VIA Rail

[steveintoronto]

It is somewhat disconcerting how much of the expansion between Year 1 and Year 5 is in short-haul trips to Toronto from Stratford or Niagara Falls. These routes directly compete with GO's expansion plans - a competition they will lose due to VIA's variable-price tickets that need to be purchased in advance. I think that VIA should focus on its area of specialty, which is fast and comfortable intercity service. So rather than adding a bunch of short trips to Stratford and Niagara Falls, they should add a smaller number of longer trips to London, Windsor and Sarnia.

Apart from how this affects VIA, there's a very important secondary consideration with so many shorter trains: 12 coach length platforms being tied up at Union for sometimes as little as 2 coach length trains.

On that point, and double berthing:

Metro trains could double up on platforms
December 4, 2014
[...]
The long-awaited double berthing of trains at some of the Muni Metro station platforms could soon happen.

Double berthing would allow the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency to have two sets of trains at a station platform to load and unload passengers, said Ed Reiskin, director of transportation.

Reiskin said Tuesday at the SFMTA’s board meeting that riders could see change in the subway as early as Dec. 13 as a:

“… small significant change for those who are sometime frustratingly looking at the platform that we don’t let them disembark onto.”

The transit agency though will still need to get the approval of the California Public Utilities Commission before it can proceed with double berthing, said SFMTA spokesman Paul Rose. The CPUC regulates rail systems in the state.

Transit officials will hold a live demonstration for the commission this Saturday around 1 a.m. after the subway shuts down for the night, said Rose.

Currently, subway riders have to wait for the train ahead of them to leave the station before the second train can unload and load passengers.

Subway stations like Civic Center, Montgomery and Powell support double-berthing because of the length of the station platforms, especially if consecutive two-car trains arrive.

Reiskin said that though trains will open its doors in the second position, trains will also still stop in the first position at the station platform.

If the CPUC allows the transit agency to use double berthing, Reiskin said that the SFMTA will post signage to inform riders about the changes and have ambassadors out on station platforms to explain the changes.

The transit agency has been testing double berthing for years that included different start times on when it would start. Problems with upgrading the train control software and platform announcements had delayed the SFMTA from implementing double berthing sooner.

https://sfbay.ca/2014/12/04/metro-trains-could-double-up-on-platforms/

 

[mpd618]

Stratford does have a lot to gain from increased train service. Currently nearly all visitors arrive by car, which has negative impacts on the town's livability. For example, if more visitors arrived by train they could use their town square as a town square rather than a parking lot.

Side note: looks like there's folks pushing for this already.

 

[ShonTron]

I finally got around to reading the VIA Rail 2016-2020 Corporate Plan Summary that alexanderglista posted back on page 87 of this thread.

It's actually a good read, it's very frank about the deplorable state of intercity rail in Canada and is a clear call to action.

I found the proposed 5-year service expansion diagram to be hard to decipher so I made my own line diagrams illustrating the proposed changes:
View attachment 86889
View attachment 86890
View attachment 86891

Animated GIF to show changes:
View attachment 86892

The changes from Current to Year 1 seem like a very achievable improvement to service. Some low-hanging fruit are being seized, such as moving direct Toronto-Sarnia service from the north mainline to the south mainline - which cuts 70 minutes off the trip time. That's a bigger time savings than many multi-billion-dollar high speed rail lines!

It is somewhat disconcerting how much of the expansion between Year 1 and Year 5 is in short-haul trips to Toronto from Stratford or Niagara Falls. These routes directly compete with GO's expansion plans - a competition they will lose due to VIA's variable-price tickets that need to be purchased in advance. I think that VIA should focus on its area of specialty, which is fast and comfortable intercity service. So rather than adding a bunch of short trips to Stratford and Niagara Falls, they should add a smaller number of longer trips to London, Windsor and Sarnia.

EDIT: I just realized that I mis-labeled the Niagara service as "5" in the "Current" diagram. It should be "1".

