This is just a guess, but it may be that population and the resulting economic activity and the traffic it drives is the reason for not as much further investment between Winnepeg and Toronto.
Greater Toronto has approximately 6.4 milliion people - it is a great, great city.
And there are Montreal at about 4.0 million and Ottawa further to the east at 1.4 million.
On the other hand, going south from Winnipeg, CN has access to Minneapolis-St. Paul (3.5 million), Milwaukee (1.6 million), Chicago (9.5 million), St. Louis (2.8 million), Memphis (1.3 million) and New Orleans (1.2 million) down the main spine, and Detroit (4.3 million) via the former Grand Trunk Western.
Those population centers are double the population of the three large eastern Canada population centers.
So perhaps that additional capacity on the Winnipeg-Chicago routes is warranted due to the greater concentration down the former Wisconsin Central-Illinois Central of large metroplexes and the economic activity they generate.
The Winnipeg-Toronto line already has lots of sidings, but most of them are short (~6400'). As you can imagine this does not work well with 12,000' trains running in both directions. But not all trains are run that long, so the shorter ones (especially VIA) always end up taking sidings.
When Hunter Harrison was still at CN his plan was to run every train as long as possible, and in Northern Ontario when two over-siding trains met they would saw by. This went on for years.
Under the current operating plan a fixed number of trains per day are run long, and meets between them are planned well in advance. Everything else is run short. Fred Frailey has a good explanation of the strategy in one of his recent posts:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2017/12/04/the-news-from-sioux-lookout.aspx
I believe that more sidings should be lengthened, as the current strategy leaves almost no wiggle room for future expansion, and significant operational savings could be obtained by running everything long. But as always it comes down to the almighty dollar, and CN is notoriously cheap when it comes to capital spending.
EDIT: the link won't heat up no matter what I try, sorry.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
I wouldn't be too surprised if the "added 12 miles of double track between Vancouver and Edmonton" turned out to be restoring part of the double track that EHH tore out on the British Columbia side of the Yellowhead Pass. The same could be done on the Alberta side, except that the relationship between CN and Jasper National Park went sour.
I doubt it, they have been running everything single sub west of Jasper for the last few years (crews change at McBride and Blue River, BC), and there is still a lot of double track in that area. And the Park still hates CN, stemming from the demolition of the Jasper roundhouse literally days before it was to be declared a historic building; that happened at the same time the double track was ripped out.
I believe the 12 miles of double track will be added from Spruce Grove to Carvel, AB, not far west of Edmonton. This would give a 40+ mile continuous section of double track heading out of the city, all the way to Wabamun Lake (of tar-ball derailment fame). A couple different mid-level managers have told me that this section is high on the priority list, but nothing has officially been said yet.
The 28 miles of double track on the Edmonton-Winnipeg line will most likely come in as three segments, each one connecting two sidings together (sidings are spaced around 10 miles apart). This has been CN's pattern for the last few years as other sections of double track have been built in that corridor. But I do not know exactly where these sections will go, there are numerous potential spots.
I also have no idea where the additional sidings will be added on the BC North line.
I also doubt the small section of the Albreda Sub will be double-tracked. It is so insignificant compared to other parts of the Albreda, Edson, and Clearwater Sub's.
That being said, I think you maybe onto something with the increase of double-track between Carvel and Spruce Grove on the Edson Sub, but it could not possibly be the entire way due to the residential areas adjacent to the mainline in Stony Plain. I think that would be too expensive, too complicated to navigate around. Maybe going a few miles east from Carvel to alleviate the single-track congestion but not all the way to Stony Plain.
Exactly. The sidings on the Northern Ontario Transcon of CN are way to small to accommodate the train lengths of today. While 12,000 feet is huge train, from what I have seen, CN now runs them as long 15,000 feet. Last year, I saw one CN train that was 255 cars (intermodal), which is around 15,000 feet. Also, my profile pick on this train blog is a train that is 258 cars. Both trains were CN in Western Alberta on the Edson Sub. A railfan on Youtube named JayJr2007 mentioned in a video (sadly did not film) a CN 105 was 16,000 feet, which is around 280 cars.
Clearly, the vast majority of the sidings in Ontario are becoming increasingly insufficient for CN's current operations.
ADRIAN BALLAMExactly. The sidings on the Northern Ontario Transcon of CN are way to small to accommodate the train lengths of today. While 12,000 feet is huge train, from what I have seen, CN now runs them as long 15,000 feet. Last year, I saw one CN train that was 255 cars (intermodal), which is around 15,000 feet. Also, my profile pick on this train blog is a train that is 258 cars. Both trains were CN in Western Alberta on the Edson Sub. A railfan on Youtube named JayJr2007 mentioned in a video (sadly did not film) a CN 105 was 16,000 feet, which is around 280 cars. Clearly, the vast majority of the sidings in Ontario are becoming increasingly insufficient for CN's current operations.
At one time 3 and 4 miles of parallell tracks was considered Double Track. With the size trains being operated today they are merely passing sidings.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Did CN ever finish the 10 miles of double track it started on the Rivers Sub. from Waldron to Cana SK in 2016 (approx mi. 262 - 272)?
Cana to Waldron is still single track.
They did construct 4 or 5 other sections of double track along the Rivers and Watrous subs over the past several years, but it is not enough.
And almost nothing has been done on the Wainwright sub so far.
cx500 I wouldn't be too surprised if the "added 12 miles of double track between Vancouver and Edmonton" turned out to be restoring part of the double track that EHH tore out on the British Columbia side of the Yellowhead Pass. The same could be done on the Alberta side, except that the relationship between CN and Jasper National Park went sour.
I'm out of touch with the northern part - where around Jasper was track taken up?
Go here for my rail shots! http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=9296
Building the CPR Kootenay division in N scale, blog here: http://kootenaymodelrailway.wordpress.com/
CN announced as part of their 2017 earnings presentation that they would spend $3.2 billion on capital investments in 2018. As a comparison, CSX with similar route mileage is dropping down to $1.6 billion and NS with similar route mileage is going up by $100 million to $1.8 billion in 2018.
Yet Robert Krebs was run out of the BNSF for saying the entire old Santa Fe needed to be double tracked to LA. Execpt for a couple bridges and that will change soon all of the Transcon is now double and in spots triple track. Why was he run off by the BOE for not being like EHH.
At one time (years ago) there was talk that CN and CP might execute a shared, directional running agreement on their northern Ontario lines (similar to the Fraser Valley arrangement). If there is still any life to this idea, it might explain a reluctance to invest in siding extensions based on an assumption of continued bi-directional traffic.
CNSF At one time (years ago) there was talk that CN and CP might execute a shared, directional running agreement on their northern Ontario lines (similar to the Fraser Valley arrangement). If there is still any life to this idea, it might explain a reluctance to invest in siding extensions based on an assumption of continued bi-directional traffic.
Johnny
The problem with trying to arrange directional running across northern Ontario most of the way to Winnipeg is the two lines are separated by a considerable distance, with few roads to taxi the crews back and forth between them. Winter driving on those roads can also be problematic at times. The territory south of Sudbury is about the only area where the logistics are easy.
trainboyH16-44 cx500 I wouldn't be too surprised if the "added 12 miles of double track between Vancouver and Edmonton" turned out to be restoring part of the double track that EHH tore out on the British Columbia side of the Yellowhead Pass. The same could be done on the Alberta side, except that the relationship between CN and Jasper National Park went sour. I'm out of touch with the northern part - where around Jasper was track taken up?
East of Jasper, from Henry House (the Snaring River bridge) to Devona. Devona to Park Gate (west end of the curved Brule tunnel) is still double track.
One of the first things CN did after Hunter left was try to put that double track back in. That was when they found out just how mad the National Park was.
What is not widely known is that Hunter was not going to stop ripping track up; he wanted to remove the Robson sub (ex-GTP line) main track west from Red Pass Jct to Taverna. He was adamant that this would save a huge amount of money and minimally affect train operations. So to prove him wrong a test was done, and the Robson sub was shut down for a day. This created a traffic jam stretching all the way from Kamloops to Edmonton, with trains backing up until every single siding was full. Only then did he back down from that plan.
Somehow, I have the impression that Mr. Hunter did not understand the operations on the Robson Sub, and was more concerned with what he thought would be money in his pocket than he was with efficient railroad operation.
I may be mistaken, but I have the impression that the operation of the Albreda and Robson Subs gives you good two-track operation between Red Pass and Charles, with EB freight traffic from Prince Rupert going down to Charles and then up to Red Pass. (When I went to Prince Rupert and back in the fall of 2014, we went directly from Harvey to Red Pass, and did not go around by way of Charles.)
I wonder if the park will ever get over the removal of that second track (when was that done?) and allow the CN to put it back.
Johnny,
Who, other than Hunter Harrison, understands his motives for doing what he did to North American railroading? Perhaps while he was at CN his motives were pure and hid desires were to mane CN a star regarding operating ratio then collecting a chunk of cash based on his performance. It appears he accomplished that goal and then went on to try his best to do the same at CP. In the above two cases Harrison accomplished his mission because both CN and CP were end to end railroads.
