VIA Rail

[crs1026]

I have some sympathy for the train crew (not saying they handled it well, but....) as they were probably as frustrated as anybody about having to stand still with absolutely no means to take corrective action. It's actually pretty stressful to have no answers for people when you are the ones who have to deal with them face to face, and what you are telling them isn't sufficient.

The assumption I am making (based on the number of tweets that have turned up) is that the train stopped in an area with good cellular coverage. So my question is, was there clear, accurate, continuous and effective contact between the train crew and the operations base. And did anyone at the operations base have the mandate to actually operationalise a rescue, and did they have direct contact with the crew to feed them updates. Or was the crew simply given the usual corporatespeak and told to assure passengers that everything was being looked after.

I can understand that on the cusp of a long weekend, the bus supply might be limited....but.... what VIA needs is not simply a list of coach operators, but some sort of a retainer arrangement where the operators commit to give VIA priority over, say, the local football team.

I note that VIA's reply alluded to freight interference - I wonder if this was true or just blame shifting. If true, perhaps one needs to ask why VIA had to send a rescue train from further away, when a locomotive might have been borrowable. Perhaps there needs to be a time threshold where CN is obligated to halt a freight and send the power to rescue VIA. (Freight railways do this regularly when their own trains break down).

Some of the tweets indicate that the local fire department did respond and assisted with passenger transfers when the following VIA train turned up. I wonder whether there should be a legal threshold where a trapped trainload or planeload of people automatically becomes a "rescue" situation and authority passes to the fire or police. (Having said that, most police or fire chiefs would likely deem a trainload of people sheltering in an undamaged vehicle to be in a place of safety, so wouldn't take any action, but their response assures that peoples' condition will be checked on and any medical or similar issues would receive attention).

Similarly, in this world of non-redundant head end power - I wonder whether any situation involving total shutdown of HVAC and/or toilets ought to trigger "emergency" status.

A lot of the passengers' (and crew's) stress in this kind of situation derives from the belief that nobody out there is looking after things and giving the situation priority. VIa has the obligation not just to take action, but to demonstrate to passengers that help is on the way. Sure sounds like that wasn't accomplished.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

Just to share two comments from Groups.io, the first one from @TerryJohnson:

I’m sure there will be a comparison of what was promised after the December 22 fiasco and what happened here.

I’ve said this before: Stuff happens. A good crew can keep everyone mostly happy until the toilets overflow. Then all bets are off. The contingency plan must be calibrated to ensure that relief equipment arrives or passengers are detrained before that happens.

That there wasn’t a mutiny is really quite surprising. Amtrak has a load of people detrain themselves and go wandering around on live track in a similar situation on the Wolverine.

Having a contingency plan that works requires the one thing VIA hasn’t got though, which is adequate funding to do things like keep relief locomotives and crews around.

I hope there is also a deep dive on why equipment keeps leaving MMC with problems, or being held for last-minute maintenance that really should have been caught the night before.

Terry Johnson
Chatham, Ontario


The second comment:

The dead Siemens TS10, originally broke down at Fortier due to air line issues, was temporarily fixed by CN yardmaster from Joffre and released to continue with 15 mph restriction, then it broke down again at Laurier-Station, engine couldn’t be started with air line issues and blocking mainline at Laurier-Station. VIA 24 was expected to push dead 622 to Quebec City but that didn’t work out at all.

VIA sent out rescue crew on 308 at 12 am in the morning, made to Laurier-Station, coupled on to the dead set and headed west towards MMC, stranded at Saint-Eugène as CN closed tracks due to earthquake, that crew ran out of hours, another crew was called to take over and finally get back on move at 13:35.


***

I have a hard time identifying how any of these four (!) separate and subsequent issues could have been anticipated or avoided…

 

[Northern Light]

When I read the above, there are several things I take from this.

1) There needs to be a clear, unequivocal legislative mandate, that passenger trains take priority over freight, on all tracks, at all times. (emergency involving freight rail possibly excepted)

2) That a train in an emergency situation, takes priority over all routine traffic, across all railways with each mandated to assist the other.

