VIA Rail

[kEiThZ]

I've been thinking lately, what would happen if ViaRail completely disappeared? I mean would anyone really care or notice if they folded?

Gauging by the discussions on here about the dismal state of ViaRail, the lack of information release pertaining to the recent RFP on a new fleet procurement, the opaqueness of the high frequency-high speed-whatever-you-want-to-call-it-at-this-point and reading articles/commentary/interviews with Greg Gormick. It really seems like ViaRail is doomed. Perhaps it's better for ViaRail to fail (if it hasn't yet) and burn to the ground and start anew? The various comments about Via Rail management has me wondering why they haven't been turfed yet and does the Federal Government even know about this issue. *end of rant*

If anyone is interested, I came across a nice chart making a comparison of Amtrak's Empire Builder and ViaRail's Canadian: https://wawa-news.com/index.php/201...as-flagship-canadian-train-all-across-canada/

-Only a few more hours till a new year!-

You hit the proverbial nail on the head. VIA is not consequential to most Canadians. It's why the government is ignoring it. At absolute worst, maybe a handful of seats if the Canadian or the Ocean are cut.

The Corridor would rapidly get replaced by substantially more and better coach services.

 

[lenaitch]

There would remain a need, by some entity to provide service the flag stop locations served by Via northern Ontario (Canadian and Superior) plus northern Quebec and Manitoba. Many of those locations lack roads to be serviced by coach. Motor coach service would likely need to be subsidized as it currently is, although probably at a lower cost. Unsubsidized air travel is only available to major centres.

 

[jys]

If the Corridor is profitable, why do VIA's annual reports show subsidies for those services?

Apologies, I meant profitable in the relative sense. However, it could definitely be profitable with more reliable service.

The Corridor would rapidly get replaced by substantially more and better coach services.

That reminds me of "those trolley buses will be just as good as the streetcars". If I had to choose between being stuck on a train or a bus for a x amount of hours, then I would definitely choose the train on which I can at least use the bathroom and walk around. There is already plenty of demand for 'good' service in the corridor, so why are the coach buses still so crap?

 

[jys]

If that is the case, they need to work on their other major routes. I am thinking Canadian and Ocean.

Unfortunately there is nothing VIA can do anywhere without additional funding. They are running out of cost saving measures to implement.

 

[steveintoronto]

If the Corridor is profitable, why do VIA's annual reports show subsidies for those services?

Ask CN and CP. No-one publishes what it costs VIA every year. How much do buses pay to rent the highways?

Free VIA from 'limited access' CN tracks with its own $3B corridor from Toronto to Montreal: report
Jason Fekete, Ottawa Citizen February 26, 2016

OTTAWA – A sweeping review of Canada’s transportation system recommends major changes to Via Rail operations in Canada, including using federal dollars and legislative powers to separate freight and passenger rail networks to allow for a dedicated Montreal-to-Toronto corridor, and consider eliminating subsidies for Toronto-Vancouver service.

The government tabled Thursday a report from an expert panel chaired by former federal cabinet minister David Emerson that makes dozens of recommendations for changes to Canada’s transportation system.

The panel recommends the federal government “improve the fluidity” of passenger rail services in Canada by separating passenger and freight rail networks. It also calls on the federal government and Via Rail to work with the private sector to secure financing for rail network improvements that could limit the cost to the public purse and ensure a dedicated passenger track happens “much sooner.”
[...]
An ongoing issue for Via Rail has been its battle with Canadian National Railway (CN) over access to track in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor. Via Rail uses CN’s track for much of its service and also pays CN and Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) for track access, the report says.

The majority of Via Rail’s trips are in this corridor but its operations are “hampered by slow speeds and limited access to track” that is owned by CN. Via Rail believes that construction and use of a dedicated passenger rail track in the corridor would significantly reduce its need for federal subsidies for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal operations.

The panel also recommends the federal government use infrastructure financing models that integrate the principle of “direct user-pay pricing” for rail and road. User-pay pricing for road travel includes toll roads or gas taxes.

The report notes “there is little question” that federally supported passenger rail – which includes user fees as well as taxpayer subsidies – would attract more riders if direct user charges were applied consistently to all modes of transportation, including by road.
[...]

