[crs1026]

This could always be gated into the contract no? Various design phases. Breakdown of contractual responsibilities. Etc.

Personally, I don't see the issue with a prime contractor having to pursue easements in a design or get the government to expropriate on their behalf. Isn't this what would happen anyway if we simply had a firm to exclusively do the corridor design? They'll end up telling the government what to expropriate anyway. And the government would have to do all that before handing a corridor right back to the builder.

It could be done, certainly. The question is whether it would lead to a longer, more iterative contract negotiation.

I hope that at this point, after the $79M study and now the $491M derisking starting, that VIA has a pretty good set of basic blueprints and a contract spec. Sure, some parts may have to be rolled out for consultation, and it makes sense to let bidders suggest some better ideas, hopefully the design has some flex. I would be reluctant to let the procurement drag on longer than it needs to, however.

Just for an example - take the hypothetical Pickering Airport. Now that Ottawa has the land, it's easy to put out an RFP for design, build, finance, maintain, operate... whatever one cares to put in the contract. But imagine if Ottawa didn't have any land, and the RFP simply read "DBFOM for a X,000 foot runway within Y kms of downtown Oshawa". There might be proponents willing to scout a site, and competing proposals generated.... but the decisionmaking process would be a nightmare.

Realistically, any bidder on HFR would be likely to land on the Havelock Alexandria and Trois Rivieres lines, and so the bids will just be different views of how to best extract performance from that route. If VIA doesn't already have some engineers' clever and actionable opinions on how to do that....we've wasted a lot of time.

- Paul

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Exactly. We really need to get past this viewpoint that they will ever cooperate. Not because they are purposely obstructionist. Simply because it's not in their business interests to do so. We need to acknowledge that and move on.

Maybe we can negotiate something for the trains that are needed to run out of Kingston. But trying to build the primary passenger corridor for a third of the country's population around the good graces of the freight cos would be some true insanity.

Build the line first, and when you are no longer beholden to them for what truly mattered you'd be a far better position to negotiate.

AoD

 

[reaperexpress]

Build the line first, and when you are no longer beholden to them for what truly mattered you'd be a far better position to negotiate.

I'm wondering if this is part of the rationale for showing the CP Winchester subdivision on the HFR maps. If VIA estimates that an express train running along the VIA HFR tracks and the Winchester Sub could match the speed of an express train along the CN Kingston sub, they would be less at the mercy of the freight companies. If VIA isn't happy with the cost/performance of CN, they can move the express service over to CP, or vice versa.

 

[Allandale25]

^ I'm not an expert like this, but why can't they just build along the Winchester Sub, but have it wired/completely separate track (with passing tracks) from CP? Isn't the issue with CN's Kingston Sub that VIA/CN are highly integrated?

 

[MisterF]

^ I'm not an expert like this, but why can't they just build along the Winchester Sub, but have it wired/completely separate track (with passing tracks) from CP? Isn't the issue with CN's Kingston Sub that VIA/CN are highly integrated?

It would still be in the CP right of way so CP would ultimately have to sign off on whatever Via proposes. The freight railways have always been fiercely protective of their corridors to ensure that they can expand in the future. Building a new line outside CP's right of way would require expropriation from all the landowners on the route.

 

[robmausser]

^ I'm not an expert like this, but why can't they just build along the Winchester Sub, but have it wired/completely separate track (with passing tracks) from CP? Isn't the issue with CN's Kingston Sub that VIA/CN are highly integrated?

Any work in any corridor not owned by VIA requires basically them to hand the project off to that owner, in this case CP.

CP will do all the work themselves in the corridor. They will overcharge VIA, as they have with GO in the past, up to 800% as found by the Ontario Auditor General.

They will own the tracks and determine what can be done with them and not etc.

Its weird to me when people are like "why cant VIA just build in X's corridor?"

It would be like the government coming and saying "We are going to build another house on your property, thats ok right?"

 

[nfitz]

Any work in any corridor not owned by VIA requires basically them to hand the project off to that owner, in this case CP.

The federal government can fix this with legislation (if not simply regulation).

And what damages are there to CP? Most of this is single track. What's the ultimate capacity here - 4 tracks?

 

[OntarioOnTheMove]

Minister Alghabra, Member of Parliament Fragiskatos, Member of Parliament Young and Mayor Holder to make an announcement on passenger rail services in London​

Minister Alghabra, Member of Parliament Fragiskatos, Member of Parliament Young and Mayor Holder to make an announcement on passenger rail services in London - Canada.ca

LONDON, ONTARIO – The Minister of Transport, the Honourable Omar Alghabra, the Member of Parliament for London North Centre, Peter Fragiskatos, the Member of Parliament for London West, Kate Young, and His Worship Ed Holder, Mayor of the City of London will make an announcement on passenger rail...

www.canada.ca

 

[Allandale25]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1417529250589052935

 

[crs1026]

The federal government can fix this with legislation (if not simply regulation).

