VIA Rail

[robmausser]

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...o-produce-tier-4-compliant-diesel-engine.html

This has got to be the longest procurement of 11 locomotives ever. Where the heck are these things?

We have one and its a prototype and I've heard its unreliable.

 

[smallspy]

My understanding is that MP54 is considered too heavy for long distance use. All that weight is good for adhesion in stop start commuter but if you want to get to 110, never mind 125 and don't have 10-12 bilevels to pull...

It's heavy in its current configuration. But removing several tonnes of the ballast would go a long way towards improving that.

Now, I don't know if there are 10 tonnes worth of ballast on the units, but there is certainly some that can be made superfluous.

This has got to be the longest procurement of 11 locomotives ever. Where the heck are these things?

The first one is at TTCI in Pueblo. The second is supposed to be here by the end of January - or so Metrolinx claim.

Also, the quantity is 16, not 11.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

This has got to be the longest procurement of 11 locomotives ever. Where the heck are these things?

We have one and its a prototype and I've heard its unreliable.

I seem to recollect reading something about problems as per Dowling's mention, and I also remember 'Caterpillar' being touted for engines at one point, possibly due to late availability of the QSK60, but 'unreliability' might also be code for 'not meeting the Tier IV claims', for either or both manufacturers. Or at least doing so consistently. Even a change in how a fuel supply is delivered can be enough to throw compliance off. I'm at the point of conjecture, but there is a story behind this. I'd like to state that Cdn federal regs are more tightly regulated than the US, even for the same specs, but I'd be kidding myself. I'll dig more on that later.

Here's mention of the US aspect of this, and it might be complicating things in Canada trying to measure a spec the US is slacking on, let alone meeting it. (Note the date, and how prophetic this was)

Effects on the Industry if Tier IV is rolled back/repealed
Posted by carnej1 on Tuesday, November 15, 2016 11:44 AM
This is obviously speculation and I don't mean to start a political debate (or I would have posted this on the General Discussion forum).

It seems plausible (or inevitable) that a number of EPA regulations may change significantly with the change in administration....

Could the "Tiered" off road diesel emissions standards be effected?

And if so, what would occur in the U.S Class 1 locomotive market?

Both GE and Cat/Progress/EMD have invested a lot in developing Tier IV complaint locomotives. Could this turn out to be money and time wasted?

It seems to me that if there is a drop or end to orders for Tier IV locomotives in the near future it may signify that the railroads don't want to further gamble with the higher maintenance and other costs associated with the newer emissions control technology when regulatory changes may be just around the corner..

http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/741/t/259559.aspx

Understand that I'm not making factual claims on this, only pointing out that there's a debate raging, and the EPA has backed off on a number of carbon sensitive issues, and some manufacturers would be happy about that. It's not a stretch to think this would complicate 'exports' to nations like Canada where measuring compliance is not rigorous, but claims for that compliance are.

"Tweaking" for the MP54 may still be ongoing, and perhaps Metrolinx is being wise on this one, and unable to tell the public why. They have put a lot of weight on claiming (gist) "We know our older F59s can't meet Tier IV specs, but we're waiting to replace them with locos that meet Tier IV" and they know if caught short, they're in a bind.

But wait for it! "Those Hydrogen fuel cell trains we were trying? Didn't work, but we're going to be running our old Tier ll locos with it to produce much cleaner exhaust". I'm being facetious, but not by much.

Addendum: There is an upside to California getting the Charger, however. Besides apparently being a quality product, very well engineered, CA closely measures emission compliance, much to Trump's chagrin, and if Siemens states "We meet Tier IV", Sacramento will make sure they do.

As an aside to the above, and the question a few posts back about refurbing the MP40s, this is of interest:

[...]
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
Tough sledding in the loco market

I also spoke with Steven Beal, President of locomotive manufacturer, rebuilder and lessor NRE. Beal also participates on Day Three (Locomotive Day) at the annual Rail Equipment Finance Conference. Beal said NRE has seen more inquiries from the industrial market for medium horsepower four- and six-axle power in the past three to four months. Why? He suggested that more product is moving in 2017 than in 2016 in markets such as steel and petrochemical. Beal also notes that the number of locomotives in storage has declined by half Y-O-Y to roughly 2,500.

