VI: Comparison of acceleration and deceleration values from various sources
Those braking distances seem really conservative, especially the 160-0 distance. I can tell you as a matter of fact a GO train can stop from 93mph(150kph - top speed) in approx. 0.75 miles(1.20 km). That is however using a very heavy brake application, something the chart referenced doesn't define. But even with a more typical/normal level of braking, 150kph to 0 is can easily be accomplished in 1.0-1.1 miles(1.61-1.77 km). Of course GO trains are specifically tuned to have superior braking capabilities, at least vs current inter-city VIA trains due to the need for frequent stopping. I can't say how exactly high speed trains would compare since I don't have any experience operated them, though hopefully one day I will!
They of course employe a different kind of braking system, one that relys far less on friction braking if at all. The charts 160kph to 0 braking distance/time seems almost accurate for a VIA train. But I'm certain that any future high speed trains the province purchases will have better braking abilities then the current VIA trains, some of which are absolutely atrocious, especially those "tin cans"
!
So what would be the correct braking and acceleration times for a high speed train? Wish I could be of more help but all I can say is that as a train operator myself I find the 160-0 distance seems very long. The only other information I can provided is that which you've probably already found yourself or can easily find on the internet. The following link for example indicates a braking distance of 7.2km and 170 seconds from 300kph for the typical French, German and Japanese trains.
http://www.railway-technical.com/Infopaper 3 High Speed Line Capacity v3.pdf
While in the end it doesn't make a significant difference time wise considering the limited number of stops, its still something to perhaps consider.
I have complemented your source by a small web search myself and collected values from the following sources, which I have sorted chronologically starting by the oldest:
Additionally, I have added the values which I have derived myself from the QOHSRP study and on which I have based all timetable calculations in my Bachelor Thesis and in this forum
and compiled all values into the following table, in which the acceleration distances, times and rates are provided for the acceleration from standstill to 80, 160, 200, 240, 300 and 320 km/h:
Notes: A gray field means that no values were available for this speed, black fields mean that the speed is not applicable for the assumed train type and values in bold were taken from the tables provided further up, whereas all other values were derived from the values provided (where only the acceleration rate was provided, the speed was calculated first with t=v/a, followed by the distance with s=0.5(a*t^2)).
As you will see in the following table, most sources provide rather similar values for the various speed levels with the notable exception of the Jet Train (as indicated by the broken lines). Even though AMG claims that these values were obtained directly from Bombardier and the same table is used elsewhere, I find acceleration distances of 10 km to 200 km/h and even 32 km to 240 km/h as extremely implausible (or as a compelling explanation why the project didn't go anywhere). In any case, I don’t see any reason to believe that my acceleration values are overly conservative (which I know you never claimed about their case, but anyways...):
Moving on to the deceleration values below:
I see my values in line with most other sets of values, but seriously undercut by the values from your link (again indicated by broken lines):
It appears that even Deutsche Bahn
assumes deceleration values of 0.5 m/s^2 (and even above, if for speeds below 170 km/h) for normal operation of their ICE 3:
However, when I compare the resulting travel times (simulated on TKL@200 km/h with all stops currently served by VIA Rail [Malton, Brampton, Georgetown, Guelph, Kitchener, Stratford, St Marys], since that appears to be my timetable scenario with the largest total of distances spent with braking: 42.87 km on 195.6 km of route), I achieve a time saving of 2:35 minutes (or 2.44%):
Even though you are right that the time savings only really matter in such extreme multi-stop cases as above (in the case of the one-stop TKL train, the difference accounted to only 53 seconds or 1.03%), I will consider adopting the deceleration value of 0.5 m/s^2 in my future timetables…
By the way, good luck on your dream of switching from commuter rail to HSR! Becoming a train conductor was my childhood dream, but I only ever made it to drive trains on MSTS on my PC…
Apparently the business case for the HSR is finally coming out sometime in the next week or two, we will maybe get some actual details from that.
See also
High Speed Rail Canada to Release Toronto - Kitchener - London High Speed Rail Preliminary Business Plan by FCPWorld:
High Speed Rail Canada is the only source in Canada to obtain all the information relating to high speed rail past and present studies on high speed rail.
In October they released the previously unavailable France national Railway SNCF (Société nationale des chemins de fer français - National society of French railway) and partners on High Speed Rail Socio-Economic Study between Windsor and Quebec City.
Now High Speed Rail Canada is going to release FCPWorld Toronto-Kitchener-London High Speed Rail Preliminary Business Plan Study that was completed for the Ministry of Transportation.
The study will be released in early November 2014. Like all other studies it will be available on our Google drive link from our website.
I am eternally thankful to Paul Langan and his “High Speed Rail Canada” advocacy group, as my Bachelor thesis wouldn’t have looked the same if they hadn’t had already made the “VIA Fast” study available…
Amazing work! Thanks for all your research and insights (although I still disagree...and will so until I see a costing from the Province of the alternatives)
I hope that the politicians read this analysis. This is the work that your staffers should be doing (or getting the ministry to do) that will form a briefing note to you. If they don't do this amount of work....we're in trouble. (I'm kinda scared to know the answer)
And in this thread there has been identified the pro's and con's to almost all of the feasible alternatives. If you want to have an "open government" publish this type of analysis as a white paper and let poeple like us give feedback....and actually listen to it.
Thank you so much for your enthusiastic reaction to my tables! I'm really glad to hear that my work is so appreciated here (and there will definitely be more to follow, whenever I find the time)...
Related posts:
I: 48 minutes for Toronto-Kitchener is feasible with existing alignment at 160 km/h!
II: Toronto-London on existing Kitchener route is feasible in 97 minutes at 160 km/h
III: Toronto-London in 93 minutes at 160 km/h on existing Brantford route
IV: Liberals' 23 minutes promisse for HSR Kitchener-London is unrealistic!
V: Toronto-Kitchener-London vs Toronto-Burlington-London
Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study Thread: Why don't we focus (for now) on Toronto-Kingston rather than Kingston-Smith Falls?