Via rail

[rbt]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Okay, I take that VIA only operates passenger cars (even Business ones) which date back to the 1940s because they were too lazy to ask the previous government for a new fleet...^^

I don't believe I expressed my point very well.

The marginal operating cost for an additional passenger is low; the marginal capital cost for an additional passenger is high. Seats are restricted due to capital costs beyond what the ticket prices can cover. Note, this is an expansion element, not replacement or upgrades. Upgrading a seat still earns VIA an Escape fare (no new revenue).

If VIA fleet expansion would have increased revenue by an amount larger than the capital cost, for example a $50M/year bump in revenue for a $250M fleet expansion enabling longer trains (~7 year break-even after minor operations cost increases), the previous government would have jumped all over that opportunity.


Anyway, I just wanted to separate their capacity from quality of service in the Corridor routes. Capacity is a VIA sales (or subsidy) issue, quality of service is almost entirely due to the railways.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

If this is the depth and dependability of analysis you apply to already ridiculously accessible data sources, I’m not sure what insights you are hoping to derive from being granted access to the various professional engineering and demand forecasting studies which have been or are currently conducted for HFR…

I would like to know:

The route Via intends to follow, particularly from Agincourt to downtown and across the island of Montreal.
Infrastructure improvements that are necessary along the route
Time and cost estimates, with the methodology.

I am not sure why you are shocked by this. Provincial, municipal, American, and European transportation agencies commission and publish feasibility and other studies all the time. Only Via tries to obfuscate its plans from the public.

Such studies are important to validate and peer review in house analytical work and build public, media and political support, or to get a signal if it won’t get support and a new approach is necessary.

They undertook pointless secrecy with ViaFast as well, which I think contributed to the demise of the project.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Let me ask it a different way:
What is stopping VIA from having once a day each way train service to all major cities in this country that still has rail to it?
Why does the government not want to resolve it?

I am not suggesting HSR, or even HFR.
I am suggesting a train with some passenger cars chugging along at track speed stopping at the major stops. Let it grow naturally. Add more cars/trips as is needed.

Really, except for a few places, in Canada we do not need HSR or HFR, we need a reliable means to travel.

i agree with you. Many posters on the forum claim there is no recent history of demand in many parts of the country (ie AB,SK,MB) to support this. You have to start somewhere and cancelling transcontinental service and replacing it with regional intercity service is the most practical way to prove there is a demand. The routings should serve the maximum population and not be designed to benefit the railways and appropriate equipment is required to control costs. Routes should generally be a maximum of 24 hours in length except through northern Ontario.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

i agree with you. Many posters on the forum claim there is no recent history of demand in many parts of the country (ie AB,SK,MB) to support this. You have to start somewhere and cancelling transcontinental service and replacing it with regional intercity service is the most practical way to prove there is a demand. The routings should serve the maximum population and not be designed to benefit the railways and appropriate equipment is required to control costs. Routes should generally be a maximum of 24 hours in length except through northern Ontario.

But you're ignoring the reality that buses would be a far more suitable solution for these routes. Spend the money on trains where it is actually justified, don't want it where it isn't.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by milomilo

But you're ignoring the reality that buses would be a far more suitable solution for these routes. Spend the money on trains where it is actually justified, don't want it where it isn't.

Are trying to say that Edmonton-Calgary is to justified or replacing the Canadian with daylight regional trains is not justified?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Are trying to say that Edmonton-Calgary is to justified or replacing the Canadian with daylight regional trains is not justified?

Edmonton - Calgary *might* be justified, but any other pair of cities in the prairies will not be. I don't think we should place any more subsidy burden on VIA, so if we choose to build a regional transportation system out here (and I think we should), it should be based on buses. If those buses fill up to levels that would fill multiple trains per day, then it might be worth upgrading railway infrastructure and putting trains in.

I don't know or care much about the Canadian, but from what has been said, it serves its purpose well enough and breaking it up would be counterproductive.

[OldDartmouthMark]

‘It could have easily derailed’: VIA Rail insider on train accident near Debert, N.S.

