# $Billion VIA Order to Siemens?



## NS VIA Fan

Looks like the $Billion VIA order to reequip the corridor fleet will probably go to Siemens AG

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/via-rail-chooses-german-firm-siemens-and-not-bombardier-for-massive-train-contract-1.4195289

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/via-rail-bombardier-siemens-1.4922638https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/via-rail-bombardier-siemens-1.4922638

Interesting how CBC shows the Budd RDCs at White River as the story photo.....not the trains being replaced. This photo was also used last weekend on a story about the derailment in Halifax.....and the photo in the CTV story about the new cars is the VIA sign over the entrance to the Halifax Station!


----------



## railiner

I looked at the link, and did not see _Railiner's, _but instead, a shot of the Halifax station....

Anyhow, I too am surprised that Ottawa did not write in a Canadian content requirement in the bidding.   Even if they could not favor Bombardier due to their free trade agreement, couldn't they at least have required bidder's to assemble the cars in Canada?


----------



## neroden

Siemens is the safe choice now.  And nobody trusts Bombardier after the Toronto streetcar fiasco.  But where is VIA getting $1 billion?


----------



## NS VIA Fan

railiner said:


> I looked at the link, and did not see _Railiner's, _but instead, a shot of the Halifax station....


Did you click on the  CBC article? (2nd link above).....I'm still seeing RDCs at the White River Station.


----------



## railiner

NS VIA Fan said:


> Did you click on the  CBC article? (2nd link above).....I'm still seeing RDCs at the White River Station.


Oops...missed that...thanks!


----------



## NS VIA Fan

neroden said:


> Siemens is the safe choice now. ........... But where is VIA getting $1 billion?




VIA is funded by the Federal Government and the money has already been allocated in the budget.


----------



## neroden

Hooray for Trudeau!  I hadn't heard that VIA had actually gotten decent funding in the budget.  Excellent.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

NS VIA Fan said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/via-rail-bombardier-siemens-1.4922638https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/via-rail-bombardier-siemens-1.4922638
> 
> Interesting how CBC shows the Budd RDCs at White River .....


Sorry.....that's the Station at Chapleau ON


----------



## Anderson

Siemens has a plant where they can put the cars together right now (out in California).  My guess is that at the RFI stage, Siemens made it clear that they could cut the cost of an out-of-Canada production line (in the US) more than they could if they had to use a factory in Canada.  Talgo might have given off similar noises, too, FWIW.


----------



## Urban Sky

Anderson said:


> Siemens has a plant where they can put the cars together right now (out in California).  My guess is that at the RFI stage, Siemens made it clear that they could cut the cost of an out-of-Canada production line (in the US) more than they could if they had to use a factory in Canada.  Talgo might have given off similar noises, too, FWIW.


Unfortunately, the article is in French, but it shows a surprising depth of research, especially when it comes to questions of trade, where it suggests that whereas imposing local content quotas is legal for urban rail projects in Ontario and Quebec, this would be illegal for federal intercity rail procurements:


VIA Rail: Siemens avait une longueur d'avance sur Bombardier


----------



## NS VIA Fan

It's Official....the order goes to Siemens!

https://www.siemens.com/ca/en/home/company/press/via.html


----------



## jis

https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/via-rail-selects-siemens-to-replace-quebec-windsor-corridor-fleet.html


----------



## frequentflyer

Interesting that the Charger will have another new aesthetic. Best looking nose. I wander if this what Amtrak has in mind for NEC Va. and NY state services. Amfleet and locomotive order looking more and more to be Siemens.


----------



## cpotisch

frequentflyer said:


> Interesting that the Charger will have another new aesthetic. Best looking nose. I wander if this what Amtrak has in mind for NEC Va. and NY state services. Amfleet and locomotive order looking more and more to be Siemens.


So there will now be three different types of Charger noses? What is the point of that?

If VIA wants it to be pointy and sleek, they can just go with the Brightline body, and if they want the nose to be a bit boxier and have more ground clearance, they can just go with the Amtrak body. Just seems unnecessary.


----------



## jis

cpotisch said:


> So there will now be three different types of Charger noses? What is the point of that?
> If VIA wants it to be pointy and sleek, they can just go with the Brightline body, and if they want the nose to be a bit boxier and have more ground clearance, they can just go with the Amtrak body. Just seems unnecessary.


