VIA Rail

[Urban Sky]

It would likely be something existing and off the shelf.

Bombardier bid last time but they dont have anything in production and there are no proven examples of their products running in North America ( in this category).
Unless an updated superliner is what VIA is looking for but I'm not sure if they would fit in Winnipeg Station or through the tunnels in BC. Someone on this forum said that they where too tall.
However restarting a production line for an order this size might be costly.

That's why logically the lowest bidder would be a company that has things in production.

I just realized that Superliners are just 4 inches (10 cm) higher than the HEP Dome cars (i.e. 16‘2“ vs. 15‘10“) and I can‘t imagine them to be higher than triple-stack auto transporting cars. However, given that they already had to remove the catenary wires at a few tracks in Gare Centrale to allow the Ocean to operate into the station, these 4 inches might just be too much.

In any case, another deal breaker might be their boarding height, which at 21.7 inches is significantly lower than the 48 (?) inches present at Gare Centrale. Conversely, the boarding height of Viewliners is 51 inches, which would be a much better fit…

 

[dowlingm]

I have been catching up on UT a bit and noted the discussion about what VIA could operate over CP, particularly CP Winchester. One thing I have been wondering about is the impact of the CP/KCS merger, which looks to be a close-to-done (after some more huffing and puffing by the other Class Is) deal.

The supporting documentation (the appendices to the STB filing) dwells mostly on single-train services between Western Canada-Mexico and points in between, where the combined entity does not depend on operating rights but rather their owned track, but it looks like some anticipated increases east of the Detroit Tunnel are expected, both to serve origins and destination in central-eastern Canada such as metal producers and the (named in the filing) rail connected Toronto Home Depot Distribution Centre, and to bring increased business to and from the deep water shipping at Saint John, NB and Searsport, ME.

The point of this being that CP might push enough traffic up the Havelock (when re-opened) and Belleville to dictate upgrades to the Winchester - but for its purposes. Similarly, some non-VIA projects like Missing Link, or other ideas about co-production, might be (even) less attractive to CP if it gives them less leeway to make money themselves.

The flip side of that is reading CP wax lyrical about its support of passenger services NW of Chicago, its “A” rating from Amtrak, and offering them a round trip on their New Orleans track. If only Canadian regulatory processes were such that it might make similar offers up here.

 

[Urban Sky]

The point of this being that CP might push enough traffic up the Havelock (when re-opened) and Belleville to dictate upgrades to the Winchester - but for its purposes. Similarly, some non-VIA projects like Missing Link, or other ideas about co-production, might be (even) less attractive to CP if it gives them less leeway to make money themselves.

I don’t see a reason why CP would regain any trackage rights for the Eastern half of the Havelock Sub - they‘ve surrendered all rights when they abandoned and sold the ROW…

 

[dowlingm]

I don’t see a reason why CP would regain any trackage rights for the Eastern half of the Havelock Sub - they‘ve surrendered all rights when they abandoned and sold the ROW…

as a condition of VIA being able to operate over the parts that are extant, no?

 

[Urban Sky]

as a condition of VIA being able to operate over the parts that are extant, no?

Don’t you think that taking the financial responsibility for track maintenance and property tax payments off their shoulder and allowing them to operate their freight service at a fraction of their current labor costs (resulting from speeds up to 80 mph rather than the current 15-20 mph) be enough incentives to surrender that segment in exchange for tracking rights on these existing tracks? Also, the Eastern half would need to be so aggressively banked that inserting freight trains would exacerbate wear and tear on the tracks. Finally, I struggle to imagine a scenario where CP would prefer to reroute its trains over the Havelock Sub rather than simply adding more sidings onto its Belleville Sub…

Edit to add: Not to mention that any reference to „freight traffic“ would put local NIMBYs in places like Tweed or Sharbot Lake on Steroids…

 

[kEiThZ]

Not to mention that any reference to „freight traffic“ would put local NIMBYs in places like Tweed or Sharbot Lake on Steroids…

I'm not very confident about those NIMBYs being more favourable to passenger trains blasting through at 177 kph.

 

[crs1026]

^I can’t imagine a scenario that would make it worth CP’s while to use the Havelock route for freight. Maintenance and operating costs would be cheaper on the Belleville line, which they own…and has lots of spare capacity, and is totally under their operating control.

CP is actually pretty receptive with various Canadian initiatives - eg passenger rail use of the Windsor tunnel, the Banff passenger proposal, and HFR. And Ottawa didn’t create any bureaucratic obstacles to the KCS deal. Perhaps there are things CP wants from Ottawa, but none are as destiny-laden as the KCS merger.

And, keep in mind, Congress just passed a huge infrastructure bill that could provide funding for improvements to the Baton Rouge line. The offer to run Amtrak on that route isn’t really putting CP out all that much, and might pay for itself.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

I'm not very confident about those NIMBYs being more favourable to passenger trains blasting through at 177 kph.

I hope we can at least agree that the public acceptance of enduring frequent passenger trains is not exactly enhanced by adding a few freight trains into the mix...

 

[roger1818]

I'm not very confident about those NIMBYs being more favourable to passenger trains blasting through at 177 kph.

Not sure how many NIMBYs there are between Havelock and Glen Tay. I suspect the moose out number the people along that stretch.

 

[crs1026]

Not sure how many NIMBYs there are between Havelock and Glen Tay. I suspect the moose out number the people along that stretch.

