VIA Rail

[Darwinkgo]

The bigger question is when the feds intend to declare their commitment to the project

The HFR booster community is about to get a taste of what seemed to make pro-pipeline people so mad. As the regulator you have to play coy. Even if you really want to say yes. Perhaps even more so.

The short term complications that I see are a) as noted, consultation isn’t far enough along yet

and until they’re completed to satisfaction cabinet isn’t going to approve an EA. And submitting the EA as part of the JPO work to the Minister(s) will start a ticking clock to decision.

We could see a roundabout way to allocate more funding to a bucket which HFR could access without attaching it to specific projects.

 

[SFO-YYZ]

Usually not a fan of the Post, but this is a fairly decent interview with Ehren Cory from a week ago (CEO of Canada Infrastructure Bank) on the recent policy restructuring at CIB, and how the CIB, going forward, be able to operate with more autonomy and shorten investment decision timelines. VIA Rail and HFR weren't mentioned explicitly in the interview, but several memorable quotes that I think will likely apply to VIA's future projects in regards to CIB:

Ehren Cory, who was named chief executive officer late last year, says the bank will be announcing new investments on “a very regular basis” in 2021 as part of Ottawa’s economic stimulus efforts.

One senior government official confirmed to the National Post that the federal government will now approve CIB investments on a broader sectoral level rather than project-by-project.

This is a very interesting reform (and I think also the right reform), because that means the federal government will no longer be directly making investment decisions on individual projects like the HFR (should the HFR be funded by CIB), therefore giving CIB more autonomy to make its own decisions and timelines that are not tied to federal budget cycles.

“We do see hard dollars going out the door, the velocity of deals going up, and those [deals] leading directly to investment,” he said (CEO of CIB)

He also urged patience from the public on what some perceive as a tardiness in approving major projects, saying the developments happen on long timelines that can’t easily be trimmed down.

Although HFR was not mentioned, I think the new policy direction at CIB (announced last Oct 2020) is a step in the right direction, especially when CIB will be involved in funding major VIA-related projects. Although we don't know if CIB will eventually be involved in the actual funding of HFR, we do know that the $71 million JPO is being funded by the CIB, so I do see a dominant CIB role in HFR going forward - and if the CIB is now able to make its own investment decisions without prior approval from the cabinet, as indicated by Ehren Cory, all the better.

New head of Canada Infrastructure Bank promises more investments after Ottawa loosens reins

Cory's comments come after the CIB underwent a policy change late last year that eliminated a requirement for the bank to secure approval directly from Finance Cana…

nationalpost.com

 

[Darwinkgo]

The newer projects the CIB is looking at are much smaller at minimum $50 million instead of needing to clock in at at least $500 million.

and once again, no approval is needed tied to budget cycles. It is treasury board approvals to transfer money into CIB. The legislative approvals happened years ago.

The HFR is frankly too large to approve as within a bucket. You should not read those statements as applying to HFR.

Where this is much better for VIA isn’t HFR. It is smaller projects which might self support - fleet renewal for long distance trains? Contributing to grade separations and rail capacity upgrades and capabilities in useful places (sidings anyone) along side the freight railways perhaps?

 

[robmausser]

^ I’m as guilty as anyone of digressing, and don’t set out to be annoying, but some of the recent desire for thread-splitting seems to be aimed at just stifling people who express (or don’t move on from) unpopular views that people are tired of rebutting. Splitting the thread seems like overkill when maybe sometimes we just have to agree to disagree. Or check out for a couple pages.

Totally agree. You can really tell who the engineering types are on here; they see this less as a forum for debate and discussion and digression and more as a place where they think its their podium to express their "facts".

The only place for that is the news section of the site, this is a forum.

 

[2transpo]

I feel as if we are grasping at straws here. Looking for hints at upcoming funding and approval where there are none. HFR is a tool used by the current government to have a commitment. Commitments look good. Commitments are more politically useful than actually following through with something because projects are messy, go overbudget and run late. If we have another election in 2021 which seems likely, the can will be kicked further down the road. If the Conservatives win, they will kill the project to appeal to special interests in automotive and airlines as well as their base in rural and western Canada.

HFR is and always has been political theatre. While VIA wants to see the project complete, the government has no intention to fund it. There is no realistic path to see it constructed which is why it would better fit in a fantasy thread.

 

[sacred]

I feel as if we are grasping at straws here. Looking for hints at funding where there are none. HFR is a tool used by the current government to have a commitment. Commitments look good. Commitments are more politically useful than actually following through with something. And if we have another election in 2021 which seems likely, the can will be kicked further down the road. If the Conservatives win, they will kill the project to appeal to western Canadians.

HFR is and always has been political theatre. While VIA wants to see the project complete, the government has no intention to fund it. There is no realistic path to see it constructed which is why it would better fit in a fantasy thread.

This is the type of comment I feel should be unwelcome here.

 

[micheal_can]

This is the type of comment I feel should be unwelcome here.

You mean honest people? He states the truth that lots of people here want to ignore.

 

[Bordercollie]

You mean honest people? He states the truth that lots of people here want to ignore.

