VIA Rail

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The original point is that forumer hw621 was disappointed that VIA doesn't have speeds as high as other parts of the world stating, "Diesel locomotive hauled trains travelling at less than 200kph. I won't consider this catching up."

So that's the context of the HSR discussion.

And while I'm not personally disappointed, he's right that we don't and probably won't have 200km/h+ speeds any time soon which is something many if not most developed countries have on some part of their rail networks. So no need to cross anything off the list or dissect HSR definitions.

Okay, let’s revisit that original comment: I would argue that it’s the first time since the procurement of the LRC trains in the 1980s that Canada mimics Europe’s bread-and-butter conventional/Higher-speed rail services (the Siemens cars are almost literally the same cars as ÖBB uses for its highly successful Railjet service) rather than wasting precious years by obsessively daydreaming about HSR, which is only the icing on the cake of intercity passenger rail services in Europe.

Therefore, it is the first time in decades that Canada (at last!) decides to catch up (i.e narrow the gap to Europe or trying to prevent it from widening that fast) - and those who refuse to acknowledge this milestone of progress are exactly the reason of why we haven’t seen any tangible progress in the last 40 years: Because with friends who rather preserve the Status Quo than accepting that every journey starts with a small step (which is then followed by ever-larger and faster steps), the cause of eventually establishing a fast, performant and convenient passenger rail network in this country doesn’t need enemies…

In short, the new fleet narrows the gap to state-of-the-art conventional intercity rail services considerably and (in conjunction with HFR looming at the horizon) opens the door for Higher-speed rail operations. Both steps are a clear break with four decades of HSR Study paralysis and therefore the first serious attempt in catching up with Europe - with some leggards like Portugal, Greece and Poland being much closer to us than many people here realize…

[Truenorth00]

I cant wait for the post-HFR comments where people will still be bitching that we're not like Europe after having spent $10-12B. Usually from folks who would never support the taxes necessary to deliver that level of service.

I, for one, am super-excited to use the new trains. Having experienced Railjet, I know this experience will be solid.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I cant wait for the post-HFR comments where people will still be bitching that we're not like Europe after having spent $10-12B. Usually from folks who would never support the taxes necessary to deliver that level of service.

I, for one, am super-excited to use the new trains. Having experienced Railjet, I know this experience will be solid.

I'm really loving your recent character arc! I remember after the last HFR announcement it was me having to give you the old pep talk when you were having a case of the Debbie Dowers and now it's you actually playing that role for someone else.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm really loving your recent character arc! I remember after the last HFR announcement it was me having to give you the old pep talk when you were having a case of the Debbie Dowers and now it's you actually playing that role for someone else.

I was previously complaining about the lack of movement on the project. Not the project itself. Since then there's been enough leaks and official announcements to show that there's actual work going on somewhere in a basement at the CIB or TC.

I am still pissed at this government and the last one that after HFR being a concept for a decade, they haven't gotten a shovel in the ground. But I am willing forgive them if they actually deliver.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ Oh I think I misunderstood then. I was just thinking of stuff like this from July when the focus seemed more on the project itself in terms of wishing for more speed, criticism of the choice to electrify and lamenting how poorly our speeds compare to past eras. But I'm really glad to hear the intense positivity!

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's a pretty mediocre proposal. But better than nothing. Sad to see they decided to prioritize electrification over speed.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I guess what I am disappointed by was the prioritization of electrification over speed. From all those past promo graphics, electrification was about $2B. That $2B would have brought quite a bit of improvement in speed. Could have made Ottawa-Montreal commutable. Would have helped make Montreal-Quebec City truly competitive with air. They could have used it to build a new tunnel in Montreal negating the long detour around the mountain. Now they might not even be able to use their options for Siemens rolling stock to leverage off the great deal they already got.

Is $2B to cut emissions really worthwhile when the train is already so much more efficient than driving or flying? Wouldn't it have been worthwhile using that money to speed the thing up where possible so that they can pull more air passengers on certain sectors?

What's promised is barely getting us back to schedule speeds from the 80s. Better than nothing. I agree. But it still has me sad as a Canadian that we are going to spend billions so that by 2027, we'll be back to the services we had in the 70s or 80s. And what has me even more frustrated is knowing that I have no other political options, because the Liberals are the only ones who might actually deliver something.

