News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 7.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 37K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 3.7K     0 

It isn’t like Calgary-Edmonton is a stretch. It was the other corridor examined in the mid 80s by VIA in its HSR study.
If I remember correctly, it was the early 1980s, and there wasn't much enthusiasm from VIA, and it was done at the behest of the Trudeau government.

Ditto for the option(s) to serve Mirabel.
 
Why isn't it going to Windsor?

Probably planned for a later date. One of the things that they are doing on this trip is testing access and clearances at many of the stations and other locations. For instance, they were testing the wye at TMC during the layover today.

I thought that there are no available track slots on the Guelph Sub without conflicting with existing trains?

There are absolutely track slots, but they have to be planned. And as this train is non-revenue, it's not so imperative that it holds to schedule.

Dan
 
If I remember correctly, it was the early 1980s, and there wasn't much enthusiasm from VIA, and it was done at the behest of the Trudeau government.

Ditto for the option(s) to serve Mirabel.
The study didn’t dive deep into travel demand and rail demand sucked between the cities in the 80s with unreliable not fast service which required a cab to get to downtown Edmonton.

one of the compelling things about Calgary Edmonton is the amount of travel demand is quite high for cities their size their distance apart. It is a function of not being near anything else!!

At one point air travel between the cities was closing in on 2 million pax a year, down to 600,000 in 2016 ish. Driven by: better highway, worse air travel experience (air terminals used to be 4km from downtown Edmonton and 6 km from downtown Calgary, airport security), and more direct services from Edmonton.

Better rail was opposed by Edmonton until the 2010s as undermining Edmonton’s ability to attract flights.

Main conclusion of the VIA report was that HSR would be expensive, and upgrading from the dayliners to LRC would be expensive for little gain.
 
I thought that there are no available track slots on the Guelph Sub without conflicting with existing trains?
There are absolutely track slots, but they have to be planned. And as this train is non-revenue, it's not so imperative that it holds to schedule.

Dan
Given that GO (and VIA) trains only operate in peak direction during peak hours, it wouldn’t be that difficult to route the train via the Guelph Sub. However, it seems to be routed via the Dundas Sub, where VIA holds a currently vacant slot for #79:
 
Given that GO (and VIA) trains only operate in peak direction during peak hours, it wouldn’t be that difficult to route the train via the Guelph Sub. However, it seems to be routed via the Dundas Sub, where VIA holds a currently vacant slot for #79:
I really hope they bring back trains that ran pre-pandemic. These current schedules make it hard to travel with the train.
 
I really hope they bring back trains that ran pre-pandemic. These current schedules make it hard to travel with the train.
Why would there be any doubt that VIA and GO will reach again their pre-Covid service levels once life returns to normalcy?
 
Last edited:
Did VIA receive Siemens trains #2 and #3? According to VIA’s NGEC 2021 presentation, #2 was supposed to be delivered in Q4 2021 and #3 in Q1 2022; however, in their NGEC 2022 presentation (Feb. 25) they said, “Vehicles of Train#2 and Train#3 are in Final Assembly” (Feb. 2022). It does still say that they are still “targeting start of passenger service toward the beginning of Q4 2022.” though.

One clue to a possible reason for delay is they said, “Production at Sacramento is ramping-up considering supply chain challenges.” Maybe the second locomotive was delivered in lieu of train #2 due to parts shortages.

The latest presentation has some interesting pictures of the winter testing.
 
Did VIA receive Siemens trains #2 and #3? According to VIA’s NGEC 2021 presentation, #2 was supposed to be delivered in Q4 2021 and #3 in Q1 2022; however, in their NGEC 2022 presentation (Feb. 25) they said, “Vehicles of Train#2 and Train#3 are in Final Assembly” (Feb. 2022). It does still say that they are still “targeting start of passenger service toward the beginning of Q4 2022.” though.

One clue to a possible reason for delay is they said, “Production at Sacramento is ramping-up considering supply chain challenges.” Maybe the second locomotive was delivered in lieu of train #2 due to parts shortages.

The latest presentation has some interesting pictures of the winter testing.
They came to the conclusion after that presentation to change the delivery schedule somewhat. The second loco - 2201 - was delivered in advance of the rest of its trainset in order to allow for more specialized testing and training of the locos alone, as their regulatory requirements are somewhat more comprehensive than the cars they are coupled to.

It now sounds like the complete third trainset and the coaches for the second will arrive together this summer. I haven't heard an exact date yet.

Entry to service has also been pushed back slightly, and they are now projecting early 2023 for the first trains to start carrying paying passengers.

Dan
 
They came to the conclusion after that presentation to change the delivery schedule somewhat. The second loco - 2201 - was delivered in advance of the rest of its trainset in order to allow for more specialized testing and training of the locos alone, as their regulatory requirements are somewhat more comprehensive than the cars they are coupled to.

It now sounds like the complete third trainset and the coaches for the second will arrive together this summer. I haven't heard an exact date yet.

Entry to service has also been pushed back slightly, and they are now projecting early 2023 for the first trains to start carrying paying passengers.

Dan
Will they be able to shorten travel times with the new trains since they accelerate faster?
 

Top