VIA's DOUBLE-VENTURE PLAN

In March, 2025 VIA Rail Canada sought another avenue to legal relief after the defeat of their Federal Court case the month before, and just prior to their decision to pursue an injunction against CN in the Quebec Superior Court. (VIA's case is still before the latter court with no date set for proceedings to continue.)

VIA apparently sought to change its operations to conform to CN's minimum 32-axle requirement for VIA Venture Corridor train operation on CN trackage in Ontario and Quebec. This is what all Venture-equipped Corridor trains would have looked like under the Double-Venture plan: No 60/50 at Kingston station (top photos) - March 27, 2026. Eight Venture sets out of a [then] complement of 24 would be in use, with up to 19 Legacy (LRC and HEP2) consists equipping other Corridor trains.

VIA's main concern was the toll that the extra attention required of engineers to spot dozens of functioning grade crossing warning devices would lead to burnout, booking off, and threaten VIA's ability to staff their locomotive cabs. The VIA Corridor schedule was reworked to utilize only J-trained Venture consists equalling 48 axles. We can now see that VIA expended considerable resources to perform a thorough risk assessment, and to research and communicate its plan to internal stakeholders and committees, thence CN and the Minister of Transport.

As with many documents that have been shared on Trackside Treasure, many of these did not come to light until several months after their creation, often as part of a huge tranche of documents provided as a response to Access to Information requests. Watch for an 'ATIPical' upcoming post.

 A POSSIBLE RESOLUTION? DOUBLE-VENTURE TRAINS

Public court documents supporting VIA's injunction in Quebec Superior court (previously published in this post: VIA and CN in Quebec Superior Court, Part 3, now here) include a revealing March 27, 2025 email from VIA's General Counsel Denis Lavoie to CN's Chief Legal Officer Olivier Chouc with the subject line - Notice to CN of Double-Venture implementation (email in italics - below). This would have been a rather drastic resolution, operationally, to CN's Crossing Supplement, with many train suspensions! Interestingly, VIA trains No 60/50 and 62/52 did begin operating as double-Ventures between Toronto and Montreal/Ottawa (respectively) on February 2, 2025, perhaps as a test for marshalling more double-Ventures that would be permanently-coupled. [Spoiler - the double-Venture plan was not subsequently implemented.]

UPDATE: In March, 2026 these Nicholas Mackenzie prior emails to colleagues became available (highlighting done by legal team) regarding the proposed double-Venture plans, first on February 25, 2025 apparently prior to a meeting of VIA's Executive Committee:

Here is the March 27, 2025 email from VIA's General Counsel Denis Lavoie to CN's Chief Legal Officer Olivier Chouc with the subject line - Notice to CN of Double-Venture implementation:

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 the following temporary service suspensions, representing 52 trains out of the 388 trains VIA operates weekly on the Corridor:  

The attached draft equipment cycling plan and trainsets also reflect the intended implementation of the Double Ventures and Legacy trainsets that VIA expects to operate under this mode of operation.

Although the intent of this communication is not to go into the details of the impacts of this measure, it goes without saying that these temporary service suspensions will also have significant impact on our workforce as well (not only on the public).

Please be advised that VIA does not renounce the use of the frequencies associated with the above temporary suspensions as we intend to use them again and resume our full passenger service schedules as soon as possible.

VIA wants to emphasize that it does not want to do this and that it constitutes in no way an admission that a train must have 32 axles as a minimum to operate safely. However, VIA has no other alternative to alleviate the unsafe burden on VIA’s locomotive engineers.

Proposed collaborative path forward - 

Finally, as already proposed on March 12, 2025, VIA once again proposes that CN lift its restrictions on the crossings for which CN has no indication of any short warning times.

VIA proposes that the parties continue to monitor for short warning times, perform testing, assess root causes, conduct required risk assessments, and implement proportionate remediation measures where and when necessary to maintain safe operations. VIA has always been open to transparent collaboration with CN and continues to invite such collaboration.

