Via rail

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by ghYHZ

Say what you will about the Rens….but for the comfort and smooth riding qualities….. I’ll take a Ren anyday over that old Budd stuff. Solid partitions and doors that don’t vibrate and rattle compared to the paper thin walls and partitions of the Budds.

Also the Rens have an annex with toilet (including a private shower in some rooms) The Double Bedrooms on the Budds do have a toilet annex but the shower is down the hall…...and if you’re in a Single Bedroom….that toilet is in the same room with you (surrounded by all that carpet!!)

Just a much more enjoyable trip on the Rens….and I’ve been riding trains between Montreal and Halifax for 40+ years.

Thanks for the info. I was commenting on room and comfort for day trips, but admittedly I've never done an overnighter. The Rens felt a little more like buses to me for day trips, but amenities for overnight stays would definitely tip the scales in their favour IMHO.

Now for external appearance the old Budds have it all over the Rens...

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Is it just me or does anyone else cringe when they see a large stainless steel Park Car on the end of a Renaissance train (with smaller, European cars)? Not only do the colour schemes not match, but they are also different sizes. In fact they need to add a transition car to allow them to be coupled together (notice the second last car has most of the windows filed in). Don't get me wrong, I love the Park Cars, and I am sure they are a great addition for the passengers, but pictures of the train look off IMHO.

Yea it looks a bit odd, but I don't think that's a "transition" car that has fewer windows, but rather a utility and cargo car which is needed since the trains have such long journey durations.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Thanks for the info. I was commenting on room and comfort for day trips, but admittedly I've never done an overnighter. The Rens felt a little more like buses to me for day trips, but amenities for overnight stays would definitely tip the scales in their favour IMHO.

Now for external appearance the old Budds have it all over the Rens...

For day trips, I think the newly renovated LRCs are much nicer than the Rens, but the Rens are slightly nicer than the HEP cars (at least the HEP II cars used for corridor use), but the latter two are close. There are no sleeper LRCs, so for overnight travel, the only comparison is Ren vers HEP (aka Bud) and I can certainly see why the Rens would win out (I haven't slept on a Ren though).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yea it looks a bit odd, but I don't think that's a "transition" car that has fewer windows, but rather a utility and cargo car which is needed since the trains have such long journey durations.

It is Renaissance Baggage Transition Car, which according to VIA's website:

• These cars were specially created for VIA Rail. They were designed to let passengers aboard the Ocean access their bedrooms in the Park car, at the rear of the train.
• This transition car is equipped with a standard coupler at one end that allows the addition of a Park car, as well as a second coupler at the other end to add Renaissance cars to the rest of the consist.

The front of the train has a Renaissance Baggage Car, which has the same coupler arrangement, but lacks the passageway, since there is no need for passengers to access the locomotive.

If all they needed was extra baggage capacity, they would have put two baggage cars at the front of the train to make it easier to gain access to the Park Car.

[esquire]

Do they literally store baggage in this transitional car? It would be weird if it was just kept out in the open where people could get into it.

https://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/fil...car/index.html

The whole thing seems awkward, it speaks to what a lousy fit the Renaissance fleet is generally.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by someone123

Maybe the second track will be restored if commuter rail happens.

I heard a rumour the track removal happened because CN is taxed according to how much track it owns. Sounds plausible since they physically tore the track up instead of letting it slowly deteriorate.

The main reason was to rip up track that Hunter Harrison could send the rail to other locations, primarily the US, to provide newer rail to renew US trackage. His focus on the Operating Ratio while ignoring the long term capacity problems of booming freight volumes resulted in the meltdown in 2017. The result is that CN has had to catch up for the last 2 years and there will be more to come.

[ghYHZ]

No baggage is carried in the Renaissance Transition Car. There's displays for the Provinces the Ocean passes through along with storage lockers and freezers for the dining car meals.

[Nouvellecosse]

Oh so that makes sense. There are different passenger coupler designs to connect the corridors since they're different styles of rolling stock made by different manufacturers. The post I replied to seemed to suggest that it was because they were different sizes which of caused me to look askance since the transition car is the same size as the rest of the renaissance stock.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Now for external appearance the old Budds have it all over the Rens...

Funny, to me those budd cars look like old clunkers while the British Rail Mk4s look timelessly classic... with the correct locomotive on the end of course. That VIA rail train is indeed an embarrassment.

