VIA Rail network developments

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Which include the cost of massive feed-in tariffs for solar power that generates negligible amounts of electricity, the cost of replacing coal plants that were pretty much mothballed and only used in emergencies so they could run TV ads, the cost of relocating power plants out of the GTA (where power is needed) to Prescott and Sarnia for election-gimmick reasons, the cost of massive overcapacity in the power system (35TW installed capacity compared to an all-time high usage of 27TW) and the cost of doubling down on nuclear power when most of the rest of the developed world is phasing it out.

We might be paying the actual cost, but we're not paying what it should cost to have a well-managed power system in Ontario.

Not sure about anything else you said, but if you ignore politics and fear-mongering nuclear is the way to go for electricity. As long as the waste is properly disposed, there should be no reason to fear disaster here in Ontario. We don't have the same magnitude earthquakes a place like Japan has, and we operate safely, unlike the Soviets were doing in Chernobyl. Japan has left most of its reactors offline since Fukushima, and have spent ~30bn on importing energy (http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Economic-cost-of-Japans-nuclear-shutdown-1404151.html). Let's use the plants we have, especially considering they also reduce our carbon output

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Which include the cost of massive feed-in tariffs for solar power that generates negligible amounts of electricity, the cost of replacing coal plants that were pretty much mothballed and only used in emergencies so they could run TV ads, the cost of relocating power plants out of the GTA (where power is needed) to Prescott and Sarnia for election-gimmick reasons, the cost of massive overcapacity in the power system (35TW installed capacity compared to an all-time high usage of 27TW) and the cost of doubling down on nuclear power when most of the rest of the developed world is phasing it out.

This is the crux of the issue, and the main driving force behind hydro costs here. Nuclear has very high capital costs (both to build new & to do necessary refurbishments to keep reactors in service). On top of that nuclear generates the same amount of power, so it leads to wasted power in the off-peak.

I think there's some rumblings about permanently closing the Pickering nuclear plant, which would provide some much needed reduction in output and save major dollars on refurbishing the reactors there. I don't know if the province is actually going to do that, but they really should.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by silvergate

Not sure about anything else you said, but if you ignore politics and fear-mongering nuclear is the way to go for electricity. As long as the waste is properly disposed, there should be no reason to fear disaster here in Ontario. We don't have the same magnitude earthquakes a place like Japan has, and we operate safely, unlike the Soviets were doing in Chernobyl. Japan has left most of its reactors offline since Fukushima, and have spent ~30bn on importing energy (http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Economic-cost-of-Japans-nuclear-shutdown-1404151.html). Let's use the plants we have, especially considering they also reduce our carbon output

Nuclear is extremely expensive to build and maintain, as I mentioned above.

[Radster]

And its been mentioned numerous times recently that Canada could be fully dependant on green energy (solar & wind) in 20 years. Coal is done, nuclear is gonna be phased out, dams are being removed, lets face it, the future is green.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/poli...das-reach-academics-say/article23513579/

[HighwayStar]

This "green" energy talk is all well and good.... but we need to have a COMPLETE discussion of the carbon footprint needed to create the Wind Turbines, Solar Panels, etc.

Wind is "clean"??? How much concrete, steel, and especially magnets are required to produce how many (few) MW of electricity??? Not to mention the fuel spent hauling all those components around the world....

For example... here is the sole source of metal for the magnets in wind generators: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by silvergate

Not sure about anything else you said, but if you ignore politics and fear-mongering nuclear is the way to go for electricity. As long as the waste is properly disposed, there should be no reason to fear disaster here in Ontario. We don't have the same magnitude earthquakes a place like Japan has, and we operate safely, unlike the Soviets were doing in Chernobyl. Japan has left most of its reactors offline since Fukushima, and have spent ~30bn on importing energy (http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Economic-cost-of-Japans-nuclear-shutdown-1404151.html). Let's use the plants we have, especially considering they also reduce our carbon output

I don't fear nuclear. I think the Candu reactors are extremely safe. But the costs of nuclear are enormous (and the cost of a long-term solution for the waste have yet to be factored in). Also, as loversoc pointed out, they are difficult to scale to match demand, so they make the grid more difficult to manage. The tens of billions Ontario has poured into the nuclear industry could have been much better spent.

[roger1818]

We are getting way off topic. Could we please focus on "VIA Rail network developments" and move this discussion about Ontario electricity generation to another thread?

[Mikeed]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Nuclear is extremely expensive to build and maintain, as I mentioned above.

Actually nuclear is the cheapest per kilowatt hour. Yes it's expensive to build, (14.4 Billion for Darlington, one of the most advanced in the world) but that cost is carried over 30 years before midlife refurb, then another 30 years.

