[smallspy]

See pg. 70 of VIA's Summary of the 2017-2021 Corporate Plan:

Not meaning to shoot the messenger here, but...

That smells pretty strongly of marketing bunk. If they were simply overhauling for continued service - replacing like for like - then there should be no concerns with the locos going forward. If that was the case, than CN would be screwed with their hundreds of 1950s-era locos still running every day.

I know that parts for them are starting to become harder to come by - I've certainly said as much here before - but for VIA to throw up excuses such as those is more than a bit unseemly, verging on outright lying.

Dan

 

[Urban Sky]

Not meaning to shoot the messenger here, but...

That smells pretty strongly of marketing bunk. If they were simply overhauling for continued service - replacing like for like - then there should be no concerns with the locos going forward. If that was the case, than CN would be screwed with their hundreds of 1950s-era locos still running every day.

I know that parts for them are starting to become harder to come by - I've certainly said as much here before - but for VIA to throw up excuses such as those is more than a bit unseemly, verging on outright lying.

Dan

I would rather argue that CN would be much more screwed than that if they were still running "hundreds of 1950s-era locos [...] every day", as you bizzarly seem to claim...

 

[EnviroTO]

What is happening at National Defense facilities? Is the heat on max and someone left the hangar door open?

 

[Bordercollie]

You seem to struggle with understanding what "net zero" means. It doesn't mean "zero emissions".

Aside from the fact that government targets three decades away are kind of dubious and that you shouldn't extrapolate national level targets down to individual agencies, let alone individual operations, a net zero target could be easily achieved for VIA, as long as the Corridor is electrified. Most of the rest of its network is a substantially smaller portion of emissions, such that a combination of lower emissions intensity fuels (such as synthetic biodiesel) and a few offset projects, can more than make up for those emissions. And that's if the federal government cares. VIA's non-Corridor emissions are miniscule compared to what the rest of the Government of Canada puts out, particularly the agencies involved in security and stability operations (CAF, CCG, RCMP, CBSA, DFO). Heck, Canada Post has higher emissions than VIA Long Haul.

Net Zero simply means that you need to be able to offset the emissions you put into the environment.

I would rather argue that CN would be much more screwed than that if they were still running "hundreds of 1950s-era locos [...] every day", as you bizzarly seem to claim...

So that means that after they are retired from VIA someone like ONR could purchase them and put them into service on the Nothlander should that service return. Or surplus F59's from GO transit.

 

[kEiThZ]

What is happening at National Defense facilities? Is the heat on max and someone left the hangar door open?

Partly the nature of the work, partly the fact that DND has a ton of facilities, often in remote areas where fuel must be shipped in, and partly the fact that most buildings on our bases are half a century or more old.

 

[roger1818]

Partly the nature of the work, partly the fact that DND has a ton of facilities, often in remote areas where fuel must be shipped in, and partly the fact that most buildings on our bases are half a century or more old.

Not to mention the supersonic jets and ancient navel vessels neither of which are particularly low carbon.

 

[crs1026]

So that means that after they are retired from VIA someone like ONR could purchase them and put them into service on the Nothlander should that service return. Or surplus F59's from GO transit.

I won't go down a rabbit hole and debate what ONR might do if the Northlander returned, but your suggestions sound like a railfan fantasy. I would expect ONR to stick to what they know worked for them and fits their own maintenance direction.... ie the non-turbocharged EMD dual service power they know and love.. But who knows, they may be ready to switch to something else fleet-wide.

GE (and several rebuilders) are very proficient in the art of developing and pitching refurbs of older products, sometimes bringing them up to a new standard and sometimes not changing what isn't broken. One has to assume that they have talked with VIA and Amtrak. It's pretty obvious that both customers see better value in buying new.

One also has to assume that Siemens has a proposal ready to address the long distance fleet. As a matter of standardisation, updated technology, and emissions, they may have the edge over a rebuild proposal.

The attrition of the existing VIA loco fleet as the Chargers arrive will likely look like the attrition of the TTC ALRV/CLRV fleet.... a few junkers deactivated early and stripped for parts, then more taken out of service when anything costly fails, and then the still-operable survivors gradually set aside as new units roll in. Offers to purchase may come in for dead units as VIA's surplus function tenders for their removal. Some supplier might even try to flip a few to other customers overseas. The units will go wherever the best offer takes them.... that may be to a scrapyard, or not.

I suspect that the F40's can be kept running long enough for the long distance railcar fleet to reach end of life. If that event doesn't trigger renewal, the locos can be retired then... and if anyone proposes building a new LD fleet, new locos will not be a prohibitive cost.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

Partly the nature of the work, partly the fact that DND has a ton of facilities, often in remote areas where fuel must be shipped in, and partly the fact that most buildings on our bases are half a century or more old.

Approximately 20,000 buildings, including residential housing and massive hangars. It does seem weighted heavily to 'facilities' though. I wonder if the if the maritime fleet is being somehow captured by that category.

 

[roger1818]

That smells pretty strongly of marketing bunk. If they were simply overhauling for continued service - replacing like for like - then there should be no concerns with the locos going forward. If that was the case, than CN would be screwed with their hundreds of 1950s-era locos still running every day.

