long gone. So, this may have been more of a way to cut out the bad equipment without replacing them than cutting routes per say. So, now, we are faced with much the same problem.. The routes could be cut, but more because of lack of equipment that is safe than for any other reason.

 

[Urban Sky]

So... now for something different.

The 1990s cuts did not happen because they needed to cut routes.The happened because they could not replace the fleet. Think of that era.

The 1990 cuts were explicitly aimed at reducing VIA’s deficit (more than $1 billion in today’s prices) and it’s the one metric on which the cuts achieved their purpose (VIA’s deficit today is only a fraction of that):

Let's recall the context in which the 1990 cuts to transcontinental passenger trains took place. It wasn't a whim of a train-hating cabinet minister, as some railfans seem to think. The government had been running a deficit every year for almost two decades, and with interest rates much higher than they are now, the interest on the national debt had become the largest single item in the federal budget. So in the 1989 budget speech, finance minister Michael Wilson said, "We must take further action now to deal with the debt. With today's budget, I will be announcing reductions in government spending affecting a wide range of programs."
<https://www.budget.gc.ca/pdfarch/1989-sd-eng.pdf>

https://groups.io/g/Canadian-Passenger-Rail/message/89392

 

[micheal_can]

The 1990 cuts were explicitly aimed at reducing VIA’s deficit (more than $1 billion in today’s prices) and it’s the one metric on which the cuts achieved their purpose (VIA’s deficit today is only a fraction of that):

https://groups.io/g/Canadian-Passenger-Rail/message/89392

What would have added even more to that deficit? Maintaining and replacing an aging fleet. There were a lot of other cars, such as the ones from CN in white and black as well as the Via blue with a yellow stripe (could be the same cars, just repainted) that are no longer around. That makes the need to service them no longer part of the operating budget. The goal was to cut the operating budget. They succeeded. What I am getting at is the "how " as that is important to understand to not repeat it. The Corridor replacement fleet is very important as it will keep that part of Via still profitable.

 

[crs1026]

The Corridor replacement fleet is very important as it will keep that part of Via still profitable.

True, but only if VIA deploys its fleet (a fixed number of trainsets) to routes and schedules that attract the greatest revenue and represent the lowest operating cost. And demand the lowest level of infrastructure investment.
I expect that if further equipment orders happen, there will indeed be a 1990 style business case analysis, and it may again conclude that a smaller fleet serving only xyz is the most viable business proposition considering the overall cost of funding the equipment and operating the service over its lifetime. The emptiest trains may be threatened unless the social benefits ( eg remote services ) are compelling.
And, remember that 1990 was not only about fleet resizing... when Silver and Blue was introduced to the renovated fleet, pricing and service offering changed dramatically - the Canadian became a train that hauled 200 people a day at $4,000 each instead of 400 people at a couple hundred dollars each. The whole overhead and cost of the service changed. Who knows what service model and pricing will be part of the next generation fleet.
I would dearly like to see VIA's fleet grow, but one has to ask what the all-in cost of ordering another x trainsets would be. Likely they would be added to more marginal routes or timings that would not match the revenue of those first 32 trainsets. Could government sell a bigger operation with a larger deficit ?

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

True, but only if VIA deploys its fleet (a fixed number of trainsets) to routes and schedules that attract the greatest revenue and represent the lowest operating cost. And demand the lowest level of infrastructure investment.
I expect that if further equipment orders happen, there will indeed be a 1990 style business case analysis, and it may again conclude that a smaller fleet serving only xyz is the most viable business proposition considering the overall cost of funding the equipment and operating the service over its lifetime. The emptiest trains may be threatened unless the social benefits ( eg remote services ) are compelling.
And, remember that 1990 was not only about fleet resizing... when Silver and Blue was introduced to the renovated fleet, pricing and service offering changed dramatically - the Canadian became a train that hauled 200 people a day at $4,000 each instead of 400 people at a couple hundred dollars each. The whole overhead and cost of the service changed. Who knows what service model and pricing will be part of the next generation fleet.
I would dearly like to see VIA's fleet grow, but one has to ask what the all-in cost of ordering another x trainsets would be. Likely they would be added to more marginal routes or timings that would not match the revenue of those first 32 trainsets. Could government sell a bigger operation with a larger deficit ?

- Paul

My fear is the same conversations will be had that happened in the 1990s for those cuts.Although I feel that the main driver was political, there were many reasons what got cut was cut. The felt they had to cut to lower the operating deficit of Via. They were successful. If they decide not to cut, but instead buy new equipment for the LDF, my hope is they look at how they can grow the ridership while bringing each route to profitability.

