[TheTigerMaster]

Are we referring to different studies or how come that the study I read refers to 300 and 250 km/h as the respective design speeds of Ontario HSR?

"The two HSR scenarios have been developed to frame the boundary of what HSR is and what the Business Case could be based on di ering maximum speeds, as follows:

• Scenario A: HSR designed for 300km/h along the corridor

• Scenario B: HSR designed 250km/h electrified alignment with increased use of existing right of way/corridors"

(SDG, November 2016, p.40)

Sorry, I made a typo. I meant to say 300 km/h and 250 km/h (the more expensive options being 300 km/h, obviously)

 

[nfitz]

Do you have numbers for Ottawa commuters from Pembroke, Cornwall and Brockville? Having lived and worked in Ottawa, I would bet money that none of those cities could support more than 3-5 buses in each direction per day. Let alone commuter rail.

3-5 bus per direction per day? That's optimistic. 3-5 jitneys maybe ...

 

[crs1026]

Sorry, I made a typo. I meant to say 300 km/h and 250 km/h (the more expensive options being 300 km/h, obviously)

Freudian slip? A 200km/h service would be so much more sensible and affordable.

After digesting the Business Case, some random thoughts
- Regardless of what speed one imagines, the Option B analysis of what's required east of Kitchener to operate both express and stopping trains is a good one, and likely in harmony with ML thinking. Just get on with it, with taxpayer money - no fancy banking solution required. It's needed, it's what we pay taxes for.
- The "Brampton solution" of 3 tracks is technically doable, but maybe we ought to bite the bullet and just bulldoze whatever is in the way in downtown Brampton and do it right. It's not like Brampton has a vision for the area anyways.
- The concept of a new line from Kitchener to London is a good one. It resolves the issue of maintaining freight service on the Kitchener line (by leaving it alone, with GEXR, though possibly fed from London instead of directly to Toronto), it chooses not to put more passenger traffic on the Brantford line (which would only exacerbate conflict with CN freights). The wisdom of separating freight and passenger altogether is sound and in harmony with what VIA is proposing. It would be a superb demonstration project (as a diesel powered 200 km/h line) to break the whole angst about building higher speed rail and it would possibly be feasible as a banking demonstration, ie fund as a loan to be repaid from operating revenue, similar to how the FRA funds Amtrak improvements under RRIF
- Ten to twelve million passengers per year, and 10-12% modal share, is sufficient justification for 200km/h and diesel HFR. I wonder how the business case for this level service would shake out. My guess - it would attract just as many riders, because the time differential still beats driving, and the connection at Pearson is just as simple as a connecting flight after planning layover time at Pearson. It would be a whole lot cheaper and could rough in the improvements to drive HSR if it were ever required in a couple decades. VIA may be on the better track with a HFR solution.
- The comments about needing new bridges because the engineering for higher speed service is different was a revelation. Why is the Grand River crossing "complex"?

My fear is that this proposal is the Wynne equivalent of Smarttrack. There may be more practical solutions, but now that she has attached her name to HSR, it may be hard for her to back away from the whole enchilada to what's really smart. But there isn't enough of a compelling case to move it forward in the original form. We need it, but we need it pared back to what can be supported under a "banked" investment model.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

TorStar adds to the chorus for HFR:

Slow down on high-speed rail plan
The $21 billion would be better spent on improving transit within urban centres and improving Via Rail service between cities.

[...]
For intercity travel, Ontario should incrementally build Via Rail’s capacity and performance. This is hardly a new recommendation. Back in the 1970s, the Intercity Passenger Transport Study concluded that “the most profitable strategy … involves maximizing the potential of existing facilities” through alignment improvements and new locomotive technology. Such improvements will require significant funds, but not nearly as excessive as $20 billion.

Forty-plus years of feasibility studies of HSR alternatives inform us that the best time to build HSR was neither 40 years ago nor now. Billions spent to achieve faster travel times for the downtown-centric populations could be better spent on urban transit where needs are most urgent, and benefits are undeniably greatest.


Murtaza Haider is an associate professor at the Ted Rogers School of Management at Ryerson University. He is the author of Getting Started with Data Science: Making Sense of Data with Analytics.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/05/24/slow-down-on-high-speed-rail-plan.html

My fear is that this proposal is the Wynne equivalent of Smarttrack.

That really nails it. Ouch...

 

[steveintoronto]

Upgrading the GO corridor to Kitchener to 250 km/h isn't all that outlandish when the line is being upgraded and electrified anyway.

