News   Jul 12, 2024
 1K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 866     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 350     0 

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

Hearing proclamations that HSR won't happen in this short corridor between London and Toronto, let alone Toronto-Montreal, makes one wonder why these so-called ministers of transportation keep stoking false hopes. Most people don't care about HFR. It's basic passenger service that should've been in place 30 years ago. Unless this passenger-only line is fully upgradeable to HSR, and unless HSR becomes reality in our working lifetimes, these other details are only of interest to rail enthusiasts. It's inside baseball for the minor leagues.
 
Hearing proclamations that HSR won't happen in this short corridor between London and Toronto, let alone Toronto-Montreal, makes one wonder why these so-called ministers of transportation keep stoking false hopes. Most people don't care about HFR. It's basic passenger service that should've been in place 30 years ago. Unless this passenger-only line is fully upgradeable to HSR, and unless HSR becomes reality in our working lifetimes, these other details are only of interest to rail enthusiasts. It's inside baseball for the minor leagues.

I'm going to disagree here - yes the idea of HFR isn't as sexy as HSR, but communities along the route have been advocating for frequency for a long time. These communities include London, St. Mary's, Stratford, and Kitchener. Also remember that in its RFP for its new fleet, VIA wanted the trains to be able to hit 200 km/h, which is by no means slow, and much faster than a car. Riding a train means that a person doesn't have to drive and can be more productive, not worry about weather, and get to a location faster. I think the HFR idea will sell well, especially to local officials who are in-tune with the needs of their communities.
 
It's inside baseball for the minor leagues.
No, nothing to do with sports at all. But if you wish to build a stadium at $3+B for a game only a handful are going to attend, then by all means, go ahead.

We're talking about the maximum number served affordably on a RoW that already exists with minimum disruption for all concerned.

Perhaps Euphoria could produce some figures to buttress his case for this making sense to Terry Q Taxpayer? As it stands, there are two existing options: Either take an express bus or fly, the latter becoming more popular actually, wasteful as it is.

I suspect we'll find out shortly what investors think is best.

And where is Collenette? (With Waldo?)
Ontario government wants high-speed rail proposal by October

Here's the very last thing I can find on HSR, I invite Euphoria to update us all if he/she is aware of anything we're missing:
[...]
I have to admit that my eyes glaze over whenever I hear a pol embrace HSR and predict its delivery, fully formed as our equivalent of the French TGV’s and Japanese Shinkansens, will be a snap. Been there, heard that.
I was, therefore, suitably impressed when the members of the team working with Collenette told the audiences at the information sessions they conducted throughout Southwestern Ontario that they were considering three technological options: 300-km/h electric service, 200-km/h electric and 200-km/h diesel.
Also admirable was Collenette’s comment that the service on the existing VIA routes could not and should not be abandoned. He believes the maintenance of service on the existing lines as feeders to any new HSR system is imperative.
But we should be forewarned that comes of this exercise will not be a decision of Collenette’s making. It will fall to the premier and her cabinet. If they muff this opportunity to at least deliver faster and more frequent rail service to Southwestern Ontario, then shame on them. Like others before them, they have taunted Ontarians with the spectre of better rail service in a region where people have proved they will use it.
Politicians being politicians, the Wynne government has already set itself up for a fall on the HSR proposal by expecting that ever-elusive private-sector solution. They may be looking for financial silver bullets that will make their election promise deliverable without any public cost, but they’re apt to be surprised by what Collenette tells them. Good. He recognizes the funding question as being of paramount importance and not easily solved.
No matter what comes of this exercise, the provincial cabinet and the public should remember the old saying, “Don’t shoot the messenger.” Collenette isn’t likely to deliver anything but the facts. Let’s hope the pols are willing to accept and act on them.

Thanks to Greg Gormick who is the campaign coordinator for the Save VIA citizens’ committee of St. Marys, Ontario for writing this blog article.
http://www.highspeedrailcanada.com/2016/08/can-david-collenette-save-high-speed.html

And here's what High Speed Rail is featuring now:
WELCOME TO HIGH SPEED RAIL CANADA
Saturday, December 17, 2016
Is it Time for Siemens Diesel-Electric Passenger Trainset in Canada?


Congratulations to Siemens in Sacramento California for producing a fine quality trainset. The Brightline (2 locomotives, 4 coaches) sets were built to run on the new passenger rail service in southeast Florida.

Brightline is scheduled to begin express inter-city service between Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach in mid-2017. They have already delivered their first trainset.

Many USA states with Amtrak service have been ordered this locomotive.

VIA RAIL should consider these Siemen's trainset in their fleet renewal plans for their high frequency rail product. Considering Bombardier's epic failure to supply Toronto street cars on schedule, it makes sense to go to a North American supplier who can deliver their product on time.

