SENATE BILL: Fulfilling Railway Promises Act (Passed)

[Former President tack50]

Thank you!

This bill was introduced in response to a promise I made to a citizen during the campaign trail, authorising a new line between Whitefish, Montana and Thunder Bay, Ontario. While I personally did not think the line as proposed by the citizen would be viable, with some modifications, it would.

The modifications include:

-Using already existing lines in the entirety of the track to minimize cost.
-Extending the line all the way to Seattle on the Atlasian side of the line
-Going through most major Canadian cities without passenger rail service

The exact routing beyond the Whitefish-Canadian border bit would be decided by either the train operator or the Canadian government. We must remember that Canada is a sovereign country and ths has the right to modify this on their side of the border. The fact that this is mostly though Canada also reduces costs for the Atlasian government.

I couldn't come up with any concrete extensions on the Canadian side of the border, but 2 ideas could be extending the line back across the border to Minneapolis (would require 300km of new lines though) or to Toronto (over existing lines)

Regarding the bill, Sections I and II do procedural stuff. Section III creates the company (to be owned by the Canadian government and the government of Fremont) and mandates at least 1 train a week. Section IV defines the route, mandating stops in both towns and the route to the Canadian border (which is also the shortest). The rest of the line is left to the Canadian government or the rail operator, but with formal recommendations.

Section V mandates that funding shall come primarily from tickets and that extra funding shall come from the government of Fremont or the federal government for the Atlasian side of the line; and from the Canadian government on the Canadian side of the line. Section VI empowers the Secretary of State to do negotiations on the issue. Section VII ensures that the bill doesn't go into effect until it's also authorized by the Canadian government.

[Former President tack50]

Has the Fremont Regional Gov't been consulted with or is on board with this plan?

Unfortunately, I have to say I have not yet consulted the Fremont Regional Government on this plan. I will contact FM Ascott asking him for feedback on this bill.

[Former President tack50]

Also why is this railroad "promised"? Who promised it and when?

I did, during the campaign (to be precise, during the week between the original election and the runoff). A citizen asked me to back this project and I promised it to him.

I decided to introduce this legislation to keep my promise with this citizen.

[Former President tack50]

I will be consulting with advisors and members of the Fremont government about this plan.

How much money will be required from the Fremont government?

Assuming the joint rail company is profitable, 0$ as it would be self-funded.

That's a very big assumption though. If it's unprofitable, the losses would have to be paid for by the Fremont and federal governments in a way they both see fit.

An estimate could be received by looking at an RL line. Amtrak's Empire Builder, on a very similar route (in fact, the exact same route up until Shelby, Montana) has a revenue of 22.9 million $ and an expense of 56 million $ a year; for a net loss of -33.1 million $ on the entire route.

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/monthlyperformancereports/2018/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-March-2018.pdf

Assuming the proposed extension to Seattle is used, if you assume the federal government won't be paying anything and split the costs based on length (more generous to Atlasia/Fremont), the Fremont government would cover 29% of the losses, or 9.6 million $ a year (assuming no changes). If you assume a 50-50 split (more generous to Canada), that would be 16.6 million $ a year.

As it currently stands the very few construction costs would be paid by the federal government and involve very minor mainteinance. I don't know the state of the track between the Shelby, Montana and Alberta; but the rest of the line should be on acceptable tracks (cargo trains use them)

[Former President tack50]

Just to let you know, although this bill does appear to be very well written the route is not really something serious. The Whitefish to Thunder Bay rail line originated as a joke within Atlas's train geek community. It wouldn't be very beneficial to Canadians and wouldn't be beneficial at all to Atlasians. For reference, this is the route:

(Also with noting is that Cranbrook, Alberta does not exist)

I'd argue the Canadian part of the line (from Calgary to Winnipeg at least) would be somewhat useful to Canadians, as there doesn't seem to be any rail service there (there is service on a more northern Edmonton-Saskatoon-Winnipeg line though).

At that point, just turn south and extend the line east of Winnipeg and you have a new rail line, Atlas' dream line made true.

Of course, if only the Canadian part of the line makes sense then this should be dropped.

(While the proposals were never serious, I did think with a bit of change they could be a real line).

[Former President tack50]

Just to let you know, although this bill does appear to be very well written the route is not really something serious. The Whitefish to Thunder Bay rail line originated as a joke within Atlas's train geek community. It wouldn't be very beneficial to Canadians and wouldn't be beneficial at all to Atlasians. For reference, this is the route:

(Also with noting is that Cranbrook, Alberta does not exist)

I'd argue the Canadian part of the line (from Calgary to Winnipeg at least) would be somewhat useful to Canadians, as there doesn't seem to be any rail service there (there is service on a more northern Edmonton-Saskatoon-Winnipeg line though).

