VIA Rail network developments

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

One or two card trains would have similar capacities to DMUs. Sure it won't be as fuel efficient, but it will provide operational efficiencies.

It's not just a little less fuel efficient. It's a lot less fuel efficient and the track fees could be higher.

Originally Posted by roger1818

As for electrification, I gather the plan would be to buy dual mode locomotives, so they could be used on either line.

This becomes an optimization issue. How much more is it to dual mode every locomotive in the fleet to enable service on Lakeshore line. Of course, they may not electrify the HFR corridor, in which case the entire fleet could end up as DMUs.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Many of those city pairs would have higher demand than Kingston/Belleville/Cobourg/Brockville-Montreal or Kingston/Belleville/Cobourg/Brockville-Ottawa

Having been to Comox for military training and up and down the rest of the Island, I seriously doubt this. Kingston-Montreal may be lacking. But not Kingston-Ottawa. And regular rail service would induce a fair bit of demand here.

I do agree with you that these services face higher political risks than HFR. I disagree that the risks are insurmountable though.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

So MPs routinely vote against every project that doesn't directly benefit their community? I think that's a stretch too.



Sure. But the CIB is supposed to be bringing in a lot of private capital for projects like this. I don't think the plan is for VIA to get $4-6 billion in public funds.

MPs vote how the whip tells them to vote, but behind the scenes they push for resources for their ridings, particularly if they are in cabinet. A significant expenditure to establish a high-frequency rail service along the lakeshore with brand new rolling stock to benefit a few relatively small communities is going to raise the ire of MPs whose ridings have had their rail service cut or have really lousy rail or have no rail service at all.

Exactly what the CIB will do is a hotly-debated topic, but whatever it is there will still be a limited pool of resources for which many projects will have to compete.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Having been to Comox for military training and up and down the rest of the Island, I seriously doubt this. Kingston-Montreal may be lacking. But not Kingston-Ottawa. And regular rail service would induce a fair bit of demand here.

I was always surprised at how busy the E&N was the few times I took it before it went out of service... and what a gorgeous ride.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Montreal is a pretty inefficient connection (how many people want to go from Lake Ontario area to Eastern Quebec?).

Agreed that it isn't a good connection, but it is one.

It is unclear what will connect at Smith's Falls.

This whole plan is unclear. What is clear is the map in post #527 shows that the Lakeshore stations from Guildwood to Brockville as "improved." What is meant by this I don't know. My personal opinion is the service will be improved, not the actual stations, but I could be wrong.

Many of those city pairs would have higher demand than Kingston/Belleville/Cobourg/Brockville-Montreal or Kingston/Belleville/Cobourg/Brockville-Ottawa

I agree with you regarding Montreal (and I suspect VIA does as well since the Cornwall and Coteau stations are listed on the above map as remaining the "same").

I disagree with you regarding the demand between Kingston and Ottawa. Besides, VIA already owns most of the track, so it is much more inexpensive.

Locomotives, LRC rolling stock and HEP rolling stock have all been refurbished within the last decade.

The document you referenced is from 2009, and you are drawing some invalid conclusions.

Locomotives:
Only the F-40 locomotives were overhauled/rebuilt in 2009-12. 19 of 52 F-40s are assigned to the Corridor which represents 49% of the Corridor fleet. The work did extend their life, however they are still close to 30 years old and reliability and parts availability is declining. I wouldn’t expect them to last much beyond 2030.

The remaining 51% of the corridor fleet (21 locomotives) are P42s. They are 15 years old and are due for half life overhaul. Their design prevents them from being updated to meet the latest standards, so once again, I wouldn’t expect them to last much beyond 2030 either.

We might be able to use the existing locomotives in the short term, but it can’t be part of a long term strategy.

LRC Cars:
VIA Rail has 97 LRC cars (61% of Corridor fleet). They were refurbished between 2011 and 2016 to last another 15-20 years. They cannot be refurbished again, so they will come to the end of their life between 2026 and 2036.

HEP Cars:
Only the HEP I cars were refurbished. These cars are are primarily used on the Canadian and are not used on Corridor service.

It is the HEP II cars that are used on the Corridor. VIA has 33 of them (21% of their fleet). They are over 60 years old and from a variety of sources so not standardized, which limits efficiency. They could be refurbished, but they should really be retired.

Renaissance Cars:
There are 30 Renaissance Cars assigned to Corridor service (19% of Corridor fleet). They are 15 years old, rusting badly and the roofs are leaking. They also have the lowest reliability in the fleet. VIA doesn’t even know the full extent of their condition (a full overhaul would be required to know that). Throwing good money after bad to do that would be unwise, and they should be retired as soon as possible.

See 2016 – 2020 corporate plan - VIA Rail Canada, Section 12 (pp.49-51) for more information.

