HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2022, 1:06 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Maximum speeds of trains are affected by many factors.
Check out a Google Earth alignment of the new railroad corridor being proposed, and note the number and sharpness of the curves.
Then compare that to the alignment of the French built TGV between Paris and Lyon. Please do not suggest the alignments are the same. Eyes do not lie.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2022, 1:09 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
I think you are missing a lot in this project.

The main point is that current route running through Kingston is at capacity and is owned by the freight railway, Canadian National (CN). A previous project of adding track on this route went way over budget and gained VIA nothing as the extra capacity was absorbed by CN. The benefit of adding more track again is highly questionable and the potential cost is enormous. There is also little or no possibility of electrification, something that CN is not interested in.

The other major purpose of HFR is to speed up service between the major cities. Schedule adherence is currently poor because of sharing the existing corridor with long freight trains, on the main line between Montreal and Toronto. It is now realized that the only way to speed up service is to build a new rail line that is used exclusively by VIA rail. No competing freight trains. The large portion of the new corridor is an abandoned Canadian Pacific rail line, and large parts of the rail line through Ottawa are already owned by VIA, which has already demonstrated a benefit of running an exclusive VIA line.

The other thing, is that the CN route through Kingston will still retain service with Kingston as a hub. This means that service overall can be improved for all the smaller cities. The focus of the revised service is to better serve the smaller cities without the competing interests of the longer distance riders interfering.

You should be aware that Oshawa already has frequent commuter service to Toronto, and Fallowfield is actually a suburban part of the City of Ottawa, not a small town. Fallowfield is the station for the west half of Ottawa.

Another desire is to return rail service to Peterborough and Trois-Riviere that are both moderate sized cities. This is all part of a greater plan to knit the more heavily populated parts of Ontario and Quebec with more intercity, commuter and local rail services. There are currently many other rail projects under construction, in design or proposed. What is happening in this part of Canada will be revolutionary as the various components start to come together.

So, the end result of HFR is win-win for everybody.

Better organized service on the existing CN route, faster service between the major cities, and two new cities getting regular passenger service.

I fully support the current emerging plan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2022, 1:32 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
Just a note but HFR is not planned to run through Kingston, but rather Peterborough. Half the point of the project is to pull trains off the congested lakeshore rail corridor which is full of freight trains. Trains will reconnect with the existing line in Smith Falls outside of Ottawa.

So smaller cities like Oshawa, Cornwall, and Kingston won’t be serviced. Stops will basically be Toronto - Peterborough - Ottawa - Montreal - Troi Rivières - Quebec.

This map is well known and it suggests that they are at least studying the possibility of an Ottawa bypass so that some Montreal-Toronto trains may have a faster travel time. We will see if that actually becomes part of the final plan. Of course, the Ottawa-Toronto route is also VIA's most popular route.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2022, 2:06 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is offline
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,003
The RM transit video title stating that "High Speed Rail Might Finally be a Reality in Canada!" seems to have confused a lot of people. It implied that HSR was a future goal or consideration for the project when in reality, neither the initial reason for the HFR project nor any official communications that I've heard regarding the project have suggested that. As far as we know at this point the project should simply be taken at face value. A significant improvement to passenger rail in the region by adding more departures, making travel times more reliable, and providing service to a few additional places. Those are great things, but people are getting a negative impression of it because it's not HSR, something that has never had anything to do with the project.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2022, 12:49 PM
wanderer34 wanderer34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Miami/somewhere in paradise
Posts: 1,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Maximum speeds of trains are affected by many factors.
Check out a Google Earth alignment of the new railroad corridor being proposed, and note the number and sharpness of the curves.
Then compare that to the alignment of the French built TGV between Paris and Lyon. Please do not suggest the alignments are the same. Eyes do not lie.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Pari...!3e3!4e1?hl=en

The Paris-Lyon alignment doesn't exactly go into a straight line, neither! The TGV Line was the first HSR line in Europe, and even though it was a great success for France, a lot of people who lived nearby the town have protested it for various reasons (noise, pollution, health risks, etc.). Even in Europe, HSR has it's detractors ()

Also, the TGV's estimated time of arrival is a little over 2 hours compared to Canada's proposal of over 4 hours between Montreal & Toronto. It's about 290 miles (467 km) between Paris & Lyon while between Toronto & Montreal, it's 337 miles (542 km).

