crs1026
Superstar
I can't add data, but I can add recent comments from VIA employees to the effect that the fleet is desperately short of operable equipment right now - to the point of trains being cancelled for lack of equipment.
- Paul
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
I can't add data, but I can add recent comments from VIA employees to the effect that the fleet is desperately short of operable equipment right now - to the point of trains being cancelled for lack of equipment.
- Paul
Bordercollie
Senior Member
Why is half the venture fleet sitting idle? Get Siemens to fix the issues.
Is there any HEP I cars available for the corridor?
Lease GO trains to fill the gap. It's not like the HEP cars without new seats are much more comfortable.
crs1026
Superstar
I'm not sure it's that simple. And, with an election coming, I'm sure that VIA is desperately trying to stay out of the spotlight. So a public admission there are problems - even by borrowing equipment - is not gonna happen.
VIA has two unfinished maintenance bases that aren't up and running to fix the equipment. That would say to me, even little problems may not be easily solved. Fixing fundamentally good equipment may not be as efficient as needed.
Are there warranty issues? Are there things in the design that are just not functional? We don't know. The one issue I have heard is that J-training Venture and non-Venture trains is unexpectedly dodgy.
And lastly, is VIA constraining itself by managing the Venture cycles to get around CN's crossing protection play?
It's a mess, but it may take a few things to happen to sort it all out.
- Paul
Bordercollie
Senior Member
I saw a venture set coupled to a P42 with LRC's heading east. Having the venture set infront could allow you to do LRC+ speeds up to Brockville with the LRC set in tow. You wouldn't need to have them MU'd.
Using HEP equipment west to Windsor is less of a problem since the only place to stretch their legs is on short sections of the Chatham sub since the Dundas sub is limited to 80mph.
Even though that's the case most trains are 15-20min late.
Cancellations will hit the news. Having a train to ride even if it's a GO train is better than having it cancelled.
You would need to have VIA crews qualified on GO equipment or quality GO crews to run on the Kingston sub. Would a VIA crew acting as pilots be sufficient?
Trackside_Treasure
Active Member
Not only the P42-LRC/Venture combo, but the planned 'doublavay' J-trains of two Ventures on 60/50 and 62/52 defeat the CN-imposed crossing speed reductions, except for Brockville-Montreal. The Ventures have been withdrawn from SW Ontario service. There is no way GO Transit equipment is coming to the Corridor. Here is the language from VIA about the current situation. Not clear what the real issues are: crew rest, schedules, equipment availability, speed reductions, all of the aforementioned?
From VIA's Director of Railway Transportation and Operating Practices, February 6, 2025:
IMPORTANT UPDATE: TRAIN CANCELLATIONS IN THE CORRIDOR OTTAWA-TORONTO ROUTE
As part of our ongoing efforts to ensure the long-term reliability and efficiency of VIA Rail's services, we are temporarily suspending several trains on the Ottawa-Toronto route due to operational challenges. These cancellations are necessary to ensure we have sufficient backup available as we transition from our Legacy fleet to the new Venture trains in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor. This allows us to maintain seamless travel and ensure the reliability of our service while some Legacy trains are retired or undergo necessary repairs.
These frequencies were selected based on lower passenger demand to minimize disruption. If passengers ask about these cancellations, reassure them that these cancellations are necessary to ensure availability of spare equipment as VIA Rail's legacy trains reach the end of their lifespan and new trains arrive.
robmausser
Senior Member
Is this an alternative to buying and adding shunting enhancers?
How many more axels are we talking about?
Compared to the cost of the shunting enhancers, how much would it cost for Siemens to retrofit the existing Ventures as longer trains with more cars?
What are the potential impacts and issues? (maybe some station platforms not long enough?)
But to me, if the cost is similar, you get the added benefit of longer trains with more capacity.
Even if it was double the cost of the enhancers, it would be a better deal in my opinion. The enhancers do nothing to add benefit other than, fixing the issue.
roger1818
Senior Member
Extra axels means:
- Higher maintenance costs,
- Higher fuel consumption, and
- likely would result in lower frequency of service.
