VIA Rail

[crs1026]

Far back in this thread there are ways to do it.It has something to do with the signalling that could be changed.

While it’s nice to imagine CN changing out its equipment for a different flavour of signalling, the potential headaches of calibrating that new tech at each location and the learning curve for maintainers and technical staff (which again may be location specific to some degree) would probably leave CN firmly opposed - even if someone were willing to fund the change.
Not to say that some changes could ‘t happen over time as equipment reaches end of life… but the task is far from a plug and play transition. There would be lots of 03:00 callouts for maintainers at premium pay rates to tweak each location.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

While it’s nice to imagine CN changing out its equipment for a different flavour of signalling, the potential headaches of calibrating that new tech at each location and the learning curve for maintainers and technical staff (which again may be location specific to some degree) would probably leave CN firmly opposed - even if someone were willing to fund the change.
Not to say that some changes could ‘t happen over time as equipment reaches end of life… but the task is far from a plug and play transition. There would be lots of 03:00 callouts for maintainers at premium pay rates to tweak each location.

- Paul

I am not suggesting that is the solution. I am saying though that had CN been clear that the new fleet would be too short that Via would not be in the mess they are in. I do not blame Via if CN did not inform them of this. However, one of the options to fix this mess is changing the signal system out for something else.

 

[smallspy]

Quite true, for now...although this should be watched carefully going forward.

While demand may not have shrunk, the question ought to be - has the CN play harmed the growth in business that VIA was counting on by renewing its fleet.

VIA's objective is increased modal share - while the ship may not be sinking, if a business isn't growing, it's in a bit of trouble.

- Paul

This is absolutely the case.

Part of VIA"s business case for the new fleet was for increased equipment utilization, and thus the increase in service that it allows. The idea that the new trains, although the same in quantity, would allow more runs each day by being a little bit quicker than the old equipment, and not requiring loads of times to be built into the ends of the runs to spin the equipment.

CN has completely blown is part of the plan out of the water.

Dan

 

[Bordercollie]

Currently riding the Lumi set on train 59 to Toronto. There were some issues with the crossings coming out of Ottawa but we are still on time.

I did notice thou that we went past some crossings currently on the Kingston sub doing 144kmph. So not every crossing has a speed restriction? For the other ones we slowed to about 107kmph.

I thought it was every crossing?

 

[lenaitch]

I am not suggesting that is the solution. I am saying though that had CN been clear that the new fleet would be too short that Via would not be in the mess they are in. I do not blame Via if CN did not inform them of this. However, one of the options to fix this mess is changing the signal system out for something else.

What is unclear to me is the relationship between CN and tenant equipment being used on its property. Did CN have to (or was even given the opportunity) to sign off on VIA's new equipment or was just assumed that since they are FRA (or AAR, whoever certifies these things, if anyone), then they are 'legal'?

If changing the crossing signal system is an alternative, who pays? I doubt CN would want to; their equipment apparently works fine with the current hardware. Are there any knock-on impacts of changing out the equipment on just a couple of CN subdivisions?

 

[Bordercollie]

What is unclear to me is the relationship between CN and tenant equipment being used on its property. Did CN have to (or was even given the opportunity) to sign off on VIA's new equipment or was just assumed that since they are FRA (or AAR, whoever certifies these things, if anyone), then they are 'legal'?

If changing the crossing signal system is an alternative, who pays? I doubt CN would want to; their equipment apparently works fine with the current hardware. Are there any knock-on impacts of changing out the equipment on just a couple of CN subdivisions?

This whole thing started as an isolated incident on one subdivision on a few specific crossings. They have taken that and created a blanket rule across their whole network. But given that AMTRAK has this issue with CN and now BNSF could possibly point it to be a Siemens issue. They are using superliner can cars on the front of some of their new trains to get around the low shunt issue.

 

[Trackside_Treasure]

Currently riding the Lumi set on train 59 to Toronto. There were some issues with the crossings coming out of Ottawa but we are still on time.

I did notice thou that we went past some crossings currently on the Kingston sub doing 144kmph. So not every crossing has a speed restriction? For the other ones we slowed to about 107kmph.

I thought it was every crossing?

Reducing to 45 mph from a quarter-mile and complying with 103.1 (f) is gone on most subdivisions. Important to remember that the 45 mph restriction was imposed by VIA, CN only placed the 103.1 (f) restriction on Venture trains. It's replaced by large "zone" (actually PSO) speed reductions that encompass multiple crossings. The speed in each zone varies, some are anywhere from 65-80 MPH for several miles, sometimes 10+ miles. 70-75 MPH seems to be the most common. There are stretches where normal track speed is possible. Improvement in OTP has been seen when the PSOs are the only limiting factor. Dispatching, freight traffic, equipment issues and myriad other causes can still negatively influence OTP.