[milomilo]

Not VIA, but a feasibilty report on passenger rail to Banff was just released, and to the surprise of no-one, passenger rail to Banff is feasible:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...nsit-1.5035726

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Not VIA, but a feasibilty report on passenger rail to Banff was just released, and to the surprise of no-one, passenger rail to Banff is feasible:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...nsit-1.5035726

We can send people to the moon and robots to Mars, so how could restoring passenger rail between Calgary and Banff be possibly not “feasible”? The question is whether the business case is conpelling enough to attract the required investment from the respective levels of governments concerned (i.e. the guardians of the taxpayer money) and the following two paragraphs from your article make me not very optimistic:

“Bus service capital costs are estimated to range from $8.1 million to $19.6 million, with yearly operating costs of about $2 million before fares are considered.

Rail is obviously more cost intensive, with capital costs between $660 million and $680 million and operating costs of $8.1 million to $9.1 million per year that would have to be subsidized.”

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Funny, to me those budd cars look like old clunkers while the British Rail Mk4s look timelessly classic... with the correct locomotive on the end of course. That VIA rail train is indeed an embarrassment.

Clearly it's a matter of personal preference. To my eye, the stainless steel Budds with the horizontal ribbing and rounded corners are classic. The ribbing suggests motion and the rounded corners suggest a streamlining motif. Both features look very sleek and clean in stainless steel.

The Ocean in 100% Budd mode

To my tastes, the MK4s that you posted look slab-sided and top heavy, like they are teetering over their wheels.

Again, just personal tastes in styling, but at least we both agree that the Rens external appearance is atrocious.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

We can send people to the moon and robots to Mars, so how could restoring passenger rail between Calgary and Banff be possibly not “feasible”? The question is whether the business case is conpelling enough to attract the required investment from the respective levels of governments concerned (i.e. the guardians of the taxpayer money) and the following two paragraphs from your article make me not very optimistic:

“Bus service capital costs are estimated to range from $8.1 million to $19.6 million, with yearly operating costs of about $2 million before fares are considered.

Rail is obviously more cost intensive, with capital costs between $660 million and $680 million and operating costs of $8.1 million to $9.1 million per year that would have to be subsidized.”

I totally agree, the report wasn't exactly a slam dunk for building rail out to the mountains. If the powers that be are given the choice between a low risk, much cheaper option with decent benefit, or an option 10 times the price with about 20% more benefit that's far more difficult with more risk, it's not hard to predict what decision they will make. Especially as our likely next leader Jason Kenney has about as much inspiration as a pack of toilet paper.

I also (in my completely uneducated view) think they have underestimated the cost to build rail out to the mountains, there is pretty tough terrain out there, they are going to have to do a lot of earthworks and it would not surprise me if they have to completely rebuild sections as the circa 1880 original alignment was pretty much just guys eyeballing the route and chucking down whatever local dirt and gravel they could find. While there is a section on regulations and dealing with CP, they again glossed over this. They pretty much said, 'if CP don't like this it will be virtually impossible', but didn't seem to think this was a big deal, despite CP having no interest and no incentive to help.

However, I do also think they downplayed the benefits of rail and how popular it could be, especially compared to a bus. I know there are many people, myself included, that would never bother to take a bus to the mountains (we would just drive), but would consider taking a train. And what of international tourists - visitors from Europe would just expect there to be a train, what kind of rinky dink city doesn't have any passenger rail? If we could actually run the line up to the airport, then YYC - Downtown Calgary -Banff rail becomes a pretty attractive proposition that we can use as a selling point and Calgary would no longer have to worry about extending it's transit to YYC.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Clearly it's a matter of personal preference. To my eye, the stainless steel Budds with the horizontal ribbing and rounded corners are classic. The ribbing suggests motion and the rounded corners suggest a streamlining motif. Both features look very sleek and clean in stainless steel.

The Ocean in 100% Budd mode

To my tastes, the MK4s that you posted look slab-sided and top heavy, like they are teetering over their wheels.

Again, just personal tastes in styling, but at least we both agree that the Rens external appearance is atrocious.

Personal preference for sure, absolutely mix and matching some of the largest locomotives in the world with some of the smallest carriages is never going to look good. The British had no choice but to put sleepers in cars that small, but it's amazing that anyone else would have chosen to buy such inappropriately sized body shells for sleeper units when there was access to a large loading gauge. As others have said, it really speaks to the Canadian attitude to procurement. We're not a third world country, if there is a need for equipment, then we can afford to buy brand new trains, fighter jets and submarines.

