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

[centralblue]

I have a question, don't think it has been addressed previously. My understanding, the issues are 1. access to right of way (freight traffic takes priority, right of way is owned by private companies, their rule) 2. the track needs to be upgraded, level crossings removed. 3. other stuff including financing
Should the provincial government wish to implement HSR passenger service would it not make sense to use a government owned right of way which has good road access. Where you to use the hwy 401 corridor, from London to YYZ you would avoid freight conflicts, farmers access to field complaints and provide the improved service from Milton so desired. Building it elevated down the center median, using prefab segments build off site could reducing the build time and improve rail tolerances needed for higher train velocities. Now if we could learn to build it as inexpensively as those built in China, prefab uniform sections might help that goal, we would be all set. Just a thought.

 

[muller877]

Where you to use the hwy 401 corridor, from London to YYZ you would avoid freight conflicts, farmers access to field complaints and provide the improved service from Milton so desired. Building it elevated down the center median, using prefab segments build off site could reducing the build time and improve rail tolerances needed for higher train velocities. Now if we could learn to build it as inexpensively as those built in China, prefab uniform sections might help that goal, we would be all set. Just a thought.

A few concerns with this approach:

1. getting it to the center of cities (Guelph, KW, London)
2. Height restrictions around YYZ
3. Elevation changes (especially the roller coaster near Milton) and the hill out of the Grand River Valley
4. Getting it over existing bridges. Not just one bridge but think of the where it could be fed through/over the 401/403 junction.

If you are using an existing ROW CN is normally a willing player. And there is room to expand their mainline (Toronto/Hamilton/Brantford/Woodstock/London). Tweaks would be a diversion around Brantford (on the old ROW) and shifting to the CP line west of Woodstock & then back to CN at Highbury in London. Probably the one that makes the most sense, quickest to implement and most affordable but vote buying in K-W keeps on getting in the way.

You would need 2 new tracks for most of the way to avoid any freight restrictions (including expropriating the edge of some lots). But a lot fewer hurdles than building on an entire new ROW. But again won't happen due to the politics involved (votes in K-W)

And you would have to find a separate solution for more capacity from Kitchener-Toronto.

 

[steveintoronto]

The press hasn't spelled out yet why Carillon failed. The simplistic answer is, because they ran out of money....but that's trite. There must have been mistakes, mishandling of money, poor performance, unforeseens, bad practices, or competitive activity that caused the company to burn up money faster than its revenue, and irrevocably so. It will take some digging into business articles and maybe some hindsight to understand all of that.

Actually the *fundamentals* have been discussed at length in the Times of London, FT and other quality pubs. From memory, as recently as a year ago Carillion shares were hot potatoes.

The question isn't so much what happened, but why? Whitehall was still giving them contracts after the warning lights went on. The story is scorching hot in the UK Press right now, I'll try and link and quote later.

Collapse of U.K.’s Carillion puts Canadian workers’ future in doubt
is now trending #5 in the Globe. What's missing is the analysis as to how this pertains to Ontario...and it does. What's curious in my read of it so far is that HS2 was a government program. How in hell did Carillion end-up carrying the entire cost? My immediate thought is that it was totally off-loaded to them by the contract. This isn't P3 as known and practised. And it certainly hasn't learned the very beneficial lessons from Crossrail.

HS2 has been a serious political issue long before it became this. Some in QP must on the phone and wires to get as much info as they can before questions are asked here.

Addendum: From the FT. I have subscription, so will only quote minimally with full credit, but if the article title is entered into Google, you can access the entire article by answering their drop-down quick questionnaire that appears:

[...]
Whitehall has been preparing to take contracts in-house or ask Carillion’s joint venture partners if they can take them on. Kier Group has already said it has contingency plans to take on Carillion’s critical work on the new HS2 railway line and on Britain’s motorways. Amey, which is in a joint contract with Carillion to provide housing for military servicemen and women, said it would take over management of the contracts. Balfour Beatty, which is in a joint venture with the company on three projects, said it would continue the work but would need to inject £35m to £45m in cash in 2018 to cover Carillion’s share. But questions will be raised as to why the government kept awarding contracts even after the company’s problems came to light. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs committee of MPs said on Monday it would hold an inquiry into government sourcing practices.
[...]
The company’s problems were caused in part by cost overruns on three construction contracts for the government: the £350m Midland Metropolitan Hospital in Birmingham, the £335m Royal Liverpool University Hospital, and the £745m Aberdeen bypass.
[...]
Rebecca Long-Bailey, shadow business secretary, said the government should step in and take contracts back into public control where possible. She said there were “extreme concerns” about why the government issued contracts worth £2bn after Carillion issued a profit warning last July. She called for a “full and transparent” investigation.
[...]
Mick Cash, general secretary of the RMT union, said: “The blame for this lies squarely with the government, who are obsessed with outsourcing key works to these high-risk, private enterprises.”
[...]

