We both know the traffic levels west of Guelph Junction quite well, and both know that what is there is really all that CP is likely to ever need. Hell, how long had they been talking about the CTC upgrade? I started railfanning the area in 1998 or so, and I remember people talking about it then. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that the rumours have been around for even longer than that.
Those weren’t just rumours! However any lower management will put forward more proposals in their budget submissions than the top of the house will approve. Midlevel CP people have told me that those proposals were real, but they got deferred.
I do suspect that the top-level reaction over Galt CTC was always “let’s not do this quite yet, there’s still a chance that GO will pay for it”. Eventually, CP couldn’t wait, but only did what they absolutely had to do. Personally I would spend the money to extend CTC further, and eliminate the hassle of OCS, but I don’t have to face the shareholders.
CP’s business over the past 15 years on the Galt Sub has changed dramatically as shippers changed, traffic was rerouted to Buffalo, etc. I can’t fault CP if they said, “yeah we could do it today, but tomorrow may be different”.
I had the opportunity to chat with one of the planners who had put that report together many, many years ago, and that is exactly what he had told me. He was pretty frustrated that it got shelved, as he felt that it could have led to the use of more lines in the Toronto area and at a lower capital cost than what was eventually done. Of course, once they'd trained the freight railroads that this is what they should expect in terms of improvements to play "nice" with the Government for commuter rail, well, we've now seen what the end result is.
I don’t dispute the truth of some of that frustration, but .... which “other lines” would that be? And what level of service would they have today without the same investment as actually happened?
While it might have been possible to shoehorn some initial GO service levels for less money up front, service growth would have been a constant battle over the years as to whether one more train was feasible and what changes did the freight operations have to make on GO’s behalf. Investment to Burlington, Barrie, Richmond Hill, Lincolnville, and Oshawa has all been necessary to deliver today’s service.
The biggest overpayment was likely on the lines that ML bought outright. Those purchase prices were awfully high. But I’m not sorry that GO built the GO Sub, or the Bayview triple tracking, or the Richmond Hill double tracking, or the Halton Sub triple tracking. Possibly GO screwed up on the Halton, in the sense that there appears to have been a contactual upper limit on CN’s obligation while the existing track is good for more than is running today.
The opposition from CP has never been reported as “we can do that if you pay us more”. It has been “We won’t do that without more track”. Mississauga-Erindale doesn’t even need track....it needs grade separation, which helps CP not a bit.
Actually, all of the improvements in service on the Milton Line over the past 10 years have been predicated, and based on the notion, that GO no longer has to run trains up and down the escarpment west of Milton, freeing up the capacity there. Just like how CP allowed GO to run an additional train out of Hamilton when they started laying over the trains there and not deadheading the trains through the tunnel. Since then, they've stymied GO's attempts to expand the service window or add any service to both of those lines.
Even a minimal hourly off peak service to Milton on one track would need additional passing capacity somewhere west of Streetsville. Interleaving freight into that, to allow 2 way freight capability plus roadswitcher track time, would be tricky. Sure, it would work 80% of the time, but what is the up side for CP of all the flak for the 20% when GO is delayed? As with the Halton, an entire third track just seems prudent before we talk about how to sweat the asset.
Hamilton does seem like CP being overcautious, in the sense that GO doesn’t consume all that much track time through the tunnel, but it is the only place where GO is occupying the only mainline freight track without even a single routing available for freight. That’s a bit like driving without a spare tire....it works fine, until.......
You're right, CP isn't a charity. But Metrolinx isn't neither, nor should it be treated as some sort of endless ATM for CP to wring money out of. And maybe this comes back to the oversight issue that Metrolinx has had for years, or to any required changes to the Railway Act, but for far too long CP has not been willing to be an equal partner in the service. And until those changes happen, we're going to be stuck with the status quo - even if we open up our proverbial pocket books to give them what they want.
If I were Minister of Transport for a day, I would rewrite the rules, sure. But I would not push the pendulum over so far that the railways lose a reasonable comfort margin for freight. We proved that point on CN on the prairies.
- Paul