I think that a fleet renewal and the dedicated route would be a good "green" project. Especially if there is going to be an election.

I wouldn't bet on a concervativetive government being elected into power anytime soon, at least not with a majority mandate.

 

[micheal_can]

I think that a fleet renewal and the dedicated route would be a good "green" project. Especially if there is going to be an election.

I wouldn't bet on a concervativetive government being elected into power anytime soon, at least not with a majority mandate.

I don't see the fleet renewal outside the existing order with Siemens happening before the order is filled. HFR likely will happen, but will be a long project. No one is going to use these as election focuses.

 

[smallspy]

Can anyone comment on windows in VIA’s fleet? Fifteen years ago a train I was on in the corridor hit an animal which resulted in a rock hitting my outside window. I think that the fact that the window consisted of many sheets of glass resulted in no shattering and no damage to a 9 year old. Are all windows on VIA’s fleet (present and future) designed like this?

Transport Canada has a requirement for the fitting of laminated safety glass on all railway equipment carrying passengers. And VIA specs their equipment with two layers of it for insulation purposes.

So yes, all present and future equipment will continue to sport it.

Dan

 

[reaperexpress]

You mean honest people? He states the truth that lots of people here want to ignore.

He states an opinion. Just because it aligns with your opinion does not automatically make it "the truth".

 

[roger1818]

Rather than continue this discussion of ancient history, fantasies and alternative facts, I am going to start talking about something that is real, the new corridor fleet.

By extracting data from the 2018 cycling plan @littlewill1166 posted back in March, I was able to make a table of each of the trainsets that VIA uses (or at least used at the time). I then used this information to calculate the number of seats each trainset has.

Set	LRC Business	LRC Economy	HEP2 Business	HEP2 Economy	HEP1 Economy	Ren Business	Ren Economy	Length	Total Business	Total Economy	Total Seats
LRC 1	1	4						5	44	272	316
LRC 2	1	4						5	44	272	316
LRC 3	1	4						5	44	272	316
LRC 4	1	5						6	44	340	384
LRC 5	1	4						5	44	272	316
LRC 6	1	4						5	44	272	316
LRC 7	1	4						5	44	272	316
LRC 8	1	3						4	44	204	248
LRC 9	1	3						4	44	204	248
LRC 10	1	3						4	44	204	248
LRC 11	1	3						4	44	204	248
LRC 12	1	3						4	44	204	248
LRC 13	1	3						4	44	204	248
LRC 14	1	3						4	44	204	248
LRC 15	1	4						5	44	272	316
LRC 16	1	3						4	44	204	248
LRC 17	1	3						4	44	204	248
LRC 18/HEP 8	1	2		1				4	44	204	248
LRC 19/HEP 9	1	2		1				4	44	204	248
HEP 5/LRC 20	2			2	1			5	88	198	286
HEP 6/LRC 21	2			2	1			5	88	198	286
HEP 1			2	4				6	112	272	384
HEP 2			2	4				6	112	272	384
HEP 3			1	3	1			5	56	266	322
HEP 4			2	1	1			4	112	130	242
HEP 7			1		1			2	56	62	118
REN 1						1	4	5	48	192	240
REN 2						1	4	5	48	192	240
Active	23	64	8	18	5	2	8	128	1556	6270	7826
Fleet	26	71	10	23	5	3	12	150	1848	6968	9126
Reserve	3	7	2	5	0	1	4	22	292	698	1300

NOTES:

1. I believe this to be a correct interpretation, but please correct me if I made any errors.
2. LRC Sets 4, 6, 12, and 13 have economy cars added and removed during the week. I went with the largest configuration.
3. HEP Set 10 has no locomotive and isn’t assigned to any trains, so I am ignoring it, assuming it is some type of spare.
4. LRC Sets 18-21 are combined with HEP sets 8, 9, 5 and 6 respectively to form mixed LRC/HEP trainsets.
5. I am only counting passenger cars and am ignoring baggage and service cars.

Part 1/2

 

[roger1818]

Part 2/2

From this, I tried to match the closest new fleet trainset configuration to the existing trainsets as follows:

