News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.3K     0 

PS another release here


- Paul
this quote at the end definitely raised my eyebrows a bit:

"Air Canada’s participation and commitments to the Cadence team do not require any supplementary disclosure, and therefore, Air Canada will not make any further comments."

why are they so bluntly secretive about it if theyre so "excited" to join their team.... wouldnt they want to promote their participation more? I could be reading the tea leaves but just more shadiness from AC.
 
why are they so bluntly secretive about it if theyre so "excited" to join their team.... wouldnt they want to promote their participation more? I could be reading the tea leaves but just more shadiness from AC.

It's likely a cone of silence imposed by the bidding process. Until Ottawa has received and reviewed the three (well, six actually) competing proposals, it would be unhelpful for the parties to begin promoting their ideas. It will be interesting to see how and when they do so.

- Paul
 
Just out of curiosity: how many railroads do you know which have to deal with platform heights which range by a full meter (e.g., from 48 inches high to basically track level)?
Off the top of my head? Amtrak, Exo, MBTA, CT Rail, Metro North, NJ Transit, SEPTA, MARC... Pretty much every passenger railway in eastern North America.

640px-Albany–Rensselaer_3.jpg

Amtrak Empire Corridor in Albany, NY

640px-Empire_Service_at_Amsterdam%2C_NY_Amtrak_station.jpg

Amtrak Empire Corridor in Amsterdam, NY

640px-AMTCentral21.JPG

Exo 13 Mont-Saint-Hilaire at Gare Centrale

640px-AMTSBLG.JPG

Exo 13 Mont-Saint-Hilaire at St-Basile-le-Grand

640px-Metro-North_Comet_V_EB_at_Port_Jervis_station.jpeg

Metro North
Port Jervis Line at Port Jervis station

615px-Otisville_train_station.jpg

Metro North
Port Jervis Line at Otisvillle station

640px-Hartford_Line_locomotive_at_New_Haven_Union_Station%2C_September_2018.JPG

CT Rail Hartford Line at New Haven Union Station

640px-Hartford_Line_Train.jpg

CT Rail Hartford Line at Hartford Union Station

It‘s the infrastructure which drives boarding processes and you of all people here should know this very well by now…

Does the platform height require them to have wildly variable ticket prices, based more on when you buy them than how busy that trip is?

Does the platform height require them to funnel all passengers through a single escalator even when three are available?

Does the platform height require them to tell passengers to remain seated until the train comes to a stop?
 
Last edited:
Off the top of my head? Amtrak, MBTA, CT Rail, Metro North, NJ Transit, SEPTA, MARC...
First, we are talking about intercity rail, so scratch all but Amtrak from the list.

Second, to the best of my knowledge, all major NEC stations have high-level platforms, which is again a big qualifier for whatever differences there might exist in comparison with VIA.
Does the platform height require them to have wildly variable ticket prices, based more on when you buy them than how busy that trip is?
I‘m a bit puzzled as to what you are referring to. In my view, the new pricing system is much less arbitrary with Escape/ECO/ECO+ or BUS/BUS+ fares finally moving in sync rather than ECO+/BUS+ being excessively expensive even on the least popular departures.
Does the platform height require them to funnel all passengers through a single escalator even when three are available?
In the case of Toronto Union, complain to the station owner and the tennant of the station areas which holds the other two escalators. Not to mention that the platforms are too narrow to have passengers with suitcases approach the train from opposite ends.
Does the platform height require them to tell passengers to remain seated until the train comes to a stop?
If you need staff to assist the passengers while detraining over a one-meter drop, you need to allow for said staff to reach the door before people start blocking the way to get there. Not an issue at high-platform stations, but the need to keep procedures consistent is understandable…
 
Last edited:
First, we are talking about intercity rail, so scratch all but Amtrak from the list.
Why do you want to cherry-pick "intercity rail"? Whether or not a train is regional or intercity is a fairly arbitrary distinction. For example the Port Jervis line pictured is 140 km long.

People have to climb the same number of steps whether it's a "regional" train or an "intercity" train so it is unwise to ignore the experiences of railways that aren't considered "intercity".
Second, to the best of my knowledge, all major NEC stations have high-level platforms, which is again a big qualifier for whatever differences there might exist in comparison with VIA.
Okay? The NEC is not the only railway corridor that Amtrak operates intercity services on.

