VIA Rail network developments

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Wow... that's one ugly loco!

Its actually not a loco, but a cab car. Regardless, I agree that it is ugly. Also, the cars look particularly short.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Its actually not a loco, but a cab car. Regardless, I agree that it is ugly. Also, the cars look particularly short.

Interesting... so where is the loco in this arrangement? in the middle of the train?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Interesting... so where is the loco in this arrangement? in the middle of the train?

At the “front” of the train (that’s a picture of the “back”). VIA wants bi-directional train so that they don’t have to waste time turning them around.

Here is a video of an Amtrak Cascades Talgo 8 being pulled by two GE P42DC locomotives, which is not normal. Initially they normally used EMD F59PHI's (though that may have only been for the Talgo 6 trainsets, so maybe it was normal for the Talgo 8 trainsets). Regardless they have since replaced them with Siemens Charger SC-44's.

• Video Link

Interestingly, the Talgo 6 trainsets didn't come with a cab car, so Amtrack converted some of their retired EMD F40PH locomotives into baggage/cab cars and used them at the other end. I always wondered why VIA didn't do that with their old LRC locomotives.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Wow... that's one ugly loco!

I've heard it referred to as a "school bus" inspired design.

Supposedly, Talgo originally proposed a European inspired sleek cab, but the union didn't like it because the engineer had the centre seat, and the conductor was left out. A design with a second seat for the conductor behind and to the side of the engineer was rejected as the conductor would have a restricted view. The "solution" is that monstrosity. You can see the grey posts in the middle of the windshield, covers over the structural steel crash posts.


As for locomotives, it wouldn't surprise me to see GE, MPI or EMD locos included in the Talgo or even Stadler bids. MPI and EMD both offer tier 4 locos for commuter rail already, and GE has freight now, but experience with passenger equipment. Frankly, even Bombardier could offer locos from another manufacturer, if it may be perceived as a more proven choice.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Catenary

I've heard it referred to as a "school bus" inspired design.

Supposedly, Talgo originally proposed a European inspired sleek cab, but the union didn't like it because the engineer had the centre seat, and the conductor was left out. A design with a second seat for the conductor behind and to the side of the engineer was rejected as the conductor would have a restricted view. The "solution" is that monstrosity. You can see the grey posts in the middle of the windshield, covers over the structural steel crash posts.

To bad they couldn't have made it look more like the Siemens SC-44 later purchased for use at the other end of the train. Even the old F40PH locomotives converted to Non-Powered Control Units (NPCUs or cab cars) used on the Talgo 6 trainsets look better.


Amtrak Cascades 1401 - Siemens Charger engine at King Street Station, Seattle, WA - 01 [CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], by SounderBruce, from Wikimedia Commons


Amtrak Cascades 90252 - EMD F40PH NPCU leaving Edmonds heading north [Public domain], by Rebelcommander at English Wikipedia, from Wikimedia Commons

As for locomotives, it wouldn't surprise me to see GE, MPI or EMD locos included in the Talgo or even Stadler bids. MPI and EMD both offer tier 4 locos for commuter rail already, and GE has freight now, but experience with passenger equipment. Frankly, even Bombardier could offer locos from another manufacturer, if it may be perceived as a more proven choice.

True. Neither showed up when I did Google searches.

MPI makes the MP54AC, though it's top speed is 110 mph (180 km/h), but VIA want's locomotives capable of 125 mph or 201 km/h, though that could probably be fixed by changing the gearing (at 5,400 hp total, it is apparently the most powerful diesel-electric passenger locomotive in North America ever).

EMD makes the F125 which does have a maximum speed of 125 mph (201 km/h).

As for GE, I am had noticed the latest Evolution (freight) locomotives meet Tier 4 standards, but for whatever reason, they have yet to make a Tier 4 locomotive in their Genesis (passenger) series yet. I'm wondering with Siemens now here, they decided there was too much competition and are focusing on freight locomotives instead.


GO Transit MP54AC 647 [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], by Frederick K. Larkin, from Wikimedia Commons


Metrolink F125 905 [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], by Andrew (Metrolink F125 # 905), from Wikimedia Commons

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by roger1818

As for GE, I am had noticed the latest Evolution (freight) locomotives meet Tier 4 standards, but for whatever reason, they have yet to make a Tier 4 locomotive in their Genesis (passenger) series yet. I'm wondering with Siemens now here, they decided there was too much competition and are focusing on freight locomotives instead.

Keep in mind that the passenger locomotive industry isn't like the car industry: Car manufacturers offer a range of products to meet consumer demands, while locomotive manufacturers are usually responding to specific procurements. GE might not offer a Tier 4 passenger locomotive for intercity rail because nobody has asked for one until now. GE and MPI are also becoming one, so going forward the MPI offerings could be considered the GE entrant too.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Catenary

Keep in mind that the passenger locomotive industry isn't like the car industry: Car manufacturers offer a range of products to meet consumer demands, while locomotive manufacturers are usually responding to specific procurements.

