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

[innsertnamehere]

I think the argument is that proper RER requires so much investment that building a 320 km/h HSR wouldn't cost much more. The benefits outweigh the costs. RER trains that stop more frequently can use the same tracks, as they do in other parts of the world.

The RER would use seperate tracks past Georgetown however, as the HSR would shift to a new alignment to bypass Guelph. The HSR line would need roughly 115km of new track alignment.

 

[nfitz]

The RER would use seperate tracks past Georgetown however, as the HSR would shift to a new alignment to bypass Guelph. The HSR line would need roughly 115km of new track alignment.

There hasn't even been a feasibility study yet. Let alone a pre-EA study, an EA, or a pre-design.

We don't know what alignment it will take.

 

[TOareaFan]

There hasn't even been a feasibility study yet. Let alone a pre-EA study, an EA, or a pre-design.

We don't know what alignment it will take.

Nor the cost....but people seem comfortable saying things like "the benefits will outweigh the cost".

 

[nfitz]

Nor the cost....but people seem comfortable saying things like "the benefits will outweigh the cost".

Don't know what the benefits are either!

Pie in the sky!

 

[gweed123]

To be clear....I am not suggesting not building the RER network because HSR is there...when I am questioning the need for both....I am questioning the investment in HSR to KW/London

I think both are needed because they're serving a different purpose. I know that Murray has said that the fares will be competitive with GO, but to me that just doesn't make any sense. It also doesn't make any sense that the Province would be operating this, and not Via. Presumably it's their Toronto-Windsor trip that would at least be partially replaced. If not, that's a boatload of redundancy on a corridor that doesn't really need it. Like I mentioned earlier, I think emulating the German model in this instance makes a tonne of sense.

There's also the idea that if you're going to be spending money on grade-separations and realignments for RER anyway, if you can piggyback HSR onto that work, it's less expensive to do both at the same time (or at least do the design to accommodate for both) than it is to shoehorn one in later on.

As for the HSR investment in on the Toronto-London corridor, I remain convinced that it's only one piece of the HSR puzzle. I guess we'll need to wait until the 2015 Federal election to see if I'm right or wrong.

 

[MisterF]

The RER would use seperate tracks past Georgetown however, as the HSR would shift to a new alignment to bypass Guelph. The HSR line would need roughly 115km of new track alignment.

That could be true, but that's consistent with other countries. There would still be a significant amount of track that would be used by both.

Nor the cost....but people seem comfortable saying things like "the benefits will outweigh the cost".

Like I said, that's the argument. Which is consistent with most past studies, which conclude that if we're going to spend billions upgrading intercity rail, the cost-benefit of HSR is greater than upgraded conventional rail.

 

[Urban Sky]

III: Toronto-London in 93 minutes at 160 km/h on existing Brantford route

Very interesting tables. A HSR (express) with 1 intermediary stop will end up in London in 1:40. A current VIA train currently ends up in London in 2:10 (wth 4 intermediary stops...Woostock, Brantford, Aldershot, Oakville).

HSR will reach London in1:18. 160km/h rail on the Kitchener corridor will make it in 1:40.

The liberals' HSR plan quoted 71 minutes, which I find ambitious, given that they only promised 48 minutes for Toronto-Kitchener, and 23 (71-48) minutes for a distance of at least 80 kilometers (more like 85+, since it is impossible to build a straight line) would mean an average speed well in excess of 200 km/h. I therefore find insertname's figure of 78 minutes more realistic, but I would like to know where he got it from...

Would it be more cost-effective to rebuild limited sections of Aldershot to London versus building a whole new line from Kitichener to London? And how much quicker would a high-speed rail be going via Aldershot versus Kitchener?

Where are the bottlenecks in this service and are they more or less than via Kitchener?

It's difficult to say what would be more costly, but I would assume that it would be cheaper to upgrade Toronto-Burlington-London (TBL) than Toronto-Kitchener-London (TKL), since that line is already entirely double tracked (TKL is single tracked between Georgetown and London) and VIA Rail's maximum average speeds are significantly higher (87 vs 58 km/h). On the other hand, you will constantly get in conflict on TBL with CN's freight trains and GO trains. Therefore, you'd have to build some new tracks in both cases, there I assume that adding a second track on TKL is cheaper than adding a third or fourth track (where needed) on TBL, since CN and CP usually own enough land for two tracks. Another advantage of TKL is that Metrolink already owns Toronto-Bramalea and has just acquired Georgetown-Kitchener from CN. The volume of freight traffic between Kitchener and London shouldn't be enough to interfere with frequent passenger operations (at least if most stretches would get double-tracked), leaving the negotiation challenge (with CN) to the 19 km between Bramalea and Georgetown (whereas you'd have difficult negotiations with CN for the entire TBL route):

