News   Jun 24, 2024
 167     0 
News   Jun 21, 2024
 4.9K     6 
News   Jun 21, 2024
 1.9K     3 

VIA Rail

FINALLY.....

at least half of the job is underway..... but i really hate their whole "studying" excuse. imo its really just a stall tactic because they either dont have the funds or are hesitant.
Interesting to note that they are still evaluating a business case for electrification. it really should be a no brainer that in order to catcth up with the world it needs to happen.
I think were the only developed country whose national railway still uses dinosaur technology for propulsion.
 
I could see VIA going with these dual mode locos, no?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALP-45DP

" The diesel engines meet Tier 3 EPA emission standards, and work is being done to enable an upgrade to Tier 4 standards, which took effect on January 1, 2015."

They can go 125mph in electic mode, which is what they would hopefully use on the HFR corridor.

They can do 100mph on diesel, which is what the restriction is currently on the corridor.
The problem with 45DPs is that they are basically designed to the absolute maximum weight for the Amtrak NEC. That they carry a 25Hz transformer core doesn't help (heavier than 60Hz). The weight-on-rail does help if you are moving heavy AMT multilevels but almost every VIA trainset is far lighter than that. Running at 100mph on the Kingston sub would surely be significant in terms of track forces and therefore wear and tear and therefore cost for CN.

Now, a Siemens Charger-ACS hybrid for VIA could be trimmer (no 12kV or 25Hz to support) but presumably would have to support 1500V DC for REM compatibility.

Ultimately VIA will need a whole bunch of trainsets which will operate largely D mode for the foreseeable future. There is no cash to provision electrification infrastructure (or desire for it on CN's part) and given Metrolinx's flirting with hydrogen it makes no sense to buy dualmodes in the first phase - what *could* be done is to sign options with Siemens which then can be quietly cancelled if (when) VIA's credit runs out at Finance Canada.
 
The problem with 45DPs is that they are basically designed to the absolute maximum weight for the Amtrak NEC. That they carry a 25Hz transformer core doesn't help (heavier than 60Hz). The weight-on-rail does help if you are moving heavy AMT multilevels but almost every VIA trainset is far lighter than that. Running at 100mph on the Kingston sub would surely be significant in terms of track forces and therefore wear and tear and therefore cost for CN.

Now, a Siemens Charger-ACS hybrid for VIA could be trimmer (no 12kV or 25Hz to support) but presumably would have to support 1500V DC for REM compatibility.

Ultimately VIA will need a whole bunch of trainsets which will operate largely D mode for the foreseeable future. There is no cash to provision electrification infrastructure (or desire for it on CN's part) and given Metrolinx's flirting with hydrogen it makes no sense to buy dualmodes in the first phase - what *could* be done is to sign options with Siemens which then can be quietly cancelled if (when) VIA's credit runs out at Finance Canada.

I almost feel like buying just Diesels and then selling them for electric ones later would be a better investment than buying Dual mode that we Maybe will use in 10 years.

The costs are exponential for any specialized hardware like a dual mode loco, especially if we are making assumptions about what REM will run on, etc etc

Plus its never a great idea to buy hardware that will sit around unused for 10 years.

Even Metrolinx is realizing this with the UPX trains, which they plan to sell off and replace with EMUs rather than conversion.
 
I almost feel like buying just Diesels and then selling them for electric ones later would be a better investment than buying Dual mode that we Maybe will use in 10 years.

The costs are exponential for any specialized hardware like a dual mode loco, especially if we are making assumptions about what REM will run on, etc etc

Plus its never a great idea to buy hardware that will sit around unused for 10 years.

Even Metrolinx is realizing this with the UPX trains, which they plan to sell off and replace with EMUs rather than conversion.

That could be a good idea, as I don't see significant electrification happening any time soon. In fact, they could buy some diesels for use on corridor trains, and then later on convert them for other services.
 
The problem with 45DPs is that they are basically designed to the absolute maximum weight for the Amtrak NEC. That they carry a 25Hz transformer core doesn't help (heavier than 60Hz). The weight-on-rail does help if you are moving heavy AMT multilevels but almost every VIA trainset is far lighter than that. Running at 100mph on the Kingston sub would surely be significant in terms of track forces and therefore wear and tear and therefore cost for CN.

Now, a Siemens Charger-ACS hybrid for VIA could be trimmer (no 12kV or 25Hz to support) but presumably would have to support 1500V DC for REM compatibility.

