VIA Rail

[Urban Sky]

^ I think Superliners were used for the Chicago to Union trip before it was canceled? So if my memory is correct then I assume they would. I think I read earlier in this thread the Winnipeg shed is lower than Union's?

Update: I checked Wikipedia and it provided the picture below and this article.

View attachment 286685

...which leads us to the incident which caused the withdrawal of the Superliners from that route:

Railway Investigation Report R99S0100 - Transportation Safety Board of Canada

Crossing Collision/Derailment, VIA Rail Canada Inc., Passenger Train No 85, Mile 33.54, Goderich-Exeter Railway, (GEXR) Guelph Subdivision, Limehouse, Ontario. 09 November 1999

www.bst-tsb.gc.ca

 

[kEiThZ]

I am just here waiting for that HFR report to come out.....

 

[micheal_can]

That's not mathematically possible. At least over any reasonable timeframe.

Define reasonable. The current RDC are over 50 year old. So, in 50 years, the MF would pay for itself.

 

[Urban Sky]

Define reasonable. The current RDC are over 50 year old. So, in 50 years, the MF would pay for itself.

Just a quick reality check for everyone who might think that the above merits a serious response: VIA has only 6 RDCs in its active fleet and upgrading a maintenance facility can easily cost an eight-digit amount...

 

[Bordercollie]

Can't use 'em in Montreal Central as they have no low floor platforms there, and now a high floor platform is going into Ottawa too.

The Bombardier Multi Levels have a lower door and a high platform door. I'm sure that they could do that with other models. Even for GO Bi-levels they can put a door over the area of the trucks.

 

[roger1818]

Just a quick reality check for everyone who might think that the above merits a serious response: VIA has only 6 RDCs in its active fleet and upgrading a maintenance facility can easily cost an eight-digit amount...

And like usual he only replied to the post that he thought he could argue against, and completely ignores the better arguments against his point.

 

[Urban Sky]

The Bombardier Multi Levels have a lower door and a high platform door. I'm sure that they could do that with other models. Even for GO Bi-levels they can put a door over the area of the trucks.

Double-decker trains have excessive axle loads, poor accessibility (not just for wheelchair users, but for “golden age” passengers in general - which are the key demographic for long-distance recreational train travel), very limited storage space for personal items (thanks to vertical - and on the upper deck also: horizontal - space constraints) and are difficult to evacuate in the case of an emergency (see the investigation report I just linked).

With the E1 and E4 series Shinkansen having been withdrawn in Japan, I struggle to name any double-decker intercity trains still in operation around the world other than the TGV Duplex, some InterCity trains in Switzerland and of course Amtrak’s Superliners.

Having railroaded extensively across Japan for three weeks, the only double-decker cars I saw were the two cars for Green Class (i.e. First Class) ticket holders awkwardly placed into the middle of the otherwise single-level trainset of the Utsunomiya Line in Tokyo:

Source: User TC411-507 via Wikimedia

If even Japan with its massive rail usage seems to actively avoid double-decker cars, then maybe they represent a compromise which only appeals in those rare circumstances where you already have maxed out on frequency and train/platform length and the only way to increase capacity is to cram more people or seats into every meter of train length. These exceptions exist, but certainly not in Canada (where Commuter Rail operators only rely on them to compensate for their inability to operate their trains at a frequency remotely comparable to RER/S-Bahn networks across Europe and Asia)...

 

[ManyQuestions]

Double-decker trains have excessive axle loads, poor accessibility (not just for wheelchair users, but for “golden age” passengers in general - which are the key demographic for long-distance recreational train travel), very limited storage space for personal items (thanks to vertical - and on the upper deck also: horizontal - space constraints)

The lack of personal space was the main reason why I was questioning the use of GO trainsets for longer regional routes such as Toronto to Niagara. Assuming that they are configured similarly to the trains operated by EXO, they must have a very limited amount of storage space for personal items. The intercity double deck trains that I traveled on in France and Switzerland made up for the lack of personal storage by including large luggage racks at each end of each carriage, but that was only because they were intentionally configured for such travel. However, I understand that the GO trains are simply reusing equipment that would be otherwise be unused during lower weekend frequencies on the core network.

