News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.7K     0 
robmausser said:
It absolutely was a new line.

My point isn't the line or what line, my point is that it is odd that [there] is a business case and ridership for a $15 billion dollar HSR line stopping at Guelph, Kitchener and London, but not for upgrades to the GEXR line at a fraction of the cost. Hmmm...
Click to expand...
First of all, the "business case" for the Ontario Liberal's Toronto-London HSR proposal was based on a BCR of 1.02 (i.e. about the smallest-possible margin above "destroying more value than it creates"):

upload_2017-6-20_22-35-48.png

Source: High Speed Rail in Ontario - Special Advisor for High Speed Rail: Final Report (p. 46)
Note: re-post from the High Speed Rail: London - Kitchener-Waterloo - Pearson Airport - Toronto thread.

Just a quick refresher of what Scenario A and Scenario B referred to:
1612635514082.png

1612635520052.png

Source: High Speed Rail in Ontario - Special Advisor for High Speed Rail: Final Report (pp. 41-42)


Therefore, if there seems to be diminishing returns on increased speeds (BCR of 1.02 for 250 km/h, but only 0.36 for 300 km/h), but upgrading a certain segment of infrastructure doesn't yield sufficient benefits to be deemed economically viable, then maybe the bottle neck constraining increased and improved service on that segment is elsewhere along the route(s) by which it is served...?


This suggests that the value-for-money is maximized somewhere between a double-tracked and fully upgraded line to 250 km/h and whatever speeds and frequencies the current infrastructure allows, as I already pointed out back when I first posted above table:
Urban Sky said:
As for the published Special Advisor's Final Report, once you note that the BCR decreases as the design speed increases and as the length (and especially the distance from Toronto) increases, you might guess what additional column and line I would have expected to see in the table below:
upload_2017-6-20_22-35-48-png.112706

Source: High Speed Rail in Ontario - Special Advisor for High Speed Rail: Final Report (p. 46)
Click to expand...

However, what else would you expect from a report for which "meeting the UIC definition for HSR" seems to have been a major concern?
1612636131672.png

Source: High Speed Rail in Ontario - Special Advisor for High Speed Rail: Final Report (p. 47)
 
Last edited:
^It’s possible that the Wynne government actually believed that HSR was a valid transportation solution for Southern Ontario and that they were positioned to deliver it. I’m inclined to think their interest was a lot more superficial. They shamelessly promised an awful lot without having the slightest idea how to get there, and they were very skilled at backing away from test balloons that turned out to be unsustainable.

Building a new line when the Stratford line is so underutilised made no practical sense. Maybe in 2040.....

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
That southern route is better in its current state, perhaps...but as with HFR to the east, the question is how much use CN will allow. The Stratford route has much more upside potential for adding more trains without conflicting with freight. As to travel time, the line west of Kitchener is largely straight with only a couple of places where it would have to remain slow. It could easily be upgraded to 100 mph. Some bridge work might be needed. At that quality, the time difference would be eliminated. Right now, speed west of Stratford is in the 60-65 km/h range, which is downright pathetic. One has to think that a single-seat ride between Guelph/Kitchener and Chatham/Windsor would have appeal.

Which reminds me - I haven't heard that CN and VIA/GO have a final agreement to increase service between Halwest and Silver - if that segment isn't available, the entire discussion is moot.

- Paul
Click to expand...
As I've pointed out repeatedly in the the High Speed Rail: London - Kitchener-Waterloo - Pearson Airport - Toronto thread, the northern route is much easier to adapt to fast and frequent intercity services and serves much more population, even if it might be marginally slower than the Southern route:
Urban Sky said:
I refer to one of my first posts here in this forum, in which I compared the Toronto-Brantford-London, Toronto-Brantford Cut-off- London and Toronto-Kitchener-London routes with each other, including the following graphs/tables:
urban-toronto-16-jpg.36461

urban-toronto-15-jpg.36467

urban-toronto-14-jpg.36488
Click to expand...

The fastest and most direct route would of course be the "Toronto-Harrisburg-Thamesford-London" alignment I outlined back then, but the map I made back in my early days here in UT also shows quite clearly how effective it is in avoiding any population centers (other than Woodstock) between Toronto's greenbelt and London:
urban-toronto-17-jpg.36462

Re-post from the High Speed Rail: London - Kitchener-Waterloo - Pearson Airport - Toronto thread

That said, you are of course right that any alignment along the Northern route will realistically depend on the construction of the "Missing Link", but that link would allow the increase "desirable" rail traffic (i.e. passenger services) going through (and stopping in) Brampton, while diverting "undesirable" rail traffic (i.e. non-local freight traffic) around it, while the "Brantford Bypass" would fail to achieve either (by reducing/eliminating passenger traffic, while keeping freight traffic unchanged)...


crs1026 said:
^It’s possible that the Wynne government actually believed that HSR was a valid transportation solution for Southern Ontario and that they were positioned to deliver it. I’m inclined to think their interest was a lot more superficial. They shamelessly promised an awful lot without having the slightest idea how to get there, and they were very skilled at backing away from test balloons that turned out to be unsustainable.

Building a new line when the Stratford line is so underutilised made no practical sense. Maybe in 2040.....

- Paul
Click to expand...
The fact that this project surfaced out of nowhere just in time for the 2014 election and nothing was heard until just a few months before the 2018 election (in the form of the HSR study I just quoted) certainly speaks in that direction...
 