Ultimately VIA will need a whole bunch of trainsets which will operate largely D mode for the foreseeable future. There is no cash to provision electrification infrastructure (or desire for it on CN's part) and given Metrolinx's flirting with hydrogen it makes no sense to buy dualmodes in the first phase - what *could* be done is to sign options with Siemens which then can be quietly cancelled if (when) VIA's credit runs out at Finance Canada.
A few other posters have touched on this too, it's an extremely important issue, and one that should be changing in nature soon if the engineering info I link is coming into play now. You have an inherent understanding of 'transformer' (xfrmr) weight (mass really) due to the core capacity of a given flux capacity of the steel used. This doesn't just double with the halving of line frequency, it *quadruples*. It's a geometric relationship.

Siemens claim a breakthrough in that regard, I've been delving on it recently, they're being really tight on details. But before discussing that further, regard these:

(dated, but it set the stage for what follows)
Transforming transformers for lightweight traction
http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...ng-transformers-for-lightweight-traction.html

Medium Frequency Transformer for Railway Traction: Soft Switching Converter with High Voltage Semi-Conductors
https://www.researchgate.net/public...g_Converter_with_High_Voltage_Semi-Conductors
Even more dated, this is a decade dated. I can assure you, this is standard practice in many fields of electronics. Your computer supply, for instance, is a "switched" supply.

Basically that is line current rectified, filtered, then *reconstituted* at a much higher frequency (we're talking hundreds of Hz) to allow a minuscule power transformer (traction transformer in rail jargon) to save massive amounts of weight, and throw in radical 'scaling' ability to adjust line voltage and thus 'regulation' over multiples of the supply voltage. That "geometric relationship" of core size to line frequency? It works the other way too. Double supply frequency, and the core size (cross-sectional area) decreases by a factor of 4.

Where do modern electric locos stand with this technology? Good question, LED and Compact Florescent bulbs use this, it's ubiquitous in modern equipment.

Here's the point as per VIA 'holding off' on the electric half of the bi-modal aspect:
More fuel-efficient, Tier 4 Diesel engines, with the option to operate on electrified rail infrastructure as it becomes available.
Very well worded!

A manufacturer can spec an existing loco model with "the option" to run it bi-modal *later* when the 'state of the art' electric propulsion aspect is determined.

Unless you're using catenary at present (and Mount Royal Tunnel DC doesn't require a traction xfrmr, merely a switching supply and reformation circuitry) why in hell would you want to drag around the dead weight that Dowling and others have pointed out?

Even a diesel at each end, with one dead (as Brightline are doing at present) is a liability as well as advantage for instant turn-around. In a long consist, where both locos are needed, there's no loss, in fact a good gain with distributed traction. But to drag around dead weight one end let alone *both ends* with present day xfrmrs? It's madness. Not to mention increasing the danger in accidents, and increasing the need for shop time for something that may not even be needed in a simpler, *more affordable* and *ready now* form. For the price of one BBD Bi-Modal, you can have two completely separate locos, and the option for one being electric, the other end being diesel.

Siemens *appear* to have an edge right now with transformer weight.

Here's reference, and note the units they're being used in, these are also being offered in a Hydrail proto to Metrolinx!
First use of new Siemens railway transformers in the Rhine valley network of DB Regio
Erlangen, 2017-Sep-11

  • First application starting 2020 in 24 DB-Regio Mireo trains
  • New transformer type Tractronic® Thinity lighter and more efficient than existing models
  • Rugged design allows flexible installation
Siemens will use the new transformer type Tractronic® Thinity for the first time in 24 articulated trains based on the Mireo train platform. The railway transformer is a key component since it feeds the train's power supply and thus guarantees interference-free rail traffic. Thanks to the new design, the transformer is considerably lighter and more efficient than existing models with the same rating. It also offers maximum flexibility for all installation situations with its intelligent construction. Starting 2020, the 24 Mireo trains will operate regional rail services (Regionalbahn RB) on the Offenburg – Freiburg – Basel/Neuchâtel (Switzerland) line, and on Sundays in the Kaiserstuhl from Freiburg to Endingen/Breisach. They will cut travel time for this route by 30 minutes. [...]
https://www.siemens.com/press/en/pr...ymanagement/pr2017090420emen.htm&content[]=EM

The Europeans always were ahead in toroidal like (if not true) toroidal xfrmrs, the design of which I've been involved in for audio work. Whether this is of that ilk or used in a 'switching' arrangement is a good question. Again, I've dug extensively on this, and they ain't saying nothing on this, and I don't blame them. I might yet find an engineering paper discussing this, but haven't so far.

If the Sprinter was offered as available with a later upgrade to include this (at a cost, of course), it would make life a lot easier for VIA, Caltrains, and others. They could commit to state of the art diesel today in a complete and tried and trued trainset, and upgrade it later when/if needed.