Finally, the TGV system is a much better system that works in France because eventually the TGV either connects or will connect to a lot of larger cities like Orleans, Bordeaux, Lille, Strasbourg with Paris acting as the hub as well as the original alignment which travels to Lyon and eventually Marseilles.



Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
I think you are missing a lot in this project.

The main point is that current route running through Kingston is at capacity and is owned by the freight railway, Canadian National (CN). A previous project of adding track on this route went way over budget and gained VIA nothing as the extra capacity was absorbed by CN. The benefit of adding more track again is highly questionable and the potential cost is enormous. There is also little or no possibility of electrification, something that CN is not interested in.

The other major purpose of HFR is to speed up service between the major cities. Schedule adherence is currently poor because of sharing the existing corridor with long freight trains, on the main line between Montreal and Toronto. It is now realized that the only way to speed up service is to build a new rail line that is used exclusively by VIA rail. No competing freight trains. The large portion of the new corridor is an abandoned Canadian Pacific rail line, and large parts of the rail line through Ottawa are already owned by VIA, which has already demonstrated a benefit of running an exclusive VIA line.

The other thing, is that the CN route through Kingston will still retain service with Kingston as a hub. This means that service overall can be improved for all the smaller cities. The focus of the revised service is to better serve the smaller cities without the competing interests of the longer distance riders interfering.
If Trudeau if able to get this plan through, more power to him, but I do foresee a lot of protests the way I just mentioned in the last response. I don't really see the small towns supporting this plan.

It's not to say that the smaller cities won't have any service, but I wanted to use the Northeast Corridor as the best example of what the line could've been since the NE Corridor does a great job of connecting the smaller established cities to the bigger ones via HSR.

Only downfall of the line is the fact that CN won't allow a segment of the line to be designated HSR, which is a shame since it would've been a better idea due to connectivity between the smaller cities and the major ones. Also, the 120 mph speed is still too low for even myself to really be on board, and other than Peterborough, do the smaller towns really need HSR service? That's why I posted the Springfield monorail picture as a reason because a lot of rural residents & MPs may be the reason why this line doesn't come to fruition due to potential protests.

And we can't forget our French speaking friends up in Quebec, as that segment looks a lot better than the segment in Ontario due to less stops. My vision was for the HSR segment to be on the eastern bank of the St Lawrence River with stops along Longueuil-St Hubert Airport, Trois -Rivieres, Levis, St Foy, and Quebec City. It's more stops, but either way, it would've done similar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
You should be aware that Oshawa already has frequent commuter service to Toronto, and Fallowfield is actually a suburban part of the City of Ottawa, not a small town. Fallowfield is the station for the west half of Ottawa.

Another desire is to return rail service to Peterborough and Trois-Riviere that are both moderate sized cities. This is all part of a greater plan to knit the more heavily populated parts of Ontario and Quebec with more intercity, commuter and local rail services. There are currently many other rail projects under construction, in design or proposed. What is happening in this part of Canada will be revolutionary as the various components start to come together.

So, the end result of HFR is win-win for everybody.

Better organized service on the existing CN route, faster service between the major cities, and two new cities getting regular passenger service.

I fully support the current emerging plan.
I was evoking the NE Corridor on the East Coast when I thought of the benefits of HSR in Canada, and I've said that the Quebec segment is better due to less stops along that routeThe only way the Ontario segment wins is that you reduce the number of stops. I could allow for Peterborough to have an HSR station, but the smaller towns may have to go to decrease the ETAs well as the increase from 120 to 150 mph in order to truly make this a HSR rail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2022, 5:32 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
We really don't know what the government is ultimately going to propose. The study is ongoing, which involves a lot of cost/benefit analysis. How fast the trains will ultimately operate at is still unknown. We just have the original concept, which was designed to get the foot in the door for federal funding and potential private support.

