Rural Commuter Rail

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Apparently they don’t.

The sale of the Ellwood sub from CP included a clause stating that they were required to allow the continued use of the line by freight if it was ever requested (which is what I'm referring to).

They are allowed to indefinitely defer any construction required to allow for this (i.e. until they are formally requested to do so by a railway company) which is what will happen at Ellwood, and at Bayview.

Originally Posted by Charles5

I believe that OCCheetos is referring to this document (link).

Note that the document is dated February 2016, which is before MOOSE made its initial complaint to the CTA (July 2016 I believe) about Bayview Station.

This document (revised last March) shows it more clearly, along with the pedestrian overpass and platforms for the Stage 2 station.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

They are allowed to indefinitely defer any construction required to allow for this (i.e. until they are formally requested to do so by a railway company) which is what will happen at Ellwood, and at Bayview.

Thanks for that updated link.

Certainly any railway owner has no obligation to construct improvements to a railway work, and matter of the degree to which maintenance must be performed when an owner is not actively using a line is of course always debatable. What the owner is not allowed to do under the law is to dismantle or permanently obstruct a main line railway work without Agency authorization. (The owner can do so if it is a spur.) The Agency found that in mid-2016 the City had indeed violated the law on this point.

After a lot of legal process delays, finally in 2019, the Federal Cabinet circumvented legal process and used its Section 40 Ministerial prerogative to give the City a three-years-after-the-fact pass to have violated the Canada Transportation Act. This renders inoperable a premise of its Certificate of Fitness (the Quebec part), and it contradicts Section 92 (10) (c) of Canada's Constitution which applies to this particular section of railway.

It's all quite remarkable, for a country that purports to function according to the rule of law.

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

[Charles5]

As we're starting to revisit old arguments and simply going in circles, I thought I would change tack a bit here and maybe liven things up a little.

The most recent iteration of the MOOSE plan is to sell at least 12 station licenses at a cost of $1M+ each. The idea is to raise about $15M by April 2020 in order to 'bootstrap' the rail network (previous summary here).

I thought I would start a pool. People can indicate how many licenses they expect to be sold by 31 March 2020. The one who correctly identifies the total number of licenses sold will win a prize (generously donated by myself, a case of beer or equivalent for those who don't drink beer).

Only one person per number, first come first served. Feel free to explain your choice.

I get first crack and I will chose '0'. I will also give @Joseph Potvin the '12 or more' spot. The other eleven spots are up for grabs. I will edit this post as the bids come in.

I will be counting on @Joseph Potvin to update us as to how many station licenses are sold by 31 March 2020.

Licenses obtained by MOOSE Consortium members in exchange for 'in-kind' contributions (should there be any) will not count towards the total number.

# STN LIC / NAME

0 @Charles5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 or more @Joseph Potvin

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Charles5

The one who correctly identifies the total number of licenses sold will win a prize (generously donated by myself, a case of beer or equivalent for those who don't drink beer).

Would that be Moosehead beer?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

The sale of the Ellwood sub from CP included a clause stating that they were required to allow the continued use of the line by freight if it was ever requested (which is what I'm referring to).

They are allowed to indefinitely defer any construction required to allow for this (i.e. until they are formally requested to do so by a railway company) which is what will happen at Ellwood, and at Bayview.



This document (revised last March) shows it more clearly, along with the pedestrian overpass and platforms for the Stage 2 station.

So unless CP wants to start running double decker passenger trains they are off the hook for the foreseeable future.

Also, what were they planning to do when the plan was to remove the freight line and replace it with an LRT (Charelli LRT plan from the 00s)?

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

So unless CP wants to start running double decker passenger trains they are off the hook for the foreseeable future.

Also, what were they planning to do when the plan was to remove the freight line and replace it with an LRT (Charelli LRT plan from the 00s)?

A typical freight locomotive is just only about 10cm shorter than a bi-level coach (they're shockingly big machines after all). If CP ever wanted to run any freight again, they'd be in trouble. For comparison, an average height of a locomotive is about 4.7m while our LINTs (which are already pretty close to the underside of the overpass) are 4.3m tall. A Bombardier bi-level is 4.85m.

I know they planned to build a third track between Walkley Yard and the NRC facilities. Don't know what they planned to do about the rest, but I wonder if the MOOSE case made them examine their contracts/obligations a lot closer than before. That said, overhead catenary lines can be built to accommodate freight.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

A typical freight locomotive is just only about 10cm shorter than a bi-level coach (they're shockingly big machines after all).

Perhaps this is the model of train MOOSE should consider. It would resolve the issue of the height limitation. It's advertised as "bigger than the other models and has more passenger capacity thanks to its stronger motor."

[pattherat]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Perhaps this is the model of train MOOSE should consider. It would resolve the issue of the height limitation. It's advertised as "bigger than the other models and has more passenger capacity thanks to its stronger motor."

Until they get investors, I think they would have trouble funding such a feature rich set of traction units and the associated carriages.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Thanks for that updated link.

Certainly any railway owner has no obligation to construct improvements to a railway work, and matter of the degree to which maintenance must be performed when an owner is not actively using a line is of course always debatable. What the owner is not allowed to do under the law is to dismantle or permanently obstruct a main line railway work without Agency authorization. (The owner can do so if it is a spur.) The Agency found that in mid-2016 the City had indeed violated the law on this point.

