[roger1818]

How full should a train be?

It depends on the purpose of the train. If it providing access to comunities that have no other transportation options, it doesn't need to be as full as a train that serves comunities that have road access.

How full should a train be to warrant adding more frequency?

That depends on the cost of adding more frequency and the potential to increase ridership by increasing the frequency. The cost tends to be proportional to the distance traveled. For a tourist train, or when the train is the only option, people will adjust their schedule to match the train's, so increasing frequency adds little benefit.

In the last few years, the peak Canadian bed accommodations have been filling up tot he point of it being a challenge to book it short notice. In an ideal world, Via would have extra equipment they could add to the already long train to allow more to ride. In an ideal world, the demand may be enough that more times a week are warranted. With a full train, we do not know how many people would ride it.

My hope is providing the LDF replacement goes through, we get enough to not just replace the existing fleet, but enough to add service during peak periods. I know how the existing tender was written, it does not speak to that.

Having enough equipent is certainly one piece of the puzzel. There are other costs involved in increasing frequency. If there is an increase in equipment, the most likely increase in frequency would be the return of the Canadian running 3 days a week end to end (at least in the summer months). Other than that, the only other Long Distance/Regional route that might see an increase in frequency would be the Ocean, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

 

[micheal_can]

It depends on the purpose of the train. If it providing access to comunities that have no other transportation options, it doesn't need to be as full as a train that serves comunities that have road access.



That depends on the cost of adding more frequency and the potential to increase ridership by increasing the frequency. The cost tends to be proportional to the distance traveled. For a tourist train, or when the train is the only option, people will adjust their schedule to match the train's, so increasing frequency adds little benefit.



Having enough equipent is certainly one piece of the puzzel. There are other costs involved in increasing frequency. If there is an increase in equipment, the most likely increase in frequency would be the return of the Canadian running 3 days a week end to end (at least in the summer months). Other than that, the only other Long Distance/Regional route that might see an increase in frequency would be the Ocean, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

I know there is a point of diminishing returns. For example, does owning a car that will sit for 6 months unused be more expensive that not having it in the first place?

I do feel of the routes that could become more frequent,the Canadian in the summer can. The Ocean, maybe. The others are under the category of 'it would be nice' but I know that they are not busy enough to warrant it. I do feel for those shorter routes that go one way within a day, such as the RDC,and the Northern Quebec routes, They should have enough to run both ways on weekends and long weekends.

 

[micheal_can]

Projet de réhabilitation du chemin de fer de la Gaspésie

Objectifs du projet, avancement des travaux, coûts et informations techniques sur le projet de réhabilitation du chemin de fer de la Gaspésie.

www.quebec.ca

Information on the return of the Gaspe. It is in French.

Projet de réhabilitation du chemin de fer de la Gaspésie

Objectifs du projet, avancement des travaux, coûts et informations techniques sur le projet de réhabilitation du chemin de fer de la Gaspésie.

www-quebec-ca.translate.goog

Translated version.

 

[micheal_can]

ICYMI: Ozark is selling all their RDCs - 8 of them.
If Via was going to add service to some places outside the Corridor, picking these up would be a good idea. I know it won't happen, but here is an opportunity that will be missed.

Ozark Mountain Railcar

Ozark Mountain Railcar || Passenger Equipment For Sale

ozarkmountainrailcar.com

 

[crs1026]

ICYMI: Ozark is selling all their RDCs - 8 of them.
If Via was going to add service to some places outside the Corridor, picking these up would be a good idea. I know it won't happen, but here is an opportunity that will be missed.

Ozark Mountain Railcar

Ozark Mountain Railcar || Passenger Equipment For Sale

ozarkmountainrailcar.com

VIA had a very good look at that fleet ... I believe it totals a dozen cars - when it was last placed on the market, so likely has considerable data and consciousness about their availability.

But that was then, and this is now. These cars have been out of service since 2012 (retired as being end of life) and last hauled on a main line railway (as unpowered trailers) in 2017. Stored outdoors for 8 years with no real upkeep.I'm not aware of any recent life extension work beyond what was done (for most of them) before they left Texas and/or back before 2000. ( that's 25+ years ago, by the way... math is not our friend even if we remember those days fondly)

So one would have to do a whole new condition assessment to decide what it would take to launch them as "like new" with a full lifespan ahead of them. There is no business case for placing them into service in as-is condition ... you don't run real world services as fixeruppers. (ONR had proposals to do just that with the Northlander, at much lower cost... but wisely did the right thing and bought new in the interest of avoiding maintenance and rebuild costs for a while)

You can rebuild anything with enough money... but the jury is out on whether a business case exists to revive those 12 cars even if they are available at a very affordable purchase price. I have no position either way.... I'm simply saying that this is not a slam-dunk. These are end of life vehicles with all the uncertainties of such. They may only be suitable for museum or tourist service.

