Canadian Railroads > Canadian "mile" markers

I have a really stupid question that came to me a couple weeks ago on my trek through Canada on the way to Alaska.

I didn't have much time to railfan since I was trying to average around 800 miles per day but as I emerged from Fraser Canyon and into Thompson River Canyon, an opportunity to get ahead of a CP coal empty and catch him near a spot where the highway passes over the rails presented itself. I figured a delay of 10 minutes or so was acceptable so I got in position for the shot.

As I stood there waiting I made a note that the curve was at "mile marker" 78, although I'm assuming this is really kilometers. Not knowing much at all about Canadian ops though, I couldn't help but wonder what railroaders in Canada actually call these markers. In the US they are officially "mileposts" but sometimes also referred to as "mile boards" or "mile markers". What the heck do railroaders in Canada call them if they are in kilometers, "kilometer boards"?

Being a railroader myself, I guess I should know this but I really don't, and I have precious little as far as information on Candian rail operations. It's been bugging me ever since I took this shot.

Anyway, here is the shot of CP 8929 and SD30C-ECO number 5005 dragging a long string of empty coal hoppers up the canyon. I had never seen a SD30-C before and found it to be interesting with its flared radiator section.

Thanks for the information, and for not laughing too hard at my ignorance. ;-)

---

They are in miles.

Mike Root
Madras, OR

Canadian railways stayed with miles when the country switched to the metric system.

Highway markers are in km ... railway markers are in miles.

 

Will MacKenzie
Dundas, ON

Canadian railways still use miles, tons, footage, gallons, pounds and horsepower. The metric system never was applied to railway operations in Canada. I was raised in the early stages of Metric but still use in my mind the Imperial method. The Metric measurement in Canada was just a political thing and perhaps a failed one.  Doug

Hi Mike,

FWIW, I think your shot was near Thompson.  I do not know the mileposts but I have railfanned the Canyon as a favourite spot.

Enjoy your summer up there and give us some posts. 

Rick

Hi all, thanks for the info. I assumed they were in km when I started seeing some really high numbers on the boards farther north. There must be some really long divisions there. Thanks again for all the info.

CN created some mega-subdivisions in the 1960's by combining two steam era 130 mile subdivisions into one. The CN Edson Sub. between Jasper and Edmonton AB. is an example.
However, until the mid 1990's, the crews still changed at the traditional turn around points on the old subdivsions with some notable exceptions. (running through Redditt ON. between Sioux Lookout ON and Winnipeg MAN.).

CP mileage signs and station signs in company instructions

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/15 14:31 by eminence_grise.

---

If you saw a railroad track chart, you would see that everything along the line is related to mileposts. If the mileposts are relocated, as the UP did on the former SP Coast Line, the track charts need to be redrawn to reflect the renumbering.

The SCAX (Metrolink) saw no benefit in continuing the UP milepost renumbering, so there is an equation at Las Posas: UP MP 423.1 = SCAX MP 426.4.

OCV

Hello,

Here are a couple of mileage markers on CP at Kamloops.
RHS towards the top. 
128.5 is the end of the Shuswap Subdivision: from Revelstoke BC.
0...is the start of the Thompson Sub, to North Bend.
The train is CP8735 West.

Take care,

611

---

The one exception is that VIA timetables show distance between stations in kilometers. There is no operating function for that, however.

I happen to prefer the metric system, but there's a lot of resistance to that sort of change, even moreso in the USA than in Canada. Seems like the only common public acceptance of metric in the USA involves 2-liter bottles of soda pop (and perhaps cocaine by the gram).

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi all, thanks for the info. I assumed they were
> in km when I started seeing some really high
> numbers on the boards farther north. There must be
> some really long divisions there. Thanks again for
> all the info.

If by "up north" you mean what used to be the BC Rail mainline, the reason for the high numbers is that BC Rail did not re-set the mileage to zero at each division point. The mileage is continuous from North Vancouver, so that by the time you reach the extreme north end of the line at Fort Nelson, the mileage is 978.8 (there are six subdivisions from end to end).  Another quirk of the BC Rail days is that it also used half-mileposts, which a decimal point and a 5 added to the number.

