News   Jun 14, 2024
Dual High-Rises and Production Studio Space Proposed in the Port Lands
 2K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
Exchange District Condos' Four Towers Progressing by Square One
 1.4K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
News Roundup for June 14, 2024
 787     0 

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

It's all possible, but with many caveats.

Ingersoll would have to be cut as a station stop, though most trains don't stop there anyway. In Woodstock, the CN station is in good condition (and a very attractive structure), and is slightly closer to downtown. The CP station still stands, but is in rough shape, used for freight crews, like the one in Galt.

The CP station in London is now a Keg restaurant. The London VIA station is a bit crowded, but it's better than the CP station as it has three serviceable platforms (compared to one at the CP station), necessary for connections if they're ever restored on the timetables. The CN tracks are grade-separated in Downtown London, the CP tracks are not. VIA trains would probably have to take GEXR/CN Guelph Sub at Highbury from the CP Galt Sub and continue to the existing VIA station.

But Petersburg-Innerkip could be an attractive HFR/HSR alignment between Kitchener and London, with only some paralleling of CP track if it does give up Woodstock-Komoka.
 
crs1026 said:
The latest rumour running around CP employees in Southern Ontario - and I stress it is no more than that, so far - is that CP is exploring with CN the option of rerouting its main line running over CN from Woodstock to Komoka.
[...]
It's possible (a conspiracy theory, but one that CP management isn't above earning) that this scenario has been leaked deliberately to scare CP employes into some concession that would preserve London as a terminal. The rumour has been circulating for some time that CP would like to extend its running territories and move the London terminal east to Wolverton, and then move the current Agincourt terminal further east as well. [...]
- Paul
Click to expand...

I agree that this may be purposefully promoted 'rumour'...more for this: "then move the current Agincourt terminal further east as well". That latter quip certainly fits the 'environment' CP would like to portray for the Missing Link and potential to make a deal with VIA in one sense, but a huge deal with a Private Consortium to own track, of which CP might be a partner. It allows CP to let the boys know that "she's available" for propositions, but not committed to any specific one, just putting out feelers while the Investment Boys are in town. So far, CP has been playing her cards close to her chest. She wants to play coy, wisely so, but not unapproachable.

Very interesting...The 'Investment Gurus' are talking $Trillions of capital available for the right projects. I do get tired of the Opposition suddenly talking "they're only in it for profit". Well duh! Of course they are! Does that mean you shouldn't take out a mortgage on the house you've bought? Or to run your business? Much of this is your pension at work. Of course you want it to show a meaningful return.

The question is not whether or not Investment Financing can add great value to national infrastructure or not, but more "how are we going to do this?"

As if debt financing dribs and drabs at a time saves more money than leasing time or per-use fee on a project Public/Private capital has underwritten and assumed most of the risk for.

The Missing Link alone, indirectly by allowing the rationalization of all rail in the GTHA, saves far more than what it will cost to do. It will also knock heads together for other deals to happen that wouldn't have otherwise.
 
Last edited:
steveintoronto said:
I agree that this may be purposefully promoted 'rumour'...more for this: "then move the current Agincourt terminal further east as well". That latter quip certainly fits the 'environment' CP would like to portray for the Missing Link and potential to make a deal with VIA in one sense, but a huge deal with a Private Consortium to own track, of which CP might be a partner.
Click to expand...

CP's desire to move from three crew changes between Detroit and Montreal (London, Toronto, Smiths Falls) to two (Wolverton and Trentonish) is well known and has been talked of ever since Hunter Harrison first arrived. EHH did close one terminal (Hamilton). More than one well-placed individual has claimed to have seen the actual site plans for the enlarged Wolverton, and a Trenton block swapping yard. With EHH and Ackman having departed, those plans may or may not have changed.

But as you note, it's totally compatible with the more recently schemed Bypass. There is just the small matter of putting a purchase price on the affected sections of the Galt, Mactier, North Toronto, and Belleville Subs. And convincing CP that the new routing will be cheaper to operate than the current routing.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
But as you note, it's totally compatible with the more recently schemed Bypass. There is just the small matter of putting a purchase price on the affected sections of the Galt, Mactier, North Toronto, and Belleville Subs. And convincing CP that the new routing will be cheaper to operate than the current routing.[...]- Paul
Click to expand...
And another unspoken: CP pulling back even further to just the transcontinental mainline, letting a shortline handle the overhead traffic, and the labour issues. And/or leaving track open to VIA leasing it, and then VIA sub-leasing to a short-line freight operator.

