http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/06/28-four-companies-will-vie-to-build-new-via-equipment
Bombardier, Siemens, Stadler and Talgo are the four.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
I only looked superficially into the Quebec Bridge's design.
The portal design forces the monorails to the outside of the trusses
The Quebec Bridge is pin-connected. So hopefully the trusses are able to carry the additional loads. I not you can strengthen eye bar by welding a cut-out steel plate fitting the head of the eye bar and weld rods to the plate.
Problem: Can the old steel get welded? Are the pins able to carry the additional loads? Here perhaps more modern analysis methods for eye bar/pin connections might help. Possible but not sure.
Strengthening of riveted chord can be done if you find flanges or webs not full of rivets.
The post that will have to carry the monorail loads directly are not designed to carry any bending moments. To avoid this the monorail supports will have to be on two common channels right and left of the post that reach completely across the bridge width.
A lot depends on how many reserves were calculated into the bridge structure.
Steel bridges stand a lot better chance to get strengthened than concrete bridges though it can be done. On long spans like the Quebec Bridge strengthening when possible seems more economic. On shorter spans a new bridge might be better especially if the existing bridge is concrete
Strengthening is never cheap.Regards, Volker
Overmod Does the Quebec Bridge not cross the St. Lawrence? I was pretty sure it did (between Sainte-Foy and Levis?) but there may have been watercourse changes in the intervening years. They have both 'video' and a discussion of this crossing, which has nothing to do with the proposed Rive Nord TGF as far as I know but is an illustration of how a historic asset might be used for new transit.
Does the Quebec Bridge not cross the St. Lawrence? I was pretty sure it did (between Sainte-Foy and Levis?) but there may have been watercourse changes in the intervening years.
They have both 'video' and a discussion of this crossing, which has nothing to do with the proposed Rive Nord TGF as far as I know but is an illustration of how a historic asset might be used for new transit.
Johnny
Which St. Lawrence bridge do you think of? The bridge under construction for the St. Lawrence Corridor Project?Regards, Volker
Now THESE are correct considerations 'against' the monorail, and it is significant that they come from a practicing engineer with distinctive competence in precisely this area of design.
There is a certain amount of handwaving involving the vertical compliance and damping of the 'power wheel' bogies, and in some fairly critical lateral concerns (for the intended speeds). These don't seem to me fundamentally 'insoluble' ... but Volker is right to note that for all the work done to put up this Web site in so many languages these critical aspects of the design should have been addressed.
Likewise I was struck, and not too impressed, with the apparent lack of rack bracing in the depicted structure, perhaps in more planes than longitudinal. It reminded me a little of the track support systems for 'telepomps' more than a century ago, and is a curious oversight for a physicist like Confort to make.
It will be interesting to see how, even with full and effective algorithms for nonslip acceleration and regenerative braking to a stop, the monorail accommodates the need for any given 'module' to make required TGF stops and still achieve low trip times without interfering with other traffic running at other speeds. This being reasonably easy to accomplish with switchable conventional bi-rail...
Can someone, not necessarily Volker, look at published structure for the St. Lawrence bridge in particular and determine how and where it would have to be 'beefed up' to take the monorail in whatever safe configuration would accommodate it? I am thinking that speed restrictions across this span would constitute a reasonably small percentage of trip time increase, but it might be prudent to design for inadvertent overspeed mistakes 'anyway'.
Overmodow hold on a moment, read up on the idea before invoking Lyle: http://www.trensquebec.qc.ca/english
Sounds very optimistic and ambitious. The suspended monorail systems on rubber tires I know of have a maximum speed of 50 mph (80 kph). But 155 mph (250 kph) on these tires? I have my doubts.
Light system is relative. When I was project manager (structural design) on the rebuilding site of the burned down Duesseldorf Airport we had to implement the columns of the Siemens Sipem people mover into our construction: https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/barmashev/70799644/66973/66973_600.jpg
IIRC the monorail weighed around 0.7 kips/ft at 30 mph (50 kph) and 100 ft (30 m) span. That is about the lane load in US and Canadian bridge design codes. Not to mention the weight of columns and their fixing moments.
In my opinion there is no way to use a Highway bridge without loosing a traffic lane.
With 131 ft (40 m) span and 155 mph (250 kph) the monorail's weight will possibly more than double.
