Rail Transit (Passenger and Freight) in Ontario

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

To save a buck, CP ripped up double track. So, the issue isn't the way we transport things, it is how we do it.

I assume you are talking about the Winchester Sub? In which case you are grossly oversimplifying things.

Given that the Belleville sub (the only subdivision currently owned by CP to the west) has always been single track, there was absolutely no need for double track along the Winchester sub anymore. The bigger issue was the ripping up of the Brockville Sub et.al. north (and west) of Smiths Falls, as that provided an alternate connection to the Winchester Sub. Without it, the double track of the Winchester Sub was doomed.

The reality is the Winchester sub is kind of useless for passenger rail (as it bypasses both Ottawa and Kingston); however, it would make a great freight mainline, IF (and that is a big if) better connection(s) to the west could be made.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I assume you are talking about the Winchester Sub? In which case you are grossly oversimplifying things.

Given that the Belleville sub (the only subdivision currently owned by CP to the west) has always been single track, there was absolutely no need for double track along the Winchester sub anymore. The bigger issue was the ripping up of the Brockville Sub et.al. north (and west) of Smiths Falls, as that provided an alternate connection to the Winchester Sub. Without it, the double track of the Winchester Sub was doomed.

The reality is the Winchester sub is kind of useless for passenger rail (as it bypasses both Ottawa and Kingston); however, it would make a great freight mainline, IF (and that is a big if) better connection(s) to the west could be made.

Actually, no. I am talking about the Cartier Sub. There was double track. You can see it in the bridge and the overall width of the ROW.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Actually, no. I am talking about the Cartier Sub. There was double track. You can see it in the bridge and the overall width of the ROW.

Okay. When did they rip up the double track?

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Actually, no. I am talking about the Cartier Sub. There was double track. You can see it in the bridge and the overall width of the ROW.

Also, what was with you telling me that CP's ROW around Kama Bay can fit 2 tracks when in fact only 1 track can pass through...

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Okay. When did they rip up the double track?

I don't know that. I know locally, people had said that the tracks were double tracked back in the 80s.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I don't know that. I know locally, people had said that the tracks were double tracked back in the 80s.

So you are complaining about decisions made 30 years ago again?

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by roger1818

So you are complaining about decisions made 30 years ago again?

It's not unfair though. Every single one of us is pissed about 407 being sold.
Plus, we might actually need double tracks if we want long-distance transportation to be done by rail.

Carbon tax is a valuable tool, but another thing I would like to see governments do is fund the building and operation of truck to train intermodal terminals in cities across the country and encourage the railways to offer intermodal service similar to the expressway service CP had previously offered, that would transport almost any trailer (not just specially reinforced ones).

Maybe CP will wanna get back its ROW through Upper Ottawa Valley, but Papineau-Cameron, Renfrew County and Lanark County will tell CP to f--- off, and hopefully ONR takes over.
Well, there goes my TCH dream but it is what it is.
Ps: I think that CNL will be really happy to have all the nuclear waste transported by rail so that it doesn't have to contend with other vehicles on TCH.

[Djeffery]

You may be able to look at Google Earth and roll the clock back and see if there are twin tracks in areas. Will depend on how far back the imagery goes of course for a given area.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

You may be able to look at Google Earth and roll the clock back and see if there are twin tracks in areas. Will depend on how far back the imagery goes of course for a given area.

The TimeLapse machine goes as far back as 1984 but images for that time are blurry...
It’s probably easier to tell by how close the bushes or buildings are to the single track.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

encourage the railways to offer intermodal service similar to the expressway service CP had previously offered, that would transport almost any trailer (not just specially reinforced ones).

I used to see these all the time going through London. Not so much anymore. Not sure if this is what it being referenced by the expressway service above. But it's a great idea. Instead of loading trailers onto flatbed rail cars, just hook the trailer up to a rail bogey. I imagine this is a lot quicker getting the trailer on the road to it's final delivery at the other end.

https://www.triplecrownsvc.com/who-w...transportation

[wave46]

Originally Posted by roger1818

People often talk about how much better European Railways are than North American ones, and from a passenger perspective that is true. However, from a freight perspective it couldn't be further from the truth. I found an article titled, Why is Europe so absurdly backward compared to the U.S. in rail freight transport that I found interesting.

One could easily argue that the carbon reductions from transporting freight by rail vs. truck are much more significant than the carbon reductions from transporting people by train vs. car (or likely even airplane). That is not to say we should abandon attempts to increase passenger rail usage where it makes sense, but it shouldn't come at the cost of rail freight transport.

Given that freight generally has to travel hundreds/thousands of kilometres on its journey while most people only travel <100km on a regular basis, it does make sense to bulk ship things versus people.

If you had to look in terms of freight-miles versus passenger-miles, I'd imagine that increasing efficiency on long-haul freight-miles makes more sense than long-haul passenger miles. Efficiency on total passenger-miles should probably focus on short journeys. The TTC subway and GO transit do more in that sense than VIA.

For all the love European and Japanese rail get, it tends to be the close city-pairs where they shine. London-Paris, Osaka-Tokyo are the big ones that come to my mind.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

I used to see these all the time going through London. Not so much anymore. Not sure if this is what it being referenced by the expressway service above. But it's a great idea. Instead of loading trailers onto flatbed rail cars, just hook the trailer up to a rail bogey. I imagine this is a lot quicker getting the trailer on the road to it's final delivery at the other end.

https://www.triplecrownsvc.com/who-w...transportation

I think the rail yard in Milton (which is visible from the ETR) does exactly that.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

So you are complaining about decisions made 30 years ago again?

