[crs1026]

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…

And I keep repeating also - they might not be able to do better, but they would likely try harder to try to innovate rather than dismissing the matter as "it's the best we can do"

I appreciate just how constraining the environment is..... anybody who can figure out how to queue people conveniently in the Departures Concourse at Toronto Union deserves a Nobel Prize.... different things have been tried there over the years without any real success. However there are obvious things that would improve the process, such as better localised PA announcements and not using a gate that is tucked away around the corner in a back passageway. The staff were polite and organized, but the passengers had no idea what the plan was. Similarly, the method of shuttling Business Class passengers from lounge to gate is ineffective given the volumes of people along the way.... what starts as an organized line devolves.

When I took the Ocean recently out of Montreal, the agent who handed out dinner reservations was seated at a poorly signed desk that was neither in the Business Lounge nor at the gate. No announcement was made to tell passengers they should check in with that agent if they wanted a dinner booking. It was a case of guesswork and hide-and-seek.

The passenger only sees the chaos and not the root cause. I do think ViA needs to worry more about this even if the best solutions aren't possible.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

I don‘t think anyone would disagree that as difficult as it is to change current boarding procedures, there certainly is room for improvement in providing information explaining them. The North American approach to rail/transit passenger information is generally subterranean…

 

[kEiThZ]

I‘m not stressing out over this, I‘m just seeing the danger that if this bid was selected that endless litigation would delay or even derail the project. However, if these conflicts of interest get recognized and lead to a different bid getting selected, I would be very happy…

It's not the US. Anybody suing would have to show real damage caused by illegal activity. That's actually really hard in this case. Air-rail integration and codeshare isn't illegal. Nor is it illegal for Porter customers to simply prefer rail for Corridor travel.

 

[Urban Sky]

It's not the US. Anybody suing would have to show real damage caused by illegal activity. That's actually really hard in this case. Air-rail integration and codeshare isn't illegal. Nor is it illegal for Porter customers to simply prefer rail for Corridor travel.

I‘m not that familiar with competitive (or any) law in this country, but considering how anxious some people here are about PP cancelling HFR, the enthusiasm for an alliance with ex-monopolist AC which could shut down out and harm private competitors like Porter and WestJet strikes me as rather surprising…

 

[kEiThZ]

I‘m not that familiar with competitive (or any) law in this country, but considering how anxious some people here are about PP cancelling HFR, the enthusiasm for an alliance with ex-monopolist AC which could shut down out and harm private competitors like Porter and WestJet strikes me as rather surprising…

To be clear, it's not they I'm enthusiastic for Cadence . I just think it probably helps the case that the airline that probably lobbied most against rail in the Corridor (before Porter) is getting onboard. And it's mostly driven by real infrastructure and HR constraints they face. It's a rather unique alignment.

The real threat to this project, is probably Porter at this point. It's the airline that stands to lose the most.

As for the political threat, I still think PP may cancel this project. But at least airline lobbying will be split on this, instead of 100% opposed to rail.

 

[dowlingm]

It does seem to me that the FRA takes a more aggressive approach to ADA than occurs here. I couldn’t imagine that there would not be pressure on VIA to have high platforms in places like London and Windsor where they have one or more platforms off the main.

Compare the Amsterdam, NY station plan phase 1 with London for example

 

[micheal_can]

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 changes to existing procedures, unless where they are driven by the need to facilitate the implementation of these long-term changes.

This makes no sense. I read the whole post and it sounds like you are saying that during these times of unprecedented changes, we cannot introduce chances. The problem right now is a low platform slowing things down at all stations.High platforms, especially is needed at the major stations. One major station will be doing that. Am I the only one who does not see that as problem solved?

 

[Urban Sky]

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…

I‘m trying to phrase this in simpler terms:

1. Most of the current issues with boarding procedures will be hopefully resolved in a decade‘s time when the entire Corridor uses a modern fleet, HFR is operable and the track and platform layout at Union Station has been completely overhauled to allow for much higher and wider platforms.
2. However, in order to successfully implement these major long-term changes, we need to reduce minor, ongoing changes as much as possible. This is why any major IT systems change is preceeded by a blackout period in which only critical bugs are fixed, as every change in the IT environment might hinder the successful rollout of the major IT system change, as it might have unforeseen consequences.
3. In short: the worst time to introduce significant, but non-critical short-term changes is when major long-term changes are imminent (as is the case with the platforms at Union Station).
4. Therefore, it‘s often better to delay desirable, but non-critical changes and incorporate them into the long-term upgrades which are planned anyways. That means focusing on optimizing the designs for the future infrastructure (to ensure that it can accommodate desirable operating practices) rather than trying to test the limits of how far we can push the existing infrastructure in its final years.