If HFR is implemented with new rolling stock, even without the Renaissance cars there will still be lots of rolling stock kicking around for a lakeshore service.

Ignoring HFR, 39% of the fleet needs to be replaced now and the remainder needs to start being replaced in about 10 years. If approved, given the timelines involved, we would be lucky if we can receive the first car in 5 years and for the next several years every car received will directly replace a retired car. We won’t likely see a capacity increase for almost 10 years and by then the LRCs will start needing to be retired, so I wouldn’t count on them for maintaining existing service after HFR is built.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

if they are sticking with 6 car trains).

Who said anything about 6 car trains? VIA regularly runs 3 car trains on the Ottawa-Montreal corridor, so there is no reason why they can’t do the same on the Lakeshore.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's not just a little less fuel efficient. It's a lot less fuel efficient and the track fees could be higher.

How do you know that? CN (and VIA) have been very secretive as to how the rates for track usage are calculated. Regardless, as long as the train fits on the sidings, why would CN care how long it is. A short train is equally in the way as a long train and requires the same amount of signalling and control. Regardless, a corridor passenger train is much shorter than a typical freight train so even a long, 6 car passenger train is tiny compared to 100 car freight train.

This becomes an optimization issue. How much more is it to dual mode every locomotive in the fleet to enable service on Lakeshore line. Of course, they may not electrify the HFR corridor, in which case the entire fleet could end up as DMUs.

I doubt if VIA will electrify CN’s track in the short term, as the priority would be to electrify their own track, and GO is likely to electrify theirs. If the approaches to both Union and Central stations are electrified, it would be advantageous for all corridor locomotives to be dual mode. Operationally it means any locomotive can be used on any route any fewer spares would be required. The long distance trains would likely continue to be diesel-electric.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I was always surprised at how busy the E&N was the few times I took it before it went out of service... and what a gorgeous ride.

I was too young and naive to be surprised at the time, but looking back, you are right, it was surprisingly well used. Possibly because people in BC (and on the island in particular) are quite environmentally focused. And yes, it was a gorgeous route.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

LRC Cars:
VIA Rail has 97 LRC cars (61% of Corridor fleet). They were refurbished between 2011 and 2016 to last another 15-20 years. They cannot be refurbished again, so they will come to the end of their life between 2026 and 2036.

And if HFR is implemented with new rolling stock Via has hardly any other uses for these until the 2030s (at which case it needs to undertake a broader fleet replacement anyway). There are only 6 roundtrips in the Windsor London Corridor (two terminating in London) 2 roundtrips (one terminating in Kitchener) in the Toronto-Sarnia Corridor. The Niagara Falls service uses Amtrak rolling stock.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

And if HFR is implemented with new rolling stock Via has hardly any other uses for these until the 2030s (at which case it needs to undertake a broader fleet replacement anyway).

Fleet replacement (including LRC) is the primary purpose of the new rolling stock. HFR is piggybacking on this order.

There are only 6 roundtrips in the Windsor London Corridor (two terminating in London) 2 roundtrips (one terminating in Kitchener) in the Toronto-Sarnia Corridor. The Niagara Falls service uses Amtrak rolling stock.

VIA Rail is wanting to increase frequency in Southern Ontario, but lack of equipment limits their ability to do so. The following article says that VIA was experimenting using RDCs for this.

Via tests passenger cars for proposed southern Ontario runs - Feb 24, 2016

In fact, in post #385, it says VIA lost the bid in February of this year to buy back 12 RDCs that they had previously sold to Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART). I'm guessing VIA is having to rob Peter to pay Paul by cutting service in southern Ontario to increase service on the Toronto-Ottawa run.

It is possible that they will use the short term boost in equipment to prove that the need for even more trains and hope the government at the time will be favourable.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I was too young and naive to be surprised at the time, but looking back, you are right, it was surprisingly well used. Possibly because people in BC (and on the island in particular) are quite environmentally focused. And yes, it was a gorgeous route.

The last time I rode it, it was a few days before Christmas, after a heavy, wet, overnight snowfall. All the trees were soggy with what looked like spray-on artificial snow. It was like taking a train ride through Narnia to meet the Beavers at the station closest to their dam.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Who said anything about 6 car trains? VIA regularly runs 3 car trains on the Ottawa-Montreal corridor, so there is no reason why they can’t do the same on the Lakeshore.

That's equally inefficient though. A locomotive + carriage combination will never be as efficient as DMUs for the levels that VIA operates. Having a locomotive pull 3 cars will always be ridiculously inefficient over a DMU. Now, it may be cost-efficient because it avoids capex. And that might be the biggest argument for keeping the fleet and running it into the ground on Lakeshore services.

