[CanadianNational]

-a Windsor to Buffalo or Niagara Line
-a Toronto to Buffalo or Niagara Line
- the main line extending from Windsor to Montreal or Quebec City.

The main stops on this map would be:
Windsor, London, Hamilton Airport.
Buffalo and Niagara Falls
Peason Airport, with a spur to Union
Ottawa
Montreal

 

[allabootmatt]

A spur to Union? Really?

I think taking the opposite approach would put us in line with best practice elsewhere. The TGV in France operates with a certain ruthlessness when it comes to even mid-sized cities like Aix or Avignon, with a TGV station built way out of town with good highway links and a rail shuttle to the old in-town station. This is inconvenient for people going to those places, but it keeps the trains moving much, much faster between the truly big cities, which is where most of the demand is of course.

 

[dunkalunk]

You know, Canadian National, that your station in London is about 50km southwest off the city, right?

As for where I'd put it?

West Section

East Section

link to google map

In addition, I'd also upgrade the central portion and reroute the end portions on the existing rail line between Guelph and Aldershot to run regular passenger service between Kitchener and Hamilton, and I'd run regular service between Montreal and Sherbrooke, in Gatineau, and between London and St. Thomas.

I'd also break it up the construction into phases:

Phase 1
-Pearson (Malton) to Montreal

Phase 2
-Kitchener to Pearson
-Hamilton to Toronto
-Montreal to Quebec

Phase 3
-Windsor to Kitchener
-Niagara Falls to Hamilton

 

[Mapleson]

If your going to draw fantasy maps, at least try to consider reality. The radii of LGV curves have historically been greater than 4 km (2.5 mi). New lines have minimum radii of 7 km (4.3 mi) to allow for future increases in speed.

 

[unimaginative2]

The Ontario-Quebec HSR Study of the 90s was pretty on-track (pun intended), I think. Follow the existing rail corridor out to Cobourg and then build a new alignment north of the 401 until curving up to Smiths Falls at Kingston. For Southwestern Ontario, you need to serve Pearson, Waterloo Region, London, and Windsor. It proposed a line more-or-less following the 401 to London. That's not bad, though I'm not crazy about the sprawl-inducing effects of a Waterloo Region station down at the 401 and Highway 8. It would also be quite challenging to build and would be quite distant from the core premium market in Waterloo. I'd be inclined to take a look at re-using the existing Guelph Sub corridor, at least as far as Kitchener. It's remarkably free of curvature and, with a Guelph bypass, would allow some trains to serve Guelph as well.

France takes a very specific approach to its operations that has been quite successful: each significant city has dedicated trains to Paris. The LGV Est, for example, has dedicated trains to Rouen, Metz, Nancy, etc. That allows your speeds to stay very high while still serving the cores of cities. Some through-trains can then stop at "Parkway" stations in the suburbs. That's an approach well worth looking at. The Japanese approach is different service levels. On the Tokaido, they have three levels of service: Nozomi is the fastest, which would perhaps be non-stop Toronto to Montreal; Hikari is also fast, but might include stops at Ottawa, and maybe Kingston and Dorval; Kodama is the slowest and would offer stops at the equivalent of Port Hope/Cobourg, Belleville, etc. That approach could also work quite well, though it would need to be adapted to our needs. I'd say that two levels of service would probably be adequate, with a frequent-stop operation from Kingston through Southwestern Ontario and a limited stop service from Toronto to Montreal.

 

[dunkalunk]

A lot of my routing was based off of the ViaFast proposal., so even if all of the upgrades were not built at once, it would still deliver a significant service improvement. Probably the most important pieces of this routing are the new corridor from Gananoque to Smiths Falls, and the connection between the Alexandria Subdivision and the CP mainline in eastern ontario.

 

[unimaginative2]

While it's better than nothing, I'm not partial to ViaFast's Anglo-American piecemeal approach. It makes much more sense to me to just go for it and build the whole thing properly, especially in a place like Canada where the standard of existing lines is so comparatively low. How would you deal with issues like electrification?

