European Railroad Discussion > Best of new European passenger equipment for Canada?

Mr. Desjardins-Siciliano, the CEO of Via Rail Canada has stated that the LRC coaches built in the early 1980's are expected to need to be replaced by 2025. The LRC equipment form the majority of the equipment used in the Quebec City QC to Windsor ON corridor.
This is the only portion of Canada's passenger rail network that comes anywhere close to European train frequency. Since the LRC coaches and power cars were built, all the traditional Canadian carriage builders have shut down.

Despite fears for the future of transcontinental and remote area services, I think the corridor services are here to stay and decisions need to be made soon about replacement equipment.

There have been great changes in European passenger equipment over the last decade or so. My question is? What would be the best "off the shelf" equipment from the builders in the Euro-zone. It would need to be 100-125 mph capable, low platform and capable of adding or reducing passenger capacity. If dmu's were to be used, a North American power unit would probably be specified.

Thirty years ago, Via looked at European equipment, but the industry and equipment have changed vastly since then.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/15 19:12 by eminence_grise.

No matter what they choose, lets hope they have windows as large as the LRC's. In Europe, I prefer ICE over the others I have ridden. But I doubt they meet North American crash standards (assuming Canada's are the same as the States).

The CAF built Mk 4 train sets for IE (Irish State Railways) have decent windows and seating, dimensions are also more generous than in GB.

Why does new equipment have to be European? Tacking on to the orders for the new corridor equipment being built in the USA seems like a reasonable approach. The equipment will be good for 125 mph.

I guess maybe Canadians are a little pissed off at us Yankees now, and I don't blame them.

Bombardier built Acela type coaches are FRA compliant. Order those if the current locomotive HEP will work with them and FRA compliance is desired.

nm2320 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bombardier built Acela type coaches are FRA
> compliant. Order those if the current locomotive
> HEP will work with them and FRA compliance is
> desired.


On second thought, Acela won't work with low platforms.

A diesel powered version of the Siemens Railjet.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why does new equipment have to be European?

Good selection of off the shelf equipment. FRA rules do not apply in Canada.

TAW

eminence_grise Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Desjardins-Siciliano, the CEO of Via Rail
> Canada has stated that the LRC coaches built in
> the early 1980's are expected to need to be
> replaced by 2025. . . . It would need to be 100-125 mph
> capable, low platform and capable of adding or
> reducing passenger capacity.

Desjardins-Siciliano said 100 mph would be adequate, which widens the range of suitable equipment.

Here comes the winner for many European off shelf contracts in Europe recently. The multiple units are modular, but always slightly tailored: Stadler FLIRT EMU/DMU

Do the units need to be DMU? EMUs don't have to transport so much weight with them, making use of them more cost efficient for the operator.


1) An Estonian ELRON FLIRT1 DMU, it is 3,5 meters wide making it extremely spacious inside. Also the height inside is "excessice". I imagine using the North American loading gauge this off shelf equipment could be used. All FLIRTs are mostly low floored.

2) Norwegian NSB FLIRT2 (class Bm75) is used for regional traffic, while its near cousin (also FLIRT2) Bm74 is at home on Oslo suburban traffic. Bm75 at least is said to be quite comfortable to travel. Picture by Ilkka.

3) Junakalusto FLIRT1 trains from Finland can easily tolerate any kind of weather. Here the class Sm5 train #007 is a seen at its intermediate stop station in Kerava, north of Helsinki. Picture by Stas.

For the book keeping: a sizable fleet of FLIRT trains will also be built and used in Netherlands before Alstom and Bombardier can deliver their trains...

---

---

---

McKey, the lines are not electricified.

Well, VIA could consider ordering CAF Viewliner II's?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/15 12:47 by Geep.

Then the Stadler Rail units with powerpacks or power modules might serve best. These are easy to maintain as they are modular.

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> McKey, the lines are not electricified.


1-2) FLIRT1 DMU power pack used by ELRON all around Estonia.

3) BLS GTW power(ed) module from Switzerland, the home country of Stadler Rail (despite company doing already most of its design and manufacturing in other countries now). Picture by Andreas in Luzern.

---

---

---

It actually looks like the one above is EMU because it is supplied with electric powerpack (see the pantograph).

4) In the first picture below is a GTW's DMU version in use in Netherlands. Picture by Sanna.

5) Other parts of the GTW multiple units are basically the same. If you pick differences these are due to different loading gauges and production year / batches.

6) Inside the GTW power pack. Last two pictures by Andreas.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/15 04:35 by McKey.

---

---

---

As I understand it quite a bit of recent US passenger re-equipment has had a strong European background. The Acela high speed trains have used French technology for their power cars, and Talgo equipment has been used on the Northwest.

