# CANADA | High Speed Rail



## Canadian74 (Jul 29, 2007)

Here's the full story...

http://www.metronews.ca/story_local.aspx?id=67804


----------



## Xelebes (Apr 1, 2007)

Heh... metronews.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

I'm surprised it'd be between Calgary and Edmonton while the much heavier-populated corridor from Windsor-Toronto-Montreal can't sustain one.


----------



## Canadian74 (Jul 29, 2007)

^^ Isn't VIA already there?


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Canadian74 said:


> ^^ Isn't VIA already there?


VIA is *not* high speed rail.


----------



## Canadian74 (Jul 29, 2007)

I know that... But atleast there is rail service. There is absolutely no rail service between Calgary and Edmonton.


----------



## elfreako (Mar 7, 2004)

Would be nice to eventually see an Edmonton-Calgary-Vancouver-Seattle high-speed rail link. It would definiitely be one of the most scenic journeys in the world!


----------



## Xelebes (Apr 1, 2007)

I don't think one between Calgary and Vancouver will happen anytime soon. We might have it go up to Fort McMurray - or if Saskatchewan's population booms once again, one to Regina and Saskatoon will happen.


----------



## mr.x (Jul 30, 2004)

one from Vancouver to Calgary would be quite expensive with all those mountains, if at all possible.......and not to mention bloody expensive. i wouldn't be surprised if it cost more than a hundred billion with all those geological issues.


----------



## Xelebes (Apr 1, 2007)

Between Munich and Venice there is only one mountain range. Between Calgary and Vancouver, there is at least 3 mountain ranges.


----------



## mr.x (Jul 30, 2004)

Xelebes said:


> Between Munich and Venice there is only one mountain range. Between Calgary and Vancouver, there is at least 3 mountain ranges.


yea, precisely.....and the biggest of them all, the Rockies.

maybe we could lure all the Chinese again to build the high-speed railway just like how we got them to build the Pacific railroad in the 1800's.:lol: Cheap labour.


----------



## elfreako (Mar 7, 2004)

Yeah, wishful thinking. Hey, why not get the Japanese or Swiss to built you a 500km tunnel?


----------



## geoking66 (Jun 27, 2006)

elfreako said:


> Yeah, wishful thinking. Hey, why not get the Japanese or Swiss to built you a 500km tunnel?


Well the Japanese built the longest rail tunnel in the world, why not do it again? Anyway, I'm surprised that a high-speed link between Windsor and Ottawa has never been developed, maybe even a connection to Detriot.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

No wonder this very thread itself had been listed at the bottom of my "high speed" thread search here in this forum  For the record 



AndrewJM3D said:


>


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

trainrover said:


>





trainrover said:


>





trainrover said:


>


----------



## Neb81 (Jun 14, 2010)

trainrover said:


> No wonder this very thread itself had been listed at the bottom of my "high speed" thread search here in this forum  For the record


Damn, you beat me to it! This vid really says it all :lol:


----------



## swimmer_spe (Aug 15, 2013)

Bump...

So, If a true TGV type of HSR line connected Toronto - Ottawa - Montreal. If a speed of 300km/hr was maintained, the trip would be a total of 3 hours, with Toronto to Ottawa being 2 hours and Ottawa to Montreal in 1 hour.

If the tickets were priced at a slightly higher price than than airfare, would it be able to make a profit and draw enough people to it?

I know that the TGV line has a double decker trainset so there is no issue with enough space.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

It would likely need to be priced no higher than airline tickets to be take some of that traffic. Pricing it the same would give it a tiny advantage in that trains typically travel right into a city centre, planes do not. There's a cost getting from the airport to downtown so the advantage would be the cab ride price plus travel time.

That said, it would take a lot of political will to get HSR approved in Canada. Extending the line to Windsor in the west and Quebec City in the east is likely imperative.


----------



## Robi_damian (Jun 15, 2008)

isaidso said:


> It would likely need to be priced no higher than airline tickets to be take some of that traffic. Pricing it the same would give it a tiny advantage in that trains typically travel right into a city centre, planes do not. There's a cost getting from the airport to downtown so the advantage would be the cab ride price plus travel time.
> 
> That said, it would take a lot of political will to get HSR approved in Canada. Extending the line to Windsor in the west and Quebec City in the east is likely imperative.


To me it makes perfect sense to build it: flat terrain, large and wealthy population, heck the Canadian corridor is a perfect candidate for HSR by any book. It would cost a lot, sure, but it would greatly ease travel on the corridor.


----------



## spin_dive (May 16, 2011)

In that case, might as well as let Bombardier supply the rolling stock, nothing like building local.


----------



## Sunfuns (Mar 26, 2012)

Do they actually build passenger trains in Canada? I've only heard of factories in Europe...


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

isaidso said:


> ...
> 
> That said, it would take a lot of political will to get HSR approved in Canada. *Extending the line to Windsor in the west and Quebec City in the east is likely imperative.*


Why do you say that? It seems to me that the extra length adds a huge amount of extra cost without having nearly as big an impact on ridership. Wouldn't the diminished numbers make it _less_ palatable politically?


