News   Mar 28, 2024
 46     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 153     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 242     0 

VIA Rail

Why is this route preferred? (Besides being more direct to Peterborough and Ottawa)
For a number of reasons, not least, as I linked and quoted two pages back, under the Transportation Act, and contrary to the claims of some posters, it doesn't need an EA since it's a (gist) "Existing RoW", even though the section from Glen Tay to just east of Havelock is officially abandoned, it still has status under the Law for bringing back into service, some limitations apply, such as how far from the centre line of the RoW is exempt from the need for intervention in regulation.
Railway line Includes a main line, branch line, yard tracks, sidings, spurs or other track auxiliary.

Agency approval is not required to construct a railway line if:

  • The proposed railway line is within the right of way of an existing railway line;
  • The proposed railway line is within 100 metres of the centre line of an existing railway line for a distance of no more than 3 kilometers; or,
  • A port authority, incorporated under the Canada Marine Act, constructs a railway line on lands that it manages, holds or occupies.

Discussed in post #4,923 and many times prior in this string, but it seems to be water off a duck's back for many posters. Desjardins-Siciliano has discussed this many times in detail with the press.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
NUMBER 021
l
1st SESSION
l
42nd PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2016
[...]
Mr. Yves Desjardins-Siciliano:
What we are proposing to do, which is somewhat cheap and quite fast to deploy, is acquire existing freight railway beds and repurpose them for passenger rail. They are currently abandoned or of very little use, so we would operate them. For the freight traffic that runs on those tracks, which is usually a train a day or two trains a week, we would control when they run. Obviously we would make them run when we are not running passenger trains.
[...]
http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/PACP/meeting-21/evidence

See also:
Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural ...
https://sencanada.ca/en/Content/Sen/Committee/421/ENEV/14ev-52838-e
 
Last edited:
Why is this route preferred? (Besides being more direct to Peterborough and Ottawa)

I wouldn't say it's the best, but they probably judge it to be the easiest. The current route would probably be better IMO, but due to the higher population density there are many more property and space issues to deal with. With Havelock, they have a fairly long ROW that is already there (minus tracks) with comparatively few things that could get in the way.
 
I wouldn't say it's the best, but they probably judge it to be the easiest. The current route would probably be better IMO, but due to the higher population density there are many more property and space issues to deal with. With Havelock, they have a fairly long ROW that is already there (minus tracks) with comparatively few things that could get in the way.
Agree with your gist, even if not some detail, but to reduce it to two words: "It's do-able". All the alternatives face massive costs and timelines, if they're even possible at all. There's at least two huge viaducts to be built (Port Hope and Trenton) and many other very expensive, complicated and time-consuming challenges on the Lakeshore route.

Ultimately, the decision on this, beside from the Regulator and VIA Shareholder (the Gov't) will be from Enterprise. And this will appeal to far more than just VIA, who'll have 'the first pick' of slots and seniority. This route will also be prime for GO cummuter to P'bro and premium high-speed freight to Ottawa and Montreal.

Contrary to the claims of some posters, D-S has insisted his figures are only for projection. We'll be getting a better feel for how Enterprise values this in the next while. On the trainsets, everyone has apparently forgotten that D-S was touting the corridor fleet renewal was going to cost 50% more than what it did. (Or conversely, it cost 1/3 less)
 
Last edited:
The Trail continues right through town. Not one building on the RoW. Companies might be using it while the Township/County looks the other way, might even be leasing, but doubtful, but they certainly don't own it. And can't build on it. The Ontario Trails Act would prevent that even if they did own it, which they don't.
Check the property discontinuity for the former rail line through Tweed. What was once where the track is, is no longer separate properties, and some of it is attached to adjacent properties - that yes, have buildings on them.

It's not a show-stopper, but it will require purchase and expropriation, etc.

Once again: Show reference to your claim!
Check the Country of Northumberland GIS mapping.
 
Railroad property widths are the same standard width of public roads in Ontario - 66ft (20.12m). So it's safe to assume that most rights of way are this width for single or double tracks in most areas of the province.
Any one I've checked is far wider than 66 ft.

niftz, Some conservation authorities have really good online maps with satellite images and measuring tools, others... are way in the past. Perhaps the CA for this area can help you out.
Garunda - the CAs have the same source mapping for local property lines as the municipalities - the CA data is redundant for that purpose.
 
