VIA Rail

[crs1026]

What "press puffery"?

The writeup you cited on what a great project this was, and the early interviews by D-S about VIA’s vision.

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...

The CTC runs all the way to Silver. GO introduced two daily trains that followed each other on fairly close headways, plus a VIA train and at least one freight run, all in the same general time slice. Then GO wanted to go to four trains each way. How does one keep those trains from colliding? Prior to the CTC, it was left to the train crews and the RTC to coordinate verbally using radio and cellphones. That approach is far from fail-safe. Read this to get a feel for how that approach did in fact fail.

True, it’s not GO’s problem west of Kitchener, but they are a major benefactor of the CTC east of there. GO inherited similar conditions when it bought the Barrie and Stouffville lines, and for a time operated using manual blocks and protect-against procedures on those lines. Eventually that became inadequate, and GO paid for CTC. Guelph Sub is no different in the essence.

The nature of GEXR’s involvement was pretty obvious. I’m renting a property from you. You want to come on our property and install something, for your benefit? OK, but on a mutually agreeable manner. GEXR had no need for the signalling - absent the passenger service, it could run at acceptable risk as a “dark territory”. The presence of passenger service is what raised the risk and demanded a lower risk tolerance. VIA and GO were sub-lessors of GEXR who leased from CN. No tenant is going to agree to disruption that it doesn’t need.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

What "press puffery"?

The writeup you cited on what a great project this was, and the early interviews by D-S about VIA’s vision.

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...

The CTC runs all the way to Silver. GO introduced two daily trains that followed each other on fairly close headways, plus a VIA train and at least one freight run, all in the same general time slice. Then GO wanted to go to four trains each way. How does one keep those trains from colliding? Prior to the CTC, it was left to the train crews and the RTC to coordinate verbally using radio and cellphones. That approach is far from fail-safe. Read this to get a feel for how that approach did in fact fail.

True, it’s not GO’s problem west of Kitchener, but they are a major benefactor of the CTC east of there. GO inherited similar conditions when it bought the Barrie and Stouffville lines, and for a time operated using manual blocks and protect-against procedures on those lines. Eventually that became inadequate, and GO paid for CTC. Guelph Sub is no different in the essence.

The nature of GEXR’s involvement was pretty obvious. I’m renting a property from you. You want to come on our property and install something, for your benefit? OK, but on a mutually agreeable manner. GEXR had no need for the signalling - absent the passenger service, it could run at acceptable risk as a “dark territory”. The presence of passenger service is what raised the risk and demanded a lower risk tolerance. VIA and GO were sub-lessors of GEXR who leased from CN. No tenant is going to agree to disruption that it doesn’t need.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

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

I suspect there's a legal challenge coming.

Have a look in VIA's timetable and try to identify any trains they operate which aren't using any of CN's tracks (you may verify track ownership on the Railway Association of Canada's excellent online railway atlas) and you might understand the following quote:

VIA CEO Yves Desjardins-Siciliano recently told Trains magazine, “One has to accept that VIA has a pocket knife in a gunfight with CN.”

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

I would offer the following quote from the 2018 ANNUAL PUBLIC MEETING QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS – Part 3:

4. Q: In June 2015, Mr. Desjardins-Siciliano told the Stratford Chamber of Commerce that VIA planned to run a new morning train from Stratford to Toronto with an afternoon return, beginning in early 2016. In that same month, he told the Sarnia Chamber of Commerce that VIA planned to run four round trips a day to Sarnia, beginning in 2016. In November 2015, he told the Halifax Chronicle-Herald that VIA could begin running local Campbellton-Moncton and Moncton-Halifax trains by spring 2016. What is the current status of those plans? Why can't the City of Sarnia get a decent daily selection of trains at more convenient times?
A: Since this time, VIA Rail has been continually working to add train frequencies in Southwestern Ontario. However, we are subject to negotiations with the owner of the railway infrastructure. It has been very difficult, given the constant increase in freight traffic, to find more times for VIA Rail trains. As for Campbellton-Moncton, the host railway has demonstrated a need for significant infrastructure investments which did not allow VIA Rail to implement this plan earlier. We are still working towards this goal.

 

[steveintoronto]

VIA and GO were sub-lessors of GEXR who leased from CN. No tenant is going to agree to disruption that it doesn’t need.

