VIA Rail

[reaperexpress]

What does it matter that the tracks are owned by CN? They platforms are on a siding that CN never uses, and has no possible reason to ever use.

We're spending millions of dollars on platforms, and this is still how we'll need to board:

 

[Bordercollie]

What does it matter that the tracks are owned by CN? They platforms are on a siding that CN never uses, and has no possible reason to ever use.

We're spending millions of dollars on platforms, and this is still how we'll need to board:

Likely because if they wanted to build raised platforms they would need to own the siding. Which would have a capital cost and would require them to maintain it, insure it and pay tax on it since they would need to own the ROW for that section. However what they could have done is negotiate to build a platform that is half raised like GO's wheel chair boarding which would eliminate the need for the extra step stool. However it still wouldn't be level boarding so what's the point of going through that hassle?

I hope they fix the track going in and out of the station. It's painfully slow. I don't know it it's the track condition or a limitation of the signalling system.

 

[cplchanb]

Likely because if they wanted to build raised platforms they would need to own the siding. Which would have a capital cost and would require them to maintain it, insure it and pay tax on it since they would need to own the ROW for that section. However what they could have done is negotiate to build a platform that is half raised like GO's wheel chair boarding which would eliminate the need for the extra step stool. However it still wouldn't be level boarding so what's the point of going through that hassle?

I hope they fix the track going in and out of the station. It's painfully slow. I don't know it it's the track condition or a limitation of the signalling system.

yea that frankly is embarrassing as a G7 country having our national rail infrastructure look as dated as the wild west era.....all because of freight companies holding us by the balls.

 

[Bordercollie]

yea that frankly is embarrassing as a G7 country having our national rail infrastructure look as dated as the wild west era.....all because of freight companies holding us by the balls.

Then lobby your MP and the minister of Transportation to do better or that you wont vote for them. Trust me in the next election they will need every single vote.
Not that I want Pierre as prime minister...

 

[reaperexpress]

Likely because if they wanted to build raised platforms they would need to own the siding. Which would have a capital cost and would require them to maintain it, insure it and pay tax on it since they would need to own the ROW for that section. However what they could have done is negotiate to build a platform that is half raised like GO's wheel chair boarding which would eliminate the need for the extra step stool. However it still wouldn't be level boarding so what's the point of going through that hassle?

I hope they fix the track going in and out of the station. It's painfully slow. I don't know it it's the track condition or a limitation of the signalling system.

Why would they need to own the siding? Why would they be able to build half-height setback platforms but not fully raised platforms?

They should indeed fix the tracks to get the speeds up. If that means they need to lease or purchase the tracks, then that may be worth considering.

 

[Bordercollie]

Why would they need to own the siding? If you're suggesting half-height setback platforms, then presumably you think that we can in fact build structures, but that freight trains are the issue here? They are not. Freight trains will never use those sidings.

They should indeed fix the tracks to get the speeds up. If that means they need to lease or purchase the tracks, then that may be worth considering.

Considering that they could save probably 5-7 min per trip, I think it's worth it.

Doesn't matter if the freight operator doesn't use it. They retain the right to use it. Therefore it's under their conditions. Unless VIA is incapable of negotiating a fair settlement.

 

[littlewill1166]

Considering that they could save probably 5-7 min per trip, I think it's worth it.

Doesn't matter if the freight operator doesn't use it. They retain the right to use it. Therefore it's under their conditions. Unless VIA is incapable of negotiating a fair settlement.

Or instead of packing all the Toronto-London passengers into car 5 (mostly students with large bags), they could update the reservation system to spread out passengers at a minimal cost and decrease dwell time that way...

 

[Krypto98]

They should indeed fix the tracks to get the speeds up. If that means they need to lease or purchase the tracks, then that may be worth considering.

It might be because the tracks aren't signaled so rule 105... (similar to Georgetown GO) I'll have to double check my Employee timetable to be sure

Edit track 2 and 3 are rule 105 tracks, track 1 is max 45 mph but there might be other things like, turnout speeds and signal indication into London station

 

[Bordercollie]

Or instead of packing all the Toronto-London passengers into car 5 (mostly students with large bags), they could update the reservation system to spread out passengers at a minimal cost and decrease dwell time that way...