Notice how there's one Sarnia-London-Toronto train, and one to two Sarnia-London trains? It looks like that's where the RDC is going as we suspected. As there's no Greyhound bus service to Sarnia anymore, VIA's the only game in town. That will be very useful for that community; hopefully the transfers are easy in London.

 

[steveintoronto]

Just slogging through the Corporate Plan. I'm mostly interested in finding reference to what train sets are touted to being used on the SW Ontario regional runs, Shon has piqued my interest, as the RDCs were last seen being dragged to, ostensibly, Montreal. The Plan is pretty depressing reading, and as some posters have noted, not far off being a suicide note, albeit an unwilling suicide. I have to wonder if the following isn't code to Metrolinx to take over responsibilities. At the least, it addresses the 'platform inefficiency' I mentioned prior at Union:

[...]In addition to the above noted infrastructure congestion, VIA Rail also struggles with increasing
congestion at Canada’s two major train stations: Toronto Union Station and Montreal Central Station. VIA
Rail competes with commuter railways for slots to enter, detrain, entrain, and exit these stations. During
the mornings and late afternoons, the commuter rail services are very busy, putting pressure on station
space at a time when it is also advantageous for VIA Rail to arrive and depart. The availability of these
departure / arrival slots is a limiting factor. Metrolinx (GO Transit) controls an increasing portion of rail
infrastructure surrounding Toronto Union Station, which provides GO Transit an advantage when
dispatching the trains. A similar problem does not affect other key stations that VIA Rail owns such as
Ottawa or Quebec. Furthermore, the ongoing renovations in and around Union Station will continue to
disturb the customers using the hub for the next few years.
The Corporation has undertaken to present Union Station’s owners with new operating plans based on
the use of push-pull trains and outside stations (endpoint terminals) in order to reduce dwell time at Union
Station and maintain VIA Rail’s access. [...]

The problem, at least on the west side, and of course ditto for GO, is the very limiting throat constriction at and near Bathurst, the platform utilization is another but lesser problem.

Note: "outside stations (endpoint terminals)"...that could only apply to the SW regional runs in practical terms. The through running and eastern routes would have to be continued. Where that leaves the NYC run is another question, but Metrolinx is also ruminating about (my term) "Union West". It's looking unavoidable, but how do you connect it into Union proper? I never thought this would happen, but Toronto is facing the dilemma that London, Paris, Boston, Chicago and other large cities faced a century ago, which gave birth to many subway lines. Perhaps RER via tunnel through the core is going to be more necessary, and sooner, than popular lore states? Toronto/Ontario certainly couldn't afford a Crossrail or East Side Access. I noted exactly the 'Union West' idea mentioned in a Metrolinx report on Union when searching on "double berthing".

VIA almost inevitably would save a huge sum by minimizing their presence at Union. Chock up one more reason for the Missing Link, Canpa sub, and Summerhill Station being available.

Edit to Add:
Still slogging my way through this, it's intriguing, but this was a disastrous paragraph to include, not the least as some of the info is glaringly wrong. The preceding paragraph on PPP and PPI was very good, this tends to debase it:
[...]
Recent Developments
United Kingdom
The newly re-elected Government in the U.K. is committed to the new High Speed Two line (HS2) from
London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, which will start construction in the next two years. Some
of the arguments in favour of the new line include the need for more capacity to alleviate congestion in
the existing mixed-use track (used by intercity, commuter and freight), the high cost and limited benefits of
investing in the current line, and the intermodal benefits. An excellent example of intermodality, HS2 will
connect to not only Heathrow Airport, but also to Manchester Airport (the largest outside of the London
region), and will also connect to the HS1 line and through the Chunnel to Paris, Brussels, and every other
major city in Western Europe. [...]

