News   Nov 25, 2024
Work Advances at Line 5 Condos Near Yonge and Mount Pleasant
 513     0 
News   Nov 25, 2024
Pinnacle Resubmission Bumps Heights of Lakeside Project at Sherbourne and Lake Shore
 762     0 
News   Nov 25, 2024
Toronto’s Construction Boom: Prioritizing Worker Safety in High-Risk Environments
 398     0 

Quebec-Windsor Corridor

innsertnamehere said:
There are a lot of very definitive statements getting thrown around here on a project we know effectively 0 details about.

Lets wait and see what in the hell the Liberals are actually thinking first before passing judgement, perhaps?
Click to expand...
Given the timeline the Liberals have set, their opinions and preferences are pretty much irrelevant, as the “final decision of the federal government” has been scheduled to fall well beyond the latest-possible date for the next federal election, where all polling suggests that they will face near-certain defeat. What we can judge, however, after almost a decade of Justin Trudeau’s premiership is Liberal performance and that’s where all they have to show is an incredible string of “important press announcements” to announce in fact extremely trivial advancements, but not a single dollar committed towards constructing anything to benefit rail travellers in the Corridor, let alone a single shovel in the ground. JT will have had a full decade in power and all he will have to show (in terms of infrastructure) is that he completed an RFP and selected a winner (which will presumably be the least-acceptable choice to any Conservative government).

I can’t credit JT enough for successfully executing the Corridor Fleet Renewal (and kicking off the Non-Corridor Fleet Renewal), but that was just the bare minimum to avoid sending VIA into a tailspin…
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
There are a lot of very definitive statements getting thrown around here on a project we know effectively 0 details about.

Lets wait and see what in the hell the Liberals are actually thinking first before passing judgement, perhaps?
Click to expand...
What I find annoying about the last few pages, is most of the respected posters are posting things that had I posted them, I would be told I should not be posting fantasy stuff and I should be banned. (Could this be the post that gets me banned?)

What is interesting though is that we all, including myself want Via to be as successful as t can be within the realm of the financial situation.

Remember, anything out of the context of exactly what has been released is a fantasy, no matter how realistic it can be.
 
Urban Sky said:
... but that was just the bare minimum to avoid sending VIA into a tailspin…
Click to expand...
Which is light years ahead of the various cuts and project cancellations under Mulroney, Martin, the austerity of the second PET premiership. And the general disinterest by Chretien (until the very very end), (and then there's Clarke, Campbell, and Turner - none of whom were promising much).

I've honestly wondered if the only reason that Chretien pushed VIA Fast at the end, is that he was trying to piss off Martin - who owned VIA's then biggest competitor.

It's certainly a low-hanging bar.
 
nfitz said:
Which is light years ahead of the various cuts and project cancellations under Mulroney, Martin, the austerity of the second PET premiership. And the general disinterest by Chretien (until the very very end), (and then there's Clarke, Campbell, and Turner - none of whom were promising much).

I've honestly wondered if the only reason that Chretien pushed VIA Fast at the end, is that he was trying to piss off Martin - who owned VIA's then biggest competitor.

It's certainly a low-hanging bar.
Click to expand...
At least we got new slow corridor trains.
 
Bordercollie said:
At least we got new slow corridor trains.
Click to expand...
They are by no means slower than the old ones. They are just temporarily required by the main infrastructure owner to obbey special speed limits at certain locations until they have been retrofitted with minor additional equipment which will ensure their safe detection.
 
Urban Sky said:
They are by no means slower than the old ones. They are just temporarily required by the main infrastructure owner to obbey special speed limits at certain locations until they have been retrofitted with minor additional equipment which will ensure their safe detection.
Click to expand...
I understand that but for the foreseeable future they are slower than what we had before.
 
Urban Sky said:
For instance, but those only occured a decade into their operation. So far I struggle to see how the Siemens trains are having worse teething issues than previous fleets rolled out by VIA or its predecessors:
groups.io

Re: Conventional equipment on VIA 22

groups.io groups.io
Click to expand...
It is the political climate that may make these teething issues worse. Also, when the LRCs were introduced, Via was a more robust agency.
 
Urban Sky said:
For instance, but those only occured a decade into their operation. So far I struggle to see how the Siemens trains are having worse teething issues than previous fleets rolled out by VIA or its predecessors:
groups.io

Re: Conventional equipment on VIA 22

groups.io groups.io
Click to expand...
There were also the problems when the Turbo entered service as well. Despite (finally) entering service in early 1969, more often than not, they were not available until 1974.

And now I'm suddenly wondering what drove them to change the Turbo fixed configuration in the early 1970s from 7-car trainsets (2 power + 5 intermediate) to 9-car trainsets (2 power + 7 intermediate) for Canadian operation.

I'm wondering if it had anything to do with the road crossings (especially after the epic 1968 crash).
 
Last edited:
nfitz said:
There were also the problems when the Turbo entered service as well. Despite (finally) entering service in early 1969, more often than not, they were not available until 1974.

And now I'm suddenly wondering what drove them to change the Turbo fixed configuration in the early 1970s from 5-car trainsets to 9-car trainsets for Canadian operation.

I'm wondering if it had anything to do with the road crossings (especially after the epic 1968 crash).
Click to expand...

Interesting thought! According to Wikipedia, a 7 car Turbo Train had a UIC classification of B′1′1′1′1′1′1′B, thus it only had 10 axles (thus a 9 car trainset would still only have had 12 axles).
 
nfitz said:
And now I'm suddenly wondering what drove them to change the Turbo fixed configuration in the early 1970s from 7-car trainsets (2 power + 5 intermediate) to 9-car trainsets (2 power + 7 intermediate) for Canadian operation.
Click to expand...
The intention was to be able to run 2 coupled pairs of 7-car trains together in service (4 trains), with a 5th train to provide the operational spare.

It was quickly realized that the operating cost of doing that would be extremely high due to the high fuel usage of the power cars, and so it was decided to reform the 5 shorter trains into 3 longer trains, and sell the extra equipment to Amtrak.

roger1818 said:
Interesting thought! According to Wikipedia, a 7 car Turbo Train had a UIC classification of B′1′1′1′1′1′1′B, thus it only had 10 axles (thus a 9 car trainset would still only have had 12 axles).
Click to expand...
The Turbo used tread brakes and solid axles & wheels. They did have concerns originally with a single unit operating on its own - and they were going to operate coupled pairs of them - but they found that it did a pretty good job of activating the circuits.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top