DOCSLIB.ORG

Ontario Railway Network (ORWN) User Guide Data Classes V.2 Land Information Ontario Guide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Ontario Railway Network (ORWN) User Guide Data Classes V.2 Land Information Ontario Guide ORWN TRACK ORWN STRUCTURE LINE ORWN STRUCTURE POINT ORWN CROSSING ORWN JUNCTION ORWN MARKER POST ORWN STATION Issued: 2013-Aug-1 Disclaimer This technical documentation has been prepared by Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Natural Resources (the “Ministry”). No warranties or representations, express or implied, statutory or otherwise shall apply or are being made by the Ministry with respect to the documentation, its accuracy or its completeness. In no event will the Ministry be liable or responsible for any lost profits, loss of revenue or earnings, claims by third parties or for any economic, indirect, special, incidental, consequential or exemplary damage resulting from any errors, inaccuracies or omissions in this documentation; and in no event will the Ministry’s liability for any such errors, inaccuracies or omissions on any particular claim, proceeding or action, exceed the actual consideration paid by the claimant involved to the Ministry for the materials to which this instructional documentation relates. Save and except for the liability expressly provided for above, the Ministry shall have no obligation, duty or liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise, including any liability or negligence. The limitations, exclusions and disclaimers expressed above shall apply irrespective of the nature of any cause of action, demand or action, including but not limited to breach of contract, negligence, strict liability, tort or any other legal theory, and shall survive any fundamental breach or breaches. Additional Information For more information about this document, please contact Land Information Ontario at (705) 755-1878 or email [email protected] This document was prepared by: James Gratton, Data Analyst, Land and Resources Cluster, Business Solutions Services, Applications Delivery, Enterprise Application Integration Section. With additional thanks to: Carla Jordan-Cooke, Bill Millar, Dennis Gertridge, Richard Abraham from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Geographic Information Branch, Mapping and Geomatic Services Section, Base Data Infrastructure Unit (BDI). Marcel Sabourin - Senior Project Officer and Guy Bergeron of Natural Resources Canada, Centre for Topographic Information, GEOBASE National Railway Network (NRWN) project whose standards from which the Ontario Railway Network (ORWN) have been adopted. Published June, 2013 © 2013, Queen's Printer for Ontario 2 Table of Contents DISCLAIMER ........................................................................................................................................2 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION .................................................................................................................2 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................4 PHYSICAL MODEL (IMPLEMENTED) ...........................................................................................7 NOTE TO ORWN DATA USERS ........................................................................................................8 ABOUT SUBDIVISIONS ..........................................................................................................................8 TRACK SEGMENTATION RULES .......................................................................................................... 10 TRACK FEATURE REFERENCES BY OTHER ORWN LAYERS ............................................................... 10 ORWN COMMON ATTRIBUTES .......................................................................................................... 11 ORWN TRACK (ORWNTRK) ........................................................................................................... 15 ORWN STRUCTURE LINE (ORWNSTLN) .................................................................................... 31 GROUPING ORWN STRUCTURE FEATURES ........................................................................................ 39 ORWN STRUCTURE POINT (ORWNSTPT) .................................................................................. 40 ORWN CROSSING (ORWNCROS) .................................................................................................. 42 GROUPING ORWN CROSSING FEATURES ........................................................................................... 43 ORWN JUNCTION (ORWNJUNC) .................................................................................................. 52 ORWN STATION (ORWNSTN) ........................................................................................................ 55 ORWN MARKER POST (ORWNMKPO) ........................................................................................ 61 APPENDIX 1: ORWN MAINTENANCE AND UPDATES ............................................................. 64 3 Introduction In 2009, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), along with other Canadian Provincial counterparts were invited to participate in a Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN) initiative to define the National Railway Network (NRWN) to be stored and maintained in GEOBASE. The project’s goal: to define a national standard for railway network spatial and attribute information. The NRWN project involved extensive consultation with information owners of railway geospatial datasets from both Private and Public sectors. At the same time, the OMNR’s Base Data Infrastructure (BDI) program re-examined the business needs for their own NRVIS/LIO railway-themed information. As crucial internal business requirements were reflected in the proposed NRWN data standards, BDI launched a project to adapt these into LIO Warehouse Database versions of the NRWN geospatial layers. The end-result of this project is seven (7) new Ontario Railway Network data classes: ORWN Track (line segment) ORWN Structure Line (line segment) ORWN Structure Point (point feature) ORWN Station (point feature) ORWN Junction (derived point feature) ORWN Crossing (point feature) ORWN Marker Post (point feature) Diagram demonstrating inter-relationship of NRWN/ORWN layer features - Courtesy J. Gratton 4 This document is intended as a guide to the scope and context of the information collected for the ORWN information class. Additional information about GEOBASE datasets can be found on the Federal Government Website. Note: The data examples in the guide are provided for context only, and may not reflect the actual information collected for the features. Any errors belong to the author. General Overview of the National Railway Network (NRWN) Notes: A unique National Identifier (NID) (1) is assigned to every Track, Track Segment, Subdivision, Crossing, Marker Post, Structure (Line + Point), Station and Junction feature. Common metadata about the feature (2) is captured for all NRWN layers (shaded gray in diagram above.) TRACK (3) is the basic starting point of the NRWN, and each TRACK feature has up to two Subdivision references (4). A TRACK is made up of 1 or more TRACK Segments (5) that share the same uniform 5 characteristics. Each Track has 1 Owner, 1 (main) Operator (6), and up to 4 Users (7). NRWN Layers Crossing, Marker Post, Structure (Line + Point) and Station reference a Track (and Subdivisions) that the feature is associated with (8). The association to these attribute values is achieved via the Track NID. Each feature also has a documented distance within a referenced Track Subdivision that it is located within with (9). A distance can be documented for both referenced Subdivisions. Railway Structures are represented as either a linear (line) (10) or point feature (11). Crossing (12) and Structure (13) features from the same layer can form an amalgamated (grouped) feature that is assigned a unique National Identifier (NID). A Station can have up to 4 companies (users) working out of the facility (14). To simplify maintenance, NRCAN has deliberately omitted Junction-to-Track associations for Junctions (15) in GEOBASE as their locations are mostly derived. The start and end distances provided with referenced railway subdivisions, together with event (crossings, marker posts, structures, stations) distances along the subdivision suggest that the NRWN/ORWN data could be adapted to a Linear Referencing System in the future. 6 Physical Model (Implemented) CAVEAT: At this time, Natural Resources Canada GEOBASE does not have plans to create a normalized geodatabase for their implemented NRWN dataset. NRWN will in the interim be maintained as denormalized (flattened attributes) layers by GEOBASE staff. As a consequence and as an exception to LIO database normalization standards, the Ontario Railway Network (ORWN) version of the NRWN model has been implemented in the LIO database in the same denormalized fashion at the request of the Information Owner’s business area (Base Data Infrastructure). NRWN field names were also retained in the ORWN model. This simple design will facilitate ORWN Data Class updates derived from NRWN data exports. If and when work proceeds to normalize the NRWN database, the ORWN version of the model will be updated. If desired, users may still build interlayer relationships for the Track and Subdivision references via the TRACK_NID. 7 Note to ORWN data users ORWN layers will be loaded into the Land Information Ontario (LIO) Warehouse with pre-populated data derived from denormalized GEOBASE NRWN
Recommended publications
  • Genesee & Wyoming Inc. 2016 Annual Report

