[afransen]

Take the garbage trucks on the 401, if they were all on rail the amount of trucks would drop.

Another thing is the JITD or Just in time delivery that many auto plants rely on. If our freight lines had the space, they could go back to rail, further lowing the truck traffic.

It is not about removing all trucks, but removing those that could be removed, but is not practical due to how the railways run their freight.

How would space enable rail to support just in time delivery? Car parts moving a couple hundred km at most won't move by rail. It makes no economic sense.

 

[Sunnyside]

How would space enable rail to support just in time delivery? Car parts moving a couple hundred km at most won't move by rail. It makes no economic sense.

Both CN and CPKC move a lot of stuff from their western GTA yards and Niagara to and from Hamilton. I imagine it is the same for the Oshawa area. Getting finished products (like car parts) from local producers to an intermodal is also not uncommon.

This is not the railroads’ primary business model, but that’s not to say it couldn’t be done. It just won’t be them doing it if you’re targeting trucks.

 

[afransen]

Both CN and CPKC move a lot of stuff from their western GTA yards and Niagara to and from Hamilton. I imagine it is the same for the Oshawa area. Getting finished products (like car parts) from local producers to an intermodal is also not uncommon.

This is not the railroads’ primary business model, but that’s not to say it couldn’t be done. It just won’t be them doing it if you’re targeting trucks.

Do you mean local producer by rail to local customer? I don't see how that would work. Is anyone really bringing an intermodal shipment to a west GTA terminal and shipping to an east GTA terminal? Of course, rail is used for shipping into and out of the region.

 

[micheal_can]

How would space enable rail to support just in time delivery? Car parts moving a couple hundred km at most won't move by rail. It makes no economic sense.

My 2024 Ford F 150 was built in Kansas City, Missouri.The engine came from the Windsor plant That is 769 miles according to Google, or over 1200km. Honestly I do not know whether they are trucked or on a train, but for that distance, they should be on a train. Even if it were being used at the Oakville assembly plant, it should still be on a train. Using the highways as a warehouse is the problem, and needs to be resolved.

 

[afransen]

My 2024 Ford F 150 was built in Kansas City, Missouri.The engine came from the Windsor plant That is 769 miles according to Google, or over 1200km. Honestly I do not know whether they are trucked or on a train, but for that distance, they should be on a train. Even if it were being used at the Oakville assembly plant, it should still be on a train. Using the highways as a warehouse is the problem, and needs to be resolved.

It's quite possible that the engine made that trip by train. I don't see what that has to do with the truck traffic in the GTA, however.

 

[Sunnyside]

Do you mean local producer by rail to local customer?

Yes—

I don't see how that would work. Is anyone really bringing an intermodal shipment to a west GTA terminal and shipping to an east GTA terminal? Of course, rail is used for shipping into and out of the region.

…But not going from one intermodal to another (and it probably wouldn’t). The point is moreso that there are somewhat short trips made to get certain things around in general. Rails help steel get to the local auto plants, literally servicing the plants on both ends. I’m no expert but I imagine they don’t need any intermodal for that. Other goods may either get dropped off or sorted at said yards, but I’m less sure on that. I’m sure stuff from the ports gets offloaded at the yard to trucks.

I’m getting a bit out of my depth here but that is how I understand it to work.

A service that did go from one intermodal to another might have more impact than we give credit. I imagine there’s a lot of inefficiencies in trucks going to intermodals on the other side of the city because that’s what was convenient for the shipper. But I have no idea how it’d work.

 

[Haljackey]

Meme

https://www.reddit.com/r/EhBuddyHoser/comments/1l1wl9l/stressed_out

 

[innsertnamehere]

Banning semi trucks defeats the entire purpose of the 401 and does the exact opposite of what we want to do with highways - facilitate freight and commercial traffic but discourage commuter traffic.

 

[micheal_can]

It's quite possible that the engine made that trip by train. I don't see what that has to do with the truck traffic in the GTA, however.

I was using it as an example of how trucks are used to ship things. There are assembly plants that are in the GTA that have parts shipped from allover. Like the GM plant in Oshawa.

Banning semi trucks defeats the entire purpose of the 401 and does the exact opposite of what we want to do with highways - facilitate freight and commercial traffic but discourage commuter traffic.

I see the real goal is to reduce all highway traffic, not just commuters. It used to be on evenings and weekends, the 401 flowed decently. Not any more.

 

[lenaitch]

Take the garbage trucks on the 401, if they were all on rail the amount of trucks would drop.

If municipalities or regions managed their waste within their own bounds it would really solve that problem, but that's another bear to poke on another day.

Another thing is the JITD or Just in time delivery that many auto plants rely on. If our freight lines had the space, they could go back to rail, further lowing the truck traffic.

