[crs1026]

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

 

[micheal_can]

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.

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 the variation.

- Paul

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]

Forcing VIA to run longer less frequent trains

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.

 

[micheal_can]

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.

If there will be more empty seats, then why is HxR suggested?

 

[robmausser]

If there will be more empty seats, then why is HxR suggested?

People aren't taking VIA because of a lack of seats (usually, during holidays the trains are definitely sold out). They arent taking it because its slow and often delayed.

HxR solves that issue and therefore you have more ridership.

But I still stand by if you are going to spend money to solve this shunting issue, it might as well be spent on bigger trains.

 

[micheal_can]

People aren't taking VIA because of a lack of seats (usually, during holidays the trains are definitely sold out). They arent taking it because its slow and often delayed.

HxR solves that issue and therefore you have more ridership.

But I still stand by if you are going to spend money to solve this shunting issue, it might as well be spent on bigger trains.

I do agree the best solution is a longer train.

 

[Urban Sky]

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.

Did you even bother reading my napkin calculation that ordering two additional cars would cost some $400 million (and then increments of $200 million whenever CN arbitrarily increases the minimum axle load by 4)?

Compare that to the presumably less than $10 million it would cost to solve the issue once and for all:

Amtrak is retrofitting shunt enhancers to all of their locomotives and cab cars. Almost $59mil to purchase and fit them to 443 locos and 192 cab cars, which thankfully would mean that it would cost VIA far less than Urban Sky and I projected. (https://media.amtrak.com/2024/10/amtrak-awarded-126m-in-federal-grants/)

 

[Trackside_Treasure]

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

The Brockville-Ottawa portion of the 'doublavay' J-trains (60/50 and 62/52 in their first two weeks of operation) have shown they can not get any later and can actually make up time on that leg. Montreal-Ottawa portion of the 'doublavay' J-trains are also trending that much late east of Brockville. Meanwhile, increased Montreal-Toronto Ventures are arriving about an hour late.

I also think shunt-enhancers are the only way to go if CN can't be swayed. Speaking of that, guess what? As of yesterday, CN is seeking a sealing order in the draft form attached to protect all correspondence, documents, records or data or provided by CN or Transport Canada in response to Transport Canada's Ministerial Order MO 24-01 dated December 10, 2024.
VIA has to respond to the above motion by the end of today. Under Federal Courts Rule 151,
"Motion for order of confidentiality. 151 (1) On motion, the Court may order that material to be filed shall be treated as confidential. Demonstrated need for confidentiality (2) Before making an order under subsection (1), the Court must be satisfied that the material should be treated as confidential, notwithstanding the public interest in open and accessible court proceedings."

So one wonders...why is CN seeking this now, with this Judicial Review requested by VIA having dragged on since November 12 of last year and many affidavits submitted to the court? CN's evidence in the judicial review has been weak in this layman's eyes. For some reason, CN wants the technical data from all such speed-reduced crossings that it is required to provide under the Ministerial Order shielded from public view. For the sake of transparency, perhaps VIA can prevail.

For the very latest, check out: https://tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com/2024/12/via-and-cn-in-federal-court-over-cn.html

 

[Trackside_Treasure]

I do agree the best solution is a longer train.

VIA has resisted adding cars to Venture trains to increase the number of axles from 24 to 32. "Train cars are not easily interchangeable and adding legacy cars to Venture trains would be impractical from a compatibility standpoint. VIA did consider and assess this option, but determined that it was not feasible. Legacy equipment is being cycled out of service entirely by early 2026, because of previously determined engineering retirement dates. By this time, Venture trains will represent 100% of VIA’s equipment. Ordering new compatible Venture cars, in addition to coming at a very significant cost, could take approximately 12 to 24 months. Removing cars from some Venture trains and transferring them to other trains to increase their number of axles would reduce VIA's fleet size by about 50% until new cars could be ordered and installed. Following a thorough risk assessment, VIA also determined that coupling two trains together to increase axle numbers, would increase other safety risks and pose other operational challenges to such a degree that this is not a viable option either."

[note that the last sentence seems to no longer apply, with two trains a day (with one exception Sunday mornings) now coupled together from Toronto to Brockville!]

 

[cplchanb]

VIA has resisted adding cars to Venture trains to increase the number of axles from 24 to 32. "Train cars are not easily interchangeable and adding legacy cars to Venture trains would be impractical from a compatibility standpoint. VIA did consider and assess this option, but determined that it was not feasible. Legacy equipment is being cycled out of service entirely by early 2026, because of previously determined engineering retirement dates. By this time, Venture trains will represent 100% of VIA’s equipment. Ordering new compatible Venture cars, in addition to coming at a very significant cost, could take approximately 12 to 24 months. Removing cars from some Venture trains and transferring them to other trains to increase their number of axles would reduce VIA's fleet size by about 50% until new cars could be ordered and installed. Following a thorough risk assessment, VIA also determined that coupling two trains together to increase axle numbers, would increase other safety risks and pose other operational challenges to such a degree that this is not a viable option either."