CSX is a different kettle of fish as it it is/was a gatherer of coal from the Appalachain mines that had to be transported to whatever destination be it coal fired generating plants or export coal.
I see a difference in both of the above, and charging enough to cover costs and gaining a reasonable profit to be the corporate norm.
What I see CSX has failed to do is accept a reasonable rate of return on their investment and cost of doing business. As was said in the thread about CSX charging Consumers Power exhorbant charges for delivering coal there is a limit the consumer will accept.
Norm
Norm48327 CSX is a different kettle of fish as it it is/was a gatherer of coal from the Appalachain mines that had to be transported to whatever destination be it coal fired generating plants or export coal.
Norm is correct. Have spent enough time in the area especially Huntington to note full coal trains going both ways and empty coal cars going both ways. The only difference was coal car markings.
I do NOT believe that the park has any say as to whether the second track can be put back in. It is the railroads right of way, owned by them. If they want to put the second track in they can do so without the parks permission.
CN may still be required to get a construction permit from Parks Canada. Hopefully there is not that much red tape that a new environmental assessment is demanded. A construction permit should just be rubber stamped if it is merely relaying track that was previously there.
caldreamer I do NOT believe that the park has any say as to whether the second track can be put back in. It is the railroads right of way, owned by them. If they want to put the second track in they can do so without the parks permission.
That may be technically true, but the reality is that CN has to exist within the Park environment. I'm sure Parks Canada would have many ways to severely inconvenience CN if the railway went ahead unilaterally. For instance at present CN has a number of access roads, useful for maintenance vehicles, relieving crews and other such activities, that cross Parks land and could be closed off. At the moment there is a truce; resuming hostilities might backfire.
CN is in great position to take on rail traffic to support the growing fracking operations in the Duvernay, Montney and Horn River formations. There will be a lot of loads going in and loads coming out as those areas get developed for energy production.
I do not see the viability or point in reinstating the double-track east of the Snaring River. It seems rather silly to put it back in after just a few hundred of being single from Henry House. I think that they should ignore that section for double-tracking (and they probably will).
That's not the only area where CN has the potential to take great new amounts of business:
There is just so much growth opportunity for CN, it's amazing.
ADRIAN BALLAM. There is just so much growth opportunity for CN, it's amazing.
Only when the destruction comitted by EHH has been mitigated ?
ADRIAN BALLAM That's not the only area where CN has the potential to take great new amounts of business: With the hold of the Energy East Pipeline, CN becomes the viable (though not so efficient) method of transporting oil from Alberta's Industrial Heartland to refineries it accesses in Quebec City and Saint John. The initiation of the Canada European Trade Agreement could create an increase in shipments all over the system towards their ports on the Atlantic Coast and St. Lawrence Seaway ...
The TransCanada's Energy East Pipeline project was cancelled as the Keystone XL Pipeline got US presidential approval, so it's still not going by rail. Also, from what I read in the Canadian press, eastern Canadians (especially Quebec) are opposed to tar sand oil no mater what the method of transport.
ADRIAN BALLAM I do not see the viability or point in reinstating the double-track east of the Snaring River. It seems rather silly to put it back in after just a few hundred of being single from Henry House. I think that they should ignore that section for double-tracking (and they probably will).
Au contraire, the single track section Hunter created is more like 10 miles, not a few hundred yards. That area is continually congested as westbound with crews short on hours try to get into Jasper, and eastbounds try to get around them, and gain access to the single track east of Park Gate.
Between Park Gate and Dalehurst (the next section of double track, near the Obed summit) there are 3 sidings: Swan Landing, Entrance and Hinton. Entrance is only 6500' long so very few trains fit there, and Swan Landing is always congested with switching work, as numerous mainline trains pick up and set off traffic to/from the Grande Cache sub (ex-Alberta Resources Railway to Grande Prairie). This leaves the 12,000' Hinton siding as the only reliable place to make meets along a 40 mile stretch of single track.
The removal of double track between Henry House and Devona limits the number of eastbounds that can be let out of Jasper at a time, which can cause trains to be held in the yard or on the double track west of town, causing even more congestion there.
Adding more double track between Park Gate and Hinton would be helpful too, but would be limited to a couple smaller segments (essentially long sidings) without some very high expenditures, as there are two major bridges (Athabasca River and Prairie Creek) and the curved Brule tunnel to contend with.
Dalehurst to Hinton would be easy though, and there is already 6400' of grade ready along there where the Pedley siding used to be.
The two pipelines go totally different directions. Keystone goes directly south to the US while Energy East goes to the Atlantic Coast of Canada. How does the Keystone decision have an impact of oil moving by rail to the Atlantic Coast? Also, I just read that CN is planning to move crude oil this summer after they have completed a number of capacity projects: http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/01/24-canadian-national-to-invest-record-amount-to-handle-current-anticipated-traffic-growth?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=News0_TRN_180129_000000_Final&utm_content=&spMailingID=32824061&spUserID=MTE2ODA0MTUwMTc2S0&spJobID=1203645665&spReportId=MTIwMzY0NTY2NQS2.
I know there is opposition to the oil and pipelines in Quebec, but I have feeling that it is not to the extent of a majority of citizens. I found an article that supports your statement, but the problem with this poll is it asked 1,401 people: http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/poll-shows-few-quebecers-support-energy-east-pipeline. There are 7.2 million people in the province. These types of polls are usually way off what the general public thinks as they fall into the same category as polls in guessing the outcome of elections. I don't believe New Brunswick would be against the pipeline either.
I will give you that. Those are interesting points. I have a feeling that the siding and 12 miles of double-track will be added to the Edson Subvision, not Albreda or Clearwater. I think perhaps you are right then in what you had said above, but I don't believe these 12 miles will be allocated here at this time. I wish there was some PDF file online outling the project.
ADRIAN BALLAM The two pipelines go totally different directions. Keystone goes directly south to the US while Energy East goes to the Atlantic Coast of Canada. How does the Keystone decision have an impact of oil moving by rail to the Atlantic Coast? Also, I just read that CN is planning to move crude oil this summer after they have completed a number of capacity projects: http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/01/24-canadian-national-to-invest-record-amount-to-handle-current-anticipated-traffic-growth?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=News0_TRN_180129_000000_Final&utm_content=&spMailingID=32824061&spUserID=MTE2ODA0MTUwMTc2S0&spJobID=1203645665&spReportId=MTIwMzY0NTY2NQS2. I know there is opposition to the oil and pipelines in Quebec, but I have feeling that it is not to the extent of a majority of citizens. I found an article that supports your statement, but the problem with this poll is it asked 1,401 people: http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/poll-shows-few-quebecers-support-energy-east-pipeline. There are 7.2 million people in the province. These types of polls are usually way off what the general public thinks as they fall into the same category as polls in guessing the outcome of elections. I don't believe New Brunswick would be against the pipeline either.
TransCanada proposed the Energy East project when Keystone XL started to bog down. When Keystone's prospects opened up again, Energy East was cancelled. What is your question? TransCanada is in the business of transporting oil and gas. Many of the other Keystone segments were already constructed, and the XL segment was a key shortcut. Texas refineries use heavy oil. I don't know that eastern Canada refineries are set up to take that much at present. Additionally, new shale oil & gas fields in Alberta, may make the gas pipeline that the Energy East project, was to convert to oil, more valuable as a gas line.
Completing the Cana - Bangor section is one of the Winnipeg - Edmonton projects for this year.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
I can confirm that Spruce Grove to Carvel is also on the list:
http://www.stonyplain.com/Town-Hall/Departments/Corporate-Communications/News-Releases/CN-Rail-Line-Twinning_s1_p2453.htm
Double-tracking announced, locals lose their minds:
http://www.sprucegroveexaminer.com/2018/02/10/cn-rail-to-twin-railway-from-stony-plain-to-carvel
Ahhh...so it is going to be this leg of the Edson Subdivision. I had feeling the entire amount of 12 miles would be allocated to the subdivision of the Vancouver-Edmonton corridor. A bit surprised that they are now going to double-track through the residential area, since at one crossing, there is a daycare centre. Thanks for the reference.
Thank you. Do you happen to have a reference to this expansion? It certainly makes sense.
Is 'twinning the railway' actually a Canadian expression for double-tracking?
I don't recall ever seeing it before, and she uses it many times in the article.
"Twinning" is a term I would not normally use for railroads. For me, this relates to highways, such as "twinning a bridge" (adding another lane).
Normally double-tracking is the what we use for trains.
"Twinning" is an example of Mudchicken's highway bubbas attempting to speak railroad-ese.
CN uses the term "double track".
ADRIAN BALLAM Ahhh...so it is going to be this leg of the Edson Subdivision. I had feeling the entire amount of 12 miles would be allocated to the subdivision of the Vancouver-Edmonton corridor. A bit surprised that they are now going to double-track through the residential area, since at one crossing, there is a daycare centre. Thanks for the reference.
There is enough space for a second track on the existing ROW through Stony Plain without disturbing any houses. Additionally, the area between 48 and 50 Streets is where the old grain elevator used to be and its spur is still there, currently it is used to store track maintenance equipment. This can be seen on Google Earth.
