VIA Rail

[Trackside_Treasure]

I assume this email was in reference to converting the J-trains 50/60 and 52/62 to Venture sets, which they did subsequently try to do.

It's also possible they were considering increasing the number of J-trains,

But if they're considering westbound J-trains, that could add massive delays to service since we know that trains can't be relied upon to arrive at Brockville at a particular time.

Yes, please note the date of the emails was back in March, just coming to light now. Westbound J-trains would never work, though they seemed to back in the 1970s-80s. This was a plan to make up to 10 J-trains permanently together! Crazy, eh?

 

[Trackside_Treasure]

Better late than never finding this $ amount. Seems VIA owed CN costs for launching a judicial review of CN's Crossing Supplement that concluded in Federal Court in February, 2025 and will be heard in Quebec Superior Court this December.
The whole, with costs.
[Decision rendered by the Court on July 22, 2025 - This decision relates to the costs awarded February 19, 2025. Order granting the Canadian National Railway Company’s (CN) motion and striking out Via Rail Canada’s (VIA) application for judicial review. Awarding a lump sum of $512,038.08 in favour of CN. (CN had requested lump sum costs, amounting to 38% of costs incurred, in the amount of $735,621.43, including (a) $657,598.08 in lawyer fees (representing 50% of CN’s alleged costs) and (b) $78,023.35 in alleged disbursements.)

 

[Trackside_Treasure]

[Decision rendered by the Court on July 22, 2025 - This decision relates to the costs awarded February 19, 2025. Order granting the Canadian National Railway Company’s (CN) motion and striking out Via Rail Canada’s (VIA) application for judicial review. Awarding a lump sum of $512,038.08 in favour of CN. (CN had requested lump sum costs, amounting to 38% of costs incurred, in the amount of $735,621.43, including (a) $657,598.08 in lawyer fees (representing 50% of CN’s alleged costs) and (b) $78,023.35 in alleged disbursements.)

Big Money! In a filing on March 31, 2025 CN's contended that it had incurred $1,393,219.50 in costs responding to VIA Rail Canada Inc.’s Application, which was found to be without any possibility of success and suffering from an obvious fatal flaw. The legal fees incurred by CN related to two motions brought within VIA’s Application. The first motion was an injunction brought by VIA, which sought to stay CN’s decision to issue restrictions on certain VIA train operations in the interest of public safety. The second was a jurisdiction motion brought by CN. CN was ultimately successful on its jurisdiction motion, striking VIA’s Application in its entirety without leave to amend. CN is without question the successful party in this proceeding (so they said)!

 

[Trackside_Treasure]

Then things got weird. March 2025 emails. CN suggested some weird things that VIA should do to resolve the Venture crossing speed reductions that CN imposed.
-adding an additional crew member in the cab;
-adding two cars to its consist; or
-reducing the speed to a point where it no longer needs to observe crossing activation.
-VIA has required that its next order of Venture Train Set be equipped with Shunt Enhancers.

CN says that VIA claims adding a crew member would be a cause of distraction. That statement ignores the fact that that freight and passenger operations routinely add a third member in the cab of a locomotive, including for training purposes, without increasing the risk.

 

[Bordercollie]

Then things got weird. March 2025 emails. CN suggested some weird things that VIA should do to resolve the Venture crossing speed reductions that CN imposed.
-adding an additional crew member in the cab;
-adding two cars to its consist; or
-reducing the speed to a point where it no longer needs to observe crossing activation.
-VIA has required that its next order of Venture Train Set be equipped with Shunt Enhancers.

CN says that VIA claims adding a crew member would be a cause of distraction. That statement ignores the fact that that freight and passenger operations routinely add a third member in the cab of a locomotive, including for training purposes, without increasing the risk.

But the permanent slow orders have reduced delays for the most part.

 

[Trackside_Treasure]

But the permanent slow orders have reduced delays for the most part.

If all is well, why is VIA's implementation of Ventures still not complete? Crews are trained, Sets are available, but just over half of the weekly Corridor spots are filled by Ventures.

Re: delays. The numbers state otherwise, that delays have been 'reduced for the most part' but not eliminated. Check out sample Mondays' OTP (most recent at bottom) in this post:

VIA's Venture Mondays On-Time Performance, November 2024 to Present

Way back in October, 2024 when CN issued its first Crossing Supplement, imposing crossing speed reductions on VIA's Venture fleet, not only ...

tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com

 

[Bordercollie]

If all is well, why is VIA's implementation of Ventures still not complete? Crews are trained, Sets are available, but just over half of the weekly Corridor spots are filled by Ventures.

Re: delays. The numbers state otherwise, that delays have been 'reduced for the most part' but not eliminated. Check out sample Mondays' OTP (most recent at bottom) in this post:

VIA's Venture Mondays On-Time Performance, November 2024 to Present

Way back in October, 2024 when CN issued its first Crossing Supplement, imposing crossing speed reductions on VIA's Venture fleet, not only ...

tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com

Are they not in service because they are not reliable? Or because of on time performance?

 

[cplchanb]

But the permanent slow orders have reduced delays for the most part.

Reduction is not enough! Delays due to this stupid arbitrary shafting by CN needs to be completely eliminated one way or another

 

[Bordercollie]

Reduction is not enough! Delays due to this stupid arbitrary shafting by CN needs to be completely eliminated one way or another

Order shunters or change the schedule to reflect actual run times.

 

[cplchanb]

Order shunters or change the schedule to reflect actual run times.

Shunters it is then. No way should via artificially change the schedule based on bogus speed orders.

 

[Bordercollie]

Shunters it is then. No way should via artificially change the schedule based on bogus speed orders.

My most recent venture trip from Ottawa to Toronto we were only 15min late. The HEP set from London to Toronto was 30min late so it's not always due to the type of train

 

[lenaitch]

Order shunters

I don't know, but I'm not sure it is that simple. They would have to be certified; I'm not sure they are even certified in the US yet.

 

[cplchanb]

I don't know, but I'm not sure it is that simple. They would have to be certified; I'm not sure they are even certified in the US yet.

true but lets eliminate any of the shunting variables and then deal with the other ones.

 

[dowlingm]

CN says that VIA claims adding a crew member would be a cause of distraction. That statement ignores the fact that that freight and passenger operations routinely add a third member in the cab of a locomotive, including for training purposes, without increasing the risk.

VIA 92 had three in the cab. Clearly they perceive a risk even if CN doesn’t. It’s also a significant financial and operational imposition when VIA are hardly overrun with spare qualified personnel.

 

[Bordercollie]

VIA 92 had three in the cab. Clearly they perceive a risk even if CN doesn’t. It’s also a significant financial and operational imposition when VIA are hardly overrun with spare qualified personnel.

They could be training a new crew member..