SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
Since the CP + KC merger allegedly they’ve become the easier party to deal with versus CN. But to your post’s point, yes it is a good feat that they achieved with CP Rail back in the day.
|
|
|
GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
smallspy
Senior Member
There are many reasons why there is no midtown line, mainly that there just isn't a need for it yet and there are too many unanswered questions about it's viability.
Historically CP has been the harder of the two railways to work with, and while that hasn't changed the traffic levels to the east of Toronto - the Belleville Sub - are considerably lower than those to the north or west.
Dan
ARG1
Senior Member
The difficulty in working with CP is often greatly exaggerated.
smallspy
Senior Member
crs1026
Superstar
Let's retain some perspective. Saying CPKC is more/less difficult than CN is like arguing about whether your left boot is cleaner than your right boot when you are standing in sewage. Both are for-profit businesses that derive little or no benefit from sharing their tracks with ML, and that devote a great deal of time and effort to accommodating commuter rail in ways which represents distraction and divided focus for relatively little or no business reward. And likely being asked to justify their response over commitments and price quote to a government that wants many things for little or no cost.
Sure, at times one may be more "friendly" than the other.... but that is very much coloured by the point of view.... are you a GO engineer trying to get the RTC to give you a light, or are you a service planner trying to adjust the schedule of the 17:30 train, or are you a system planner trying to get a new route added to a line that has never had GO service on it previously? One can point out lots of areas of cooperation, and lots of areas of (apparent) stubborn resistance.
There are plenty of urban legends - all likely valid at the time they were created - but at the end of the day it's WIIFM. The basic dynamics do not tilt towards either railway being inherently commuter friendly. That may be amendable - somewhat - if you bring money. The Bowmanville extension is costing a lot of money.
- Paul
Sure, at times one may be more "friendly" than the other.... but that is very much coloured by the point of view.... are you a GO engineer trying to get the RTC to give you a light, or are you a service planner trying to adjust the schedule of the 17:30 train, or are you a system planner trying to get a new route added to a line that has never had GO service on it previously? One can point out lots of areas of cooperation, and lots of areas of (apparent) stubborn resistance.
There are plenty of urban legends - all likely valid at the time they were created - but at the end of the day it's WIIFM. The basic dynamics do not tilt towards either railway being inherently commuter friendly. That may be amendable - somewhat - if you bring money. The Bowmanville extension is costing a lot of money.
- Paul
smallspy
Senior Member
Having seen memos and other communications from both companies to GO and Metrolinx.....
No, CP has been historically harder to deal with and harder to please.
CN can be hard to work with because they're looking at their bottom line, sure. And while that is usually the same motive at CP, they have also been actively hostile on numerous occasions to seemingly minor requests from GO.
Dan
crs1026
Superstar
One has to be a bit more specific about "historically", and again about the scope and level of the interaction.
CP may have had bigger asks at times, and yes there have been difficult discussions. But also periods of cooperation (I'm old enough to remember those weekend GO locomotive leases, and the hoops CP jumped through to return the locos on Sunday night as promised)
I'm sure they were basically cooperative about the West Toronto and Davenport grade separations, for instance. (For obvious reasons, the projects were helpful to CP's operations) They have participated in numerous studies (including the last round of Milton studies, a decade or so ago). The sale of lands at Obico didn't reach the newspapers, so I assume it wasn't completely acrimonious. They have not said "no" to HxR, and they have interests throughout that project in all its flavours.
There are undoubtedly precedents in the Bowmanville deal that CPKC knows will bite them when Bolton GO, and Milton 2WAD, come along. So I would expect they would be extremely cautious and ensure they were not setting themselves up for a future problem. Bowmanville is not a "one and done" situation.
CN's involvement and positioning in the defunct Bypass discussions or the Halton line upgrading would be an interesting comparison. Of course, even there, they had an intermodal yard about to be built... so how many feathers did they choose to ruffle? And CN seems to play a larger role in lobbying eg via RAC. (Let's be glad that GO never bought Ventures).
There may have been objections in the boardroom, but I have talked to enough ex-CP RTE's who worked the Milton trains to believe that in the day there was a lot of commitment and pride to running those trains well.
And in my own career, my corporate real estate colleagues who worked with CP regularly (we adjoined their property in plenty of places) described their CP connections as a bunch of particularly difficult SOB's.
So I'm not praising or defending CP, but I'm not sure they calibrate all that differently, with much depending on what level of project is being proposed and what the specific impacts on that day might be. And how much money government is willing to spend.
- Paul
kotsy
Senior Member
The latest track shift on the LSE corridor is complete:
Bojaxs
Senior Member
Love seeing the contrast between the newer concrete ties and fresh ballast next to the older wooden ties and dirtier ballast.
smallspy
Senior Member
This is just it.