CN and VIA should conduct joint testing to accumulate objective empirical data for both VIA and CN trains warning times, continually assess risks and appropriate mitigations. The path we are proposing is the normal industry evidence-based approach, with continuous testing and investigation, and targeted and proportional remediations only where risk levels require them and are appropriate after considering the full picture, as per the requirements of the Safety Management System Regulations.

If CN is interested in the above, please let us know as soon as possible.

The reply from CN's Chouc came the very next day, tartly threatening to share VIA's plan with the Quebec Superior Court, as the Double Venture implementation would make VIA's injunction moot, thereby imperilling VIA's case. Sourly said, on-board shunt enhancers were proposed [actually, claimed to be proven!] as a shoulda-coulda-woulda solution:

Thank you for your email and the discussion yesterday. We confirm that the Crossing Supplement would not apply to the “Double Ventures” operating with 48 axles, which we understand you intend to implement next Monday, March 31 based on the equipment cycling plan attached to your email.

Considering the risk inherent to operating your Venture trainsets in their original configuration, you are making the responsible decision. It is unfortunate that we are where we are when the issues associated with this type of equipment have been known to the industry and to VIA for over a decade, including at the time VIA chose to purchase the equipment. It is also unfortunate that VIA elected not to equip the trains with shunt enhancers which have been proven to solve the issue.

We take note of your comments regarding service reductions. It is unclear to us why VIA has opted for this solution over less disruptive options, including adding a third person in the cab of the locomotive (which would not have to be a qualified engineer) or increasing the number of axles by a lesser amount (at least 32).

In light of this material development, it is obvious that VIA’s application for an interlocutory injunction from the Quebec Superior Court is moot. We will be writing to the Court to provide an update on the situation.

As to the proposed path forward, we are certainly interested, as we have always been, in co-operating with VIA for purposes of ensuring that VIA’s trains run safely on CN’s infrastructure. I will ask Hoang Tran to reach out to Nicolas Panetta to set up a meeting to discuss the appropriate modalities.

AFFIDAVIT OF VIA's NICHOLAS MACKENZIE re: DOUBLE-VENTURE TRAINS

On March 30, Nicholas MacKenzie, then VIA's Senior Manager, Network Planning (until becoming ALTO's Director, Operations and Rolling Stock in July, 2025) swore this five-point affidavit regarding the Double-Venture trains, with the above email exchange just completed:

1. VIA’S POTENTIAL DEPLOYMENT OF DOUBLE-VENTURE TRAINS AS AN INTERIM MITIGATION MEASURE IF AND WHEN REASONABLY PRACTICABLE

Since I signed my affidavit on March 3, 2025, VIA has continued to assess ways to mitigate the impact of CN’s grade crossing restrictions, and the review process of the Double-Venture option that I described in affidavit has progressed. VIA intends to move forward with this option if and as soon as reasonably practicable, as a temporary measure for a few weeks until the Restrictions are lifted in the very short term and insofar as operationally feasible. It remains unsure whether we will have the capacity to implement the Double-Venture Plan and when it will be feasible, given the operational, technical, safety, business, and other validations that remain to be completed and may take weeks.

On March 27, 2025, as part of this validation process, VIA sought from CN confirmation that, if it were to deploy a Double-Venture cycling plan as soon as reasonably practicable, CN would not impose restrictions under CROR 103.1(f). On March 28, 2025, CN confirmed the restrictions would not apply to the use of Double-Venture trains. I reviewed CN’s March 28 response and want to correct in this affidavit many of CN’s misunderstandings, including its mistaken claim that we “intend to implement [the Double-Venture Plan] next Monday, March 31”, given that VIA continues to assess the feasibility of this potential solution and that our notice to CN was part of this assessment.

Many internal and external stakeholders have to sign off on the Double-Venture Plan, including approvals from Metrolinx and Canadian Pacific Railway for instance. We expect that deploying Double-Venture trainsets would temporarily mitigate the urgent safety risks caused by the restrictions’ unacceptable impact on the cognitive workload of VIA’s locomotive engineers, but it would create a host of other gravely harmful consequences for VIA and the Canadian public.

