[crs1026]

While rail trails are quite popular, I have a bit of a hard time seeing them as a "major tourist attraction".

The irony is that, while the whole Forks area is a massive people attraction at some points in the year (eg fall colours), the narrow roads and exclusive property ownership makes the area choked even at current trail capacity. In peak season, the tearooms and small shops have OPP cruisers parked in front of them to enforce no parking zones.

Adding more trails without adding more parking capacity is pointless... and adding more parking capacity brings more cars...

There’s a nonsequitur in the whole active movement ie we maintain and want to build a network of trails and parks and conservation areas out in the hinterland, beyond the reach of all but the most able cyclists....all of it autocentric. I wonder if the push to get people out of cars will doom some of the traditional trails and conservation areas.

Maybe we need an excursion shuttle train from Brampton GO, with ample cycling storage, just to feed the area on weekends.....oh wait....

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

The irony is that, while the whole Forks area is a massive people attraction at some points in the year (eg fall colours), the narrow roads and exclusive property ownership makes the area choked even at current trail capacity. In peak season, the tearooms and small shops have OPP cruisers parked in front of them to enforce no parking zones.

Adding more trails without adding more parking capacity is pointless... and adding more parking capacity brings more cars...

There’s a nonsequitur in the whole active movement ie we maintain and want to build a network of trails and parks and conservation areas out in the hinterland, beyond the reach of all but the most able cyclists....all of it autocentric.

Maybe we need an excursion shuttle train from Brampton GO, with ample cycling storage, just to feed the area on weekends.....oh wait....

- Paul

Forks of the Credit Park has a masterplan; in that masterplan it was supposed to be enlarged (to the north) which would help some.

Were the plan a bit more ambitious, both to the north and west, that particular issue could be addressed. (crowding on trails)

***

I, of course, support better non-car access to this location; but would add, I think an additional parking area would make sense, but on the west side of the park; as this would support different travel patterns and ease congestion on the east and south sides of the park.

With apologies to the homeowners at the south end of the park, I really do feel they should be bought out.

Residing on a dead-end road but for the pedestrian access to the park, maintaining a small vehicle grade bridge for a tiny enclave of homes, and creating traffic messes getting in/out that enclave during busy weekends...........just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[ShonTron]

Rail trails attract those cyclists who don't want to wear elaborate kits and ride on country roads - they attract casual cyclists, and because of their gentle grades, they are more accessible to more people. A ride from Brampton to Caledon on a flat rail trail becomes an easy day trip for many more people than it might have been otherwise.

The OBRY corridor would allow for a relatively large parking lot on the south side of Highway 24/Charleston Sideroad, near a landfill and works yard, where it wouldn't disturb affluent property owners.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

I wonder if the push to get people out of cars will doom some of the traditional trails and conservation areas.

One would hope that at some point this argument will be acceptable enough that we can actually talk about restoring railbanked trails.

 

[UrbanJon]

In my opinion the trail should be placed beside the train tracks and the tracks/bed preserved for potential future use. Rail bridges can be used by the trail, it would merge onto the track area at those points, with the rails removed on the bridge.

In the future, if the track is reused for passenger service etc, new trail bridges can be built beside and the rail bridges retracked.

Rails with trails is a valiant concept but rather poor in practise. It involves widening a right of way which is costly and may require more land purchases. Additionally, trails can squeeze into tighter spaces and can be rerouted easily, not possible for a rail corridor. As such, rails with trails will not allow for Orangeville to sell parcels of land to recoup their massive sunk cost into the railway.

Rails to trails is also a better option as it allows what already exists to be used for a lower costs and can be completed quicker.

 

[kamira51]

Let's tear up this perfectly fine railway that could get people out of their cars.

No wonder ontario is so car dependent.

 

[crs1026]

Let's tear up this perfectly fine railway that could get people out of their cars.

No wonder ontario is so car dependent.

“Perfectly fine” is a bit hyperbolic. “Tired and rusty” maybe.

I do believe the value of any continuous right of way needs to be recognised and conserved, at least for a while. The cost of assembling a replacement is prohibitive in most cases, because of all the development that has happened since 1900.