It was actually the other way around. Manufacturing sectors switching to just-in-time supply chain management negatively impacted 'loose' freight traffic and branch lines. JIT is used by most assemblers of large goods, not just vehicles. In the very early days, a lot of vehicle components we manufactured on-site or very near by. Some of that still happens where some suppliers will cluster near an assembly plant, but parts are sourced from all over the world.

If I were an assembler or vehicles or washing machines, I could either build a rail siding and a large warehouse to stockpile the gazillion parts I need (and the staff to handle it), or make delivery the problem of the shipper and use the public roads as my de facto warehouse. We used to have a neighbour who ran parts to the GM Corvette plant in Kentucky. Before he left whatever supplier's plant in southern Ontario, he got a print-out on his delivery 'window' (I think it was 1/2 hour) and the loading dock number. His parts got from southern Ontario to Kentucky in a day. There is no way rail service can match that.

A few parts can get economically shipped by rail. I'm thinking frames. They are bulky and heavy and can often be stored outside.

I suspect your F150 came via rail to a regional yard in Ontario. The companies have their algorithms and in some cases it might be more economical to ship from a plant to a dealer located within a certain radius but I think they would be minimal.

I think any attempt by the government to somehow 'encourage' manufacturers to switch from road to rail would simply result in the industry leaving Ontario.

 

[micheal_can]

If municipalities or regions managed their waste within their own bounds it would really solve that problem, but that's another bear to poke on another day.

I could go on and on about this.... Not just where the waste is put, but the creation of that waste....
But,I will leave that for a more related thread, if one exists.

It was actually the other way around. Manufacturing sectors switching to just-in-time supply chain management negatively impacted 'loose' freight traffic and branch lines. JIT is used by most assemblers of large goods, not just vehicles. In the very early days, a lot of vehicle components we manufactured on-site or very near by. Some of that still happens where some suppliers will cluster near an assembly plant, but parts are sourced from all over the world.

If I were an assembler or vehicles or washing machines, I could either build a rail siding and a large warehouse to stockpile the gazillion parts I need (and the staff to handle it), or make delivery the problem of the shipper and use the public roads as my de facto warehouse. We used to have a neighbour who ran parts to the GM Corvette plant in Kentucky. Before he left whatever supplier's plant in southern Ontario, he got a print-out on his delivery 'window' (I think it was 1/2 hour) and the loading dock number. His parts got from southern Ontario to Kentucky in a day. There is no way rail service can match that.

Is that a feature or a bug? When something is a certain way, we need to ask whether that is how the ones who are in control of it want it to be, or is it the way they have accepted it to be. Riding Via between Toronto and Montreal/Ottawa, I noticed the CPKC tracks that ran along the CN tracks were only single track. As I understand it, decades ago, a lot of double track was removed to save maintenance costs. The tore up the Chalk River sub to prevent competition on it from the OVR using it as a way to bypass Toronto. But it makes more profit for the shareholders. So, is it that they cannot compete with trucks, or they are designed not to compete with trucks? This goes to my thinking that a mainline should be double track throughout Canada.

A few parts can get economically shipped by rail. I'm thinking frames. They are bulky and heavy and can often be stored outside.

I suspect your F150 came via rail to a regional yard in Ontario. The companies have their algorithms and in some cases it might be more economical to ship from a plant to a dealer located within a certain radius but I think they would be minimal.

I think any attempt by the government to somehow 'encourage' manufacturers to switch from road to rail would simply result in the industry leaving Ontario.

I know it is not an easy thing to switch from one mode to another. I know that it can hurt businesses. However, I also know that without federal subsidies, those manufacturers are gone anyways. So,if we are going to rebuild our economy, lets do it in a way that works best for all Canadians. Part of that can be that as part of receiving future subsidies that freight is moved by rail, not trucks. And,part of this would also mean updating regulations around railway infrastructure to have more lines double track. The fact that between parts of the Fraser Valley and Central ON CN and CPKC use their lines as directional shows that they are not able to use their own lines as is to handle the freight. I do not mind my taxes funding infrastructure that actually will help with congestion. This tunnel will not do much in the long term.

 

[lenaitch]

Is that a feature or a bug? When something is a certain way, we need to ask whether that is how the ones who are in control of it want it to be, or is it the way they have accepted it to be. Riding Via between Toronto and Montreal/Ottawa, I noticed the CPKC tracks that ran along the CN tracks were only single track. As I understand it, decades ago, a lot of double track was removed to save maintenance costs. The tore up the Chalk River sub to prevent competition on it from the OVR using it as a way to bypass Toronto. But it makes more profit for the shareholders. So, is it that they cannot compete with trucks, or they are designed not to compete with trucks? This goes to my thinking that a mainline should be double track throughout Canada.

