VIA Rail

[smallspy]

I am curious how this will be done with the new fleet? As previously noted, the Chargers and Cab Cars will have a semi-permanent coupler at one end and a standard coupler at the other. That means an extra Charger locomotive can only be coupled nose to nose. I see three possible solutions:

1. Put an extra charger locomotive at the back of the train (nose to nose). The locomotive would then need to be wyed at the end of the line, since the cab would be facing the wrong way,
2. Replace the Cab Car with a locomotive. This would reduce capacity of the train and I am not sure if the semi-permanent couplers have a gender, which would prevent this.
3. Seasonally add an F40PH-2 locomotive to the consist on trains that travel through Brantford.

As I have mentioned before, I suspect that the new fleet will operate with the Charger facing west when west of Montreal and facing east when east of Montreal. Central station has limited ventilation, and having the locomotive last to enter the station and first to leave would be beneficial.

The Chargers in the new sets are equipped with sanders, so that's at least one point that's taken care of.

And one of the things that VIA will be testing prior to the launch of service is how the new sets handle things like leaves on the track. While the first set that they've gotten won't be ready to test this years fallen leaves, there are other methods that they can use to simulate it for testing.

Another way is an operational procedure, much in the way you suspect that they will always operate cab-car-in at Central. Running with the loco pushing up grades where poor traction is known to happen can help prevent the train from stalling, as all of the wheels on the rail ahead of the propelling wheels will help clean the rail head.

I'm also surprised that they are doing heavy work on LRC's considering they will be retired in 2 years. (https://www.railpictures.net/photo/768224/)

That car was involved in a sideswipe collision just west of Kingston 2 years ago and received some structural damage at the vestibule on the other side of the car. I'm not sure if they are intending on repairing the car, or pulling it to bits to supply the rest of the fleet.

Dan

 

[Urban Sky]

Others might be able to confirm, but my guess is that MMC is operating at reduced capacity as it is being transitioned to support the new fleet. That coach could also have sustained damage that are beyond the capabilities of MMC. All we have to work with is a photo taken in April without any background story. Whatever work is being done on it, VIA can't afford to just retire the coach yet.

Every major refurbishment programme requires capital funding, which means that we would have heard about any such project involving LRC cars...

 

[crs1026]

Just in: VIA's Minister remains unchanged in the new Cabinet.

Reading the first-report media commentary, Transport is neither a controversial area for the government, nor an area where change or rapid progress is a public priority.

The good news (and bad news, depending on one's POV) is that VIA is likely to continue chugging along at its existing pace and momentum.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

Recent article in the Hill Times on HFR (it's more than 10,000 characters so can't be posted here):

hfr-ht.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[cplchanb]

Has there been any updates on when they will start testing the new trainset?

 

[kEiThZ]

Just in: VIA's Minister remains unchanged in the new Cabinet.

Reading the first-report media commentary, Transport is neither a controversial area for the government, nor an area where change or rapid progress is a public priority.

The good news (and bad news, depending on one's POV) is that VIA is likely to continue chugging along at its existing pace and momentum.

- Paul

I see this as good news. Continuity will help get shovels in the ground faster.

 

[roger1818]

I see this as good news. Continuity will help get shovels in the ground faster.

Certainly better the devil you know than the devil you don't. I am not convinced that someone else couldn't get shovels in the ground faster, but I agree that more likely would be for it to be slower with someone else. What will be more interesting is to if having Steven Guilbeault as Minister of Environment and Climate Change will help.

 

[Fritter]

What will be more interesting is to if having Steven Guilbeault as Minister of Environment and Climate Change will help.

I've always wondered for a Government/Party so big into climate change and helping the environment why they haven't announced a "trains to everywhere!' policy. One would think that would be an easy win for them, however it seams they border on just wanting to get rid of VIA altogether!

 

[p_xavier]

I've always wondered for a Government/Party so big into climate change and helping the environment why they haven't announced a "trains to everywhere!' policy. One would think that would be an easy win for them, however it seams they border on just wanting to get rid of VIA altogether!

It's pure hypocrisy at this stage.

 

[Urban Sky]

I've always wondered for a Government/Party so big into climate change and helping the environment why they haven't announced a "trains to everywhere!' policy. One would think that would be an easy win for them, however it seams they border on just wanting to get rid of VIA altogether!

