# VIA Rail and bilevel cars



## Mailliw

Hypothetical scenario; Amtrak selects a bilevel car to replace Superliners, would it be feasible for VIA Rail to get in on the order to replace the heritage cars on the Canadian? I know they considered buying Superliners 30 years ago, but ended refurbishing the heritage cars instead because of budget cuts. Would running bilevels on the Canadian be an issue? I would assume not since it was considered in the past.What about the Winnepeg-Churchill or the Ocean; any clearance issues there that would preclude bilevels?


----------



## jiml

Double-stack freight trains run on most of these routes, so bi-level cars should be fine on the Canadian. Not sure they'd fit into Montreal station for the Ocean. (The local commuter agency uses the same squashed bi-levels as some Eastern US commuter roads - not ideal for a sleeping car, but not impossible.)

Winnipeg - Churchill is a money-loser that VIA would not run if it did not have to. Only its length and speed of travel make sleeping and food cars necessary. The track is also not great, so Superliner equivalents are likely too heavy. At best its a seasonal service if not deemed "essential" by the government.


----------



## MikefromCrete

VIA has never shown any interest in bi-level cars. It's doubtful they're interested now. They'll run the old CP cars on the Canadian until they fall apart and then abandon the whole operation.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

jiml said:


> Double-stack freight trains run on most of these routes, so bi-level cars should be fine on the Canadian. Not sure they'd fit into Montreal station for the Ocean. (The local commuter agency uses the same squashed bi-levels as some Eastern US commuter roads - not ideal for a sleeping car, but not impossible.)



They managed to fit an F40PH (4.76 m in height) judging by this picture (http://www.railpictures.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/AMT_808_08mars2013.jpg) but the Bombardier GO Bilevels are 4.85 m so I'm not too sure. Meanwhile the superliners are 4.93 m. They're gonna have to raise the roof of Gare Centrale (which would involve a considerable level of rebuilding; such a thing would work best by doing it in tandem with building a new Mount Royale tunnel to connect to the Saint-Jérôme line)


----------



## jiml

MikefromCrete said:


> VIA has never shown any interest in bi-level cars. It's doubtful they're interested now. They'll run the old CP cars on the Canadian until they fall apart and then abandon the whole operation.


That's not entirely accurate. They did test Superliners loaned by Amtrak on more than one occasion. There were also sleeper and diner versions of the Bombardier commuter cars considered. It was simply a question of money - less to rehab rolling stock they already owned. However, your statement about them running the CP cars into the ground is bang-on.


----------



## jiml

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> They managed to fit an F40PH (4.76 m in height) judging by this picture (http://www.railpictures.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/AMT_808_08mars2013.jpg) but the Bombardier GO Bilevels are 4.85 m so I'm not too sure. Meanwhile the superliners are 4.93 m. They're gonna have to raise the roof of Gare Centrale (which would involve a considerable level of rebuilding; such a thing would work best by doing it in tandem with building a new Mount Royale tunnel to connect to the Saint-Jérôme line)


There is catenary above some of those tracks too.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

MikefromCrete said:


> VIA has never shown any interest in bi-level cars. It's doubtful they're interested now...…..



VIA was interested in the Superliner equipment......it's just that the Federal Cabinet wasn't! 

For several months in the fall and winter of 1984-85, VIA leased an Amtrak Superliner consist and used them on the _Panorama_ between Winnipeg and Edmonton. At that time the Panorama was a through train between Winnipeg and Prince Rupert but I’ve never seen anything to indicate the Superliners ran to Prince Rupert so a change of cars was probably required in Edmonton.

Here's the consist of VIA #3 the _Panorama_ arriving at Edmonton on Sept. 28, 1984 

Amtrak 319 F40 
Amtrak 31041 Superliner Coach-Baggage 
Amtrak 34030 Superliner Coach 
Amtrak 38025 Superliner Diner 
Amtrak 32019 Superliner Sleeper 
VIA 15301 HEP Generator Car


----------



## NS VIA Fan

jiml said:


> There is catenary above some of those tracks too.



