MisterF
Senior Member
I was surprised that VIA wants to use the abandoned CP line as well. While it does bypass the population centres along the lake, it's shorter and would have the advantage of having no freight conflicts. And that really is necessary, even though the Transport Action Ontario author doesn't seem to think so. The track isn't as curvy as you might think - sure it can't support true high speed rail, but there's no reason it couldn't be rebuilt to 110 mph standards. I still think that any service on this line should cut down to the GO line at Oshawa instead of following the CP line the whole way. I would hope that the proposal would still maintain rail service along the southern route through Trenton, Belleville, Kingston, Brockville, and Cornwall. There's no reason that both couldn't be supported.This was the first time I had seen details of the new VIA corridor proposal, which is claimed to be pursuing a new alignment down the old Havelock Sub from Glen Tay to Durham. That idea is as dumb as a box of rocks, IMHO. It ignores all the population centers along Lake Ontario, bypasses Kingston altogether, and the Havelock Sub alignment is curvy, swampy, and (alternatively) hard rock so not really "rebuildable" - we are really talking about engineering a new line here.
I wonder if the old VIAFast proposal could be resurrected. It proposed consolidating CN and CP into one corridor between Newcastle and Shannonville, so we'd end up with one line for freight and one line for passengers. It had most of the advantages of the northern alignment with the exception of serving Peterborough. IIRC it also maintained a slower service along the St. Lawrence.