VIA Rail

[dowlingm]

The discussion over the last few pages highlights the difficulty in planning a future for VIA LD services. For some it’s a remote service, for some a passenger service deserving of modern, reliable, accessible, vendor supported rolling stock, for some a premium tourism service, for others it’s a heritage tourism service. Some of these are at least partly contradictory. Some of them may apply differently for different routes (particularly given that no LDs operate between Toronto and Montreal as they do over the NEC in the US)

 

[Bordercollie]

The discussion over the last few pages highlights the difficulty in planning a future for VIA LD services. For some it’s a remote service, for some a passenger service deserving of modern, reliable, accessible, vendor supported rolling stock, for some a premium tourism service, for others it’s a heritage tourism service. Some of these are at least partly contradictory. Some of them may apply differently for different routes (particularly given that no LDs operate between Toronto and Montreal as they do over the NEC in the US)

Considering that we usually copy what the boys down south do, we are likely to do something to save passenger rail. And if we use similar rolling stock to what Amtrak gets the cost might be cheaper. The shells might be the same but the interior configuration can be customized for VIA. Economies of scale.

 

[Urban Sky]

The discussion over the last few pages highlights the difficulty in planning a future for VIA LD services. For some it’s a remote service, for some a passenger service deserving of modern, reliable, accessible, vendor supported rolling stock, for some a premium tourism service, for others it’s a heritage tourism service. Some of these are at least partly contradictory. Some of them may apply differently for different routes (particularly given that no LDs operate between Toronto and Montreal as they do over the NEC in the US)

The Transcontinental services, the Churchill service and the daylight-only other Remote services are three very distinct service groups. It will be very challenging to cover them with the same procurement process, but their small fleet sizes and the geographic distribution of maintenance centers requires exactly that…

Considering that we usually copy what the boys down south do, we are likely to do something to save passenger rail. And if we use similar rolling stock to what Amtrak gets the cost might be cheaper. The shells might be the same but the interior configuration can be customized for VIA. Economies of scale.

I haven‘t really followed what Amtrak is doing. Can someone remind me again what their LD fleet renewal strategy is? Presumably something which is compatible with the existing LD equipment, so some variation of Superliners for the existing Superliner routes and more standard equipment everywhere else - or am I wrong?

 

[dowlingm]

Considering that we usually copy what the boys down south do, we are likely to do something to save passenger rail. And if we use similar rolling stock to what Amtrak gets the cost might be cheaper. The shells might be the same but the interior configuration can be customized for VIA. Economies of scale.

Amtrak like VIA still have to squeeze all the juice out of their lemons before getting new rolling stock

 

[dowlingm]

The Transcontinental services, the Churchill service and the daylight-only other Remote services are three very distinct service groups. It will be very challenging to cover them with the same procurement process, but their small fleet sizes and the geographic distribution of maintenance centers requires exactly that…

My most persistent thought is that the Montreal LD route(s) should be distinct to simplify things. Renew Ocean and Jonquiere/Senneterre with a high floor order, empty MMC of everything that isn’t Siemens or this new stuff to sent west or to scrap, and then turn minds to VMC/WMC/TMC fleets.

 

[Urban Sky]

My most persistent thought is that the Montreal LD route(s) should be distinct to simplify things. Renew Ocean and Jonquiere/Senneterre with a high floor order, empty MMC of everything that isn’t Siemens or this new stuff to sent west or to scrap, and then turn minds to VMC/WMC/TMC fleets.

I guess that would make Siemens the preferred supplier for the MMC non-corridor routes. You would just need to design a Dining car, a Lounge car, a Sleeper car and a combined baggage/coach car and you could build your trainsets like that, with the Ocean being hauled by a locomotive at each end, like Brightline.

For the TMC/WMC/VMC fleets, the fleet procurement will be much more complex…

 

[micheal_can]

I guess that would make Siemens the preferred supplier for the MMC non-corridor routes. You would just need to design a Dining car, a Lounge car, a Sleeper car and a combined baggage/coach car and you could build your trainsets like that, with the Ocean being hauled by a locomotive at each end, like Brightline.

For the TMC/WMC/VMC fleets, the fleet procurement will be much more complex…

Would that mean we could expect 2 different contracts, not one?

 

[crs1026]

I guess that would make Siemens the preferred supplier for the MMC non-corridor routes. You would just need to design a Dining car, a Lounge car, a Sleeper car and a combined baggage/coach car and you could build your trainsets like that, with the Ocean being hauled by a locomotive at each end, like Brightline.

