micheal_can
Senior Member
Which yard? Currently, much of the old fleet are in Cochrane. I'll believe it when it pulls out of a station with paying passengers on it.
|
|
|
Ontario Northland/Northern Ontario Transportation
- Thread starter CDL.TO
- Start date
APTA-2048
Senior Member
Something I just came up with myself. I guess I used the TEE train as a starting point and came up with a modern look.
Bureaucromancer
Active Member
Looks like it's pretty heavily inspired by the TEE units to me.
Realistically I fully expect that any restored service will end up run by an extension of the VIA order.
micheal_can
Senior Member
I don't. I fully expect it to be 2 of the engines ONR currently owns. I also expect it to be refurbished coaches they also own.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
The press release states:
Based on that it sounds like they already have an idea in mind (which admittedly doesn't seem to quite match any of the options in the Business Case).
Another advantage of overnight trips is that you can get away with a lot fewer amenities than a daytime trip of similar duration. If you're in a daytime train for 12 hours, the trip would be pretty tiresome without a dining car or dome car or such, but overnight trains would do fine with just a café (half-)car where people can grab a breakfast and drink in the morning.
tmlittle
Active Member
Honestly I'll believe it when it's been running for a few years and hasn't been stripped back to a token parliamentary train like the Canadian that runs only a couple of times a week but serves as an expensive wedge against the people demanding reinstatement.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Thanks for that. I thought you meant northbound. But you're right; the press release doesn't mirror the business case. Hard to summarize a lengthy document with multiple options.
lenaitch
Senior Member
The business case assumes, although not in great detail, that the trainset will consist of "a locomotive, accessibility coach and cab car". I doubt they could be nimble enough to jump on any VIA order (because, government). It sort of does sound like re-purposed GO equipment, although I'm not a fan of bi-level on this track. I don't think any current ONT locos have head-end power; they have always used freight locos with a power car (except the TEE era).
APTA-2048
Senior Member
BiLevels would be interesting. Reminiscent of the long distance BiLevel concept.
Images by Jim Shook.
Images by Jim Shook.
crs1026
Superstar
^Buying new equipment sidesteps an ugly political decision around placing work out of province, but it leads to the worst possible result. Jumping on the tail end of a VIA order is probably not that difficult, as other customers are in line so the production facility will be in operation anyways for a few years yet.
I’m opposed to cab cars in this service because a) no quick turns required on such a long run and b) horn on an overnight train.
Rebuilding an older freight loco throws any hope of declaring a carbon improvement out the window, and spare parts will eventually become an issue.. Power cars are extra axles and brakes to maintain - if we are going to account over 60 years, that’s a lotof carmiles. (Of course, maybe VIA could shed a couple F40s in a couple years as its new trainsets arrive....)
As much as I hate to say it, end of life Amtrak equipment will become available soon as Amtrak renews its fleet. Some of that stock might be preferable to ex GO bilevels, and so long as they get refurbished in North Bay the political spin would be favourable.
Two car trains does not imply a very positive passenger count.
Seems like we are jumping through a lot of hoops just to have a train, any train. The business case seems to suggest that the real ridership value is in the North Bay-Toronto segment, as a logical buildout of the Corridor, and meeting Regional needs north of the GTA.
I wonder if this is still just a bridge too far without declaring a commitment to a full northern rail network, which would imply taking the North Bay-Sault line away from private operators and running the lines as a provincial institution. CN might even hand over the Newmarket Sub in such a deal.
- Paul
I’m opposed to cab cars in this service because a) no quick turns required on such a long run and b) horn on an overnight train.
Rebuilding an older freight loco throws any hope of declaring a carbon improvement out the window, and spare parts will eventually become an issue.. Power cars are extra axles and brakes to maintain - if we are going to account over 60 years, that’s a lotof carmiles. (Of course, maybe VIA could shed a couple F40s in a couple years as its new trainsets arrive....)
As much as I hate to say it, end of life Amtrak equipment will become available soon as Amtrak renews its fleet. Some of that stock might be preferable to ex GO bilevels, and so long as they get refurbished in North Bay the political spin would be favourable.
Two car trains does not imply a very positive passenger count.
Seems like we are jumping through a lot of hoops just to have a train, any train. The business case seems to suggest that the real ridership value is in the North Bay-Toronto segment, as a logical buildout of the Corridor, and meeting Regional needs north of the GTA.
I wonder if this is still just a bridge too far without declaring a commitment to a full northern rail network, which would imply taking the North Bay-Sault line away from private operators and running the lines as a provincial institution. CN might even hand over the Newmarket Sub in such a deal.
- Paul
Allandale25
Senior Member
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Oh, no, sorry I meant "between Toronto and Timmins", not specifically "from Toronto to Timmins". With a travel time in the ballpark of 12h one way, it wouldn't be possible to do a round trip in one day. With one trainset the service could run 3 trains a week (alternating northbound and southbound overnight), or with two trainsets it could run daily with overnight trips in both directions. From the press release it sounds like they're thinking of daily service in the summer and 3 or 4 days per week in the winter.
lenaitch
Senior Member
I'm only speculating, but it strikes me that cab cars are mentioned because, if they plan to terminate in Timmins, it would be a reverse move of ~30 miles to turn the train. My concern, perhaps misplaced, with bi-levels is the dynamics on the upper level unless they plan to really improve the roadbed.
I share your concern that if they start with Toronto-North Bay service, they might lose interest and stop there. The political attention span is only so long. I don't see any political appetite for a full northern network. The Sudbury-SSM track is nowhere near in any condition to provide a passenger service with any kind of service speed without gobs of money, and the SSM-Hearst line seems to have a private operator consortium that is at least committed and active. To tie it all together, the Cochrane-Hearst sub is in not great shape as well. All of this for ridership that I'm not sure is there.
I've often wondered why CN hasn't offered up the remains of the Newmarket sub. It's not like it's a really a high revenue line for them and has little enroute revenue. Then again, they might have informally explored it with ONTC in the past and realized that the government was not interested.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Is there any reason they couldn't take one the older coaches and make it into a cab car? I don't feel the bilevels will be a good fit with the current track conditions. The other solution they could do is disconnect in Timmins and reposition them to the opposite end. Not ideal, but it may work.
I fully expect it to be open Cochrane - Toronto on day one. Doing less would sour the people from ever voting PC.
The loop of North Bay, Sudbury, SSM, Hearst, North Bay would be a great offering once the Northlander is back.It would make people think that the party that puts it forwards cares about up here, and might be enough to secure seats. Bringing passenger service on that route could even be used as a "jobs" platform. It will employ X number of jobs to bring it up to a reasonable standard for passenger service. They could even get away with it taking 10 years to complete.
Remember, it wasn't that long ago that the ONR was being divested.
crs1026
Superstar
There's the reality - there are two extremes
1) The current approach where each part of the northern transportation network is held by a private operator, who maintains that segment to only whatever standard the revenue will support, possibly allowing some parts to whither away
2) Declare a "system" and restore/maintain it to a system standard, with or without contract operators, and using the public purse to fill in any gaps in revenue.
I'm not sure that anyone south of French River has any interest in the second option. The current government is playing a dangerous game sounding like they are amenable to that. It's a game that works until the bill arrives. Perhaps Ford and Fedelli figure they can rag the puck until the end of their term(s) of office, and let the other party be the bad guy. ONTC is on a bit of a rise but I don't see them being given a mandate to fully succeed - they are just getting fed enough to maintain the illusion of a sustainable network for a few years. "Divesting to greatness" may continue to be the true strategy.
- Paul