[gweed123]

Speaking from a land acquisition perspective, it's generally easier to widen an existing ROW than it is to create an entirely new one. The Planning Act states that the government can't create a ROW through someone's property, and leave them with a second, un-usable piece of land. Using the 401 as the ROW to piggy-back onto makes sense for some of the routes, but the problem with that is a lot of highway-dependent businesses have sprung up directly beside the highway, making the widening of the ROW difficult in some instances. Also, building right beside the highway creates the risk of driver distraction, etc. Also, it would mean that basically every overpass would need to be rebuilt to accommodate HSR.

This would lead me to believe that using the existing rail ROWs would be the better solution. Although it may require land acquisition around curves (to smooth them out), overall I think it would be easier than running beside a highway.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

Speaking from a land acquisition perspective, it's generally easier to widen an existing ROW than it is to create an entirely new one. The Planning Act states that the government can't create a ROW through someone's property, and leave them with a second, un-usable piece of land. Using the 401 as the ROW to piggy-back onto makes sense for some of the routes, but the problem with that is a lot of highway-dependent businesses have sprung up directly beside the highway, making the widening of the ROW difficult in some instances. Also, building right beside the highway creates the risk of driver distraction, etc. Also, it would mean that basically every overpass would need to be rebuilt to accommodate HSR.

This would lead me to believe that using the existing rail ROWs would be the better solution. Although it may require land acquisition around curves (to smooth them out), overall I think it would be easier than running beside a highway.

Don't forget that HSR lines are grade separated where as current rail lines through rural areas more often than not have level crossings. You still have to build bridges/viaducts/tunnels over or under roads anyways. And there are still going to be issues with rail dependent businesses next to existing lines that would have to accounted for in planning. Driver distraction is also another reason why HSR lines are never built right next to highways (unless there is a barrier or its absolutely necessary). Usually its the equivalent of 4 lanes of traffic at a minimum.

What makes the most sense (highway, rail, or a new right of way) will just depend on the area. Some sections, such as Brockville pretty much all the way to Montreal) the rail line is straight enough and has enough undeveloped land around it that it would make sense to use it. Kingston to Toronto, using the 401 (or very close to it) would make the most sense for most of the route. There are so many factors at play that what might seem best at first may not actually work at all (or vice versa).

Edit: And what purpose the line will serve also makes a huge difference. A line between Toronto and Montreal that skips most everything in between is going to have much different requirements than one that is designed to serve existing VIA communities in addition to the major cities.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

So the emails I sent off to GO and AMT really didn't provide much insight. Questions about the Lakeshore and Vaudreuil-Hudson lines were not answered because there was not enough information about them at this time. Overall, these projects are being developed independently of VIA or future intercity rail service. Not that VIA isn't consulted (or CN or CP) when need be, but they are not explicitly being done for their benefit too. So really, if they happen to benefit HSR in the future, that will just be a lucky outcome. Though really once deigns are released it will be pretty easy to tell how useful they might be.

Right now it's just a waiting game. In a year things should be much more interesting.

 

[kEiThZ]

Something to ponder...and get opinions on...

I've always wondered about the feasability of Freight HSR. Might it not be possible to perhaps get CN and/or CP onboard, along with the government (for VIA) to build a freight and pax HSR corridor? This way there's some cost sharing on building the HSR corridor (with separate tracks for freight and pax lines) and lots of benefit for the transportation sector at large. I can imagine that this would take a lot of trucks off the 401, while making lots of money for CN/CP.

 

[gweed123]

Something to ponder...and get opinions on...

I've always wondered about the feasability of Freight HSR. Might it not be possible to perhaps get CN and/or CP onboard, along with the government (for VIA) to build a freight and pax HSR corridor? This way there's some cost sharing on building the HSR corridor (with separate tracks for freight and pax lines) and lots of benefit for the transportation sector at large. I can imagine that this would take a lot of trucks off the 401, while making lots of money for CN/CP.

Interesting idea. Although I think initially the added cost of retrofitting the system for CN/CP would drive up the cost of shipping, which would in turn drive even more businesses to using trucks. CN/CP are stretched thin as it is, trying to cram more and more cars onto longer and longer trains.

If they can find a way to convert the lines without raising shipping costs too drastically, I'd say you then have a point.

 

[Darwinkgo]

The time cost of intermodal transfer pretty much negates the benefits over trucking. Over a certain distance flying is more economical. If we still had rail adjacent post offices it might make sense in that limited capacity but otherwise no. For most goods saving an hour or two on the trip from the Port of Montreal to Toronto intermodal is pretty insignificant based on their value and precludes it.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

Really freight will make gains by simply having VIA off their tracks. And from a technical point having containers on flatbeds speeding along at 300km/h seems a little dodgy. I'm sure there would be ways to secure it down tightly, but then you would probably lose time doing so (not to mention trying to secure down a transport trailer for high speeds). There is also the question of what sort of wear and tear would be added to the HSR network from having heavier freight loads use it.

