High Speed Rail: London - Kitchener-Waterloo - Pearson Airport - Toronto

[mdrejhon]

I'm thinking of the scenario where they model this thing and realise that there's substantial overlap between GO, VIA and the HSR and realize that the only way to make this work is to make this an hourly higher speed GO service which is all stop Guelph and west, and then runs express east to Union. Under that scenario, having a station in the core becomes essential to Guelph.

Given the HSR study mentioning Pearson --
Would a Pearson GO station break the business case?
The slowdown vs the Pearson connection?

HSR has to dramatically slow down before the Weston curve anyway, so might as well stop it near the Weston curve (Pearson no-brainer!)...

(In this assumption, we're assuming either a Malton RER or Woodbine RER station that has a theoertical highly integrated link, such as a higher-speed replacement LINK that reaches the station and connects everybody speedily to all terminals.).

It will be very important for Kitchener-Waterloo high tech connections to the airport, amongst other reasons.

Predicted HSR timelines (2030s/2040s) also potentially overlaps UPX *and* LINK refurbishment/EOL timelines, and may become an opportunity to simply have RER/HSR connecting to an upgraded higher-performance rail-based LINK instead. Instead of UPX, we'd have a VIA/RER/HSR station that fully integrates with a new high performance connector of some kind (LINK II?) that goes through all Pearson terminals (#1/future #2/#3) which might or might not recycle the UPX spur.

For a lot of Pearson travellers, there's no additional transfer since today you still have to transfer between UPX and LINK if you need to reach the ever-popular Terminal 3. UPX only goes to Terminal 1, while a future upgraded high-performance LINK connection would go to all terminals. Such a scenario can't be discounted considering the long timelines considered. And it avoids redirecting the HSR corridor!

There's two rail curves on both sides of Pearson. The rail curve northwest of Pearson (under 407) at could be nursed into a high speed curve without any significant expropriation at all, but the rail curve northeast of Pearson (towards Weston) can never be a high speed curve without butchering the area. Depending on how high speed they're able to make the curve under 407 by increasing the curve radii there -- it might make the theoretical Woodbine RER station a quicker HSR stop than the Malton RER station. The ideal location for a "super brief stop" station is nearest the slowest speed of the train (aka a station as close to the curve as possible), and the worst curve is the Weston curve, tipping the scales to Woodbine RER as potentially the briefest HSR stop.

Adding an EMU stop near a curve, for quick-accelerating EMUs (including HSR trains) -- only delays the train by ~0.5 to ~2 minutes, depending on the speed limit of the curve involved, and the length of dwell involved (subway-style dwell versus commuter-style dwell). Realistically, I'd say 2 minutes for the Pearson stop -- let's consider HSR EMUs usually out-accelerate conventional EMUs from a stopping standstill -- and it can't accelerate much yet due to the curves near Pearson.

It takes only ~30-50 seconds for a good HSR EMU to accelerate 0-to-100kph (the Japanese N700 does it in 37 seconds) -- trains typically cannot go that fast past the theoretical Woodbine RER station because of the nearby Weston railroad curve (they are either slowing down before the curve, or still accelerating after the curve). Braking is much quicker -- we've seen how GO trains enter a platform at 70kph, and stop before the end of the 300 meter platform. So you only need less than 60 seconds for the stopping and reaccelerating operations for Pearson GO -- permitting more than 1 minute of dwelling (longer dwell than at minor GO stations, but shorter than VIA), which means a Pearson stop would delay a HSR timetable by only 2 minutes.

The numbers may be off a bit, but the point is: Railroad stops near a curve are briefer than a stop on a straight high speed line.

So, let's say, 40 minutes Kitchener-Union instead of 38 minutes, given less than a minute worth of deceleration/acceleration thanks to the slow speed limit -- permitting more than a minute of European/Japanese style "minor-station" dwelling on a busy HSR route -- That's tolerable considering Kitchener-Waterloo (and London) gets quick car-free access to Pearson.

What I mean: It's true true HSR might not be a good business plan yet -- but if HSR gets built, -- it automatically is a total homer simpson league "no-brainer" it automatically includes a Pearson stop simply by sheer geography, law of physics of the railroad curve, and speed limits.

The HSR timetable slowdown is negligible in a "added Pearson stop scenario" because of low train speed near curves near Pearson; might as well do a quick stop near Pearson.

