VIA Rail

[mdrejhon]

Metronlinx should take a cue for the Weston Corridor, at least until electrification...and as we've discussed prior, adding more Nippon Sharyos appears unwise.

If only there weren't platform-side doors.... Imagine, they could have used these near-Tier-4 RDC's to add capacity to UPX until electrification!

THAT would be a sight to behold. Though, it wouldn't go well with taxpayers ("...lookee, 1 billion and goddam 60 year old trains...")

 

[steveintoronto]

If only there weren't platform-side doors.... Imagine, they could have used these near-Tier-4 RDC's to add capacity to UPX until electrification!

THAT would be a sight to behold. Though, it wouldn't go well with taxpayers ("...lookee, 1 billion and goddam 60 year old trains...")

There would have been a number of problems with using the RDCs though, not least emissions. Rumour has it that even the Sharyos aren't meeting Tier 4, and it's a very sensitive subject for the NIMBYs. Also acceleration rate...and I'm *still* trying to find a full engineering sheet to see if there are one or two prime-movers on the rebuilt ones. I find info alluding to two on all save the model with no cab-end. All the others have a *single* cab-end (unless turned at end of run, they'll have to be doubled). Now UPX are stuck with the Sharyos, it seems DMUs are going to have to be the solution. The way to have done UPX, except for the all the political meddling, and Metrolinx own manic double face on electrification, was EMU from the start, or LRV in Tram-Trains, the latter I'm still prone towards.

A quick note on Rob's original statement:

The trains will also feature fully-rebuilt diesel engines that meet Euro II emission standards and fully-rebuilt air brakes.

Rob has since finessed that, but I also overshot my comparison. "Euro ll" is roughly equivalent to EPA Tier 3. Not quite the Sharyo, but much better than the original RDC two-strokes. I'd like to state "Cummins are using the 'R' variant for the rebuild" but I'd like to see tech sheets before stating that. The VIA specs do state "R", but whether that's the same system as the Sharyo Cummins model is hard to tell. I also see reference to the prime movers being truck (bogie) mounted, the term "adjacent" has been used more than once, but as to what exactly that means is hard to discern.

Edit: Best description I can find on trucks being driven is here: "These cars were powered by two 300 hp 6-cylinder 2-stroke General Motors Detroit Diesel Series 110 Model 62806RD engines, coupled to Allison RC3 hydraulic torque converter transmissions fitted with a reversing gearbox. Drive was by a cardan shaft to a Spicer Model 8 final drive located on the inner axle of each bogie. The 62806RD was a combined engine and transmission package specifically for rail car applications and marketed under the Detroit Diesel banner."
http://www.railmotorsociety.org.au/rm/rm_1100_frame.htm

I have read that other than reverse (which IIRC from one reference, was done with just one engine engaged) there were two forward gears, one through the slush-box, and the higher with the shaft locked straight through, akin to an 'overdrive' so any transmission losses were by-passed. I state that w/o definitive reference, still looking.

 

[MisterF]

You missed my point completely. Europeans may own cars. But it's expensive to drive long distance. This is not the case in Canada. It's not just gas. There's fewer (or almost none) tolls in Canada. And parking charges in urban areas are a lot lower. This makes driving a whole lot cheaper. Aside from the fact that having a car at your destination is often more convenient than local transit.

Going on and on about driving being more expensive overall, misses the point completely.



I'm not denying that VIA's uncompetitive now. I'm suggesting that the planned ridership might not materialize with better service if fares aren't adjusted.



A lesson, I've pointed out, should be considered for any of VIA's development plans. I've yet to see a VIA study on the fare sensitivity of potential passengers. Sure, they poll existing passengers. But that doesn't say a thing about attracting new ridership.



Sure. And I'm just hoping that said model leads to lower fares in the future. I would not want to see a multi-billion dollar investment in VIA imperiled because they think $100 fares are competitive because dumbass drivers dont' consider depreciation....

