VIA Rail

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'd like to see your evidence that VIA did so. Their Board has members with non-public sector experience. The current CEO was President of Bell Helicopter Textron Canada, prior to this job.

So, in other words, no skill or experience in the passenger rail service industry.


Maybe I should apply. I might be a shoe in with that experience.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, in other words, no skill or experience in the passenger rail service industry.


Maybe I should apply. I might be a shoe in with that experience.

So first it's a problem if they don't have outside perspectives. Then, it's a problem if they do? I'm glad we're moving on from the bullshit talking point that they were all clueless public servants with no outside experience.

Now. Do you understand what would happen if the qualification list was:

-Canadian citizen
-Previous rail sector experience
-Bilingual
-Private sector experience

Take a guess at which companies they'd hire from. I'd rather VIA not become even more subordinate to CN and CP.

And yes, you should put your resume in. Just so you can see what these folks go through, before you slander them.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's at the core of the pitch. See the graphic above.

How do people still not know this? The whole thing is predicated on the fact that the capital investment should have a pay off by reducing operational costs substantially. Enough to possibly attract private capital, was the original hope.

Forgive me if I don't view the statements made by a government owned company on future profits as gospel. Sure, it's possible that HFR becomes one of an elite few passenger rail lines worldwide that actually is profitable, perhaps by way of accounting, but I do not view that as particularly likely. More likely, the subsidy per passenger-km VIA wide will decrease and perhaps the total subsidy. And VIA will be carrying more passengers and will be more important to the economy.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Forgive me if I don't view the statements made by a government owned company on future profits as gospel. Sure, it's possible that HFR becomes one of an elite few passenger rail lines worldwide that actually is profitable, perhaps by way of accounting, but I do not view that as particularly likely. More likely, the subsidy per passenger-km VIA wide will decrease and perhaps the total subsidy. And VIA will be carrying more passengers and will be more important to the economy.

I buy it. Rail lines of a similar context elsewhere are operationally profitable. Heck, even in the land of cheap gas and flights, Acela is operationally profitable while commanding significant marketshare.

As it stands now, the Corridor actually is the least subsidized (per pax-km) operation at VIA. Increase asset productivity by 25%, with slightly faster speeds. Increase crew productivity with larger trains Allow for schedules that let them target higher yielding air travelers on some segments. Give them newer equipment that is more fuel efficient and requires less maintenance. And they will have a shot at a decent return.

VIA is not claiming that it will be net profitable or that it won't require subsidies for other lines. What it's claiming, is that the Corridor won't require a subsidy.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

So first it's a problem if they don't have outside perspectives. Then, it's a problem if they do? I'm glad we're moving on from the bullshit talking point that they were all clueless public servants with no outside experience.

Now. Do you understand what would happen if the qualification list was:

-Canadian citizen
-Previous rail sector experience
-Bilingual
-Private sector experience

Take a guess at which companies they'd hire from. I'd rather VIA not become even more subordinate to CN and CP.

And yes, you should put your resume in. Just so you can see what these folks go through, before you slander them.

I am not slandering them. Unless pointing out a lack of vision for the rest of Canada is slander.

Let's say that they cannot have come from a company that owns rail on lines they serve. That would only leave out CN, CP, and Metrolinx. That leaves the smaller operators, including BC Rail, and ONR. Those people would understand the nuances of the industry. It could even be someone from WCE, or any of the transit agencies running rail operations, such as the TTC, or even ETS.

Why is private sector experience needed?

Originally Posted by milomilo

Forgive me if I don't view the statements made by a government owned company on future profits as gospel. Sure, it's possible that HFR becomes one of an elite few passenger rail lines worldwide that actually is profitable, perhaps by way of accounting, but I do not view that as particularly likely. More likely, the subsidy per passenger-km VIA wide will decrease and perhaps the total subsidy. And VIA will be carrying more passengers and will be more important to the economy.

Now, now, not taking them as the gospel will lead to a pissing match. We need to tow the line. Heaven forbid we find faults in a bloated government agency that already does a piss poor job at serving Canadians.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I buy it. Rail lines of a similar context elsewhere are operationally profitable. Heck, even in the land of cheap gas and flights, Acela is operationally profitable while commanding significant marketshare.

