VIA Rail

[Bureaucromancer]

They can probably easily get waivers for the Flirts since they are approved for oc transpo use. Those are the perfect set to use

Agreed from the regulatory perspective (although OC Transpo has basically full temporal separation, to Transport may not be as instant as you'd hope), but that doesn't address the small, isolated and unique fleet being a bigger financial hurdle.

I really have to agree that in the real world (if anything changes) we're going to see northern charger sets and a common fleet with the northern Quebec trains.

 

[cplchanb]

Basic economic concepts like marginal costs and marginal return are apparently hard to grasp for a lot of railfans who think money grows on trees.

Well chicken or the egg... we all experienced how our bank if Canada thought that increasing interest rates could theoretically lower inflation but failed to address everything else tied into it. Same could be said for the business case. At best its an estimate done by bean counters and mbas sitting in a desk far away. They don't truly understand the pros and cons of rail to these areas

 

[cplchanb]

OC Transpo’s Flirts are operated with temporal separation from freight operations. How do you want to achieve this on active freight lines (especially: transcontinental ones)?

Same way everyone else does it around the world. It's not rocket science. It's all about proper scheduling , regulatory adjustments and controls. We are so afraid of collisions with freight trains but we fail to actually address the cause of it and hide behind the draconian TC red tape.

 

[roger1818]

Are the FLIRTs approved for use anywhere in North America that doesn't have temporal separation from freight? I was under the impression that the FRA only allows non-compliant DMUs to be used with temporal separation.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Are the FLIRTs approved for use anywhere in North America that doesn't have temporal separation from freight? I was under the impression that the FRA only allows non-compliant DMUs to be used with temporal separation.

I don’t believe that Caltrain will have full separation, though those are KISSes. Noises have been made that there is room for more flexibility, especially by the FRA… and I absolutely agree in principle we need to have the fight for more sensible regulations.

The issue is whether THIS is really the place to have what will likely be a protracted and costly dispute. Although I grant there is a certain attractiveness to having VIA be the agency that gets to deal with the problem.

 

[Urban Sky]

I don’t believe that Caltrain will have full separation, though those are KISSes. Noises have been made that there is room for more flexibility, especially by the FRA… and I absolutely agree in principle we need to have the fight for more sensible regulations.

Caltrain (and every other train on its network) has PTC. I have no idea when Canada will make something similar mandatory…

 

[dowlingm]

From a pulling power perspective, definitely, but given the remoteness of the service, they may need it for redundancy. The HVAC system in the coaches receives power from the locomotive, and if it were to fail in the middle of winter, it would get very frosty inside. A second locomotive could, at a minimum, be used to keep everyone warm (or cool in the summer) until the train can be rescued. Granted the Northern Quebec trains only have a single locomotive north of Hervey, so maybe it is a risk that VIA would be willing to take.

One option could be to borrow one of ONTC’s two F40 APCU rebuilds and have it provide HEP as a proof of concept, with the VIA locomotive’s HEP unit shut down except if there was a problem.

If the concept is sound, then send 2-3 F40s to NRE and have them “fixed”, with the potential to do likewise on the Prince Rupert route if sufficient F40s can be spared. Recall that VIA trialled 2 x RDC on that route in 2013.

Depending on the size/position of the HEP engine, cutting in a baggage door might be feasible to supplement available baggage car capacity, as Amtrak did with their F40 “cabbages”.

 

[dowlingm]

They can probably easily get waivers for the Flirts since they are approved for oc transpo use. Those are the perfect set to use

Bit of a difference between the odd delivery to the NRC and sharing space on the CP transcon.

In the U.S. PTC is only mandated above a specific number of passenger services (a condition which has essentially capped Downeaster expansion). PTC on the White River route seems far fetched in that context given the costs it would impose on CP.

 

[roger1818]

I don’t believe that Caltrain will have full separation, though those are KISSes. Noises have been made that there is room for more flexibility, especially by the FRA… and I absolutely agree in principle we need to have the fight for more sensible regulations.

