I do not consider myself an expert on the subject of the E&N Railroad, and in fact volumes could be filled with my lack of knowledge on the subject. That said when I first moved here in 1970 the story of the E&N was a common coffee time topic. The perennial story from the railroad was that they were always losing money on the passenger service to which the immediate question raised was; "why are you running it the wrong way?".
Right now the public is being regaled with a 'he-said she-said' battle of words in the local press with ICF point-man Graham Bruce claiming the rail company is bargaining in bad faith, and the rail company denying any such claim. The result? The rail line is not being fixed and Via is not committing to resuming passenger service anytime soon.
I presume at one time Via Rail took the loses on the passenger service so they could maintain the right to sop up the gravy, so to speak which came from the freight side of the business back in the day when forestry and mills were a going concern.
Gone are those days and as much as we might all like to see them return it may be no more than wishful thinking on our part as we have to adapt to whatever the new economy holds for Nanaimo and Vancouver Island. In the meantime it would seem the only people likely making any money on the railroad are the paid staff at the Island Corridor Foundation who must keep brainstorming different ways to try and once again get the E&N Dayliner servicing the rail corridor from Victoria to Courtenay.
The rail company claims it would cost them something in the order of $2,000,000/yr. to susidize the Dayliner on the Island. This is obviously not a loss they are likely to eagerly embrace, since the gravy train that once was the freight line has long since left the station.
There are some serious flaws and omissions in this story.
ReplyDelete1. Although currently without Dayliner service, the E & N still operates. Freight moves between Duncan and Parksville. This was not mentioned yet it is important because it demonstrates that Southern Rail is serious about building business along the line.
2. VIA Rail never did operate the line. It's not in the business of owning and operating railroad tracks. VIA Rail operates under agreements with various railway companies and uses their tracks. So there's been no gravy for VIA in the past from freight operations and there won't be any in the future.
3. There's not much doubt that VIA Rail is playing games. VIA was a political creation originally (to spare CNR and CPR the bother of running passenger trains once the healthy profit margins disappeared) and that remains a factor in VIA's planning calculations. And that's not entirely undesirable -- otherwise some remote communities would be deprived of public transportation. However, VIA's failure to repond to ICF's proposal -- escept through the media -- is a case of unaccetably boorish behaviour. VIA is playing for public controversy to stimulate the feds to inject more money into its coffers. I don't think there's any other way of interpreting its actions. Whether the tactic will work or not remains to be seen, but VIA doesn't wish to take the rap for the Budd car remaining in the garage.
4. There are some real concerns about the workability of the ICF plan that need to be thrashed out, but it deserves full and proper consideration. VIA Rail's media response and its response to anyone who has written them a letter makes little sense: i.e., they will restore the service that was previously in place once the necessary track repairs have been undertaken. I have received such a letter and find it disappointing, to say the least. To coin a phrase, the status quo ante should not be an option. VIA did not provide the service that was needed for the ever growing Victoria-area commutershed, the very thing the ICF plan addresses. And that problem should be the focus of discussions between VIA and the ICF -- not the status quo ante.
If the author of the above comment would add their name to their comments, while not necessary, it would add to the credibility of the assertions. Saying that VIA never did enjoy any of the 'gravy' because that was sopped up by CNR and CPR may technically be correct.
ReplyDelete