[crs1026]

I can't comment on VIA's relationship with CN (other than that it is already much more cooperative and constructive than certain "passenger rail advocates" let it appear), but I think we can agree that having a dedicated passenger corridor linking VIA's three busiest stations will alter the power relation with its most important host railroad...

The relationship gets badmouthed, I agree. I'm sure it's fundamentally businesslike and respectful. Nevertheless, that pessimism may, unfortunately, accurately predict business outcomes. CN is not unprincipled, but on any given day its operational people will put CN's business interests ahead of VIA's, to the extent that the service agreements permit. That's their job, after all. As will CN's lawyers when agreements are negotiated.

The issue for Kingston and other Lakeshore communities is whether that relationship gives appropriate consideration to their interests, given that there is no competing rail line that local rail service can be moved to, as is being accomplished via HFR for through service.

As far as I remember only P42 locomotives and LRC cars are allowed to reach 100 mph and there are hardly any corridor trains which are formed by just these two fleet types, but anyways, the more often Lakeshore services stop, the less the top speed would matter anyways, even if CN were to downgrade the tracks to Track Class four (i.e. 80 mph for passenger trains).

That's an interesting point. My knee-jerk reaction as a demanding spectator is, why isn't VIA configuring exclusively around 100 mph (the Challengers may lead to this) and then squeezing every possible second out of its timings?

They did just so, actually, back when the Metropolitan was conceived. Didn't last.

If it turns out that due to other considerations, (such as freight interference, dispatching through crossovers, slow orders, etc) that 100 mph capability just can't be leveraged, well that really is something my mindset just hasn't processed.

In poker, if you are trying to build a flush, you may have to discard your Aces in other suits. It just feels wrong, but it may have its reasons and its rewards.

Similarly, I don't see CN going down to single-track anywhere along the Kingston Sub, as it would be impossible to do so with drastic impacts on their own freight operations. Freight traffic on the Kingston Sub is much more intense than on the Winchester/Belleville Subs and than passenger traffic that eliminating some of the only 10-12 passenger trains per day between Brockville and Coteau will barely make a difference...

One can be certain that the finance side of the business will point to the extra capitalization on this line, relative to CN's busier single track lines handling equal ton-miles. That certainly was my experience about managing capital. And railway management is pretty ruthless about forcing cuts to extract excess capital. I have too much respect for CN as a business to believe they don't work this way.

If VIA is paying CN enough for that excess capitalisation, it may be moot for now. But if VIA runs fewer trains, presumably paying much less, the financial considerations will prevail. In that equation, taking track out of service is a very likely scenario.

Freight trains on the Kingston Sub are much shorter, faster and more frequent than out west - and I would expect CN to have very good reasons for operating in that way...

I really have to push back on this statement...... I believe it's factually incorrect. CN went to DPU on the Kingston Sub long before they did west of Toronto. A couple of the intermodal land barges from the west turn left at Doncaster and continue on to Montreal unaltered, as do grain and other unit trains. A key operational constraint CN experiences on the Kingston is the need to cross over VIA trains around long freights - the train handling required to slow a freight to crossover speed and the time required for a long freight to cross over and clear is unacceptable. So VIA has to be the one that slows down and crosses over. Trains on the Kingston Sub are every bit as long and heavy as elsewhere.

I don't mind having opinions, I'm just getting tired of unsubstantiated speculation presented as "this is going to happen"...

Touche. Perhaps some of us need a "we're just specators in the bleachers" disclaimer at the bottom of our posts.

Having said that, for most of my career I was the "what might go wrong" guy rather than the "let's all get on the bandwagon and shout rah-rah" guy. It worked for me.

And I think it is fair to articulate strong belief of probability. A lawyer friend recently lamented that people use the terms "shall, will, and may" interchangeably and incorrectly. Is there a single word that means "can't say for certainty, but pretty damn likely, if you ask me"?

In absence of the necessity to serve the primary markets, which will shift the focus from aggressive trip times to increased connectivity between the various cities along the Lakeshore. Therefore, average speed will be lower, which will naturally decrease friction between passenger and freight operations (by decreasing their speed differential).

