News   Dec 20, 2024
 657     4 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 570     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 802     0 

General railway discussions

VIA Rail are re-rebuilding three quarters of their 1986-89 units to go until 2035 (when the rest of the legacy/long distance 1950s Budd stock is finally (allegedly) to get the chop.
Just because you can rebuild them, that does not mean you should. Case in point is the stainless steel cars that are in dire need of replacement. They should have been removed from regular service decades ago.
 
Just because you can rebuild them, that does not mean you should. Case in point is the stainless steel cars that are in dire need of replacement. They should have been removed from regular service decades ago.
With the the environmental changes taking place, anything older than 30 years will be gone in the decade or sooner. California is pushing to have them remove sooner than later with big push by the Railroads at all levels.

Short lines will be hit the hardest since most line only have old power in the first place. Did see a few with new power that were only a few old with one getting new power delivery to them.

On my travels this summer, I saw 40-60 years old locomotives working the yards, doing local servers and on the mainline.
 
With the the environmental changes taking place, anything older than 30 years will be gone in the decade or sooner.
The way politics is going in North America, I see rules getting looser, not tighter.

Sure, stuff get's old, but I don't think environment is going to make much impact. Would would make a difference is some technology change - like when diesel became a lot cheaper than coal. If batteries get a lot cheaper than diesel, that would do it. (if ... I don't know if that will happen in the next few decades or not)
 
The way politics is going in North America, I see rules getting looser, not tighter.

Sure, stuff get's old, but I don't think environment is going to make much impact. Would would make a difference is some technology change - like when diesel became a lot cheaper than coal. If batteries get a lot cheaper than diesel, that would do it. (if ... I don't know if that will happen in the next few decades or not)
With Trump in office now, one can see him not been tight on the environment to the point he has already start some of that or in the process of doing so. It going to take about 2 decades or more to go green for some RR using different technologies as they can afford it, while others will still get the second had currently in service from those RR.

While the world RR move to the green fleet and stringing electric overhead on line currently using diesel, NA will remain behind the times like they have been for the last 50 years, other than run longer freight trains with very little passenger service, let alone transit.
 
With Trump in office now, one can see him not been tight on the environment to the point he has already start some of that or in the process of doing so. It going to take about 2 decades or more to go green for some RR using different technologies as they can afford it, while others will still get the second had currently in service from those RR.

While the world RR move to the green fleet and stringing electric overhead on line currently using diesel, NA will remain behind the times like they have been for the last 50 years, other than run longer freight trains with very little passenger service, let alone transit.
It's not financially feasible to electrify trans-continental freight lines with overhead. The only way it happens with batteries; preferably those that can be swapped out for pre-charges ones very quickly at a way station; similar to how the currently treat diesel for engines, and historically (even more frequently) stopped for water and coal for steam engines.

If that process became cheaper than diesel - than it may happen quickly. Otherwise, it could take a very long time. Who knows that other cheap alternate technologies there would be.

Supertrain anyone? :)
 
It's not financially feasible to electrify trans-continental freight lines with overhead. The only way it happens with batteries; preferably those that can be swapped out for pre-charges ones very quickly at a way station; similar to how the currently treat diesel for engines, and historically (even more frequently) stopped for water and coal for steam engines.

If that process became cheaper than diesel - than it may happen quickly. Otherwise, it could take a very long time. Who knows that other cheap alternate technologies there would be.

Supertrain anyone? :)
Anyone who thinks Class 1 freight companies are going to electrify their entire network must be joking. Imagine how much more difficult it would be to deal with a derail with all the overhead cables and catenaries.
While the world RR move to the green fleet and stringing electric overhead on line currently using diesel, NA will remain behind the times like they have been for the last 50 years, other than run longer freight trains with very little passenger service, let alone transit.
Contrary to popular belief among N.A. urbanists, countries like the U.K. still use a lot of diesel locos to move freight. Electricity rates are often very expensive, and it's cheaper to move freight by diesel. If electricity rates are too high in the E.U., then shippers will opt to move their goods by truck rather than rail. Even countries like Germany are struggling with this.
 
VIA Rail are re-rebuilding three quarters of their 1986-89 units to go until 2035 (when the rest of the legacy/long distance 1950s Budd stock is finally (allegedly) to get the chop.
Sure, but that's cheap and stupid and we should be embarrassed at how far Canada has fallen when it comes to railways.
 
