General railway discussions

[Northern Light]

To where?

There are certainly proposals, particularly with respect to mineral extraction, but the huge costs need to align to the projected output and demand/price for the commodities to be shipped. And there has to be the prospect for sustained operation over a very long time frame…. Which mining often can’t guarantee.
The original railway building era from 1880 to 1920 led to a far overbuilt natuonal network - many of those old lines weren’t really needed even back before the highway network was built. Lots of lines that never broke even and were lucky to see a train a day. Today’s investment community eould never get behind some of those business cases.
One can argue that we allowed our network to be pared too far - but I don’t see much appetite for restoring much of what we lost.

- Paul

I tend to agree.

I think one might hold out some reasonable hope for restored passenger services in some corridors, over time, likely on track shared w/freight, or at least in the same corridors.

But outside of HSR/HFR possibilities in southern Ontario/Quebec, and perhaps, one day, between Edmonton-Calgary, its difficult to imagine the case for much large-scale building of new corridors.

To my mind, I can only think of 2 significant spots that might be tempting in different ways; and the business case would likely be challenging in either for the foreseeable future.

One is an alternate route connecting both the CN and CP mainlines from central/northern Ontario to Quebec, bypassing the southern Ontario area.

Redundancy is the best argument here, but plausibly, with a direct enough route, there might be enough travel time saving to be interesting.

The other argument would be for a corridor roughly in the Barrie area to Guelph/K-W/Brantford/London alignment. ( I realize I'm being open-ended here) but the logic from a freight perspective
is again a shorter route between mainline segments, and bypassing any GTA congestion, by connecting both CN/CP mainlines from near Barrie to their mainline connections to the U.S.
The ancillary case for this is that there is some passenger demand that can be met in this segment as well; and that removing traffic off MacTier and Bala near the GTA would perhaps free up room for passenger services on those corridors.

Still, the case isn't overly strong for such investment in the near-term.

Serving smaller markets seems mostly unlikely; though I remain of the opinion that there probably is a good market for a Blue Mountain/Wasaga service in the medium term, which could also
serve as commuter rail to Barrie on weekdays.

But again, no question, such would almost certainly require both capital and operating subsidies.

 

[lenaitch]

I tend to agree.

I think one might hold out some reasonable hope for restored passenger services in some corridors, over time, likely on track shared w/freight, or at least in the same corridors.

But outside of HSR/HFR possibilities in southern Ontario/Quebec, and perhaps, one day, between Edmonton-Calgary, its difficult to imagine the case for much large-scale building of new corridors.

To my mind, I can only think of 2 significant spots that might be tempting in different ways; and the business case would likely be challenging in either for the foreseeable future.

One is an alternate route connecting both the CN and CP mainlines from central/northern Ontario to Quebec, bypassing the southern Ontario area.

Redundancy is the best argument here, but plausibly, with a direct enough route, there might be enough travel time saving to be interesting.

The other argument would be for a corridor roughly in the Barrie area to Guelph/K-W/Brantford/London alignment. ( I realize I'm being open-ended here) but the logic from a freight perspective
is again a shorter route between mainline segments, and bypassing any GTA congestion, by connecting both CN/CP mainlines from near Barrie to their mainline connections to the U.S.
The ancillary case for this is that there is some passenger demand that can be met in this segment as well; and that removing traffic off MacTier and Bala near the GTA would perhaps free up room for passenger services on those corridors.

Still, the case isn't overly strong for such investment in the near-term.

Serving smaller markets seems mostly unlikely; though I remain of the opinion that there probably is a good market for a Blue Mountain/Wasaga service in the medium term, which could also
serve as commuter rail to Barrie on weekdays.

But again, no question, such would almost certainly require both capital and operating subsidies.

Regarding the alternate route connecting central/northern Ontario and Quebec, both carriers had their routes through the Ottawa Valley and found them to be redundant to their business needs. I stand to be corrected but I recall there were discussions for co-running on the CP route that were, obviously, unsuccessful.

With the capital and operating costs and the returns involved, as well as the greater efficiencies of longer trains, better traffic management, etc., no major carrier seems interested in redundancy and seem to be willing to live with business loss or short term agreements with competitors to weather any disruption. In terms of what could be called 'national interest redundancy' to help protect the economy, that would require the State to pony up money to subsidize an otherwise unprofitable route, which no government seems to be willing to do. To be frank, there are a few spots where both carrier's mainlines could be easily disrupted with a single event.

Regarding a connection from Barrie (ish) to the US - assuming west of Toronto - although I don't know traffic patterns, both carriers route through the US, so I'm not sure how much traffic from the north and west is destined for the mid-States. While we talk about freight traffic passing through the GTA, we can't ignore the traffic that is destined for the area, evidenced by the yards, particularly intermodal, both carriers have. Bypassing the GTA still would not eliminate either the need to either retain routing into the GTA, or push the yards further out resulting in longer truck hauls.

Has any large North American urban area eliminated freight from its environs?