Btw: Prior mention of Pendolinos by myself was intended for HFR only. They don't come in diesel, and they're optimized for curvaceous track. I suspect HFR will end up being a separate operational entity apart from VIA as we know it, with rolling stock supplied by a private partner, but run by VIA as part of their operation.

And Governments like that. It's all the rage of late.

Btw, nice to be back. I was on a forced vacation from this site.
 
Last edited:
http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/fleet-renewal

I hope VIA can get options on the contract, if they want to buy more.

I will understand why governments do partial replacements. The non-Corridor fleet is old too. They could have a gotten some real competitive bids if they went for a full fleet renewal. Probably would have been able to pull it off for $2.4 billion and gotten most of it built in Canada, to create jobs.

And 32 trains really seems less for the Corridor. As does an average of ~284 passengers per train. That doesn't seem like capacity expansion to me.
 
Last edited:
I almost feel like buying just Diesels and then selling them for electric ones later would be a better investment than buying Dual mode that we Maybe will use in 10 years.

The costs are exponential for any specialized hardware like a dual mode loco, especially if we are making assumptions about what REM will run on, etc etc

Plus its never a great idea to buy hardware that will sit around unused for 10 years.

Even Metrolinx is realizing this with the UPX trains, which they plan to sell off and replace with EMUs rather than conversion.

Why would they even need any electrification at this point? Running in the Mount Royal Tunnel is out, as I understand it. So there's not necessity for dual mode locos. GO's potential electrification is being pushed off (or may never happen), and that would only be a short segment to benefit from. I wonder if the request for an option is to allow for rebuilds into electrics if HFR is confirmed at electric.
 
I hope VIA can get options on the contract, if they want to buy more.

I will understand why governments do partial replacements. The non-Corridor fleet is old too. They could have a gotten some real competitive bids if they went for a full fleet renewal. Probably would have been able to pull it off for $2.4 billion and gotten most of it built in Canada, to create jobs.

By who? Bombardier? It would be late and have overruning costs.
 
By who? Bombardier? It would be late and have overruning costs.

1) Bombardier does fine with some contracts. They've been delivery GO coaches for decades with little to no fuss.

2) The contract does not have to go to Bombardier to be built in Canada. See Alston assembling LRVs in Ottawa.
 
To those more knowledgeable on rolling stock... Does bidirectional imply MUs? Or simply that there has to be a cab at both ends? Or will we see trains with a locomotive at each end.
 
To those more knowledgeable on rolling stock... Does bidirectional imply MUs? Or simply that there has to be a cab at both ends? Or will we see trains with a locomotive at each end.
It could be like GO Transit setup using single level cars and short trains as a push pull system. You can find this setup in Europe for both single and DD coaches. Doing so removes the need to switch locomotives at each end as well turn them. Lot cheaper than having 2 locomotives on a train.
 
To those more knowledgeable on rolling stock... Does bidirectional imply MUs? Or simply that there has to be a cab at both ends? Or will we see trains with a locomotive at each end.
I suspect it means a 50:50 forward / reverse seating split in this particular context because push pull is also specified and push pull bidirectional is redundant phrasing otherwise
 
It could be like GO Transit setup using single level cars and short trains as a push pull system. You can find this setup in Europe for both single and DD coaches. Doing so removes the need to switch locomotives at each end as well turn them. Lot cheaper than having 2 locomotives on a train.
GO, of course, use 'cab cars'.
Some commuter rail agencies in the United States routinely use cab cars in place of regular passenger coaches on trains. However, with commuter agencies such as Metra, these cars make the train less aerodynamic. The Chicago and North Western Railway had 42 control cabs built by Pullman-Standard in 1960, which eliminated the need for its trains or locomotives to be turned around.[2] It was an outgrowth of multiple-unit operation that was already common on diesel locomotives of the time. The Réseau de transport métropolitain in Canada uses control cars on all its trains, except its electric multiple units, which run as double- ended semipermanently coupled three-car rakes.

During the mid-1990s, as push-pull operations became more common in the United States, cab-cars came under criticism [3] for providing less protection to engine crews during level crossing accidents. This has been addressed by providing additional reinforcing in cab cars. This criticism became stronger after the 2005 Glendale train crash, in which a Metrolink train collided with a Jeep Grand Cherokee at a level crossing in California. The train was traveling with its cab car in the front, and the train jackknifed.[4] Eleven people were killed in the accident, and about 180 were injured.

