News   Apr 25, 2024
 284     0 
News   Apr 24, 2024
 1.2K     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
 1.6K     1 

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

There is a reference to the EA for this project in the mandate letter for the Minister of Transportation. It was recently released:
Ok....here is the rub on how this (and most governments before this gets too far into politics) does things........The minister has been mandated to report back on the feasibility of delivering high speed rail by the fall of 2016 and to issue a RFP for an EA sometime in 2017......what if, just maybe, the report on feasibility says "don't do it, it makes no sense, it is a road to ruin"......but we're gonna do an EA in 2017 anyway? Either they can't write a mandate letter properly (ie. "...if feasibility report is positive, issue RFP in 2017" or it is a done deal that they are going ahead with the next step regardless of the feasibility report's findings (in which case you have to ask why there is a feasibility report being done at all).

Kinda like "we will give you a fair trial before we hang you"!
 
You are presuming they are actually building HSR. They are not. They are talking about 90 mins from Toronto to London. That's not HSR. From the current 2 hr 8 min service to 1 hr 30 min service. ~30% improvement. Average speed of 127 km/h or 79 mi/h. That's not high speed by any measure.

So really, what it will be, is good (not even really good), regular speed intercity rail. It might even end up being suburban rail. A super express GO RER of sorts.

With that in mind, the costs will be nowhere close to HSR. And the fares will be competitive with driving.
Collenette's announcement date draws ever closer on HSR:

Ontario government wants high-speed rail proposal by October, MP ...

I wonder if they hope no-one notices and they say nothing and just whistling Dixie? Agreed, higher speed RER *should* be doable...but even that recedes into the sunset as time goes on. The QP Libs need to dump Wynne to Win, and make some *believable* announcements, and actually implement them.

All would be forgiven as to the foot dragging if only they get started on the Missing Link. It's the only way to make sense of the absolute dearth of progress on the many promises.

Remember the "CN 'understanding in principle' freight by-pass". There it is! I just saw it fly across the Moon...

what if, just maybe, the report on feasibility says "don't do it, it makes no sense, it is a road to ruin"......but we're gonna do an EA in 2017 anyway?

I posted before reading yours. On the same track, but hitting a different turnout switch:

I think, if the report doesn't conveniently get eaten by the dog, that it will state exactly as the first part of the sentence, but what happens after that remains to be seen. You're absolutely right, they're going to have to spin the bad news (well, actually good news, because it was beyond pie in the sky to begin with) but I think we might differ on how they spin it, but not on coming up empty.

If they have the money to do this, they have *buckets* to do the Missing Link, all by themselves. In the event, if they pledge half the money for the Missing Link, the Relocation Act mandates the Feds finance the other half.

Talk about a no-brainer...but alas...
 
Last edited:
Collenette's announcement date draws ever closer on HSR:

Ontario government wants high-speed rail proposal by October, MP ...

I wonder if they hope no-one notices and they say nothing and just whistling Dixie? Agreed, higher speed RER *should* be doable...but even that recedes into the sunset as time goes on. The QP Libs need to dump Wynne to Win, and make some *believable* announcements, and actually implement them.

All would be forgiven as to the foot dragging if only they get started on the Missing Link. It's the only way to make sense of the absolute dearth of progress on the many promises.

Remember the "CN 'understanding in principle' freight by-pass". There it is! I just saw it fly across the Moon...



I posted before reading yours. On the same track, but hitting a different turnout switch:

I think, if the report doesn't conveniently get eaten by the dog, that it will state exactly as the first part of the sentence, but what happens after that remains to be seen. You're absolutely right, they're going to have to spin the bad news (well, actually good news, because it was beyond pie in the sky to begin with) but I think we might differ on how they spin it, but not on coming up empty.

If they have the money to do this, they have *buckets* to do the Missing Link, all by themselves. In the event, if they pledge half the money for the Missing Link, the Relocation Act mandates the Feds finance the other half.

Talk about a no-brainer...but alas...


I would be hopeful that a few elements from the HSR program do see the light of day, most particularly I think the Rockwood/Acton by-pass makes a lot of sense.
 
