Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited

[TOareaFan]

Just putting this out there, but what about the possibility of building an elevated guideway over top of the existing tracks through Brampton station? Lower level (existing) for VIA and CN, upper level for GO. Start the guideway east of downtown Brampton where the track goes from 3 to 2, and have it descend back to grade somewhere just east of McLaughlin. Naturally, add the 4th track from Bramalea westward too.

This would negate having to move the existing station (although platforms would likely need to be readjusted). No doubt it would be complicated and expensive, but you would also save a lot of money from not having to rebuild a bunch of bridges and create a bunch of new road over/underpasses.

Just an option to consider, not sure how feasible it would be.

That is, funny enough, the other bizarre idea that came to me while waiting on a train recently although in my mind it was the freight trains flying overhead as they are the only trains going through the station that never stop and don't need accesss to the platforms and buildings.......I thought my "takeover Railroad Street" to be less "out there" so that is the one I suggested...looking forward to responses to your elvevated idea too.

 

[gweed123]

That is, funny enough, the other bizarre idea that came to me while waiting on a train recently although in my mind it was the freight trains flying overhead as they are the only trains going through the station that never stop and don't need accesss to the platforms and buildings.......I thought my "takeover Railroad Street" to be less "out there" so that is the one I suggested...looking forward to responses to your elvevated idea too.

Freight on the upper level would work too, although I would think there would need to be a longer "ramp" leading up to the elevated structure if it were accommodating freight, which may add some complications. Don't know for sure though.

And yes, it is an "out there" idea, but I think at the very least it should be considered in the options analysis, even if it ends up being dismissed as unfeasible.

 

[drum118]

Freight on the upper level would work too, although I would think there would need to be a longer "ramp" leading up to the elevated structure if it were accommodating freight, which may add some complications. Don't know for sure though.

And yes, it is an "out there" idea, but I think at the very least it should be considered in the options analysis, even if it ends up being dismissed as unfeasible.

It should be the opposite way since GO can use 2% grade while CN will need .7% or less grade with them opposed it 100%.

 

[gweed123]

It should be the opposite way since GO can use 2% grade while CN will need .7% or less grade with them opposed it 100%.

That's what I figured. My initial proposal had GO on top, VIA and CN on the bottom. That way, it would be GO climbing the grade, not CN.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

It may be semantics, but if that is the benefit then I think we should refer to it as "prepaid" operating costs. I have no idea what it was costing per train to rent the track time from CN but if you write a cheque in the hundreds of millions of dollars to avoid that rent, there must be someone that can figure out how many months/years/decades of prepaid rent that represents and what the opportunity cost is of not having that capital to make other system improvements.

Cost of purchase / approximate monthly cost to rent tracks = number of months needed to "pay off" the purchase

The formula gets complicated when you start to consider that ownership of the tracks would give you control over them and thus more easily add additional trains. You would then have to calculate the increased revenue that an additional train would net you and apply that against your monthly rental cost.

It would appear at first glance that it would make most sense to add off peak service to those tracks which you own as the marginal cost to add the train (which would not likely be filled, read maximum revenue) is simply the train and not the cost to rent the trackage.

 

[TOareaFan]

Cost of purchase / approximate monthly cost to rent tracks = number of months needed to "pay off" the purchase

The formula gets complicated when you start to consider that ownership of the tracks would give you control over them and thus more easily add additional trains. You would then have to calculate the increased revenue that an additional train would net you and apply that against your monthly rental cost.

It would appear at first glance that it would make most sense to add off peak service to those tracks which you own as the marginal cost to add the train (which would not likely be filled, read maximum revenue) is simply the train and not the cost to rent the trackage.

but since we know that the increased net revenue from the additional trains (using the off peak increase on Lakeshore to 30 minutes) is a loss of $7 million a year....you wonder if you would not be better off keeping the capital you laid out to buy the lines...I mean, you could always add that service anyway if the track space is available.