It's interesting that the picture I linked represents as good as it gets domestically in the UK, 125mph electrified, and the UK is seen as massively behind Europe and Asia with its rail network. But that Intercity 225 service is still an order of magnitude better than anything we have in Canada and that will remain the case for years at the minimum. It's depressing - Canada isn't even decades behind, we're half a century behind and the gap is getting bigger. For us to even begin to catch up we are going to have start building faster than the rest of the world.

Sigh.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

It’s Canadian government procurement mentality in general - <cough> Australian fighter jets <cough>. Hey, they got wings and they can fly right? We might be able to get 10-15 years out of them.............

I thought some of them couldn't even fly?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Funny, to me those budd cars look like old clunkers while the British Rail Mk4s look timelessly classic... with the correct locomotive on the end of course. That VIA rail train is indeed an embarrassment.

A couple thoughts:

The Renaissance Cars are like a bastard cousin to that train. Even if VIA were to purchase matching British locomotives, it would be like trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

While that train is nice, it is no match for the beauty of "The Canadian" in it's heyday.



And similarly with the right locomotive:


Granted the cars are getting tired and have lost some of that magic.

[Ottawaresident]

Well VIA Rail is politically skewed ... The Atlantic or Ocean (I can't remember) served Sherbrooke and St.John and that was cut after 1993. No so co incidentially, those were the places where PCs were elected. The Super Continental? was cut probably because Calgary was and is a right wing stronghold. But it is almost certainly feasable to build a train from Vancouver to Banff and Calgary and to Regina.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Ottawaresident

Well VIA Rail is politically skewed ... The Atlantic or Ocean (I can't remember) served Sherbrooke and St.John and that was cut after 1993. No so co incidentially, those were the places where PCs were elected.

The Atlantic (the train to St.John) took a shortcut through Maine and was thus served fewer Canadian cities. Given the choice, it made more sense to have the train take an all Canadian route.

The Super Continental? was cut probably because Calgary was and is a right wing stronghold. But it is almost certainly feasable to build a train from Vancouver to Banff and Calgary and to Regina.

As Urban_Sky has said in the past, west of Winnipeg, the Super Continental route was picked so as to not isolate the train to Prince Rupert. Had the southern route been chosen, they would have had to to extend the route to Edmonton (and possibly on the Calgary) at considerable cost. Considering the objective was to save as much money as possible, the southern route would have worked against that objective.

The fact that these routes preserved were in stronger Conservative ridings, made it easier for the Tories to make the cuts. Had it been the other way around, the cuts may have been even deeper. Overall, the Liberals are stronger supporters of VIA Rail, so it makes little sense for VIA to pander to the Tories in the long run.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by roger1818

As Urban_Sky has said in the past, west of Winnipeg, the Super Continental route was picked so as to not isolate the train to Prince Rupert. Had the southern route been chosen, they would have had to to extend the route to Edmonton (and possibly on the Calgary) at considerable cost. Considering the objective was to save as much money as possible, the southern route would have worked against that objective.

There are also many isolated communities on the Winnipeg-Capreol segment of the route, those would have presumably had to have been covered somehow if The Canadian had used CP tracks instead.

Although I suppose it wouldn't have been much different than the current arrangement where the communities on the CP line from Sudbury-White River are serviced by RDCs... they could have operated a RDC on a two day run, stopping overnight halfway, say in Sioux Lookout? Armstrong? Hornepayne? and then carrying on the next day.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by roger1818

A couple thoughts:

The Renaissance Cars are like a bastard cousin to that train. Even if VIA were to purchase matching British locomotives, it would be like trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

While that train is nice, it is no match for the beauty of "The Canadian" in it's heyday.

[IMG]http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrain...eek_bridge.JPG[IMG]

And similarly with the right locomotive:
[IMG]http://www.artcountrycanada.com/imag...20Curve-lg.jpg[IMG]

Granted the cars are getting tired and have lost some of that magic.

The context makes a big difference. The train there looks beautiful and just looks 'right' in the mountains, whereas it would look ridiculous underneath catenary in European countryside. It probably wouldn't even fit under the wires!

Apologies as this is off topic, although I personally don't mind if it means cool pictures of trains get put up.