VIA Rail Long Distance (LD) and Inter-Regional fleet replacement

[Tom C]

Siemens is not the likely front-runner for locomotives, with a proven variant of a freight locomotive preferred. I would expect a domestic production requirement.

They are going for tier IV emissions with the “possibility of carbon free propulsion” so rebuild freight units with HEP are likely off the table. For tier IV passenger units with HEP there’s the Charger, the EMD F125, and the MPI MPXpress. There are at present no tier IV passenger variants of a freight locomotive that I know of. (Though if someone knows of a model Im not aware of feel free to chime in.) So unless they are just going with new straight freight units with a separate HEP generator in one of the cars, EMD or Wabtec would have to come up with a variant for them that presently doesn’t exist.

 

[west point]

Get enough equipment. Then what will never happen is running the Canadian and another name 7 days a week. Run the CN route 4 days a week and CP 3 days a week. Every 4 months switch trains CN to CP and CP to CN. That way every 16 months both routes get the same advantages especially isolated communities.

 

[railiner]

They are including a premium coach car which appears aimed at longer haul coach passengers. If they provide an enhanced experience in the "premium coach" car itself it could somewhat mitigate the absence of a lounge at least for some. As much as I love the Sightseers they don't really do you any good if you can't get a spot in there. I am sure the thinking is "why not just make it so people don't need a lounge and instead make the coaches better." I can see the thought behind the idea - will it work? Don't know. I guess we'll find out.

The biggest advantage to me, of traveling by long distance train as compared to flying or riding a bus is just that—a train is a train…you are not confined to your seat, pod, or cabin. You have the freedom of taking a walk to seek food, drink, a chance to socialise, or just a change of scene on a long journey.

 

[danasgoodstuff]

Get enough equipment. Then what will never happen is running the Canadian and another name 7 days a week. Run the CN route 4 days a week and CP 3 days a week. Every 4 months switch trains CN to CP and CP to CN. That way every 16 months both routes get the same advantages especially isolated communities.

Why not run each of the two western routes every other day so that over the course of two weeks you serve Saskatoon-Edmonton-Jasper and Regina-Calgary-Banff every day of the week. CN Mon-Wed-Fri-Sun-Tues-Th-Sat, etc. And Van-Toronto would then be everyday every day. It's not ideal, but to me it would be 80-90% as good as every day on each with half the equipment and crew. Twice a day on each would be ideal. I can remember when Saskatoon had twice daily service E-W in the busy season and passenger rail service N-S too. I'm just glad they're talking about an order big enough to expand service in some way.

 

[JWM]

The "Canadian" is way too expensive today. It should return to CPKCS through Regina, Calgary etc. The House of Commons, later the Senate, should have a bill giving mandatory to passenger trains with stiff fines. My Canadian friends are fully capable of running an outstanding train. Just give them the tools they need. I included Stadler in those tools.

 

[Urban Sky]

Get enough equipment. Then what will never happen is running the Canadian and another name 7 days a week. Run the CN route 4 days a week and CP 3 days a week. Every 4 months switch trains CN to CP and CP to CN. That way every 16 months both routes get the same advantages especially isolated communities.

Getting enough fleet for service expansions is one thing, getting enough operating funding is an entirely different thing and completely dependent on the federal government of the day. Note also that this will be at least 3 federal elections from now, considering that it will take many years to deliver enough fleet so that you can start expanding service rather than just replacing the legacy fleet. And anyways, with VIA’s current quality of track access, it would be pointless to offer daily service on the Canadian, as it lacks any competitiveness for the kind of travellers which actually require flexibility, so we‘re maybe getting ahead of ourselves here…

 

[Mailliw]

Nine car types; baggage, coach, panorama lounge-cafe, dining, accessible sleeper, dome lounge, prestige sleeper, bedroom sleeper, & section sleeper. No dorm cars? Or will there be baggage-dorms?

 

[jiml]

They are going for tier IV emissions with the “possibility of carbon free propulsion” so rebuild freight units with HEP are likely off the table.

Since Tier 4 emissions are exclusively an American thing, any mention of that spec is strictly virtue signalling to the current "pro-green" government and the media. Don't forget that the dated F40s are entering yet another rebuild to extend their lives and the GE's (now restricted to corridor use) will be scrapped as soon as practical. An interim solution is likely to precede any locomotive order beyond the corridor Chargers.

 

[Tom C]

Since Tier 4 emissions are exclusively an American thing, any mention of that spec is strictly virtue signalling to the current "pro-green" government and the media. Don't forget that the dated F40s are entering yet another rebuild to extend their lives and the GE's (now restricted to corridor use) will be scrapped as soon as practical. An interim solution is likely to precede any locomotive order beyond the corridor Chargers.

They have put a RFQ out for new tier IV locomotives. I get that it’s a US thing but they said they want to meet EPA Tier IV. The rebuilt F40s will get them to a certain point but the literature indicates a desire for new locomotives.

 

[MARC Rider]

Since Tier 4 emissions are exclusively an American thing, any mention of that spec is strictly virtue signalling to the current "pro-green" government and the media. Don't forget that the dated F40s are entering yet another rebuild to extend their lives and the GE's (now restricted to corridor use) will be scrapped as soon as practical. An interim solution is likely to precede any locomotive order beyond the corridor Chargers.

Canada's diesel emissions rules are aligned with US rules, which makes sense considering how closely the automotive industries of the two countries are intertwined. So "Tier IV" is also a Canadian thing.

 

[Trogdor]

Can someone please explain why it is necessary to semi-permanently connect cars that have an extra wide vestibule? Why isn't it possible to have a regular coupler with a wide vestibule?