Respectfully, this is the paradigm that resurfaces over and over again through the decades with respect to VIA service...."a few more minutes travel time won't hurt anything.....". What other business lets itself think this way? One would expect that VIA would insist on and articulate its vision of how the service can be improved.

For Kingston-Lakeshore, the limitations of the relationship with CN need to be acknowledged but not celebrated or baked into planning. Limiting service on the Lakeshore may be an unavoidable tradeoff in the push for HFR, but I would not represent it as an improvement or even status quo. There must be an ability to grow that service.


- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

Could the doors not be placed on the intermediate level instead of the lower level? That would line up with the high platforms, would it not?

Bi-levels are certainly intriguing, but they would make food and drink service a fair bit more complicated.

How would you ensure accessibility within the train for wheelchair users who want to access their designated seats and toilet?

Dan, where were you thinking between VMC and TMC that a pinch point might arise on such a car? I had (somewhat carelessly) assumed that VIA had plate K clearance to work with on its existing Western routes and was assuming single level only east of TMC.

Certain maintenance can only be performed at MMC. If the car doesn’t fit into Gare Centrale, you’ll have to run a deadhead train every time you need to move an oversized car between TMC and MMC...

 

[kEiThZ]

Respectfully, this is the paradigm that resurfaces over and over again through the decades with respect to VIA service...."a few more minutes travel time won't hurt anything.....". What other business lets itself think this way? One would expect that VIA would insist on and articulate its vision of how the service can be improved.

This is a good point. And something I strongly suspect is more of a step function than a slope, when it comes to ridership.

I may not mind a few more minutes on the train. But if the travel time starts getting close to driving, the train will not be my first thought for the trip. And I always fear that VIA (mostly not through any fault of their own), is forced over the step in many situations. I can see this happening with HFR, for example, where Toronto-Montreal and Ottawa-Quebec and any combination of a 4 hr trip won't make substantial gains over driving as the ~3 hr trips would (because they are substantially competitive with driving and marginally competitive with flying).

Again though, I don't blame VIA for this, as much as the government for forcing them into such situations with inadequate funding and no legislative framework to leverage against the freight rail cos.

 

[kEiThZ]

IMO toronto to montreal or ottawa to QC must go under 4 hours in order to be competitive with car and bus.

I've said the same before. I wish they could get somehow get Toronto-Montreal closer to 4 hrs for HFR. I think the extra billion or two it would cost would really be worthwhile. With Ottawa at ~3.25 hrs, HFR will be decently competitive with air. Enough so that I think it'll divert a lot of flyers who aren't connecting or aren't doing a same day return trip. Especially if their starting and/or ending destinations are in the east end of Toronto or west end of Ottawa.

 

[dowlingm]

Certain maintenance can only be performed at MMC. If the car doesn’t fit into Gare Centrale, you’ll have to run a deadhead train every time you need to move an oversized car between TMC and MMC...

That might be true for the current fleet (and requiring at least some deadhead moves of domes and RDCs on the back of Corridor sets, IIRC) but it might make more sense for a western route only bilevel maintenance to happen in Toronto, no? There is a huge bilevel maint facility right across the tracks from TMC, after all, and whoever does West Coast Express' maintenance might be able to offer facilities for wheelset replacement or whatever on that coast.

 

[Urban Sky]

That might be true for the current fleet (and requiring at least some deadhead moves of domes and RDCs on the back of Corridor sets, IIRC) but it might make more sense for a western route only bilevel maintenance to happen in Toronto, no? There is a huge bilevel maint facility right across the tracks from TMC, after all, and whoever does West Coast Express' maintenance might be able to offer facilities for wheelset replacement or whatever on that coast.

Sure, but you may want to ask yourself what kind of railroad would order a third fleet type for its overnight train network of only 10 trainsets (spread across 3 routes) which would be incompatible with the two existing fleet types (and wouldn’t even replace the fleet type which most urgently needs replacement) - and what kind of government would grant approval and funding for such a fleet strategy...

