VIA Rail Canada

[Bus_Medic]

There most definitely is a seasonal formulation change to Canadian  “on highway” diesel fuel to discourage gelling in winter.

wether railroad or “off highway” (dyed) diesel receives similar treatment, I haven’t the slightest idea. Given the outcome, I’m thinking no.

[dbdb]

4 hours ago, smallspy said:

A friend of mine - who happens to be a former diesel mechanic - and I were discussing this, and wondering if VIA has changed their diesel blend to something that is more susceptible to gelling in the cold. A change to a different style of fuel pump during the rebuild process (a change that GO has also made in recent years) may also be complicit in the failures.

 

Dan

I'm pretty sure they refuel in Saskatoon, each of the last 3 times I've departed or arrived from Saskatoon there was a bulk fuel delivery truck (the same kind that delivers to farms) waiting on the platform for the train to arrive.  I don't know if that means anything, if it's a custom blend for Via or just the same generic diesel the deliver to everyone else.

[Doppelkupplung]

This was touched on in the ONR topic, but not in much detail, so perhaps someone could explain: How come the P42s never go farther than anywhere in the Corridor? In essence, why don't they operate on the Ocean, Canadian, Skeena etc. Have any of them ever even made it out of their general boundaries in Ontario or QC? 

[Transit geek]

29 minutes ago, MiWay0310 said:

This was touched on in the ONR topic, but not in much detail, so perhaps someone could explain: How come the P42s never go farther than anywhere in the Corridor? In essence, why don't they operate on the Ocean, Canadian, Skeena etc. Have any of them ever even made it out of their general boundaries in Ontario or QC? 

I find it especially ironic since Amtrak uses the same model mostly on services outside the Northeast Corridor (their equivalent to Via's Corridor) and, according to Wikipedia, it is "the only Amtrak diesel locomotive that meets the clearance or loading gauge requirements on every Amtrak route".

[Shaun]

It's because their maintenance is limited to TMC and MMR. They where procured for use in the corridor. 

[skyfirenet]

3 minutes ago, Shaun said:

It's because their maintenance is limited to TMC and MMR. They where procured for use in the corridor. 

One can't help but wonder why they don't end up on the Ocean though.

[MaT]

IIRC, the P42s were bought to replace the LRC locomotives and were specifically purchased for use on the corridor(As were the LRCs if I recall as well). This should be why you will not see any P42s outside of this boundary.

[smallspy]

14 hours ago, MiWay0310 said:

This was touched on in the ONR topic, but not in much detail, so perhaps someone could explain: How come the P42s never go farther than anywhere in the Corridor? In essence, why don't they operate on the Ocean, Canadian, Skeena etc. Have any of them ever even made it out of their general boundaries in Ontario or QC? 

There are a number of reasons, but here are the primary ones.

 

The F40s have a maximum speed of 95mph (formerly 90 for most of the units).

 

The P42s have a maximum speed of 110mph.

 

There is no track outside of the Corridor that is rated for a higher speed than 80mph. Therefore, there's zero benefit to using a faster locomotive there. There is quite a bit of 100mph track in the Corridor however, so you want to locate your fastest equipment there.

 

Dan

[Doppelkupplung]

Many thanks

[Shaun]

It's interesting that a lot of P42's are assigned to trains with Budd cars which have a lower top speed. 

Is that because those cars are heavier?

[Doppelkupplung]

31 minutes ago, Shaun said:

Is that because those cars are heavier?

Not necessarily, the Renns are quite heavy and they are rated for a max service speed of 125mph/201kph.

[Chris_the_traveller]

Are there any departures of the Ocean that are currently scheduled to operate with HEP equipment?

[Urban Sky]

On 26/01/2018 at 10:29 AM, Chris_the_traveller said:

Are there any departures of the Ocean that are currently scheduled to operate with HEP equipment?

Just try booking for any of the next few departures and check what's showing up:

 

[M. Parsons]

Recently I started to do some research into passenger train operations in Edmonton in the late 1970's/ early 1980's. 

It seems a lot of the RDC trains that ran into Edmonton were done by the time VIA took over, with just the Drumheller trains left (694 and 695). This run ended in 1981.

I have been unsuccessful finding any photos showing RDC's operating these trains after VIA took over. In particular I would love to find a shot of a VIA RDC at the CN Station in Downtown Edmonton, or along the CN line into the station after the LRT was built. There would have only been a short period of time this would have been possible- 1978-1981.
So... were there a lot of RDC's in VIA livery by the 1978-1981 timeframe?

