[steveintoronto]

A rail rationalisation from the west side could be pretty interesting. CP would have to give up a lot though. The ideal would be for CN and CP to both move their yards out of London centre to the vicinity of the airport and for the rail within London to be transferred to an agency like TTR to manage reasonably impartially. But there would have to significant investments in the CN corridor west and east in bridge widenings, grade separations and property acquisition to make it work, while CP are sitting on land holdings that if disposed of now would not exactly bring in prime returns.

You wrote where I didn't dare venture at the risk of sounding too revisionist for this nation. What you expound is exactly what has to happen. It will happen eventually, but we need for it to happen now, and it's ironic that London of all places (beyond the National Capital Commission example, which had federal powers behind it) might be the most recent and modern example of this happening.

We know the legislation exists to mandate this, that's the stick, but we also need the carrot, and that's making it a "win-win-win" situation for all, which is exactly what the Missing Link would be, and TTR is a century old, but still relevant, especially if one looks at the 'rationalization' happening in the US.

It has happened out west in Canada, but for some odd reason, it doesn't directly translate...or at least *hasn't* so much in Ontario, perhaps the Ottawa Valley being an exception with a few others.

It's like trying to get elephants to dance. It takes co-ordination....errr...and dating service.

I've been intrigued by that example ever since Paul posted it.

Edit to Add: Short on time but enough for a quick Google entering "rail rationalization US" and came up with a slew of unexpected results. The US ones, just by virtue of using "US" in the tag filtering rendered many results, but incredibly, perhaps due to Google having my search parameters profiled, the second hit was this:

[PDF]Community Based Strategic Rail Study - City Of Windsor

www.citywindsor.ca/.../Rail%20-%20Community%20Based%20Strategic%20Rail%20...
assess the opportunities for rail rationalization and modal integration in the City ...... mainline track are integral to the CPR network between Canada and the U.S. ...

Without even reading that, which I certainly will, the international precedent is writ large with the sharing of infrastructure *when deemed in the mutual interest*.

As an aside to this line of discussion, I hope that TC offers assistance to London Council on this. It's more than just money that's needed to move things forward.

Late Edit: Just getting a chance to glance through the Windsor Study linked above, it's fascinating, and answers a number of questions in both this and the VIA Rail string.

Example:

http://www.citywindsor.ca/residents...il - Community Based Strategic Rail Study.pdf

Besides the obvious CP/CN joint ownership case, note the "Borealis Transportation Infrastructure Trust, a subsidiary of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System" reference.

There's the 'Infrastructure Investment' case writ large yet again.

 

[MisterF]

D-S says that. But the HFR proposal has a line that doesn't run along the Lakeshore. And I think a good bit of that in-between demand is probably the suburban stations.



Keep in mind, the whole VIA HFR proposal is supposed to make VIA financially independent. That's supposedly why the government is willing to put down billions of taxpayer dollars. So with that in mind, despite the musings of D-S or Collenette, I have my doubts about what services will be left if/when HFR is implemented.

At best maybe bi-hourly DMU services along the Lakeshore? Maybe those can be through services along the Southern Main Line to London. I can see VIA leaving the Southern and Northern Main Lines to Queen's Park if they get to run the HxR from Montreal to London.

A minor point: HFR is supposed to make Via's corridor routes financially independent, not the entire system.

The north mainline that would be Via's dedicated corridor would primarily serve as the intercity express route between the big cities (probably with a couple trains stopping at the smaller towns) while the existing line owned by CN would primarily serve as a link between the smaller towns and the big cities. Who knows what the schedule would be but a bi-hourly train (DMU or otherwise) isn't much different from the current schedule. Cities like Belleville, Kingston, Cornwall, Brantford, etc. would have enough demand to continue services on a line that already has the infrastructure in place. As for Sarnia and Stratford, that line only gets, what, two daily trains? Keeping that up isn't a huge deal. And since that line would become a feeder to the HSR system, if anything I could see demand increasing.

As I said, this what is routinely done in other countries that have built faster express lines. The slower local lines that serve cities like the ones I mentioned above typically continue to operate.

Rail has a balance sheet. Highways don't. It's not how things should be, but it is how things are. Look at how the Star has taken another swing at UPX's finances, but nobody knows what the real costs or indirect revenues of Highway 427 or any other highways are, because the MTO doesn't have to produce such numbers.

