VIA Rail

[steveintoronto]

Here's the present state of Nippon-Sharyo:

Rochelle Rail Car Facility Loses A Big Contract
By Guy Stephens • Nov 10, 2017
[...]
But the company ran into difficulties with the design of the cars, and the roll-out was halted while it tried to work them out. Nippon Sharyo blamed the issue for its layoff this year of more than 200 workers at the Rochelle plant.

Wednesday, Caltrans announced that the two states and Sumitomo had reached an amended agreement. The cars -- now a single-level design -- all will be built at a Siemens plant in California. Caltrans cited the problems experienced by Nippon Sharyo, and the resulting delays, in its news release.

In a statement to WNIJ, Nippon Sharyo acknowledged the loss of the contract and its problems, but said, “The company will continue its business operations going forward with a reduced number of employees to meet the needs of existing customers and contractual responsibilities.”
[...]

http://northernpublicradio.org/post/rochelle-rail-car-facility-loses-big-contract

Well here's Metrolinx' big chance! They're down to a skeleton crew, something like 17 people from a story I read earlier today. Since the order that was taking up all the labour and space has crashed, they can perhaps produce the DMUs again.

Except that they have had no interest since the SMART order that ML piggybacked on.

As to digging out info prior quoted in this string, perhaps you folks would care to go first? Let me make this simple: Who has expressed interest in the Nippon-Sharyo DMUs?

As much as N-S claims to want to stay operating, the present value is greater in selling the operation, thus the sudden increase in stock prices.

Looks like Stadler won the game after-all:

SMART to Use Heavier Rail Cars

• By Michael Rhodes
• Jul 16, 2009

The SMART board decided against using light European-made cars like these Stadler GTW DMUs. Flickr photo: Daniel Sparing
The Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Board, in a 9-2 vote, has elected to use heavier, American-made rail cars instead of lighter, quieter, low-floored, European-made models that some of the directors originally favored.

A report on the various options, presented by SMART staff to the board Wednesday, noted that while the light cars "offer more operational efficiencies in comparison to an FRA-compliant design on a per vehicle basis," they would be much more difficult to purchase and implement, since the SMART’s planned rail service "lies within a perfect storm of American rail service regulators."

For one, the light cars are not Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) compliant, and thus SMART would need to negotiate temporal separation from any freight service, which will soon begin operating again in the North Bay for the first time since 2001. Since the light cars would be produced abroad, they also would require a waiver of the Federal Transit Administration’s Buy America clause. [...]

https://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/07/16/smart-to-use-heavier-rail-cars/

So now Stadler ostensibly have an FRA waiver in hand (the fix must be in to build their plant) who's going to buy the Nippon-Sharyo? SMART? They've stated they regret buying N-S.

Metrolinx?

There's been some teething problems, but they are in service every day.

Really? All three car sets as promised by the end of this year? I live right next to the tracks and take the UPX every other day. Where's the missing rolling stock? Some trains are three car, most aren't.

Seems Nippon-Sharyo have had quite a few "teething problems" of late...

 

[steveintoronto]

I have neither the time nor inclination to find what was posted prior and reference it yet again for those who question my memory, so here's reference that you can pursue: (Needless to say, events conspired to render the opening date mentioned in the following to just a few months ago) Note also the contract was with Sumitomo, not Nippon-Sharyo who were jobbers for Sumitomo, who have now dropped Nippon-Sharyo (a subsidiary of Japan Railways) in favour of other suppliers.

By Mark Prado

mprado@marinij.com">mprado@marinij.com, @MarkPradoIJ on Twitter

Posted: 10/17/14, 12:01 AM PDT |

If rails are built, riders will come.

That's what the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit board is banking on as it positioned itself to add more rail cars after service begins in 2016. Earlier this week it rejiggered its contract with the Sumitomo Corp. of America to allow it to buy three more rail cars at current prices — about $3.5 million each — until the end of 2017. Under the old deal the contract was up at the end of 2015.