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada...n-3b-corridor-from-toronto-to-montreal-report

The Report can be found here:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/ctareview2014/canada-transportation-act-review.html

Pg 133 of the printed report, Pg 135 of the pdf, Volume 2

 

[Admiral Beez]

If the Corridor is profitable, why do VIA's annual reports show subsidies for those services?

I thnk you’ll find the definition of “profitable” to be sadly elastic. I suspect in this case it means needing fewer (as opposed to zero) public subsidies.

 

[robmausser]

If the Corridor is profitable, why do VIA's annual reports show subsidies for those services?

If oil is profitable why do oil companies in Canada get subsidies from the government? Because they can.

http://www.iisd.org/faq/unpacking-canadas-fossil-fuel-subsidies/

 

[muller877]

If oil is profitable why do oil companies in Canada get subsidies from the government? Because they can.

http://www.iisd.org/faq/unpacking-canadas-fossil-fuel-subsidies/

Sigh...the Cdn Development Expense is not a subsidy. It's a tax deduction for an expense. Just like how a manufacturer gets to deduct the cost of a machine over time or a rail company gets to deduct the cost of a locomotive over time. For tax an oil company gets to deduct the cost of drilling a well over time. No different.

Likewise the Alberta program REDUCED the royalty that was charged for wells drilled between 2 specific times. They still charge a royalty...just a lower rate.

Way different than VIA. Via has approx $600m of operating costs. Fares cover $325m of it. And the government funds the remainder...almost 1/2 the budget.

So to recap. The so-called subsidies to oil companies are either a tax deduction similar to deductions that other companies can receive or a reduced amount of payments to the government. VIA takes money from the government.

Ask CN and CP. No-one publishes what it costs VIA every year. How much do buses pay to rent the highways?

Ontario charges vehicles 14.3¢ per liter in fuel tax. And railways 4.5¢. The extra 9.8¢ is for the use of the road. I'm not sure if that covers the cost of the road but it goes a long way.

 

[steveintoronto]

I'm not sure if that covers the cost of the road but it goes a long way.

Aside from the details of "who pays for roads", the crux of my analogy is being completely missed.

The analogy you present would represent railway tracks in the public domain, and how much users pay for the cost. Fair enough, if you wish to pursue that line of reasoning, very few in this string would disagree. Let's do it! (With a multitude of provisos, but bascially we're talking 'nationalized railway RoWs', an interesting discussion in itself).

You miss the essential point, I'll make it again:
"No-one publishes what it costs VIA every year."

This is not cost to own the RoW, and it's way more than cost for upkeep to share the track. It's *undisclosed* price ("for proprietary reasons") that amounts to usury.

All CN and CP would have to do to make a *fair* case is open their books. Fat chance...VIA is also forbidden from disclosing the cost. If I'm wrong, then by all means provide those figures, and let's discuss it.

 

[steveintoronto]

Didn't they put out and RFQ or RFP for new trains? Whats the status

It's a good question. I'm told they got responses (note plural) but no-one so far has indicated who or what they were.

Remember, (and I don't have the Request handy, but from memory) (gist) "Bi-mode trainsets, meet Canadian 'regulations', proven and in service, and not necessarily from manufacturers" (the inference being that various manufacturers' products could be assembled into a bid, or a company could assemble various components to make a bid). IIRC, there was also some service and/or operating guarantee to go with the bid.

I'll see if I can find it to add more detail, and be referenced.

Still looking for the actual RFP, but here's an industry news release on it:

IRJ at InnoTrans 2016: CANADIAN inter-city passenger operator Via Rail is moving forward with preparations to procure a new fleet of bi-mode (diesel and electric) trains as part of its $C 4bn plan to upgrade the Toronto – Ottawa – Montreal corridor.

CEO Mr Yves Desjardins-Siciliano told IRJ at InnoTrans on September 21 that Via Rail is seeking to acquire a proven design that is “in production or in use today,” with the first trains due to enter service by 2020.

“We’re looking for an established solution that meets Canadian requirements and is capable of operating in temperatures of between -40 and +40oC,” Desjardins-Siciliano says.
Via Rail plans a minimum order for between 32 and 48 trains, providing a total 10,000-14,000 seats.