I can't help but sense there's a massive movement behind the scenes with the arrival of "Trillions of $" Investment looking at forming 'railtrack consortiums' with CN and CP acting as participants and/or lessees where competition for customers is still fierce, but the track is common to both and/or other parties like VIA, Metrolinx, the latter on the basis of having path priority. There's still a lot of track that can be abandoned/leased off/sold with competitors sharing a well maintained common spine, especially since most of the demand is now overhead traffic. Huge amounts of capital could be generated for both Class 1s by divesting redundant trackage.

Back on High Speed: For the first time since the Investment Bank being announced, CBC National mentioned "High Speed Rail" as one of the areas of interest tonight. I suspect it was a misnomer for HFR. I don't see the return on investment for HSR in Canada at this time.
 
Has anyone heard anything of the Collenette report. Wasn't it due in November? We're now well into mid-November.
 
I've never agree to a Tor-Ott-Mon route via Peterborough.

Let's face it, the bulk of the traffic is Tor/Mon and always will be. I do accept that Ottawa is a strong draw but if they build HSR thru Ottawa and it really doesn't save much time for Tor/Mon passengers then what's the point? I have always preferred a 2 line corridor. Tor/Mon non-stop along the lake and also a Tor/King/Ott/Mon via a spur from Kingston to Ottawa and then onwards to Montreal. route to serve travellers to those cities. Both trains would continue onward towards Quebec with one stopping in TR or Drummondville depending on whether they take the north or south shore routes and the other express.

Same could work on the other side of Toronto with one going Tor/Pear/KW/Lon/Wind and the other Tor/Ham/London and terminating there. You would essentially have 2 different routes one just more express than the other but serve many more people converging at major points but offer the an essential Tor/Mon non-stop.

Lon/Ham/Tor/Mon/QC and Win/Lon/KW/Pear/Tor/Kin/Ott/Mon/TR/QC
 
I also don't find a problem with PPP especially in transportation. Things especially like HSR and bloody expensive and the reality is that no government has the resources to do it alone. PPP also ensure that the damn things come in on time and on budget as they are responsible for any over-runs and delays and the government couldn't bring in anything on time and on budget if their life depended on it.

Yes, they are obviously in it for the money but if the agreement is a sound one that works for the public then what's the problem?
Remember that there are real financial benefits of getting the private sector involved. First it requires less tx payer money, it guarantees on budget results and very importantly it helps expediate construction years before a government may have the money. Building it 10 years before a government could afford it where prices may have doubled is big money and brings the service in faster. There is of course another great advantage..............they are not at the whim of the government of the day. Due to being a contract with a private company for billions of dollars, any new government that my not want the thing built has no options but to continue with construction.
 
ssiguy2 said:
I also don't find a problem with PPP especially in transportation. Things especially like HSR and bloody expensive and the reality is that no government has the resources to do it alone. PPP also ensure that the damn things come in on time and on budget as they are responsible for any over-runs and delays and the government couldn't bring in anything on time and on budget if their life depended on it.

Yes, they are obviously in it for the money but if the agreement is a sound one that works for the public then what's the problem?
Remember that there are real financial benefits of getting the private sector involved. First it requires less tx payer money, it guarantees on budget results and very importantly it helps expediate construction years before a government may have the money. Building it 10 years before a government could afford it where prices may have doubled is big money and brings the service in faster. There is of course another great advantage..............they are not at the whim of the government of the day. Due to being a contract with a private company for billions of dollars, any new government that my not want the thing built has no options but to continue with construction.
Click to expand...
I am really not sure how much of what you say above I agree with.....but I definitely disagree with the last part ....we have seen governments cancel deals that previous governments have made....despite there being contracts in place and despite there being large cost to get out of the deals.

Mulrooney had a contract to privatize Pearson.....Chretien cancelled the deal and paid a $60MM fee to settle the lawsuit......it was around that same time he also cancelled a contract to replace the Sea King helicopters because he thought there was a better deal out there (are we still flying Sea Kings?) breaking that contract only cost, what, ~$150MM? While the Eglinton subway was not a P3, I believe there were contracts in place....what did that cost to cancel. On the matter of changing governments, there is nothing magical about P3....it may be a more complicated contract and it may be more costly to cancel....but all deals can be broken for a price....and we have evidence that politics makes the price palatable sometimes....goodness me I think Ontario may have had a contract to build gas plants at some time....we didn't even need a change in government to decide to get out of those deals.
 
