VIA Rail

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The people in offices that need to be replaced to get what you want sit in Ottawa, not Montreal.

The people in Montreal and other offices are the ones that put out the proposals that the government vote on. Garbage in, garbage out.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

If you look at the plans for Via's new trains they consist of cars where half the seats face forward and half backwards with a locomotive on one end. This is a push pull operation that was descried in other posts. The car configuration is common in Europe, including the TGV, so to say that no one wants to ride backwards is not true. There is very little difference, from a comfort or safety point of view.

With respect to the locomotives, the Northlander ran for a short time in push/pull configuration. This was subsequently changed due to safety issues with the curvatures, particularly in rock cuts on the line. Clearly positive train control and reduced curvatures would eliminate this on other routes.

This is probably the first time that Via is actually doing something smart.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Well I'm more on the side of scrap the sleeper service, so my opinion is they were worse than nothing.

Originally Posted by J81

All of VIAs LRC and HEP2 equipment are configured like that as well. It is a problem for a surprising number of passengers who dont like facing backwards. I myself would like to see the seats be reversible like the HEP1 coaches.

Like I said, when they are refurbished, they can get changed to some sort of payout that allows the cars to go both way without everyone sitting backwards.

Originally Posted by J81

Where did you get the idea that sleeper cars were deemed pointless in Europe? Ive used a sleeper car in Europe. Theyre very popular for overnight trains. Just not 3HR trips between London and Paris which the Renaissance equipment was originally supposed to be deployed on.

The Ocean takes almost a day. Looks like about 21 hours from their published schedule.
https://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/fil...x-Montreal.pdf
So, how do you deal with that for the ones that ride it end to end?

[ghYHZ]

Originally Posted by J81

Where did you get the idea that sleeper cars were deemed pointless in Europe? Ive used a sleeper car in Europe. Theyre very popular for overnight trains. Just not 3HR trips between London and Paris which the Renaissance equipment was originally supposed to be deployed on.

Yes....look at the brand new Caledonian Sleepers that have just entered service between London and Scotland.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by J81

Where did you get the idea that sleeper cars were deemed pointless in Europe? Ive used a sleeper car in Europe. Theyre very popular for overnight trains. Just not 3HR trips between London and Paris which the Renaissance equipment was originally supposed to be deployed on.

There's a handful of services, yes. But it's a tiny fraction and not where the focus of European rail travel is. It surprised me that the UK replaced the Caledonian fleet and I would level the same concerns at that purchase too.

The big European report on sleepers does not read as if it agrees with you that they are "very popular".

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegDa...)601977_EN.pdf

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Like I said, when they are refurbished, they can get changed to some sort of payout that allows the cars to go both way without everyone sitting backwards.

Those 25 year old rotting rail cars are not getting refurbished, and if they did it would be quite stupid, even surpassing the stupidity of the initial purchase. I don't give a crap about keeping The Ocean as a sleeper, but if we must, do it properly and buy equipment that won't be a national embarrassment. The only reason the Renaissance equipment isn't really much of an embarrassment is that it's so unused and unpopular, no one even notices or cares about the state of the equipment.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The people in offices that need to be replaced to get what you want sit in Ottawa, not Montreal.

I'm constantly amazed at the people who blame VIA and not politicians in Ottawa.

I'm honestly surprised sometimes that VIA has actually survived all these years.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J81

All of VIAs LRC and HEP2 equipment are configured like that as well. It is a problem for a surprising number of passengers who dont like facing backwards. I myself would like to see the seats be reversible like the HEP1 coaches.

There's an easy solution here. Pay for it. Allow seat selection and let those who want a seat in the direction of travel pay for the privilege. I would happily take the discount.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J81

Where did you get the idea that sleeper cars were deemed pointless in Europe? Ive used a sleeper car in Europe. Theyre very popular for overnight trains. Just not 3HR trips between London and Paris which the Renaissance equipment was originally supposed to be deployed on.

Sleepers are in decline.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...leeper-service

Really, what they were was a way to avoid a hotel room while traveling. The rise of cheaper accomodation and faster trains are destroying the business case for them.

