VIA Rail network developments

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think in this case a study is badly needed. There needs to be a better cost estimate and a reasonable analysis of other options. The estimate has already gone up fifty percent since it was proposed.

Sure. And what the hell were they doing the last 2.5 years. Why don't they have the studies done yet?

I donated to the Liberals and voted for them. This was my biggest motivator. It's clear now that that they had no intention to deliver anything this term. Not even a full comprehensive study.

If there's no serious advancement by the next election, I'll be donating to and voting for their opposition.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Sure. And what the hell were they doing the last 2.5 years. Why don't they have the studies done yet?

I totally agree they wasted a lot of time they could have spent doing a proper study.

I also think Via didn’t do enough groundwork before presenting the proposal.

[lrt's friend]

But the opposition (Conservatives) would never invest in passenger rail regardless of how it would benefit vote rich Ontario and Quebec. Prove me wrong with a campaign promise.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

But the opposition (Conservatives) would never invest in passenger rail regardless of how it would benefit vote rich Ontario and Quebec. Prove me wrong with a campaign promise.

I think both parties have a pretty dismal track record. The Tories have been willing to invest in the Corridor (which is currently better than the zero the current government has invested).

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think both parties have a pretty dismal track record. The Tories have been willing to invest in the Corridor (which is currently better than the zero the current government has invested).

What did the Tories invest in? The last thing they did when in power was cut service.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

What did the Tories invest in? The last thing they did when in power was cut service.

http://www.cawlocal.ca/council4000/uploa...ending_to_get_Via_Rail_back_on_track.pdf

There was also capital funding in the 2009 budget (as part of a stimulus program.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

But the opposition (Conservatives) would never invest in passenger rail regardless of how it would benefit vote rich Ontario and Quebec. Prove me wrong with a campaign promise.

So I'd be where I am today, but with the national debt $50 billion lower.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think in this case a study is badly needed. There needs to be a better cost estimate and a reasonable analysis of other options. The estimate has already gone up fifty percent since it was proposed.

Hence why it's a good thing the government is showing a willingness to immediately put money into fleet renewal while putting the rest of the package out to study. The former is urgently needed.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Hence why it's a good thing the government is showing a willingness to immediately put money into fleet renewal while putting the rest of the package out to study. The former is urgently needed.

Agreed. We might be able to get another 15 years out of the LRCs but the Renascence cars are at the end of their useful life and not worth refurbishing(a perfect example of the government being penny wise but pound foolish).

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Agreed. We might be able to get another 15 years out of the LRCs but the Renascence cars are at the end of their useful life and not worth refurbishing(a perfect example of the government being penny wise but pound foolish).

I'd be less concerned about the Renaissance cars and more with the HEP cars. Some of them are around 70 years old now.
But, with the government willing to fund new rolling stock, I wouldn't be surprised if they replaced both in one go.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I'd be less concerned about the Renaissance cars and more with the HEP cars. Some of them are around 70 years old now.

True, though the HEP II cars used in the corridor are actually closer to 60 years old, but who is counting. They are in need of having their bogies replaced and interiors refurbished, but their stainless steel body shells could last almost indefinitely.

However, according to Via's 2016 – 2020 corporate plan, the Renasance cars:

• They have the lowest reliability of the Corridor fleet;
• Their mild steel car bodies are corroding at the roof, side sills and posts. The full extent of the corrosion is unknown without a major overhaul (i.e. “opening” vehicle);
• A major investment to the Corridor Renaissance fleet would be needed to improve their reliability and reduce their burdensome maintenance costs and to extend their useful life and marketability

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

But, with the government willing to fund new rolling stock, I wouldn't be surprised if they replaced both in one go.

Since it will probably be 5 years before Via starts to see new equipment and another 5 before the order is fulfilled, I suspect they will replace the HEP II, Renaissance corridor cars and LRCs as the LRCs will be approaching their EOL by then. They may continue to use them elsewhere until they become unreliable.

My hope is they get enough money to buy something designed for our environment and can be refurbished for extended life, and not run into the same problems again in 15-20 years.

It is interesting that the corporate plan indicates that at the time it was written, an analysis of the long haul fleet had not been completed (it was to be done within a year). The Renaissance cars used there will likely have similar issue, so service cutbacks may be necessary if new long distance equipment isn't purchased. IMHO, they should keep most of the long distance stainless steel cars (especially the Park and Skyline cars), refurbishing them as needed. The exception should be the sleeping cars. Expectations in accommodations have changed a lot since they were built and re-configuring them would be difficult, so they should instead buy new stainless steel cars that match the look and feel of the existing cars.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Hence why it's a good thing the government is showing a willingness to immediately put money into fleet renewal while putting the rest of the package out to study. The former is urgently needed.

And what guarantee is there that whatever they buy will be compatible with any future plans for HFR?

It's getting clearer by the day that their promised support of VIA was nothing more than, "we'll do the bare minimum necessary to keep VIA operating." New fleet because it was needed. But this does absolutely nothing to improve the state of intercity transport in the Corridor. It just stops VIA for entering a death spiral on Liberal watch.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And what guarantee is there that whatever they buy will be compatible with any future plans for HFR?