This is true of course, I was just pointing out the double standard. But attitudes are changing. The Star doesn't take GO Transit to task for not covering its costs and its attitude towards rail investment tends to be positive. UPX was a unique business case that was deservedly criticized. If they had designed it as part of the regular GO network from the start I doubt we'd see the same backlash. Unfortunately now UPX has become a whipping boy for opponents of any rail project, with the refrain "this is just another UPX boondoggle" coming up again and again.

 

[cplchanb]

lets say that this whole HSR scheme gets green lit and fully funded, construction started.
What rolling stock is actually available now that will meet our ancient TC regs? Are they designing now
based on the assumption that TC will modernise its regs?

 

[Allandale25]

Here are the remarks given by Transport Action to Brampton's Council:

BRAMPTON CITY COUNCIL DEPUTATION
ROBERT WIGHTMAN
PRESIDENT
TRANSPORT ACTION ONTARIO
WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2017

Mayor Jeffrey, councillors, staff and members of the public:

Thank you for providing this opportunity for me to speak to you about the high-speed rail proposal that Premier Wynne announced last Friday. This is an issue that is of concern to me as both a resident of Brampton and as the president of the citizens’ advocacy group, Transport Action Ontario.

Let me first say that I am not opposed to high-speed rail service. I have ridden it on several corridors in Europe and it is impressive. But those services are fundamentally different from the one being proposed for Southwestern Ontario because they have benefited from decades of continuous investment. They didn’t suddenly sprout out of nowhere. They resulted from step-by-step incremental improvements that built passenger demand to a point that justified the leap to high-speed.

Even in the United States, the penny has dropped. Plans for immediate construction of high-speed service have been replaced by projects similar to those in Europe. The Americans have realized they have to build their corridor rail passenger services incrementally to deliver better service today, not years or even decades from now.

But this is not what’s being proposed here in Ontario – and it flies in the face of this worldwide experience. It is folly to believe we can go from the meagre rail service we’ve now got to what Queen’s Park is proposing in one leap. A rail service that won’t be up and running until 2025, at the earliest, and at a cost of at least $20 billion is simply unacceptable. Technical experts are already saying those costs and timelines are highly optimistic.

What should also be of concern is the fact that this proposal excludes us completely. If it’s done the way Queen’s Park has suggested, Brampton won’t be served directly by the high-speed trains. We’d even lose the meagre and inadequate VIA Rail service we now have, which at least offers a one-seat ride on this route. It would make us a “have-not” community, especially compared to those cities that would eventually get the direct high-speed service.

To be blunt, Brampton would be shafted under this proposal.

It is clear that what we need is something very different from what Queen’s Park is proposing. We need a plan that grows our rail service the same way it has been grown on corridors around the world. It must deliver real improvements as quickly as possible to all the communities on the existing route, including Brampton.

It is this type of rail service – delivered in progressive stages on an accelerated basis – that will provide us with the car-free mobility that is critical to the economic, social and environmental success of our city. We need it as an integrated component of the larger transportation master plan on which we are staking our future.

Therefore, I urge council to bring this issue to the attention of our elected representatives at Queen’s Park. Our voice needs to be heard now, before this proposal gets any further down the track.

If the current proposal ever gets rolling, it will take us in the wrong direction. That will be difficult to halt. Built improperly, it would be a multi-billion-dollar blunder that would have negative repercussions for generations. We can’t afford to let that happen.

High-speed rail service for the future is a wonderful objective. Faster, more frequent and more affordable rail service that includes cities such as Brampton is what will get us there. That’s the route we need to take if we are going to compete with those regions around the world that have already done it. Time is growing short.

Thank you for your time and attention.

 

[steveintoronto]

What rolling stock is actually available now that will meet our ancient TC regs?

It's a very good question, and one I can't find an answer to (it may exist, I just can't find it). Even the US is having to adapt regs to accept more modern methods in the wake of the Acela fiasco (it was virtually neutered by having to meet FRA regs, almost doubling the weight of the trainsets in doing so, which in turn caused other issues, like brakes and wheelsets cracking, etc)

Are they designing now
based on the assumption that TC will modernise its regs?

Metrolinx mention it umpteen times in their technical reports, and I suspect VIA is putting pressure to do same so they can re-issue the terms of their RFQ for replacement trainsets. It would radically increase the amount available to choose from, and offer much better deals.

 

[mdrejhon]

lets say that this whole HSR scheme gets green lit and fully funded, construction started.
What rolling stock is actually available now that will meet our ancient TC regs? Are they designing now
based on the assumption that TC will modernise its regs?

