NatIonal Library Bibliothèque nationale 1+1 ,,a, du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington OttawaON K1A ON4 Ottawa ON KIA ON4 Canada Canada
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, disûibute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microfonn, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/nIm. de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fkom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGUES ...... v * . ABSTRACT ...... vn 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
3 . HISTORY ...... 4 2.1 The Advent of Passenger Service in Canada ...... 4 2.2 Inaugural Railways in Canada ...... 6 2.3 Early Railways in Canada East ...... 8 2.4 Railways and Stations in the Maritimes ...... 16 2 -5 Transcontinental Railway Building ...... -22 2.6 Railtvays in Modern Times ...... 29
3 . CURRENT STATE OF HEFUTAGE RAILWAY STATIONS l[N CANADA AND THEIR HISTORICAL ATTRIB UTES ...... -32 3.1 Recent Attitudes to Station Preservation in Canada ...... 32 3.2 Stations Remaining in Canada ...... 34 3.3 The Historical Attributes of Hentage Railway Stations ...... -36 3 2.1 Historical Associations ...... 37 3 -3-2 Architectural and Technologicai Evaluation ...... -37 3 -3-3 Environmental Associations ...... -39 3 -3-4 Economic Evaluation ...... 40
4 . CURRENT PRACTICE AND AVAILA%LE FUNDING FOR RAILWAY STATION CONSERVATION ...... -42 4.1 Modem Approach to Station Conservation in Industriaiized Nations ...... -42 4.1.1 Arnerican Standards ...... -42 4.1 -2 British Practice ...... -44 4.1 -3 Canadian Practice ...... 46 4.2 Available Funds for Station Rehabilitation ...... 50 4.2.1 Federal Assistance ...... 50 4.2.2 Provincial Assistance ...... 51 4.2.3 Private Assistance ...... -53 TAE3LE OF CONTENTS Page 5. ECOMMENDATIONS ...... 54 5.1 Railway Operations ...... 54 5.2 Regional and National Policies ...... 55 5.3 International Policies ...... -56 5.4 Recommended Procedures for Future Railway Hentage Preservation ... -58 5.5 Recommended Station Preservation Strategies Based on Use ...... -59
6 . APPENDICES ...... -61 7. NOTES ...... 76 7 . BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... -79 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1: Champlain and St . Lawrence Railroad. 18 36 . (Nick and Helma Mika, 1972) ...... 5
Figure 2: Early train temiinal on Champlain and St Lawrence Railroad (CN Archives) ...... 6
Figure 3: Eady Great Western Railroad construction standards (Ontario Archives) ...... 9
Figure 4: Great Western Railroad expansion in southem Ontario (Nick and Helma Mika. 1972) ...... 9
Figure 5 : Early Grand Trunk station. Cornwall. Ontario (Ontario Archives) ...... 10
Figure 6: Grand Tnink station. Brampton. Ontario (CN Archives) ...... 11
Figure 7: Ottawa's first train station (National Archives of Canada) ...... 12
Figure 8: Ottawa station. 1855 (National Archives of Canada) ...... 13
Figure 9: Grand Tdlines. 1856 (Nick and Helma Mika. 1972) ...... 14
Figure 10: Moore Park station near Toronto. built in 1888 (Metro Toronto Reference Library) ...... 15
Figure 11 : Toronto's kstunion station (Metro Toronto Reference Library) ...... 15
Figure 12: European and North Amencan Railway terminal. Saint John (Provincial Archives of New Brunswick) ...... 16
Figure 13 : Rothsay. New Brunswick station (Peter M . Latta, 1998) ...... 17 Figure 14: McAdam. New Brunswick station (Ross Harrisson) ...... 17
Figure 15: Sandford Flemming style station in Maritimes (Commander L.B. Jenson and Nimbus Publishing Ltd.) ...... --.-..-.*.18
Figure 16: RaiIways in the Maritimes in 1867 (Shirley E . Woods. 1992) ...... 18
Figure 17: Intercolonid Railway route through the Maritimes (Nick and Helrna Mika, 1972) ...... 19
Figure 18: Former Intercolonial Railway station in Halifax (Public Archives of Nova Scotia) ...... 20
Figure 19: Orangedale. Nova Scotia station (Orangedale Station Association) ...... 21
Figure 20: Canadian Pacific station in Liverpool. Nova Scotia (Hank Snow Country Music Center) ...... 21
Figure 3 1 : Montague. Prince Edward Island station @rince Edward Island Public Archives) ...... 22
Figure 22: Standard Canadian Pacific station in the prairies (Glenbow Museum Archives) ...... 24
Figure 23 : Canadian Pacific station in Vancouver (CP Corporate Archives) ...... 25
Figure 24: Standard Canadian Northem station for the prairies (Public Archives of Canada) ...... 27
Figure 25: Canadian Northem station in Edmonton. Afberta (Provincial Archives of Alberta) ...... 27
Figure 26: CN Rai1 station in Jasper. Alberta (J . Edward Martin. 1980) ...... 28
Figure 27: Former Canadian Pacific station in West Toronto (Metro Toronto Reference Library) ...... 31 Railroad stations are a part of the architectural heritage of this country which are often taken for granted and left to deteriorate in communities that at one thedepended on the station as their primary means of transportation and livelihood. They are a symbol of a technological legacy which came to form this continent to a great extent, and allowed its vast expanses to be conquered and settled by this country's occupants. The development of the locomotive essentially transformed the country fiom an agricultural to an industrial nation, and its ability to traverse large expanses of land and facilitate the transportation of goods and people allowed for the development of the industrial revolution on this continent. The remaining histonc railroad stations in this country are the architectural product of this era of growth and expansion.
With changes in transportation and passenger trends, the reliance on rail travel has declined considerably within the past several decades and countless numbers of stations have been demolished across the counh-y. Many of the remaining stations continue to be threatened with removal at any tirne, and are fkequently unoccupied and in a state desperate disrepair. Station owners usually prefer to build small new shelters when required rather than maintain the older ones for economic reasons and the existing stations are often given only basic maintenance while stmcturally they deteriorate, or they are abandoned altogether. Althougli new regdations adopted in past decade provide a certain amount of protection to a select few stations, most are immune to protection programs and subject to the will of the railway companies.
This project addresses the conservation of the remaining heritage railroad stations in the country and provides recommendations for improvements to the conservation standards for these stations. As it is difficult to make any decisions about the management of cultural assets prior to understanding their scope and context, a histoncal background is provided on the evolution of railways and stations in this country, as well as the present state of the remaining stations in the country and attitudes towards their conservation. A methodology is descnbed to determine the histoncal attributes of stations in the country based on physical, historical and environmental attributes, as well as curent standards for station conservation efforts in this country and elsewhere for comparative value. Finally, a summary of available funding sources for station rehabilitation projects is reviewed, and a set of recommendations for improvements to standard conservation principles is proposed.
vii Introduction
Railways evolved in Canada fiom modest beguinings and became over the next century and a half a symbol of a technological legacy which came to form this country to a great extent, and allowed its vast expanses to be conquered and settled by this country's occupants. Prominent Arnerican railroad historian Carroll Meeks has said that '-the railway is the most unique engineering feat of the nineteenth century and the railway station is the architectural product of that century". This is equaily applicable to this nation. The railroad is inseparable fiom the identity of Canada, and it has played an integral role in the formation and iiistory of the nation. As the primary means of transportation within the nation for the better part of a century, the railway industry was a great force whose impact was felt on al1 societd levels including political, econornic, and social. nie development of a transcontinental railroad was a key provision included as part of the Codederation agreement of 1867, and thus the formation of this country as a whole, and has physically af3ected this country's landscape by determining the location of towns and cities on the map, creating boundaries and borders, and conquering the varied and challenging terrain of the country. The story of the railroad in Canada is a significant piece in this country's colomil hentage, and its railway stations are an integral part of its overall cultural heritage.
Rail travel was the primary means of transportation for Canadians fiom approximately 1870 to 1950, and the scores of passenger stations constructed in every province and temtory became landmarks in the daily lives of many Canadians. West of Ontario, the newly inaugurated and federally O wned and regdated Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) began forging lines through the unsettled temtories of the western provinces. Beginning in the 2 88O's, the CPR started laying tracks in areas of the country which had previously been unoccupied, and determined the location of countless towns and villages in the west simply with the placement of their railroad stations. At the will of the great Iron Horse, the west became accessible to settlement and the fertile western farm lands were considered a desirable comrnodity to immigrants. An estimated 3 million newly arrived Canadians were provided with their first glimpse of their new homes from the platforms of these landmark railway stations. Ofien in these parts of the country, the railroad station was the oldest structure in the community, and they became the setting for al1 manner of community activities, fiom church ceremonies, to weddings, as well as classrooms. Ridership on railways grew with the realized convenience and accessibility of this reliable bransportation system, and the scale of its utilization became unprecedented during the war years. At these times, hundreds of thousands of service-men and women, and billions of tons of supplies were transported through the stations and over Canadian rails, destined for distant and unfamiliar lands. Passenger travel grew fiom 7 million passengers in 1938, the year before the war, to 17 million in 1943 on CPR alone, and reached its dltirne combined high at 55 and a half million passengers in 1945 at the termination of the Second World War'. Rail travel fell off somewhat after the Second World Wu, but continued to remain seong as a transportation system through the 1950's. Gradually however, ridership declined for various reasons and the legacy of passenger rail travel in this country, dong with its familiar stations, became measurably threatened for the first tirne.
The decline of the passenger railway systern in Canada can be amibuted to a nurnber of reasons, not the lest of which was the desire of the railway companies themselves to rid themselves of the burden and expense of passenger service, dong with the technological advancernents and the development of newer and faster transportation methods. The redundancy of some of the nation's first railway stations became obvious early on with the switch from wood to coal fuel beginning in the 1880's. This change meant that trains could now travel Merwithout having to stop to refûel, a situation that would obviate the need for stations at relatively short intervals, as they were being built. This began a trend which would continue and escalate with Mertechnological advancements to railway technology, including dieselization, centralized tr*c control, and automated signaling. The advent of other faster and possibly more convenient transportation methods, such as automobiles and aircraft contributed to the switch from a reliance on railway travel. Al1 of these developments Merdemonstrated the requirement for fewer railway stations within the railway transportation system, and they quickly began to disappear hmthe Canadian landscape.
Of the approxirnately nine to ten thousand stations built in dl parts of Canada throughout its development as a nation, an estirnated 1600 remain standing2. These swivors vary greatly in their current States of repair, styles and age, and many have acquired new uses after being declassified as stations. Presently, their single common trait is that they were al1 functioning passenger temüaals at one point, and that they comprise a disthguished link in this country's total hentage that is fiequently overlooked. Thou& not al1 are threatened with demolition, many are, and many more lie abandoned and deteriorating, lacking any fomal intent or strategy for their rehabilitation. Those still owned by companies within the Federal Railway Act (see Appendix A) and estimated at around 3 50 stations are now eligible for protection under the Federal Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act invoked in 1990, while the remainder mut fdl under the municipal, provincial, and federal hentage designation prograrns currently in place. Regardless of these designations, many still sit badly detenorating, as a state of recognition does not necessarily mean protection for these buildings under the charters. The buildings languish through neglect in communities as they lack any active strategy which would stimulate them towards a situation of rehabilitation and/or reuse. Recognition as a significant hentage structure within a community is an admirable gesture, but without any Mermotivation towards creating a place for these buildings within their modem environments, they are destined to remain as detenorating relics until they reach a point where they are beyond salvage, and the only available option is demolition. Strategies shodd be established to facilitate and steer the efforts necessary for communities to salvage the culturally significant heritage railway stations that remain in this country, so that they will remain as usable assets to present day communities and for future generations. 2 Histo y
2.1 The Advent of Passenger Service in Canada
The iist use of railways in Canada can be traced back more than two and a half centuries, and originated in the province of Nova Scotia Originally, railways, or their crude predecesson, were used merely to facilitate industrial processes. It was not for at lest another century until diey were used to transport passengers, and the creation of passenger temünals found their unrefined beginnings. Evidence has been discovered of the first known railway used in Canada near the Fortress of Louisbourg in Cape Breton. During the construction of the fortress in the 1720's this railway, drawn by home, was used to transport stone fiom a nearby quarry to the site for the construction of the rarnparts. Similar types of horse-drawn tramways were used throughout British North America for industrial purposes through the next century, and progressed slowly beyond the al1 wood carts and wooden rails first used at the Fomess of Louisbourg site. A similar process was used in the construction of the Rideau Canal in Bytom (now Ottawa) in the 1820's for transporting stone to be used in the loch and weirs of the canal, and again in the construction of Quebec city's Citadel in the 182OYs, this time however powered by a stationary steam engine which powered the tramway up the steep incline of the cliff-side.
The next milestone in Canadian railway history came once again in Nova Scotia at the unlikely location of the former Albion Mines near the town that is now Stellartown. In 2 829 the mining Company there used a rudirnentary railway system for transporting coal from their mines to the wharf for shipment, and ran over cast-iron rails manufactured at the mine site; these rails are considered to be the first iron rails manufactured on the North Amencan continent. Within a decade, the same mine imported fiom England a steam locomotive to transport their coal over a six mile track, and began running the first railroad in Nova Scotia. This locomotive was a technologicd advancement over most previous railroad operations in North Amerka, and was among the largest and most powerfùl of
engines on the continent, along with being the first to burn cod and nui over aii-iron rails.
The advent of passenger service in Canada and the creation of its first railway stations came during the same decade with the Champlain and St-LawrenceRailroad in Quebec. Transportation systems in Canada at the tirne were mostly reserved to waterways with numerous steamships travehg the nvers, lakes, and canals throughout the colonies. Overland transport was inconvenient and irregular at best uith few developed roadways, which were especially susceptible to seasonal conditions and wash-outs. The passenger railways that developed at the time were intended merely as remedies for undesirable overland portages, and were used to connect water routes rather than cownunities in the dominant water transportation system. At the time of the openïng of the Champlain and St-Lawrence Railroad in 1836, the total population of British North America was about one million people, with approximately half of that residing along the %.Lawrence River. Montreal and Quebec were the colony's largest cities. The raihoad was developed as one link in the overall route fiom Montreal to New York, and replaced one of the most difficult portages on the voyage. It ran over 14 miles of iron-capped wooden rails between Laprairie on the St.Lawrence River and St. Johns on the Richelieu river (Figure 1) with the nations first passenger stations at each terminus. O The primitive rail station houses Richclierc River found at each end of the fledgling rdway line were describes as Figure 1. The Champlain and St. Lawrence Railroad, 1836. "barn-like" in appearance, inexpensively bdtand nominal in architectural adoment. At this early point in the development of the passenger railway system, there were few precedents on which to base the designs of passenger terminais, and they sornetimes took on the appearance of stagecoach or canal toii houses. Slowly progressing beyond these precedents however, rail stations fiequentiy came to resemble simple train sheds. Again, barn-like in appearance, though now with a track through the middle of the building, and incorporating offices and waiting rooms within the structure (Figure 2). The Champlain and St.Lawrence railroad continued to run successfiilly for many years, eventually extending into the United States. It was Iater amalgamated into the operations of the Grand Trunk Railway, and eventually incorporated into the Canadian National Railway's operations.
Figure 2. Typical construction standards for earIy station designs. Built in 1847, this is the fmt station constmcted for the Montreal and Lachine Railway, an off-shoot of the Champlain and St. Lawrence Raiiroad.