I suspect there's a big back room happening with VIA, Ontario, Quebec, and the Infrastructure Bank all talking, while CN and CP pretend they aren't there.
 
ssiguy2 said:
I've never agree to a Tor-Ott-Mon route via Peterborough.

Let's face it, the bulk of the traffic is Tor/Mon and always will be. I do accept that Ottawa is a strong draw but if they build HSR thru Ottawa and it really doesn't save much time for Tor/Mon passengers then what's the point? I have always preferred a 2 line corridor. Tor/Mon non-stop along the lake and also a Tor/King/Ott/Mon via a spur from Kingston to Ottawa and then onwards to Montreal. route to serve travellers to those cities. Both trains would continue onward towards Quebec with one stopping in TR or Drummondville depending on whether they take the north or south shore routes and the other express.

Same could work on the other side of Toronto with one going Tor/Pear/KW/Lon/Wind and the other Tor/Ham/London and terminating there. You would essentially have 2 different routes one just more express than the other but serve many more people converging at major points but offer the an essential Tor/Mon non-stop.

Lon/Ham/Tor/Mon/QC and Win/Lon/KW/Pear/Tor/Kin/Ott/Mon/TR/QC
Click to expand...


I think this makes the most sense, even with the incremental cost increase to build the extra spur lines there is a large benefit. You could have 5 "routes" Ott-Mtl-QC, Tor-King-Ott, Tor-King-Mtl, and two routings west of Toronto Windsor via Hamilton, and Windsor via Kitchener/Waterloo/Pearson Airport which once in Toronto can continue on as one of the Tor-??? routes. It may even be useful to apply some "Go transit logic" to the routes and have the toronto-east routes terminating/beginning at Pearson rather than Union thus reducing dwell times at Union, much the same way that Go plans to use the planned Bathurst station West of Union.
 
There's lots of demand to Ottawa driven by government travel, universities, etc. And the closeness of Ottawa combined with their new LRT means that HFR becomes nearly competitive with air, downtown to downtown. Especially from the east end of the GTA.

Montreal direct would still be at least 3.5 hrs. Less competitive. And not routing through Ottawa also means less induced demand on Ottawa-Montreal. The proposed HFR time for Ottawa-Montreal is borderline fast enough to be a commute. Also allows much better access to Dorval for Ottawa residents, as opposed to the buses that the European carries send to the VIA station now.

Probably higher yield too on T-O than T-M. Less competition. More corporate subsidised travel (read less price sensitive customers). Competitive with air. They just can't get those advantages on Tor-MTL without massive spending. Ottawa improves the business case. I'd bet real money on it.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely it improves the business case. I don't know the passenger numbers but if the number of trains and flights is any indication, almost as many people travel to Ottawa as to Montreal. Via has 9 trains going to each city tomorrow. And a quick Expedia search shows 63 flights to Montreal compared to 46 to Ottawa. Despite the distance and its size, Ottawa has very close ties with Toronto. And serving it on an HSR mainline adds very little distance and time to the trip to Montreal. Bypassing it would make no sense.
 
The advantage of having a spur however is that the Ottawa route would also serve Eastern Ontario's second city and a major university town.........Kingston. Also there is a surprising amount of traffic between Kingston and Ottawa itself. It would also give Kingston service between Montreal and Toronto. Although smaller, Kingston is the hub of most of Eastern Ontario like London is for the South-West.

On the other side, it would give more options for Londoners and other areas west like Windsor and Sarnia high speed to Toronto. The problem with KW is that it is not a government, entertainment, or regional centre unlike Hamilton. It also has no other major connecting VIA routes. A secondary route stopping in Aldershot/Hamilton serves hundreds of thousands more people but also is a connecting route to Niagara and service to the US.

I also think that this idea of HFR as opposed to HSR is not a good one. Maybe a line could be started with HFR to begin with as long as HSR is the ultimate intention. High frequency doesn't mean it will be any faster and if they really want to connect The Corridor and make train travel a truly viable alternative to flying or a car then there has to be REAL time savings involved. NOTHING under a minimum of 250km/hour should even be considered.
 
Are we talking about the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal route in here so much because there is no information on the London-KW-Pearson-Toronto thing or because there is no thread for the TO-OTT-Mtl HFR?

Just wondering.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top