The Ozark posting triggered a certain amount of railfan nostalgia and assertions that VIA should purchase same to reinstitute x (insert your favourite Dayliner service from the 1960's). I would hope we would not leap into action based on those sentiments. The business case may suggest otherwise.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

VIA had a very good look at that fleet ... I believe it totals a dozen cars - when it was last placed on the market, so likely has considerable data and consciousness about their availability.

But that was then, and this is now. These cars have been out of service since 2012 (retired as being end of life) and last hauled on a main line railway (as unpowered trailers) in 2017. Stored outdoors for 8 years with no real upkeep.I'm not aware of any recent life extension work beyond what was done (for most of them) before they left Texas and/or back before 2000. ( that's 25+ years ago, by the way... math is not our friend even if we remember those days fondly)

So one would have to do a whole new condition assessment to decide what it would take to launch them as "like new" with a full lifespan ahead of them. There is no business case for placing them into service in as-is condition ... you don't run real world services as fixeruppers. (ONR had proposals to do just that with the Northlander, at much lower cost... but wisely did the right thing and bought new in the interest of avoiding maintenance and rebuild costs for a while)

You can rebuild anything with enough money... but the jury is out on whether a business case exists to revive those 12 cars even if they are available at a very affordable purchase price. I have no position either way.... I'm simply saying that this is not a slam-dunk. These are end of life vehicles with all the uncertainties of such. They may only be suitable for museum or tourist service.

The Ozark posting triggered a certain amount of railfan nostalgia and assertions that VIA should purchase same to reinstitute x (insert your favourite Dayliner service from the 1960's). I would hope we would not leap into action based on those sentiments. The business case may suggest otherwise.

- Paul

There are 2 sides of the reason to buy. One is what you wrote about. I agree with your assertions. The other one though is to keep the existing RDCs running. Currently, one of the cabs are inoperable. So, they need to run all 3 of them. the ability to have spare parts to get that one back fully serviceable would be worth buying one or some of that fleet. We do not have a timeline for a replacement of those RDCs, and with what is going on with the Corridor, having spare parts would help get us to the point of having a new fleet rolling.

Yes,I am a fan of expansion. However,I am more of a fan of keeping what we have from being canceled due to lack of equipment.

 

[crs1026]

There are 2 sides of the reason to buy. One is what you wrote about. I agree with your assertions. The other one though is to keep the existing RDCs running. Currently, one of the cabs are inoperable. So, they need to run all 3 of them. the ability to have spare parts to get that one back fully serviceable would be worth buying one or some of that fleet. We do not have a timeline for a replacement of those RDCs, and with what is going on with the Corridor, having spare parts would help get us to the point of having a new fleet rolling.

Yes,I am a fan of expansion. However,I am more of a fan of keeping what we have from being canceled due to lack of equipment.

Fair enough.....but.....it comes back to, would an investment in four three-car Venture sets have a better ROI for whatever you wish to see created than refurbishing twelve 1950's era RDC's ?

There is no case any more for train services based on one- or two- car trainsets.... the capital and operating costs required to maintain track, signals, stations etc demands ridership beyond the old Dayliners (that often ran with bus-sized passenger counts). So a rekindled RDC service would be more likely to resemble the CN corridors that saw 3- or 4- car RDC trains running several times a day. Maybe those are sustainable, but this is where the RDC carbody and technology - even rebuilt - has to compete with what might be available in the new train market. And with options for standardised modern trains.

I don't see much upside to purchasing wrecks, is all, And as someone who spends a lot of my retirement coping with the quirks and shortcoming of aged railcars, including certain RDC's.... I just don't see them as an opportunity to save anything useful.... outside of maybe the museum context. That's why a condition assessment is vital.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

Fair enough.....but.....it comes back to, would an investment in four three-car Venture sets have a better ROI for whatever you wish to see created than refurbishing twelve 1950's era RDC's ?

There is no case any more for train services based on one- or two- car trainsets.... the capital and operating costs required to maintain track, signals, stations etc demands ridership beyond the old Dayliners (that often ran with bus-sized passenger counts). So a rekindled RDC service would be more likely to resemble the CN corridors that saw 3- or 4- car RDC trains running several times a day. Maybe those are sustainable, but this is where the RDC carbody and technology - even rebuilt - has to compete with what might be available in the new train market. And with options for standardised modern trains.

I don't see much upside to purchasing wrecks, is all, And as someone who spends a lot of my retirement coping with the quirks and shortcoming of aged railcars, including certain RDC's.... I just don't see them as an opportunity to save anything useful.... outside of maybe the museum context. That's why a condition assessment is vital.

- Paul

With what is currently going on with the Corridor sets, it would not be worth buying more to replace the RDCs. The point of buying some would not be to add to the existing service, but keep what we have going. Fix the things that make 2 car operation not possible. Keep them going long enough for what ever is decided for the LDF to come online without a disruption of service. Makes me think of 'parts cars' people buy when they need to keep the car they have going longer, but need somethign, like an engine or transmission. They buy a car that would not be roadworthy, or even worth making it roadworthy and scavenge parts from it till they can afford to replace it.

