VIA Rail

[lrt's friend]

The public and our politicians have really gotten on board with urban and commuter rail improvements in the last decade or so. You would think this would eventually spread to intercity rail, but the wild card is our federal politicians and bureaucracy, who seem to be adverse to actually delivering improved services to the public. To some degree, we can thank our provincial politicians who have been making every effort to push the feds aside, claiming jurisdiction over practically everything, which really limits service delivery on a national basis, when those services extend beyond one province. Hence the difficulties in expanding health services, building pipe lines and expanding CPP in a meaningful way.

 

[DSC]

The public and our politicians have really gotten on board with urban and commuter rail improvements in the last decade or so. You would think this would eventually spread to intercity rail, but the wild card is our federal politicians and bureaucracy, who seem to be adverse to actually delivering improved services to the public. To some degree, we can thank our provincial politicians who have been making every effort to push the feds aside, claiming jurisdiction over practically everything, which really limits service delivery on a national basis, when those services extend beyond one province. Hence the difficulties in expanding health services, building pipe lines and expanding CPP in a meaningful way.

There is also the fact that our Constitution (fairly clearly) defines which level of government is responsible for which services so if the Feds want (for example) to get involved in funding healthcare or education they have to work through the provinces (who do not all generally want the same things at the same times)!

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

On a slight tangent with regards to the HFR, something that has always piqued my curiosity are these constant mentioning of so called "investors." I know that there is behind the doors discussion about this hence the secrecy but I'm always under this impression that not many are actually biting the bait to participate in the project. We always hear about how the Canadian pension funds are highly willing to invest in other countries' infrastructure transportation systems but always seem to ignore their own backyard. I am no expert in this area but there seems to be a pattern. Is it partly our bureaucratic nature or is the Federal Government/Provincial governments (provincial in general) who make it purposely difficult to invest in such large projects; setting them up for failure so the government doesn't have to actually spend money?

 

[lrt's friend]

On a slight tangent with regards to the HFR, something that has always piqued my curiosity are these constant mentioning of so called "investors." I know that there is behind the doors discussion about this hence the secrecy but I'm always under this impression that not many are actually biting the bait to participate in the project. We always hear about how the Canadian pension funds are highly willing to invest in other countries' infrastructure transportation systems but always seem to ignore their own backyard. I am no expert in this area but there seems to be a pattern. Is it partly our bureaucratic nature or is the Federal Government/Provincial governments (provincial in general) who make it purposely difficult to invest in such large projects; setting them up for failure so the government doesn't have to actually spend money?

Certainly all our governments seem to impose delays and deliberately make changes to projects, which cause delays that help them to not spend money. Government love photo opportunities and re-announcing the same project over and over again is a terrible ruse on the voter, who often fall for it. Look at HSR to London which was announced prior to two consecutive elections with very little action in between or since.

For those who are paying attention, it is infuriating how slow government moves, yet I recall when federal money was available back around 2011, all kinds of stupid shovel ready projects were built very quickly. This was the opposite, when we were unwisely spending money. And after less than 10 years, one of those projects near me is being re-built. That tells you something.

We seem to build too fast without adequate oversight or we study and restudy at a glacial pace.

 

[kEiThZ]

The editorial that Paul mentioned:

Globe editorial: Ottawa’s romance with train travel, and how much it could cost you

Via today runs all passenger service between major Canadian cities. Last year, it lost $93-million on its busiest route – the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto service. Over all in 2018, it carried 4.7-million passengers, had an operating loss of $272.6-million, and received $394-million in government...

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[robmausser]

The editorial that Paul mentioned:

Globe editorial: Ottawa’s romance with train travel, and how much it could cost you

Via today runs all passenger service between major Canadian cities. Last year, it lost $93-million on its busiest route – the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto service. Over all in 2018, it carried 4.7-million passengers, had an operating loss of $272.6-million, and received $394-million in government...

www.theglobeandmail.com

The construction of a railway line that linked the Canada created in 1867 with the western provinces that joined Confederation a few years later is an essential Canadian creation myth.

Wholly confusing sentence batman!

 

[kEiThZ]

However, a simple replacement of the current corridor fleet will not be enough to cover the legacy and HFR services.

