VIA Rail

[Northern Light]

Upon further investigation.........the trail (former ROW) east of Tweed, where it is known as Hastings County Trail is owned by Hastings County and the Province. (or was as at 2019)

Taking over the Hastings Heritage Trail

Hastings County is interested in taking over the Hastings Heritage Trail, but wants to make sure the province ...

www.quintenews.com

 

[crs1026]

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

You too, huh?

A little random Googling brought me to a couple of interesting documents - Sharbot Lakes’s Official Plan (which does acknowledge the potential HFR) as well as this link to the Tay Havelock Trail which has a variety of smaller segments outlined on the Great Trail website.

There is also the Eastern Ontario Trails Alliance which appears to have secured the ability to charge for use of the line as a trailway. See here for commentary about the Hastings County section and a very recent EOTA agreement with Hastings County. These minutes from Hastings County have interesting comments suggesting that they own at least some of the former CP line and are in the process of purchasing more.

And this, hot off the press, about the desire for funding for said trail.

I was not aware that such rail trails were pay-to-use similar to many conservation areas. I had a loose plan to try and cycle some of this route post-covid, before VIA could get mobilised. I may have to wait until VIA is selling the passes.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

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

View attachment 324656

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.

Sorry?

I had forgotten about the court action until you mentioned it. Further digging revealed this from, I think 2005. If it is correct and I understand it correctly, the O&Q was finally amalgamated into CP in 1998. It still does not clarify the ownership status of the ROW except the pieces mentioned above. If ownership of sections have transferred to others, it will no doubt add to the cost.

Old Time Trains

 

[Northern Light]

Sorry?

I had forgotten about the court action until you mentioned it. Further digging revealed this from, I think 2005. If it is correct and I understand it correctly, the O&Q was finally amalgamated into CP in 1998. It still does not clarify the ownership status of the ROW except the pieces mentioned above. If ownership of sections have transferred to others, it will no doubt add to the cost.

Old Time Trains

LOL, no need to apologize, no apology was solicited.

You periodically make interesting observations that demand further examination.............this sometimes requires some degree of digging.

Not a bad thing!

 

[Bordercollie]

It also likely prohibits the running of overnight trains. Although they might have a huge market, are definitely something that some people would be interested in.

If you were to bring back the enterprise between Toronto and Montreal Thru Ottawa, its only one train in each direction. with Bi-directional running you could still close one track for maintenance and still be able to run the train. Besides you aren't going to do maintenance on the whole line every night anyways, you should be able to do it in sections.

 

[roger1818]

If you were to bring back the enterprise between Toronto and Montreal Thru Ottawa, its only one train in each direction. with Bi-directional running you could still close one track for maintenance and still be able to run the train. Besides you aren't going to do maintenance on the whole line every night anyways, you should be able to do it in sections.

Regarding maintenance, you are forgetting that it will likely be primarily single track, with occasional passing tracks, so for most of the line there is no alternate track to "run the train" on. Having said that, if they did bring back The Enterprise (I'm not holding my breath), they could ensure the trains run past before or after the maintenance on that section.

 

[crs1026]

^ Seconded...@lenaitch you ask some very thought provoking questions!

My google-rabbit-hole took me into the minutes of various county Councils along the east end of the Havelock Sub. I learned more than I ever knew about who actually maintains and monitors trails in Eastern Ontario.

I did not find any clear documentation about who owns the Havelock East line, unlike for instance the old CP Ottawa Valley line, which is now municipally owned (eg by Lanark County) all the way from Smiths Falls to Mattawa. It is clear that the Eastern Ontario Trails Alliance has user agreements with various municipalities, effectively making them the custodian of the lines. EOTA's Board minutes make for interesting reading particularly around the status of various abandoned lines - eg see here re CN and Renfrew County and a tidbit re discussion with VIA (see here) Its Board minutes pop up all over local Council agendas, if anyone cares to hunt for them.