The Canadian government is expected to make a decision on the funding structure for the Toronto – Montreal project by March, which will determine the procurement timeline and fleet composition. Tendering could begin as early as March or April 2017.

In March this year the federal budget allocated Via Rail $C 7.7m in the current financial year to fund pre-procurement activities for new rolling stock, level crossing safety enhancements, and station security. This will enable Via Rail to take the rolling stock project to the Request for Proposals (RFQ) stage.

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/north-america/via-rail-prepares-to-order-new-trains.html

A "fair" was held in Montreal some time after that, the outcome is, as far as I can tell, unknown. It comes up every so often in this string, and no answer has ever been proffered.

Jul 3, 2016

BIG NEWS! VIA Rail has put out an RFP for it's Corridor fleet renewal. Had no idea this was moving this fast. See description below:

VIA Rail Fleet Renewal - Notice to Industry

The Government of Canada's 2016-2017 budget proposes to provide VIA Rail with funding to support technical studies and other pre-procurement activities related to the renewal of VIA Rail’s Québec-Windsor Corridor fleet. It is further to such proposal that VIA Rail issues this notice.

Accordingly, VIA Rail hereby gives notice to potential suppliers that it intends to invite the industry to submit credentials, current product pipeline information, and relevant financial information over the coming weeks.

Additionally, VIA Rail intends to hold a one day “Market Day” on July 21, 2016 in Montreal to meet with interested suppliers.

See the document provided herewith for greater detail.

N22: Railway Equipment
N2200: RAILWAY EQUIPMENT
N2210: LOCOMOTIVES
N2220: RAIL CARS

Link to RFP: http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.asp?WCE=Show&TAB=3&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PR372988&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=&rowcount=&lastpage=&MoreResults=&PUBSORT=2&CLOSESORT=0&IS_SME=N&hcode=YAYJw7NaV7JuYA7TtjxSQA==

EDIT/More info to add:

VIA Rail’s review of supplier information will be very important to the basis of its recommendations to the Government of Canada, no later than September 9, 2016, for contracting authority and funding to VIA Rail to proceed with a formal procurement process. If such authority and funding are granted to VIA Rail to proceed with the renewal of its Corridor fleet, the target date for deliveries of the new fleet is expected to begin as early as 2019.

What VIA is looking for in its new fleet (especially interesting info):

Flexibility to Operate:

• The intent is to specify trainsets for bi-directional operation (Push-Pull).
• VIA Rail intends to contract with one supplier. Bidders who only offer motive power or seated vehicles must partner to offer a complete trainset solution.

Performance:

• Trainsets must be able to operate at speeds of up to 100 mph or 161 km/h on shared Class 5 non-electrified infrastructure, non-grade separated, using diesel power.
• Trainsets must also be able to operate at a maximum of 125 mph or 201 km/h on new dedicated Class 7 infrastructure, non-grade separated, using in diesel mode and electric mode where electrified.
• Transition between modes of power must be seamless with minimum impact on the passenger experience.

Delivery:

• The trainsets must be proven in service or made up of proven elements, and either be in production or quickly be ready for production in order to minimize lead time.

Fleet Size Final:

• quantities remain to be confirmed; however the intent is to replace the current fleet of 40 locomotives and 160 cars with bi-directional trainsets providing equivalent seat capacity currently totalling 2200 Business seats and 7800 Economy seats. An option for additional trainsets could be required, depending on the timing of other initiatives planned by VIA Rail.

Detailed info from VIA: http://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/INTERCITY_PASSENGER_RAIL.pdf

 

[steveintoronto]

Hmm I could be mistaken but something similar to what Brightline has would be a possible fit? I would not be complaining if we had those (beautiful) trains running into union.

Only if the RFP is re-written and re-submitted.

Note: "Bi-Mode". I have made a suggestion a number of times in this string that a single ended diesel consist with a 'dead loco' ("Cabbage"
Control car - Wikipedia ) at the other end or an aging F40 still w/ engine to allow "push/pull" until such time as electrification happens, and then add an electric loco other end. This has been discussed and detailed many times here.