It should not be a huge deal to put a differently shaped nose cone on the thing. It is mostly decorative part anyway. More interestingly there may be other significant technical differences that we might get to learn about as things move along, of course all housed on the same core platform. That is the beauty of the basic architecture.


----------



## DSS&A

Here is an article with a few more details from a Sacramento newspaper.   One interesting fact noted in the article is Siemens statement that it can build a Charger locomotive in 45 days!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2018/12/12/siemens-sacramento-factory-receives-735-million.amp.html


----------



## jis

Try this URL instead: https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2018/12/12/siemens-sacramento-factory-receives-735-million.html


----------



## cpotisch

jis said:


> Try this URL instead: https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2018/12/12/siemens-sacramento-factory-receives-735-million.html


Doesn't seem like AMP vs not-AMP makes any difference here.


----------



## jis

cpotisch said:


> Doesn't seem like AMP vs not-AMP makes any difference here.


Yeah, I just removed all the google malarchy too. No reason to provide google with more statistics about what one is viewing  . That "amp" thing is a Googlism for encoding an "&" I think within a google query result, or something like that..


----------



## frequentflyer

jis said:


> It should not be a huge deal to put a differently shaped nose cone on the thing. It is mostly decorative part anyway. More interestingly there may be other significant technical differences that we might get to learn about as things move along, of course all housed on the same core platform. That is the beauty of the basic architecture.


Decorative definitely, but unlike the Genesis which had the easy to replace bolt on  nose the Chargers seem more integrated into the body. Interesting, maybe Via demanded a different nose for branding sake.


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> Decorative definitely, but unlike the Genesis which had the easy to replace bolt on  nose the Chargers seem more integrated into the body. Interesting, maybe Via demanded a different nose for branding sake.


Not the lower nose piece on the Brighline units. Those are replaced quite easily.


----------



## Anderson

That's not a _horrible _price.  It's about CAD31m/set (USD23m/set).  Basically, about USD3-3.2m/car plus the locomotives (I got a price of a shade over USD7m/locomotive from the March 2014 order).  Given that we were working with $2.5m/car as an estimate close to a decade ago, this isn't *horridly* off the mark, and I suspect that a similar Amtrak order would scale a little bit.


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> Decorative definitely, but unlike the Genesis which had the easy to replace bolt on  nose the Chargers seem more integrated into the body. Interesting, maybe Via demanded a different nose for branding sake.


Brightline has managed to replace several nose pieces after grade crossing altercations. It takes them a couple of hours each time, is what I am told. But I cannot vouch for it since I have not actually been there when it was done at their Est Palm Beach facility. I have seen a small stash of nose pieces stored in their inventory there.


----------



## keelhauled

Bombardier is complaining.  In other news, the sun rose in the east.  Also, according to Bloomberg, there are options for 16 more trainsets, which I have not seen mentioned elsewhere.


----------



## bretton88

keelhauled said:


> Bombardier is complaining.  In other news, the sun rose in the east.  Also, according to Bloomberg, there are options for 16 more trainsets, which I have not seen mentioned elsewhere.


Maybe deliver a good product on time for once? That might help you win bids in Canada again.


----------



## Anderson

I think I recall seeing mention of an option before at one point, but it was a very passing mention.  Whether it gets used or not is anybody's guess...though I could imagine that if the changes needed were minimal, there's room for them to be picked up by some of the states "stuck" with Brightliners instead of the MSBLs.


----------



## jrud

Another note is that the reports have been saying 4000 hp (SCV-40?) for the Via Chargers like Brightline’s Chargers (SCB-40). Not 4400 hp like the many SC-44s. Very few reports mention the option for 16 more trainsets, but a few do. https://www.ttnews.com/articles/bombardier-loses-siemens-canadas-1-billion-rail-deal.


----------



## jrud

And, I suspect that any requirement to combine trainsets easily makes the sloped Brightline nose a non-starter. The revised snowplow might not like a sloped nose either. Snow is not a big Florida concern.

Does anyone know if lightning requirements pushed for a revised nose design?


----------



## jis

jrud said:


> And, I suspect that any requirement to combine trainsets easily makes the sloped Brightline nose a non-starter. The revised snowplow might not like a sloped nose either. Snow is not a big Florida concern.
> 
> Does anyone know if lightning requirements pushed for a revised nose design?


