VIA Rail

[Urban Sky]

My impression is that an overnight service would still be valuable, but that in the modern environment everyone involved would be far better served by airline style lie-flat seats in an enhanced business class like product than traditional sleeper arrangements.

I wonder if something along the lines of the Sunrise Izumo type of train would work as a sleeper. Cheap cublicles for most and more premium berths.for the luckier few.

That sounds an awful lot like a Sleeper car configuration which is very different from what could be used on a more leisurely service like the Ocean and especially the Canadian. And would business folks really prefer it over a 7am flight for their 9:30 am meeting?

 

[crs1026]

^I say this despite a lifelong enjoyment of sleeping cars..... business travel and overnight trains don't necessarily mesh well.

It takes a couple of trips, at least, before one can just hop on a sleeper train and get a restful sleep. With 7:30 arrival, one is awake on the train by 6 just to get washed, dressed, and caffeinated. Hard to get a full 8 hours' sleep that way.

As much as I hated the 4:45 alarm clock call for the 5:30 limo for the 7:00 flight, at least I could go to bed early, catnap on the plane and grab a coffee when I got to my destination.

Sleeper trains do well in other places, and are reported to be on the upswing in Europe.... and I'm not a morning person even at home....but I'm not sure they are a priority for the Corridor. Certainly not until VIA has its smooth, banked dedicated tracks.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

Can someone repost the chargers configurations? I'm trying to put my head around it.

Do you mean the Charger or Venture configurations?

Wikipedia has a decent description of the different configurations of the Siemens Charger locomotive. It says VIA is getting the SC-44. CoasterFan2105 did an interesting 3 part series on the construction of the ALC-42 (Amtrak Long distance Charger 4,200 hp) where he was invited to tour the factory. Much of what is shown is applicable to the SC-44 though.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvJ9aDWXPDzRw4uL2-2Nv4oS6TGwkYZ1J

As for the Venture, not many details are known and the details that have been published by VIA are later changed in future publications.

 

[crs1026]

As for the Venture, not many details are known and the details that have been published by VIA are later changed in future publications.

The diagrams that we saw earlier were in this presentation, but it's from Feb 2020 - things may have changed since then.

Strongly suggest a little browsing/googling upwards in this thread for more.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

is it time for a dedicated VIA HFR thread? getting muddy between that project and "Other Items"

While I agree that it would be better to have more targetted threads, discussions about HFR quickly overlap with more general VIA discussions, such as what service would remain on the Kingston Subdivision...

 

[roger1818]

The diagrams that we saw earlier were in this presentation, but it's from Feb 2020 - things may have changed since then.

Yes, that is one of the three publications that I was referring to. To consolidate links, here they all are:

• VIA Rail - NGEC 9 (Feb. 2019)
• VIA Rail - NGEC 10 (Feb. 2020)
• VIA Rail - NGEC 11 (Feb. 2021)

There are inconsistencies between years though (for example in 2019 they say the Long (base 5 car) train will have 285 seats (pg.14) but in 2020 they say the Base has 87 Business & 194 Economy seats, which totals 281), so either there is a mistake or things are evolving.

Transport Action Canada also has an interesting article, but I don't consider them a reliable source of information, so I wouldn't consider anything they say to be cannon (it might be a nit-pick, but they call the long distance variant of the Charger the ALD-42 instead of the ALC-42).

Overall, until we see the final product, everything is subject to change, regardless of the source.

 

[robmausser]

Yes, that is one of the three publications that I was referring to. To consolidate links, here they all are:

• VIA Rail - NGEC 9 (Feb. 2019)
• VIA Rail - NGEC 10 (Feb. 2020)
• VIA Rail - NGEC 11 (Feb. 2021)

There are inconsistencies between years though (for example in 2019 they say the Long (base 5 car) train will have 285 seats (pg.14) but in 2020 they say the Base has 87 Business & 194 Economy seats, which totals 281), so either there is a mistake or things are evolving.

Transport Action Canada also has an interesting article, but I don't consider them a reliable source of information, so I wouldn't consider anything they say to be cannon (it might be a nit-pick, but they call the long distance variant of the Charger the ALD-42 instead of the ALC-42).

Overall, until we see the final product, everything is subject to change, regardless of the source.

I hope for the HFR plan VIA uses something closer to the Alstom Avelia trainsets used on the Amtrak Acela NE corridor route in the USA.

Those train cars were specifically designed with extreme tilting for the curvy nature of that route; a very similar issue that will be faced by the VIA HFR route.

The trainsets will be equipped with an active tilt system, dubbed Tiltronix by Alstom, that will allow higher speeds on curved portions of the corridor track at a maximum tilt angle of 6.3°.

Avelia Liberty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Urban Sky]

I hope for the HFR plan VIA uses something closer to the Alstom Avelia trainsets used on the Amtrak Acela NE corridor route in the USA.

Those train cars were specifically designed with extreme tilting for the curvy nature of that route; a very similar issue that will be faced by the VIA HFR route.