VIA had an arrangement with the "owner"...CN, not GEXR. Both, according to references I quoted, had contracts up until the same date, albeit I'm still digging to find better reference for that. There's still the question of VIA's basis for installing the CTC. Was it ordered by TC on the basis of the CTSB report? Or if voluntarily, did it become the property of CN on the section west of Kitchener when the contract ended?

The CTC was a Transport Canada driven thing.

I agree, that track was "dark" prior, and saw a number of accidents/incidents. My question remains: What was the contract basis for VIA being the financier of it?

GO inherited similar conditions when it bought the Barrie and Stouffville lines,

VIA doesn't own any of the stretch being discussed, that's exactly the point.

The nature of GEXR’s involvement was pretty obvious. I’m renting a property from you. You want to come on our property and install something, for your benefit?

It isn't now, and never was GEXR (G&W) property. Again, that's the point. There may have been an operating agreement in the contract that G&W were to administer such eventualities, along with track maintenance and depreciation, but it remains a curious point. I can find no reference to it being a cost to anyone but VIA.

VIA and GO were sub-lessors of GEXR who leased from CN.

So VIA's contract with CN was subsumed when GEXR signed one with CN? And Metrolinx didn't own most of the line west to Kitchener when the CTC was installed?

This all begs more questions than the answers you proffer.

Addendum: Since I remember Stephen Host as being the source of some discussion on this point, I've been searching using his name as one of the tags on the (gist) 'VIA wish for more slots' on the North Main Line. He asks the proverbial point I am on VIA alone 'footing the bill' for CTC on that line:

http://www.railpictures.ca/upload/h...-is-ctc-controlled-with-one-small-exception-d

And indeed, the section from Hanlon east to Alma is now fenced off with high chainlink.... lol...already breached.

Comments to the above include a correction:

1. Stephen C. Host
   November 20, 2015 at 9:12 pm
   Thanks RLK 2211. The record needs to be correct.
   
   
2. RLK2211
   November 19, 2015 at 7:04 am
   Hmmm….gonna run the risk here of upsetting the cncpguy….but the entire Guelph Sub is CTC now, there’s no OCS island at the west end of Kitchener.
   Only OCS on GEXR now is the Goderich Sub and the Exeter Sub.
   
   
3. Mark MacCauley
   November 18, 2015 at 8:02 pm
   It’s interesting you should mention that this was Via’s busiest dark territory , Steve. I recently skimmed a TSB report from 2006 about about a near cornfield meet between 87 and 518, where 87 called the wrong GEXR crew to get clearance through 518 work limits. Perhaps that incident had something to do with Via’s initiative?
   
   
4. Stephen C. Host
   November 18, 2015 at 1:55 pm
   Thanks. That’s why we have a database editor. Requests for corrections are always completed.
   Think of it this way, if we did offer editing to everyone, what if the edits are wrong or rogue? still need someone to approve the edits. It makes no difference doing it by means of a request.
   
   
5. jp4pix
   November 18, 2015 at 1:50 pm
   Really nice picture and explanation Stephen. Wee slip with the date, 12/17 is a month in the future. Wish I could get my own caption and data errors fixed.
   
   
6. Stephen C. Host
   November 18, 2015 at 8:34 am
   They are now Control Points, JP. Noble_trade, the word on the street is King St may become OCS again – up in the air, otherwise they have to maintain/install CTC on the shoo-fly, which also includes Huron Park spur switch re-alignment so it could happen, we will see.
   
   
7. JP
   November 18, 2015 at 8:27 am
   Nice shot Steve. I thought I saw a ‘mileboard’ sign at this control point. I see the bungalow already got tagged.
   
   
8. Alex Sanders
   November 17, 2015 at 10:26 pm
   Nice Steve! I was on the bus to the tracks at this point
   
   
9. Stephen C. Host
   November 17, 2015 at 10:21 pm
   Steve, corrected.
   
   
10. noble_trade
    November 17, 2015 at 9:58 pm
    There is no more OCS on the Guelph Sub now Stephen.
    
    
11. danjohn289
    November 17, 2015 at 9:47 pm
    With CTC fully operational, it would be nice to see a few more VIA trains…I wonder if this line will be getting the Budds?

 

[crs1026]

^OK, penny now dropping....you are asking who holds title to the signalling and what assurances did VIA get in exchange for its gift, er, investment?

I don't know the answer to that. Short of a FOI request, you aren't likely to get it directly.

