[Northern Light]

Another globe mail pro HFR anti HSR story



In the story they compare speeds of HSR to HFR. Not sure how they figure the HFR average time.

I think the govt is eventually going to need to answer HSR vs HFR debate because consistently ppl are making dubious claims about cost and speed of expanding VIA corridor and besides that, I'm not even sure it is actually possible to do

Dedicated track, in the existing rail corridor, is mostly feasible, though there would be pinch points. But the speed will be substantially less than HSR could achieve.

I don't think its a reasonable substitute for the HSR project.

What I do think is, in the context of the HSR budget, its worth committing to 2-4 small, strategic upgrades to the existing corridor that would enable, faster, more frequent and reliable service between Kingston - Toronto particularly. For less than 1B, a couple of key segments of third track could be added, a few small road crossings closed, one strategic one separated and a 3-4 higher speed switches/turnouts added.

In the context of a 90B project, its a rounding error and one with high cost certainty that can address a key concern/criticism which is that existing corridor customers will get shafted/forgotten.

 

[MisterF]

Dedicated track, in the existing rail corridor, is mostly feasible, though there would be pinch points. But the speed will be substantially less than HSR could achieve.

I don't think its a reasonable substitute for the HSR project.

What I do think is, in the context of the HSR budget, its worth committing to 2-4 small, strategic upgrades to the existing corridor that would enable, faster, more frequent and reliable service between Kingston - Toronto particularly. For less than 1B, a couple of key segments of third track could be added, a few small road crossings closed, one strategic one separated and a 3-4 higher speed switches/turnouts added.

The problem is that this has been tried already and CN just used the extra tracks for their own purposes. Via performance somehow got even worse. They'd have to either get an ironclad contract with CN that Via would control the new tracks in the CN right of way (unlikely that CN would ever agree to that) or build new tracks outside CN property. Not that the latter would be a bad idea, but it would be more complicated than some are portraying.

 

[Northern Light]

The problem is that this has been tried already and CN just used the extra tracks for their own purposes. Via performance somehow got even worse. They'd have to either get an ironclad contract with CN that Via would control the new tracks in the CN right of way (unlikely that CN would ever agree to that) or build new tracks outside CN property. Not that the latter would be a bad idea, but it would be more complicated than some are portraying.

I agree in general; though, I would note, the previous project you're speaking of was 3 projects, of which only 1 was actually delivered. So the potential gain was pretty low. But yes, CN has abused even that.

 

[lenaitch]

I doubt CN would agree to any 'iron clad' contract that would somehow limit or prevent its access to infrastructure on its own property.. The only way I see any manner of consistent and unfettered speed and frequency in the lakeshore corridor is for whatever footprint required for VIA/ALTO/Whoever passenger service severed from CN, which I think would be logistically difficult, and I'm still not sure there is enough space end-to-end.

As stated, it would result in reduced speeds given the number of at-grade crossing, but at least they (whoever they would be) to electrify it.

 

[taylortbb]

an ironclad contract with CN that Via would control the new tracks in the CN right of way (unlikely that CN would ever agree to that)

There is now some precedent for that, with the CN/Metrolinx agreement through Brampton that splits the corridor in two. There will be one section (downtown Brampton) that the tracks are interconnected, but otherwise GO and CN will have their own completely separate tracks.

I think it's worth considering not as an Alto alternative, but as an addition. GO seems to be evolving beyond just commuter rail, and could one day offer reasonable frequent service all the way out to Belleville, or even Kingston.

 

[StreetcarRider]

I'm writing this primarily for the citizen researcher trying to fit a new, relatively-high speed passenger service on CN's corridor east of Toronto, instead of Alto.

Is a new corridor required for decent, let alone great, passenger rail in the area? VIA concluded a decade ago that it did. Knowledgeable people on this site keep explaining all the reasons why a new corridor is required.

Once a person accepts that a new corridor is required, the story on how we got to Alto makes sense. VIA initially aimed low (HFR Toronto-Montreal mainly on a new/rehabilitated, VIA-owned corridor) hoping for private investment, but the private sector was uninterested. So the federal government had to take the lead, which meant generating political support, which meant adding Quebec City. And then the private sector pitched for the project, and suggested high-speed in some sections, a more compelling and therefore potentially profitable product in the longterm. It makes sense, once you accept that there needs to be a new corridor for passenger rail.