There are clearly a few cases where rail lines have been let go which we wish had been banked for future use. Barrie-Orillia is perhaps the best example. But even at that, how long do we wait? At some point, the opportunity cost of not making some use of the corridor outweighs the cost of a later decision. The future need may be 50 years away. And, many old rail lines don’t link the places that matter any more. Or, the original engineering and construction wasn’t adequate for what we need today. (restoring passenger quality track through the curves at Cataract would have a huge cost and possibly unacceptable impact on the Credit gorge, and it would still be hugely speed limited)

If we had railbanked the old TG&B we wouldn’t have any angst about losing the OBRY....and with the benefit of hindsight it’s a better route for a GO line actually. But it’s long gone. Really, do we care?

- Paul

 

[UrbanJon]

I think that it is important we recognize that the world of today is very different. These branch lines were once important but today they are not. Elaborating on @crs1026's point, the opportunity cost of keeping the OBRY around is huge. There is so much land that could be used reveloped to improve the urban landscape.

Preserving rail corridors is largely a fruitless endeavour. The rail network should only connect the largest and densest cities. Roads should act as the auxilliary to that.

The TRBOT's suggested use for this corridor, seen in their regional rail report is similarly bad to the Cambridge GO proposal and shows the lack of value of these old rail corridors beyond active transport and mixed use development.

 

[Northern Light]

I think that it is important we recognize that the world of today is very different. These branch lines were once important but today they are not. Elaborating on @crs1026's point, the opportunity cost of keeping the OBRY around is huge. There is so much land that could be used reveloped to improve the urban landscape.

The actual ROW provides very little land for development, its comparatively narrow, and only in a few exceptional spots would its removal allow for thoughtful intensification that was otherwise not plausible.

There are some rail yards for which that may be true, but again, not many that are high-value urban or near-urban land.

I find this statement hyperbolic on balance.

Preserving rail corridors is largely a fruitless endeavour. The rail network should only connect the largest and densest cities. Roads should act as the auxilliary to that.

You're confusing your preference with facts.

You are welcome to your preference; but the above statement is not a proven fact.

In the absence of a definition of largest/densest cities its difficult to properly evaluate that proposition.

But even if I accepted a definition of that, I would still say that isn't the correct way to evaluate lines for passenger or freight rail.

Its origins and destinations, its potential traffic volume (passengers and cargo); its also economic and environmental considerations, as well as considering the cost of alternatives.

Again, this is not an argument for all branch lines; nor an argument for OBRY or Fergus or any particular branch line.

It is an argument against your generalization on branch lines, and your dismissiveness of their utility out of hand; and your exaggeration of alternative land uses.

 

[DirectionNorth]

“Perfectly fine” is a bit hyperbolic. “Tired and rusty” maybe.

I do believe the value of any continuous right of way needs to be recognised and conserved, at least for a while. The cost of assembling a replacement is prohibitive in most cases, because of all the development that has happened since 1900.

There are clearly a few cases where rail lines have been let go which we wish had been banked for future use. Barrie-Orillia is perhaps the best example. But even at that, how long do we wait? At some point, the opportunity cost of not making some use of the corridor outweighs the cost of a later decision. The future need may be 50 years away. And, many old rail lines don’t link the places that matter any more. Or, the original engineering and construction wasn’t adequate for what we need today. (restoring passenger quality track through the curves at Cataract would have a huge cost and possibly unacceptable impact on the Credit gorge, and it would still be hugely speed limited)

If we had railbanked the old TG&B we wouldn’t have any angst about losing the OBRY....and with the benefit of hindsight it’s a better route for a GO line actually. But it’s long gone. Really, do we care?

- Paul

Looking at the TG&B, I think that something along that alignment is salvagable.

I'm not too concerned about the OBRY sections in areas that are not slated for development within the next 10-15 years. A new alignment can be built there cheaply.

I'm more concerned about the OBRY within Brampton. It's a relatively straight alignment parallel to Hurontario, hitting Downtown Brampton, Caledon, the minor commercial/industrial zone at Bovaird and Hurontario, with interchange opportunities to Brampton GO and Meadowvale GO. If the OBRY were to be abandoned tomorrow, I believe a LRT or Ottawa Line 2 style service could be established for a low cost along this routing:

But I suppose I'm repeating myself now.

