Northern Light
Superstar
I see a discussion on Twitter I want to bring over here for UT expert opinion...... @smallspy , @crs1026, @Urban Sky Thoughts?
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
crs1026
Senior Member
^ My reaction would be, there may be impacts west of Toronto but worrying about these may be a case of worrying about small stuff.
CN handles a significant volume of petroleum products and chemicals through Brampton to Georgetown, and then down thru Milton. ,Not much is western oil, most is refinery products eg from Sarnia refineries and to/from the US. So certainly there will be trains with more than 20 cars of affected goods, and these will be slowed. But, these trains are not normally moving all that much faster in that zone anyways, and the delays caused will be minimal and/or manageable. Consider that turnouts on this route often limit trains to 30 mph’s anyways. I would expect the biggest delays would be from Sarnia-London to Burlington which would impact Windsor VIA trains much more.
The bigger thing to watch will be the total cessation of freight and VIA service east of Toronto due to the First Nations’ blockade. If this action is more than a one-off protest, and it may well be the start of concerted pressure on the Feds over pipeline construction and indigenous rights over development generally, the loss of revenue for VIA will make any delays west of Toronto look insignificant. Already, freight is backing up thanks to that blockade, and that may cause delays to GO and VIA if the freight yard in Maple becomes congested.
The Minister’s action is likely not sustainable for long haul petroleum movement generally. One has to think that it is a deliberate attempt to highlight how important pipelines are, and how undesirable the rail alternative is. It may well be a shot against one or more railways after successive incidents, but as a safety precaution it has more symbollic and political value than actually making things safer. I can’t believe the government really wants to impact traffic handling other than for a quick PR exercise.
Congestion between Georgetown and Kitchener is a whole different story with its own causes, and there isn’t much petro hauled there anyways. So I wouldn’t worry about the Ministerial order causing any problems there. That headache will remain as it is.
- Paul
CN handles a significant volume of petroleum products and chemicals through Brampton to Georgetown, and then down thru Milton. ,Not much is western oil, most is refinery products eg from Sarnia refineries and to/from the US. So certainly there will be trains with more than 20 cars of affected goods, and these will be slowed. But, these trains are not normally moving all that much faster in that zone anyways, and the delays caused will be minimal and/or manageable. Consider that turnouts on this route often limit trains to 30 mph’s anyways. I would expect the biggest delays would be from Sarnia-London to Burlington which would impact Windsor VIA trains much more.
The bigger thing to watch will be the total cessation of freight and VIA service east of Toronto due to the First Nations’ blockade. If this action is more than a one-off protest, and it may well be the start of concerted pressure on the Feds over pipeline construction and indigenous rights over development generally, the loss of revenue for VIA will make any delays west of Toronto look insignificant. Already, freight is backing up thanks to that blockade, and that may cause delays to GO and VIA if the freight yard in Maple becomes congested.
The Minister’s action is likely not sustainable for long haul petroleum movement generally. One has to think that it is a deliberate attempt to highlight how important pipelines are, and how undesirable the rail alternative is. It may well be a shot against one or more railways after successive incidents, but as a safety precaution it has more symbollic and political value than actually making things safer. I can’t believe the government really wants to impact traffic handling other than for a quick PR exercise.
Congestion between Georgetown and Kitchener is a whole different story with its own causes, and there isn’t much petro hauled there anyways. So I wouldn’t worry about the Ministerial order causing any problems there. That headache will remain as it is.
- Paul
Last edited:
Allandale25
Senior Member
^ I wonder if this gives CN any incentive to restore it's track through northern Ontario and Quebec so that they can create an alternative route? I realize it'd be expensive.
Or are they now able to use the Massena Rail Line they bought? Maybe this also adds to the incentive for VIA to get HFR tracks so there can be an alternative.
Or are they now able to use the Massena Rail Line they bought? Maybe this also adds to the incentive for VIA to get HFR tracks so there can be an alternative.
crs1026
Senior Member
^There was a second blockade on a different line today.. I suspect an additional line would just lead to an additional blockade.
