News   Mar 28, 2024
 98     1 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 563     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 357     0 

VIA Rail

Yes they will be shorter (VIA currently uses 5-7 car trains along these routes). The question is will they be short enough for DMUs to make sense? VIA will have the best information for determining this, but looking at VIA's Total passengers at stations (boarding and deboarding) in 2018 for the top 6 stations along the "lakeshore" corridor (ignoring Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Fallowfield and Dorval as they will have HFR, but including Oshawa as it won't).

RankStationTotal Passengers
5KINGSTON456,586
9OSHAWA207,037
12BELLEVILLE146,395
13COBOURG136,541
18BROCKVILLE61,305
20CORNWALL55,890
Total1,063,754

Now if you divide that by 52, you get 20,457 passengers per week. Assuming ridership remains the same, and that there will be 12 trains a day weekdays, 10 trains on Saturdays and 8 trains on Sundays (a guesstimate) each way, that is a total of 78 train each way or 156 trains total per week. Divide that out and you get an average of 131 passengers per train, using 2018 ridership. With a schedule that tailored for the lakeshore service rather than to/from Ottawa and Montreal, that number should grow significantly (this is just a starting point). One of VIA's new "Extra short," 3 car trains will have a capacity of 176 passengers, so that will be a good starting point, and more cars can be added seasonally as ridership grows.

I admit these calculations assume that no one is traveling between those stations (instead they are going to/from Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa or one of the other stations not listed), but I also ignored the smaller stations (like PORT HOPE, GUILDWOOD, TRENTON JCT, etc.), so that should balance out reasonably well.


131 passengers is 2 cars. A 3 car DMU might be god for those areas. This could then mean some of the older routes that have 3 or less regular cars could be switched to new DMUs.
 
131 passengers is 2 cars. A 3 car DMU might be god for those areas. This could then mean some of the older routes that have 3 or less regular cars could be switched to new DMUs.

Not sure why you think "A 3 car DMU might be god." It explains a lot. :p

A 3 car DMU is no better than a conventional train and would limit ability to grow ridership. As I said earlier, "given that most modern DMUs come in fixed, preconfigured train lengths, with permanent (not semi-permanent) couplers, they provide much less operational flexibility to adjust for seasonal demand or long term growth."
 
At least from Oshawa, I foresee a drop in ridership as the Ottawa and Montreal traffic shifts to the GTA East station. Right now, Oshawa and Guildwood act as the GTA stations for all traffic to/from Toronto and all points East.
 
Not sure why you think "A 3 car DMU might be god." It explains a lot. :p

A 3 car DMU is no better than a conventional train and would limit ability to grow ridership. As I said earlier, "given that most modern DMUs come in fixed, preconfigured train lengths, with permanent (not semi-permanent) couplers, they provide much less operational flexibility to adjust for seasonal demand or long term growth."
The upx trains are definitely not permanently coupled as they run in 2 and 3 car formations regularly. They can easily couple married units to form a longer train at any time if required, like a 2+2. Regardless, if they really wanted to suppliers can most likely convert married pairs into semi permanent couplers if they were asked to do so. It's not new tech
 
At least from Oshawa, I foresee a drop in ridership as the Ottawa and Montreal traffic shifts to the GTA East station. Right now, Oshawa and Guildwood act as the GTA stations for all traffic to/from Toronto and all points East.

That is a good point. Even if we assumed the VIA passenger count at Oshawa dropped to Zero (which it wouldn't), the per train ridership would only drop to 106. I do see optimizing the lakeshore as a huge growth opportunity for VIA though, and that number should go up substantially.
 
Not sure why you think "A 3 car DMU might be god." It explains a lot. :p

A 3 car DMU is no better than a conventional train and would limit ability to grow ridership. As I said earlier, "given that most modern DMUs come in fixed, preconfigured train lengths, with permanent (not semi-permanent) couplers, they provide much less operational flexibility to adjust for seasonal demand or long term growth."