 

[allabootmatt]

Given the recent gnashing of teeth over the Pickering airport proposal and the difficulty of airport expansion generally, I'd be adamant that any HSR must, must, must serve Pearson, and if with as many direct services (ie, no change at Union) from other places as possible. At CDG and Frankfurt the direct high-speed connections are an incredible capacity multiplier.

 

[unimaginative2]

Given the recent gnashing of teeth over the Pickering airport proposal and the difficulty of airport expansion generally, I'd be adamant that any HSR must, must, must serve Pearson, and if with as many direct services (ie, no change at Union) from other places as possible. At CDG and Frankfurt the direct high-speed connections are an incredible capacity multiplier.

I completely and wholeheartedly agree. And if we're going to do it, do it properly: no rickety people mover connection. We need a station right at the airport that could serve high speed rail, regional rail, and airport express services. I have the depressed parking lot area near the Rapidair pier picked out for a station, potentially with a moving walkway up to T3. It'd add a couple hundred million, but it's worth it. Paris built one, Amsterdam built one, and Brussels is building one right now.

 

[reaperexpress]

As for where I'd put it?

(...)

Phase 1
-Pearson (Woodbine) to Montreal

Phase 2
-Kitchener to Pearson
-Hamilton to Toronto
-Montreal to Quebec

Phase 3
-Windsor to Kitchener
-Niagara Falls to Hamilton

I agree almost entirely! The only thing is that I would put a proper station directly under Pearson Airport, rather than on the existing GO Weston sub.

I've been wondering about which corridor (via Kitchener or via Burlington) is the best to use for the HSR between London and Toronto. Although is probably more population along the route via Kitchener, it is located in closely spaced cities such as Kitchener/Waterloo, Guelph, and Brampton. As well, the Weston Subdivision is less ideal for HSR than the Oakville Subdivision, mainly because between Georgetown and Toronto there is significant freight traffic, and there are some fairly major pinch points, such as the one at Brampton Station.

At the moment, I'm thinking that the Kitchener corridor would be best served by frequent regional rail service between Union and London*, rather than HSR. The HSR would go through the countryside from London to Burlingon, where it would join the Oakville Subdivision, which would be fully quad-tracked in an express-local layout. Express stations would be Burlington, Oakville and Port Credit, and HSR trains would probably stop at only one of them, but passengers would be able to easilly access the entire corridor thanks to frequent service on the Lakeshore West line. Express GO trains from Niagara Falls or Hamilton would serve all 3 express stops in the corridor (in fact, the Niagara Falls trains already do!).

* Stops: London, St. Mary's, Stratford, Kitchener/Waterloo, Guelph, Georgetown, Brampton, Pearson Airport, Mount Dennis (Weston @ Eglinton) or Bloor, Union.

If your going to draw fantasy maps, at least try to consider reality. The radii of LGV curves have historically been greater than 4 km (2.5 mi). New lines have minimum radii of 7 km (4.3 mi) to allow for future increases in speed.

From these maps, it's impossible to tell the radius of the turns, so I don't know how you can accuse both of being unreasonable. A while ago took a very detailed look in Google Earth along the entire route I prefer (which happens to be the same as the one proposed by dunkalunk), and there wasn't really anything that struck me as a major impediment to a High Speed Railway. Obviously Google Earth is not detailed surveying equipment, but the point is that dunkalunk's routing seems reasonable. I don't think as much detail was put Canadian National's map, but I think the point was to display the general routing, rather than the specific one.

 

[dunkalunk]

I agree almost entirely! The only thing is that I would put a proper station directly under Pearson Airport, rather than on the existing GO Weston sub.

This may be getting a bit off-topic but my idea with transportation around Pearson was to keep the electrified high speed rail corridor on the Georgetown rail corridor, and then build a HSR station/mobility hub at Malton. A mobility hub would also be built at Renforth/Eglinton to meet up with the 401/427 the Eglinton Crosstown LRT (Subway) and whatever busway Mississauga is building. To get an idea of what this looks like, click here.

