VIA Rail

[Allandale25]

VIA bid on the units. They were outbid by AllEarth. The general consensus is that AllEarth overpaid for them.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

As noted above, any chance AllEarth won't get off the ground and they could come back on the market?

 

[steveintoronto]

crs1026, Oct 21, 2015

I have been pretty impressed with the DMU's I have seen in the UK and Europe. No reason it can't be used here.

- Paul

Has this stance changed at all in the interim?

 

[steveintoronto]

Why wouldnt VIA refurb these 12 as well? Still would be a good deal.

The train has already left the station on that one:

6.2.5 Rail Diesel Cars (RDC) VIA has six Rail Diesel Cars (RDC) that are assigned to the Victoria – Courtenay and Sudbury – White River services. VIA will invest $15.8 million to rebuild its RDC car fleet. The rebuild was contracted to IRSI in Moncton, New Brunswick, and two of the six cars were completed prior to IRSI being forced into receivership. VIA is exploring the potential to complete the remaining cars at the former IRSI facilities in Moncton, using a qualified supplier under the purview of IRSI’s bankruptcy trustee.
[...]
x Delays in equipment and infrastructure projects could jeopardize VIA’s capacity to realize the revenue improvements that are built into this Corporate Plan. VIA actively monitors projects aimed at mitigating potential delays and other risks related to completion of the equipment and infrastructure projects. At the present time, the LRC (Light, Rapid, Comfortable) car and RDC (self-propelled Rail Diesel Car) rebuild projects are being reassessed due to the contractor’s inability to meet contractual obligations and the subsequent business failure and receivership of the firm in late April 2012. VIA is actively exploring options for reducing risks related to the completion of the LRC and RDC car and other rebuild programs.
[...]
7.6 Equipment Rebuild Projects Work on the LRC rebuild project, Renaissance equipment project and RDC rebuild contracts has ceased as a result of IRSI being placed in receivership. At the time of writing, VIA and Ernst & Young (IRSI’s trustee) are exploring options to mitigate the effects of IRSI’s inability to fulfill contractual obligations. The options under consideration include: completing parts of the rebuild project at VIA facilities in Montreal, reactivating IRSI facilities in Moncton under the supervision of IRSI’s trustee and outsourcing parts of the rebuild to other qualified contractors. A total of $83 million is currently allocated to complete the LRC, Renaissance and RDC rebuilds. In order to mitigate the risk that completion of the refurbished cars is delayed further, VIA plans to offset any additional costs through changes to the project’s scope or through use of new ongoing capital funding, should additional capital funding be approved.

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/viarail/TN2-1-2012-eng.pdf

The AllEarth ones, if acquired, would only lend themselves to minimal refurbishment to attain cost recovery. For those with motive issues, the choice might be to remove the dead weight and use them as trailers in a consist with the existing stock with healthy motors.

This should be easily done 'in-house' by VIA, or a straightforward outsourcing, nothing complicated as happened before. There's also the issue of assessing the electrics (including MU and other systems) and the state of other vitals like brakes et al before purchase. That they *appear* to be in "excellent shape" is promising. That has to be proven before signing the cheque.

Interoperability with the refurbed VIA ones and the engine electronics may be a problem.

Subs come to mind...

 

[steveintoronto]

Stadler making great strides in the US with some excellent stock. Add one more:

[...]
The diesel system saves BART about half of what it would have cost to extend its existing electric-powered line. BART directors, once bitten and twice shy with the problems of their fleet of 44-year-old, once-revolutionary cars, elected to buy off-the-shelf transit cars from the Stadler company of Switzerland that have been used in many European and U.S. systems and have a proven track record.

Stadler manager Kurt Roth, who was on hand to show off his cars, said the company stands behind them with a two-year warranty. It’s shorter than most new automobile warranties, Roth acknowledged, but it should be more than adequate. Seven more trains — each consisting of two passenger cars and a shorter car in the middle that contains the diesel engine — are due to arrive by the end of the year.
[...]

http://www.govtech.com/fs/transportation/BART-New-Diesel-Powered-Trains.html

Switzerland train maker Stadler Rail has been selected by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) to deliver eight two-car GTW-trains.

The $58m order will see supply of independently propelled diesel multiple-units (DMUs), which will operate on a standard gauge rail for use on the East Contra Costa BART extension commuter rail project (eBART Project).

As part of the East Contra Costa BART Extension Project, the DMUs will be based on the 37 trains that were built and delivered by Stadler for New Jersey Transit, Capital Metro in Austin, Texas; and for Denton County Transportation Authority in Texas, US.

