Alto - High Speed Rail (Toronto-Quebec City)

[crs1026]

The issues I see with the Kennedy routing
- Interleaving with GO will constrain speed and reliability - especially once GO headways are reduced
- Speed-limiting curvature at Scarborough Jct and northwards to Kennedy - 45 mph turnouts and then a mile of 45 mph unless significant changes to alignment are made (costly)
- Speed-limiting curvature at West Highland Creek - while @reaperexpress has drawn a flyover junction here, I foresee being forced to something simpler and hence operationally inferior - the construction here will likely be tricky and curvature will constrain speed
- A 3-mile stretch between Kennedy and West Highland between the two speed-restricted curves - leaving the likelihood that trains will be speed restricted, adding time to the trip, even considering a stop at Kennedy
- The "flat" solution at Scarborough Jct and the separation of LSE/Stouffville GO to enable that solution, as opposed to an express/local track plan with a flyover/under, may prove insufficient.

However, the issues I see with the Leaside routing are
- Three very large bridges required over West Don, East Don, and Taylor-Massey
- Some number of grade separations needing widening to add Alto trackage alongside CPKC's freight trackage
- A flyover/under needed on this route as well, to get Alto to the north side of the line before branching at Agincourt
- A less ideal placement of the east-end station (Kennedy is definitely an attractive place to connect to city transit)
- Need to add new trackage between Leaside and Agincourt (versus LSE routing using the 4 tracks ML is building anyways)

All things considered, I think the Leaside route is more elegant as it promises higher and less constrained end to end speed without restrictions or operational constraints. The only barrier is a higher price tag, but in the context of the overall cost of the project it's probably lost in the rounding.... and money well spent to achieve the best possible infrastructure. Going via Kennedy seems to imply tradeoffs that aren't worth the savings.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

You don't actually think they'll maintain the at-grade crossings if they decide to run HSR down this route, do you? I would imagine the Stouffville line would see a lot of upgrading.

No. They can't under accepted design standards anyway unless it becomes a lower speed zone. If the ROW builds around Stouffville, Markham and Unionville, at some point it really isn't the Stouffville sub anymore.

I hope no one is expecting that at any of the urban interfaces, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, service will maintain 'high speed' until braking distance of the stations. That would require clearing new, wide swathes of property.

 

[Urban Sky]

I hope no one is expecting that at any of the urban interfaces, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, service will maintain 'high speed' until braking distance of the stations. That would require clearing new, wide swathes of property.

Indeed, even the fastest scheduled downtown-to-downtown travel speed I‘m aware of in Europe (Paris to Strasbourg at an average speed of 253 km/h) starts rather slow out of Paris Gare de l‘Est:

t's an urban myth that HSR depends on gaining high speed really fast. Let's have a look at the TGV Paris-Strasbourg and see how fast the speed limits actually allow it to gain its top speed:

As you can see, the Paris-Strasbourg TGV never exceeds 130 km/h before it hits the equivalent distance of the entrance to the Taschereau Yard, which is the maximum length which a Montreal downtown tunnel could plausibly bypass of the existing route and doesn't stop the TGV from covering the 439 km between Paris and Strasbourg (to compare: OTTW-BRKV-KGON-TRTO is 446 km) in 1h44, thus at an average speed of 253 km/h (i.e., well above the 180-200 km/h ALTO's own travel time targets imply).

In summary, I wouldn't hold my breath for ALTO ever reaching beyond Montreal, let alone: for a Montreal tunnel to become part of this project (if it ever happens)...

 

[reaperexpress]

I believe the Kennedy routing is superior to the Leaside routing, because in addition to being far cheaper to build it provides vastly better connectivity.

The Toronto suburban station in the Leaside routing option is a station a short walk east of Sunnybrook Park station on Line 5. It has connections to 1 LRT line and 2 local bus routes (one of which just runs atop the LRT). For the people who would use the station, it's only a minor time saving compared to going to Union.

Kennedy on the other hand is one of the GTA's important transit hubs, with direct connections to:
- GO Stouffville Line
- Line 2 Bloor-Danforth
- Line 5 Eglinton
- Express bus routes including along Eglinton East and Kennedy
- Frequent bus routes including along Kennedy, Eglinton East, Morningside and Kingston Road
- Several local bus routes

For the people connecting to Alto at Kennedy, the station provides a huge time saving compared to joining the train at Union.

