Jump to content

VIA Rail Canada


Waiting for 30 Minutes

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, InfiNorth said:

Because, considering the service frequencies and the traffic through those stations (except Centrale and Union) are equivalent more to the kinds of stations you'd expect to just wait on the platform. 

If you are explicitly excluding MTRL and TRTO, which stations are we actually talking about and why exactly is it a problem that you can't wait on a narrow platform with zero facilities until the (probably delayed) train shows up so that you can delay your own boarding by standing in the way of the passengers who detrain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Urban Sky said:

Fascinating to hear how the situation was three, four or even five decades ago, but when I took the Avanti West Coast train for a roundtrip between London Euston and Manchester Piccadilly in February 2020, both stations had barriers with ticket checks to prevent you from accessing any platform unless you had a valid ticket for a train which was ready for boarding on that platform.

I'm still curious to learn how exactly that is so different from boarding a VIA train in QBEC/MTRL/OTTW/TRTO...

I have never been to Quebec City by train, so can't speak to that station, but with Windsor, Toronto, and Montreal I had to line up. The only times I did not was when I was with my mother, who was in a wheelchair so we were taken directly to the train, and when I was doing photography for VIA and already in the restricted areas at Toronto and Ottawa so I could jump on my train without having to line up.

Asked my father about the UK stations and he said that St.Pancras used to be gated, but they were removed, while Paddington and Kings Cross were only partially gated so it was easy to circumnavigate the gates!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, D40LF said:

I have never been to Quebec City by train, so can't speak to that station, but with Windsor, Toronto, and Montreal I had to line up. The only times I did not was when I was with my mother, who was in a wheelchair so we were taken directly to the train, and when I was doing photography for VIA and already in the restricted areas at Toronto and Ottawa so I could jump on my train without having to line up.

Asked my father about the UK stations and he said that St.Pancras used to be gated, but they were removed, while Paddington and Kings Cross were only partially gated so it was easy to circumnavigate the gates!

Given that there are passenger gates at many major stations in Europe and North America and rarely any at minor stations in Europe and North America, what exactly is the argument we are trying to have here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the vast majority of VIA stations, passengers can wait on the platform.

At Montreal, Ottawa and Quebec, the high platforms can be dangerous if unattended. People have fallen in the space between the train and the platform before and been trapped. It's very important that the correct ramp be used according to the type of train car, and that the ramp is correctly installed.

And at Toronto Union, the platform number could change up to quite soon before departure, so it's preferable for people to wait inside the concourse. Also, it's preferable to not have crowds of people close to moving trains.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Urban Sky said:

Given that there are passenger gates at many major stations in Europe and North America and rarely any at minor stations in Europe and North America, what exactly is the argument we are trying to have here?

What argument? I thought this was a discussion board not an argument board. All I did was add to the discussion. Its stupid asinine posts like this that make me stay away from this board.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2021 at 11:56 AM, D40LF said:

What argument? I thought this was a discussion board not an argument board. All I did was add to the discussion. Its stupid asinine posts like this that make me stay away from this board.

I have no reason to doubt that if my own native language was the dominant language in my country, virtually spoken by everyone in my region and the most important language globally, I would also lack awareness that some of my discussion partners might not be native speakers and therefore not be fully versed in the subtle nuances between the respective meanings of seemingly synonymous words like argument, discussion or debate. You are of course right that we are having a discussion (and not an argument) here, but if you really find my posts "extremely or utterly foolish or silly" (i.e. the dictionary definition of "asinine"), then quite frankly, your impulse to stay away from this board (or at least this thread) might indeed be the most appropriate course of action to avoid further frustration on your side...

