cplchanb
Senior Member
not to mention 85% of it will be through mountains.... 66B is a steal compared to what we get extorted for.
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
SashaLemon
Active Member
You see that 8 billion dollars will umm... help the economy?
But a train, oh heavens be!! It has to make money!! It has to make money, it in no way what so ever benefits the economy.
kEiThZ
Superstar
SashaLemon
Active Member
roger1818
Senior Member
I prefer reading what people say, not other people's interpretation of their words. Unfortunately my French isn't very good, so I had to use Google Trnaslate, and here is its translation of his words:
TBH, I don't disagree with what he is actually saying. If the choice is have HSR or serve communities like "Laval, Trois-Rivières. or Peterborough" then I would say lets do HFR. If we can do both then great. One thing a lot of HSR
SashaLemon
Active Member
Why spend all the money building "sort of high speed rail" and not go all the way when you are building a greenfield rail line connecting the two largest cities in the country?
crs1026
Superstar
Because you may be more able to justify the lesser expense to a skeptical electorate. Or even a different Cabinet with lower aspirations and more fiscal restraint.
We don't know that the current government, with its freespending mentality, will be with us much longer. Even within the current governing party, other decisionmakers may emerge with diverging fiscal views.
- Paul
SashaLemon
Active Member
generalcanada
Senior Member
uuh why is this a choice? why not have faster HSR trains and express service between the major cities and slower "all-stops" trains between the smaller cities? is the track capacity an issue?
How frequent is "high frequency"? is track capacity an issue?
How frequent is "high frequency"? is track capacity an issue?
reaperexpress
Senior Member
If we're talking HSR then we would presumably build enough capacity to have a mix of stopping patterns. But the original HFR proposal likely would have been an hourly service on a single track line, so the stopping pattern would be locked in by the position of the passing tracks.
The other consideration is the alignment. If you want to serve a city or town, you probably want to go through its centre, which will generally result in sharp curves and speed restrictions due to following an existing alignment. If your top concern is speed between major cities you would skirt around the town and maybe build a park and ride station vaguely near it.
DSCToronto
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 22,271
- Reaction score
- 36,641
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
Because you still need to provide transit for those in (or going to) mid-sized cities en route (e.g. Kingston). As noted above, in Europe there is HSR between major cities and local service feeding passengers to it via slower 'local' trains. Can our population support both?
Northern Light
Superstar
To further what @reaperexpress has said above; you can build to an HSR standard and offer lesser, included services; you cannot build to the lesser standard and include HSR.
****
To augment what @crs1026 has said.
The base allocation in the RFP of 12B in government subsidy was the HFR option.
I can guarantee you that any materially 'enhanced' or HSR/HSR-lite option will be vastly more expensive.
That is not to suggest it ought not to be done, that's a matter of weighing options once everything in on the table, both on the rail side, and in terms of Canada's other priorities once this project is at a ready-to-go stage.
My own feeling is that we may end up with HFR+; which would be a single segment of line capable of HSR speeds on 'opening day'; and rolling stock that can support that option; while anything more would be ' future phases'.
I suspect that might be the most prudent balance; but again, details are needed before drawing emphatic conclusions.
****
To augment what @crs1026 has said.
The base allocation in the RFP of 12B in government subsidy was the HFR option.
I can guarantee you that any materially 'enhanced' or HSR/HSR-lite option will be vastly more expensive.
That is not to suggest it ought not to be done, that's a matter of weighing options once everything in on the table, both on the rail side, and in terms of Canada's other priorities once this project is at a ready-to-go stage.
My own feeling is that we may end up with HFR+; which would be a single segment of line capable of HSR speeds on 'opening day'; and rolling stock that can support that option; while anything more would be ' future phases'.
I suspect that might be the most prudent balance; but again, details are needed before drawing emphatic conclusions.
Last edited:
roger1818
Senior Member
The plan is to mostly following existing or previous right of ways. There may be some opportunity to optimize the routing for improved speed, but it will be a lot more affordable to follow the right of way as there was a reason it used that route in the first place (not to mention expropriation costs).
SashaLemon
Active Member
The mid-size cities would have stations on the line. We don't exactly need lots of "local services" in the boonies because there are not a lot of reasonably sized towns other then the ones we would have directly on the line. They only have all those local lines because there is a high density of small towns and villages. But that should not stop us from providing this service between a few major cities because the lack of tiny villages will not actually impact ridership very much.
generalcanada
Senior Member
was hfr a single track line? i was under the impression the plan was always to double track and upgrade the existing line?
aside from montreal and ottawa which towns have sharp curves incompatible with hsr?
The assumption is that it will be double tracked no?
aside from montreal and ottawa which towns have sharp curves incompatible with hsr?
The assumption is that it will be double tracked no?