General railway discussions

[Northern Light]

While chasing down a different rabbit hole, I stumbled upon this TSB investigation report from 2004 regarding rail condition on the GEXR Guelph Sub (now CN-GO).

It's interesting reading, and it gives a bit of background context to things GEXR-ish including when speed restrictions were imposed (1996!).

I cite it here in the context of posters who see an old railway line with tracks in the weeds and imagine that it would be simple to put a passenger train back, because hey the rails are still there.

The point being - those old rails on a former branch line may not meet today's standards. Replacement rail isn't cheap. An example of how the cost of restoring an old line may not be that much less than building a new one.

- Paul

The land value of purchasing new corridors anywhere near urban areas would be the material cost-difference I would imagine that favours an existing corridor, IF, said corridor were otherwise viable.

 

[nfitz]

The land value of purchasing new corridors anywhere near urban areas would be the material cost-difference I would imagine that favours an existing corridor, IF, said corridor were otherwise viable.

Looking at how difficult it is to buy new corridor around Lac Megantic, the cost is probably much more than the land value; years of negotiation and legal proceedings.

 

[Metroscapes]

While chasing down a different rabbit hole, I stumbled upon this TSB investigation report from 2004 regarding rail condition on the GEXR Guelph Sub (now CN-GO).

It's interesting reading, and it gives a bit of background context to things GEXR-ish including when speed restrictions were imposed (1996!).

I cite it here in the context of posters who see an old railway line with tracks in the weeds and imagine that it would be simple to put a passenger train back, because hey the rails are still there.

The point being - those old rails on a former branch line may not meet today's standards. Replacement rail isn't cheap. An example of how the cost of restoring an old line may not be that much less than building a new one.

- Paul

There was also:

• Two incidents at one crossing with no gates / lights and poor sightlines
• A GO train striking pedestrians where freight switching occurred
• A near miss between a VIA train and a freight train
• A neglected switch that threw a VIA train into a siding

The last two have had their risk of re-occurence mitigated by installing CTC 8 years ago, but that was a $25 million expenditure by itself. Crossing improvements are a larger and sometimes forgotten aspect, and they come with cost.

 

[roger1818]

The land value of purchasing new corridors anywhere near urban areas would be the material cost-difference I would imagine that favours an existing corridor, IF, said corridor were otherwise viable.

I beleive the original comparison was between an abandoned corridor and an underutilized active corridor.

 

[Bordercollie]

There was also:

• Two incidents at one crossing with no gates / lights and poor sightlines
• A GO train striking pedestrians where freight switching occurred
• A near miss between a VIA train and a freight train
• A neglected switch that threw a VIA train into a siding

The last two have had their risk of re-occurence mitigated by installing CTC 8 years ago, but that was a $25 million expenditure by itself. Crossing improvements are a larger and sometimes forgotten aspect, and they come with cost.

These adults escorting these children are completely irresponsible. They could have gotten themselves and the children killed. Absolutely unacceptable. And was there no risk assessment completed for the route?

 

[crs1026]

These adults escorting these children are completely irresponsible. They could have gotten themselves and the children killed. Absolutely unacceptable. And was there no risk assessment completed for the route?

Are you referring to the Lancaster incident? If so read the investigation report. There were a whole bunch of factors that affected pedestrian behaviour around that crossing.

The whole issue of crossing safety gets a lot of regulatory attention, but unfortunately some of that is hindsight that happens after an incident.

You may want to read the railway crossing standards.

I'm confident that if a major upgrade to the line were planned, there would be an end to end crossing review. Even on branch lines, a small modification to crossing protection does trigger a lot of reveiw for that crossing.

There is a lot of fairly new crossing protection on the Guelph Sub. In general, that element has already been addressed. Not to say there aren't gaps or areas for further improvement.

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

I'm confident that if a major upgrade to the line were planned, there would be an end to end crossing review. Even on branch lines, a small modification to crossing protection does trigger a lot of reveiw for that crossing.

that is a bit of a problem with infra generally - we are willing to accept in certain areas otherwise unacceptable safety levels because it was built in a prior era, but then all the accumulated backlog of safety improvements is charged to a capacity or speed improvement project.