2.2 Inaugural Railways in Canada
From the time of the opening of the Champlain and St-Lawrence Railway in 1836 and the advent of passenger railway services in this country, to the point where the industry flourished around 1850, developments progressed slowly. It was not until at least the rniddle of the nineteenth century that railway travel was conceived of as a means to facilitate transcontinental travel, linking eastem and western portions of the vast Canadian dominion. Early railroads were generally short-had and meant simply as connections to watenvays in the still dominant water transportation system, and the stations that were built were little more than rudimentary shelters. The benefit of steam locomotives was soon realized however with the realization that with their use, overland travel expenses could be cut to approximately one-twentieth of what they had been previously3, and that travel thes and other inconveniences could dso be greatly reduced. Optimisticdly, railways would link the various towns and villages scattered throughout the colonies? and the tracks stretching across the country with branch-lines extending into the United States would facilitate trade between the two countries. In 1850, there were only 66 miles of operating tracks in British North America4, though this was soon to change. The advantages of railway travel were easily recognized and railway charters were issued for the construction of new Iines throughout the colonies. In the span of twenty years (around the time of Codederation) there were more than fifteen railway companies in operation and the track mileage clirnbed to around 2,500 miles? Railway fever continued to escalate, and by the late 1880's there were nearly 100 separately chartered railways operating and approximately 1 1.500 miles of tracks6, though most of the small railway companies would be absorbed withthe proceeding decades with the formation of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand TNnk Railway.
The evolution of railway stations in Canada began therefore in the East, and nearly fifty years later progressed weshvard into Manitoba and beyond, with the construction of the Canadian Pacifïc Railroad in the 1880's. By this time however there was already a well established and comprehensive network of lines throughout the eastem provinces, including a Iine ninning the fidl length of Prince Edward Island. Railway stations, mostly small and medium in size, dotted the landscape like rural outposts between nearly every community of any size in the East and numbered well into the hundreds - Prince Edward Island alone had almost eighty at one tirne. The abundance of stations being built was attributable largely to the requirement of steam locomotives to make fiequent stops to take on wood and water for their over-consumptive boilers; a wood burning steam locomotive of the period could exhaust its entire supply of water in a mere twenty-five miles? This situation would change before long however with the conversion to coal fuel, which allowed the steam engines to travel Merbefore refùelling, and making a number of stations obsolete even at this early point in the nation's railway history.
There is no question that the appearance of the numerous stations across the landscape reshaped the lives of a great many of that period's inhabitants, As independently chartered railway ventures spning up in the east through the 1850'~~commmities that were at one time all but inaccessible by overland travel were at once easily within reach. The lines virtually guaranteed prosperity to the hamlets and towns that they frequented, and opened up the counûyside, linkuig the various far-flung communities in the colonies and making them available to new settlements and development. The railways provided conveniences that were previously mavailable to individuals, and greatly facilitated trade practices with access to markets for nud merchants, as weIl as a greatly improved postal service - dl contributhg to an overall advancement in the prosperity of the land.
2.3 Eariy Raifways in Canada East
In 1849 the Dominion government passed an act guaranteeing financial assistance to any new railway venture of at least seventy-five miles in length, and with this the railway industry in Canada began to develop more vigorously. Some key players in the nation's railway system began to emerge, while lines were being built or in the planning stage in every eastem province. By 1853, the first international line, the St. Lawrence and AtIantic RaiIway, was built between Montreal and Portland, Maine. Moving beyond simple portage railroads, this line crossed the international border and provided Montreal with its fhst uninterrupted railway link to the Ailantic Ocean, and greatly facilitated trade between the continents and neighbouring countries. Also in that year, the Great Western Railway Company began its operations in Ontario with a line fiom the Niagara on Lake Ontario to Windsor on Lake Erie; when completed in 1854, this line meant there was now a continuous railway comection between the Atlantic Ocean and the Mississippi River, also Merfacilitating commerce between the two nations. It wodd soon be extended into Toronto as well, an action that would further propel that city's developrnent as one of this country's leading centers. The Great Western Railway continued to expand into southwestern Ontario in the forthcoming years, creating prospenty in the various towns where it deposited its meagre wooden stations (Figure 3 and 4), but was eventually bought out by the EngLish owned Grand Trunk Raiiway in 1882, a bigger and more powerful railway Company that began its operations around the same time.
Figure 3. Great Western Paris Junction depot, 1860. Typical construction standards for earIy railways.
Figure 4. Map of Southem Ontario showing the lines of the Great Westem Railway in the 1850's. The Grand Trunk Railway was planned as this country's leading railway force fiom the outset in the eady 1850~~8,and was intended as an unintempted link fkom the Atlantic seaboard, through the Canada's and into the midwestem United States. The purchase of the St-Lawrence and Atlantic Railway began their expansion and by 1856 they were already the longest railroad in the world? In that year they opened the fint through link from Montreai to Toronto, with a total of sixty-four stations on that line done, as was typical for railway operations of the time. Over the distance of this line the stations were quite often located outside of the established tom-sites, an unusual action considering the importance of passenger patronage to newly inaugurated railways. The communities in this area were very often port-towns, which would have required an elaborate and serpentine railway system to accommodate each one; the stations were therefore often located outside the most densely populated areas. The stations on this line Wered fkom most in that they were more substantially constructed than usual, and were more often made of brick or stone than of wood. Typically, railway stations of the period were simple, economically built wooden structures with relatively few architecturai embellishments, while the Grand Trunk stations were designed with more discipline and were intended to last. With an English aesthetic in mind, the stations were based on terrninds built in England and possessed Romanesque arches and detailing to create an impression of permanence and durability (Figure 5 and 6). The few remairing stations
Figure 5. Grand Trunk station in CornwalIl, Ontario. This is one of the oldest surviving stations in the country. Figure 6. Surviving Grand Trunk station in Brampton, Ontario. on this line are probably the oldest existing group of stations on the North American continent, and are representative of the tendency of railway companies of the time to create stations that would best symbolize their corporate dominance in the highly competitive railway business climate of the period.
More often than not, the stations of this period were littie more than rudirnentary wooden out-buildings, as the frequency of their construction usudly necessitated a fiugality in their materials and labour for the fledgling railway cornpanies that consmcted them. They were mostly simple pattern buildings, quickly and cheaply constructed to diow the railway companies to become operational, as weil as profitable, as soon as possible. An architect was rarely consulted in their design, and most ofien the Company engineer was responsible for their plans, which were then used over and over as a pattern, sometimes for rnany years with littie alteration. At times, other buildings were put into use as stations where necessity or convenience dictated. Railway companies of the period were not above locating their stations in former country stores, hotels, or any other structure that rnight be readily and inexpensively available. And unlike modem times, the location of a station within a large urban setting neither dictated a prominent location nor impressive construction for these original terminais, as they most often received the same amount of attention in their design as their rural counterparts (Figure 7). The attention in these early years was focused more directly on the construction of the line itself, as welI as the acquisition of equipment and the slruchires to houe and service the equipment than on the passenger stations, and their rudimentary construction and temporary nature was evidence of this fact. Few of the pioneer stations have survived to modem times. Most were replaced in the forthcoming years once the railway companies had become more Iinancially stable, and growing fieight and passenger detnands oeen necessitated more elaborate facilities, as well as a certain arnount of corporate cornpetition between rival railway companies.
Figure 7. Ottawa's first station, built in 1854. This station no longer survives.
In 1854 a railway was constructed to Ottawa and that city received its first passenger terminal (Figure 8). The Iine was built between Ottawa and the town of Prescott on the St-Lawrence River, thereby linking the nations fiiture capital with Montreal and encouraging its prosperity through trade with other centers. Shortly thereafter, the Grand Tnink would complete its line between Montreal and Toronto, linking up with the Ottawa-Prescott line near the St-Lawrence River and furdier extending its domain by acquiring the hancially troubled Ottawa line. This was a situation that would become quite comrnon in the following years with the Grand Trunk Railway acquiring small Figure 8. Ottawa Station, winter 1 855. branch lines across Ontario and Quebec. and fulfilling its intention of becoming the leading railway force in the Dominion. By 1856, the Grand Trunk had a line in full operation fiom Quebec City to Detroit (Figure 9) and by the following year as far as Rivière du Loup in Quebec. Encouraged by the positive response received towards their impressive stations between Montreal and Toronto, and desi~gan amicable relationship with French Canadians in Canada East, the Grand Trunk decided to construct a series of custom stations between Quebec City and Rivière du Loup as well. Decidedly French inspired, the stations were built of brick and based on the vemacular examples found in domestic architecture in Quebec at the the, with bell-cast type eaves and other familiar characteristics. When railways came to already established towns and cities in the East, stations were fkequently located as near high paying industrial customers as practicable, as more lucrative fieight operations often took priority over passenger service in this highly cornpetitive railway clirnate. This was not entirely the case in Quebec however, where stations were cornrnonly located at unusually short intervals to access customers in the many small towns villages scattered across the Quebec countryside. Few of these early and truly distinctive stations on the Grand Tnink line behveen Toronto and Rivière du Loup suMved past the 1960's unfomuiately, when the centrakation of operations and a reduction in passenger trafic effected a downsizing in railway operations across the comtry, and thousands of stations were destroyed, abandoned, or removed to other locations. Figure 9. Mâp showing the progress of the Grand Trunk RaiIway from Quebec city to Detroit, 1856.
As the Grand Tnink railway continued to develop in fbture years, they focussed their operations primarily on temtories within Ontario and Quebec alone, with some branch lines into the United States. A number of well established independent companies were already successfûlly operating in the Maritimes wïth tracks between most of the major centers, and the Grand Trunk was not initially eager to attempt an expansion into these easterly regions. Railway stations during this period reached a point in their stnictural and fimctional evolution that would be maintained as the standard configuration for close to a century. The various railway companies operating in the East after the 1850's were building increasing numbers of simple Frame me structures across the country, and they came to possess a nurnber of distinctive features that would be common to these stations and characterize railway architecture as a whole for several generations. Characteristic features such as bay windows for the telegraphes and large, over-extended eaves above the wooden platforms began to emerge, dong with the customary wickets for ticket sales separating the spartan waiting rooms from the agent's office, and the heavy sliding doors denoting the fieight and baggage areas. These basic features would be enduring in station construction throughout future years, even as stylistic rnovements afEected the station's generai profiles or architectural detailing. in the 18801s,High Victonan and other revivalist rnovements became popular and stations began taking on distinctive, asymmetrical profiles with the addition of tuITets, towers, and a variety of unusual roof conf'igurations (Figure IO), yet these basic elements never lefi the stations. It was at this time as well that there began to appear the grand urban stations in the nation's larger centers, as railway companies vied for customer patronage through impressive stations, and the necessity of elaborate urban monuments devoted to this mode of transportation was realized (Figure 11).
Figure 10. Moore Park Station near Toronto, destroyed after the First WorId War.
Figure Il. Toronto's fust major station (Union Station), built in 1875. It was later dernolished and t-eplaced. 2.4 Railways and Stations in îhe Mariîimes
The evolution of the railway industry in the Maritimes foliowed to a smaller scale a pattern sunilar to that of the more prosperous provinces Merwesf but does not belie a history equally rich and distinctive in its varïety. Hundreds of stations were built in the Maritimes firom the modest beginnings of the colonial railway systems in the 1850's in over 50 different styles10. As an equitable agreement on the terms of a joint railway venture through the Maritimes could not be reached between neighbouring provinces, work began on separate projects in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia called the European and North American Railway and the Nova Scotia Railway respectively. Work on the European and North American Railway began in 1858 and ran, when completed, fYom Saint John to Shediac on the Gulf of St. Lawrence through Moncton. Saint John received a rernarkable Gothic Revivai structure (Figure 12), built as the western terminus of the line in 1858, though it did not survive into the twentieth century. Canada's second oldest survivhg station remains f?om this line in Rothesay, New Brunswick to this day (Figure 13) on its onginal site and is used as a private business. A separate venture called the New Brunswick and Canada Railway also developed at this theto run between St. Andrews on the Bay of Fundy to Woodstock near the Arnerican border. This line ran tbrmgh the small village of McAdam which wodd in Iater years become one of the major Eiigure 12. The former European and North American Railway raiiway centers of the Maritimes terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick, built in 1858. Figure 13. Canada's second otdest surviving- station on the former European and North Amerïcan Railway Iine in Rothesay, New Brunswick. and acquire the largest and most remarkable surviving station in the Maritimes, designed by Edward Maxwell in the Chateau style (Figure 14).
Work on the Nova Scotia Railway began in 1855 in Halifax, and progressed slowly because of labour disputes with Irish railway workers and difficulties associated with the Cnmean War, but was eventuaily completed under the helm of Sandford Flemming in
Figure 14. This Chateau style station in McAdam, New Brunswick was built around 1900. It currently sits vacant. 1867 in time for Confederation. Most stations on this line were simple, utilitarian wood buildings designed by Flemming to meet the needs of the railway without much architecturai adomment (Figure 15). The railroad when completed compnsed a line fÎom Halifax to Truro with an extension to Pictou, and a branch Iine £kom Windsor Junction to Windsor (Figure 16). As a condition of the Confederation agreement of 1867, the Dominion of Canada was obliged to provide a railway for the Maritimes into the rest of Canada, and the Intercolonial Railway was borne.
Figure 15. Sandford Flemming style wood station that appeared in the Maritimes. There are no surviving examples of this station type lei? in the Maritimes.
BAY OF FUNDY
Figure 16. Railways in the Maritimes at the the of Confederation in 1867. Under the terms of the British North America Act, the Dominion govermnent would assume ownership of the railways in the Maritimes and plans were made for a new iine fiom Truro to Rivière du Loup in Quebec, the eastern terminus of the Grand Trunk Railway in Canada. Of three lines surveyed for this route, the Longest and most costly was chosen for military reasons. In order to Iocate the track a safe distance from the Amencan border in case of invasion, the line would follow the Bay of Chaleur to Campbellton and continue into Quebec dong the St. Lawrence River Valley (Figure 17). It took alrnost 10 years to complete the line, but in 1876 the fmai section was closed and there was now an unllitempted line fiom Halifax into Ontario, linking Canada East and West. The variety of station designs built in the Maritirnes in the proceeduig years is remarkable, as with each new decade and wave of investment into the region brought a distinctive station design. Styles ranged from simple utilitarian wood shelters to elaborate Gothic, Romanesque and Neoclassical designs. As the most easterly terminus of the Intercolonial Railway line, Halifax received an elaborate Second Empire style station (Figure 18), which was destroyed in the Halifax Explosion of 19 17. Most stations built
Figure 17. The chosen route for the IntercoioniaI Railway line through the Maritimes. Figure 18. The IntercoIoniaI Railway's elaborate Halifax station, constructed in 1877. Built in the no& end, it was destroyed in the 19 1 7 Halifax Explosion. in the Maritimes were not as elaborate as the Halifax station, though no less distinctive. Common station designs constructed in the Maritimes can still be found in Orangedale (Figurel9) and Liverpool (Figure 20) while some of Canada's oldest stations remain standing in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia dong the former Intercolonial line.