I wonder what shape of the slope has to do with coupling two trains together which is how you combine two fix consist trains if needed. VIA does want a sloped nose, just a different one from Brightline. There are plenty of very sloped noses running around with snowplows elsewhere. Moscow - St. Petersburg Sapsans (Broad Gauge Siemens Velaros) for example, runs through plenty of snow half the year.


----------



## PerRock

The Brightline nose covers the coupler... you can still coupler to the front, you just need to open/remove the nose. The VIA ones keep the coupler exposed.

Just looking at it in fact, I think the VIA nose is just a tweaked version of the European nose.







peter


----------



## cpotisch

PerRock said:


> The Brightline nose covers the coupler... you can still coupler to the front, you just need to open/remove the nose. The VIA ones keep the coupler exposed.
> 
> Just looking at it in fact, I think the VIA nose is just a tweaked version of the European nose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peter


But that's not a Charger, right?


----------



## bretton88

cpotisch said:


> But that's not a Charger, right?


Its the Vectron which is the same platform as the charger, just for the European market.


----------



## jrud

PerRock said:


> The Brightline nose covers the coupler... you can still coupler to the front, you just need to open/remove the nose. The VIA ones keep the coupler exposed. Just looking at it in fact, I think the VIA nose is just a tweaked version of the European nose.
> 
> 
> 
> peter


Having a cover over the coupler makes it difficult to combine trainsets at will. Canada may want that ability to create trains of multiple trainsets. This is common in Europe. Covered couplers are more for emergency retrieval. That is why I suggested the Brightline nose wouldn’t work well. 
Again my note about the sloped nose was specifically about the Brightline nose that had been suggested as an option. The snowplow ends up well back under the locomotive with the Brightline nose. That would appear to be a problem in a snowy climate.

Finally, as people noted, many Siemens locomotives across the world show a family resemblance. So do iPhones, BMWs, etc. as branding is considered very important. In spite of the fact that MARC Chargers look fine IRL to me, the Via Chargers may appeal to more people. I still wonder if they just designed a Siemens looking nose that accommodates all the lights.

TTFN


----------



## jis

jrud said:


> Having a cover over the coupler makes it difficult to combine trainsets at will. Canada may want that ability to create trains of multiple trainsets. This is common in Europe. Covered couplers are more for emergency retrieval. That is why I suggested the Brightline nose wouldn’t work well. ﻿


I think your conjecture is incorrect. Both in Japan and Europe, two consists of high speed trains with covered couplers are often operated joined together from a terminal station and then they separate en-route to go off to two different destinations. The cover over the couplers is just a clamshell that can be opened up or closed in minutes to make this possible. Same is true of the Birghtline noses. They are pretty close in structure to standard Siemens HST noses, which incidentally also ar operated in pairs elsewhere to be separated/joined en-route. Brightline already operates pairs of consists joined together on positioning moves occasionally between their West Palm Beach maintenance facility  and MiamiCentral and the separate them at MiamiCentral to run as two separate trains.

Ironically TGVs can be separted /joined in spite of their covered couplers, can be separated or joined in less time than it takes Amtrak to hook up and engine.  Of course, the Scharfenberg (or equivalent) couplers and the fact that no high current HEP-like connections are involved, help a lot in that department.

It is only in the Acelas that they screwed up the end couplers making it impossible to operate them in pairs, and it was not the clamshell that was the problem.


----------



## neroden

Anderson said:


> That's not a _horrible _price.  It's about CAD31m/set (USD23m/set).  Basically, about USD3-3.2m/car plus the locomotives (I got a price of a shade over USD7m/locomotive from the March 2014 order).  Given that we were working with $2.5m/car as an estimate close to a decade ago, this isn't *horridly* off the mark, and I suspect that a similar Amtrak order would scale a little bit.


Yeah, 2.5M/car -> 3.M/car is roughly CPI inflation over the last 10 years.  Looks good.  Amtrak would probably get economies of scale from a larger order, yes.


----------



## neroden

So, an order for 32 trainsets, with an option for 16 additional trainsets.

Does anyone know how many trainsets  are *currently* running on "The Corridor"?  I suppose I could figure out by piecing together the *eleven* different timetables, but GROAN...


