VIA Rail

[roger1818]

VIA 'will need to order' why? To get around the CN crossing speed reductions? If CN wakes up tomorrow and rescinds them, what good will more cars do when the sets go back to 24 axles? This case is still before the Quebec courts and is not a fait accompli. As pointed out, the optimal Venture set length was carefully arrived at. Imagine the government trying to justify, in the wake of cuts it wants, and BIG projects it's starting, that VIA needs to spend more money because CN is jerking it around. The Legacy coaches aren't still remaining. The Rens are gone from the Corridor, ten HEP retired, and almost 50 LRC in various states of storage/shop work/unserviceability. There ARE 32 Venture sets on the property.

I'm not so sure that the Venture set length is truly optimal. As others have said it was picked to allow a seat for seat replacement for the existing fleet with growth only being accommodated by improved operational efficiencies. With the old fleet VIA would run longer trains on some routes and shorter ones on others based on demand. With the original order, the new fleet was designed to be a compromise with all trains being the same length. This might create operational efficiencies as any train can be used on any route, but it also means that some routes would have excess capacity that will never sell and other routes being short on capacity. For the latter, with a limited number of slots that VIA can run trains in, there is no way to increase capacity once all the trains in all of the slots are full, where in the past they could potentially add an extra coach.

Now this is largely a temporary issue, as once Alto is up and running, the two highest demand routes (Montreal-Toronto and Ottawa-Toronto) will have a huge boost in capacity, reducing he demand on the Venture trainsets.

 

[smallspy]

I'm not so sure that the Venture set length is truly optimal. As others have said it was picked to allow a seat for seat replacement for the existing fleet with growth only being accommodated by improved operational efficiencies. With the old fleet VIA would run longer trains on some routes and shorter ones on others based on demand. With the original order, the new fleet was designed to be a compromise with all trains being the same length. This might create operational efficiencies as any train can be used on any route, but it also means that some routes would have excess capacity that will never sell and other routes being short on capacity. For the latter, with a limited number of slots that VIA can run trains in, there is no way to increase capacity once all the trains in all of the slots are full, where in the past they could potentially add an extra coach.

Maybe it is a bit of a incorrect statement to claim that the train's lengths were carefully arrived at.

But it isn't at all to suggest that their capacity wasn't. Because it was. They thought very long and hard about how many people the trains should carry, and balanced that against staffing factors.

And keep in mind that VIA had been working towards increasing the "operational efficiencies" of the old fleet well before the Siemens trainsets came around. Top-and-tail trains, upgrading many of the F40s to allow for reliable backwards operation, breaking away staffing rotations from equipment rotations....all of those were things that would help them utilize the equipment in a more efficient manner, and thus should have been able to set the stage for service improvements once they got a more reliable fleet into service.

Dan

 

[micheal_can]

VIA 'will need to order' why? To get around the CN crossing speed reductions? If CN wakes up tomorrow and rescinds them, what good will more cars do when the sets go back to 24 axles? This case is still before the Quebec courts and is not a fait accompli. As pointed out, the optimal Venture set length was carefully arrived at. Imagine the government trying to justify, in the wake of cuts it wants, and BIG projects it's starting, that VIA needs to spend more money because CN is jerking it around. The Legacy coaches aren't still remaining. The Rens are gone from the Corridor, ten HEP retired, and almost 50 LRC in various states of storage/shop work/unserviceability. There ARE 32 Venture sets on the property.

Why should we expect that CN will wake up tomorrow and rescind it?
As far as the courts, again,why would they side with Via. They could. However, then they would be on the hook if an accident ever happened.

I want to be proven wrong.I welcome it. I still doubt I will be after everything those that know more than I have have posted.

 

[nfitz]

It definitely isn't possible with VIA's or Kingston's budget, but you could definitely build two terminating platforms that double as storage tracks at the station. One to the North of platform 1 to the west of the station building, and one to the south of platform 2, to the east of the platform 2 tunnel. Those would allow one departure in each direction in the morning. Plenty of space for the tracks, and I'd expect not an overly expensive project, but I can't see them doing it until Alto is off the ground.

I dread to think how many years (decades) it would take to get the environmental approvals necessary to fill in more of the wetland, especially to the south. That said - I don't know how they got the permit for Old Mill Road - though it likely didn't involve the federal approvals for what was, I assume, a municipal project.

 

[lenaitch]

As far as the courts, again,why would they side with Via. They could. However, then they would be on the hook if an accident ever happened.

It's not a matter of liability, it's a matter of interpreting whatever law is at play. The principle of judicial immunity is widely accepted in Canada.

