VIA Rail

[micheal_can]

You could stick the low-cost train set onto the back of an existing train (which would further reduce operating costs). The point is to minimize operating and capital costs to allow for lower ticket prices.

Ouigo in France was successful because the low cost induced ridership. If (low-cost) VIA can deliver Toronto to Ottawa for a $25 base fare (similar to Paris-Lyon), it would be a gamechanger.

So, stick the 30+ year old cars on the back of brand new trains that are designed to push pull? That would be akin to adding them on the back of GO trains. You would loose part of the operation of the new trains.

Scrapping/donating the ones no longer safe for revenue service, and then potentially adding new corridor like service elsewhere in Canada with the HEP cars is what will most likely happen. The fate of them will be up to funding. Maybe the ~20 will see a longer life, but they may also be scrapped with the rest. For example, they could take 9 cars and 3 P42s (orF40sif the P42s are not worth it.), send then to AB and start a service back up between Calgary and Edmonton running 2 trains each day back and forth a few times. If they see it as a success, they can buy additional Siemens trains. They could take 9 and do the same between Halifax and Saint John. In short, there is opportunity to squeeze out a little more life if and that is a big IF the government wants to fund it. If not, off to scrap they all go.

 

[littlewill1166]

So, stick the 30+ year old cars on the back of brand new trains that are designed to push pull? That would be akin to adding them on the back of GO trains. You would loose part of the operation of the new trains.

I suggested that as a possiblity if VIA was really unable to get the 4 slots on the Kingston sub needed to run the service (one round trip between Toronto and Montreal/Ottawa daily). I don't think anyone paying $25 to travel from Toronto to Montreal/Ottawa is expecting to go anywhere fast. Others here have suggested that CN could open up more slots if trains ran at milk run speeds.

Edit: I'd be willing to argue that it's easier to schedule because you don't have to worry about intermediate stops/routing, and you can massively pad the arrival time (like what GO Transit does with route 16).

Scrapping/donating the ones no longer safe for revenue service, and then potentially adding new corridor like service elsewhere in Canada with the HEP cars is what will most likely happen. The fate of them will be up to funding. Maybe the ~20 will see a longer life, but they may also be scrapped with the rest. For example, they could take 9 cars and 3 P42s (orF40sif the P42s are not worth it.), send then to AB and start a service back up between Calgary and Edmonton running 2 trains each day back and forth a few times. If they see it as a success, they can buy additional Siemens trains. They could take 9 and do the same between Halifax and Saint John. In short, there is opportunity to squeeze out a little more life if and that is a big IF the government wants to fund it. If not, off to scrap they all go.

At the end of the day it's a trial to gauge the viability of a low cost intercity train service at a low operating and capital cost using existing resources.

As you said, sending the old train sets to new markets would require government funding. I'm not opposed to expanding rail service outside of the corridor.

But in the absence of any substantive funding for such services, using the older train sets for low-cost services as a pilot could be a low cost and worthwhile use of the remaining life of the fleet over sending them straight to scrap.

In a way, something similar is already happening on the Toronto-Niagara route where GO offers a low cost service ($10 round trip on weekends). It's been successful at increasing rail ridership and tourism in the region.

 

[Urban Sky]

I suggested that as a possiblity if VIA was really unable to get the 4 slots on the Kingston sub needed to run the service (one round trip between Toronto and Montreal/Ottawa daily). I don't think anyone paying $25 to travel from Toronto to Montreal/Ottawa is expecting to go anywhere fast.

Quick reminder that VIA’s direct operating costs were $25 per timetable-km for its Corridor services pre-Covid (2018). Sure, Economies of Scale suggest that incremental costs are lower than average costs and the whole point is to offer lower-cost service, but even at half that figure, you’d need 270 passengers (equivalent to the seating capacity of 4 LRC cars) to break-even with a ticket price of $25.

Others here have suggested that CN could open up more slots if trains ran at milk run speeds.

I don’t think anyone suggested that. My point was merely that it should be easier to keep CN happy with the current number of frequencies post-HFR, when VIA can better spread out the departures and focus on adding stops rather than keeping the end-to-end travel time short…

Edit: I'd be willing to argue that it's easier to schedule because you don't have to worry about intermediate stops/routing, and you can massively pad the arrival time (like what GO Transit does with route 16).

CN will give you additional frequencies, the question is just whether running low-cost trains can justify accepting high upfront costs…

At the end of the day it's a trial to gauge the viability of a low cost intercity train service at a low operating and capital cost using existing resources.

As you said, sending the old train sets to new markets would require government funding. I'm not opposed to expanding rail service outside of the corridor.