While most of the rest of the country was caught up in railway fever, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland were slow to share the enthusiasm, and NewfoundIanders noted in protest at the prospect of a railway on their islandl l. Since Prince Edward Island did not join Confederation in 1867, any railway venture on the island would have to be privately financed, and work began on such a project in 1871 to nin the entire length of the island. Financial difnculties for the project were soon to follow, and with a promise fiom the dominion government to complete the line, Prince Edward Island entered Confederation in 1873. An extraordinary arnount of stations were buiIt on the island at extremely short intervals, to a design unique for the country. A typical statiûn design for the island could be found in Montague (Figure 21), located only two and a half miles fiom the next terminal. Construction of the Newfoundland Raiiway began in 1881 and was financed by the colonial treasury, but was plagued with financial and Figure 19. This station, built for the Intercolonial Railway remains today in Orangedale, Nova Scotia and is used as a museurn.
Figure 20. This Liverpool, Nova Scotia station was built by the Canadian Pacific Railway and is also a museum. construction difficdties fiom the outset. The treacherous line was finally completed in 1898, but never proved to be a financially viable operation. The majority of stations on the route were simple two-storey wood buildings with a donner piercing the roof line, and through their history only saw heavy traac during the bustling days of the Second World War. When the province j oined Confederation in 1949, Canadian National Railway s acquired the line, and then abandoned the railway in both Newfoundland in Prince Edward Island in the 1980's and removed the tracks. Fortunateiy, a respectable nurnber of stations on both islands rernain in use in private and public ventures.
Figure 21. This station was found in Montague, PEI, and is typical of terminal buildings on the island. It still remains standing today.
2.5 Transcontinental Raiiway Building
Transcontinental railway construction in Canada was not viewed favourably by most residents of the dominion upon Confederation as regions west of Ontario remauied largely unsettled into the later part of the nineteenth century. To John A. MacDonald however, first prime minister of the dominion of Canada, it was a fist pnority as the symbolic "wedding band" of Confederation uniting Canada east and west, even thaugh his resolution on the subject was met with strong dissent fiom withui both political and public divisions. It was in fact the promise of a transcontinental link with eastem Canada that persuaded British Columbia to join the Codederation agreement in 1871, and was thus agreed upon by the govemment of Canada that work on the railroad should begin within two years of the date of Codederation for the weil being of the nation. With a population of Iess than 170,000 residents in the provinces between Ontario and British Columbia, and a terrain considered exceedingly rugged and inhospitable, it was ditficuit to imagine at the time the justification for nich a large expenditure on a project that might never prove successful. With these considerabie obstacles to overcome, it is not surprishg that work did not actually begin on what would be cdled the Canadian Pacific Railway until 1875, with a completion date of the line through the prairies and over the Rockies into British Columbia of 1887. Apprehension over the uncertain potential of a railway through these unsettled temtones was soon abated when the incredible prospects that the newly opened lands possessed were realized. Hundreds of toms and settlernents sprung up literdly over night throughout the fertile prairie lands and British Columbia was at last connected with the rest of the country, with a terminus on the Pacific Ocean chosen by the CPR and titled "Vancouver" .
The Canadian Pacific Railway deposited new town sites across the prairie lands as routinely as it laid the tracks into the west. The stations were built at six to ten mile intervals in every western Canadian town to accommodate the steam engines and became the heart and physical core around which the towns' primary activities centred. The building of these stations was managed in the same manner as the construction of the railway itself - as a quick and efficient process in order to accommodate opening the line as soon as possible. Construction gangs followed the line in teams and erected the buildings in an assembly line fashionl* with little variation between them. Standard plans were used for the majonty of these early stations, and when a station design proved to be particularly successful it was often used for decades with little variation (Figure 22). In little more thm fifieen years, the Canadian Pacific assembled more than 750 stations throughout the prairie provinces. It was at this tirne as well that the station builders Figure 22. This was a standard Canadian Pacific station design, located in Gleichen, Alberta- Many examples of this station type remain in existence today. began to incorporate hotels in the elaborate station designs meant for more important centers, to take advantage of the lucrative tourist trade, and to assert their dominance as the formidable nation building power that they were (Figure 23).
With the inauguration and overall success of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the 18801s, the Grand Trunk, and a newly incorporated railway called the Canadian Northern Railway, made the move to become competing transcontinental railway ventures to cross the country. They each began at the turn of the century to construct separate lines to span the breadth of the country. The expansion was proposed at a time when the nation was expenencing iremendous growth and prosperity, and immigration was at a general high as fertile prairie regions opened in the West. The Canadian Pacinc Rdway was having difficulty matching the rate of growth in the West, and a new transcontinental was therefore encouraged and both projects were heavily subsidized by the federal govemment. Attempts were made by Ottawa in the beginning to amalgamate the separate enterprises into one, but an agreement codd not be reached to undertake the construction coIlectively, so each began their own plans to begin building lines across the country. Divided into two sections, the Grand Trunk project would run fiom Moncton, New Figure 23. The station that Canadian Pacific buiIt for Vancouver dominated the sk$ine in this newly settled city. It was replaced in Iater years.
Brunswick to Winnipeg, Manitoba and be called the National Transcontinental for this division, with the adjoining section nuining from Winnipeg to Prince Rupert in British Columbia and called the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, to complete the cross-country project. The Canadian Northern Railway was assembled piecemeal beginning in Manitoba and spread across the country as govemment bonds allowed, leasing or absorbing lines and constructing others to complete the system across the country. Success would be short lived for these ambitious undertakings however, as overbuilding of lines in the East and the fxnancial turmoil created by the First World War combined to topple both railways shortly after their completion. The financially cnppled railways were acquired by the federal government after the First World War and became the foundation for the Canadian National Railways, which is still in operation today.
At times, the tracks of the competing lines ran literally side by side for hundreds of miles across the prairies and through the Rockies, and like their predecessor the Canadian Pacific, deposited new town sites at ten to fifteen mile intervals. The new settiements were planned out to a prescnbed pattern with the railway station as primary focus and link with the outside world, and the remaining town structures radiating out fiom this centralized pattern. Second only in importance to the station itself and often built even before the tracks themselves reached the towns, were the grain elevators that housed the commodity that made up the primary life-blood and currency of these fledgling tom. Also like the Canadian Pacifk Railway, these railways devised standard station designs for ease and efficiency of co~ction~and divided them into classifications according to the importance of their placement. Over two-thirds of the Grand Trunk Pacific stations built in the West were of standard designs. Common to each were the basic elements found in any station such as the agent's office, waiting room and fkeight shed, and each provided for the agent's living accommodations as well as his family. The majority were elemental wood fkne buildings designed by the same engineers responsible for surveying and laying the tracks for the railways, with some architectural adornment relative to their importance (Figure 24). In later years stucco also became popular as a construction material for western stations with both the Grand Trunk and Canadian Northern because of its durability and affordability. Along with the standard plans there were a great number of custom stations built in the west as well, and could be viewed as symbols of the corporate rivalry between the railways. The plans were usually provided by an architect and were built of speciai materials including brick, stone and wood log construction (Figure 25). The lines aiso followed the Canadian Pacific lead of providing special stationhotels dong their lines to capitalize on the developing recreation and tourism industry and used them to draw customers to their lines.
When the the came for the Grand Trunk to take over responsibility for its eastem transcontinental divisionl3, the National Transcontinental in 1915, the Company defaulted on its agreement and the line became the responsibility of the Canadian govemment. In 191 9 the western division fell into the hands of the Minister of Railways as well, and finally in 1923 the entire Grand Trunk Railroad ceased to exist and became part of Canadian National Railways (CNR). Similady, the Canadian Northern Railway fell Uito bankruptcy when completed in 19 18, and its entire line was transferred to the govemment-owned CNR in 1923. In this way the CNR suddenly became the most powerfûl entity on the Canadian railway landscape. It was made up of numerous large Figure 24. Typical Canadian Northem pattern book station found in the prairies at the turn of the century.
Figure 25. Canadian Northern Railway's Edmonton, Alberta station. This station is no longer standing. and small railways incorporated throughout the last century and its stations were prirnarily the oldest and most varied in the country.
A process of streamlining operations began with the amalgamation of the CNR in the 1920's as a means of creating an efficient and productive transportation system for the country, which meant the elimïnation of duplicate lines, an irnprovement in the equipment and the replacement of obsolete stations. The decades before the Second World War constitute the high point in station numbers for the counq, with Canadian Pacific owning more than 2500 stations and CN with approximately 4000 across the country. This penod also marks the end of the last great railway construction era in the country, as the Depression of the 1930's placed dl the railways in a situation of financial uncertainty, and the Second World War made labour and resources scarce. When a new station was required on the CNR line, often a plan was chosen fiom the standard plans of its predecessor railways such as the Grand Trunk or Canadian Northem. In later years the CNR would adopt its own station plans, and built some noteworthy depots at special locations across the country (Figure 26).
Figure 26. This Canadian National Railway station remains in use in Jasper, Alberta. 2.6 RaiCways in Modern Times
Rail travel remained without question a comm~~nity'smajor link with the outside world in Canada into the I93OYs,especially in the western provinces where the town sites themselves were a product of the railways. Station designs remained IargeIy unchanged even into the 194OYs,and continued to possess historicizing elements such as hdf- timbering, bay windows, asyrnmeûical roof-lines and large overhanging eaves. Rail travel continued to be popular through the 1950's but station construction remained low as the railways became more discontented with the high cost of passenger service as opposed to the high profit ratio for freight. The situation was Meraggravated by the public's widespread adoption of newer transportation methods and the govemment's sudden disinterest in railway construction and overwhelming support for highway and air travel uifirastructure building. Al1 of these factors, dong with nsing labour costs, technological improvements and substantial new taxes on the railways provoked a drastic cut in passenger service and the elimination of many stations across the country in the forthcoming years. With the general acceptance of new technological trends and the development of mass production techniques, stations were more often replaced when required with quickly and inexpensively built modem glas and steel shelters in the International Style of building.
The disappearance of some of the station's earliest fûnctions also hastened the demise of the passenger station as a central figure within many Canadian communities. When mail and local fieight duties left the stations, and with the advent of computerized traffic control, little was left of the station's responsibilities. Countless depots were closed and abandoned, leaving cornrnunities to fend for thernselves and passengers to make their own way. Government and corporate intervention also played a role in the closing of nurnerous stations, as each of this country's former railway passenger carriers demonstrated at some tïme a desire to abandon the financially taxing passenger transportation industry and concentrate on more profitable fieight operations. Measures were taken by these carriers to intentionaily discourage passenger patronage, and when the expected results were achieved and ridership decreased, more lines were cut and more stations abandoned or destroyed (see Appendix B). The 1960's and 70's were particularly disastrous for historic stations across the nation, as literally hundreds were deemed obsolete and abandoned or destroyed with the continued cuts to passenger service14. As many western tomrelied alrnost excluçively on the railways for their survival, when the lines were abandoned dozens of these small toms also closed down and became ghost tom.
In 1977 VIA Rail came into existence as a mesure on the part of the federal government to remove the burden of passenger service fiom Canadian PaciIic and Canadian National Railways, and for a leasing fee would continue to run over the same tracks and use the stations along these lines. VIA took a more active interest in station preservation than did its predecessors and took steps to buy or fease the CN and CP depots along its lines in order to rehabilitate them as they saw fit and in a generally more sensitive manner. Envisioned as a public relations measure, stations were maintained where possible, rehabilitated, and when new construction was necessary, designed stations that were more sensitive to their surroundings and incorporated traditional station features such as distinctive roof lines, massings and protniding eaves.
Station preservation was by no means secured with the new developments however as lines continued to be scaled back or cut altogether across the country. In 2990 a drastic action was taken by the federal government and approximately half of Canada's rail passenger service was completely eliminated, even though a cornmitment to its improvement had been previously made. Once again, more stations became threatened because of obsolescence, and because the stations were owned by companies regulated under the federally govemed Railway Act, they were immune to the protection afforded through heritage designation practices available through provincial or municipal agencies. Fortunately, in the same year the Heritage Railway Station Protection Act came into effect after the dernolition of the West Toronto station (Figure 27) despite overwhelming public resistance, and a general increase in concem over the fate of the dwindling number of stations in the country. The Act, which concems al1 stations owned by companies Figure 27. The former Canadian Pacific station in West Toronto. It's destruction motivated a more organized effort to Save stations in the country. regulated under the Railway Act, makes alteration or demolition of these stations subject to review and approvai by a regulatory board afier designation. This step has firthered the welfare of these distinguished structures, but is not without fault, and the future prosperity of these buildings still relies to a large extent on public activism and a desire to make them reIevant assets within our modem comrnunities. Charters and the land on which to build the railways were originally granted to CNR and CP with the guarantee that passenger service be provided to the residents of this country in perpetuity (and is in fact a condition wrïtten into the Codederation agreement), but this has not proven to be a certainty as service continues to be diminished. The identity of Canadians and passenger seMce is inextricably linked, and should be safeguarded with the sarne fervency as the buildings that grew up around it. Current State of Heritage Railway Stations in Canada and their Historicai A ttrib ufes
3.1 Recent Atfitudes to Station Preservation in Canada
Mer decades of neglect and general disinterest, a concem has fmally arisen by the public over the fate of the remaining historicd railway stations in this country. In keeping with the movement of a generally heightened awareness of the cultural significance of our historicai architecture that has developed in North Arnerica in the decades since the Second World War, similarly the recognition of these stations as valuable records of our past has been realized. Only within the past thirty years or so have individuals, historical associations and others concemed with the preservation of culturally significant monuments and buildings in this country begun to take notice of these structures in order to safeguard their future sunival. Concerted efforts have been made, initially at the grass rootç level, to preserve railway stations in communities across the country because of their historical, architectural and environmental significance.
Initially, with the development and proliferation of the automobile and other transportation methods in North Amenca after the Second World War, people were content to take advantage of the new fomd fieedom of mobility available to them and ridership on the railways began to decline. The technological advancements of that era were accepted as an overall symbol of the prosperity of the penod, and with changing attitudes the importance of railways and their stations was quickly forgotten. As lines were cut, stations fell in increasing nurnbers with little notice as their relevance was seen to have passed with the obsolescence of the steam trauis themselves. The railway companies needed simply to apply to the Canadian Transportation Cornmittee for permission to remove a station, and as it was not within the mandate of the CTC to consider heritage factors in their decisions, no station was immune to the constant threat of dernolition. Provincial and municipal heritage designation procedures were equally ineffective in protecting stations since the railways were regulated under federal jurisdiction and therefore these standards were inapplicable. The railway companies were only interested in the economics of their operations, and redundant stations, regardless of their histoncal significance, were Mewed simply as liabilities with their maintenance expenses better allocated elsewhere within their operations.
As the stations disappeared in increasing numbers in Canada and the United States in the 197OYs,some individuals and communities began to take steps to preserve the stations which were still a central focus for their small towns and cities. Beyond retaining their stations as transportation depots, it became obvious that they could often be quite easily and inexpensively converted to another use that would suit a community or individual's needs. Centrally located, the buildings were suited to a nurnber of possibilities such as community centers, museums, libraries, tourist centee, municipal ofnces or private enterprises. However, even in this capacity the railways were often resistant to new alternatives as they usually insisted that the buildings be rnoved f?om their current location citing safety considerations. When the communities demonstrated that this could not easily be accomplished considering the exorbitant cost to relocate the station and their often Iimited budgets, the railway Company usually proceeded with the dernolition. This condition still exists as a requirement placed on station adaptation plans by the railway companies and prevents the re-use of station buildings in this country. In Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, where the railways abandoned their lines dtogether and removed the tracks, a larger overall percentage of stations have survived and are being used in other capacities than in other provinces since this condition does not apply to them.