You might also like:
Return of the Rail Diesel Cars to the North Main Line

A Visitors View Point - Passenger Rail in Canada


Quebec commercial groups backing high-frequency train

http://www.highspeedrailcanada.com/2016/08/quebec-commercial-groups-backing-high.html
Posted by Paul Langan at 11:26:00 AM No comments:
http://www.highspeedrailcanada.com/

Oh how the mighty fast have fallen!
 
Last edited:
200km/hr non-stop would get someone from Union to London in about 70 minutes. Forget St.Mary's, Woodstock, Ingersol, Paris, and even Brantford. Either make it true fast rail or can the whole project. Why would people in the SW be ecstatic about getting back to speeds they had in the late 70s? The Greyhound can go Union/LDN in 2 hours if the traffic is moving so why sink billions into a project that will do the same?

The 401 London/Woodstock stretch is very busy made worse by some of the world's highest transport truck traffic. Unless people have a true FAST alternative to driving they will continue to do so and that section of 401 will have to be widened yet again. Going from 6 to 8 or 10 lanes is going to be god awful expensive far more so than the 4 to 6 lanes done 20 years ago. The 4 to 6 conversion required little change to the overpasses but rather just paving out the median of the highway but any further widening will require duplicate interchanges and bridges for the entire 403 to 402 401 highway stretch including thru London.

If they cheap out and just bring in HFR which is a euphemism for just buying more trains, then they are still going to have to pay a staggering amount of money to expand the 401. The traffic will only increase and it has to be dealt with and it's going to take billions either way so they have to make the decision if they want to spend it on roads or HSR because HFR won't make a hoot of difference.
 
Hearing proclamations that HSR won't happen in this short corridor between London and Toronto, let alone Toronto-Montreal, makes one wonder why these so-called ministers of transportation keep stoking false hopes. Most people don't care about HFR. It's basic passenger service that should've been in place 30 years ago. Unless this passenger-only line is fully upgradeable to HSR, and unless HSR becomes reality in our working lifetimes, these other details are only of interest to rail enthusiasts. It's inside baseball for the minor leagues.

I understand the sentiment, but I disagree that anything less than HSR is useless. The region is at 6 million people. And there will be 1 million more in the next 15 years. Traffic is going to get worse. Much worse.

So whatever can modulate the added demand is a help. Now, HSR can do that much more effectively than HFR. But that does not mean that HFR is useless or unnecessary.
 
I don't think anyone is saying HFR is useless or unnecessary, but it's solving a digging problem using a pickaxe where a jackhammer is needed. Reality check: We are competing globally to attract the most highly skilled workers. In Ontario they are looking at Waterloo, Markham, the tech ring in Ottawa, and the media and design centres in Toronto. These people are the future wealth generators for Canada. They create the high tech start-ups that are the future Kiks or Blackberries. Increasing the speed of the exchange of people, goods, services, and ideas between these areas is critical.

This high speed infrastructure floats all boats, allowing cities like London and Hamilton, which have been light and heavy manufacturing cities traditionally, to participate in the new economy. Suddenly that shoddy Victorian manse in Hamilton looks a lot more attractive when you know that living in it means you can still get to a gainful job in the region. And I know there are no plans to build HSR to Hamilton, sadly. This infrastructure is the cost of doing business today. China and South Korea get it.

Most government departments should have their budgets slashed to pay for this, since HSR, like high-speed broadband, will ultimately improve health, the environment, education, business development, living standards, and quality of life. They increase our productivity and ultimately our quality of life. That we're squabbling over whether governments can afford HFR, without HSR, is pathetic. It takes money to make money. Propose the lines, invite proposals, work out the financing with the pension funds and debt issues. Just get it done already, in stages if necessary, starting with HFR if necessary. It seems that 200 kph should be the minimum standard. If that's achievable with the right train sets on HFR, let's do that. Toronto to Montreal in less than three hours. London to Union in less than 75 minutes. Greater frequency for routes. Otherwise we're getting nowhere. Colenette has been yammering about this for at least 25 years -- and nothing!
 
Last edited:
Reality check
The reality is you still fail to produce any form of reference for either a report or funding. "Just get it done".
How about "just getting done" the Missing Link before anything else, and solve the more pressing issues?
--------------------
Further comment on the Brightline trainsets:

The power to weight ratio is incredibly high for the purpose. The route is virtually flat, and yet:

Rolling stock
[...]
(Here's reference to Keithz "Higher Speed Rail"):

Proposed
Northern Lights Express, a proposed higher-speed passenger service in Minnesota, has tabbed Charger locomotives to power the train when it opens in 2020. However, no purchase has been made.[16]

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

HEP is taken from the overall HP rating, but typically, 4,000 HP is at the wheels. Anyone care to calculate the timing this could do, track improvements bearing, of course, Toronto/K/W, Toronto/London?