3) In any situation in which there is a material risk of delay beyond the capability to keep the toilets flushing, the climate control working and sufficient food and water on board, local Emergency personnel should be dispatched proactively before the situation becomes emergent.

4) Communication, communication, communication., If you don't appear to be 'trying' you will be judged as if you are NOT trying.

5) There needs to be some discussion of whether a 'fix' of air line issues that was so well done as to last a very short time and caused further delay should have been done at all. It seems like the fix here made the problems worse.

Finally, I'd like to know what the standard policy is around earthquakes and rail. The quake was only 4.6, but it seems from media coverage it did give some homes a good shake. My question here is did CN actually go out and inspect the entire length of the line before reopening its rail? I'm happy enough to endorse thoughtful precautions, one wouldn't want a cleared train derailing..........

 

[DSC]

About 15 years ago I was on a VIA train from Quebec to Montreal with an American friend; the train left Quebec on time but within about 10 minutes stopped and remained stopped for about 5 hours before another engine appeared and, after some backing and forwarding, we set off for Montreal again - where we arrived 6 hours late. We were not marooned in the 'wilderness' but .... My US chum still dines out on the experience and his credit for a future trip was of no use to him.

 

[micheal_can]

One issue no one is looking at is the failure itself. How is it that a seemingly minor issue can cause such a problem on new equipment? This is something that would be expected on the older fleet, but not ones that are less than 5 years old. And don't try to say this is a 'teething issue' unless the next thing you are willing to say is that a mechanic should be on all of these trains.

If I were on this train, I would not be upset at the train crew. I would also not be upset at the front line customer service staff. This lands squarely on managers who cannot manage things. If anyone is/was/could be a manager in an organization like Via, they should be ready to deal with emergencies like this promptly.

If the organization does not have the money set aside for these types of emergencies, then they should start cutting pay of all salaried employees, starting at the top to build up that fund.

"Proper Planning and Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance."

 

[crs1026]

When I read the above, there are several things I take from this.

This is a pretty good draft of what ought to be enshrined in regulations or the statute itself. The concept of "what is an emergency" within the context of passenger train operations is worthwhile defining.

1) There needs to be a clear, unequivocal legislative mandate, that passenger trains take priority over freight, on all tracks, at all times. (emergency involving freight rail possibly excepted)

"At all times" may be a bit excessive, and doesn't really flow from the facts of this incident as we know them. How about "freight operations must not impair the operation of passenger trains or the response to passenger train emergencies"

2) That a train in an emergency situation, takes priority over all routine traffic, across all railways with each mandated to assist the other.

Totally agree. BTW, I have enough contact with Chief Dispatchers past and present to know that RTC centers are very busy places, but the concept of "just don't answer the phone" especially applies to one railway dispatcher taking calls from another railway or VIA. I have fantasies of solving this for VIA with the 1960's-era red phone on the desk at the White House or the Kremlin.

3) In any situation in which there is a material risk of delay beyond the capability to keep the toilets flushing, the climate control working and sufficient food and water on board, local Emergency personnel should be dispatched proactively before the situation becomes emergent.

Agree. To my mind, loss of motive power or track blockage combined with HVAC or toilet failure is an automatic "emergency" and triggers all the provisions we are discussing.

4) Communication, communication, communication., If you don't appear to be 'trying' you will be judged as if you are NOT trying.

It's time a law was passed requiring corporations (and government, and politicians) to talk in real English instead of corporatespeak and provide actual information instead of platitudes. When you hear an airline employee begin a statement with "For your safety and convenience....." one knows the real meaning is, "we made up this rule, but resistance is futile". I'm not sure this one can be legislated but companies should face legal peril if they duck issues, and in my reign that would extend all the way to PA communications to customers

5) There needs to be some discussion of whether a 'fix' of air line issues that was so well done as to last a very short time and caused further delay should have been done at all. It seems like the fix here made the problems worse.

