VIA Rail

[White Pine]

Stupid noob question: How can a train carriage be incompatible for bidirectional travel? isn't it just a box on wheels?

[ghYHZ]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Could the Park car be retrofitted to a cab car such that when needed, it can be run from that end?

A lot different than using the Park Car as a Cab Car (the Engineer is still in the Locomotive here).......but the Park Car does lead here with a crew member in position at the rear window as the Ocean backs-up nearly 6 km from Sainte-Foy......crossing the Quebec Bridge to return to the Halifax-Montreal mainline at Joffre Yard on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River.










The Ocean continues backing around the NE quadrant of the wye at Charny and on into Joffre Yard...….

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by White Pine

Stupid noob question: How can a train carriage be incompatible for bidirectional travel? isn't it just a box on wheels?

No worries, "stupid noob questions" (especially from commentators who apparently believe that having worked as an "engineer" and now working at a pulp mill makes them an expert on all rail-related matters) are only answered with Facepalm Memes, whereas serious questions receive serious answers:

• "Bidirectional operations" refers to the ability to operate a car in both directions, with either running a locomotive at both ends or having one or multiple locomotives at the front of the train and removing them and replacing them with either the same or (a) different locomotive(s) at the other end before changing direction.
• "Push-Pull operations" refers to a specific type of "bidirectional operations", where one locomotive is at either end (alternatively, a cab car may be at one end). This requires either the locomotives to be equipped with radio-based remote control (which IIRC, VIA's locomotives aren't) or the cars to be equipped with a special cable which transmits the LE's controls from the lead (pulling) locomotive to any trailing (pushing) locomotives (which IIRC, only VIA's LRC and HEP2 fleets are).

I am aware that the exact wording of the Corporate Plan quote provided by Roger1818 in Post #1248 may appear as if it suggests that both terms are inter-changeable*, but they aren't...

* Though if you look carefully, it just says that Push-Pull is bidirectional (which is technically correct, as all Push-Pull operations are also bidirectional) and not that bidirectional is Push-Pull (which would be wrong, as bidirectional operations are not necessarily also Push-Pull)...

[ghYHZ]

Originally Posted by White Pine

Stupid noob question: How can a train carriage be incompatible for bidirectional travel? isn't it just a box on wheels?

Most seats in Renaissance Coaches face one way only so you might be riding backwards all the way from Halifax to Montreal if the car can't be turned. Seats in Budd Coaches are different and can be rotated

Half the seats in Renaissance Sleepers face forward and half face backwards so you do have a choice. Same in the Ren Diners.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by ghYHZ

Most seats in Renaissance Coaches face one way only so you might be riding backwards all the way from Halifax to Montreal if the car can't be turned. Seats in Budd Coaches are different and can be rotated

Half the seats in Renaissance Sleepers face forward and half face backwards so you do have a choice. Same in the Ren Diners.

Agreed, though I would reserve the term “incompatible” for technical issues and rather use “unsuitable” or “ill-adapted” for these kinds of passenger comfort issues...

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ghYHZ

A lot different than using the Park Car as a Cab Car (the Engineer is still in the Locomotive here).......but the Park Car does lead here with a crew member in position at the rear window as the Ocean backs-up nearly 6 km from Sainte-Foy......crossing the Quebec Bridge to return to the Halifax-Montreal mainline at Joffre Yard on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River.



The Ocean continues backing around the NE quadrant of the wye at Charny and on into Joffre Yard...….

So, the wye in Bedford area could be driven to backwards, turn the train, and then head forwards the rest of the journey.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, the wye in Bedford area could be driven to backwards, turn the train, and then head forwards the rest of the journey.

If you would actually bother to follow the discussion rather than incessantly trolling around, you would know that:

1. there is no serviceable wye left in the Bedford area,
2. the next serviceable wye appears to be located in East Milford (some 60 km away from Halifax),
3. trains cannot use non-mainline tracks while passengers on board and
4. maximum allowable speed is very limited while operating without a fully equipped cab at the end of the train which faces the current direction of travel.

