Bordercollie
Senior Member
Well they could have designed it as two locomotives per trainset but they decided not to....
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
lenaitch
Senior Member
For the amount of power required for a fixed trainset, two prime movers seems a waste of money and weight.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
At least it won't leave you stranded. Or less likely to.
cplchanb
Senior Member
thats a winter design issue. not a prime mover.
crs1026
Superstar
Considering that the locos have both a warranty and are being maintained under a service contract, which undoubtedly contains some measure or specifications along the lines of kms between failures, doubling the investment in locomotives and doubling the maintenance requirement would be quite unwise.
If the locos aren't meeting spec, it's Siemens who have to fix that.
- Paul
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I'm not suggesting bringing those routes back as was, but more musing on the possibilities of keeping them. Pretty much all passenger rail in Canada rolls on host trackage.
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
Mulroney's cuts went too far, particularly in terms of reducing service in the Corridor - but it's time to stop mourning and especially stop dreaming about restoring anything. What's done - 35 years ago now - is done.
Plus, the cuts were accompanied by major investments - the HEP conversion and renewal of the transcontinental fleet, which enabled the last 35 years of the best transcontinental service ever - and additions to the corridor fleet (not that I'm thrilled with equipping the fleet with old and cast off coaches, but it did enable a lot of quality train miles over the past decades). It's unfortunate that there wasn't more investment in tracks - Niagara and Kitchener being two routes where this should have happened; possibly Edmonton-Calgary as well. There could have been a bit more corridor enhancement, and that would have given a favourable return. But all those one-train-a-day routes were not worth maintaining.
The only place where I would argue irreparable harm was done was losing the Washago-Orillia-Barrie segment. However, Barrie sure has a nice harbourfront these days - perhaps losing the tracks was a good thing.
- Paul
Plus, the cuts were accompanied by major investments - the HEP conversion and renewal of the transcontinental fleet, which enabled the last 35 years of the best transcontinental service ever - and additions to the corridor fleet (not that I'm thrilled with equipping the fleet with old and cast off coaches, but it did enable a lot of quality train miles over the past decades). It's unfortunate that there wasn't more investment in tracks - Niagara and Kitchener being two routes where this should have happened; possibly Edmonton-Calgary as well. There could have been a bit more corridor enhancement, and that would have given a favourable return. But all those one-train-a-day routes were not worth maintaining.
The only place where I would argue irreparable harm was done was losing the Washago-Orillia-Barrie segment. However, Barrie sure has a nice harbourfront these days - perhaps losing the tracks was a good thing.
- Paul
Last edited:
smallspy
Senior Member
A DMU is a locomotive, and is subject to all of the same regulatory requirements of one. Look up "FRA 92 day inspection".
Dan
micheal_can
Senior Member
Ignoring anywhere outside of Canada, we do not have many existing routes that need a single DMU. If the existing Siemens sets could handle the cold and snow,they would be the best answer instead of a modern RDC. The routes I am thinking of are this one, the Skeena in BC and the 2 Northern Quebec routes. When the Gaspe returns, it would also be a good candidate for it. So would the one on Vancouver Island if it ever returns. Only challenge would be is the need for a baggage car on them.
White Pine
Active Member
I think calgary-banff, and Vancouver Island would both be good for dmus. They'd arguably could work for other places if they were coupled, not sure how the gas mileage would be over longer distances though
cplchanb
Senior Member
when i read your second statement host and trackage seemed to blend into 1 word.... HOSTAGE... which is exactly what is happening with via.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Well, if you live in Churchill, MB and want to go south, but cannot afford a plane ticket, it's either VIA or Kamik.
robmausser
Senior Member
The reason is because of FRA crashworthiness requirements.
You have to overbuild the DMU's so much that it becomes just as heavy as a train with a prime mover and with engines tucked under the train that are hard to access, maintain and are often underpowered for the weight and structural stregth needed to survive a collision with a freight train.
You can get exceptions, but those are more for branch lines or lines not even connected to mainline freight, like the Ottawa Trillium line or the San Diego Sprinter, for example.
Via deals with almost exclusively freight shared tracks.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
No, in the US you don't need to meet the antiquated strength tests anymore. You can certify EU trains for US mainline use via Alternative Compliance with minor modifications like thicker windshields. That's how most of the Stadler FLIRT and Stadler KISS trains are certified. It's not like they're all on dedicated lines without freight trains and they definitely aren't built for the old FRA regulations.
In Canada, you do need to meet the US-style strength tests unless you get a waiver like OC Transpo did, because Transport Canada doesn't have a mechanism to accept EU certification like the US does.
Dono
New Member
Robmausser, the aussies have VLocity 160 diesel multiple units (DMUs) which look almost like the Via RDC. They are used in multiple situations, metro areas, and from city to city.
