News   Nov 22, 2024
 725     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 1.3K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 3.3K     8 

VIA Rail

The waiver for the Talents (and LINTs, and I'm assuming the FLIRTs) required the installation of the Indusi train protection system along the Trillium Line.

There is some footage of one of the Bombardier Talents sitting at the platform of Fallowfield Station as a demonstration. I wonder what it took to get it there?
 
The “alternate FRA” trains are equally invalid, since we don’t have PTC.

This is something I've wondered about. Are trains that meet Alternate FRA requirements allowed to be used along with normal trains as long as there is PTC?
The only example of this type of operation I can think of off the top of my head is TEXRail but I haven't found any info on whether they'd be sharing their tracks or not (with or without temporal separation).
 
There is some footage of one of the Bombardier Talents sitting at the platform of Fallowfield Station as a demonstration. I wonder what it took to get it there?
My best guess would be waiting for a gap in VIA's schedule either during the day (if a gap of at least 1 hour exists) or during the night, during which non-FRA-compliant vehicles can operate temporally separated from FRA-compliant vehicles. Since there is a siding in Fallowfield, the non-FRA-compliant train can be stored on one track, while normal FRA-compliant operations proceed on the other. My other guess would be an exceptional permission, which would presumably be conditional on not transporting any passengers...
 
When not if.

AllEarth Rail Vermont is a joke. There hasn't been any real news on it since 2017. It for sure won't get off the ground, but I hope it dies a quick death so VIA can snatch up those DMUs. AllEarth got 12 of them for $4 million, and they were in pretty good shape. For a price that low, I'd hope that VIA would jump at the opportunity.
 
The waiver for the Talents (and LINTs, and I'm assuming the FLIRTs) required the installation of the Indusi train protection system along the Trillium Line.
I've been Googling for anything on this, come up empty each time, but "Indusi" is the first break to get a hit. I've yet to read this, and this probably isn't a retrospect on O-Train, (something valuable in itself) but ostensibly forward looking: (76 page report)
Train Control Working Group Final Report Presented to: The AdvisoryCouncil on Railway Safety September 2016
[...]
Trip Optimizer and LEADER are technologies developed for use on locomotives to optimize throttle manipulation and braking to achieve maximum fuel economy. These systems use on-board displays and downloads of track infrastructure and speed restrictions and therefore provide some of the basic functionality that could be developed for basic ETC applications.

The INDUSI system: uses magnets (transducers) mounted on the track to communicate signal aspect to trains. It is currently in use on the O-Train in Ottawa, Ontario.

PDD, or Proximity Detection Device, is a device that provides warning of other trains and work crews in the vicinity. PDD is used by the QNS&L railway in Quebec.

[...]
INDUSI The Indusi system uses magnets (transducers) mounted on the track to communicate signal aspect to trains. It is currently in use on the O-Train in Ottawa. 68 In the event that all signals are clear, the Indusi magnets are disabled and no action is required by the train crew. When a home signal is at stop, the Indusi magnet at the approach signal will be enabled and will need to be acknowledged by the train crew to prevent brake application. A second magnet at a short distance from the home signal will also be enabled, by which time, the train crew will need to have reduced the train speed. If this has not been done the system will stop the train. Finally, a third magnet at the home signal will also be enabled; if the train reaches this magnet, the train will be placed in emergency. The Indusi system is not fail-safe, and thus with its current architecture is not considered a candidate for a full PTC option.
https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/railsafety/train-control-working-group-final-report.pdf

This is something I've wondered about. Are trains that meet Alternate FRA requirements allowed to be used along with normal trains as long as there is PTC?
Looking further into that, but this might suffice, and approval was finally granted after this publication, and an extension being planned:
By MARK PRADO | mprado@marinij.com | Marin Independent Journal
PUBLISHED: August 12, 2017 at 8:08 pm | UPDATED: July 19, 2018 at 11:40 am
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.

SMART TRAIN > MORE COVERAGE

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.

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.

“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. [...]
https://www.marinij.com/2017/08/12/...t-feds-ok-on-safety-system-to-launch-service/

My best guess would be waiting for a gap in VIA's schedule either during the day (if a gap of at least 1 hour exists) or during the night, during which non-FRA-compliant vehicles can operate temporally separated from FRA-compliant vehicles.
What is the definition of "temporally separated" for regulatory purposes? One presumes after the day's passenger operations are finished, but perhaps not...

