Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study

[dunkalunk]

Just because a line is not built to high speed standards, doesn't mean that we can't electrify, and improve signalizing (thereby relaxing transport Canada's weight standards) on other sections of track to allow non-high speed sections to run trains quicker.

I also think that we should be comparing any proposed high speed line to the service that already exists. It could be that even with an additional 10-20 minutes tacked onto the trip to pass near Ottawa, That not all trains would have to stop in Ottawa, but those that do would help create more trips on the line. Any high speed rail service running between Toronto and Montreal would be much quicker than what exists today, and noone would lose from this.

I guess we'll just have to wait until the report goes public to know for sure, but past proposals have rationalized routing through Ottawa, some even crossing the Ottawa river at Gatineau. Don't forget that Ottawa-Gatineau has a population base of ~1 250 000 compared with ~250 000 for the thousand islands area, and these communities could still be served with the existing local rail service, or even DMUs if they wanted to increase frequency.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

The big thing about just upgrading existing corridors (and by that I mean electrifying and adding tracks right next to the existing lines) i that you will spend a lot of money for relatively little improvment. At best some section might hit 200 km/h but since many can support 160 km/h as it is this isnt much of an improvment. What VIA is doing now is abour right, add sidings and additional track to reduce bottlenecks and just keep exisitng rolling stock in good shape.

By the time you electrify and create what would essentially be one or two dedicated passenger rail tracks throughout each section of the corridor you are allready approaching at least half, if not a bit, of the cost of a brand new HSR network. And for what...40 km/h more and still sharing a corridor with freight? It would be a terrible waste of money; I know I wouldnt support it.

Yes true HSR is big and bold and expensive but its also pretty awesome and is not just a small change, it a radical change, especially with a properly designed network. If it hasnt been politically viable its because no plans have been good enough (and all the previous plans were pretty flawed). Sometimes bigger is better. This is the case here and if people really want HSR I say get thinking and develop something radical, worthwhile and inspiring.

Edit: I also think its important to note that HSR is not a one size fits all model. Context is key. Adopting a straight European model in Canada is not going to work. A great example is the HSR fiasco in the Netherlands. They ignored key differences in consumer preference and urban spatial patterns. They developed a network connecting a few major cities without any connections to the rest of the Dutch railway network. Issues with new HS emu's aside it is suffering badly because of this. Additional supplements for the higher speed service also proved much too high and only since they have made the high speed service just a few euros more have they started to get the expected number of passengers. Without a Canadian context taken into account HSR will probably never get off the ground (this include things like serving smaller centres, metro suburban areas, the proper customer service model, pricing, connections to departure and arrival stations, the weather, etc)

 

[reaperexpress]

The big thing about just upgrading existing corridors (and by that I mean electrifying and adding tracks right next to the existing lines) i that you will spend a lot of money for relatively little improvment. At best some section might hit 200 km/h but since many can support 160 km/h as it is this isnt much of an improvment. What VIA is doing now is about right, add sidings and additional track to reduce bottlenecks and just keep exisitng rolling stock in good shape.

Upgrading a line to 200km/h can still make a big difference in average speed. Again, it comes down to km/h per dollar. For example, what would you propose between Sarnia and London? We could fairly easily build a high speed line, but demand there probably doesn't warrant spending a billion dollars on such a line. We could get three quarters the average speed at one tenth the cost by fixing up the tracks and electrifying the line (I assume that by the time we're concerned about Sarnia the rest of the corridor would already be electric).

By the time you electrify and create what would essentially be one or two dedicated passenger rail tracks throughout each section of the corridor you are allready approaching at least half, if not a bit, of the cost of a brand new HSR network. And for what...40 km/h more and still sharing a corridor with freight? It would be a terrible waste of money; I know I wouldnt support it.

We definitely need to focus on constructing dedicated tracks for the reasons you stated, the question is to what level.