Google: Recriminations fly after Carillion collapses

 

[steveintoronto]

Should the provincial government wish to implement HSR passenger service would it not make sense to use a government owned right of way which has good road access.

This will all be existing Ontario owned RoW. The question is the Missing Link. I'll see what answers others proffer before adding more detail.

 

[crs1026]

Should the provincial government wish to implement HSR passenger service would it not make sense to use a government owned right of way which has good road access..

This approach has certainly found favour elsewhere, notably Texas and Florida.

As noted, it's a question of whether the highway ROW is level and straight enough for HSR geometry, and how much of the existing highway infrastructure has to be rebuilt or moved to make room for the rail line. And, what's the right place for stations. Tracks between the highway pavement may make sense but it's hard to build an entire transit hub, with supporting bus bays, commercial establishments, parking, etc in the middle of a freeway.

The 401 may not make the grade (no pun intended) in some respects. And, the new routing is pretty benign in its impact to Southern Ontario. Actually, I think it's pretty creative - has fewer major river crossings than existing lines and less adverse impact on communities where the rail line is already more harm than good (eg Baden, New Hamburg, St Marys).

One could mess with the Brantford route (I wonder if CN would consider returning freight to the original bypass through St George's) but it will be expensive. The new route might have better economics and would remove the friction with freight. All in all, I'm in favour.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

^The press hasn't spelled out yet why Carillon failed. The simplistic answer is, because they ran out of money....but that's trite. There must have been mistakes, mishandling of money, poor performance, unforeseens, bad practices, or competitive activity that caused the company to burn up money faster than its revenue, and irrevocably so. It will take some digging into business articles and maybe some hindsight to understand all of that.

To keep this relevant to this string, I'll post the answers as so far known that will be lessons learned for others too. If there is an inquiry, it will only add to the following:

Other questions include the cost to the taxpayer: while the Government refused the bail out the company, it is still paying the cost of receivership, which will include the cost of re-tendering contracts.

This episode also raises questions about whether some public sector contracts on which Carillion was working, notably HS2, can be delivered at the price ministers have said they can.

Longer term, Carillion's collapse is likely to reignite a debate about whether the Government should be running all major infrastructure projects.

That seems unlikely, though: even before the birth of the Private Finance Initiatives so beloved by both major parties, the use of private sector contractors in projects such as roadbuilding was commonplace.
[...]
As Keith Cochrane, the respected engineering industry veteran who was parachuted in to try and rescue the company, said at the time: "Tenders have been accepted with a high degree of uncertainty about key assumptions; our ultimate success has been contingent on the performance of others not under our control and we've agreed design changes without agreeing incremental cost and value."

So this was a company that did not have a handle on its costs, was over-optimistic about the work it had taken on and had over-reached itself in terms of the projects it took on.

Delays in payments for work it had taken on in the Middle East added to its woes and getting out of contracts both there and in Canada added to strain on the balance sheet.
[...]
The collapse of Carillion raises all kinds of questions, among which the most pressing is why both ministers and civil servants agreed to hand the company further work following July's profits warning.

Another is to whether Carillion kept the market properly updated on its financial situation, something into which the Financial Conduct Authority, the chief City regulator, is already looking, with a statement in December 2016 that said the company's performance was "meeting expectations" and that it expected "strong growth in total revenue and increased operating profits" looking particularly dubious.

A third question is why KPMG signed off on Carillion's 2016 report and accounts, published at the end of March last year, just months before the company issued its profits warning.
[...]
Longer term, Carillion's collapse is likely to reignite a debate about whether the Government should be running all major infrastructure projects.
[...]

https://news.sky.com/story/what-ultimately-went-wrong-at-carillion-11209011

Ouch! Lessons for close to home on that. BBD and streetcars immediately comes to mind. BBD aren't completely failing yet, but the moves they're making to sell-off assets is to try and prevent that, and may cause the same problems as insolvency anyway.

 

[Allandale25]

Recent article here:

Oxford County wants Ontario to consider another option to high-speed rail
By Heather Rivers, Woodstock Sentinel-Review

Wednesday, January 24, 2018 3:27:50 EST PM

Oxford County is expressing concern over what they believe is a “fundamental deficiency” in a high-speed rail study provincial officials are about to launch.

Premier Kathleen Wynne announced last May that the province would begin a $15-million environmental assessment (EA) study for a high-speed rail line that’s proposed to carry trains as fast as 250 kilometres/hour between Toronto and Windsor.

At a total construction cost of $20 billion, Ontario Liberals say high-speed rail would serve more than seven million people, cut travel times in half and create new opportunities for workers, businesses and families.

Stops are proposed in Windsor, Chatham, London, Kitchener-Waterloo, Guelph and Toronto’s Union Station, with a connection to Pearson International Airport.

The province is posed to start work on the terms of reference for the EA study. It will set out how the project could affect the environment, including stations, the location of track locations, energy needs, number of riders, and parking requirements.

