[reaperexpress]

I'm not; Alstom has a longer history of high-speed rail design than Bombardier does. The TGV has been an Alstom playground since day one; Bombardier has designs in their catalogue but their only real experience is with Acela--which they built with Alstom. It wouldn't surprise me if they were involved somewhere regardless of whether Alstom gets the contract.

I think Bombardier is catching up to the others (Siemens and Alstom) in HSR design. In addition to the 265km/h Acela, they also have experience from the 250km/h CRH1 and the 380km/h CRH380D.

 

[kEiThZ]

I am not saying it wouldnt be an improvement (as I noted I would preferthat option), its just that the government may be reticent as an outcome of such a government priority would make existing businesses less profitable. Who knows if it would put Porter or Air Canada out of business. The Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle is a big part of the Canadian pie. Further, I think historically the whole industry has been a profitable one as evidenced by all the global carriers who have gone in and out of various bankruptcy states over the years.

It's not just the matter of a profitable sector. It's the fact that this sector generates billions in revenue for the government while any HSR project has the potential to become a money pit (see Japan). And while everybody argues that HSR is economically feasible in the Quebec-Windsor corridor, that's only true up to a point.

1) If you don't count the billions it would take to build the thing and finance it. This is why it could never be done by the private sector. And government's these days are loathe to take on significant risk. What government wants to be in charge when a $30 billion HSR has price and schedule overruns?
2) If you ignore the need to placate communities along the route.

Railfans will run off and argue about looking at the subsidies roads and airports (well did....they are now money makers for the Crown) get. And they are right. But that ignores a political reality. How are you going to change the economic paradigm to make rail more attractive? And what are you going to do service those communities who are currently served by VIA.

The only way I can see this being pulled off is if you can keep most of the existing stops. Then you'll have a whole bunch of rural communities exerting pressure on all levels of government to get it done. Ignore them and you limit or even lose political clout.

I really hope I see HSR here in my lifetime. But knowing the political realities involved, I am far too much of a realist to believe that will come to pass.

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

I think Bombardier is catching up to the others (Siemens and Alstom) in HSR design. In addition to the 265km/h Acela, they also have experience from the 250km/h CRH1 and the 380km/h CRH380C.

CRH380C is based off the Kawasaki E2, so not a Bombardier product. The CRH380D will be a full Bombardier product which is listed under its website as the Zefiro 380.

 

[MisterF]

Railfans will run off and argue about looking at the subsidies roads and airports (well did....they are now money makers for the Crown) get.

Not so fast. Even if you accept that provincial highways pay for themselves through fees and gas taxes (and even that's debatable), the vast majority of our road network is made up of county/regional roads and municipal streets. These are mostly paid for through property taxes...aka subsidies.

HSR, on the other hand, has been forcast to pay for itself, capital costs included.

 

[Darwinkgo]

HSR, on the other hand, has been forcast to pay for itself, capital costs included.

What are you smoking? The second part is far from the truth. It may provide benefits equal to the capital cost in some models, but that doesn't mean you can capture the benefits to pay for it.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

What are you smoking? The second part is far from the truth. It may provide benefits equal to the capital cost in some models, but that doesn't mean you can capture the benefits to pay for it.

Every model I can think of that has evaluated HSR in Canada has looked at a very limited network (Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa and sometimes Kingston and Quebec City with only 2 suburban stations in both Montreal and Toronto). It was assumed that a private company would pay for the rolling stock and operate the service while the government would pay for the costs of the infrastructure.

In all the cases using the criteria above the service would be profitable. How profitable varied, but enough to make it worth while to a private company/consortium to at least invest in the rolling stock. The last analysis I can think of was done in the late 90's, with the other being in the earlier part of that decade.

A lot has changed since then both in the physical form of Canadian cities, peoples attitudes and investments in transit, as well population growth and distribution across the corridor. The technology has also grown enough that service options are far more flexible than they once were.

Even with a completely comprehensive HSR network in the Corridor the service would at least be able to cover a majority of the initial capital costs of the infrastructure (spread over a reasonable amount of time, probably time of construction plus 15 years). Of course the other indirect economic benefits, which are much harder to measure exactly, are what would make the project worthwhile. And though it won't be built tomorrow, I don't think it is very far away either.

 

[reaperexpress]

1) If you don't count the billions it would take to build the thing and finance it. This is why it could never be done by the private sector. And government's these days are loathe to take on significant risk. What government wants to be in charge when a $30 billion HSR has price and schedule overruns?
2) If you ignore the need to placate communities along the route.

