[lenaitch]

Sorry if I am mistaken, but your response makes me think you aren't aware of what CP's former Expressway service was. I had link with a great description of it in my original post, but basically is a variation on traditional piggyback service that doesn't require special, reinforced trailers, since they drive the trailers on and off the train instead of using a gantry. They had a contract with both HBC and Canadian Tire to transport trailers between their Milton and Cote St. Luc yards (they had service to a third yard near downtown Detroit). As a result, I fail to see how putting truck trailers on a train rather than driving them on a highway would cause any warehousing issues.



Does the USA have a problem with us subsidizing our highways? I don't see how subsidizing the domestic transport of goods (most of which is going to retailers) would cause a trade issue (unless you think that the lower retail prices in Canadian stores would reduce cross boarder shopping).

Perhaps the key point is "former". I don't know the reasons the service was discontinued. The issue with warehousing is that the business model used by many large shippers now has input parts used within a very short period of time after delivery, requiring very little on-site storage space before they are turned into something and shipped out the door. The storage system is the trucks on the highway.

We don't subsidize our highways; they are public assets, as they are in the US and probably everywhere else. They are funded by licence and registration fees along with general revenues. The way I understood your "backed by the government" statement was that the government would financially support shippers and carriers to use a particular mode of transport. Perhaps I misunderstood. Advantaging one or a group of private companies over others might draw attention. Dunno; I'm not a trade expert, but the ongoing softwood lumber dispute, where the US timber industry claims that lower Crown land stumpage fees (as opposed to market driven private land fees) is a perennial toothache.

 

[roger1818]

Perhaps the key point is "former". I don't know the reasons the service was discontinued. The issue with warehousing is that the business model used by many large shippers now has input parts used within a very short period of time after delivery, requiring very little on-site storage space before they are turned into something and shipped out the door. The storage system is the trucks on the highway.

I don't think CP announced the exact reasons why they decided to cut it in 2018 after running the service for almost 20 years (even under EHH), but there is some speculation about the loss of one or more anchor customers.

We don't subsidize our highways; they are public assets, as they are in the US and probably everywhere else. They are funded by licence and registration fees along with general revenues.

General revenues? Where do those come from? Yes some come from gas taxes, but are they sufficient to cover the full cost of building and maintaining highways?

The way I understood your "backed by the government" statement was that the government would financially support shippers and carriers to use a particular mode of transport. Perhaps I misunderstood.

There are many ways that this could be done, but you would need to keep it equitable so that any company could put their trailers on the train at an attractive price compared to driving it on the highway. The carbon tax could have a similar effect as the cost of trucking will go up significantly more than the cost of rail transport. Longer range electric trucks could change that if they can be made light enough.

Advantaging one or a group of private companies over others might draw attention.

Agreed. The truckers certainly would not be happy. That's part of the reason I can't see it actually happening.

Dunno; I'm not a trade expert, but the ongoing softwood lumber dispute, where the US timber industry claims that lower Crown land stumpage fees (as opposed to market driven private land fees) is a perennial toothache.

I'm not a trade expert either, but I don't see it as becoming a big advantage considering our gas prices are higher. It would also be difficult to tie it as an advantage to specific industries.

 

[lenaitch]

General revenues? Where do those come from? Yes some come from gas taxes, but are they sufficient to cover the full cost of building and maintaining highways?

General revenues come from provincial income taxes, PST, transfer payments, etc. There is a general misconception, perpetrated by governments, that certain revenue streams 'go to' particular expenditures (like hunting/fishing licence fees 'go to' support conservation). While many inter-government transfers do have target requirements, most government income goes to the Minister of Finance (in Ontario). The government gets to spend it as they see fit within legislation (which they also control).
[/QUOTE]

 

[crs1026]

General revenues come from provincial income taxes, PST, transfer payments, etc. There is a general misconception, perpetrated by governments, that certain revenue streams 'go to' particular expenditures (like hunting/fishing licence fees 'go to' support conservation). While many inter-government transfers do have target requirements, most government income goes to the Minister of Finance (in Ontario). The government gets to spend it as they see fit within legislation (which they also control).

