[ssiguy2]

It's true that an extension to Windsor has less viability due to, obviously, serving fewer passengers the further you go from Toronto. Although Windsor would be a fairly busy extension, I don't think it's Windsor 'per-se' that is basis for service there. Windsor in isolation really can't be justified but Windsor is not isolated with another 4 million people on the other side of the river. This is to say nothing of planned HSR between Detroit and Chicago.

The Windsor extension would see passable ridership but if they were to also build a bridge over to the Detroit side, then the ridership would soar and even more so when the US finally gets it's HSR head in order.

 

[crs1026]

^ The grumbling was about the “only to London” proposal. There’s a good business in overnight parking at the Windsor VIA station.... drive to Windsor and take the train to Toronto is increasingly popular. I agree that a cross border link would be well used, but the current arrangement isn’t all that bad as is.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

^ The grumbling was about the “only to London” proposal. There’s a good business in overnight parking at the Windsor VIA station.... drive to Windsor and take the train to Toronto is increasingly popular. I agree that a cross border link would be well used, but the current arrangement isn’t all that bad as is.

- Paul

Begs the question if VIA could make HFR a through service at Union and continue to Windsor via the HSR corridor.

Split the service. Half the trains on the Southern Mainline, terminating in London. The other half using the HSR corridor to gain speed, so they can get through London, on to Windsor. Help shorten the ride from Windsor without HSR all the way in Phase 1.

 

[crs1026]

Begs the question if VIA could make HFR a through service at Union and continue to Windsor via the HSR corridor.

Split the service. Half the trains on the Southern Mainline, terminating in London. The other half using the HSR corridor to gain speed, so they can get through London, on to Windsor. Help shorten the ride from Windsor without HSR all the way in Phase 1.

I don’t see why not. Already the trainsets run through, but VIA makes people disembark at Union, line up, and climb back aboard the same train.

One place that VIA is not “world class” - and ought to improve - is the rigid gate control process. Hopefully the new equipment has the technology to manage seat reservations better, and people can find their car on their own.

- Paul

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

No matter how many times the past week I've been coming back to this thread to check on updated comments, I can't help but feel skepticism about the whole HSR project. The lack of details and the obscurity of MTO overseeing this whole project has me thinking that it will never happen in our lifetimes. But the one thing that keeps coming back to me with every discussion about the HSR is this 2014 CBC report on the HSR study:

Ontario high-speed rail study was rushed ahead of election
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitch...-study-was-rushed-ahead-of-election-1.2866591

In a shorter report that followed the initial high speed rail report, consultant Michael Schabas wrote that "normally I would walk or drive the entire route."

Instead it appears he relied in part on Google Earth, which he says comes with "the caveat that not everything is marked, and some of the imagery is five years old and will not show recent developments."

Based on his information, Schabas writes that "overall, this looks to be an unusually easy route for a high-speed rail line, about as easy as you can get, in fact, both in terms of construction, and community and environmental impacts."

I really do wish that the project will go ahead but with every announcement I'm still taking it with a grain of salt.

 

[Leo_Chan]

No matter how many times the past week I've been coming back to this thread to check on updated comments, I can't help but feel skepticism about the whole HSR project. The lack of details and the obscurity of MTO overseeing this whole project has me thinking that it will never happen in our lifetimes. But the one thing that keeps coming back to me with every discussion about the HSR is this 2014 CBC report on the HSR study:

Ontario high-speed rail study was rushed ahead of election
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitch...-study-was-rushed-ahead-of-election-1.2866591



I really do wish that the project will go ahead but with every announcement I'm still taking it with a grain of salt.

Using Google Maps Satellite Imagery for detailed planning for a report?

 

[MisterF]

It's true that an extension to Windsor has less viability due to, obviously, serving fewer passengers the further you go from Toronto. Although Windsor would be a fairly busy extension, I don't think it's Windsor 'per-se' that is basis for service there. Windsor in isolation really can't be justified but Windsor is not isolated with another 4 million people on the other side of the river. This is to say nothing of planned HSR between Detroit and Chicago.

The Windsor extension would see passable ridership but if they were to also build a bridge over to the Detroit side, then the ridership would soar and even more so when the US finally gets it's HSR head in order.

Absolutely Windsor would be more feasible if the line extended into Detroit and, even better, Chicago. That would be an enormous undertaking though, with a lot of stars aligning with a lot of governments in two countries. Even more so than the Ontario-Quebec-feds partnership that it would take to build HSR to Montreal. That's one reason I support the Kitchener-London HSR. It's a relatively small project that builds on a strong base that's well underway in the GTA, and can be done relatively easily by a single level of government. And once it's done it makes HSR to Montreal (the one that really matters) more likely.