It's not just Europeans. Driving costs are similar in Australia and significantly cheaper in the US. But that hasn't stopped Australia from having a far superior rail system (albeit it tends to focus more on the regional side of things rather than intercity). And it hasn't stopped the US from making upgrades to Amtrak similar to what Via is proposing, especially in the Midwest. Ridership on the Chicago-St. Louis line, for example, has increased by over 50% since 2007, with the biggest service upgrades not happening until next year. And ridership in the Northeast Corridor went up after the Acela opened. Amtrak has grabbed big market share on that route.

For the record, I wasn't calling anyone a dumbass. I was simply pointing out that your trip to Ottawa is more expensive than you were accounting for.

Completely! I'm still boggled as to how this 'came in under the radar', but that must be because the emphasis on these units was for far-flung regions, not supplementary mainline service.

It's not as under the radar as you think. This news was posted on the forum in early March and there was a fairly lengthy discussion about it. Your digging is appreciated, but it tends to uncover stuff that we already know.

 

[steveintoronto]

It's not as under the radar as you think.

I was referring to myself, but that's very graceful of you to point that out.

My second thought was "why haven't we heard about this prior?" Perhaps some posters have, but last I know of the railcars is that they were languishing at Mimico. Any posters able to add to this?

Many others are also surprised, and they're rail photographers. Many of them have commented as they took pics and published them.

Edit to Add: I see the discussion in this forum on RDCs starting page 36. I do not, however, see any technical details on the refurbishment, esp as that relates to engines and acceleration. Are there two doubled horsepower prime movers or just one? It's a very important point, because an un-powered coach or two could be coupled between the powered RDCs if there's sufficient motive power and customer demand.

 

[robmausser]

The RDC's are such a better fit for the Sarnia train.

Currently Train 85 is used and it seems like such a huge waste to pull 2 coaches with a locomotive.

 

[reaperexpress]

I really don't see the need/value in extending train to Chicago.

Chicago is a great city, and yes a lot of people make the jaunt/connection between Chicago and Toronto.....but this is a route that the airplane will always have a fairly clear advantage on.

It's not just about Toronto-Chicago, it's about anywhere in Ontario to anywhere in the eastern United States. Toronto-Detroit, for example.

Just look at VIA and Amtrak's networks. There is currently no connection in Windsor/Detroit or Sarnia/Port Huron, and only 1 train per day actually crosses the border in Niagara Falls.

It is a no-brainer to connect the two networks, the ridership both systems would gain totally justifies the investment, which is mostly just station infrastructure. The railways themselves already cross the border.

The first necessity are border stations (Michigan Central?, Niagara Falls International?) where people can go through customs to transfer between VIA/GO and Amtrak/SEMCOG.

The next nice option would be pre-clearance facilities in Toronto, London, Hamilton and Niagara Falls to open up the possibility of direct trains to Chicago and New York without stopping at the border. While their 10-hour travel time would be a bit daunting for daytime trips, it's the perfect duration for an overnight train: leave one city around 10pm and arrive in the other around 8am.

I look forward to the day (hopefully not too distant) when trains go whoosh through Canada-US border, with no stopping.

Once that happens, goodbye boring 2 hour stop at border.

Presumably this is initially Union pre-clearance. Unfortunately that may eliminate being able to stop in Hamilton and Niagara Falls. But they're trialing Montreal first, so why not get a better system here because of the existence of Hamilton and Niagara Falls?

If customs clearance can even be done on-board a moving train (favourable Trudeau-Clinton agreement?) and if Amtrak begins stopping at Hamilton West Harbour, then visiting NYC finally becomes preferable by train given you don't need the car once you've driven into Manhattan. So might as well spend parking on the train.

-- U.S. Customs would board at Union and begin clearing after departure
In this theoretical scenario of clearance-in-motion, U.S. customs could board at Toronto Union (could even easily be covered by Amtrak/VIA as an "enhanced customs clearance upgrade" at just a dollar or two extra per passenger. with increased passenger volume), and begin clearing all Toronto travellers. At West Harbour, one or two coach sealed off from the rest of the train, would pick up Hamilton travellers, and then customs would clear these people before the border, and so on.

