GO Transit Fleet Equipment and other

[legoswmonkey]

Closing off the tracks to freight also means closing off the tracks to VIA (and eventually ALTO).

This is just nonsense. ALTO will share whatever electrification standards MX uses (likely 25kVAC) exactly so that they can run through their territory- remember that the project is using TMC so no matter how they get to downtown Toronto, they'll run on the Oakville sub eventually.

It also means preventing GO trains from running to places where Metrolinx doesn't yet own track, like Richmond Hill, Brampton, Kitchener, Hamilton and Niagara Falls.

I think if stringing catenary was enough to anger CN/CPKC into breaking every track access agreement then we'd have heard of it by now, given that even the unambitious GO Expansion plan is to continue running diesels from those locations as express services to Union. I don't realistically expect Transport Canada to do anything about the Class I's but if that's a real threat preventing electrification then they need to be brought to heel yesterday.
Seeing as you were replying in the context of running GO as a "proper RER" service there may be some merit to your arguments, if that service meant wholly incompatible signalling and operations from mainline rail. But broadly I think the attitude of "well we have these operating rules stopping us" is just defeatist. The rules are created by the government, and the government serves the people; they weren't granted to us by some Canadian railway god to make our passenger service suck forever. They can be changed.

 

[reaperexpress]

Well the first issue is just that, the operating rules. They may be arcane and we may not like them, but they exist and have to be followed. No amount of gnashing of teeth is going to fix that.

The operating rules are a system that exists to keep people safe. Given that EU regulations have produced a safer rail network than the Canadian ones, it seems short-sighted to simply dismiss them because "that's not how we do it here". It doesn't make sense to blindly commit to a set of inefficient regulations that were created incrementally in a low-density freight environment when we're trying to create a high-density passenger environment with minimal freight. European mainlines are much more similar to the proposed core GO network than the remote single-track railways on which the Canadian rules and regulations were developed .

Second is that no European railway operates with North American-sized trains. And that's kind of a big deal right there.

How large are the freight trains that operate on the Metrolinx-owned railways where electrification, ETCS and frequent service are proposed?

 

[Krypto98]

How large are the freight trains that operate on the Metrolinx-owned railways where electrification, ETCS and frequent service are proposed?

In my experience it depends but roadswitchers tend to be 5-20 cars maximum and its only stuff like the Ford job in Oakville and the Lambton transfer in west Toronto that can reach bigger sizes.

 

[Bordercollie]

The operating rules are a system that exists to keep people safe. Given that EU regulations have produced a safer rail network than the Canadian ones, it seems short-sighted to simply dismiss them because "that's not how we do it here". It doesn't make sense to blindly commit to a set of inefficient regulations that were created incrementally in a low-density freight environment when we're trying to create a high-density passenger environment with minimal freight. European mainlines are much more similar to the proposed core GO network than the remote single-track railways on which the Canadian rules and regulations were developed .

How large are the freight trains that operate on the Metrolinx-owned railways where electrification, ETCS and frequent service are proposed?

Don't freight trains run under the catenary in Kitchener? How is that different ?

 

[nfitz]

Don't freight trains run under the catenary in Kitchener? How is that different ?

Not in Kitchener AFAIK, but in Waterloo. For a single client in Elmira, on track owned by the Region. I'd assume there might be some special restrictions on equipment - though I used to see that train all the time, and I don't recall them ever being that high. Old-fashioned chemical cars mostly. No double-deckers or double-stacked shipping containers.

 

[Bordercollie]

Not in Kitchener AFAIK, but in Waterloo. For a single client in Elmira, on track owned by the Region. I'd assume there might be some special restrictions on equipment - though I used to see that train all the time, and I don't recall them ever being that high. Old-fashioned chemical cars mostly. No double-deckers or double-stacked shipping containers.

On the Barrie or Lakeshore line do they ever run double stacked containers? I'm sure Milton does.

 

[cplchanb]

On the Barrie or Lakeshore line do they ever run double stacked containers? I'm sure Milton does.

The fact that India can routinely run double stack electric trains throws that argument in the trash immediately. It can be done. Its just a question of whether the execs have the urge to get off their asses and actually work for their salaries. How egotistical are we that we assume we are thr safest rail system on earth when we routinely have derailments yearly and our rail operations tempo is but a fraction of what other countries run at with zero issues. Its all just pride and the unwillingness to explore new things that is holding us back

 

[drum118]

In my experience it depends but roadswitchers tend to be 5-20 cars maximum and its only stuff like the Ford job in Oakville and the Lambton transfer in west Toronto that can reach bigger sizes.

