Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study

[dunkalunk]

Obviously Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal should be the first phase, but if we needed to break up the staging even more, then it would make sense to build the section from Kingston to Montreal first. Most of this section would require an entirely new right of way through the shield, and could be designed for 350km/h speeds from the onset. The alignment would also be able to cut off a considerable amount of distance from the existing Ottawa trip from both the Alexandria subdivision ad from Brockville to Smiths Falls.

Also, an open question:

Should Ottawa be served on the mainline, a spur, or a triangular branch line? I personally think some sort of compromise could be made between a mainline and a branch by having a bypass running south of Ottawa for through travel and a branch heading to to the existing Ottawa Train Station.

 

[dunkalunk]

[duplicate]

 

[gweed123]

Also, an open question:

Should Ottawa be served on the mainline, a spur, or a triangular branch line? I personally think some sort of compromise could be made between a mainline and a branch by having a bypass running south of Ottawa for through travel and a branch heading to to the existing Ottawa Train Station.

I think the triangular branch would work best. What they currently do is have the Montreal-Ottawa trains become Ottawa-Toronto trains, and vice versa. Also, because it's the hypotenuse, it would be shorter than going down and over.

 

[dowlingm]

The problem with starting with a 500km+ project is that it's going to be difficult to persuade the governments at various levels to commit the required funds to rail transportation unless the public is behind it. It's a chicken and egg thing. Build a successful service, make people demand it in their area, shouting louder than the likes of the "Canadian Taxpayer Federation" who will oppose such a project on spec not to mention the beancounters in Finance who chopped $60+m of VIA capital and current funding for next year. A short project like Ottawa-Montreal would provide a "quick" win and allow VIA Rail to prove its competence - sort of like the opposite of TTC & the City of Toronto's performance on St. Clair Avenue.

Even if Montreal-Kingston was the start point, why would you electrify as a first step a section with no eastbound service departing before 0916, still less one which will require negotiation with CN over pretty much the entire route?

Ottawa-Montreal is 187km according to the VIA timetable, and is scheduled for 105-135min trips, some of which can probably be accounted for by the lack of full double tracking. The initial goal should be to progressively reduce that to say 90 minutes using existing 160km/h equipment - 124km/h journey speed. It would likely require continuation of the existing passing track expansions and fixes of speed restrictions but I don't think it's unreasonable. At that point demand should have risen by the enhanced service (and maybe an extra rotation) to the point where further enhancements are not just accepted by the public but demanded.

 

[Markster]

Ottawa has to be on the mainline. There is no question.

When you look at the geography of the situation, the "two sides of the triangle" is only incrementally longer than the hypotenuse. A rough google map of the situation explains it fairly well.

It's only 50 km more to run through Ottawa. At 250km/h, that's 12 extra minutes. Let's add another 10 for the station stop and braking/accelerating, and we've only added 22 minutes to the trip from Montreal to Toronto.

Sure, now your 2 hr trip from Montreal to Toronto now takes 2h22m, but for that small sacrifice, we have:
1) Saved building another 275 km of high speed rail
2) Twice the frequency for Ottawa/Toronto, Ottawa/Montreal and frankly Ottawa/Anywhere. Which, if you regularly take the train from Ottawa already, you know how outright terrible the service on a branch line is.

 

[sjc]

Sure, now your 2 hr trip from Montreal to Toronto now takes 2h22m

22 minutes doesn't sound like very much, but remember that you are trying to get people off of flights that take little more than an hour. 22 minutes can count for a lot when you are trying to get to Montreal for a meeting at 9am or even 10am. That's 22 minutes that you could have used for sleeping a little longer.

It can also be important at the end of the day when you are trying to get home for dinner. If I catch a 4pm flight in Montreal, I can be home in Toronto at 5:30pm-5:45pm. A 4pm train would get me home closer to 7pm.

The casual traveller wouldn't care too much, but frequent business travellers look to keep their time away from home to a minimum.

EDIT: of course, cost will be a factor as well. Assuming the train allows me to avoid staying over night (which would significantly increase the cost of the overall trip), if they can keep fares under $75 each way, it may be an attractive option. If it goes much over $100, it will be hard to get people off of airplanes.

 

[MisterF]

Lots of HSR lines in Europe have similar distances in 3 hours or so and they've basically replaced air travel on all of them. They also zigzag to hit major cities on the way. The time it takes to get to the airport is a big factor, and so are the comfort and convenience advantages that trains have. Keep in mind that the last study assumed not all trains would stop in Ottawa, and through trips were to be 2h 20 minutes.

 

[dunkalunk]

While it is important that the high speed line pass near Ottawa, it doesn't necessarily need to use the existing railway station. Since Ottawa no longer has its downtown train station, most people would need to transfer to the Ottawa LRT to get downtown. Instead, the station could be at the Ottawa airport and people could transfer to an extension of either the O-Train or LRT. Running the line through the greenbelt and airport would also allow 300+km curves to be kept on the line and would avoid a weston-like situation in Barrhaven.

