cplchanb
Senior Member
Yup, when it comes to activism blogto is quite toxic. Same with The 6ix Instagram handle on the other side of the polar extreme
|
|
|
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
MisterF
Senior Member
I had a closer look at the maps in the Alstom deck. Looks like almost all of the portions on freight rights of way use CP. The tracks into both Toronto and Montreal are all CP, and the only CN trackage is the approach into Quebec City where it's the only option. HFR benefits CP by rebuilding and significantly upgrading the Havelock sub, plus the mainline between Perth and Smiths Falls would have to get upgrades too. Pure speculation here, but that might be enough to make CP willing to play ball with HFR when it comes to the Toronto and Montreal parts of the passenger network. Electrification of their mainline that HFR would need in Toronto seems unlikely, but who knows what discussions have been going on behind the scenes.
Of course the Alstom plan is very conceptual at this point. Lots can change.
Of course the Alstom plan is very conceptual at this point. Lots can change.
Last edited:
robmausser
Senior Member
The rumour I heard about the Havlock sub is that CP is happy to sell it. They barely use it and the cost to maintain it is more than worth what they get out of it. They would just want access at night to run a couple of trains
crs1026
Superstar
The fly in Alstom's oatmeal being.... so long as CP retains a right to run freight, it will be unlikely/impossible to upgrade the line to HSR standard. Especially since the existing traffic is pretty heavily loaded covered hoppers.
- Paul
treplow
New Member
Yeah they have headlines like SCARBOROUGH TO SEPARATE FROM TORONTO and the article is just quoting some frustrated commuter who thinks it might be a good idea.
Allandale25
Senior Member
I've heard that the CP Rail president is very bullish on the line and wants to try to get more traffic from the mines from the trucks. Plus, apparently Quaker has invested some money on their siding to get rail service back. They own it. So certainly they might be happy to run night trains because they still see value in the line.
shammyjammy
New Member
It's very sad and disturbing that Jack Landau, who should know better, is complying with the BlogTO m.o.
Towered
Superstar
The monkey dances when those cutting the cheques demand it.
robmausser
Senior Member
They would have to run new tracks beside existing and keep the existing track in a somewhat decent shape for CP.
Would be more expensive and brings up the issue of room in the corridor.
Deadpool X
Senior Member
BlogTO be like: AMAZON TO SHUTTER DOWN
"An Amazon customer is unhappy with the late delivery of his underwear"
lenaitch
Senior Member
I saw an article last year (which, of course, I can't find now) that the unloading shed had to be torn down and rebuilt (it was built in 1917) and that was now done. At the same time they took the opportunity to do some maintenance on the sidings.
MisterF
Senior Member
It makes sense. With faster speeds, each train can make the trip in a fraction of the time with lower costs. That could help CP land more clients. CP has way more power than Via could ever dream of, so if they're on board with HFR that could be its best chance at actually happening.
The curves on the line are way too tight and it has too many road crossings to put a high speed track next to the existing one. If a high speed line is ever built along that part of the route it would have to be a brand new right of way. But that would cost a lot more and remove the synergies with CP.
lenaitch
Senior Member
One problem is there aren't many potential clients enroute. GE is closed/closing, I don't know if they still service the feed mill in Cavan, the spur to the industrial area south of Hwy 115 has been lifted (even if there were customers there).
Urban Sky
Senior Member
FRA regulations already allow mixed (i.e. shared tracks with freight trains) operations up to 160 mph [256 km/h] (the proposed increase from 150 mph seems to have been adopted in 2019):
Source: FRA (2017)
crs1026
Superstar
Those FRA reg’s are (for good reasons) somewhat focussed on crash scenarios and crash prevention..
This doesn’t imply that mixed operation is a good idea, or economically desirable….. just that it is technically safe.
If the plan is to extract speed by banking a heavily curved right of way, the freight-related wear and tear on those banked curves will raise the cost of maintaining the line, and require incremental work blocks to keep the surfacing in spec, possibly impacting passenger service availability, or causing slow orders until the related defects can be fixed..
That raises the question of who should pay….. CP, because they are causing wear on the passenger infrastructure,or VIA, because they are demanding an incremental “extra” that freight doesn’t need. ? One would hope the deal puts the onus on CP, but the purchase price will rise accordingly. I am good with that, as it is preferable to CP retaining the economic leverage over VIA.
- Paul
This doesn’t imply that mixed operation is a good idea, or economically desirable….. just that it is technically safe.
If the plan is to extract speed by banking a heavily curved right of way, the freight-related wear and tear on those banked curves will raise the cost of maintaining the line, and require incremental work blocks to keep the surfacing in spec, possibly impacting passenger service availability, or causing slow orders until the related defects can be fixed..
That raises the question of who should pay….. CP, because they are causing wear on the passenger infrastructure,or VIA, because they are demanding an incremental “extra” that freight doesn’t need. ? One would hope the deal puts the onus on CP, but the purchase price will rise accordingly. I am good with that, as it is preferable to CP retaining the economic leverage over VIA.
- Paul