[dowlingm]

That immediately allows expansion to 9 runs daily, and that not only improves convenience and the business case for new stations, it would markedly, if temporarily reduce the crowding issues on select weekend runs.

Re the 9 daily - I assume this is achieved by kicking CN to night-time ops?

• If they could get rid of Amtrak/VIA west of Niagara Falls they could presumably make it 10…
• Will there be any issue with the Welland Canal re needing bridge raises at night?

 

[Northern Light]

Re the 9 daily - I assume this is achieved by kicking CN to night-time ops?

I would make the same assumption.

• If they could get rid of Amtrak/VIA west of Niagara Falls they could presumably make it 10…

I would not cut the only Amtrak train into to Toronto....... also the Amtrak service plan, before the current mess, did indicate an additional daily NYC to Toronto run, along with adding Chicago - Toronto (different trackage)

• Will there be any issue with the Welland Canal re needing bridge raises at night?

I would have @smallspy or @crs1026 tackle that one......... I'm not really familiar with Canal operations in any detail.

 

[crs1026]

I would have @smallspy or @crs1026 tackle that one......... I'm not really familiar with Canal operations in any detail.

The vast majority of marine shipments are unscheduled and just happen when they happen. The one exception is, more recently there are cruise vessels using the Canal, but even there the operation is not overly time sensitive.

The boats' movement is somewhat predictable in the sense that boats don't really stop, and their speed is generally constant - so for instance a boat passing Windsor has a fairly predictable time of arrival at Port Colborne.

The issue is more one of the amount of time that it takes a boat from when the bridge must be raised until when it can be lowered. Boats can hold for short times to allow a train to pass, but once the bridge is raised, it will be some time before it can be lowered again, which can cause unacceptable delay to trains especially passenger trains. Depending on when those trains are scheduled, and whether they are on time, it can be very disruptive to the flow of the marine traffic to be holding for trains.

And if a boat is ready to proceed, but the train is ten or fifteen minutes away.... the bridge operator has a quandry as to who has to wait for whom. And if there is a following boat, it may have to hold some distance away as boats cannot just stop anywhere, they need to hold at very specific points along pier walls etc.

Boats tend to operate on a cost per hour/"time is money" basis so they will quantify any delay - and the Seaway Authority will hear about it.

- Paul

 

[C_Johnson_1995]

Less management attention required over an activity that is peripheral to CN's business.

Going to move this over to this thread. Something worth considering, is the Grimsby Subdivision peripheral to CN's operations or a "branch" as some may consider it? Niagara is an important international trade corridor and the daily trains that use it are usually about 10,000' long each. It's also worth mentioning that not long ago, there were 4 trains that ran the length of the line daily and it's possible that traffic patterns in the future necessitate a return to, such volumes something a divestment by CN could complicate.

Also, the Grimsby Subdivision is unlike other lines CN has sold in that all of CN's other corridor divestments to Metrolinx are operated exclusively by road switchers. Maybe the precedent we could go with is Windsor with VIA. Though Windsor for CN is entirely local traffic and for the above reasons, I could see CN being more protective here.

Who knows though? I guess we will find out in time what direction the involved parties choose to go. This is all just my $0.02.

 

[crs1026]

I will admit I’m a bit surprised that CN is actually agreeable on this sale, but we have to assume that they know far more than we do about their economics and future business projections. They are going in with their eyes open and their shareholders’ interests in mind.
Quite likely that the line has impending capital needs which they will gladly let ML pick up. Sure, ML could pay CN to make the improvements, but that accounting is murky and the pace of the work is hard to enforce - look at how long the West Harbour connection took. Better for mL to have clearer line of sight snd direct control of the work, for ML it’s a core activity where for CN it’s an annoying distraction.
And, when you look at how all the yard and industrial trackage has been pulled up especially at Merritton and Niagara Falls - the future business will mostly be through traffic, for which rerouting to Sarnia may be quite viable. For that matter, they may be happy to let the business go if it is not bringing them a favourable return - the downside of the privately owned railway model is that there is no duty to serve, and our railways regularly turn away willing customers if the return isn’t there. I wonder how much revenue CN gets to haul cars from Fort Erie to Hamilton - NS and CSX may get the long haul.
To be less wordy - if CN is ok with it, who are we observers to argue. A model of publicly run passenger rail owning its own tracks is far more favourable than a tenant relationship.

- Paul

 

[Sunnyside]

I have talked about the importance of tenants here before and why I thought a sale was unlikely… but I’ve come away recognizing CN can still serve them effectively if it so chooses.

What’s now clicking, is that if Hamilton customers do represent the largest clients on the corridor, they are also those closest to the Dundas Sub. These are using a proximal, small section of Grimsby, which is otherwise perhaps a lower-traffic corridor. The fact that exactly 9 trips would be unlocked, as opposed to say, 10 or 20, also indicates CN still plans on running plenty of trains.

