mdrejhon
Senior Member
Given the HSR study mentioning Pearson --I'm thinking of the scenario where they model this thing and realise that there's substantial overlap between GO, VIA and the HSR and realize that the only way to make this work is to make this an hourly higher speed GO service which is all stop Guelph and west, and then runs express east to Union. Under that scenario, having a station in the core becomes essential to Guelph.
Would a Pearson GO station break the business case?
The slowdown vs the Pearson connection?
HSR has to dramatically slow down before the Weston curve anyway, so might as well stop it near the Weston curve (Pearson no-brainer!)...
(In this assumption, we're assuming either a Malton RER or Woodbine RER station that has a theoertical highly integrated link, such as a higher-speed replacement LINK that reaches the station and connects everybody speedily to all terminals.).
It will be very important for Kitchener-Waterloo high tech connections to the airport, amongst other reasons.
Predicted HSR timelines (2030s/2040s) also potentially overlaps UPX *and* LINK refurbishment/EOL timelines, and may become an opportunity to simply have RER/HSR connecting to an upgraded higher-performance rail-based LINK instead. Instead of UPX, we'd have a VIA/RER/HSR station that fully integrates with a new high performance connector of some kind (LINK II?) that goes through all Pearson terminals (#1/future #2/#3) which might or might not recycle the UPX spur.
For a lot of Pearson travellers, there's no additional transfer since today you still have to transfer between UPX and LINK if you need to reach the ever-popular Terminal 3. UPX only goes to Terminal 1, while a future upgraded high-performance LINK connection would go to all terminals. Such a scenario can't be discounted considering the long timelines considered. And it avoids redirecting the HSR corridor!
There's two rail curves on both sides of Pearson. The rail curve northwest of Pearson (under 407) at could be nursed into a high speed curve without any significant expropriation at all, but the rail curve northeast of Pearson (towards Weston) can never be a high speed curve without butchering the area. Depending on how high speed they're able to make the curve under 407 by increasing the curve radii there -- it might make the theoretical Woodbine RER station a quicker HSR stop than the Malton RER station. The ideal location for a "super brief stop" station is nearest the slowest speed of the train (aka a station as close to the curve as possible), and the worst curve is the Weston curve, tipping the scales to Woodbine RER as potentially the briefest HSR stop.
Adding an EMU stop near a curve, for quick-accelerating EMUs (including HSR trains) -- only delays the train by ~0.5 to ~2 minutes, depending on the speed limit of the curve involved, and the length of dwell involved (subway-style dwell versus commuter-style dwell). Realistically, I'd say 2 minutes for the Pearson stop -- let's consider HSR EMUs usually out-accelerate conventional EMUs from a stopping standstill -- and it can't accelerate much yet due to the curves near Pearson.
It takes only ~30-50 seconds for a good HSR EMU to accelerate 0-to-100kph (the Japanese N700 does it in 37 seconds) -- trains typically cannot go that fast past the theoretical Woodbine RER station because of the nearby Weston railroad curve (they are either slowing down before the curve, or still accelerating after the curve). Braking is much quicker -- we've seen how GO trains enter a platform at 70kph, and stop before the end of the 300 meter platform. So you only need less than 60 seconds for the stopping and reaccelerating operations for Pearson GO -- permitting more than 1 minute of dwelling (longer dwell than at minor GO stations, but shorter than VIA), which means a Pearson stop would delay a HSR timetable by only 2 minutes.
The numbers may be off a bit, but the point is: Railroad stops near a curve are briefer than a stop on a straight high speed line.
So, let's say, 40 minutes Kitchener-Union instead of 38 minutes, given less than a minute worth of deceleration/acceleration thanks to the slow speed limit -- permitting more than a minute of European/Japanese style "minor-station" dwelling on a busy HSR route -- That's tolerable considering Kitchener-Waterloo (and London) gets quick car-free access to Pearson.
What I mean: It's true true HSR might not be a good business plan yet -- but if HSR gets built, -- it automatically is a total homer simpson league "no-brainer" it automatically includes a Pearson stop simply by sheer geography, law of physics of the railroad curve, and speed limits.
The HSR timetable slowdown is negligible in a "added Pearson stop scenario" because of low train speed near curves near Pearson; might as well do a quick stop near Pearson.
That aside, let's see 177kph-240kph (pick any number) GO RER electrification to Guelph/Kitchener first, as 300kph clearly isn't going to be hugely useful yet until we are extending to London, and there are enough travellers to go express for longer distances.
Last edited: