VIA Rail

[micheal_can]

The cutbacks have nothing to do with "under-utilization".


The bigger issue is that the different car types needed for these different hypothetical train lengths aren't evenly distributed amongst the actual number of cars getting built.


It would take way more than two or three sets to lengthen the trainsets to meet CN's arbitrary requirements and still be able to meet service. There are only 3 cars from each set that can be used, the 1B, 2A and 2B cars. Just to lengthen 3 trainsets you would need to mothball 2 other trainsets.

Besides, doing so would only reinforce CN's position on the matter, and I don't think that's helpful here.

Dan

So, the lack of purchasing more cars or shunts may be Via's way of waiting till a decision has been made before doing anything so as to not allow CN to win by default?

 

[cplchanb]

So, the lack of purchasing more cars or shunts may be Via's way of waiting till a decision has been made before doing anything so as to not allow CN to win by default?

but wouldnt they need to replace the HEP cars as well? What about for future service expansion? do they have enough to spare with 32 sets?

 

[micheal_can]

but wouldnt they need to replace the HEP cars as well? What about for future service expansion? do they have enough to spare with 32 sets?

I am guessing they have enough to replace the number of seats 1 for 1. No idea about expansions. My guess is HxR will have an additional rolling stock contract in it.

 

[Urban Sky]

but wouldnt they need to replace the HEP cars as well? What about for future service expansion? do they have enough to spare with 32 sets?

The new fleet was always intended for a 1:1 fleet replacement and not for service expansion (without exercising the option for 16 additional trainsets). They have enough trains to run their pre-Covid schedule, but not much more…

 

[Trackside_Treasure]

Those trains will be run with the HEP2 equipment that will be remaining in service once all of the LRCs are retired.


That was never the plan, rather it just showed what was capable within the different car types that are being ordered.


Because they couldn't have possibly foreseen that CN would invoke a completely arbitrary and possibly illegal operating rule?

Dan

Not that I believe everything VIA says, Dan, but this is from the VIA talking points about the cancellations:

 

[Urban Sky]

Not that I believe everything says, Dan, but this is from the VIA talking points about the cancellations:

View attachment 630982

You are talking about what motivated the decision which trains to cancel, Dan is talking about why VIA had to cancel trains in the first place…

 

[smallspy]

So, the lack of purchasing more cars or shunts may be Via's way of waiting till a decision has been made before doing anything so as to not allow CN to win by default?

They can't buy shunting equipment, it has not been certified for use in Canada.

I am guessing they have enough to replace the number of seats 1 for 1. No idea about expansions. My guess is HxR will have an additional rolling stock contract in it.

The Siemens trains fleet is just big enough to replace all of the LRC cars, HEP2 cars, corridor Ren sets and the few HEP1s that were used in the Corridor. Operationally, it was intended that they would be able to provide some additional frequencies because the trains will no longer have to turn at the termini, and because of their higher performance should be able to reduce trip times by several minutes on each leg.

But it was always expected that some of the trains were not going to be replaced by the Siemens sets, and so the HEP2 cars would stick around until the new Long Distance fleet - which will include replacements for them - comes on-line. And so there was going to be a net increase in the fleet's capacity because of this.

Not that I believe everything says, Dan, but this is from the VIA talking points about the cancellations:

View attachment 630982

You are talking about what motivated the decision which trains to cancel, Dan is talking about why VIA had to cancel trains in the first place…

Precisely.

Siemens, as they have with their other customers, is having a lot of difficulty supplying the required spare parts to VIA. There's apparently something like 6 cab cars sidelined with broken windshields, for instance.

Dan

 

[Bordercollie]

They can't buy shunting equipment, it has not been certified for use in Canada.


The Siemens trains fleet is just big enough to replace all of the LRC cars, HEP2 cars, corridor Ren sets and the few HEP1s that were used in the Corridor. Operationally, it was intended that they would be able to provide some additional frequencies because the trains will no longer have to turn at the termini, and because of their higher performance should be able to reduce trip times by several minutes on each leg.

But it was always expected that some of the trains were not going to be replaced by the Siemens sets, and so the HEP2 cars would stick around until the new Long Distance fleet - which will include replacements for them - comes on-line. And so there was going to be a net increase in the fleet's capacity because of this.



Precisely.

Siemens, as they have with their other customers, is having a lot of difficulty supplying the required spare parts to VIA. There's apparently something like 6 cab cars sidelined with broken windshields, for instance.

Dan

Is the broken windshields due to crossing incidents and such?

I'm sure brightline is keeping them busy with nose comes too.

 

[Toronto1834]

I would suggest that a third solution would be to resolve the bottlenecks that prevent VIA from offering more trains between Toronto and Montreal, as the best way to increase capacity is to increase frequency. That is a big part of what HFR was intending to do.

From what I have heard, the biggest bottleneck right now is at Coteau. By rerouting the Ottawa-Montreal trains onto CPKC's Winchester Sub (something that would be desirable for HFR anyway), that should help free up some slots for extra trains (until the 2nd biggest bottleneck kicks in). I realize this isn't a trivial change, as, for one thing, trains would need to somehow switch from CPKC track to CN track (and vice versa) somewhere between De Beaujeu and Gare Central.