I think the shown open H-section as monorail is less than ideal in curves at high speed.
It would be interesting to learn what the cost estimate was based on.
Without further information it is not more than an eye catcher for me.
Now hold on a moment, read up on the idea before invoking Lyle:
I think someone in the Quebec legislature has run into Lyle Lanley:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM
When will the monorail advocaes realize that is a very slow speed type of transportation ? Reports that the disney monorail ride is getting very rough ?
Surprising to me how little attention the whole TGF effort has received outside Francophone circles -- I have yet to see an English-language article on it.
A reasonable background on the technological alternatives for Montreal-QC (en francais) is here
ferrophileIronically, diesels have been going through the tunnel for decades before AMT. Passenger trains from Abbitibi and Saguenay arrived here with diesels and entered Gare Centrale via that tunnel since diesels were used on CNR passenger trains. Of course they were pulled by the boxy electric locos when they left the station heading north back to their remote destination. These very old machines were attached in front of the lead unit (FP-9 or FPA-4) for the time to climb outside the 4 mile tunnel, then uncoupled to leave the train on its own. I was born in La Tuque and rode these trains for years.
Here's the consist of one of those trains to northern Quebec. The ancient Box-cab electrics hauled it out of Central Station to Eastern Jct. where they cut off.
In the reverse (south bound) direction…..the diesels hauled the train to the tunnel entrance at Portal Heights (now Canora Station) The engineer would set the diesel units to idle…..and just coast the 3 miles downgrade through the tunnel into Central Station.
CN #73 Montreal - Chicoutimi, Feb. 20, 1976
6712 GE Electric (off at Eastern Jct)
6714 GE Electric (off at Eastern Jct)
6787 FPA4
6636 F9B
9332 Baggage
1815 Allendale 8Sec, 2Comp, 1Dr. HW Sleeper (built 1923)
1087 Cape Breton 2Bdr. 2Comp Buffet Lounge
5227 Coach
5298 Coach (off at Arvida)
5187 Coach (off at Jonquiere)
5287 Coach (to #75 at Hervey Jct to Senneterre)
431 Dinette (to #75 at Hervey Jct to Senneterre)
1807 Campbellton Sleeper (to #75 at Hervey Jct to Senneterre)
>>>>>>>>>
After VIA moved the CP Dayliners between Montreal and Quebec City from Windsor Station to Central Station......they were also hauled out through the Mt Royal Tunnel by an electric.... so an interesting sight: 2 Electric Box Cabs + a single RDC unit!
4 mile tunnel ? Would expect that with all the service thru the tunnel that diesel fumes wound not clear enough be tolerable ? What if any is there at present any tunnel fume evacuation facilities. Even an idiling diesel on a DP is going to make fumes ?
You must take in account that poeple in Québec City are pushing for a TGF (Train à Grande Fréquence) which is faster and more frequent service between Québec city and Montréal via Trois-Rivières, on the QGRR (Québec-Gatineau), the old CPR. They want them to reach Gare Centrale using the tunnel under Mnot-Royal as they will be arriving from the north shore of the St-Lawrence river. AMT first wanted to ban VIA to use this line through the mountain, saying it would interfere with their service to Deux-Montagnes and with the future REM, the automated electric transit train to come. The battle is now kind of won for proposers of the TGF as it was announced the TGF would be tolerated and intergrated between other trains using the tunnel. This is why they want hybrid locos like ALP-45: diesel between Québec city and the vincinity of Montréal, then electric by raising the pantograph to enter the tunnel.
Ironically, diesels have been going through the tunnel for decades before AMT. Passenger trains from Abbitibi and Saguenay arrived here with diesels and entered Gare Centrale via that tunnel since diesels were used on CNR passenger trains. Of course they were pulled by the boxy electric locos when they left the station heading north back to their remote destination. These very old machines were attached in front of the lead unit (FP-9 or FPA-4) for the time to climb outside the 4 mile tunnel, then uncoupled to leave the train on its own. I was born in La Tuque and rode these trains for years.
Even if they win their TGF, VIA would keep the service on the south shore via Drummondville.
If the TGF comes, it will be a good start to accelerate the service between our Capital and Montréal. If they do it, if the time is cut to under 2 hours, I strongly believe poeple will use it. Je suis TGF!