The eBART Project will include nearly 9.5 miles (16km) of new track between the existing Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station and a new station in the City of Antioch.
[...]

https://www.railway-technology.com/news/newsbart-contracts-stadler-rail-for-eight-new-dmus-4254885/

[...]
A groundbreaking was held in October 2010, and BART says the $525m cost of the rail element of the project including standard gauge DMUs has been 60% cheaper than building an electrified line to the BART network’s 1 676 mm gauge.

The $58m order for the DMUs was placed with sole bidder Stadler in April 2014. They are based on units previously supplied to NJ Transit, Capital Metro I Austin and Denton County Transportation Authority in northern Dallas. They meet EPA Tier 4 emissions regulations, and have multilingual information displays and automated announcements.

All eight DMUs are due to be delivered by December 2016, ready for a year of state-mandated testing ahead of the launch of passenger services in winter 2017-18. The line will have a peak capacity of 2 400 passengers/h and initial ridership is expected to be 5 600 passengers/day, increasing to 10 100 by 2030. [...]

https://www.railwaygazette.com/news...ew/view/bart-unveils-antioch-ebart-train.html

And yes, they're high platform. And to electrify come the time? Choose to sub in the hybrid or completely electric propulsion module in between the two (or more) passenger coaches.
https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/stadler-gtw-articulated-railcars/

BART Orders Stadler DMU
April 29, 2014 by Drunk Engineer

For its new eBART extension, BART has ordered Stadler DMU railcars:

SAN Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) has awarded a contract worth $US 58m to Stadler to supply eight two-car DMUs for use on the 16km East Contra Costa Bart extension project, which is currently under construction. Dubbed eBart, the new line will utilise standard-gauge rather than 1676mm-gauge infrastructure used by conventional Bart lines and is due to enter service in 2015. Bart officials say the $US 462m project is around 60% cheaper than conventional electric Bart services.

The Stadler cars will not be FRA-compliant, nor will they be purchased under Buy-America rules. Stadler will produce the vehicles from its plant in Switzerland.

It is worth comparing the BART DMU order with the one done by SMART. SMART, as you may recall, selected heavy FRA-compliant DMU’s over the more popular non-compliant varieties. SMART even paid for a “study” to show this would give the public a less expensive railcar. Well, now we can conclude that SMART study was bogus: the BART DMU’s are comparable in price to the SMART DMU (when accounting for inflation and LTK consultant fees).

Stadler was the only vendor that bid on the BART project. Other foreign vendors were no doubt discouraged from participating in a US project, given the convoluted regulations. As a result, BART still paid a lot more than it should have. But at least BART will get a model that has been fully debugged and burns less fuel.




Stadler DMU used for Austin’s Capital Metro




SMART’s klunky DMU

https://systemicfailure.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/bart-orders-stadler-dmu/

18 excellent reader responses to this article follow above.

Vid at Youtube:

 

[M636RF]

Well, the first question would be - what’s the sturdiest of the 20 on your list? How far short of North American standards is it? How feasible would it be to strengthen it to the degree needed? What would that cost? How big an order would be necessary?



The might question would be - how big an order would be possible if several agencies cooperated on a bulk order?



The third question would be - what is the capital and operating cost differential between a three car DMU and three basic TC-approvable coaches plus a basic standard locomotive? I have never seen actual data.



I don’t have a magic bullet solution. I don’t object to continuing to use RDC’s on existing routes eg White River. What I find unrealistic is new ideas for new branch line services that presume that a bunch of RDC’s can be found in the weeds somewhere and brought to 2019 standards.



BTW I am currently across the pond, riding numerous brands of DMU’s that might well be on your list. I felt quite safe riding at up to 100 mph. It would be interesting to know if they are marginally below TC/FRA standards, versus so far below that they crumple like a pop can. Let’s find out....Take a couple to the test facility at Pueblo and wreck ‘em under controlled conditions.



We lack the data to know if TC is excessively cautious or not..... and equally unclear whether it matters, ie a conventional train might cost about the same.... but the prevalence of EMU’s elsewhere makes me agree that TC may be overcautious.