I strongly suspect (but cannot confirm yet) that the second track will be added on the south side of the current main, at both Carvel and Spruce Grove the turnout diverges to the south.
The residential area is not a concern; it is not blocking the ROW and the railroad was there first, not the houses. If CN were to double track only from Carvel to Stony Plain there would still be a single track choke point, making the project of little to no benefit.
The general public seems to believe that double track will mean double the number of trains. This is not the case, the same number of trains will be run, only more efficiently.
How to participate in an interesting mind game. Take the tracks and equipment taken out of service and the savings acquired including track, switches, maintenance, salvage etc. Then the costs of restoring those same locations. wonder how that looks on the balance sheets ?
In the US, the standard distance between double tracks is now more than the old minimum distance between older double tracks. Relaying a second track usually means the old grade is not usable. Is that also the situation in Canada?
In the case in question the "old" double track would have been laid in the 1980s, and ripped up in the early 2000s (thanks Hunter). So it would have already conformed to modern standards.
Unfortunately none of the ripped up sections are being rebuilt, all the current double tracking plans are for sections that have always been single track.
What's interesting is this 12 mile section of single-track is the longest section of single track currently on the Edson Sub. Now it will be no more due to this double-track project. Also with connecting the double-track segments at Carvel and Spruce Grove, there will be over 40 miles of non-stop double-track and nearly half of the Edson Sub will be double-tracked after the completion of this project.
Also, from the article, CN is planning to add another siding between Vancouver and Edmonton. I assume that is on the Edson Sub as well and that would then put the line at more than 50% double-tracked. Great.
CN speaks to Stony Plain, town is still unhappy:
http://www.sprucegroveexaminer.com/2018/03/31/stony-plain-questions-cn-on-rail-twinning
I saw that article and don't blame the townspeople for being concerned. It goes through a pretty populated residential area and next to one the of the crossings, is a daycare. However, it is CN's property and the trains do travel through there at a fast rate of speed. It says in the article that trains stop on the crossings. That doesn't strike me as an area where that occurs.
Does that happen often in the area?
Is the average train density 32 trains per day as mentioned in the article or was that an estimate of one of the concerned citizens?
Having been to Ames, IA where UP rolls 50 or so trains through town at grade on double track, it has not been disruptive.
I believe there are over 40 trains a day, of which 30 are scheduled (manifest and intermodal) and the rest are bulk commodities, including grain, potash, sand, and sulphur. Coal runs on the line west of Edson, which increases the number by 2-4 daily. That being said, numbers are quite high right now due to CN's major service issues and them having to play catch up with their customers. There are running a lot of grain trains to the west coast to accomodate farmers' needs.
Prsons here talk about the blocked siding that trains can block all three road crossings . Tell them that if CSX would extend the siding either north or south blocked crossings would dimish but not end for those times CSX parks 2 trains on siding.
I am not sure what you are referring to. Could you please clarify? Also, how does CSXT factor into this discussion?
30-40 trains a day sounds right to me.
As it is currently single track trains do not normally stop in the Stony Plain-Spruce Grove area. That will not change with double tracking as all the crossings will still be there.
Of course trains occasionally break down and have to stop. But this is the case everywhere, and not a significant concern here.
The firefighters are probably counting every single time they had to wait at a crossing, even for fast-moving trains.
I am sure the daycare staff and parents know about the nearby railroad. I personally would be more concerned about the traffic on 50 St as a threat to the kids.
There was an article last week from the News Wire that compared CN's current troubles to that of BNSF in 2013 and 2014 when they faced a boom of commodities. This article also address briefly addresses siding extensions, including two that are known (the Spruce Grove to Carvel 12 mile segment and double-track section going southeast from Melville). They also surprisingly talk about a siding extension north of Kamloops, which sounds like it will be on the Clearwater Sub. Sadly, they don't specify other sidings extensions in BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan: http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/04/12-cns-capacity-problems-echo-bnsfs-woes-of-2013-14?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=News0_TRN_180416_000000_Final&utm_content=&spMailingID=33901974&spUserID=MTE2ODA0MTUwMTc2S0&spJobID=1261918967&spReportId=MTI2MTkxODk2NwS2.
There is actually a lot of information in the article. I have to go through more of it for further comment.
I know of one in Hawthorne, WI as per this photo from railpictures.net: http://railpictures.net/photo/655812/.
I also believe the double-tracking east of Melville, SK is on the verge of commencing, but I don't for sure. I will see if I can find some more articles.
Work began in mid-April on the Spruce Grove-Carvel, AB double track segment. Brush clearing has been completed and grading has started.
I asked this question a couple of days ago on a couple on Canadian lists and got quite a few replies.
There are confirmed reports that Waldron to Cana (10 miles) on the Rivers sub is currently being done. When this is done they are supposed to do from Bailey (end of 2 trks) to Fenwood, west of Melville on the Watrous sub.
From end of 2 Trks at Welby,SK to Spy Hill on the Rivers sub. 8 miles.
Rumours of Rivers to Stenberg. (started in the 1980's)
Spruce Grove to Carvel is being done now as reported.
Artland to Chauvin and Wainwright to Fabyan on the Wainwright sub rumoured to being done.
I think that is most of them.
Coming south out of Pokegama Yard in WI, where CN makes the climb out of the Duluth basin to Chicago, they have double track going in from just after the Amnicon River bridge to the siding at Gun Club Road at Hawthorn, WI. As of yesterday the right of way was graded and most of the rail and ties were down. There are several locations where one crossing gate has yet to be moved out of the way of the new track. The new track is laid to the east of the existing main, so should be the northbound (downhill) track while the existing main becomes the southbound (uphill) track. CN puts on quite a show in the Duluth area going both ways. The housing industry must be doing okay. I saw a solid train of empty centerbeams heading north to Canada for more loads, as well as a doublestack and two manifests in the space of an hour, as well as a UP manifest heading south on trackage rights.
Thank you all for your insight. Here's another article discussing in somewhat better detail the new sidings and siding extensions on the various corridors in Western Canada along with new purchases: http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/05/17-operations-improve-on-canadian-national-as-traffic-growth-resumes?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=News0_TRN_180521_000000_%20Sub&utm_content=&spMailingID=34378674&spUserID=MTE2ODA0MTUwMTc2S0&spJobID=1282430516&spReportId=MTI4MjQzMDUxNgS2.
In looking at this a previous article posted, it mentioned that a siding north of Kamloops was going to be expanded to 12,000, so I will assume it is in BC. Since I know the Clearwater and Albreda Subdivisions quite well, two that I can probably eliminate due to constraints with cliffs along the North Thompson River are Boulder and Exlou, both on the Clearwater Sub. That leaves the following sidings under 12,000 feet:
For ones along the Prince Rupert Corridor, of which three are subject to siding extensions, this could be any of the following 17 (going from east to west):
Never really went into this much research on the sidings less 12,000 feet on the Prince Rupert, but 17 is quite a few to be so short CN's huge trains. Also, this couldn't come at a better time with a new ocean carrier calling into Prince Rupert and expected many more containers for trains (also mentioned in article).
I think it is interesting how CN is ordering many new boxcars and one comment on the article was surprised by CN doing this. Many of CN's mixed freights contain tons of boxcars all over their systems. I am glad as I love boxcars as part of rolling stock. UP also uses boxcars quite extensively as well. Less so for BNSF and CP.
Here is a CN merchandise train with some healthy cuts of boxcars. It is a long one.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4PYGRu-hXxA
Newswire article with a map:
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/06/05-canadian-national-pledges-to-stay-ahead-of-traffic-growth
CN is supposed to be starting a project to extend Nestle siding into Burlington, WI, soon, they are also paying to reconfigure some streets so they can close one railroad crossing.........
Randy Vos
"Ever have one of those days where you couldn't hit the ground with your hat??" - Waylon Jennings
"May the Lord take a liking to you and blow you up, real good" - SCTV
Program includes track and intermodal projects to boost capacity and improve efficiency across the province
TORONTO, July 11, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- CN (TSX:CNR) (NYSE:CNI) said today it plans to invest approximately $315 million in Ontario in 2018 to expand and strengthen the company’s rail network across the province.
Planned expansion projects include:
Maintenance program highlights include:
ONE (1) new siding in northern Ontario! My goodness, they've solved that line's capacity problem!
Seriously though, it would take about a dozen more to make a good start on solving that line's capacity problems, which are entirely caused by running long, over-siding trains.
The local NIMBYs have been complaining about the new Milton Intermodal Terminal project for some time already, perhaps the "temporary" improvements at BIT are a result of this?
380000 ties and 90 miles of rail over the whole province is a drop in the bucket as well.
SD70Dude.. I'm guessin you work for CN.. you appear to know everything there is to know about CN right of way and ops..
On my way home today, noticed four sticks of welded rail were dropped this week in Burlington, WI, I'm presuming they are either for the expansion of Nestle siding, or replacement of the curve rail in town.........