There's a reason that D-S and VIA are touting the 200 kph solution. It's the highest speed allowed before grade separation is mandated by TC regs. Not only that, it is fully compatible with GO RER sharing the same tracks, state of the art signalling and control systems being the same. The "250 kph" (or higher) invokes a whole new set of regulations and requirements, and costs go up astronomically for very little gain, if any.
[The Toronto to London train will travel for 184.1 km. The report claims the trains will complete the journey in 73 minutes, resulting in an average speed of 150 km/hour.] https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/05/24/slow-down-on-high-speed-rail-plan.html

Maximizing the 200 kph of the HFR proposal would effectively match that, at a fraction of the cost.

 

[cplchanb]

There's a reason that D-S and VIA are touting the 200 kph solution. It's the highest speed allowed before grade separation is mandated by TC regs. Not only that, it is fully compatible with GO RER sharing the same tracks, state of the art signalling and control systems being the same. The "250 kph" (or higher) invokes a whole new set of regulations and requirements, and costs go up astronomically for very little gain, if any.
[The Toronto to London train will travel for 184.1 km. The report claims the trains will complete the journey in 73 minutes, resulting in an average speed of 150 km/hour.] https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/05/24/slow-down-on-high-speed-rail-plan.html

Maximizing the 200 kph of the HFR proposal would effectively match that, at a fraction of the cost.

Playing devil's advocate, by forcing grade separation wouldnt that lead to a longer term positive effect as it enables them to free themselves of the CN interference mess?
Sure we can say its cheaper now to stay at 200kph so that you can stick with mixed track, but IMO, trains that go at 200kph shouldnt mix on the mainline with
trains that are half as fast and especially freight. Finding excuses to shortcut now will only cause headaches and pains in operations when CN trains and RER
gets in the way. I would rather spend the extra money now to ensure reliability at 200kph+ then to save a few now and face the likely risk of conflicts with other modes of transport which would drive costs up anyways

 

[gweed123]

Excellent discussion, but a huge factor has been overlooked:

The MidTown Corridor! And alternate trains going to Union and terminating/or run-through either to Pearson or London.

The ones that use MidTown stop at Summerhill, if not Spadina too, and then on to the Weston Corridor and northwest. Whether a transfer is in order to get to Pearson or a direct connection is another variable option, along with some terminating at Pearson. Until a loop off of the Georgetown Corridor and under the airport and back on again is built, this will remain a problematic choice.

MidTown, of course, is predicated on CP being part of the Missing Link, and for all the bluster otherwise of the "Just CN One" it's going to be all or nothing. CN and CP. It has to be...

Even if we banter on the details, the common denominator is understanding that The Missing Link is the key to it all.

The Midtown Corridor does offer some interesting possibilities, but my primary rationale for suggesting the York Sub was to hit both Pearson AND Union with nearly every train. Whether you were coming from Ottawa or from Windsor, you would pass right by Pearson on your way to downtown Toronto. That's something that the Midtown corridor can't offer. Yes, it's great for a future GO line, but I think for Via it has limited potential.

There's a bit of a problem using the subway to complete a trip off of HFR, and this would pertain to using Summerhill as well to access Union: It's like taking the Concorde to fly to a destination, only to have a rickshaw take you the last fraction of the trip. First off, I can't see anyone taking the subway downtown from north of Steeles to begin with, but I appear to be 'the odd one out' on that. Surveys of potential HFR or HSR passengers might show same, or the opposite, but when heavy rail is already extant to downtown, it seems crazy not to use that means. This is not unlike AMT and VIA being banned from using the Mont Royale Tunnel by REM, and both those carriers' passengers having to take REM to connect them to downtown Montreal or to connect at Central Station to other VIA or AMT trains.

The station at Clark and Yonge wouldn't be instead of Union, it would be in addition to Union. You already have booming office districts at North York Centre and in Markham. I'm sure those employees would much rather get off in North York/Richmond Hill than in Downtown Toronto and subway or cab all the way up. People destined for Downtown Toronto could still just stay on the train and arrive at Union like they do now.

 

[crs1026]

Playing devil's advocate, by forcing grade separation wouldnt that lead to a longer term positive effect as it enables them to free themselves of the CN interference mess?
Sure we can say its cheaper now to stay at 200kph so that you can stick with mixed track, but IMO, trains that go at 200kph shouldnt mix on the mainline with
trains that are half as fast and especially freight. Finding excuses to shortcut now will only cause headaches and pains in operations when CN trains and RER
gets in the way. I would rather spend the extra money now to ensure reliability at 200kph+ then to save a few now and face the likely risk of conflicts with other modes of transport which would drive costs up anyways

Sticking to 200 for the moment does not mean we aren't building towards HSR. Nor does it mean that we want freight and passenger to share a line. Definitely we should aim for dedicated passenger lines without freight.

