Allandale25
Senior Member
I think this is at Brockville.
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
ManyQuestions
Active Member
Ohhh! That makes sense!
Still, I am not convinced that DMUs make sense in addition to VIA's new relatively short loco hauled Siemens trains. I think that there were some 3 car consists that were shown somewhere in this forum.
smallspy
Senior Member
The standards that the LRC locos were designed and built to are not vastly different than the ones today, and they even received the same updated windshields that are still standard today. By and large, they are basically the same safety-wise as anything modern on the rails today.
RDCs are a totally different question, on the other hand. They were designed and built to meet a standard that has been greatly superseded over the years. That said, the 6 RDCs that VIA is using today have all undergone a heavy rebuilding, and part of that rebuilding was a redesign of the front cab area to make it safer for the operating crews. It may not be quite as safe as a modern loco, but it's light-years better than when they were outshopped by Budd in the 1940s and 1950s.
The only locomotives with CEM elements on the rails today are the Progress Spirit and Siemens Charger. And despite the addition of those elements, they are still reliant on the basic rules of locomotive design (1,000,000 lb buff strength, 300,000 lb collision posts, CFR273 part 223 glass, etc.).
Dan
robmausser
Senior Member
crs1026
Superstar
^Many people seem to be fixated on those old Budd built RDC carbodies, largely (I guess) because they are still out there and therefore (seemingly) quicker to access than new stock. I would question whether they are really the optimal purchase, considering a) they would have to be rehabbed, and b) they will only last so much longer.
The cost difference between a 2, 3, or 4-car Budd RDC train and a conventional train is a spreadsheet exercise, and only VIA knows those exact numbers. And even that is likely a guesstimate, because the current White River operation has sufficient differences from Corridor service that the numbers may not be generalizable. I can't ever remember a VIA or CN RDC consist exceeding 4 cars, nor did CN routinely run 3-car conventional trains.....maybe that gives a hint. But that's very old data.
In any event, the big advantage of DMU is probably not cost, it's quick convenient turnability. VIA's current fleet doesn't have a good solution for that except where longer consists justify push-pull configuration. However, VIA has addressed that issue by ordering cab cars and by configuring its fleet to provide some short push-pull consists.
With VIA having options for more equipment, I would argue that it would be as quick, and no more expensive, to just order more 3-car Challenger trainsets for any low-volume service.
There is a romantic attachment to the railways' old branch line RDC service, where on many routes a single car (or maybe two) plied a lightly used line to smaller communities. That was fine once, I guess, although those branch lines were uneconomical for decades and the tracks are mostly gone. The RDC's advantage as a light, quickfooted railcar is likely lost to current track and speed regulations. I'm old enough to have ridden a few branch line RDC's, and they were great fun. But..... this is 2020, and a single partial carload of passengers is not going to approach the minimum "break-even" threshold to justify service by today's yardstick. Let's face it, it takes 2 or 3 carloads of passengers to justify a VIA train anymore.
Likewise, there may be a romantic attraction to the likes of DMU services in, say, the UK. Also great fun to ride, but we just aren't going to see a St Ives branch in Canada anytime soon.....while these may return some day if the country moves away from road transportation, the capital cost of restoring the tracks and adding signalling and maintenance infrastructure will be so substantial that the choice of rail vehicle will not be a consideration. And again, that's so many years down the road that clinging to RDC's seems a very poor strategy.
VIA's attempts to buy back RDC's is as much a matter of desperation as anything. Government is certainly not encouraging a light-load rail passenger service. I commend VIA's intentions, but let's not pretend that buying back these old veterans is a sound fleet acquisition strategy.
- Paul
The cost difference between a 2, 3, or 4-car Budd RDC train and a conventional train is a spreadsheet exercise, and only VIA knows those exact numbers. And even that is likely a guesstimate, because the current White River operation has sufficient differences from Corridor service that the numbers may not be generalizable. I can't ever remember a VIA or CN RDC consist exceeding 4 cars, nor did CN routinely run 3-car conventional trains.....maybe that gives a hint. But that's very old data.
In any event, the big advantage of DMU is probably not cost, it's quick convenient turnability. VIA's current fleet doesn't have a good solution for that except where longer consists justify push-pull configuration. However, VIA has addressed that issue by ordering cab cars and by configuring its fleet to provide some short push-pull consists.
With VIA having options for more equipment, I would argue that it would be as quick, and no more expensive, to just order more 3-car Challenger trainsets for any low-volume service.
There is a romantic attachment to the railways' old branch line RDC service, where on many routes a single car (or maybe two) plied a lightly used line to smaller communities. That was fine once, I guess, although those branch lines were uneconomical for decades and the tracks are mostly gone. The RDC's advantage as a light, quickfooted railcar is likely lost to current track and speed regulations. I'm old enough to have ridden a few branch line RDC's, and they were great fun. But..... this is 2020, and a single partial carload of passengers is not going to approach the minimum "break-even" threshold to justify service by today's yardstick. Let's face it, it takes 2 or 3 carloads of passengers to justify a VIA train anymore.
