VIA Rail

[steveintoronto]

Yes, they are mainly used on the Halifax-Montreal route. Also, VIA has 29 inactive renaissance sleeper cars stored in Thunder Bay that have never really been used. http://m.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/our-fleet/renaissance-sleeping-car

I had no idea the fleet acquired was so large (139 cars, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_(railcar) ) even following the UK side of the story (one of many massive fumbles to do with The Chunnel and private enterprise not effectively regulated on UK rails).

Been digging on what's being used, what's laying idle, and what's been converted (some were empty shells without the interior being finished), and wasn't going to post on this until reading this:

[...]Baggage cars - Renaissance baggage transition car
[...]
Did you know?

• These cars were specially created for VIA Rail. They were designed to let passengers aboard the Ocean access their bedrooms in the Park car, at the rear of the train.
• This transition car is equipped with a standard coupler at one end that allows the addition of a Park car, as well as a second coupler at the other end to add Renaissance cars to the rest of the consist.

• http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/our-fleet/renaissance-baggage-transition-car

So the Renaissance cars retained their UK couplers? THAT is a story in itself! Not as it applies to these cars so much as that TC allowed a 'non-standard coupler' on passenger stock. And not FRA compliant at that....

I'll dig some more on this, but anyone have more info handy on that?

 

[dowlingm]

Acela doesn't use "standard" couplers. Talgo probably doesn't either.

 

[steveintoronto]

Acela doesn't use "standard" couplers. Talgo probably doesn't either.

Acela don't run in Canada. Talgo:
Coupler
AAR Type H
http://web.talgoamerica.com/images/Amrak/Series_8_Brochure_sized_opt.pdf

I've done a lot of searching as it's a very relevant point on whether VIA's new trainsets will require 'H' type couplers, or if they can obtain a waiver from TC.

Here's what TC state on couplers:

[...]
14. Couplers
14.1 A railway company may not place or continue in service a passenger car where:

1. the car is equipped with a coupler shank that is bent out of alignment to the extent that the coupler will not couple automatically;
2. the car has a coupler knuckle that is broken or cracked on the inside pulling face of the knuckle. Shrinkage cracks or hot tears that do not significantly reduce the strength of the knuckle shall not be considered cracked;
3. the car has a knuckle pin or thrower that is missing or inoperative;
4. the car has a coupler retaining pin lock that is missing or broken;
5. the car has a coupler with an inoperative lock lift or a coupler assembly that does not have a safety pin and anti-creep protection to prevent unintentional unlocking of the coupler lock;
6. the coupler lock is missing, inoperative, bent, cracked or broken; or
7. the car has a coupler that has a crack in the area of the shank and head. Shrinkage cracks or hot tears that do not significantly reduce the strength of the coupler shall not be considered cracked.[...]

1. 
   https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/rules-tco26-356.htm#14
   
   Whether there's some other reference to couplers elsewhere (I've been searching for over half an hour) then TC is half a century or more out of date, which is exactly my point. Type 'H' (knuckle) couplers are all that's indicated. Talgo do run into Vancouver but trying to Google for "Talgo couplers" only brings up pages of model train couplers. Anyone know the story on this?

2. The AAR/APTA TypeH TightLock coupler is a Janney automatic coupler typically used on North American mainline passenger cars. TypeH couplers have mechanical features to reduce slack action and improve safety, but remains compatible with Janney/AAR TypeE and TypeF couplers. TypeH couplers may also be fitted with automatic air and electrical connections. Management and development of TypeH coupler standards have been transferred from the AAR to American Public Transportation Association (APTA). The AAR/APTA standard mounting height for TypeH couplers is 34.5 inches (876.3 mm) ATOR.[1]
   
   Rail operators that commonly use TypeH couplers include Amtrak, Agence métropolitaine de transport, GO Transit, Via Rail and West Coast Express. TypeH couplers have also seen very limited use on British Railways electric multiple units (EMUs) such as the Bombardier "Electrostar", though recently, Dellner or Scharfenberg couplers are being used instead.

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tightlock_coupling
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

 

[smallspy]

Also, VIA has 29 inactive renaissance sleeper cars stored in Thunder Bay that have never really been used. http://m.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/our-fleet/renaissance-sleeping-car

Those shells were scrapped this past summer or fall. VIA's site hasn't been updated to include that information, apparently.

Acela doesn't use "standard" couplers. Talgo probably doesn't either.

Between cars, that's correct. Of course, you can't really uncouple the Talgo sets without the use of some more specialized equipment.

