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

[robmausser]

Freudian slip? A 200km/h service would be so much more sensible and affordable.

After digesting the Business Case, some random thoughts
- Regardless of what speed one imagines, the Option B analysis of what's required east of Kitchener to operate both express and stopping trains is a good one, and likely in harmony with ML thinking. Just get on with it, with taxpayer money - no fancy banking solution required. It's needed, it's what we pay taxes for.
- The "Brampton solution" of 3 tracks is technically doable, but maybe we ought to bite the bullet and just bulldoze whatever is in the way in downtown Brampton and do it right. It's not like Brampton has a vision for the area anyways.
- The concept of a new line from Kitchener to London is a good one. It resolves the issue of maintaining freight service on the Kitchener line (by leaving it alone, with GEXR, though possibly fed from London instead of directly to Toronto), it chooses not to put more passenger traffic on the Brantford line (which would only exacerbate conflict with CN freights). The wisdom of separating freight and passenger altogether is sound and in harmony with what VIA is proposing. It would be a superb demonstration project (as a diesel powered 200 km/h line) to break the whole angst about building higher speed rail and it would possibly be feasible as a banking demonstration, ie fund as a loan to be repaid from operating revenue, similar to how the FRA funds Amtrak improvements under RRIF
- Ten to twelve million passengers per year, and 10-12% modal share, is sufficient justification for 200km/h and diesel HFR. I wonder how the business case for this level service would shake out. My guess - it would attract just as many riders, because the time differential still beats driving, and the connection at Pearson is just as simple as a connecting flight after planning layover time at Pearson. It would be a whole lot cheaper and could rough in the improvements to drive HSR if it were ever required in a couple decades. VIA may be on the better track with a HFR solution.
- The comments about needing new bridges because the engineering for higher speed service is different was a revelation. Why is the Grand River crossing "complex"?

My fear is that this proposal is the Wynne equivalent of Smarttrack. There may be more practical solutions, but now that she has attached her name to HSR, it may be hard for her to back away from the whole enchilada to what's really smart. But there isn't enough of a compelling case to move it forward in the original form. We need it, but we need it pared back to what can be supported under a "banked" investment model.

- Paul

TorStar adds to the chorus for HFR:

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/05/24/slow-down-on-high-speed-rail-plan.html

That really nails it. Ouch...

There's a reason that D-S and VIA are touting the 200 kph solution. It's the highest speed allowed before grade separation is mandated by TC regs. Not only that, it is fully compatible with GO RER sharing the same tracks, state of the art signalling and control systems being the same. The "250 kph" (or higher) invokes a whole new set of regulations and requirements, and costs go up astronomically for very little gain, if any.
[The Toronto to London train will travel for 184.1 km. The report claims the trains will complete the journey in 73 minutes, resulting in an average speed of 150 km/hour.] https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/05/24/slow-down-on-high-speed-rail-plan.html

Maximizing the 200 kph of the HFR proposal would effectively match that, at a fraction of the cost.

I think the best idea, for all the reasons outlined here, for the Ontario government to partner with VIA and extend HFR to Windsor, going through the Kitchener corridor.

Perhaps with a provision that high speed rail be outlined and the current system be made to be as easily upgradable to HSR in the future.

 

[ShonTron]

The proposal takes a few liberties, yes. It also proposes three trains an hour each way at peak and two trains an hour off-peak, while "assuming" that GO to Kitchener will only run hourly. That's a pretty presumptive use of the shared portion of the line.

There is good reason to assume that Stratford, Brantford, and Woodstock would continue to want service, and a route to Hamilton/Niagara (through a transfer at Aldershot) continues to be desirable. With the through business stripped out of the VIA ridership, the economics of VIA's current southern Ontario service is problemmatic, for sure.

In theory, VIA could pull back to Toronto-London via Brantford, leaving the rest of the business to HxR. IMHO a better solution would be to contract the operation of HFR to one entity (notionally VIA, but others may bid eventually) with ownership of the entire Windsor-London-Kitchener-Toronto track resting with a new HxR corporation. That achieves something similar to the British model, which is what Collenette suggests is best practice. CN should divest its Chatham Sub while the Canada Southern route, instead of being used for HSR, can be revived as CN's freight route to Windsor.

- Paul

The entirety of the CASO Sub is gone. The overpasses are gone in St. Thomas, leaving only the station building, the shops (now a museum) and the Kettle Creek trestle, which will become a public park. It was pulled up between Blenheim and Windsor a few years ago, and is likely to be sold off to adjoining landowners like the rest of the line. It won't even be preserved as a rail trail.

 

[ponyboy]

In the coming age of automated cars and the already ubiquitousness of smart phones, future passenger rail could rely on much smaller vehicles rather than longer trains. A dynamic system could send vehicles based on demand. Vehicles like this with 10-20 passengers could be more efficient, more time-responsive, quieter along the corridor, and provide an overall better user experience. Like in California, the IT innovation centre, I don't understand why these huge projects are not looking at new models. Musk's hyperloop may be too ahead of its time, but something in-between might be a good approach.

