Comparing VIA's LRC and Venture Implementation

November 15, 1981

Alternate post title: When Life Gives You Lemons? There is much justified concern about the implementation of VIA Rail Canada's soon-to-be 32-trainset Siemens Venture fleet. Someone asked me, I suppose due to the greyness of my hair, and the fadedness of my newspaper clippings, whether the LRC implementation had as many problems as VIA's Venture fleet is currently experiencing. 

My first impulse was to say the LRC teething troubles were much more painful, took longer to resolve, and gave VIA a much bigger black-eye than the Ventures could. Though these two technologies are separated by four decades, the railway and the passenger always want a new fleet to do well, and to be reliable. (We won't even talk about the Renaissance implementation that occurred two decades ago. There were problems, the fleet was technically not 'new' and hey, VIA got 'a good deal' on it.) Back to the LRC-Venture comparison that got me digging through the ol' dusty archives...

LRC IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

The LRC was the first new equipment fleet ordered by VIA. Each car cost $1 million, and each locomotive $1.2 million. The sturdy monocoque, aluminum-alloy coaches were particularly noteworthy, weighing one-third less than conventional rolling stock then in use.  

The new trains entered service more slowly than expected, in part due to a seven-month strike at Bombardier in 1979. Further institutional delay was caused by VIA simultaneously having to form itself as a corporation, and the work of incorporating CN and CP intercity trains into combined operations. From VIA's 1980 annual report:

The first LRC run in revenue service was an unexpected Toronto-Sarnia run on September 4, 1981 - a busy Labour Day travel weekend that required everything VIA could muster.  Regular service between Montreal and Toronto was postponed at least twice, from October 25 to November 16 to December 18, 1981. VIA had hoped to have 50% of Corridor trains LRC-equipped by the late-spring of 1982!

Throughout the early years, the untried LRC equipment faced a host of mechanical and operating challenges. Train riders were on board for years to fix what defects they could. 

The banking system that promised higher speeds by tilting up to 10 degrees with computer-controlled hydraulic lift technology was perhaps a perfect solution to an imperfect right-of-way. The pendulum-like suspension relied on centrifugal force and gravity. Once a curve was sensed, an electric signal was sent to hydraulic actuators that tilted the coach body to the appropriate angle, returning the coach body to level after the curve. The overly-complex system required constant vigilance and was often and finally deactivated. One common problem - the cars' banking system would "lock" in the tilted position even after the track had straightened out from a curve. Removal of the banking system reduced maintenance costs and weight by two tonnes per car, thereby also reducing fuel consumption.

Problems at the cars' vestibules were the result of the pocket-style doors that were designed to slide back and 'into' the coach body/wall once actuated by a key. Almost simultaneously, hydraulic pistons would deploy the vestibule steps outward. The technology was often confounded by winter ice and snow. When eventually deactivated, the steps would drop down with a heavy 'clunk' on platforms all along the Corridor! Unlike conventional equipment's 21-inch gap that required a step box, LRC stairs reached within 10 inches of low-level platforms, 

Minor defects were even mentioned in VIA's 1981 annual report, during the trial service:

VIA's 1982 annual report mentioned: "During this introductory phase, a number of technological problems related to the train systems were encountered which were addressed jointly by VIA and the manufacturer, and refinements effected gradually." 

Publicly, VIA said the problems were not major bugs, only basic design problems (which took five years to work out). Behind the scenes, the manufacturer said the railway was not maintaining the new sets properly, while VIA said that it was the trains' high-tech complexity caused failures. During evaluation on Amtrak, shop forces exhibited indifference to what they viewed as oddball technology that would never find a home on Amtrak. 

A search through the contemporaneous rail enthusiast newsletters of the day (1981-84) reveals few articles on LRC implementation issues, just one brief trip report: On August 14, 1983 prior to departure from Toronto Union Station, an LRC coach on VIA No 46 was tilting on its own. A two-hour delay ensued while a first-generation MLW switcher brought replacement from the coach yard. The uncoupling and coupling, overseen by three shop staff made departure for Ottawa 1'50" late.

A wheel-bearing failure on December 2, 1983 led to all 50 cars then in service being sidelined six days later for bearing inspections. Bearing replacement was done around the clock, with a goal of having 80% of the fleet in service by December 19. Replacement bearings were stockpiled for use in the next 50-car order.