At that point, just turn south and extend the line east of Winnipeg and you have a new rail line, Atlas' dream line made true.

Of course, if only the Canadian part of the line makes sense then this should be dropped.

(While the proposals were never serious, I did think with a bit of change they could be a real line).

I'll just point out that both bruhg's original line, and your ideas for a reworked line already exist.


(BNSF northern transcon runs through Whitefish, then they have multiple branches connecting to both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, both of whom have railway lines to Thunder Bay.)

Thing is, those are cargo lines for the most part. Both Canada and the US have a much smaller passenger service

[Former President tack50]

So why are we building a brand new railway when there's a railway that already exists that you can use.
Also, why are you taking a train chat meme seriously. Come on, this is stupid.

This merely mandates a passenger service, it doesn't build a single km of new track (I designed the line on purpose to take as many large Canadian towns as possible while not building a single km of track). And while it was indeed a meme, with some modifications we could make it real and effective.

Plus I have to keep the all important train chat meme constituency

[Former President tack50]

Actually, Thunder Bay technically doesn't have service (the line goes further north around Sioux Lookout)

Also, as a sidenote, I'm starting to think the Seattle extension should be a mandate instead of an option, the line doesn't really make much sense without it.

[Former President tack50]

So why are we building a brand new railway when there's a railway that already exists that you can use.
Also, why are you taking a train chat meme seriously. Come on, this is stupid.

This merely mandates a passenger service, it doesn't build a single km of new track (I designed the line on purpose to take as many large Canadian towns as possible while not building a single km of track). And while it was indeed a meme, with some modifications we could make it real and effective.

Plus I have to keep the all important train chat meme constituency

Why do these 2 random cities deserve an unprofitable passenger service? What is the point of launching a useless train route between two small cities just so bruhg's meme can become reality?

Well, for a start most passenger rail lines are unprofitable.

Looking at the Amtrak report I posted previously, not a single long distance line is profitable. Although the Empire Builder (the line this is most comparable to) is indeed the most unprofitable Amtrak line, although a couple other lines have comparable losses of around 32 million $.

I would expect traffic on the Canadian side of the border to be higher than the RL Amtrak line though, as Calgary and Winnipeg have higher populations than any population centers on the Amtrak line. Even Thunder Bay itself or Regina would be large stops compared to the RL route.

On the Atlasian side of the border I would also expect decent ridership numbers between Seattle and Spokane.

Really my only question was where to go from Thunder Bay (it's not an ideal end of the line), but I decided that was something for the Canadians to decide

[Former President tack50]

Just going to point out that no one is going to like this given both Atlasia and Canada have nationalised their passenger rail networks.
So why are we going to have one single passenger line completely independent of the 2 national passenger rail operators?

To be fair, that's not an uncommon way of handling international routes. A good example might be the Eurostar between Paris and London. Which is not handled by neither SNCF nor British companies

The alternative could be a joint service between Via Rail and Amtrak or outright allowing VIA Rail to operate in Atlasia.

So you admit this line will bleed money constantly. So why are we doing it?

Well, I actually think we can kill 2 birds with one stone. As I said before, the already existing route between Chicago and Seattle (through Whitefish and much of the north) is Amtrak's most unprofitable line. So why not replace it with a better alternative through Canada?

The only issue would be with the end point as it would end in Thunder Bay, or most likely, in Toronto; as opposed to ending in Chicago.

At the end of the day I imagine such a route would be mostly touristy in nature and I don't think the intermediate sections get much passengers. I'm not sure if a route through Canada would be more scenic, but based on population numbers it should have more passengers.

So even if it bleeds money, it would bleed less money than the current comparable route through North Dakota and Montana.

[Former President tack50]

So, how will we make sure that Canada does its part and agrees to fund their section of it.

Good question. I designed the bill in a way where no provisions of the act would be enacted unless the Canadian government agreed to the operation.

At the end of the day, Canada is a sovereign country and so they could hypothetically unilaterally pull out at any time without prior notice.

Also, there isn't really a good way of making sure Canada does its part, it's not like you can force them. I imagine in such a case the route would simply be closed or not opened in the first place.