What is hoped for is a substantially improved rail service over what is presently available. This cannot be accomplished by using the CN Lakeshore route to link the major cities.

There will always be NIMBY protests, but the Peterborough corridor especially between Peterborough and Perth is lightly populated so less propone to issues than trying to squeeze in HSR on the more heavily populated Lakeshore corridor.

The further issue is that the Lakeshore route would require a combination of local service and long-distance service which would require even more track. I doubt that the corridor could support up to 4 tracks for passenger service and at least 2 additional tracks for freight service. This would almost certainly induce NIMBY protests especially if expropriations were needed in a densely populated corridor.

We need to be patient until the plan is firmed up. I am sure it will not be what everybody hopes for, but if it is a substantial improvement over the status quo, we should end up with a better service.

Every corridor is different, therefore, what is happening in France or the NE corridor in the US is not necessarily applicable to the Ontario-Quebec corridor. Again, we still don't have the details, but a new segregated passenger rail corridor will be a major gain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2023, 4:36 AM
wanderer34 wanderer34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Miami/somewhere in paradise
Posts: 1,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
We really don't know what the government is ultimately going to propose. The study is ongoing, which involves a lot of cost/benefit analysis. How fast the trains will ultimately operate at is still unknown. We just have the original concept, which was designed to get the foot in the door for federal funding and potential private support.

What is hoped for is a substantially improved rail service over what is presently available. This cannot be accomplished by using the CN Lakeshore route to link the major cities.
The speed of 120 mph (193 kph) is decent enough for the NE Corridor between Boston and DC due to congestion and the close proximity between cities. But if we're not talking at least 150 mph (241 kph) between Cornwall and Oshawa, there might not be any motivation to even get the project rolling. It doesn't have to be exactly like HSR in Japan & China when it comes to speed, but it has to be fast enough to travel between cities in a timely and efficient manner.

If the mid-size cities aren't getting any HSR service of any kind, they'll shoot it down, as I don't see how Ontario & Quebec taxpayers will pay for a system where only metro Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal residents will be the only ones that will benefit from it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tōhoku...kansen_map.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaid...kansen_map.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San%27...kansen_map.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyushu...saki_route.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinka..._201703_en.png

Back to the Shinsaken lines of Japan. There's practically no straight line alignment anywhere in Japan, while the alignment between Toronto and Quebec City is practically straighter than anything that can be imagined in Japan. Japan nowadays doesn't have the fastest trains anymore. China has them, but even then, what Japan had done to connect the smaller cities, even though the Shinsaken lines had to build new track, is great for even Japan's smaller cities rather than bypassing them. Hopefully Canada can get HSR, but the taxpayers and the landowners are really going to be the ones who'll decide how Canada's HSR system is shaped.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
There will always be NIMBY protests, but the Peterborough corridor especially between Peterborough and Perth is lightly populated so less propone to issues than trying to squeeze in HSR on the more heavily populated Lakeshore corridor.

The further issue is that the Lakeshore route would require a combination of local service and long-distance service which would require even more track. I doubt that the corridor could support up to 4 tracks for passenger service and at least 2 additional tracks for freight service. This would almost certainly induce NIMBY protests especially if expropriations were needed in a densely populated corridor.
I was looking at using the inner two tracks specifically for HSR and the outer two for slower local service and freight, not six tracks. I'd also look at prioritizing 7 PM to 7 AM for more freight service over passenger service on the outer tracks and 7 AM to 7 PM for more passenger service on those same tracks. That would ease what type of service can be operated depending on the time of day.

Finally, I've checked out the satellite map between Montreal and through Dorval, and an extra two tracks for local service can be easily added. The alignment between Saint-Henri and Montreal won't have the four tracks, but I can see it if that's the alignment the Canadian gov't wants to use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
We need to be patient until the plan is firmed up. I am sure it will not be what everybody hopes for, but if it is a substantial improvement over the status quo, we should end up with a better service.

