VIA Rail

[smallspy]

gosh seriously, why is it so hard for the industry to come up with a 21st century railcar that can fit within the regs or can be easily waivered from it.... I cant believe we are trying
to scrape life out of a 50 year old dinosaur that is not fit for the current age. I can understand sentimental value and the need to preserve a few for historic runs but to rely on such
an antique piece of technology is really laughable and just makes us look 2nd world compared to even countries that we look down on as technologically/politically inferior.

Can bbr or some supplier come up with something new or can TC just update their regs to fit in with reality...

It's hard to come up with a modern railcar when the funds aren't there for it.

Although to be honest, in the past 30 years there have been quite a few railcars that could have conceivably been proper replacements for the RDC. The Radar/Colorado Railcar DMUs, Nippon Sharyo DMUs, the various M-class EMUs used in the New York area, Philadelphia's Silverliner Vs and their Denver cousins, even the MR95s in Montréal. The catch is that the vast, vast majority of the funding available has been for electrified vehicles, and not diesel-powered ones.

VIA now has funding for a fleet replacement program, and now we may see DMUs because of that.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

My sincere hope for fleet replacement in the corridor is a British style multiple unit... The class 180 is always in my head for some reason, but realistically something like the 800 is far more relevant. Somehow I suspect we'll actually see something appallingly similar to new build LRCs hauled by Chargers.

 

[steveintoronto]

Some review of how we arrived at the present comments:

And there are investors who still buy them for their own commuter rail plans, so what's your point? I invite you to talk to your local federal MP if you want VIA's RDCs to be replaced soon...

(RE: Using if not buttressing the present VIA RDC stock)

So long as you know a good wrecker who keeps parts in inventory, sure.

When you are paying people to custom fabricate those parts, because nobody stocks them any longer, or even has diagrams for them, not so much.

Then what do suggest as an alternative? I think there's some excellent ones. Perhaps twenty or so worldwide available, TC might think otherwise. Let's start with the O-Train Talents still up for sale IIRC, and still current in European fleets. TC was allowing them to run on federally regulated track with a waiver. Worth discussing? [...] So what's the option? See them sit idle in yards after refits, replace them, or whistle Dixie?

There are a bunch of RDCs in Vermont (previously Texas). If that venture doesn’t go anywhere, VIA might go shopping.

The other place Metrolinx DMUs could end up (assuming eventual replacement by EMUs) is Portland. They tried to take up one of SMART’s options but Nippon seemingly didn’t want to go for it (at that point they presumably thought they didn’t need DMU orders, given the mid west bilevel order which they later screwed up). It’s a shame that the design seems to have hit a dead end given the engineering work done both to create them and then fix the Cummins issues.

Actually it's just their *assembly plant*. The DMUs are actually manufactured in Japan, albeit even before the assembly line was dismantled in Illinois, the price had doubled from what ML originally paid)

Well, the first question would be - what’s the sturdiest of the 20 on your list? How far short of North American standards is it? How feasible would it be to strengthen it to the degree needed? What would that cost? How big an order would be necessary?

The might question would be - how big an order would be possible if several agencies cooperated on a bulk order?

The third question would be - what is the capital and operating cost differential between a three car DMU and three basic TC-approvable coaches plus a basic standard locomotive? I have never seen actual data.

I don’t have a magic bullet solution. I don’t object to continuing to use RDC’s on existing routes eg White River. What I find unrealistic is new ideas for new branch line services that presume that a bunch of RDC’s can be found in the weeds somewhere and brought to 2019 standards.

BTW I am currently across the pond, riding numerous brands of DMU’s that might well be on your list. I felt quite safe riding at up to 100 mph. It would be interesting to know if they are marginally below TC/FRA standards, versus so far below that they crumple like a pop can. Let’s find out....Take a couple to the test facility at Pueblo and wreck ‘em under controlled conditions.

We lack the data to know if TC is excessively cautious or not..... and equally unclear whether it matters, ie a conventional train might cost about the same.... but the prevalence of EMU’s elsewhere makes me agree that TC may be overcautious.

So we're kinda stuck with what we've got for now. Suggestions?

What I can add is that TC (or the Minister) can approve *on a case-by-case basis* submitted applications by operators for approval (certification?)(that might be a CTA jurisdiction) of specific models, and on that application, demands for modifications made. I'll try and find the legal text and post it...but we come back to the same question: "Who's at the throttle on this?"