About 2/3 of grading between Spruce Grove and Carvel has been completed, and they are starting to put panel track in at crossings, temporarily closing one at a time, mostly at night:
http://www.stonyplain.com/Town-Services/Roads-and-Infrastructure/Construction-Updates/CN-Twinning.htm
And now they are starting to talk about really planning for the future, this NewsWire article also contains a updated map:
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/07/25-cn-envisions-slowly-double-tracking-main-line-from-edmonton-to-winnipeg
Quesstion for our dispatching experts. If any RR wants to run extra long trains both ways that will not fit in sidings can a RR be dispatched if it had about 40 miles of double track followed by about 40 miles of single track and 40 miles of double track and so on ?
Realize ruling grades and topography would be complicating factors.
How easy would it be to dispatch fleets of extra long trains to meet on the double track sections? How much would trains be slowed by the tail end charlies clearing the single track ?
Also realize effective power to weight ratio would have to be nearly identical.
blue streak 1 Quesstion for our dispatching experts. If any RR wants to run extra long trains both ways that will not fit in sidings can a RR be dispatched if it had about 40 miles of double track followed by about 40 miles of single track and 40 miles of double track and so on ? Realize ruling grades and topography would be complicating factors. How easy would it be to dispatch fleets of extra long trains to meet on the double track sections? How much would trains be slowed by the tail end charlies clearing the single track ? Also realize effective power to weight ratio would have to be nearly identical.
Streak,
I have worked as a dispatcher but not on the kind of line you describe so this answer is largely theoretical.
Your description is incomplete in that you do not say anything about number and length of intermediate short sidings, so I will make the simplifying, and probably unrealistic, assumption that there are none.
Assuming more or less flat ground and a reasonable power to weight ratio, your 40 mile segments are about an hour travel time. If you want to fleet trains, that will gobble up another 8-10 miles to allow following trains to run on clear blocks, so allow about 15 minutes for each addtional train in a fleet. Assuming single trains and one east then one west your capacity is one train per hour, or 24 per day, 12 each way. Fleeting two or three trains would increase capacity at some cost in velocity, so you would not get the full multiple due to lost velocity.
A much better arrangement would be 10 miles single, ten miles double. Your travel time between stations is now nominal 15 minutes. That gives you a theoretical capacity of 4 trains per hour AND the amount of second track is identical. This would be much easier to dispatch and should generate less train delay than the other.
Either way the key issue is combined running and clearing time. Each arrangement would be best with diverging switches good for 40 MPH or better. A two mile long train at 40 MPH will take a bit less than four minutes to clear any particular point.
Mac
Mac, about 50 years ago, the Southern reduced its double track line between Washington and Atlanta to roughly 10 miles single and 10 miles double track. I think the same thing was done to the Cincinnati-Oakdale double track in the same time frame.
I amy have missed it, but I have not seen anything about restoring the double track that was taken up.
I was unaware of that, but not surprised. To think that they managed to figure it out without computers and consultants. Bless their hearts!
DeggestyMac, about 50 years ago, the Southern reduced its double track line between Washington and Atlanta to roughly 10 miles single and 10 miles double track. I think the same thing was done to the Cincinnati-Oakdale double track in the same time frame. I amy have missed it, but I have not seen anything about restoring the double track that was taken up.
That kind of thinking struck the B&O in the early 60's and was implemented between Sherwood, OH and Pine Jct., IN with CTC as the manner of operation. It remained that way until CSX announced the CR acquisition plan when construction commenced to make the line at least double track all the way with some areas of triple track all operated by CTC.
Similar plant rationalization was applied between Philadelphia and Baltimore as well as on the Old Main Line between Baltimore and Point of Rocks. In these instances sidings were used instead of double track.
Using the stimulis funds pased during the Obama administration, NCDOT has restored all tbe double track between Greensboro and Charlotte taken up by the Southern. This additional capacity is what has allowed the addition of the third and soon to be fourth Piedmonts in each direction.
Hello - can anyone provide an update on the status of all these expansion projects? Did they all get completed on time and does anyone know if they have significantly reduced bottlenecks?
matthewsaggie Using the stimulis funds pased during the Obama administration, NCDOT has restored all tbe double track between Greensboro and Charlotte taken up by the Southern. This additional capacity is what has allowed the addition of the third and soon to be fourth Piedmonts in each direction.
dwill49965 Hello - can anyone provide an update on the status of all these expansion projects? Did they all get completed on time and does anyone know if they have significantly reduced bottlenecks?
I believe the Western Canada siding and double track projects have all been completed, not sure about yard improvements. Will have a look at the bulletins next time I am at work and post a list soon. The additional track is helping, but things are still congested.
Also of note, it appears that work has begun to re-open the hump at Walker Yard in Edmonton. Going to be a big job, hope they see it through.
Thanks SD70Dude. Nice to see progress being made. And I see today that there is another newswire story about more CN double tracking construction between Wpg-Edm this year.
You could have 20 main tracks from end to end and it won't make a lick of difference when it comes to the real killer - terminal congestion.
Here's what I have been able to find so far, but from the map CN put out there should be a few more new/lengthened sidings in BC. Mileages are between the published locations in timetables and bulletins.
- Welby to Spy Hill, SK. 7.1 miles. Extends previous Welby to Latimer double track, with crossovers at Welby.
- Waldron to Cana, SK (just east of Melville). 9.1 miles. Crossovers at Cariati (was this formerly Cana East?).
- Artland to Chauvin, SK. 11.4 miles, with crossovers halfway through at the new controlled location of Nielsen.
- Wainwright to Fabyan, AB. 4.9 miles. One crossover at Wainwright West.
- Tofield to Lindbrook, AB. 7.3 miles.
- Carvel to Spruce Grove, AB. 12 miles, with crossovers at both ends. This connected two existing double track sections, making continuous double track from Edmonton to Wabamun.
- Swan Landing, AB got a second long siding and additional yard tracks. This is the junction between the mainline and the branchline to Grande Prairie.
- Vavenby, BC siding lengthened from 6400' to 15450'.
- New 12900' siding at Payne, BC. This is on the Telkwa Sub, between Endako and Smithers, BC.
Thanks for that Dude.
Trains Newswire and Sticky above have articles stating CN plans to add 105 mi. of doubletrack in 2019, 75 of it between Edmonton and Winnipeg. I hope they stick to it and don't let large shareholders keep them from doing it.
williamsb Thanks for that Dude. Trains Newswire and Sticky above have articles stating CN plans to add 105 mi. of doubletrack in 2019, 75 of it between Edmonton and Winnipeg. I hope they stick to it and don't let large shareholders keep them from doing it.
CN President and CEO JJ Ruest.
CN, in reporting financial and operating results for fourth-quarter and full-year 2018, noted that the year ended on a strong note, “driven by solid top-line growth and significantly improved operating efficiency.”
Fourth-quarter 2018 compared to fourth-quarter 2017
Full-year 2018 compared to full-year 2017
“I’m very pleased with our fourth-quarter results and the strong finish to 2018,” said CN President and CEO JJ Ruest, Railway Age’s2019 Railroader of the Year. “With approximately C$1.3 billion of revenue growth in the final three quarters of the year, CN regained its position of strength and demonstrated again its ability to grow at low incremental cost. 2019 will be a year of building on this momentum. We are focused on operational productivity and services that resonate with customers.”
2019 outlook and shareholder distribution
“With CN-specific growth opportunities, combined with a broadly positive economic backdrop, we expect high single-digit volume growth in 2019 in terms of revenue ton miles (RTMs),” said Ruest.
CN expects to deliver EPS growth in the low-double-digit range this year compared to adjusted diluted EPS of C$5.50 in 2018.
CN’s Board of Directors approved an 18% increase to CN’s 2019 quarterly cash dividend, effective for the first quarter of 2019, “demonstrating our confidence in the long-term financial health of the Company. In addition, the Company’s Board of Directors also approved a new normal course issuer bid that permits CN to purchase, for cancellation, over a 12-month period up to 22 million common shares, starting on Feb. 1, 2019, and ending no later than Jan. 31, 2020.
CAPITAL PROGRAM
CN will invest approximately a record $2.94 billion (C$3.9 billion) in its capital spending program. Of that $1.2 billion (C$1.6 billion) is targeted toward track and railway infrastructure maintenance, the same as was spent in 2018.
“In 2019, our record capital program of C$3.9 billion will be focused on investing in the renewal of a more efficient and reliable locomotive fleet, adding network capacity to accommodate our solid pipeline of growth in diverse markets and bringing technology to our Precision Scheduled Railroading,” said Ruest.
Some additional details on CN capital spending were made available to attendees at the NRC Conference in Marco Island, Fla., earlier this month.
Notable items:
CN also plans to add nearly 80 miles of double-track this year, well up from 50 miles in 2018.
CN also plans to roll out fully automated track inspection this year. Phase One involves use of eight track inspection boxcars continually inspecting 4,800 miles of key core main line track. The railroad is also adding inspection portals in multiple locations. Those portals are designed to detect damage and wear on locomotives and railcars, as well as to collect data on usage.
