kEiThZ
Superstar
Nobody said they should. In fact, I have repeatedly argued that network expansion should take priority over electrification. Lines with 1-2 trains per hour per direction don't need electrification.
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
Nobody said they should. In fact, I have repeatedly argued that network expansion should take priority over electrification. Lines with 1-2 trains per hour per direction don't need electrification.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Happy new year, everyone!
Falling increasingly tired of the lack of focus in the truckloads of posts we've seen in the last days, I was reminded of @roger1818's observation that this thread has grown to proportions which make it impossible to any new entrant to even remotely obtain an overview over what has already been discussed:
I got curious as to how on earth we got to more than 500 pages and more than 8000 posts and therefore did a little statistical analysis in which I plotted the monthly tally since this thread's creation almost exactly 6 years ago:
Whereas the historical average is 116 posts per month (i.e. just under 4 posts per day), last month has seen almost six times as much (680 posts, or 42 pages) and was only the third month to exceed 300 posts. December 2018 (320 posts) was just after Siemens was revealed as the winning bidder for the ongoing Corridor fleet renewal and we apparently had some very engaged discussions about HFR and its various routing options in July 2019 (353 posts), but does anyone remember any discussions last month which would have deserved it to achieve a higher post count than the second- and third-most active months combined?
Therefore, I have created the following thread:
As I've outlined in its opening post, that thread is dedicated to all kinds of rail-related discussions which don't really relate to any specific rail operator, its current or past operations (routes, schedules, fleet) or future plans, including (but certainly not limited to!):
In short, I would welcome if we could limit the discussions in this thread to those concerning or directly affecting the operations, routes and fleet of VIA Rail (past and present) and its on-going projects (especially, but not limited to: HFR and the ongoing fleet renewal).
I would like to invite everyone in this forum to reflect on what discussions they engage with and how closely they relate to the topic of this thread, so that we can hopefully keep the discussions in this thread more focused by outsourcing tangential discussions into more pertinent threads...
Thank you very much for your consideration and have a great 2021!
Falling increasingly tired of the lack of focus in the truckloads of posts we've seen in the last days, I was reminded of @roger1818's observation that this thread has grown to proportions which make it impossible to any new entrant to even remotely obtain an overview over what has already been discussed:
I got curious as to how on earth we got to more than 500 pages and more than 8000 posts and therefore did a little statistical analysis in which I plotted the monthly tally since this thread's creation almost exactly 6 years ago:
Whereas the historical average is 116 posts per month (i.e. just under 4 posts per day), last month has seen almost six times as much (680 posts, or 42 pages) and was only the third month to exceed 300 posts. December 2018 (320 posts) was just after Siemens was revealed as the winning bidder for the ongoing Corridor fleet renewal and we apparently had some very engaged discussions about HFR and its various routing options in July 2019 (353 posts), but does anyone remember any discussions last month which would have deserved it to achieve a higher post count than the second- and third-most active months combined?
Therefore, I have created the following thread:
General railway discussions
As I've outlined in its opening post, that thread is dedicated to all kinds of rail-related discussions which don't really relate to any specific rail operator, its current or past operations (routes, schedules, fleet) or future plans, including (but certainly not limited to!):
- Pros and Cons (or any kind of comparative analysis) of various rail (or non-rail) modes, including Monorails, Maglevs or Hyperloops
- Pros and Cons (or any kind of comparative analysis) of various rail propulsion technologies, including discussions about different electrification technologies
- Pros and Cons of transport infrastructure investments (including social impacts like housing prices)
- Any kinds of rail-related discussions which concern multiple railroads or a railroad to which no thread has been dedicated so far
In short, I would welcome if we could limit the discussions in this thread to those concerning or directly affecting the operations, routes and fleet of VIA Rail (past and present) and its on-going projects (especially, but not limited to: HFR and the ongoing fleet renewal).
I would like to invite everyone in this forum to reflect on what discussions they engage with and how closely they relate to the topic of this thread, so that we can hopefully keep the discussions in this thread more focused by outsourcing tangential discussions into more pertinent threads...
Thank you very much for your consideration and have a great 2021!
Last edited:
SFO-YYZ
Active Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2016
- Messages
- 351
- Reaction score
- 1,104
- Location
- Plateau-Mont-Royal, Montréal
Thanks Urban Sky, and completely agree with the above sentiment.Happy new year, everyone!
