VIA Rail

[robmausser]

A couple errors in that article:



- Metrolinx owns 80 km of the 100 km Kitchener line (Union-Bramalea, Georgetown-Kitchener), which I think is a bit more than "not much".
- Metrolinx owns 8 km of the Milton line from Union to The Junction, which while not much, is certainly not nothing.

While 80km is more than not much, even those 20km make a huge impact in GO's ability to give better service levels past Bramalea

 

[reaperexpress]

While 80km is more than not much, even those 20km make a huge impact in GO's ability to give better service levels past Bramalea

For sure! I did not mean to downplay the huge importance of the 407 freight bypass, I'm simply giving credit to Metrolinx for their massive expansion of GO-owned tracks. It's wild to think that just over a decade ago we owned nothing other than the Pickering-Oshawa sub.

 

[gweed123]

For sure! I did not mean to downplay the huge importance of the 407 freight bypass, I'm simply giving credit to Metrolinx for their massive expansion of GO-owned tracks. It's wild to think that just a decade ago, we only owned the USRC and the Pickering-Oshawa sub.

Even more impressive considering that most of those purchases were done relatively under the radar of the general public. They're hugely important, but they stayed out of the public eye, and therefore the public scrutiny and the political circus.

 

[reaperexpress]

Even more impressive considering that most of those purchases were done relatively under the radar of the general public. They're hugely important, but they stayed out of the public eye, and therefore the public scrutiny and the political circus.

I couldn't find a good graphic showing the progression of GO ownership, so I made one myself. GO has some then-and-now sort comparisons in their board reports, but they don't show the slow-and-steady progression.

Here's a chart of GO's track ownership since the first GO-owned line (Pickering-Whitby) was opened in 1988. It uses route-kilometres, so the Kingston Subdivision from Union to Scarborough is counted twice, and the USRC is counted seven times. I figured this is appropriate since the shared segments tend to have more tracks than the individual segments anyway.

I can't figure out when GO bought the CP Galt sub from Union to the West Toronto Diamond, does anyone know? On the chart I've shown it as 2009 (the year they bought the Weston Sub). Note that it's only 6 km, so it wouldn't make a huge impact on the overall trend.

Key years (I neglected to record the exact dates)
1988: GO Sub opens Pickering-Whitby
1995: GO Sub extended to Oshawa
2000: GO acquires Toronto Terminals Railway (Union Station Rail Corridor)
2001: GO acquires CN Newmarket Subdivision north of CN York Subdivision, and CN Uxbridge Subdivision (Scarborough-Uxbridge)
2007: GO Newmarket Subdivision extended to Barrie South, Stouffville line extended to Lincolnville
2009: Metrolinx acquires CN Weston Subdivision (Union-Bramalea) and CN Newmarket Subdivision south of CN York Subdivision
2010: Metrolinx acquires CN Oakville Subdivision from USRC to 30th St Etobicoke
2011: Metrolinx acquires CN Kingston Subdivision from USRC to Pickering
2012: Metrolinx acquires CN Oakville Subdivision from Mimico to Oakville, CN Bala subdivision south of CN York Sub, and GO Newmarket Sub is extended to Barrie Allandale
2013: Metrolinx acquires CN Oakville Subdivision from Oakville to Burlington
2014: Metrolinx acquires CN Guelph Sub from Kitchener to Georgetown (previously Goderich & Exeter Railway)

 

[vegeta_skyline]

Nice graphic there. I'm a stickler for details so I recorded all the exact dates

Updated GO track ownership post Guelph sub transaction.
Previous ver. http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/4952-GO-Transit-Service-thread-(including-extensions)?p=632175#post632175

Lakeshore West line
To Hamilton Center;
-total length(revenue service); 40.3 miles
-subdivisions; USRC 1.2, Oakville 36.1, Hamilton 3.0
-ownership; 32.2 GO(80%), 5.1 CN, 3.0 CP (further increase in ownership difficult/unlikely)
-purchases;
2000 - USRC limits mile 0.0 to 1.2
2010 March 31 - Oakville sub mile 1.2 to 8.4 = 7.2 miles for $72 million
2012 March 27 - Oakville sub mile 8.4 to 23.6 = 15.1 miles(+14.2 miles of the Bala sub), 29.3 miles for $310.5 million
2013 March 22 - Oakviile sub mile 23.6 to 32.2 = 8.6 miles for $52.5 million

To James St;
-total length(revenue service); 40.5 miles
-subdivisions; USRC 1.2, Oakville 39.3
-ownership; 32.2 GO(80%), 8.3 CN

Niagara(seasonal only)
-total length(revenue service); 82.4 miles
-subdivisions; USRC 1.2, Oakville 38.1, Grimsby 43.1
-ownership; 32.2 GO(39%), 50.2 CN
Speculation - Grimsby sub is a lower priority line for CN it may be available for purchase at some point in the future.