2. DETAILS ON THE POSSIBLE PLAN TO DEPLOY DOUBLE-VENTURE TRAINS

In parallel to technical, safety, business, and other validations, my team and I have developed and continue to develop a plan (Double-Venture Plan) to assess the feasibility of deploying Double-Venture trainsets. As it stands, this would involve:

• Coupling (or “jaying”) 8 Venture trains (out of VIA’s fleet of 24 [actually 28 at the time] Venture trains) into 4 “Double-Venture” trainsets operating with 48 axles;
• Shortening VIA’s remaining 19 trainsets, which consist of various older models that are all 30 years old or more (“Legacy trains”);
• Keeping on standby a Legacy train and a single Venture train, both in Toronto and Montreal, to replace any train that might have a problem;
• Moving VIA’s unused Venture trainsets out of service.

Having more than four Double-Venture trainsets in service is not realistic because we have limited storage and maintenance capacities and because Double-Venture trainsets are too long to park overnight at various stations. At present, roughly two-thirds of VIA’s Legacy trains operate with five or six cars (24-28 axles), but to minimize service disruption the Double-Venture Plan would shorten many Legacy trains and have over 50% running with four cars only (20 axles), thus reducing capacity on these Legacy trains. The Double-Venture Plan assumes, as a necessary condition, that VIA will operate without CN’s restrictions.

3. DOUBLE-VENTURE TRAINS WOULD CAUSE VERY SIGNIFICANT SERVICE CUTS, FURTHER AGGRAVATING VIA’S REDUCED SERVICE

• Two principal metrics are used to measure the offer of passenger rail service: Available Seat Miles (ASM), measuring the capacity of passenger service offer calculated by multiplying the number of seats available by the distance travelled; and 
• Departures per week, measuring the frequency of how many trips are offered from an origin point to a destination point.

Switching to Double-Venture trainsets would be aggravating VIA’s already reduced offer to Canadian passengers, but the safety risks due to the restrictions’ impact on VIA locomotive engineers’ cognitive workload are not considered to be tolerable and must be addressed urgently. Should we implement the Double-Venture Plan in the near term until the Restrictions are lifted and insofar as operationally feasible, VIA’s passenger services would be brought down to 25 million ASM and 336 train departures weekly (i.e. 280 legacy departures plus 56 Double-Venture departures).

This 25 million ASM offer would represent an immediate reduction of approximately:

• 18% in ASM in comparison to the service that VIA should have offered but for the decision to put on hold the Venture fleet’s gradual deployment (30.5 million ASM);
• 14% in ASM in comparison to the schedule for 2025 (29 million ASM).

This would also represent an immediate cancellation of 52 train departures weekly in comparison to the 2025 budget (388 departures weekly), mostly between Toronto and Ottawa. For context:

• With the gradual deployment of Venture trains, VIA should have been able to offer roughly 30.5 million ASM weekly in April 2025, bringing VIA’s offer back to pre- pandemic levels.
• But due to the effect of VIA’s January 2025 decision to put on hold the gradual deployment of Venture trains (given the Restrictions’ workload impact) and of the Legacy train phase-out, VIA is already offering much less service than it should.
• Specifically, VIA now offers 26.1 million ASM and 370 train departures weekly following the cancellation of 18 departures per week in early-February 2025.

4. OTHER VERY SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES THAT WOULD RESULT FROM IMPLEMENTING THE DOUBLE-VENTURE PLAN TEMPORARILY

Given the urgency of addressing the safety risks due to the CN-caused excessive cognitive workload of locomotive engineers, VIA may be forced to accept an unacceptable solution like deploying Double-Venture trains if and when reasonably practicable for a few weeks until the restrictions are lifted and insofar as operationally feasible. VIA’s assessment confirms that no solution other than operating Double-Venture trains would feasibly remove safety risks related to the engineers’ excessive workload in the near term.