Have seen more than 20 cars from Oakville to Aldershot with two power units. Have seen yard switchers and mainline power on them. Same for CN Lambton transfer that used mainline power. The waterfront transfers where 20 maximum with two yard switchers.

When CN ran trains through Union, mainline power pulling over 100 cars.

Halton Sub and the Galt Sub see double stacks. I cannot speak to the Barrie line since I am rarely there when CN moves. Double stacks did show up on the Richmond Hill line and at Union. Lots of auto racks from Oakville to Aldershot. CSX runs double stacks on the NEC.

 

[crs1026]

Not in Kitchener AFAIK, but in Waterloo. For a single client in Elmira, on track owned by the Region. I'd assume there might be some special restrictions on equipment - though I used to see that train all the time, and I don't recall them ever being that high. Old-fashioned chemical cars mostly. No double-deckers or double-stacked shipping containers.

At least three customers, and possibly more when newly announced industrial land in Elmira is developed.

The Waterloo Spur is run to a smaller Plate than the full double stack mainline standard, meaning some types of larger cars are not permitted. There are high-wide sensors at each end of the LRT segment. Some CN locomotives have even been found to not meet the dimensional standard. There are special instructions guiding operations over the LRT trackage.

Considering that several GO lines do run on CN and CPKC for part of their route, and consequently GO crews must be qualified in the traditional CROR and related rules, it would not be a simple task to double-train and require crews to apply one set of rules on one property and another on the core GO lines. Crews already spend enough time doing initial training and requals for rules training. Doubling that study time would not improve productivity.

ML could probably be able to get exceptions to specific items, and in fact they do this already via Special Instructions in their timetable....but a wholesale rewriting of the CROR would require lengthy analysis and discussion with the regulator.

I would not defend the CROR as a perfect world, but transition to another system would be a change initiative of a large scale. Maybe this isn't the time for that given other things needed more.

- Paul

 

[Metroscapes]

CN still runs frieght trains up to King City on the Barrie line to serve a lumber mill. They also still serve customers on the Metrolinx owned portion of LSW. So it's not like you could setup the overhead electrical infrastructure for these lines, even though they're owned by Metrolinx.

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain Canadian regulations dictates that all railroad tracks, including passenger rail tracks, must be built to accommodate freight trains in the case of a derail on their mainlines. Hence why platforms 25 & 26 at Union Station are being built without roofs. In the case a freight train needs to detour through Union Station and is hauling double stack containers.

Or the other possibility is that when CN sold off these lines to Metrolinx, the understanding was that CN would still have running rights on these lines in the case of a derail on their mainline.

Don't forget that, in addition to mixing in along the central part of the line, CN took control back over from a local shortline and runs freight along the Guelph subdivision to Toronto.

This is not a serious issue for catenary installation. Catenary may only interfere with oversize loads. The freight companies can still absolutely run normal load freight trains under catenary.
They may oppose it when its on their own tracks because it would be more trouble than benefit for them, but on MX owned tracks they can't veto.

If we were a real building country, we would be pushing for freight electrification and that way it wasn't such an adversarial exercise.

Don't freight trains run under the catenary in Kitchener? How is that different ?

Not in Kitchener AFAIK, but in Waterloo. For a single client in Elmira, on track owned by the Region. I'd assume there might be some special restrictions on equipment - though I used to see that train all the time, and I don't recall them ever being that high. Old-fashioned chemical cars mostly. No double-deckers or double-stacked shipping containers.

At least three customers, and possibly more when newly announced industrial land in Elmira is developed.

The Waterloo Spur is run to a smaller Plate than the full double stack mainline standard, meaning some types of larger cars are not permitted. There are high-wide sensors at each end of the LRT segment. Some CN locomotives have even been found to not meet the dimensional standard. There are special instructions guiding operations over the LRT trackage.

Considering that several GO lines do run on CN and CPKC for part of their route, and consequently GO crews must be qualified in the traditional CROR and related rules, it would not be a simple task to double-train and require crews to apply one set of rules on one property and another on the core GO lines. Crews already spend enough time doing initial training and requals for rules training. Doubling that study time would not improve productivity.

ML could probably be able to get exceptions to specific items, and in fact they do this already via Special Instructions in their timetable....but a wholesale rewriting of the CROR would require lengthy analysis and discussion with the regulator.

I would not defend the CROR as a perfect world, but transition to another system would be a change initiative of a large scale. Maybe this isn't the time for that given other things needed more.

- Paul

Really makes you wonder why the Regional Municipality of Waterloo keeps contracting out operations to CN. Why not run it almost the same way Guelph's municipal railway is operated, and find an operator that is a better fit for the corridor.

 

[dowlingm]

The fact that India can routinely run double stack electric trains throws that argument in the trash immediately. It can be done.

