High Speed Rail: London - Kitchener-Waterloo - Pearson Airport - Toronto

[dowlingm]

The proposal takes a few liberties, yes. It also proposes three trains an hour each way at peak and two trains an hour off-peak, while "assuming" that GO to Kitchener will only run hourly. That's a pretty presumptive use of the shared portion of the line.

There is good reason to assume that Stratford, Brantford, and Woodstock would continue to want service, and a route to Hamilton/Niagara (through a transfer at Aldershot) continues to be desirable. With the through business stripped out of the VIA ridership, the economics of VIA's current southern Ontario service is problemmatic, for sure.

In theory, VIA could pull back to Toronto-London via Brantford, leaving the rest of the business to HxR. IMHO a better solution would be to contract the operation of HFR to one entity (notionally VIA, but others may bid eventually) with ownership of the entire Windsor-London-Kitchener-Toronto track resting with a new HxR corporation. That achieves something similar to the British model, which is what Collenette suggests is best practice. CN should divest its Chatham Sub while the Canada Southern route, instead of being used for HSR, can be revived as CN's freight route to Windsor.

- Paul

VIA owns track in SWO http://www.pnrrailworks.com/signals-project/chatham-subdivision-ctc-installation

 

[MisterF]

With either scenario though you have the issue of Guelph. The current at-grade through the middle of Guelph isn't really an option for anything remotely high speed. The question is do you build a bypass as part of the Kitchener corridor upgrades, or do you grade separate? Either option will be pretty expensive, but if the costs are being shared between GO and whoever ends up building the HSR/HFR, it could be more doable.

Obviously trains aren't going to be blowing through Guelph at 250 km/h. But there are improvements that can be made. The report doesn't get into detail but it alludes to grade separations through that section. Maybe a Weston style trench. Maybe some street closures. It's a bit more than 1 km that's an issue, so surely some solution exists. Whatever the cost, it's probably cheaper than a bypass and unlike a bypass, it would also benefit commuter trains.

The Amtrak-State partnerships are recognised in legislation (in fact demanded, for routes under 750 miles). It may be that a similar (not identical) legislative framework will need to be enacted at the federal level to allow provinces to work directly with VIA at a level above subsidy/contract service (e.g. North Carolina where they own the rolling stock and Amtrak operate it)

Who is going to pay a business class fare on VIA between Toronto and London/Windsor if HSR will reach those destinations in less time and with less than the current 4 hour intervals between trains? VIA is also squeezed between HSR at the high end and GO on the low end between Kitchener and Toronto. This puts a serious dent in VIA's business viability in SWO. Why then, as the province assumes, would VIA choose to continue service that surely loses money at a higher rate, like Sarnia?

Well hardly anyone would go from Toronto to London on the slower line when a faster one is available. But people would go from Toronto to Brantford or Stratford or Woodstock. Towns like these account for a significant percentage of Via's ridership and wouldn't be served by HSR. When a high speed rail line is built near a slower nearby line, the slower lines typically keep operating. There's no reason for it to be any different here. Having all the trains run by the same agency would help.

 

[steveintoronto]

Obviously trains aren't going to be blowing through Guelph at 250 km/h. But there are improvements that can be made. The report doesn't get into detail but it alludes to grade separations through that section.

Report does state something curious though, and admittedly this is for 300 km/h:

Scenario A (300 km/h)
In Scenario A, the 300 km/h HSR would take 115 minutes to travel between Toronto and Windsor. Due to its higher train speeds, Scenario A would require the development of dedicated HSR infrastructure for a greater portion of the alignment and would be a significant capital undertaking, including the construction of a new rail tunnel from Pearson Airport to just past Brampton, a tunnel under the University of Guelph, and a newly-built corridor between Kitchener and London, as well as between London and Windsor. The distances between HSR stations in the Toronto-Windsor corridor and relatively low population densities limits the ability of a 300 km/h service to achieve its top speed for sufficient time to maximize benefits through travel time savings and increased ridership.