Hopefully these protests deliver their message and then service resumes.
- Paul
Hopefully these protests deliver their message and then service resumes.
- Paul
lenaitch
Senior Member
More lines would only mean more potential sites, seeing as CN, CP orVIA have absolutely nothing to do with the topic being protested.
smallspy
Senior Member
At least at CN, there are no projected impacts to service.
Their intention, for the next 30 days at least, is to rejig the marshalling of their trains in order to keep the number of cars with the specified hazardous materials - it's not just crude, but also a number of different chemicals that can become aerosolized upon release - to 20 cars per train or less. As for unit trains - most of which are coming from Western Canada anyways - they'll just try and run everything else around them.
This means that by-and-large, there shouldn't be any issues to do with lots of slow-moving trains. The network should flow more-or-less as per normal. And this also means that there shouldn't be many-to-any negative effects on VIA or GO services.
As Paul correctly points out, the specific issues between Georgetown and Brampton (Silver and Halwest junctions) have nothing to do with any of this, but are part of a larger capacity issue. An issue, I might add, which has kind of resolved itself in a temporary manner as freight traffic has fallen about 15% over the past year.
Dan
dowlingm
Senior Member
there is a view in some quarters that rail is fair game because of the history of railways and colonialization.
I think blocking the 401, or the approach roads to YYZ or YOW would be more effective in inconveniencing those who have the power in this process, but there is a lot less effort (and less pushback from police) in blocking a grade crossing I guess.
lenaitch
Senior Member
There have been pop-up blockades on some Ontario highways over the past several months in support of/protesting various things that don't make the broader media.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
If I was a protester, I would rather trust professional locomotive engineers (who are paid regardless of whether the line is opened or blocked) than motorized individuals to not “plough through [the protest site]”, as has been suggested in the comments section on VIA’s Facebook page...
Last edited:
crs1026
Senior Member
It's confusing because a) CN has their own police force, so the task of clearing a blockade would logically fall on their shoulders - but their police force is small and likely never trained for that kind of work and b) Minister Garneau was quoted in the press today as saying that policing blockades is a provincial matter and it falls on the provincial police to handle.
Personally, I think that giving the protesters a huge PR win by having a direct confrontation with the Police, which would be immediately circulated around the world and leave toxic symbols for years to come, would be a foolish step. And CN, while having the legal high ground in the form of injunctions, is not well served by tempting blockaders to find another location and start over. There are thousands of miles of right of way, and almost all of them are a potential pinch point.
Which makes one ask what other levers might be deployed. There likely are some, but every action has a reaction. I do think we are seeing the opening moves in a national chess game. A move only has meaning in relation to the overall game.
- Paul
Allandale25
Senior Member
lenaitch
Senior Member
I thought I read somewhere that the Desoronto protesters are not 'on' the ROW but close enough to prevent safe operations, but could possibly be mistaken. The whole idea of railway police is an anachronism in today's terms, but a whole different topic. You are correct that there are so few that they would be unable to respond in any meaningful way. I am assuming that the court injunction directs it either to the OPP specifically or the police force of jurisdiction.
The OPP is culturally petrified of a confrontation with FN protestors and have been ever since Ipperwash. A press release says they intend to enforce the injunction, so we will see. If they do not, they run the risk of being held in contempt, which happened in Caledonia before it was negated by the province buying the tract in issue.
A conundrum that is likely never to be resolved is the selective unwillingness by FNs to abide by the court's decisions, in actions they often initiated. If they take a matter to court and win, it is celebrated and demand the other party - usually the government - immediately comply. If they lose, it is ignored and claimed that 'settler's law' doesn't apply to them. Another issue is impact on other First Nations that are harmed by the stalled projects. Many other nations have signed onto these projects, but seem reluctant to speak up.
SunriseChampion
Senior Member
Cool story, but unceded land is unceded land. Not that those that ceded land with all the scam treaties are doing any better, mind.
