[lenaitch]

^The issue with grade separation is simply, if someone proposed a more restrictive standard that required more grade separations, someone would have to pay for them.

There are certainly situations where grade separation is a no brainer, but one has to remember what the Railway Safety Act states as its default:



So long as the lights, bells, and gates are operating correctly - the crossing is properly protected. Motorists, beware.

- Paul

Similar provisions exist in the Ontario Highway Traffic Act. Provincially-regulated public roads intersect with federally-regulated private property.

 

[EnviroTO]

^The issue with grade separation is simply, if someone proposed a more restrictive standard that required more grade separations, someone would have to pay for them.

Sure, but the law is about constructing crossings which means it doesn't apply to crossings already there. So even if you set the speed to say that crossings where trains are going 120km/h need grade separations, it would only apply to the projects built in the future on corridors where those speeds are already being reached. If someone wants to build new crossings, they should probably pay for them.

 

[crs1026]

Sure, but the law is about constructing crossings which means it doesn't apply to crossings already there. So even if you set the speed to say that crossings where trains are going 120km/h need grade separations, it would only apply to the projects built in the future on corridors where those speeds are already being reached. If someone wants to build new crossings, they should probably pay for them.

The regulations which apply to existing crossings include things like sightlines - the formulae in the regulations are dependent on design speed. So to be compliant at higher speeds, the crossing would have to be that much more open and free of clutter. That may be difficult without tearing down buildings etc.

Similar provisions exist in the Ontario Highway Traffic Act. Provincially-regulated public roads intersect with federally-regulated private property.

(Warning - trivia ahead) The interface between the federal and provincial statues is kinda interesting. Provincial law such as the HTA can't override a federal statute, nor can it state what is already in a federal statute. So the HTA is actually a bit skimpy, limited to provisions -

- embellishments about how to respond to electrical/mechanical warnings, flagpersons, and stop signs at railway crossings (the authority to place a hexagonal stop sign at a railway crossing is actually a federal matter, not a local matter)

Vehicles required to stop at railway crossing signal

163 (1) When the driver of a vehicle is approaching a railway crossing at a time when a clearly visible electrical or mechanical signal device or a flagman is giving warning of the approach of a railway train, he or she shall stop the vehicle not less than 5 metres from the nearest rail of the railway and shall not proceed until he or she can do so safely. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 163.

Stop signs at railway crossings​

(2) Every driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign at a railway crossing shall, unless otherwise directed by a flagman, stop the vehicle at the marked stop line or, if none, then not less than five metres from the nearest rail of the railway, and shall not proceed until he or she can do so safely. 2002, c. 18, Sched. P, s. 30.

Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y)

Driving of vehicles under crossing gates prohibited​

164 No person shall drive a vehicle through, around or under a crossing gate or barrier at a railway crossing while the gate or barrier is closed or is being opened or closed. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 164.

- embellishments around buses and school buses

Railway crossings

Buses required to stop​

174 (1) The driver of a bus, other than a school bus within the meaning of section 175, upon approaching on a highway a railway crossing that is not protected by gates or railway crossing signal lights, unless otherwise directed by a flagman, shall,

(a) stop the vehicle not less than 5 metres from the nearest rail of the railway;

(b) look in both directions along the railway track;

(c) open a door of the vehicle and listen to determine if any train is approaching; and

(d) when it is safe to do so, cross the railway track.

(e) Repealed: 2017, c. 2, Sched. 17, s. 13 (1).

1997, c. 12, s. 13; 2017, c. 2, Sched. 17, s. 13 (1); 2020, c. 34, Sched. 23, s. 7 (17).

School buses required to stop​

(2) The driver of a school bus, within the meaning of section 175, upon approaching on a highway a railway crossing, whether or not it is protected by gates or railway crossing signal lights, unless otherwise directed by a flagman, shall,

(a) stop the school bus not less than 5 metres from the nearest rail of the railway;

(b) look in both directions along the railway track;

(c) open a door of the school bus and listen to determine if any train is approaching; and

(d) when it is safe to do so, cross the railway track.

(e) Repealed: 2017, c. 2, Sched. 17, s. 13 (2).

1997, c. 12, s. 13; 2017, c. 2, Sched. 17, s. 13 (2).

