VIA Rail

[steveintoronto]

Citizen rail advocates see CN takeover of SW Ontario line as trouble for VIA



We've heard this before, that CN may route freight (including double stack) along the London-Stratford-Kitchener segment it owns. In a railfanning group on Facebook that I am in, someone posted a massive pile of new ties in Stratford, for a pending CN track upgrade. If a limited number of freights were run every day, these track upgrades could be beneficial to VIA.

There's another interesting aspect to this, and it could mean a number of things:

as well as the connecting Fergus Subdivision from Guelph to Cambridge

That track is in really poor shape, and speed is limited (IIRC) to 8 kph/ CN's renewed interest in it could only be driven by economic conditions in Cambridge, there's nothing serviced on the southern leg until there. There is interchange and service on the northern leg though w/ GJR, and the NW Industrial Park track is owned by the City of Guelph, and served by both GJR and CN, the value for locals being the choice of carriers.

Very interesting....even though track in poor shape, there are some serious customers that ship along the Fergus Sub. It's still an advantage for Cambridge's heavy industry.

 

[timio]

I've seen CN equipment on the track at the west end of Kitchener a few times lately.

 

[smallspy]

Much of the current work being done to the track are being done at GEXR expense. The contract called for them to return the line to CN in the same state as they received it.

And as GEXR - well, Genessee and Wyoming - doesn't own any MOW equipment, they have told CN to get it taken care of and to bill them for the work. Which explains why there are massive piles of ties everywhere with CN MOW equipment and crews scattered about.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[robmausser]

Citizen rail advocates see CN takeover of SW Ontario line as trouble for VIA



We've heard this before, that CN may route freight (including double stack) along the London-Stratford-Kitchener segment it owns. In a railfanning group on Facebook that I am in, someone posted a massive pile of new ties in Stratford, for a pending CN track upgrade. If a limited number of freights were run every day, these track upgrades could be beneficial to VIA.

This is the ironic state of rail condition in North America.

"Hey, no freight operators on this track, sweet! We can run passenger service on it with no traffic issues! Oh, hmm, the track speed is rated at 40km/h because its not being used... crap"

"Hey this track is Class 5 rated track! Fast passenger service! Oh, its class 5 because its a freight mainline.... now our trains are stuck behind slow freight"

 

[robmausser]

Citizen rail advocates see CN takeover of SW Ontario line as trouble for VIA



We've heard this before, that CN may route freight (including double stack) along the London-Stratford-Kitchener segment it owns. In a railfanning group on Facebook that I am in, someone posted a massive pile of new ties in Stratford, for a pending CN track upgrade. If a limited number of freights were run every day, these track upgrades could be beneficial to VIA.

Yep this really sucks.

I was hopeful VIA was going to buy the track.

 

[Urban Sky]

I was hopeful VIA was going to buy the track.

From VIA Rail's most recent Corporate Plan (p.64):

VIA Rail is considering purchasing a 55 mile section of the Guelph Subdivision between Kitchener and London. This potential purchase has key strategic value as it would secure continued track access to London, allow for future growth, permit the addition of new frequencies, and improve trip times. VIA Rail already forms the majority of rail traffic on this section. An investment for the replacement of jointed rail with continuous welded rail, crossings upgrades, and addition of new sidings would improve safety and further improve operational performance, provide a better customer experience, and increase revenues.

VIA Rail also requires capital funding for new track infrastructure between Montreal and Ottawa connecting VIA Rail tracks to CP track, which can be utilized to avoid CN’s congested lines and the bottleneck at Coteau Junction.

 

[KevinT]

From VIA Rail's most recent Corporate Plan (p.64):

VIA Rail is considering purchasing a 55 mile section of the Guelph Subdivision between Kitchener and London. This potential purchase has key strategic value as it would secure continued track access to London, allow for future growth, permit the addition of new frequencies, and improve trip times. VIA Rail already forms the majority of rail traffic on this section. An investment for the replacement of jointed rail with continuous welded rail, crossings upgrades, and addition of new sidings would improve safety and further improve operational performance, provide a better customer experience, and increase revenues.