As we all know, part of the reason why a new corridor is needed is because the freight railways own the existing corridors and are busy. Since that reality can seem like a frustrating obstacle in some circles, I would point out that it's good for our society that freight rail has so much marketshare. It was financially good for our society when the railways were privatized, because we got public money at the time to fix struggling public finances, and because the federal government apparently wasn't running the business very efficiently. A more efficient freight railway with lots of marketshare pays taxes every year that fund public goods we all enjoy, and to some extent keeps trucks off the road. A long-term cost of those choices, however, is to once again drive home the point that passenger rail needs its own corridor to be any good.

As for getting around by air and car, hopefully it's clear that those are also expensive ways to meet travel demand in terms of money, time and the environment. To expand air and car infrastructure to meet future demand would not be cheap either in all these senses. An affordable, fast, electric passenger rail service answers these concerns too, using a proven and highly scalable technology.

 

[AJhyett]

Not really seeing much hard work in response. Please go away do your own modelling, cost out the project - including the EPS and XPS which by design is not permeable, or the remediation techniques that will be used for the LEDA clay. Our research suggest epic amounts of polystyrene. The complexity of building for 300km/h (effectively 320km/h to SNCF standard) are significant. Alto claim the relationship with speed is only exponential above $300km/h and that 200km/h v 300km/h is only a 25% increase in cost. Perhaps a consideration of the physics may be in order, Physics -> Engineering -> Cost and CO2. All follow the same scaling laws with velocity. The velocity exponent is around 2.4 - 2.7 (between a square and a cube) for both cost-to-build and C02 - to -build as a function of velocity. Same scaling rules apply to cars prices but with an even higher exponent on velocity . Pls do your research on the Harbin-Dalian HSR in China. Marginally profitable ( do debt repayment) with 80M heavily subsidized passengers/year and major remediation needed and planned after 25 years. We can do better. China state railways has a debtload of USD870B.

That said the real kicker is, without a social license, community friction rises, project uncertainty drives borrowing costs and politically its over. We'd all like a nice shiney thing, but lets be honest and admit that this is discretionary decision. Unlike China's manufacturing sector, our resource sector can't supply the wealth required and the urban wealth (a big underachiever by international standards) is all locked up in real estate rather than wealth driving creating innvoation. Canada's increasingly urbanized population has only delivered a single company in the worlds 100 biggest corporations by market cap and its a low-tech bank (RBC around position 70) The highest ranking are banks not technology companies. Hence during an existential national challenge it all about Canad's natural resources not Toronto's "MIA" tech sector. Building a CAD143B railway will not kickstart the innovation.

Also, I have an Enbridge (Canada's 4th biggest corporation) Pipeline running trough my backyard. So please no more reductionist Nimbyism. It's not constructive. The pipeline is a weath generator.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Keeping in mind that I support HSR and Alto and concur that narrow-minded nimby'ism or self-interest shouldn't be allowed to (pun intended) derail this project........

I do think you underestimate the impacts of a new corridor here. The new corridor will partially, but not completely follow the Havelock sub. So right off the bat, there's new property taking involved. But from there, the existing sub sees 2 or 3 trains per week, at a speed of ~24km/ph that's so pokey that most rural property owners would let their kid play on the tracks. The contrast to a two-track ROW with service as frequently as every 30m or trains as frequently as every 15m across both tracks, at a speed approaching 300 km/ph, with catenary over the top, and with the corridor almost certainly fenced off, creating no-crossing areas for distances of 2km or greater depending on where the major roads are located...... is a completely different level of impact.

From disruption of travel patterns to noise, to impacts on wildlife, it will be substantial. Universal Grade separations of roads may also see additional impacts.

None of which means the project shouldn't be pursued. But I think its understandable that some people would have narrow concerns (hey, that's my farm!) or broader concerns..... how much longer will it take emergency services to get here, if they can only cross the tracks 5km away compared to today? How much longer is my commute to work? Or at the broadest level, how will this effect Moose populations?

All of which are fair and reasonable. But that fairness doesn't mean we don't pursue the project. It means that the greater good has to prevail over narrow self-interest. That we need to fairly compensate people whose land is taken; address concerns about sufficiently frequent opportunities to cross the tracks, and/or building additional fire/ems stations, and mitigating environmental impacts with wildlife overpasses and underpasses.

Its all do-able.

