kEiThZ
Superstar
Does anyone know how many seats VIA room in the corridor now? How does 9100 compare?
How does the possible HSR that the Ontario government is mulling over as well as a Union Station rail deck, Go electrification & RER, Smart Track and any other Rail possibilities play out with VIA. Would they be better off waiting to see how things play out or is the fleet that depleted that they can't wait anymore?
Except it has never been the projection that VIA themselves build the RoW for HFR! That has always been promoted as Private.Suppose VIA did get the green light on HFR. Suppose they did have a favourable BCA for electrification as part of that investment. Suppose MTO (who, not ML, are planning the Ontario HSR) come back and say, OK, we're ready to go, and our proposal clearly favours catenary.
...is that a Private Initiative petitions (if not bids) to build both using the same trainsets and tech, even if Ontario retains ownership of the land for the western leg from Union, and some of the approaches into Union. It would be a 'run-through' operation. Garneau's comments allude to a 'number' of 'competing plans'.However, Transport Minister Marc Garneau is only saying that a $21-billion high-speed line proposed by Ontario is an 'interesting project' that the government is 'examining alongside our municipal and provincial partners.'
The Trudeau government is offering little more than vague generalities on the future of a proposed $21-billion high-speed rail line for southern Ontario
Except it has never been the projection that VIA themselves build the RoW for HFR! That has always been promoted as Private.
Absolutely agreed on that. What's interesting is that the Feds won't even acknowledge Ont's HSR save for "vague generalities". It's a quagmire for the Ont Libs, and the Feds want no part of it.It cries for HFRco, whoever they will be, to take HSR off Ontario's hands, just to simplify. Maybe Ontario is secretly hoping for that.
The Taurus is purely electric, obviously it won't be presented for bidding. The highly likely one is the Charger, albeit possibly with an option to go bi-mode in the future with what will then be much less heavy and bulky requirements to do it. https://www.siemens.com/press/pool/...7-05-uitp/factsheet-siemens-charger-loc-e.pdfthe Taurus looks much better than the charger imo. The one they have on brightline looks like like the sun melted the nose into that droopy look.
Don't think anyone is making cab+baggage from scratch but unless VIA is getting out of baggage on the corridor completely I think it's worth looking at, especially given the number of grade crossings on VIA's network.
- Talgo Series 8 is a cab+HEP
- Siemens order for Caltrans is cab+passenger
The Taurus is purely electric, obviously it won't be presented for bidding. The highly likely one is the Charger, albeit possibly with an option to go bi-mode in the future with what will then be much less heavy and bulky requirements to do it. https://www.siemens.com/press/pool/...7-05-uitp/factsheet-siemens-charger-loc-e.pdf
With Trump's latest protectionist diatribe, it wouldn't surprise me if the Feds don't demand an 'offset' in lieu of having it assembled here (BBD is a glaring example of where that goes wrong) for Siemens to source supplies of equal value in Canada, at least the cost of steel, to neutralize the loss of Cdn suppliers to the US. The Charger is of course US built. Perhaps ordering them from Europe made to their US specs might be an appropriate slap in the face for US protectionists.
It's usually dangerous to play politics with supply, but with someone like Trump, it's appropriate to consider.
Very different arrangement of roles and interests compared to say Britain, where Network is one organization and operators are another. Not arguing for that model,
Ontario has really complicated the whole thing. I am enthusiastic about hydrail for the long term, I just wish it would go away long enough to get the wires up and get HFR, HSR, and RER in place.
It cries for HFRco, whoever they will be, to take HSR off Ontario's hands, just to simplify. Maybe Ontario is secretly hoping for that.
I think there's a number of options as per locos, the shortage would be in North Am manufacturers supplying complete trainsets.Well the problem for VIA is that there aren't many other options besides US built Chargers (at least currently). What you proposed would make a potential order more expensive for VIA.
Presumably the 21 P42DCs are in line for the EXIT door but it will be interesting to see what happens with the F40s - after all there is supposedly expansion in Nova Scotia happening too.It's interesting that VIA is proposing a ~5% capacity cut by going down to 9100 seats from around 9600 seats today. I wonder if this is because the spare ratio is lower. They are replacing 40 locomotives running in the corridor with 32 locomotives. That's a 25% drop in the number of locomotives. So even though they are cutting capacity, this represents more seats per train.