 

[Allandale25]

Freudian slip? A 200km/h service would be so much more sensible and affordable.

After digesting the Business Case, some random thoughts
- The "Brampton solution" of 3 tracks is technically doable, but maybe we ought to bite the bullet and just bulldoze whatever is in the way in downtown Brampton and do it right. It's not like Brampton has a vision for the area anyways.

Adding a third track to the south side (or less likely, north side) of the existing tracks for the short stretch where there is a gap wouldn't necessarily require *that* many buildings to be demolished and Metrolinx already I believe owns some between George St N and Elizabeth St N. Maybe ShonTron can confirm. The issue of the downtown bus terminal has been raised before. I'm not an expert so happy to be corrected but it looks like the NE corner of the building was designed to anticipate a third track on the south side. I guess the open question is whether the crash standards have changed and what type of retaining wall is needed. There are five homes along Railroad St between Elizabeth St N and Mill St N. Again, not an engineer, but maybe Railroad could be narrowed to a laneway or one direction.

Also, not sure if this is related, but TOareaFan noted here in the GO Construction thread that soil testing is happening at Brampton GO and a few other stations. Wonder if it's in any way related to third track investigations?

 

[gweed123]

Question: Is there much (or any) of a difference between 200 km/h vehicles and 250 km/h vehicles? Are they the same ones, just run at a lower speed? Just trying to think about upgradability from HFR to HSR. I'd imagine that at some point there would need to be a distinction made, I just don't know where that threshold is.

What I'm thinking is start with 200 km/h, and then systematically grade separate key sections of the line in order to allow more 250 km/h segments. Over time, those segments start to make up greater portions of the line, until the entire thing is HSR. Get the service up and running, and then do grade separations to increase speed.

 

[TOareaFan]

Adding a third track to the south side (or less likely, north side)

Any third track is far more likely to be on the north side.

Metrolinx already I believe owns some between George St N and Elizabeth St N. Maybe ShonTron can confirm.

The metrolinx purchase was the office buildings on the Northwest corner of George and Nelson....a couple of res properties west of that on Nelson and, I think, a couple of the properties just west of George on Railroad.

 

[Allandale25]

Any third track is far more likely to be on the north side.

It's been an ongoing debate here, I realize, and I don't claim my view based on what I've read is more right than others.

In reading the October 2014 report I've posted before, the consultants outlined some very sensible reasons why the south side makes more sense and to date, it's the most recent report on the matter as it came after the concept plan in the HMLRT documents that showed it on the north side. The October 2014 was a more technical report specifically looking at electrification and track engineering. Happy to post the passages again if it were to help.

 

[jaybe]

I don't know what you base your assumption of 7-8 minutes avoidable travel time per skipped stop on, but I refer to a previous post, where I have made an exemplary calculation which suggests that the travel time saving associated with skipping certain stops would not exceed 3 minutes for conventional rail speeds, 3.5 minutes for Higher-Speed rail and 5 minutes for HSR:

I am bumping this post because it relates to the discussion. There are a number of good posts by Urban Sky and others on pages 80-90 of this thread.

 

[steveintoronto]

Question: Is there much (or any) of a difference between 200 km/h vehicles and 250 km/h vehicles? Are they the same ones, just run at a lower speed? Just trying to think about upgradability from HFR to HSR. I'd imagine that at some point there would need to be a distinction made, I just don't know where that threshold is.

Excellent question! You're considering 'forward compatibility' which is rarely done for many large transit projects, although once again I have to invoke Crossrail, who've wisely overbuilt station length to accept even longer trains in the future. One of their prominent engineer/spokesman stated: (gist) "Once you've built a station in tunnel, you're stuck with it, so overbuild it to start with". I'll find exact reference and post it later. That abjectly applies to the Relief Line, where the City of Toronto is yet again planning yesterday's technologies to render tomorrow's shortcomings. But I digress. I think the Relief Line should be part of an RER/HFR system.

On the trains, the short answer is 'no', as there's a whole category of locos available, excellent ones, diesel, electric and bi-mode for which their top speed is stated "125 mph" (200 kph). Brightline is a shining (pun intentional) example of just such a trainset. Long answer is that the coaches are derived from Austrian high-speed electric trainsets, are *are* forward compatible with High Speed locos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railjet
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,3885251

So why not order high-speed locos now? Cost and the lack of commitment at this time to electrification. I'm sure some of the other posters will answer this in more detail.

What I'm thinking is start with 200 km/h, and then systematically grade separate key sections of the line in order to allow more 250 km/h segments. Over time, those segments start to make up greater portions of the line, until the entire thing is HSR. Get the service up and running, and then do grade separations to increase speed.

I think your logic can be satisfied with changing out diesel-only locos for the initial trainsets, and replacing them with *higher speed* electric only ones later. HFR for instance, (and the existing VIA replacement order) are stated (gist) "book-ended trainsets"...but not whether they have to be symmetrical locos. They could be electric one end, diesel the other rather than the preferred "bi-modal" to save money, huge amount of weight (bi-modes are twice the price, twice the weight, and the electric power is usually twice that of diesel per loco) and that weight poses problems for staying on a curvy track at speed.

