sacred
Active Member
This is the type of comment I feel should be unwelcome here.
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
micheal_can
Senior Member
You mean honest people? He states the truth that lots of people here want to ignore.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
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
Senior Member
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
Senior Member
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
Senior Member
He states an opinion. Just because it aligns with your opinion does not automatically make it "the truth".
Last edited:
roger1818
Senior Member
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.
NOTES:
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 |
- I believe this to be a correct interpretation, but please correct me if I made any errors.
- LRC Sets 4, 6, 12, and 13 have economy cars added and removed during the week. I went with the largest configuration.
- 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.
- LRC Sets 18-21 are combined with HEP sets 8, 9, 5 and 6 respectively to form mixed LRC/HEP trainsets.
- I am only counting passenger cars and am ignoring baggage and service cars.
roger1818
Senior Member
Part 2/2
From this, I tried to match the closest new fleet trainset configuration to the existing trainsets as follows:
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?
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
Senior Member
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.
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
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
Senior Member
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.
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.
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).
robmausser
Senior Member
At least Set 7 is now a 3 car on the Sarnia route through Kitchener. It used to be 2 car. I guess thats the EXTRA Extra Short set
crs1026
Superstar
^Nice work!
While I'm sure VIA will tweak its cycling and timetables plenty when the new fleet arrives, it does give one confidence that the new fleet can cover the existing operation - close enough anyways.
It strikes me that 3+1 may be the benchmark default train size, with 3+2 being a clever way to extract the most revenue from slots with growing demand.... where ridership starts to exceed 3+1, switch to 3+2 thus offering the incremental capacity at premium fare.
The other building block may be using two Extra Shorts together when 3+2 fills up....it's effectively 4+2. Lots of permutations and combinations possible if the different consists are J-trained. Perhaps the retained HEP fleet would substitute for a 2+1 and these would be J-trained with the longer versions to build bigger consists on peak days.
I'm trying to imagine how to schedule those three Extra Long trainsets to maximum advantage. Three is not a lot. I can envision one round trip to Windsor daily and two round trips east of Toronto.
- Paul
While I'm sure VIA will tweak its cycling and timetables plenty when the new fleet arrives, it does give one confidence that the new fleet can cover the existing operation - close enough anyways.
It strikes me that 3+1 may be the benchmark default train size, with 3+2 being a clever way to extract the most revenue from slots with growing demand.... where ridership starts to exceed 3+1, switch to 3+2 thus offering the incremental capacity at premium fare.
The other building block may be using two Extra Shorts together when 3+2 fills up....it's effectively 4+2. Lots of permutations and combinations possible if the different consists are J-trained. Perhaps the retained HEP fleet would substitute for a 2+1 and these would be J-trained with the longer versions to build bigger consists on peak days.
I'm trying to imagine how to schedule those three Extra Long trainsets to maximum advantage. Three is not a lot. I can envision one round trip to Windsor daily and two round trips east of Toronto.
- Paul
Last edited:
roger1818
Senior Member
Continuing my analysis from yesterday, if we assume quantify of each new trainset that I posted, VIA would be using the following quantity of each train and car type:
Assuming they buy 32, long trains (and thus 32 of each car type), they would end up with 18 spare Business 3B cars and only 1 spare Economy 1A and 2 spare Economy 1B cars, and this is with using only 3 extra long trainsets. As an opposite extreme, if for the Long trainsets that resulted in a significant reduction in seats (HEPII Set 3 and LRC Sets 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 15), they used Extra Long Trainsets instead, the quantity of each train and car type used would change as follows:
As you can see, in terms of the total number of cars available, they are fine, but they are short 13 economy cars (7 x 1A and 6 x 1B), yet still have 18 extra Business 3B cars. I know some will argue, VIA could just substitute Business 3B cars on those trains, but as @Urban Sky previously said,
I don’t know which of these features a Business 3B car will have, but it is quite likely that by substituting those for the Economy 1A and 1B cars, it is probable that they would end up with a shortage of certain required amenities, for the length of train in operation.
It is very likely that the cost to build either type of economy car would be very similar to the cost to build a business car (yes there are more seats, but economy seats likely cost less than business seats), especially when considering the total cost of the order. This is of course assuming the change request is made early enough in the order process. Once Siemens has started ordering materials, or worse, begun construction, the cost would grow significantly. I would hope that VIA has already done this based on their projected needs.
