VIA Rail

[crs1026]

^I had a copy of the old CN Executive Class brochure, but it seems to be hiding!

CN had two sleeper-observation cars, Burrard and Bedford, that had iirc 7ish double bedrooms and a lounge with kitchen. (and an open observation platforms, but I don’t know if these were available). These two cars were used for the service, which was limited to the afternoon Rapidos between Montreal and Toronto.. The lounge area was set up with tables for dining. Used two cars that were mostly used for charter service, (which meant they were lightly utilised otherwise).

I don’t have the dates handy, but my dusty memory thinks that this service coincided with one of the periods where CN had to withdraw the Turbos due to their teething troubles. It may have been a way of maintaining some cachet to the first class/business market at a time where their sexy new Turbos weren’t available. In any event, the service didn’t last long. I will see if I can find the exact date in old timetables. iirc one or two of the ex-Milwaukee tail end sleeper-lounges were also used on occasion.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

Like @crs1026 I would describe myself as an atypical customer.

I recognize, of course, that any service decisions need to either have a business case in which they substantially pay for themselves or one in which government sees the wisdom in subsidizing said plan.

Personally, I'm more motivated by comfort and convenience, in that order, than I am by price.

That's not to say price is irrelevant, its not.

But in my case, aside from enjoying life's small luxuries, particularly of the culinary variety; my back gets plaintive if I spend too much time in any chair, no matter how comfortable. So the idea of a dining car and/or other destination/activity car that provide a compelling reason to stand and move about mid-trip is something that's worth a bit extra to me.

 

[crs1026]

I don't know why this would be such a big issue. Airlines typically operate with at least 2 galleys for storing and preparing food (front/back or biz/economy classes). Why couldn't the cars be coupled in such a way that the kitchens are close to each other (just a cross over to the other car away) and share some inventory?

They could..... but that’s added switching work, and hence expense, and hence down time for the trainset. One more detail for yardmasters to pay attention to. Ican appreciate why one would choose to keep it simple.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

They could..... but that’s added switching work, and hence expense, and hence down time for the trainset. One more detail for yardmasters to pay attention to. Ican appreciate why one would choose to keep it simple.

- Paul

Marshalling every second car the other way around is not really a problem unless the physical process of turning cars around becomes a regular occurrence in the cycling plan, but I suspect that having no train doors for almost two car lengths might raise some safety concerns in case of a need to evacuate the train. But even outside of emergencies, detraining might take more time as passengers can only detrain towards one end of the coach. In both cases, this wouldn’t be a problem if VIA’s fleet had doors at both ends, as is standard in many intercity fleets around the world...

 

[roger1818]

Like @crs1026 I would describe myself as an atypical customer.

I recognize, of course, that any service decisions need to either have a business case in which they substantially pay for themselves or one in which government sees the wisdom in subsidizing said plan.

Personally, I'm more motivated by comfort and convenience, in that order, than I am by price.

That's not to say price is irrelevant, its not.

But in my case, aside from enjoying life's small luxuries, particularly of the culinary variety; my back gets plaintive if I spend too much time in any chair, no matter how comfortable. So the idea of a dining car and/or other destination/activity car that provide a compelling reason to stand and move about mid-trip is something that's worth a bit extra to me.

You may not be as atypical as you think. The Baby Boomers, who are now mostly in their golden years, tend to be "more motivated by comfort and convenience" than the 3 generations before them (who were influenced by the two world wars and the great depression) and thus tend to be more thrifty. The boomers also represent a larger percentage of the overall population than the previous generations did.

The Millennials (the echo of the boomer bump), are now solidly in the workforce, and they also tend to like the finer things in life (like their boomer parents). It is the smaller Gen X and Gen Z generations that tend to be more thrifty.

Making decisions about what might work today based on what did or didn't work even 30 years ago (let alone the 50 or 60 years ago we are disusing) can be problematic as society changes.

 

[roger1818]

They could..... but that’s added switching work, and hence expense, and hence down time for the trainset. One more detail for yardmasters to pay attention to. Ican appreciate why one would choose to keep it simple.

Assuming the new trainsets have semi-permanent couplers, ease of marshalling won't be a big concern as train reconfiguration will be more of a seasonal activity than something that is done to match the demand of a specific train.