The issues I see with the Kennedy routing
- Interleaving with GO will constrain speed and reliability - especially once GO headways are reduced

Between the Highland Creek junction and Union, Stouffville trains need to make at least 2 stops (East Harbour and Kennedy), and could potentially make as many as 4 stops (also Danforth and Scarborough). In a scenario where Canada's only high-speed rail line shares tracks with the Stouffville line, I think it is reasonable to assume that Stouffville line trains could skip Scarborough to minimize the speed differential.

Due to the more constrained door capacity and passenger circulation, high-speed and intercity trains spend much longer at stations than regional trains. Via currently dwells for about 3 minutes at each intermediate station, versus just 1 minute on GO. The net time cost of each GO stop is currently 2 minutes compared to skipping the station, versus 4-5 minutes on Via. So with 3 intermediate stops, the GO service is 6 minutes slower than a non-stop service. The Alto service would be 4 minutes slower than a non-stop service due to the dwell at Kennedy. That's only a 2-minute difference, and that's before considering the fact that electric GO trains with level boarding will reduce the net time cost per stop. If the improvements reduce the net cost to 1.5 minutes, the difference between the services would only be 30 seconds.

Metrolinx's ultimate vision is only 4 trains per hour on Stouffville, so the schedule can easily be designed to allow Alto trains to depart far enough behind Stouffville trains that they don't catch up. There is no need for any changes to Metrolinx's planned track configuration.

Reliability is indeed a bigger concern, since an Alto train could be delayed up to 8 minutes if it happens to arrive at the junction at the same time as a GO train and the GO train is given priority. However, on the Don Valley route there is an equally big potential for delay if they build it as single-track with passing tracks. Which is what we would expect for a service that only runs a couple times per hour in a corridor with major geographic obstacles (e.g. the Don Valley viaduct).

- Speed-limiting curvature at Scarborough Jct and northwards to Kennedy - 45 mph turnouts and then a mile of 45 mph unless significant changes to alignment are made (costly)

The curves south of Kennedy will almost certainly remain around its current 45 mph (72 km/h) speed due to the cost of alignment changes. Fortunately many of those curves are within the portion of the line where the train will need to be slowing to stop at Kennedy station anyway. There is definitely some travel time impact, but it's not much.

- Speed-limiting curvature at West Highland Creek - while @reaperexpress has drawn a flyover junction here, I foresee being forced to something simpler and hence operationally inferior - the construction here will likely be tricky and curvature will constrain speed

This will definitely be the lowest speed along the line. Maybe 30 mph (48 km/h)?

It is not reasonable to assume that they would build a flat junction. Even with a grade-separated junction the Kennedy alignment would be vastly cheaper than the Leaside alignment. Furthermore, the train needs to climb a substantial elevation difference to join the CPKC alignment regardless, so a flat junction wouldn't even save that much money.

- A 3-mile stretch between Kennedy and West Highland between the two speed-restricted curves - leaving the likelihood that trains will be speed restricted, adding time to the trip, even considering a stop at Kennedy

5 kilometres of straight track is plenty of distance to accelerate to a good speed between a station and a slow curve. The speeds are currently restricted by to 40 mph (64 km/h) by a sharp S-bend at the former Lawrence East station, but with that station now abandoned there is plenty of opportunity to straighten the line to enable speeds upwards of 80 mph (129 km/h).

- The "flat" solution at Scarborough Jct and the separation of LSE/Stouffville GO to enable that solution, as opposed to an express/local track plan with a flyover/under, may prove insufficient.

As noted above, the travel time difference between GO and Alto would be minimal, avoiding the need for passing tracks. The only change likely to be required is to limit the number of stops on Stouffville line services between Kennedy and Union.

Between Union and Scarborough Junction, the line already has track speeds up to 95 mph (153 km/h) which is faster than we would likely achieve on Leaside given the curvature.

However, the issues I see with the Leaside routing are
- Three very large bridges required over West Don, East Don, and Taylor-Massey
- Some number of grade separations needing widening to add Alto trackage alongside CPKC's freight trackage
- A flyover/under needed on this route as well, to get Alto to the north side of the line before branching at Agincourt
- A less ideal placement of the east-end station (Kennedy is definitely an attractive place to connect to city transit)
- Need to add new trackage between Leaside and Agincourt (versus LSE routing using the 4 tracks ML is building anyways)

In addition, the Leaside routing has an extremely tight and slow curve joining the USRC (25 mph / 40 km/h):

And several medium curves along the CPKC alignment that would likely limit speeds to 70-80 mph (compared to 95 mph on the Kingston Subdivision)

All things considered, I think the Leaside route is more elegant as it promises higher and less constrained end to end speed without restrictions or operational constraints. The only barrier is a higher price tag, but in the context of the overall cost of the project it's probably lost in the rounding.... and money well spent to achieve the best possible infrastructure. Going via Kennedy seems to imply tradeoffs that aren't worth the savings.

