VIA Rail

[lenaitch]

They could just barge it to Moosonee.

See, this is where you get yourself in trouble on here. Rather than phrase it as a question or even a speculation, you make a definitive statement.

The answer to your definitive statement is 'no, they couldn't. The lower reaches of the Moose River is a shallow, sandbar riven tidal delta. At village waterfront, there are a few small docks and water depth of a handful of feet depending on the tide. There is no seawall like in Churchill. Even if they could, somehow, get a tug and barge that is large enough to carry about 130 ton to the sand waterfront, there are no shore facilities to offload it.

 

[dowlingm]

And what would you do the 7 months per year where RMR doesn’t operate?

Ah. That would be a little tricky. I didn’t realize their offseason was so wide

 

[Bordercollie]

Ah. That would be a little tricky. I didn’t realize their offseason was so wide

I guess the answer would be to build a light maintenance facility in the Jasper yard and then cycle equipment through to VMC for heavy work. Similar to what happens in Sudbury.

How do freight locomotives get serviced in Churchill? Do they have a shop?

 

[nfitz]

They could just barge it to Moosonee.

To what port?

If such a good idea, why didn't they do it last time.

 

[Urban Sky]

To what port?

If such a good idea, why didn't they do it last time.

Even when you prove a troll wrong, he still wins, because you gave him what fuels his posts: attention and the ability to dictate the course of the debates. The only way to win against him is to deny him attention or even better: to deprive him of his platform, though you’d unfortunately need admin rights for that…

 

[micheal_can]

See, this is where you get yourself in trouble on here. Rather than phrase it as a question or even a speculation, you make a definitive statement.

The answer to your definitive statement is 'no, they couldn't. The lower reaches of the Moose River is a shallow, sandbar riven tidal delta. At village waterfront, there are a few small docks and water depth of a handful of feet depending on the tide. There is no seawall like in Churchill. Even if they could, somehow, get a tug and barge that is large enough to carry about 130 ton to the sand waterfront, there are no shore facilities to offload it.

I stated it in a way as a can they, just like the other person mentioned the Rocky Mountaineer equipment.

I did not realize they didn't have any docking facilities. So, no they cannot. The depth could be mitigated, but with no real docking facility they have no way of offloading it. For the once in a lifetime situation, it does not make sense to spend money to make it possible.

 

[micheal_can]

I know it has been brought up, but now it is in the news:

Back on track: NDP bill aims to make train passengers a priority

There’s a new push in Parliament to give passengers priority over freight on Canada’s vast network of rail lines. The Rail Passenger Priority Act seeks to amend the Canada Transportation Act to require railway companies to give passenger trains the right of way or face monetary penalties of up...

www.ctvnews.ca

This may be the single thing that if done could be done without spending a dime and bring the most good to the existing service. I know it is not that simple as freight carriers may push back. I am wondering if any of the abandoned tracks that CN and CP owned would help those companies still move as much or more freight as they are now with those potential changes. I am thinking of sections of the Newmarket Sub or the Ottawa Valley sections. Maybe this will be the push for double/triple/quad track where Passenger rail is shared in Canada. Or, maybe this dies in the House.

 

[lenaitch]

I stated it in a way as a can they, just like the other person mentioned the Rocky Mountaineer equipment.

I did not realize they didn't have any docking facilities. So, no they cannot. The depth could be mitigated, but with no real docking facility they have no way of offloading it. For the once in a lifetime situation, it does not make sense to spend money to make it possible.

No, you did not. "Can they" starts a question. "They could" makes a statement.

I've never put somebody on 'ignore' in any thread in my life but you are circling the drain.

 

[Garuda]

I know it has been brought up, but now it is in the news:

Back on track: NDP bill aims to make train passengers a priority

There’s a new push in Parliament to give passengers priority over freight on Canada’s vast network of rail lines. The Rail Passenger Priority Act seeks to amend the Canada Transportation Act to require railway companies to give passenger trains the right of way or face monetary penalties of up...

www.ctvnews.ca

This may be the single thing that if done could be done without spending a dime and bring the most good to the existing service. I know it is not that simple as freight carriers may push back. I am wondering if any of the abandoned tracks that CN and CP owned would help those companies still move as much or more freight as they are now with those potential changes. I am thinking of sections of the Newmarket Sub or the Ottawa Valley sections. Maybe this will be the push for double/triple/quad track where Passenger rail is shared in Canada. Or, maybe this dies in the House.

Funny how the LPC caucus is very quiet about this. You would think that the Environmental Ministry Steven Guilbeault and Transportation Minister Pablo Rodriguez would champion passenger railway priority.

 

[lenaitch]

Funny how the LPC caucus is very quiet about this. You would think that the Environmental Ministry Steven Guilbeault and Transportation Minister Pablo Rodriguez would champion passenger railway priority.

They will champion and support what the PMO tells them to champion and support. The Act, as it appears to be written and if passed (why champion if you're not going to vote for it?) would no doubt land the government in protracted legal proceedings.

 

[reaperexpress]

I've never put somebody on 'ignore' in any thread in my life but you are circling the drain.

I refrained from adding anyone to my ignore list for years but after seeing how much it improved my ability to tolerate the GO Fleet thread when it was being spammed by some pathological liar, I added a couple others to the list (including the troll in this thread) and have not regretted it.

We are on this forum for fun, we have no obligation to read anything we don't want to. Seeing posts from posters who are incapable of learning anything or having an intelligent discussion undermines the value of reading the thread so I have no issue with hiding them.

I think you guys came to a good solution with the new QC-W thread. I think that combined with the ignore function will bring the intelligence of the Via Rail Corridor discussion back up to a good level.

 

[roger1818]

Funny how the LPC caucus is very quiet about this. You would think that the Environmental Ministry Steven Guilbeault and Transportation Minister Pablo Rodriguez would champion passenger railway priority.

The issue is far more complicated than it may seem to a passenger rail fan. Trading thousands of cars for thousands of trucks would not be an improvement.

 

[Bordercollie]

The issue is far more complicated than it may seem to a passenger rail fan. Trading thousands of cars for thousands of trucks would not be an improvement.

Are you somehow confusing the fact that giving a few passenger trains priority would result in freight railways being less attractive, resulting in more trucks on the road?

 

[nfitz]

The issue is far more complicated than it may seem to a passenger rail fan. Trading thousands of cars for thousands of trucks would not be an improvement.

The Liberals will be hearing the story from Transport Canada is that it would decrease freight capacity, and that would further supply issues, and possibly inflation.

Though why adding is extra tracks on the CP line is on the table for HFR, but adding extra tracks on the CN line for VIA isn't.

 

[roger1818]

Are you somehow confusing the fact that giving a few passenger trains priority would result in freight railways being less attractive, resulting in more trucks on the road?

It could certainly lead to a reduction in competitiveness for the freight railways, especially if not done properly. There is no such thing as a free lunch.