-- Marking-off coaches as "cleared"
Simple solutions keeping the train security-sealed, such as doors with seal indicators (only customs can affix/remove, or turn on/off) can just simply be quickly checked at the border and expeditiously waved through. That way, if someone unexpectedly disembark or embark a sealed coach at West Harbour, an indicator on the door shows, and that coach needs to be re-cleared at Niagara. You wouldn't lock the doors due to safety issues -- just that customs would know if a door was opened (necessitating re-processing at the border). There are many low-tech tamper-resistant options, and electronic solutions also can be done too.

-- No more 2 hour wait at border. Quicker path to further time savings.
With elimination of the 2 hour wait at the border and train customs more convenient than driving through customs -- Amtrak finally competing with car driving trip lengths, train traffic levels may raise enough without needing faster trains -- that electrification of the Empire Corridor accelerates and ties-up with GO RER electrification to Niagara Falls in a couple of decades, then train trips accelerate even more...

Logistics of pre-locating customs officers abound (e.g. officers boarding a Toronto-bound Amtrak, so that they can begin clearing a return trip) but the increase in Amtrak+VIA traffic that will definitely occur, will easily pay for the extra costs, but I'd happily pay a fare surcharge (even $10) as an onboard clearance fee if that's what it takes to entice this to happen.

This might not happen quickly. But US-Canada should at least get the ball rolling on a process that leads up to this Ultimate custom-clearance-in-motion solution.

The only thing that could be of concern is for those who have been refused entry? Who has legal authority to detain them and what if there are several onboard? Surely they can't keep track of all of them and they could easily slip off at arrival. Or do you just kick them off at the nearest station?

Pre-clearance is not some new concept that we're "trialling" in Montréal. We already have pre-clearance at Vancouver Pacific Central station for the Amtrak Cascades and Rocky Mountaineer to Portland and Seattle. Railway pre-clearance is basically the same as airport pre-clearance, which we have plenty of experience with anyway.

 

[steveintoronto]

Currently Train 85 is used and it seems like such a huge waste to pull 2 coaches with a locomotive.

It's beyond wasteful, it's absurd. The only up-side I can see to it is that a loco in really poor shape (and some of the F40s are nearing end-of-life) can pull them without effort.

The arithmetic for multiple units v. loco-hauled as to which is more efficient is something like up to five multiple units as the limit before a loco and six cars becomes more so. Other posters will know the ratios better.

Railway pre-clearance is basically the same as airport pre-clearance, which we have plenty of experience with.

It's cost effective, it's stable, proven and meets with protocol like embassies or consulates, where the designated area is *effectively* sovereign (not in the absolute, but pragmatically) to allow the carrying of weapons and right of detention. That's a touchy issue, but it has worked out well with few exceptions. What won't work is extending those powers onto a train in transit.

March 16, 2015

Armed customs agents: U.S. customs officers will be armed while on Canadian soil but will not have peace officer status, meaning they cannot make an arrest.If an arrest of an individual is required, the person would be detained until a Canadian law enforcement officer arrives.
[...]
Canada and the U.S. signed a new agreement Monday that could make travel between countries easier and faster.

Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson signed a customs pre-clearance agreement that would allow customs agents to work in each other’s countries and away from the border. The agreement would be implemented for all modes of transportation.

“This historic new agreement builds on decades of successful pre-clearance operations in Canadian airports,” Blaney said. “It will enhance the security at our border and create jobs and growth in Canada by improving the flow of legitimate goods and people between our two countries.”

http://globalnews.ca/news/1885246/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-new-border-deal/

I suspect a lot of persons would find it just as convenient to use rail as fly for a lot of destinations along a route from, say, Toronto to Chicago. Plus with pre-clearance, and a cheap Cdn dollar, a lot of Americans would gladly take the train to Canada. It would be a mistake to *not* promote run-throughs. Many Americans that find visiting Canada of interest are also of an intellectual bent, and also love trains. The US has catered to them more than Canada has to the same Cdn cohort.