Lakeshore East line(figures do not include trackage to Pickering south, 1.0 miles owned by CN)
-total length(revenue service); 31.5 miles
-subdivisions; USRC 1.4, Kingston 18.4, GO 11.7
-ownership; 31.5 GO(100%)
-purchases;
2000 - USRC limits mile 332.4 to 333.8(center of Union) = 1.4 miles
2011 March 30 - Kingston sub mile 314.0 to 332.4 = 18.4 miles for $299 million

Milton line
-total length(revenue service); 31.3 miles
-subdivisions; USRC 1.5, Galt 30.0
-ownership; 4.85 GO(16%), 26.45 CP (further increase in ownership difficult/unlikely)
-purchases;
2000 - USRC limits mile 0.0 to 1.45 = 1.45 miles
pre 2005 - Galt sub mile 1.45 to 4.8 = 3.35 miles

Kitchener line
-total length(revenue service); 62.7 miles
-subdivisions; USRC 1.6, Weston 15.4, Halton 13.0, Guelph 32.7
-ownership; 49.7 GO(79%), 13.0 CN (further increase in ownership difficult/unlikely)
-purchases;
2000 - USRC mile 0.0 to 1.6 = 1.6 miles
2009 April 8 - Weston sub mile 1.6 to 17.0 = 15.4 miles for $160 million
2014 Sept 24 - Guelph sub mile 30 to mile 62.7 = 32.7 miles for $76 million

Barrie line
-total length(revenue service); 63.0 miles
-subdivisions; USRC 1.6, Weston 1.4, Newmarket 60.0
-ownership; 63.0 GO(100%)
-purchases;
1998 Dec 1 - Newmarket sub mile 41.5 to 63.0 = 21.5 miles(City of Barrie purchase from CN)
2001 - Newmarket sub mile 15.5 to 63.0 = 47.5 miles(ownership transfer to GO from the city of Barrie & additional track purchases from CN)
2009 Dec 15 - Newmarket sub mile 3.0 to 15.5 = 12.5 miles for 68$ million

Richmond Hill line
-total length(revenue service to Gormley); 26.0 miles
-subdivisions; USRC 1.9, Bala 24.1
-ownership; 16.1 GO(62%), 9.9 CN(further increase in ownership difficult/unlikely)
-purchases;
2012 March 27 - Bala mile 1.9 to 16.1 = 14.2 miles(+15.2 miles of the Oakville sub), 29.3 miles for $310.5 million

Stouffville line
-total length(revenue service); 30.7 miles
-subdivisions; USRC 1.4, Kingston 6.8, Uxbridge 22.3, 105(yard) track 0.2
-ownership; 30.7 GO(100%)
-purchases;
1993 - Uxbridge mile 28.4 to 38.7(GO does not operate on the main track past mile 38.7, the only current user is York-Durhan heritage railway)
2001 - Uxbridge mile 38.7 to 61.0 = 22.3 miles


Total System length(figures do not include duplicate miles for different lines);
year round revenue service - 288.0 miles
with seasonal Niagara service - 331.1 miles

Total known cost of corridor purchases; $1,038 million for 116.9 miles

Ownership as of 1998;
213.4 miles = 11.7 GO(5.4%), 167.4 CN(78.4%), 34.3 CP(16.1%)

Ownership of revenue service mileage after extensions to Gormley & James St.
288.0 miles = 228.05 GO(79.2%), 30.5 CN(10.6%), 29.45 CP(10.2%)
including Niagara;
331.1 miles = 228.05 GO(68.9%), 73.6 CN(22.2%), 29.45 CP(8.9%)

Breakdown of line extensions since Dec 2007; 114.4 miles
-to Barrie Dec 2007 21.3 miles(GO)
-to Lincolnville Jan 2008; 2.1 miles(GO)
-to Niagara Jun 2009; 45.1 miles(CN)
-to Kitchener Dec 2011; 32.7 miles(GO) 0.6 (CN)
-to Allandale Jan 2012; 3.5 miles(GO)
-to West Harbour July 2015; 4.7 miles(CN)
-to Gormley work in progress; 5.0 miles(CN)

Addition corridor purchase, currently unused;
2010 CP Belleville sub (Don Branch) mile 209.4 to 206.4 = 3.0 miles
2014 CP Canpa sub mile 0.0 to 2.6 = 2.6 miles (rumored but unverified/unlikely)

To note GO's first corridor purchase was way in 1993! when they bought a portion of the Uxbridge sub from CN to prevent its abandonment.

