May "VIA" Article

[petitnj]

From the sounds of the headline, Canada has a profitable, smooth running government railroad. The comparison to Amtrak is most telling. If you add up all that Canada has put into VIA in the last 20 years you get about $7B (CAN or US it doesn't matter much). That's about $290/citizen. If you add up all that Amtrak has received for operations it comes to about $13B(US) and that is about $80/citizen. If we had spend on Amtrak what the Canadians spent on VIA it would have had at least $40B to work with and would have much happier employees.

[dknelson]

One difference is that many parts of Canada really need their passenger trains. Few parts of the USA really NEED Amtrak -- more a nice to have rather than a need to have.
I have to say from personal experience that VIA seemed to wring more years out of their streamlined cars than Amtrak could or did or tried to.
Dave Nelson

[petitnj]

Good point Dave. I wonder, however, if Canada would have been better off subsidizing air carriers (as we do in our small midwestern towns) instead of VIA? It is much like the subsidy that rural roads get from the urban areas. Without the intervening roads the urban infrastructure wouldn't be useful. I wonder how the political winds will blow now that the airlines have been exposed as unprofitable and impossible to secure?

Noel Petit

[Modelcar]

...Yes it seems the airlines have been the poster boy of travel until some difficult times have exposed them as being less than thought to be economically. Overall, probably have lost more money than they have earned. Of course we're wondering if other means of transit will now share more of the subsidy dollar.

QM

[Anonymous]

Just as in the US air carriers in Canada have been subsidized in the past by the provision of airports and air traffic control systems with the air industry absorbing little of the cost. That of course has changed and is now part of the problem with the air industry. It is now on more of a level playing field with other modes of transport. The air industry is still trying to provide service to cities that are 300 miles or less apart. At this distance the train should provide a frequent, timely and similar costed service as the air mode. This is not to say that airlines shouldn't have flights between those destinations, but hourly service seems ridiculous just as providing rail service more than once daily between transcontinental destinations would be foolish. However I don't think that 1 daily train between places such as Chicago and Seattle or Toronto and Vancouver is unrealistic. What the rail providers (publicly or privately funded)should focus on are services between city pairs that are with in the 300 to 500 mile range. If direct rail access to airports was provided then both the rail and the air modes would be in a win/win situation.

[Anonymous]

I happen to be a Canadian, though unfortunately living in Calgary...Let me tell you a few things about Via, and note that I have yet to read the article.

1) Via Rail is nowhere near "profitable". Sure, it's got a wonderful farebox recovery ratio, but there are subsidies for Via's operation and capital expenses.

2) It really helps when the Minister of Transportation is a self-admitted railfan. Much as I hate the Liberal regime that we have here, I do like the fact that David Collenette is in power.

3) We're able to keep those wondeful Budd streamliner cars because we have so few routes that require them. There's the Canadian from Vancouver to Toronto, the Ocean and Chaleur which run from Montreal to Halifax and Gaspe respectively, and the Hudson Bay, which can probably make do without these cars but does use them anyway. Of course, some sainted soul decided that these cars were worth keeping and the company rebuilt them from the wheels up. After all, the stainless steel used to make them in the 50's doesn't rust or corrode!

4) Canada was built on the railway. There's no doubt that many many communities thrived or died based on the railway, and still do. The highways that followed the railways sometimes never followed the same routes, and thus towns throughout the country literally have no other ground transportation in or out. Just look at northern Manitoba, northern BC, northern Ontario, and rural Quebec. All have government mandated service because there is no other way in or out. Americans would do well to realize this in the case of the Empire Builder and the towns along the High Line through Montana...

Honestly, I would love to use Via's service...it just doesn't come to Calgary, though I'm certainly hoping that the governments realize that a high-speed line between Edmonton and Calgary would be a very good thing...And the JetTrain is coming on the 7th of April. :-)

[BR60103]

There was a comment in a newspaper today that the airlines have lost more money in the last 10 years than they made in the previous 90.
--David

[Anonymous]