But in the absence of any substantive funding for such services, using the older train sets for low-cost services as a pilot could be a low cost and worthwhile use of the remaining life of the fleet over sending them straight to scrap.

In a way, something similar is already happening on the Toronto-Niagara route where GO offers a low cost service ($10 round trip on weekends). It's been successful at increasing rail ridership and tourism in the region.

Sure, but I doubt that GO’s direct operating costs are anywhere as high as $25 per timetable-km…

 

[littlewill1166]

Quick reminder that VIA’s direct operating costs were $25 per timetable-km for its Corridor services pre-Covid (2018). Sure, Economies of Scale suggest that incremental costs are lower than average costs and the whole point is to offer lower-cost service, but even at half that figure, you’d need 270 passengers (equivalent to the seating capacity of 4 LRC cars) to break-even with a ticket price of $25.

I think filling 4 cars or more on one train is quite reasonable especially at the $25 price point (it's half what Megabus is charging). Many trains that VIA operating are already longer than that. It's also more possible to have a higher load factor if the trains operate nonstop, since seats are occupied for the entire trip rather than left empty if a passenger disembarks at an intermediate statin.

I'm more worried about how much ridership a lower cost will induce vs cannibalize from existing trains. It's hard to figure that out without actually running the trains and testing the waters (however half of Ouigos's ridership comes from modal shift or induced demand). I'm not sure there's a more opportune time than right after delivery of the new Venture trains is complete. It may also be a good opportunity for VIA to field test ways of reducing direct operating costs per km on the rest of its services.

I think one thing that separates the corporate culture between Metrolinx and VIA is their willingness to experiment. I find that VIA is far more cautious and slow with what they do. Whereas Metrolinx is more willing to throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks (Metrolinx runs circles around VIA when it comes to pilot projects).

 

[lenaitch]

...hmmm, how could the government look good in places they don't have MPs...

With all that is going on, I'm not sure mid-distance inter-city pax rail is going to be much of a vote-getter (Calgary-Edmonton perhaps)

Toronto-Ottawa, or Toronto-Montreal non-stop trains so you can reduce onboard staff costs and have staff at stations operate the doors.

You could stick the low-cost train set onto the back of an existing train (which would further reduce operating costs). The point is to minimize operating and capital costs to allow for lower ticket prices.

I must be missing something. You want to stick a bunch of old stock onto an existing non-stop corridor train (assuming they exist - I don't know the timetable) but lock the passengers in and provide no service for a reduced fare? The word 'steerage' comes to mind.

 

[littlewill1166]

I must be missing something. You want to stick a bunch of old stock onto an existing non-stop corridor train.

No, that's only if CN doesn't offer an extra slot. The point of not stopping is so that fewer onboard crew are needed to operate the doors since existing station staff in Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal can open/close them externally (lowering operating costs).

but lock the passengers in and provide no service for a reduced fare? The word 'steerage' comes to mind.

That's what Megabus, Flix, Rider Express, etc already do.

 

[Urban Sky]

I think filling 4 cars or more on one train is quite reasonable especially at the $25 price point (it's half what Megabus is charging). Many trains that VIA operating are already longer than that. It's also more possible to have a higher load factor if the trains operate nonstop, since seats are occupied for the entire trip rather than left empty if a passenger disembarks at an intermediate statin.

So how exactly is that supposed to work? Adding HEP1/2 cars at the end of a Siemens trainset?

First, you’d have to check with Siemens first, since the contract includes a warranty and all maintenance (incl. parts, IIRC), they will define what is a permittable use and what isn’t. (The regulator might also have a word)
Second, you now have a train which is different to all the other trains, which undermines the operational flexibility and fleet & product standardization the fleet renewal was supposed to achieve.
Third, you won’t be able to double-berth your monster train at Union Station, which means that it will annoy Metrolinx.
Fourth, you’ll need to do a round-trip with the same consist and crew, to minimize your costs, which reduces operational flexibility further, especially in the case of massive delays.
Fifth, the need to turn the train will cause you an otherwise entirely unnecessary extra trip to TMC (which Metrolinx won’t like), where the Siemens trainset must be shunted from one end of your HEP cars to the other.

I'm more worried about how much ridership a lower cost will induce vs cannibalize from existing trains. It's hard to figure that out without actually running the trains and testing the waters (however half of Ouigos's ridership comes from modal shift or induced demand). I'm not sure there's a more opportune time than right after delivery of the new Venture trains is complete. It may also be a good opportunity for VIA to field test ways of reducing direct operating costs per km on the rest of its services.