That aside, let's see 177kph-240kph (pick any number) GO RER electrification to Guelph/Kitchener first, as 300kph clearly isn't going to be hugely useful yet until we are extending to London, and there are enough travellers to go express for longer distances.

 

[steveintoronto]

In my last five years in Guelph, I'd often wondered why the entrance to the core of Guelph via the trestle over the Speed was designed and built to much higher standards than the line continuing west from the core of Guelph. The climb across the base of the highest hill in Guelph seemed odd, as does the lengthy climb up the rise to the west, only to crest the watershed a mile west of the city and then continue down to Kitchener. And I just found out why reading the legal details Georgetown signed with CN/Metrolinx for the John St/Silver Creek bridge and third track construction just west of the Georgetown station: It's signed with reference to the "Toronto to Guelph Railway"...the predecessor to the Grand Trunk. http://haltonhills.ca/calendars/2014/INF-2014-0030.pdf (pdf page 5) It only went as far as Guelph. When GT gained ownership, they extended west from Guelph on an alignment that was far from opportune grade-wise. Ironically, the CP did much the same with the Guelph Junction, which it never owned, but leased, and extended to Goderich. CP's gradients were much more favourable, and makes an excellent Rail Trail to cycle save for the missing bridge over the Grand.

History here:
http://spacing.ca/toronto/2009/03/18/torontos-grand-trunk-railway-our-1856-link-to-pearson-airport/
http://www.esquesinghistoricalsociety.ca/NewsPaperArticleFiles/ga18512.HTML
https://books.google.ca/books?id=TbFLeWYJKWoC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq="toronto+and+guelph+railway"&source=bl&ots=gYd5VnO6qp&sig=1JwMssrDFAt5iPy0W_Ca9dvWz-E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi61bWO04LMAhVjnoMKHZYqB9AQ6AEIMjAE#v=onepage&q="toronto and guelph railway"&f=false

Keithz states:
[Three points. First, the TGV bypasses certain towns because it isn't servicing them. We're discussing a scenario where Guelph is serviced.]
I didn't realize the term "bypass" meant that. You still haven't addressed pulling freight up the incline. Goderich and Exeter has a lease until 2018, are you suggesting no freight after that?

 

[steveintoronto]

It will be very important for Kitchener-Waterloo high tech connections to the airport, amongst other reasons.

Indeed, all the 'non-stop expresses' being discussed in the literature I read presume stopping at Pearson as a given. They talk of the 'time to Pearson' in the same breath as 'time to Toronto'. There are two stops London to Toronto being discussed in the major SW Ontario press: K/W, Pearson. Any others would slow them down too much to the point of defeating the purpose.

 

[kEiThZ]

I didn't realize the term "bypass" meant that.

If Guelph is to be serviced, no bypass will be built. If Guelph isn't serviced, then they'll have the bypass. It would be incredibly wasteful to upgrade corridors through Guelph to support more rail traffic, and build a bypass.

I am suggesting that they'll end up servicing Guelph because there is substantial market overlap between HFR/HSR/Extended Speed Rail and GO RER. At a certain point, it is simply more efficient to relegate all GO RER traffic from Guelph and beyond to the HSR line. Look at GO RER's proposal to have 30 minute frequencies to Kitchener (beyond Mount Pleasant). That's a lot of overlap with this HSR proposal. It makes more sense to move have GO RER terminate somewhere like Georgetown and have the HSR run hourly frequencies (half-hourly during rush) local from London to Georgetown and then express till Union with only a select few stops at key transfer points.

You still haven't addressed pulling freight up the incline. Goderich and Exeter has a lease until 2018, are you suggesting no freight after that?

I don't get the point of getting so far into the weeds. I'm not a rail network planner. Are you? I'm fairly confident that Metrolinx can move the rail traffic off the corridor if they need to. Moreover, a lease ending as early as 2018 is hardly a concern. They won't be moving on significant construction for RER by then, let along HSR. I don't presume serious work on any HSR proposal until in the early 2020s, after the RER is built up.

 

[TOareaFan]

If Guelph is to be serviced, no bypass will be built. If Guelph isn't serviced, then they'll have the bypass. It would be incredibly wasteful to upgrade corridors through Guelph to support more rail traffic, and build a bypass.

