11th
Senior Member
Probably can do every 40min on the shoulder rush.
0600
0700 0730
0800 0830
0900 0930
1000 1040
1120
1200
1300
1400
1500 1540
1620
1700 1730
1800 1830
1900 1930
2000
2100
2200
|
|
|
Alto - High Speed Rail (Toronto-Quebec City)
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
0600
0700 0730
0800 0830
0900 0930
1000 1040
1120
1200
1300
1400
1500 1540
1620
1700 1730
1800 1830
1900 1930
2000
2100
2200
WB62
Senior Member
Conceptual Design and Business Case for #altotrain | Michael Schabas
I'm posting my Conceptual Design and Business Case for the #Altotrain #highspeedtrains project on my Linked-in page. More details to follow, including alignment plans for the entire corridor. Comments, questions, suggestions are welcome. I look forward to seeing Alto's own plans and sincerely...
www.linkedin.com
There are some pretty interesting items this author managed to find, including the assumed Cadence proposal:
How cadence potentially suggested operating regional service along the ALTO corridor where it made sense:
In my opinion his network vision ranges from a little bit silly, to crazy, especially since all of this was proposed with the budget supposedly in mind:
Overall an interesting read, I think the most valuable parts of this are the sections about the actual project, and the little bit of insight on how the now-dead VIA HFR project was supposed to work.
CapitalSeven
Senior Member
As noted, the Winchester Subdivision came into play in the late-HFR era when it became apparent running through Ottawa would make Toronto-Montreal times very long, but that was when conventional track and speeds were involved, and using most of the VIA ROW was assumed. It’s a complete different game now. The bypass I referred to yesterday was via the Walkley yard in mid-Ottawa. (Red) A few years back, some route-mileages had a missing 5 km, which led to the conclusion that they had the notion of bypassing Ottawa Union on that route. But it only saves about 1.4 km if they use the more northerly route (Green), and would require a huge viaduct over the O Train and Bank St. overpass, and an additional grade separation further along. Fails the cost-benefit test.
The only reasonable alternative bypass route would be from Fallowfield, through the airport and greenbelt (Blue). Some delusional folks who think YOW is a good place for Ottawa’s train station may have suggested that, but again, if they aren’t using the Alexandria route it makes even less sense than that did before, which is almost none. So I would have to conclude that there is no physical Ottawa bypass in the cards. They could reconfigure the tracks and platforms so that the southernmost track is away from the platform, but the curve on the west side isn’t going anywhere, so high speeds are out of the question anyway. I do think Toronto-Montreal expresses skipping Ottawa are possible a couple of years into service, but likely not more than 3 or so a day, maybe 6 am, noon, and 7 pm for example.
The only reasonable alternative bypass route would be from Fallowfield, through the airport and greenbelt (Blue). Some delusional folks who think YOW is a good place for Ottawa’s train station may have suggested that, but again, if they aren’t using the Alexandria route it makes even less sense than that did before, which is almost none. So I would have to conclude that there is no physical Ottawa bypass in the cards. They could reconfigure the tracks and platforms so that the southernmost track is away from the platform, but the curve on the west side isn’t going anywhere, so high speeds are out of the question anyway. I do think Toronto-Montreal expresses skipping Ottawa are possible a couple of years into service, but likely not more than 3 or so a day, maybe 6 am, noon, and 7 pm for example.
crs1026
Superstar
Indeed..... the most interesting parts are the spilled beans about routing and attributes of various proposals, and the findings and positions taken by the JPO.
.
The suggestion that the Trans Canada Trail is irreplaceable is a new thought.
It's far more bullish about finding a new greenfield route than most views to date.
It alleges that the government's intend ia to dump legacy VIA on the provinces.
I liked its nonpartisan, dispassionate view of the business case for Montreal Quebec .... ie, if that line gets built at an unfavourable benefits value, then Toronto-Windsor deserves to be built if the benefits value ia equal or greater.
Those are initial reactions, it's worth a lot more digesting.
- Paul
CapitalSeven
Senior Member
The Schabas document is interesting. I don't think his "optimized" spine and branches plan has that much to recommend it, but it does resemble what some of the European lines do. It's nearly all greenfield and new corridors between Toronto and the Quebec border, and I just don't think the feds have the moxy to try to push that much expropriation through. The subway in Ottawa from Tremblay to the war memorial under or beside the canal is fun - I lampooned it in a forum several months ago, having no idea someone was really proposing it. Nice thing if we can get space aliens to pay for it.