The power cars of the Acela's, however, do have standard knuckle couplers, air hoses, MU, COMM and HEP connections underneath their aerodynamic cowlings. The SC-44s used on Florida's Brightline trains do as well.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[cplchanb]

Those shells were scrapped this past summer or fall. VIA's site hasn't been updated to include that information, apparently.



Between cars, that's correct. Of course, you can't really uncouple the Talgo sets without the use of some more specialized equipment.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Its a shame they never exploited the opportunity back when they acquired them. They couldve replaced some of the Canadian trains. But then again they were intended for the corridor service

 

[steveintoronto]

From what appears to be an order to UP trainscrews to move the Brightline consists from Cal to Florida. Still trying to determine if the end coaches have Type H couplers, or if the locos are dual coupler equipped (drawbar and Type H, or an H variant) or the locos just have drawbar coupling only at the consist end.

[...][The trainset is a drawbar connected trainset (passenger locomotive+4 coaches+passenger locomotive), each trainset weighing approximately 511 tons and measuring 488 feet overall. The trainset locomotives and coaches are not intended to be uncoupled and separated enroute.][...]
https://blet5.com/2016/12/10/brightline-trains/

Which again begs the question if TC regs are up to FRA/APTA ones?

 

[steveintoronto]

Its a shame they never exploited the opportunity back when they acquired them. They couldve replaced some of the Canadian trains. But then again they were intended for the corridor service

I never could determine what couplers were installed *between the coaches*, if they were what the Brits call 'Buckeye' , they were lower than the standard height for Type H. The coaches were based on MkIV ones, which used a much tighter and more sophisticated coupler than a Type H (or variant), so interoperability with the fleet at large would have been problematic.

 

[smallspy]

Its a shame they never exploited the opportunity back when they acquired them. They couldve replaced some of the Canadian trains. But then again they were intended for the corridor service

They wanted to complete the remaining 36 cars, and even tentatively had money allocated to do it - but then Paul Martin became the Prime Minister and withdrew it.

As for replacing the Canadian cars, that would have been a huge mistake. The Renaissance cars were designed for shorter overnight trips - 1 night max. As such, they are well suited (in theory) for trips such as the overnight Toronto-to-Montréal train (when it ran), and the Ocean. On top of that, but the cars suffer from a host of issues, both from the standpoint of design (built for British loading gauge and so much smaller than North American stock, various standards and regulations for running through the Chunnel which makes them "overweight" when compared to other modern rolling stock, the requirement that every train must have at least one "service" car) and from the sense that they just simply were never designed to be used in conditions as harsh as Canadian winters. On top of that, they have not fared well structurally during their time here, and there is a concern that, like the older Budd equipment rebuilt as the HEP II fleet, that they may not last beyond the next 10 years.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[cplchanb]

From what appears to be an order to UP trainscrews to move the Brightline consists from Cal to Florida. Still trying to determine if the end coaches have Type H couplers, or if the locos are dual coupler equipped (drawbar and Type H, or an H variant) or the locos just have drawbar coupling only at the consist end.

[...][The trainset is a drawbar connected trainset (passenger locomotive+4 coaches+passenger locomotive), each trainset weighing approximately 511 tons and measuring 488 feet overall. The trainset locomotives and coaches are not intended to be uncoupled and separated enroute.][...]
https://blet5.com/2016/12/10/brightline-trains/

Which again begs the question if TC regs are up to FRA/APTA ones?

Well since via is more or.less a federal govt entity it shouldn't be as hard vs ttc to lobby for an exception or reg change. However as with all govt matters don't expect a change for many years

 

[steveintoronto]

Well since via is more or.less a federal govt entity it shouldn't be as hard vs ttc to lobby for an exception or reg change. However as with all govt matters don't expect a change for many years

As that relates to this forum, the question really is whether VIA have to state, by law, RFPs that conform to present TC regs, or if they can entertain proposals and get the regs altered after? I can see some real flak for the latter case.

In all fairness, TC may have an addendum to their regs published somewhere on drawbars (they have unit freight trains running). I just can't find them. (This of course was the way steam loco were attached to their tenders, whether that wording is still on the books is a good question). Also the Turbo of decades back, was drawbar connected, IIRC.

