4 ms·

As far as I understand it, they already share their tracks in routine service, using one westbound and the other eastbound. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doub

As far as I understand it, they already share their tracks in routine service, using one westbound and the other eastbound. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-track_railway#Directional_running https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-track_railway#Direction... > A similar example exists in the Fraser Canyon in British Columbia, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific each own a single track line - often on either side of the river. The companies have a joint arrangement where they share resources and operate the canyon as a double track line between meeting points near Mission and Ashcroft.[22]

Scoundreller 5y ago
“Competitors” sharing networks is such a Canadian tradition. Just like 2 of our 3 big cellular companies (Bell and Telus) sharing a single network.
- version_five 5y ago
  I'm guessing its your point, but to spell it out, canada has oligopolies or monopolies, it doesnt have competitors at least in telecom and banking. From what I understand (like the recent Kansas? railway acquisition) CN and CP may actually be more in competition than some other industries. There is some complexity because part of the tradeoff for being granted oligo/monopoly status is the requirement to allow others on their network (e.g. for telco so maybe also for rail - I know they have to let Via, even if it's on a low priority basis). But overall, the business environment in canada is much closer to some kind of aristocracy or feudal system than an actual competitive landscape. Maybe that's true everywhere and just not as easy to see.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Canada is a country sized company with a captive audience. This all goes back to the days of the Hudson Bay Company and how Canada was founded.
  - sbarre 5y ago
    > it doesnt have competitors at least in telecom and banking To be fair, the high regulation that we have in the banking sector insulated us from a lot of the 2008 financial crisis. So it's not all bad. The big banks spent the early part of the 2000s complaining loudly about being "left out" of the financial boom happening and wanted to internationalize and merge with US banks, and our government said no. America's regular cycle of financial crises and ruin kind of proves that unrestricted competition should not always be the unconditional goal of a given industry. In terms of rail (and other infrastructure), keep in mind that our country is bigger than the US and we have 10% of the population. A lot of our monopolies/crown-corps exist because if it wasn't for government subsidies/handouts, none would exist at all. So it's not always a reasonable argument to say there "should" be competition, when it doesn't make financial sense for new entrants to compete. No one would ever fund the startup costs, because it would take decades to make the money back, if you ever did. That said, our telco sector does absolutely need a shakeup and competition (better rules for CLECs to use ILEC infrastructure etc).
    - philistine 5y ago
      Thank you for eloquently describing why Canada has chosen a different path than the USA. Banking, for example, is such a clear-cut case of competition not being detrimental for Canadians. For example, I've seen Americans laugh at Canadians on Reddit for not having the Cash app when our equivalent service is available directly from our banks (with a shitty UI, sure) and free. I pay my plumber with e-transfer and couldn't be happier.
      - pbourke 5y ago
        > Banking, for example, is such a clear-cut case of competition not being detrimental for Canadians How much does the average Canadian pay per month for their chequing account?
        VVertigo 5y ago
        There are a lot of free options: even more if you consider ones that require a minimum balance. The paid ones though are typically $10-15. Where they really get you though is in service fees. If you overdraft or do any one of a myriad of options you can get hit with penalty fees. Basically you just have to treat the minimum balance as a hard zero.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    Some sectors tend to get regulated as utilities rather than businesses, because they tend not to lend themselves to competition. Railways are a classic example; two railways rarely directly compete with each other (since even if they connect the two same points they probably do so via wildly different routes) and some level of coordination is needed to avoid scheduling conflicts on competing trains.

Scoundreller 5y ago

“Competitors” sharing networks is such a Canadian tradition. Just like 2 of our 3 big cellular companies (Bell and Telus) sharing a single network.

version_five 5y ago
I'm guessing its your point, but to spell it out, canada has oligopolies or monopolies, it doesnt have competitors at least in telecom and banking. From what I understand (like the recent Kansas? railway acquisition) CN and CP may actually be more in competition than some other industries. There is some complexity because part of the tradeoff for being granted oligo/monopoly status is the requirement to allow others on their network (e.g. for telco so maybe also for rail - I know they have to let Via, even if it's on a low priority basis). But overall, the business environment in canada is much closer to some kind of aristocracy or feudal system than an actual competitive landscape. Maybe that's true everywhere and just not as easy to see.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Canada is a country sized company with a captive audience. This all goes back to the days of the Hudson Bay Company and how Canada was founded.
- sbarre 5y ago
  > it doesnt have competitors at least in telecom and banking To be fair, the high regulation that we have in the banking sector insulated us from a lot of the 2008 financial crisis. So it's not all bad. The big banks spent the early part of the 2000s complaining loudly about being "left out" of the financial boom happening and wanted to internationalize and merge with US banks, and our government said no. America's regular cycle of financial crises and ruin kind of proves that unrestricted competition should not always be the unconditional goal of a given industry. In terms of rail (and other infrastructure), keep in mind that our country is bigger than the US and we have 10% of the population. A lot of our monopolies/crown-corps exist because if it wasn't for government subsidies/handouts, none would exist at all. So it's not always a reasonable argument to say there "should" be competition, when it doesn't make financial sense for new entrants to compete. No one would ever fund the startup costs, because it would take decades to make the money back, if you ever did. That said, our telco sector does absolutely need a shakeup and competition (better rules for CLECs to use ILEC infrastructure etc).
  - philistine 5y ago
    Thank you for eloquently describing why Canada has chosen a different path than the USA. Banking, for example, is such a clear-cut case of competition not being detrimental for Canadians. For example, I've seen Americans laugh at Canadians on Reddit for not having the Cash app when our equivalent service is available directly from our banks (with a shitty UI, sure) and free. I pay my plumber with e-transfer and couldn't be happier.
    - pbourke 5y ago
      > Banking, for example, is such a clear-cut case of competition not being detrimental for Canadians How much does the average Canadian pay per month for their chequing account?
      - VVertigo 5y ago
        There are a lot of free options: even more if you consider ones that require a minimum balance. The paid ones though are typically $10-15. Where they really get you though is in service fees. If you overdraft or do any one of a myriad of options you can get hit with penalty fees. Basically you just have to treat the minimum balance as a hard zero.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  Some sectors tend to get regulated as utilities rather than businesses, because they tend not to lend themselves to competition. Railways are a classic example; two railways rarely directly compete with each other (since even if they connect the two same points they probably do so via wildly different routes) and some level of coordination is needed to avoid scheduling conflicts on competing trains.