[crs1026]

I was momentarily tempted to go looking for comparators in other countries, but it would be so hard to do apples to apples that it may not be worth it. Collenette pegged the base capital costs for 250 km/h Toronto- London at $4.1B. But he uplifted those costs to $8-10B based on varying assumptions for contingency and escalation to future years. That proposal is about the same length of line, with some complexity at the Toronto end (as there would be at the Montreal end). So as a ballpark I would say it's as good as any guesstimate for Montreal- Ottawa.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

I was momentarily tempted to go looking for comparators in other countries, but it would be so hard to do apples to apples that it may not be worth it. Collenette pegged the base capital costs for 250 km/h Toronto- London at $4.1B. But he uplifted those costs to $8-10B based on varying assumptions for contingency and escalation to future years. That proposal is about the same length of line, with some complexity at the Toronto end (as there would be at the Montreal end). So as a ballpark I would say it's as good as any guesstimate for Montreal- Ottawa.

Wow, $8-10B for what, hundreds of people traveling between Toronto and London? For Ottawa-Montreal, I didn't even consider the ROW and infrastructure that would be required at the Montreal end. Ottawa would have issues too but Montreal is a much larger and denser environment. Many people don't realize how straight, flat and dedicated an alignment HSR demands, if not for safety then for efficiency. I could be wrong, but unless you can get passenger loads up to something approaching what is seen in Japan or Europe, or get times down to well below flying, it's not going to pay its way.

 

[kEiThZ]

Wow, $8-10B for what, hundreds of people traveling between Toronto and London?

Why do people not realize that the Toronto-London rail line is not just about London? It's about connecting the country's largest tech hub (Waterloo), with the country's largest aviation hub (Pearson) and the country's financial centre (Bay St.). London was added on to reduce the pressure on the 401 and improve the chances of southwestern Ontario actually developing.

For Ottawa-Montreal, I didn't even consider the ROW and infrastructure that would be required at the Montreal end. Ottawa would have issues too but Montreal is a much larger and denser environment. Many people don't realize how straight, flat and dedicated an alignment HSR demands, if not for safety then for efficiency.

Nobody says it has to be >200km the whole way. I would assume, regular speeds once it enters built-up areas. The key is to make up travel time in the countryside.

 

[kEiThZ]

I was momentarily tempted to go looking for comparators in other countries, but it would be so hard to do apples to apples that it may not be worth it. Collenette pegged the base capital costs for 250 km/h Toronto- London at $4.1B. But he uplifted those costs to $8-10B based on varying assumptions for contingency and escalation to future years. That proposal is about the same length of line, with some complexity at the Toronto end (as there would be at the Montreal end). So as a ballpark I would say it's as good as any guesstimate for Montreal- Ottawa.

- Paul

Excellent points. But shouldn't Ottawa-Montreal be substantially easier? Leaving Ottawa, you hit countryside pretty quick. And there's a few straight stretches on the existing line. And after Dorion, it would be urban speed anyway. So really we're talking about fixing up 150km of track in the countryside, with a max of one stop at say Alexandria.

I guess I am hoping they at least have some sort of path to upgradeability. IE. If we put in $100 million, we improve travel time and the business case by x%. So that over time we see just that. They upgrade where they can and continuously improve speed.

Right now, they are saying Ottawa-Montreal is 1:20 for HFR. I'd like to know what it would take to get them down to 1 hr, which in turn would also guarantee that Toronto-Montreal would be under 3.5 hrs. That's why I'm wondering if they can save 20 minutes by improving speeds in the countryside and how much that would cost.

 

[Urban Sky]

Here's a question. How much would it cost to make Ottawa-Montreal true HSR.