Track conditions may not permit it to do much better than what Paul calculated a posted a few days back, any improvement would be mostly in acceleration.
 
Last edited:
Colenette has been yammering about this for at least 25 years -- and nothing!

I don't think he has been 'yammering'. He has done much better than that....he's pretty articulate and passionate about the topic.

The problem is, we've had 25 years of sticker shock and taxpayer apathy (well, more like 35 years - these things were discussed even in the Pepin era). Recently, the issues of congestion are finally becoming painful, hence getting attention, but we are still some distance away from widespread acceptance of HSR.

The case for incremental, low-expectation investment is that it can be done within taxpayers' current acceptance - and to some degree below their radar screen altogether. As that gains traction, and demonstrates success, attitudes will shift yes.

The question is, do we do what is within the acceptance level today, thereby putting off HSR a little longer, but getting us something, or keep pushing HSR today and watch the taxpayer continue to revolt, and have nothing.

IMHO - let's get on with what we can do, and let things gain momentum.

- Paul
 
Further on the Northern Lights proposed Higher Speed Rail (the parallels to the Southern Ontario Northern Main are striking):
[...]
Planning for the line received a big boost at the end of September 2008 when U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters announced that the federal government would contribute $30 million to passenger rail projects across the country. The contribution included $1.1 million for the Northern Lights Express.[11] On September 9, 2011, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced a grant of $5 million to fund environmental and engineering studies for the project.[12] On March 18, 2013, the Environmental Assessment was completed and released on the Minnesota Department of Transportation website.[13]

In 2015 a press conference revealed an updated look at the NLX plan. The train would operate at 90mph and use the Siemens Charger locomotive instead of the Talgo. This proposal included 6 stations served 4 daily trains in each direction. Tier 2 studies of the line would continue until 2017, and construction could be completed by 2019 with testing the same year. The Northern Lights Express is expected to now begin service in 2020.[14][15][16]

Required track improvements
The Northern Lights Express is planned to use several segments of BNSF track. Starting from the south, it will run along the Wayzata Subdivision from Target Field to Minneapolis Junction, the Midway Subdivision to Northtown Yard, and then enter the Staples Subdivision—the same as the current Northstar commuter line. However, the NLX will turn north at Coon Creek Junction in Coon Rapids to enter the Hinckley Subdivision, which it will follow to Boylston Junction between Foxboro and Superior, Wisconsin. From Boylston, the train will use BNSF's Lakes Subdivision to reach Superior. From Superior to Duluth, the train will be on BNSF again, crossing the Grassy Point swing bridge back into Minnesota and then turning northeast to travel along the shore of St. Louis Bay. The train would exit BNSF rails at Rice's Point and would then run along the North Shore Scenic Railroad for a short segment into the Duluth Union Depot.

A preliminary study from around the year 2000 projected a cost of $79 million to purchase rolling stock and upgrade track along the existing line, though this apparently only anticipated 79 miles per hour (127 km/h) service.[3] The cost projection grew to $320 million in 2008, and $615 million in 2009, with a "worst-case scenario" number of $990 million.[17][18] Up to 80 percent of the cost may be covered by the federal government, only requiring 20% from state and local sources. This is comparable to highway projects which often receive 80% or 90% funding from the federal government,[19][20] and is in contrast to the Hiawatha light rail and Northstar commuter lines which received 50% matching federal funds.

The wide range of cost estimates relates to how much of the 140 mi (230 km) line between Coon Creek Junction and Duluth will need to be upgraded from the current single-track configuration to a double-track corridor. Running double track all the way to Duluth may bring the cost to $990 million, but the NLX organization has preferred to only run double track north to Sandstone. It was also considered key to upgrade the rails to let trains make the trip in two hours or less. At that pace, the trains could do more than one round trip per day, reducing the number of trainsets needed to provide frequent service. However, the NLX organization revisited some slower options in 2010, and is now leaning toward "Option 2" that would mostly run at 90 mph north of the Twin Cities, but would support speeds up to 110 mph between Cambridge and Hinckley. This would significantly reduce the cost and lead to better benefit-cost calculations, but would also reduce the operating margin to barely better than break-even.[21][22] Option 2 will have trains take 2 hours and 17 minutes to make the trip, and drop the average speed from about 78 miles per hour (126 km/h) to about 68 mph (109 km/h). This still compares favorably with the scheduled 3 hours 35 minutes scheduled for the North Star in 1985—a mere 43 mph (69 km/h) average.[23]