Stop the trolling and start reading!

[J81]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Thanks for the clarification. That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure.



Yes. One on CP's Winchester/Vaudreuil Subdivisions and the other on CN's Kingston Subdivision. My point is that while earlier HFR maps suggested the use of the former (note it has HFR bypass Coteau and has a new station in Dorion), newer HFR maps suggest the use of the latter (instead it has HFR merge with the current shared tracks at Coteau).



I had interpreted you talking about a bottle necks at Union Station as being in the station itself (lack of platforms) not the USRC.



I realize nothing has been finalized, but there does seem to have been a clear evolution west of Montreal at least..



Agreed regarding train 39. For train 22, it would just be a matter of uncoupling the last car(s) on the train, which could probably be done in the 10 minutes it is stopped in Ottawa. Not really much different from what is done with trains 50/60 and 52/62.



Two thoughts.

1. Getting up to catch an early morning train makes for a long day and having to go to bed early at home to rest up for it effectively results in just as much (if not more) time away from your family as catching a late night train.
2. The target market isn't so much business travellers, as it it tourists who want to be time (and cost) efficient and travel while they sleep.

Ottawa station has 4 through platform tracks plus 4 single ended platform tracks (2 in each direction). As a result, the station has far more capacity than needed, so I don't see why the sleeper cars couldn't be just left there all day (from when they get dropped off in the eastbound train in the morning to when they get picked up in the evening). Thus the only switching that would be needed is to couple it to the train in the evening. In theory, that could be done by backing the train from Montreal onto the

As for the car attendants, doesn't each car need an attendant anyway?



Agreed. I'm just saying that it isn't all that bad change to the schedule. As I have said before, post HFR, these are timings that might be valuable.



Possibly, if that would be a preferred time slot along the Lakeshore. The advantage of routing via the HFR route is that VIA isn't limited to the number of trains they run in a day, so it doesn't have to replace another departure.



I'm not convinced it would be a better option than the status quo, but feel it would be the best option (especially operated as I suggested) IF overnight service was brought back prior to to the introduction of HFR (unlikely). After HFR, it would definitely be worth serious consideration.



Getting rid of the Renaissance equipment all together because the coaches are not bidirectional is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The Ocean typically uses one or more of each the following types of cars:

• Baggage,
• Coach,
• Service,
• Dining,
• Sleeping,
• Transition, and
• Park

Just because the Renaissance Coach (and the Park) cars are not bidirectional, doesn't mean they can't use any of the other type of cars.




Fair enough.



It is a possibility, but I wouldn't rule out them re-configuring the train sets used to allow it to be bidirectional.

The renaissance equipment is permanently coupled in sets of 6 cars. So no you cant just swap out the diner or baggage or sleeper like you say. And the goal is to be rid of the renaissance equipment all together not dump money into it.

[J81]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

You say that in your experience the number of sleeper passengers traveling all the way to/from Halifax is not a significant number, my two round trips during peak season in 2018 suggest the opposite. You can check your own anecdotal evidence against that of other rail enthusiasts, I have access to the actual figures...


You understand that the Renaissance cars are inherently incompatible with bidirectional operations, I understand that their current configuration doesn't support bidirectional operations...


You believe the problem to be very complex and you therefore anticipate that a solution will have to look very different from the Status Quo to be valid, I think that the problem is much simpler than you believe it to be...

Thats great. We can both think differently. What exactly do you see happening then?