On one trip to NYC I took a decade back, the loco died around Albany, got in late into NYC, my reservation at a hostel expired, Amtrak put me up in the New Yorker for a night. That wasn't too shabby! People remember those things, and North Am rail can have yet another renaissance going cross-border.

 

[MisterF]

An article from the perspective of Kingston: http://www.thewhig.com/2016/04/29/via-aims-for-better-kingston-service

What caught my eye is this:

Changes will be made by facilitating a "high-frequency network" that will put "end-to-end" traffic routes from Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto on a dedicated track. The current routes that exist on freight railways will be adjusted to tailor the towns in between those cities, with key anchor points being Kingston on the east side of Toronto and London on the west side of Toronto, described Desjardins-Siciliano.

It sounds like they're talking about two different services

• a high frequency network on a dedicated line that would connect the three major cities
• a regional network running on existing lines serving the smaller cities, with an emphasis on a Toronto-centred network between London and Kingston

It stops short of getting specific as to where the high frequency line would go, but it doesn't rule out the Peterborough route. It could be that we'd eventually end up with a northern route and a southern route from London all the way to Quebec City. The northern route would go through Trois-Rivieres, Peterborough and Kitchener (with the Kitchener portion potentially being the province's high speed line and Trois Rivieres-Quebec City being a future phase of the Via project). This corridor would have dedicated passenger tracks and focus on serving the big cities. The southern route would run on existing, mostly freight-owned tracks, with the focus on serving smaller cities and towns like Drummondville, Kingston and Brantford.

Of course, if that's the case it would be a huge story for Peterborough, as one would assume that at least some of the trains would stop there. But there's been nothing but silence from the Peterborough media and the Via president hasn't done a media stop there. Until he does, we're still speculating.

 

[steveintoronto]

It sounds like they're talking about two different services

I see what you mean. I'm still re-reading the article now for the fourth time trying to see through the ambiguity. It is well-written, Kingston is very lucky to still have a quality independent newspaper, Guelph just lost hers, and the cities are almost identical population-wise. Author wisely quotes D-S in places, but in others, makes a statement that asks questions more than answers. e.g.

The project would cost $4 billion to link Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto to a passenger infrastructure dedicated to passenger service, which would be operated solely by Via for Via passengers.

That's not a good assumption, no mention of Metrolinx, the co-operation from which is essential to making this affordable, effective and sustainable. It also belies that the *track* infrastructure, ostensibly, is to be owned by the investors, not VIA. In all fairness to the author, it is a European model that's rare in North Am, albeit starting to be less so.

Kingston is recognized as Via Rail's most served station in this corridor,

Statements like that might be playing into softening the blow if the Peterborough route is developed, as it would obviously by-pass Kingston. And yet D-S is quoted glorifying the rebuilding of Kingston station.

To be kind to the article, I think a lot is missing. As presented, this appears to undermine what many of us believed to be the plan. Maybe both Peterborough and Kingston will be served by a "dedicated track"....? Perhaps the Peterborough route is a later stage? Peterborough is roughly the same population as Kingston and Guelph. Agreed completely on the effect it would have on pop growth there. GO buses now serve it, rail would make it explode, esp higher speed rail. Metrolinx have been considering revamping that rail corridor anyway. One wonders if this article isn't part of a sop to Kingston?

Edit to Add: Other than in passing reference in later Metrolinx releases, I'm unaware of a study to serve Kingston, but there certainly is one for Peterborough (I see Googling that Urban Toronto has/had a a topic string on it), but note the Feds sharing the study with Metrolinx:

Peterborough Rail Study
In March 2008, the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario agreed to conduct a joint study for a passenger rail service from Toronto to Peterborough. The study was led by Metrolinx and was overseen by a steering committee composed of senior officials from Metrolinx, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Transport Canada.