 

[Trackside_Treasure]

I'm not so sure that the Venture set length is truly optimal. As others have said it was picked to allow a seat for seat replacement for the existing fleet with growth only being accommodated by improved operational efficiencies. With the old fleet VIA would run longer trains on some routes and shorter ones on others based on demand. With the original order, the new fleet was designed to be a compromise with all trains being the same length. This might create operational efficiencies as any train can be used on any route...

Now this is largely a temporary issue, as once Alto is up and running, the two highest demand routes (Montreal-Toronto and Ottawa-Toronto) will have a huge boost in capacity, reducing he demand on the Venture trainsets.

The run-through operational rotation that VIA is has been using for some years even prior to Ventures, whereby a train can begin its day in Windsor and finish in Montreal, operating across three separate service lanes with no change to its consist, and only reaching a shop for deeper service once per week means that set is not going to be changed in length or car type for days on end, never mind in the course of one day. On some of those service lanes, maybe four out of five cars are staffed - sometimes only one Business Class car is in use in a fixed-length consist.

Can we even estimate an in-service date for Alto? I hate to think we're just in a temporary phase!

 

[micheal_can]

It's not a matter of liability, it's a matter of interpreting whatever law is at play. The principle of judicial immunity is widely accepted in Canada.

I understand that part, but, let's say a major accident happens. People are hurt or worse. And, let's say CN had been told they cannot put in those restrictions. And let's say a class action lawsuit is filed. Who would face the liability for the carnage? Would that be CN, or Via? And, would that mean they have proof and those restrictions are back, and again, we do not have the fleet to deal with it?

This is a reasonable scenario that could play out.

 

[kEiThZ]

VIA 'will need to order' why? To get around the CN crossing speed reductions? If CN wakes up tomorrow and rescinds them, what good will more cars do when the sets go back to 24 axles? This case is still before the Quebec courts and is not a fait accompli. As pointed out, the optimal Venture set length was carefully arrived at. Imagine the government trying to justify, in the wake of cuts it wants, and BIG projects it's starting, that VIA needs to spend more money because CN is jerking it around. The Legacy coaches aren't still remaining. The Rens are gone from the Corridor, ten HEP retired, and almost 50 LRC in various states of storage/shop work/unserviceability. There ARE 32 Venture sets on the property.

Given growing pains with the Ventures, do they have enough Venture sets to run the Corridor schedule exclusively on Ventures in say 6-12 months?

If they don't, I don't see why an order of 2-3 more sets is out of question.

On the capacity side, as Paul pointed out, increasing capacity is a trade off between the public good of more and cheaper seats, and basically taking a wrecking ball to current yield management. But given population growth along the Corridor since the order, I question if they might not net out a bit more.

How much would 32 extra cars and 3 more train sets costs anyway? $300M max? I don't think that's a huge expense as far as one-time government expenses go. But it's only tolerable if it doesn't result in a net profit drop on Corridor services. The government will care a lot more about ongoing expenses incurred.

 

[lenaitch]

I understand that part, but, let's say a major accident happens. People are hurt or worse. And, let's say CN had been told they cannot put in those restrictions. And let's say a class action lawsuit is filed. Who would face the liability for the carnage? Would that be CN, or Via? And, would that mean they have proof and those restrictions are back, and again, we do not have the fleet to deal with it?

This is a reasonable scenario that could play out.

The liability would likely involve the two parties: CN and VIA. Somebody might try to include the government ('the Crown') but good luck with that. The Crown generally enjoys immunity unless an Act specifically says it 'binds the Crown', and even at that is limited by the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.

The Court would not be "on the hook" for any decision it makes.

 

[Trackside_Treasure]

Given growing pains with the Ventures, do they have enough Venture sets to run the Corridor schedule exclusively on Ventures in say 6-12 months?

This is the $64,000 question, isn't it? VIA has been publicizing all Ventures all the time by the end of 2025. That has clearly not happened. So let's count backwards and wonder why - all the sets are here, so why aren't they all in service?

Some of the reasons have already been mentioned. We hear a lot about growing pains, but the growing pains of the Ventures are much less than those experienced by the LRC fleet forty years ago.

I do believe without the CN-imposed crossing speed reductions, and all the fallout that has caused including remarshalling Venture sets, the Ventures could be covering the Corridor schedule exclusively today. Prove me wrong?

