News   Nov 22, 2024
 768     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 1.4K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 3.4K     8 

VIA Rail

As best I can tell Gare du Palais has 2 high floor platforms - fixable - but only two approach tracks which are shared with CN's yard and the Port's. How many daily movements can VIA reasonably expect to get?
The Train de Charlevoix should be have its terminus at Gare du Palais as opposed to Chute-Montmorency. If it was, more tourists would be transferring from VIA to the tourist train for outings. I, as a snowboarder, would love to be ale to take the train to Gare du Palais and transfer to le Train de Charlevoix on to Le Massif and the hotels Baie Saint Paul. That would be much more convenient than driving. It would be even better, if it was a night train from Toronto - but I'm getting ahead of myself.
 
The Train de Charlevoix should be have its terminus at Gare du Palais as opposed to Chute-Montmorency. If it was, more tourists would be transferring from VIA to the tourist train for outings. I, as a snowboarder, would love to be ale to take the train to Gare du Palais and transfer to le Train de Charlevoix on to Le Massif and the hotels Baie Saint Paul. That would be much more convenient than driving. It would be even better, if it was a night train from Toronto - but I'm getting ahead of myself.
Might work if they swapped their DB Class 628s (which presumably run under temporal separation rules) for Budd RDCs.

One thing about the Quebec City layout now that I've seen the OpenStreetmap image above and compared to satellite - all of the Gare du Palais platform tracks connect to only ONE of the two bridge tracks - the other only goes to the Port. Again, this is presumably fixable...
 
I'd be more concerned about the platform situation in Montreal.

Track 23: Amtrak preclearance platform
Track 21-22: RTM Mont-St-Hilaire
Track 9-12: REM Platform
Track 4-8: REM train storage

That means VIA is forever limited to platforms 13-20.

Is that enough room to grow?
A single platform is probably enough to service Adirondack and Vermonter but clearly their platform times would have to be well spaced - and then what if a revived Montrealer to Boston or an extended Ethan Allen looked viable?
 
Track 4-8 for train storage? In a major train station?

I'm curious why they need to *store* trains at a major station -- there must be a good reason -- but doesn't that limit expansion potential of Gare Centrale?

Or is this something only interim (for the next decade or so) to start-off peak service until they actually get used for expansion (REM expansion, etc).
 
Track 4-8 for train storage? In a major train station?

I'm curious why they need to *store* trains at a major station -- there must be a good reason -- but doesn't that limit expansion potential of Gare Centrale?

Or is this something only interim (for the next decade or so) to start-off peak service until they actually get used for expansion (REM expansion, etc).

Tracks 4, 5 and 6 are the old "Turbo Bays", and were modified expressly for the daytime servicing of the UA Turbos. They are not easily located or configurable to become passenger areas.

7 and 8 are likely to be used for storage as there simply isn't too many other places where they could store trains close to downtown in order to minimize headheading movements.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
Latest on the Churchill situation:

OTTAWA — Omnitrax has again argued its Churchill railway subsidiary is a separate company, in a bid to have a judge toss Ottawa’s $18.8-million lawsuit against the firm.

Meanwhile, documents obtained through access-to-information suggest Omnitrax didn’t warn Transport Canada officials before publicly announcing the Hudson Bay Railway wouldn’t be running until 2018.


In May 2017, the railway between the northern Manitoba communities of Gillam and Churchill washed out, and its American owner, Denver-based Omnitrax, said it would not pay an estimated $43.5 million to restore the railway, as it is "not economically viable."

Last November, the federal government filed a civil suit against both Omnitrax and its Hudson Bay Railway Company, seeking to claw back the $18.8 million Ottawa gave the firm under a 2008 agreement aimed at restoring the line, which contained clauses about needing keeping the railway operational.

According to documents filed in Winnipeg court this month, Omnitrax claimed it was a separate entity from HBRC, and there is "no cogent argument" it hasn’t fulfilled any contractual obligations.

On Feb. 14, the federal government reluctantly offered to strip the word "Omnitrax" from its November filing, but kept the substance of its allegations while attributing them solely to HBRC. That move delayed a court appearance scheduled for Thursday, until Feb. 27.

The nebulous dichotomy between Omnitrax and the HBRC emerged last month in front of the Canadian Transportation Agency, which is probing whether the railway was discontinued in breach of federal regulatory law.

The regulator rebuffed a similar attempt by Omnitrax to have the probe suspended on the basis of the HBRC being a separate company. The CTA noted manifold interviews where Omnitrax officials speak on behalf of the subsidiary.

On Thursday, Omnitrax’s Canadian head, Merv Tweed, dismissed the legal claim.

"This lawsuit does nothing to help facilitate a constructive solution for Churchill, and we believe it is a distraction from the work that needs to be done to enable the transfer and repair of the Hudson Bay Railway line," he wrote. "Omnitrax Canada continues to work aggressively to arrive at a resolution that will allow for repairs to begin as soon as possible after the spring thaw."