If freight/shipping was a desirable goal of a HS network then it would have to be something different. It could focus more on shipping goods directly to consumers. One example would be FedEx unloading a plane at Pearson, filling up a HS Cargo train (think something along the lines of the TGV Poste), and delivering items directly to local delivery trucks along the HSR network. For this I would see using containers closer to what airplanes use so that you can still get benefits from containerization and quick and simple unload/reload times. The big issue is that this would have to be built into the network from the very beginning to make it work, and whether FedEx or UPS or Canada Post would even want to is another question.

 

[kEiThZ]

Note that I was not suggesting that freight and pax HSR use the same tracks. Just that they use the same corridor.

The majority of the effort in building HSR goes towards defining the corridor, acquiring land and building corridor for rail ops. Laying down track is rather trivial by comparison. So what I'm pondering is....is there a way to get our two large rail operators (or even one of them involved). They would get their own tracks in the corridor, if they were interested in helping build the corridor.

@AS.

TGV Poste is kind of what I was thinking of but on a more broader scale. I'm not imagine trailer containers tied down. I'm thinking of LD3s loaded off aircraft and onto an awaiting train. Just imagine for example, if all courier freight, high value trucked freight, mail, etc. was shipped by HSR. I think there might be a good business case. It might not even be CN or CP. It might just be somebody else. Perhaps, FEDEX, UPS and Purolator should be brought into the discussion.

Moreoever, a lot of cargo that's shipped by truck is actually lighter than the bulk stuff which is shipped by rail (and chews up the tracks). There's always high value, low weight cargo, like courier mail, electronics goods, etc. Given a regular schedule and cheaper delivery costs (compared to air), I'd bet that companies like FEDEX would give it some serious consideration. Heck, I could easily see a mail car added to every HSR trainset. Or an occassional postal train (a la TGV Poste) if separate tracks aren't under consideration.

For CN/CP, HSR freight might be a new market for them to invest in (and gweed...they aren't doing that badly....our freight rail companies are actually relatively succesful). Or there just might be another entrant out there that's willing to come onboard.

 

[reaperexpress]

The majority of the effort in building HSR goes towards defining the corridor, acquiring land and building corridor for rail ops. Laying down track is rather trivial by comparison. So what I'm pondering is....is there a way to get our two large rail operators (or even one of them involved). They would get their own tracks in the corridor, if they were interested in helping build the corridor.

TGV Poste is kind of what I was thinking of but on a more broader scale. I'm not imagine trailer containers tied down. I'm thinking of LD3s loaded off aircraft and onto an awaiting train. Just imagine for example, if all courier freight, high value trucked freight, mail, etc. was shipped by HSR. I think there might be a good business case. It might not even be CN or CP. It might just be somebody else. Perhaps, FEDEX, UPS and Purolator should be brought into the discussion.

Moreoever, a lot of cargo that's shipped by truck is actually lighter than the bulk stuff which is shipped by rail (and chews up the tracks). There's always high value, low weight cargo, like courier mail, electronics goods, etc. Given a regular schedule and cheaper delivery costs (compared to air), I'd bet that companies like FEDEX would give it some serious consideration. Heck, I could easily see a mail car added to every HSR trainset. Or an occassional postal train (a la TGV Poste) if separate tracks aren't under consideration.

For CN/CP, HSR freight might be a new market for them to invest in (and gweed...they aren't doing that badly....our freight rail companies are actually relatively succesful). Or there just might be another entrant out there that's willing to come onboard.

If CN or CP will agree to a shared alignment, that would be great, but CN and CP have been abandoning track left and right, so I'm not sure if they'd be interested. Would they benefit more from using the HSR allignment rather than an abandoned existing corridor? As well, one nice thing about HSR is that high speed trains have an excellent power-to-weight ratio, allowing them to climb steep grades. If we had freight trains running in the same right of way, steep grades would be impossible, driving up construction costs considerably.

The benefits from running light freight on HSR would not be that large. Once a line is built, then it would make sense to run light freight on it, but I don't think it factors into deciding whether we build that line in the first place.

 

[dunkalunk]

From Woodstock to Windsor, CN and CP's track run almost parallel and fairly straight. It would just be a matter of switching freight from one set of tracks to the other and putting high speed trains on the other.

 

[reaperexpress]

From Woodstock to Windsor, CN and CP's track run almost parallel and fairly straight. It would just be a matter of switching freight from one set of tracks to the other and putting high speed trains on the other.

