Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study

[crs1026]

HSR should not be viewed only as a noncommuter system -- France is proof -- Japan is proof

Britain is proof. Hitachi-built Class 395 Javelin trains run regional services using the infrastructure built for Eurostar. They are good for 140 mph, so they don't bog down the true TGV style trains heading for the Continent. And...they switch from pantograph to third rail en route.

Okay, it would be hard to interleave a slow GO bilevel stopping every three miles with a TGV, but something in between is possible. Certainly, regional services stopping at the main centers on the Ontario lines would coexist well with true HSR.

As to why KW and not the Brantford line ...trying to coexist with CN freight is not a wise strategy. The Dundas hill is a big obstacle. CN runs its freights at crawl speeds up that grade, often 10 mph or less. There are regular stalls, which blocks the line until a set of rescue power is dispatched to push the freight up to Copetown. So one track has to be assumed to be occupied by CN all the time. If you look at the current VIA schedules, even at 4 trains a day, one track is occupied by a VIA train a great deal of the time between Brantford and Bayview. Adding additional tracks in that area would be very costly.
The Stratford line has very light freight operations. The Limehouse grade is shorter and more benign than Dundas. Not having freights in the way means not crossing over, thus avoiding the problem that makes the Kingston Sub unworkable for fast passenger. This line is not really so much longer in mileage, at good high track speed the difference is only a few minutes.

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

But are there going to enough commuters to make a economic case for that stretch? Studies after studies have shown that it's pretty much just the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal that does.

Technically, I prefer the TOM corridor as I want to visit Ottawa quickly.

Economically, TKL corridor makes more sense on an incremental-cost perspective.

I argue the following, not accounted for in the old studies:

• Demographics of 2030-2040s.
  Kitchener-Waterloo will have more rapid densification thanks to their new LRT.
  London could have their LRT (or other rapid transit) by then.
  
  
• Much larger commuter market (in addition to interurban market).
  Who's going to commute daily from Ottawa to Toronto?
  
  
• GO RER and electricification is happening along this corridor anyway.
  This reduces incremental cost of HSR.
  There is no planned GO RER towareds Kingston
  
  
• Significant orridor ownership.
  Metrolinx bought most of the trackage to Kitchener.
  
  
• Less distance to upgrade to HSR.
  You can have the whole Toronto-Kitchener-London link for less cost than Toronto-Kingston (going through more rural land).
  
  
• Marketing to taxpayers is easier:
  Smaller incremental cost than TOM corridor (after already partially electrified).
  GO High Speed Trains can replace the lonng-distance express GO Trains ("Yay! High speed GO trains").
  RER allstops (a "phase 2" extended version whatever was called the silly SmartTrack name) could do the non-express to Kitchener.
  
  
• The incremental cost of HSR:
  Cost difference betweenn what's spent on RER towards 2030-2040, to go all the way to HSR.

What's already spent on the railroads (by 2030s-ish), means a smaller upgrade to HSR is needed.

I argue that the old studies, that you are referring to, definitely do not take account for most of the above.

Potential HSR ridership (figuratively, a demographical circle around the HSR station, within reach of rapid transit) is probably going to grow ultra-massively, given that previously there was no rapid transit prior to that. In Kitchener-Waterloo, is soon becoming pratical not to need to own a car if you live in the "corridor", just like downtowner Torontoians no longer feel the need for a car.

Again, as a fun traveller, I do prefer Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal.

But the incremental cost, the economics of 2030-2040s, as well as dollars and Ontario political climate points to TKL corridor high speed having a good chance of occuring first before the TOM corridor. Compared to the uncertain economics of UPX, the case is looking more and more like a slam dunk (extraopolating to 2030s-2040s). I can't say that for sure, obviously, but it's starting to become quite obvious based on the direction GO RER electrification is going, unless the political seas changes massively.

