robmausser
Senior Member
At least Set 7 is now a 3 car on the Sarnia route through Kitchener. It used to be 2 car. I guess thats the EXTRA Extra Short set
|
|
|
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
At least Set 7 is now a 3 car on the Sarnia route through Kitchener. It used to be 2 car. I guess thats the EXTRA Extra Short set
crs1026
Senior Member
^Nice work!
While I'm sure VIA will tweak its cycling and timetables plenty when the new fleet arrives, it does give one confidence that the new fleet can cover the existing operation - close enough anyways.
It strikes me that 3+1 may be the benchmark default train size, with 3+2 being a clever way to extract the most revenue from slots with growing demand.... where ridership starts to exceed 3+1, switch to 3+2 thus offering the incremental capacity at premium fare.
The other building block may be using two Extra Shorts together when 3+2 fills up....it's effectively 4+2. Lots of permutations and combinations possible if the different consists are J-trained. Perhaps the retained HEP fleet would substitute for a 2+1 and these would be J-trained with the longer versions to build bigger consists on peak days.
I'm trying to imagine how to schedule those three Extra Long trainsets to maximum advantage. Three is not a lot. I can envision one round trip to Windsor daily and two round trips east of Toronto.
- Paul
While I'm sure VIA will tweak its cycling and timetables plenty when the new fleet arrives, it does give one confidence that the new fleet can cover the existing operation - close enough anyways.
It strikes me that 3+1 may be the benchmark default train size, with 3+2 being a clever way to extract the most revenue from slots with growing demand.... where ridership starts to exceed 3+1, switch to 3+2 thus offering the incremental capacity at premium fare.
The other building block may be using two Extra Shorts together when 3+2 fills up....it's effectively 4+2. Lots of permutations and combinations possible if the different consists are J-trained. Perhaps the retained HEP fleet would substitute for a 2+1 and these would be J-trained with the longer versions to build bigger consists on peak days.
I'm trying to imagine how to schedule those three Extra Long trainsets to maximum advantage. Three is not a lot. I can envision one round trip to Windsor daily and two round trips east of Toronto.
- Paul
Last edited:
roger1818
Active Member
Continuing my analysis from yesterday, if we assume quantify of each new trainset that I posted, VIA would be using the following quantity of each train and car type:
Assuming they buy 32, long trains (and thus 32 of each car type), they would end up with 18 spare Business 3B cars and only 1 spare Economy 1A and 2 spare Economy 1B cars, and this is with using only 3 extra long trainsets. As an opposite extreme, if for the Long trainsets that resulted in a significant reduction in seats (HEPII Set 3 and LRC Sets 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 15), they used Extra Long Trainsets instead, the quantity of each train and car type used would change as follows:
As you can see, in terms of the total number of cars available, they are fine, but they are short 13 economy cars (7 x 1A and 6 x 1B), yet still have 18 extra Business 3B cars. I know some will argue, VIA could just substitute Business 3B cars on those trains, but as @Urban Sky previously said,
I don’t know which of these features a Business 3B car will have, but it is quite likely that by substituting those for the Economy 1A and 1B cars, it is probable that they would end up with a shortage of certain required amenities, for the length of train in operation.
It is very likely that the cost to build either type of economy car would be very similar to the cost to build a business car (yes there are more seats, but economy seats likely cost less than business seats), especially when considering the total cost of the order. This is of course assuming the change request is made early enough in the order process. Once Siemens has started ordering materials, or worse, begun construction, the cost would grow significantly. I would hope that VIA has already done this based on their projected needs.
Now I don’t expect any of this to reflect what VIA actually wants or needs as much of what they are currently running is likely a compromise based on what they have available to them. This new fleet purchase is a chance to start from a clean slate and buy what they actually need going forward based on projected ridership. This is just to show examples of what could be done.
