The two worst policy failures that plague Via Rail

Via Rail Canada's painfully public problems with its new Venture trainsets from Siemens are tough to watch, especially when it seems as though some of these problems could have been avoided. Having worked in the federal public service for 15 years now, I can say with some authority that I know how politics work. This experience is what made the recent federal government announcement that Canada will pursue high-speed rail laughable.

When you consider the Via-CN swipes over who's to blame for the Ventures speed restrictions and then consider the government's high-speed rail daydream, it all comes back to politics. That's unfortunate because we live in a time when passenger rail has become the norm in many parts of the world. It's the safest and most efficient means of moving people over short- to medium-length distances.

Yet, we here in Canada can only sit back and watch Via Rail push back its arrival times across the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, due to its Ventures being slapped with speed restrictions by CN. And all the while, the government is finally taking notice of high-speed rail as a possibility, but hardly in a serious way.

Via Rail has had plenty of turbulent moments in its history. What's happening now isn't all that different, but I think the stakes this time around are much, much higher. That is why we need to understand how the government has failed its own passenger rail system, if we are to prevent situations like this from happening again.

The beginnings: I asked Trackside Treasure blogger Eric Gagnon, my go-to expert on all matters Via Rail, to figure out if he could remember a time when the passenger railway was ever given better treatment by its host railways (CP and CN). The short answer is no. When Eric explained it to me, it made perfect sense. 

Passenger railway operations lose money and there's no reasonable way to fix that problem. When Via Rail was created, first as a rebranded passenger operation within CN, and then as a standalone operation, there was no incentive for CN to give Via Rail any preferential treatment on its tracks. After all, why should it? And there was even less incentive for CP to do the same, as it was not a Crown corporation at the time when Via was created, as CN was.

Here's where I wonder if the government could have done more. As CN was indeed a Crown corporation when Via Rail was created and spun off, doesn't it seem reasonable that the government of the day, led by Pierre Trudeau, would want to give Via every opportunity to succeed?

The answer, sadly, was no. The government of the day would have had more leverage in clearing a path for Via, as CN was a Crown corporation. But the creation of Via in some ways mirrored the creation of Amtrak in the United States. The goal was to get the freight railways back to profitability. I don't think the incentive was ever to create a successful passenger railway. It might have been a product of the times, when air travel and highways were generally seen as higher priorities by most governments. Those priorities have changes over the years, but rail is still very often an afterthought.

In hindsight, perhaps some government legislation arranging for better terms for a passenger railway might have given Via a better chance to establish itself with a good reputation. A recent article on CBC's website suggests Amtrak's better on-time record is a product of the U.S. government mandating more strict terms for its host freight railways. I don't know if that is necessarily true. I think the more meaningful point in the article is that Via claims is only owns 2 percent of the tracks it uses. I would think Amtrak's northeast corridor trackage, which it owns and where most of its trains run, would also account for its higher on-time percentage. However, I also think it is misleading for Via to say it only owns 2 percent of its trackage. Is it including the trackage it uses for the Canadian, Ocean and its Churchill trains? If so, that is a lot of trackage in its network that hosts essentially three trains.
 

Rail abandonment: Here's an area of government policy where I lean very heavily on people I know who are in the industry. As most know, Ottawa has seen its rail network shrink dramatically in the last 20 years, especially after CN took over the Ottawa Central Railway from the shortline operator that ran the operation. 

I have asked more than one person in the industry if Canada has strong policies in place that ensure rights-of-way can stay intact when a railway abandons operations on the line. Short answer is no, we don't. 

Ottawa witnessed a drawn-out struggle between CN and the municipalities of Renfrew County and the Pontiac region in Quebec when it announced plans to abandon the line from Pembroke all the way to Nepean Junction. 

