|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
Bordercollie
Senior Member
Shunt equipment?
Allandale25
Senior Member
For only $1 million? That seems....low. Wasn't there a number here where someone guessed it would be $30 million?
Allandale25
Senior Member
I missed this reference which has a bit more detail:
nfitz
Superstar
Seems a pittance compared to the more serious $11 million annual budget cut. I wonder which services will go?
Bordercollie
Senior Member
That could be saved by having trains run on time so they don't have to offer late credits.
micheal_can
Senior Member
It could also be saved through the lack of maintenance on the old equipment as well.
Trackside_Treasure
Active Member
Back on March 27, 2025 VIA emailed CN:
"As CN is aware, VIA has been considering coupling Venture trains, effectively increasing their axle count from 24 to 48. VIA’s understanding is that those Double Ventures would not be subject to the restrictions imposed by CN requiring sub-32- axle Venture trains to apply CROR 103.1(f) at 308 crossings. We would respectfully ask a confirmation from CN that our understanding is correct at your earliest convenience, but by no later than March 28 at 2 p.m. as we need this information to ensure the fastest possible implementation of this new temporary operating model.
VIA intends to move forward with the implementation of the Double Ventures as soon as reasonably practicable.
Switching to a Double-Venture operating mode entails making important service reductions affecting the public as VIA will not be able to operate its current schedule. It simply does not, and will not in the foreseeable future, have enough trains and cars to do so, nor adequate infrastructure to support large numbers of Double Ventures. As such, VIA would have to implement temporary service suspensions, representing 52 trains out of the 388 trains VIA operates weekly on the Corridor."
It's clear that VIA was considering all options to circumvent the CN crossing speed reductions, despite publicly saying that this would not be a safe option!
"As CN is aware, VIA has been considering coupling Venture trains, effectively increasing their axle count from 24 to 48. VIA’s understanding is that those Double Ventures would not be subject to the restrictions imposed by CN requiring sub-32- axle Venture trains to apply CROR 103.1(f) at 308 crossings. We would respectfully ask a confirmation from CN that our understanding is correct at your earliest convenience, but by no later than March 28 at 2 p.m. as we need this information to ensure the fastest possible implementation of this new temporary operating model.
VIA intends to move forward with the implementation of the Double Ventures as soon as reasonably practicable.
Switching to a Double-Venture operating mode entails making important service reductions affecting the public as VIA will not be able to operate its current schedule. It simply does not, and will not in the foreseeable future, have enough trains and cars to do so, nor adequate infrastructure to support large numbers of Double Ventures. As such, VIA would have to implement temporary service suspensions, representing 52 trains out of the 388 trains VIA operates weekly on the Corridor."
It's clear that VIA was considering all options to circumvent the CN crossing speed reductions, despite publicly saying that this would not be a safe option!
Bordercollie
Senior Member
I thought that by creating those permanent slow orders reduced train delays significantly. By running J trains reduced the fleet to half when you don't need that much capacity.
cplchanb
Senior Member
Well the point is that they want zero slow orders or anything that will slow the Ventures down from max speed.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
Honestly more slowER service is better than NO service.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
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, in which case the number of trips between Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal could remain the same, but the total between Toronto and Kingston could be cut substantially.
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.
Trackside_Treasure
Active Member
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
Active Member
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.)
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
Active Member
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)!