News   May 27, 2024
 634     0 
News   May 27, 2024
 651     1 
News   May 27, 2024
 4.1K     3 

VIA Rail

Something I wasn't sure of so i'd ask here: I know the LRC's had an exception to go 100MPH on the Class 5 rail, it was not typical. The typical max speed is 95MPH I believe for other passenger rail. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_regulations_in_Canada#cite_ref-18)

Now, its only 5MPH, but do the Venture sets have an exception to go 100MPH as well? Since their top speed is 125MPH?

Or must they abide by the 95MPH limit as well.
 
Something I wasn't sure of so i'd ask here: I know the LRC's had an exception to go 100MPH on the Class 5 rail, it was not typical. The typical max speed is 95MPH I believe for other passenger rail. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_regulations_in_Canada#cite_ref-18)

Now, its only 5MPH, but do the Venture sets have an exception to go 100MPH as well? Since their top speed is 125MPH?

Or must they abide by the 95MPH limit as well.
I believe CN granted them the LRC rating.

LRC:
- P42 Locomotives;
- Renaissance coaches. (timetable predates Siemens sets)

P+
- F40 locomotives
- LRC, HEP1, HEP2, Glen Fraser coaches
- all GO consists.

UP
- UPX DMUs or EMUs

Psgr (P)
everything else from VIA or GO (I assume Amtrak rolling stock counts as VIA?). Passenger equipment from other railroads would need to follow the Freight speed

But BUDD coaches are limited to 95mph? even with a P42 and 90 with F40's. So why not put all LRC consists with P42's so that they can use that extra 5mph to maintain schedules.
 
Last edited:
I believe CN granted them the LRC rating.

LRC:
- P42 Locomotives;
- Renaissance coaches. (timetable predates Siemens sets)

P+
- F40 locomotives
- LRC, HEP1, HEP2, Glen Fraser coaches
- all GO consists.

UP
- UPX DMUs or EMUs

Psgr (P)
everything else from VIA or GO (I assume Amtrak rolling stock counts as VIA?). Passenger equipment from other railroads would need to follow the Freight speed

But BUDD coaches are limited to 95mph? even with a P42 and 90 with F40's. So why not put all LRC consists with P42's so that they can use that extra 5mph to maintain schedules.
Interesting, so LRC's pulled by F40's are restricted to 95MPH.

Obviously yes it would make sense to always pair an LRC consist with P42's.

The issue I think is that some routes require dual-ended locos so they don't have to turn around, as LRCs dont have cab cars. I think its considered a waste to do dual P42s instead of F40s.

I'd say then that all routes that require dual ended locos should be HEP1 and HEP2 consists with f40s, but I know there probably arent enough, logistical reasons etc.
 
Obviously yes it would make sense to always pair an LRC consist with P42's.
What difference would it make. The P42s might be rated for the LRC speed, but the LRC coaches aren't rated for the LRC speed these days. Should they even be allowed to go 95 mph with the beam issues?

Edit - And obviously I'm wrong about the coaches being limited to 95 mph.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, so LRC's pulled by F40's are restricted to 95MPH.
VIA F40s top out at 95 anyway so not a big deal. references often say some F40s max at 90 but have never been clear on which ones or why - Long Distance units geared for better low end performance due to longer trains, maybe?

Would have been nice if VIA had some bit of class 6 track so that P42s (with LRCs) could push to 110 like their American siblings in Michigan have
 
VIA F40s top out at 95 anyway so not a big deal. references often say some F40s max at 90 but have never been clear on which ones or why - Long Distance units geared for better low end performance due to longer trains, maybe?

Would have been nice if VIA had some bit of class 6 track so that P42s (with LRCs) could push to 110 like their American siblings in Michigan have

According to other sources P42's with LRC consists are rated as LRC in the corridor.

10mph isn't going to make a difference in terms of survivability in an accident. If I'm not mistaken in the Burlington incident, only the crew died and no passengers died which show that your odds of survivability are pretty good even in LRC cars (Considering that there are no seat belts).
 