From my perspective, I don't have an issue of simply acknowledging the facts of the situation which include how we're extremely behind many other places in terms of passenger rail infrastructure but also that the project will be a significant improvement compared to what exists. It's up to each individual to choose which facts deserve the most focus and what meaning should be attributed to them.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

^ Oh I think I misunderstood then. I was just thinking of stuff like this from July when the focus seemed more on the project itself in terms of wishing for more speed, criticism of the choice to electrify and lamenting how poorly our speeds compare to past eras. But I'm really glad to hear the intense positivity!





From my perspective, I don't have an issue of simply acknowledging the facts of the situation which include how we're extremely behind many other places in terms of passenger rail infrastructure but also that the project will be a significant improvement compared to what exists. It's up to each individual to choose which facts deserve the most focus and what meaning should be attributed to them.

He has flip flopped on a few things on other forums too.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

^ Oh I think I misunderstood then. I was just thinking of stuff like this from July when the focus seemed more on the project itself in terms of wishing for more speed, criticism of the choice to electrify and lamenting how poorly our speeds compare to past eras. But I'm really glad to hear the intense positivity!





From my perspective, I don't have an issue of simply acknowledging the facts of the situation which include how we're extremely behind many other places in terms of passenger rail infrastructure but also that the project will be a significant improvement compared to what exists. It's up to each individual to choose which facts deserve the most focus and what meaning should be attributed to them.

Not sure of what gotchya you think you have but I stand by those. Electrification over corridor development is a poor choice when the plan is only for 1-2 train per hour. I've been pretty consistent on that. That means they can't just redeploy the new Siemens trains to HFR. They'll have to order a whole new set of trains, adding time and cost to the project. And the fuel savings on so few trains makes it unlikely to recover the capital spent on electrification in any reasonable amount of time. Unless they have a plan to run substantially more trains than that, this amounts to virtue signalling. That same capital could have been deployed on an extension or upgrading another corridor, or making this one even better.

That said, since then, we've at least learned that it's not going to be a 5 hr ride from Toronto to Montreal or even a 4 hr ride from Toronto to Ottawa, as was previously reported. So yes, I think at least some of my past concerns about the lack of speed have been addressed. Though, I've never once said that speed should be the overriding concern. So no idea why you translate my past criticism to concerns over speed. I am concerned over trip times which I see as a function of the infrastructure built. Top speed is far less relevant to me than average operating speed.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Not sure of what gotchya you think you have but I stand by those. Electrification over corridor development is a poor choice when the plan is only for 1-2 train per hour. I've been pretty consistent on that. That means they can't just redeploy the new Siemens trains to HFR. They'll have to order a whole new set of trains, adding time and cost to the project. And the fuel savings on so few trains makes it unlikely to recover the capital spent on electrification in any reasonable amount of time. Unless they have a plan to run substantially more trains than that, this amounts to virtue signalling. That same capital could have been deployed on an extension or upgrading another corridor, or making this one even better.

I would go even further and say that OLE electrification would be self-defeating before we have HSR, as whatever segments receive OLE will never get bypassed or realigned because of the bad optics (and Economics) of removing now-redundant OLE. Therefore, every meter of OLE casts the alignment underneath in stone...

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

I would go even further and say that OLE electrification would be self-defeating before we have HSR, as whatever segments receive OLE will never get bypassed or realigned because of the bad optics (and Economics) of removing now-redundant OLE. Therefore, every meter of OLE casts the alignment underneath in stone...

Exactly. They spend $2B (or more) on electrification, and we can kiss any dreams of HSR away, in this lifetime. My real hope with HFR was that it would provide a good demonstration of what rail is capable of, creating a virtuous cycle of investment. Instead, we might get lock in for another half century with electrification.

That $2B is a ton of money too. I would actually prefer they spend that, on say fixing up ONR and improving service to Northern Ontario, or starting up Calgary-Edmonton, or Moncton-Halifax. So many better ideas for that money, with so much more ridership and revenue potential.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Not sure of what gotchya you think you have but I stand by those. Electrification over corridor development is a poor choice when the plan is only for 1-2 train per hour. I've been pretty consistent on that. That means they can't just redeploy the new Siemens trains to HFR. They'll have to order a whole new set of trains, adding time and cost to the project. And the fuel savings on so few trains makes it unlikely to recover the capital spent on electrification in any reasonable amount of time. Unless they have a plan to run substantially more trains than that, this amounts to virtue signalling. That same capital could have been deployed on an extension or upgrading another corridor, or making this one even better.

