Rural Commuter Rail

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Again it doesn't make sense since by the time they actually might start my guess is after 2035, there will be already an LRT connection at Fallowfield which will take customers directly downtown while MOOSE does not. There is no incentive to pay a MOOSE station at Fallowfield while OC transpo is there so MOOSE has to have only one station at McKenna Casey Drive where there is at least potential for more revenues.

Well sure, if LRT reaches Barrhaven before MOOSE does then you've got a point, but assuming that the opposite happens (just imagine for a moment that MOOSE manages to reach all its targets and begins operating in 2021, or hell even as late as 2025 or something, over a whole decade before LRT might reach that area) you can see why a station at Fallowfield might be worth paying for, right?

Even then, there could still be other advantages to having a station there. For example that line would apparently run directly into Gatineau which is something the LRT won't be able to. If it uses bi-level trains maybe it won't be packed like a sardine can like the LRT might end up being. The possibilities are endless.

[Mikeed]

I am of the opinion if anything happens with rural commuter rail in the Ottawa region it would only happen if Ontario was committed to returning freight traffic to the Ottawa Valley and CN's Beechburg Sub by folding it into the Ontario Northland portfolio.

With Greyhound retreating bus service in the area and the loss of freight service, we might see this if the Feds and Province were committed to subsidizing it.

But this would be a strategic and expensive decision to return abandoned rail lines into service.

Maybe if the Feds saw the need to give CFB Petawawa and Canadian Nuclear Labs railway access again.

Maybe consolidation between the OVR, former OCR and Ontario Northland railways and a P3 could make something happen with a heavy dose of "these are strategic assets" thus need a subsidy.

CN saw welded rail sent West to deal with the oil glut as more profitable than dealing with mediocre shortline service. But the OVR still exists so there must be some profit in these lines.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Well sure, if LRT reaches Barrhaven before MOOSE does then you've got a point, but assuming that the opposite happens (just imagine for a moment that MOOSE manages to reach all its targets and begins operating in 2021, or hell even as late as 2025 or something, over a whole decade before LRT might reach that area) you can see why a station at Fallowfield might be worth paying for, right?

Even then, there could still be other advantages to having a station there. For example that line would apparently run directly into Gatineau which is something the LRT won't be able to. If it uses bi-level trains maybe it won't be packed like a sardine can like the LRT might end up being. The possibilities are endless.

MOOSE has made no concrete steps to prove you correct while the city of Ottawa has made concrete steps to prove me correct. Ottawa will get the funding and has in the past while MOOSE wont and havent so far thats what i base my opinions on.

[Mikeed]

Related to my comment,

Must be a pain in the ass now to get 2 CMBG outta Base Pet for exercises in Alberta or Gagetown.

I would imagine they muster in Mattawa with OVR and then interchange in ether North Bay or Sudbury.
I'll have to inquire about that.

[OCCheetos]

Minor update in the PoW legal proceedings:
https://www.otrainfans.ca/blogs/memo-moose-petition-access-to-city-of-ottawa-submissions

In short, Transport Canada requested that the City make its submissions available to MOOSE and other interested parties associated with MOOSE (neither of which are officially part of the case) and the City decided that the material isn't confidential and will make the submissions available to them (or really "anyone").

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

In short, Transport Canada requested that the City make its submissions available to MOOSE and other interested parties associated with MOOSE (neither of which are officially part of the case) and the City decided that the material isn't confidential and will make the submissions available to them (or really "anyone").

That is how the City Solicitor incorrectly positioned it. Actually there are three separate legal processes:

1. The City is Appealing the Agency's Feb 2018 determination in the Federal Court of Appeal.
2. The City has a "Section 40 Petition" before the federal Minister of Transport, asking him to rescind the Agency's decision if their appeal fails. The city initiated that and then put it "in abeyance" pending the outcome of the appeal.
3. Moose has a separate "Section 40 Petition" before the federal Minister of Transport, asking him to remove hypoethetical ambiguity from the Agency's Feb 2018 determination.

The sharing of documents with the multiple parties is in relation to #3.

When the City Solicitor writes: "Generally speaking, materials submitted during such legal proceedings are not released to other interested parties", he seems think this is related to #1. But even if it were, he's not correct. Anyone can go to all the documents relating to the appeal at the Federal Courts Administration office on Sparks Street.