Around 5 p.m. on March 20, the train carrying 77 passengers from Halifax to Montreal was forced to stop after striking "debris" on the Springhill Sub, said VIA Rail in a statement at the time.

But the insider claims there was no debris involved, only sub-standard maintenance work on the track which is owned by Canadian National (CN).

The VIA staffer, who requested anonymity to protect his job, said CN had recently performed work on the track's tie plates in the area. But the maintenance workers, either belonging to CN or contracted by CN, stacked the plates too high for the train to clear, he alleged.

“They become projectiles," he described in an exclusive interview with Global News. “And there’s pipes and all kinds of mechanicals that are not far off the ground… there might be 10 inches of clearance between the rail bed and the bottom of the train.”

The source said the train "could have easily derailed."

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by rbt

I don't believe I expressed my point very well.

The marginal operating cost for an additional passenger is low; the marginal capital cost for an additional passenger is high. Seats are restricted due to capital costs beyond what the ticket prices can cover. Note, this is an expansion element, not replacement or upgrades. Upgrading a seat still earns VIA an Escape fare (no new revenue).

If VIA fleet expansion would have increased revenue by an amount larger than the capital cost, for example a $50M/year bump in revenue for a $250M fleet expansion enabling longer trains (~7 year break-even after minor operations cost increases), the previous government would have jumped all over that opportunity.

Anyway, I just wanted to separate their capacity from quality of service in the Corridor routes. Capacity is a VIA sales (or subsidy) issue, quality of service is almost entirely due to the railways.

Let’s assume for a moment that the previous government would have been happy to spend money on any capital expenditure program with a short payback period (as you seem convinced of) and that the bureaucrats at Transport Canada would have been supportive of a fleet expansion project (as you seem to take for granted): where would you have gotten these extra cars from? Used cars must be (1) available for sale, (2) in a serviceable (and good) condition, (3) offered for a reasonable price, (4) compliant to all applicable regulations and rules, (5) be compatible to the existing fleet, especially its electric systems, (6) be compatible with the high level platforms in VIA’s network and (7) provide a somewhat similar passenger comfort and amenities as the existing Corridor fleet. For a procurement of new cars, the order size would have been too small to get any supplier to deliver customized cars (any train order is customized) at all or at any reasonable price and the procurement would have already drastically narrowed down the options for the fleet procurement approved under the current government, as your “extra cars” would be (unlike the rest of the “legacy fleet”) nowhere near the end of their useful life (and selling them to a different railroad is difficult for the reasons listed above)…

Originally Posted by acottawa

I would like to know:

The route Via intends to follow, particularly from Agincourt to downtown and across the island of Montreal.
Infrastructure improvements that are necessary along the route
Time and cost estimates, with the methodology.

I have yet to see you respond to any question directed at you so what makes you feel entitled to receive answers for the questions you are asking?
I have yet to see you providing any methodology to any of the many claims you are making, so what makes you feel entitled to demand from other people to provide and defend their methodology?
I have yet to see you even acknowledge any argument which contradicted your own claims, so why would anyone believe you that even the most detailed report from the most reputed engineering firm could compel you to reconsider your already entrenched views and opinions?

You are entitled to your beliefs, but please stop pretending that you are interested in any open discussion of ideas or exchange of arguments...

Originally Posted by GoTrans

i agree with you. Many posters on the forum claim there is no recent history of demand in many parts of the country (ie AB,SK,MB) to support this.

This is not a claim, it's an obvious fact, given that there hasn't been any at-least-daily intercity rail service west of the Quebec-Windsor corridor for 29 years (and counting).

You have to start somewhere and cancelling transcontinental service and replacing it with regional intercity service is the most practical way to prove there is a demand.

I agree that it is in the nature of a novice idea that there never is much past data to support it, but destroying an existing passenger service which has a cost-recovery rate at par with the Corridor despite extreme operational challenges is a rather counter-intuitive way to "prove that there is demand"...

The routings should serve the maximum population...