 

[TFC]

but since we know that the increased net revenue from the additional trains (using the off peak increase on Lakeshore to 30 minutes) is a loss of $7 million a year....you wonder if you would not be better off keeping the capital you laid out to buy the lines...I mean, you could always add that service anyway if the track space is available.

I don't think you understand the long-term benefit of GO owning the track, rather than "keeping the capital" and continuing to rent from CN. Refer to smallspy's comment about GO's new dispatch facility in Oakville opening in 2016 and the ability for GO to call the shots on the lines that they own. When they're renting, they're at the mercy of CN and CP. When renting, what's to prevent CN or CP from blocking future service increases on the lines, outside of a negotiated operations contract? When GO owns the track, they call the shots.

 

[TOareaFan]

I don't think you understand the long-term benefit of GO owning the track, rather than "keeping the capital" and continuing to rent from CN. Refer to smallspy's comment about GO's new dispatch facility in Oakville opening in 2016 and the ability for GO to call the shots on the lines that they own. When they're renting, they're at the mercy of CN and CP. When renting, what's to prevent CN or CP from blocking future service increases on the lines, outside of a negotiated operations contract? When GO owns the track, they call the shots.

I sorta get there....but my recollection of all the announcements of all the corridor purchases is that they all contained guarantees and protection to the freight companies...so "full control" was never obtained even with the purchases. Yes it is less likely that service expansions on unused track time would not be blocked....but only marginally less likely because if the freight companies aren't using that unused track time they would happily take the revenue from GO that increasing service provides.

So, did buying the tracks actually do much of anything?

 

[drum118]

I sorta get there....but my recollection of all the announcements of all the corridor purchases is that they all contained guarantees and protection to the freight companies...so "full control" was never obtained even with the purchases. Yes it is less likely that service expansions on unused track time would not be blocked....but only marginally less likely because if the freight companies aren't using that unused track time they would happily take the revenue from GO that increasing service provides.

So, did buying the tracks actually do much of anything?

Buying the corridors help GO on all front.

Since GO started, it has moved from one type of rolling stock to a number of them to where we are today. Because the cost to rent track space to run extra trains to keep up with demand, trains have gone from 6 cars to 12 cars long and can go to 14 with the current motor-power. The only cost to GO to go from 6 cars to 12 cars was expanding the platforms and buying new power that was due for replacement anyway. GO still pay the same cost to run a train regardless of its length, but it generated more revenue doing so and keeping operation cost down. They were also paying fully cost plus for CN/CP crews compare to what is being paid today non CN crews.

30 minutes on the Lakeshore should happen in the 80's or 90's, but took until 2013 to do that. If it did then, we could be seeing 15-20 minute service today.

GO can put more service on line off peak if it had the manpower to do so, since the rolling stock is already there now and fully paid for.

CN is allow to run trains in these corridors to service the various industries still on line and to run either at a schedule off peak train or as needed. There is 1 off peak train I know of passing Union between noon and 1pm as a schedule and can vary from time to time. There are tank train runs from Oakville to Clarkson or the other way around as needed. Same can be said from the tank farm in Burlington to Aldershot or movement to/from the Oakville yard. CN runs a nightly train down/up the Georgetown line to/from CP Lampton yard. There is a local move on the waterfront as needed and not sure which line it comes down.

In the end, GO will be able to run as many trains it wants to with out being interfere with CN on the corridors own by Metrolinx. Its a win win.

Corridors not own by Metrolinx will require 4 tracks to allow GO to run 5-10 minute service down the road and keep out of CN/CP hair. Both railways will add more trains over time once they reach max length or on time demand.

 

[Platform 27]

As I understand it, another huge benefit to GO owning the lines is that when they expand them in the future they can tender out construction to any qualified civil contractor and get much better pricing. When GO wants to expand CN-owned lines (as used to be SOP but is presumably less common now), GO cuts a cheque to CN and CN leads the project, engaging whatever contractors they want at whatever price they want to build however much extra infrastructure they want, potentially leaving some unknown remainder to go straight onto CN's revenue sheet. I've heard it comes down to CN naming their price, and GO can take it or leave it.