[Former President tack50]

Just going to point out that no one is going to like this given both Atlasia and Canada have nationalised their passenger rail networks.
So why are we going to have one single passenger line completely independent of the 2 national passenger rail operators?

To be fair, that's not an uncommon way of handling international routes. A good example might be the Eurostar between Paris and London. Which is not handled by neither SNCF nor British companies

The alternative could be a joint service between Via Rail and Amtrak or outright allowing VIA Rail to operate in Atlasia.

So you admit this line will bleed money constantly. So why are we doing it?

Well, I actually think we can kill 2 birds with one stone. As I said before, the already existing route between Chicago and Seattle (through Whitefish and much of the north) is Amtrak's most unprofitable line. So why not replace it with a better alternative through Canada?

The only issue would be with the end point as it would end in Thunder Bay, or most likely, in Toronto; as opposed to ending in Chicago.

At the end of the day I imagine such a route would be mostly touristy in nature and I don't think the intermediate sections get much passengers. I'm not sure if a route through Canada would be more scenic, but based on population numbers it should have more passengers.

So even if it bleeds money, it would bleed less money than the current comparable route through North Dakota and Montana.

How the hell could this possibly replace the Empire Builder? This route doesn't go to Chicago. Literally the entire passenger contingent of the Empire Builder is people destined for MSP or Chicago.

Fair enough. I did think about the possibility of instead of heading furhter east through Canada, to instead bring the line south to Minneapolis (and eventually Chicago I guess).

However that would require 300 km of new lines and a second border change, so I imagine it would be more expensive in the end.

[Former President tack50]

Also, someone has miscalculated something here.

THE EMPIRE BUILDER IS ONE OF AMTRAK'S MOST PROFITABLE ROUTES

No way in hell is Amtrak giving up on the Empire Builder. It's their second highest revenue route, and if it wasn't for the ludicrous fees BNSF charges, it would be more profitable (well, smaller loss) than the Acela Express.
[/quote

To be fair I only proposed it as a replacement to save costs and try to reduce your concerns.

If it is profitable then there is no need ro have it as a replacement as both can coexist

[Former President tack50]

Also, someone has miscalculated something here.

THE EMPIRE BUILDER IS ONE OF AMTRAK'S MOST PROFITABLE ROUTES

No way in hell is Amtrak giving up on the Empire Builder. It's their second highest revenue route, and if it wasn't for the ludicrous fees BNSF charges, it would be more profitable (well, smaller loss) than the Acela Express.

To be fair I only proposed it as a replacement to save costs and try to reduce your concerns.

If it is profitable then there is no need ro have it as a replacement as both can coexist

Still not asking my question. Who is going to take this train?
From Seattle or Portland, if you're going to Toronto it's far quicker to go through Chicago and Detroit than it is to go the long way around Lake Superior. If you're going to Winnipeg it's far quicker to go up to Vancouver then take the Canadian network.
So who exactly is going to take this train?

People going to and from Calgary I assume.

[Former President tack50]

It's worth noting that, as of now, there is no rail service whatsoever in the towns of Calgary, Regina and Thunder Bay. While Regina and Thunder Bay are quite small, Calgary is a city of 1.4 million people. I'd say there's enough demand both between Seattle and Calgary and between Calgary and the the rest of Canada to justify the route.

There is also an argument to be made that in these kinds of lines, it's the trip itself that's the product, not the act of traveling (if that makes any sense). Particularly for the route between both extremes. No one is going to make a 40 h train journey when a 3 h plane exists. Even road travel is more competitive!

If people really want to go between Chicago and Seattle they usually take a plane, not a train after all.

can we pls stop with the weird font sizes

Seconded, at least for debate. I'm fine with bold, italics, underlining, colours and even ALL CAPS can be fine at times (OR A COMBINATION OF THEM ALL) but weird sizes make debate harder to read.

I'm fine with them for votes though, as NC Yankee said.

[Former President tack50]

Another question: is this going to be a high speed rail plan (which may lead to more interest and demand for tickets but is more expensive to build the infrastructure for) or conventional rail.

Conventional. High speed would be the ideal of course but it would also require billions on construction cost, which wouldn't be justified in this route.

I designed the bill to be as cheap as possible. In fact it uses currently existing conventional rail in the entire route.

[Former President tack50]

I'm going to present the following ammendment:

Senate Bill

To allow for the creation of a new passenger line between Whitefish, Montana and Thunder Bay, Ontario

Be it enacted by both houses of Congress Assembled,

Section I: Title
1: This bill shall be named the Fulfilling Railway Promises Act

Section II: Definitions
1: A train operator, or operator for short, shall be defined as a business that operates and controls the useage and exploits a passenger railway line.