The way that the Reservation system works is based on destination. It would be smart to spread them out but makes it harder for the train mater to keep track of who gets off where.

 

[crs1026]

London station is a prime example of where VIA gets the short end of the stick in the legal/regulatory regime.
The property has absolutely no value to the railway operations - except perhaps there is an unlikely scenario that VIA no longer needs the land and it can be developed.
Perhaps the land ought to be expropriated - CN would no doubt want to be compensated at a market rate for downtown London commercial real estate - And I'm not sympathetic to that argument - once a train station, always a train station. Maybe CN should have first right to buy the property back if VIA ever discards it. Or some sort of CN retained ownership of air rights.

- Paul

 

[Bordercollie]

London station is a prime example of where VIA gets the short end of the stick in the legal/regulatory regime.
The property has absolutely no value to the railway operations - except perhaps there is an unlikely scenario that VIA no longer needs the land and it can be developed.
Perhaps the land ought to be expropriated - CN would no doubt want to be compensated at a market rate for downtown London commercial real estate - And I'm not sympathetic to that argument - once a train station, always a train station. Maybe CN should have first right to buy the property back if VIA ever discards it. Or some sort of ownership of air rights.

- Paul

Who owns the land that the station sits on?

 

[crs1026]

Who owns the land that the station sits on?

Presumably CN. VIA may own the head building, but one assumes that CN controls the track itself which is where a platform would sit.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

London station is a prime example of where VIA gets the short end of the stick in the legal/regulatory regime.
The property has absolutely no value to the railway operations - except perhaps there is an unlikely scenario that VIA no longer needs the land and it can be developed.
Perhaps the land ought to be expropriated - CN would no doubt want to be compensated at a market rate for downtown London commercial real estate - And I'm not sympathetic to that argument - once a train station, always a train station. Maybe CN should have first right to buy the property back if VIA ever discards it. Or some sort of CN retained ownership of air rights.

- Paul

This is to the best of my knowledge the case for VIA‘s Pacific Central Station in Vancouver…

 

[littlewill1166]

It would be smart to spread them out but makes it harder for the train mater to keep track of who gets off where.

That's what these are for (specifically the white ones):

The way that the Reservation system works is based on destination.

Yes, but for London-Toronto, generally speaking, on a 5-car train, for economy class, as a default, the reservation system uses car 5 as the primary car, then car 4 as an overflow car, then car 3. For the rest of the origin/destination pairs for Windsor-Toronto, the reservation system uses car 4 as the primary car, then car 3, then car 5.

This gets messed up if an agent manually changes a passenger's seat to car 3. But, that's a different story for a different time.

On a full train, there is usually overflow between cars resulting in a comingling of destinations among passengers. This is also when dwell time issues for car 5 are at their worst.

It's my understanding that the reason they do this is so that they can theoretically have 1 staff member present in each car that needs its doors opened at unstaffed stations (certain cars have their doors opened externally at staffed stations). From here this opens the door to a conversation about whether VIA should staff passengers based on the number of cars on a train vs the number of passengers (reduce dwell time and spare board usage in exchange for higher labour costs). And whether door operation can be automated like it is on GO (I think they should, or at least they should try to).

 

[smallspy]

Yes, but for London-Toronto, generally speaking, on a 5-car train, for economy class, as a default, the reservation system uses car 5 as the primary car, then car 4 as an overflow car, then car 3. For the rest of the origin/destination pairs for Windsor-Toronto, the reservation system uses car 4 as the primary car, then car 3, then car 5.

That's kind of/mostly how it works.

The old (current) system is configured so that one or more cars are configured for specific pairs orgin-destinations, and the other car(s) is(are) configured for "shorts", which is to say ons and offs from shorter trips that don't fit into the above. On many routes, an entire car will be allocated for trips that begin and end at the ends of the trip, with a second car allocated for additional specific origin-destination pairs. And additional cars can configured for any of the above as necessary.

I don't know how the new system - which is supposed to be instituted any day now - will work in the same way, as unlike the old system it is being built from the ground-up specifically for passenger rail services (and needs).

Dan