News   Apr 24, 2024
 408     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
 587     0 
News   Apr 24, 2024
 497     0 

New GO Train Control+Signalling (PTC, CBTC, ETC) -- Safety & Subway-Like Frequency

Incorporation is not the same thing as regulation.

There are a number of provincially incorporated railways in Canada - ONR for instance is one, as was BCR before its purchase - but because they are connected to the North American railway grid, they are required to follow the same federal regulations.

There are a very small handful of railways that don't require federal regulation, and those are primarily the ore railways of north-eastern Quebec.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
Dan:

I was just looking into that, and the ambiguity is my use of "chartered" as opposed to "licensed". As to "chartered":
[...][There are only three federally chartered railways in Canada - Canadian Pacific, Canadian National and Guelph Junction Railway, which has about 40 kilometres of track between Guelph and Campbellville.

When railways were built, several miles separated them so the lines could have a monopoly and GJR connects CN and CP. Other small railways in Canada are either owned by the big two or licensed provincially.][...]
http://www.businessedge.ca/archives/article.cfm/guelph-rail-terminal-promises-agrifood-synergy-8982

As for "licensed"...it seems the Province of Ontario strongly disagrees with your claim. "Short Line Railways" (and I posted reference to the Short Line Railway Act of Ontario prior) are the domain of the province unless they cross provincial borders.
[...]

Submission
To
Railway Safety Act Review Panel
From
Ministry of Transportation

upload_2016-4-24_17-2-42.jpeg



August 17, 2007

The management of railway safety in Ontario


The Canada Transportation Act (1996, c.10) [CTA] provides for agreements between the Minister of Transportation (or a designate) and a provincial minister responsible for transportation matters concerning the administration of any law respecting railway safety, accident investigation and railway crossings.i
The Shortline Railways Act (S.O. 1995, c. 2) [SRA] provides for agreements between the Minister and the federal government or its agencies concerning the administration of the Act and the regulation of railway safety, accident investigation and railway crossings in relation to shortline railways and shortline railway companies.ii

Anchored by these legislative provisions, two agreements between the Minister of Transportation for Ontario and the Minister of Transport for Canada were signed in 1996. They are concerned with railway safety and railway crossings respectively in connection with short line railways licensed by Ontario.

i

157.1 (1) The Minister may enter into an agreement with a provincial minister responsible for transportation matters providing for the administration, in relation to persons who operate railways within the legislative authority of the province, of any law respecting railway safety, accident investigation and railway crossings.(2) The Minister may designate any body established under an Act of Parliament, or any person or class of persons employed in the public service of Canada, to administer the law in accordance with the agreement.(3) The designated body, person or class of persons may perform any function or duty and exercise any powers necessary for the enforcement of the law, to the extent specified in the agreement.

ii

Federal-provincial agreements

15. (1) The Minister may enter into agreements with the federal government or with any federal regulatory authority, person or class of persons concerning the administration of this Act and the regulation of railway safety, accident investigation and railway crossings in relation to shortline railways and shortline railway companies.

Enforcement, administration

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the Minister may, by agreement, authorize any federal regulatory authority, person or class of persons to enforce and administer applicable federal law, as it exists from time to time, in relation to shortline railways and shortline railway companies in the same manner and to the same extent as the law applies to railways within federal jurisdiction or in accordance with any other terms as agreed upon. 1995, c. 2, s. 15.

In addition, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed in the same year between the Ontario minister and the Chairperson of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) concerning the investigation of accidents that involve short line railways licensed by Ontario. Expenses incurred by federal agencies in providing services under these agreements are invoiced to Ontario, which in turn may invoice the individual railways.

Underlying the three agreements are several factors:

  • Ontario law has a provision for establishing short line railways under the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario;

  • Ontario has chosen not to establish railway safety regimes that duplicate and paralell established and existing federal safety regimes for the 637 km of Ontario licensed rail lines (to put this in context, CNR and CPR operate a total of over 30,000 miles of rail lines); and

  • To promote safety and uniformity and recognizing the body of knowledge and skills that exist within the federal government, Ontario has chosen to take advantage of the provisions in both provincial and federal legislation to contract with the federal government for safety related matters.
[...continues at length...]
https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/rsa-lsf/ontario.pdf
Without delving further, my immediate impression is one I stated earlier: Either Transport Canada gets its 'act' in order, or the provinces will take their train sets and play with them as they wish at home. Ontario and Quebec *especially* have the power, once aspects of track separation are established, to do as they wish as long as it meets provincial law.

