[tmlittle]

(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

The only issue with your idea is that it requires coherent and intelligent planning around freight that isn't highway expansion, and that doesn't happen in Ontario. Lots of European countries are pushing toward revitalizing freight rail, but knowing Canada, that trend will only hit here a decade from now.

 

[UrbanJon]

I think what is important about the conversation we have had on this thread is that railroading is changing. What was viable yesterday may not be today or tommorow. Realistically, the OBRY only ran 500 cars per year. Is loosing that to road really a big loss? And remember, the industries using it were the ones that initiated this process, not the town.

While we all like this rail line and feel sentimental about it, I think we will be able to enjoy it more as a trail.

I think I agree most with what Orangeville Mayor Sandy Brown has to say on the subject:

Ontario company awaiting price on Orangeville rail line

By Sam Odrowski Interested buyer of Orangeville’s rail line, Municipal Transit Solutions (MTS), is still awaiting the asset’s price to make an offer since first meeting with Town staff late last mo…

citizen.on.ca

“I think if we go back 20 years ago, when this deal was originally made, transportation was changing from these rail spur lines to what they call intermodal transportation where you’ve got those big sea containers that go from ship to rail to truck,” explained Mayor Brown.

“That’s been going on for a couple of decades now and that’s the way that’s most efficient and inexpensive way to get product to or from its manufacturing spot. So, these short line rails have closed all over North America and this is just another one of those that’s due for that – just not financially viable”

 

[Bureaucromancer]

My suspicion is, everyone is over estimating the willingness of road operators to continue to accept trucking as the solution to low-volume shipments

To play devils advocate more than seriously disagree here... road haulage has some huge inherent advantages in terms of accessibility of entry. It's never going to be anything like as hard to find a small operator, outright owner-operator or even bring low volume shipments in-house as it will be to make any individual bit of low volume rail shipment work in isolation.

I agree with the general sentiment we are probably in something of a dark era for low volume rail shipment, but am more inclined to thinking that the railroads will eventually look toward closer integration with LTL road carriers, be that by accommodating low volume container shipments through high volume terminals or even brining back piggyback than re-engaging with loose car shipment in any meaningful way.

 

[Bordercollie]

If you are able to ship a container from Orangeville and have it arrive in Vancouver but be able to do it almost as fast as a truck there would be a business case.

If it takes twice as long then you might as well send it by truck.

 

[UrbanJon]

With the talk of containerization and transloading, it does make me think of how silly the concept of the OBRY was from the start.

Orangeville is very close to several major transload locations in Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughan and Guelph. They are also near two major container terminals for both CN and CP. It makes a lot more sense for a shipper to just transload off site and bring product to their facility than to go through the slow and expensive process of having their car shuffled through Toronto and spotted at their own siding.

 

[Bordercollie]

With the talk of containerization and transloading, it does make me think of how silly the concept of the OBRY was from the start.

Orangeville is very close to several major transload locations in Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughan and Guelph. They are also near two major container terminals for both CN and CP. It makes a lot more sense for a shipper to just transload off site and bring product to their facility than to go through the slow and expensive process of having their car shuffled through Toronto and spotted at their own siding.

You need to take into consideration that one tank car or one lumber car, can carry the equivalent of 3-4 trucks. That's why in some cases it's cheaper to ship by rail even though it takes longer.

 

[UrbanJon]

You need to take into consideration that one tank car or one lumber car, can carry the equivalent of 3-4 trucks. That's why in some cases it's cheaper to ship by rail even though it takes longer.

Right, but this isn't about trucking the product the whole distance. Transloading in the context of our discussion involves a short drive from terminal to Orangeville. Getting a car from a long haul CP train to Orangeville is a slow, labour-intensive process that involves breaking up the train, asssembling a local, interchange between carriers and finally spotting at the factory. The cost and complexity of this process negates the capacity advantage of a single rail car.

Transloading and containerization reduces handling, costs and streamlines the whole process. If you don't believe me, E. Hoffman plastics of Orangeville transloads in Guelph and claims it is cheaper than using the OBRY.

 

[crs1026]

Transloading and containerization reduces handling, costs and streamlines the whole process. If you don't believe me, E. Hoffman plastics of Orangeville transloads in Guelph and claims it is cheaper than using the OBRY.

Unless I’m mistaken, Guelph is a branch line, no? Even CN might not be there without a nice publicly owned right of way to run over.

The economics of transloads needs a careful examination. It all sounds very nice until one asks what compensation Guelph gets for use of its roads. And plastics may be benign, but what about more hazardous materials? The railways assume they can rely on the generosity of strangers, as Blanche would say.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

To play devils advocate more than seriously disagree here... road haulage has some huge inherent advantages in terms of accessibility of entry. It's never going to be anything like as hard to find a small operator, outright owner-operator or even bring low volume shipments in-house as it will be to make any individual bit of low volume rail shipment work in isolation.