 

[micheal_can]

I‘m trying to phrase this in simpler terms:

1. Most of the current issues with boarding procedures will be hopefully resolved in a decade‘s time when the entire Corridor uses a modern fleet, HFR is operable and the track and platform layout at Union Station has been completely overhauled to allow for much higher and wider platforms.
2. However, in order to successfully implement these major long-term changes, we need to reduce minor, ongoing changes as much as possible. This is why any major IT systems change is preceeded by a blackout period in which only critical bugs are fixed, as every change in the IT environment might hinder the successful rollout of the major IT system change, as it might have unforeseen consequences.
3. In short: the worst time to introduce significant, but non-critical short-term changes is when major long-term changes are imminent (as is the case with the platforms at Union Station).
4. Also: it‘s often better to delay desirable, but non-critical changes and incorporate them into the long-term upgrades which are planned anyways. Rather than optimizing what is possible with the current infrastructure which won‘t exist in its present form in just a few years‘ time, the plans for the future infrastructure should be optimized to ensure that it will allow for whatever procedures are deemed desirable.

Ah,so it is more a case of "why waste time on trying to make it work today when it will work tomorrow"?
I notice there is usually some slight scheduling adjustments once a year. Why not roll out those changes at that time? Of course, that would be only if those changes would be longer lasting.So, for instance, once the high level platforms are done and Via can use them, that year, roll out a timetable to reflect that?

 

[crs1026]

Ah,so it is more a case of "why waste time on trying to make it work today when it will work tomorrow"?
I notice there is usually some slight scheduling adjustments once a year. Why not roll out those changes at that time? Of course, that would be only if those changes would be longer lasting.So, for instance, once the high level platforms are done and Via can use them, that year, roll out a timetable to reflect that?

High level platforms are not something that you buy in a kit at Rona and install yourself in your back yard with a few buddies over a long weekend. It's complicated.
Having said that, I do believe ViA is wasting the opportunity to move to these quickly in London and Ottawa, where they have greater control of the infrastructure and where the value of the investment is high and likely to be longstanding.
And I see little or no change needed in Montreal, so there is no barrier to begin working out new procedures and addressing "attention to detail" deficiencies in the current setup.
Toronto Union is complicated and will just have to take as long as it takes.
The change is not merely the physical platform, it's changing operationally so that trains arrive at the platform with nothing left to do but unload and load passengers. The current dwell time at Union is needed to solve minor issues and organize. Even if high platforms were in place today, VIA could not move trains thru the trainshed in a manner similar to GO or a subway train (as is done overseas). VIA will have to sort all that out.
I do not agree that VIA has to wait for HFR to act on all of these. Presumably they are talking about these things internally as part of the HxR concept specs.... but they can begin some proof of concept tests now....similar to how they implemented "top and tail" double ended diesel consists with the existing fleet in preparation for the double ended Ventures.
There's always a good reason to do nothing..... while there is wisdom in what @Urban Sky is explaining, I do feel it can be taken too far and become an excuse rather than a prudent bit of careful planning..

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

High level platforms are not something that you buy in a kit at Rona and install yourself in your back yard with a few buddies over a long weekend. It's complicated.
Having said that, I do believe ViA is wasting the opportunity to move to these quickly in London and Ottawa, where they have greater control of the infrastructure and where the value of the investment is high and likely to be longstanding.
And I see little or no change needed in Montreal, so there is no barrier to begin working out new procedures and addressing "attention to detail" deficiencies in the current setup.
Toronto Union is complicated and will just have to take as long as it takes.
The change is not merely the physical platform, it's changing operationally so that trains arrive at the platform with nothing left to do but unload and load passengers. The current dwell time at Union is needed to solve minor issues and organize. Even if high platforms were in place today, VIA could not move trains thru the trainshed in a manner similar to GO or a subway train (as is done overseas). VIA will have to sort all that out.
I do not agree that VIA has to wait for HFR to act on all of these. Presumably they are talking about these things internally as part of the HxR concept specs.... but they can begin some proof of concept tests now....similar to how they implemented "top and tail" double ended diesel consists with the existing fleet in preparation for the double ended Ventures.
There's always a good reason to do nothing..... while there is wisdom in what @Urban Sky is explaining, I do feel it can be taken too far and become an excuse rather than a prudent bit of careful planning..

