[Bordercollie]

Given there was one at the back of Canadian on the Davenport Diamond thread I would guess either “nothing” or “nothing good”

They where supposed to figure it out by the end of the month with an action plan.

 

[Bordercollie]

Here is an effective way to replace our legacy fleet. https://www.trains.com/trn/news-rev...interest-in-new-long-distance-fleet-analysis/

I'm sure that this increases our buying power by combining the orders which may involve multiple vendors.

 

[Urban Sky]

Here is an effective way to replace our legacy fleet. https://www.trains.com/trn/news-rev...interest-in-new-long-distance-fleet-analysis/

I'm sure that this increases our buying power by combining the orders which may involve multiple vendors.

Ontario Northland’s add-on order for Siemens’ production line for VIA certainly comes to mind, though it’s probably much more complex to adjust Amtrak’s specifications to VIA’s need, but on the other hand, we are talking about much more than just 3 locomotives and 9 cars, which makes a larger deviation more viable…

 

[Bordercollie]

Ontario Northland’s add-on order for Siemens’ production line for VIA certainly comes to mind, though it’s probably much more complex to adjust Amtrak’s specifications to VIA’s need, but on the other hand, we are talking about much more than just 3 locomotives and 9 cars…

Yes but two large orders could make it economically feasible even with different requirements.

 

[lenaitch]

Ontario Northland’s add-on order for Siemens’ production line for VIA certainly comes to mind, though it’s probably much more complex to adjust Amtrak’s specifications to VIA’s need, but on the other hand, we are talking about much more than just 3 locomotives and 9 cars, which makes a larger deviation more viable…

I'm guessing the ONR order probably very closely mimics VIA in terms of configuration. Unless the long distance VIA configuration is similar to Amtrak's, I'm not sure jumping on with them would gain much ('we want what they ordered, except this, this, this and this have to be different'). Even within our long distance fleet, there are no doubt different needs. Routes like Churchill and northern Quebec are heavily utilitarian; whereas Canadian and, perhaps to a lesser extent, Ocean, are heavily tourist-oriented and need to accommodate that if they want to continue to attract that market and charge for premium service. I'm thinking aspects such as dome/observation cars, full galley kitchens, full suite sleepers, etc.

 

[Bordercollie]

I'm guessing the ONR order probably very closely mimics VIA in terms of configuration. Unless the long distance VIA configuration is similar to Amtrak's, I'm not sure jumping on with them would gain much ('we want what they ordered, except this, this, this and this have to be different'). Even within our long distance fleet, there are no doubt different needs. Routes like Churchill and northern Quebec are heavily utilitarian; whereas Canadian and, perhaps to a lesser extent, Ocean, are heavily tourist-oriented and need to accommodate that if they want to continue to attract that market and charge for premium service. I'm thinking aspects such as dome/observation cars, full galley kitchens, full suite sleepers, etc.

That's not to say that Amtrak doesn't need those features.

 

[lenaitch]

That's not to say that Amtrak doesn't need those features.

That's true and, in truth, I don't the configuration(s) that Amtrak uses on its long distance services. With the current trend toward semi-permanent trainsets rather than marshalling together what is needed I imagine the decission becomes more critical.

 

[Bordercollie]

That's true and, in truth, I don't the configuration(s) that Amtrak uses on its long distance services. With the current trend toward semi-permanent trainsets rather than marshalling together what is needed I imagine the decission becomes more critical.

But is a fixed trainset for a long distance train feasible? Since demand varies depending on the time of year and day of departure? For corridor trains I can understand, but likely not the case for long distance trains.

 

[smallspy]

That's true and, in truth, I don't the configuration(s) that Amtrak uses on its long distance services. With the current trend toward semi-permanent trainsets rather than marshalling together what is needed I imagine the decission becomes more critical.

There is no indication thus far that Amtrak is looking at forming its long-distance fleet into any sort of semi-permanent trainset.

And even if they were, there should be no reason why whatever cars they order couldn't then be re-specified to operate as individual cars. This is the case with the Siemens Venture cars - while they are configured as semi-permanent trainsets for Brightline, VIA and Amtrak California, they are configured as single cars or pairs for Amtrak Midwest.

Dan

 

[Allandale25]

Source tweet.

 

[nfitz]

I thought the tax was for redemptions on products - not tickets.

 

[Urban Sky]

I thought the tax was for redemptions on products - not tickets.

This is also how I would interpret the Email, since “products” seems to refer to the “eligible optional products” mentioned further above:

 

[littlewill1166]

I thought the tax was for redemptions on products - not tickets.

It seems like under the new program, points will be "like cash" for tax purposes. When you redeem PC Optimum points you have to pay sales tax (gift certificate). But not when you redeem McDonald's reward points (marketing materials). There was a case between the CRA, Aeroplan, and CIBC that dealt with this. However, someone else who has a deeper background in tax law is probably better equipped to explain this.

