VIA Rail

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

that is part of the problem. Just because there is no attempt to distribute population it doesn't make it right that we should destroy the moraines around the GTA with urban sprawl.

I agree in part with you, but why leave out North Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay? Why not move the so called head office of the Ministry of Natural Resources from Peterborough to one of these cities? What do people in the south know about the north other than it is a great place to fish, hunt and cottage?

I've been pretty vocal about opposing sprawl on this forum. But I also recognize that the majority of society and certainly government policy does not line up with my opinion. And given the massive investment coming for the GO network, the obvious and likely places to see population growth are all the places within the GO service shed. And close behind that, will be corridors that VIA invests in. For example, I expect hourly HFR service to Peterborough will massively change the growth profile of that city. This is logical. Governments don't spend tens of billions on infrastructure and then work to get crap return by pushing growth elsewhere.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

If you had looked at some previous schedules you would see that I am talking about at least 6/week service each way, not weekly. It was your claim that all the trains were full and the ridership was free.

I misunderstood your point. In any event, Ontario Northland's own business case (which I linked to) says ~300 riders per day in their absolute best case scenario and a rather poor return, even with some insanely generous assumptions to calculate their business case. You can get mad at me all you want. Ain't gonna change that their numbers say this is a poor financial decision.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

The Trans Mountain is not uneconomical, it is economical to the oil industry and Alberta even though it is not environmentally friendly.

TMX was based on a much lower cost and a much stronger outlook for oil. Since then, costs doubled and the energy transition is moving much faster thab most anticipated, with particular risks for the type of oil TMX will carry. This means there's an increasing likelihood that the project will not be profitable. That's not me (random dude on the internet) saying that. That is the Parliamentary Budget Officer saying that. So, like I said, we spent that money to keep Albertans and Saskatchewanians in denial about the energy transition happy. Price of national unity. No reason we can't make equally poor financial decisions to placate Northern Ontario. At least it will just be Ontario taxpayers paying for it and not all Canadians.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

that is part of the problem. Just because there is no attempt to distribute population it doesn't make it right that we should destroy the moraines around the GTA with urban sprawl.

Some of these arguments just come across as very strange to me. I mean, subsidizing a rail line in Northern Ontario as a way to prevent sprawl in the GTA?

There's a green belt around the GTA meant to prevent the further proliferation of sprawl. But let's get real here. Compared to many cities and metro areas around the world, the GTA can become much denser than it currently is meaning it can hold far more people within the same urban/suburban footprint. And policies intended to control sprawl and promote density are going to be a much bigger factor than anything that happens in small towns and cities up north.

If every town and city in Northern Ontario doubled its growth rate (or in many cases halved their rate of decline) that still would only account for a small percentage of the GTA's growth. Greater Sudbury which accounts for about 21% of Northern Ontario's population only grew by 0.8% between 2011 and 2016 while most of the other cities shrank. If you were to double Sudbury's growth rate and apply it to the region as a whole, that would make for approximately 6300 people diverted from the GTA over a 5 year period. Meanwhile, the Toronto CMA gained about 600k.

Besides, if you think it's challenging to get people in the GTA to live more densely, you think it'll be easier to get them to move to Sudbury? None of this makes any sense.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Some of these arguments just come across as very strange to me. I mean, subsidizing a rail line in Northern Ontario as a way to prevent sprawl in the GTA?

There's a green belt around the GTA meant to prevent the further proliferation of sprawl. But let's get real here. Compared to many cities and metro areas around the world, the GTA can become much denser than it currently is meaning it can hold far more people within the same urban/suburban footprint. And policies intended to control sprawl and promote density are going to be a much bigger factor than anything that happens in small towns and cities up north.

If every town and city in Northern Ontario doubled its growth rate (or in many cases halved their rate of decline) that still would only account for a small percentage of the GTA's growth. Greater Sudbury which accounts for about 21% of Northern Ontario's population only grew by 0.8% between 2011 and 2016 while most of the other cities shrank. If you were to double Sudbury's growth rate and apply it to the region as a whole, that would make for approximately 6300 people diverted from the GTA over a 5 year period. Meanwhile, the Toronto CMA gained about 600k.

Besides, if you think it's challenging to get people in the GTA to live more densely, you think it'll be easier to get them to move to Sudbury? None of this makes any sense.

The only thing the Greenbelt did was raise housing prices there, and cause growth to jump over it. Same as what happened in Ottawa.

