Alto - High Speed Rail (Toronto-Quebec City)

[crs1026]

It's railfan nonsense that ignores real world constratints. Like cost. Or the basic mathematics of time saved. There's more to be gained from going to 120 kph from 80 kph than from 300 kph to 400 kph.

I can forgive railfans, (I may resemble that remark) but I am more worried about people who camp out overnight for the newest Apple gadget release. My old iphone still works great.
300-350 is tried and true, 450 is still a work in progress. Canada should not be trying to lead the pack, there will not be some growth industry created by pushing the envelope. Just use today’s proven technology and flatten the learning curve.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Alto needs to stick to the tried-and-true, not needlessly innovate to set ballasted operational speed records. If you have the money to go for 320+, you shell out the upfront cost for ballastless track. Torontonians are sick of incompetent bureaucrats trying to re-invent the wheel already in Metrolinx and the TTC.

I have zero worries about Alto turning out like Metrolinx.

 

[Milaisacat]

I'm fine with 320 kph max operating speed, incidentally. We're on the same side of this issue as it relates to Alto.

 

[urbanclient]

I have zero worries about Alto turning out like Metrolinx.

I sure hope so. We got people asking or not realizing they are asking for Alto to re-invent the wheel here. Just squeeze a bit more out, what's an extra 20 if we're already hitting 300 km/h. Heck, what's an extra 30 if we're already going for 320 km/h. The Chinese can manage it with the same curve radiuses... A little ballast never stopped anyone from trying...

French built HSR are the only ones to hit 320 km/h on ballasted track in the whole world. AFAIK not all the brains behind French HSR are part of Cadence, even if Systra and SNCF Voyageurs are, SNCF Reseau is not. We'd be asking a lot out of Cadence to hit 320 km/h. Most French lines do not hit 320 km/h. I would be over the moon if Alto opened at 320 km/h, but I wouldn't be dissatisfied with 300. An extra 20 would probably save less than 5 minutes over 650 km, Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. If it went 320 km/h for the full distance with instant acceleration, it would only save 8 minutes.

 

[dougtoronto]

ALTO needs to be able to pass through Downtown Toronto to get to the yard, which happens to be where the GO/VIA yards are.

View attachment 708932

This is the most defined, clearest rail right of way on the map, so to me this makes me assume the decision to have a yard here is final, and the ALTO route has to work around it.

In my wildest dreams they'd tie this together with the long-planned redevelopment of the Metro Toronto Convention Centre and fit it nicely next to Union lol. One can only hope!

 

[kEiThZ]

I sure hope so. We got people asking or not realizing they are asking for Alto to re-invent the wheel here. Just squeeze a bit more out, what's an extra 20 if we're already hitting 300 km/h. Heck, what's an extra 30 if we're already going for 320 km/h. The Chinese can manage it with the same curve radiuses... A little ballast never stopped anyone from trying...

I am not worried.

1) The feds don't seem intent on micromanaging this like Queen's Park micromanages Metrolinx which in turn led to Metrolinx micromanaging Deutsche Bahn. This part is also important to resisting political pressure on everything from railfans to podunk towns asking for stops.

2) CDPQ is more competent at actually delivering large projects (not just in transit) than Metrolinx will ever be.

3) Cadence has a solid team.

 

[chrisw]

Regarding radii, even if we're only going 320 kmh, it's good future proofing on a greenfield route. There's benefits to comfort, maintenance and wear, and robustness.

 

[crs1026]

This map, happily included above by Northern Light, shows the tempting possibilities of the hydro corridors for high speeds. The branch through Almonte and Merivale passes through mid-Ottawa in an almost straight line.

I'm not for or against the idea, but I would caution that we need to look at the top maps and not take that straight looking line too literally.

There's a lot of swamp under those pylons, and lots of elevation issues that may not matter to wires but would matter to rail construction. Those high tension lines jump over plenty of lakes and streams. Where the lines do turn corners, they may do so at fairly sharp radii that high speed rail can't match

All quite reasonable to be studying, let's just not make the mistake of assuming a silver bullet.

- Paul

As a for instance, consider putting a rail line alongside the main hydro corridor here

 

[smallspy]

Read this again: "350 km/h operational top speeds on ballasted track would be a world record. Also I am pretty sure ballast flies and hits the undercarriage too much above 320 km/h." Nothing you said is mutually exclusive with what I said. I didn't say anything about test runs. The original suggestion was 350 km/h based on minimum curve radii alone. Even they hinted at the issue of ballasted track. There is a reason no one runs faster than 320 km/h except the Chinese. Cost being one of them. E.g. cost to mitigate flying ballast and higher marginal electricity use>higher total electricity costs.