I‘m a bit puzzled as to what you are referring to.

In the case of Toronto Union, complain to the station owner and the tennant of the station areas which holds the other two escalators.
Now I'm the one who's puzzled. Via Rail is the tenant of the station area which holds all three escalators. Why would the station owner prevent Via from using escalators from the Via concourse to the Via platforms?

Screenshot 2024-08-02 at 20.20.21.png

Source: City of Toronto

Not to mention that the platforms are too narrow to have passengers approach the train from opposite ends.
Then why doesn't GO Transit force everyone to access the platforms from a single staircase? They use equally narrow platforms.

If you need staff to assist the passengers while detraining over a one-meter drop, you need to allow for said staff to reach the door before people start blocking the way to get there. Not an issue at high-platform stations, but the need to keep procedures consistent is understandable…
But this is an open question. Do staff need to assist passengers detraining at all doors? Via Rail is very unusual in setting that expectation. Although the range in platform heights in Europe is smaller, there are still some (lesser-used) stations with very low platforms and high-floor rolling stock that requires passengers to ascend to nearly the same height as a North-American train. But there is no expectation that the conductor will come to whatever door you're at and help you into the train.
 
But this is an open question. Do staff need to assist passengers detraining at all doors? Via Rail is very unusual in setting that expectation. Although the range in platform heights in Europe is smaller, there are still some (lesser-used) stations with very low platforms and high-floor rolling stock that requires passengers to ascend to nearly the same height as a North-American train. But there is no expectation that the conductor will come to whatever door you're at and help you into the train.
The answer to your question may be in your response.

For any number of different reasons, North America is considered more litigious - and therefore, more cautious - about a lot of things. And it certainly stands to reason that something has happened in the past that has resulted in this "requirement" to staff each door.

Remember, the railways do their damnedest to avoid all avoidable costs. If they could lower their headcount by not staffing the doors, they would.

Dan
 
If you need staff to assist the passengers while detraining over a one-meter drop, you need to allow for said staff to reach the door before people start blocking the way to get there. Not an issue at high-platform stations, but the need to keep procedures consistent is understandable…
You could have any major station be built for the trains on specific platforms. I realize that if there becomes a reason to close platforms,that could make things more challenging, but it could solve the problems that we think exist.
 
For any number of different reasons, North America is considered more litigious - and therefore, more cautious - about a lot of things. And it certainly stands to reason that something has happened in the past that has resulted in this "requirement" to staff each door.
I would like to add that there is a schism in North American transportation philosophy between Commuter Rail (and transit in general), which assumes that all passengers are able-bodied working-age passengers travelling with at-most a briefcase or small backpack on the same route for at least 4 round-trips per week, and intercity rail, which assumes that all passengers are frail 90-year-old grandparents travelling for the very first time and with a large suitacase each they are unable to handle while boarding.

I resent this kind of stereotyping and ignorance in acknowledging and accommodating the differing needs of diverse passenger groups (and the universal need for clear and intuitive signage and information) as much as @reaperexpress does, but it was certainly not VIA Rail which came up with focusing the intercity rail travel experience that way and it is certainly not fair to characterize them as being the holdouts insisting on such archaic procedures…

Okay? The NEC is not the only railway corridor that Amtrak operates intercity services on.
Yet, it‘s the most relevant comparison for VIA‘s Corridor services.
Now I'm the one who's puzzled. Via Rail is the tenant of the station area which holds all three escalators. Why would the station owner prevent Via from using escalators from the Via concourse to the Via platforms?