As it stands now, the Corridor actually is the least subsidized (per pax-km) operation at VIA. Increase asset productivity by 25%, with slightly faster speeds. Increase crew productivity with larger trains Allow for schedules that let them target higher yielding air travelers on some segments. Give them newer equipment that is more fuel efficient and requires less maintenance. And they will have a shot at a decent return.

VIA is not claiming that it will be net profitable or that it won't require subsidies for other lines. What it's claiming, is that the Corridor won't require a subsidy.

So, break even? If the fares are enough to cover the costs to run the line, it is a break even operation.

Do you work for Via? Cus it sure sounds like it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Why is private sector experience needed?

To prevent the group think that everyone is whining about on here. Go back a few pages. Plenty of whining that they don't bring anyone from outside and only select from within the federal public service. This is exactly why the government goes out of its way to get outside experience for several of these jobs.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, break even? If the fares are enough to cover the costs to run the line, it is a break even operation.

Yes, it is. Given that the line currently commands a $150M/yr subsidy, this isn't exactly a small matter. A lot of what you want built could use redeployment of that subsidy.

And they are only talking about Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec City, making the entire Corridor, subsidy free. Go the other way (Toronto-Kitchener-London-Windsor) and it's possible to foresee net profitability as operating costs are reduced across the Corridor.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Do you work for Via? Cus it sure sounds like it.

Nah. I just have the ability to think through issues logically. I also have sufficient comprehension to understand the press on it. And I use those abilities to stay informed on the project.

Also, I'm not a whiny bitch. I prefer solutions to whining. I prefer to push for ideas that will be delivered within my lifetime than ideas that have been talked about for decades, rejected and will not happen even after I'm 6 ft under.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Nah. I just have the ability to think through issues logically. I also have sufficient comprehension to understand the press on it. And I use those abilities to stay informed on the project.

Also, I'm not a whiny bitch. I prefer solutions to whining. I prefer to push for ideas that will be delivered within my lifetime than ideas that have been talked about for decades, rejected and will not happen even after I'm 6 ft under.

I have never pushed for anything that could not reasonably be done in my lifetime. I have never been much of a proponent of HSR as it is too costly for the government to justify if other large cities, like Calgary has nothing.

I am also someone who will put the effort in to make a proposal to my MP, and to the government to invest in routes that would better serve Canadians who do not live along the Corridor.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I have never pushed for anything that could not reasonably be done in my lifetime. I have never been much of a proponent of HSR as it is too costly for the government to justify if other large cities, like Calgary has nothing.

I am also someone who will put the effort in to make a proposal to my MP, and to the government to invest in routes that would better serve Canadians who do not live along the Corridor.

Good for you I guess?

I look forward to a plan that has tens of millions in studies done and direction in the minister's mandate letter getting built.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Another one to ponder is how will they double ridership, yet only add half as much as they currently are (10 current, 15 future) and expect the doubling? Are those new rolling stock going to fit that much more on them?

First of all, the 10 trains a day was only for Ottawa-Toronto. Montreal-Toronto only had 7 trains a day and Montreal-Ottawa had only 6.

Secondly, after HFR, trains will continue to run along the Lakeshore to absorb the demand from those cities (and be optimized for them), allowing the HFR trains to primarily focus on demand between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto.

Thirdly, the nice thing about trains is they don't have a fixed capacity. If demand increases, VIA can add additional cars to the trains. From what I have seen, on the corridor, the trains tend to range in length from 3 to 7 cars. I expect the HFR trains will tend to be on the longer end of that range (and could potentially have even more than 7 cars).

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Good for you I guess?

I look forward to a plan that has tens of millions in studies done and direction in the minister's mandate letter getting built.

You can be either part of the solution, or part of the problem.

Originally Posted by roger1818

First of all, the 10 trains a day was only for Ottawa-Toronto. Montreal-Toronto only had 7 trains a day and Montreal-Ottawa had only 6.

Secondly, after HFR, trains will continue to run along the Lakeshore to absorb the demand from those cities (and be optimized for them), allowing the HFR trains to primarily focus on demand between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto.

Thirdly, the nice thing about trains is they don't have a fixed capacity. If demand increases, VIA can add additional cars to the trains. From what I have seen, on the corridor, the trains tend to range in length from 3 to 7 cars. I expect the HFR trains will tend to be on the longer end of that range (and could potentially have even more than 7 cars).

Maybe I am not understanding something. I thought the plan is to drastically reduce the Lakeshore frequency.

With the new fleet being added and the old fleet retired, how many cars for the long trains at the current frequency?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You can be either part of the solution, or part of the problem.