HS2 is in deep doo-doos right now, the present May regime is having trouble finding justification for it, and there's some serious design issues, not the least that it *isn't planned* to connect with HS1!
http://www.globalrailnews.com/2015/12/02/government-not-pursuing-hs1-hs2-rail-link/

23.09.16
Despite enthusiasm, HS2 ‘has the weakest economic case of all projects’
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...has-the-weakest-economic-case-of-all-projects

Report has a number of references to "Push-Pull operation" of VIA trains, which makes a lot of sense, at least for the shorter regional runs. Where DOT stand on regs is a good question, GO seems to have no problem, but Shon mentions the RDCs. Report also mentions shortage of pathings into Union, and I see a number of runs coupled together in and out of Union, both directions.

Question: Does anyone know if the renovated RDCs can be used in a push-pull arrangement as driving cabs with full multiplex multi control? It would certainly couple nicely (pun fully intended) with a Sarnia run into London, and then coupled on the end of an F40 drawn/pushed small consist to take a single path into Union. Even the Northern Main has very limited paths available, if that is the route to continue using, which, btw, is popular with many mid/upper income commuters wanting an express service in and back out daily.

The RDCs are heavy, but in a small consist, could easily be dragged or pushed deadhead once coupled into a consist by an F40 doing top and tail.

 

[steveintoronto]

Just reading back to see if anyone had posted details on the RDC rebuilds as per MU multiplexing. A lot of the links to VIAs website on it have gone dead. Google led me back to this forum, but this is prophetic as it relates to the Missing Link:

Co-production between CN and CP on one line would be in their financial interests, as it would be the smallest capital asset for the revenue - but someone has to provide the capital to make this happen, and railroads are nortoriously bad at cooperative efforts. It would take government pressure and money to achieve this.

- Paul

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Just slogging through the Corporate Plan. I'm mostly interested in finding reference to what train sets are touted to being used on the SW Ontario regional runs, Shon has piqued my interest, as the RDCs were last seen being dragged to, ostensibly, Montreal. The Plan is pretty depressing reading, and as some posters have noted, not far off being a suicide note, albeit an unwilling suicide. I have to wonder if the following isn't code to Metrolinx to take over responsibilities. At the least, it addresses the 'platform inefficiency' I mentioned prior at Union:

[...]In addition to the above noted infrastructure congestion, VIA Rail also struggles with increasing
congestion at Canada’s two major train stations: Toronto Union Station and Montreal Central Station. VIA
Rail competes with commuter railways for slots to enter, detrain, entrain, and exit these stations. During
the mornings and late afternoons, the commuter rail services are very busy, putting pressure on station
space at a time when it is also advantageous for VIA Rail to arrive and depart. The availability of these
departure / arrival slots is a limiting factor. Metrolinx (GO Transit) controls an increasing portion of rail
infrastructure surrounding Toronto Union Station, which provides GO Transit an advantage when
dispatching the trains. A similar problem does not affect other key stations that VIA Rail owns such as
Ottawa or Quebec. Furthermore, the ongoing renovations in and around Union Station will continue to
disturb the customers using the hub for the next few years.
The Corporation has undertaken to present Union Station’s owners with new operating plans based on
the use of push-pull trains and outside stations (endpoint terminals) in order to reduce dwell time at Union
Station and maintain VIA Rail’s access. [...]

The problem, at least on the west side, and of course ditto for GO, is the very limiting throat constriction at and near Bathurst, the platform utilization is another but lesser problem.

Note: "outside stations (endpoint terminals)"...that could only apply to the SW regional runs in practical terms. The through running and eastern routes would have to be continued. Where that leaves the NYC run is another question, but Metrolinx is also ruminating about (my term) "Union West". It's looking unavoidable, but how do you connect it into Union proper? I never thought this would happen, but Toronto is facing the dilemma that London, Paris, Boston, Chicago and other large cities faced a century ago, which gave birth to many subway lines. Perhaps RER via tunnel through the core is going to be more necessary, and sooner, than popular lore states? Toronto/Ontario certainly couldn't afford a Crossrail or East Side Access. I noted exactly the 'Union West' idea mentioned in a Metrolinx report on Union when searching on "double berthing".