For the TMC/WMC/VMC fleets, the fleet procurement will be much more complex…

I'm curious why you believe the procurements would have to be separate for segments of the LD and remote fleets..

While interior designs might be specialised, would it not make sense to plan the new fleet based on a single carbody with major components (wheels, trucks, hvac, electrical, windows) standardised - and get the benefits of a single production run?

Looking to Amtrak, both Superliners and Viewliners were designed on the premise that interiors are modular and can (in theory) be swapped out.

I can understand the need for different interior configurations.... for instance an entire carbody full of sleeper space may be more than is needed, so use half the car for sleeper and half for, say, baggage (as was the case in b/y days). But that can happen within a single procurement, can't it ?

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

I haven‘t really followed what Amtrak is doing. Can domeone remind me again what their LD fleet renewal strategy is? Presumably something which is compatible with the existing LD equipment, so some variation of Superliners for the existing Superliner routes and more standard equipment everywhere else - or am I wrong?

Not quite. The current plan is to replace all of the existing long-distance equipment - Amfleet IIs, Horizons, first generation Viewliners, what's left of the Heritage fleet AND the Superliners with a new fleet of fairly homogeneous single-level rolling stock.

The idea seems to be that they want to make the whole of the train accessible - to allow those less ambulatory access to the whole length of each train - rather than confining those less mobile to their room or space.

Dan

 

[roger1818]

Not quite. The current plan is to replace all of the existing long-distance equipment - Amfleet IIs, Horizons, first generation Viewliners, what's left of the Heritage fleet AND the Superliners with a new fleet of fairly homogeneous single-level rolling stock.

The idea seems to be that they want to make the whole of the train accessible - to allow those less ambulatory access to the whole length of each train - rather than confining those less mobile to their room or space.

Dan

Everything I have heard up to now indicated to me that, as you said, the new Viewliner II cars would not be replaced in Amtrak's Long Distance Fleet Replacement, but reading this page seems to indicate that they will be replaced as well. My guess is that they realized that by the time this massive order will be complete, the Viewliner IIs will be ready for their midlife refresh, and replacing them to keep everything consistent would be beneficial.

 

[micheal_can]

Everything I have heard up to now indicated to me that, as you said, the new Viewliner II cars would not be replaced in Amtrak's Long Distance Fleet Replacement, but reading this page seems to indicate that they will be replaced as well. My guess is that they realized that by the time this massive order will be complete, the Viewliner IIs will be ready for their midlife refresh, and replacing them to keep everything consistent would be beneficial.

I wonder if we can piggy back on their order much like we did for the Corridor replacement fleet.

 

[smallspy]

Everything I have heard up to now indicated to me that, as you said, the new Viewliner II cars would not be replaced in Amtrak's Long Distance Fleet Replacement, but reading this page seems to indicate that they will be replaced as well. My guess is that they realized that by the time this massive order will be complete, the Viewliner IIs will be ready for their midlife refresh, and replacing them to keep everything consistent would be beneficial.

I suppose that is possible. My understanding was that the Viewliner IIs weren't up for replacement as their design easily allows the cars to be modified to other configurations should the need arise.

Dan

 

[Urban Sky]

Seems like there is at least some progress behind the scenes:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1752862956184854816

What I find curious is that beds seem to be hinted as parallel (like the Berths and Cabins for 1) rather than othogonal to the rails (like the Cabins for 2), which I believe limits capacity unnecessarily…

 

[crs1026]

Seems like there is at least some progress behind the scenes:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1752862956184854816

What I find curious is that beds seem to be hinted as parallel (like the Berths and Cabins for 1) rather than othogonal to the rails (like the Cabins for 2), which I believe limits capacity unnecessarily…

It also limits marketability, imho. Cabins for 2 seem to sell out first on the Canadian. The designs visible in that tweet would not be attractive to couples.

I wonder how easy it would be to get a copy of that presentation.

- Paul

 

[chrisw]

IF a long distance route is losing money per passenger, or even breaking even, adding a modest amount of additional frequency is unlikely to change anything; particularly for a service catering to tourists who aren't likely moved in their interest based on whether there is a 2x weekly departure or a daily one.

One benefit of increased frequency is that tourists could plan more stopovers. Currently you'd need to plan for a 3 night or 4 night stopover to visit some town/city along the route.