VIA Rail

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

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…

Very true. It is easy to look back and say VIA should have bought new cars, but that really wasn't an option. Given the two options of nothing or the Renaissance fleet, the latter was the better option.

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…

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…

It is very difficult to compare Europe with North America. They have shorter distances, higher population densities and faster trains. So while we can use them as a model of what can be done, we can't conversely say that what works for them will work for use and conversely say what doesn't work for them also won't work for us.

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…

I was thinking the same thing. The window of opportunity will be extended if HFR is approved and thus VIA exercises its option to buy 12 extra trainsets.

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

Certainly an interesting article. The author's calculations for carbon emissions are off though. Using the tool eco passenger, the one way (double them for round trip) Carbon emissions are:

• Train 72.7* kg CO2
• Car 89.9** kg CO2
• Plane 125.1*** kg CO2

* assuming average load factor
** assuming average 1.5 Passengers (European average utilization)
*** assuming average utilization ratio but not including high altitude effects or transportation to/from the airport.

The train is still an improvement, but not as stark an improvement as the author wanted to convey.

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.

True. The Churchill doesn't need much equipment, but the Canadian certainly does. Having said that, as primarily a scenic train, I would expect the Canadian will have significantly different requirements to other routes (dome cars, high dining, and luxury accommodations). If Amtrak were to ever order replacements for their Superliners, VIA might want to piggy back on that for the Canadian.

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)…

And that is with Renaissance equipment. As I have said before, with more efficient equipment, the cost recovery ratio will get better.

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)…

I was thinking the same thing. Once things get back to normal, the government will want to do things to stimulate the economy, and will be looking for projects that are shovel ready. The question is if HFR will be shovel ready in time.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, why not dig a tunnel to the edge of the river and put a new bridge in?

Or, leave the stations as they are, and get things going. Once there is a high demand, build a new line, possibly underground, to downtown.

Bringing back rail traffic on the High Level Bridge might work, if there was a place the train could go on the surface. So, instead of trying to figure this out, why not get it running and have it terminate at the existing Via Station, while also stopping at other locations in the city.

A tunnel to the edge of the river wouldn't be necessary, if there was a real plan to run trains into downtown Edmonton I would expect that a track would run on the surface either on the old ROW (via High Level Bridge) or a totally new ROW and new bridge, right into downtown Edmonton.

Then again, Edmonton is so big now that Whyte Avenue is considered a relatively central location for most. It might be enough to terminate the line right at 82nd Ave even if that is not quite the downtown to downtown ideal.

Running to the existing VIA station is not worth the hassle. The downtown station closed in 1997 and was replaced by a small facility in the north central part of town which is still a good hike from downtown. There is no real advantage to going there as opposed to 82nd Ave... I'd wager that most would consider it worse. And going to the existing VIA station means taking a long, circuitous route around the city which would add a significant amount of time to the trip.

The point here is that the routes in Edmonton are a headache in all of this. Calgary at least has a line and room for a potential station right in the heart of the city. In Edmonton there are no tracks downtown so you'd be compromising no matter what... either building an extremely costly new line into downtown, or putting a station somewhere outside of downtown.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by esquire

A tunnel to the edge of the river wouldn't be necessary, if there was a real plan to run trains into downtown Edmonton I would expect that a track would run on the surface either on the old ROW (via High Level Bridge) or a totally new ROW and new bridge, right into downtown Edmonton.

Then again, Edmonton is so big now that Whyte Avenue is considered a relatively central location for most. It might be enough to terminate the line right at 82nd Ave even if that is not quite the downtown to downtown ideal.

Running to the existing VIA station is not worth the hassle. The downtown station closed in 1997 and was replaced by a small facility in the north central part of town which is still a good hike from downtown. There is no real advantage to going there as opposed to 82nd Ave... I'd wager that most would consider it worse. And going to the existing VIA station means taking a long, circuitous route around the city which would add a significant amount of time to the trip.

The point here is that the routes in Edmonton are a headache in all of this. Calgary at least has a line and room for a potential station right in the heart of the city. In Edmonton there are no tracks downtown so you'd be compromising no matter what... either building an extremely costly new line into downtown, or putting a station somewhere outside of downtown.