If you believe that the Ecotrain study provides us some indication, a simple subtracting all costs related to rolling stock or operations, extrapolating to current prices and adjusting for the shorter distance suggests that construction costs for Montreal-Ottawa would be between $2.2 and $3 billion:

Source: Ecotrain (2011, Deliverable 6, Part 1, pp.26+49)
Conversion factor: 1.1404 (Bank of Canada)

If you believe that the report published by the provincial government of Ontario provides better indications, the same procedure suggests that construction costs between Montreal and Ottawa would be anywhere between $2.8 and $38 billion:

Source: SDG (2016, pp. 9+50+51)
Deflation factor: 3% (Ibid, p. 76)

Going to bed now, but will gladly correct any errors you find in my tables over the weekend...

 

[kEiThZ]

We're essentially talking about increasing the average speed on Ottawa-Montreal for HFR, from an average of 138 kph to 184 kph. Exactly a third faster. Looking at Johannes excellent work, if I had to guesstimate, I'd say $3-4 billion would get them there. They already own most of the corridor. A lot of it is straight. So fix a few bends, electrify and grade separate. With all of that being done exclusively in rural areas to provide the speed boost. Of course, if we draw London-Windsor as analogous, we're looking at up to $8.2 billion with contingency.

The next question is whether the speed boost for Toronto-Montreal and the improvement in commutability between Ottawa and Montreal makes this worthwhile.

 

[dowlingm]

We're essentially talking about increasing the average speed on Ottawa-Montreal for HFR, from an average of 138 kph to 184 kph. Exactly a third faster. Looking at Johannes excellent work, if I had to guesstimate, I'd say $3-4 billion would get them there. They already own most of the corridor. A lot of it is straight. So fix a few bends, electrify and grade separate. With all of that being done exclusively in rural areas to provide the speed boost. Of course, if we draw London-Windsor as analogous, we're looking at up to $8.2 billion with contingency.

The next question is whether the speed boost for Toronto-Montreal and the improvement in commutability between Ottawa and Montreal makes this worthwhile.

They own Ottawa-Coteau. CN owns the rest, they want a ton of money for more train movements, and there is no easy alternative.

The problem with high speed rail even in southern Ontario is always going to be catchment. There was a reference to Waterloo being the country's largest tech hub - well so what? In terms of people who might put bums on seats it's a small population and much of the tech is remote from the rail station in Kitchener, and every improvement to the service (Brampton grade separations, 401 tunnel) is slow and expensive. The Quebec-Windsor Corridor is longer than the NEC and with far few people along its length, and is (between Boston and Washington) owned by the passenger operator instead of freight rail company shareholders. We will still be talking about HSR in 20 years and we will still have 90mph VIA over non cab signalled track using Amtrak surplus P42s and Amfleets as our premier service because incremental change (125mph over owned track and junking P42s/HEP2 for enough Chargers/Viaggios to increase frequency) wasn't sexy enough for either railfans or politicians, and "dirty diesel" to the NDP.

 

[Urban Sky]

We will still be talking about HSR in 20 years and we will still have 90mph VIA over non cab signalled track using Amtrak surplus P42s and Amfleets as our premier service because incremental change (125mph over owned track and junking P42s/HEP2 for enough Chargers/Viaggios to increase frequency) wasn't sexy enough for either railfans or politicians, and "dirty diesel" to the NDP.

Amen.

One table about travel time between Montreal and Ottawa:

Source: VIA Rail timetables (effective 2002-10-27, 2004-05-23 and 2017-11-05) and Ecotrain (2011, Deliverable 6, Part 1, pp.25+26 and Deliverable 13, p.S-7)

In case you want an illustration of the exponential costs and diminishing returns increasing rail design speeds yields:

Source: New York State DOT and Transport Québec (2004, p.4)

Key quote from the same study (p.1):

HSR in the Corridor Has Merit. The NYSDOT and MTQ pre-feasibility studies indicate that the development of HSR in this corridor has merit. However, given Full HSR’s multi-billion dollar cost and lengthy (10+ year) implementation time, and the corridor’s environmentally sensitive Adirondack Park location, rail passengers would be better served by incremental improvements implemented in stages. Concurrently, New York State should investigate FRA requirements for the corridor to be designated as part of the US HSR network. This would provide a basis for both MTQ and NYSDOT to develop justifi cation for future federal funding for HSR.