The Kennedy alignment would have roughly the same travel time and better connectivity than the Leaside alignment. The improved connectivity would itself save a huge amount of travel time to the station for people in Scarborough, Markham and Pickering. The fact that the Kennedy alignment is also only a fraction of the construction cost of the Leaside alignment is just icing on the cake.

 

[nfitz]

The issues I see with the Kennedy routing
- Interleaving with GO will constrain speed and reliability - especially once GO headways are reduced
- Speed-limiting curvature at Scarborough Jct and northwards to Kennedy - 45 mph turnouts and then a mile of 45 mph unless significant changes to alignment are made (costly)
- Speed-limiting curvature at West Highland Creek - while @reaperexpress has drawn a flyover junction here, I foresee being forced to something simpler and hence operationally inferior - the construction here will likely be tricky and curvature will constrain speed
- A 3-mile stretch between Kennedy and West Highland between the two speed-restricted curves - leaving the likelihood that trains will be speed restricted, adding time to the trip, even considering a stop at Kennedy
- The "flat" solution at Scarborough Jct and the separation of LSE/Stouffville GO to enable that solution, as opposed to an express/local track plan with a flyover/under, may prove insufficient.

However, the issues I see with the Leaside routing are
- Three very large bridges required over West Don, East Don, and Taylor-Massey
- Some number of grade separations needing widening to add Alto trackage alongside CPKC's freight trackage
- A flyover/under needed on this route as well, to get Alto to the north side of the line before branching at Agincourt
- A less ideal placement of the east-end station (Kennedy is definitely an attractive place to connect to city transit)
- Need to add new trackage between Leaside and Agincourt (versus LSE routing using the 4 tracks ML is building anyways)

All things considered, I think the Leaside route is more elegant as it promises higher and less constrained end to end speed without restrictions or operational constraints. The only barrier is a higher price tag, but in the context of the overall cost of the project it's probably lost in the rounding.... and money well spent to achieve the best possible infrastructure. Going via Kennedy seems to imply tradeoffs that aren't worth the savings.

- Paul

I agree. Though will the new bridges and grade separations on the CP line be worse and more expensive than the work necessary for the Kennedy route - especially additional track and widening overpasses from Scarborough GO to Agincourt?

Historically the HSR option would have used the option for the 5th and eventually 6th track between Scarborough GO and the Don. But Metrolinx has screwed that up with the new subway line.

Kennedy was feasible under HFR, but it doesn't work now the government cancelled the horrific HFR concept.

 

[reaperexpress]

I agree. Though will the new bridges and grade separations on the CP line be worse and more expensive than the work necessary for the Kennedy route - especially additional track and widening overpasses from Scarborough GO to Agincourt?

Historically the HSR option would have used the option for the 5th and eventually 6th track between Scarborough GO and the Don. But Metrolinx has screwed that up with the new subway line.

Kennedy was feasible under HFR, but it doesn't work now the government cancelled the horrific HFR concept.

What is the frequency of the high speed line? Because if it's less than 4 trains per hour, Metrolinx's planned configuration is already enough for both GO and Alto. The original GO Expansion plans were calling for 8+ trains per hour on Stouffville but now the plans have been cut back to 4. So there are no track modifications required between the Highland Creek junction and the USRC.

 

[nfitz]

What is the frequency of the high speed line? Because if it's less than 4 trains per hour, Metrolinx's planned configuration is already enough for both GO and Alto.

It's no more than 4 trains an hour now at Pickering, and GO still can't integrate even the regular speed VIA trains without delays.

They aren't spending tens of billions of $ to avoid the freight railways, and then have Metrolinx ***** them up the ***.

Besides, as day-1 Stouffville service is supposed to be every a MINIMIUM of 15-minutes in each direction off-peak. The idea is to increase service as the year progress. Every 15 minutes isn't the ultimate build-out. It's the minimum. You'll need extra tracks for HSR. Which is presumably why they'd gone back to the Don Valley (and building a new tunnel from Lucien L'allier to Laval).

It will be interesting to see what they come up with during the current work. Someone needs to start leaking that (I know nothing!).