My concern would be that the 2 lines would not be connected. Maybe Whyte Ave is the terminus normally, with 1 train meeting the Canadian when it goes to the current station.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

My concern would be that the 2 lines would not be connected. Maybe Whyte Ave is the terminus normally, with 1 train meeting the Canadian when it goes to the current station.

The number of people connecting between the Canadian and Calgary-Edmonton HSR would probably be so insignificant that it would be orders of magnitude cheaper to just run a van or some other such shuttle between stations on Whyte Ave and 121 St. to transfer connecting passengers.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by esquire

The number of people connecting between the Canadian and Calgary-Edmonton HSR would probably be so insignificant that it would be orders of magnitude cheaper to just run a van or some other such shuttle between stations on Whyte Ave and 121 St. to transfer connecting passengers.

That may be a good start, but in the long term, if the Canadian ran more often, it might become the backbone of Western Canada. I would think a comfortable highway coach with Via Rail on the side of it would be good for the opening of the line.

[roger1818]

^^^ Posted a reply in the Could daily intercity passenger rail service be revived across Western Canada? thread.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by roger1818

^^^ Posted a reply in the Could daily intercity passenger rail service be revived across Western Canada? thread.

Thank you very much, roger1818, for helping to create some breathing space for other topics by directing this discussion to a thread which has been exclusively for this topic!

I would appreciate if all other fellow contributors could do the same here, either by posting their replies in the "Could daily intercity passenger rail service be revived across Western Canada?" thread (and posting a link here, like Roger1818 just did) or by politely asking to continue the discussion there. It is ridiculous that this thread has grown 20 pages in the last 5 weeks, while debating so little else than that one single topic, but there is hope that we can do better...

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by esquire

Thanks for the perspective. When you put it in those terms, the acquisition makes more sense. I suppose it was a bargain, even when you factor in the operational shortcomings of the Renaissance equipment... just putting VIA in a position to make better use of the rest of its fleet and build a case for replacing the backbone of its equipment (corridor fleet) was helpful enough.

Thank you very much for the reply and trust me, I shared the sentiment across the Forums or Social Media in this country that VIA's management was glaringly blind for the "obvious" before I joined VIA, but if I learnt one thing from working there, it's that things start to make sense once you become aware of the various constraints which are invisible to anyone looking from the outside. I wish I could share much more than I do, but unfortunately, the price of being on the "inside" is that you can't post as freely as if you were still just a "regular" rail enthusiast...

Originally Posted by roger1818

Certainly an interesting article. The author's calculations for carbon emissions are off though. Using the tool eco passenger, the one way (double them for round trip) Carbon emissions are:

• Train 72.7* kg CO2
• Car 89.9** kg CO2
• Plane 125.1*** kg CO2

* assuming average load factor
** assuming average 1.5 Passengers (European average utilization)
*** assuming average utilization ratio but not including high altitude effects or transportation to/from the airport.

The train is still an improvement, but not as stark an improvement as the author wanted to convey.

Average figures don't really help when determining which mode should be favored when setting the incentives (taxes, subsidies) to encourage the use of some modes and discourage that of other modes. Unless you already operate 12-car bilevel trains like GO Transit, the incremental financial/environmental cost of doubling your train capacity is much less than your average costs/footprint and this is a unique competitive advantage over the car, bus or plane...

I was thinking the same thing. Once things get back to normal, the government will want to do things to stimulate the economy, and will be looking for projects that are shovel ready. The question is if HFR will be shovel ready in time.

I would assume that construction works could start rather quickly for Montreal-Ottawa-Smiths Falls (and maybe also Peterborough-Toronto), given that I can't think of any reason which would either warrant extensive expropriations, create serious challenges in the environmental assessment or stir up significant and ferocious NIMBY opposition (though, you unfortunately can never be sure). You can't built an 850 km long dedicated Corridor at once and by the time construction on these segments nears completion, green light should have become attainable for the remaining segments...