We post significant documents here: https://www.letsgomoose.ca/moose-consort...t-essential-railways-in-canadas-capital/

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

Should there be plans started for commuter rail? Yes. And it should start with bringing passenger rail to the cores of Ottawa and Gatineau again. Could some commuter services be viable in the next few decades? Probably, there are some untapped, even if small scale, opportunities. But what Moose proposes isn't a rational, logical plan for today. Its not even a plan rooted in reality. It is simply an attempt to have governments and private agencies pay for a massive project, so that developers can make some money, in a weird scheme that sucks some of the value from peoples housing, in exchange for a 90 minute commuter to Ottawa.
​

@JohnnyRenton, Would you please summarize your plan for financing a regional rail system, here or anywhere?

Your post seems to me a blend of thoughtful observations and parody. It would be helpful if you would separate out one from the other.

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

That is how the City Solicitor incorrectly positioned it. Actually there are three separate legal processes:

1. The City is Appealing the Agency's Feb 2018 determination in the Federal Court of Appeal.
2. The City has a "Section 40 Petition" before the federal Minister of Transport, asking him to rescind the Agency's decision if their appeal fails. The city initiated that and then put it "in abeyance" pending the outcome of the appeal.
3. Moose has a separate "Section 40 Petition" before the federal Minister of Transport, asking him to remove hypoethetical ambiguity from the Agency's Feb 2018 determination.

The sharing of documents with the multiple parties is in relation to #3.

When the City Solicitor writes: "Generally speaking, materials submitted during such legal proceedings are not released to other interested parties", he seems think this is related to #1. But even if it were, he's not correct. Anyone can go to all the documents relating to the appeal at the Federal Courts Administration office on Sparks Street.

We post significant documents here: https://www.letsgomoose.ca/moose-consort...t-essential-railways-in-canadas-capital/

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

We already know the timeline of #1 above because of the blog post here. What do you think the timeline will be for #2 and 3?

As time goes on, Stage 2 gets further advanced.

[Charles5]

@Joseph Potvin

I understand that you have a translation agency (CS Révision) as part of your consortium. I note that both your Legal page and your News page are identical on both your French and English versions of the website, with the majority of the content in English. While I appreciate that much of the content posted would remain in its original language, perhaps a better effort could be made to at least make the format and notes portions in both official languages.

Links below:
https://www.onyvamoose.ca/media/
https://www.onyvamoose.ca/moose-consorti...t-essential-railways-in-canadas-capital/

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by roger1818

CN still owned the track between the station and Federal (the junction with the Smiths Falls sub) until recently (CN lists it as track they plan to discontinue in their 3 year plan and presumably VIA purchased it).

Apparently that piece of track has been on the chopping block since 2000, but I think VIA has been the owner of it for some time now.

I happened to be looking at this dataset from 2012/2013 and it lists VIA as the owner of that section of track, so they've been in ownership of it for at least 5/6 years.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

@JohnnyRenton, Would you please summarize your plan for financing a regional rail system, here or anywhere?

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

I'd like to see your plan for the same with your major investors and the cap table to go with that. Can you provide a link to that data?

[JohnnyRenton]

@JosephPotvin

I am not sure why there is a burden on me to come up with a way to finance Moose. I didn’t propose Moose. You did. You are the one who is supposed to be selling it, bringing in investors, and letting people know why this is such a brilliant idea.

And on top of that, why would I spend time trying to come up with ways to fund Moose when I think the current proposal is a terrible idea. As I said in my original post, commuter rail in the NCR needs to have passenger rail lines returned to the core of Ottawa and Gatineau, for it to work. Which means an expensive engineering project of tunnels, underground stations, etc. Which also means that the NCC and Federal government are going to have to be involved. Even if you tossed billions of dollars at the Moose proposal, it would fail because it doesn't serve the heart of the two cities, or any other employment centres, or even have good integration with local transit systems.

But since we are talking about funding and investment in Moose, I do have some questions for you. I think, like a lot of people here, there are just a lot of things that don't add up. This is only a fraction of the questions I have, but its a good start.