 

***

 

For anyone who wants to continue this discussion, the current topic we are discussing started in reference to a video made by "Not Just Bikes", who's European experience seems to draw mostly from Northern European countries like the Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. As someone who grew up in Germany (where virtually all stations, platforms and trains are accessible without any ticket verification or requirement to reserve a seat), I also experienced my first trip with VIA (including a three hours forced layover in MTRL, because OTTW-QBEC weren't really a thing back then) as bizarre and convoluted. However, by traveling across other parts of the continent, like the United Kingdom (where I lived and studied for three years), France, Italy and Spain, I realized that the experience of rail travel in Europe is by far not as homogeneous and diametrically different from the respective experience in North America as I thought it to be. For instance, if you want to experience a Western European country where intercity trains are just as slow and infrequent as in the Quebec-Windsor Corridor (just with much newer trains and lower fares), I highly recommend Portugal.

Therefore, please understand that as someone who has travelled by a large variety of rail services across more than 30 European countries and from East Coast to West Coast on VIA and Amtrak, I might feel inclined to challenge anyone who claims that rail travel here is so dramatically different and more archaic than "in Europe". It can be bad, for sure, but it really isn't as hopelessly bad as many people here believe it to be, because of how distorted their understanding of how fast and convenient rail travel is in other parts of the world is...

 

Have a great weekend, everyone!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Oke said:

I'm assuming this question has been answered already but, will the P42DC's replace the F40's on the Canadian, Ocean and other long distance routes once the Chargers are fully rolled out on the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor?

No, they will get retired, as there will be more than enough spare F40s once they are withdrawn from the Corridor.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Urban Sky said:

No, they will get retired, as there will be more than enough spare F40s once they are withdrawn from the Corridor.

Are there any plans at all for the medium term future of transcontinental power? And as a half-joke, if the "it could be worse" bar is at 'Portugal' setting... not a good look, really. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, InfiNorth said:

Are there any plans at all for the medium term future of transcontinental power? And as a half-joke, if the "it could be worse" bar is at 'Portugal' setting... not a good look, really. 

My understanding is that the economic life of locos basically lasts for 20 years and may be extended for another 20 years through a rebuilt. Therefore, the F40s (which were delivered in 1986-87) would be good for another 5-6 years, whereas the P42s would require a rebuild now to remain active (which would be entirely pointless, as plenty of F40s are going to get freed up very soon by the delivery of the new fleet).

My personal hypothesis is that VIA has a long-haul fleet replacement strategy, but that they don't mention a word publicly to not provide the federal government an opportunity to wiggle themselves out of funding HFR or to delay a final funding decision further. A bit like saying: "If you really want to announce good news for VIA, it has to be HFR first..."

As for Portugal, I just would like to stress that I never implied that their rail service is worse than VIA. I'm just saying that finding myself turning the question "What time of the day do I want to take a train?" into a "What time of the day are there actually trains?" made me feel very familiar in a way I had never felt anywhere else in Western Europe. These low frequencies are of course not unique to Portugal (or North America), of course: the same applies to Northern Norway/Sweden/Finland and large parts of Eastern Europe (especially the Baltic and Balkan countries)...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, John Oke said:

Well ONR or another railway in Canada that has very old loco’s will probably get them then, I highly doubt they’ll be scrapped 

ONR would have absolutely no interest in adopting high speed, clapped out orphans to an all EMD fleet where the track speed limit rarely exceeds 30 miles per hour.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The P42'S cannot be rebuilt. Its not a typical body on frame construction. 

Plus parts are going to be difficult to source when Amtrak starts to replace them with chargers. 

The F59'S could be rebuilt but with electrification of the corridor they will have a surplus of MP40's, which could be used elsewhere. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, John Oke said:

I do have a feeling that Metrolinx might buy the P42’s for RER and to replace the remaining F59’s

The P42s are in rough shape. They are rusting and they're suffering from warping frames. Any P42s are likely to be scrapped or preserved. The VHA will most certainly receive at least one P42 for preservation. Anyone wanting a P42 fleet would have to rebuild and overhaul them

6 hours ago, Shaun said:

The P42'S cannot be rebuilt. Its not a typical body on frame construction. 

