micheal_can
Senior Member
There are already forced transfers in Toronto and Montreal. You cannot go from Windsor to Quebec City without at least 1 transfer.
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
There are already forced transfers in Toronto and Montreal. You cannot go from Windsor to Quebec City without at least 1 transfer.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Indeed, but unlike London and Kingston, Toronto and Montreal are VIA’s two busiest stations and thus either the origin or destination of the vast majority of VIA passengers in the Corridor...
Last edited:
ManyQuestions
Active Member
This is one of the areas where, hopefully, HFR could have the most benefit. Transfer become much less disruptive when trains are both reliable and frequent. One of the most notable features I observed when using the Swiss rail network is that there were relatively few direct long distance trains. While most major cities were indeed linked by direct trains, many smaller ones were not. However, these transfers were generally timed very well and often conveniently arranged as cross platform connections. I imagine that this was designed to both improve system reliability and simplify the network into a smaller number of direct routes versus providing more connection-free routes at lower frequencies.
Last edited:
roger1818
Senior Member
Agreed! One also has to ask what would be the benefit of doing such a thing? Prior to COVID, there was only 1 train a day between Toronto and Sarnia (via London) and the London-Sarnia leg only took less than 75 minutes each way. Switching that to a DMU would mean having a piece of equipment that is only for about 2.5 hours a day. VIA would have to at least quadruple the frequency of service to get a reasonable amount of service use out of the DMUs. It isn't as if VIA can teleport the DMU from London to another city that might be able to use it, so it would end up sitting idle most of the day.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Are the RDCs doing that?
Sarnia - Toronto may be one of those things that could stay as is.
kEiThZ
Superstar
That is a rather arbitrary distinction to draw when deciding what service is provided to a community. How many indigenous communities on a provincially regulated railroad get the level of service that VIA provides to these communities on federally regulated railroads? If there is a difference, how exactly do you justify it to the community that gets worse or no service?
It's not the cost I am concerned about. I get that the cost is minimal (though arguably will rise when fleet recapitalization is considered). What I am opposed to is the arbitrary nature on policies like this that get post-facto justification solely because they are an artifact of history. And absent a strong policy justification/framework, it becomes very easy to target them for future cuts. This is why I argue that all services without national strategic implications should be funded by the provinces, since local and regional transportation falls within their bailiwick. VIA can still run them. Or the province in question can designate another operator.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I would assume that any sleeper car operating as part of a DMU consist would not be a DMU but simply a sleeper car linked in.
That said, I think DMUs would really only come in to play on the Senneterre, Jonquiere and White River trains, where only 2-3 pax (DMU) cars and a (unpowered) baggage car may be needed. And those could have commonality with DMUs used out of the Kingston hub after HFR, where using Chargers may prove to be overkill.
Depends what we're talking about. In a scenario where HFR is extended to London, it absolutely make sense to have a transfer at London. Probably on to a coach bus that is timed to meet those trains. Or if demand warranted it, a 2-car DMU that runs hourly to/from Sarnia.
Last edited:
roger1818
Senior Member
No. They are currently only being used on the Sudbury - White River route, which is between 8 an 9 hours each way, not 2.5.
Exactly! IMHO, the idea of VIA using DMUs is a solution looking for a problem.
lenaitch
Senior Member
In Ontario, the only First Nations Community (i.e. 'Reserve') that I can think of that is served by a provincially-regulated railroad is Moose Factory (indirectly - it's on an island). I am aware that there are First Nations-operated roads in other provinces but I don't know how they are regulated. All other First Nation communities in Ontario are serviced by road connected to the provincial road network or an airport operated by the MTO. It was a decision made by the Ontario government years ago to build and operate airports in remote FN communities in lieu of building year-round roads.
To me, a configuration that accommodates sleeping implies eating and likely baggage. In remote service, baggage service includes the need to accommodate canoes, ATVs, MSVs, large game, etc. I suppose that could all be woven into DMU layout. DMUs are, by their nature, self-propelled, but I'm assuming there are limits to how much unpowered weight they can haul.
micheal_can
Senior Member
My mistake. For some reason I thought I read they were using them there.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I don't think the trains that go to Senneterre, Jonquiere and White River have sleepers. Sudbury-White River train is 2-3 coupled Budd RDCs. That could easily be replaced with a 2-3 car DMU with a luggage car. The Churchill and Prince Rupert trains would need locos.
ManyQuestions
Active Member
I think that was proposed a few years ago but never implemented...
It looks like it was proposed to Kitchener, but I can't read the article because I'm not subscribed to local news away from where I live.
/https://www.therecord.com/content/dam/therecord/news/waterloo-region/2016/03/04/via-rail-calls-on-old-trains-for-new-service-to-kitchener/B822388087Z.1_20160304173406_000_GDU1L089D.2_Gallery.jpg)
Via Rail calls on old trains for new service to Kitchener
Via Rail is reaching 60 years into the past as it moves forward to restore lost service in Kitchener later this year.
Last edited:
roger1818
Senior Member
You are forgetting the dinning car. Eating in your seat is fine for short trips that happen to cross a single meal but people won't want to do so for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Some (but not all) DMUs have the power to tow an extra coach, but AFAIK, they can't tow 2 or more coaches. Then there is the potential for seasonal demand for multiple sleepers. All this begs the question, what is the benefit of using a DMU?
