[Fritter]

I was really hoping VIA would snag the GEXR line from Kitchener to London when it went up for sale, but I think CN got it

It was never sold to CN, as they were always the owner. They just leased to line to GXER for years and when the lease came up recently, they just did not renew the lease and opted to assume operations themselves once again. Metrolinx took opportunity to negotiate purchase of the Georgetown-Kitchener portion at the time it was aware CN was going to be assuming operations and ending the lease with GXER.

 

[robmausser]

It was never sold to CN, as they were always the owner. They just leased to line to GXER for years and when the lease came up recently, they just did not renew the lease and opted to assume operations themselves once again. Metrolinx took opportunity to negotiate purchase of the Georgetown-Kitchener portion at the time it was aware CN was going to be assuming operations and ending the lease with GXER.

RIght, thanks for the clarification.

I know you arent intending to be pedantic, but the same still applies; if Metrolinx could negotiate purchase, I was hoping VIA would do the same for the Kitchener-London portion.

 

[reaperexpress]

RIght, thanks for the clarification.

I know you arent intending to be pedantic, but the same still applies; if Metrolinx could negotiate purchase, I was hoping VIA would do the same for the Kitchener-London portion.

But the advantage of this difference is that a hypothetical VIA purchase of the line is not time-sensitive. Metrolinx actually didn't purchase the line when the lease expired, they purchased it in September 2014, a couple years in advance of the lease expiring. This may have been specifically to prevent GEXR from renewing their lease. At the moment there's no lease at all, so VIA could acquire the line whenever they choose (though as I mentioned earlier it would be an exceedingly risky move).

 

[SFO-YYZ]

At many intermediate stations, the presence of freight creates a challenge, because they require a larger clearance envelope than the platform would allow. But thankfully most of VIA's busiest stations are on tracks not traversed by freight trains, including:
- Québec du Palais (already high-platform)
- Montréal Centrale (already high-platform)
- Ottawa (already partly high-platform)
- Toronto Union
- London
- Windsor

At the rest of the stations, high-platforms would necessitate some way of moving freight trains away from the platform edge, typically a gantlet track or siding. In some cases this would be fairly straightforward, but in others it could be challenging due space constraints and/or to the need to move infrastructure such bridges and staircases (e.g. to/from an existing platform).

In a VIA Q&A a while ago their response to this question was that they'd really like to raise some more platforms like they did recently in Ottawa, but that they currently didn't have any funding to do so.

Thank you for this. Really appreciate the high quality information.

For Toronto Union, is it simply because VIA is sharing platforms with GO low-floor bilevels which forces VIA to deal with lower platforms? I know the platform height issue at Union has been debated many times on the Union Revitalization forum, but are there any plans by VIA (or MLX) to raise a few platforms at Union (e.g. dedicated platforms for VIA trains especially with HFR and the increased "frequency" of VIA departures and arrivals at Union)?

 

[reaperexpress]

Thank you for this. Really appreciate the high quality information.

For Toronto Union, is it simply because VIA is sharing platforms with GO low-floor bilevels which forces VIA to deal with lower platforms? I know the platform height issue at Union has been debated many times on the Union Revitalization forum, but are there any plans by VIA (or MLX) to raise a few platforms at Union (e.g. dedicated platforms for VIA trains especially with HFR and the increased "frequency" of VIA departures and arrivals at Union)?

The last time I read documentation on the Union revitalization, the plan was to raise all the platforms to the level of the low-floor height of GO bilevels, with no consideration for high-floor VIA trains. This was probably a couple years ago so maybe (hopefully) VIA has been campaigning in the meantime for Metrolinx to build at least one or two platforms at their floor height. Even now, with relatively low frequencies, VIA has pretty much exclusive use of a couple tracks in the shed (can't remember which ones off-hand), so it would have relatively little impact on GO if those were built to VIA's floor height.

A note about Union: although freight trains do not currently pass through the trainshed, they will need to in the future since the current freight bypass tracks south of the station are being taken over to build more platforms. It's definitely a great idea to build platforms on those tracks given that there are no freight trains at rush hour, but it does mean that at least one of the tracks at Union needs to be designed to allow a freight train past the platform.

 

[roger1818]

The last time I read documentation on the Union revitalization, the plan was to raise all the platforms to the level of the low-floor height of GO bilevels, with no consideration for high-floor VIA trains. This was probably a couple years ago so maybe (hopefully) VIA has been campaigning in the meantime for Metrolinx to build at least one or two platforms at their floor height. Even now, with relatively low frequencies, VIA has pretty much exclusive use of a couple tracks in the shed (can't remember which ones off-hand), so it would have relatively little impact on GO if those were built to VIA's floor height.

To me, this highlights the risk to VIA of staying at Union. If Metrolinx is unwilling to raise any of the platforms, it may be that they at least want to keep the option of increasing service frequency such that VIA can't operate as many trains as they would want. I know there are disadvantages to VIA moving away from Union, but owning their own station would give them the flexibility to have as many trains as they want without having to ask permission from Metrolinx. As VIA said in their Summary of the 2017-2021 Corporate Plan:

The fact that VIA Rail does not control its access to Toronto Union or Montreal Central stations is a major business risk. Downtown to downtown service is key for intercity passenger rail success.