----------



## Anderson

For the sake of discussion, I am presuming that each round-trip requires one pair of equipment and then removing "redundant" round-trips (e.g. Ottawa-Montreal/Montreal-Quebec with an Ottawa-Quebec round-trip).  I'm also ignoring weekends and "just" going with Monday-Friday trains and sticking with adding up eastbound trains.  Here's what I have:
Montreal-Quebec:
-5x daily trains (#20, #22, #24, #26, #28)
--2x daily (#22 and #24) originate Fallowfield/Ottawa
--2x daily (#26 and #28) originate Ottawa

Ottawa-Montreal:
-6x daily trains (#22, #24, #34, #26, #28, #38)
--2x daily (#22 and #24) originate Fallowfield/Ottawa, terminate Quebec
--2x daily (#26 and #28) originate Ottawa, terminate Quebec
--2x daily (#34 and #38) originate Ottawa, terminate Montreal

Toronto-Ottawa:
-10x daily trains (#50, #52, #40, #42, #644, #44, #46, #646, #54, #48)
--None appear to run through to Montreal

Toronto-Montreal:
-6x daily trains (#60, #62, #64, #66, #68, #668, #650)
--None appear to run through to Montreal

Up here we thus seem to have 23 sets required.  On the other parts of the Corridor, Toronto-Sarnia requires two sets (85 turns as 88 in London, while 84 turns as 87 in Toronto).  Toronto-Windsor requires five sets (one turns in London).

So that's 30 sets (on what I suspect are unfavorable assumptions).  Two more sets would provide maintenance/bad order coverage...so this is probably a break-even proposition.  It might represent a small gain (I'm having to make certain assumptions) or a small loss (depending on seat capacity...I've seen a few trains with six or seven cars on occasion).


----------



## jrud

jis said:


> I think your conjecture is incorrect. Both in Japan and Europe, two consists of high speed trains with covered couplers are often operated joined together from a terminal station and then they separate en-route to go off to two different destinations. The cover over the couplers is just a clamshell that can be opened up or closed in minutes to make this possible. Same is true of the Birghtline noses. They are pretty close in structure to standard Siemens HST noses, which incidentally also ar operated in pairs elsewhere to be separated/joined en-route. Brightline already operates pairs of consists joined together on positioning moves occasionally between their West Palm Beach maintenance facility  and MiamiCentral and the separate them at MiamiCentral to run as two separate trains. Ironically TGVs can be separted /joined in spite of their covered couplers, can be separated or joined in less time than it takes Amtrak to hook up and engine. [emoji3] Of course, the Scharfenberg (or equivalent) couplers and the fact that no high current HEP-like connections are involved, help a lot in that department. It is only in the Acelas that they screwed up the end couplers making it impossible to operate them in pairs, and it was not the clamshell that was the problem.


FWIW. At 9:15 they are installing a nose.


----------



## PerRock

It's installed as one, but you can clearly see in that video the seam that runs down the middle where the clamshell splits.

peter


----------



## jrud

https://cmgpbpmalled.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/green-and-orange.jpg


----------



## jis

Sorry for causing so much angst about such a simple subject. What I should have simply posted is one of these videos I guess. :unsure:



If there is a need to frequently couple and uncoule trains long snouts of noses are not an issue. It is just that one has to design it to meet the requirements. That is what I meant to say when I said sloped noses which cover couplers, are in general not a problem for coupling and uncoupling trains quickly.

In early model TGVs you had to remove the clamshells into their holster by hand. The newer units have the mechanism built in so that one does not have to go down to the track to do it. One has to just press a button.

Also notice the beauty of the consolidated couplers that couple together everything at a single shot. No additional hoses and Comm and Control cables to connect. That is what my comment about HEP was. Thos high voltage wires have to be connected separately if needed. But since each train is a self contained unit, there is no need for that, indeed it would be more or less unworkable without jumping through hoops for phase synch and what not.


----------



## jrud

jis said:


> Sorry for causing so much angst about such a simple subject. What I should have simply posted is one of these videos I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a need to frequently couple and uncoule trains long snouts of noses are not an issue. It is just that one has to design it to meet the requirements. That is what I meant to say when I said sloped noses which cover couplers, are in general not a problem for coupling and uncoupling trains quickly.
> In early model TGVs you had to remove the clamshells into their holster by hand. The newer units have the mechanism built in so that one does not have to go down to the track to do it. One has to just press a button.


