VIA Rail

[dowlingm]

UPX has the max rated power package already. Did the notion of a H series being spliced into a UPX set come to you as a way of making a frankenLRC seem reasonable? ONTC have done no work on an LRC afaik, and a straight up refurb contract put IRSI under - or at least was the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[steveintoronto]

UPX has the max rated power package already. Did the notion of a H series being spliced into a UPX set come to you as a way of making a frankenLRC seem reasonable? ONTC have done no work on an LRC afaik, and a straight up refurb contract put IRSI under - or at least was the straw that broke the camel's back.

GO Transit’s First Passenger Rail Cars
When the Government of Ontario started setting up its commuter rail service between Pickering and Oakville in 1967, the first question it confronted was what to use to carry people along the line. Rather than lease passenger cars and locomotives from Canadian Pacific or Canadian National (at the time, they needed this equipment for their own passenger runs), GO Transit purchased a set of locomotives from General Motors, and set to work looking for passenger coaches.

They turned to Hawker Siddeley, which had just built Toronto’s H-1 subway cars for use on the Bloor-Danforth subway. Hawker-Siddeley started work on a set of coaches based on the H-1 subway class design (this model would also be used on the CN/VIA Tempo intercity trains and the Montreal Expo Express trains). Just as with the multi-purpose GP40TC locomotives, the thinking was that if the commuter rail service failed to live up to expectations, they could be more easily sold to other agencies, like the TTC or Montreal. [...]

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/regional/2508.shtml

"Max rated package"? I think more can go into the space and mountings of that motor, the xmssn might be the limitation for torque although that xmssn IIRC (ZF), has torque ratings well beyond what the present QSK 19 produces.
The final drive ratio could well be adjusted to something shorter, as the max rated speed of the vehicle is never reached on the UPX run. Something to consider, although the rating of the Cardan shaft and couplings would have to permit the extra torque as the trade-off for top speed. I believe the SMART models have a lower final drive ratio than the UPX models, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

https://ci-portal.zf.com/global/med...press_kits_1/2015_t/03_ZF_EcoLife_Rail_en.pdf

The rail vehicle optimized QSK23 compared to the present QSK19:

As to refurbished LRCs, Ontario Northland claim to have the ability and experience, and have specifically asked Metrolinx and the Premier for more work of that sort. Meantime, someone appears to have the ability to refurbish them.

I think it's worth looking at, don't you? Just a thought...

Here's the company that oversaw the refurbishment of what IRSI left hanging:

http://www.cadrail.ca/passenger_car.html

So if the Ontario taxpayer can have cars for GO Transit refurbished in North Bay v. Lachine, Quebec, bidding requirements besides, I'd say best the cash be kept in Province, especially considering that Ont Northland, a sister agency of Metrolinx, specialize in it.

Just a thought...

Edit to Add: It would be highly prudent to see what price Nippon Sharyo could produce either powered cars, or un-powered trailers to expand the UPX compatible fleet. They have been seen coupled to LRC coaches from Union to Mimico, at least a minimum degree of running compatibility exists, but since Nippon Sharyo's DMU assembly line is not set-up, information from Sonoma states that any short orders added, if they can be produced at all, would be about twice what was already paid for the units, which were very pricey to begin with.

 

[ssiguy2]

Small wonder UPX is bleeding red ink employing people just to stand at the doors and say hello.

 

[steveintoronto]

More on new private passenger rail from the US in today's UK Guardian:

[...]
The first private intercity passenger railway since 1983 is due to open in Florida later this year, with the Brightline service to run between Miami and West Palm Beach, then extending to Orlando.

Another private company wants to operate between Las Vegas and California.
Meanwhile, a new service is proposed for northern Indiana. Another business in New England hopes to connect Worcester to Providence. And a controversial, troubled, high-speed rail project between Los Angeles and San Francisco is under construction with public money, at least initially.

More schemes could follow if Donald Trump follows through on his campaign pledge for a $1tn infrastructure package likely to lean heavily on public-private partnerships, though the high-speed rail stimulus plan that Barack Obama announced in 2009 faltered amid Republican resistance.

“If private investors want to take the risks and see that there’s a business there, that’s a very good solution, idea, for our infrastructure needs,” said Rosabeth Moss Kanter, author of Move: How to Rebuild and Reinvent America’s Infrastructure. “The public sector is not going to do it. There’s an honourable role for the private sector in setting up private systems.”