Hey Calgary!
I can't wait until they wake up and see the opportunities for a corridor network between Calgary and Edmonton too! Unfortunatly you're looking at at least ten years, but you never know...I've worked for VIA for only six years and have seen so many amazing changes that you can never tell.
The thing is though, in response to Noel...you sound very bitter and seem to think that the service manager who worked on that train was somehow happier than the conductors on the yankie side because VIA got some amazing government grant; I think that that is very naive of you. Six years ago we had conductors too, many of whom fit the discription in the article to a tee. When I started I was discusted. I don't mean at all to say they were all like this...but a lot of them were. Remember that a conductor has a lot of other concerns on their minds - not on the high end of the totem poll customers. Many of them started their careers in freight so they prioritze differently. VIA restructured in 98 to what seemed at the time a very scarey move (read the article for the detaIls of new crewing inciatives). But basically, regardless of how happy we are (or are not) with our political situations, service managers were hired directly to be responsible for safety and SERVICE. Also (and this should not really be here 2nd) to save a stinckly grose amount of money.
The long and the short of it is that regardless of our political situation, we now have fun in our jobs. :)

[dknelson]

Back when I rode VIA's Canadian (Canadien?) it was on CP tracks and went to Calgary. It also went to Banff and Lake Louise and Revelstoke and lots of other nice places that are not on the route now that they have switched over to using CN. Then again, Jasper is very nice ....
Dave Nelson

[Anonymous]

If you look at the financial figures for Via versus Amtrak you can see that Via still has a ways to go to catch up to Amtrak on the cost recovery ratio. It is important to remember that when Amtrak was receiving capital investment/funding/subsidy for the bi-level superliners Via was struggling along with steam heated equipment and old antiquated locomotives. Neither Via nor Amtrak is adequately funded. One thing that road loving governments could do to help railroads and motorists is to fund more grade separations so that the speed and the reliability of the speed will be increased for both freight and passenger trains. I have seen trains delayed for hours while police investigate why a motorist or pedestrian decided to ignore the crossing gates. I think both Amtrak and Via should focus primarily upon routes that can be covered in a day's journey ie: 14 hours or less. Just as decreasing the frequency by half reduces the ridership by more than half, the opposite is true when you add frequencies because of the increase in convenience. Lets have more trains!

[Anonymous]

I agree, there should be more grade separations, and more frequency of our passenger trains. But I would not agree to focus on 14 hours without investing into high speed fast trains..... It is the speed of a train that will increase the frequency.....

I know, all of you are tired about me complaining about Amtrak service in Texas, but the only way I can see any improvement for service is with much more SPEED! Today it takes the Eagle close to 30 hours to get from San Antonio to Chicago, and close to 22 hours from Dallas to Chicago. To go further east, one must get to Chicago on a daily basis. The other alternative is to take the Sunset Limited to Jacksonville, and make connections there to go further north. But the Sunset Limited runs only 3 times a week, It is not a daily service, and there is a very long wait in the wee hours of the night in San Antonio. Yet, there is another choice, which is to take the Amtrak bus from Dallas to connect with the Sunet Limited in Houston going east. But who do you know wants to catch a bus around midnight and ride a bus for 4 hours?
900 to 1000 miles from Dallas to Chicago, and it is about the same from Houston to Jacksonville. It would only be about a 6-7 hour trip if the trains averaged 150 mph. It would be about a 10-11 hour trip if the trains averaged 100 mph. Today the trains average at less than 50 mph.

With a train averaging 150 mph, and finishing its route in 8 hours, this one trainset could make 3 runs a day.

I have posted before that we need to invest in high speed rail, with a route along the east coast, from NYC to Chicago, Chicago to Texas (Dallas or Houston) , and Texas to the east coast, (Atlanta or Jacksonville). I prefer electricified high speed trains that can do 186 mph on these routes. We could save some on the other shorter routes by using the Jet train that can do 150 mph. Not all of the routes would necessarily need to be electrified. BUT ANY PLAN THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE TEXAS IS DOOMED IN CONGRESS! No Amtrak trains in Texas means no Amtrak trains anywhere!

[Anonymous]

Yes I remember the Canadian running on the CPR main across the great plains, hurtling through Bassano, AB on the Brooks Sub, F40's gleaming in the evening sun...and I remember when trains 1/2 (The Canadian) were re-routed on the CN Main through Edmonton. A political decision, I read. These days my passenger train riding is done on the BNSF High Line. I can get to Vancouver on Amtrak using the "Builder" and "Cascades". Paul O'Neil, Lethbridge, AB

[Anonymous]

Yea, AMTRAK sucks, and so does VIA. But in this day and age, what other choices are we left with? I wish I'd been born about 40 years earlier, so I could have witnessed the best years of railroading. I'm just thankful that we still have any trains to ride at all... I was only 6 years old when Amtrak was formed, so that's about all I know. I do have foggy memories of GTW passenger trains in Battle Creek, but not much...
Todd C.

