News   Mar 28, 2024
 170     0 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.9K     1 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.2K     2 

Moose Rail (National Capital Region)

Of course not. Bus routes can change at any time.

PPR-based service to each train station will be defined in an enforceable contract, and tracks don't move easily.

I didn't realize the fixed transit way infrastructure was movable. And a lot of that is now being converted to LRT. Yet, transit oriented development has been slack. I'll cite the specific location I own a place: Cyrville. You're telling me BRT there could be moved (before it became LRT today)?

(Signing off for a while... I've spent too much time on this and the Skyscraper blog today.

It's been entertaining to watch the same evasive responses on the other forum.

Specifically, I wouldn't mind some answers to the issues raised. For example, as one poster pointed out, the Trillium Line is at 100% capacity. Even if the CTA compels sharing, they most certainly aren't going to enforce sharing at peak, which severely damages your business case. Is Moose going to pay to double or triple track the corridor? Also, the same poster also pointed out that your proposed crossing of the Gatineau River is now being used by Gatineau's Rapibus. How do you propose to share bus and heavy rail?
 
Last edited:
You mean the O-Train's Certificate of Fitness? https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/745-r-2000
Looking for the operating regs, but the details from this will really help the search. Gov't search engines are very unintuitive compared to Google, so having the exact name and spelling of the org is essential to finding regs...*if they're published*! I had to go through US websites to find the 'waiver' given to Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway for one person operation at the time of the Lac Magentic disaster. US regulators (NTSB to be exact) had a long report with a chapter using the QNS&L as a case discussion on One Person Operation in view of Amtrak doing same. The result was they recommended continuing One Engineer Operation, but three other passenger train crew be present on the train. The point is that TC don't make info available for public viewing. It would spoil their private party.

If you do trip across that, please post, and it can be used as a template if need be for others to plan their application, let alone see who is 'chosen' and who isn't.

Edit to Add: A quick Google shows the US NTSB Report using the QNS&L for two pages as a model study:

Rear-End Collision of National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) Train P286
with CSXT Freight Train Q620 on the CSX
Railroad at Syracuse, New York
February 5, 2001

[...]Currently in Canada, only the QNS&L Railway has been approved for lone-engineer operation; however, Transport Canada has indicated it will consider lone-engineer operation on a waiver basis for other Canadian railroads as long as certain conditions are met. [...]
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAR0104.pdf Pg 19-21

Chilling reading in retrospect, but the point is that *even reverse Googling this* I can find no on-line publication either TC or the source of this quote, the CTSB, even with the document number. I'll try again, but it illustrates how difficult it is to find Operating Procedures, especially in light of TC granting *unique* "waivers" (as stated by the NTSB, it's a US term) to certain operations.

Late Edit: I have to correct the record, the CTSB has now published that report:
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/ENG/rapports-reports/rail/1996/r96q0050/r96q0050.asp

It wasn't published at the time of the Lac Megantic disaster, I supplied reference from the US Report to a number of Cdn newspapers, and it was quoted and discussed at that time. Sometimes "poking the eyes" does get attention.

From the CTSB report linked above, and this is important, because O-Train were also granted a "One Person Operation" (OPO) by Transport Canada for running the Trillium line. And here's a clincher: That "Person" is not required to be a recognized 'railway engineer', just a 'trained driver'. How this would stand a test like MOOSE sharing the track is a good question, thus my asking about 'O-Train's TC Operating Regs':
[...]
1.10.1 Business Plan
The railway indicated that the change to one-person train operation was for competitive reasons. QNS&L management indicated that some of their competitors were operating with one-person crews and that other non-competitor railways, such as Amtrak, had some one-person crew operations. QNS&L had contacted Amtrak and New Zealand Rail to review how those railways had modified their operations for one-person crews. In the case of Amtrak, the railway has limited the length of run to four hours when a train has one person in the operating cab. New Zealand Rail operates with one person in the operating cab; however, all its trains are scheduled. Employees know as much as a year in advance when they will be working.