As for other countries with double-decker intercity trains, I recently saw that DB was getting some Stadler units for their intercity services.

Stadler KISS Trains to Operate DB IC2 Services | Railway-News

DB will put the first Stadler KISS double-decker trains into service (IC2) on 8 March. It purchased them from Westbahn (Austria) last year.

railway-news.com

 

[Allandale25]

This gives a good perspective of the height of the Winnipeg shed.

A photo I took at Winnipeg, Manitoba on a very chilly December, 1978 morning. I suspect the VIA RDC was Thunder Bay bound over the CN / DW&P route through the U.S.

John Cowan photo.

 

[roger1818]

This gives a good perspective of the height of the Winnipeg shed.

View attachment 286729

That is a very odd photo, with a VIA RDC and a CN locomotive pulling CP Rail stainless steel coaches with an action red stripe.

 

[Urban Sky]

That is a very odd photo, with a VIA RDC and a CN locomotive pulling CP Rail stainless steel coaches with an action red stripe.

The picture was taken in late 1978, thus in the early years of VIA and just after the consolidation of the ex-CN Super Continental and the ex-CP Canadian into one single location in Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver...

 

[micheal_can]

This gives a good perspective of the height of the Winnipeg shed.

View attachment 286729

Are you saying that cannot be raised a couple of feet?
Imagine if one day Winnipeg decided to do a GO like commuter service, but decided not to because the roof was too low.

 

[roger1818]

Are you saying that cannot be raised a couple of feet?
Imagine if one day Winnipeg decided to do a GO like commuter service, but decided not to because the roof was too low.

While possible, the added complications of modifying a heritage building makes it more difficult. Then there is the question of if it is worth the cost for a station that, as @Urban Sky said, "may only see a train a dozen of times per week," when there is a much more affordable option of buying coaches that will fit the trainshed without modification.

 

[kEiThZ]

Are you saying that cannot be raised a couple of feet?
Imagine if one day Winnipeg decided to do a GO like commuter service, but decided not to because the roof was too low.

It can. But it ain't cheap. And even if it's a few million, the value is not there.

Some rough math to help you understand what the rest of us are getting at. Let's say it costs $10 million to modify the roof. Now let's assume 2 trains per day of 300 pax each. That works out to $45 per passenger for a given year. Spread it out over a decade? Interest + capital would add over $5.5 per ticket. That's for one roof. You want VIA to be successful? They have to do what keeps costs down to the passengers. Especially on items that don't impact their experience at all.

 

[Urban Sky]

Are you saying that cannot be raised a couple of feet?
Imagine if one day Winnipeg decided to do a GO like commuter service, but decided not to because the roof was too low.

Yes, sure, why not raise the platform roof to one day operate 12-car bilevel trains to link Manitoba’s capital with its other buzzing population centres (see a conclusive list below)?

• Brandon (213 km from Winnipeg, pop. 58k, Rank #58 in Census 2016, i.e. one behind Saint-Hyacinthe)
• Winkler (115 km, pop. 30k, Rank #88, i.e. just behind Stratford and Orillia)
• Steinbach (65 km, pop. 16k, Rank #126, i.e. just behind Port Hope and Tilsonburg)
• Thompson (760 km, pop. 14k, Rank #135)
• Portage la Prairie (85km, pop. 13k, Rank #141, i.e. only four before Ingersoll)

The quality of the discussion here would dramatically improve if some commenters here (especially, but certainly not limited to: the one I just quoted) would spend just a quarter of the time they spend to defend their preferred solution with actually reflecting on what the problem is they are trying to solve.

Yes, I guess you could rebuild platforms and station facilities (just like you could convert the entire North American rail network to 1600 mm, which is supposedly the optimal gauge for HSR, if political power, determination and funds were no finite resources), but why bother even discussing it if multilevel equipment only offers some elusive “nice-to-have” advantages (and come with serious disadvantages) compared to single-level rolling stock...?