News   Nov 22, 2024
 619     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 1.1K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 2.9K     8 

VIA Rail

I reckoned it was about 50% of the route - though I haven't measured it.

Even more as if on some maps they can bypass Ottawa by staying on CP.
Assuming that the owner of HFR would purchase the Trois-Rivières and Havelock Subdivisions, my quick-and-dirty tally of third-party-owned ROWs sums up to less than 20% of the 850 km long QBEC-MTRL-OTTW-TRTO route:
 
Assuming that the owner of HFR would purchase the Trois-Rivières and Havelock Subdivisions, my quick-and-dirty tally of third-party-owned ROWs sums up to less than 20% of the 850 km long QBEC-MTRL-OTTW-TRTO route:
I was only thinking of Toronto-Montreal.

But yes, if VIA purchases Havelock this changes. Though that that figure shows the CP Belleville sub between Smith Falls and Glen Tay as yellow - and I don't see CP (or CPKC) selling that.
 
I was only thinking of Toronto-Montreal.

But yes, if VIA purchases Havelock this changes. Though that that figure shows the CP Belleville sub between Smith Falls and Glen Tay as yellow - and I don't see CP (or CPKC) selling that.

The section between Smiths Falls directly to Montreal has only been recently shown on maps. I believe its going to be decided its not a good idea. The section from Smiths Falls to Ottawa is already owned by VIA.
 
Assuming that the owner of HFR would purchase the Trois-Rivières and Havelock Subdivisions, my quick-and-dirty tally of third-party-owned ROWs sums up to less than 20% of the 850 km long QBEC-MTRL-OTTW-TRTO route:

And I would say about 10% of that 20% will be Metrolinx owned track. Who will be electrified soon. Hopefully VIA chooses the same standard for electrification, although its possible to convert from one format to another, they do it all the time in Europe.
 
And I would say about 10% of that 20% will be Metrolinx owned track. Who will be electrified soon. Hopefully VIA chooses the same standard for electrification, although its possible to convert from one format to another, they do it all the time in Europe.
There is absolutely zero question that 25kV@60Hz will be chosen for any main line electrification project in North America, which underlines what senseless vandalism the conversion of the Deux-Montagnes line is…
 
There is absolutely zero question that 25kV@60Hz will be chosen for any main line electrification project in North America, which underlines what senseless vandalism the conversion of the Deux-Montagnes line is…

IMO the whole REM project should have been built to mainline standards using mainline EMU's like the Stadler Flirt, 25kV@60hz overhead and mainline standard PTC. Which would have allowed for VIA to use the tunnel.

Perhaps the Champlain bridge couldn't support the weight of a mainline heavyrail EMU?
 
IMO the whole REM project should have been built to mainline standards using mainline EMU's like the Stadler Flirt, 25kV@60hz overhead and mainline standard PTC. Which would have allowed for VIA to use the tunnel.

Perhaps the Champlain bridge couldn't support the weight of a mainline heavyrail EMU?
Could it have been strategic? I.E. let's protect our little fiefdom and we don't have to deal with any other agencies and coordinate scheduling if we don't enable interoperability?
 
Could it have been strategic? I.E. let's protect our little fiefdom and we don't have to deal with any other agencies and coordinate scheduling if we don't enable interoperability?
Who can blame them?

VIA has had half a century to do something with this tunnel and make the service to Ott/Tor and actual appealing one. Why should Montrealers have to accept less frequent service and with more expensive operational costs just to appease VIA? Remember this is just another proposal to add to other all the others collecting dust in Ottawa. There is absolutely no guarantee this thing {HSR/HFR} will ever be built. Just because a government says they are planning on building something doesn't mean they will.
 
Who can blame them?

VIA has had half a century to do something with this tunnel and make the service to Ott/Tor and actual appealing one. Why should Montrealers have to accept less frequent service and with more expensive operational costs just to appease VIA? Remember this is just another proposal to add to other all the others collecting dust in Ottawa. There is absolutely no guarantee this thing {HSR/HFR} will ever be built. Just because a government says they are planning on building something doesn't mean they will.
My criticism is less with the CDPQi (which more than delivered on their mission to extract juicy profits from their investments) than with the responsible authorities, which failed appallingly in their duty to protect for already foreseeable needs and by their refusal to remind the CDPQi who the cook and who the server is when it comes to transit/transport planning…
 
Last edited:
Senior Project Manager jobs for the Maintenance Center Renovation project, in Toronto

I am only half happy to see these ads - it’s good to know they are moving on this, but it speaks to just how few qualified people there are in the field and thus how one must go well afield to find good candidates.
Actually, one would have thought this work would be further along by now…. posting now may mean several months until the team has fully assembled and mobilised, especially if people are coming from outside the country, need work permits, etc.
Or, possibly that’s a deliberate delay so that lessons learned from servicing the first trainsets in Montreal are applied in the TMC.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
Apologies if this has been posted already. From the Canadian Passenger Rail Groups.io group:

Re: VIA Long Distance/Regional/Remote fleet renewal RFI
From: Tom Box
Date: Mon, 01 May 2023 09:51:37 PDT
On January 27 Tim Hayman wrote:

> VIA has posted a Request for Information to MERX for renewal of
> the long distance, regional, and remote fleet (I.e. non-Corridor
> HEP/Ren fleet).
>
> The posting is titled "Notice of Market Consultation - Long
> Distance Regional and Remote". You can see it here:
> https://www.merx.com/solicitations/...-Long-Distance-Regional-and-Remote/0000240111

The above link still works, even though the closing date was February 17.

A new Request for Information has been posted. The description just says "Request For Information for the Long Distance Regional and Remote Fleet Replacement Project". Unlike with the January posting, no further details are given. The closing date is June 9.

All we can really tell is that VIA is still gathering info and thinking about non-corridor fleet replacement. As an outside observer, I don't know when or if government funding for this project will be forthcoming.

Tom Box
Port Hope, ON, Canada
 
Post by Transport Action cc @TerryJohnson

 

Back
Top