|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
crs1026
Superstar
A technical question..... is the shunt resistance threshold for crossing gates different from the shunt resistance threshold that determines "occupancy" for CTC?
I'm not aware of any incidents where Venture trains disappeared altogether from RTC screens, if there were, one might have heard mention of these in the grapevine.
Granted, crossing protection is a more demanding scenario as even a few seconds disappearance might make the passage over a crossing unsafe....where a train disaapearing and then reappearing from the RTC console might simply trigger a nuisance alarm for the RTC.... I'm just wondering if the technology is identical or not. If similar, one would think CN would have data on any such disappearances also..... if in fact these disappearances do happen.
- Paul
I'm not aware of any incidents where Venture trains disappeared altogether from RTC screens, if there were, one might have heard mention of these in the grapevine.
Granted, crossing protection is a more demanding scenario as even a few seconds disappearance might make the passage over a crossing unsafe....where a train disaapearing and then reappearing from the RTC console might simply trigger a nuisance alarm for the RTC.... I'm just wondering if the technology is identical or not. If similar, one would think CN would have data on any such disappearances also..... if in fact these disappearances do happen.
- Paul
Last edited:
micheal_can
Senior Member
I am guessing CN will pay some fine that will be absorbed into their general revenue and just continue doing what they do. Would be nice if this signaled the beginning of changes in the industry, but I feel that is something of a fantasy. Business as usual will likely be what happens.
smallspy
Senior Member
My understanding is that the answer is "no" - shunt resistance is shunt resistance, and the circuits are all calibrated to measure the resistance versus the nominal shunt voltage that exists on the running rails, so long as that resistance meets the certain threshold for detection. And yes, it begs the question why CN has only chosen to issue these slowdowns at crossings equipped with predictive circuits, rather than anywhere else - unless there is something intrinsicly specific to the design of those circuits which causes them to be problematic in CN's eyes.
Trains do sometimes disappear from the RTC screens, but because those events happen in locations that are less critical (away from interlocking) it is generally seen as an irritant rather than a critical failure. This does happen with both passenger and freight trains, and is not just the result of a loss of shunt. Because of the density of shunting locations in an interlocking (something like 7 detection locations per switch, 14 per crossover) loss-of-shunt is never a concern at them.
Dan
Thinking about this some more: the predictive circuits at those crossings need to detect not just the fact that there is a train, but also the speed at which it is going in order to time the lights and gates accurately. Because of this, there are rules regarding trains being allowed to accelerate within these zones (and why there are rules at some crossings near stations that the crossing must be entered at a lower speed and thus occupied prior to accelerating). If CN is concerned that a train may not be able to have its speed accurately detected it may result in the crossing being down for longer than normal, as the circuit would then default to it's maximum time.
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
I missed your post. Thanks for that. It makes it even more unclear why this matter is also before the court.
I can't find the actual application on the Federal Court's page, but everything in the press indicates that VIA is seeking a judicial review of CN's action - that' it. It's not even clear if they are seeking injunctive relief (i.e. asking the court to order CN to remove the restriction). There is no indication that it is seeking compensation or have even filed a claim of loss. That type of claim would typically go to the Superior Court (Ontario). I'm not sure the Federal Court has jurisdiction to order compensation outside of court costs.
No court in the land has the authority to unilaterally order a corporation to relinquish control of its business so long as it isn't operating illegally. I'm not even sure Parliament could, certainly no without compensation. If Parliament really wanted CN to play nice in the sandbox, they have a number of tools already available to them.
Trackside_Treasure
New Member
VIA's motion is here: http://tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com/2024/12/via-and-cn-in-federal-court-over-cn.html
Since then, they are asking for a stay in a separate motion.
There is no penalty or relief being asked for by VIA.
Transport Canada is also involved now.
Since then, they are asking for a stay in a separate motion.
There is no penalty or relief being asked for by VIA.
Transport Canada is also involved now.
micheal_can
Senior Member
I thought this would be federal as the laws are federal.
Sounds like they just want to show whether CN is acting correct under the law. I really wish they would have asked for compensation either in money or in how CN does business with them.