Texas Central, the company behind the Dallas-to-Houston plan, is confident it can deliver without public funds. It says the project will cost about $15bn in total and be operational around 2024, linking the cities in 90 minutes. “We will not accept or pursue grants to build or operate the system. We will have a compelling economic model that will attract equity and debt to get this built,” said Tim Keith, the company’s president. “It’s perfect for high-speed rail … Texans have told us that they will leave their cars and trucks behind for a safe, predictable, comfortable and productive trip.” [...continues with maps and diagrams...]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/13/texas-trains-dallas-houston-rail-line

 

[crs1026]

UPX has the max rated power package already. Did the notion of a H series being spliced into a UPX set come to you as a way of making a frankenLRC seem reasonable? ONTC have done no work on an LRC afaik, and a straight up refurb contract put IRSI under - or at least was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Worse - the straight-up refurb contract that sunk IRSI is reported to have uncovered worse-than-expected condition of the LRC coaches that would have been very expensive to fix.

Those LRC ars close to spent. They will make superb six-pack material, but any thoughts of cost-effective refurbishment is just dreaming. Let's get RER going so we can buy EMU's, that will give UPE everything they need.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Worse - the straight-up refurb contract that sunk IRSI is reported to have uncovered worse-than-expected condition of the LRC coaches that would have been very expensive to fix.

Those LRC ars close to spent. They will make superb six-pack material, but any thoughts of cost-effective refurbishment is just dreaming. Let's get RER going so we can buy EMU's, that will give UPE everything they need.

- Paul

This just confirmed as it is similar to what a friend at VIA stated in passing: (I paraphrase)
[The LRC fleet is the most urgent to replace and we believe that even the Feds have realized this urgency. Renaissance can be refurbished if needed (as uneconomic as this might be, given that a six-car Renaissance consist like on Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec has only four seats more than a 3-car HEP or LRC consist) and the HEPs would probably still run reasonably reliably in 30-40 years.]

So the thought of refurbishing surplus LRCs can be discounted, but until the Weston Corridor shows signs of being electrified, one has to wonder what can be used for the segment from Union to Bramalea?

Refurbishing any leftover single level ex-GO coaches stored in North Bay is still a very valid question, as Ont Northland has been buying them back from US and Cdn operators.

One can only hope VIA do get replacements for the LRCs, and soon.

Just reading this in the FinPost: (Direct reference or much of anythingto the upcoming Budget is still nebulous, but a lot is pointing in the direction of an Investment Bank, and VIAs HFR benefitting either directly or indirectly from that)

[...]
A blue-chip panel of advisers led by Dominic Barton of McKinsey & Co. has come up with a “suite” of recommendations, many of which will make an appearance in the budget including smart ways to deliver infrastructure spending.

Infrastructure plays into the productivity agenda, it provides a new dollop of spending at a time when the country is lacking growth drivers, and it fills in the business investment hole.

Foreign Investment

Canada’s economy has relied heavily on foreign borrowing since the recession and the worry is that much of that foreign money is increasingly short-term and going into nonproductive areas, such as fueling the country’s housing market. Which raises another benefit of infrastructure. If the federal government can help develop a portfolio of new infrastructure projects that gives foreign investors something else to buy into other than housing, that’s also unambiguously good. [...]

http://business.financialpost.com/n...-in-pre-budget-scorecard-canada-economy-watch

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Deadline for rail transit proposal nearing

Not necessarily VIA-related, but with the company being interested in commuter service in Halifax, there also could be an interest from VIA here.

• The towns of Banff, Canmore and Cochrane, the City of Calgary and Improvement District 9 are looking for a qualified consulting firm to lead a study to determine the feasibility of passenger mass transit, both rail and bus. The deadline for the request for proposals is March 16

• “It needs a twinning of the line. CP’s priority is container traffic, they are clear about that, and I understand their business model,” he said. “We will never get high-speed rail, but I think twinning the line is reasonable. I don’t think it’s pie in the sky.”

• The number of visitors to Banff National Park last year climbed to about 3.89 million and has been increasing year over year. Statistics show 93 per cent of visitors get to busy Banff in a personal vehicle.

 

[steveintoronto]

Not necessarily VIA-related, but with the company being interested in commuter service in Halifax, there also could be an interest from VIA here.

In running the operation, not consulting on the proposal. Good find btw!

Survey results outlined in the RFP document show 48 per cent of visitors would “probably” or “definitely” take a train from Calgary to Banff.

