|
|
|
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
crs1026
Superstar
A technical question..... is the shunt resistance threshold for crossing gates different from the shunt resistance threshold that determines "occupancy" for CTC?
I'm not aware of any incidents where Venture trains disappeared altogether from RTC screens, if there were, one might have heard mention of these in the grapevine.
Granted, crossing protection is a more demanding scenario as even a few seconds disappearance might make the passage over a crossing unsafe....where a train disaapearing and then reappearing from the RTC console might simply trigger a nuisance alarm for the RTC.... I'm just wondering if the technology is identical or not. If similar, one would think CN would have data on any such disappearances also..... if in fact these disappearances do happen.
- Paul
I'm not aware of any incidents where Venture trains disappeared altogether from RTC screens, if there were, one might have heard mention of these in the grapevine.
Granted, crossing protection is a more demanding scenario as even a few seconds disappearance might make the passage over a crossing unsafe....where a train disaapearing and then reappearing from the RTC console might simply trigger a nuisance alarm for the RTC.... I'm just wondering if the technology is identical or not. If similar, one would think CN would have data on any such disappearances also..... if in fact these disappearances do happen.
- Paul
Last edited:
micheal_can
Senior Member
I am guessing CN will pay some fine that will be absorbed into their general revenue and just continue doing what they do. Would be nice if this signaled the beginning of changes in the industry, but I feel that is something of a fantasy. Business as usual will likely be what happens.
smallspy
Senior Member
My understanding is that the answer is "no" - shunt resistance is shunt resistance, and the circuits are all calibrated to measure the resistance versus the nominal shunt voltage that exists on the running rails, so long as that resistance meets the certain threshold for detection. And yes, it begs the question why CN has only chosen to issue these slowdowns at crossings equipped with predictive circuits, rather than anywhere else - unless there is something intrinsicly specific to the design of those circuits which causes them to be problematic in CN's eyes.
Trains do sometimes disappear from the RTC screens, but because those events happen in locations that are less critical (away from interlocking) it is generally seen as an irritant rather than a critical failure. This does happen with both passenger and freight trains, and is not just the result of a loss of shunt. Because of the density of shunting locations in an interlocking (something like 7 detection locations per switch, 14 per crossover) loss-of-shunt is never a concern at them.
Dan
Thinking about this some more: the predictive circuits at those crossings need to detect not just the fact that there is a train, but also the speed at which it is going in order to time the lights and gates accurately. Because of this, there are rules regarding trains being allowed to accelerate within these zones (and why there are rules at some crossings near stations that the crossing must be entered at a lower speed and thus occupied prior to accelerating). If CN is concerned that a train may not be able to have its speed accurately detected it may result in the crossing being down for longer than normal, as the circuit would then default to it's maximum time.
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
I missed your post. Thanks for that. It makes it even more unclear why this matter is also before the court.
I can't find the actual application on the Federal Court's page, but everything in the press indicates that VIA is seeking a judicial review of CN's action - that' it. It's not even clear if they are seeking injunctive relief (i.e. asking the court to order CN to remove the restriction). There is no indication that it is seeking compensation or have even filed a claim of loss. That type of claim would typically go to the Superior Court (Ontario). I'm not sure the Federal Court has jurisdiction to order compensation outside of court costs.
No court in the land has the authority to unilaterally order a corporation to relinquish control of its business so long as it isn't operating illegally. I'm not even sure Parliament could, certainly no without compensation. If Parliament really wanted CN to play nice in the sandbox, they have a number of tools already available to them.
Trackside_Treasure
Active Member
VIA's motion is here: http://tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com/2024/12/via-and-cn-in-federal-court-over-cn.html
Since then, they are asking for a stay in a separate motion.
There is no penalty or relief being asked for by VIA.
Transport Canada is also involved now.
Since then, they are asking for a stay in a separate motion.
There is no penalty or relief being asked for by VIA.
Transport Canada is also involved now.
micheal_can
Senior Member
I thought this would be federal as the laws are federal.
Sounds like they just want to show whether CN is acting correct under the law. I really wish they would have asked for compensation either in money or in how CN does business with them.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Because the Constitution says the administration of justice (law enforcement, courts, etc.) is a provincial responsibility. The Federal Court of Canada is a narrow exception with specific 'original' (i.e. not follow-up like an appeal) jurisdiction. Similar in that sense to the Tax Court or the military justice system.
Trackside_Treasure
Active Member
Expert Analysis of CN-imposed speed reductions on VIA Ventures found the following four key findings::
1. CN's implementation of Loss-Of-Shunt restrictions was reactionary and without proper root-cause analysis.
2. CN did not follow Risk Assessment nor Safety Management System rail-industry standards in its implementation. The risk was tolerable, risk severity was critical, but the failure rate was improbable.
3. CN's actions constituted a risk reallocation, shifting the risk to other parties disproportionately i.e. VIA head-end crews, causing cognitive overload. The Loss-Of-Shunt restrictions did not eliminate the risk, they merely shifted it.
4. CN did not prove that LOS issues were caused by VIA's Ventures. There is limited justification for the LOS restrictions. CN did attempt to, nor conclusively define the root cause.
CN has not presented any 'smoking gun' to justify its actions against VIA's operations.
1. CN's implementation of Loss-Of-Shunt restrictions was reactionary and without proper root-cause analysis.
2. CN did not follow Risk Assessment nor Safety Management System rail-industry standards in its implementation. The risk was tolerable, risk severity was critical, but the failure rate was improbable.
3. CN's actions constituted a risk reallocation, shifting the risk to other parties disproportionately i.e. VIA head-end crews, causing cognitive overload. The Loss-Of-Shunt restrictions did not eliminate the risk, they merely shifted it.
4. CN did not prove that LOS issues were caused by VIA's Ventures. There is limited justification for the LOS restrictions. CN did attempt to, nor conclusively define the root cause.
CN has not presented any 'smoking gun' to justify its actions against VIA's operations.
dowlingm
Senior Member
Are these the experts presented by VIA as mentioned in your blogpost? I think it important, notwithstanding the assumed professionalism of the experts, to note if they are retained by a party, since in many such disputes the respondents will have their own experts to put forward.
Trackside_Treasure
Active Member
Dowling m, yes they are. I doubt that the other party, CN, could find any rail-industry experts who would put their professional credibility behind CN's flimsy justification for the speed reductions. It is the "I just found out today" defence. The experts' analysis four key findings really speak for themselves and are indisputable. We shall see.
Natika33
Active Member
EnviroTO
Senior Member
The new train sets are being operated on the Sarnia-London-Kitchener route? I would have expected that to be the last route to convert in the corridor. The tracks from London to Kitchener... someone needs to start a gofundme or a bake sale 
Urban Sky
Senior Member
If there is a route where the 45 mph speed restrictions have the least impact on travel time, it would be this one. I‘m more surprided that they still operate legacy equipment on that route…The new train sets are being operated on the Sarnia-London-Kitchener route? I would have expected that to be the last route to convert in the corridor. The tracks from London to Kitchener... someone needs to start a gofundme or a bake sale
crs1026
Superstar
Train capacity requirements and trainset cycling is what determines where the Ventures are slotted. The KW route is not marketable, I agree - but the rails are 4 feet 8.5 inches apart, so it makes as much sense to use Venture there as anywhere else, given the need to cycle the equipment and the need to have an empty seat for each ticket sold.
- Paul
- Paul