Apparently the Drumheller train may have never been operated by VIA according to this: https://www.flickr.com/photos/msdwilkie/5962240351/

Of course, CN continued to operate the various incarnations of passenger service on the ex NAR to Waterways rather than by VIA, so, I guess that wouldn't be out of place if this service was still CN operated.

 

 

 

[Doppelkupplung]

Curious question for any with tech knowledge here:

How come we don't see passenger railcars i.e. VIA and GOT trying or experimenting with Scharfenberg couplers? I understand what I just said has many issues, but allow me to simplify through what I would assume so far.

Obviously there would be a compatibility issue with the standard knuckle coupler and a Scharf. The reason I bring GO up is that they were recently receiving new BiLevels, and VIA recently rebuilt their fleet. However, Scharfenbergs provide a generally smoother ride, they have less slack, so that means less lurching/shunting during the ride etc. I was thinking perhaps they could have an experimental train, i.e. a 3 car trainset for VIA and a P42 with Scharf couplers. Is there a compatibility issue with the HEP and a Scharf coupler? 

Basically what I'm asking is why Scharfenbergs aren't more popular here than they are elsewhere. I feel it has to do with the fact that we've been using knuckles for some time, and perhaps the cost of conversion? Though I feel they may just not be worth it...(though when I say conversion, I say that they theoretically would have been done during rebuilds)

This is probably a stupid question and I feel like I have heavy bullshit content here, but I'm still curious. 

[dbdb]

Just from reading the Wikipedia description there seems to be little advantage and lots of disadvantages like compatibility and strength.  At least with knuckle couplers just about anything can couple to anything else in North American and draft gears deal with slack where it matters.  What benefit would there be to justify the incompatibility? 

[Doppelkupplung]

21 minutes ago, dbdb said:

Just from reading the Wikipedia description there seems to be little advantage and lots of disadvantages like compatibility and strength.  At least with knuckle couplers just about anything can couple to anything else in North American and draft gears deal with slack where it matters.  What benefit would there be to justify the incompatibility? 

I wasn't suggesting it for freight trains. The article itself says that Scharfs can't handle the force and weight that a freight train would have to carry. I'm just curious as to why we never really gave it a proper go here in Canada, specifically on passenger trains, where increased passenger comfort would be of benefit. However I suppose it is more suited for things like EMUs DMUs etc. 

[M. Parsons]

Lets gets something cleared up right away. Passenger cars don't have "standard knuckle couplers" like the Type E commonly seen on fright cars. Passenger equipment usually has Type H couplers. Certainly, Type H are compatible with Type E and Type F couplers. The Type H does reduce slack.

3 hours ago, MiWay0310 said:

Obviously there would be a compatibility issue with the standard knuckle coupler and a Scharf. The reason I bring GO up is that they were recently receiving new BiLevels, and VIA recently rebuilt their fleet. However, Scharfenbergs provide a generally smoother ride, they have less slack, so that means less lurching/shunting during the ride etc.

Now, have you had the opportunity to ride identical equipment with each type of coupling system so that you can definitively state that scharfenberg couplers provide a smoother ride with less slack?
I ask, because this is a very loaded question. You're essentially comparing European passenger trains to North American and the differing standards between equipment.

Without going much further, would you be able to provide some specific examples of locomotive hauled passenger equipment using scharfenberg couplers?

Certainly, scharfenberg couplers (or a version of the concept anyway as they might be derivatives of the Tomlison coupler) are used around North America. Metra Electic, the South Shore, Silverliner V's all come to mind. Those are of course all EMU's. 

An example of some equipment that was locomotive hauled was the TEE equipment Ontario Northland operated. Those certainly had some form of a European automatic coupler. Those were a bit closer to a locomotive hauled concept, and indeed, in their later years the coaches were hauled by F units which probably meant the F unit had to have appropriate couplers retrofitted. However, those are certainly an obscure part of North American passenger rail history.

[smallspy]

12 hours ago, MiWay0310 said:

Curious question for any with tech knowledge here:

How come we don't see passenger railcars i.e. VIA and GOT trying or experimenting with Scharfenberg couplers? I understand what I just said has many issues, but allow me to simplify through what I would assume so far.

Obviously there would be a compatibility issue with the standard knuckle coupler and a Scharf. The reason I bring GO up is that they were recently receiving new BiLevels, and VIA recently rebuilt their fleet. However, Scharfenbergs provide a generally smoother ride, they have less slack, so that means less lurching/shunting during the ride etc. I was thinking perhaps they could have an experimental train, i.e. a 3 car trainset for VIA and a P42 with Scharf couplers. Is there a compatibility issue with the HEP and a Scharf coupler? 