I would be hopeful that a few elements from the HSR program do see the light of day, most particularly I think the Rockwood/Acton by-pass makes a lot of sense.
I think that, or items like it, might be Collenette's 'out'. He can't just deliver bad news, that's politically not done. If it's a turd, they have to polish it so it takes a good picture.

Collenette might say something to the effect of: "We looked at this scheme, and at this time, find it too difficult to do in the way presented, but we have looked at aspects to roll them into our extant RER plans, to achieve what is possible at this time."
 
Tripped across this searching on another matter. Some get this wrong as to the reason for the "Slow" order to the west of Guelph. It's due to the number of level crossings, and the rate of accidents on them prior to the order being issued:

Author: Steve Host
About High Speed Rail in Guelph – implications of new regulations
By shost at 8:32 pm on Wednesday, May 25, 2016
This is an issue that affects all GO commuters from KW – the reason’s why Guelph’s tracks are slow is basically outlined here. High speed rail is now being used as the impetus for these improvements.

The Guelph Mercury/Tribune posted this article about the possibility of High Speed Rail in Guelph. It also touches on reasons why bypassing Guelph is a necessity. But they fail to go into details – and state

““regardless of the final high-speed rail alignment, the rail line (within Guelph) will need to be upgraded at some point in the future for safety issues and compliance with recently introduced Transport Canada grade-crossing regulations. Implications will be addressed in the future.””

Source: http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-s...-hinges-on-major-upgrades-at-level-crossings/

In the future? Doesn’t council deserve to know the implications NOW? Why are they supporting this and what will it cost? Who will pay for it?

In short, Transport Canada has legislated NEW crossing regulations that came into effect in 2014. Federally Regulated railway companies have seven years to comply with the act and upgrade existing crossings to the standard. Provincial or Shortline railway companies DO NOT have to comply with this act*. (See bottom of this post)

In short: Guelph Junction Railway does NOT have to make any changes due to this law (but they may make changes as they see fit, usually in the name of improving safety) – council should breathe a sigh of relief, this will save us some money as GJR improvements are 100% the cities responsibility.

But the Other railway in town – the Metrolinx/GO Guelph subdivision – poses a major problem. Major changes WILL be required and we need to know NOW the high level implications. let’s go into more detail:

First, let’s look at Kent St:

http://www.railpictures.ca/?attachment_id=24339

Notice the proximity of driveways to the railway? And how roadways cross relatively close to public crossings? There are a large number of homes with driveways within 10 meters of the nearest rail.

Also on Yorkshire, there are homes VERY close to the public crossing:

http://www.railpictures.ca/?attachment_id=18742

“A public grade crossing where the railway design speed is more than 25 km/h (15 mph) must be constructed so that no part of the travelled way of an intersecting road or entranceway (other than a railway service road), is closer than 30 m (D) to the nearest rail of the grade crossing (see Figure 11-1).”

The speed limit right now is 15 MPH. In order to raise the speed limit, all Guelph downtown crossings at Yorkshare, Dublin, and Glasgow St would either

a) Need to be closed (at little relative cost other than the problems facing drivers going around the closures)

b) Or underpasses created (at great expense, about $10-20M each)

c) Or homes expropriated and demolished to comply with the law (all homes with driveways within 30M of any rail at a grade crossing on a mainline railway track)

d) Or the railway would have to be realigned (which may be possible but only for about 5 meters – which may not solve much)

e) Or railway re-located outside of town (at a cost of hundreds of millions) or tunnelled (equally or more expensive)

These are the facts – Edinburgh Rd will also be underpassed, at a cost of $20M, and Alma St would also have to be closed or underpassed.

Bottom line is every single crossing is due to be closed or changed in the above ways if we want any improvements to GO Transit, let alone High speed rail. Without this, high speed rail is simply not possible in Guelph and they will bypass the town.

Lay the groundwork now, Council, and be aware, this could be very costly. Keep in mind it’s very possible there could be shared or full funding made available for the work… depending on who funds it – Metrolinx may help as they now own the railway line, as well, whoever funds and builds the high speed rail project will also fund significant if not all portions of upgrades to make it possible.

While our city planners figure out the implications of this, now you have some fat to chew on.

