[Mihairokov]

I'm not going to belabour this point aside from saying that we should look at places as more than simply GDP rankings on a table. If countries are able to build rail infrastructure then they're able to build it regardless of whether their earning power or whatever else is higher or lower. We seem either allergic or unwilling to build it here for a variety of reasons. In some countries people are more than simply the money they make.

 

[micheal_can]

I'm not going to belabour this point aside from saying that we should look at places as more than simply GDP rankings on a table. If countries are able to build rail infrastructure then they're able to build it regardless of whether their earning power or whatever else is higher or lower. We seem either allergic or unwilling to build it here for a variety of reasons. In some countries people are more than simply the money they make.

We are addicted to the car. Imagine if we treated roads and road repairs like we do rail. There would be highways that are closed. There would side streets impassible due to potholes. And, many Canadians would not have a road near them. If roads can be done at a loss, then so can rail.

 

[lenaitch]

We are addicted to the car. Imagine if we treated roads and road repairs like we do rail. There would be highways that are closed. There would side streets impassible due to potholes. And, many Canadians would not have a road near them. If roads can be done at a loss, then so can rail.

Roads are publicly owned. (Most) railways are not. Unless people are advocating to nationalize our railways, no for-profit company is going to operate at a loss.

 

[micheal_can]

Roads are publicly owned. (Most) railways are not. Unless people are advocating to nationalize our railways, no for-profit company is going to operate at a loss.

CN was publicly owned till 1995. Look at all that has been abandoned and ask what if we privatized roads if we would still have what we have.

 

[roger1818]

I'm not going to belabour this point aside from saying that we should look at places as more than simply GDP rankings on a table. If countries are able to build rail infrastructure then they're able to build it regardless of whether their earning power or whatever else is higher or lower. We seem either allergic or unwilling to build it here for a variety of reasons. In some countries people are more than simply the money they make.

In many cases, economically disadvantaged countries are receiving investments in infrastructure by foreign countries in exchange for future favours. A good example of this how China is spending massive amounts of money on infrastructure in economically disadvantaged countries around the world as part of their Belt and Road Initiative. As a result, when looking at economically disadvantaged countries getting HSR, one has to realize that there may be more at play than meets the eye.

 

[just east of the creek]

In many cases, economically disadvantaged countries are receiving investments in infrastructure by foreign countries in exchange for future favours. A good example of this how China is spending massive amounts of money on infrastructure in economically disadvantaged countries around the world as part of their Belt and Road Initiative. As a result, when looking at economically disadvantaged countries getting HSR, one has to realize that there may be more at play than meets the eye.

And more then a number of those countries are struggling to meet even the most optimistic debt repayment schemes set in place by the Chinese, without handing over control of assets China views as desirable.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Roads are publicly owned. (Most) railways are not. Unless people are advocating to nationalize our railways, no for-profit company is going to operate at a loss.

CN was publicly owned till 1995. Look at all that has been abandoned and ask what if we privatized roads if we would still have what we have.

There's always the option to nationalize the railways. No transport company is going to invest in rail infrastructure when governments are building roads for them for 'free' (yes I know government spending is tax revenues).

 

[dowlingm]

Even if Quebec splits (unlikely), you can still run a train across an international border.

Depends on the nature of the split, as Brexit has shown with the Channel Tunnel.

Even Quebec entered a Schengen or British-Irish Common Travel Area-like arrangement with Rest of Canada, it wouldn’t rule out passport checks hampering operations (there has been controversy about Germany ramping up checks lately, and Irish immigration police have been accused of using the Family Guy colour chart on Newry-Dundalk trains and buses for years)

 

[Urban Sky]

Depends on the nature of the split, as Brexit has shown with the Channel Tunnel.

Even Quebec entered a Schengen or British-Irish Common Travel Area-like arrangement with Rest of Canada, it wouldn’t rule out passport checks hampering operations (there has been controversy about Germany ramping up checks lately, and Irish immigration police have been accused of using the Family Guy colour chart on Newry-Dundalk trains and buses for years)

I would not assume that an independent QC (can’t believe that we are seriously talking about it!) would be more restrictive to ON-QC travel than Canada is to US travel. The equivalent of post-clearance at Vancouver Pacific Central can be implemented in Dorval at least and the station in Coteau can be closed. However, I find it more realistic that border agents would board at the last station in ON and then work their way through the train before it reaches the first station in QC. OTTW-DORV should still be an hour at the very least…

 

[micheal_can]

There's always the option to nationalize the railways. No transport company is going to invest in rail infrastructure when governments are building roads for them for 'free' (yes I know government spending is tax revenues).

I do not see a scenario where the government, regardless of who is in power, would nationalize the railways. The shear cost would be in the Trillions. Besides, having their picture by an upgraded rail line is always good for politics.

 

[micheal_can]

On the weekend, I took a ride on the Budd car between Sudbury and White River.
A few things from the train crew:
1) they do not know when/if the Budds will be replaced. They have been hearing it for over 10 years.
2) If replaced with conventional equipment, a dome car would be a good thing to add as it would draw tourists.
3) They find it odd that the route is not extended to at least Thunder Bay. They said that it sounds like CP doesn't want it, and even wants this one gone.
4) They find it odd also that it does not connect with the Canadian.

