High Speed Rail: London - Kitchener-Waterloo - Pearson Airport - Toronto

[mdrejhon]

The GTAA master plan envisaged changing out Link for "self propelled" technology. It also intended to extend one stop to the far end of T1 when built out. In terms of extending the Link away from the airport, It seems likely more possible to do so from the T1-extension side given how GTAA has plunked the parking garage in the way of extending past the adjacent Link terminal, plus the UPX guideway to negotiate.

Good info leaning the "Pearson GO" station location discussion.

 

[Urban Sky]

I'll bring this up to take it out of the VIA Rail discussion. Could the TKL HSR line simply become an express GO service? How would the business case change? [...]

Thank you for moving this discussion from there as too many of the discussions there had no clear reference to VIA Rail as the subject of that group!

As for your suggestion of creating an express GO service before HSR, this is exactly how passenger rail services were upgraded in Europe: Increase passenger rail services as much as possible on the existing conventional rail network until the point is reached where capacity on those lines cannot be upgraded further, which is the point at which considering to build HSR start to make sense.

[...] I envision something like all day, 2-way till Guelph eventually. And HSR that stops at Union, Bloor, Pearson, Brampton, Guelph, Kichener, Stratford and London. With the extra stops, Kitchener-Toronto would be around an hour. Guelph-Toronto becomes less than an hour. Toronto-London ends up at around 1.5 hrs. 30 mins frequency during rush hours. Hourly frequency outside that. [...]

I really have a hard time seeing the point of having (or even considering) High-Speed Commuter Rail services, as it is an oxymoron for me. Given the low friction values for steel-on-steel rail systems, the distances for acceleration and deceleration are considerable and higher maximum speeds may only translate into higher average speeds if the distance between two stops is sufficiently long, as illustrated by the minimum distances required to reach the following speeds:

120 km/h: 2.54 km
160 km/h: 4.51 km
177 km/h: 5.87 km
200 km/h: 8.14 km
240 km/h: 12.59 km (i.e. the doubling of speed requires almost 5 times the distance, compared to 120 km/h)

Increasing the maximum speed (i.e. the design speed) therefore yields rapidly diminishing returns and this is especially the case for Commuter Rail services, which by definition stop frequently to pick up ever-more commuters (as opposed to Inter-City rail, which only serves urban cores). Let's have a look at the maximum time saving an increase of design speed could have for the Toronto-Kitchener-London service you are envisioning:

As you can see in the table below, increasing the design speed by 40 km/h may decrease travel time by more 22 minutes if the initial design speed is 120 km/h, but less than 7 minutes (i.e. less than a third in absolute terms) if it is already 240 km/h:

However, we need to keep in mind that even those time savings are only theoretical as they assume that the line could be upgraded to 320 km/h on any stretch of the line. At the same time, the marginal costs of increasing speeds rise exponentially, as speeds above 177 km/h (110 mph) prohibit level crossings and speeds above 200 km/h (125 mph) require the separation of freight and passenger operations and thus limit those speeds to greenfield alignment sections, such as the Guelph Bypass suggested by the PowerPoint presentation FCP inappropriately named as a "feasibility study":

As you can see below, the maximum travel time benefit of building such a 42 km long greenfield bypass would be 5:40 minutes (or just over 8 seconds per km greenfield HSR line). Note that a "GO Fast" service (or however you want to brand it) would shave more than an hour off the current GO travel time between Toronto and Kitchener even if it had the same maximum speed (i.e. 150 km/h), whereas the maximum time savings for going beyond 150 km/h are less than 11 minutes (or exactly 16 minutes if we expand the view to Toronto-London):

Reading discussions like this one here could make you believe that the Kitchener corridor is at capacity and urgently needed replacement. With 4 trains traveling every workday between Toronto and Kitchener today in 2016, I don't think that "High-Speed Commuter Rail" services addresses the most pressing needs in any way (and as a side note, the same is true for discussing HSR anywhere in Canada)...