I don't want to pass judgment on VIA so quickly. But VIA was very generous in allowing any seat to be booked with a fixed number of points, while airlines tended to restrict the number of seats available when they operate under a fixed redemption system. I have no doubt that this new loyalty system will be a net negative for people who redeem points at the last minute for busy trains.

You either herd your passengers like sheep or you expect them to identify by their own the best way (and time) to walk towards and board their train. For reasons we have discussed here ad nausea, most "obvious" solutions are not practical within the existing infrastructure (among other) constraints...

You seem to be suggesting that it's an either/or, but if you look at platform 20/21 at Union (the platform GO and VIA share with each other). When boarding GO Stouffville Line Trains departing from platform 20/21 you have the option to wait in the VIA concourse and be shepherded on (VIA makes GO employees staff the escalators), or you can walk up to the platform at your own leisure through the GO concourse/teamways. VIA favours using platforms 16/17 at Union since the shared platform arrangement was implemented, so I can't test whether or not I will be yelled at for going up to 20/21 through the GO concourse. If someone has, I would encourage them to speak up about their experience. However, given that the hybrid arrangement is working with GO with much higher passenger loads. I doubt that it wouldn't work with VIA.

There's also Amtrak which operates a similar boarding system to VIA. However, there have been news articles talking about how to bypass the lines thus resulting in a defacto hybrid boarding system as seen with platform 20/21 at Toronto Union.

Amtrak’s insane train boarding rules

Boarding trains is easy. People do it all around the world. But for unclear reasons, Amtrak makes it difficult at certain stations. To a limited extent, it's possible to beat the system. In a larger sense, only policy reform can save the day.

www.vox.com

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say. But to me, it seems like VIA is trying to shepherd everyone through the VIA concourse when boarding onto 20/21. But since platform access to 20/21 isn't controlled from the GO areas, anyone can walk onto the platform at their own leisure, thus undermining VIA's ability to shepherd people on and off.

 

[innsertnamehere]

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2023/01/24/alstom-propose-a-nouveau-un-tgv-entre-quebec-et-toronto

Google translation;

More profitable, better for the environment: the Trudeau government should put aside its high-frequency train project (TGF) between Quebec and Toronto to focus on high speed, insists the French giant Alstom.

"As long as you put sums like these, as much as is in the most profitable investment possible and which brings the impact both economic and societal the highest", confides to the Journal Michael Keroullé, president of Alstom for the Americas.

Mr. Keroullé argues that a high-speed train costs 20 to 30% more than a slower version. It is possibly more. But in the end, the investment is more profitable because more people are using it, he argues.


"We see it in all the countries that have made this choice: with speed, we are shifting the mode of transport [from the car and the plane to the train] much more than what was initially envisaged", affirms the leader.

Alstom, of which the Caisse de depot is the largest shareholder with a 17.5% stake, is making the exit because it said it felt, last fall, an "openness" from Ottawa to the idea of finance a train that would have a maximum speed of 300 km/h.

In March 2022, in its “request for expressions of interest” for the project, Transport Canada mentioned a maximum speed of 200 km/h, which is barely more than the maximum speed of current VIA Rail trains.

About fifty companies responded to the government's call, including several who expressed their desire to go beyond 200 km/h.

Result: In October, the government published an update in which it promises to give “flexibility” to companies to offer “higher speeds on certain segments”.

Aim for less than three hours

According to Alstom, the objective should be to cut the travel time between Toronto and Montreal from five hours to less than three hours.

"There, the benefit of the train becomes obvious," says Michael Keroullé. This is what happened on all lines in all the countries in which we had this same debate. »

Reached by Le Journal , the office of the federal Minister of Transport, Omar Alghabra, did not want to comment on the possibility that the TGF project be transformed into a TGV.

In the spring of 2021, Le Journal reported on tensions within the federal government between the proponents of the two scenarios. According to our sources, Michael Sabia, Deputy Minister of Finance, and Catherine McKenna, then Minister of Infrastructure, were campaigning for a TGV between Montreal and Toronto which would have set Quebec aside.

In December, Mr. Alghabra announced the creation of a subsidiary of VIA Rail to manage the TGF project. A former Hydro-Québec executive, Marie-José Nadeau, has been named vice-chairman of the entity's board of directors.

In May, Cynthia Garneau caused a surprise by resigning from her position as CEO of VIA after three years in office.

I wonder if we will end up with 300km/h rail between Toronto and Montreal and he 200km/h option to Quebec. Honestly, that is what makes the most sense.

 

[cplchanb]

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2023/01/24/alstom-propose-a-nouveau-un-tgv-entre-quebec-et-toronto

Google translation;


I wonder if we will end up with 300km/h rail between Toronto and Montreal and he 200km/h option to Quebec. Honestly, that is what makes the most sense.

you gotta love scope creep. then the cons would be calling for the govts heads for cost escalation.