...in which case they would be focused on the Quebec-Windsor and Calgary-Edmonton Corridors, as these are the only places in this country where there significant population centers (250+k) can be found in a suitable distance to each other (<500 km):

Note: shown are all Canadian CMAs with a population of at least 250,000, ranked from the largest to the smallest...

…and not be designed to benefit the railways and appropriate equipment is required to control costs.

A cost-recovery rate of roughly 75% does not really suggest that the Canadian is designed around the needs of the railroads and has a massive problem with controlling its costs.

Routes should generally be a maximum of 24 hours in length except through northern Ontario.

What is so difficult for you and the other proponents of your idea of destroying the Canadian for some short succession of day trips which make the travel time (and costs, once including accommodation!) for any longer distance even less competitive against other available (car, plane) or potentially available (intercity bus) modes?

[ghYHZ]

HSR in the ‘60s and ‘70s….the TURBO! Original schedule was 3hr59 then extended to 4hr10 in the ‘70s. Here’s memories of a ride in ’75:

(in the first photo....that's about where you would board the UP Express now)

[J81]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Okay, I take that VIA only operates passenger cars (even Business ones) which date back to the 1940s because they were too lazy to ask the previous government for a new fleet...^^


To volunteer other valid reasons:
Funding! And lack thereof!
Mandate! And lack thereof!

I thought it was a given that the lack of equipment was due to lack of funding. Pretty obvious. Not sure i agree with the mandate excuse though.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Wow, the TURBO is cool!

...And it shaved about 50 mins off the Toronto <-> Montreal trip compared to the Rapido.

I assume the Rapido was a conventional train?

[esquire]

^ Yes, Rapidos used conventional equipment.

The UAL Turbotrain era was the last time Canada was anywhere even close to being a leader in HSR (even though we were obviously still well behind the likes of Japan). Unfortunately it didn't last long.

For what it's worth, LRCs did for a while match the Turbotrain's 4 hour pace between Montreal and Toronto, but not anymore.

[milomilo]

IMO, that Turbotrain is a ghastly abomination compared to proper, electrified high speed rail. It looks like a ship, and probably weighs the same.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by milomilo

IMO, that Turbotrain is a ghastly abomination compared to proper, electrified high speed rail. It looks like a ship, and probably weighs the same.

It was built by United Aircraft (not to be confused with United Air Lines) and was meant to evoke jetliners of the age. It would have looked very revolutionary compared to the older-style trains of the 40s and 50s that would have still been a very common sight in those days.

[niwell]

Oh wow those TURBO ads rule! Such an interesting era.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

For a procurement of new cars, the order size would have been too small to get any supplier to deliver customized cars (any train order is customized) at all or at any reasonable price and the procurement

Now, this entire discussion started because someone said VIAs capacity was limited. I attempted to explain why capacity wasn't limited (train lengthening being an option), but Quality of Service (which HFR attempts to improve) was the main problem.


So anyway, back to train lengthening. I'm using a number of very rough approximations for pricing to try to convey the concept, so assume 50% error bars. "Reasonable price" for a car is ultimately determined by what the customer will pay. When the primary customer is a federal politician seeking re-election, that price is quite low and everything you said applies to that situation; which is the real situation.

However, lets assume very strong demand exists for additional capacity on the corridor as the original poster said VIA was capacity constrained. Demand is strong enough that there is upward pressure on ticket pricing in an effort to keep customers away (it's an awesome problem to have). VIA would have the option to tender additional cars, including vendor financing, for something resembling an aircraft lease at say $800k per year per car increasing with inflation for a 30 year period, or roughly $8M per car in net present value.

If revenues from a fleet expansion were expected to be $2.4M per car per year (roughly $50 per seat per trip, 100% capacity) then paying $800k per car per year is suddenly quite affordable. If aircraft leases are an indication, VIA would have been able to structure it as a revenue sharing agreement; reducing payments in lean years and increasing them in flush years.

I'm fairly confident VIA could have placed a 40 car (1 to 2 car expansion per train) order with a value of $320M. I think vendors would have been falling over themselves for that tender despite custom design requirements. That's double the value of a UPX car, for a larger order, but without the motors, controls, etc. However, if they still didn't want it, find out what the line of waiting customers aggressively throwing cash at VIA ticket agents for a seat will pay, and offer vendors 2/3rds of that value for a design + build + finance tender.