Meanwhile, internal Transport Canada documents suggest Omnitrax did not warn officials prior to announcing last June the railway likely couldn’t be fixed until spring 2018.

The company had already suspended rail service, but held a press conference to declare the railway wouldn’t be fixed by fall. That led bureaucrats to prioritize securing airport fuel for the looming winter.

Omnitrax also announced at that point it had commissioned engineering firm AECOM to assess damage along the line.

A month later, officials asked Omnitrax chief operating officer Sergio Sabatini for a briefing on that study. Sabatini instead suggested they could learn about some details during the July 18 stakeholder meeting.

A regional director suggested otherwise:

"From a regulatory perspective, we’d prefer the opportunity to sit and review AECOM’s work with you in a more thoughtful environment, where we could have some of our folks present to discuss things with you," he wrote. "It would help clear up possible disagreements further down the line."

Omnitrax would not say Thursday whether it briefed officials.

The exchanges also show Churchill’s town council was pondering asking Transport Canada to do "an assessment of the rail line, independent from the one that Omnitrax has done," after photos taken within a month of the flooding showed most of the water had receded.

Internally, the department said Omnitrax made "an appropriate choice" in commissioning AECOM to study the line, and that it would be a conflict of interest for Transport officials to inspect and appraise the same railway it regulates.

In an email, the Town of Churchill confirmed it requested Ottawa "come up and see the damage for themselves." It thanked the government for its ongoing talks aimed at transferring the railway and port into local hands, but added "the town has consistently believed there were quicker repair options available to restore service."

The documents show that in June, the federal government designated Industry Canada as the lead department on the file, which has since bounced to Transport Canada and eventually Natural Resources, because it is led by Energy Minister Jim Carr.

They also show a handful of Transport Canada staff did a series of inspections during the first shipment of gas in July. Part of that required a last-minute, $4,500 flight which was paid for by the fund used for responding to accidents.

The official arrived during a rather warm day. "Hot here with lots of bugs, thank you for sending me up here," he wrote.

— with files from Katie May

dylan.robertson@freepress.mb.ca
 
Latest on the Churchill situation:
It's a shame just how greedy these corporations are about their profit margins. Rail service to Churchill is an essential service and is built into the contract. The govt should completely nullify their contract for noncompliance though I'm not sure who is willing to take up the repair of this line. Maybe via can own it again?
 
It's a shame just how greedy these corporations are about their profit margins. Rail service to Churchill is an essential service and is built into the contract. The govt should completely nullify their contract for noncompliance though I'm not sure who is willing to take up the repair of this line. [...]
I highly recommend everyone blaming solely OmniTrax to read this excellent article from the Globe and Mail, which might give you a more differentiated view:
Eric Atkins said:
THE GLOBE AND MAIL. NOVEMBER 14, 2017.
U.S. owner of Churchill port, railway threatens NAFTA complaint

ERIC ATKINS, RAILWAY INDUSTRY REPORTER

[...]

Denver-based railway company OmniTrax says it bought the Hudson Bay Railway and Port of Churchill in 1997 with the expectation that grain shipments from the Canadian Wheat Board would continue. But the government's dismantling of the wheat board and its privatization in 2015 "pulled the rug out from under OmniTrax's investment" by diverting crop shipments to other railways, the company said in a notice of intent to seek arbitration filed on Tuesday.

The government's actions have devalued OmniTrax's investments and stymied its efforts to sell the railway and port, OmniTrax alleges in its claim.

"OmniTRAX would not have purchased the HBR or the Port of Churchill but for the expected continuation of the CWB business," OmniTrax says in its notice. OmniTrax says it is seeking a negotiated settlement that will repair the railway and port and transfer the ownership to the government or a third party. Failing that, OmniTrax says it will sue Ottawa for $150-million.
Full article at: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/rep...ay-threatens-nafta-complaint/article36970442/
 
I highly recommend everyone blaming solely OmniTrax to read this excellent article from the Globe and Mail, which might give you a more differentiated view:

Full article at: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/rep...ay-threatens-nafta-complaint/article36970442/
An American company is invoking NAFTA because they are losing money, because they assumed that a Conservative government would continue a socialistic business practice?

That nothing has actually happened, only demonstrates the silliness of their position.

The need to re-open the port, fix the railway, and actually do work, rather than being lazy and relying on a no-longer existing client who provided 90% of their business.
 
An American company is invoking NAFTA because they are losing money, because they assumed that a Conservative government would continue a socialistic business practice?

That nothing has actually happened, only demonstrates the silliness of their position.

The need to re-open the port, fix the railway, and actually do work, rather than being lazy and relying on a no-longer existing client who provided 90% of their business.
So how would OmniTrax CEO nfitz replace "a no-longer existing client who provided 90% of their business"? Build factories in Churchill? Start founding cities in the Tundra and populate them with immigrants from Europe?
 
I think that Gare Centrale might actually get a rebuild sooner than we think. At rush hours, the station concourse is already at capacity as it is.
Is it that bad? Haven't been there at rush-hour for a while.