Actually, I believe there is one rediculous exception.The O Train in Ottawa is listed in Kilometres, not Miles. Not sure why they decided to change that, but they did. The rest of the country operates in Miles, a lot easier to work with in the case of railroads.

Ken

 

rschonfelder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Mike,
>
> FWIW, I think your shot was near Thompson.  I do
> not know the mileposts but I have railfanned the
> Canyon as a favourite spot.
>
> Enjoy your summer up there and give us some
> posts. 

It's farther east than Thompson. The train has already passed Drynoch, the next TT station to the east.  From there, the next station, where there is actually a village, is Spences Bridge.

railsmith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If by "up north" you mean what used to be the BC
> Rail mainline, the reason for the high numbers is
> that BC Rail did not re-set the mileage to zero at
> each division point. The mileage is continuous
> from North Vancouver, so that by the time you
> reach the extreme north end of the line at Fort
> Nelson, the mileage is 978.8 (there are six
> subdivisions from end to end).  Another quirk of
> the BC Rail days is that it also used
> half-mileposts, which a decimal point and a 5
> added to the number.

Yes, that's the "up north" I'm referring to. Makes sense now. I had no idea. Thanks for the info.

Hi Trainjunkie  In your post you mentioned that you saw high numbers on some of the mileboards. Since you where headed to Alaska, you were probably following the old B.C.R. line in places. The mileages on this line start in North Vancouver and go up all the way on the line instead of individual subs. So you would see mileboards in the high 400's North of Prince George. Hope this helps Cheers

 BC Rail the half mile boards were only used on the Squamish sub and portions of the Lillooet sub such as Kelly Lake hill. The point five mileage was used for various reasons, track patrols, better marking of slow orders, and "closing up" of trains and work equipment etc.  Doug

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> railsmith Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If by "up north" you mean what used to be the
> BC
> > Rail mainline, the reason for the high numbers
> is
> > that BC Rail did not re-set the mileage to zero
> at
> > each division point. The mileage is continuous
> > from North Vancouver, so that by the time you
> > reach the extreme north end of the line at Fort
> > Nelson, the mileage is 978.8 (there are six
> > subdivisions from end to end).  Another quirk
> of
> > the BC Rail days is that it also used
> > half-mileposts, which a decimal point and a 5
> > added to the number.
>
> Yes, that's the "up north" I'm referring to. Makes
> sense now. I had no idea. Thanks for the info.

Boy, measurements in Canada sure are confusing! I want the USA to go metric, but if we do, I'm afraid this chaos awaits!

Tor in Eugene

BC Rail branch Mile Posts on the Talka/Stuart, Tumbler and Dawson Creek subs begin where the junction switch is.  MP 0 

Mike Root
Madras, OR

Torisgod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Boy, measurements in Canada sure are confusing! I
> want the USA to go metric, but if we do, I'm
> afraid this chaos awaits!

I hated the metric system when it was forced upon us by the worst prime minister in Canadian history. I still hate most of it ... but I have gotten used to the kilometre measurement for distance. As a matter of fact, it is helpful for figuring out how long it will take to get somewhere. If I know it is 100 km ... I automatically know it will be one hour.  250 km is 2.5 hours etc. But that is the ONLY aspect that I can handle ... I still think in fahrenheit, pounds and ounces, gallons etc.

 

Will MacKenzie
Dundas, ON

thehighwayman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hated the metric system when it was forced upon
> us by the worst prime minister in Canadian
> history. I still hate most of it ...

Well he certainly has competition for that honour now.....but I digress.

I learned the old system all through school but when I graduated metric was just being introduced and entering the survey and engineering field......I had to learn metric quickly. But would I go back to the old system? No way! Metric is just so much easier.

Since Metric was introduced in the late ‘70s and ‘80s, there’s a whole generation plus out there and Metric is the system they know. Us old dinosaurs are slowly dying off but I’m certainly glad I accepted it as it makes my life easier every day.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/15 15:47 by ghCBNS.