VIA Rail

[micheal_can]

The are arguments to be made for the above; but they are premature in many respects.

What's needed first a is a key analysis of different markets, both new and existing on what optimized service would look like (passenger); whether that is viable/justifiable; whether altertanives (bus) may be preferable and so on.

Once we have clarity that a given area really does make more sense with rail service, likely 2x daily or better; then we can decide how to achieve that.

There is room to negotiate w/carriers; while carrying the big stick of government power if negotiations are unduly cumbersome or delayed.

The reality is government hasn't seen fit to threaten yet, never mind take punitive action.

And really, in most cases, the justification isn't there for a 3x per week transcontinental tourist train.

The justification would be there in the corridor; or in other key areas where better service might be (re) established.

Let's get the facts on the table; look at the costs, and fund and negotiate solutions when we really know what we want and what's justified.

Surely, we can all agree that there are routes that appear to justify consideration for reinstatement, and other existing routes which would perform better w/more, more frequent, faster, more reliable services.

But which routes, in which order, at what cost is what needs sorting.

That is why I suggest switching all routes to daily. For the current long haul routes, that would greatly improve service and show CN that Via does intend to have improved service along it's routes. This would then set Via up o expand from it's existing routes.

 

[smallspy]

They had the TEE, but that got canned in the early 90s.

Do you know why the TEE equipment was removed from service in the early 1990s?

They refurbished old GO cars because the government wouldn't let them spend money on new equipment.

That is correct, yes. And considering the ridership of the time - and the fact that ONR was also running a paralleling, and competing, bus and airline service, it make good sense to do so at the time.

GO had a contract, as did AMT/EXO and Rocky Mountaineer to refurbish their fleets.

And GO almost never let them have another contract again - this most recent one for the cab car conversions was a bit of throwing them a bone to keep them afloat.

While AMT was happy with the quality of their work, they were also spectacularly unimpressed with the amount of time that it took to complete the contract.

Almost sounds like you are either a politician, or someone who doesn't know their operations very well.

Thankfully, you're completely wrong on both counts.

One can be a railfan and yet not be completely blinded by fandom.

Dan

 

[micheal_can]

Do you know why the TEE equipment was removed from service in the early 1990s?

I do not, but I heard it had to do with the equipment is not suitable for our climate.

And GO almost never let them have another contract again - this most recent one for the cab car conversions was a bit of throwing them a bone to keep them afloat.

While AMT was happy with the quality of their work, they were also spectacularly unimpressed with the amount of time that it took to complete the contract.

GO has never come back simply because the government has been trying to offload the ONR. That is why it is a shell of what it was.

Thankfully, you're completely wrong on both counts.

One can be a railfan and yet not be completely blinded by fandom.

Dan

I am not blinded by the fact that it supported my family for over 30 years when I was a child. The Northlander was purposely scheduled horribly to reduce the usefulness. Think about it, what daily service would not be on a Sunday? It would be like no GO service on a Friday.

 

[smallspy]

I do not, but I heard it had to do with the equipment is not suitable for our climate.

The equipment wasn't really that suitable for our climate, but that's not why it was retired.

GO has never come back simply because the government has been trying to offload the ONR. That is why it is a shell of what it was.

That is patently false. The contract to rebuild the 2200- and 2300-series cars took 3 years longer than it should have. This is why they were excluded from bidding on the rebuilding the 2000- and 2400-series cars.

The contract to rebuild the 15 cab cars was sole-sourced to keep them busy.

I am not blinded by the fact that it supported my family for over 30 years when I was a child. The Northlander was purposely scheduled horribly to reduce the usefulness. Think about it, what daily service would not be on a Sunday? It would be like no GO service on a Friday.

The schedule - especially the era when they ran southbound during the day and northbound at night - was spectacularly bad at times, yes. The schedule in its final years, however, was quite good and the train ran reasonably reliably.

But how do you know that the Sunday train was needed if you never rode it? The travel industry knows that certain days are busier than others - Tuesday and Wednesday are low days, while Fridays and Saturday mornings are generally busy times - and maybe ONR did the research and figured that Sunday was quiet enough to not require the train service.

Dan

 

[micheal_can]

The equipment wasn't really that suitable for our climate, but that's not why it was retired.

Then what was the reason?

The schedule - especially the era when they ran southbound during the day and northbound at night - was spectacularly bad at times, yes. The schedule in its final years, however, was quite good and the train ran reasonably reliably.

But how do you know that the Sunday train was needed if you never rode it? The travel industry knows that certain days are busier than others - Tuesday and Wednesday are low days, while Fridays and Saturday mornings are generally busy times - and maybe ONR did the research and figured that Sunday was quiet enough to not require the train service.

I did ride it. However, when I was living in North Bay, the fact that there is no return train at the end of a weekend makes going down south with it for the weekend. Visa versa, Torontoins also have the same problem.

 

[smallspy]

Then what was the reason?

The equipment was old and tired. It was non-standard, and used non-standard parts. It was fixed length, which meant that if they needed to run a longer train, they couldn't. They got a deal on a large fleet of equipment that was in reasonably good shape and for cheap, and which did use standard parts that were readily available.

Dan

 

[micheal_can]

The equipment was old and tired. It was non-standard, and used non-standard parts. It was fixed length, which meant that if they needed to run a longer train, they couldn't. They got a deal on a large fleet of equipment that was in reasonably good shape and for cheap, and which did use standard parts that were readily available.

Dan

So, the fact that it was horrible in our Northern Ontario winters was irrelevant to it's replacement?

 

[smallspy]

So, the fact that it was horrible in our Northern Ontario winters was irrelevant to it's replacement?