... Sorry about the spelling. I think they might be good for certain routes where there is a demand, but not a high demand. Most may be of a fixed length, but that does not mean we have to use those ones. Realistically speaking, if there is a demand for more than 3 cars, then DMUs are not the answer.
Mind you, last I checked, no Corridor train is 15 cars long, but some routes need that. So, Via should look at all options to optimize the rolling stock and match it to the demand.
 
... Sorry about the spelling. I think they might be good for certain routes where there is a demand, but not a high demand. Most may be of a fixed length, but that does not mean we have to use those ones. Realistically speaking, if there is a demand for more than 3 cars, then DMUs are not the answer.
Mind you, last I checked, no Corridor train is 15 cars long, but some routes need that. So, Via should look at all options to optimize the rolling stock and match it to the demand.
Not sure why people think that dmus can't be longer than 3 cars for intercity. Take for example the British super voyager class trains. They are 5 cars long and they are intercity. Obviously the regs will need to change or a supplier will need to develop a train for north America but it is possible and common to have long multiple unit trains for long distance travel. We need to get out if the mindset that honking huge diesel locos are the only way for intercity operations. In fact for most advanced nations other than North America, diesel locos are way obsolete


Also the class 800s amongst others
 
Not sure why people think that dmus can't be longer than 3 cars for intercity. Take for example the British super voyager class trains. They are 5 cars long and they are intercity. Obviously the regs will need to change or a supplier will need to develop a train for north America but it is possible and common to have long multiple unit trains for long distance travel. We need to get out if the mindset that honking huge diesel locos are the only way for intercity operations. In fact for most advanced nations other than North America, diesel locos are way obsolete


Also the class 800s amongst others

I think it is for the same reason people think the existing cas for the Canadian are the only ones it should ever run with. Heaven forbid we modernize the entire fleet.
 
The solution to Niagara Falls NY getting GO service is allow walk-overs across the bridge, even without NEXUS. Americans could park at the Amtrak station and cross the bridge.

The logistics of clearing trains at the border is too complicated otherwise, especially since the US station is literally across the bridge from the Canadian one.

My preferred solution is just to have a single car DMU shuttle that goes back and forth across the river every 15 mins or so. The Niagara Falls Bridge Commission already maintains it (and the other bridges over the Niagara River, with the exception of the Peace Bridge), so have that existing international agency operate it, and make the fare for using the service equal to the toll paid for crossing the Rainbow or Queenston-Lewiston bridges.

That way, it can be used as both a rail connection (GO/Via on the Ontario side, Amtrak on the New York side), as well as tourists who just want to visit the other side of the river, but don't want to drive or walk across.

Under this scenario, no pre-clearance setup would be necessary, as it would function just as if you were walking across the Rainbow Bridge. If you're refused entry in the other country, you're just put on the next train back across the river.
 
Not sure why people think that dmus can't be longer than 3 cars for intercity. Take for example the British super voyager class trains. They are 5 cars long and they are intercity. Obviously the regs will need to change or a supplier will need to develop a train for north America but it is possible and common to have long multiple unit trains for long distance travel. We need to get out if the mindset that honking huge diesel locos are the only way for intercity operations. In fact for most advanced nations other than North America, diesel locos are way obsolete


Also the class 800s amongst others

There is a big difference between something you can do and something you should do. Coaches are cheap to maintain because they don’t have many moving parts. Diesel engines are much more expensive to maintain, since they have hundreds of moving parts. As a result it is cheaper to maintain a locomotive (plus a bunch of coaches) with one large engine than multiple DMUs, each with their own small engine.
 
LOL. That's definitely not happening. But there's an argument to be made for VIA to bolster it's Niagara service and to terminate in Niagara Falls, NY. That might provide sufficient extra passengers to justify additional frequencies.
I would argue that VIA doesn't have a Niagara service now, merely sticking its train number on an Amtrak trainset.

