Bordercollie
Senior Member
I thought they where going to "Renew" or rebuild them, and I was like...why.
|
|
|
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
roger1818
Active Member
That makes a lot of sense. I was wondering what inside information VIA has about the budget that they would be able to share, but what you are suggesting makes far more sense.
It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out. Will Siemens be interested in making a long distance variant of their Venture cars, and with Amtrak’s order in the queue, will they even be able to build them in a reasonable timeframe? Would VIA want a variant of the Viewliner II (recently built by CAF for Amtrak)? What other alternatives are there? Will the government insist that they be built in Canada in retaliation for Biden’s buy American clause in his Build Back Better bill?
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Just as with the Corridor procurement, Canada’s commitments negotiated under the CETA agreement forbid such „Canadian Content“ requirements (let alone: „Buy Canadian“ legislation) for any rolling stock procurement for VIA:
roger1818
Active Member
Ok, let me change it to:
I’m not a lawyer, but that should satisfy CETA.
I wonder if insisting that they conform to Canadian standards and use American wire and sheet metal gauges be acceptable to CETA? It is difficult (expensive) to get metic wire and sheet metal here for long term maintenance, and substituting the closest equivalent can be problematic.
crs1026
Superstar
I would expect they have a notional order size and some very broad sense of what Ottawa might accept as a price, or perhaps some ceiling figure that would be a probable walkaway point for whatever business case they have drafted. That does not imply that Ottawa has already pencilled in a number into a draft budget, or even formed an intent to buy… it’s a matter of anticipating the reaction of the audience so that sticker shock doesn’t kill the deal. And likely forms a key comparator against the cost of further life extension to the current fleet, which must be getting to an astronomical figure already.
As for the vendors, just because a product exists, doesn’t mean that an order is big enough to create enough enthusiasm for a bid. So a discussion of what the vendor’s position is in terms of timing, order size, and MSRP level pricing is very necessary to shape the procurement and approvals.
None of this implies any commitment to buy, or subverts the eventual procurement/bid process. It’s just a matter of managing expectations and not falling off the same page.
As to local content, Europe is producing some very interesting designs for overnight/longer distance trains. I question the need to tie ourselves to the USA any more, be it on railway trains or anything else. Maybe that’s a political statement that isn’t helpful here, but so be it.
- Paul
Urban Sky
Senior Member
I‘m not sure I understand the technical details of the second part of your post, but I don‘t see a reason why CETA would allow to discriminate against a European manufacturer which wishes to produce most or all parts of his goods in a third country. Meaning: CETA may still allow local content rules, but only if European companies are excluded from these trade barriers…
kEiThZ
Superstar
We'll see who bids. But Siemens already has a sleeper version of the Viaggio Comfort, that the Siemens Venture was based on. ÖBB has a massive 33 trainset order in, for their Nightjet service. They took first delivery in September. Siemens would be wise to Americanize that design and just expand Venture manufacturing capacity to deliver additional orders.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
It would likely be something existing and off the shelf.
Bombardier bid last time but they dont have anything in production and there are no proven examples of their products running in North America ( in this category).
Unless an updated superliner is what VIA is looking for but I'm not sure if they would fit in Winnipeg Station or through the tunnels in BC. Someone on this forum said that they where too tall.
However restarting a production line for an order this size might be costly.
That's why logically the lowest bidder would be a company that has things in production.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Debatable. CAF or Alstom/Bombardier could well decide to take a hit on this order to help setup their operations in anticipation of a larger Amtrak order down the road. Also, CAF just wrapped up their Viewliner order. They could decide to underprice and win this bid just to keep the plant going.
We should recognize here that VIA's interests (lower operating costs from commonality) should trump industrial interests in this case. I hope VIA takes into account commonality savings that would arise from operating an all-Siemens fleet. Hopefully, it's not just the lowest bid and focuses on the lowest TCO. VIA really, really needs to get their operating costs down while boosting output.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
Does Alstom/Bombardier have something off the shelf?
dowlingm
Senior Member
VIA might be interested in a license built Viewliner if it wasn't built by CAF (I *think* Amtrak owns that design) although there are no View2 observation cars, or coaches for that matter. I would favour a joint Amtrak order for western LD but there are issues with that (among others having to raise the roof on/jack up Winnipeg shed). The other issue would be whether VIA wants an FRA Tier 1 design or thinks it will be able to get away with something lighter by the time it arrives.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
As long as they are not higher than the Budd domes we have now, it should not be a problem.
So I guess we will only see the HEP fleet in museums once they are replaced.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
I just realized that Superliners are just 4 inches (10 cm) higher than the HEP Dome cars (i.e. 16‘2“ vs. 15‘10“) and I can‘t imagine them to be higher than triple-stack auto transporting cars. However, given that they already had to remove the catenary wires at a few tracks in Gare Centrale to allow the Ocean to operate into the station, these 4 inches might just be too much.
In any case, another deal breaker might be their boarding height, which at 21.7 inches is significantly lower than the 48 (?) inches present at Gare Centrale. Conversely, the boarding height of Viewliners is 51 inches, which would be a much better fit…
dowlingm
Senior Member
I have been catching up on UT a bit and noted the discussion about what VIA could operate over CP, particularly CP Winchester. One thing I have been wondering about is the impact of the CP/KCS merger, which looks to be a close-to-done (after some more huffing and puffing by the other Class Is) deal.
The supporting documentation (the appendices to the STB filing) dwells mostly on single-train services between Western Canada-Mexico and points in between, where the combined entity does not depend on operating rights but rather their owned track, but it looks like some anticipated increases east of the Detroit Tunnel are expected, both to serve origins and destination in central-eastern Canada such as metal producers and the (named in the filing) rail connected Toronto Home Depot Distribution Centre, and to bring increased business to and from the deep water shipping at Saint John, NB and Searsport, ME.
The point of this being that CP might push enough traffic up the Havelock (when re-opened) and Belleville to dictate upgrades to the Winchester - but for its purposes. Similarly, some non-VIA projects like Missing Link, or other ideas about co-production, might be (even) less attractive to CP if it gives them less leeway to make money themselves.
The flip side of that is reading CP wax lyrical about its support of passenger services NW of Chicago, its “A” rating from Amtrak, and offering them a round trip on their New Orleans track. If only Canadian regulatory processes were such that it might make similar offers up here.
The supporting documentation (the appendices to the STB filing) dwells mostly on single-train services between Western Canada-Mexico and points in between, where the combined entity does not depend on operating rights but rather their owned track, but it looks like some anticipated increases east of the Detroit Tunnel are expected, both to serve origins and destination in central-eastern Canada such as metal producers and the (named in the filing) rail connected Toronto Home Depot Distribution Centre, and to bring increased business to and from the deep water shipping at Saint John, NB and Searsport, ME.
The point of this being that CP might push enough traffic up the Havelock (when re-opened) and Belleville to dictate upgrades to the Winchester - but for its purposes. Similarly, some non-VIA projects like Missing Link, or other ideas about co-production, might be (even) less attractive to CP if it gives them less leeway to make money themselves.
The flip side of that is reading CP wax lyrical about its support of passenger services NW of Chicago, its “A” rating from Amtrak, and offering them a round trip on their New Orleans track. If only Canadian regulatory processes were such that it might make similar offers up here.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
I don’t see a reason why CP would regain any trackage rights for the Eastern half of the Havelock Sub - they‘ve surrendered all rights when they abandoned and sold the ROW…