News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 6.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 33K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 3.2K     0 

trebello

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
30
Reaction score
37
Maybe create a link instead?
1664238193014.png


Uploading it wasn't working, but it looks like copying and pasting did. The logo on it looks like the Charlevoix train in this image as Brian on the VIA discord pointed out

EDIT: Finally founds something. Looks like they were purchased by the Rocky Mountaineer
 
Last edited:

Bordercollie

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 20, 2020
Messages
1,611
Reaction score
1,110
View attachment 429148

Uploading it wasn't working, but it looks like copying and pasting did. The logo on it looks like the Charlevoix train in this image as Brian on the VIA discord pointed out

EDIT: Finally founds something. Looks like they were purchased by the Rocky Mountaineer
That train is supposed to make a comeback once the damaged tracks are repaired. Federal funding was recent approved for this.
 

lenaitch

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
4,415
Reaction score
4,494
That train is supposed to make a comeback once the damaged tracks are repaired. Federal funding was recent approved for this.
Sure you're not thinking of Gaspe? The Charlevoix railway is an operating freight shortline and the tourist passenger service uses DMUs.
 

urbancog

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 21, 2022
Messages
24
Reaction score
65

WSP to design CP Rail’s hydrogen refuelling facilities in Alberta​

Construction is expected to begin later this year.

WSP will design two hydrogen production and refuelling facilities for construction in Calgary and Edmonton to support a Canada Pacific (CP) Rail program.

With $15 million in funding from Emissions Reduction Alberta (ERA), CP announced last year it had expanded its hydrogen locomotive program to include the installation of the facilities to refuel three locomotives. CP subsequently awarded the project’s engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) services contract to ATCO Group. In turn, ATCO has awarded the detailed design contract to WSP.

The hydrogen infrastructure at each CP site will include a 1-MW electrolyzer, compression, storage and dispensing for locomotive refuelling. In Calgary, the electrolyzer will be partly powered by renewable electricity, provided by an existing 5-MW solar power facility at CP’s headquarters (HQ). It was announced earlier this year the locomotives will use Ballard fuel cells.

“Low-carbon-intensity hydrogen has the potential to be an integral part of Canada’s clean energy mix in the decades ahead,” explains Satvinder Flore, WSP’s executive vice-president (EVP) for energy, resources and industry. “Our team is proud to play an important role in Canada’s transition to a low-emission economy.”


Construction is expected to begin later this year, with the first hydrogen to be supplied to CP’s locomotives next year.

https://www.canadianconsultingengin...DE;&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&*URLENCODE({{*JobID}})&oly_enc_id=7343F5845012H5B
 

dowlingm

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
3,956
Reaction score
1,824

dowlingm

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
3,956
Reaction score
1,824
The problem with “precision” railroading is that harvests don’t follow the spreadsheet when you have cut all the way to the bone…
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
8,571
Reaction score
15,499
(trying to move a discussion here from a less appropriate thread)

Re alternatives to Halifax/Saint John as container terminals - there is a healthy domestic trade - a less than huge container ship every couple of days - for container traffic from the Port of Montreal to St John's NL, and some to Saint John NB. And plenty of containers to other destinations - as I type this, Marine Traffic tells me that container ship MSC Maria Clara is inbound to Montreal from Le Havre, MSC Lena is outbound for Lithuania, and MSC Tamara is unloading from Valencia.

So it's certainly true that some shippers will accept the longer transit times of a longer sea segment, to reach the Port of Montreal, as opposed to shipping through the two busier container terminals in the Maritimes. But the slow transit through the Seaway locks is probably not attractive compared to rail from Montreal or further east.

The business case for shipping containers through Churchill seems a bit iffy, considering the volume that might be needed to fill a shipload, and the level of investment that would be needed to equip Churchill to transload that many containers....and the operational challenges of switching out that much traffic in Winnipeg. One can never say never, but while it may be "possible", it may not be worth the investment.

- Paul
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
8,571
Reaction score
15,499
The problem with “precision” railroading is that harvests don’t follow the spreadsheet when you have cut all the way to the bone…

This should be mandatory reading for everyone posting questions about "Why doesn't the government just lean on CP and CN to get more favourable treatment for VIA and GO?" Ottawa has bigger agendas to work with the railways on.

The culprit is indeed the PSR mentality where a constrained capacity (and hence less capitalization) is more profitable than being ready for any and all business (which implies more capitalization that sits idle until there is a surge). I'm not a fan of broad-brush solutions - the current arrangement probably is effective in many ways in incenting the network to maximise efficiency of grain terminals, rail lines, and car supply. Any tweaks need to be carefully thought out.

The reality is that investing in railway expansion (and capitalization to maintain the status quo, also) is a risky business. The system does not incent railways to be ready for surges.

- Paul
 

Darwinkgo

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
601
Reaction score
299
This should be mandatory reading for everyone posting questions about "Why doesn't the government just lean on CP and CN to get more favourable treatment for VIA and GO?" Ottawa has bigger agendas to work with the railways on.