I asked Beal about the new locomotive market. He suggests there might not be any significant orders for new locomotives until 2020. There is a push into modernization of older units where, through some investment, a railroad can turn an older unit into a unit with modern, affordable technology for a fraction of the cost. This may take preference versus building new Tier IV units.

Beal noted that the pre-Tier IV era might have been a peak for the new locomotive order book. This might be the case until the Tier IV unit delivers comparable cost for hauling freight as pre-Tier IV units. It is difficult to rationalize a new unit’s price when modernization delivers modern technology and emissions compliance for one-third of the cost.

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/finance-leasing/tough-sledding-in-the-loco-market.html

This appears to not impact VIA directly, since they want "trainsets"...but it does further open the door for an investor/supplier to buy then rebuild VIA's present loco fleet (or a good part of it) and re-sell or lease complete trainsets and service back to VIA as an interim fix. Coaches could be capable and spec'd for 125+ mph running, and forward compatible for later HxR use. If/when such comes to pass, it would inevitably be electric loco powered.

Meantime, Metrolinx and VIA might have some deals to make with shuffled loco stock for sale and refurbing.

Disappointing? Very...but sometimes you have to settle with what you can get, not what you want.

Something's got to give, and soon.

 

[kEiThZ]

HFR track in a decade or more won't be much good if VIA has to cut services in the next five years because its rolling stock has rusted out.

HFR was supposed to happen in 5 years. If it's a 10 year project, VIA will be in a world of hurt.

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

Came across an interesting comment on railroad.net and thought I'd share it here:

VIA's CEO says 2025 is the absolute red line in the sand for the Corridor HEP2's and LRC's, and made apocalyptic warnings when he took the job that they'd have to be retired by that date whether replacements were ready or not. So there's already been about two years' worth of political whipping behind the scenes to get this show on the road. This announcement would be the prelude conference call to the hiring of an engineering firm to produce their final specs booklet, then the RFP. As with Brightline, VIA's just going to shadow the published Amtrak single-level specs with as little deviation as possible to play off the market scale that's being driven by competition for the AMTK orders. So the technical memorandum portion of the process isn't going to need the years and years that PRIAA took to publish their specs booklet; the firm VIA hires is basically just cross-referencing that with VIA's system and livery preferences to make any necessary addendums. That would suggest formal RFP going out by FY2017, contracts inked in FY2018-19, and then the usual 5-year gestation and debugging period for the fleet to go in-service. Depending on makeup of the next Congress and USDOT head, VIA's timetable might end up hitting pretty close to Amtrak's. No doubt that isn't a coincidence.



The only thing unusual here is the request that the locomotive and the coach manufacturers team up for a single-source agreement. That's downright weird since there's so little industry overlap in manufacturers of FRA-compliant power vs. manufacturers of FRA-compliant coaches. Siemens and Bombardier are pretty much it, and while Bombardier can certainly whip up a purely diesel product for the ALP4x lineup so far it hasn't done so and so far it hasn't tried to stretch its domestic locomotives beyond their commuter rail configuration into intercity. That clause is going to eliminate a lot of lower bidders who could potentially offer better bargains on just the railcars or just the locos. Siemens might be good, but it's not good business to thin the herd so much that Siemens is the only game in town and can name its price.

I suspect this is a politically-motivated trial balloon that may get dropped or amended if the potential bidders at the conference find that or the 30-year contract entanglement a deal-breaker. In fact, I would bet on this being the obligatory "Bombardier clause" somebody buried in the fine print for one of Canada's most heavily gov't subsidized corporations. BBD's Transpo division is one hot mess right now because of their Aerospace stumbles; because of their struggles they're no longer a mortal lock to win every single Canadian rolling stock purchase by default. So if the hometown bidder can't t or doesn't come out on top for either the loco or the coach order they'd be a logical choice for the 30-year service/support contract and the systems integration part of managing the coaches and locos from different suppliers. They do have a lot of ops and management contracts in North America, so that's one way to keep the gov't gravy train pouring into their coffers even if they aren't in particularly advantageous position on the rolling stock itself (due in no small part to them being non-favored for the Amtrak order).