That means Crashworthiness, it means Signalling, it means CBTC, it means a lot of things. The report goes on to delineate who is under provincial purview and who isn't, and lot of operators in Ontario are under Ontario law, not Federal.

I can't avoid discussing the politics of this, as under the previous federal regime, where the Harper Gov't did everything within its power to *stymie* innovation and progressive ways of promoting passenger rail, the provinces would have had to have used the courts play the Harper game. I leave it at that, save that the Trudeau regime appears to be doing differently. Very much so, albeit the words have yet to see action.

Part of that action must be a radical review and updating of the Transportation and Railway Acts, and perhaps some others. to move this nation into the modern age.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-4-24_17-2-42.jpeg
    upload_2016-4-24_17-2-42.jpeg
    153 KB · Views: 949
Having severe internet issues today, unable to edit previous post, so will have to post this as an addendum:
Federal railway companies
A railway under the legislative authority of Parliament is one that holds a valid certificate of fitness. The list of federally-regulated railways includes the Agency decision which authorizes the issuance of each certificate.

Recently suspended or cancelled certificates are also listed here temporarily.

Railway Company Decision No. /
Order No.
Status Issue Date
6970184 Canada Ltd. 33-R-2009
Jan. 30, 2009
Arnaud Railway Company 2015-R-140 suspended Aug, 4, 2015
BNSF Railway Company 16-R-2014
Jan. 21, 2014
Canadian National Railway Company 3-R-2016
Jan. 8, 2016
Canadian Pacific Railway Company 396-R-2007
Aug. 9, 2007
Central Maine & Québec Railway Canada Inc. 238-R-2014
June 30, 2014
City of Ottawa carrying on business as Capital Railway 283-R-2007
June 6, 2007
CSX Transportation, Inc. 316-R-2015
Oct. 1, 2015
Eastern Maine Railway Company 245-R-2012
June 22, 2012
Essex Terminal Railway Company 218-R-1997
April 21, 1997
Ferroequus Railway Company Limited 2005-R-277 suspended May 19, 2005
Goderich-Exeter Railway Company Limited 17-R-2008
Jan. 17, 2008
Great Canadian Railtour Company Ltd. 27-R-2007
Jan. 17, 2007
Hudson Bay Railway Company 230-R-2001
May 9, 2001
International Bridge and Terminal Company, The 2015-R-195 cancelled Nov. 6, 2015
Kettle Falls International Railway Company 673-R-2004
Dec. 10, 2004
Knob Lake & Timmins Railway Company Inc. 414-R-2014
Nov. 14, 2014
Logistec Stevedoring (Nova Scotia) Inc. also carrying on business as Sydney Coal Railway 236-R-2015
July 27, 2015
Minnesota, Dakota & Western Railway Company 2015-R-195 cancelled Nov. 6, 2015
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 391-R-1997
June 26, 1997
Nipissing Central Railway Company 448-R-1997
July 11, 1997
Norfolk Southern Railway Company 600-R-1996
Dec. 19, 1996
Pacific and Arctic Railway and Navigation Company/British Columbia Yukon Railway Company/British Yukon Railway Company Limited carrying on business as or proposing to carry on business as White Pass & Yukon Route 666-R-1997
Nov. 25, 1997
Quebec North Shore & Labrador Railway Company 563-R-2007
Nov. 2, 2007
RaiLink Canada Ltd. 407-R-2010
Oct. 4, 2010
St. Lawrence & Atlantic Railroad (Québec) Inc. 567-R-1998
Nov. 24, 1998
Toronto Terminals Railway Company Limited, The 64-R-2014
Feb. 21, 2014
Tshiuetin Rail Transportation Inc. 190-R-2005
April 1, 2005
Union Pacific Railroad Company 371-R-1997
June 16, 1997
VIA Rail Canada Inc. 74-R-2016
March 9, 2016
Wabush Lake Railway Company, Limited 344-R-2015 suspended Nov. 4, 2015
https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/federal-rail

Note this one!
"City of Ottawa carrying on business as Capital Railway 283-R-2007
June 6, 2007 "

That was one of the stipulations that OCTranspo had to agree to for TC approval of light rail on heavy rail lines...since it is intended to cross the border into Quebec.