Capital spending on Positive Train Control (PTC) projects is expected to be $226 million (C$300 million) this year, well below the $301 million (C$400 million) of 2018.
Engineering Editor Paul Conley contributed to this story.
I think CN is a little loose with their figures. They said they added 50 miles of DT in 2018, according to Dudes figures and if Parkland to Hawthorne was done on the Superior Sub it adds up to about 61 or 62 miles in 2018.
CN also has stated that prior to 2018 there was only 100 miles of DT from Winnipeg to Edmonton. I add up about 165 miles plus another 80 on the Edson Sub, not counting the 12 or 13 miles EHH took out in 2 sections, there was also another 75 miles west of Jasper.
$3.9 Billion is a lot for a company the size of CN. I for one am glad they are doing it. It will be interesting to see what they actually do this year.
Many of the double track endpoints already had sidings, whose length is included in the distance between the new station locations but would not have been included in the construction mileage.
5 long sidings would account for that 10 or 12 mile difference.
SD70DudeMany of the double track endpoints already had sidings, whose length is included in the distance between the new station locations but would not have been included in the construction mileage. 5 long sidings would account for that 10 or 12 mile difference.
Once upon a time a four mile stretch with two tracks would have been considered 'double track'. With the size trains being operated on todays railroads - four miles is just a long siding - a nominal 20K foot siding in the world of 15K+ foot trains.
BaltACD Once upon a time a four mile stretch with two tracks would have been considered 'double track'. With the size trains being operated on todays railroads - four miles is just a long siding - a nominal 20K foot siding in the world of 15K+ foot trains.
blue streak 1 BaltACD Once upon a time a four mile stretch with two tracks would have been considered 'double track'. With the size trains being operated on todays railroads - four miles is just a long siding - a nominal 20K foot siding in the world of 15K+ foot trains. So maybe even sidings of 5 - 6 miles would not be double track? Guess it is a matter of each rr's definition and maybe even different for different subdivisions? Just thinking of the line from Manchester to JAX of CSX that is just calling their 25,000 ft sidings extra long sidings?
In CSX CADS naming conventions - If each end of Double Track have different Control Point names then it is considered Double Track. If the Control Point names are E/W or N/S the same name one of the tracks is a siding.
From a Dispatching perspective, if you can't get two or more full size trains in the clear on the track segment - in your mind it is no more than a siding, no matter what the timetable designates it.
In the day when the Philadelphia Sub and the Old Main Line were changed from double track Current of Traffic to be single track CTC it was considered that their 9000 to 10000 foot sidings would hold two trains in normal operations - that was true in 1961 when the changes were made - in today's railroading, normal 10000+ foot trains don't clear - serious delays happen when you have non-clearing trains operating in both directions.
B&O's Chicago Division CTC installation from Sherwood, OH to Gary, IN was alternating 8 miles of single track and 8 miles of double track. In reality its operation was as a single track piece of railroad. There were no crossovers within the double track segments to permit the manipulation of getting 'faster' trains around 'slower' trains. When a Local Freight was working at a location on the double track segments - that segment was then operationally single track until the Local was done and moving on again.
Does anybody know the average number of daily freight trains along the following sections?
1.Jasper - Edmonton
2.Edmonton-Saskatoon
3. Saskatoon- Winnipeg
4. Edmonton - Warman via Lloydminster
5. Warman / Saskatoon - Winnipeg via Dauphin
6. Winnipeg - east
Anyone want to start a contest for bragging rights about where CN will Double Track in 2019?
Gotrans posted a report with a map under CN's Capital Program, assuming it is accurate here are my guesses. Dude might have an advantage if he takes part.
-Swan Landing east to Solomon and the Athabasca River bridge.
-Wolf Creek east to Peers (east of Edson)
-East from Wainwright AB. (Wainwright Sub)
-Unity SK east to Tako (Wainwright Sub)
-East from Dufault (current end of 11 miles of 2 tracks) Watrous Sub by Saskatoon SK (Watrous Sub)
-Bailey to Fenwood SK (Watrous Sub)
-East from current end of 2 tracks completed in 2018 near Waldron SK to
Bangor or Atwater SK (Rivers Sub)
-West from Portage la Prairie MB Rivers Sub.
No idea about the one by Duluth.
What do you think? All about 9 or 10 miles.
If they use the same strategy they did in Douglas County, WI coming south out of Superior, they will double track between major bridges and leave the major bridges as single track.
Did Hawthorne to Parkland get done? How about Parkland to Pokegama. Are there large bridges in the way?
Hawthorne north to the Amnicon River bridge was completed as double track in 2018. The Amnicon River runs through a wide and deep “valley” where CN crosses it and the bridge is very substantial. The section of double track is a large part of the “pull” up and over the Niagara Escarpment out of the Lake Superior basin as the railroad heads southeast to Stevens Point, WI. This double track does not yet show up on Google Maps, but it is there.
Single track is in place from the Amnicon River Bridge North through Parkland, then west through Pokegama, and through Oliver and over the Oliver Bridge to the south end of Steelton Yard. There are several substantial single track bridges along the stretch from Parkland to Oliver to Steelton.
After clearing the short stretch west from the Oliver Bridge, double track commences on the south end of Steelton Yard and continues up Steelton Hill - the “pull” out of the St. Louis River valley - to just south of the I-35 bridge. There is a short stretch of single track over the I-35 bridge to Steelton Junction, which is the point where the former DM&IR and DW&P come together. CN operates those two roadbeds as widely-separated double track north of that point.
williamsb Anyone want to start a contest for bragging rights about where CN will Double Track in 2019? Gotrans posted a report with a map under CN's Capital Program, assuming it is accurate here are my guesses. Dude might have an advantage if he takes part. -Swan Landing east to Solomon and the Athabasca River bridge. -Wolf Creek east to Peers (east of Edson) -East from Wainwright AB. (Wainwright Sub) -Unity SK east to Tako (Wainwright Sub) -East from Dufault (current end of 11 miles of 2 tracks) Watrous Sub by Saskatoon SK (Watrous Sub) -Bailey to Fenwood SK (Watrous Sub) -East from current end of 2 tracks completed in 2018 near Waldron SK to Bangor or Atwater SK (Rivers Sub) -West from Portage la Prairie MB Rivers Sub. No idea about the one by Duluth. What do you think? All about 9 or 10 miles.
Within the restrictions of that map, my picks would be the smartest choices, from an operational point of view:
Galloway to Hargwen on the Edson Sub's west side. This would connect the existing double track segments from Bickerdike West to Galloway and Hargwen to Dalehurst, use up the short 6500' siding at Medicine Lodge and eliminate the 0.4% Obed Hill as a choke point. 0.4% may not sound like much, but a heavy westbound train will climb that hill at only 10-15 mph, blocking the single track segment for nearly an hour. Obed Summit is also the highest point on CN's mainline, despite being around 100 miles east of the continental divide.
Niton to Leaman on the Edson Sub's east side. This would make use of the short 6400' siding at Niton, and has the added advantage of being in the middle of the bush with only one crossing along this approximately 10 mile segment (Highway 751 at Mackay, where a log truck once drove into the side of VIA No. 2). Peers to Wolf Creek is also a good choice, but has more crossings that will limit the number of trains the RTC could stack up there.
I would also view any segment on the Edson Sub as being steps toward double tracking as much as possible, to end up with continous double track stretches from Edmonton to Gainford, Evansburg to Wolf Creek, Yates to Big Eddy (already done except for minor upgrades in the Edson Yard), Bickerdike to Hinton, and Entrance to Jasper (except for the Athabasca River bridge and Brule tunnel).
For the two segments shown between Edmonton and Saskatoon I will pick Wainwright to Heath and Biggar to Neola. They did the west side of Wainwright last year so it makes sense to do the other side this year, which would help with congestion around the crew change point of Wainwright, and the east side of Biggar is another 0.4% ruling grade choke point, along with Biggar being another crew change location for some trains.
For the two segments shown between Saskatoon and Melville I will pick Dufault to Bradwell and extend the double track on the west side of Melville (Bailey or Fenwood to Goodeve, been a while since I was in that area). Dufault to Clavet was graded decades ago but the track was put in service (just like Redsand to Blue River, BC). Extending that double track will make use of the short 6700' siding at Bradwell and get the Clavet fertilizer plant on double track, making switching it less of an issue.
East of Melville I will also go with Barry's choices of Waldron to Atwater (despite being a station Bangor does not have a siding, perhaps EHH removed it), and Portage La Prairie to Bloom. It would also be great to see a second bridge at Nattress, but I don't see that happening.
I have no idea about anything east or south of Winnipeg. Traisessive1 is from Winnipeg, and would have some better info.
Bangor and Zeneta were indeed sidings EHH removed.
The portion on the Rivers Sub near Portage La Prairie is apparently supposed to be Exira to Caye or something around there.
Based upon the map, Pinewood is the only short siding on the Fort Frances Sub that close to Fort Frances. I don't know what long sidings they would bother extending.
I agree with the other things around Melville.
Hello there,
I believe the train frequencies are as follows:
1, 2, and 3: around 40-45 daily trains. While frequencies are similar amongst those segments, tonnage is heaviest heading west from Edmonton.