----------



## Innsertnamehere (Jun 8, 2010)

Robi_damian said:


> To me it makes perfect sense to build it: flat terrain, large and wealthy population, heck the Canadian corridor is a perfect candidate for HSR by any book. It would cost a lot, sure, but it would greatly ease travel on the corridor.


compared to other North American HSR projects, Toronto-Montreal would actually probably be quite cheap, probably $10-$15 billion for 600km of service. the corridor is largely built out, and few realignments would really need to be made as the corridor is typically very, very straight. you would probably need one major bypass of Smith Falls, and a couple of smaller realignments of tight curves, but probably around 97% of the route already has a ROW. all you would need is more tracks and electrification really. the Quebec city and Windsor extensions would probably be a bit more expensive, Quebec city would probably require a new tunnel under Mount Royal in Montreal, and Windsor tracks are in much worse condition than Toronto-Montreal and would need some major upgrading in Guelph.

assuming average speed of 300km/h it would be a 2 hour trip to Montreal, and about an Hour and a half to Ottawa from Toronto. now achieving that average speed is unlikely, 2 hours to Ottawa and 2.5 hours to Montreal is probably more realistic. Today the fastest VIA trains make the trip to Ottawa in around 4 hours for comparison. to make a major improvement on that you could simply stop having the trains slow down to 60km/h through towns, they otherwise travel at 150km/h for the entire stretch other than in Smith Falls and approaching the Ottawa station where the trains slow to a crawl. (the Smith Falls one is because it has to travel through a yard, don't know why the trains slow down in Ottawa)


----------



## Sunfuns (Mar 26, 2012)

For a well built line in easy terrain 230-240 km/h average would be a good target.


----------



## saiho (Jun 28, 2009)

I think the money would be better spent getting better Intra-city service. Imagine if that cash was pumped into AMT, GO and the O-train.


----------



## spin_dive (May 16, 2011)

Sunfuns said:


> Do they actually build passenger trains in Canada? I've only heard of factories in Europe...


There is one factory in Quebec and one in Thunder Bay, Ontario.
Though they are going to need some modifications to build HSR stock.


----------



## Black Cat (Oct 12, 2002)

Unfortunately its hard to see any HSR happening between Toronto and Montreal in the next decade. Aside from the cost of buildng HSR, there are established interests ie the airlines and bus companies, as well as competing demands, and the govt is not flush with money. 

It probably makes more sense to improve and dedicate one of the existing ROW (CN or CP lines) between Toronto and Mtl for passenger traffic, and to use the other for freight, and to double track both routes to allow for faster trains.


----------



## Silly_Walks (Aug 23, 2010)

Maybe spend some of that tar sand money on one HSL.


----------



## saiho (Jun 28, 2009)

Nouvellecosse said:


> Why do you say that? It seems to me that the extra length adds a huge amount of extra cost without having nearly as big an impact on ridership. Wouldn't the diminished numbers make it _less_ palatable politically?


Increasing coverage will garner more support. Then the opposition would cite the issue of the high total cost of the project. That's when the DRAMA happens.


----------



## Innsertnamehere (Jun 8, 2010)

Black Cat said:


> Unfortunately its hard to see any HSR happening between Toronto and Montreal in the next decade. Aside from the cost of buildng HSR, there are established interests ie the airlines and bus companies, as well as competing demands, and the govt is not flush with money.
> 
> It probably makes more sense to improve and dedicate one of the existing ROW (CN or CP lines) between Toronto and Mtl for passenger traffic, and to use the other for freight, and to double track both routes to allow for faster trains.



VIA uses almost exclusively CN tracks, as it is the long ago replacement of CNs passenger service. The tracks are already double tracked the entire way, and even triple tracked for large portions of distance. Most of the "simple improvements" like you describe were done a couple of years ago. $1 billion was sunk into VIA for train rebuilds, some new stations, new passing tracks, etc. I believe VIA use is actually going up for the first time in decades as a result.



No idea on the Quebec plant, but the Thunder Bay plant largely acts as a supply line for Toronto's constant need for new trains (there has been a new or expanded order every year or two for the last decade). They are currently building streetcars, subway trains, LRT trains, as well as GO commuter trains. I don't think VIA has even purchased new passenger trains since the 1990's.


----------



## Innsertnamehere (Jun 8, 2010)

Thought this was interesting. When discussing the Kitchener AD2W project here Glen Murray, Ontario's Transportation minister, states that they would like to see the trains run at "a couple hundred kilometers an hour". could this be the closest thing Canada will get to HSR? it would certainly be the first time trains travel at over 200km/h.



> "we've then got to upgrade that track so if you want higher speed trains we've got to put concrete ties, we've got to upgrade the quality of the rail because eventually we don’t want sixty mile [an hour trains]."
> 
> "We need trains that are running a couple hundred kilometres an hour, that’s our goal with regional rail, so you’re talking about the kinds of rapid rail systems that you see in that."


----------



## k.k.jetcar (Jul 17, 2008)

Innsertnamehere said:


> Thought this was interesting. When discussing the Kitchener AD2W project here Glen Murray, Ontario's Transportation minister, states that they would like to see the trains run at "a couple hundred kilometers an hour". could this be the closest thing Canada will get to HSR? it would certainly be the first time trains travel at over 200km/h.


Well, 200km/h is close to 125mph, which also happens to be the prevalent limit for "higher speed rail" using diesel propulsion (see HST in GB). Other than true high speed rail, which is electrified lines with over 145~150mph service, this seems to be the most realistic scenario in the North American context.


----------



## Innsertnamehere (Jun 8, 2010)

There is talk of electrifying it as well BTW, though nothing definitive. Half of the line is getting electrified already for the new airport connection.

in general the article is very vague, and the whole thing seems very preliminary. I'm just excited as this is the first serious mention of regional rail I have seen in Canada, well, ever. The trains could be 250km/h, they could stick to the current 150km/h / 90mph limits that they are currently set to. We don't really know. At least its being talked about.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Sunfuns said:


> Do they actually build passenger trains in Canada? I've only heard of factories in Europe...


Bombardier manufactured passenger trains in Quebec then purchased a rival manufacturer in Ontario (UTDC). They used this enlarged rail division as a spring board to acquire manufacturers in Europe, but have always continued to run passenger rail manufacturing operations in both Quebec and Ontario. Europeans tend to view Bombardier's rail division as a uniquely European operation, but it's not at all.