Any new line should be built to curvature and gradient of HSR. But, maybe we can postpone some road separations. We don't need to electrify immediately. We can postpone any troublesome curve mitigation or bridge renewal on the existing lines.

It's a matter of working incrementally, partly to reduce the initial cost and partly because once proven as HFR, HSR may be more fundable and more politically compelling.

- Paul

 

[gweed123]

Upgrading the GO corridor to Kitchener to 250 km/h isn't all that outlandish when the line is being upgraded and electrified anyway. That's the part of the project that makes the most sense and is the most likely. I could see it surviving a change in government. The section to London is more of a toss-up and could easily be cancelled. The Windsor extension is a a pipe dream.

With either scenario though you have the issue of Guelph. The current at-grade through the middle of Guelph isn't really an option for anything remotely high speed. The question is do you build a bypass as part of the Kitchener corridor upgrades, or do you grade separate? Either option will be pretty expensive, but if the costs are being shared between GO and whoever ends up building the HSR/HFR, it could be more doable.

 

[steveintoronto]

Playing devil's advocate, by forcing grade separation wouldnt that lead to a longer term positive effect as it enables them to free themselves of the CN interference mess?
Sure we can say its cheaper now to stay at 200kph so that you can stick with mixed track, but IMO, trains that go at 200kph shouldnt mix on the mainline with
trains that are half as fast and especially freight.

HFR is predicated on dedicated passenger track.

my primary rationale for suggesting the York Sub was to hit both Pearson AND Union with nearly every train.

The station at Clark and Yonge wouldn't be instead of Union, it would be in addition to Union

The time it would add to those looking to connect at Union would defeat the exercise. (approaching an hour or more, UPX takes 25 mins airport to Union) I can see alternate trains going to Union or Airport, but suspect the vast majority of the demand would be into downtown Toronto, and more connections onto other forms of transport at Union than headed to the airport.

 

[steveintoronto]

Any new line should be built to curvature and gradient of HSR. But, maybe we can postpone some road separations. We don't need to electrify immediately. We can postpone any troublesome curve mitigation or bridge renewal on the existing lines.

To do HFR on the budget proposed, this is a given. "HFR proposed" is the Montreal/Ottawa/Toronto one.

With either scenario though you have the issue of Guelph.

Guelph is hugely problematic no matter how it's approached. I find the proposal in the report of using the existing station, and yet "tunneling under the university" to be absurd. I know Guelph well, lived there for five years. The Uni is way off the alignment for the station. Guelph Council itself is in favour of grade separating the stretch to the immediate west of the station. Closing some of the streets to crossing will be necessary rather than building a succession of bridges.

Here's the official Guelph Council statement:
http://guelph.ca/2017/05/high-speed-rail-will-unlock-extraordinary-new-opportunities-for-guelph/

I find the concept of HSR stopping in Guelph 'over the top'. As TOAreaFan points out, Brampton is being excluded, and yet Guelph (pop 130,000) being included is down to one thing: Liz Sandals. For HFR, Guelph makes perfect sense. For HSR? Politics is already poisoning this proposal, and the EA is not even started. Of course, it's all a cynical election ploy anyway.

 

[gweed123]

The time it would add to those looking to connect at Union would defeat the exercise. (approaching an hour or more, UPX takes 25 mins airport to Union) I can see alternate trains going to Union or Airport, but suspect the vast majority of the demand would be into downtown Toronto, and more connections onto other forms of transport at Union than headed to the airport.

UPX also makes two stops along the way though, which HFR would not. It would be longer than using the Havelock Sub/Don Branch, but I don't think it would be an hour longer. In the GTA, you would have stops at Thornhill, Pearson, and Union. Using Havelock/Don Branch, you'd have at least one stop in Scarborough, if not a second somewhere east of Midtown. There's also the potential for still using the Havelock/North Toronto/Don Branch for 100% express trains.

I did some rough measuring in Google, and from the intersection of the Havelock Sub and the York Sub to Union, via the York Sub & Georgetown Sub it's 67 km. Using the Havelock Sub, North Toronto Sub, and Don Branch it's 28 km. So a little more than double the distance.

 

[dowlingm]

I wonder why we don't see the Prov and VIA work together, or vice versa. If there's funds to be had (I doubt there will be) I think the two should work alongside each other.

