You know CN sure acts like a company that wants to get nationalized.

I'd nationalize the infrastructure for sure... And CN, CP or whoever would want to use it would pay a toll. Except I'd priorize passenger service during the day and would ask freight companies to run shorter trains if they want to make sure to be able to have a go during the day as well.

I love that.

> I'd nationalize the infrastructure for sure... And CN, CP or whoever would want to use it would pay a toll. Except I'd priorize passenger service during the day and would ask freight companies to run shorter trains if they want to make sure to be able to have a go during the day as well. If you don’t add physical rail capacity (as in more tracks or dedicated tracks), everything you mentioned above would increase the costs of rail delivered goods in Canada. It’s not that the freight companies don’t want to allow pax trains - it’s that there just isn’t enough network capacity to increase pax while maintaining freight. Rather than nationalize the freight lines, many of which suck ass anyway for pax riding, let’s have our government embark on a new national railway project - a proper network to connect cities and towns. High speed where practical; high frequency and design-upgrade able to high speed across the rest of the nation. My 0.02

Alright then explain me why these companies at least in the States have converted double tracks into single track if capacity was such an important matter for them. I don't know if there are such examples in Canada. Edit: just wanted to add that they seem to have a limited interest in improving their own network and do the bare minimum to keep it safe... I wish they'd do differently but their whole operation is motivated to maximize profits and dividends for the shareholders (and I perfectly understand they're not charities but it just a short-sighted way to manage even a for-profit company). And what's happening in the case of Amtrak is a perfect example of it.

You’re comparing two countries with vastly different rail, bus, airline, and other forms of intermodal transportation. Their economy is different for both people, and goods. But they also suffer the same capacity constraints when it comes to intra-urban rail transportation, especially when said transportation tries to act as a substitute for air or even personal automobile. We should be looking to Europe or Japan as inspiration points. Not the USA - whose larger economy may give them a *slight* advantage for passenger rail in a few select and dense markets.

But unfortunately our networks compare closer to the ones down the South border. Even CN and CP own US tracks. Otherwise I agree with you. I just don't see any significant improvements in Canada if the government doesn't step-in either by building new tracks our buying/nationalizing private ones.

OH MY GOD YES.

Not sure that would be as easy as you make it sound. Almost everything in this country moves by freight rail. Prioritizing passenger rail will fuck up our economy big time. Only solution is to separate the two.

Don't get me wrong I'm pro freight train. More trains equals less trucks on the roads and for me, there's no doubt that's the most efficient way to move goods around. I wish that "ferroutage" would be available for even shorter distances (hello Switzerland). In a perfect world, we should only see smaller trucks for local deliveries and anything else would be carried by rail. But once again, not sure that CN or CP would be willing to build the required infrastructure for this type of modal transfer on short distances. I'll be all in for a dedicated passenger rail network. But I'm kind of hopeless when I see that even for the most promising and obvious route such as the Quebec-Windsor corridor, takes for ever to get realized and progress seems nonexistent on this dossier.

It's because there's no demand for rail. We're a car culture through and through.

Going full steam into a wall, I know.

Do we want them though? Air Canada was a crap crown company as are most others.

Sure we do, put people in charge who know what theyre doing. And legislate their mandate.

I don't understand the terms of the contract here... Amtrak pays CN the right to use their network on a certain time and on a certain distance, shouldn't that include de facto rail maintenance? Sounds similar to the System Access Fee that cell phone carriers were charging on the top of their rate plans few years ago...

As always, there is a gap between Operations & Maintenance vs Capital Improvements. No doubt regular maintenance no longer is enough on this decrepit stretch and CN wants CapEx money from Amtrak to rebuild it. Otherwise, they are welcome to keep using it at 10 mph with the access rights and basic maintenance they paid for.

When you're already more than profitable but still want to squeeze more from your customers...

Make Ny pay

Not going to happen, especially in another country.

Dont let them use the tracks then.

So no Montreal-NYC service, ok, cool.

They only have to pay .

They already pay $3.2M to CN. That covers access and regular maintenance. Problem is that CN wants them to pay for capital expenditures to do major work, and that's the black hole that much of passenger rail falls into on this continent.

Yep. So they only have to pay to keep using the tracks. Pretty simple uh

Not sure where the line is between being dense and trolling. They are paying for access and will continue to pay. CN wants them to pay more for capital costs that really are not the job of passenger rail the way the system is set up. If every passenger operator had to pay for capital costs on freight track (where most of it runs) there would be no passenger rail at all. If this was in the US or if this was Via service there would be heavy political pressure on CN but since it is for Amtrak operating in Canada there isn't and CN can get away with their actions. It's shameful.

American here. That is a dumb take. Track in Canada should be paid for by either CN, Quebec, or Canadian federal government. I wish Amtrak would play hard ball here and find ways to make CNs life difficult for trains they operate in the US.