A Superliner is 16'-2” and a Park Car is 15'-10”. When VIA started operating Domes at Central Station back in the late '70s the electric catenary had to be removed over several tracks to provide clearance.


----------



## jiml

NS VIA Fan said:


> A Superliner is 16'-2” and a Park Car is 15'-10”. When VIA started operating Domes at Central Station back in the late '70s the electric catenary had to be removed over several tracks to provide clearance.


I wasn't sure whether it had been removed or raised.


----------



## railiner

NS VIA Fan said:


> A Superliner is 16'-2” and a Park Car is 15'-10”. When VIA started operating Domes at Central Station back in the late '70s the electric catenary had to be removed over several tracks to provide clearance.


What about the old CP Canadian Vickers 'gallery' bilevel's....did they ever operate into Central Station, or did they finish their service at Windsor Station?


----------



## 20th Century Rider

Mailliw said:


> Hypothetical scenario; Amtrak selects a bilevel car to replace Superliners, would it be feasible for VIA Rail to get in on the order to replace the heritage cars on the Canadian? I know they considered buying Superliners 30 years ago, but ended refurbishing the heritage cars instead because of budget cuts. Would running bilevels on the Canadian be an issue? I would assume not since it was considered in the past.What about the Winnepeg-Churchill or the Ocean; any clearance issues there that would preclude bilevels?


The Superliners are 50 years old. Frequent problems with plumbing/bathrooms. Frequent problems with ventilation/cooling/heating. Frequent problems with seats and beds that don't fold properly. Generally not as comfortable for passengers as the heritage cars. Superliners have come to the end of their useful life. And while recycling may be good for the environment, there will need to be some innovation if rail travel is to move ahead in North America.


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> What about the old CP Canadian Vickers 'gallery' bilevel's....did they ever operate into Central Station, or did they finish their service at Windsor Station?


I'll defer to @NS VIA Fan, who is a much better historian than I am, but pretty sure they only went to Windsor. (I know it's been renamed at least once, but like sports venue naming old habits die hard. ) I had an excellent platform view from my hotel room the last time in Montreal and was surprised how infrequent the service is.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

20th Century Rider said:


> The Superliners are 50 years old. Frequent problems with plumbing/bathrooms. Frequent problems with ventilation/cooling/heating. Frequent problems with seats and beds that don't fold properly. Generally not as comfortable for passengers as the heritage cars. Superliners have come to the end of their useful life. And while recycling may be good for the environment, there will need to be some innovation if rail travel is to move ahead in North America.



40 years old, actually. But yeah they are desperately in need for a replacement. Maybe we can have Stadler make a new bilevel car design taking cues from the Caltrain KISS (for a comparison the budd hilevels that inspired the superliner are 4.7 m whilst the Caltrain KISS is 4.84 m)



jiml said:


> I'll defer to @NS VIA Fan, who is a much better historian than I am, but pretty sure they only went to Windsor. (I know it's been renamed at least once, but like sports venue naming old habits die hard. ) I had an excellent platform view from my hotel room the last time in Montreal and was surprised how infrequent the service is.



They only went to that terminal as it belonged to CP (Gare Centrale belonged to CN)


----------



## sttom

20th Century Rider said:


> The Superliners are 50 years old. Frequent problems with plumbing/bathrooms. Frequent problems with ventilation/cooling/heating. Frequent problems with seats and beds that don't fold properly. Generally not as comfortable for passengers as the heritage cars. Superliners have come to the end of their useful life. And while recycling may be good for the environment, there will need to be some innovation if rail travel is to move ahead in North America.


Considering the last time the Superliners got a major refresh was sometime between 2005 and 2009, having equipment failure isn't out of the question. HVAC systems have a 15 to 20 year life span, which puts them right at the earliest they could start having problems due to age. Water pumps last about 10 to 15 years, which puts them well into the range of failure due to age. Which means the Superliner 1s and the 2s will need a major refresh soon given that it could take nearly another decade to get replacement equipment. 

