Official "Maple Leaf" Thread

I wonder if this issue has anything to do, however indirectly, with STB complaint that Amtrak filed against CN:

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 1&start=45

If CN indeed owns the bridge in question, there's no freight traffic across the bridge, as some have claimed, and the sole remaining traffic over the bridge is a single daily train in each direction, Amtrak's Mapleleaf, it's pretty clear that the only commercial benefit that CN is deriving from continued ownership and maintenance of the bridge is from income derived from trackage fees on that single daily Amtrak train.

But of course, there's still the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission, which probably derives most of its income from motor vehicle tolls. If CN succeeds in divesting itself of the bridge and any associated track, there's already a cross-border entity to take control or ownership. It really just comes down to money and politics.

As I said, the track is pretty rough across the bridge to in front of NFS. If Amtrak does purchase, I suspect that may be remedied.

joshuahouse wrote:I think (but am not certain) from the way the Bridge Commission phrases things on their website that they own the road portion of the bridge and CN owns the rail portion.

"Established to finance, construct and operate the Rainbow Bridge, the Commission proved sufficiently efficient and effective to assume responsibilities for the Whirlpool Rapids (Lower) and Lewiston-Queenston Bridges. At our own expense, we build and maintain facilities for Customs and Immigration functions on both sides of the border. The NFBC is self supportive, largely through user fees (tolls) and private-sector tenant leases. We are federally chartered to conduct international commercial financial transactions and issue federal (U.S.) tax-exempt bonds."

The mention of "lower" makes me think they only have part ownership on the overall structure.

I don’t believe that is what they mean.......Locally the Whirlpool Bridge is referred to as the “Lower Bridge”.......Another bridge, the Rainbow Bridge is a mile and a half “Up” river.

Station Aficionado wrote: Well, according to the SPV Ontario atlas, the most direct TH&B route (not sure if this was used by the RDC) is severed in a couple of spots east and west of the Welland Canals.

The former TH&B route between Buffalo and Hamilton is intact and still used by CP. Some of the track in the Welland area was severed by the realignment of the Welland Canal but it has been rerouted into a tunnel under. I don’t think CP would be to receptive of a rerouted Maple Leaf as there is a bottle-neck single track tunnel in downtown Hamilton just east of the GO (former TH&B) Station. It’s even precluded GO from running additional train into this Hamilton Station.

electricron wrote:

Greg Moore wrote:

25Hz wrote:Sounds to me that amtrak may end up paying for this.

There is some advantage to Amtrak "owning" this. Personally, I think the more ROW Amtrak can own or control (to some reasonable point) the better.

Where would Amtrak find the cash to buy the abandoned corridor. Historically, Amtrak hasn't bought abandoned corridors in the past, why should they start doing so now? Let the State of New York buy the corridor is they wish, like every other State that has done so.

We’re talking about less than a mile of track in total…….From a junction with CSX on the NY side to near the VIA Station in Niagara Falls, ON. If VIA and Amtrak were to acquire the track……it would be less than a half mile each to the mid-point of the bridge. I don’t know about Amtrak, but VIA has purchased several section of track no longer required by CN.

One route which might work is CN’s Stamford Subdivision from Buffalo to Clifton. It joins the Grimsby Subdivision about 2 miles west of the Niagara Falls VIA Station. To still serve this station, a back-up move would be required. Map here:

http://www.proximityissues.ca/Maps/RAC-2004-Niagara.pdf

http://www.proximityissues.ca/Maps/RAC-2004-ON_sub.pdf

......But really, wouldn't it be cheaper for an agency to just step forward and acquire that less than a mile of track if they wanted to retain the Maple Leaf!

Everyone: Interesting information about CN's move to abandon the short stretch of track across the Whirlpool Bridge
between NFL and NFS...I noticed that CN has wanted to abandon this previously and unfortunately the thru Maple Leaf
service hangs in the balance...

I feel now that one way to save this line from abandonment would be for Amtrak and VIA
to take joint control of the track in question...It may be the only way to accomplish this...

When does Amtrak expect to move their NFL station to the bridge proximity?

What this will do is effectively leave just a single track across the International Bridge between
BUF and FEO to serve all rail traffic in the entire Niagara Frontier if CN succeeds...
The current Whirlpool Bridge track offers a back-up route in case it is necessary...

I recall taking VIA's trains from NFS-TOR in the past and I recall the evening train to NFS
turned on the wye section at the start of the Clifton Line and backed into the station to
have the equipment properly turned to return to Toronto the next morning...meaning this
move is indeed possible...but skipping NFS should not be an option...

MACTRAXX

NS VIA FAN wrote:

joshuahouse wrote:I think (but am not certain) from the way the Bridge Commission phrases things on their website that they own the road portion of the bridge and CN owns the rail portion.

"Established to finance, construct and operate the Rainbow Bridge, the Commission proved sufficiently efficient and effective to assume responsibilities for the Whirlpool Rapids (Lower) and Lewiston-Queenston Bridges. At our own expense, we build and maintain facilities for Customs and Immigration functions on both sides of the border. The NFBC is self supportive, largely through user fees (tolls) and private-sector tenant leases. We are federally chartered to conduct international commercial financial transactions and issue federal (U.S.) tax-exempt bonds."