Some of the other problems the LRCs became known for, requiring more than 200 modifications to be made in the first three years of service:

• the old Alco-designed 251F, 16-cylinder engine leaked initially
• humped trucks bounced, leading to an 80 mph speed-restriction until new trucks were ordered from Dofasco, and shocks and dampers finally adjusted
• a wheel falling off
• troublesome door-opening mechanism, doors jamming shut 
• engines that wouldn't restart 
• frozen toilets and burst pipes
• false readings from the on-board hotbox-monitoring system
• corrosion in washrooms
  
• locomotives' wheelbase had to be reprofiled to eliminate vibration at high speed
• hydraulic fluid in the banking system had a tendency to overheat
• problems with brake components
• plastic hinges breaking off overhead luggage bins
• anti-skid devices shorting out after taking the pounding of daily service, causing skies
• snow finding its way into boxes
• battery chargers shorting out
• overly-complex HEP system
• problematic Stanford alternators
• right-angle drive cooling fan
• cars tilting on their own!

In April 1986, 50% of the LRC coach fleet was shopped. Two years later, electrical problems in April 1988 meant that LRC locomotives couldn't run solo, instead requiring a 'B' unit or steam generator unit. From March-May 1992, axle problems led to Operation Axle. Most of the LRC locomotive fleet was stored by 1991. 

In 1981, VIA needed the LRC trains to be a success at a critical time in its history when trends and technology like Head-End Power (HEP) were changing rapidly in the passenger rail industry. 

• The popular Turbo trains were still reliable, but would be pulled from service the same year as the LRC entered revenue service and scrapped.
• VIA's first-generation locomotives were increasingly unreliable, replaced by the F40 fleet just in time, five years later.
• VIA's conventional fleet was steam-heated, originally requiring steam locomotives that had been scrapped twenty years ago. Steam generators were old technology; the 30 year-old equipment in the harsh Canadian climate was affecting reliability. The Turbo and Tempo had already proven that non-steam/HEP technology was more reliable.

The implementation of the LRC fleet enabled wider changes within VIA's operations, some based on passengers' expectations as more intercity travel shifted to airlines. In 1981, visitors to LRC open houses were quoted saying things like, "I'm impressed because it's designed like the interior of an aircraft", "It looks rather pleasant like air transport brought down to earth", and "I like the idea of serving you the meals right at your seats":

• Though there had been discussions about converting VIA's car fleet to Head-End Power, VIA's plans for that project were not announced until 1987, and the first HEP cars wouldn't entered service until 1991.
• After the drastic 1990 cuts, VIA decided its blue & yellow car fleet would not be converted to HEP and its future fate was sealed.
• VIA was keen to incorporate the LRC's at-seat cart service, with modular kitchen components and no need for meal-service cars or the staff they required. 
• The same for baggage cars and club cars. Roomy baggage racks, overhead-storage bins and purpose-built, consist-ready VIA1 business-class service was part of the attractiveness of the LRC design.
• Within a few years, baggage cars, meal-service cars, and operating crews supplied by the railways would disappear as VIA became fully responsible for on-board service crews, the replacement of conductors by service managers, and locomotive engineers becoming VIA employees.

VIA looks back with fondness on the LRC era in the first decade of 'Great Moments on VIA Rail's History' on its webpage: "1981 - The first Light, Rapid, Comfortable (LRC) trains were delivered to Windsor Station in Montréal, making travel more practical and appealing to passengers." Even though LRC cars had racked up their first million miles each by 1991, they are soldiering on, having undergone major refurbishing at IRSI in Moncton 15 years ago. 

COMPARING LRC AND VENTURE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

LRC -- There was a lengthy 13-year development phase by the LRC consortium (Alcan, Dofasco and MLW-->Bombardier) from 1968 to 1981.  The prototype JV-1 locomotive and coach made a 7,000-mile round trip to the US Department of Transportation test facility in Pueblo, CO in 1974. On November 13, the set completed a 1,094-mile test of 120 laps of the test-track at the average speed of 96 mph, returning back to Canada on December 1, 1974. 

Test trains were operated by VIA between Montreal-Toronto and Montreal-Quebec City for months. No sales were made to other passenger operators, despite extensive evaluation on Amtrak's North-East Corridor from 1980-82. The debut of the LRC in the Corridor was delayed multiple times due to reliability issues.

Venture -- Siemens' Venture cars were derived from European Viaggio Comfort cars from 2008, first ordered by Florida's Brightline in 2014, entering revenue service in 2018. In 2017, a coalition of states with state-supported Amtrak routes ordered 137 Venture railcars through its contractor Sumitomo Corporation: seven trainsets for California, and 88 cars for Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri (Amtrak Midwest). In 2021, Amtrak announced their order for 83 trainsets to replace the aging Amfleet and Metroliner cab-cars. In 2022, it was Ontario Northland placing an order for three three-car trainsets. Fun fact: each locomotive contains the equivalent of 28 miles of wiring.

