Ontario Northland/Northern Ontario Transportation

[lenaitch]

Then explain why the bridges all single track but the concrete at the ends are all double track width? O,h, and a local Sudbury historian has photographic evidence.

Would love to see it. The single width tunnels around the top of Lake Superior suggest otherwise. Perhaps it was a thought at the time to built the abutments to accommodate future passing tracks at minimal additional cost.

 

[lenaitch]

Sure, if CP is losing money on the White River to Sudbury freight operation, then that's valid. But if CP is losing money on the White River to Sudbury freight, they might as well exit Canada.

Then why is it already being done on some other runs in Canada that don't involve VIA, CN, or CP? I only raised the suggestion after someone pointed out which passenger runs in Canada already worked like this.

The only mixed trains that I am aware of are the ONR Cochrane - Moosonee and Keewatin Railway between The Pas and Pukatawagan. There is a big gap between a trundling 'it will get there when it gets there' service to a remote area and mile or two scheduled priority through freight train.
There is no White RIver to Sudbury freight train that I am aware of - it's all run through service. I do recall some musings a number of years ago about CP abandoning it's northern Ontario line as it was more profitable to run through the US. It died for whatever reason. There is very little enroute revenue between TBay and Sudbury.

 

[nfitz]

There is very little enroute revenue between TBay and Sudbury.

But there's a lot of freight that runs through there. I'm not even suggesting that they provide free service. Merely that the only be compensated for cost, rather than the usual profit they and CN gouge from taxpayers.

 

[lenaitch]

But there's a lot of freight that runs through there. I'm not even suggesting that they provide free service. Merely that the only be compensated for cost, rather than the usual profit they and CN gouge from taxpayers.

We seem to being going around in circles. Perhaps some of the railroaders will drop by with more detailed regulatory and operational ins-and-outs of tacking a couple of passenger cars (and don't forget a power car and possibly a baggage or at least combination car to accomodate boats and supplies) on the back of a several thousand ton, mile or two long timed freight consist, and then ask it to repeatedly stop. Given that they would be slowing down their main source or revenue, I'm guessing that CN or CP either wouldn't do it for any price or would suggest a price than would bring a tear to you eye

 

[nfitz]

We seem to being going around in circles. Perhaps some of the railroaders will drop by with more detailed regulatory and operational ins-and-outs of tacking a couple of passenger cars (and don't forget a power car and possibly a baggage or at least combination car to accomodate boats and supplies) on the back of a several thousand ton, mile or two long timed freight consist, and then ask it to repeatedly stop. Given that they would be slowing down their main source or revenue, I'm guessing that CN or CP either wouldn't do it for any price or would suggest a price than would bring a tear to you eye

I'm quite sure many here can quote lots of rule and regulations that wouldn't let this happen, ignoring that it's already happening on non-CP/CN lines.

I'm quite sure that they wouldn't want to to it for any price too. I wasn't suggesting giving them an option.

I'm simply asking what the actual financial damage would be to CP ... rather than asking for naysayers who can't cost it, giving all the reason it couldn't happen ... let's assume that aspect is asked and answered!

 

[lenaitch]

Good luck on your quest.

 

[crs1026]

^Cost is a mug’s game, the formula for compensating CN and CP has varied over the years and is a “song that never ends”.

In the precision railroading era, railways have squeezed their capacity so tightly that any new business taxes the operation and forces some level of capital investment. The original premise of both VIA and Amtrak - that they were utilising spare capacity that had no cost impact for the railways, beyond polishing the rails a little - is demonstrably untrue today.

But let’s imagine that the notional passenger car added to a hotshot freight is just a freight car that carries “meat” instead of sand or propane. The economics are the same, correct? Now price tickets for such a “people freight” car, using the same tariffs that would apply to a carload of automobiles or a container of refrigerators. The cost per ticket would still be wildly uneconomic.

As to the operational issues, s). The idea of adding flag stops where a 12,000 foot train has to stop on a dime to pick up passengers is just unimaginable.

There is first the issue of wasted energy and fuel consumption. These days, locomotives are equipped with a “Trip Optimiser”, a computer autopilot that runs with an eye to fuel conservation. And there is a satellite link that tells the control center if the engineer is using extra throttle. Those extra stops and starts would play havoc with those economy measures.

Then there is the issue of “slack action” - the brakes don’t apply evenly throughout the train, so the cars “run in” on the lead engine and “run out” as the locomotives accelerate away from a stop. One of the motives for abolishing the caboose was that as trains got longer, this cumulative slack motion got so powerful that it could injure or maim people riding on the tail end. (The exceptions eg Polar Bear is a pretty short and slow train, which is why they get away with mixed operation). Where company business cars are handled on freight trains, they are consistently handled at the front and not at the rear, for this reason. Stopping a train any old place because someone is flagging it down creates a million new scenarios of uphill and downhill slack action that the engineer can’t anticipate and would lead to human performance challenges.