 

[TOareaFan]

Why do people not realize that the Toronto-London rail line is not just about London? It's about connecting the country's largest tech hub (Waterloo), with the country's largest aviation hub (Pearson)

How would it link Ottawa to Pearson?

http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/mobile/new-report-ranks-ottawa-top-tech-hub-in-canada-1.3330059

 

[reaperexpress]

The problem with high speed rail even in southern Ontario is always going to be catchment. There was a reference to Waterloo being the country's largest tech hub - well so what? In terms of people who might put bums on seats it's a small population and much of the tech is remote from the rail station in Kitchener, and every improvement to the service (Brampton grade separations, 401 tunnel) is slow and expensive.

Waterloo Region's tech hubs are not even remotely remote from Kitchener Central Station. Google's headquarters is literally next door to the station, the Communitech hub is one block west of the station, and most of the remaining tech offices are close to the LRT, which will directly serve the new train station.

Of course the tech sector is not enough in itself to support a rail line, but we are talking about a city of 500K people that's 100km from a megacity. Then add to that Guelph, a city of 130K 20km from KW and 80km from Toronto. There is a huge amount of travel within the corridor, and currently bus/rail is a fairly small percentage of it. And travel will only increase as the regions grow, especially if we create a practical rail alternative to the travel-time-roulette that is the 401.

 

[Urban Sky]

Of course the tech sector is not enough in itself to support a rail line, but we are talking about a city of 500K people that's 100km from a megacity. Then add to that Guelph, a city of 125K 20km from KW and 80km from Toronto.

Just out of interest, where exactly in Europe and Asia is the precedent of linking one 500k city - especially one which is served by only 12 trains per day - over a distance of 100 km to the metropolis by HSR? Nevertheless, the good news is that there are many incremental stages between 6 trains per day and direction travelling at a maximum speed of 145-160 km/h with travel times of 90-120 minutes on a shared corridor and HSR traveling every 30 minutes at 300 km/h in 48 minutes on a dedicated infrastructure at a cost to the taxpayer of $14-$43 billion...

 

[rbt]

Just out of interest, where exactly in Europe and Asia is the precedent of linking one 500k city...

Paris to Strasbourg (320km/h), Paris to Bordeaux (320km/h), Madrid to Málaga (300km/h). None of those run through service at anywhere close to those speeds (they drop down to conventional passenger rail speeds: 160km/h).

... the taxpayer of $14-$43 billion

The only model which was found to be potentially profitable was in the 200km/h range for closer to $5B; still HSR.

Plenty more comparisons for the 200km/h proposal in the HSR report (known as Option B). You start finding routes like Helsinki to Seinäjoki (population 150,000).

That Toronto/Kitchener track, and many others in the GTA, are long overdue for massive passenger rail upgrades; both commuter and intercity.

 

[lenaitch]

The Alexandria Sub. bisects six towns/villages. For safety or at least quality of life reasons for the residents, I would think a 2-track ROW would require significant expropriation. Also, If I'm not mistaken, CN still has freight rights and a few customers along the route. I don't know what the issues are mingling HSR and freight.

 

[crs1026]

While VIA has invested a lot of money in the Alexandria line - if there were a HxR proposal for Ottawa-Montreal, there should be a head to head comparison of the old M+O route (which is railbanked) and the current VIA route. I suspect the M+O might win, as it's ruler straight, misses some of those small towns, and (I seem to recall) has generally better substructure. The Alexandria is curvier and IIRC has some wet areas. Considering that any HxR would rebuild the line from the subgrade up, with all new rail ties etc, moving to the M+O might not cost more, and it could be rebuilt without shutting down VIA service for a couple of years.

Grade separation in those towns is a big consideration and a major cost item. I don't know what a head to head comparison would call for, but it's worth an inexpert Google maps examination. The M+O also avoids Coteau altogether, so no need to rebuild the CN yard for VIA.

- Paul

 

[CapitalSeven]

There's plenty of room for 2 tracks nearly everywhere. Does true HSR require a wider ROW? There would certainly need to be more grade separation.