News   Apr 01, 2026
UrbanToronto Explores the State of Environment with Special Features Throughout April
 171     0 
News   Apr 01, 2026
UTPro Crane Report Q1 2026: Year-to-Year Dip, But Quarterly Rise
 395     0 
News   Apr 01, 2026
Transit Progress and Tall Towers Made Headlines in March, 2026
 679     0 

VIA Rail

20210126_153319.jpg


www.instagram.com

JJ on Instagram: "Via Rail SCB-40 2200 and BLF (Brightline) SCB-40 111 rest outside awaiting completion in Florin, California. Taken January 23rd, 2021. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 📸Nikon D3500 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #pocket_rail #pocket_r

460 likes, 37 comments - placerrailphotography on January 26, 2021: "Via Rail SCB-40 2200 and BLF (Brightline) SCB-40 111 rest outside awaiting completion in Florin, California. Taken January 23rd, 2021. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 📸Nikon D3500 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #pocket_rail...
www.instagram.com www.instagram.com
 
That picture shows the front better that the previous ones. It does look to be slightly modified compared to the VIA renderings - the headlights curve in instead of being angled, and the entire front has a gentle curve across the bottom instead of some sharper angles. Overall, it still looks much better than the stub-nosed SC-44s from the Amtrak States orders and the beak-nosed AlC-42 from the Amtrak national order, and if this is for VIA I like it a bit more than their original rendering. I don't totally understand why Siemens seems to make a bespoke nose for every variant, but I guess it makes trainspotting easy.

With that said, this new angle makes me question if this is for VIA, and if it is what their livery will be. It's not all grey waiting for vinyl - the paint on the nose has some intricacy to it and does not match the renderings in any way. Is this possibly for another customer, or did VIA change their livery that much? Brightline is also waiting for more SCB-40s, and they could have decided on a nose-coneless design for more flexibility - the curves on this unit match their existing units well.
 
It is possible that it was decided to put the grey stripe on the top and the Yellow Stripe on the bottom. Maybe they felt that the yellow would show the dirt (diesel particulates?) faster than the grey. A grimy look is hardly the image they would want to go for. It may also have difficult to colour match the the yellow above and below the vents.
 
trebello said:
I think it would be more politically challenging to cancel The Canadian than order new rolling stock. HFR and The Corridor in general are obviously where VIA needs to focus on expansion, but I think cancelling The Canadian because the government didn't want to replace the rolling stock would open a whole can of worms politically. Hopefully they can keep going with the Budd equipment long enough that they're able to get the investment in HFR going without any drama regarding expanding service in Quebec and Ontario while possibly discontinuing it in the west. I think the subtle deal with rail service in this country is VIA maintains a skeletal service from coast to coast and people don't complain (too much) that most of the service is concentrated in Ontario and Quebec (where it makes the most economic sense).
Click to expand...
Perhaps with this replacement reality coming up its going to give the impetus to divest Via into a private company with govt mandates. Apart from the couple of panoramic cars in the 2000s I dont think Via has ever invested anything in new rolling stock since they were formed.
They will probably offload the Canadian and the Ocean first before they buy more trains.
 
robmausser said:
We will never get a fleet replacement of the Canadian. The only thing that will ever happen to that will be its eventual selling off to someone like Rocky Mountaineer as a tourist train.

Replacing that money pit with a new fleet would be political suicide.
Click to expand...

If it is a money pit like you claim, who would buy it?
 
roger1818 said:
If it is a money pit like you claim, who would buy it?
Click to expand...
I think it would be very politically unpopular to discontinue a service that has been mandated as essential for God knows how long.

And with a focus on a greener economy, it would be good PR for the government to invest in railways. Plus it can be presented as a make work project after covid to help the economy.

Not sure what Erin O'Toole mandate would look like but I don't think there is a chance that he's going to get elected with a majority mandate anytime soon.

And in a minority, the NDP, Greens and Liberals would not let VIA dissaperar.