Giving Amtrak an incentive to terminate all of their Niagara Falls trains on the Ontario side and transferring to/from GO trains/buses would provide direct access for Ontarians to multiple daily services, as long as the cost of a US preclearance facility at NF-ON was met.

After all, Amtrak are already crossing the border. For VIA to do so would have to be negotiated both with their unions, with TC, and with FRA. For GO to do so would likely be an even bigger leap.
 
As I said earlier, "given that most modern DMUs come in fixed, preconfigured train lengths, with permanent (not semi-permanent) couplers, they provide much less operational flexibility to adjust for seasonal demand or long term growth."
You may have said this earlier but that didn't make it correct. A good example of this is Irish Rail's 22000 Class DMU, which have been reformed into 4 and 5 car consists having being delivered as 3 and 6 car.

While there was an assertion above that DMUs are outperformed by locos above 3 cars, which I have seen elsewhere, this may reflect a couple of things:
  • The DMU comparator being Budd cars which lack modern train management and engine control such as selective shutdown
  • FRA locomotive inspection standards which impose cost and downtime in a manner which falls heavily on consists with multiple engines and multiple cabs.
In Ireland, the CAF Mark 4 trainset (EMD 12-710 locomotive plus coaches and APCU) would be "obviously" preferable to a 5 or 6 car or 4+3 DMU consist viewed through an North American lens. Instead a consist or two is often stabled in favour of the DMUs which have the advantage of multiple powered axles and thus less apt to fall behind on the schedule because of slow getaways from stations. A train system almost entirely locohaul and pushpull commuter in the 1970s is now almost entirely DMU.

When travelling to Kitchener a few years back in one of three Budd coaches behind a Tier 0 F40PH designed to pull maybe eight, with the diesel fumes streaming in as we powered up the Weston Sub, it occurred to me about much more suited these routes with many slowdowns for speed restrictions would be in speed and emissions if operated by a Tier 3 Nippon Sharyo or similar DMU consist.
 
You may have said this earlier but that didn't make it correct. A good example of this is Irish Rail's 22000 Class DMU, which have been reformed into 4 and 5 car consists having being delivered as 3 and 6 car.

Do you not know the difference between the words most and all (though I do admit and I could be wrong at it could be many or some, but I haven't heard any arguments to prove that that is true)? Or do you need to resort to a strawman argument? Three examples of DMUs, off the top of my head, with permanent couplers are:


Yes multiple trainsets can be coupled together, but doing so will increase the train size considerably more than adding a coach. You also can't walk between different trainsets, which is a disadvantage.

While there was an assertion above that DMUs are outperformed by locos above 3 cars, which I have seen elsewhere, this may reflect a couple of things:
  • The DMU comparator being Budd cars which lack modern train management and engine control such as selective shutdown
  • FRA locomotive inspection standards which impose cost and downtime in a manner which falls heavily on consists with multiple engines and multiple cabs.

Those might be a couple of considerations, but the bigger one is the lifecycle cost. As I mentioned previously, DMUs will have higher maintenance costs than a coach. This is especially important for VIA, due to the much longer lifespan expected from their equipment than that in Europe.

Another factor, as @Urban Sky mentioned, is conversion to electric operation. With a traditional train, all you have to do is replace the locomotive with an electric (or bi-mode) one and all the coaches are now electric. With most DMUs, you would need to either replace the train or perform a significant modification to every unit. Admittedly, things are a bit easier with Stadler DMUs, as they have separate power unit that could be removed during an overhaul of the trainset. It does require an overhaul though, and not a simple change of locomotive and once converted, it would require another overall to go back should you want to use the trainset in an un-electrified section of track.