Quite likely that the line has impending capital needs which they will gladly let ML pick up. Sure, ML could pay CN to make the improvements...

Exactly… not to mention If GO was otherwise planning to grade-separate more of the corridor, that’s a lot of headache for CN- especially in denser areas.

I am otherwise glad people are noticing the lack of attention to Hamilton-Niagara by the Province. The NDP has historically had a strong foothold in these communities, and they aren’t growing at the same pace as other parts of the GGH, is what I attribute it to. I wouldn’t be so bothered, if this weren’t such an easy slam-dunk corridor for multiple service patterns; intra-, TO-, Ham-Niagara, etc… all for communities well within the Greenbelt.

 

[Chris R.]

Just reposting this here, since this is the most up to date information I've seen for this section of rail, thanks to @lastcommodore

 

[just east of the creek]

Just reposting this here, since this is the most up to date information I've seen for this section of rail, thanks to @lastcommodore

View attachment 720250

Ridership levels past Aldershot will improve with a marked improvement in SPEED and then service. Speed is key, (I know, we should electrify etc etc and I am sure we will one day)(and UT has well covered all the current impediments to speed and service improvements on this line, but one day), and moving the average speed levels higher impact, even incrementally as I am sure will be the foreseeable futures, will positively impact ridership.

 

[Chris R.]

Ridership levels past Aldershot will improve with a marked improvement in SPEED and then service. Speed is key, (I know, we should electrify etc etc and I am sure we will one day)(and UT has well covered all the current impediments to speed and service improvements on this line, but one day), and moving the average speed levels higher impact, even incrementally as I am sure will be the foreseeable futures, will positively impact ridership.

Based on recent reading in other threads, I honestly don't think electrification is even going to happen to be honest. I'd love a focus on the other issues slowing the train past Aldershot, namely track quality, track ownership, Bayview Junction and political will. West Harbour could likely handle 30 minute service and go twice as fast by this time next year with some desire and upgrades, no electrical upgrades needed.

 

[Bordercollie]

I guess there is no improvement in speed to west harbour?

 

[ProjectEnd]

Based on recent reading in other threads, I honestly don't think electrification is even going to happen to be honest. I'd love a focus on the other issues slowing the train past Aldershot, namely track quality, track ownership, Bayview Junction and political will. West Harbour could likely handle 30 minute service and go twice as fast by this time next year with some desire and upgrades, no electrical upgrades needed.

I guess there is no improvement in speed to west harbour?

CN trackage and the Hamilton Yard means the Oakville Sub essentially moves at yard speed from Hamilton Junction to West Harbour.

 

[matt602]

I think the ridership numbers for West Harbour have probably increased quite a bit since 2023. Since the East end of the station was tied into the mainline and received more NF trains I've noticed quite a few more people not only traveling into Hamilton from Toronto but also boarding at West Harbour to continue onto St. Catharines and NF. Confederation GO is also surprisingly well used for such a recently opened, barebones station with only a few trains a day.

 

[Bojaxs]

I think the ridership numbers for West Harbour have probably increased quite a bit since 2023. Since the East end of the station was tied into the mainline and received more NF trains I've noticed quite a few more people not only traveling into Hamilton from Toronto but also boarding at West Harbour to continue onto St. Catharines and NF. Confederation GO is also surprisingly well used for such a recently opened, barebones station with only a few trains a day.

I'm currently at Oakville GO catching a westbound train to Burlington to pick my car up from the mechanics.

There's quite a few people waiting on the platform with me to catch the westbound train. Although still not as many riders as the Toronto bound platform.

Last couple years, I've definitely noticed a steady increase of riders at Oakville GO heading towards Hamilton.

Would be great if Metrolinx and CN could work out some kind of deal to sort out the Bayview junction to allow for faster trains through the junction. We could then run some kind of express service between Toronto and Hamilton.

 

[crs1026]

Would be great if Metrolinx and CN could work out some kind of deal to sort out the Bayview junction to allow for faster trains through the junction. We could then run some kind of express service between Toronto and Hamilton.

Speeds through Bayview to West Harbour are limited by switches (which in turn define the potential signal indications), which only allow 25mph.

The switches are unlikely to be upgraded anytime soon, as a) they are not worn out and b) faster switches don't fit between various physical objects in the way.

It is what it is.

- Paul

 

[Sauga89]

I'm just going to quote this here for future ease of reference, because I think it's a good point.

Furthermore the pedestrian permeability in Hamilton is relatively decent via legal crossing routes. There are a few stretches where a pedestrian bridge/underpass may be warranted but for the most part it seems reasonable to construct more serious trespasser deterrents.

Currently CN doesn't seem to be making any serious attempt to discourage trespassing. There are many spots with well-trodden paths across the railway, not because people are cutting fences, but because there was never a fence to begin with:

Cheever St:
View attachment 720716
Avondale St:
View attachment 720717