It's zero emissions, designed and built in Ontario (going back to Canada's involvement in the Manhattan Project), the whole supply chain for the CANDU bundles is domestic as Canada is a huge provider of uranium for the worlds energy needs, safe, and provides the cheapest power. It requires no enrichments running off of raw uranium and can be used to dispose of dangerous proliferation materials like HEU and nuclear weapons.

It's incredibly reliable- Bruce (which will have been running for 70 years before it retires) set a world record with 494 days of continuous operation. They are actually not hard to pull back and moderate their feed into the grid- it's just we need them running at the same rate to provide the "baseload". 61% of the grid is powered by nuclear, by only three generation sites.

It's amazing that when you see the vast lights of Toronto at night, that powerful economic engine, it's all powered by rock and water. Clean and Cheap.

If you want to know more.

[White Pine]

Posting this here too because I find the VIA conversation in the Ottawa forum more interesting:

VIA issues RFP for new (diesel/electric) rolling stock:
http://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/INTERCITY_PASSENGER_RAIL.pdf

As an aside, all of this CANDU discussion reminds me of my Deep River days. We had the Candu swim club and stuff. You know we're a one-industry town when...

[casper]

Originally Posted by Mikeed

Actually nuclear is the cheapest per kilowatt hour. Yes it's expensive to build, (14.4 Billion for Darlington, one of the most advanced in the world) but that cost is carried over 30 years before midlife refurb, then another 30 years.

It's zero emissions, designed and built in Ontario (going back to Canada's involvement in the Manhattan Project), the whole supply chain for the CANDU bundles is domestic as Canada is a huge provider of uranium for the worlds energy needs, safe, and provides the cheapest power. It requires no enrichments running off of raw uranium and can be used to dispose of dangerous proliferation materials like HEU and nuclear weapons.

It's incredibly reliable- Bruce (which will have been running for 70 years before it retires) set a world record with 494 days of continuous operation. They are actually not hard to pull back and moderate their feed into the grid- it's just we need them running at the same rate to provide the "baseload". 61% of the grid is powered by nuclear, by only three generation sites.

It's amazing that when you see the vast lights of Toronto at night, that powerful economic engine, it's all powered by rock and water. Clean and Cheap.

If you want to know more.

Weird discussion in a thread on Via Rail. However......

The fundamental problem with Nuclear in the 1980's and 1990's in Canada was Ontario Hydro dragging out Darlington construction schedule. The key driver for playing that game was they needed the extra power when the project was launched but after raising prices demand dropped and there was a glut in the market. End result is they slowed out the project. That drove up borrowing costs for the project while delaying when it would start to make money. The Candu plants in China and South Korean went up much more quickly.

Nuclear makes sense as base load in Ontario but only as part of a mix of different generation capability. Nuclear provides good low cost base load. In the rest of Canada, nuclear is a hard sell. To have economies of scale the plants have to be huge and are a bad fit in places like Saskatchewan (a very pro nuclear province). In places like Manitoba, BC and Quebec there are lots of hydro electric options that are equally low cost.

I have not been involved in the nuclear industry for nearly 15 years. Back then Ontario Hydro use to set records for continuous operation without a shutdown. There was always two schools of through, the first being just how great that is and the second one was that a proper preventative maintenance program would have scheduled outages and fixing things before they fail. With a good preventative maintenance program you never set these records because your are more regularly down for maintenance, however the down time is more predictable. Not certain where it is today.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by casper

Weird discussion in a thread on Via Rail.

I started a new thread Electricity Generation in Ontario. I suggest we move discussion about electricity generation there.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by White Pine

Posting this here too because I find the VIA conversation in the Ottawa forum more interesting:

VIA issues RFP for new (diesel/electric) rolling stock:
http://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/INTERCITY_PASSENGER_RAIL.pdf

I find the following requirements interesting:

Performance

• Trainsets must be able to operate at speeds of up to 100 mph or 161 km/h on shared Class 5 non-electrified infrastructure, non-grade separated, using diesel power.
• Trainsets must also be able to operate at a maximum of 125 mph or 201 km/h on new dedicated Class 7 infrastructure, non-grade separated, using in diesel mode and electric mode where electrified.
• Transition between modes of power must be seamless with minimum impact on the passenger experience.

First of all, it is interesting that VIA operates at 100 mph on class 5 track. In the US, the FRA limits the speed of passenger trains to 90 mph on class 5 track.

It also indicates that VIA plans to run trains at faster than current speeds, which could explain the posted travel times while still using the existing route (on new track).

It is smart that all trains be dual mode (diesel and electric) with seamless transitions, to allow flexibility in use of the fleet on all corridor routes and a gradual transition to electrification. It also allows trains to continue to operate during a power failure.