In Ireland, the CAF Mark 4 trainset (EMD 12-710 locomotive plus coaches and APCU) would be "obviously" preferable to a 5 or 6 car or 4+3 DMU consist viewed through an North American lens. Instead a consist or two is often stabled in favour of the DMUs which have the advantage of multiple powered axles and thus less apt to fall behind on the schedule because of slow getaways from stations. A train system almost entirely locohaul and pushpull commuter in the 1970s is now almost entirely DMU.

When travelling to Kitchener a few years back in one of three Budd coaches behind a Tier 0 F40PH designed to pull maybe eight, with the diesel fumes streaming in as we powered up the Weston Sub, it occurred to me about much more suited these routes with many slowdowns for speed restrictions would be in speed and emissions if operated by a Tier 3 Nippon Sharyo or similar DMU consist.

It really depends of frequently the train stops. I suspect the stops are much closer than they are along the corridor, so DMUs have more of an advantage (the improved acceleration is only and advantage when accelerating).

As for the diesel fumes, you do realize that DMUs also emit them. The only thing is they are coming from the car you are sitting in, not a locomotive at the front (or back) of the train, where they have a chance to dissipate before they get to you. Also, the vibrations from the diesel engine are felt through the entire car and not isolated to the locomotive.
 
West of Toronto, I can see HFR leading to a service plan where the hourly trains arriving from the east run through, alternating between the two current routes. That puts London on effectively an hourly service, and 2-hourly headways for both Kitchener and Brantford If either corridor needs an hourly headway, fill in with DMU, or Chargers as needed, turning at London. I can see perhaps three trains running straight through to Sarnia, again using turnarounds to fill in schedule gaps east of London. No reason that HFR to London can’t carry on to Windsor.
I struggle to imagine a HFR route between Toronto and London following the Dundas Sub for the same reason I don't see it extend to Sarnia and Windsor: the inability to achieve dispatching priority for passenger trains over the entire corridor. The only disused ROW which could be re-purposed would be the Brantford Cut-Off, but that eliminates the only CMA between the GTHA and London along the Southern route.

I never agreed with VIA’s 1980s move to a Kitchener RDC service that had zero through trains to London or Sarnia. It’s all in a creative and careful service plan. That’s even more true now, because the population growth along the Kitchener line since then may give it the more important revenue potential. One-train options are a good thing.
I assume you meant to say "zero through trains to Windsor or Sarnia", but it was already CN which stopped routing any Toronto-Windsor trains via Kitchener (back in 1964!) and that had been only one single eastbound night train in most years.

Concerning Toronto-Kitchener-London-Sarnia (TKLS) trains, these trains didn't even exist prior to October 1961 (April 1963 for eastbound services) and again, it was still during the CN years (October 1973) that they were effectively eliminated when CN switched the Kitchener route to RDC service only, leaving only one single westbound TKLS train:
1606616699405.png

Source: official CN timetable (effective 1973-10-28)

That sole eastbound afternoon train was therefore the only TKLS train which was eliminated during the 1980s (it happened in October 1981):
1606617250325.png

1606620468782.png

Source: official VIA Rail timetable (effective 1981-06-01)

However, TKLS services returned with one single round-trip in October 1986 and were increased to two round-trips (plus a third westbound trip) in June 1987:
1606617598964.png

Source: official VIA Rail timetable (1987-06-07)

With the cuts of January 1990, the entire Toronto-Sarnia service was reduced to only two round-trips which all operated via Kitchener ever since (except for one of the round-trips which was routed via Brantford Mondays to Fridays between 1998 and 2005). Therefore, I really don't see what makes you believe that VIA would neglect the connection between Sarnia and Kitchener:
1606618198105.png

Compiled from: official CN and VIA Rail timetables

As I said before, for Toronto-Windsor, there has always been a strong preference for routing trains via Brantford rather than Kitchener, but that is unsurprising given that journey times have always been substantially faster via the Southern than the Northern route, with the fastest scheduled travel time via Brantford having been 1:45h (train 686 in 2005) and thus almost an hour faster than via Kitchener (2:40h, refer to train 87 in the timetable screenshot of June 1987 shown above). However, this does not change that you are most probably right in suspecting that the preferred route for HFR west of Toronto would most be the Kitchener rather than the Brantford route, as it serves the larger ridership generators (Kitchener, Guelph and Pearson Airport) and has at least a vision of becoming an entirely passenger-focused corridor (we are talking about the "Missing Link", of course)...


