Prior to my retirement; I worked for a chemical company that supplied a process chemical to the Espanola mill. On occasion, we had to shift from rail to truck deliveries because of derailments, strikes, construction work inside the mill - just to name a few.
Finding enough trucks to keep the mill at a full production rate was a Herculean effort and not something that was sustainable for an indefinite period of time. And we only supplied one process chemical. Multiply that times all the various process chemicals consumed by a pulp mill and keeping Espanola operating with no rail service is pretty much an impossibility.
But, but, I thought electric, robot trucks were the answer that we’re going to make trains obsolete? Or is that only in areas where someone else has provided the substantial financing for the infrastructure?
Is iron ore, limestone, and coal from other mining areas hauled into Algoma Steel, or does it all arrive on ship. Even if there is no ore going in, there is steel going out. Algoma is reportedly the second largest steel mill in Canada. Why is the Soo not a healthy rail center?
All raw materials come by ship. Almost all finished product goes by truck. It’s strange to be on I-75 in the forests of northern Michigan and seeing Canadian 7-axle trailers going south with steel (and lumber). There used to be a lake freighter named the Yankcanuck that used to transport a lot of the finished coils.
Steel goes out by rail via CN (south through Michigan, and north* up the former ACR to Franz and Oba where the transcontinental lines of CP and CN respectively are crossed) and Huron Central.
*Although I’ve heard they’ve not been operating part of the former ACR line north of Sault Ste. Marie this summer, so any of that traffic must be rerouting south right now.
There are no OTHER major industrial customers within 100 miles. A couple of small sawmill/forestry mills in the Sault and that’s it. There used to be a large paper mill but it closed in 2007 and has been demolished. The line north of the Sault no longer has any customers whatseover beyond pulpwood spurs. Traffic comes primarily from Algoma Steel, ore concentrates from Michigan going to Sudbury and Rouyn-Noranda via CN and ONR, and some other bridge traffic coming off the ONR at Hearst. Although if operation north of the Sault has been suspended, that traffic is disrupted and must be going the long way around.
For those who might not know Michigan rail, that traffic south from the Soo must go thru the Upper Peninsular (on the former Soo Line) and then thru Wisconsin. I remember in the 1980s when the Mackinac car ferry was operating, Algoma Steel pipe was going thru Lower Michigan by a more direct route.
First, you have the Gaspé rail line that is receiving $45M to be rebuilt. That line has fewer prospects for growth and not many industries in the region currently use it. There aren’t as many heavy industries that could make use of it, yet funding is easily forthcoming. Lac Megantic gets a bypass where the feds are spending more than $50M. The price tag for the federal government would be half that of the previously mentioned projects than for Huron Central and it would have more benefits. Both of these projects are important and should be carried out, but in comparison to Huron Central, they should be lower priorities.
Communities, industries and livelihoods in northern Ontario are at stake here and no funding. The railway is even modestly profitable, very much unlike the Gaspé railway, but no funding. Then you have projects in Quebec that are expensive and should be lower priority, but they get funding, no issue.
I find it unbelievable that people in Quebec sometimes still complain about Canada, that they aren’t treated fairly, or whatever else they argue. Quebec always gets everything it wants and so much more, and almost always at the expense of the rest of the country. Sometimes I wonder if Canada would be better off without them.
Someone else mentioned the 100 cars per mile per year rule of thumb used as an indicator of a property’s ability to generate sufficient funds to maintain its fixed plant. That rule is of long standing and seems accurate.
I know it was accurate, excluding rail relay, when I was Chief Engineer for a short line. We earned a bit over $300 for every load we originated or terminated. I figured $100 per car which gave a MorW budget of $10,000 per mile. That 30% MofW ratio is about double the class I average due to higher traffic density on class I routes.
Another key concept is normalized maintenance, that is the level of maintenance required to offset the ravages of time and traffic holding the quality of track constant in terms of speed and axle weight limits. This is dominated by average tie life unless a line has light rail or an unusual collection of bridges, which I will not discuss because rail and bridge projects on a short line are expensive and very lumpy.