Yes.

Even FRA is doing it -- it's called "FRA Alternative Compliance" where FRA permits lighter trains with minor modificarions. That is how the European train Stadler KISS is headed to California. (It is also the default EMU clipart train that Metrolinx uses when advertising RER, although listed as only one of the possible EMU options.)

GO RER electrification is apparently being designed with the assumption --
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...ntrol-ptc-cbtc-safety-shorter-headways.21483/

Transport Canada has recently indicated that they may be more flexible with the FRA structural strength requirements, which might open opportunities for GO to study a broader range of European and Asian EMUs and DMUs. Specifically, they stated their intent to require new GO vehicles to either:
 Meet FRA structure strength and crash worthiness for passenger cars, or
 Maintain temporal separation from freight and heavy rail passenger traffic, or
 Operate under some form of Positive Train Control (PTC) signalling system

Apparently, up to $800M of the 13.5 billion dollar GO RER budget is allocated for a CBTC deployment.

A full CBTC deployment has better capabilities than PTC.

It should satisfy a pre-requisite to TC adopting a carbon copy of nearly-European-style "FRA Alternative Compliance".

 

[cplchanb]

Yes.

Even FRA is doing it -- it's called "FRA Alternative Compliance" where FRA permits lighter trains with minor modificarions. That is how the European train Stadler KISS is headed to California. (It is also the default EMU clipart train that Metrolinx uses)

GO RER electrification is apparently being designed with the assumption --
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...ntrol-ptc-cbtc-safety-shorter-headways.21483/



Apparently, up to $800M of the 13.5 billion dollar GO RER budget is allocated for a CBTC deployment. CBTC is arguably better than PTC.

So in theory as long as they have some sort of PTC any emu can pass? If thats the case I really hope they get an export version of the N700,
though in reality they will probably stick with bbr (sigh....) or alstom

 

[muller877]

A rail rationalisation from the west side could be pretty interesting. CP would have to give up a lot though. The ideal would be for CN and CP to both move their yards out of London centre to the vicinity of the airport and for the rail within London to be transferred to an agency like TTR to manage reasonably impartially. But there would have to significant investments in the CN corridor west and east in bridge widenings, grade separations and property acquisition to make it work, while CP are sitting on land holdings that if disposed of now would not exactly bring in prime returns.

there has been talk for 50+ years to merge the tracks in London. But each one wants to retain control of their own destiny. It's a hard sell to give your operations over to your biggest competitor.

 

[steveintoronto]

there has been talk for 50+ years to merge the tracks in London. But each one wants to retain control of their own destiny. It's a hard sell to give your operations over to your biggest competitor.

That's not the plan in London, it hasn't been the plan in any instance where they've shared track to "give your operations over to your biggest competitor"

If you read the Windsor report that I've quoted above, http://www.citywindsor.ca/residents/Traffic-And-Parking/Transportation-Planning/Documents/Rail - Community Based Strategic Rail Study.pdf
or any of the many reports on track sharing, you'd realize it's a win-win-win situation for all concerned. The only collateral is stranded customers, which quite often can be mitigated by serving in a different manner.

There's many reports on doing this, I'm not going to list them, but here's an example:

[...]

[...] continues at length
http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLIRailPolicyPaper02-15-WebReady.pdf

London City Council has wisely asked Transport Canada, the co-author of the Windsor report, which discusses all these aspects and more, to partake in a study and report of the London situation.

Given the right offer, CP and CN will agree, like they have many times before.

 

[mdrejhon]

So in theory as long as they have some sort of PTC any emu can pass? If thats the case I really hope they get an export version of the N700,
though in reality they will probably stick with bbr (sigh....) or alstom

With "relatively" minor modifications. In order to meet the new "FRA Alternative Compliance" rules.

Stadler KISS is receiving these mods. Most European EMUs probably could.

Trains can indeed be much lighter than under traditional FRA.

 

[dowlingm]

lets say that this whole HSR scheme gets green lit and fully funded, construction started.
What rolling stock is actually available now that will meet our ancient TC regs? Are they designing now based on the assumption that TC will modernise its regs?

This is available for 125mph operations, right now - Siemens Viaggio Comfort coaches with an SC44 locomotive at either end (well, subject to climate testing and whatever other specific requirements VIA would lard on).