Marshalling every second car the other way around is not really a problem unless the physical process of turning cars around becomes a regular occurrence in the cycling plan, but I suspect that having no train doors for almost two car lengths might raise some safety concerns in case of a need to evacuate the train. But even outside of emergencies, detraining might take more time as passengers can only detrain towards one end of the coach. In both cases, this wouldn’t be a problem if VIA’s fleet had doors at both ends, as is standard in many intercity fleets around the world...

Don't forget that there will be 5 different coach configurations in the new trainsets. I am sure it is too late now to reconfigure the trainsets, but they could easily have only installed galleys in only some of the configurations.

For those who are interested, on SSP a while back I calculated the capacity of each of the coach configurations for the new trainsets:

Type	Seats	Extra short	Short	Long (Base)	Extra long
Business 3A	44	1	1	1	1
Business 3B	43			1	1
Economy 1A	67	1	1	1	2
Economy 1B	66		1	1	2
Economy Cab 4A	65	1	1	1	1
TRAINSET TOTAL		176	242	285	418

Of course, with these configurations, assuming VIA only buys trainsets in the "Long (Base)" configuration (as it appears they are based on the quoted 9,120 seats (32 x 285 = 9,120)), they will have extra Business 3B coaches (since the Extra Short and Short trainsets don't use them) and not have enough Economy 1A coaches (since all trainsets use them and the Extra long trainset uses 2). Hopefully someone at VIA will notice this and substitute some of the Business 3B coaches for Economy 1A (and maybe a few 1B) coaches.

References:

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/VIA%20Rail%20Equipment%20Procurement.pdf

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/Via%20Rail_New%20Fleet%20Update.pdf

 

[crs1026]

Making decisions about what might work today based on what did or didn't work even 30 years ago (let alone the 50 or 60 years ago we are disusing) can be problematic as society changes.

Very true. If VIA is rejecting old dogma, that’s probably not a bad thing.

I’m always uncomfortable typifying customers by demographics ...especially divisive Boomer vs Millenial style generalisations...... although those may well be factually valid a good deal of the time. I am sure my own demographic shines through in my comments.

I suspect that purchasing power is the overriding variable for all age groups. I see seniors who watch every penny when they travel - not everyone has a decent pension, and not every visit to see the grandchildren can be a big ticket vacation. Whereas young professionals, or those with an expense account, may have a much different set of enablers and constraints.

Food cart service at the seat is not a bad thing, provided there is a good range of choices and the food quality is appealing. Just let me get up and move around!

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

I’m always uncomfortable typifying customers by demographics ...especially divisive Boomer vs Millenial style generalisations...... although those may well be factually valid a good deal of the time. I am sure my own demographic shines through in my comments.

I do tend to agree, though there are statistical trends that can be measured. That doesn't mean that everyone of that demographic follows that trend.

I suspect that purchasing power is the overriding variable for all age groups. I see seniors who watch every penny when they travel - not everyone has a decent pension, and not every visit to see the grandchildren can be a big ticket vacation. Whereas young professionals, or those with an expense account, may have a much different set of enablers and constraints.

While it is true that seniors are on a fixed income and those that those who weren't as well off during their years of employment may not have as much available to spend, there are also some who have enough savings that they have money to enjoy their retirement with fewer fears. Once again, it is a numbers thing and not a general rule.

Food cart service at the seat is not a bad thing, provided there is a good range of choices and the food quality is appealing. Just let me get up and move around!

And for those who have reduced mobility, having service to your seat isn't a bad thing. One of the keys is flexibility. Having a cart go by only once doesn't allow you to get what you want when you want it. Maybe I should look at booking business class on the train.

 

[kEiThZ]

The Millennials (the echo of the boomer bump), are now solidly in the workforce, and they also tend to like the finer things in life (like their boomer parents).

Definitely not what the statistics say. Millennials save more, eat out less, and work longer hours than generations before them. They also tend to be less materialistic (a function of lower incomes and higher debt) and more health and environmentally conscious. Hence all the memes of, "Millennials are killing....". The generation that most economists compare millennials to is the Greatest Generation, the other generation to see substantial economic shocks and war (most of the conflicts in the War on Terror were fought by Millennials) in their lifetimes.

On the topic at hand, millennials are less likely to both have a driver's license and own a vehicle (again debt...). So they use transit at a higher rate. YDS has cited this preference as part of the rationale for HFR in past presentations.