A dedicated Airport rail transit line could then be built between Malton and Renforth and would be free to use between these stops. Free boarding works for this kind of line because both terminals are pure transfer nodes and would require someone to either drive there or pay an adiitional fare to arrive there. There are very few people who would be riding this line whose point-to-point origin or destination are on the line. The line can be made free to ride through subsidies collected from the airport, gas tax, and connecting service.

Baggage checking/retrieval service could also exist at all of the stops to make it easier for people to switch modes and would also provide more options for drop-off and pick-up around Pearson.

The main problem that I see arising with locating the main station adjacent to the Pearson terminal is the additional traffic congestion caused by drivers and GO buses needing to go out of their way enter the terminal area in order to park or drop off passengers. Terminal 1 is a bit out of the way for many potential passengers, and was one of the reasons the Square One-Pearson GO service was discontinued.

There is also the cost factor of building a completely new electrified through heavy rail corridor through this area due to the number of grade separations that would be needed and properties acquired to maintain high-speed service along the branch. To contrast, the existing Georgetown line is almost dead straight and would only need slight curve adjustments.

A new through rail corridor to Pearson would also make the new Air-Rail spur completely obsolete, as the new through route would be more direct and faster. Although, now that I think about it, much of the spur could be re-used in an Eglinton LRT/Finch LRT connection.

I've been wondering about which corridor (via Kitchener or via Burlington) is the best to use for the HSR between London and Toronto. Although is probably more population along the route via Kitchener, it is located in closely spaced cities such as Kitchener/Waterloo, Guelph, and Brampton. As well, the Weston Subdivision is less ideal for HSR than the Oakville Subdivision, mainly because between Georgetown and Toronto there is significant freight traffic, and there are some fairly major pinch points, such as the one at Brampton Station.

At the moment, I'm thinking that the Kitchener corridor would be best served by frequent regional rail service between Union and London*, rather than HSR. The HSR would go through the countryside from London to Burlingon, where it would join the Oakville Subdivision, which would be fully quad-tracked in an express-local layout. Express stations would be Burlington, Oakville and Port Credit, and HSR trains would probably stop at only one of them, but passengers would be able to easilly access the entire corridor thanks to frequent service on the Lakeshore West line. Express GO trains from Niagara Falls or Hamilton would serve all 3 express stops in the corridor (in fact, the Niagara Falls trains already do!).

* Stops: London, St. Mary's, Stratford, Kitchener/Waterloo, Guelph, Georgetown, Brampton, Pearson Airport, Mount Dennis (Weston @ Eglinton) or Bloor, Union

I'd say that Hamilton-Toronto and Kitchener-Toronto are both equally important potential high-speed corridors, but as far as a mainline goes I think the northern route beats it out. Hamilton's population centre would be a detour away from the mainline while KW's is not. Waterloo Region's population has just passed London's and is set to meet or pass Hamilton's. There are also less issues with crossing the escarpment with a northern route. Although, being from Waterloo Region, I could be a bit biased.

High-Speed rail corridors would still be capable of running local service. The Guelph Subdivision does not see all that much freight traffic and could definitely handle more passenger trains with double-tracking strategically in the short term and triple-tracking when HSR is built.

[rant]
Of course all of this High-Speed rail talk is dependant on the pressure to change Transport Canada's Policy on vehicle weight and attitude towards centralized train control. I think its a bit ridiculous that our locomotives and rolling stock need to be overbuilt in order to be salvageable in the event of a collision, instead of having a train system which simply avoids collisions in the first place. This means we have to not only spend more to build the trains, but also spend more to operate them, as it takes much more energy to move a steel brick than an aluminum lattice.

Just imagine if we built automobiles (which don't even run on collision-preventing tracks) to that standard. A typical armoured compact would cost $50,000 and very few would be able to afford the gas to run the thing.

This is not only a problem for High Speed Rail, but for potential light rail corridors as well. There are instances where corridors that could be utilized by EMU service already exist, but would be uneconomical due to the unnecessary additional costs placed on both purchasing and operating the vehicles.
[/rant]

From these maps, it's impossible to tell the radius of the turns, so I don't know how you can accuse both of being unreasonable. A while ago took a very detailed look in Google Earth along the entire route I prefer (which happens to be the same as the one proposed by dunkalunk), and there wasn't really anything that struck me as a major impediment to a High Speed Railway. Obviously Google Earth is not detailed surveying equipment, but the point is that dunkalunk's routing seems reasonable. I don't think as much detail was put Canadian National's map, but I think the point was to display the general routing, rather than the specific one.