- Paul

The most important difference between the structural standards in the US and Europe are buff strength requirements (as in how much force a carbody can withstand before it deforms). The European buff load test for DMUs is apparently 340,000 lbs, whereas the FRA's is 800,000 lbs. This a a fairly significant difference, so modifying existing European designs wouldn't be an easy task. Basically, European rolling stock standards put more of an emphasis on crash-absorbing elements than rigidity (and these elements were developed by looking at multiple types of accident scenarios). The danger of bringing European designs isn't so much grade crossing accidents or derailments, but rather collisions between FRA compliant and non-compliant equipment (PTC will mitigate these risks in the US, which is why several operators have been granted FRA waivers).

Stadler making great strides in the US with some excellent stock. Add one more:

The CEO of Amtrak (Anderson) was reportedly talking to Stadler recently about DMUs, but I don't know if these conversations will end up anywhere (especially with uncertain finances on Amtrak's side). VIA still might want to pay attention though, if they are interested in DMUs.

An interesting option for bringing European DMU technology into other markets is being tried in Russia, where Stadler has built a power module using proven technology that can be installed between Russian DMU cars. I wonder how hard it would be to stick something like this in between two FRA compliant Cab Cars (like the new ones Siemens will be building).

https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/stadler-power-module-for-russian-dmu.html

 

[steveintoronto]

The European buff load test for DMUs is apparently 340,000 lbs, whereas the FRA's is 800,000 lbs. This a a fairly significant difference, so modifying existing European designs wouldn't be an easy task. Basically, European rolling stock standards put more of an emphasis on crash-absorbing elements than rigidity (and these elements were developed by looking at multiple types of accident scenarios). The danger of bringing European designs isn't so much grade crossing accidents or derailments, but rather collisions between FRA compliant and non-compliant equipment (PTC will mitigate these risks in the US, which is why several operators have been granted FRA waivers).

I wonder how hard it would be to stick something like this in between two FRA compliant Cab Cars (like the new ones Siemens will be building).

Excellent post! I was just reading up on some of this, and I'm able to add to both your quotes and move the point forward:

From a 2007 FRA paper:

[...]
CONCLUSIONS
Metrolink released its specification, incorporating
the recommendations from the Working Group,
on September 16, 2005, as part of an invitation
for bid (IFB).
The initial IFB specified
conventional trailer cars with pushback couplers.
After some consideration, Metrolink revised the
IFB to require non-cab end crush zones at each
end of the trailer cars. The final revision to the
IFB was released on November 18, 2005.
During the final meeting of the Working Group,
APTA stated its intention to use the Metrolink
specification as a starting point for an industry
standard. APTA plans to wait until Metrolink is
close to accepting delivery of its new equipment
to be sure that any issues with the specification
have been resolved. The Standing Committee
on Rail Transportation has also expressed
interest in adapting the Metrolink specification to
its needs.

A Crash Energy Management Specification for Passenger Rail ...

But there's two major aspects to FRA reports: They publish slews of them, and then never act to recommend major changes in design philosophy to Congress, and meantime APTA is in the same camp as as the Europeans (CE standards), and the UIC states:
Improved Crashworthiness of Rail Passenger Equipment in the ... - UIC

The FRA is extremely conservative, and missing the point. Mass doesn't make for safer passengers in crashes, absorption of energy does. Doubling the weight of the Acela for 'crashworthiness' doesn't make dick of a difference when crushed between two freight trains! But it sure as hell denatures performance of what should be a TGV. So they strap a cycling helmet on the baby and still throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Study after study reaches the same conclusions, and the FRA issues waivers instead of acknowledging science. And Canada blindly follows the FRA without even granting the waivers for situations the FRA does!

For this nation to move ahead to more affordable and effective ways of regulating and procuring, especially now CETA is de-facto in effect (it's almost all but ratified, well over 90% of the text is being honoured in trade) it's time for Transport Canada to get with the times.

If TC regulated aircraft the way it does passenger rail, we'd still be flying in DC-3s and the mime would be "for our safety".

The basic concept is rather unconventional: the car is driven by a central "power module", also known as a "powerpack" or a "drive container", powered on both axles. Two light end modules, each with a bogie, rest on the power module, which produces useful traction weight on the driving axles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadler_GTW

From the link https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/stadler-power-module-for-russian-dmu.html

As with the Swiss firm's GTW family, the traction equipment is mounted in a separate section between the passenger vehicles. However the Russian GTW+ version is larger, with four rather than two axles on the powered section

There's ostensibly space for even more motors a la FLIRT. This would allow selection of the number of motors as needed per demand, yet all four axles are still driven.