TLDR: Modest and long overdue upgrades (to 150 or 177 km/h) on the existing Kitchener line would save between 32 and 96 minutes travel time (i.e. 25.2-55.5% of current GO/VIA travel times), so why do we obsess here about the 1-16 minutes (1.4-17.4%) we could save beyond that by building prohibitively expensive greenfield HSR lines?

 

[crs1026]

TLDR: Modest and long overdue upgrades (to 150 or 177 km/h) on the existing Kitchener line would save between 32 and 96 minutes travel time (i.e. 25.2-55.5% of current GO/VIA travel times), so why do we obsess here about the 1-16 minutes (1.4-17.4%) we could save beyond that by building prohibitively expensive greenfield HSR lines?

In principle, I would agree with you. The question would be, exactly how high could we raise the track speed before economics and practicality get lost.

West of Halwest, we have to assume a two-track corridor at most. No matter how high speed the tracks are, we reach a stopping-express conflict similar to RER/ST. Which is why I would limit the 'Commuter' zone to Georgetwon at the furthest. This enables hourly non-commuter trains stopping at Pearson, Guelph, Kitchener, Stratford, and London. Track speed could be in the range of 160 km/h which addresses the issue you raise. Construction and maintenance costs would be modest. There would not be a need to eliminate all grade crossings. Overall travel time would be competitive with auto, and that's the market that we most want to draw from.

One could interleave express trains into that pattern if need be, to capture through Windsor-London-Toronto business. One could also attempt a higher track speed west of Kitchener, where the longer distances present opportunity for faster travel time (at a premium in terms of capital cost, however). And some level of commuter trains might fit if there is a case to take these beyond Halton Hills.... but I would design with the longer distance service having the priority.

We will get to more advanced trains one day, but this basic capability sooner is more compelling than a super system that takes longer.

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

Technically, the word "commuter" and "non-commuter" really doesn't matter here, as it could easily be 50%/50% commuter and tourist, and the balance varies throughout the day and week. Several of France's TGV lines and Japan's Shinkansen lines kind of operates this way.

The point I am saying, is that any HSR or HPR lines on the TKL segment need to be more commuter optimized than the TOM segment. Meaning, we don't need drink service or checked baggage whatever class they use for commuters (second class, business class, coach class, etc). There can be a "tourist class" or "first class" if need be, but there should be commuter-friendly coaches on whatever HSR or HPR they use for TKL. Like on many other HSR lines.

P.S. Urban Sky makes great points. If we can pull off nearly all the HSR/HPR benefits without the Guelph Bypass, we should. We should however, wait for the study to see how well the actual numbers lines up with Urban Sky's numbers, as several route options of varying costs are probably being analyzed, considering the escarpment, difficulty of Guelph grade separations, etc...

 

[crs1026]

The point I am saying, is that any HSR or HPR lines on the TKL segment need to be more commuter optimized than the TOM segment. Meaning, we don't need drink service or checked baggage whatever class they use for commuters (second class, business class, coach class, etc). There can be a "tourist class" or "first class" if need be, but there should be commuter-friendly coaches on whatever HSR or HPR they use for TKL. Like on many other HSR lines.

You mean, when we hire people to build it, the folks who designed UPE need not apply? ;-)

Seriously, I agree. The TGV-level HSR gets branded as a premium fare service because a) it's attempting to be air-competitive, so fare comparisons allow this and b) the much higher capital and operating costs necessitate it. We want something different than that.

I don't think of the U of Waterloo student who comes home to the GTA for the weekend as a 'commuter', but semantics aside we're thinking the same way. This is a bus-competitive, auto-competitive route that charges a "public transit" fare and not a "premium" fare, and tries to carry as many people as it can. The old CN fare structure worked that way, and it drew more customers. (Of course, CN had the luxury of an ancient and depreciated but still-usable peak-service fleet that sat idle on weekdays, where VIA has a much smaller fleet with insufficient peak capacity, and manages its fares to reduce peak demand).

I'd still like to see amenities like wifi and a snack bar, but food service doesn't have to be at-seat, or cheap either. You can get a pretty nice cappucino on a GO Bilevel in certain other jurisdictions.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

@Urban Sky

Thanks for that analysis. Note that I wasn't thinking of HSR necessarily being a 300+ kph an line. In my mind it's more express vs. all-stop servie. All stop service till Guelph. Express beyond. Speeds and # of stops on express services worked out to allow reasonable travel times.