| Size | Qty | Business 3A | Business 3B | Economy 1A | Economy 1B | Economy Cab 4A | Total |
| Extra short | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Short | 13 | 13 | 0 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 52 |
| Long | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 55 |
| Extra long | 3 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 21 |
| Total | 28 | 28 | 14 | 31 | 30 | 28 | 131 |
| Spares | 4 | 18 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 29 |
Assuming they buy 32, long trains (and thus 32 of each car type), they would end up with 18 spare Business 3B cars and only 1 spare Economy 1A and 2 spare Economy 1B cars, and this is with using only 3 extra long trainsets. As an opposite extreme, if for the Long trainsets that resulted in a significant reduction in seats (HEPII Set 3 and LRC Sets 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 15), they used Extra Long Trainsets instead, the quantity of each train and car type used would change as follows:
| Size | Qty | Business 3A | Business 3B | Economy 1A | Economy 1B | Economy Cab 4A | Total |
| Extra short | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Short | 13 | 13 | 0 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 52 |
| Long | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 15 |
| Extra long | 11 | 11 | 11 | 22 | 22 | 11 | 77 |
| Total | 28 | 28 | 14 | 39 | 38 | 28 | 147 |
| Spares | 4 | 18 | -7 | -6 | 4 | 13 |
As you can see, in terms of the total number of cars available, they are fine, but they are short 13 economy cars (7 x 1A and 6 x 1B), yet still have 18 extra Business 3B cars. I know some will argue, VIA could just substitute Business 3B cars on those trains, but as @Urban Sky previously said,
I don’t know which of these features a Business 3B car will have, but it is quite likely that by substituting those for the Economy 1A and 1B cars, it is probable that they would end up with a shortage of certain required amenities, for the length of train in operation.
It is very likely that the cost to build either type of economy car would be very similar to the cost to build a business car (yes there are more seats, but economy seats likely cost less than business seats), especially when considering the total cost of the order. This is of course assuming the change request is made early enough in the order process. Once Siemens has started ordering materials, or worse, begun construction, the cost would grow significantly. I would hope that VIA has already done this based on their projected needs.
Now I don’t expect any of this to reflect what VIA actually wants or needs as much of what they are currently running is likely a compromise based on what they have available to them. This new fleet purchase is a chance to start from a clean slate and buy what they actually need going forward based on projected ridership. This is just to show examples of what could be done.
crs1026
Senior Member
^I may have lost the thread on why there have to be two variations of Coach and two of Business Car, but taking that as read, it's apparent from the extra short version trainset that "A" cars are all that is needed to equip a trainset with all the prerequisite accessibility, technology, and service delivery equipment. The "B" cars may augment that, but one assumes that the "master" version of everything important is in the A's, and the "B" cars are fill-outs.
That leads one to think that the "B" cars ought to be generic and most easily convertible from one configuration to the other. So, if the distribution were found to be sub-optimal, it would be most practical to shift from Coach B to Business B or vv.
So long as that's roughly true, then I wouldn't worry about getting the initial distribution exactly right. Changeovers will be pretty doable.
One has to think that the chair frames will use common components, even if the cushions and backs differ. One hopes that moving between 2-2 and 2-1 seating doesn't require rebuilding anything structural, and wiring etc is compatible. I expect Siemens and VIA will have thought this through.
- Paul
That leads one to think that the "B" cars ought to be generic and most easily convertible from one configuration to the other. So, if the distribution were found to be sub-optimal, it would be most practical to shift from Coach B to Business B or vv.
So long as that's roughly true, then I wouldn't worry about getting the initial distribution exactly right. Changeovers will be pretty doable.
One has to think that the chair frames will use common components, even if the cushions and backs differ. One hopes that moving between 2-2 and 2-1 seating doesn't require rebuilding anything structural, and wiring etc is compatible. I expect Siemens and VIA will have thought this through.
- Paul
roger1818
Active Member
I agree. Certainly my analysis shows that the "Short" trains are the most common configuration. What I don't know is if VIA's current standard 5 car LRC train (4+1) is based on equipment availability or actual demand. For all we know, business class may be selling out before economy class (or the cost of those last few business class seats is growing to the point where it isn't worth the fare differential).
That might be a decent alternative. The question is if the front car of the trainset will have a standard or semi-permanent coupler to couple with the locomotive (having 2 locomotives on such a train seems needless)? Since it always seems to always be a Business 3A car and all trainsets only have 1 Business 3A car, there is no real reason for it to be semi-permanent, so I guess they could couple it to the cab car. There would be no way to travel between the two trainsets though. Maybe I should try another analysis with this configuration.
This coupler style would allow them to maintain baggage service by coupling a HEP baggage car behind the Charger, though they would still end up with the same limitations in push operation at stations where the Engineers do the baggage handling that is seen with LRC Set 1.