 

[crs1026]

Kennedy undoubtedly is the better location for transit connections. I'm not sure I would plan a stop at Eglinton, however...., perhaps with Lines 2 and 4 both coming to Scarborough, perhaps that stop should be up around Sheppard. Still not as convenient as Kennedy, but the catchment from that location is not insignifigant,

The GO vision for the Stouffville line changes regularly, and I'm not sure that we should bake in a 15 minute headway as the proven upper limit. It seems likely that ML will eventually need and attempt 10 minute or better headways and that will constrain what Alto experiences. Moreover, mixing GO and Alto ties Alto to whatever disruptions GO experiences..... do we want Alto held every tine GO has an ill passenger, stuck door, or whatever ? This is why I do not trust the math around an interleaved LSE line....an express/local division with flyover is a better model than two routes with two tracks each.

I can't see Alto going much beyond hourly headway with half hourly at peak....but I do foresee instances where there might be two Alto's fleeted with say 10 minutes between them. And what if a Peterborough regional or GO service does become a need ? To my mind, keeping Alto away from GO altogether is a prudent futureproofing step even at added cost, as having the two together constrains the upper end of both services.

I would expect a Leaside route to have some double track added down the Don - if ML could design a whole yard up there, some room must exist. Single track over the viaduct only would not unduly limit operability - certainly much less than the unpredictability of inbound GO and Alto trains vying for track from an Agincourt junction, or arriving off their slot and ending up in the wrong order all the way from Kennedy to Union..

I would not expect speed higher than say 95mph west of Agincourt, but it would be possible to match the Guildwood-Cherry quality track speed from there to Leaside, with a 70 mph flyover/under and 60-70 Mph down the Don Branch. True there is a tight curve at the bottom, but again with many trains running to East Harbour I would expect speed on the LSE/Stouffville route to be comparable in that stretch.

While one might be able to design a clever interleaved service and implement a better signalling system to enable that, in the interest in saving some dollars....why would we do that when the result constrains both GO and Alto ? Whatever the added cost, it's the wrong place to value engineer or pinch pennies. It's not a prudent place for a "good is good enough" approach. The less Alto requires from ML, and vice versa....the better inho.

- Paul

 

[innsertnamehere]

I'm doubtful of Kennedy if only because of space limitations on the corridor. I doubt Metrolinx is going to want Alto intermixing with its services on the corridor.

Plus - It's simply slow. The biggest curve you'd be able to get at Agincourt is maybe 75mph, and that's with quite a bit of expropriation. then most of the Stouffville sub has a 50mph limit on it, plus the substandard curves connecting to the Kingston sub..

Using the Leaside routing would probably be more expensive, yes, but would also likely result in vaster travel times overall and provide more operational flexibility. Alto could operate independently of Metrolinx basically until it joined the USRC.

The 25mph curve at the USRC is definitely a problem though. Nothing a good little tunnel couldn't fix though!

An 1,800m radius tunnel starting around Gerrard and terminating at an underground terminal at Union would keep Alto operationally separate from metrolinx almost entirely and would retain capacity at Union for Metrolinx's operations.. probably at a cost of $3-4 billion of course.. but it would also give Alto 200km/h operations right into Union and allow it to avoid the slow track work in the USRC.

 

[Urban Sky]

I'm doubtful of Kennedy if only because of space limitations on the corridor. I doubt Metrolinx is going to want Alto intermixing with its services on the corridor.

I suspect it‘s rather ALTO which would be reluctant to agree on such a cohabitation. For Metrolinx, track-sharing could be a welcome vehicle to unlock federal funds for measures which have massive benefit to their own services.

Plus - It's simply slow. The biggest curve you'd be able to get at Agincourt is maybe 75mph, and that's with quite a bit of expropriation. then most of the Stouffville sub has a 50mph limit on it, plus the substandard curves connecting to the Kingston sub..

You are describing a stretch which would be between 5 km north and 2 km south of the hypothetical stop at Kennedy, which would have much less travel time impact than the same speed limits applied almost anywhere else along the ALTO route…

Using the Leaside routing would probably be more expensive, yes, but would also likely result in vaster travel times overall and provide more operational flexibility. Alto could operate independently of Metrolinx basically until it joined the USRC.

Even if the USRC only accounts for just over a tenth of the distance from Union Station until the Stouffville and Belleville Subdivisions intersect, it will account for the vast majority of headaches when sharing tracks.