[cabforward]

your post leaves out a lot of info and glosses over points, but this is not a legal journal.. i dont know how hard it is for the rail systems in can. to receive funds from the govt, maybe easier than the us, maybe harder.. but here are some aspects: pork barrel; here, it is a given that projects involving rail must pay tribute ('respect' in the mafia) to states & the politicians that represent them.. that means bulding track to their favorite towns and stations named after their grand-dad or governor.. population centers; us has many, how many does can have? us & can both have mountainous terrain; does can r.rs. cross deserts? our miss. riv. floods about 1 in 2 years; how many bridges does can lose in a bad year? how much r-o-w washes out in a bad year? can has 2 class-1 r.rs. & several regional; makes standardization of usage easy, right? when did you last survey am. r.rs. and those which amtrak uses? also, r.rs. have come and gone whose rails amtrak used in the past 30 years; those contract must be re-negotiated, right? it seems to me can has many remote ares served by 1 hiway and 1 r.r.. that impacts ridership and freight usage, right? down south, we have many towns that typically are served by several state hi-ways, 3 interstates and several class-1 and regional shortlines.. these factors affect whether companies stay in the red or black..

im not saying can has no solutions that may work here.. there may be solutions that work as well here as they do up north.. but the plan doesn't begin by throwing money at it.. it doesn't begin by comparing can apples to us turnips..

there could be numerous reasons why can pass. rail works better.. maybe can citizens feel stronger about rail travel.. if americans coast-to-coast felt as strongly about rail service as the n.e. corridor does, we would have much better rail service than now..

america has different feelings about things in different locations.. long-haul pass. rail & transit are essential from va. to n. hampshire and probably always will be.. but nowhere else in our land is it as big a deal as there.. the situation can change and will.. everyday you read about new local transit auths. borrowing money or starting work to build or extend present rail commuter lines.. but this is mostly in places that didn't have it before.. there are many old routes re-opening in the midwest and the n.e. corridor, and that's a good thing.. but that's also part of the problem..

if gas, for some reason, should drop to $1/gal by '05, none of these projects might get finished because drivers could easily afford to buy the gas and would rather ride their car than a train.. on the other hand, more crowded roads could force drivers to stay on the trains, which would mean transit projects could stay on track.. the trick is, between the drop in gas prices and the decision by drivers to keep riding the rails to work could be an interim of 1-2 years of falling transit ridership & revenues.. in other words, by the time riders decide the hi-ways are too crowded after all for driving to work, many projects could already be cancelled.. we all know projects are much harder to re-start than they are to stop, when they are half-done..

[Anonymous]

While I agree with you on just about everything, I do have my bones to pick over 300 to 500 miles.

We need a high speed rail network that connects the four largest metropolitan areas east of the Rockies. The northeast (New York City/Philadelphia), the midwest (Chicago), Florida (Atlanta/Jacksonville and further south), and Texas (Dallas.Houston). With Cleveland and Detroit metropolitan areas connected, all of the cities with metropolitan populations of over 5 million would be connected. Los Angeles and San Francisco/Oakland, the other major metropolitan areas of over 5 million could be connected in the west with high speed rail too. The distance to be upgraded to high speed rail, some 4,000 to 5,000 miles, depending upon the route.

Building a high speed train from Houston to Dallas, Cincinnati to Cleveland, Indianapolis to Chicago, St. Louis to Chicago, Atlanta thru Jacksonville and on down to Orlando and Miami WON'T WORK UNLESS PASSENGERS CAN GO FURTHER..... People DO travel further, from Dallas to New York City, from Chicago to Orlando, from Houston to Cleveland, etc., etc.

While we can start building high speed rail up to 300 to 500 miles in distance, we should rightly expect that some national network east of the Rockies is in the final plans....

I have ridden west of Denver, and after going through the 37 tunnels on the California Zephyr, I do not see high speed rail ever being built west of Denver, the largest metropolitan area in the Rockies....any transcontinental high speed train would have to go through Denver.....

Amtrak should terminate its transcontinental trains today, and concentrate on providing better service west of the Sierras and east of the Rockies.....

[Anonymous]

So you are one of those who want to ride the Empire Builder which has a daily service instead of your thrice weekly transcontinental train that runs through Edmonton. Do you live in Calgary?