As for the travel times, the timetables in the Ecotrain study assumed a travel time of 50 (300 km/h EMU) and 65 (200 km/h DMU) minutes respectively with one intermediary stop in Aldershot (called "Toronto West"), mostly achieved by partly rebuilding the former Paris-Lyndon ROW and thus avoiding the detour via Brantford:

If I simulate the travel times for a 160 km/h fast one-stop Toronto-Burlington-London train, I get 1:33 hours, which is only 3 minutes faster than what I calculated for TKL in my last post, due to the 10 kilometers shorter route (whereas average speed would yet be slightly higher on TKL with 123.3 vs 120.4 km/h on TBL):

I think a much improved line using the current corridor will do the trick. The reality is that the route is basically a straight line and one stop at Hamilton would serve more people than a stop at Kitchener and would offer connections to Niagara. The only real advantage I see of the Kitchener corridor is the stop at Pearson which admittedly is a big draw.

I think a far faster, London express would do the trick but probably more importantly it would have a far better chance of actually getting built. It would also allow for a significant upgrade to the extension to Windsor again using the current corridor without needing a transfer at London. They could even run half the trains from London as non-stop without even a stop in Hamilton making the London to Toronto trip even faster and doable in 75 minutes.

I don't know why you keep mentioning Hamilton. Last time I checked it was 10 km south of the TBL route, so not sure how you want to reroute that line to add a stop in Hamilton. Also, despite from being 10 kilometer shorter, TBL is by no means straighter than TKL (as emphasized by the lower average speed in my calculations). The first 55 km until Aldershot are straight, but the following 55 km until Paris (especially the detour via Brantford are a mess):

MrsNesbitt is right...........sometimes you need to destroy something to fix it.

I'm actually not sure if MrsNesbitt really proposed to destroy VIA Rail or rather meant that Ontario should refrain from expanding Highway capacity until traffic collapses on them completely to force that existing rail services are expanded as a (then) more immediate (and less costly) fix. However, the biggest problem with VIA Rail is its status as a crown corporation which bans provinces of giving money to VIA Rail even if they wanted (to compare: contributions from individual states are the main means with which regional or short-haul inter-city services are financed in countries like Germany and even the US) and effectively forces them to compete with it through their own province-owned commuter rail services (like GO or AMT) whenever they do decide to put money on the table. In my opinion, VIA Rail needs to be subdivided into four different business units:

• Infrastructure and rolling stock: All stations, trains and owned railway lines (such as Glen Robertson Jct-Ottawa-Smith Falls) - to be financed by the federal government, complemented by provincial funds for infrastructure improvements
• Essential services: Montreal-Jonquierre/Senneterre and Winnipeg-Churchill - operational deficit to be financed by the federal government which mandates these highly unprofitable services
• Coast-to-Coast services: Halifax-Montreal and Toronto-Vancouver - focus on accommodating tourist needs with aim of covering operational deficits
• Corridor services: Operational profits (they exist!) to be reinvested in service level increases (rather than being absorbed by the inevitable losses on the mandatory "essential" services)

Related posts:
I: 48 minutes for Toronto-Kitchener is feasible with existing alignment at 160 km/h!
II: Toronto-London on existing Kitchener route is feasible in 97 minutes at 160 km/h
IV: Liberals' 23 minutes promisse for HSR Kitchener-London is unrealistic!
V: Toronto-Kitchener-London vs Toronto-Burlington-London
VI: Comparison of acceleration and deceleration values from various sources

 

[innsertnamehere]

Oops, I meant the provincial figure of 71 munites, I just misremembered it.

I can believe it, the main 320km/h stretch of the line is supposed to be between London and Kitchener. Most of the trip between the two can probably be done at that speed.

