VIA Rail

[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

 

[Darwinkgo]

I think people are looking at this the wrong way - like CP/CN would somehow force themselves onto the line. I say the company which will design, build, operate, and finance HFR will WANT all potential revenue they can get that doesn't degrade their business case (creates more maintenance issues that the benefits, interferes with train movements).

Why would HFR Infrastructure Operating Co. leave money on the table if CN or CP at some point would enjoy a bit of extra capacity? Like if Amtrak and Metra came together to decongest Chicago for the benefit of passenger trains, you think they'd leave the infrastructure idle in the middle of the night when the freight RR are crying out for capacity?

 

[DirectionNorth]

^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

For the Havelock Sub, everything I found implies that CP still owns the line. I would think that since it is abandoned, VIA will be able to buy it on the cheap. It's not as if it has much value to CP.

The Trois Rivieres Sub is still in use, owned by Genesee and Wyoming. I would imagine that it is still profitable, so VIA would probably just lease it.

 

[roger1818]

I think people are looking at this the wrong way - like CP/CN would somehow force themselves onto the line. I say the company which will design, build, operate, and finance HFR will WANT all potential revenue they can get that doesn't degrade their business case (creates more maintenance issues that the benefits, interferes with train movements).

Why would HFR Infrastructure Operating Co. leave money on the table if CN or CP at some point would enjoy a bit of extra capacity? Like if Amtrak and Metra came together to decongest Chicago for the benefit of passenger trains, you think they'd leave the infrastructure idle in the middle of the night when the freight RR are crying out for capacity?

It comes down to risk vs. reward. Is the remuneration VIA receives (minus any additional expenses) from the freight railways worth the risk to their operations?

Even if you were to assume freight trains to be equally reliable to passenger trains, the more trains that run on the track, the greater the chance of breakdown or derailment occurring. With single track, having a freight train blocking the track would require VIA to have some type of detour and although those costs could potentially be covered by the freight railway, it would still damage VIA's reputation for providing reliable service.

Even worse would be if a heavy freight car were to damage the track and cause a following passenger train to derail and result in casualties.

There will be places where VIA agrees to share the tracks with freight trains, but I don't see it as being something that they actively market.

 

[crs1026]

For the Havelock Sub, everything I found implies that CP still owns the line. I would think that since it is abandoned, VIA will be able to buy it on the cheap. It's not as if it has much value to CP.

The Trois Rivieres Sub is still in use, owned by Genesee and Wyoming. I would imagine that it is still profitable, so VIA would probably just lease it.

For the Havelock to still be in CP's hands 50 years after abandonment suggests that it must have some value, at least beyond the cost of the taxes. IIRC there is telecom along it. CP/CN telecom may have been the initial user that argued for retention, who knows what's buried along there today.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

^ 32 HFR trains per day = 32 x 36 axles nominally, = 1152 axles per day.

One freight train = 600 axles +.

So the wear and tear of even low frequency freight use is material. The variables would at minimum be how much more frequently the line would need surfacing to restore superelevation. And maybe how much sooner rail would have to be replaced, especially on curves. Maybe VIA would require curve lubrication in more places.

Absent additional siding capacity (VIA sidings will likely be as per their existing lines - maybe 2500 feet in length), there would be a freight curfew of "not before end of HFR service and must clear well before start of HFR service". That's maybe a 6 hour window to transit the line. One way only, unless meeting points are built. Huge risk (penalties?) if a freight breaks down en route overnight and blocks the next day's VIA service. Impact on Maintenance, which might need an unbroken work window at night for some tasks.

Will VIA install PTC or some similar signalling system? How much will CN/CP invest in maintaining the qualification of its personnel to operate on this route?

While Amtrak does handle local freight on the Northeast Corridor, the line simply does not open up to freight at sundown.

- Paul

 

[Frank_Lee]

It also likely prohibits the running of overnight trains. Although they might not have a huge market, are definitely something that some people would be interested in.

 

[Darwinkgo]

^ 32 HFR trains per day = 32 x 36 axles nominally, = 1152 axles per day.

One freight train = 600 axles +.

So the wear and tear of even low frequency freight use is material. The variables would at minimum be how much more frequently the line would need surfacing to restore superelevation. And maybe how much sooner rail would have to be replaced, especially on curves. Maybe VIA would require curve lubrication in more places.

Absent additional siding capacity (VIA sidings will likely be as per their existing lines - maybe 2500 feet in length), there would be a freight curfew of "not before end of HFR service and must clear well before start of HFR service". That's maybe a 6 hour window to transit the line. One way only, unless meeting points are built. Huge risk (penalties?) if a freight breaks down en route overnight and blocks the next day's VIA service. Impact on Maintenance, which might need an unbroken work window at night for some tasks.

Will VIA install PTC or some similar signalling system? How much will CN/CP invest in maintaining the qualification of its personnel to operate on this route?

While Amtrak does handle local freight on the Northeast Corridor, the line simply does not open up to freight at sundown.

- Paul

I don't think anyone is arguing that they should have access for even just cost recovery - having those axles helps carry the financial burden - why leave the money on the table? Just saying, you shouldn't be surprised if it does come to pass.

 

[lenaitch]

For the Havelock to still be in CP's hands 50 years after abandonment suggests that it must have some value, at least beyond the cost of the taxes. IIRC there is telecom along it. CP/CN telecom may have been the initial user that argued for retention, who knows what's buried along there today.

- Paul

There might be some confusion. Clearly, the current Havelock sub is still in CP's hands. Are folks talking about Havelock to Smiths Falls? It appears that in a couple of villages, the former ROW has been built over or at least encroached upon. The ownership of former rights of way, particularly when it still looks like a ROW just without the rails, has always confused me.

 

[Northern Light]

There might be some confusion. Clearly, the current Havelock sub is still in CP's hands. Are folks talking about Havelock to Smiths Falls? It appears that in a couple of villages, the former ROW has been built over or at least encroached upon. The ownership of former rights of way, particularly when it still looks like a ROW just without the rails, has always confused me.

I will say it again......there's nothing like a @lenaitch post to send me down rabbit holes.....

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_and_Quebec_Railway

Now, I think its only fair that Lenaitch tell us who CP has to return an important chunk of its eastern mainline to in the year 2883.