How much can be made, if VIA let people load their train a lot earlier, rather than making people line up in circles everywhere?

Though I think simply reopening or adding stairwells would work. Perhaps repurpose the first floor of the parkade (or heck, demo it, and rebuild it. It's an ugly waste of concrete).

A single platform is probably enough to service Adirondack and Vermonter but clearly their platform times would have to be well spaced
Always was well-spaced, what with one being a night train, and the other being a day train.

Looking at the current schedule, the Vemonter would leave Central at 7:15 AM, and the Adirondack leaves Montreal at 10:20 AM. I can't see how a 3-hour gap, or even a 2-hour gap would be an issue.


Track 4-8 for train storage? In a major train station?

I'm curious why they need to *store* trains at a major station -- there must be a good reason
Cheaper, already built. Can just commandeer it. Remember the prime purpose to this is making a profit. You don't do that by worrying about anyone else, and what there needs might be a decade from now.

You simply grab what you can, and if they don't squawk, grab some more.

Tracks 4, 5 and 6 are the old "Turbo Bays", and were modified expressly for the daytime servicing of the UA Turbos.
Presumably the burned-out remains of the tarpaulined VIA unit have finally been removed. I swear there was something still sitting there into the 1990s.

So how would OmniTrax CEO nfitz replace "a no-longer existing client who provided 90% of their business"? Build factories in Churchill? Start founding cities in the Tundra and populate them with immigrants from Europe?
Turn it into a freight port and terminal into western Canada that's competitive.

Heck, the wheat still ships somewhere - fight for the market, instead of expecting the communist Wheat Board to simply put a shipping quantity in a 5-year plan.

As far as I'm aware, the winters aren't getting longer up there ...
 
That nothing has actually happened, only demonstrates the silliness of their position.
As far as I'm aware, their position has always been that the contract is between HBR and the federal government and that OmniTrax is not going to put more money into HBR, even if that would force them into bankruptcy, and they haven't had to break that line yet...

The need to re-open the port, fix the railway [...]
We are in agreement that this should be highest priority, but I would blame the governments that this has not happened yet, as they certainly have the financial resources and the responsibility for its citizens as well as the legal power to reclaim all expenses later if OmniTrax' legal position is indeed so untenable as you claim...
 
So how does fleet renewal work if it happens in advance of HFR?

I am thinking of the budget on Tuesday. Let's say they announce funding for recapitalization, but HFR is not mentioned. Should we take that as HFR is dead? Or does HFR still have a business case with whatever rolling stock they buy?
 
So how does fleet renewal work if it happens in advance of HFR?

I am thinking of the budget on Tuesday. Let's say they announce funding for recapitalization, but HFR is not mentioned. Should we take that as HFR is dead? Or does HFR still have a business case with whatever rolling stock they buy?

Good question. The two are not necessarily exclusive, because the spec for HFR isn't calling for super high speed trains. If HFR ever happens, the right new equipment will work just fine, even if in the short term it runs below its capability. (VIA never did get to use the LRC fleet at its full performance spec, for that matter). Obviously, the current procurement will have to be diesel powered and if HFR happens, then they might need to buy electric locos, but that would be a small ticket item in the scope of the overall HFR procurement.

There will be those who are hoping VIA buys some esoteric product that fits their runaway dream of "world class", eg some tilting EMU variant or such that is in use somewhere else. I would be happy with a plain vanilla loco-hauled North American style fleet similar to Brightline and Amtrak.

The key is to place an order quickly and get the first deliveries on hand before too many existing cars have to be withdrawn. HFR has a few years' lead time, so if more equipment, or more advanced equipment, is needed there can be a further order or option exercised when HFR is approved and that equipment will still be here by the time HFR requires it. It will all be needed.

The question I'm wondering about is quantity. VIA not only needs new equipment, they need a larger fleet. There are lots of 3-car trains out there that could probably fill a fourth or fifth car, at least on peak days. There needs to be a growth margin built into the new procurement.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
The question I'm wondering about is quantity. VIA not only needs new equipment, they need a larger fleet. There are lots of 3-car trains out there that could probably fill a fourth or fifth car, at least on peak days. There needs to be a growth margin built into the new procurement.

Excellent point. This is VIA's fleet renewal page:

http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/governance-and-reports/fleet-renewal-program

Numbers don't inspire confidence. 40 locos and 160 carriages to replace 52 locos and 236 carriages.

Now, I get that highers speeds will result in higher utilization under HFR. But a 25% drop seems large. Also, the ratio of carriages to locomotives seems low. 4:1 from 4.5:1 today. That seems like it's going in the wrong direction. And when you consider this does not include HFR, that seems to foretell a coming drop in service. Unless, this is meant to be some kind of initial order, with top ups to follow.

But hopefully, professionals like Johannes are fighting the good fight at VIA to get the government to fund a real renewal. I don't envy their jobs.
 

Back
Top