I agree with the general sentiment we are probably in something of a dark era for low volume rail shipment, but am more inclined to thinking that the railroads will eventually look toward closer integration with LTL road carriers, be that by accommodating low volume container shipments through high volume terminals or even brining back piggyback than re-engaging with loose car shipment in any meaningful way.

In most part I agree with you, although I see a difference between containerizable cargoes (where the truck has many advantages) and bulk cargoes where speed may be less of a consideration and rail has a potential per-ton advantage. I can’t see railroads ever getting back into LTL shipping. But if you consider full-container lots to be “low volume”, I think that technology could emerge to get shipments through rail hubs (intermodal or otherwise) with transfer to road much cloer to end point.
And don’t forget, transloading exists because railroads do want the business, just without the terminal cost and delay. Those branch line cars may travel a thousand miles on a mainline train before they end up in Toronto. That’s very remunerative for the railways, and velocity/cost may be very attractive relative to trucking. It’s that 2 days to a week forwarding on the infrequent local train that ruins the deal. Find a technology to solve that, and delivery by rail works. There are certainly branch line operators who can help with that.

- Paul

 

[Bordercollie]

In most part I agree with you, although I see a difference between containerizable cargoes (where the truck has many advantages) and bulk cargoes where speed may be less of a consideration and rail has a potential per-ton advantage. I can’t see railroads ever getting back into LTL shipping. But if you consider full-container lots to be “low volume”, I think that technology could emerge to get shipments through rail hubs (intermodal or otherwise) with transfer to road much cloer to end point.
And don’t forget, transloading exists because railroads do want the business, just without the terminal cost and delay. Those branch line cars may travel a thousand miles on a mainline train before they end up in Toronto. That’s very remunerative for the railways, and velocity/cost may be very attractive relative to trucking. It’s that 2 days to a week forwarding on the infrequent local train that ruins the deal. Find a technology to solve that, and delivery by rail works. There are certainly branch line operators who can help with that.

- Paul

In the olden days you use to have sidings where they could drop off a box car where there would be a platform and a forklift could move it to a truck.

What you could do is have scheduled trains leaving each end at certain times and then meet trucks at stations where you could transfer it to a truck.

It would be easier to just have a forklift pickup a container and transfer it to a truck or train, rather than empty out a boxcar.

In japan they have this intermodal model like this where they have modular containers that can be transferred from truck to train. Doesn't have to be a whole 53' container. You could do it in 10' sizes and then you load 5 of them onto a truck and the truck goes and delivers it to local companies.

JR Freight Class EF200 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[UrbanJon]

Unless I’m mistaken, Guelph is a branch line, no? Even CN might not be there without a nice publicly owned right of way to run over.

It serves as a secondary mainline for CN. They get plenty of traffic from the line and it runs at a profit. The Guelph Junction Railway which connects to CP is publicly owned but runs at a profit. This is very much unlike the OBRY which runs at a significant yearly net loss. This loss isn't necessary when road infrastructure that serves a duplicate purpose and allows industries access to rail shipping through transload exists.

The economics of transloads needs a careful examination. It all sounds very nice until one asks what compensation Guelph gets for use of its roads. And plastics may be benign, but what about more hazardous materials?

The terminal company, PDI operates in Guelph and pays taxes to the city and province which likely covers their road usage.

As to your second point, hazardous materials aren't handled on the OBRY so it is kind of a moot point. But it is worth mentioning that as I mentioned earlier in the thread, increasing rail usage can be achieved through zoning land adjacent to rail lines for industrial use. A much more sustainable solution than keeping lines like the OBRY on life support.

 

[UrbanJon]

The following quote is from the GO Transit Service Thread:

From a commuting perspective, the line to/from Orangeville is not, and will never be, in an alignment which will allow it to compete with the road network.

I will leave it here for posterity's sake to explain why the OBRY will make a great trail, but wasn't a good rail line.

 

[smallspy]

The following quote is from the GO Transit Service Thread:



I will leave it here for posterity's sake to explain why the OBRY will make a great trail, but wasn't a good rail line.

Because you know, commuting is everything.

/sarcasm

Dan

 

[lenaitch]

Because you know, commuting is everything.

/sarcasm

Dan

If they don't have the commuter foundation, cost of the line is difficult to justify solely on the basis of general travel.

 

[UrbanJon]

Because you know, commuting is everything.

/sarcasm

Dan

Might you be able to suggest another use for the OBRY corridor?