What column does ignorant whining fall under?

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Maybe I am not understanding something. I thought the plan is to drastically reduce the Lakeshore frequency.

Frequencies are probably down about 40%. But that doesn't means squat all when the current times are just unworkable for the Lakeshore. Kingston becoming a hub and starting trains there means they can commute to Ottawa and Toronto, with departure times catered to them. And building this hub was a condition of the Lakeshore communities supporting them. VIA met with all the councils en route and proposed a service that works.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

With the new fleet being added and the old fleet retired, how many cars for the long trains at the current frequency?

The exact mix just won't be known till service gets underway. We know that there are 7 cars in the extra long set and 3 cars in the extra short set and configs in between. The base config will be the 5 car long set with 87 business seats and 194 economy seats. The contract was for 9120 seats on 32 trains. There's some really good info in their update presentations to Amtrak NGEC:

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Docume...rocurement.pdf

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Docume...t%20Update.pdf

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Frequencies are probably down about 40%. But that doesn't means squat all when the current times are just unworkable for the Lakeshore. Kingston becoming a hub and starting trains there means they can commute to Ottawa and Toronto, with departure times catered to them. And building this hub was a condition of the Lakeshore communities supporting them. VIA met with all the councils en route and proposed a service that works.

Not even. This twitter post claims that there will be 12 trains between Toronto and Kingston, 6 trains between Kingston and Ottawa and 6 trains between Kingston and Montreal. Not only will the schedule frequency be optimized for service to communities on the lakeshore, but more trains will stop at many of the smaller stations. As I discussed in this post, other thank Oshawa and Kingston (which had 14 and 13 departures respectively, representing a 17% and 8% reduction respectively), most cities had fewer than 12 daily departures and thus see an increase in the number of daily departures.

The exact mix just won't be known till service gets underway. We know that there are 7 cars in the extra long set and 3 cars in the extra short set and configs in between. The base config will be the 5 car long set with 87 business seats and 194 economy seats. The contract was for 9120 seats on 32 trains.

I expect the trainsets will be using semi-permanent couplers. This means that while they won't be able to reconfigure them on the fly, they can add and remove cars as needed in the shop. That way during low periods, they can remove unnecessary cars and ramp up the regular maintenance and during periods of high demand, additional cars can be added to meet the demand.

There's some really good info in their update presentations to Amtrak NGEC:

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Docume...rocurement.pdf

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Docume...t%20Update.pdf

Interesting. I hadn't seen those reports. Summarizing the information from those reports, I get the following configurations:

				 Business	 Economy	Cab

Type		cars	seats	3A	3B	1A	1B	4A

Extra short	3	176	1	0	1	0	1

Short		4	242	1	0	1	1	1

Long		5	285	1	1	1	1	1

Extra long	7	418	1	1	2	2	1

Doing a bit of math (easier than counting seats), I was then able to calculate the number of passenger seats in each car type as follows:

Type		Seats

Business 3A	44

Business 3B	43

Economy  1A	67

Economy  1B	66

Econ.Cab 4A	65

I expect a type 2 car is some type of lounge that VIA elected not to purchase.

[roger1818]

Using the assumptions that:

• There will be 32 trainsets,
• the trainsets will have a total of exactly 9,120 passenger seats,
• the information about the trainsets I posted above, and
• there must be a whole number of each length of trainset (no fractions or negatives).

Using some math and bruit force, I have a guess that there will be the following number of each length of trainset:

Extra short	7

Short		7

Long		10

Extra long	8

From this, I determined that there will be the following number of each type of car:

Business 3A	32

Business 3B	18

Economy  1A	40

Economy  1B	33

Econ.Cab 4A	32

The biggest assumption is that the number of seats is correct and they didn't round if off. If so, my numbers will be totally wrong.

EDIT: It was pointed out to me that 32 x 285 = 9,120, so it is quite probable that VIA is buying 32 base (i.e. Long) trainsets (thus 32 of each car type) and will reconfigure them as needed.