The unyielding insistence on the part of the railway companies that stations be moved from their track-side locations before any plans for adaptation could proceed was usually applied unconditionalIy to each situation, and was enforced even on Iightly used Iines or those scheduled for abandonment. The excessive stnngency of this regdation is questionable however since often in situations where the station is relocated, the property it formerly occupied is sold or redeveloped by the railway into a use that could have just as readily been accommodated in the former station building. Zoning requirements are also disregarded by the railways in evaluating these situations since the regulations that a municipality may enforce with the redevelopment of a property are usually more strict than those previously in place for the federally regulated property. With a redevelopment proposal, the zoning bylaws may enforce new fencing, trafic and parking requirements that would othenuise not apply to an unused railway property and therefore increase the overall safety of a previously unused property. With the inauguration of VIA Rail in 1977, the situation for heritage railway stations has improved slightly as VIA has taken a more proactive role in station preservation, preferring in many instances to invest in station restoration and rehabilitation than to sirnply replace deteriorating depots. Having purchased or entered into long term lease agreements for the stations on its Iines, they have adopted a more sensitive approach to their refurbishment. With a view towards customer relations, VIA has invested millions of doIlars into stations across the country in order to attract customers. With the severe cuts to passenger service in 1990 and the re-routing of trains f?om Canadian Pacific to CNRtracks at that time, a fürther threat was introduced to the remaining stations in the country. Fortunately however, it was also in that year that Ottawa passed the long awaited Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act", and railway companies were hally pressed to becorne accountable for their actions with regard to the retention of their stations. The Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act, which is regulated wiùiin the Parks Canada division of the federal govemment and the Histork Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, would make al1 railway cornpanies govemed by the Railway Act (see Appendix A) subject to a review of their stations for possible designation. The legislation outlines the procedures to be followed in evaluating stations for designation, and if designation is determined to be appropnate, makes the alteration, dernolition or transfer of ownership of that station subject to review by the Heritage Railway Station Cornmittee for approvai. Wiîh the HRSP Act in place, it provides merencouragement that more stations will be protected and retained as symbols of Canada's built heritage.
3.2 Stations Remaining in Canada
Following is an approximate outline of the number of heritage railway stations remaining in Canada today by province. This includes stations that are at least 40 years of age or older, and irrespective of present owner or use, as well as those relocated from theK original site. This information was gathered primarily fkom government sources (Parks Canada and the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada offices), the Inventory of Historic Buildings in Canada Reports conducted in the 197OYs,and the Canadian Railway Station Guide compiled by the Bytown Railway Society. This list does not purport to be entirely complete or accurate as some stations have been removed to other sites, demolished, or altered beyond recognition, but is the best representation according to the most reliable and thorough sources on the subject. British Columbia: Alberta: 1. 104total stations 1. 169 total stations 2. 38 stations in possible dangerL6 2. 40 stations in possible danger 3. 8 stations abandoned or unused 3. 18 stations abandoned or unused 4. 22 stations registered" 4. 13 stations registered 5. 4 stations registered and abandoned 5. 3 stations registered and abandoned
Saskatchewan: Manitoba: 1- 310 total stations 1. 129 total stations 2. 54 stations in possible danger 2. 45 stations in possible danger 3. 18 stations abandoned or unused 3. 26 stations abandoned or unused 4. 17 stations registered 4. 24 stations registered 5- 5 stations registered and abandoned 5. 9 stations registered and abandoned
Ontario: Ouebec: 1. 504 total stations 1. 22 1 total stations 2. 146 stations in possible danger 2. 7 1 stations in possible danger 3. 113 stations abandoned or unused 3. 47 stations abandoned or unused 4. 56 stations registered 4. 46 stations registered 5. 10 stations registered and abandoned 5. 10 stations registered and abandoned
New Brunswick: Nova Scotia: 1. 29 total stations 1. 39 total stations 2. 13 stations in possible danger 3. 13 stations in possible danger 3. 12 stations abandoned or unused 3. 8 stations abandoned or unused 4. 14 stations registered 4. 9 stations registered 5. 10 stations registered and abandoned 5. 2 stations registered and abandoned
Prince Edward Island: Newfoundland: 1. 64 total stations 1. 17 total stations 2. 19 stations in possible danger 2. 4 stations in possible danger 3. 17 stations abandoned or unused 3. 3 stations abandoned or unused 4. O stations registered 4. 3 stations registered 5. O stations registered and abandoned Yukon: 1. 2 total stations 2. 2 stations in possible danger 3. 2 stations abandoned or unused 4. 1 station registered 5. 1 station registered and abandoned
Totals: 1588 stations, al1 provinces 445 stations in possible danger (28% of total stations) 272 stations abandoned or unused (1 7% of total stations) 205 stations registered (13% of total stations) 54 stations registered and abandoned (26% of total stations registered)
Approximately 350 stations remain in railway ownership in this country. Of those, 295 have been evaluated under the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act and 176 have been registered, determined to be worthy of protection according to the regulations of the HRSP Act.
3.3 The Historical Aîtributes of Heritage Raiiway Statiom
The historical value of z heritage railway station cannot merely be summarized in terms of basic principles such as age or architectural charactenstics. In evaluating a station for its significance and histoncal associations, other factors must be considered and are of equal value including its associative value as it relates to history, engineering and railway technological attributes, environmental factors as it pertains to a community and economic factors. Al1 of these considerations should be appraised when assessing a station for its relative historical value. Such a survey would be conducted at a time when a station comes under consideration for redevelopment and would be used to demonstrate its ments for potentid reuse, to reinforce a case for salvage when a station becomes threatened or simply as a tangible record of a particular station's histoncal significance. This type of evaluation was conducted for most stations still in railway ownership by the Heritage Railway Stations Committee as part of the designation process of the HRSP Act. The importance that a particular station has played in the history of a community, region, or province cm involve several factors that should be reviewed in determining its relative ment. More often, a station will have more meaning when appraised in relation to its immediate community, but rnay have played at sorne time a more significant role associated with the history of a province or the country, such as a royal visit or the departure of troops for war. With the dwindling passenger service available, a station can skply create general nostalgic associations with the past and the importance that it once played in the community, but in many situations has a wider significance than this.
The histoncal importance of a station rnay be its association with railway history, as a representative example of a station type constnicted for a particular line or railway or as a reminder of a specific construction era. The location, style and date of the station must be considered in this regard. The paaicular depot rnay have historically played a remarkable role in the political, commercial, industrial or economic development of an area in its effect on the evolution of business, industries, agriculture or tourisrn. Similarly, the station rnay have played an important role involving the history of an engineering or technological advancement which relates to transportation, such as the telegraph or rolling stock advancements. The train station of a town rnay have a significant history invoiving the social development of a cornmunity as well as it relates to immigration, settlement patterns, periods of prosperity and likewise depression, as well as the location of community centers and overall growth of the community. The station rnay also be associated with a noteworthy event in the history of a region that took place at the station, or as the location that a person of importance visited. Each of these historical associations should be investigated and will be relevant in varying degrees to the overall importance of a station.
3.3.2 Ardt itecturai and Technological Evaltïation
The tremendous variety of stations that were built across the country are the most visible architectural reminder of the former importance and prosperity of the railroad industry in Canada. The remaining stations are still a good representation of the diversity in architectural style and function that they incorporated, and is the most easily recognized quality to be identified by the general public. They demonstrate the idea of what was appropriate and desirable in a public building for the construction era that they belong to, and share common features that are unique to this type of structure. As the public face for their companies in the highly cornpetitive period of railway development in the 1stcentury, defuiite attention was placed on their design to present to the public an image of power, prestige and permanence. Some were built to special designs in a grand scale as a matter of customer relations and to attract patrons, while most were not, but al1 share an attention to detail and craftsmanship. During the Victorian period of building, a heightened emphasis was placed on the architectural detaiiing of public buildings, and railway companies were not immune to the desire to appeal to public perceptions.
The wide assortment of station designs across the country are valuable as a testament to the evolution of building practices in the country, as regional examples exclusive to different areas of the country, and as culturally distinct patterns informed by British, American and French influences. The evaluation of these buildings should be carried out with attention to the visud character and quaiity of this building type, and how well die building has retained it materials, heritage defuiing features, details and appearance. The design quaiities of stations vary fiom situation to situation, even in standard designs as materials may Vary, the level of craftsmanship, and how well the building has retained its original fabric or configuration. Matters of architecturai style need to be addressed such as whether the building is an exarnple of a rare or more common station design, its visual characteristics such as composition, detailing, materials used and execution of construction and whether the station is the work of a particular designer of note. Functional considerations are also important to a station evaluation and include such things as its plan and relation to the overall composition, the station type (simple flag stop depot, larger terminal with or without living accommodations, union station, etc.) and possible technological innovations that may continue to be present such telegraph equipment or mail handling equipment.
The technological evolution of railways was the fastest changing factor in railway history and hm affected the development of station design and function more than any other influence, including the mere fiequency that they continue to appear on the landscape. From early developments in railway refmements, the stations have changed to accommodate the improved technology, while still maintaining the basic characteristics of station design. With the multidisciplinary nature of past building sciences, often the engineers responsible for construction of the rail lines and related inhstructure were equally responsible for the design of the stations themselves. For this reason, an analysis of the lines and history of the structures associated with those Iines should also be carried out when determining the historical attributes of a particuiar station, since the stations were there principally to serve the rolling stock after dl. Communication practices for the railways were of primary importance to ensure their safe and efficient operation, and the changing standards employed to comm~catebetween stations and the trains had an impact on station design as well. Telegraph and signalhg techniques changed the form of the depots to accommodate an agent's requirements with operator bays included in the plans of stations after the 187OYs, and were later added to those built before this time. The physical characteristics of the remahhg heritage stations in Canada are easily recognized and widely appreciated by even untrained observers, and a thorough examination of these details needs to be carried out to properly evaluate a station.
3.3.3 En vironmenfal Associations
The establishment of railway service to communities across the country usually carried with it an importance much greater than the mere availability of a new reliable transportation service, and industries and services sprung up in comrnon patterns in the vicinity of stations to service these needs. The physical presence of stations brought considerable changes to urban and rural centers across the country, reshaping their urban fabnc in measurable ways with the station acting as a focal point, and which can still be seen in the configuration of some centers. The significance of the placement of a station in a cornmunity was dependant to a considerable degree on the size of that cornmunity, with the most obvious cases being of toms established initially solely to service the railroad. The urban impact of a station must be addressed in evaluating its significance, including the role that it presently plays in that center. Issues such as its affect on the layout of the city plan, and its immediate surroundings shodd be investigated, with early commercial and industria1 structures related to the railroadl' remahhg in silu as a priority.
The social impact that the station played on the lives of a cornmunity's inhabitants was significant in the last century, and often provided that community with a sense of identity, being linked with the outside world in a greater scheme. The station was a place of public meeting and the location where goods and seMces were exchanged, and to smaller communities was the center of village life with activities related to the transportation of goods and people, communications and employment. It may have infiuenced the settlement location and orientation of Street patterns, and affiiiated services developed to support the needs of the railway and its passengers, such as hotels and restaurants. A developing tourism industry also became a viable option to explore to provide greater income for small towns. Communication was facilitated with the arrivai of trains as well with an improved mail service and telegraph operations providing a Merlink with the outside world. Business and employment opportunities greatly expanded with the arrival of rail service, and was equally aKected with the closure of lines in the next century. Al1 of these factors contributed to a sense that the station was, and continues to be in many cases, a landrnark in these communities and should be considered in a station assessment.
3.3.4 Economic EvaCua fion
The effect that railway development in the country has had on economic prospenty cannot be understated, with their expansion providing the means to exploit the natural resources available here. Railways provided the means for the Industrial Revolution to take hold in this country and transport goods and people to new points, with Bedgling settlements deposited across the country to accomrnodate these means. The railway provided great wealth to some centers, almost overnight, and generaily increased settlement, industrialization and business opportunities for al1 regions. The govenunent recognized this fact and considered their actions an important public service, and readily funded raiiway endeavors. The station became the distribution focus for these activities, acting as a major component in local and regional economic systems. These activities have since entirely left a station's responsibilities, and once thrïving centers that relied heavily on these indusiries have had to explore other options, or potentially become ghost towns. However, economics are not merely an issue of the past, and a complete evaluation of a station today must also consider economic possibilities for tomorrow. Issues of economic renewal for a station should be considered with a view towards the potential that a station rnight possess in possible redevelopment scenarios. A cntical view towards modem interests such as the present condition of the structure, its placement within the community or region, its potential for continuing railway use and fkeight operations, and overall capacity for re-use should be reviewed. It is especially important that a thorough and accurate assessment of a station be conducted prior to initiating any action to rehabilitate, restore or salvage a depot, as the information gathered in such an evaluation will provide the foundation for future actions. The information gathered shouid be ranked, or scored according to a standard scale and represented in an easily understood mode1 (see Appendix C), and will provide the required documentation to support a case for salvage, or possibIy direct the approach to redevelop the property. This type of survey quickly provides a prelimhary assessment of a station's features on a basic level that can easily be conducted and interpreted by the interested individuais, and which can later be expanded upon in a more comprehensive report. Current Practice and Available Funding for Railway Station Conservation
4.1 Modern Approach tu Station Conservation in Industrialized Nations
A cornmon situation has arisen in the past several decades in many developed nations conceming the evolution of passenger service, having transformed fkom a widely utilized and largely favored mode of mass transportation into a considerably diminished, secondary means of travel. Canada, as well as most other major industrialized nations, have seen their national railway networks streamlined and reorganized to accommodate changing passenger and freight patterns. Lines that were at one time profitable have been declared obsolete and cut, while others have been reorganized to take advantage of changing trends. The necessity to adopt an approach to managing stations that have been declared redundant due to this process, or continue to be used in railway operation, is therefore a sirnilar concern in these countries. A period of wholesale dernolition of unessential stations has taken place as a part of railway operations in each of these countries, followed by an elevated awareness and concern for the remaining heritage depots and an active approach to their conservation. In most cases, railway companies have responded favorably to issues of railway heritage once a concern has been raised, and have been at least conditionally cooperative with agencies and foundations in their attempts to safeguard these culturally significant structures. Arnerican and British strategies to station conservation are significant in their comparative value, as well as current policies in this country and their division between provinces.
4.1.1 American Standards
Similar to developments in Canada, the attitude to station preservation in the United States has become a concern to interested citizens only within the past thirty years or so, and coincides largely with the induction of Arntrak in 1970. As a predecessor to a sirnilar strategy later taken in Canada with the formation of VIA Rail, Amtrak was established by an act of Congress to relieve the burden of intercity passenger service fiom the operations of approximately twenty separate companies. As a federaily subsidized private corporation, Amtmk purchased sorne terminais and signed long term lease agreements for other stations necessary for its operations dong comdors serviced by it. Most of the stations owned by Amtrak are within northeastem corridors and were tmnsferred in ownership at the tirne of the formation of Conrail in 1976 to preserve the operations of six bankrupt rail companies. Conrail's passenger service operations were transferred to Amtrak in 1983 and the required terrninals were purchased at that time, with the rernaining stations sold to non railway interests with the condition that they be removed from their track side locations. Other stations on inf?equently used or abandoned lines that transferred ownership were pemütted to stay on their original sites with the provision that adequate barriers be erected for safety considerations and that substantial Iiability insurance was obtained. This would set a standard that would be enforced routinely in station rehabilitation projects in later years.