Only other curiosity are sizes of the base order: 40 locos and 160 cars. They have 53 F40PH-2's and 21 P42DC's on the roster. Partial replacement only? Gennies + a third of the older/less emissions-efficient EMD's only? Unless that's going to be back-ended with a +40 option order, the base order size doesn't make a lot of sense.

On the coach side the HEP2's and LRC's being retired total only 130 units. The much better condition long-distance HEP1's are--per the CEO's emphatic statements--not being considered for retirement at all, and their numbers don't match up with that 30-car discrepancy. Quite possible they've made the internal decision to purge the Renaissance fleet, since they'll be hitting the 20-year service mark in 2022 and will be facing an up/down decision on midlife overhauls coinciding with the in-service deployment of these new Corridor cars. The number of regular-configuration coaches in the R fleet: 33, almost a match for this base order discrepancy. VIA's already scrapped the dozen-plus extra sleeper shells, canceling any plans to mint more in-service cars to pad the fleet. Half the completed sleepers are in-storage. The accessibility problems that could only be mostly...not totally...addressed due to their over-small loading gauge soured VIA on further long-term investments in them. Despite their relative youth compared to VIA's other rolling ruins it doesn't appear that they're being treated as if midlife overhaul will be money well-spent. Especially when VIA seems to be mirroring Amtrak's philosophy of standardization + scale! scale! scale! as the be-all/end-all for long-term fleet management going forward.

So it's possible they'll be taking the 160-car base order to give themselves an firm exit on using any Renaissance sets on the Corridor. And then we'll have to wait and see what the option orders on the final contract suggest for the rest. It won't be known how many extra cars above-and-beyond the 160 base they'll be ordering, as that number usually doesn't get ballparked until the RFP or finalized until the money round of contract bids. The options will tell us if the Renaissances simply get booted from the Corridor and have their service hours drawn down to secondary routes like the Maritimes trains and a protect fleet for the LD's, or if the options get stuffed with cars that can outright replace the lounge, diner, sleeper configurations. Suppose that depends on whether the bids for the base order are for all-modular livery designs in the Viewliner tradition...and how faithfully they choose to shadow the Amtrak/PRIAA specs.



BTW...that "dual mode" sentence is pretty misleading. All trailers are agnostic to where their HEP power comes from, exactly like an Amfleet never cared if all-electric Sprinters/Toasters/Hippos/E60's were pulling it, all-diesel Gennies/F40PH/Dash 8/F59PHI/GP38H-3/F69PHAC/Pooches/SDP40F's were pulling it, or dual-mode P32AC-DM/FL9's were pulling it so long as the HEP voltage was the same. All that mention means is that VIA wants the HEP feed and batteries to be able to handle on-fly power switches without the lights blinking (pretty much standard-issue for anything recently manufactured).

"Push-pull" caught my eye too. VIA doesn't currently roster any cab cars whatsoever, as they don't have any route configurations that demands it. Are they thinking of introducing some short-turn or spur routes that might need cabs? Changing ops practices on some routes? Replacing the remaining RDC's? Or just making sure they have a supply of cabs for a rainy day? Something's got to be driving the decision to lump that car type in there.

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=159257&p=1392205

Don't know how much of this is factual but it was a intriguing read.

 

[steveintoronto]

Don't know how much of this is factual but it was a intriguing read.

He makes some excellent observations! And that was a year and a half ago. Very prophetic. I would have disagreed with him as recently as six months ago, but seeing how VIA is facing crunch time with no Plan B, I agree on every point. Even though he doesn't indicate being Cdn, he has an innate sense of the Quebec and BBD balance act. He hit the nail on the head with BBD being given service contracts in lieu of rolling stock orders, except that was with Metrolinx, not VIA!