[note that the last sentence seems to no longer apply, with two trains a day (with one exception Sunday mornings) now coupled together from Toronto to Brockville!]

So what about the 7 car LRC sets on the corridor currently running? how will they replace them with ventures? surely a 5 car set cant have 2 additional cars worth of capacity..... iirc in the original presentation documents they had short, medium and long trainsets planned. is that dead now?
makes the decision to no exercise the add on order options look stupid now for via in hindsight.

 

[micheal_can]

VIA has resisted adding cars to Venture trains to increase the number of axles from 24 to 32. "Train cars are not easily interchangeable and adding legacy cars to Venture trains would be impractical from a compatibility standpoint. VIA did consider and assess this option, but determined that it was not feasible. Legacy equipment is being cycled out of service entirely by early 2026, because of previously determined engineering retirement dates. By this time, Venture trains will represent 100% of VIA’s equipment. Ordering new compatible Venture cars, in addition to coming at a very significant cost, could take approximately 12 to 24 months. Removing cars from some Venture trains and transferring them to other trains to increase their number of axles would reduce VIA's fleet size by about 50% until new cars could be ordered and installed. Following a thorough risk assessment, VIA also determined that coupling two trains together to increase axle numbers, would increase other safety risks and pose other operational challenges to such a degree that this is not a viable option either."

[note that the last sentence seems to no longer apply, with two trains a day (with one exception Sunday mornings) now coupled together from Toronto to Brockville!]

My thinking was that they order a bunch to retrofit the existing trains and ensure all future delivered trains have the number they need. I know it is not as simple as that.

 

[Urban Sky]

So what about the 7 car LRC sets on the corridor currently running? how will they replace them with ventures? surely a 5 car set cant have 2 additional cars worth of capacity.....

There are two main strategies to compensate for demand exceeding the capacity for a given departure:

• Raising the fares to push passengers to other departures.
• Moving other departure times closer to the popular train to pull passengers to other departures.

iirc in the original presentation documents they had short, medium and long trainsets planned. is that dead now?

I assume it’s still possible, but you’d first need to procure additional cars before you can extend any trainsets.

makes the decision to no exercise the add on order options look stupid now for via in hindsight.

If you were VIA, would you push for the essential (long-haul fleet renewal) or the desirable (additional Corridor trainsets)? What do you think are the chances of the federal government funding three separate major fleet procurements within a single decade?

 

[crs1026]

So what about the 7 car LRC sets on the corridor currently running? how will they replace them with ventures? surely a 5 car set cant have 2 additional cars worth of capacity..... iirc in the original presentation documents they had short, medium and long trainsets planned. is that dead now?
makes the decision to no exercise the add on order options look stupid now for via in hindsight.

Presumably tickets will be priced to manage demand and when the 5-car train is full, people will choose another train, possibly with a lower fare that works the whole thing out so everyone is happy with the options.

Who knows whether down the road we will see some longer consists created - certainly that was hinted at way back when the procurement happened. It's understandable that VIA would not make that decision ahead of the entire fleet being on hand and all the equipment cycling having been been validated.

It's also possible that after studying the equipment cycling, the five-car trains can fill more seats more often than if some trains were longer and some were not. I do see the 7-car consists going by at times with all lights out in one car.... just because the train is long in the cycle doesn't mean all seats are full throughout the cycle.

Air Canada buys a mixture of big and small planes. Just because they can sell out a 777 on some routes on some flights doesn't make it desirable to have an all-777 fleet.... and I'm sure they have cases where they would love to deploy a larger plane on a high value flight, but the cycling doesn't allow. They manage demand and make the best use of the fleet they can. I'm sure VIA does likewise, and would not question their effectiveness in doing so.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

There are two main strategies to compensate for demand exceeding the capacity for a given departure:

• Raising the fares to push passengers to other departures.
• Moving other departure times closer to the popular train to pull passengers to other departures.

That does not sound like a passenger centric solution. Abetter solution would be to be able to add another car to that consist. Granted, with the new fleet this is not easy, however, they should have as part of the contract, extra coaches so that when they see that every day one particular train is full, they can ad capacity and take advantage of that growth.

 

[smallspy]

So what about the 7 car LRC sets on the corridor currently running? how will they replace them with ventures?

Those trains will be run with the HEP2 equipment that will be remaining in service once all of the LRCs are retired.

surely a 5 car set cant have 2 additional cars worth of capacity..... iirc in the original presentation documents they had short, medium and long trainsets planned. is that dead now?

That was never the plan, rather it just showed what was capable within the different car types that are being ordered.

makes the decision to no exercise the add on order options look stupid now for via in hindsight.

Because they couldn't have possibly foreseen that CN would invoke a completely arbitrary and possibly illegal operating rule?

Dan