The remahhg stations in Arntrak operations are predominantly leased fiom previous carriers who could then focus exciusively on fieight operations. Previous to arnendrnents to the legislation relevant to the subject, and an organized effort to salvage heritage railway stations in the United States, many of the depots located on the mainlines that were not necessary to Arntrak ventures were demolished in the 1970's. It was their policy at the tirne to prohibit non railway occupation of stations dong the mainlines for safety reasons. A more flexible approach to station reuse for those located on branch lines was accepted however, and occasionally stations have been sold or leased to non railway parties and allowed to remain on site with the condition that necessary barriers be constnicted and adequate liability insurance was provided by the tenant.
It was at this time as well that a concerted effort began to take form with the intention of creating a more sympathetic atmosphere to railway station preservation across the country, and in 1974 the National Endowrnent for the Arts (NEA) and the National Trust for Historic Preservation organized a national conference to address the matter. The NEA had previously been involved in a number of hentage station preservation studies, and subsequently pressed for amendments to the Rail Passenger Service Act to make provisions for a more hospitable environment to station conservation in the country. The bill was passed, and the Amtrak Improvement Act now empowered the Secretary of Transportation to provide assistance, both financial and technical, to those parties interested in rehabilitating a threatened station for interm~dal'~purposes. The bill also made assistance available for the preservation of recognized historie stations, to be converted to a new use and utilized once again, as well as a commitment to stimulate the appropriate departments and agencies (state and local governments, transportation agencies and hentag e and p hilanthropic organizations) to develop plans to conveït undemtilized stations for intermodal tenninals or for civic and cultural purposes.
With the enforcement of the new policies outlined within the bill, Arntrak has adopted a considerably improved attitude to station rehabilitation than previously, and they are no longer entirely opposed to propositions of station reuse. With a view to economic factors, they have become very receptive to offers fiom interested parties to lease/purchase undemtilized stations on their mainlines for rehabilitation, granted the adequate safety precautions are enforced. This arrangement allows Arntrak additional income and relieves them fÏom the burden of high maintenance expenses associated with a station that fiequentiy contains a large arnount of vacant space. Typically, an offer is made to the railway regarding the proposed new use, and if it is satisfactory, the station is sold and a long term lease on the land is arranged. The railway Company will then lease back the required space for its operations, and if the station is no longer required for passenger service, makes provisions to reserve access to the station should passenger service resume in the future. Amtrak has become very responsive to proposals to rehabilitate underutilized or redundant stations for non- raiIway purposes as a means to generate operational income. Fortunately as well, they are aware of the significance that a terminal should remain on its original site to retain its historical relevance, and allow developers to rehabilitate stations adjacent to active lines granted sufficient barriers are constructed and the tenant carries at least two million dollars in liability insurance. The cooperation between various departments, agencies and the railways in the United States has created an environment quite conducive to station preservation, and those communities and individuals interested in the reuse of stations are not faced with insurmountable barriers to achieve this goal.
4.1-2 British Pracfice
With the formation of British Rail System in 1948, the four major national railways were arnalgamated as a cost saving measure, and a course of streamlining and modernization of operations followed. Coupled wiîh changing trends in passenger and fieight patterns, the resulting reorganization involved the closure of redundant branchlines, reduced mal service and the removal of many historic Victorian stations. The British Rail Property Board, a subsidiary of British Rail, is responsible for the management and operation of al1 properties within the British Rail system and was assigned the task of disposing of dlthe redundant stations and other unnecessary railway structures after the streamlining in the 1950's to the 1970's. Where lines were abandoned and the tracks removed in rural areas, the snall stations and their properties were usually sold and converted into residences. In locations where lines continued to be active although the stations were no longer necessary, the stations were leased to interested parties for a varïety of purposes and remained in British Rail's ownership. Those stations on abandoned lines that could not be sold or leased because of inaccessibility or situated in an undesirable location were left to deteriorate and eventuaily demolished by British Rail.
Of approximately 2,3 00 stations still owned by British Rail, 17 1 have been recognized as distinguished histone structures and registered with the Department of the Environment, and are subject to the guidelines and protection af5orded by this designation. Regardless of designation, British Rail attempts to fmd alternate uses for al1 its redundant stations, although this is not always a possibility if the station is located in an undesirable location. If a new owner or tenant cannot be found, then demolition is often the ody alternative. If however, the station is among those Iisted with the Heritage Branch, then British Rail is not permitted to demolish it by law and is obligated to maintain the station for passenger service by whatever means available. Subject to available hds, these stations are often relegated to a position of low priority within the corporation and are only given superficial maintenance, while structurally they deteriorate to the point where they are beyond sdvage and demolition is necessary. Heritage designation in these situations does not provide protection but ultirnately acts as an obstacle to the inevitable fate of prolonged decay and eventual removal. Fortunately however in the past few years British Rail has taken an improved view to preservation and has placed more emphasis on the reuse of redundant stations instead of demolition.
Further evidence of a heightened concem for historic railway stations in Bntain came in 1984 fiom within the organization ultimately accountable for theïr preservation when British Rail established the Railway Heritage Trust, a national foundation concemed with al1 matters involving the preservation of histonc railway structures and engineering works ùi Britain. Though British Rail was principally responsible for its formation, the Railway Heritage Trust was constituted as an independent body, and has a mandate to advocate railway preservation fkom the point of view of direct economic and environmental benefits resulting fkom railway conservation efforts. Its two areas of concentration involve currently operating depots that it seeks to maintain and improve where economically feasible by providing grants to regional managers for station maintenance, and efforts to transfer undenitilized or abandoned stations that British Rail wishes to dispose of to interested parties such as historic trusts, community groups, local authorities and commercial interests. Within the past decade, under the direction of the Conservative govemment, British Rail has been privatized and there are now a number of individual cornpanies responsible for passenger senrice in the United Kingdom, yet the Railway Heritage Trust has survived and is still active in the same capacity as previously. The interest in railway preservation in the United Kingdom continues to be very strong, and the multitude of distinct preservation societies involved in railway heritage in Britain demonstrates a concem for its continued well being. Grants are occasionally offered through these societies for station conservation projects in areas throughout Britain, distinct fkom those provided by the Railway Trust, ensuring a number of possible avenues to be explored in order to secure the resources to undertake a station rehabilitation project. The understanding between railway companies and the Railway Tmst has resulted in the reuse and continued swival of a large number of histone stations in Britain, as proper communication between al1 parties early on has facilitated the entire process.
The conservation of heritage railway stations (and other railway works) in Canada has faced a number of obvious obstacles in the past, the most apparent of which was the basic fact that railway operations were part of a federal, self-regulaûng body, immune to influence fkom provincial or municipal authority. This restriction, combined with continua1 change and reorganization of the railway industry and evolving passenger trends also made the retention of stations for firme use an exceedingly difficult prospect. The means by which a railway Company needed to proceed to remove a station were guided entirely by economic considerations, and the historical atûibutes of stations were irrelevant to the regdating bodies. The foundation for this restrictive atmosphere can be traced to the British North Amerka Act of 1867 and the Railway Act which stated that the power for the regdation of interprovincial railway operations and properties rests entirely with the federal govemment. The Canadian Transport Commission was appointed in 1967 to enforce these regulations and they required that railway companies regulated by the Railway Act request permission pnor to abandonhg or demolishing a station. Although it is within their authority to affirm the guardianship of stations based on histoncal considerations for public interest, they declined to do so and reserved their judgements solely on financial, econornic and safety considerations. Given the interpretation of its responsibiiities, the CTC created a situation where stations could not legally be preserved in Canada until the beginning of this decade.
Only in exceptional circumstances was it possible for stations to be registered through provincial or municipal designation programs and afforded protected statu, such as when the railway company itself agreed to the designation of a station. This has occurred in Saskatchewan where twenty five stations located on lightly used or abandoned lines were registered with the concurrence of the railway company, and also in Newfoundland where the lines were abandoned altogether. An infiequently employed legal loophole also provided a slight amount of protection. Where stations were removed fiom service, the regulations enforced by the CTC lapsed temporarily for that structure as it was technically no longer considered a station, and provincial designation programs found room to proceed with registration. This strategy was attempted on occasion, but was not considered an entirely sound or legally defensible maneuver, and therefore far fiom an adequate solution. The federal heritage designation program, regulated by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, was equally ineffective in protecting stations as this program only relates to the identification and recognition of properties of national historical significance, and cannot authox-ize their protection nor management. It was not until mounting concems and lobbying by the Heritage Canada Foundation stimulated the creation of the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act that protection was introduced at the federal level.
In many ways, Ontario was at the forefront of station preservation activities pnor to the proclamation of the HRSP Act, even though the Ontario Hentage Act was considered one of the most ineffective and cumbersome of such bills in North Arnenca2*. Cooperation between the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture and the Ontario Hentage Foundation has been particuiarly productive in developing a course of action for communities to follow concerned for the fate of their local stations. Together they published the Railway Information Kit in 1985 and took the initiative to act as liaison between those communities and the railway companies. The Railway Information Kit was sent to local conservation committees, historical societies and municipal clerks as an educational tool to inform those concemed with stauon preservation and to assist them establish a course of action. The kit contained a historicai outline of railways in Ontario and station styles found in the province, the legal statu of railway stations and guidelines to establish Save Our Station (SOS) committees (see Appendix D) in communities across the province. The kit became an invaluable tool for local preservation groups in coordinating their response to the threat placed on their stations, and has been requested fiom al1 parts of Canada and the United States. The information contained within the issue paper on how to establish an SOS committee and plan an approach to Save a station is still relevant and effective today .
After Iengthy delays in the House of Commons and the Senate, the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act was hally proclaimed in 1990 almost seven years after initially being introduced, and the remaining historic stations in corporate ownership in Canada became eligible for protection. Administered by Histonc Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, the Heritage Railway Station Committee was forrned as principai enforcers of the HRSP Act and were responsible for evaluating al1 those remaining stations eligible for inclusion in the program. Stations were evaluated against cnteria which measured their historical and architectural significance, as well as environmental factors and the importance of the station within the community, sirnilar to those outlined in Appendix C. Afier evaluation, if a station's score met a predetemined benchmark then the committee would forward their recornmendation for designation to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (see Appendix E). Once designated, a comprehensive heritage character statement was prepared for that station and detailed the important heritage defdg features of the station which should be protected in the future. The heritage character statement was intended as a guide to be consulted if repairs or alterations were planned for the station in order to ensure appropriate action was followed and to safeguard the important hentage character of the terminal.
The principal objective of the HRSP Act was to provide a regulatory board to determine the appropriateness of alterations made to designated stations, and once a station is registered the alteration, traosfer of ownership or demolition of a station cannot proceed without the consent of the board. Railway companies considering changes to a designated station must first submit a proposal for consideration to the Minister of Canadian Heritage to be evaluated by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada's heritage conservation program. They will act in consultation with the railway Company to approve design resolutions or the transfer of ownership of the station, and once an agreement is reached the change can be made. If a railway Company proceeds with a change to a registered station prior to receiving approval, penalty will be levied for not less than $50,000 and no more than $1,000,000. Since the commencement of the program in 1991,245 stations have been evaluated for inclusion and 176 have met the requirements and have been listed with the registry. To date, al1 the stations remaining in the country eligible for inclusion in the prograrn have been evaluated and the remaining responsibilities of the Heritage Railway Station Committee involve enforcement of its regdations.
The HRSP Act has greatiy improved the situation for historic railway stations in this country and has afforded them with the level of protection that was obviously lacking until recently, but unfortmately even this program is not infallible in its comprehensiveness. Though it affords a certain number of special stations with protected statu (while the remainder are still disqualified fiom other designation programs), it does not promote their continued use in modem communities or stimulate initiatives to rehabilitate the stations for reuse. Similar to the situation in Britain prier to the Railway Heritage Trust, designation only makes provision for irnrnediate concerns and several stations in the country currently designated sit abandoned and deteriorating. Superficial maintenance is provided by the railway companies while structurally they decline to the point where the building is unsalvageable". Although the Act has provided for penalties to be issued for unauthorized alteration or dernolition of a station, it makes no requirement that a station be maintained to a level necessary for its survival.
Within recent years, CN Rail and VIA have taken a slightly more lenient approach to station preservation than in the past, and have agreed to review on a case by case basis proposais for rehabilitation of their stations when interest is expressed. Much like current practice in the Unites States, as a cost saving measure CNR will occasionally sel1 a redundant station to a local authority, community group or another interested agency and lease the land where it sits for an extended period. VIA will then lease the space it requires for passenger use fiom the organization, and the remaining space is adapted to non-railway use. This is only practiced on a very limited scale, and the railway insists that adequate barriers be erected between the station and active tracks. When a station is no longer required for rail use to any extent and interest is expressed from a third party for a complete non-railway rehabilitation, the railways continue to demand that it be moved £kom its original location. As a consolation however, they will occasionally donate the equivalent of dernolition costs to the organization for this purpose.
4.2 A vaîiuble Fun& for Statîon Reh abilîfation
Funding for the conservation of railway stations in Canada is not regulated by one central agency or department as is the case in the Unites States (Secretary of Transportation) or Britain (Railway Heritage Trust) but is generally under provincial jmisdiction, and available from the appropnate departrnent that deais with hentage issues. The arnount of fünding available varies greatly by province and is generaliy dependant on the overall prosperity of the province (and therefore the arnount of funds available to be allocated to cultural and humanitarian pursuits). Funding is aiso occasionally available directly fiom the municipal government where the station is located. Federal programs to hance such activities are few and the requirements to be eligible for participation are immoderate, with the exception of a short Iived program established to raise awareness in issues of cultural heritage in Canada to mark the new millenniurn. Private financing is ais0 occasionally available fiom charitable organizations in the country and subject to how well a rehabilitation proposa1 meets their criteria.
National Cost-Sharing Program: The National Cost-Sharing Program provides partial fimding assistance to projects of special significance to the nation's cultural heritage. To be eligible, the station must be designated by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada as a structure of special historical significance, which is different from designation by the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act. Funding is not set, and varies by project. The restoration of the McAdam, New Brunswick station was included in this program.
The Millennium Parînership Program: This program was established by the federal govemment to "encourage Canadians to create initiatives that explore our heritage, celebrate our achievements, build our fiiture and leave a lasting legacy". It provides partial funding for special projects with a histoncal context until December of 2001 that will contribute to the continued cultural heritage of the country. To be eligibie for diis program, the station rehabilitation project would have to be ultimately intended for community or regional use, as commercial oriented projects do not quaMy. Funding is subject to the projected budget of the project, but is not intended as complete fûnding. The conservation of the Markham Village station in Ontario was awarded $95,000 for their project through this program.
Provincial Asskfance
British Columbia: Funding is avaiiable through the British Columbia Heritage Trust, which is a division of the Department of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. It is accessible as part of their Building Conservation Program which will cover up to one-half of the expected cost to a maximum of $70,000, or their Historic Site Conservation program which will allow half the expected expenses to a maximum of $20,000.
Alberta: Funds are available through the Alberta Histoncal Resources Foundation which is a division of the Department of Community Developrnent. Approximately two million dollars is distributed annually for a variety of projects related to heritage conservation issues. The funding is contributed based on a 5050 cost-sharing principie and potentially allocated over a five year period to a maximum of $25,000 for studies, $75,000 for a provincial histonc resource, $25,000 for a registered historic resource and $5,000 for a municipal or local historic resource.
