kEiThZ
Superstar
Does anyone know how many seats VIA room in the corridor now? How does 9100 compare?
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
crs1026
Superstar
That's such an interesting question. Suppose VIA did get the green light on HFR. Suppose they did have a favourable BCA for electrification as part of that investment. Suppose MTO (who, not ML, are planning the Ontario HSR) come back and say, OK, we're ready to go, and our proposal clearly favours catenary. (Very likely, because hydrail in a higher speed, non-frequent-stopping envelope is nothing like hydrail for commuter trains).
What provision has ML put in its RFP for RER to say "Projectco will cooperate with all efforts to build intercity rail service through Toronto"? What if there are tradeoffs in cost for Projectco? What does "all efforts" mean in terms of meeting VIA or GO-HSR halfway? Who resolves conflicting interests?
If I were a bidder, and I saw that "will cooperate" line in the draft contract, I would be adding in contingencies - ie my price will go up. And if successful I would be adding a couple extra lawyers to ensure my interests are enforced.
Very different arrangement of roles and interests compared to say Britain, where Network is one organization and operators are another. Not arguing for that model, just trying to point out that by going to P3 in this way, and then dropping this bombshell about hydrail, Ontario has really complicated the whole thing. I am enthusiastic about hydrail for the long term, I just wish it would go away long enough to get the wires up and get HFR, HSR, and RER in place.
- Paul
steveintoronto
Superstar
Except it has never been the projection that VIA themselves build the RoW for HFR! That has always been promoted as Private.
What could happen, and I repeat from the Hill article I posted:
...is that a Private Initiative petitions (if not bids) to build both using the same trainsets and tech, even if Ontario retains ownership of the land for the western leg from Union, and some of the approaches into Union. It would be a 'run-through' operation. Garneau's comments allude to a 'number' of 'competing plans'.
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
Fair enough, but that's still my point. You have a private entity (of which VIA is a partner) trying to accomplish HFR interacting with a private entity trying to operate RER (under terms of a contract to ML) with maybe some other entity trying to accomplish GO-HSR (possibly under contract to MTO) as well. Try to find a clear line of accountability and a desk where the buck eventually stops in all that! No point writing your Minister about anything, they are hands-off to the whole thing.
It cries for HFRco, whoever they will be, to take HSR off Ontario's hands, just to simplify. Maybe Ontario is secretly hoping for that.
- Paul
steveintoronto
Superstar
Absolutely agreed on that. What's interesting is that the Feds won't even acknowledge Ont's HSR save for "vague generalities". It's a quagmire for the Ont Libs, and the Feds want no part of it.
Now if the 'consortium' that finances and builds the HFR RoW (and perhaps even the rolling stock, a good possibility that allows the Fleet Renewal to go ahead with an "Option" for later upgrade) then if it makes sense to do Mont/Ottawa/Tor, it makes sense to either attain running rights or even finance the operation to continue through to at least London using the same rolling stock and operators. It would save the Ont Libs from themselves, who've dug a 'High Speed Hole" for themselves. A 'run-through' at Union would make life easier for everyone concerned, not least platform slots at Union.
I'm intrigued at Garneau's "other competing plans"....there's code in there, and the "three year plan to study" is a ploy to give what's developing a cover. What Ontarians and Cdns shouldn't be shocked by though is that whoever 'petitions' to build this either uses their own rolling stock with no tender, or they take a manufacturer of their choice into the consortium. This would be a 'make-work' project without government interference. The Feds might be *praying* that someone bites at the InfraBank involvement, as it puts the Feds on the Board of the consortium. In the event, I think many potential consortiums or corps will just do it all themselves, with no back driver calling the shots.
I was aghast when REM announced that BBD weren't going to build the rolling stock since CDPQ own 30% of their rail business...until realizing they own roughly same of the Alstom assembled consortium. Without vertical integration, these projects lose their ability to make a business case, and as much as governments are loathe to admit it, it makes it a lot easier when things go wrong. The finger has only one place to point.
steveintoronto
Superstar
The Taurus is purely electric, obviously it won't be presented for bidding. The highly likely one is the Charger, albeit possibly with an option to go bi-mode in the future with what will then be much less heavy and bulky requirements to do it. https://www.siemens.com/press/pool/...7-05-uitp/factsheet-siemens-charger-loc-e.pdf
With Trump's latest protectionist diatribe, it wouldn't surprise me if the Feds don't demand an 'offset' in lieu of having it assembled here (BBD is a glaring example of where that goes wrong) for Siemens to source supplies of equal value in Canada, at least the cost of steel, to neutralize the loss of Cdn suppliers to the US. The Charger is of course US built. Perhaps ordering them from Europe made to their US specs might be an appropriate slap in the face for US protectionists.