1 - Why not start small? The project has six lines right now. Why do they all need to happen at once? Why can’t you just pick one line as a proof of concept? It would seem to have lots of other benefits in that it might be able to be accomplished with a $100 million investment, as opposed to a half billion or more right out of the gate, and provide a learning opportunity so that mistakes can be reduced to the first few lines, as opposed to 6 of them all at once.

2 - Why does it seem so important that this is a federally regulated railway? A huge part of the reason over the fight for the POW bridge seems to be because you need that connection for it to fall under federal jurisdiction. What is the difference between starting out as a provincially regulated railway and expanding over time, versus the path you are taking? And if it is so important that it fall under federal regulation, why not start with the line to Bristol, which does cross into Quebec, so you can at least start out with that classification? Is there any reason focusing on that one line to start with wouldn’t meet your needs?

3 - Why not explore, and propose the use of, more advanced DMU's as opposed to antiquated, bi-level coaches and diesel locomotives? Is it purely cost? By using bi-levels on the Trillium line you guarantee it will be rendered useless, and probably shut down, as the LRT vehicles and bi-levels with giant locomotives will not be able to run together without a huge headway. It might well require a window of 20-30 minutes where LRTs cannot operate. And during rush hour, when there could be 2 or 3 commuter trains in an hour, that means no LRTs will operate during that critical time, spelling its end. Is there not an option, or at least an attempt to find a DMU, that could be mixed seamlessly into LRT traffic, and regular rail traffic? Why not attempt to co-operate and work to maintain the value of the LRT line, instead of being outright hostile towards it?

4 - If after 7 years there has been no movement in this proposal, why not think outside the box and alter the plan a bit? Since Moose is neither a real commuter rail service, nor bound to the NCR by any logical reason other than that's where the proposal was initially made for, why not propose a service that runs between Ottawa and Montreal? Alexandria is essentially half way between the two cities, and could almost be a commuter town for either place, so you are already at the edge of an extended Montreal commuter shed. Half the line could serve Montreal commuters, and the other half Ottawa ones. And because the train would travel the full distance of the line anyways, you could potentially market it as a cheap alternative to VIA (like the budget airlines), or go the otherway and upscale it (but with many stops, and a longer travel time than VIA, that might not be the best choice). This also has the advantage of being interprovincial and allowing Moose to be federally regulated. And because trains would run into Montreal already, you could probably save some money on maintenance but leveraging the use of on the many rail facilities in Montreal, as opposed to the cost of new facilities being built in Ottawa. I am not saying this is a great idea, though maybe it is. There are some downsides, like potentially higher track lease rates, more expensive overnight storage, and probably a cost associated with using already busy central stations. It isn't a fully fleshed out plan. It is more to illustrate that since this rail system is not limited to any kind of social or regional obligations, you can propose whatever you want. You have a blank slate for creativity to run free!

5 - Now for this next question, let me set up the following scene. You have gone to a town with your plan to offer them a Moose station, and service, of there own, if they are willing to pay a small yearly tax to support it (subscription is not what it is, it just deflects away from the fact that it would be a community of people paying a set amount of money each year for a community expenditure which they are required to pay, also known as a tax). The town, lets say it is Smith Falls or Barrhaven, has told you to pound sand as they don’t see why they should pay for Moose service when they already have a VIA rail station.

So instead, you build a station at the fringes, where it can be linked to new real estate development. As the new development emerges, each person that moves in is now required to pay a tax for the Moose station, through some sort of modified home-owners association I would imagine. After a while, these people realize that while they are being taxed for the service, other people from the town are freeloading off them and using a service that they are paying a premium for. So the residents of the new Moose linked development decide that they want to restrict access to Moose to only those that are paying the tax.

Will these communities have the legal basis to ban non-taxpayers from using the service? And this isn’t an unlikely scenario. There are going to be lots of towns that opt not to tax its existing citizens to bring Moose to its communities, but can’t stop you from taxing people in the new developments linked with it. Or what about people from a brand new town, away from the established, rural riff raft from "one town over" that doesn’t like them using the train service that they pay for? There are real legal implications of the arrangements Moose makes that need to be addressed before hand. If access could be limited to only the people being taxed for it, the public needs to know that now.