The apparent intel on the Cadence route bewteen Toronto and Ottawa is useful. It seems to rely on the Gatineau hydro corridor and the branch towards Ottawa past Ompah. While there's not much in the way, as he notes building on it would be tough, and consider what would happen if there were an accident or weather disaster stranding a couple of trains there in January. There are almost no settlements or roads for most of the route. I would think the incidents with stuck trains recently, even in the existing VIA corridor, would make them shy of this.
Given the sites for consultations, I suspect that they are also looking at something that uses parts of the abandoned Havelock-Smiths Falls route with sections following the approximate path of Highway 7, either from Tweed to SF, or perhaps even from Marmora eastward, because it's largely empty, but with towns and roads in the vicinity. If you look at the satellite maps, there is a giant geological curve from Tweed to Sharbot lake, with ridges and valleys, that Highway 7 runs through. I think working with that geography is easier for a railway than working against it.
The apparent intel on the Cadence route bewteen Toronto and Ottawa is useful. It seems to rely on the Gatineau hydro corridor and the branch towards Ottawa past Ompah. While there's not much in the way, as he notes building on it would be tough, and consider what would happen if there were an accident or weather disaster stranding a couple of trains there in January. There are almost no settlements or roads for most of the route. I would think the incidents with stuck trains recently, even in the existing VIA corridor, would make them shy of this.
Given the sites for consultations, I suspect that they are also looking at something that uses parts of the abandoned Havelock-Smiths Falls route with sections following the approximate path of Highway 7, either from Tweed to SF, or perhaps even from Marmora eastward, because it's largely empty, but with towns and roads in the vicinity. If you look at the satellite maps, there is a giant geological curve from Tweed to Sharbot lake, with ridges and valleys, that Highway 7 runs through. I think working with that geography is easier for a railway than working against it.
Attachments
nfitz
Superstar
Interesting, but with an air of arrogance, and uses of words I've never seen in an engineering report - like "rumour". I see he's violated the Professional Engineers Act by not signing or sealing his submission. Or even mentioning his credentials. His LinkedIn says Civil Engineer.
There's some factual errors. Particularly amusing is his arrogant comments about an earlier draft of a HSR document calculating the percent of Canadians who'd be served by this incorrectly - but then himself claiming that Ontario and Quebec "only comprise 50% of Canada". The real number is actually over 60%. Probably best not to throw stones, and then get simple basic facts completely wrong.
It's also odd that he doesn't mention his own professional relationship with Alto. He literally worked until a few weeks ago (according to his LinkedIn) for the company ("CPCS") that he discussed ALTO hiring to look at South Western Ontario - but there's no mention of this potential conflict of interest in the document, even though it's presumably the source of much the rumour and assumptions in the report.
I'm surprised CPCS, once of Montreal is still around. Their own page implies it's not the original CPCS that was spun off from CP back in the 1980s. How it became Ottawa-based I don't know. My vague recollection is this was two or three of the CPCS telecommunications staff - and the core of the rail staff ended up in a completely different company. Those handful of telecoms staff were CPCS International, and when they merged with Transcom, it was the Transcom staff who had the rail expertise, not the CPCS International staff.
Reading their "About" page, they pretty much admit there's no explicit link to CPCS! It does strike me odd that they are presenting a history of Canadian Pacific Railway. Their telegraph service perhaps ....
Perhaps the page is badly worded "In 1996, CPCS Transcom Limited, an employee-owned company, was created to succeed in the business of that earlier company, CPCS Ltd." Looking at older versions of their webpage, they are pretty clear it was the same company - I wonder what changed?
It's hard to track all these changes throughout the industry with mergers and the alphabet soup!
"1,400+ projects in 130 countries" in 2020?. Hmm, including North Korea? Syria? Cuba? According to their map. I'm suspicious this includes projects done by CP Rail and it's 100% owned subsidiaries.
Interestingly, a more recent version on their current website removes a few countries (like South Korea), but keeps North Korea. How this isn't a barrier to trade with the USA. Odd that Russia is no longer there ... consulting work in Russia in the 1990s and even into the 2000s was hardly uncommon.
crs1026
Superstar
That's how you disclose things when you are bound by an NDA, without violating the NDA. Cheeky, but defensible given Ottawa's refusal to disclose anything meaningful to date.
There are enough caveats and disclaimers that it would be unlikely that anyone could rely on the document as "professional engineering". Nothing preventa a PE from offering an opinion in a public forum as a member of the public, so long as they don'r represent their product as professional work.