Falling increasingly tired of the lack of focus in the truckloads of posts we've seen in the last days, I was reminded of @roger1818's observation that this thread has grown to proportions which make it impossible to any new entrant to even remotely obtain an overview over what has already been discussed:
I got curious as to how on earth we got to more than 500 pages and more than 8000 posts and therefore did a little statistical analysis in which I plotted the monthly tally since this thread's creation almost exactly 6 years ago:
View attachment 292056
Whereas the historical average is 116 posts per month (i.e. just under 4 posts per day), last month has seen almost six times as much (680 posts, or 42 pages) and was only the third month to exceed 300 posts. December 2018 (320 posts) was just after Siemens was revealed as the winning bidder for the ongoing Corridor fleet renewal and we apparently had some very engaged discussions about HFR and its various routing options in July 2019 (353 posts), but does anyone remember any discussions last month which would have deserved it to achieve a higher post count than the second- and third-most active months combined?
Therefore, I have created the following thread:
General railway discussions
As I've outlined in its opening post, that thread is dedicated to all kinds of rail-related discussions which don't really relate to any specific rail operator, its current or past operations (routes, schedules, fleet) or future plans, including (but certainly not limited to!):
- Pros and Cons (or any kind of comparative analysis) of various rail (or non-rail) modes, including Monorails, Maglevs or Hyperloops
- Pros and Cons (or any kind of comparative analysis) of various rail propulsion technologies, including discussions about different electrification technologies
- Pros and Cons of transport infrastructure investments (including social impacts like housing prices)
- Any kinds of rail-related discussions which concern multiple railroads or a railroad to which no thread has been dedicated so far
In short, I would welcome if we could limit the discussions in this thread to those concerning or directly affecting the operations, routes and fleet of VIA Rail (past and present) and its on-going projects (especially, but not limited to: HFR and the ongoing fleet renewal).
I would like to invite everyone in this forum to reflect on what discussions they engage with and how closely they relate to the topic of this thread, so that we can hopefully keep the discussions in this thread more focused by outsourcing tangential discussions into more pertinent threads...
Thank you very much for your consideration and have a great 2021!
Over the past month, it has become increasingly hard to follow the various side-track convo, where for most readers on UT they probably just wanted to find out where HFR is at right now, any new updates on the Siemens rollingstock/fleet renewal project, and other VIA-related discussions that impact the masses. Would appreciate if we could stick to these topics.
roger1818
Senior Member
Happy new year, everyone!
Falling increasingly tired of the lack of focus in the truckloads of posts we've seen in the last days, I was reminded of @roger1818's observation that this thread has grown to proportions which make it impossible to any new entrant to even remotely obtain an overview over what has already been discussed:
I got curious as to how on earth we got to more than 500 pages and more than 8000 posts and therefore did a little statistical analysis in which I plotted the monthly tally since this thread's creation almost exactly 6 years ago:
View attachment 292056
Whereas the historical average is 116 posts per month (i.e. just under 4 posts per day), last month has seen almost six times as much (680 posts, or 42 pages) and was only the third month to exceed 300 posts. December 2018 (320 posts) was just after Siemens was revealed as the winning bidder for the ongoing Corridor fleet renewal and we apparently had some very engaged discussions about HFR and its various routing options in July 2019 (353 posts), but does anyone remember any discussions last month which would have deserved it to achieve a higher post count than the second- and third-most active months combined?
Therefore, I have created the following thread:
General railway discussions
As I've outlined in its opening post, that thread is dedicated to all kinds of rail-related discussions which don't really relate to any specific rail operator, its current or past operations (routes, schedules, fleet) or future plans, including (but certainly not limited to!):
- Pros and Cons (or any kind of comparative analysis) of various rail (or non-rail) modes, including Monorails, Maglevs or Hyperloops
- Pros and Cons (or any kind of comparative analysis) of various rail propulsion technologies, including discussions about different electrification technologies
- Pros and Cons of transport infrastructure investments (including social impacts like housing prices)
- Any kinds of rail-related discussions which concern multiple railroads or a railroad to which no thread has been dedicated so far
In short, I would welcome if we could limit the discussions in this thread to those concerning or directly affecting the operations, routes and fleet of VIA Rail (past and present) and its on-going projects (especially, but not limited to: HFR and the ongoing fleet renewal).
I would like to invite everyone in this forum to reflect on what discussions they engage with and how closely they relate to the topic of this thread, so that we can hopefully keep the discussions in this thread more focused by outsourcing tangential discussions into more pertinent threads...
Thank you very much for your consideration and have a great 2021!
And Happy New Year to everyone. I agree with you and apologise for my part in any of the off topic discussions in this thread. I will try to keep my posts on the topic of VIA rail in the future. To keep this post on topic.