 

[dowlingm]

SMART did not need PTC because of vehicle choice, but rather frequency of service. I suspect SMART would be buying alternate FRA vehicles now if they were starting from zero. This US legislative imperative affects non-DMU operations also (e.g. Amtrak Downeaster unable to add a 7th daily service because the host railway has no need of PTC and the funding agency doesn't have the $ to pay to install it on the host railroad's track and locomotives.)

 

[steveintoronto]

^ Most of the literature refers to at grade crossings, among other factors:
https://www.marinij.com/2017/08/12/...t-feds-ok-on-safety-system-to-launch-service/

From the company installing it:

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit
Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) is a new start passenger train rail system located in San Francisco’s North Bay. The length of the initial operating segment is 38 miles and will run from downtown San Rafael to just north of Santa Rosa.

MRS has turnkey responsibility to design, furnish and install the train control and communications systems.


The train control system includes 24 control points, 29 new crossing warning systems, 17 onboard train control sets and the upgrade of 34 existing crossing warning systems. The system is an enhanced Cab Signal System, upgraded to provide functionality required by the Positive Train Control (PTC) aspects of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008

A fully functional voice and data communication system using a fiber optic backbone will run the entire length of the line, and a dispatch operations control center will be installed at the SMART Operations and Maintenance Facility in Santa Rosa. The systems scope of work includes work at a moveable bridge that spans the Petaluma River. The system will support operations of both commuter and freight trains.

MRS completed all grade crossing and wayside signal installations in late 2015. Integration testing began January 2016 with completion in April. Crossing and ATC static and dynamic integration testing wrapped up in May. PTC installation and static testing is finished and dynamic testing is set to start late this summer. Radio equipment testing is ongoing and will complete this summer. Pre-revenue on-track testing is slated for this fall, followed by revenue service later in 2016.

http://modrailsystems.com/portfolio/sonoma-marin-area-rail-transit/

The agency additionally had been experiencing problems with warning systems at some grade crossings, and had not fully completed its approval process with the Federal Railroad Administration.[27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoma–Marin_Area_Rail_Transit

Note [27] : -

[...]
SMART also continues to work on automatic arms and warning signals at rail crossings, according to the same staff report, but progress is being made.

The commuter rail system is working to synchronize a complex array of computerized warning systems with new track and new trains as it readies for passenger service. There have been issues with warning systems at some of its 63 crossings.

SMART's work includes track conditioning with a rail scrubber, which has helped getting automatic warning devices to work properly.

Track scrubbing is needed to make sure the wheels make solid contact with the rails to engage signals and crossing arms along the route.

When the train wheels make contact with the rail it creates a circuit that helps all the signals to engage and the crossing gates to come down. The rail has negative and positive charges and when a train's steel wheels cross the tracks an electrical circuit is formed, known as shunting.

Once the circuit is complete it feeds information from the train to computers in housing at crossings. It will tell computers where the train is and how fast it's going and that allows the gates to come down with a 30-second warning.

When rail comes from the manufacturer it has mill scale -- bits of metal -- on it, which can disrupt the connection. A grinder was used to remove that mill scale. Now a scrubber -- a lighter apparatus with wire brushes -- is removing residue from tracks.

"As a result of these efforts we are seeing improved shunting, and we are planning on beginning the next phase of testing at higher speeds in some of these areas," Mansourian's report reads.

Given all the issues, Mansourian wrote that the service shouldn't begin this year.

"We understand that the public is anxiously waiting for service to begin, and we appreciate their support and their patience during our systemwide safety testing process," he wrote. "SMART has always been transparent and we work hard to maintain public trust. That means sharing our challenges, as well as our successes. This new engine problem, and the need to complete our systemwide safety testing and all of the required approvals from (the Federal Railroad Authority) has led me to the conclusion that beginning of passenger service by the end of 2016 is not advisable. We must open our doors only when our system is safe, reliable and dependable, and not a moment sooner. This short delay will ensure we achieve that goal, and get it right from Day One."

What a delay does do is allow San Rafael and Novato to create a contiguous quiet zone. Officials in those cities worried service might start before it could be established.

"That may be a positive unintended consequence of all of this," said SMART chairwoman and Marin Supervisor Judy Arnold. "Overall, we don't want to start the rail service until it is safe."

Copyright 2016 - The Marin Independent Journal, Novato, Calif.

https://web.archive.org/web20161022...-until-late-spring-2017-engines-being-rebuilt

 

[smallspy]

As noted above, any chance AllEarth won't get off the ground and they could come back on the market?