At the risk of deja vu.....

I can't imagine for a moment that the Peterboro route will require a less thorough public consultation and EA than any other route (including the Kingston line, if it were 4-tracked).
Can we at least agree that restoring an inactive and dismantled line on a former, but still existing, ROW would not and should not receive the same scrutiny as building an entirely new ROW through an environmentally sensitive area like the lakes between Kingston and Smiths Falls?
There are people with opposing interests who might well take VIA to court if it bypassed that. #trieditwithpipelines
Despite Paul Langan's desperate attempts of strirring up NIMBY protests, I have yet to see one newspaper article which voices local resistance. Instead, even he published a guest post from Marc Lemieux which was supportive of HFR, especially as a way to support small cities and communities which "are seeing very little economic growth and, in some instances, an actual decrease in population largely due to the lack of opportunities for employment for young people, resulting in a migration to large, urban areas."
The Peterboro line is new construction, let's face facts.
Correct, the line is indeed new construction. The ROW, however, isn't.
-The Peterboro line was engineered in the 1800's. Engineering standards have changed and a much higher standard than has ever been applied will have to be retrofitted
I don't see why this wouldn't be significantly cheaper than building something new from scratch.
- Previous bridges have been converted to bike trails.
Converted as in tracks removed and replaced through asphalt? Cannot be reverted back by removing asphalt and relaying tracks (provided the structure is sound)?
- Culverts and other load-bearing structures haven't carried a load since 1970's.
- Concrete has crumbled.
- Watercourses have seeped into the fill in spots, the bikes and ATV's can go around or over that. Drainage will have to be updated and soft spots stabilised.
- The entire route from Tapscott to Glen Tay will need to be undercut, new subgrade applied.
It is in the nature of any reconstruction project that some structures need to be replaced and additional earthwork is required. I don't see why this wouldn't be significantly cheaper than any greenfield development.
- The line will have to be completely assessed - boreholes, flora and fauna, the whole bit. How many migratory patterns will be impaired by fencing? (There will be fencing)
Have a look at this presentation prepared by Omnitrax which shows very detailled pictures of the Gillam-Churchill line with the washouts. I unfortunately can't find the more detailed engineering report with an Annex which didn't only include these pictures, but also details regarding the required repairs and earthwork to restore service: I have seen several hundred of pages of such reports documenting and discussing the current state of all parts of the Havelock Subdivision (i.e. in operation and abandoned).
- There is absolutely no reason to believe that the current fills meet civil standards for weight or dynamic forces of 120+ mph trains (even if the current plan is only to run at 95-110, any prudent engineer will future proof the design).
You can't "future-proof" an alignment for HSR (i.e. speeds in excess of 125 mph), which is obviously not suited for such speeds.
- At least a couple miles of curvature will have to be reengineered and line relocated - yes, in the Canadian Shield. Likely lots of blasting and rock fill for those.
I don't see why this wouldn't be significantly cheaper than blasting an entirely new passage through the Canadian shield.
It may be slightly more work to engineer a new line, blast out the rock in places, and fill in others, from Pittsburgish up to Portland. Roughly following Highway 15, that's about 30 miles of new construction. Much of that land is already cleared, although public pressure might argue to preserve that land and route through the bush. It's another 16 miles from Portland to Smiths Falls on the old CNOR. So 30 miles new construction and 16 reconstructed miles.
While I just argued that you don't need to upgrade an existing line to HSR standards, a "prudent engineer" would certainly recommend this for a greenfield alignment, where the alignment can already be built with such speeds in mind, which will, however, cause additional costs.
Even if one argues for a separation Toronto to Kingston, the Gananoque cutoff removes the need for 36 miles of new double track (Kings to Brockville.). So it's close to a wash.
Yes, if you assume that building a greenfield alignment (close to HSR standard) is not significantly more expensive than adding tracks to an existing ROW, you would be indeed right, though I would like to see some evidence to support that theory.
Peterboro route is 94 reconstructed miles Glen Tay - Havelock, 98 miles reclaimed miles Havelock-Agincourt, There is also 15 miles new construction Smiths Falls - Glen Tay, and 8 miles Agincourt- Leaside. (You can't argue that CN will be hard to deal with and then argue that CP will be happy to accommodate the latter.) That includes two bridges over the Don Valley. And then four miles reclaimed line (one huge bridge) Leaside-Don.
Yes, you will need a grade separation to cross the Belleville Sub near Agincourt, vs. two grade separations if you take the Kingston Sub (one to cross the Kingston Sub somewhere between Liverpool Junction and wherever you leave the Kingston Sub and one to cross the Winchester Sub in/near Smiths Falls. Assuming you measured correctly, you will indeed have to upgrade 94 miles of a lightly used freight line, rebuild 98 miles of a previously existant ROW and add 15 miles of second track vs. 180 miles of adding 1-2 additional tracks to already 2-3 existing track (good luck reclaiming the third track which has already been built and is property of CN) and building the greenfield Gananoque cutoff to HSR-ready specs...
Lastly, I don't believe for a moment that VIA will be able to maintain effective service to Kingston, no matter how many assurances they have given.
Yes, indeed, there won't be any longer 2 trains departing Kingston 6 (53@13:39 and 65@13:45), 16 (#43@9:13 and #61@9:29), 18 (69@19:02 and 647@19:20) or 22 minutes (67@17:16 and 55@17:38) between each other or departing Toronto 17 (54@17:40 and 668@17:57) or 25 (66@15:15 and 46@15:40 or 646@16:35 and 68@17:00) from each other. Nevertheless, there will be a service which will serve Kingston more effectively than the current schedule and even though you can't believe it based on the information you have received, their mayor has been fully convinced by the information he has received.
Once the new line opens, CN will want its tracks back. Trains Toronto-Brantford London May 1 1988: 8 each way Trains Toronto-Brantford-London today? 5 each way.
I can't believe you have never heard of the cuts of the federal government which took place on January 15, 1990 and also severely affected the Corridor (far beyond abandoning Montreal-Trois-Rivieres-Quebec and Toronto-Havelock). It was not CN which stole these frequencies, it was Mulroney!
The Havelock line has been broached publicly by VIA and even the Minister so frequently recently that I do believe it will prevail. I'm not crying sour grapes, but..... If VIA has better numbers that point the comparison differently, I would like to see them.

