I haven’t seen this make the headlines in the trade press, or maybe I missed it. CSX has opened a 100 million dollar intermodal facility in Valleyfield, Quebec, just outside of Montreal. According to the Globe & Mail, the facility was opened for business earlier this month. The article went on to state that CN has opposed CSX’s yard from the get go, citing that the Railroad would siphon off traffic that until now has gone through the port of Montreal. CSX, of course, says that’s not the case, that their new facility will only improve north south trade and will have little affect on CN’s mostly east west traffic or loads that currently move through the Port.
I tend to agree with CSX and appreciate their interest in Canada. Lately all we’ve been hearing in Canada is how the big US companies have pulled out in favour of greener pastures in Mexico or in America’s own heartland. Yet here we have an American company that has made a significant investment in Canada albeit with a little bit of help from the Quebec government. All I can say is thanks CSX and Quebec for your investment and for creating a few jobs where they’re desperately needed. CSX is a true leader in this regard and swimming against the protectionist tide.
This also represents another milestone: up until now only CN, CP, G&W, Fortress, and KCS have made any really signifcant foreign investment in their rail operations in the last couple of decades. So much so that CN is the main rail carrier in MS… So CSX’s foray into Canada will balance things out a little and perhaps improve competition and service levels.
How the mergers play out, if there are to be any more, is anyone’s guess. CSX in Valleyfield strengthens north south trade, effectively linking Montreal and most of southern Quebec with the entire Eastern United States via a single rail carrier. Shippers in Quebec can now ship rail to pretty much anywhere east of the Mississippi using a single rail carrier… that’s a big development. In the past that would have required an interline exchange to most major destinations. It will be interesting to see how CSX’s presence in Quebec affects intermodal synergies throughout Eastern Canada… how will this play out in Central Canada’s manufacturing heartland, Ontario? I guess we’ll have to see. Will NS or another US carrier attempt to gain a foothold in Ontario? I’m sure NS isn’t sitting on the sidelines… they probably have some grand designs of their own. Should be interestng to watch.
How attractive is Montreal as a container port ? Does Coast Guard Canada ( [swg] ) keep it ice-free in the winter ? Is it closer/ shorter to the European ports or cross-Atlantic trade routes than other East Coast US ports ? See also:
Why not an IM terminal in or around London, Ontario = good access to/ from southwestern Ontario, not too far from Detroit ? Clearances of the CN tunnel under the St. Clair River from Port Huron to Sarnia are already good for double-stack, and the CP tunnel from Detroit to Windsor is on-track to be expanded soon, when the rest of the funding is in place.
By way of Canadian National, North of Massena NY, crossing into Canada at Fort Covington. CSX doesn’t have any of NYC’s old Canadian access.
The river crossing in Massena to Cornwall is long gone (Seaway project led to abandonment in the late 50’s), the carferry in Ogdensburg was discontinued over 40 years ago (and the NYC branches to Ogdensburg are both abandoned, now), and trackage rights from Norwood to Malone Junction on the Rutland then NYC to Beauharnois and Adirondack Junction on the Adirondack Division ended with Rutland’s abandonment (Was talk back then of the Central buying Norwood to Malone when that happened since they sent so much traffic that way, but it didn’t happen).
The section from Huntingdon on the Adirondack Division’s North end, I believe, to Adirondack Junction isn’t officially abandoned, as far as I’m aware. But CSX has never ran a train there and it would take millions for that to ever change.
I believe that Conrail referred to it as the Montreal Secondary. It was the St. Lawrence Division during NYC days.
I don’t think container ships to Montreal are behind this. Montreal is closed during the winter months. I think Sept Iles is the only major port on the St. Lawrence that handles vessels year round [Edit: Looks like Mon
Thanks for all the information in the above replies - also to “Norm48327”, who was kind enough to quickly point out an error in my original post, which led to a little more research, a much better understanding, and edits that improved that post. [bow]
Leo’s description needs a bit of correction. Many years ago when the NYC abandoned from Lake Clear Jct to Malone, they used running rights to reach the isolated northern portion from Massena. This may at first have been the Rutland, I don’t know, but for many years trains used CN’s Massena Sub from Massena to regain home rails at Huntingdon. I believe that segment was bought from CN in the Conrail era, when CN abandoned the eastern portion of the subdivision. The remainder of the original NYC/PC/CR/CSX north to Adirondack Jct near Montreal is still very much active through Valleyfield as far as Beauharnois. Beyond there it is out of service but to the best of my knowledge the line is mostly in place with a possibility of a commuter train operation to the Montreal suburb of Chateauguay occasionally proposed. (The track from Huntingdon south to Malone is also now long abandoned.) Trains going into Montreal now switch to the CN at Cecile Jct (Valleyfield) to cross the St. Lawrence River and enter CN’s Toronto-Montreal main line at Coteau.
Monreal is now indeed a year-round port, courtesy government icebreakers. Quebec City was another port that used to see a lot of use in winter, but no longer. Sept Iles’ primary role in the past was as a place to transfer bulk cargo from the lakers to ocean going vessels (and of course shipment of iron ore from the mines to the north).