The "arrogance" (I would say it's closer to impolitic or stepping away from the party line, which may require a touch of rudeness whether intended or just the result) is interesting in that one has to wonder why someone with such a broad reputation, lengthy inside involvement, and who clearly is marketing their expertise to the industry worldwide, would issue a document which runs against the grain, exposes "secrets", and potentially embarrasses people who have taken a position on things - and may have authority over placing further consulting contracts.
Is this a case of having been moved to the periphery, perhaps reaching the end of the food chain, or is it profound professional disagreement with the policy choices being made?
In short, is it speaking truth to power, or just a tantrum ?
Perhaps both, but it sure reminds me of the behaviour of certain other Canadian rail pax advocates who get downright cranky when their opinions and proposals are ignored.
I don't see this report as offering a more insightful or creative view on the discussion, or more valid and relible data. But it debunks a few common perceptions, challenges a few things that may have become sacred, and underlines the lack of transparency coming out of Ottawa. That makes it useful even if little of its analysis gets adopted.
- Paul
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
PS: The other interesting thought this paper raises is, why Peterborough?
It seems Peterborough was blessed by inclusion in the whole HFR/HSR bandwagon simply because up until Schabas, everyone assumed the former CP line through Havelock was the obvious and preferable choice of route.
This latest report seems to suggest abandoning that route and carving a new greenfield route - somewhere - and not using the Havelock Sub. That new route is apparently not dependent on passing through Peterborough.
So, the question is - absent that compelling use of the havelock line, is Peterborough so important a community that we need to route through it?
I would make the case that if the Havelock Sub ROW is off the table, a Lakeshore routing might be easier, uses land that is not as ecologically sensitive and is already zoned notionally or explicitly with transportation corridors in mind, might offer a stop that serves more people than Peterborough, avoids driving a new corridor through various bits of greenbelt or natural areas, and might (with some collateral use as a regional or commuter rail line) drive more economic benefit to communities along its route than a routing further north..
That's definitely a major shift in direction. Peterboroughburgers, sorry for your luck. It was a good run while it lasted.
- Paul
It seems Peterborough was blessed by inclusion in the whole HFR/HSR bandwagon simply because up until Schabas, everyone assumed the former CP line through Havelock was the obvious and preferable choice of route.
This latest report seems to suggest abandoning that route and carving a new greenfield route - somewhere - and not using the Havelock Sub. That new route is apparently not dependent on passing through Peterborough.
So, the question is - absent that compelling use of the havelock line, is Peterborough so important a community that we need to route through it?
I would make the case that if the Havelock Sub ROW is off the table, a Lakeshore routing might be easier, uses land that is not as ecologically sensitive and is already zoned notionally or explicitly with transportation corridors in mind, might offer a stop that serves more people than Peterborough, avoids driving a new corridor through various bits of greenbelt or natural areas, and might (with some collateral use as a regional or commuter rail line) drive more economic benefit to communities along its route than a routing further north..
That's definitely a major shift in direction. Peterboroughburgers, sorry for your luck. It was a good run while it lasted.
- Paul
Last edited:
adys123
Active Member
In addition to what @crs1026 said, a conceptual design business case is not considered an engineering document, and thus does not require it to be sealed.Interesting, but with an air of arrogance, and uses of words I've never seen in an engineering report - like "rumour". I see he's violated the Professional Engineers Act by not signing or sealing his submission. Or even mentioning his credentials. His LinkedIn says Civil Engineer.
There's some factual errors. Particularly amusing is his arrogant comments about an earlier draft of a HSR document calculating the percent of Canadians who'd be served by this incorrectly - but then himself claiming that Ontario and Quebec "only comprise 50% of Canada". The real number is actually over 60%. Probably best not to throw stones, and then get simple basic facts completely wrong.
It's also odd that he doesn't mention his own professional relationship with Alto. He literally worked until a few weeks ago (according to his LinkedIn) for the company ("CPCS") that he discussed ALTO hiring to look at South Western Ontario - but there's no mention of this potential conflict of interest in the document, even though it's presumably the source of much the rumour and assumptions in the report.
I'm surprised CPCS, once of Montreal is still around. Their own page implies it's not the original CPCS that was spun off from CP back in the 1980s. How it became Ottawa-based I don't know. My vague recollection is this was two or three of the CPCS telecommunications staff - and the core of the rail staff ended up in a completely different company. Those handful of telecoms staff were CPCS International, and when they merged with Transcom, it was the Transcom staff who had the rail expertise, not the CPCS International staff.
Reading their "About" page, they pretty much admit there's no explicit link to CPCS! It does strike me odd that they are presenting a history of Canadian Pacific Railway. Their telegraph service perhaps ....