The issue is whether THIS is really the place to have what will likely be a protracted and costly dispute. Although I grant there is a certain attractiveness to having VIA be the agency that gets to deal with the problem.

I did some digging and you are right. It appears as though (according to Wikipedia) because:

1. "The KISS trains are compliant with the FRA alternative Tier-I crash-worthiness standard," and
2. "the positive train control system that is being installed on the Caltrain line,"

"Caltrain KISS trains will be allowed to operate in mixed traffic with heavier trains, such as Amtrak passenger trains and Union Pacific freight trains, instead of the temporal separation required in the 2009 waiver."

Not sure if it would be worth the effort to jump through those hoops for the 3 trains a week on the White River line though.

 

[Bordercollie]

I did some digging and you are right. It appears as though (according to Wikipedia) because:

1. "The KISS trains are compliant with the FRA alternative Tier-I crash-worthiness standard," and
2. "the positive train control system that is being installed on the Caltrain line,"

"Caltrain KISS trains will be allowed to operate in mixed traffic with heavier trains, such as Amtrak passenger trains and Union Pacific freight trains, instead of the temporal separation required in the 2009 waiver."

Not sure if it would be worth the effort to jump through those hoops for the 3 trains a week on the White River line though.

Wouldn't it be easier to have a three car venture set rotate from TMC? You would need a bigger baggage section, but you could easily put a big door on the cab car. But then you would only have one car for passengers. So it would need to be a four car train but reliable enough with one HEP generator.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Wouldn't it be easier to have a three car venture set rotate from TMC? You would need a bigger baggage section, but you could easily put a big door on the cab car. But then you would only have one car for passengers. So it would need to be a four car train but reliable enough with one HEP generator.

a simple venture baggage car would obviously be a very reasonable project, but if there really is that need for a backup HEP unit a cabbage unit with HEP doesn’t seem like that big an ask either.

 

[Bordercollie]

a simple venture baggage car would obviously be a very reasonable project, but if there really is that need for a backup HEP unit a cabbage unit with HEP doesn’t seem like that big an ask either.

The other issue is that since VIA pays CP per axle additional cars would make the route less profitable. Especially adding a NCPU. You would have a locomotive and a NCPU costing you money. Venture cab car can at least carry passengers or used as a baggage car.

Also with the RDC you can add or remove capacity as required, with a fixed train set you cannot.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

The other issue is that since VIA pays CP per axle additional cars would make the route less profitable. Especially adding a NCPU. You would have a locomotive and a NCPU costing you money. Venture cab car can at least carry passengers or used as a baggage car.

Also with the RDC you can add or remove capacity as required, with a fixed train set you cannot.

If I'm perfectly honest, I'm not really convinced that the disposal of the other RDCs was the best move; bringing them back in the corridor was always a bit of a stretch but taken as a whole nothing modern is as good at what they do. Replacing the Quebec trains with them and looking at a re-engining program really might have been best...

 

[Bordercollie]

If I'm perfectly honest, I'm not really convinced that the disposal of the other RDCs was the best move; bringing them back in the corridor was always a bit of a stretch but taken as a whole nothing modern is as good at what they do. Replacing the Quebec trains with them and looking at a re-engining program really might have been best...

Don't they still have three units that were tested in the corridor? That were supposed to be used on the island?

 

[lenaitch]

One option could be to borrow one of ONTC’s two F40 APCU rebuilds and have it provide HEP as a proof of concept, with the VIA locomotive’s HEP unit shut down except if there was a problem.

If the concept is sound, then send 2-3 F40s to NRE and have them “fixed”, with the potential to do likewise on the Prince Rupert route if sufficient F40s can be spared. Recall that VIA trialled 2 x RDC on that route in 2013.

Depending on the size/position of the HEP engine, cutting in a baggage door might be feasible to supplement available baggage car capacity, as Amtrak did with their F40 “cabbages”.

Not taking any sides on these desktop options, but I have heard that those APCU conversions have been particularly unreliable since conversion and were removed from service; although I cannot confirm that.