Take the worst profitable route -the Winnipeg - Churchill train. What would have to be done to that route to lower the operating costs and make it more profitable. Is it the pricing of the tickets? Is it the cost of maintenance? Is it something else that none of us actually knows?

Now, have that very same thought for each route. That would be how to save the routes and how to potentially make them even better.

Another example is the Canadian.for the summer, it generally is sold out. If that is true, then maybe adding more frequency can be done and it continue to be sold out. Maybe it is 2 times a week during the winter and 4 times a week during the summer.

My goal is never to create a larger deficit for Via with anything I suggest, but instead find solutions to make the service better and still be as profitable or better.

 

[Urban Sky]

If we believe that the 1990 cuts are the best predictor for what might be to happen, it’s worth looking at what happened to each of its five service groups:


The striking thing is that whereas the only (almost) profitable service was sold off (to RMR), only service group was eliminated in its entirety (the “Intercity” routes, though BC managed to save Victoria-Courtenay and somehow Gaspé also survived) and the transcontinental services were cut by some two-thirds, the cuts to the Corridor services were rather minor and the remote services were completely spared.

Though we can argue whether all remote routes are actually “remote”, the Churchill service certainly qualifies to any definition and Senneterre, White River or the Skeena certainly to most (if only for parts of their routes). If the remote services are there to stay, the Canadian is profitable for most of the year and its route (and required to shuttle equipment between terminii and maintenance centers) and the Ocean is the only service to Atlantic Canada, then where could the federal government possibly cut down VIA’s existing non-Corridor routes and network? Especially since they historically have never cut below 2-3 round trips per week (the sole exception I am aware of was Lasalle-Cochrane and that stretch always bordered between “remote” and “uninhabitated”)…?

The big advantage of VIA having undergone the 1990 cuts is that there is hardly any fat left which the federal government could chop off without upsetting some of its core constituencies…

 

[lenaitch]

Perhaps, simply as a starting point, the federal and Ontario governments in the guises of VIA and Metrolinx, could sit down and sort out which one should provide commuting-type services in southern Ontario. The entire inter-city rail situation, particularly within a single province, is unclear, but at least there is decent argument that Winnipeg-Churchill or even Toronto-Ottawa isn't realistically 'commuting'. The closer in you get; however, like London, it becomes less clear to me that it should be a federal responsibility.

Cochrane-LaSarre service, along with the tracks it ran on, hasn't existed for several years.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Perhaps, simply as a starting point, the federal and Ontario governments in the guises of VIA and Metrolinx, could sit down and sort out which one should provide commuting-type services in southern Ontario.

It does seem nonsensical that I can take both a GO Train and VIA Train from Niagara Falls, Kitchener, and Oshawa to Toronto. There is an argument to having a single intercity and commuter provider in Ontario.

 

[micheal_can]

If we believe that the 1990 cuts are the best predictor for what might be to happen, it’s worth looking at what happened to each of its five service groups:
View attachment 578474

The striking thing is that whereas the only (almost) profitable service was sold off (to RMR), only service group was eliminated in its entirety (the “Intercity” routes, though BC managed to save Victoria-Courtenay and somehow Gaspé also survived) and the transcontinental services were cut by some two-thirds, the cuts to the Corridor services were rather minor and the remote services were completely spared.

Though we can argue whether all remote routes are actually “remote”, the Churchill service certainly qualifies to any definition and Senneterre, White River or the Skeena certainly to most (if only for parts of their routes). If the remote services are there to stay, the Canadian is profitable for most of the year and its route (and required to shuttle equipment between terminii and maintenance centers) and the Ocean is the only service to Atlantic Canada, then where could the federal government possibly cut down VIA’s existing non-Corridor routes and network? Especially since they historically have never cut below 2-3 round trips per week (the sole exception I am aware of is Lasalle-Cochrane and that stretch always bordered between “remote” and “uninhabitated”)…?

The big advantage of having undergone the 1990 cuts is that there is hardly any fat left which the federal government could chop off without upsetting some of its core constituencies…

If a federal government service you do not use gets cut do you care? Anything outside of the Corridor could be cut and no votes would be lost over it. Especially true of a CPC government. The existing Corridor routes are safe because they have a new fleet and are profitable. I want to believe that the Canadian is safe because it is near profitable, but due to the aging fleet, that is not so certain.

 

[micheal_can]

It does seem nonsensical that I can take both a GO Train and VIA Train from Niagara Falls to Toronto, or Toronto to Oshawa. There is no sense to having a single intercity and commuter provider in Ontario.

Ideally yes, but the problem is, currently, the one provider is not focused on intercity. When the Northlander returns, maybe they can see how intercity may be worth doing on their own.

