News   Mar 06, 2026
 1.6K     7 
News   Mar 06, 2026
 333     0 
News   Mar 06, 2026
 2.9K     0 

General railway discussions

The interesting detail for Edmonton-Calgary is the number of level crossings that will need grade separation, or will have to be closed.

Land may be fairly cheap, and there may be lots of options to route around towns etc, but those roads will be a sensitive topic, and expensive to grade separate them all.

- Paul
 
The interesting detail for Edmonton-Calgary is the number of level crossings that will need grade separation, or will have to be closed.

Land may be fairly cheap, and there may be lots of options to route around towns etc, but those roads will be a sensitive topic, and expensive to grade separate them all.

- Paul
Why would they have to grade separate every crossing? Is this line being proposed as a HSR line?

I was thinking this line would be more like a VIA rail for Alberta with Siemens Chargers, etc.
 
Why would they have to grade separate every crossing? Is this line being proposed as a HSR line?

I was thinking this line would be more like a VIA rail for Alberta with Siemens Chargers, etc.
I believe that when the line did run with RDC'S there were a lot of vehicle collisions which was a pain.

Are they mostly unprotected crossings?

The Chatham sub has unprotected crossings and trains travel at 90+ mph.
 
Why would they have to grade separate every crossing? Is this line being proposed as a HSR line?

I was thinking this line would be more like a VIA rail for Alberta with Siemens Chargers, etc.

We won't know the spec until we see the report....but....if you were thinking that somebody would just jump on the CPKC tracks and run Ventures, you may be going down the wrong track.

The route might or might not share the CPKC row. It could be a whole different alignment.

And if a new routing is chosen, it would no doubt be engineered to close to a full high speed spec., either as futureproofing or immediate full build.

The point is, unlike Ontario where there is lots of undeveloped territory, Alberta has at least a concession road grid all the way from Calgary to Edmonton.

- Paul
 
We won't know the spec until we see the report....but....if you were thinking that somebody would just jump on the CPKC tracks and run Ventures, you may be going down the wrong track.

The route might or might not share the CPKC row. It could be a whole different alignment.

And if a new routing is chosen, it would no doubt be engineered to close to a full high speed spec., either as futureproofing or immediate full build.

The point is, unlike Ontario where there is lots of undeveloped territory, Alberta has at least a concession road grid all the way from Calgary to Edmonton.

- Paul

The one good thing is they are not building on the Canadian Shield. That should lower the overall costs per km for it.
 
In Red Deer?? It's more likely that they'll be like the one's in Kingston who are complaining that it won't stop in there city.

I'm surprised you agree with Can.

These are the posts that started it.

The federal government should support this. They are supporting ALTO.

If it is HSR between C-E, my guess is a stop in Red Deer. Thar may be good enough.

My point was, if the proposal is for HSR, they will likely face the same feedback as Alto is, regardless of where they put stations. The advantage Red Deer has is at least it forms a straight line line between the two anchor cities.
 
My point was, if the proposal is for HSR, they will likely face the same feedback as Alto is, regardless of where they put stations. The advantage Red Deer has is at least it forms a straight line line between the two anchor cities.
Which, if you were to draw lines on a map,Kingston makes logical sense too. The question with the C_E will be whether the costs are worth it to connect Red Deer or not. For upgrading our passenger rail in Canada, Anything is better than nothing, but, it should be done as god as it can be.
 

Back
Top