As of 2009, the line hosts 12 to 15 freight trains per day.[24] It had at least some Class 4 track[25] which limits freight 50 mph (80 km/h) and passenger traffic to 79 mph (127 km/h), but this would need to be upgraded to Class 5 and Class 6 in order to support 90 mph and 110 mph speeds, respectively.[10] There are more than 150 grade crossings and 12 bridges on this segment which would need to be improved (or eliminated, in the case of some grade crossings). The line has automatic block signaling, but needs centralized traffic control and positive train control installed to support speeds above 79 mph.[26] There are also several sidings along the route which only have manual switches and will need to be automated.[10]

The double-track main line south of Coon Creek Junction is the busiest rail corridor in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. In July 2009, before the Northstar commuter line began operation, this segment hosted 63 trains per day.[24] There are already plans for BNSF to construct a third main line in the area from the junction south to East Interstate (the bridge over Interstate 694). BNSF would then allow 22 more passenger trains per day for Northstar, NLX, Amtrak, and possibly other services.[27] The Northstar's Fridley station was built with the future third main in mind, and was initially built as an island platform with track only on the east side, requiring the Northstar train to be on that track when traveling inbound to or outbound from Minneapolis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Lights_Express

The 'Brightline' trainset is perfect for VIA HFR and more in various forms, save bi-modal. Proposals to address that have been posted in this forum and the VIA one prior, including 'Top and Tail' (Electric traction one end, diesel the other, until such time as Siemens or a competitor offers a bi-mode suitable).
 
I know Colenette is passionate about rail and fighting the good fight, but more concrete steps should've been taken when he was Minister of Transportation. Yes, budgets were more contained then, but now we've got an astronaut in the role and supposedly the spending taps are open for infrastructure. Okay, if that's the case, what's holding us back from building the 'missing link' and the necessary station and track adjustments and train set purchases that will give us HFR that, for all intents and purposes, delivers HSR? What taxpayer revolt against this spending is underway? I don't see it. Any government that makes transportation spending high priority will get widespread support if it's framed as impacting quality of life. This is about priorities. My prediction: In four years we'll be right where we are today. Please prove me wrong. I guess time will tell...
 
The more time I spend with rail enthusiasts in forums like this (or in similar groups on Facebook), the more frequently I have to think about a quote my Ethics teacher kept telling his students which was: "those people who are most enthusiastic about new ideas are always the same people who already didn't understand the old ones". Before anyone takes offence at this (admittedly not particularly flattering) characterization, I would like to explain why I believe it applies to certain people who dismiss conventional rail or (this does not apply to this forum, but to many discussions I have with Maglev or Hyperloop fans on the High Speed Rail America Club Facebook page) HSR as a "thing of the past" and to stress that it really is not that difficult to read yourself sufficiently into the subject to understand why all rail modes have their justifications, as I've listed below:

Urban/suburban/regional rail modes
  • Light rail (low cost, low capacity, low speed): Best in urban areas on dedicated lanes, less effective in road traffic on congested roads
  • Light metro (high cots, low capacity, medium speed): Best as people mover at airports, less effective in high-density commuter traffic
  • Metro (high costs, high capacity, medium speed): Best in densely populated urban areas, less effective in low-density residential areas with low property prices
  • Commuter rail (medium costs, high capacity, medium speed): Best along existing rail corridors serving suburban communities, less effective on longer distances
  • Regional rail (medium costs, medium capacity, high speed): Best along existing rail corridors serving population centers, less effective in high-density commuter traffic
Inter-city rail modes
  • Conventional rail (low cost, medium capacity, low speed): Best on low-density corridors, less effective for hosting high train volumes of slow and fast trains
  • Higher-speed rail (medium cost, high capacity, medium speed): Best on rail corridors between large metropolitan areas and smaller ones, less effective between multiple and very large metropolitan areas
  • High Speed Rail (high cost, high capacity, high speed): Best between multiple and very large metropolitan areas, less effective on shorter distances and when its specifications don't allow mixed operations in urban cores
  • Maglev (very high cost, medium capacity, very high speed): Best in rich countries, which either have barely any legacy rail so far (e.g. Saudi-Arabia) or have HSR lines which have maxed out on their capacity (e.g. Japan), less effective anywhere near urban cores (due to excessive property prices)
  • Hyperloop (unverifiable cost, low capacity, ultra-high speed): Best on planets which have a fraction of the Earth's air pressure at surface, less effective on our planet, where vacuums are so incredibly unstable and traveling in such thus so dangerous...
Note that cost refers to capital (not: operating) costs, while speed refers to average (not: maximum) speed. Also note that travel times below 30 minutes are highly attractive, whereas they quickly become highly unattractive beyond 60 minutes (for inter-city travel, these limits are 2 and 4 hours). An increase in average speed therefore expands the area in which a certain mode is attractive.

