VIA Rail

[DSCToronto]

The mid-size cities would have stations on the line. We don't exactly need lots of "local services" in the boonies because there are not a lot of reasonably sized towns other then the ones we would have directly on the line. They only have all those local lines because there is a high density of small towns and villages. But that should not stop us from providing this service between a few major cities because the lack of tiny villages will not actually impact ridership very much.

Of course you can have both but too often the discussion is one or the other. Many mid-sized European cities do not have HSR stops but they DO have frequent service to the nearest HSR node. Do we have enough population density to support this?, I am not sure but it is certainly possible (and desirable) for many places. Of course, at some point HSR could be so frequent that 'local trains' could not use the same rails but we are a long way from that!

 

[crs1026]

was hfr a single track line? i was under the impression the plan was always to double track and upgrade the existing line?
aside from montreal and ottawa which towns have sharp curves incompatible with hsr?

The assumption is that it will be double tracked no?

Not necessarily. The vanilla HFR contemplated single track, it seems. That's not unreasonable if speeds are improved because it's a fair distance between meeting points.. The current Brockville-Ottawa line fares not badly with single track. But clearly there is a limit on frequency with single track as the number of meeting points and the number of times each train has to take a siding increases..

The other major cost differential between the two is grade separation. A major selling point of vanilla HFR was there was no need to grade separate the route. HSR would require total grade separation, even the smallest crossings..

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

was hfr a single track line? i was under the impression the plan was always to double track and upgrade the existing line?
aside from montreal and ottawa which towns have sharp curves incompatible with hsr?

The assumption is that it will be double tracked no?

The old VIA HST plans from the 1980s were single-tracked (with long sidings for high-speed passing). I doubt they'd spend money for double-tracking the entire thing - though I'd assume new structures would allow for expansion.

I don't think we've ever officially seen the details. As far as I know, we don't even know the final decision on how to enter Toronto and Montreal!

 

[Northern Light]

I don't think we've ever officially seen the details. As far as I know, we don't even know the final decision on how to enter Toronto

It will almost certainly be via CPKC mainline to the Don Branch and down.

and Montreal!

I am told, high-level study (not formal) is under way for a completely new tunnel to Gare Centrale, since REM poached the old one.

I personally think CDPQ ought to have to pay for the whole damned thing......since they made that necessary.

Oh wait, they may yet.......

 

[nfitz]

It will almost certainly be via CPKC mainline to the Don Branch and down.

I'd think so - and a better alignment than going up Stouffville. I'd think the Stouffville option was sterilized after the Ontario government changed the new subway alignment to use up the space along the Kingston Sub between the Don and Pape that VIA had always planned to use for their rail.

(and of course I suspect the GO announcement to have had found other options than putting the new yard in the Don wasn't because they'd suddenly found a better option, but that the feds wanted the Don Branch)

I am told, high-level study (not formal) is under way for a completely new tunnel to Gare Centrale, since REM poached the old one.

JFC.

I wonder if they leave enough capacity for other commuter rail. If they use a different alignment they could line up perfectly into Parc station and the Parc sub.

If they are willing to blow that much, they should find a way to improve access into Central Station from Ottawa. I guess it's too late to bulldoze all the redevelopment along the old route through Lionel-Groulx. There's always the old tunnel option if they come in on the CP line from Dorion. Build new platforms at Central on an alignment to curve northwest to Parc.

 

[roger1818]

Of course you can have both but too often the discussion is one or the other. Many mid-sized European cities do not have HSR stops but they DO have frequent service to the nearest HSR node. Do we have enough population density to support this?, I am not sure but it is certainly possible (and desirable) for many places. Of course, at some point HSR could be so frequent that 'local trains' could not use the same rails but we are a long way from that!

Its probably less about population and more about ridership. At this point, we have less of a train culture and it will take time for that to change (possibly a generation). As service improves, more people use the train, and there will be more willingness to spend money on even better service. We don't need HSR for that to happen, we need trains that are reasonably fast, frequent and reliable (though probably in the opposite order).

 

[reaperexpress]

I'd think so - and a better alignment than going up Stouffville. I'd think the Stouffville option was sterilized after the Ontario government changed the new subway alignment to use up the space along the Kingston Sub between the Don and Pape that VIA had always planned to use for their rail.