 

[muller877]

It’s difficult to say what would be more costly, but I would assume that it would be cheaper to upgrade Toronto-Burlington-London (TBL) than Toronto-Kitchener-London (TKL), since that line is already entirely double tracked (TKL is single tracked between Georgetown and London) and VIA Rail’s maximum average speeds are significantly higher (87 vs 58 km/h). On the other hand, you will constantly get in conflict on TBL with CN’s freight trains and GO trains. Therefore, you’d have to build some new tracks in both cases, there I assume that adding a second track on TKL is cheaper than adding a third or fourth track (where needed) on TBL, since CN and CP usually own enough land for two tracks. Another advantage of TKL is that Metrolink already owns Toronto-Bramalea and has just acquired Georgetown-Kitchener from CN. The volume of freight traffic between Kitchener and London shouldn’t be enough to interfere with frequent passenger operations (at least if most stretches would get double-tracked), leaving the negotiation challenge (with CN) to the 19 km between Bramalea and Georgetown (whereas you'd have difficult negotiations with CN for the entire TBL route):

As for the travel times, the timetables in the Ecotrain study assumed a travel time of 50 (300 km/h EMU) and 65 (200 km/h DMU) minutes respectively with one intermediary stop in Aldershot (called “Toronto West”), mostly achieved by partly rebuilding the former Paris-Lyndon ROW and thus avoiding the detour via Brantford:

If I simulate the travel times for a 160 km/h fast one-stop Toronto-Burlington-London train, I get 1:33 hours, which is only 3 minutes faster than what I calculated for TKL in my , due to the 10 kilometers shorter route (whereas average speed would yet be slightly higher on TKL with 123.3 vs 120.4 km/h on TBL):

One small edit to your table....even though probably not material. In the table you have assumed that the entire stretch from Toronto to London (via Aldershot) it CN owned. GO owns all the way from Union to Burlington.

I forgot about the old track bed that goes north of Brantford. Great idea! So express trains can bypass Brantford altogether and local trains can go on the existing CN tracks. This reduces the need for elevated crossings in Brantford. GO Transit could also rent out the new tracks to CN (signficantly speeding up CN trains throught the area).

I would also consider just west of Woodstock to transfer the line to the CP tracks (they run within 100m of each other for about 1 km with a field seperating them). CP Tracks west of Woodstock are very straight and run right beside the London Airport. This would shave I'm guessing 5 minutes from the time.

In London at Dundas and Highbury the St Mary's and CP lines cross and it would not be difficult to add a junction if the existing VIA station is where the train wants to terminate.


For cost, I think the cost to expropriate a new ROW would be astronomical. I hope they haven't drawn the line without doing a real cost comparison and they are willing to look at the various alternatives. From a pure benefit standpoint I think via Aldershot will serve more people and give better service to London .... which also should be analyzed as part of the study.

 

[Urban Sky]

IV: Liberals' 23 minutes promisse for HSR Kitchener-London is unrealistic!

Oops, I meant the provincial figure of 71 munites, I just misremembered it.

I can believe it, the main 320km/h stretch of the line is supposed to be between London and Kitchener. Most of the trip between the two can probably be done at that speed.

I always struggled to calculate realistic travel times until I found this table in the 1995 Quebec-Ontario High-Speed Rail Project Study (QOHSRPS):

Thanks to this table I could finally approximate realistic acceleration and deceleration values (derived from the acceleration and braking distances and times for the "Non-tilting" train) to use in my Bachelor thesis (and in all timetable calculations I post in this forum). However, for reasons of simplicity, I will just take the values provided in the table above and use these values in the table below (values used from the table above are highlighted in gray, all other values are either set [i.e. "Max speed" and "distance"] or calculated):

Therefore, I admit that 23 (71-48) minutes are possible, but only if you assume that the line is built as an 80.3 km long straight line between London and Kitchener rail stations. You don't even need to add timetable buffers and a standing time of 60 seconds in Kitchener to get an idea of Liberal best-case scenario planning.
However, in case you want a more realistic estimate, I tried to simulate the travel time for the route dunkalunk posted in Post 157 and got a travel time of almost 28 minutes (equaling an average speed of 187.2 km/h over a distance of 85.8 km):

Related posts:
I: 48 minutes for Toronto-Kitchener is feasible with existing alignment at 160 km/h!
II: Toronto-London on existing Kitchener route is feasible in 97 minutes at 160 km/h
III: Toronto-London in 93 minutes at 160 km/h on existing Brantford route
V: Toronto-Kitchener-London vs Toronto-Burlington-London
VI: Comparison of acceleration and deceleration values from various sources

 

[innsertnamehere]

This was the map they provided during the campaign, so yes, it is essentially a straight line.

They were using 320km/h top speed as well, for what little difference that made.

 

[P23]

I'm not entertaining the possibility for this line, but perhaps for the TOR-OTT-MTL line there should be the option for maglev contained within the study. Especially given the long, mostly flat terrain and the fact that the corridor will probably have to be rebuilt anyway. Any thoughts?