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Thank you very much for the reply and trust me, I shared the sentiment across the Forums or Social Media in this country that VIA's management was glaringly blind for the "obvious" before I joined VIA, but if I learnt one thing from working there, it's that things start to make sense once you become aware of the various constraints which are invisible to anyone looking from the outside. I wish I could share much more than I do, but unfortunately, the price of being on the "inside" is that you can't post as freely as if you were still just a "regular" rail enthusiast...

To be clear, if it wasn't, I don't place the blame for what I see as clear mistakes much on VIA. They have been given a specific set of tasks (which I understand much better now because of your posts) and very limited resources to carry out that task in a very annoying operating environment. I don't agree with all of those tasks VIA is assigned, but the people I level the blame at are my government.

If it were up to me, my preference would be for all track to be owned by one national body and the right to operate on that track rented out. Short of that, I'd at least want a national body responsible for strategic investment in our rail lines and allocation of resources. And for the rail companies to not be even approaching the power a provincial or federal government has.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Thank you very much for the reply and trust me, I shared the sentiment across the Forums or Social Media in this country that VIA's management was glaringly blind for the "obvious" before I joined VIA, but if I learnt one thing from working there, it's that things start to make sense once you become aware of the various constraints which are invisible to anyone looking from the outside. I wish I could share much more than I do, but unfortunately, the price of being on the "inside" is that you can't post as freely as if you were still just a "regular" rail enthusiast...

I know exactly what you mean. That is why I really appreciate having your perspective on here. It sheds a new light on why things are being done. I don't necessarily agree with everything, but my opinion has changed a bit as a result.

Average figures don't really help when determining which mode should be favored when setting the incentives (taxes, subsidies) to encourage the use of some modes and discourage that of other modes.

That's the nice thing about the "eco passenger" tool I linked to. It does the calculations typical for the specific train you are looking at, not some average. Obviously for car and airplane, it is more of an average as it doesn't know what make/model of car you have or the specific flight you are comparing it to.

Unless you already operate 12-car bilevel trains like GO Transit, the incremental financial/environmental cost of doubling your train capacity is much less than your average costs/footprint and this is a unique competitive advantage over the car, bus or plane...

True, but this doesn't help if the train is short and has no hope of needing additional capacity.

I would assume that construction works could start rather quickly for Montreal-Ottawa-Smiths Falls (and maybe also Peterborough-Toronto), given that I can't think of any reason which would either warrant extensive expropriations, create serious challenges in the environmental assessment or stir up significant and ferocious NIMBY opposition (though, you unfortunately can never be sure). You can't built an 850 km long dedicated Corridor at once and by the time construction on these segments nears completion, green light should have become attainable for the remaining segments...

Upgrades to the Montreal-Ottawa-Smiths Falls leg could be done even if a final decision hasn't been made about the entire HFR project, as the upgrades would be beneficial regardless. Toronto-Peterborough (and even on to Havelock) could be done a bit sooner, but it would not be of any use to VIA without the rest of the HFR, so it would need final approval of the project.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by milomilo

To be clear, if it wasn't, I don't place the blame for what I see as clear mistakes much on VIA. They have been given a specific set of tasks (which I understand much better now because of your posts) and very limited resources to carry out that task in a very annoying operating environment. I don't agree with all of those tasks VIA is assigned, but the people I level the blame at are my government.

I agree 100%

If it were up to me, my preference would be for all track to be owned by one national body and the right to operate on that track rented out. Short of that, I'd at least want a national body responsible for strategic investment in our rail lines and allocation of resources. And for the rail companies to not be even approaching the power a provincial or federal government has.

I tend to agree. Unfortunately that would be nearly impossible to achieve right now, except when the railways want to abandon it.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

^^^ Posted a reply in the Could daily intercity passenger rail service be revived across Western Canada? thread.

I don't read that thread. I started this thread so I didn't have to read multiple threads.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

To be clear, if it wasn't, I don't place the blame for what I see as clear mistakes much on VIA. They have been given a specific set of tasks (which I understand much better now because of your posts) and very limited resources to carry out that task in a very annoying operating environment. I don't agree with all of those tasks VIA is assigned, but the people I level the blame at are my government.

If it were up to me, my preference would be for all track to be owned by one national body and the right to operate on that track rented out. Short of that, I'd at least want a national body responsible for strategic investment in our rail lines and allocation of resources. And for the rail companies to not be even approaching the power a provincial or federal government has.