My guess is that until shunt enhancers are available and approved, increasing axels is the only real alternative if CN won't budge on the restriction.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Just a back-of-the-envelope calculation:
- $989 million initial order size
- Inflated by: 20.84% in CPI rise since 2024
- Divided by: 7 (assuming that a locomotive is twice as expensive as a car)
I recall that CN set the minimum axle count at 32 axles, so you’d need to pay the above amount twice, but who guarantees you that CN won’t change their mind and suddenly “discover” that safe operations can only be guaranteed with 36 axles. Not to mention that receiving 32, 64 or even 96 new cars might be 5 years. As I’ve said before, the only realistic solutions for VIA are to buy shunt enhancers while fighting CN in court (to discourage it from playing similar games in the future)…
Extra train length also means increased travel times due to a lower horsepower-to-weight ratio, which constrains acceleration…
Last edited:
Bordercollie
Senior Member
I doubt that one extra car is going to make a difference in acceleration.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
My day job is literally to simulate train movements by collecting and entering all relevant data to calculate the travel speed, travel times and minimum headways with software which has a four-digits annual price tag per license. The differences are of course much more massive when comparing a 6-car GO train with a 12-car GO train pulled by the same locomotive and therefore just over half the horsepower-to-weight ratio (maybe something like 15 minutes travel time difference on a 100 km uphill trip like Toronto-Barrie) than they are for VIA, but unlike with multiple units, train length does have a non-negligible influence on what travel times can be reliably achieved and which ones can’t…
Bordercollie
Senior Member
But on a given day the same train can have different operating equipment (today). Is the schedule based on the slowest, fastest or something in between?
For example a 4 car LRC set going from Toronto to Ottawa would be faster than a 5 car HEP consist. Currently this can differ from day to day. How do they build the schedule with this in mind?
Would there not be enough padding in the schedule to absorb the loss in acceleration with the addition of one car in the consist?
smallspy
Senior Member
This is why the schedules are padded - they have to take into account the worst-case scenario for the equipment scheduled.
This is also why prior to the speed limits being instituted, the Siemens sets were frequently able to make up 20+ minute delays when running on LRC/HEP schedules. Even when they were only authorized for the lower speed limits.
Dan
crs1026
Superstar
Acceleration and timekeeping for longer trains is still a sidetrack to the business impacts of burning more fuel and managing more wear and tear on equipment, doing more periodic inspections on a larger fleet, etc. Some parts of their charges for use of track may even be calculated on a per axle basis, so adding cars raises what is charged.
Forcing VIA to run longer less frequent trains is a setback to a business model where ample choices of departure and arrival times is a key marketability factor. VIA's Ventures are configured as they are for a reason.
To derail the discussion further, acceleration is a manageable problem - the engineer opens the throttle to Run 8 and waits. Whatever happens, happens. The bigger operating impact is on braking, Longer trains behave differently as brakes are applied, and as they are released. It may not be noticeable to the passenger, but the engineer's calculations of when to stop and when to speed up do change with train length. A longer train passing thru a turnout must remain at turnout speed for longer before it can speed up again, costing it time. Adding a car changes the application, release and recharge time for the brake system. It's within a crew's normal working day, but they notice and must adjust for the variation in train length.
- Paul
Forcing VIA to run longer less frequent trains is a setback to a business model where ample choices of departure and arrival times is a key marketability factor. VIA's Ventures are configured as they are for a reason.
To derail the discussion further, acceleration is a manageable problem - the engineer opens the throttle to Run 8 and waits. Whatever happens, happens. The bigger operating impact is on braking, Longer trains behave differently as brakes are applied, and as they are released. It may not be noticeable to the passenger, but the engineer's calculations of when to stop and when to speed up do change with train length. A longer train passing thru a turnout must remain at turnout speed for longer before it can speed up again, costing it time. Adding a car changes the application, release and recharge time for the brake system. It's within a crew's normal working day, but they notice and must adjust for the variation in train length.
- Paul
Last edited:
micheal_can
Senior Member
If Via had ordered the 7 car sets instead of the 5 car sets,most of these discussions would not be happening, right, as they would have the proper number of axles? They planned for that extra fuel and acceleration/deceleration. And, if the QC-W Corridor is as busy as everyone thinks where ti warrants HxR, then those 7 cars would be full most of the time, right?
So, add the cars needed to meet the requirements, keep at CN in the courts and run an efficient system.
robmausser
Senior Member
Im not suggesting VIA run less frequent trains. Just run the same number of trains as they planned, but longer trains.
There will be empty seats, but so what? If the cost of the extra car is similar to a shunter, now you have bigger trains with the potential for more ridership. If they don't fill up, so be it, you're not worse off than if you had a smaller, fuller train, except for the slower performance and fuel losses, which, I can't imagine are huge for a single extra railcar.
The advantage versus a shunt enhancer is you have the potential to grow the network and ridership with bigger trains.