As to HFR, VIA apparently did a consultation of local Councils in the summer of 2017. The Eastern Ontario Wardens Caucus expressed support for the proposal, and versions of their resolution appear to have worked its way into local Council discussions.

I'm sure that VIA has the legal leverage to take priority, but it speaks to the reality that acquiring the line isn't as simple as calling CP and agreeing on a figure. There may be multiple negotiations and I'm sure the municipalities and trail interests will look for the best possible deal.... up to and including potentially going to court. That will doubtless add time to the HFR timetable.

As an aside, I find that municipal Council minutes are a wonderful online research tool - it's always interesting what their clerks append to the minutes of their meetings, especially documents that agencies in Ottawa or QP may have delinked in the interest of rewriting past history. Here's a pretty good example from Frontenac Township..... complete with the then-current info page from VIA with its picture of HFR stats as they were being touted in 2017. Notice the comments about decision for the 2019 Federal Budget, and "Deployment in four years".... *sigh*

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

Wonder when the last 'mail train' left Union. 2021 version:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1400494596619182085

 

[lenaitch]

^ Seconded...@lenaitch you ask some very thought provoking questions!

My google-rabbit-hole took me into the minutes of various county Councils along the east end of the Havelock Sub. I learned more than I ever knew about who actually maintains and monitors trails in Eastern Ontario.

I did not find any clear documentation about who owns the Havelock East line, unlike for instance the old CP Ottawa Valley line, which is now municipally owned (eg by Lanark County) all the way from Smiths Falls to Mattawa. It is clear that the Eastern Ontario Trails Alliance has user agreements with various municipalities, effectively making them the custodian of the lines. EOTA's Board minutes make for interesting reading particularly around the status of various abandoned lines - eg see here re CN and Renfrew County and a tidbit re discussion with VIA (see here) Its Board minutes pop up all over local Council agendas, if anyone cares to hunt for them.

As to HFR, VIA apparently did a consultation of local Councils in the summer of 2017. The Eastern Ontario Wardens Caucus expressed support for the proposal, and versions of their resolution appear to have worked its way into local Council discussions.

I'm sure that VIA has the legal leverage to take priority, but it speaks to the reality that acquiring the line isn't as simple as calling CP and agreeing on a figure. There may be multiple negotiations and I'm sure the municipalities and trail interests will look for the best possible deal.... up to and including potentially going to court. That will doubtless add time to the HFR timetable.

As an aside, I find that municipal Council minutes are a wonderful online research tool - it's always interesting what their clerks append to the minutes of their meetings, especially documents that agencies in Ottawa or QP may have delinked in the interest of rewriting past history. Here's a pretty good example from Frontenac Township..... complete with the then-current info page from VIA with its picture of HFR stats as they were being touted in 2017. Notice the comments about decision for the 2019 Federal Budget, and "Deployment in four years".... *sigh*

- Paul

I did note that "Both County and Township political representatives and staff have continued to reinforce with Via the importance of the rail line and having a station in Sharbot Lake to our local economy." In this municipality and others, it will be interesting going forward whether the existence of a station stop turns into a caveat to their continued support.

 

[roger1818]

It certainly would make sense for the municipalities to own the ROW. Looking at CTA's process for transferring or discontinuing railway line operations, step 4 requires the ROW to be offered to the applicable federal, provincial and municipal governments and urban transit authorities for any purpose for no more than net salvage value.

Step 4 – Offer to governments and urban transit authorities​

The railway company shall offer to transfer all of its interest in the railway line to the applicable federal provincial and municipal governments and urban transit authorities. The railway line may be purchased for any purpose for no more than the net salvage value of the line. If the parties cannot agree on the net salvage value of the line within 90 days of any government’s acceptance of the offer, the Agency may, upon application, determine the net salvage value of the line. For further information please see the guidelines for applications on determining Net Salvage Value.