The other reason for not touching the brakes - and this is a serious fear for crews - is that every brake transient creates the possibility of a “kicker” - a spontaneous application of the emergency brakes triggered by an off-calibrated freight car. Again, this phenomenon has increased as trains got longer. These events present serious potential for a train to break in two (or three, or four pieces), sometimes causing derailments. The pro’s will tell you that handling a 12,000 foot land barge is so tricky that they are virtually forbidden to touch the brakes except as absolutely necessary (to manage meets and planned switching moves) and with a lot of careful premeditation.

Then there is the potential in winter that, having stopped, there may be problems pumping up the brakes again due to leakage in the brake line.

None of these problems is a showstopper in itself, but it is challenging enough in the course of freight operation, that no one would seriously consider doubling the number of stops and starts just to offer local passenger service. You have to put the passengers on their own little train that doesn’t have these complications. By the way, the White River budd cars have a few of these issues as well. The stop-on-a-dime thing is notorious for causing sudden brake applications which cause flat wheels, leading to unpleasant rides and high maintenance costs for the RDC’s.

I actually had this experience myself....some friends and I did a canoe trip where we were dropped off by the Budd train. On the day we came out of the bush, while we were waiting for the Budd train, along came some maintenance workers inspecting the line. They stopped to chat, and we asked them to radio in that where we were, so the crew would have some advance warning of the need to stop. They decided it would be less hassle just to take us with them to the next division point, which was about 30 miles down the line. We loaded our canoes, backpacks, and ourselves onto their work equipment, and got the open air ride of a lifetime. My point being, the Budd train is run out of abject necessity, as a last resort, It is not a strategic option that we should be exploiting in a sophisticated transportation network.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

If we want to talk about service between Sudbury and Thunder Bay, why not include Sault St Marie? If new service were run from Sudbury, along the current HCR to the Soo, then up the ACR to the CP then on to Thunder Bay, it would have lots of revenue service. In fact if it continued to Winnipeg and started in Toronto and operated opposite the current Canadian, you might see even more service.

As far as the CP double track, I don't know. Maybe it didn't go all the way to Thunder Bay.

 

[Urban Sky]

If we want to talk about service between Sudbury and Thunder Bay, why not include Sault St Marie? If new service were run from Sudbury, along the current HCR to the Soo, then up the ACR to the CP then on to Thunder Bay, it would have lots of revenue service. In fact if it continued to Winnipeg and started in Toronto and operated opposite the current Canadian, you might see even more service.

Naturally, the more taxpayer funding you allocate, the more “revenue service” you will have. However, what is the benefit which restoring the previous TRTO-SUDB-SSM-WHTR-TB-WNPG Greyhound bus service couldn’t achieve at a much lower cost to the taxpayer?

 

[steveintoronto]

Naturally, the more taxpayer funding you allocate, the more “revenue service” you will have. However, what is the benefit which restoring the previous TRTO-SUDB-SSM-WHTR-TB-WNPG Greyhound bus service couldn’t achieve at a much lower cost to the taxpayer?

And to flip that over, bus where warranted, and the massive cost of overkill with trains on those routes be applied to one of many routes with demand greater than present service provides. Funding is in short supply, best spend it where it does the most good.

 

[Northern Light]

And to flip that over, bus where warranted, and the massive cost of overkill with trains on those routes be applied to one of many routes with demand greater than present service provides. Funding is in short supply, best spend it where it does the most good.

I think this is key.

Most of us here at UT and in this thread in particular, believe there should be more service by VIA and a larger funding envelope.

We believe, as a group, in varying degrees, that done properly, this can reduce emissions from cars, provide greater mobility to those that can't choose driving, and provide a more comfortable and quicker trip time than cars along most routes.

However, we must balance that by acknowledging that there is unlikely to be a deluge of new funds, that service without the proper investment may be unreliable or not time competitive w/the car, and that will ultimately see another rounds of cuts and little if any benefit to show for a short-lived revival/enhancement of services.

Making sure bus service is in place, where practical, is not only a wise way to allocate dollars in the short term, but allows a thoughtful business case to be established for reactivating rail, where demand may warrant.

I'm not familiar w/every corridor across the country; but if we were to exclude currently mandated remote services and examine where there is likely a convincing market, that one could serve and build out from, I expect the most compelling cases for investment would likely be The Corridor, followed by Edmonton-Calgary; after that, I think there might be a solid case for a service linking some or all of the major centres in New Brunswick, and on to Halifax.

To come back to Northern Ontario, the compelling case will be Near North to Toronto; and then areas in the N/W feeding Thunder Bay.

But to get there you have to rebuild a seamless, integrated service network and the bulk of that must come by bus in the near term.

The case to be built around the higher (potential) traffic routes in Northern Ontario is one that will require sizable infrastructure investment to drive down trip times and avoid any conflicts w/freight.

I don't wonder whether it wasn't an unfortunate oversight w/the extension of 400 not to set aside a room for a rail ROW that could become exclusive passenger track getting you (ultimately) from Sudbury to Toronto (via Barrie).

Alas, that ship has sailed.