For the most part, northern ON has cheaper land costs. most places could carry a lot more people if there was the desire to do this. I keep thinking about how growth postwar happened. We didn't have developers selling you cookie cutter houses on postage stamp lots. That is what is needed. But what is also needed is decent, safe transportation that does not require a car. A few days ago, i drive to Toronto and back in a day. About an hour after I got home, an accident closed a highway for 12 hours. The reroute, about 3 hours. That is not safe or decent. Buses are stuck in that mess too, so they aren't a good option. Planes? I have had a flight get canceled and rescheduled several times in the same day due to the weather here. A once a day train is a good alternative.

[Truenorth00]

Once a day train service isn't going to convince anybody to move up to Northern Ontario. It is fine to give people who live there some service. But that's about it.

Northern Ontario is a rare case where it might work out better with shorthaul electric aviation making flying a bit cheaper, and making it somewhat economical to run several 20 seater flights per day to various towns all over the region. North Bay or Sudbury would act really well as a hub in this regard. Just look at what is reachable in the 400 km range of a Heart Aerospace ES-19. I suspect this is the way passenger services are eventually going to move in the region.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The only thing the Greenbelt did was raise housing prices there, and cause growth to jump over it. Same as what happened in Ottawa.

If it raised house prices that means either one or two things: 1) it increased demand for housing within the greenbelt because houses are more desirable there since people don't want to live outside the greenbelt, or 2) it increased prices both inside and outside the greenbelt due to decreased supply. In either case, that means it's doing something.

If prices are only higher inside the belt it means development doesn't want to jump over it and people are willing to pay more not to, and if prices are higher everywhere it means not all houses that would have been built in the greenbelt lands are being built beyond it and as a result fewer homes are being built. Either way, even if it didn't totally eliminate sprawl it's still reducing it. Unless of course you're wrong and it isn't actually affecting prices.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Once a day train service isn't going to convince anybody to move up to Northern Ontario. It is fine to give people who live there some service. But that's about it.

Northern Ontario is a rare case where it might work out better with shorthaul electric aviation making flying a bit cheaper, and making it somewhat economical to run several 20 seater flights per day to various towns all over the region. North Bay or Sudbury would act really well as a hub in this regard. Just look at what is reachable in the 400 km range of a Heart Aerospace ES-19. I suspect this is the way passenger services are eventually going to move in the region.

Pre Covid, Air Canada and Porter were running between these airports along with other airlines. The problem you are not getting i that the weather up here in winter is not good for flying.

You may be right that a train is not going to convince anyone to move. However, it may be the final thing people need to make the move. Lots of people already are moving up here to get a house on something bigger than a postage stamp for $1 million. One thing you seem to be missing is that people here are not asking for a fast or frequent train. We are asking for a daily train. The train is not to compete with flying. It isn't even to compete with driving. It is to compete with bus. It is also to compete with driving, but only if you aren't making a big purchase downs south.

Why should the government spend more money on planes and get back into the air travel business when a passenger train once a day is good enough?

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

If it raised house prices that means either one or two things: 1) it increased demand for housing within the greenbelt because houses are more desirable there since people don't want to live outside the greenbelt, or 2) it increased prices both inside and outside the greenbelt due to decreased supply. In either case, that means it's doing something.

If prices are only higher inside the belt it means development doesn't want to jump over it and people are willing to pay more not to, and if prices are higher everywhere it means not all houses that would have been built in the greenbelt lands are being built beyond it and as a result fewer homes are being built. Either way, even if it didn't totally eliminate sprawl it's still reducing it. Unless of course you're wrong and it isn't actually affecting prices.

It is more of #2. Barrie and Kitchener, bot outside the greenbelt have skyrocketed. So has London. That is why GO going to London made sense. If they could fix that schedule to work for the 9-5ers in downtown Toronto, it too would be successful.

[Urban_Sky]

VIA Rail is pleased to invite all tier 1 original equipment manufacturers of intercity and long-distance rail cars and locomotives to attend the virtual VIA Rail non-corridor fleets renewal market day.
The day will be dedicated to both informing the market about the fleet renewal opportunity and addressing the context of the Government of Canada’s 2022-2023 Budget.

https://www.merx.com/solicitations/o...Day/0000214849

[casper]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

VIA Rail is pleased to invite all tier 1 original equipment manufacturers of intercity and long-distance rail cars and locomotives to attend the virtual VIA Rail non-corridor fleets renewal market day.
The day will be dedicated to both informing the market about the fleet renewal opportunity and addressing the context of the Government of Canada’s 2022-2023 Budget.

https://www.merx.com/solicitations/o...Day/0000214849

I confused on what is the plan here. Via is buying all of these Siemens Charger trainsets. That is great, they look like fantastic trains.

