[kalis0490]

Improving Kw - Guelph - Kw airport and Pearson connectivity is a good long term thing to do. The current backtrack from Weston is undesirable and the new Woodbine station should help. I think building a western wye from the Brampton sub to the UP guideway and running a couple (lightweight) Kitchener trains a day via Pearson to Toronto would be nice.

 

[micheal_can]

What are you trying to say exactly?

The point of a station at Pearson is that anyone in the west end of the City of Toronto - or Mississauga, or Brampton - is likely to have a far easier time getting to Pearson than to Union Station. This is why VIA still has stops in places like Oakville and Guildwood and Oshawa.

Dan

Yes, and GO has more stations between them. Think of it as 3 levels of service. GO - Via -HSR. Each of them serve less stations, but also serve a different purpose.

Improving Kw - Guelph - Kw airport and Pearson connectivity is a good long term thing to do. The current backtrack from Weston is undesirable and the new Woodbine station should help. I think building a western wye from the Brampton sub to the UP guideway and running a couple (lightweight) Kitchener trains a day via Pearson to Toronto would be nice.

Or, why not expand the capabilities of the Waterloo Airport?

 

[W. K. Lis]

Yes, and GO has more stations between them. Think of it as 3 levels of service. GO - Via -HSR. Each of them serve less stations, but also serve a different purpose.



Or, why not expand the capabilities of the Waterloo Airport?

With the Crosstown LRT Line 5 supplying the 4th lower level of service. Maybe buses supplying an even lower 5th level of service.

 

[micheal_can]

With the Crosstown LRT Line 5 supplying the 4th lower level of service. Maybe buses supplying an even lower 5th level of service.

Exactly.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Yes, and GO has more stations between them. Think of it as 3 levels of service. GO - Via -HSR. Each of them serve less stations, but also serve a different purpose.



Or, why not expand the capabilities of the Waterloo Airport?

I understand the idea of tiered levels of service, however I think a rail station at the airport is and should have the highest tier of service. HSR service stopping at the airport can skip neighbouring stations in order to keep speeds up. For example I don't see any station between Pearson and Union that would justify a HSR stop when the lower tiered options (Conventional VIA, UPX, GO) are available. And on the West side there probably won't be a HSR station until Kitchener.

 

[W. K. Lis]

If the HSR has hourly service (like in Europe), the GO Midtown should provide 15 minute service, with the Line 5 Crosstown LRT with every 5 minute.

 

[crs1026]

^The whole point of a hub is that the tiers don't matter, it's the connectivity that is valuable.

That's what makes Malton/Pearson a natural hub. All roads lead there.

I'm not sure that rail connectivity to Pearson is a must-have for HSR east of Toronto....Ottawa-Trudeau may be more important than Ottawa-Pearson... but regional service that takes you from Peterborough/Belleville/Cobourg/Oshawa/Durham directly to Pearson is a sure winner.

- Paul

 

[Sunnyside]

Paris has a number of stations with each servicing various parts of France or other countries. Same for London UK as well a number of other cities.

What use to be downtown for businesses is shifting to other parts of the waterfront and the centre that some buildings are becoming residential.

The problem with Summerhill is CP since it on its mainline. If I remember correctly without digging of the track layout photos I shot years ago, there are 4 tracks for the station plus CP Main Line. There are a few pinch point to make the corridor 4 tracks wide, but can be fix with $$.

Is CP the better route over CN?? Regardless of either RR, you need a new ROW to have a pure 300-350km line that will cost big $$ and take a few decades to build it, but it will run on existing lines at various locations like the rest of the world does.

I assumed in this scenario we have acquired/would acquire the CP line for HFR. While yes, other cities implement shoulder stations, I struggle to see how Summerhill can compare when it only has one rapid transit connection. Yes, you are near the northern edge of downtown (and the station would certainly pull downtown further north), but some better connectivity is needed if we seriously consider using that route. I have a hunch most intercity stations in Paris have a few subway/RER connections, not just one (that is already at capacity in our case).

 

[W. K. Lis]

I assumed in this scenario we have acquired/would acquire the CP line for HFR. While yes, other cities implement shoulder stations, I struggle to see how Summerhill can compare when it only has one rapid transit connection. Yes, you are near the northern edge of downtown (and the station would certainly pull downtown further north), but some better connectivity is needed if we seriously consider using that route. I have a hunch most intercity stations in Paris have a few subway/RER connections, not just one (that is already at capacity in our case).

The GO Midtown trains could have TTC rapid transit connections with Line 1 (Summerhill, Dupont), Line 2 (Kipling, McCowan-Sheppard), Line 3 [AKA Ontario Line] (Thorncliffe Park, Science Centre), and Line 4 (McCowan-Sheppard). Maybe even the Jane LRT (at Jane & St. Clair), depending if we ever get transit oriented politicians in charge, across all levels.

 

[crs1026]

A complication - what about non-HFR or HSR intercity trains? Northlander? Canadian? Maple Leaf? Brantford-routed Windsor and Sarnia trains?

It's harder to put some of those on the North Torono Sub (yes, I know the Canpa Sub exists, but.....)

- Paul

 

[kalis0490]

Yes, and GO has more stations between them. Think of it as 3 levels of service. GO - Via -HSR. Each of them serve less stations, but also serve a different purpose.



Or, why not expand the capabilities of the Waterloo Airport?