CETA (Cdn Euro Trade Agreement) gives *100%* free movement *including recognizing EC and UIC certifications* to almost all aspects of railway equipment. And unfortunately, this is something blown away in the hurricane of NAFTA conundrums.

Someone has to corner Garneau on this...

 

[steveintoronto]

My sincere hope for fleet replacement in the corridor is a British style multiple unit... The class 180 is always in my head for some reason, but realistically something like the 800 is far more relevant.

VIA's RFQ had very restrictive conditions the Hitachi wouldn't meet, not least "FRA".

Somehow I suspect we'll actually see something appallingly similar to new build LRCs hauled by Chargers.

The coaches, if based on the ÖBB ones, are very comfortable and leading edge. The UK Class 800s have had some poor reviews. And the Challenger, being North Am tweaked, has a very good record so far.

But I fully agree with your gist: It's time to get modern. And that applies to Metrolinx too, even more so. The case for DMUs and EMUs (or DEMUs) is incredibly pressing. Well on the upside, they run absolutely silent, since they don't now exist, and are unlikely to at the rate QP will be moving on this.

The only hope is Private Initiative, greater than DBFOM. Ditto for HFR.

 

[steveintoronto]

Cross posted from the UPExpress string:

Also the explanation why the factory that made them closed their doors.

That was due to a massive fail on their Amtrak coach order:
Rochelle rail-car plant loses $352 million Amtrak contract to California

I highly recommend reading the entire story at the link above, but this just caught my attention:

The cars to be built are now single-level instead of double-decker. According to the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, single-level cars are safer and better able to protect passengers in the event of a crash.

There's a story alone in that....

Addendum: Tracing this story through, and references to "Brightline" appearing in some copy, and prior reference to Brightline coaches as per VIA Fleet Renewal:

November 09, 2017

Caltrans announced that the order for new passenger coaches for California and Midwest corridor trains will now be filled by Siemens. The joint order by Caltrans and Illinois Department of Transportation is for 137 cars, 88 of which are for the Midwest. The coaches are expected to be similar to the cars Siemens is delivering to Brightline. The press release touts "spacious, modern interiors that focus on passenger comfort and convenience, such as Wi-Fi, spacious seats with convenient power outlets, large windows with great views for all passengers, bike racks, overhead luggage storage, work tables, state-of-the-art restrooms with touchless controls and full ADA accessibility throughout the cars."

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.
[...]
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 means 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

That's equally applicable to RER and Metrolinx.

 

[cplchanb]

Cross posted from the UPExpress string:

That was due to a massive fail on their Amtrak coach order:
Rochelle rail-car plant loses $352 million Amtrak contract to California

I highly recommend reading the entire story at the link above, but this just caught my attention:

There's a story alone in that....

Addendum: Tracing this story through, and references to "Brightline" appearing in some copy, and prior reference to Brightline coaches as per VIA Fleet Renewal:

https://www.midwesthsr.org/new-midwest-trains-will-be-modern-single-level-siemens-design

That's equally applicable to RER and Metrolinx.

on a slightly OT context, was the NS head office in Japan responsible for the overall design of the double decker coaches? How did they bungle this so badly that they were fired from the job? The article said it had repetitively failed safety tests so who was to blame for that shortfall?

 

[steveintoronto]

was the NS head office in Japan responsible for the overall design of the double decker coaches?

IIRC, they inherited the design and production from their predecessor. The DMUs were a proven design from Japan, albeit 'North Americanized'.

Best I quote some reference:
(I choose this not for the historical reference as to whose factory it was they acquired, but for it being a Japanese source, and the reference to "Canadian railways")

NAGOYA--Nippon Sharyo Ltd., a rolling stock manufacturer, will exit the U.S. market after six years of failure, hardships and losses.

The subsidiary of Central Japan Railway Co. (JR Tokai) will close its only U.S. plant in Rochelle, Illinois, at the end of August, the Nagoya-based company said July 24.

The plant opened in July 2012 with initial plans to manufacture 198 double-decker passenger train cars and diesel engines for U.S. and Canadian railway operators.