These are very valid points. Personally, I think that if we look at a slightly less intensive HSR system, it could bring down costs sufficiently to be feasible. Rather than building a separate network of HSR, we could build high speed lines to bypass the parts of the existing lines with the smallest curve radii. For example, instead of building a totally dedicated line from Toronto to Montreal, we could build one from Oshawa to Kingston and upgrade the tracks the rest of the way.

To placate communities we need to have a reasonable number of stations in medium-sized cities (Kingston, London, Brantford, K-W, Brockville, etc.) although not all trains need stop at them. It's not worth the cost of building a high-speed line around the cities when there would only be a few trains per day going non-stop between major cities.

As well, have they looked at using existing corridors that are nearly straight enough for HST?

For example, between Windsor and London, the CN line is pretty much dead straight. To run at 300km/h we would just need to move all freight to the CP line, grade-separate the line (build a bunch of overpasses) and increase the curve radius on 2 corners: one near Chatham and one near Stoney Point.

To connect Montreal and Quebec, we could build a high-speed railway between Drommondville and Laurier Station in the median of Autoroute 20. HSR needs a roughly 15m wide ROW, and the median of A-20 is 25m wide. There are a couple corners on the route that could not be taken at 300km/h which the HSR would need to bypass, but even so, building a few kilometres of totally new ROW is still cheaper than building hundreds of kilometres. The best part of a freeway median is that it's already grade separated, saving the massive expense of building tunnels and overpasses.

The most realistic project I think we should work on is to upgrade the Oakville Subdivision (Lakeshore West GO). It should be 4 tracks between Burlington and Union Exhibition, with the centre two being for high speed (200km/h) VIA, Amtrak and GO Express trains, while the outer tracks would be used by GO Local trains and freight. It should be electrified too.
GO plans to electrify and quad-track the line, but there is no mention of increasing the line speed, likely because 95mph is adequate for our existing rolling stock.

 

[ShonTron]

VIA is currently upgrading key points in the corridor - this gets us no closer to true high speed rail, but it does add flexibility and reduce pinch points that existing trains face.

The LRC coaches pulled by P42 or F59 locos are rated up to 95 MPH as the banking systems have been off for several years now. The full LRC sets (locos and coaches) could easily go 100 MPH (160 km/h), the highest allowed speed on the Toronto-Montreal track (still). I remember taking the train to Montreal in 2001 - my first visit to Montreal, and while the unreliable LRC loco stalled east of Cobourg getting us in an hour late (but giving the late train credit) the train arrived back in Toronto on time in the old 3:59 schedule for train 67. Now train 67 is given 4:29 to make the trip.

The track improvements are at Oshawa, Cobourg/Grafton, Belleville/Marysville, Gananoque, Lyn/Brockville/Wexford, Coteau/Ile Perrot, and near the Turcot interchange in Montreal.

In Oshawa, Cobourg, Belleville and Brockville, the track work adds additional platforms to existing or replacement stations with tunnels or bridges over or under the tracks and separate VIA's tracks from the freight yards. Elsewhere, scores of additional km of track allows the trains additional flexibility, third tracks are at the least several km long to avoid delays by freights.

http://www.viacorridor.ca/en/About-The-Project/

Not included in this is the additions of sidings and a new Smiths Falls Station to allow VIA trains to pass in more locations on the Toronto-Ottawa route and reducing delays at the CP Smiths Falls yards. Though the new Smiths Falls station (away from the yards, in a more visible location) is pretty much a stucco-clad VIA hut, a tiny version of the one in London or a miniature of the new Oakville building. Then the GO-led Kitchener improvements should hopefully help VIA's pitifully slow North Main Line service.

This just makes a dent, and only improves reliability and train schedule times somewhat. But it's the most VIA got for rail improvements ever. A TER (SNCF's medium-distance system) or local intercity type service should never be overlooked in any high speed study.

 

[ShonTron]

To connect Montreal and Quebec, we could build a high-speed railway between Drommondville and Laurier Station in the median of Autoroute 20. HSR needs a roughly 15m wide ROW, and the median of A-20 is 25m wide. There are a couple corners on the route that could not be taken at 300km/h which the HSR would need to bypass, but even so, building a few kilometres of totally new ROW is still cheaper than building hundreds of kilometres. The best part of a freeway median is that it's already grade separated, saving the massive expense of building tunnels and overpasses.

The most realistic project I think we should work on is to upgrade the Oakville Subdivision (Lakeshore West GO). It should be 4 tracks between Burlington and Union Exhibition, with the centre two being for high speed (200km/h) VIA, Amtrak and GO Express trains, while the outer tracks would be used by GO Local trains and freight. It should be electrified too.
GO plans to electrify and quad-track the line, but there is no mention of increasing the line speed, likely because 95mph is adequate for our existing rolling stock.

