General railway discussions

[Urban Sky]

Border control with the US is only going to get tighter, not looser, and agents will always reserve the right to interview and inspect anyone they feel like.

Exactly! Everyone dreaming of the United States entering a Schengen-like agreement which effectively eliminates border control at the Canadian border should urgently start following the news…

 

[CapitalSeven]

Exactly! Everyone dreaming of the United States entering a Schengen-like agreement which effectively eliminates border control at the Canadian border should urgently start following the news…

For sure. We are more likely to ride on flying pigs than to cross the border on a train without checks.

Question, could the UPX area at Union be expanded and converted for international service once the Kitchener and Pearson services become more integrated?

 

[Urban Sky]

Question, could the UPX area at Union be expanded and converted for international service once the Kitchener and Pearson services become more integrated?

In order to run the desired number of services through Union, you have to terminate there as few services as possible and that may imply mothballing the UPX platform and instead connecting the Airport services through with another (then) electrified corridor, like ST or LE.

 

[crs1026]

At the end of the day, any proposal that involves "sealed" trains moving for close to 90 miles between Toronto and the border strikes me as a fantasy in today's world.

(Back before the Berlin Wall fell, I once rode a train from Berlin to the West through then-East Germany. At the edge of West Berlin, the train stopped in a virtual tunnel and was inspected top and bottom - dogs, mirrors, the whole bit. Then, while en route, someone carelessly threw an empty Coke can out the openable window. The toss was immediately spotted by a guard, the train was stopped, and a search conducted to find the object, no doubt in the belief that it was contraband being smuggled into East Germany. The litterer was last seen being taken off the train by security personnel. We aren't in that zone.....yet....but....)

- Paul

 

[Sauga89]

The whole concept of 'pre-clearance' is that passengers are approved to enter the other country before the train departs, not during the trip but before the border. Assuming no Canadian stops before the border (otherwise, what's the point), what would they do if, after departure, someone is determined to be ineligible for entry or they are carrying prohibited goods?

Border control with the US is only going to get tighter, not looser, and agents will always reserve the right to interview and inspect anyone they feel like.

A pre-clearance facility is essentially a government exercising their sovereign authority within a foreign country and with its agreement, and will always demand the concept of 'cordon sanitaire'.

I'm not sure I understand your objection, and I think you may have misunderstood what I meant. That second paragraph you quoted wasn't about pre-clearance at all. It was suggestions about more streamlined checks at the current border stop in Niagara Falls, as an alternative to a pre-clearance facility at Union. I was suggesting ways to avoid everyone getting off the train at the border and getting back on again. Most conversations I've had driving across the Peace Bridge could have been performed by a chatbot. The agents check your passport and ask you the same list of questions. However, they do random searches of cars. So, why can't a train full of people fill out that questionnaire themselves ahead of time, have their passports checked at the border on the train instead of off, and then have some of them randomly searched off the train? It's not like they make most drivers get out of their cars. The only thing the border guards would be giving up would be the ability to question every single person in person, but then almost everyone who drives now gets the same questions anyway, with very little scrutiny given to their answers. They just can't stop every car or search every bag. Of course they would retain the right to interview and inspect whoever they please. I never suggested otherwise. That's why I suggested random searches.

Exactly! Everyone dreaming of the United States entering a Schengen-like agreement which effectively eliminates border control at the Canadian border should urgently start following the news…

I have been following the news. For instance, this year we stopped letting Mexicans fly into Canada visa-free because too many of them were walking into the U.S. illegally. If the United States starts insisting on a say in who we let fly into Canada to prevent illegal immigration into the U.S., then eventually pretty much everyone in Canada will either be a citizen (allowing for visa-free travel to the U.S.) or someone the U.S. approved to come to Canada, despite knowing that they could just walk over the border illegally. And if the U.S. makes us only let into Canada people whom they are okay allowing into the U.S., then what's the purpose of a hard border?

Basically, what I'm saying is that the border is so porous no matter what we do, that the U.S. may demand Canada do all the same checks at its airports that the U.S. does at the border now, rendering the border a bit obsolete.

But you're right that Schengen might be a pipe dream for Canada. That's why I laid out in detail both how the current stop at the border might be sped up, and if that wasn't acceptable to the U.S., how I thought a pre-clearance customs check could be set up at Union to do the same checks currently done at the border.