Not sure why land that is unceded and therefore belongs to the Wet'suw'eten is even in play here. What, because Indian Act-imposed "chiefs" that are nonesuch by those peoples' traditional ways (but I guess the whole residential school genocide ploy didn't work, so let's get 'em somehow) signed agreements that no one is able to see and most deffo include bribes?
CGL was given opportunity to revise their plans back in 2014 when they were talking to the hereditary chiefs and didn't want to budge on their proposed route, likely for financial reasons. So, a private company's finances are to trump the sovereign rights of a nation? Cool story, tell it again.
This place is a mess. Any honourable people would honour treaties they sign and would recognise the inherent sovereignty of those on unceded land.
Why anyone would expect these people to play by the rules set out by those same people who don't follow their own treaty obligations and laws with respect to sovereign nations on this land is beyond me.
It's long past time that non-indigenous people wake up and realise the absolute shitshow that was imposed on these people and that the bare minimum of a start to fixing it is to honour the treaties and respect the sovereignty over unceded land that nations hold.
It's very, very simple if we could all just get our heads out of our economic arseholes for a minute and stop counting pennies.
I'm European af, but I get it. Maybe because my people were until about 30 years ago subjugated by outsiders for the better part of the last half millenium so I know what it's like to have others show up, scam you out of what is yours and tell you it's for your own good. I mean....that's basically what the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia was actually, come to think of it. "We're doing this for your own good....trust us...."
lenaitch
Senior Member
Some fair points and to be quite honest the whole unceded lands thing is a little unclear to me as it is more, although not exclusively a western thing. My exposure is exclusively in Ontario and primarily in the north, where all land is covered by treaty (whether honoured in entirety might be well argued). I suppose one of the things the government could do is ask the First Nations, amongst themselves, to sort out who represents them, and then deal with that or those bodies.
The government is also caught between our law which, in dealings with First Nations, speaks of "meaningful consultation", and the UN declaration (made by a body that has nothing at stake) that declared "consent" is necessary. By whom is the question. A small group, or even a single person, can declare themselves sovereign and gum up everything. On top of that, the Supreme Court extended their engagement to "traditional lands". What is that if not everywhere. A First Nations member could camp out in your back yard and claim sovereignty.
I absolutely get that history is not in our favour, but we have to find a way to reconcile the past and move forward at the same time. Strangling the very economy we all (they and we) depend on isn't it.
The government is also caught between our law which, in dealings with First Nations, speaks of "meaningful consultation", and the UN declaration (made by a body that has nothing at stake) that declared "consent" is necessary. By whom is the question. A small group, or even a single person, can declare themselves sovereign and gum up everything. On top of that, the Supreme Court extended their engagement to "traditional lands". What is that if not everywhere. A First Nations member could camp out in your back yard and claim sovereignty.
I absolutely get that history is not in our favour, but we have to find a way to reconcile the past and move forward at the same time. Strangling the very economy we all (they and we) depend on isn't it.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
*Strong nod at the disclaimer In my signature, in case it’s not obvious enough that I write solely on behalf of myself*
I saw today this no less excellent article in The Globe&Mail, which goes really in-depth to explain the underlying issues of self-representation when it comes to First Nations:
/arc-anglerfish-tgam-prod-tgam.s3.amazonaws.com/public/5GIRILM6D5AWLFUUNJ744DTBOU.JPG)
www.theglobeandmail.com
Excellent, though slightly bitter, summary, which resonates with my also “European af” perspective, though as a German less from a “victim solidarisation” than a “the only way to regain trust is to unconditionally reconciliate” angle...
I saw today this no less excellent article in The Globe&Mail, which goes really in-depth to explain the underlying issues of self-representation when it comes to First Nations:
As I said, highly recommended read:
Beyond bloodlines: How the Wet’suwet’en hereditary system at the heart of the Coastal GasLink conflict works
Wet’suwet’en Nation hereditary chiefs say pipelines cannot be built through their territory without their consent. Their governance system is complex and rooted in cultural traditions. But there are disagreements over how it works and who benefits
www.theglobeandmail.com