I am suggesting that they'll end up servicing Guelph because there is substantial market overlap between HFR/HSR/Extended Speed Rail and GO RER. At a certain point, it is simply more efficient to relegate all GO RER traffic from Guelph and beyond to the HSR line. Look at GO RER's proposal to have 30 minute frequencies to Kitchener (beyond Mount Pleasant). That's a lot of overlap with this HSR proposal. It makes more sense to move have GO RER terminate somewhere like Georgetown and have the HSR run hourly frequencies (half-hourly during rush) local from London to Georgetown and then express till Union with only a select few stops at key transfer points.

Had a longer answer but I will just say "yikes".

 

[mdrejhon]

A lot of HSR+RER efficiency will also depend on RER decisions -- electrification initiatives, Freight Bypass, high versus low platforms, etc. Metrolinx definitely cannot afford to pull a UPX with HSR, and must work on reputation first -- successful RER buildout, LRTs, etc.

Once electrifying to Kitchener, I think RER can't terminate in Georgetown -- several should continue onwards to Kitchener-Waterloo -- you can short turn a lot of RER trains somewhere part way (Mt Pleasant, Georgetown, or pick your own city). Some of them will need to continue beyond to do various stops, like Acton, Guelph, etc -- which HSR would need to go express through. If HSR is delayed quite a bit and there is lots of demand that overflows a 2-track corridor, then you need to build a 3 track somewhere (2050+). In this era, the Guelph Bypass may make sense as the 3rd + 4th track in an incremental "express track" upgrade to the existing corridor -- just not in the exact same right-of-way for the whole HSR route.

The timeline of HSR and the demand of train service will play a huge role. If 30-minute all-day 2-way trains fill up quite nicely and various intermediate cities densify, and HSR bumps out to 2050+ because Kitchener RER got upgraded to 177-200kph HPR (with express and allstop plans, ala LSW) -- then when bolting-on HSR needing a 3rd track we possibly run into a situation where we have to make a decision to use the same Guelph corridor for HSR or not, in say 50 years from now, in theory...

It'd be best to keep this to a 2-track corridor in an upgraded Guelph corridor I'd bet the improved studies will agree, but in terms of a "sometime this century", it's not impossible for both corridors to occur, given it is now preferable for many than a new freeway.

 

[steveintoronto]

I'm fairly confident that Metrolinx can move the rail traffic off the corridor if they need to.

Well, I'm sure the local chambers of commerce will disagree, let alone Transport Canada. Not only do you want to disrupt the core of old Guelph proper (the burbs have absolutely nothing unique to them) but you want to cripple their freight rail connections too. Guelph Junction could pick-up some, but by no means all of it, with only one instance (the municipally owned junction at the north of the city)(where the then CP tracks met the CN one) there are no connections between the lines. But alas, sometimes you have to kill something to make it compliant to wishes. Unfortunately, hollowed out cities produce very few passengers to ride. The bedroom community to the south aren't going to travel north to Guelph station, they'll continue to just drive to and on the 401, many one to a car.

 

[steveintoronto]

Once electrifying to Kitchener, I think RER can't terminate in Georgetown

Unless I'm mistaken, electrification is only proposed as far north as Bramalea....which does really beg what form RER will take beyond that. I can't see running 10 or 12 car diesel loco-hauled trains every hour outside of peak. It's going to have to be some form of DMU...which ties in nicely to the need for DMU on the Bramalea south leg of RER to get it up and going before even that leg is electrified. Once electrified, the DMUs can be cascaded to do the 'all-day' on the destinations north (west). Which brings us back to "which DMUs?"

 

[mdrejhon]

Unless I'm mistaken, electrification is only proposed as far north as Bramalea....

That's only the current 10-year RER plan, the $13.5bn plan.

This doesn't cover any subsequent plans (let's say, 2025-2035) or any bolt-on enhancements/extensions announced (e.g. CN negotiation success).

Electrification is strongly ultimately desired by Metrolinx all the way to Kitchener sometime after, if possible, Metrolinx has signalled a desire to go all the way there eventually. It all depends on how negotiations with CN goes, as well as other dark horse factors (e.g. CN-side elements of the theoretical 407 Freight Bypass, versus widening the corridor through Brampton)

HSR and RER uses the same electrification standard.

They go hand in hand, even if government documents don't say it yet this decade.

