VIA Rail

[robmausser]

Another problem is that the industry is too afraid, cheap or broke to develop a new dmu to replacement. I dont understand why they dont see the merits of a dmu for routes that dont require a huge honking diesel loco pulling just 2 cars and wasting resources.

The reason is because of FRA crashworthiness requirements.

You have to overbuild the DMU's so much that it becomes just as heavy as a train with a prime mover and with engines tucked under the train that are hard to access, maintain and are often underpowered for the weight and structural stregth needed to survive a collision with a freight train.

You can get exceptions, but those are more for branch lines or lines not even connected to mainline freight, like the Ottawa Trillium line or the San Diego Sprinter, for example.

Via deals with almost exclusively freight shared tracks.

 

[reaperexpress]

The reason is because of FRA crashworthiness requirements.

You have to overbuild the DMU's so much that it becomes just as heavy as a train with a prime mover and with engines tucked under the train that are hard to access, maintain and are often underpowered for the weight and structural stregth needed to survive a collision with a freight train.

You can get exceptions, but those are more for branch lines or lines not even connected to mainline freight, like the Ottawa Trillium line or the San Diego Sprinter, for example.

Via deals with almost exclusively freight shared tracks.

No, in the US you don't need to meet the antiquated strength tests anymore. You can certify EU trains for US mainline use via Alternative Compliance with minor modifications like thicker windshields. That's how most of the Stadler FLIRT and Stadler KISS trains are certified. It's not like they're all on dedicated lines without freight trains and they definitely aren't built for the old FRA regulations.

In Canada, you do need to meet the US-style strength tests unless you get a waiver like OC Transpo did, because Transport Canada doesn't have a mechanism to accept EU certification like the US does.

 

[Dono]

Robmausser, the aussies have VLocity 160 diesel multiple units (DMUs) which look almost like the Via RDC. They are used in multiple situations, metro areas, and from city to city.

 

[cplchanb]

No, in the US you don't need to meet the antiquated strength tests anymore. You can certify EU trains for US mainline use via Alternative Compliance with minor modifications like thicker windshields. That's how most of the Stadler FLIRT and Stadler KISS trains are certified. It's not like they're all on dedicated lines without freight trains and they definitely aren't built for the old FRA regulations.

In Canada, you do need to meet the US-style strength tests unless you get a waiver like OC Transpo did, because Transport Canada doesn't have a mechanism to accept EU certification like the US does.

In this political climate I think its time to decouple ourselves from the american requirements and decide for ourselves what is suitable when it comes to rolling stock. Why must we be subject to American regulations when they dont even run south of the border?

 

[micheal_can]

In this political climate I think its time to decouple ourselves from the american requirements and decide for ourselves what is suitable when it comes to rolling stock. Why must we be subject to American regulations when they dont even run south of the border?

Most regulations in Canada are basically a copy of the US versions, but sometimes are not updated like the USA does. So, it isn't a political thing, but more a sign of how slow things move in Canada to change things with modern technology.

 

[crs1026]

In this political climate I think its time to decouple ourselves from the american requirements and decide for ourselves what is suitable when it comes to rolling stock. Why must we be subject to American regulations when they dont even run south of the border?

To this date, the vast majority of equipment used by Canadian railways does contemplate being operated continent-wide. Passenger equipment for non-interchange service is a fairly minor slice of that fleet. So certainly one could approve exemptions for select passenger equipment so long as that equipment is not to be used outside Canada and its use is restricted in other ways. (There are already some small differences in locomotive regs between Canada and the US, driven as much by union rules than by the regulators)

However, a sober look at the issue might lean to a lot less permissiveness than some may want. The reality is, no HSR operator is without one-in-a-million incidents, some fatal. The potential for harm is a very mathematical thing to estimate, and high speed and full passenger loads tend to be powerful multipliers. Add in climate and various operating risks, especially any mixing of heavy freight and the high speed equipment in some places on the same route.

My suspicion is, no regulator or politician wants to be in the hot seat when (mathematically, it's a when, not an if) an incident happens and they are held accountable for relaxing crashworthiness standards.

And, frankly, I'm not eager to be a passenger in a relaxed HSR vehicle given the Canadian track record for track inspection, maintenance, and operation is not yet superior. Those missing lag bolts in the USRC plant have multiplier value in the equation. What if the LRC design had been less rigourous, when Train 92 derailed at Aldershot?

In all, some relaxation of standards might be possible - but only a little. The potential for harm may have a higher statistic in the Canadian context than the same equipment being operated elsewhere. The political appetite for risk may also be different. We should not look to this idea as a silver bullet.