And when I say commuter focused, I mean more along the lines of what Paul and mdrjhon have discussed. Onboard service that is largely commuter focused. Not, a service built like an inter-city train.

 

[Urban Sky]

Following kEiThZ's laudable initiative of defragmenting the discussions here, I'm taking the liberty to respond here to the following posts from the VIA Rail thread:

[Quote from the VIA Rail thread]
I think that 200kph GO RER (region express rail) would be quite successful on a fully electrified Kitchener route -- instead of 2 hours, you'd have 1 hour on an upgraded corridor mostly keeping speed limits (Georgetown Corridor) but upgrading some sprints to 200kph+. You'd have a great long express coast in many sections, with a few selected key-hub stops. […]

Such 200kph speeds would still be defacto high-speed GO trains if HSR was defined as 200kph minimum -- and might be the compromise outcome of the current Ontario-funded high speed rail study, that might result in an Ontario-funded high speed train, which might fall upon Metrolinx, which might be part of GO RER Phase II or III in a future decade. Still much cheaper than the 300kph options. […]

The potential time savings of choosing a design speed in the Higher (178-200 km/h) or High (200+ km/h) Speed Rail band over what is possible with conventional speeds is negligible compared to the time savings associated with improving current GO/VIA speeds to the upper end of conventional rail (i.e. 150-177 km/h), see my last post and my very first four posts in this forum.

[Quote from the VIA Rail Thread]
I can't think for a minute, that the cost of putting an entirely new alignment around Guelph, is at all worth the value of the much shorter, relatively straight track through Guelph. [...]

You are right: 42 km of greenfield alignment for a maximum time saving of 5:40 minutes (in the case of an HSR Inter-Regional service, see my last post) or 9:22 minutes (in the case of an HSR Inter-City service, see below):

[Quote from the VIA Rail thread]
The problem for the track through Guelph is the *Go Slow* order on it. It is one step away from street running, having a 1 metre concrete retaining wall each side of the (former) double track RoW with residential (and up-scale!) streets running directly parallel with houses facing the tracks.

What other option do you suggest? I lived right by those tracks in two different places for a total of two years. You could talk to the GO passengers with sign-language as they crawled past, and the upper deck ones especially as I sat in the loo looking out the window, and they looked in. It is a a *very real* bottle-neck. I guess you could just buy them all up and rip them down, but you still have the litany of grade crossings. Take a look at the map. Brampton is also another bottleneck, albeit I'm unaware of any other 'Go Slow' orders along that corridor like Guelph's.
[...]

"Paul Langan, of the rail advocacy group High Speed Rail Canada, said it will be difficult to solve the problem of having to slow down in Guelph on the high-speed line.

But he said the province should make improvements to the existing lines to make GO trains more reliable and faster on the Toronto route.

"Who would complain, for instance, even if you could get into Toronto in an hour or an hour and a half? You're not going to drive there in an hour unless it's Sunday morning," he said.

"Let's get GO running frequently and reduce time to get into Toronto, that's the key."" [...]

http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/5233025-high-speed-rail-line-likely-to-skip-guelph-report/

[Quote from the VIA Rail thread]
[...] Ironically I was looking at the trackbed just yesterday, walking through there, wondering if they planned to move the present track over, or lay heavier rail with concrete ties. There's no sign though of the re-asphalting at the many grade level crossings taking that into account. And as much as it's rarely brought up in these forums, and perhaps I'm far more aware of this being an electronic tech, but 25kV AC running that close to adjacent residences is going to cause massive EMI problems. It's bad enough (for anyone old enough to remember AM radio in your car) with streetcar overhead 600V DC (albeit very 'dirty', huge number of spikes, hash and chatter) as to the consequences for near-by receivers, so running that stretch electrified is in itself, hugely problematic, not to mention it's not walled or fenced off, so anyone can wander across the tracks, or walk down them as I used to do with the dogs. There's so many level crossings securing it is nigh impossible.