 

[Northern Light]

Regarding the alternate route connecting central/northern Ontario and Quebec, both carriers had their routes through the Ottawa Valley and found them to be redundant to their business needs. I stand to be corrected but I recall there were discussions for co-running on the CP route that were, obviously, unsuccessful.

No disagreement; and I think the co-running model would likely be the right one; that said I did note that I thought the business case would be a challenge; and that I didn't see such a thing as likely in the near term.

With the capital and operating costs and the returns involved, as well as the greater efficiencies of longer trains, better traffic management, etc., no major carrier seems interested in redundancy and seem to be willing to live with business loss or short term agreements with competitors to weather any disruption. In terms of what could be called 'national interest redundancy' to help protect the economy, that would require the State to pony up money to subsidize an otherwise unprofitable route, which no government seems to be willing to do.

See above

To be frank, there are a few spots where both carrier's mainlines could be easily disrupted with a single event.

That is the most compelling case; with reduced travel distances being secondary and perhaps some peripheral new business served en route.

Regarding a connection from Barrie (ish) to the US - assuming west of Toronto - although I don't know traffic patterns, both carriers route through the US, so I'm not sure how much traffic from the north and west is destined for the mid-States.

I'm thinking, partly of whether that would change if there were a E-W route across central Ontario to Quebec.

While we talk about freight traffic passing through the GTA, we can't ignore the traffic that is destined for the area, evidenced by the yards, particularly intermodal, both carriers have. Bypassing the GTA still would not eliminate either the need to either retain routing into the GTA, or push the yards further out resulting in longer truck hauls.

I was not thinking of eliminating service in the GTA, merely re-direction some portion of existing freights, freeing up some room (perhaps for CP/CN to co-run on the York Sub; and perhaps for additional commuter services on the southernmost parts of MacTier and Bala.)

Has any large North American urban area eliminated freight from its environs?

Not certain, but my suspicions is that the answer is 'no'.

Though some certainly have pretty limited trackage into the proper cities.

 

[crs1026]

^The routing of a third line across Northern Ontario would be interesting. To reach the maritimes, a line would have to run close to Montreal (barring some very interesting tunnelling under the St Lawrence). That makes reactivating the former Ottawash-Sudburyish routes logical, except that Ottawa and Montreal have developed such that any new or reactivated route is no longer doable. The only case for a more northern route would be if more port capacity were built on the north shore of the St Lawrence.

Urban Quebec and Southern Ontario needs a urban super-plan that lays out future rail corridors. That would provoke some huge reaction from existing landowners, so I doubt it will ever happen. With due respect to cyclists and hikers, we should be landbanking old lines for reuse as rail corridors, and moving recreational land uses to new routes. UK-style walking rights over private property might achieve that at lower cost.

Last year’s landslides and bush fires in BC demonstrated the dangers of putting all our eggs in one basket. But it will be a long time before there is enough traffic to support a third rail line. I hate the typically Canadian approach to major infrastructure - two providers with a regulator asa proxy for a competitive market (Bell/Rogers, AC/Westjet, for example) however even in the US the rail network is condensing to only two carriers in any particular region.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

^The routing of a third line across Northern Ontario would be interesting. To reach the maritimes, a line would have to run close to Montreal (barring some very interesting tunnelling under the St Lawrence). That makes reactivating the former Ottawash-Sudburyish routes logical, except that Ottawa and Montreal have developed such that any new or reactivated route is no longer doable. The only case for a more northern route would be if more port capacity were built on the north shore of the St Lawrence.

Urban Quebec and Southern Ontario needs a urban super-plan that lays out future rail corridors. That would provoke some huge reaction from existing landowners, so I doubt it will ever happen. With due respect to cyclists and hikers, we should be landbanking old lines for reuse as rail corridors, and moving recreational land uses to new routes. UK-style walking rights over private property might achieve that at lower cost.

Last year’s landslides and bush fires in BC demonstrated the dangers of putting all our eggs in one basket. But it will be a long time before there is enough traffic to support a third rail line. I hate the typically Canadian approach to major infrastructure - two providers with a regulator asa proxy for a competitive market (Bell/Rogers, AC/Westjet, for example) however even in the US the rail network is condensing to only two carriers in any particular region.

- Paul

Rebuild and reconnect the Canadian Northern route! Doesn't do spit for CP or the southern Ontario/Montreal area, and it was pretty much unprofitable from the day it opened. It might benefit the proposed connecting link to Baie Comeau discussed in an earlier thread.

Reactivating CP Chalk River might complicate HFR dreams in the Smiths Falls/Winchester Sub area.

 

[Darwinkgo]

It's not the Government's job to build railways. If the railways need additional capacity they will build it or ressurect abandoned ones.

Over the mountains in the west, and along the valleys into Vancouver, the capital costs will be so large that the government will have to play a role. At some point the quick wins from de-bottlenecking will be done and major projects will be needed instead. There aren't abandoned corridors that can be returned to service

At that point, to handle the perhaps 1 or two trains a day of 'excess' demand, will require investments that will create far more capacity than needed today, or needed even 25 years from now.