Something I wasn't sure of so i'd ask here: I know the LRC's had an exception to go 100MPH on the Class 5 rail, it was not typical. The typical max speed is 95MPH I believe for other passenger rail. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_regulations_in_Canada#cite_ref-18)
The equipment is rated at whatever it is felt it can be rated for.

LRCs and HEP2 cars are allowed to operate at 100mph, as are the Renaissance cars. HEP1 cars are allowed 90mph.

This is different than the top speed of the tracks themselves. There are very, very few locations where the zone passenger speed is 100mph, but there are a couple of sections of it, primarily in eastern Ontario.

And this is different again from more localized track restrictions. Curvature may limit the top speed in specific areas, or where there are a lot of curves strung out in close succession the top speed may be lowered for safety. In a lot of these locations, there is a special higher speed allowed to certain pieces of equipment. Historically it was labeled as a "TURBO" speed, as the TurboTrains had a passive tilt system that would reduce the perceived forces on the passengers (but not on the equipment or fixed plant itself), and when they were replaced with the LRC cars that had a similar (but active) tilt system installed, the naming of the speeds were all changed to suit.

Since then, the Ren cars were tested and found to be able to operate at those same speeds without undue discomfort to the passengers, so they were allowed to operate under the same speed category. And the LRC cars have been removed from it as they were rebuilt and had their tilting system removed.

The hope is that the Siemens trains will also be able to operate under that same category, but that permission has not been received as yet, so for now they operate under the usual "Passenger" restriction.

Now, its only 5MPH, but do the Venture sets have an exception to go 100MPH as well? Since their top speed is 125MPH?

Or must they abide by the 95MPH limit as well.
As I wrote above, they have not yet been given that permission. Thus, for the time being, they are only allowed to operate at whatever the more restrictive "Passenger" limit is.

I believe CN granted them the LRC rating.
No, not as yet.

LRC:
- P42 Locomotives;
- Renaissance coaches. (timetable predates Siemens sets)
First off, locomotives, for whatever reason, do not fall under the various speed limits - at least not cleanly. A freight locomotive pulling a passenger train could, in theory, run at "Passenger", "P+" or "LRC" speeds should it be able to attain them.

But yes, the Renaissance cars are currently the only equipment that is allowed to operate at "LRC" speeds. And they may be subject to additional restrictions - such as operating with lower-speed HEP1 cars when on The Ocean., or with 95mph-limited F40s.

P+
- F40 locomotives
- LRC, HEP1, HEP2, Glen Fraser coaches
- all GO consists.
P+ was originally created by GO for use within their corridors, as they felt that the BiLevels should be allowed higher speeds than the "Passenger" designation then allowed them. (This was around the time that GO was buying many of the sections of the Kingston and Oakville Subs, so CN may have been letting maintenance lapse a bit.)

Since then, it has been allowed to be used elsewhere on CN's network.

UP
- UPX DMUs or EMUs
Correct.

Psgr (P)
everything else from VIA or GO (I assume Amtrak rolling stock counts as VIA?). Passenger equipment from other railroads would need to follow the Freight speed
All other passenger equipment that operates on the rails and that Transport Canada has deemed safe to operate will operate at this speed.

This does include Amtrak, although there are other restrictions to that equipment that precludes them from ever attaining the full "Passenger" speed.

But BUDD coaches are limited to 95mph? even with a P42 and 90 with F40's. So why not put all LRC consists with P42's so that they can use that extra 5mph to maintain schedules.
See above regarding the Budd equipment, as even that has distinctions.

As for using the P42s for LRC consists, there are very few consists that are able to achieve "LRC" speed today - only 1 actually, and it's running between Québec and Ottawa. The LRC cars themselves are no longer allowed to operate at the "LRC" speed.

Interesting, so LRC's pulled by F40's are restricted to 95MPH.
No, LRCs are restricted to "P+" speed.

Obviously yes it would make sense to always pair an LRC consist with P42's.
Not necessarily. See above.