 

[andrewpmk]

There seem to me to be three obvious options:

(1) Northern route that bypasses Kingston entirely. This would be a more or less straight line between Toronto and Ottawa, likely with stops in Peterborough and Carlton Place. Large sections of this route would likely run parallel to the Gatineau Hydro Corridor. Peterborough gains from this option, but otherwise this option provides the least local coverage, but provides the fastest Toronto-Ottawa trip time.
(2) Straight line from Toronto to Kingston roughly parallel to Highway 401, then straight line from Kingston to Ottawa more or less parallel to Highway 15 (likely with a stop at Smiths Falls), then straight line from Ottawa to Montreal.
(3) Waterfront route from Toronto to Montreal roughly parallel to Highway 401 with stops at Cobourg, Belleville, Kingston, Brockville and Cornwall, plus a spur to Ottawa roughly parallel to Highway 417 with a possible stop in Kemptville. This serves the largest number of smaller cities, but provides relatively poor Ottawa-Montreal times, though still faster than the existing railway.

 

[gweed123]

There seem to me to be three obvious options:

(1) Northern route that bypasses Kingston entirely. This would be a more or less straight line between Toronto and Ottawa, likely with stops in Peterborough and Carlton Place. Large sections of this route would likely run parallel to the Gatineau Hydro Corridor. Peterborough gains from this option, but otherwise this option provides the least local coverage, but provides the fastest Toronto-Ottawa trip time.
(2) Straight line from Toronto to Kingston roughly parallel to Highway 401, then straight line from Kingston to Ottawa more or less parallel to Highway 15 (likely with a stop at Smiths Falls), then straight line from Ottawa to Montreal.
(3) Waterfront route from Toronto to Montreal roughly parallel to Highway 401 with stops at Cobourg, Belleville, Kingston, Brockville and Cornwall, plus a spur to Ottawa roughly parallel to Highway 417 with a possible stop in Kemptville. This serves the largest number of smaller cities, but provides relatively poor Ottawa-Montreal times, though still faster than the existing railway.

I think the current routing between Ottawa and Toronto is pretty decent. Between Smiths Falls and Brockville, it's pretty much a straight line through very flat terrain. This line (as far as I know) sees no freight traffic on it. This makes it the perfect candidate to upgrade to HRT. Straight. Flat. Only VIA traffic to worry about. Same goes for much of the route between Ottawa and Montreal.

Going along Highway 7 (or using roughly the same alignment as 7) would be an engineering nightmare for HRT. That route is hilly as all hell, and there are a tonne of lakes and rivers to worry about.

Ultimately, I think Phase 1 should be two-fold:

1) Fund HRT from Ottawa to Montreal (for reasons listed above by dowlingm)
2) Have the Feds invest in electrification within urban areas (mainly Toronto and Montreal). Double advantage of getting commuter rail electrified. Do the electrification with the specific intent of having both HRT and commuter trains using the electrified tracks. The tracks won't need to be built to true HSR standards because it's unlikely they'll be going over 150 km/h within those urban areas anyway, except for maybe in the outer suburbs.

Phase 2 should then be finishing the line between Oshawa and Valleyfield, as well as the western Ottawa spur. In fact, I believe there are plans to dual track a lot of this section now anyway, so if the plan is done quickly, the alignment can be modified in order to work with HSR.

Phase 3 would then be Montreal to QC, and Toronto to London.

Phase 4 would be London to Windsor, the Niagara Peninsula, and Montreal to the US border (to connect with the HSR service to BOSNYWASH).

 

[dunkalunk]

The problem with starting with a 500km+ project is that it's going to be difficult to persuade the governments at various levels to commit the required funds to rail transportation unless the public is behind it. It's a chicken and egg thing. Build a successful service, make people demand it in their area, shouting louder than the likes of the "Canadian Taxpayer Federation" who will oppose such a project on spec not to mention the beancounters in Finance who chopped $60+m of VIA capital and current funding for next year. A short project like Ottawa-Montreal would provide a "quick" win and allow VIA Rail to prove its competence - sort of like the opposite of TTC & the City of Toronto's performance on St. Clair Avenue.

Even if Montreal-Kingston was the start point, why would you electrify as a first step a section with no eastbound service departing before 0916, still less one which will require negotiation with CN over pretty much the entire route?

Ottawa-Montreal is 187km according to the VIA timetable, and is scheduled for 105-135min trips, some of which can probably be accounted for by the lack of full double tracking. The initial goal should be to progressively reduce that to say 90 minutes using existing 160km/h equipment - 124km/h journey speed. It would likely require continuation of the existing passing track expansions and fixes of speed restrictions but I don't think it's unreasonable. At that point demand should have risen by the enhanced service (and maybe an extra rotation) to the point where further enhancements are not just accepted by the public but demanded.