Here are my hypothetical segments from Toronto to Montreal.
95mph: until past Oshawa
190mph: High speed line until a bit before Kingston
~70mph: through Kingston
190mph: High speed line to the outskirts of Montreal
100mph through greater Montreal

Slowing down from 300km/h to 120km/h for a short bit won't have much an impact on average speed on trains bypassing Kingston, and will make absolutely no difference for the majority of trains, which would be stopping there anyway. Why spend hundreds of millions of dollars to save a couple minutes here when you could spend those hundreds of millions elsewhere? In order to maximize the chance of something as large as this ever being built, we need to make it as cheap as possible.

Yes true HSR is big and bold and expensive but its also pretty awesome and is not just a small change, it a radical change, especially with a properly designed network. If it hasnt been politically viable its because no plans have been good enough (and all the previous plans were pretty flawed). Sometimes bigger is better. This is the case here and if people really want HSR I say get thinking and develop something radical, worthwhile and inspiring.

I'm not denying that true HSR is awesome, but based on Canada's history of failed attempts at High Speed Rail, I think we should aim at something achievable. Keep in mind that the government won't spend a lot of money unless it pleases a lot of voters. Presented with a 20 billion dollar project such as yours, they will look at the benefits and decide it's not worth it. Although I'd love a system like those in Europe and Asia, I'll take a high speed train that has to slow down to 160km/h occasionally to a train that can't ever go above 160km/h to begin with.

 

[Markster]

I also think that we should be comparing any proposed high speed line to the service that already exists. It could be that even with an additional 10-20 minutes tacked onto the trip to pass near Ottawa, That not all trains would have to stop in Ottawa, but those that do would help create more trips on the line. Any high speed rail service running between Toronto and Montreal would be much quicker than what exists today, and no one would lose from this.

Thank you!

The St Laurence river route with a "spur" to Ottawa means spending billions extra on 100s of km of track and halving the number of trains to/from Canada's 4th largest metro all so that people from Toronto and Montreal can save an extra 22 minutes on a service that will be 2 and a half hours faster than it currently is. If you really need sleep that badly, then we can run a super-express on the line and go direct from Montreal to Toronto. This route will only be 12 minutes longer, and billions cheaper.

 

[rbt]

If you really need sleep that badly...

then we can make the trip take 10 hours and add a couple of sleeper cars saving many many billions

 

[reaperexpress]

then we can make the trip take 10 hours and add a couple of sleeper cars saving many many billions

Except we already did that and it wasn't successful.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

Upgrading a line to 200km/h can still make a big difference in average speed. Again, it comes down to km/h per dollar. For example, what would you propose between Sarnia and London? We could fairly easily build a high speed line, but demand there probably doesn't warrant spending a billion dollars on such a line. We could get three quarters the average speed at one tenth the cost by fixing up the tracks and electrifying the line (I assume that by the time we're concerned about Sarnia the rest of the corridor would already be electric).

Except it isnt that cheap too just fix up the tracks and electrify a line. Electrification is roughly $2 million per kilometer per track (dropping a little bit per track with each additional track). Depending on how bad the existing tracks are you could be looking at another $1 or 2 million per track per kilometer. Upgrading a double tracked section would run $6 to 8 million depending on the condtion of the track. This doesn't take into account any necessary infrastructure to eliminate at grade crossings and/or to change the geometry on tighter curves.

The average cost for true HSL through mimimum to medium difficulty terrain and including the costs of engineering works and stations roughly every 60 km is about $14 million per kilometer. For most of the corridor it doesnt make sense to just upgrade. You have to start from cratch which is more expensive but provides far greater benefit for the money that is spent. As for the London to Sarnia section, who knows. That is realisticaly at least 20 years off and what to do about centres off the main line would be dealt with when the time comes.

