News   Nov 22, 2024
 648     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 1.1K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 3K     8 

Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study

Problem with that is they simply refuse to build a station on a curve, nevermind in the middle of a wye.
They had no problems recently extending the Danforth platform along a curve, despite the option of extending the existing platform the other direction along the straight segment. They even ignored the option of moving the current platorm further east by 3-4 coaches and getting it completely off the curve.

I'm quite sure, if Metrolinx felt it had a good reason, would build a new platform on a curve.

Though quite clearly, this "wye" isn't the good reason!
 
They had no problems recently extending the Danforth platform along a curve, despite the option of extending the existing platform the other direction along the straight segment. They even ignored the option of moving the current platorm further east by 3-4 coaches and getting it completely off the curve.

I'm quite sure, if Metrolinx felt it had a good reason, would build a new platform on a curve.

Though quite clearly, this "wye" isn't the good reason!

The difference is that HSR would have level boarding, which is nearly impossible to achieve on a curve while meeting accessibility standards, at least without a mechanical solution. Straight platforms or extremely gentle curves are the way to go.
 
The difference is that HSR would have level boarding, which is nearly impossible to achieve on a curve while meeting accessibility standards, at least without a mechanical solution. Straight platforms or extremely gentle curves are the way to go.
Very good point.

(related thread: The Great Platform Height Debate)
 
I think before we get true HSR, we need to fix the Windsor/Quebec City corridor. We aren't even operating at speeds we were 25 years ago.

They used to have a train that ran from Toronto to Montreal in just under 4 hours. Just this year, we got rid of the 4 hour 30 minute train and now we are looking at 5 hours minimum.

We need more trackage in this corridor before we ever buy HSR equipment; we aren't even running our current equipment near what its capable of.
 
The difference is that HSR would have level boarding, which is nearly impossible to achieve on a curve while meeting accessibility standards, at least without a mechanical solution. Straight platforms or extremely gentle curves are the way to go.

Picking whether to allow boarding on the concave vs convex side of the curve can significantly reduce the gap without a mechanical solution.

Mechanical solutions have been around for a long time.

From NYC:
From France: http://www.fersil-railway.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/fiche-technique/cacolac-global-en.pdf
Hong Kong: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/70538065

However, the concern with these solutions is that the elements may cause maintenance issues. To solve some of the shut-downs you should use heated platforms which would not need salt nor sand...but still would be an issue.
 
Picking whether to allow boarding on the concave vs convex side of the curve can significantly reduce the gap without a mechanical solution.

Mechanical solutions have been around for a long time.

From NYC:
From France: http://www.fersil-railway.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/fiche-technique/cacolac-global-en.pdf
Hong Kong: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/70538065

However, the concern with these solutions is that the elements may cause maintenance issues. To solve some of the shut-downs you should use heated platforms which would not need salt nor sand...but still would be an issue.

There is the maintenance issue, as well as the issue of having different types of trains with different door locations stopping. All of your examples are of metros, which probably have only one type of rolling stock/door location.
 
There is the maintenance issue, as well as the issue of having different types of trains with different door locations stopping. All of your examples are of metros, which probably have only one type of rolling stock/door location.

The NYC one is designed for one type. But the new technology permits multiple rolling stock and removes the ugly handrails.

When a train comes in lasers (and no, not sharks with lasers) measure the distance between the platform and the train. There are 1-2 meter sections each will be extended along the entire length of the train (and extended based on laser measurements). So it can do any rolling stock and where the doors land do not matter.

The biggest issue when I was in NYC is during crush times getting people off of the platforms if they can't get in the train.
 
The difference is that HSR would have level boarding, which is nearly impossible to achieve on a curve while meeting accessibility standards, at least without a mechanical solution. Straight platforms or extremely gentle curves are the way to go.
Agreed. I traced existing alignments, but I think HSR will require trackwork regardless, so maybe it can be wrapped up as part of that (e.g. general grading, station building, freight/passenger grade separation).
 
David Collenette appointed special advisor for Ontario high-speed rail
CBC
David Collenette is Ontario's new czar of high-speed rail.