The idea here is that electrification could wait until the entire right of way was built to high speed standards, except for in the cities where commuter train networks would benefit immediately from the electrification. Although, there could be a rationale for electrifying from Montreal to Ottawa first. Much of the right of way on a combined CN Alexandria Sub-CP Mainline alignment is dead straight, and barring this, the terrain through here is very flat.

One thing that is really important and thing should be looked at now is the standardization of voltage for trains along the Windsor-Quebec corridor. Is there a standard voltage? It would not be ideal to have to modify engines after the fact.

Here is what I am thinking in terms of staging:
1) Electrify key commuter rail lines in the corridor (Georgetown/Kitchener, Lakeshore, Veaudreuil)
2) Upgrade Build the track between Dorion and Kingston to 300km/h+ Standard
3) Electrify track from Ottawa to Montreal
4) Upgrade/Build new track from Kingston to Toronto, Montreal to Quebec to 300km/h+ Standard
5) Electrify from Ottawa to Toronto

Another open question: between Toronto and London which cities should a Windsor-Quebec High Speed line hit? Hamilton? Kitchener?

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

The idea here is that electrification could wait until the entire right of way was built to high speed standards, except for in the cities where commuter train networks would benefit immediately from the electrification. Although, there could be a rationale for electrifying from Montreal to Ottawa first. Much of the right of way on a combined CN Alexandria Sub-CP Mainline alignment is dead straight, and barring this, the terrain through here is very flat.

One thing that is really important and thing should be looked at now is the standardization of voltage for trains along the Windsor-Quebec corridor. Is there a standard voltage? It would not be ideal to have to modify engines after the fact.

Here is what I am thinking in terms of staging:
1) Electrify key commuter rail lines in the corridor (Georgetown/Kitchener, Lakeshore, Veaudreuil)
2) Upgrade Build the track between Dorion and Kingston to 300km/h+ Standard
3) Electrify track from Ottawa to Montreal
4) Upgrade/Build new track from Kingston to Toronto, Montreal to Quebec to 300km/h+ Standard
5) Electrify from Ottawa to Toronto

Another open question: between Toronto and London which cities should a Windsor-Quebec High Speed line hit? Hamilton? Kitchener?

My own thoughts on how it should be phased.

1. Ensure that any work required to run HS trains on Toronto and Montreal inner city networks is started. I would also include an upgraded line from Hamilton to Niagara Falls that could support speed of 200 km/h (the maximum for classic lines). This phase would also include a Pearson to Kitchener HSL segment and a MCC to Hamilton HSL segment. These two would be the first to operate and would be ideal for testing equipment, infrastructure and services before larger parts open. Pearson would have a station modelled on the Schiphol station and line.

2. Toronto/Montreal/Ottawa triangle. The route would essentially be the same as currently exists. A line along the lake and river from Toronto to Montreal, a line from Brockville to Ottawa and Ottawa to Montreal. It will erve the most people and there could opportunities to increase service too. With the exception of the Ottawa to Montreal line, which could possibley open earlier, it would all open up at once, saving the trouble of operating two different services along some routes.

3. Kitchener to London and Hamilton (really Aldershot) to London. Serve all existing communities along the way. May seem redundant having two routes to London but both serve a lot of people in between and are pretty much equally valid. At this point Niagara to Toronto service with HS equipment on an upgraded line would have begun.

4. Montreal to Quebec. Could open before the above phase but given the known soil difficulties it may just take more time to build. North shore route serving Trois Rivieres plus perhaps Jean Lesage airport (its along the way anyways and not off the path, possible suburban station) and perhaps one or two Montreal suburban stations.

5. London to Windsor. Not challenging but least important segment. Connections with the US could be considered but that is tough to say with so many factors at play.

I wont debate specific corridors, there are o many factors at play to determine them and the general public doe not have access to kind of information to realisitcally determine them.

Also, there would likely be multiple phases to how trains enter inner cites (though very little if anything would change in Ottawa...at least for some time). Toronto for example would probably start with an HSL connecting with Lakeshore somewhere east of Oshawa. In time another HSL segment could be built that would bring trains in on their corridor as far as the Stoufeville line then using that commuter line, saving time by cutting 20 or 30 kms of slower, commuter rail use. Some trains could still use Lakeshore offering access across more parts of the city.
And yes this plan is super comprehensive and includes service to a lot of places, but, with proper planning and design it could still be done for a relatively reasonable amount and for not a lot more than what far less comprehensive plans have proposed.