Implementing the Double-Venture Plan means choosing the lesser of two evils, and it would still cause very serious consequences to VIA, employees, and the general public:

• Capacity and frequency reductions would prevent VIA from fulfilling its mandate to provide adequate services to Canadians. 
• VIA would lose further customers switching to other less sustainable modes of transportation (like driving or flying), as VIA would expect an important drop in tickets sold due to changed passenger travel habits, some of which may be permanent. 
• Implementing the Double-Venture Plan would cause important financial losses given the lost revenues resulting from the cancellation of 52 train departures weekly and an increase in operating costs due to the need to pull a second (often empty) Venture train. This is in addition to the fact that numerous Venture trains representing investments of roughly half a billion dollars would have to be put out of service. 
• Service cuts would aggravate the serious harm to VIA’s reputation and brand, which has already suffered from the train delays caused by the Restrictions.
• For the weeks during which the Double-Venture Plan may be implemented, service cuts would necessarily result in a loss of seasonal employment and a temporary conversion of some full-time VIA jobs to part-time jobs.

5. THE DOUBLE-VENTURE PLAN COULD ONLY BE A TEMPORARY MITIGATION MEASURE

The Double-Venture Plan – if its feasibility is validated – could only serve as a temporary Band-Aid mitigation measure to suspend the unacceptable workload levels of locomotive engineers for a few weeks until CN’s restrictions are lifted in the very short term and insofar as operationally feasible, not longer.

For instance, deploying the Double-Venture Plan in the longer term could lead to job losses, as an equivalent of 25-30 full-time jobs would no longer be needed. Nor can VIA allow the very significant and serious Double-Venture service cuts to become permanent, given its public mandate and the fact that aging Legacy trains must continue to be decommissioned gradually.

VIA will therefore have no other reasonable option but to reintroduce single Venture trains if the restrictions are not lifted in the short term. Maintaining the Double-Venture Plan longer than a few weeks is unsustainable and would force VIA to cut down its services further and further.

Another email from March 31, 2025, accompanying a VIA slide deck for discussion by internal stakeholders within their areas of responsibility:

VIA produced a rather elaborate risk assessment, across multiple departments, to back its Double-Venture plan. This risk assessment is immeasurably more rigorous than anything CN has provided to justify its Crossing Supplement! (Below - selected slides.)

Informing the government of its intentions, VIA's CEO and Board Chair wrote to the Minister of Transport about the double-Venture plan on March 7, 2025. The actual correspondence was made available in March, 2026:

 

Five days later, Heather Carriere, the Transport Canada Executive Director, Oversight emailed General Counsel Denis Lavoie. The latter responded with VIA boilerplate and history of CN's actions:

In ongoing discussions, Heather Carriere asked VIA CEO Mario Peloquin whether consists could be lengthened. Peloquin responded that in theory, they could. He added that "The result is that some of the rest of the cars could no longer be used. It would be preferable to cut some of the runs and couple two Venture trains together". Carriere asked whether "shunting enhancers a no go?", to which Peloquin responded, "As I discussed with the President of Amtrak, we are almost two years away to even know if they work reliably."

On March 27, Transport Canada Director General, Surface Transportation Policy Tamara Rudge emailed several VIA, Transport Canada and Minister's Office colleagues with several questions:

"Hi VIA colleagues - questions on your current proposal:

• TC would like a fact sheet for each of the routes that are a proposed to be suspended. Obviously cause some of the suspensions are the same train number just a different day this doesn’t mean 52 fact sheets – just one per each route (I think that would be 11 but my math might be wrong). These fact sheets should include tombstone information on each for the route. For example: Train number 50 to be suspended M, T, W, T, F, S , S. A map of where train 50 begin, stops and end. The normal departure time and arrival time at each stop. The average monthly ridership of train 50 and the average on/offs at each stop. Demand: percentage of seat normally sold and/vacant. Information on the profitability of that specific train. What are the other options available to a pax that used to rely on train 50 (e.g. leave x hours earlier or X hours later on which trains). Any qualitative information about the type of pax that take train 50 (mostly commuter, tourists, students, business travelers, etc.)