[roger1818]

The following was posted in Ottawa's VIA Rail thread. While still not specifically about VIA Rail, I thought it better in a national thread.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Not specifically about VIA Rail, but it is interesting that Canadian Pacific has re-acquired the railway through Maine that they had disposed of in 1994. The latter disposal was the reason why passenger service was discontinued on that route to Saint John. This gives Canadian Pacific Atlantic port access at both Saint John and Searsport Maine.

https://www.cpr.ca/en/media/cp-compl...quebec-railway

Canadian Pacific posted the followup press release:

https://www.cpr.ca/en/media/canadian...ort-saint-john

It seems like CP is pushing this route for intermodal traffic. It will be interesting to see how successful it is. I would love to see CP reintroduce their Expressway service and extend it to St. John. The shortcut through Maine would be a huge advantage compared to the current truck route to the Atlantic provinces.

Here is a map showing this part of their network.

[Mister F]

Maybe my history is a little off, but my understanding is that traffic on that line (and the port at Saint John) dropped after the St Lawrence Seaway opened and Montreal became a year round port. Ocean going ships are a lot bigger now than they were in the 1950s so maybe Saint John can now handle traffic that Montreal can't. Either way it'll be good to see the line get upgraded.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

EDIT: It was pointed out to me that 32 x 285 = 9,120, so it is quite probable that VIA is buying 32 base (i.e. Long) trainsets (thus 32 of each car type) and will reconfigure them as needed.

They also have a ton of options. Enough for 16 more trainsets. More than likely, the approval of HFR, will see a reconfiguration of something like this:

• All HFR Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal trains are Extra-Long.
• All Kingston Hub trains are Extra-Short.
• All Corridor West trains are Long.
• All HFR Montreal-Quebec City trains are Short.

And they'll purchase extra cars and locomotives to accommodate those configs at their target schedules, through the options they have.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

They also have a ton of options. Enough for 16 more trainsets. More than likely, the approval of HFR, will see a reconfiguration of something like this:

• All HFR Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal trains are Extra-Long.
• All Kingston Hub trains are Extra-Short.
• All Corridor West trains are Long.
• All HFR Montreal-Quebec City trains are Short.

And they'll purchase extra cars and locomotives to accommodate those configs at their target schedules, through the options they have.

That seems reasonable, though it might not be so cut and dry. Most routes see seasonal changes in demand, so may change length at different times of the year.

I am also not so sure that all trains along a given route will be the same length. Trains may be scheduled to run routes that match demand to their capacity. A morning peak train from London to Toronto, might become a mid day train from Toronto to Ottawa/Montreal and then become a pm peak train to Quebec City. Similarly, the first train out of Kingston might be "Short" (to meet the demand from commuters) and then turn into a midday train to London/Windsor. Having trains change routes like this has the added benefit of allowing people to continue on the same train without having to transfer.

The basic idea makes sense though.

[Truenorth00]

It's all speculation obviously. The marginal cost to have an extra car is rather low. It's not an airplane where the size drives up fuel consumption substantially. Enough so that the operational issues with precise demand matching might not be worth the effort. Especially when it comes to daily fluctuations on different sectors.

I would argue that VIA would be better off applying coarse demand matching with the number of cars and adjusting fares for revenue management. Seasonal variation can be managed with extra frequencies.

[MolsonExport]

wouldn't be great if Maine would cede Aroostook country to Canada?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's all speculation obviously. The marginal cost to have an extra car is rather low. It's not an airplane where the size drives up fuel consumption substantially.

It is actually surprisingly high. Intercity rail cars are quite heavy. More significantly, they require regular maintenance based on the number of kilometres in service (even if empty).

Enough so that the operational issues with precise demand matching might not be worth the effort. Especially when it comes to daily fluctuations on different sectors.

I am not talking about demand matching a specific departure on a specific date, but matching well known trends where feasible. If overall demand is low for the next three months, there is no point dragging extra cars up and down the tracks during that period. They can then use that as an oportunity to catch up/get ahead on regular, scheduled maintenance. Similarly, if you know that a specific holiday/event will cause an increase in overall demand, adding extra cars to the trains a few days (or a week) in advance of the ridership spike, makes sense. This is nothing new, but part of VIA's standard operations today.

I would argue that VIA would be better off applying coarse demand matching with the number of cars and adjusting fares for revenue management. Seasonal variation can be managed with extra frequencies.

Except extra frequencies will not be feasible. On the routes that share track with freight lines, VIA has largely tapped out their train frequencies. With HFR, as Urban_Sky explains in this post, it will likely be single track with a preset capacity (presumably they will have sidings spaced for hourly departures in both directions). You can't just add an extra train as it will be in conflict with trains travelling in the opposite direction, so the only way to increase capacity is to add extra cars.