News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.5K     0 

upload_2018-7-2_10-10-40.png

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/rules-tce54-832.htm

Addendum: The above presents a conundrum in terms of Canada operating higher speed passenger services.

Did an extensive read of the regs, and discovered this:
1. SHORT TITLE
These Rules may be cited as the Track Safety Rules (TSR).
[...]
4. APPLICATION
4.1 These Rules apply to all federally regulated railway companies operating on standard gauge track.

4.2 The purpose of these Rules is to ensure the safe operation of movements on standard gauge track owned by, operated on or used by a railway company.

4.3 Railway wishing to operate movements at speeds greater than Class 5 track must have a plan approved by the minister.

[...]
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/rules-tce54-831.htm

Underlining above mine. Very interesting....Couldn't find the regs/chart for maximum speed allowed for at-grade crossings though. I do recollect D-S as making claims on that as Paul states.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-7-2_10-10-40.png
    upload_2018-7-2_10-10-40.png
    96.8 KB · Views: 583
Last edited:
Has TC ever published anything to this effect? It makes sense if you compare to the US where most 125mph grade crossings have been eliminated but TC doesn't follow US cab signal norms etc., so I would think they would draw the line at 100 if they were drawing it at all.
New Grade Crossing
Prohibition
Marginal note:Construction
29
A person must not construct a grade crossing if

  • (a) the railway design speed would be more than 177 km/h (110 mph); or

  • (b) the road approach of the proposed grade crossing would be a freeway, taking into account the characteristics set out for rural roads in Table 10-3 of the Grade Crossings Standards or the characteristics set out for urban roads in Table 10-4 of those Standards, as applicable.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2014-275/page-3.html#docCont
 
I can’t give you a specific answer on this particular corridor, but there are good reasons why new rail services don’t generally fit well into existing highway medians unless the highway was already designed to double as a ROW, as explained in this blog article:
https://pedestrianobservations.com/2014/09/01/putting-rail-lines-in-highway-medians/

Sensible piece.

Though it also says this: "Tellingly, HSR in Europe is frequently twinned with motorways. It is not about integration with cars, since those alignments are rarely if ever meant to have major stops in their middle. Instead, it’s about picking a pre-impacted alignment, where there are fewer property takings and fewer NIMBYs. This logic is sound, but I often see Americans take it to extremes when discussing HSR"

It seems to me certain segments, not all of the 400-series highways would be well suited to this. You could absolutely do side-running as the configuration.

The 412 as noted is quite straight, as is the 401 from just east of Oshawa to Pt. Hope. The section east of there is a bit more wobbly.
 
It seems to me certain segments, not all of the 400-series highways would be well suited to this. You could absolutely do side-running as the configuration.

The 412 as noted is quite straight, as is the 401 from just east of Oshawa to Pt. Hope. The section east of there is a bit more wobbly.
There's a litany of problems doing this, not the least 'starting from scratch' with EA approval, whereas if you re-use an established but abandoned RoW, the Transportation Act allows all sorts of latitude to 'fast track' the processs.

Thus Urban's link stating this:
"construction on extant (often disused) rail rights-of-way tends to be cheaper." And quicker to approve and build, often a less congested way of getting from hub to hub, which is exactly what VIA describe in their prospectus on this. Here's one of the pages at this string where routing for HFR has been deeply debated:
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/via-rail.21060/page-40
 
Sensible piece.

Though it also says this: "Tellingly, HSR in Europe is frequently twinned with motorways. It is not about integration with cars, since those alignments are rarely if ever meant to have major stops in their middle. Instead, it’s about picking a pre-impacted alignment, where there are fewer property takings and fewer NIMBYs. This logic is sound, but I often see Americans take it to extremes when discussing HSR"

It seems to me certain segments, not all of the 400-series highways would be well suited to this. You could absolutely do side-running as the configuration.
The problem is less building a railway within the Highway median per se than having to enter and to leave the median at some point: the smaller the angle is in which you intersect with the Highway lanes, the more expensive the grade separation will become - and starting from the median means that you start from a position only a few meters away and parallel from these Highway lanes. I just have to drive 20 km north from Montreal to see the almost 500 Meter long bridge which was required for the Train de l'Est to enter the Highway median near Repegtigny:
Terrebonne grade separation.jpg


It should also be noted that leaving the Highway median is not only required at the start and end of the whole bypass, but also whenever the highway makes a significant bend (unless, of course, you are fine with having the train slow down for the Highway's design speed, i.e. 120-140 km/h). The problem with "side-running" is that you would either have to go underground at every current (and future!) Highway exit, in order to allow the Highway access ramps to pass over the tracks, or to have so much distance between the Highway and the new ROW that you loose most of the benefits of bundling both. Also, you might have to realign the entire Highway if you are on its outside in a curve and require a much higher curve radius than what the Highway has been designed for...