Every corridor is different, therefore, what is happening in France or the NE corridor in the US is not necessarily applicable to the Ontario-Quebec corridor. Again, we still don't have the details, but a new segregated passenger rail corridor will be a major gain.
Once again, the taxpayers, the landowners, and even the mayors of these smaller cities are going to decide how the new alignment is going to be used.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2023, 5:26 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is offline
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderer34 View Post
The speed of 120 mph (193 kph) is decent enough for the NE Corridor between Boston and DC due to congestion and the close proximity between cities. But if we're not talking at least 150 mph (241 kph) between Cornwall and Oshawa, there might not be any motivation to even get the project rolling. It doesn't have to be exactly like HSR in Japan & China when it comes to speed, but it has to be fast enough to travel between cities in a timely and efficient manner.
That's an unfounded assumption considering that there's already a rail service that's well patronized before HFR is even implemented. If you improve an already popular service by making it more reliable and by improving departure options then it will be even more popular. Currently the trains are often delays due to conflicts with freight traffic which isn't a positive experience for customers and there's a limited number of trips and departure times that don't always match consumer preference since VIA has to work with available timeslots, again due to sharing with freight.

Keep in mind that many HSR projects including the Shinkansen and Britains HS2 are intended to increase capacity on congested routes. Building a new dedicated corridor with much faster train throughput can move far more people. In other words, the speed isn't necessary to attract ridership and make for a popular service. The speed was needed to handle the high ridership attracted by high quality conventional speed rail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderer34 View Post
If the mid-size cities aren't getting any HSR service of any kind, they'll shoot it down, as I don't see how Ontario & Quebec taxpayers will pay for a system where only metro Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal residents will be the only ones that will benefit from it.
The mid-sized cities including Kingston (likely the most important) have already endorsed the proposal because they do stand to benefit. The existing corridor will still have service but will have trips that terminate at Kingston from both directions. The benefit this is that when each route is only traveling half as far, it only has half the opportunity to be delayed by being caught behind a slow freight train. So the service on the corridor will be more reliable. A small percentage of people will have to change trains at Kingston (people on the Toronto side going to Montreal or Ottawa and vice versa) but there'll be fewer of them compared to those going to the closer metropolis.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2023, 3:34 PM
wanderer34 wanderer34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Miami/somewhere in paradise
Posts: 1,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
That's an unfounded assumption considering that there's already a rail service that's well patronized before HFR is even implemented. If you improve an already popular service by making it more reliable and by improving departure options then it will be even more popular. Currently the trains are often delays due to conflicts with freight traffic which isn't a positive experience for customers and there's a limited number of trips and departure times that don't always match consumer preference since VIA has to work with available timeslots, again due to sharing with freight.

Keep in mind that many HSR projects including the Shinkansen and Britains HS2 are intended to increase capacity on congested routes. Building a new dedicated corridor with much faster train throughput can move far more people. In other words, the speed isn't necessary to attract ridership and make for a popular service. The speed was needed to handle the high ridership attracted by high quality conventional speed rail.



The mid-sized cities including Kingston (likely the most important) have already endorsed the proposal because they do stand to benefit. The existing corridor will still have service but will have trips that terminate at Kingston from both directions. The benefit this is that when each route is only traveling half as far, it only has half the opportunity to be delayed by being caught behind a slow freight train. So the service on the corridor will be more reliable. A small percentage of people will have to change trains at Kingston (people on the Toronto side going to Montreal or Ottawa and vice versa) but there'll be fewer of them compared to those going to the closer metropolis.
I'd like to see proof about Kingston & other cities approving this project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2023, 4:13 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderer34 View Post
I'd like to see proof about Kingston & other cities approving this project.
My, this is well known part of the project. As I said, it is win-win.

The focus of the revised Lakeshore schedule will be to serve the smaller cities better. That will include Cornwall, Brockville (the main Montreal-Ottawa junction), Kingston, Belleville, Trenton, Cobourg, Oshawa and few others. This will mean more daily trains for the smaller cities (no need for express trains), better schedule adherence, and better schedule distribution through the day.

