Lack of meaningful Passenger Rail service outside the Quebec-Windsor Corridor

[crs1026]

I was kinda surprised at how they did it. I would have expected that they would be put on the busiest sections first.However, learning how they did it this way and the potential reasons why does help me understand and speculate what could happen when/if the LDF is replaced. With the Corridor fleet, we all knew what the worst cars were. Do we even have any indication which are the worst current LDF? That could signal what gets replaced first.

I would not assume the two will happen in similar fashion, although there are certainly time polished wisdoms that can be assumed.

The biggest for me is how low key and tentative the initial rollout was. In today's world, flying under the radar and avoiding viral bad news headlines is so critical. All it would have taken is one mass recall or rescued train to change the whole public perception (and that can still happen, so I'm crossing fingers as I say that). Dropping the first trainset into the heaviest cycle would have been reckless. VIA took it slow and verified the equipment before using it intensively.

I also notice that, while in theory the LRC fleet is to be retired forthwith as the Venture trainsets arrive. I am suddenly seeing a lot of 8-car LRC consists out there. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that VIA may be using the short term surplus of equipment to demonstrate to the bureaucracy just how much upside there is in the market ie if more trainsets were procured. If that's true, good on VIA.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

I would not assume the two will happen in similar fashion, although there are certainly time polished wisdoms that can be assumed.

The biggest for me is how low key and tentative the initial rollout was. In today's world, flying under the radar and avoiding viral bad news headlines is so critical. All it would have taken is one mass recall or rescued train to change the whole public perception (and that can still happen, so I'm crossing fingers as I say that). Dropping the first trainset into the heaviest cycle would have been reckless. VIA took it slow and verified the equipment before using it intensively.

I also notice that, while in theory the LRC fleet is to be retired forthwith as the Venture trainsets arrive. I am suddenly seeing a lot of 8-car LRC consists out there. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that VIA may be using the short term surplus of equipment to demonstrate to the bureaucracy just how much upside there is in the market ie if more trainsets were procured. If that's true, good on VIA.

- Paul

To extrapolate onto the LDF, it would make sense to have all the short trains, such as the Prince Rupert and Northern Quebec trains replaced with new coaches. They could then use those coaches on the Ocean and Canadian? So, maybe the last train with old coaches might be the Canadian, but any other the non Stainless Steel cars are retired first. This o course is dependent on the Stainless steel cars being in better shape than the rest.

 

[Urban Sky]

When you roll out a new fleet, you want the new trains to visit the appropriate maintenance facility as often as possible and not venture (no pun intended) too far from that maintenance facility. Also, you can only start having it lay over somewhere else once you’ve trained enough staff. With that knowledge, it’s not that difficult to understand why the first stage was MTRL-OTTW-MTRL (without overnight layover in Ottawa) and the next stages QMO services (where every trainset visits Montreal twice per day), with first services laying over in Ottawa (or Montrea, of course) at the beginning (second stage) and later also in Quebec City (third stage).

However (and as was already pointed out), without knowing where the new fleet will get maintained, it’s pointless to speculate how it will get rolled out. If Siemens gets selected and they deliver coaches before the sleepers/diners/lounge cars (for which they first have to design a completely new production line), then the Northern Quebec services (JONQ/SENN) services might be first, but there are also countless other procurement scenarios…

 

[smallspy]

I also notice that, while in theory the LRC fleet is to be retired forthwith as the Venture trainsets arrive. I am suddenly seeing a lot of 8-car LRC consists out there. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that VIA may be using the short term surplus of equipment to demonstrate to the bureaucracy just how much upside there is in the market ie if more trainsets were procured. If that's true, good on VIA.

- Paul

It's not a lot, it's 2. And those are used on 65-75 / 70-64, which have historically been heavily used trains on both of their legs, and in both directions.

There is a short-term surplus in the sense that VIA can afford to put an additional car on those sets, but historically those have operated as 6- or 7-car trains in the summer. Another take on the whole matter is that ridership has improved to the point that perhaps an 8th car on each of those sets is welcome news that ridership has (largely) bounced back, and that hopefully we can see some new frequencies before too long.

Dan

 

[micheal_can]

https://fb.watch/sXYDF_nYfX

This was posted on the Via Rail Historical Society Facebook page. In it they talk of the replacement fleet and wondering if it could be basically the same but with modern features and standards.

Could it?
Anyone know whether there is a company that could make a modern version of the stainless steel cars but with modern standards and features?

 

[C_Johnson_1995]

A big question mark that I believe is hanging over VIA is whether there will be a new fleet at all. With a coming CPC supermajority, it's unlikely that even HFR will survive, let alone the large capital expenditure on a new fleet for unaffordable, lightly patroned services which don't serve an actual practical transport service.

I think the reality that few are willing to confront here is that as bad as things are, they could get a lot worse. It's easy to see the long distance services being reduced to once per week, cut entirely or privatised to a company like Rocky Mountaineer.

Perhaps it might be time to acknowledge that VIA is an obsolete organisation and that passenger rail should be handled by provincial governments who have actual political will to invest and see passenger trains where they are practical to exist as more than a punching bag to continually cut funding from.