The culprit is indeed the PSR mentality where a constrained capacity (and hence less capitalization) is more profitable than being ready for any and all business (which implies more capitalization that sits idle until there is a surge). I'm not a fan of broad-brush solutions - the current arrangement probably is effective in many ways in incenting the network to maximise efficiency of grain terminals, rail lines, and car supply. Any tweaks need to be carefully thought out.

The reality is that investing in railway expansion (and capitalization to maintain the status quo, also) is a risky business. The system does not incent railways to be ready for surges.

- Paul
Yeah. I suspect 15 years from now there will have been a huge recapitalization and expansion with large government involvement. Think P3 projects to add capacity where the railroads only pay for the capacity they use on the new sections, until a specified date in the future when the assets can be bought by CN/CP/other and maintained without subsidy. Adding capacity with piecemeal bottlenecks has likely approached its limit.
 

AHK

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
1,633
Reaction score
5,819
(trying to move a discussion here from a less appropriate thread)

Re alternatives to Halifax/Saint John as container terminals - there is a healthy domestic trade - a less than huge container ship every couple of days - for container traffic from the Port of Montreal to St John's NL, and some to Saint John NB. And plenty of containers to other destinations - as I type this, Marine Traffic tells me that container ship MSC Maria Clara is inbound to Montreal from Le Havre, MSC Lena is outbound for Lithuania, and MSC Tamara is unloading from Valencia.

So it's certainly true that some shippers will accept the longer transit times of a longer sea segment, to reach the Port of Montreal, as opposed to shipping through the two busier container terminals in the Maritimes. But the slow transit through the Seaway locks is probably not attractive compared to rail from Montreal or further east.

The business case for shipping containers through Churchill seems a bit iffy, considering the volume that might be needed to fill a shipload, and the level of investment that would be needed to equip Churchill to transload that many containers....and the operational challenges of switching out that much traffic in Winnipeg. One can never say never, but while it may be "possible", it may not be worth the investment.

- Paul
My understanding - including from what I have seen in person - Saint John and Montreal are destination ports - smaller container ships going to and leaving from these ports on a dedicated basis, discharging and loading their cargos in their entireties. Much smaller ships. Halifax on the other hand is a totally different situation - it is just an hour or so off the great circle route between Europe and the United States eastern seaboard ports. Ships going to and from the USA ports can call into Halifax, partially discharge or add to on top of their existing loads, and resume their journeys with minimal incremental cost or transit time. Suitable for much larger ships than those calling in to Montreal of Saint John. In other words, to be be effective from a shipping perspective, a ship going to either Montreal or Saint John has to be booked and loaded exclusively with containers destined for those ports, while ships going to USA Atlantic sea coast ports could have Halifax bound containers included on a last loaded / first unloaded basis, with the ships resuming their trips to their ultimate destination ports. Two different situations altogether.

Not that any of this has any bearing on Churchill - except that as a potential container port, it would be more analogous to Montreal or Saint John - as an end destination port, - as opposed to Halifax, which is a 'mid journey' drop off and pick up port.
 

sunnyside

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2021
Messages
157
Reaction score
245
This should be mandatory reading for everyone posting questions about "Why doesn't the government just lean on CP and CN to get more favourable treatment for VIA and GO?" Ottawa has bigger agendas to work with the railways on.

The culprit is indeed the PSR mentality where a constrained capacity (and hence less capitalization) is more profitable than being ready for any and all business (which implies more capitalization that sits idle until there is a surge). I'm not a fan of broad-brush solutions - the current arrangement probably is effective in many ways in incenting the network to maximise efficiency of grain terminals, rail lines, and car supply. Any tweaks need to be carefully thought out.

The reality is that investing in railway expansion (and capitalization to maintain the status quo, also) is a risky business. The system does not incent railways to be ready for surges.

- Paul
This prompts a question from me then. At what point would we need to invest significantly in our railroads, and based on existing trackage nationally, do we actually *need* new infra anywhere? Freight or passenger? Or can we hyper-optimize our current network for the foreseeable future via signalling etc? From what I can see, as long as the railroads can uphold their contributions to the economy, the government has no incentive to tamper with the system, expanding it or otherwise.
 

Bordercollie

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 20, 2020
Messages
1,611
Reaction score
1,110
This prompts a question from me then. At what point would we need to invest significantly in our railroads, and based on existing trackage nationally, do we actually *need* new infra anywhere? Freight or passenger? Or can we hyper-optimize our current network for the foreseeable future via signalling etc? From what I can see, as long as the railroads can uphold their contributions to the economy, the government has no incentive to tamper with the system, expanding it or otherwise.
Because of our size rail travel will never be practical between Toronto and Montreal. However maybe places between Toronto and North Bay, North Bay to Sudbury, Sudbury to Ottawa.

Other places would be Calgary to Edmonton, Winnipeg to Saskatoon? Saskatoon to Calgary? I overheard a conversation about flying from Sault Ste Marie through Toronto with a 5 hour layover to fly to Winnipeg. It might be faster than driving but it's not fun.
 

Top