The 412 as noted is quite straight, as is the 401 from just east of Oshawa to Pt. Hope. The section east of there is a bit more wobbly.
I've already proposed something very similar to your idea here 4 years ago:
The first HSR segment would be approximately 38 km long, leaving the CN alignment directly after Oshawa and rejoining just before Port Hope after following (and crossing two times) the 401 Freeway:

View attachment 37437


The second HSR segment would leave the CN alignment in Marysville and rejoin it approximately 57 km later in Kingston Mills after bypassing Napanee and Kingston, thus necessitating the construction of new rail stations on the northern side of the 401 Freeway:

View attachment 37438
However, having read up on this subject since then, I have started to understand that the viability of any intercity greenfield rail project comes mainly from increasing available rail corridor capacity (which actually was the main motivation for building HSR in Japan, France, Germany and Italy, while decreasing travel time was just a welcome side effect). You therefore need to bypass the pinch points which constrain capacity and I'm afraid that those pinch points which constrain the current frequencies between Toronto and Ottawa or Montreal are not located between Oshawa and Port Hope or Marysville and Gananoque. You would therefore be stuck with exactly the same frequencies as today and almost the same delays and while you may indeed end up saving 20-30 minutes from the existing travel times, I'm highly sceptical that these travel time savings alone would represent sufficient benefits to justify the non-trivial construction costs...

PS: Are we by any chance talking about a different Highway 412 when you remark that "The 412 as noted is quite straight"? This Highway 412 segment at least looks neither straight nor conveniently located to double as a rail corridor:
Hwy412map.jpg

http://www.thekingshighway.ca/MAPS/Hwy412map.htm
 

Attachments

  • Terrebonne grade separation.jpg
    Terrebonne grade separation.jpg
    249.9 KB · Views: 850
  • Hwy412map.jpg
    Hwy412map.jpg
    149.2 KB · Views: 854
Last edited:
The problem is less building a railway within the Highway median than having to enter or leave the median: the smaller the angle is in which you intersect with the Highway lanes, the more expensive the grade separation will become - and starting from the median means that you start from a position only a few meters away and parallel from these Highway lanes. I just have to drive 20 km north from Montreal to see the almost 500 Meter long bridge which was required for the Train de l'Est to enter the Highway median near Repegtigny:
View attachment 148866

It should also be noted that leaving the Highway median is not only required at the start and end of the whole bypass, but also whenever the highway makes a significant bend (unless, of course, you are fine with having the train slow down for the Highway's design speed, i.e. 120-140 km/h). The problem with "side-running" is that you would either have to go underground at every current (and future!) Highway intersection, in order to allow the Highway lanes to pass over the tracks, or to have so much distance between the Highway and the new ROW that you loose most of the benefits of bundling both. Also, you might have to realign the entire Highway if you are on its outside in a curve and require a much higher curve radius than what the Highway has been designed for...


I've actually proposed something very similar to your idea here 4 years ago:

However, having read up on this subject since then, I have started to understand that the viability of any intercity greenfield rail project comes mainly from increasing available rail corridor capacity (which actually was the main motivation for building HSR in Japan, France, Germany and Italy, while decreasing travel time was just a welcome side effect). You therefore need to bypass the pinch points which constrain capacity and I'm afraid that those pinch points which constrain the current frequencies between Toronto and Ottawa or Montreal are not located between Oshawa and Port Hope or Marysville and Gananoque. You would therefore be stuck with exactly the same frequencies as today and almost the same delays and while saving maybe 20-30 minutes from the existing travel times, I'm highly sceptical that this alone would represent sufficient benefits to justify the non-trivial construction costs...

