[gweed123]

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.

True, I wasn't aware of the power supply differences. Also, I would assume that the HSR trains would reduce their speed when travelling through the urban area, presumably down to about the same speed that the current VIA trains travel. I realize this would eliminate a lot of the "high-speed" part of it, but in reality, the Toronto and Montreal urban areas make up only a small percentage of the total travel time.

 

[Darwinkgo]

True, I wasn't aware of the power supply differences. Also, I would assume that the HSR trains would reduce their speed when travelling through the urban area, presumably down to about the same speed that the current VIA trains travel. I realize this would eliminate a lot of the "high-speed" part of it, but in reality, the Toronto and Montreal urban areas make up only a small percentage of the total travel time.

Power supply differences are surmountable, it adds some costs to the trainsets but no where near the costs of converting legacy infrastructure to similar standards, or running long stretches of line on a voltage more appropriate for shorter urban lines. I remember reading in the past few years a quad voltage trainset was developed so trains could traverse from germany to england across all the different standards.

As for slowing down in an urban area it is pretty normal. Needing to acquire brand new ROW within cities would raise the costs even further. Another case of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

 

[leopetr]

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.

I'm perfectly ok with fake HSR. The ICE 3 trains in Germany run at 300 km/h while sharing inner city track with S-Bahn commuter rail.

Of course, this may not be possible in Canada and US because of our safety regulations.

 

[Platform 27]

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.

AMT and future GO electrification would be 25 kV AC @ 60 Hz, which is quite happily used by HSR around the world---the overhead and power distribution systems could be shared.

True HSR does indeed have fancy tracks and ballast and so on. Those are generally "backwards-compatible" to be run over by slower, local trains, but in terms of day to day operations it would be weird to run commuter trains on them and plug up the "fast lane."

 

[nfitz]

They could be shared, but you build the overhead, the track, even the geotechnical foundation, to different standards for HSR than for commuter rail. Signalling is different. Switches are different. Ties are different.

Doesn't mean that commuter rail can't run on the higher standard infrastructure ... but it adds to the cost.

It's simply not worth putting any money into it without there being a go ahead. We could spend a fortune on it, and then discover the HSR takes a different alignment.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Couldn't we build an FRA-compliant HSR system that would follow conventional signals and rules within the cities and then switch to HSR operating mode on its own tracks once outside? Like the Acela, it would probably be a clunker compared to European and Asian high speed trains, but it would keep the capital costs reasonably low, since we would only have to build new track in rural areas.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Another little thing VIA could invest in right now is cab cars. This would allow for interesting things like through trains from Quebec City to Ottawa and Toronto, where trains could pull into Montreal's Central station and then back out minutes later. Even with VIA's schedules and current speed, I think you would find this service being instantly competitive with car travel, since so much of the time it takes to drive between places like Quebec and Ottawa is spent trying to get through Montreal. Building a cab car isn't even very difficult: just take a mothballed LRC locomotive and remove all the dead weight (the engine, etc.).

 

[reaperexpress]

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).

Just nitpicking, but we don't tend to run F59s on the corridor. We do run F40s (up to 95mph) and P42s (up to 100mph). The LRC coaches, coupled to P42 locomotives, continue to run at 100mph as they always have, even with the banking turned off.

Couldn't we build an FRA-compliant HSR system that would follow conventional signals and rules within the cities and then switch to HSR operating mode on its own tracks once outside? Like the Acela, it would probably be a clunker compared to European and Asian high speed trains, but it would keep the capital costs reasonably low, since we would only have to build new track in rural areas.

They could be shared, but you build the overhead, the track, even the geotechnical foundation, to different standards for HSR than for commuter rail. Signalling is different. Switches are different. Ties are different.

Doesn't mean that commuter rail can't run on the higher standard infrastructure ... but it adds to the cost.

It's simply not worth putting any money into it without there being a go ahead. We could spend a fortune on it, and then discover the HSR takes a different alignment.

Other than the Shinkansen, I'm not aware of any High Speed Rail system that runs entirely on dedicated track. All high speed trains are designed to run with various types of signaling, overhead rail types, etc. It may have been a big deal to make versatile trains when the first TGVs came out, but has long since become standard.

Usually what happens is that high-speed trains use regular tracks (at regular speeds) until they reach the high speed line, where they may switch signaling or current systems.

Yes, there is a difference in the level of infrastructure for high speed railways and and commuter railways, but much of the engineering behind HSR only becomes necessary when we're talking about speeds above approximately 250km/h. Within the GTA or Greater Montreal, such speeds are highly unlikely, so the level of infrastructure can be much lower. For example, the infrastructure on the Northeast Corridor (200km/h) is rather different than the infrastructure on the Wuhan-Guangzhou High Speed Railway (350km/h). When talking about upgrading GO and AMT lines, we're talking about NEC-style improvements. That means welding the rail (already in progress), upgrading switches (also in progress) as well as smoothing and banking corners.