 

[roger1818]

Definitely not what the statistics say. Millennials save more, eat out less, and work longer hours than generations before them. They also tend to be less materialistic (a function of lower incomes and higher debt) and more health and environmentally conscious. Hence all the memes of, "Millennials are killing....". The generation that most economists compare millennials to is the Greatest Generation, the other generation to see substantial economic shocks and war (most of the conflicts in the War on Terror were fought by Millennials) in their lifetimes.

Do you have any evidence to back that acerbation up? I did a quick google of "Millennials save more, eat out less" and received the following articles that are opposite to that claim:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/millennials-food-overspending-1.4978263

Millennials eat up savings by dining out a lot, study shows

A new study says that Millennials eat out five times a week -- and it gets costly

www.usatoday.com

Millennials spending more money eating out, less time preparing food at home

Convenience is the clear takeaway in a new report on millennial food purchasing, which also identified trending grocery categories among this generation of shoppers

www.supermarketnews.com

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/20/how-much-millennials-spend-at-restaurants-each-month.html

and the list goes on.

On the topic at hand, millennials are less likely to both have a driver's license and own a vehicle (again debt...). So they use transit at a higher rate. YDS has cited this preference as part of the rationale for HFR in past presentations.

That certainly does seem to be a trend for younger millennials and Gen Z. It seems to be less about debt and more about environmental responsibility and use of technology to socialize. As I heard someone say once, for youth in the past, freedom was getting the car keys from Dad, but for today's youth, freedom is high speed internet.

 

[micheal_can]

Do you have any evidence to back that acerbation up? I did a quick google of "Millennials save more, eat out less" and received the following articles that are opposite to that claim:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/millennials-food-overspending-1.4978263

Millennials eat up savings by dining out a lot, study shows

A new study says that Millennials eat out five times a week -- and it gets costly

www.usatoday.com

Millennials spending more money eating out, less time preparing food at home

Convenience is the clear takeaway in a new report on millennial food purchasing, which also identified trending grocery categories among this generation of shoppers

www.supermarketnews.com

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/20/how-much-millennials-spend-at-restaurants-each-month.html

and the list goes on.



That certainly does seem to be a trend for younger millennials and Gen Z. It seems to be less about debt and more about environmental responsibility and use of technology to socialize. As I heard someone say once, for youth in the past, freedom was getting the car keys from Dad, but for today's youth, freedom is high speed internet.

I would argue that with this pandemic, most people will change their spending. Some may splurge on things they used to scrimp on, while others may scrimp on things they used to splurge on. The more I think about it, the more a snack car that has good meals, but not extravagant is the way to go. Maybe if there was a Windsor - Quebec City thru train, a dining car might work, but, I am reconsidering whether the ~5 hour trips are worth a dining car.

 

[Urban Sky]

Marshalling every second car the other way around is not really a problem unless the physical process of turning cars around becomes a regular occurrence in the cycling plan, but I suspect that having no train doors for almost two car lengths might raise some safety concerns in case of a need to evacuate the train. But even outside of emergencies, detraining might take more time as passengers can only detrain towards one end of the coach. In both cases, this wouldn’t be a problem if VIA’s fleet had doors at both ends, as is standard in many intercity fleets around the world...

Assuming the new trainsets have semi-permanent couplers, ease of marshalling won't be a big concern as train reconfiguration will be more of a seasonal activity than something that is done to match the demand of a specific train.

Don't forget that there will be 5 different coach configurations in the new trainsets. I am sure it is too late now to reconfigure the trainsets, but they could easily have only installed galleys in only some of the configurations.

Just for the records, I was talking about the current Corridor fleet, which is why my following quote might be more applicable here:

The galley currently present in every LRC and HEP2 car (also in 8145-8147, but these HEP1 coaches are only used in Northern Quebec) displaces at least 8 seats (if not more) and having one in every single car on the Corridor is certainly an overkill. Fortunately, one of the advantages of having semi-permanent trainsets is that you can much better size the galley space to match the number of seats they serve...