So you are looking at 3 routes. VIA would end up needing to buy almost as many spares trains as active units. At that cost they might as well buy a couple extra Siemens trainsets which they will already have spares available.
Between Kingston and Toronto I suspect demand will be high enough that a conventional train will be more appropriate. While east of Kingston, demand could be low enough that a DMU might work (though in peak ridership periods, demand might still be high enough to make DMUs less efficient), there are reasons not to.
First of all, similar to the Sarnia situation, it would be preferable for some trains to continue past Kingston to avoid the need for a transfer when traveling between either Ottawa or Montreal and the Lakeshore. Yes the first train(s) in the morning will originate in Kingston and the last train(s) of the day will end there, but most trains will continue on to/from Ottawa or Montreal. The difference from today is that the schedule will be optimized for the Lakeshore, not travel between Toronto and Ottawa or Montreal.
Secondly, even if all trains did start/end in Kingston, trains to either Ottawa or Montreal would likely only be every 2-3 hours. That is about the same as the travel time, so VIA would only need about 4 or 5 extra trains for that service. Even when combined with the trains used in Northern Ontario and Quebec, that still isn't very many trains, and it would be cheaper and easier just to order extra trains from Siemens.
If demand warranted hourly DMUs to/from Sarnia (which I highly doubt considering there is currently only 1 train a day) why not extend HFR to there?
kEiThZ
Superstar
Depends what frequencies we are talking about here. I think if there are 6-8 departures in each direction per day, they may only end up filling a 2-3 car DMU on each run.
That would defeat the entire purpose of the Kingston hub; avoiding cascading delays and optimizing schedules for Kingston. Given that Kingston will still on a freight corridor, the only way to do that is to have train service originate and terminate in Kingston.
Good point. Mostly I was just trying to point out that a connecting service coordinated with HFR would be needed. I don't think they'll even have enough to fully fill a coach bus to Sarnia hourly from London. But a coach service is a lot cheaper and easier to run. Especially in a future of electric coach buses in the future.
crs1026
Superstar
^There’s nothing that a DMU hub in Kingston can achieve that a Charger layover hub in Kingston can’t. A Kingston hub should be premised on differing volumes of ridership on each of the three directional legs, and on the need for overnight layover to enable late arrivals into and early morning departures from Kingston. Timekeeping and schedule adherence should not be a consideration.....if we can’t solve that......
The volume differences are not well served by through trains alone, because doing so would require empty seats (or empty coaches, in the extreme) for too much of the run....poor equipment utilization. DMU or short Charger trainsets turning at Kingston can take up the slack. I can envisage VIA easily filling 2 coaches a day minimum with early morning Ottawa commuters, and likewise and more westward towards Toronto. So those early morning runs might well grow beyond DMU size.
West of Toronto, I can see HFR leading to a service plan where the hourly trains arriving from the east run through, alternating between the two current routes. That puts London on effectively an hourly service, and 2-hourly headways for both Kitchener and Brantford If either corridor needs an hourly headway, fill in with DMU, or Chargers as needed, turning at London. I can see perhaps three trains running straight through to Sarnia, again using turnarounds to fill in schedule gaps east of London. No reason that HFR to London can’t carry on to Windsor.
Last time I was in Italy, we rode a single train from Naples to Firenze, with a brief (10 or 15 minute, I forget) pause in Rome. Likewise, London to Inverness through Edinburgh. This is not so difficult to manage, and (unlike, perhaps, a subway-LRT transfer paradigm) it’s a real benefit to travellers who may be schlepping luggage. I never agreed with VIA’s 1980s move to a Kitchener RDC service that had zero through trains to London or Sarnia. It’s all in a creative and careful service plan. That’s even more true now, because the population growth along the Kitchener line since then may give it the more important revenue potential. One-train options are a good thing.
- Paul
The volume differences are not well served by through trains alone, because doing so would require empty seats (or empty coaches, in the extreme) for too much of the run....poor equipment utilization. DMU or short Charger trainsets turning at Kingston can take up the slack. I can envisage VIA easily filling 2 coaches a day minimum with early morning Ottawa commuters, and likewise and more westward towards Toronto. So those early morning runs might well grow beyond DMU size.
West of Toronto, I can see HFR leading to a service plan where the hourly trains arriving from the east run through, alternating between the two current routes. That puts London on effectively an hourly service, and 2-hourly headways for both Kitchener and Brantford If either corridor needs an hourly headway, fill in with DMU, or Chargers as needed, turning at London. I can see perhaps three trains running straight through to Sarnia, again using turnarounds to fill in schedule gaps east of London. No reason that HFR to London can’t carry on to Windsor.
Last time I was in Italy, we rode a single train from Naples to Firenze, with a brief (10 or 15 minute, I forget) pause in Rome. Likewise, London to Inverness through Edinburgh. This is not so difficult to manage, and (unlike, perhaps, a subway-LRT transfer paradigm) it’s a real benefit to travellers who may be schlepping luggage. I never agreed with VIA’s 1980s move to a Kitchener RDC service that had zero through trains to London or Sarnia. It’s all in a creative and careful service plan. That’s even more true now, because the population growth along the Kitchener line since then may give it the more important revenue potential. One-train options are a good thing.
- Paul
Last edited: