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.
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:
- 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 ratification of the Trans Pacific Partnership, which will initiate free trade between Canada and a number of other countries, including Japan, which will make the ports of Prince Rupert and Vancouver more popular for goods being imported and exported.
There is just so much growth opportunity for CN, it’s amazing.
Only when the destruction comitted by EHH has been mitigated ?
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.
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.
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,
Completing the Cana - Bangor section is one of the Winnipeg - Edmonton projects for this year.
I can confirm that Spruce Grove to Carvel is also on the list:
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”.