"Under the old contract our chance to buy new cars went away a year before service starts," said Farhad Mansourian, the rail agency's general manager. "This allows us to lock in the price."

In 2010, Sumitomo bid $82.7 million to deliver nine, three-car trains to the system. SMART had planned on spending between $80 million and $90 million on the cars. But SMART scaled back its plan, and will receive seven, two-car trains at a cost of about $50 million.

Some think that may not be enough to handle passengers who will use the San Rafael to Santa Rosa service.

"We think there may be a shortage of vehicles," said David Schonbrunn, president of Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund, a watchdog group.

[...]

http://www.marinij.com/article/zz/20141017/NEWS/141017859

 

[smallspy]

So, in other words, rather than finding your reference.....

"Baffle them with bullshit."

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

So, in other words, rather than finding your reference.....

"Baffle them with bullshit."

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

I note that you have not provided one reference asked for. Is that your typical modus operandi? Demand answers and give none yourself? The ultimate point is that RDCs have no available replacement in Canada at this time. TC guarantees that to be the case.

Show me one reference that the Nippon-Sharyo DMUs are available for purchase, let alone at a competitive price. I repeat: Metrolinx paid a rich price for the Nippons, and the literature indicated that even that price was for a limited time. References exist in this string as to the price virtually doubling, and that was over a year ago. The terms of the original contract have expired. Are you unable to read?

I'm not here to provide you with reference beyond what's already provided at your beck and command, even though you seem to think so.

Find me this, since it's been expunged from all Metrolinx and Nippon reference: The claim that it was a simple case to change the Nippons into electric propulsion. You want "bullshit"? Then start with the product you're suspiciously defending.

[Under the old deal the contract was up at the end of 2015.

"Under the old contract our chance to buy new cars went away a year before service starts," said Farhad Mansourian, the rail agency's general manager. "This allows us to lock in the price." ]

That was then, this is now.

 

[steveintoronto]

So, in other words, rather than finding your reference.....

"Baffle them with bullshit."

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

06/30/15
[...][ The three additional cars will boost SMART’s seating capacity by 35 percent, officials said. Because of the escalating costs for rail cars, the grant also was estimated to have saved taxpayers about $11 million, according to state officials.

“It’s a big deal,” said Farhad Mansourian, the rail authority’s general manager, expressing thanks to Kelly and McGuire for securing a piece of the competitive grant funding.

The three cars will expand SMART’s existing fleet of 14 cars, which operate in two-car sets, enabling the system to run a trio of three-car sets, Mansourian said. The new cars are “middle cars” that will sandwich between two of the existing cars, he said.

That configuration boosts passenger capacity from 320 people sitting and standing to 450 people in the three-car sets, he said.

The added capacity will help enable SMART to extend service from the Charles M. Schulz–Sonoma County Airport to Windsor, a link currently missing from the rail development plan. The authority also needs $39 million to lay track from the airport area to Windsor, Mansourian said.

SMART took delivery of four gray and green rail cars in April and has the other 10 on order, he said.

The rail agency also needs $40 million to extend the line 2.2 miles south from downtown San Rafael to the Larkspur ferry terminal, but believes it has that money in hand. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission awarded a $20 million grant last year and the other $20 million is included in President Barack Obama’s proposed $4 trillion budget, which is awaiting congressional action.

With the price of rail cars expected to double after 2017, the latest grant saves SMART — and ultimately taxpayers — $11 million, Mansourian said.][...]
http://www.marinij.com/general-news...illion-grant-to-purchase-three-more-rail-cars

Evidently the link is no longer available, (I copied it from an earlier UT forum)( http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...tion-projects-metrolinx-various.9023/page-168 ) so I challenge @smallspy to make the claim again...please, be my guest. Except here it is in Google Cache, how "bullshit" is that?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...39985+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=ubuntu

Now I challenge @smallspy to make good on his claims of the Nippons still being available 'at any price'.