The Amtrak-State partnerships are recognised in legislation (in fact demanded, for routes under 750 miles). It may be that a similar (not identical) legislative framework will need to be enacted at the federal level to allow provinces to work directly with VIA at a level above subsidy/contract service (e.g. North Carolina where they own the rolling stock and Amtrak operate it)

I still don't think that Via's HFR plan is necessarily at odds with the province's HSR plan. Everything I've read from Desjardins-Siciliano against high speed rail is specifically talking about the Toronto-Montreal corridor, not Toronto-London. Sensationalist newspaper articles are trying to set up a Via vs HSR angle but I've yet to see any substance to that. I don't think that either party is shortsighted enough to not work together.

Who is going to pay a business class fare on VIA between Toronto and London/Windsor if HSR will reach those destinations in less time and with less than the current 4 hour intervals between trains? VIA is also squeezed between HSR at the high end and GO on the low end between Kitchener and Toronto. This puts a serious dent in VIA's business viability in SWO. Why then, as the province assumes, would VIA choose to continue service that surely loses money at a higher rate, like Sarnia?

 

[crs1026]

Who is going to pay a business class fare on VIA between Toronto and London/Windsor if HSR will reach those destinations in less time and with less than the current 4 hour intervals between trains? VIA is also squeezed between HSR at the high end and GO on the low end between Kitchener and Toronto. This puts a serious dent in VIA's business viability in SWO. Why then, as the province assumes, would VIA choose to continue service that surely loses money at a higher rate, like Sarnia?

The proposal takes a few liberties, yes. It also proposes three trains an hour each way at peak and two trains an hour off-peak, while "assuming" that GO to Kitchener will only run hourly. That's a pretty presumptive use of the shared portion of the line.

There is good reason to assume that Stratford, Brantford, and Woodstock would continue to want service, and a route to Hamilton/Niagara (through a transfer at Aldershot) continues to be desirable. With the through business stripped out of the VIA ridership, the economics of VIA's current southern Ontario service is problemmatic, for sure.

In theory, VIA could pull back to Toronto-London via Brantford, leaving the rest of the business to HxR. IMHO a better solution would be to contract the operation of HFR to one entity (notionally VIA, but others may bid eventually) with ownership of the entire Windsor-London-Kitchener-Toronto track resting with a new HxR corporation. That achieves something similar to the British model, which is what Collenette suggests is best practice. CN should divest its Chatham Sub while the Canada Southern route, instead of being used for HSR, can be revived as CN's freight route to Windsor.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

There's also the potential for still using the Havelock/North Toronto/Don Branch for 100% express trains.

This is the way I see making it work, alternate destinations, but even there, a stop to intersect an east-west GO service running to the airport for those Union direct trains would be the most flexible way to doing this. North Toronto would need at least one stop even for a Union direct 'express', so it being a connecting stop would stone many birds with one kill. This is the advantage of "frequent" rail. If they run every hour, it means that a passenger doesn't have to wait two hours for the next alternate to go to the airport, he/she can transfer at the intersecting station.

IMHO a better solution would be to contract the operation of HFR to one entity (notionally VIA, but others may bid eventually) with ownership of the entire Windsor-London-Kitchener-Toronto track resting with a new HxR corporation.

Agreed, and if the HFR RoW is created with PPP (in an Infrastructure Bank model, caveats applied) operators can *bid* for slots, or agree to a concession within the creating consortium. VIA HFR can be a stand-alone arm of VIA, with a separate corporate structure, with the possibility of doing that in tandem with Metrolinx, more than just sharing track, but in an operating sense.

Mark Dowling makes the case here:

The Amtrak-State partnerships are recognised in legislation (in fact demanded, for routes under 750 miles). It may be that a similar (not identical) legislative framework will need to be enacted at the federal level to allow provinces to work directly with VIA at a level above subsidy/contract service (e.g. North Carolina where they own the rolling stock and Amtrak operate it)

Mark makes a similar case in a post at:

Liberal high-speed rail proposal is long on dreams and short on facts

OPINION: Take the Liberals’ proposal to run high-speed trains between Toronto and Windsor with a caboose full of salt

http://tvo.org/article/current-affa...proposal-is-long-on-dreams-and-short-on-facts

Crossrail in London is done the way Mark and Paul espouse, with the federal and city governments as equal shareholders, and various operators will be running trains through London on a 2.5 minute headway, those operators facing fines if even a minute late! Crossrail came in on time, on budget, and is now being used as a model for other massive projects to copy. Collenette wisely mentions Crossrail many times in the HSR report.

That same application can be used for HFR, which is one more reason I see the HSR report as a template to making HFR a reality.