Half the cost for 90% of the effect? Sounds like a deal to me. We're not talking 40km/h here. Let's look at the hypothetical segments from Toronto to Montreal:
95mph: until past Oshawa
190mph: High speed line until a bit before Kingston
~70mph: through Kingston
190mph: High speed line to the outskirts of Montreal
100mph through greater Montreal

Slowing down from 300km/h to 120km/h for a short bit won't have much an impact on average speed on trains bypassing Kingston, and will make absolutely no difference for the majority of trains, which will be stopping there. Why spend hundreds of millions of dollars to save a couple minutes here when you could spend those hundreds of millions elsewhere? In order to maximize the chance of something as large as this ever being built, we need to make it as cheap as possible.

But all the 300km/h segments would have to be all new right of ways (whether they are next to rail or highway or hydro or in an all new corridor is irrelevant) and contruction. The rails are different, the sleepers are different, the ballast thicker, geometries radically different. Really other than your proposal slowing down in Kingston we are talking about the same thing. Upgrading and electrifying exisitng railway tracks and corridors so that perhaps 200 km/h would be achievable would be at least half the costs. What you proposed is all out HSR but saving some money on a slower Kingston section.

I'm not denying that true HSR is awesome. But no one said true HSR can only stop at large cities. Besides, I'll take a high speed train that has to slow down to 160km/h occasionally to a train that can't ever go above 160km/h to begin with.

Giving VIA a billion to make improvments to improve efficiency is fine. But if your going to start spending much more than that, make it worth while. When the 401 and other freeways began to be built, they didnt go small. Freeways where a radical new way to travel with a car faster. They built big. Its the same moment for rail and I dont think anything less than the same leap forward should accepted.

 

[reaperexpress]

Edit: I also think its important to note that HSR is not a one size fits all model. Context is key. Adopting a straight European model in Canada is not going to work. A great example is the HSR fiasco in the Netherlands. They ignored key differences in consumer preference and urban spatial patterns. They developed a network connecting a few major cities without any connections to the rest of the Dutch railway network. Issues with new HS emu's aside it is suffering badly because of this. Additional supplements for the higher speed service also proved much too high and only since they have made the high speed service just a few euros more have they started to get the expected number of passengers. Without a Canadian context taken into account HSR will probably never get off the ground (this include things like serving smaller centres, metro suburban areas, the proper customer service model, pricing, connections to departure and arrival stations, the weather, etc)

I agree entirely. The Netherlands High Speed fiasco is precisely the example I don't want us to emulate: they spent billions on what is essentially a premium service for a small percentage of travelers in the corridor. Even people going to and from stations served by NS Hispeed choose to take the local train, because the cost savings far outweighs the time savings, even though said savings are quite large.
When I was traveling from Rotterdam to Brussels, I could have taken the Thalys and saved 30 min, but the cost was so much more that I decided to just take a regular express train.

To avoid a colossal waste of money here, it is imperative that any Canadian high speed line be designed to benefit as many services as possible.

Except it isnt that cheap too just fix up the tracks and electrify a line. Electrification is roughly $2 million per kilometer per track (dropping a little bit per track with each additional track). Depending on how bad the existing tracks are you could be looking at another $1 or 2 million per track per kilometer. Upgrading a double tracked section would run $6 to 8 million depending on the condtion of the track. This doesn't take into account any necessary infrastructure to eliminate at grade crossings and/or to change the geometry on tighter curves.

The average cost for true HSL through mimimum to medium difficulty terrain and including the costs of engineering works and stations roughly every 60 km is about $14 million per kilometer. For most of the corridor it doesnt make sense to just upgrade. You have to start from cratch which is more expensive but provides far greater benefit for the money that is spent. As for the London to Sarnia section, who knows. That is realisticaly at least 20 years off and what to do about centres off the main line would be dealt with when the time comes.

I guess our disagreement arises from cost estimates. I would have expected the cost difference between the two styles of construction to be a lot larger.

That said, I from what I read in the '90s HSR report, Canada would allow up to 200km/h without full grade separation. In the UK there are many level crossings with 200km/h trains. Even the overprotective American safety boards allow level crossings with trains going 180km/h.