VIA almost inevitably would save a huge sum by minimizing their presence at Union. Chock up one more reason for the Missing Link, Canpa sub, and Summerhill Station being available.

On the issue of capacity at Union, there have been talks of some VIA service being moved to the new RER station at Spadina/Front. I really hate to just drop something without citing a source, but thats what I have heard.

 

[steveintoronto]

On the issue of capacity at Union, there have been talks of some VIA service being moved to the new RER station at Spadina/Front. I really hate to just drop something without citing a source, but thats what I have heard.

I've read allusions to that too, and like yourself, I can't cite a particular source at this time, but when even GO refer to it in at least two reports I've read lately (mostly from searching on double berthing at Union) you know it has to be a serious consideration.

I was looking on Google Satellite last night to see what else besides the Bathurst Bridge is the pinch point at the west end throat to Union, but it would take more than just opening that throat to get greater throughput. Let's see what others have to add to this, it's a very pressing issue.

Dreams flash of Toronto's equiv to Crossrail...but they can't even fund SomewhatSmartTrack.

Perhaps the "Deck Park" should include a second level to do as Grand Central did (and now, a third level deep below that with East Side Access). Tunneling in Manhattan, with only a few inconsistencies, is far easier than Toronto though. It's going to have to be cut and cover unless taken very deep for Union or adjacent.

 

[crs1026]

One would hope that VIA would hold onto berthing at Union with a 'cold, dead hands' mentality.

As noted, there are things that could be done to improve the platform utilization. VIA is its own worst enemy with its insistence that people queue up downstairs and have their tickets inspected before boarding. That's Byzantine by European standards.

I wonder about a European style replatforming - take three tracks, turn the middle one into two stub end tracks, which gives lots of pedestrian space in the middle. Use the outer two on a run-through basis. Maybe even heated waiting space.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

One would hope that VIA would hold onto berthing at Union with a 'cold, dead hands' mentality.

As noted, there are things that could be done to improve the platform utilization. VIA is its own worst enemy with its insistence that people queue up downstairs and have their tickets inspected before boarding. That's Byzantine by European standards.

I wonder about a European style replatforming - take three tracks, turn the middle one into two stub end tracks, which gives lots of pedestrian space in the middle. Use the outer two on a run-through basis. Maybe even heated waiting space.

- Paul

Yeah! Even if that isn't exactly the answer, something along those lines. I was staring at tracks 3 and 4 yesterday for GO's upcoming need to do this, and I failed to find a complete 'Eureka', but there's some way of accessing even more than two end stubs to each track, there's a way to 'berth' along the length, whether that be by X-overs or even backing into and out of berths (akin to buses at platforms)...we're talking short trains here...I see a massive waste of space on many tracks. Some, if not most all tracks must remain as is for 12 (10) coach lengths, but there's got to be a better way to cater for shorter trains (RER is going to start at four coach lengths with no loco if emus) even if it means one track has to become, at least until peak time, a 'run-around track'.

I'm digging to see how others do this, because I know it is done in places.

take three tracks, turn the middle one into two stub end tracks, which gives lots of pedestrian space in the middle. Use the outer two on a run-through basis. Maybe even heated waiting space.

That at least illustrates how some arrangement can work, and without losing the 'run-through' when needed (such as at peak, when the pathings for the shorter trains aren't available anyway, and they must be suspended until after peak).

One would hope that VIA would hold onto berthing at Union with a 'cold, dead hands' mentality.

They state that for Montreal in that report being discussed! With emphasis! I don't have the exact quote, but will supply later when I continue reading it.

For Union, the impression is given that they're ready to bail ship for many of the regional runs.

I wonder about a European style replatforming - take three tracks, turn the middle one into two stub end tracks, which gives lots of pedestrian space in the middle. Use the outer two on a run-through basis. Maybe even heated waiting space.

