[roger1818]

Baggage does not generate enough revenue to cover its costs. That's why there are no baggage cars unless absolutely necessary.

People don't realize that not only do you have to pay for the cost of buying a baggage car, it also adds weight and rolling resistance to the train, increasing fuel consumption. Then there is the labour of having to check the baggage and get it on and off the train. Then there is the liability of "lost" and damaged luggage (which is bound to happen occasionally).

They would need to sell a lot of checked baggage to not only cover their costs but make a profit. Given that only a handful of people per train would be willing to pay extra for the service (and likely not much per bag) on any given train, it would be hard to cover the costs.

 

[Canadian Chocho]

How much reduction in luggage space on the Ventures is there compared to the LRC and 1950s equipment?

There is a reduction in the racks. The LRC/HEPs typically have three sets of racks as you enter the car, whereas the Venture as two sets at the end of the car (except for the cab car where the racks are in the middle). The racks on the Venture are seemiingly less wide and less deep.The bicycle rack that was built into the Venture would take one of these two racks out of service to accomocade for a maxinmum of two bikes, which is probabyl why they haven't begun with the Carry-on bikes. They made the overhead space one big open rack to compensate.

The last few baggage cars in the corridor pre-covid were on Toronto/Montreal and Winsor/Toronto trains typically to synchronize with long-haul departure days. Montreal to Halifax and Toronto to Vancouver.

There was actually some checked bags in the corridor somewhat recently on Renaissance equipment up until they were replaced with Ventures, between Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec

 

[Admiral Beez]

I saw this on the news yesterday.

 

[Urban Sky]

The bicycle rack that was built into the Venture would take one of these two racks out of service to accomocade for a maxinmum of two bikes, which is probabyl why they haven't begun with the Carry-on bikes. […]

As we’ve discussed here multiple times, the main reason for not yet offering bike transporting servuces is that frequent equipment changes make it still rather difficult to predict on which trains the new trainsets will be deployed. Once the entire new Corridor fleet has been delievered and accepted, this will become a possibility.

The last few baggage cars in the corridor pre-covid were on Toronto/Montreal and Winsor/Toronto trains typically to synchronize with long-haul departure days. Montreal to Halifax and Toronto to Vancouver.

Correct, and they were an absolute anachronism compared to the rest of the world, where baggage cars and checked baggage services disappeared decades ago.

There was actually some checked bags in the corridor somewhat recently on Renaissance equipment up until they were replaced with Ventures, between Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec

Hauling an empty (buffer) car was a crash requirement by Transport Canada and given the (compared to the LRC and HEP fleet) limited luggage storage options, it was a no-brainer to convert the buffer car to a baggage car. However, this has no relevance for current and future operations in the Quebec-Windsor corridor.

 

[lenaitch]

I feel like you're being deliberately obtuse. Real estate development plus public transportation is a tried and true economic model that we have somehow forgotten in Canada. Economically they are massively complementary.

Admittedly I am, because discussions with Michael is like Groundhog Day. He wants daily trains to and from everywhere, economics bedamned. In this go-round, the argument is build a VIA station at X and a community will spring forth. Perhaps it will, but perhaps the people that actually live there don't want to have it turned into a bedroom. But there will no cost because the developers will pay for all the infrastructure, apparently.

Any proposal to substantially improve passenger rail in this country will create billions of dollars of new wealth for the property owners around station locations. The question is whether or not we want to try to tap that to actually make something happen. The political will doesn't seem to be there for the feds or Ontario (not sure about quebec) to do anything more than leave Via on dialysis.

It likely will, but the landowners will probably be people who snapped up the land because they had an inside track on station locations. Wealthy (former) landowners does not necessarily make a healthy community.

 

[Canadian Chocho]

Hauling an empty (buffer) car was a crash requirement by Transport Canada and given the (compared to the LRC and HEP fleet) limited luggage storage options, it was a no-brainer to convert the buffer car to a baggage car. However, this has no relevance for current and future operations in the Quebec-Windsor corridor.

My statement had absolutely nothing to do with buffer cars. Buffer cars were not in-service, not even as baggage cars. That would have been counter-productive to the entire endeavour of using them as a buffer in the event of a crash. This is the reason why pets in the baggage car were not allowed for a period on any HEP. The buffer car placed between the baggage car and the coaches meant that no one could access the baggage from the rest of the train (save for the LEs), meaning that passengers could not provide for their pets. Furthermore, this was done for HEP equipment exclusively. Renaissance equipment in service as a corridor train on QMO occaisionally had a baggage car as late as last summer. Think VIA #24.

In fact, we can see the baggage car in this video (seemingly filmed last summer) and we can see the station agent retrievng the checked bags in the Dorval station.:

You're "As we’ve discussed here multiple times" was unecessarily know-it-all-ey, when in actuallity you do not actually know it all. Cheers.

 

[Urban Sky]

My statement had absolutely nothing to do with buffer cars. Buffer cars were not in-service, not even as baggage cars. That would have been counter-productive to the entire endeavour of using them as a buffer in the event of a crash.

My use of the word “buffer car” has absolutely zero to do with the “buffer car episode” Transport Canada (TC) mandated for all HEP equipment 1 or 2 years ago. The “Renaissance” cars were built to European standards and are therefore not compliant with North American crash worthiness standards.