I do tend to agree that VIA is likely better off waiting to see which technologies become feasible, it is just that the timing appears to be unfortunate.
I am not sure I agree with your 15 year timeframe. The press release for the new fleet (which includes the Chargers) says it is expected to have a 30 year life. Some might say that is only for the coaches, but looking at VIAs existing locomotives, the F40PH-2's are already over 30 years old and the P42DC's, are 19 years old and the 2017-2021 Corporate Plan said, "They are due for a half-life overhaul." This indicates to me that VIA expects at least 30 years out of their locomotives, not 15 years.
One question about using the Chargers on reginal and long haul services, will they have Type H Tightlock or semi-permanent couplers to connect them to the train? A Type H would mean they would mean the Business 3A coaches would need to have a Type H coupler at one end (all documented train configurations have a Business 3A coach at the front), but that would be very restrictive. Using a semi-permanent couplers would improve flexibility with the new fleet, but would make it harder to use them with legacy coaches, unless they coupled two Chargers back to back as they have a standard coupler on the front. They could also make transition cars for trains that don't need two locomotives.
One other question about the new fleet. VIA has ordered 32 new trainsets (with the option to buy more), but they currently have 40 locomotives assigned to the corridor (19 F40s and 21 P42s). I know some locomotives are wasted by trains having one at each end but do they have 8 trains like that? On top of that, the new fleet has capacity for 9120 passengers (6336 economy and 2784 business), but doing the math on the existing corridor fleet, they currently have capacity for 9536 passengers (7160 economy and 2376 business). This is a significant reduction in overall capacity (and especially in economy capacity, but an increase in business capacity). Is this because VIA believes they can increase efficiency by using bi-directional trains?
Here is my math on the existing corridor fleet:
| Type | Number | Capacity | Total Capacity |
| LRC Economy | 71 | 68 | 4828 |
| LRC Business | 26 | 44 | 1144 |
| LRC Total | 97 | 5972 | |
| HEP II Economy | 23 | 68 | 1564 |
| HEP II Business | 10 | 56 | 560 |
| HEP II Total | 33 | 2124 | |
| Ren. Economy | 16 | 48 | 768 |
| Ren. Business | 14 | 48 | 672 |
| Ren. Total | 30 | 1440 | |
| Econ. Total | 110 | 65.1 | 7160 |
| Bus. Total | 50 | 47.5 | 2376 |
| Total | 160 | 9536 |
dowlingm
Senior Member
The reviewer giving tugs and taps to the fixtures and finishes. To be fair, if I was riding in a Pistoia built product I might be doing the same. It may say Hitachi on the builder plate, but...
kEiThZ
Superstar
What VIA plans for and what is the depreciation timeframe are two different things though. VIA can plan to use them for 30 years, with the locos having substantially reduced economic values after 15 years. Basically, the point at which they need a midlife overhaul is the best time to try and sell them. Get someone else to pay for the overhaul and a good time for VIA to buy the latest and greatest.
Also, there's just so many variables with electrification going on in the Corridor. Giving it 10-15 years to shake out makes sense. GO won't really by sorted out until the 2030s. And nobody knows if, how and when Exo will electrify. They have lost their only electrified corridor to REM.
I brought this up a while ago. I was equally concerned about a drop in capacity. But:
1) Higher fleet availability should boost capacity. The maintenance/spare ratio should be lower.
2) New operational strategies like the Kingston Hub, HFR and bi-directional operation should allow for faster trips, reduced layover times and higher utilization driving up actual capacity offered.
And honestly, trading an 8% drop in Y seats for a 17% boost in J seats is a sensible decision. VIA really does need to expand business class. It's getting a lot more business travelers. But has to charge exorbitant prices thanks to yield management of just one car of business pax. That small cut in Y pax will mean less Y discounting though.
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
@kEiThZ captured my depreciation point.... it’s an accounting/book value thing. At 15 years one typically either rebuilds the loco (a capital, rather than operating, line item) or moves on to something new. It’s a need new new capital every 15 years proposition either way.
In my usual black-hat way I’m not thrilled either with the seat-for-seat approach to replacing the fleet. There will be better utilization, but ultimately it constrains VIA’s ability to grow. It boggles my mind that some HEP equipment is to be retained as a contingency fleet. Fits my abandonment by Federal Government neglect conspiracy theory mentality.
The big difference I see is that VIA is rebuilding its maintenance shops so that trainsets can be maintained without uncoupling. That applies to locomotives also. That’s pretty common elsewhere, and I’m assuming that there is data showing that trainset availability doesn’t suffer. If so, there is less need for locomotive spares, so a fleet of only one loco per trainset is feasible.