- Paul
And I would like to see the figures on which you base your claims, as I find some of them extremely counter-intuitive...

Aluminum can absolutely be repaired, even if cracked. The repair, however, is trickier than that done to steel, and frequently involves additional processes.
Of course everything can be repaired, even if you have to replace every single part of a car. The question is whether it can be done cheaper (let alone: at better value-for-money) than a replacement...
 
Last edited:
Can we at least agree that restoring an inactive and dismantled line on a former, but still existing, ROW would not and should not receive the same scrutiny as building an entirely new ROW through an environmentally sensitive area like the lakes between Kingston and Smiths Falls?
Absolutely it should be cheaper. And being under federal CEAA rather than the Ontario process, I'm not even sure that an environmental assessment is necessary.
 
that yes, have buildings on them.
?
1545058367074.png
https://hastings-gis.maps.arcgis.co...ndex.html?id=1e451896ecdf445a9a2f75ad79805d0b
 
What was once where the track is, is no longer separate properties, and some of it is attached to adjacent properties - that yes, have buildings on them.

Rather disingenuous of you to trim the text I posted to the point that the meaning wasn't clear. I clearly said that the properties that was once where the track was now attached (unsubdivided) to a property that has buildings on them.

And I've circled two buildings on such properties. There's at least third one further east between Mary and Loiusa Street - and I'm only looking at your image that doesn't show most of the buildings! No, the buildings aren't on where the track once was - I didn't say they were, or that it was a show-stopper. Merely that it would require purchase and expropriation. And subdivision too.

1545059838540.png
 
Of course everything can be repaired, even if you have to replace every single part of a car. The question is whether it can be done cheaper (let alone: at better value-for-money) than a replacement...

Oh, no doubt. I'm not advocating for an additional rehab of the rest of the cars.