6 - This follows on the last question. What about rural NIMYism? Are you assuming that all these communities will want to take part, and have increased development? What happens if half of them say no? For a town of 1 or 2 thousand to grow to even 5000 could mean huge investments in upgraded sewers, water treatment systems, and other infrastructure investments. There could be a lot of very valid reasons as to why small towns cant afford to scale up 2 or 3 fold. And some might just be content being small. People often think of NIMBYism as being just a suburban or urban phenomenon, but it very much exists in rural areas and that seems like an important factor to account for.

That's a rather short list of what I would say are pretty basic questions. And that isn't even exploring the financials that an investor would care about.

If what you were proposing involved 0 dollars of public money, and had 0 impact on the public beyond the addition of this service, you probably wouldn’t have to justify much. You could just make your deals, get your approvals, and do it. But your proposal has huge public implications. It would shut down the Trillium (the idea that the two can co-exist is nonsense). It would cost public money as you are asking the city to pay for some of the cost of bringing the rail line back to the POW bridge, and perhaps more costs beyond that. There could be public costs to upgrade VIA rail lines, and add grade crossings, due to safety concerns brought on by increased rail traffic. And on, and on….

So when the public is set to loose a valuable LRT corridor, and possibly have to spend public money to help support this project in one way or another, then you better believe that you become accountable to the public. And it isn’t the publics job to figure out how to finance it, or solve any of the other gaps that exist with it. That is up to you, and Moose.
​

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

2 - Why does it seem so important that this is a federally regulated railway? A huge part of the reason over the fight for the POW bridge seems to be because you need that connection for it to fall under federal jurisdiction. What is the difference between starting out as a provincially regulated railway and expanding over time, versus the path you are taking? And if it is so important that it fall under federal regulation, why not start with the line to Bristol, which does cross into Quebec, so you can at least start out with that classification? Is there any reason focusing on that one line to start with wouldn’t meet your needs?

It's already been shown and discussed on this thread that a railway doesn't even need to cross a provincial border to be considered federally regulated. Simply stating on paper that they intend to is good enough (e.g. Capital Railway).

I think it's pretty obvious to anyone what the value of crossing the PoW bridge is.

3 - Why not explore, and propose the use of, more advanced DMU's as opposed to antiquated, bi-level coaches and diesel locomotives? Is it purely cost? By using bi-levels on the Trillium line you guarantee it will be rendered useless, and probably shut down, as the LRT vehicles and bi-levels with giant locomotives will not be able to run together without a huge headway. It might well require a window of 20-30 minutes where LRTs cannot operate. And during rush hour, when there could be 2 or 3 commuter trains in an hour, that means no LRTs will operate during that critical time, spelling its end. Is there not an option, or at least an attempt to find a DMU, that could be mixed seamlessly into LRT traffic, and regular rail traffic? Why not attempt to co-operate and work to maintain the value of the LRT line, instead of being outright hostile towards it?

They've recently updated/put out new literature that makes mention of both conventional diesel locomotive-hauled bi-level trains as well as D/EMUs.

Personally, I hope, if their feasibility study ever happens, that they realize D/EMUs are more than enough for this region and ditch the conventional train idea. If they need bi-levels, then they should really just use bi-level multiple units (like what GO is currently considering for RER).

In any case, it's never been definitively proven that sharing tracks is strictly impossible, especially with the latest changes to FRA regulations (that will probably trickle over to Canada... some day). The new Stadler FLIRT trainsets that the city is purchasing have similar specs to those of the FLIRT trains that are being used for Texrail. According to the spec sheet, they are approved (by the FRA) for use in mixed traffic.

In an ideal world, MOOSE uses the Stadler FLIRT and KISS trains which would be capable of operating alongside both the Trillium Line and VIA's trains.

If what you were proposing involved 0 dollars of public money, and had 0 impact on the public beyond the addition of this service, you probably wouldn’t have to justify much. You could just make your deals, get your approvals, and do it. But your proposal has huge public implications. It would shut down the Trillium (the idea that the two can co-exist is nonsense). It would cost public money as you are asking the city to pay for some of the cost of bringing the rail line back to the POW bridge, and perhaps more costs beyond that. There could be public costs to upgrade VIA rail lines, and add grade crossings, due to safety concerns brought on by increased rail traffic. And on, and on….