 

[kamira51]

Preserving rail corridors is largely a fruitless endeavour. The rail network should only connect the largest and densest cities. Roads should act as the auxilliary to that.

I absolutely disagree with this statement. How are we going to reduce our carbon emissions when the rest of the bloody province has no railway transit, by your logic, no one will get railway transit.

 

[crs1026]

Its origins and destinations, its potential traffic volume (passengers and cargo); its also economic and environmental considerations, as well as considering the cost of alternatives.

Again, this is not an argument for all branch lines; nor an argument for OBRY or Fergus or any particular branch line.

It is an argument against your generalization on branch lines, and your dismissiveness of their utility out of hand; and your exaggeration of alternative land uses.

(pushing the limits on on-topic once again, but since OBRY is a relevant case in point....)

I have a theory that we are in a dark zone that won’t last forever around branch lines.

Clearly, railways currently have an aversion to loose-car railroading. Branch lines by definition survive on small volumes of loose-car shipments. Unless they are lucky enough to have a unit train depot on line, it’s slim pickings. (The G&G is a good example of that.... look on Google Earth at all the industrial trackage running off it in the north end of Cambridge, you can see how many factories and warehouses no longer use their rail spur). Under current conditions, branch lines are only as viable as whatever loose car business they can hold on to.

My suspicion is, everyone is over estimating the willingness of road operators to continue to accept trucking as the solution to low-volume shipments, which includes transloading of loose car rail shipments and even drayage of containers. The roads are full.

It’s easy to say that the freight volumes on OBRY out of Orangeville can be easily handled by truck. But aggregate all the truck shipments coming out of the Grey-Bruce peninsula, and think of how many pass through the GTA, and consider that impact on the congestion on the 401/410. Eventually someone will say “no more”. There will be a need for more transload points than just Milton and Bramalea and Vaughan, so that transloads and intermodal never touch a GTA highway..

This is not saying that the old lines could have survived since the were torn up in the nineties, or that a branch line business will return in its old form. I suspect there will have to be a transformation or two, possibly entailing much greater automation in rail yards and intermodal terminals to reduce switching delays and labour requirements. But eventually, somebody may decide it’s worth consolidating some number of shipments onto railcars of some newer type and doing the distribution from a hub in, say, Stratford, or Guelph, or Chatham...to keep them off GTA roads. If any branch lines are left by then, they could extend the reach of that more multi-noded distribution system. That would make those lines valuable and more economical than highway tolls.

Just a theory, and I suspect OBRy will be gone before that happens. But it’s a shame that some branch line to Grey/Bruce hasn’t survived, they could be a future solution.

- Paul

PS: Of course, we could build the 413, and the roads are ok for another decade.......NOT

 

[Bordercollie]

(pushing the limits on on-topic once again, but since OBRY is a relevant case in point....)

I have a theory that we are in a dark zone that won’t last forever around branch lines.

Clearly, railways currently have an aversion to loose-car railroading. Branch lines by definition survive on small volumes of loose-car shipments. Unless they are lucky enough to have a unit train depot on line, it’s slim pickings. (The G&G is a good example of that.... look on Google Earth at all the industrial trackage running off it in the north end of Cambridge, you can see how many factories and warehouses no longer use their rail spur). Under current conditions, branch lines are only as viable as whatever loose car business they can hold on to.

My suspicion is, everyone is over estimating the willingness of road operators to continue to accept trucking as the solution to low-volume shipments, which includes transloading of loose car rail shipments and even drayage of containers. The roads are full.

It’s easy to say that the freight volumes on OBRY out of Orangeville can be easily handled by truck. But aggregate all the truck shipments coming out of the Grey-Bruce peninsula, and think of how many pass through the GTA, and consider that impact on the congestion on the 401/410. Eventually someone will say “no more”. There will be a need for more transload points than just Milton and Bramalea and Vaughan, so that transloads and intermodal never touch a GTA highway..

