[reaperexpress]

I'm looking forward to electrification for that satisfying acceleration.
It's also always bothered me that Canada now has no mainline electrification, and on the corridor the source is all hydro and nuclear, whereas Australia has tons of mainline electrification despite primarily powering their network with coal and gas. Finally, there will be some sanity in the world

Yes electric trains are awesome, and they cannot come soon enough on frequent-stop services such as GO and OC Transpo. It is insane how much kinetic energy is wasted each time a 12-car GO train brakes from 100 km/h to 0 to serve a station. Consider that such a train has a floor area of around 16,000 sq.ft. That's the size of a small apartment building, or 6 single-family houses.

And it is also insane how long it takes to accelerate back to 100 km/h again. I've been clocking the acceleration of EMU's here in the Netherlands, and they accelerate more than twice as fast as the fastest train I measured in Canada.
Here's the chart of the measurements I've taken so far. There is an obvious gap between EMUs in the Netherlands and the 3 measurements I had from Canada, which were of the UP Express Nippon Sharyo DMU, Ontario's only mainline DMU, and a 6-car GO MP40 consist, which is GO Transit's fastest configuration in normal service. 10 o 12 -car GO trains are much much slower than the 6-car MP40 shown here. The Dutch measurements were of Stadler GTW EMUs and Stadler FLIRT EMUs.

Eventually when I have enough observations I'll make a proper video presenting my findings, but here are some clips I've assembled so far. It seems that the fastest local trains in Canada take about 78 seconds to get to 100 km/h, and Dutch EMUs take about 37 seconds. Dutch trains reach 140 km/h faster than Canadian trains reach 80 km/h. Meanwhile Dutch trains can reach 80 km/h within the length of a platform.

Here's a couple observations of Stadler FLIRT EMUs. The first clip is a typical observation (37 s to 100 km/h, 55 sec to 140 km/h). The second clip is the fastest observation (30 s to 100 km/h, 52 sec to 140 km/h).

GO's fastest train, accelerating downhill, still takes double the time to reach 100 km/h:

That said, electric trains make less of a difference on services which mostly travel along at a constant speed, like VIA. The acceleration of electric locomotives is less impressive than EMUs, and intercity trains shouldn't need to brake very often so regenerative braking doesn't make as big a difference.

 

[Bordercollie]

well, regardless... its moving forward and hopefully if the govt changes we wont see a flip flop like the ontario hsr. we really need this whatever the direction is.

Doesn't look like Erin O'Toole has any chance of winning. He doesn't even have support within his own base.

But again anything can happen.

 

[kEiThZ]

its moving forward and hopefully if the govt changes we wont see a flip flop

The CPC transport critic has not said a single good thing about HFR on Twitter. Her first and only comment on the launch announcement on Twitter was to complain about the deficit and debt.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1412164429018386441

Beyond this, her entire focus seems to be on promoting the aviation sector. To the point of insinuating that Liberal border closures have been too much. And promoting pipelines of course. Just go through her account.

I don't think anybody should assume this project survives a change of government. Also, given the heavily rural base and the end of Greyhound in Canada, they have just the excuse they need to redirect funds. It also lines up with the rhetoric about how the Prairie provinces are getting a bad deal from Confederation.

The simple reality is that the Conservatives know they could cancel HFR with zero political consequences. So why would they not?

 

[kEiThZ]

Doesn't look like Erin O'Toole has any chance of winning. He doesn't even have support within his own base.

But again anything can happen.

People said the same thing about Trudeau in 2015. Never assume.

 

[cplchanb]

The CPC transport critic has not said a single good thing about HFR on Twitter. Her first and only comment on the launch announcement on Twitter was to complain about the deficit and debt.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1412164429018386441

Beyond this, her entire focus seems to be on promoting the aviation sector. To the point of insinuating that Liberal border closures have been too much. And promoting pipelines of course. Just go through her account.

I don't think anybody should assume this project survives a change of government. Also, given the heavily rural base and the end of Greyhound in Canada, they have just the excuse they need to redirect funds. It also lines up with the rhetoric about how the Prairie provinces are getting a bad deal from Confederation.

The simple reality is that the Conservatives know they could cancel HFR with zero political consequences. So why would they not?

And this is why via is floundering as a crown Corp. Their funding and projects are at the whim of current govt. I really think that if the corridor can sustain themselves and can be propped up for the first few years they should privatize and get off this hostage train

 

[EnviroTO]

Electrification of the HFR route is purely a greenwashing exercise.

True. The greatest value of electrification comes from points of acceleration and deceleration multiplied by the number of trains using it. Very little value is gained by electrifying a segment used infrequently where a train is maintaining a constant speed. They would be better off getting some kind of hybrid or train with greater battery capacity and only electrify the places where there is obvious benefit.