So when the public is set to loose a valuable LRT corridor, and possibly have to spend public money to help support this project in one way or another, then you better believe that you become accountable to the public. And it isn’t the publics job to figure out how to finance it, or solve any of the other gaps that exist with it. That is up to you, and Moose.
​

I disagree with the notion that MOOSE can't coexist with the Trillium Line. Frankly, for MOOSE to be feasible (ignoring finances) MOOSE must be capable of coexisting with VIA, CN(?), and the Trillium Line because any of the three (or others) has the full capability of shutting MOOSE out of their rail lines if MOOSE presents a regulatory problem when it comes to sharing tracks.
I don't know if what I wrote is entirely clear, but for example if MOOSE were to use heavy rail (as they currently propose) and it turns out that the CTA will not permit the shared track usage without large temporal separations, then the City will be well within their rights to block MOOSE from accessing their tracks.

I know everyone makes a fuss about this point so I'll try to be extra clear:
If it is shown that MOOSE's trains could operate alongside the trains on the Trillium Line (i.e. there are no crash standards or other regulatory concerns) then MOOSE can apply for access to the line and they would likely be granted that access although it would probably be on the condition that they would be required to put up the capital to upgrade the line so that traffic is not an issue.
On the other hand if, like in the scenario I described in the previous paragraph, there are regulatory/crash safety concerns between the two different rolling stock, then MOOSE has no grounds to boot the Trillium Line off those tracks so that they can run their trains exclusively.

MOOSE's proposal includes spending ~$50 million on upgrading the PoW bridge (so I guess take that for whatever it's worth) but as far as the disconnected track is concern, the City is 100% at fault and liable for paying for that. In fact, they've maintained that they will be reconnecting that track (someday) and will be covering those costs anyway.

For grade separations, the CTA says the following on how costs should be apportioned:

On projects due primarily to railway development:

15% road authority
85% railway company

So at least the City wouldn't be on the hook for very much, but I don't know if that really matters because:

MOOSE seems to have long maintained the whole $0 public money thing, and that extends to things like rail upgrades, and presumably grade separations (should they be necessary). You can imagine lawyers would have a field day if MOOSE suddenly backed down on that. Edit: Well, I guess nothing MOOSE says now is legally binding, but I'm sure following through on their word of covering those costs would be a large part in the negotiations for accessing the Trillium Line corridor between MOOSE and the City.

[acottawa]

I don’t think there is any practical way for Moose, or any other service, to share tracks with the Trillium Line. The Line already runs at maximum capacity. Maybe if the line were double or triple tracked it might be feasible, but that is a significant capital project.

[JohnnyRenton]

@OCCheetos

Your points are taken and I could have probably taken a bit more time with my wording.

As for as Moose co-existing with VIA and the Trillium line, the bigger sticking point I have is that there really doesn't seem to be much importance placed on that aspect of the plan.

You are right, Moose's operations should not result in VIA or the O-Train experiencing delays or capacity issues as a result of them using the lines. But making that happen is no small task. The VIA lines will need to be double tracked in sections, and sidings added in others. The Trillium line not only needs to be double tracked, but there may need to be modifications to stations, additional signalling systems added, and a lot of coordination with OC Transpo to schedule the Moose trains among its own LRTs. The fact that Moose wont stop at every station could help with scheduling, or hurt it. That might facilitate the need for additional sidings, even if it is double tracked, depending on how many trains Moose wants to operate. There might even be a need for a flyover for trains leaving the VIA rail line and getting onto the Trillium Line if traffic is heavy enough that crossing over at grade could cause delays (which isn't out of the question).

All that to say that if Moose wants to operate on the Trillium Line it would require upgrading the rail infrastructure to be the most sophisticated the city has seen, and to use new, sophisticated DMUs, all of which wont be cheap. Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see an indication that Moose understands the real complexity of making that arrangement work. So theoretically Moose and the LRT can coexist, but is Moose actually willing to pay the high cost of making it happen? But based on what Moose is proposing and their general attitude and philosophy about the project, the two cannot co-exist.

As far as the need to simply express an interest in operating inter-provincially in the future goes, that only furthers my question as to why they can't start small and build up.

When it comes to the POW bridge, most people seem to have made up their mind about its value. Personally, as someone who spent a lot of time commuting from Gatineau into Ottawa and travelling back and forth between the two cities by transit, I don't see it as actually being that valuable to cross border commuting and travel. Just because its there doesn't mean its actually useful and doing anything with it would largely be a waste of money. But that is another discussion unto itself.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don’t think there is any practical way for Moose, or any other service, to share tracks with the Trillium Line. The Line already runs at maximum capacity. Maybe if the line were double or triple tracked it might be feasible, but that is a significant capital project.