Even without the facts, I would give CN/VIA a pass on this one. Good that the CN YM even intervened (one suspects the dead VIA may have been blocking a freight so there may have been self interest behind the cooperative spirit).

The report that the fix enabled the train to proceed at 15mph makes me suspect that the repair was sufficient to bring the train into compliance with some air brake or similar rule. I am willing to believe that the fix was in the spirit of "The mechanic who can fix your tire won't be here until morning, but I can put the donut on for you if you want to keep going". Baling wire is your friend sometimes.

Finally, I'd like to know what the standard policy is around earthquakes and rail. The quake was only 4.6, but it seems from media coverage it did give some homes a good shake. My question here is did CN actually go out and inspect the entire length of the line before reopening its rail? I'm happy enough to endorse thoughtful precautions, one wouldn't want a cleared train derailing..........

I don't know CN's protocol for earthquakes, but it is common for operations to be halted after extreme events until a track patrol has inspected the line. That patrol may not address the intricacies of a specific bridge but at least assures that nothing has shifted or failed altogether.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

"At all times" may be a bit excessive, and doesn't really flow from the facts of this incident as we know them. How about "freight operations must not impair the operation of passenger trains or the response to passenger train emergencies"

There is a bill before parliament (hasn't got past first reading)...........here:

Private Member's Bill C-371 (44-1) - First Reading - Rail Passenger Priority Act - Parliament of Canada

Private Member's Bill C-371 (44-1) - First Reading - Rail Passenger Priority Act - Parliament of Canada

www.parl.ca

From the above:

The text of the U.S. bill that provides for Amtrak preference can be found here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1500/text

From the above:

It seems to be fairly unequivocal. But I'm happy enough to discuss reasonable wording.

Agree. To my mind, loss of motive power or track blockage combined with HVAC or toilet failure is an automatic "emergency" and triggers all the provisions we are discussing.

I think a key element here is predictive. That is to say, one is late to the game to dispatch help once the train is out of water, or passengers/crew have nowhere to take care of bodily needs, or they are either steamy or cold due to lack of climate control.

To me, the protocol needs to be something along the lines of ......." Where the current situation may lead to non-flushing toilets, loss of climate control etc etc.)" Emergency services will be dispatched proactively, unless and except there is a reasonable basis to believe the problem will be fully mitigated within a short space of time.

You need water before you run out of it, you need an answer to the 'the toilets don't flush' before that happens. If you can't get the train power, you have to be able to de-train people to take care of their needs somewhere close by, ideally emergency services should bring toilet paper and hand sanitizer! 'just hold it' is not an acceptable answer.

 

[crs1026]

It seems to be fairly unequivocal. But I'm happy enough to discuss reasonable wording.

The issue for me is that "absolute priority" might be used, for instance, to revisit the schedule of the Canadian with the intent of restoring a 3-night schedule..... or even demanding faster timings in the corridor (such as the often-cited 4-hour Montreal-Toronto timing from the 1960's).

I would not go that far, but I would agree that once VIA has signed off a timetable with the host railway.... there better not be a freight train in the way.

I think a key element here is predictive. That is to say, one is late to the game to dispatch help once the train is out of water, or passengers/crew have nowhere to take care of bodily needs, or they are either steamy or cold due to lack of climate control.

To me, the protocol needs to be something along the lines of ......." Where the current situation may lead to non-flushing toilets, loss of climate control etc etc.)" Emergency services will be dispatched proactively, unless and except there is a reasonable basis to believe the problem will be fully mitigated within a short space of time.

In principle I agree, but in the application I suspect that most events will be reactive.

There will be lots of "Um, RTC, we just lost our air, we're stopping to check it out" followed by "Um, RTC, the engine just died".