GO bought the Weston sub right before they began the Georgetown South work, which allowed them to tender out the construction directly to Dufferin Construction, EllisDon and so on. I'd be curious to know how much of the purchase price they basically got back instantly by cutting out the CN middleman from the forthcoming work.

 

[drum118]

As I understand it, another huge benefit to GO owning the lines is that when they expand them in the future they can tender out construction to any qualified civil contractor and get much better pricing. When GO wants to expand CN-owned lines (as used to be SOP but is presumably less common now), GO cuts a cheque to CN and CN leads the project, engaging whatever contractors they want at whatever price they want to build however much extra infrastructure they want, potentially leaving some unknown remainder to go straight onto CN's revenue sheet. I've heard it comes down to CN naming their price, and GO can take it or leave it.

GO bought the Weston sub right before they began the Georgetown South work, which allowed them to tender out the construction directly to Dufferin Construction, EllisDon and so on. I'd be curious to know how much of the purchase price they basically got back instantly by cutting out the CN middleman from the forthcoming work.

Anywhere between 3-10% of the final price.

 

[TOareaFan]

thanks to Drum118 and Platform27...those do seem like benefits to track/corridor ownership....good replies.

 

[k10ery]

With normal finances, yes, but government finances work somewhat differently. They have a very clear split between operating and capital funds; all parties and levels of government treat them differently solely for political reasons.

Voters aren't nearly as afraid of debt as they are deficits.

This is clearly visible with TTC, where things like escalator maintenance which would normally be an operating expense is bundled up into a large package and put onto the capital budget. They can't get annual operating funding but they are able to get capital funding. Montreal has a much higher operating subsidy but spends significantly less than the TTC on capital.

GO finances seem to be similar. Very low operating subsidy but a blank-cheque on capital. They can request and receive a one-time $200M payment, but if they asked for $4M/year for 50 years they would be turned down. So, yes, it's prepaid operating costs; but in a manner which would be approved. Also, future governments won't try to cut it because forcing GO to sell track space is far less appealing, politically, than "efficiencies" which reduce the number of trains running. Budgeting and tax impact is similar but politically it's very different.

That's a bir strong. I think when the province first went to accrual accounting, spending on the capital budget probably seemed a bit like free money. But McGuinty discovered that even if voters don't care about debt, the bond markets sure do. Borrowing to buy track is alot harder now, if anything I think the government were prefer to rent.

But one advantage to buying is that you can make improvements and not get "held up" when it's time to renegotiate the lease. Another is that CN's taxes are lower if they sell the asset than if the rent it. But mostly all this seems minor. Rent or buy, either way, get some more trains (and crews).

 

[vegeta_skyline]

I sorta get there....but my recollection of all the announcements of all the corridor purchases is that they all contained guarantees and protection to the freight companies...so "full control" was never obtained even with the purchases. Yes it is less likely that service expansions on unused track time would not be blocked....but only marginally less likely because if the freight companies aren't using that unused track time they would happily take the revenue from GO that increasing service provides.

So, did buying the tracks actually do much of anything?

CN only retained running rights, which simply means that GO must let them use the track so that they can still access their customers and yards. It's like the government allowing foreign carriers to access Canada's airspace. The when and the how they do so is now determined by GO. And while they don't directly control the dispatching yet, CN has to answer to them in case of any issues. There are repercussions if one of their freights interferes with a revenue GO train, which was not the case when CN ran the show.

 

[nfitz]

They still need lay down track north of Mount Pleasant. Yes I think they are using absolute cost. Remember Milton will cost even more then that. And they still have to buy more track to bring service to Hamilton.

You mean west of Mount Pleasant? From Mount Pleasant, it is southwest to Kitchener and northeast to Brampton.