News   Apr 02, 2026
City Council March, 2026 Settlements: Negotiations Advance Projects Across Toronto
 919     1 
News   Apr 02, 2026
News Roundup for April 2, 2026
 425     0 
News   Apr 02, 2026
Mount Celeste
 407     1 

VIA Rail

Again: there is no guarantee that a new facility on Canadian soil would win any contracts* (let alone: be able to ever recover its initial capital cost), so why would any sane investor invest in it?

*especially the ability to win US-based contracts is more in doubt than ever
 
Last edited:
Urban Sky said:
Again: there is no guarantee that a new facility would win any contracts (let alone: be able to ever recover its initial capital cost), so why would any sane investor invest in it?
Click to expand...
That is why I asked whether it would work or not. Using the ~500 car LDF as an example, would the money given to build them, and then the contract to maintain them be enough to make the construction of a new facility and the conversion of it to a maintenance facility pay off?
 
If they can build bi-level car bodies in Thunder Bay, could they not build locomotives if all of the components are shipped there? You just need a jig to build the frame and locomotive car body. The engine and other components are shipped and assembled into the final product.
 
Bordercollie said:
If they can build bi-level car bodies in Thunder Bay, could they not build locomotives if all of the components are shipped there? You just need a jig to build the frame and locomotive car body. The engine and other components are shipped and assembled into the final product.
Click to expand...
What do they do, ship the engine back and forth until it works right?

Seems like a way to build a lemon to me.
 
nfitz said:
What do they do, ship the engine back and forth until it works right?

Seems like a way to build a lemon to me.
Click to expand...
A car assembly plant does not d that, so why would a locomotive assembly do that? Assume they build 20 units.The engines would come assembled and already known to work. So, it then arrives and then gets put in place according to the manufacturer specifications.That is no different than how it works at car assembly plants.
 
The point that seems to be missed by some is that - while one can set up a production line to manufacture locomotives and railcars just about anywhere (with enough money) - the return on doing so for only a small number of units produced, with no clear prospect of continued orders and production, is simply not something investors will back. And if that facility is model specific or order specific, it makes the investment that much riskier.

A customer, if desperate, may be willing to roll that investment into the purchase price for their custom order.... but that's not really good for the people funding the order (ie the taxpayers).

That's why the RFP process going into these orders is so lengthy and complicated - the buyer is often asking the market, what can you build at what price? It's not like picking an auto off the lot, with lots to choose from.

I don't know how many orders or prospective orders Siemens collected before they set up in Sacramento, but it may have been beyond the volume that we would see attracting a competing shop in Ontario. HxR will not create a demand for trainsets on a level that would imply investing in an ongoing facility.....unless other customers indicate they are willing to buy the same model.

Other builders such as Hornell and Elmira seem to have attracted orders, but both have had layoffs and shutdowns along the way. Rochelle tried and failed.

It also helps to have a ready to build design in mind. Siemens had a head start with European models that could be NorthAmericanised.

A vendor might - might - offer to set up a finishing shop locally as a sweetener to their HxR proposal, but not necessarily. That might adversely affect their pricing.

And thinking that one shop can meet all foreseen VIA and provincial transit needs economically is also naive. Each product will need its own production line, and that creates startup cost for each order. And the market rules lean towards free trade, meaning each procurement will have to accept bids from all over.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
crs1026 said:
The point that seems to be missed by some is that - while one can set up a production line to manufacture locomotives and railcars just about anywhere (with enough money) - the return on doing so for only a small number of units produced, with no clear prospect of continued orders and production, is simply not something investors will back. And if that facility is model specific or order specific, it makes the investment that much riskier.

A customer, if desperate, may be willing to roll that investment into the purchase price for their custom order.... but that's not really good for the people funding the order (ie the taxpayers).

That's why the RFP process going into these orders is so lengthy and complicated - the buyer is often asking the market, what can you build at what price? It's not like picking an auto off the lot, with lots to choose from.

I don't know how many orders or prospective orders Siemens collected before they set up in Sacramento, but it may have been beyond the volume that we would see attracting a competing shop in Ontario. HxR will not create a demand for trainsets on a level that would imply investing in an ongoing facility.....unless other customers indicate they are willing to buy the same model.

Other builders such as Hornell and Elmira seem to have attracted orders, but both have had layoffs and shutdowns along the way. Rochelle tried and failed.

It also helps to have a ready to build design in mind. Siemens had a head start with European models that could be NorthAmericanised.

A vendor might - might - offer to set up a finishing shop locally as a sweetener to their HxR proposal, but not necessarily. That might adversely affect their pricing.

And thinking that one shop can meet all foreseen VIA and provincial transit needs economically is also naive. Each product will need its own production line, and that creates startup cost for each order. And the market rules lean towards free trade, meaning each procurement will have to accept bids from all over.

- Paul
Click to expand...
Wouldn't CAD have facilities to assemble a locomotive?
 
Urban Sky said:
Can someone explain to me what the entire point of this discussion is, besides: “wouldn’t it be great for us foamers if they would produce more trains on this side of the border?”
Click to expand...
You can blame me for this. I did ask would it be possible to build what Via needs in Canada and it be a viable thing.
 
VIA now has 26 of the final 32 sets on the property. With recent cancellations, we seem to be seeing the Legacy fleet come to the rescue of the Venture fleet to provide serviceable consists for revenue service on a daily basis.

I produced the accompanying rudimentary graphic. The data I've been collecting on Venture sets in revenue Corridor service (SW Ontario to Quebec City inclusive) shows that only nine of the 23 sets in use as of yesterday, February 8, have been in continuous service. I've allowed up two-week intervals for which I've garnered no observations anywhere in the Corridor, allowing that two weeks perhaps for routine service, or just missed by trackside observers.

The following sets have had at least one three-week interval with no observations from November 18-February 8, with some not observed for six, seven or even ten weeks (denoted by RED cells):1,2,3,4,5,6,9,12,13,14,15,16,20,21.

Sets 1 and 3 were not operated at all during that period.

This is as close as I've been able to come to document the unavailability of Venture sets for revenue service throughout the Corridor, since the last Corridor rotation diagram I've seen. There have been changes. I welcome any confirmed observations to refute any of the out-of-service intervals!
Screenshot 2025-02-09 at 17.19.32.png
 
Trackside_Treasure said:
VIA now has 26 of the final 32 sets on the property. With recent cancellations, we seem to be seeing the Legacy fleet come to the rescue of the Venture fleet to provide serviceable consists for revenue service on a daily basis.

I produced the accompanying rudimentary graphic. The data I've been collecting on Venture sets in revenue Corridor service shows that only nine of the 23 sets in use as of yesterday, February 8, have been in continuous service. I've allowed up two-week intervals for which I've garnered no observations anywhere in the Corridor, allowing that two weeks perhaps for routine service, or just missed by trackside observers.

The following sets have had at least one three-week interval with no observations from November 18-February 8, with some not observed for six, seven or even ten weeks. 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,12,13,14,15,16,20,21.

Sets 1 and 3 were not operated at all during that period.

This is as close as I've been able to come to document the unavailability of Venture sets for revenue service throughout the Corridor, since the last Corridor rotation diagram I've seen. There have been changes.
Click to expand...
That doesn't say much to the reliability of the new trains. Not to mention the speed restrictions.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top