micheal_can
Senior Member
So, we really are in a sad state of waiting for the announcement of the replacement of the LDF.
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
crs1026
Superstar
We are further back than that.
VIA has to explore the whole question of what new equipment might look like, how much it might cost….. and then convince a (likely) skeptical bureaucracy, on business case geounds, and then convince a bunch of politicians with varied agendas, on political grounds…. And then conduct a serious procurement.
In video game terms, Mario hasn’t even got to the barrels yet. We on UT may have opinions, but this is no sure thing. Better not expect an announcement any time soon.
- Paul
cplchanb
Senior Member
so once again its a political hot potato noone wants to handle and just juggle it around for election announcements. so shameful this handling of fleet procurement!
that is why downloading this to a private corporation is much more desirable from this perspective. at least they wont perpetually defer based on the election seasons.
micheal_can
Senior Member
I take everything on all forums as opinions unless they back it up with a link to a more credible source.
My guess is that Via will do a RFP listing what they want and then let companies show the different options. For simple example, Via may say they want100sleeper cars and then each of the bidders will show different configurations. What may be a better way to do it is have each type of car be a separate tender thereby allowing multiple companies to make them and potentially speeding up the timing of everything coming. With the LDF, for the routes that are overnight, I suspect they will not be permanently married cars.like the new ones on the Corridor.
cplchanb
Senior Member
problem with that potentially is compatibility. Essentially its a mixed fleet within a consist in which each supplier will have to coordinate on design and technical standards. this will add complexity time and cost.
that is why almost all passenger trains are purchased as fixed trainsets these days instead of individual like freight cars.
micheal_can
Senior Member
I get that,and that may well be what happens. The problem with the LDF is we do not have set train sets. For instance, the Canadian can be anywhere from10 cars in winter to over 20 cars in summer. I doubt that is going to change with the new fleet. Aren't all passenger cars built to the same standard? That should mean they should all be able to couple up to each other and it should all work.
C_Johnson_1995
New Member
Serious question. Is renewing the long-distance fleet the right move? With the likely billions we will spend, we could probably establish and equip a universal and frequent national bus network.
Any equipment order would likely only be sufficient to maintain the existing poor frequency which does little to actually serve communities with reliable transport. Additionally, it will probably lack dome cars which match existing standards of service, resulting tourist traffic drying up.
Any refreshed Canadian will almost certainly lack a purpose, and maybe now would be the time to phase out long distance trains and start using passenger rail where it works best.
Last edited:
micheal_can
Senior Member
Some sections on the LDS would work as Corridor like service.
The condition of the LDS fleet and the old Corridor fleet hopefully will push the executives of Via and the government to have serious discussions as to all options. The reality is, a complete shutdown of all LDS is a possibility.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
We already got a thread to keep your monthly impulses to rewarm this discussion at a central place:
Lack of meaningful Passenger Rail service outside the Quebec-Windsor Corridor
Having different threads for related topics shouldn't be used as an opportunity to double post everything. The Corridor service was also affected. I try to only put on the Via Rail thread stuff about the Corridor
No reason to troll around here and drown any attempt to discuss something else than your boring fantasies for the fivehundredeithyfourth time…
Last edited:
Urban Sky
Senior Member
I don't like to conflate Capital Expenditure with Operating Deficits, even if both are (in VIA's case, at least) ultimately a subsidy paid by the taxpayer. The way I see it, the direct subsidy to operate VIA's remote services is pocket change ($20 million in 2018, so some $0.50 per Canadian) and should be counted as a (very insufficient) compensation for the hardships we've brought onto our First Nations communities, for many of which these services are a lifeline. We can debate as much as we want whether all these services are actually "remote", but the Churchill service undoubtebly is and can't be replaced by roads (at any reasonable costs, I believe there was a study which put that cost in the billions), so we'll need a new non-corridor fleet anyways and one which includes Sleepers.
As for the transcontinental services, I would frame them as a marketing tool to attract tourists to Canada. If we look at the Canadian, its direct subsidy was $6.5 million in 2018 and a surplus (!) of $0.8 million in 2017. We will anyways need to fund something which can shuttle equipment around between Jasper, Winnipeg, some random city in Northern Ontario (which shall remain unnamed because few good things have ever come out of it) and VIA's Maintenance Centers in the Corridor and the Canadian is certainly the cheapest way to achieve this and whatever subsidy it requires, it easily repays that by the incremental tax revenues it generates by attracting overseas tourists which would have otherwise booked the "Indian Pacific" in Australia or an actual cruise in the Carribean. The Ocean is slightly less successful, but with a direct deficit of $12 million per year, who cares?
