Urban Sky
Senior Member
The picture was taken in late 1978, thus in the early years of VIA and just after the consolidation of the ex-CN Super Continental and the ex-CP Canadian into one single location in Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver...
|
|
|
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
micheal_can
Senior Member
Are you saying that cannot be raised a couple of feet?
Imagine if one day Winnipeg decided to do a GO like commuter service, but decided not to because the roof was too low.
roger1818
Active Member
While possible, the added complications of modifying a heritage building makes it more difficult. Then there is the question of if it is worth the cost for a station that, as @Urban Sky said, "may only see a train a dozen of times per week," when there is a much more affordable option of buying coaches that will fit the trainshed without modification.
kEiThZ
Superstar
It can. But it ain't cheap. And even if it's a few million, the value is not there.
Some rough math to help you understand what the rest of us are getting at. Let's say it costs $10 million to modify the roof. Now let's assume 2 trains per day of 300 pax each. That works out to $45 per passenger for a given year. Spread it out over a decade? Interest + capital would add over $5.5 per ticket. That's for one roof. You want VIA to be successful? They have to do what keeps costs down to the passengers. Especially on items that don't impact their experience at all.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Yes, sure, why not raise the platform roof to one day operate 12-car bilevel trains to link Manitoba’s capital with its other buzzing population centres (see a conclusive list below)?
- Brandon (213 km from Winnipeg, pop. 58k, Rank #58 in Census 2016, i.e. one behind Saint-Hyacinthe)
- Winkler (115 km, pop. 30k, Rank #88, i.e. just behind Stratford and Orillia)
- Steinbach (65 km, pop. 16k, Rank #126, i.e. just behind Port Hope and Tilsonburg)
- Thompson (760 km, pop. 14k, Rank #135)
- Portage la Prairie (85km, pop. 13k, Rank #141, i.e. only four before Ingersoll)
The quality of the discussion here would dramatically improve if some commenters here (especially, but certainly not limited to: the one I just quoted) would spend just a quarter of the time they spend to defend their preferred solution with actually reflecting on what the problem is they are trying to solve.
Yes, I guess you could rebuild platforms and station facilities (just like you could convert the entire North American rail network to 1600 mm, which is supposedly the optimal gauge for HSR, if political power, determination and funds were no finite resources), but why bother even discussing it if multilevel equipment only offers some elusive “nice-to-have” advantages (and come with serious disadvantages) compared to single-level rolling stock...?
lenaitch
Senior Member
Always aspirational, aren't we. Pretty much anything is possible with tax money supplied by the likes of you and me. I suppose if Winnipeg ever gets to the point of needing commuter transit, let alone at a level that favours the pax density of bi-levels, then the the Province and City could figure out a way to fund it.
I've kinda lost track of the discussion around bi-levels. Are we talking about comparatively short-haul; i.e. coach seating only with perhaps a snack service, or long haul with dining, sleeping, baggage, etc.? Either way, unless you need the passenger density such as GO, I'm not sure I see the point of bi-levels to provide, say, a single level 4-car consist vs. a 2-car bi-level (no idea if the math actually works out). Other than a scenic dome on routes where they may be appropriate, complications of access, mobility, weight, cost, etc. seem to argue against them. Configurations with different level doors I imagine lose space to additional passageways. Perhaps I'm missing the big picture.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
I’m sure the “bigger picture” would have emerged by now (if there was one), so can someone please create a separate thread for “Passenger rail services in Western Canada”, so that we can move these discussions into that thread and avoid that the poster who has now been quoted on four consecutive replies continues to abuse every single topic discussed here to steer the discussion towards his sole topic of interest?
crs1026
Senior Member
The discussion around rolling stock seems to always revert to advocacy for solutions that fit the poster's appetites. We all want nice things, I guess.
VIA has a new fleet of Chargers coming for corridor service. The only businesslike way to address niche needs is to ask, will a Charger perform the role adequately? If so, no further action is sensible. The second question should be, if Chargers won't work, is there cascadable equipment from the legacy fleet that can remain economicaly serviceable? If yes, that's the solution.