The end result was fairly predictable as the local governments lost their fight to maintain the rail line, which they both sought to use as an economic driver in their regions. I recall the former head of the OCR telling me they already had a customer lined up with the promise of hundreds of car loads of freight each year. It was hardly enough to justify such a long stretch of track, but it was a beginning. 

Now consider what is today technically known as the Renfrew Subdivision or Spur, owned by Nylene Canada in Arnprior. CN has long wanted to abandon this line and sought more than once to discontinue service. The only measure to stop it was a government mandate to maintain service to Nylene under the terms of the arrangement where Nylene owns the line and the City of Ottawa owns the land where the line sits. It is possible to save rails. The government just doesn't seem to want to do it very often.

How does this relate to Via Rail?

Consider the fact that the government dreams of having a high speed rail line between Toronto and Quebec City, which sits largely on a former rail line that once connected Toronto and Ottawa. The process to reacquiring this right-of-way will be expensive and likely time consuming, as people who are affected will no doubt fight any attempts to re-establish rails. 

Consider as well that the Canadian once travelled through Ottawa and Carleton Place on the old Carleton Place Subdivision, before heading up the Chalk River Sub and onto the northern transcontinental route. This was back when this service had an eastern terminus in both Montreal and Toronto.

Both the Carleton Place and Chalk River Subs are gone, and with them, any chance to re-establish routes that Via Rail could use. I'm not saying that we need to keep every abandoned line for Via, but I think an argument can be made to strengthen government policy to prevent scenarios like the one the government now faces. Once a rail line is abandoned and sold off, there is no going back. Not easily anyway.

Now consider that Via Rail uses the old CN Smiths Falls Sub and the CP Brockville Sub for its service between Ottawa and Brockville. Both of these lines were deemed surplus by the railways and both were kept to maintain Via's busy operations between Toronto and Ottawa. The same is true of the Alexandria Sub, between Ottawa and Coteau, Quebec. Via controls and maintains all these lines.

What if the CP line through Peterborough had been kept and the connection to Ottawa via Smiths Falls was intact? Would we be talking about operational delays with the Ventures right now? Possibly not as many.

My point is government policy, from what I'm told, is not as strong as it is elsewhere, like in the United States. This is from what I read and from what I am told. I tend to agree with this point of view.

The obvious failures: I'm purposely leaving out obvious failures on the part of Via Rail, like the purchase of the notoriously unreliable Renaissance fleet from Europe, which proved to be a disaster that was quickly buried. These cars, which never operated properly in the corridor, were essentially demoted to the Ottawa-Montreal route, along with service on the Ocean between Montreal and Halifax. When I talk about government failures, I'm talking about the failures of the elected governments of the day and the public servants who inform those governments, in their jobs to support Via Rail. 

The obvious cuts: I'm also putting aside the decisions of governments past to chop Via Rail service. Yes, this is a failure in a way, although a counter argument can usually be made that some of the cuts were necessary. It depends how you look at them. Most people who follow the railway industry would argue the cuts were far too deep and caused lasting damage that Via was never able to recover from, but I can see the logic behind some of the cuts. I think the cuts Via Rails suffered can only qualify as a failure if they were made to routes where there was robust demand and good revenue margins. Cutting underserved routes is painful to the communities along that line, but sometimes they were necessary. And to be fair, passenger rail has seen cuts since the Second World War. This is nothing new.

My point is, if you want to have a successful passenger rail system in Canada, you need to give the railway sound policy for it to succeed. That starts with better prioritization of passenger trains when possible. This was a missed opportunity from Via's creation in the late 1970s. The other element is you need sound policy to ensure that rail lines are not torn up without a robust process in place to ensure their future use, if deemed necessary.

I could go on extensively about cuts or about the various minsters of transportation that didn't 'get' railways. To me, the easiest policy fixes for Via are federal mandates ensuring a higher priority on freight lines and a process that doesn't result in lost rail lines that might be of future use.

Those two elements, to me, should be on the mind of the government, not some high speed rail pipe dream that will never survive under the next government.