How incredibly timely to read that, as I just popped back here after doing a lot of reading on Charger. I wasn't aware that Metrolink (Los Angeles) had gone for the new EMD F125, a direct competitor to the Charger and the Wabtec locos (like GO Transit uses last two generations). Almost universally, pundits are praising the Midwest States org (led by Caltrans) for acquiring the Charger for the state sponsored Amtrak routes. (It's a lot more than just Midwest states in the org).

What is almost universal too is no-one can figure out how EMD won the order in LA for a loco that costs almost twice as much, and doesn't perform as well.

And a lot of discussion revolves around what I touched on prior: TierIV. EMD's Caterpillar prime mover was two years late trying to attain those specs, and like others, by using urea injection into a catalytic post combustion processor. I'm all for cleaner air, I'm a distance cyclist, it goes without saying, but I'm very concerned, as I am with cars (what could possibly go wrong?)(VW, cough, et al). Nuff on that, it will hit the press again big-time. The Charger also has to use it. Not sure on the Wabtec. The answer is to electrify the system, but alas...

And on that note, here's an excellent article for @dowlingm and others:
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php...k95-tier-4-engine-indr-is-first-customer.html

Note that Cummins are really aiming at the retrofit market with this. I think they may have it right. Those MP54s might end up being expensive orphans, albeit the first proto now in Toronto might continue to be an excellent test-bed for Bi-Mode come the time.

VIA probably has the answer on what's needed, knows it, and article linked above from yrt+viva predicted it 18 months ago: Sole source contract with Siemens, albeit buffered through a private leasing arrangement, for a backbone fleet for the Corridor, and Wabtec/Cummins type refits for the rest of the loco fleet. Coaches? That would remain a good question. Probably the Siemens ones, albeit at that point, if BBD can arrange a service contract, whoever can bid the best RFQ.

 

[reaperexpress]

I decided to update my summary of North American intercity rail, ranked by average speed.

The Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal VIA trains are the 3rd and 4th fastest lines in North America, surpassed only to the western half of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor (and ahead of the eastern half!).

Meanwhile, the London-Toronto service via Kitchener is dead last. It's really unfortunate for Sarnia branch customers that those trains take the north mainline between London and Toronto, rather than the south mainline which is 70 minutes faster.

Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nEPM_1KK_LuL-ANYS5BOuAQzRa32_sqHapgQsEQHa7A/edit?usp=sharing

Frequency is the total train trips for all services on the line between the pair of stations, including long-distance services.
Time is for the fastest trip in the direction indicated (generally from smaller city to larger city).
The list includes all Corridor services in Canada, and all state-funded or profitable lines in the US.
I tried to capture they key city pair(s) served by each service. For example, the Wolverine is measured from Chicago to Detroit even though the service actually continues past Detroit to Pontiac.
Some lines are included multiple times as they seem to serve multiple intercity trip segments. For example, the Amtrak Northeast Regional is included 5 times and I didn't even include the Springfield Shuttle which would be a 6th.
Amtrak Cascades between Seattle and Portland is not included because it is currently on diversion via the shoreline route due to the crash on the Point Defiance Bypass.

 

[Urban Sky]

I decided to update my summary of North American intercity rail, ranked by average speed.

All 3 sides of the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle rank in the top 5 fastest lines in North America, second only to the western half of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor (and ahead of the eastern half!).

Excellent work! This reminds me of the table I have posted here previously, which did show that the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle even beats some HSR services in Europe and elsewhere:

Just one small correction: Ottawa - Montreal is 187 km (not: 225 km) and its average speed is thus the lowest in the triangle (unsurprisingly, since it's also the shortest)...

 

[reaperexpress]

Excellent work! This reminds me of the table I have posted here previously, which did show that the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle even beats some HSR services in Europe and elsewhere:

Just one small correction: Ottawa - Montreal is 187 km (not: 225 km) and its average speed is thus the lowest in the triangle (unsurprisingly, since it's also the shortest)...

Thanks, I've corrected the table now. I'm not sure how I was so far off.