While they can build a fully custom locomotive, more typically they build one based on a standardized base design with customization and features the railway has requested. Not having a base design to follow puts them at a serious disadvantage as a fully custom design takes longer, costs more and is at a higher risk of design faults than a proven, existing design.

GE might not offer a Tier 4 passenger locomotive for intercity rail because nobody has asked for one until now.

Siemens, Bombardier, MPI and EMD all make Tier 4 passenger locomotives that could be used for intercity rail, so why not GE? It is true that most have only been sold to commuter rail lines, but the Siemens Charger is being used for intercity travel by both Amtrak and Brightline. Amtrak has purchased and received 63 SC-44 locomotives with options to buy 194 more (150 of which will have larger fuel tanks for long distance service) and Brightline has purchased and received 10 SCB-40 locomotives with options to buy 11 more. So you can't say no one has asked for Tier 4 passenger locomotive for intercity rail. It is just Siemens is running away with the show.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Charger#Firm_orders

GE and MPI are also becoming one, so going forward the MPI offerings could be considered the GE entrant too.

Its a merger in name and for tax reasons, but GE will only have a 9.9% stake in the combined company. GE shareholders will receive 40.2% (which presumably could be sold independently of the GE shares) and Wabtec (who own MPI) shareholders will 49.9 percent. So while GE and its shareholders will combine to have a controlling share, that will likely soon change. My guess is the new company will have a new name (or keep the MPI name), but it won't use the GE name.

Regardless, the MPI MP54AC is unlikely to be a contender anyway. It could be a good option for VIA's long distance trains (especially out west), but we aren't buying locomotives for those right now.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-getra...wabtec-in-111-billion-deal-idUSKCN1IM12I

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Quick question because it was mentioned:

Roger seemed to suggest that the Trillium Line is getting new Stadler DMU's aren't the Alstom ones quite new . . .

Yes, it has been discussed in the Trillium Line South LRT Extension (Stage 2) thread. They aren't replacing the Alstom LINTs but supplementing them as more will be needed after Stage 2 LRT extension and double length platforms (7 x 80m FLIRTs will be purchased to supplement the 6 x 41m LINTs we already have). Some of the LINTs will be used on the airport spur and others will be coupled together to form double length trains for use on the main Trillium line. I gather the FLIRTs were chosen because they can be easily converted from DMU to EMU or even operate in dual mode.

[Allandale25]

Update. Turns out it's from 2014. Original video I posted here. CTV News Vancouver Island video report here.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Allandale25

VIA Rail has signed an agreement to resume service on Vancouver Island. CTV News Vancouver Island video report here.

You should have posted that in the Great Canadian Transit Thread instead.

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

You should have posted that in the Great Canadian Transit Thread instead.

Thanks, will remember for future postings on VIA. Turns out the video is from 2014.

[GoTrans]

Enclosed is a Via Rail press release concerning the Train de Charlevoix and Via Rail. Via claims that that the train from Ottawa or Montreal to the Gare de Palais in Quebec City, followed by a shuttle bus to Montmorency Falls, followed by waiting time and then transferring your baggage to the Train de Charlevoix is seamless. For this to be seamless the Train de Charlevoix should use Via's Gare de Palais and have a reasonable waiting time in both directions. This is certainly better than nothing but it still is not an adequate level of service. Why can't we get 2 public service organizations to provide co-ordinated service to the travelling public in this country?

SEAMLESS TRAVEL BETWEEN VIA RAIL AND TRAIN DE CHARLEVOIX
Wednesday, August 29th 2018

QUÉBEC, August 28, 2018 - With the imminent arrival of colourful fall foliage, VIA Rail Canada (VIA Rail) announces a partnership agreement with Train de Charlevoix. The pilot project allows customers to reserve seats on board a VIA Rail train as well as on the Train de Charlevoix in a single transaction. They are able to plan a trip originating in Ottawa or Montréal and ending in Québec City, Côte-de-Beaupré, or the coastal cities and towns of Charlevoix, or vice versa. A shuttle provides ground transportation between Gare du Palais in Québec City and the station at the base of Montmorency Falls.

"We have been waiting for this breakthrough for a long time. The connectivity between Le Train de Charlevoix and VIA Rail provides our respective customers with seamless rail transportation. One call, one transaction between Ottawa or Montréal to discover Charlevoix!" said Nancy Belley, General Manager of Le Train de Charlevoix.


“VIA Rail is constantly looking at innovative ways to make it more enjoyable and easier for our customers to travel. We are pleased to offer our passengers the opportunity to travel along the St. Lawrence River on board Train de Charlevoix and take in the sweeping views of the Charlevoix region. Thanks to our many intermodal partnerships and a simple and unified travel experience, we are increasing the number of available sustainable mobility options and helping Canadians reduce the carbon footprint of their travels. This project facilitates smoother travel and encourages passengers to leave their cars at home and explore the regional attractions of the communities served by both our railways,” said Yves Desjardins-Siciliano, President and Chief Executive Officer of VIA Rail.


