VIA Rail

[steveintoronto]

CN is a private company. The gov't sold it in an IPO, took the cash and ran. So VIA must rent the tracks. Which pays for (1) maintenance, (2) capital costs, (3) land and (4) lost potential for revenue from other sources.

Roads are a public resource. We can all debate on what should be paid. But it would only cover (1) and (2). I wanted to highlight there are costs that trucks pay for this that are not paid for by railway which includes the higher fuel tax.

You're still missing the essential point: *How much does VIA pay to CN and CP for access to their tracks*? Of course they're private, we all know that. If they were still (in the case of CN) a property owned by the national government, that track access charge would be public (but even there with some provisos).

You are comparing chickens to tapeworms. To remind you, this all revolves around the definition of "profitability" and the modifier in this present discussion of how *costs* impact that meaning.

If VIA owned all of their own track, this discussion would be moot. And btw, under CTA regs as prescribed under the Transportation Act, any other operator, if issued a licence by the CTA, can apply to use that track that VIA 'owns'. If they don't come to a settlement of what the charges would be for doing so, the Minister can impose an arbitrated one. That can be appealed to Superior Court, but unless that or another court judgement deems the costs are to be kept confidential, the amount must be made public...or closer to reality, available on a FOI request.

So I ask you, why are CN and CP able to prevent VIA from disclosing their exact costs? We know how much it costs to run buses and trucks on public thoroughfares. We don't know how much it costs for VIA to run on private tracks.

I wanted to highlight there are costs that trucks pay for this that are not paid for by railway which includes the higher fuel tax.

The debate isn't VIA v. Trucks. It's VIA v. Bus. And buses get fuel tax discounts of a substantial amounts, both federally and provincially.

Fact checking that claim, I came across this one that I didn't even know about:
International Fuel Tax Agreement - Ontario.ca

 

[dowlingm]

Hmm, I wonder if Siemens would consider a Dual Mode version of the charger?

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=156318&p=1455611#p1455611

 

[dowlingm]

Whether they do or not, it doesn't meet the requirements as stated

What is stopping VIA Rail deciding they didn't get what they wanted from the RFP and binning it in favour of whatever they want to do?

 

[steveintoronto]

What is stopping VIA Rail deciding they didn't get what they wanted from the RFP and binning it in favour of whatever they want to do?

That's the $1.4B question. The most likely comeback will likely be to the effect of "The window of time on this has expired".

I had suggested exactly that some weeks back, that VIA forget about the "bi-mode" requirement, and just take proposals on a single diesel loco one end, and whatever suits them the other (including a "Cabbage") until such time as electric can be tendered and used. That could then be added to the other end, as NJTransit and some others IIRC do/did. (edit: See http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/742/t/261421.aspx ) It also addresses the weight and service problems, let alone overall price. Duals have a number of probs.

Even clapped out but still running F40s could do it to meet current regs for Push-Pull.

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=156318&p=1455611#p1455611

Yeah! I was reading that just the other day, but not as up to date as your link. That debate has been running for some years. Siemens may be avoiding doing it for good reason, pointing to the option I describe which is vastly more flexible and affordable by being such.

This I didn't realize, and has real resonance to CRRC buying BBD's Cdn rail operations:

Re: Siemens Charger Locomotives

by DutchRailnut » Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:25 pm

well with GE locomotive division up for sale, it may soon be a subsidiary of chinese company like Fong Deng locomotive works

It's a valid point across North Am. The Chinese have buckets of cash, and they're closely watching. It's almost to the point that if they don't invest in foreign markets (like Canada, and Trudeau has the mat out, for better or worse) then they lose their dominant position.

In the event, for VIA's current needs, the Brightline w/four coaches and running just one loco would be perfect. One loco could probably draw five for most runs no problem. Brightline runs the tail deadhead until reversing, and then deadheads other end. Dragging a loco other end is easily the weight of at least one more coach.

 

[kEiThZ]

What is stopping VIA Rail deciding they didn't get what they wanted from the RFP and binning it in favour of whatever they want to do?

Nothing. There's no requirement for an RFP to close with a contract. However, it's probably a good idea to reimburse submitted bids for some bid preparation costs. So as not to tank your credibility for the future.

 

[dowlingm]

In the event, for VIA's current needs, the Brightline w/four coaches and running just one loco would be perfect. One loco could probably draw five for most runs no problem. Brightline runs the tail deadhead until reversing, and then deadheads other end. Dragging a loco other end is easily the weight of at least one more coach.

The Siemens cars for the Midwest/California might be closer still (Brightline has no traps). I would rather baggage than passenger on the cab car end if the HEP2 capability is being retained.

 

[steveintoronto]

I would rather baggage than passenger on the cab car end if the HEP2 capability is being retained.

Didn't realize that the Caltrans version is that different, (Edit: took me a while, the coaches are completely different, not the locos) but thinking about it, it should come as no surprise. I'll dig on that. The Siemens certainly seems to be a favoured choice.