But all the 300km/h segments would have to be all new right of ways (whether they are next to rail or highway or hydro or in an all new corridor is irrelevant) and contruction. The rails are different, the sleepers are different, the ballast thicker, geometries radically different. Really other than your proposal slowing down in Kingston we are talking about the same thing. Upgrading and electrifying exisitng railway tracks and corridors so that perhaps 200 km/h would be achievable would be at least half the costs. What you proposed is all out HSR but saving some money on a slower Kingston section.

Correct.

Giving VIA a billion to make improvments to improve efficiency is fine. But if your going to start spending much more than that, make it worth while. When the 401 and other freeways began to be built, they didnt go small. Freeways where a radical new way to travel with a car faster. They built big. Its the same moment for rail and I dont think anything less than the same leap forward should accepted.

I agree with you, but I just don't see how we can convince the government to make the leap and spend tens of billions on an HSR project. I'm just trying to think of ways to cut costs enough that they don't just freak out and abandon the idea.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

Thank you!

The St Laurence river route with a "spur" to Ottawa means spending billions extra on 100s of km of track and halving the number of trains to/from Canada's 4th largest metro all so that people from Toronto and Montreal can save an extra 22 minutes on a service that will be 2 and a half hours faster than it currently is. If you really need sleep that badly, then we can run a super-express on the line and go direct from Montreal to Toronto. This route will only be 12 minutes longer, and billions cheaper.

Except it would be 22 minutes if trains could run through most of Ottawa at top speed. Right now it takes 20 minutes to go from Barrhaven to the main station. God luck sending trains through that section at high speed. You could build a station at the airport as someone suggested but do you think anyone in Ottawa would give up a decent location for a shitty one just for high speed service? Not to mention the extra travel time to the station would really eat away at gains on the Ottawa - Montreal route.

Would anyone accept a 401 that diverted to Ottawa and then to Montreal?

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

I agree entirely. The Netherlands High Speed fiasco is precisely the example I don't want us to emulate: they spent billions on what is essentially a premium service for a small percentage of travelers in the corridor. Even people going to and from stations served by NS Hispeed choose to take the local train, because the cost savings far outweighs the time savings, even though said savings are quite large.
When I was traveling from Rotterdam to Brussels, I could have taken the Thalys and saved 30 min, but the cost was so much more that I decided to just take a regular express train.

To avoid a colossal waste of money here, it is imperative that any Canadian high speed line be designed to benefit as many services as possible.

I guess our disagreement arises from cost estimates. I would have expected the cost difference between the two styles of construction to be a lot larger.

I agree with you, but I just don't see how we can convince the government to make the leap and spend tens of billions on an HSR project. I'm just trying to think of ways to cut costs enough that they don't just freak out and abandon the idea.

The problem is you cant avoid the costs. If you start cutting the budget you end up with something vastly inferior. What you can do is find a way to maximize the value of the network. Really i think that point we agree on.

When the 401 was built they didnt try to build off of highway 2. They started from scratch. In Europe passenger rail networks are so extensive (and electrified) that you can build in a much more incremental way. Not the case here. Existing inter city lines are clogged with freight and not even electrified. You could spend money to make them useful, but whats the point?

Taking advantage of existing and improving inner city networks, important. Saving money by building new infrastructure in exisitng corridors (such as the Alexandria sub between Ottawa and Montreal), makes sense. But like the Netherlands, the most important thing is to develop a plan and network that makes the most of every dollar spent. The Dutch didnt have a problem spending 5 billion euro on 125km of high speed line (yes it was super super expensive, though for a lot of reasons). They had a problem with the fact that probably for an extra billion euro it could have tied into other parts of the network and benefited twice as many people (if not more). Canada is different because we are starting from scratch essentially but the same principal applies. Show Canadians a truely comprehensive and bold plan (and not the schlok that was previous plans) and I would almost guarantee reaction would be a lot different.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

One last post for the night (probably).

Pricing and services are perfect examples of how to make the idea more attractive, and how good network design can play a role.