Perhaps the page is badly worded "In 1996, CPCS Transcom Limited, an employee-owned company, was created to succeed in the business of that earlier company, CPCS Ltd." Looking at older versions of their webpage, they are pretty clear it was the same company - I wonder what changed?
It's hard to track all these changes throughout the industry with mergers and the alphabet soup!
"1,400+ projects in 130 countries" in 2020?. Hmm, including North Korea? Syria? Cuba? According to their map. I'm suspicious this includes projects done by CP Rail and it's 100% owned subsidiaries.
View attachment 708631
Interestingly, a more recent version on their current website removes a few countries (like South Korea), but keeps North Korea. How this isn't a barrier to trade with the USA. Odd that Russia is no longer there ... consulting work in Russia in the 1990s and even into the 2000s was hardly uncommon.
View attachment 708628
Northern Light
Superstar
I will post on the above docs in due course.
For now though, I have to say......take anything Michael Schabas says with a very large grain of salt.
His track record is problematic to say the least.
I can't speak to the veracity of everything he's written, I can say some of it is wrong.
For now though, I have to say......take anything Michael Schabas says with a very large grain of salt.
His track record is problematic to say the least.
I can't speak to the veracity of everything he's written, I can say some of it is wrong.
Last edited:
MisterF
Senior Member
Not to mention the loss of all those Ottawa passengers, who would no doubt vastly outnumber any Montreal passengers gained by marginally decreasing travel time.
nfitz
Superstar
He must be into his 70s - and it looks like he's skipped the country from his socials. He certainly wouldn't need the work at this point in his career. Being a public-facing gadfly might give him the pleasure than taking up a different hobby. And there's still some ability to get some work with a reputation of speaking it like (he thinks) it is.
hw621
Senior Member
torontosun.com
Jan. 14, 2026
Christopher Reynolds
Construction of first phase, set to kick off in 2029 or 2030, would connect Montreal and Ottawa
MONTREAL — The CEO of a planned high-speed rail project between Toronto and Quebec City says construction on that leg of the line is expected to begin by 2032.
Following a speech in Montreal on Tuesday, Martin Imbleau told reporters the line connecting the two provincial capitals will “probably” start to be built two years after shovels hit the ground on an earlier segment.
Construction of that first phase, set to kick off in 2029 or 2030, would connect Montreal and Ottawa and act as a test case for a multibillion-dollar infrastructure project intended to transform rail travel in Canada’s most densely populated region.
Imbleau says the Crown corporation, dubbed Alto, aims to have stations near the heart of downtown in both Toronto and Montreal, with Union Station and Central Station under consideration, respectively.
The proposed 1,000-kilometre network would see trains running on dedicated tracks at speeds of up to 300 kilometres per hour, slashing current travel times and making for a three-hour trip between the country’s two largest cities.
A three-month public consultation is set to kick off later this month.
This will take well into the 2040s.
Jan. 14, 2026
Christopher Reynolds
Construction of first phase, set to kick off in 2029 or 2030, would connect Montreal and Ottawa
MONTREAL — The CEO of a planned high-speed rail project between Toronto and Quebec City says construction on that leg of the line is expected to begin by 2032.
Following a speech in Montreal on Tuesday, Martin Imbleau told reporters the line connecting the two provincial capitals will “probably” start to be built two years after shovels hit the ground on an earlier segment.
Construction of that first phase, set to kick off in 2029 or 2030, would connect Montreal and Ottawa and act as a test case for a multibillion-dollar infrastructure project intended to transform rail travel in Canada’s most densely populated region.
Imbleau says the Crown corporation, dubbed Alto, aims to have stations near the heart of downtown in both Toronto and Montreal, with Union Station and Central Station under consideration, respectively.
The proposed 1,000-kilometre network would see trains running on dedicated tracks at speeds of up to 300 kilometres per hour, slashing current travel times and making for a three-hour trip between the country’s two largest cities.
A three-month public consultation is set to kick off later this month.
This will take well into the 2040s.
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Reaction score
- 11,524
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
Yeah. Michael Schabas can be arrogant and has more than once pulled stuff out of his ass to justify his ideas. But he has a lot of pull with the provincial government and Metrolinx, and I think his son is a VP there now.
lenaitch
Senior Member
But wouldn't using the lakeshore route; i.e. CN Kingston sub, etc., either in whole or part, be challenged by ROW capacity and ownership? Shoehorning at least two dedicated high speed tracks, stations, infrastructure, stations, etc. would seem to be no mean feat. If not 'the corridor', the closer you get to the lake, the higher the land cost (in general).