News   Mar 31, 2026
City Council March, 2026: Plenty of Rental, Mutli-Phase Redevelopments Approved
 1.1K     2 
News   Mar 31, 2026
Building Toronto’s Skyline Podcast Event to Feature Brad Bradford in Concord
 197     2 
News   Mar 31, 2026
Glittering Forma Rises Higher in the Entertainment District
 1.1K     0 

VIA Rail

Urban Sky said:
You are describing the new color scheme of the refurbished HEP1 coaches
Click to expand...

They look a bit darker in person. I've ridden on them a few times over the summer between Ottawa and Montreal. Same interior as the renovated LRC coaches but a bit larger and boxier. They still seem to be using the old bogies because the grinding sounds around sharp corners haven't gone away
 
A while back I stumbled across VIA Rail's Triennial Plan (dated September 17, 2018) which lists the track owned by VIA Rail. The following I knew about and make total sense:
  • Alexandria Sub (milepost 0.40 to 76.43),
  • Beachburg Sub (milepost 0.00 to 6.00),
  • Smiths Falls Sub (milepost 0.00 to 34.40),
  • Brockville Sub (milepost 0.10 to 27.80), and
  • Chatham Sub (milepost 63.90 to 105.60).
However, the following two caught me off guard:
  • Bridge Sub (milepost 15.71 to 15.90), and
  • Grimsby Sub (milepost 0.35 to 0.47).
I double checked against CN's Three-Year Rail Network Plan (dated July 4, 2019), and sure enough they don't include those sections of track. They only have listed:
  • Bridge Sub (milepost 0.00 to 15.70), and
  • Grimsby Sub (milepost 0.47 to 43.70).
After a bit of digging, I discovered that the section of the Bridge Sub in question is the stub of track leading into Gare du Palais in Quebec City, so that makes sense (AFAIK, VIA owns the station).

The Grimsby Sub is confusing though. From my digging, Niagara Falls Station is at milepost 0.6, so that would mean that VIA owns is the 0.12 miles (approx. 195m) of track 0.13 miles (approx. 210m) east of the station. According to my estimates, that would be the section of track highlighted in the map below. Does this make any sense to anyone?

VIA Grimsby Sub.png

map courtesy Canadian Rail Atlas
 
roger1818 said:
The Grimsby Sub is confusing though. From my digging, Niagara Falls Station is at milepost 0.6, so that would mean that VIA owns is the 0.12 miles (approx. 195m) of track 0.13 miles (approx. 210m) east of the station. According to my estimates, that would be the section of track highlighted in the map below. Does this make any sense to anyone?
Click to expand...
Off the top of my head, a few years ago CN proposed to abandon the track over the bridge to save on maintenance costs. It's possible that VIA purchased the track over the bridge to enable Maple Leaf service to continue. Or VIA purchased the Canadian half and Amtrak purchased the American half.
 
Last edited:
MP 0.47 is indeed the switch at the east end of Niagara Falls station and MP 0.34 is the border (MP 0.0 is where the former CP Hamilton Sub splits off the CSX Niagara Branch).

In the meanwhile, this happened:
Today, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland announced that, as of October 30, the Government of Canada will require employers in the federally regulated air, rail, and marine transportation sectors to establish vaccination policies for their employees. Also effective October 30, travellers departing from Canadian airports, and travellers on VIA Rail and Rocky Mountaineer trains, will be required to be fully vaccinated in order to travel.
Click to expand...

Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination requirements for federally regulated transportation employees and travellers - Canada.ca

Today, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland announced that, as of October 30, the Government of Canada will require employers in the federally regulated air, rail, and marine transportation sectors to establish vaccination policies for their employees. Also...
www.canada.ca www.canada.ca
 
Urban Sky said:
MP 0.47 is indeed the switch at the east end of Niagara Falls station and MP 0.34 is the border (MP 0.0 is where the former CP Hamilton Sub splits off the CSX Niagara Branch).
Click to expand...

Thanks. I kind of guessed that. Did Amtrak purchase the track from MP 0.0 to 0.34? Makes sense that Amtrak wouldn't want to own track in Canada and VIA Rail track in the USA.

Why did CN keep the track east of the east of their yard? Do they use the track for switching?
 
^The Whirlpool Rapids Bridge is actually owned by the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission, a binational agency.

Amtrak assumed responsibility for maintaining the bridge some years ago, in 2012 I believe.

I don't know exact mileages, but one assumes that what VIA acquired is the rail and the right of way leading to the bridge, which CN would otherwise tear up. One has to assume that Amtrak is paying for or has bought the line east of the bridge as CSX would not be using the line on that side.

- Paul
 
From here:

North of the Buffalo Terminal Subdivision, CSXT owns the Niagara Subdivision as far as CP-28. In December
2012, Amtrak took over ownership, control, and maintenance of approximately 0.37 mile of
of former CSXT and Canadian National Railway track from immediately west of CP-28 to the U.S.- Canada international border on the Whirlpool Bridge. The Whirlpool Bridge, a railroad and vehicular passenger bridge located at the international border crossing, is owned and maintained by the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission
Click to expand...

- Paul
 
EastYorkTTCFan said:
It could also be some sort of requirements from the state of Florida as well and not something that is required or practical here in Canada.
Click to expand...
There is no requirement for the aerodynamic covering of underbody appliances by the FRA, who would be in charge of mandating that for Brightline.

No, they just wanted a sleek, aerodynamic look and are willing to pay more for it. Just like the nose cones on their locos.

Dan
 
Does anybody know if the stainless corridor refurbishment is still ongoing or if it's been canceled in expectation of the new fleet? There's multiple mixed refurbished and unrefurbished stainless trains leaving the Montreal station now.

Doesn't seem to make sense to configure l continue the refurb if the trains will be taken out of service within the next two years. Plus, even though the grinding is reduced, the new seats are extremely uncomfortable so I always try to change to an unrefurbished car.

Also, track installation and initial tamping for the rem has begun at on the approach to gare Central.

Edit: my train is late again. After doing the backup maneuver. I really hope this is removed with hfr
 
Last edited:
smallspy said:
There is no requirement for the aerodynamic covering of underbody appliances by the FRA, who would be in charge of mandating that for Brightline.

No, they just wanted a sleek, aerodynamic look and are willing to pay more for it. Just like the nose cones on their locos.

Dan
Click to expand...
It's probably easier to justify purely aesthetical extras to a private than a public shareholder and its inclusion in the RFP could have been seen as trying to steer the contract award towards a specific bidder...

ManyQuestions said:
Does anybody know if the stainless corridor refurbishment is still ongoing or if it's been canceled in expectation of the new fleet? There's multiple mixed refurbished and unrefurbished stainless trains leaving the Montreal station now.

Doesn't seem to make sense to configure l continue the refurb if the trains will be taken out of service within the next two years. Plus, even though the grinding is reduced, the new seats are extremely uncomfortable so I always try to change to an unrefurbished car.

Also, track installation and initial tamping for the rem has begun at on the approach to gare Central.
Click to expand...
As long as there is no procurement and delivery of a new non-Corridor fleet, there will be a need for life-extending measures for the existing HEP fleet...
 
Urban Sky said:
It's probably easier to justify purely aesthetical extras to a private than a public shareholder and its inclusion in the RFP could have been seen as trying to steer the contract award towards a specific bidder...


As long as there is no procurement and delivery of a new non-Corridor fleet, there will be a need for life-extending measures for the existing HEP fleet...
Click to expand...
I thought it was established that they could not do that, or that it's not economically feasible?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top