Basically what I'm asking is why Scharfenbergs aren't more popular here than they are elsewhere. I feel it has to do with the fact that we've been using knuckles for some time, and perhaps the cost of conversion? Though I feel they may just not be worth it...(though when I say conversion, I say that they theoretically would have been done during rebuilds)

This is probably a stupid question and I feel like I have heavy bullshit content here, but I'm still curious. 

There is a very obvious compatibility issue. A knuckle coupler is used on 99.9% of the rolling stock active in North America. Should something happen, the car or train can easily be pulled by any locomotive.

 

(Yes, adaptors exist, but they have very serious limitations in terms of their strength and the speed that they are allowed. You can't haul a car from the factory with an adaptor, you'd have to modify at least one car specifically to do it.)

 

The other issue is that Scharfenburg couplers, or any other automatic coupler, is a LOT more complex than a knuckle coupler, and therefore requires a lot more maintenance. A knuckle coupler consists of just 6 parts - I can think think of 6 parts just on the covers of the electrical contacts of any automatic coupler. As well, there are a number of manufacturers of knuckle couplers, and the parts are all standardized and interchangeable between them. That's not the case for Scharfenburg or any other automatic coupler.

 

For the record, VIA already has experience with non-standard couplers. The Renaissance cars are equipped with a type of coupler called a "shearback", some of which have automated connections and some of which don't depending on where they are positioned in the train. And because of this, they have to run the Ren cars in fixed consists - changing a single car out becomes a chore.

 

9 hours ago, M. Parsons said:

Lets gets something cleared up right away. Passenger cars don't have "standard knuckle couplers" like the Type E commonly seen on fright cars. Passenger equipment usually has Type H couplers. Certainly, Type H are compatible with Type E and Type F couplers. The Type H does reduce slack.

Nitpick: The modern Type H coupler is the one recommended for use by the APTA for passenger equipment, it's true. And CP has long equipped their cars with Type H couplers. But CN almost always equipped their cars with reduced-slack versions of the Type E coupler. And many of these cars are still on the rails and in use today, with those same couplers.

 

Dan

[webfil]

On 28/01/2018 at 8:49 PM, M. Parsons said:

I have been unsuccessful finding any photos showing RDC's operating these trains after VIA took over. In particular I would love to find a shot of a VIA RDC at the CN Station in Downtown Edmonton, or along the CN line into the station after the LRT was built. There would have only been a short period of time this would have been possible- 1978-1981.

So... were there a lot of RDC's in VIA livery by the 1978-1981 timeframe?

A RDC (certainly not from CP) meeting a very short CP/VIA convoy, possibly in Alberta (location is unclear, though). I thought this may help. 

 

[Doppelkupplung]

12 hours ago, M. Parsons said:

Lets gets something cleared up right away. Passenger cars don't have "standard knuckle couplers" like the Type E commonly seen on fright cars. Passenger equipment usually has Type H couplers. Certainly, Type H are compatible with Type E and Type F couplers. The Type H does reduce slack.

The point was they are knuckle couplers, regardless of them being rated for different uses. By standard, I mean they are what pretty much everything uses in North America. 

12 hours ago, M. Parsons said:

Now, have you had the opportunity to ride identical equipment with each type of coupling system so that you can definitively state that scharfenberg couplers provide a smoother ride with less slack?

I ask, because this is a very loaded question. You're essentially comparing European passenger trains to North American and the differing standards between equipment.

As it happens I have, and I have noticed that Scharfenberg-equipped equipment tends to offer a smoother ride with less lurching. This is from a passenger perspective of course. I agree, this is a very loaded question, and I acknowledged this in my initial post. I was just curious as to why we never experiment with it more often here, aside from LRVs etc. 

It is worth mentioning that the equipment I rode was not locomotive hauled, rather it was EMUs and DMUs.

I'm curious as to why it isn't tried out on loco hauled passenger equipment, not in NA, but even in Europe. Very rare that you see this. Is it a weight constraint?

Edit: I was quoting the posts as I read through, so this was answered below.

12 hours ago, M. Parsons said:

Certainly, scharfenberg couplers (or a version of the concept anyway as they might be derivatives of the Tomlison coupler) are used around North America. Metra Electic, the South Shore, Silverliner V's all come to mind. Those are of course all EMU's. 

Exactly. 

12 hours ago, M. Parsons said:

An example of some equipment that was locomotive hauled was the TEE equipment Ontario Northland operated. Those certainly had some form of a European automatic coupler. Those were a bit closer to a locomotive hauled concept, and indeed, in their later years the coaches were hauled by F units which probably meant the F unit had to have appropriate couplers retrofitted. However, those are certainly an obscure part of North American passenger rail history.

Agreed, it is an obscured part of NA rail history. Still curious as to what they used, because that certainly isn't a Scharf. 