Of course the long-distance fleet replacement won't be cheap, but if we had put aside a single Dollar for each Canadian and year of operation we squeezed out of the stainless steel fleet CP originally acquired in 1955, we probably would have the money to pay for a like-for-like replacement...
This of course doesn't mean that we shouldn't invest into a nationwide bus network, but a single Dollar per Canadian and year would pay for a franchise system which supports a network which is at least as dense as what Greyhound used to operate pre-2018. We can easily afford to do both: maintain our existing non-corridor VIA network and build a very decent nationwide bus network which truly connects Canadians...
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm largely in agreement w/that you're saying.....but the bit above does seem a bit harsh, LOL
I mean there's bound to be someone redeeming on this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_from_Greater_Sudbury (but I'm not taking the time to read it to be sure)
This list below arguably contains some desirable items as well; though, most have never 'left'
Urban Sky
Senior Member
As a proud Québecois-by-choice, I shall happily accept these two exceptions:I'm largely in agreement w/that you're saying.....but the bit above does seem a bit harsh, LOL
I mean there's bound to be someone redeeming on this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_from_Greater_Sudbury (but I'm not taking the time to read it to be sure)
This list below arguably contains some desirable items as well; though, most have never 'left'
Bonne nuit et á demain!
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
(9. Remembering the beverage room of the Lido Hotel, which was a great place for travellers to spend the hour or so that it took to switch out the two sections of the Canadian......)
The business case for the Long Distance trains needs to be framed for its all-in benefit to the economy and not just the above-the-rail break even proposition. It clearly pulls in a huge number of foreign tourist dollars that might not come to Canada, or that might otherwise only be spent in one or two select regions. And it incents Canadians to spend their vacation dollars in their own country rather than fly somewhere else - my impression is that many riders have a "bucket list" which is world-inclusive, and the Canadian competes favourably for their vacation budget, which could be spent in other countries.
There are a lot of jobs created directly by the train - and thus a lot of severance costs to shut it down - and possibly ongoing pension plan maintenance costs that will outlive the train if it stops running.
The politics of buying new equipment - which represents a long term commitment to the train - are likely favourable if done in the right way..... there will be anti-lobbies (likely including much of the Ottawa bureaucracy) , so leveraging those in favour will be very important. We train lovers would do well to look for and engage those folks as their voices and their arguments are probably more compelling than ours alone.
- Paul
The business case for the Long Distance trains needs to be framed for its all-in benefit to the economy and not just the above-the-rail break even proposition. It clearly pulls in a huge number of foreign tourist dollars that might not come to Canada, or that might otherwise only be spent in one or two select regions. And it incents Canadians to spend their vacation dollars in their own country rather than fly somewhere else - my impression is that many riders have a "bucket list" which is world-inclusive, and the Canadian competes favourably for their vacation budget, which could be spent in other countries.
There are a lot of jobs created directly by the train - and thus a lot of severance costs to shut it down - and possibly ongoing pension plan maintenance costs that will outlive the train if it stops running.
The politics of buying new equipment - which represents a long term commitment to the train - are likely favourable if done in the right way..... there will be anti-lobbies (likely including much of the Ottawa bureaucracy) , so leveraging those in favour will be very important. We train lovers would do well to look for and engage those folks as their voices and their arguments are probably more compelling than ours alone.
- Paul
Last edited:
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Revisiting the above, the Rocky Mountaineer is the living proof that modern rolling stock can attract passengers which are willing to cough up even more than what VIA charges its Sleeper Plus passengers and even Amtrak’s sleeper fares (with a much more basic offering) are not that far below VIA’s, especially with the current exchange rate (1 USD = 1.34 CAD)…
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
As we have discussed ad nauseum, the case for the Canadian barely intersects with transportation investment. It's largely a tourism vehicle. The Ocean is a bit more of a mixture, people with time available do seem to use it just to get to/from the Maritimes, as an alternative to flying.
The point is, it's a sustainable tourism enterprise, and if it does carry some "shorts", so much the better.
Looking for the new fleet to serve a pure transportation function is not the optimal design. This forum ought to focus on what the replacement fleet should look like given the need to offer a sustainable tourism role.
The fleet must be sized for better than what is run today. Three times a week Toronto-Vancouver is necessary and the ridership is likely there. The Ocean could likely support six day a week service. Build in enough equipment to resume the Gaspe service.
Looking at recent sleeper designs around the world, there are actually some really nice designs out there...and ideas that can be adopted into a North American brand.
Personally, the dome design is a showstopper for me - it's an absolutely marvellous amenity (although apparently some riders don't even use it!). I suspect TC would not allow a new dome order, certainly not without a lot of new engineering, and any bilevel solution would be incompatible. Enjoy it while we have it.
- Paul