[TOareaFan]

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.

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

 

[crs1026]

Try driving the route and see if you can do it in that. Everything is fine....until about Winston Churchill.

The other improvement that matters: we are mostly assuming service at an hourly headway, plus more east of Kitchener. That's a huge bonus compared to the limited number of runs today....pretty close to never mind the schedule, just go to the station and a train will be coming.

I once rode a CN RDC that took a mere 42 minutes to go from Brantford to London. Yeah, we flew But, you will *not* get CN agreeing to hourly headways on the Brantford line. Not without a third track up the Escarpment, and that's a very expensive option. So the Brantford line headways are not that important here.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

I was just nerdy enough to actually attempt my own back of envelope spreadsheet. If anyone cares, it's here.

Excellent work. Thanks for this. I think your numbers are quite reasonable.

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.

I think 1.2 mph/sec is overly conservative. Accelerating at 0.1g would be about 2.2 mph/sec. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume the trains can accelerate or decelerate to their target velocity in about 70 seconds.

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)

Thanks. This is my point. The existing route is reasonable enough. They don't have to deal with protesting farmers. If they could make a few small changes, toss in grade separations, consolidate stations (just one stop at Stratford), and build smaller bypasses (say outside St. Marys), they could probably use the current corridor and get down to about 80 - 90 mins if I had to guess. And I would guess they could do that for a lot less.

Admittedly, 70 mins from London to Union, makes London commutable to a lot of the downtown core in Toronto. But at 90 mins, London would still be an exurb that would draw a lot of Torontonians who don't have to commute daily. It would make for an easier startup and give them a path to incremental improvement. Let's them decide later if they really need a full bypass skipping Stratford. Etc.

A huge part of the problem in Canada, is that we're just not practical enough on these developments. We refuse to recognize that public sentiment is different in Canada on rail. We refuse to recognize that governance is different here. And that impacts how regional and national rail is funded. Instead of presenting solutions that the public can reasonably support, we get dream solutions which never get built. At least VIA has the right idea with HFR.

I sincerely fear what happens to this project when estimates get refined and governments figure out that $5 billion can buy more votes being spent on local issues throughout Ontario.

 

[kEiThZ]

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.

No need at all for that many stops. Fewer stations and feeder buses would work. St.Marys is 20 mins from Stratford. Anywhere in London is a 20-30 min drive to the VIA station.

Which is barely better than existing travel times from London.

Getting down to 90 mins from 128 today is far more than “barely better”. Cutting travel times by 30% over the best performance today is notable. Having consistent performance at 90 mins would be just as notable too. VIA’s travel times vary 20% on that route.

 

[Urban Sky]

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.

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.

I think 1.2 mph/sec is overly conservative. Accelerating at 0.1g would be about 2.2 mph/sec. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume the trains can accelerate or decelerate to their target velocity in about 70 seconds.

In case you want to compare your travel time calculations with mine, I refer to this post:
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...son-airport-toronto.20558/page-47#post-939815

Similarly, if you want to benchmark your acceleration and deceleration assumptions against a few studies I found, I refer to this post:
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...son-airport-toronto.20558/page-50#post-949226

In fact, both posts were part of a series of posts with which I introduced myself into this forum and deal with quite a number of points raised in the last few pages in this thread. In reference to the disclaimer in my signature, these posts actually predate my current employment...

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.

There are very few alternatives to trains 70 (80 on Sundays) and 75 (81 on Saturdays) for a day trip from London to Toronto and their scheduled travel times are 2h34 (dep. 07:30 / arr. 10:04) and 2h25 (dep. 17:30 / arr. 19:55), respectively. Also, word has reached my ear that passengers on that route occasinally find their travel time prolonged by some unscheduled travel time, while these unscheduled travel time extensions seem to be significantly less frequent and long in those places of the world where passenger trains do enjoy operational priority...

 

[kEiThZ]

In case you want to compare your travel time calculations with mine, I refer to this post:
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...son-airport-toronto.20558/page-47#post-939815

Similarly, if you want to benchmark your acceleration and deceleration assumptions against a few studies I found, I refer to this post:
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...son-airport-toronto.20558/page-50#post-949226

In fact, both posts were part of a series of posts with which I introduced myself into this forum and deal with quite a number of points raised in the last few pages in this thread. In reference to the disclaimer in my signature, these posts actually predate my current employment...

Well that sucks....

I didn't think acceleration of 0.1g was that problematic. But looking at your sources and a quick search online shows 0.05g is more typical. Dunno if that's a technical, regulatory or comfort limitation. I don't believe 0.1g would be uncomfortable standing up on a train. Subway cars do more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R143_(New_York_City_Subway_car)

So I guess the range of 0.8 - 1.2 mph/s is more typical for long-haul trains. I wonder if accelerations have gone up with electrification and newer trains.

There are very few alternatives to trains 70 (80 on Sundays) and 75 (81 on Saturdays) for a day trip from London to Toronto and their scheduled travel times are 2h34 (dep. 07:30 / arr. 10:04) and 2h25 (dep. 17:30 / arr. 19:55), respectively.