For those who are interested, on SSP a while back I calculated the capacity of each of the coach configurations for the new trainsets:

Type	Seats	Extra short	Short	Long (Base)	Extra long
Business 3A	44	1	1	1	1
Business 3B	43			1	1
Economy 1A	67	1	1	1	2
Economy 1B	66		1	1	2
Economy Cab 4A	65	1	1	1	1
TRAINSET TOTAL		176	242	285	418

Of course, with these configurations, assuming VIA only buys trainsets in the "Long (Base)" configuration (as it appears they are based on the quoted 9,120 seats (32 x 285 = 9,120)), they will have extra Business 3B coaches (since the Extra Short and Short trainsets don't use them) and not have enough Economy 1A coaches (since all trainsets use them and the Extra long trainset uses 2). Hopefully someone at VIA will notice this and substitute some of the Business 3B coaches for Economy 1A (and maybe a few 1B) coaches.

References:

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/VIA%20Rail%20Equipment%20Procurement.pdf

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/Via%20Rail_New%20Fleet%20Update.pdf

I see the same problem, but it doesn't really matter at this point, because the approval of HFR will trigger a second batch (refer to Section 1.2 (6) in the RFQ) and those additional trainsets can be ordered with diverging ratios between the various car types (potentially even including new car types like a dining/snack car, who knows?)...

Do you have any evidence to back that acerbation up? I did a quick google of "Millennials save more, eat out less" and received the following articles that are opposite to that claim:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/millennials-food-overspending-1.4978263

Millennials eat up savings by dining out a lot, study shows

A new study says that Millennials eat out five times a week -- and it gets costly

www.usatoday.com

Millennials spending more money eating out, less time preparing food at home

Convenience is the clear takeaway in a new report on millennial food purchasing, which also identified trending grocery categories among this generation of shoppers

www.supermarketnews.com

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/20/how-much-millennials-spend-at-restaurants-each-month.html

and the list goes on.



That certainly does seem to be a trend for younger millennials and Gen Z. It seems to be less about debt and more about environmental responsibility and use of technology to socialize. As I heard someone say once, for youth in the past, freedom was getting the car keys from Dad, but for today's youth, freedom is high speed internet.

I might have lost track what this discussion is actually about, but I believe that the key defining characteristic is that Millenials (like myself) are priced out of home ownership (which is thankfully not true for me!):

The Real Reasons Millennials Aren't Buying Homes

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Millennials are not buying homes as readily as the previous generation.
• Delaying marriage and having children is keeping many Millennials at home with their parents.
• The burden of student debt is preventing many young people from saving up for a down payment and buying a new home difficult as the affordability gap widens.
• Tighter lending criteria can also make homeownership unaffordable or virtually impossible for those without much credit history.

This might explain decreasing car ownership (if you can't afford buying a home even in Suburbia, why waste your money on owning a car if you could just rent somewhere with decent public transit?) and by extension also higher amounts spent on restaurants (if you don't have a nice house to invite friends or family over for a big dinner or BBQ and you don't have to pay down a mortgage and leasing rates for a car, why not treat yourself to a nice dinner every now and then?)...

I would argue that with this pandemic, most people will change their spending. Some may splurge on things they used to scrimp on, while others may scrimp on things they used to splurge on. The more I think about it, the more a snack car that has good meals, but not extravagant is the way to go. Maybe if there was a Windsor - Quebec City thru train, a dining car might work, but, I am reconsidering whether the ~5 hour trips are worth a dining car.

Given that only a small minority of passengers travels through the GTHA or Greater Montreal (e.g. travels from Quebec to Ottawa or Kingston to London), the question whether there are Windsor - Quebec City through trains is absolutely irrelevant for the viability of a snack car. What matters is the average number of passengers aboard and the possibility to ensure that the passenger can predict the kind of catering options he will find offered on board his train...

 

[kEiThZ]

Do you have any evidence to back that acerbation up? I did a quick google of "Millennials save more, eat out less" and received the following articles that are opposite to that claim:

Millennials save earlier than past cohorts at the same age:

Millennials started saving earlier than other generations, but they still have less wealth than their parents did at their age

Millennials began saving in their 20s, but their parents waited until their 30s. It goes to show how the Great Recession put them financially behind.

www.businessinsider.com

They work more than others:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/18/more-work-more-sleep-new-study-offers-glimpse-daily-life-millennial/

You're right that they eat out more. Seems to have changed from a few years ago. Could have something to do with working more hours. In any event, relevant to this discussion is that Millennials and Zoomers clearly see a car as a liability, not an instrument of freedom. They use transit a lot more. And buy cheaper cars when they do buy vehicles.