The community at Sharbot Lake has gone on record seeking a bypass around their town. Beyond that, most towns appear to be favouring the line as they assume they will get a station in their town. Both of those extreme asks may be a bit hard to satisfy, but we’ll see.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

The community at Sharbot Lake has gone on record seeking a bypass around their town.

I’m relatively familiar with Sharbot Lake (population about 1,400), and given the routing the railway used to take, I can understand why the locals would want it it to bypass around it as it would cut across their pubic beach (just ask those in White Rock BC what that’s like) among other things.

Beyond that, most towns appear to be favouring the line as they assume they will get a station in their town. Both of those extreme asks may be a bit hard to satisfy, but we’ll see.

Tweed is the largest community (population approx. 6000) would see significant benefits from a station which would help compensate for the problems.

I can’t think of any other communities that would be significantly affected by the rebuilding of the Havelock sub (the ROW passes south of most of Kaladar and it runs close to Hwy 7 for example)

 

[crs1026]

I’m relatively familiar with Sharbot Lake (population about 1,400), and given the routing the railway used to take, I can understand why the locals would want it it to bypass around it as it would cut across their pubic beach (just ask those in White Rock BC what that’s like) among other things.

We discussed the bypass way back in this thread somewhere. It actually makes a lot of sense for VIA as well as the town, but it could add cost and a couple years to the construction time. I do think that objectively VIA will do harm to Sharbot Lake by restoring the old CPR route….especially at hourly headways in each direction. Whether that’s an acceptable impact given the benefit of the project to the Region generally will be the issue..

Tweed is the largest community (population approx. 6000) would see significant benefits from a station which would help compensate for the problems.

I can’t think of any other communities that would be significantly affected by the rebuilding of the Havelock sub (the ROW passes south of most of Kaladar and it runs close to Hwy 7 for example)

There are no showstopper impacts I can think of, but I wonder if expectations and reality will collide in a few places.

The biggest impact is actually in Peterboro, where trains have to run through the central area at far higher frequency and speed than currently - a fair bit of mitigation may be needed to separate the railway line and meet safety considerations. And west of Peterborough, there are several hamlets where one can predict conflicting pressures between residents/developers who expect GOish service and those who are accustomed to infrequent train intrusions and object to all the new horns/bells/crossing delays.

Perth and Smiths Falls will expect good service but VIA will likely need to limit the number of trains that actually stop in both places.

The main road crossing in Tweed gives me pause, Again, there may need to be safety measures and a fairly low speed limit. Quite doable, but the town will notice the changes.

The municipalities along the line are all eager for train service and I don’t see them backing away from that. But certainly there will be the usual media articles with grim-faced residents saying they were misled, not consulted, can’t sleep any more, etc etc. Some of that may be true on an individual level. Democracy is messy.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

We discussed the bypass way back in this thread somewhere. It actually makes a lot of sense for VIA as well as the town, but it could add cost and a couple years to the construction time. I do think that objectively VIA will do harm to Sharbot Lake by restoring the old CPR route….especially at hourly headways in each direction. Whether that’s an acceptable impact given the benefit of the project to the Region generally will be the issue..



There are no showstopper impacts I can think of, but I wonder if expectations and reality will collide in a few places.

The biggest impact is actually in Peterboro, where trains have to run through the central area at far higher frequency and speed than currently - a fair bit of mitigation may be needed to separate the railway line and meet safety considerations. And west of Peterborough, there are several hamlets where one can predict conflicting pressures between residents/developers who expect GOish service and those who are accustomed to infrequent train intrusions and object to all the new horns/bells/crossing delays.

Perth and Smiths Falls will expect good service but VIA will likely need to limit the number of trains that actually stop in both places.

The main road crossing in Tweed gives me pause, Again, there may need to be safety measures and a fairly low speed limit. Quite doable, but the town will notice the changes.

The municipalities along the line are all eager for train service and I don’t see them backing away from that. But certainly there will be the usual media articles with grim-faced residents saying they were misled, not consulted, can’t sleep any more, etc etc. Some of that may be true on an individual level. Democracy is messy.

- Paul

I think a lot of the municipalities were, or still are, in favour under the belief that they will see passenger service. Whether the residents will remain in favour once the details are fleshed out remains to be seen, Getting passenger service and getting to see passenger trains race by close to your house or cottage may be two different things.

 

[nfitz]

I think a lot of the municipalities were, or still are, in favour under the belief that they will see passenger service. Whether the residents will remain in favour once the details are fleshed out remains to be seen, Getting passenger service and getting to see passenger trains race by close to your house or cottage may be two different things.

With so few communities along the track, providing 2 or 3 trains a day on milk runs seems reasonable.

Smith Falls itself already gets 3 trains to Ottawa and Toronto each day (at least before Covid). No reason that shouldn't continue - though will it be through Kingston or Peterborough who knows ...

 

[lenaitch]

With so few communities along the track, providing 2 or 3 trains a day on milk runs seems reasonable.

Smith Falls itself already gets 3 trains to Ottawa and Toronto each day (at least before Covid). No reason that shouldn't continue - though will it be through Kingston or Peterborough who knows ...

The complexities of weaving milk runs into the planned service (single track w/passing tracks? I've lost track) I'll leave to others. Although I don't follow it that closely, I don't recall small community stops in the proposal.

Having the odd milk run stop may be little succor to having your doors rattled off by the through trains. In some areas there are permanent and seasonal properties that might have a reasonable cause of action for diminished value and enjoyment. It's not like an upgrade of usage; much of this hasn't been a rail line for nearly half a century.