For electric HSR operations, Alstom's Avelia platform would probably be a good choice if they could be bookended onto Amtrak's order:

 

[dowlingm]

So in theory as long as they have some sort of PTC any emu can pass? If thats the case I really hope they get an export version of the N700,
though in reality they will probably stick with bbr (sigh....) or alstom

The problem being of course that PTC may be the trickiest part of the whole business, given how awful a process the US rollout has been, never mind CBTC.

 

[steveintoronto]

Today's TorStar carries an article by the normally rational Christopher Hume, who I usually find interesting and on the point.

Ontario's high-speed rail plan not so far-fetched this time: Hume
[...]
What has eluded us, perhaps, is the idea that passenger trains can be run as a business. In the U.K., where railways have been privatized, many train lines are profitable. Indeed, what has Britons outraged is that rail operators, mostly foreign, are making out like bandits. Still, because the state retains ownership of the tracks, government can fine franchisees and/or cancel their contracts if they fail to meet contractual obligations.

So while Ontarians are busy pooh-poohing the idea of high-speed rail, global infrastructure investors, including some from the U.K., are licking their lips in anticipation. Given that there are more than 62,000 drives between Toronto and Kitchener daily, the idea of a 45-minute train ride suddenly seems very attractive. “We have reached a tipping point in terms of congestion,” Collenette says. “So when you provide a rail alternative, people are quite happy to take it.” [...]

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...l-plan-not-so-far-fetched-this-time-hume.html

There's a massive problem with that claim, and I'll quote the Financial Times on this, as it is a highly emotional topic in the UK, and the FT is about as neutral a source of business matters as you'll find in the UK:

Network Rail subsidies worth £3.9bn to be handed to train groups
July 9, 2015

by: Gill Plimmer and Tanya Powley

The government has begun a big overhaul of Britain’s state-owned railway infrastructure operator, but experts questioned whether the measures would fix its severe management and performance problems.

The moves strip Network Rail of £3.9bn a year in government subsidy and hand the money to private train operating companies such as Virgin and Stagecoach. They will in turn pay higher fees to Network Rail for using the tracks.

The changes will fundamentally alter the structure of Network Rail for the third time since Britain’s railways were privatised in 1996

At the same time Nicola Shaw, the well-regarded head of High Speed 1, the privatised rail link between London and the Channel tunnel, has been drafted in to draw up a rescue plan for the crisis-hit rail infrastructure operator.

Ms Shaw, a former First Group chief executive, will join Network Rail’s new chairman Peter Hendy, poached from Transport for London last month, in a review of the future shape and financing of the entity.

Regional Network Rail managers will be given more power over local routes, following criticism that the entity is too big to operate efficiently. The rationale for channelling the annual subsidy through the 22 train operating companies is that their revenues are more closely tied to satisfying passengers.

Train operators declined to comment. An ORR spokesperson said the move would “encourage better commercial arrangements between train companies and Network Rail to help improve the way the whole system delivers efficient and reliable services”.

Experts questioned whether this would make any difference to Network Rail, which has been repeatedly criticised for poor management, delays to major projects and severely delayed and overcrowded trains. Recent ORR figures showed that half of commuter trains arrived late every day, even though ticket prices are the most expensive in Europe.

“It’s a quasi-commercial relationship rather than a real one as its underwritten by government,” said Christian Wolmar, a transport expert who is standing as a Labour mayoral candidate for London.

The move has precedent. Railtrack, the privatised predecessor to Network Rail, received all its income from track access charges. But Roger Ford, editor of Rail Magazine, said the move was “completely pointless”. “It’s just the kind of thing that competition-crazed civil servants and Tory ministers would come up with,” he said.

“None of the train operating companies would dare bash the Department for Transport-owned Network Rail over the head. They are not going to say they are unhappy with the timekeeping or signalling.”

Network Rail controls 2,500 stations as well as tracks, tunnels, and level crossings. But it was thrown into chaos last month after being forced to scale back the biggest investment in the railways since Victorian times because it was behind schedule and over budget on several major projects.

Two electrification projects in the Midlands and the north were postponed. Meanwhile, poorly planned engineering works have caused massive disruption at London Bridge and Victoria stations in the capital.

The changes raise questions over the management of the infrastructure operator, including the position of Mark Carne, a former oil executive at Royal Dutch Shell who was brought in on a salary £80,000 higher than his predecessor even though he had no rail or transport experience.

Network Rail’s executive directors have already been told they will not receive a bonus this year, while the government has also appointed Richard Brown, a former head of Eurostar, as special director of Network Rail to monitor progress.