3 hours ago, smallspy said:

There is a very obvious compatibility issue. A knuckle coupler is used on 99.9% of the rolling stock active in North America. Should something happen, the car or train can easily be pulled by any locomotive.

Agreed, the compatibility with just about anything is a huge benefit. I acknowledged the compatibility issue in my first post. I'm not suggesting we test it out in large groups, but perhaps a small trainset, i.e. your typical 3 car trainset to Montreal or something.

3 hours ago, smallspy said:

For the record, VIA already has experience with non-standard couplers. The Renaissance cars are equipped with a type of coupler called a "shearback", some of which have automated connections and some of which don't depending on where they are positioned in the train. And because of this, they have to run the Ren cars in fixed consists - changing a single car out becomes a chore.

I was aware of this; I believe that was what was fitted to them out of the factory in the UK? 

Did they swap out the shearbacks for knuckles on some cars, say baggage cars so they would be compatible with the locos?

3 hours ago, smallspy said:

The other issue is that Scharfenburg couplers, or any other automatic coupler, is a LOT more complex than a knuckle coupler, and therefore requires a lot more maintenance. A knuckle coupler consists of just 6 parts - I can think think of 6 parts just on the covers of the electrical contacts of any automatic coupler. As well, there are a number of manufacturers of knuckle couplers, and the parts are all standardized and interchangeable between them. That's not the case for Scharfenburg or any other automatic coupler.

This basically answers my question. I suppose they are just best suited for small trainsets, i.e. EMUs and so on. And I suppose the cost to maintain isn't amazing either. 

Thanks!

[dbdb]

1 hour ago, MiWay0310 said:

As it happens I have, and I have noticed that Scharfenberg-equipped equipment tends to offer a smoother ride with less lurching. This is from a passenger perspective of course. I agree, this is a very loaded question, and I acknowledged this in my initial post. I was just curious as to why we never experiment with it more often here, aside from LRVs etc. 

It is worth mentioning that the equipment I rode was not locomotive hauled, rather it was EMUs and DMUs.

Could the couple be coincidental to the smoother ride from the MUs providing their own discrete propulsion working simultaneously? 

1 hour ago, MiWay0310 said:

Did they swap out the shearbacks for knuckles on some cars, say baggage cars so they would be compatible with the locos?

Yes.  Renaissance baggage transition car

[Doppelkupplung]

1 hour ago, dbdb said:

Could the couple be coincidental to the smoother ride from the MUs providing their own discrete propulsion working simultaneously? 

Perhaps, as I've only experienced them on EMUs and DMUs. Those tend to be fixed units, i.e. the German BR423, 425 etc. and even the ICE trainsets. This would be similar to trains like the NS sprinter of the Netherlands, and countless other EMU sets used in Europe, which are almost always Scharfenberg equipped. 

1 hour ago, dbdb said:

Yes.  Renaissance baggage transition car

Had a feeling, thanks. Though I'm aware of the adapter that VIA used, at least in the early stages of Renns. 

[Transit geek]

Heard that BART's new Bombardier-built railcars (which entered service this month) have adopted Scharfenberg as well making them mechanically (and by extension electrically) incompatible with the old WABCO type N3s on the previous fleet. No surprising considering the technological advancements the new fleet brings.

[smallspy]

16 hours ago, MiWay0310 said:

Perhaps, as I've only experienced them on EMUs and DMUs. Those tend to be fixed units, i.e. the German BR423, 425 etc. and even the ICE trainsets. This would be similar to trains like the NS sprinter of the Netherlands, and countless other EMU sets used in Europe, which are almost always Scharfenberg equipped. 

The forces involved in running a train like that are infinitesimally small when compared to the forces exerted on the couplers of a long freight train here in North America. An E coupler is rated for 300,000lbs of pulling force, an F is for 350,000lbs of force. Any of the automatic couplers available likely have force limits only approaching a third of that or less.

 

(And of course, the forces exerted when used by MU equipment will be far, far, far smaller still.)

 

16 hours ago, MiWay0310 said:

Had a feeling, thanks. Though I'm aware of the adapter that VIA used, at least in the early stages of Renns. 

You're can't be aware of an adapter used in the early stages, because it didn't exist. There has always been an adapter, but it's only to be used for emergencies, and limits the speed of the train to 10 or 15mph.

 

Very early on, before the decision was made to modify the baggage cars to have knuckle couplers at one end, a number of F40s were outshopped with Shearback couplers on their rear end and all of the necessary electrical and air connections to mate with a "standard" Renaissance car. This arrangement did not last long, and the locos were modified back to standard.

 

Dan