VIA Rail

[Urban Sky]

I'm currently in a legacy VIA train heading for Montreal, and the Ottawa bound train tied behind us is a Venture set. We've experienced no slow downs.

This is obviously a deadheading move of an empty Siemens trainset, which doesn’t trigger any of the speed restrictions, as CN has no problem detecting the presence of the leading legacy trainset.

Is this how VIA is working around the supposed at-grade crossing issues with the Venture trains?

View attachment 619909
View attachment 619910

Very obviously, not.

Edit: are you on train 50/60 or 52/62? In which case, this would indeed be a practical way of getting around the issue. Even more so, if both trains were Siemens trainsets (though the Montreal-bound trainset would be subject to the restrictions once the trains have split in Brockville). However, it only applies to these two departures per day, so a tiny fraction of departures which need to be covered by Siemens trainsets on any given day…

 

[Bojaxs]

This is obviously a deadheading move of an empty Siemens trainset, which doesn’t trigger any of the speed restrictions, as CN has no problem detecting the presence of the leading legacy trainset.

Very obviously, not.

Edit: are you on train 50/60 or 52/62? In which case, this would indeed be a practical way of getting around the issue. Even more so, if both trains were Siemens trainsets…

I'm currently on train 62. When I have a chance I'll ask a VIA staff member if that Venture set is deadheading.

 

[Urban Sky]

I'm currently on train 62. When I have a chance I'll ask a VIA staff member if that Venture set is deadheading.

No need (and you see it really helps to provide train numbers when sharing such observations). It‘s train 52 and you are both passing through Napanee, as we speak:

 

[just east of the creek]

So I am in Northern Manitoba this week - Flin Flon, The Pas, Thompson etc (-30 tonight...but sunny all day) and moving by car, well truck actually. Ice and snow making conditions tricky in places.

And seeing that Thompson is really an 8 or 9 hour drive from Winnipeg (750 km plus or minus), I thought of checking out VIA.

So Via from Winnipeg is an adventure.

Leaving Winnipeg on the 22nd at 12:05 arriving on the 23rd at 12 - a 23 hr and 55 minute trip. I am upgrading to sleeper class plus. $208 vs $280 and a cabin for 1 $457.

And then the return on January 10 leaves Thompson at 14:00 and arrives 1 day, 2 hours and 45 ,minutes later in Winnipeg (on the 11th) Once again I would upgrade from $172 to (once again) a cabin for 1 for $480.

The point here is not the costs involved (airfares run $1600 economy for the same route and 2 hours in the air) The point is time ...The journey from Winnipeg to Thompson by train is 653.96 km and takes 23 hrs 55 mins ... that's like 27 km per hour on average.

The challenges of running a railway on unstable terrain.

 

[nfitz]

The point here is not the costs involved (airfares run $1600 economy for the same route and 2 hours in the air) The point is time ...The journey from Winnipeg to Thompson by train is 653.96 km and takes 23 hrs 55 mins ... that's like 27 km per hour on average.

654 km or 654 miles? The old VIA timetables through Dauphin, Saskatchewan, and the Pas say it's 1,149 km (714 miles). It looks similar on Google Maps now.

Your point is still valid though - if the road was as winding as the rail it would still be a 12-hour drive. Which is a long drive in one day - especially if you are by yourself.

 

[reaperexpress]

This is obviously a deadheading move of an empty Siemens trainset, which doesn’t trigger any of the speed restrictions, as CN has no problem detecting the presence of the leading legacy trainset.

Very obviously, not.

Edit: are you on train 50/60 or 52/62? In which case, this would indeed be a practical way of getting around the issue. Even more so, if both trains were Siemens trainsets (though the Montreal-bound trainset would be subject to the restrictions once the trains have split in Brockville). However, it only applies to these two departures per day, so a tiny fraction of departures which need to be covered by Siemens trainsets on any given day...

It was very obviously train 50/60 or 52/62 given that the original post stated that it was an Ottawa-bound train attached behind a Montreal-bound train. If the Siemens set were a deadhead the passengers wouldn't know where it's heading.

The CN speed restrictions are decimating Via's on-time performance, so they really should be adjusting their equipment rotations to minimize the exposure of Siemens sets to those restrictions.

