Urban Sky
Senior Member
33% of 14 people would be 4.6 out of 14 applicants (meaning: it’s somewhere between 29% [4 out of 14] and 36% [5 out of 14]). In any case, I highly doubt that these statistics refer to that particular position only…
|
|
|
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
littlewill1166
Active Member
This is the one for Windsor, LinkedIn only counts an applicant's educational level if the person applying has it on their profile, so the data may be skewed, but it's still crazy.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Maybe the demographics of people applying for these positions through LinkedIn is not that representative for the overall number of people applying for them through any available channel? It’s a bit like conducting a poll of Democratic voters at an NRA convention and then concluding that their stated attitude towards gun laws is representative for all Democratic voters…
Last edited:
Bureaucromancer
Active Member
There's something to that, but its also a job and employer that looks really good to someone overqualified and underemployed.
Last edited:
ManyQuestions
Active Member
I think this is the case. I've been applying to American rail and transit jobs and have been noticing a similar trend. Still having better luck than I've had with Canadian engineering/planning jobs even without an MBA.......
crs1026
Superstar
The interweb is buzzing this morning over an apparent new operating practice for the VIA HEP fleet - which is to marshall an empty “buffer” car at each end of any consist with Budd built equipment. For the Canadian, this means there is an extra car placed behind the Park car, which is not helpful to marketing Prestige class.
The inference is that the fleet may indeed be at end of life.
I won’t speculate or rumourise further, but there are already plenty of sightings of such trains on the road, so it’s more than a one-of anomaly.
- Paul
The inference is that the fleet may indeed be at end of life.
I won’t speculate or rumourise further, but there are already plenty of sightings of such trains on the road, so it’s more than a one-of anomaly.
- Paul
Bordercollie
Senior Member
If the cars are not structurally sound then they should be pulled from service.
This practice of having the park car at the end of the train has been going on for 50+ years, has there ever been an incident where it was rear ended by another train resulting in injuries or death?
If anything this should be more of a concern in the corridor rather than the Canadian.
crs1026
Superstar
The buffer car protects the entire consist in a collision, not just the tail end car. The issue is not necessarily focussed on rear-ending, the addition of the buffer car is just evidence of a concern. There are many scenarios where extreme forces are possible, not just rearending.
The issue with the Park cars is just the eroded passenger experience in a very pricey first class operation.
There is no absolute "sound", in the sense that any of VIA, the host railways, or Transport Canada may have been the ones to suggest the change in practice. And the adoption of buffer cars must have satisfied their concern, or it wouldn't have been approved as the solution.
To answer your question, there have been all sorts of incidents that relate to this fleet. In 1959, a Park car was demolished in a rear end collision. Eric Gagnon has done a good job of documenting fleet losses, see here.
- Paul
Last edited:
Bordercollie
Senior Member
How does a buffer car protect the consist?
Its just there in the place of the park car, it would be no different.
Bureaucromancer
Active Member
On the face of it it sounds like someone’s proposed to use an empty car as a poor man’s crash energy management system.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
But even if the Park Car had Crash Energy Management would that make it any more survivable?
What happened to the request for proposal for replacement of the heritage fleet? Did they release the fundings?
crs1026
Superstar
The old saying - the chain is as strong as its weakest link.
The energy in a collision is passed along the train by the frames of the cars, and through the draft gear. The weakest spot, where a frame might bend or break, or cars could jackknife vertically or sideways, could be anywhere. That's why there are various designs of couplers that are designed not to ride up, or down, or sideways.
Putting buffer cars on the ends does protect the end cars somewhat, certainly. One might expect that the forces and damage to be greatest there. But it doesn't mean the Park car will always be the weakest link. The intent is to reduce the impact energy passing along the entire train.
- Paul
Bordercollie
Senior Member
So why would it only apply to the Park Car and not other Budd equipment trains? Is there some inherit weakness in the Park Car that other Budd cars do not have? So then all HEP fleet trains should require a buffer car.
crs1026
Superstar
The sightings seem to indicate that all Budd built equipment is getting this treatment - corridor trains included.
- Paul
Bordercollie
Senior Member
The problem with this if it's true is the cost for additional axles per train, maintenance for equipment that doesn't generate revenue and it will mess up the cycling of equipment since you need an additional car per budd train. It also changes the ROI on each train since it increases the operating cost across the board.
If they knew that this is going to happen, would they have rebuilt the HEP II cars?
This should be a sign that they will be retiring these cars, or bring baggage cars back and tack them on the end of the train. OR convert the P42's to Cab cars once the charges are in service.