 

[crs1026]

I would think that if VIA is now having to fill more seats on longer trains, the immediate impact will be more people choosing to travel in the peaks now that the seats are there…. And that means lower loads on off-peak trains, making them look less economical and hence ripe for axing. And possibly selling those empty peak seats at lower yield because they are there to be sold.
I have nothing but respect for the people at VIA who handle the demand management…. But I am skeptical that their druthers have ever survived the Ottawa beancounters’ sharp pencils.
If there were a business case to raise capital to add a few trainsets, based on the added revenue and flexibility outweighing the borrowing cost…. Well, we wouldn’t be here.
I doubt that VIA will ever be allowed to add to the Venture fleet, and the mantra in Ottawa will be “with Alto coming, it doesn’t make sense to buy more trains yet” will prevail.
Even in the LRC days, the fleet was sized based on government budgeting and not the possible upside in demand. VIA’s pricing has always been fitted to filling a fleet of defined capacity. And the competitors would scream foul if VIA were given the ability to carry more people at a lower fare if that involved a larger subsidy. VIA’s mission is to
Maximize ridership and revenue given a specific fleet size.
Pessimistic, yes, but that’s how I read the tea leaves.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

I would think that if VIA is now having to fill more seats on longer trains, the immediate impact will be more people choosing to travel in the peaks now that the seats are there…. And that means lower loads on off-peak trains, making them look less economical and hence ripe for axing. And possibly selling those empty peak seats at lower yield because they are there to be sold.
I have nothing but respect for the people at VIA who handle the demand management…. But I am skeptical that their druthers have ever survived the Ottawa beancounters’ sharp pencils.
If there were a business case to raise capital to add a few trainsets, based on the added revenue and flexibility outweighing the borrowing cost…. Well, we wouldn’t be here.
I doubt that VIA will ever be allowed to add to the Venture fleet, and the mantra in Ottawa will be “with Alto coming, it doesn’t make sense to buy more trains yet” will prevail.
Even in the LRC days, the fleet was sized based on government budgeting and not the possible upside in demand. VIA’s pricing has always been fitted to filling a fleet of defined capacity. And the competitors would scream foul if VIA were given the ability to carry more people at a lower fare if that involved a larger subsidy. VIA’s mission is to
Maximize ridership and revenue given a specific fleet size.
Pessimistic, yes, but that’s how I read the tea leaves.

- Paul

We do know that the Corridor doesn't really lose money though. And population growth has far outstripped whatever estimate was around when the Venture contract was signed. I should think that an extra car per train shouldn't result in a net loss, even with lower off-peak yields. 7 car trains might be a reach though. Heck, they could make the added car a business car and trade some business class yield for higher net. Akin to how airlines use business reward seats (yielding nothing) to keep up loyalty. End of the day, VIA One is competing with airlines only marginally. It's VIA Economy that is basically competing with bus lines, who might complain.

I do agree that with Alto on the horizon, it might be a harder sell. But even if these additional coaches are delivered by end 2027, we're talking about a decade of service before they are competing with Alto. More than enough time to at least pay off the capital cost.

 

[Bordercollie]

Maybe it is a bit of a incorrect statement to claim that the train's lengths were carefully arrived at.

But it isn't at all to suggest that their capacity wasn't. Because it was. They thought very long and hard about how many people the trains should carry, and balanced that against staffing factors.

And keep in mind that VIA had been working towards increasing the "operational efficiencies" of the old fleet well before the Siemens trainsets came around. Top-and-tail trains, upgrading many of the F40s to allow for reliable backwards operation, breaking away staffing rotations from equipment rotations....all of those were things that would help them utilize the equipment in a more efficient manner, and thus should have been able to set the stage for service improvements once they got a more reliable fleet into service.

Dan

What modifications were required to allow the F40's to run backwards?

 

[crs1026]

We do know that the Corridor doesn't really lose money though. And population growth has far outstripped whatever estimate was around when the Venture contract was signed. I should think that an extra car per train shouldn't result in a net loss, even with lower off-peak yields. 7 car trains might be a reach though. Heck, they could make the added car a business car and trade some business class yield for higher net. Akin to how airlines use business reward seats (yielding nothing) to keep up loyalty. End of the day, VIA One is competing with airlines only marginally. It's VIA Economy that is basically competing with bus lines, who might complain.

I do agree that with Alto on the horizon, it might be a harder sell. But even if these additional coaches are delivered by end 2027, we're talking about a decade of service before they are competing with Alto. More than enough time to at least pay off the capital cost.

I do agree, the dollars and cents case is probably favourable or close to break-even. It doesn't take that many seats filled to pay for the service worker. The added fuel and axle charges are incremental. I do wonder what the long term operating costs of inspection and maintenance and periodic repair might add up to.

The problem is that institutional, in that VIA does not really have control of its own financing, and any plan to expand will be challenged by its competitors. And the plan would have to run the gantlet of government oversight. And be sold to the public.

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

What modifications were required to allow the F40's to run backwards?

Bearings, I believe.

Solution at Hand???