However, we may be able to infer the answer based on the much bigger investment that GO made in track and signalling to the CN line between Bramalea and Georgetown around 2009. The funding for that deal probably bought GO a pretty nice Swiss Army knife.

- Paul

PS - I have been told that GO and CN are in discussions about what to do with the signalling, in light of a) the CN takeover and b) the move to GO dispatching its own trackage. The signalling, while perfectly functional, has some differences from both CN and GO standard for CTC. No resolution but it seems that CN wants to make one set of technical changes west of Kitchener while GO wants to make a different set of technical changes east of Kitchener. So I would infer that CN and GO are splitting the management of this resource.

 

[steveintoronto]

you are asking who holds title to the signalling and what assurances did VIA get in exchange for its gift, er, investment?

Close, but still not germane to the question of VIA wanting more slots, and CN's 'change of heart' (albeit their *probably* having every legal right to) on the present to future freight usage of the line.

If I offer a contract to you, to lease my underused private laneway, but I still have RoW to access my small property from it, but then decide that I need to move my construction equipment daily along it, any time I choose...you have the grounds to contest that 'change of agreed use' in court, if a satisfactory agreement isn't worked out before it reaches that point.

Not to mention that I installed lighting along that laneway to meet the local bylaw safety requirements for usage I can't now fully use.

You're right on the FOI aspect, in fact that might even be denied, as VIA searches have been before. IIRC, CN has even obtained injunctions to prevent FOI releases.

But the question remains: What is the legal case now for VIA gaining the slots it thought it would, but *evidently* now can't?

Edit to Add: This is intriguing:

PS - I have been told that GO and CN are in discussions about what to do with the signalling, in light of a) the CN takeover and b) the move to GO dispatching its own trackage. The signalling, while perfectly functional, has some differences from both CN and GO standard for CTC. No resolution but it seems that CN wants to make one set of technical changes west of Kitchener while GO wants to make a different set of technical changes east of Kitchener. So I would infer that CN and GO are splitting the management of this resource.

That might be another way of 'peering' into the mystery box. My issue isn't with VIA, I think we all agree they've been 'bashed and abused'...which is another way of saying the taxpayer has been paying extortion to hush it all up. My issue is with CN *ostensibly* treating contractual agreements as being pliable in any way they wish.

I'll continue to dig on this, as it's a very important point...and perhaps...just *perhaps*...Metrolinx might be a bit more aggressive legally over this. Your 'PS' is excellent fodder to dig on.

...it seems that CN wants to make one set of technical changes west of Kitchener while GO wants to make a different set of technical changes east of Kitchener.

Interesting in itself. TC might have to intercede/arbitrate on that. The CTA might even have an 'interest' in it.

 

[crs1026]

I'll continue to dig on this, as it's a very important point...and perhaps...just *perhaps*...Metrolinx might be a bit more aggressive legally over this. Your 'PS' is excellent fodder to dig on.
Interesting in itself. TC might have to intercede/arbitrate on that. The CTA might even have an 'interest' in it.

The technical issue I alluded to is innocuous - the signalling equivalent of whether to use Samsung or iPhone, and Bell or Rogers.. I mentioned it simply to convey that GO and CN have started making decisions over their segments of the line - “you go your way and I’ll go mine” kind of thing. With no presence or involvement from VIA, who basically get an invoice for their use of the line but don’t manage the plant hands-on in any way.

It’s pretty clear that VIA remains a tenant without leverage, signals or no signals. The slow progress on the pursuit of the Bypass and Mount Pleasant GO service says all we need to say about ML’s legal options.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

PS - I have been told that GO and CN are in discussions about what to do with the signalling, in light of a) the CN takeover and b) the move to GO dispatching its own trackage. The signalling, while perfectly functional, has some differences from both CN and GO standard for CTC. No resolution but it seems that CN wants to make one set of technical changes west of Kitchener while GO wants to make a different set of technical changes east of Kitchener. So I would infer that CN and GO are splitting the management of this resource.

My understanding is that from GO's position, there is no discussion - dispatching of their section of the line will continue to be done by the RailServe in Dorval.

