|
|
|
General railway discussions
- Thread starter Urban Sky
- Start date
roger1818
Active Member
This shouldn't be a surprise. Mexico's priority is likely to make it as easy as possible to get their manufactured goods to market. Reducing the number of changes in rail networks en route will make it easier. Granted, you don't want a monopoly, as the lack of competition would drive up prices, but I don't see that as being an issue with the CP-KCS merger.
Last edited:
drum118
Superstar
Allandale25
Senior Member
‘As loud and intrusive as the fog horn’: Growth near tracks renews call for Clarington train whistle ban
Hundreds of new Clarington homes could be built near a railway that has sparked years of resident’s noise complaints for the blasting train whistle.
roger1818
Active Member
Interesting! The entire story is worth a read, but a couple quotes that jumped out at me were:
It is amazing that the hydrogen tanks will fit in the same space as the cooling system for the diesel engine.
It is amazing that they expect their locomotives to last that long. By converting an existing locomotive to H2, they can experiment without making as big a commitment.
Northern Light
Superstar
Article in this morning's Globe and Mail on the proposed rail service between Calgary and Banff.
The article was not paywalled from the 'Canada' page, for me, at time of posting.
www.theglobeandmail.com
A few excerpts:
'***
Lots more in the actual article.
Tentative price $40 for out-of-market passengers, locals $20
The article was not paywalled from the 'Canada' page, for me, at time of posting.
Cost of Calgary-Banff rail service now pegged at $1.5-billion
Alberta-based Liricon Capital, along with Toronto-based co-developer Plenary, said this week it has submitted an updated proposal on the Calgary-Banff Rail project to the Alberta government and the Canada Infrastructure Bank
www.theglobeandmail.com
A few excerpts:
'***
Lots more in the actual article.
Tentative price $40 for out-of-market passengers, locals $20
roger1818
Active Member
Article in this morning's Globe and Mail on the proposed rail service between Calgary and Banff.
The article was not paywalled from the 'Canada' page, for me, at time of posting.
Cost of Calgary-Banff rail service now pegged at $1.5-billion
Alberta-based Liricon Capital, along with Toronto-based co-developer Plenary, said this week it has submitted an updated proposal on the Calgary-Banff Rail project to the Alberta government and the Canada Infrastructure Bank
A few excerpts:
View attachment 367832
'***
View attachment 367833
Lots more in the actual article.
Tentative price $40 for out-of-market passengers, locals $20
When I clicked the link, it was paywalled, but found the same/similar article here:
Granthshala News
Read News in the easiest way to stay up to date with information that matter most, with a seamless reading experience across all your devices on Granthshala News.
granthshala.com
KevinT
Active Member
Article in this morning's Globe and Mail on the proposed rail service between Calgary and Banff.
The article was not paywalled from the 'Canada' page, for me, at time of posting.
Cost of Calgary-Banff rail service now pegged at $1.5-billion
Alberta-based Liricon Capital, along with Toronto-based co-developer Plenary, said this week it has submitted an updated proposal on the Calgary-Banff Rail project to the Alberta government and the Canada Infrastructure Bank
Unfortunately it was paywalled off for me, but I found this article with more info that seems to be an open link:
https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/calgary-banff-passenger-rail-project/
(Note: There's a big gap in the middle of this article in my browser, but scrolling down revealed more info.)
Edit to add: Thanks @roger1818, we posted at the same time so I hadn't seen your link yet, but it has far more detail than mine. Great find!
Last edited:
crs1026
Senior Member
^It’s interesting how the financing is said to have been put together, with an eye to managing both the risk to private investors as well as the risk to the taxpayer.
The environmental and Indigenous consultations will prove a challenge. I wonder what the economic upside to First Nations might need to be to obtain their support, and how much environmental mitigation might cost (one has to expect this will require more than the average attention, and may lead to a new higher standard), and has this been built into the numbers yet.
It does seem to lead towards a win-win-win scenario: gives Ottawa a way to put federal money in up front thus showing support for Alberta’s economic development, protecting the provincial risk while leveraging the economic potential of Alberta tourism, while finding the least environmentally intrusive way of getting the greatest number of tourist dollars into the Banff area.