 

[Haljackey]

High-speed rail line gathers steam

http://www.lfpress.com/2015/10/30/high-speed-rail-line-gathers-steam

 

[mpd618]

I may be biased, but IMHO the big argument for Kitchener being on the line is that connecting the Kitchener-Waterloo tech sector with Toronto's tech sector (and Toronto's culture) would have a huge economic impact. It would make this corridor much more competitive with places like the San Francisco Bay Area, Boston, New York, etc. - as a place to work in tech, or as a place to start and grow a company. Right now there's still a brain drain to California, and stronger transit could help reverse it.

 

[MisterF]

^True. The HSR line is more about Kitchener-Waterloo than it is about London.

VIA should be a FAST interurban system serving very few cities..........Win/Lon/Tor/Ott/Mon/QC and the could have some trains {ie every third} stopping at Aldershot/King/TR and that's it. The Tor/Buff route will have to continue for a while but GO will eventually serve that route too and GO will also eventually be connected to Brantford

Why? I can't think of another corridor similar to Windsor-Quebec that has such minimal, barebones service as what you propose. Most regions like ours have a much denser rail network with faster, more frequent trains that don't have to share with freight. Most jurisdictions put a larger percentage of their intercity transportation money into rail.

By building by-passes and eventual electrification the system could be phased in and not have to be an all or nothing affair.

That's happening already. RER upgrades as far as Kitchener are underway right now, so HSR to Kitchener and London isn't an all or nothing affair at all. The UPX track improvements are complete and the whole corridor to Kitchener will eventually be upgraded and electrified.

But are there going to enough commuters to make a economic case for that stretch? Studies after studies have shown that it's pretty much just the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal that does.

AoD

Only the study from a couple years ago says that, and it ignored the Kitchener route in favour of the Aldershot route. The latter doesn't adequately serve Hamilton, Kitchener, or Pearson. It really has no advantages besides being very slightly shorter. The previous studies recommended the Kitchener route and concluded that while less profitable than the Ottawa/Montreal section, it would still make a profit. None of the previous studies, IIRC, took into account the upgrades that are already being done on the Kitchener GO line.

Hamilton, IMO, isn't very well situated for a Windsor-Quebec HSR line. It would be an important hub on an upgraded Niagara line though, which would be a far better use of money than a mid-peninsula highway.

 

[ssiguy2]

The Hitachi trains that Britain is getting, as noted have the benefit of being able to run both on diesel and electric so electrification could be phased in.

If VIA funding remains constant, the fewer lines running means more of a subsidy can be funneled into the main corridor so which even route they take from London whether by KW of Hamilton they should not be running both and they can ditch Sarnia too. It's also very noteworthy have Collenete will studying the route to WINDSOR which is a natural for connections to Detroit/Chicago.

 

[dowlingm]

The small problem with the Stratford line is the number of grade crossings it has. It's also what, 10% longer? (don't have a track atlas to hand so guesstimating based on GMaps)

The "Quebec-Windsor" corridor is longer than the US Northeast Corridor and much more thinly populated. It is also largely owned by private companies whose track cannot be expropriated, whereas government entities (Amtrak, MetroNorth, MBTA) own the NEC. Some of the discussion about what can/should be done...

 

[gweed123]

I may be biased, but IMHO the big argument for Kitchener being on the line is that connecting the Kitchener-Waterloo tech sector with Toronto's tech sector (and Toronto's culture) would have a huge economic impact. It would make this corridor much more competitive with places like the San Francisco Bay Area, Boston, New York, etc. - as a place to work in tech, or as a place to start and grow a company. Right now there's still a brain drain to California, and stronger transit could help reverse it.

Agreed. It also helps that there's a major international airport right along the route between the two. With the GO improvements coming online in the next few years along the Kitchener corridor, it would meet in some areas and far surpass in other areas the CalTrain service between San Francisco and San Jose.