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pu...-rail-in-ontario-final-report/chapter-3.shtml

But also states:

Guelph
The next stop westward on the HSR line, in Guelph, would bring HSR into the historic downtown train station at the intersection of Carden and Wyndham Streets. There are plans to expand the current station into a multimodal terminal to be used by VIA Rail, GO RER, and local Guelph Transit services. Accommodating HSR would require station and track expansion, including the construction of two level-boarding platforms, as well as a third passing track in the middle of the existing tracks to allow for the interoperation of GO RER and HSR services. This accommodation was encouraged by the Mayor of Guelph and city officials in discussions with the Special Advisor.

The route westwards from Guelph Station is aligned in the middle of Kent Street and is flanked by century homes of architectural significance. This severely limits train speeds through the area, although improvements are possible if some of the four level crossings before Guelph Junction are rationalized (for example through the implementation of grade separations or closures). The infrastructure requirements for GO RER will also need to be coordinated with those for HSR through this stretch of the corridor.

Recommendation 13: Guelph
It is recommended that the Province

• Work closely with the City of Guelph to deliver on infrastructure requirements to accommodate GO RER and an HSR stop at the historic Guelph Station.
• Ensure that all necessary measures are undertaken to protect the historically significant architecture in the station precinct.
• Coordinate the infrastructure requirements for GO RER with those for HSR through this stretch of the corridor.

• 
  http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pu...-rail-in-ontario-final-report/chapter-3.shtml

"a tunnel under the University of Guelph"
Note that the Kent Street alignment is nowhere near the University. A completely separate station would have to be built to serve that alignment. And an underground one too if it is to be centrally located in Guelph.

Note also: "There are plans to expand the current station into a multimodal terminal". It already is! It's called "Guelph Central". Mind you, it was a huge waste of money, located in a very difficult place to access for buses, but that's a whole other subject...at least Greyhound are now using it too three years after using a portable classroom in a parking lot...

Guelph Central Station (also known as Guelph Central GO Station[1]) is the main inter-modal transportation terminal in Guelph, Ontario, Canada. It is used by VIA Rail and GO Transit trains, as well as Guelph Transit local buses, GO Transit regional buses and Greyhound intercity buses.

It is located at 79 Carden Street and includes the historic Guelph Railway Station, as well as the site of the former Guelph Bus Terminal.

The name "Guelph Central" was chosen with input from the community and the transit service providers using the new station.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guelph_Central_Station

 

[steveintoronto]

Why high speed rail switched from Montreal to Kitchener-Waterloo: Cohn
A better explanation for the new direction is the belated recognition that a fast train to Montreal isn’t as smooth as it sounds. At least not at that price. If you build it, they may not come. Or pay.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queens...from-montreal-to-kitchener-waterloo-cohn.html

 

[cplchanb]

Why high speed rail switched from Montreal to Kitchener-Waterloo: Cohn
A better explanation for the new direction is the belated recognition that a fast train to Montreal isn’t as smooth as it sounds. At least not at that price. If you build it, they may not come. Or pay.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queens...from-montreal-to-kitchener-waterloo-cohn.html

The author of this article nails the reasonings pretty well... here in Canada the rail culture is just really from A-B, unlike in countries like Japan where it is much more vibrant.
I guess if any speed rail is to survive in Canada beyond the bare minimum operators really need to promote it and the public needs to buy into it as well.
Its really a shame and a lost opportunity, though I'm not sure how economically infeasible it is to operate since the Hokkaido Shinkansen has many stops serving communities with less than 25000 ppl, and is expanding.

 

[dowlingm]

Well hardly anyone would go from Toronto to London on the slower line when a faster one is available. But people would go from Toronto to Brantford or Stratford or Woodstock. Towns like these account for a significant percentage of Via's ridership and wouldn't be served by HSR. When a high speed rail line is built near a slower nearby line, the slower lines typically keep operating. There's no reason for it to be any different here. Having all the trains run by the same agency would help.