 

[crs1026]

^Having poked through even more Council minutes, (sorry, without bookmarking most to cite here) I did find ample hints that the municipalities along the way have acquired most, if not all, of the right of way east of Havelock. Some of this may be second hand, as Bell may have had easements or ownership for parts for a period of time. The timeframe for acquisition of the line by the Counties appears to be mostly 2010 or later.

The interesting thing about Bell is that they did a fair bit of “easing curves” in their day - ie they negotiated many easements over adjacent land to achieve more direct straight-line placement for poles and presumably fibre. In some cases they acquired multiple parallel paths where individual landowners were uncooperative. It’s a lot easier to straighten a line of poles that a track bed, obviously.

I’m sure VIA will be able to re-acquire ownership, but I would not ignore what may be necessary to make trail users whole or find new routes especially for the Trans Canada trail. Some of the official plans, long term business plans and strategy documents of various counties and trail associations are on line. The interesting discovery for me were some stats on usage of these trail - while we city mice think of trails as being about cycling or walking, and may view off road motor vehicles as noisy and polluting annoyances, I found data showing that roughly 75% of Eastern Ontario trail usage is by motorised vehicles, ie ATVs in summer and snowmobiles in winter. There is a very active tourism economy along the line, attracting group and individual trail riders both winter and summer. One strategy documented that casual use by local residents was the biggest source of user fee evasion - locals treated the trails as an entitlement. This all adds up to a significant stakeholder group who have made investments in the trails and in their own vehicles, and who may depend on revenue from the existing land use. I expect VIA may be asked to underwrite land acquisition and construction to create a replacement off road amenity in places. This group may be noisy and have enough organization to have leverage, so should not be dismissed.

All quite doable, and hopefully already in VIA’s project plan - but another consideration for those who wonder why VIA isn’t out there laying track today.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

^^^That could also explain some of the "derisking" of the project. I don't think the government would be willing to let VIA expropriate the land, as that would come with a political cost, but instead would want VIA to negotiate an amicable agreement with the owners of the ROW. Small, midroute stations may be built to appease those municipalities rather than because of real demand.

Interesting about Bell straightening the ROW. That makes sense as even though fibre doesn't need to be straight, keeping it straight results in less loss and thus fewer amplification nodes.

 

[lenaitch]

^^^That could also explain some of the "derisking" of the project. I don't think the government would be willing to let VIA expropriate the land, as that would come with a political cost, but instead would want VIA to negotiate an amicable agreement with the owners of the ROW. Small, midroute stations may be built to appease those municipalities rather than because of real demand.

Interesting about Bell straightening the ROW. That makes sense as even though fibre doesn't need to be straight, keeping it straight results in less loss and thus fewer amplification nodes.

I don't think he meant that Bell altered the former railway ROW but rather, straightened their easement route (i.e. deviated from the ROW).

 

[crs1026]

I don't think he meant that Bell altered the former railway ROW but rather, straightened their easement route (i.e. deviated from the ROW).

The information about Bell came from some accounts of what was needed to change the title when the municipalities took possession. It seems Bell did not retain ownership of secctions of the ROW where it had moved its lines to a more direct route, so there were gaps that had to be acquired from other owners.

When I look on Streetview, from what one can see at road crossings, there is virtually no pole line left along the ROW. There are lots of those orange markers that are sometimes used to mark buried cables or fiber, but it's hard to tell if they are just trail markers or Bell markers. So the Bell easements may have been from pre-fiber days, and are now obsolete. Interesting nonetheless.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

From trips down that way (wife used to live in Sharbot Lake) the metal plates on posts visible from the road certainly did look like buried cable markers, and a few Streetview samples show what look like the new plastic marker stakes, but you are correct, hard to know for certain. The easement or parts of it on the ROW could simply have been abandoned. When we had the farm, the title papers included a 1950 easement document for a large buried Bell cable which had long since been abandoned (at least we assumed so - a neighbour's plough severed it and nobody showed up!)