It's usually dangerous to play politics with supply, but with someone like Trump, it's appropriate to consider.
M636RF
New Member
Nobody builds new "cabbage" style cab cars. Siemens cars seem like a good fit, but I would hate to see Talgos in VIA colors. I think VIA would need some sort of a waiver to operate those on the corridor anyway, because aside from the cabs, they are not FRA compliant.
Would separate HFR tracks cut down on the number of grade crossings? That might be something to consider when selecting the type of "bidirectional" trainset (given the safety downsides of cab cars). Of course there would still be plenty of unprotected crossings in Southern Ontario even if the new tracks were built.
Well the problem for VIA is that there aren't many other options besides US built Chargers (at least currently). What you proposed would make a potential order more expensive for VIA.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I would love that model. It would un-clustefuck so many of our problems. Consider the Quebec-Windsor corridor. VIA has to operate on tracks owned by so many different players. And now we're going to add more players into this mix with the "partners"? At least for this central corridor, I either with there was an authority that owned the track from end to end, or VIA itself owned it all.
The real annoyance here is the one size fits all problem. They really should have committed to at least electrifying Kitchener and Stouffville and the parts of Lakeshore that are necessary. Instead, the contractors gets to bid on all of it. Wynne et al. screwed over VIA here. I see no reason why the feds won't return the favour by ignoring investment in the TKL HSR until Ontario is willing to play ball.
Except that now you have the added mess of Metrolinx's partner working on hydrail or BE trains on that line. Have you ever seen a private entity willing to take on more project risk for little return? There's not too many reasons for HFRco to operate west of Union in this current setup. And even less to pony up billions to upgrade the Kitchener line. Essentially, even for HFRco, the TKL corridor becomes an entirely separate business decision, with its own independent business case. Will be interesting to see if they bite.
Personally, I am also curious to see how VIA's potential partnering works when they are buying the rolling stock now. Are partners just stuck with whatever VIA buys? If it's a BOT arrangement, they might have very different ideas for how service is meant to run. You would think if VIA had any intention to partner with a private sector partner, they would have waited on the fleet replacement.
steveintoronto
Superstar
I think there's a number of options as per locos, the shortage would be in North Am manufacturers supplying complete trainsets.
But no matter who bids from the US, in lieu of protectionist measures that may be imposed on Cdn goods, guaranteed offsets will be far more the norm. Protectionism makes everything more expensive. Offsets are already typically used as it stands. Military procurement especially, but almost all government purchases. Brace yourself, because if Trump does his Dump, there's no choice but to retaliate in kind, and other nations become preferential traders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offset_agreement
Meantime, especially with CAD dropping, and a state of Trumpness being declared by the US, Canada's Trade Agreement with the EU becomes highly useful. At this point in time, in terms of trade allies, they've suddenly become a lot closer:
CETA: opportunities for the railway sector 17. 1. 2018
[...]
[...]
https://www.businessinfo.cz/app/content/files/teritoria/kanada-zeleznice-ceta-180119.pdf
The cost of shipping is a pittance compared to the purchase price. Canada was exporting EMD locos to the UK and elsewhere in the world from London Ont until the operation was sold and moved down to the US.
Well, things are about to change for US protectionists. Live by the US steel forged sword, die by its double edge when it recoils.
Perhaps this will force a mandate on Transport Canada to change their regulations to permit more waivers, if not a complete rehash by the Ministry of the pertaining railway acts to come into the modern age and allow much more use of UIC/ERA regs rather than FRA ones?
Take close note that Finance didn't state an actual budget number for acquisition. I think the game just got a whole lot more interesting. Gee, thanks Donald, what a swell guy...
Attachments
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
It's interesting that VIA is proposing a ~5% capacity cut by going down to 9100 seats from around 9600 seats today. I wonder if this is because the spare ratio is lower. They are replacing 40 locomotives running in the corridor with 32 locomotives. That's a 25% drop in the number of locomotives. So even though they are cutting capacity, this represents more seats per train.