I don't see any reason why a double-tracked electrified should not fit through Guelph, as the tracks can indeed be fenced and electromagnetic fields can be shielded with something like a lead wall if the residents really insisted on it and even Paul Langan seems to agree that improving the conventional line should be top priority for any time soon. I've assumed a 50 km/h speed limit between Dublin and Glasgow Streets (i.e. the speed limit for cars in urban areas) and 80 km/h between Glasgow Street and Guelph Junction in all timetable simulations presented here for the current alignment and the time advantage of the Guelph bypass is still only 5-10 minutes (or 8-13 seconds for every km HSR greenfield line built)...

[Quote from the VIA Rail thread]
[...] I disagree with aspects of this "report" not the least that it's a pipe dream, but the latest VIA proposal, done in conjunction with GO, is very sane [...]

[Quote from the VIA Rail thread]
[...] I'm not discounting past studies. Just saying that VIA HFR proposal was specific to Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. And I've seen no evidence yet that VIA is interested in this Toronto-Kitchener-London proposal. Indeed, we could end up in a situation where TKL becomes entirely a GO HSR commuter operation. And VIA decides to take southern route through Mississauga and Hamilton onto London and Windsor, with through service to Ottawa and Montreal. [...]

To the best of my knowledge, VIA Rail was not involved at any stage in the HSR Plans announced by Queens Park so far and I would certainly voice my criticism of it more carefully than I do here if it was...

[Quote from the VIA Rail thread]
Indeed, we could end up in a situation where TKL becomes entirely a GO HSR commuter operation. And VIA decides to take southern route through Mississauga and Hamilton onto London and Windsor, with through service to Ottawa and Montreal.

Given that one of the publicly stated main motivations for pursuing HFR is to minimize exposure to freight rail traffic and conflicts with the host railroads' freight operations, what makes you think that it would be anyone's preference to go along CN's main line (i.e. via Aldershot-Brantford), especially with the population size and importance of Kitchener-Waterloo and the prospect that "the missing link" might solve the freight issue with CN between Halwest (Bramalea) and Silver (Georgetown)...?

 

[steveintoronto]

[...]Given that one of the main motivations driving the strategic decisions to pursue HFR are to minimize exposure to freight rail traffic and conflicts with VIA's current host railroads' freight operations, I would be rather sceptical that VIA's preference would be to go along CN's main line (i.e. via Aldershot-Brantford), especially with the population size and importance of Kitchener-Waterloo and the prospect that "the missing link" might solve the freight issue with CN between Halwest (Bramalea) and Silver (Georgetown)...

This swings two ways!

You've failed to consider the limited capacity and thus paths available for VIA due to the "go slow" order making the Guelph incline a choke-point. That incline is problematic in dimensions some seem to not have considered, not the least being that freight is *dragged* up that hill as it is. Trench that incline, and the power (expressed as torque or tractive effort) to weight ratio for electric passenger locomotion isn't a problem. It certainly will be for diesel freight! What will they do, add helpers?

Here's a concept: Make it a *freight by-pass* around Guelph, allowing the *necessary* grade separation and electrification of that section possible when it can be closed due to a by-pass being extant. This solves a number of problems more eloquently, not the least a possible LRT run over the same trackage that intersects ION in Kitchener. Dual voltage and TC regs (shared light/heavy on same track) are a debate that is due for a resolution long before the by-pass could/would be built. PTC will mandate that. I'll repost the VIA cancellation of two proposed runs due to unavailable path slots that were touted to start this year when I find them again.

Excellent posts, btw! More on the details later, but be aware of this:
Today's TorSun:
[TORONTO - Ontario’s transportation minister is cracking down on Metrolinx, ordering a sweeping review of the troubled transit agency.

The Toronto Sun has learned Steven Del Duca informed Metrolinx chairman Rob Prichard of the probe March 9, writing that he wants to improve “oversight and accountability” of the agency.