Here is what the Kingston mayor says.

https://mayorpaterson.com/why-via-ra...-for-kingston/

I would also like to point out that HSR would only make sense with one or two stops between Montreal and Toronto. So, most of the smaller cities would not benefit from HSR. Service to smaller cities would still be local, and no different from what is proposed. Kingston would be the only benefactor of HSR on the Lakeshore route and does not justify the extra cost of trying to wedge HSR onto the Lakeshore corridor. It is not reasonable to expect CN to agree to restrict freight service to night hours. This is one of the busiest freight lines in Canada.

The issue concerning use of track into Montreal is well known and is part of the current study. What is the best routing from both west and east is being studied.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2023, 4:45 PM
wanderer34 wanderer34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Miami/somewhere in paradise
Posts: 1,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
My, this is well known part of the project. As I said, it is win-win.

The focus of the revised Lakeshore schedule will be to serve the smaller cities better. That will include Cornwall, Brockville (the main Montreal-Ottawa junction), Kingston, Belleville, Trenton, Cobourg, Oshawa and few others. This will mean more daily trains for the smaller cities (no need for express trains), better schedule adherence, and better schedule distribution through the day.

Here is what the Kingston mayor says.

https://mayorpaterson.com/why-via-ra...-for-kingston/

I would also like to point out that HSR would only make sense with one or two stops between Montreal and Toronto. So, most of the smaller cities would not benefit from HSR. Service to smaller cities would still be local, and no different from what is proposed. Kingston would be the only benefactor of HSR on the Lakeshore route and does not justify the extra cost of trying to wedge HSR onto the Lakeshore corridor. It is not reasonable to expect CN to agree to restrict freight service to night hours. This is one of the busiest freight lines in Canada.

The issue concerning use of track into Montreal is well known and is part of the current study. What is the best routing from both west and east is being studied.
Only problem with the proposed HSR alignment is that there's too many stops on the Ontario segment. The Quebec segment has less stops, but the only problem with that is that it seems to use the old alignment with a lot of at-grade crossings. In order for it to be truly HSR, you'd have to make the route above-grade or below-grade with very little or no at-grade crossings.

We'll see how Canada gets this project rolling. Admittedly, I'm on the side that the project proposed won't come to fruition, not because of my proposal to use mid-size cities isn't realized, but I believe that taxpayers, landowners, rural interests, and even the NIMBYs may eventually overcome Canada's effort to bring HSR to the Montreal-Toronto corridor.

I'm pro-transit, but I also have to weigh the cons as well as what people may think or say about the new alignment. We all want HSR to be a reality, but the Canadian people are the ones who'll see if this alignment becomes reality.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2023, 6:52 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderer34 View Post
Only problem with the proposed HSR alignment is that there's too many stops on the Ontario segment. The Quebec segment has less stops, but the only problem with that is that it seems to use the old alignment with a lot of at-grade crossings. In order for it to be truly HSR, you'd have to make the route above-grade or below-grade with very little or no at-grade crossings.

We'll see how Canada gets this project rolling. Admittedly, I'm on the side that the project proposed won't come to fruition, not because of my proposal to use mid-size cities isn't realized, but I believe that taxpayers, landowners, rural interests, and even the NIMBYs may eventually overcome Canada's effort to bring HSR to the Montreal-Toronto corridor.

I'm pro-transit, but I also have to weigh the cons as well as what people may think or say about the new alignment. We all want HSR to be a reality, but the Canadian people are the ones who'll see if this alignment becomes reality.
Aren't you talking both ways? Why the smaller cities are not benefiting from HSR and then saying that there are too many cities in Ontario that will receive HSR service, which really consists of three, Toronto, Peterborough and Ottawa. Other towns will likely see only a few trains per day.

You are talking about the political support and the speed of service. This is part of the planning process and the cost/benefit analysis. What level of service is politically acceptable and its cost and I will grant you that this plan will be particularly vulnerable to a Conservative government which will inevitably get into power at some point.

I think that an absolute failure of the project will be tragic and this will get worse as more money continues to be invested. The hope is get private investors. Only time will tell, but there are indications that they want to spend more to go more towards HSR. This does not mean that the entire route will reach HSR standards.

We just wait as each milestone passes on the project. We are now asking for qualifying vendors. The next step will be Requests for Proposals.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2023, 4:42 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
How fast the trains need to be depends upon what the elapse times are desired.