Before even getting these rolled out Via is now looking at buying more trains. Is the plan to replace these new Siemens train sets on the corridor and move these new trains onto other routes. Alternatively, is the procurement process so long that the new Siemens trains will be end of life by the time this new system is up and running.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by casper

I confused on what is the plan here. Via is buying all of these Siemens Charger trainsets. That is great, they look like fantastic trains.

Before even getting these rolled out Via is now looking at buying more trains. Is the plan to replace these new Siemens train sets on the corridor and move these new trains onto other routes. Alternatively, is the procurement process so long that the new Siemens trains will be end of life by the time this new system is up and running.

I am going to assume it is for the rest of Via's fleet. Currently they have the RDCs from the 1950s, the stainless steel Budds for the Canadian from the 1950s, the LRCs from the 1980s, the Renaissance from the 1990s that the Chargers will replace and some other cars from various eras.

If I were to make an assumption, besides the stainless fleet, they want the rest replaced due to age. However, I have heard the rest of it is also nearing end of life service.

[Djeffery]

Maybe I'm confused at the confusion. Aren't the new Siemens Chargers for corridor? The notice U_S posted says non corridor renewal. I'm not as ear to the ground as you guys so I'm probably only reading it too simply.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by casper

I confused on what is the plan here. Via is buying all of these Siemens Charger trainsets. That is great, they look like fantastic trains.

Before even getting these rolled out Via is now looking at buying more trains. Is the plan to replace these new Siemens train sets on the corridor and move these new trains onto other routes. Alternatively, is the procurement process so long that the new Siemens trains will be end of life by the time this new system is up and running.

The Siemens trains you are mentioning are part of the ongoing Corridor Fleet Renewal, whereas this announcement explicitly refers to a „non-corridor fleets renewal“, i.e. the replacement of VIA‘s HEP/F40/RDC fleet it uses on its services outside the Corridor, which have fundamentally different requirements to on-board amenities than its Corridor services. Just as with Amtrak, different service types require different fleet concepts…

[Truenorth00]

Uggh. A rare instance where I'd argue for sole-source to leverage system-wide commonality. Just buy the long-distance version of the Ventures. Those new ÖBB Nightjets look pretty decent. Hopefully, Siemens bids and wins, so that VIA ends up with a substantially common fleet.

• Video Link

[casper]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am going to assume it is for the rest of Via's fleet. Currently they have the RDCs from the 1950s, the stainless steel Budds for the Canadian from the 1950s, the LRCs from the 1980s, the Renaissance from the 1990s that the Chargers will replace and some other cars from various eras.

If I were to make an assumption, besides the stainless fleet, they want the rest replaced due to age. However, I have heard the rest of it is also nearing end of life service.

Getting rid of the stainless steel cars? Those old rail cars are part of the experience.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by casper

Getting rid of the stainless steel cars? Those old rail cars are part of the experience.

Unless the intention is to run a taxpayer-subsidized museum train, at some point VIA will have to replace that fleet. The equipment is over 60 years old. I recall when they were overhauled 30 years ago in the early 90s, VIA said that should allow them to get another 20 years out of the fleet.

Could you imagine boarding an Air Canada flight from Toronto to Vancouver on a Super Constellation? That's basically what VIA is doing with its equipment on that route.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by esquire

Could you imagine boarding an Air Canada flight from Toronto to Vancouver on a Super Constellation? That's basically what VIA is doing with its equipment on that route.

Hey, at least the Super Constellation had white linen service. Now you're lucky if the flight attendant throws a packet of peanuts in your general direction.......

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Hey, at least the Super Constellation had white linen service. Now you're lucky if the flight attendant throws a packet of peanuts in your general direction.......

Would you fly as much if prices were still at white linen service levels?

