VIA Rail

[Bordercollie]

There's no reason to be so utterly rude. It's a discussion forum, not a peer-reviewed journal.

Please try to be kinder.

Also why repeat something, that someone else has also pointed out since, and I even acknowledged?

I'm pretty sure that most people don't store it in their head how many axles a trainset has, or what the current limit is. And why the pile on? We don't need "me too" posts.

Though I don't see that anything precludes them to sticking on two old locos - could even stick a freight car between the old loco and the trainset. Surely if they are only doing this with one trainset, it's proof of concept at this stage for the HEP.

VIA doesn't have that kind of spare equipment and resources to put two additional locomotives on these trains. Those would need to be pulled from other running trains and those would need to be cancelled due to the lack of equipment.

The whole reason they want to get to 32 axles is so that the crossing arms will activate. Currently they have to slow down to visually determine if the crossing is active.

Freight cars are limited to 75mph. Adding axles to limit a train that can travel at 100mph to 75mph so that it meets the 32 axles count would be completely pointless. It would be nice even slower than the trains slowing at crossings.

To counter this problem they build 7 car trainsets and 2x4 car trains to meet the 32 axle count to get around the speed restrictions.

Go back and read the thread going back 24 months. You will understand a lot.

 

[nfitz]

VIA doesn't have that kind of spare equipment and resources to put two additional locomotives on these trains.

I hear Minnesota has some going cheap ...

Whole thing seems rather silly. I have to doubt that this will be widely implemented.

 

[reaperexpress]

The whole reason they want to get to 32 axles is so that the crossing arms will activate. Currently they have to slow down to visually determine if the crossing is active.

Go back and read the thread going back 24 months. You will understand a lot.

They don't need to visually inspect the crossings anymore, CN issued an update in September that eliminated that requirement and just created permanent slow orders instead. Trackside Treasure mentions it here, and in much more detail on his blog.

 

[smallspy]

Well, there have been photos on the interweb where the F40 is leading, so whether intended or not, the operating procedure has to accommodate this. The F40 is not always just a deadweight trailing along for the ride.

It was leading at first because they wanted to test what the effects would be to the schedule. An F40 is not capable of the same performance as a Charger.

When trailing, it absolutely is dead-in-tow and along for the ride. Its addition to the trainset is being made as a precaution, not as a replacement. The fact that it was running while pulling the trainset is more of a function of the configuration of the trainset (and the incompatibility of some of the control connections) than anything else.

It doesn't prevent safe and productive operations, but it is a curiosity. Especially when so many runs depend on push-pull to avoid wyeing.

Agreed. But by the same token, they need to know what the effects will be before rolling it out more widely - if they choose to do so. Thus why they are starting with this one trainset.

Which makes the situation a bit of a headscratcher. To have that many failures is not coincidence so there is a smoking gun somewhere.

Yes, 5 failures of the 25 or so trains that were in service that weekend were concerning, and I'm hoping that they are doing investigation into why it's happening. There had been previous investigations into other widespread problems (windshield failures, snow ingestion, etc.), so I'm hopeful that they will get to the bottom of it.

But I'm not sure that there is going to be a smoking gun that will point to one obvious failure.

One would think that since the HEP power is part of the core spec, Siemens has an onus to fix it. We haven't heard what the root cause is or what it will take to fix it. Could be bad components, could be a systemmic build error, could be software related. Could simply be a need for better training and operating documentation. The core technology is in use all over the place in Siemens products - electric and diesel - so while it's a puzzle, it's hard to see this as a situation that is likely to continue over time.

Agreed.

I'm confident that VIA will not accept F40 trailers as the long term fix. Not nearly as serious a showstopper as say the LRC wheel/bearing issues which actually sidelined the equipment shortly after it went in service. Just something to, er, enjoy as an oddity until a solution is applied.

- Paul

Like I wrote above, there have been other widespread issues that they've managed to resolve, so I have faith that they will figure this one out too.

But in the meantime - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound (or 270,000 pounds) of cure?

There's no reason to be so utterly rude. It's a discussion forum, not a peer-reviewed journal.

Please try to be kinder.

Also why repeat something, that someone else has also pointed out since, and I even acknowledged?

Then why do you continue to repeat the same points that you've made earlier, when it has been explained by others why they are not the case?

All I'm trying to make things as clear as possible to everyone, since there seems to be some confusion still as to why they are doing this.

Dan

 

[Bordercollie]

I hear Minnesota has some going cheap ...

Whole thing seems rather silly. I have to doubt that this will be widely implemented.

What does the Norstar equipment have to do with this? Their equipment is not even the same as what VIA has.

You can't just take a mishmash of stuff and cobble it together and hope it works

 

[robmausser]

They may want the Charger leading since it's faster than the F40 pulling the consist.

Someone said it's only for problematic sets.

So surely Siemens is going to come and fix these trains? Also i've heard that these trains don't do well in cold weather? Is that true? Did VIA and Ontario Northlander just buy a bunch of trains that aren't good for our winters? Can Siemens fix that?

 

[Bordercollie]

So surely Siemens is going to come and fix these trains? Also i've heard that these trains don't do well in cold weather? Is that true? Did VIA and Ontario Northlander just buy a bunch of trains that aren't good for our winters? Can Siemens fix that?

Amtrak is also still having problems with theirs in cold weather as well.

Funny that we didn't have as many issues last year.

 

[reaperexpress]

Eastbound the trainset has the F40 trailing, so it may just be along for the ride at this point.

Or......they could use it for HEP, and free up another 400-ish horsepower for traction in the Charger.

Is it possible to run just the HEP generator on the F40 without running the prime mover? If so that could be a decent way of offsetting the acceleration penalty of the additional dead weight, without the fuel cost of running an additional prime mover.