I would hope that the new track will be built to at least class 8 standards, other than the required 100% grade separation, for future speed increases. I am surprised they aren't requiring the trains also be capable of the resulting higher speeds. My only guess on this is that would preclude dual mode trains.

Useful link: FRA Track and Signal Speed Limits

Also interesting:

Fleet Size

Final quantities remain to be confirmed; however the intent is to replace the current fleet of 40 locomotives and 160 cars with bi-directional trainsets providing equivalent seat capacity currently totalling 2200 Business seats and 7800 Economy seats. An option for additional trainsets could be required, depending on the timing of other initiatives planned by VIA Rail.

From this, it looks like they will retire all corridor trainsets (LRC, Renaissance and Stainless), though some could be moved to other routes.

I did some math, and I suspect they want 50 business coaches (same as current of 26 LRC, 14 Renaissance and 10 Stainless) and each coach will seat 44. The 2200 seats total is a slight reduction from the current 2376. This means 110 economy coaches with each coach seating approximately 71 (though that would more likely be either 70 or 72). This would be a reduction from the current 127 coaches (71 LRC, 33 Renaissance and 23 Stainless), and a decrease in seating capacity from 7976. One thing I am not sure of is if all of the stainless coaches I included are used on corridor service, which may explain the reduction in capacity.

The other possibility is they want 40 business and 120 economy coaches, with 55 and 65 seats respectively, but those numbers don't make sense for a seat map.

If instead they want 50 business coaches, that would be a more reasonable 44 seats, but it would mean only 110 economy coaches, with approximately 71 seats each.

A third and more likely option is they rounded the seating capacities and want 45 business and 115 economy coaches, with 48 and 68 seats respectively (for totals of 2160 business seats and 7820 economy seats).

Current fleet data from VIA Rail - Our Fleet

[Norman Bates]

30 year lifecycle with first deliveries as soon as 2019.

As someone who has travelled the entire length of the corridor on VIA1 my favorite are the newly updated LRC cars. But these new train sets will be the last ones that I ride in my lifetime.

Off to Quebec City this weekend on the Rock and roll renaissance car.

[acottawa]

Max speed of the current trains is 110 mph. It seems like a lot of expense to get an extra 15mph, unless they're building a huge amount of class 7 track.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

30 year lifecycle with first deliveries as soon as 2019.

That is the other thing that bothers me about the proposal. They say, "The average age of the equipment in VIA Rail’s Corridor fleet is 40 years old (over 23 years for the locomotives and over 43 years for the cars)" The average ages of the cars are as follows (approximately):

LRC 34
Renaissance 21
Stainless 68

If you average those, you get 41 years, but VIA has more LRC cars than Renaissance and Stainless combined (in corridor use). If you pro-rate it to the number of cars in service, the average age drops to about 37 years. Still old, but it is a bit deceiving.

As someone who has travelled the entire length of the corridor on VIA1 my favorite are the newly updated LRC cars. But these new train sets will be the last ones that I ride in my lifetime.

Off to Quebec City this weekend on the Rock and roll renaissance car.

The Renaissance cars are yet another example of the Canadian Government (under Chrétien) being penny wise and pound foolish and buying something because its cheap and then struggling to get it to work properly. It will be good to get something new that is designed for our needs.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Max speed of the current trains is 110 mph. It seems like a lot of expense to get an extra 15mph, unless they're building a huge amount of class 7 track.

While it is true that the P42DC (GENESIS Series I) locomotives VIA uses have a top speed of 110 mph, Via Rail only permits its engines to travel at a maximum speed of 100 mph (161 km/h) (see Locomotives - P42DC and GE Genesis). This is likely because they are running on class 5 track (which as I mentioned above normally has a speed limit of 90 mph for passenger trains). So they will be getting an extra 25 km/h. Class 7 track will only be used where they are installing their own new track (and not sharing it with the freight railways), which will be much of the Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal corridor. Who knows what they will do with the track they already own, though most of it is single track and they may want to double track much of it.

[Norman Bates]

Originally Posted by roger1818

That is the other thing that bothers me about the proposal. They say, "The average age of the equipment in VIA Rail’s Corridor fleet is 40 years old (over 23 years for the locomotives and over 43 years for the cars)" The average ages of the cars are as follows (approximately):

LRC 34
Renaissance 21
Stainless 68

If you average those, you get 41 years, but VIA has more LRC cars than Renaissance and Stainless combined (in corridor use). If you pro-rate it to the number of cars in service, the average age drops to about 37 years. Still old, but it is a bit deceiving.



The Renaissance cars are yet another example of the Canadian Government (under Chrétien) being penny wise and pound foolish and buying something because its cheap and then struggling to get it to work properly. It will be good to get something new that is designed for our needs.