They are, somewhat, surviving as an alternative to air travel. But that requires more traffic and much larger trains for service to be profitable.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Sleepers are in decline.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...leeper-service

Really, what they were was a way to avoid a hotel room while traveling. The rise of cheaper accomodation and faster trains are destroying the business case for them.

They are, somewhat, surviving as an alternative to air travel. But that requires more traffic and much larger trains for service to be profitable.

If it is confidently predicted that modern equipment could attract enough extra ridership with lower operating costs that the subsidy requirement was substantially lessened, and that the existence of those trains makes the business case for intercity travel on the east coast substantially more viable, then it won't be the worst thing to buy it.

But it would still be, what, a few hundred mil maybe? And while not spending money on one thing does not mean something else gets funded, one has to ask the question, could that $x million not be better spent on more trains for the corridor, more trains for GO, more Ctrain cars for Calgary or more buses for any of our cities? It seems to me that any of those latter spends would be more justifiable than spending lots of money only to lessen on an almost irrelevant sleeper service.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

If it is confidently predicted that modern equipment could attract enough extra ridership with lower operating costs that the subsidy requirement was substantially lessened, and that the existence of those trains makes the business case for intercity travel on the east coast substantially more viable, then it won't be the worst thing to buy it.

But it would still be, what, a few hundred mil maybe? And while not spending money on one thing does not mean something else gets funded, one has to ask the question, could that $x million not be better spent on more trains for the corridor, more trains for GO, more Ctrain cars for Calgary or more buses for any of our cities? It seems to me that any of those latter spends would be more justifiable than spending lots of money only to lessen on an almost irrelevant sleeper service.

Yes. Opportunity cost is another relevant point that a lot of folks on here don't get. The real tragedy of VIA's situation is not the state of the Ocean or the Canadian. It's the lack of Calgary-Edmonton service and the subpar Corridor service that VIA is forced to offer, for lack of its own tracks.

The chattering class would love to blame VIA. But literally every time they've suggested anything slightly ambitious, it's been smacked down by the Feds. That HFR even got serious funding for study is a wonder. Let's see if it survives the post-Covid budgets.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Those 25 year old rotting rail cars are not getting refurbished, and if they did it would be quite stupid, even surpassing the stupidity of the initial purchase. I don't give a crap about keeping The Ocean as a sleeper, but if we must, do it properly and buy equipment that won't be a national embarrassment. The only reason the Renaissance equipment isn't really much of an embarrassment is that it's so unused and unpopular, no one even notices or cares about the state of the equipment.

I am not talking about the Renaissance fleet, but the other fleet. This will mean they can used where ever needed and no worries about wrong way travel.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yes. Opportunity cost is another relevant point that a lot of folks on here don't get. The real tragedy of VIA's situation is not the state of the Ocean or the Canadian. It's the lack of Calgary-Edmonton service and the subpar Corridor service that VIA is forced to offer, for lack of its own tracks.

The chattering class would love to blame VIA. But literally every time they've suggested anything slightly ambitious, it's been smacked down by the Feds. That HFR even got serious funding for study is a wonder. Let's see if it survives the post-Covid budgets.

When was the last time Via proposed it?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

When was the last time Via proposed it?

I'd count past HSR proposals as efforts to get their own tracks. VIA Fast. Ecotrain study. And I'm sure there are countless other internal memos. Heck, I'd count the now nearly decade long foot dragging on HFR as well.

The Conservatives did find a way to pay CN hundreds of millions to make trains only marginally less delayed.... But neither governing party can ever seem to find money to get VIA its own tracks.

[milomilo]

Yeah there is no organization, government or otherwise, that doesn't want more funding, more investment, a bigger reach, a better, flashier product. VIA is the opposite of all of that and it is beyond absurd to think they are happy to offer a mediocre product that still needs to be heavily subsidised.

The government fast tracking HFR would be exactly the type of project we need at almost exactly the right time (shame it is a few years too late).

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

[…]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

[…]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

[…]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

[…]

I could try to continue arguing against all this nonsense, but it hasn’t slipped attention that the Troll has stopped responding to any of my corrections ever since he has been made aware that you can “block” people, which probably means he has chosen to either “block” me or to just ignore whatever I write.

