Ratazana
New Member
Why not revamping them completely by borrowing a page from the herringbone seats on plane’s business class?
I agree that the Business Class design could look more vibrant and inspiring than on that photo, but would you mind sharing some pictures to visualize what you have in mind?View attachment 363820With Via getting brand new train sets, I am wondering why their business class seats are still stuck in the past. The seats are almost exactly the same as economy except for the extra space between seats. And the extra spaces aren’t making the seats more comfortable nor adding function. Look at the space between the doubles seats. If you put a cup of coffee there, it’s gonna be easily knocked over when you move you legs.
Why not revamping them completely by borrowing a page from the herringbone seats on plane’s business class?
It will increase speeds? I must have missed something there - aren't they still constrained to 160 km/hr because of the level crossing issue? Or are there points through the Canadian Shield where there are so few crossings, that it's viable to go faster, and/or do some grade separations.OK, true, but you're ignoring the fact that HFR will increase T-M speeds and frequencies. Not exactly a demand reducer, really.
I've proposed that there be a single route from Toronto, to Kingston, along the alignment VIA proposed to Smith Falls, then into Ottawa and onto Montreal - with no bypass - for about 3.5 hours as VIA proposed. Or 3.6 hours if Urban Sky's Ecotrain numbers are more correct.Except Mirabel was a bad idea, which split services like you're proposing to do.
Sure, if people can stop pretending that there won't be a loss of the potential for express services between Toronto to Montreal.Cool. So you can stop acting like HFR doesn't improve Toronto-Montreal at all?
It's also predicated on a certain ridership, and revenue, which I'm concerned isn't achievable with the relatively slow travel times for Toronto to Montreal.The project isn't predicated on improving just Toronto-Montreal ridership or providing equal improvements on every segment. It's predicated on achieving a total improvement on ridership.
The 3:38 time was, according to Urban Sky, for the 200 km/hr option - not HSR. (BTW, @Urban Sky, your Dropbox link in your post doesn't seem to work). Are you suggesting they are over-estimating the 3:38 time, because they were biased to the faster HSR times?Because the Ecotrain study was literally a High Speed Rail study?
Same department. Same city. Similar issue. The biggest problem there was that they got in their mind, that this was the answer to everything, and couldn't let it go, despite being told time and time again by others that the concept was systemically flawed. The end result was that Montreal lost the position of having the primary hub in Eastern Canada - which certainly didn't help the economic decline of the late 1970s and 1980s.What does this ridiculous Mirabel red herring have to do with anything? You're just resorting to random moved goalposts now.
Sorry? Where did I say I'd oppose investment. I've even advocated for additional investment for HFR west of Toronto. It's a brilliant scheme - poorly executed. In another thread I've vocally opposed the Ontario line, but also said the worst thing that the Liberals can do is cancel it if they are elected.So we're at the point now where you will actually oppose investment, if it doesn't fit your narrow definition of preferred routing or form. You're no friend of public transport.
Here’s an example.I agree that the Business Class design could look more vibrant and inspiring than on that photo, but would you mind sharing some pictures to visualize what you have in mind?
Please quote whichever text has an incorrect link. I checked all links in my previous two posts while logged out of Dropbox and they seem to work...(BTW, @Urban Sky, your Dropbox link in your post doesn't seem to work)
Do you know of any rail services in any country, which have such a type of seats in a two-class configuration? I ask because I can only think of JR West's Gran Class, but there it is as a First Class and thus even above Business ("green") Class...
The 3:38 time was, according to Urban Sky, for the 200 km/hr option - not HSR.
Same department.
Sure, if people can stop pretending that there won't be a loss of the potential for express services between Toronto to Montreal.
Do you know of any rail services in any country, which have such a type of seats in a two-class configuration? I ask because I can only think of JR West's Gran Class, but there it is as a First Class and thus even above Business ("green") Class...
I have only seen one on Google search. https://i2.wp.com/railtravelstation...abaya-Pasar-Turi-078.jpg?resize=768,512&ssl=1Please quote whichever text has an incorrect link. I checked all links in my previous two posts while logged out of Dropbox and they seem to work...
Do you know of any rail services in any country, which have such a type of seats in a two-class configuration? I ask because I can only think of JR West's Gran Class, but there it is as a First Class and thus even above Business ("green") Class...
I would agree to stand the whole way if you can get me from Toronto to Montreal in less than 2 hours. Lol.I am curious. How do passenger rail operators normally decide on LOPA? I sort of find it odd that the higher speed services (such as the Shinkansen) can offer something like Gran Class, but that the market can't support something like that on a service with longer trip times. That seems counter-intuitive.
You can apparently find these cars on a luxury night train called Argo Bromo Anggrek, so hardly applicable to VIA's Corridor service:
It will decrease travel times, by reducing freight interference.It will increase speeds? I must have missed something there - aren't they still constrained to 160 km/hr because of the level crossing issue? Or are there points through the Canadian Shield where there are so few crossings, that it's viable to go faster, and/or do some grade separations.
If you take your lovely press conference as proof, the minister said at the same conference that T-M trip times would decrease by up to 90 minutes.Yes, it will increase Montreal-Toronto demand - if delivered as promised. I'm deeply suspicious though that they'll be able to maintain fast frequent services from places like Kingston to the other 3 cities - and wonder if the increased demand would exceed the losses there. And I'm deeply suspicious that they can even get to Agincourt in any decent time. If they really planning to go up the Don Valley to the CP line - then why are Metrolinx building a (very controversial) storage yard on the very track VIA would be running on?