Del Duca said the transit agency’s staff are to work with the ministry of transportation’s (MTO) chief administrative officer on the review and it is to be completed no later than Sept. 30, with an interim report on his desk by June 30.][...]
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/04/04/mto-upping-oversight-of-metrolinx

I think there's a lot more going on there than just what's being stated. We might have a lot more to discuss in the next little while. I'm gonna have to tip-toe on this one: A lot of blame lays at Del Duca's feet, but none-the-less, it must have become apparent, especially with the Feds pushing on this, that it's time to 'bull ahead' on some dynamic new ideas.

 

[crs1026]

You've failed to consider the limited capacity and thus paths available for VIA due to the "go slow" order making the Guelph incline a choke-point. That incline is problematic in dimensions some seem to not have considered, not the least being that freight is *dragged* up that hill as it is. Trench that incline, and the power (expressed as torque or tractive effort) to weight ratio for electric passenger locomotion isn't a problem. It certainly will be for diesel freight! What willthey do, add helpers?

Incline? Trench? I'm not following. The track thru Guelph is fairly level, peaking at Acton and then dropping to Silver. The westwards climb up the escarpment is not an impediment to passenger locomotives. If you are saying there is not enough room to put the tracks in a trench west of the depot, I'd agree.

The solution to the slow order is as simple as one road underpass, a fence or sound wall on the north side, and close the other level crossings. Far, far cheaper and faster to build than a bypass.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Paul: Sorry to be so blunt, but it's a *lot* more complex than that. Going west from Guelph station, the line is on a high embankment, crosses three bridges, first one right adjacent to the station, and only opened two years ago (very late and poorly engineered, but that's another matter) (Wilson bridge, the next one, could be closed) but the next one is Norfolk, the main artery of Guelph. It is a low bridge to begin with, but then continuing west, the track runs across the side of the hill that the Church of the Redeemer occupies, the highest point in Guelph. At that point, the tracks are at street level with Kent St split either side of the tracks (it's double track RoW there, one side lifted). When the track reaches Dublin, it's already above road level, such that cars going over the crossing are not visible from the other side, dangerous, as the cars come flying down the hill on the north side. Ditto Glasgow and Yorkshire. It's embankment there. Progressing further west, but still on a steadily rising gradient (I'd estimate 1.5%) the track becomes at grade again and starts into a cutting towards Edinburgh, where it crosses at grade, since Edinburgh is steeply climbing the bank there, the big long one that continues to climb north and west, and that the track must climb at a steep gradient, I'd guess about 3%, and comes into another cutting, where it meets the old GWR at grade. Crosses Alma St at grade, continues west mostly in a shallow cutting, and crosses where Guelph has a new underpass planned at Silvercreek, except VIA has installed CTC signals *right on top* of where the underpass is supposed to go. Go figure! (See quote following). Track continues climbing west to cross a very recent bridge of Hwy 6 (dual carriageway) and Paisley road, about ten years old. The track continues on an embankment to cross Imperial Rd (bridge about five years old or so) and then bridge over Elmira Rd.

Long story short: Good luck with that trench!

(Edit to Add: Tangent to the conversation, but all of the bridges mentioned and some east of Guelph are built for twin track! The newest (last ten years) are all double. A nod to the future?)

Meantime, from the GOKW.org:

CTC installation is now complete – what’s next?
By shost at 4:09 pm on Tuesday, November 17, 2015
The CTC project, at least from the perspective of crews operating on signalled aspects.. is complete..

At least, from Silver (Georgetown) To Ashland (Junction with CN at London) There are now signals to obey, with execption to a small segment at King St in Kitchener which remains OCS until the underpass/grade seperation is completed. (will be a year)

What’s next? More trains. that’s the promise anyway. The new Layover facility is under construction at Shirley Ave in Kitchener and once that is completed, it is highly likely to see two additional GO trains per day in and out, which may occur by the end of 2016.

Will VIA Rail add more trains? I say it’s likely – VIA paid $25M for the CTC installation, and why? Why would they if they do not plan to do something with it. Keep in mind $25M would buy via a couple locomotives, a few passenger cars.. two to four Refurbished RDC’s, and yet via sunk the money into safety improvements on the Guelph sub, not Metrolinx, not GEXR, not CN, VIA.

So we’ll have to wait and see what VIA has in store. We know GO’s plans, stay tuned.