I had to do a double take, because the Marysville I'm familiar with is on Wolfe Island, which never had railway service. But then I realized there's a second Marysville only 60 kilometres away, near Deseronto.
 
I've already proposed something very similar to your idea here 4 years ago:

However, having read up on this subject since then, I have started to understand that the viability of any intercity greenfield rail project comes mainly from increasing available rail corridor capacity (which actually was the main motivation for building HSR in Japan, France, Germany and Italy, while decreasing travel time was just a welcome side effect). You therefore need to bypass the pinch points which constrain capacity and I'm afraid that those pinch points which constrain the current frequencies between Toronto and Ottawa or Montreal are not located between Oshawa and Port Hope or Marysville and Gananoque. You would therefore be stuck with exactly the same frequencies as today and almost the same delays and while saving maybe 20-30 minutes from the existing travel times, I'm highly sceptical that this alone would represent sufficient benefits to justify the non-trivial construction costs...

TY for the thoughtful reply. Your proposal from some years ago mirrors what I was thinking. Your re-thinking of that is the kind of information I find useful.

PS: Are we by any chance talking about a different Highway 412 when you remark that "The 412 as noted is quite straight"? This Highway 412 segment at least looks neither straight nor conveniently located to double as a rail corridor:
View attachment 148867
http://www.thekingshighway.ca/MAPS/Hwy412map.htm[/QUOTE]

I expressed myself poorly, in as much as I'm not stuck on the median notion as the use of an ROW already in public ownership.

You can see the 412 ROW on google and its rather larger than the existing highway and offers a straight-line up for a railway, the track might be at times, but need not be confined to the immediate alignment of the highway.

I'm curious about that bend in 412, at first blush it doesn't appear necessary, I'll have to look up the EA as to why they did it that way.
 
Latest on the Churchill situation:

[great picture contained below in the article]

NDP mulls way to speed up Churchill rail fix
May ask court to force Omnitrax to begin repairs immediately
By: Dylan Robertson
Posted: 07/4/2018 10:40 PM

OTTAWA — Afraid Omnitrax will stall repairs along Churchill’s railway into the fall, the provincial NDP is pondering asking a court to compel Omnitrax to get repairs underway before the winter.

Tuesday was the Canadian Transportation Agency’s (CTA) deadline for Omnitrax’s subsidiary, the Hudson Bay Railway Company (HBRC), to start repairs along the line, imposed in a ruling last month after the provincial NDP filed a formal complaint.


But no shovels are in the ground yet, and Omnitrax only had the engineering firm Aecom start its request for proposals last Friday. Meanwhile, Omnitrax is hinting it can’t afford the repairs — despite the regulator saying their obligation to start immediate repairs doesn’t change based on their finances.

NDP Leader Wab Kinew said he’s trying to avoid the regulator finding ending up in a lengthy appeal process, because that might delay repairs until next year.

"We want to make sure that we do right by the people of Churchill and other communities affected, so we’re thinking carefully about our next step here," Kinew said in a Wednesday interview.

In a Tuesday lunchtime statement, Omnitrax claimed its 10 months of talks with Ottawa about transferring the port and railway to local owners had "broken down." It also hinted it might not complete repairs if it can’t sell the line.

"We are not in a position to fund the entirety of the repairs to the HBR in the absence of a sale agreement," reads the press release.

That contradicts the CTA’s order, which says it’s up to HBRC to either repair the line, find a buyer or enter a formal continuance process, which would have Ottawa try finding a buyer and nationalizing it if no one can be found. "A company that does not avail itself of this option has ongoing obligations," the regulator ruled.

On Wednesday, the CTA said it can file its rulings with the Federal Court as well as certain superior courts when they aren’t followed. If they still aren’t followed, that can result in being found in contempt of court. "Agency staff are monitoring the situation to assess compliance with the order," spokeswoman Trinh Phan wrote.

Kinew said the NDP will be asking the CTA if it can issue another ruling which clarifies Omnitrax must get repairs underway. The party might also petition the Federal Court for an enforcement order to have Omnitrax get repairs started immediately.