 

[Urban Sky]

V: Toronto-Kitchener-London vs Toronto-Burlington-London

I forgot about the old track bed that goes north of Brantford. Great idea! So express trains can bypass Brantford altogether and local trains can go on the existing CN tracks. This reduces the need for elevated crossings in Brantford. GO Transit could also rent out the new tracks to CN (signficantly speeding up CN trains throught the area).

I would also consider just west of Woodstock to transfer the line to the CP tracks (they run within 100m of each other for about 1 km with a field seperating them). CP Tracks west of Woodstock are very straight and run right beside the London Airport. This would shave I'm guessing 5 minutes from the time.

In London at Dundas and Highbury the St Mary's and CP lines cross and it would not be difficult to add a junction if the existing VIA station is where the train wants to terminate.

From a pure benefit standpoint I think via Aldershot will serve more people and give better service to London .... which also should be analyzed as part of the study.

You are right, rebuilding the 21 km long old CN line between Lynden and Paris is probably the single most cost-effective engineering project to improve the alignment, as it cuts off seven minutes of what is possible on the existing Toronto-Brantford-Ingersoll-London (TBIL) route. Switching back and forth to CP tracks between Woodstock and London, however, matters only for the higher-speed (200 km/h) and not the conventional (160 km/h) rail scenario, as you will see in my simulation of the travel times for your proposed Toronto-Harrisburg-Thamesford-London (THTL) alignment:

However, I don't see why Metrolinx or GO would be interested in constructing/owning/operating such a line since it bypasses Brantford with its population of 135k. And this actually highlights the problem I have with any Toronto-Burlington-London (TBL) alignment (be it TBIL or THTL): It is true that TBL is faster than Toronto-Kitchener-London (TKL), that is: at least in terms of travel time, but at a scale of 10 minutes or even less, this can hardly be the only reason. As for the population figures, however, I am more inclined to agree with BMO:

The line is about more than just serving the most people. A lot of tech companies out in Waterloo Region are demanding some form of higher order transit between it and Toronto before they devote resources to building offices there, or even keeping existing ones. I can't speak to the demand, etc but I would have to imagine there are a number of people that commute from WR to London and vice-versa, and it's likely higher than London-Hamilton/ Hamilton-London which would mean a London-Toronto train via Hamilton is really just serving that London-Toronto trip primarily which I doubt there's enough demand for.

The truth is that whereas the population figures are almost identical for all three routes served, the population on TKL is significantly more evenly distributed than TBIL or THTL. The difference is of course Kitchener-Waterloo, which lies in a reasonable commuting distance to (and also from) both, Toronto and London, thus potentially generating the necessary and bidirectional commuter flows needed to justify frequent and fast conventional (i.e. 160-176 km/h) rail services, whereas making large-scale capital improvements on TBIL or even THTL is considerably more difficult to justify because the 130 km between Burlington and London are comparatively unpopulated:

Without a doubt, the Mississauga-Oakville-Burlington-Hamilton corridor is far more populated than Brampton-Georgetown-Guelph-Kitchener, but this is already reflected by the Lakeshore East/West line being the first and only within the entire GO network to host AD2W service. The only reason VIA Rail currently prefers TBL over TKL is that TBL is significantly better maintained and therefore a lot faster. Once travel times on TKL become competitive VIA Rail's only logical choice will be to reroute the bulk of their (Windsor)-London-Toronto trains via Kitchener because inter-city trains have to follow those routes where most people live, whereas Hamilton, Burlington, Oakville and Mississauga are more appropriately served by regional trains, given their closeness to Toronto:

No matter which route they are going to have to connect London. South Western Ontario is probably the most ignored region of the province by Queen's Park. The connection to London is essential and more so now that it's been promised. If the line were to stop at Kitchener then it would be seen, quite correctly, as yet another Toronto transit project funded by all Ontarians. There will be political hell to pay in the South West which already feels neglected by a Toronto centric Queen's Park. Sarnia is the largest city in the province without access to a university despite being the centre of 130,000. I know Barrie doesn't have one but there is GO rail right from Barrie to York U.

People in the South West are infuriated how the province shoved all those ugly windmills down their throats in order to appease the fine sensibilities of Torontonians. They have blighted the rural landscape and their health effects are beginning to be exposed. Urbanites wanted green power to make themselves feel all comfy-cozy but you sure don't see any going up in the GTA.

London and the South West need fast transit to Toronto and ideally that means a London non-stop from Toronto. The more stops the less rapid it will be and will be little better than the lousy service they have now.