The existing timetable states 4 hours and 40 minutes between Montreal and Toronto over 359 km or 223 miles. That is an average speed of 76.9 km/h or 47.8 mph as it is today.
A) If your desired elapse time is 4 hours, your train needs to average 89.75 km/h or 55.75 mph.
B) If your desired elapse time is 3 hours, your train needs to average 119.6 km/h or 74.3 mph
C) If your desired elapse time is 2 hours, your train needs to average 179.5 km/h or 111.5 mph.
D) If your desired elapse time is 1.5 hours, your train needs to average 239.3 km/h or 148.6 mph

Average speeds and maximum speeds are two entirely different things, the Eurostar between Paris and London averages 171.5 km/h or106.6 mph when it reached a maximum speeds of 300 km/h or 186 mph with the original TGV style trains. So average speeds is around 57% of maximum speeds, and this on a corridor through an rather long chunnel under the English Channel.
Or if you prefer to look at it in the opposite way, maximum speeds is around 175% of average speeds.

Therefore, on a TGV qualified rail corridor for true HSR speeds if required;
A) the 89.75 km/h average speeds needs a maximum speeds of 157 km/h. (which all VIA trains can do today)
B) the 119.6 km/h average speed needs maximum speeds of 209.3 km/h (which VIA's new Siemens trains can almost reach today on great track)
C) the 179.5 km'h average speeds needs maximum speeds of 314 km/h (which equals Eurostar speeds today)
D) the 239.5 km/h average speeds needs maximum speeds of 419 km/h (which no intercity train service in the world is capable of).

So, to put it all into prespective,
With some improvements to the track, existing trains can travel between Toronto and Montreal in 4 hours
With lots of improvements to the track, the new Siemens trains can travel between Toronto and Montreal in 3 hours.
With a brand new HSR corridor and new HSR trains they could travel between Toronto and Montreal in 2 hours.
Nothing better is practical as of today.

To add, the more improvements you make to the tracks the higher the capital costs will be. Costs should be a major factor with any decision being made.

Last edited by electricron; Jan 8, 2023 at 10:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2023, 6:30 AM
wanderer34 wanderer34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Miami/somewhere in paradise
Posts: 1,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Aren't you talking both ways? Why the smaller cities are not benefiting from HSR and then saying that there are too many cities in Ontario that will receive HSR service, which really consists of three, Toronto, Peterborough and Ottawa. Other towns will likely see only a few trains per day.
What I meant is that the mid size cities on the lakeshore aren't getting the HSR service. I wasn't talking both ways. According to the diagram, it looks like the ON alignment is linking the much smaller towns when I said that it should've linked the mid-sized lakeshore cities due to having larger density and population, hence more riders.

Even though I preferred the lakeshore alignment, because Canada has already made their alignment, it's Parliament's decision as to where the alignment should be placed, despite our wishes on here on SSP. I can't stop where the alignment can be placed, only can weigh my opinions on a forum right here.

I still don't believe it's the best alignment and don't really have the faith that it will happen like that plus the budget, inflation, the possible cost overruns, and even potential protests but Canada has made it's decision regarding it's HSR future, and once more, if Trudeau gets it built, it's more power to him and Canada as a whole for at least building HSR in Canada.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
You are talking about the political support and the speed of service. This is part of the planning process and the cost/benefit analysis. What level of service is politically acceptable and its cost and I will grant you that this plan will be particularly vulnerable to a Conservative government which will inevitably get into power at some point.
I'm assuming that the Conservatives are similar in Canada to the Republican Party in America, in that both parties don't like to spend as much money as the Liberals in Canada and the Democratic Party. Personally, I'd like to see HSR be established in Canada, and Canada had a lot of opportunities to get it done. HSR could be Trudeau's boon or his folly!

I believe the main factor on why it hadn't been established much sooner maybe because Canada is a physically bigger country, which means that air travel is a huge priority, especially since you have a lot of smaller towns spread out in the northern portions of Canada, which would've made rail service practically obsolete in many parts of Canada. At least in America, you have viable rail corridors such as the NE Corridor, the Chicago hub, and the Pacific NW connecting the cities of Portland, Seattle, all the way to Vancouver.

