I really hope there is conversation between the two cross country manufacturer. I can picture a future where these two entities cooperate, and hopefully there had been discussion about integrating manufacturing.
This whole approach of Canadian ostracization is incredibly short sighted. I'm not sure if there will ever be trust between our two countries ever again.
The silver lining here is that there seems to be an explosion of support for Canadian sovereignty. Canada is investing soundly in itself, so I'm happy and excited for them, but idk wtf America is going to do after Trump.
As rail passengers' friend MP David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona) explained to me, the Canadian PM's office is the most powerful of those in the democratic countries. If one likes what they are doing (the Joe Clark government, for example) it's great. If you don't like what they are doing (the Brian Mulroney government, for example) it's a dead end. And that's within the same party.
I have a photo of a Superliner consist on the VIA Rail 'Panorama' in Edmonton. It reminds me of how many obstacles have yet to be overcome.
Thanks for sharing Jim. Local content rules have long been a feature of rail vehicle procurements on both sides of the border, except that these policies are now on steroids under the new hyper-protectionist environment. The casualties are not just taxpayers, who in this case are paying for “breathtakingly expensive” rail cars as you say - most of which will be used by tourists (and not for usual intercity travel); but also users, who will take the risks of riding in quality-deficient equipment if the manufacturer does not fully transfer their all know-how to the local plants. And if you think, this is just a theoretical risk, look at Justice William Hourigan’s report on the Ottawa Light Rail Transit Public Inquiry … which looked into the causes of the Ottawa LRT accidents in Aug and Sep 2021.
Mario, thanks! I think this is a fair caution, but I’m not convinced the Ottawa example carries the argument as far as you suggest.
The Ottawa LRT procurement really was a case study in the risks of badly designed localization: a new vehicle, assembled by a largely new workforce in what was essentially a temporary production operation, with newly developed suppliers and significant integration problems. That's quite a bit different from this VIA order, where Alstom is putting work into established Canadian rail plants in La Pocatière and Thunder Bay, backed by an existing engineering base and supplier network. In other words, this isn’t really a case of hoping a newly created local operation successfully absorbs all of the manufacturer’s know-how.
Nor do I think the Ottawa derailments establish a simple chain from Canadian-content requirements to defective equipment. The inquiry identified a much more complicated combination of design, integration, maintenance and operational problem, including, in one case, improperly torqued bolts *after* maintenance...a maintenance issue, not a manufacturing issue.
More broadly, I’m increasingly skeptical of the old assumption that the sole measure of a procurement is whether taxpayers obtained the lowest possible unit price. That's important, but in my view more is at stake. Domestic manufacturing capacity, skilled workers, resilient supply chains and the ability to produce critical equipment at home have economic value, too. The Ottawa example shows that industrial policy can be done badly; but I don’t think it demonstrates that industrial policy itself is misguided.
Maintaining an experienced Canadian rail-manufacturing workforce, keeping two established plants busy, supporting a 900-company supply chain and giving those companies enough predictable demand to invest in equipment and people are themselves economic benefits. It's something I'd like to see us do more of in the U.S.
And I’d push back a little on characterizing these cars chiefly as equipment for tourists. They will serve VIA’s long-distance, regional and remote network, including communities for which rail is much more than a tourism product. They cover eight long-distance, regional and remote routes serving nearly 400 communities. The Canadian government specifically identifies Indigenous, rural and remote communities for which affordable alternatives are limited or nonexistent.
So yes, there are real cost and execution risks here, and they deserve scrutiny. But in the present trade environment, I don’t find it unreasonable at all for Canada to decide explicitly that sustaining a domestic rail-manufacturing capability is itself a legitimate public-policy objective.
Thanks for taking the time to offer a substantive comment! Responses like yours really help us make this a useful discussion for everyone!
Thank you for the additional information Jim. Very welcome. Just two points: 1. I did not advocate minimum cost as a procurement strategy. But if we choose to bear a higher cost, we need a clear evaluation process to support our procurement choice - like a cost-benefit analysis. I am aware of no such analysis in this case. 2. The non-tourist passengers for these cross-country services account for about 1/3 of the trips primarily in the regional and remote services. The rest are tourists - from Canada and worldwide. Otherwise, travelling cross-country by rail, which is not cheap, would imply a zero value of time.
I really hope there is conversation between the two cross country manufacturer. I can picture a future where these two entities cooperate, and hopefully there had been discussion about integrating manufacturing.