[/QUOTE]

Quite true, and when it comes to transportation, where we are constantly arguing about cost recovery and subsidies, and maybe tolls, and attaching rhetorical labels such as “unprofitable” to passenger trains but not to highways, it’s quite unhelpful.

I would love to see public policy that clarifies where highway revenue in particular is collected and how it compares to highway costs. Doesn’t mean the rhetoric will end, but it will greatly improve the clarity of public debate. People see any legitimate highway revenue collection, be it tolls or speeding tickets or gas taxation as a “tax grab” and not as legitimate cost recovery.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

Quite true, and when it comes to transportation, where we are constantly arguing about cost recovery and subsidies, and maybe tolls, and attaching rhetorical labels such as “unprofitable” to passenger trains but not to highways, it’s quite unhelpful.

Agreed. That is why I suggested that having the province invest in express piggyback trains (from general revenue, since subsidy is a 4 letter word here) as a way of getting trucks off of the highways and reduce the need for investment in new/upgraded highways (from general revenue) might be in the public's best interest.

I would love to see public policy that clarifies where highway revenue in particular is collected and how it compares to highway costs. Doesn’t mean the rhetoric will end, but it will greatly improve the clarity of public debate. People see any legitimate highway revenue collection, be it tolls or speeding tickets or gas taxation as a “tax grab” and not as legitimate cost recovery.

Agreed. Unfortunately transparency isn't something the government tends to actually want (despite the rhetoric).

 

[ShonTron]

^The second bridge was the old Michigan Central (NYC). Ceased to be needed when the Canada Southern was abandoned. All the international freight traffic now runs through Fort Erie. The Amtrak/VIA train is the only one to use the remaining bridge.

There is some history to the changes in ownership of the CN bridge, but it’s not top of mind. Suffice to say, when one abandons a railway, one ensures that no competing entity can swoop in and restart the route. But the MC bridge might still be restorable/serviceable for pedestrian traffic.

- Paul

I remember when CP trains used to pass through Niagara Falls, crossing at the top of Clifton Hill towards the NYC bridge in the late 1990s, well after the CASO no longer was a viable through freight route. Part of it is now a multi use path, though there were somewhat serious proposals to use it as a peoplemover (light rail or monorail) route between the old Downtown Niagara Falls and the Clifton Hill and Fallsview tourist areas.

 

[Northern Light]

I remember when CP trains used to pass through Niagara Falls, crossing at the top of Clifton Hill towards the NYC bridge in the late 1990s, well after the CASO no longer was a viable through freight route. Part of it is now a multi use path, though there were somewhat serious proposals to use it as a peoplemover (light rail or monorail) route between the old Downtown Niagara Falls and the Clifton Hill and Fallsview tourist areas.

Found a video of CSX using that bridge, the specific clip is not dated: (all clips in the larger video are labelled 1990-1995)

Above link should be the correct time in the video, but if not, its 20:37

Screenshot from video linked above:

Credit to fmnut at the link above.

 

[crs1026]

An article in The Ayr News (a local paywalled newspaper, which can’t be linked to) reports that two recently built road bridges over the CN Dundas Sub - at Gobles and Blenheim Roads - are having to be torn down and rebuilt because CN has identified that they were built wrong and can’t handle the specified load. Apparently the wrong grade of steel was used in the construction.
The work was performed by a subcontractor managed by CN.
The article cites the frustration of local officials in getting CN to respond to the issue. In fairness, it sounds like CN were the first to have concerns and were the ones who got an independent assessment. However, the town officials seem to feel that resorting to litigation was needed to fix the problem.
At any point in time, a major railroad will have many intersections with public infrastructure along the length of its line as road crossings are maintained, grade separations are constructed, etc. When these add up, it represents a significant volume of managerial activity. which adds little value to running trains, but is a significant obligation and “cost of doing business”.
I would not feel sorry for CN or CP with this burden. It’s a fair trade IMHO for the near-monopoly public franchise that they enjoy. However, it’s inherently a conflict in priorities for them as a business - do they spend their time and energy finding customers and running trains better, or do they assign more people to fixing bridges that don’t generate revenue? Or do they seek a comparable rate of return on the infrastructure side as a separate line of business?
We see a steady drip-drip-drip of these stories: Ontario Auditor General reports, the VIA Kingston Sub fiasco, and this. As we look ahead to HFR, RER, GO electrification, Niagara GO, Missing Link, etc, a lot of upcoming public money will be spent with CN/CP as the project manager.
I just wonder if public policy and the law may be letting the railways off too easy with respect to transparency, accountability, risk, etc