View attachment 585567
Source: City of Toronto
Sure, if someone pays for three sets of employees checking tickets, weighing suitcases and picking up passengers with reduced mobility to guide them to the nearest elevator, you can board on all three escalators simultaneously, unless you have a different train boarding or detraining on the other platform half. However, this doesn’t change that the bottle neck is the actual platform and the absurdly insufficient width.
https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/9811-Option-1_UnionMap_20190628-R1.pdf
Then why doesn't GO Transit force everyone to access the platforms from a single staircase? They use equally narrow platforms.
They certainly have a different approach to risk assessment, but this invariably leaves to countless situations every day which are simply not safe.
But this is an open question. Do staff need to assist passengers detraining at all doors? Via Rail is very unusual in setting that expectation. Although the range in platform heights in Europe is smaller, there are still some (lesser-used) stations with very low platforms and high-floor rolling stock that requires passengers to ascend to nearly the same height as a North-American train. But there is no expectation that the conductor will come to whatever door you're at and help you into the train.
Exactly, there are quite a few low-volume stations across Europe with low-level platforms but the main stations all have at the very least 55cm height, whereas the by-far busiest station in this country has a platform height which barely exceeds track level. If Toronto Union had high-level platforms, then you could really have a separate boarding procedure for high-level platform stations, but it‘s simply not practical to have fundamentally different boarding procedures in Toronto and Montreal…
 
I would like to add that there is a schism in North American transportation philosophy between Commuter Rail (and transit in general), which assumes that all passengers are able-bodied working-age passengers travelling with at-most a briefcase or small backpack on the same route for at least 4 round-trips per week, and intercity rail, which assumes that all passengers are frail 90-year-old grandparents travelling for the very first time and with a large suitacase each they are unable to handle while boarding.
Indeed, and these two paradigms are often perceived as mutually exclusive, which they are not. Currently they try to babysit every single passenger, which is ridiculously labour-intensive and time-consuming for staff and passengers alike (hence the frustration among passengers). The obvious solution is to continue providing staff who are available to help upon request, but don't insist on micromanaging every single passenger.
I resent this kind of stereotyping and ignorance in acknowledging and accommodating the differing needs of diverse passenger groups (and the universal need for clear and intuitive signage and information) as much as @reaperexpress does, but it was certainly not VIA Rail which came up with focusing the intercity rail travel experience that way and it is certainly not fair to characterize them as being the holdouts insisting on such archaic procedures…
But they are the only railway with such labour-intensive procedures. Maybe they're holdouts, maybe they're outliers, maybe they're innovators, but they certainly don't seem to be the norm.
Yet, it‘s the most relevant comparison for VIA‘s Corridor services.
Is it?

Northeast CorridorVIA CorridorEmpire Corridor
PlatformsHighHigh and LowHigh and Low
Frequencyup to 48/dayup to 16/dayup to 13/day
PropulsionElectricDieselDiesel

You said yourself that the fact that NEC only has high-level platforms makes it a poor point of comparison for the sake of boarding procedures.

Sure, if someone pays for three sets of employees checking tickets, weighing suitcases and picking up passengers with reduced mobility to guide them to the nearest elevator, you can board on all three escalators simultaneously, unless you have a different train boarding or detraining on the other platform half.
See, the trick is to not do any of those things, other than being available to guide those who request assistance. That's what every other railway does.

However, this doesn’t change that the bottle neck is the actual platform and the absurdly insufficient width.
https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/9811-Option-1_UnionMap_20190628-R1.pdf
I don't see how the platform could be the bottleneck. There are 5 doors on a 5-car train, and though the capacity of each door is probably less than the escalator, it's not five times less.
And besides, it does address the bottleneck if you combine it with information in the concourse directing passengers to the escalator closest to their coach. Concentrating everyone onto a single escalator maximises the passenger density on the platform at the top of the escalator. Dispersing them among two or three escalators can help reduce crowding on the platform.
They certainly have a different approach to risk assessment, but this invariably leaves to countless situations every day which are simply not safe.
The incidents that have occurred on GO were related to moving trains. I don't think we're proposing to have Via passengers on the platform already when the train pulls in.
Exactly, there are quite a few low-volume stations across Europe with low-level platforms but the main stations all have at the very least 55cm height, whereas the by-far busiest station in this country has a platform height which barely exceeds track level. If Toronto Union had high-level platforms, then you could really have a separate boarding procedure for high-level platform stations, but it‘s simply not practical to have fundamentally different boarding procedures in Toronto and Montreal…
Or we could change the procedures at all stations such that people just board the train independently like they do on every other railway. The Siemens trains have integrated steps that (if I understand correctly) eliminate the need for the stepstool that staff need to place on other train types. This should enable passengers to open doors (or for doors to be remotely opened), which was not previously possible.
 