I like this (pardon the pun) train of thought. Perhaps if we upgraded and electrified the inner parts of the Toronto and Montreal networks (Toronto-Oshawa and Montreal-Coteau) in conjunction with GO and AMT. AMT is in the midst of upgrading the Montreal-Dorion line; why not electrify that, link it with CN and allow through Dorion-Deux-Montagnes trains? (Hudson and East Line trains would be dual-mode). That could then link with airport train project.

2 dedicated express GO/AMT/VIA tracks, 2 local tracks, two freight tracks (Oshawa-Pickering CN, Coteau-Dorval CN/CP)

From Coteau to Brockville the CN tracks are amazingly straight. 200/220 km/h trains should be easily attainable in most of the crucial parts of the corridor.

 

[gweed123]

I like this (pardon the pun) train of thought. Perhaps if we upgraded and electrified the inner parts of the Toronto and Montreal networks (Toronto-Oshawa and Montreal-Coteau) in conjunction with GO and AMT. AMT is in the midst of upgrading the Montreal-Dorion line; why not electrify that, link it with CN and allow through Dorion-Deux-Montagnes trains? (Hudson and East Line trains would be dual-mode). That could then link with airport train project.

2 dedicated express GO/AMT/VIA tracks, 2 local tracks, two freight tracks (Oshawa-Pickering CN, Coteau-Dorval CN/CP)

From Coteau to Brockville the CN tracks are amazingly straight. 200/220 km/h trains should be easily attainable in most of the crucial parts of the corridor.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Why not, during the process upgrading GO to electric, make the lines HSR-ready? This way, when the Feds and Via decide to get on board with HSR, the GTA and Greater Montreal have already been upgraded, leaving them only to worry about the rural portions. I do realize that the rural portions make up the bulk of the line, but it's easier to do work in a farmer's field than it is in the middle of a Metropolis.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

This is exactly what I was thinking. Why not, during the process upgrading GO to electric, make the lines HSR-ready? This way, when the Feds and Via decide to get on board with HSR, the GTA and Greater Montreal have already been upgraded, leaving them only to worry about the rural portions. I do realize that the rural portions make up the bulk of the line, but it's easier to do work in a farmer's field than it is in the middle of a Metropolis.

I have sent off emails to both GO and AMT asking pretty much that question. I have also a few other things, such as whether there is any coordination between the two agencies in terms of setting interoperability standards and a few other agency specific questions tossed in as well. It will be interesting to see what they write back. Since both projects are in the early stages of planning they not even know or there could be aspects still subject to change.

 

[gweed123]

I have sent off emails to both GO and AMT asking pretty much that question. I have also a few other things, such as whether there is any coordination between the two agencies in terms of setting interoperability standards and a few other agency specific questions tossed in as well. It will be interesting to see what they write back. Since both projects are in the early stages of planning they not even know or there could be aspects still subject to change.

Good thinking. And yes, applying standards that can be followed by both would certainly help down the road. If they can run HSR through these two metro areas without having to do any infrastructure changes whatsoever, it would certainly make the idea more appealing.

Keep us posted on what they reply!

 

[nfitz]

You could spend an absolute fortune preparing a line for HSR, and then find it's not going to be used, ever. It's a complete waste of money even to worry about this until something happens. I don't even know how they'd do this anymore, as VIA had planned to put 2 HSR tracks down the Kingston Road sub.; given that GO has added a 3rd track, and is a talking about a 4th, I don't see that even adding 2 more tracks is possible anymore. I can't really envision 6 tracks between Eastern and Main.

 

[gweed123]

You could spend an absolute fortune preparing a line for HSR, and then find it's not going to be used, ever. It's a complete waste of money even to worry about this until something happens. I don't even know how they'd do this anymore, as VIA had planned to put 2 HSR tracks down the Kingston Road sub.; given that GO has added a 3rd track, and is a talking about a 4th, I don't see that even adding 2 more tracks is possible anymore. I can't really envision 6 tracks between Eastern and Main.

What I was getting at was that GO and VIA would share the electrified tracks. Given that VIA service along that line would likely pale in comparison to the GO service, timing them so they don't overlap wouldn't be a huge issue.

 

[nfitz]

What I was getting at was that GO and VIA would share the electrified tracks.

No they wouldn't. Not if it's real HSR. You need separate track. It's not the same rail or power supply - let alone the operational problems of trains blasting through GO stations at 300 km/hr.