As I mentioned in my other response to OCCheetos, he is technically right that it is possible. But as you mentioned, it would be a huge capital investment to create a line that would allow that. Even if Ottawa went ahead and double tracked the Trillium Line tomorrow, there would still be not insignificant investments needed in signalling systems, probably some additional siding, maybe even a flyover, and possible station modifications to allow Moose to run on the line as well. But even double tracked, capacity could be an issue during rush hour if they started letting Moose on the line (not to mention the challenges posed when Moose is delayed getting onto the Trillium Line in its scheduled block and the delays that could lead to for O-Train LRTs as they try to slot it into a new block).

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don’t think there is any practical way for Moose, or any other service, to share tracks with the Trillium Line. The Line already runs at maximum capacity. Maybe if the line were double or triple tracked it might be feasible, but that is a significant capital project.

The biggest problem with respect to capacity is the ability to of Moose to enter the Line 2 trackage at its scheduled time. On the south portions of the line that will be shared with Via this becomes more difficult since the Via trains are less likely to run on time due to congestion on the CN lines and the distance of their runs. Even double tracking from Tremblay to Federal and / or to Fallowfield or beyond may not be sufficient if Via gets the go ahead to proceed with its HFR program.

I absolutely agree that the capital region does not require locomotive hauled double deck heavy rail commuter cars. Single level DMU or EMU's would be sufficient for years to come.

What Moose should do is start with a line that is solely in Ontario because the problem at this point is getting Ottawa on board at all with any plan to use existing rail ROW's whether it uses the POW or not. I would start with Tremblay to Carp or Kanata as a demonstration as there are very few grade separations that need to be built, from Federal to Carp there is no interference with Via and the existing rail probably does not need to be replaced until the volume of trips increases. The rail may be sufficient for any speed required in the early stages provided sidings and signals are replaced or added.

If the interaction with Via and Moose goes without any problems then it would be easier to convince the City that it is viable to use the POW and the ROW as far south as the Via ROW at Ellwood Jct. This would not preclude the need to double track the ROW from Bayview to Ellwood Jct but the cost could be split between the City and Moose, keeping in mind that the City should be paying for the bulk of this anyhow due to its misguided efforts to date not to double track the original section of the O-Train.

If Moose cannot convince the City to allow it access to the Ontario side from Quebec then they can stop their trains on the Quebec side and then passengers can transfer to STO or to an extended O-Train. This is not desirable but it may be the only way to do this until someone comes up with enough money to build the original plan as planned by Moose.

[OCCheetos]

On UT Mr. Potvin stated that MOOSE would finance the double tracking of the Trillium Line corridor to facilitate this service, although it'd be nice if he restated that and/or provided more detail on that such as whether or not those costs are included in their current $900 million capital estimate.

@JohnnyRenton
I don't think a flyover would be necessary or feasible. Since the Trillium Line will be grade separated at the Ellwood diamond as part of Stage 2, that doesn't leave any space for a flyover. That said, in the grade separation there are allowances being left to provide space for a separate freight-only track that would cross the VIA line at-grade on the east side of the Trillium Line. That same allowance could instead be used on the Western side and provide a connection between the VIA line and the Trillium Line that MOOSE would use.

Edit:
Something I was unaware of was that VIA has been developing a possible PTC solution called "GPS Train" which uses Cellular/Satellite connections as well as GPS to provide PTC. As far as I know, from this report, it's capable of displaying in-cab information, but requires more development before the fail-safe aspect of it becomes functional.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

On UT Mr. Potvin stated that MOOSE would finance the double tracking of the Trillium Line corridor to facilitate this service, although it'd be nice if he restated that and/or provided more detail on that such as whether or not those costs are included in their current $900 million capital .

When has he ever suggested that?

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

When has he ever suggested that?

It was on Urban Toronto. I suppose he didn't say MOOSE would finance it, and looking back at it that's an assumption of mine. All the more reason to ask Mr. Potvin for clarification..!

This post might also be of interest in regards to rolling stock selection.