Id love to see those numbers. Your experience being 2 trips during peak season is the same as ive experienced in peak season. But the other 8-9 months of the year are very different. I know the train has left Halifax with fewer than 20 passengers. Total.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

No worries, "stupid noob questions" (especially from commentators who apparently believe that having worked as an "engineer" and now working at a pulp mill makes them an expert on all rail-related matters) are only answered with Facepalm Memes, whereas serious questions receive serious answers:

• "Bidirectional operations" refers to the ability to operate a car in both directions, with either running a locomotive at both ends or having one or multiple locomotives at the front of the train and removing them and replacing them with either the same or (a) different locomotive(s) at the other end before changing direction.
• "Push-Pull operations" refers to a specific type of "bidirectional operations", where one locomotive is at either end (alternatively, a cab car may be at one end). This requires either the locomotives to be equipped with radio-based remote control (which IIRC, VIA's locomotives aren't) or the cars to be equipped with a special cable which transmits the LE's controls from the lead (pulling) locomotive to any trailing (pushing) locomotives (which IIRC, only VIA's LRC and HEP2 fleets are).

I am aware that the exact wording of the Corporate Plan quote provided by Roger1818 in Post #1248 may appear as if it suggests that both terms are inter-changeable*, but they aren't...

* Though if you look carefully, it just says that Push-Pull is bidirectional (which is technically correct, as all Push-Pull operations are also bidirectional) and not that bidirectional is Push-Pull (which would be wrong, as bidirectional operations are not necessarily also Push-Pull)...

I think the question asked was why can't the rail cars go both ways, not what the definitions are. I was curious about that myself. I think ghYHZ's follow on reply was more the response that was looked for. So it sounds to me, also a "stupid noob", that it isn't the cars aren't physically capable of going both directions, it's that the seats only face one way, so it's a matter of passenger comfort more than anything else.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

I think the question asked was why can't the rail cars go both ways, not what the definitions are. I was curious about that myself. I think ghYHZ's follow on reply was more the response that was looked for. So it sounds to me, also a "stupid noob", that it isn't the cars aren't physically capable of going both directions, it's that the seats only face one way, so it's a matter of passenger comfort more than anything else.

Maybe as the cars are refurbished, they change them from all pointing to one way to facing each other with the possibility of a pop up table in between. Or, have them designed to turn easily so that when it arrives, the train crew could walk the cars and flip the cars around.

In the meantime, I am certain Via has a plan. However, this really does show the shortsightedness of Via. The newest Renaissance fleet is junk, the older cars cannot be used both directions. Maybe those sitting in offices should be replaced with people who think about the future and what can be done instead of just saying what can't be done right this minute.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Maybe as the cars are refurbished, they change them from all pointing to one way to facing each other with the possibility of a pop up table in between. Or, have them designed to turn easily so that when it arrives, the train crew could walk the cars and flip the cars around.

In the meantime, I am certain Via has a plan. However, this really does show the shortsightedness of Via. The newest Renaissance fleet is junk, the older cars cannot be used both directions. Maybe those sitting in offices should be replaced with people who think about the future and what can be done instead of just saying what can't be done right this minute.

The people in offices that need to be replaced to get what you want sit in Ottawa, not Montreal.

[esquire]

Looking back at it, how long did it take before it became apparent that the Renaissance fleet was a dud?

I remember there was some excitement when VIA procured those cars in 2000... it was the first significant acquisition by VIA of rolling stock since the LRC cars of the early 80s. As I recall it wasn't long before there were problems including suitability for climate, accessibility and just general limitations of the car layouts. It's clear that intentions were good, but ultimately it was an example of being penny wise and pound foolish.

Incidentally, it's hard to believe that nearly as much time has passed between the Renaissance joining the VIA fleet and the present day, as there was between the LRCs and the Renaissance fleet. Time flies.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by esquire

Looking back at it, how long did it take before it became apparent that the Renaissance fleet was a dud?

I remember there was some excitement when VIA procured those cars in 2000... it was the first significant acquisition by VIA of rolling stock since the LRC cars of the early 80s. As I recall it wasn't long before there were problems including suitability for climate, accessibility and just general limitations of the car layouts. It's clear that intentions were good, but ultimately it was an example of being penny wise and pound foolish.

Incidentally, it's hard to believe that nearly as much time has passed between the Renaissance joining the VIA fleet and the present day, as there was between the LRCs and the Renaissance fleet. Time flies.