One wonders if that isn't what's spurring CN's renewed interest in the line: "Oh, hey VIA, see we're using this line a lot so now I'm afraid you'll have to pay us a quajillion dollars for it now."

 

[SaugeenJunction]

From VIA Rail's most recent Corporate Plan (p.64):

In all fairness CN wasn't really in a position to sell the line prior to GEXR vacating it, so this could be an opportunity for VIA. Also, I'd assume that VIA would do more upgrades than just replacing ties. Hoping that CN doesn't clog it with freight.

 

[steveintoronto]

In all fairness CN wasn't really in a position to sell the line prior to GEXR vacating it, so this could be an opportunity for VIA. Also, I'd assume that VIA would do more upgrades than just replacing ties. Hoping that CN doesn't clog it with freight.

Something's not all as it seems, as VIA installed the CTC along the Guelph Sub...best I quote:

Guelph Subdivision upgraded to CTC
Published on November 23, 2015

VIA Rail on Nov. 14, 2015, commissioned CTC (centralized traffic control) on its entire North Mainline (Guelph Subdivision) between Georgetown and London, Ontario

http://www.railwaysuppliers.ca/english/news/guelph-subdivision-upgraded-to-ctc.htm

I'll dig for more detail/reference later for that. The story was notable in Guelph where I was resident at that time, some odd questions as to placement of CTC plant directly on the Silvercreek crossing where a bridge was planned by the City, but I digress...

VIA has had a foot in on that stretch for some time, and promised two more slots that have yet to materialize. There's more of a story on-going that what we're getting. And the Silvercreek crossing? That's ML owned now. Too many left hands not knowing whose right they have.

Addendum: There's a lot of dead links on-line, but Google cache reveals this pdf intact:

PNR RailWorks’ Signals & Communi-
cations Division has installed a new
centralized traffic control (CTC) system
along the Guelph Subdivision in Southern
Ontario. The project included 90 miles of
new wayside signal equipment, setting
the stage for safer, faster and more fre-
quent service for lines like Via Rail. This
Via Rail train is passing through Guelph
at Yorkshire Road, where PNR RailWorks
installed two of nearly 100 automatic
warning devices.
[...]
PNR RailWorks served as general contractor on the project for the
Goderich–Exeter Railway (GEXR), operator of the subdivision, which
covers 90 miles between London and the Toronto suburb of George-
town, ON. CN, Via Rail and Metrolinx, all of which own sections of the
corridor, also will benefit from the improvements.
[...]

https://webcache.googleusercontent....6.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=ubuntu

Will pore over this later, and dig for more reference. Something is odd, we're either missing an agreement with CN, and/or ML and/or VIA, or the 'CN take-back' is not what is being claimed.

Let me ask this: Why would VIA pay for the CTC (been alluded to in other stories by Stephen Host, posted by me in this string prior) if there wasn't some kind of binding agreement justifying the investment? It wouldn't be the first time VIA is played for the fool if the case, but something tells me there's some kind of agreement still on this.

And other posters have noted, and I saw and took pics of this Summer posted in this string, Metrolinx is replacing the track from Silvercreek to Yorkshire Rd.

Questions abound....

https://m.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/our-company/corporate-plan/Corporate Plan-2012-2016 - EN.pdf

There's got to be a binding agreement...or was...

 

[crs1026]

In all fairness CN wasn't really in a position to sell the line prior to GEXR vacating it, so this could be an opportunity for VIA. Also, I'd assume that VIA would do more upgrades than just replacing ties. Hoping that CN doesn't clog it with freight.

If CN had the freight to run, I’m sure they would clog the line... but it isn’t there....yet. CN appears to have a curiously fierce interest in retaining rights to traffic in Southern Ontario, however. They seem to have insights into potential business that are downright bullish. More than in the past, CN appears willing to accept the cost of the branches, perhaps because the goods make a long run on their main routes, generating lots of revenue.