The French have seemed to have figured out the issue. Even in the test runs, where they ran many, many runs well in excess of 350km/h, they didn't have any issues with flying ballast.

Perhaps look into what they are doing?

Dan

 

[kEiThZ]

At least this thread is better than the pinned comment on the consultation map. Dear lord.....

 

[urbanclient]

The French have seemed to have figured out the issue. Even in the test runs, where they ran many, many runs well in excess of 350km/h, they didn't have any issues with flying ballast.

Perhaps look into what they are doing?

Dan

At the risk of pointing out the obvious: TGV test runs are done with lighter trains, often smaller consists and sometimes specially tuned power cars for top speed runs. Non-catastrophic damage to undercarriage and trackbed is hardly a concern, especially if it won't derail a vanity test run. It's not economically feasible to maintain and repair train cars that sustain damage and wear like this in regular service. It's not feasible to maintain tracks that are used like this in regular service.

If it were that easy to hit 320, even 500 km/h on conventional ballasted track, and not deal with unsustainable maintenance costs you'd think the Spanish, which arguably have a better HSR network would get in on this need for speed. And what about Germany, Italy, the UK? The French are the foremost experts on this; they use a variety of techniques, more costly special ballast, more cleaning, lowered ballast between sleepers, and aerodynamic train bodies and bogies.

Why would the Chinese bother wasting money on slab track if they could've achieved 350 km/h speeds with lower long-term costs on ballasted track? Why would the Japanese switch to slab track for nearly all their 300-320 km/h lines?

Be realistic Dan. Glory runs have nothing to do with feasible operational speeds. 320 is possible for Alto. But:

An extra 20 would probably save less than 5 minutes over 650 km, Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. If it went 320 km/h for the full distance with instant acceleration, it would only save 8 minutes [compared to 300].

 

[drum118]

My first ride on the TVG was in the 80's doing 300km/h.

Rode a fair number of HSR lines outside of France doing 300km/h in 2012 and 2022 with a number below the 300 in 2022 due high temperature. Some HSR line are design for 200 to 250 km/h We were on one line in 2022 that did 320 in spots.

All lines do not get up to top speed until they get onto their own HSR line or out of the city limits after leaving the station as well arriving at the next station.

 

[smallspy]

At the risk of pointing out the obvious: TGV test runs are done with lighter trains, often smaller consists and sometimes specially tuned power cars for top speed runs.

The trains that operate the actual tests where they are aiming for the highest speed possible - yes. That is correct.

But part of those programs also involves operating regular trains at higher speeds than will be operated in revenue service. As part of the 1990 high-speed tests, for instance, a regular "Réseau" set - 2 locos and 8 intermediate cars, 200 metres long and which was already in revenue service - operated at speeds approaching 400km/h multiple times in advance of the modified trainset. They did the same thing again with the program run in 2007.

But sure, continue to ignore what other countries already do or are capable of....

Dan

 

[kEiThZ]

The trains that operate the actual tests where they are aiming for the highest speed possible - yes. That is correct.

But part of those programs also involves operating regular trains at higher speeds than will be operated in revenue service. As part of the 1990 high-speed tests, for instance, a regular "Réseau" set - 2 locos and 8 intermediate cars, 200 metres long and which was already in revenue service - operated at speeds approaching 400km/h multiple times in advance of the modified trainset. They did the same thing again with the program run in 2007.

But sure, continue to ignore what other countries already do or are capable of....

Dan

Most of us care about travel times. I couldn't give a flying fig about top speed. Please explain your obsession to me.

 

[crs1026]

If one googles the term "ballast flight" one finds lots of studies and professional papers documenting that high speed trains exert dynamic forces on the trackbed. That's pretty understandable considering the basic rules of aerodynamics (which I don't pretend to understand) and the reality that the underside of a high speed train can only be streamlined so much thanks to needing to have bogies and wheels sticking out downwards,

A major concern is not so much flying stones hitting things as general loosening of the roadbed and deterioration of the ballast..

It's pretty obvious that there is no "right" or "wrong" here. Some operators have found other design strategies while some rely on other types of roadbed, some are content to stick with rock ballast, or some altered form of such.

Which solution Alto chooses is yet to be seen, but we can be sure that their engineers will consider this issue and make decisions.

We may all have our opinions, but there is lots of middle ground here. Arguing "is" vs "is not" is a bit pedantic,

- Paul