    Genesee & Wyoming Inc. 2016 Annual Report

    Genesee & Wyoming Inc. 2016 Annual Report Genesee & Wyoming Inc.*owns or leases 122 freight railroads worldwide that are organized into 10 operating regions with approximately 7,300 employees and 3,000 customers. * The terms “Genesee & Wyoming,” “G&W,” “the company,” “we,” “our,” and “us” refer collectively to Genesee & Wyoming Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliated companies. Financial Highlights Years Ended December 31 (In thousands, except per share amounts) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Statement of Operations Data Operating revenues $874,916 $1,568,643 $1,639,012 $2,000,401 $2,001,527 Operating income 190,322 380,188 421,571 384,261 289,612 Net income 52,433 271,296 261,006 225,037 141,096 Net income attributable to Genesee & Wyoming Inc. 48,058 269,157 260,755 225,037 141,137 Diluted earnings per common share attributable to Genesee & Wyoming Inc. common stockholders: Diluted earnings per common share (EPS) $1.02 $4.79 $4.58 $3.89 $2.42 Weighted average shares - Diluted 51,316 56,679 56,972 57,848 58,256 Balance Sheet Data as of Period End Total assets $5,226,115 $5,319,821 $5,595,753 $6,703,082 $7,634,958 Total debt 1,858,135 1,624,712 1,615,449 2,281,751 2,359,453 Total equity 1,500,462 2,149,070 2,357,980 2,519,461 3,187,121 Operating Revenues Operating Income Net Income Diluted Earnings ($ In Millions) ($ In Millions) ($ In Millions) 421.61,2 Per Common Share 2 2,001.5 401.6 1 $2,000 2,000.4 $400 394.12 $275 271.3 $5.00 1 2 4.79 1 374.3 1 380.21 384.3 261.0 4.581 1,800 250 4.50 350 1,639.0 225.01 225 2 1 1,600 233.5 4.00 2 3.89 1,568.6 4.10 2 300 2 200 213.9 213.3 2 3.78 2 1,400 1 3.50 3.69 289.6 183.32 3.142 250 175 1,200 3.00 211.
  • CP's North American Rail

