David Bellerive

CN’s Speed Restrictions Could Be Nothing More Than a Strategic Move Against VIA Rail's Future

October 22, 2024 · 7 min read

Note (Archival):
This piece was originally written for Rail Fans Canada in October 2024.
It is republished here for archival purposes and does not reflect current conditions or developments.

In recent weeks, passengers on VIA Rail’s Corridor routes between Windsor and Quebec City have faced significant delays. Canadian National Railway (CN), which owns most of the tracks used by VIA, attributes these delays to issues with VIA’s new Siemens Venture trainsets, claiming they do not trigger grade crossing protections reliably. Consequently, speed restrictions were implemented on October 11, 2024, requiring these trainsets to slow down at grade crossings and ensure that protection systems have been active for at least 20 seconds—the minimum time required by Canadian law. This verification, requiring a clear line of sight, leads to considerable delays for passengers. But is this truly about safety, or is CN leveraging its power to pressure VIA Rail and shape public perception against Canada’s national passenger rail service?

Let’s be clear: Safety must always be a priority, and grade crossing protections are vital for ensuring the safe passage of both trains and motorists. The Corridor features numerous grade crossings due to the vast number of roads, fields, and communities the tracks traverse. The Siemens Venture trainsets, with fewer axles than some other trains (24 axles in the current configuration, compared to the 32 claimed as required by CN), could theoretically impact the “shunting” mechanism that activates crossing protection systems. If shunting fails, the systems may not trigger in time for vehicles and pedestrians to clear the tracks. However, VIA’s trains underwent rigorous testing, including a 1,000 kilometres burn-in period before acceptance, without any incidents. CN authorized the operation of these trainsets on their tracks; Venture sets have been in service since October 2022, with an increasing operational footprint in the Corridor. Additionally, VIA has conducted extensive trials with self-powered and towed trainsets to ensure dynamic performance. Other infrastructure owners, like Canadian Pacific (CP) and Metrolinx, currently impose no similar restrictions on the same trains. CN claims to have notified VIA of these risks in November 2021, but why permit the operation of these trainsets since then? Is there verifiable proof of such notification?

This raises a crucial question: Why is CN the only one imposing these speed restrictions? CN argues it’s about safety, but the timing, just before the busiest travel period of the year, also suggests a strategy to exert pressure on VIA.

CN stands to gain from any strain placed on VIA’s operations, as the two are locked in a dispute over track access terms that are due for renewal, which encompasses fees, maintenance, and other considerations. VIA is currently engaging CN through the Canada Transport Agency (CTA) regarding these ongoing negotiations, which are likely one-sided: VIA depends on access to CN’s tracks to operate most routes. VIA’s annual reports consistently discuss the existential risk posed by potential increases in track access fees and their ability to deliver on-time service. Reducing VIA’s service could alleviate CN’s maintenance burden and allow for longer freight trains, a beneficial outcome to the track owner. This is consistent with CN’s support of the High Frequency Rail project, which would remove most passenger trains from its infrastructure, reducing costs and maintenance needs in most of its eastern network. Track standards for passenger service are much higher than the ones for freight.

VIA Rail’s LRC trainsets, operational since the 1980s, often have fewer axles than Siemens trains yet do not face the same restrictions. Many configurations have as few as 16 axles (3 cars + 1 locomotive) and, by CN’s standard, should require the same verification of grade crossings. This inconsistency casts doubt on CN’s sudden concerns about axle counts, suggesting a shift in responsibility for their maintenance shortcomings onto VIA. While shunt enhancers may improve safety, why has this issue only arisen now, affecting only CN? Amtrak is retrofitting shunt enhancers to comply with a similar CN rule for Siemens trainsets on their trackage (Correction: BNSF and UP have done the same in the US after CN required a minimum of 32 axles. CN explicitly requires Superliner cars to be used as axle count cars, prohibiting the usage of additional Venture cars to meet the axle count requirement). It is also worth noting that, should VIA have to procure shunt enhancers to comply with the rule, speed restrictions would remain in place until those devices are installed on the entire fleet, leading to delays and restrictions on most routes. Another option would be to extend the trainsets by recombining cars, though doing so would limit the number of trainsets, and ultimately the frequency of service they could offer. Unless the restriction is removed for being unnecessary, considerable changes or delays will affect passenger trains for a while.

CN’s actions could be seen as part of a broader strategy to gain leverage in ongoing disputes, including those before the CTA. Public opinion and political support significantly influence the future of passenger rail, as subsidies ensure the continued existence of these services. The Corridor is critical to VIA’s current business model. In this context, CN’s move appears more as a tactical pressure maneuver than a genuine safety response.

The passengers are the most affected by this dispute. Already facing challenges with on-time performance due to track access rights, VIA now has even more challenges to contend with. While passenger frustration is entirely understandable, it raises the question of whether it is directed at the right entity. At the end of the day, a decrease in ridership resulting from those delays will affect the outlook of the organization in the long-term and will require a lot of work to gain back the trust of potential passengers. If VIA is compelled to retrofit shunt enhancers to address CN’s concerns, the core issue remains unresolved—VIA is being squeezed by a railway giant controlling essential infrastructure along Canada’s most populous region. With HFR potentially a decade away, it remains essential that passenger rail, a less carbon-intensive travel alternative to driving and flying, not be neglected in favour of future plans or quick political gains.

This issue transcends mere technical concerns about shunting. It involves CN exerting pressure on VIA and, by extension, the government, to protect its interests. VIA Rail has supposedly met all requirements to ensure the safety of its trains, yet it remains hamstrung by a private company poised to benefit from VIA’s ongoing difficulties.

We hope CN and VIA representatives are actively engaged in discussions regarding this one-sided application of a seemingly arbitrary new rule. As negotiations continue, the public deserves transparency about these delays, understanding that this issue is not merely about axle counts and crossing safety—it’s a strategic power play that threatens VIA Rail’s ability to serve Canadians effectively.

If VIA is forced to slow down, the consequences extend beyond mere passenger inconveniences: they jeopardize the future of passenger rail in Canada. We must ensure that any slowdowns are genuinely for safety reasons, not just part of a multifaceted game of chess and CN’s tactical maneuvers.