There are many properties along the Kingston sub with nothing more than a tree line, and perhaps a wire fence protecting the tracks. Upgrading tracks on the Kingston sub will also require that it be completely fenced off, numerous existing at grade crossings be deleted or grade separated. This is normal for any project of this nature, the goal should be to minimize the impacts, not to say "don't touch my land, go over there". Small underpasses, the type that allow a person or small vehicle (snowmobile, quad bike, etc) to pass underneath shouldn't add an excessive amount to the cost and would remove the "crossings only every 2-3 km" argument. As an example

 

[urbanclient]

Not really seeing much hard work in response. Please go away do your own modelling, cost out the project - including the EPS and XPS which by design is not permeable, or the remediation techniques that will be used for the LEDA clay. Our research suggest epic amounts of polystyrene. The complexity of building for 300km/h (effectively 320km/h to SNCF standard) are significant. Alto claim the relationship with speed is only exponential above $300km/h and that 200km/h v 300km/h is only a 25% increase in cost. Perhaps a consideration of the physics may be in order, Physics -> Engineering -> Cost and CO2. All follow the same scaling laws with velocity. The velocity exponent is around 2.4 - 2.7 (between a square and a cube) for both cost-to-build and C02 - to -build as a function of velocity. Same scaling rules apply to cars but even higher exponent on cost. Pls do your research on the Harbin-Dalian HSR in China. Marginally profitable ( do debt repayment) with 80M heavily subsidized passengers/year and major remediation needed and planned after 25 years. We can do better. China state railways has a debtload of USD870B.

That said the real kicker is, without a social license, community friction rises, project uncertainty drives borrowing costs and politically its over. We'd all like a nice shiney thing, but lets be honest and admit that this is discretionary decision. Unlike China's manufacturing sector, our resource sector can't supply the wealth required and the urban wealth (a big underachiever by international standards) is all locked up in real estate rather than wealth driving creating innvoation. Canada's increasingly urbanized population has only delivered a single company in the worlds 100 biggest corporations by market cap and its a low-tech bank (RBC around position 70) The highest ranking are banks not technology companies. Hence during an existential national challenge it all about Canad's natural resources not Toronto's "MIA" tech sector. Building a CAD143B railway will not kickstart the innovation.

Also, I have an Enbridge (Canada's 4th biggest corporation) Pipeline running trough my backyard. So please no more reductionist Nimbyism. It's not constructive. The pipeline is a weath generator.

Alto's estimate of a 25% cost increase from 200 to 300 km/h is closer to the truth. You are confusing physical scaling with project cost scaling. It's your very emphasis on handwaving physics that led you astray.

Some things like drag and power demand scale strongly with speed, but that does not prove that total construction cost or CO2 scales with velocity to the power of 2.4 to 2.7. If that were true, 200 ---> 300 km/h would imply 2.65 to 3.0 times the capital cost, not Alto’s claimed 25% increase. (1.5^2.4=2.65 or 1.5^2.7=3.0)

A fixation on power in itself is erroneous, because the energy usage difference is much smaller. Yes, instantaneous power draw is much higher, but you're also drawing power for less time because you're travelling much faster. These things have much more to do with operating costs than capital costs.

Speed​	Estimated resistance​	Resistance ratio​	Estimated cruise power​	Cruise power ratio​	Cruise energy use​	Cruise energy use ratio​
200 km/h​	~38.4 kN​	1.00​	~2.13 MW​	1.00​	~10.7 kWh/km​	1.00​
300 km/h​	~79.8 kN​	~2.08​	~6.65 MW​	~3.12​	~22.2 kWh/km​	~2.08​

Calculation based on Davis equation on page 215-217 of 258: https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.../TR_High-Speed_Rail_Aero_Assessment_final.pdf

A 2.4 to 2.7 exponent would also be wildly inconsistent with the World Bank’s 2019 China HSR report:
"The capital cost of a 350 kph line is about 18 percent higher than the 250 kph line"

https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/933411559841476316/pdf/Chinas-High-Speed-Rail-Development.pdf

A World Bank project report on a specific Chinese line points in the same direction: "At completion, the Project’s total cost was RMB31.2 billion, representing a 10 percent saving compared to the cost estimate of RMB34.65 billion in the Feasibility Study Report. The lower cost at completion is due to the revised design, which reduced design speed from 350 to 250 km/h, simplified construction by separating a very long tunnel into a series of shorter tunnels, increased ruling grade, and used ballasted instead of slab track."