Set	Replacement	Length	Total Business	Total Economy	Seats	delta length	delta seats	delta business	delta economy
LRC 1	Long	5	87	198	285	0	-31	43	-74
LRC 2	Long	5	87	198	285	0	-31	43	-74
LRC 3	Long	5	87	198	285	0	-31	43	-74
LRC 4	Extra Long	7	87	331	418	1	34	43	-9
LRC 5	Long	5	87	198	285	0	-31	43	-74
LRC 6	Long	5	87	198	285	0	-31	43	-74
LRC 7	Long	5	87	198	285	0	-31	43	-74
LRC 8	Short	4	44	198	242	0	-6	0	-6
LRC 9	Short	4	44	198	242	0	-6	0	-6
LRC 10	Short	4	44	198	242	0	-6	0	-6
LRC 11	Long	5	87	198	285	1	37	43	-6
LRC 12	Short	4	44	198	242	0	-6	0	-6
LRC 13	Short	4	44	198	242	0	-6	0	-6
LRC 14	Short	4	44	198	242	0	-6	0	-6
LRC 15	Long	5	87	198	285	0	-31	43	-74
LRC 16	Short	4	44	198	242	0	-6	0	-6
LRC 17	Short	4	44	198	242	0	-6	0	-6
LRC 18/HEP 8	Short	4	44	198	242	0	-6	0	-6
LRC 19/HEP 9	Short	4	44	198	242	0	-6	0	-6
HEP 5/LRC 20	Long	5	87	198	285	0	-1	-1	0
HEP 6/LRC 21	Long	5	87	198	285	0	-1	-1	0
HEP 1	Extra Long	7	87	331	418	1	34	-25	59
HEP 2	Extra Long	7	87	331	418	1	34	-25	59
HEP 3	Long	5	87	198	285	0	-37	31	-68
HEP 4	Short	4	44	198	242	0	0	-68	68
HEP 7	Extra Short	3	44	132	176	1	58	-12	70
REN 1	Short	4	44	198	242	-1	2	-4	6
REN 2	Short	4	44	198	242	-1	2	-4	6
Active		131	1834	5877	7711	3	-115	278	-393
Fleet		160	2784	6336	9120
Reserve		29	950	459	1409

Many of these seem like reasonable replacements, but I am uncertain about the 5 car LRC trainsets (LRC sets 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 15) as using a Long trainset results in a reduction of 31 seats overall (minus 74 economy and plus 43 business). Similarly, HEP Set 3 has a reduction of 37 seats (minus 68 economy and plus 31 business). For these a 6 car trainset would make sense, but 7 seems overkill. Here is where knowing the actual ridership figures would help.

The other interesting one is HEP Set 7, which shows an increase in capacity of 58, despite using an extra short trainset.

I expect the Renaissance trainsets will be the first to be replaced, as not only are they rusting out, but a 5 passenger car (plus a baggage and a service car for 7 cars in total) trainset can be replaced with a 4 car trainset and meanwhile they gain 2 seats overall (though they loose 4 business to gain 6 economy seats). Since they will likely be getting a 5 car trainset, they will likely shuffle things around and put the new trains somewhere else.

Any thoughts on my analysis so far?

 

[reaperexpress]

Part 2/2

From this, I tried to match the closest new fleet trainset configuration to the existing trainsets as follows:

Nice work! I hadn't realized that the trains would be arranged in different lengths. I thought I'd read somewhere that they would all be 5-car semipermanently-coupled sets, but I guess not.

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

It's interesting that the standard 5-car set is called "long", because:
- it's the standard length
- I don't think 5 cars is long by any standard
- it doesn't leave a name for a theoretical 6-car set

The other interesting one is HEP Set 7, which shows an increase in capacity of 58, despite using an extra short trainset.

Set 7 runs on the neglected Toronto-Kitchener-London corridor, so I'm guessing it will be among the last to receive a new Charger. I'd imagine that the first priority would be to replace the F40's and HEP's on the other routes, since those routes have more passengers who will benefit, and the new trains will allow those trips to reach 100 mph instead of just 95 mph. The Toronto-Kitchener-London-Sarnia line never tops 80 mph anyway, so extra speed is not a benefit there.
Until HEP-7 is replaced by a Siemens train (in 2024, I'm guessing), I expect that it will get 2 LRC coaches displaced from another set.

 

[roger1818]

Nice work! I hadn't realized that the trains would be arranged in different lengths. I thought I'd read somewhere that they would all be 5-car semipermanently-coupled sets, but I guess not.

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

Thanks.

From what I gather, they are buying 5-car semi-permanently coupled sets but will reconfigure them as the diagram you provided shows. The problem is, as I have said before, unless VIA asks Siemens to reconfigure some of those 5-car sets, VIA will end up with too many of certain types of cars (especially Business 3B), and not enough of others to build trains in the configurations they says they want to use. I plan to do a follow-up post showing this in detail.

It's interesting that the standard 5-car set is called "long", because:
- it's the standard length
- I don't think 5 cars is long by any standard
- it doesn't leave a name for a theoretical 6-car set

My thoughts exactly. I would have thought "Normal" or "Standard" to be better names for the 5 car train to save "Long" for a 6 car train. Having said that, it is just a name that will likely only be used internally, and could be changed if needed. As I said, it seems a big jump to go from 285 seats to 418 seats without an intermediary train size.

Set 7 runs on the neglected Toronto-Kitchener-London corridor, so I'm guessing it will be among the last to receive a new Charger. I'd imagine that the first priority would be to replace the F40's and HEP's on the other routes, since those routes have more passengers who will benefit, and the new trains will allow those trips to reach 100 mph instead of just 95 mph. The Toronto-Kitchener-London-Sarnia line never tops 80 mph anyway, so extra speed is not a benefit there.
Until HEP-7 is replaced by a Siemens train (in 2024, I'm guessing), I expect that it will get 2 LRC coaches displaced from another set.

I expect you are correct. I also heard somewhere that the HEP II Business car on that train is sold as economy class (though I still listed it as business class in my table as I was really only looking at the total seat count since the business and economy numbers were only provided for interest sake).