Now to some of your posts:

It should be 1 hour. Same with the east route to Kingston.
May I remind you that the distance between Kingston and Toronto is 254 km? Where exactly in the world do you see a precedence of covering such a distance in only 60 minutes? And even if you can find one, what population size does the smaller of the two cities linked have?
Get people out of the cars completely.
Transportation innovation is about improving the choice (quantity and quality!) of transportation options and not about replacing one mode with another. The car will always remain the most flexible of all modes. The goal of improving rail services is to get those people out of the car who currently perceive rail as too inflexible to let their cars in their garages...
Most people don't care about HFR. It's basic passenger service that should've been in place 30 years ago. Unless this passenger-only line is fully upgradeable to HSR, and unless HSR becomes reality in our working lifetimes, these other details are only of interest to rail enthusiasts.
I would rather argue that only rail enthusiasts like us care whether it's called conventional rail, higher-speed rail or high-speed rail. What matters to "most people" is the door-to-door travel time, the frequency and the price and quality of the service - and they compare it with the transportation options they have today and not with what they could have had if the most advanced and expensive technology was in place.
This high speed infrastructure floats all boats, allowing cities like London and Hamilton, which have traditionally been light and heavy manufacturing cities traditionally, to participate in the new economy. Suddenly that shoddy Victorian manse in Hamilton looks a lot more attractive when you know that living in it means you can still get to a gainful job in the region. And I know there are no plans to build HSR to Hamilton, sadly. This infrastructure is the cost of doing business today. China and South Korea get it.
You are missing that the main motivation for building HSR (or in fact: for making any major rail infrastructure upgrades) has always been capacity, while speed was only a secondary consideration: when faced with rail capacity shortages, the railroad engineers discovered that quadruple-tracking was going to be very expensive for the existing rail corridors, due to the number of houses being built next to the tracks (note: this is less of an issue in Canada, with its 100 feet wide ROWs) and that building an entirely new (greenfield) line could be much more economical, especially if it was geared at the needs of intercity trains, i.e. the trains which caused the biggest conflicts on the legacy lines, due to their high speeds. This created the opportunity to completely rethink how fast intercity trains (and their rail infrastructure) look like and the rest is history…

***Update: one more comment***
Any government that makes transportation spending high priority will get widespread support if it's framed as impacting quality of life. This is about priorities. My prediction: In four years we'll be right where we are today. Please prove me wrong. I guess time will tell...
The number one reason why all HSR projects have failed in Canada so far is that they were all too much of "all or nothing" and didn't follow any incremental approach. I refer to an article I wrote 2 years ago on LinkedIn for those who are interested in this argument: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/two-graphs-which-might-explain-why-canada-still-has-rail-urbanski
***


This has become a very long anniversary post (it’s apparently my 100th) and I therefore have to outsource my replies to ssiguy2 into a separate post due to space constraints…
 
Last edited:
2 hours to London not good enough and won't entice anyone driving to switch to rail. Again that means that London/Union will still be slower than it was 40 years ago.
You seem to forget that (especially for commuters and business travellers) the time a train arrives/departs at the destination is no less important than the duration of the journey and that frequency is what maximizes the number of travellers for which the schedule becomes workable and thus attractive. Have a look at the schedules which VIA (1971: CN) offered over the last 45 years and you will see that average travel times have not deteriorated dramatically (e.g. 6 minutes Toronto-Kitchener, 15 minutes Toronto-Brantford-London, 20 minutes Toronto-Windsor) except for those routes affected by the significant deterioration of the track quality between Kitchener and London (34 minutes Toronto-Kitchener-London or 78 minutes Toronto-Sarnia):
UT-20161231-Travel time.jpg

Source: Official timetables published by VIA Rail

By pointing out that timetables were a lot better in the 1970s or 1980s, you are unconsciously admitting that the real problem is the frequency, as travel times (at least between Toronto and Kitchener, London or Windsor) were actually quite a bit better in 1995-2005 than they were in 1977, while scheduled train mileage (a good proxy for frequencies and service quality) was cut to half in Southwestern Ontario by 1990:
UT-20161231-Train mileage.jpg