High Speed Rail again in the news…. Toronto/Kitchener/London/Windsor
By shost at 8:47 pm on Saturday, October 31, 2015
Need I remind everyone that Kitchener-Guelph is the only corridor that goes by the Airport? Hence why this may still happen and why we’ll be the ones to see this happen, if it happens, ever.

http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...ints-high-speed-rail-advisor.html?channel=535

http://gokw.org/

But to throw the track wrench in the switch:
[CTC is expected to increase capacity on the line, allowing VIA and Metrolinx to increase train frequencies. Metrolinx plans to add two more departures to/from Kitchener by 2016 or 2017. VIA Rail initially planned to add up to three departures when the project was planned some 8 years ago, but delays due to disagreements with freight operator Goderich-Exeter, and the recent addition of GO Transit departures out of Kitchener may curtail VIA's plans.]
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/communications/guelph-subdivision-upgraded-to-ctc.html

Lots of conflicting ingredients, call me when the pie is ready. Meantime, it wouldn't surprise me if MoT isn't about to shake-up Metrolinx to make it sit differently, perhaps 'side by each' with VIA once the Feds shake them up. But then again, it wouldn't surprise me if nothing happens...the logic being that nothing surprises me.

But what would *shock me* is trenching through Guelph. The bypass would have to be built first, if ever normal, let alone expedited speed through Guelph were to happen.

 

[nfitz]

I can't think for a minute, that the cost of putting an entirely new alignment around Guelph, is at all worth the value of the much shorter, relatively straight track through Guelph.

You are right: 42 km of greenfield alignment for a maximum time saving of 5:40 minutes (in the case of an HSR Inter-Regional service, see my last post) or 9:22 minutes (in the case of an HSR Inter-City service, see below):

And that's with a pretty optimistic speed limit for the bypass. Have you looked closely at the route you'd have to take by leaving the current alignment east of Fourth Line? You'll never get planning permission for a new cut through the Niagara Escarpment, and where the original report proposed, you'd both have to do that AND there's a huge quarry in the way. As soon as you get slightly further north, you might be able to miss the escarpment (having already crossed it on the existing alignment in a buried section), but then you have the Black Creek valley. And then you have Acton.

I don't see how you can leave the existing alignment until west of Acton. Which means you've got some speed limits to deal with.

And by that point, I think you just deal with the warts of the existing alignment, and do a number on Kent Street.

It's cheaper and better for a number of reasons to build a bypass than gouge a trench on a steep incline through an historical neighbourhood heritage protected ...

Heritage neighbourhood?!?

I haven't taken the train in a while, but I always thought it looked a bit seedy. It's improved a bit, but:

 

[steveintoronto]

And by that point, I think you just deal with the warts of the existing alignment, and do a number on Kent Street.

Heritage neighbourhood?!?

I haven't taken the train in a while, but I always thought it looked a bit seedy. It's improved a bit, but:
View attachment 71803

The house on the right is now torn down and replaced, and the one on the left sold and redone. You're getting pretty desperate. Put up some newer photos, (those are two years old) or refer to on-line reference like this:

[As one of the first planned towns in Canada, founded in 1827, it’s no surprise that Guelph is known for its noteworthy architecture. The city is centred on a historic downtown and boasts well-preserved limestone buildings.

“Guelph is so wealthy in the preserving of neighbourhoods and certainly stone houses,” says Royal LePage Royal City Realty sales representative Betty Lou Clark, who is immediate past president of the Guelph Historical Society, with which she has been involved for many years.

She says the beauty of the historic buildings in Guelph can largely be credited to Scottish stonemasons. “They were formally trained in Scotland, where they had extensive access to stone,” she notes.

Here are some of the historical and architectural points of interest, just a sampling of the wealth of history in Guelph architecture that makes people want to buy a house in Guelph.][...]
https://rlproyalcity.com/6-historical-landmarks-that-showcase-guelph-architecture/

And indeed, Guelph has the lowest vacancy rate of any city in Ontario (matched actually for lowest rate) and cost of houses virtually equal to Toronto.
Of course, such a concept would appear to be alien to persons of a lower calling living to the west of Guelph.