The Peterborough Rail Study provides an assessment of the market potential and ridership, vehicle technology options, station locations, improvements to the railway track, bridges and road crossings, as well as capital and operating cost estimates for the proposed passenger rail service.

Upon completion, this study was submitted to the Federal and Provincial levels of government for their review and input on next steps for the project.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/projectevaluation/studies/studies.aspx

Read the Peterborough Rail Study
Read the Peterborough Rail Study appendices

Haven't read this report for eight years, but re-reading it now reveals some prescient statements:

There is currently no passenger rail service to the Peterborough area. The most recent passenger service along the KLR was operated by VIA Rail Canada (VIA) between Havelock and Toronto (through Peterborough) with one round trip daily using Budd Rail Diesel Cars (RDCs). This route was discontinued as part of service cuts in 1990 as VIA’s mandate was refocused on serving the longer distance intercity travel market. Since that time the line has been used for limited freight traffic only, and has not been maintained to a standard that would support passenger service.

For the purposes of this study, no assumptions have been made regarding the potential operator for the proposed passenger rail service. Subject to decisions by the provincial and federal governments, it is possible that the service could be provided by either GO Transit, VIA Rail Canada, or a third-party operator.

That's a pretty profound segue into talks with VIA and private enterprise for HFR.

Peterborough Examiner does have quite a few articles relevant to this string, but a competing publication has the best one I've found so far, and only three months old:

Peterborough commuter railway project remains in the hands of government officials
Shining Waters Railway president was encouraged by MP's interest in the project at November meeting.

Peterborough This Week
By Jamie Steel
PETERBOROUGH — Nearly a decade after former Member of Parliament Dean Del Mastro introduced plans to bring a commuter rail from Toronto to Havelock, the Shining Waters Railway remains in the hands of federal and provincial government officials.

Tony Smith, Shining Waters president, says his main concern following the election was that all the documents, all the paperwork, all the effort they had put into the project so far would be destroyed. That, he says, is not the case. All files have been retained, he says, and now they are simply waiting for a decision.

READ MORE: Commuter rail to stay on track without Del Mastro as MP

On Nov. 26, Mr. Smith says three of the Shining Waters directors met with MP Maryam Monsef, just three weeks after her swearing in, to discuss the project.

“She certainly understood the importance of the project. We’re certainly encouraged by Minister Monsef’s interest in the project,” says Mr. Smith.

“It was an extremely good meeting,” he says.

Mr. Smith says the federal government has expressed interest in fast-tracking projects that are ready to go. The Shining Waters Railway, he says, fits that description.

“This is shovel-ready,” says Mr. Smith.

READ MORE: Study for proposed commuter rail complete

While the provincial government also has a role to play, Mr. Smith says the federal government will have to make a decision first.

“I don’t think we’re under any illusion this will happen in the next couple weeks. We can’t expect them to react within a month or two. It wouldn’t be realistic,” he says.

At a provincial level, MPP Jeff Leal says the project rests with ministry officials.

“There’s a lot of information to be analyzed,” he says.

MPP Leal says he has participated in many meetings and has heard the importance of not just commuter service but freight service as well. He says he’ll be sitting down with MP Monsef to further discuss the matter once their schedules allow.

The Ontario Legislature is on break until mid-February.

MP Monsef returned to her seat in the House of Commons this week as parliament resumed following winter break. She could not be reached for comment prior to This Week’s deadline.

At a candidates debate in September, MP Monsef said she would support the passenger rail as long as the cost doesn’t burden area taxpayers.

Jamie Steel is a reporter with Metroland's Kawartha division. She can be reached at jsteel@mykawartha.com. Follow her on Twitter at @jamiecsteel and Peterborough This Week on Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/PeterboroughNews
http://www.mykawartha.com/news-stor...remains-in-the-hands-of-government-officials/

Using "Shining Waters Railway" in a web-search filters out a lot superfluous hits.
http://www.shiningwatersrailway.com/

Note that CP not only backs Shining Waters, they've contributed to their campaign. This adds an interesting layer to using that route. If temporal separation is practicable, further funding and use of Summerhill Station, at least for GO, might be possible. Unlike CN, I'm unware of CP making the same ludicrous missive against "operating under catenary". And what could CP say anyway? "No?"...hardly.