VIA Rail’s performance is highly dependent on these two major hubs. This access is affected by commuter operators in the Toronto and Montreal regions who are expanding rapidly, acquiring their own track from freight railroads, and are in the midst of multi-billion dollar development plans.

I should note that Ottawa no longer has a downtown station but instead has good transit from the station to downtown and a location that is easily accessed from the 417.

 

[rbt]

To me, this highlights the risk to VIA of staying at Union. If Metrolinx is unwilling to raise any of the platforms, it may be that they at least want to keep the option of increasing service frequency such that VIA can't operate as many trains as they would want. I know there are disadvantages to VIA moving away from Union, but owning their own station would give them the flexibility to have as many trains as they want without having to ask permission from Metrolinx. As VIA said in their Summary of the 2017-2021 Corporate Plan:

I sometimes look at the convention centre (south side) and think VIA should be talking to Oxford about including a dedicated VIA platform (from CN Tower to Delta hotel) and station in their future rebuild plans.

 

[JasonParis]

Could someone explain to me how Welland was serviced by VIA prior to the cuts? I rode my bike the entire canal a few weekends back and I'm honestly curious. Did it dead-end in Welland? Was it part of the Niagara service? Did Port Colburne have a station too?

 

[Urban Sky]

Could someone explain to me how Welland was serviced by VIA prior to the cuts? I rode my bike the entire canal a few weekends back and I'm honestly curious. Did it dead-end in Welland? Was it part of the Niagara service? Did Port Colburne have a station too?

Welland was part of the Toronto-Hamilton-Buffalo service VIA inheritated from CP. It was a daily service operated with an RDC, leaving Toronto in the morning and returning from Buffalo in the evening:

Source: official VIA timetable (effective 1980-04-27)

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, there were 4-5 trains serving this route and carrying through coaches and/or sleepers to cities like Boston, New York City, Pittsburgh and Cleveland:

Source: official CP timetable (effective 1950-04-30)

However, these through services were withdrawn in 1961 (Cleveland), 1962 (Pittsburgh), 1964 (Boston) and finally in October 1970 (New York City), when the last remaining train (an overnight train with coaches and sleepers to NYC) was replaced by the same RDC daytime service (Toronto<=>Buffalo) which VIA inherited in 1977 and terminated in September 1980*:

Source: official CP timetable (effective 1970-04-26)

Source: official CP timetable (effective 1970-10-25)

This left VIA with only the RDC service between Toronto and Niagara Falls, which operated three times daily. In April 1981, one of these three RDC runs was replaced by a new joint VIA-Amtrak train, the Maple Leaf, which restored a cross-border link into New York State and New York City after an interruption of half a year* or a full decade, respectively:

Source: official VIA timetable (effective 1981-04-26)

***

As for rail service to Port Colborne, even though that city was routinely listed in CPs and VIAs Toronto-Welland-Buffalo schedules, this only referred to a bus connection.

However, CN operated a mixed train 6 times a week between Fort Erie, Port Colborne, Caledonia, Brantford and Stratford until April 1960:

Source: official CN timetable (effective 1950-04-30)

Additionally, there seemes to have been an hourly "Eletric Car" (presumably: street car) service between Port Colborne, Welland and Thorold until 1954/55:

Source: official CN timetable (effective 1954-04-25)

Feel free to browse through my timetable archive (by clicking on any of the links above) and don't hesitate to ask any other timetable questions...

Edit:
* This seems to be not correct, as the subsequent posts prove that the Toronto-Welland-Buffalo service continued until the launch of the Maple Leaf on April 26, 1981, despite their disappearance in the September 1980 schedule...

 

[crs1026]

Could someone explain to me how Welland was serviced by VIA prior to the cuts? I rode my bike the entire canal a few weekends back and I'm honestly curious. Did it dead-end in Welland? Was it part of the Niagara service? Did Port Colburne have a station too?

The Buffalo service was never really integrated into the VIA network until the Niagara Falls routing took over. VIA had a separate contract with each of the affected railways for this route. It was administratively cumberome - separate fares from Toronto to Welland ($8 return) and Welland to Fort Erie ($7 each way).
In April 1981, a trip from Toronto to Fort Erie required two separate tickets, with three segments - separate accounting for the CP, TH+B, and Conrail portions of the ride. My hand-written 1981 Welland-Fort Erie ticket is too faded to scan properly. By that time, Conrail had downgraded its Welland-Fort Erie line so badly that the train ran at 10 mph over that section.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

The Buffalo service was never really integrated into the VIA network until the Niagara Falls routing took over. VIA had a separate contract with each of the affected railways for this route. It was administratively cumberome - separate fares from Toronto to Welland ($7) and Welland to Fort Erie ($8).
In April 1981, a trip from Toronto to Fort Erie required two separate tickets, with three segments - separate accounting for the CP, TH+B, and Conrail portions of the ride. My hand-written 1981 Welland-Fort Erie ticket is too faded to scan properly. By that time, Conrail had downgraded its Welland-Fort Erie line so badly that the train ran at 10 mph over that section.