With Amtrak Biden in the white house and a Multi billion dollar hole in the capital budget for Amtrak there is a possibility that VIA has an opportunity to tack on to an Amtrak order. It happened with the P42's and the new corridor fleet, what's to say it won't happen again.
 
roger1818 said:
If it is a money pit like you claim, who would buy it?
Click to expand...
Thankfully, it isn’t a money pit and with direct revenues representing 101.2% of direct costs in 2017 and 90.2% in 2018, Canadian taxpayers would be worse off without the Canadian, at least after accounting for the direct (sales tax paid on the ticket price) and indirect (sales and other consumption taxes on any other goods and services consumed by international tourists, which would otherwise probably have benefitted the taxpayers of a different country) tax revenues it generates:
1585527242974-png.238779

Source: re-post from post #6,707 and #7,870

However, given that no railroad can capture these direct and indirect tax revenues it generates, the Canadian in its current (pre-CoVid) state is economically viable only for a public railroad, but not a private one. You just have to compare its offerings with that of RMR or the Indian Pacific or Ghan in Australia to estimate what privatizing it would do to keeping transcontinental rail service accessible to most Canadians...
 
Last edited:
Plus to mandate a private company to provide an essential service will require a subsidy. Is that cheaper than doing it yourself? Since now they can take the earnings from the corridor and put it towards the Canadian and Ocean. But without that, it's going to be less economically viable.
 
I think that's a good point - - I've heard people claim The Canadian is effectively the government subsidising wealthy tourists, but in reality it would cost Transport Canada a lot more to subsidise a mandated essential service if there wasn't a bunch of tourists paying top dollar to ride in prestige class. In a way those tourists are helping to subsidise an essential service instead of having taxpayers doing it. Privatising the service would obviously still require a subsidy if essential service was to be offered in areas that aren't profitable for a private operator (e.g. in Northern Ontario in the winter). If Australia is any indication (the Indian Pacific as Urban Sky mentioned), the subsidy to a private company would eventually prove unpopular and be dropped, leaving only a trans-continental Rocky Mountaineer type train. Once, about 10 years ago on the Canadian a staff member told me they'd heard of a possibility of VIA somehow partnering with RMR in some way, but this was back in the Steven Harper days and I haven't heard a thing about it since (if it was even true in the first place).
 
roger1818 said:
Given that the seating in business class is 2+1 but in economy it is 2+2, there is a good chance that the seats are wider in business class.
Click to expand...

I stumbled across some evidence to back this up. According to Wikipedia, Brightline's "Select" coaches (their name for business class) have "21-inch (530 mm)-wide seats" while their "Smart" fare coaches (economy) have "narrower 19-inch (480 mm)-wide seats." Now there is no guarantee that VIA will use the same seats as Brightline, but there is a good chance they will since they are going for the same 2x1 seating arrangement in business class.
 
trebello said:
I think that's a good point - - I've heard people claim The Canadian is effectively the government subsidising wealthy tourists, but in reality it would cost Transport Canada a lot more to subsidise a mandated essential service if there wasn't a bunch of tourists paying top dollar to ride in prestige class. In a way those tourists are helping to subsidise an essential service instead of having taxpayers doing it. Privatising the service would obviously still require a subsidy if essential service was to be offered in areas that aren't profitable for a private operator (e.g. in Northern Ontario in the winter). If Australia is any indication (the Indian Pacific as Urban Sky mentioned), the subsidy to a private company would eventually prove unpopular and be dropped, leaving only a trans-continental Rocky Mountaineer type train. Once, about 10 years ago on the Canadian a staff member told me they'd heard of a possibility of VIA somehow partnering with RMR in some way, but this was back in the Steven Harper days and I haven't heard a thing about it since (if it was even true in the first place).
Click to expand...

The media likes to divide any subsidy that can even remotely be attributed to the Canadian equally among the passengers, regardless of whether they are paying several thousands dollars or a few hundred dollars per person. That isn't really fair as the person paying more is likely paying more than their share of the costs of operating the train (even if you consider the extra costs of providing premium service). It makes for good headlines though, regardless of how misleading it is.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top