Other links:
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/2013/07/19/rail-unlikely-to-arrive-before-2016

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer....ing-waters-railway-president-still-optimistic

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer....ion-not-expected-until-after-federal-election

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/2014/06/04/passenger-rail-plans-on-track-mp

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer....-full-fare-until-we-know-more-about-the-train

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer....ng-assessed-by-federal-provincial-governments

 

[nfitz]

Statements like that might be playing into softening the blow if the Peterborough route is developed, as it would obviously by-pass Kingston. And yet D-S is quoted glorifying the rebuilding of Kingston station.

There's no chance that Toronto-Ottawa service is going to be run through Peterborough. I don't know where you getting this from, but it's just not happening. And it will never happen unless an entirely new alignment is built.

There are some remote chances that service might be restored on the existing alignment between Toronto and Peterborough. But from Peterborough to Ottawa - it's just not happening. The track isn't particularly straight, nor level. It would never be faster than running through Kingston.

Ever since central Kingston was by-passed in the 1970s there's been talking of a new alignment further north of the city, that does miss Kingston, or moves the station even further out of town. But even this doesn't seem to be part of the current plans.

 

[MisterF]

There's no chance that Toronto-Ottawa service is going to be run through Peterborough. I don't know where you getting this from, but it's just not happening. And it will never happen unless an entirely new alignment is built.

There are some remote chances that service might be restored on the existing alignment between Toronto and Peterborough. But from Peterborough to Ottawa - it's just not happening. The track isn't particularly straight, nor level. It would never be faster than running through Kingston.

Ever since central Kingston was by-passed in the 1970s there's been talking of a new alignment further north of the city, that does miss Kingston, or moves the station even further out of town. But even this doesn't seem to be part of the current plans.

If you can state with such certainty that there's no chance of the Peterborough route happening you must have a source. Care to share it?

http://bc.transport-action.ca/VIA 1-4-10 Plan Final Release Version 151106.pdf

 

[crs1026]

D-S would never be drawing attention to Kingston's role if the planned routing is about to bypass this city. I'd say he has tipped his hand.

Of course CP is backing Shining Waters....they can sell the line for a pile of money. It's a marginal route that they will otherwise get peanuts for when (not if) the rails need replacement and it is abandoned.

There isn't even a case for the Peterboro-Toronto portion. Capital cost is ginormous (apart from the cost of upgrading, it needs a new routing into Toronto, CP will never let it come down the Belleville Sub to Leaside). There is no potential commuter ridership, since it's all greenbelt through Claremont. Ontario is in the process of extending the 407 to 115 which will enable some excellent bus routings across the north part of the city let alone down to Oshawa. Frequent express bus is the obvious solution for Peterboro.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

There's no chance that Toronto-Ottawa service is going to be run through Peterborough. I don't know where you getting this from, but it's just not happening. And it will never happen unless an entirely new alignment is built.

As to "where I got it from"...it's been discussed in a number of forums, including this one, (starting pg 56) and appeared in a number of analyses of the route.

Of course CP is backing Shining Waters....they can sell the line for a pile of money. It's a marginal route that they will otherwise get peanuts for when (not if) the rails need replacement and it is abandoned.

Is CN going to give away their land? Hardly. Plus you've conveniently overlooked that Metrolinx are considering (which, oddly, is why I posted the study) to revamp the line themselves.

Shining Waters is actually looking for the RoW to be ceded to them, and CP appears amenable since they'll still pick-up the freight feed, a third of the value of which CP will get in the case that SWR make. I've provided a link prior.

Edit to Add:

D-S would never be drawing attention to Kingston's role if the planned routing is about to bypass this city. I'd say he has tipped his hand.