Toronto's new subway cars are made in Thunder Bay, Ontario at the UTDC factory. As rail expenditures grow in America (north and south), Bombardier's Canadian rail operations might one day rival it's European rail operations in size and importance.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Nouvellecosse said:


> Why do you say that? It seems to me that the extra length adds a huge amount of extra cost without having nearly as big an impact on ridership. Wouldn't the diminished numbers make it _less_ palatable politically?


We're only talking about an extra 250 km of track to reach QC with close to 800,000 people not to mention 1.3 million within an hours drive of that city. There would be huge political pressure from the government of Quebec to extend the line to the provincial capital. 

At the other end, extending past Toronto to Windsor is a huge added cost due to its length. There are 2 factors that make it worthwhile. The region between Toronto and Windsor is heavily populated: Hamilton (800,000), Kitchener-Waterloo-Guelph (650,000), London (500,000), and finally Windsor (350,000). Then there's the added benefit of connecting the entire line to the US. Detroit (5 million) is just across the border from Windsor. By extending to Windsor, you're effectively connecting the line to the entire US HSR system.


----------



## Innsertnamehere (Jun 8, 2010)

HSR of some sort was announced between Toronto, Kitchener, and London today. That is a 170km stretch. Small, but a great start to what is hopefully a much larger expansion. I'm sure the service will be hugely popular.


----------



## Sopomon (Oct 2, 2010)

^^ Is there a source for that info?


----------



## Innsertnamehere (Jun 8, 2010)

http://www.thestar.com/news/queensp...ut_no_new_taxes_vows_pc_leader_tim_hudak.html

http://www.movingontarioforward.ca/

Still very, very vague, but its there.


----------



## Zack Fair (Jan 31, 2010)

320 kph HSR from Toronto to London?

https://twitter.com/Glen4ONT/statuses/456988267872010241


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

isaidso said:


> We're only talking about an extra 250 km of track to reach QC with close to 800,000 people not to mention 1.3 million within an hours drive of that city. There would be huge political pressure from the government of Quebec to extend the line to the provincial capital.
> 
> At the other end, extending past Toronto to Windsor is a huge added cost due to its length. There are 2 factors that make it worthwhile. The region between Toronto and Windsor is heavily populated: Hamilton (800,000), Kitchener-Waterloo-Guelph (650,000), London (500,000), and finally Windsor (350,000). Then there's the added benefit of connecting the entire line to the US. Detroit (5 million) is just across the border from Windsor. By extending to Windsor, you're effectively connecting the line to the entire US HSR system.


Toronto to Windsor is 350 km so not much further than Montreal/QC. Plus Southern Ontario has a heck of a lot more people than the 800k in QC.


----------



## saiho (Jun 28, 2009)

Innsertnamehere said:


> http://www.thestar.com/news/queensp...ut_no_new_taxes_vows_pc_leader_tim_hudak.html
> 
> http://www.movingontarioforward.ca/
> 
> Still very, very vague, but its there.


Super vague, it could just be faster trains.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

Just watch: If any HSR docket ever be brought beyond its study status, then it would either independently or collaboratively be federated provinces themselves that would turn out to be its driving force, not Ottawa.


Innsertnamehere said:


> Toronto-Montreal ... the corridor ... few realignments would really need to be made as the corridor is typically very, very straight


Very-very, eh? Maybe so for daydreaming Canadia/ens, what with our collective amnesia (remember the Turbo débâcle, mightcha?), but NOT for most folks originating from anywhere else. As a passenger transported along that trunk route, smelling the acrid mustiness from braking for yet another bend occurs FAR TOO often. So stop trying to embarass me, wouldja :clips_the_titch_of_a_blighter_about_its_earhole: ? Besides, what regrading might be required to eliminate the endless succession of its topsy-turvy undulations .. it might be wiser to first choose the type of power driving the conventional traction motors, although by the time any such advent occur along that corridor, technolgical advances might very well have rendered this matter a non-issue.


Innsertnamehere said:


> Quebec city would probably require a new tunnel under Mount Royal in Montreal


Abandoning the north shore (bank) route, Quebec City services were withdrawn from the Mount Royal tunnel about ¼ century ago; plus the rotten, dire condition of the massive Quebec bridge way downstream there was recently reported as being unacceptably dangerous. North shore, south shore ... the QC spur will -uhm- (quote)probably require(/quote) its status as some unmitigatedly dormant notion being duly honoured. Besides, in the wake of Lac-Mégantic, we all have the matter of railway-encircled Côte-St-Lucois defying the transport of dangerous cargo being transported on a massive scale all around them here on the island.


Innsertnamehere said:


> I believe


WTF people consent to does NOT interest me AT ALL.


isaidso said:


> Europeans tend to view Bombardier's rail division as a uniquely European operation, but it's not at all


And so they ought to. I mean; wouldn'tcha also become aghast from merely glimpsing the unsightly, rotten premises housing the manufacturer's HQ here in this regally, saintly, virgin-Mary burgh of mine?


Sunfuns said:


> Do they actually build passenger trains in Canada? I've only heard of factories in Europe...


About 60 miles (100Km) away from the firm's HQ, there's an adequately tooled plant of theirs in upstate NY's North Country, although it's about to start - if it hasn't already done so - churning out (US) Amfleet (stock) replacements. Alas, you are right for the most part, because, e.g., the island's fleet of electro-diesel commuter engines were/are still being shipped here; each locomotive is entirely produced and assembled by some German plant of theirs.

Me, I suspect the term HSR would be supplanted by something of the likes of HSG around this continent. I've an unwavering hunch that an advent of high speed maglev rakes plying guideways would tie conveniently into some attempt at staging the continent's comeback into the global théâtre.


