[roger1818]

At 3:22 in this video of the new Siemens trains in service, there's an automated annoucement saying "Pour votre sécurité nous vous demandons de rester assis jusqu'à ce que le train s'immobilise". That frankly seems ridiculous to me.

I guess it wasn't bad enough that VIA has been bringing the boarding hassles of air travel to trains, now they also want to bring the leg cramps of bus travel. I've never heard of a train where people are discouraged from getting out of their seats.

In the comments, the video’s OP said that even though trains 33 and 26 run between Quebec City and Ottawa (or vice-versa), VIA only ran the Venture train between Montreal and Ottawa, so passengers continuing on past Montreal had to change trains.

He also said that the train didn’t wye in Ottawa so the seats were mixed up on train 26. This makes me wonder if VIA plans to eventually discontinue their wye in Ottawa, as it will no longer be needed.

 

[roger1818]

Regarding the issue of VIA requiring a car behind the HEP cars, I wonder if it would be feasible for VIA to lease some flat cars to put behind the Park cars to minimize the obstruction of the view and to reduce the impact on fleet utilization. I guess the question is would a flat car provide sufficient buffering?

 

[Bordercollie]

Regarding the issue of VIA requiring a car behind the HEP cars, I wonder if it would be feasible for VIA to lease some flat cars to put behind the Park cars to minimize the obstruction of the view and to reduce the impact on fleet utilization. I guess the question is would a flat car provide sufficient buffering?

The cost to lease the cars not to mention compatibility with Brake systems, couplers and the fact that in a crash it may not provide any protection would defeat the purpose. Plus Freight cars are limited to 65-70mph. HEP cars in the corridor can do 90. That's another issue.

 

[crs1026]

Freight cars are not the optimal crash absorbers, particularly flat cars which have the greatest potential to concentrate the impact forces on the drawbar, transmitting them exactly where we are most concerned about lack of structural strength. And then maybe pop sideways, or ride up over the drawbar and slice along the car frame.

A carbody that spreads the impact forces and absorbs them, and perhaps crumples in just the right way, would be optimal. But instead of looking for a freight car that has those structural characteristics, a matchng passsenger coach works extremely well.... and the riding characteristics, as noted, are better matched to the desired speed and braking. And the couplers are most compatible.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

The cost to lease the cars not to mention compatibility with Brake systems, couplers and the fact that in a crash it may not provide any protection would defeat the purpose. Plus Freight cars are limited to 65-70mph. HEP cars in the corridor can do 90. That's another issue.

Are any Park cars used in the corridor anymore?

 

[Bordercollie]

Are any Park cars used in the corridor anymore?

Park cars are only on the Canadian and the train to Churchill. Also formerly the Ocean.

 

[Urban Sky]

Freight cars are not the optimal crash absorbers, particularly flat cars which have the greatest potential to concentrate the impact forces on the drawbar, transmitting them exactly where we are most concerned about lack of structural strength. And then maybe pop sideways, or ride up over the drawbar and slice along the car frame.

A carbody that spreads the impact forces and absorbs them, and perhaps crumples in just the right way, would be optimal. But instead of looking for a freight car that has those structural characteristics, a matchng passsenger coach works extremely well.... and the riding characteristics, as noted, are better matched to the desired speed and braking. And the couplers are most compatible.

- Paul

To illustrate this:

Source: TR NEWS 286 MAY–JUNE 2013

 

[Bordercollie]

To illustrate this:
View attachment 440314
Source: TR NEWS 286 MAY–JUNE 2013

Is it possible to integrate this technology in existing rolling stock?

 

[crs1026]

Is it possible to integrate this technology in existing rolling stock?

At huge expense, maybe, if the cars are being torn down anyways, and if one has gone to the time and expense of engineering and testing an improved solution. In most cases that will be way out of reach of affordability.

Rebuilt locomotives sometimes receive upgraded collision protection mods, but that is a special case. All that is being protected is the locomotive cab, and not the entire carbody.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

Park cars are only on the Canadian and the train to Churchill. Also formerly the Ocean.

They are also used on the Jasper-Prince Rupert train, (even though it is daytime only), but that’s my point. Your comment, “HEP cars in the corridor can do 90” is moot if Park cars aren’t used in the corridor. AFAIK, the brake systems would be compatible and the couplers are somewhat compatible (they won’t be tightlock, but with only a single car at the tail end of the train, that won’t be much of an issue, certainly no worse than a mixed freight). The big issue is if it would provide enough protection in a crash (which I had questioned in my original post).

If this becomes a long term requirement, hopefully VIA can come up with a better solution.

To illustrate this:
View attachment 440314
Source: TR NEWS 286 MAY–JUNE 2013

While Crash Energy Management (CEM) is an interesting topic of discussion, I don’t see how it applies to HEP cars. They were not designed to absorb crash energy (as shown in your referenced picture) but to keep the car’s shape during a crash.

Also, You will notice that in the picture, with CEM, it is the under frame (via the coupler) that absorbs the energy first, followed by the vestibule second to keep the cabin compartment intact.

 

[roger1818]

At huge expense, maybe, if the cars are being torn down anyways, and if one has gone to the time and expense of engineering and testing an improved solution. In most cases that will be way out of reach of affordability.

Rebuilt locomotives sometimes receive upgraded collision protection mods, but that is a special case. All that is being protected is the locomotive cab, and not the entire carbody.

- Paul

I tend to agree. It would likely be cheaper to buy new cars that have been designed from the ground up with CEM in mind, rather than modify the existing fleet to do something that they were never designed to do.

 

[smallspy]

Is it possible to integrate this technology in existing rolling stock?

-ish.

Certain components, such as energy absorbing couplers can in theory be retrofitted to existing rolling stock with relatively little work. (I say relatively, as the modifications should, on most passenger equipment, be able to be done from underneath without completely disassembling the car.)

But the portions of the system such as things like structural fuses and crumple zones? Not really, not without some extremely involved work and pulling the cars to bits. At that point, you're better off starting with new equipment.

Dan

 

[nfitz]

Park cars are only on the Canadian and the train to Churchill. Also formerly the Ocean.

They have been on the Corridor when the Canadian used to run from Central station to Union before heading north. But not for decades - though that's the last time I've ridden them.

 

[Urban Sky]

They have been on the Corridor when the Canadian used to run from Central station to Union before heading north. But not for decades - though that's the last time I've ridden them.

That would have been between November 1981 and June 1985, when the Canadian operated to Toronto only and part of the consist was attached at the tail end of a regular Toronto-Montreal Corridor train…

 

[Urban Sky]

For those who wonder how that worked out timetable-wise, Train 1 was attached to Train 55 (Bonaventure) and Train 2 to Train 54 (Lakeshore):

Source: VIA Rail schedules effective 1981-11-15