It just seems like Brightline didn’t do this. Not that Via couldn’t do it. I’m looking at pictures that seem to indicate that the Brightline nose hangs on a pole across the top of the opening. And doesn’t seem to retract. http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4701505 I’m just trying to figure out why Via went with a new design. And as you said, Europe does have quick coupling. TTFN


----------



## jis

I actually don't think Brightline at the present time really intends to run consists in pairs. They are going for 10 car consists eventually. There may come a time when they decide to get a collection of 5 cars consists for local service or some such, and at that point it is not that hard to do some retrofitting on new more agile (shall we say) nose pieces. This sort of thing will start meking sense if they ever get into the Cocoa - JAX segment. It might then make sense to run a combined train from Miami or Orlando to Cocoa, where a small section separate to head off to JAX. But until then there is no apparent use for such a thing.

Frankly the speeds targeted for Brightline or VIA do not require fancy noses. It is mostly an aesthetic and sexiness factor thing.


----------



## cpotisch

> 2 hours ago, jis said:
> 
> Sorry for causing so much angst about such a simple subject. What I should have simply posted is one of these videos I guess. :unsure:



Oh wow, I didn’t realize the nose can just automatically rotate and retract out of the way. I thought it had to be removed altogether. Is it correct that that coupler design itself is very different from what we have in America? Because that is both quite a cool look, and quite satisfying to watch.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

As of November 18 (current timetable) VIA has 27 consists in service in the Corridor: LRC-19, HEP-6 and Ren-2. 

Some consists are combined then split. For example: #60-#50 and #62-#52 are J-Trains (loco-cars + loco-cars) from Toronto to CN Perth (west of Brockville) where they split and run separately to Montreal and Ottawa….....and #41-#22 are P-Trains (loco-cars + cars-loco coupled back to back) as far as Fellowfield (Ottawa) where they separate. 

There’s also a couple of other combined trains depending on the day of the week.


----------



## jis

cpotisch said:


> Oh wow, I didn’t realize the nose can just automatically rotate and retract out of the way. I thought it had to be removed altogether. Is it correct that that coupler design itself is very different from what we have in America? Because that is both quite a cool look, and quite satisfying to watch.


That is a Scharfenberg Coupler, which is now pretty standard equipment on many passenger trains in Europe. It simultaneously make connection of all control and communication cables and brake pipes, in addition to mechanically coupling the two trains together. Here is a video illustrating how it works:


----------



## cpotisch

Are there any disadvantages of that compared to the kind we use here? Or is it just another example of Europe having better and more efficient trains? :unsure:


----------



## frequentflyer

> 3 hours ago, jis said:
> 
> That is a Scharfenberg Coupler, which is now pretty standard equipment on many passenger trains in Europe. _*It simultaneou*_sly make connection of all control and communication cables and brake pipes, in addition to mechanically coupling the two trains together. Here is a video illustrating how it works:



Looking at the video how are the brake and control connections made? Thanks for the video, its seems "simple".


----------



## jis

The video I think shows the mechanical coupling core of the coupler together with the air connection. When other connectors are involved, there is an additional module on top of the couple with everything in it or sometimes a second connector is built into the coupler below the main coupling mechanism. I think the brake pipe is part of the mechanical coupling, the shiny round thing below the main coupler mechanism, but don't quote me on that.

The beauty of the coupler is that it can be entirely controlled remotely. Even the release can be actuated from the cab, even though the red thing would release the coupler too.


----------



## frequentflyer

With the coupler protruding out, I do not see what is the issue with the slant nose or plow. I believe this is the better face of the three Chargers so far. Hopefully Amtrak goes for this same exterior but I doubt it, most likely will go with the "pug" face that's on the state owned models.


----------



## ehbowen

> 12 hours ago, jis said:
> 
> Sorry for causing so much angst about such a simple subject. What I should have simply posted is one of these videos I guess. :unsure:



Looks like the most difficult part is just getting the access door open....


----------



## ehbowen

cpotisch said:


> Are there any disadvantages of that compared to the kind we use here? Or is it just another example of Europe having better and more efficient trains? :unsure:


Well, when you consider that the Janney coupler, predecessor to the US standard AAR coupler, was patented in *1873* and that the current AAR coupler profile for general interchange service has been essentially unchanged since 1910(!)...and is still doing a pretty good job, all told...yeah, I think that there has been a bit of a window for continued improvement!