    CP's North American Rail

    2020_CP_NetworkMap_Large_Front_1.6_Final_LowRes.pdf 1 6/5/2020 8:24:47 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Lake CP Railway Mileage Between Cities Rail Industry Index Legend Athabasca AGR Alabama & Gulf Coast Railway ETR Essex Terminal Railway MNRR Minnesota Commercial Railway TCWR Twin Cities & Western Railroad CP Average scale y y y a AMTK Amtrak EXO EXO MRL Montana Rail Link Inc TPLC Toronto Port Lands Company t t y i i er e C on C r v APD Albany Port Railroad FEC Florida East Coast Railway NBR Northern & Bergen Railroad TPW Toledo, Peoria & Western Railway t oon y o ork éal t y t r 0 100 200 300 km r er Y a n t APM Montreal Port Authority FLR Fife Lake Railway NBSR New Brunswick Southern Railway TRR Torch River Rail CP trackage, haulage and commercial rights oit ago r k tland c ding on xico w r r r uébec innipeg Fort Nelson é APNC Appanoose County Community Railroad FMR Forty Mile Railroad NCR Nipissing Central Railway UP Union Pacic e ansas hi alga ancou egina as o dmon hunder B o o Q Det E F K M Minneapolis Mon Mont N Alba Buffalo C C P R Saint John S T T V W APR Alberta Prairie Railway Excursions GEXR Goderich-Exeter Railway NECR New England Central Railroad VAEX Vale Railway CP principal shortline connections Albany 689 2622 1092 792 2636 2702 1574 3518 1517 2965 234 147 3528 412 2150 691 2272 1373 552 3253 1792 BCR The British Columbia Railway Company GFR Grand Forks Railway NJT New Jersey Transit Rail Operations VIA Via Rail A BCRY Barrie-Collingwood Railway GJR Guelph Junction Railway NLR Northern Light Rail VTR
  • Algoma Central Railway Passenger Rail Service

    Algoma Central Railway Passenger Rail Service

    Algoma Central Railway Passenger Rail Service ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT August 13, 2014 To: Algoma Central Railway (ACR) Passenger Service Working Group c/o Sault Ste. Marie Economic Development Corporation 99 Foster Drive – Level Three Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 5X6 From: BDO Canada LLP 747 Queen Street East Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 5N7 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................. I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ 1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 Background ............................................................................................... 2 Purpose of the Report .................................................................................. 2 Revenue and Ridership ................................................................................ 2 Stakeholders ............................................................................................. 3 Socio-Economic Impact ................................................................................ 4 Economic Impact ........................................................................................... 4 Social Impact ............................................................................................... 5 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 6 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................
  • Algoma Central Railway Wilderness Tourism by Rail

    Algoma Central Railway Wilderness Tourism by Rail

    Algoma Central Railway Wilderness Rail Tourism Corridor Coalition for Algoma Passenger Trains www.captrains.ca AALLGGOOMMAA CCEENNTTRRAALL RRAAIILLWWAAYY:: WWIILLDDEERRNNEESSSS TTOOUURRIISSMM BBYY RRAAIILL October 2007 Page 1 Coalition for Algoma Passenger Trains Algoma Central Railway Wilderness Rail Tourism Corridor BUILDING BLOCKS The Algoma District has the building blocks to develop a world class wilderness tourism-by-rail corridor. ≤ The Algoma Central Railway (ACR)—a functioning rail line since 1899—with links to the Ontario Northland, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways ≤ The ACR is a north-south line linking Highways 11 and 17, the two major trans-Canada highways ≤ The ACR travels through 300 miles/475 kilometres of arguably the most beautiful wilderness landscape in Ontario—much of it still without road access ≤ The ACR journey begins in Sault Ste Marie, crosses lakes and rivers flowing south to Lake Superior (the world’s largest fresh water lake) and then crosses into the watershed of lakes and rivers flowing north to Hudson Bay ≤ The ACR revisits the iconic Canadian art history landscape where the Group of Seven painted much of their best known works—while living in boxcars and train stations on the ACR line ≤ The ACR serves some 35 towns and hamlets, including Sault Ste. Marie, Searchmont, Trout Lake, Spruce Lake, Frater, Eton, Sand Lake, Hawk Junction, Dubreuilville, Franz, Wabatong, Oba and Hearst ≤ The ACR goes through cultural communities representing the three founding peoples of Canada: First Nations, Francophone and Anglophone ≤ The ACR travels through the Chapleau Crown Game Preserve— the world’s largest game preserve—and Lake Superior Provincial Park ≤ The ACR is one of North America’s few remaining “flag stop” trains where passengers can disembark or flag down the train anywhere along the line.
  • A Year in Review