 

[steveintoronto]

I don't wonder whether it wasn't an unfortunately oversight w/the extension of 400 not to set aside a room for a rail ROW that could become exclusive passenger track getting you (ultimately) from Sudbury to Toronto (via Barrie).

Even there (and there are serious drawbacks from safety and operational factors for centre median rail) the costs would still vastly outweigh the benefit. For a much lower cost, diamond/HOV/bus lanes could be built, and the benefit of the cost shared much more widely. Bus routes could diverge whenever, and wherever is deemed most apt at any given time.

I'm an avid proponent for HFR, but even there, even the RoW built by Private Investment, a subsidy of some sort would be needed, but with an excellent return in terms of saving investment elsewhere.

That's your point though on "network", and wisely, one of the ways some persons are making a business case for this, as a 'spine' into which a lot of regional bus routes would feed at various stations.

The truly odd thing about all of this is that the man with the butcher's cleaver, Slash Fedeli, Mr "Budget Cuts" himself, is the one claiming to be promoting it, and meantime, Greg Gormick, who was hired to promote it, is the bane of the butcher's existence.

It's bizarre...

 

[Northern Light]

Even there (and there are serious drawbacks from safety and operational factors for centre median rail) the costs would still vastly outweigh the benefit. For a much lower cost, diamond/HOV/bus lanes could be built, and the benefit of the cost shared much more widely. Bus routes could diverge whenever, and wherever is deemed most apt at any given time.

I'm an avid proponent for HFR, but even there, even the RoW built by Private Investment, a subsidy of some sort would be needed, but with an excellent return in terms of saving investment elsewhere.

That's your point though on "network", and wisely, one of the ways some persons are making a business case for this, as a 'spine' into which a lot of regional bus routes would feed at various stations.

The truly odd thing about all of this is that the man with the butcher's cleaver, Slash Fedeli, Mr "Budget Cuts" himself, is the one claiming to be promoting it, and meantime, Greg Gormick, who was hired to promote it, is the bane of the butcher's existence.

It's bizarre...

Essentially in agreement w/you here.

I would only add, that if an ROW were established when building a completely new highway, it need not be based in the centre of the corridor, it could be placed off to one side, that does increase some costs in terms of how interchanges would be designed...but I digress.

I was only mooting the possibility in so far as the existing track connections between the near north and Toronto are both mainline freight tracks, and neither is a straight-line connection of major centres or the most direct route.

Its not that I would suggest this be the priority spend; its more a case of if one is building a new highway, and one contemplates the need for a new ROW 30 years in the future, now would be the time to accommodate it. (that doesn't mean lay the track or building the stations, but have the corridor width and layout in place in place. (future-proofing)

 

[lenaitch]

Essentially in agreement w/you here.

I would only add, that if an ROW were established when building a completely new highway, it need not be based in the centre of the corridor, it could be placed off to one side, that does increase some costs in terms of how interchanges would be designed...but I digress.

I was only mooting the possibility in so far as the existing track connections between the near north and Toronto are both mainline freight tracks, and neither is a straight-line connection of major centres or the most direct route.

Its not that I would suggest this be the priority spend; its more a case of if one is building a new highway, and one contemplates the need for a new ROW 30 years in the future, now would be the time to accommodate it. (that doesn't mean lay the track or building the stations, but have the corridor width and layout in place in place. (future-proofing)

Good points but, pretty much everything north of Simcoe County (and away from towns) is Crown land so land-banking to future-proof a ROW isn't near the issue it is in the south. The relatively gentle grade and curve requirements of rail would likely significantly alter the profile of an accompanying roadway and add to its cost, spent in today's dollars. I'm not convinced current track capacity, certainly on the CP, alone is a barrier to adding service. As you say, that ship has sailed anyway.

 

[lenaitch]

If we want to talk about service between Sudbury and Thunder Bay, why not include Sault St Marie? If new service were run from Sudbury, along the current HCR to the Soo, then up the ACR to the CP then on to Thunder Bay, it would have lots of revenue service. In fact if it continued to Winnipeg and started in Toronto and operated opposite the current Canadian, you might see even more service.

As far as the CP double track, I don't know. Maybe it didn't go all the way to Thunder Bay.

Other than a 'build it and they will come' philosophy, I simply don't see the potential ridership numbers to justify this routing. Other than some tourist traffic along the north shore of Superior, I simply don't see much of need for personal/business travel between the cities (TBay-Wpg perhaps, but not the others, and TBay-Wpg has air service).

Sudbury-SSM certainly has the track capacity but not the quality. SSM-Franz (CP) is pretty much the same, and may well have capacity issues if the ferrochrome smelter opens.

Anything can happen with enough subsidy money, but there has to be at least a foundation of need, and I don't see it.

As far as the CP double tracking, it didn't go anyway to Thunder Bay. There is, or possibly was, some double tracking, or at least very long passing tracks, around the Sudbury area to accommodate increased industrial movements from Inco and Falconbridge, but there has never, ever been double track mainline west of there.