That section of Guelph is not only a series of drumlins, anything but flat, it is historical and much (albeit not every single house) is Heritage. You seem to love bulldozers....

What you or I care about is irrelevant. Believe me, no politico in their right mind is going to dare to try and trench through that neighbourhood. or do anything radical to gut the core of the city.

Edit to Add:
Municipal Register of
Cultural Heritage
Properties

9/11 Kent
St
17 Kent St
25 Kent St
45 Kent St
59 Kent St
68/70 Kent St
73 Kent St
76 Kent St
80 Kent St
81 Kent St
85 Kent St
http://guelph.ca/wp-content/uploads/Heritage_Directory_non-designated.pdf

Lots more on adjacent affected streets. But of course, some claim to know everything since they ride through the area on a train every couple of years.

Meantime:
[RE: High-Speed Rail (HSR) - Toronto/Pearson/Kitchener/London - DHLawrence - 12-07-2014

It's unlikely as high-speed trains (at least the kind we're hoping for) have very particular requirements, namely the elimination of all grade crossings. That's going to be an impossibility in Guelph, where the line runs down the middle of Kent Street for two blocks.

I think the problem with building stations in both KW and Guelph is that they're too close together. The train would barely be able to get up to speed before it had to slow down again. If the new alignment can't run in downtown Kitchener either, they could always build one by the airport, but I hope they'll be able to use the new station at King in Victoria. Passengers for Guelph can always switch to some sort of shuttle train or a GO train to reach Guelph.]
http://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/printthread.php?tid=306&page=2

Guelph by-pass discussed at length. Given the choice of being by-passed and the peace of mind that comes with that, trust me...I know Guelphites...the *vast majority* would want to be left in peace. The GO train twice a day each way gets barely fifty passengers each train. Not everyone wants to live on the mainline...which is exactly why many live in Guelph proper. The commuters? They live in the burbs, mostly south Guelph, closer to the 401, closer to where the by-pass would go.

[You'll never get planning permission for a new cut through the Niagara Escarpment,]
So let's get this straight, as in the past, you've alluded to Guelph not having a say in these planning matters, correct? (Or do I have to find your quote and really rub it in?)
The province doesn't either (if one is to believe in the Almighty Power of the Railway Act)(Actually not omnipotent, as CN is about to find out in Milton, but I digress). But YOU have alluded to Guelphites having no say on 'being bulldozed'. So what possible power can the Escarpment legislation have on Federal Act?
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90n02

Ontario Hydro (that is to say, Hydro One) already lords over environmental regs ( http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/12/20/wells-in-protected-oak-ridges-moraine-polluted.html ), the province doesn't enforce it's own legislation, how can they possibly argue against the Railway Act?

Over to you...

 

[nfitz]

The house on the right is now torn down and replaced, and the one on the left sold and redone. You're getting pretty desperate. Put up some newer photos, (those are two years old) or refer to on-line reference like this:

I simply checked out the latest stuff on Google Streetview.

Though if it's new development, then that makes it easy to demolish.

I still think this is the easiest and cheapest path forward. I'm not even sure much property acquisition is necessary looking at how wide the right-of-way is.

 

[Palma]

Technically, the word "commuter" and "non-commuter" really doesn't matter here, as it could easily be 50%/50% commuter and tourist, and the balance varies throughout the day and week. Several of France's TGV lines and Japan's Shinkansen lines kind of operates this way.

The point I am saying, is that any HSR or HPR lines on the TKL segment need to be more commuter optimized than the TOM segment. Meaning, we don't need drink service or checked baggage whatever class they use for commuters (second class, business class, coach class, etc). There can be a "tourist class" or "first class" if need be, but there should be commuter-friendly coaches on whatever HSR or HPR they use for TKL. Like on many other HSR lines.

P.S. Urban Sky makes great points. If we can pull off nearly all the HSR/HPR benefits without the Guelph Bypass, we should. We should however, wait for the study to see how well the actual numbers lines up with Urban Sky's numbers, as several route options of varying costs are probably being analyzed, considering the escarpment, difficulty of Guelph grade separations, etc...