- Paul

 

[just east of the creek]

To this date, the vast majority of equipment used by Canadian railways does contemplate being operated continent-wide. Passenger equipment for non-interchange service is a fairly minor slice of that fleet. So certainly one could approve exemptions for select passenger equipment so long as that equipment is not to be used outside Canada and its use is restricted in other ways. (There are already some small differences in locomotive regs between Canada and the US, driven as much by union rules than by the regulators)

However, a sober look at the issue might lean to a lot less permissiveness than some may want. The reality is, no HSR operator is without one-in-a-million incidents, some fatal. The potential for harm is a very mathematical thing to estimate, and high speed and full passenger loads tend to be powerful multipliers. Add in climate and various operating risks, especially any mixing of heavy freight and the high speed equipment in some places on the same route.

My suspicion is, no regulator or politician wants to be in the hot seat when (mathematically, it's a when, not an if) an incident happens and they are held accountable for relaxing crashworthiness standards.

And, frankly, I'm not eager to be a passenger in a relaxed HSR vehicle given the Canadian track record for track inspection, maintenance, and operation is not yet superior. Those missing lag bolts in the USRC plant have multiplier value in the equation. What if the LRC design had been less rigourous, when Train 92 derailed at Aldershot?

In all, some relaxation of standards might be possible - but only a little. The potential for harm may have a higher statistic in the Canadian context than the same equipment being operated elsewhere. The political appetite for risk may also be different. We should not look to this idea as a silver bullet.

- Paul

Are we suggesting that their are significant negative differences in safety standards between existing Canadian rules and those of current EU practice? Or do Canadian safety standards need a review in light of evolving technologies and engineering, and the possibilities of increased passenger volumes on stand alone (VIA /ALTO) or shared railway (VIA/CN etc.).

 

[cplchanb]

Are we suggesting that their are significant negative differences in safety standards between existing Canadian rules and those of current EU practice? Or do Canadian safety standards need a review in light of evolving technologies and engineering, and the possibilities of increased passenger volumes on stand alone (VIA /ALTO) or shared railway (VIA/CN etc.).

im taking the latter approach. honestly when it comes to rail innovation north america has zero legs to stand on since they are still stuck in the 50s diesel era. rail traffic overseas in europe and asia is far denser than what we can ever achieve and yet their safety record is probably better than ours.
yet they dont need to adopt paranoia level fra standards that we have. what are they doing there differently?

 

[crs1026]

Are we suggesting that their are significant negative differences in safety standards between existing Canadian rules and those of current EU practice? Or do Canadian safety standards need a review in light of evolving technologies and engineering, and the possibilities of increased passenger volumes on stand alone (VIA /ALTO) or shared railway (VIA/CN etc.).

The point is, those standards will be arrived at with attention to more than just the absolute tensile strength of the carbody designs.

Some of the variables are obvious - if we can assure complete temporal and/or physical separation from freight, then the harm potential is reduced to the same level as some other systems..VIA and Alto may never reach that complete separation, however.

Assuming use of equivalent signalling and control technologies to other countries, we can assume equal potential to maintain separation between trains and control speed, reducing potential for human error. That brings us closer as well, but we aren't there yet. Even there, there is some potential for human error where individuals can override. (eg the incidents where track workers occupy an active track, or where a local train threw a switch in the face of an approaching VIA train)

I'm not so sure we have equivalency with respect to track condition and track maintenance. As we saw recently with USRC, there is both a question in adequacy of inspections (seems nobody noticed the as installed condition did not meet spec), and weather related realities (pretty hard to inspect track that is snow covered).I wonder how we measure up compared to other systems that operate under similar weather conditions. Even if we pull up our socks on inspection and maintenance, do things like freeze-thaw cycles and extreme heat-cold put us at greater risk.

None of us have the actual data that a regulator will look at - how many accidents overseas there are, how many originate in human error versus failure of equipment, how many are related to track, etc. I am simply suggesting that we can't assume that a particular design will be as safe on our system as it is elsewhere. That would potentially lead the regulator to want our equipment to be more robust, to compensate for other potential risks. We can speculate as spectators, but the experts may have different numbers

- Paul

 

[cplchanb]

The point is, those standards will be arrived at with attention to more than just the absolute tensile strength of the carbody designs.

Some of the variables are obvious - if we can assure complete temporal and/or physical separation from freight, then the harm potential is reduced to the same level as some other systems..VIA and Alto may never reach that complete separation, however.

