News   Dec 09, 2025
Innovative Estonian Cultural Centre Advances in The Annex
 692     0 
News   Dec 09, 2025
Resubmission Seeks 49 Storeys for Upcoming Concord Park Place Phase
 1.1K     5 
News   Dec 09, 2025
News Roundup for December 9, 2025
 516     0 

Hamilton-Niagara passenger rail enhancements

A

Adjei

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
2,266
Reaction score
1,472
lenaitch said:
There is a danger of tacking on 'high speed trains to everywhere' in terms of scope creep to the Alto project. Besides, it doesn't seem very 'nation building'.
Click to expand...

Well if it’s a choice between this tunnel under the 401 then a high speed rail line to Niagara Falls makes sense.

I think Niagara Falls should be a bigger tourist destination. There was recently an article posted here about Ford thinking about developing an international airport for Niagara Falls. A lot of people who drive to Niagara Falls would take high speed train there along with improved local transit to get to the attractions. With a high speed rail line to southwest Ontario with a stop at Pearson and another to Niagara Falls from Union station someone could arrive at Pearson and end up at Niagara Falls using HSR. I saw this in Venice where you saw a lot of tourists with luggages on the high speed train visiting. We should try and develop to that level.
 
They could upgrade the Grimsby sub to faster speeds which could cut the travel time in half.

You can still have crossings at 90mph so that's not the problem. You would need to change the cross over configuration to support higher speeds. Remove some manual switches. The other issue is the part through Bayview extension. Can't do much there.
 
Last edited:
Even upgrading the rail crossings through Hamilton would help with four-quadrant gates and secure fencing as the trains drag through that section. Perhaps grade-separate Ottawa Street and Parkdale Avenue as well, especially since a GO Station behind the old Centre Mall would be a good infill station for local and peak-direction express trains to/from Toronto.

You could easily shave 15 minutes with upgraded tracks and crossings without HSR treatment.
 
ShonTron said:
Even upgrading the rail crossings through Hamilton would help with four-quadrant gates and secure fencing as the trains drag through that section. Perhaps grade-separate Ottawa Street and Parkdale Avenue as well, especially since a GO Station behind the old Centre Mall would be a good infill station for local and peak-direction express trains to/from Toronto.

You could easily shave 15 minutes with upgraded tracks and crossings without HSR treatment.
Click to expand...
To be competitive with the car you need the trip to be about an hour from Union.
 
Bordercollie said:
The bridge section is only a small part of the whole route.
Worry about what you can change.

Also the last mile into Niagara's Falls is within yard limits which makes it so slow. They would need to fix that.
Click to expand...

The Canal is a material issue for increased service frequency during shipping season, which overlaps with the peak tourist season.

A conscious choice, and some some storage track (allowing trains to wait if they must); permits some further increase in service.

But getting to hourly or beyond, which is the big win for both tourism and commuting will require a solution.

***

Greater speed, with strategic investments that both you and @ShonTron have outlined is entirely reasonable, can logically come first and would not not be wasted money except where pursued in the immediate vicinity of the existing crossing.

Still, ridership per train, at peak times is already crowded. So if you can't get meaningfully more runs in........the investment in speed doesn't do that much for you.
 
Last edited:
Bordercollie said:
The bridge section is only a small part of the whole route.
Worry about what you can change.

Also the last mile into Niagara's Falls is within yard limits which makes it so slow. They would need to fix that.
Click to expand...
True, but the lead times for both trains and ships are long, and I imagine the higher the train speed, the greater the safety margin required.

Edit to Add: We're way off the thread topic.
 
Last edited:
turbanplanner said:
We don't have the best track record with TBMs here
Click to expand...
I only recall a single transit TBM that ran into serious problems. Most moved very quickly - including Eglinton - which was completed before they'd even issued the contract to build the stations! A lesson they've since learned.
 
Northern Light said:
The Canal is a material issue for increased service frequency during shipping season, which overlaps with the peak tourist season.

A conscious choice, and some some storage track (allowing trains to wait if they must); permits some further increase in service.

But getting to hourly or beyond, which is the big win for both tourism and commuting will require a solution.

***

Greater speed, with strategic investments that both you and @ShonTron have outlined is entirely reasonable, can logically come first and would not not be wasted money except where pursued in the immediate vicinity of the existing crossing.

Still, ridership per train, at peak times is already crowded. So if you can't get meaningfully more runs in........the investment in speed doesn't do that much for you.
Click to expand...
As Ive previously brought up HSR to Niagara, I’ll add my two cents to the scheme…

I’d argue the QEW-oriented economic corridor is underrated, nigh-equivalent to the G-KWC-LON (401) corridor- at least for the areas equidistant to TO. I’d say ~2M urban residents beyond Burlington. So yes, not a wasted investment at all. “N-HSR” just has a more unique set of benefits and barriers.

The canal and Bayview Jct are the only big-ticket items involved, but they are indeed simply higher risk:reward. Bayview must happen eventually, and the canal has some interim options (I feel Bayview’s needs are comparable to the topical missing link). Add other grade separations and CN’s yards for speed, and we’ll need about $5B+ for enabling works.

Luckily, the extant corridor is otherwise basically perfect. We own the Oakville Sub, and the Grimsby Sub is about as straight as you can get, with ample room for tracks. This’d be a relatively short line, making for a good demo service. In a different geopolitical climate, we could even entertain Buffalo’s eagerness to be our S-E anchor, too.
 
nfitz said:
I only recall a single transit TBM that ran into serious problems. Most moved very quickly - including Eglinton - which was completed before they'd even issued the contract to build the stations! A lesson they've since learned.
Click to expand...
Thank you I realized one of the other TBM’s wasn’t transit related
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top