At the end of the day, any proposal that involves "sealed" trains moving for close to 90 miles between Toronto and the border strikes me as a fantasy in today's world.

Honestly, I'm a little on the fence as well. Again, that's why I suggested more stream-lined checks at the border as a first option. But if you're saying Schengen is impossible, stream-lined checks are impossible, and a pre-clearance customs facility is impossible, than I guess we're stuck with the current multi-hour border waits for the Maple Leaf. And honestly, I can live with that. The only point I was ever trying to make was not that a pre-clearance facility at Union was a good idea, but that there was space to put one.

 

[Allandale25]

Meant to post this on November 22nd when it was released. Good to see the progress for the Hudson Bay Railway and the Port of Churchill.

Record-Breaking Construction Progress for Hudson Bay Railway and Port of Churchill in 2024 — Arctic Gateway Group

RECORD-BREAKING CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS FOR HUDSON BAY RAILWAY AND PORT OF CHURCHILL IN 2024

www.arcticgateway.com

 

[Metroscapes]

Railroads reach agreement to create new direct connection and corridor linking Mexico, Texas and the U.S. Southeast​

I'm very interested to know what these Canadian properties are.

Also, map of MNBR below for reference. Myrtlewood is midway between Linden and Pennington.

Turns out one of the Canadian properties was CPKC's Hoadley Subdivision near Red Deer, Alberta. G&W launched the Red Deer Railway along the line today. https://www.trains.com/trn/news-rev...ilway-its-first-short-line-in-western-canada/

Also found some interesting history on the line.

 

[lenaitch]

I'm not sure I understand your objection, and I think you may have misunderstood what I meant. That second paragraph you quoted wasn't about pre-clearance at all. It was suggestions about more streamlined checks at the current border stop in Niagara Falls, as an alternative to a pre-clearance facility at Union. I was suggesting ways to avoid everyone getting off the train at the border and getting back on again. Most conversations I've had driving across the Peace Bridge could have been performed by a chatbot. The agents check your passport and ask you the same list of questions. However, they do random searches of cars. So, why can't a train full of people fill out that questionnaire themselves ahead of time, have their passports checked at the border on the train instead of off, and then have some of them randomly searched off the train? It's not like they make most drivers get out of their cars. The only thing the border guards would be giving up would be the ability to question every single person in person, but then almost everyone who drives now gets the same questions anyway, with very little scrutiny given to their answers. They just can't stop every car or search every bag. Of course they would retain the right to interview and inspect whoever they please. I never suggested otherwise. That's why I suggested random searches.


I have been following the news. For instance, this year we stopped letting Mexicans fly into Canada visa-free because too many of them were walking into the U.S. illegally. If the United States starts insisting on a say in who we let fly into Canada to prevent illegal immigration into the U.S., then eventually pretty much everyone in Canada will either be a citizen (allowing for visa-free travel to the U.S.) or someone the U.S. approved to come to Canada, despite knowing that they could just walk over the border illegally. And if the U.S. makes us only let into Canada people whom they are okay allowing into the U.S., then what's the purpose of a hard border?

Basically, what I'm saying is that the border is so porous no matter what we do, that the U.S. may demand Canada do all the same checks at its airports that the U.S. does at the border now, rendering the border a bit obsolete.

But you're right that Schengen might be a pipe dream for Canada. That's why I laid out in detail both how the current stop at the border might be sped up, and if that wasn't acceptable to the U.S., how I thought a pre-clearance customs check could be set up at Union to do the same checks currently done at the border.


Honestly, I'm a little on the fence as well. Again, that's why I suggested more stream-lined checks at the border as a first option. But if you're saying Schengen is impossible, stream-lined checks are impossible, and a pre-clearance customs facility is impossible, than I guess we're stuck with the current multi-hour border waits for the Maple Leaf. And honestly, I can live with that. The only point I was ever trying to make was not that a pre-clearance facility at Union was a good idea, but that there was space to put one.

Ah, then I did misunderstand. I will leave the issue of track capacity, physical space, etc. at Niagara Falls to others.

To you and I, the border presentation does seem rather pro forma, but at least they get to see you face-to-face and observe your demeanor, 'tells', etc. There's a fair bit of psychology that goes into their training, along with simple experience. If arriving by vehicle, they have already scanned your licence plate. They were working towards facial recognition at the agent's kiosk but I don't know where that stands.