In case the point is lost to this string, VIA are offered no choices for current, available and affordable DMUs. There is a choice of tens of models suitable, but TC, unlike the FRA, is totally inflexible on the matter. Necessitating PTC would be fully understandable, both the line and the rolling stock. Claims that the Nippons are "fully FRA compliant" is a stretch of the truth. The FRA is requiring the SMART track be PTC equipped. That was the last major holdup of the SMART service.

Ironically the Cdn Transport Safety Board has been requesting that for *all* VIA passenger runs for years. TC doesn't find the request worthy of mandating.

How "bullshit" is that?

Addendum, to preempt the 'doubters' who demand direct reference, yet don't provide it themselves:

SMART continues to await feds’ OK on safety system to launch service
By Mark Prado, Marin Independent Journal

Posted: 08/12/17, 5:08 PM PDT | Updated: on 08/14/2017

197 Comments

A federal review of a high-tech safety system is forcing the continued delay in commuter service, Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit officials say.

That safety system was installed for the first time on part of a Colorado rail line last year, but has not been completely bug-free. It has forced the Colorado rail agency to seek and receive waivers from the Federal Railroad Administration to continue running that line.
Those circumstances may be a reason why federal officials are being methodical before signing off on SMART, rail officials have said.

“The FRA, in particular, needs to sign off on Positive Train Control,” said San Rafael Mayor Gary Phillips, a SMART board member. “That system is performing satisfactorily for SMART. We saw it work during the preview service.”

SMART has spent $50 million to implement the Positive Train Control system on the 43-mile line from downtown San Rafael to the Santa Rosa Airport. The system essentially controls movements on the rails electronically to slow or stop trains before certain types of accidents could occur.

SMART is poised to be the first start-up rail system in the country to be completely outfitted with the safety system designed to prevent potentially deadly accidents.

In April 2016, the Denver-based Regional Transportation District began using Positive Train Control on a new 23-mile spur from downtown to the city’s airport. The line has been operating on waivers from federal officials while they attempt to resolve a nagging timing issue with safety arms that is caused by integration challenges between crossing software and Positive Train Control. The waiver includes the requirement that flaggers be stationed along the line as a safety precaution.

“This deals with public safety and they are being cautious,” said Farhad Mansourian, SMART’s general manager, of Positive Train Control. “PTC is new. We are not an agency that has been running for 40 years. We are a new agency with brand new service.”

Tiffany Lindemann, a spokeswoman with the Federal Railroad Administration, said SMART’s Positive Train Control is getting a hard look.

“FRA is still working closely with SMART on the PTC review,” she said via email. “Although SMART is in the final stages of the review, the length of time the review can take varies depending on the complexity of the PTC system.”

In SMART’s case, Positive Train Control works via a fiber optic network used to “talk” to the train system to prevent a train from moving while sitting in a turnout, while another train passes; maintain safe speeds in curves to prevent derailments; and to slow speeds in work zones where workers are present.

The system stops the train if an engineer fails to adhere to the software-programmed instructions. The system is also used by dispatchers to lower speeds when a grade crossing has been damaged.

Such a system could have prevented the deadly accident of Amtrak passenger train 188 in Philadelphia in May 2015, National Transportation Safety Board officials said. That train had entered a curve where the speed is restricted to 50 mph. But the train was traveling at 106 mph because the engineer was distracted and failed to slow the train. Eight passengers were killed and 185 others were transported to area hospitals. SMART’s top speed will be 79 mph.

SMART will have to spend between $10 million and $12 million to operate the safety system on the downtown San Rafael to Larkspur extension that could open in 2019.

In 2008, Congress required railroads to install the safety system. In October 2015, Congress extended the original deadline to implement the system from Dec. 31, 2015 to at least Dec. 31, 2018. In theory, SMART could have delayed deploying the safety system until later to save money now.