It’s interesting to see VIA retaining its own maintenance operation in-house. Overseas, one sees plenty of new maintenance facilities with the equipment builder’s name on the wall, often custom built for the specific trainset model. I’m not arguing for that, but it’s interesting that VIA and Siemens didn’t go there.
- Paul
Last edited:
henrydm
New Member
In an ideal world, we could make the double-tracked CN tracks and the double-tracked CP tracks that run parcel to each other from Dorion to Lachine government owned. CN and CP could use tracks that would be separate from tracks that EXO and VIA use. The Exo and Via tracks could be electrified too
roger1818
Senior Member
There is difference between the residual value of the locomotive and the cost of replacement. It is usually cheaper to refurbish an existing locomotive than it is to replace it (assuming it is in otherwise good condition).
Who would VIA sell them to? If the conditions have changed such that VIA needs to replace them with some type of fully electric locomotive, I don't know how much market there will be for used diesel-electric locomotives. Even if there is a market, they would be getting pennies on the dollar. Another option, since the Charger is partially based on the Siemens ACS-64, is it might be possible to electrify them at time of refurbishment. That could be cheaper (and more politically acceptable) than replacing them. They might even be able to remove the Cummins QSK95 diesel engine and the fuel tank and replace them with batteries. Granted this wouldn't be as good as a new, purpose built locomotive, but it might be an option.
I do tend to agree. I just wouldn't be surprised if the decision is made to electrify HFR. That would most likely be a political decision, not an economic one though.
That is true. I gather the Resonance trains especially have very high maintenance requirements.
I already mentioned bi-directional operation. The Kingston Hub only occurs if HFR is approved and if that happens, VIA has the option to purchase 12 additional trainsets from Siemens, which would be a significant boost to capacity.
Except when you look at the 4 different trainset layouts VIA is planning on using, the short and extra short layouts only use 1 business coach and the extra long layout doesn't have any extra business coaches. This means that unless they convert some of business coaches to economy coaches (either in the existing order of 32 or, as @Urban Sky suggested, in the option to buy more), they will have a bunch of business coaches sitting around collecting dust. If you look at the different configurations, the standard (long) configuration has the highest percentage of business seats.
| Type | Total Seats | Economy Seats | Business Seats | Percent Business |
| Extra short | 176 | 132 | 44 | 25.0% |
| Short | 242 | 198 | 44 | 18.2% |
| Long | 285 | 198 | 87 | 30.5% |
| Extra long | 418 | 331 | 87 | 20.8% |
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
Mostly because they might not need them if funding comes through for BEMUs.
Again, we're all looking at all these discussions through the lens of VIA as they are today. But the Charger/Venture fleet won't be fully delivered till 2024 (2025-2026 for VIA). So 15 years from that is the late 2030s. That is a long ways away. In that time, assuming HFR is built and hopefully even extended, VIA will be a substantially different entity. GO will have hopefully finished the RER buildout and may even be considering service and electrification partly or fully on the HFR corridor to Peterborough. Battery tech may be so good that BEMUs capable of doing 300 km at 200 kph will be available. At that point, it becomes logical for VIA to consider whether a midlife update makes sense or they would be better off selling the whole Charger/Venture fleet to some developing country and get a brand new BEMU fleet, or even just sell the locos and get an electric tractor (like the ACS-64). We'll also have a much higher carbon tax at that point, improving the business case for moving away from diesel substantially.
They are going to plan for a lot more configurations than they will actually use. And none of us will know how that works out till the fleet is in service. There's also the potential HFR order which will then have them ordering different sets of cars to rebalance the fleet for HFR, the Kingston hub and service to Southwestern Ontario. I see them taking all the new fleets with the Long config. And then deploying Extra Long on TOM HFR, Short on Montreal-Quebec HFR and Kingston hub, and Long on the Southwestern Ontario routes.
I get what you're thinking with the percentages of business seats. But that's not exactly how it works. The market for business travelers is somewhat independent to the market for economy travelers. It's not that they'll have 20% or 30% of J class bookings on a given route but that maybe the route will consistently support 1.5 cars worth of business pax.
Lastly, I don't think VIA has planned this far, but airlines to offer upgrades to frequent flyers and that helps retain loyalty. Having a little bit more business capacity would let VIA occasionally bump up frequent users as a reward.
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
That may happen. But it would be a poor decision. Especially when the same amount could get them to London or help the Feds build the Pearson Transit Hub/Union Station West. Or even help build a more robust HFR corridor. Let's not forget that this is currently rumoured to be a single track line with minimal straightening or grade separation. It's basically Ottawa's Trillium Line scaled to intercity service.
