News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

cplchanb said:
They need to be targeting well under 4hrs to make the service attractive.
Click to expand...

You're looking at this wrong. Anything less than 5 hrs makes it competitive with bus and driving. At that point, it all comes down to price. And HFR is supposed to let them become more price competitive due to higher asset utilization. If they charged the same as Greyhound today and you could take the train to Montreal, would you not? How many people would still drive?

Speed has a cost. And it's not one that most people are willing to pay for non-business and non-urgent travel. But frequency, all-weather reliability and cost competitive service can work. Even if it's not a vast gain on driving or the bus.

And 3:10 hrs to Ottawa would be competitive enough with flying for a lot of people. It's less than 3.5 hrs downtown to downtown, for a trip that would take 2.5 hrs today to do that by air. For quite a few people the additional cost of air travel won't justify saving an hour.
 
nfitz said:
This is part of why VIA's HFR concept is such a disaster. They used to be able to run 3:59 sharing with CN, before the freight became an issue. But 4:45 on a dedicated right-of-way?

The right-of-way they want to use, just isn't suitable ... too many curves. And looking at the costs they've projected, are totally unrealistic ... there's no way they are getting from Union to Agincourt on the meagre budget they've proposed - let alone to Montreal. They must have completely underestimated what it would take to rehab the line up the DVP, and grade-separate through the CP track at Leaside.
Click to expand...

Setting aside your assessment of what's possible on the Havelock Sub, what the travel times tell me is that the most bang for buck comes from investment in the Ottawa-Montreal stretch. The more time that can be saved in that stretch, the more commutable the two cities become, while every improvement in that stretch also helps reduce travel times from Toronto to Montreal and Quebec City.
 
littlewill1166 said:
Don't really have a direct source, the video they posted on youtube shows 4 cars, and the Instagram post showed a loco and 3 cars so I used the more reasonable one. I did a bit more math below.

A current 4 car LRC consist contains a club car and 3 coach cars.
44 seats + 68 seats + 68 seats + 68 seats = 248 seats

A new consist should have an average of 9100 passengers/32 trainsets = 284 passengers/trainset (note some trains will be longer/shorter).
If business class remains at 44 seats, then there will be 240 in economy class.
240 passengers/4 economy cars = 60 seats
240 passengers/3 economy cars = 80 seats

After doing the math again, VIA could try to put 80 seats per car, but they probably wouldn't have space for a bike rack so the 5 cars per train set with 60 seats is awesome and a lot more reasonable and I hope that it's what they go with. On the other hand, the seat numbering in the video goes up to 65 so we might end up with something like what we have today.
Click to expand...
The current Corridor fleet has 160 cars and 40 locomotive (as per VIA's RFQ quoted below) and trains operate at variable train lengths (anything between 2 and 7 cars). Without having any inside information to share, I would argue that the least arbitrary assumption would be to assume that this doesn't change...
Final quantities remain to be confirmed; however the intent is to replace the current fleet of 40 locomotives and 160 cars with bi-directional trainsets providing equivalent seat capacity currently totalling 2200 Business seats and 7800 Economy seats. An option for additional trainsets could be required, depending on the timing of other initiatives planned by VIA Rail.
Click to expand...
https://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/INTERCITY_PASSENGER_RAIL.pdf
cplchanb said:
I wonder /hope if there will be Express train services that skip minor stops. 445 Toronto to Montreal on dedicated track still seems really slow considering its 500km apart. That's an average of just 105km/h...

They need to be targeting well under 4hrs to make the service attractive. Even 150km/h avg service speed will be enough for 3.5hrs for 500km
Click to expand...
Your maths can only be as good as your distances are: Montreal-Toronto is 539 km via the Kingston Subdivision, 633 km via Coteau-Ottawa-Brockville and 580 km via Ottawa-Havelock...
 
kEiThZ said:
You're looking at this wrong. Anything less than 5 hrs makes it competitive with bus and driving. At that point, it all comes down to price. And HFR is supposed to let them become more price competitive due to higher asset utilization. If they charged the same as Greyhound today and you could take the train to Montreal, would you not? How many people would still drive?