    A Year in Review

    2019 A Year In Review Your Marine Carrier of Choice Table of Contents CEO Message 1 About Algoma 3 Celebrating 120 Years 5 Financial Highlights 7 Delivering Our Strategy 9 Strategic Focus 2020 10 Segment Highlights 11 Outlook 2020 15 Sustainability 17 Vision & Values Marine Carrier of Choice TEAMWORK PASSION INTEGRITY We are stronger We are committed We are honest, we together. in heart and mind, are courageous we are driven and and we always we are proud. strive to make the right choice. OWNERSHIP SUSTAINABILITY We take We believe in our accountability for people, we care for our actions and we our planet and we are empowered to work to ensure the initiate change. prosperity of our stakeholders. 1 Algoma Central Corporation Year In Review A Message From Our CEO As fiscal 2019 drew to a close, the senior leadership team of Algoma met away from the work-a-day demands of the office with one purpose in mind – consider the Company’s existing vision statement and corporate values and update them to reflect our current goals and priorities. This meeting led to a new vision and values. While the words may be new, I am happy to say they are fully consistent with the business strategy we adopted four years ago. Marine Carrier of Choice Our new vision statement verbalizes something that Our values describe how we do the things we must has always been a goal for Algoma. It emphasizes do to be the marine carrier of choice. Our values, a fact we know well – all stakeholders have choices simply put, are: and we want Algoma to be at the top of their list.
  • T H E T H E a Mt R a K a Mt R a K Syst E M Syst

    T H E T H E a Mt R a K a Mt R a K Syst E M Syst

    TT H H E E AA M M T T R R A A K K® SS Y Y S S T T E E M M serving over 500 destinations plus 400 destinations served by VIA Rail Canada Kitwanga Prince New Hazelton Churchill Rupert Cedarvale Smithers Tidal Kwinitsa Usk Digges Terrace Telkwa Gillam NEWFOUNDLAND Fort Fraser Pukatawagan Houston VanderhoofAleza Lake Wivenhoe Burns Lake Endako Hutton ALBERTA Keewatin Railway Company Bridgar Prince Penny Thompson Pit Siding George Dome Creek Sherridon Arnot McBride Hinton Edson Wabowden BRITISH Dunster Evansburg Sipiwesk COLUMBIA Edmonton Cranberry Portage Valemount Turnbull Jasper Viking SASKATCHEWAN Dering QUÉBEC NEWFOUNDLAND Blue River The Pas Whistler Wainwright PembertonAshcroft Clearwater Unity Hudson Bay MANITOBA Courtenay Squamish Biggar Reserve Kamloops North Endeavour ONTARIO Moosonee Gaspé Parksville North Bend Saskatoon Sturgis Moose River Percé Nanaimo Boston Bar Ontario Northland Mont-Joli Vancouver Canora Roblin Chandler North Grandview Railway Coral Amqui Watrous Dauphin Rimouski Matapédia PRINCE EDWARD Victoria Bellingham Cascades ISLAND Port Angeles Nat. Park Glacier Trois- Sydney Mount Vernon Nat. Melville McCreary ArmstrongAuden Kapuskasing Fraserdale Jonquière Pistoles Olympic Nat. Park Everett Omak Park Sioux Lookout Nakina Hearst Chambord Charlottetown Seattle Portage la Prairie Redditt Smooth Rock Falls Bathurst Rogersville WASHINGTON SandpointLibby Elma Brereton Lake Caramat Cochrane Campbellton West Glacier Longlac SenneterreClova Parent Windigo Sainte- Moncton Olympia-Lacey BrowningCut Bank SavantLake Oba Matheson Rivière-du-Loup Tacoma WentacheeEphrata Shelby Rivers Hornepayne Timmins Foy Amherst Centralia Whitefish Brandon Winnipeg Minaki Red Lake Algoma Central Railway Swastika Sussex Astoria Mt. Rainier Moses Lake North Road La Tuque Québec Nat. Park Spokane Essex White River Foleyet Englehart Forsythe Hibbard Hervey Truro Kelso-Longview Colfax East Glacier Havre Stanley Rugby Saint John Halifax Bingen-White Salmon Pullman Gogama New Liskeard MAINE Vancouver Park Malta Devils Lake Voyageurs Franz Grand’Mère Charny Wishram Moscow Nat.
  • Accelerating Implementation of ECP Brake Emulator Technology DTFR53-BAA-2013-1 DTFR53-13-C-00067L- Task 01 6