In a perfect world, Canada would've already had HSR already, but it's going to get harder especially due to inflation, the costs of materials, and political infighting between the major parties. And Trudeau isn't really a popular guy in Canada the way Biden is in America, as a matter of fact, a good majority of people in North America are getting tired of politicians, myself included, mainly because the economy is very sluggish and there's too much mudslinging that the regular folk are turned off of politics to the point where nobody really watches the news unless a major important event happens, in which I'm one of those apathetic viewers because nothing is really of interest except more propaganda and less progress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
I think that an absolute failure of the project will be tragic and this will get worse as more money continues to be invested. The hope is get private investors. Only time will tell, but there are indications that they want to spend more to go more towards HSR. This does not mean that the entire route will reach HSR standards.

We just wait as each milestone passes on the project. We are now asking for qualifying vendors. The next step will be Requests for Proposals.
Last I checked, CN is a public company. And I know I've asked this question and you answered, hence the reason why I'm not a big believer in this HSR project getting through, but my biggest gripe isn't the alignment nor the placement of the high-speed tracks, but the speed, and anything below 150 mph (241 kph), will not cut it as HSR, especially when countries such as France, Spain, Italy, Japan, and China are building new HSR routes that are faster.

North America doesn't need ultra-high speed rail like those countries, but it needs HSR rail which can connect major and mid-sized cities. I'm fine with trains going up to 150 mph+ for true HSR service, and 120 mph+ if the corridor has a lot of major or mid-sized cities within a shorter distance, but we all know that if the entire line has a top speed of no more than 120 mph, meaning that the speed may be around 100 mph on average, there'd be very little interest in investing in a line like that, and if I were a businessman, I'd rather take the plane if I wanted faster service from Montreal to Toronto and back.

The country might as well fix the current alignment along the lakeshore than create a new alignment where trains average 100 mph considering the high number of stops on the ON segment. This isn't me opposing the HSR plans, as I have very little sway on what goes on in Canada since I'm not Canadian and only imparting my opinion since the Avella Liberty is replacing the Acela trains with faster train sets, but it's just saying that I don't want to see Canada have the worst HSR service in North America, let alone, the world, and people complaining that Canada dumped a lot of taxpayer money on a HSR line that isn't truly HSR.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2023, 12:01 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,527
Toronto - Montreal is way more than 339km. More like 500..

The model HFR is going after is closer to Brightline in Florida. Some 125mph operation in some sections, but mostly 110mph operations. The difference will be electrification, and apparently, now they are investigating if it would make sense for some sections to be operating at over 125mph.

The initial plan associated with that map I posted was for travel times of about 4 hours to Montreal and 2.5 hours to Ottawa from Toronto. This would be a slight improvement on travel times to Montreal (returning it to the old record trips operated in the 1970’s but more consistently), and a substantial improvement in Toronto - Ottawa trip times which is actually VIA’s busiest route.

Now VIA is apparently investigating higher speeds, so those trip times may drop a bit. We’ll have to see. One of the main criticisms of the project is a lack of substantial travel time improvements for Toronto - Montreal, which is why I think they are now looking at higher operating speeds.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2023, 6:22 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
Toronto - Montreal is way more than 339km. More like 500..

The model HFR is going after is closer to Brightline in Florida. Some 125mph operation in some sections, but mostly 110mph operations. The difference will be electrification, and apparently, now they are investigating if it would make sense for some sections to be operating at over 125mph.

The initial plan associated with that map I posted was for travel times of about 4 hours to Montreal and 2.5 hours to Ottawa from Toronto. This would be a slight improvement on travel times to Montreal (returning it to the old record trips operated in the 1970’s but more consistently), and a substantial improvement in Toronto - Ottawa trip times which is actually VIA’s busiest route.

Now VIA is apparently investigating higher speeds, so those trip times may drop a bit. We’ll have to see. One of the main criticisms of the project is a lack of substantial travel time improvements for Toronto - Montreal, which is why I think they are now looking at higher operating speeds.
All true.