I don't know how IT-sophisticated VIA's Ops center is, but it should be a simple task with even the existing telemetry for software to alarm whenever a train stops at a location other than a station platform..... or stays stopped for x mintues. And likely they know whenever there is an emergency brake application or a unit goes offline (CN already has this type of monitoring for its freight locomotives)

One would expect some sensible protocol for the Ops center to begin worrying at some level of delay or based on certain events. There will be plenty of false alarms - but the point of a more demanding protocol is for the ops center to begin anticipating that passengers may be starting to have issues or risks. The sense of urgency in addressing passenger needs, and not just fixing the air leak, needs to trigger much sooner.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

I would not go that far, but I would agree that once VIA has signed off a timetable with the host railway.... there better not be a freight train in the way.

Just this would do amazing things for being able to offer a similar on time promise as GO can offer.

 

[PinkLucy]

About 15 years ago I was on a VIA train from Quebec to Montreal with an American friend; the train left Quebec on time but within about 10 minutes stopped and remained stopped for about 5 hours before another engine appeared and, after some backing and forwarding, we set off for Montreal again - where we arrived 6 hours late. We were not marooned in the 'wilderness' but .... My US chum still dines out on the experience and his credit for a future trip was of no use to him.

My spouse was on a VIA train a few months back that was delayed about 5 hours. Communication was less than stellar. They were eventually offered some credit, but only if they remained on the train and didn't disembark when stopped at a station.

 

[dowlingm]

About 15 years ago I was on a VIA train from Quebec to Montreal with an American friend; the train left Quebec on time but within about 10 minutes stopped and remained stopped for about 5 hours before another engine appeared and, after some backing and forwarding, we set off for Montreal again - where we arrived 6 hours late. We were not marooned in the 'wilderness' but .... My US chum still dines out on the experience and his credit for a future trip was of no use to him.

Parliament should set legal minimums for compensation generally akin to what the European Union does including defining exempt force majeure, and specify that where rebates or refunds are involved that the minimum is always obtainable as money (refund to credit card etc.) and that while they can offer credit for future journeys in lieu, this must always amount to more than the cash minimum.

 

[Urban Sky]

Parliament should set legal minimums for compensation generally akin to what the European Union does including defining exempt force majeure, and specify that where rebates or refunds are involved that the minimum is always obtainable as money (refund to credit card etc.) and that while they can offer credit for future journeys in lieu, this must always amount to more than the cash minimum.

VIA’s own train delay policy for Corridor trains (IIRC: 50% after 1 hour, 100% after 4 hours) already seems to easily exceed the legal requirements of the European Union:

Rail Passenger Rights - Rail Europe Help

Rail Passenger Rights Regulation is a set of rules issued by European Parliament to govern european journeys by train. It's a public document that is part of EU

help.raileurope.com

 

[dowlingm]

To my mind, VIA OCC should always be able to communicate directly with Corridor passengers via a dedicated, reliable audio channel (similarly to how TTC transit control does) to assure passengers that the outside world does in fact know where they are and to relieve some communication burden from the onboard crew. This should begin no later than 15 minutes after train halt and continue at 15 minute intervals (so the prior communication at 11.30 would finish as “we will provide an updated status no later than 11.45”)

This would be more difficult outside the Corridor but with Starlink availability it is getting harder and harder to find places where it is truly excusable for VIA or other mainline train operators to be out of contact with a train, other than tunnels/overhangs.

 

[dowlingm]

VIA’s own train delay policy for Corridor trains seems to already easily exceed the legal requirements of the European Union

Perhaps - I haven’t gone to the source directives - but I am specifically calling out the practice of offering credit if this is still going on. It does seem like even where delayed travel regimes exist; they don’t seem to be regulated so strictly that company personnel don’t make offers to travellers which are below legislated minimums and relying on passengers not to check, which is presumably condoned and encouraged by managers at those organizations.

 

[Jonny5]

The only thing I would worry about defining a specific timeline for an "emergency" would be it creating incentives not to deal with problems immediately.

"We've got six hours until it's an official emergency, so while we could divert resources there right now to fix the problem, in five hours there's another train going by, so let them sit and wait for that, because officially it still won't even be an emergency."

Yes, I'm a card carrying cynic.