Before the implementation of one-person train operation, railway representatives gave presentations to the Railway Association of Canada (RAC) and the regulator, Transport Canada, specifying their plans to negotiate for one-person operation and the particulars of how they intended to operate in a one-person crew environment. They also reported that they advised Transport Canada that it was their intention to begin one-person crew operations at the successful completion of contract negotiations with their operating union, the United Transportation Union (UTU). The railway reports to have solicited comment from both organizations and that Transport Canada responded with an indication that the railway's proposal was sound. Transport Canada maintains that it was not advised of the railway's intention to commence one-person crew operations at the successful completion of contract negotiations. Transport Canada indicates that it assessed the proposal as sound and that it advised the railway that it would need to see a much more thorough proposal before giving a conclusive opinion. Transport Canada reported that it did not see an issue with respect to rules compliance. Transport Canada maintained that it advised the railway that any proposed operation was expected to be as safe as the existing operation. In addition, Transport Canada recalls that it raised concerns with respect to pre-departure job briefings, rear view mirrors on locomotives, reset safety control operation and pull-by train inspections. Correspondence from the UTU to Transport Canada expressed the UTU's concerns about the safety of the operation of trains with one person in the operating cab. The official reply conveyed Transport Canada's position at the time, ". . . there are no federal regulations designating the number of persons to be employed on a train. Rather, crew size is a matter to be negotiated between the railway company and the unions representing the operating employees." Transport Canada also reports to have advised the union that ". . . regardless of the crew size, railway companies must comply with all operating rules or seek exemptions from such rules by explaining how they can do so in a safe manner."
[...]

Railway Investigation Report R96Q0050
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) investigated this occurrence for the purpose of advancing transportation safety. It is not the function of the Board to assign fault or determine civil or criminal liability.

Rear-end Train Collision
Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway
Freight Train No. FCS 45 and Train No. PH-475
Mile 131.68, Wacouna Subdivision
Near Mai, Quebec
14 July 1996
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/ENG/rapports-reports/rail/1996/r96q0050/r96q0050.asp
 
Last edited:
Looking for the operating regs

The good people at https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/contact-us, https://www.transportaction.ca and http://www.railcan.ca/contact can help track down documents. They're all friendly and knowledgeable.

O-Train were also granted a "One Person Operation" (OPO) by Transport Canada for running the Trillium line. And here's a clincher: That "Person" is not required to be a recognized 'railway engineer', just a 'trained driver'. How this would stand a test like MOOSE sharing the track is a good question, thus my asking about 'O-Train's TC Operating Regs'

We don't view the status quo arrangements as cast in stone. And we do view the transit planning professionals in the City of Ottawa and Ville de Gatineau (etc.) as allies.

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com
 
The good people at https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/contact-us, https://www.transportaction.ca and http://www.railcan.ca/contact can help track down documents. They're all friendly and knowledgeable.

We don't view the status quo arrangements as cast in stone. And we do view the transit planning professionals in the City of Ottawa and Ville de Gatineau (etc.) as allies.
Excellent! It's one thing to have 'dissonance' with politicians, it's part of their cause d'etre in many (not all) cases. Many are 'protecting their turf', justified or not, but having 'rational professionals' on the inside makes a world of difference. It means you're not up against 'the establishment', just the patina. Quite often the pros resent the 'masters' anyway, as many urban planners will attest.

[We don't view the status quo arrangements as cast in stone.] That may be one of the major concerns of 'the city masters'...that the One Person Operation might come under fresh scrutiny. It's not that MOOSE will be the 'odd one out' in pressing what's yours legally, it's OC Transpo.

I look forward to your getting more quality press exposure....
 
While the business plan should be continually refined (and be open to trainset unification with OTrain Trillum, even if not bilevel) ... I'd like to see parties like MOOSE to keep up the good fight to bringing more transit opportunities to Ottawa!

It may take a decade or two before densification around Ottawa LRT stations justifies a lot of Moose stations, but MOOSE already acknowledged it could take a couple decades for the full network. They'd start small. At the end, failure or not, it'd still be a big success in keeping rail corridors from being demolished!

In the private sphere, they got firstmover. (Elon Musk knows that). If Ottawa suddenly changes densification policy in the next 20 years (IMHO: better odds than lottery), MOOSE stands to actually have a profitable chance... Kanata could be the New Mississauga with tall towers at LRT stations in twenty years, for example. Even a tiny fraction of that is MOOSE-attractive density.

Regardless of longshots (or not), right now is the time to begin fighting for rail corridor preservation and trying to put them (privately, publicly) to use, given the precarious predicament of the bridge...
 
Last edited:
Regardless of longshots (or not), right now is the time to begin fighting for rail corridor preservation and trying to put them (privately, publicly) to use,
And this, of course, is the challenge for all rail transit in Canada. (with very few exceptions, if any) It's all well and good to believe that Government is going to pay for it all, but in fact, the rate of government investment, the present Federal Liberal surge besides, is decreasing on a per user basis. Even the likes of Morneau and Garneau fully admit, accept and preach on the need for Private Investment to step into the breach.

I think there will be far more intent to do this than many others believe. What they're really not braced for is that the vast majority of it will come from offshore, and then the same people denying the need for alternate investment sources will be crying racist blue murder because their names won't end with "Smith", "Abernathy" or "Fauntelroy".

