News   Mar 28, 2024
 1.1K     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 586     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 884     0 

General railway discussions

You are shifting the goalposts. First you came with “what DMUs” and now it’s “why DMUs”.

To the latter I answer, to begin, “the same functions that the RDCs do now”, but more of it. Replace Jonquiere/Senneterre, replace Jasper-Prince Rupert. Run a shuttle into the Gaspé rather than haul all the way from Montreal. Route prove service to Sherbrooke, or a Kingston/Brockville to Ottawa commuter service. Build a network of services in Nova Scotia. Lots of things to be done if there is the will to do it.

Virtually all of the startup routes that you suggest have such a high capital cost to fix/restore tracks etc that the train itself is not material. Kingston-Ottawa likely can likely be protected within HFR equipment cycles. One or two trainsets laying over in Kingston at night instead of T-O-M is all that’s required. Likewise Sherbrooke.

I have to assume that the first class dome service on the Skeena adds revenue - otherwise it wouldn’t be offered. That service likely would net less with DMU. Jonquiere/Senneterre is interesting but again, money spent buying DMU’s for that one service? Gaspe remains marketable as a long distance train if equipment remains available. Throwing passengers off the Ocean at 06:30 to catch a DMU is not appealing. I can see the benefit of a train out of Halifax that splits at Moncton, with one section going to Saint John while the other goes to Bathurst…. the biggest advantage to the DMU may not be reversibility, or fuel efficiency, but in combinability. But again, the track costs are what stand in the way of that service.

The RDC is valued (romantically) because it extended the life of rail service on routes where full scale trains had ceased to be economical. While that preserved the network for 15-20 years, show me a line that did not die anyways eventually. The RDC was a death delayer, not a ridership builder. Times have changed but even so I’m not sure that is reversible…. you can’t reinstate an RDC and hope it grows to a full size train business. The Venture order has cab cars, heat is now HEP not steam, work rules have changed….the gap in economics may not be all that great.

The goalposts have moved a lot since VIA retired its RDC fleet.

- Paul
 
You are shifting the goalposts. First you came with “what DMUs” and now it’s “why DMUs”.
My apologies for poking holes into your proposals with questions you seem unable to answer...

To the latter I answer, to begin, “the same functions that the RDCs do now”, but more of it. Replace Jonquiere/Senneterre, replace Jasper-Prince Rupert. Run a shuttle into the Gaspé rather than haul all the way from Montreal. Route prove service to Sherbrooke, or a Kingston/Brockville to Ottawa commuter service. Build a network of services in Nova Scotia. Lots of things to be done if there is the will to do it.
By my count you would need to simultaneously build maintenance centers for your modern DMUs in at least four different locations (Halifax/Moncton/Campbellton, Montreal, Toronto and Jasper - which are all between 500 and 3600 km apart from the next-closest one), with each looking after less than a dozen DMUs. Good luck convincing any government to approve the necessary capital and operating funding to finance such an inefficient fleet deployment...!

A two stroke 4000hp locomotive hauling two coaches does not scream “climate friendly” (even less so they have to be wyed rather than turn and go). Modern DMUs trainsets have selective engine shutdown to shave the fuel consumption further (although I don’t know if the Nippons have that capability). Other countries can and do use DMUs economically. If TC’s regulations and inspection demands put forward an environment where similar services can’t be run with similar economics, is that really the fault of the manufacturers?
No, but neither is it the fault of the railroad...
 
A two stroke 4000hp locomotive hauling two coaches does not scream “climate friendly” (even less so they have to be wyed rather than turn and go). Modern DMUs trainsets have selective engine shutdown to shave the fuel consumption further (although I don’t know if the Nippons have that capability). Other countries can and do use DMUs economically. If TC’s regulations and inspection demands put forward an environment where similar services can’t be run with similar economics, is that really the fault of the manufacturers?
Who in the hell is offering 2-stroke 4000hp diesels for passenger service right now?!?

Last I checked, for the record, the answer is "no one".

There is certainly a time and a place for DMUs - absolutely. But maybe we should get our network to the point of "passable" before we consider such niceties as buying more equipment to run to places where no service exists today.

Dan
 
I can't tell if that's a bridge over the Fraser or Thompson Rivers, but if it is; in Lytton area, then I imagine it belongs to CN.

That'll be out of service for awhile.