Tracks in Canada should be paid by Québec? Why?!

In the US a lot of Amtrak routes are paid for in partnership with Amtrak, Federal grants, and state grants. As per why should Quebec its simple faster rail to NY and hopefully Boston if they restore the VT rail connection will offer alternative to travelers instead of flying or taking the bus. This will have a net positive economic impact for Quebec.

Thanks, I understand now!

What everyone is missing here is the last sentence of the first paragraph. “Upgrade the track to a level that would reduce heat restrictions.” I work for a class 1 rr. Via also uses the tracks I run on. I’m not familiar with the subdivisions these trains run, but I can say that track work is expensive and the rail owner doesn’t see a need to upgrade the track for their freight. Almost all subdivisions have some form of temperature restrictions, some as low as 10 mph. Freight moves just fine at those speeds. People on the other hand, do not have that level of patience when other means of transportation are available. Let’s say you own a driveway that you share with your neighbor. You maintain it. You move the snow, sweep it off, etc. Your neighbor pays you a few bucks now and then. Now said neighbor wants to park a 73 ton Abrams tank in his garage, and the driveway won’t take the weight. Who should foot the bill for the upgrades?

That is the crux of the problem but not quite the right analogy. The entire passenger rail system since the 70s is based on the idea that struggling passenger railroads will receive operating subsidy and run on other people's tracks, which are assumed to be perfectly fine for their use. Of course that is not reality, many freight lines as you say have no problem with low speed operation so an issue has developed decades later as track has degraded in many places and the freight lines live with it. While it might be fair in one sense to have passenger rail pay for the upgrades, that is not how our national networks are set up. They really are operators only and are not funded for capex for long rail segments they barely use. (The Amtrak Adirondack is one train per day, many VIA routes are even less frequent). **It's more like you share a driveway, and you own an SUV with four wheel drive and your neighbor has a nice sedan. At first the driveway is fine. Years later your neighbor goes bankrupt and moves and the city buys the house and makes it affordable housing. The new subsidized tenant has a creaky old Corolla that barely runs. At first the driveway is just fine, but over time it develops cracks and starts to heave and fall apart. You don't care because you have a big SUV and don't use the driveway much, but your neighbor can't really get out anymore with the potholes and unevenness. You tell them if they want to "upgrade" the driveway that's their problem, as you don't really mind. So now what is fair?** Your "Abrams tank" analogy would be more apt if Amtrak said "hey, we want to run bullet trains to Montreal and CN should pay for it" but that's not what is happening here. They are just trying to maintain basic crappy service. This same issue will happen to VIA soon enough as track in remote area degrades and CN and CP say "fine with us".

Neither analogy is perfect but yours does capture the heart of the matter a bit better. Though I think a Corvette would be a better comparison than a Corolla given speed is the issue for the passenger trains. I run on some of these “crumbling” subdivisions. Heavily subsidized via route too. The major issue is use. These subs see so little freight traffic that upgrading the lines would never be profitable. Upgrading them for the passenger train which they don’t operate doesn’t make financial sense. Receiving what amounts to a pittance for allowing the passenger train to use their tracks, and track upgrades are very costly. I’m not defending the carrier here. They are still a business, and prioritize profit over everything. A fact I’m painfully aware of as an employee and union rep. The issue of crumbling infrastructure for our Canadian class 1 railways and now moving through the American class 1s is complex and comes from a single original reason. Hunter Harrison and PSR. Gutted CN when it privatized and pushed off maintenance for profitability. It worked in that respect. Made the shareholders very happy. However it’s like not changing oil on your car. You may save the cost of an oil change now and then, but it’ll cost you an engine before too long.

I disagree on the Corvette analogy. Passenger rail in North America is very slow moving on most long distance routes. We can talk Corvettes if referring to Acela or Cascades or Brightline or VIA Corridor, but the Adirondack is definitely plunking along at Corolla-like speeds north of Albany. Regardless, the whole system is broken since the economics that built the rails no longer work for how they are used today. UK-style nationalisation may be appropriate at some point if this can't get worked out.

Very slow passenger depending on route would be more correct but the on the same equipment (hence the corvette analogy). Take Via from Winnipeg to Churchill Manitoba once and you’ll understand. You’ll go from main line to branch line very quick and end up going slower and slower on average the entire way north. Like going from freeway to secondary highway to gravel to wheel ruts. The suv plods along. The corvette is hampered by the road conditions. There’s much more nuance to the track than most people understand. Class of track, defects, heat/cold expanding and contracting of the steel, terrain, water, ground type. I’ll admit that track must be pretty bad to be 10 mph heat restrictions. I would also bet that it’s only 25 mph normally. I have no comments regarding nationalization. Edit: and it looks like I commented on my own comment