Thanks for that, If i knew how to use ArcGIS for this sort of thing and had the free map/image data, I would. Google maps has been having bug issues with editing lines, text fields, and changing shape colours lately that are yet to be resolved after a couple of months.`

 

[EnviroTO]

I would continue to have VIA corridor services:
1. Sarnia-Strathroy-London-Woodstock-Brantford-Oakville-Toronto
2. Niagara Falls-St Catharines-Hamilton-Oakville-Toronto
3. Toronto-Oshawa-Cobourg-Trenton-Belleville-Napanee-Kingston-Brockville-Cornwall-Dorval-Montreal
4. Montreal-Saint Jean sur Richelieu-Granby-Magog-Sherbrooke.

For these routes existing tracks would be upgraded to provide 90mph service, except around Granby where tracks from Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu would be recommissioned and a new connection to the existing tracks would be made east of Bromont.

I would propose a single high-speed line called aVIAn running Windsor-Chatham-London-Kitchener-Pearson-Toronto-Peterborough-Kingston-Ottawa-Mirabel-Montreal-Trois Rivieres-Quebec City. It would serve the existing stations in these locations except in Kitchener it would serve the new multi-modal station, in Pearson it would be at T1 underground north of the central processor behind the D pier, in Peterborough it would be underground at the existing station as the line would dive under the river and canal, in Mirabel it would be located just west of the old central processor oriented north-south as the line dives down to the Deux-Montagnes routing, and in Trois-Rivieres the old station on Rue Champflour would be reactivated.

The regular service on route 1 and 3 would be scheduled to arrive at London and Kingston 15 minutes before high-speed trains going the same direction and to depart after the high-speed train does to provide easy connections. Similarly the Niagara and Sherbrooke trains would be timed to the arrival and departure times of the trains between Toronto and Montreal.

Without a high-speed network in the US from New York to Niagara Falls and with the route from Toronto to Hamilton being in an urban environment I wouldn't build the Niagara Falls connection as a high-speed line, but with tracks upgraded from Aldershot to Niagara Falls to provide 90mph service with a tunnel under the canal a VIA route with only 4 stops combined with GO making more stops but operating more frequently should do more than enough to meet the needs of the market.

 

[Electrify]

Before we go for full high speed, I'd even settle for more inter-city rail coverage. Have any of you ever taken a bus to Timmins because the city is not served by rail? What about Thunder Bay? The VIA train runs at speeds excess of 100 mph, which ain't too shabby.

On topic, if we were to build a high speed line, I would aim for the largest cities. Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Boston, and New York.

Also, did you guys know that VIA is on board with Google Maps Transit? It was pretty cool to see it plan my trip to Montreal by walking to the local bus to the regional rail to the inter-city rail to the rapid local rail to walking to my hotel.

 

[unimaginative2]

Those are very well thought-out statements, dunkalunk and Enviro. I agree with pretty much all of the points. A few nitpicks and suggestions:

I would continue to have VIA corridor services:
1. Sarnia-Strathroy-London-Woodstock-Brantford-Oakville-Toronto
2. Niagara Falls-St Catharines-Hamilton-Oakville-Toronto
3. Toronto-Oshawa-Cobourg-Trenton-Belleville-Napanee-Kingston-Brockville-Cornwall-Dorval-Montreal
4. Montreal-Saint Jean sur Richelieu-Granby-Magog-Sherbrooke.

For these routes existing tracks would be upgraded to provide 90mph service, except around Granby where tracks from Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu would be recommissioned and a new connection to the existing tracks would be made east of Bromont.

I agree with all of those points, particularly the Sherbrooke route that I've always thought had a lot of potential. I do think that the high-speed line could replace most services on the Toronto-Montreal line, at least west of Kingston. We could even do better than 90mph. That's pretty slow, by world standards, and even Transport Canada allows 100mph on routes with level crossings. Then again, a consistent 90mph would still be a dramatic improvement over what we have today.

