News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

if VIA aren’t intending to go double deck on the LD replacement tender, would be nice to see high platforms done here, or at least on the Churchill service platform given the ridiculous length of Canadian these days

I'm not that knowledgeable about current Winnipeg operations - but I believe those platforms may see more use for museum storage than for actual passengers.

Winnipeg is an interesting case study because as a mid-continent servicing stop, access to the underfloor equipment is more critical than in Ottawa or Toronto. Low platforms may actually be desirable/essential here. There is certainly no pressure to board faster. Accessibility is already taken care of somehow.

- Paul
 
Has anyone heard more about the deployment of the new fleet? Have they increased its use or are they still using it for 1 round trip a week between Montreal and Ottawa?
I took 33 and 26 a few weeks ago and asked the crew.
I was told to expect a gradual deployment beginning in May. The train sets will gradually be integrated to all Corridor's routes and will not only be used between MTL-OTT when the gradual deployment begins.
They are still doing adjustments. Noteworthy : they had to improve the soundproofing of the roof of the cab car right under the horn because of the very loud sound it made (and continues to make IMO).
 
True, but where the majority of the stations are, at best, asphalt pads, one wonders why bother. Other than accessibility, which can be solved in other ways, what is the advantage? These services are not commuter-based so dwell time isn't a huge issue.
I mean, my preference would be for VIA to run western service with shorter consists with a modern Superliner or equivalent, which in part would decrease the step up at low platform halts, and a 24 inch platform would suffice for level boarding rather than 48 inch.

I’m just not sure (and this is partly a thing from my younger years in Ireland where all platforms are door-height) why there is such resistance to the dignity of step-free boarding wherever it can be done, and when refurbishment is planned anyway, especially at terminals/interchanges - and VIA have recently done it in Ottawa. VIA has had to be dragged in the direction of accessibility via CTA complaints, this would be a good way to show a little good faith.

As for servicing of the Churchill stock, I assumed it would be propelled to WMC for that rather than done at the platform, given that it presumably needs to be wyed anyway?
 
I mean, my preference would be for VIA to run western service with shorter consists with a modern Superliner or equivalent, which in part would decrease the step up at low platform halts, and a 24 inch platform would suffice for level boarding rather than 48 inch.

I’m just not sure (and this is partly a thing from my younger years in Ireland where all platforms are door-height) why there is such resistance to the dignity of step-free boarding wherever it can be done, and when refurbishment is planned anyway, especially at terminals/interchanges - and VIA have recently done it in Ottawa. VIA has had to be dragged in the direction of accessibility via CTA complaints, this would be a good way to show a little good faith.

As for servicing of the Churchill stock, I assumed it would be propelled to WMC for that rather than done at the platform, given that it presumably needs to be wyed anyway?
One should note that Superliners are only accessible in the sense of that the accessible cabin can be reached barrier-free from the door of that car, while moving around in the train (other than the lower level of that car) is impossible as only the top levels are connected between each car…
 
One should note that Superliners are only accessible in the sense of that the accessible cabin can be reached barrier-free from the door of that car, while moving around in the train (other than the lower level of that car) is impossible as only the top levels are connected between each car…

With the current design, that is certainly true. Having said that, in a redesign, it would be possible to design accessible cars that have some type of lift to carry people with mobility issues to the upper level. There might be some advantages to this, as compared to lifting passengers into the car from the platform, but they aren't show stoppers, and buying equipment for western services that isn't compatible in the east is also problematic.
 
With the current design, that is certainly true. Having said that, in a redesign, it would be possible to design accessible cars that have some type of lift to carry people with mobility issues to the upper level. There might be some advantages to this, as compared to lifting passengers into the car from the platform, but they aren't show stoppers, and buying equipment for western services that isn't compatible in the east is also problematic.
While that may be the case, Amtrak is apparently looking at purchasing standardized single-level long distance rolling stock to replace the Superliners, not more Superliners.

Dan
 
While that may be the case, Amtrak is apparently looking at purchasing standardized single-level long distance rolling stock to replace the Superliners, not more Superliners.

Dan
Really? Considering that they pay to use the track per axle? Is that a wise decision?
 
I have no idea what the main driver of track-access charges is, but maybe their share of total operating costs are not significant enough to drive rolling stock procurement choices...
Or that they don't care about the efficiencies gained by procuring equipment that can carry more people within a smaller footprint.
 
Or that they don't care about the efficiencies gained by procuring equipment that can carry more people within a smaller footprint.
From my very personal experience: the less of the actual constraints and interdependences you know, the easier it is to question the competency of the people who are actually paid to make informed decisions…
 
Or that they don't care about the efficiencies gained by procuring equipment that can carry more people within a smaller footprint.

I’m not convinced that Superliners provide all that much of an increase in passenger capacity compared to a single level coach of the same size. First of all, the lower level is restricted to the space between the bogies Then you need to subtract off the space taken up by the stairs and lifts, on both levels. Yes there is some increase in capacity, but compared to the extra material required (and thus extra weight), I’m not convinced they are more efficient, especially in an age where fuel costs are becoming more and more significant.

Getting back to VIA, I hope there is an option for them to purchase dome cars (to replace the skyline and park cars), as the 360 degree vista they offer is spectacular (and something Superliners don’t offer, as the cars in front and behind you are the same height).
 

Back
Top