Originally Posted by roger1818

How do you know that? CN (and VIA) have been very secretive as to how the rates for track usage are calculated.

I don't. That's why I said "could". Trackage fees are less of a concern than fuel efficiency.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I doubt if VIA will electrify CN’s track in the short term, as the priority would be to electrify their own track, and GO is likely to electrify theirs. If the approaches to both Union and Central stations are electrified, it would be advantageous for all corridor locomotives to be dual mode.

I wasn't referring to CN's tracks being electrified. I was referring to the proposed HFR corridor. In fact I thought CN was opposed to electrification.

It's $2 billion to electrify that apparently (as per VIA's Dedicated Tracks poster). So I am pretty sure they are going to study whether electrification is worthwhile here to begin with. And then what happens here will determine what happens with the Lakeshore fleet replacement down the road. All that said, I just can't see the maths working out where hybridizing the entire fleet is worthwhile over simply using electric trains on HFR and DMUs on the Lakeshore. Commonality is just not enough of a gain to justify higher fuel consumption and higher capex across the fleet replacement.

Indeed, if anything, the smarter thing to do would be to simply build HFR and just run the current fleet on Lakeshore services, into the ground (figuratively speaking) and then go back to Parliament in 2026 asking for money for that fleet replacement.

Alternatively (and I think this is the likely outcome), they could come to the conclusion that electrification isn't worthwhile and buy DMUs for the entire replacement fleet. Run 2 car trains on Lakeshore routes to Kingston and run 6-car trains on the HFR corridor. Very easy to package politically too. One big fleet purchase.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Fleet replacement (including LRC) is the primary purpose of the new rolling stock. HFR is piggybacking on this order.



VIA Rail is wanting to increase frequency in Southern Ontario, but lack of equipment limits their ability to do so. The following article says that VIA was experimenting using RDCs for this.

Via tests passenger cars for proposed southern Ontario runs - Feb 24, 2016

In fact, in post #385, it says VIA lost the bid in February of this year to buy back 12 RDCs that they had previously sold to Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART). I'm guessing VIA is having to rob Peter to pay Paul by cutting service in southern Ontario to increase service on the Toronto-Ottawa run.

It is possible that they will use the short term boost in equipment to prove that the need for even more trains and hope the government at the time will be favourable.

Via wants new everything. Whoever writes their corporate plans has the self control of Dumb Donald at a Russian brothel and yet they have managed to get zero new dollars from the current government. I think the lack of focus is going to hurt them.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Via wants new everything. Whoever writes their corporate plans has the self control of Dumb Donald at a Russian brothel and yet they have managed to get zero new dollars from the current government. I think the lack of focus is going to hurt them.

It is about time they got some new rolling stock. Look at what happened when they bought those rejects from the UK.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Look at what happened when they bought those rejects from the UK.

VIA bought rolling stock from the UK?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I wasn't referring to CN's tracks being electrified. I was referring to the proposed HFR corridor. In fact I thought CN was opposed to electrification.

It's $2 billion to electrify that apparently (as per VIA's Dedicated Tracks poster). So I am pretty sure they are going to study whether electrification is worthwhile here to begin with. And then what happens here will determine what happens with the Lakeshore fleet replacement down the road. All that said, I just can't see the maths working out where hybridizing the entire fleet is worthwhile over simply using electric trains on HFR and DMUs on the Lakeshore. Commonality is just not enough of a gain to justify higher fuel consumption and higher capex across the fleet replacement.

Indeed, if anything, the smarter thing to do would be to simply build HFR and just run the current fleet on Lakeshore services, into the ground (figuratively speaking) and then go back to Parliament in 2026 asking for money for that fleet replacement.

Alternatively (and I think this is the likely outcome), they could come to the conclusion that electrification isn't worthwhile and buy DMUs for the entire replacement fleet. Run 2 car trains on Lakeshore routes to Kingston and run 6-car trains on the HFR corridor. Very easy to package politically too. One big fleet purchase.

It seems to me that electrification is going to be a hard sell if train traffic is going to be divided between two parallel corridors. If there were a single corridor where all of VIA's traffic could be concentrated allowing all trains to reap the fuel savings benefits, then that would make more sense. Sure it might be nice to serve the three extra communities, but not sure it's worth it.

Would it be feasible to add extra via-owned tracks to the existing CN corridor?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

VIA bought rolling stock from the UK?

Yup. The Renaissance Cars were originally built to be used for a proposed Nightstar overnight service through the Chunnel, but the project got cancelled before the trains were finished. VIA bought them at a discount and finished construction in Canada, modifying them for use in North America. They have been a disaster ever since.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Yup. The Renaissance Cars were originally built to be used for a proposed Nightstar overnight service through the Chunnel, but the project got cancelled before the trains were finished. VIA bought them at a discount and finished construction in Canada, modifying them for use in North America. They have been a disaster ever since.