But in this case, the work has already been done to those particular cars and they are structurally and mechanically better than the rest. If their condition - and therefore, their projected lifespan - is better, why not keep them around for a little longer?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
Rather disingenuous of you to trim the text I posted to the point that the meaning wasn't clear. I clearly said that the properties that was once where the track was now attached (unsubdivided) to a property that has buildings on them.

And I've circled two buildings on such properties. There's at least third one further east between Mary and Loiusa Street - and I'm only looking at your image that doesn't show most of the buildings! No, the buildings aren't on where the track once was - I didn't say they were, or that it was a show-stopper. Merely that it would require purchase and expropriation. And subdivision too.
And here's what I wrote to which you made that answer:
steveintoronto said:
The Trail continues right through town. Not one building on the RoW. Companies might be using it while the Township/County looks the other way, might even be leasing, but doubtful, but they certainly don't own it. And can't build on it. The Ontario Trails Act would prevent that even if they did own it, which they don't.
I'm still looking for ownership details of those plots. They may have been attained with an easement in the title. The trail still runs through Tweed, and there are no buildings on it.

My point stands. Prior search over a year ago showed only one sale of land, the conditions of which must have been deemed "For the good of Canada" since it hosts a Bell Communications fibre cable and as such, must continue to share the RoW by both provincial and federal law. (Utilities Act)

So do you, or do you not agree that no buildings are on the RoW?
 
Last edited:
Rather disingenuous of you to trim the text I posted to the point that the meaning wasn't clear. I clearly said that the properties that was once where the track was now attached (unsubdivided) to a property that has buildings on them.

And I've circled two buildings on such properties. There's at least third one further east between Mary and Loiusa Street - and I'm only looking at your image that doesn't show most of the buildings! No, the buildings aren't on where the track once was - I didn't say they were, or that it was a show-stopper. Merely that it would require purchase and expropriation. And subdivision too.

View attachment 167847
What does that mean?
 
Can we at least agree that restoring an inactive and dismantled line on a former, but still existing, ROW would not and should not receive the same scrutiny as building an entirely new ROW through an environmentally sensitive area like the lakes between Kingston and Smiths Falls?

Very helpful replies. Thanks!
 
Can we at least agree that restoring an inactive and dismantled line on a former, but still existing, ROW would not and should not receive the same scrutiny as building an entirely new ROW through an environmentally sensitive area like the lakes between Kingston and Smiths Falls?

In Pythonspeak: if any of the land has been conveyed to a non-railroad, then the right of way has been severed, and it is a dead railroad. It has not, for instance, been posted as a railbanked line. The CP M+O Sub, which was railbanked by a previous regime, has signs all along the route stating this. Havelock does not. While VIA has kindled a new idea, there is absolutely nothing placed on record over the years to imply that the Havelock line was officially railbanked. That's the kind of fact base that lawyers use to differentiate situations. #NorwegianBlue2.0

Note that even the fairly short additions of triple track on the Kingston Sub triggered a form of EA. See here and here. If these projects (short additions within 100 feet of centerline of an operating railway) needed an EA, the HFR project will need one also.

Despite Paul Langan's desperate attempts of strirring up NIMBY protests, I have yet to see one newspaper article which voices local resistance. Instead, even he published a guest post from Marc Lemieux which was supportive of HFR, especially as a way to support small cities and communities which "are seeing very little economic growth and, in some instances, an actual decrease in population largely due to the lack of opportunities for employment for young people, resulting in a migration to large, urban areas."

So far, perhaps, but I can't imagine the residents of Sharbot Lake for instance won't simply welcome the bulldozers without insisting on discussing how the intrusion of the line affects their community, what the options are, and what mitigation is required.

I haven't done an exhaustive search of the treaties and claims, but in other federal projects east of Toronto a number of First Nations have maintained that the Peterboro-Perth area is part of their traditional migratory and hunting domain. Some will undoubtedly ask to be consulted about the new project. This does not necessarily imply opposition, but they may ask how this project meshes with their interests and is VIA extending them opportunities to benefit from the project. All of this is potentially very win-win... personally, I would encourage VIA to make every possible use of First Nations resources in the project. My point is, VIA cannot hide behind statute to naysay the need for such consultations, and if they do they may be taken to court. #AskAlbertaaboutthat

The point of an EA is not to count sparrows, it's to inventory what the impacts are, collect public input, and determine if/what mitigation is required. VIA may have reams of technical data, but they have to come out and lay that before the EA process, hear from the public, and respond.