----------



## jis

ehbowen said:


> Well, when you consider that the Janney coupler, predecessor to the US standard AAR coupler, was patented in *1873* and that the current AAR coupler profile for general interchange service has been essentially unchanged since 1910(!)...and is still doing a pretty good job, all told...yeah, I think that there has been a bit of a window for continued improvement!


So true. I think one reason that alternatives were considered is because the AAR Coupler requires too much of a bang to couple, so it is hard to simultaneously connect up auxiliaries with it. The Scharfenberg coupler basically just requires a gentle touch to trigger the mechanism to complete the coupling of everything. For being able to do that it is of necessity a more complex device. But it does make it possible for trains to attach/detach and be on their way with a stop as short as a couple of minutes.


----------



## ehbowen

jis said:


> So true. I think one reason that alternatives were considered is because the AAR Coupler requires too much of a bang to couple, so it is hard to simultaneously connect up auxiliaries with it. The Scharfenberg coupler basically just requires a gentle touch to trigger the mechanism to complete the coupling of everything. For being able to do that it is of necessity a more complex device. But it does make it possible for trains to attach/detach and be on their way with a stop as short as a couple of minutes.


The problem in this country is that it is often necessary to mix passenger and freight equipment...not so much the cars, not these days (although I would be all in favor of bringing back the mixed locals to serve small towns on branch lines!), but the motive power...with Amtrak's increasingly unreliable and aging locomotive fleet scattered across the continent and only a handful of protect units available in seldom-convenient locations, rescue by host railroad freight engines becomes a "when" issue and not an "if" issue.


----------



## jis

I t seems to me that Scharfenberg Couplers are generally used by articulated train sets, and not so much in classic individual cars hooked together to form a train pulled by a locomotive, even in Europe. For those they use hook and chain couplers or sometimes some variation of AAR couplers, and go through the rigmarole of hooking everything up by hand. Still they can change an engine and be on their way in considerably less than 10 minutes.

Usually trains with Scharfenberg Couplers carry a adapter attachment that can be couple onto the Scharfenberg Coupler and used to then couple to whatever other standard couplers locomotives use.

Maybe the Mods ought to spin off a new Coupler thread and move all these coupler related posts to that one.


----------



## cpotisch

jis said:


> I t seems to me that Scharfenberg Couplers are generally used by articulated train sets, and not so much in classic individual cars hooked together to form a train pulled by a locomotive, even in Europe. For those they use hook and chain couplers or sometimes some variation of AAR couplers, and go through the rigmarole of hooking everything up by hand. Still they can change an engine and be on their way in considerably less than 10 minutes.
> 
> Usually trains with Scharfenberg Couplers carry a adapter attachment that can be couple onto the Scharfenberg Coupler and used to then couple to whatever other standard couplers locomotives use.
> 
> Maybe the Mods ought to spin off a new Coupler thread and move all these coupler related posts to that one.


Is there a reason why those couplers are typically only used by articulated train sets?


----------



## jis

cpotisch said:


> Is there a reason why those couplers are typically only used by articulated train sets?


I suppose because it is common practice to run articulated sets in multiple and require rapid separation and joining, allowing the separated parts to proceed on different routes, sometimes at stations with no additional staff to do the separation/joining work at track level. Most of the newest sets are equipped to carry out the entire operation sitting in the cab of the train, or worst case standing on the platform without ever needing to go down to track level to make or disconnect the connections of the auxiliary stuff.

It is purely an efficiency of operation with minimal human intervention thing. In the US most LRTs use them. The NJT Arrows had an early version of them.