    Accelerating Implementation of ECP Brake Emulator Technology DTFR53-BAA-2013-1 DTFR53-13-C-00067L- Task 01 6

    U.S. Department of Transportation Accelerating Implementation of ECP Brake Federal Railroad Emulator Technology Administration Office of Research, Development and Technology Washington, DC 20590 DOT/FRA/ORD-19/26 Final Report August 2019 NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the United States Government, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the United States Government. The United States Government assumes no liability for the content or use of the material contained in this document. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
  • Stronger Ties: a Shared Commitment to Railway Safety

    Stronger Ties: a Shared Commitment to Railway Safety

    STRONGER TIES: A S H A R E D C O M M I T M E N T TO RAILWAY SAFETY Review of the Railway Safety Act November 2007 Published by Railway Safety Act Review Secretariat Ottawa, Canada K1A 0N5 This report is available at: www.tc.gc.ca/tcss/RSA_Review-Examen_LSF Funding for this publication was provided by Transport Canada. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department. ISBN 978-0-662-05408-5 Catalogue No. T33-16/2008 © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Transport, 2007 This material may be freely reproduced for non-commercial purposes provided that the source is acknowledged. Photo Credits: Chapters 1-10: Transport Canada; Appendix B: CP Images TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................1 1.1 Rationale for the 2006 Railway Safety Act Review . .2 1.2 Scope . 2 1.3 Process ....................................................................................3 1.3.1 Stakeholder Consultations . .4 1.3.2 Research . 6 1.3.3 Development of Recommendations .......................................6 1.4 Key Challenges for the Railway Industry and the Regulator.................7 1.5 A Word of Thanks .................................................................... 10 2. STATE OF RAIL SAFETY IN CANADA ...................................11 2.1 Accidents 1989-2006 ................................................................. 12 2.2 Categories of Accidents . 13 2.2.1 Main Track Accidents...................................................... 14 2.2.2 Non-Main Track Accidents ............................................... 15 2.2.3 Crossing and Trespasser Accidents . 15 2.2.4 Transportation of Dangerous Goods Accidents and Incidents . 17 2.3 Normalizing Accidents . 18 2.4 Comparing Rail Safety in Canada and the U.S.
  • January 1, 2019 the Following Are a Summary of Changes Issued Since

    January 1, 2019 the Following Are a Summary of Changes Issued Since

    The following are a summary of changes issued since the publication of the Hazardous Materials Instructions for Rail dated January 1, 2015. PAGE ITEM REVISED CHANGES 2 Section 1 – 1/1/19 Added “Canadian” regulations 2.a 3 Table 2 1/1/19 Update List of Time Sensitive Commodities and by 20 day vs 30 day 4 Table 3 1/1/19 Update list of TIH commodities 5 Section 1 – 1/1/19 Added wording “and remove 6.b classification code” (updated wording in section) and added reference to OTMA. 5 Section 1 – 1/1/19 Modified language for “One Time 6.b (1)(b) Movement Authority (OTMA) 5 Section 1 – 1/1/19 Remove “OSS” and replace with 6.b (1)(c) “Revenue Waybilling” 6 Section 2 – 1/1/19 Add word for clarification - “paper” 1.c document 6 Section 2 – 1/1/19 Removed reference to UPS 2.b hazardous materials packet 7 Section 2 – 7/11/18 Dropped wording about ERG 3.b information printed as part of the train consist as advised in OB-7 issued July 11, 2018. Renumbered 3.c to 3.b and corrected “MSDS” to “SDS” 7 Section 2 – 1/1/19 Changed wording - removed “tank 5.d.Exception car” and added Class 9 hazardous substances that are not hazardous wastes or marine pollutants 8 Section 2 – 6 1/1/19 Moved Item “Identification Number” to Item 3 and reorder the remaining sections accordingly 9 Section 2 – 6. 1/1/19 Modified language - change New d. 3. wording from begin with Residue/Last Contained to “include the phrase”.
  • 2016 Schedule 2016