4 and 5: 4-6 daily trains.
6: By Winnipeg, which route do you mean: heading east to Toronto or heading southeast to Chicago.
ADRIAN BALLAM Hello there, I believe the train frequencies are as follows: 1, 2, and 3: around 40-45 daily trains. While frequencies are similar amongst those segments, tonnage is heaviest heading west from Edmonton. 4 and 5: 4-6 daily trains. 6: By Winnipeg, which route do you mean: heading east to Toronto or heading southeast to Chicago.
4 and 5 are correct.
#6: About 70% of the traffic heads into the US via Fort Frances and down through Duluth. The rest stays in Canada heading to Toronto and point east in Canada from Winnipeg.
Hello all,
It looks like CN has released some new data on how much is being double-tracked on certain corridors:http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2019/02/01-canadian-national-details-western-canada-capacity-projects-for-2019. The articles contains an interesting map.
The Edson Subdivision is seeing an additional 18 miles added to the line. Based on the triangles, I believe the stretches will be from Bickerdike West to Hargwen which will integrate the 6540 foot siding at Medicine Lodge and will create around 33 miles of continous double-tracked (although there is still a single track segment between Bickerdike West and Bid Eddy of a measly 4.4 miles). The other section looks like it will connect Peers and Niton, which will integrate another short siding at Niton of 6400 feet. If this is the case, then only four short sidings will remain on the Edson Subdivision: Wabuman (which is close to the big 45 mile stretch of double-track unless they did connect it in 2018), Wildwood, Entwistle, and Entrance.
There is also tnother 49 miles of double-track being added between Edmonton and Winnipeg. Surprisingly again, no siding extensions appear between Winnipeg and Toronto. I am looking forward to this year's Trackside Guide to figure our where more double-track sections will be constructed and confirm what segments are now double-tracked along each corridor.
I think you mean Galloway to Hargwen, Bickerdike West (mile 140) to Galloway (mile 150) is already double track. Bickerdike West to Bickerdike East (mile 138) used to be double track until Hunter ripped it up. Just west of Big Eddy there is a large steel bridge over Sundance Creek so I don't see that being double tracked anytime soon, but would be happy to be proven wrong.
The controlled location at Wabamun (east) is both the west end of double track and the east end of the siding. The siding is on the south side of the main and the second main track is on the north side. From the layout it appears that CN originally intended to keep the siding and lay a second track through there as well. There is a small yard at Wabamun which is accessed from the siding, this was formerly used to help service a bunch of customers in the area but they have almost all disappeared and the remaining one (TransAlta's Sundance Generating Station) has their own interchange yard.
Keep your eye on this thread, it will most likely have updates on double tracking well before the Trackside Guide.
Are there plans to re-double track that section that Mr. Harrison ripped out? It would seem the easiest to construct.
I have to agree with traisessive 1 about Exira to Caye on the Rivers Sub. I think I am wrong with my choice of west from Portage is wrong but that's what I put down.
I like Dudes idea of a second bridge at Natress but can't see it happening either.
I also like Dudes idea of Galloway to Hargwen and giving a nice section of 2 tracks from Bickerdike West (or east) to Dalehurst of 33 miles.
Going by what is happening now they really need this.
It would not surprise me if the double track extension south of Superior, WI starts just east of the Bluff Creek bridge near Ambridge and ends just north of the Amnicon River bridge near Rockmont.
Double track currently starts just south of the Amnicon River bridge, and the additional double track north of there would allow for one train heading south out of Pokegama Yard to get a run for the climb up the Niagara escarpment while a northbound is able to stay in the clear north of the Amnicon River bridge while heading in for a crew change at Pokegama Yard.
Pokegama Yard is at 686 feet of elevation and Hawthorne is at 1,178 feet of elevation so it is a hefty pull.
CN announced today (March 18) where they are adding double track in Saskatchewan.
10 miles near Atwater east of Melville, might be a continuation of what was done in 2018
10 miles near Fenwood west of Melville, must be from Bailey
8 miles near Biggar, it didn't say which side
7 miles near Clavet east of Saskatoon, probably from Dufault
CN has announced 345 Million Cdn$ capital investment in BC Planned expansion projects that will improve traffic fluidity in the Port of Prince Rupert and Port of Vancouver areas include:
Construction of a new train passing siding in Port Edward;
Construction of 2.5 miles of double track west of Prince George;
and, Multi-year initiatives to increase capacity at the Port of Vancouver in collaboration with the Government of Canada and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority.
Replacement of approximately 115 miles of rail;
Installation of more than 210,000 new railroad ties;
Rebuilds of 38 road crossing surfaces; and, Other maintenance work on culverts, signal systems and additional track infrastructure.
CN’s B.C. rail network serves the West Coast gateways of Vancouver and Prince Rupert and major inland terminals in Surrey, Prince George, Kamloops, and Fort Nelson.
CN has announced 370 million Cdn$ in capital expenditures in Alberta as follows;
Construction of about 12 miles of double track between Leaman and Nilton, west of Edmonton;
Construction of about 5 miles of double track near Entrance, east of the Alberta-British Columbia border;
Construction of about 7 miles of double track near Greenshields, east of Edmonton; and,
Building new tracks at Scotford Yard northeast of Edmonton to increase yard capacity for growing local demands.
Replacement of more than 90 miles of rail; Installation of approximately 210,000 new railroad ties;
Rebuilds of 44 road crossing surfaces; and, Maintenance work on bridges, culverts, signal systems, and other track infrastructure.
This Investor Presentation from March 2019 has a lot of interesting information in it, including the 2019 Capital Program and much, much more.
https://www.cn.ca/-/media/Files/Investors/Presentations/CN-Investor-Presentation-en.pdf?la=en&hash=2DCF26530777F628B9260A728742A92E7430C2CE
CN announced capital spending of 120 million Cdn$ in Manitoba on Mar 25th, 2019 as follows:
Construction of a new train passing siding near Nourse, east of Winnipeg; and,
Construction of 6.3 miles of double track near Exira, west of Portage la Prairie.
Replacement of more than 35 miles of rail;
Installation of approximately 59,000 new railroad ties; Rebuilds of 13 road crossing surfaces; and,
Maintenance work on bridges, culverts, signal systems and other track infrastructure.
Now I wonder if this is related to the Oil contracts that CP is angling for in the same province.
CN has pretty much told us where expansion is taking place in 2019.
BC
2.5 Mi. DT west of Prince George
A new siding at Port Edward
They are spending a lot of money in BC, what else are they doing?
Alberta
12 Mi. DT Leamon to Niton
5 Mi. DT near Entrance
7 Mi. DT Greenshields to Wainwright
Saskatchewan
10 Mi. DT near Atwater (from Waldron?)
10 Mi. DT Bailey to Fenwood
8 Mi. DT near Biggar (probably to the east)
& Mi. DT near Clavet
Manitoba
6.3 Mi. DT near Exira
New siding at Nourse
So now we have to get and get some pictures of them this year.
It would be wonderful if CN would do something about the very rough single track line from Chicago south it acquired from IC. Mr. Harrison had already done his track removal by the time it became CN. Is it not sad that passenger travel on this line is slower than in the last days of steam. Of course the roadbed in general and the diamonds in particular were better maintained.
CN announced today April 8 Capital Spending in 4 states.
$120 M in Wisconsin, most notable 8 mi. of DT near Hawthorne.
$100 M in Tennessee.
$95 M in Louisiana, start rebuilding 2 mi long Lake Pontchartrain bridge
$190 M in Illinois.
All figures in $US.
Looks like there is a gap between Hawthorne WI and Solon Springs WI that might make sense in terms of ease of construction and few small bridges.
Hawthorne is at 1,178 ft of elevation and Solon Springs is at 1,122 ft of elevation.
I am not familiar at all with Superior and area. I appreciate the posts by kgbw49 and the detail he puts in it.
I bought a 2019 CTG (Canadian Trackside Guide) and the only DT listed on the Superior Sub is from Mission Creek to South Steelton. Kgbw49 said it was definitely done from Hawthorne north of the Amnicon River bridge in 2018. Are there any milepost mileages for this? How long is this stretch?
I have looked at Google maps, it is a very rugged area with a lot of bridges and rail lines and hard for me to figure out.
williamsb CN has pretty much told us where expansion is taking place in 2019. BC 2.5 Mi. DT west of Prince George A new siding at Port Edward They are spending a lot of money in BC, what else are they doing?
They rather ambiguously mentioned "capacity improvements" in and around Vancouver and the ports there.
Materials have started to arrive for the construction projects, sometimes well in advance of when they are really needed. As an example, the brand new prefabricated 45 mph turnouts for Entrance, Niton and Leaman, AB showed up riding flatcars and gondolas a couple weeks ago. A nice sight and smell, there's nothing quite like fresh creosote!
The double-tracking at Entrance is extending the 6,500 foot siding west to towards the bridge over the Athabasca River, correct, to almost Solomon?
ADRIAN BALLAM The double-tracking at Entrance is extending the 6,500 foot siding west to towards the bridge over the Athabasca River, correct, to almost Solomon?