Passenger transportation vehicle or school bus with manual transmission​

(3) The driver of a bus with manual transmission or of a school bus with manual transmission who is required by subsection (1) or (2) to stop at a railway crossing shall, when it is safe to do so,

(a) cross the railway track in a gear that will not need to be changed while crossing the track; and

(b) not change gears while crossing the railway track. 2017, c. 2, Sched. 17, s. 13 (3); 2020, c. 34, Sched. 23, s. 7 (18).

Note that these all specify "driver of a vehicle" which leaves the question of pedestrians, horseback riders, cyclists, and skateboarders back at the RSA provisions about "any user of a road crossing"

There is nothing in the HTA prescribing what a driver must do at an old-fashioned set of crossbucks that lack signals or a stop sign. In theory, if a driver failed to stop and an incident ocurred, that is an offence under the RSA however a police officer would likely rely on the standard HTA Careless Driving charge. The driver's defence would in turn rely on the qualifying words in the RSA "if adequate warning of its approach is given" - which would inquire whether the appropriate sections of the CROR regarding headlights, bell, whistle, and requirement to flag crossings in specific situations were followed.

Lastly, the CROR does not allow members of a train crew to act as a flagperson, except in specific situations eg when shoving. Many people wonder why the crew is not directing traffic after the train has come to a stop and the lights are flashing or gates are down but the road isn't blocked.... doing so is a rules violation.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

The regulations which apply to existing crossings include things like sightlines - the formulae in the regulations are dependent on design speed. So to be compliant at higher speeds, the crossing would have to be that much more open and free of clutter. That may be difficult without tearing down buildings etc.



(Warning - trivia ahead) The interface between the federal and provincial statues is kinda interesting. Provincial law such as the HTA can't override a federal statute, nor can it state what is already in a federal statute. So the HTA is actually a bit skimpy, limited to provisions -

- embellishments about how to respond to electrical/mechanical warnings, flagpersons, and stop signs at railway crossings (the authority to place a hexagonal stop sign at a railway crossing is actually a federal matter, not a local matter)

​

- embellishments around buses and school buses

​

Note that these all specify "driver of a vehicle" which leaves the question of pedestrians, horseback riders, cyclists, and skateboarders back at the RSA provisions about "any user of a road crossing"

There is nothing in the HTA prescribing what a driver must do at an old-fashioned set of crossbucks that lack signals or a stop sign. In theory, if a driver failed to stop and an incident ocurred, that is an offence under the RSA however a police officer would likely rely on the standard HTA Careless Driving charge. The driver's defence would in turn rely on the qualifying words in the RSA "if adequate warning of its approach is given" - which would inquire whether the appropriate sections of the CROR regarding headlights, bell, whistle, and requirement to flag crossings in specific situations were followed.

Lastly, the CROR does not allow members of a train crew to act as a flagperson, except in specific situations eg when shoving. Many people wonder why the crew is not directing traffic after the train has come to a stop and the lights are flashing or gates are down but the road isn't blocked.... doing so is a rules violation.

- Paul

The HTA, being a provincial statute, regulates what it has the authority to regulate; in this case, the conduct of drivers under 'rules of the road', Part X.

You raise an interesting point about failing to stop and hitting a train at an uncontrolled crossing. If there was no train, there would be no offence since there is otherwise no requirement to stop. The police would likely revert to Careless Driving (or a more serious Criminal Code charge if the evidence applied) because, if for no other reason, I don't believe they are empowered under the RSA (except RR police). Besides, convictions under the HTA are recording on a driver's record and, in most cases, carry demerit points.

Note that these all specify "driver of a vehicle" which leaves the question of pedestrians, horseback riders, cyclists, and skateboarders back at the RSA provisions about "any user of a road crossing"

Not quite. The HTA definition of 'vehicle' includes bicycles and, one would presume, a skateboard. The HTA definition of 'vehicle' is broader that than for 'motor vehicle'.

“vehicle” includes a motor vehicle, trailer, traction engine, farm tractor, road-building machine, bicycle and any vehicle drawn, propelled or driven by any kind of power, including muscular power, but does not include a motorized snow vehicle or a street car;

 

[roger1818]

Not quite. The HTA definition of 'vehicle' includes bicycles and, one would presume, a skateboard. The HTA definition of 'vehicle' is broader that than for 'motor vehicle'.

