News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 2.5K     8 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 1K     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.9K     0 

General railway discussions

www.nanaimobulletin.com

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Returning tracks is just an excuse not to fund rail

Decision on rail inconsistent with government’s actions on natural resources, says letter writer
www.nanaimobulletin.com www.nanaimobulletin.com

I suspect that this is indeed the truth. I find the transport minister's statements where he said he didn't want to see the corridor broken up and built over to be contradictory since that is exactly what they did.

As I mentioned in the VIA thread, the federal and provincial governments are just stringing people along at this point. It's actually a bit insulting.

But I definitely think that advocates and advocacy groups such as Transport Action Canada should definitely see the writing on the wall and shift their attention to busses on Vancouver Island. The rail option was always a poor one though given its poor alignment in comparison to the highway.
 
From the Federal Budget:

1680037372627.png
 
Allandale25 said:
Since it says "extension" is this happening right now on any subdivision? cc @smallspy
Click to expand...
I'm sadly no expert on freight rail regulations, but I believe that the word "extension" refers to an increase of the radius around the nearest "eligible interchange" (presumably beyond the current 160 km), within which CN and CP can access customers via each other's tracks (i.e. "interswitching"), which is explained in this slightly dated backgrounder from 2015:
Interswitching is another tool that is used to encourage market forces within the rail industry. The extension of interswitching rights to a 160 km radius was put in place in August 2014 and commits a rail carrier to pick up cars from a shipper, and move product to a junction with another railway. Extending the radius to 160 km better reflects the large expanse of the prairies and the nature of grain transportation in Western Canada. The original 30 km radius is intended for urban centers and moving product at port. It encompassed very few grain loading facilities - 6% were within 30 km of eligible interchanges. Extending the interswitching limit to 160 km has opened the door for significantly more grain facilities to use pseudo-competitive forces to leverage railways for improved service and freight rates.

Every grain elevator in western Canada should have practical access to an interchange to encourage competition between railways. At 160 km, 92% of grain elevators are within interswitching limits. Since 90% of grain by rail shipments from western Canada moves to Canadian ports, which are serviced by CN and CP, each elevator should have access to these two carriers. An interswitch limit of 250 km would give all facilities (other than Peace River area) access to both CN and CP.
Click to expand...
 
Urban Sky said:
I'm sadly no expert on freight rail regulations, but I believe that the word "extension" refers to an increase of the radius around the nearest "eligible interchange" (presumably beyond the current 160 km), within which CN and CP can access customers via each other's tracks (i.e. "interswitching"), which is explained in this slightly dated backgrounder from 2015:

Click to expand...
But they have to agree to it right? And they would only do so if mutually beneficial am I right?
 
Bordercollie said:
They should do it again. Are those red coaches CP inter urban cars? Were they used on that run before VIA took it over?
Click to expand...

As the caption indicated, those red cars were an executive business train that was run to Havelock for that particular event.

Those trips happened in the 1990;s, when the tracks were in far better condition. A passenger train could not make that trip today - it would take close to 12 hours each way, just as the freight trains currently take.

- Paul
 
In the 90s they ran those GO trains even beyond Havelock, up the Nephton Sub to the mine. It may've happened just once not sure. But they should bring it back. Pretty wild up there, good for city folk to experience.
 
crs1026 said:
As the caption indicated, those red cars were an executive business train that was run to Havelock for that particular event.

Those trips happened in the 1990;s, when the tracks were in far better condition. A passenger train could not make that trip today - it would take close to 12 hours each way, just as the freight trains currently take.

- Paul
Click to expand...
I remember being in a hot air balloon over the moraine in the Fall and flying over the Budd run to Peterborough snaking through the colours in the late '80s/early '90s. Very cool (no photos, sorry).
44 North said:
In the 90s they ran those GO trains even beyond Havelock, up the Nephton Sub to the mine. It may've happened just once not sure. But they should bring it back. Pretty wild up there, good for city folk to experience.
Click to expand...
As the link clearly states, that was a one-off excursion run to celebrate a centennial. Good on the local municipalities for funding it. Why would Mx do it again unless someone was willing to pay for it? And, as Paul points out, it would be a very slow, boring run.
 
crs1026 said:
As the caption indicated, those red cars were an executive business train that was run to Havelock for that particular event.

Those trips happened in the 1990;s, when the tracks were in far better condition. A passenger train could not make that trip today - it would take close to 12 hours each way, just as the freight trains currently take.

- Paul
Click to expand...

Freight trains have to operate slower than passenger rail on the same class of track.

I have no doubt the trip would be slow, but it would not be the same speed as the freight train

Track typeFreight trainPassenger
Class 110 mph (16 km/h)15 mph (24 km/h)
Class 225 mph (40 km/h)30 mph (48 km/h)
Class 340 mph (64 km/h)60 mph (97 km/h)
Class 460 mph (97 km/h)80 mph (130 km/h)
 
robmausser said:
Freight trains have to operate slower than passenger rail on the same class of track.

I have no doubt the trip would be slow, but it would not be the same speed as the freight train

Track typeFreight trainPassenger
Class 110 mph (16 km/h)15 mph (24 km/h)
Class 225 mph (40 km/h)30 mph (48 km/h)
Class 340 mph (64 km/h)60 mph (97 km/h)
Class 460 mph (97 km/h)80 mph (130 km/h)
Click to expand...
No railroad maintains a seperate set of (higher) speed limits for passenger services on a line which hasn’t seen any such regularly scheduled services for close to a quarter-century. Apart from shorter train lengths (higher speed limit takes effect earlier) and higher acceleration capabilities, the travel time would be insignificantly faster than current freight service…
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top