After a lot of legal process delays, finally in 2019, the Federal Cabinet circumvented legal process and used its Section 40 Ministerial prerogative to give the City a three-years-after-the-fact pass to have violated the Canada Transportation Act. This renders inoperable a premise of its Certificate of Fitness (the Quebec part), and it contradicts Section 92 (10) (c) of Canada's Constitution which applies to this particular section of railway.

It's all quite remarkable, for a country that purports to function according to the rule of law.

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

The feds overruling the CTA is part of that legal process in the act itself and you knew this. There was always a risk the feds would rescind the CTA decision, a big one in fact since the feds are giving the city of Ottawa billions of dollars to spend on expanding LRT service throughout Ottawa. So complaining about it and causing the city to waste taxpayer dollars on legal matters is a waste of time and money. You need to move on from the POW bridge since it makes no sense for rural commuters who work downtown.

The POW bridge only makes sense for OC transpo since they can take a number of people directly to terrasses du chaudieres by using the bridge and the unused rail near the Zibi development which you plan to ignore. Another thing is that the POW bridge is part of LRT phase 3 so that kills your argument that they wont do anything with it .

Back to my suggestion once again, start with the one line that doesn't use the POW bridge and build on that. If you cant get investors for one line then your idea isn't worth 3 lines plain and simple.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

The POW bridge only makes sense for OC transpo since they can take a number of people directly to terrasses du chaudieres by using the bridge and the unused rail near the Zibi development which you plan to ignore. Another thing is that the POW bridge is part of LRT phase 3 so that kills your argument that they wont do anything with it .

To be fair, until just 4 months ago that was never the case.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

To be fair, until just 4 months ago that was never the case.

Good Day.

Also to be fair, and however ephemerally, the City (in and of Jimmy and some councillors),
has always stated and documented in City releases that PoW was and is part of the long-range plans for expansion.
Also to be fair, even this most recent statement is still (real but) ephemeral in as far as -few- details or concrete plans.
And lastly to be fair, (for Mr.P), there never was nor is a legal reason to pin down such plans; the mere statement thereof is sufficient to retain rights and ownership.

@ Kitchissippi & Charles5 - I'll share the cost on a 2-4 of Moosehead for 0 !!

EnJoy!

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.

Also to be fair, and however ephemerally, the City (in and of Jimmy and some councillors),
has always stated and documented in City releases that PoW was and is part of the long-range plans for expansion.
Also to be fair, even this most recent statement is still (real but) ephemeral in as far as -few- details or concrete plans.
And lastly to be fair, (for Mr.P), there never was nor is a legal reason to pin down such plans; the mere statement thereof is sufficient to retain rights and ownership.

@ Kitchissippi & Charles5 - I'll share the cost on a 2-4 of Moosehead for 0 !!

EnJoy!

Of course at some point during all of that, an RFQ was prepared for the conversion of the bridge to a pedestrian bridge. It didn't always seem like they were set on using it for rail.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Of course at some point during all of that, an RFQ was prepared for the conversion of the bridge to a pedestrian bridge. It didn't always seem like they were set on using it for rail.

Good Day.

Yep - that one was a big oops. IIRC, they pulled it back real fast, stating for the record that it was a concept, and released/issued in error.
Ummmnnnn......some error !

I do not disagree in concept for accommodating MUP/Cycle/Ped, but it has to be in coordination with Transit in whatever form (but not cars).
Cantilevered out on both sides works best, IMO.

EnJoy!

[Allandale25]

Looks like there's even less need for the Moose plan since this news reports indicates there is positive momentum to a funded Gatineau LRT plan that uses the Prince of Wales bridge.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ga...unding-province-quebec-secured-1.5168105

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Allandale25

Looks like there's even less need for the Moose plan since this news reports indicates there is positive momentum to a funded Gatineau LRT plan that uses the Prince of Wales bridge.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ga...unding-province-quebec-secured-1.5168105

I mean, this has theoretically been the case since 2001.

With Gatineau still considering BRT as their solution, interprovincial rail is still... a hope. That said, with a funding promise LRT looks likely, but not over the PoW bridge.

[Allandale25]

^ Helpful insight. Thanks.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

So I forget who said it a while ago, but someone said that Bayview isn't large enough for being a commuter rail hub, let alone becoming our new "almost downtown" station. However, I took Ottawa's Train Station out on Tremblay and tried to see if it would fit into the Bayview area and it does fairly well.

Bayview could absolutely be a hub for commuter rail, it's close to downtown, right on a main line, and will be a destination of its own in the near future.

[acottawa]

You have overlaid the station over quite a bit of existing infrastructure. Fit if money is no object and fit in a practical sense are different things. If money is no object you might as well put the station downtown, rather than 2-3 km away.

[lrt's friend]

Condos even at 65 floors does not make a transit destination. The following are major transit destinations. major shopping centres, major employment area usual only the CBD, major college or university. Not much else.

[Gat-Train]

Didn't they uncover a rail turntable near Bayview? Couldn't that be used in transit infrastructure?