Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study

[ShonTron]

Kingston is a far enough distance between the two (Ottawa and Toronto/Oshawa) that I think it makes sense. Even with TGV technology, it will still take 45 minutes or so to get from Oshawa (especially if they use the exisiting corridor to get out of Toronto) or 60 minutes from Montreal/Dorval. In terms of ridership, it punches above its weight class because of all the students there, and it makes a good place for transfers to and from any local trains for Belleville, Brockville, Cobourg or Cornwall. Plus it would sink most of the air traffic demand from Norman Rogers Airport.

 

[CDL.TO]

Any high-speed train I've taken has had stops (though not all trains stop at all stations) about 20 minutes apart. It's hard to see any major markets between Ottawa and Oshawa except Kingston - and some of the proposed alignments don't even go through Kingston.

Now, I'm not against it, mind.

Like I said, those places are just the icing on the cake. You don't build the line because of them, you build the line to serve the cities at each end. And since you've built the line anyway, you might as well serve some communities along the way.

They sure as heck didn't build a high-speed line from Paris to London for the purpose of bringing people to Ashford (pop 58,000).

 

[unimaginative2]

Any high-speed train I've taken has had stops (though not all trains stop at all stations) about 20 minutes apart. It's hard to see any major markets between Ottawa and Oshawa except Kingston - and some of the proposed alignments don't even go through Kingston.

Now, I'm not against it, mind.

While high-speed trains I've ridden in Japan have quite frequent stops (in central Japan, it's the Kodama services that operate like a regional express), others stop quite infrequently. For example, Paris to Lille is over 200 km and is effectively non-stop, excepting a single underused station in Picardie that sees only a few trains a day.

The Kodama model might actually be worth emulating. The Spanish have done it from Madrid and the British are planning it with their Javelin services to Kent. They're basically regional high-speed trains targeted to commuters. A similar type of service in Ontario would perhaps feature trains stopping at places like Guelph, Brampton, Port Hope/Cobourg, Belleville, Alexandria and Cornwall. A commuter-style service with competitive prices offering <30 minute travel times to a place like Guelph would be extremely popular.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

Like I said, those places are just the icing on the cake. You don't build the line because of them, you build the line to serve the cities at each end. And since you've built the line anyway, you might as well serve some communities along the way.

Exactly. In most cases smaller communities could be served by slower, but still relatively fast service feeding into larger stations (Sherbrooke into Montreal, Barrie into Toronto, etc). But since places like Trenton, Belleville, Brockville, Guelph, etc will lie so close to the line it would take very little ensure they still get service, and improved service at that, without adding much cost to the project or affecting the efficiency of the line and the more profitable express services. There is no reason these places need to see service reduced or cut altogether.

Other options could exist too. A line from Montreal - Ottawa could involve leaving the existing line for commuter purposes and serving smaller communities while a new line could handle nonstop express service. A HS network could easily be done, just as long as politics doesnt get in the way or logical and creative thinking.

 

[cacruden]

The more you stop, the slower the route is for the majority of riders. I think Kingston is the smallest centre I would consider serving (I was born in Kingston - but Kingston is not that important to me since I only go there once every 10 or 15 years now ). Steel on Steel railways take a fair amount of time to get up to cruising speed. I was taking a look at the proposed California hi-speed rail project - and they were planning on stopping everywhere - which really slowed down the service from San Diego to LA.

 

[unimaginative2]

The key is to distinguish between types of service. A slower, frequent stop service that people take for shorter trips, like Guelph to Toronto, and a higher-speed, limited-stop service for longer trips like Toronto-Montreal. That service could have only one stop in Ottawa, or even run non-stop for some trips.

 

[Dan416]

In my mind the fewer stops the better. There doesn't have to be ALL non-stop trains, as long as there's at least one at a decent hour every day, and maybe a few more throughout the day that stop once or twice. But lots of stops definitely do slow down trains, and to be competitive with air, we should stop as little as possible.

 

[cacruden]

Assuming that High-speed rail's intention to mostly remove all corridor air traffic between major centres, plus the existing train traffic. I would expect the schedule for a very limited stop train run to be:

First train 6am
every half-hour between 7 and 9
hourly til 4pm
every half-hour til 7
hourly til 10, with one last train at 11:30 (maybe).

Or something similar. Assuming that they make the schedule as regular as that - I can see very little traffic on slower trains (I usually see a few people get on and off at each small stop - but not very many more).

