VIA Rail

[TRONto]

Metrolinx is 5 years into GO Electrification and not yet awarded the tender which is expected to be around 10 years to construct. It also took 3 years got an Ontario Northland railway business plan (not even an EA).

I'm not sure Ontario could finish a project like that any faster; too many distractions with higher political value.

Metrolinx seems to be moving faster under the current government so it wouldn't surprise me if the electrification tender is around the corner.

I think that the province should build the HSR to a final length of Windsor - Kingston/Ottawa and pay VIA to run it. This model is used in the US with Amtrak and would make VIA much more useful in Ontario. Thoughts?

 

[Allandale25]

Metrolinx seems to be moving faster under the current government so it wouldn't surprise me if the electrification tender is around the corner.

I think that the province should build the HSR to a final length of Windsor - Kingston/Ottawa and pay VIA to run it. This model is used in the US with Amtrak and would make VIA much more useful in Ontario. Thoughts?

As in, you believe it will be faster than than what's on the April 2021 IO procurement schedule?

Right now the GO electrification page just says "The successful proponent team will be responsible for selecting and delivering the right trains and infrastructure to unlock the benefits of GO Expansion. The contract is in a multi-year procurement process, and currently teams are completing the bids that will close in 2021. Construction will get underway in 2022/3."

 

[Darwinkgo]

You mean VIA would lease space on its HFR line to freight? I would bet that won’t happen, because a) the track’s banking profile and siding lengths will not be freight friendly and b) I’m sure CN and CP (and the courier companies) will achieve (have already lobbied for?) some sort of non-compete restriction on the HFR line. And c) there’s still plenty of capacity there, so it may be moot.

- Paul

Why? It might not be 'friendly', but it will be ok. Lighter freight unit trains can likely use it just fine at the very least. Only use it in one direction.

You're thinking of the HFR as a specialist service for freight between Montreal and Toronto, and that somehow there will be another operator that will operate - why would that be the case? I am thinking of it as 1 more track. You don't need sidings if every train on it is operating in the same direction.

Why would there be non-compete? We're talking here about CN and CP leasing the space! It is in their best interest.

And there might be plenty of capacity today. But that doesn't mean there will be for the life of the tracks. Just because it isn't a day 1 consideration, doesn't mean it won't be forever.

 

[p_xavier]

You mean VIA would lease space on its HFR line to freight? I would bet that won’t happen, because a) the track’s banking profile and siding lengths will not be freight friendly and b) I’m sure CN and CP (and the courier companies) will achieve (have already lobbied for?) some sort of non-compete restriction on the HFR line. And c) there’s still plenty of capacity there, so it may be moot.

- Paul

They already do on their own tracks.

 

[TRONto]

As in, you believe it will be faster than than what's on the April 2021 IO procurement schedule?

View attachment 324227

Right now the GO electrification page just says "The successful proponent team will be responsible for selecting and delivering the right trains and infrastructure to unlock the benefits of GO Expansion. The contract is in a multi-year procurement process, and currently teams are completing the bids that will close in 2021. Construction will get underway in 2022/3."

Looks like we are good then. Under the Liberal government, it seemed like there was a lot of waffling (political interference?) instead of making decisions and going forward.

 

[crs1026]

Why? It might not be 'friendly', but it will be ok. Lighter freight unit trains can likely use it just fine at the very least. Only use it in one direction.

You're thinking of the HFR as a specialist service for freight between Montreal and Toronto, and that somehow there will be another operator that will operate - why would that be the case? I am thinking of it as 1 more track. You don't need sidings if every train on it is operating in the same direction.

Why would there be non-compete? We're talking here about CN and CP leasing the space! It is in their best interest.

And there might be plenty of capacity today. But that doesn't mean there will be for the life of the tracks. Just because it isn't a day 1 consideration, doesn't mean it won't be forever.

Protecting turf is a very central theme for freight railroads. I can't imagine CP giving up the line without a clause in the sale document retaining the right to routing for any on-line freight business, present or future. Similarly I expect they would require a clause that keeps CN and any other hypothetical operator off the line altogether. Generally other operators only muscle into a railroad's former territory under specific regulated circumstances, and usually only after a challenge before the regulator.

As to track wear and tear, the section west of Havelock is the straighter part of the route. Sure, freight can coexist, but at some cost. I'm sure the commercial terms will ensure that VIA doesn't incur the cost for the heavy bulk cargo that CP currently carries. East of Havelock would certainly be costlier because of all the curves which VIA needs to bank aggressively. Freight will add to the maintenance cost there. Axle loadings are commonly maxed out for today's cargoes - there is really no "light" freight out there. Even road-weight containers are stacked, after all.