Serving local stops means overall trip times between major cities are slower (though they would still offer large time savings over even a current express trip). Pricing by time would probably be a very attractive way of attracting customers. The fastest trips would essentially have a premium over what a ticket currently costs (most of the time this is between 10 - 25 percent). Want to get there faster, pay a bit more (lots of people would). But as overall time increases, ticket prices decrease so that budget travellers could save money if they took a train to Montreal that took 3 hours instead of 2 hours and a bit. The cost of the slower ticket would be roughly what you pay now.

Simple idea, but could have a big impact.(Edited for terrible typos)

 

[dunkalunk]

Toronto-Montreal service and Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal have different schedules today, and there is nothing to suggest that they would still would not have differently scheduled service in the future. Not all trains would need to top at the existing train station. Due to Ottawa' greenbelt and suburbanized form, and the congestion on the 417, a lot of people are temporally closer to the airport than they are to the Ottawa Train Station.

Ideally, Ottawa would reconnect its Union Station to track by way of Nicholas Street/Colonel By Drive to allow trains to directly access the core, and then run regional rail between downtown and the airport with cross-platform transfers from high speed trains to airport shuttles. Th existing train station if not exactly ideally located.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

Toronto-Montreal service and Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal have different schedules today, and there is nothing to suggest that they would still would not have differently scheduled service in the future. Not all trains would need to top at the existing train station. Due to Ottawa' greenbelt and suburbanized form, and the congestion on the 417, a lot of people are temporally closer to the airport than they are to the Ottawa Train Station.

Ideally, Ottawa would reconnect its Union Station to track by way of Nicholas Street/Colonel By Drive to allow trains to directly access the core, and then run regional rail between downtown and the airport with cross-platform transfers from high speed trains to airport shuttles. Th existing train station if not exactly ideally located.

The existing station is not perfect, but its not terrible either. With the LRT network U of O, The Byward Market and the CBD/Parliment zone will be a 4-7 minute trip. And yes the Queensway can be busy, but the airport is not much better in terms of access.

Barrhaven did a lot to improve access for those in that area and even for those in Kanata.Its actually a successful station. With the exception of Riverside South an airport station reduces access for almost everyone. And it would be outright terrible if you lived in Gatineau which doesn't have the best access as it is.

Union Station will also never happen. One, recent LRT geotechnical studies show that a tunnel under/next to Nicholas would be difficult and expensive. Two, its a terminus which is more inefficient than a drive through station both in terms of operations and land use. Terminus's need more tracks and platforms to accomodate backing in and out. All this would have to be underground and given the location next to the canal and all the surrounding buildings it would be hugely expensive.

20 years from now when regional rail in Ottawa is starting to grow a tunnel to a downtown station (which could be anywhere downtown) might make sense. For now the current stations are allright. And this comes from someone who has lived in Ottawa-Gatineau for a while now and uses the train frequently.

 

[MisterF]

Even the VIAFast proposal had the mainline going through Ottawa, with new track built from Kingston to Smiths Falls. VIAFast was semi-HSR on the cheap and it still predicted significant time savings and modal share increases going to Montreal. If we build real HSR a bypass could always be built around Ottawa for through trains and the time increase over a St. Lawrence route would be negligible. Not serving a major city with over a million people just to save a dozen minutes makes no sense.

 

[dunkalunk]

I only ever lived in Barrhaven, and the only thing i remember from then is how far it was from everything when I was a passenger in my mom's van. This was before even the transitway was extended there, so I do have to defer to your experience AS.

I would only suggest connecting Union Station back up if the track were run at grade for most of the route. Scenic driveways are not what make a city nice to live in.

And MisterF, I'm with you too on the bypass idea. Any trains destined for Ottawa would use the existing station and trackage, while high speed trackage could be built through the greenbelt. I only proposed the airport station as an opportunity for a stop on that bypass route for codeshared flights. Ottawa Station would still be the main station for the region. A new bridge would need to be built over the Rideau River regardless since the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Bridge is only single track (or is there room for it to be twinned?)