What is the average life of a tie in the conditions they see on this property? Wet or dry? high speed/slow speed, crooked as a snake or lots of tangents? All affect tie life but the rule of thumb most places is 30-35 years in low traffic density service. We were in a dry climate, so I figured 35 years. We had three, three man section gangs for spot work and a 20-25 man extra gang in the summer for heavier work like rebuilding switches and tie projects.
Our projects were about 500 ties per mile on a 7 year cycle. It would take five such projects to change out every tie. We were in catch up mode. We added a bit of ballast and surfaced the track immediately after changing ties. Surface would generally hold for the 7 years.
Would it then make more financial sense to to pull up the line, and shift those loads to trucks? The taxpayer is going to be on the hook regardless, the question is, should that burden be taken by the highway or by the taxpayer to fund the line. The main problem was that the line was in historically poor condition and needs to be brought up to standard, it just doesn’t bring enough profit to do that. The $40M question is if the money is worth it to help industries and to preserve growth prospects. Not sure of the right answer. It might not be worth it. In the near future however, it is highly likely that SSM will lose all rail access. It is just that case that when business slumps, even temporarily, the railway is removed and lost forever but the road stays open.
That is a reasonable question that would have to be answered by the Provincial govt on whom the cost of aditional roadway maintenance will fall. The public will suffer from more car-truck wrecks and fatalities at a reate that is easily calculable. Industrial development prospects that might otherwise exist will be forclosed.
Washington State got smart about the highway damage issue many years ago which allowed WSDOT to put money into railroad infrastructure in Eastern Washington to avoid larger highway expenditure. Of course the problem was created by the US Govt building dams to give the barge operators a free ride to Lewiston ID with the express intent of diverting grain from the railroads to the river.
The question is political will. Wikipedia says there have been govt funded rehab projects in the past, but like Yog Berra is said to have said 'Predictions are hard, especially about the future.
Mac
PNWRMNM
Back to Huron. The line is 173 miles. Traffic of 12,000 carloads is 69 cars per mile per year meaning that the property is not likely to be generating enough cash to fund adequate maintenance. Knowing nothing more than that, I conclude that the line is not self supporting in 12,000 carloads per year.
Would it then make more financial sense to to pull up the line, and shift those loads to trucks? The taxpayer is going to be on the hook regardless, the question is, should that burden be taken by the highway or by the taxpayer to fund the line. The main problem was that the line was in historically poor condition and needs to be brought up to standard, it just doesn’t bring enough profit to do that. The $40M question is if the money is worth it to help industries and to preserve growth prospects. Not sure of the right answer
Using the Domtar mill as the example since I’m familiar with it; the majority of their process chemicals arrive by rail. If Domtar had the ability to receive these chemicals 100% by truck, you’d still have the issue whether the suppliers of those chemicals are set up to load the number of trucks necessary to keep the mill humming along.
In the case of my former employer, supplying Espanola 100% by truck would be impossible without a significant capital outlay at the Quebec production sites. I know our competitors’ production sites were also heavily rail oriented when it came to outbound shipments. And, as I noted a few days ago in this thread, finding enough trucks to maintain supply to the mill was damn near impossible even for fairly short periods of time.
Without rail service, I don’t see the Domtar mill at Espanola remaining in operation.
The unfortunate part is that at this point, the line is very unlikely to be saved. There are a few reasons for this.
The first reason is that there will probably be a federal election this fall. This, to me, is the biggest reason. The federal election last fall got in the way of federal funding. It is possible that this federal election will bring a change in government. This all means that federal support is unlikely. If there is no election, than federal support is possible. Without federal support the line is doomed.
The next is political will. The MPP and MP for Sault Ste. Marie both recognize and understand the importance of the line and getting a deal done, but most voters don’t. Most voters see this as just another American company looking for public money. They don’t realize the impact the closure will have on the region. I have even seen people say that trucks will be better for the economy and region as they will provide more employment and be cleaner than trains. Bonkers, I know, but most people in the region would rather see the li