Saskatchewan: Funding is granted through the Saskatchewan Heritage Foundation which is a division of the Department of Municipal Affairs, Culture and Housing. Funds are provided on a cost-sharing principal and Vary depending on the nature of the project, with no set ceiling.
Manitoba: Designated Heritage Building Grants are provided in Manitoba through the Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship. They are intended for the restoration, stabilization, preservation or rehabilitation of historic structures registered by the province as part of their heritage designation program and are based on a cost-sharing initiative. The amount of fimding available is subject to the type of proiect and ex~ectedexDenses. Ontario: Funding in Ontario is provided through the Ontario Heritage Foundation which is regulated by the Department of Culture and Communications. Research grants are provided to a maximum of $15,000 and stewardship grants are also available to a maximum of $15,000,although more funding may be available as each proposal is subject to review on a case by case basis. Ontario's Ministry of Transportation also finances a separate program in partnership with local municipalities for the conservation of stations as intermodal teminals, and will finance up to seventy five percent of analytical and capital costs for such projects.
Quebec: Financing is available through the Department of Culture and Communication on a cost-sharing basis, with no set limit and subject the nature of the project and expected expenses.
New Brunswick: Provincial heritage issues are regulated by the Department of Economic Development and Culture and currently there are no in-house programs to provide grants, loans or other f'inancing for heritage properties in the province. Occasionally however, financing is provided on a cost-sharing bais in special situations, as with the rehabilitation of the McAdam station.
Nova Scotia: Financing is provided through the Department of Housing and Municipal Affairs, and is contributed based on the nature of the project. For studies, eighty percent of the proposed expenses are allowed to a maximum of $4,000; for conservation work, thïrty percent is eligible to a maximum of $5,000; and a Hannonized Sales Tax rebate of eight percent is also available on expenses paid for rnaterials, labour and related expenses for the restoration project.
Prince Edward Island: Provincial heritage matters are regulated by the Department of Culture, Heritage and Recreatioc. There is presently no financing available for heritage properties in this province, except in special circumstances.
Newfoundland and Labrador: Funds available for heritage conservation are available through the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is regulated by the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Projects are assessed on a case by case bais and there are no set limits for financing. Provincially registered stations in Avondale and Carbonnear have each been allocated $10.000 for restoration Dmoses. Yukon: Financing is provided through the heritage branch of the Department of Renewable Resources, and there are no set Iimits to the amount of fhds available.
4.2.3 Privute Assistance
Private sources of hancing are an additional 1ocati on to be explored when developing a station rehabilitation proposal, and is available fiom a number of possible sources. Private foundations, granting agencies and other philanthropie organizations inside the country and abroad are ofien wiiling to ente* requests for partial financing for nich projects, granted it can be shown that the proposed conservation project will benefit the community or region where the station is located to a certain degree. They must be applied to individually and it must be demonstrated that the proposa1 will meet the regulations of that particular charity.
The most efficient strategy when seeking funding for a heritage station rehabilitation project is to explore dl available options and apply to a nurnber of sources, beginnùig with the municipality in which the station is located, which may be willing to assist in fund raising activities, and the provincial agency responsible for hentage matters. If the station is currently in railway ownership, establishing proper commuaication with the railway company early in the planning stages is essential to negotiate the transfer of the temiinal and to assure that their restrictions, if any, will be met. The railway company may be willing to contribute dernolition costs to the relocation of the station if this is necessary. If the station is registered with the HRSP Act, communication must be established with the Secretariat of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada as well to begin the proceedings to transfer the station out of railway ownership, and to demonstrate that the station's historic character and fabric will not be compromised in the rehabilitation. When these conditions are met and the best course of action is followed, the ideal scenario will result in fimding from a combination of municipal, provincial/ federal -andprivate sources. Recommendafions
Oppominities for hentage station rehabilitation projects are nurnerous in this country, as there currently exists a large number of underutilized, endangered or abandoned terminals that are worthy candidates for such an undertaking. These terminals often posses the characteristics that make them an optimal choice for a conservation effort, as they are usuaily centrally located, easily adaptable to a nurnber of uses, can often be inexpensively acquired (with the cooperation of the railway company) and often posses special significance for the residents of the community or region where they are located and therefore motivate enthsiastic fund raising activities. Unfominately however, there exist a nurnber of obstacles that endure and prohibit this fiom taking place more ofien, the most obvious of which is the continued resistance fiom the railway cornpanies to the idea of station revitalization proposals, and the lack of a nationally organized and authoritative association to coordinate station preservation efforts.
Significant efforts are being made in certain parts of the country however to facilitate and encourage station conservation efforts, which can be observed for Merencouragement of similar activities in other areas. Standards used in other countnes can equally be reviewed for their ments, and stand as an exarnple of how to irnprove the situation in this country. Essentially, there are three separate areas that must be surveyed in order to generate the greatest amount of positive change in station conservation strategies across the country. Issues conceming the management of railway companies and their conviction to station preservation must be addressed, as well as matters at the local, provincial and national Ievel, and standards that can be observed and incorporated fiom abroad.
5.1 Raiïway Operations
Essential changes must be encouraged within the operations of the railway companies in this country before any positive progress can proceed to Merencourage station rehabilitation projects. The persistent and unyielding unwillingness on the part of CN Rail, CP Rail and to a lesser extent VIAr to widely entertain rehabilitation proposals for their redundant stations stands as the greatest obstacle for such projects. Their obstinate refusal to allow the reuse of stations adjacent to active lines, except in exceptional circumstances, is an unreasonable precondition and ultimately results in the unnecessary dernolition of terminals when the comrnunity where the station is located cannot raise the necessary funds associated with relocating the terminai. This obligation is generally irnposed citing safety considerations, yet ignores the fact that the zoning requirements for such a rehabilitation project would in most cases demand that adequate safety precautions be met that often exceed those already in place. A revision to this restrictive policy should be carried out as a foremost priority.
An expansion to their recent policy to occasionally sel1 stations to diird parties for non- railway purposes and then lease the required space for passenger operations should aiso be explored. Sirnilar to the policy widely adopted in the United States by Arntrak, this strategy provides additional income to the railway and is a mutually agreeable means to dispose of a redundant station while securing its swival.
With an irnprovement in the overall attitude towards station rehabilitation on the part of the railways, the next and most important course of action would be to establish open, sustainable lines of communication between the railways and other agencies and departments concemed with issues of heritage station conservation. An enduring partnership between the railways, conservation societies, local municipalities and govemrnent departments is essential to further the development of station preservation efforts. This common interest and partnership of resources would optimistically show positive results and result in workshops, publications and grant assistance programs to support the cause.
5.2 Regional and National Policies
There are currently policies in place in certain areas of the country that are beneficial to station preservation initiatives, and encourage the reuse of terminals through increased understanding of the history and benefits to revitalization programs. The information created by the Ontario Hentage Foundation for the establishment of Save Our Station cornmittees in cornmunities concerned for the welfare of their stations is invaluable to the foundation of well informed and well organized groups to pursue their goals of station reuse. This initiative shodd be encouraged and expanded upon, as a sound and realistic approach to a rehabilitation proposai is the uitimately the best way to ensure an efficient course of action and dtimately achieve success. Another initiative conceived of in Ontario and which has proven quite successful is a program developed under the Mùiistry of Transportation which encourages the reuse of redundant or underutilized stations for intermodal purposes. In partnership with the municipality where the station is located, they will potentially fimd up to seventy five percent of the analytical and capital costs for the station adaptation. This program reassures the reuse of a threatened station, while simultaneously providing trainmus terminals for the localiw with commercial space to help offset the operating expenses. This program has the potential to be successful in al1 regions of the country and dernonstrates the positive results achieved with an open partnership between the railroad Company, the provincial govemment and a municipality, and its expansion should be widely encouraged.
Another positive initiative that should be undertaken is the development of a comprehensive and updateable list of al1 remaining railway terminals in the country as this basic achievement has not yet been pursued. Such a list would act as an extremely valuable data base for provincial agencies and preservation groups interested in the issue of station preservation. This task could be approached on a province by province basis, but would be condensed into a national registry when complete. Basic information on each station including facts such as the age, type of station, architectural details, present condition and use, and a visual representation could be included, as well as a bief evaluation of the station based on criteria similar to that found in Appendix C.
5.3 International Policies
The greatest sources of information on how to further improve the standards used to approach station rehabilitation projects can be drawn fiom international sources, as British and Amencan policies adopted within the past twenty years or so have created environments in those countries quite conducive to station rehabilitation. An analysis of the procedures practiced in those countries would be extremely beneficial in order to draw Muence on how to improve the situation domestically. Those standards that have proven particularly successful could be adopted for use here, and adapted to the specific conditions of this country. The blendïng of successful policies already in place here and the addition of new standards could create a revised outlook on station conservation inspired by these international policies. The hi& level of cooperation between United States governent departrnents and the adoption of a policy in the Arntrak lmprovement Act to enforce standards that specificaily encourage and support the reuse of historie railway stations, has proven very successful and can be observed as a mode1 to be emulated in this country. A central body (Secretary of Transportation) has been authorized to provide al1 the necessary means to support a station rehabilitation project, including financial, technical and advisory to assist communities and pnvate citizens alike in their goals. It further acts to stimulate any other agency such as local and state govemments, heritage groups and charitable organizations to become involved in any capacity that might prove beneficiai to the project. This comprehensive grouping of resources and agencies with a vested interest in this topic provides the optimal situation for a successfüi project. This team approach, or a variation of it, to station preservation regulated fiom within a federal department would be wisely adopted in this country as well to encourage the retention of threatened stations. The Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act might serve as the appropriate vehicle to pursue this expansion and centralization of services as it has already fulfilled a large portion of its intended mandate, and there is now room for expansion of its objectives.
Similarly?Britain has adopted an approach to station preservation based on the organized efforts of a single, dominant agency responsible for the coordination and management of station conservation efforts. Onginating from railway company initiatives however, tliis agency has proven to be a very well organized and efficient instrument to promote the conservation and reuse of heritage stations in Britain. This agency similarly arranges for a wide variety of necessary activities such as funding assistance, technical advice and planning reviews and coordinates the procedures required for a successful station rehabilitation. The active and vital approach to station conservation that the primary railway company in Britain has shown is commendable given that the interests of a large, commercial enterprise such as British Rail are often not in keeping with those upheld by conservation groups, and should be viewed as an example to be followed by CN Rail, CP Rail and VIA. 5.4 Recommended Procedures for Future Railway Herituge Preservaton
RaiIway companies should lessen their insistence that stations be moved fiom sites adjacent to active Iines, when given the assurance that the new tenant will erect adequate barriers and provide suffïcient Liability insurance.
A more open approach on the part of railway companies to the purchase of their underutilized or redundant stations for non-railway and intermodal uses.
Establish channels of open communication between railway companies and organizations interested in heritage station preservation, to create partnerships between al1 the relevant parties.
Encourage the formation and expansion of Save Our Station committees in communities across the country, to create well informed group prepared for the obstacles associated with many station revitalization proposals.
Expand on partnerships between government departments and local municipalities to provide funding for intermodal station reuse projects.
Create a comprehensive data base of the remaining stations in the country, and include a brief evaluation of the historical merits of that terminal.
Create an efficient, well organized team approach to station preservation administered by a central federally reguiated department or agency, such as the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act.
Encourage the primary railway companies in this country to take a more active interest in station preservation, and possibly create a national partnership to deal with and regulate station preservation activities. 5.5 Recommended Station Presetvation SfrategiesBased on Use
The recornrnended approach to a station rehabilitation project varies somewhat according to the organization that initiates the project, as the interests of that group and ultimately the intended new use for the station will require an approach specific to that particular situation. Each station rehabilitation project varies to an extent £iom the ne- and must be approached with an open and flexible strategy to deal with unexpected conditions, though a well prepared and sound rehabilitation proposal is generally the best way to begin. Similarly, there are common elernents to al1 station adaptation projects that should be observed to ensure the most efficient and successfùl course of action, such as early and comprehensive planning, and establishing an open and sustainable communication channel with the railway company.
Cornrnunity proposal: Ofien a railway station will occupy a conspicuous place in a cornrnunity, located near the center of the town or city, and underutilized or abandoned stations serve as ideal structures to be adapted to regional uses such as libraries, community center or drop in centers. When developing a proposal for a station for such a use, early planning is the key to a successful application. A group or committee (such as a Save our Station committee) should be organized to plan the appropriate actions to be taken, and should begin by compiling information on the station such as its history, place in the comrnunity, and present condition. A preliminary station evaluation should be conducted at this point as well, based on criteria similar to that found in Appendix C. Communication should be established with the railway company to notify them of the interest in redeveloping the station, to detennine the railway's future intentions for the station, and to determins what restrictions the railway might apply to its adaptation. If the station is registered with the HRSP Act, then the necessary procedues must be initiated to transfer the station out of railway ownership. A cornprehensive proposal for the reuse of the station should be compiled at this point to demonstrate the benefits of the project, and to ensure that the histoncal attributes of the station and its fùture survival will be secured. Sources of hancial assistance for the redevelopment proposal should also be explored to facilitate the adaptation plan, as govemment departments, histoncal societies and philanthropie organizations are fkequently attracted to such proposais and may provide a source of partial fmancing for the project. Government proposal: Municipal and provincial departments can often find an alternate use for an underutilized station to suite their needs, or to provide a service to a community or region. Rehabilitating a station as a museurn or for offices provides the assurance that the station is being preserved while serving a required use. The approach to such a proposal will be similar to a community initiated project, as the required procedures in dealing with the railway company and their cooperation will continue to be necessary. Early communication should be established with the railway company to determine their willingness to participate in the station rehabilitation proposal, and if the station is registered to demonstrate that the historical fabric of the structure will not be comprornised in the adaptation process. Though financial issues are not necessarily applicable to this sort of situation, the railway company may be willing to contribute the estimated dernolition costs for the station shodd it be required to be moved.
Private proposal: Within recent years, the railway companies in this country have becorne slightly more receptive to the prospect of selling or leasing underutilized stations to third parties to be used for non railway uses. These situations are evaluated on a case by case basis, although a promising and efficient proposa1 for the adaptation of the station, similar to a community based approach, will improve the prospect that it will be found acceptable. Partnerships between railways and third parties to create intermodal terminais often provides the most agreeable solution, as al1 interests are provided for while continuing to aliow the station to remain on its original site. Financing is available in Ontario for such projects, and possible in other provinces through the appropriate government department.
Railway use: The adaptation of stations by railways to other uses is regulated by the Canadian Transportation Cornmittee, as railways must net@ the CTC of their intention to alter or demolish a station. The CTC bases its evaiuations exclusively on financial and safety considerations, and therefore the alteration of non-registered stations is easily accomplished. If the station is registered by the HRSP Act, approval must be gained fiom the Heritage Railway Station Committee with the assurance that the historical fabric of the station will not be compromised in the adaptation plans. RAILWAYS OPERATNG UNDER THE FEDERAL RAILWAY ACT
Following is a list of railways operating in Canada regulated by the Federal Railway Act, which includes the Railway Safety Act and the Canada Transportation Act.