Not the worst decision in the world to electrify. But not really a great one either.
roger1818
Senior Member
So a long winded answer to say VIA would sell them to a developing country that doesn't have any carbon emission standards.
Maybe, but I don't think they will have trains with more business cars than economy cars.
Yes, I did say that.
The extra long train needs two extra economy cars and the short frees up one business car, so to build 1 extra long train and 1 short train you need 3 trains and end up with a train with 3 business cars and only 1 economy (cab) car.
I don't think you do get it. The trainset layout they are buying contains a higher percentage of business coaches (and seats) than any other layout they plan to use. That means they will have too many business coaches and not enough economy coaches. Even worse, since the extra long trainset uses two economy 1A coaches (and two economy 1B coaches) and all other train layouts use economy 1A coaches, the only way to build an extra long trainset is to steal a coach from another trainset (and either park it or have an oddball trainset with more business than economy coaches).
Now this can be fixed by having some business 3B coaches converted to economy 1A (and a few 1B) coaches either in this order or the next one.
Sure, but that doesn't really solve anything with regards to coach deployment.
One thing I did notice is I can't find a current reference to the new fleet having a total of 9120 seats (though one reference claims that the current corridor fleet has 9120 seats, but my math says more). It is possible that VIA has changed the order and is converting some of the business coaches into economy coaches to allow them to build the predicted number of each layout of trainsets they need. This would be good as it would result in an increased number of seats overall.
Last edited:
Urban Sky
Senior Member
No worries, I'm fully aware that it's easier to keep not-just-slightly-past-the-actual-topic discussions away from a thread if a more pertinent thread exists and is known, which is why I created these two new threads!
The problem is not your math, but your assumptions: With the HEP II Business fleet being converted to LRC interiors, the Business seat count should be 120 seats lower. The bigger discrepancy, however, is the Renaissance fleet, which was already down to two Corridor cycles (serving 20-37 and 24-29 the following day) before CoVid hit. Even if we assume that there are 3 consists in total (2 in service, 1 in maintenance), the active Corridor Renaissance fleet would be only 12 Economy cars and 3 Business cars (IIRC, the Renaissance Corridor sets were extended to 4 Economy cars a few years ago), thus 720 seats (192 Economy and 528 Business) less. I'll let you do the math, but I'm confident that it will show that the new fleet will increase the available number of seats available in the Corridor fleet, even before taking things like a higher utilization rate (e.g. car-miles per year) into account...
To the best of my knowledge, designing (at least of the specifications of) the new maintenance facilities (within the premises of MMC and TMC) to accommodate the new fleet is part of the Fleet Renewal contract, which was awarded to Siemens, even though the construction of these new maintenance facilities is currently tendered through an RFP and the maintenance itself will indeed be performed by VIA employees:
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
Not what I said. But sure, if you feel feisty over a disposal method and want to ignore the actual point, go with that.....
Implicit in your post is the assumption that coaches can't be easily reconfigured at depot. And that they must be sidelined if they don't fit a consist configuration on a PowerPoint slide. I don't think that's how things work in the real world. The coaches are configurable. And should be particularly easy between subtypes in the same category. (Economy 1B to 4A).
Not that they would. But if demand warranted it, they absolutely should. That's how economics works. Acela in the US is an example of this. All business class service.
Last edited:
roger1818
Senior Member
Thanks. Your posts are always a breath of fresh air. I got my information from VIA's webpage on the Galley business car. I guess this page needs to be updated.
Interesting. I got the total of 30 Renaissance cars from the 2017 Corporate Plan I previously linked (and got the Bus and Econ numbers by assuming that all 14 Renaissance Business cars are used on the Corridor). I was then confused that the 2020 (as well as the 2019) NGEC fleet update (that I also linked to) reduced that number to 23, but then added 7 HEP I cars to the fleet to compensate. Now you are saying that number has been further reduced to 15? What fleet size/mix did VIA use when they calculated their current "Total Capacity" of 9120 seats in the 2019 NGEC fleet update?
It sure will be good to get the Renaissance fleet out of service on the corridor. I guess they were better than nothing, allowing VIA to shoestring service for a bit longer, but the new fleet will be a breath of fresh air and will allow VIA
I'll have to get back to you on the math, but we need to look at the size of the fleet at the time the new fleet was requested, not the size of the diminished fleet since then due to equipment becoming inoperable. Even more important is the what size of fleet VIA needs to meet future demand. The extra trains for HFR will be great, but even without HFR, VIA would need to grow its corridor fleet.