- Steve Host

From the Transport Canada website:

Do the Grade Crossings Regulations apply to local railway companies?

No, the Grade Crossings Regulations do not apply to local railway companies.

Local railway companies include provincially-regulated shortlines, light rail transit, and tourist trains that operate equipment on federally-regulated tracks and infrastructure.

Crossing infrastructure, such as signs, bells, lights and gates, are the shared responsibility of host railway companies and road authorities

http://gokw.org/
cleardot.gif
 
There would be a real political fallout from cancelling HSR to London/Windsor now and the provincial and federal Liberals won't chance that. London and Windsor have a lot of swing voters which are crucial to any election win. A dropping of HSR {especially by a Liberal Queen's Park} would confirm what people outside the GTA already feel.....that Wynne is the Mayor of Toronto and not the Premier of Ontario.

Like anybody outside the this forum is even tracking this project.....
 
They'll put it out just before the election....

I'm expecting the report by end of year. EA to be complete by winter 2018. Just in time for the provincial election in June 2018. 100% of the transit will be announced and approved by the Liberal government without needing to actually find the money.

Then for 4 years the Liberal MPP's will scream bloody murder when only a realistic portion of it is paid for by the PC's. Plus 90% the people on this discussion thread

Finally they will kick Wynne out and get re-elected in 2022 or 2026. They will then spend another 4 years of EA's and studies on high speed rail. And announce it again on the eve of an election (wtihout funding one cent AGAIN).

At least this approach is better then the alternative Liberal approach. Pay their supporters $1b to cancel a project (allegedly their supporters).
 
The latest rumour running around CP employees in Southern Ontario - and I stress it is no more than that, so far - is that CP is exploring with CN the option of rerouting its main line running over CN from Woodstock to Komoka.

The alleged reason for this - which may be a little closer to a fact we can place credence on - is that CP's large bridges in the London area are reaching end of life and need some very expensive refurbishment. That, plus the potential real estate value of the Quebec St yard, and elimination of the problemmatic grade crossings at Adelaide and Richmond Streets in central London.

Interestingly, CP's recent investment in new signalling along the line (PTC will arrive eventually, and the existing ABS signalling between Guelph Jct and Windsor is ancient and likely hard to find parts for) omits the Woodstock-Komoka segment. Just enough to look like some dots lining up.

It's possible (a conspiracy theory, but one that CP management isn't above earning) that this scenario has been leaked deliberately to scare CP employes into some concession that would preserve London as a terminal. The rumour has been circulating for some time that CP would like to extend its running territories and move the London terminal east to Wolverton, and then move the current Agincourt terminal further east as well. Or, this may just be sandhouse speculation.

Anyways, if nothing other than a brain teaser, one wonders what impact this would have on VIA. It would make the CN line through London more congested, which could affect schedules, timeliness, and potential to add more VIA trains. All of which could be solved with money, of course. It also makes possible a dedicated VIA route through London, if VIA were to buy the current CP line, and move its London depot up Richmond Street. Who knows if this would actually be in VIA's interests, or if the City of London would favour this.

Again, just rumour, but more fun to analyse than cycling back through Scarborough SRT replacement options, or when the next Flexity will be delivered.

- Paul
 
The latest rumour running around CP employees in Southern Ontario - and I stress it is no more than that, so far - is that CP is exploring with CN the option of rerouting its main line running over CN from Woodstock to Komoka.
....
Anyways, if nothing other than a brain teaser, one wonders what impact this would have on VIA. It would make the CN line through London more congested, which could affect schedules, timeliness, and potential to add more VIA trains. All of which could be solved with money, of course. It also makes possible a dedicated VIA route through London, if VIA were to buy the current CP line, and move its London depot up Richmond Street. Who knows if this would actually be in VIA's interests, or if the City of London would favour this.

- Paul

Hmm...buying land rights from Kitchener to Innerkip would be a lot cheaper than from Kitchener to London. And isn't the CP almost straight from Woodstock to London? I can also only think of 1 large customer (lafarge).

I think Woodstock even has the historical CP station still there.

And you can get back on the CN line in London near Highbury if you added a very gentle Y on existing ROW's
 

Back
Top