Addendum: Can't find any Google hits "temporal separation Transport Canada" but lots of US ones:
[...]Public transit operators have indicated a desire to use the newer types of non-compliant rail vehicles, primarily light rail vehicles, and while regulations have been established for enforced separation of trains and for standards for crashworthiness on the general railway system, commingling of crashworthy compliant and non-compliant vehicles in each shared corridor has thus far been handled on an individual basis. This usually temporally separates the classes, generally a light rail passenger vehicle and a heavier freight vehicle. Typically, passenger services run during the day and freight at night, providing for safe operation, but limiting the services of each. [...]
Rail Transit Shared Use and Control Systems Study
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/FTA0062_Research_Report_Summary.pdf

[...]
• Temporal Separation: Operating conventional freight/commuter and transit rail equipment at distinct periods of the day and establishing procedures to ensure strict observation of the defined operating windows.
[...]
https://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previo...rdente-FRAFTA-Joint-Policy-And-Shared-Use.pdf

"Distinct periods of the day"...if TC follow FRA guidelines, that's a lot more flexible than I had thought.

@Urban Sky : Is your "one hour" used as an estimate, or is that an accepted minimal time buffer?
 
Last edited:
AllEarth got 12 of them for $4 million, and they were in pretty good shape. For a price that low, I'd hope that VIA would jump at the opportunity.
In for a Penny, in for a Pound. If they can be picked up cheap, they may be worth it just for spares alone. Refurbishing them though would be out of the question save for turning some into trailer coaches. Ostensibly the VIA ones with new motors are considerably more powerful than the originals, and each powered pair might be able to pull a trailer sandwiched between on at least some routes.

VIA's page on their refurbishment:
[...]
ABOUT THE PROJECT: Rebuilding VIA’s RDCs will cost about $2 million per car and the first will be delivered within one year. There is currently no suitable North American self-propelled diesel rail car design that VIA could purchase “off the shelf” from any manufacturer. Developing such a car would take four years or more, require extensive testing and debugging, and cost $5 million or more per car.

Furthermore, like the Budd stainless steel, locomotive-hauled rolling stock that VIA employs on its transcontinental Canadian and other long-haul trains, the Budd RDCs have proved more durable than even their creators suspected. The earliest cars are now more than 50 years old, have reliably provided millions of kilometres of service and show no sign of wearing out structurally. The sturdy carshells remain corrosion-free after more than half-a-century of rugged use and many other subsystems are equally sound. This rebuilding program will prepare them for up to 20 additional years of safe and productive service. The RDCs will be completely disassembled and stripped of all reusable and recyclable components. Rather than being wastefully scrapped, the trucks, wheelsets, couplers, drawbars and seating will be completely reconditioned. Work on the trucks and wheelsets is being undertaken in-house at VIA’s Montreal Maintenance Centre. Among the new and advanced systems being incorporated into VIA’s RDCs by IRSI are:

New interiors and fully-rebuilt seating incorporating new armrests that improve accessibility for passengers with special mobility needs; New, fully-accessible washrooms and Microphor full-retention toilets

New LED interior lighting;

New cabs at one end of each RDC with new operator controls;

New electrical wiring, heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems;

Fully-rebuilt Cummins N14E-R diesel engines that meet Euro II emission standards;

New Stradco 150 kW auxiliary power units on each car to provide an increased electrical supply for all on-board systems; and

Fully-rebuilt air brakes.

The first of the six rebuilt cars – RDC-4 #9251 – will be delivered by IRSI in April 2011 and the last car will be completed by the end of the year. As each car is completed, it will be assigned to one of the two VIA RDC services to replace an un-rebuilt car currently in service, thus assuring no service disruption or diminishment of capacity during the program. When completed, VIA’s active RDC fleet will consist of: 6208 RDC-2 6105 RDC-1 6217 RDC-2 6219 RDC-2 6250 RDC-4 9251 RDC-4.
[...]
https://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/BK 20100329 ENG - RDC Rebuild Backgrounder.pdf

On the engine:
Cummins N14 Specs, History and Problems

June 16, 2017 By Capital135

Cummins N14 Engine History
The Cummins N-14 is a great engine; quite possibly the best Cummins engine ever produced. These engines are the stuff dreams are made of if you’re an old school guy looking for reliability. No doubt, the N14 is part of “1,000,000 mile club”. The engine features the best of engineering fundamentals mixed with one of the first electronic control system. First designed in the late 1980s it was sent into full production in 1991. The N14 engine is the follow up to the vastly popular Cummins 855 Big Cam which was produced 1976-1985. Cummins listened to it customers and designed a more powerful version of the 855 while maintaining a similar profile and bore/stroke architecture. Overall, the biggest structural difference between the 855 and N14 is the air-to-air cooling system changes but both engines are very similar.