Last edited:
Indeed, and these two paradigms are often perceived as mutually exclusive, which they are not. Currently they try to babysit every single passenger, which is ridiculously labour-intensive and time-consuming for staff and passengers alike (hence the frustration among passengers). The obvious solution is to continue providing staff who are available to help upon request, but don't insist on micromanaging every single passenger.
I agree that if you insist on herding passengers like sheep they start acting like herded sheep, but I don‘t see how you could allow passengers to board and detrain independently at rail stations which aren‘t high-level and often feature platforms which don’t reach the entire length of the train…
But they are the only railway with such labour-intensive procedures. Maybe they're holdouts, maybe they're outliers, maybe they're innovators, but they certainly don't seem to be the norm.
Are they? If you want to look at alternatives for how to organize passenger boarding and detraining at stations like Toronto Union, you have to find stations which have comparable (i.e., grotesquely insufficient) infrastructure. I‘m not aware of any appropriate comparisons, which is part of my struggle in imagining how processes could be streamlined from their admittedly unsatisfactory Status Quo. Fortunately, Union Station will receive medium-level (and wider) platforms, which will mitigate some of the problems, so not sure why you obsess so much about current boarding procedures…
Is it?

Northeast CorridorVIA CorridorEmpire Corridor
PlatformsHighHigh and LowHigh and Low
Frequencyup to 48/dayup to 16/dayup to 13/day
PropulsionElectricDieselDiesel

You said yourself that the fact that NEC only has high-level platforms makes it a poor point of comparison for the sake of boarding procedures.
I meant that Amtrak has high-level platforms at all busy major stations (e.g., along the NEC), which is why their procedures on such stations are not really applicable for what VIA could do at Toronto Union. To the best of my knowledge, Amtrak‘s procedures are similar to VIA‘s at stations which have comparable infrastructure to what VIA has to deal with at most Corridor stations…
See, the trick is to not do any of those things, other than being available to guide those who request assistance. That's what every other railway does.
True, but which „other railway“ has to put up with the kind of infrastructure VIA has to deal with at stations which are stations which are similarly busy?
I don't see how the platform could be the bottleneck. There are 5 doors on a 5-car train, and though the capacity of each door is probably less than the escalator, it's not five times less.
And besides, it does address the bottleneck if you combine it with information in the concourse directing passengers to the escalator closest to their coach. Concentrating everyone onto a single escalator maximises the passenger density on the platform at the top of the escalator. Dispersing them among two or three escalators can help reduce crowding on the platform.
At least during boarding, the best way to avoid platform crowding is to regulate (limit) the passenger flow entering the platform…
The incidents that have occurred on GO were related to moving trains. I don't think we're proposing to have Via passengers on the platform already when the train pulls in.
Agreed, but as long as VIA berths trains on either side of the vertical accesses, allowing passengers to access the platform on the other side forces passengers to walk unnecessary distances. And I’m still not sure what the actual problem is you are trying to fix here…
Or we could change the procedures at all stations such that people just board the train independently like they do on every other railway. The Siemens trains have integrated steps that (if I understand correctly) eliminate the need for the stepstool that staff need to place on other train types. This should enable passengers to open doors (or for doors to be remotely opened), which was not previously possible.
Again: this doesn’t work at…
a) busy low-platform stations (e.g., Toronto Union Station, Kingston, London or modt platforms at Ottawa)
b) stations with platforms not covering the entire train length
c) jay-trains, where passengers need to board the correct train

Which brings us back to that you can’t have wildly different procedures at different stations without confusing passengers…
 
Last edited:
I agree that if you insist on herding passengers like sheep they start acting like herded sheep, but I don‘t see how you could allow passengers to board and detrain independently at rail stations which aren‘t high-level and often feature platforms which don’t reach the entire length of the train…

Are they? If you want to look at alternatives for how to organize passenger boarding and detraining at stations like Toronto Union, you have to find stations which have comparable (i.e., grotesquely insufficient) infrastructure. I‘m not aware of any appropriate comparisons, which is part of my struggle in imagining how processes could be streamlined from their admittedly unsatisfactory Status Quo. Fortunately, Union Station will receive medium-level (and wider) platforms, which will mitigate some of the problems, so not sure why you obsess so much about current boarding procedures…

I meant that Amtrak has high-level platforms at all busy major stations (e.g., along the NEC), which is why their procedures on such stations are not really applicable for what VIA could do at Toronto Union. To the best of my knowledge, Amtrak‘s procedures are similar to VIA‘s at stations which have comparable infrastructure to what VIA has to deal with at most Corridor stations…

True, but which „other railway“ has to put up with the kind of infrastructure VIA has to deal with at stations which are stations which are similarly busy?