Take *careful note* that "Metrolinx, GO, and UPX" are not in the list. That list was updated a month ago.

Btw: The quoted claim prior that I posted "There are only three federally chartered railways in Canada - Canadian Pacific, Canadian National and Guelph Junction Railway, which has about 40 kilometres of track between Guelph and Campbellville." is incorrect. Whoever stated that must have meant *at this time* since the Parl of Can chartered many railways.

Saskatchewan has a website specifically on the province's rail governance:
Provincially Regulated (Shortline) Rail

Currently, there are more than 2,000 km of railways under provincial jurisdiction which include shortline railways moving grain, oil and wood products; industrial railways providing service to facilities and amusement railways providing educational tours within some of Saskatchewan's heritage parks.

Shortline rail offers an important link between remote delivery points to mainline rail carriers such as CN and CP Railways, which move the products to port. These rail lines operate in accordance with The Railway Act and the Provincial Railway Guides. The Ministry administers and enforces the Act.

Rail Services administers, enforces the Railway Act and provides the following services:

  • enforce provincial railway legislation and regulation through safety inspections, accident investigations and monitoring of railway related activities and infrastructure
  • provide technical assistance, advisory services and facilitation in interactions between provincial railways, shippers, federal railways, federal and provincial government agencies and road authorities
  • facilitate the preservation and development of a provincial railway network to provide optimum service to provincial stakeholders
  • encourage and assist in research, development and implementation of technological and operational advancement in railway safety and operations
  • administer the provincial financial assistance programs for railway development and acquisition
  • assist with general information on any rail operation dealing with the Canadian Transportation Agency, Transport Canada and federal railways.
The Rail Services Unit also administers the provincial financial assistance programs through The Railway Line (Short Line) Financial Assistance Regulation for railway development and acquisition, along with the Shortline Railway Sustainability Program (SRSP).
[...]
http://www.highways.gov.sk.ca/sask-rail/

And note: "Railway Act" as stated above is the *Saskatchewan* Railway Act. And the power of the province is very clear:
[...]Power of minister to exempt
3.1
(1) The minister may exempt all or any part of any railway or class of railways
from all or any provision of this Act on any terms and conditions that the minister
may impose.[...]
2001, c.36, s.4

This is a powerful piece of legislation, and many references seem to 'test' the powers of the Feds to be omnipotent in rail matters.

This section and clauses especially:
PART V.1
Interjurisdictional Co-operation

40.1
For the purposes of fulfilling its responsibilities or exercising its powers
pursuant to this Act, the board may:
(a) enter into agreements with any other body empowered by a statute of
Canada, of any province or territory of Canada or any state of the United
States of America to administer or regulate railways;
(b) hold hearings, or participate in any other procedures, inside or outside
Saskatchewan in conjunction with that other body; and
(c) consult with that other body in arriving at its decisions
http://www.qp.gov.sk.ca/documents/English/Statutes/Statutes/R1-2.pdf Pg 24

So once again, I have to ask, and this *is* highly ambiguous, is Metrolinx regulated Federally or Provincially? I see all sorts of reference to Metrolinx stating "We're under Federal Regulations" when it comes to the incessant ringing of bells at the Bloor Station, and yet I can find no definitive legal reference of their being so on paper. Maybe it exists, but I can't find it!

What I am finding is that the Province can set any type of regulation it likes (e.g: CBTC imposition) as long as the operation doesn't extend across provincial borders.

I suspect this is a point Alberta has already examined and taken for granted with Edmonton and Calgary's light rail lines.
 
Last edited:
lol...your very sentence is 'lysdexic'. You mean 'transpose'. It's a case of TMI. With all the computer set-up I've been doing the last few weeks, you're lucky I didn't state 'AMD'.

MTA is, of course, New York...and I get flashbacks whenever I'm running under catenary.

You've made my point! So do we have to discuss acronyms in lieu of the embargo on information that appears to be happening? I just pray you've got something really good on the burner.
May I ask you (again: politely) what stops you from suppressing your condescending and patronizing undertones when contributing to the discussions in this forum?

