[dowlingm]

Where I have some sympathy with a need for change is - what happens to the accounting when government makes capital investment in the railway? If Ottawa or a province adds a third track to a line, does this become a gift to the railway and whose books does the investment sit on? Does the passenger side then have to deliver a return to the railway on that capital investment?

In some cases the result could be an accounting nightmare, especially if carried to too granular a level - hey, those are our track spikes - but there are cases where the railway derives a material benefit from a passenger enhancement.... the best example being the removal of single track sections from the Halton Sub during the 2007-2009 upgrade that added a third track to Mount Pleasant. That double tracking eliminated a huge amount of standing meets between freight trains irrespective of passenger movements, I wonder how that factored into past and present negotiations..

Accounting of all this is a mystery to me, but as various projects add new trackage to shared use lines, there ought to be appropriate reccognition that some of the asset has been contributed by the taxpayer. And government ought to retain a portfolio of these assets rather than folding these into the railways' asset base. At minimum, these agreements need to be discoverable - the ability of the railways to hide behind secret agreements is inappropriate - making that change would hardly trigger a successful court challenge.

- Paul

my recollection of the Kingston Sub expansion (CN-VIA) was that the 3rd track was CN property. What access rights/slots were granted in exchange for that property, I don’t know.

This unfortunately seems to be a common situation with grant aided projects of this sort, unless the government wishes to buy the corridor entirely (Metrolinx Newmarket Sub) or divide the ROW property so that state rails sit on state land (CSX-Virginia - but that is predicated on a wide enough ROW to split)

 

[lenaitch]

Where I have some sympathy with a need for change is - what happens to the accounting when government makes capital investment in the railway? If Ottawa or a province adds a third track to a line, does this become a gift to the railway and whose books does the investment sit on? Does the passenger side then have to deliver a return to the railway on that capital investment?

In some cases the result could be an accounting nightmare, especially if carried to too granular a level - hey, those are our track spikes - but there are cases where the railway derives a material benefit from a passenger enhancement.... the best example being the removal of single track sections from the Halton Sub during the 2007-2009 upgrade that added a third track to Mount Pleasant. That double tracking eliminated a huge amount of standing meets between freight trains irrespective of passenger movements, I wonder how that factored into past and present negotiations..

Accounting of all this is a mystery to me, but as various projects add new trackage to shared use lines, there ought to be appropriate reccognition that some of the asset has been contributed by the taxpayer. And government ought to retain a portfolio of these assets rather than folding these into the railways' asset base. At minimum, these agreements need to be discoverable - the ability of the railways to hide behind secret agreements is inappropriate - making that change would hardly trigger a successful court challenge.

- Paul

I don't know for certain but I would think money given to a corporation by a government (grant, loan, etc.) to do anything is essentially a 'gift' (although probably not legally - 'gift' is a tax reporting term). Unless there is actual title or the government becomes a shareholder, I suppose a receiving railway would be free to blow it all on beer and hookers. Typically there are terms of performance, memoranda of understanding, maybe even an actual contract, but I can't recall an instance where a government has actually sued a corporation to get its money back.

 

[Allandale25]

VIA HFR CEO will be speaking at the Toronto Region Board of Trade's Transportation Symposium on March 26th.

Train à grande fréquence - High Frequency Rail on LinkedIn: Série économique avec Martin Imbleau, VIA HFR/VIA TGF

Rejoignez-nous le 19 mars à la CCIQ Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Québec où notre PDG, Martin Imbleau, partagera un aperçu du plus grand projet…

www.linkedin.com

 

[Allandale25]

 

[Bordercollie]

View attachment 544772

Did they trim the trees? Or is that a totally different project?

I hope they fixed the railbed. It was in horrible condition.

 

[Allandale25]

Did they trim the trees? Or is that a totally different project?

I hope they fixed the railbed. It was in horrible condition.

I'm not that familiar with the station so I don't know. Maybe @TerryJohnson could say.

 

[dowlingm]

Is that concrete pillar thing a sign of protecting for future 48 inch platform height? Or just how that installation always looks?

 

[lenaitch]

Is that concrete pillar thing a sign of protecting for future 48 inch platform height? Or just how that installation always looks?

That strikes me as a fairly common construction method for lights and masts. It keeps the connection point out of the dirt, ice, etc. and offers a level of physical protection.

 

[dowlingm]

That strikes me as a fairly common construction method for lights and masts. It keeps the connection point out of the dirt, ice, etc. and offers a level of physical protection.

Ah. Thanks. Was hoping for the latter obviously.

 

[reaperexpress]

Is that concrete pillar thing a sign of protecting for future 48 inch platform height? Or just how that installation always looks?

I don't think that looks tall enough for a 48" platform. It is incredibly fruatrating that they are rebuilding the platforms at the same height rather than raising them to match their trains, given that the tracks adjacent to the platforms are sidings that are never used by freight trains.

 

[dowlingm]

I don't think that looks tall enough for a 48" platform. It is incredibly fruatrating that they are rebuilding the platforms at the same height rather than raising them to match their trains, given that the tracks adjacent to the platforms are sidings that are never used by freight trains.

It is just so frustrating. Every station on the Alexandria Sub should be 48 inch and too bad for oversize movements. Windsor should be completely 48 inch.

 

[crs1026]

I'm going to play the optimist and hope that this is a deliberately staged project, ie once the T2/3 platform is in better shape, VIA can then modify the T1 platform to raise its height.

And remember, one platform needs to be GO friendly. For the moment, that won't be high level

- Paul

 

[Bojaxs]

Are the Siemen's trainsets the same height as the rest of VIA's older fleet?

 

[Urban Sky]

Are the Siemen's trainsets the same height as the rest of VIA's older fleet?

Of course, otherwise they wouldn’t allow for level boarding at VIA’s existing high-level platforms. And, please, the company name is “Siemens” (no apostrophe), named after Werner von Siemens…

 

[reaperexpress]

I'm going to play the optimist and hope that this is a deliberately staged project, ie once the T2/3 platform is in better shape, VIA can then modify the T1 platform to raise its height.

And remember, one platform needs to be GO friendly. For the moment, that won't be high level

- Paul

That would be nice, but T1 is the platform it would make most sense to leave low-level, since it's the northernmost platform and GO diverges toward the north.