I have been saying this for a while now. Many other countries own all or most of their rail network. Interestingly, those are the ones with better passenger service. However, most are small countries. Canada did have a nationalized rail network. CN used to be a crown corporation.

[J81]

Originally Posted by roger1818

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:


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),"

I never said you cant mix and match the entire consist. I said you cant just swap out a ren diner for a hep diner. If you look at that consist you’ll notice a transition car coupled to the HEP equipment ahead and behind. Everything in between is semi permanently coupled.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J81

I never said you cant mix and match the entire consist. I said you cant just swap out a ren diner for a hep diner. If you look at that consist you’ll notice a transition car coupled to the HEP equipment ahead and behind. Everything in between is semi permanently coupled.

What you said is:

Originally Posted by J81

The renaissance equipment is permanently coupled in sets of 6 cars.

I was pointing out that they are not permanently coupled (and they aren't restricted to sets of 6 cars). As Urban_Sky said, they are semi-permanently coupled. The TGV (for example) is permanently coupled to allow it to be articulated.

Besides, you are building a strawman argument. I didn't suggest swapping "out a ren diner for a hep diner." All I suggested is that the ren coaches (which are typically near the front of the train) could be swapped out for HEP coaches by putting them in front of a transition car. I see no reason any of the other ren car types can't be used bidirectionally (though they can't be used in push-pull operation, as Urban_Sky explained).


Ktx truck from Wikimedia Commons

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Certainly an interesting article. The author's calculations for carbon emissions are off though. Using the tool eco passenger, the one way (double them for round trip) Carbon emissions are:

• Train 72.7* kg CO2
• Car 89.9** kg CO2
• Plane 125.1*** kg CO2

* assuming average load factor
** assuming average 1.5 Passengers (European average utilization)
*** assuming average utilization ratio but not including high altitude effects or transportation to/from the airport.

The train is still an improvement, but not as stark an improvement as the author wanted to convey.

These numbers are far less applicable to our context.
First, electrification does a good bit to cut emissions. Even more so given how clean our grid is. Next, given that Canadians have some of the heaviest vehicle fleets in the world, our fuel consumption on auto travel would also change the comparison substantially. Even air travel is skewed for us. We use a lot of smaller naarowbody and even some regional jets in the Corridor which would bring up per capita aviation emissions.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I was thinking the same thing. Once things get back to normal, the government will want to do things to stimulate the economy, and will be looking for projects that are shovel ready. The question is if HFR will be shovel ready in time.

The Joint Project Office was supposed to have route selection done in March. And they're supposed to have an EA substantially done next year. VIA also has options with Siemens for additional trains. As Urban_Sky pointed out there's definitely parts that could be done right away. I hope they move to build Montreal-Ottawa immediately. Last I read that was $90 million. They could also move to do all kinds of station upgrading or network upgrades in the Toronto and Montreal areas immediately. A lot of it could be in the stimulus plan even if the Peterborough corridor isn't quite shovel ready.

Every time I use Tremblay station, I'm always blown away at the potential that is wasted. No intercity bus terminal. No parking structure. Platforms and sheds could probably use some upgrading too. I think work like this should definitely be part of any stimulus plan.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

These numbers are far less applicable to our context.

I wasn't trying to say they were. Just that the numbers the author used in his article were out to lunch.

First, electrification does a good bit to cut emissions.

Agreed. I expect part of the reason the numbers are as high as they are on that particular train is that it isn't electric. Also, the per passenger emissions of an overnight train will be higher than a daytime train, since the cars typically transport fewer passengers.

Even more so given how clean our grid is.

None of VIA's routes are currently electrified. The HFR route might be electrified, and that might eventually be extended further to London and maybe Windsor, but I don't see either the Atlantic or Western transcontinental routes being electrified for a long time.

Next, given that Canadians have some of the heaviest vehicle fleets in the world, our fuel consumption on auto travel would also change the comparison substantially.

Canadian's drive smaller cars on average than Americans, but it they are still bigger than the rest of the world. Having said that, Europe is catching up as crossover SUVs are becoming popular there.