You can't have your cake and eat it too.In other words, it's not happening.
In other words, along the current alignment.I've proposed that there be a single route from Toronto, to Kingston, along the alignment VIA proposed to Smith Falls, then into Ottawa and onto Montreal - with no bypass - for about 3.5 hours as VIA proposed. Or 3.6 hours if Urban Sky's Ecotrain numbers are more correct.
An decrease of trip times on every trip is not a loss of the potential for express services.HFR greatly splits services, with plans for Kingston-Ottawa, Kingston-Montreal, and Kingston-Toronto services in addition to the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal HFR service. And now apparently with a potential bypass of Ottawa.
Sure, if people can stop pretending that there won't be a loss of the potential for express services between Toronto to Montreal.
How about we scrap the current services, because they're not up to an arbitrary standard you've set in your head?It's also predicated on a certain ridership, and revenue, which I'm concerned isn't achievable with the relatively slow travel times for Toronto to Montreal.
I hope you're wrong too.The addition of the Ottawa bypass to the HFR map makes me fear that my concerns are correct, and the bypass is the lipstick for the pig. I hope I'm wrong!
Are we talking about VIA Fast? No way we can get 3:38 today. Unless you live in a time capsule?The 3:38 time was, according to Urban Sky, for the 200 km/hr option - not HSR. (BTW, @Urban Sky, your Dropbox link in your post doesn't seem to work). Are you suggesting they are over-estimating the 3:38 time, because they were biased to the faster HSR times?
No, not really. We're talking about linear services, not a division of concentrated services.Same department. Same city. Similar issue.
Mirabel would have been a better idea if they closed Dorval altogether, since it would concentrate the aviation investment. Instead of improving two airports, they would only need to improve a single airport.The biggest problem there was that they got in their mind, that this was the answer to everything, and couldn't let it go, despite being told time and time again by others that the concept was systemically flawed. The end result was that Montreal lost the position of having the primary hub in Eastern Canada - which certainly didn't help the economic decline of the late 1970s and 1980s.
Like ignoring evidence and not using critical thinking.Criticizing potential flaws in a plan isn't opposing public transport. It's that kind of "my way or the highway" approach that we see more and more in the workplace, that removes the essential critical thinking to come up with the best possible plan.
I think HFR could be better.I'd be thrilled to see them go ahead with this - even as planned. But I have concerns, and a belief it could be a lot better.
Working fine now ... wanted me to sign-in last night - perhaps I did something stupid. Thanks for putting this stuff up.Please quote whichever text has an incorrect link. I checked all links in my previous two posts while logged out of Dropbox and they seem to work...
As far as I know, Transport Canada has/had the ultimate say on both HFR and Mirabel. Though hopefully the involvement of the CIB would provide a more neutral and realistic business case than at Mirabel.VIA built Mirabel? Learn something new everyday....
Also, do you know who was running the Canada Infrastructure Bank back then?
Because it's no where near the performance that could be obtained by adding dedicated track (and new legislation) to the Kingston Sub between Toronto and Kingston (and incrementally further). It's not even anywhere near as good as what VIA could achieve until relatively recently when CN started being increasingly difficult.Serious question. If every train is better than today's express trains, why should anybody not see this as an improvement?
As does the HFR plan of maintaining service on the Kingston-Toronto, Kingston-Montreal, and Kingston-Ottawa services. Not to mention the Montreal-Drummondville and Quebec City-Drummondville services (and if maintaining those is important, where are the Quebec-Sherbrooke and Montreal-Sherbrook services!).Also, separate express trains to Montreal, isn't exactly inconsequential. As I (and others) have pointed out, this kind of operation has consequences for frequency, operating cost, etc.
You said faster trains, not decreased travel times. Decreased (and better) travel times could be achieved on the existing alignments if there was political will to legislate on how additional federally-funded tracks were to be used.It will decrease travel times, by reducing freight interference.
Given that most of the HFR system getting new service is going to be shared with freight, doesn't that kill HFR as well?Have you seriously never ever heard of the freight carriers?
Ah, that's where I heard it - doesn't that imply that T-M service is using the Ottawa bypass from the very beginning?If you take your lovely press conference as proof, the minister said at the same conference that T-M trip times would decrease by up to 90 minutes.
The minister himself said they'd be knocking 90 minutes off the T-M travel times! That would put them less than 4 hours - which can't be achieved without a bypass (and even then it seems iffy).Tell is when you find it
I thought we'd seen some sub-4 hour travel times somewhere, that could only be explained by a by-pass - but I can't find them now.
No - new alignment from Ottawa to Smith Falls, somewhere near, but a bit east of Highway 15. And also routing all T-M trains through both Kingston and Ottawa - unlike what it appears HFR is now doing.In other words, along the current alignment.
Not today, but with the upgrades that VIA Fast envisioned, and legislation to provide VIA with priority access to additional tracks along the CN Kingston Sub.No way we can get 3:38 today. Unless you live in a time capsule?
It would have - but not as good as the option of keeping Dorval for all passenger traffic, and moving freight to another (much smaller) location.Mirabel would have been a better idea if they closed Dorval altogether, since it would concentrate the aviation investment. Instead of improving two airports, they would only need to improve a single airport.
Because it's no where near the performance that could be obtained by adding dedicated track (and new legislation) to the Kingston Sub between Toronto and Kingston (and incrementally further). It's not even anywhere near as good as what VIA could achieve until relatively recently when CN started being increasingly difficult.