In the UK and Australia, a bay platform is a dead-end railway platform at a railway station that has through lines.[1] It is normal for bay platforms to be shorter than their associated through platforms.

Overview


Bay platform at Nottingham station


Bay platform at Greenford station
Bay and island platforms are so named because they resemble the geographic features of the same name.

Examples of stations with bay platforms include Carlisle railway station; Nottingham railway station (pictured), which has a bay platform inset into one of its platform islands; and the San Francisco International Airport BART Station which has three bay platforms, two of which are in use. Chicago's CTA O'Hare Airport Station features a bay platform with one track on the bay and a track on each side of the platform. The Hoboken and 33 St Stations on the PATH train line have bay platforms. Ferry Avenue on the PATCO Speedline also has a bay platform. However, in the New York City Subway, such platforms are thought of as side or island platforms connected at the ends, rather than bay platforms.

Trains which use a bay platform have to reverse direction and depart in the direction from which they arrived.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_platform

The added plus, as Paul states, of passenger waiting area, even heated, justifies what would otherwise be wasted space. This also allows faster entraining and detraining w/o critical platform congestion.

 

[smallspy]

I wonder about a European style replatforming - take three tracks, turn the middle one into two stub end tracks, which gives lots of pedestrian space in the middle. Use the outer two on a run-through basis. Maybe even heated waiting space.

- Paul

That's ostensibly what will happen when the new signal system takes over, and they start to institute double-berthing. Well, without making the tracks physically disconnected.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[rbt]

That's Byzantine by European standards.

Unless you happen to be in Madrid; they even fully separate boarding and disembarking passengers in addition to staging (in a separate room) for track-level access via fare-gates with armed guards adjacent.

Remember when flights to DCA had a separate ticket check, armed police, and random frisks from Pearson? Madrid was pretty damn close to that.

Anyway, Germany/Brussels/Netherlands/France are free-for-all's but parts of Europe (Spain, Russia, UK <-> Continent) are much closer to airport level security with much shorter lines. This is another of those times that "European Standards" don't actually exist.

 

[crs1026]

It's true that there is ticket control in many places with only ticket holders allowed on platform. UK has gone to entry and exit control everywhere. However, even there, the entire platform area (which can be many tracks in a station like Kings' Cross) is one fare-paid zone. Once into the zone, passengers locate their platform and car location on their own (with signage and electronic aids that we can only drool about over here) without anyone telling them to line up here or checking their ticket for car and seat number..

The result is - little buildup of people as we see in the bowels of Union Station. Folks may arrive well before train time, but they move to their platform and find their place. There is certainly a horde of people standing waiting for the track for their train to be posted, and as each train hits the big signboard they dash off - similar to GO in the York consist.

My point is - with this approach, there is no need for VIA trains to be staged in the station hours before departure. The only limiting factor is how many people can stand on the platform. As I indicated, if VIA were allocated 3 or 4 tracks, they could have more pedestrian space in the center and two runthrough tracks on the outside. High level platforms would help. If you want this to be a fare paid area, fine...just have the fare checking done at the bottom of the stairs/escalator, but do it generically rather than one train at a time. Passengers go upstairs as they arrive, find their platform and coach location, the train arrives 10 minutes before departure, everyone boards, and it goes. Next train comes in. Stub end tracks in the middle allow some trains to reverse and depart without running through.

Yes, people do get on the wrong train in Europe - but that's their problem. The wayfinding and on-train signage is so much better, it's actually hard to miss it.

Much higher throughput for a limited number of tracks.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

A differentiation must be made as to *what service* you intend to use as per level of security. "Fare penalties" are still in effect in the UK for obvious reasons: You get on a train, even at a major terminal without a ticket, and if your fare is checked later (just like GO) you are charged a penalty fare.