Now that's whim, what would turn it into action is price, and the price must reflect the savings from not widening the highway. That's an interesting potential project to watch, and I suspect VIA would be very interested, with caveats, on operating it.

 

[crs1026]

In running the operation, not consulting on the proposal.

I wonder if private operators might come forward once the prospect of a subsidy were raised. With RMR already in Calgary, and VIA having no shop or operating office there, RMR might find they could offer the service at equal/lower cost. It would no doubt be challenged by VIA's unions, but government might well say private or nothing if it is cheaper. Tacking three or four cars onto the end of the RMR might be a cheaper alternative (but less than daily).

As of today, there are nine sidings in the 82 miles between Calgary downtown and Banff. Three of these are 10,000 feet plus. Twinning the rest of the line would be enormously expensive. I can't see that happening. But who knows whether it really has to be.

The business case will likely conclude that the ridership is there, but the capital cost is too high. A bus shuttle might work for now.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Further to Banff, I was digging to see what else might be fresh on the topic, there's quite a few articles, but none with anything to add to what's already been posted, but for some reason, my Google search tags also got this hit on Halifax, and it's worth reviewing the quotes from Desjardins-Siciliano: (apologies if this has already been posted)

Commuter rail 'very feasible' possibility in Halifax, Via Rail president says
Commuter rail and daily regional service are Via's two big focuses for the Maritimes
By Michael Gorman, CBC News Posted: Jan 31, 2017 4:24 PM AT Last Updated: Jan 31, 2017 5:14 PM AT

Work is well underway to try to make commuter rail service a reality for Halifax.

Yves Desjardins-Siciliano, president and CEO of Via Rail, told a Halifax Chamber of Commerce luncheon on Tuesday the Crown corporation and municipality have been working on the plan, which he called "a conversation," for more than a year.

He said the idea is "very feasible."

Desjardins-Siciliano said it started when he approached the municipality to offer his help after reading in local media about people discussing the idea. It's one of two major plans Via would like to pursue for the Maritimes, said Desjardins-Siciliano.

Time to finalize a plan
He told reporters Via and the municipality need to finalize an operating plan that looks at capacity, traffic schedules and pricing, then bring it to CN, the railway owner, for approval. Desjardins-Siciliano said the work is headed in the right direction and he expected the owner would be open to the idea as long as there are no conflicts.

"The freight industry is important in Canada — it's $400 billion of goods that move by train in Canada, so we can't do anything that will impede that competitiveness." The novel aspect of this idea is that it would use existing infrastructure, which should make it faster and cheaper to do if a plan can be approved, he said.

Daily regional return service
The other big effort for Via in the Maritimes is regularly daily regional service and Desjardins-Siciliano said such trips between Halifax and Moncton, N.B., would begin later this year.

Overall ridership and revenue are up since he came on board two years ago, said Desjardins-Siciliano, and the key to more improvements is getting more people to ride the train. To that end, Via is preparing a $4-billion plan to improve service in the corridor from Quebec to Ontario, where 90 per cent of the ridership and revenue reside.

Making that section of Via's service profitable means the organization is stronger overall and more self-sustaining, which would translate to more revenue to help less profitable elements of the service, said Desjardins-Siciliano.

Trickle-down benefits
If Via were to be compared to a shopping mall, he said, the corridor is the anchor tenant.

"You need that big tenant that brings in people that will then use the services and products of the smaller tenants of the mall," he said.

"If we have to always go cap in hand to government to get them to subsidize services that are not growing — at some point it's going to end."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...er-trains-yves-desjardins-siciliano-1.3960280

Obviously, there's no more comment to be had on the HFR at this time, hopefully there will be in the next few days, or if not directly, an allusion to when it will be. The Budget may not detail the exact mechanism and committed participants of HFR, but it just might sketch out the pending steps to setting it up.

Here's a negative view on the Calgary-Banff commuter/skier proposal, and by someone who claims to know a lot, albeit I take issue with almost every point he makes. Not on the factuality of what he states, but on the inference and conclusions he arrives at. He also takes a short view based on his own experience, not on the larger picture.

Trains won't work for Banff
Thursday, Aug 25, 2016 06:00 am

Editor: I worked for the CPR at the station in Field, for six years – from 1980 to 1986.

I believe that experience – listening to radio conversations between the Rail Traffic Controllers (RTC) in Calgary and the train crews; and talking with track maintainers, and signal maintainers gives me an insight into the functioning and thought processes of the CPR that most people do not possess.