Take a Siemens plant tour - the facility seems to be bursting at the seams. The video shows VIA 2217, 2221 and 2322 still at the plant, all since delivered by early-October, dating its production to early-September, 2024. It's easy to see that Siemens has become North America's largest passenger rail rolling stock manufacturer, since first building light rail vehicles here in the 1980s. With the Amtrak pending order of 500+ cars, and a total production of 900 so far, Siemens finds it necessary to build a second plant in Lexington, NC opening in 2025. Groundbreaking was on August 23, 2023 and the cost of the construction is $225 million! The plant will help with the Amtrak contract as well as being able to provide locomotive overhauls in the future.

The Corridor implementation of the Venture fleet has been on-schedule, phased, with new sets arriving monthly. The first set arrived in Montreal on September 29, 2021. Initially kept close to the MMC, Montreal-Ottawa service debuted on November 8, 2022 followed by Ottawa-Toronto service on September 21, 2023 and some Southwest Ontario service beginning in October, 2024. 

VENTURE IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

Problems with the Venture implementation have included locomotives shutting down due to a single component. Something simple like a filter not being changed on schedule has caused units to shutdown and cause delays. Since the equipment is new to crews and vice versa, these incidents may be due to lack of familiarity with the new trains. There are sporadic non-systemic mechanical issues. Siemens staff at the MMC seem to have been able to cope when adequate stores are available under a coupler-to-coupler fifteen-year service contract. Major incidents with VIA's Ventures are occurring twice per week, minor incidents every day. One recent recurring report includes the main computer in 2800-series car that manages the entire train - randomly tossing a bunch of errors to the head-end: locked axle, bearing, door open, etc., simultaneously.

VIA CEO Mario Peloquin was recently quoted as saying, "We are halfway through fleet implementation. Relationship between supplier and us is working well. Complex process to receive, test, commission and put in service the new trainsets. It is on-par with delivery of any new rolling stock."'

CONCLUSIONS

One major difference between the eras in which LRC and Ventures were introduced? Social media, propagating every Venture incident across multiple social media platforms, with uninformed posters calling the new equipment 'crap'. While Venture incidents do make the news today, I haven't seen any credible articles pointing to specific, recurring failures with just one component or technology. 

Here are some conclusions based on the above comparisons:

• LRC technology was completely new and was a guaranteed sale to VIA. Venture technology chosen by VIA after the other railways and other countries bought similar Siemens trains.
• There were certain LRC systems that were known to be troublesome across the fleet. There seem to be no 'Achilles heels' causing systemic problems with the Venture fleet.
• Without LRC or Venture failure rates, it's tough to ascertain which implementation was 'better'.
• The LRC implementation was problem-plagued and to a degree far more widespread and took longer to remedy than that of VIA's Ventures, at least so far.
• Whatever difficulties there were with the LRC car fleet, they have been rebuilt and are still in service 40+ years later. The locomotives only lasted one-quarter to one-half that long. Fortunately, the F40 could operate with LRC car fleet. Venture trainsets are stand-alone and not operable with other locomotives.

CLIPPINGS

These contemporaneous 80's-era news clippings, many from the Canadian Press, show some of the problems, some of the hype and the long trail that LRC implementation travelled through Canadian passenger rail history. 

December 26, 1981

December 30, 1981

April 26, 1982

December 3, 1983

December 12, 1983

Both March 14, 1984

An excerpt from the December 3, 1984 article below:

January 8, 1985

The history of VIA's Venture implementation is still being written. Unlike the LRC, technology that has already been proven elsewhere by Siemens should ease the teething troubles. By comparison, the LRC implementation looks to have been Like a Root Canal!

Running extra...

While preparing this post, I was able to unearth a lot of previously-unearthed material that needed unearthing. Check out this L-R-C post on the LRC for more! Not to make Trackside Treasure all about VIA, but here are two other posts (links below and in the right sidebar) that being updated on a daily basis because a lot of what is making news on Canadian rails right now is related to VIA. You will find next to nothing (no, it's nothing) on Trackside Treasure about VIA's HFR project. I think that stands for High Fantasy Rail, but I need to do some more reading. 

• Ventures in Service, Part 2 
• CN's Speed Reductions on the Ventures at crossings

Not to make this Running extra all about VIA, but the VIA Historical Association's 6539 (below - Chris Greenlaw photo) is pretty much breaking the internet today. The first time a head-end has broken the internet, since the tail-end of a Kardashian broke it last time.

You've made it to the bottom of Trackside Treasure's 900th post. If you've been here since the very beginning, you're probably pretty tired. And 16 years older than when you started. I'm very tired and 60 years older than when I started...life. It's been a great ride and I can now die happy, resting not so much on my considerable laurels and burgeoning pension income amplified by picking up empty beer cans in our adjacent pedestrian pathway, but more than that, secure in the knowledge that I have provided Canadian train enthusiasts with information and photos of the subjects of their enthusiasm with very little mission-creep though I've been tempted to remake it into a political blog, a blog about my considerable creamer-top collection or to translate the whole thing into Latin, and maybe now a blog called Run-On Sentences!