Yes. I was told this segment will be "bridge to bridge", so the siding may be extended eastward as well, to the west end of the Prairie Creek bridge.
I love the smell of creosote in the morning! Keeps the bugs away (sort of).
(with apologies to Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore (Robert Duvall) in Apocalypse Now)
- PDN.
That's great. Thank you. I am very surprised about that double-track section as I thought that was a siding which was difficult to be extended, especially by another five miles. Upon looking on Google Earth, it didn't actually look so bad. Do you also know if the sidings at Niton and Leaman will be integrated into the 12 mile double-track section?
CN's practice is to convert existing sidings into parts of the double track section, may as well use up as much pre-built grade and track as possible. The vast majority of our sidings are already laid with heavy, welded rail, and many have already been upgraded for 25 mph instead of 15. Many of the double track sections that have been constructed over the past 10 years have connected two sidings.
As it exists right now, the siding at Entrance is about 6500' long, which makes it almost useless in today's world of long trains. Between the ends of double track at Dalehurst and Park Gate the only places for long trains to meet are Hinton and Swan Landing, both of which are regularly clogged by trains stopping to switch. Extending Entrance to 5 miles would allow two long trains to be brought over there instead of waiting farther back.
One graphic has showed a siding extention near Fort Frances, Ontario. That is said to be connecting Fort Fracnes to the first siding west of it, Devlin.
The Manitoba and Ontario releases both say nothing about this. I doubt it's going to actually happen.
I think they all are still single track, Bickerdike East to Bickerdike West, Devona to Henry House on the Edson Sub. Fitzwilliam to Grant Brook on the Albreda Sub and London to Sarnia in Ontario
williamsb I think they all are still single track, ... and London to Sarnia in Ontario
I think they all are still single track, ... and London to Sarnia in Ontario
I would guess it was about at that same time that the GTW was single tracked on the US side of the border.
You must remember there are legal issues and property issues that have to be addressed before they can just drop another track down.
While it is possible Transport Canada could over rule Parks Canada, since I imagine CN still owns sufficient right of way, it is always better to come to an amicable agreement with your major neighbour. Easy vehicle access to much of the route requires use of Parks infrastructure.
williamsb CN announced today April 8 Capital Spending in 4 states. $120 M in Wisconsin, most notable 8 mi. of DT near Hawthorne. $100 M in Tennessee. $95 M in Louisiana, start rebuilding 2 mi long Lake Pontchartrain bridge $190 M in Illinois. All figures in $US. Do you have any details of construction in Illinois?
Adams1Do you have any details of construction in Illinois?
There's not a lot of detail here, but have you seen this?
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/mow/news/CN-schedules-rail-projects-in-Illinois-Louisiana-Tennessee-and-Wisconsin--57299
It's a part of this overall coverage of projects (and other stuff):
https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=CN+Railroad&qpvt=cn+railroad&FORM=EWRE
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
If you looked at the amount of CN's subdivisions that are double-tracked between Vancouver (Surrey's Thornton Yard) and Winnipeg, including sections of double-track along with all sidings, it is currently less than 50% (737.18 miles out of 1,541.20 miles). Here is the breakdown based on what I had calculated:
Yale Sub: 90.7% (includes directional running with CP)
Ashcroft Sub: 68.4% (includes directional running with CP)
Clearwater Sub: 38.9%
Albreda Sub: 61.3% (includes portion that is Red Pass Sub since line is for westbound traffic north of Valemont)
Edson Sub: 50.8% (will increase to over 58% by end of year due to double-tracking projects)
Wainwright Sub: 30.0% (will increase to over 32% due to additional double-track)
Watrous: 33.4% (will increase to over 43% due to additional double-track)
Rivers: 46.0% (will increase to over 50% due to additional double-track)
Considering traffic is excess of 100 million tons per year between the points and growing substantially due to Prince Rupert, 47.8% of the lines being double-tracked is not very much. It's surprising that it took a while to make the Edson Sub more than 50% double-track considering that is CN's busiest mainline of them all.
CN just had an earnings call and some interesting things from the transcript.
22 Capital projects planned this year, 2 already completed, does anyone know what they are?
CN has got 63 new locos this year, 52 more by the end of June.
The 1st question asked was by Chris Wetherbee from Citigroup was about OR.
Turan Quettawalla from Scotia Bank asked about CapEx, JJ said work done in yards in Edmonton and Winnipeg last year helped alot. CN was the best in the industry in volume growth in the 1st quarter.
Seldon Clarke asked about OR and PSR. JJ said CN is not a one trick pony of OR and asked where is the floor and made quite a few comments on this. Seldon pressed on about OR and I liked JJ's answer saying "we're not going to get drawn into the PSR discussion and how low can you go in the limbo contest. We'll leave that for the others."
RailsMBSK reported today 75 conductors have been laid off in Winnipeg.
Let's hold our breath on these projects being completed. Mike Cory said they weren't going to make the mistake of abandoning the programs if traffic drops. Let's see if that holds true.
Traffic is DOWN.
They are dumping rock on the Sprague Sub right now which is great to see. There are still no survey marks for that possible expansion between Devlin and Fort Frances, so I think it may not be happening, at least this year.
36 more conductors to the retention board today in Winnipeg and I would imagine those 36 will go into layoff next week if traffic doesn't pick up.
Seeing numbers from other terminals is Western Canada shows that they're again going to lose A LOT of guys if traffic doesn't come back.
They are hard at work on the double-tracking projects in Alberta. Brush clearing and grading work has been ongoing for some time already, and materials like welded rail, ties and prefab 45 mph turnouts are arriving.
Yard work around Edmonton (Walker and Scotford) is still happening too. They ripped out all the old hump switches at Walker this winter and spring, but no one seems to know now if the master plan is to re-open the hump, or just make the old bowl tracks double-ended again (most have been stubs since the hump closed in 2011).
Lots of layoffs happening around here too, but I haven't counted the exact numbers.
Responding to the williamsb post of Wednesday, May 01, 2019 at 8:09 PM:
Thanks for sharing that information from the earnings call.
You may be interested to know that CN's OR was already down to 80% in 1996 = post-privatization. That was long before EHH came onto the scene - his reputation on that point is mostly a myth. See the first post in this thread:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/220120.aspx
Paul, it is the earnings call transcript on CN's web page. That last quote was about page 13 maybe 12.
Paul, this is copied from Seeking Alpha P.12 & 13.
Seldon Clarke
Thanks very much, and just getting back to the margins for a second with everything going on across the industry in regards to PSR. So this is like the floor for OR has been lowered at all from the high 50 level, high 50s level you guys have previously talked about. And if so, do you think CN can return to being the industry leader there?
JJ Ruest
Well, where's the floor, it all depends how much risk you want to take the business. So one can have the lower floor and then take the risk of not being able to meet demand on being able to respond the pressure when demand and harsh conditions come in. So we have a blend and we want to be a cost leader. But the cost leaders also takes things in balance from how we serve our customers and move the economy, but also be a leader that's also looking at the return on invested capital as much as EPS growth, as much as operating ratio. So now the one trick pony of operating ratio only does not necessarily give you the best easiest growth. And when we have investment that can generate a good return on investment capital, taking to cost of capital, we are inclined to do these things as opposed to sit on the sideline and shave off one more point of OR. So this is where we saw it evolving from what we were doing the last 15 years. And we're looking at cost efficiencies, organic growth, some acquisition strong focus on returning invested capital but also strong focus on operating ratio. So what you'll see -- what you're seeing from CN is a more balanced scorecard than strictly pure PSR.
So that’s still at high 50s level is the right way to think about it longer term?
We don't guide on the -- we're not going to get drawn in into the PSR discussion and how low can you go on the limbo contest. We'll leave that for others.
Thanks for finding and sharing that - very informative.
You may want to see the discussion on this thread -
- here: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/275772.aspx
SD70Dude? or anyone, Are they currently doing the 5 miles between the bridges at Entrance? Are they working on Leaman to Niton? Is that the correct spot?
Any good places to get pictures of this in these 2 spots? I plan to be through there at the end of August. Thanks for any help.
I have pictures of the Leaman to Niton section 12 miles that I took at the end of Aug. They were putting in a crossover at MacKay and a lot of work had been done.
I saw that the 5 miles between the bridges at Entrance was in progress.
I have seen pictures of Greenshields to Wainwright, might be done. Anyone know?
I have seen pictures of a new roadbed at Jarrow that was done, as far as I know this was not a section to be done.
Dufault to Clavet SK is reported done.
Atwater to Zeneta is reported done.
Exira to Deer in progress.
Biggar to Neola in progress.
Fenwood to Bailey just needs switches.
Bangor to Waldron was on the list. Any reports?
williamsb I have pictures of the Leaman to Niton section 12 miles that I took at the end of Aug. They were putting in a crossover at MacKay and a lot of work had been done. I saw that the 5 miles between the bridges at Entrance was in progress. I have seen pictures of Greenshields to Wainwright, might be done. Anyone know? I have seen pictures of a new roadbed at Jarrow that was done, as far as I know this was not a section to be done. Dufault to Clavet SK is reported done. Atwater to Zeneta is reported done. Exira to Deer in progress. Biggar to Neola in progress. Fenwood to Bailey just needs switches. Bangor to Waldron was on the list. Any reports?