----------



## Innsertnamehere (Jun 8, 2010)

saiho said:


> Super vague, it could just be faster trains.


a bit more has come out, they are now claiming it will be 320km/h. the real deal so to speak.


----------



## Tower Dude (Oct 13, 2013)

trainrover said:


> About 60 miles (100Km) away from the firm's HQ, there's an adequately tooled plant of theirs in upstate NY's North Country, although it's about to start - if it hasn't already done so - churning out (US) Amfleet (stock) replacements.


I know that this question is more appropriate for the US rail thread but do you have a source for this because I would love to see it. I've been trying to find one for months.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

Woah, I'm FINALLY being suckered into 'sharing' one of dem godawful promo productions: 



Nah, your question's MORE than appropriate .. my preceding the metric unit with the imperial one (60 miles) was a tip of the hat to American endeavours and to the fact that their blah-blahing about HSR proposals (comparatively speaking, that is) as actually bearing some bite, and has nothing to do with the fact that this country's rail sector being the only area that still needn't effect any conversion (hmmm, flight maintenance centres around here might also be exempt from metric conversion)


----------



## Innsertnamehere (Jun 8, 2010)

> London, Ontario, Canada / (CFPL AM) AM 980
> Jacquelyn LeBel
> April 30, 2014 12:57 pm
> 
> ...


http://www.am980.ca/2014/04/30/transport-minister-announces-start-of-assessment-phase-for-london-toronto-high-speed-rail-line/

Quick stats:

71 minutes London - Toronto (compare to 130 today on the fastest VIA train)
~45 minutes from Toronto to Kitchener
trains every 30 minutes
6 million annual passengers
around $40 from Toronto to London
Environmental assessment to begin in the fall, design completed with construction starting in around 3 years. 
Completion 8-10 years from now.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Innsertnamehere said:


> Quick stats:
> 
> 71 minutes London - Toronto (compare to 130 today on the fastest VIA train)
> ~45 minutes from Toronto to Kitchener
> ...


This must be a joke. 71 minutes for approx. 120 km add up to a travel speed of 101 km/h. For that kind a performance a top speed of 160 km/h would be sufficient. So why exactly is this line proposed to be designed for 320 km/h? It is neither advisable to built a high speed line for such a short stretch nor do the targeted travel times reflect the higher speed somehow.


----------



## Innsertnamehere (Jun 8, 2010)

flierfy said:


> This must be a joke. 71 minutes for approx. 120 km add up to a travel speed of 101 km/h. For that kind a performance a top speed of 160 km/h would be sufficient. So why exactly is this line proposed to be designed for 320 km/h? It is neither advisable to built a high speed line for such a short stretch nor do the targeted travel times reflect the higher speed somehow.


It's closer to 180km. It's 100km just to get to kitchener. The average speed is closer to 180km/h, and the portion in the city will run at 150km/h due to corridor constraints. They looked at 200km/h rail and it took 30 minutes longer, more if you didn't realign it.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Innsertnamehere said:


> It's closer to 180km. It's 100km just to get to kitchener. The average speed is closer to 180km/h, and the portion in the city will run at 150km/h due to corridor constraints. They looked at 200km/h rail and it took 30 minutes longer, more if you didn't realign it.


180 km length in 71 min would still mean that the travel speed is no greater than 152 km/h. That can still be achieved with a much lower vmax than 320 km/h.
High speed services between Hamburg and Berlin reach a travel speed of up to 165 km/h currently with a top speed of just 230 km/h. That makes me wonder where these proposed services lose their minutes when they can run much faster.


----------



## Haljackey (Feb 14, 2008)

I would assume the 71 min travel time from London to Toronto includes wait times at the Kitchener and Pearson stations. It would not be a non-stop ride.

Also it would take a while for a train to accelerate to the 320 km/h top speed.


----------



## Silly_Walks (Aug 23, 2010)

Average speed is the key here... lowering the top speed will also lower the average speed.


----------



## Sunfuns (Mar 26, 2012)

Any way you look at it this doesn't seem to be a top class system...


----------



## Haljackey (Feb 14, 2008)

Sunfuns said:


> Any way you look at it this doesn't seem to be a top class system...


It's a start, and if it is successful there may be a new railway renaissance in this country. 

We may finally get our rail infrastructure into the 20th century! :lol:


----------



## Sunfuns (Mar 26, 2012)

You are going to spend a lot of money for it in any case. Why not start with a top class system?


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Silly_Walks said:


> Average speed is the key here... lowering the top speed will also lower the average speed.


Actually not in this case. High top speeds raise the travel speed only when it can be maintained for a long distance. In this case, however, the distance between stops is too short to have a significant impact. Hence my hint that the proposed travel time could be achieved with a lower top speed as well.


----------



## Innsertnamehere (Jun 8, 2010)

http://twitdoc.com/view.asp?id=1350...4ONT&doc=221320654&key=key-k1melpoovspeoy3i0t

Thats the little slide show from the presentation. the 320km/h rail saves 20 minutes over the 200km/h rail with a realignment, and an hour over 200km/h rail without a realignment. you need the realignment to even improve current train travel times from London (2 hours, 10 minutes). The biggest difference will be for Kitchener, which will go from a 2 hour 4 minute train ride to 48 minutes.


Most of the lost time isn't the stations or the time it takes to speed up, but rather the approach into Union. The tracks will be zoned for 150km/h (90mph) from Brampton, slow to 70mph going through the Weston tunnel, (then return to 90mph) slow to 50mph at Dundas, and slow to 25mph in the USRC approaching Union station. It'll take the train roughly 20 minutes to get from Brampton to Union, a distance of 40km. Apologies for the mix of units, Canada is a confusing place where we use metric in common language but imperial for railroad operations.