My (admittedly non-technical) guess is regular couplers have too much slack and sway between the cars. Semi-permanent couplers offer a tighter connection. With greater sway between cars, the further you get from the center, the greater the hazard becomes from the floor not being level. There are also climate-control benefits because of the ability to offer a tighter seal around the entire vestibule area (not strictly related to the wider vestibule, though a wider vestibule would have more opportunity for gaps to get exposed to the elements and allow rain, ice, etc., into the area).

 

[danasgoodstuff]

My (admittedly non-technical) guess is regular couplers have too much slack and sway between the cars. Semi-permanent couplers offer a tighter connection. With greater sway between cars, the further you get from the center, the greater the hazard becomes from the floor not being level. There are also climate-control benefits because of the ability to offer a tighter seal around the entire vestibule area (not strictly related to the wider vestibule, though a wider vestibule would have more opportunity for gaps to get exposed to the elements and allow rain, ice, etc., into the area).

My memory of riding the CN to and from SK in the winter is that the vestibules were full of snow and cold. Of course, in SK in the winter they could be significantly warmer than outside and still be well below freezing.

 

[jis]

Sounds like there is one thing that will be similar to Amtrak’s approach. They are going with an accessible “core” semi permanently connected trainset where non accessible cars would be tacked on the ends of.

I am yet to find any mention of semi permanent coupling. All that we have seen is that a number of disable enablement cars will be kept together in a consist in a specific order, which makes perfect sense, and can be done using cars with standard H couplers.

 

[Amtrak25]

Will these ADA cor cars that supposed to be together have extra wide gangways, therefore incompatible with a car with a standard gangway ?

Can they mix consists with Superliners ?

 

[Urban Sky]

Sounds like there is one thing that will be similar to Amtrak’s approach. They are going with an accessible “core” semi permanently connected trainset where non accessible cars would be tacked on the ends of.

I was of the impression that ADA required accessibility along the entire train, is that incorrect?

 

[Tom C]

I am yet to find any mention of semi permanent coupling. All that we have seen is that a number of disable enablement cars will be kept together in a consist in a specific order, which makes perfect sense, and can be done using cars with standard H couplers.

Now that you mention it there isn't. I guess I inferred it with the whole accessible core thing as I sort of assumed that vestibule width and navigation is an issue with standard coupling and I had seen others inferring semi permanent connections with the accessible section on Facebook but if my inference was flawed then thanks for the correction. If they are trying to be less prescriptive than what Amtrak is doing they may not even be specifying how that would be setup and the car builders may have some discretion in how they come up with the accessible core in their submissions. Accessibility is also different of course in Canada and Amtrak's design is based around US ADA rules.

 

[Tom C]

I was of the impression that ADA required accessibility along the entire train, is that incorrect?

Each railcar is evaluated for compliance and I think it's different rules for single level vs. bilevel railcars. Amtrak's approach in their procurement is to create an "equivalent" alternate approach to accessibility so that they don't have to include accessibility features in each car (and ultimately actually provide more access to people with mobility difficulties on the train as a whole compared to if they used the normal approach on bilevel cars.) Canadian accessibility laws aren't as strict as the US so that is a factor in VIA plans.

 

[Fenu S]

Don't think this was mentioned in the Trains article.

Once the requests for qualification close, Via Rail will launch request for proposals with the goal of awarding the contract at the start of 2026. From there, it will take eight to 10 years to replace the fleet, with the first coaches coming in 2029-30 and the project reaching completion in 2034-35.

https://www.fitzhugh.ca/business-ne...eking-supplier-to-replace-aging-fleet-9952983

 

[west point]

Are these orders just going to be a one for one replacement or will this increase VIA's total car count?

 

[Urban Sky]

Are these orders just going to be a one for one replacement or will this increase VIA's total car count?

I believe it‘s quite a substantial increase over current car counts:

I‘m not sure, but considering that VIA only seems to have ever owned 110 HEP or Renaissance Sleeper Cars (40 Manor + 29 Chateau + 14 Park + 27 Renaissance), 313 cars sounds suspiciously like an expansion compared to the legacy non-Corridor fleet…

 

[thefirewarde]

VIA's concepts would probably not be DIRECTLY interchangeable with Amtrak but they might be a path for a single level order. Dome cars likely wouldn't fly with ADA though.

As long as a North America production line for a LD single level body shell is active, there's hope for Viewliner 3/single level long distance orders. That'll be crucial if the recent border crossing progress actually sticks, if the Floridian wants to stick around while the Star resumes, or for any number of other potential East Coast expansions. Heck, just adding more single level LD coaches. Forget the domes, get more revenue seats and beds.

 

[John Bredin]

Can someone please explain why it is necessary to semi-permanently connect cars that have an extra wide vestibule? Why isn't it possible to have a regular coupler with a wide vestibule?

My guess: so the wide vestibule is always in the right place in the consist. Regular couplers open things up to a train being assembled with a wide vestibule adjoining a non-accessible car, thus limiting where disabled passengers can go. Cars meant to be together don't get split up accidentally with semi-permanent connections.

I've never understood the dread some have of semi-permanent coupling of cars. Semi-permanent doesn't mean that if a car is severely damaged, its mate is also out of service except very briefly. CTA and Metra Electric have cars in "married" pairs. That marriage can be divorced and cars remarried if needed.

 

[PaTrainFan]

I've never understood the dread some have of semi-permanent coupling of cars. Semi-permanent doesn't mean that if a car is severely damaged, its mate is also out of service except very briefly. CTA and Metra Electric have cars in "married" pairs. That marriage can be divorced and cars remarried if needed.

Because it's just different. Not traditional.