[dowlingm]

Uhhh how does that relate to subsidizing air fare instead of a train?

Airlines can’t carry freight. The Churchill line is a freight railway.

Edit for greater clarity - there are also communities served along the route

 

[Urban Sky]

By changing the mandate and allowing provincial governments to fund VIA services like Amtrak does would make a difference.

I thought we had already discussed that here, but I am not aware of any changes in VIA's mandate since January 1990 (when an Order-in-Council forced VIA to drastically cut its network and services), but that doesn't seem to have prevented the MTO from co-financing the reintroduction of what is today train #82 and #83 (i.e. the early-morning commuter train from London to Toronto and the late-afternoon return trip) just a year later, or are you aware of any changes in VIA's mandate since then?

Spoiler

VIA brochure (effective 1991/01/14):

VIA timetable (effective 1994/04/24):

This is a bit crazy. The per person cost to provide all this service outside of the corridor, and we can't even properly invest in the corridor with HSR?
I don't have the solution, but it seems a pretty unfair. Is there any way to make these remote services cost less to operate? Busses are cheap because the government already owns the roads. Maybe force the freight railroads to allow small VIA trains to use track for free as long as they are not frequent. (aka, regional services) And use some fuel efficient DMU trains.

View attachment 433954

Yes, and they own the tracks that are used to provide this service. They do not need to pay themselves for track slots. But in Canada we have private freight railroad companies. In places where there ARE ACTUALLY roads, it costs less to just use a bus. What is the biggest cost? Is it using the private tracks? Again, maybe the government can mandate that these infrequent services are important and so the railroads must waive fees. It's not like we are trying to blast the Accela through every hour, it's a 2-3 train a week deal. These companies already screw up our national logistics, we need better performance from them.

I would assume that the biggest chunk in VIA's operating cost is labor rather than track access: two locomotive engineers and one service manager, where a bus can be operated with one single driver. Fuel might also be a major factor, since a train has a much higher weight and much more powerful motors...

That being said though, I of course get frustrated with the lack of funding in our passenger rail network compared to things like highways. But if we can wrestle some money for trains, we actually need to build stuff, not give it all to CN/CP. A proper HSR route between our largest cities might be able to pay for all the other routes. Hell, maybe a "profitable VIA" would get government to invest in it even more. (Even if being profitable is not something a national passenger railway should have to do.)

Actually, VIA's variable revenues on its Corridor operations were already enough pre-Covid ($294 million in 2018) to not just offset its own variable expenses ($217 million), but to also pay for the negative contribution of all non-Corridor ($37.8 million) and to contribute a similar amount ($39.2 million) towards its overheads:

Original posted in: Post #6,707
Compiled from: VIA Rail's Summary of the Corporate Plan and Annual Plans 2017 and 2018
Note: figures in bold are provided in above documents, whereas all other figures are derived from these figures.

 

[Bordercollie]

I thought we had already discussed that here, but I am not aware of any changes in VIA's mandate since January 1990 (when an Order-in-Council forced VIA to drastically cut its network and services), but that doesn't seem to have prevented the MTO from co-financing the reintroduction of what is today train #82 and #83 (i.e. the early-morning commuter train from London to Toronto and the late-afternoon return trip) just a year later, or are you aware of any changes in VIA's mandate since then?

Spoiler

VIA brochure (effective 1991/01/14):
View attachment 434009

VIA timetable (effective 1994/04/24):
View attachment 434015

I would assume that the biggest chunk in VIA's operating cost is labor rather than track access: two locomotive engineers and one service manager, where a bus can be operated with one single driver. Fuel might also be a major factor, since a train has a much higher weight and much more powerful motors...



Actually, VIA's variable revenues on its Corridor operations were already enough pre-Covid ($294 million in 2018) to not just offset its own variable expenses ($217 million), but to also pay for the negative contribution of all non-Corridor ($37.8 million) and to contribute a similar amount ($39.2 million) towards its overheads:

View attachment 434016
Original posted in: Post #6,707
Compiled from: VIA Rail's Summary of the Corporate Plan and Annual Plans 2017 and 2018
Note: figures in bold are provided in above documents, whereas all other figures are derived from these figures.

That's actually pretty efficient.

 

[dowlingm]

Actually, VIA's variable revenues on its Corridor operations were already enough pre-Covid ($294 million in 2018) to not just offset its own variable expenses ($217 million), but to also pay for the negative contribution of all non-Corridor ($37.8 million) and to contribute a similar amount ($39.2 million) towards its overheads:

View attachment 434016

does anyone off the top of their head know how Canadian, unlike the rest of the network, managed to have such a large, and seemingly recurring, semi variable revenue as a proportion of variable? It is a fifth of variable revenue in both 2018 and 2017. (~60m vs ~12m)

 

[Urban Sky]

does anyone off the top of their head know how Canadian, unlike the rest of the network, managed to have such a large, and seemingly recurring, semi variable revenue as a proportion of variable? It is a fifth of variable revenue in both 2018 and 2017. (~60m vs ~12m)

Maybe third-party revenues generated at VMC and Vancouver Pacific Station (both facilities which are served by no other VIA services than the Canadian)?