You can't "future-proof" an alignment for HSR (i.e. speeds in excess of 125 mph), which is obviously not suited for such speeds.

This is probably the thing that triggers my reservations most. I understand that the VIA plan is not HFR, and I support not going to HSR .....but.... Thirty years passes quickly. If this line becomes the backbone for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, it needs to be futureproofed to permit sensible upgrades over the years. When VIA says, we aren't aiming for High Speed, they are saying, this line has very little upside and is not scalable. That's not sensible.

I have to agree with other posters that VIA has chosen this route because it is the most doable under current budgets, regulatory regimes and public/poltitical attitudes. The reality that the line is unwanted by freight railroads makes its acquisition cheap and easy. We can debate relative construction costs (I accept VIA knows things we don't) but it's the old maxim - never buy the cheapest thing available on the market, it is never the cheapest over the longer term. The next most expensive option is not that much more costly, and it brings greater benefits.

If this line isn't scalable for the long term, just don't do it, at any price.

Yes, indeed, there won't be any longer 2 trains departing Kingston 6 (53@13:39 and 65@13:45), 16 (#43@9:13 and #61@9:29), 18 (69@19:02 and 647@19:20) or 22 minutes (67@17:16 and 55@17:38) between each other or departing Toronto 17 (54@17:40 and 668@17:57) or 25 (66@15:15 and 46@15:40 or 646@16:35 and 68@17:00) from each other. Nevertheless, there will be a service which will serve Kingston more effectively than the current schedule and even though you can't believe it based on the information you have received, their mayor has been fully convinced by the information he has received.

I can't believe you have never heard of the cuts of the federal government which took place on January 15, 1990 and also severely affected the Corridor (far beyond abandoning Montreal-Trois-Rivieres-Quebec and Toronto-Havelock). It was not CN which stole these frequencies, it was Mulroney!

It was Mulroney, but no one since his time has seen fit to put any of those eliminated trains back in place. And it is CN not wanting them....because their freight business would be impacted. Trains are much longer than in 1990 and that is a transformational change for passenger....far less flexibility to intermingle. Note that CN has taken track out of service between London and Sarnia since then, and also between Hamilton and Niagara Falls. If you look at the tonnage CN runs on the Kingston Sub, it is substantial but far less than what CN carries across the Prairies, where they have a 50 mph speed limit and mix single and double track. I'm sure someone at CN is looking at their numbers and planning to de-capitalise the Kingston Sub after VIA leaves. That likely implies sections of single track and 80 mph top speed, as on the Toronto-London-Sarnia line. CN won't poke Ottawa in the eye by being uncooperative with VIA so long as VIA needs its track for the primary T-O-M service, but should VIA acquire its own line, CN will not hesitate to point out that VIA can't have its cake and eat it on CN's plate also. Those happy mayors may not like what they get.

I also look at VIA's lack of success in making good on promises to add service in the Maritimes. VIA undoubtedly means well, but that doesn't mean they hold enough cards to carry the day (as you noted previously).

I won't belabour this further, but I will repeat an earlier point - the Havelock line may be the cheapest option for today, but if it does not have longevity and scalability to future success, it is just another version of the Ren Car caper. The biggest risks are a) VIA being over optimistic about what it can extract from the ROW, and b) no ground gained for when we need to go to the next level of ground transportation.

- Paul
 
One problem with rehabilitating old ROWs is that they tend to go right through the middle of settlements, primarily because they were the backbone of inter-community travel back in the day. The were populated by slow moving trains that usually stopped. I can foresee that, once the devil shows up with his details, and folks envision frequent trains zooming past their back door and through their communities, local opposition will increase. The economic benefit to most of these settlements will be negligible at best.
Without resorting to land use maps and who-owns-what, Google shows that the Sharbot Lake medical centre and its parking lot sits right on the ROW.

As for aboriginal claims, history has shown us that this can be fairly easily solved by throwing money at it.
 

Back
Top