Source: Official timetables published by VIA Rail

If they can't manage London/Union within 75 minutes then it's a waste of money.
How do you want to prevent the waste of money if you refuse to look at the capital cost associated with the projects you champion? There is a good reason major funding decisions are usually preceded by a cost-benefit analysis...
200km/hr non-stop would get someone from Union to London in about 70 minutes.
Sure, so what exactly would your alignment be which has only curves with a minimum radius of 2.12 km to allow train to operate at a constant speed of 200 km/h and with a cant deficiency of no more than 4 inches?
Forget St.Mary's, Woodstock, Ingersol, Paris, and even Brantford. Either make it true fast rail or can the whole project.
Apparently, we should also forget about Kitchener-Waterloo, a tech hub with virtually the same population, but conveniently located at just about the middle between Toronto and London. If your train must go constantly at its maximum speed, you cannot let such small cowsheds slow it down...
Why would people in the SW be ecstatic about getting back to speeds they had in the late 70s?
The competitiveness of any product or service is determined by its competitive environment (i.e. the availability, price, perceived quality and characteristics of alternative offerings), not by whatever the state of the art in that particular industry or technology might be. As someone who actually lives in Ontario, you should be well aware in which direction and by what magnitude travel times by car have developed in the past decades, especially for commuters along the 401...
The Greyhound can go Union/LDN in 2 hours if the traffic is moving so why sink billions into a project that will do the same?
Last time I checked, the distance between London and Toronto was 192 km and the applicable speed limit was 100 km/h. If Grayhound was able to make that journey in 2 hours, they would have lost their operating licence a long time ago. They nevertheless offer travel times starting at as short as 2:05h on weekdays (e.g. London 17:30, Toronto 19:35), but they don't offer any arrivals in Toronto between 6:15 and 10:40, presumably because they acknowledge how unpredictable and horrible traffic in the morning rush hour can be (Google Maps estimates a travel time between 2:20h and 3:20h for commuters who want to arrive in downtown Toronto for 8:30 am on a Monday morning. You see that even at a travel time of 2:10h currently, the train can be quite competitive for commuters and business travelers compared to the car (which is subject to extreme road congestion) and the bus (which has abandoned this market and therefore does not at all "the same" as conventional rail already today, let alone what any upgraded passenger rail infrastructure and rolling stock - be it RER, higher-speed rail, HFR or HSR - would enable).
If they cheap out and just bring in HFR which is a euphemism for just buying more trains, then they are still going to have to pay a staggering amount of money to expand the 401. The traffic will only increase and it has to be dealt with and it's going to take billions either way so they have to make the decision if they want to spend it on roads or HSR because HFR won't make a hoot of difference.
The reason why highways have become the buzzing (though increasingly clogged) arteries of the economic activity in virtually any metropolitan area is that they serve a virtually infinite number of origin-destination pairs. By obsessing about HSR, you are only focusing on maybe 3 of these ODs (e.g. London-Toronto, London-Kitchener and Kitchener-Toronto). Therefore, the main competitor of HSR is the plane (i.e. the other mode which offers high-speed connection between a very limited number of destinations) and NOT the car. I would consequently turn your argument on the head by saying that separating fast rail services (i.e. intercity and regional) from slow ones (i.e. commuter and freight) by quadruple-tracking the main rail corridors is the most cost-effective way to generate sufficient rail capacity to obviate the need of further Highway expansion by turning being stuck for hours on them from an unavoidable nuisance to a voluntary lifestyle choice. Conversely, HSR, only has the potential to capture a small fraction of the highway traffic (due to its very limited number of markets served) and would therefore still require the expansion of either highways or major rail corridors.


Happy new year, everyone!
 

Attachments

  • UT-20161231-Train mileage.jpg
    UT-20161231-Train mileage.jpg
    82.2 KB · Views: 273
  • UT-20161231-Travel time.jpg
    UT-20161231-Travel time.jpg
    96.5 KB · Views: 272
Last edited:
It's not unreasonable to consolidate a 'higher speed rail' line down to a few stops, the best HSR we can get on our conventional rail line, assuming we make the adjustments needed to make this a passenger only line (HFR) and buy the right train sets adaptable to diesel or electric. That would equate to one midpoint stop in K-W between London and Union. Any towns/cities closer than K-W would be accommodated by commuter RER, a faster commute than what we have on the GO diesel sets, but not high speed. That kind of spacing makes sense. We could still have the same types of train sets used for higher speed trips stop at more stations en route to Union or London at alternating times on the schedule, but we wouldn't call them express trains, since they wouldn't be substantially faster than what we have now. That would be fine.

I could see a similar schedule eventually in the east: higher speed express service from Union to Kingston then Ottawa or Montreal, with faster GO RER commuter trains running as far as perhaps Port Hope. Smaller centres such as Belleville and Coburg would be served by the same kinds of higher speed train sets that would lose speed on the non-express schedule.
 