I would propose a single high-speed line called aVIAn running Windsor-Chatham-London-Kitchener-Pearson-Toronto-Peterborough-Kingston-Ottawa-Mirabel-Montreal-Trois Rivieres-Quebec City. It would serve the existing stations in these locations except in Kitchener it would serve the new multi-modal station, in Pearson it would be at T1 underground north of the central processor behind the D pier, in Peterborough it would be underground at the existing station as the line would dive under the river and canal, in Mirabel it would be located just west of the old central processor oriented north-south as the line dives down to the Deux-Montagnes routing, and in Trois-Rivieres the old station on Rue Champflour would be reactivated.

Sounds like a good plan, though I have a couple of nitpicks. I don't think swinging up to Peterborough would work. You'd be adding a huge distance and cost to serve a relatively small destination. Remember the effect that it would have on the key Toronto-Montreal travel time. Serving Peterborough would only be feasible if you abandoned all of the lakefront cities, including Kingston, and I don't think that's a worthwhile tradeoff. Peterborough could be served by a branch along the 35/115 corridor.

As I mentioned before, your proposed location is exactly where I'd put a station at Pearson if it's feasible.

I would serve Dorval over Mirabel. For one thing, it avoids putting both the Montreal-Québec and Ottawa-Montreal routes (along with the Deux-Montagnes commuter line) through the Mount Royal choke point and avoids a reverse move for continuing trains at Montreal. It also serves Dorval which, for better or worse, will be Montreal's airport in the future. Harper has already given back all the land needed to build out Mirabel, and Dorval is as big a site as Heathrow, which should be more than sufficient for Montreal. If they need to dramatically expand, they just have to shift the Bombardier plants up to Mirabel. Montreal's got a pretty good airport system for the long term, all things considered: a fairly spacious international airport that's reasonably close to downtown, a 24-hour cargo and industrial airport at Mirabel, and a good GA airport in Saint-Hubert. Serving Dorval would allow the complete elimination of flights between Montreal and Ottawa and would also be the station for the West Island communities.

The regular service on route 1 and 3 would be scheduled to arrive at London and Kingston 15 minutes before high-speed trains going the same direction and to depart after the high-speed train does to provide easy connections. Similarly the Niagara and Sherbrooke trains would be timed to the arrival and departure times of the trains between Toronto and Montreal.

The easy connections here are key. In the long-term, some of those lines could be electrified and high-speed trains could continue on to them.

Without a high-speed network in the US from New York to Niagara Falls and with the route from Toronto to Hamilton being in an urban environment I wouldn't build the Niagara Falls connection as a high-speed line, but with tracks upgraded from Aldershot to Niagara Falls to provide 90mph service with a tunnel under the canal a VIA route with only 4 stops combined with GO making more stops but operating more frequently should do more than enough to meet the needs of the market.

The Oakville/Grimsby subs are nice, straight, modern lines. There's no reason why we couldn't upgrade them to European standards for 200 km/h operation. With electrification, the high-speed trains would be able to continue on to Hamilton and Niagara. I'm still partial to the idea of using the Belt Line to divert trains serving Hamilton through the TH&B station.

Before we go for full high speed, I'd even settle for more inter-city rail coverage. Have any of you ever taken a bus to Timmins because the city is not served by rail? What about Thunder Bay? The VIA train runs at speeds excess of 100 mph, which ain't too shabby.

Wish that they did, but no VIA train goes faster than 100mph, and there are only a handful of segments on the Kingston Sub where they go that fast. I agree that a number of other cities should be served by passenger rail. Fortunately one of them--Peterborough--finally seems to be getting it.

edit: Here's a map of Harper's land sale at Mirabel that pretty much eliminates the possibility of building a major facility there.

 

[BMO]

Just have the TGV stop at Windsor, London, *maybe Kitchener, Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec.

offer express services from Kitchener/London to Toronto to Ottawa/Montreal throughout the day intermittently.