Customers are able to reserve tickets for both services throughout Train de Charlevoix’s operating season (which runs until October 21, 2018), online at viarail.ca or through the VIA Rail Customer Centre by calling 1 888 VIA-RAIL (1 888 842-7245) or 1 800 268-9503 (deaf or hard of hearing).


About Train de Charlevoix

Train de Charlevoix is operated by Réseau Charlevoix, a non-profit organization with an environmentally friendly development vision that encourages partnerships and local economic and social benefits. Our goal is to provide a respectful and safe public transportation alternative and a unique scenic tourist experience between Québec City, Côte-de-Beaupré and the coastal towns and villages of Charlevoix.

[OCCheetos]

Northbound lanes on Riverside are closed and traffic is being redirected onto Industrial. Seems to have something to do with the VIA overpass.

https://twitter.com/OttawaPolice/status/1044300087122321411

It's been reopened.
https://twitter.com/OttawaPolice/status/1044306758167154688

[c_speed3108]

Falling concrete apparently.

[roger1818]

In the Suburbs New neighborhood developments thread we were discussing how with the Strandherd Drive widening (and grade separation) project, McKenna Casey Dr will be realigned to keep it north of the tracks and reduce the number of crossings.

There are a bunch of other places I would like to crossings closed by rerouting a road. I created a Google MyMaps of this here.

Some are easier than others, but here is description of each one. The red are roads to be closed and green are new roads to be created.

Piperville Rd. at Boundary Rd


This one jumps out at me as being the highest priority. Not only does it avoid an unnecessary extra crossing, but it eliminates a dangerous 5-way intersection.

Barnsdale Rd at Eagleson Rd


This is probably the easiest one to do with the fewest consequences. Only a bit of farm land would need to be expropriated. Since only one house would have its access severed, the western stub of Barnsdale Rd could be converted to a driveway. The remainder could go back to nature.


Cambrian Rd at Twin Elm Rd


This one would also be easy, as only a bit of farm land would need to be expropriated. It does change the alignment with the continuation of Cambrian Rd on the other side, but they aren't aligned currently anyway.


Dunning Rd at Russland Rd


This one requires a bit more land to be expropriated, but it should still be easy to do with few consequences.


Vars


Now we get to the more interesting ones. First of all, the Buckland crossing should just be closed. It really only directly serves a few houses and it is only a few hundred meter detour to Rockdale Rd. Its presence creates an undesirable shortcut on a residential street. A pedestrian tunnel could be added if desired, but even that doesn't seem necessary.

Secondly, I feel the crossing on Devine Rd should be closed. A detour could be created to what looks like a private road connecting Rollin Pl and Rockdale Rd. This one may not be as good an idea, as Devine Rd is a major east/west arterial and having a detour may not be desirable.


Ottawa St., in Richmond


I was looking at this one, but as much as I think it should be closed, it is too far from the crossings on McBean St and Eagleson Rd to make an easy detour. You would probably end up having to make two of them

[lrt's friend]

In the last example in Richmond, you cannot re-route traffic onto a residential street. The northern route specified. That choice is out. But perhaps, the southern option would be sufficient for everybody.

Also, the Vars route ends at what appears to be not a real street, but perhaps a MUP.

[capital_urbanite]

LaPresse is reporting today that Siemens might be the one to supply new dual-mode rolling stock for the Windsor-Quebec city corridor.

https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/economi...via-rail-siemens-a-double-bombardier.php

My opinion: Maybe Vectron locomotive and Viaggio passenger cars??

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by capital_urbanite

LaPresse is reporting today that Siemens might be the one to supply new dual-mode rolling stock for the Windsor-Quebec city corridor.

https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/economi...via-rail-siemens-a-double-bombardier.php

My opinion: Maybe Vectron locomotive and Viaggio passenger cars??

Siemens has seemed like the most likely option, considering their current offerings of the Charger, ACS, and Brightline/state Amtrak cars. They're building cab cars with the non-aerodynamic Charger design for the Amtrak order, so those combined with a locomotive to allow push-pull operation would fit VIA's needs quite nicely.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by capital_urbanite

My opinion: Maybe Vectron locomotive and Viaggio passenger cars??

Does the Vectron meet EPA Tier IV emissions standards? That’s one of VIA’s requirements. The Charger does and Wikipedia says “Siemens said they might produce a dual-mode variant of the Charger with onboard energy storage for use by Metro-North and Long Island Rail Road, as well as intercity service, on Amtrak's Empire Corridor.”

As for the Viaggio passenger coaches, they are designed to European standards and are an unlikely choice when Siemens has coaches designed for North American use and meet ADA standards.