Mansourian said SMART is close to launch. “We can almost taste it,” he said.

SMART officials say their Positive Train Control is working and that they are talking to federal officials on a daily basis as they seek final approval.

The Denver Post contributed to this report.

http://www.marinij.com/article/NO/20170812/NEWS/170819927

 

[Allandale25]

^ I really don't get what specific point you're trying to make or what this dispute is over. Is this discussion about what VIA could be theoretically buying? Your only source is newspaper reports, right? Or are you personally speaking with any of the manufacturers?

 

[steveintoronto]

^ I really don't get what specific point you're trying to make or what this dispute is over. Is this discussion about what VIA could be theoretically buying? Your only source is newspaper reports, right? Or are you personally speaking with any of the manufacturers?

If you'd been following the start of this latest sub-string, reading back a page would help a lot, it's about potential replacements for the Budd RDCs.

In Canada, there are none. And the situation is ridiculous. There are many *excellent* choices that could be made, but Transport Canada, unlike the US FRA, refuses to be flexible or accommodating in allowing ways and means to facilitate sourcing those many excellent choices.

So VIA is stuck with Budd RDCs well over fifty years old in many cases. They are excellent workhorses, so are DC3s for aircraft. But they are far from what is needed in a modern world.

Your only source is newspaper reports, right?

Wrong.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Is this discussion about what VIA could be theoretically buying?

Very little of what's being discussed is about VIA. Instead the chatter is about the passenger train business in general, which admittedly may involve VIA if or when the service looks for new trains. But trying to keep a thread on topic is like herding cats.

 

[steveintoronto]

Very little of what's being discussed is about VIA.

VIA need replacement for the Budd RDCs, and even the ones they keep are limited in number.

What replacements do you suggest?

Via tests passenger cars for proposed southern Ontario runs
CBC News Posted: Feb 24, 2016 8:34 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 24, 2016 8:41 PM ET

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/london-via-diesel-passenger-cars-1.3462193

Btw: The Budd RDCs would not pass Transport Canada's present requirements today. They are allowed by being acceptable at the time of original purchase. "Grandfathered".

It points to how out of date and *stifling* the present Transport Canada regs are.

March, 2010

https://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/fi... 20100329 ENG - RDC Rebuild Backgrounder.pdf

Since this rebuild, the fate of the RDCs has become nebulous. As to why is a good question, but what is clear is that if Transport Canada came into the modern age, even by copying the latest FRA practices, then Canada could buy DMUs for a lot cheaper than previously. Perhaps even build them here if CRRC merges/outright buys BBD Rail.

 

[Admiral Beez]

VIA need replacement for the Budd RDCs, and even the ones they keep are limited in number.

What replacements do you suggest?

I suggest they're likely to soldier on without any replacement until the Feds decide to break up the VIA crown corp, giving the Windsor-Quebec corridor to the ON/QC governments, and privatizing/closing down the rest. Only then will Windsor-Quebec get new train sets, hopefully electrified higher speed rail. Meanwhile the tourist trains will go private, like the https://wpyr.com/ and www.rockymountaineer.com. Most of the underutilized smaller routes will close down.

 

[crs1026]

Amtrak sort of solved the problem by converting retired locomotives to "cabbage" cars - ie non-powered, similar to the old GO APCU cab cars but with the interior space used as a baggage car rather than for HEP power generation.

That solution gave them the ability to run short push-pull consists with a locomotive at one end and the "cabbage" car at the other end, eliminating the need to turn trains (a key RDC selling point).

Operationally, that solution is likely more expensive to operate in a loco - 3 coach - cabbage configuration than a 3-EMU consist would be. The offset however is that the capital expenditure is much more modest than a new EMU fleet would be, and the cab car in "push" mode is much more crashworthy than an RDC-style coach vestibule cab would be. So considering cost of capital, it's not a bad solution - just a suboptimal one.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Amtrak sort of solved the problem by converting retired locomotives to "cabbage" cars - ie non-powered, similar to the old GO APCU cab cars but with the interior space used as a baggage car rather than for HEP power generation.