At least during boarding, the best way to avoid platform crowding is to regulate (limit) the passenger flow entering the platform…

Agreed, but as long as VIA berths trains on either side of the vertical accesses, allowing passengers to access the platform on the other side forces passengers to walk unnecessary distances. And I’m still not sure what the actual problem is you are trying to fix here…

Again: this doesn’t work at…
a) busy low-platform stations (e.g., Toronto Union Station, Kingston, London or modt platforms at Ottawa)
b) stations with platforms not covering the entire train length
c) jay-trains, where passengers need to board the correct train

Which brings us back to that you can’t have wildly different procedures at different stations without confusing passengers…
Sorry but if you consider it "obsessive" to look for solutions for the single largest issue that is within Via's direct control, and you are "still not sure what the problem is" with Via's boarding procedure is then this discussion is pointless.
 
@Urban Sky @reaperexpress

You're both knowledgeable people, most particularly in respect of railways in this case, and while I observe, I will generally avoid direct interjection here in as much as you are both more knowledgeable here than I.

By and large, in my reading, you're both, at least technically correct, in most, if not all of your points.

It would be my suggestion here than the differences comes down to two facets of perspective:

1) How do you manage with what you have?

2) How do get to a place with better infrastructure, sooner?

You clearly have different approaches in this regard.

I can clearly see the Railway Operator's perspective in your comments Urban Sky. You seem to be looking at this with a 'what's good for my bottom line today', and 'what's convenient for my staff today' perspective. That's understandable.....
But I'll confess to leaning towards what I see as Reaper Express' take. Which is the Customer perspective.

To be clear, as per our ongoing conversations here, there are limits to the customer perspective, even if money fell from the sky, VIA should not be running hourly service to Sudbury and selling those tickets at $20 a pop. There needs to be some guardrails in decisions that maintain profit or limit loss, that show a modicum of common sense, and generally protect the operator in terms of reliability, predictability and liability.

However, while not speaking for Reaper, I would read his comments as a reminder that most businesses that succeed, particularly when lacking a monopoly or gratuitous subsidy, do so with a customer centric lens.

That means asking what would make the customer experience better, in order to attract greater ridership, and possibly even higher ROI over time.

We've discussed the different facets of this many times, there's 'base expectation' (service works, is reliable, safe, clean etc.) , there's frequency, trip time, ambiance/experience at stations and on board, convenience (nearby station, last mile transport, ease of fare purchase etc.),

Taken together, the above can be reduced the term 'Value' for the customer. Value derives a couple of clear ideas "Did I get my money's worth?"; is the overall package comparable to or better than the competing option (Air/Car/Bus), did the service meet or exceed my expectation.

****

To take this back to the above exchange, I feel like the debate looks roughly like this:

Reaper: The VIA experience is sub-optimal, its lesser than industry peers, it affects customer perception negatively, its worse than it HAS to be, even with existing constraints.

VIA must be more insistent on getting better supporting conditions from host stations, and railways, to do that it needs to understand and place the customer perspective at the forefront, and it needs to grow ridership, which will in turn shift the politics towards VIA.

Urban Sky: That's nice, but in the real world, the railways and station owners aren't providing that support, changing procedures has risks and is a hassle and there's no budget.


The reason I lean towards Reaper's line of thinking here is I think the status quo needs disturbing. You simply can't drive ridership growth without a better customer experience. That can be about boarding........where VIA needs to get a high or higher level platform at Union, and one that's wider, for Corridor service. A 3x per week Canadian is a different matter than one that supports more commuters/frequent travelers over shorter distances.

I don't care how they get there.......lobby, threaten, cajole, mobilize customers, intentionally inconvenience Mx/GO or the City..........but play hardball for your customer.........and then bring the carrot.....(the feds will help pay for it).