Tangential to your point here, I think consistency of service is just as important as speed. And by consistency I mean both frequency and travel time. When you know the train is going to be every hour, you don't plan around specific departure times for non critical trips. And when you know the train is fast, you'll be able to actually plan around that fact with some reliability. Get on the train, and call your friends to tell them you'll meet in 1.5 hrs.

 

[Allandale25]

Apologies if this was already posted but here's an article from London covering a recent staff report related to high speed rail and freight trains blocking crossings:

http://lfpress.com/news/local-news/rail-relocation-dreams-dashed-in-london-for-now

 

[crs1026]

So I guess the range of 0.8 - 1.2 mph/s is more typical for long-haul trains. I wonder if accelerations have gone up with electrification and newer trains.

My unscientific guess was based on having played with my GPS while riding VIA. I found that the trains seemed to accelerate at about a “one-steamboat” cadence, ie 1 mph/s.

(Having said that, I have had a couple experiences where I hit Durham Jct driving east on the 401 just as an eastbound VIA went through the crossovers at 45 mph and then took off. Those P42’s can take off like a rocket!)

Anyways, I wanted to be conservative and not assume better acceleration through newer technology or electrification, either. That’s another can of worms, with its own business case analysis - another card for the Province to play.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

Apologies if this was already posted but here's an article from London covering a recent staff report related to high speed rail and freight trains blocking crossings:

http://lfpress.com/news/local-news/rail-relocation-dreams-dashed-in-london-for-now

I actually think this is a positive outcome in that it disabused London boosters and politicians of any misconceptions around what the railways’ interests and concerns are. So, if they hold onto the idea, they understand what the issues and costs may be.

However, it’s a lot like the discussion we just had in the North Toronto thread. There is a lack of legal and policy support to encourage looking at these relocation projects. But it comes down to money. No doubt CP would move, and CN would accept, at some price point.

As for HxR, the Province would have deeper pockets than CofL, so maybe it’s not beyond reach eventually.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

My unscientific guess was based on having played with my GPS while riding VIA. I found that the trains seemed to accelerate at about a “one-steamboat” cadence, ie 1 mph/s.

(Having said that, I have had a couple experiences where I hit Durham Jct driving east on the 401 just as an eastbound VIA went through the crossovers at 45 mph and then took off. Those P42’s can take off like a rocket!)

Anyways, I wanted to be conservative and not assume better acceleration through newer technology or electrification, either. That’s another can of worms, with its own business case analysis - another card for the Province to play.

- Paul

I wish the province's report was a tad more detailed on some of these basic assumptions. How did they model the physics of the train for their studies?

I am just wondering if the slow acceleration is a technical limitation (due to being power limited or traction limited) or if it's limited owing to some mandate or regulation or guideline? The technical limitations can usually be overcome. Mandates and regulations, not so much.

Looking at stop spacing, I don't think having a stop at Stratford would be entirely unreasonable. It's about 50km, give or take. That's a normal stop spacing for HSR elsewhere. And then London is about 100km after that. The real limitation on this line is not Stratford. It's the portion East of Kitchener, all they way up to Union. It makes me even more curious to see what it would mean to use much of current corridor vs. building the bypass. Presumably, the only statistics changing are for those west of Kitchener.

 

[Streety McCarface]

My unscientific guess was based on having played with my GPS while riding VIA. I found that the trains seemed to accelerate at about a “one-steamboat” cadence, ie 1 mph/s.

(Having said that, I have had a couple experiences where I hit Durham Jct driving east on the 401 just as an eastbound VIA went through the crossovers at 45 mph and then took off. Those P42’s can take off like a rocket!)

Anyways, I wanted to be conservative and not assume better acceleration through newer technology or electrification, either. That’s another can of worms, with its own business case analysis - another card for the Province to play.

- Paul

If you have a speedometer that takes in values for time, you can easily calculate acceleration by taking a derivative of an equation for those lines. Does your app not have acceleration?

 

[kEiThZ]

If you have a speedometer that takes in values for time, you can easily calculate acceleration by taking a derivative of an equation for those lines. Does your app not have acceleration?

I'd be cautious about using VIA's current numbers. Running HSR on its own corridor will be very different than VIA running Corridor trains on track shared with freight and commuter trains and not maintained to HSR standards.

 

[Allandale25]

Apparently a NDP candidate wants to expand the HSR EA and "look at all options".

 

[innsertnamehere]

She is a local London councillor IIRC who has long been a sole voice against the project from the outset.

 

[mdrejhon]

I am just wondering if the slow acceleration is a technical limitation (due to being power limited or traction limited) or if it's limited owing to some mandate or regulation or guideline? The technical limitations can usually be overcome. Mandates and regulations, not so much.

Technical. Traction limited, usually. And even the weak accleration is still sometimes throttled back a bit to reduce wear-tear on aging locomotives.

That's why GO wants to switch to EMUs for some key routes (core sections of Bramalea-Unionville-Aurora) to accelerate faster. Having all wheels have power, makes a huge difference.