Company Location Track Miles
Transcontinental Railwavs 1, Canadian National Nationai 2. CP Rail National
Regional- Railwavs 3. Algoma central Railway Ontario 4. Canadian American Que/ME/N.B. 5. Cape Breton Development Corporation (Devco) Nova Scotia 6. Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Quebec and Newfoundland 7. White Pass and Yukon Corporation British Columbia and Yukon 8. AniaudWabush Lake Railway Quebec 9. Essex Terminal Railway Ontario
Passenger and Cornmuter Railways* 10. VIA National I 1. GO Transit Ontario
(* Operate on CP and CN trackage) MEASURES TAKEN BY PASSENGER CARRIERS TO DISCOURAGE RIDERSHIP
Some measures carried out by the railways providing passenger service in this country are as follows. Some of these tactics are still being practiced by VIA routinely.
Adverse and inconvenient scheduling of trains, which is often completely inappropriate to custorner's needs. Using uncornfortable, drafty, noisy and generally dilapidated equipment on passenger lines that are fiequent to break downs. Train service on some lines that is several hours slower than it was decades earlier. Routinely giving priority of passage to freight trains instead of passenger trains creating delays and inconsistent service. Pnce structures within the industry intentionally escalated for repairs, user fees and other senices that drive ticket fares up beyond the competitive market. Cuts made to popular lines even though they were frequentiy sold out. Refusal to sel1 available space on trains in order to decrease ridership statistics and justify cuts. An inadequate reservation system. Retiring large arnounts of rolling stock necessary for adequate service and therefore placing and overburden on the remaining equipment. 10. A deliberate misrepresentation of the nurnbers using the trains in the country by the railways to downplay the importance of passenger service and justify cuts to lines. 1 1. A general lack of effort to promote passenger service in the country.
These are findings published in 1. "The Last Straw - Report of the Task Force on Rail Passenger Service" in 198 1. 2. Outlined by the Transport Canada, Rail Action Force in 1985. 3. From the Senate Standing Cornmittee on Transport and Communication in the House of Commons in 1966 and in 1984. 4. Frorn the Liberal Task Force brkf fiom 1989. Evaluation Criteria Ex phnation Grade
1. Historical Associations a) Railway History
It is representative of a station type Station designs can he classified Excellent example associated with built for a particular railway or a according to construction eras historiclrl railway theme. reminder of a specific construction reiated to railway history in the Very good exainple of railway era. Also possibie association with countiy. It inay be associated with history. a milestone in railway technological the introduction of new Good example of railway history. advancement. locomotives, or track gaug. Fair exainple of railway history. b) Historical Attributes
It is associated with the political, The station inay have had a Excellent historical association. commercial, industrial or econoinic specific effect on the development Very good historical association. history of a region, community or of primary (agriculture or mining), Good historical association. province. Also may be associated secondary (manufacturing or Unknown/poor historical with a significant event that took construction) or tertiary (services or association, place at the station, such as the visit tourism) businesses or industries in by a dignitary or royalty. the community or region. Evaluation Criteria Ex plrnat ion Grade c) Technological Innovation
It is related to a technological or The station is the location where Excellent example of technological stylistic innovation that places it as the introduction, evolution or advancement where few survive. a first location for the application application of a technological Very good example if few survive of this important service or advancement rctated to in province. advancement, transportation or communication Good exainple if few in region. took place. Fair example.
Social History
The station may be associated with The station inay have played a The station had a significant social an important penod of a role in a development or event that impact on the community. community or region's growth, saw a change to a community or The station had a noteworthy social prosperity or overall character. region, and may have influenced impact on the community. the location of centers within a The station had a good association community or the placement of with community developments. institutions. Unknownllittle impact. Evaluation Criteria Ex planrtion Grade
2. Architecture and Technolugiesl Attributes a) Architectural Style
It demonstrates original formal and 1s this station an example of a Excellent exainple of architectural functional characteristics associated recobmized style and was it well style. with a recognized style, executed. 1s the visual character of Very good exainple of architectural construction era, method of the station pleasing in its style. construction or designer. composition and detailing. 1s it an Good example of architectural example of a standard design, or style. does it reflect the architecture of a Fair example of architectural style. particular place and are the construction materials well chosen and handled. Is it the work of a particular designer of note. b) Age and Rariîy
Age: The station in comparatively The station may have been built in Excellent. One of the oldest, old in relation to the construction the early period of the community's Very good example. history of the city or region. development. It may be of a unique Good example. design, style, size, or composition Rarity: The station has a unique or may be one of the few remaining Excellent. One of few surviving. style or design, or has an unusual examples of a standard station plan. Very good example. method of construction. Good example. O\ Vi Evaluation Criteria Expianation Grade c) Technologieal Applications
It demonstrates features related to Structures that retain such Excellent exarnple. Historic the operation of the railroad evidence are considered more equi pment st il1 survives. exhibited in the station such as valuable than those that do not. Very good example. Some historic communication, baggage handling, equipment remains. signaling equipment or period Good example. Evidence of furnishings. equipment remains. Fair example. d) Functional Attributes
It demonstrates a functionality in Does the plan of the station relate Excellent example of well plan in relation to its overail to its composition and demonstrate coinposed station type. composition and function. The a logic in configuration, Are the Very good example of functional methods of construction were construction methods unique and station. appropriate for the circumstance or appropriate io the situation. Good example. Demonstrates it demonstrates innovation in logical construction standards. construction methods. Fair exarnple. e) Present State of Station
The station has primarily retained Interior and exterior appearance E$xcellent state.Little or no chanp. it's forinal and functional historical has retained its original features, or Very good state of preservation. attributes, not modified by has been modified in a way that is Good state. Can be restored. alterations. reversible. Fair condition. Needs repair. Evaluation Criteria Explanation Grade
3. Environmental Attributes a) Cultural Attributes
The station is associated with the The relevance of the station to the Major interest in the preservation deveiopment of the community in development of the region or of the station by the community. the orientation of street patterns, community is understood, and may lnterest in station restoration settlement location and the possess landmark status within the without a fomal strategy of action. placement of related structures. The center as a symbol of pride and Little interest or concern in the station plays a recognized role in the history. This may be marked by a station or the possibility of evolution of the present community. historical designation status. preservation. b) Relation of Station to its Environment
1t relates to its natural surroundings The station retains a sense of Excellent relationship to and contributes to the streetscape, belonging in its built environment surroundings. Retains features and maintains a relation with as far as scale, height, proporiion compatible with character of area. associated structures (ie. tracks, and setting. Stations that have been Very good association with platforms, other related railway removed from their original setting surroundings. structures). have less historical integrity. Good relation to surroundings. Poor. Incompatible to environinent. Evaluation Criteria Explanation Grade
c) Planning History Do surrounding land uses reflect Very good. Surroundings remain The present site renects past past patterns in the placement of primarily unchangd. planning patterns related to the roadways, early coinmercial and Good. Surroundings retain past station and relates well to industrial structures and are they in characteristics to a large degree. surrounding land uses. continued use. Fair. Some evidence of past use. Poor. incompatible land uses. d) Physical Presence
The station has a dominant presence 1s the station a highly visible Tlie station is a dominant visiial in the community or region, structure within its iinmediate landmark in the area. prominently located and may surroundings, which stands out as a lt is a noticeable feature of its possess landrnark status. conspicuous structure in the environment coinrnunity. 1t is inconspicuous.. Evaluation Criteria Ex planation Grade
4. Economic Associations a) Economic Impact
The station is associated with the The railroad had a measurable Had a significant impact on the economic prosperity of a effect on the economic condition of economic condition of a region. community or region in the support a region, and is related to a period Had a noticeable impact on the or development of businesses or of prosperity or hardship. economic condition of a region. industries. Had little impact on a region b) Physical Condition of Station
The station and site where it is The building is structurally sound The station is in very good located are in good physical and does not possess intrusive condition for a low cost restoration condition and can potentially be alterations that prevent the station The station in good condition and repaired adorreused. from feasibly being repaired or needs some alterations. restored. The site is in good Poor condition. I-iigh cost condition and has not deteriorated restoration project. beyond salvage. Evaluation Criteria Ex plrnation Grade
c) Potential for Continued Rail service
The station will continue to be The station is currently being used In active use as terminal or freight utilized by the railway for passenger for passenger service by VIA and station. service or the tracks for freight will continue for the foreseeable Continued railway use planned. operat i ons. future and/or existing freight Passengr or freight operations operations will continue to run over discontinued or being phased out. the lines in the vicinity of the station.
d) Potential for Station Reuse
The station is a viable candidate for The benefits of a station Excellent candidate for reuse, reuse according to the evaluation of rehabilitation projec! must be Very good candidate for reuse. the physical condition of the weighed against a nuinber of Good potential for reuse. terminal and its state of logistical considerations according Poor potential for reuse. preservation. Other considerations to its intended reuse. These include must be addressed as well such as matters such as zoning, track safety, the location of the station to an building codes, parking and established center, economic accessibili ty issues. considerations and public access issues, depending on the intended rehabilitation project. -- - Evaluation criteria basei! in pari on information from the Heritage Railway Kations Protection Act station evaluation forrns, and the "Planning for O4 Heritage Railway Stations" report by the Ontario Mitiistry of Citizensliip and Culture and the Ontario Hcritage Foundation. APPENDZXD
SAVE OUR STATION COMIMITTEE GUIDELINES
SAVE OUR STATION COMMITTEES GUIDELINES FOR SUCCESS
Thece is no guaranteed rompMy oEficfals and the Valuable fnformation and formula €or saving the Canad ian Transport Corn i ss ion assistance is available from cailvay station Ln yaur CCTCI. SOS cornmittees aLready coiinnunlty. Each station is operating in Ontario, Get unique in context- You must Awarencss of the company's acquainted with thefr consider a variecy of legal, activf tes concernfng experiences and learn €rom economic , planning , stations in othec their successes and architectural and historical comaiunities can provide your failures. (See Issue Paper Eactoca- coaiaii ttee ri th valuable 5 insfght into the potential In some cases, station There are, houever. basic future oc the station. guidelines vhich have been Action taken nov can avoid preaervation groupe are proven through successful the often unfoc tunate formed from other local past station preservation rcsults of a hastily formed organizations interested in projects to be essentta1 in conimi ttee becorni nq involved local cailvay hecitage. In saving your station. Barrie, the subccamittee to Late in the game. The chart Bave the Aïlandale sution below illustrates the vas established by the The POUr Basic Guidelines importance of action taken city's In Smiths Are: early Ln order to preserve a LAW. rai lway station. Falls, the statlon comnilttee 1. Start Early: the key to originaeed from an effort on success is to be the pact of a gfoup of prepared, betore the Chamber of Commerce members: station is declaced SOS COUJ4ITEEE PORnED and in Gravenhurst, the SOS BEPORE 'IRE STATION IS group was established by the redundant and threatened AND wi th demoli t ton. DECLARM REDUNDANT local citizens and latcr FACED UITR PEnOLITION-i endorsed by the twn 2, Get Ocganized: take - council. collective action by LAUELL ORGAN~Z~DAND establishfng a Save Our INPOm COMHITPEe Cet in touch with the local Station conunittee [SOS) 1 gcoups and organizations to repcesent your Lrae CorrnITrEE 1s AsLe m most likely to be interested community's interest and EPPECTXVELY OISCIISS THE Ln saving the station. For concern for the station's ISSUE OP ITS STATION'S example : preservation. PRESERVATXON WITB mf LWAY OPPICIALS AND OTXER . histor ical groups 3. Miou Pour Station: PARTIES XNVOLVeD I . municipal councfl reseacch the station and - WACS be informed of its RE COeMlTTeE AmAINS . Chambers of Commerce heritaqe value and its CREDIBILITY IN TEE NES . Local business groups contextual sfgnif icance. OP lsz RAILWAY COMPANY cultural organizations AHD OTEIER PARTIES . 4. Devalop a Station XNVOLVEO 1 Also, the varfety of Preservation Proposal: expertise and interests be prepared to present a LTtE STATION'S pcesent in the communitv Eeasible and sound PRESERVATION BWlOnES A should be represented in the aLternatfve plan to the CO-OPERATfVe ENDEAMUR SOS group. station's demoli tion INVOLVING TSE vhich vil1 best satisfy Uembers could inclode the the interests of al1 the following: INTERESTeD PARTIES parties involved . 1 - local politicfans LREIS A Gûûü CRANCE OP . planneri SAVING THE STATION . architects/engineers . Local hiatoclane The euccess of 6 station . joucnalf sts preaervation project heavLly . members of the business depends on the work donc couununi ty before the etation fs ever In order to cf f ectively . real estate Eacad with dernolition- establish an SOS committee representatives/developets Early fnvoLvement , in your col~munity, you must lawyers organization and research dctermfne vho wLll be . conccrned cf tizenm results in an SOS committee membars, what are the goals ueli equipped to deal and objectives and hou the This valuable poal of coaipatently with the railway grmp wfll operrte. knowladge and exhr ience available at the local level OL such by-laws and non-railway cantcxt. will lend credibility to the qtwstionable in ter- of SOS campaign and certainly heritage stations. ~stablishinghecitage value facilitate the projectl s Desiqnation by-laws have invoLves a htstocical and success. nonetheless been passed architectural/structural by some municfpalitfes. assessment of the station. Once the cu~amittee'smembers (See Issue Paper 3) ft should be done as soon as are assenbled, the next step the SOS coamiittee is is to set the goals and 3. Lobby your muaicipal ocganized so that the objectives of the campaign. councir for its support heritage value can be Asswing the goal is to of the SOS campaign, by pcesented as the initial preserve the station while passfng a cesolution in argument for the station's satisEying al1 the parties Eavour of the station's preservatfon. involved, then the presecvation. objectives vil1 lnvolve Historical and architectural determining the station's 4. At al1 stages of the assessments require conservation potential and campaign, contact sbould research, Here are some formulating a strategy foc be maintained with the suggestions: its retention andfor re-use. Heritage Branch of the Ontario ninistry of Pind out uhat's alceady To successfully meet these Citfzenship and Culture. knovn about the station objectives, the committee ninistry officiais are must deteraine hou It uIll avaflable to offer thefr Check vith any local operate. ft is important advice and background histori.ca1 sacieties, that your coniaittee use fnformtion with railway museums and the every means available which respect to the LACAC for any information may contribute to the ewrience of other they may have collected. station's preservation. communities Sn the Bere are some suggestions: preservation of heritage Check pur public library stations. for local histories 1. Put your concerns in wri ting fmediately. 5. Let your Eederal and These often refer to the ~otifythe Canadian provincial Parliamentary station as a main Transpof t Commission representatives knov, in influence in the [ml and railway writing, that you are community's development. oEEicials at the highest concerned. Reep a copy level of the Company of al1 correspondence- Check the municipal contemplating demoLition. Letters and petitions are records (See footnotes for tangible evidence that addresses) The railway the community is actively Legal documents belong ing must issue public notice concerned about ffnding a to the station such as of its intentions to practical solution to land deeds, titLes and dewlish or remove a conflicts between the surveys are important to station, A positive interests of this research. ongoing relationship with conservationis ts and the the Company would railuays. Xnte rvieu local residents probably result in an increased waiting period 6. Keep the rallway's They may have collected before demolit ion. Wore concerns in mind. If a photos, postcards and time to neqotiate may community is able to neuspaper clippngs about Save a station that uould satisfy the contcactual, the station or special otherwise be destroyed. economic, safety or other events havinq taken place Encourage railway concerns of the raflway, at the station. Some may of Eicials to keep the it is more likely that a have menories oE the line of co~~munications mutually acceptable station's early open and to travel to solution can be Eound, importance in the your community to discuss without resorting to the commun i ty. the alternatives. expense and uncertainty of legal remedies. Check with the libraries 2. The Ontario Heritage Act and archives empoverç municipali ties to- pass by-laus The local public library, designating a property as On tac io Archives and being of historical oc - Public Archives of Canada architectural value, The importance of getting to may have photoghaphs, Designation provides a know al1 aspects of your architectural drawings measure of protection railway station cannot be and other documentary against demolition. The overstated; Lt can mean the materials that can be legal interpretation that difference between the used for restoration f ederally regulated success and failure of the purposes as veL1 as property cannot be SOS campalgn. Knwinq the serving as display items designated in terms of station means detenainhg during the SOS campaign. heritage railway stations fts heritase value and makes the efÉect iveness understandhg its railway The building's design M.a A well wganizcd and uiformcd SOS cornmittee mets to dcvelop a feasible and sou& for the nation's prcservaticna