How many of those "1950s-era locos" have a monocoque design? Most locomotives use a body on frame design, which makes upgrading the cab or fuel tanks without compromising the structural integrity of the locomotive much easier.

I do find it interesting that Amtrak and NJT refurbished their older P40DCs , but both Amtrak and VIA are retiring their newer P42DCs. Makes me wonder if GE broke something when they did the redesign. Either that or the refurbishments began before the new crashworthiness standards came into effect.

So that means that after they are retired from VIA someone like ONR could purchase them and put them into service on the Nothlander should that service return. Or surplus F59's from GO transit.

I guess if ONR wanted unreliable locomotives that might breakdown, potentially loosing HEP in a remote northern community in the middle of winter, then sure. More than likely they will either be sold for parts or scrap, though a foreign country that doesn't have strict crash worthiness standards might buy them.

 

[kEiThZ]

The long haul fleet is about 235 coaches and 28 locomotives.

Big replacement for VIA. But not that huge a replacement in the grand scheme of things. And given that the Siemens Venture sets are based on the Siemens Viaggio Comfort design, I don't see why Siemens couldn't simply make the Railjet/Nightjet design compliant to North American standards to win any long haul fleet order. It's an order that would be worth at least CA$1.5B. And at least for VIA, commonality would be a giant benefit. But even if Siemens doesn't win, going down to just two fleets would be a large gain for serviceability.

I hope we see an RFP in 2024, after they've had 2 years of experience with the new fleet and can tweak the RFP based on lessons learned.

 

[kEiThZ]

I would be so happy if our long haul fleet offered something like this:

 

[roger1818]

The long haul fleet is about 235 coaches and 28 locomotives.

Big replacement for VIA. But not that huge a replacement in the grand scheme of things. And given that the Siemens Venture sets are based on the Siemens Viaggio Comfort design, I don't see why Siemens couldn't simply make the Railjet/Nightjet design compliant to North American standards to win any long haul fleet order. It's an order that would be worth at least CA$1.5B. And at least for VIA, commonality would be a giant benefit. But even if Siemens doesn't win, going down to just two fleets would be a large gain for serviceability.

I hope we see an RFP in 2024, after they've had 2 years of experience with the new fleet and can tweak the RFP based on lessons learned.

Would I like to see this happen? Yes.

Do I think that any government would pay CA$1.5B to replace the part of VIA's fleet that typically looses huge amounts of money each year? No.

I hope to be proven wrong, but I suspect they would like to cancel the long distance services, but know that doing so would be political suicide, so it is easer to just underfund them.

 

[Frank_Lee]

Lets think about this:
One 12 car GO train can carry 1400 people in seats. That's the equivalent to 1400 cars not on the road creating congestion assuming people dont car pool.
Trains have much lower rolling resistance than cars, which already makes this very efficient.
The carbon emissions from one train is significantly less than 1400 cars.

Making this more efficient using whatever new technology that costs millions of dollars takes away money from projects to expand the use of transit. You need to do it as cost efficient and attractive as possible.

Lets also walk before we run, so maybe Hybrid Diesel Locomotives might be something we should adopt first seeing that it's a readily available and proven technology.

That is likely going to be cheaper and more realistic than spending billions running cables eveywhere when you dont even own all the track.

And dont even get me started on Hydrogen and how you will fuel those locomotives, and train everyone on how to maintain them.

I don't know why you think hydrogen is so unlikely to play a significant role? There are already commercially viable hydrogen locomotives running commuter routes in multiple countries. While things are further back for freight, I think you overestimate the obstacles and underestimate private sector ingenuity.

Full disclosure: I own shares in Ballard Power, Cummins, GM, and Toyota.

(To everyone else, my apologies for extending this discussion)

 

[kEiThZ]

Would I like to see this happen? Yes.

Do I think that any government would pay CA$1.5B to replace the part of VIA's fleet that typically looses huge amounts of money each year? No.

I hope to be proven wrong, but I suspect they would like to cancel the long distance services, but know that doing so would be political suicide, so it is easer to just underfund them.

Fair point. And maybe the investment only comes if there's substantial political pressure. Maybe, we'll be lucky and post Siemens EIS, we'll see riders asking why they have to put up with old, unreliable and less functional trains.

Personally, I don't think $1.5B over a 4-5 yr procurement period is a huge lift. And there may well be political opportunity in selling the upgrade as investment in these regions. Particularly in the Maritimes.

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't know why you think hydrogen is so unlikely to play a significant role? There are already commercially viable hydrogen locomotives running commuter routes in multiple countries. While things are further back for freight, I think you overestimate the obstacles and underestimate private sector ingenuity.

Hydrogen is fine for commuter routes, because refuelling is done at fixed points close to urban centres, which can easily be connected to hydrogen supply. And all of that is usually managed by the same authority which owns and/or operates the network.

This is all very different and more challenging with long haul. As others have said, ultimately, VIA long haul will be following the lead of the freight companies. They own the infrastructure. And they will determine where and what fuel will be available. But that's a much more distant problem than the pressing need to recapitalize the long haul fleet.