“vehicle” includes a motor vehicle, trailer, traction engine, farm tractor, road-building machine, bicycle and any vehicle drawn, propelled or driven by any kind of power, including muscular power, but does not include a motorized snow vehicle or a street car;

Under that definition, a horse also counts as a vehicle, which brings to mind a piece of unrelated trivia, that apparently, the only vehicle one is allowed to operate while intoxicated is a horse.

 

[lenaitch]

Under that definition, a horse also counts as a vehicle, which brings to mind a piece of unrelated trivia, that apparently, the only vehicle one is allowed to operate while intoxicated is a horse.

Close. Drinking-driving offences are criminal, and the Criminal Code uses the term 'conveyance' which is defined as meaning a motor vehicle' (and other conveyances), which is defined as:
'

motor vehicle means a vehicle that is drawn, propelled or driven by any means other than muscular power, but does not include railway equipment; ​

So you can't be convicted of impaired operation of a horse (neither can the horse if it has so imbibed) or a traditional bicycle. Other provincial offences and even criminal offences may apply depending on the circumstances. There a few websites out there, including ones from law firms, that say otherwise, but they would be wrong.

 

[micheal_can]

Close. Drinking-driving offences are criminal, and the Criminal Code uses the term 'conveyance' which is defined as meaning a motor vehicle' (and other conveyances), which is defined as:
'

motor vehicle means a vehicle that is drawn, propelled or driven by any means other than muscular power, but does not include railway equipment; ​

So you can't be convicted of impaired operation of a horse (neither can the horse if it has so imbibed) or a traditional bicycle. Other provincial offences and even criminal offences may apply depending on the circumstances. There a few websites out there, including ones from law firms, that say otherwise, but they would be wrong.

You can get charged with being drunk on a bicycle.

 

[lenaitch]

You can get charged with being drunk on a bicycle.

'Intoxicated in a Public Place' under the Liquor Licence Act perhaps (being on a bicycle is irrelevant so long as it is in a public place), but not Criminal Code Impaired Driving.

 

[micheal_can]

'Intoxicated in a Public Place' under the Liquor Licence Act perhaps (being on a bicycle is irrelevant so long as it is in a public place), but not Criminal Code Impaired Driving.

True, but we don't want people thinking they can drink and ride their bike...

 

[lenaitch]

True, but we don't want people thinking they can drink and ride their bike...

Or ride their horse.

 

[Rainforest]

So you can't be convicted of impaired operation of a horse (neither can the horse if it has so imbibed) or a traditional bicycle.

I'd love to watch court proceedings where a horse ends up getting convicted

 

[Allandale25]

CEO of massive rail project says hurdles abound – and express trains may be solution

Martin Imbleau says there could also be express trains that whizz through Ottawa, Peterborough, Ont., and Trois Rivieres, Que., without halting

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[robmausser]

work.. If we had that, with passing sidings, we’d be waay ahead of today.

Any rail line can be widened and multitracked…. Just bring gobs of money. But that’s unlikely to happen.

The Guelph Sub west of Guelph is straight and can be made much faster, but I doubt we will see it fully grade separated. Very definitely it can be brought to the standard of the VIA owned lines in eastern Ontario, that are good for 160 km/hr. I’m not sure why one would try for more - look how well those lines work.. If we had that, with passing sidings, we’d be waay ahead of today.

Let’s stay in the realm of ‘reasonably achievable’

- Paul

I mean these days you might as well put down Class 6 rail and squeeze out 110mph/177kmh since you can. Still not high speed but I dont see the point of rebuilding to class 5 when you can do class 6. The Venture sets can do 125mph, might as well put down Class 6 with at grade crossings.

 

[roger1818]

I mean these days you might as well put down Class 6 rail and squeeze out 110mph/177kmh since you can. Still not high speed but I dont see the point of rebuilding to class 5 when you can do class 6. The Venture sets can do 125mph, might as well put down Class 6 with at grade crossings.

It depends on the cost differential. I gather the ventures have been approved for the “LRC” maximum speed of up to 100 mph on class 5 track, so you’re likely only looking at a 10% increase in maximum speed, and even then only if the geometry allows it.

 

[micheal_can]

It depends on the cost differential. I gather the ventures have been approved for the “LRC” maximum speed of up to 100 mph on class 5 track, so you’re likely only looking at a 10% increase in maximum speed, and even then only if the geometry allows it.

Most often it is geometry, not condition of track that slows a train down. Remember, most of the track Via travels on is mainline track, so it is well maintained.