FYI, the party/government in question has released a billion on a new fleet for VIA and half a billion on bringing HFR closer towards reality - on both measures the largest amounts any government has ever allocated to VIA!

Also, trains have a worse per-vehicle-mile environmental footprint than almost any alternative mode (incl. airplanes and trucks). It's only Economies of Scale which may make them an environmentally advantageous mode, but that depends on the demand it can satisfy and the exact technological and operational environment. "Building trains everywhere!" is the exact opposite of making rational decisions which maximize the environmental benefits given the constrained nature of financial and non-financial resources...

 

[p_xavier]

FYI, the party/government in question has released a billion on a new fleet for VIA and half a billion on bringing HFR closer towards reality - on both measures the largest amounts any government has ever allocated to VIA!

Also, trains have a worse per-vehicle-mile environmental footprint than almost any alternative mode (incl. airplanes and trucks). It's only Economies of Scale which may make them an environmentally advantageous mode, but that depends on the demand it can satisfy and the exact technological and operational environment. "Building trains everywhere!" is the exact opposite of making rational decisions which maximize the environmental benefits given the constrained nature of financial and non-financial resources...

This is something that is unfortunately not known enough. Diesel trains pollute a lot compared to buses.

 

[EnviroTO]

The comparison always needs to emissions per passenger and comparing trains and buses created in the same era. I have a hard time believing the new VIA fleet will have higher emissions per passenger per trip than a bus.

 

[Urban Sky]

The comparison always needs to emissions per passenger and comparing trains and buses created in the same era. I have a hard time believing the new VIA fleet will have higher emissions per passenger per trip than a bus.

I was referring to emissions-per-service-km. The environmental advantage of trains (expressed as emissions per passenger-km or ton-km) comes from its superior capacity, but that requires you to transport more people (or goods) than what a single car/bus/train/airplane can transport. That's why I'm so skeptical of restoring passenger rail service in Western Canada: because the passenger loads one can expect would easily fit into one bus...

 

[Northern Light]

That's why I'm so skeptical of restoring passenger rail service in Western Canada: because the passenger loads one can expect would easily fit into one bus...

I'm not sure about that assumption.

On what is it predicated? Current/recent bus travel? Plane travel?

I would suggest there is likely latent demand for a lower price point, w/less hassle than a plane, and for service that can be faster than a bus.

I would certainly be amenable to the argument that simply restoring past services, at past speeds/price points may not be a commercially viable or ridership heavy option.

But in so far as we're talking about serving major urban centres (or connections to them) I suspect that there is a material market.

Now, whether that market can be accessed at a reasonable cost to the state is a fair, and different question.

Whether its Edmonton-Calgary, or Regina-Saskatoon or Winnipeg-T.Bay; such services would almost certainly have to be better their best historic travel times to be competitive and drive a material benefit
both in public utility and environmentally.

Whether the cost in upgraded track conditions, second track/longer passing tracks etc. and new rolling stock/power is justified is an open question.

But I certainly think its one worthy of study in due course.

Though perhaps, we can get HFR in the corridor up and running (or at least under construction) and then go from there.

 

[EnviroTO]

I was referring to emissions-per-service-km. The environmental advantage of trains (expressed as emissions per passenger-km or ton-km) comes from its superior capacity, but that requires you to transport more people (or goods) than what a single car/bus/train/airplane can transport. That's why I'm so skeptical of restoring passenger rail service in Western Canada: because the passenger loads one can expect would easily fit into one bus...

You need to be running the train service with the goal of carrying a significant number of passengers to compare it to buses with the goal of carrying a significant number of passengers. I don't think they have ever run the cross Canada services in a way where maximizing the number of passengers was a priority. In the corridor VIA is clearly a green option. Riding the Canadian in steel bodied cars from the 1940s and 1950s on a train that is constantly stopping and starting with most of the passengers being tourists in bedrooms, dining cars, and observation cars doesn't strike me as a service where the goal is green transportation. If you tried to deliver the service of the Canadian using buses (i.e. meals at the dining room table hot out of the kitchen, beds, and lounge seats) then you would probably need a huge fleet of buses to replace the Canadian and that would obviously be less green.