Let’s assume that only a quarter of passengers is demand diverted from existing trains and that they currently pay $50 (which is unrealistically low, given that VIA’s lowest Escape bucket fare is $49, IIRC). This means that three-quarters of passengers generate a net revenue of $25 (i.e. the ticket fare), whereas the final quarter of passengers makes you loose $25 (i.e. $25 ticket fare minus the $50 they would have paid otherwise). Now your average net revenue halves to $12.50 (75% * $25 + 25% * -$25 = $18.75 - $6.25) and your break-even point doubles to 540 passengers (i.e. 8 car loads, meaning you’d now have at least 13 cars hauled by a single locomotive!). Oops!

I think one thing that separates the corporate culture between Metrolinx and VIA is their willingness to experiment. I find that VIA is far more cautious and slow with what they do. Whereas Metrolinx is more willing to throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks (Metrolinx runs circles around VIA when it comes to pilot projects).

I would assume that this attitude can be better explained with the attitude towards innovation or taking risks of VIA’s and Metrolinx’ political masters than of their respective management boards. From my personal experience, it is almost impossible to exaggerate the “why make a decision if you can just ask another question without being in any way interested in the answer” and “hide your ass” mentality at TC…

 

[smallspy]

No, that's only if CN doesn't offer an extra slot. The point of not stopping is so that fewer onboard crew are needed to operate the doors since existing station staff in Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal can open/close them externally (lowering operating costs).

Then you better get Transport Canada on the phone and start working them to get the rules changed. Those onboard staff are there for safety reasons, not just to open and close doors.

If that was the case, you think that the airlines would be employing any onboard flight attendants?

Dan

 

[nfitz]

Then you better get Transport Canada on the phone and start working them to get the rules changed. Those onboard staff are there for safety reasons, not just to open and close doors.

If that was the case, you think that the airlines would be employing any onboard flight attendants?

That's a valid point. But look at it from another way. Why can GO run from Toronto to London or Niagara Falls with 1 attendant for a 12-car train, but VIA can't?

 

[Urban Sky]

That's a valid point. But look at it from another way. Why can GO run from Toronto to London or Niagara Falls with 1 attendant for a 12-car train, but VIA can't?

Because one is federally-regulated and the other is provincially-regulated, I guess…

 

[Northern Light]

Because one is federally-regulated and the other is provincially-regulated, I guess…

Hmmm, usually, my google-fu is quite good, but I can't seem to find a federal regulation on minimum staff per passenger or coach. I imagine there must be one, do you happen to know where its at? I would appreciate a link as I'm curious now.

 

[Urban Sky]

Hmmm, usually, my google-fu is quite good, but I can't seem to find a federal regulation on minimum staff per passenger or coach. I imagine there must be one, do you happen to know where it at? I would appreciate a link as I'm curious now.

There is no such federal minimum staffing requirement. At least that’s what the TSB report for the 2012 Burlington derailment noted, as I recall that there was only a single On-Train Staff member overseeing the evacuation of the train:

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2012/r12t0038/r12t0038.pdf#page51

 

[Northern Light]

There is no such federal minimum staffing requirement. At least that’s what the TSB report for the 2012 Burlington derailment noted, as I recall that there was only a single On-Train Staff member overseeing the evacuation of the train:
View attachment 513279

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2012/r12t0038/r12t0038.pdf#page51

Excellent; and quite quick! Thank you.

So it would seem then that VIA's attendant to passenger/coach ratios are set by one of their safety plan, the collective agreement w/the union, or simple operational choice.

I don't take a position on what an appropriate number is; but it is an interesting point of discussion.

 

[lenaitch]

It is surprising that there is no number, but I would suspect that, if nothing else, "sufficient number" is greater than zero.

 

[crs1026]

It's pretty clear from the ritual short demonstrations of emergency windows and tools in coach, and the way in which VIA enlists "safety assistants" among sleeping car passengers on the long distance trains, that there is no commitment made by VIA with respect to emergency assistance. The crewing standards are simply a matter of service design, and to some degree union agreements.... plus a business decision about how many people are needed to manage routine entraining and detraining in non-emergency scenarios.
And1, while VIA employees are as heroic a bunch as any workers in a people business, one has to assume that in an emergency they might be casualties themselves.
So when all is said, it's every person for themselves, or everyone helping each other.
This really isn't much different a standard than on airplanes, where safety briefings address the emergency exits and the people sitting in the extra legroom seats by the emergency exists are enlisted to assist other people out the exit in an emergency. (I'm not actually confident that they always would, and that includes myself - hopefully we never find out.) Worst case, there may or may not be a flight attendant available to manage the evacuation.

- Paul