As for replacing them, the most likely outcome would be either Siemens adapting the Viaggio Twin into a Superliner compatible variant or Stadler adapting the Rocky Mountaineer cars into a Superliner compatible variant. I personally don't think Amtrak or Via Rail will want a "brand new design" when an existing design is going to be close to what the customer wants. 

I don't know if Via would want bi level cars. They would make sense if there are no issues with clearance because they give higher views and higher capacity over single level equipment. Which makes sense given that the Canadian and Ocean are more or less run for tourism reasons and to at least look like they perform a public transit function. 

Kind of an off topic question, but is there any big push to reverse the cuts that Via has sustained over the years or have most Canadians resigned themselves to Via's fate?


----------



## zephyr17

NS VIA Fan said:


> VIA was interested in the Superliner equipment......it's just that the Federal Cabinet wasn't!
> 
> For several months in the fall and winter of 1984-85, VIA leased an Amtrak Superliner consist and used them on the _Panorama_ between Winnipeg and Edmonton. At that time the Panorama was a through train between Winnipeg and Prince Rupert but I’ve never seen anything to indicate the Superliners ran to Prince Rupert so a change of cars was probably required in Edmonton.
> 
> Here's the consist of VIA #3 the _Panorama_ arriving at Edmonton on Sept. 28, 1984
> 
> Amtrak 319 F40
> Amtrak 31041 Superliner Coach-Baggage
> Amtrak 34030 Superliner Coach
> Amtrak 38025 Superliner Diner
> Amtrak 32019 Superliner Sleeper
> VIA 15301 HEP Generator Car


Yeah, my understanding is that VIA seriously considered piggybacking onto the Amtrak Superliner II order from Bombardier. They elected to refurbish and HEP the ex-CP Budd fleet instead.

Thank God.


----------



## jiml

sttom said:


> Considering the last time the Superliners got a major refresh was sometime between 2005 and 2009, having equipment failure isn't out of the question. HVAC systems have a 15 to 20 year life span, which puts them right at the earliest they could start having problems due to age. Water pumps last about 10 to 15 years, which puts them well into the range of failure due to age. Which means the Superliner 1s and the 2s will need a major refresh soon given that it could take nearly another decade to get replacement equipment.
> 
> As for replacing them, the most likely outcome would be either Siemens adapting the Viaggio Twin into a Superliner compatible variant or Stadler adapting the Rocky Mountaineer cars into a Superliner compatible variant. I personally don't think Amtrak or Via Rail will want a "brand new design" when an existing design is going to be close to what the customer wants.
> 
> I don't know if Via would want bi level cars. They would make sense if there are no issues with clearance because they give higher views and higher capacity over single level equipment. Which makes sense given that the Canadian and Ocean are more or less run for tourism reasons and to at least look like they perform a public transit function.
> 
> Kind of an off topic question, but is there any big push to reverse the cuts that Via has sustained over the years or have most Canadians resigned themselves to Via's fate?


Excellent post on all counts. In answer to your last question, they don't know or don't care. Other than a few markets passenger trains are a lost cause here. If you live in one of those markets or are a railfan they're important. We told friends that we went to Halifax on the train last fall and the most common response was "There's a train to Halifax?"


----------



## NS VIA Fan

jiml said:


> I'll defer to @NS VIA Fan, who is a much better historian than I am, but pretty sure they only went to Windsor. (I know it's been renamed at least once, but like sports venue naming old habits die hard. ) I had an excellent platform view from my hotel room the last time in Montreal and was surprised how infrequent the service is.



The last time I rode a Vicker's Gallery Car was on a St. Jerome train from Gare Lucien L'Allier about 10 years ago but I saw them still in storage in the EXO yard at Pointe St. Charles as recently as a year ago.

The Gallery Cars first entered service in April 1970 and would have originally stopped under the old Bush Train Shed at Windsor Station. Around that time the tracks at Windsor were being relocated to a new alignment outside of the train shed about 100 metres or so back from the original bumper posts......then you had to walk along the old platform to reach your train but the tracks no longer entered the train shed.

