VIA Rail Canada

[Bentley]

Begging your indulgence with this question, if it has been covered before I apoligize, but would it be possible to for VIA to utilize the Bombardier Bi-levels for mainline corridor service? (my engineering knowledge is slighly less than a 5 year old). I would assume height restrictions, but is it possible?

[Oc4526]

Begging your indulgence with this question, if it has been covered before I apoligize, but would it be possible to for VIA to utilize the Bombardier Bi-levels for mainline corridor service? (my engineering knowledge is slighly less than a 5 year old). I would assume height restrictions, but is it possible?

the only type i can see possible is The Superliners used by Amtrak but not sure of the height restrictions in Montreal

[* Mr. Black *]

I did find this pic, the cars were on loan due to some issues with other cars....

[TheAverageJoe]

I did find this pic, the cars were on loan due to some issues with other cars....

IIRC there was problems with some of the LRC cars

the only type i can see possible is The Superliners used by Amtrak but not sure of the height restrictions in Montreal

and how would you load and unload with these cars in Montreal to begin with even if you were to fit them into the station?

[smallspy]

IIRC there was problems with some of the LRC cars

Cracking axles in 1984, to be precise.

and how would you load and unload with these cars in Montreal to begin with even if you were to fit them into the station?

Funny thing about the BiLevel design - it is very modular. The "intermediate" levels over the trucks are the same height as a regular passenger car, and a doorway can easily be included in the design where the single long window is. The only concern is with the overhead clearances within the station.

Dan

[ghYHZ]

and how would you load and unload with these cars in Montreal to begin with even if you were to fit them into the station?

These Bombardier Bi-levels load/unload just fine in Gare Centrale. There's 4 doors on each side: the two end doors are for low level platforms. The other two doors are used at the high level platforms. The Cab end doors also match the high platform

.

[Shaun]

Height 15 ft 11 in (4.85 m) Go Transit Bi-level

Height 14 ft 6 AMT Multi Level

I wonder if that 5inches or so makes enough of a difference to prevent those cars from fitting in the station?

[Orion VIII]

A note of caution: commuter operations are always more efficient (in terms of passengers/employee) than inter-city services. Those companies all include commuter operations, so they will always seem more efficient than a purely inter-city operator like VIA.

If you take the various UK passenger rail franchises, you find VIA still performs worse in terms of passengers/employee than any of them. (VIA gets about 1400 passengers/employee, compared 6000 passengers/employee for the intercity East Coast franchise). In contrast, GO scores fairly well for a commuter service (40,000 passengers/employee, compared with 25,000-50,000 for UK commuter operators).

Regardless of commuter operations, when you factor in the distances that intercity passengers travel in Canada versus Europe, I don't find VIA's passenger/employee rate unacceptable.

[D40LF]

Thanks for that.

All the time I went to see and photograph the units in Eastern Ontario I only saw unit 7003. I had been told that 7001 (which I only saw in Western Ontario) had never come east. Obviously that was wrong.

[TheAverageJoe]

These Bombardier Bi-levels load/unload just fine in Gare Centrale. There's 4 doors on each side: the two end doors are for low level platforms. The other two doors are used at the high level platforms. The Cab end doors also match the high platform

.

Those are Mulilevel cars , they are different then the Bi-Levels

Funny thing about the BiLevel design - it is very modular. The "intermediate" levels over the trucks are the same height as a regular passenger car, and a doorway can easily be included in the design where the single long window is. The only concern is with the overhead clearances within the station.

Dan

Very true, I didnt see it like that. Also with the layout with the doors on the mid level, you would be able fit more seats in the car, then you would if you had the 2 sets of lower doors.

[Shaun]

Is there any reason why VIA didnt consider this at the time they were looking to procude new rolling stock? Why did they go with the Ren equiptment instead? Other than the fact that it was a "Bargain"....although it turned out otherwise.

[ghYHZ]

Those are Mulilevel cars , they are different then the Bi-Levels

Yes I realize that, and that was very obvious from the photos I posted…….my point was that: These Bi-level* or Multi-level* cars or whatever you want to call them Would work in Central Station, Montreal which they currently serve daily.

*Guess the “Bi-level” name which has been used for years for the GO type of car is not really the right name then as each type actually has three levels.

And in the photo below: AMT also has these Single-level cars used on the Deux-Montagnes electric line serving Gare Centrale with high and low doors.

[dowlingm]

Thanks to DavidW for the info on Winnipeg-Grand Forks. I did see a 1950s timetable recently which had the Winnipeg Limited running through Minnesota from the border rather than Grand Forks but that may have differed over the years.

Incidentally for the mention of European rail systems as a comparator - Toronto-Sudbury-Winnipeg-Jasper-Vancouver is roughly equivalent to Brussels-Moscow-somewhere east of Perm.

[smallspy]

Is there any reason why VIA didnt consider this at the time they were looking to procude new rolling stock? Why did they go with the Ren equiptment instead? Other than the fact that it was a "Bargain"....although it turned out otherwise.

Because at the time it was expected that the cars would not need many modifications upon entering service. This obviously has not been the case, and so the fleet of Ren cars will likely cost almost as much as an equivalent (in passenger carrying terms) fleet of modern single-level equipment.