This whole approach of Canadian ostracization is incredibly short sighted. I'm not sure if there will ever be trust between our two countries ever again.
The silver lining here is that there seems to be an explosion of support for Canadian sovereignty. Canada is investing soundly in itself, so I'm happy and excited for them, but idk wtf America is going to do after Trump.
Anyways, thanks for the good read! Thoughts?
I think I’ve shared a lot of thoughts already!
As rail passengers' friend MP David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona) explained to me, the Canadian PM's office is the most powerful of those in the democratic countries. If one likes what they are doing (the Joe Clark government, for example) it's great. If you don't like what they are doing (the Brian Mulroney government, for example) it's a dead end. And that's within the same party.
I have a photo of a Superliner consist on the VIA Rail 'Panorama' in Edmonton. It reminds me of how many obstacles have yet to be overcome.
Thanks for sharing Jim. Local content rules have long been a feature of rail vehicle procurements on both sides of the border, except that these policies are now on steroids under the new hyper-protectionist environment. The casualties are not just taxpayers, who in this case are paying for “breathtakingly expensive” rail cars as you say - most of which will be used by tourists (and not for usual intercity travel); but also users, who will take the risks of riding in quality-deficient equipment if the manufacturer does not fully transfer their all know-how to the local plants. And if you think, this is just a theoretical risk, look at Justice William Hourigan’s report on the Ottawa Light Rail Transit Public Inquiry … which looked into the causes of the Ottawa LRT accidents in Aug and Sep 2021.
Mario, thanks! I think this is a fair caution, but I’m not convinced the Ottawa example carries the argument as far as you suggest.
The Ottawa LRT procurement really was a case study in the risks of badly designed localization: a new vehicle, assembled by a largely new workforce in what was essentially a temporary production operation, with newly developed suppliers and significant integration problems. That's quite a bit different from this VIA order, where Alstom is putting work into established Canadian rail plants in La Pocatière and Thunder Bay, backed by an existing engineering base and supplier network. In other words, this isn’t really a case of hoping a newly created local operation successfully absorbs all of the manufacturer’s know-how.
Nor do I think the Ottawa derailments establish a simple chain from Canadian-content requirements to defective equipment. The inquiry identified a much more complicated combination of design, integration, maintenance and operational problem, including, in one case, improperly torqued bolts *after* maintenance...a maintenance issue, not a manufacturing issue.
More broadly, I’m increasingly skeptical of the old assumption that the sole measure of a procurement is whether taxpayers obtained the lowest possible unit price. That's important, but in my view more is at stake. Domestic manufacturing capacity, skilled workers, resilient supply chains and the ability to produce critical equipment at home have economic value, too. The Ottawa example shows that industrial policy can be done badly; but I don’t think it demonstrates that industrial policy itself is misguided.
Maintaining an experienced Canadian rail-manufacturing workforce, keeping two established plants busy, supporting a 900-company supply chain and giving those companies enough predictable demand to invest in equipment and people are themselves economic benefits. It's something I'd like to see us do more of in the U.S.
And I’d push back a little on characterizing these cars chiefly as equipment for tourists. They will serve VIA’s long-distance, regional and remote network, including communities for which rail is much more than a tourism product. They cover eight long-distance, regional and remote routes serving nearly 400 communities. The Canadian government specifically identifies Indigenous, rural and remote communities for which affordable alternatives are limited or nonexistent.
So yes, there are real cost and execution risks here, and they deserve scrutiny. But in the present trade environment, I don’t find it unreasonable at all for Canada to decide explicitly that sustaining a domestic rail-manufacturing capability is itself a legitimate public-policy objective.
Thanks for taking the time to offer a substantive comment! Responses like yours really help us make this a useful discussion for everyone!
Thank you for the additional information Jim. Very welcome. Just two points: 1. I did not advocate minimum cost as a procurement strategy. But if we choose to bear a higher cost, we need a clear evaluation process to support our procurement choice - like a cost-benefit analysis. I am aware of no such analysis in this case. 2. The non-tourist passengers for these cross-country services account for about 1/3 of the trips primarily in the regional and remote services. The rest are tourists - from Canada and worldwide. Otherwise, travelling cross-country by rail, which is not cheap, would imply a zero value of time.
Will VIA's domes be accessible? Will there be a dip-down under the dome that would "break" inter-car accessibility?
The designs I’ve seen are accessible, but in a very clever and simple way.