News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.9K     0 

VIA's plan to reconfigure its Venture sets. Two XL sets and one SX-J set are already complete. (L=locomotive, B=Business, E=Economy, C=cab car.
Screenshot 2025-08-30 at 09.45.27.png
 
Presumably there's a technical reason in the L-B-E-C-C-E-B-L set not to do L-C-B-E-E-B-C-L or something, to not put the cab cars in the middle?
 
Presumably there's a technical reason in the L-B-E-C-C-E-B-L set not to do L-C-B-E-E-B-C-L or something, to not put the cab cars in the middle?
The B car has a coupler on one side which needs to be joined to the locomotive, but is probably not like the external loco and cab couplers
 
VIA's plan to reconfigure its Venture sets. Two XL sets and one SX-J set are already complete. (L=locomotive, B=Business, E=Economy, C=cab car.
View attachment 677683

Thanks, nice to see it visualized like this!

If/when the shunt enhancers get installed, I wonder if we'd ever see LBEC sets running on a segment like Sarnia-Toronto? I remember as a kid when it was serviced by just two or three Budd cars. (That was my first train ride ever, and I felt cheated that it wasn't a real train. I know rail fans love them, but they felt old and dingy to me even back then in 1980 or 81.)
 
Siemens has advised that it does not wish to help VIA in assessing or implementing this option, considering that J-Trains were not the intended use of VIA Venture trains. This Double-Venture option may also lead to other safe[...]
WHAT?! Via has been running J-trains since before the Siemens trains were even ordered! Combining 50/60 and 52/62 makes a big difference to rail traffic on Lakeshore East in the morning peak. How could Siemens possibly claim that their product doesn't support J-train operations?

VIA's plan to reconfigure its Venture sets. Two XL sets and one SX-J set are already complete. (L=locomotive, B=Business, E=Economy, C=cab car.
View attachment 677683
I've summarized the specs for these three configurations:
Capture.PNG

The total number of seats is roughly the same but the distribution is very different - the 7-car sets have a much higher percentage of Business seats. That would make them better suited for runs such as Toronto-Montreal with lots of business travel. Milk-run services serving the smaller cities and towns along the routes would presumably have a higher percentage of Economy class demand and would be better served by the 2x 4-car sets.

The 7-car sets have barely half the power-to-weight ratio of the 2x 4-car short sets, so they would be best used on services with minimal stops, such as Toronto-Montreal. Services with frequent stops are better served by the 2x 4-car sets.

Hopefully there's a solution to the train cycling puzzle that puts the 7-car sets on express services as much as possible, while the 2x 4-car sets get put on local services as much as possible.

The elephant in the room with combining coaches into longer trains is that some departures will need to be cancelled due to the reduction in total trainsets. The trains that remain will also need to make more stops, to maintain service at intermediate stations despite the cancelled trains.
 
Last edited:
So since it's not enough to cover the corridor, will there be trip cancellations if the LRC's are retired?
The HEP fleet will presumably remain until shunt enhancer work is completed and the trainsets reformed. At least the Siemens equipment is new and won’t need cycling through heavy refit (other than shunt enhancer install). As for the LRC retirement… who knows when that will be?
 
Why are we assuming that shunt enhancers are required? Nearly every other railway on the planet manages to detect small trains just fine without shunt enhancers. The issue is specifically with a few models of level crossing gates that CN chose to install. Via's 24-axle trains meet Transport Canada's requirements for electrical conductivity, so TC needs to do their job and tell CN to make the necessary adjustments to their level crossing equipment to detect trains reliably.

 
Last edited:
Why are we assuming that shunt enhancers are required? Nearly every other railway on the planet manages to detect small trains just fine without shunt enhancers. The issue is specifically with a few models of level crossing gates that CN chose to install.

Because we don’t have a rail regulator which actually acts like one and sets minimum standards for what host railroads may or may not install and what kind of rolling stock they have to safely detect at what speeds. Red tape comes at a price, but sometimes the lack of red tape comes at an even higher price, at least to the general public…
 
Last edited:
Why are we assuming that shunt enhancers are required? Nearly every other railway on the planet manages to detect small trains just fine without shunt enhancers. The issue is specifically with a few models of level crossing gates that CN chose to install.

If it was as simple as saying “yank that gear and put in ones that work better” why haven’t Amtrak and VIA gone to the STB and TC to demand CN and BNSF do so? Presumably that is a worse option, either because they know the railroads will get a decade or more to do so, that the railroads might decide to decrease zone speeds to narrow the gap between passenger and freight, or something else
 

Back
Top