----------



## Silly_Walks (Aug 23, 2010)

flierfy said:


> Actually not in this case. High top speeds raise the travel speed only when it can be maintained for a long distance. In this case, however, the distance between stops is too short to have a significant impact. Hence my hint that the proposed travel time could be achieved with a lower top speed as well.


Until the system gets extended and there will be more express services with longer distances between stops, where 320 km/h does matter. If you have built a 180 km part of your system to only allow 200-220 km/h, you will notice it greatly.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 17, 2004)

Wouldn't a line Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec City make much more sense?


----------



## Innsertnamehere (Jun 8, 2010)

Probably not, in terms of cost to government. This thing is cheap for HSR because a lot of the expensive stuff has already been done. (Central station reno, urban corridor upgrades) They are saying that all but $500 million of the capital costs can be covered by fares. Toronto - Ottawa - Montreal would likely be in the billions in costs and would require co-operation from a government that up until a few weeks ago actively wanted to separate from Canada.

Total travel numbers between Toronto, Kitchener, and London are also much higher, and the highway system on the corridor is in much more need of relief on this corridor than on the corridor to Ottawa and Montreal. The closer distances mean much stronger existing travel patterns between cities.


----------



## Sunfuns (Mar 26, 2012)

Innsertnamehere said:


> Most of the lost time isn't the stations or the time it takes to speed up, but rather the approach into Union. The tracks will be zoned for 150km/h (90mph) from Brampton, slow to 70mph going through the Weston tunnel, (then return to 90mph) slow to 50mph at Dundas, and slow to 25mph in the USRC approaching Union station. *It'll take the train roughly 20 minutes to get from Brampton to Union, a distance of 40km.* Apologies for the mix of units, Canada is a confusing place where we use metric in common language but imperial for railroad operations.


That makes the situation more clear. Would it be totally impossible to improve that?


----------



## Innsertnamehere (Jun 8, 2010)

You could probably fix the 70mph zones if you had to by reducing the slope of the tracks at that point, but it would look stupid on the government as they are currently spending big bucks as we speak to upgrade it just to those 90mph standards, yet alone 220mph. Back in 2009 when they allocated funding for that work HSR was nothing but a far off fantasy and regional rail was the focus. The corridor will go from a 3 track 60mph area to an 8 track 90mph area, it was already the largest mixed rail upgrade in Canada for nearly a century. They may be able to install some concrete ties and push the speed up a bit, but 220mph will never be realistically possible on that stretch.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Haljackey said:


> I would assume the 71 min travel time from London to Toronto includes wait times at the Kitchener and Pearson stations. It would not be a non-stop ride.


I understand that it's politically problematic for it not to stop in both Kitchener and Pearson, but does one largely negate the benefits of HSR when one stops that often? How many km apart are stops on a typical European HSR route?


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> Wouldn't a line Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec City make much more sense?


Not necessarily. Heading west to Detroit is equally compelling as it would connect Toronto to the US HSR system.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Sunfuns said:


> You are going to spend a lot of money for it in any case. Why not start with a top class system?


That's how Ontario politics works. We spend tons of money to build it half right, then spend tons more money to build it how it should have been built in the first place. We'll end up with a patchwork of builds that we attempt to stitch together into a 'seamless' system.

In other words, we rarely have the foresight to take a long term view. Toronto's 'new' soccer stadium, BMO Field, is a good example of this. It was built with absolutely no consideration for future growth over the coming decades despite having tons of space to work with. Not 7 years in and they're already realizing that they can't add capacity easily because they built right up to the lot line on one side. 

It's supremely stupid, but that's how things work here. Ontario's HSR will not be cutting edge on any level. It will be cobbled together from existing rail lines, try to serve the needs of too many conflicting interest groups, and then be branded HSR even if it's not all that high speed.

It will be a vast improvement over what exists now so Ontarians will support it despite the short sightedness of it all.


----------



## jonasry (Feb 6, 2011)

Some services could make stop-overs in the Kitchener and Pearson while some would be non-stop. What is interesting if that this speed-up makes it competitive to re-launch a Detroit - Windsor - Toronto service. Or even from Chicago maybe.


----------



## Innsertnamehere (Jun 8, 2010)

isaidso said:


> That's how Ontario politics works. We spend tons of money to build it half right, then spend tons more money to build it how it should have been built in the first place. We'll end up with a patchwork of builds that we attempt to stitch together into a 'seamless' system.


have you even looked at the plans? its 320km/h HSR running on a new corridor.. its about as good as it gets. Just because they aren't going full scale and building 1000km of HSR in phase 1 doesn't mean the phase they are building is inferior.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Innsertnamehere said:


> have you even looked at the plans? its 320km/h HSR running on a new corridor.. its about as good as it gets. Just because they aren't going full scale and building 1000km of HSR in phase 1 doesn't mean the phase they are building is inferior.


I haven't seen the plans, but I've lived here long enough to know that projects rarely take a long term comprehensive approach here. It's almost always a patchwork. If the Quebec - Windsor HSR system is built with a clean slate from the ground up (as it should) I'd be pleasantly surprised. 

Your comment 'its about as good as it gets' sums it up well. You're just used to how things work in this country. It's all too often a compromise 'solution' rather than what should happen because there are too many cooks in the kitchen, weak leadership, and not enough common sense to go around.

It's often said that Canada is a nation with a 1st rate economy, 2nd rate education system, and 3rd rate politicians. It's quite accurate imo. Our best and brightest work in the business world, not at City Hall or Parliament Hill.

Ontario is getting better at this, but things like the Scarborough RT is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. It's absurd that you get off the train at Kennedy only to get back on another train at Kennedy to head in the same direction. Sheppard subway is yet another example.


