kEiThZ
Superstar
The JPO probably knows.
Last edited:
|
|
|
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
The JPO probably knows.
ManyQuestions
Active Member
IDK how you conclude that from reading the article. Literally everyone interviewed or quoted supported HFR.
Le TGV Montréal-Québec en voie de dérailler?
Des tractations en haut lieu à Ottawa pourraient compromettre le projet de train rapide entre Montréal et Québec.www.journaldemontreal.com
This means HFR is all but dead. RIP. Is everyone ready for another 5 years of studies?
The article really says is that the new infrastructure minister, McKenna, privately supports building a highspeed railway between Montreal and Toronto despite publicly endorsing the VIA HFR plan. However, It also says that the HFR plan was submitted to the government. This seems like really good news for HFR and suggests that the announcement is either being delayed until the budget or they are still deciding on a specific option if the JPO planned several. The only new information from the article is that there are some backroom LPC discussions about HSR. The extra stuff about HSR seems to just be pulled from Langan to give context to the backroom talk.
What I am confused about though is that it seems that despite the subtitle, there is no information about Sabia/infrabank having changed their positions. However, this could likely just be attributed to being a JDM article.....
Last edited:
ManyQuestions
Active Member
Is this based on the the JDM subtitle or is there a different article I missed while being out of the loop for a few weeks?
nfitz
Superstar
It doesn't sound like anything is going to be announced soon. Are we any further ahead than in 1983 when it was hoped there'd be an announcement before the 1984 election?
innsertnamehere
Superstar
To me the article reads that the report refined the HFR proposal to be HSR for Toronto-Montreal and HFR for Montreal - Quebec.
I mean they were already planning 200km/h electrified service - is it hard to believe that they decided a better return came from upping that to 250-300km/h, as they basically need a new construction corridor anyway?
the HFR scheme under via was never fleshed out properly as far as I know, it was very back of the napkin. And costs were way lowballed given the amount of infrastructure needed.
HFRs problem as proposed by VIA was also always that it delivered still terrible travel times for Toronto-Montreal. I mean trains were doing it in 4hrs in the 70’s and 80’s but you are proposing to spend $5b and give use a travel time of 4:45?!
I mean they were already planning 200km/h electrified service - is it hard to believe that they decided a better return came from upping that to 250-300km/h, as they basically need a new construction corridor anyway?
the HFR scheme under via was never fleshed out properly as far as I know, it was very back of the napkin. And costs were way lowballed given the amount of infrastructure needed.
HFRs problem as proposed by VIA was also always that it delivered still terrible travel times for Toronto-Montreal. I mean trains were doing it in 4hrs in the 70’s and 80’s but you are proposing to spend $5b and give use a travel time of 4:45?!
kEiThZ
Superstar
I misunderstood the subtitle.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I think this is unlikely.
Going above 201kph/125 mph requires lots of grade separation which vastly increases the costs.
What is likely that they looked at stretches where they could get speeds closer to 200 kph. And more importantly they looked at where they could remove portions of slow running (<100 kph). Removing slow running sections actually has a greater impact on average speed per dollar than trying to facilitate short burst of very high speed. Keep in mind that an average speed of 150kph would get them from Toronto to Montreal in ~4 hrs. And that's achievable just by enabling stretches of 200 kph running, along with removing sections of very slow running.
As a rough thought exercise, consider that if they can have 300 km where they can run at 200 kph, the rest can be run at 100 kph, and they'd still reach in Montreal in 4 hrs.
Peterborough-Smiths Falls is about 200 km. And Ottawa-Coteau is about 140 km. $3-5B on these two segments would achieve their goals. $1B on the rest of Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal.
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Between Peterborough and Smith Falls is mostly uninhabited Canadian shield with minimal road crossings, with the existing rail corridor being a terrible alignment for even medium speed passenger service. My bet is most of it needs to be new corridor for HFR or HSR - so they figure they may as well go all the way and build HSR for the stretch.
I mean we'll have to see, but my bet is the report penciled out a much higher cost for HFR than Via was claiming, meaning that HSR is a more marginal upgrade cost wise.
Last edited:
SFO-YYZ
Active Member
Key context for folks from Ontario/outside of Quebec.