Avelia Liberty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The trains (or at least the cars) which would be used for HFR are already ordered and currently in production...

 

[kEiThZ]

My impression is that an overnight service would still be valuable,

Can't see it. Not when the airlines run shuttle service and will let you check you in 30-45 mins before with no luggage.

Also, the new world of work-life balance and Zoom meetings says that there's going to be far less same day out and backs. If you're traveling, it's probably for a few days. In which case, there's no need to sleep on a train and 1-2 hrs in each direction really isn't all that relevant. I suspect 4 hrs from Toronto to Montreal would be enough to win a lot of business travellers if service is reliable, onboard amenities are decent, and fares in business class are cheaper than economy air.

 

[kEiThZ]

The trains (or at least the cars) which would be used for HFR are already ordered and currently in production...

Does the supposed commitment to electrification change anything?

Seems to me they have 3 options.

1) Convert the Chargers to dual mode.
2) Exercise options to get battery electric Charger locos.
3) Request bids for a whole new fleet, and keep the Chargers and Ventures on Lakeshore and Corridor West services.

Guesses on what they'd do?

 

[crs1026]

Does the supposed commitment to electrification change anything?

Seems to me they have 3 options.

1) Convert the Chargers to dual mode.
2) Exercise options to get battery electric Charger locos.
3) Request bids for a whole new fleet, and keep the Chargers and Ventures on Lakeshore and Corridor West services.

Guesses on what they'd do?

Likely a bit of all three, but most likely start with dual mode. The Chargers do have that potential, eg here.

- Paul

PS: Once the weight of batteries with the needed range for the non-electrified gaps (which is pretty short if it's mostly Montreal to De Beaujeu or Tapscott to Toronto) are less than the weight of a diesel prime mover, I would expect the diesel would be gone.

 

[robmausser]

The trains (or at least the cars) which would be used for HFR are already ordered and currently in production...

Thats not my understanding at all.

I believe the current units being made by Siemens are for the current Lakeshore corridor, and VIA has an option to order more for the HFR plan, but have not.

I'm saying they should not and put in a different order for HFR that would be better for the route.

 

[kEiThZ]

I really hope the current VIA HFR proposal is tweaked.

1) I think they need a station in Markham. My suggestion would be 14th and Donald Cousens. Easy access off the 407 for York and Durham region. 10 min bus ride from the Cornell YRT/VIVA terminal.

2) I don't think they should bypass Ottawa. Use the expanded budget to make whatever improvements are necessary to get Toronto-Montreal down to 4 hrs.

3) I do think HFR should skip Coteau. They should connect to the CP corridor at De Beaujeu and build a new station in Vaudreuil. Or more accurately expand the existing Exo Station at Dorion.

Doing the above would make HFR a lot more useful to suburban Toronto and Montreal while avoiding a split in frequencies.

 

[Urban Sky]

I really hope the current VIA HFR proposal is tweaked.

1) I think they need a station in Markham. My suggestion would be 14th and Donald Cousens. Easy access off the 407 for York and Durham region. 10 min bus ride from the Cornell YRT/VIVA terminal.

2) I don't think they should bypass Ottawa. Use the expanded budget to make whatever improvements are necessary to get Toronto-Montreal down to 4 hrs.

3) I do think HFR should skip Coteau. They should connect to the CP corridor at De Beaujeu and build a new station in Vaudreuil. Or more accurately expand the existing Exo Station at Dorion.

Doing the above would make HFR a lot more useful to suburban Toronto and Montreal while avoiding a split in frequencies.

1) These are details which can presumably still be changed at any time
2) Fully agreed and @roger1818 can attest that this is something I've consistently argued in this and other forums
3) Have a closer look at the map below:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1414244514944933891

 

[Urban Sky]

Thats not my understanding at all.

I believe the current units being made by Siemens are for the current Lakeshore corridor, and VIA has an option to order more for the HFR plan, but have not.

I'm saying they should not and put in a different order for HFR that would be better for the route.

1) There will no longer be 17 frequencies between Kingston and Toronto; therefore, the fleet requirements for non-HFR services will be less than the 32 trainsets currently in production.

2) The 16 trainsets of the second batch are not enough to operate all HFR services from Toronto to Quebec.

3) One of the stated purposes of the current fleet renewal is fleet standardization, i.e. to replace the current Corridor fleet (LRC, REN, HEP1, HEP2, P42 and F40) with one single platform.

4) My understanding of tilting is that it only increases the possible amount of cant deficiency (i.e. unbalanced super-elevation), not of total cant (i.e. the sum of actual cant and cant deficiency). This limits the speed advantage of active tilting (a very complex and thus unreliable technology) to lines which are owned by freight railroads, who are reluctant to accept high actual cant, as it increases maintenance costs substantially on tracks which are shared between passenger and freight tracks. Given that the by far most curvy parts would presumably be exclusive to HFR trains without any sharing with freight trains (Havelock Sub, east of Havelock), there is virtually no benefit in procuring tilting rolling stock.