VIA Rail

[Bordercollie]

They do look nice. Interesting that they seem to be a dinning car on the lower level and have regular seating on the upper. It is also interesting that, unlike Amtrak's Superliners, they don't allow travel between coaches on the upper level. I am guessing they are making each car self contained to remove the need to travel through the train. I assume that could be a modification though for a different customer.

I don't think the Skyline (and Park) cars are VIA's biggest issue on their long distance trains. If they are going to continue to offer long distance service, what they really need is new sleepers.

I'm sure people can travel between cars on the lower level.
Why do people need to travel between cars on both levels?(If that's what you meant?).
Instead of dining on the lower floor they could be bunks for sleeping. Or on the top with skylights would be nice. Watch the stars while you sleep.

 

[roger1818]

I'm sure people can travel between cars on the lower level.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. On the Superliners, the lower level only spans between the trucks since there isn't enough clearance to have two full levels above the trucks.

Why do people need to travel between cars on both levels?(If that's what you meant?).

It isn't.

Instead of dining on the lower floor they could be bunks for sleeping. Or on the top with skylights would be nice. Watch the stars while you sleep.

In the summer skylights would wake you up kind of early. Not sure how many people would want that.

 

[EnviroTO]

Seems like a fare structure where travel and accommodation are split out would make the issue of company expense policies go away so easily. There are many railways where base transportation plus upgrades for speed, class, and sleepers is added on.

 

[smallspy]

Have they ever issued an RFI or RFQ for new self-powered cars?

The process that resulted in the Siemens order allowed for (and received) a bid of self-propelled cars.

But have they gone through an RFI or RFQ? Not to the best of my knowledge, no. But that's also because this seems to be the first RFI or RFQ (or any sort of open-bidding process) since the process that resulted in the LRC cars in 1981.

That doesn't mean that they haven't bid on cars, self-propelled or not, when given the chance.

Dan

 

[roger1818]

What happened to all the spare Renaissance sleepers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_(railcar) notes that there were 72 originally, but 29 were never completed and scrapped and 27 are in service. So where are the other 16? (presumably an error on that page)

(looking at https://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php/VIA_Rail_Canada#Active_Roster_2 I'd guess they got converted to baggage cars)

If you look on the Wikipedia page you first linked, it says: "Via rebuilt fifteen of the sleepers into dining and baggage cars." That leaves 1 missing, so there is probably an error somewhere on the Wikipedia page (it also says "Thirty-three carriages never entered service, remaining in store at Thunder Bay." which also doesn't add up).

 

[roger1818]

What makes you think that they haven't?

They bid on the lot of 12 RDCs from Dallas.

DART = Dallas Area Rapid Transit

The LRCs were built from day one to support bi-directional operation. That's why they were the first non-commuter equipment in Canada built with pass-through MU lines. That's why they regularly operated with locos at both ends of the consist.

I stand corrected? When did they stop using the LRCs for bi-directional service? I certainly don't remember ever seeing it, but then again I only moved to Ottawa in 1993. Could it have been after they were refurbished the first time? VIA is clear in their Corporate Plan that they had to make them compatible with bi-directional service when refurbishing them most recently.

 

[crs1026]

When did they stop using the LRCs for bi-directional service? I certainly don't remember ever seeing it, but then again I only moved to Ottawa in 1993. Could it have been after they were refurbished the first time? VIA is clear in their Corporate Plan that they had to make them compatible with bi-directional service when refurbishing them most recently.

To go back to the beginning, the original LRC order was for ten 1-5-1 trainsets, plus a couple spare locos.

That was the theory. In practice, at existing speeds there was never a need for two locos’ worth of horsepower; operationally many trains did not demand a quick reversable trainset; the fleet was better utilised in a less rigid train length; and, VIA’s conventional loco fleet was falling apart, so the second loco was often better utilised elsewhere to pull a conventional train.

So for that variety of reasons, VIA did not stick to the push-pull format. The second LRC order was for 50 cars and only 10 locomotives.

Over the years, VIA has regularly tacked on a second engine (not necessarily a (now retired) LRC loco, since the subsequent models are equally happy to push as pull) where it’s useful operationally. With the advent of J-trains, and with locomotives being shuffled around the corridor, some very interesting consists can be seen. VIA does what it needs to do, with much flexibility.

The new equipment is intended to operate in fixed consists. We will see if that is successful.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

Thanks for the clarification Paul. So while a few LRC trains may have initially run in 1-5-1 configuration, it was quickly abandoned? That explains a lot.

I have thought for years that the LRC locomotives, would have made great "cabbages." At the time they were retired, VIA didn't seem interested in push-pull operation though, so most were scrapped.

 

[Bordercollie]

I wouldn't want to get into a collision in an LRC locomotive.

 

[roger1818]

I wouldn't want to get into a collision in an LRC locomotive.

The only reference I can find with regards to the crashworthiness of the LRC locomotives are with respect to their fuel tanks (Rail transportation safety recommendation R96-05). As a cab-baggage car, the fuel tanks would be removed, so I don't see that as being an issue.

 

[smallspy]

I wouldn't want to get into a collision in an LRC locomotive.

I'm curious, so I'll pose the question: why?

Dan

 

[Bordercollie]

It's not just LRC Locomotives, but RDC's as well. Considering that there is no crumple zone compared to modern designs with CEM.

 

[ManyQuestions]

I don't know if I am missing something, but I do not see why there is a large focus on RDCs. While I have not rode on them, they appear to be antiquated in comparison with modern DMUs given that they are now almost 70 years old.

If VIA chooses to acquire a small number of relatively cheap DMUs, would it not make sense to just buy some more modern second hand units from Europe or join an existing order in the same way that OC Transpo joined a DB order for Bombardier Talents when starting the OTrain?

VIA could even purchase the Talent units directly form OC Transpo given that they are still trying to sell them now that they have been replaced with newer standardized rollingstock. The three Talent units are already fitted with overhead bins and are very comfortable thanks to air suspension but only have high-floor boarding doors. I know that the city of Ottawa has put the three units up for sale several times but I think that they are still in the Wakley yard. I don't know about the crashworthiness of the units but do know that they operated on a stretch of track that was formerly connected to the national railway system and crossed via rail trains at a diamond junction.

I'm not suggesting that VIA buys the the former OTrain DMUs, but I do not see why there is such focus on RDCs instead of the other options in the new and used markets. However, I am just a university student with an interest in railways and am by no means an expert so I might be missing something obvious.

 

[Bordercollie]

Those Talents do not meet FRA crashworthy standards and cannot be used on main line service with freight trains. The reason OC was able to use them was because freight traffic only uses the line at night when the passenger trains are not running.

Colorado Rail Car was a company making DMU's but they went belly up.

The UP express trains do meet that standard and that's why they are able to run on mainline service.

Stadler's FLIRT units are FRA compliant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadler_FLIRT) and GTW's have a waver to be able to run with freight trains. So those may be options. Dont know if they are currently in production thou.

 

[nfitz]

I'm not suggesting that VIA buys the the former OTrain DMUs, but I do not see why there is such focus on RDCs instead of the other options in the new and used markets.

Personally, when I say RDC, I mean the same thing as DMU. (though I suppose they could be run as DSUs)

I don't particularly care about the brand name. More the functionality and lifespan. Same why my scotch tape isn't made by 3M. And my Aspirin isn't made by Bayer.