I get this. I'm just surprised that the additional investment is > 100% of what was just spent on rolling stock for the entire Corridor fleet. I would not have thought the number to be that high.

Is there a particular reason? For example, does HFR mean two locomotives per train so the budget is to buy additional locos driving up cost? Or is it that another 30+ sets are really needed for HFR (on top of the base Siemens order)?

 

[Urban Sky]

I get this. I'm just surprised that the additional investment is > 100% of what was just spent on rolling stock for the entire Corridor fleet. I would not have thought the number to be that high.

Is there a particular reason? For example, does HFR mean two locomotives per train so the budget is to buy additional locos driving up cost? Or is it that another 30+ sets are really needed for HFR (on top of the base Siemens order)?

As specified in the RFQ document I previously linked, the second batch will need to be compatible with the REM (provided that the federal government decides that interoperability in the Mont-Royal tunnel is technologically and economically feasible) and this means that the trains would need to be bi-modal. You already know the price and the number of trainsets of the initial order, as well as the price budgeted for the second batch, which should allow you to approximate the size of the second batch by using the cost premium for bimodal trainsets which was already used by the Ecotrain study for those F-200 scenarios which included Montreal-Quebec...

 

[kEiThZ]

this means that the trains would need to be bi-modal.

the cost premium for bimodal trainsets

Is the base Siemens order not for bimodal trains? Or rather, I thought they were convertible. But they would buy a whole new set with HFR instead of converting the existing fleet?

 

[Urban Sky]

Is the base Siemens order not for bimodal trains? Or rather, I thought they were convertible. But they would buy a whole new set with HFR instead of converting the existing fleet?

The base fleet could be presumably converted to electric or bi-modal operations by replacing the diesel locomotive with an electric or bi-modal locomotive, but this won’t make it compatible with the REM, which will operate under CBTC (i.e. moving-block authority rather than stationary signals), GoA4 (“driverless”, i.e. fully automated) and a vehicle width of only 2.94 meters. These “light metro” specifications will require such heavy customization that it would be impossible to deliver a prototype in 2021 and the first trainset in 2022 or to adapt the base trainsets at a later point...

 

[crs1026]

The base fleet could be presumably converted to electric or bi-modal operations by replacing the diesel locomotive with an electric or bi-modal locomotive, but this won’t make it compatible with the REM, which will operate under CBTC (i.e. moving-block authority rather than stationary signals), GoA4 (“driverless”, i.e. fully automated) and a vehicle width of only 2.94 meters, which will require such heavy customization that it would be impossible to deliver a prototype in 2021 and the first trainset in 2022 or to adapt the base trainsets at a later point...

Wow.....That dimensional spec sounds like a dealbreaker...same width as a Ren car.
A trainset that restricted spacewise would be a detriment to the HFR package. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if that’s why the consultant’s report leaked out.
I know that’s the same width as standard UK stock, but it’s a bit confining.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Wow.....That dimensional spec sounds like a dealbreaker...same width as a Ren car.
A trainset that restricted spacewise would be a detriment to the HFR package. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if that’s why the consultant’s report leaked out.
I know that’s the same width as standard UK stock, but it’s a bit confining.

- Paul

Doesn't look good. Looks like they'll have to either do major work on the tunnel to expand it or build another tunnel for VIA. The separation of services is starting to make more sense.

 

[robmausser]

Doesn't look good. Looks like they'll have to either do major work on the tunnel to expand it or build another tunnel for VIA. The separation of services is starting to make more sense.

Another tunnel is a non-starter. It would cost $4 billion on its own today.

They most likely will end up taking the trip around Mont Royal that the Quebec VIA trains (Sennetterre and Jonquiere) already take.

 

[crs1026]

Another tunnel is a non-starter. It would cost $4 billion on its own today.

I’m curious - is this a documented estimate?

- Paul

 

[robmausser]

I’m curious - is this a documented estimate?

- Paul

No I was just throwing a number out there.

It would probably be closer to $3 billion or so for the tunnel, since you cant just tunnel where the existing tunnel is, youd have to bypass the above ground portion of the REM as well all the way to the A40 station where the Mascouche line now terminates.

Still, a huge chunk of change to save 20 minutes over the Senetterre routing.