The fact is that Cdn investment money prefers to put it where questions aren't asked. The vast pools of offshore investment funds looking at Canada are unafraid to answer the questions. This nation was built with 'foreign' capital. It looks like that must continue to be the case in lieu of Cdns looking for 'easier' investment elsewhere.
 
It may take a decade or two before densification around Ottawa LRT stations justifies a lot of Moose stations, but MOOSE already acknowledged it could take a couple decades for the full network. They'd start small. At the end, failure or not, it'd still be a big success in keeping rail corridors from being demolished!

Unless something is worked out between Moose and OC Transpo, I don't see how their services will be compatible enough to share stations. Also, Moose has a "property-powered rail" model. That's a tough sell on property owners who are in the catchment area around an LRT station. Why the heck would they pay Moose a premium for Moose service when that LRT is coming every few minutes?

If Ottawa suddenly changes densification policy in the next 20 years (IMHO: better odds than lottery), MOOSE stands to actually have a profitable chance... Kanata could be the New Mississauga with tall towers at LRT stations in twenty years, for example. Even a tiny fraction of that is MOOSE-attractive density.

Moose isn't betting on urban density. They are betting on density around stations. Personally, I don't see how this could work in the rural and ex-urban areas because nobody is moving to those places to live in dense housing. But all the power to them if they want to try out. Since I despise sprawl, I hope the province slaps on firm restrictions on those towns....which incidentally might actually help Moose. But I not optimistic that the province actually cares enough about sprawl to do that.

When it comes to the burbs, it's a tall order to say that Kanata will be the next Mississauga. For a whole host of reasons. To start with, there's no dense central axis. What's the equivalent to Hurontario? In Kanata, there's business parks all over the place. Next, Kanata is still actually quite small geographically and lightly populated (Kanata has about 10% of the population of Mississauga) . So there's lots of room to sprawl out. Let's not forget how long it took Mississauga to actually start densifying. And Kanata is outside the greenbelt with no restriction on its sprawl. And when all is said and done, Ottawa is still quite close (with shorter commutes post Stage 2), with tons of room to still densify inside the greenbelt. You're only seeing a condo boom now in Ottawa, a decade or more after the same phenomenon in Toronto. With any luck, densification will be continue to be directed inside the greenbelt.

A growing Kanata does very little for Moose. Since their model is based on a certain radius around the station, were Kanata to become Misssissauga, the only real benefit to Moose would be their catchment area going up in value. And there's a limit to how much the city's growth will transfer to the catchment area. And they really have to hope that densification happens near their station, not in another part of town. Look at the map and check where the rail lines run. Which of those do you think will be dense enough to reward Moose with a massive payoff?
 
To quote another pie-in-the-sky, never-gonna-happen, dreamer - Mr Branson... "Make us better, not bitter".

Thanks for those who are offering good, thought-provoking and constructive insights.

Moose Consortium Communications Director
 
Last edited:
People may be interested in listening to Lake88 "In Focus" Radio Producer, Bob Perreault, Interviews MOOSE Director General, Joseph Potvin

https://goo.gl/UNcqNn

Peter Gabany
Communications Director
Moose Consortium
On my Linux platform at least, Firefox doesn't support the format linked. Chrome does. Listening to it now on Chrome.

Update: It may be necessary to have a Google Account to hear it on Chrome. Here's the web-page for those of you with smart phones:
http://lake88.ca/2017/08/08/in-focus-tuesday-august-8th-2017-joseph-potvin/
 
Last edited:
It hasn't been discussed for a while, but I would like to revisit the issue of the Bayview Station. Many folks here have made the statement that the line has been "permanently" blocked thus preventing access to the POW bridge. This is an incorrect interpretation of the facts on the ground. The line has simply been realigned slightly to the east and there remains the full potential to continue northwards to the POW bridge. The City of Ottawa purchased the bridge with the thought of possibly extending the O-train across into Quebec. Do you think they would subsequently be so foolish as to block their own access.
As for the contention from MOOSE that they need an underpass to go around the Bayview station, this is ludicrous and sensationalist in an attempt to obtain media coverage. There is no reason they would need to go around the Bayview station rather than through it on the same set of tracks, only to have to join up with the single set of tracks to the South of the station and subsequently go through every other O-train station.
On a related side note. If you were to look at satellite images rather than the google map (or actually come and have a look for yourself), you will see that the line from the POW bridge was not actually physically connected to the O-train line prior to the recent construction anyway. What may appear to be a switch a few hundred meters to the south doesn't actually exist.
 
^ Good points Charles. Just to help visualize what you're talking about, here's the area in question.

Ziz4xek.png
 

Back
Top