The quid-pro-quo for this was seemingly that GO was simply allowed to operate on the Galt Sub at all - and the language in the memos seem to reinforce that. It wasn't until the F59s arrived that GO was able to pull out of it, as they claimed that they were specifically designed as passenger locos and really would not do well in freight service (which is quite the load of horse manure but seemed to make the case for them nonetheless).
As for the hoops that CP jumped through, there were a certainly number of occasions that they did not return the units in time, or fueled up, or properly serviced. In the 1970s and early 1980s Mondays had the worst OTP as trains had to be cancelled, or set swapped out in the middle of the day lest they run out of fuel in the middle of nowhere. At that time it certainly seemed that CP operated on the basis that GO was lucky to have them as a host and should be grateful.
That said.....things did seem to change in the early 2000s. CP approached GO for the use of their trains when they brought their steam loco out east in 2002 and 2003. They've been more amenable since, although ultimately their bottom line is still their ulterior motive. They still remain fairly inflexible regarding their scheduling on the Galt Sub, for instance.
In the case of West Toronto, they absolutely were cooperative for that reason. Meanwhile in the the original Bolton reports of the late 1990s, they were quite adamant to limit GO's abillty to operate any trains beyond the limited slots they were willing to allow.
They've certainly pushed their own agenda in other projects, too. Look at the Hamilton Tunnel - the expansion of the tunnel wasn't done for GO's sake, as BiLevels fit into the tunnel already. And yet CP made sure that GO paid for its rebuilding to allow bigger freight rolling stock to suit their own purposes.
I don't think that's true at all. There's a reason why GO is going to have its own track to Oshawa, where the regular all-day service will end. A small handful of one-way trains running out to Bowmanville past Oshawa won't affect their operations in any meaningful manner, and they know that.
And then there's the whole issue surrounding TC and the RAC, and their relationships with all of the various railways. Neither GO nor VIA (or WCE and EXO) want anything to do with RAC, and TC is certainly doing them no favours.
From the running trades, I have no doubt.
From the guys above? They had no interest.
And I've heard similar in other industries as well.
Dan
Krypto98
Active Member
I've worked with CN engineers that are still upset CN lost the operating contract. Unfortunately it was a decision from above.
Sauga89
Active Member
Is that why CP let GO open the Milton Line? I always heard it was the Mavis chlorine gas derailment?
crs1026
Superstar
Yeah, GO clearly gave CP a very sweet deal (deliberately, I have been told) to start the service - a lot of stick rail replaced with CWR, plus the bidirectional CTC, and some triple track (which CP famously used over the years to store auto racks on.... RTCs told tales of being directed to actually use it occasionally just to fulfil the narrative that it was needed, when clearly it wasn't).
CP also habitually ran those GO units well above A rating, with the result that GO incurred a lot of expense for traction motor rebuilds that one wouldn't expect from service in a commuter passenger operation.
I'm not sure that is being "difficult" as much as it's milking the arrangement to one's own advantage. Definitely not what I would define as building a mutually beneficial relationship - but the playing field has never been level. At least, that investment has been useful in getting us from the original service plan to the 10-11 train point.
Again, so long as GO smiled and paid the money on time, the work got done. Just bring money.
There is a parallel to the amount of track installed to get from Burlington West to West Harbour (and eventually to St Catherines). On this point, I would maintain that both CN and CP have reasonable expectations, ie if you want on our corridors, you bring your own track.
The Bowmanville build is far beyond what CP needs to handle a 5-train peak service, and we all know that. Similarly Bolton will likely demand a similar overbuild. One simply hopes that when Bowmanville needs 10 trains instead of 5, CPKC will accommodate. At some point when we want 2WAD to Bowmanville, we will confront the same challenge as we currently have with Milton. Bolton won't be different.
The GO Sub is the obvious case where GO went to the wall and built its own line. I expect 2WAD to Milton may look a lot like that. Personally I'm good with that - we build a better network by going to that distance as opposed to treating GO expansion as an exercise in detecting excess capacity on the freight side and wrangling ad nauseum to try to extricate value from an unwilling host. That's very hard on the taxpayer initially, but without legislative relief, I can't imagine that the railways will do more for what we currently pay them.
- Paul
Sauga89
Active Member
This slipped past my notice earlier, but Metrolinx caused a sewage backup in Burlington last month while working on the Drury Lane pedestrian bridge, which reportedly damaged at least 3 homes. Apparently a contractor somehow blocked the sewer with concrete. They said this week that they've fixed the sewer, and begun to remove the temporary sewer they had installed.
PShells
Active Member
Following the April 12-13 construction I am having a difficult time locating where the new track was installed. The three pieces of railroad equipment parked on Platform 1 at Unionville have been removed.
If I had to guess the new track was either replacing existing track for maintenance or perhaps smaller installation of new track north of Milliken station.
I created a shoddy map of the tracks between Kennedy and Unionville.
Legend
Green = track in service
Red = track laid but not in service