Bordercollie
Senior Member
Does that daily freight train go down the Bala Sub through Union Station to Oakville?
| NEWS | DATABASE | MAP | FORUM |  |  | SERVICES | UTPro | LOG IN | CITIES |
|
|
|
- Thread starter crs1026
- Start date
Krypto98
Active Member
Hasn't run through the lower bala in years
mossynukes
Active Member
What? surely MCC would be better off served by a branch service of the Milton line right? it makes more sense, doesn't it? since it is cheaper and all? or does it not make sense in Mississauga because that is where you live?
Bojaxs
Senior Member
Won't the Hurontario LRT essentially act as a branch service to MCC from the Milton line?
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
This if true, and I'm not saying it isn't, gives the Government leverage that I've never seen it use before. "Look CPKC, we're going to build a passenger rial line along this corridor. You can either get on board and play ball or you'll lose some of the preferential treatment we've been giving you". Because if it's not CPKC's land than what's to stop anyone from building a rail line parralleling CPKC's line, as long as an FYI is given and the line doesn't interfere with CPKC's operations.
sixrings
Senior Member
Wasn’t the SRT a branch service to STC from Kennedy?
Northern Light
Superstar
The government doesn't own the rails, or the signal masts, only the land on which they sit.
CPKC's easement isn't free of conditions, but I would not infer any right of a competitor or anyone else setting up shop within said easement.
The government has tones of potential leverage, I don't think land ownership here is particularly one of them.
The government has two very key leverage tools other than incentives, one is that they are the regulator and enforcer of said regulations. The government could choose to enact tougher regulations, higher fines, and more diligent enforcement.
The government also has taxation authority. It could enact steeper taxation on railways, or add or remove tax credits used by them, or their suppliers.
A final leverage play, is that government can directly finance competition. The last one is very expensive and not uber-realistic, but certainly a theoretical tool.
In the end, between the sticks above and the carrot of incentives, not much will stop a government from getting what it wants, if its decided its worth the hassle.
crs1026
Superstar
The simplest and most direct form of leverage is to simply ask CPKC what it would take to accommodate GO.....haggle a little over those details...., and then swallow hard and cough up the money to build to whatever requirements are agreed to. To date, the railways have actually been fairly cooperative with GO once their basic asks and expectations are respected. It has been government who hoped for freebies.
There is no free lunch.
The business of carrots and sticks gets very complicated, because the railways have so many roles in so much of our industry. Impose regulations or taxes as a lever, and there will be counter moves in freight service to mining, agriculture, etc.
CPKC was very much involved in the studies of the past decade which led to a project proposal for 2WAD on the Milton line. They may have deliberately inflated their requirements to discourage the government from immediate action, but they also likely recognized that a day might come where government decided to proceed.
The suggestion by some posters that CPKC is attitudinally the obstruction is quite likely an urban legend. The actual obstacle is the price tag of making the Galt Sub a 4-track corridor that meets both CPKC and ML's requirements.... and the sticker shock therein. No amount of carrots and sticks will move that price tag very much.
- Paul
Northern Light
Superstar
I don't disagree w/your first sentence.........in fact, I'll suggest that's rather further along than is widely understood and I have hinted at this more than once.
I don't recall suggesting there is/was.
With respect, Paul, you say something along those lines every time someone suggests even the possibility of exerting pressure on the railways over anything.
My comments were in no way specific to the Mid-town project, but generally about principles. While I am a pragmatist and will generally advocate persuasion over coercision....
I also will openly discuss coercive tools as an option, not a preferred option.
I do know this.......and the counter measures by government will always win if the political will is there. That isn't advocacy for maximum force or escalation, it has to be possible to discuss option, without a presumption they are put forward as a preferred course of action.
Again, I do know this Paul. I've disclosed all that I can publicly.
crs1026
Superstar
And will likely do so again, I'm afraid, without remorse.
My comments weren't directed at your comments specifically - I apologise if they came across that way - but I do tire of some of the simplistic views that continue to be posted after an awful lot of discussion about the legalities and complexities of relations with the railways.
If someone has a detailed, reasoned suggestion about what interventions can be made to the regulatory or legal environment, to enable more or better public use of rail lines, I'm all ears. I agree that the relationship is not a level playing field at present and we may be overpaying and overpleading, at the very least the railways have huge leverage simply by forcing delay.
One would think that these changes would be self evident and non-controversial in Ottawa - but here we are.
And, (again repeating myself, I'm afraid) the current law actually reads as it likely should - but the reluctance to pull levers through the channels defined by law is baffling.
I'm much more interested in how the various negotiations have actually unfolded, and how they end up favouring the railways, than in hypothetical "nuclear" solutions. Being a spectator, I will likely never know.
Again, not directed at you. But Dofo's rather absurd announcement has certainly fanned a whole range of fantasy ideation that is fun to throw out but unlikely to have any relation to whatever is actually being pursued. So this discussion needs a stick in the mud. Or it should be treated as a fantasy thread.
- Paul
goodcitywhenfinished
Active Member
Would the current fleet of bilevels be sufficient to run this proposed GO 2.0 at 15 min service levels?
If not, this would be a good opportunity to Introduce EMU (or at least EMU convertible DMU) sets to the network.
If not, this would be a good opportunity to Introduce EMU (or at least EMU convertible DMU) sets to the network.
JSF-1
Active Member
I don't think its an issue of having enough Bi-Level coaches. I think it's an issue of if we have enough locomotives to run all of this service. Speaking of which what's even the plan for the electric locos? Are we just going to convert are current ones to electric (do we even have enough for RER frequency?) or are we going to be buying a brand new fleet of electric locos?
ssiguy2
Senior Member
The mid-town corridor would be a game changer in connecting the entire region without having to go down to Union. It's great that this has been noticed by QP BUT, what about the original GO. ML keeps saying how wonderful it will be when they get electrification but hasn't got a pole in the ground to date.
When it the electrification actually going to start construction and when will the core roughly 200 km section of the RER part be finished by?
When it the electrification actually going to start construction and when will the core roughly 200 km section of the RER part be finished by?
urbancog
Active Member
On 20-Jan-2025, AECON and FCC both announced they'd "reached commercial close on a progressive design-build transit project" for the core GO Expansion project. However, because there's a provincial election in progress, there's been no statement about project schedule or the scope of what's included in the agreement. Previously that scope included electrification to Barry, Bramalea, Burlington, Unionville, & Oshawa.
Aecon consortium reaches commercial close on target price transit project
TORONTO, Jan. 28, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Aecon Group Inc. (TSX: ARE) (“Aecon” or the “Company”) announced today that an Aecon-led consortium has completed the co…
financialpost.com
chrisw
Active Member
How bad is it that the Conservatives haven't talked about Go Expansion even with an election?