Assuming use of equivalent signalling and control technologies to other countries, we can assume equal potential to maintain separation between trains and control speed, reducing potential for human error. That brings us closer as well, but we aren't there yet. Even there, there is some potential for human error where individuals can override. (eg the incidents where track workers occupy an active track, or where a local train threw a switch in the face of an approaching VIA train)

I'm not so sure we have equivalency with respect to track condition and track maintenance. As we saw recently with USRC, there is both a question in adequacy of inspections (seems nobody noticed the as installed condition did not meet spec), and weather related realities (pretty hard to inspect track that is snow covered).I wonder how we measure up compared to other systems that operate under similar weather conditions. Even if we pull up our socks on inspection and maintenance, do things like freeze-thaw cycles and extreme heat-cold put us at greater risk.

None of us have the actual data that a regulator will look at - how many accidents overseas there are, how many originate in human error versus failure of equipment, how many are related to track, etc. I am simply suggesting that we can't assume that a particular design will be as safe on our system as it is elsewhere. That would potentially lead the regulator to want our equipment to be more robust, to compensate for other potential risks. We can speculate as spectators, but the experts may have different numbers

- Paul

the example you brought up for the USRC is all about inspection and maintenance and nothing to do with structural integrity. since GO owns and exclusively uses this entire corridor why does it need to be subjected to heavy freight train standards? will their signalling upgrades allow them to relax the draconian measures?

 

[micheal_can]

Are we suggesting that their are significant negative differences in safety standards between existing Canadian rules and those of current EU practice? Or do Canadian safety standards need a review in light of evolving technologies and engineering, and the possibilities of increased passenger volumes on stand alone (VIA /ALTO) or shared railway (VIA/CN etc.).

You are asking a simple question to a very complex thing.

Let's take speed limits on roads. The highest sped limits are in BC with 120 km/jr on major highways like the "highway through hell" and AB where their back dirt roads are 100 km/hr. Is that the safest thing, or is that done for other reasons?

Point is, yes, these things could be changed. And,yes we may have them too 'safe'. However, all it will take is one horrific accident to highlight that those changes may not have been a good thing.

Having said all of that, I have no doubt we will use an off the shelf HSR train design.

 

[reaperexpress]

To this date, the vast majority of equipment used by Canadian railways does contemplate being operated continent-wide. Passenger equipment for non-interchange service is a fairly minor slice of that fleet. So certainly one could approve exemptions for select passenger equipment so long as that equipment is not to be used outside Canada and its use is restricted in other ways. (There are already some small differences in locomotive regs between Canada and the US, driven as much by union rules than by the regulators)

However, a sober look at the issue might lean to a lot less permissiveness than some may want. The reality is, no HSR operator is without one-in-a-million incidents, some fatal. The potential for harm is a very mathematical thing to estimate, and high speed and full passenger loads tend to be powerful multipliers. Add in climate and various operating risks, especially any mixing of heavy freight and the high speed equipment in some places on the same route.

My suspicion is, no regulator or politician wants to be in the hot seat when (mathematically, it's a when, not an if) an incident happens and they are held accountable for relaxing crashworthiness standards.

And, frankly, I'm not eager to be a passenger in a relaxed HSR vehicle given the Canadian track record for track inspection, maintenance, and operation is not yet superior. Those missing lag bolts in the USRC plant have multiplier value in the equation. What if the LRC design had been less rigourous, when Train 92 derailed at Aldershot?

In all, some relaxation of standards might be possible - but only a little. The potential for harm may have a higher statistic in the Canadian context than the same equipment being operated elsewhere. The political appetite for risk may also be different. We should not look to this idea as a silver bullet.

This all seems to be based on the assumption that TC/FRA regulations produce trains that are safer in collisions than EU regulations, which is not true.

In the past couple decades the EU has gotten drastically stricter for crashworthiness, meeting or exceeding the crash safety of US trains. That's a huge part of the reason the US now allows EU-certified trains to operate in the US under their Alternative Compliance program.

The key difference between EU and FRA regulations nowadays is just that EU regulations are more open to crumple zones (crash energy management) than the FRA regulations that were historically just based on buff strength. In automobile design, the simplistic application of buff strength was dismissed decades ago in favour of crash energy management because that's what actually matters for crash survivability.

 

[Bordercollie]

Corridor Train Alliance lobbies for rail service along Highway 401 | The Kingston Whig Standard https://share.google/034G5JqksFUpRqXbI

Could the revenue from ALTO help pay for improvements in the corridor?

 

[Mihairokov]

Ah, I see we've reached the point in the project where every small town thinks they should get a station. About time to wrap this up.

 

[nfitz]

Ah, I see we've reached the point in the project where every small town thinks they should get a station. About time to wrap this up.

I'd hardly call Kingston a small town. If they do build the alignment they are already studying through Sydenham, then failing to stop there would be unusual. On the same silliness as HS2 running near Oxford and Banbury, between Solihull and Acton without an intermediate stop.