The issue I think is that some routes require dual-ended locos so they don't have to turn around, as LRCs dont have cab cars. I think its considered a waste to do dual P42s instead of F40s.
Dual-ended locos mean that there are two cabs to maintain, two sets of controls, two sets of brake valving, two sets of operating lights, etc.

With the exception of electric passenger locos, there's a reason why dual-ended locos simply haven't become a thing here in North America. It was always easier to use multiple locos in consists (where needed), and simply have them operate back-to-back if you needed to change directions.

I'd say then that all routes that require dual ended locos should be HEP1 and HEP2 consists with f40s, but I know there probably arent enough, logistical reasons etc.
Historically, the reason why VIA has operated with all units facing forward on long-distance trains was that if the leading unit became incapacitated due to an incident on the way (at, say, a level crossing), the second loco could then be placed in the lead and the train could safely continue on its way.

And because there was almost always a way to turn the entire train at either end of its run, it was fine to do this.

The Ocean is operated differently now as there is no longer a way to turn the train in Halifax in a timely manner. That's why it is now operated with it's locos positioned back-to-back. And no, don't expect this to spread to the Canadian, or the Skeena, or the northern Manitoba services.

There were some corridor consists that operated with units top-and-tail to allow quicker turns at their ends of their runs, but this was during the height of the pandemic when a lot of services were curtailed. Now that VIA is operating almost a full schedule there just isn't enough motive power to go around to do this.

VIA F40s top out at 95 anyway so not a big deal. references often say some F40s max at 90 but have never been clear on which ones or why - Long Distance units geared for better low end performance due to longer trains, maybe?
It's never been a gearing issue, they all use the same motors, gearboxes, wheel size, etc. It has been in a limitation in the computer system. As built, they were given a 90mph restriction, and VIA changed it on some of the units (the ones primarily allocated to Corridor service) in the late 1990s.

When the units were rebuilt, all had their computer systems changed to all have the same 95mph restriction.

Dan
 
The equipment is rated at whatever it is felt it can be rated for.

LRCs and HEP2 cars are allowed to operate at 100mph, as are the Renaissance cars. HEP1 cars are allowed 90mph.

This is different than the top speed of the tracks themselves. There are very, very few locations where the zone passenger speed is 100mph, but there are a couple of sections of it, primarily in eastern Ontario.

And this is different again from more localized track restrictions. Curvature may limit the top speed in specific areas, or where there are a lot of curves strung out in close succession the top speed may be lowered for safety. In a lot of these locations, there is a special higher speed allowed to certain pieces of equipment. Historically it was labeled as a "TURBO" speed, as the TurboTrains had a passive tilt system that would reduce the perceived forces on the passengers (but not on the equipment or fixed plant itself), and when they were replaced with the LRC cars that had a similar (but active) tilt system installed, the naming of the speeds were all changed to suit.

Since then, the Ren cars were tested and found to be able to operate at those same speeds without undue discomfort to the passengers, so they were allowed to operate under the same speed category. And the LRC cars have been removed from it as they were rebuilt and had their tilting system removed.

The hope is that the Siemens trains will also be able to operate under that same category, but that permission has not been received as yet, so for now they operate under the usual "Passenger" restriction.


As I wrote above, they have not yet been given that permission. Thus, for the time being, they are only allowed to operate at whatever the more restrictive "Passenger" limit is.


No, not as yet.


First off, locomotives, for whatever reason, do not fall under the various speed limits - at least not cleanly. A freight locomotive pulling a passenger train could, in theory, run at "Passenger", "P+" or "LRC" speeds should it be able to attain them.

But yes, the Renaissance cars are currently the only equipment that is allowed to operate at "LRC" speeds. And they may be subject to additional restrictions - such as operating with lower-speed HEP1 cars when on The Ocean., or with 95mph-limited F40s.


P+ was originally created by GO for use within their corridors, as they felt that the BiLevels should be allowed higher speeds than the "Passenger" designation then allowed them. (This was around the time that GO was buying many of the sections of the Kingston and Oakville Subs, so CN may have been letting maintenance lapse a bit.)

Since then, it has been allowed to be used elsewhere on CN's network.


Correct.