Bertrand Dion a.k.a. Ferrophile.
St-Irénée, Qc.
SD70Dude I know what you were drescribing was the way the last time I rode via. I always choose the the all Budd trains ( just ) my thing. So once again, ride them when you can, cause one day we will look up and they will be gone. Thanks for the up date. ROBERT WILLISON Is Via stillrunnings a fair amount of stainless in the corridors? They have around 30 ex-Amtrak coaches (the HEP 2 fleet) in addition to the 40 ex-CP coaches (HEP 1). This compares to nearly 100 LRC cars. They seem to try to keep consists composed entirely of one type. It is the HEP 2 cars VIA wants to retire very soon.
I know what you were drescribing was the way the last time I rode via. I always choose the the all Budd trains ( just ) my thing. So once again, ride them when you can, cause one day we will look up and they will be gone.
Thanks for the up date.
ROBERT WILLISON Is Via stillrunnings a fair amount of stainless in the corridors?
Is Via stillrunnings a fair amount of stainless in the corridors?
They have around 30 ex-Amtrak coaches (the HEP 2 fleet) in addition to the 40 ex-CP coaches (HEP 1). This compares to nearly 100 LRC cars.
They seem to try to keep consists composed entirely of one type.
It is the HEP 2 cars VIA wants to retire very soon.
SD70Dude The problem with rebuilding cars is that it still leaves you with what at the core is still old equipment. Nothing lasts forever, not even steel centre sills. Even before this funding announcement VIA had revealed they plan to soon retire the ex-Amtrak stainless steel coaches. The LRC coaches have been the backbone of VIA's corridor fleet since they were built in the early 1980s, which will make them nearly 40 years old by the time their replacements arrive. While they are not nearly as old as the Amfleet (and nowhere near the Heritage stainless steel cars) they are significantly older than the Acela coaches (which are based on the LRC design) which Amtrak will be retiring around the same time. Perhaps the Bombardier LRC family simply does not age well (they don't build 'em like they used to?). The Renaissance cars were a maintenance nightmare (frozen plumbing, not handicap accessible) when first acquired, and they still have ongoing issues. Their availability rating is far lower than anything else VIA has, especially during the winter. VIA has not stated that tilting will be a requirement of the new cars, but a properly working system (unlike the LRC) would be quite helpful. Meanwhile the long-distance ex-CP stainless steel fleet rolls on, albeit fewer miles at slower speeds than the corridor fleet.
The problem with rebuilding cars is that it still leaves you with what at the core is still old equipment. Nothing lasts forever, not even steel centre sills. Even before this funding announcement VIA had revealed they plan to soon retire the ex-Amtrak stainless steel coaches.
The LRC coaches have been the backbone of VIA's corridor fleet since they were built in the early 1980s, which will make them nearly 40 years old by the time their replacements arrive. While they are not nearly as old as the Amfleet (and nowhere near the Heritage stainless steel cars) they are significantly older than the Acela coaches (which are based on the LRC design) which Amtrak will be retiring around the same time. Perhaps the Bombardier LRC family simply does not age well (they don't build 'em like they used to?).
The Renaissance cars were a maintenance nightmare (frozen plumbing, not handicap accessible) when first acquired, and they still have ongoing issues. Their availability rating is far lower than anything else VIA has, especially during the winter.
VIA has not stated that tilting will be a requirement of the new cars, but a properly working system (unlike the LRC) would be quite helpful.
Meanwhile the long-distance ex-CP stainless steel fleet rolls on, albeit fewer miles at slower speeds than the corridor fleet.
Overmod Diesel speed is limited to 100mph, most likely for fuel-efficiency concerns.
I think the ALP-45DP is geared for 125 mph under catenary and it reaches 100 mph using diesel power which is about 1,150 hp less than electric power.Regards, Volker
cdnreaderThe Bombardier locomotives were designed for commuter service which usually has a maximum speed of 70 mph or so. Presumably Via would require locos that are capable of at least 110 mph for their dedicated tracks. Can the Bombardier locos be upgraded to allow this?
Under catenary the Bombardier ALP-45DP is capable of 125 mph, with diesel power 100 mph. It already weighs 288,000 lbs.The Tier 4 equipment and eventually more powerful diesel engines will ad to this.