But likewise, the only one I have never been able to exactly pinpoint is the Galt sub purchase. Imo I believe it happened at the same time as GO's purchases of the USRC but I can't confirm that. What I can confirm is that it occurred before 2004 as ownership of the section is shown as being GO's on the original RAC map I use to update ownership;

For those interested here's my updated 2015 version;

 

[dowlingm]

Now that VIA owns the trackage between Brockville and Smiths Falls, and Smiths Falls and Ottawa, is there any likelihood CN might enquire about freight movements over that route? Or would there be an issue with CP about passing through Smiths Falls itself?

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Liberals ask 33 Harper appointees to step aside 'voluntarily'

Among the recipients: ...a member of the board of directors of Via Rail...

 

[dowlingm]

VIA had a bit of an oops a few days ago:
http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/medias-media/deploiement-deployment/rail/2015/20151211.asp
https://www.flickr.com/photos/tsbcanada/sets/72157660108896703

 

[SaugeenJunction]

I have a few comments/observations about the routing for the proposed new VIA service between Toronto and Montreal (the one VIA wants $4 billion for). I followed the routing on Google Maps and noticed a few things (if I misinterpreted something, please feel free to correct me):

• Use of the Don Branch: Would VIA buy this from Metrolinx? Would it be double tracked (a question for this portion and the entire line)?
• Use of the CP North Toronto Sub to access the Havelock Sub: VIA no doubt would build their rails beside the CP ones (corridor could fit 4 tracks across, minus bridges). However it looks like a fly-over/under would need to be built so VIA could access the Havelock Sub so VIA wouldn't interfere with CP traffic. This becomes essential with electrification, which is being proposed.
• Once rail on the Havelock Sub ends past Havelock, the ROW is used as the Trans-Canada Trail. The government wants a coast-to-coast trail, so the trail would need to be relocated beside the tracks or elsewhere.
• Some town such as Tweed, Ontario no longer have an established ROW through their town. Land would need to be expropriated or a bypass built.
• In Ottawa, the O-Train Trillium Line (2) crosses the VIA track at a diamond. This may or may not have to be grade separated.
• I am unfamiliar with Montreal's rail network, so I can't really comment on that portion.

Further more:

• If VIA was to build their own tracks along this line, I would love to see as many stations as possible have high-platform boarding. Montreal has this, and it has been funded for Ottawa. Union Station in Toronto is most likely not possible, but it would be really nice.
• On the current Toronto-Montreal route, service should definitely continue. DMUs could possibly be used due to less Montreal-Toronto traffic, but it is important to keep service Kingston ect..
• The current Transport Minister, Marc Garneau is a regular VIA rail traveler, so hopefully VIA gets funding for this or other major improvements.

 

[crs1026]

I have a few comments/observations about the routing for the proposed new VIA service between Toronto and Montreal (the one VIA wants $4 billion for). I followed the routing on Google Maps and noticed a few things (if I misinterpreted something, please feel free to correct me):

You know, as much as I try to force myself to like this routing, I just can't. It seems to be the least viable of all the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal routings that have been raised over the years..

Your list of 'needs' is a good start. I would add a couple:

- A need for a route around, or considerable work to pass through, Peterboro. The current swing bridge over the Trent would have to be replaced. A fixed bridge would require an elevated right of way, or the bridge would have to be swing or lift....with considerable potential disruption to rail service. Severing the Trent waterway is not an option.
- As this route is the only freight line to Peterboro and Nephton, the track geometry and speeds would have to be amenable to periodic freight service. This dooms the line to never be upgradeable to TGV-like quality... or another line would have to be reopened. (Relaying the GO Uxbridge line east through Lindsay and Omemee is theoretically possible).
- Assess impacts on property values and tourism/recreation busines in Sharbot Lake and Tweed, where geography will force the line through areas which have been repurposed away from rail/industrial use
- A need for new track beside the CP line from Glen Tay to Smiths Falls, with a flyunder at Smiths Falls, and then a new connection to the Smiths Falls Sub. The latter is doable, in fact there was once a wye from the Belleville Sub to the Pembroke line - but with a speed restriction and with any Smiths Falls stop moved further north and out of town.
- I would like to hear the engineering assessment of all the curves on the line, in terms of reasonably achievable speed limit after upgrading. Then model the potential end to end timing, taking into account all those speed restrictions. My suspicion would be, it would be a slower trip than one thinks, with lots of speed restrictions.