That's exactly what I said a few posts back:

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.

 

[dowlingm]

Are there significant industrial customers along the Windsor-London trackage which would be cut off were one or other sets of tracks handed over to VIA? As a first step I guess you could do that with the Windsor-Chatham stretch and see how it went.

If there's a choice between worrying about a 20 year project to get HSR done and something else, can I please have an extra train between Kingston-Toronto-London to get headways below four hours on weekdays instead? I had a business trip to London last week and my choices were a 1531 departure or a 1930 departure that would have had me arriving home at about 2230 - I chose to compress my visit into a 5hr window to make the 1531. I'd have really liked a departure in the 1700-1800 range and I'd say I'm not alone, even if it was an RDC service rather than an LRC or Renaissance.

Let's aim for maximum 2hr headway Windsor-Montreal and maximum 1hr London-Kingston and Ottawa-Quebec City using existing 160km/h speeds by 2015 and see how that goes? Obviously the upgrades in the Oshawa-Montreal project will introduce additional slots to better allocate trains and hopefully that will have a knock on effect but it won't fix 4 hour gaps to something that will pull in business the service doesn't already have.

I like Hipster Duck's suggestion above of APCUs to reduce terminal wyeing, add flexibility in where services turn back and move the diesel plume off the train 50% of the time. The only thing is we pretty much missed a window for those - eliminating the addition of HEP generators to the F40s and putting them in de-engined LRC locos instead. Now the LRC locos are scrapped and the F40s have HEP so you're looking at more costly solutions which deliver less.

While we're optimizing the existing route network the next thing I'd look at would be electrification of Montreal-Ottawa with VIA initially acquiring a few ALP-45DPs while the catenary is coming west from Montreal - the rationale being that (a) it's a highly visible route for MPs and federal bureaucrats, (b) it's interprovincial, (c) VIA owns the tracks and would benefit directly from the necessary improvements and (d) in the initial phases AMT could maintain the ALP-45DPs within their fleet under contract while VIA get up to speed. The locos could then move on to the next expansion project (Montreal-Quebec City probably?) once the project is complete and new power cars or full Acela sets as an add on to Amtrak's next order (although the alignment would have to be okay for tilt to get the full benefit of that)

 

[gweed123]

While we're optimizing the existing route network the next thing I'd look at would be electrification of Montreal-Ottawa with VIA initially acquiring a few ALP-45DPs while the catenary is coming west from Montreal - the rationale being that (a) it's a highly visible route for MPs and federal bureaucrats, (b) it's interprovincial, (c) VIA owns the tracks and would benefit directly from the necessary improvements and (d) in the initial phases AMT could maintain the ALP-45DPs within their fleet under contract while VIA get up to speed. The locos could then move on to the next expansion project (Montreal-Quebec City probably?) once the project is complete and new power cars or full Acela sets as an add on to Amtrak's next order (although the alignment would have to be okay for tilt to get the full benefit of that)

Good idea. The Ottawa-Montreal stretch is also some of the flattest land in Canada, so the engineering could be simplified because there aren't many terrain obstacles to work around. For Phase 2 though, I would go with Toronto-Montreal instead of Montreal-Quebec City.

 

[dowlingm]

As a Torontonian I would agree! But my rationale for Quebec City being next was more to do with a) the possibility of running through Ottawa-Quebec City trains, b) the likelihood of support from HydroQuebec and c) the insatiable desire of the feds of both parties to "throw money at its Quebec problem". The same length of catenary only gets you as far as Kingston or thereabouts whereas VIA would have to get as far as Pickering to pick up Toronto area 25kV.

 

[gweed123]

As a Torontonian I would agree! But my rationale for Quebec City being next was more to do with a) the possibility of running through Ottawa-Quebec City trains, b) the likelihood of support from HydroQuebec and c) the insatiable desire of the feds of both parties to "throw money at its Quebec problem". The same length of catenary only gets you as far as Kingston or thereabouts whereas VIA would have to get as far as Pickering to pick up Toronto area 25kV.

Makes sense. My rationale was based on the fact that Toronto-Montreal would be the route that would have by far the highest ridership in the entire QC-Windsor corridor. It may be longer, but I would think that completing the most profitable sections first would be wise. Yes, QC-Mtl does have quite a bit of ridership, but connecting the two largest cities in the country I would think would trump that. And besides, as you mentioned earlier, the cross-border and into Quebec thing ("throwing money at the Quebec problem") I would think would be satisfied by linking Montreal with both Ottawa and Toronto (3 of the 4 largest cities in the country). Incrementally expand outwards from there.