Yes I realize that, and that was very obvious from the photos I posted…….my point was that: These Bi-level* or Multi-level* cars or whatever you want to call them Would work in Central Station, Montreal which they currently serve daily.

*Guess the “Bi-level” name which has been used for years for the GO type of car is not really the right name then as each type actually has three levels.

The problem is that Bombardier themselves call the two different types of cars two different things. BiLevel cars are the ones that they've been building since the 1970s for GO and are numbered in the 2000s on AMT. The Multi-Level cars are the stainless steel ones originally designed for NJ Transit and purchased in large quantities by AMT.

Dan

[ghYHZ]

The problem is that Bombardier themselves call the two different types of cars two different things. BiLevel cars are the ones that they've been building since the 1970s for GO and are numbered in the 2000s on AMT. The Multi-Level cars are the stainless steel ones originally designed for NJ Transit and purchased in large quantities by AMT.

Perhaps I'll just go back and reword my original post to say......"these "tri-level" cars would work in Gare Centrale and also be able to load at a low-level platform"

[DavidW]

Thanks to DavidW for the info on Winnipeg-Grand Forks. I did see a 1950s timetable recently which had the Winnipeg Limited running through Minnesota from the border rather than Grand Forks but that may have differed over the years.

Classically there were three daily passenger trains between Winnipeg and Minneapolis-St. Paul: the daily overnight full service Winnipeg Limited operated by Great Northern, the daily overnight full service Winnipegger operated by Canadian Pacific and Soo Line, and the daily daytime coach service (unnamed) by Northern Pacific. According to the book I read the Winnipeg Limited was cut into/separated from the Empire Builder. I think that was at Grand Forks but I don't have a GN timetable to check.

If ever Via and/or Amtrak could make a proper business case (or political case) for reviving a service south out of Winnipeg I would expect it to follow a similar pattern. The Amtrak Thruway bus, service even piggybacked on an existing Greyhound Lines schedule, didn't succeed, so the idea is beyond a longshot.

[GuineaPig]

Height 15 ft 11 in (4.85 m) Go Transit Bi-level

Height 14 ft 6 AMT Multi Level

I wonder if that 5inches or so makes enough of a difference to prevent those cars from fitting in the station?

The AMT bi-levels are shorter in order to fit through the Mont Royal Tunnel. I think the GO bi-levels would fit into the station just fine.

[TomW]

Height 15 ft 11 in (4.85 m) Go Transit Bi-level

Height 14 ft 6 AMT Multi Level

I wonder if that 5inches or so makes enough of a difference to prevent those cars from fitting in the station?

Either your data or your maths is off... that's a 17" difference!

Given that Bombardier makes both the AMT multi-level and the GO Transit bi-level, I can't imagine them coming up with a new design unless those inches really mattered. (Also, AMT partnered with NJT for the multi-level order, who also have tunnel clearence issues).

Regardless of commuter operations, when you factor in the distances that intercity passengers travel in Canada versus Europe, I don't find VIA's passenger/employee rate unacceptable.

Most of VIA's services are in the Corridor, with each taking around 4-6 hours. That's comparable with many European inter-city trains. (London-Glasgow/Edinburgh are 4-5 hours, for example).

[Shaun]

I cant find Info on the height of the tunnel into the station.

It would make sense to use existing rolling stock, rather than comming up with something totally different. Multi-level or Bi-level would help with increasing capacity without adding more trains. Then the budd cars could be freed up for longer distance travel.

[dowlingm]

re: @dbdb's point on Canadian - can anyone recall what the current situation is - wasn't there some sort of objection to this from Rocky Mountaineer?

Found it - from 1996:

http://bc.transport2000.ca/learning/passrail/via_vanc_jasper.html

[dowlingm]

This week's Transport Action hotline includes an article which alleges

Rocky Mountaineer has been working Parliament Hill like mad. There is a concerted effort on their part to sway Tory MPs into taking VIA out of western Canada. They've even gone so far as to suggest they could run a tourist train as a replacement for the Ocean Limited.

[TomW]

There is a concerted effort on their part to sway Tory MPs into taking VIA out of western Canada. They've even gone so far as to suggest they could run a tourist train as a replacement for the Ocean Limited.

1) "Western Canada" and "Ocean Limited" don't really go together

2) This implies they think they could run the Ocean Limited profitably... so why can't VIA?

[GM5000]

You most likely could run a profitable tourist train to replace the Ocean, if you charge enough for it.

But I'm not sure a for-profit cruise train "replaces" a passenger service that provides a transportation alternative in an area that is sorely lacking in air service and quality ground transportation alternatives.

[dowlingm]

So... anybody notice something different about this?

http://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/schedules/quebec-ontario/Toronto-London-Sarnia.pdf

[TomW]

So... anybody notice something different about this?

http://www.viarail.c...ndon-Sarnia.pdf

Comapring with my (rather old) paper timetable:

1) Train 85 departs 5 mins ealier, but arrives 13 mins later

2) Train 87 departs at the same time, but arrives 17 mins later

3) Train 89 departs 10 mins later, arrives 39(!) mins later.

... and a similar story for eastbound trains. Everything is slower. (The layovers at London at the same).

Other than that, service levels are the same.

Is that what you meant?