Same principle for the long distance fleet. We hear rumblings that new life limiters may have been discovered, but we have yet to hear for the record what they are or how serious they may be. If VIA needs new long distance equipment, one would expect it would go into the most market-sensitive trains, the Canadian and Ocean. The lesser trains should get cast-offs, or increase the new equipment order.
One could always look to the used equipment market as well. Clearly, VIA does monitor that market, for things like used RDC's, but that needs a particularly careful business case as life expectancy and maintainability are unknowns. There are plenty of cool old trains on the market, but that doesn't make their acquisition mission critical for VIA. Nor should VIA be assembling a heritage collection.
I'm sure one can make a case for bilevels, as for anything on the new market....but....do they fit in the above decision tree? Is there actually a need?
We all have our favourites, but that's not a business case.
- Paul
micheal_can
Senior Member
I am not suggesting it gets done anytime soon, if ever. I am stating that if there was a real need for higher cars, would they really not look into raising it?
Didn't I say commuter rail? I know this is about modifying it for Via using higher cars, but I asked about GO like service for Winnipeg.
I always dream big, but I want to be realistic. So, realistically speaking, are there any double level cars that would fit in the existing structure?
kEiThZ
Superstar
Have you been to Winnipeg?
What market is there for commuter rail in Winnipeg? And why exactly would commuter rail need double decker cars?
reaperexpress
Senior Member
I believe you will recognize the paint scheme on these intercity doppelstockwagens:
Bombardier Twindexx
Stadler KISS
Prior to the pandemic, I rode this Intercity train quite frequently:
Bombardier VIRMm
NS also recently converted these former regional trains to run in Intercity services:
Talbot DDZ
In the NS fleets, wheelchair spaces and washrooms are located on the intermediate level, which is the configuration which would be used for any double deck stock on a system with high platforms.
Finland's VR also primarily uses double-deckers on its intercity services:
Skoda Edo
Belgium's NMBS/SNCB uses the following double deck coaches primarily on its intercity services:
Bombardier M6
Bombardier Twindexx
Indian Railways uses double deckers on some of its "AC Express" intercity services:
Double-deckers might make sense in Corridor service if VIA wants to continue with its current business model with low-frequency service on freight-owned railways. But VIA has been very vocal about the fact that this model is not sustainable, and that they instead want to run higher frequencies on VIA-owned tracks. In the latter situation, you don't need to maximize seats-per-axle for the sake of track fees. Instead you'd want smaller lighter trainsets which will cause less wear-and-tear on the infrastructure. The 5-car Siemens consists will fit the bill nicely.
For long-distance services, bilevels would be ideal, but if they don't fit, they don't fit.
Last edited:
micheal_can
Senior Member
Did I say that they should? I think I have said that when they do it. That could be 20 years, that could be 100 years. So, 100 years from now, if there was the need, should they just say no because of the shed being too low?
roger1818
Active Member
So to answer your question, yes it is theoretically possible for them to modify the shed at the Winnipeg Union Station to support bilevel cars if they should ever need to do so, but it is highly unlikely for it to be necessary anytime in the foreseeable future. Just like it is theoretically possible for us to divert the path of an asteroid that is going to crash into the earth (though admittedly that would be much more expensive and the consequences of not doing it would be much more significant).
Last edited:
Allandale25
Senior Member
Good news:
VIA Rail's procurement process to modernize maintenance centres in Montréal and Toronto moves to second phase
www.newswire.ca
VIA Rail's procurement process to modernize maintenance centres in Montréal and Toronto moves to second phase
VIA Rail's procurement process to modernize maintenance centres in Montréal and Toronto moves to second phase
/CNW Telbec/ - VIA Rail Canada (VIA Rail) is delighted to announce that it launched on November 30th, the second phase of its procurement process to modernize...
www.newswire.ca
kEiThZ
Superstar
You are starting to verge on trolling here. This is Urban Toronto and you want to discuss hypothetically modifying a train shed in Winnipeg, to possibly accomodate double decker trains for a commuter rail service, a century from now.
To answer your question anything is hypothetically possible. And there are professionals who use proper metric to judge the value of a given project. You and I can leave it to them.
Now, can we agree to stick to topics that are hypotheticals in our lifetime and relevant to this forum?