----------



## Innsertnamehere (Jun 8, 2010)

The Liberals just won a majority government tonight (meaning a solid 4 years in office), this project will now likely move ahead! Canada will now finally be getting HSR.


----------



## krnboy1009 (Aug 9, 2011)

New York-Toronto HSR? Please?

Could easily transport passengers between Buffalo-New York and Buffalo-Toronto.


----------



## dimlys1994 (Dec 19, 2010)

krnboy1009 said:


> New York-Toronto HSR? Please?


No, we're talking about Toronto-London HSR within Ontario province


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

isaidso said:


> because there .. .. not enough common sense to go around.


All dem rotten gatekeepers.


----------



## billfranklin (Jan 28, 2007)

I have a different view of this project.

Upfront I would like to apologize to those who live outside Greater Toronto.

Toronto, to Canada, is becoming like NYC was in the States into the 1950s, the CENTER of the nation. 

I view this HSR as a commuter line from London to the center of the Golden Crescent. A very fast commuter line that will enable Londoners to plug into the ever expanding megacity. A GO Transit on steroids. Through the use of local stations, express services, etc., we have a great tool for expanding Toronto's reach.


----------



## Innsertnamehere (Jun 8, 2010)

That's exactly what this is. Southern Ontario is currently struggling, this is designed to tap into the economic engine that is Toronto and spread some of that absolutely insane growth around.

A half decent train service to NYC will likely come once Amtrak does it's upgrades to the empire corridor to buffalo. They badly need to fix the border issue as well however.


----------



## Zack Fair (Jan 31, 2010)

High-Speed-Rail plan still alive.



> *London, Kitchener and Waterloo Municipal Leaders Meet With Transportation Officials Over Commuter Rail*
> 
> It is being billed as a reinforcement of the province’s commitment of commuter rail for London, Kitchener and Waterloo.
> 
> ...


Read the rest here.


----------



## Innsertnamehere (Jun 8, 2010)

http://news.ontario.ca/mto/en/2014/12/ontario-moving-forward-with-high-speed-rail.html



> Ontario is taking the next step to build a high-speed rail line that will connect Windsor, London, Kitchener-Waterloo, and Toronto, which will improve travel options, reduce travel time and create jobs by getting people moving.
> 
> The start of an environmental assessment (EA) marks the next phase of the project, which includes identifying the most appropriate route, examining state-of-the-art transportation technology options and an environmental impact evaluation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Innsertnamehere (Jun 8, 2010)

http://www.lfpress.com/2014/12/10/high-speed-rail-plan-takes-shape

early plans released for High speed rail, now entering more detailed phase.



> Pssst Londoners: do you want a glimpse of where high-speed rail might go through the city?
> 
> Location of tracks, number of trains and cost of a ticket: All are laid out in a report on ambitious plans to cut in half the time it takes to go from London to Toronto.
> 
> ...


link to report:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/249793940/High-Speed-Rail


----------



## dimlys1994 (Dec 19, 2010)

From Rail Journal:



> http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...ints-high-speed-rail-advisor.html?channel=535
> 
> *Ontario appoints high-speed rail advisor*
> Friday, October 30, 2015
> ...


----------



## aquaticko (Mar 15, 2011)

Not that they have a lot of incentive to, but might they have it go over the border to Detroit, if they can figure out the political stuff?


----------



## Stainless (Jun 7, 2009)

aquaticko said:


> Not that they have a lot of incentive to, but might they have it go over the border to Detroit, if they can figure out the political stuff?


It would be good if they had a station with Canadian pre-clearance as long as there are no issues with passengers arriving without checks. Does this happen anywhere else?


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

Stainless said:


> It would be good if they had a station with Canadian pre-clearance as long as there are no issues with passengers arriving without checks. Does this happen anywhere else?


Maybe.

Tijuana's airport is literally right next to the US border, and has a special terminal with border crossing functions on the American side joined to the gates by a hallway. So it is truly an "international" airport. Oh and this is not just some piddly little regional hub, it has flights to Shanghai and San Diego does not.

Something similar would be to physically attach a Detroit High Speed Rail "station" to border crossing facility they will inevitably have to build at the foot of the future Gordie Howe Bridge. Americans would park in a parking lot that also has a rider pick up zone, walk into a terminal with rail tickets/customer service/waiting area/food/rental cars/etc. Then, walk through a corridor and go through border control. On the other side would be a bus platform for special buses which would deliver riders directly to the platform area for the trains in Canada.

The Detroit Windsor Tunnel has the tunnel bus already too so if a station was in central Windsor most could do that. The HSR agency could negotiate to get parking for its users somewhere in downtown Detroit.


----------



## Balkanada (Nov 6, 2010)

I'm not as disappointed about this HSR line not reaching Mississauga and Hamilton as I am about rail connectivity in the GTHA West area being weak in general. Hamilton is at least getting changes for the better; they got the West Harbour station over a year ago which is supposed to have all day two-way service soon, along with the main station in downtown (and the LRT in Hamilton is going to be a good last mile solution for GO commuters throughout the city). There's also the Confederation station which will be useful for commuters from Stoney Creek.

However, there's been a lot of development in the northern parts of Oakville and Burlington and the people who live there have to rely on GO stations all the way south of the highway, and it's a big last mile effort to get there. You can see a visualization of the problem here; circled in green are densely populated areas that have to rely on a rail line marked in red with only three stations circled in blue. I live in the area and for me the closest station is 7km away when this ideally should be much closer.










Airport connectivity is at a zero as well. If you want to get to the airport you have to all the way to Union station and then take the UP Express from there which is a huge waste of time


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

The Union Pearson Express should have been built so that it could continue west of Pearson to Hamilton.