Given that I'm by far not the first person who takes offence by these tendencies, I would appreciate if one of the moderators would clarify which tone and extent of mutual respect is expected in this forum...

Thank you and have a good day!
 
Last edited:
My view is that I (now) take a larger-than-usual restraint myself when I am discussing things here with employees 'in the industry'....
...like VIA employees and GO/Metrolinx employees and contractors who post here (Urban Sky, smallspy, vegata_skyline, etc).

If they are annoyed by nitpicks/snide/sarcasm/etc (legitimate or not)
...they may go away and not participate here.

They are more valuable members...
...so we have to go past little things, and tolerate things like AAA's (Accidental Acronym Assumptions), ABC's, and XYZ's, and just gentlemanly do a good 'ol "Oops, dreadfully sorry; I meant NYC's agency, when I said MTA...". Y'know, nudge, nudge.
 
Last edited:
May I ask you (again: politely) what stops you from suppressing your condescending and patronizing undertones when contributing to the discussions in this forum?
Johannes: I made a typo. It was you who made an issue of it. I tried to make light of it, you missed the humour. Lighten up.
 
My view is that I (now) take a larger-than-usual restraint myself when I am discussing things here with employees 'in the industry'....
...like VIA employees and GO/Metrolinx employees and contractors who post here (Urban Sky, smallspy, vegata_skyline, etc).

If they are annoyed by nitpicks/snide/sarcasm/etc (legitimate or not)
...they may go away and not participate here.

They are more valuable members...
...so we have to go past little things, and tolerate things like AAA's (Accidental Acronym Assumptions), ABC's, and XYZ's, and just gentlemanly do a good 'ol "Oops, dreadfully sorry; I meant NYC's agency, when I said MTA...". Y'know, nudge, nudge.
Sorry.....the two parts I have bolded above don't "jive" for me....perhaps you can explain further how telling long standing, valuable, members of these discussion boards to not participate is showing "larger-than-usual" restraint? ;)
 
Sorry.....the two parts I have bolded above don't "jive" for me....perhaps you can explain further how telling long standing, valuable, members of these discussion boards to not participate is showing "larger-than-usual" restraint? ;)
He didn't ask them "not to participate". He implied the choice is on the individual. "May".
I wrote:
The question arises as to whether MTA are going to keep their present Bombardier MR-90s, or re-equip them with the latest moving block control which will be absolutely essential for running 3 minute headways?

Urban Sky replied:
If I may ask you for a favour, please don't translate acronyms. Refering to AMT as MTA is as needlessly confusing as francophone transit enthusiasts referring to the TTC as CTT. Being provincial (or municipal) entities, the relevant languages are French for Montreal-based AMT and English for Toronto-based TTC and to the best of my knowledge, both entities have only uni-lingual names. Thank you! :)

PS: There is of course no problem with translating the full name, e.g. "in Montreal, the Metropolitan Transport Agency (AMT) has announced plans..."
All for a typo...

Get a grip.
 
Johannes: I made a typo. It was you who made an issue of it. I tried to make light of it, you missed the humour. Lighten up.
[...] All for a typo... [...]
My issue with your posts is none of your rare typos or now-resolved formatting issues, but your recurring patronizing and condescending undertones in your replies to me and other members in this forum. I find the suggestion that certain parts of my post(s) are written like by someone with a reading and/or spelling disorder offensive, especially given that you can hardly have missed that I am a non-native speaker with (from any feedback I received so far) very reasonable and more than adequate understanding and use of orthographic and vocabulary...
 
Last edited:
He didn't ask them "not to participate". He implied the choice is on the individual. "May".

yes he said if they did not like his snide remarks to them or his sarcasm at them....they can choose not to participate.

That is how bully's work in playgrounds....."if you don't like my behaviour you can stay away"....it is hardly showing
larger-than-usual restraint
 
My issue with your posts is none of your rare typos or now-resolved formatting issues, but your recurring patronizing and condescending undertones in your replies to me and other members in this forum. I find the suggestion that certain parts of my post(s) are written like by someone with a reading and/or spelling disorder offensive, especially given that you can hardly have missed that I am a non-native speaker with (from any feedback I received so far) very reasonable and more than adequate understanding and use of orthographic and vocabulary...