Makes one think there are more legs to this than one might have believed earlier.
Of course, one wonders how this can move this far this fast (including CIB taking a public stand) when HFR has moved so slowly…. but maybe this is the political equaliser that HFR needs to win over voters in some other parts of the nation.
- Paul
The environmental and Indigenous consultations will prove a challenge. I wonder what the economic upside to First Nations might need to be to obtain their support, and how much environmental mitigation might cost (one has to expect this will require more than the average attention, and may lead to a new higher standard), and has this been built into the numbers yet.
It does seem to lead towards a win-win-win scenario: gives Ottawa a way to put federal money in up front thus showing support for Alberta’s economic development, protecting the provincial risk while leveraging the economic potential of Alberta tourism, while finding the least environmentally intrusive way of getting the greatest number of tourist dollars into the Banff area.
Makes one think there are more legs to this than one might have believed earlier.
Of course, one wonders how this can move this far this fast (including CIB taking a public stand) when HFR has moved so slowly…. but maybe this is the political equaliser that HFR needs to win over voters in some other parts of the nation.
- Paul
Towered
Senior Member
Article in this morning's Globe and Mail on the proposed rail service between Calgary and Banff.
The article was not paywalled from the 'Canada' page, for me, at time of posting.
Cost of Calgary-Banff rail service now pegged at $1.5-billion
Alberta-based Liricon Capital, along with Toronto-based co-developer Plenary, said this week it has submitted an updated proposal on the Calgary-Banff Rail project to the Alberta government and the Canada Infrastructure Bank
A few excerpts:
View attachment 367832
'***
View attachment 367833
Lots more in the actual article.
Tentative price $40 for out-of-market passengers, locals $20
I love that this being proposed - it's a no-brainer to offer a non-car transit link between Alberta's biggest city and a destination for active tourism.
Now how about that Toronto-Collingwood/Blue Mountain rail link...
roger1818
Active Member
The article says that eventually there will be seven stops, so building a station for the Stony Nakoda Nation’s Morley Reserve might be enough to make the project a net positive for the nation.
Hard to say for sure, but given that it will be "a new dedicated line built within the existing CP corridor," that should make it easier. It seems as though at least some of the corridor had previously had double track, so that should also help.
Agreed.
All you need to do is convince a private investment company that it would be profitable and to fund the project.
Towered
Senior Member
I would hope we can do better than that. In the spirit of prioritizing the health of the environment and decreasing reliance on cars, the Ontario government should invest in the infrastructure.
crs1026
Senior Member
I know nothing about this particular First Nation, so I’m simply not assuming how they might react. Depending on their demographics and current level of development, they might be supportive in return for job opportunities, infrastructure, and/or compensation. They may however have unresolved disputes or grievances that may stand in the way of quick agreement. Or they may oppose any or all further intrusion in their traditional lands. I’m not saying any of this is true, I’m just not assuming a quick yes - there will have to be discussions to know the positions and alternatives.
While it’s tempting to assume that adding a second track has little impact (given that the railway is already there), I suspect there may be a wish-list of mitigations that may have been proposed and/or never made the cut in past government or CP budgets - that may now be brought forward as asks from environmental groups, Parks staff, provincial or federal agencies, or landowners. So even if the past standard and current impact has been generally accepted, this may be seen as an opportunity to up the game. Personally I am fine with some of that…….but I’m not funding the project! I have no idea if any of these are big ticket items, either. I’m simply saying, don’t be surprised if such asks are brought forward, lengthening or complicating the decisionmaking.
- Paul
Northern Light
Superstar
Found an image which I take to represent the thinking on rolling stock for the Calgary-Banff service:
From: https://banffecotransithub.ca/wp-co...ail-Design-Phase-Press-Release-12-08-2021.pdf
From: https://banffecotransithub.ca/wp-co...ail-Design-Phase-Press-Release-12-08-2021.pdf
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Which brings us back to the question of who can name any FRA/TC-compliant DMU type which is currently available for production…