 

[lenaitch]

On the weekend, I took a ride on the Budd car between Sudbury and White River.
A few things from the train crew:
1) they do not know when/if the Budds will be replaced. They have been hearing it for over 10 years.
2) If replaced with conventional equipment, a dome car would be a good thing to add as it would draw tourists.
3) They find it odd that the route is not extended to at least Thunder Bay. They said that it sounds like CP doesn't want it, and even wants this one gone.
4) They find it odd also that it does not connect with the Canadian.

The fact that 'coal face' employees aren't in tune with larger corporate and political issues isn't really surprising.

The Sudbury-White River train falls under VIA's remote services mandate to cover an area that had previous passenger services withdrawn. If the communities enroute had decent road access, it would be gone. I'm actually kinda surprised it has survived given that there are so few people (and no FNTs; although I stand to be corrected) that are rail access only. I suspect it is a political decision.

The tourist potential is pretty limited given that the required accommodations in White River (pop ~550), certainly around the station, are quite limited. Actually, all of White River is quite limited. Railfans perhaps but I don't see the tourist draw like an Agawa Canyon or something.

The route doesn't go the Thunder Bay because the communities along that part of the line are not isolated. Of course CPKC doesn't want it. Neither does CN, that's how we ended up with VIA. I believe CPKC argued its original Charter to divest Canadian. Also, if it ran on the CPKC ROW, Via would likely have to add a much longer and more costly remote service on the CN route through northern Ontario.

Seeing as Canadian operates on CN track, they, of all people, should know why it doesn't connect. Yes, I know, they could, but that requires money, will and aligned schedules.

 

[just east of the creek]

There's always the option to nationalize the railways. No transport company is going to invest in rail infrastructure when governments are building roads for them for 'free' (yes I know government spending is tax revenues).

I think the notion of nationalizing the railways (CN/CPKC) is not an option without either railway divesting its holdings in the USA and Mexico. These are now international railways with massive operations in the USA and Mexico and all the legal, political, and investor relationships and requirements that being an international entity entails. And as a stockholder in both corporations I would immediately (as would hundreds of others) commence legal actions against the government. It’s just not in the cards.

 

[micheal_can]

The fact that 'coal face' employees aren't in tune with larger corporate and political issues isn't really surprising.

Wait,you mean all the things they haven't heard of is coming true?
...Point I was making is that the lowly crew can see what the big wigs can't.

The Sudbury-White River train falls under VIA's remote services mandate to cover an area that had previous passenger services withdrawn. If the communities enroute had decent road access, it would be gone. I'm actually kinda surprised it has survived given that there are so few people (and no FNTs; although I stand to be corrected) that are rail access only. I suspect it is a political decision.

I feel it is kept due to the "not worth the cut" mentality. It survived the big cuts. So, since no new rounds of cuts were introduced, it has remained. If the next government comes in and decides to gut Via, I can see this route being affected. It will make many of those camps along the line be worthless due to challenges to get to them.

The tourist potential is pretty limited given that the required accommodations in White River (pop ~550), certainly around the station, are quite limited. Actually, all of White River is quite limited. Railfans perhaps but I don't see the tourist draw like an Agawa Canyon or something.

If marketed like they do the Agawa, it could fill the rooms at the 2 motels at least throughout the fall. Due to the turn around time, there is really time just to get a meal and then sleep. Many whom ride the Agawa may like that and may do it if it were marketed right. For instance, with an Agawa ticket,you can also book lodgings in the Soo. Imagine booking the Via Budd ticket and being able to book the hotel too?

The route doesn't go the Thunder Bay because the communities along that part of the line are not isolated. Of course CPKC doesn't want it. Neither does CN, that's how we ended up with VIA. I believe CPKC argued its original Charter to divest Canadian. Also, if it ran on the CPKC ROW, Via would likely have to add a much longer and more costly remote service on the CN route through northern Ontario.

Without going too deep into fantasy land, What they spoke of was not a southern Canadain, but connect the 2 largest cities in Northern ON

Seeing as Canadian operates on CN track, they, of all people, should know why it doesn't connect. Yes, I know, they could, but that requires money, will and aligned schedules.

You are stating the obvious. Lets say Via or the federal government wanted to spend the money... It could be done. They, and I do understand this.

 

[Urban Sky]

I think the notion of nationalizing the railways (CN/CPKC) is not an option without either railway divesting its holdings in the USA and Mexico. These are now international railways with massive operations in the USA and Mexico and all the legal, political, and investor relationships and requirements that being an international entity entails. And as a stockholder in both corporations I would immediately (as would hundreds of others) commence legal actions against the government. It’s just not in the cards.

The market capitalization of CN and CPKC is approximatey $100 billion each, which meanst that we know the absolute lowest price point at which public control over our rail infrastructure could possibly be achieved…