Now if we were rich - and had money to throw around - Maglev would be able to handle more stops since it accelerates much more rapidly

 

[unimaginative2]

I've been a huge supporter of Maglev ever since I rode on the Transrapid test track in Germany years ago.

Don't underestimate the possible market on more local routes. Kitchener to Toronto, for example, would unquestionably see hundreds or even thousands of riders a day. Same for Guelph and Kingston. It's especially useful in commuting periods.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

As long as the network is constructed properly you can offer any combination of services you desire. Any stations that are directly on the high speed line would have two additional tracks so trains not stopping at the station can bypass should another train be waiting there. A lot of towns could have short spur lines off the high speed line, probably 10km in length or so so that it could provide good access and again offer a chance to let express trains jump past them. I could easily see direct Toronto-Montreal service with only stops at Pearson and Dorval, if that, working well for business travellers in morning and evening hours. You could also have milk runs that make all stops, basically two train sets could make two round trip runs each day making all the stops, and since it would utilize the high speed line along much of the way, these trips would probably be equivalent, maybe even a bit faster, than what an express trip takes now. And you can have all combinations in between that would see places like Kingston getting a large number of stops, probably places such as Port Hope/Cobourg or Brockville getting a few extra stops on top of the milk run, or whatever works out best in the end.

And it isnt hard to lure people into using slow trains. Just charge by total trip time instead of distance. Express trains cost the most, milk runs the least. There are plenty of people who would add some time to their trip to save some money, such as students, or seniors, or people who don't really need to get from A to B as absolutely fast as possible.

Edit: I also agree with unimaginative that the amount of revenue that could come from Kitchener-Waterloo in particular could be much more than most would suspect. Again, it is a matter of building into the network the ability to serve these sorts of markets, but without making it necessary to always stop there.

Edit: And don't forget that most reports expected ridership to go from 4 million to about 11-12 million in a 10-15 year period. So if now you have a stop, such as Kingston, which on average fills 1/2 to 3/4 of a coach, then with increased ridership each stop could end up filling 1 1/2 - 2 coaches which is a significant number of passengers. Same is true of all the smaller towns. They may not have much ridership now, but, if you operate milk runs that can utilize a lot of the high speed line and reduce time quite significantly, these ridership numbers are likely to rise quite a bit too.

 

[jswag]

I've been a huge supporter of Maglev ever since I rode on the Transrapid test track in Germany years ago.

Forgive my ignorance, but I've heard Maglev is prohibitively expensive in most cases. Is it really something we should consider for this corridor? Would not electrified rail achieve the required speeds without the cost of Maglev technology?

 

[unimaginative2]

There's no specific evidence that Maglevs are significantly more expensive than steel wheel on rail. The major difference is within built-up areas, where they tend to use existing high quality, electrified routes in Europe. In Canada, where existing lines would have to be rebuilt anyway, the difference isn't great. Don't believe the propaganda about the cost of Maglev. Most of it comes from taking the cost of the Shanghai line and then multiplying it by the distance travelled, without taking into account that the Shanghai line was built through a dense urban area and it would obviously be far cheaper to build through farmland.

 

[Mr.Tang]

Assuming that High-speed rail's intention to mostly remove all corridor air traffic between major centres, plus the existing train traffic. I would expect the schedule for a very limited stop train run to be:

that seems like an incorrect assumption. More likely they just want to reduce it somewhat. In the end the schedule will largely be driven by demand --> and that will be a function of price and travel time.

 

[cacruden]

Forgive my ignorance, but I've heard Maglev is prohibitively expensive in most cases. Is it really something we should consider for this corridor? Would not electrified rail achieve the required speeds without the cost of Maglev technology?

Yes, Maglev is more expensive, but the it is not all cost. They can get up to crusing speed much quicker, and at a much higher (safe) speed. It is the difference between yesterday's technology, and tomorrows technology (but of course there is risk on new technology). It would be interesting if they researched a combined energy/communications/maglev corridor. See if you can deliver energy from Quebec with less loss.... maybe there is a way to offset some of the additional cost.

 

[cacruden]

that seems like an incorrect assumption. More likely they just want to reduce it somewhat. In the end the schedule will largely be driven by demand --> and that will be a function of price and travel time.

It is an assumption I will make - because for government support - I want some public good to come out of it (reduced pollution, reduced congestion in the air traffic - which can free up growth for longer distance flights).