Paul was right to raise concern on numbers before. Can they sustain the current schedule with 25% fewer locomotives?
"Circuit board replacement" seems to be the greatest concern...and even to this tech, that's ironic. On a case by case basis with older electronics, even an adept bench tech can engineer his/her way around obsolete board functions, but for a fleet that must be re-certified on an individual basis, it must be a real challenge. And certainly not much fun to do it unless someone does re-engineer the design, gets batch certification for it, and produces kits. But that's very expensive, and will always have bugs in it that have to be ironed out....For anyone wondering about what life after VIA for P42s might be like (or why they might be chopped first), have a look at this thread: http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=166495
Yeaaahhh....big sigh.[...]A scarcity problem, not a problem-problem. Where today's locos are heavily firmware-based and old stuff is analog and/or very simplistic in the electrical cabinets all Gennies have mid-90's microprocessor circuits that aren't produced anymore and are hard to re-create today. Generic pitfall of them being first-gen computer brains. Simple attrition over 20 years has dwindled the parts supply, so the warehouse doesn't have much to work with. Affects both P40's and P42's (with P32's having their own custom boards). [...]
Where did that 9600 seat figure come from? Also, you seem to make certain assumptions about current operations, such as that there is always only one locomotive per train and that F40s and P42s can be used interchangeably (i.e. like one single locomotive fleet)...It's interesting that VIA is proposing a ~5% capacity cut by going down to 9100 seats from around 9600 seats today. I wonder if this is because the spare ratio is lower. They are replacing 40 locomotives running in the corridor with 32 locomotives. That's a 25% drop in the number of locomotives. So even though they are cutting capacity, this represents more seats per train.
Paul was right to raise concern on numbers before. Can they sustain the current schedule with 25% fewer locomotives?
https://www.railengineer.uk/2018/03/02/new-thinking-for-point-operation/[...]
From the beginning of railways, points have depended on movable sliding switch rails to control the direction that trains take at diverging or converging junctions. These require periodic lubrication, a method of moving the rails and a means of proving that they are in the exact position before signals are cleared for safe train movement. These three factors are potential sources of unreliability. So what if the movement of the rails can be accomplished differently? Would reliability be improved?
The development of the clamp lock back in the 1980s was a first step in trying to improve performance, but a completely new and novel design of point mechanism has since been progressed by Loughborough University in the UK. Known as ‘Repoint’, the concept was first hinted at in 2013 (issue 101, March 2013) with a fuller description in issue 131 (September 2015) which has led to a modified design known as ‘Repoint Light’ being launched in 2016. Sam Bemment from the university described the proposal at Aspect 2017
The Repoint Light system
Instead of sliding the rails across, why not lift them away from the sleeper base and lower them into a new position? This is the principle behind the new thinking.
In simplistic terms, three modified stretcher bars between the two stock rails (the outer rails) are fitted with two positioning slots (or more depending on the type of point) into which downward facing studs fitted to three actuator bearers that connect the two switch rails are lowered. The fit of the stud to the slot has to be exact, with strict tolerances, so as to achieve a prevention of movement that effectively locks the points into position.
When the point is reversed, motorised cams in the actuator bearers lift the two switch rails out of the slots, drive the rails across to the reverse position and lower them into different slots on the stretchers linking the stock rails. The power needed for this movement is calculated as less than sliding a conventional point.
Clearly the new position has to be proven with point detection mechanisms to ensure the switch rail is tight against the stock rail. Redundancy is achieved by having the three actuator bearers, and indeed there could be more of these used for high -peed points with an extended length.
Development and refinement since 2013 has reached the stage where an operational trial on a real railway can be planned. Following Aspect, Rail Engineer has learnt that the trial will take place on the Great Central heritage railway near to Loughborough, which has lower permitted speeds than the national rail network, at some time in 2018. Many eyes will be watching to see how Repoint performs in everyday service and weather.
Where did that 9600 seat figure come from? Also, you seem to make certain assumptions about current operations, such as that there is always only one locomotive per train and that F40s and P42s can be used interchangeably (i.e. like one single locomotive fleet)...