----------



## neroden

Anderson said:


> For the sake of discussion, I am presuming that each round-trip requires one pair of equipment and then removing "redundant" round-trips (e.g. Ottawa-Montreal/Montreal-Quebec with an Ottawa-Quebec round-trip).  I'm also ignoring weekends and "just" going with Monday-Friday trains and sticking with adding up eastbound trains.  Here's what I have:
> Montreal-Quebec:
> -5x daily trains (#20, #22, #24, #26, #28)
> --2x daily (#22 and #24) originate Fallowfield/Ottawa
> --2x daily (#26 and #28) originate Ottawa
> 
> Ottawa-Montreal:
> -6x daily trains (#22, #24, #34, #26, #28, #38)
> --2x daily (#22 and #24) originate Fallowfield/Ottawa, terminate Quebec
> --2x daily (#26 and #28) originate Ottawa, terminate Quebec
> --2x daily (#34 and #38) originate Ottawa, terminate Montreal
> 
> Toronto-Ottawa:
> -10x daily trains (#50, #52, #40, #42, #644, #44, #46, #646, #54, #48)
> --None appear to run through to Montreal
> 
> Toronto-Montreal:
> -6x daily trains (#60, #62, #64, #66, #68, #668, #650)
> --None appear to run through to Montreal
> 
> Up here we thus seem to have 23 sets required.  On the other parts of the Corridor, Toronto-Sarnia requires two sets (85 turns as 88 in London, while 84 turns as 87 in Toronto).  Toronto-Windsor requires five sets (one turns in London).




This is helpful.  I wasn't clear on whether any of the Windsor, London, or Sarnia trains ran through to Ottawa or Montreal.  It does look like nearly all the trainsets do an "out and back" run; you can't get four runs in one day anywhere, but there aren't many where you have to do only one run per day.  I think there's some run-throughs where London or Sarnia trains continue eastward.



> So that's 30 sets (on what I suspect are unfavorable assumptions).  Two more sets would provide maintenance/bad order coverage...so this is probably a break-even proposition.  It might represent a small gain (I'm having to make certain assumptions) or a small loss (depending on seat capacity...I've seen a few trains with six or seven cars on occasion).


2 sets is a pretty minimal maintenance/bad order coverage.  Hopefully they'll execute some of the options.

It looks like there were about 26 LRC sets (some of which were left dismantled in a failed renovation effort) and 40 Rennaissance sets, some of which are used for the Ocean and many of which are stored dead.

There are some interesting details in other articles which I haven't seen before.  Apparently VIA wanted the option to operate on overhead catenary where available!

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-via-rail-replacing-core-fleet-with-trains-capable-of-using-electric/

It looks like the Siemens bid didn't actually include that. (Probably Siemens assured VIA that they could swap out the Chargers for Sprinters if anything got electrified, and told them that ordering dual-modes now would be expensive and delay things.)

VIA is renovating the HEP (Budd stainless steel) cars and seems to intend to use them on the Canadian forever.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the Corridor HEP cars reassigned there too.

I would expect the Rennaiassance to be retired first, but then I don't know what they'd do about the Ocean, and they seem to have survived their rebuild. 

So probably the LRC will be retired first.  Should be interesting.

I think they need to exercise the options.


----------



## Anderson

I believe that there were originally about 100 LRC cars and there were less than 50 Ren coaches (plus some lounges), so I think this would represent an addition of perhaps 10-20 cars vs the current situation.

I _would_ be surprised to see the Budd cars put on the _Canadian_, if only because there is close to no coach demand left.  Out-of-season the single coach is, as I understand it, generally quite empty.  In-season, they occasionally do pop a second coach on but that's about it.  Ridership is also *ahem* a little light on the other rural service trains.  I think it is probably more plausible that they would reassign them to some sort of Atlantic service, but that's about all I could see for them outside of the extended Corridor.


----------



## Urban Sky

neroden said:


> There are some interesting details in other articles which I haven't seen before.  Apparently VIA wanted the option to operate on overhead catenary where available!
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-via-rail-replacing-core-fleet-with-trains-capable-of-using-electric/
> 
> It looks like the Siemens bid didn't actually include that. (Probably Siemens assured VIA that they could swap out the Chargers for Sprinters if anything got electrified, and told them that ordering dual-modes now would be expensive and delay things.)


Just for the records: the RFQ document did not ask for the initial order of 32 trainsets to be bimodal from the moment of delivery. 