Meanwhile, municipalities can have explosive traffic growth and all the discussion is about whistle bans not separating rail from road.

 

[crs1026]

that is a bit of a problem with infra generally - we are willing to accept in certain areas otherwise unacceptable safety levels because it was built in a prior era, but then all the accumulated backlog of safety improvements is charged to a capacity or speed improvement project.

Meanwhile, municipalities can have explosive traffic growth and all the discussion is about whistle bans not separating rail from road.

I am even aware of situations where an incremental improvement (which might be affordable today) cannot be implemented unless the crossing protection is raised totally to current standard (which is not affordable) - so the minimum standards is unmovable.

- Paul

 

[drum118]

that is a bit of a problem with infra generally - we are willing to accept in certain areas otherwise unacceptable safety levels because it was built in a prior era, but then all the accumulated backlog of safety improvements is charged to a capacity or speed improvement project.

Meanwhile, municipalities can have explosive traffic growth and all the discussion is about whistle bans not separating rail from road.

At $20-$100 million per crossing for grade separations, who is going to pay for it as well where is the money come from???

Why should RR have to pay for the grade separations in the first place since they existed long before various roads were built over them for the car??

Who allow residential to be built up to the RR corridor where roads cross those tracks that require Horns and Bells to be used as the train approached the crossing that are now banned???

 

[mind_the_gap]

I’m just wondering what’s going on on the Bala Sub (Richmond Hill line) today? There’s been an unusual amount of trains passing by for a Saturday. At least 4-5, that I’ve heard by now around Sheppard Avenue.

 

[lenaitch]

that is a bit of a problem with infra generally - we are willing to accept in certain areas otherwise unacceptable safety levels because it was built in a prior era, but then all the accumulated backlog of safety improvements is charged to a capacity or speed improvement project.

Meanwhile, municipalities can have explosive traffic growth and all the discussion is about whistle bans not separating rail from road.

It is often the nature of grandfathering (if we're still allowed to use that word). Until there is a change in usage, the standard-of-the-day usually remains valid. Imagine if you had to constantly upgrading your house to satisfy every cycle of the building, plumbing and electrical codes.

 

[smallspy]

I’m just wondering what’s going on on the Bala Sub (Richmond Hill line) today? There’s been an unusual amount of trains passing by for a Saturday. At least 4-5, that I’ve heard by now around Sheppard Avenue.

All VIA trains east of Toronto are being detoured due to track work at Scarborough Station. The trains eastbound are heading up the Bala to Doncaster, then east on the Halton Sub to Pickering where they rejoin the route. The westbound trains are doing the opposite.

Dan

 

[nfitz]

All VIA trains east of Toronto are being detoured due to track work at Scarborough Station. The trains eastbound are heading up the Bala to Doncaster, then east on the Halton Sub to Pickering where they rejoin the route. The westbound trains are doing the opposite.

A rare sight. I'd have thought it would be easier to go up the Uxbridge subdivision, through Kennedy. But I just noticed that there's no connections (any more at least) between the Uxbridge and York subdivision. Which makes me wonder what routing CN is using (used?) to get freight down to their spur that comes off between Kennedy and Scarborough Junction..

 

[crs1026]

A rare sight. I'd have thought it would be easier to go up the Uxbridge subdivision, through Kennedy. But I just noticed that there's no connections (any more at least) between the Uxbridge and York subdivision. Which makes me wonder what routing CN is using (used?) to get freight down to their spur that comes off between Kennedy and Scarborough Junction..

Westwards from Liverpool on the Kingston Sub and then northwards on the Uxbridge Sub.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

Westwards from Liverpool on the Kingston Sub and then northwards on the Uxbridge Sub.

Are they starting up at yard in Vaughan? Is the extra mileage and time really cheaper than keeping the old curve between the York and Uxbridge subs in service?

BTW, does any freight still move through Union Station? I've not seen any for a few years now. Though presumably it would happen in the middle of the night these days.