I understand your frustration, but I [Edit: already wanted to challenge you in a previous post] to name a country which has implemented HSR without passenger rail already having a significant modal share. Therefore, London's only chance of ever seeing fast trains is seeing the ridership of rail increasing and this means seeing any improvement of rail services in the province as a welcome step of incremental upgrades which will eventually reach London, followed by cities beyond like Windsor and Sarnia. Given the population figures highlighted above, Southwest Ontario should back any discussions about improving services on Toronto-Kitchener as these are more likely to be eventually extended to London than improvements on the Lakeshore West line (which are more likely to benefit Hamilton, St. Catharines and Niagara Falls). Rallying against improvements like AD2W for Kitchener just because they don't immediately benefit London and Southwest Ontario, however, is the least promising way to escape the periodical cuts on VIA Rail.

One small edit to your table....even though probably not material. In the table you have assumed that the entire stretch from Toronto to London (via Aldershot) it CN owned. GO owns all the way from Union to Burlington.

You are right, as Wikipedia confirms that Metrolinx owns the Lakeshore West line up "to a point just West of Burlington GO station". However, this doesn't change the fact that TKL has significantly less conflicts with GO and CN/CP than TBL (be it TBIL or THTL):

Nevertheless, the following map should correctly identify ownership for the Toronto-Harrisburg-Thamesford-London (THTL) route with Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, Metrolink and (for new ROW) VIA Rail:

Related posts:
I: 48 minutes for Toronto-Kitchener is feasible with existing alignment at 160 km/h!
II: Toronto-London on existing Kitchener route is feasible in 97 minutes at 160 km/h
III: Toronto-London in 93 minutes at 160 km/h on existing Brantford route
IV: Liberals' 23 minutes promisse for HSR Kitchener-London is unrealistic!
VI: Comparison of acceleration and deceleration values from various sources
Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study Thread: Why don't we focus (for now) on Toronto-Kingston rather than Kingston-Smith Falls?

 

[muller877]

You are right, rebuilding the 21 km long old CN line between Lynden and Paris is probably the single most cost-effective engineering project to improve the alignment, as it cuts off seven minutes of what is possible on the existing Toronto-Brantford-Ingersoll-London (TBIL) route. Switching back and forth to CP tracks between Woodstock and London, however, matters only for the higher-speed (200 km/h) and not the conventional (160 km/h) rail scenario, as you will see in my simulation of the travel times for your proposed Toronto-Harrisburg-Thamesford (THTL):

Amazing work! Thanks for all your research and insights (although I still disagree...and will so until I see a costing from the Province of the alternatives)

I hope that the politicians read this analysis. This is the work that your staffers should be doing (or getting the ministry to do) that will form a briefing note to you. If they don't do this amount of work....we're in trouble. (I'm kinda scared to know the answer)

And in this thread there has been identified the pro's and con's to almost all of the feasible alternatives. If you want to have an "open government" publish this type of analysis as a white paper and let poeple like us give feedback....and actually listen to it.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

I always struggled to calculate realistic travel times until I found this table in the 1995 Quebec-Ontario High-Speed Rail Project Study (QOHSRPS):
View attachment 36419

Those braking distances seem really conservative, especially the 160-0 distance. I can tell you as a matter of fact a GO train can stop from 93mph(150kph - top speed) in approx. 0.75 miles(1.20 km). That is however using a very heavy brake application, something the chart referenced doesn't define. But even with a more typical/normal level of braking, 150kph to 0 is can easily be accomplished in 1.0-1.1 miles(1.61-1.77 km). Of course GO trains are specifically tuned to have superior braking capabilities, at least vs current inter-city VIA trains due to the need for frequent stopping. I can't say how exactly high speed trains would compare since I don't have any experience operated them, though hopefully one day I will! They of course employe a different kind of braking system, one that relys far less on friction braking if at all. The charts 160kph to 0 braking distance/time seems almost accurate for a VIA train. But I'm certain that any future high speed trains the province purchases will have better braking abilities then the current VIA trains, some of which are absolutely atrocious, especially those "tin cans" !

So what would be the correct braking and acceleration times for a high speed train? Wish I could be of more help but all I can say is that as a train operator myself I find the 160-0 distance seems very long. The only other information I can provided is that which you've probably already found yourself or can easily find on the internet. The following link for example indicates a braking distance of 7.2km and 170 seconds from 300kph for the typical French, German and Japanese trains. http://www.railway-technical.com/Infopaper 3 High Speed Line Capacity v3.pdf

While in the end it doesn't make a significant difference time wise considering the limited number of stops, its still something to perhaps consider.