Commuter rail is quite capable of sharing tracks with higher speed trains. Just look at the Northeast Corridor. 135mph (217km/h) Acelas intermingle with 125mph (200km/h) Northeast Regionals and 80mph (129km/h) commuter trains. The key to doing this effectively is that the centre tracks are used by faster trains while the outer tracks are used by slower (local) trains. Local stations tend to have only side platforms (like Exhibition station) and major stations tend to have island platforms (like Oakville Station). That way they minimize the occurrence of high speed trains passing directly in front of platforms.

The Lakeshore West line is a great candidate to be upgraded to speed up intercity trains. Quad-tracking is quite feasible, and would not cost a fortune. Even if HSR doesn't get built, we will see the benefits. Although the line speed is an acceptable 95mph (153km/h), intercity trains are often forced to run slower due to freight or GO Local trains being in the way. With the line quad tracked and the signals and rails upgraded, VIA and Amtrak's P42DCs would be able to run at their full speed of 110mph(177km/h), and that's without even using electric trains. Then there's the obvious benefit that quad-tracking would vastly increase the line capacity.

 

[rbt]

Commuter rail is quite capable of sharing tracks with higher speed trains. Just look at the Northeast Corridor. 135mph (217km/h) Acelas intermingle with 125mph (200km/h) Northeast Regionals and 80mph (129km/h) commuter trains. The key to doing this effectively is that the centre tracks are used by faster trains while the outer tracks are used by slower (local) trains.

That is not an example of sharing tracks. That is an example of having multiple dedicated tracks in a single corridor.

Sharing tracks means literally, a single track will be used by the 135mph and the 80mph train. In our case, perhaps even the 40mph freight.

 

[reaperexpress]

That is not an example of sharing tracks. That is an example of having multiple dedicated tracks in a single corridor.

Sharing tracks means literally, a single track will be used by the 135mph and the 80mph train. In our case, perhaps even the 40mph freight.

Oops, bad wording. You're correct, that should be sharing a corridor. It's not uncommon for commuter agencies to share high-speed tracks, though. For example through Massachusetts, MBTA Commuter trains(~80mph) and Amtrak intercity trains(125mph) share the same rails and ties as CSX freight trains.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

Just a few points worth noting.

First, in terms of getting trains through urban corridors (such as the Lakeshore corridor) as fast as possible what matters most is making sure the line has capacity. Quad tracking, removing freight from those lines, upgraded signals and switches, and suitable bypasses and sidings at most GO stations will do more to allow trains to travel as fast as possible (probably no more than 160km/h through most of the corridor). But with very few exceptions running HS trains on high capacity and still relatively swift commuter/intercity lines through major urban centres is standard practice.

When it comes to lines between centres running through the country side or smaller urban centres it is much different. These lines as for HSR service only (again, some exceptions but mixed traffic has a number of serious drawbacks). In addition, they are in their own right of way which more often parallels a motorway or runs through the rural landscape as opposed to just following the route of existing classic lines.

There are good reasons for this. First is that classic lines where built to suit the need for minimal grade changes. They are basically flat and would be routed through flat landscape, even if that meant somewhat twisty, convoluted paths since it was cheaper to add length than deal with massive earthworks. HSR lines dont have this concern. They can be built through far more rolling and hilly landscapes, meaning they can often be built in much more direct lines (save things like mountains, lakes or rocky terrains and such). That is why they often parallel motorways; they have been built to geometries far more suited to a HSR rail line than more twisty classic lines.

Second, upgrading classic lines doesn't make sense. HSR lines may look they same, but are built to much different standards, so a classic line would not only have to be ripped up but radii of corners increased, earthworks to create a new rail bed plus new ballast, rails, sleepers, signalling systems. And since you are not going to run mixed traffic on the new HSR line (what would be the point of spending that money and then restricting speeds), you have to put other freight and passenger traffic elsewhere. In other words, leave existing routes and add capacity on new, custom built ones.

In short, upgrades to add capacity for GO and AMT will have benefits for HSR in the future...if it is done correctly (and right now whether that will be the case is still not really known). As far as the rest of the VIA corridor, the money being invested will be good for VIA's current service, but irrelevant for HSR. And as has been said before in this thread, there is zero point in trying to spend money outside of urban centres (with the exception of land acquisition) on 'HSR' upgrades since those lines will be built from scratch anyways.

 

[reaperexpress]

There are good reasons for this. First is that classic lines where built to suit the need for minimal grade changes. They are basically flat and would be routed through flat landscape, even if that meant somewhat twisty, convoluted paths since it was cheaper to add length than deal with massive earthworks. HSR lines dont have this concern. They can be built through far more rolling and hilly landscapes, meaning they can often be built in much more direct lines (save things like mountains, lakes or rocky terrains and such). That is why they often parallel motorways; they have been built to geometries far more suited to a HSR rail line than more twisty classic lines.

Second, upgrading classic lines doesn't make sense. HSR lines may look they same, but are built to much different standards, so a classic line would not only have to be ripped up but radii of corners increased, earthworks to create a new rail bed plus new ballast, rails, sleepers, signalling systems. And since you are not going to run mixed traffic on the new HSR line (what would be the point of spending that money and then restricting speeds), you have to put other freight and passenger traffic elsewhere. In other words, leave existing routes and add capacity on new, custom built ones.