Transport Canada was consequently only willing to issue a waiver for VIA Rail (mind you: we are talking about the early 2000s, so more than 20 years ago) from these otherwise binding standards by mandating that the leading car (i.e., the one directly behind the locomotives) would remain unoccupied (i.e., without any passengers during train movements, though I doubt that this ban also applied to employees). Given that these cars would not be able to accommodate passengers and the (for North American standards) limited room for luggage on board the revenue cars, it was a nobrainer to use them as baggage cars…

Renaissance equipment in service as a corridor train on QMO occaisionally had a baggage car as late as last summer. Think VIA #24.

As per the above, Renaissance trainsets were not allowed to operate without a buffer car (which was always used as a baggage car)…

You're "As we’ve discussed here multiple times" was unecessarily know-it-all-ey, when in actuallity you do not actually know it all. Cheers.

*Your (not: you’re, as in: you are). Sorry, couldn’t resist, but indeed, I certainly don’t know it all and have to occasionally eat my own words here after getting called out on some misconceptions. That said, I’ve assigned VIA’s fleet to individual trains across its entire network for 3 years and helped VIA during the introduction of a network optimizer software which had to be programmed with all the countless fleet dependencies which constrain what kind of cars go together and which ones don’t. Make from that what you want…

Cheers.

Edit (Nov-27@11pm): I’ve been made aware in the meanwhile that Renaissance trains operated without leading baggage cars in the early years, which makes me doubting whether there really was such regulatory requirement to have the lead car unoccupied, but at least it would confirm my comment that I have to eat my own words from time to time…

 

[micheal_can]

Admittedly I am, because discussions with Michael is like Groundhog Day. He wants daily trains to and from everywhere, economics bedamned. In this go-round, the argument is build a VIA station at X and a community will spring forth. Perhaps it will, but perhaps the people that actually live there don't want to have it turned into a bedroom. But there will no cost because the developers will pay for all the infrastructure, apparently.

If we are effectively talking about a bedroom community of Ottawa, then we should learn from the mistakes of other bedroom communities in the GTA. Having good transit built into the development is learning those mistakes.

 

[nfitz]

Once again I call for VIA to bring back the Buffet car.

 

[Sauga89]

I believe (or sincerely hope!) that we can safely discount that possibility. The existing location next to Tremblay station (note that “Tremblay” is the name of the LRT station, not the VIA station it serves) means that it is less than 15 minutes in a direct and frequent ride to downtown Ottawa. No other plausible location offers a remotely comparable downtown connectivity…

If we assume that the high speed rail station will be at Tremblay, do you think they'll keep the existing station building? I used to live in Ottawa, and there are many things I like about the current building. It's very light-filled and open concept. The LRT makes getting downtown easy, (and the east and west ends too once the new extensions open). It also doesn't have the zoo of commuters that Union or Gare Centrale have, which is nice.

However, I found that at busy times people were lined up almost out the door, and I can't see the current building having enough capacity for HSR.

I'd love to see them build an extension to the existing building, perhaps on the parking lot to the west, which would be closer to the LRT station. If they removed the cafe and offices on the west side of the station, they could build a twin to the current building in the same architectural style. Then they could build a new tunnel south of the tracks to a new park and ride for cars and buses.

 

[CapitalSeven]

If we assume that the high speed rail station will be at Tremblay, do you think they'll keep the existing station building? I used to live in Ottawa, and there are many things I like about the current building. It's very light-filled and open concept.

The building has had a federal heritage designation since 1996 and is unlikely to be torn down. As with the Chateau Laurier downtown, there might be serious debate about what architectural style to use.

 

[crs1026]

However, I found that at busy times people were lined up almost out the door, and I can't see the current building having enough capacity for HSR.

Ottawa does not have the security or narrow platform constraints that Toronto Union and Montreal Central have.

Any crowding constraints can be solved by simply letting people board commensurate with practices in other countries.

VIA creates its own crowding. There is no need to line up at Ottawa.

- Paul

 

[Mihairokov]

Once again I call for VIA to bring back the Buffet car.

I was travelling across Germany a year or two ago and didn't totally understand their ticketing system and so ended up without a permanent seat for most of the trip. Ended up hanging out in the bar car for most of the trip drinking pints and hanging out with DB staff. A very enlightening trip, although after a few beers Berlin Hauptbahnhof becomes very confusing!

 

[smallspy]

Edit (Nov-27@11pm): I’ve been made aware in the meanwhile that Renaissance trains operated without leading baggage cars in the early years, which makes me doubting whether there really was such regulatory requirement to have the lead car unoccupied, but at least it would confirm my comment that I have to eat my own words from time to time…

I'm not sure that they did actually operate in service without the baggage cars.

4 or 5 F40s were modified in 2001 with the same type of coupler as the Ren cars, and were used to bring Corridor trainsets cars down from Thunder Bay as they were completed. And they did perform some network testing with them at that time.

But I think that by the time they entered service in mid-2002 the Corridor trainsets all had baggage cars added to them (which featured a standard AAR/APTA type F knuckle coupler at one end, and a Ren-standard "Shearback" coupler at the other), and the F40s that were modified were returned back to their original configuration.

Dan

 

[Urban Sky]

I'm not sure that they did actually operate in service without the baggage cars.

The Branchline magazine apparently reported at least two such consists in June 2002:

20th anniversary of first Ren trips

groups.io