Most traffic on today’s St. Lawrence Subdivision left the line at Norwood during the 1950’s, utilizing trackage rights on the Rutland Railway between Norwood and Malone Junction before rejoining the Central’s route in Malone for the short trip North into Canada to Huntingdon.
As for Canada, it looks like I mispoke and was slightly confused, with the Central’s line still active in Huntingdon as you said, rather than CN’s line which is gone East of there. But starting about Beauharnois on to Adirondack Junction, is out of service. The former NYC right of way in Chateauguay, owned by CSX but never in service for them, doesn’t even have track for an example. This is what I was referring to above.
All of NYC’s own gateways into Canada for this line are gone. Only the old Canadian National connection remains for today’s St. Lawrence Subdivision, answering the original question of how CSX gets into Canada with this line.
That appears to be the case. Thanks for the correction since I was under the mistaken impression that it remained a trackage rights agreement to this day.
Exactly. Since I am now living about 2,000 miles west to the west I was not entirely sure about the physical status of the line east of Beauharnois. I am aware the rails were not completely intact but had the impression it was only partially lifted, and not necessarily by the railroad.
What speed is the Montreal “Secondary” maintained for? Intermodal would want better than 20 mph. Does CSX have “enough” traffic to justify class 4 track?
It’s Class 3, like the Delaware & Hudson to the East seems to be [Edit: Or at least that’s the speed that CSX runs trains at on the St. Lawrence Subdivision. I suppose that it doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re not in good enough shape where Class 4 speeds could easily be reached if they desired to run faster].
This is much more than a meandering, slow speed, poorly maintained branch line. No sign of upgrades past that being contemplated at this time though. They’ve spent a lot of money repairing years of deferred maintenance and building this intermodal yard.
It’s time now to start building the traffic that hopefully someday will create the need for further upgrades to increase capacity and enhance the route further in the coming years.
What they have is adequate for the need’s of today and for the coming few years. Plus, I don’t think speed is too terribly important for this relatively short corridor. The bigger goal of eliminating the many speed restrictions that had existed is to once again reliably allow a single crew to go the length of the line.
Outlawing had gotten pretty much to be the rule, rather than the exception, until the last couple of years. Two crews doing the job that one should be able to do is a significant extra expense, not to mention the operational constraints it was placing since this single tracked route isn’t blessed with an abundance of sidings.
Mike, you bring up an interesting point. Port of Quebec never fell out of favour in comparison to Montreal; Quebec is located on the “wrong” side of the River, making access to major markets in the United States difficult. Really, the port should have been built directly across the River in Levis, QC. In fact, there was a significant port operation there back in the late 1800s to early part of the 20th century. Why Levis fell out of favour is a mystery to me… I’ve asked people and have tried to read about it, but no real answer. Levis offered a straight shot to major US markets via the Quebec Central as well as direct routes to Central Canada. Port of Quebec is small today because it doesn’t offer intermodal shipping (another mystery to me as to why they don’t) and due to the aforementioned inconvenient location. Montreal is also closer to major markets than Quebec is, offering better access to road and rail connections.
About GT’s Portland line, it’s fortunes were heavily dependent on Portland, ME’s status as an international port. Over the years other ports (for whatever reasons) surpassed Portland, and the GT’s role as an important bridge route and competitor with Port of Montreal steadily declined. Moreover, when Montreal became an all season port Portland’s raison etre pretty much went to nothing as the whole idea behind that port was its all season capability relative to Montreal. The GT line was also an important connection for Sherbrooke, QC and other communities along its line that had significant manufacturing… as manufacturing in Quebec declined so did the on line traffic, and CN eventually made the decision to pull out. Now manufacturing is making a bit of a comeback in that region and G&W’s entrepreneurial approach to transportation has given the line some vestige of hope for the future. Only time will tell.
There’s also someone (Sartigan Railway) who is trying to bring the old Quebec Central
Good point MarknLisa, Buffalo has impressive rail access. but its still a 90 mile drive form Toronto along the busy QEW. A facility on the outskirts of Toronto (like the one CN is contemplating in Milton) would give whoever owns it a significant and sustainable competitive advantage. Land in Southern Ontario isn’t getting any cheaper, and there’s less of it available for such purposes with each passing year. Trucking containers to Buffalo is prohitively expensive and would add upwards of $550.00 to each move, not to mention the additional service variability that is part and parcel of crossing trucks at one of the busiest international border points in the world.
Toronto’s location, virtually in the middle of the North shore of Lake Erie, effectively closes off the Southeastern US as a viable market for Toronto. E-W&N for all of Canada is fine. Access to the Mid-West and Western US is good. Access to the extreme Northeast of the US is OK.
Toronto is actually rather close to the west end of Lake Ontario, and the west end (Hamilton) is within the commuter train district. A southeastern CSX train that came up thru the NY/NJ area would have to jog from Selkirk to Syracuse. From there it is equidistant to either Montreal or Toronto. If the train came up thru Ohio, then Toronto would be closer.
