Allandale25
Senior Member
I guess I just meant his overall disappointment that there's a lack of movement on HSR (aka the below), and he's annoyed by the current government and VIA keep talking about the HFR plan.
Last edited:
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
I guess I just meant his overall disappointment that there's a lack of movement on HSR (aka the below), and he's annoyed by the current government and VIA keep talking about the HFR plan.
crs1026
Superstar
A very good point, and one that anyone proposing GO service towards Peterboro should keep in mind. HFR 1.0 will have ample capacity for HFR trains, and that will serve Peterboro just fine....but adding GO trains that serve intermediate stations on top of HFR would necessitate adding more track.
- Paul
kEiThZ
Superstar
kEiThZ
Superstar
Just a reminder that the Chargers come prepared for dual mode operation. That was a condition of the contract. It's not hard to electrify this fleet.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Very true, but I don't think that's a problem. If a project is created to bring GO service to Peterborough, then that project would be responsible for funding the remainder of the double track. With the extra train volumes, full double track would indeed be justified, especially given the speed differentials between GO and VIA.
kEiThZ
Superstar
This is why I am asking about double tracking. One could argue that Toronto-Peterborough and Ottawa-Montreal should be double tracked at launch to enable local service that is sure to be required in short order.
crs1026
Superstar
I wonder if these enhancements are even covered by the JPO/EA work. I'm betting not, just because it's added scope and cost ,when the intent is lowest possible initial cost. I'm hopeful that the initial envelope will fund sufficient sidings, but as noted above even sidings are not cheap.Let's hope that the initial product hasn't been value-engineered too far.
And, while everything seems rosy on the surface, I have to wonder what pass-the-hat discussions happen between ML and VIA. One should not expect VIA to build a second track for ML, any more than one should expect VIA to have free use of all ML's expanded corridors without chipping in for the capital cost of those. I'm sure the CIB would be asking pointed questions about who is paying for what.
- Paul
roger1818
Senior Member
Do they? AFAIK, the contract was that there needed to be an upgrade path for electrification. IIRC (and please prove me wrong if you have evidence to the contrary), Siemens plan was that should electrification be necessary, the Chargers could be replaced with electric locomotives.
Do you really think that we will see more than 2 trains an hour along the Alexandria Sub any time soon? IMHO, we are more likely to see an upgrade to HSR before that. Long sidings can be converted to double track relatively easily when it becomes necessary. With single track and long sidings, the expensive bits (like bridges) can be done later.
I would actually have more concern about the Smiths Falls Sub as it will likely be shared by both HFR and the Kingston regional service.
robmausser
Senior Member
Lol, I love the logic that a plan as simple as HFR is infeasible so that a bullet train proposal is somehow doable?
That would be like saying "sorry kids, we cant afford to rent a van to drive to Disneyland this year, so instead I got us a private jet!!"
SFO-YYZ
Active Member
I think at this point, any self-respecting politician/engineer/transport planner would have tuned out this one man shop. He literally doesn't add any value to the discussion on how we can feasibly improve the overall intercity rail experience, except spamming people on Twitter and random online forums every 2 days screaming "Chinese HSR! TGV! Shinkansen NOW!!" Oh and the occasional self promoting interview with sensationalist tabloids like Toronto Sun. It literally sounds like a PR strategy conceived by a 5 year old.
Last edited:
Allandale25
Senior Member
^ Just out of curiosity, who is Paul? Does he have any rail industry experience? Is he retired and has lots of time on his hands?
reaperexpress
Senior Member
The transport advocates may know, but unfortunately the media isn't familiar with who's reputable and who's a nutcase. While the Sun has a particularly low bar when it comes to fact checking, you see similar problems with all sorts of media. Like how newspaper articles will often include a quote from TTCRiders as if they were an organisation who actually understands the issues they comment on.
roger1818
Senior Member
Federal budget earmarks money for next steps in high-frequency rail project through Peterborough - Peterborough | Globalnews.ca
The federal budget is proposing $491.2 million over six years to VIA Rail for infrastructure investments to support its high-frequency rail project from Toronto to Quebec City.
globalnews.ca
afransen
Senior Member
It will, to an extent. But as EV adoption grows that influence will weaken.
Darwinkgo
Active Member
Yeah of course. The negative externalities of cars really drops like a rock once its electric. Certainly will have to figure out a new way to fund operations, maintenance and renewal. Plus will always have the demand problem where the incremental user puts way more costs on other road users than the benefits they recieve (the economics of congestion).
It will take some time for language to adjust around how urbanites talk about cars. It will be sorta like over last decade as people's rhetoric shifted away from oil crisis/end of suburbia.
For VIA it is about pure geometry! One VIA train = so many cars off the road. HFR = not building an incremental lane each way on the 401/416/417. HFR = less urban congestion, etc.