> (3) VIA Rail is seeking a supplier to design, manufacture, test, supply, deliver and commission, for safety and regulatory purposes, a number of trainsets with a prescribed capacity of seats and two classes of services (business class and economy class). Trainsets will be required to have a service proven design and/or platform that meet the requirements of the Corridor Fleet Renewal Program. The supplier will also be required to provide ongoing technical support, spare parts, and other similar services as well as provide support to VIA Rail during its qualification and acceptance process with both Transport Canada (the responsible regulator) and host railways. The supplier will be obliged to provide both a base quantity and configuration of trainsets and optional additional trainset quantities based on prescribed capacity (all as set out in greater detail in the Scope of Supply Summary). VIA Rail’s current Corridor services are on non-electrified infrastructure. *Since there is an urgency to replace the existing diesel powered fleet for services in the current Corridor which is provided on non-electrified infrastructure, the initial order of 32 trainsets will be diesel powered only, with a required provision for future diesel and electric operation*, and will be required to be bi-directional (ability to operate in push-pull mode) to maximize efficiency. The goods and services to be provided by the supplier are referred to as the “Fleet and Services” in these RFQ Documents.
> 
> [...]
> 
> (6) Options to acquire additional trainsets will be principally predicated on the Government of Canada's decision regarding VIA Rail's long term plan to build its own dedicated infrastructure. In the event that VIA Rail is given the authority to build its own infrastructure in the Corridor but such infrastructure is not electrified, then additional diesel only trainsets will be required to enable increased service frequencies. *If VIA Rail is given the authority to build its own infrastructure and electrification is required, then the additional trainsets must be capable of both diesel and electric operation (dual-mode) at up to 125 mph, with seamless transition, and bi-directional operation*. If the decision on VIA Rail's long term plan and the timeframe to implement this decision is not yet established at the time of the order for the additional trainsets, then the delivery of the additional trainsets could be deferred until the decision and schedule is available.


----------



## jis

I hope Amtrak explicitly asks for bi-directional for corridor equipment. All that will mean is getting a bunch of cab cars, which as it turns out, are being developed for California anyway.


----------



## Seaboard92

The ocean is going back to a HEP train full time once the rens get phased out in a few years. 

VIA owns the following HEP Cars 
40-Manors
29-Chateau (unknown number converted to Prestige garbage) 
16-Skyline
13-Diners
43- HP1 Coaches
23-HP2 Coaches
10-HP2 Business
14-Park Cars (unknown destroyed for prestige garbage) 

The Canadian uses four sets year round I believe. I could be wrong however. 
The standard summer Canadian has these requirements 
12 of 16 skyline cars. 
8 of 13 diners. 
8 HP1 cars of 43
4 Prestige Parks
Sleepers are a much harder story 
Eight manors that do the short turn to EDMN-VCVR
32 Manors work the full route. But that's full utilization so chances are my Canadian experiences are not routine. 
8-Prestige Chateaus 

The Churchill Train requires 3 sets? 
6 HP1 coaches 
3 Diners
3 Chateau Sleepers

Skeena requires 2 sets
4-6 HP1 coaches 
2-Non Prestige Park Cars

Current Ocean 2 Sets
2-Non Prestige Park Cars

Montreal Rural Services
2-HP1 coaches 

Which leaves the following cars available for additional service, or shops. 
4-Skyline
2-Diners
21-HP1 Coaches 
11-Chateaus
4-Parks

So in theory you could run a full Budd Ocean with
8-Chateaus
2-Diners
6-Coaches
2 Skylines
2-Parks

Which then would leave VIA with 
3-Chateaus 
0-Diners
0-Manors
15-HP1 coaches 
2-Skylines
4-Park Cars

The problem being the entire fleet is stretched beyond a reasonable number in diners and manors because you always need a protect car, and shop counts. Which could have been fixed had VIA attempted to buy cars in the Amtrak auction. The rest of it isn't that bad utilization wise. 

Now if VIA wanted to attempt a corridor type train in the west between Calgary and Edmonton which makes sense they could use some of the HP1s. Notice I haven't had a need to touch HP2 coaches yet. Ideally VIA could rebuild those cars into sleepers, or diners. But it costs money to do that. 

Which sets are the Budd corridor sets. I need to get up there again.


----------



## Anderson

I do wonder if VIA would be interested if one of the larger car owners approached them with a few cars to fill in a few of those gaps?  There may just be some blind lack of awareness at play here as much as anything.


----------



## jis

Wouldn’t they rather just add on to the existing order rather than go into the museum pieces maintenance and parts business?


----------



## Seaboard92

On the Canadian I don't think would be included on this new order. I think it will be HP1 till those cars reach the end of their service life. And VIA does an amazing job keeping them going. It's part of the attraction. If they want parts I'm sure I could find some.


----------