“Mark Carne quite frankly doesn’t understand the industry,” said one insider. “The railways is actually a very complicated industry and needs an insider to run it. The centre of Network Rail is bloated, pretty dysfunctional and desperately short of people who understand the industry.” [...]

https://www.ft.com/content/83122eb2-2604-11e5-bd83-71cb60e8f08c?mhq5j=e2

In all fairness, this is to all rail operators in the UK, not specifically the "high speed" ones, but Hume doesn't phrase it that way.

So let's examine High Speed 1 specifically:

Rail 694: the myths around HS1
It is one of the oddities of the way that the political system works that the amount of effort which goes into assessing major schemes before they are built is never matched by attempts to ascertain their impact after completion. There’s a good reason for that. If the scheme has been a disaster, or at least not performing as well as expected, then it’s best to leave sleeping dogs lie since there is no political mileage to be gained from waking them. On the other hand, if it has been a success, then it was probably down to the other lot, or even some hated predecessor on the same side, and therefore again not worth mentioning.

So the report by the National Audit Office, The Completion and Sale of High Speed 1, is to be welcomed as a worthy attempt to assess the benefits of a major project some five years after its completion. While it provides a lot of ammunition to the opponents of HS2 and no solace for its supporters, it also highlights inadequacies in the methodology surrounding such projects.

Let’s first debunk a myth that has always annoyed me as it has been widely reported but I have always argued that it is quite simply untrue. The promoters of HS1 always say proudly that the line was completed on time and on budget. Well, it depends what ‘time’ and what ‘budget’ they are talking about. The first scheme to build the line drawn up in the mid 1990s was based on a Private Finance Initiative with, supposedly, little direct government funding – apart from various help in kind such as the provision of the trainsets. The scheme was supposed to be paid for by the profits from Eurostar services, and therefore was based on fantastically optimistic projections of usage. The forecast by the successful bidder – a consortium of nine companies including Bechtel, Warburg’s, Virgin and National Express suggested there would be 29 million passengers annually by now, compared with the actual performance of 9.7 million in 2011.

Consequently, by late 1997 it was apparent that the scheme was not viable (as I predicted at the time in a Rail column a couple of weeks before it collapsed) and the consortium brought out the begging bowl, asking for more subsidy. Ministers refused to bail it out, and instead, after much negotiation, a revised scheme was thrashed out in 1998, with the government providing the backing for the borrowing needed to complete the scheme. Even then, the budget was not adhered to. The NAO report shows that the original estimated cost after the renegotiation of £5.2bn was exceeded by 18 per cent in the final bill of £6.2bn. The project has, in fact, according to the NAO cost taxpayers more than £10bn (at 2010 prices) if financing costs and the various other types of support to the original bidder is included.
[...]

http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2012/04/rail-694-the-myths-around-hs1/

And again, the FT:

HS1 owners consider sale of Britain's only high-speed rail line

https://www.ft.com/content/5ed4e89e-bd36-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080?mhq5j=e2
Dec 8, 2016 - The Canadian owners of HS1, the 109km high-speed UK railway line that connects London to the Channel tunnel, are exploring strategic ...

There are stunning examples of the UK "getting it right" with rail after many business failures, Crossrail being an example for the nation and world to learn from. UK High Speed Rail is not a business model to copy.

 

[Longview]

I have no technical expertise to offer on this subject, just a thought: would it not make sense to offer a fast, convenient, and non-stressful travel connection between IT skills supply (Kitchener-Waterloo) and demand (Toronto)? Build that much of a high-speed service as a pilot project and expand as required to London, Windsor, etc.

 

[Urban Sky]

I have no technical expertise to offer on this subject, just a thought: would it not make sense to offer a fast, convenient, and non-stressful travel connection between IT skills supply (Kitchener-Waterloo) and demand (Toronto)? Build that much of a high-speed service as a pilot project and expand as required to London, Windsor, etc.

I unfortunately have to be more neutral on this proposal than I was when I was just a curious student and amateur transport planner, but (prior to my current employment) I've speculated in my very first posts in this forum about what travel times might be possible at various design speeds and what service patterns might be plausible.

As for the published Special Advisor's Final Report, once you note that the BCR decreases as the design speed increases and as the length (and especially the distance from Toronto) increases, you might guess what additional column and line I would have expected to see in the table below:

Source: High Speed Rail in Ontario - Special Advisor for High Speed Rail: Final Report (p. 46)