That solution gave them the ability to run short push-pull consists with a locomotive at one end and the "cabbage" car at the other end, eliminating the need to turn trains (a key RDC selling point).

Operationally, that solution is likely more expensive to operate in a loco - 3 coach - cabbage configuration than a 3-EMU consist would be. The offset however is that the capital expenditure is much more modest than a new EMU fleet would be, and the cab car in "push" mode is much more crashworthy than an RDC-style coach vestibule cab would be. So considering cost of capital, it's not a bad solution - just a suboptimal one.

- Paul

The "Cabbage" (ex F-40s) approach would work well with the fleet replacement, albeit it had stated "trainsets" although not necessarily from the same manufacturer, and it didn't detail locos either end, just "bi-mode" (electric and diesel)....which presents a bit of a conundrum as discussed prior. Does VIA (and TC) accept a trainset that is virtually the Brightline Siemens Diesel one end, and a "Cabbage" the other until such time as electric locos can be added on the 'other' end? It would make a lot of sense, since Ontario is obviously dithering with electrification now. (Grrrr...).

Cutting Metrolinx out of the variables, QP still seems to be pushing HSR (again, Grrrr...) so the likelihood of a CRRC/BBD joint bid to own and run HFR without having to tender, and using CRRC extant models to do it with (and CRRC has a massive cash pool to finance such projects) looks more likely by the day. And do a 'run-through' onto Ontario's HSR line to the SW at Union. Build the locos in Thunder Bay form Chinese kits, and Han's your Uncle.

 

[steveintoronto]

and the cab car in "push" mode is much more crashworthy than an RDC-style coach vestibule cab would be.

Very interesting discussion here as per "Sumitomo drops Nippon-Sharyo" and goes for Siemens:
http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/ind...ontract-for-137-cars-former-bi-levels/page-40

This all begs a question that's behind the Oxnard incident https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/...er-Oxnard-Metrolink-Derailment-294479371.html

How is GO Transit able to run single ended...let me rephrase this...how can GO Transit *continue* to run single-ended loco with the impending change to FRA regs? This change has already affected Amtrak. TC regs are based on FRA ones.

And the Nippon-Sharyo DMUs will shortly not be fully "FRA compliant" without active PTC, as witnessed in Sonoma/Marin. They aren't required to enforce PTC compliance now, but SMART felt best to get in front of a compliance order, and do it now. Denver, different vehicles (Stadler GWs IIRC) is also running under an FRA waiver until crossing gate compliance can be attained.

So not only is TC behind the times in according compliance to 'outside sources' as the FRA is now doing (with caveats in many cases), TC is also well behind the FRA in terms of what TC states is "FRA compliant".

Is GO Transit Rail already operating under some form of TC waiver? TC is their regulator, even as GO Transit Rail is provincially incorporated.

 

[steveintoronto]

I suggest they're likely to soldier on without any replacement until the Feds decide to break up the VIA crown corp, giving the Windsor-Quebec corridor to the ON/QC governments, and privatizing/closing down the rest. Only then will Windsor-Quebec get new train sets, hopefully electrified higher speed rail.

How is that going to change TC regs? And there's no way the Western Ontario branch lines are going to be electrified.

And for some odd reason, HSR won't be serving local commuters to Chatham el al, even if HSR ever does become a reality.

 

[kEiThZ]

There's no news coming out on HFR. And this article seems to suggests that the initiative does not have actual support in government:

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php...e/via-high-frequency-rail-details-emerge.html

VIA Rail annotates its proposed route map with caveats that it is so far only a management initiative, does not reflect government policy, and is subject to change.

If they don't get rolling on this, Trudeau is definitely not getting my vote again. That's for sure.