Plus parts are going to be difficult to source when Amtrak starts to replace them with chargers. 

The F59'S could be rebuilt but with electrification of the corridor they will have a surplus of MP40's, which could be used elsewhere. 

F59's i believe share quite a bit in terms of design and parts with it's cousin the F40. It's not inconceivable though rather unlikely that VIA purchase them and overhaul them to an extent thus bolstering the long distance/regional power fleet by 8. Something to consider should VIA's plans for service expansion and increase in those areas come to fruition. (If only the government would increase funding to VIA and give VIA more power against freight railways.)  It's more than likely that GO will sell off the 8 F59s to other railways and such an scrap any not sold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lifty4ever said:

F59's i believe share quite a bit in terms of design and parts with it's cousin the F40. It's not inconceivable though rather unlikely that VIA purchase them and overhaul them to an extent thus bolstering the long distance/regional power fleet by 8. Something to consider should VIA's plans for service expansion and increase in those areas come to fruition. (If only the government would increase funding to VIA and give VIA more power against freight railways.)  It's more than likely that GO will sell off the 8 F59s to other railways and such an scrap any not sold.

As we've already established, the F40s still have 5-6 years of economic life ahead of them and if there is any railroad which has experience with operating equipment well past its useful life, it would be VIA (and with about 20 F40s being freed up on the Corridor very soon, there won't be any shortage of spare units or parts).

My personal expectation, however, is that once the new fleet is presented to the public, any appetite for continued fleet fragmentation (one of VIA's biggest ills during its 40+ years of existence!) will wane and that the public or political pressure to procure a very similar fleet for VIA's non-Corridor operations will become impossible to ignore. That might even open up the opportunity to expand VIA's mandate to allow for new services beyond the Corridor, but that's just speculation at this point...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, lifty4ever said:

The P42s are in rough shape. They are rusting and they're suffering from warping frames. Any P42s are likely to be scrapped or preserved. The VHA will most certainly receive at least one P42 for preservation. Anyone wanting a P42 fleet would have to rebuild and overhaul them

The P42s look to be in rough shape because they've been used for 20 years with very little maintenance to their shells. Mechanically however they are quite good, and remain quite reliable.

 

There is not likely to be a large market for used P42s - as noted, Amtrak has been flooding that market.

 

Not being rebuildable, though? That's bullshit.

9 hours ago, lifty4ever said:

F59's i believe share quite a bit in terms of design and parts with it's cousin the F40. It's not inconceivable though rather unlikely that VIA purchase them and overhaul them to an extent thus bolstering the long distance/regional power fleet by 8. Something to consider should VIA's plans for service expansion and increase in those areas come to fruition. (If only the government would increase funding to VIA and give VIA more power against freight railways.)  It's more than likely that GO will sell off the 8 F59s to other railways and such an scrap any not sold.

There is very, very little that the F59 shares in common with the F40s from a mechanical standpoint. Along with the fact that VIA will soon have an excess of F40s - remember, the 32 SC-42s are replacing not just the 21 P42s but also a dozen-plus F40s - means that there will be no need for VIA to buy more locos for a while.

 

As for F59s in freight service, it could happen, sure. Mechanically they are just GP59s with a second engine to provide HEP, and there seems to be a bit of a lack of 4-axle power on the used market right now.

 

Dan

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, smallspy said:

The P42s look to be in rough shape because they've been used for 20 years with very little maintenance to their shells. Mechanically however they are quite good, and remain quite reliable.

 

There is not likely to be a large market for used P42s - as noted, Amtrak has been flooding that market.

 

Not being rebuildable, though? That's bullshit.

There is very, very little that the F59 shares in common with the F40s from a mechanical standpoint. Along with the fact that VIA will soon have an excess of F40s - remember, the 32 SC-42s are replacing not just the 21 P42s but also a dozen-plus F40s - means that there will be no need for VIA to buy more locos for a while.