Ahh. Thanks. Didn't know the history.

Us and British surplus. What a history. Railcars, submarines, wonder if there's anything else....

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ahh. Thanks. Didn't know the history.

Us and British surplus. What a history. Railcars, submarines, wonder if there's anything else....

Her Majesty?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ahh. Thanks. Didn't know the history.

Us and British surplus. What a history. Railcars, submarines, wonder if there's anything else....

Surplus tanks from the Dutch and Germans.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It seems to me that electrification is going to be a hard sell if train traffic is going to be divided between two parallel corridors. If there were a single corridor where all of VIA's traffic could be concentrated allowing all trains to reap the fuel savings benefits, then that would make more sense. Sure it might be nice to serve the three extra communities, but not sure it's worth it.

Would it be feasible to add extra via-owned tracks to the existing CN corridor?

Wouldn't that just cost more again?

The point of the VIA proposal is to make rail more attractive on the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto route.

Returning to the Lakeshore route just extends out travel times or requires VIA to own two sets of tracks between Brockville and Montreal, one through Cornwall and the other through Ottawa. It also means separate trains to Ottawa and Montreal, which makes HFR more difficult to implement and hard to cost justify.

I do not think you can reach 2.5 hour travel times via Brockville on the Ottawa-Toronto route, which is the most popular route in VIA's network.

I think the need of two routes is supported by VIA's desire to grow ridership between the major cities and the long developed ridership built along the Lakeshore route.

[acottawa]

Interesting piece on the perpetual rail studies.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commenta...d-improve-train-service-now-opinion.html

Time to derail studies and improve train service now: Opinion
What Ontario really needs here is a consultant to tell the two levels of train-happy politicians — which don’t seem to talk to each other — that millions of public money being wasted on studies could be doing some good for the public right now.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Wouldn't that just cost more again?

The point of the VIA proposal is to make rail more attractive on the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto route.

Returning to the Lakeshore route just extends out travel times or requires VIA to own two sets of tracks between Brockville and Montreal, one through Cornwall and the other through Ottawa. It also means separate trains to Ottawa and Montreal, which makes HFR more difficult to implement and hard to cost justify.

I do not think you can reach 2.5 hour travel times via Brockville on the Ottawa-Toronto route, which is the most popular route in VIA's network.

I think the need of two routes is supported by VIA's desire to grow ridership between the major cities and the long developed ridership built along the Lakeshore route.

Another option to consider is the ability to reduce the massive cost of full electrification by only electrifying certain stretches and using battery EMUs. There are battery EMUs going into service in a couple of places with range up to 200km. If they electrified say, 20km out of every 100km of route, they could put the infrastructure in only places where it's most cost effective (easy access for maintenance, no retrofitting bridges or overpasses, etc.) then the trains could fast charge on the wired stretches and run on battery in between. Even if they didn't completely recharge on the wired stretches, as long as it reduced the battery depletion long enough to complete a full trip or maybe a return trip before going out of service for a couple hours to recharge, then it could work.

Yes batteries are heavy and expensive and don't last forever, but battery electric trains would still be far more energy and cost effective than fossil fuel trains, along with being quieter and requiring less maintenance. And rail electrification is expensive too, and even once completed still has maintenance costs. So unless a route is extremely busy (like a train no less than every 15-20 min per direction) then it may not make sense.

[GoTrans]

[QUOTE=lrt's friend;7875143]Wouldn't that just cost more again?

The point of the VIA proposal is to make rail more attractive on the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto route. QUOTE]

Regardless, VIA shoulc double track from Smiths Falls to Ottawa. That would improve reliability.

[QUOTE=lrt's friend;7875143]Returning to the Lakeshore route just extends out travel times or requires VIA to own two sets of tracks between Brockville and Montreal, one through Cornwall and the other through Ottawa. It also means separate trains to Ottawa and Montreal, which makes HFR more difficult to implement and hard to cost justify. QUOTE]

With Via's proposal you would have more than twice as much duplicate routing since Toronto to Smiths Falls is longer than Brockville to Montreal.

[QUOTE=lrt's friend;7875143]I do not think you can reach 2.5 hour travel times via Brockville on the Ottawa-Toronto route, which is the most popular route in VIA's network. QUOTE]

You can reach the 2.5 hour travel time but it all depends on speed which is dependant upon the cost of investment.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I think the need of two routes is supported by VIA's desire to grow ridership between the major cities and the long developed ridership built along the Lakeshore route.

What about building double track and running CN Freight trains on the Havelock subdivision and switching CN freight trains and having Via own the CN corridor other than the cost?