VIA have the option to change their RFQ to (gist) "Driving trailer one end, locomotive the other"....such that if the loco is diesel only (think the Siemen's Charger on the Brightline sets) (and a single one has more than enough power to drive a five car plus trailer set) then the driving trailer can be replaced with a higher speed electric when the time is apt. Or one electric loco and a driving trailer, no diesel loco at all, those can be spun off onto other lines.

For a driving trailer, Amtrak has been using gutted F40 "Cabbages" to fill the task:
The “Cabbage,”Amtrak's Recycled F40 - Railroad.net

These are essentially identical F40 origin to what VIA is now replacing. I'll detail with more links and references later, but your point is an excellent one. Plan for the future, but be frugal initially to keep the budget under control w/o sacrificing forward compatibility.

 

[steveintoronto]

I am bumping this post because it relates to the discussion. There are a number of good posts by Urban Sky and others on pages 80-90 of this thread.

Many thanks for that jaybe! UrbanSky has addressed many aspects of HFR/HSR previously, and timing per stops is a very important one, often misunderstood. (Electric propulsion radically alters the consequences of stops) One of his other very pertinent posts is how single track with passing loops can and does work very well in other jurisdictions. Hopefully he reads this and will prompt him to repost that reference.

 

[TOareaFan]

It's been an ongoing debate here, I realize, and I don't claim my view based on what I've read is more right than others.

Just offering my opinion that it is far more likely to be north side track with a reduction in surface parking and a move of the station building.

 

[Allandale25]

Just offering my opinion that it is far more likely to be north side track with a reduction in surface parking and a move of the station building.

Fully understand. I do see the point about utilizing the space taken up by parking and pushing the historic station building slightly north. Guess it depends on if a HSR would be given a designated track through Brampton that would reduce slowdowns for curves/switching and if that's a concern or not in terms of travel time. Lots of unknowns so look forward to more information coming out.

 

[ShonTron]

Adding a third track to the south side (or less likely, north side) of the existing tracks for the short stretch where there is a gap wouldn't necessarily require *that* many buildings to be demolished and Metrolinx already I believe owns some between George St N and Elizabeth St N. Maybe ShonTron can confirm. The issue of the downtown bus terminal has been raised before. I'm not an expert so happy to be corrected but it looks like the NE corner of the building was designed to anticipate a third track on the south side. I guess the open question is whether the crash standards have changed and what type of retaining wall is needed. There are five homes along Railroad St between Elizabeth St N and Mill St N. Again, not an engineer, but maybe Railroad could be narrowed to a laneway or one direction.

Also, not sure if this is related, but TOareaFan noted here in the GO Construction thread that soil testing is happening at Brampton GO and a few other stations. Wonder if it's in any way related to third track investigations?

Metrolinx now owns the dirt parking lots (which service the office buildings) at the corner of George and Railroad, along with the two office buildings at the northwest corner of George and Nelson, along with four residential properties on Nelson and Elizabeth Streets (a semi and a house were already demolished). It does not own any improved properties on Railroad Street, however.

 

[crs1026]

If some of the better thinking in the Collenette report were to come to be, one would look at the area adjoining the tracks for its development potential, and disregard what's standing there now. Those houses ought to be bought out under any scenario, even only with RER stopping there. Move Railroad Street if it's required, or close it altogether. That leaves only a small number of structures that need to be crash-proofed, and I'm sure that's manageable/affordable.

- Paul

 

[TOareaFan]

If some of the better thinking in the Collenette report were to come to be, one would look at the area adjoining the tracks for its development potential, and disregard what's standing there now.

In my career, I have seen those properties across Railroad Street cross my desk no less than 5 times....by people looking to develop them make money.....invariably they end up selling them to the next wide eyed investor who looks across the street and says "wow, everybody would want a unit this close to that transit station."....it is the same view that saw the Blade (just west of there) launch their sales at least 2 times (may be 3 but it was at least twice) and each time shut down their sales office after a few months and finding that....nobody (literally) wanted to buy there. Same goes for a couple of other sites nearby (not sure how long the "future development" sign has been on that strip mall on the northeast corner of Nelson and Main ....but it is measured in multiple years).

Those houses ought to be bought out under any scenario, even only with RER stopping there. Move Railroad Street if it's required, or close it altogether. That leaves only a small number of structures that need to be crash-proofed, and I'm sure that's manageable/affordable.

- Paul

If you close Railroad you need to come up with some sort of plan for a) those properties that you proposed buying out....if they are to remain some sort of property (other than vacant land or part of the station) then you need to provide some access point...they back onto other properties with no cross street behind them and b) reroute a couple of bus routes that use railroad to more easily get out of the DT area (as opposed to joining the line of buses turning left out of the depot onto George to get to Queen).

None of this is impossible....but it is a very tight/complicated site on which to expand a train station.