Likewise, there may be a romantic attraction to the likes of DMU services in, say, the UK. Also great fun to ride, but we just aren't going to see a St Ives branch in Canada anytime soon.....while these may return some day if the country moves away from road transportation, the capital cost of restoring the tracks and adding signalling and maintenance infrastructure will be so substantial that the choice of rail vehicle will not be a consideration. And again, that's so many years down the road that clinging to RDC's seems a very poor strategy.
VIA's attempts to buy back RDC's is as much a matter of desperation as anything. Government is certainly not encouraging a light-load rail passenger service. I commend VIA's intentions, but let's not pretend that buying back these old veterans is a sound fleet acquisition strategy.
- Paul
Last edited:
Allandale25
Senior Member
At today's Toronto Region Board of Trade Recovery Summit Series on transportation, on a panel (screenshot below) the President and CEO of VIA Rail provided some remarks that touched on HFR.
Here is the audio: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x_Da_AQ4NYMwOCS_MOfr6x6uzrB37q62/view?usp=sharing
Quick summary (my paraphrasing):
Here is the audio: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x_Da_AQ4NYMwOCS_MOfr6x6uzrB37q62/view?usp=sharing
Quick summary (my paraphrasing):
- VIA had its best year in 2019 and hit a revenue high and experienced 5 years of ridership growth leading up to 2019;
- Despite the challenges of the blockade and COVID-19, we can't lose sight of modernization;
- VIA is reaching the limit of its potential and frequency potential, and needs modernization;
- Modernization includes: 1) new reservation system; 2) refurbishment of the existing fleet; 3) the new fleet coming online in 2022; and 4) HFR is the "flagship" and the "heart of the future";
- $71 million was allocated by the feds in 2019 to study 2019. The Joint Project Office (JPO) report should be available "shortly" and they hope for a decision by the end of the year [it wasn't clear who is making the decision but I assume the Minister];
- HFR: it's about frequency and connectivity, creating service for new places, improving reliability/on-time performance, getting passenger trains away from freight trains, environmental sustainability, and there is an opportunity to electrify the network [route]. It was noted that it's a large-scale project that aligns with the government's goals on job creation and aligns with green goals; and
- SW Ontario - there was a question on more SW Ontario service. Here is the audio of the response: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yhOz5jJ1-oKlQ607wswoMMuB4sbLotVx/view?usp=sharing
Last edited:
roger1818
Senior Member
Thanks for posting. It certainly does look like Brockville. VIA also posted another video and a couple days ago and I wasn't sure where it was, but I am now wondering if it is also the nearby bridge in Brockville. It certainly looks similar and both could be part of an upgrade to the Brockville Sub.
micheal_can
Senior Member
The attachment to the RDCs, I feel, has less to do with them,but more to do with what they can do. By having a self propelled passenger car in it's fleet, it can run a single car to meet demand. Right now, that is all via has in it's fleet. For the modernization, Via should look for a modern replacement for it. Then, they should look for modern replacements for the rest of the fleet. This can help with expansion without a shortage of rolling stock.
kEiThZ
Superstar
This is great. Is the whole presentation online? Thanks for posting.
ManyQuestions
Active Member
I agree, given that VIA is already purchasing Challenger trainsets to standardize the corridor operations, I really do not see why they would purchase a separate DMU fleet and undo the efficiencies that come from standardization.
Short 1 or 2 car DMUs have been used for some of my most memorable train journeys, but I understand that they do not really make sense if they are not operating over what would otherwise be underutilized infrastructure.
ManyQuestions
Active Member
Are there any routes where VIA currently operates that would be better severed by single cars? I suppose they could be deployed on the Montreal-Senneterre and Montreal-Jonquière lines?
kEiThZ
Superstar
A single car route should be replaced with a bus. Having any route less than daily and/or with insufficient demand to fill 2-3 car DMUs, should be replaced with daily or twice daily buses.
Everyone understands the value of frequency with HFR. I don't get why people don't see the value of that outside the Corridor.
Everyone understands the value of frequency with HFR. I don't get why people don't see the value of that outside the Corridor.
roger1818
Senior Member
Here are pictures of a I took of the Northern Quebec train leaving Montreal (the two trains are coupled together and run as one train to Hervey). Note on May 2, both trains consist of a locomotive, a baggage car and a single coach but on May 4, a second coach was added to one of the two trains (presumably the one to Jonquière as it departs Hervey first). If they don't "need" RDCs on this route, I don't see why they are needed on the Sudbury-White River train if another type of bi-directional train is available.
May 2, 2018 - taken by user roger1818 (click photo to enlarge)
May 4, 2018 - taken by user roger1818 (click photo to enlarge)
Last edited:
roger1818
Senior Member
So build roads to serve the intermediary stops that currently can only be served by rail?
Allandale25
Senior Member
Members of this panel, including the VIA President and CEO, didn't do presentations with decks. They offered opening remarks, took questions from the moderator, and then took questions from the audience.
Last edited: