SENATE BILL: Fulfilling Railway Promises Act (Passed)

[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.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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.

Why would Canada even let this train run on its tracks in the first place? Neither Canadian National nor Canadian Pacific would ever let some random american passenger train on their rather lucrative fright network. They have enough problems with the VIA rail services.

[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.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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.
How can this route bleed less money than the Empire Builder when it stops servicing 2 of the 3 main cities the Empire Builder serves?

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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.

[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

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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?

[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.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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.

Once again, it would be far quicker to go via Vancouver and the Canadian lines.

[Sirius_]

Also, someone has miscalculated something here.

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

No it isn't.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Also, someone has miscalculated something here.

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

No it isn't.

Sorry, I meant revenue, not profit.
As of Jan 2019 the Empire Builder is Amtrak's long-distance route with the second largest revenue (also 2nd best ridership and 3rd best on time performance) (Amtrak Performance Report Jan 2019) behind only the California Zephyr. The main problem is the large operating costs, mainly the exorbitant cost of track rights that BNSF imposes on Amtrak.
Key problem with the article you've sourced is that it is comparing the Empire Builder, a long distance route (which naturally incurs higher running costs) which also runs on leased lines, to the Northeast Corridor, the only Amtrak route where Amtrak actually owns the track itself, and thus doesn't have to pay track rights, and which is also one of the shortest routes, with the highest pop density.

In short, I meant revenue, not profit, and I was only talking about long distance lines.

[Sirius_]

Also, someone has miscalculated something here.

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

No it isn't.

Sorry, I meant revenue, not profit.
As of Jan 2019 the Empire Builder is Amtrak's long-distance route with the second largest revenue (also 2nd best ridership and 3rd best on time performance) (Amtrak Performance Report Jan 2019) behind only the California Zephyr. The main problem is the large operating costs, mainly the exorbitant cost of track rights that BNSF imposes on Amtrak.
Key problem with the article you've sourced is that it is comparing the Empire Builder, a long distance route (which naturally incurs higher running costs) which also runs on leased lines, to the Northeast Corridor, the only Amtrak route where Amtrak actually owns the track itself, and thus doesn't have to pay track rights, and which is also one of the shortest routes, with the highest pop density.

In short, I meant revenue, not profit, and I was only talking about long distance lines.

I realize in what ways the NEC is profitable and whatnot. Your big bold statement was inaccurate however. And I find it odd that you're hating on this while defending the Empire Builder. There is no doubt that a routing starting in Seattle and heading through Canada would serve more people, and of using existing lines could give the opportunity to negotiate a lower fee.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Also, someone has miscalculated something here.

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

No it isn't.

Sorry, I meant revenue, not profit.
As of Jan 2019 the Empire Builder is Amtrak's long-distance route with the second largest revenue (also 2nd best ridership and 3rd best on time performance) (Amtrak Performance Report Jan 2019) behind only the California Zephyr. The main problem is the large operating costs, mainly the exorbitant cost of track rights that BNSF imposes on Amtrak.
Key problem with the article you've sourced is that it is comparing the Empire Builder, a long distance route (which naturally incurs higher running costs) which also runs on leased lines, to the Northeast Corridor, the only Amtrak route where Amtrak actually owns the track itself, and thus doesn't have to pay track rights, and which is also one of the shortest routes, with the highest pop density.

In short, I meant revenue, not profit, and I was only talking about long distance lines.

I realize in what ways the NEC is profitable and whatnot. Your big bold statement was inaccurate however. And I find it odd that you're hating on this while defending the Empire Builder. There is no doubt that a routing starting in Seattle and heading through Canada would serve more people, and of using existing lines could give the opportunity to negotiate a lower fee.

THAT LINE ALREADY EXISTS. IT'S JUST ALL IN CANADA.
There is already a very good quality direct line between Vancouver and Toronto. It is far faster and of far better quality than the US lines, gives priority to Passenger over Freight, and serves far more populated areas.
This line serves no one. If I live in Seattle, it is far faster to take the Amtrak Cascades to Vancouver, then the VIA Canadian straight to Toronto, than to take a train through the crowded lines through Montana. And the Canadian route also serves big cities, like Edmonton, Saskatoon and Winnipeg, while the Whitefish line doesn't.

[Sirius_]

Also, someone has miscalculated something here.

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

No it isn't.

Sorry, I meant revenue, not profit.
As of Jan 2019 the Empire Builder is Amtrak's long-distance route with the second largest revenue (also 2nd best ridership and 3rd best on time performance) (Amtrak Performance Report Jan 2019) behind only the California Zephyr. The main problem is the large operating costs, mainly the exorbitant cost of track rights that BNSF imposes on Amtrak.
Key problem with the article you've sourced is that it is comparing the Empire Builder, a long distance route (which naturally incurs higher running costs) which also runs on leased lines, to the Northeast Corridor, the only Amtrak route where Amtrak actually owns the track itself, and thus doesn't have to pay track rights, and which is also one of the shortest routes, with the highest pop density.

In short, I meant revenue, not profit, and I was only talking about long distance lines.

I realize in what ways the NEC is profitable and whatnot. Your big bold statement was inaccurate however. And I find it odd that you're hating on this while defending the Empire Builder. There is no doubt that a routing starting in Seattle and heading through Canada would serve more people, and of using existing lines could give the opportunity to negotiate a lower fee.

THAT LINE ALREADY EXISTS. IT'S JUST ALL IN CANADA.
There is already a very good quality direct line between Vancouver and Toronto. It is far faster and of far better quality than the US lines, gives priority to Passenger over Freight, and serves far more populated areas.
This line serves no one. If I live in Seattle, it is far faster to take the Amtrak Cascades to Vancouver, then the VIA Canadian straight to Toronto, than to take a train through the crowded lines through Montana. And the Canadian route also serves big cities, like Edmonton, Saskatoon and Winnipeg, while the Whitefish line doesn't.

There is no direct link from Seattle to this line. Also, I'm not sure if you are aware, but VIA rail services are nowhere near frequent or adequate.

[wxtransit]

can we pls stop with the weird font sizes

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

can we pls stop with the weird font sizes

NAY


I actually endorse them votes, since it makes them easier for me to see amongst all the other text.

[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.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

At least casting my votes in colored and different sized fonts keep me interested in doing so, maybe we would have fewer attendance problems around here if more people decided to do that as well.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

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.

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

It also helps to in some way differentiate motions of various kinds or official sponsor feedback, like "I find the amendment to be friendly/Hostile "

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment is adopted.


Come on this bill was going so good earlier this week.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Any more amendments?