My big-ticket reservations, as if the cost hasn't gone up already -

- The line east of Havelock isn't simply dormant, it's fifty years or so untended. Structurally it has reverted completely back to nature. It was never more than a branch line, the civil works preceded today's axle loadings. So it's not a question of "reactivating" it, it's a matter of doing an entire engineering design and construction from bedrock up to support trains of a dimension that have never run there.
- The miles of track to be built is the greatest with this route. Smiths Falls to Napanee on the old CN route is 69 miles vs 118 miles Smiths Falls to Havelock. The CN route is straighter and more benign in terms of small towns en route. So, if Havelock makes sense, Napanee makes better sense. A Gananoque cutoff would be the least new miles of all. Adding trackage along the Kingston Sub would be less challenging and expensive than any of these lines through the Canadian Shield.
- The infrastructure investment in the Toronto area is huge and does not leverage Metrolinx's investment, whereas exiting Toronto on the existing route through Oshawa requires only small incremental investment to the LSE route
- Bypassing Kingston is just dumb. I question the viability of retaining service on the Lakeshore line once the through trains are removed. CN will understandably want all passenger service removed. At current traffic levels, that route does not require end to end doubletrack to run freights - I would expect CN to tear up a third or more of the double track if passenger service ended. VIA is probably underwriting that added capital investment now, and that makes good economic sense in support of today's through service. Reduced to local-service only on this route, and it will be much harder to justify paying CN to keep that track in top shape.

Am I wordy or what? Gotta edit myself more.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

I have a few comments/observations about the routing for the proposed new VIA service between Toronto and Montreal (the one VIA wants $4 billion for). I followed the routing on Google Maps and noticed a few things (if I misinterpreted something, please feel free to correct me):

Maybe I have missed this but is there a specific press release or VIA document that says they are looking at the Havelock route? Or, do they want the $4B to build a route parallel to their existing route?

 

[kEiThZ]

I can't see this new routing being politically saleable. Whole bunch of communities losing service. For faster service to Ottawa. Not going to fly. Politicians up and down the shore of Lake Ontario are going to have a fit. Especially in Kingston. If you're right on the routing. But I've understood that it'll come down to Kingston eventually....

I have a feeling that VIA is going to end up with some version of VIA Fast. Unless the feds somehow have the guts to launch full HSR. Still a small chance that could happen. Especially with Alberta having an NDP government and being in the doldrums, there's a small chance they could launch both QC-Windsor and Calgary-Edmonton simultaneously.

 

[robmausser]

I can't see this new routing being politically saleable. Whole bunch of communities losing service. For faster service to Ottawa. Not going to fly. Politicians up and down the shore of Lake Ontario are going to have a fit. Especially in Kingston. If you're right on the routing. But I've understood that it'll come down to Kingston eventually....

I have a feeling that VIA is going to end up with some version of VIA Fast. Unless the feds somehow have the guts to launch full HSR. Still a small chance that could happen. Especially with Alberta having an NDP government and being in the doldrums, there's a small chance they could launch both QC-Windsor and Calgary-Edmonton simultaneously.

I could only see this route working as shifting the Toronto -> Ottawa - Montreal trains ONLY off the CN line along lake Ontario. Not as abandoning that route entirely.

So pretty much the same train schedule we have now, just the Ottawa trains take this routing, and the direct Toronto > Montreal trains still using the CN sub.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Maybe I have missed this but is there a specific press release or VIA document that says they are looking at the Havelock route? Or, do they want the $4B to build a route parallel to their existing route?

I don't think that VIA hasn't publicly stated it is looking at the Havelock route, however Transport Action Ontario said they were in a report released recently: http://transport-action-ontario.com/wordpress/?p=663 . They have their finger pretty close on VIA's pulse and they would know more than the general public.

More on VIA's $4 billion: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/1...rail-yves-desjardins-siciliano_n_8473342.html

 

[White Pine]

Maybe I have missed this but is there a specific press release or VIA document that says they are looking at the Havelock route? Or, do they want the $4B to build a route parallel to their existing route?

I haven't heard anything about that either, I thought that's just what the Transport Action people's pipe dream was. I'd heard rumblings about VIA buying the Brockville sub, double tracking the whole Ottawa-Brockville segment, paying CP to move their Smith Falls yard out of the way, and possibly building a parallel track from Brockville to Belleville (unclear if this was for VIA or CN). As VIA has since bought the Brockville Sub, That would be my first assumption. Not sure how the parallel track would work, though.