• Is VIA able to reconfigure trainsets in a way to meet the 32-axle minimum as set out by CN while maximizing the overall usage of the Venture Fleet?
• What are the limiting factors for reconfiguring Venture trainsets (i.e., coupling mechanism, parts and equipment, software programming...)?
• What would be the impact in terms or fleet availability and frequency and canceled routes if VIA is able to reconfigure the trainsets? How long would it take to deconstruct the venture train sets to create trainsets with just 32 axles?
• Could VIA consider manually protecting the grade crossings?What sort of qualifications would the flag person need to ensure the safe operation of the grade crossing gate? What would be the financial implication of this change? How quickly could something like this be implemented? Could this be implemented strategically to at least reduce the number of impacted crossings?
• Question about Longer term Options:Can VIA please provide information of on a range of longer-term options that will be examined?
• Some that have already been raised and we assume would be part of your options analysis include: Axle Counters, Shunt Enhancers, more Rail Cars, others?
• For the longer-term option analysis we would want to see the follow for each option: rough cost estimate, estimated length of procurement, time required for testing or pilots, regulatory approvals that may be require to use new tech, relevant information from Siemens (like: would this be covered under their warranty or possibly put on the remaining trainsets prior to delivery, is the option to procure additional Venture trainsets through VIA Rail’s contract with Siemens still available, etc), how VIA might work with CN on to examine longer term options, pros and cons for each option, etc.

On March 13, Transport Canada Policy Group Assistant Deputy Minister Serge Biijimine followed up on the letter sent to Transport Minister Anand on March 7:

"Beyond what was shared in the letter, I believe it is important for us to have access to additional information, so we can better understand why this decision is being taken now, what other options were considered and most importantly the impacts of these reductions on both Canadians and VIA Rail employees.

Please find attached a list of questions - until you have provided us with the requested information, and you have received a letter from the Minister in response to your letter of March 7th, we would kindly ask that VIA hold off advising customers and implementing the plan to couple the Venture trains. 

In closing in the spirit of collaboration, it would be beneficial to discuss these changes prior to engaging the Minister. Being involved earlier would provide our teams the opportunity to have the necessary information to ensure alignment and cohesion. I understand things can move quickly, but having all the relevant information in advance would also help avoid any miscommunication or delays.

VIA is also reminded that a proposed change in operations necessitates a risk assessment as required in the Railway Safety Management System Regulations, 2015 section 15(1)(c). If you have not already engaged with Rail Safety and Security, you are encouraged to reach out and discuss regulatory requirements related to this change in operations."

VIA provided a draft comprehensive risk assessment as requested on March 20, comprising an analysis team of subject matter experts from Train Operations, Mechanical Services, Customer Experience as well as representatives from UNIFOR and TCRC. "The overall residual risk rating associated with the operating Double Venture trains was assessed as Acceptable." Some highlights:

Total train length would be 998 feet. Trains of that length would be stationed at Windsor, Ottawa, TMC and MMC. Only one double Venture trainset could be parked at Ottawa or Windsor at a time. Handbrakes on Venture equipment automatically engage on all cars when the handbrake button is pressed, ensuring all handbrakes are consistently used to secure the equipment, with no additional handbrakes to be added. These would be applied at Windsor and Ottawa.

Also in the risk assessment was a table of Corridor station platform lengths. Since most station platforms could not accommodate a Double Venture train - Port Hope is 219 feet, Trenton Junction 150 - double spotting would be required. [Even if Kingston platform can accommodate a nearly 1,000-foot train, could all passengers be expected to walk that far to board?]

The maximum passenger of a single Venture trainset is 281, with sales capped at 277. That would double to 554 passengers for a Double Venture.

Mechanical service employees are fully qualified to perform daily inspections and system functions. At Windsor, mechanical service employees received a brief introductory course on Venture equipment when it was first introduced, thereby not considered fully trained, lacking experience in inspecting and working on Venture equipment with limited familiarity. On-Train Services employees are fully trained on Ventures, as are locomotive engineers.