The J-trains are one of the few trips where Siemens sets could operate without speed restrictions so it would be good to make sure that those rotations are Siemens sets, allowing the LRC sets to run other trips without restrictions.

Another method could be to allocate a coupled pair of Siemens sets to the busiest Toronto-Montreal trips instead of a 7-car LRC, which frees up that LRC set to operate some other trips without speed restrictions. Or worst case scenario it may even be worth coupling some trains together, such as 668+68, or 54+48. Until the restrictions are resolved, passengers may be better off having slightly fewer departure options but then at least having some theoretical possibility of arriving on time.

 

[Urban Sky]

It was very obviously train 50/60 or 52/62 given that the original post stated that it was an Ottawa-bound train attached behind a Montreal-bound train. If the Siemens set were a deadhead the passengers wouldn't know where it's heading.

It took me less than five minutes to realize that he must have been on train 60 or 62, which I immediately corrected by adding the part of the message you snipped away for whatever reason. If you look at his immediate response 9 minutes later, you can see that it already includes that part.

The CN speed restrictions are decimating Via's on-time performance, so they really should be adjusting their equipment rotations to minimize the exposure of Siemens sets to those restrictions.

I believe they already do, by minimizing their deployment to TM trains, which are the most exposed Corridor trains to these speed limits.

The J-trains are one of the few trips where Siemens sets could operate without speed restrictions so it would be good to make sure that those rotations are Siemens sets, allowing the LRC sets to run other trips without restrictions.

Indeed, but that only applies to eastbound direction and for the TM trains only until Brockville.

Another method could be to allocate a coupled pair of Siemens sets to the busiest Toronto-Montreal trips instead of a 7-car LRC, which frees up that LRC set to operate some other trips without speed restrictions.

Sure, but that way you need an additional consist, which are still in short supply.

Or worst case scenario it may even be worth coupling some trains together, such as 668+68, or 54+48. Until the restrictions are resolved, passengers may be better off having slightly fewer departure options but then at least having some theoretical possibility of arriving on time.

This would reduce the flexibility offered to passengers. They should probably adjust the schedules of affected trains, but that would hard-code the Siemens deployment…

 

[reaperexpress]

It took me less than five minutes to realize that he must have been on train 60 or 62, which I immediately corrected by adding the part of the message you snipped away for whatever reason. If you look at his immediate response 9 minutes later, you can see that it already includes that part.

Yeah my point was just that it's not good to act incredulous in response to a post that is totally reasonable (regardless of who the post is from).

I believe they already do, by minimizing their deployment to TM trains, which are the most exposed Corridor trains to these speed limits.

That's good to hear.

Indeed, but that only applies to eastbound direction and for the TM trains only until Brockville.

It applies to the entire trip to Ottawa, and most of the trip to Montreal. And those are those trains' first trips of the day, so if they arrive on time (or at least not horribly late), then they can start their next trip on time as well. When trains are late, they cause other trips to also become delayed (e.g. other trains holding for connections, trainsets not being available when they need to be, etc), so the longer the timetable can be kept relatively intact without cascading delays, the lower the total delays will be by the end of the day.

Sure, but that way you need an additional consist, which are still in short supply.

New Siemens sets are steadily entering service, so I was hoping that the rate of new equipment arrival was exceeding the rate of equipment retirement, or that the rate of retirement could be temporarily slowed. But if that's not possible, I did provided alternative option to couple together trips that are only an hour apart.

This would reduce the flexibility offered to passengers. They should probably adjust the schedules of affected trains, but that would hard-code the Siemens deployment…

I'd argue that massive unpredictable delays are a more severe impact on flexibility than a departure time 1h later that passengers already know about before they leave home.

 

[roger1818]

With all the delays caused by running shorter Siemens trains, would it make sense to temporarily change the schedule to run most trains between Toronto and Montreal via Ottawa so that they can use double trains. Yes it is a longer route, but if they can run at a higher speed, it might make up for it. They would probably need to run a few trains on the Kingston Sub to serve Cornwall.

 

[micheal_can]

With all the delays caused by running shorter Siemens trains, would it make sense to temporarily change the schedule to run most trains between Toronto and Montreal via Ottawa so that they can use double trains. Yes it is a longer route, but if they can run at a higher speed, it might make up for it. They would probably need to run a few trains on the Kingston Sub to serve Cornwall.