Article on the Galley Cars here: (see page 30 for the cars under the old train shed)



https://www.exporail.org/can_rail/Canadian%20Rail_no222_1970.pdf



The relocated platforms at Windsor in July 1972:





And then in the '90s the Molson Centre (now Bell Centre) was built and the bumpers and platforms were pushed back a further 100 metres + to where they are today at gare Lucien L'Allier.


----------



## railiner

That link to exporail was a great read, thanks for that and the rest of your post.
There was a couple of errors, I noticed in the link...they said the short domes carried 26, but most of the ones I have seen carried 24, or less. 
They also stated that the North Western introduced gallery cars to Chicago in 1954, but neglected to mention that the Burlington was first with them, in 1950.
North Western does get credit for introducing the "Push-Pull" control cab cars.

I wonder if the Budd Company got royalties from Vickers, for the design?


----------



## NS VIA Fan

railiner said:


> That link to exporail was a great read, thanks for that and the rest of your post.
> There was a couple of errors, I noticed in the link...…...



That June 1970 issue of _Canadian Rail_ is 50 years old this month. Wonder if those authors are still with us!


----------



## the_traveler

jiml said:


> Windsor. (I know it's been renamed at least once, but like sports venue naming old habits die hard. ) I had an excellent platform view from my hotel room the last time in Montreal and was surprised how infrequent the service is.


I’ve only have been to Windsor once, back when the Adirondack departed from there before they switched to Gare Central. It was depressing - I think there were only 1 or 2 tracks!


----------



## NS VIA Fan

the_traveler said:


> I’ve only have been to Windsor once, back when the Adirondack departed from there before they switched to Gare Central. It was depressing - I think there were only 1 or 2 tracks!



There are 8 tracks at _Windsor Station_....and basically for commuters. The _Adirondack_ was the last intercity train using Windsor when it was moved to Gare Centrale in 1986. By then.....VIA had already moved the xCP Rail Quebec City _Dayliners_ to Central.







When the Molson Centre....now Bell Centre was built....the bumper-post for those tracks was moved even further west and the station renamed Gare Lucien l'Allier. After AMT....now EXO added the Saint-Jerome line service......it's busier now (Covid aside!!) than it's been in years.















The original Windsor Station along with the former Concourse is still there but no longer Canadian Pacific's Headquarters. 




 Hadfield[/url], on Flickr


----------



## JP1822

I just re-read an article from PTJ on Sunday that laid out how VIA was basically "on the brink" in 1984 and 1985. Transport Canada was investigating and trying to "figure it out" for VIA. Passenger ridership was heavily declining and the subsidy provided from the crow was heavily increasing, with not a lot of reliability in the system. They quoted how the equipment was heavily worn out, and even the new equipment of LRCs were not living up to expectations (experiencing a lot of failure at the time). VIA also was taking criticism for retiring its turbo trains, which were a LOT newer than the ex-CN equipment that the report hated. The VIA Board was even completely replaced in this time period cause the government (or Transport Canada) thought things were so bad. New equipment was seen as the answer. 

Yet, even after having the Superliners tested on the Winnipeg-Edmonton route, nothing really dramatic with equipment came about till five years later in 1990 when VIA made the decision to CUT a lot of routes and refurbish its ex-CP stainless steel equipment, which the Transport Canada report of 1985 did favor overall. I hadn't realized how bad VIA had gotten in the mid-80s till I re-read this article the other day. And it quoted how successful Amtrak was against VIA's problems. Ironically post-1985 was sort of the beginning of the end for VIA's passenger rail footprint. The railroad tremendously re-trenched starting then, let alone the massacre that befell in the early 1990s.

