News   Nov 19, 2024
 243     0 
News   Nov 19, 2024
 398     0 
News   Nov 19, 2024
 779     3 

VIA Rail


From the above:

1625754503038.png
 
Is there an estimate on how long such a mtl-toronto journey would take?

Do you mean like a comparison between the Ottawa route and this "bypass"?

We know the Ottawa route will take just over 4 hours.

Wheres that guy who does all of the really in depth calculations on the HFR, with charts and graphs and stuff?

Does he have like a bat signal I can call? haha. He would know.
 
Do you mean like a comparison between the Ottawa route and this "bypass"?

We know the Ottawa route will take just over 4 hours.

Wheres that guy who does all of the really in depth calculations on the HFR, with charts and graphs and stuff?

Does he have like a bat signal I can call? haha. He would know.

I think you mean @reaperexpress

Though others sometimes contribute this type of work, he is UT's most prolific at it!
 
This was published in La Presse regarding travel times:

444a3133fec83c67b2fdad31a999b003.png



The bypass looks like it would save about 45 minutes in travel time for Toronto-Montreal trains.

I understand why it was added - the one weak point of the original HFR plan was always Toronto-Montreal travel times, which would be barely better than today if routed through Ottawa.
 
So they'll greenfield it between Peterborough and Smiths Falls?

I wouldn't read too much into the detail.
Its fair to say the maps indicate contemplation of an Ottawa by-pass.
I'm not sure we can reasonably assert that they represent exact routing.

Lets keep in mind that map shows the Kingston Sub as being much straighter than it is in real life.
 
HSR would have cost an estimated 65G$, 40G$ for the MTL-TO section as per the Feds guesstimates.

In English, that reads as $65,000, and $40,000.

I know full well you mean 65 Billion.

Just letting you know how it reads. That number would be written as $65B in English. (when abbreviated), in full it would read $65,000,000,000
 
In English, that reads as $65,000, and $40,000.

I know full well you mean 65 Billion.

Just letting you know how it reads. That number would be written as $65B in English. (when abbreviated), in full it would read $65,000,000,000
I use the international standard of units as I said earlier like other media. It's stupid to use 50k$ as a salary in English then not use the other prefixes. I will continue to do so.
 
I use the international standard of units as I said earlier like other media. It's stupid to use 50k$ as a salary in English then not use the other prefixes. I will continue to do so.

A legitimate observation (and your welcome to your preference) which I share in some respects.
Which is to say, I like a consistent and logical approach to things.

That said, just reviewed monetary abbreviations in the French press and the Italian press and I find they both use British equivalent translations (milliards for billions); but also use T for trillions.
No one in the mainstream press so far as I can discern, in any language, uses the SI system; which is widely used, of course, in science.

Have you observed differently?

I'm all for changing that...........
 

Back
Top