Yes. It is those decisions we are struggling with today.

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

It's not unfair though. Every single one of us is pissed about 407 being sold.
Plus, we might actually need double tracks if we want long-distance transportation to be done by rail.

Governments and corporations have done some questionable things to make ends meet.

Right now, over siding trains are scheduled such that all other trains go into the siding to let these trains pass. Getting rid of over siding trains would be a good first step to fix some of the rail issues. Returning the former double track that used to exist, would be a good thing too.

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

The TimeLapse machine goes as far back as 1984 but images for that time are blurry...
It’s probably easier to tell by how close the bushes or buildings are to the single track.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@46.58356...2!8i6656?hl=en

https://www.google.ca/maps/@46.57346...!3m1!1e3?hl=en

Those are 2 simple spots near my house that shows me that there used to be double track.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Right now, over siding trains are scheduled such that all other trains go into the siding to let these trains pass. Getting rid of over siding trains would be a good first step to fix some of the rail issues. Returning the former double track that used to exist, would be a good thing too.

I'm actually curious. What does double-track achieve, from a freight perspective?

I assume anything being shipped by rail isn't exactly time-sensitive. A freight train sitting at a siding doesn't emit much pollution and even the cost of accelerating/decelerating it is fairly minor in the grand scheme of things. I'd imagine scheduling ensures that massive trains have priority anyway.

If the double-track paid off in increased total cost efficiency, why yank it up? The scrap value isn't that high. The savings from maintenance could be something, I guess.

My guess is that the efficiency gains only matter when the trains need frequency/have congestion on the line. Which means more for passenger service than freight. For long-distance freight, making a train longer pays off much more than running more service.

Running short-haul, small trains more frequently isn't really cost-effective for railways. I'm not even sure if it is more effective for goods either as they suffer from the last-mile problem compared to commercial trucking.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by wave46

I'm actually curious. What does double-track achieve, from a freight perspective?

I assume anything being shipped by rail isn't exactly time-sensitive. A freight train sitting at a siding doesn't emit much pollution and even the cost of accelerating/decelerating it is fairly minor in the grand scheme of things. I'd imagine scheduling ensures that massive trains have priority anyway.

If the double-track paid off in increased total cost efficiency, why yank it up? The scrap value isn't that high. The savings from maintenance could be something, I guess.

My guess is that the efficiency gains only matter when the trains need frequency/have congestion on the line. Which means more for passenger service than freight. For long-distance freight, making a train longer pays off much more than running more service.

Running short-haul, small trains more frequently isn't really cost-effective for railways. I'm not even sure if it is more effective for goods either as they suffer from the last-mile problem compared to commercial trucking.

Lets say that you have a choice to run 2 trains at 100 cars, or 1 train at 200 cars. Now, let's say you don't run many 200 car trains due to the size of sidings. This means your human costs are double for the same number of cars.
By having double track, you can run trans of any length. So, now, all your trains can be 200 cars long. Now, you are saving money by having half the employees and the costs associated to them.

For passenger service, it means you can pass slower trains without either train stopping.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Lets say that you have a choice to run 2 trains at 100 cars, or 1 train at 200 cars. Now, let's say you don't run many 200 car trains due to the size of sidings. This means your human costs are double for the same number of cars.
By having double track, you can run trans of any length. So, now, all your trains can be 200 cars long. Now, you are saving money by having half the employees and the costs associated to them.

For passenger service, it means you can pass slower trains without either train stopping.

I guess CN and CP didn't think double track was worth the cost of maintenance on certain sections.

Since they still have the right-of-way and the rail beds, I imagine that reinstating it is a possibility should they feel demand merits it. Whether that's cheaper than maintaining it over the long-term is something only their accountants will know.

Given that passenger service is basically non-existent on many parts of their network in Canada, I don't see why imposing a big mandate to maintain double track matters. Making their freight trains more efficient is a matter of interest to the shareholders of CN and CP, however that goal is accomplished.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by wave46

I guess CN and CP didn't think double track was worth the cost of maintenance on certain sections.

Since they still have the right-of-way and the rail beds, I imagine that reinstating it is a possibility should they feel demand merits it. Whether that's cheaper than maintaining it over the long-term is something only their accountants will know.

Given that passenger service is basically non-existent on many parts of their network in Canada, I don't see why imposing a big mandate to maintain double track matters. Making their freight trains more efficient is a matter of interest to the shareholders of CN and CP, however that goal is accomplished.

Their goal isn't to be as efficient as it is to be as profitable as possible. However, as they run out of ports to store stuff in, double tracking the line to run over siding trains to the next yard only makes sense. Uniquely, there are challenges in BC that will nearly prevent double track from happening. Here in ON, our geography isn't overly onerous to double track.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Their goal isn't to be as efficient as it is to be as profitable as possible. However, as they run out of ports to store stuff in, double tracking the line to run over siding trains to the next yard only makes sense. Uniquely, there are challenges in BC that will nearly prevent double track from happening. Here in ON, our geography isn't overly onerous to double track.

I'm glad that I accounted for double tracks in my drawing of 417 around Kama Bay.
http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/show...229872&page=74 #1478
Check sections 9 & 10 in particular. Anyway I digress.
I mean, beyond that, I can't think of any other particular hard spot.

[Dengler Avenue]

https://www.sootoday.com/local-news/...EtmxebKg1pkCfU
CN's selling Algoma Central Rail.

[ShavedParmesanCheese]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

https://www.sootoday.com/local-news/...EtmxebKg1pkCfU
CN's selling Algoma Central Rail.

Who's going to buy a railway? Unless it goes into public or joint ownership I wonder what'll become of it.