 

[nfitz]

I hear Minnesota has some going cheap ...

What does the Norstar equipment have to do with this? Their equipment is not even the same as what VIA has.

If only there was some kind of clue that I was clearly making a joke.

 

[smallspy]

So surely Siemens is going to come and fix these trains?

Part of the contract for the supply of the trains is for a TSSSA after their delivery. So yes, it is incumbent on Siemens to ensure that the trains are available and reliable.

Also i've heard that these trains don't do well in cold weather? Is that true? Did VIA and Ontario Northlander just buy a bunch of trains that aren't good for our winters? Can Siemens fix that?

This was only true for the first couple of years of the loco's lives, and predominantly in Chicago and the Midwest. There have been some pretty minor teething issues in VIA service with regards to the cold, but nothing earth-shattering since.

The ONR's trainsets should have been built with all of this accumulated knowledge and the requisite changes already built into them from the factory, so they should in theory be pretty problem-free from day 1.

Is it possible to run just the HEP generator on the F40 without running the prime mover? If so that could be a decent way of offsetting the acceleration penalty of the additional dead weight, without the fuel cost of running an additional prime mover.

It absolutely is, and in fact I hypothesized just that a couple of days ago up-thread. But the HEP penalty for the Chargers is only about 400hp, so at the end of the day it's not a whole lot of benefit.

Amtrak is also still having problems with theirs in cold weather as well.

The problems that Amtrak is having with theirs are also happening with all other types of equipment, too. As it turns out, most trains don't like it when it's -40 degrees.

Dan

 

[Allandale25]

VIA officially ruled out tacking cars (never heard about locomotives) onto Venture consists for safety and monitoring reasons - back in the fall of 2024 when CN imposed the crossing speed reductions. (VIA also said it rejected joining Venture sets at that time, then formulated a complete plan for full J-training of the Corridor in March, 2025 then rejected that plan.)

I also think VIA is pinning its hopes on its court cases against CN, still before the Quebec Superior Court, rather than making wholesale changes to its Venture operations. That has not prevented them from making stopgap changes like XL, DXS, now the F40 HEP tack-ons!

Weird. This disclaimer is no longer showing on VIA's website when booking a ticket. It was in December.

 

[Trackside_Treasure]

For anyone keeping track (pun intended) of the ongoing VIA injunction, this post details the latest known decision re: the amount of CN crossing data requested by VIA. It seems VIA's injunction is proceeding in Quebec Superior Court, though date of further hearings not known.

VIA and CN in Quebec Superior Court, Part 4

JUDGMENT (On Objection to a Request for Pre-Commitment) (Relevance and Excessive Scope of the Work to be Done) (Art. 228 CPC)) In Part 3 of...

tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com

 

[dowlingm]

My understanding is that Bombardier's tender was for DEMUs, being based on models that they've built elsewhere in the world.


And where does the whole thing about lowering VIA's costs and becoming "self sustaining" come in? Running two locos when one will suffice seems like the height of waste.

Dan

Wasn’t aware of the DEMU pitch. Are UPX MUs required to do locomotive-cadence inspections, and would that be required for MUs without cabs?

As for VIA costs, the choice to go with cabs created a class of coach which can’t easily be swapped between roles. I doubt it was cheap. How much is the choice to build trainsets with a single point of failure which strands passengers without power or toilets and requires multiple trainsets to be rescued costing now?

 

[Bordercollie]

Wasn’t aware of the DEMU pitch. Are UPX MUs required to do locomotive-cadence inspections, and would that be required for MUs without cabs?

As for VIA costs, the choice to go with cabs created a class of coach which can’t easily be swapped between roles. I doubt it was cheap. How much is the choice to build trainsets with a single point of failure which strands passengers without power or toilets and requires multiple trainsets to be rescued costing now?

Which is why I said it would have made more sense to have a seperate motor for HEP.

 

[smallspy]

Wasn’t aware of the DEMU pitch. Are UPX MUs required to do locomotive-cadence inspections, and would that be required for MUs without cabs?

There are a number of different regulatory regimes regarding equipment.

There are regular inspections for certain things like air brakes, suspension, wheels, etc. that need to happen on an ongoing basis (every 10 days, I believe). These are pretty innocuous, however.

Locos - and any self-powered piece of rolling stock that is not a "track unit" - needs thorough inspections every 92 days. And this includes the UPX DMUs as well as RDCs. These are way more involved, and feature things like inspecting traction motors, dynamic brakes, prime movers, alternators, etc. These take about a day to do.

Cab cars need a similarly thorough inspection on the same timeline for their controls. But as they lack all of the self-propelling stuff, this doesn't take nearly as long as with a loco.

There are also inspections required specifically for passenger-carrying rolling stock (coaches, sleepers, etc) every 6 months (IIRC). These are for checking that their life safety devices are in working order - emergency exits, lighting, etc.

Conveniently, Transport Canada has put the some of the rules around what needs to be inspected online:
Locos - https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/...OTIVE_INSPECTION_AND_SAFETY_RULES_ENGLISH.pdf
Brakes - https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/...spection_and_safety_rules_september_29_EN.pdf

As for VIA costs, the choice to go with cabs created a class of coach which can’t easily be swapped between roles. I doubt it was cheap. How much is the choice to build trainsets with a single point of failure which strands passengers without power or toilets and requires multiple trainsets to be rescued costing now?

They was obviously a lot of thought that was given to how the tender was written - and so it was felt that a fixed-length trainset was the way to go. Considering that Amtrak (and Amtrak California) have also done the same with their new trainsets, it seems that someone has crunched the numbers and figured that in the long run it is worthwhile.

Dan