Alto will be using ballasted track as well.

https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/319441624904553949/pdf/China-ZhangHu-Railway-Project.pdf

Therefore, the 2.4 to 2.7 velocity exponent claim is

Spoiler

unsubstantiated drivel.

And if this obvious category error was made, I wonder what else from Citizen Research was just amateurish armchairing dressed up as rigorous analysis. Assuming this claim is true: "Our research"

Our research

 

[MisterF]

There is now some precedent for that, with the CN/Metrolinx agreement through Brampton that splits the corridor in two. There will be one section (downtown Brampton) that the tracks are interconnected, but otherwise GO and CN will have their own completely separate tracks.

I think it's worth considering not as an Alto alternative, but as an addition. GO seems to be evolving beyond just commuter rail, and could one day offer reasonable frequent service all the way out to Belleville, or even Kingston.

Have those details been determined? I'd be interested in reading more about it if so.

Either way, that stretch is a pretty short 20 km or so. A far cry from almost 500 km for the CN line to Montreal. Doing the same along that stretch would be a major project that would take decades to complete. On the bright side, building Alto would fundamentally increase the train culture in the Corridor and make future improvements in other areas more likely.

 

[urbanclient]

Not really seeing much hard work in response. Please go away do your own modelling, cost out the project - including the EPS and XPS which by design is not permeable, or the remediation techniques that will be used for the LEDA clay. Our research suggest epic amounts of polystyrene. The complexity of building for 300km/h (effectively 320km/h to SNCF standard) are significant. Alto claim the relationship with speed is only exponential above $300km/h and that 200km/h v 300km/h is only a 25% increase in cost. Perhaps a consideration of the physics may be in order, Physics -> Engineering -> Cost and CO2. All follow the same scaling laws with velocity. The velocity exponent is around 2.4 - 2.7 (between a square and a cube) for both cost-to-build and C02 - to -build as a function of velocity. Same scaling rules apply to cars prices but with an even higher exponent on velocity . Pls do your research on the Harbin-Dalian HSR in China. Marginally profitable ( do debt repayment) with 80M heavily subsidized passengers/year and major remediation needed and planned after 25 years. We can do better. China state railways has a debtload of USD870B.

That said the real kicker is, without a social license, community friction rises, project uncertainty drives borrowing costs and politically its over. We'd all like a nice shiney thing, but lets be honest and admit that this is discretionary decision. Unlike China's manufacturing sector, our resource sector can't supply the wealth required and the urban wealth (a big underachiever by international standards) is all locked up in real estate rather than wealth driving creating innvoation. Canada's increasingly urbanized population has only delivered a single company in the worlds 100 biggest corporations by market cap and its a low-tech bank (RBC around position 70) The highest ranking are banks not technology companies. Hence during an existential national challenge it all about Canad's natural resources not Toronto's "MIA" tech sector. Building a CAD143B railway will not kickstart the innovation.

Also, I have an Enbridge (Canada's 4th biggest corporation) Pipeline running trough my backyard. So please no more reductionist Nimbyism. It's not constructive. The pipeline is a weath generator.

View attachment 732269

Also, no response to my pointing out the flaws in Citizen Research numbers? They're completely opaque about expropriation and Kingston Sub costs for HPR; they also entertain the notion of running 200 km/h on shared freight lines. They seem to be vastly overestimating how much of Alto needs to be at 300 design speeds, and no, 300 is not the same as 320. If there was no difference, there would be little geographic and historical distinction between the purple and red lines. We previously discussed the extra requirements/costs that 320 would entail on this thread as well:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence [...] [...]

Pls do your research on the Harbin-Dalian HSR in China. Marginally profitable ( do debt repayment) with 80M heavily subsidized passengers/year and major remediation needed and planned after 25 years. We can do better. China state railways has a debtload of USD870B.

I am very familiar with how HSR works in China. You seem to be relatively ignorant on how it works, and how the Chinese economy works. It's well known that China's HSR system is not financially profitable, so you cherrypicking a single unprofitable line in the poor Northeast out of 50+ lines doesn’t even make the point you’re trying to make. It would've supported your point more to bring up unprofitable lines with heavy debt in the much wealthier areas of China.

Ultimately, financial profit is not the point, the point is to achieve positive economic returns for the broader economy.

If the Chinese government only did things that were immediately financially profitable for the government itself, then they probably wouldn't attempt to socialize the healthcare system, or build so many subways and highways, alleviate rural poverty, or subsidize compulsory education. The same logic applies to any country's government.