I think that major Canadian government acquisition has been the cheap way or no way at all since 1960 or so.

The voodoos that were usaf cast offs.

The 707s that were a cancelled Western Airlines order.

Polaris that were cast offs from Canadian Airlines International.

101 colonel by drive cast off from transport Canada.

Victoria class submarines cast off from the Royal Navy.

Nortel campus cast off from...

I for one was overjoyed when it was announced that we were getting Renaissance. In 2002 I even went to the science and tech museum to see one on display. But after riding Renaissance to Quebec City I've been happier on LRC or even the Edwardian HEP cars. No idea what it's like in coach - as I choose to go business to avoid children wanting to pet my wife's service dog.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

I for one was overjoyed when it was announced that we were getting Renaissance. In 2002 I even went to the science and tech museum to see one on display. But after riding Renaissance to Quebec City I've been happier on LRC or even the Edwardian HEP cars. No idea what it's like in coach - as I choose to go business to avoid children wanting to pet my wife's service dog.

My first reaction was excitement, but after looking into it, I realized there were going to be some major deficiencies with them.

As a bit of history (for those who don't remember), the Renaissance cars were designed for use on the proposed Nightstar (overnight trains from the UK to continental Europe, via the Chunnel). The Nightstar project was cancelled midway through the construction of the carriages and VIA Rail decided to buy them.

The biggest problem I saw with the order was that given that the carriages were intended for overnight service, most of the coaches (72 of 139) were sleepers. While VIA was able to use 57 as sleepers (and convert 15 into dining and baggage cars) on the Ocean and Chaleur (renamed Montréal–Gaspé train) to free up stainless steel cars for The Canadian, what VIA needed most then (and now) was more passenger coaches for the corridor. The order only gave them 33 Economy class cars (with only 48 instead of the usual 68 seats) and 14 Business cars. Even then, some are needed for the Atlantic routes, so even fewer are used in the corridor.

Secondly, they were designed for European use and thus meet European standards. Significant modifications were required to modify and upgrade them to North American use. Some of the modifications required were:

• Fitting of knuckle couplers
• Doorways to suit low-level platforms
• Compatibility with a 480 V head-end power (HEP) system
• Enhanced HVAC system
• Accessibility modifications (after a lawsuit by the Council for Canadians with Disabilities)

I have never seen a price tag on all of these modifications, but I am sure it greatly diminished, if not eliminated the savings, and we didn't get what we really needed.

On top of that, they were never designed for our climate and track conditions. I am sure they would have been very smooth on European track, designed for high speed rail, but North American class 4 and 5 track requires a better suspension system. Just a guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if despite being the youngest cars in the fleet, they have the highest maintenance cost and VIA is hiding this by averaging their age with the significantly older stainless cars (who wants to admit they bought lemons).

One question I do have that maybe someone here can answer. VIA Rail says on their website that they have 20 Renaissance service cars in their fleet, but "There are currently three cars in the fleet - numbers 7354 to 7359 - that are empty shells. In fact, they have never been put into service and are being reserved for future use." Their wording is rather strange and my first impression was that 17 are actually in service and 3 are still in shells, but given that they have only have 3 Renaissance dining cars and 3 Renaissance baggage transition cars, it makes me wonder if it is actually the other way around.

[Norman Bates]

As someone who uses a walker to get around I am no fan of the Renaissance.

As well, and as I understand it, there is something called <axis of motion> that is a consideration in the design of a rail car. The closer the axis of motion is to the rail car's centre of gravity, the more comfortable the ride for passengers.

Of the VIA fleet, it is my understanding that the LRC cars are the best aligned in this regard and the Renaissance the worse. Hence the Rock and roll of the Renaissance.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

As well, and as I understand it, there is something called <axis of motion> that is a consideration in the design of a rail car. The closer the axis of motion is to the rail car's centre of gravity, the more comfortable the ride for passengers.

Of the VIA fleet, it is my understanding that the LRC cars are the best aligned in this regard and the Renaissance the worse. Hence the Rock and roll of the Renaissance.

I suspect what you are referring to as axis of motion is relating to lateral G's. When going around a corner, centrifugal force (a bit of a misnomer as it isn't a real force but a product of conservation of momentum) pushes you sideways. You can compensate for that by banking the track (vertical G's are easier to deal with). While this is common in Europe and Asia where HSR tracks are used exclusively by high speed trains, here in North America, the corners aren't banked. To compensate, the LRC trains will tilt to simulate banked corners. I gather the original active tilting system initially installed on the LRCs has been removed, but they likely still have passive tilting. The Renaissance cars likely don't as they were likely designed for banked tracks and overnight trains don't need to be fast (they usually end up waiting on a siding somewhere anyway to kill time).