 

[Bordercollie]

Reducing to 45 mph from a quarter-mile and complying with 103.1 (f) is gone on most subdivisions. Important to remember that the 45 mph restriction was imposed by VIA, CN only placed the 103.1 (f) restriction on Venture trains. It's replaced by large "zone" (actually PSO) speed reductions that encompass multiple crossings. The speed in each zone varies, some are anywhere from 65-80 MPH for several miles, sometimes 10+ miles. 70-75 MPH seems to be the most common. There are stretches where normal track speed is possible. Improvement in OTP has been seen when the PSOs are the only limiting factor. Dispatching, freight traffic, equipment issues and myriad other causes can still negatively influence OTP.

We are arriving in Oshawa within 15 Minutes of our scheduled time which is amazing.

Let's see how Metrolinx treats us from here.

So why is it only the group of crossings? They are more susceptible to the low shunt issue?

Other crossings we passed them at full speed. We were on time until Kingston. Now we are 15minutes behind.

Honestly, considering that the 6pm Porter flight to Toronto was $1500 this is a good alternative. 5pm flight was $340.00.

All other flights to Toronto after 5pm are over $500. And fly to Pearson instead.

Also beats taking the bus by a mile. And the bus is only slightly cheaper.

 

[Urban Sky]

Provided that you are able to work on the train and are a bit flexible in your time, I don’t understand why anyone would chose the plane over the train…

 

[Bordercollie]

Provided that you are able to work on the train and are a bit flexible in your time, I don’t understand why anyone would chose the plane over the train…

Well. This morning I was able to leave Toronto at 7 and be in Ottawa by 8:15. Taking the train would have had me arrive around 11am. Or leave the night before and stay in a hotel but that has its own challenges.

 

[micheal_can]

What is unclear to me is the relationship between CN and tenant equipment being used on its property. Did CN have to (or was even given the opportunity) to sign off on VIA's new equipment or was just assumed that since they are FRA (or AAR, whoever certifies these things, if anyone), then they are 'legal'?

If changing the crossing signal system is an alternative, who pays? I doubt CN would want to; their equipment apparently works fine with the current hardware. Are there any knock-on impacts of changing out the equipment on just a couple of CN subdivisions?

These are questions the public should hear. No one wants to pay, but if CN signed off on it, then CN should pay for either the extra coaches, or the signal upgrade. IF CN did not need to sign off of it, then this would Via who should pay. I doubt it is this simple.

This whole thing started as an isolated incident on one subdivision on a few specific crossings. They have taken that and created a blanket rule across their whole network. But given that AMTRAK has this issue with CN and now BNSF could possibly point it to be a Siemens issue. They are using superliner can cars on the front of some of their new trains to get around the low shunt issue.

Have they used it on other roads? If they have and they work fine, except for these 2, then it is something with these 2. The good thing is, Amtrak and Via are having problems with CN.Had it been just Via, that would be suspicious.

 

[Bordercollie]

These are questions the public should hear. No one wants to pay, but if CN signed off on it, then CN should pay for either the extra coaches, or the signal upgrade. IF CN did not need to sign off of it, then this would Via who should pay. I doubt it is this simple.



Have they used it on other roads? If they have and they work fine, except for these 2, then it is something with these 2. The good thing is, Amtrak and Via are having problems with CN.Had it been just Via, that would be suspicious.

But is the equipment on the VIA subdivisions the same as those used by CN? Since they bought the line from CN in the first place. So how would that work?

 

[micheal_can]

But is the equipment on the VIA subdivisions the same as those used by CN? Since they bought the line from CN in the first place. So how would that work?

That I do not know.

 

[nfitz]

Well. This morning I was able to leave Toronto at 7 and be in Ottawa by 8:15.

That's amazing. Do you live in the Sheraton Hotel at T3?

 

[rbt]

That's amazing. Do you live in the Sheraton Hotel at T3?

Indeed. I've done door-to-door in ~90 minutes. Walk/jog 10 minutes to YTZ, get lucky with the ferry and clear security and board immediately in another 10, door closed immediately and the Porter flight takes ~55 minutes with favourable winds, a few minutes to disembark and get through YOW, then cab downtown Ottawa is another 15. 75 minutes door-to-door time seems impossible to achieve consistently even without the ferry step.

Pearson is usually a bit slower due to the longer taxi times.

AIr Canada in 2006 had a wide-body relocation flight from YOW to YYZ at about 1am which rarely had more than about 10 passengers on it. It took about 50 minutes gate to gate [boarding to leaving] due to the higher airspeed and extremely low volume of traffic at Pearson at 2am. 75 minutes door to door would still be amazing as takes 5 just to walk the length of Pier F.