I am tired of reading and hearing that a passenger train service will resolve many of our traffic congestion/parking issues within the town of Banff. It is highly unlikely that this pie-in-the-sky daydream will be constructed during our lifetimes. Having written that, I would love to be proved wrong.
Please consider the following:

1. At best, this would be a summer-only service – similar to Rocky Mountain Railtour. There is not sufficient potential passengers during the winter months, and certainly not during the shoulder months of November and April.

2. CPR does the vast majority of track maintenance during the daylight hours of the summer months. They sometimes allow their high-revenue trains (404, 403, etc.) to highball through during track maintenance periods, but all other trains are either yarded, put in the hole (sidings), or held on the mainline until the track is re-opened. Would CP let a commuter train through during track maintenance periods?

3. You should speak to anyone who works locally about how frequently the Rocky Mountain Railtour is late due to the CPR prioritizing its own trains before the Railtour is allowed to proceed.

4. Reasons 2 and 3 above should make it clear that it would be very difficult for a commuter train to run according to schedule.

5. I have heard, but not verified, that the return fare for an adult to travel between Edmonton and Jasper is approximately $200. I guesstimate that a child’s fare might be $100. Mom and pop and three kids might, then, be as much as $700 (maybe there is a reduced ‘family fare’).

Calgary to Banff is approximately half the distance as Edmonton to Jasper, so let’s guess the return fare between Calgary and Banff would be half the fare between Edmonton and Jasper. Half of $700 (again, maybe there would be a family fare) would be $350 for that same family of five.

Perhaps my guesstimates are too high; perhaps the provincial or federal governments would provide subsidies to reduce the cost.

Perhaps a better comparison of possible fares would be the Greyhound return fare between Calgary and Banff. I phoned Greyhound and was told that a return ticket from Calgary to Banff for an adult was approximately $70 + GST. Children 12 and under get a 25 per cent discount. Therefore two adults = $140. Three children under the age of 12 = 3 x $70 x 75 per cent = $157.50. Total therefore for two adults and three children under the age of 12 is almost $300 + GST.

6. Anyone arriving at YYC would have to hire a taxi or take a shuttle to the CPR train station.

7. After arriving in Banff the passengers would have to arrange, and pay for, the transfer of their bodies and luggage to their hotel. An inconvenience and an additional expense. Most people do not like the additional inconvenience and expense that arriving in a car, or bus, would eliminate. And granted, there is a fee to park a vehicle at many hotels so that fee should be added to the cost of driving either a personal vehicle or renting a car.

8. The CPR owns the land on which its tracks cut through Banff National Park. They do not lease that land and can refuse access to their tracks to anyone. Just ask any pedestrian who has been fined by a CPR policeman for trespassing for crossing the CPR tracks.

9. Some will suggest that another rail line could be built parallel, or close to the CPR rail line. I guesstimate that the cost of building a new and separate line between Calgary and Banff could easily exceed $100,000,000. The fact the CPR would love to have someone else build, and pay for, a parallel line to which the CPR would negotiate access to might reduce building costs.

10. It is highly unlikely that Parks Canada would allow additional Parks land outside of the CPR right-of-way leasehold to be utilized for the purpose of building a commuter train-dedicated rail line.

So, anyone flogging this dead horse, please start advocating for intercept lots and improved regional bus service.

And don’t get me started on that equally foolish gondola to the gondola pipedream.

Jon Whelan,
Banff

http://www.rmoutlook.com/article/Trains-wont-work-for-Banff-20160825

A consultant's report will examine all these points and more, and if they come up with a positive answer for rail, I suspect VIA would be very interested in running it, competitive bid pending, of course. But also consider that GO run a similar distance by rail down to Niagara Falls. Calgary Transit might also be very interested in the line being an extension of their commuter operations closer to the city, and run by them.

 

[dowlingm]

Calgary Transit running the service on their own account probably brings more regulatory hassle than they want, and having to hire a whole bunch of staff to manage it. CPR themselves might be able to run it under contract using the staffing structures they use for the Royal Canadian Pacific, or RMR could. Is there anyone else who wouldn't have to essentially start from scratch in Calgary?

If this was a full blown GO train style operation, it would probably interest Bombardier but this seems too small to be worth it.

 

[steveintoronto]

If this was a full blown GO train style operation, it would probably interest Bombardier but this seems too small to be worth it.

That's an excellent point, and I'm not too sure how the unions have worked that out.