Commuter rail has failed in the area at least twice. I don't see how things have changed sufficiently to make it successful this time around.

The AllEarth ones, if acquired, would only lend themselves to minimal refurbishment to attain cost recovery. For those with motive issues, the choice might be to remove the dead weight and use them as trailers in a consist with the existing stock with healthy motors.

The RDCs purchased by AllEarth had all received a very heavy overhaul/rebuild along the same quality as the ones that VIA had done when TRE purchased them. They all have fairly low miles since that rebuild, and so would not need much work to make them usable for service. Their biggest issue is that they haven't run much in the past 4 or 5 years.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

The RDCs purchased by AllEarth had all received a very heavy overhaul/rebuild along the same quality as the ones that VIA had done when TRE purchased them. They all have fairly low miles since that rebuild, and so would not need much work to make them usable for service. Their biggest issue is that they haven't run much in the past 4 or 5 years.

That really tips the balance to acquiring them. Certainly putting together a larger collection of interoperable stock if the cost of doing so is modest makes a lot of sense, even to the value of VIA's existing stock if it has to be sold on.

Not to be forgotten is that VIA is willing and able to bid on commuter contracts like Halifax'. I had Googled to try and find what TREX or any of the other owners had on the refurbishment details, but could only find that (gist) "they were late" (inferring refurbishment took longer than thought)

The refurbished Budd stainless steel cars are designed for northern climates, do not require costly locomotives and turn-around rail yards, and can be operated cost-effectively. VIA Rail Canada was the major competitor in the bid because they understand these self-powered passenger rail cars are a rare opportunity to provide reliable service to rural areas. For more information about the Budd Rail Cars, visit: https://www.allearthrail.com/remarkable-budd-rail-diesel-car-rdc-resources

That link states:

[...]
Most surviving RDCs have had their GM prime movers replaced with contemporary EPA-certified Cummins diesel engines, but the maintenance simplicity remains. Because each of the two engines on an RDC is independently operated, an RDC can run at reduced power even if one diesel engine fails.

Acceleration by an RDC car is very good. On level track an RDC can climb to 44mph in 60 seconds. 54mph is attainable in 90 seconds and 80mph in under four minutes. The top RDC speed is 85mph. Even on steep grades the direct drive of the RDC allows for fine performance. RDC cars were used for decades on the rugged mountain mainline of the British Columbia Railway through the Coast Range, on the Alaska RR, in the Nevada desert, across the high Sierras and in New England they were virtually ubiquitous in the 1950s and 60s on the vast network of the Boston and Maine RR (B&M) in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine.

A train made up of RDC cars could be very efficiently run. RDCs averaged 2.8 miles per gallon of diesel fuel in regular service. RDCs could be run by a much smaller crew than a traditional train. An RDC needed only an engineer and a conductor, compared to the typical 4-5-man crew on most passenger trains. Thus, the RDC typically cut crew costs in half. Today an RDC can be operated with an engineer only, if honor system fare collection is used, and certainly would require no more than an engineer and a conductor. By contrast, Amtrak trains in Vermont run with 3-4 man crews.
[...]

This reaffirms my earlier claim (gist) "The old Chevrolet pickup is better for doing the shopping than a Lamborghini". Especially if the old side valve engine is replaced with a modern one...almost twice the power.

Normally I'd be reticent, but since the price being touted is tiny in the big scheme of things...this seems like a no brainer. Perhaps even Metrolinx could consider leasing them from VIA for some peripheral routes until electrification or modern DMUs?

Addendum: I'll continue digging for refurb details later, but did trip across this for those not familiar with it:

http://www.exporail.org/can_rail/Canadian Rail_no528_2009.pdf

 

[cplchanb]

gosh seriously, why is it so hard for the industry to come up with a 21st century railcar that can fit within the regs or can be easily waivered from it.... I cant believe we are trying
to scrape life out of a 50 year old dinosaur that is not fit for the current age. I can understand sentimental value and the need to preserve a few for historic runs but to rely on such
an antique piece of technology is really laughable and just makes us look 2nd world compared to even countries that we look down on as technologically/politically inferior.

Can bbr or some supplier come up with something new or can TC just update their regs to fit in with reality...

 

[steveintoronto]

I cant believe we are trying
to scrape life out of a 50 year old dinosaur that is not fit for the current age.

Like the b-52 bomber? It's outlived all its 'replacements' save one, which is a stealth model. It's still one of the most dependable and predictable, albeit highly visible workhorses of the US fleet.