The mention of "lower" makes me think they only have part ownership on the overall structure.

I don’t believe that is what they mean.......Locally the Whirlpool Bridge is referred to as the “Lower Bridge”.......Another bridge, the Rainbow Bridge is a mile and a half “Up” river.

Thank you for clearing that up.

The headline sums up the situation: Canadian National does not want to continue paying for the maintenance of the bridge since they have an alternate route across the International Railway Bridge at Fort Erie. I'm curious why the Fort Erie route is more advantageous than going across at Niagara. I'm having a hard time seeing either VIA or Amtrak coming up with the funds to maintain the track and bridge structure. If that is running are two trains a day, the cost of maintenance likely doesn't justify the revenue it brings in. Its a shame really since the new Amtrak Station is being built.

As for the Michigan Central Railway Bridge, that structure is suppose to be taken down starting this year. The right of way was sold to the City of Niagara Falls for a pedestrian walkway and a part of the Fallsview Casino was built on top of it.

I'm curious what kind of arrangement Canadian Pacific worked out with Canadian National. The Michigan Central bridge was the main CP gateway from Ontario into New York, now they come across at Fort Erie.

If maintaining dual routes across the river was critical and money was no option, the pie in the sky option would be to build a new rail bridge at Niagara Falls and a second vars/truck only bridge right next to it. With some reworking of street traffic, it would probably alleviate the congestion at the Rainbow Bridge and give NS, CSX, CN, and CP a second viable route.

23kexpress wrote:I'm curious why the Fort Erie route is more advantageous than going across at Niagara.

From the looks of it, Fort Erie gives CP the ability to expand capacity should they decide to; room that crossing the Niagara Gorge does not. It probably also has to do with current track conditions and the cost of upgrading and maintaining those tracks to the same standard.

Is there a weight limit on the Whirlpool Bridge? For instance, would CN be able to send 315,000 lb. cars over the bridge, is it limited to 286,000 lb. cars, or is the weight limit even lower?

Aside from the weight issues, CN would probably send more cars this way if it had the choice of interchanging with either CSX or NS on its own terms. Surprised it didn't make an effort to purchase the Niagara-Buffalo track from CSX, rather than choosing the roundabout Stamford Sub.

electricron wrote: Historically, Amtrak hasn't bought abandoned corridors in the past, why should they start doing so now? Let the State of New York buy the corridor is they wish, like every other State that has done so.

I can say your 50% right with your opinion on this one, however historically If at the creation of Amtrak legislation was drafted to Acquire corridors from abandoned railroads or ones that don't serve freight purpose anymore for Amtraks own private use we may not be in this boondoggle were currently in relying on freight operators ROW.

I agree Goodnightwayne may be on to something, this may be indirectly a way for CN to fire back at Amtrak for there complaint against them, and a way to deter VIA Rail from ever trying the same thing. However in my defense, I'm a little paranoid as I can "spot a conspiracy in a girl scout cookie stand."

I have to admit I see the filing for abandonment going through and Amtrak and VIA rail picking up the maintenance cost possibly a 60/40 split. the larger bulk of funding weighing on Amtrak as there already planning to build the new station at NF and its Amtrak equipment thats currently used for the maple leaf, there for Amtrak has more to loose if the rail portion of said bridge is abandoned and closed.

We should be looking for ways to share the cost of the maintenance from now simply because the abandonment will most possibly happen. If no one comes to an agreement on cost distribution over the track rights and cost of the bridge other options should be pushed to the front of the line as we wouldn't want this route to go the way of "the Dodo bird" similarly "The International".

Perhaps the ontario provincial government, new York state, federal department of transportation, national park service/dept of interior or other body could take over ownership & mantinence? Maybe a combination of all of the above?

In my being processed for border crossing at NFS, I can say that station is quite adequate even if 2 trains per direction (6 total) were going through per day. It's a clean station with the busses not too far away & convenient parking.

It bears repeating that metrolinx is looking to extend GO trains to st Catherines, with through service at Hamilton James station vs TH&B along the escarpment. It'd be foolish to deny passengers connecting service, especially if they were going to Hamilton and not Burlington or Toronto.

The route along the escarpment has heavy freight use. The tunnel in Hamilton wouldn't really be an issue, it only sees 7 trains a day not including non rev moves. Metrolinx is also considering electrifying to st catherines (as well as most of the GO system.

In any case I'm curious to see what happens & how this might effect my travel plans.

Why would the Park Service have any interest in owning part of a bridge in an area that they don't do anything else?

Given 1) the lack of a good alternative route (even if the ML went from Depew and looped around the city to cross the bridge to Ft. Erie, it would bypass the current stops at Exchange St, Niagara Falls NY, Niagara Falls ON, St. Catherines and Grimsby), and 2) the very short length of track at issue, it's a pretty good bet that some combination of NYS, Ontario, VIA and Amtrak (maybe through the mechanism of the NFBC) will either buy the track (probably get it for close to scrap value) or pay CN to maintain it. Sen. Schumer, your phone is ringing!