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

An article in The Ayr News (a local paywalled newspaper, which can’t be linked to) reports that two recently built road bridges over the CN Dundas Sub - at Gobles and Blenheim Roads - are having to be torn down and rebuilt because CN has identified that they were built wrong and can’t handle the specified load. Apparently the wrong grade of steel was used in the construction.
The work was performed by a subcontractor managed by CN.
The article cites the frustration of local officials in getting CN to respond to the issue. In fairness, it sounds like CN were the first to have concerns and were the ones who got an independent assessment. However, the town officials seem to feel that resorting to litigation was needed to fix the problem.
At any point in time, a major railroad will have many intersections with public infrastructure along the length of its line as road crossings are maintained, grade separations are constructed, etc. When these add up, it represents a significant volume of managerial activity. which adds little value to running trains, but is a significant obligation and “cost of doing business”.
I would not feel sorry for CN or CP with this burden. It’s a fair trade IMHO for the near-monopoly public franchise that they enjoy. However, it’s inherently a conflict in priorities for them as a business - do they spend their time and energy finding customers and running trains better, or do they assign more people to fixing bridges that don’t generate revenue? Or do they seek a comparable rate of return on the infrastructure side as a separate line of business?
We see a steady drip-drip-drip of these stories: Ontario Auditor General reports, the VIA Kingston Sub fiasco, and this. As we look ahead to HFR, RER, GO electrification, Niagara GO, Missing Link, etc, a lot of upcoming public money will be spent with CN/CP as the project manager.
I just wonder if public policy and the law may be letting the railways off too easy with respect to transparency, accountability, risk, etc

- Paul

In regards to the bridges above:

Blenheim: 2019:

Dangerous Bridge Forces a Road Closure in Blandford-Blenheim

The bridge crossing the CN railway on Blenheim Road has been deemed not fit for vehicle or pedestrian traffic.

www.heartfm.ca

2020:

Hoisting Blenheim Rd Bridge over CN Rail

We assembled this 20M bridge onsite and hoisted into place. Weighing in at 115,000 lbs the bridge was lifted into postion with a 500 ton Mammoet Crane...

fb.watch

2021:

Newsroom

www.blandfordblenheim.ca

Gobles:

2019:

Blandford-Blenheim Looks Back at 2019

Multiple bridge projects and the grand opening of a splash pad saw 2019 to be a very busy year for The Township of Blandford-Blenheim.

www.heartfm.ca

2021:

Newsroom

www.blandfordblenheim.ca

 

[MisterF]

Perhaps the key point is "former". I don't know the reasons the service was discontinued. The issue with warehousing is that the business model used by many large shippers now has input parts used within a very short period of time after delivery, requiring very little on-site storage space before they are turned into something and shipped out the door. The storage system is the trucks on the highway.

We don't subsidize our highways; they are public assets, as they are in the US and probably everywhere else. They are funded by licence and registration fees along with general revenues. The way I understood your "backed by the government" statement was that the government would financially support shippers and carriers to use a particular mode of transport. Perhaps I misunderstood. Advantaging one or a group of private companies over others might draw attention. Dunno; I'm not a trade expert, but the ongoing softwood lumber dispute, where the US timber industry claims that lower Crown land stumpage fees (as opposed to market driven private land fees) is a perennial toothache.