Venture equipment mechanical alarms are transmitted to the leading cab of the train. PA system announcements would not be heard in both sections of a Double Venture train. Stations located near grade crossings such as Fallowfield, Brockville, Kitchener and Chatham would fall under requirements that VIA not obstruct or activate crossings for more than five minutes when traffic is waiting. Platforms near controlled locations include Belleville, Smiths Falls, Brantford and Brockville, which could potentially in a movement exceeding limits of authority. New corrective actions would be assigned and undertaken:

• Special instructions would need to be published for parking of Double Venture trainsets.
• Configuring the ticket sales system to facilitate passenger flow thereby reducing time spent at platforms.
• Running Double Venture trains as Loco-Cabcar-Cabcar-Loco to fit more cars on platforms and facilitating maintenance operations inside shop buildings.
• Installing train spotting signage to facilitate Double Venture positioning on platforms.
• Providing training and coaching to Windsor Yard Mechanical Services employees.
• Formalize communications process between Service Managers assigned to Double Venture trains.
• Rescuing a stranded Double Venture train could take time due to increase in passengers and train weight. 

The report included tables showing advanced bookings, ridership, expenses, revenue and Late Travel Credits. Increasing!

Charts and graphs! This interesting comparison is entitled Composition of Train Sets for Corridor Operations - Cycling Comparison:

Equipment retirement tables:

Those charts and graphs have holes in them large enough to drive a...Venture through, especially the retirement date shown as "NA" for the remaining HEP1, HEP2 and P42 fleets.

Transport Canada sent two lists of questions to VIA. Below are answers dated March 20, from VIA to TC. They include some interesting material regarding overlap between (and disposition of) Legacy and Venture equipment, plus a response that no locomotive engineers had taken time off as a result of the cognitive workload brought on by CN's Crossing Supplement:

All the questions did leave VIA CEO Mario Peloquin wondering, though, in his response:

[Should I consider these questions as a request not to begin implementing our plan to couple the Venture trains?]

One year later! This is what all Corridor trains would have looked like under the Double-Venture plan though now there are only two double-Ventures per day between Toronto and Brockville: - No 62/52 at Kingston station, March 27, 2026:

And in fact the Double-Venture plan was not implemented. 

I find it amazing that VIA would turn itself into a schedule-pretzel to this degree. The amount of work that went into planning, researching and disseminating this Double-Venture plan must have been formidable. It is no less significant than the extensive hours expended by expensive legal minds on CN and VIA sides in their court wrangling. And we have to ask ourselves, all for what? I guess this is the price of life at the national corporate level, where careful contingencies must be considered and management manoeuvring is a must!

Running extra...

Our tax dollars at work, like "Daddy, can I take the Beemer out for a rip?" Except it's BISON3, an RCAF Boeing CC-177 Globemaster III flown by 429 Squadron at 8 Wing Trenton. I've seen one 'takeoff' and now one 'landing' over our house. Approaching Kingston airport on Runway Two-Four as the reason for its one-hour flight, the big bird slowed from 520 to 123 knots and descended from 600+ to 183 meters at the time I took the above grab shot!

Nothing makes railfans lose their minds like paint. Paint schemes. It's just paint! But on June 26, eastbound CN oil unit train No 714 was led by solo NS 4224 with two BNSF pumpkins 6821 & 7088 as dual tail-end DPU; Heritage Unit 'BCOL' 3115 led No 276 and 'IC' 3008 led No 306. Then on July 7, same thing! But different. CSX 5444 & 825 UP 6416 and CN 2926 pulling No 714. When CN No 461 derailed 49 cars of its 172-car, 19,220-ton, 11,449-foot train at Repentigny, on July 5 the power was CN 3079-NS 3651-NS 4153.

Anchorman 2 quotes:

"I'm always able to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar. Even if it's not right."

"I have decided to donate my organs to science before I die so I can see where they ended up."

First past the post...

An E for Effort! "This has to be one of the most narrow, OCD-infused things I have ever worked on", says Paul Cordingley. Paul has been quietly amassing information on the actual locations on CN lines for which the CN (then VIA) E-series sleepers were named. Paul has also visited many of the E-locations and photographed CN station signs while there. (I have a soft spot for this car series and featured it as my Trackside Treasure's Fourth Anniversary Contest.) Ernestown was an infinitesimally small dot on CN's system but I lived in Ernestown Township, attended Ernestown Secondary School as did my two siblings, and remotely and roomettely rode in Ernestown in 1981. Eseries844 is still my historic YouTube handle! Here's hoping Paul excellently extends his efforts to effectively evince more evocative E-locations!