- Paul

View attachment 274627

I'm curious about this, because even though your ticket proves that service via Welland continued until April 1981, the route seems to no longer appear already in the September 1980 schedule (I couldn't find it anywhere and "Welland" is not listed in the station index)...

 

[Northern Light]

Welland was part of the Toronto-Hamilton-Buffalo service VIA inheritated from CP. It was a daily service operated with an RDC, leaving Toronto in the morning and returning from Buffalo in the evening:
View attachment 274617
Source: official VIA timetable (effective 1980-04-27)

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, there were 4-5 trains serving this route and carrying through coaches and/or sleepers to cities like Boston, New York City, Pittsburgh and Cleveland:

View attachment 274621
Source: official CP timetable (effective 1950-04-30)

However, these through services were withdrawn in 1961 (Cleveland), 1962 (Pittsburgh), 1964 (Boston) and finally in October 1970 (New York City), when the last remaining train (an overnight train with coaches and sleepers to NYC) was replaced by the same RDC daytime service (Toronto<=>Buffalo) which VIA inherited in 1977 and terminated in September 1980:
View attachment 274623
Source: official CP timetable (effective 1970-04-26)

View attachment 274624
Source: official CP timetable (effective 1970-10-25)

This left VIA with only the RDC service between Toronto and Niagara Falls, which operated three times daily. In April 1981, one of these three RDC runs was replaced by a new joint VIA-Amtrak train, the Maple Leaf, which restored a cross-border link into New York State and New York City after an interruption of half a year or a full decade, respectively:

View attachment 274622
Source: official VIA timetable (effective 1981-04-26)

***

As for rail service to Port Colborne, even though that city was routinely listed in CPs and VIAs Toronto-Welland-Buffalo schedules, this only referred to a bus connection.

However, CN operated a mixed train 6 times a week between Fort Erie, Port Colborne, Caledonia, Brantford and Stratford until April 1960:
View attachment 274626
Source: official CN timetable (effective 1950-04-30)

Additionally, there seemes to have been an hourly "Eletric Car" (presumably: street car) service between Port Colborne, Welland and Thorold until 1954/55:
View attachment 274625
Source: official CN timetable (effective 1954-04-25)

Feel free to browse through my timetable archive (by clicking on any of the links above) and don't hesitate to ask any other timetable questions...

This has spurred a couple of questions in my mind, which perhaps you might have thoughts on:

1) Given the traffic that does occur between Buffalo and Toronto in a normal year; much of it Buffalo tourists visiting Toronto; but some people going the other way, as well.

I've often thought a Buffalo-Toronto rail shuttle service should work, especially weekends and holidays, Victoria Day - Labour Day, and in/around Christmas.

The Maple Leaf as a service suffers from its long schedule creating some reliability issues; but is also really targets a different market.

Do you think such a shuttle would make sense?

Ideally w/pre-clearance customs.

2) What do you think of using the Welland Corridor to access Niagara Falls, literally terminating at Fallsview, based on the current track end.

I realize upgrades would have to be made to that last stretch of track which is in abysmal shape.

But it strikes me that there is again a crowd to be serviced there; probably better by that route than the current one ending well away from the Niagara action.

 

[crs1026]

I'm curious about this, because even though your ticket proves that service via Welland continued until April 1981, the route seems to no longer appear already in the September 1980 schedule (I couldn't find it anywhere and "Welland" is not listed in the station index)...

There were delays getting the replacement service through Niagara Falls up and running, and getting regulatory approvals to end the old service. So the service ran as an "extra" (unscheduled) movement. The service did not appear in public or employee timetables in that period.
Here are a couple of shots - the train leaving Toronto carrying white flags, denoting an extra movement; and the melancholy notice posted in the window of the Fort Erie train station. Those notices of abandonment were a legal requirement that were posted on board and at stations - all too common in the 70's and early 80's

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

There were delays getting the replacement service through Niagara Falls up and running, and getting regulatory approvals to end the old service. So the service ran as an "extra" (unscheduled) movement. The service did not appear in public or employee timetables in that period.
Here are a couple of shots - the train leaving Toronto carrying white flags, denoting an extra movement; and the melancholy notice posted in the window of the Fort Erie train station. Those notices of abandonment were a legal requirement that were posted on board and at stations - all too common in the 70's and early 80's

- PaulView attachment 274634View attachment 274635

You know, Paul.....

You come across as a very vital force; and so we all naturally assume you're a middle-aged fella...............then you periodically post something from just after the dinosaurs died out and tell all of us you were actually there.

It creates a sort of cognitive dissonance.............

 

[crs1026]

You come across as a very vital force; and so we all naturally assume you're a middle-aged fella...............then you periodically post something from just after the dinosaurs died out and tell all of us you were actually there.

LOL.... I try not to do the math.

- Paul