[micheal_can]

Can someone explain to me what the entire point of this discussion is, besides: “wouldn’t it be great for us foamers if they would produce more trains on this side of the border?”

You can blame me for this. I did ask would it be possible to build what Via needs in Canada and it be a viable thing.

 

[Trackside_Treasure]

VIA now has 26 of the final 32 sets on the property. With recent cancellations, we seem to be seeing the Legacy fleet come to the rescue of the Venture fleet to provide serviceable consists for revenue service on a daily basis.

I produced the accompanying rudimentary graphic. The data I've been collecting on Venture sets in revenue Corridor service (SW Ontario to Quebec City inclusive) shows that only nine of the 23 sets in use as of yesterday, February 8, have been in continuous service. I've allowed up two-week intervals for which I've garnered no observations anywhere in the Corridor, allowing that two weeks perhaps for routine service, or just missed by trackside observers.

The following sets have had at least one three-week interval with no observations from November 18-February 8, with some not observed for six, seven or even ten weeks (denoted by RED cells):1,2,3,4,5,6,9,12,13,14,15,16,20,21.

Sets 1 and 3 were not operated at all during that period.

This is as close as I've been able to come to document the unavailability of Venture sets for revenue service throughout the Corridor, since the last Corridor rotation diagram I've seen. There have been changes. I welcome any confirmed observations to refute any of the out-of-service intervals!

 

[Bordercollie]

VIA now has 26 of the final 32 sets on the property. With recent cancellations, we seem to be seeing the Legacy fleet come to the rescue of the Venture fleet to provide serviceable consists for revenue service on a daily basis.

I produced the accompanying rudimentary graphic. The data I've been collecting on Venture sets in revenue Corridor service shows that only nine of the 23 sets in use as of yesterday, February 8, have been in continuous service. I've allowed up two-week intervals for which I've garnered no observations anywhere in the Corridor, allowing that two weeks perhaps for routine service, or just missed by trackside observers.

The following sets have had at least one three-week interval with no observations from November 18-February 8, with some not observed for six, seven or even ten weeks. 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,12,13,14,15,16,20,21.

Sets 1 and 3 were not operated at all during that period.

This is as close as I've been able to come to document the unavailability of Venture sets for revenue service throughout the Corridor, since the last Corridor rotation diagram I've seen. There have been changes.

That doesn't say much to the reliability of the new trains. Not to mention the speed restrictions.

 

[crs1026]

This is as close as I've been able to come to document the unavailability of Venture sets for revenue service throughout the Corridor, since the last Corridor rotation diagram I've seen. There have been changes. I welcome any confirmed observations to refute any of the out-of-service intervals!

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]

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

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]

Why is half the venture fleet sitting idle? Get Siemens to fix the issues.

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]

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

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]

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?

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]

March 22, 2024 - Ron Bartels, VIA Specialist Director, Engineering emails, "Jacques Luce from CN just called to tell me that they have noticed some potentially inconsistent shunting incidents with some VIA trains. He didn’t have all the details but wants to have a call with VIA next Monday afternoon at 3:00 PM. He mentioned Venture trains and also trains with P42 leading. He said we may need to increase our axle count, but at the moment they don’t have enough info to come to any conclusions."

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]

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.

Extra axels means:

• Higher maintenance costs,
• Higher fuel consumption, and
• likely would result in lower frequency of service.

I would rather have more frequent shorter trains than less frequent longer trains (within reason of course). I suspect that VIA has done the math and found that a 5 car trainset is the sweet spot, given the trade offs they are working with on the corridor (track availability, demand, fixed costs of running a train, etc).

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]

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.

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)

This suggests that ordering and adding an additional car to each trainset would cost an abolute minimum of $171 million, though I highly doubt that even $200 million would be enough.

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 axels means:

• Higher maintenance costs,
• Higher fuel consumption, and
• likely would result in lower frequency of service.

Extra train length also means increased travel times due to a lower horsepower-to-weight ratio, which constrains acceleration…

 

[Bordercollie]

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)

This suggests that ordering and adding an additional car to each trainset would cost an abolute minimum of $171 million, though I highly doubt that even $200 million would be enough.

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…

I doubt that one extra car is going to make a difference in acceleration.

 

[Urban Sky]

I doubt that one extra car is going to make a difference in acceleration.

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]

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…

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]

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?

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