I am not that familiar with this high speed. But, would the train be near the Waterloo University/Laurier that would allow students to commute back and forth daily instead of living off campus. Plus be at an affordable fare such that it would be less expensive than living off campus (since its only 1st year students that are guaranteed residence on campus). The train would be full of students. Depending on the time of classes, they may only need to get to school 3 days a week. For me having a child a few years away from university, if he decides or is accepted it would be a great alternative though I know fir first year he would want to have the experience of living on campus

 

[crs1026]

Progressing further west, but still on a steadily rising gradient (I'd estimate 1.5%) the track becomes at grade again and starts into a cutting towards Edinburgh, where it crosses at grade, since Edinburgh is steeply climbing the bank there, the big long one that continues to climb north and west, and that the track must climb at a steep gradient, I'd guess about 3%, and comes into another cutting, where it meets the old GWR at grade.

I'd say your estimates of the track elevation are way off. Make a trip to Saluda and you'll know a three per cent grade when you see it. On such a short segment, the grade is not material anyways. I have enough old documentation to know for a fact that CN never put any restriction on tonnage ratings on this section of the line. The tonnage rating through here were set for flat track. Nor were any special instructions on train handling ever written for this stretch. And I'm not aware of there ever being a "broken knuckle" incident in the area. If the grade was as significant as you suggest, these things would have been done. I rode the locomotive many times through there in a past life, and I don't recall (granted, it was many years ago, and I wasn't observing with this issue in mind) crews ever making any comment about grade or having to do anything unusual in running the train.

Your point that the crossings have terrible sightlines for motorists is valid and is the heart of the speed restriction through here. Which is why I say, just close them. They are not needed for emergency vehicle access. So long as Edinburgh is left open (and it's a good candidate for an underpass) traffic is not affected other than for a very few local residents. A more lavish version might provide two further underpasses, one way in each direction, sized for fire trucks....but that's likely overkill.

Tangent to the conversation, but all of the bridges mentioned and some east of Guelph are built for twin track! The newest (last ten years) are all double. A nod to the future?

Good, forward thinking planning decisions made early in the last century. Metrolinx needs to learn from this. (You do realise that the line was double track between the Junction and Guelph station in earlier times?)

Municipal Register of
Cultural Heritage
Properties

Interesting that they added individual structures to their Heritage Register, but did not declare the area a Heritage District as the legislation provides for. That means the legal requirement is (mostly) limited to retaining the individual structures, and some aspects of the sightlines around them. It impacts development on the properties around the designated buildings, but likely does not prevent improvements to the rail corridor down the street beside the structures. Heritage designation conserves the buildings, not properties.

Meantime, from the GOKW.org:

With respect to my good friends at GOKW, I think they would be the first to say they are speculating based on the same bleacher-level view that the rest of us have. I don't see anything in the GOKW material that points to any specific official position or direction.

But what would *shock me* is trenching through Guelph. The bypass would have to be built first, if ever normal, let alone expedited speed through Guelph were to happen.

Trenching, or any other change to the current track surface, would shock me too. But that's a far cry from justifying a bypass.

At the end of the day - a two foot high concrete abutment on the north side (similar to what's hiding in the weeds on the south side) would be sufficient to solve the auto-train issue. A sound wall or attractive style fence would deal with risk to pedestrians. (It's always sad to have to spend money to offset stupidity, but a fence would be a pretty standard measure here).

I see this issue unfolding similar to the Davenport Diamond. At some point the plan to upgrade the line will become public. There will be a howl from the local residents. Someone will float the bypass idea as the residents' "demand". A study will be done establishing that the bypass will cost more. There will be some sort of traffic study which will confirm that closing the crossings and lowering one or more north-south roads under the tracks is a viable solution. It will go back to Council who will demand the bypass, strictly as an act of political theater, knowing (hoping?) that the at-grade plan will be chosen. Everybody wins.

I do not seriously believe that Guelph Council will actually pursue a strategy that would route the new passenger line around their city. It would be putting the interest of one small area against the interest of the whole city. They will make enough noise to appease the local residents, but that's politics and not reality.

- Paul