Otherwise, the company can seek permission to appeal the ruling next Friday, which could take the Federal Court two months until it actually hears that appeal. That could stall any repairs until next year, because the area usually freezes in November. Kinew said he’d ask the Pallister government to be part of the court action, if it comes to it.

"We’re trying to figure out what can we do that’s going to create the best chance to get the rail line fixed this year," he said, adding issues with the transfer talks suggest the need to "push this (CTA) process along."

Omnitrax’s repair plan remains unclear, because it is limiting access to its tendering documents — which would reveal the most recent costing, timeframe and damage assessment — to select rail contractors.

The area’s MP, Niki Ashton, also visited the town to hear from residents on Tuesday. On Wednesday, she told reporters in Winnipeg Prime Minister Justin Trudeau needed to "show some gumption" and "backbone" by visiting Churchill himself.


John Woods / The Canadian Press: Churchill-Keewatinook Aski MP Niki Ashton heard from Churchill residents on Tuesday. Locals said they fear their town will disappear without a rail line serving the port.

"We heard: ‘Why is the prime minister spending so much time travelling the world when we here are hurting so badly?’"

She said Ottawa’s "empty rhetoric" is causing "unmitigated anger, frustration and deep disappointment," Ashton told reporters at the Via Rail Union Station in downtown Winnipeg.

Separately, Manitoba Sen. Patricia Bovey said the town seemed resilient during her visit this week. "The collective presence of that community is inspiring; the determination in adversity is magnetic," she said.

Bovey said the town is focused on its long-term viability, and a Tuesday summit on that topic aboard the coast guard’s Amundsen icebreaker was "utterly fascinating" and "very constructive." She said it touched on climate change, sovereignty, Indigenous rights and Winnipeg businesses that ship to Nunavut.

"We’re on the cusp of some very significant changes and opportunities," she said.

Yet, Bovey admits town residents are under immense stress and desperately want a solution to the rail disruption. She’s also wondering how officials managed to send up a propane shipment which seems to have fallen short.

Last week, town officials said the province’s 2.2-million-litre sealift of propane that arrived last October was almost depleted, and locals would have to ration supplies until another shipment arrives in mid-July. That’s despite a decline in the town’s population and fewer tourists during the northern-lights season.

"One can only ask: ‘How on Earth did that happen?’ It was plus 4 (C) on Monday when we were out on the water. That’s not warm," Bovey said.

The provincial government did not explain the shortfall last week, citing the media blackout for the St. Boniface byelection. "I certainly understand an election blackout, and I understand operational budgets and all — but this is an emergency," Bovey said.

Ashton had harsher words, saying locals fear their town will disappear.

"The people of Churchill have had enough, enough of Omnitrax’s games, enough of feeling they’re being held hostage — and that was a word I kept hearing repeated," she said.

The local school lost 50 pupils this year, and reportedly another 20 when Omnitrax laid off port workers in 2016. Ashton said pensioners are now leaving the town, unable to live on fixed incomes with mounting food costs.

Transport Minister Marc Garneau acknowledged residents’ frustration.

"I can understand them, because we are getting into the active part of the construction season, so we’re very mindful of that," he told the Free Press at an unrelated news conference. "The government is certainly very engaged on it, because of our commitment towards the people of Churchill and of northern Manitoba."
 
Latest on the Churchill situation:

[great picture contained below in the article]

The biggest question that I have is on bankruptcy that is unanswered. Can the CTA go after shareholders and directors (by piercing the corporate veil)? If not Omnitrax can just walk away and the bankrupt company has some track and an obligation to fix under the CTA but no assets to do so.
 
The biggest question that I have is on bankruptcy that is unanswered. Can the CTA go after shareholders and directors (by piercing the corporate veil)? If not Omnitrax can just walk away and the bankrupt company has some track and an obligation to fix under the CTA but no assets to do so.
I unfortunately can't comment on this issue, but you may find this article interesting: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mani...one-north-rail-port-hudson-bay-broe-1.4718809
 
Latest article on the Churchill situation:

Transportation agency puts legal weight behind order to Omnitrax for Churchill rail line repair
CTA filed Federal Court order Friday after telling Omnitrax last month to begin rail line repairs by July 3
Sean Kavanagh · CBC News · Posted: Jul 06, 2018 6:53 PM CT | Last Updated: July 6
 

Back
Top