It got off to a promising start. Nippon Sharyo received about 30 billion yen ($270 million) in orders in November that year from the U.S. states of California, Illinois, Michigan and Missouri to produce 130 double-decker passenger cars for high-speed rails.

But things started to unravel.

After the financial crisis triggered by the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, the U.S. government imposed a strict contractual “Buy America” requirement to stimulate the local economy. Under that rule, Nippon Sharyo had to build its trains entirely in the United States and use U.S.-made components and materials.

The company also found difficulties in getting locally hired employees to quickly become proficient in their jobs.

Its test trains for the high-speed service failed to meet standards for strength in summer 2015.

The following year, the company’s U.S. supplier of undercarriages went bankrupt, dealing a further blow to Nippon Sharyo’s financial situation.

In November 2017, Nippon Sharyo announced the withdrawal from its four-state project, and it would pay about 37 billion yen in settlement money to Sumitomo Corp., the intermediary of the orders. [...]

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201808080007.html

What is possible, albeit rendered practicably unnecessary, is that the Japanese plant ships 'kits' or fully assembled models to Canada to be 'Canadianized' as per the Rochelle examples now the development work has finished. How much that will cost above what Metrolinx paid per unit is an open question. The Rochelle assembly jigs may have been saved.

 

[cplchanb]

IIRC, they inherited the design and production from their predecessor. The DMUs were a proven design from Japan, albeit 'North Americanized'.

Best I quote some reference:
(I choose this not for the historical reference as to whose factory it was they acquired, but for it being a Japanese source, and the reference to "Canadian railways")

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201808080007.html

What is possible, albeit rendered practicably unnecessary, is that the Japanese plant ships 'kits' or fully assembled models to Canada to be 'Canadianized' as per the Rochelle examples now the development work has finished. How much that will cost above what Metrolinx paid per unit is an open question. The assembly jigs may have been saved.

so it would seem that the US sort of created their own problems with supplier bankruptcies and worker in-competencies. Shame really...

 

[steveintoronto]

so it would seem that the US sort of created their own problems with supplier bankruptcies and worker in-competencies. Shame really...

Real resonance there to what almost happened to Nafta, let alone WTO and "Made in America" rewarding incompetence instead of global excellence.

TTC and BBD is doing same with streetcars, but that's a whole other broken rail...

 

[smallspy]

on a slightly OT context, was the NS head office in Japan responsible for the overall design of the double decker coaches? How did they bungle this so badly that they were fired from the job? The article said it had repetitively failed safety tests so who was to blame for that shortfall?

The rules and guidelines that were required were extremely tight and well defined, and frankly, more than just a bit hopeful. The shell, with nothing fitted to it, needed to weigh within a very specific range of weights. And no matter what Nippon-Sharyo did, they were not able to make the shell light enough and yet still retain enough strength to meet the FRA's crush regulations.

Even though they managed to get just about everything else working properly and within the rules of the tender, they couldn't get the shell weight low enough. Apparently that was enough of a deal-breaker - supposedly even with found weight savings elsewhere - to force them to have the contract pulled from them.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Allandale25]

This month's edition of TRAINS has an article on VIA's 40th anniversary and a map of all the former, current, and the potential HFR VIA routes.

 

[littlewill1166]

I uploaded the trains article below, for copyright reasons please do not repost anywhere else.

 

[Northern Light]

I uploaded the trains article below, for copyright reasons please do not repost anywhere else.

Excellent post! Many thanks! Some good details in the article!

 

[SaugeenJunction]

I uploaded the trains article below, for copyright reasons please do not repost anywhere else.

Thanks for posting! I'll be sure to buy a paper copy too.

 

[Urban Sky]

Thanks for posting! I'll be sure to buy a paper copy too.

I'm sure we will have some paper copies of that issue lying around office very soon, but I just signed up for a 3 year subscription to keep myself up to date.

As for the article, I like how they don't forget to mention that it was VIA which came up with the Rocky Mountaineer as a high-end tourist product. What surprised me, though, was that they describe the 1981 cuts more drastically than the 1990 cuts. Looking at the passenger numbers in this figure says it all (note that the 1981 cuts took only effect on November 15th, i.e. seven-eighths of 1981 are pre-cut, while the 1990 cuts took effect January 15, i.e. almost the entire year is post-cut):

Source: Trains, November 2018, "VIA Rail Canada at 40" (p.30)
Subscription available here