 

[dowlingm]

Sure, but you may want to ask yourself what kind of railroad would order a third fleet type for its overnight train network of only 10 trainsets (spread across 3 routes) which would be incompatible with the two existing fleet types (and wouldn’t even replace the fleet type which most urgently needs replacement) - and what kind of government would grant approval and funding for such a fleet strategy...

The fleet type that most urgently needs replacement - well the Charger sets are gonna replace what - the Corridor Rens, the LRCs that didn't get the refurb and some HEP2s? Cascading Canadian cars to Ocean - that's the sleeper Rens gone.

Those 10 trainsets are covering VIA's harshest and most remote routes with the exception of Jonquiere/Senneterre. Why should they not have reliable stock, and accessible low floor boarding rather than depending on traps, and a cabbage on the end for backup moves in Edmonton or when CN puts yet another freight on the ground. Not to mention the possibility of shortening the train lengths with the extra capacity and therefore being able to wye at TMC instead of the ridiculous move via the Newmarket and York subs to get out of Toronto.

Hell, if we are talking about minimising fleet types, why not cut bait on the token RDCs and base an F40+bilevel coaches+cabbage in Capreol to operate White River. Pretty sure there was some chat about going locohaul up there anyway a while back, and ensuing discussion about the wye at White River.

 

[kEiThZ]

Sure, but you may want to ask yourself what kind of railroad would order a third fleet type for its overnight train network of only 10 trainsets (spread across 3 routes) which would be incompatible with the two existing fleet types (and wouldn’t even replace the fleet type which most urgently needs replacement) - and what kind of government would grant approval and funding for such a fleet strategy...

Would the Chargers ordered work for long haul or would a different configuration be needed?

And since the Venture is derived from the Viaggio Comfort, of which there are configurations with sleeping berths, any idea if the Venture could be configured that way? I'm thinking like the ÖBB Nightjet. That would be fantastic for the Ocean at least.

 

[Urban Sky]

The fleet type that most urgently needs replacement - well the Charger sets are gonna replace what - the Corridor Rens, the LRCs that didn't get the refurb and some HEP2s? Cascading Canadian cars to Ocean - that's the sleeper Rens gone.

Those 10 trainsets are covering VIA's harshest and most remote routes with the exception of Jonquiere/Senneterre. Why should they not have reliable stock, and accessible low floor boarding rather than depending on traps, and a cabbage on the end for backup moves in Edmonton or when CN puts yet another freight on the ground. Not to mention the possibility of shortening the train lengths with the extra capacity and therefore being able to wye at TMC instead of the ridiculous move via the Newmarket and York subs to get out of Toronto.

Hell, if we are talking about minimising fleet types, why not cut bait on the token RDCs and base an F40+bilevel coaches+cabbage in Capreol to operate White River. Pretty sure there was some chat about going locohaul up there anyway a while back, and ensuing discussion about the wye at White River.

I really struggle to visualize your fleet strategy in my head. Would you mind listing the non-Corridor fleet types you would deploy, and specify the routes you would deploy them on and the maintenance centers where you would service them?

Would the Chargers ordered work for long haul or would a different configuration be needed?

Given that Amtrak seems to deploy their Chargers also on their long-haul routes, I don’t see why the same couldn’t be done north of the border. I’d also expect Amtrak to retire its P42s as soon as VIA receives its Chargers, just like they did with their F40s when VIA received its P42s...

And since the Venture is derived from the Viaggio Comfort, of which there are configurations with sleeping berths, any idea if the Venture could be configured that way? I'm thinking like the ÖBB Nightjet. That would be fantastic for the Ocean at least.

I would be surprised if any rolling stock supplier was willing to adapt its design to the North American market unless Amtrak places a much larger order than VIA’s 10 longhaul trainsets, but I agree that Siemens would be very well placed for supplying such an order - and as a German I would of course be delighted about an all-Siemens fleet...

 

[kEiThZ]

I would be surprised if any rolling stock supplier was willing to adapt its design to the North American market unless Amtrak places a much larger order than VIA’s 10 longhaul trainsets, but I agree that Siemens would be very well placed for supplying such an order....

This is what I'm curious about.