Although that is true most of the time, I think it's a bit unfair to say that all existing rail lines are useless. Although our lines were not designed for speed, that doesn't mean they are inherently slow. I'll point again to the existing rail lines between Windsor and London. The land is incredibly flat, so both CP and CN lines are dead straight. The two lines are quite close together, so it would be quite easy to reroute freight spurs from CN to CP, if we take over the CN line for passenger-only use.

Now let's look at the best route for a high speed line. We can build a totally new ROW through farmers' fields, or we could use the existing one. As you point out, curve radii on existing railways is not large enough for 300km/h operation. In this case, that isn't a big deal, because there are only 2 corners so we can simply leave the ROW at those points.

What I'm saying is that although the rails themselves are useless for high speed, the ROWs aren't necessarily useless. We'll still need to build new trackbed, rails, signals, overhead, etc. but at least we'll save a lot on land acquisition.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

What I'm saying is that although the rails themselves are useless for high speed, the ROWs aren't necessarily useless. We'll still need to build new trackbed, rails, signals, overhead, etc. but at least we'll save a lot on land acquisition.

True. There are some sections, much of what is west of London, as you've said, where the existing rail right of ways could potentially be used. Of course it isn't completely straightforward since there has to be a buffer between CN/CP/freight lines (the high speed of the trains can cause turbulence and trouble when it passes slower moving commuter or freight trains) and it depends on how wide the right of way actually is. This is why highways, such as the 401, could likely make natural routes for HSR lines since the right of ways tend to be wider, and very often there is crown land off to one side, or the other, or both, that could also be used.

Really it will be the section between London and Brockville (roughly) that will be the most challenging and expensive. The section between Montreal and Quebec on the North Shore is largely flat and the A-40 and even some of the rail lines right of ways should allow for a route to be designed without a great day of land acquisitions or hassle (much like the London-Windsor section). The Montreal-Ottawa and Brockville-Ottawa sections will probably fall somewhere in between but still not likely be too difficult.

 

[reaperexpress]

True. There are some sections, much of what is west of London, as you've said, where the existing rail right of ways could potentially be used. Of course it isn't completely straightforward since there has to be a buffer between CN/CP/freight lines (the high speed of the trains can cause turbulence and trouble when it passes slower moving commuter or freight trains) and it depends on how wide the right of way actually is. This is why highways, such as the 401, could likely make natural routes for HSR lines since the right of ways tend to be wider, and very often there is crown land off to one side, or the other, or both, that could also be used.

Actually, it is straightforward. With freight trains on the CP line and high speed trains using the CN allignment, the buffer is 3km. That should be plenty as long as high speed trains stay below the speed of sound (roughly 1200km/h). There would be no commuter traffic west of London.

Really it will be the section between London and Brockville (roughly) that will be the most challenging and expensive. The section between Montreal and Quebec on the North Shore is largely flat and the A-40 and even some of the rail lines right of ways should allow for a route to be designed without a great day of land acquisitions or hassle (much like the London-Windsor section). The Montreal-Ottawa and Brockville-Ottawa sections will probably fall somewhere in between but still not likely be too difficult.

I don't think the section between London and Brockville looks too difficult. Although there aren't any usable ROWs, the terrain seems fairly flat. The biggest obstacle that I can think of is the Niagara Escarpment. In fact, it's such a big obstacle that I think it's not worth going high speed at all. I would just use the existing line and accept speeds of up to only 160km/h.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

Actually, it is straightforward. With freight trains on the CP line and high speed trains using the CN allignment, the buffer is 3km. That should be plenty as long as high speed trains stay below the speed of sound (roughly 1200km/h). There would be no commuter traffic west of London.

I was thinking more along the lines that the HSR route would parallel either the CN or CP line. If they could be consolidated then yes, that would eliminate the problem. But could that realistically happen? And I say that not actually knowing the answer. When it comes to planning out the exact details of a route obviously there are hundreds, if not thousands of questions and problems that will arise. I'm not arguing your point that west of London would not be too challenging, just that I think the exact details can quickly become difficult to debate without the proper information.

don't think the section between London and Brockville looks too difficult. Although there aren't any usable ROWs, the terrain seems fairly flat. The biggest obstacle that I can think of is the Niagara Escarpment. In fact, it's such a big obstacle that I think it's not worth going high speed at all. I would just use the existing line and accept speeds of up to only 160km/h.

Its not that the terrain is overly challenging (some sections between Kingston and Brockville are a bit rocky but thats about the worst problem). Its more that this is the most urbanized section of the route. Finding ways to build true HSR lines that serve cities the best they can without requiring massive land acquisitions or expropriation or engineering works is a really though task to balance properly. Really, if engineers, planners and designers can find a way to serve this area with the maximum amount of HSR lines within a budget that is reasonable, then that is one of the biggest obstacles that has to be overcome. The rest of the network is pretty easy in comparison.