A lot has changed in the environment in twenty years, too. For instance: One of the commodities that is a growth product for rail in Southern Ontario recently is propane. After Lac Megantic, it may be less appealing for CN to have a tenant railway - one with a penchant for deferring maintenance - hauling that kind of product.... if something bad happens, the liability may find its way back to CN, where in past days CN could wash their hands of anything the tenant screwed up.

On the Hagersville line, CN has taken back the branch line, but is leaving the terminal switching with a contractor. It will be interesting to see how operations on the Stratford line are handled.

My point being - somehow CN appears to be genuinely interested in building/protecting freight traffic on this route. That’s bad for GO and VIA, but I’m not ready to digress into other theories.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

They seem to have insights into potential business that are downright bullish. More than in the past, CN appears willing to accept the cost of the branches, perhaps because the goods make a long run on their main routes, generating lots of revenue.

CN may be playing a tough card game, and bluffing at this point. They might even know that agreements have already set the ship sailing on anything but shared use, and this is an attempt to 'squeeze what they can' out of the status-quo. It might be a more aggressive corporate policy. They might have ML 'over the barrel' with the Brampton by-pass, they might be trying same with VIA.

I wonder if the lawyers have been involved yet behind the scenes?

 

[crs1026]

Stuff like this - plus other things that one hears - makes me think it’s not a bluff. CN has come back in a pretty thorough way. Not to say they wouldn’t factor their leverage into an asking price, and hold out to sell for an inflated amount.... but they are not squatting in hopes of a quick sale.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

A sale is another issue. There's no doubt on ownership, it's the basis of the agreements that vexes. Ostensibly, something gave VIA the basis to sink money into CTC for the line to London. And yet they still can't get the two slots they need to run promised service?

I suspect there's a legal challenge coming.

 

[crs1026]

^The CTC was a Transport Canada driven thing. One could argue that GO and VIA should have split the cost - it enabled the current fleeted GO service, which with manual blocks would have made TC understandably twitchy. Good on VIA for swallowing the cost.

Don’t read too much into the press puffery. It is a very spartan CTC installation. It was not designed to enable much added service. IIRC The added slots thing was something D-S claimed, but VIA hasn’t indicated any desire to exercise that option.

Installing CTC was a prudent investment to boost the safety envelope, but that investment doesn’t change VIA’s opportunity or rights to use the line to a larger degree.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Don’t read too much into the press puffery.

What "press puffery"?

It is a very spartan CTC installation. It was not designed to enable much added service.

That never was the intention, but it would be the outcome.VIA are on record of wishing two more slots, one outgoing, one in. There's some question as to whether Metrolinx have used one from reports I've read.

IIRC The added slots thing was something D-S claimed, but VIA hasn’t indicated any desire to exercise that option.

I've read otherwise, and Stephen Host was the author of one reference. VIA rail didn't install the CTC for the benefit of freight operations, or ML west of Kitchener. I was a Transportation Board ruling I believe.

Installing CTC was a prudent investment to boost the safety envelope, but that investment doesn’t change VIA’s opportunity or rights to use the line to a larger degree.

I never indicated it would. I stated "signed agreements".

I'm digging on the background, many of the references are no long live links. I'll find them though.

But let's flip this over:

One could argue that GO and VIA should have split the cost - it enabled the current fleeted GO service, which with manual blocks would have made TC understandably twitchy. Good on VIA for swallowing the cost.

Sorry, I don't see the logic in that. ML doesn't run west of Kitchener. And other aspects don't add up. We need to know more about the agreement on which CTSB based CTC installation was necessary, and under what operating conditions (I assume it was under a track warrant previously) . Was it just the TSB ruling? And how did GEXR become party to the installation if they were just tenants? That must have been in their agreement with CN, but that also raises questions...