News   Nov 13, 2024
 814     0 
News   Nov 13, 2024
 783     4 
News   Nov 13, 2024
 831     2 

VIA Rail

Or for work. My step-mother and her two sisters were from near London area and immigrated as war brides. She came to Toronto, one went to PEC and the third to Manitoulin Island. That must have been a bit of a cultural shock!
My family went fro Halifax to Val D'or, and then to London where they stayed. They came from Ukraine through Belgium.
 
If they are buying locomotives with HEP built into them - such as, say, Siemens Chargers - then they will not be buying generator cars.

Dan
maybe they are preparing for both eventualities? either way i guess its a good thing that theyre finally moving forward with some procurement.
 
I scrolled back I don't think this was covered here yesterday. Any thoughts @smallspy ? (post is a video of this train moving)

Screenshot_2024-11-13_125634.jpg
 
I don't think 2201-2300 ever went back to Siemens to have the mods/fixes done to it that its own testing provided for the production series of locos/cars. Even better if it's going back to have a proof-of-concept set of shunt enhancers and/or wheel scrubbers fitted.
 
Interesting. Is it CN Rail restricting Via with the new rules? Or does CN go to Canada Transportation Agency to ask them to restrict Via with the new rules? It makes a rather large difference for the court procedure.

Anyways, if they're getting their information from this Globe article, everybody is hopelessly confused.


Via Rail, in a statement of claim filed on Nov. 12 in the Federal Court of Canada, says CN’s orders to slow down at 304 level crossings or reconfigure its trains is unreasonable and has no basis in safety. The Crown corporation is seeking a judicial review of the rule and a declaration it is not valid. Via is also seeking the data or documents on which CN relied to impose the rule.

You don't commence a judicial review with a statement of claim. Judicial review challenges the actions of government, not private companies. It's possible it's not a judicial review at all, but a civil suit (which would be started with a statement of claim). Reading this article gives you no clue as to what is actually happening and no way to even speculate as to whether there's any merit to it.
 
You don't commence a judicial review with a statement of claim. Judicial review challenges the actions of government, not private companies. It's possible it's not a judicial review at all, but a civil suit (which would be started with a statement of claim). Reading this article gives you no clue as to what is actually happening and no way to even speculate as to whether there's any merit to it.

At least, the article is clear enough that there was a Statement of Claim (which the Globe Reporter must have a copy of, as they quote from it) and it was filed in the Federal Court of Canada.

That route does seem odd, as one would think that the CTA or Transport Canada, rather than the court, would have jurisdiction. Perhaps these bodies have not addressed the matter to VIA's satisfaction. Or perhaps VIA's lawyers chose to initiate a lawsuit believing it would be more likely to lead to discovery of CN's data.

Curious minds etc

- Paul
 
Interesting. Is it CN Rail restricting Via with the new rules? Or does CN go to Canada Transportation Agency to ask them to restrict Via with the new rules? It makes a rather large difference for the court procedure.

Anyways, if they're getting their information from this Globe article, everybody is hopelessly confused.




You don't commence a judicial review with a statement of claim. Judicial review challenges the actions of government, not private companies. It's possible it's not a judicial review at all, but a civil suit (which would be started with a statement of claim). Reading this article gives you no clue as to what is actually happening and no way to even speculate as to whether there's any merit to it.
Federal Court, S. 18.1 Application for Judicial Review.

Parties are VIA, CN and the Attorney General of Canada. Docket is T-3067-24. No documents are posted as downloadable at this time.
 
Interesting. Is it CN Rail restricting Via with the new rules? Or does CN go to Canada Transportation Agency to ask them to restrict Via with the new rules? It makes a rather large difference for the court procedure.

Anyways, if they're getting their information from this Globe article, everybody is hopelessly confused.




You don't commence a judicial review with a statement of claim. Judicial review challenges the actions of government, not private companies. It's possible it's not a judicial review at all, but a civil suit (which would be started with a statement of claim). Reading this article gives you no clue as to what is actually happening and no way to even speculate as to whether there's any merit to it.

From the article, which routes are they referring to?

However, CN has imposed the rules on Amtrak, the U.S. national passenger rail service that runs on some CN railways in the U.S.
 
Interesting. Is it CN Rail restricting Via with the new rules? Or does CN go to Canada Transportation Agency to ask them to restrict Via with the new rules? It makes a rather large difference for the court procedure.

Anyways, if they're getting their information from this Globe article, everybody is hopelessly confused.




You don't commence a judicial review with a statement of claim. Judicial review challenges the actions of government, not private companies. It's possible it's not a judicial review at all, but a civil suit (which would be started with a statement of claim). Reading this article gives you no clue as to what is actually happening and no way to even speculate as to whether there's any merit to it.
I saw that and one of the first things I thought is if this is true,and CN is purposely trying to shut down via, then maybe it is time to nationalize CN again. And if CPKC does not want to play ball with Via or GO or any other passenger rail agencies, maybe it is time to do that to them as well. Have the tracks owned by the government(s) with freight operations being contracted out.
 

Back
Top