Orangeville-Brampton Railway (OBRY)

[Allandale25]

https://www.caledonenterprise.com/news-story/9336655-don-t-expect-a-resurrection-of-the-credit-valley-explorer-on-orangeville-brampton-railway/

 

[dowlingm]

In the unlikely event that a track could be pushed northeast from Orangeville, it would open up the possibility of running ski trains to Hockley Valley, stopping at Caledon Ski Club en route

 

[ShonTron]

Sadly, I think OBRY’s days are numbered. The town is less enthusiastic about owning the railway, despite the industry that still uses it. The Credit Valley Explorer was a wonderful ride (I did it three times) but I didn’t realize it was subsidized (rather than making a profit and subsidizing the rail operations). And they’re right, most train riders wouldn’t go to Downtown Orangeville afterwards for a meal or to shop.

But worst case, it would make an amazing rail trail.

 

[adrianaliu]

only thing i can see as useful on obry is using it for northern extension of hurontario past queen up to southfields village, in a similar fashion to the waterloo spur on ion, accessing the line via vodden. but that is super unlikely

 

[Fritter]

I wonder if Metrolinx might quietly buy the line for possible future use? Unfortunately the current Provincial Government might not be as willing as previous Governments would have been.

 

[ShonTron]

only thing i can see as useful on obry is using it for northern extension of hurontario past queen up to southfields village, in a similar fashion to the waterloo spur on ion, accessing the line via vodden. but that is super unlikely

Southfields Village? Haven't heard of it.

At most, the railway might be viable for passenger service as far north as Mayfield Road or Brampton Airport, where it is straight and close to Highway 10, but the plans are for improved bus service up to Valleywood, which would serve more people anyway. By King Street, OBRY starts its meandering route up the escarpment, making it too slow compared to the highway. If Orangeville wants to junk it, there's little hope.

 

[robmausser]

I wonder if Metrolinx might quietly buy the line for possible future use? Unfortunately the current Provincial Government might not be as willing as previous Governments would have been.

Yes it should be a fork of the Kitchener Line at Brampton GO to Orangeville.

 

[jcam]

I wonder if Metrolinx might quietly buy the line for possible future use? Unfortunately the current Provincial Government might not be as willing as previous Governments would have been.

Not sure if it applies here, but the government just made changes to the Shortline Railways Act as a part of the Getting Ontario Moving Act.

From the link here, the summary of the changes include:
Currently, the Act requires a shortline railway that intends to discontinue a railway line to go through a process that includes advertising the intended discontinuance and seeking purchasers; if no private purchase occurs, the shortline railway must offer to sell to the Government of Ontario at salvage value. The Schedule repeals these requirements.

 

[steveintoronto]

It's really sad, but reality indicates using the trail in the *gist* of what it once was, at an absolute fraction of the cost. There's greater likelihood of cyclists spending money in Orangeville than train excursionists.

But worst case, it would make an amazing rail trail.

It really would, and there's a very real need to connect the Elora to Cataract Trail north-south to GO (ostensibly at Brampton) and the two *directly connect physically* as it is. And that's not by serendipity, the Elora-Cataract Trail being the ex-CP branch to the west from there. The E-C Trail is one of Ontario's finest that I've ridden, it still astounds me as to how varied and ever-changing the scenery is, albeit the trail surface could do with some TLC in spots (above normal rainfall has played havoc on most trails last few years).

For anyone thinking that it can be used for 'XXX'...don't forget the bridges would have to be replaced at enormous cost to be certified to carry a load. There just isn't the budget to do it...

 

[steveintoronto]

Not sure if it applies here, but the government just made changes to the Shortline Railways Act as a part of the Getting Ontario Moving Act.

From the link here, the summary of the changes include:
Currently, the Act requires a shortline railway that intends to discontinue a railway line to go through a process that includes advertising the intended discontinuance and seeking purchasers; if no private purchase occurs, the shortline railway must offer to sell to the Government of Ontario at salvage value. The Schedule repeals these requirements.

Excellent 'heads-up' on that, but of course, that Bill has only passed first reading so far.

Since that line is already owned by Orangeville, I doubt it will be put up for sale, rather ownership would be transferred, possibly to a trust, to an org like the Trans-Canada Trail.

It's a very interesting point worth watching the Orangeville and local press to see what happens. I've often eyed the northern stretch of that as a cycling trail, but always decided against it for varied reasons, even though it shows as a cycling trail in spots. Off-road type perhaps? I suspect local land value would actually increase if it was more accessible for road (touring) cycling, like the E-C Trail as opposed to ski-doo and off-road types.

It's definitely going to be a point of discussion.

Addendum: Just as I'm pulling the map up now, it occurred to me: The Feds might have a jurisdictional claim on that RoW, even though it was last used as a shortline.

Whoa...quick Google shows:

[...]
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
[58] Pursuant to section 15 of the Shortline Railway Act, 1995, S.O., 1995, c. 2, and the Agreement, the Province of Ontario authorized the Agency to administer the terms and conditions of the CTA applicable to federally-regulated railway crossings in relation to designated shortline railway companies within the legislative authority of the Province of Ontario. Cando is listed in Schedule A of the Agreement as one of the designated shortline railways.

[59] In respect of the 2004 crossing agreement, in Decision No. 65-R-2005, the Agency indicated that “if it is found that the original agreement or parts thereof are no longer in effect and that the parties cannot agree on their replacement, the Agency may exercise its discretion pursuant to section 101 of the CTA”. The Agency therefore finds that as both parties recognize that the crossing agreement has expired, it may exercise its discretion as there is no longer a valid and binding agreement upon the parties pertaining to the existing crossings.
[...]