And what damages are there to CP? Most of this is single track. What's the ultimate capacity here - 4 tracks?

The construction cost to grade the row so that it’s available for track from one property line to the other is the obstacle. Lots of retaining walls needed, some pretty steep.

It’s not as simple as “just share the width”

The Winchester Sub is a good example. Now that CP has single tracked parts, there is certainly enough useable width to the existing track bed to add a dedicated HFR track. But wherever CP has retained two tracks (the new sidings are roughly five miles long) VIA would have to add a third track. Likewise for wherever VIA wants its own sidings.…That could amount to demand for four tracks in spots. But the track bed is only two tracks wide. The landscape is fairly flat and it’s mostly farmland, so four tracks is fairly feasible…. but it would have to be graded, culverts and bridges widened….who pays?

And what happens when CP’s business grows to the point where they need to reinstall more double track, or even some third track? Can they just tell VIA to start a project to move over?

It’s solvable with enough money, but it’s easy to see why the freight railways don’t want to be hemmed in, with little guarantee that VIA can afford to move over in future years so the freight isn’t impeded.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

Any work in any corridor not owned by VIA requires basically them to hand the project off to that owner, in this case CP.

CP will do all the work themselves in the corridor. They will overcharge VIA, as they have with GO in the past, up to 800% as found by the Ontario Auditor General.

They will own the tracks and determine what can be done with them and not etc.

Its weird to me when people are like "why cant VIA just build in X's corridor?"

It would be like the government coming and saying "We are going to build another house on your property, thats ok right?"

I'm very aware that CP would need to consent to allowing VIA into it's corridor. I definitely remember the AG report and the frequent discussions here on why VIA can't run more service on the Kingston Sub without dealing with CN, and all other ownership discussions as it relates to VIA expansion.

Maybe I didn't word my point well. What I'm suggesting is if VIA and GO's tracks for this particular Sub are separate enough that freight trains won't impact VIA trains. I'm thinking of Pickering to Oshawa where there are 2 GO tracks, a dis and 3 CN tracks that VIA also uses. So, in summary, without being an expert, what I'm suggesting for the Winchester Sub is different than the current arrangement for the Kingston Sub:

• Yes, CP would own the land
  • That said, could VIA not just buy what it needs beside the CP owned land? I guess it would be pretty expensive given the distance.
• Maybe CP-VIA could reach an agreement where CP wouldn't have to be the constructor
• VIA would own its new tracks and they not physically touch the existing CP tracks (grade separate where needed). They could be laterally spaced similar to Pickering-Oshawa
• Signaling and RTCing for VIA/CP would be separate on this particular Sub. Heck, maybe VIA would even give the Sub its own name.

No idea if this realistic. @crs1026 @smallspy @Urban Sky

 

[Allandale25]

On the Rail Fans Canada discord, someone posted this and commented: "Not exactly VIA, but seems like track inspection of the VIA tracks done by CN's inspection RDC was happening"

 

[reaperexpress]

^ I'm not an expert like this, but why can't they just build along the Winchester Sub, but have it wired/completely separate track (with passing tracks) from CP? Isn't the issue with CN's Kingston Sub that VIA/CN are highly integrated?

In this particular case, the main reason not to do that is that the Winchester sub would likely only be used by a couple express trips per day during busy periods. The vast majority of trips would travel along the VIA lines to serve Ottawa. With such low frequency, it wouldn't be economic to upgrade the CP line, so VIA presumably estimated that the relatively low speeds along the existing non-upgraded CP line (80 mph?) would be offset by the higher speeds along the new Toronto-Smiths Falls line, allowing the Winchester route to match or beat the current express train travel times via Kingston.

 

[Allandale25]

^ Good point and thanks

 

[Urban Sky]

In this particular case, the main reason not to do that is that the Winchester sub would likely only be used by a couple express trips per day during busy periods. The vast majority of trips would travel along the VIA lines to serve Ottawa. With such low frequency, it wouldn't be economic to upgrade the CP line, so VIA presumably estimated that the relatively low speeds along the existing non-upgraded CP line (80 mph?) would be offset by the higher speeds along the new Toronto-Smiths Falls line, allowing the Winchester route to match or beat the current express train travel times via Kingston.

The only reason I can see to include the Winchester Subdivision West of De Beaujeu within the HFR study scope is to document for everyone who doesn't already know it how little value-for-money an Ottawa bypass would provide.

For anyone interested in the Ottawa Bypass and how such a network of three airline-style point-to-point connections (TRTO-OTTW, TRTO-MTRL and OTTW-MTRL) would be quite the opposite of what countries like Germany did, I recommend this side discussion I had with @roger1818 on SSP:

Rail services in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor - Page 9 - SkyscraperPage Forum