Well, I fall back on my long-standing projection that once HFR is moved to the Havelock line, VIA's use of the Kingston route will face even more constraints beyond what's there today.

We need to remember that VIA's post-HFR Lakeshore service plan is an early morning train originating in Kingston in each of three directions. Then, 4-ish through trains each way during the day. And then the three layover trains returning in the evening. (Maybe, in the best of cases, there is a very early departure to get people to the end points by the start of the business day, and a second departure a couple hours later for those who don't need to rise so early - casual shoppers, day trippers, medical appointments, etc.)

If your vision of "regular DMU service" is any more frequent service than that, I would say you are ignoring the facts of VIA's being only a tenant on CN's line.
Here comes again your conspiracy theory that there is some secret mechanism (presumably hidden somewhere in the CN-VIA TSA contract) which would automatically void a substantial part of VIA's current Lakeshore slots the very second VIA opens a parallel line which shifts most Montreal/Ottawa-Toronto traffic away from the Kingston Subdivision, accompanied by some just as unsubstantiated speculation about VIA's intended Lakeshore frequencies post-HFR...^^

I totally agree that the focus should be on the Kitchener line, with a good integrated service with GO. With some fairly low cost track upgrading west of Kitchener, the Stratford route could be about as fast end to end as the Brantford route... nothing fancy, simply as good as the Smiths Falls and Alexandria lines today. Still, I would argue that through trains along that line towards Windsor and Detroit would be a good business move. The transfer at London has always been problemmatic, and I don't know why Brantford/Woodstock would get the Windsor advantage over Kitchener and Pearson in a new service plan.
Credit where credit is due: this is really a good point and it was in one of my very first posts here on UT that I pointed out that the Northern route's potential was not inferior in terms of travel time and actually superior in most other aspects. Nevertheless, having HFR go west of London becomes only viable if interference between passenger and freight traffic can somehow be avoided...


LOL. That's definitely not happening. But there's an argument to be made for VIA to bolster it's Niagara service and to terminate in Niagara Falls, NY. That might provide sufficient extra passengers to justify additional frequencies.
As long as there is no solution which leaves passenger trains unimpeded from the operation of the Welland canal, I don't see any chance of VIA services (other than the Maple Leaf, of course!) returning to Niagara Falls (or beyond)...


I was persuaded by comments in this thread some time ago (a couple of years maybe?) to the effect that where intermediate points only have three or four stopping trains today, there would be little or no improvement on that, and that these stops would be compressed into all-stops trains - whereas today those stops are staggered across the whole lineup with any single train only stopping once or twice.
I struggle to imagine a single justification for skipping any of the stops @roger1818 listed in his little ridership table which would still remain valid after these stops no longer inconvenience the major markets (e.g. MTRL-TRTO or OTTW-TRTO)...
 
Last edited:
There is a big difference between something you can do and something you should do. Coaches are cheap to maintain because they don’t have many moving parts. Diesel engines are much more expensive to maintain, since they have hundreds of moving parts. As a result it is cheaper to maintain a locomotive (plus a bunch of coaches) with one large engine than multiple DMUs, each with their own small engine.

This is an assertion made with no evidence. Taken to the ultimate conclusion, it would mean there's never a case for DMUs at all. But we know that's not true.

Maintenance on a locomotive is going to be far more expensive than simply a power pack on a DMU. Not in the least because the engines in a locomotive are larger and more sophisticated, usually connected to advanced generators too, driving up maintenance costs. DMUs on the other hand use glorified semi engines.
 

Back
Top