I don't understand how it was not immediately obvious (I'm sure it was to many). If a sleeper service was deemed pointless in Europe and uncompetitive with air travel, why would things be much different in Canada, where passenger rail is an insignificant portion of journeys? And that's aside from the obvious unsuitability of using rail cars designed for a completely different operating environment.

I don't think there is any benefit of hindsight here, this is all pretty obvious stuff. What I will speculate though is that this would all have been obvious to people who cared about VIA's success, but with VIA being unloved I'm sure that if Ottawa had any way to cut short term costs, they would take it.

It appears this situation is very similar to that of the submarines, from the same time period. It seems the powers that be back then were total cheapskates - I hope things have changed.

[esquire]

^ In fairness, VIA has managed to squeeze nearly 20 years out of the Renaissance fleet. That's better than the CN Tempo and Turbo fleets, and better than the LRC locomotives.

I guess the question here is: were the Renaissance cars better than nothing?

[GoTrans]

If you look at the plans for Via's new trains they consist of cars where half the seats face forward and half backwards with a locomotive on one end. This is a push pull operation that was descried in other posts. The car configuration is common in Europe, including the TGV, so to say that no one wants to ride backwards is not true. There is very little difference, from a comfort or safety point of view.

With respect to the locomotives, the Northlander ran for a short time in push/pull configuration. This was subsequently changed due to safety issues with the curvatures, particularly in rock cuts on the line. Clearly positive train control and reduced curvatures would eliminate this on other routes.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ In fairness, VIA has managed to squeeze nearly 20 years out of the Renaissance fleet. That's better than the CN Tempo and Turbo fleets, and better than the LRC locomotives.

I guess the question here is: were the Renaissance cars better than nothing?

Well I'm more on the side of scrap the sleeper service, so my opinion is they were worse than nothing.

[J81]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

If you look at the plans for Via's new trains they consist of cars where half the seats face forward and half backwards with a locomotive on one end. This is a push pull operation that was descried in other posts. The car configuration is common in Europe, including the TGV, so to say that no one wants to ride backwards is not true. There is very little difference, from a comfort or safety point of view.

With respect to the locomotives, the Northlander ran for a short time in push/pull configuration. This was subsequently changed due to safety issues with the curvatures, particularly in rock cuts on the line. Clearly positive train control and reduced curvatures would eliminate this on other routes.

All of VIAs LRC and HEP2 equipment are configured like that as well. It is a problem for a surprising number of passengers who dont like facing backwards. I myself would like to see the seats be reversible like the HEP1 coaches.

[J81]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't understand how it was not immediately obvious (I'm sure it was to many). If a sleeper service was deemed pointless in Europe and uncompetitive with air travel, why would things be much different in Canada, where passenger rail is an insignificant portion of journeys? And that's aside from the obvious unsuitability of using rail cars designed for a completely different operating environment.

I don't think there is any benefit of hindsight here, this is all pretty obvious stuff. What I will speculate though is that this would all have been obvious to people who cared about VIA's success, but with VIA being unloved I'm sure that if Ottawa had any way to cut short term costs, they would take it.

It appears this situation is very similar to that of the submarines, from the same time period. It seems the powers that be back then were total cheapskates - I hope things have changed.

Where did you get the idea that sleeper cars were deemed pointless in Europe? Ive used a sleeper car in Europe. Theyre very popular for overnight trains. Just not 3HR trips between London and Paris which the Renaissance equipment was originally supposed to be deployed on.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by esquire

Incidentally, it's hard to believe that nearly as much time has passed between the Renaissance joining the VIA fleet and the present day, as there was between the LRCs and the Renaissance fleet. Time flies.

I don't feel like I'm that old, even though my kids say I am, and I remember going to a launch event here in London for the LRC way back whenever. I was pretty young then too lol. They demonstrated the leaning system, and had tours through the cars. Pretty modern design for the time. What's also funny is to think how old the other cars are, but I still see the LRC's every morning and think they are modern, even though they are as old or older now as the trains I used to ride in high school in the 80's.