Euphoria
Active Member
Fantastic. I say push those speed requirements higher and couple this procurement with full HFR passenger-only lines (with all new rail laid fully HSR compatible).
|
|
|
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
crs1026
Superstar
Really encouraging. It looks like they are thinking carefully about what they need.
The bi-mode power requirement is very interesting.
- Paul
The bi-mode power requirement is very interesting.
- Paul
White Pine
Active Member
They basically have to go bi-mode if Metrolinx electrifies their network soon.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Announcement dated June 21. That's ten days ago. Interesting that Urban didn't post a heads-up on that. It could have been he who wrote that.
"VIA Rail has identified to its shareholder, the Government of Canada, that it must proceed with
the replacement of its Corridor fleet."
Note the use of the term "shareholder"...that's not by accident.
I'm not inferring this won't be neutral, but there has to be a very interesting story going on behind the scenes. I suspect Desjardins-Siciliano is still playing a tight card game.
"VIA Rail has identified to its shareholder, the Government of Canada, that it must proceed with
the replacement of its Corridor fleet."
Note the use of the term "shareholder"...that's not by accident.
Very interesting. Also curious that the procurement process was outsourced to SNC Lavalin. How that sits with Bombardier remains to be seen in light of previous bidding, albeit Bombardier and SNC have partnered too:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ked-for-21-billion-ottawa-lrt/article6005657/
I'm not inferring this won't be neutral, but there has to be a very interesting story going on behind the scenes. I suspect Desjardins-Siciliano is still playing a tight card game.
Interesting point, but that's secondary to VIA's bigger picture I think. Bear in mind that GO will be running diesel under catenary too...if and when it finally arrives.
Last edited:
rbt
Senior Member
This is a Montreal requirement where diesels may not operate in the station. They currently coast into the station with the engine turned off and go through some time-killing acrobatics to turn the train around.
Nothing on the Metrolinx network has an electric requirement. If it did, Metrolinx itself would be in trouble since they plan on continuing to run diesels for the foreseeable future on most lines.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Because those are CN's tracks. If I own a private road, for example a logging road, and then the gov't says I have to let a public transit bus use it, well I might begrudgingly allow it because I need gov't approval to cut the road through either private or crown land, but I'm not going to make it easy for them.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Which is why, if you'd quoted my whole answer, and what it was in regard to, this would have been apparent:
[The real question is, if it is, why has CN made life close to impossible with VIA all this time?
VIA, for good reason, want their own tracks. CN's position is (and completely understandable) "we need all the capacity we have for freight". It's not true, especially with freight volume decreasing, but until CN changes attitude, VIA must go her own way.]
What the Admiral conveniently overlooks is that both CN and CP, albeit via the various charters for the constituent segments merged, but CP's transcontinental mainline especially, were granted charters and *LAND* on the legal necessity of maintaining passenger transport, in many cases, in perpetuity.
Last edited:
smallspy
Senior Member
rbt
Senior Member
Who said anything about the tunnel?
The Montreal train station has very poor ventilation. When you're approaching the station and suddenly the lights go out and the engine goes quiet, it's because they're coasting through until the vent stacks of the engine exit through to the other side of the shed. Occasionally they'll take 30 minutes (on-time in the burbs, now late) to turn around and back into the shed (I assume it's a driver who doesn't want to do the coast trick or a bad-air day or something).
Of course. I'm just saying even if they don't get any money that it'll still be pretty useful to have mixed-mode engines on trains in/around Quebec.
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
To tie together some of the earlier comments, Metrolinx just might want to be have an inside ear on how the tendering goes, and perhaps consider piggy-backing an order, at least for the bi-modal locos. It might also add enough size to the order for them to be at least assembled in Canada, or in lieu of that (and Bombardier's famous follies e.g. the Flexity order) an offset of equal value, since the best place to assemble and test is at the originating factory. It would probably reduce the cost for both VIA and Metrolinx, both for purchase and shared servicing. (Other than final drive ratio, the locos could be identical in terms of spare parts and procedures)
Another off-set could be that since bi-modal locos are being built in the US now, that bidder(s) could apply for an offset exemption from the US Gov't to trade like-for-like US subsidy for Cdn subsidy to sell a bi-national model into both markets. That sounds complicated because it is. Nafta exempts government subsidized procurements, albeit it is contentious in the courts.
I see the bi-modal as a very shrewd and sensible move on VIA's part, as is the stated top speed required for Class 7 track. *IF* a dedicated electrified HFR line is back on the front burner, the rolling stock to serve it is on the way. EMUs are always an option later, but VIA will be ready to roll in the interim.
Last edited:
SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
Here is another interesting article - This time about a private railway operator wanting to use VIA's tracks and Ottawa/Tremblay station (not the other way around for once!) The proposal seems a bit unlikely in my humble opinion. Highlights are below.
Moose consortium seeks CTA authorisation for rail service development
Railway-Technology - July 4th, 2016 - http://www.railway-technology.com/n...uthorisation-rail-service-development-4940107
A consortium of twelve companies is seeking authorisation from the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) to go ahead with the development of a passenger rail service throughout Canada's Greater National Capital Region.
.... Moose will use existing railway corridors and bridges to connect urban and rural sectors of both eastern Ontario and western Quebec.
"Moose will use existing railway corridors and bridges to connect urban and rural sectors of both eastern Ontario and western Quebec."