I assume the railways will cooperate; but that'll be a pinch point, if all the mainline traffic has to be on CP.

Comparing the image to Streetview it looks like the bridge over the Thompson, adjacent to Hwy 16, which I think is CN. I believe CN and CP already do directional running in this area, but both go through the village on the same side of the Fraser, literally within yards of each other. One possible saving grace might be, from Streetview, the bridge structure looks to be steel so they might have to only replace the decking, provided the engineers pass the structure.
 
Comparing the image to Streetview it looks like the bridge over the Thompson, adjacent to Hwy 16, which I think is CN. I believe CN and CP already do directional running in this area, but both go through the village on the same side of the Fraser, literally within yards of each other. One possible saving grace might be, from Streetview, the bridge structure looks to be steel so they might have to only replace the decking, provided the engineers pass the structure.

To share w/others, I took an image from Streetview of the bridge you note above: *** but isn't it Hwy 12?

1625271100740.png
 
Having the CN transcon, CP transcon and the TransCanada highway pass through the same canyon, and within 300m of each other in Lytton, does seem a bit dicey now…

The alternative route is the old BC Rail corridor between Prince George and North Vancouver, which is connected through Burnaby to the rest of the network. CN owns that now.

Highway 1 is not the main corridor between Vancouver and Kamloops anymore, Highway 5 is.

So there is some redundancy in the system, though for the railways, it’s not enough.
 
The alternative route is the old BC Rail corridor between Prince George and North Vancouver, which is connected through Burnaby to the rest of the network. CN owns that now.

Highway 1 is not the main corridor between Vancouver and Kamloops anymore, Highway 5 is.

So there is some redundancy in the system, though for the railways, it’s not enough.

For CN, capacity concerns aside, that's what, an extra 400km or so for Transcontinental traffic? Longer if there's any local service needs btw the Mt . Robson area and Lytton.
 
I still struggle to imagine potential service applications in Canada which matches the short-distance-low-ridership profile for which Hydrogen energy becomes a realistic option. I can think of Ottawa's Trillium line or the UP Express, but that's about it...

What makes you think that Hydrogen powered trains would only be useful for short distance trains? I see hydrogen being best suited for long distance trains, where you don't have the frequency of service to support catenary and the distances are too long to make full battery power feasible. However, it does require the freight railways to transition their refueling stations to hydrogen and them getting the same range as they do with diesel. This won't happen overnight, but I do feel it will happen over then next few decades. In the mean time, I see battery helper locomotives being used to improve fuel economy by using regenerative braking.
 
What makes you think that Hydrogen powered trains would only be useful for short distance trains? I see hydrogen being best suited for long distance trains, where you don't have the frequency of service to support catenary and the distances are too long to make full battery power feasible. However, it does require the freight railways to transition their refueling stations to hydrogen and them getting the same range as they do with diesel. This won't happen overnight, but I do feel it will happen over then next few decades. In the mean time, I see battery helper locomotives being used to improve fuel economy by using regenerative braking.
I'm basing myself on the kind of applications where Hydrogen has been rolled out (or at least confirmed) so far. I agree that Hydrogen is much more realistic to electrify the Transcontinental railroad networks than battery trains, but I remain very curious at how the size of fuel tanks compares with a diesel freight loco and how much longer fueling would take.

Also, trains frequently run out of fuel while en route and require a top-up by local fuel suppliers. Would there be emergency hydrogen suppliers all along the rail networks? In the end, electrification might still end up cheaper or more practical, especially if a higher-than-standard voltage (like 50 kV instead of the customary 25 kV) is chosen...
 
Last edited:
Posted in the Canadian Trains FB group. So are both the CN and CP mainlines between BC and Alberta closed due to damage from this fire?

View attachment 332088

"Lytton wildfire: Witness account of burning train at Boston Bar

A significant part of any investigation into the devastating Lytton wildfire is whether a passing train may have sparked the disaster. Emad Agahi has more from a witness who is giving greater credence to that idea."

 
"Lytton wildfire: Witness account of burning train at Boston Bar

A significant part of any investigation into the devastating Lytton wildfire is whether a passing train may have sparked the disaster. Emad Agahi has more from a witness who is giving greater credence to that idea."


The question is, did the fire start on the train and spread to land or did the fire first start somewhere near the tracks and spread to the train? Even in the latter case, the train could have accelerated the spread of the fire.
 

Back
Top