In early 2015, another collision occurred in Oxnard, California, involving one of Metrolink's improved "Rotem" cab cars at the front of the train hitting a truck at a crossing. The truck driver left his vehicle before the impact, but the collision resulted in multiple car derailments, jacknifing, injuries, and the death of the engineer.

Converted locomotives[edit]

Amtrak NPCU No. 90368 on the rear of a Hiawatha Service in 2010
From the 1970s until 1999, the Long Island Rail Road used a number of older locomotives converted to "power packs". The original prime movers were replaced with 600 horsepower (450 kW) engines/generators solely for supplying HEP with the engineer's control stand left intact. Locomotives converted included Alco FA-1s and FA-2s, EMD F7s and one F9. Ontario's GO Transit had a similar program for EMD FP7s. MARC had a former F unit, #7100, also converted into a cab car.

Amtrak developed their Non-powered Control Unit (NPCU) by removing the prime mover, main alternator, and traction motors from surplus F40 locomotives. The control stand was left in place, as were equipment allowing horn, bell and headlightoperation. A floor and roll-up side-doors were then installed to allow for baggage service, leading to the nickname "cab-baggage cars" or "cabbages". The F40s rebuilt into NPCUs are identified by their former three-digit road number with the number 90 added, e.g., former locomotive #250 is now NPCU #90250."[5][unreliable source?]

30px-Commons-logo.svg.png
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Cab cars of the United States.
Six NPCUs rebuilt for Cascades service in the Pacific Northwest (#90250-90253, #90230 and #90340) do not have the roll-up side doors, because the Talgo sets on which they operate have a baggage car as part of the trainset. Instead, they have a concrete weight for FRA safety reasons. Four NPCUs are used on the Amtrak Downeaster and are painted with the Downeaster logo on the side instead of the Amtrak logo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_car#Converted_locomotives

It will be interesting to see if any tendered bids involve the use of cab-cars. Some bids might offer both single loco/cab-car plus longer consists with loco each end for maximum flexibility for splitting trains and cost/running efficiency.

As for coaches, and the platform height aspect:
[...]
There are a number of technical and operational details about the Brightline cars that may change for this new order. The Brightline cars are designed to meet a high-level platform, but the Midwest and California cars will need stairs and an accessible lift to serve low platforms.

Now it's time for Congress to fund replacements for the Superliners that Amtrak uses for long-distance trains.

At a Rail Passengers Association event in Chicago last week, new Amtrak President and CEO Richard Anderson made it clear that new rolling stock is a priority for the railroad. He said three times that the Superliners need to be completely rebuilt or replaced entirely.

Two-level cars have a number of serious disadvantages. Passengers must navigate a cramped staircase when boarding or leaving the train, which makes station stops longer. People with limited mobility are confined to seats or rooms on the lower level and are unable to move around the train, because the passages between cars are on the upper level.

Modern, single-level coaches are safer, protecting passengers better in a crash. They are strong yet light, allowing them to accelerate quickly and ride more smoothly on rough track. They operate as unified trainsets, which allows better management of forces in case of a collision or derailment. The sealed passageway between cars eliminates the hazardous vestibule, which is slippery during rain and snow. Locomotives or driving cabs on both ends allows a train to simply head back the way it came when it reaches its destination, instead of requiring a slow and expensive turn-around move in a yard. [...]
https://www.midwesthsr.org/new-midwest-trains-will-be-modern-single-level-siemens-design
 
Last edited:
My fear is that history will repeat itself....the LRC fleet was originally conceived as a push-pull fleet in a 1-5-1 configuration. After delivery, VIA quickly removed the trailing units because the rest of their loco fleet was worn out and the LRC engines were better used to replace other older locos on conventional trains. At Corridor speeds, the added horsepower wasnt needed anyways. And then they deployed the coaches in variable consist lengths to maximise their utilization. That has brought them back to a loose-car fleet.

I like Amtrak’s solution ie the non-powered ‘cabbage’ car - a depowered locomotive at the tail end of the train. Preferable to a cab car in terms of crash protection for the crew, and preferable for customers because the whistle - which will be blown frequently on our non grade separated lines - is not right over the passenger compartment. And giving better fleet utilisation and flexibility because cab cars can’t be used mid-train. And cheaper in that fewer locos are needed as opposed to dual ended powered consists.

If this were somewhere other than Canada, I would argue for fixed consist with a loco at each end, but since this is a minimalist bare bones fleet strategy anyways, I would argue that VIA should have as few constraints on utilisation as possible. That means the loose car option has to remain, and one big loco on the fromt may be preferable to two smaller locos on each end. Perhaps dual ended locos have their place here - they dont need to be turned, and are still relied on in lots of other places.

- Paul
 
Last edited:

Back
Top