The longest corridor trainsets were HEP Sets 1 and 2 as well as LRC Set 4 ran with 6 cars (though the LRC only had 6 cars Thursday to Sunday). HEP Sets 1 and 2 alternated between running between Ottawa-Toronto-London and back (overnighting in Ottawa and London during the week and at either TMC or Ottawa on weekends, presumably for weekly maintenance). LRC Set 4 alternated between running between Montreal-Toronto-Windsor one day and back the next, alternating between overnighting in MMC and Windsor. The common denominator with them is that they are all morning/early afternoon trains into Toronto and afternoon/evening trains out with a tendency towards (though not always) the trains with fewer stops. I expect that would continue with the new fleet (at least until HFR).
roger1818
Active Member
I don't know if the configuration of any of the cars is publicly known, but if I had to guess (it is just a guess), the special features of each type are as follows:
| Car type | Class | Services | Trainsets |
| 1A | Economy | Galley | All (2x Extra Long) |
| 1B | Economy | Accessible (+ bike rack?) | Short, Long & Extra Long (2x Extra Long) |
| 3A | Business | Accessible | All |
| 3B | Business | Galley | Long & Extra Long |
| 4A | Economy | Accessible, Cab | All |
This would mean:
- The Short and Extra Short trains would have the business car use the Galley in the 1A car (presumably at the front of the car) and there are accessible seats and washrooms available in both classes of service (the short would have a second economy accessible car).
- The Long train would have separate galleys for business and economy and the same number of accessible cars as a short train.
- The Extra long train would add a second economy galley and a third economy accessible car.
Given that the seating in business class is 2+1 but in economy it is 2+2, there is a good chance that the seats are wider in business class. The common areas would also likely be different as the washrooms might be appointed differently and fewer passengers means they may need less luggage space. The wiring for task lighting and power outlets would also likely be different for the different number and configuration of seats. So while the shell might be the same, there are likely significant differences to the interior, which would make conversion a bigger job than just buying some extra seats and reupholstering the existing ones.
That is certainly my hope. The fact that VIA has published diagrams (albeit low resolution) of the different car and train configurations, I expect they have been having a lot of discussions behind the scenes.
crs1026
Senior Member
I’m assuming (but have never seen it in print) that the new fleet will be able to J-train as is done today. The locomotive nose appears to be a little different than say Brightline’s and that may have been done to enable joining trainsets. I would expect the cab cars are no different in this regard, and consists are truly bidirectional, so a J-train of two Venture sets might have both locos in the middle, or one leading and one trailing, or the reverse, or the locos at outer ends. Any permutation ought to work, the value is in not having to turn anything, nor take anything apart. That’s a fair tradeoff for the overpowering/redundancy of having two loco’s.
- Paul
roger1818
Active Member
Certainly they could (all the pictures I have seen of VIA's Chargers have standard couplers on front of the Charger and the Cab Car). This is necessary for split service trains (trains 50/60 and 52/62).
My point was that it just seems a waste to have 2 locomotives on a 6 car train when a 7 car train only needs 1. If the Business 3A car also has a standard coupler at the front end, they would avoid the need for a second locomotive. This would also make the charger more flexible as it would have a standard coupler at both ends, meaning they could use it on other trains if needed.
Image From VIA Rail's Website
Last edited:
crs1026
Senior Member
^It's going to be interesting watching VIA learn to treat the trainsets as fixed sets, especially since locomotives and railcars do have varying maintenance needs and while they are capable of being maintained as a set, the temptation to swap out a coach or loco will still remain.... and will be necessary from time to time. Having said that, if the connections are more permanent than today (as the Ren cars are joined) there will be disincentives to doing it too often.
Does anyone want to start a pool as to how long before we see a Charger loco running with a couple coaches and no cab car? I'm sure it will happen also.
The issue with removing a loco from a J-trained consist that doesn't need a second engine is, if the trainset doesn't cycle back again before the consist needs to be split up, the redundant loco ends up in a different place than the trainset that needs it later. Sure, it's extra fuel and wear and tear to haul it along, but keeping things together may be the more flexible approach. One sees J-trains today that are grossly overpowered, but that's the price of joining consists that are already top-and-tail.
- Paul
Does anyone want to start a pool as to how long before we see a Charger loco running with a couple coaches and no cab car? I'm sure it will happen also.