I've read a few sources now, and watched this: http://www.ckwstv.com/2016/04/29/new-changes-for-via-rail-and-kingstons-station/

D-S is very careful with his words. In any interview, he states "Kingston to London". Journos then add (gist) "making it easier to get from Kingston to Ottawa" or "straight through the Windsor-Quebec Corridor".

In the big scheme of things, $1.5M for a station refurb is a pittance. That's the cost of a house in Toronto. It could very well be that D-S is letting events land where they may, he'd be a fool to do otherwise, and he's leaving options open. One of those options is the Peterborough route. Remember, HFR isn't about speed for the sake of it. It's for reliability and frequency. Are the cities along the lake still going to be served? Of course, but the emphasis is on *Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto*. If that can be achieved more efficiently and *cheaper* by doing the Peterborough route, and vastly less disruptive to existing mainlines, then why not? Since CN will refuse to have their trains pass under catenary, it's going to cost a lot more to thread a dedicated track along their RoW than it will be along a corridor barely used, and quite suitable for temporal freight service at night. Any Metrolinx traffic sharing the RoW can be catered to during daylight, in fact, it will be complementary.

 

[steveintoronto]

This feeds into D-S' VIA campaign, and also the High Speed forum at this site, and how GEXR still get priority over VIA on the Guelph sub especially as that relates to the 'Go Slow' section through Guelph, and in general west of there:

Via Rail slashed service in some parts of Southwestern Ontario and beyond because federal governments stood idle as CN Rail imposed exorbitant fees for using its tracks, a leading rail expert says.

“I don’t even blame CN. If you have a goose ripe for plucking, in the business world you pluck it,” said Greg Gorrmick, whose clients have included CN and CP, Via and General Motors’ former locomotive-making business in London.

Asked by about his concerns, CN dismissed them but refused to disclose how much it charges taxpayer-subsidized Via.

“CN rejects the unsubstantiated allegation that CN is charging Via Rail excessive track access fees,” company spokesperson Mark Hallman wrote.

Via’s operations have been thrust under a spotlight amid a push by the rail-passenger service for a track of its own for conventional trains, a move some critics have interpreted as a move to fend off a provincial proposal to link Southwestern Ontario to Toronto by high-speed rail.

CN wouldn’t disclose its deal with Via that established track fees, with Hallman writing its terms are confidential but that “CN confidently asserts that the agreement is very affordable (and) delivers significant value to VIA Rail and the passengers it serves.”

The rail giant’s secrecy might violate the Canadian Transportation Act, says Ottawa lawyer Ian MacKay, who specializes in federal transportation law. That legislation requires rail companies to make public, upon request, agreements that involve the railway, land, equipment, facilities or services and there are no exceptions for deals signed beginning in 2007, he said.

CN inked its latest deal with Via in 2008.

“If Via gets taken to the cleaners, the public has a right to know,” Gormick said. “As a taxpayer, as a (Via) passenger, I’m outraged.”

The Free Press asked federal Transport Minister Marc Garneau for his stance on the issue, to which his staff said Friday he will review the matter. [...continues at length...]

http://www.lfpress.com/2016/04/29/p...-freight-traffic-increases-on-cn-owned-tracks

 

[nfitz]

If you can state with such certainty that there's no chance of the Peterborough route happening you must have a source. Care to share it?

Any idiot can look at the alignment and resulting speed limits and see that it's not going to happen. Also look at all the alignments VIA has studied in the last 40 years - this isn't one of them.

It's utter fantasy and bullshit spread by those who don't have a clue.

As to "where I got it from"...it's been discussed in a number of forums, including this one, (starting pg 56) and appeared in a number of analyses of the route.

And others in the forum have pointed out what a complete and utter impossibility it is to run a faster service on that alignment.

What analyses? VIA has spent millions of dollars over the decades analyzing various alignments - and I've never seen that one.

Besides, VIA's recent announcement about Kingston makes it very clear what the Toronto to Kingston alignment will primarily be.