Quote:
Originally Posted by GoTrans
When was the double track lifted and from where to where? This is another example of many as to why the government should regulate the removal of track from railway property even if it is not used. There is nothing wrong with charging Via and/or HRM for the sole use by them if CN deems it to be surplus. The problem is that it costs many more of today's dollars to put the track back than to rehabilitate lines that were mothballed years ago. CN wants to reduce costs, hold 3rd party users hostage to use existing track or previous track and will not provide any guarantees that passenger/commuter trains will be dispatched with any priority over freights. This pattern repeats itself time and time again all over the country. For example West Coast Express can't add more trains because CP won't let them, Via can't add more trains between Ottawa and Montreal because CN won't let them, GO Transit had to purchase much of the trackage from CN around Toronto in order to have control over much of its network to name a few. On and on it goes.
|
I've been trying to pin down when, precisely, CN removed much of the double-track through the 7-km rail cut, but it was no later than the early 2000s. The Halifax Urban Greenway Study from February 2004 includes photos of the single-tracked line and states that, "The corridor formerly contained two rail tracks in its entirety
until recently when one track has been lifted." (Italics added.) I have a print someone gifted me in 2003 or 2004 that likewise shows the second track removed. The greenway report also notes that at the same time double track was removed, CN lowered the rail bed under some of the bridges to allow for double-stack containers to and from Halterm.
It should be said that this was not unique to Halifax or to CN, nor a measure of "declining rail use" as the study suggests. Railways throughout North America reduced and consolidated their trackage in the 90s and 00s due to better signalling and more efficient operating practices that included fewer, longer trains. CN in fact pioneered what's called "precision scheduled railroading", maximizing train sizes and reducing crews. But as traffic has grown, there are many places in North America where railroads have come to regret removing track. In western Canada, CN has announced over $1 billion in investments to install additional double track, sidings and port capacity. As anyone who has travelled (what's left of) Via's service west of Ontario knows, trying to thread passenger trains around these miles-long freight trains has become an exercise in futility. Via and CN this year lengthened the travel time between Toronto and Vancouver by almost a day yet trains are still arriving late.
CN's plans for Halifax are not just pie in the sky apparently. CN's CEO
told an investor conference in New York at the end of May that the railway wants to turn Halifax into the "Prince Rupert of the East". Jean-Jacques Ruest said CN will work with Halterm to build capacity in Halifax saying, “One way or another we will try to make this Halifax terminal more successful to the middle of the continent."
While I'm disappointed, as many are, that the proposal for commuter rail appears to have foundered, I can't say I'm at all surprised. Some of the comments attributed to HRM councillors seem to show a surprising level of naiveté. CN was never going to cede priority over its rails to Halifax Transit, any more than it has done for Via, GO, or any other passenger authority. (Nor was it never going to agree to share its right of way with trucks.) In the US, CN is among the least cooperative of railways in its dealings with Amtrak. Unlike Canada, the US has legislation that in principle gives priority to passenger trains but courts have routinely rejected attempts to penalize railways for non-compliance. Transport Canada has shown no interest whatsoever in telling CN to stop prioritizing potash over people and will certainly not be standing up for Halifax commuters.