This is not saying that the old lines could have survived since the were torn up in the nineties, or that a branch line business will return in its old form. I suspect there will have to be a transformation or two, possibly entailing much greater automation in rail yards and intermodal terminals to reduce switching delays and labour requirements. But eventually, somebody may decide it’s worth consolidating some number of shipments onto railcars of some newer type and doing the distribution from a hub in, say, Stratford, or Guelph, or Chatham...to keep them off GTA roads. If any branch lines are left by then, they could extend the reach of that more multi-noded distribution system. That would make those lines valuable and more economical than highway tolls.

Just a theory, and I suspect OBRy will be gone before that happens. But it’s a shame that some branch line to Grey/Bruce hasn’t survived, they could be a future solution.

- Paul

PS: Of course, we could build the 413, and the roads are ok for another decade.......NOT

If everything could be modular in shape, then you could just use a crane to pick it up and load it and stack it. You just need enough space for the train not to block any traffic. They use this model in Japan but the trains are only 20 or so cars long, which make it easier.
Which may make more sense. Instead of one Giant train you could have 4 small trains, which would make it more convenient for shippers to give them more flexibility.

Since with one train a day, if you miss your window for that day, you have to wait for the next train tomorrow.

 

[smallspy]

If everything could be modular in shape, then you could just use a crane to pick it up and load it and stack it. You just need enough space for the train not to block any traffic. They use this model in Japan but the trains are only 20 or so cars long, which make it easier.
Which may make more sense. Instead of one Giant train you could have 4 small trains, which would make it more convenient for shippers to give them more flexibility.

Since with one train a day, if you miss your window for that day, you have to wait for the next train tomorrow.

Containerization can go a long way to helping the situation, but it's certainly no panacea.

For example, the main customer in Orangeville recieves raw material - plastic pellets. Even using a 53' container - which would cube out before it weighed out with such a low-density product - they would need twice as many containers as they would railcars just because the railcars can be better optimized to use the space available to them. And on top of that, OBRY would allow the customer to keep the freight cars for as long as they needed, as a means of storing the material before they needed it for production. That isn't possible with containers, where the return fees start usually within a couple of hours of delivery.

And in fact, this has been how most of the shortlines in North America have operated. By providing this additional service - which used to be something that the large railroads would do as a normal course of business but as Paul correctly pointed out have become adverse to - they have been able to keep railroads operating in all sorts of small towns, and to all sorts of industries that would have otherwise have packed up shop.

Dan

 

[crs1026]

^If it can fit in a highway trailer, someone will eventually figure out a container technology that can make use of steel wheels and articulation to carry it out, and plenty of reason why that can be cheaper.

The thing that railways hate is switching. Outside of (costly) hump yards, that means pulling levers to uncouple (and align/open couplers for coupling), and people climbing between cars to join brake hoses, and lots of back and forthing with accompanying jolts to the cargo. And people walking over uneven terrain, often slipping and injuring themselves. And having to lock/unlock gates, derails, throw switches, walk back to the head end, etc etc, It all has a labour cost and an equipment cost, because equipment standing still is a cost not a revenue item.

Containerization fixes a lot (but not all) of that, because the gantry cranes efficiently shuffle objects laterally and move themselves lengthwise without breaking up the train. Plenty of AI on those already and room for much more. But that works best in an elaborate hub facility, which is expensive - so there are only a small number of these with drayage assumed for the first/last 100 miles. And, the preference is for containers to have only one on load at origin and one offload at destination. Railways hate shuffling containers almost as much as switching railcars.

Every small town can't have a gantry tower, but I can see team tracks in remote locations having something that can pick five or ten containers off a peddler train without breaking it apart. Ten off in Shelburne, ten more in Dundalk, a couple in Markdale....no switching and probably a faster stop than traditional setoff/lift railroading.

Finding an interchange technology that lets railways load in the hinterland, consolidate at origin hubs, distribute at destination hub, and then continue to delivery closer to the recipient is the challenge.

As @smallspy notes, the economics of the containers and railcars themselves is its own topic, and is its own set of opportunities and constraints.

I get whiplash switching from threads here that claim everything will be disrupted within a few years and other threads where people say railroading is what it is and always will be. I suspect both are true, but I do think the pace of change will accelerate. So what may be farfetched today may be closer than we think. Road congestion and impact of AI/AV/EV technology are going to be big drivers.

- Paul