Metrolinx tried to buy as much railroad between Kitchener and Toronto, except for the pesky 30 kilometer section used by CN. Let's consider it is possible high-speed rail study may also be a component of RER Phase 2 in disguise (presumably, it will have possible "Lite" options listed, even 177kph-200kph non-Guelph-bypass options, comparing costs between various different speeds and routings including upgrading existing Kitchener GO routing). An electrification EA can in theory be shared between RER and HSR.

 

[ssiguy2]

Indeed, all the 'non-stop expresses' being discussed in the literature I read presume stopping at Pearson as a given. They talk of the 'time to Pearson' in the same breath as 'time to Toronto'. There are two stops London to Toronto being discussed in the major SW Ontario press: K/W, Pearson. Any others would slow them down too much to the point of defeating the purpose.

Exactly.

Add too many stops and you will take the High Speed equation out of HSR. With GO electrification, the Kitchener to Toronto stretch of HSR already won't be much faster than a GO express. HSR is suppose to be for travel between major cities and not a glorified commuter rail line.

Why would a Londoner {or points westward} get excited about a HSR rail line that is no faster than the London/Toronto Express that use to operate in the 80s?

 

[ssiguy2]

Curious...............seeing part of this lines raison d'etre is to connect the hi-tech Waterlou region with Toronto, has the province considered any other form of high speed service that would showcase the province's forward thinking transportation technology? It would be great if Ontario could be a showcase of a new transportation system as opposed to just getting a train that was created 50 years ago.

 

[dunkalunk]

Exactly.

Add too many stops and you will take the High Speed equation out of HSR. With GO electrification, the Kitchener to Toronto stretch of HSR already won't be much faster than a GO express. HSR is suppose to be for travel between major cities and not a glorified commuter rail line.

Why would a Londoner {or points westward} get excited about a HSR rail line that is no faster than the London/Toronto Express that use to operate in the 80s?

There's no really meaningful stops between Kitchener and London, this is where the speed is made up. High speed has more to with service pattern between Kitchener and Toronto than it does with technology or maximum speed. The Kitchener-Toronto corridor is definitely capable of supporting various levels of express (Kitchener-Toronto direct), intercity (VIA-type spacing) , and regional (GO-type spacing) service at once.

 

[dunkalunk]

Curious...............seeing part of this lines raison d'etre is to connect the hi-tech Waterlou region with Toronto, has the province considered any other form of high speed service that would showcase the province's forward thinking transportation technology? It would be great if Ontario could be a showcase of a new transportation system as opposed to just getting a train that was created 50 years ago.

Gadgetbahn ist Nuisancebahn. With something as important as getting from one place to another on time, in once peice, on a reasonable dime, why would you throw innovation for the sake of novelty into the solution?

 

[crs1026]

Add too many stops and you will take the High Speed equation out of HSR. With GO electrification, the Kitchener to Toronto stretch of HSR already won't be much faster than a GO express. HSR is suppose to be for travel between major cities and not a glorified commuter rail line.
Why would a Londoner {or points westward} get excited about a HSR rail line that is no faster than the London/Toronto Express that use to operate in the 80s?

A Kitchener-London line, upgraded only to the current quality of the line between Kingston and Brockville (the distances are comparable, 58 miles vs 51 miles), would enable similar trip times... 44-45 minutes, round up to 50 for those 7 extra miles. Same quality of line between Kitchener and Malton(ish), as between Kingston and Belleville (47 vs 44 miles).....37 minutes. Add 20 to get downtown....total trip time 1:47. Add five minutes to creep through the Guelph crossings. It's still an improved time to current runs on the Brantford line - hence where Windsor trains should be routed - and it's auto-competitive. No high tech, no expensive ultra fancy tilting or electric trains. Any one of several commercially current brands of rolling stock can be found to deliver this.

Improve only the 27 mile Stratford-Kitchener segment to 200 km/h (it's straight as an arrow on that stretch, and not unreasonably encumbered with level crossings....except maybe for Baden) and you would shave 4-5 minutes off that. You're clearly below driving times downtown to downtown. Improve the 30 miles Stratford to London Jct similarly, another 4-5 minutes. People will see the value proposition. Do that hourly, maybe adding the Guelph and Stratford stops every second hour, and you're providing a hugely useful and marketable service. Lots of room to fit RER or commuter trains in the slots in between those trains.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Gadgetbahn ist Nuisancebahn.

Exactly. Hopefully, the provincial authorities have learned something from the Scarborough RT debacle about trying to showcase technologies in corridors instead of just building the necessary.