First, I think a cite is needed on the bolded part. Certainly doesn't reflect any VIA trips I've taken to London. I'm sure some arrangement could be come to where VIA is compensated for continuing to run service to non HSR served destinations, or to provide "economy" service to HSR ones - but they would be foolish to do it without compensation.

 

[crs1026]

Nothing concrete but it indicates that discussions have happened/ are happening. The mere fact that this is being articulated is a sign that it might come to be. If the desire for this kind of 'rationalisation' becomes more widely felt, it could lead to government giving it a push forward.

http://london.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1131662

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Nothing concrete but it indicates that discussions have happened/ are happening. The mere fact that this is being articulated is a sign that it might come to be. If the desire for this kind of 'rationalisation' becomes more widely felt, it could lead to government giving it a push forward.

http://london.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1131662

- Paul

I get the same buzz watching that. I note your use of 'rationalisation' as used in the HSR report. The new buzzword? I was about to make comment on how 'surprising' it is to see that issue being raised in London, but of course, some western cities have already had this debate, and done it.

What might be new is how CN and CP would go about doing this, and the Feds could play a crucial role in that.

Just digging to see what else is on-line in a general sense on this for Canada, can't think of the right tags at this time to get results, but did hit on this story that parallels Paul's link:

May 25, 2017 8:06 am
City staff to lobby CP and CN to share rail lines in London

By Natalie Lovie Reporter AM980 London

Discussions on how to solve the Talbot Street bridge ‘truck can opener’ dilemma have morphed into a push to possibly change the way Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) trains run through London.

City staff have already said moving the tracks would be too expensive, but the civic works committee is now asking them to appeal to CP and Canadian National Railway (CN) to share rail lines that already exist within the city.

While the Talbot Street underpass has plagued inattentive truck drivers for years, discussions on potentially moving the tracks really started to heat up amid debate over bus rapid transit (BRT).

READ MORE: Signage at Talbot bridge doing little to curb crashes: report

It was eventually scrapped due to the cost but staff initially proposed running a BRT tunnel under Richmond Row to avoid the level rail crossing, which will delay BRT buses unless city hall can find another solution.

READ MORE: Bus rapid transit routes finalized with King/Queens couplet, minus tunnel

During Wednesday’s committee meeting, Coun. Bill Armstrong said the city should lobby the federal government to support moving CP trains onto CN tracks.

“It’s time that we saw some action, we saw everybody come to the table, and we saw some serious co-operation especially from CN and CP, they need to work together,” he said. “They work together in other communities, [in] Sudbury they both use the same track up there, and the same track back, why can’t we do that here?”

When Armstrong first pitched the idea earlier this month, staff expressed doubts CP and CN would be on board based on previous conversations. However, staff agreed to give the negotiations another shot during Wednesday’s committee meeting.

Staff hope to report back to city politicians with an update on those talks this fall.

They also received the information regarding the Talbot Street underpass, but staff have previously said physically moving the tracks would cost billions of dollars.

Coun. Phil Squire hopes staff will be able to bring an end to further suggestions that the city move the tracks.

“If we spend the next eight years talking about it and we’re not doing the other things that we can do, which is the Adelaide underpass, looking at Richmond, then we’re going to be in the same spot in eight years and people are going to be standing up in a meeting going, ‘why don’t you move the tracks?'” Squire said. “So when do we get the definitive, stamp it, we’ve tried it, we’ve talked to them, [and] it’s not going to happen, or has that already happened?”

READ MORE: Study: London drivers spend average of 18 minutes stuck in traffic

Roughly half a dozen trucks strike the Talbot Street underpass each year. Back on August 20, 2015, the city added enhanced warning signage around the underpass. There are currently four signs cautioning drivers heading south on Talbot Street, and nine signs cautioning drivers heading north.

A report from city staff suggests raising the problematic bridge would require the construction of a new train bridge spanning Oxford Street and the Thames River, while lowering Talbot would jeopardize the underpass’s stability and hamper utilities below ground.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3477345/city-staff-to-lobby-cp-and-cn-to-share-rail-lines-in-london/

Very interesting...

