News   Apr 01, 2026
UTPro Crane Report Q1 2026: Year-to-Year Dip, But Quarterly Rise
 123     0 
News   Apr 01, 2026
Transit Progress and Tall Towers Made Headlines in March, 2026
 420     0 
News   Apr 01, 2026
News Roundup for April 1, 2026
 393     0 

VIA Rail

micheal_can said:
If the solution is 32 axles, then run a train of 32 axles. If that means ordering more coaches to make long enough trains, then that would seem to be an easy answer. However, if the 32 axles is not the solution and there is a bigger issue, then let the engineers sort it out and then lets do that fix. Isn't Via testing a 7 car train? If so, how is that working out?
Click to expand...
The 'ajoutay' sets of 32 axles seem to be working fine, at least to trackside observers. There's also the question of what to do with the leftovers from the donor sets. I just can't imagine VIA going cap-in-hand to the federal government to ask for more money. Especially these days when departments are being told by the Carney government to axe their budgets. And asking for more why? Because of a disagreement with CN with at best a flimsy justification, and as others have suggested, could possibly have been avoided? Not to mention shoehorning production into Siemens' already busy schedule.
 
Trackside_Treasure said:
The 'ajoutay' sets of 32 axles seem to be working fine, at least to trackside observers. There's also the question of what to do with the leftovers from the donor sets. I just can't imagine VIA going cap-in-hand to the federal government to ask for more money. Especially these days when departments are being told by the Carney government to axe their budgets. And asking for more why? Because of a disagreement with CN with at best a flimsy justification, and as others have suggested, could possibly have been avoided? Not to mention shoehorning production into Siemens' already busy schedule.
Click to expand...
Either they go cap in hand asking for what they need to retire the old fleet, or accept the slow orders. Carney may be able to spin it as "nation building". Quick math (and someone can correct me) I think they would need about 70 cars.
 
But...the Ventures were intended to replace the old fleet. That's why there are 32 sets, There are enough sets to replace the current fleet on the property now, albeit not including sets remade to satisfy CN's whims. I mean, it would be great if Carney just cut a cheque for 70 more cars though!
 
Trackside_Treasure said:
But...the Ventures were intended to replace the old fleet. That's why there are 32 sets, There are enough sets to replace the current fleet on the property now, albeit not including sets remade to satisfy CN's whims. I mean, it would be great if Carney just cut a cheque for 70 more cars though!
Click to expand...

Via ordered the wrong things. Well,they got the right ones, but not long enough to match the requirement of the rail owners. If the 32 sets is all that is needed, and 7 cars is all that is needed for CN to be happy, then the easy solution is to order the needed cars to match the length needed. The bouncing around with the 2 entities and the courts is bureaucracy at its finest.
 
Well, the issue is that CN is calling the tune and VIA is not paying the piper. Nor should they. Say CN sends VIA a letter the day after the next 70 cars are ordered, and CN says, oh, we've done studies and now we need 36-axle minimum trains. Then what, yet another order? At this point, I think VIA can only explore VIAble options within their abilities and budget.
 
Trackside_Treasure said:
Well, the issue is that CN is calling the tune and VIA is not paying the piper. Nor should they. Say CN sends VIA a letter the day after the next 70 cars are ordered, and CN says, oh, we've done studies and now we need 36-axle minimum trains. Then what, yet another order? At this point, I think VIA can only explore VIAble options within their abilities and budget.
Click to expand...

I get that. I would think that if that were to happen, then they could go to court and show that they complied and then it is on CN to show proof to the contrary.
 
So far, the two court precedents in this case show that judges do not consider themselves technical experts in this field, not qualified to fairly adjudicate such a case and then potentially be contradicted by the ACTUAL regulator and expert in the field, Transport Canada. Not that there's much chance they're doing much on the file either....
 
micheal_can said:
I get that. I would think that if that were to happen, then they could go to court and show that they complied and then it is on CN to show proof to the contrary.
Click to expand...
The Court's role between two parties is contractual law. If CN entered into an agreement that said x axles satisfies our requirements, then later arbitrarily changed their mind, VIA would have a cause of action. CN is not going to be that dumb. The other role of the Court is with respect to State action; legislation and regulation. This is where the matter should be decided but it seems the regulator doesn't care.

Even if the purse was opened, how long do you figure it would take to get 70 more cars? I assume Siemens has a full order book. Besides, dragging extra cars up and down the tracks when they are not needed for ridership and simply to satisfy an axle count doesn't seem to be very efficient.
 
lenaitch said:
The Court's role between two parties is contractual law. If CN entered into an agreement that said x axles satisfies our requirements, then later arbitrarily changed their mind, VIA would have a cause of action. CN is not going to be that dumb. The other role of the Court is with respect to State action; legislation and regulation. This is where the matter should be decided but it seems the regulator doesn't care.
Click to expand...
Yes, and that's exactly what the Attorney-General of Canada said, killing the first court case (VIA's application for judicial review) in Federal Court:
"The AGC contends that VIA's application fails. CN's decision is not a state action, and therefore is not subject to judicial review. CN issued the Crossing Supplement to exercise its authority over VIA to direct it to take certain safety measures on CN property. This authorization is sourced in its contract with VIA, an act of private law, not of the Parliament. Any remedies VIA has against CN are private law remedies."
 
lenaitch said:
The Court's role between two parties is contractual law. If CN entered into an agreement that said x axles satisfies our requirements, then later arbitrarily changed their mind, VIA would have a cause of action. CN is not going to be that dumb. The other role of the Court is with respect to State action; legislation and regulation. This is where the matter should be decided but it seems the regulator doesn't care.
Click to expand...

Agreed it should be dealt with by the regulator.

Having said that, if via could get in a legal contract the minimum number of axles needed on CN lines for CN to not require the slow order, it would make things easier. Ideally,this would have been done before the order was filled.

lenaitch said:
Even if the purse was opened, how long do you figure it would take to get 70 more cars? I assume Siemens has a full order book. Besides, dragging extra cars up and down the tracks when they are not needed for ridership and simply to satisfy an axle count doesn't seem to be very efficient.
Click to expand...
1-5 years is my guess. Do we have that time left on the existing legacy Corridor fleet?
 
lenaitch said:
I suspect you are pulling that time frame out of your ear, unless you have knowledge of their order book and production rate.
Click to expand...
Complete guess as I have no idea. Heck it could be 20 years. The real problem is not my guess, but how long the legacy fleet can last before they need to be removed from revenue service. The longer Via waits to order more,the more there is a risk of a loss of frequency.
 
micheal_can said:
Complete guess as I have no idea. Heck it could be 20 years. The real problem is not my guess, but how long the legacy fleet can last before they need to be removed from revenue service. The longer Via waits to order more,the more there is a risk of a loss of frequency.
Click to expand...
Ordering more is not the only option, at least as long as shunt enhancers are a possibility.
 
dowlingm said:
Ordering more is not the only option, at least as long as shunt enhancers are a possibility.
Click to expand...
Or CN could fix their defective railway crossings... It's not all crossings, it's only a specific type of crossing.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top