Moose Rail (National Capital Region)

[Joseph Potvin]

Somehow I think courts and government agencies do not give a rat's behind about guilt trips.

Fortunately, they do.

 

[steveintoronto]

Since MOOSE has not yet selected trains, how did you conclude what we've not chosen?

This is an interesting point, not so much for Moose, although of course it would affect selection of rolling stock, but from the regulators. Since the O-Train runs under special dispensation (waivers if you wish) to allow 'light' and 'heavy' rail to operate on the same track, I'm curious as to how that would affect any other train operator over that stretch? Again, this isn't only for the Moose case, but how this might unfold for other operations that Moose has blazed the trail for. The US FRA appears considerably ahead of Canada on this, and of course, the Rest of World in many cases is far ahead, it's a situation that has to be addressed.

I've Googled to find the O-Train 'exceptions' but have so far not found them. If Moose could get equal or similar exceptions, it could vastly reduce costs (purchase and operating) of rolling stock. Any more info on that that you might have most appreciated.

I see both Metrolinx and VIA also having a stake in TC and CTA adopting a more open regimen. Let alone other upstarts, public or private.

 

[Joseph Potvin]

'light' and 'heavy' rail to operate on the same track. ... If Moose could get equal or similar exceptions, it could vastly reduce costs.

MOOSE will not sacrifice safety to reduce costs; is not seeking any exemptions from conventional regulations; and is actively researching ways to do better than minimum safety standards.

In the PPR, public safety and business profit are synergistic. By analogy, if the owner of a high-rise building applied for, and obtained, some exemptions to conventional elevator safety regulations, would that be likely to have a positive or negative impact on income and asset value of the units in the building?

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

 

[steveintoronto]

MOOSE will not sacrifice safety to reduce costs

Safety is in fact *increased* according to APTA for rail vehicles that meet their standards rather than the much older FRA (AAR) ones. I might have ventured into an area that is still nascent in awareness in Canada, so let me flip this over: 'Would O-Train's 'exceptions' still be fully valid to TC and CTA if mixed with conventional heavy rail passenger stock of another operator sharing the track? Would/could that be addressed by upgrading the signalling and control systems?'

From a technical paper from the APTA (I'll see if I can find and post reference from a more 'reader friendly' source later. All that shows in an initial Google is tech papers)

[...]

http://www.apta.com/resources/standards/Documents/APTA-PR-CS-S-034-99.pdf

There's no shortage of info on-line discussing this, almost all relevant when invoking 'APTA' to the US systems operating under considerably more progressive regulations than is commonly seen in Canada, so here's an example from GO Transit's excellent
Appendix 4
Rolling Stock
Technology Assessment
December 2010

[...]

http://www.gotransit.com/electrification/en/project_history/Appendix Files/Appendix 4.pdf

Discussed elsewhere by several references, and pertinent to Ottawa winters, is the greater adhesion of a distributed traction source from multiple units, diesel or electric. This has a marked effect on the rate of acceleration and braking possible.

Which lends itself to wondering if Moose' use of LINTs (as the O-Train now uses) would not only ease any regulatory concerns, but also add a benefit to OC Transpo's purchase and servicing pricing on theirs, and further support Alstom's presence remaining in the Ottawa region? To further that 'diplomatic incentive'...the LINT is being used by Alstom as the platform for their Hydrogen fuel cell trials in Germany. Perhaps MOOSE could also offer to test one if things progress as they should? It would be a PR coup for Canada, let alone Ottawa region. Also the load bearing requirement for the PoW Bridge and other structures would conform with what OC Transpo themselves would/could claim for future use. MOOSE would neutralize any basis for their opposition by matching OC Transpo's own claims. How could a regulator possibly say 'no'?

[...]Coradia iLint is developed in partnership with renowned German and Canadian companies boasting many years of experience in the fields of hydrogen energy and batteries. [...]
http://www.alstom.com/products-serv...rains/products/coradia-ilint-regional-train-/

 

[Joseph Potvin]

"wondering if Moose' use of LINTs (as the O-Train now uses) would ...