 

[kEiThZ]

And this is why via is floundering as a crown Corp. Their funding and projects are at the whim of current govt. I really think that if the corridor can sustain themselves and can be propped up for the first few years they should privatize and get off this hostage train

There's no case for privatization. All you Asia railfans need to understand the difference between Canada and Asia. Starting with the fact that those "rail companies" are also major developers and property owners. Something which a privatized VIA would not have when cut loose. A privatized VIA would see services cut substantially and immediately. Projects like HFR would be toast. And they would be back to relying on freight co tracks.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

There's no case for privatization. All you Asia railfans need to understand the difference between Canada and Asia. Starting with the fact that those "rail companies" are also major developers and property owners. Something which a privatized VIA would not have when cut loose. A privatized VIA would see services cut substantially and immediately. Projects like HFR would be toast. And they would be back to relying on freight co tracks.

I'd go further - any government wanting to privatize VIA basically wanted to kill it.

AoD

 

[Bordercollie]

I'd go further - any government wanting to privatize VIA basically wanted to kill it.

AoD

Well in England, private companies bid to provide services to certain corridors.

And there are mandates as to minimum service requirements for certain routes.

But in that case the corridor is owned by the government.

 

[kEiThZ]

Well in England, private companies bid to provide services to certain corridors.

And there are mandates as to minimum service requirements for certain routes.

But in that case the corridor is owned by the government.

The most important bit. A private VIA wouldn't have that in Canada.

I'm sick of this bullshit about, "But Japan....", "But Hong Kong...", "But UK....", "But France....", "But German..." which all absolutely ignore the context in which VIA exists and operates.

 

[crs1026]

The most important bit. A private VIA wouldn't have that in Canada.

I'm sick of this bullshit about, "But Japan....", "But Hong Kong...", "But UK....", "But France....", "But German..." which all absolutely ignore the context in which VIA exists and operates.

I can certainly get behind a suggestion to change VIA’s lack of a legislated mandate, but I agree - people who suggest magic silver bullets are ignoring the reality of the current context.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

I can certainly get behind a suggestion to change VIA’s lack of a legislated mandate, but I agree - people who suggest magic silver bullets are ignoring the reality of the current context.

- Paul

Legislation would help. But it's also a bit of a silver bullet to far too many railfans. There's no real substitute for investment. And since we have to learn to walk before we run, people have to expect that our first large projects will be expensive, less value for money than elsewhere and probably less service. We need to get through HFR because that is the only way. Success builds on success.

 

[cplchanb]

I'd go further - any government wanting to privatize VIA basically wanted to kill it.

AoD

well i dont know what the better poison is... have successive govts flip flop what ever plan, or bit the bullet, endure a few years and hopefully be self sustaining.. besides,,, will it actually be a start from scratch situation where the next day via owns nothing? i would think the govt would have a deal to prop up via or the corridor for a number of years like they do for bbr until theyre on their feet. Also whats stopping Via from entering the development busniness themselves? Do they not have enough cash to start? Just because they havnt done it before doesnt mean they cant start somewhere. this status quo sit on our hands is
not really helping things, especially if they have grand plans that rely on a highly unstable govt.

 

[Urban Sky]

well i dont know what the better poison is... have successive govts flip flop what ever plan, or bit the bullet, endure a few years and hopefully be self sustaining.. besides,,, will it actually be a start from scratch situation where the next day via owns nothing? i would think the govt would have a deal to prop up via or the corridor for a number of years like they do for bbr until theyre on their feet. Also whats stopping Via from entering the development busniness themselves? Do they not have enough cash to start? Just because they havnt done it before doesnt mean they cant start somewhere. this status quo sit on our hands is
not really helping things, especially if they have grand plans that rely on a highly unstable govt.

In addition to questionable orthography and grammar, you don't seem to grasp that no private railroad is going to accept the obligation to run intercity passenger rail services over infrastructure without any guaranteed dispatching quality (and without financial compensation for dispatching non-performance). Similarly, all of VIA's funding comes from the federal government and you can see with the drama around HFR how tedious it is to extract money from it to invest even into projects with excellent value-for-money...

 

[cplchanb]

In addition to questionable orthography and grammar, you don't seem to grasp that no private railroad is going to accept the obligation to run intercity passenger rail services over infrastructure without any guaranteed dispatching quality (and without financial compensation for dispatching non-performance). Similarly, all of VIA's funding comes from the federal government and you can see with the drama around HFR how tedious it is to extract money from it to invest even into projects with excellent value-for-money...

Doesnt mean that new legislation that addresses your above concerns cant be tabled and passed. Unfortunately CP and CN just has them by the balls and the feds have no spine to break free of them.