 

[kEiThZ]

What I wish we got to see was data on a control case. If they took the existing corridor. Did some grade separation and straightened out a little, what kind of speed could they achieve and how much would it cost?

I have a hard time believe that ~70 mins and $5 billion is the best they could do. I'm thinking they could have done it for $2-3 billion and maybe 80-90 mins, with a stop in Stratford. And that would have been good enough for exurban commuters from London. VIA could have hit high enough speeds with its new trainsets and had hourly service there. Add in 2-3 extra trainsets for half hourly frequencies.

Maybe upgrading may not have been the best choice, but I'd have loved to see actual data on this.

 

[crs1026]

What I wish we got to see was data on a control case. If they took the existing corridor. Did some grade separation and straightened out a little, what kind of speed could they achieve and how much would it cost?

I have a hard time believe that ~70 mins and $5 billion is the best they could do. I'm thinking they could have done it for $2-3 billion and maybe 80-90 mins, with a stop in Stratford. And that would have been good enough for exurban commuters from London. VIA could have hit high enough speeds with its new trainsets and had hourly service there. Add in 2-3 extra trainsets for half hourly frequencies.

Maybe upgrading may not have been the best choice, but I'd have loved to see actual data on this.

Yes, exactly this.

I was just nerdy enough to actually attempt my own back of envelope spreadsheet. If anyone cares, it's here. The numbers are pretty rough, and I don't pretend it's pro quality. It simply attempts to explore the issue a little.

I got a trip time of 76 minutes Toronto-London if you assume 150 mph top speeds, stops at Pearson Brampton Guelph and Kitchener, and the new bypass west of Kitchener. Close enough to the study's result to be useful for discussion.

That time increased to 82 minutes if you chose the existing route, and skipped stops at Stratford/St Marys. Add in those two stops, and the time rose only 5 minutes to 87. Drop the track speed to 110 mph, and the all stops timing on the existing route - the worst case, if you like - is 98 minutes. (deduct 14 minutes to get timings to Pearson)

What seemed to matter most is actually acceleration/deceleration rates rather than absolute top speed or number of stops. I used 1.2 mph/sec for this, a number that I pulled out of thin air. Change this to 0.8 and the timings change dramatically.

Sure, if you assume a route that accelerates immediately from the platform at Union to 150 mph, and stays there consistently until it decelerates to the platform at London, you get a fantastic trip time. But that won't be the reality on any route even with full HSR. Speed likely won't rise above 95 mph until west of Brampton, due to interleaving with RER/UPE. Similarly, entry into London will be at a lesser speed given the need to cross the CP line, make some messy road crossings, and interleave with CN somehow. Guelph will likely demand slower speeds also.

The issue is the incremental cost of the bypass and the work to get to 150 mph top speed. You can drive cost down enormously by sticking to 110 mph and thereby avoiding much of the grade separation needed. Would those longer trip times drive away riders? 84 minutes London to Pearson, making all stops, doesn't seem too shabby.

The base cost of 110 mph, versus the cost of HSR, and the projected ridership/revenue under each scenario, is indeed the most important comparison.

- Paul

 

[kps]

I did a similar but simpler estimate recently using ‘Eurasian commuter MU’ round numbers along the existing route — 150 km/h (93mph) cruise, 1km and 1 minute for acceleration and deceleration, and 1 minute dwell. (That is slow enough that grade separation is not mandatory, and the curves are adequate; it's the low-hanging fruit.) Assuming express from Union to Pearson (leave that for local transit), then stop at existing GO stations plus the proposed Breslau/YKF to Kitchener gives us 102km in 1 hour, and then stops at New Hamburg, Stratford, St Mary's, YXU, and downtown London another 98 km in 50 minutes.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Which is barely better than existing travel times from London.

 

[TOareaFan]

Which is barely better than existing travel times from London.

Via says their average trip time London to Toronto is 2 hours and 34 minutes....so a 1 hour and 50 minute trip is a saving of 44 minutes....about 30%....is that "barely better"? I don't know.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Via's current lowest travel time to London is 2 hours 8 minutes. So 18 minutes, not 44. Only a few of the trips are over 2:20.

 

[TOareaFan]

Via's current lowest travel time to London is 2 hours 8 minutes. So 18 minutes, not 44. Only a few of the trips are over 2:20.

I just used what they, themselves, describe as their "average" travel time.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Probably includes the existing trips on the Kitchener corridor, which take nearly 3.5 hours .

The "regular" route to London, via Brantford, takes between 2:08 and 2:34, with over half the trips being under 2:10. There are a few milk runs that make more stops that are longer and bring up the average that can be easily avoided if you are traveling to London.