Can bbr or some supplier come up with something new or can TC just update their regs to fit in with reality

BBR have many. TC is the problem, not manufacturers. And CETA is going to force change eventually, whether Transport Canada likes it or not. There's a dozen or more DMU and DEMU models apt for the role. And many with excellent safety records.

Besides, like the B-52s, anything that can or has worn out has been replaced...including pilots and drivers, on B-52s and RDCs..
The B-52 Is Becoming A Terrifyingly Intelligent Smart Weapons Truck

Once Again The USAF Is Looking To Re-Engine Its B-52 Fleet

 

[cplchanb]

Like the b-52 bomber? It's outlived all its 'replacements' save one, which is a stealth model. It's still one of the most dependable and predictable, albeit highly visible workhorses of the US fleet.

They've got many. TC is the problem, not manufacturers. And CETA is going to force change eventually, whether Transport Canada likes it or not.

Besides, like the B-52s, anything that can or has worn out has been replaced...including pilots and drivers.
The B-52 Is Becoming A Terrifyingly Intelligent Smart Weapons Truck

Once Again The USAF Is Looking To Re-Engine Its B-52 Fleet

I knew the b52 would come up in this discussion. Unlike the USAF though, we dont have the continual cash flow to fund rebuilds. The B52 is retained because of its weapons carrying capabilities and being a military vehicle, doesnt really need to be profitable. Also they had over 100 H models and theyre down to 76. Via had numerous over the years but they are down to 6. Is it sustainable to blow millions just to keep 6 in frontline service? Besides the b52 doesnt require the public to approve of its aesthetics economy and comfort. The RDC is a transit vehicle where it has to make profitable sense and be able to draw in the general non rail fan riders. Not to mention, in terms of creating jobs, it would be much better if we have a replacement fleet be built every 10-20 years than to have trickle refurbs and rebuilds for whatever is left standing in 50 years time.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Agreed that the issue is TC. There have been repeated attempts to fit within the unnecessary, and frankly stupid, existing regulations. It just doesn't work, or at least not nearly as well as something sensible allowing much lighter, cheaper and simpler vehicles.

Which would be irrelevant if the regs were useful, but they aren't. The Caltrain report is an excellent example of how European standards are likely producing safer vehicles in the real world. The inflexibility comes from useless bureucrats who seem to be stuck in a thought process centered on minimizing the existence of passenger rail.

 

[steveintoronto]

You didn't read or absorb the prior posts, let alone read the links I provided.

Unlike the USAF though, we dont have the continual cash flow to fund rebuilds.

Defensenews.com quoted Lt. Gen Mike Holmes, deputy chief of staff for Strategic Plans and Requirements, telling reporters at a February 6th event:

"To go out and buy new engines for the B-52, you'd have a really hard time fitting that into our program, but that's why we're interested in a public-private partnership, which would be a different way to amortize those engines over time and pay for them in the savings that they actually generate, instead of paying for them out of savings that you hope for.... The idea is in a public-private partnership, somebody funds the engine and then we pay them back over time out of the fuel savings, which are generated out of the new engines. Our government has a way to do that with facilities. We don't have a way to do that with airplanes, and we are exploring whether there are alternative ways that would let us do that... Look at what the airline industry is doing — they're all re-engining. Why? Because it saves you a lot of money. If there is a commercially available engine which can give a 25-30 percent increase in either range or loiter, you have my attention."

And that's the funding model VIA proposes for HFR. The present VIA fleet are *already re-engined and more*! Brand new driving cabs, washrooms, and many other features. And according to @smallspy and references, the ex TREX ones are re-engined and refurbished too, ostensibly with the same (still in service) Cummins engine that even if total interoperability can't be achieved, a modest investment in modules would allow them to be interoperable completely with the VIA units. Since all the VIA ones are 'RDC 1' models, all have a new LED indicated and solid state operated cabs, and these would be the ones preferable to be lead units until/if the acquired TREX ones are further updated to the same degree save for the cab controls.

Via had numerous over the years but they are down to 6. Is it sustainable to blow millions just to keep 6 in frontline service?

They've already been refurbished with *current* parts, just sitting waiting to be used. The "$Millions" are to buy the already operational ex-TREX ones, the refurbishment of which is discussed in posts prior.

Believe me, no-one has been more vociferous in the need for TC to change regs to allow EC and UIC certifications to be recognized in Canada, but it's like yelling in an empty cave. In the meantime, VIA's RDCs sit idle after extensive refits.