That said, since then, we've at least learned that it's not going to be a 5 hr ride from Toronto to Montreal or even a 4 hr ride from Toronto to Ottawa, as was previously reported. So yes, I think at least some of my past concerns about the lack of speed have been addressed. Though, I've never once said that speed should be the overriding concern. So no idea why you translate my past criticism to concerns over speed. I am concerned over trip times which I see as a function of the infrastructure built. Top speed is far less relevant to me than average operating speed.

And I stand by how they come across. But not because there's anything wrong with them. My intention was simply to remind people not to be too harsh with one another over their perceived negativity. The situation with Canada's rail infrastructure is frustrating to most of us and we express those frustrations in different ways at different times. It's easy to think of our own frustrations and criticisms as being perfectly reasonable while thinking other people are being overly negative, naive, idealistic, etc. but there are often times when we can come across the same when we don't even realize.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

And I stand by how they come across. But not because there's anything wrong with them. My intention was simply to remind people not to be too harsh with one another over their perceived negativity. The situation with Canada's rail infrastructure is frustrating to most of us and we express those frustrations in different ways at different times. It's easy to think of our own frustrations and criticisms as being perfectly reasonable while thinking other people are being overly negative, naive, idealistic, etc. but there are often times when we can come across the same when we don't even realize.

Fair enough. I resent the characterization that is a "flip flop" (pounced on by the resident troll in this thread).

As somebody who does actually use VIA though, I get a little frustrated by the routine chirps from those for whom no improvement will ever be good enough. We've just spent a billion dollar getting a brand new fleet which is an absolutely massive improvement over the old fleet and people are criticizing this great news with arguments about something VIA has absolutely no control over?

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

As somebody who does actually use VIA though, I get a little frustrated by the routine chirps from those for whom no improvement will ever be good enough. We've just spent a billion dollar getting a brand new fleet which is an absolutely massive improvement over the old fleet and people are criticizing this great news with arguments about something VIA has absolutely no control over?

That’s why I said that with “friends” like the kind which you describe, people longing for better passenger rail services don’t need enemies…

[sseguin]

Good afternoon. Rail Fans Canada has posted a few videos showcasing the exciting new Siemens SC-42 & Venture trainsets that are joining VIA Rail's fleet.

• Video Link
In this conversation with rail enthusiast David Bellerive, we discuss these exciting new trainsets, what they offer, all the great improvements they bring, and why we can't wait to ride them for real in the coming years!

• Video Link

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by sseguin

Good afternoon. Rail Fans Canada has posted a few videos showcasing the exciting new Siemens SC-42 & Venture trainsets that are joining VIA Rail's fleet.

• Video Link
In this conversation with rail enthusiast David Bellerive, we discuss these exciting new trainsets, what they offer, all the great improvements they bring, and why we can't wait to ride them for real in the coming years!

• Video Link

I am looking forward to the future announcement for the replacement of the long distance routes. They should last long enough for this contract to be filled, and a new contract signed.

[sseguin]

• Video Link

The State of Passenger Rail in Canada with Terry Johnson, Transport Action Canada - December 2021

VIA Rail Canada is the operator of passenger rail in Canada. Many changes and improvements are in store for VIA Rail over the coming years. These include a new fleet for the busy Corridor service (servicing from Windsor to Quebec City), as well as High-Frequency Rail (HFR), which together are poised to create new opportunities and options for travellers and passengers.

In this discussion with Terry Johnson, President of Transport Action Canada, we discuss the new fleet, high-frequency rail, the struggles and challenges that passenger rail in Canada faces, why passenger rail in Europe is so successful and popular, and the possibilities and hopes for the future for the rest of Canada.
​

[casper]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Exactly. They spend $2B (or more) on electrification, and we can kiss any dreams of HSR away, in this lifetime. My real hope with HFR was that it would provide a good demonstration of what rail is capable of, creating a virtuous cycle of investment. Instead, we might get lock in for another half century with electrification.

That $2B is a ton of money too. I would actually prefer they spend that, on say fixing up ONR and improving service to Northern Ontario, or starting up Calgary-Edmonton, or Moncton-Halifax. So many better ideas for that money, with so much more ridership and revenue potential.

New cars are a great first step.

I would agree. I think what is needed in a pragmatic approach that focused on incremental improvements across the country.

Electrification needs to come first to high frequency regional or commuter rail. Then the longer distance intercity train are extending it.

Montreal and Toronto are electrifying their commuter rail. Vancouver in time will electrify the Vancouver-Seattle train.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by casper

New cars are a great first step.

I would agree. I think what is needed in a pragmatic approach that focused on incremental improvements across the country.