The appointment comes as the Liberal government at Queen's Park looks to spend more than $130 billion on infrastructure over the next decade to ease the burden on Ontario's increasingly traffic-choked highways.

The Friday announcement by the province says that Collenette will draw on his experience as a top federal Liberal cabinet minister to forge a business case for a high-speed rail link joining Windsor, London, Kitchener-Waterloo and Toronto.

The Wynne Liberals used the vision of a bullet train comfortably whisking commuters though Ontario's populous heartland during the last provincial election to bait voters at the ballot box.

It wasn't until after the Liberals won, however, that CBC News learned the UK consultants hired to produce a pre-feasibility study on a potential high-speed rail link did a rush job so then-Liberal Transportation Minister Glen Murray could use it as political ammunition.

First Class Partnerships, a transportation consulting firm based in London, U.K., told the CBC that it had so little time to prepare its report that it had to rely on five-year-old satellite images on Google Earth, rather than explore the route in person, as is what's normally done.

It means Collenette, who's been tasked with scrutinizing every detail of a possible high-speed rail line, may be operating without the most accurate or up-to-date information.

Collenette comes with two decades of political experience, serving under three Liberal prime ministers including Pierre Trudeau, John Turner and Jean Chretien.

Collenette has held some high profile cabinet posts, including Defence, Veterans Affairs, Transportation and Crown orporations, where he oversaw Canada Post, Via Rail and eight other government institutions.

He retired from federal politics in 2004 when he did not seek re-election in his Toronto riding.
 
finally a bit of news on it at least, even if the whole thing is moving slow as molasses.

Maybe.

Collenette was the brains behind UPX being run by a private firm for profit. I'm hopeful he doesn't use this position to try push London HSR outside of Metrolinx's umbrella.

But yes, it's a good sign that an EA should begin soon.
 
I still don't buy the London-Toronto route via Kitchener/Pearson.

It seems too expensive, too indirect, and too many stops. The route they have now is fine and far more direct but then I don't think Kitchener should even be served by VIA rail. The benefits of Pearson are few. London has an international airport with WestJet, Air Canada, and United and you can basically go any where in NA and even London/Paris and also has sunshine destination covered with those airlines and has Sunset Airlines and Transat.

Yes flying out of smaller airports usually means more for the flight but then they save the money in Pearson "fees" and the bother of getting to and/or parking at Pearson. The number of people that use Pearson from the SW is not very great and Windsor also has an airport and many also travel via Detroit International.

VIA should be a FAST interurban system serving very few cities..........Win/Lon/Tor/Ott/Mon/QC and the could have some trains {ie every third} stopping at Aldershot/King/TR and that's it. The Tor/Buff route will have to continue for a while but GO will eventually serve that route too and GO will also eventually be connected to Brantford.

By building by-passes and eventual electrification the system could be phased in and not have to be an all or nothing affair.
 
I still don't buy the London-Toronto route via Kitchener/Pearson.
It makes a whole lot sense for London/Kitchener commuting to Toronto.
A high speed GO train, serving commuters like France's TGV or Japan's Shinkansen; both of which often serve daily commuters in a GOtrain-style manner.

VIA high speed and GO high speed aren't mutually exclusive.

VIA should be a FAST interurban system serving very few cities..........Win/Lon/Tor/Ott/Mon/QC and the could have some trains {ie every third} stopping at Aldershot/King/TR and that's it.
Not mutually exclusive. Both could happen.

The Lakeshore line is mostly a straight arrow that would sustain high speed if rebuilt to HSR specs.

...but commuter HSR could probably happen in Ontario before VIA HSR occurs. They can share the same infrastructure, much like TGV (commuter) and Eurostar (interurban/interprovincial) shares the same high speed trackage.

HSR should not be viewed only as a noncommuter system -- France is proof -- Japan is proof
 
But are there going to enough commuters to make a economic case for that stretch? Studies after studies have shown that it's pretty much just the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal that does.

AoD
 

Back
Top