 

[goreckm]

A big question mark that I believe is hanging over VIA is whether there will be a new fleet at all. With a coming CPC supermajority, it's unlikely that even HFR will survive, let alone the large capital expenditure on a new fleet for unaffordable, lightly patroned services which don't serve an actual practical transport service.

I think the reality that few are willing to confront here is that as bad as things are, they could get a lot worse. It's easy to see the long distance services being reduced to once per week, cut entirely or privatised to a company like Rocky Mountaineer.

Perhaps it might be time to acknowledge that VIA is an obsolete organisation and that passenger rail should be handled by provincial governments who have actual political will to invest and see passenger trains where they are practical to exist as more than a punching bag to continually cut funding from.

Yeah, that's true. Maybe it's time to take the train to Vancouver before it's gone or reduced, like you said. I was going to wait until my kids were teenagers, but, might not be enough time for that.

Does anyone have preferences on direction and season?

 

[micheal_can]

A big question mark that I believe is hanging over VIA is whether there will be a new fleet at all. With a coming CPC supermajority, it's unlikely that even HFR will survive, let alone the large capital expenditure on a new fleet for unaffordable, lightly patroned services which don't serve an actual practical transport service.

I think the reality that few are willing to confront here is that as bad as things are, they could get a lot worse. It's easy to see the long distance services being reduced to once per week, cut entirely or privatised to a company like Rocky Mountaineer.

Perhaps it might be time to acknowledge that VIA is an obsolete organisation and that passenger rail should be handled by provincial governments who have actual political will to invest and see passenger trains where they are practical to exist as more than a punching bag to continually cut funding from.

That is one very real possibility that cannot be ignored. My assumptions if it is to happen is the LD services will be cut/sold off first.

 

[Urban Sky]

A big question mark that I believe is hanging over VIA is whether there will be a new fleet at all. With a coming CPC supermajority, it's unlikely that even HFR will survive, let alone the large capital expenditure on a new fleet for unaffordable, lightly patroned services which don't serve an actual practical transport service.

I wouldn’t expect a conservative government to start a procurement process for a fleet renewal or for HFR, but as long as contracts are signed before the election, I don’t think there is a chance of the new government cancelling either project:

1. The longhaul fleet should be safe as it will serve and preserve well-paid jobs in a large number of exactly the kind of rural (and mostly Western) ridings for which the Conservatives claim to be the natural ally. The optics of them nixing a project which would have almost all of its benefits outside the Q-W Corridor would be devastating.
2. HFR should be safe as long as it requires very little federal funding. They might scale down the project, but as long as there is enough private interest to cover the vast majority of the project’s capital cost. The Conservatives are fiscally conservative, not fiercely anti-rail.

I think the reality that few are willing to confront here is that as bad as things are, they could get a lot worse. It's easy to see the long distance services being reduced to once per week, cut entirely or privatised to a company like Rocky Mountaineer.

Take off your sunglasses and compare the fortunes of intercity and urban passenger rail now with those of 2014 (a mere 10 years ago): I don’t think many of us would have bet that a decade later, we would have a new Corridor fleet partly in service, the transition to an electrified RER service in the GTHA well underway, a Higher-Speed intercity project in procurement and a non-Corridor fleet renewal nearing procurement. Maybe I should post some VIA and GO schedules from 2014 to show how much their scheduled train volumes have increased during the last decade (and despite the covid dip)…

Perhaps it might be time to acknowledge that VIA is an obsolete organisation and that passenger rail should be handled by provincial governments who have actual political will to invest and see passenger trains where they are practical to exist as more than a punching bag to continually cut funding from.

Seriously, your perception of the current state of the passenger rail industry in this country is really lagging by at least 10, if not: 30 years…

 

[crs1026]

Take off your sunglasses and compare the fortunes of intercity and urban passenger rail now with those of 2014 (a mere 10 years ago): I don’t think many of us would have bet that a decade later, we would have a new Corridor fleet partly in service, the transition to an electrified RER service in the GTHA well underway, a Higher-Speed intercity project in procurement and a non-Corridor fleet renewal nearing procurement. Maybe I should post some VIA and GO schedules from 2014 to show how much their scheduled train volumes have increased during the last decade (and despite the covid dip)…

There's also the reality that a conservative government will have to eventually do something to demonstrate forward direction on carbon.
And there will be pressure eventually for expensive airport expansion, which gives opportunity for comparisons in cost and return..
Also, by the time the Liberals vacate office, there will be one or more consortiums that have put considerable time and money into HFR proposals. I expect they will continue to lobby energetically and skillfully - that's a dynamic that passenger rail really has never really had in this country, the rail advocacy has never had major businesses this engaged.
And, after the honeymoon is over, even a CPC government will need things to keep Ontario and Quebec on side.
All that is needed is for the CPC to be able to say that they have reworked the idea to rid itself of Liberal excesses and foolishnesses.... a move back to more vanilla HFR might well achieve that.