 

[kEiThZ]

There seem to me to be three obvious options:

(1) Northern route that bypasses Kingston entirely. This would be a more or less straight line between Toronto and Ottawa, likely with stops in Peterborough and Carlton Place. Large sections of this route would likely run parallel to the Gatineau Hydro Corridor. Peterborough gains from this option, but otherwise this option provides the least local coverage, but provides the fastest Toronto-Ottawa trip time.
(2) Straight line from Toronto to Kingston roughly parallel to Highway 401, then straight line from Kingston to Ottawa more or less parallel to Highway 15 (likely with a stop at Smiths Falls), then straight line from Ottawa to Montreal.
(3) Waterfront route from Toronto to Montreal roughly parallel to Highway 401 with stops at Cobourg, Belleville, Kingston, Brockville and Cornwall, plus a spur to Ottawa roughly parallel to Highway 417 with a possible stop in Kemptville. This serves the largest number of smaller cities, but provides relatively poor Ottawa-Montreal times, though still faster than the existing railway.

Of those I think 1 is politically unfeasible. Imagine trying to sell a service that's essentailly Toronto-Ottawa and bypasses Kingston, a relatively large urban centre in this corridor, a university town and a military town to boot (and that too a military town of strategic importance incurring lots of government business travel already).

Of the latter two, option 3 is the easiest sell. This is why I vote for this one. Yes, it might not be of the biggest benefit to Ottawa. But it would avoid years of political fights and would win the support of every MP and MPP and MNA along the corridor.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

Of those I think 1 is politically unfeasible. Imagine trying to sell a service that's essentailly Toronto-Ottawa and bypasses Kingston, a relatively large urban centre in this corridor, a university town and a military town to boot (and that too a military town of strategic importance incurring lots of government business travel already).

Of the latter two, option 3 is the easiest sell. This is why I vote for this one. Yes, it might not be of the biggest benefit to Ottawa. But it would avoid years of political fights and would win the support of every MP and MPP and MNA along the corridor.

Not only would a northern bypass be quite expensive but Ottawa's gain would Montreals lose. Given Montreal is 3 or 4 times the size of Ottawa 20 minutes extra on a Toronto-Ottawa trip to have service to the lakeshore and St Lawrence communities and the fatest travel time between Montreal and Toronto makes total sense.
You can never have a network that serves everyone as fast as possible and though compromise should be avoided in most cases this is one of the few times where a trade off is fine.

 

[reaperexpress]

Not only would a northern bypass be quite expensive but Ottawa's gain would Montreals lose. Given Montreal is 3 or 4 times the size of Ottawa 20 minutes extra on a Toronto-Ottawa trip to have service to the lakeshore and St Lawrence communities and the fatest travel time between Montreal and Toronto makes total sense.
You can never have a network that serves everyone as fast as possible and though compromise should be avoided in most cases this is one of the few times where a trade off is fine.

It might make sense, but as kEiThZ said, it's politically impossible. Remember that politics and logic definitely not the same thing.

Not only would we never be able to build a railway bypassing everything, but such a line would also have less benefit anyway. You can't just assume that since Montreal is 3 or 4 times larger than Ottawa that it will have 3 or 4 times as much demand. In general, smaller cities such as Kingston and London will have higher demand per capita, because on average, people will be closer to the station, and air travel is far less competitive than it is in large cities.

I think we shouldn't be so concerned about being ultra-fast, but instead we should look at the broader picture.

In terms of maximum competitiveness, I think cost is more of an issue than speed. As it is, it's just as fast to take a VIA express train from Toronto to Montreal as it is to fly. All it takes is a small improvement in speed to tip the scales in favour of VIA. On the other hand, to compete with the automobile, cost is the biggest issue, since VIA is already significantly faster than a car. Building a line non-stop from Montreal to Toronto would be very expensive to build and operate because it would require more km of new high speed track, and require more use of CN tracks even after a VIA HSR line is built. I think the biggest bang for the buck (or km/h for the dollar) would be to build short (~100km) high speed lines between the large and medium sized cities. (Windsor - London, London - Brantford, London - Kitchener, Oshawa - Kingston, Kingston - Dorval, Kingston - Ottawa, Ottawa - Dorval, Saint Hyacinthe - Quebec) Additionally, we get the most bang for the buck (km/h per passenger per dollar) from a line between Oshawa and Kingston. Toronto-Kingston is the busiest section of the Corridor, yet it is full of small-radius curves. The rest of the rail alignments in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal seem acceptable, so there should be some significant time savings just from that segment.

An HSR line with stops (local trains only, obviously) in all the cities in the corridor would help bring these cities' downtowns back to life. The stations would be major municipal and regional transit hubs and would increase desirability in their vicinity. I think our medium-sized cities have the potential to become walkable and transit-oriented (think Utrecht, Netherlands) on a level that Toronto cannot, due to its sheer size.