The Daily Mail is hardly the journal of record, but this headline makes the situation clear:

Rail passengers face airport-style security checks at major train stations under new EU rules following foiled French gun attack

• Train companies could be forced to scan all passengers and their luggage
• Proposal would apply on high-speed rail routes and not commuter services
• It is set to be discussed by EU ministers at a security summit in October
• It would be the first time rules on railway security applied across the EU
• Comes after an attack was narrowly avoided on Paris-bound train on Friday
• Moroccan Ayoub El Khazzani was wrestled to the floor after opening fire

By Tom McTague, Deputy Political Editor for MailOnline

Published: 11:02 GMT, 26 August 2015 | Updated: 12:22 GMT, 26 August 2015[...]

(underlining is mine)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rules-following-foiled-French-gun-attack.html

 

[Northern Light]

A differentiation must be made as to *what service* you intend to use as per level of security. "Fare penalties" are still in effect in the UK for obvious reasons: You get on a train, even at a major terminal without a ticket, and if your fare is checked later (just like GO) you are charged a penalty fare.

The Daily Mail is hardly the journal of record, but this headline makes the situation clear:
(underlining is mine)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rules-following-foiled-French-gun-attack.html

I fail to understand this very selective obsession with security, be it for certain train routes or in a host of other spaces.

Its not as if one can (or would wish to) provide advanced security at every possible target.

I have no more desire to be a victim (or see a friend/loved one or stranger for that matter become one either)........

I see virtue in gun control, proper emergency response capabilities, not making it too easy to obtain explosive materials and surveilling those who have demonstrated a need for that by their past behavior (in respect of violence or potential for same).

That said, security of this type just seems bizarre to me.

There are so many targets for possible mass casualty type incidents, its not as if this truly inhibits the would-be mass murderer/terrorist. They just do something, somewhere else.

How about focusing security and mental health resources on prevention at source.

ie. preventing radicalization, education on alternative solutions to problems (as opposed to violence) and on controlling access to means of causing massing casualty events.

Sorry if this is running a tad off-thread.

 

[steveintoronto]

I fail to understand this very selective obsession with security, be it for certain train routes or in a host of other spaces.

It's a good question, but even as a Canadian, look at it as *customs pre-clearance*.

Even during my longest work sojourn in London a decade back, I could never get to see the Eurostar platforms, because that section of the station was 'secured', but I could walk from any one platform to any other in the older part of the station, once past the platform ticket check (same requirement in force at Union)

In the event, Eurostar now moved to St Pancras, and thus:

More platforms and longer trains for Waterloo station

Five former Eurostar platforms at London Waterloo station will be brought back into service.

The £800m redevelopment of Britain's busiest station will also extend platforms 1-4 to accommodate longer trains to Reading.

It comes after South West Trains announced the launch of a new fleet of trains with free wifi, wider doors and air conditioning.

Waterloo's peak time capacity will rise by 30%, say Network Rail.

Summer closures
The work programme will mean taking eight platforms out of service during August 2017, with "significant changes" to services.

During this time the five Waterloo International platforms, which shut in 2007, will reopen temporarily, before closing again for the construction of a new passenger concourse. [...]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-35882068

That said, security of this type just seems bizarre to me.

Some of it is done for show, doubtless, but I had a good look around Union on Sunday, to check on a number of posters' observations, and my own on the mess of detours and lack of rational signage in the basement, but something that I did find conspicuously absent, and I ended up asking someone there on this, response I'll withhold, is that security is *sadly lacking* at Union. Canadians are setting themselves up by being so blase on this, and I'm anti-authority in many ways. One of the most glaring omissions at Union is the lack of signs stating: "In event of emergency, this way out!* (With an arrow pointing).

We are getting off topic a bit, agreed, but nothing illustrates how ill-prepared we are than the incident half a year back of the 29 bus on 407 with the bomb threat. The driver (perhaps via the dispatch) asked OPP what to do. "Lock the passengers inside" was the answer.

Hey....don't get me started on how any maggot terrorists would see that as a Gift from Allah.

We're not prepared, not even close...