Sure, but that's cheap and stupid and we should be embarrassed at how far Canada has fallen when it comes to railways.
The modal share of rail freight begs to differ. It’s amazing what we have achieved with basically no taxpayer involvement. As I keep saying: we get what we pay for (a rail network which works great for those who actually pay for it: freight railroads and their shippers)…
 
It's not financially feasible to electrify trans-continental freight lines with overhead. The only way it happens with batteries; preferably those that can be swapped out for pre-charges ones very quickly at a way station; similar to how the currently treat diesel for engines, and historically (even more frequently) stopped for water and coal for steam engines.

If that process became cheaper than diesel - than it may happen quickly. Otherwise, it could take a very long time. Who knows that other cheap alternate technologies there would be.

Supertrain anyone? :)

I'm quite bearish when it comes to using batteries as a prime mover for long haul freight unless we can see significant gains in the energy density of batteries (energy per unit volume). Even with battery swap, getting a large enough battery to haul a mile long freight train a reasonable distance between battery swaps will be a challenge. There are special use cases, where there is enough of an elevation difference between the origin and destination of the cargo which allows gravity to do most of the work, but those are the exception, not the rule.

Batteries will be useful in hybrid consists to allow regenerative braking to increase fuel efficiency, to meet peak power requirements (allowing the diesel engines to be tuned to always run in their most efficient range) and to keep air brakes charged, when the locomotive engine would otherwise need to idle.

Contrary to popular belief among N.A. urbanists, countries like the U.K. still use a lot of diesel locos to move freight. Electricity rates are often very expensive, and it's cheaper to move freight by diesel. If electricity rates are too high in the E.U., then shippers will opt to move their goods by truck rather than rail. Even countries like Germany are struggling with this.

Of course one has to remember that most of Europe (including the UK) have significantly higher electricity prices than we do in North America. The big exception to that is Norway, which is blessed with massive amounts of Hydro Electric power.


That chart doesn't show Canada, but here is one (in CAD) for all of the provinces and territories. I find it very telling how we are getting all these ads out of Alberta complaining about how cleaning up the electricity gid will result in higher prices, when they have among the highest electricity prices and the dirtiest grid in the country.


I could see the railways electrifying their mainlines in southern Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, where electricity is cheap, and sticking with diesel in the rest of the country.
 
The modal share of rail freight begs to differ. It’s amazing what we have achieved with basically no taxpayer involvement. As I keep saying: we get what we pay for (a rail network which works great for those who actually pay for it: freight railroads and their shippers)…
The $50 million in the 1870s was not nothing.
The purchasing of the Grand Trunk and building CN up was not nothing.
 
Sure, but that's cheap and stupid and we should be embarrassed at how far Canada has fallen when it comes to railways.
"Embarrassed". How about we stop caring what other countries think about us? We'll do what works for us. Being the second largest country in the world with a population of only 40 million poses unique challenges that these other countries don't have to deal with. It's not as if people in Europe or Japan think less of us simply because we still run diesel trains. All that matters is that our infrastructure is in a state of good repair and everything is running smoothly and timely.

Canada doesn't need to spend billions on "vanity projects" just to impress other countries.
 
Last edited:
"Embarrassed". How about we stop caring what other countries think about us? We'll do what works for us. Being the second largest country in the world with a population of only 40 million poses unique challenges that these other countries don't have to deal with. It's not as if people in Europe or Japan think less of us simply because we still run diesel trains. All that matters is that our infrastructure is in a state of good repair and everything is running smoothly and timely.

Canada doesn't need to spend billions on "vanity projects" just to impress other countries.
I'm pretty confident "Europe or Japan" don't think about us at all. And our trackbed is consistently some of the worst in the developed world. WTF is a 'vanity project'?
 
"Embarrassed". How about we stop caring what other countries think about us? We'll do what works for us. Being the second largest country in the world with a population of only 40 million poses unique challenges that these other countries don't have to deal with. It's not as if people in Europe or Japan think less of us simply because we still run diesel trains. All that matters is that our infrastructure is in a state of good repair and everything is running smoothly and timely.

Canada doesn't need to spend billions on "vanity projects" just to impress other countries.

Is Europe similarly "Embarrassed" because rail represents such a small minority of their freight transport?

Note Maritime is different from Inland waterway.

95b7b173-056a-0e59-ba14-1b0a231c21e4
 

Back
Top