He is of course free to chose who and when to respond to as he pleases, just like you are to do the same, but for me it is a question of respect to always answer at any question or correction which is directed at yourself and this is one of the many points where I perceive his contributions as lacking respect and any commitment towards a constructive discussion.

Therefore, I would appreciate if people here would just stop responding to him or if instead of answering him they would just let him know that his contributions are not appreciated (provided that this is the case, of course) and will therefore be ignored. Unfortunately, if there doesn't appear to be a way to make his contributions more constructive, the only other winning strategy is to not make the mistake of giving the Troll the feeling that he can hijack discussions and let them rotate around his delusions.

One of the upsides of the Troll apparently not being able to see my posts, however, is that this makes me probably the only one who can quickly respond to his claims and correct them, without provoking any reaction from him:

• All of VIA’s current fleets are obsolete and can’t justify refurbishments beyond refreshing cars to comply with TC accessibility requirements or to remain presentable for service of the Canadian. Therefore, no cars will get their seats turned except those coaches which are already in project.
• It does sound absurd to me that VIA is incessantly accused of “failing” or “dying” by self-proclaimed railway experts like our Troll or self-interested railway “consultants” like Greg Gormick (who runs a business model which is built around convincing municipalities and “rail advocacy” organisations that VIA is in a near-fatal crisis to compel them into paying him to write a report for them of how VIA could be “saved”) at a time where it has increased its train-mileage by 11%, its passenger count by 25% and its revenues by 40%, while decreasing its deficit by 14% (or 31%, if calculated per passenger), as I've shown on Urban Toronto:
  
• Not all initiatives are successful (and most don’t even get approved by the Feds!), but I can think of initiatives which undoubtedly had success, for instance the increase of frequencies across the Corridor (e.g. from 7 frequencies between Toronto and Ottawa in 2014 to 10 in 2018, which has contributed to adding one million trips in the Corridor in the same period) or the introduction of Prestige Class (which has allowed the Canadian to increase its cost-recovery rate from 45.9% in 2014 to 64.8% in 2017, when its variable revenues exceeded its variable expenses for probably the first time in its history as a VIA service)...

Therefore, I'm kindly asking you to stop feeding the troll. Thank you!

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'd count past HSR proposals as efforts to get their own tracks. VIA Fast. Ecotrain study. And I'm sure there are countless other internal memos. Heck, I'd count the now nearly decade long foot dragging on HFR as well.

The Conservatives did find a way to pay CN hundreds of millions to make trains only marginally less delayed.... But neither governing party can ever seem to find money to get VIA its own tracks.

I meant: When was the last time they proposed something between Edmonton-Calgary?

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

[...]

Friendly reminder: I would appreciate if we could all stop responding to this person.

Edit (April 9th): rephrased comment, as it indeed sounded unnecessarily condescending...

[Urban_Sky]

Moving on to those commenters who show a clear commitment towards maintaining a constructive discussion:

Originally Posted by J81

The renaissance equipment is permanently coupled in sets of 6 cars. So no you cant just swap out the diner or baggage or sleeper like you say. And the goal is to be rid of the renaissance equipment all together not dump money into it.

Renaissance equipment is semi-permanently coupled, which means that cars can only be removed or added at a maintenance center, but they are by no means fixed trainsets. Therefore, there is no fixed trainset size and even though the Renaissance sets on the Corridor used to operate with six cars for many years, a fourth coach has been added recently, making it a seven-car consist. Your final sentence holds true, though.

Originally Posted by J81

Thats great. We can both think differently. What exactly do you see happening then?

I would expect small changes to the consist (in order to allow bidirectional, though not necessarily push-pull operations), while the timetable remains basically unchanged.

Id love to see those numbers. Your experience being 2 trips during peak season is the same as ive experienced in peak season. But the other 8-9 months of the year are very different. I know the train has left Halifax with fewer than 20 passengers. Total.