 

[kEiThZ]

First, I think a cite is needed on the bolded part. Certainly doesn't reflect any VIA trips I've taken to London. I'm sure some arrangement could be come to where VIA is compensated for continuing to run service to non HSR served destinations, or to provide "economy" service to HSR ones - but they would be foolish to do it without compensation.

Agreed. I used to take VIA regularly from Ottawa to Toronto. Biggest intermediate stops: Guildwood, Oshawa, Kingston, Fallowfield. Coburg, and Belleville seem to have some commuter traffic. Bulk of the ridership was still terminus to terminus. I'd love to see ridership stats by station.

I really wonder how SWO will be dealt with if HSR to London happens. There's no business case for serving Stratford and St. Mary's. At least not with regular VIA trains. Maybe a DMU from London to Kitchener? But I can't see them having any more traffic than filling a bus every few hours.

I could see hourly service on London-Aldershot sector. I suspect this might be more supportable than the north main line. Heck, maybe they just extend GO service on the Southern Main Line to London!

 

[kEiThZ]

There may be more practical solutions, but now that she has attached her name to HSR, it may be hard for her to back away from the whole enchilada to what's really smart.

You really give the voter too much credit here. They could deliver a train that goes 160 kph and takes 1.5 hrs to London and because it's faster than today, they'll be able to get away with calling it high speed rail.

When VIA launches HFR, you can bet the service name won't refer to frequency. It'll be "something, something Express". And since most Canadians have no context at all, seeing journey times go down over 40% and be competitive with the car and flying in some cases, they'll be calling it high speed rail in no time.

Nothing concrete but it indicates that discussions have happened/ are happening. The mere fact that this is being articulated is a sign that it might come to be. If the desire for this kind of 'rationalisation' becomes more widely felt, it could lead to government giving it a push forward.

I wouldn't read anything into it. The track is a big issue for London, made all the more poignant by their transit debates. That's why they want it out of the way. I would bet money that HSR didn't enter the picture when they had discussion previously.

 

[kEiThZ]

The Midtown Corridor does offer some interesting possibilities, but my primary rationale for suggesting the York Sub was to hit both Pearson AND Union with nearly every train. Whether you were coming from Ottawa or from Windsor, you would pass right by Pearson on your way to downtown Toronto. That's something that the Midtown corridor can't offer. Yes, it's great for a future GO line, but I think for Via it has limited potential.

Indeed. Using Midtown for VIA would remove one of the massive advantage of rail: downtown-to-downtown connectivity.

In theory, VIA could pull back to Toronto-London via Brantford, leaving the rest of the business to HxR. IMHO a better solution would be to contract the operation of HFR to one entity (notionally VIA, but others may bid eventually) with ownership of the entire Windsor-London-Kitchener-Toronto track resting with a new HxR corporation. That achieves something similar to the British model, which is what Collenette suggests is best practice. CN should divest its Chatham Sub while the Canada Southern route, instead of being used for HSR, can be revived as CN's freight route to Windsor.

I honestly think there's not enough passengers to make this work. At least not with the trains VIA uses today. If HxR doesn't happen under VIA, I think they'll largely quit SWO. Just a handful of trains till Windsor to facilitate a bit of through traffic. That's it.

I agree with you on how it's structured. And that's exactly how I envision it too. Moreover, Collenette's proposal of a P3 lines up perfectly with Infra bank and VIA's HFR push. It has to be one line and through service. The cynic in me thinks Wynne and company have some info on VIA's HFR plans for Phase 2. And they see an opportunity to get credit with really minimal investment. They provide maybe $1 billion in kind (GO RER development) and some additional contribution (to make the business case work) and VIA's HFR investors pick up the rest.

BTW, where's that expert on Guelph who told us that he had inside info that the train wouldn't go to Guelph?