I do think VIA will look into some sort of long distance replacement fleet (again), but it will be single level. I say "again" because a lot was banked on the Renaissance Fleet and that basically backfired....The Renaissance Fleet, I feel, are hitting early retirement. Its too bad they can't get more out of the Sleeper and Service Cars specifically. Overall, it was a large fleet of cars that were acquired, with only a portion put in service, and the remaining "shells" and "kits" sent to Thunder Bay for storage and final disposition a few years back I believe. Whether VIA goes in with Amtrak's order (if developed as it is supposed to be), they should, but time will tell, but it would make a bit of sense if they did.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

JP1822 said:


> I do think VIA will look into some sort of long distance replacement fleet (again), but it will be single level. I say "again" because a lot was banked on the Renaissance Fleet and that basically backfired....The Renaissance Fleet, I feel, are hitting early retirement. Its too bad they can't get more out of the Sleeper and Service Cars specifically. Overall, it was a large fleet of cars that were acquired, with only a portion put in service, and the remaining "shells" and "kits" sent to Thunder Bay for storage and final disposition a few years back I believe. Whether VIA goes in with Amtrak's order (if developed as it is supposed to be), they should, but time will tell, but it would make a bit of sense if they did.


It's amazing to me that the Renaissance fleet worked out as well as it did, considering that they were built for a totally different environment (the Channel Tunnel) and not for Canadian winters.


----------



## jiml

Renaissance cars are/were not without their advantages. They look good, have contemporary internal features and ride well - even at high speed. (A quick look at their trucks and suspension speaks volumes about the smooth ride.) However that has to be balanced against the well-known corrosion problem and, to quote someone in the know, they are "maintenance cochons". (Rough translation = maintenance heavy.) The latter problem is partly due to their unique features when compared to existing stock - something that more recently might be solved by a contract with the manufacturer (see Talgo, Siemens, etc.), but the corrosion issue is serious. Whether they are too far gone to be of value to someone in a warmer climate or at least one with less fluctuating temperature extremes remains to be seen.


----------



## Mailliw

If Francois Rebello were to ever get his hotel train between Montreal and NYC running I think the Renaissance cars would do well (assuming the FRA granted a dispensation). Not going to happen though.


----------



## jis

Mailliw said:


> If Francois Rebello were to ever get his hotel train between Montreal and NYC running I think the Renaissance cars would do well (assuming the FRA granted a dispensation). Not going to happen though.


You are right. I very much doubt that FRA would allow them in the US. Even in Canada they operate under a special dispensation in specific consist formations. They do not meet general Canadian collision standards.


----------



## PerRock

jiml said:


> That's not entirely accurate. They did test Superliners loaned by Amtrak on more than one occasion. There were also sleeper and diner versions of the Bombardier commuter cars considered. It was simply a question of money - less to rehab rolling stock they already owned. However, your statement about them running the CP cars into the ground is bang-on.



I found these pictures of proposed VIA BBLs & Superlines on the internet quite a while ago.




I don't know much more about them, but the 2nd car in the BBL pic, doesn't have your traditional BBL look.

peter


----------



## jis

PerRock said:


> View attachment 28218
> 
> 
> I don't know much more about them, but the 2nd car in the BBL pic, doesn't have your traditional BBL look.
> 
> peter


That is because the second car is a BSL


----------



## jiml

PerRock said:


> I don't know much more about them, but the 2nd car in the BBL pic, doesn't have your traditional BBL look.
> 
> peter





jis said:


> That is because the second car is a BSL


As usual @jis has the right answer. The Bombardier bi-level coaches - whether commuter or the long-distance ones never built - were designed to work in mixed consists, although even the commuter ones seldom did.* IIRC the LD trains would have had single-level diners and the bi-levels would be coaches and sleepers, and all would have worked with older equipment. It's not unlike Amtrak at start-up with the Santa Fe transition coaches, followed by the Superliner ones. Even Amtrak's more recent (reduced) order of Bag-Dorms would have needed a transition coach to be practical with Superliner trains. Of course Amtrak now just puts any car first in a Superliner train, removing the access to the baggage car while moving. In most cases they don't even bother with the vinyl cover that used to go around the upper door when a non-transition car was leading. 