Greenshields to Wainwright East was cut in on Wednesday.
Niton to Leaman has been operational for about a month. The new switch and signals at Leaman have been positioned to allow for a full set of double crossovers to be installed when that section is eventually extended farther east.
Exira to Deer has been completed. Exira no longer exists as a official station or control point. There is a set off crossovers called "Elk Crossing" several miles west of its former location, these were installed several years ago during the first round of post-Hunter double tracking.
Atwater to Zeneta is indeed done, as is Fenwood to Bailey (this is immediately west of Melville, SK) and Dufault to Clavet (east of Saskatoon).
The 5 miles west of Entrance are still in progress, construction on this section was set back by 2-3 months as the original contractor abruptly went bankrupt earlier this summer, and ceased all work. This may not be completed before winter, but they are working very hard and materials are continuing to arrive.
Thanks for that SD70Dude. Good luck on the labour negotiations.
Does anyone know about the 8 miles to be double tracked near Hawthorne WI this year?
Thanks for the update on the status of construction projects. I will be curious to see what CN's expansion plan is, if any for 2020.
I just got 2020 Canadian Trackside Guide and noticed that the section from Leaman to Niton on the Edson Sub was not listed. Also, the Biggar to Neola section is also not listed. Do you know if either of these sections have been completed by this point?
ADRIAN BALLAM Hello there, I just got 2020 Canadian Trackside Guide and noticed that the section from Leaman to Niton on the Edson Sub was not listed. Also, the Biggar to Neola section is also not listed. Do you know if either of these sections have been completed by this point?
Both have been in service for nearly a year now. Neola has been renamed Newton after a retiring superintendent.
The section at Entrance, AB is still under construction. Tough going in rough, remote terrain and all this rain has not helped.
Brush has been cleared east of both Leaman and Gainford on the east end of the Edson Sub, but no construction has started and I'm not sure if much will happen this year due to pandemic-related budget cuts.
Some grading was done last year between Kinsella and Irma on the west end of the Wainwright Sub, but this too may have been cancelled.
So those two sections, were they missed in the Trackside Guide then since they have been in operation for a year?
Adrian, I have two questions concerning the Robson and the Albreda Subs--which is the original track, and how do the grades on the two compare? On the few trips I have taken through there, the train from Vancouver used only the Albreda Sub, and the train to Vancouver used the Robson sub; coming back from Prince Rupert, we went directly from Harvey to Redpass.
Thank you.
The first 20 miles of the Robson Sub is the original GTP to Prince Rupert Tete Jaune Sub. In the 1980's CN built a 9 mile connection to the Albreda Sub near Valemount, originaly the CNoR.
The grade on the GTP was approx 1% and the CNoR about 0.7%
williamsb The first 20 miles of the Robson Sub is the original GTP to Prince Rupert Tete Jaune Sub. In the 1980's CN built a 9 mile connection to the Albreda Sub near Valemount, originaly the CNoR. The grade on the GTP was approx 1% and the CNoR about 0.7%
Both eastbound
williamsb Both eastbound
ADRIAN BALLAM So those two sections, were they missed in the Trackside Guide then since they have been in operation for a year?
I don't have a copy of the current Trackside Guide, but if they are missing then yes, it is a mistake.
Remember, the Trackside Guide is published by a volunteer group in Ottawa (Bytown Railway Society). It is only as good as the information they receive, mostly from unofficial sources as CN and CP management probably wouldn't give them the time of day, and it does contain plenty of minor errors.
Deggesty williamsb Both eastbound Thank you. That explains why EB trains stay on the Albreda Sub and WB use the Robson Sub. The passenger train from Prince Rupert goes directly from Taverna to Redpass.
Thank you. That explains why EB trains stay on the Albreda Sub and WB use the Robson Sub. The passenger train from Prince Rupert goes directly from Taverna to Redpass.
Both the now nameless Skeena (originally CN No. 9 and No. 10, the 'Rupert Rocket', currently VIA No. 5 and No. 6) and the Canadian can use either line depending on daily operational requirements. If there are no nearby freights in the opposing direction the Dispatcher may use this stretch to allow the passenger train to overtake several freights at once.
Thank you. I will be sending them an e-mail.
I had asked about the DT at Hawthorne WI, kgbw49 answered that it was double tracked in 2018 from Hawthorne north to the Amnicon River bridge. I have seen pictures of trains on this section of DT. It is still not in the CTG. My question is does anyone have the mileposts for this section? Thanks.
The double track at Entrance, Alberta was finally cut in a few weeks ago. The controlled location at the west end (mile 193 Edson Sub) is named "Athabasca River".
It is just under 22,000' long, which means that in many cases only one train will fit there.
SD70DudeThe double track at Entrance, Alberta was finally cut in a few weeks ago. The controlled location at the west end (mile 193 Edson Sub) is named "Athabasca River". It is just under 22,000' long, which means that in many cases only one train will fit there.
In today's PSR sized trains 4 or 5 miles of double track can't really be considered 'double track' but just a long siding.
When the B&O reconfigured its line from Philadelphia to Baltimore from double track to single track CTC in 1960 (or thereabouts) it was done with nominal 10K feet passing sidings about 10 miles apart the capacity study for that configuration was predicated on being able to 'double meet' trains in those 'long' sidings. In that era, a 5k foot train was the big exception. Today a 5K foot train or smaller is the exception.
This is between 2 large bridges, Prairie Creek mile 187.5 near Hinton AB and the Athabasca River bridge at 193.7 so pretty hard to make it much longer.
Except it doesn't go right from bridge to bridge. The east switch is in the same place as when Entrance was a 6400' siding, there is still almost a mile from it to the Maskuta Creek bridge. The west end is about 1000' east of the last straight stretch before the Athabasca River bridge.
Reviving this thread, construction is well underway on two additional sections of double track on the Edson Sub.
Leaman to mile 80 (not far west of Wildwood), and Gainford to Fallis. It appears the 6400' Wildwood siding will be left as it is, despite having little utility in today's world of long trains. VIA and the Cadomin rock train are about the only regular trains that fit there, the siding's usable length being further reduced by two public crossings.
I've heard that the Gainford-Fallis section is not going all the way to the current end of double track at Wabamun because CN does not own a wide enough ROW through the village of Whitewood Sands, this was also the location of a derailment that dumped a large amount of heavy fuel oil and other 'goodies' into Wabamun lake (the lake coughed up tar balls for years afterward and may still).
https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2005/r05e0059/r05e0059.html
Whitewood Sands was also the site of an interesting battle between CN and a local resident. Being rather well off this fellow had managed to acquire a choice piece of semi lakefront property, with only the track being between him and the lake. He squeezed as large a house as possible into his lot, which is shoehorned in between the track and a public road, and built an equally large deck on the lakefront side.
He was not amused by the oil spill beside his property, and proceeded to do his best to become a thorn in the railway's side. CN responded by measuring where the ROW actually ended, and it turned out that most of his deck actually sat on railway property.
CN quickly removed the offending portion with chainsaws and other power equipment.
CN is also working on double tracking from Abrahamson to Glen valley on the Yale Sub filling in a 3.6 mile piece between 2 double tracks.
A short piece of the New Westminster Sub was triple tracked earlier this year.
williamsb CN is also working on double tracking from Abrahamson to Glen valley on the Yale Sub filling in a 3.6 mile piece between 2 double tracks. A short piece of the New Westminster Sub was triple tracked earlier this year.
Any word of a replacement for the New Westminster Bridge over the Fraser River?
The section between Leaman and Chip Lake (the new station at mile 80) on the Edson Sub opened this week. The other section between Fallis and Gainford is still under construction, we'll see if they keep at it through the winter.
The Fallis-Gainford section was finally cut in a few days ago, on the evening of Saturday June 11. The controlled location at Fallis has been laid out to leave room for a full set of double crossovers, indicating that they plan/hope to extend it farther east.
Do you have mileages for this section of 2 tracks SD70 Dude?
Fallis is mile 51.8 (the switch is immediately west of the Main St crossing). Gainford is mile 60.4 (previously the west end of the siding, and just east of the large steel Magnolia bridge over Highway 16).
There is a private crossing into a lakefront gated community approximately 9,000' west of Fallis, and most trains will not fit between it and the east end of the double track. The time limits around blocking public crossings do not apply to private or farm crossings, so it will be interesting to see how popular we become with the local residents.
Thanks Dude. Not double track but CN just opened an extended sidind at Ashcroft 16,105'.
I just looked back on this discussion and noted I wrote on May 1, 2019 a quote from JJ Ruest Earnings call when asked about CN's OR that "CN was not a one trick pony about OR".
I was quite happy to hear that and I liked CN was spending a lot on capitol projects even through it raised the OR, CN was still making a lot of money.
Well a hedge fund did not like it and 3 years later JJ is gone, what do you think of that?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.