----------



## Innsertnamehere (Jun 8, 2010)

isaidso said:


> The Union Pearson Express should have been built so that it could continue west of Pearson to Hamilton.


how is that possible? there are no rail corridors that make that connection, the rail corridor it uses goes northwest through Brampton to Kitchener, not towards Hamilton.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

So there is no rail corridor from Hamilton north to that Brampton-Kitchener line? :weird:


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

Black Cat said:


> Unfortunately its hard to see any HSR happening between Toronto and Montreal in the next decade. Aside from the cost of buildng HSR, there are established interests ie the airlines and bus companies, as well as competing demands, and the govt is not flush with money.
> 
> It probably makes more sense to improve and dedicate one of the existing ROW (CN or CP lines) between Toronto and Mtl for passenger traffic, and to use the other for freight, and to double track both routes to allow for faster trains.


The aforementioned companies are the ones most interested in jumping into the ^HSR crase if enticed correctly.


----------



## Innsertnamehere (Jun 8, 2010)

isaidso said:


> So there is no rail corridor from Hamilton north to that Brampton-Kitchener line? :weird:


You would have to take the main CN line that runs from Georgetown through Milton and down to Burlington. It would be an extremely out of the way route, and doesn't exactly hit many ridership generators on the way. Probably just as much of a detour as going down to Union then out again.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Horgan puts up $300,000 to keep concept of Vancouver-Seattle-Portland high-speed rail alive*
The Province _Excerpt_
Mar 16, 2018

The B.C. government will spend $300,000 towards a Washington State-led business case study for a proposed ultra-high-speed rail service that would connect Vancouver with Seattle and Portland.

Premier John Horgan chipped in $300,000 Canadian on Friday to the US$1.2 million that Washington state has committed to keep making a case for a US$40 billion high-speed rail link from Vancouver to Portland.

Inslee characterized investing in such a project, which promises 40- to 50-minute travel times from Vancouver to Seattle and 30 minutes more to Portland, a “monument to optimism,” for future growth in the region.

The money will go into writing a business-case study for the project, after a feasibility study that Washington released in December hinted at potential annual ridership of 1.8 million and billions of dollars in economic spinoffs.

“There were no showstoppers in the feasibility study,” Inslee said during the joint announcement with Horgan Friday, “so we are really pleased to have a premier who has joined us in a mutual investment for the second step of this analysis.”

Inslee said Oregon Gov. Kate Brown has also committed to proceeding with the business case.

More : http://theprovince.com/news/local-n...iday/wcm/ac788480-3b22-4e61-8189-2629f48852a4


----------



## CB31 (May 23, 2010)

*The Globe and Mail: From improved mobility to cutting carbon, high-speed rail stands to benefit all Canadians*












> “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” When Charles Dickens wrote this phrase in 1859 about the period of the French Revolution, imagining such inventions as high-speed trains was unfathomable. Nonetheless, Dickens’s words have relevance in 2018: Interest rates are normalizing, rebalancing the incentives of lenders and borrowers; unemployment is falling and currently at an 18-year low in Ontario; educational attainment is at an all-time high; and major stock markets recently witnessed a historically long bull run (the S&P 500 index saw 3,453 days without a major correction). However, these developments do not mitigate the serious challenges facing us: Climate change is making once-in-a-hundred-year weather events all too common, the mismatch between skills and jobs leaves both young and old workers frustrated, and an overconcentrated Canadian trade portfolio put the economy on a cliffhanger during USMCA discussions.
> 
> Because of its potential to reduce pollution, improve labour markets and relieve housing pressure in major urban areas, high-speed rail is an opportunity that we have overlooked for far too long. Currently, the Trudeau government’s actions on climate change are being met with pushback from key provinces, but joint financing of high-speed rail could contribute toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and resonate more agreeably with difficult-to-convince provinces. Moreover, the federal and provincial governments can borrow today at very low rates to help finance such projects. However, a word of caution should be articulated: interest rates are rising and worrisome levels of government debt could lead to credit downgrades (Ontario was recently downgraded by the rating agency Moody’s). As such, borrowing costs may not always be this low or the window of opportunity for major infrastructure projects as open.
> 
> ...


----------



## urbanflight (Dec 12, 2018)

*BC government increases Vancouver-Seattle high-speed rail study funding to $600,000*



> The Government of British Columbia is doubling its financial contribution towards a feasibility study of an ultra-high-speed rail service that links Vancouver with Seattle and Portland.
> 
> This increases the provincial government’s previously announced contribution of CAD$300,000 in March 2018 to CAD$600,000, which will go towards the next phase of a multi-jurisdictional analysis to explore ridership levels, project delivery methods, cost, and financing.
> 
> ...


----------



## urbanflight (Dec 12, 2018)

*High speed rail from Vancouver to Seattle, Portland 'worth the investment,' study says*












> A new report makes a business case for the train
> 
> A new study looking into high speed rail between cities in British Columbia and Washington state says it's financially viable.
> 
> ...


----------



## citysquared (Jun 10, 2019)

Seeing the emergence more and more of transnational regions that have natural affinities. This is a good trend away from the traditionally parochial view of national economies. This rail link in the Pacific northwest is going to be further proof of that.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Agree although regions that span the Canada - US border isn't a new phenomenon. They've behaved like this since the 1700s when it was all just called 'America'. Oregon, Washington, and BC have more in common with each other than they do other regions in their own country. The same can be said about the Prairie provinces (with US states directly across the border), Ontario (with Michigan, upstate New York), and the Maritimes (with New England). And it's been like this from the very beginning.

BC, Washington, and Oregon are often referred to as Cascadia. They even have their own flag. This is more about a region realizing a critical mass. HSR has become viable and being viewed as key infrastructure to help make Cascadia more competitive.