 

[nfitz]

Maybe third-party revenues generated at VMC and Vancouver Pacific Station (both facilities which are served by no other VIA services than the Canadian)?

What's VMC?

 

[Bordercollie]

What's VMC?

Vancouver Maintenance Center

 

[Bordercollie]

Maybe third-party revenues generated at VMC and Vancouver Pacific Station (both facilities which are served by no other VIA services than the Canadian)?

Likely that the RMR used VMC as it's maintenance center, which has now moved to Kamloops if I'm not mistaken.

Speaking of the RMR aren't some of the single deck cars EX VIA blue cars? Why have they been able to retain them in service while VIA felt that it was unsafe due to corrosion?

 

[Urban Sky]

Likely that the RMR used VMC as it's maintenance center, which has now moved to Kamloops if I'm not mistaken.

I have no idea about RMR, but the largest chunk of the Canadian’s third-party non-direct revenues seems to come from West Coast Express, which accounted for $5.5 million in 2019:

Speaking of the RMR aren't some of the single deck cars EX VIA blue cars? Why have they been able to retain them in service while VIA felt that it was unsafe due to corrosion?

Are these cars HEP cars or why would or should the Ministrial Order apply to them?

 

[crs1026]

Are these cars HEP cars or why would or should the Ministrial Order apply to them?

The RMRT fleet are mostly standard carbon steel ex-CN coaches built by CC&F, plus a couple P-S handmedowns from US railways that came to CN and then VIA.

The ex CN CC&F fleet have had their own corrosion history - being made of standard carbon steel they have always been susceptible to rust. RMTR has done its own life extension programs over the years, as have some other operators who have acquired cars from the old VIa “blue” fleet.

But the corrosion habits of those carbodies, and the current problem with Budd built stainless steel cars, are apples and oranges.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

The RMRT fleet are mostly standard carbon steel ex-CN coaches built by CC&F, plus a couple P-S handmedowns from US railways that came to CN and then VIA.

The exN CC&F fleet have had their own corrosion history - being made of standard carbon steel they have always been susceptible to rust. RMTR has done its own life extension programs over the years, as have some other operators who have acquired cars from the old VIa “blue” fleet.

But the corrosion habits of those carbodies, and the current problem with Budd built stainless steel cars, are apples and oranges.

- Paul

Not only do the CC&F (and PS) cars have their own corrosion history, they also have an extremely well-detailed and well-defined history and process on how to fix those problems. So well-known, in fact, that small operators such as the Credit Valley Explorer was able to perform a side-sill replacement on their own.

The Budd-built cars, on the other hand, are a bit more of an unknown for a number of different reasons.

Dan

 

[Bordercollie]

Not only do the CC&F (and PS) cars have their own corrosion history, they also have an extremely well-detailed and well-defined history and process on how to fix those problems. So well-known, in fact, that small operators such as the Credit Valley Explorer was able to perform a side-sill replacement on their own.

The Budd-built cars, on the other hand, are a bit more of an unknown for a number of different reasons.

Dan

But I thought that VIA retired the blue cars due to their carbon steel frame in favor of BUDD cars that have stainless steel frames.

If the blue cars were easier to repair why were they retired?

 

[crs1026]

But I thought that VIA retired the blue cars due to their carbon steel frame in favor of BUDD cars that have stainless steel frames.

If the blue cars were easier to repair why were they retired?

Because while a life extension can be performed on the blue fleet, one would have to renew the cars at more frequent intervals.

We're talking about 30 years having passed since the original HEP rebuild of the Budd cars.

That was the right decision.... the Budd fleet has held up well, all things considered......but nothing lasts forever.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

One other factor is that RMR operates a sesonal service. This means that:

1. The cars put on fewer km per year,
2. They don't have to deal with harsh winter weather, and
3. The fleet is out of service for many months a year, giving them the oportunity to do very thorough annual inspections and referbihsment.

Aluminum (LRC), carbon steel (blue and Renaissance), and stainless steel (HEP) all have very different mechanical properties. While carbon steel will corode far more quickly than the other two, it can be welded without introducing other structural issues. Had VIA kept the blue fleet instead of the HEPs, I am confident that the money spent on maintanance would have been much higher. There also is no guaruntee, with VIA's higher fleet utalization (especially in winter) than RMR, that the blue fleet would still be usable had VIA chosen to kept it.

 

[Bordercollie]

It's still federally mandated to serve remote communities, it won't look good to cancel the service out right.

Are there no spare diners that could be used on the skeena since it's low season?

They don't have ovens in the coach cars to heat up meals? There must be another solution.

National Post: Chris Selley: Via Rail trains so decrepit they need 'buffer cars' in case of a collision.

Chris Selley: Via Rail trains so decrepit they need 'buffer cars' in case of a collision

Taxpayers should not be funding cruise ships on rails — or any rail service that's as unnecessarily terrible as Via

nationalpost.com