News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1.3K     7 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 939     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.8K     0 

General railway discussions

lenaitch said:
We're still about 20 years out so lots of time to sort out the 'how' and lots of time for lots of protests.
Click to expand...
Once the FN signs off it’s hard have a legitimate protest. Both the Township of Ignace and the Wabigoon Nation voted overwhelmingly in favour. It’s longterm jobs and investment weighed against a very low risk of public safety (nothing gets more oversight than nuclear waste transport and storage).
 
Admiral Beez said:
Once the FN signs off it’s hard have a legitimate protest. Both the Township of Ignace and the Wabigoon Nation voted overwhelmingly in favour. It’s longterm jobs and investment weighed against a very low risk of public safety (nothing gets more oversight than nuclear waste transport and storage).
Click to expand...
If they are okay with it, we should be okay with it…
 
Admiral Beez said:
Once the FN signs off it’s hard have a legitimate protest. Both the Township of Ignace and the Wabigoon Nation voted overwhelmingly in favour. It’s longterm jobs and investment weighed against a very low risk of public safety (nothing gets more oversight than nuclear waste transport and storage).
Click to expand...

There are two levels of protest. One is the whole anti-nuclear agenda, which will point out all the perils and pitfalls in hopes of making the whole thing sound unworkable. That makes no sense in that Ontario has clearly chosen to reap the benefits of nuclear energy (and has done so for over 50 years) - and the adult reality is that if you reap a benefit, you also have to assume and manage the risks and down side. The idea of a better safer repository for nuclear fuel than storing it at the generating sites makes eminent sense and is just adult, given that the nuclear ship has sailed. But that chain of protest will no doubt continue as an axe that some will grind, forever. So yeah, the next 20 years will have plenty of that kind of protest.

But the second level is simply, what it is the best approach, given that we are committed to moving forward. Both rail and road technologies exist which clearly meet a very high standard for safety and durability. But I have a feeling that putting the waste on a train in Durham Region or Bruce County and routing it through the center of Toronto on existing rail routes just isn't going to fly. The options of finding road routes to the north of Lake Simcoe seems a lot more likely to keep the waste well away from population centres. So my inexpert, fairly uninformed bet is on road.

One would think that rail, as the greenest mode, might be the way that a 'green" tecchnology would want to head..... but I suspect it will come down to how many backyards the waste will stay out of.

- Paul
 
Admiral Beez said:
Once the FN signs off it’s hard have a legitimate protest. Both the Township of Ignace and the Wabigoon Nation voted overwhelmingly in favour. It’s longterm jobs and investment weighed against a very low risk of public safety (nothing gets more oversight than nuclear waste transport and storage).
Click to expand...
That's one host township and one host FN. There is a lot more of both between the southern Ontario source sites and Ignace Township. Regardless of road or rail, both go through numerous population centres and FN 'traditional territories'. The Government of Canada has formally adopted the UN declaration of 'free, prior and informed consent' in relation to matters affecting their territories.

I agree with Paul. There is no longer rail to Bruce anyway.
 
I haven‘t had the time to look at this study, but definitely looks interesting:
IMG_7472.jpeg



 
Last edited:
Urban Sky said:
I haven‘t had the time to look at this study, but definitely looks interesting:


Click to expand...
If Canada could do a phased approach, I'd suggest tackling the lines in the Corridor that have some sort of passenger rail on them. Converting the freight and passenger rail along there would likely be a sizable chunk of GHG emissions emitted by trains in Canada. It is interesting how that study seems to point at doing key corridors, not a blanket conversion. Doing that in Canada would be a prudent way to do it as well.
 
crs1026 said:
I'm still reading, but this chart was an early revelation. And we are in such a hurry to electrify passengers - GO, VIA, etc? Even a marginal impact on freight would be a bigger bang for the buck.

- Paul

View attachment 619502
Click to expand...

Yes - but. The intensity of use of the GO network means that impact per kilometre, and the corresponding reduction of GHG's in relation to the cost of electrification, again on a per kilometre basis, would be disproportionately better than the costs associated with electrification of the much more thinly used long-haul freight lines in Canada. Not to say we should not pursue the freight line electrification, but to prioritize that over GO Transit based on the statistics shown is not such a clear cut case.

And - the other major benefit of GO electrification would be the service improvements possible with better acceleration and overall faster times between stations - overall reduction in journey times for GO transit passengers.
 
crs1026 said:
I'm still reading, but this chart was an early revelation. And we are in such a hurry to electrify passengers - GO, VIA, etc? Even a marginal impact on freight would be a bigger bang for the buck.

- Paul

View attachment 619502
Click to expand...
If the government paid to have all the current GO routes electrified and CN/CPKC could use it, it would be a good incentive for them to consider making the switch, If the government paid to have the Via Corridor routes electrified with the same idea,that would really be a good push for CN/CPKC to switch over in those areas. They won't unless they can see a ROI within 5 years.
 
AHK said:
Yes - but. The intensity of use of the GO network means that impact per kilometre, and the corresponding reduction of GHG's in relation to the cost of electrification, again on a per kilometre basis, would be disproportionately better than the costs associated with electrification of the much more thinly used long-haul freight lines in Canada. Not to say we should not pursue the freight line electrification, but to prioritize that over GO Transit based on the statistics shown is not such a clear cut case.

And - the other major benefit of GO electrification would be the service improvements possible with better acceleration and overall faster times between stations - overall reduction in journey times for GO transit passengers.
Click to expand...

I agree, the GO network is a cheaper (ie more affordable) place to start, and electrification gives service benefits. But….a kg of Carbon is a kg of carbon - and the graph won’t improve much with only passenger electrified.
Ironically, the midwest line that shows the greatest ton-miles of traffic (which would be the logical line to electrify to get the greatest carbon reduction soonest) …. Has such a heavy traffic base because it’s a key route for coal from the Powder River. Switch those customers off coal, the coal trains go away, and the carbon produced thru rail miles would fall considerably all on its own. A similar improvement is possible if we reduce the demand for shipment of oil by ship, btw
I wonder if someone has done the numbers on the old Santa Fe line from KC to LA - it looks like the most attractive investment in terms of most sunlight and most tonnage. It would be interesting to know the potential cost per ton mile compared to diesel.

- Paul
 
What's going on here?
www.trains.com

Alstom to become contract operator for LA’s Metrolink - Trains

LOS ANGELES — Alstom will become contract operator of Metrolink commuter rail operations, expanding on the company’s current maintenance role and replacing Amtrak, which has provided Metrolink’s crews since 2010. The initial five-year contract, valued at approximately $515 million, begins Jan...
www.trains.com www.trains.com

We're led to believe that Alstom wants out of operations, and to get back to focusing on manufacturing trains, but they just agreed to a 5 year deal with Metrolink in L.A. to manage their crew/staff.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rbt
Bordercollie said:
This equipment is much better than what they had previously
Click to expand...
One concern I have is do the frames of these cars support the freight cars that are attached at the back of the train?

Also if they run the locomotives around the train they won't be able to provide HEP to the coaches, unless they put one on each end and have the second locomotive dead in tow providing HEP for the coaches.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top