*Flag of Cascadia*


----------



## urbanflight (Dec 12, 2018)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179869364771835904


----------



## urbanflight (Dec 12, 2018)

Conservatives have cancelled plans for a high-speed rail line in Ontario.

Instead, they continue to spend hundred of millions of dollar in polluting and inefficient highways.

In Toronto, the conservative mayor has cancelled plans for tearing down the elevated highway that goes through the city, instead he will spend $1Billion just in maintenance works. Then he says the city doesn't have enough funds for public transport and cycling infrastructure.

Those kind of politicians in Toronto, Ontario and Canada, are so frustrating!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218538843458146305


----------



## Yellow Fever (Jan 3, 2008)

A month old news but its still interesting to read..

*Proposed high-speed rail line from Fraser Valley to Whistler could revolutionize travel in and around Metro Vancouver*










A high-speed rail line that would take passengers from Whistler to Downtown Vancouver in just over half an hour could revolutionize travel in the region, particularly in the Sea to Sky.

Called the Mountain Valley Express (MVX), the envisioned high-speed rail corridor would connect Vancouver to Whistler in the north and Chilliwack to the east. With speeds of up to 300 kilometres an hour, proponents say the MVX could carry up to 15,300 passengers per hour and would cut down on travel time by up to 80 per cent, compared to driving by car.

“We have a choice. Do we continue business as usual, or chart a new path to prosperity, a path that also considers the large looming climate emergency?” said PhD candidate and urban planner Alex Gaio in a release.

A recent masters graduate of Sweden’s KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Gaio is heading the so-called MVX Collective, which is pushing the province to launch a feasibility study on the rail line.

“As we think about the COVID-19 recovery, we need to think big,” says Langley Councillor Nathan Pachal in the release. “B.C. is a province of builders. Let’s build for the future.”









Proposed high-speed rail line from Fraser Valley to Whistler could revolutionize travel in and around Metro Vancouver


A high-speed rail line could take passengers from Whistler to Downtown Vancouver in just over half an hour.




www.vancouverisawesome.com


----------



## Yellow Fever (Jan 3, 2008)

*Study Finds Train Speed a Top Factor in Wildlife Deaths in National Parks* 

27 November 2020
*Banff Alberta* - A study looking at 646 wildlife deaths on railway tracks in Banff and Yoho national parks in Alberta and British Columbia has found that train speed was one of the biggest factors.

The research, published earlier this week in Nature's Scientific Reports, studied animals killed by trains between 1995 and 2018, 59 bears, 27 wolves, coyotes, cougars, lynx, and 560 deer, elk, moose, and sheep.

"The top predictor was train speed. More animals died where trains were travelling faster. Next was distance to water, then the amount of water near the site, and then curvature in the tracks," said lead author Colleen Cassady St. Clair, a biological sciences professor at the University of Alberta.

Train speed and track curvature, she said, make it difficult for wildlife to detect trains, while being close to water, particularly a lot of water, hinders their ability to get off the tracks before being hit.

The study builds on a five-year research project funded by Parks Canada and Canadian Pacific Railway from 2010 to 2015 that focused on grizzly bears being struck by trains in the same two parks.

It concluded that giving grizzlies better travel paths and sightlines along the railway was the best way to keep them safe.

Cassady St. Clair said she hopes the latest study "will make it possible to identify types and locations for mitigations that will reduce the problems for all wildlife, not just grizzly bears."

The research concludes effective mitigation could address train speed and the ability of wildlife to see trains, especially at curves in tracks near water.

Canadian Pacific noted in a statement Friday that the company has worked with Parks Canada for the last decade to learn more about how wildlife interacts with the railway...






OKthePK - Canadian Railway News is published and updated daily


OKthePK publishes Canadian railway news daily, world news weekly, a photo of the week, plus the Last Call page, and more.




www.okthepk.ca


----------



## M-NL (Sep 18, 2012)

Yellow Fever said:


> *Study Finds Train Speed a Top Factor in Wildlife Deaths in National Parks*
> ...
> "The top predictor was train speed. More animals died where trains were travelling faster.


That's a bit of an open door if you ask me.
You should try to keep anything living (wildlife and people) away from the tracks. Wildlife getting hit by a speeding train will often not survive and hitting something big like a bear or moose at speed won't be pretty for the train either.


----------



## 437.001 (Mar 27, 2009)

M-NL said:


> That's a bit of an open door if you ask me.
> You should try to keep anything living (wildlife and people) away from the tracks. Wildlife getting hit by a speeding train will often not survive and hitting something big like a bear or moose at speed won't be pretty for the train either.


In Spain all high-speed lines are fenced, and the more modern ones have overpasses and underpasses for wildlife.
Not that fencing the lines keeps away all animals (there's not a lot you can do with birds of prey, for instance, although even in that case there are measures to keep them off the tracks by now, particularly on viaducts).


----------



## 33Hz (Jul 29, 2006)

I'm not sure what this has to do with high speed rail in Canada, seeing as there isn't any yet.


----------



## Short (Dec 16, 2015)

33Hz said:


> I'm not sure what this has to do with high speed rail in Canada, seeing as there isn't any yet.


Because it will prevent any moves in trying to ever introduce a high speed rail project with a study like this being thrown about by rail opponents. It is like road traffic incidents, in every case, speed is a factor. Regardless of if it was low speed or high speed, to find the cause of the problem, then speed has to be considered. However to the average joe in the public arena, they hear the words 'speed was a factor' and automatically assume that it must be high speed, despite any difference to the reality. Thus heavy campaigning for speed reductions on various roads and highways, even though we now have safer road and vehicle designs in the modern age.


----------