Edit to Add: Been digging on this, and I'm just not coming up with the right search tags, but tripped across the following. I'm neither pro or con on this, but this will come up again if Bombardier (or another outside agency) is chosen to run an operation over CP rails to Banff.

Note the date of this, and how the email comment quoted by the author has proven false:

New crews for GO trains

By: Ed Drass Published on Tue Jan 29 2008
This spring, new crews will begin taking over the operation of all GO trains that run on CN railroad tracks. In a five-year contract with the transit agency, worldwide transportation firm Bombardier will replace CN engineers and conductors with its own employees on six of GO's seven train routes. Bombardier also builds GO rail cars and maintains the agency's trains.

A reader, who has asked to be identified simply as a concerned retired engineer, e-mailed me about the new crewing contract. Here's some of what he wrote: "GO Transit believes that by replacing existing experienced railway operating employees (i.e. locomotive engineers and conductors) with Bombardier-supplied train operators this will improve service, improve on-time performance and save money.

"To have inexperienced people running high-speed GO trains with hundreds of passengers during peak hours is unsafe and unacceptable."

The reader adds, "Anyone familiar with rail operations knows that the most important aspect of railroading is experience; knowledge of territory, knowledge of operating rules and proper training. This takes years and years of actual railroading experience to achieve."

Tina Bouchard, spokesperson for Transport Canada — the federal ministry that oversees railways — states, "The crews used by third party contractors must meet all regulatory requirements, as well as the requirements of the railway whose tracks they will operate on."

Replying to the reader's comments, GO spokesperson Stephanie Sorensen states, "The assumption that new 'inexperienced' people will be operating GO trains is incorrect. Just as CN currently has a blend of long-service employees and relatively new hires, Bombardier will also be hiring employees with a range of experience."

She tells In Transit, "Trains will continue to have a three-person crew. Each GO train will have two commuter train operators, both capable of driving the train, who will concentrate on the operation of the train. The customer service ambassador will concentrate on customer service."

GO managing director Gary McNeil says, "We're not going to go out with a contract that would jeopardize safety of either the crews or our customers — and CN is exactly the same, and so is Transport Canada and all of our partners."

He continues, "Bombardier knows they've got to reach certification requirements, and they have a very, very extensive training program — similar to a training program which is undertaken in the United States for commuter rail operations."

Says GO's McNeil, "From our perspective these crews will be trained, they will be certified very intensively by CN — CN doesn't want anything to happen either — and it will be undertaken in a way that meets all the regulatory requirements as well as our customers' needs."

A Bombardier official deferred comment in favour of GO, citing a preference by the transit agency to respond "directly" to In Transit.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/2008/01/29/new-crews-for-go-trains-2.html

Very interesting in retrospect. I bet that bogyman isn't dead...

I'm trying to find out if Bombardier have a consultancy operation, IIRC they did at one time.

 

[steveintoronto]

Getting back to the Infrastructure Bank, and fingers crossed on this:

Federal budget expected to flesh out infrastructure bank plans
Bill Curry
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Mar. 20, 2017 5:00AM EDT

This week’s federal budget is expected to include new details on the government’s planned Canada Infrastructure Bank as debate heats up over the merits of Ottawa’s efforts to attract billions in private capital.

Two reports to be released Monday outline conflicting visions of what the bank will mean for Canadians. TD Bank economists say it has the potential to build large new infrastructure while the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives warns the plan risks costing taxpayers billions more in the long run.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau announced last November that Ottawa will commit $35-billion to a new infrastructure bank aimed at partnering with private investors on major infrastructure projects. Sources told The Globe and Mail that the budget is likely to include new details on that funding, such as how it will be broken down into specific categories such as transportation and green projects.[...]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ut-infrastructure-bank-plans/article34345704/

Regarding the stand-alone Investment Bank, and subsidiary to HFR, whether folded into the Bank or not, Centre for Policy Alternatives is spiting Peter to punch Paul. What is the alternative? Next to nothing getting built? To be continued...

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Found this presentation given by VIA in Halifax, dated January 31st, 2017. Only real new tidbit of information was services/trips that VIA is currently planning, see slide below.

 

[Allandale25]

Found this presentation given by VIA in Halifax, dated January 31st, 2017. Only real new tidbit of information was services/trips that VIA is currently planning, see slide below.

For the "in planning", could someone remind me what the "new" routes would be in Eastern Canada? IE what's not served right now?