It is true that a lot of double track has been removed, but not the sections you were seeing paralleling the CN lakeshore route.. In Ontario, CPKC has removed double trackage east of Smith's Falls and much between Kenora and TBay. I'm not a RR executive but I would imagine they found that, with improved signalling and train management alongwith longer trains, they can move the same tonnage on roughly half the infrastructure.

CPKC didn't tear up the Ottawa Valley section because of the OVR. The OVR was hauling CPKC tonnage under contract. They tore it up because they determined they didn't need it.

Of course railways are going to conduct business in a way that maximizes income. If you work for a company that doesn't do that, I would look for other work as it probably won't be around for long. Their big money is primarily in long haul bulk commodities.

I know it is not an easy thing to switch from one mode to another. I know that it can hurt businesses. However, I also know that without federal subsidies, those manufacturers are gone anyways. So,if we are going to rebuild our economy, lets do it in a way that works best for all Canadians. Part of that can be that as part of receiving future subsidies that freight is moved by rail, not trucks. And,part of this would also mean updating regulations around railway infrastructure to have more lines double track. The fact that between parts of the Fraser Valley and Central ON CN and CPKC use their lines as directional shows that they are not able to use their own lines as is to handle the freight. I do not mind my taxes funding infrastructure that actually will help with congestion. This tunnel will not do much in the long term.

One wonders how government regulation could be crafted to compel railways to build infrastructure that they otherwise don't seem to need, then compel industry to use a particular business model that is more expensive than another.

Consider the political impact of giving subsidies to our Class 1 railways, that already turn a pretty good profit, over a bunch of much small and largely locally owned trucking companies.

 

[micheal_can]

It is true that a lot of double track has been removed, but not the sections you were seeing paralleling the CN lakeshore route.. In Ontario, CPKC has removed double trackage east of Smith's Falls and much between Kenora and TBay. I'm not a RR executive but I would imagine they found that, with improved signalling and train management alongwith longer trains, they can move the same tonnage on roughly half the infrastructure.

CPKC didn't tear up the Ottawa Valley section because of the OVR. The OVR was hauling CPKC tonnage under contract. They tore it up because they determined they didn't need it.

You may want to speak to the people at OVR. The sadsest part, they had just redid the ties east of Mattawa,

Of course railways are going to conduct business in a way that maximizes income. If you work for a company that doesn't do that, I would look for other work as it probably won't be around for long. Their big money is primarily in long haul bulk commodities.

No argument on the big money. The biggest, just by standing at a crossing would be containers and tankers.

One wonders how government regulation could be crafted to compel railways to build infrastructure that they otherwise don't seem to need, then compel industry to use a particular business model that is more expensive than another.

Consider the political impact of giving subsidies to our Class 1 railways, that already turn a pretty good profit, over a bunch of much small and largely locally owned trucking companies.

This is a political nightmare to touch. A lot of people on here want to compare here to Europe to argue for or against something. So, lets argue for public ownership like is done in the UK. IIt would be very good for Canada, but it would be very bad for CPKC and CN. The railways built Canada. They can also be used to transform Canada into an even better economic powerhouse.

 

[lenaitch]

You may want to speak to the people at OVR.

Well, when you pick up a CPKC consist in Sudbury and drop it at the CPKC yard in Smith's Falls, I'm not sure how that is competing with them. I guess if there was sufficient revenue on the line OVR could have continued to lease it from them rather than CPKC going through the bother and cost of abandoning it, but they didn't because there was no revenue other than CPKC 'bridge' traffic, which CPKC decided to run through Toronto. There has to be an economic reason for a rail line to exist. There is obviously sufficient business between Sudbury and North Bay and North Bay and Temiskaming QC to keep the short line operating. Other than the very occasional military move, I'm not sure there was much or any business remaining between Mattawa and Smith's Falls.

If you want to argue for nationalizing our rail network, start it as a thread topic and see if it attracts any interest.

 

[just east of the creek]

Well, when you pick up a CPKC consist in Sudbury and drop it at the CPKC yard in Smith's Falls, I'm not sure how that is competing with them. I guess if there was sufficient revenue on the line OVR could have continued to lease it from them rather than CPKC going through the bother and cost of abandoning it, but they didn't because there was no revenue other than CPKC 'bridge' traffic, which CPKC decided to run through Toronto. There has to be an economic reason for a rail line to exist. There is obviously sufficient business between Sudbury and North Bay and North Bay and Temiskaming QC to keep the short line operating. Other than the very occasional military move, I'm not sure there was much or any business remaining between Mattawa and Smith's Falls.

If you want to argue for nationalizing our rail network, start it as a thread topic and see if it attracts any interest.

And spend some time studying the financial results and records of both of these multi-national railways before using the words 'compelling' and 'nationalization'.