Incidentally, this is why I love trains and which we poured money into improving rail infrastructure. Comfort can be higher while costs stay the same or can even be cheaper if utilization goes up.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by esquire

Unless the intention is to run a taxpayer-subsidized museum train, at some point VIA will have to replace that fleet. The equipment is over 60 years old. I recall when they were overhauled 30 years ago in the early 90s, VIA said that should allow them to get another 20 years out of the fleet.

Could you imagine boarding an Air Canada flight from Toronto to Vancouver on a Super Constellation? That's basically what VIA is doing with its equipment on that route.

The problem is that some people think that is perfectly fine. It is, if the train is not to be used as part of any real transportation, like excursion trains. However, if the goal is to make the line an effective transportation method, then upgrades need to be done.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Would you fly as much if prices were still at white linen service levels?

Incidentally, this is why I love trains and which we poured money into improving rail infrastructure. Comfort can be higher while costs stay the same or can even be cheaper if utilization goes up.

I agree. Ne cars won't mean the train won't be as nice as before.

[ssiguy]

As I have stated many times, VIA should be sold off to the highest {non-Chinese} bidder and let the chips fall where they may.

VIA will NEVER be a truly viable transportation option for the masses because it is 100% a political apparatus. This is why we don't have trains between our 4th and 5th largest metros despite being 300km apart yet we continue to serve far flung big cities such as Prince Rupert and Churchill. It's why HFR is going to QC before London even though London has higher ridership and draws from other centres especially Windsor yet after QC, VIA ridership falls off a cliff.

VIA is a money pit used for re-elections and little more and until it is turned over to private enterprise and the politics are taken out of it, this will never change.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by esquire

Unless the intention is to run a taxpayer-subsidized museum train, at some point VIA will have to replace that fleet. The equipment is over 60 years old. I recall when they were overhauled 30 years ago in the early 90s, VIA said that should allow them to get another 20 years out of the fleet.

Could you imagine boarding an Air Canada flight from Toronto to Vancouver on a Super Constellation? That's basically what VIA is doing with its equipment on that route.

That begs the question of whether we should even continue with long-distance overnight rail service in Canada out of a sense of nostalgia. Now that the stainless steel fleet for the Canadian is on its last legs, maybe we can just pack it in before we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new fleet.

The person who kills the Canadian will get pilloried, but a land cruise isn't really something the government should be running.

I don't know why anyone would use a sleeping car for anything other than tourism. Good for Austria's OBB that they operate in a place where you can run overnight services between large city pairs. Canada is different: I can't think of a large city pair that's within an overnight (i.e. spending one single night, leaving late after dinner and arriving just before breakfast) service in Canada, except maybe Vancouver-Calgary if you hoof it through the mountains. Maybe Toronto-Chicago or Toronto-NYC, but that's out of VIA's jurisdiction.

[DirectionNorth]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

That begs the question of whether we should even continue with long-distance overnight rail service in Canada out of a sense of nostalgia. Now that the stainless steel fleet for the Canadian is on its last legs, maybe we can just pack it in before we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new fleet.

The person who kills the Canadian will get pilloried, but a land cruise isn't really something the government should be running.

It's a complicated issue.

The Canadian doesn't actually lose that much money - in 2019, it lost $48 million dollars. The amount of economic activity those tourists bring to Vancouver (and Canada in general) is probably very close to that number. If you did a study, my guess is that it would show the long-distance routes being roughly cost-neutral. The fact that VIA Rail *was* on the $10 bill shows that it has an important national identity/publicity aspect too.

If you ask me, the remote services probably have a worse cost-benefit ratio.

However, the trains are getting old, which means a large capital cost for replacing those trains.

Whether the capital cost is worth it is up to the individual, but old dreams die hard. Many of us still dream of actual passenger service in the West. Withdrawing the service represents the total abandonment of western passenger service by the feds. Though I'd bet that a more limited tourist service from Calgary to Vancouver would probably be retained.

Besides, we live in Canada, and the provinces are sure to complain about how VIA Rail is now a Laurentian-Elite service, which makes its total disbandment under a Conservative government too likely. If Calgary bitches about how they don't have service, imagine the laughing stock we'd be (OK, already are) if we added Winnipeg, Edmonton, and Vancouver to that list.

The new trains aren't that expensive, and in the event, could be used on C-E or Halifax - St. John, if really necessary. Besides, political unity is a thing. I very much doubt that they'd use the money slated for this train order for HFR instead. I'd rather focus on viable corridors as well, but we have to keep real life in mind.

I was going somewhere with this ...