Even air travel is skewed for us. We use a lot of smaller naarowbody and even some regional jets in the Corridor which would bring up per capita aviation emissions.

True. Having said that, often smaller jets cruse at a lower altitude, which may reduce the high altitude effects of the emissions.

Every time I use Tremblay station, I'm always blown away at the potential that is wasted. No intercity bus terminal.

While it sounds good on paper, the majority of Greyhounds routes are in competition with VIA Rail, so they wouldn't really want to move their depot. Ontario Northland might be more inclined to move, but they only have 1 bus a day each way and their connections don't work with VIA anyway 11:00 PM arrival and 12:05 PM departure.

No parking structure.

I have never noticed a lack of parking at Tremblay station. Parking garages are very expensive. While it is nice to have your car sheltered from the elements, I wouldn't consider a garage a necessity. If something changes and they need to use some of the parking space for another purpose this might change though.

Regarding parking though, I will say they do need to add some EV charging stations. They have them at the Fallowfield station (at both the P&R and the train station), but not at Tremblay, which seems odd.

Platforms and sheds could probably use some upgrading too.

The Elevated Passenger Platforms project includes upgrades to the sheds. Phase 1A has been completed. I don't think Phase 1B has received funding yet. Phase II isn't expected until after 2035, though HFR could change that.

I think work like this should definitely be part of any stimulus plan.

Only if it is put forward as a separate project. The last thing we need is feature creep to cause the cost of HFR to balloon and get rejected for being too expensive.

[milomilo]

CO2 emissions of rail are a red herring. We'd probably have to increase our passenger rail ridership by 10x or more for it to even start to make a difference to Canada's emissions in meaningful way. It's definitely good PR, but the main benefit to rail is quality of life and economic, IMO.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

CO2 emissions of rail are a red herring. We'd probably have to increase our passenger rail ridership by 10x or more for it to even start to make a difference to Canada's emissions in meaningful way. It's definitely good PR, but the main benefit to rail is quality of life and economic, IMO.

By the numbers, if a train was full, it would seem that it is more eco friendly. The challenge is to make sure the train is as full as possible for as much of the route as possible.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Every time I use Tremblay station, I'm always blown away at the potential that is wasted. No intercity bus terminal. No parking structure. Platforms and sheds could probably use some upgrading too. I think work like this should definitely be part of any stimulus plan.

This is something that saddens me. As far as I know, no where in Canada is there any true multi modal station. Ironically, North Bay ON did go for that, just to see their passenger service cease.

And, then of course the fact that no major rail station exists near an airport quashes that.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

While it sounds good on paper, the majority of Greyhounds routes are in competition with VIA Rail, so they wouldn't really want to move their depot. Ontario Northland might be more inclined to move, but they only have 1 bus a day each way and their connections don't work with VIA anyway 11:00 PM arrival and 12:05 PM departure.

When O'Brien proposed building the bus terminal at Tremblay, I don't recall opposition from Greyhound. It was the existing terminal owner who wanted to keep their business. I think if VIA builds a bus terminal, it will attract traffic away the existing terminal. Especially now that Tremblay has LRT and bus depot doesn't.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I have never noticed a lack of parking at Tremblay station. Parking garages are very expensive. While it is nice to have your car sheltered from the elements, I wouldn't consider a garage a necessity. If something changes and they need to use some of the parking space for another purpose this might change though.

If they are going to see increases in traffic and possibly build out a bus terminal, more parking will be required. In a world of HFR, major stations like Ottawa function more like mini airports than the rail/bus stations we are used to. They should have larger car parks, and even car rental and car sharing services on site.

Originally Posted by roger1818

The Elevated Passenger Platforms project includes upgrades to the sheds. Phase 1A has been completed. I don't think Phase 1B has received funding yet. Phase II isn't expected until after 2035, though HFR could change that.

This is the kind of stuff that could be done under stimulus though. Presumably, some of this can be made shovel ready within months.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Only if it is put forward as a separate project. The last thing we need is feature creep to cause the cost of HFR to balloon and get rejected for being too expensive.

The great thing about moving some station upgrades to stimulus work is that it takes some pressure off HFR.