bearcat
Active Member
YouTube recommended this interesting historical video, from 40 years ago.
|
|
|
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
micheal_can
Senior Member
You sure this wasn't released in the last year? The same comments are still heard.
Trackside_Treasure
Active Member
Recently-read documents indicate that not only CN's contention that VIA was contravening the CN-VIA Train Services Agreement but also that the Attorney-General for Canada (AGC) made submissions that the Federal Court judge may have taken into account in the resulting deciding to strike VIA's judicial review. An overview of the AGC's position in response to CN's jurisdiction motion:
1. CN says VIA is not a federal board, commission or other tribunal.
2. The AGC agrees that VIA's application is not in the Court's jurisdiction and should be struck.
3. CN's decision is a purely contractual matter not within the Court's jurisdiction.
4. Since the application was filed by VIA, the Minister of Transport ordered CN to provide crossing-protection data, ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements, and to ascertain whether it's an active safety issue.
I'm working on an upcoming post in which these arguments, as well as the ongoing drama around the need for an updated CN-VIA Train Service Agreement still unresolved, will be profiled...
1. CN says VIA is not a federal board, commission or other tribunal.
2. The AGC agrees that VIA's application is not in the Court's jurisdiction and should be struck.
3. CN's decision is a purely contractual matter not within the Court's jurisdiction.
4. Since the application was filed by VIA, the Minister of Transport ordered CN to provide crossing-protection data, ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements, and to ascertain whether it's an active safety issue.
I'm working on an upcoming post in which these arguments, as well as the ongoing drama around the need for an updated CN-VIA Train Service Agreement still unresolved, will be profiled...
Bordercollie
Senior Member
How is it the jurisdiction of the AGC?
Trackside_Treasure
Active Member
Counsel for VIA Rail confirmed that VIA Rail Canada shall not be appealing the order issued on February 19, 2025, striking its application for judicial review in this matter. Therefore, without appeal, VIA's judicial review application will not go ahead. Transport Canada is the jurisdiction with authority pending now. The AGC was a respondent in the application by VIA, along with CN.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
That makes sense. But why won't TC comment on the matter?
Trackside_Treasure
Active Member
It's Federal Government. They don't rush. I'm very interested to see what their Ministerial Order will result in!
lenaitch
Senior Member
Thanks for keeping on top of this. This confirms my earlier view that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction in this dispute.
crs1026
Superstar
The bright side of the detour thru Federal Court, while it may not have been technically sound, is the disclosure of all those documents and data. The process going forward will be much more behind closed doors. It's a good thing the issue was forced into the public eye, even if the court ruling was a loser. Kudos to @Trackside_Treasure for digesting it all for us.
I imagine that Ottawa will take its sweet time, but that only improves the picture. The venture sets are out there, running Quebec City to Windsor. While they may be moving slower, each time a Venture set passes through a level crossing, it adds a new data point to the picture of how often crossing protection fails to operate. I'm not hearing reports that those incidents are continuing. The failure to shunt is a very rare phenomenon.
Perhaps by the time Ottawa is ready to rule, there will be much better data, and CN may not like what it shows.
- Paul
Mihairokov
Active Member
In other news, the drinks cart has been coming around less on my last two Corridor business class trips!
Trackside_Treasure
Active Member
Yes, you were right about Federal Court not being the best venue! CN was saying that, but they had such a stake that I believe the AGC submission is something of an impartial, law-based viewpoint saying it was a commercial, contractual issue upon which VIA and CN had previously agreed on the framework.
And yes, the public disclosure of the documents, (pointed out to me by VIA!) showed this layman that there is no smoking gun from CN, that there is no data that widely and conclusively proves their point, and that CN's position is based on US experience and risk-aversion rather than purely crossing safety.
The fact that CN wanted to make its crossing data submitted to Transport Canada marked 'CONFIDENTIAL' says something. There's either nothing there, or perhaps there's something there, that either way CN doesn't want the public to be able to see.
Corporate egos notwithstanding, the big loser here is us, the taxpayer and us, the passenger. VIA's reputation is suffering age the hand of CN, and the implementation of their shiny new trains severely blunted. At a time when VIA did not plan the implementation well, did not have purpose-built shops ready, tried to push the Ventures into Southwest Ontario with its slow track, all the while fighting CN over its Train Service Agreement.
I'm expecting further documents, as well as ATI responses. There are indications that VIA management is reading lay sources for information, like this!
And yes, the public disclosure of the documents, (pointed out to me by VIA!) showed this layman that there is no smoking gun from CN, that there is no data that widely and conclusively proves their point, and that CN's position is based on US experience and risk-aversion rather than purely crossing safety.
The fact that CN wanted to make its crossing data submitted to Transport Canada marked 'CONFIDENTIAL' says something. There's either nothing there, or perhaps there's something there, that either way CN doesn't want the public to be able to see.
Corporate egos notwithstanding, the big loser here is us, the taxpayer and us, the passenger. VIA's reputation is suffering age the hand of CN, and the implementation of their shiny new trains severely blunted. At a time when VIA did not plan the implementation well, did not have purpose-built shops ready, tried to push the Ventures into Southwest Ontario with its slow track, all the while fighting CN over its Train Service Agreement.
I'm expecting further documents, as well as ATI responses. There are indications that VIA management is reading lay sources for information, like this!
Allandale25
Senior Member
This makes me nostalgic for VIA Rail timetables like this. I don't think they provide them anymore.
HT @Urban Sky
urbantoronto.ca
HT @Urban Sky
Alto - High Speed Rail (Toronto-Quebec City)
Going through Kingston would be quite the costly scope creep to the project. Compared to going 300 km/h, electrified, and all the way to Quebec City, the incremental cost might be less than you think and the EA headaches actually reduced. It should certainly be considered and fully assessed...
Urban Sky
Senior Member
They still prepare some, but only circulate them internally. You should file an ATI request to bring them into the public domain.
The only thing they currently publish is these horrible “accessible schedules” which are riddled with errors:
www.viarail.ca
The only thing they currently publish is these horrible “accessible schedules” which are riddled with errors:
Arrivals and departures
Be informed of our departures and arrivals: subscribe to the VIA Train-Alert Service to receive email or SMS notifications, follow your train in real time and download our mobile app.
nfitz
Superstar
Inaccessible schedules more like. More VIA incompetence.They still prepare some, but only circulate them internally. You should file an ATI request to bring them into the public domain.
The only thing they currently publish is these horrible “accessible schedules” which are riddled with errors:
Arrivals and departures
Be informed of our departures and arrivals: subscribe to the VIA Train-Alert Service to receive email or SMS notifications, follow your train in real time and download our mobile app.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Passenger-facing information is the one area where even a passionate VIA apologist like myself struggles to defend his former colleagues…