 

[MisterF]

The small problem with the Stratford line is the number of grade crossings it has. It's also what, 10% longer? (don't have a track atlas to hand so guesstimating based on GMaps)

That's why an HSR line would likely go in a new corridor between Kitchener and London. A more or less straight line between the two would take a lot of distance off the route and make it almost as short as a route through Aldershot.

The "Quebec-Windsor" corridor is longer than the US Northeast Corridor and much more thinly populated. It is also largely owned by private companies whose track cannot be expropriated, whereas government entities (Amtrak, MetroNorth, MBTA) own the NEC. Some of the discussion about what can/should be done...

A better comparison would be Spain. Its high speed rail corridors have similar populations and distances as ours would. Barcalona-Madrid is an almost perfect mirror to Toronto-Montreal.

Track may be mostly privately owned, but true high speed lines are largely built as new corridors anyway.

 

[salsa]

That's why an HSR line would likely go in a new corridor between Kitchener and London. A more or less straight line between the two would take a lot of distance off the route and make it almost as short as a route through Aldershot.

Please tell me they're not gonna bypass Guelph.

 

[CapitalSeven]

They are planning to bypass Guelph I think. Providing a fast service through the city would be very expensive.

 

[ssiguy2]

Why don't you want them to by-pass Guelph? It's not getting a station anyway.

 

[howl]

That's why an HSR line would likely go in a new corridor between Kitchener and London. A more or less straight line between the two would take a lot of distance off the route and make it almost as short as a route through Aldershot.

A better comparison would be Spain. Its high speed rail corridors have similar populations and distances as ours would. Barcalona-Madrid is an almost perfect mirror to Toronto-Montreal.

Track may be mostly privately owned, but true high speed lines are largely built as new corridors anyway.

One of the cons of the Hamilton route is the HRS would have to dip down through the City of Brantford, but originally the line went almost straight from Dundas to Woodstock. The straight line that bypassed Brantford was taken out of use when a bridge collapsed in 1916, but the old track bed is still there and, except for a few houses built right next to it and the town of Woodstock, re-using it would give you the potential for a super straight high speed line through nothing but farmland for about 100km from Dundas to London.

I agree with you that HRS should NOT be a commuter system. Perhaps GO trains can have higher speeds and express services, but that is not the same thing as HRS. High Speed Rail is intercity service that fills the gap between driving or commuter rail, and airlines. Toronto would ideally be linked to Ottawa, Montreal, Chicago (with a stop in Detroit), Boston and New York (with a stop in Buffalo). The HSR would ideally completely bypass Hamilton, KW, London, Peterborough, Kingston etc. so the trains don't even have to slow down to go through them.

 

[nfitz]

Why don't you want them to by-pass Guelph? It's not getting a station anyway.

1) the route through Guelph is as short and straight. 2) They are unlikely to ever get approval to cross the Niagara Escarpment on the route shown on that figure. 3) The bypass route was drawn by a consultant who has never set foot in the country. 4) The figure notes that it's conceptual and the alignment is still to be determined. 5) Too early to say that Guelph won't get a station - we've seen in high speed services in Europe and Asia that though some trains go long distances without stopping, some are little more than glorified commuter services. Heck there are actual commuter services on HS1 in Kent.

 

[MisterF]

I agree with you that HRS should NOT be a commuter system. Perhaps GO trains can have higher speeds and express services, but that is not the same thing as HRS. High Speed Rail is intercity service that fills the gap between driving or commuter rail, and airlines. Toronto would ideally be linked to Ottawa, Montreal, Chicago (with a stop in Detroit), Boston and New York (with a stop in Buffalo). The HSR would ideally completely bypass Hamilton, KW, London, Peterborough, Kingston etc. so the trains don't even have to slow down to go through them.

No HSR system is that limited. They all serve commuters. You can have express and local trains using the same tracks. There's no downside.

Please tell me they're not gonna bypass Guelph.

Well nothing has been decided at this point, hence the disclaimer on that image. But the idea is that express trains would bypass Guelph while local, commuter oriented trains would continue to stop there.