 

[steveintoronto]

Incredibly sobering on the debate of "VIA's worth". The inverse of the 'triangle' results is to wonder 'what could they be with dedicated track?' Or the very least, fleet renewal?

From Reaper's chart, comparing closer to 'like for like', rank 2 and 3 are remarkably close results for average speed, and yet the 'Corridor' equipment is considered markedly superior to what VIA runs, and yet the averages are so close.

This doesn't mean for a moment that VIA or Canadians can slack off the abject need for better and newer kit, it just means given better conditions, VIA could really outperform.

It's also notable to look at rank 1 v. rank 2. It's a bit unfair to make a blanket statement, but for the huge jump-up in loco and stock, and I'd certainly not be the first to note this, HSR v HxR shows minimal gain on exactly the same RoW...*even with the Regional making more stops*!

I can hardly believe how little difference there is unless Reaper has compensated the stops out of the end figures?

 

[crs1026]

One thing I have noticed in watching VIA's moving maps page is that it is harder than one might think to find a train reporting a speed at the very upper end of the speed limits.

The most reliable 150+ performane appears to be on the Brockville- Ottawa line, and on the Ottawa- Coteau line. One sees many trains that don't make it over about 145 on the Kingston Sub, which in theory is good for 160. The stretch around Cornwall seems to allow a little more speed.

There may be any number of explanations, but I would have expected otherwise. Certainly, on the NEC trains attempt to move right on the limit whenever possible. It may be inaccurate speedometers, underpowered trains, or crews may not push to the limit either in fear of getting caught over the limit. Or, because there are so many short segments with lower limits, it's simpler to just maintain a little slower speed and sacrifice a few seconds.

I did catch one train reporting a speed of 163, so I know the software will allow that, but I won't say when or where ;-)

Anyways, one wonders if VIA could squeeze a few more minutes out of its late train performance by using the track to the full permissible speed.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

One thing I have noticed in watching VIA's moving maps page is that it is harder than one might think to find a train reporting a speed at the very upper end of the speed limits.

The most reliable 150+ performane appears to be on the Brockville- Ottawa line, and on the Ottawa- Coteau line. One sees many trains that don't make it over about 145 on the Kingston Sub, which in theory is good for 160. The stretch around Cornwall seems to allow a little more speed.

There may be any number of explanations, but I would have expected otherwise. Certainly, on the NEC trains attempt to move right on the limit whenever possible. It may be inaccurate speedometers, underpowered trains, or crews may not push to the limit either in fear of getting caught over the limit. Or, because there are so many short segments with lower limits, it's simpler to just maintain a little slower speed and sacrifice a few seconds.

I did catch one train reporting a speed of 163, so I know the software will allow that, but I won't say when or where ;-)

Anyways, one wonders if VIA could squeeze a few more minutes out of its late train performance by using the track to the full permissible speed.

- Paul

Much of it is the equipment.

At this point, the only trains that are capable of achieving 100mph for a substantial part of their route - where allowed, of course - are trains powered by P42DCs with LRC coaches. And with the move to "fixed" top-and-tail trainsets, that reduces the number of trainsets that can actually achieve that speed.

F40PHs are allowed 95mph, HEP1 cars are allowed 90mph, and the HEP2 cars are allowed 100mph only where the Passenger zone speed is 100mph. There are not many places on any of the lines where that is the case.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[M636RF]

He makes some excellent observations! And that was a year and a half ago. Very prophetic. I would have disagreed with him as recently as six months ago, but seeing how VIA is facing crunch time with no Plan B, I agree on every point. Even though he doesn't indicate being Cdn, he has an innate sense of the Quebec and BBD balance act. He hit the nail on the head with BBD being given service contracts in lieu of rolling stock orders, except that was with Metrolinx, not VIA!

How incredibly timely to read that, as I just popped back here after doing a lot of reading on Charger. I wasn't aware that Metrolink (Los Angeles) had gone for the new EMD F125, a direct competitor to the Charger and the Wabtec locos (like GO Transit uses last two generations). Almost universally, pundits are praising the Midwest States org (led by Caltrans) for acquiring the Charger for the state sponsored Amtrak routes. (It's a lot more than just Midwest states in the org).