As I said, I did 2 round trips, but I also have access to full passenger counts, which of course allow to filter by accommodation class and by where the passengers were booked to entrain or detrain. Let’s say that I have reasons to believe that our peak season observations (when the bulk of sleeper passengers travel, as you correctly remark) is more representative of overall travel patterns (i.e. when looking at the total number of Sleeper passengers in a given year) than what you might have observed during low season…

Originally Posted by Djeffery

I think the question asked was why can't the rail cars go both ways, not what the definitions are. I was curious about that myself. I think ghYHZ's follow on reply was more the response that was looked for. So it sounds to me, also a "stupid noob", that it isn't the cars aren't physically capable of going both directions, it's that the seats only face one way, so it's a matter of passenger comfort more than anything else.

The differentiation between “bidirectional” and “push-pull” operations is imperative in understanding how certain cars can be “incompatible” with operating backwards, which is indeed unintuitive until you understand that this technological incompatibility only applies when there is a locomotive at either end of the train (i.e. push-pull operations) and not to any other bidirectional operating arrangements (like the locomotive running around the train whenever the direction of travel changes)…

Originally Posted by esquire

Looking back at it, how long did it take before it became apparent that the Renaissance fleet was a dud?

I remember there was some excitement when VIA procured those cars in 2000... it was the first significant acquisition by VIA of rolling stock since the LRC cars of the early 80s. As I recall it wasn't long before there were problems including suitability for climate, accessibility and just general limitations of the car layouts. It's clear that intentions were good, but ultimately it was an example of being penny wise and pound foolish.

Originally Posted by esquire

^ In fairness, VIA has managed to squeeze nearly 20 years out of the Renaissance fleet. That's better than the CN Tempo and Turbo fleets, and better than the LRC locomotives.

I guess the question here is: were the Renaissance cars better than nothing?

Originally Posted by milomilo

Well I'm more on the side of scrap the sleeper service, so my opinion is they were worse than nothing.

I think the decision has to be answered from different perspectives: From the government’s (or even more: the taxpayer’s) perspective, the acquisition of the Renaissance fleet might not have been a worthwhile investment, but from VIA’s perspective, it was the only way to acquire a “new” fleet, as the government would not have been willing to pay for a truly new fleet and if you see that 160 cars and 40 locomotives for the Corridor cost the federal government close to a $1 billion, then spending $130 million for 139 “almost new” cars might appear like a bargain. In my personal appreciation, if it wasn’t for the Renaissance fleet, VIA would not have been able to grow its business on the Corridor and the Canadian, which allowed to improve VIA’s KPIs to the point where replacing its obsolete (Corridor) fleet became politically feasible. The achievement of the Renaissance fleet was therefore to provide badly needed extra capacity, which allowed to outgrow the risk of VIA’s operations being phased out together with its obsolete fleet…

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't understand how it was not immediately obvious (I'm sure it was to many). If a sleeper service was deemed pointless in Europe and uncompetitive with air travel, why would things be much different in Canada, where passenger rail is an insignificant portion of journeys? And that's aside from the obvious unsuitability of using rail cars designed for a completely different operating environment.

To be fair: the “Nightstar” project was abandoned because the competitive environment had changed dramatically with the entry of low-cost carriers like Ryanair, EasyJet and the like, which rapidly became larger than most national flagship carriers. The closest equivalent in North America would be Southwest, but there is we are far away from hopping across the continent for 40 Euros ($60) including taxes and fees…

Originally Posted by J81

Where did you get the idea that sleeper cars were deemed pointless in Europe? Ive used a sleeper car in Europe. Theyre very popular for overnight trains. Just not 3HR trips between London and Paris which the Renaissance equipment was originally supposed to be deployed on.

The Nightstar was supposed to serve medium distances, like Manchester or Birmingham to Amsterdam or Frankfurt, not routes like London-Brussels, which were obviously too short (in distance and travel time) to be viable markets…

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't give a crap about keeping The Ocean as a sleeper, but if we must, do it properly and buy equipment that won't be a national embarrassment.

Once the new Corridor fleet has been delivered, the window of opportunity will be open to purchase a new Sleeper fleet which is compatible with Siemens’ cars and locomotives…

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Sleepers are in decline.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...leeper-service

Really, what they were was a way to avoid a hotel room while traveling. The rise of cheaper accomodation and faster trains are destroying the business case for them.