The 25mph curve at the USRC is definitely a problem though. Nothing a good little tunnel couldn't fix though!

An 1,800m radius tunnel starting around Gerrard and terminating at an underground terminal at Union would keep Alto operationally separate from metrolinx almost entirely and would retain capacity at Union for Metrolinx's operations.. probably at a cost of $3-4 billion of course.. but it would also give Alto 200km/h operations right into Union and allow it to avoid the slow track work in the USRC.

I would really love to see a sketched map of what kind of tunnel (and underground station?) you envision underneath the USRC and Union Station, but I strongly suspect that you are severely underestimating how many billions and years of construction time (and paralysis to GO/VIA operations) it would add to the ALTO project…

 

[innsertnamehere]

I suspect it‘s rather ALTO which would be reluctant to agree on such a cohabitation. For Metrolinx, track-sharing could be a welcome vehicle to unlock federal funds for measures which have massive benefit to their own services.

You are describing a stretch which would be between 5 km north and 2 km south of the hypothetical stop at Kennedy, which would have much less travel time impact than the same speed limits applied almost anywhere else along the ALTO route…

Even if the USRC only accounts for just over a tenth of the distance from Union Station until the Stouffville and Belleville Subdivisions intersect, it will account for the vast majority of headaches when sharing tracks.

I would really love to see a sketched map of what kind of tunnel (and underground station?) you envision underneath the USRC and Union Station, but I strongly suspect that you are severely underestimating how many billions and years of construction time (and paralysis to GO/VIA operations) it would add to the ALTO project…

Something like this:

At ~4.4 km, you are probably looking at about $1 billion to tunnel it as per latest cost comparables and $2-3 billion for fitout and a mined terminal station at Union. If you are willing to cut travel speeds you could probably reduce the tunnel length to something closer to 3km.

Expensive, but it would give ALTO completely separate (i.e. reliable) operations in and out of Toronto and would let trains get from Union to the edge of the City, assuming an average speed of 150km/h between Union and Markham, in about 11 minutes. Doing the Union-Kennedy-Agincourt route is probably looking at more like 21-22 minutes.

 

[KhalilHeron]

If sharing a GO corridor lets the first phase open sooner, it seems like the right move. The urban sections are the slowest and most complicated parts to build, so I would rather see trains running at full speed between cities and reduced speeds in built up areas than wait another three to five years. Once the mainline between Ottawa and the GTA is finished, construction can shift toward a dedicated approach into Union while the rest of the service is already operating.

 

[Urban Sky]

Something like this:

View attachment 700766

At ~4.4 km, you are probably looking at about $1 billion to tunnel it as per latest cost comparables and $2-3 billion for fitout and a mined terminal station at Union. If you are willing to cut travel speeds you could probably reduce the tunnel length to something closer to 3km.

The project you linked (YNSE) has a price tag of $5.6 billion (i.e., not just the $1.4 billion quoted here for the „Advance Tunneling“) and is a walk in the park compared with the complexities of tunneling underneath dense downtown areas, this nation‘s busiest rail corridor and rail station and the water levels of the Don River and Lake Ontario. I keep saying that building a new Mont-Royal tunnel would easily add $10 billion and a full decade to ALTO‘s construction budget and timeline, while paralyzing downtown Montreal for most of that time. Your tunnel vision would only fare marginally better…

Expensive, but it would give ALTO completely separate (i.e. reliable) operations in and out of Toronto and would let trains get from Union to the edge of the City, assuming an average speed of 150km/h between Union and Markham, in about 11 minutes. Doing the Union-Kennedy-Agincourt route is probably looking at more like 21-22 minutes.

I can assure you, there are far more cost-effective ways for ALTO for cutting 10 minutes of travel time between Toronto and Ottawa/Montreal than building such an insanely expensive downtown tunnel just because they prefer a reserved corridor. If ALTO insists on discrimination-free dispatching on the shared tracks, dispatching can be handed over to a transparent and indepent dispatcher…

If sharing a GO corridor lets the first phase open sooner, it seems like the right move. The urban sections are the slowest and most complicated parts to build, so I would rather see trains running at full speed between cities and reduced speeds in built up areas than wait another three to five years. Once the mainline between Ottawa and the GTA is finished, construction can shift toward a dedicated approach into Union while the rest of the service is already operating.

Indeed, the question on whether to share or segregate infrastructure and operations into Toronto Union might be driven less by concerns about the project‘s pricetag than its timeline…