There's also an interesting concept drawing floating around of a Bombardier bi-level lounge car, which was considered by the Ontario Government for regional services. That may still happen with the restoration of Northern Ontario service, but it will be a refurb of a GO coach rather than a new build.

*GO Transit did briefly while awaiting the arrival of bi-level cab coaches.


----------



## MARC Rider

As someone who rode "bilevel" commuter cars on a daily basis for almost 20 years and Superliner trains since 1997 at least once a year, I'm not sure why so many folks here are so hot to have bilevel long distance equipment. About the only advantage I can see is that the view from the upper level is better. However, this is only for those who get a seat or a room on the upper level. OK, also, I guess the big open luggage rack on the lower level of the Superliners is nice, but that's mainly because it's such a pain in the neck to haul a suitcase up the narrow spiral stairs. Also, if you're on the upper level and hit some rough track, the car sways around like nothing else and feels like it's about ready to tip over. (Yeah, I know, it has a very low center of gravity, and it won't tip, but it sure feels like it will.) I remember one trip on the Capitol Limited out of Chicago, we hit some rough track in Indiana while they were serving dinner, and it was like we were in a tramp steamer plowing through a storm in the North Atlantic.

Also, it seems that the need for stairs in bi-level equipment means that disabled passengers are essentially prisoners in their accommodations. That makes bi-levels essentially a non-starter in the USA because of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I don't know if Canada has similar legislation or regulations, but I would imagine that Canadians are just as interested in improving access for people with disabilities as we are south of the border.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

MARC Rider said:


> As someone who rode "bilevel" commuter cars on a daily basis for almost 20 years and Superliner trains since 1997 at least once a year, I'm not sure why so many folks here are so hot to have bilevel long distance equipment. About the only advantage I can see is that the view from the upper level is better. However, this is only for those who get a seat or a room on the upper level. OK, also, I guess the big open luggage rack on the lower level of the Superliners is nice, but that's mainly because it's such a pain in the neck to haul a suitcase up the narrow spiral stairs. Also, if you're on the upper level and hit some rough track, the car sways around like nothing else and feels like it's about ready to tip over. (Yeah, I know, it has a very low center of gravity, and it won't tip, but it sure feels like it will.) I remember one trip on the Capitol Limited out of Chicago, we hit some rough track in Indiana while they were serving dinner, and it was like we were in a tramp steamer plowing through a storm in the North Atlantic.
> 
> Also, it seems that the need for stairs in bi-level equipment means that disabled passengers are essentially prisoners in their accommodations. That makes bi-levels essentially a non-starter in the USA because of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I don't know if Canada has similar legislation or regulations, but I would imagine that Canadians are just as interested in improving access for people with disabilities as we are south of the border.


I generally agree with you on this sentiment - I think that most of the bilevels in Europe on 'long-distance' routes are still not Amtrak length routes but necessitated by the density of trains on those routes. I know there are some sleepers now and I think in Japan as well, but the issues with them still stand. This last point, mainly personal to me, but being in Metra territory (and despite having ridden in Superliners) I always feel that bilevels _are _commuter cars.


----------



## jiml

Other than capacity, another benefit of bi-level cars is platform length, which can mean fewer stops at stations lacking longer ones. In North America the huge number of stations and their diverse ownership/control when it comes to infrastructure improvements is one thing that makes bi-level cars the cheaper alternative. We already have stations that require more than one stop with Superliners - imagine the impact of a single-level train with the same passenger capacity. The Canadian has always had this issue at smaller stations.

That said, I'm in the camp of those who think we've seen our last new bi-level long-distance coach. They will continue in commuter service and likely on some regional routes for all the obvious reasons.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> That said, I'm in the camp of those who think we've seen our last new bi-level long-distance coach. They will continue in commuter service and likely on some regional routes for all the obvious reasons.


Specially VIA which has never had bilevel cars, evaluated them at one time and chose to pass on them, is unlikely to suddenly get the urge to get them I suspect. One negative of bilevel cars is that they make it impossible to have any reasonable Dome cars. Sightseer Lounges are but a very poor substitute. IMHO of course.


----------