Rightly or wrongly, they feel that this will help them in their transfer to their own RTC facility in 20-mumble-mumble.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

To add more detail to the CTC on the Guelph Sub, how it was tendered, and on who assumed costs, and why: (Cross posted from the GO Construction string, October 7, 2017)

I was digging to find out what has been tendered in the past on this, and why Guelph is still stuck with the infamous 10 mph Go Slow section:

Notice Description

OPEN ADVERTISEMENT - GEXR CTC AND CROSSING UPGRADE PROJECT

Companies interested in bidding on the proposed project must contact Kristine Storm, AVP Purchasing in writing at kristine.storm@railamerica.com no later than Tuesday the 9th of July, 2012 to be prequalified in order to obtain the instructions on how to acquire the Tender Documents electronically.


1.0 OVERVIEW
1.1 Object
You are invited to submit a Tender for work that will include the supply of all labor, material, equipment and superintendence to undertake the following projects on the Goderich-Exeter Railway Company Ltd’s Guelph Subdivision in the Province of Ontario:
1.1.1 CTC: Design, Supply, Install, Test and Commission of a Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) system consisting of 5 sidings, two interface points with CN, one interface point with CP’s Bucke Diamond, intermediate signals and CTC repeaters on the GEXR Guelph Subdivision between Mile 30.00 and Mile 119.12.
1.1.2 CROSSING UPGRADES: Design, Supply, Install or Modify/Upgrade, test and commission Automatic Warning Device systems.
The extent of the required Work, the details, and the conditions under which the Work shall be performed, are outlined in the Section 2 entitled Scope of Work & Special Provisions and Section 3 entitled Signal Technical Specifications contained in these Tender documents.
1.2 Completion of the work
Work shall be completed by Friday, May 2, 2014 and as such, tender prices and schedules shall be prepared guided by this date, working back to a proposed start date in order to attain this completion target.
1.3 Closing Date
Tenders must be received no later than 1400 hrs (2:00 p.m. - Eastern Standard Time) on Monday, August 20, 2012.
1.3 Mandatory Requirements
- Bid Bonds
- Consent of Surety for Performance Bond and Labour & material Payment Bond
- Undertaking for Insurance

http://www.merx.com/English/Supplier_menu.asp?WCE=Show&TAB=3&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PR248098&HID=&src=nm&searchtype=&hcode=FmWN/8/ECVSxyajCbr7VvA==

And here we are, still with the Go Slow. (IIRC between mile 48.8 and 49.8)

Edit to Add: Some more background from Railway Age, written by Steve Host, who writes about local rail issues for a number of publications:

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/communications/guelph-subdivision-upgraded-to-ctc.html

Anyone have details on the order from TC, and why this didn't satisfy their requirements to at least increase the 'Go Slow' speed?

That "Go Slow" is now being addressed, but the Railway Age link is now dead. I tracked the article to being hosted on a new site:

Guelph Subdivision Upgraded To CTC

By Steve Host
For Railway Age Magazine

VIA Rail on Nov. 14, 2015, commissioned CTC (centralized traffic control) on its entire North Mainline (Guelph Subdivision) between Georgetown and London, Ontario, Canada.In conjunction with the Genesee & Wyoming’s Goderich-Exeter Railway, which leases the right-of-way from CN for freight service, and GO Transit/Metrolinx, which recently purchased the Kitchener-Georgetown section of the line from CN, VIA Rail fully funded the C$25 million upgrade program. PNR Railworks contracted to perform the work.The CTC project includes new wayside signals; new crossing protection (conforming to Transport Canada regulations), upgrading all crossings to automatic warning devices; automatic remotely controlled switches; and switch heaters at three passing sidings (Kellys, Stratford, Kitchener). Railterm will continue to dispatch the line.CTC is expected to increase capacity on the line, allowing VIA and Metrolinx to increase train frequencies. Metrolinx plans to add two more departures to/from Kitchener by 2016 or 2017. VIA Rail initially planned to add up to three departures when the project was planned some 8 years ago, but delays due to disagreements with freight operator Goderich-Exeter, and the recent addition of GO Transit departures out of Kitchener may curtail VIA’s plans.CTC also has the potential to increase safety. In 1999, a deadly accident caused by a misaligned switch occurred at Thamesville, Ontario, in what was then dark territory on the CN Chatham Subdivision. As a result, upgrades to busy passenger lines in Ontario were quickly completed to avoid a repeat, but the North Mainline remained dark territory. In 2006, two near misses, both involving freight and passenger trains, occurred on the North Mainline. They are the likely catalyst to finalize funding and construction of this project.

Submitted by Greg Gormick and now found at: (link dead)

http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df4/df11232015.shtml

I still have questions as to the regulatory issues of CN's reassertion of claimed rights on the line, even segments where ownership title is clearly CN's. I find it difficult to believe VIA footed the entire cost of CTC if their contract was short-lived, and terminated at the same time as GEXR's.