I made a mistake. I typed MTA instead of AMT. Don't turn that into a language issue on your part, because I offered a light-hearted reply. Consider it possible that you failed to understand that. I assumed you couldn't be so petty as to make it an issue, but you did, so I blithely assumed you meant it in jest. Silly me, you were dead serious.

Lighten up.
 
Sorry.....the two parts I have bolded above don't "jive" for me....perhaps you can explain further how telling long standing, valuable, members of these discussion boards to not participate is showing "larger-than-usual" restraint? ;)
It's obvious: What makes you or me more valuable?
But when the Pope, the Queen, or the Prime Minister (even one you hate) enters the room, the room does go a lot quieter with a little more decorum and respect. (Okay, not alway -- looking towards the 49th parallel. 'Nuff said). Perhaps Urban Sky isn't quite elevated to that level, but he's further up the in-the-know ladder relating to VIA matters than both you and I will ever be (unless, obviously, we got a job with them, or one very involved with them, of course).

I've been noticing many successful forums elsewhere I have observed succeeds more when larger efforts are made by the mods to make them feel welcome. Whether it be Reddit AMA's, or VIP guests in a forum, or sometimes people who just register just like you and me. A HDTV manufacturer's engineer in a Home Theater Forum. Or an actual rock star registering in a fan's operated rock star discussion forum. Or whatever, I've noticed it all since the BBS/Usenet days of the 90s -- VIP's who actually registered as regular members. I've also seen them go away because of 'haters' in those respective forums. I've seen mods/admins help moderate to keep a minimum decorum. And, this forums' mini-equivalent is the employees of the respective industries. (not as dramatic, but still VIP).

Honestly, I'd be glad if everybody "Reported" every post in this thread's noisy page (even my own, your own, and all others) just so a mod can say "Quiet It Down!" to all of us.
 
Last edited:
Having severe internet issues today, unable to edit previous post, so will have to post this as an addendum:

https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/federal-rail

Note this one!
"City of Ottawa carrying on business as Capital Railway 283-R-2007
June 6, 2007 "

That was one of the stipulations that OCTranspo had to agree to for TC approval of light rail on heavy rail lines...since it is intended to cross the border into Quebec.

It should be noted that all of OC Transpo's operations, including the buses are federally regulated. For example, AODA doesn't apply to OC Transpo, though they follow it in spirit.
 
It's obvious: What makes you or me more valuable?

It wasn't about me....you listed some people (not me)...I think their contributions have and are valuable...that is all I said...I did not say they were more valuable than me (they probably are) or you (you can judge that, I won't)....but you identified them and then said if they did not like your snide remarks or sarcasm they can just choose not to participate in these discussions.....I find that an unacceptable trade off. In other words, if there was a poll that said:

"Which would you rather have:

1. continued contributions to this discussion from Urban Sky, smallspy, vegata_skyline, etc ; or
2. snide and/or sarcastic remarks from mdrejhon

I would vote for #1....hopefully others would.


But when the Pope, the Queen, or the Prime Minister (even one you hate) enters the room, the room does go a lot quieter with a little more decorum and respect. Perhaps Urban Sky isn't quite elevated to that level, but he's further up the in-the-know ladder relating to VIA matters than both you and I will ever be (unless, obviously, we got a job along those industry lines, of course).

Obviously, it was not clear what I needed more help with. I understand what a "larger-than-usual" restraint might be.....but what i didn't understand was how following that up with "If they are annoyed by nitpicks/snide/sarcasm/etc (legitimate or not)
...they may go away and not participate here." was consistent, in any way, with any level of restraint...never mind a larger than usual level of restraint.



Honestly, I'd be glad if everybody "Reported" all posts in this thread's noisy page (even my own, your own, and their own) just so a mod can say "Quiet It Down!" to all of us.

Quiet down? feel free to DM me with the explanation for the above if you like...but no one is yelling...I would just like to know why you think it is ok to tell people to either accept snideness or sarcasm or else leave the discussion. Sorry to others that are not curious about this...but I am.
 
1. continued contributions to this discussion from Urban Sky, smallspy, vegata_skyline, etc ; or
2. snide and/or sarcastic remarks from everyone

I would vote for #1....hopefully others would.
FTFY, and it does not exclude yourself (nor stevetoronto and others).

No other comment in this unusually far-higher-than-usual noise-to-signal page of this thread.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top