In what way would they not be compatible? VIA isn't planning on building a bullet train, it's just a rail bypass.

Besides, there's this quote from the report that roger1818 linked.

"Due to age and condition of the existing fleet, with no capital investments VIA Rail will not be in a
position to offer the current passenger service levels by 2020"

It's urgent. More urgent than HFR.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

In what way would they not be compatible? VIA isn't planning on building a bullet train, it's just a rail bypass.

Agreed, though it is less about being a bypass than it is about having tracks dedicated to passenger services rather than having to share tracks with the freight railways. Interactions with freight trains is the number one cause of schedule delays and getting access to the tracks is the main thing preventing them from adding more trains.

If they were talking about monorail, maglev or hyperloop or even a change in rail guage, there would be compatibility issues but there is no talk about that. HFR will be on standard guage.

The only thing that could have any effect is the choice to electrify the lines. This would only affect the choice of locomotives (the coaches don't care if their power is generated by the locomotive or the locomotive gets its power from a catenary). Having said that, Via is only talking about replacing the 40 locomotives that are used on corridor services, but all 73 locomotives should be refurbished or replaced sometime soon. As long as the locomotives chosen would work on the long distance trains (or could easily be upgraded to do so). Most of them could be re-allocated to other routes. The remainder could be used on corridor routes that won't be electrified anytime soon.

[lrt's friend]

The priorities have to be:

1. Replace aging equipment
2. Build the bypass to Toronto
3. Electrification

On item 3, a business case could be made based on the success of item 2. In my mind, the success of Item 2 is almost guaranteed if it could be proven that service can be speeded up significantly. The market is there right now for faster, more direct service to Toronto. If we can cut 1 hour off of travel time, then the train will be very competitive with all other modes of transport.

The potential roadblock on Item 2 is the capital cost of rebuilding the line from Perth to Toronto via Peterborough. There needs to be a cost benefit analysis but of course, anything to do with Via Rail is highly political.

If Via could get this one going and get substantial private investment and make the line profitable, then Via's future becomes less political.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The priorities have to be:

1. Replace aging equipment
2. Build the bypass to Toronto
3. Electrification

On item 3, a business case could be made based on the success of item 2. In my mind, the success of Item 2 is almost guaranteed if it could be proven that service can be speeded up significantly. The market is there right now for faster, more direct service to Toronto. If we can cut 1 hour off of travel time, then the train will be very competitive with all other modes of transport.

Agreed. We've already seen VIA ridership on Ottawa-Toronto increase dramatically over the last few years as VIA improves frequency.. so there's a solid business case for investment. The upcoming launch of GO RER service in the GTA centred on Union will only increase potential ridership further as it will make far-flung areas of the GTA easily accessible at all times of the day for VIA passengers coming in from Ottawa or Montreal. The launch of Uber in both cities has helped too by making it cheaper and easier to get connecting transportation when public transit doesn't work (or for those who don't like using it).

I like the VIA is pushing this HFR solution instead of the old HSR proposals. HFR is expensive ($6 billion maybe?) but still a lot cheaper than what full blown HSR would cost and thus it's lot more politically palatable.

As for electrification, IMO, with the upcoming fleet renewal, VIA should buy trains that are capable of being retrofit to electric to support future electrification. Dual-mode trains would be ideal, that way we can electrify the network gradually over time.

[OCCheetos]

Does anyone know what kind of passenger cars are currently on the North American market? (Aside from Bi-Levels).

Would VIA need to go through a whole design process for new coaches?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Does anyone know what kind of passenger cars are currently on the North American market? (Aside from Bi-Levels).

Would VIA need to go through a whole design process for new coaches?

Not a comprehensive list, but in post #689 I did list the following options. They did say at one point they are looking to buy a proven product and not design something new. There may be other options available as well.

Originally Posted by roger1818

But Amtrack is replacing the Acela Express trainsets with new Avelia Liberty trainsets (made by Alstom). It is capable of a top speed of 220 miles per hour (350 km/h), with track and signalling upgrades, so they may not be what VIA is looking at.

Instead, VIA might be looking at the Siemens trainsets that Florida's Brightline is having built. They will be used at a top speed of 125 miles per hour (201 km/h) and are currently in production (4 of 5 trainsets have been delivered and more will be required for Phase 2).

Edit: More information about the Siemens coaches used by Brigthline can be found here http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/brightline-Coach-Siemens-2.pdf. They have a stainless steel body, which is good.

[acottawa]

Not sure if it makes sense to buy rolling stock without a plan. An HFR service requires fairly small rolling stock (because they would run a lot of trains) and would probably benefit from a DMU type vehicle. On the other hand, if there is to be no HFR they need longer trains (a straight up replacement for existing rolling stock). On the other hand, if they want higher speeds they need a totally different rolling stock.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Not sure if it makes sense to buy rolling stock without a plan. An HFR service requires fairly small rolling stock (because they would run a lot of trains) and would probably benefit from a DMU type vehicle. On the other hand, if there is to be no HFR they need longer trains (a straight up replacement for existing rolling stock). On the other hand, if they want higher speeds they need a totally different rolling stock.

I don't know if DMUs would be suited for the type of service that Via provides. Places where Via might consider DMUs are, well... places they already use them (the RDCs).