In the event, in the total absence of any word from VIA or the Ministry, it's all a moot point anyway.

Btw: Even though the Brightlines are technically "push-pull", the rear loco dead-heads with the present limited number of carriages. (Four, with plans to increase to seven later)

 

[steveintoronto]

Hmm, I wonder if Siemens would consider a Dual Mode version of the charger?

Whether they do or not, it doesn't meet the requirements as stated:

The trainsets must be proven in service or made up of proven elements, and either be in
production or quickly be ready for production in order to minimize lead time.

http://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/INTERCITY_PASSENGER_RAIL.pdf

Which leads many of us to wonder, other than BBD, who could possibly have tendered a bid?

 

[cplchanb]

Whether they do or not, it doesn't meet the requirements as stated:

http://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/INTERCITY_PASSENGER_RAIL.pdf

Which leads many of us to wonder, other than BBD, who could possibly have tendered a bid?

a bit of a shame.... VIA had the opportunity to fully modernise with a multiple unit order or even something like brightline, but it appears that they are comfortable with
the aged status quo of 20th century mode of operations and consists.... it also appears that they are in no hurry to get out of bed with CN and construct a parallel line as was recommended
but industry experts

 

[steveintoronto]

a bit of a shame.... VIA had the opportunity to fully modernise with a multiple unit order or even something like brightline, but it appears that they are comfortable with
the aged status quo of 20th century mode of operations and consists.... it also appears that they are in no hurry to get out of bed with CN and construct a parallel line as was recommended
but industry experts

There's many odd things about the way the RFP was stated...and I'm not so quick as to put the blame on VIA. It presented a 'nonsense' to the degree that it was *apparently* meant to fail. I can't help but wonder if the Ministry dictated the wording?

Pardon the repetition of posting here, but take a close look at this:

Which stacks up to an impossible set of criteria to fulfill as written. Perhaps it was badly written, and communication with VIA HQ clears up the confusion? It's an odd way to issue an RFP.

Just the first paragraph alone:
[Trainsets must meet current Transport Canada, Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA),
American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Federal Railway Administration
(FRA), and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, notably for people with
disabilities and safety requirements]

All, and, or? APTA specs offer a vastly greater selection of possible candidates, such that the US FRA itself offers many waivers for them. But at no time have I read of TC honouring FRA waivers. Maybe they do? I haven't read of it.

Be aware that *operators* make a case to Transport Canada for exceptions or new permissions to operate equipment not previously used in Canada, not the builders, who can claim their specs "meet" TC regs.

But even there, TC's own published requirements don't state as VIA has:

(b) Passenger Locomotives

After January 1, 2015 new and remanufactured locomotives travelling at speeds exceeding 25 MPH (40 KPH) shall be designed and constructed as a minimum in accordance with the latest revision of the “American Public Transit Association” (APTA), the Association of American Railroad Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices or equivalent standard.

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/rules-tco76-338.htm

 

[muller877]

Aside from the details of "who pays for roads", the crux of my analogy is being completely missed.

The analogy you present would represent railway tracks in the public domain, and how much users pay for the cost. Fair enough, if you wish to pursue that line of reasoning, very few in this string would disagree. Let's do it! (With a multitude of provisos, but bascially we're talking 'nationalized railway RoWs', an interesting discussion in itself).

You miss the essential point, I'll make it again:
"No-one publishes what it costs VIA every year."

This is not cost to own the RoW, and it's way more than cost for upkeep to share the track. It's *undisclosed* price ("for proprietary reasons") that amounts to usury.

All CN and CP would have to do to make a *fair* case is open their books. Fat chance...VIA is also forbidden from disclosing the cost. If I'm wrong, then by all means provide those figures, and let's discuss it.

CN is a private company. The gov't sold it in an IPO, took the cash and ran. So VIA must rent the tracks. Which pays for (1) maintenance, (2) capital costs, (3) land and (4) lost potential for revenue from other sources.

Roads are a public resource. We can all debate on what should be paid. But it would only cover (1) and (2). I wanted to highlight there are costs that trucks pay for this that are not paid for by railway which includes the higher fuel tax.