The more time I spend with rail enthusiasts in forums like this (or in similar groups on Facebook), the more frequently I have to think about a quote my Ethics teacher kept telling his students which was: "those people who are most enthusiastic about new ideas are always the same people who already didn't understand the old ones". Before anyone takes offence at this (admittedly not particularly flattering) characterization, I would like to explain why I believe it applies to certain people who dismiss conventional rail or (this does not apply to this forum, but to many discussions I have with Maglev or Hyperloop fans on the High Speed Rail America Club Facebook page) HSR as a "thing of the past" and to stress that it really is not that difficult to read yourself sufficiently into the subject to understand why all rail modes have their justifications, as I've listed below:

Urban/suburban/regional rail modes
  • Light rail (low cost, low capacity, low speed): Best in urban areas on dedicated lanes, less effective in road traffic on congested roads
  • Light metro (high cots, low capacity, medium speed): Best as people mover at airports, less effective in high-density commuter traffic
  • Metro (high costs, high capacity, medium speed): Best in densely populated urban areas, less effective in low-density residential areas with low property prices
  • Commuter rail (medium costs, high capacity, medium speed): Best along existing rail corridors serving suburban communities, less effective on longer distances
  • Regional rail (medium costs, medium capacity, high speed): Best along existing rail corridors serving population centers, less effective in high-density commuter traffic
Inter-city rail modes
  • Conventional rail (low cost, medium capacity, low speed): Best on low-density corridors, less effective for hosting high train volumes of slow and fast trains
  • Higher-speed rail (medium cost, high capacity, medium speed): Best on rail corridors between large metropolitan areas and smaller ones, less effective between multiple and very large metropolitan areas
  • High Speed Rail (high cost, high capacity, high speed): Best between multiple and very large metropolitan areas, less effective on shorter distances and when its specifications don't allow mixed operations in urban cores
  • Maglev (very high cost, medium capacity, very high speed): Best in rich countries, which either have barely any legacy rail so far (e.g. Saudi-Arabia) or have HSR lines which have maxed out on their capacity (e.g. Japan), less effective anywhere near urban cores (due to excessive property prices)
  • Hyperloop (unverifiable cost, low capacity, ultra-high speed): Best on planets which have a fraction of the Earth's air pressure at surface, less effective on our planet, where vacuums are so incredibly unstable and traveling in such thus so dangerous...
Note that cost refers to capital (not: operating) costs, while speed refers to average (not: maximum) speed. Also note that travel times below 30 minutes are highly attractive, whereas they quickly become highly unattractive beyond 60 minutes (for inter-city travel, these limits are 2 and 4 hours). An increase in average speed therefore expands the area in which a certain mode is attractive.

Now to some of your posts:


May I remind you that the distance between Kingston and Toronto is 254 km? Where exactly in the world do see a precedence of covering such a distance in only 60 minutes? And even if you can find one, what population size does the smaller of the two cities linked have?
Transportation innovation is about improving the choice (quantity and quality!) of transportation options and not about replacing one mode with another. The car will always remain the most flexible of all modes. The goal of improving rail services is to get those people out of the car who currently perceive rail as too inflexible to let their cars in their garages...

I would rather argue that only rail enthusiasts like us care whether it's called conventional rail, higher-speed rail or high-speed rail. What matters to "most people" is the door-to-door travel time, the frequency and the price and quality of the service - and they compare it with the transportation options they have today and not with what they could have had if the most advanced and expensive technology was in place.

You are missing that the main motivation for building HSR (or in fact: for making any major rail infrastructure upgrades) has always been capacity, while speed was only a secondary consideration: when faced with rail capacity shortages, the railroad engineers discovered that quadruple-tracking was going to be very expensive for the existing rail corridors, due to the number of houses being built next to the tracks (note: this is less of an issue in Canada, with its 100 feet wide ROWs) and that building an entirely new (greenfield) line could be much more economical, especially if it was geared at the needs of intercity trains, i.e. the trains which caused the biggest conflicts on the legacy lines, due to their high speeds. This created the opportunity to completely rethink how fast intercity trains (and their rail infrastructure) looks like and the rest is history…

***Update: one more comment***

The number one reason why all HSR projects have failed in Canada so far is that they were all too much of "all or nothing" and didn't follow any incremental approach. I refer to an article I wrote 2 years ago on LinkedIn for those who are interested in this argument: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/two-graphs-which-might-explain-why-canada-still-has-rail-urbanski
***


This has become a very long anniversary post (it’s apparently my 100th) and I therefore have to outsource my replies to ssiguy2 into a separate post due to space constraints…
Understood, but we should be able to make sure HFR is actually HFR. That's what I would like to see done. Maybe 60 minutes is unrealistic, but I would love to see more frequent service between Kingston, London and Toronto.
 
Superb posts, Urban.

I'm glad you addressed this, as the claim struck me as absurd, yet I didn't have the details to rebut it:
Have a look at the schedules which VIA (1971: CN) offered over the last 45 years and you will see that average travel times have not deteriorated dramatically (e.g. 6 minutes Toronto-Kitchener, 15 minutes Toronto-Brantford-London, 20 minutes Toronto-Windsor) except for those routes affected by the significant deterioration of the track quality between Kitchener and London (34 minutes Toronto-Kitchener-London or 78 minutes Toronto-Sarnia):
Another point not mentioned that has also slowed that is the imposed 'Go Slow' section immediately west of Guelph station to the edge of Guelph. That is recent, and post the seventies.