The issue with removing a loco from a J-trained consist that doesn't need a second engine is, if the trainset doesn't cycle back again before the consist needs to be split up, the redundant loco ends up in a different place than the trainset that needs it later. Sure, it's extra fuel and wear and tear to haul it along, but keeping things together may be the more flexible approach. One sees J-trains today that are grossly overpowered, but that's the price of joining consists that are already top-and-tail.
- Paul
micheal_can
Senior Member
Wasn't one of the many issues with the Turbo the fact that they were a unit, so if one thing needs repair it is not easily removed from the consist?
roger1818
Active Member
It might happen, but given that Quebec, Montreal, and Windsor all operate exclusively as terminal stations by VIA, not having to turn trains around is of significant value. The Quebec-Montreal-Ottawa trains will benefit significantly, since they all have to wye mid route in Montreal, and as others have said, it is a long detour to wye trains in Windsor.
If I had to guess, corridor trains west of Montreal will push eastbound and pull westbound and east of Montreal will do the opposite. That way the locomotive is the last thing to enter the shed and first to leave, thus won't pollute the air as much since it is fully enclosed.
It really depends what the plan is for the trainset. If they want to split, short split or deadhead the train then sure, but if the plan is to keep it together, then there is no point. Examples of these are:
- Split: As previously mentioned trains 50/60 and 52/62 from Toronto to Montreal and Ottawa depart as one train and split in Brockville.
- Short Split: On Sunday night, train 75 runs as a J-train of LRC Set 14 and HEP2 Set 1, both with passengers. The latter terminates in London (ready for train 82 Monday morning) while the former continues to Windsor.
- Deadhead: Train 33 Monday morning has LRC set 9 coupled behind it empty, to move it to Ottawa in preparation for Train 645.
The high frequency of maintenance and repairs was the bigger issue with the Turbo Trains. Also, I beleive they were permanently coupled (not semi-permanently coupled), thus much harder to split.
Semi-permanent couplers are harder to uncouple than standard Tightlock couplers, but when in a maintenance shop, I don't beleive it is all that difficult. If one car did need extra work, they could swap it out if necessary. In general it is the locomotive that has the higher maintenance requirements, which is another reason to use a standard coupler on both ends of it, to make it easier to swap out.
crs1026
Senior Member
Yes, but the setup of the maintenance facility available, and the number of funky odd unproven things in the Turbo technology, magnified that.
Operation of fixed trainsets is a proven thing these days - I’d guess that it is actually more prevalent than loose-car train consists.
A lot more thought goes into maintenance processes and facilities, also. Procuring a new fleet often comes with a new maintenance facility or two, custom-built for the model of train.
VIA is already keeping its consists together, and no doubt has structure around when and how consists are changed.
- Paul
crs1026
Senior Member
Short of rigid drawbars, which I’m confident is not on, the coupler isn’t the hard part. It’s the wiring, piping, and the diaphragms. As the on board tech intensifies, there may be new data couplings. Power and MU cables and brake lines may be located to protect from the elements and from foreign objects etc. making them more laborious to separate/connect.
Do we know if the HEP is compatible with existing technology? Will the old and new fleets ever comingle, eg can they be J-trained to each other?
Again, I have missed the memo - do we know the diaphragm style? That presentation reads “wide gangways with no doors”?
- Paul
Last edited:
roger1818
Active Member
Agreed. As I mentioned earlier, with the current fleet, only 4 trainsets had cars added and removed (8 changes total) during the week and they were all done overnight at either the MMC or TMC. Interestingly, only on Sundays were all coaches in play.
roger1818
Active Member
That is a good point.
I haven't heard anything one way or the other but given that Amtrak is using Chargers with their existing fleet, and Siemens has been selling Venture trainsets independently of the Chargers, I would be surprised if it isn't compatible. Hardly conclusive though I know.
Not really sure, but this Siemens Venture brochure (which includes a drawing of a VIA Charger and VIA's business class interior) says "The semi-permanent coupled configuration creates a comfortable, safe, and fully-ADA compliant transition between coaches" and "Coupled gangways and grab handles on all aisle seats improve safe passage through and between cars." Not sure if that helps.
As for the "no doors" comment, there seem to be automatic doors between the cabin and the vestibule rather than between the vestibule and the gangway.