[Allandale25]

FYI in case anyone here is interested:

Governor in Council (GIC) Careers | | , ,

pcogic.njoyn.com

Director, VIA Rail Canada Inc.​

Portfolio: Transport
Organization: VIA Rail Canada Inc.
Position title: Director
Type: Part-time
Per diem: $410.00 - $485.00
Annual retainer: $5,300.00 - $6,200.00
Location: Across Canada
Application Review Date: September 6, 2023
Opportunity number: J0723-1311
VIA Rail Canada Inc. (VIA Rail) is a Crown corporation that operates the national passenger rail services on behalf of the Government of Canada, offering intercity rail services and ensuring rail transportation services to regional and remote communities. Its objective is to offer a safe, accessible, efficient, reliable, sustainable and environmentally friendly passenger rail service that meets the needs of Canadian passengers.

The Board of Directors of VIA Rail is responsible for the governance and oversight of corporate activities, business performance and strategic policy direction. It ensures internal controls are in place to manage risks and ensure the accuracy of the organization’s finances and reports.

More details in the post.

 

[kEiThZ]

The example doesn't exist because the infrastructure doesn't exist to run it on. There's a chicken and egg problem here.

There is no amount of infrastructure that we could conceivably build that would justify the creation of rolling stock manufacturing large enough to replace all the auto manufacturing jobs in SWO. Essentially you're calling for SWO to be deindustrialized based on nothing but ideology.

 

[cplchanb]

There is no amount of infrastructure that we could conceivably build that would justify the creation of rolling stock manufacturing large enough to replace all the auto manufacturing jobs in SWO. Essentially you're calling for SWO to be deindustrialized based on nothing but ideology.

It's a generational shift. Reason why there's no wheel manufacturing here is because no Reelz operators like via want to buy new rolling stock more frequently. Case in point the long-range Fleet is still comprise of dinosaur rail cars from the 1950s. Most of the freight locomotives are rebuilt after rebuild that's rebuilt Again and again. Not mention the unwillingness to commit to more infrastdoctor to be builtNot mention the unwillingness to commit to more Rail infrastructure To be built. It's all A death spiral. There needs to be a marketing and commitment push to more Reelzl infrastructure, As well as there needs to be More frequent planned Obsolence for the rolling stock

 

[Bojaxs]

It's a generational shift. Reason why there's no wheel manufacturing here is because no Reelz operators like via want to buy new rolling stock more frequently. Case in point the long-range Fleet is still comprise of dinosaur rail cars from the 1950s. Most of the freight locomotives are rebuilt after rebuild that's rebuilt Again and again. Not mention the unwillingness to commit to more infrastdoctor to be builtNot mention the unwillingness to commit to more Rail infrastructure To be built. It's all A death spiral. There needs to be a marketing and commitment push to more Reelzl infrastructure, As well as there needs to be More frequent planned Obsolence for the rolling stock

Freight companies are always trying to cut costs. Hence why they opt to rebuild their locomotives rather than purchase new ones. Most freight companies have to answer to share holders who want profits and don't want to see money getting wasted. It has nothing to do with the "train culture" in North America.

 

[T3G]

As well as there needs to be More frequent planned Obsolence for the rolling stock

Planned obsolence for rolling stock seems like a FANTASTIC way to utterly f**k the rail companies if the funding tap is ever turned off. Imagine there was an economic crisis at the same time that planned obsolescence kicked in - now you won't be able to run any trains at all, all because we gave in to populist whining and a delusion that forcing rail operators to buy more rolling stock more often will somehow make train manufacturing a viable industry in this country.

The fact that rolling stock can be refurbished is a VERY good thing.

 

[cplchanb]

Planned obsolence for rolling stock seems like a FANTASTIC way to utterly f**k the rail companies if the funding tap is ever turned off. Imagine there was an economic crisis at the same time that planned obsolescence kicked in - now you won't be able to run any trains at all, all because we gave in to populist whining and a delusion that forcing rail operators to buy more rolling stock more often will somehow make train manufacturing a viable industry in this country.

The fact that rolling stock can be refurbished is a VERY good thing.

Don't complain and give the Pikachu face meme then because rolling stock is too high. When there's no need to build new trains in 2 generations there's no need for the industry. When there's no need then we have no expertise so when they finally need a new train after decades of scraping the life out of them there won't be any buying power.

Btw you are giving a very negatively skewed picture of what planned obsolescence is. It doesn't mean 1 month after a missed replacement the cars fall apart. It means allowing for replacement before you need to do endless SLEPs to keep them on life support. Its all cyclical. The more you procure the more industry will come. We all complain that theres so few FRA approved rolling stock and this is the reason why. When you constantly are obsessed with juggling around RDCs noone will want to come to do business here. I'm sure either way they will build quality products but rail cars can be recycled and new ones procured. Old stock can also be sold to other lesser rail operators in other countries. They can make much more money on the used market than to sell them as scrap.

Iirc ttc tried to sell their h5s to Lagos but they were cancelled at the last minute probably because their conditions were too poor for their standards...now that is embarrassing.