Paul was right to raise concern on numbers before. Can they sustain the current schedule with 25% fewer locomotives?
Paul was right to raise concern on numbers before. Can they sustain the current schedule with 25% fewer locomotives?
dowlingm
Senior Member
Presumably the 21 P42DCs are in line for the EXIT door but it will be interesting to see what happens with the F40s - after all there is supposedly expansion in Nova Scotia happening too.
For anyone wondering about what life after VIA for P42s might be like (or why they might be chopped first), have a look at this thread: http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=166495
steveintoronto
Superstar
"Circuit board replacement" seems to be the greatest concern...and even to this tech, that's ironic. On a case by case basis with older electronics, even an adept bench tech can engineer his/her way around obsolete board functions, but for a fleet that must be re-certified on an individual basis, it must be a real challenge. And certainly not much fun to do it unless someone does re-engineer the design, gets batch certification for it, and produces kits. But that's very expensive, and will always have bugs in it that have to be ironed out.
Even the type of boards used (the actual board material) will have changed from the 90s, and this obsolescence seems to be appearing quite often now-a-days. Same story on the UTDC streetcars. A machinist can make many worn mechanical parts new again, but an electronic tech can only do so much with board components that in many cases now whose functions would exist in the software of a standard computer chip/board using interfaced machine code to control relatively simple mechanical devices.
In a museum, if the challenge was to "make it go"...all sorts of hacks could be done, many quite easily if the schematic and wiring pictorials were available (and they are for those kinds of machines), but to meet safety and operational regs? Whoa...I was taken aback at how something like 'the brain stem' could cripple such complex and mighty beasts, but as I reflect on it, I continually turn down work on expensive audio devices, even after diagnosing the problem, because everything is mounted on a board and getting it out to work on it is a nightmare not worth any amount of my being paid or my time. Ditto for many techs.
There's a reason "point to point wiring" is still used on the very best of equipment. Or being able to replace the entire board with components pre-mounted, which is really a 'cop-out' in terms of the joy of restoration, but like today's cars, furnaces, and most mass produced items, it's the reality. "Replace the module" is the mime of the times.
I am surprised to read that about the GE Pxx series, but of all people, I shouldn't be. And I remember when they were 'state of the art' when they arrived on the scene brimming with micro-processor control.
To bring this back to 'Cabbages'...I can see that even mating a gutted F40 to run as a cab-car on the end of present-day state-of-the-art consist is just wistful thinking. Not that the F40 bogies and suspension were up to task to begin with for top speed running. They would be a liability hanging on the end of a modern high speed consist.
Interesting link!
Addendum: Damn you Dowling! You've now got me hooked on reading the entire string for that link. lol...
But I see my point being made by a poster there:
Yeaaahhh....big sigh.
A lot of the GE tweaks for performance at the time were micro-control related, and to do that it required a dedicated board. Many functions could be done on an iPhone board today with the right program running. Men were landed on the Moon and returned with less computational power of a single chip nowadays.
Sometimes it's best to let bell-bottom jeans, platform shoes and Paisley shirts die a dignified death...That old '89 Chevy pick-up is fine for work around the farm, but don't think it's safe on the highway or reliable enough to get you to the next city.
But there is hope, this is akin to state-of-the-art steam propulsion:
http://www.korg.com/caen/news/2015/012212/
Last edited:
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Where did that 9600 seat figure come from? Also, you seem to make certain assumptions about current operations, such as that there is always only one locomotive per train and that F40s and P42s can be used interchangeably (i.e. like one single locomotive fleet)...
steveintoronto
Superstar
Mostly mainline relevant, but also pertinent to Metrolinx and TTC strings: (Just up at Railway Engineer)
New Thinking for Point Operation
New Thinking for Point Operation
- 2nd March 2018
https://www.railengineer.uk/2018/03/02/new-thinking-for-point-operation/
kEiThZ
Superstar
Add up car seats x number of cars. Use VIA's pages for coaches. That's what yields about that many seats. If I'm wrong, I'd love more data. That's why I am asking, what is VIA's capacity in the Corridor today.
And I get that there are constraints on which locomotives are used or operational practices. Again, that's why I am asking questions. They had previously suggested that 40 locomotives need to replaced in the corridor. And they're only choosing to buy 32 replacements. That's a 25% cut. I'd love to understand why that difference is there.