[kEiThZ]

The trains (or at least the cars) which would be used for HFR are already ordered and currently in production...

Does the supposed commitment to electrification change anything?

Seems to me they have 3 options.

1) Convert the Chargers to dual mode.
2) Exercise options to get battery electric Charger locos.
3) Request bids for a whole new fleet, and keep the Chargers and Ventures on Lakeshore and Corridor West services.

Guesses on what they'd do?

 

[crs1026]

Does the supposed commitment to electrification change anything?

Seems to me they have 3 options.

1) Convert the Chargers to dual mode.
2) Exercise options to get battery electric Charger locos.
3) Request bids for a whole new fleet, and keep the Chargers and Ventures on Lakeshore and Corridor West services.

Guesses on what they'd do?

Likely a bit of all three, but most likely start with dual mode. The Chargers do have that potential, eg here.

- Paul

PS: Once the weight of batteries with the needed range for the non-electrified gaps (which is pretty short if it's mostly Montreal to De Beaujeu or Tapscott to Toronto) are less than the weight of a diesel prime mover, I would expect the diesel would be gone.

 

[robmausser]

The trains (or at least the cars) which would be used for HFR are already ordered and currently in production...

Thats not my understanding at all.

I believe the current units being made by Siemens are for the current Lakeshore corridor, and VIA has an option to order more for the HFR plan, but have not.

I'm saying they should not and put in a different order for HFR that would be better for the route.

 

[kEiThZ]

I really hope the current VIA HFR proposal is tweaked.

1) I think they need a station in Markham. My suggestion would be 14th and Donald Cousens. Easy access off the 407 for York and Durham region. 10 min bus ride from the Cornell YRT/VIVA terminal.

2) I don't think they should bypass Ottawa. Use the expanded budget to make whatever improvements are necessary to get Toronto-Montreal down to 4 hrs.

3) I do think HFR should skip Coteau. They should connect to the CP corridor at De Beaujeu and build a new station in Vaudreuil. Or more accurately expand the existing Exo Station at Dorion.

Doing the above would make HFR a lot more useful to suburban Toronto and Montreal while avoiding a split in frequencies.

 

[Urban Sky]

I really hope the current VIA HFR proposal is tweaked.

1) I think they need a station in Markham. My suggestion would be 14th and Donald Cousens. Easy access off the 407 for York and Durham region. 10 min bus ride from the Cornell YRT/VIVA terminal.

2) I don't think they should bypass Ottawa. Use the expanded budget to make whatever improvements are necessary to get Toronto-Montreal down to 4 hrs.

3) I do think HFR should skip Coteau. They should connect to the CP corridor at De Beaujeu and build a new station in Vaudreuil. Or more accurately expand the existing Exo Station at Dorion.

Doing the above would make HFR a lot more useful to suburban Toronto and Montreal while avoiding a split in frequencies.

1) These are details which can presumably still be changed at any time
2) Fully agreed and @roger1818 can attest that this is something I've consistently argued in this and other forums
3) Have a closer look at the map below:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1414244514944933891

 

[Urban Sky]

Thats not my understanding at all.

I believe the current units being made by Siemens are for the current Lakeshore corridor, and VIA has an option to order more for the HFR plan, but have not.

I'm saying they should not and put in a different order for HFR that would be better for the route.

1) There will no longer be 17 frequencies between Kingston and Toronto; therefore, the fleet requirements for non-HFR services will be less than the 32 trainsets currently in production.

2) The 16 trainsets of the second batch are not enough to operate all HFR services from Toronto to Quebec.

3) One of the stated purposes of the current fleet renewal is fleet standardization, i.e. to replace the current Corridor fleet (LRC, REN, HEP1, HEP2, P42 and F40) with one single platform.

4) My understanding of tilting is that it only increases the possible amount of cant deficiency (i.e. unbalanced super-elevation), not of total cant (i.e. the sum of actual cant and cant deficiency). This limits the speed advantage of active tilting (a very complex and thus unreliable technology) to lines which are owned by freight railroads, who are reluctant to accept high actual cant, as it increases maintenance costs substantially on tracks which are shared between passenger and freight tracks. Given that the by far most curvy parts would presumably be exclusive to HFR trains without any sharing with freight trains (Havelock Sub, east of Havelock), there is virtually no benefit in procuring tilting rolling stock.

 

[kEiThZ]

2) Fully agreed and @roger1818 can attest that this is something I've consistently argued in this and other forums

3) Have a closer look at the map below:

Missed the part where they are skipping Coteau. Good. Still doesn't make sense why they are building an Ottawa bypass. It's two suburban stations and two small town stations and about 60 km more distance. They can absolutely make that up with the right investments. I hope they come to their senses on this one.

1) These are details which can presumably still be changed at any time

Interesting. I thought they may have already decided on station placement. It's an interesting dilemma. Because Kennedy station would be absolutely amazing for integration with GO and TTC. Much better than what's there at Guildwood now. But it's really poor for Durham passengers losing direct inter-metro service at Oshawa. A Don Cousens and 14th station would be pretty easy to access from the 407 or Steeles/Taunton. Could probably run shuttle services from the GO stations to that HFR station.

 

[kEiThZ]

My understanding of tilting is that it only increases the possible amount of cant deficiency (i.e. unbalanced super-elevation), not of total cant (i.e. the sum of actual cant and cant deficiency). This limits the speed advantage of active tilting (a very complex and thus unreliable technology) to lines which are owned by freight railroads, who are reluctant to accept high actual cant, as it increases maintenance costs substantially on tracks which are shared between passenger and freight tracks. Given that the by far most curvy parts would presumably be exclusive to HFR trains without any sharing with freight trains (Havelock Sub, east of Havelock), there is virtually no benefit in procuring tilting rolling stock.