features and its structural Investigation of the presently apply to the cond i tion are important station*^ railway context use of the station and . factors in determinfng the can beqin with the simple surrounding pcoperty viability of a station's observation of raflway . what official plan continued of adapted use. operations at the station policies or other long- The maintenance costs oE site, such as: term development and these stations are often redevelopment plans have cited by the railway . the number of trains been established by the companies as factors in passing and/or stopping sunicipality support of station at the station daily . how accessible is the demolition. To be prepared . the type of traffic, station from the Central in this respect, your freight and/or passenger Business District committee should have an . the number of tracks , what parking space does architect and/or enqineer do . the station *s proximi ty the station provide a thorough examination of to the tracks . uhat other present or the station and provide an . the station's location on proposed transportation assessment of the building ' s a main or branch line factors affect the accommodation and overall . train speeds passing the communi ty condition. station . is thefe public interest . recent decline in railway and support for the To be the most benefit to traff ic station' s preservation the committee members and others intecested in the SOS Having obtained an initial campaiqn, this historical sense of the station's and architectural present rallway operational information should be value, the commi ttee should recorded in an eas i ly next contact the railway accessible format such as a company to enquice as to tts This final step involves the station survey Eorm oc Éact future plans of operation preparation and ptesentation sheet. Eor the line, station and of a Eeasible and sound station site. alternative to the station's The other aspect of knowing demolition. The goal. of your station is having a An undetstanding of the station retention and/oc good understanding of the station's non-rail context re-use while satisfying the station's rail and non-rail should involve examinat ion interests of al1 parties context. Again, to be the of the Eollowing items: involved, must be the result most effective, the of this proposal, On the commi ttee should be equipped . what community/business basis of the tescarch with this information before activities are looking carried out according to any threat of station for accommodation in the Guidelf ne 43, your rommittee abandonment or removal locale is now well equipped to exists. . what land uses presently determine the station's re- surround the station site use potential and formulate . what land-use controls a Eeasible alternatlot plan of action. museum and i nfocmation benef it your coatmuni ty's and ticket office for eEfort to saoe its station. The most Zavourable Ontario Uorthlandts pteservation philosophy is U.S . ChL-Cheemaun Good luck 1 to retain the station for fer ry service railway operations oc reuse the station on its original iv. Statioa se-use for a site. Railway Company single non-rrlluay policy ha8 often been to 8cti.i ty offer the station for sale at a ninimal cost on the Example: Parry Sound, Foot notes condition that it be Ont., CNR station relocated . This approach converted to offices nat only strips the station for the Chambec of The Canadian Transport of its railway context, but Coainerce Corission it also creates the added expense of purchasing a new Wbatevar option your contact: Secretary , site and movinq the building proposal advocates, it is Rai lway Transport from one place to another. essential that it take into Committee, Al1 effort on the part of account the interests and Canad ian TranSpot t the SOS conmittee should concerns of al1 parties Commiss ion therefore be to retain and/or involved. The following is Ottawa, Ontario re-use the station on its a check-list of items your RU ON9 original site. Pelacation proposal ahould cover: should be considered only when alothet options have 1s the proposa1 legally been exhausted. and practically Canadian Pacific Railways compatible with the The rehabilitation or ce-use railway companyts present contact: Vice-President , of your station can involve and future rail use of Eastern Reg ion, any of the Eollowinq schemes the station site CP Rail proven successful by past 1s the proposal leqally Union Station, station preservation and practically Toronto, Ontar io pro jec ts : compatible with the HU 1E7 munlcipali ty's plans Eor i. Station rehabilitation future development oE the for continued railway surtound ing area opera tions AS deterœined by the form of re-use and the terms Canadian National Rat luays Example: Port Hope, of the station's Ont., CNR station occupation, is the contact: Vice-President , rehabilitated for VIA proposal feasible in Great Lakes Rail waiting room and ter= of its estimated Reg ion, CNR operations revenues CN Rail Bas the proposal prov ided Union Station, ii. Station te-use for a detailed explanation O€ Toronto, Ontario passenqar rail service a realistic lunding H5J 1E7 coibiaeâ with non-rail strategy for the project activiti es Bas the proposa1 Eully considered the station's: Example: Grimsby, Ont., CHR station - size, layout and other converted to a characteristics contact: Vice-President restaurant and VIA - location and VIA Ontario, Rail pcssenger waiting accessibility 20 King Street COOm - mar ketability West, Toronto, Ontario iii. Station ce-use for a Remember , tha t these s teps M5H 1C4 dxof non-railway are meant only as actiof tics quidellnes- They vil1 not guarantee the success of Example : Owen Sound, your SOS campaiqn, but they Ont., CNR station will providc the valuable converted to a marine direction ohich can only
From "The Railway Information Kit, an Aid for the Conservation of Heritage Railway Stations" by the Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Culture and the Ontario Heritage Foundation. PROCEDURE FOR DESIGNAThTGA RAILWAY STATION WITH THE HERITAGE RAILWAY STATIONS PROTECTION ACT Notes
1. R Brown, The Train Doesn 't Stop Here Anymore (Peterborough, Ontario and Lewiston, New York: Broadview Press Ltd., 199l), p. 183.
2. It is not known for certain exactly how many heritage stations (defined as at least 40 years of age and irregardless of owner) are still standing in Canada today, but an estimation of approximately 1600 was reached from conversations with employees withïn the Canadian Heritage division of Parks Canada, the Canadian Railway Station Guide and the inventos. of Histonc Buildings in Canada studies conducted in the 19'701s.
3. S. E. Woods, Cinders and Suhater, the Story of Atlantic Canada's Railways (Halifax: Nimbus Publishing, 1W2), p.xii.
4. N. Mika, H. Mika, Railways of Canada, a PictoriaZ History (Toronto and Montreal: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 1972), p.23.
5. J. Marshall, Railway Facts and Feats (Enfield: Guinness Superlative Lùnited, 197l), p.119.
6. R. Brown, The Train Doesn't Stop Here Anymore (Peterborough, Ontario and Lewiston, New York: Broadview Press Ltd., 199 l), p. 179.
7. Ibid., p.57.
8. In fact, the charter for this railway was granted on the pretext that it would become the leading force in developing the great resources available throughout the Canadas, and would stimulate the industrial growth of these two regions by linking them by rail and extending that link into the Unites States. Mika, op. cit., p.50.
9. Ibid, p.51.
IO. Brown, op. cii., p.78.
11. Mika op. cit., p.156.
12. One gang of builders followed the next, with the first assembling the Me,joist and rafters, and the next adding the sheathing, flooring and roofing components. Finally the last gang comprised plasterers and finishers. This routine was followed ail the way across the prairies fÏom one settlement to the next. K. Liddell, I'ZZ Take The Train (Saskatoon: Western Producer Prairie Books, 1977), p.40. 13. It was agreed upon granting the charter for this line that the eastem division wodd be constnicted and owned by the Canadian govemment and leased in perpetuity to the Grand Trunk Railway when completed.
14. Examples of some of the wholesale abandonment of stations in these 2 decades include: the destruction of 245 stations on lines through Quebec's eastem townships in the 1960's CNR applied to the Canadian Transport Commission for permission to demolish almost 100 stations in Saskatchewan between April and July of 1975 between 1979 and 1980 Saskatchewan Iost another 100 stations and Ontario was given permission to remove 140 stations in 1974 CNR demolished 50 stations in Manitoba 29 of Nedoundland's stations were cIosed in 1979
15. Originally initiated by the Hentage Canada Foundation in 1983, the Bill C-205 was delayed in the House of Cornons and in Senate proceeding, weighed down under bureaucratie procedures until it was proclaimed on September 2 1, 1990.
16. Stations in possible danger include those in railway ownership, not designated and serving several fünctions including storage, maintenance or signaling , and subject to removal at any time. This aiso includes stations that are abandoned or othenvise neglected.
17. Federal or provincial designation.
18. This can include structures such as nineteenth century hotels, warehouses, grain elevators, mills, houses and other railway buildings.
19. This would involve a mix of transportation and commerciaVprivate enterprise within the same structure, as in rail/bus service for a municipality operating out of part of the station and a business in the remaining space.
20. The Ontario Heritage Act placed the entire responsibility of prese~ngbuildings on the municipality where they are located, with conditions considered sufficiently cumbersome to prevent many communities fiom being able to utilize it. Also, it prevents the province itself kom designating structures of important historical significance.
2 1. The abandoned station in Fredericton, New Brunswick for instance was registered with the prograrn in 1992 and has since been boarded up and neglected by the community. It has been vandalized repeatedly and stmcturally it has detenorated a great deal; there is presently several feet of water in the basement and it is infested with mold growth. 22. As previously mentioned, VIA has adopted a more positive approach to station preservation in Canada as a means to improve and maintain customer relations, though they have on several occasions been guilty of rernoving stations as well and replacing them with prefabncated glass and metal shelters. They have also been resistant to station adaptation plans adjacent to active iines, resulting in the unnecessary dernolition of terminais. Anderson, Notter, Finegold Inc. Recycling Historic Railwav Stations, a Citizen's Manual, Washington: United States Department of Transportation, 1978.
Andrea, Christopher Lines of Country, an Atlas of Railwav and Waterway Histow in Canada, EM, Ontario and Toronto: Boston Mills Press. 1997.
Bdlantyne, Bruce Canadian Railway Station Guide, Ottawa: The Bytown Railway Society, 1998.
Berton, Pierre The Great Railwav, Illustrated, Toronto: McLelland and Stewart Limited, 1972.
Berton, Pierre The Last Spike: the Great Railwav 188 1-1 885, Toronto: McLelland and Stewart Limited, 197 1.
Biddle, Gordon and O.S. Nock The Railway Heritage of Britain - 150 Years of Railwav Architecture and Engineering, London: Michael Joseph Ltd., 1983.
Bohi, Charles and LesIie S. Koma Canadian Pacifie's Western De~ots,Nebraska: South Platte Press, 1983.
Bohi, Charles Canadian National's Western Depots. Toronto: Railfare Enterprises Limited, 1977.
Biddle, Gordon Victorian Stations. Railway Stations in England and Wales, Newton Abbot, Devon: David & Charles, 1973.
Brown, Ron The Train Doesn't Stop Here Anvrnore, An Illustrated History of Railway Stations in Canada, Peterborough, Ontario and Lewiston, New York: Broadview Press Ltd., 1991.
Canadian Herita~e,Heritage Conservation Foundation, Ottawa August - September 1985.
Clegg, Aidheim Anthony Canadian National Stearn Power, Montreal: Trains and Trolleys, 1 969. Conservation and Change: The Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act, Parks CanadaEnvironment Canada, Ottawa. 1994.
Contacuzino, Sherban New Uses for Old Buildings, London: The Architectural Press Ltd., 1975.
Contacuzino, Sherban and Susan Brandt Savine Old Buildings, London: Architectural Press, 1980.
Curie, A.W. The Grand Tnink Railwav of Canada, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1957.
Davis, JONot A Sentimental Jouniev. What's Behind VIA Rail Cuts, Toronto: Gunbyfield Publishing, 1990.
Denhez, Marc 'Railway Blues: Stations are Coming Down in a Legal Vacuum', Canadian Henta~e,August - September 1983.
Directorv to Fundine Sources for Canadian Studies, Canadian Heritage, Ottawa. 1996.
Dorin, Patrick C. The Canadian National Railwavs Storv, Saanichton, British Columbia: Hancock House Publishers, 1975.
Droege, John Albert Freieht Terminais and Trains. Including a Revision of Yards and Terminals, New York: McGraw-Hill, 19 12.
Droege, John Albert Passeneer Temiinals and Trains, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 19 16.
Edwards, Bnan The Modem Station, New Ap~roachesto Railwav Architecture, London, New York: E & FN Spon, 1997.
Folkins, Wen~orthThe Great Davs of Canadian Stem, Willowdale, Ontario: Hounslow Press, 1988.
Guillet, Edwin C. Pioneer Travel in Uo~erCanada, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966.
Hanna, David Blyth Trains of Recollection, Toronto: MacMillan Press, 1924.
Hardy Holman Pfeiffer Associates Reusinrr Railroad Stations. a Re~ortFrom the Educational Facilities Laboratones, New York: Educational Facilities Laboratory, 1974. Kalman, Harold 'Raiiroad Blues, What to do with al1 those Redundant Stations', Canadian Heritage, December 1980.
Kellett, John R. Railwavs in Victorian Cities, Henley-on Thames, U.K.: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969.
Langenbach, Randolph A Future From the Past. the Case for the Conservation and reuse of Old Buildings in Industrial Comrnunities, Washington: U.S. Department of Housuig and Urban Development, 1978.
Latta, Peter M. Old Railwav Stations of the Maritimes, St, John's: St. Agnes Press, 1998.
Lavalee, Orner Narrow Gawe Railways of Canada, Montreal: Railfare Enterprises Lirnited, 1972.
Legget, Robert F. Canadian Railwavs in Pictures, Vancouver and Toronto: Douglas and McIntyre, 1977.
Liddell, Ken 1'11 Take the Train, Saskatoon: Westem Producer Prairie Books, 1977.
Meeks, Carroll L. V. The Railroad Station. an Architectural History, Secaucus, New Jersey: Castle Books, 1978.
Marshzll, Jolm Rail Facts And Feats, Enfield: Guinness Superlatives Limited, 197 1 .
Martin, J. Edward The Railway Stations of Westem Canada: an Architectural Historv, White Rock, British Columbia: Studio E, 1980.
Mika, Nick and Helma Railwavs of Canada A Pictorial History, Toronto and Montreal: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 1972.
Parissien, Steven Station to Station, London: Phaidon, 1997.
Purdy, H.L. Transport Comoetition And Public Policv in Canada, Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1972.
Railwav Station Reports, Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, Ottawa. October 1995.
Richards, Jefferey and John M. MacKenzie The Railwav Station. a Social Historv, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. Strike, James Architecture in Conservation, Managing Development in Historic Sites, London and New York: Routledge Press, 1994.
Teasdale, Margo Planning for Heritaee Railwav Stations, Toronto: Ontario Heritage Foundation, 198%
The Herita~eDirectow, Heritage Canada Foundation, Ottawa, 1996.
The Railwav Information Kit. an Aïd for the Conservation of Hentage Railway Stations, Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Culture and Ontario Hentage Foundation, Toronto, 198%
Willmot, Elizabeth A. Meet Me at the Station, Toronto: Gage Publishing, 1976.
Woods, Shirley E. Cinders and Saltwater. the Story of Atlantic Canada's Railwavs, Halifax: Nimbus Publishing, 1992.
Wright, Glenn T. Records of the Department of Railwavs and CanaIs, Ottawa: Public Archives Canada, 1986.