Keep in mind, MOOSE is a large property value optimization project. The train service is the method. Our feasibility analysis is exploring (among many other things of course) whether a café on the 2nd deck of each bi-level car, of each train, can be expected to generate a net cost or net benefit. Our initial bet is that making the 2nd deck café a normal part of the service would generate more money in terms of market demand for real property within the Linked Localities, than it would cost to install and run it on the trains.

Our business criteria for train selection is substantially different than for municipalities that depend on taxpayers and passenger fares, and there's no reason to expect we would select the same train as Ottawa has chosen, only to achieve uniformity. It may well make more sense to all involved, including the City of Ottawa, for MOOSE's bi-levels to haul on that main line. In that event, those Alstom LINTS could be redeployed by the City to other tracks, to link additional areas of their taxpaying public into the rail transit network.

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

 

[kEiThZ]

As you are convinced that the Property Powered Rail Open Market Development Model (PPR) is unworkable where service would include semi-rural areas, please share your specific critique. By now I presume you'll have read the whitepaper so you will already know that the only density that matters in a PPR undertaking is within the 0.8 km of each station. Given that πr2 gives 2 square km, and in the Greater National Capital Region we're planning on about 50 stations, you already know that this is a 100 square km property value optimization project (i.e. the train is just the method). So, when you do the arithmetic on, say, a 5% average increment in property income and asset value (assuming, say, 20% of each circle is unusable for generating value-added, and assuming 30% of the usable area involves rental properties), do your aggregate numbers across the 100 square km come out to anywhere near enough to run a train and to make a profit at the same time? Since you're joining Prof. Ian Lee in drawing conclusions about the core rationale without any need to reserve judgement until the feasibility study, may we please take a look at your preliminary numbers? (This invitation is open to anyone, of course. ...well except Allandale25, unless he promises to read the whitepaper.)

Geez. Until this I actually believed you guys had some real analysis you were holding back for more sophisticated partners. I seriously hope you have more for your investors than this...for your sake.

Let's start with the fact that 50 stations means nothing because you need actual partners for each of the 50 stations to be financially viable. Then let's talk about the fact that you're banking on a ton of stations being in the urban area where there isn't exactly virigin land in most of your catchment areas and a fully functional transit system already servicing them. And that's before we get into the fact that your entire proposal is based on working out a sharing arrangement with both OC Transpo and VIA Rail for the spine of your proposal.

Since MOOSE has not yet selected trains, how did you conclude what we've not chosen?

Your literature keeps showing double decker trains. And you're here talking about putting a cafe on the second deck. The onus is on you not to be misleading. I've never seen anything that suggest you'll putting on the same DMUs as what will operate on the Trillium Line. So are you getting double decked cars or not? And have you had a chat with any regulator and the owner of the major rail corridor you'll be using about mixing rolling stock?

Our business criteria for train selection is substantially different than for municipalities that depend on taxpayers and passenger fares, and there's no reason to expect we would select the same train as Ottawa has chosen, only to achieve uniformity.

I think regulators might have something to say about that.

It may well make more sense to all involved, including the City of Ottawa, for MOOSE's bi-levels to haul on that main line.

Not unless you can provide the exact same service levels promised by Stage 2 which is on the verge of being tendered.

In that event, those Alstom LINTS could be redeployed by the City to other tracks, to link additional areas of their taxpaying public into the rail transit network.

Do you see the taxpayer having unlimited resources or are you going to pay for the construction of a new rail line to put the LINTs on? Serviceable corridors don't just happen.


UrbanToronto is a softball audience for you. Why aren't you back on SkyscraperPages debating actual Ottawa residents? I suspect I know why.

 

[kEiThZ]

I do suggest everyone read the White Paper Mr. Potvin posted. Lots of reference to transit systems in Asia and their property powered rail model. Thinks he can transplant that to the Ottawa Valley. It'll be interesting to see what his investors think about the contextual differences between Hong Kong, Japan and Taiwan, and Ottawa (most notably rural and exurban Ottawa).