Waterloo Airport is quite good for national and vacation destinations . However, the runway is too short for international planes. There are provisions to expand but it would be expensive and would run into opposition.


Keep in Mind that Pearson is not only the main international airport for Toronto, but the whole of Southern Ontario from London to Coburg. Improving connectivity to Pearson is a good thing in of itself.

Regarding the Midtown corridor , I think that Potentially through running to Pearson (ie a Malvern-Pearson train in red) would be better for connectivity than running through running with the Milton line (yellow)

 

[micheal_can]

I understand the idea of tiered levels of service, however I think a rail station at the airport is and should have the highest tier of service. HSR service stopping at the airport can skip neighbouring stations in order to keep speeds up. For example I don't see any station between Pearson and Union that would justify a HSR stop when the lower tiered options (Conventional VIA, UPX, GO) are available. And on the West side there probably won't be a HSR station until Kitchener.

I would argue that from Union, east, the next station should be Peterborough and to the west it should Kitchener. You can't get up to a high speed with close spacing of stations.

^The whole point of a hub is that the tiers don't matter, it's the connectivity that is valuable.

That's what makes Malton/Pearson a natural hub. All roads lead there.

I'm not sure that rail connectivity to Pearson is a must-have for HSR east of Toronto....Ottawa-Trudeau may be more important than Ottawa-Pearson... but regional service that takes you from Peterborough/Belleville/Cobourg/Oshawa/Durham directly to Pearson is a sure winner.

- Paul

Then have a more local Via train. I don't expect HSR to touch any of the airports. If it did, it would be doing a disservice.

A complication - what about non-HFR or HSR intercity trains? Northlander? Canadian? Maple Leaf? Brantford-routed Windsor and Sarnia trains?

It's harder to put some of those on the North Torono Sub (yes, I know the Canpa Sub exists, but.....)

- Paul

That is why this corridor does not make sense for HSR.

Waterloo Airport is quite good for national and vacation destinations . However, the runway is too short for international planes. There are provisions to expand but it would be expensive and would run into opposition.


Keep in Mind that Pearson is not only the main international airport for Toronto, but the whole of Southern Ontario from London to Coburg. Improving connectivity to Pearson is a good thing in of itself.

Regarding the Midtown corridor , I think that Potentially through running to Pearson (ie a Malvern-Pearson train in red) would be better for connectivity than running through running with the Milton line (yellow)

View attachment 458842

Then route it to the London Airport. It has lots of room to grow. Come to think of it, so does Hamilton.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I would argue that from Union, east, the next station should be Peterborough and to the west it should Kitchener. You can't get up to a high speed with close spacing of stations.

It takes a high speed train approx 8 Km to accelerate to 250 Km/hr from a stand still (assuming average acceleration of 0.3 Km/s*s). It's about 24 Km from Union to Pearson, assuming acceleration/deceleration at each station, that sill allows for about 8 Km of travel at top speed. And that's assuming the curves in the GTA allow for maximum speed. I don't think it's unreasonable trade off to sacrifice a few minutes of train travel at whatever the top speed would be through Toronto, in exchange for the connectivity potential at the airport. After that the next station should be Kitchener.

The East end is somewhat more difficult since there isn't a major trip generator/hub as there is with Pearson in the West, but a station in Durham isn't out of line.

**EDIT**
The key is to strike a balance between optimizing station spacing and station utility.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I would argue that from Union, east, the next station should be Peterborough and to the west it should Kitchener. You can't get up to a high speed with close spacing of stations.



Then have a more local Via train. I don't expect HSR to touch any of the airports. If it did, it would be doing a disservice.



That is why this corridor does not make sense for HSR.


Then route it to the London Airport. It has lots of room to grow. Come to think of it, so does Hamilton.

In Europe, they have want interaction between HSR and airport terminals. See link, dated 2019.

The report looked at how to optimise the adjustment between supply and demand for both HSR and APT, and considered the possibility of coordinating air and rail transport systems capacities. The possibility of the two systems becoming complementary - for example using HSR to distribute air demand among airports - was also investigated, as was the socio-economic profitability of the new high speed systems (HSS). Best effects result if railway stations at important airports connect HSR and APT networks, the report concluded.

 

[micheal_can]

It takes a high speed train approx 8 Km to accelerate to 250 Km/hr from a stand still (assuming average acceleration of 0.3 Km/s*s). It's about 24 Km from Union to Pearson, assuming acceleration/deceleration at each station, that sill allows for about 8 Km of travel at top speed. And that's assuming the curves in the GTA allow for maximum speed. I don't think it's unreasonable trade off to sacrifice a few minutes of train travel at whatever the top speed would be through Toronto, in exchange for the connectivity potential at the airport. After that the next station should be Kitchener.

The East end is somewhat more difficult since there isn't a major trip generator/hub as there is with Pearson in the West, but a station in Durham isn't out of line.

**EDIT**
The key is to strike a balance between optimizing station spacing and station utility.

So, you want a train to spend more time accelerating and decelerating than it will be at speed? That is not how HSR tends to work. I am all for airport rail links, but I am not for HSR airport links. Besides, with a push for greener choices, I feel that we will see less emphases on air travel in the future.

What I would support is the existing UPX have trains that bypass the other stations between Union and Pearson. It could even be HSR.

In Europe, they have want interaction between HSR and airport terminals. See link, dated 2019.

So, the other major airports will also be connected? That will really reduce the overall high speed time savings with rail.