 

[Urban Sky]

There is no case any more for train services based on one- or two- car trainsets.... the capital and operating costs required to maintain track, signals, stations etc demands ridership beyond the old Dayliners (that often ran with bus-sized passenger counts).

To support the point that virtually all of the RDC routes cut in 1990 had passenger counts which would have been more appropriate for a bus service:

Unfortunately, outside the corridors, cities are smaller and much further apart, while rail infrastructure is much slower and with less sidings, which is fine for freight, but kills any chance of being competitive against most sorts of road passenger transport. In such contexts, a bus service with 3 runs daily offers 21 departures per week and thus much more utility at a lower (!) operating cost than a train which only operates three times per week.

Have a look at the tables I posted from 1988 and see how many of the VIA services which got discontinued in January 1990 had less riders per departure than a intercity bus has seats (maybe 80, i.e., 20 rows of 4 seats each?):

• Toronto-North Bay: 73
• Halifax-Saint John: 67
• Halifax-Yarmouth: 65
• Mont-Joli - Quebec: 54
• Moncton-Campbellton: 45
• Sherbrooke-Montreal: 34
• Moncton-Edmundston: 33
• Cochrane-Kapuskasing: 12

2 discontinued services (Halifax-Sydney and Toronto-Havelock) had just over 80 passengers, but remember that even operating two buses is much cheaper than a single train (not to mention that some passengers usually get off before the last passengers board the train or bus).

In short: capacity for hundreds of passengers is only useful where you have anything close to that many passengers willing to ride your train at the particular times where you operate…

VIA Jasper, Prince George and Prince Rupert Service

Interesting that the Atlantic had better cost recovery than the Ocean, yet the Ocean was the one maritime LD train that was saved. I guess because it was an all Canadian run rather than going through the US, and slightly better served New Brunswick (unless you happen to live in St. John).

www.amtraktrains.com

 

[roger1818]

With what is currently going on with the Corridor sets, it would not be worth buying more to replace the RDCs. The point of buying some would not be to add to the existing service, but keep what we have going. Fix the things that make 2 car operation not possible. Keep them going long enough for what ever is decided for the LDF to come online without a disruption of service. Makes me think of 'parts cars' people buy when they need to keep the car they have going longer, but need somethign, like an engine or transmission. They buy a car that would not be roadworthy, or even worth making it roadworthy and scavenge parts from it till they can afford to replace it.

If the price is right, buying them for spare parts might make some sense. The question is, what is the cost of the alternatives? With RDCs only used on the White River train, it might be cheaper and easier to switch it to use HEPs with a locomotive to standardize on one type of equipment for use west of the corridor.

 

[micheal_can]

If the price is right, buying them for spare parts might make some sense. The question is, what is the cost of the alternatives? With RDCs only used on the White River train, it might be cheaper and easier to switch it to use HEPs with a locomotive to standardize on one type of equipment for use west of the corridor.

Do they have that available though? If they actually do and it wouldn't cause more headaches in the Corridor or other parts of the network, then, that would be a good thing to do.

 

[micheal_can]

With the announcement of Alto,what are the chances of parties announcing support for the AB HSR plan in their election platforms?

 

[ARG1]

With the announcement of Alto,what are the chances of parties announcing support for the AB HSR plan in their election platforms?

I'd like to imagine that happens, but at the same time if I was a politician, I'd be wary of announcing support of any project that for the most part is a concept behind closed doors. There has been some cool information tangentially related to the project, such as Grand Central Station, as well as some details regarding the included airport connector (I don't think those have been posted here so I'll post them at the end of this post), but as of right now most if not all of the Alberta rail plans are publicly just lines on a map. If we get more concrete details and even a funding/implementation plan, then it would be a good idea to start publicly supporting it, and making it part of election platforms.

The Airport connector plans by the way:

 

[micheal_can]

I'd like to imagine that happens, but at the same time if I was a politician, I'd be wary of announcing support of any project that for the most part is a concept behind closed doors. There has been some cool information tangentially related to the project, such as Grand Central Station, as well as some details regarding the included airport connector (I don't think those have been posted here so I'll post them at the end of this post), but as of right now most if not all of the Alberta rail plans are publicly just lines on a map. If we get more concrete details and even a funding/implementation plan, then it would be a good idea to start publicly supporting it, and making it part of election platforms.

The Airport connector plans by the way:
View attachment 632130
View attachment 632131

HFR/HSR/Alto has been lines on a map for decades. With how the existing federal government moved from lines on a map to funding to build it, would that be what happens? So, not announce the funding to build, but the funding to explore options, with reports back within a reasonable time to then build?

 

[ARG1]

HFR/HSR/Alto has been lines on a map for decades. With how the existing federal government moved from lines on a map to funding to build it, would that be what happens? So, not announce the funding to build, but the funding to explore options, with reports back within a reasonable time to then build?

Please tell me you understand the difference between a federal government promoting and backing its own in house projects, vs sponsoring and backing a project being entirely helmed by a completely separate government...