JDM is the Montreal tabloid equivalent of Toronto Sun.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I updated my post as you were writing you. And to some extent I agree. They need to remove the slowest running portions. And get some stretches where they can run closer to 200 kph/125 mph. The obvious stretches to upgrade are Peterborough-Smiths Falls and Ottawa-Coteau. As documented by @reaperexpress in this article there are plenty of stretches where some minor upgrading could achieve 110 mph/177 kph. It's the 102 km from Kaladar to Smiths Falls that is problematic. It would require a new alignment. Looks like the JPO probably reached the same conclusion too. The thing is they upgrade this stretch 200 kph and they could get Toronto-Ottawa to at or under 2:45 hrs.
Sort of. I think you're right that HFR probably came in more than the initial estimate. But I don't think the HSR came in as marginal so much as HPR came in as marginal. If the only whole new segment they need is 100 km from Kaladar to Smiths Falls and that alone gets the entire TOM line closer to 4 hrs, it becomes worthwhile to spend the extra $1-2B on it. I'm also convinced that they can get Ottawa-Coeau up to 177 kph for most of its length for some reasonable cost ($4-5M per km).
kEiThZ
Superstar
I think the real question is what does going from the old $4B diesel HFR proposal to $6-8B achieve in terms of service, ridership, and return on investment.
Personally, I think full blown 300 kph HSR is useless. It'll be unaffordable to most. Could actually hurt support for further investment if that happens. But there's a trip time-value proposition that most of the public would accept. I would argue that it's current fares for Toronto-Montreal at about 4 hrs. And slightly higher fares (10-20% more) if that trip got down to 3.5 hrs. So I think the question is how much improvement in trip time can they get per dollar invested and what's the point at which marginal return starts dropping quickly? I would guess that's somewhere around $6-8B for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal and $1.5-2B for Montreal-Quebec.
Personally, I think full blown 300 kph HSR is useless. It'll be unaffordable to most. Could actually hurt support for further investment if that happens. But there's a trip time-value proposition that most of the public would accept. I would argue that it's current fares for Toronto-Montreal at about 4 hrs. And slightly higher fares (10-20% more) if that trip got down to 3.5 hrs. So I think the question is how much improvement in trip time can they get per dollar invested and what's the point at which marginal return starts dropping quickly? I would guess that's somewhere around $6-8B for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal and $1.5-2B for Montreal-Quebec.
MisterF
Senior Member
That's an exaggeration of the difficulty of the terrain. The Canadian Shield is really only from east of Tweed to west of Perth, a distance of roughly 80 km. The rest of the route is largely farmland with lots of concession road crossings. For example, here's where the current trail crosses County Road 38 near Springbrook. Not exactly rugged or uninhabited.
Darwinkgo
Active Member
This belays a fundamental misunderstanding of HSR businesses cases. Sure, there is a revenue maximization point with high fares, but there is also a revenue maximization point at low fares, and a lot of the time the revenue maximization point with low fares is higher than the point with high fares.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Sure. But I doubt we have the population, ridership or construction experience for cost containment to operate around the lower maximization point.
A 300 kph fully electric, fully grade separated HSR is a substantially more expensive and substantially higher risk endeavour than a mostly 200 kph diesel higher speed proposal that mostly takes advantage of an existing corridor and infrastructure. I am deeply skeptical that we'd be able to offer up end pricing on the 300 kph line that is close to the 200 kph line.
I do think though that we should build the line such that it is twin tracked at launch, can be electrified in the future and any large entirely new sections (like a whole new Kaladar-Smiths Falls section) are designed to run at 300 kph. That should provide a path towards progressively upgrading the line to higher and higher average operating speed.
roger1818
Senior Member
While fares are based on demand, they also need to cover costs. Operationally HSR costs significantly more. Not only does it require significantly more energy to have a train run at a higher speed (fluid friction is proportional to the square of the velocity) but the track needs to be maintained to a higher standard. One of the biggest differences between different classes of track is the tolerances to which gauge, gaps, etc need to be kept. This tighter tolerance means more frequent inspections and repairs. There is a reason CP keeps the Havelock sub at Class 1 even though the slow speed increases costs of operating the trains by hundreds of thousands of dollars a year (3 trains a week each way times 12 hours each way equals 72 train operation hours per week or 3744 per year. Upgrading to Class 2 would cut that in half, but they obviously they don't think it is worth the cost).