This is what is sorely missing and misunderstood in North America. The Europeans and Japanese didn't build huge HSR and national rail networks in some 10 yr plan. It's the accumulation of steady improvements, extensions and upgrades along the way.

We don't invest anything for 20-30 years, then scream at governments to build HSR. Those governments go out and get insane quotes for HSR, because nobody in our rail industry has experience building much rail for the last 20-30 years, let alone HSR. So the plans get shelved and then we go another 20-30 years building little to nothing. Rinse and repeat.

The electrification piece of HFR and the Ottawa bypass that is being proposed is exactly an example of the above overreach/scope creep that could imperil the whole project. When HFR was first proposed, it was supposed to be based on four virtues:

1) Cheap to build using existing corridors;
2) Quick to build. It was supposed to be 4-5 years from approval to service;
3) Cheap to operate. Combining the Ottawa and Montreal trains means larger trains, with a lower crew ratio and high asset utilization, as the same trains do more runs; and,
4) Reduced reliance on freight rail corridors.

Now, they're going to be spend billions on electrification, which adds construction time (Last I saw, EIS around 2030....) and cost (now up to $12B). And they are going to add a bypass which breaks the single corridor/single schedule concept, increasing capital and operating costs, reducing frequencies to both cities and increasing reliance on freight rail corridors again (for the bypass at least).

Originally Posted by casper

Electrification needs to come first to high frequency regional or commuter rail. Then the longer distance intercity train are extending it.

Montreal and Toronto are electrifying their commuter rail. Vancouver in time will electrify the Vancouver-Seattle train.

If the HFR RFP is released soon, they'll be planning on electrification before knowing what the winning bidder for Metrolinx proposes. That'll be entertaining....

Electrification needs to happen. But it should have been saved for a later phase. The focus should have been to get HFR up and running as quickly as possible, using the incoming Siemens fleet. After it was built and they had a better idea of where Metrolinx and Exo were going, they could plan a way forward on electrification, with a whole new fleet as well.

I hope HFR survives. I would like to ride it. And hopefully, before 2030.....

[swimmer_spe]

Let's look at transit for moment.

Imagine that in order to build a subway or an LRT, the city first must have a BRT. That is how Ottawa did it. The mes it has caused is not worth it. They should have either gone with some sort of LRT/subway in the beginning, or waited till they could.

None of Europe's or Asia's HSR has freight running on it. Those lines have been purpose built for passenger service. So, no, we are not following in their footsteps.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is what is sorely missing and misunderstood in North America. The Europeans and Japanese didn't build huge HSR and national rail networks in some 10 yr plan. It's the accumulation of steady improvements, extensions and upgrades along the way.

We don't invest anything for 20-30 years, then scream at governments to build HSR. Those governments go out and get insane quotes for HSR, because nobody in our rail industry has experience building much rail for the last 20-30 years, let alone HSR. So the plans get shelved and then we go another 20-30 years building little to nothing. Rinse and repeat.

Completely true.

We do the same thing with other infrastructure, at least for some of that which is built and owned by the public sector. Road/highway improvements and expansions are probably the best (only?) examples of things we tend to do using an "incremental" approach, and even then there are plenty of big-ticket plans. We're finally seeing sustained investment in transit in many places in the country, but large expensive projects and purchases still dominate.

Why? Is it the way our country grew? The way our society evolved? Is it our politics? How do we change this mindset?

[Nouvellecosse]

I think the inertia of these projects has a kind of static vs sliding friction dynamic. It can take a lot of force to get things going and once it starts moving it's tempting to make as much progress as possible knowing that if it ever stalls it would be very difficult to re-start. Like with the Montreal Metro, there were plans for a subway network since around the start of the 20th century, but it too some 50 years and a major international event like Expo to actually get it going. Once it got going it progressed steadily with new lines and extensions for a couple decades quadrupling its size, then basically stalled. There was one extension into Laval that represented a less than 10% increase, then nothing for around 15 years.

So the temptation for scope creep is understandable knowing that if it looks like something is going to happen, you want to get as much done as possible knowing it could stall at any moment with nothing happening again for a long time. Yes there's a risk that if you expand the scope too much it can actually stop the project because political will is eroded by the sticker shock, but it's just a matter of finding the right balance. You want to include as much with every burst of progress as possible without going so far as to overwhelm it. But alas, that's just politics. If and when mass transportation gets the widespread buy in that roads enjoy, the political aspect of such projects will change.