In the UK we are getting several hundred new Intercity Express trains from Hitachi in Japan which are being assembled at new plant in North East England. Are they really British?

A bit like the awful phrase found on iPhones etc: "designed by Apple in California, assembled in China". I suspect that factors like maximum buffing loads can be used to preserve a veneer of nationalistic pride, but it can get pretty thin!

This is my point.

The current equipment used by Via between Quebec City and Windsor was the result of years of study and development by railway manufacturers and Government agencies of the day. Since then, only urban passenger systems have evolved in Canada, and the manufacturing alliances and Government planning agencies for inter city transport have vanished . The wisdom behind these decisions was that eventually inter city passenger trains would be discontinued.

It now seems that the "corridor" services between Canada's major cities may have a future, and that new equipment will be needed to sustain the corridor. With the abundance of new equipment designs from the many European equipment manufacturers, I think there would be a market for Inter City passenger trains in the near future. No equipment manufacturer in North America seems to be planning a design for the near future in Canada or the US.

With much of the inter city bus industry in Canada and the US under the control of UK based First Group or Stagecoach, and others, is there a case for "Train Operating Companies" and "Equipment Leasing Companies" from Europe to operate and lease the equipment on the Canadian corridor services, rather than have the currently disinterested Canadian Government gradually run down Via Rail into oblivion.

eminence_grise Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is my point.
>

> With much of the inter city bus industry in Canada
> and the US under the control of UK based First
> Group or Stagecoach, and others, is there a case
> for "Train Operating Companies" and "Equipment
> Leasing Companies" from Europe to operate and
> lease the equipment on the Canadian corridor
> services, rather than have the currently
> disinterested Canadian Government gradually run
> down Via Rail into oblivion.

For corridor services perhaps if AMT and GO offered to operate QC-Montreal-Toronto-Windsor together they could order additional equipment based on current overall designs of commuter modified for a quieter more luxurious ride with appropriately modified interiors?

I do not know the law here. We are taking this federal "program", VIA, and removing control and responsibility from the federal government to the provinces for the corridor. Is their a willingness on the part of Quebec, Ontario, and the Federal government to do this?

Then what is left of VIA besides long haul to the Maritimes and West Coast?

If all government parties are interested in a Train Operating Company and Equipment Leasing Company concept then they would have to see if the railway companies would buy into the concept. If yes, then formally ask the business world for expressions of interest to begin the process.

I really don't think FLIRT DMU units would be appropriate for this purpose.

These are regional/suburban rail units......while the Quebec City - Windsor corridor is an intercity line (with distances and traveling times to match). Something locomotive-hauled and long-distance would be a good fit.....

Well, FLIRT is just a modular base for many kinds of designs, so maybe we should take an even broader look at the situation.

Stadler manufactures its FLIRT1+2+3 product line with suburban+regional+intercity configurations maximum speed being typically between 160 km/h and 200 km/h. They also have another product line KISS, which shares many design features and the same modularity, but is double decked. Third product line is also being engineered right while we write and will be in traffic in just two years: this is going to be high speed intercity stock, with the same low floor + modularity as other product lines.

So based on facts I would say Stadler is a very strong candidate offering any passenger rail segment train.

chs7-321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I really don't think FLIRT DMU units would be
> appropriate for this purpose.
>
> These are regional/suburban rail units......while
> the Quebec City - Windsor corridor is an intercity
> line (with distances and traveling times to
> match). Something locomotive-hauled and
> long-distance would be a good fit.....

1) Intercity variant of FLIRT1 for Leo Express (of Czech Republic)

2) Swiss BLS configuration of Stadler KISS EMU.

3) EC250 (to be product name after FLIRT and KISS) for SBB to be first used on demanding Gotthard base tunnel traffic. Picture by Stadler Rail.

For any of these (at least the two first ones) it does not matter how the power for train systems is generated. Europeans use electricity where available and power packs when electricity is not available.


Seen how Stadler can handle engineering, manufacturing and maintenance tasks and how well their customer care works I would say this manufacturer should be asked a tender, especially as Canada too knows how winter affects traffic. In Europe it is basically that many innovation oriented railroad organizations have become stronger by using Stadler products.

---

---

---

I do believe the best answer might be to wait until Amtrak orders their new single level corridor cars and see what these are based on. I suspect a Viewliner based design or an Acela based design (with traps for low level platforms). Then it would be simple for via to add on once the assembly line is up and running. Since the next thing in Amtrak's agenda will probably be either P42 or Amfleet replacement, it's likely the assembly line will come online right when VIA is getting ready to actually place an order.

Cheers,
Nick