One has to wonder if the Wabtec MP54 couldn't be in the running, albeit tweaked for distance running (taller overall gear ratio, larger fuel tank, bogie damping, etc) and share maintenance (or the consortium producing the 'trainset') with Metrolinx? It can certainly pull a longer consist single-ended with a Cabbage the other end.

https://www.wabtec.com/products/5103/mp54-ac-commuter-locomotive

 

[kEiThZ]

You guys are discussing rolling stock while we don't know if VIA will get enough to keep the lights on....

If HFR doesn't happen, VIA will get strangled to death.

 

[steveintoronto]

The Siemens cars for the Midwest/California might be closer still (Brightline has no traps). I would rather baggage than passenger on the cab car end if the HEP2 capability is being retained.

I've only just further realized the difference you state. It's not just the coaches, it's the integral *driving cabs* that the Midwest group (which includes Caltrans) is touting:

[...]
Modern, single-level coaches are safer, protecting passengers better in a crash. They are strong yet light, allowing them to accelerate quickly and ride more smoothly on rough track. They operate as unified trainsets, which means better management of forces in case of a collision or derailment. The sealed passageway between cars eliminates the hazardous vestibule, which is slippery during rain and snow. Locomotives or driving cabs on both ends allows a train to simply head back the way it came when it reaches its destination, instead of requiring a slow and expensive turn-around move in a yard.

Mr. Anderson is right: Amtrak desperately needs better train equipment. It should acquire modern, single-level trainsets instead of continuing to rely on the aging and inefficient Superliners. [...]

https://www.midwesthsr.org/new-midwest-trains-will-be-modern-single-level-siemens-design

 

[dowlingm]

One has to wonder if the Wabtec MP54 couldn't be in the running, albeit tweaked for distance running (taller overall gear ratio, larger fuel tank, bogie damping, etc) and share maintenance (or the consortium producing the 'trainset') with Metrolinx? It can certainly pull a longer consist single-ended with a Cabbage the other end.

https://www.wabtec.com/products/5103/mp54-ac-commuter-locomotive

My understanding is that MP54 is considered too heavy for long distance use. All that weight is good for adhesion in stop start commuter but if you want to get to 110, never mind 125 and don't have 10-12 bilevels to pull...

 

[dowlingm]

You guys are discussing rolling stock while we don't know if VIA will get enough to keep the lights on....

If HFR doesn't happen, VIA will get strangled to death.

HFR track in a decade or more won't be much good if VIA has to cut services in the next five years because its rolling stock has rusted out.

 

[steveintoronto]

My understanding is that MP54 is considered too heavy for long distance use. All that weight is good for adhesion in stop start commuter but if you want to get to 110, never mind 125 and don't have 10-12 bilevels to pull...

Fair enough, with two prime movers and associated chassis and body structure, you're right. It's a truck, not a sports car. And presently geared that way for good reason. It's already optimized. I suspect Siemens have the 'inside track' on power to weight, adhesion control, small profile and very advanced control, cab layout, etc. And the ability to even push the 125 mph rating somewhat.

The Charger with a Cab Car other end looks very hard to better for VIA's immediate needs, and to be forward compatible when VIA, if indeed it is VIA, establishes HFR+. And it already runs into Canada on the West Coast.

HFR track in a decade or more won't be much good if VIA has to cut services in the next five years because its rolling stock has rusted out.

Some keep confusing HFR acquisition with *Fleet Renewal*...albeit VIA is partly to blame for trying to combine the two. We've missed the HFR train for now, that means emphasis must be back on Fleet Renewal...but make it forward compatible.

The Siemens solution does all of that. I can't see how it can be beat, but for obvious reasons, others must be given the chance to propose something as well. Which now makes me wonder? Is it too late to piggyback on the Midwest Group's order? The Minister has the power to impose a sole contract. Quebec might never forgive the Libs though, even if it makes incredible sense. (with provisos)

 

[dowlingm]

Fair enough, with two prime movers and associated chassis and body structure, you're right. It's a truck, not a sports car.

The original order announcement was for one QSK95 - can't recall if that was with or without a HEP motor. That's basically a Charger. That later became 2 x QSK60. Would be interesting to know how much of that change was Cummins not having QSK95 quite ready and how much was other stuff.

 

[steveintoronto]

The original order announcement was for one QSK95 - can't recall if that was with or without a HEP motor. That's basically a Charger. That later became 2 x QSK60. Would be interesting to know how much of that change was Cummins not having QSK95 quite ready and how much was other stuff.

I just checked the specs, they state QSK60
https://www.wabtec.com/uploads/outlinedrawings/MP54AC-Commuter-Locomotive.pdf

At some point, they were stating Caterpillar. There's a story in there alright.

 

[dowlingm]

I just checked the specs, they state QSK60
https://www.wabtec.com/uploads/outlinedrawings/MP54AC-Commuter-Locomotive.pdf

At some point, they were stating Caterpillar. There's a story in there alright.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...o-produce-tier-4-compliant-diesel-engine.html

Launching the engine at its Seymour, Indiana, plant, Cummins announced that Toronto commuter operator GO Transit will be the first QSK95 customer in North America, with an order for the repowering of 11 MotivePower MP40 locomotives.