The 400km inter-provincial service will exchange passengers with Ottawa's new Light-Rail Transit (LRT) system at Bayview Station in Lebreton Flats and at the Tremblay Road VIA station. It will also link with Gatineau's Rapibus service.
As part of the project, three-coach double decker diesel-electric passenger trains will be operated with hourly service through Ottawa and Gatineau.
It will cross the Ottawa River on the Prince of Wales Bridge, which is located between Lebreton Flats and the University of Québec en Outaouais (UQO) campus. It is expected to generate 100km² worth of sustained property value enhancement.
...."Each station will be owned, developed, and operated as an autonomous enterprise under common regulation and monitoring."
After obtaining federal authorisation, the consortium plans to initiate formal negotiations for the use of rail corridors from VIA Rail, several freight companies, and the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau.
Moose expects to have the CTA authorisation in hand by September this year.
Official Moose website: https://www.letsgomoose.ca/
Moose consortium seeks CTA authorisation for rail service development
Railway-Technology - July 4th, 2016 - http://www.railway-technology.com/n...uthorisation-rail-service-development-4940107
A consortium of twelve companies is seeking authorisation from the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) to go ahead with the development of a passenger rail service throughout Canada's Greater National Capital Region.
.... Moose will use existing railway corridors and bridges to connect urban and rural sectors of both eastern Ontario and western Quebec.
"Moose will use existing railway corridors and bridges to connect urban and rural sectors of both eastern Ontario and western Quebec."
The 400km inter-provincial service will exchange passengers with Ottawa's new Light-Rail Transit (LRT) system at Bayview Station in Lebreton Flats and at the Tremblay Road VIA station. It will also link with Gatineau's Rapibus service.
As part of the project, three-coach double decker diesel-electric passenger trains will be operated with hourly service through Ottawa and Gatineau.
It will cross the Ottawa River on the Prince of Wales Bridge, which is located between Lebreton Flats and the University of Québec en Outaouais (UQO) campus. It is expected to generate 100km² worth of sustained property value enhancement.
...."Each station will be owned, developed, and operated as an autonomous enterprise under common regulation and monitoring."
After obtaining federal authorisation, the consortium plans to initiate formal negotiations for the use of rail corridors from VIA Rail, several freight companies, and the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau.
Moose expects to have the CTA authorisation in hand by September this year.
Official Moose website: https://www.letsgomoose.ca/
steveintoronto
Superstar
Not time to delve right now, but the implications, not just of this particular instance, but VIA's mandate altogether is intriquing. I suspect this actually plays into the hands of Desjardins-Siciliano's scheme for VIA, as well it should.
It also heralds a new dawn (?) for passenger. Note also this is a *consortium*! Very intriguing...more comment later when I can dig on this.
smallspy
Senior Member
While they do that, it's also certainly not a requirement by any stretch of the imagination, either. It's also not nearly as common now that a majority of the units in service are the rebuilt F40s.
The backing into the station is due to scheduling - more specifically, where that train will be bound to next. This is one of the reasons why they want bi-directional trainsets, to allow this to happen without nearly as much of a time penalty. And in fact, this current schedule does call for 4 trainsets that are operated with locos at both ends.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
mdrejhon
Senior Member
I wonder if it's the VIA HFR proposal in disguise, as I did read in many parts, that the "HFR" part of VIA may actually be a separate company or consortium -- and VIA is possibly actually involved.
But reading further, it looks like three-coach BiLevel trains with hourly commuter-like service between Gatineau and Ottawa.
Regardless, whichever direction this goes, this does sound like a possible new era in Canada passenger railroad -- if we actualy rapidly Europeanize the Corridor with intercity+commuter rail networks ($13.5bn GO RER + $4.3 bn VIA HFR + $5.5bn Montreal/Caisse network) -- then this brand new Ottawa "MOOSE Commuter Train" service may actually be realistic.
Way too early to tell, though. Still an outlier. At the moment. But nobody seems laughing anymore.
As an Ottawa-born/former longtime resident, I see a lot of rush hour traffic on the opposite side of the bridge, and this would be a great transit shortcut. A spiffy logo, and I can see the business case. The stars are sufficiently aligned (governments, climate, multiple initiatives, connect-into-the-"big rail network"-effect) that rail initiatives of this sort are now beginning to make sense, if the momentum keeps up.
Farebox recoveries seem generally fairly high along the TOM corridor -- much higher than North American standard -- and it might not take much (e.g. green initiatives and passenger priority) to push economic recovery potential all the way to 100% and allow Europe-style integration of private operators. Given our freeways are subsidized anyway with both public and private paying operators (GO and Greyhound). So why not a viable passenger rail corridor with various public and private passenger rail companies? Like is common in Europe, if it makes sense in moving people around too? Albiet indirectly subsidized (e.g. tracks and low corridor use fees) all methods of transport generally are in one form or another.
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
It's an interesting premise..... instead of government planning transit, and funding it by assuming there will be a tax base or a development charge potential, just have the developers plan and build the transit as part of their overall investment.
It cuts out the middleman (government) where much of the delay or waste is. But it leaves little room for public debate and feels a bit paternalistic at best.
I'm thinking there must be a catch - perhaps several of them. It will sure be interesting to watch.
I'm loving the rendering of an MP40 with a moose logo on it.....take that, Santa Fe.
- Paul