 

[ssiguy2]

If a federal government service you do not use gets cut do you care? Anything outside of the Corridor could be cut and no votes would be lost over it. Especially true of a CPC government. The existing Corridor routes are safe because they have a new fleet and are profitable. I want to believe that the Canadian is safe because it is near profitable, but due to the aging fleet, that is not so certain.

I completely agree.

In Western Canada, VIA is beyond useless and absolutely no one takes it. Even if it was more frequent, it doesn't go anywhere. If VIA were to shut down tommorrow and the media didn't report it, literally 99.9% of the population wouldn't even notice. The ONLY people who take it are tourists, it's as viable a transportation system to the West as the Maid of the Mist is to Niagarans. No one in their right mind would take VIA for anything. The only place it makes sense is in the Cal/Edm Corridor and a line from Calgary to Banff would also be feasible and, due to VIA being more of a political apparatus than a transportation one, it's the one area they don't serve.

In BC/Sask/Man, people would much rather have the VIA money given to them for highway improvements/expansions than on a useless train service. Albertan's views on effective inner-city rail transit is quite different from the other 3 Western provinces.

 

[Urban Sky]

It does seem nonsensical that I can take both a GO Train and VIA Train from Niagara Falls to Toronto, or Toronto to Oshawa.

Below are three different trains which depart my native hometown of Darmstadt within 11 minutes, all serving Frankfurt Central Station and I struggle to see anything nonsensically about this:

• The ICE train departs 08:24 and takes 16 minutes without an intermediary stop and costs 15.30 Euros for a standard fare one-way ticket and is your preferred choice if you have a BahnCard 100 (an annual pass valid in virtually any train in Germany) or if you have a long-distance if you can use this train as part of a long-distance ticket.
• The RB train departs 08:30 and takes 18 minutes with one intermediary stop and costs you 10.55 EUR for a standard fare one-way ticket and is your preferred choice if you have a Deutschland-Ticket (49 EUR per month, valid for virtually all local trains and transit modes in Germany) and travelling through Frankfurt Station is convenient for you.
• The S3 train departs 08:35 and takes 38 minutes with 15 intermediary stops and requires the exact tickets as the RB train. It is your preferred choice if it brings you somewhere faster than travelling with the RB via Frankfurt Central Station.

There is an argument to having a single intercity and commuter provider in Ontario.

As long as VIA and GO operate fundamentally different fleets (train length, capacity and amenities), they will invariably provide a service quality (frequency and travel times), amentities (seat comfort, staffing) and ticketing (flexible free-for-all vs. reserved seat) so fundamentally different that they won’t be able to invade into each other’s turf.

Perhaps, simply as a starting point, the federal and Ontario governments in the guises of VIA and Metrolinx, could sit down and sort out which one should provide commuting-type services in southern Ontario. The entire inter-city rail situation, particularly within a single province, is unclear, but at least there is decent argument that Winnipeg-Churchill or even Toronto-Ottawa isn't realistically 'commuting'. The closer in you get; however, like London, it becomes less clear to me that it should be a federal responsibility.

The failed GO experiment has sufficiently proven that 195km is far too far of a distance to provide commuter rail service and that Toronto-London belongs to the intercity rail network currently operated by VIA, as part of its Toronto-Windsor/Sarnia routes. “Commuter rail” and “intercity rail” are primarily references to the rolling stock and service quality, not the kind of passengers which take them (as no one rail service could survive on only one passenger type).

Cochrane-LaSarre service, along with the tracks it ran on, hasn't existed for several years.

Until December 1990 (i.e. almost one year after the 1990 cuts), the Montreal-Senneterre-Cochrane service operated three times per week all the way until Cochrane. Then, a timetable change only allowed for a single train continuing beyond LaSarre:


I was only mentioning this because it was the only time VIA operated a regular route less than twice weekly (and I am of course fully aware that the service - and with it the tracks - disappeared somewhere around 1998)…

If a federal government service you do not use gets cut do you care? Anything outside of the Corridor could be cut and no votes would be lost over it. Especially true of a CPC government. The existing Corridor routes are safe because they have a new fleet and are profitable. I want to believe that the Canadian is safe because it is near profitable, but due to the aging fleet, that is not so certain.

You are missing my point: the conservatives compete on a platform which promises to include Western Canadians (and even First Nations communities). Abandoning all non-Corridor routes while overseeing massive investments in the Corridor would signal quite the opposite:

Even their Transport and Infrastructure policy positions read anything but hostile towards VIA and HFR:

[same old rant we’ve already read at least a dozen times in the VIA thread]

Yawn, life must be really boring in Vancouver right now…