Presumably all the structural engineering requirements have been met when translating the Viaggio Comfort to the Venture model. So is it a lock of work to simply translate the interior fitment? Any idea? Because I would think if it's not that much work, doing so for even a 10 train set order might be economical enough. Especially, if they can then sell to Amtrak after.

 

[kEiThZ]

and as a German I would of course be delighted about an all-Siemens fleet...

Won't lie. I'm a little sad as a Canadian to see how far Bombardier has fallen in its home country.

 

[Urban Sky]

This is what I'm curious about.

Presumably all the structural engineering requirements have been met when translating the Viaggio Comfort to the Venture model. So is it a lock of work to simply translate the interior fitment? Any idea? Because I would think if it's not that much work, doing so for even a 10 train set order might be economical enough. Especially, if they can then sell to Amtrak after.

I’m sure it can be done, but the question is at what price, as any supplier submitting a new design (adaptation) for a tender would presumably want these 10 trainsets repay its design costs...

Won't lie. I'm a little sad as a Canadian to see how far Bombardier has fallen in its home country.

To cheer you up, the number of Bombardier-built trains operating in Germany will outnumber that of Siemens-built trains in Canada for a few more decades, as “Bombardier” is still ubiquitous in Germany:

Source: Wikimedia (Upload by user Geogast)

 

[kEiThZ]

I’m sure it can be done, but the question is at what price, as any supplier submitting a new design (adaptation) for a tender would presumably want these 10 trainsets repay its design costs...

I'd say it's more a matter of beggars can't be choosers. If VIA needs to renew its fleet, the price VIA would be willing to pay will be higher if there aren't many competitors.

What I'm curious about is how expensive engineering the interior is, as opposed to the structural design driven by FRA requirements. I would think it's less expensive than actually designing the structure of the Coach. Most interior fitment stuff is fairly mundane and universal.

To cheer you up, the number of Bombardier-built trains operating in Germany will outnumber that of Siemens-built trains in Canada for a few more decades,

Yeah but Bombardier Rail was effectively a German railmaker. So that's not a feat.

Say, does anyone know or recall what coach and loco Bombardier bid for the VIA fleet renewal contract?

 

[crs1026]

What I'm curious about is how expensive engineering the interior is, as opposed to the structural design driven by FRA requirements. I would think it's less expensive than actually designing the structure of the Coach. Most interior fitment stuff is fairly mundane and universal.

Are you referring to sleeper cars specifically or interiors generally? I think we had this discussion a while back. I recall posting some standards in this regard, can’t remember if it was FRA’s standards specs or others. For sleepers, the detail is a little more than one might think at first blush, as wiring, plumbing, emergency egress, ventillation, and fire safety considerations get complicated with so many confined cubicles and enclosed rooms. And some level of technology amenities may have to be installed, I would not assume that vanilla airline entertainment consoles would work without some amount of adaptation.
And then, the buyer will have plenty of druthers that have to be worked into the design. Some may be cosmetic but some (luggage stowage being a good example) might require moving stuff around, which might lead to more detailed redesign.
I was always amused to spot the British Railways logos on things like microwaves and fixtures in the Ren cars.....it would have been too onerous for VIA to redact them all.
Siemens or other vendors may already have generic engineering from past customers, but translation to North American expectations may drive more work. As a matter of economies of scale, I can’t see VIA ever reequipping its smaller long distance fleet without bumping into the question of the Canadian and Ocean fleet requirements. And that’s a much bigger debate.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

I think one of the ongoing problems with Via is they have been forced to use second hand or worse equipment that once talk of replacing one part of the fleet, we start dreaming of new equipment elsewhere. If the government was to plan with Via to replace all equipment at 20 years old, we would have much newer fleet, and likely a much more reliable fleet. For an example, the RDCs are almost 60 years old. While there may be some nostalgia associated with the older equipment, there are inherent problems too.A problem the RCN faced with their older ships were the availability off spare parts. I know of instances where a part would be removed from one ship to install it on another so that it could go to sea.

If the government wanted to show it were serious about Via's fleet renewal, once the new rolling stock for the Corridor start to arrive, discussions on replacement of the RDCs and the rest should happen.

(Yes, I know the LRCs were new. The Renaissance cars were mothballed.)