What is almost universal too is no-one can figure out how EMD won the order in LA for a loco that costs almost twice as much, and doesn't perform as well.

And a lot of discussion revolves around what I touched on prior: TierIV. EMD's Caterpillar prime mover was two years late trying to attain those specs, and like others, by using urea injection into a catalytic post combustion processor. I'm all for cleaner air, I'm a distance cyclist, it goes without saying, but I'm very concerned, as I am with cars (what could possibly go wrong?)(VW, cough, et al). Nuff on that, it will hit the press again big-time. The Charger also has to use it. Not sure on the Wabtec. The answer is to electrify the system, but alas...

And on that note, here's an excellent article for @dowlingm and others:
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php...k95-tier-4-engine-indr-is-first-customer.html

Note that Cummins are really aiming at the retrofit market with this. I think they may have it right. Those MP54s might end up being expensive orphans, albeit the first proto now in Toronto might continue to be an excellent test-bed for Bi-Mode come the time.

VIA probably has the answer on what's needed, knows it, and article linked above from yrt+viva predicted it 18 months ago: Sole source contract with Siemens, albeit buffered through a private leasing arrangement, for a backbone fleet for the Corridor, and Wabtec/Cummins type refits for the rest of the loco fleet. Coaches? That would remain a good question. Probably the Siemens ones, albeit at that point, if BBD can arrange a service contract, whoever can bid the best RFQ.

IIRC EMD's F125 may have been the only contender for the Metrolink order, so that's probably one of the reasons they chose it. Its more expensive than the Charger, but not twice as much. A major issue they are apparently having with the F125 relates to the SCR system, though other things have delayed its entry into service as well. For instance, there was a dispute with the FRA about the handrail placement, which took time to correct. It will be interesting to see how these units perform in the long run.

The Cat C175 SCR equipped engine used in the F125 was not delayed due to emissions reasons. Perhaps you're confusing it with the EMD 1010 that is intended for freight use. Its a medium speed engine based on the earlier EMD 265H block, and it uses a combination of EGR and Particulate Filtration instead of Urea. On the downside though, its a lot larger and heavier than high rpm engines like the QSK95, QSK60, and C175 (which all use Urea).

Also, aside from a Cummins powered MP40, Wabtec has also offered a six axle passenger unit powered by a Tier 4 GE GEVO engine (that uses only EGR), but no one has shown interest in it yet.

 

[steveintoronto]

The Cat C175 SCR equipped engine used in the F125 was not delayed due to emissions reasons.

There are various theories circulating, and evidently, no real answers. I was quoting a source like yours, but will keep digging to find a reputable one. It's an important point.

it uses a combination of EGR and Particulate Filtration instead of Urea.

Not according to references I read: (And the SCR you state is the acronym for Selective Catalytic Reduction)

In order to meet these standards, the locomotives are being equipped with a urea-based selective catalytic reduction.

Designed for operation at about 200km/h, the F125 Spirit is powered with a 20-cylinder four-stroke Caterpillar C-175-20 engine capable of generating an output of 3.5MW. [...]

http://www.railway-technology.com/n...st-emd-f125-spirit-diesel-locomotive-4791592/

Wabtec has also offered a six axle passenger unit powered by a Tier 4 GE GEVO engine (that uses only EGR), but no one has shown interest in it yet.

After the MPI HSP46, I can understand the trepidation. And six axles? I thought stability, traction and ride had all been optimized on four. Curious...are these recycled bogies?

I'll find more definitive stats/specs later and reference them. The point on the Chargers being considered reliable (the F125 failed completely first day tested by Metrolink at its unveiling, *ostensibly* due to a clogged particulate filter), affordable, of demonstrated quality and smoothly running is almost universal.

 

[crs1026]

F40PHs are allowed 95mph, HEP1 cars are allowed 90mph, and the HEP2 cars are allowed 100mph only where the Passenger zone speed is 100mph. There are not many places on any of the lines where that is the case.

One more reason why we need that new equipment order placed today, and not in 2025.

- Paul