 

[Joseph Potvin]

Geez.

RE: "UrbanToronto is a softball audience for you. Why aren't you back on SkyscraperPages debating actual Ottawa residents? I suspect I know why."

Skyscraper has long been linked to on our media page: https://www.onyvamoose.ca/media/
For other readers, here is the link: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=140086&page=21
Looks like post notifications weren't working, and forum had been quiet for a long time on our topic. Also this particular thread on Skyscraper has a range of topics.
FWIW, here's my post from about a year ago: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7490091&postcount=8497
Anyways, I'll pick up some of the interesting questions there.
Also our team has an active Facebook page with NCR participation https://www.facebook.com/MooseRail
Can't be everywhere.

FIXED: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7873509&postcount=411


RE: "Let's start with..."

... understanding that if you think real business solutions fall from trees like ripe cherries, then you're not a businessman.


RE: "I've never seen anything that..."

Agreed. You haven't seen it.


RE: "And have you had a chat with any regulator and the owner of the major rail corridor"

All of them.


RE: "Do you see the taxpayer having unlimited resources or are you going to pay for the construction of a new rail line to put the LINTs on? Serviceable corridors don't just happen."

Oh... Damn. Back to the drawing board! (Thanks for the heads up though.)


Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

 

[kEiThZ]

... understanding that if you think real business solutions fall from trees like ripe cherries, then you're not a businessman.

I understand that white papers don't a business case make. Again. For your sake, I hope your business case has a lot more actual financial details for your investors. And not just elementary school geometry formulas.

Agreed. You haven't seen it.

So then tell us, what rolling stock were you planning on using? Don't have to give away any proprietary details about which make specifically. Just the category.

All of them.

So you have it in writing that Capital Railways and Transport Canada have both approved mixing bi-levels and DMUs? Do share.

Heck, do you have details to share about a signed agreement with Capital Railways for sharing their track? I'd love to read that.

Or is that like when Elon Musk tells us he has verbal approval to tunnel from DC to New York?

 

[Joseph Potvin]

So then tell us

Gotta wait.

 

[kEiThZ]

Gotta wait.

Gladly. I hope you'll publish the details of your investors due diligence in full. Will make for some interesting reading.

 

[Joseph Potvin]

Gladly. I hope you'll publish the details of your investors due diligence in full. Will make for some interesting reading.

Surely you understand that MOOSE is not party to their internal discussions and decisions. But as always, we'll share the essentials.

 

[Allandale25]

Keep in mind, MOOSE is a large property value optimization project. The train service is the method. Our feasibility analysis is exploring (among many other things of course) whether a café on the 2nd deck of each bi-level car, of each train, can be expected to generate a net cost or net benefit. Our initial bet is that making the 2nd deck café a normal part of the service would generate more money in terms of market demand for real property within the

Can the tunnel near Carleton fit double decker passenger coaches? What's the clearance? Could it fit GO coaches for example and would you be interested in using the ones Bombardier produces? What quarter of what year will you disclose what rolling stock you want to use or is everything held up until the fall of 2017 which is when you've been quoted as saying you expect the CATS ruling?

 

[Joseph Potvin]

Can the tunnel near Carleton fit double decker passenger coaches? What's the clearance? Could it fit GO coaches for example

Yes, we have validated that.

and would you be interested in using the ones Bombardier produces?

Maybe. Certainly they're weather-tested.

What quarter of what year will you disclose what rolling stock you want to use or is everything held up until the fall of 2017 which is when you've been quoted as saying you expect the CATS ruling?

Start-up trains: whatever meets our basic operational req's in excellent condition on the re-sale market. Probably to be used for the first 5 years.

Target trains: whatever optimizes demand for property near stations. TBD.

 

[steveintoronto]

and a fully functional transit system already servicing them.

Traffic jams: Ottawa is third most congested city in Canada, says survey
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/traffic-jams-ottawa-third-most-congested-city-in-canada