Roads and highways don't generate as much revenue as they cost to maintain. Transit buses and navy ships are public assets too, doesn't mean they're not subsidized. Roads and highways are highly subsidized.

 

[Northern Light]

Perhaps the key point is "former". I don't know the reasons the service was discontinued. The issue with warehousing is that the business model used by many large shippers now has input parts used within a very short period of time after delivery, requiring very little on-site storage space before they are turned into something and shipped out the door. The storage system is the trucks on the highway.

We don't subsidize our highways; they are public assets, as they are in the US and probably everywhere else. They are funded by licence and registration fees along with general revenues. The way I understood your "backed by the government" statement was that the government would financially support shippers and carriers to use a particular mode of transport. Perhaps I misunderstood. Advantaging one or a group of private companies over others might draw attention. Dunno; I'm not a trade expert, but the ongoing softwood lumber dispute, where the US timber industry claims that lower Crown land stumpage fees (as opposed to market driven private land fees) is a perennial toothache.

Were we to treat railways and highways (and trucking and railroad companies) alike......

The government would own the rails and the row, and use of them, would be largely free (toll roads being a relative rarity); the government would eat the full cost of signal, rail, bridges etc; but carriers would eat the full cost of their rollingstock (vehicles) and the energy required to power them, and staff to operate them.

Then there would be a level playing field.

Of course, that would be a rather sizable expense; as such it might make sense to directly charge tolls on highways; and for comparability on all mainline track maintained to class 4 or higher.

While local roads would be covered through fuel tax/plates only; and branch lines, spurs and track maintained to class 3 or less would be free to use.

The idea being that government should recover a material portion of the cost (and the funds should be segregated, not general revenue) of owning that infrastructure; while otherwise being neutral.

* I chose 'class 4' as this is the standard for track speeds above 100km/ph to my understanding, and as such, competitive with the highway. *

 

[Allandale25]

Acquisition unlocks growth for Canadian Pacific in Eastern Canada - Trains

CALGARY, Alberta – A year after acquiring regional railroad Central Maine & Quebec – and regaining a part of its historic shortcut linking Montreal and the Atlantic – traffic growth is exceeding Canadian Pacific’s expectations. CP’s plans to gain transatlantic international intermodal business...

www.trains.com

 

[lenaitch]

Roads and highways don't generate as much revenue as they cost to maintain. Transit buses and navy ships are public assets too, doesn't mean they're not subsidized. Roads and highways are highly subsidized.

I get what you are saying. I was using the term subsidized in the context of giving money to a private corporation to make a certain part of its business model profitable.

There are very, very few public-funded services that are money makers, and whether the state should be in the profit business largely depends on where people fall on the political spectrum.

 

[drum118]

June 11
Caught 4 CN train in a shot span while shooting Bramalea GO Station. One train heading to the yards a 5 units on it and 10 car.

CN has put real cheap 100 CN in Red & White on the side of 2 trains I saw.
CN 3835 GE ES44AC

CN 2927 GE ES44AC (2/2015)

GT (Grand Trunk Western) 6420 EMD GP40-2 (10/1973) + CN 9416 EMD GP40-2LW (4/1974) + CN 2627 GE C44-9W (1/2001) + CN 4717 EMD GP38-2 (12/1973)

CN 4717 EMD GP38-2 12/1973 + CN 2627 GE C44-9W 1/2001 + CN 9416 GP40-2LW’s 4/1974 + CN 2659 GE C44-9W 9/2002 + GT (Grand Trunk Western) 6420 EMD GP40-2 (10/1973)

 

[OntarioOnTheMove]

Presentation by the South Central Ontario Region Economic Development Corporation on shortline railroads in their region with a focus on the CN Cayuga Subdivision:

Future of Shortline Rail Information

Check out the presentation provided to learn more about the future of Shortline Rail in the SCOR region!

www.scorregion.com