Unlike China's manufacturing sector, our resource sector can't supply the wealth required and the urban wealth (a big underachiever by international standards) is all locked up in real estate rather than wealth driving creating innvoation.

Do you think it was manufacturing sector wealth that fuelled HSR construction in China? And since you imply that Canada lacks manufacturing, does that mean we're reliant on the resource sector to pay for HSR? I don't know where to start with this level of ignorance. Citizen Research's prediction very well could be correct on $142 billion, but your commentary on the root causes etc... is not credible at all...

Why are you comparing China's manufacturing sector with Canada's resource sector, as if they have similar weight in their respective economies? Are you implying Canada's overall economy is lower on the value chain?

I also wonder what sector you think benefited the most from Chinese HSR. Was it the resource and manufacturing sectors, or the urban service sector? This would hypothetically be the same for Alto.

"The findings show that HSR promotes tertiary industry aggregation and contributes to the transformation of the industrial structure from the primary to secondary and tertiary industry sectors, as well as realizing industrial structure advancement but irrationalization."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40864-022-00175-w

Country, 2024	Primary sector​	Secondary sector​	Tertiary sector​
China (National Bureau of Statistics)	6.80%​	36.50%​	56.70%​
Canada (StatsCan)	6.91%​	18.23%​	74.87%​

World Bank 2024 puts China's manufacturing at 24.9% of total GDP (within secondary sector).

and [Canada's] urban wealth (a big underachiever by international standards) is all locked up in real estate rather than wealth driving creating innvoation.

Are you unaware of where much of China's wealth got locked up during the last 2-3 decades?

World Bank’s 2025 China update says housing was 47% of Chinese household assets in 2022.
For urban only, BIS cites a 2019 People's Bank of China survey saying housing was nearly 70% of total urban household assets.

Conversely, Stats Canada says household residential real estate was $8.4506 trillion in Q4 2025, household financial assets were $11.9548 trillion, and financial assets were 120.7% of non-financial assets. That implies total household assets of about $21.86 trillion. Real estate being 38.7% of household assets.

https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/600cd53e2bb24d516b8c3489e5d2c187-0070012025/original/CEU-December-2025-EN.pdf

https://www.bis.org/publ/work1319.pdf

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/260316/dq260316b-eng.htm

Image from:

China Doesn't Need 125,000 Miles of Track

For all the patriotism that comes with ambitions to build more high-speed rail, it's a bad idea.

web.archive.org

And if this weren't enough, considering the picture of your 'backyard', your personal and political motivations are clear. You don't want HSR in your backyard, or HSR in the backyards of homes similar to yours, much less your taxes going to HSR that benefits urbanites directly (and everyone else indirectly).

 

[micheal_can]

The more and more I read the comments here and the various commentators elsewhere, it tells me that if we were building the Transcontinental Railway today, It would not happen! They would have stopped at Thunder Bay "cus we have ships".

Tome, anything that is not true HSR will be a failure.

 

[ownthesky]

I wouldn't be surprised if these "citizen researchers" start advocating for rubbing ivermectin horse paste on VIA trains for speed benefits, based on the quality of work I've seen thus far.

 

[taylortbb]

Have those details been determined? I'd be interested in reading more about it if so.

Nothing publicly released by Metrolinx (naturally), but I've seen posts here and on Waterloo Region Connected by people in-the-know explaining what the configuration will be.

 

[ownthesky]

Business, tourism officials want high-speed rail to ‘arrive in the heart of Ottawa’

Ottawa’s main business and tourism organizations want to see high-speed rail bring passengers to a station in the downtown core, saying it “deserves to arrive in the heart of Ottawa.”

www.ctvnews.ca

Am I crazy or could you convert the LRT into a functional metro for a fraction of the cost of getting a high speed train into "downtown" Ottawa? In any other modern city, Tremblay would get you to parliament in a couple minutes using a modern metro. It feels like a joke that the huge and empty Tremblay station isn't the obvious choice, given that it already has a rapid transit station. The fact that Tremblay isn't the only option seems like more of a testament to how much of a joke the Ottawa LRT is and it's quite fascinating that the thought leaders in Ottawa want a second chance to screw up something that should be incredibly basic with other people's money. Get Tremblay working first, show the world the city isn't a total joke by not screwing up an elementary level planning task (does our metro-thing reach our urban core-thing from our main train station at a decent pace with good reliability?), and THEN build that fancy new downtown station once the HSR line shows its value.