I'm generally not in favour of P3s involving financing but Martin, Harper, Collenette, Baird, and Raitt were/are. Possibly others too, those I know for certain.


Reality is VIA runs empty seats with tickets at obtainable prices, so customer driven train length expansion was not a real-world option. They're not capacity constrained; quality of service compared to other transportation options restricts demand for VIA corridor seats.

[ghYHZ]

Originally Posted by milomilo

IMO, that Turbotrain is a ghastly abomination compared to proper, electrified high speed rail. It looks like a ship, and probably weighs the same.

That is certainly a matter of opinion!

The Turbo launched the VIA era in April 1976 when it was just the passenger marketing department of CN……. and a couple of years before VIA Rail Canada Inc was formed.

[Aylmer]

One idea I've had is that VIA could carve out a very useful niche for itself in economy overnight travel in the 1000km/8-12h range. Instead of the land-cruise-type service which appeals mostly to tourists, a low-cost, no-frills sleeper would be very competitive with the bus and driving.

For example, I had to get from Ottawa to Halifax last week for some meetings;

- Fly: $600 round. Fastest, but takes half a day per way when you factor in getting to the airport and security. 2pm - 7:30pm.
- Car rental: $300-400 round. Fast, but takes up a full day per way. 9am - 9pm.
- Bus: $250 round. Overnight, but in very cramped seats. 9pm - 6pm.
- Current VIA economy: $300 round. Overnight, but in a seat. 7pm - 6pm.
- Current VIA sleeper: $700-1000 round. Overnight with an individual cabin and dining. 7pm - 6pm.

- "Economy sleeper": $300 round. Overnight with a bed in a shared cabin. 6pm - 12pm.

Currently, the train is basically a slightly more comfortable version of the bus. But unlike the bus, the train allows you to put beds in. The problem is that currently, VIA only offers two extremes of service; either nothing or total luxury. The no-bed option isn't viable for anyone older than 30 (and under that, it's only tolerable), and the bed+luxury is so expensive that you may as well fly unless you're on vacation.

An economy sleeper could be the perfect middle, offering a product which is both comfortable and affordable. With improvements to speed (perhaps by cutting through Maine and/or improving tracks to allow for higher speeds), a 6pm-12pm train would also be competitive in terms of how many daylight hours it takes (only 6-8h compared to 12h for driving and 5-6h for flying).

Europe has a number of these, such as Thello's Paris-Venice trains which offer these 6-person couchettes for $150-200 round trip for the same distance as Montreal-Halifax.




I think that a service like this could make rail competitive in the 1000-km range. Routes like Halifax-Montreal, Montreal-NYC, Toronto-NYC, Toronto-Chicago. Perhaps some of the regional routes like Montreal-Jonquière, and Montreal-Abitibi. It could even offer a completely new product in the sub-800 range, like an slowed-down overnight between Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto, allowing people to spend a full day and evening in one city before overnighting back.

It may be a bit ambitious, but in any case, I think that VIA should better leverage the inherent advantages of its mode to offer products that others can't.

[lrt's friend]

It makes no sense to cancel an existing service that generates significant ridership and a has a known market and replace it with a new service, with little or no proven ridership.

The Turbo trains had many technical problems that affected their reliability. This is why they were taken out of service long before the normal service life of passenger trains.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by milomilo

IMO, that Turbotrain is a ghastly abomination compared to proper, electrified high speed rail. It looks like a ship, and probably weighs the same.

Definitely an opinion, and one that I don't share.

I think, for the era, that it looked very sleek and modern. ghYHZ was very fortunate to have had a chance to ride on it.

FWIW, I've ridden the Shinkansen in Japan and it was an amazing ride, needless to say. Some of them have a very unique appearance, and that's not to say attractive (again, opinion), but regardless they are cool for what they are. The sensation of going into a tunnel through a mountain and out again at high speed is not like anything else I've experienced before or since...