Coteau Junction just seems to be designed terribly. Coteau Station is on the southern track and the switch used by trains going to Ottawa is on the northern track. As a result every MTL-OTT train needs to use both tracks in order to serve both the station and access the switch. As a result, EB TO-MTL trains frequently get slowed or temporarily blocked by MTL-OTT trains needing to use both tracks. There must be a simple way to resolve it. Brockville Junction is not perfect, but it creates far less conflicts with the platform on the north siding track that provides access to the Brockville Subdivision.

 

[roger1818]

Coteau Junction just seems to be designed terribly. Coteau Station is on the southern track and the switch used by trains going to Ottawa is on the northern track. As a result every MTL-OTT train needs to use both tracks in order to serve both the station and access the switch. As a result, EB TO-MTL trains frequently get slowed or temporarily blocked by MTL-OTT trains needing to use both tracks. There must be a simple way to resolve it. Brockville Junction is not perfect, but it creates far less conflicts with the platform on the north siding track that provides access to the Brockville Subdivision.

I wasn't even talking about servicing the station, though it certainly doesn't help that the station platform is on the south side of the tracks and the branch to the Alexandria Sub is on the north. If trains to/from Ottawa used CPKC's Winchester Sub, they could stop at Dorion instead, which already has platforms on both sides of the track and has the added advantage of allowing for a better connection to EXO.

 

[crs1026]

Coteau also happens to be a block swapping yard for CN freight. The congestion at Coteau is not so much conflicts between VIA trains - which move pretty quickly - but the dwell time of freights, who may have to block the main lines while doing work.

This drawing was released by VIA back when the 2008-2009 track expansion was under way. It was one of the projects that got dropped when VIA ran out of money. As you can see, the improvements were not related to the Alexandria Sub.... but rather the freight trackage and yard.

- Paul

 

[Trackside_Treasure]

"Motion for order of confidentiality. 151 (1) On motion, the Court may order that material to be filed shall be treated as confidential. Demonstrated need for confidentiality (2) Before making an order under subsection (1), the Court must be satisfied that the material should be treated as confidential, notwithstanding the public interest in open and accessible court proceedings."

So one wonders...why is CN seeking this now, with this Judicial Review requested by VIA having dragged on since November 12 of last year and many affidavits submitted to the court? CN's evidence in the judicial review has been weak in this layman's eyes. For some reason, CN wants the technical data from all such speed-reduced crossings that it is required to provide under the Ministerial Order shielded from public view. For the sake of transparency, perhaps VIA can prevail.

For the very latest, check out: https://tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com/2024/12/via-and-cn-in-federal-court-over-cn.html

It looks like CN's motion to strike VIA's judicial review has been rejected. CN did get somewhat of a win, with some of its crossing-warning material sent to Transport Canada remaining confidential. So February 25 in Montreal, VIA's application for judicial review that it brought before the court back on November 12 of last year will be heard in a one-day proceeding.

We'll see if the review will withstand CN's attempts to argue it's out of the Court's jurisdiction, whose evidence is more compelling, and what the direction from the Federal Court judge will be!

More of CN and VIA's affidavits now in this just-published post: http://tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com/2025/02/via-and-cn-in-federal-court-facts-part-2.html

 

[bearcat]

It looks like CN's motion to strike VIA's judicial review has been rejected. CN did get somewhat of a win, with some of its crossing-warning material sent to Transport Canada remaining confidential. So February 25 in Montreal, VIA's application for judicial review that it brought before the court back on November 12 of last year will be heard in a one-day proceeding.

We'll see if the review will withstand CN's attempts to argue it's out of the Court's jurisdiction, whose evidence is more compelling, and what the direction from the Federal Court judge will be!

More of CN and VIA's affidavits now in this just-published post: http://tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com/2025/02/via-and-cn-in-federal-court-facts-part-2.html

It really sounds like VIA is fully at the mercy of CN

 

[crs1026]

The most encouraging thing in that writeup was a small aside somewhat related.

I don't know what issues stand between CN and VIA - but it is encouraging that they are headed to a third party for adjudication, rather than just accepting a standoff. This is how the law is intended to work. Hopefully there is a publicly-discoverable resolution or award.

CN's demand for confidentiality, and the positioning of the VIA-CN TSA as a "private agreement" is in my mind unjustified. We have commented in other threads about changes to the balance of negotiating power between railways and public operators. This is a legitimate first lever for Ottawa to apply as correction. VIA runs with public money, and the need to protect CN's alleged business interests is waaaay overstated.

- Paul

 

[Trackside_Treasure]

The most encouraging thing in that writeup was a small aside somewhat related.

View attachment 631177

I don't know what issues stand between CN and VIA - but it is encouraging that they are headed to a third party for adjudication, rather than just accepting a standoff. This is how the law is intended to work. Hopefully there is a publicly-discoverable resolution or award.

CN's demand for confidentiality, and the positioning of the VIA-CN TSA as a "private agreement" is in my mind unjustified. We have commented in other threads about changes to the balance of negotiating power between railways and public operators. This is a legitimate first lever for Ottawa to apply as correction. VIA runs with public money, and the need to protect CN's alleged business interests is waaaay overstated.

- Paul

In this 2017 CTA case, it was both CN and VIA wanted the TSA kept confidential. The Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, as amended (CTA) normally requires the disclosure of any agreement in its entirety. In this case, however, disclosure excluded the amounts to be paid to avoid irreparable harm to CN and VIA.

There is definitely something in the CN data sent to Transport Canada that is not meant to be public. Hmmm.

Watch for an upcoming Trackside Treasure blog post on the 2009 and 2023 versions of the TSA.