Edit to Add: At least for freight, the following pertains:

15. Couplers and Drawbars
15.1 A railway company shall not place or continue a car in service if:

1. the car is equipped with a coupler shank that is bent out of alignment to the extent that the coupler will not couple automatically;
2. the car has a coupler knuckle that is broken or cracked on the inside pulling face of the knuckle, except that shrinkage cracks or hot tears that do not significantly reduce the strength of the knuckle shall not be considered cracked;
3. the car has a knuckle pin that is missing or broken;
4. the car has a thrower that is inoperative;
5. the car has a coupler retaining pin lock that is missing or broken;
6. the car has a coupler with an inoperative lock lift or a coupler assembly that does not have anti-creep protection to prevent unintentional unlocking of the coupler lock;
7. the coupler lock is missing, inoperative, bent, cracked or broken;
8. the car has a coupler that has a crack as identified in the latest edition of the Field Manual of AAR Interchange Rules , except that shrinkage cracks or hot tears that do not significantly reduce the strength of the coupler shall not be considered cracked;
9. the coupler heights between two adjacent freight cars vary in excess of 4 inches (101.6 mm);
10. it is equipped with a solid drawbar:
    1. that is cracked more than 2 inches or;
    2. that has a missing pocket casting support or;
    3. that has a missing or broken primary pin.
11. it is equipped with an articulated car connector:
    1. attachment weld cracked greater than 4”;
    2. casting crack greater than 2”;
    3. primary pin tipped, broken or not properly seated;
    4. retaining pin broken, missing or not engaging primary pin;
    5. retaining pin securement missing; or
    6. wedge retaining bolts broken or missing.

16. Draft Arrangements
16.1 A railway company shall not place or continue a car in service if:

1. the car has a draft gear that is inoperative;
2. the car has a broken yoke;
3. a vertical coupler pin retainer plate:
   1. is missing (unless intended by design); or
   2. has more than 25% of the fasteners either loose or missing;
4. the car has a draft key or draft key retainer that is:
   1. inoperative;
   2. missing; or
   3. broken;
5. the car has a follower plate missing or broken to the extent that it no longer performs its design function;
6. the draft gear carrier plate is missing or has more than 25% of the fasteners loose or missing;
7. a draft stop is missing or broken to the extent that it no longer performs its design function; or
8. a car cushioning unit is broken, inoperative, or missing a part, except where its sliding parts have been effectively immobilized.

1. https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/freight-car-330.htm#sec15-0

Still looking for passenger.

 

[cplchanb]

As that relates to this forum, the question really is whether VIA have to state, by law, RFPs that conform to present TC regs, or if they can entertain proposals and get the regs altered after? I can see some real flak for the latter case.

In all fairness, TC may have an addendum to their regs published somewhere on drawbars (they have unit freight trains running). I just can't find them. (This of course was the way steam loco were attached to their tenders, whether that wording is still on the books is a good question). Also the Turbo of decades back, was drawbar connected, IIRC.

Edit to Add: At least for freight, the following pertains:

1. https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/freight-car-330.htm#sec15-0

Still looking for passenger.

so if im reading correctly, its legal as long as its not broken? for freight anyways...

 

[steveintoronto]

so if im reading correctly, its legal as long as its not broken? for freight anyways...

It's a really good question cpl. If TC have a page somewhere on how they 'plan to embrace the future'...I can't find it. With all the endless studies in this nation on railway schemes that bit the dust, or never got started in the first place, you'd think the Feds would have at least a chapter somewhere on proposals to enhance change by legally enabling it.

The US has reams.

 

[cplchanb]

It's a really good question cpl. If TC have a page somewhere on how they 'plan to embrace the future'...I can't find it. With all the endless studies in this nation on railway schemes that bit the dust, or never got started in the first place, you'd think the Feds would have at least a chapter somewhere on proposals to enhance change by legally enabling it.

The US has reams.

heres a possible twist....would one be allowed to use it if theres nothing that says you CAN use it AND at the same time theres nothing that says you CAN'T....sort of like a grey area thats open to interpretation
One things for sure from working in the construction industry, the Ontario Building Code is full of these regs that are open to interpretation. All it takes is a solid statement from a code consultant to grant the favour.
Perhaps VIA and Metrolinx should hire a code consultant (if not done so already) to determine if they can worm their way through...

 

[steveintoronto]

Perhaps VIA and Metrolinx should hire a code consultant (if not done so already) to determine if they can worm their way through...

lol...they're called "lawyers".

I'll dig more on this later this evening time-permitting, but TC micromanages almost every aspect of train regulation. I suspect the protocol is that if it isn't 'ordained', then you can't do it. They work on 'waivers'.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Good write up on VIA's Canadian in National Geographic. One day I really want to do this trip in its entirety.

Journey Across Canada by Train