Section III: Operation and ticketing
1: A new joint business between the Atlasian and Canadian governments shall be formed, with the intention of operating the rail line defined by this act.
2: This train operator shall be jointly owned by the Canadian government and the government of the region of Fremont.
3: There shall be at least one train a week operated in the entirety of the line.

Section IV: Route
1: This joint business shall operate a passenger line between the towns of Whitefish, Montana and Thunder Bay, Ontario; with mandatory passenger stops in both towns
2: On the Atlasian side of the line, the operated train shall follow this route:
a) East from Seattle, Washington to Whitefish, Montana; on currently existing lines
a) b)East from Whitefish to right before Shelby, Montana on currently existing lines
b) c) North from Shelby to the Canadian border, also on currently existing lines
3: On the Atlasian side of the line, the operated train shall follow any route the Canadian government shall decide, as long as there is continuous operation until the mandated stop at Thunder Bay, Ontario
4: The Atlasian Congress formally recommends that on the Canadian side of the border, the operated train follows the following route:
a) From the Atlasian border to shortly past Cranbrook Lethbridge, Alberta; on currently existing lines
b) From Cranbrook Lethbridge to Calgary, Alberta; on currently existing lines
c) From Calgary to Winnipeg, Manitoba; on currently existing lines
d) From Winnipeg to Thunder Bay, Ontario; on currently existing lines
5: The train operator may operate the line past Whitefish or Thunder Bay if it deems it adequate. The Atlasian Congress formally recommends that on the Atlasian side of the border, the line is extended to Seattle; on currently existing lines.

Section V: Funding
1: Funding for the train operator shall primarily come from the sale of railway tickets. No extra funding shall be given by the government of Atlasia unless all ticketing revenue has been exhausted first.
2: If extra funding is needed, it shall be divided depending on the section of the line that needs the extra funding:
a) In the section of the line corresponding to Atlasia, funding shall be given by the government of Fremont, in such a way as it sees fit and by the federal Department of Internal Affairs.
b) In the section of the line corresponding to Canada, funding shall be given by the government of Canada in any way it deems adequate
3: 700 000$ shall be allocated from the budget of the Department of Internal Affairs for the renovation of the railway switch near Shelby, Montana.

Section VI: Negotiations
1: The Secretary of State shall be empowered to conduct any negotiations necessary for agreeing to this operation with the Canadian government

Section VII: Passage
1: This bill shall be enacted when after it is passed by both houses of the Atlasian Congress and after the president has signed this bill; or his veto has been overriden as specified by the Atlasian constitution
2: No provisions of this act shall become effective unless the Canadian government has agreed to this operation.
3: This bill shall become effective 3 weeks after the operation is authorized by the Canadian government.

Basically, this makes the Seattle extension a mandate instead of a suggestion, mostly because without it the route wouldn't make sense. It also takes into account the non-existence of Cranbrook, Alberta; replacing it with the actually existing town of Lethbridge.

I am also considering a second ammendment, which would require the approval of the Fremont parliament for this to be fully ratified; basically to ensure that this has the support of the regional government as well.

I am not sure if demanding approval from Fremont for a federal law would be legal (or have precedent) though

Edit: Just ammended the ammendment, after I was adviced to consider the fact that the president's signature (or a veto override) is needed, just like any other law. Something I forgot to explicitly say. This doesn't really change anything but I guess it's better to specify it.

[Former President tack50]

Not from my part at least. Requiring Fremont's authorization might be good, but it's also something that's probably not doable for a federal bill.

The debate seems to have died down (we started so well!).

So, I motion for a final vote.

[Former President tack50]

Aye

[Former President tack50]

I am afraid the bill is no longer confined within the chambers of the Senate and thus is no longer within my ability to cancel the vote, which has already been called. The bill now sits on the VP's desk and is awaiting House action and I encourage you to present these concerns in the House.

I would also lament the loss of the Super Special Awesome Fremont Senate Delegation, which seems to have dropped the ball on this matter and could have cast the deciding votes.

I know that this bill has already passed this chamber, Senator. I'm however forced to post here as the House for some unfathomable reason hasn't got around to opening the thread for this bill yet.

I think VP Lumine is currently very busy in RL, so that is probably why this or other bills have not been brought in the house. Speaker Ninja is also very busy and on LOA I think