All other passenger equipment that operates on the rails and that Transport Canada has deemed safe to operate will operate at this speed.

This does include Amtrak, although there are other restrictions to that equipment that precludes them from ever attaining the full "Passenger" speed.


See above regarding the Budd equipment, as even that has distinctions.

As for using the P42s for LRC consists, there are very few consists that are able to achieve "LRC" speed today - only 1 actually, and it's running between Québec and Ottawa. The LRC cars themselves are no longer allowed to operate at the "LRC" speed.


No, LRCs are restricted to "P+" speed.


Not necessarily. See above.


Dual-ended locos mean that there are two cabs to maintain, two sets of controls, two sets of brake valving, two sets of operating lights, etc.

With the exception of electric passenger locos, there's a reason why dual-ended locos simply haven't become a thing here in North America. It was always easier to use multiple locos in consists (where needed), and simply have them operate back-to-back if you needed to change directions.


Historically, the reason why VIA has operated with all units facing forward on long-distance trains was that if the leading unit became incapacitated due to an incident on the way (at, say, a level crossing), the second loco could then be placed in the lead and the train could safely continue on its way.

And because there was almost always a way to turn the entire train at either end of its run, it was fine to do this.

The Ocean is operated differently now as there is no longer a way to turn the train in Halifax in a timely manner. That's why it is now operated with it's locos positioned back-to-back. And no, don't expect this to spread to the Canadian, or the Skeena, or the northern Manitoba services.

There were some corridor consists that operated with units top-and-tail to allow quicker turns at their ends of their runs, but this was during the height of the pandemic when a lot of services were curtailed. Now that VIA is operating almost a full schedule there just isn't enough motive power to go around to do this.


It's never been a gearing issue, they all use the same motors, gearboxes, wheel size, etc. It has been in a limitation in the computer system. As built, they were given a 90mph restriction, and VIA changed it on some of the units (the ones primarily allocated to Corridor service) in the late 1990s.

When the units were rebuilt, all had their computer systems changed to all have the same 95mph restriction.

Dan
So we have brand new trains that run slower than the 40 year old ones we have....
 
So we have brand new trains that run slower than the 40 year old ones we have....
This is a very bad take.

Sure, the allowed top speed is lower - for now. But top speed is not everything. And don't assume that things will stay this way forever.

Despite the top speed being lower, the trains operate station-to-station times lower than any other current piece of equipment. They regularly make up big chunks of time when they are running behind. How is this possible? Because they accelerate a hell of a lot faster than anything else that VIA currently has.

This is the same reason why the RDCs, despite their maximum top speed of 90mph, were able to do a lot of their runs faster than a loco-hauled trainset. And when a loco-hauled trainset needed to be subbed in for a broken-down RDC, it inevitably ran late.

Dan
 
This is a very bad take.

Sure, the allowed top speed is lower - for now. But top speed is not everything. And don't assume that things will stay this way forever.

Despite the top speed being lower, the trains operate station-to-station times lower than any other current piece of equipment. They regularly make up big chunks of time when they are running behind. How is this possible? Because they accelerate a hell of a lot faster than anything else that VIA currently has.

This is the same reason why the RDCs, despite their maximum top speed of 90mph, were able to do a lot of their runs faster than a loco-hauled trainset. And when a loco-hauled trainset needed to be subbed in for a broken-down RDC, it inevitably ran late.

Dan
But the posted timetables are still slower than the Turbo days...
 
Now that the John Counter grade separation is completed at the northeast side of Kingston VIA, are there any plans (even long term) to bring the siding track beyond it through the station to permit a third platform?

Presumably the south platform ends would need to be shifted a little closer to the former grade crossing to permit room for a switch, since the Princess overpass looks like it’s only scaled for two tracks width. It wouldn’t be cheap to do all of that, but might be convenient to spot 651 overnight off the main whenever it returns, for example, or as somewhere to stage trains in the event of weather or derailment related disruption?

(Apple Maps has recent imagery for those wanting to look at it - Google Earth’s is from during overpass construction)
 

Back
Top