[lemongrab]

It's a small thing, but having that updated image is really nice. I couldn't help but smirk and roll my eyes every time an article with this image popped up:

This render isn't even that bad aside from the mountains looking terrible, but it's linked in my brain with so many facepalm statements over the years.

I am happy to hear they are still pushing with an ambitious timeline, but I wish they could find some better angles for promotion and actually announce some real progress. For example, MSF location (or are they assuming this will be near the airport?), agreement with Canmore/Mini Thni/Cochrane on station details, announce where a new animal underpass might occur (there's one obvious spot just east of Tunnel Mountain), propose a benefit to the Calgary-Canmore bike trail, what the Keith/west Calgary station could look like (IMO a park&ride would be pretty important here), etc

 

[InfrastructureEnthusiast]

Am I wrong in thinking a diesel train would be a drop in the bucket compared to all the auto/truck/bus traffic already on highways 1 and 1A, and the existing 3000 metre long freight trains in the corridor?

It may be a drop in the bucket in terms of actual emissions, but its a huge PR win for an oil province, especially with how many international tourists would use it. That alone would let it qualify as a project of national interest IMO.

 

[lemongrab]

Can someone remind me why we think the province shifted to their own ROW concept for Banff?

Obviously shorter+straighter track = higher speeds and shorter trips. Not sure construction constraints would be significantly easier/harder, but certainly different.

But it seems like it would still rely on partnership with CPKC from YYC to Bowness and Canmore to Banff (though maybe not the latter?). And I've seen it suggested that part of the benefit of the whole project for CPKC is the opportunity to buy excess capacity on the new line(s) - though I struggle to wrap my head around how valuable that would be? I would think there might also be benefit in refurbishing/replacing certain sections of track like bridges or areas prone to erosion? So if there is value there for CPKC, wouldn't cutting out Bowness-Canmore kill most of that benefit, and perhaps make CPKC less inclined to deal on the other sections?

 

[darwink]

Can someone remind me why we think the province shifted to their own ROW concept for Banff?

I can speculate that just as in they wished to own the project at the end of the term, which blew up the first concept, that the province wants to own the land, which would be a non-starter with CPKC, and expanding the corridor would be a non-starter with First Nations. So, pushed into a greenfield, and then, if you're doing that, build to the highest standard possible.

So a small decision, made for reasons without an analysis of implications, puts the project on a path that is very different and more expensive than initially scoped. Where have we heard that before?

 

[badc0ffee]

And I've seen it suggested that part of the benefit of the whole project for CPKC is the opportunity to buy excess capacity on the new line(s) - though I struggle to wrap my head around how valuable that would be?

Yeah, especially since the new track ends at Banff. Where is freight being picked up and dropped off between here and Banff? Maybe like a small amount of activity in Canmore and Exshaw?

 

[darwink]

Yeah, especially since the new track ends at Banff. Where is freight being picked up and dropped off between here and Banff? Maybe like a small amount of activity in Canmore and Exshaw?

Any capacity anywhere on the line increases capacity of the whole line. Two way railroading on primarily single track is weird