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/101-r-2017

I've got to read more on this. This may pertain to more than just the OBRY, the QP legislation may have some legal kinks to it, and I believe it's an omnibus bill too...uh oh...Lead Boots can't dance.

Very interesting...

This is absolutely intriguing: (Agency= CTA)(Further to above)

[...]The Agency is of the opinion that this provides the Agency with express statutory jurisdiction over both the railway line (railway infrastructure) and the land that necessarily supports that railway infrastructure. This jurisdiction over the crossing is therefore express and irrespective of the ownership of the land. Even if the Agency were to find that this jurisdiction is not expressly stated in these provisions, it would be by necessary implication to protect the integrity of the statutory scheme that governs railway crossing disputes. The Agency’s order authorizing the crossing would necessarily extend to the owner of the land even if the owner is not a railway company or not otherwise subject to Agency jurisdiction.[...]

To further elucidate my point:

The Agency is of the opinion that this provides the Agency with express statutory jurisdiction over both the railway line (railway infrastructure) and the land that necessarily supports that railway infrastructure.

*apparently* indicates the jurisdiction to apply the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996 section on abandonment process. That over-rules the ostensible application of the Ont changes of the 'Shortline Railways Act as a part of the Getting Ontario Moving Act'.

Note the following states:

federal railway company

Transfer and discontinuance of railway lines
How to transfer or discontinue a railway line
Under Part III, Division V of the Canada Transportation Act, a federal railway company must take these steps before transferring or discontinuing operations:

1. provide notice in the company’s three-year plan for at least 12 months of its intention to discontinue operating the line;
2. publicly advertise the railway line’s availability or any operating interest that the railway company has in the line;
3. negotiate with interested parties;
4. offer to transfer all of its interest in the railway line to the applicable federal provincial and municipal governments and urban transit authorities; and
5. notify the Agency if the line will be discontinued.

Learn more about how to transfer or discontinue railway line operations.

But notice also the use of "Government" in:

The Agency may also make a determination about the net salvage value of a rail line if a government and railway company can’t agree. To learn more, read Guidelines Respecting Net Salvage Value Applications.

https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/transfer-and-discontinuance-railway-lines

I see the distinct possibility of a legal tussle ahead on this...

Addendum: From Shortline Railways Act, 1995:

[...]
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. 1995, c. 2, s. 15 (1).

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 (2).
[...]

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/95s02#BK16

See pg 34 of this report for many references to Transport Canada:
https://www.caledon.ca/en/townhall/resources/CP1OrangevilleRailwayDevelopmentCorp.pdf

 

[KevinT]

Not sure if it applies here, but the government just made changes to the Shortline Railways Act as a part of the Getting Ontario Moving Act.

From the link here, the summary of the changes include:
Currently, the Act requires a shortline railway that intends to discontinue a railway line to go through a process that includes advertising the intended discontinuance and seeking purchasers; if no private purchase occurs, the shortline railway must offer to sell to the Government of Ontario at salvage value. The Schedule repeals these requirements.

How does not allowing the province to pick it up at salvage cost Get Ontario Moving??? Sigh.

 

[nfitz]

How does not allowing the province to pick it up at salvage cost Get Ontario Moving??? Sigh.

Surely it's more benefit to developers if it is not in provincial ownership.

 

[steveintoronto]

^But here's the riddle: If the Province (which has cut off its own hand if a court decision strikes down the Getting Ontario Moving Act ) gains ownership at 'salvage cost' (although I think this outcome is highly unlikely) then will it give away with the right hand what it receives from the left? This has been the province's mode of operation of late. Selling off 'surplus land' to developers.

It's an interesting situation, and one the Feds appear to be able to play a hand in to their own end. Trudeau needs all the 'Shining Knights (sic) in White Satin' he can get in the next six months. This could be one.

 

[dowlingm]

I would assume that the difference between the Feds and Ontario's approach to discontinuance is governed by which level of government regulates that line. If OBRY is provincially regulated then the new rules would presumably apply. If federally, not.

 

[steveintoronto]

I would assume that the difference between the Feds and Ontario's approach to discontinuance is governed by which level of government regulates that line. If OBRY is provincially regulated then the new rules would presumably apply. If federally, not.

It's provincially chartered, federally regulated, at least enough that to abandon it (and other provincially chartered shortlines federally regulated, the details are in the links I provided) an application would have to be made to the CTA. The province can huff and puff all it likes, until the federal oversight is cleared, it has precedence in legal matters. The Getting Ontario Moving Act apparently has to be altered before the next reading and eventual Crown assent. https://www.ola.org/sites/default/files/common/how-bills-become-law-en.pdf

Perhaps Ford et al can "save taxpayer money" by appealing the Fed's "Carbon Tax" and "shortline regulation" in the same writ to the court? Lose two cases for the price of one...For The People.

The Province actually has to request the status under the Shortline Act, but once 'betrothed' it's like marriage: Far easier to get into than get out of.

This bodes well for keeping the Ford's grubby slipping differential off the tracks and the present owners (Effectively Orangeville) determining the fate, even if the line is discontinued. The CTA process to abandon is long and detailed.
https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/process-transferring-or-discontinuing-railway-line-operations

Edit to Add: I've got to make clear that I don't know the legality of the Province having ultimate say in this instance, just that the literature indicates that it's Federal. (by choice of the Province in the extant Shortlines Act and Fed Transportation Act, but when both have an equal or ambiguous claim, default is the higher level of jurisdiction, and the CTA has already decided that. The real interest in this is far more than just the OBRY. it's the present QP regime making the law up as it goes along. Ms Mulroney's job prospects look dim for her next employment application.)

The Agency is of the opinion that this provides the Agency with express statutory jurisdiction over both the railway line (railway infrastructure) and the land that necessarily supports that railway infrastructure.

Decision No. 101-R-2017