- Paul

Let's be honest, the government will drag their heels on anything they can. Sometimes there is a valid reasonable reason, and other times,it is just because they can. A change in Government won't change that. What is needed is to bring back accountability (did it ever exist?) to politicians.

 

[roger1818]

High level platforms are not something that you buy in a kit at Rona and install yourself in your back yard with a few buddies over a long weekend. It's complicated.
Having said that, I do believe ViA is wasting the opportunity to move to these quickly in London and Ottawa, where they have greater control of the infrastructure and where the value of the investment is high and likely to be longstanding.

The problem is funding. VIA wrote a Proposal for Elevated Passenger Platforms for Ottawa Train Station in 2016. They got funding for Stage 1A (which they have completed), but never got the additional funding for Stage 1B (or Stage 2). My guess is the government is waiting for HFR to see if someone else will pay for it.

 

[crs1026]

The problem is funding. VIA wrote a Proposal for Elevated Passenger Platforms for Ottawa Train Station in 2016. The got funding for Stage 1A (which they have completed), but never got the additional funding for Stage 1B (or Stage 2). My guess is the government is waiting for HFR to see if someone else will pay for it.

Thanks for that. The map showing the land ownership is intriguing in its own right, I will admit I always assumed that VIA owned much more real estate at Ottawa.

It would be interesting to know the all-in cost of doing all three phases in one project versus splitting them out this way. This is a case where I would argue that Ottawa is nickel-and-diming VIA and the whole thing should have been financed in one shot. The cost of mobilising and doing site prep three times probably escalates the overall cost somewhat.

- Paul

 

[reaperexpress]

The problem is funding. VIA wrote a Proposal for Elevated Passenger Platforms for Ottawa Train Station in 2016. They got funding for Stage 1A (which they have completed), but never got the additional funding for Stage 1B (or Stage 2). My guess is the government is waiting for HFR to see if someone else will pay for it.

In London they don't have the excuse of possibly passing off the costs to a future HFR project because they're rebuilding the platforms anyway as we speak. London's platforms are on sidings never used by freight trains, so they'd be a particularly easy place to build high-level platforms. I emailed Via asking if the reconstruction would include high-level platforms before the project started, but they said that that info was not publicly available. It was only revealed that the platforms would remain low-level when construction started, by which point it was too late to change the plans.

If we had known beforehand that the reconstruction project was to include low-level platforms, we could have applied political pressure to advocate for the extra budget required (which shouldn't be much compared to the overall project). But since Via refused to tell anyone what the reconstruction plans entailed, we were completely unable to support them in their advocacy for high-level platforms.

In contrast south of the border on the Empire Corridor (Toronto - New York), pretty most station reconstructions include raising the platforms to 48" above top of rail even when they're located on freight railways. In most cases they build a dedicated platform siding similar to the ones that already exist at London station.

Niagara Falls Station (rebuilt in 2016). Railway owned by CSX

Buffalo Exchange (rebuilt in 2020). Railway owned by CSX.

Rochester Station (rebuilt in 2017). Railway owned by CSX.

Syracuse station (rebuilt in 1998). Railway owned by CSX

Saratoga Springs station, railway owned by CPKC:

 

[micheal_can]

In London they don't have the excuse of possibly passing off the costs to a future HFR project because they're rebuilding the platforms anyway as we speak. London's platforms are on sidings never used by freight trains, so they'd be a particularly easy place to build high-level platforms. I emailed Via asking if the reconstruction would include high-level platforms before the project started, but they said that that info was not publicly available. It was only revealed that the platforms would remain low-level when construction started, by which point it was too late to change the plans.

If we had known beforehand that the reconstruction project was to include low-level platforms, we could have applied political pressure to advocate for the extra budget required (which shouldn't be much compared to the overall project). But since Via refused to tell anyone what the reconstruction plans entailed, we were completely unable to support them in their advocacy for high-level platforms.

In contrast south of the border on the Empire Corridor (Toronto - New York), pretty most station reconstructions include raising the platforms to 48" above top of rail even when they're located on freight railways. In most cases they build a dedicated platform siding similar to the ones that already exist at London station.

Niagara Falls Station (rebuilt in 2016). Railway owned by CSX

Buffalo Exchange (rebuilt in 2020). Railway owned by CSX.

Rochester Station (rebuilt in 2017). Railway owned by CSX.

Syracuse station (rebuilt in 1998). Railway owned by CSX

Saratoga Springs station, railway owned by CPKC:

View attachment 586272

Could it be that when the tender went out that GO was still operating and having a high platform would make it inaccessible for their trains?