Urban Sky said:
As I've pointed out repeatedly in the the High Speed Rail: London - Kitchener-Waterloo - Pearson Airport - Toronto thread, the northern route is much easier to adapt to fast and frequent intercity services and serves much more population, even if it might be marginally slower than the Southern route:


The fastest and most direct route would of course be the "Toronto-Harrisburg-Thamesford-London" alignment I outlined back then, but the map I made back in my early days here in UT also shows quite clearly how effective it is in avoiding any population centers (other than Woodstock) between Toronto's greenbelt and London:
urban-toronto-17-jpg.36462

Re-post from the High Speed Rail: London - Kitchener-Waterloo - Pearson Airport - Toronto thread

That said, you are of course right that any alignment along the Northern route will realistically depend on the construction of the "Missing Link", but that link would allow the increase "desirable" rail traffic (i.e. passenger services) going through (and stopping in) Brampton, while diverting "undesirable" rail traffic (i.e. non-local freight traffic) around it, while the "Brantford Bypass" would fail to achieve either (by reducing/eliminating passenger traffic, while keeping freight traffic unchanged)...



The fact that this project surfaced out of nowhere just in time for the 2014 election and nothing was heard until just a few months before the 2018 election (in the form of the HSR study I just quoted) certainly speaks in that direction...
Click to expand...
But I thought that an actual bi-pass was designed and negotiated around Bramelea GO station but the Doug ford government was able to get it done for cheaper? I'm not sure what the difference is in design.
 
Urban Sky said:
That said, you are of course right that any alignment along the Northern route will realistically depend on the construction of the "Missing Link", but that link would allow the increase "desirable" rail traffic (i.e. passenger services) going through (and stopping in) Brampton, while diverting "undesirable" rail traffic (i.e. non-local freight traffic) around it, while the "Brantford Bypass" would fail to achieve either (by reducing/eliminating passenger traffic, while keeping freight traffic unchanged)...
Click to expand...

With the benefit of being older and wiser than I was when the Missing Link was first proposed, I’m not so sure it is all that critical that a Milton bypass be part of the solution. Things may have mellowed such that CN ML and GO could find a way to share or expand the existing CN corridor, without relocating CN to a whole new route. That assumes a much more modest passenger footprint than Ontario’s HSR vision, perhaps, but also a more affordable capital cost. Certainly, if CN and VIA can find a framework to share the line between Coteau and Montreal for HFR, then the parties can find a solution to share the shorter segment between Halwest and Silver. The newer administration may even be easier for CN to trust than the Wynne era players.

I expect expansion through Brampton will happen eventually, it’s a matter of timing and cash flow. Curiously, while ML is undertaking work elsewhere to ease its master procurement, not much is getting said about the Kitchener line beyond revising the electrification feed points. One has to think that the Halton stretch is not raising red flags from the bidders.

- Paul
 
2transpo said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1358115835521486853
Click to expand...
You may find some tables and graphs I posted back in fall interesting:

VIA Rail

New tender on MERX: 20-JPO08 - Public Consultation Services for the VIA High Frequency Rail (HFR Project) That's okay, they can just consult me. I say yes please go for it
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca

VIA Rail

That seems to be from the website, not the train. The one I put above is a photo from inside a new Azur train, and you can see that the symbol for Central Station is not there, nor is there an entry in the legend. Your photo from the "new" Azur train is also 4 years old... taken in 2016. STM...
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca

VIA Rail

We are offering our customers in Western Canada an additional choice in regions where intercity transportation is more limited as a result of this pandemic. Likely there isn't a lot of demand for Toronto to northern Ontario or Winnipeg (especially via train) while it is reasonable to use the...
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
 
Last edited:
^If you read back in this thread you will see a pretty intensive thrashing out of issues with the HFR right of way. In the end, the available data (which was mostly generated by inspecting Google Earth, and therefore pretty good but not perfect) seemed to show that superelevated track could, depending on assumptions, get one’s numbers close enough to the trip times proposed by VIA. There’s not much point in debating those numbers further until the JPO studies emerge.

But yes, to then enhance trip time to a higher level than VIa is specifying for HFR 1.0 would be expensive. Assuming HFR performs well, and a case is made for further investment, the dilemma for VIA is, indeed, whether to attempt piecemal curve easement or just find a new alignment altogether along parts of the route.

The only new data I can add to that is that I did find documented speed limits from “the old days”. In the 1948-1958 timeframe, CP allowed 50 mph on curves east of about Ardendale, and 60 mph on most curves west of there, except near Tweed. There was no restriction on tangent other than by class of locomotive, which was nominally up to 90 mph. Not all steam locomotives even had speedometers, of course, and tangent speed was not verified by radar ;-)

The numbers we debated here last fall were a lot more granular, in that each curve had its own specific speed values based on “precise” curvature. That might be possible with an automated loco, but for human drivers some zone speeds would prevail. Anyhow, if one assumes even 65-70 mph on banked curves through the toughest zones, the speed may well be there without changing the alignment all that much.

- Paul

- Paul
 
Last edited:
^^^Does anyone else find it odd that Transport Action Canada seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that Brightline have been using Siemens Venture trainsets for years?
 
cplchanb said:
i

the renders show dividers in the over head rack but not enclosed. I wonder if this will carry through to production... but still TC is stuck in the 60s/70s
Click to expand...
What's the issue with non-enclosed overhead racks for TC? Is it to mitigate luggage flying everywhere in a crash or something?
 
tmlittle said:
What's the issue with non-enclosed overhead racks for TC? Is it to mitigate luggage flying everywhere in a crash or something?
Click to expand...

Non-enclosed luggage racks were implicated in injuries in several accidents over the years. So some time ago TC mandated that all luggage racks must have some sort of retention system to prevent those injuries from occurring in any future accidents.

Dan
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top