We might be able to put it off for a decade as coal exports ramp down, but it isn't a long term solution.

As for bypassing the GTA - with a reactivated or new corridor, there is little evidence that it is needed. More capacity from Windsor to Toronto? More capacity from Montreal to Toronto? Sure. But shipment from the west to Montreal and the Atlantic, and vice versa just isn't there demand wise.

 

[Bordercollie]

Over the mountains in the west, and along the valleys into Vancouver, the capital costs will be so large that the government will have to play a role. At some point the quick wins from de-bottlenecking will be done and major projects will be needed instead. There aren't abandoned corridors that can be returned to service

At that point, to handle the perhaps 1 or two trains a day of 'excess' demand, will require investments that will create far more capacity than needed today, or needed even 25 years from now.

We might be able to put it off for a decade as coal exports ramp down, but it isn't a long term solution.

As for bypassing the GTA - with a reactivated or new corridor, there is little evidence that it is needed. More capacity from Windsor to Toronto? More capacity from Montreal to Toronto? Sure. But shipment from the west to Montreal and the Atlantic, and vice versa just isn't there demand wise.

Well they could bring back the chalk river sub. Isn't most of the ROW intact?

 

[lenaitch]

Well they could bring back the chalk river sub. Isn't most of the ROW intact?

"They" who? CP already decided they didn't need it and CN left the Valley long ago (more recently south of Pembroke). It still doesn't alleviate traffic routed from the west through the US. I did come across a 'carloads by corridor' chart a few days ago but can't find it. Memory serves that traffic through northern Ontario and through the US were roughly equal, but my memory could be wrong.

 

[dowlingm]

A,though it’s not an earth shattering move forward, today’s Ministerial announcement is actually a positive sign that some form of Positive Train Control is coming.

Government of Canada takes steps toward implementing innovative technologies to improve rail safety

/CNW/ - The Government of Canada remains committed to protecting Canadians who live and work along rail lines, which is why it continues to encourage railways...

www.newswire.ca

- Paul

A few reactions:
1. Other than “showing the FRA doesn’t boss us around” why is TC using a different name for what it acknowledges to be the same tech
2. Will this be a precondition for non-FRA passenger rolling stock being approved for otherwise unrestricted mainline use?
3. please for the love of god mandate a single compatible PTC framework for all Canadian carriers rather than the alphabet soup of tech the US roads were left to themselves to implement.

 

[crs1026]

A few reactions:
1. Other than “showing the FRA doesn’t boss us around” why is TC using a different name for what it acknowledges to be the same tech
2. Will this be a precondition for non-FRA passenger rolling stock being approved for otherwise unrestricted mainline use?
3. please for the love of god mandate a single compatible PTC framework for all Canadian carriers rather than the alphabet soup of tech the US roads were left to themselves to implement.

While it may show that the FRA doesn’t boss TC around, it shows even better how much CN and CP do. The phrasing leads one to believe there won’t be very much of it… except perhaps for stretches used by VIA, and even there I predict Ottawa will pay.

There’s always the risk that someone in Ottawa will declare that the solution must be made in Canada, and launch some heavily subsidised research program to develop something new in the interests of the Canadian industry and identity. But I doubt either railway would be eager to have yet another box in the cab of their locomotives…. especially since locomotives roam the entire continent, and our trains regularly are powered by American and even Mexican engines that have run through.

There’s an old saying, if you aren’t the organ grinder, you must be the monkey. TC is only pretending to know the tune.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

I wonder if any shippers will switch to CN and CP because of this?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1491076774410993667

 

[Bordercollie]

I wonder if any shippers will switch to CN and CP because of this?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1491076774410993667

I dont know if there is an intermodal terminal in detroit....I guess a railway siding and a crane would do the trick...

 

[drum118]

I dont know if there is an intermodal terminal in detroit....I guess a railway siding and a crane would do the trick...

I dont know if there is an intermodal terminal in detroit....I guess a railway siding and a crane would do the trick...

Both CSX and CP have yards in Detroit. NS most likely using CP/CSX yards for their trains.

CP is by I-96 (12594 Westwood St, Detroit, MI) while CSX is downtown at their yard (6750 Dix St, Detroit, MI) which is close to the bridge and I-75

 

[Bordercollie]

Both CSX and CP have yards in Detroit. NS most likely using CP/CSX yards for their trains.

CP is by I-96 (12594 Westwood St, Detroit, MI) while CSX is downtown at their yard (6750 Dix St, Detroit, MI) which is close to the bridge and I-75

But those trains have fixed schedules. So you might have to get in line until a spot opens up.

 

[drum118]

But those trains have fixed schedules. So you might have to get in line until a spot opens up.

CN has a yard by 8 mile that supposed to do intermodal. Since that CN merger GT into them, they close the GT yard as far as I know. It was near the bridge.

Even on fix schedules, you may find space the same day depending on equipment.

This could be the break the RR needs to get freight traffic back they have lost to trucks. If RR want truck traffic, they need to provide the service to/from where the trucks are needed.