What strikes most of us a random (and it sometimes is), it is often targeted using a different 'criteria of the day'. When arriving by air, factors such as flight origin are fairly obvious; when by road, they at least have a licence plate (including its crossing history). When it is you in a train seat, information gets a little thin.

Regardless, they could possibly do certain things that could speed up the process, but it would still be a stop of some duration for the entire train. If they find they have to do more detailed investigation of someone, which can sometimes take considerable time, do they hold the entire train? If they let the train go and after all that, they are cleared for entry - then what? Even worse, if they are not cleared for entry, does the railroad take them back to Union at some point. I honestly don't know what they do with airline pre-clearance if things go south, but at least the person is still at (or very near) their point of departure.

US border services would never agree to a process that limits their options, simply for the sake of expediency, and nor should they.

 

[crs1026]

Ah, then I did misunderstand. I will leave the issue of track capacity, physical space, etc. at Niagara Falls to others.

To you and I, the border presentation does seem rather pro forma, but at least they get to see you face-to-face and observe your demeanor, 'tells', etc. There's a fair bit of psychology that goes into their training, along with simple experience. If arriving by vehicle, they have already scanned your licence plate.

I have become convinced that the questions asked are mostly conversation until the computer spits back the data they have against your passport. Sure, the agent will take action if your behaviour or answers cause concern, but I'm convinced it is now the computer that is making more of the decisions.

They were working towards facial recognition at the agent's kiosk but I don't know where that stands.

I entered the US at Seattle airport last month, and the only interaction was a facial scan which would have been cross referenced to my Nexus card. No questions asked at all.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

Two things here:

1. As @crs1026 has correctly pointed out, every border facility in Toronto is not just fanciful because there is no suitable space at Union Station, but also because operating a sealed train over distances of 130 km (to NIAG), 150 km (to Buffalo) or even 360 km (to Detroit) is unviable
2. The US border authorities have made abundantly clear that they want to eliminate rather than expand the number of trains which require border agents to board the train and check passengers and their buggage. I would have to read the Wikipedia page of the International, but IIRC, passengers had to get bussed across the border, as US border agents were unwilling to board and check the train.

This means any revival/increase in cross-border train crossings will require secure border facilities on at least one side of the border. Luckily, there are two big American cities just across the border, which offer the logical location for a single border facility per crossing: Buffalo and Detroit, both of which already offer onwards Amtrak connections to NYC and Chicago, respectively…

 

[micheal_can]

The whole concept of 'pre-clearance' is that passengers are approved to enter the other country before the train departs, not during the trip but before the border. Assuming no Canadian stops before the border (otherwise, what's the point), what would they do if, after departure, someone is determined to be ineligible for entry or they are carrying prohibited goods?

Border control with the US is only going to get tighter, not looser, and agents will always reserve the right to interview and inspect anyone they feel like.

A pre-clearance facility is essentially a government exercising their sovereign authority within a foreign country and with its agreement, and will always demand the concept of 'cordon sanitaire'.

Then, maybe we get rid of pre-clearance and instead build the network to be efficient.
Trains from USA stop at the first station in Canada, offload and turn around. That first station is where all passengers must go through customs. The same gets done in the USA.

This isn't the 1980s where a birth certificate was more than plenty to go across.

 

[Sauga89]

That said, while it wouldn't be my first choice, I do think customs at Union is workable, if not ideal. In my post on the Union revitalization thread, I explained why I thought the Metrolinx office space could be repurposed. There are a lot of things, such as retail, that I think you could do with that space, but the most appealing to me is to move the VIA Rail concourse up there, and build a pedestrian bridge over to VIA's usual platforms, either overtop the heritage train shed roof, or around its edges. Then you could open up the walls of the current VIA concourse to create a more seamless connection between the new York and Bay concourses while separating commuters from long-distance domestic passengers.

If you built a customs area up there as well, you'd have to build a separate waiting area to hold international passengers after they cleared customs, and perhaps a second pedestrian bridge. The problem, credit to @Bordercollie and @Urban Sky for pointing it out to me, would be the platforms. Even a full 300 km/h line to New York might not see enough trains to justify a dedicated platform, let alone two, if you had to keep the second part of an island platform clear as well. But I don't think this is an insurmountable issue. VIA doesn't normally have two departing trains loading at the same time from the same island platform anyway, so if you were careful to only use the platform for departing trains (sealing off the access from below) and have a customs officer clear the platform of objects (cameras help with that) before bringing in international passengers after a domestic train had departed, I think it might work. You could bring up the next domestic train to the platform as you load the international one, so I don't even think you'd lose much capacity. (There's also the UP solution of building a side-platform nearby.)