The PRIIA specifications contain requirements for dual mode (3rd rail) locomotives. One of the interested railroads asked four manufacturers for their opinion. The result is collected here: http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/Dual_Mode_DC_3rd_Rail-Appendix_A_4-110_MPH_-_for_TSCapproval.docx
And here are some discussion points: http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20Exec/110_vs_125_Standardization_and_DEIS_Rev2.docx
The weight of the Siemens Charger would go up from 272,000 lbs to 291,500 lbs in a three feet longer locomotive. Bombardier say they would keep the 288,000 lbs but with the above speed limits and Tier 3. Progress Rail answered that the F125 Dual Power would weigh 282,000 lbs. That astonishes me as the F125 already weighs 280,000 lbs.
Here I trust Siemens more with their hugh experience building electric locomotives.
GE/MPI proposed a six-axle locomotive weighing 326,000 lbs. The reason for me is that MPI is not able to provide a monocoque chassis.
I don't know the allowed axle loads for the VIA locomotives but 36.44 tons for the DP Charger seem quite reasonable. Has it to be less, a smaller diesel engine might be the way to go with lower diesel modus speeds.Regards, Volker
ALP45DP has essentially the same main transformer and running gear as the ALP46A electric, and the same top speed under catenary (125mph). Diesel speed is limited to 100mph, most likely for fuel-efficiency concerns. It might be interesting to see the effect of using a "better" prime mover (C175 or QSK) in place of the 3512c or whatever current spec for them is.
VIA Rail Canada More fuel-efficient, Tier 4 Diesel engines, with the option to operate on electrified rail infrastructure as it becomes available.
More fuel-efficient, Tier 4 Diesel engines, with the option to operate on electrified rail infrastructure as it becomes available.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
I doubt there is 'that' much more involved in making a Charger dual-mode capable 'at the diesel output'
In my opinion the likeliest way to make a 'third-rail-capable Charger' is to arrange to filter, despike, etc. the third-rail feed, and then direct this to the DC link of the inverter transmission. A small amount of energy storage (somewhat akin to keep-alive in model railroading) might be installed to keep the locomotive from stalling at low speed on long gaps.
Similarly it should not be difficult to transform and then rectify 60Hz AC for this purpose. That should be easier than the Conrail 'duel-mode lite' experiment in the early '80s.
The Siemens battery supplier for the Chargers has only just started working with 'commercial-grade' lithium-chemistry batteries, which would likely be an enabling technology for a Charger 'hybrid'. Reasonably certain that mosey of the advantage of the battery would be in regenerative/wayside storage and rapid release, e.g. For commuter service or routes with many checks and reaccelerations, rather than for sustained fast running. There are other chemistries (and other potential uses for sustained high-current generation on falling grades) that might be useful, but I doubt a reasonable long-term economic 'case' for these could be made without subsidy. KERS (flywheel storage) is likely only useful if you build something like the ALPS locomotive (which uses the 'flywheel' for much of its high performance).
Not in North America. Siemens is rumored to be working on a third rail Charger, but that won't be helpful. I don't doubt they could come up with a Sprinter/Charger hybrid if asked. Stadler has a Eurodual model in testing in Europe.
Are there any other dual-mode locomotives currently available?
I should have expected bad things from CAT locomotive engines. Could a different type of diesel be used instead? Of course that does not solve the weight issue.
The ALP45-DPs probably aren't a good option. Heavy, worse than expected fuel consumption, expensive to buy, and they wear out their prime movers quickly.
SD70Dude I expect Talgo to be another bidder for the trainsets, in addition to Bombardier and Siemens.
I expect Talgo to be another bidder for the trainsets, in addition to Bombardier and Siemens.
Quoting myself here, I forgot another potential bidder. Viewliners would look pretty good in VIA paint...
Does it really cost less to purchase an entirely new fleet of cars? I would think the only change that needs to be added would be to make the LRC coaches push-pull compatible...and obviously building cab cars.
If Bombardier gets the bid, they could possibly revamp the desgin. They're basically VIA's version of the Amfleet. Sure they're older, but they're definitely reliable (and lighter too). I think it actually makes more sense just to take...however many of the Renaissance cars are still operating and rebuild them as LRC's. They don't need tilt to work well.
Thanks. It would be interesting to know.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.