They have also had a preference for urban living. Though there's evidence that's changing as they start families. But all this makes for a generation that's primed to use intercity rail. I think Boomers are far more likely to buy a $100k Tesla with Full Self Drive and take roadtrips in that than Millennials who might take a $60 train ticket instead.

 

[kEiThZ]

This might explain decreasing car ownership (if you can't afford buying a home even in Suburbia, why waste your money on owning a car if you could just rent somewhere with decent public transit?) and by extension also higher amounts spent on restaurants (if you don't have a nice house to invite friends or family over for a big dinner or BBQ and you don't have to pay down a mortgage and leasing rates for a car, why not treat yourself to a nice dinner every now and then?)...

Financial situation aside, transit has substantially improved in most Canadian cities over the last decade. Some notable exceptions like Ottawa aside, quite a few Canadian transit systems seen to have gotten the memo on improving basic bus service with good frequencies, better planned routes, etc. Our cities are still horrendous on walkability in most cases. But at least most have some densification in their downtown cores and along major transit corridors. All of that makes it really easy for a substantial chunk of the urban population in each of these large metros to live a car-free lifestyle. Even if you discount the suburbanites who are more likely to drive on roadtrips, there's probably a core base for intercity rail (that would defer to rail over car by default) that's approaching a million or more split across all the metros in the Corridor. That's a great base on which to build.

 

[roger1818]

Just for the records, I was talking about the current Corridor fleet, which is why my following quote might be more applicable here:

Fair enough.

I see the same problem, but it doesn't really matter at this point, because the approval of HFR will trigger a second batch (refer to Section 1.2 (6) in the RFQ) and those additional trainsets can be ordered with diverging ratios between the various car types (potentially even including new car types like a dining/snack car, who knows?)...

Assuming HFR is approved, or is this a hint about that?

I might have lost track what this discussion is actually about, but I believe that the key defining characteristic is that Millenials (like myself) are priced out of home ownership (which is thankfully not true for me!):

It came from a comment from me that @crs1026 and @Northern Light aren't as atypical VIA customers as they think with regards to onboard dinning.

The Real Reasons Millennials Aren't Buying Homes

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Millennials are not buying homes as readily as the previous generation.
• Delaying marriage and having children is keeping many Millennials at home with their parents.
• The burden of student debt is preventing many young people from saving up for a down payment and buying a new home difficult as the affordability gap widens.
• Tighter lending criteria can also make homeownership unaffordable or virtually impossible for those without much credit history.

This might explain decreasing car ownership (if you can't afford buying a home even in Suburbia, why waste your money on owning a car if you could just rent somewhere with decent public transit?) and by extension also higher amounts spent on restaurants (if you don't have a nice house to invite friends or family over for a big dinner or BBQ and you don't have to pay down a mortgage and leasing rates for a car, why not treat yourself to a nice dinner every now and then?)...

That is very true. The cost of housing has exploded and that has had a significant effect on their way of life. Having said that, I still think Millennials view of money is closer to that of Boomers (since both graduated from school in times of economic prosperity) than it is to either Gen X or Gen Z (who both graduated/are graduating from school with fewer job opportunities than the generation before them).

Millennials save earlier than past cohorts at the same age:

Millennials started saving earlier than other generations, but they still have less wealth than their parents did at their age

Millennials began saving in their 20s, but their parents waited until their 30s. It goes to show how the Great Recession put them financially behind.

www.businessinsider.com

They work more than others:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/18/more-work-more-sleep-new-study-offers-glimpse-daily-life-millennial/

While saving is a good thing, it does require disposable income. It is hard to save when most of your income is used up to pay bills. Not being able to buy a home as soon (and often living with their parents longer) means their expenses are lower. Having said that, they do have higher debts and while they save more, their net worth is lower.

You're right that they eat out more. Seems to have changed from a few years ago. Could have something to do with working more hours. In any event, relevant to this discussion is that Millennials and Zoomers clearly see a car as a liability, not an instrument of freedom. They use transit a lot more. And buy cheaper cars when they do buy vehicles.

They have also had a preference for urban living. Though there's evidence that's changing as they start families. But all this makes for a generation that's primed to use intercity rail. I think Boomers are far more likely to buy a $100k Tesla with Full Self Drive and take roadtrips in that than Millennials who might take a $60 train ticket instead.

I agree. The question is, when they do use intercity rail, would they typically pay a bit more to make it a more enjoyable experience (if there was perceived value for money) or would they typically buy the cheapest economy ticket?