Frankly, I am for Amtrak terminating the transcontinentals. Amtrak should concentrate its efforts into high speed rail east of the Rockies (Denver only) and west of the Sierras. A nice parralegram would connect the northeast corridor to Chicago, Chicago to Dallas/Houston, Dallas/Houston to Atlanta/Jacksonville, and Atlanta/Jacksonville to the northeast corridor.

If this parralegram was super fast, 186 mph TGV fast, someone from Dallas to either get to Florida and/or Chicago in 6 hours averaging 150 mph on around 900 miles of track.... Someone from Dallas could get as far as New York City in 12 hours.....

NOT TWO DAYS, NOT ONE DAY WITH AN OVERNIGHT TRIP!

The major metropolitan populations of over 5 million are: New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington/Baltimore, Atlanta, Tampa/St. Petersburg, Miami, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

The major metropolitan populations of over 2 million are: Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Raleigh, Charlotte, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Nashville, Lousiville, Cincinnati, Columbus, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Milwaukee, Denver, Austin/San Antonio, Phoenix, San Diego, Salt Lake City, Sacramento, Portland, and Seattle.

I hope I didn't leave anyone out.

A good plan to build high speed rail would be to connect the cities of 5 million first, and then expand the network to cities of 2 million second. Many smaller cities along the routes would also be included. Those large cities that are missed would only be a short 2-3 hour bus drive away.

[petitnj]

My point in this message was that comparing VIA to AMTRAK is unfair. With Canada investing about 3 times more money in VIA than the US invested in AMTRAK you would expect this sort of disparity in their services. There are many other issues that cloud the comparison: remote villages served primarily by rail, political pork barrel, historic positioning of the railroads, etc. Another intersting comparision is the cost of doing business in Canada vs US. All of this is beside the point and the bottom line is the tale of the tape (as they say). I would be interested in hearing your opinion on how governments should treat transportation systems. Should they be self sustaining? Should they provide uniform services for all of the population? Is transportation vital to a nation's wealth? Where does transportation sit in the hierarchy of the government's priorities (public safety, public health, education, ...)? And so on.

[cabforward]

there is no such-thing as 'self-sustaining' in am. trans.. everybody is getting something from govt. to make it easier to retain what there is now.. airlines get it, hi-way maint. gets it, trucks get it, r.rs. get it..

anything the citizens value as essential receives special treatment.. nowadays it's roads and planes.. in 40 years rail trans. could be regarded as essential by americans.. i doubt it.. we do not put great value in rail travel.. cars are luxurious and private; planes are fast and there is the perception that passengers are catered to by the crew, but this will not last much longer..

ca has announced a plan for a maglev system for hundreds of miles.. interesting, but saying you'll do something and doing it are not the same thing.. bills are proposed every year and die for lack of funding, or appropriations.. long-haul rail has always given the image of bumpy, cramped, noisy trans.. a comedian said rail travel is 'camping out, without the bugs or campfire'.. such conditions do not attract riders in america..

i have said before that cross-country rail will not achieve a great measure of success due to the conditions above.. watch any comedy from the '40s that includes scenes of riding in a pullman car and you will see the image that prevails today.. 'some like it hot' is good..

rail travel is susceptible to many factors which reduce the pleasure aspect of rail travel.. mass transit is different.. this is a necessary feature of our economy, esp. in the n.e. area.. other metro cities (atlanta, chicago, l.a.) must have transit to move millions of workers.. this reduces crowded roads & cuts smog.. transit must be funded for today and the future.. the super chief and 20th cent. ltd. are dead and wont be back.. few people view trains as a fun thing to do for 2-4 days of your life.. they would rather pay more and arrive faster, or travel by car and set their own schedule..

everybody has their hand-out for govt. $$ and most trans. options are getting it.. the voters support this because these are well-traveled means of moving around.. cross-country rail is not well-traveled, has few supporters and nobody is screaming much when amtrak says they are dropping another 'name' service..

amtrak has no money, no friends, and no friends with money.. nobody cares what amtrak could be with $XB of govt. money and 10 years time.. they want to know what is ready-to-run now.. amtrak fights with the govt. for operating funds; it fights with r.rs. for access to schedules and right-of-way; it begs for trackage which is maintained and smooth.. would many people be happy riding on something that has so many conflicts going on at once? i dont think so.. every r.r. has nicknames awarded by employees and users, some not reprintable here.. i have nothing personal against amtrak.. i loved riding trains when i was small.. today, it wouldn't be fun.. all i would think of is, 'amtrak, you scamtrak'..