I would like to see rail used for packet/mail delivery, but even if it's remunerative it's not VIA's highest priority while HFR is in startup/growth mode. Freight/postal terminals are no longer colocated with rail terminals. Once you've loaded the trailer to haul to the train interface point, it might as well stay on the road. Not my preference, but I see it as unlikely that anyone would make the investment needed - sorting is high tech.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

Looks like we are good then. Under the Liberal government, it seemed like there was a lot of waffling (political interference?) instead of making decisions and going forward.

This has been discussed and debated in the GO Electrification thread. I certain amount of preliminary/EA/TPAP work was required from 2014-2018 to get to the RFP stage which is when the PCs have been in power. The PCs did pass the Moving Transit Faster Act to deal with stuff to make construction faster. I'm not sure what more could have been done between 2014-2018 to speed up the EA/TPAP/RFQ process, although a TPAP addendum was required so I guess it could be argued that it could have been avoided. That said, I think the RFQ/RFP had already launched when the TPAP addendum happened and it was a result of feedback from the bidders on tweaks needed. Did I get pretty close with this brief overview @crs1026 ? I feel like you've commented on this extensively in the past.

Bringing this back on topic, the TPAP addendum looked at the Scarboro Rail Grade Separation but Metrolinx decided it wasn't needed. I wonder if VIA will now require it for HFR and it'll be part of the overall project budget.

 

[roger1818]

Correct me if I a

Protecting turf is a very central theme for freight railroads. I can't imagine CP giving up the line without a clause in the sale document retaining the right to routing for any on-line freight business, present or future. Similarly I expect they would require a clause that keeps CN and any other hypothetical operator off the line altogether. Generally other operators only muscle into a railroad's former territory under specific regulated circumstances, and usually only after a challenge before the regulator.

The question is if such a clause would be legal. AFAIK, federally regulated railways can't prohibit others from operating on their track outright. They are allowed to charge a reasonable fee for doing so, and covering the cost of track wear and tear certainly would be considered reasonable. I am not sure that the benefits would outweigh the risks for VIA though, so I can't see them actively pursuing this.

 

[Allandale25]

VIA Rail Canada annual meeting offers few forward-looking details - Trains

MONTREAL— Against a backdrop assuring continued service interruptions, VIA Rail Canada released its annual pre-recorded public meeting last week, with brief reports from Chairman Francoise Bertrand, President and CEO Cynthia Garneau, and Chief Financial Officer Marie-Claude Cardin. The meeting...

www.trains.com

 

[crs1026]

This has been discussed and debated in the GO Electrification thread. I certain amount of preliminary/EA/TPAP work was required from 2014-2018 to get to the RFP stage which is when the PCs have been in power. The PCs did pass the Moving Transit Faster Act to deal with stuff to make construction faster. I'm not sure what more could have been done between 2014-2018 to speed up the EA/TPAP/RFQ process, although a TPAP addendum was required so I guess it could be argued that it could have been avoided. That said, I think the RFQ/RFP had already launched when the TPAP addendum happened and it was a result of feedback from the bidders on tweaks needed. Did I get pretty close with this brief overview @crs1026 ? I feel like you've commented on this extensively in the past.

Bringing this back on topic, the TPAP addendum looked at the Scarboro Rail Grade Separation but Metrolinx decided it wasn't needed. I wonder if VIA will now require it for HFR and it'll be part of the overall project budget.

Without fact-checking all the dates, I agree that one really couldn't expect any more to happen until the TPAP - which was extensive, given the scope of the proposal - was concluded and approved. The Liberal government and ML did execute the EA in good faith, working with Hydro One who also were stakeholders. It was a pretty solid and comprehensive effort. I can’t imagine it could have been done faster. Can’t fault them for getting the ball rolling properly.

A quick check of ML Board agendas says the TPAP product brings us to 2017ish. 2017 was the year when suddenly Ontario was interested in hydrail.

I remain solidly convinced that sudden interest was the result of electrification sticker shock and the economic realities of impetuous RER promises setting in with the Liberals. And then, 2017 was also the year when ML seized on its arcane and unsuccessful trip towards the mother of all P3 procurements. My humble opinion is that the Liberals couldn’t move beyond study, but ML couldn’t either.