    2016 Schedule 2016

    2016 2016 Schedule TOUR OPERATES: Tuesday June 21 until Monday, October 10, 2016 Please see schedule for dates of operation Depart: 8:00 a.m. Return: 6:00 p.m. Times are shown in Eastern Time and are subject to change without notice. The Railway cannot be held responsible for delays and/or cancellations. Summer Fares CND $ IN EFFECT: June 21 to September 11, 2016 Adults (19+) Coach $84.07 Seniors (60+) Coach $75.22 Youth (6-18) Coach $39.82 Child (2-5) Coach $35.40 City Miles KM Via Under 2 Coach FREE MACKINAW CITY, MI 58 93 I-75 Fall Fares CND $ DETROIT, MI 340 544 I-75 IN EFFECT: September 12 to October 10, 2016 SAGINAW, MI 246 394 I-75 GRAND RAPIDS, MI 278 445 131, 1-75 Adults/Seniors (19+) Coach $101.77 CLEVELAND, OH 509 848 90, 23, I-75 Youth (6-18) Coach $64.03 COLUMBUS, OH 539 862 23, I-75 Child (2-5) Coach $48.67 GREEN BAY, WI 272 435 41, 2, I-75 Under 2 Coach FREE MILWAUKEE, WI 406 649 43, 41, 2, I-75 All rates are subject to 13% HST and applicable service fee CHICAGO, IL 490 784 94, 43, 41, 2, I-75 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 521 828 69, 27, I-75 TORONTO, ON 420 700 400, 69 & 17 Ticket Purchases OTTAWA, ON 480 795 17 RESERVATIONS are recommended and tickets may be SUDBURY, ON 185 296 17 purchased in advance by calling the Railway toll free s r r TM THUNDER BAY, ON 440 720 17 at 1-800-242-9287 between 9:00 a.m.
  • Film Shooting Manual for Shooting of Films in Delhi

    Film Shooting Manual for Shooting of Films in Delhi

    FILM SHOOTING MANUAL FOR SHOOTING OF FILMS IN DELHI Delhi Tourism Govt. of NCT of Delhi 1 Message The capital city, Delhi, showcases an ancient culture and a rapidly modernizing country. It boasts of 170 notified monuments, which includes three UNESCO World Heritage Sites as well as many contemporary buildings. The city is a symbol of the country’s rich past and a thriving present. The Capital is a charming mix of old and new. Facilities like the metro network, expansive flyovers, the swanky airport terminal and modern high- rise buildings make it a world-class city. Glancing through the past few years, it is noticed that Bollywood has been highly responsive of the offerings of Delhi. More than 200 films have been shot here in the past five years. Under the directives issued by Ministry of Tourism and Ministry of I & B, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi has nominated Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. as the nodal agency for facilitating shooting of films in Delhi and I have advised DTTDC to incorporate all procedures in the Manual so that Film Fraternity finds it user- friendly. I wish Delhi Tourism the best and I am confident that they will add a lot of value to the venture. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Delhi 2 Message Delhi is a city with not just rich past glory as the seat of empire and magnificent monuments, but also in the rich and diverse culture. The city is sprinkled with dazzling gems: captivating ancient monuments, fascinating museums and art galleries, architectural wonders, a vivacious performing-arts scene, fabulous eateries and bustling markets.
  • Tourist Train Analysis

    Tourist Train Analysis

    BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure E&N Railway Corridor Study: Analysis of Tourist Train Potential REPORT IBI GROUP REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 1 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 3 2. VANCOUVER ISLAND TOURIST TRAIN CONTEXT ............................................................. 3 2.1 Objectives of Tourist Train Analysis ................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Existing and Previous Vancouver Island Tourist Trains ................................................................... 5 2.3 Possible Tourist Train Concepts for Corridor .................................................................................... 7 3. ANALYSIS OF VANCOUVER ISLAND TOURISM MARKET ................................................. 9 3.1 Visitor Origins and Trip Purpose ......................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Trip Characteristics ............................................................................................................................. 10 3.3 Demographics of Visitors ................................................................................................................... 12 3.4 Visitor Expenditure Data ....................................................................................................................