They still need to service the T-M route. But if that is the only section in question, there should be no reason they could not bring back the old retired fleet and run it. I don't think it would have been sent for scrap yet.

 

[just east of the creek]

654 km or 654 miles? The old VIA timetables through Dauphin, Saskatchewan, and the Pas say it's 1,149 km (714 miles). It looks similar on Google Maps now.

Your point is still valid though - if the road was as winding as the rail it would still be a 12-hour drive. Which is a long drive in one day - especially if you are by yourself.

View attachment 620580

According to the VIA Rail Route Guide I can access, Thompson is mile post 199.8 as measured from Winnipeg. Or 321 km’s ……and then I remembered that the miles reset at each subdivision, so that is not an accurate measure.

The drive from the Winnipeg Airport to Thompson is 759 km by road, and appears to be a more direct route up MB6.

Virail.ca quotes 653.96 km by rail.

So I am not really sure at all.

 

[crs1026]

So I am not really sure at all.

(Shameless plug) The Canadian Trackside Guide is your friend.

CN Rivers Sub - Winnipeg - Kearns - 55.7 mi
CN Gladstone Sub - Kearns - Dauphin - 121.7 mi
CN Togo Sb Dauphin - Canoray - 124.9 mi
CN Assiniboine Sub - Canoray - Mutchler - 92.2 mi
CN Tisdale Sub - Mutchler - Hudson Bay - 1.5 mi
CN Turnberry Sub - Hudson Bay - The Pas South - 83.4 mi
HBRY The Pas Terminal Sub - The Pas South - The Pas - 4.7 mi
HBRY Wekusko Sub - The Pas - Wabowden - 136.4 mi
HBRY Thicket Sub - Wabowden - Thompson Jct - 199.8 mi 63.4 mi
HBRY Thompson Subdivision Thompson Jct - Thompson - 30.5 mi

Total - 850.8 miles, or 1161 kms 714.4 miles, or 1143 kms

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

According to the VIA Rail Route Guide I can access, Thompson is mile post 199.8 as measured from Winnipeg. Or 321 km’s ……and then I remembered that the miles reset at each subdivision, so that is not an accurate measure.

The drive from the Winnipeg Airport to Thompson is 759 km by road, and appears to be a more direct route up MB6.

Virail.ca quotes 653.96 km by rail.

So I am not really sure at all.

Just out of curiosity: what „VIA Rail Route Guide“ (and reference on viarail.ca) are you referring to?

 

[crs1026]

(Shameless plug) The Canadian Trackside Guide is your friend.

CN Rivers Sub - Winnipeg - Kearns - 55.7 mi
CN Gladstone Sub - Kearns - Dauphin - 121.7 mi
CN Togo Sb Dauphin - Canoray - 124.9 mi
CN Assiniboine Sub - Canoray - Mutchler - 92.2 mi
CN Tisdale Sub - Mutchler - Hudson Bay - 1.5 mi
CN Turnberry Sub - Hudson Bay - The Pas South - 83.4 mi
HBRY The Pas Terminal Sub - The Pas South - The Pas - 4.7 mi
HBRY Wekusko Sub - The Pas - Wabowden - 136.4 mi
HBRY Thicket Sub - Wabowden - Thompson Jct - 199.8 mi 63.4 mi
HBRY Thompson Subdivision Thompson Jct - Thompson - 30.5 mi

Total - 850.8 miles, or 1161 kms 714.4 miles, or 1143 kms

- Paul

Mea Culpa Seems my math was a bit off, here it is corrected.

- Paul

 

[just east of the creek]

Mea Culpa Seems my math was a bit off, here it is corrected.

- Paul

Paul,

Shameless plug or not, the source is impeccable and the point well taken. Thanks for the input.

A couple of people I talked to in Thompson and the Pas explained the length of time as roadbed issues, but did not have the knowledge to elaborate. From my roadside views the surrounding countryside did not look the same as James Bay Lowlands (Moose River area) but then it was heavily covered in snow.

There is also an overnight bus service between Winnipeg and Thompson - the fare is $80 ish. Leaves around 9(?) and gets in at 6:30. That apparently is well used. And there is enough less way in the schedule to make up time lost in this weeks icy conditions.

Now to brave the vicissitudes of Air Canada for the last leg of the tour.

Thanks again.