Now I don’t expect any of this to reflect what VIA actually wants or needs as much of what they are currently running is likely a compromise based on what they have available to them. This new fleet purchase is a chance to start from a clean slate and buy what they actually need going forward based on projected ridership. This is just to show examples of what could be done.
| Size | Qty | Business 3A | Business 3B | Economy 1A | Economy 1B | Economy Cab 4A | Total |
| Extra short | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Short | 13 | 13 | 0 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 52 |
| Long | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 55 |
| Extra long | 3 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 21 |
| Total | 28 | 28 | 14 | 31 | 30 | 28 | 131 |
| Spares | 4 | 18 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 29 |
Assuming they buy 32, long trains (and thus 32 of each car type), they would end up with 18 spare Business 3B cars and only 1 spare Economy 1A and 2 spare Economy 1B cars, and this is with using only 3 extra long trainsets. As an opposite extreme, if for the Long trainsets that resulted in a significant reduction in seats (HEPII Set 3 and LRC Sets 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 15), they used Extra Long Trainsets instead, the quantity of each train and car type used would change as follows:
| Size | Qty | Business 3A | Business 3B | Economy 1A | Economy 1B | Economy Cab 4A | Total |
| Extra short | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Short | 13 | 13 | 0 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 52 |
| Long | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 15 |
| Extra long | 11 | 11 | 11 | 22 | 22 | 11 | 77 |
| Total | 28 | 28 | 14 | 39 | 38 | 28 | 147 |
| Spares | 4 | 18 | -7 | -6 | 4 | 13 |
As you can see, in terms of the total number of cars available, they are fine, but they are short 13 economy cars (7 x 1A and 6 x 1B), yet still have 18 extra Business 3B cars. I know some will argue, VIA could just substitute Business 3B cars on those trains, but as @Urban Sky previously said,
I don’t know which of these features a Business 3B car will have, but it is quite likely that by substituting those for the Economy 1A and 1B cars, it is probable that they would end up with a shortage of certain required amenities, for the length of train in operation.
It is very likely that the cost to build either type of economy car would be very similar to the cost to build a business car (yes there are more seats, but economy seats likely cost less than business seats), especially when considering the total cost of the order. This is of course assuming the change request is made early enough in the order process. Once Siemens has started ordering materials, or worse, begun construction, the cost would grow significantly. I would hope that VIA has already done this based on their projected needs.
Now I don’t expect any of this to reflect what VIA actually wants or needs as much of what they are currently running is likely a compromise based on what they have available to them. This new fleet purchase is a chance to start from a clean slate and buy what they actually need going forward based on projected ridership. This is just to show examples of what could be done.
crs1026
Superstar
^I may have lost the thread on why there have to be two variations of Coach and two of Business Car, but taking that as read, it's apparent from the extra short version trainset that "A" cars are all that is needed to equip a trainset with all the prerequisite accessibility, technology, and service delivery equipment. The "B" cars may augment that, but one assumes that the "master" version of everything important is in the A's, and the "B" cars are fill-outs.
That leads one to think that the "B" cars ought to be generic and most easily convertible from one configuration to the other. So, if the distribution were found to be sub-optimal, it would be most practical to shift from Coach B to Business B or vv.
So long as that's roughly true, then I wouldn't worry about getting the initial distribution exactly right. Changeovers will be pretty doable.
One has to think that the chair frames will use common components, even if the cushions and backs differ. One hopes that moving between 2-2 and 2-1 seating doesn't require rebuilding anything structural, and wiring etc is compatible. I expect Siemens and VIA will have thought this through.
- Paul
That leads one to think that the "B" cars ought to be generic and most easily convertible from one configuration to the other. So, if the distribution were found to be sub-optimal, it would be most practical to shift from Coach B to Business B or vv.
So long as that's roughly true, then I wouldn't worry about getting the initial distribution exactly right. Changeovers will be pretty doable.
One has to think that the chair frames will use common components, even if the cushions and backs differ. One hopes that moving between 2-2 and 2-1 seating doesn't require rebuilding anything structural, and wiring etc is compatible. I expect Siemens and VIA will have thought this through.
- Paul
roger1818
Senior Member
I agree. Certainly my analysis shows that the "Short" trains are the most common configuration. What I don't know is if VIA's current standard 5 car LRC train (4+1) is based on equipment availability or actual demand. For all we know, business class may be selling out before economy class (or the cost of those last few business class seats is growing to the point where it isn't worth the fare differential).
That might be a decent alternative. The question is if the front car of the trainset will have a standard or semi-permanent coupler to couple with the locomotive (having 2 locomotives on such a train seems needless)? Since it always seems to always be a Business 3A car and all trainsets only have 1 Business 3A car, there is no real reason for it to be semi-permanent, so I guess they could couple it to the cab car. There would be no way to travel between the two trainsets though. Maybe I should try another analysis with this configuration.
This coupler style would allow them to maintain baggage service by coupling a HEP baggage car behind the Charger, though they would still end up with the same limitations in push operation at stations where the Engineers do the baggage handling that is seen with LRC Set 1.
The longest corridor trainsets were HEP Sets 1 and 2 as well as LRC Set 4 ran with 6 cars (though the LRC only had 6 cars Thursday to Sunday). HEP Sets 1 and 2 alternated between running between Ottawa-Toronto-London and back (overnighting in Ottawa and London during the week and at either TMC or Ottawa on weekends, presumably for weekly maintenance). LRC Set 4 alternated between running between Montreal-Toronto-Windsor one day and back the next, alternating between overnighting in MMC and Windsor. The common denominator with them is that they are all morning/early afternoon trains into Toronto and afternoon/evening trains out with a tendency towards (though not always) the trains with fewer stops. I expect that would continue with the new fleet (at least until HFR).