But in a recent letter sent to provincial officials signed by Warden David Mayberry, Oxford County outlines its issues over the proposed study.

Referring to it as “a project with significant, potential long-term implications for our county and the province as a whole” the county urged the province to consider “all options and alternatives” including high-performance rail in the study.

High-performance rail is described in an Oxford County document as “a proven middle ground” between traditional Via trains and full-blown high-speed rail.

“It has come to our attention that the (Ministry of Transportation) may be considering narrowing the scope of the environmental assessment process to exclude the consideration of alternatives to (high-speed rail) and focus strictly on corridor variations and mitigating measures,” the letter reads.

“In our view this would be a fundamental mistake which would not only contravene the purpose, intent and requirements of Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act, but arbitrarily eliminate, without appropriate consideration, a viable and potentially preferable option.”

The letter states that high-performance rail has “already demonstrated its effectiveness and efficiency as a core component of many integrated public transportation systems around the world.”

Oxford County’s top bureaucrat, Peter Crockett, is speaking on the subject at a meeting Thursday that’s been organized by the Oxford County Federation of Agriculture. Peter Jeffrey of the group’s research department will also speaking at the meeting.

It’s scheduled to be held from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Quality Inn Hotels and Suites in Woodstock.

HRivers@postmedia.com

 

[cplchanb]

Recent article here:

just another example of factioning around this plagued province. What are said fundamental deficiencies?? HSR all over the world cross through small counties and townships with no issues.
I dont know how oxford county is different from those....

 

[crs1026]

Sounds like they have seen the Transport Action Canada proposal.

The EA has to consider alternatives, and TAC's brief ought to be one that they evaluate in that exercise.

Personally, I still like the new routing, but the process should allow for the differing perspectives to have a proper fact based debate.

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

If you are using an existing ROW CN is normally a willing player. And there is room to expand their mainline (Toronto/Hamilton/Brantford/Woodstock/London).

I think Hamilton is more likely to be a stop of a high speed train to New York City by year ~2050-2100.

There's been repeated talk of Buffalo-New York City in the states every few years, so if that ever gels, eventual Canadian electrification to Niagara Falls would tie perfectly into that. Would need that billion-dollar Welland Canal grade separation, though!

So both high speed train routes, just for different destinations.

Not in my lifetime, but an eventuality in humankind.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I would love to see some improved Amtrak service to NYC. I've considered taking the maple leaf before, but the 12-14 hour travel time is just too killer. I can drive there in less than 9 hours. If they could improve border clearance (preclearing at Union anyone?) and improve travel times significantly (even if just on the US side), it would be a great ride. Certainly way more comfortable than 8 hours of winding through mountain interstates and fighting your way through New York and Toronto traffic. More than a once daily departure would be nice too.

 

[ADRM]

Certainly way more comfortable than 8 hours of winding through mountain interstates and fighting your way through New York and Toronto traffic. More than a once daily departure would be nice too.

Plus the battle with the bridge and tunnel crowd once you actually get close; the couple times I've done that drive, I've actually found the last 10km the most aggravating.

 

[Allandale25]

Recent article here:

Further to my post, here is a full copy of the letter from the County of Oxford and a page on their website where they are putting their documents related to HSR:

http://oxfordcounty.ca/Home/Newsroo...High-Speed-Rail-EA-that-considers-all-options

 

[Northern Light]

I would love to see some improved Amtrak service to NYC. I've considered taking the maple leaf before, but the 12-14 hour travel time is just too killer. I can drive there in less than 9 hours. If they could improve border clearance (preclearing at Union anyone?) and improve travel times significantly (even if just on the US side), it would be a great ride. Certainly way more comfortable than 8 hours of winding through mountain interstates and fighting your way through New York and Toronto traffic. More than a once daily departure would be nice too.

Always struck me that the trouble w/this service aside from pre-clearance, higher-speed, less congested rail corridors/rollingstock is the notion of the direct tie to NYC.

By which I mean, its a very long distance, which automatically makes reliability particularly on shared trackage harder.

The other is that there is other destination traffic in the corridor which would allow for better service.

There are at least 2, I think 3 other Buffalo to NYC departures daily.

A dedicated Toronto-Buffalo service would have its own market, and could be timed to be a transfer to NYC train in Buffalo.

The shorter trips on both ends would improve reliability.

Amtrak is a long way from having exclusive or high speed track on the bulk of the Empire Corridor though.

So it would remain a fairly long trip.

 

[crs1026]

The business case for NYC - Toronto is a bit complicated. I doubt the direct NYC-Ontario ridership, while substantial, would support the entire investment, so it's a question of how you route the train to capture the NY state ridership. The current Empire State route is likely the best for that, but yes it's roundabout.

The Southern tier route is shorter and there is a lot of usable infrastructure left over from the steam era that would enable a HFR level service, but that's a megaproject even so. There are lots of heavily grade separated abandoned lines in New York State.... I always sigh when I see interstate overpasses where the tracks underneath are long gone.

- Paul