It didn't help, but they also ran the equipment for almost 15 years in spite of it being not ideally suited for our climate, so what does that tell you?

Dan

 

[micheal_can]

It didn't help, but they also ran the equipment for almost 15 years in spite of it being not ideally suited for our climate, so what does that tell you?

Dan

It tells me that the government does not care about the North.

 

[lenaitch]

It tells me that the government does not care about the North.

While there is some truth to that as a general statement, I'm not sure there is a direct line here. You spend a significant amount of money on equipment, that becomes a sunk cost. Once you figure out it wasn't such a great investment, the best you can do is wring as much benefit out of it as you can until such time as you can justify 'trading it in'. Government agencies, moreso than corporations but not exclusively, have difficulty justifying spending a few million and then a year or so later saying 'oops', tossing it and spending a few million more.

 

[micheal_can]

While there is some truth to that as a general statement, I'm not sure there is a direct line here. You spend a significant amount of money on equipment, that becomes a sunk cost. Once you figure out it wasn't such a great investment, the best you can do is wring as much benefit out of it as you can until such time as you can justify 'trading it in'. Government agencies, moreso than corporations but not exclusively, have difficulty justifying spending a few million and then a year or so later saying 'oops', tossing it and spending a few million more.

So, in other words, they would rather fake things than be transparent? Yup, sounds like a government agency. Sounds like how Via argues for one thing but not another. Now, if only we had a transparent government, we could move forward.

 

[lenaitch]

So, in other words, they would rather fake things than be transparent? Yup, sounds like a government agency. Sounds like how Via argues for one thing but not another. Now, if only we had a transparent government, we could move forward.

To me it sounds simply like the psychology of governance, be it government or corporate. Governments and corporations, including Crown, public and private all have governing bodies; ministries, legislatures, boards of directors, etc. It is a rare one that falls on its sword upon realization that an acquisition or decision wasn't the most stellar. The automotive industry is full of these tales, as is the most recent tribulations at Boeing; engineers vs. beancounters.

I'm not familiar with the TEE purchase but likely their shortcomings weren't immediately apparent, so you spend a year or two trying to make them work then say screw it and make the best of a bad situation until you can figure out a Plan B and how to fund it. The non-North American standard equipment, fixed trainset length and climate-related problems all seem plausible. I recall that power was changed out to North American standard units first, hauling the remainder of the TEE trainset for their remaining years. The last I was around the railyard one of the sets was still rusting away on a RIP track but that's been a few years.

I'm certainly not defending government purchasing 'wisdom' (!?). When I lived in the northwest in the '70s, there was a need for remote housing. Purchasing bureaucrats determined that a Winnipeg supplier was most suitable. Nope, Queen's Park ruled they must be Ontario-sourced, so instead of something designed for -40*C located a couple of hours away, they bought something with 2" walls and hauled them from 24 hours away. People would wake up with their hair frozen to the walls and the furnaces would constantly breakdown because they're not designed to run 24/7.

 

[micheal_can]

To me it sounds simply like the psychology of governance, be it government or corporate. Governments and corporations, including Crown, public and private all have governing bodies; ministries, legislatures, boards of directors, etc. It is a rare one that falls on its sword upon realization that an acquisition or decision wasn't the most stellar. The automotive industry is full of these tales, as is the most recent tribulations at Boeing; engineers vs. beancounters.

I'm not familiar with the TEE purchase but likely their shortcomings weren't immediately apparent, so you spend a year or two trying to make them work then say screw it and make the best of a bad situation until you can figure out a Plan B and how to fund it. The non-North American standard equipment, fixed trainset length and climate-related problems all seem plausible. I recall that power was changed out to North American standard units first, hauling the remainder of the TEE trainset for their remaining years. The last I was around the railyard one of the sets was still rusting away on a RIP track but that's been a few years.

I'm certainly not defending government purchasing 'wisdom' (!?). When I lived in the northwest in the '70s, there was a need for remote housing. Purchasing bureaucrats determined that a Winnipeg supplier was most suitable. Nope, Queen's Park ruled they must be Ontario-sourced, so instead of something designed for -40*C located a couple of hours away, they bought something with 2" walls and hauled them from 24 hours away. People would wake up with their hair frozen to the walls and the furnaces would constantly breakdown because they're not designed to run 24/7.

You now see my point. They should have looked more closely at these before buying them. No government admits their costly mistakes and we all just have to deal with them.

There is a set vandalized near downtown North Bay.

 

[crs1026]

^Good grief. The Tee equipment was bought in what....1978? At a time when there was an overnight train, and the TEEs were used to offer a round trip Toronto-North Bay as well as the Toronto-Timmins/Cochrane round trip? And the government ran air service to the north as well? And the ONR pension plan wasn’t chronically underfunded and a money pit?

It may have been a miscalculation, certainly an odd choice - but that equipment put in a lot of miles for ONr before they threw in the towel. The slow steady cutback in rail service in the North involved many parties, some federal and some provincial. Maintenance of the roadbeds and stations became more costly, and freight traffic fell dramatically. The ON pension plan required topup payments on a scale that could have funded an entire LRC order. Air service grew dramatically and investment in northern airports was substantial. The steam era equipment used on the overnight train reached end of life, and that train ceased to be popular. The highways to the north were hugely upgraded.

The Northlander had its day, and then lots of things changed. And ON bought replacements, that worked well.

Using the TEE trains to grind a “they don’t care about the north” axe is so absurd. It makes Scarborough politicians sound stoic. Please, you can do better than that. What a complete misstatement of history.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

Jeez, I completely forgot about Norontair, which I believe was also organized under the ONTC. I was up there when it operated. Duh. No excuses. Also, remote far north airports are operated by the MTO.