They are, somewhat, surviving as an alternative to air travel. But that requires more traffic and much larger trains for service to be profitable.

The article was correct (and night trains doomed) until recently, but the “Fridays for future” movement has caused an unexpected rise in interest for night train travel across Europe: https://www.web24.news/a/2020/02/why...-comeback.html

Originally Posted by milomilo

But it would still be, what, a few hundred mil maybe? And while not spending money on one thing does not mean something else gets funded, one has to ask the question, could that $x million not be better spent on more trains for the corridor, more trains for GO, more Ctrain cars for Calgary or more buses for any of our cities? It seems to me that any of those latter spends would be more justifiable than spending lots of money only to lessen on an almost irrelevant sleeper service.

There will need to be new Sleeper fleet for the Canadian and Churchill anyways at some point and ordering a few extra cars for the Ocean won’t make much of a difference. As I’ve shown previously, the Ocean recovers approximately half of its variable costs, which means that its incremental costs are split evenly between its users and the taxpayer (which is also typical for transit networks across the world)…

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The chattering class would love to blame VIA. But literally every time they've suggested anything slightly ambitious, it's been smacked down by the Feds. That HFR even got serious funding for study is a wonder. Let's see if it survives the post-Covid budgets.

My personal prediction is that HFR may have become less attractive for private funding (due to the economic downturn), but more attractive for public funding (due to the need to revive the economy with ready-to-build projects)…

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J81

The renaissance equipment is permanently coupled in sets of 6 cars. So no you cant just swap out the diner or baggage or sleeper like you say.

Not true. The renaissance equipment use non-standard European couplers rather than the Type H TightLock couplers used elsewhere. One of the purposes of the Renaissance baggage cars (both regular and transition) is to act as a coupler adapter.

One interesting thing is unlike most European couplers, these ones are gendered so that only the designated front of a car can couple with the back of another. Here are some pictures showing this (not sure which is the front and which is the back):



Pictures taken by Tim Hayman

Here is a picture of a Renaissance car adapter coupler:

Picture taken by Jeremy MacPherson

These may not be as easy to couple and uncouple as a standard Type H coupler, but it can be done, so there is no reason why they can't remove the renaissance coaches and build a train as ghYHZ described:

Originally Posted by ghYHZ

Here's the hybrid consist that's currently running on the Ocean. It is using Budd Coaches instead of Rens.....and if you disregard the Cabins for 1 (old style Duplex Roomettes) in the Chateau Sleepers and the Dome seats in the Park......you have a bi-directional train. Just run the F40s back to back and drop the Park.

Ocean w/b on March 4th

two F40s
one Budd Baggage
three Budd Coaches
one Ren Transition
one Ren Service Car
one Ren Diner
one Ren Service Car
two Ren Sleepers
one Ren Transition
three Budd Chateau Sleepers
one Budd Park Car

Originally Posted by J81

And the goal is to be rid of the renaissance equipment all together not dump money into it.

While the "Renaissance train sets operating in the Corridor must be retired by 2021 due to their deteriorating state and very high rebuild costs" (according to the Summary of the 2017-2021 Corporate Plan pg.8) , I haven't read any similar statements about the Ocean's Renaissance train sets. If anything, that same plan says, "Other equipment projects include Renaissance Ocean Fleet Upgrades, Renaissance State of Good Repair (Ocean only),"

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I meant: When was the last time they proposed something between Edmonton-Calgary?

Off topic. Please post in the correct thread.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Friendly reminder: Don't feed the Troll, he is like a wild animal: the more we feed him, the more frequently he will come back and visit us until long after we stopped feeding him...

Frankly, it's a thread he started, it's kind of arrogant to be telling others not to engage with that person or that person shouldn't post in a thread they started. If he blocked you, great, that's what you wanted. Why not block him too, and spare us all the condescending comments about how nobody else should interact. And referencing said person in replies to other people in totally unrelated questions really is immature (see reply to "stupid noob" above). But considering when you block someone, you still see their post there with the content removed, and a link to see the comments, I doubt you have the willpower to simply scroll past.