The Conservatives have never said no to electrification. The have released a lot of money for RER - far more than Wynne ever did. The fact that electrification has never been launched is clearly good judgement, in that the tasks Ford is funding at GO are a fairly reasonable set of higher priorities and enabling works.. They are mostly held back by ML still not being ready to select a vendor and get shovels in the ground.

I’m not saying that I agree with all Ford’s choices, but I don’t see how anyone can say they have bobbled the file. The Liberals built an organization that can’t deliver, the Cons inherited it.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

The question is if such a clause would be legal. AFAIK, federally regulated railways can't prohibit others from operating on their track outright. They are allowed to charge a reasonable fee for doing so, and covering the cost of track wear and tear certainly would be considered reasonable. I am not sure that the benefits would outweigh the risks for VIA though, so I can't see them actively pursuing this.

As I understand the law, an entity can’t just announce their intent to enter and use a railway line. There is an onus to prove necessity and economic benefit. The proposals that I know of end up in hearings. Or, a railway retains some portion of the asset so they can block its reuse. Similarly, Railways have strongly opposed interswitching. I would expect CP to go down fighting.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

As I understand the law, an entity can’t just announce their intent to enter and use a railway line. There is an onus to prove necessity and economic benefit. The proposals that I know of end up in hearings. Or, a railway retains some portion of the asset so they can block its reuse. Similarly, Railways have strongly opposed interswitching. I would expect CP to go down fighting.

- Paul

I believe Sections 138 and 139 of the Canada Transportation Act covers this.

Canada Transportation Act

Federal laws of Canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

 

[crs1026]

^The interesting thing is how gently that language is administered in practice. Even the language itself is muted - all it requires is for railways to “consider” joint use.

If you scan back through this and other UT threads, and look at all the ideas that various posters have suggested that might trigger those sections, it’s clear that the Governor in Council does not practice an “open door” approach to shared use proposals. If one can afford the lawyers, sure...knock yourselves out... but it’s an uphill battle.

In practice, those sections exist as a “last resort” option to facilitate negotiated agreements. The goal is for both parties to fear what a third party might award (especially as to the remuneration for shared use) so much that they reach their own voluntary agreement. That’s a common, and prudent, positioning of third parties in a quasi-legal process: figure it out for yourself, because you might not like my award.

As to the Havelock, I bet that VIA would point to the parallel CP/CN lines and argue that so long as capacity is available there, it’s a better place for freight than on their own lines, and likely lower cost. Both CN and CP would have to reach full (and unenlargeable) capacity before anyone would see heavy freight on VIA. Short, fast mail or packet service trains might fare better.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

^The interesting thing is how gently that language is administered in practice. Even the language itself is muted - all it requires is for railways to “consider” joint use.

If you scan back through this and other UT threads, and look at all the ideas that various posters have suggested that might trigger those sections, it’s clear that the Governor in Council does not practice an “open door” approach to shared use proposals. If one can afford the lawyers, sure...knock yourselves out... but it’s an uphill battle.

In practice, those sections exist as a “last resort” option to facilitate negotiated agreements. The goal is for both parties to fear what a third party might award (especially as to the remuneration for shared use) so much that they reach their own voluntary agreement. That’s a common, and prudent, positioning of third parties in a quasi-legal process: figure it out for yourself, because you might not like my award.

As to the Havelock, I bet that VIA would point to the parallel CP/CN lines and argue that so long as capacity is available there, it’s a better place for freight than on their own lines, and likely lower cost. Both CN and CP would have to reach full (and unenlargeable) capacity before anyone would see heavy freight on VIA. Short, fast mail or packet service trains might fare better.

- Paul

Many would argue that this is an appropriate state role when it involves itself in the commercial world - 'try and sort it out between yourselves first because both sides might not like our solution'.

Just going on the rendered image above, it would interesting to know if there even is a market for fast, short freight. I can't picture a high-speed train that is a couple of kilometers long.

With the frequency of service proposed for the HFR route, expanded facilities, such as more passing tracks, would seem to be required to interweave more trains that would be on a different (non-stopping) schedule.

 

[crs1026]

^By the way, whenever we discuss HFR we assume VIA will “own” the Havelock and Trois Rivieres lines. I wonder if that actually implies clear title. I have forgotten - does CP still own those rights of way today, or did they divest them eg to Telecom companies and shortline railways?

VIA might simply become a tenant, and that leaves lots of room for fine print. I’m sure ViA would negotiate for primacy in use of the line, but other stakeholders might retain some lesser use.

- Paul