Speed has a cost. And it's not one that most people are willing to pay for non-business and non-urgent travel. But frequency, all-weather reliability and cost competitive service can work. Even if it's not a vast gain on driving or the bus.

And 3:10 hrs to Ottawa would be competitive enough with flying for a lot of people. It's less than 3.5 hrs downtown to downtown, for a trip that would take 2.5 hrs today to do that by air. For quite a few people the additional cost of air travel won't justify saving an hour.
Click to expand...

I think it needs to be closer to 4 hrs, rather than the current 5 hr-ish travel time. I think there is a significant psychological effect between say 4.10 minutes and 4:53 minutes, even though the actual travel time is negligible. If VIA rail can market their product as "4 hour TO to MTL" then it would have a significant impact on how the public views this product the next time they book travel (similar to how UP Express markets itself as "25 min to the Airport", which played very well to the public's perception (along with a significantly lower price than its introductory fares...).

Another factor which I think impacts VIA rail's marketability is the mess that Union Station is currently in. Departing and arriving at the VIA concourse feels like landing in a bus terminal in a 2nd tier city in a developing country. I travel a lot for work, and I know that many of my colleagues prefer Pearson or Billy Bishop because the airport experience is somewhat more pleasant for the average business traveler. Air Canada has done an amazing job in recent years rebranding their business product - great lounges (e.g. the new AC Signature Lounge in Pearson, dedicated boarding area in T1, preferred seating, priority boarding, and the overall aura of exclusivity - which greatly appeals to your business travelers. Compare that with the half lit VIA Rail check-in counters in Union.
 
alexanderglista said:
My understanding of the RFP is that if electrification occurs, either new locomotives will be needed, or existing ones will need to be converted. The wording was quite vague in the RFP, but I assume that it met these requirements somehow.
Click to expand...
Or electric loco on other end. I note the use of a Driving Trailer in pics posted (Cab Car). Loco conversion to electric is not a practical option except where needed for berthing or shunting off catenary. VIA will need almost the same power in diesel mode as the Charger now has, and therefor rendering a loco twice the cost, twice the weight, and the square of twice the service down time.
 
robmausser said:
NOSECONES!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
It's not a cone. It's a cowl, and it doesn't cover the coupler, and still exposes a plow, both points stated many times prior. And it's not "pointy".

Addendum: And exactly as pointed out more than a few times earlier with pics, here's the derivation:
1544741894471.png

1544742057820.png
 
Last edited:
SFO-YYZ said:
Just read the specs, but seemed to have omitted the ability to operate on electrified rail, as per their original procurement requirements:

"More fuel-efficient, Tier 4 Diesel engines, with the option to operate on electrified rail infrastructure as it becomes available. "

Is this off the table now?
Click to expand...
The RFQ stated (gist) 'upgradable to'. What that means exactly this forum has never discovered, but clearly, dragging around extra weight for a possible later need is self-defeating at this stage.

If and when electrification happens, the diesel locos can have their coach end couplers modified to standard AAR if needed, and used in regular service, and either hybrids or electrics used in lieu. Electric one end, diesel the other will be similar weight as a driving trailer + hybrid, so asymmetric 'top and tail' seems highly logical. Also, with the newer regs probably imminent, 'coupling on' with a diesel when necessary (end of catenary) becomes a reasonable option.
 
Urban Sky said:
The current Corridor fleet has 160 cars and 40 locomotive (as per VIA's RFQ quoted below) and trains operate at variable train lengths (anything between 2 and 7 cars). Without having any inside information to share, I would argue that the least arbitrary assumption would be to assume that this doesn't change...

https://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/INTERCITY_PASSENGER_RAIL.pdf

...
Click to expand...

Any idea how we reconcile a spec of 7800 + 2200 seats with a result of 9100?

- Paul
 
Urban Sky said:
Old fleet: 7800 + 2200 (=10000) seats (as per the RFQ document I linked)
New fleet: 9100 seats (as per Globe and Mail article)
Click to expand...

I was afraid I was reading that correctly. Sure, the new fleet may be more reliable at first, so utilisation may be higher..... but one would have hoped that VIA was able to buy more seats, not less, given its proven ability to grow ridership.

The order is still good news overall, but it's a continuing case of death by a thousand paper cuts.

- Paul
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top