kEiThZ
Superstar
No. Conventional HSR.
Link? All I can find is the Hyperloop proposals.
That's insane if they think there's a business case for HSR between two metros of 1.3 million that are 300 km apart (centre to centre) in Alberta.
No. Conventional HSR.
Still private alas. Demand is significant because Calgary and Edmonton aren't near anywhere else. So in Ontario where demand from Toronto is split between Niagara, Detroit, Buffalo, London, Waterloo, Guelph, Sarnia and Windsor, for Calgary, it is really just Edmonton.Link? All I can find is the Hyperloop proposals.
That's insane if they think there's a business case for HSR between two metros of 1.3 million that are 300 km apart (centre to centre) in Alberta.
The feasibility study looked at 8 round trips, plus 3 commuter runs from Cochrane. The inclusion of the airport link would change that significantly.
No. Conventional HSR.
Between 15-20 trains on single track CPR, and about the same on the much less direct single track CN route. Neither have capacity for speed or frequency for passenger rail. VIA ran on CPR for years, but reliability was poor, speed wasn't even competitive with the bus and the route directly parrallelled the highway and the Greyhound route, so they switched to CN to try to serve non-served towns but reliability kept getting worse, then the route was cancelled.What is the existing daily traffic on the existing freight lines between Calgary and Edmonton?
HS&FRHSR or HFR, pick one.
Still private alas. Demand is significant because Calgary and Edmonton aren't near anywhere else. So in Ontario where demand from Toronto is split between Niagara, Detroit, Buffalo, London, Waterloo, Guelph, Sarnia and Windsor, for Calgary, it is really just Edmonton.
Here is committee testimony on it:
View attachment 291403
Between 15-20 trains on single track CPR, and about the same on the much less direct single track CN route. Neither have capacity for speed or frequency for passenger rail. VIA ran on CPR for years, but reliability was poor, speed wasn't even competitive with the bus and the route directly parrallelled the highway and the Greyhound route, so they switched to CN to try to serve non-served towns but reliability kept getting worse, then the route was cancelled.
HS&FR
The land is much better for railroad building tbh (no blasting, gravel available everywhere), and with property ownership and roads being on a grid, you don't need a lot of it even with a brand new corridor. Still relevant, while wounded Calgary and Edmonton still have higher average incomes than all other potential corridors, plus the population is still growing.This was in 2013. Is it still relevant today? I thought this was all fed into the various studies the Government of Alberta did.
I'll be happy if something like this can happen and I've long maintained that they probably have a case as good as Toronto-Kitchener-London or Ottawa-Montreal or Montreal-Quebec City. But what has me skeptical is that Calgary-Edmonton is longer than all of these making the costs higher and the business cases tighter, even if there is higher traffic.
Yes, with a full rebuild, and lots of high speed crossovers, and some triple sections. CPR figures they can do mixed operations with passenger service up to 200 kph. Costs are around 65% of greenfield.Would doubling the CP track be enough to fit the frequency in?
Various studies have had different model frequencies - usually with service plans starting at 10 or 11 trains in each direction over 16 hours.There are HSR routes that aren't also frequent?
Various studies have had different model frequencies - usually with service plans starting at 10 or 11 trains in each direction over 16 hours.
You'd be surprised (I'm quoting from the Winter 2019/20 schedule, i.e. pre-CoVid):There are HSR routes that aren't also frequent?
HSR route | Segment | Frequencies (per day and direction) |
---|---|---|
Barcelona-Perpignan(-Montpellier) | Barcelona-Perpignan (177 km, double-tracked) | 4 (Summer: 7) |
Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona | Zaragoza-Huesca branch (80 km, single-tracked) | 1-2 (1xdaily + 1xFrSu) |
Köln-Frankfurt | Wiesbaden branch (13 km, double-tracked) | 2 (no weekend service) |
You'd be surprised (I'm quoting from the Winter 2019/20 schedule, i.e. pre-CoVid
Agreed for Huesca and Wiesbaden, but not for Barcelona-Perpignan, which is a HSR line by itself (only slightly shorter than Montreal-Ottawa or Toronto-London) and used by trains originating in either Madrid or Barcelona and terminating at either Paris, Lyon, Marseilles or Toulouse.This feels like one of "technically correct...." answers. All those examples are branches or stops. That's very different from discussing frequency on the main line itself (which is what I would think Calgary-Edmonton would be).
I couldn’t agree more that any HSR line which doesn’t support at least hourly service is a pure commercial failure and it’s not a coincidence that such a low-frequency HSR line exists in Spain of all countries (given what a miserable economic failure HSR in Spain is), but I simply wanted to highlight the existence of HSR lines which are anything but high-frequency...It's a bit strange to plan a Calgary-Edmonton HSR line at anything less than hourly. How would they expect to compete with WestJet and AC?
I'll be happy if something like this can happen and I've long maintained that they probably have a case as good as Toronto-Kitchener-London or Ottawa-Montreal or Montreal-Quebec City. But what has me skeptical is that Calgary-Edmonton is longer than all of these making the costs higher and the business cases tighter, even if there is higher traffic.