Indian railways have done R&D on extended height pantographs to facilitate that.

1007216-0: High reach pantograph: world record set - Railway Enquiry

High reach pantograph: world record set by Stone India KOLKATA, India -- The new generation pantograph developed by Stone India for the Indian Railways allows an India Rail Info is a Busy Junction for Travellers & Rail Enthusiasts. It also hosts a Centralized Database of Indian Railways Trains &...

m.indiarailinfo.com

Presumably that also means a higher structure gauge and any grade separations being more heavily weighted to rail over road.

 

[nfitz]

At least three customers, and possibly more when newly announced industrial land in Elmira is developed.

I think they, used to ship to that lumber supplier in St. Jacobs. Home Hardware too ... but is that still done? Unless something is changed, there's no way there's be enough traffic to justify the other two - and it's not like there'd be the challenge of moving the toxic chemicals to and from Uniroyal to a tanker, that keeps them using rail. Though I don't know what the produce there these days; the demand for Agent Orange is way down thanks to those pesky kids.

But also, I used to see the northbound evening train at least once a fortnight or so for years at Northfield. It was always chemical cars and such going to Uniroyal. I don't recall ever seeing something that looked like it would go to Home Hardware or lumber.

You used to see stuff going to that chemical plant on Erb Street in Waterloo (looked like some plastics moulding place), but they closed decades ago.

 

[ssiguy2]

This can all be done, piece of cake just like it is all across the rest of the planet.

The ability to electrify is NOT the issue. The issue is that ML simply doesn't want to electrify the system. They have had a decade already and the only thing electrified on the entire system is the lightbulbs. What's more they haven't put out a single tender to make it so. These new "timelines" are none of the sort but simply new notes written on the back of a napkin to appease the public ala Wynne's high-speed rail line to London.

ML can come up with every excuse as to why the deal with DB fell thru but there is just ONE reason...........when the tender went out, DB actually thought that ML was serious about electrified high frequency RER service and ML wasn't. It was a public relations exercise that DB was sick of being part of. ML didn't want to deal further with DB because DB took the tender seriously only to find out that ML didn't.

 

[smallspy]

The operating rules are a system that exists to keep people safe. Given that EU regulations have produced a safer rail network than the Canadian ones, it seems short-sighted to simply dismiss them because "that's not how we do it here". It doesn't make sense to blindly commit to a set of inefficient regulations that were created incrementally in a low-density freight environment when we're trying to create a high-density passenger environment with minimal freight. European mainlines are much more similar to the proposed core GO network than the remote single-track railways on which the Canadian rules and regulations were developed .

Could SOME of the European regulations (and keep in mind, there are few standardized railway regulations continent-wide) work here? I am sure that there are likely some.

Could all of them be imported wholesale? No - not without completely changing how the railroads operate here.

And that's the issue. Just saying "look over there, they can do it" misses the point of HOW they are able to do it and why. Their lines are configured for small, light trains. Ours have been prioritized for the opposite.

So long as the network needs to be capable of mingling with those freight trains, it needs to be able to be kept safe of them, too. And that goes for VIA trains, or any longer-distance GO runs. We don't run subways on the Kingston Sub, nor should we.

How large are the freight trains that operate on the Metrolinx-owned railways where electrification, ETCS and frequent service are proposed?

Normally? As Krypto98 wrote above, generally not much longer than 20 cars, although some of the Aldershot-to-Oakville transfers have be as long as 100 autoracks.

In extraordinary circumstances, such as CP's Oshawa derailment or the blockages of CN's line around Tyendinaga? 10,000 feet is not uncommon.

Dan

 

[Krypto98]

Have seen more than 20 cars from Oakville to Aldershot with two power units. Have seen yard switchers and mainline power on them. Same for CN Lambton transfer that used mainline power. The waterfront transfers where 20 maximum with two yard switchers.

When CN ran trains through Union, mainline power pulling over 100 cars.

Halton Sub and the Galt Sub see double stacks. I cannot speak to the Barrie line since I am rarely there when CN moves. Double stacks did show up on the Richmond Hill line and at Union. Lots of auto racks from Oakville to Aldershot. CSX runs double stacks on the NEC.

CN hasn't run through the USRC in almost a decade now. Most of the examples you listed aren't exactly recent, Waterfront switcher hasn't been a thing in at least 5-6 years maybe more, I've never ran it . Of course Halton sub would see double stacks its their main line. Auto racks from Oakville to Aldershot are from the Ford job which i mentioned can reach way bigger lengths. The most I've had on the Lambton transfer was like 90+ cars with 2 GE engines. I can't recall if ive had some double stacks on that job.