There's more to this story...

 

[crs1026]

My understanding is that from GO's position, there is no discussion - dispatching of their section of the line will continue to be done by the RailServe in Dorval.

Rightly or wrongly, they feel that this will help them in their transfer to their own RTC facility in 20-mumble-mumble.

Exactly what I was hearing. The point being - CN may take its portion and do something else.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

Speaking of Dorval what if the station there was converted such that there was proper transfer to the REM at PET. Via doesn’t use that line though does it?

The CP and CN tracks are adacent to each other. There's a spot where the north VIA platform and the south AMT platform are only separated by a fence. Though bizarrely you have to walk along the 520, or from a walkway from the VIA platform to the AMT bus station and then through their tunnel under the VIA tracks back to the AMT tracks.

The airport is about a kilometre away. So close, but not accessible. Without extending the REM I don't see that it would be a transfer location.

 

[nephersir7]

Speaking of Dorval what if the station there was converted such that there was proper transfer to the REM at PET. Via doesn’t use that line though does it?

The airport is about a kilometre away. So close, but not accessible. Without extending the REM I don't see that it would be a transfer location.

Flashback to ~2005. They had it all figured out.

 

[robmausser]

https://www.railwaygazette.com/news...eded-under-c6bn-via-rail-investment-plan.html

CANADA: National passenger operator VIA Rail says that private-sector backing will be needed to support an investment programme worth more than C$6bn over the next decade.

Chief Executive Yves Desjardins-Siciliano told the Terrapinn World Rail Festival conference in Amsterdam on November 13 that VIA Rail’s most pressing priority is to select a supplier for fleet of push-pull trainsets to replace rolling stock on its core Québec City – Windsor route. He said that a preferred bidder would be named before the end of this year.

VIA Rail is looking to procure 32 push-pull trainsets, offering improved accessibility, Tier 4 compliant and more fuel-efficient diesel engines and the option to operate on electrified lines in the future.

Four companies have prequalified: Bombardier Transportation Canada, Siemens Canada, Stadler US and Talgo. The new trainsets are expected to enter service from 2022.

I found this part interesting:

He also suggested that the province of Ontario would confirm its intent by April next year to proceed with construction of a new alignment for passenger trains between Toronto and London. While this has been referred to as a high speed line, Desjardins-Siciliano suggested that the maximum operating speed would ‘not be much more than 200 km/h’, reflecting a need for inter-city trains to stop at least every 100 km to serve a densely populated region. ‘At present we are dependent on using freight trackage, but infrastructure in North America is fundamentally unsuited to passenger rail operations.’

He believed that some private sector funding would be needed to complete the second phase between London and Windsor. ‘Canada is attractive to institutional investors because of its economic health and geopolitical stability. Canadian pension funds have already invested in rail infrastructure projects around the world.’

The way he is talking about this is like the HSR for Ontario will somehow be involved with Via. Like Via will operate it or be in partnership. Or maybe he is just speaking off hand about another project unrelated to VIA. Either way its weird to hear him speculate about this.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

https://www.railwaygazette.com/news...eded-under-c6bn-via-rail-investment-plan.html





I found this part interesting:



The way he is talking about this is like the HSR for Ontario will somehow be involved with Via. Like Via will operate it or be in partnership. Or maybe he is just speaking off hand about another project unrelated to VIA. Either way its weird to hear him speculate about this.

VIA has always wanted to extend High Frequency Rail to Windsor as a phase 2, and I assume the way that YDS is discussing it, he wants VIA to be the operator. I don't think HSR will ever see the light of day under Ford, so VIA taking over the project, using the Kitchener, Stratford, London alignment, and upgrading track etc could be a good compromise. The London-Kitchener segment is pretty straight, and could see VIA trains running up to 177 km/h (Transport Canada speed limit on rail to road crossings). The only major remaining problem is the bottleneck between Georgetown and Bramalea.

 

[crs1026]

Ontario's fall budget statement did devote a paragraph to High Speed Rail. They only said they were continuing to study - but - considering how vague they were about many other things, the fact that this item even made it to the budget statement is interesting. Doesn't mean they are in the game, but it's a far cry from deep-sixing the whole idea. For a government that has been blunt in other areas, this is somewhat mellow.

- Paul