 

[MisterF]

First, I think a cite is needed on the bolded part. Certainly doesn't reflect any VIA trips I've taken to London. I'm sure some arrangement could be come to where VIA is compensated for continuing to run service to non HSR served destinations, or to provide "economy" service to HSR ones - but they would be foolish to do it without compensation.

"Via Rail exists because there are towns in between those major urban centres and people have to get in and out of Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal."
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/via-rail’s-expansion-plan/vp-AA8KlVw

Granted, there aren't any hard numbers in that interview other than the fact that half the trips in the T-O-M corridor originate or end in one of the towns in between (that seems to be all trips though, not just train trips). So while the exact numbers for Via may not be publicly available, it's clear that the small town market is a significant part of Via's ridership. That's why they have commuter focused trains to towns like Cobourg. That's also why GO Transit has current and future stations at Bloomington, Breslau, etc.

By the way, "significant" isn't the same thing as "majority".

Agreed. I used to take VIA regularly from Ottawa to Toronto. Biggest intermediate stops: Guildwood, Oshawa, Kingston, Fallowfield. Coburg, and Belleville seem to have some commuter traffic. Bulk of the ridership was still terminus to terminus. I'd love to see ridership stats by station.

I really wonder how SWO will be dealt with if HSR to London happens. There's no business case for serving Stratford and St. Mary's. At least not with regular VIA trains. Maybe a DMU from London to Kitchener? But I can't see them having any more traffic than filling a bus every few hours.

I could see hourly service on London-Aldershot sector. I suspect this might be more supportable than the north main line. Heck, maybe they just extend GO service on the Southern Main Line to London!

Conventional rail like what would continue to serve Stratford or Brantford doesn't need to make a profit, just like highways don't. The continued service is justified by other benefits like reliability, comfort and safety. Similarly, there's no business case for Highway 400 being extended to Sudbury but it was justified for similar reasons at a much more expensive cost than continuing rail service to SW Ontario.

 

[kEiThZ]

Via Rail exists because there are towns in between those major urban centres and people have to get in and out of Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal."

D-S says that. But the HFR proposal has a line that doesn't run along the Lakeshore. And I think a good bit of that in-between demand is probably the suburban stations.

Conventional rail like what would continue to serve Stratford or Brantford doesn't need to make a profit, just like highways don't.

Keep in mind, the whole VIA HFR proposal is supposed to make VIA financially independent. That's supposedly why the government is willing to put down billions of taxpayer dollars. So with that in mind, despite the musings of D-S or Collenette, I have my doubts about what services will be left if/when HFR is implemented.

At best maybe bi-hourly DMU services along the Lakeshore? Maybe those can be through services along the Southern Main Line to London. I can see VIA leaving the Southern and Northern Main Lines to Queen's Park if they get to run the HxR from Montreal to London.

 

[dowlingm]

http://globalnews.ca/news/3477345/city-staff-to-lobby-cp-and-cn-to-share-rail-lines-in-london/

A rail rationalisation from the west side could be pretty interesting. CP would have to give up a lot though. The ideal would be for CN and CP to both move their yards out of London centre to the vicinity of the airport and for the rail within London to be transferred to an agency like TTR to manage reasonably impartially. But there would have to significant investments in the CN corridor west and east in bridge widenings, grade separations and property acquisition to make it work, while CP are sitting on land holdings that if disposed of now would not exactly bring in prime returns.

 

[dowlingm]

Conventional rail like what would continue to serve Stratford or Brantford doesn't need to make a profit, just like highways don't. The continued service is justified by other benefits like reliability, comfort and safety. Similarly, there's no business case for Highway 400 being extended to Sudbury but it was justified for similar reasons at a much more expensive cost than continuing rail service to SW Ontario.

Rail has a balance sheet. Highways don't. It's not how things should be, but it is how things are. Look at how the Star has taken another swing at UPX's finances, but nobody knows what the real costs or indirect revenues of Highway 427 or any other highways are, because the MTO doesn't have to produce such numbers.