On reliability, its the same.....don't get jerked about by CN.......I'm agnostic on how you get greater reliability and slightly faster schedule times......you want to invest in infrastructure........great, with a value for money focus? Sure! Reaper has provided
lots of helpful ideas, in detail, that are relatively low cost and would aid performance, and VIA needs to secure some funding for those, and then sign a clear deal with CN that is pay for performance. We're on time, or you get paid less.

On prices.........I would argue 5 tiers are too many, and when combined with dynamic pricing.........you lose predictability of cost for frequent/semi-frequent travel. I would argue that selling completely inflexible, low service tickets, tends to create way more negative customer impression than benefits.

I would also note, one problem with the way VIA prices is that there is very little incentive to bolster capacity, and the manner of how new rolling stock has been procured and set up (fixed consist size) and (lack of sufficient rolling stock to dramatically upscale capacity to meet demand).

How do you get more ridership if you build your system with fixed/limited growth potential?

Finally, to bring this back to the boarding experience, putting aside customer perception of that experience, I would argue it simply takes longer than needed, and that impairs the number of platform slots available to add service.

****

There's nothing incorrect about arguing that the customer-first approach is a challenge in many respects due to existing infra, operating arrangements and does carry some risks at the margins.

But as Reaper notes, for every risk it avoids, it creates new ones.

Just my quick take, from a lay person's perspective.
 
Last edited:
Three major changes in the operating environment are going to completely upend current boarding/detraining processes at Union Station within the next 10 years:

1) The standardization of all intercity trains with modern rolling stock
2) The complete reconfiguration of track/platform layouts/configurations, which will significantly raise and widen the existing platforms
3) The introduction of High Frequency Rail and transition to a new operator (while GO undergoes a similar transformation to RER with ONxpress)

During this period of unprecedented change, it is simply impossible to introduce significant short-term changes to existing procedures, unless where they are driven by the need to facilitate the implementation of these long-term changes. The focus is to improve future customer experience by ensuring that the future infrastructure corresponds with future commercial and operating needs. It‘s not a question of will, but of the capacity for implementing changes, which prevents the kind of seemingly obvious adjustments to current procedures which you two envision. There already is and will be more than enough moving parts which will constantly change during this challenging transition period…
 
Last edited:
^ I agree with @Northern Light 's take - while platforms may be an operational challenge for VIA, the key lens has to be the customer lens. VIA may not have many degrees of freedom given the constraints of its platforms, but that needs to be recognized as an undesirable disincentive to ridership rather than an explainable feature of the operation.

I don't have a problem with a controlled gate boarding, similar to airports... where one lines up, waits, and then boarding begins in one operation.....but....VIA should take note of what airports do to make that process smoother. That would require at-gate infrastructure for gate agents, capability to make clear and articulate announcements at the gate, and clearer signage that actually aligns to what the boarding process will be. Boarding at airports is chaotic even so, but I find both VIA Montreal and Toronto seriously deficient in providing clarity and ease for the passengers.

- Paul
 
I don't have a problem with a controlled gate boarding, similar to airports... where one lines up, waits, and then boarding begins in one operation.....but....VIA should take note of what airports do to make that process smoother. That would require at-gate infrastructure for gate agents, capability to make clear and articulate announcements at the gate, and clearer signage that actually aligns to what the boarding process will be. Boarding at airports is chaotic even so, but I find both VIA Montreal and Toronto seriously deficient in providing clarity and ease for the passengers.
Even in the example with airports, infrastructure constraints determine the feasibility of certain boarding procedures: airport gates are generally designed as designated areas with sufficient and clearly separated waiting areas without passenger throughfare. There simply is no space at Toronto Union or Montreal Gare Centrale to create such designated areas - and the respective station owners and operators are too preoccupied with optimizing future infrastructure and procedures to bother about implementing short-term and transitional changes.

I keep repeating myself, but even a European or Japanese railway company (or any airline, for that matter) would come up with boarding and detraining procedures which are not that different from those of VIA, when faced with the same infrastructure, just like VIA‘s procedures would closely resemble those of aforementioned railroads and airlines, if it had the luxury of using such purpose-built and customer-centric infrastructure…
 
  • Like
Reactions: PL1

Back
Top