The N-14 was produced until 2001 and saw many changes over its 10+ year run for Cummins. The most radical change over the 855 was the incorporation of the electronic control module (ECM). Detroit Diesel rolled out the first commercial electronic diesel engine in 1987 with its ground breaking Series 60 Engine and Cummins followed suit. With the advent of the first EPA Tier emissions regulations in 1994 the future of diesel engines was going to be electronic diagnostics. The N14 Celect was the first Cummins engine to feature an electronic injection system. The Celect fuel system produces systematic pressure throughout each injection cycle unlike the common rail fuel system of the 855, or older M11 or L10 models. Albeit the injectors are still cam actuated the ECM controls the metered flow of fuel to the injectors. In 1997 Cummins introduced the N14 Celect Plus which further fine-tuned the ECM to control many more custom parameters of the fuel system.
[...]
http://capitalremanexchange.com/cummins-n14-specs-history-problems/

This model still in production and fully supported:
https://www.cummins.com/sites/defau...45_0918-cummins-engines-for-rail-brochure.pdf

Edit to Add: This replacement engine used above, is considerably more powerful than the originals (twice from what I can discern, albeit the all important torque specs I haven't been able to find yet, the xmssn is a fluid coupled clutch (automatic) but still higher torque goes a long way to getting the best acceleration performance.
 
Last edited:
AllEarth Rail Vermont is a joke. There hasn't been any real news on it since 2017. It for sure won't get off the ground, but I hope it dies a quick death so VIA can snatch up those DMUs. AllEarth got 12 of them for $4 million, and they were in pretty good shape. For a price that low, I'd hope that VIA would jump at the opportunity.

In February, Via placed a bid for 12 RDCs – Rail Diesel Cars – that were offered for sale by Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART). These RDCs were built in the 1950s and were originally owned by Via. They were sold to DART in 1993 following the cuts to Via by the government of Brian Mulroney in 1990. Via placed a market-value offer but were outbid by a Vermont startup interested in developing regional rail services in and around Burlington.

Via intended to refurbish the RDCs for expanded regional services in Ontario and the Maritimes. [...]
https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/shron-via-rails-fleet-is-obsolete-cant-we-do-better
 
In for a Penny, in for a Pound. If they can be picked up cheap, they may be worth it just for spares alone. Refurbishing them though would be out of the question save for turning some into trailer coaches. Ostensibly the VIA ones with new motors are considerably more powerful than the originals, and each powered pair might be able to pull a trailer sandwiched between on at least some routes.

Why wouldnt VIA refurb these 12 as well? Still would be a good deal.
 
Opinion piece by someone caught up in consumserist culture. Give me something new!

These arent cars. They were designed to last 100 years, and be refurbished several times over. The newely refurbed stainless steel trains are excellent.

Locomotives are where you want new tech, but a rail car is simply a steel box on wheels.

This- there might be some argument made for weight and amenities, but if the service doesn't demand something gold-plated, durable and reliable are the name of the game.

Heck, even the US Air Force still operates 60 year+ Stratofortress airframes, and plan to do so until 2050.
 
These arent cars. They were designed to last 100 years, and be refurbished several times over. The newely refurbed stainless steel trains are excellent.

Refurbished several times, sure. But designed to last 100 years? No, not quite.

Most passenger railcars built since the Great Depression are designed for a lifespan of 25 years.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
This- there might be some argument made for weight and amenities, but if the service doesn't demand something gold-plated, durable and reliable are the name of the game.
Indeed, I doubt that anyone on the Churchill train would be willing to trade the reliability embodied by the HEPs for the modern touch of the Renaissance...

Heck, even the US Air Force still operates 60 year+ Stratofortress airframes, and plan to do so until 2050.
Key difference being that these “passengers” get paid rather than having to pay for their privilege of getting transported... ;)
 

Back
Top