- Paul

 

[goreckm]

There's also the reality that a conservative government will have to eventually do something to demonstrate forward direction on carbon.
And there will be pressure eventually for expensive airport expansion, which gives opportunity for comparisons in cost and return..
Also, by the time the Liberals vacate office, there will be one or more consortiums that have put considerable time and money into HFR proposals. I expect they will continue to lobby energetically and skillfully - that's a dynamic that passenger rail really has never really had in this country, the rail advocacy has never had major businesses this engaged.
And, after the honeymoon is over, even a CPC government will need things to keep Ontario and Quebec on side.
All that is needed is for the CPC to be able to say that they have reworked the idea to rid itself of Liberal excesses and foolishnesses.... a move back to more vanilla HFR might well achieve that.

- Paul

Umm, I don't know what decade of the conservative party your thinking of, but, it's definitely not the current one. They are more likely to make a grant to resurrect the Spadina Expressway than spend money on HFR. I guess we'll find out soon enough, but, I'm not optimistic at all. Many people here think that, "hey, Ford, a pretty populist conservative is doing a lot of transit building, I'm sure this will be true of the feds as well". Remember, the feds don't rely as much on close ties to developers as Ford does, who is really doing this transit building to ensure his friends' land values go up, not some kind of goal like reducing carbon, pollution and gridlock or city building.

 

[Urban Sky]

Umm, I don't know what decade of the conservative party your thinking of, but, it's definitely not the current one. They are more likely to make a grant to resurrect the Spadina Expressway than spend money on HFR. I guess we'll find out soon enough, but, I'm not optimistic at all. Many people here think that, "hey, Ford, a pretty populist conservative is doing a lot of transit building, I'm sure this will be true of the feds as well". Remember, the feds don't rely as much on close ties to developers as Ford does, who is really doing this transit building to ensure his friends' land values go up, not some kind of goal like reducing carbon, pollution and gridlock or city building.

If the business case for HFR or HSR is really as big as some people here in the forum seem to believe, then the role of the federal government will be more of streamlining the approval process and providing some money for mitigation measures (noise barriers, grade separation of road crossings) than providing subsidies for the actual construction of the rail infrastructure or rolling stock. In that case, the IRR from a government/taxpayer-perspective would be far too tempting to forgo, even for a fiscally conservative government…

 

[C_Johnson_1995]

Seriously, your perception of the current state of the passenger rail industry in this country is really lagging by at least 10, if not: 30 years…

I'm not sure what you mean by this, since I am referring to passenger services outside the corridor, as the thread would suggest. In that specific service category, we are doing worse than 20 years ago.

But as for VIA as an organization, where is your point of disagreement? In the best case scenario, where HFR goes through, a private entity takes over operation of services (even though not ownership) which account for >95% of VIA ridership and its biggest growth area. It then becomes a withered shell operating token services which don't even run daily and might be better served with frequent motor coaches.

Even at the present, where there is overlap, GO vastly outcompetes VIA. IMO, everything west of Toronto on the corridor should be turned over to GO. Come to think of it, the only reason I can think that HFR shouldn't be a provincial project is that it goes between Ontario and Quebec which makes coordination at that level of government politically difficult.

 

[dowlingm]

Again, I think reliance on provincial governments to step in and maintain VIA / VIA services (with or without subsidy) is a reach. A provincial government cancelled Northlander. A provincial government sold BC Rail and the truncation of related passenger services. A provincial government watched the Johnson Street Bridge rebuilt without tracks. Two provincial governments watched two different route alignments through the Ottawa Valley abandoned. A provincial government handed over a mainline tunnel through an urban center to a pension fund and shrugged when promises of compatibility with VIA Rail were rescinded. These are only the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Aside from anything else, were I a provincial premier I might say “sure I will buy VIA trainsets (for example, into the ONTC federally regulated subsidiary rail operator) and slap our livery on them and operate them over whatever subset of routes will bring me votes or will lose me votes if I don’t - but all pension and environmental costs from the legacy VIA entity that I or others don’t buy are a Federal problem”

 

[micheal_can]

Again, I think reliance on provincial governments to step in and maintain VIA / VIA services (with or without subsidy) is a reach. A provincial government cancelled Northlander. A provincial government sold BC Rail and the truncation of related passenger services. A provincial government watched the Johnson Street Bridge rebuilt without tracks. Two provincial governments watched two different route alignments through the Ottawa Valley abandoned. A provincial government handed over a mainline tunnel through an urban center to a pension fund and shrugged when promises of compatibility with VIA Rail were rescinded. These are only the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

So many wish to forget that the provinces have done their fair share to cut what we had for public rail transportation.

Aside from anything else, were I a provincial premier I might say “sure I will buy VIA trainsets (for example, into the ONTC federally regulated subsidiary rail operator) and slap our livery on them and operate them over whatever subset of routes will bring me votes or will lose me votes if I don’t - but all pension and environmental costs from the legacy VIA entity that I or others don’t buy are a Federal problem”

If the provinces would take over Via routes,I doubt they would take on their pensions and environmental costs. They may hire them, but they would be starting new.