 

As for F59s in freight service, it could happen, sure. Mechanically they are just GP59s with a second engine to provide HEP, and there seems to be a bit of a lack of 4-axle power on the used market right now.

 

Dan

I believe the VIA report indicated that the P42's could not be rebuilt due to frame issues.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

P42 Locomotives

 All 21 P42s are assigned in the Corridor and represent the remaining 52.5% of the Corridor

locomotive fleet;

 They are 16 years old;

 The condition and structural integrity of the bogies and locomotive frames are in decline due to

high mileage, rough service conditions and issues with corrosion;

 The monocoque design of the P42 cannot be overhauled to integrate the newly proposed

crashworthiness safety standards for cab design and fuel tanks;

 They are due for a half-life overhaul to address mechanical and electrical reliability issues, car

body corrosion at the fuel tank level, bogie ride stability, and air dryer issues; and

 They do not comply with Canada’s minimum environmental regulatory requirements (Tier 0), nor

do they meet industry Best Practice exhaust emission standards (Tier 4) which will be a

mandatory requirement for the next major overhaul/rebuild.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Urban Sky said:

It's not like that report hasn't already been pointed out to him a full 2 months ago on Urban Toronto:

768072639_Screenshot_20211108-164327_SamsungInternet.thumb.jpg.64a7280357bebee1adb0faec0c429e2e.jpg

Just because it is not cost effective to do so does not mean that it can not be done. Otherwise, there wouldn't be rebuilt and life-extended units running around the Northeastern US. Or hell, the wreck-repaired units on Amtrak.

 

Has VIA deemed it not-cost-effective to rebuild the P42s? Yes.

 

Does this automatically mean that they will be scrapped? Not necessarily.

 

There is also the question of the separation of reality from a report that reads very much like a marketing prospectus and what actually happens on the ground. A lot of decisions from entities like VIA say things like "fully life expired" and "can not be done" when the reality is far more nuanced than they give credit for. They are trying to sell the retirement of a fleet of locomotives that, to the general public, may seem to be fine to them at first blush. And with more work, could be be kept running for quite some time more - there is no impending structural emergency that will result in their wholesale retirement from the fleet. Would VIA be better off with their retirement from service and replacement with newer equipment? Of course. But that could be a hard sell to their budgeting masters, and so they need to "beef up" the argument to ensure that the case is cut-and-dried. It's called politicking, and VIA's not too bad at it. You, of all people, should know that.


Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, smallspy said:

Just because it is not cost effective to do so does not mean that it can not be done. Otherwise, there wouldn't be rebuilt and life-extended units running around the Northeastern US. Or hell, the wreck-repaired units on Amtrak.

 

Has VIA deemed it not-cost-effective to rebuild the P42s? Yes.

 

Does this automatically mean that they will be scrapped? Not necessarily.

 

There is also the question of the separation of reality from a report that reads very much like a marketing prospectus and what actually happens on the ground. A lot of decisions from entities like VIA say things like "fully life expired" and "can not be done" when the reality is far more nuanced than they give credit for. They are trying to sell the retirement of a fleet of locomotives that, to the general public, may seem to be fine to them at first blush. And with more work, could be be kept running for quite some time more - there is no impending structural emergency that will result in their wholesale retirement from the fleet. Would VIA be better off with their retirement from service and replacement with newer equipment? Of course. But that could be a hard sell to their budgeting masters, and so they need to "beef up" the argument to ensure that the case is cut-and-dried. It's called politicking, and VIA's not too bad at it. You, of all people, should know that.


Dan

I would assume that there is always a price point at which you can fix old equipment to make it compliant, but this doesn't change the fact that VIA's fleet size is far too small to support three different locomotive types (Amtrak has more than twice as many P42s in its roster than VIA has locomotives). With the F40 already used across the entire network and sufficient spares and parts available for quite a few years to come, it would be extremely wasteful to invest into the P42s. If anyone wants them, I'm sure that VIA will happily sell them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...