As to (gist) 'why HFR and not HSR' (and especially in this instance) I was flummoxed to answer that, until remembering that the case has been made exquisitely by Desjardins-Siciliano, his words remain the authority on the point:
High-speed rail not the right solution for Canada: Via CEO
Kristine Owram | Nat Post, November 3, 2015 7:11 PM ET

That the push for new high-speed train systems in Ontario and Alberta is gaining momentum just as the federal Liberals prepare to take office with plans to double infrastructure spending is surely more than a coincidence.

But the head of Canada’s dominant passenger rail service, Via Rail Canada, says high-speed rail is a tremendously expensive proposition, and it makes little sense to invest in it until the serious existing congestion problems on Canadian railways is solved.

“Back in 2012, there was a report published that pegged the cost of high-speed rail between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal at $10 billion, and for $10 billion it would get you 10-million customers,” said Via CEO Yves Desjardins-Siciliano. Simply providing dedicated passenger lines at conventional speed, he said, “will cost $3 billion for seven million (passengers), so it’s a third of the cost for two-thirds of the benefit.”

If Via had a dedicated track to use in the busy corridor between Toronto and Montreal, Desjardins-Siciliano estimates the railway could increase its annual passenger load on the route from 2.1 million currently to 6.8 million within 15 years of construction using what he calls “high-frequency rail.”

Just last week, Ontario appointed a former federal cabinet minister, David Collenette, as a special adviser for high-speed rail, which the provincial Liberal government envisions running between Windsor, London, Kitchener-Waterloo and Toronto. The same week, Alberta’s NDP government said it was in the early stages of studying a high-speed rail link between Calgary and Edmonton, something previous governments have mused about but never bought into.

Advocates of high-speed rail point out that the largest untapped market in the world is North America, where, for a variety of reasons, people have not embraced the concept in the same way their European and Asian counterparts have.

This means there is tremendous potential to develop ultra-fast railways here, a major infrastructure conference in Toronto heard Tuesday. But the first challenge is winning over travellers who are used to driving or flying to their destinations, said Tim Keith, CEO of Texas Central Partners, a private company that’s developing North America’s first-ever high-speed rail link between Houston and Dallas.

“It’s not easy to create a high-speed-rail system in an economy that doesn’t accept high-speed rail as a mode of transport,” Keith told the conference, put on by the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships.

“The biggest challenge I have is introducing a product to market that isn’t used to the product.”

Desjardins-Siciliano has been drumming up interest among Canada’s major pension funds in building a new dedicated track between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal that would allow the Crown corporation to improve its deteriorating on-time performance.

Currently, 90 per cent of the track that Via uses is owned by Canadian National Railway Co., and is susceptible to regular bottlenecks as freight trains and passenger trains vie for the same space. In the second quarter, Via’s trains were on time 70 per cent of the time, down from 79 per cent a year earlier.

“Freight trains today are longer and heavier and therefore slower than ever,” Desjardins-Siciliano said in a recent interview. “That’s why growing (our service) requires an alternative track that would be dedicated to passenger rail.”

He noted that regular-speed rail also has the benefit of being able to stop at points in between the major cities, which meets Via’s objective of replacing travel by car, not travel by air.

And Sebastien Sherman, senior managing director for the Americas at Borealis Infrastructure, pointed out on Tuesday’s panel that high-speed rail plans “need a degree of population density,” more common in Asia and Europe than in a more sparsely populated country such as Canada. Borealis is an arm of the OMERS pension fund that owns 50 per cent of HS1 Ltd., the U.K.’s high-speed line that runs through the Chunnel. He noted that any high-speed project comes with its construction risks, demand risks, regulatory risks and political risks.

“The last thing we’d want to do is spend many years trying to advance a project if it doesn’t have community support,” he said.
http://business.financialpost.com/n...ail-not-the-right-solution-for-canada-via-ceo

My prediction: In four years we'll be right where we are today. Please prove me wrong. I guess time will tell...
You seem to have little concept of how deeply in debt many of the 'promises' being made by both the province and feds are taking us. Personally, I believe in spending on infrastructure, but that has to come with accountability and reasonable return. The fact is that the cupboard is bare. However, I do believe that it would be unwise for Private Capital, in conjunction with the Feds (for both legislative and lending powers) to not invest in major rail/transit schemes. It has both a steady and virtually guaranteed return, and it increases productivity in the society where the capital is derived. That's return on investment doubled. THAT is how this and many other nations were built, not with tax money!

I think we will have an answer, at least on some items, within months.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top