 

[kEiThZ]

It's a generational shift. Reason why there's no wheel manufacturing here is because no Reelz operators like via want to buy new rolling stock more frequently. Case in point the long-range Fleet is still comprise of dinosaur rail cars from the 1950s. Most of the freight locomotives are rebuilt after rebuild that's rebuilt Again and again. Not mention the unwillingness to commit to more infrastdoctor to be builtNot mention the unwillingness to commit to more Rail infrastructure To be built. It's all A death spiral. There needs to be a marketing and commitment push to more Reelzl infrastructure, As well as there needs to be More frequent planned Obsolence for the rolling stock

Again, even if all the rolling stock in Canada was to be replaced over 25-30 years, that still wouldn't create the employment to replace the auto manufacturing sector. Rolling stock manufacturing is just low density for employment unfortunately. And people mix up their application of (anti-car) ideology with domestic consumption and an export market.

 

[Frank_Lee]

Again, even if all the rolling stock in Canada was to be replaced over 25-30 years, that still wouldn't create the employment to replace the auto manufacturing sector. Rolling stock manufacturing is just low density for employment unfortunately. And people mix up their application of (anti-car) ideology with domestic consumption and an export market.

Just to be clear Keith, I (speaking with my economist hat on, here), like many others are not opposed to cars per se. I am opposed to the massive subsidies that are given to them implicitly and explicitly.

For instance, a lot of these subsidies are given via the legal system:

Should Law Subsidize Driving?

A century ago, captains of industry and their allies in government launched a social experiment in urban America: the abandonment of mass transit in favor of a

papers.ssrn.com

Obviously the US is not the same as Canada, but the differences are in degree, not direction.

 

[Frank_Lee]

Just to be clear Keith, I (speaking with my economist hat on, here), like many others are not opposed to cars per se. I am opposed to the massive subsidies that are given to them implicitly and explicitly.

For instance, a lot of these subsidies are given via the legal system:

Should Law Subsidize Driving?

A century ago, captains of industry and their allies in government launched a social experiment in urban America: the abandonment of mass transit in favor of a

papers.ssrn.com

Obviously the US is not the same as Canada, but the differences are in degree, not direction.

Also I live in a town in BC which has among the highest per capita rates of car ownership in the country, and will never have passenger rail service again. I also have relatives that have been directly (by Ford) and indirectly (as an HVAC tech) employed in manufacturing in SWO.

 

[cplchanb]

Again, even if all the rolling stock in Canada was to be replaced over 25-30 years, that still wouldn't create the employment to replace the auto manufacturing sector. Rolling stock manufacturing is just low density for employment unfortunately. And people mix up their application of (anti-car) ideology with domestic consumption and an export market.

no but we need to diversify... we are always begging the big 3 every CBA to give us the production rights for 1 of their vehicles.
we cant just always be their lapdog. what if one day they say FU and close the windsor or oshawa plant? Ontario manufacturing would be left with nothing. The Alstom plant is a shadow of its former self.

 

[kEiThZ]

Just to be clear Keith, I (speaking with my economist hat on, here), like many others are not opposed to cars per se. I am opposed to the massive subsidies that are given to them implicitly and explicitly.

For instance, a lot of these subsidies are given via the legal system:

Should Law Subsidize Driving?

A century ago, captains of industry and their allies in government launched a social experiment in urban America: the abandonment of mass transit in favor of a

papers.ssrn.com

Obviously the US is not the same as Canada, but the differences are in degree, not direction.

Again, when we are talking about building factories primarily for an export market, we aren't talking about subsidizing cars in Canada. Essentially you are arguing that workers in SWO should face worse economic prospects, on the slight chance, that cars will be less subsidized in the US (unlikely since some state would have swept up the factory). Like I said, you're putting ideology first here and ignoring the difference between manufacturing for domestic consumption and export.

 

[kEiThZ]

no but we need to diversify...

Easier said than done. But also, I'm not sure how we diversify without actually deploying plenty of public subsidies (which is one of the complaints here), and in a manner that easily transitions the existing worker base. We aren't just talking a handful of workers here. We need solutions at scale. I am curious to hear your ideas. What do you think the 130+k auto manufacturing workers should be doing instead, that would involve a different sector and involve less public subsidies, and offer a similar (or better) quality of life?

 

[Northern Light]

When did the VIA rail thread become the train/rolling stock manufacturing thread?

Just sayin.

 

[micheal_can]

When did the VIA rail thread become the train/rolling stock manufacturing thread?

Just sayin.

And everyone likes to blame me.

 

[kEiThZ]

When did the VIA rail thread become the train/rolling stock manufacturing thread?

Just sayin.

When a bunch of folks decided that the way to fund VIA is to defund our ongoing industrial policy in Southwestern Ontario. Started with this post:

Since there is not a lot going on to be excited about in terms of H*R or anything else, I wanted to ask this group of wise folks a wild-ass hypothetical. Suppose, instead of giving 13 Billion in subsidies to VW for a battery plant, the federal and Ontario governments gave this money to Via. How would you spend it? What do you think we could actually get for it?