(and of course I suspect the GO announcement to have had found other options than putting the new yard in the Don wasn't because they'd suddenly found a better option, but that the feds wanted the Don Branch)

When was VIA ever going to have dedicated tracks in the Kingston Sub? The Stouffville option presumably wouldn't include any new rail infra between Agincourt and Union, VIA trains would just share the GO tracks. The main infrastructure challenge in that option is just to build the junction itself:

This has the side benefit of allowing VIA to also use electric traction through Toronto.

By my estimates, the Don option and Stouffville option would have about the same travel time. I prefer the Stouffville option because Kennedy Station has enormously more connectivity than a new station halfway between Science Centre and Eglinton-Leslie stations.

 

[DSCToronto]

Its probably less about population and more about ridership. At this point, we have less of a train culture and it will take time for that to change (possibly a generation). As service improves, more people use the train, and there will be more willingness to spend money on even better service. We don't need HSR for that to happen, we need trains that are reasonably fast, frequent and reliable (though probably in the opposite order).

I, rather clumsily, equated population with ridership. You are right, you can have far more people than riders but some of the non-riders can be attracted with good service.

 

[roger1818]

I, rather clumsily, equated population with ridership. You are right, you can have far more people than riders but some of the non-riders can be attracted with good service.

I never said they wouldn’t, only that it will take time for ridership per population to come up to counties which have traditionally had better rail service.

 

[crs1026]

When was VIA ever going to have dedicated tracks in the Kingston Sub? The Stouffville option presumably wouldn't include any new rail infra between Agincourt and Union, VIA trains would just share the GO tracks. The main infrastructure challenge in that option is just to build the junction itself:

This has the side benefit of allowing VIA to also use electric traction through Toronto.

By my estimates, the Don option and Stouffville option would have about the same travel time. I prefer the Stouffville option because Kennedy Station has enormously more connectivity than a new station halfway between Science Centre and Eglinton-Leslie stations.

There are merits to both routes. Admittedly the Don route has less potential for a good transfer point, and it is the higher cost option as VIA would likely have to bridge the Don on a very expensive bridge parallelling the CP line.

The dropping of the plan for a GO upper Don yard, plus ML's return to a level junction at Scarborough Jct, makes me think that VIA has tipped its hand in favour of the Don route. If so, it may be moot.

If they did go up the GO route, I would add the cost of expropriating those industrial buildings inside the curve - not the priciest real estate to buy, in the scope of a project of that size - to make the curve wider and a little faster. Also I would add a flyunder to bring the tracks to the north of the CP line to avoid a level crossover of the CP freight line.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

When was VIA ever going to have dedicated tracks in the Kingston Sub?

I doubt they would have been dedicated - I never said that. But if you go back to the 1980s reports, there'd be more tracks installed.

 

[reaperexpress]

I doubt they would have been dedicated - I never said that. But if you go back to the 1980s reports, there'd be more tracks installed.

More than 4? And what would the utility of those tracks be, if they only go as far as Pape?

 

[nfitz]

More than 4? And what would the utility of those tracks be, if they only go as far as Pape?

The subway is only running along the GO tracks as far as Pape Avenue, before entering a tunnel. There's nothing stopping a 5th and even a 6th track being added from there, eastward. Well, except for a lot of money for overpasses, grading, retaining walls, etc.

Though that would create a bottleneck between Gerrard station and East Harbour station.

 

[ericmacm]

Not sure if this is the right thread, but…

Does anyone know why the hell there is an entry in ConstructConnect from MTO for a $15B pre-design bid for a Windsor-Toronto HSR project? It was last updated in February 2023. The dollar value does not align with the original 2017 HSR proposal, which was estimated to be $21B.

 

[kEiThZ]

TBH, I don't disagree with what he is actually saying. If the choice is have HSR or serve communities like "Laval, Trois-Rivières. or Peterborough" then I would say lets do HFR. If we can do both then great. One thing a lot of HSR zealotsadvocates here in North America fail to realize is that in most countries with HSR, it supplements frequent, intercity service, not replace it. Building a fast, frequent and reliable intercity service is a good stepping stone to HSR and leapfrogging over it won't serve us well.

Nobody really disagrees with him saying those cities have to be served. It's the idea that HSR can't be done because those cities have to be served that is the problem. I think he's just being dishonest about not wanting to spend the money and trying to make it look like a technical feasibility or efficiency issue.