[darwink]

As a CP employee, with no knowledge of any MOU or plans or agreements, I think it would have been sweet to just upgrade/double up our whole mainline to make the passenger traffic work on our network. Rather than the mess of them running parallel, just have it all integrated together. Knowing the Laggan pretty well, there are some tight spots that would be more feasible as double track rather than separate tracks going beside each other.

My understanding is that this is basically the plan but the funding arrangement will act like they are different.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

more feasible as double track rather than separate tracks

Can you explain the difference between double track and separate track?

 

[CalgaryTraveller]

Double track would be two lines running parallel to each other, typically with ~14' between track centers with one railroad in charge of the traffic running on both tracks. If it was separate tracks, CPKC would be responsible for traffic on their track and Liricon would be responsible for the traffic on theirs. This would likely require a wider right of way for the second to be built.

In the second scenario, CPKC would want to keep extra separation for a few reasons. The ability to run dimensional (wide) loads, option for their own future expansion, and space on the sides of their track to perform work.

 

[darwink]

Yeah. Sharing tracks is the name of the game! The financial deal works by 'leasing' the ROW with extra capacity provided to CPKC. At the end of the 30-50 years, the AB government which has been paying availability payments either takes ownership and re-leases it out (affirmage) to recover some costs or recovers some costs by selling the enterprise to CPKC with iron clad track rights or a requirement to operate the service. Since the tracks and ROW works have an amortization period of 50 to 100 years, the entire thing enables financial recycling.

An earlier phase of the proposal had the project under perpetual private ownership, but the AB Gov couldn't get its head around subsidizing private infrastructure at a much lower cost versus buying the asset themselves. Even if the service was exactly the same.

C'est la vie.

 

[Nawads]

Note sure which thread is best for this. But been seeing ads lately from tourism calgary trying to encourage more people to vistit without renting a car which is nice.