This is interesting. I guess VIA could also buy the sub and restrict CP access contractually to just west of Havelock.

 

[p_xavier]

Do you mean the Charger or Venture configurations?

Wikipedia has a decent description of the different configurations of the Siemens Charger locomotive. It says VIA is getting the SC-44. CoasterFan2105 did an interesting 3 part series on the construction of the ALC-42 (Amtrak Long distance Charger 4,200 hp) where he was invited to tour the factory. Much of what is shown is applicable to the SC-44 though.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvJ9aDWXPDzRw4uL2-2Nv4oS6TGwkYZ1J

As for the Venture, not many details are known and the details that have been published by VIA are later changed in future publications.

There were pics in this thread about the different car configurations, I don't want to spend hours to find them again,

 

[p_xavier]

Thats not my understanding at all.

I believe the current units being made by Siemens are for the current Lakeshore corridor, and VIA has an option to order more for the HFR plan, but have not.

I'm saying they should not and put in a different order for HFR that would be better for the route.

Me too, with all smaller cities on existing routes saying we will get much better service with HFR, either VIA is lying or the cities didn't get the notice.

 

[Urban Sky]

There were pics in this thread about the different car configurations, I don't want to spend hours to find them again,

And I don't want to spend minutes finding something for someone who doesn't know how to kindly ask for a favour...

Me too, with all smaller cities on existing routes saying we will get much better service with HFR, either VIA is lying or the cities didn't get the notice.

As I've explained a mere four posts above yours', VIA's ongoing Fleet Renewal Program includes 32 trainsets for a full replacement of the existing Corridor fleet and an option for an additional 16 trainsets in case HFR gets approved...

 

[kEiThZ]

Me too, with all smaller cities on existing routes saying we will get much better service with HFR, either VIA is lying or the cities didn't get the notice.

It's really simple math. If 32 trains is enough for all of the Corridor, the performance gains of HFR should be more than enough for HFR and Lakeshore.

If HFR gets a train from Toronto to Montreal in 4.5 hrs, I presume the block time for that train would go from over 7 hrs to under 6 hrs (departure from Union to departure from Montreal) allowing that trainset to do 3 runs in a day, as an example. That 15% gain would translate to 1-2 fewer trainsets required for HFR as compared to running the same service on Lakeshore.

And there's also the combination of Ottawa and Montreal traffic (though this is debatable now). Combining traffic should also reduced the number of sets required.

So maybe something like an allocation of 10 trains to Corridor West, 10 trains to the Kingston Hub and 12 trains to HFR would do just fine.

 

[p_xavier]

It's really simple math. If 32 trains is enough for all of the Corridor, the performance gains of HFR should be more than enough for HFR and Lakeshore.

If HFR gets a train from Toronto to Montreal in 4.5 hrs, I presume the block time for that train would go from over 7 hrs to under 6 hrs (departure from Union to departure from Montreal) allowing that trainset to do 3 runs in a day, as an example. That 15% gain would translate to 1-2 fewer trainsets required for HFR as compared to running the same service on Lakeshore.

And there's also the combination of Ottawa and Montreal traffic (though this is debatable now). Combining traffic should also reduced the number of sets required.

So maybe something like an allocation of 10 trains to Corridor West, 10 trains to the Kingston Hub and 12 trains to HFR would do just fine.

Still worse service for the current corridor, which was my point. City mayors said this week that their stations would get better service with HFR. *Cornwall, *Kingston. I can't see it yet and would gladly get more info on how it would be possible. There were some mentions on keeping all the newer chargers on the current route and options for HFR, which I would get.

From the Sky:
1) There will no longer be 17 frequencies between Kingston and Toronto; therefore, the fleet requirements for non-HFR services will be less than the 32 trainsets currently in production.


So how Kingston will get better service from HFR.

 

[Urban Sky]

Still worse service for the current corridor, which was my point. City mayors said this week that their stations would get better service with HFR. *Cornwall, *Kingston. I can't see it yet and would gladly get more info on how it would be possible. There were some mentions on keeping all the newer chargers on the current route and options for HFR, which I would get.

These smaller cities might not in all cases retain as many nominal stops as currently, but certainly a more useful schedule (e.g. a first train of the day from KGON/BRKV/CWLL which arrives in MTRL already in the morning rather than just at noon, as opposed to multiple pairs of trains operating along the Lakeshore less than 20 minutes apart). Just read the explanations in my last reply and search for posts of myself in which I mention "Belleville" and "Cobourg" and you might understand better why the utility of a schedule is not necessarily proportional to the number of stops a station receives...

 

[kEiThZ]

Still worse service for the current corridor, which was my point. City mayors said this week that their stations would get better service with HFR. *Cornwall, *Kingston. I can't see it yet and would gladly get more info on how it would be possible. There were some mentions on keeping all the newer chargers on the current route and options for HFR, which I would get.

If your only metric on service is the number of trains stopping at Kingston, it's worse service. But if you actually listened to what the Mayor of Kingston said in his video, the schedule will now be centered around their needs. Not those of passengers departing from the big metros. What use is VIA to folks in Kingston if say the first departure is after 1030, like it is today?

And Kingston, Belleville, Coburg, Oshawa and Brockville might see a slight drop in the total number of trains. But there are stations like Port Hope and Trenton that are probably going to see an increase in the number of trains calling at them.

I trust the mayors and councils in these communities to actually know what service is good for their communities.

As for the options for additional trains, they are probably needed if VIA is going to increase frequencies. Or presumably if their network design doesn't deliver sufficient efficiencies, say with an Ottawa bypass that negates the benefits of combining Ottawa and Montreal traffic.