dowlingm
Senior Member
If Amtrak can stick a surfliner cab on the front of their Ventures, can’t VIA stick a P42 on the front of theirs? Yes still only 28 axles but surely the P42 provides more shunt.
|
|
|
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
smallspy
Senior Member
Connections.
The IDoT and Caltrans versions of the Venture cars are built with all of the the old standards - 27-pin MU and COMM, Amtrak's single bus HEP, etc.
VIA's are built with only CAT5 connections replacing the MU and COMM, and so are incompatible with the old equipment.
And Transport Canada has decreed that any equipment used in passenger service must have functional bearing monitoring sensors. Which all of VIA's old equipment does have. The system is set up so that each car has a local panel, and also passes the signal through the train's COMM connections to a panel in the leading loco. But with incompatible connections, the bearings on any legacy equipment can't be monitored by the Siemens sets.
For the record, Amtrak's upcoming Airo sets are also built using only CAT5 connections.
Also for the record, there is no assurance that a P42 provides more shunt than any of the Siemens equipment, save for the fact that they've been used daily for almost 25 years up to now.
Dan
micheal_can
Senior Member
If the solution is 32 axles, then run a train of 32 axles. If that means ordering more coaches to make long enough trains, then that would seem to be an easy answer. However, if the 32 axles is not the solution and there is a bigger issue, then let the engineers sort it out and then lets do that fix. Isn't Via testing a 7 car train? If so, how is that working out?
Trackside_Treasure
Active Member
The 'ajoutay' sets of 32 axles seem to be working fine, at least to trackside observers. There's also the question of what to do with the leftovers from the donor sets. I just can't imagine VIA going cap-in-hand to the federal government to ask for more money. Especially these days when departments are being told by the Carney government to axe their budgets. And asking for more why? Because of a disagreement with CN with at best a flimsy justification, and as others have suggested, could possibly have been avoided? Not to mention shoehorning production into Siemens' already busy schedule.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Either they go cap in hand asking for what they need to retire the old fleet, or accept the slow orders. Carney may be able to spin it as "nation building". Quick math (and someone can correct me) I think they would need about 70 cars.
Trackside_Treasure
Active Member
But...the Ventures were intended to replace the old fleet. That's why there are 32 sets, There are enough sets to replace the current fleet on the property now, albeit not including sets remade to satisfy CN's whims. I mean, it would be great if Carney just cut a cheque for 70 more cars though!
micheal_can
Senior Member
Via ordered the wrong things. Well,they got the right ones, but not long enough to match the requirement of the rail owners. If the 32 sets is all that is needed, and 7 cars is all that is needed for CN to be happy, then the easy solution is to order the needed cars to match the length needed. The bouncing around with the 2 entities and the courts is bureaucracy at its finest.
Trackside_Treasure
Active Member
Well, the issue is that CN is calling the tune and VIA is not paying the piper. Nor should they. Say CN sends VIA a letter the day after the next 70 cars are ordered, and CN says, oh, we've done studies and now we need 36-axle minimum trains. Then what, yet another order? At this point, I think VIA can only explore VIAble options within their abilities and budget.
micheal_can
Senior Member
I get that. I would think that if that were to happen, then they could go to court and show that they complied and then it is on CN to show proof to the contrary.
Trackside_Treasure
Active Member
So far, the two court precedents in this case show that judges do not consider themselves technical experts in this field, not qualified to fairly adjudicate such a case and then potentially be contradicted by the ACTUAL regulator and expert in the field, Transport Canada. Not that there's much chance they're doing much on the file either....
lenaitch
Senior Member
The Court's role between two parties is contractual law. If CN entered into an agreement that said x axles satisfies our requirements, then later arbitrarily changed their mind, VIA would have a cause of action. CN is not going to be that dumb. The other role of the Court is with respect to State action; legislation and regulation. This is where the matter should be decided but it seems the regulator doesn't care.
Even if the purse was opened, how long do you figure it would take to get 70 more cars? I assume Siemens has a full order book. Besides, dragging extra cars up and down the tracks when they are not needed for ridership and simply to satisfy an axle count doesn't seem to be very efficient.
Trackside_Treasure
Active Member
Yes, and that's exactly what the Attorney-General of Canada said, killing the first court case (VIA's application for judicial review) in Federal Court:
"The AGC contends that VIA's application fails. CN's decision is not a state action, and therefore is not subject to judicial review. CN issued the Crossing Supplement to exercise its authority over VIA to direct it to take certain safety measures on CN property. This authorization is sourced in its contract with VIA, an act of private law, not of the Parliament. Any remedies VIA has against CN are private law remedies."
micheal_can
Senior Member
Agreed it should be dealt with by the regulator.
Having said that, if via could get in a legal contract the minimum number of axles needed on CN lines for CN to not require the slow order, it would make things easier. Ideally,this would have been done before the order was filled.
1-5 years is my guess. Do we have that time left on the existing legacy Corridor fleet?
lenaitch
Senior Member
I suspect you are pulling that time frame out of your ear, unless you have knowledge of their order book and production rate.
DSCToronto
Superstar
I am not sure if his ear is where @micheal_can stores his 'information' :->