I just don't think a customs facility would be worth the cost (though I doubt it would be $1 billion), or the logistical headache, but I think it could be done.

(EDIT: P.S. Level boarding on a high-level platform would help a lot too, which you could do with a VIA-exclusive platform.)

As @crs1026 has correctly pointed out, every border facility in Toronto is not just fanciful because there is no suitable space at Union Station,

Okay, I feel like I've already made a fairly decent and detailed argument that there is space at Union. Can I ask for a more detailed criticism backing up your assertion that there is no space? Everyone else, feel free to chime in on this as well, if you have a specific criticism of the space plan I laid out.

operating a sealed train over distances of 130 km (to NIAG), 150 km (to Buffalo) or even 360 km (to Detroit) is unviable

Well, at risk of sounding like a broken record, it wouldn't be my first plan, that would be streamlining the current border checks, but if you don't make stops, and have cameras on the train exterior to verify that you haven't stopped, I don't really see the problem.

 

[crs1026]

Well, at risk of sounding like a broken record, it wouldn't be my first plan, that would be streamlining the current border checks, but if you don't make stops, and have cameras on the train exterior to verify that you haven't stopped, I don't really see the problem.

You may not see the problem, but I'm pretty sure that both countries' border agencies see a problem.

- Paul

 

[Sauga89]

You may not see the problem, but I'm pretty sure that both countries' border agencies see a problem.

- Paul

Ha! (Insert amused laughter here) Fair enough, you've got me there, I admit.

Could I beg your thoughts on redeveloping the office space at Union?

I really think that even if a pre-clearance facility isn't practical, that moving the VIA rail concourse over to Metrolinx's current office space makes a lot of sense, just from the perspective of domestic VIA travellers and GO commuters (I think I heard that the city of Toronto also has office space in the building?). You could convert the current VIA rail concourse for better use by commuters, and separate departing VIA passengers from commuters. Then you could build a pedestrian bridge to carry VIA passengers over to VIA's usual platforms, and maybe convert one of those platforms to a high-level platform for faster boarding.

I'm seriously open to someone telling me why this is a bad idea. (I've tried hard to search for previous posts on this, but searching "metrolinx offices" produces a mess of unrelated results.)

 

[crs1026]

Ha! (Insert amused laughter here) Fair enough, you've got me there, I admit.

Could I beg your thoughts on redeveloping the office space at Union?

I really think that even if a pre-clearance facility isn't practical, that moving the VIA rail concourse over to Metrolinx's current office space makes a lot of sense, just from the perspective of domestic VIA travellers and GO commuters (I think I heard that the city of Toronto also has office space in the building?). You could convert the current VIA rail concourse for better use by commuters, and separate departing VIA passengers from commuters. Then you could build a pedestrian bridge to carry VIA passengers over to VIA's usual platforms, and maybe convert one of those platforms to a high-level platform for faster boarding.

I'm seriously open to someone telling me why this is a bad idea. (I've tried hard to search for previous posts on this, but searching "metrolinx offices" produces a mess of unrelated results.)

You raise several different issues here, and maybe this belongs in the Union Station thread.

I'm not well informed about how much office space at Union is occupied by ML any more.... Generally the upstairs floors have little potential value as passenger space, because it does not have enough elevator and stairway capacity for that.....so whoever is up there and in what numbers is not relevant to the passenger side of the terminal.

Could VIA hypothetically add a new deck and walkways above the platforms, extricating itself from the Great Hall and departures concourse and feeding downwards onto the tracks to the east or west of the existing glass atrium? I suppose. But much as the departures area is one of the station's less attractive elements, I don't see how GO needs it that badly, and it's reasonably sized for VIA if VIA would utilise it a bit better.

Getting back to customs, I think a customs facility could hypothetically be shoehorned into the terminal if the need were there.... personally I would build it along Track 3 to the east of the UP terminal.......but as noted above, I don't see the "sealed" train concept ever proving practical. And there will never be that many international trains, so not a good use of space. So also a fantasy idea that will never come to be.

- Paul