News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

Allandale25 said:
^ From CN's perspective, even if there is technically capacity, maybe they aren't interested in a disruption to their flexibility and ability to handle spikes in demand? Capacity could be a moving target? Ironically, on the same day they responded to your question, this article appeared. They've never publicly commented (or the media hasn't directly asked them) as far as I can tell specifically what they want, need, capacity, or approach. I'm trying to think of a parallel in another industry/sector where there's a public interest in a private thing/site/etc.

Metrolinx speak or not, that's likely the conclusion and answer: the chances are low. As has been pointed out, now that a permanent bigger solution is on the table, the incentive may be lower for interm options. Not saying I agree with that or aren't disappointed, but just trying to be realistic. Unless a different government after June 2018 can do something different/get a different result/negotiate something that hasn't happened yet.
Click to expand...

Then why did GO Transit/Metrolinx pay for all those capacity improvements, then, on the Georgetown North project? Why isn't CN paying to double-track the Halton Sub between Georgetown and Burlington?
 
^ I think this goes back to a previous discussion here where various points were made about the thinking at the time and the negotiating strategy for GTS. Paul, Dan, and TOAreaFan all weighed in. Maybe GO thought at the time it would be easier than it has turned out to be to get an agreement for more track time/ability to add tracks between Georgetown and Bramalea? Just expressing my view as part of the discussion and thought the recent Globe article on the spike on volumes might be pertinent.

I'm not as familiar with the CN Halton Sub between Burlington and Georgetown. I thought that other than for a short stretch at Milton it was already double tracked. Maybe with the proposed intermodal terminal near Milton they'll have to add some third track sidings?
 
Last edited:
Allandale25 said:
^ I think this goes back to a previous discussion here where various points were made about the thinking at the time and the negotiating strategy for GTS. Paul, Dan, and TOAreaFan all weighed in. Maybe GO thought at the time it would be easier than it has turned out to be to get an agreement for more track time/ability to add tracks between Georgetown and Bramalea? Just expressing my view as part of the discussion and thought the recent Globe article on the spike on volumes might be pertinent.

I'm not as familiar with the CN Halton Sub between Burlington and Georgetown. I thought that other than for a short stretch at Milton it was already double tracked. Maybe with the proposed intermodal terminal near Milton they'll have to add some third track sidings?
Click to expand...

No, over half of it is single-tracked - between south of Britannia Road south of Milton and 5th Line near Georgetown - with a passing track near Highway 401.
 
^Effectively The Halton is singletracked from Mansewood (north end of Milton) to Stewarttown (south side of Georgetown). There is a siding in the middle (Speyside) however with longer trains, and having one or more road crossings inside that siding, it's iffy whether it can be used for meets. This single track section is also the ruling grade eastwards, meaning that trains going uphill don't move that quickly and that can hold up westbound trains which have to hold back around Silver so that the eastbounds keep moving.

There is another single track segment from Milbase (by the Jail in Milton) down to Ash (Britannia Road), but it doesn't constrain things as much.

Definitely, the South Halton Terminal will add some trackage north of Ash, but not likely full double track.

The growth in traffic that led to the motive power purchase is not really showing itself in Southern Ontario. And that motive power purchase is the outcome of other decisions in CN's motive power strategy. I don't think one can draw a direct line between CN needing more power for a huge growth in traffic and CN not allowing GO on the Halton at the moment. There is plenty of spare capacity still on that line.

As I wrote earlier, as I watch VIA operations on the Kingston Sub, and ML working more effectively with CN on Bloomington and Niagara, I don't think we can write off CN as just hostile to pax. There must be some tangible gaps in the parties' position re either price or track capacity on the halton that haven't been bridged yet.

- Paul
 
^ Thanks for the additional insight Paul. Wasn't sure what to make of the Globe article so appreciate your views. With the new terminal coming online in Milton, is there anything to suggest that could reduce the CN train volume through Brampton?
 
CN is saying it will add intermodal trains when the terminal comes on line. Intermodals are schedule sensitive so I'm sure the pressure to keep GO out of the way will only increase with time.

IMHO there is no point in adding new bandaids that raise GO frequency to some mid-point level without doing the full work to negotiate the ultimate plan to deliver 15 minute service to Mount Pleasant plus whatever Kitchener service is planned. That's why there has to be a negotiation and a long term solution.

What's in the way of more trains before that project is done? As I said once before, CN might be satisfied to allow greater night and weekend service beginning tomorrow if Ontario would sign a $250M penalty guarantee payable if GO does not proceed with its expansion plan as intended, on the proposed timeframe #gasplantreprise

It's on GO, not CN, to explain why it doesn't already have the right to add that additional service, given the public money already invested in the line in 2007-2008 and through GTS.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
crs1026 said:
CN is saying it will add trains when the terminal comes on line. Intermodals are schedule sensitive so I'm sure the pressure to keep GO out of the way will only increase with time.
Click to expand...
Just speculating and extrapolating here but is it possible CN has told GO that they expect more freight trains with the new yard and as a result there's no point to trying to increase GO service between Georgetown and Bramalea? 'Even with three tracks/two throughout Brampton it would still be too difficult and the Bypass is the best solution'
 
Allandale25 said:
Just speculating and extrapolating here but is it possible CN has told GO that they expect more freight trains with the new yard and as a result there's no point to trying to increase GO service between Georgetown and Bramalea? 'Even with three tracks/two throughout Brampton it would still be too difficult and the Bypass is the best solution'
Click to expand...

Quite possible, yes. What's murky is how ML got from the original plan (a flyover, allowing CN to have its line to itself, with GO adding tracks alongside) to the bypass. Either a) the flyover was too pricey and/or b) GO's service plan vision expanded, and the full complement of new tracks just won't fit. Again, just speculating.

- Paul
 
^ And maybe c), CN vetoed the grade separation and didn't want to deal with overhead wires for GO RER and HSR for their mainline trains? (I assume if it's local switching jobs they can live with it)
 
Allandale25 said:
Just speculating and extrapolating here but is it possible CN has told GO that they expect more freight trains with the new yard and as a result there's no point to trying to increase GO service between Georgetown and Bramalea? 'Even with three tracks/two throughout Brampton it would still be too difficult and the Bypass is the best solution'
Click to expand...
I have no problem with CN in all of this. They own the tracks and can do with them what they like.

What I don’t understand (nor can I accept) is the behaviours of GO, ML, Ontario Govermnet.

Every time I have asked the simple yes or no question about whether additional service is possible without the bypass they either don’t answer (the normal response) or they answer with the 15 minute electrified service answer.

That is the unacceptable part to me.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top