The other consideration is the potential market.

Do we want to compete with car travel or air travel or to a degree both?

There is already pent up demand now, that would be addressed by providing more reliable, more frequent service. The existing rail service competes with car travel somewhat effectively because Highway 401 that links all three cities is not a pleasant experience because of the enormous level of truck traffic.

If we can reduce travel times even somewhat and make the service more dependable, then it will draw more ridership.

The debate on whether we should compete with airlines is a trickier discussion if higher ticket prices needed to fund full HSR drives lower end travelers off the trains and back to cars or competing bus service.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2023, 2:31 AM
wanderer34 wanderer34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Miami/somewhere in paradise
Posts: 1,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
Toronto - Montreal is way more than 339km. More like 500..

The model HFR is going after is closer to Brightline in Florida. Some 125mph operation in some sections, but mostly 110mph operations. The difference will be electrification, and apparently, now they are investigating if it would make sense for some sections to be operating at over 125mph.
The speed of 125 mph can work for FL since from Miami to Orlando, ti will take a little more than 2 hours to reach both cities each way with the intermediate stops (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Orla...6798!3e0?hl=en), about over an hour between Orlando and Tampa (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Orla...0575!3e0?hl=en), from Orlando and Jacksonville about two hours (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Orla...1838!3e0?hl=en). Probably the only segment that needs to go 150 mph is the Miami to Jacksonville service since that would be the longest service for the Brightline system (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Orla...1838!3e0?hl=en).

Between Toronto and Montreal, you're going to have higher speeds just to get people to use the HSR trains that's been proposed (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Toro...!3e0!4e1?hl=en). Also if you're talking about service between Toronto and London (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Toro...!3e0!4e1?hl=en), London and Windsor (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Wind...!3e0!4e1?hl=en), and Quebec City to Montreal (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Mont...!3e0!4e1?hl=en), you may not need to use 150 mph between to Windsor to Toronto segment via London, although using 150 mph would be a lot better just for quicker service, but between Quebec City and Montreal, you're going to need 150 mph via Trois-Rivieres just to make the Quebec City-Montreal trip within about an hour. I'd rather place the Quebec segment on the souther shore with stops nearby Trois-Rivieres around the town of Saint-Gregoire and another stop at Levis (Charny) and Ste. Foy before terminating at Gare du Palais at Old Quebec.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
The initial plan associated with that map I posted was for travel times of about 4 hours to Montreal and 2.5 hours to Ottawa from Toronto. This would be a slight improvement on travel times to Montreal (returning it to the old record trips operated in the 1970’s but more consistently), and a substantial improvement in Toronto - Ottawa trip times which is actually VIA’s busiest route.

Now VIA is apparently investigating higher speeds, so those trip times may drop a bit. We’ll have to see. One of the main criticisms of the project is a lack of substantial travel time improvements for Toronto - Montreal, which is why I think they are now looking at higher operating speeds.
Hopefully the VIA plan can consider 150 mph (241 kph) as the base operating speed in order for this project to see the light. Anything below is going to be a failure, regardless of where the alignment is going to be placed. It's 150 mph (241 kph) or bust for the project!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2023, 4:24 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is offline
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderer34 View Post
Between Toronto and Montreal, you're going to have higher speeds just to get people to use the HSR trains that's been proposed you may not need to use 150 mph between to Windsor to Toronto segment via London, although using 150 mph would be a lot better just for quicker service, but between Quebec City and Montreal, you're going to need 150 mph via Trois-Rivieres just to make the Quebec City-Montreal trip within about an hour. I'd rather place the Quebec segment on the souther shore with stops nearby Trois-Rivieres around the town of Saint-Gregoire and another stop at Levis (Charny) and Ste. Foy before terminating at Gare du Palais at Old Quebec.
I don't understand why you keep saying that when it's already been debunked. We're not guessing about what would happen with a hypothetical if it were built. We're talking about a corridor where there's already rail service and is already a popular and well used route now without those higher speeds being in place. So obviously we know that people will ride it with or without higher speeds. I'm sure it would attract more people if it were faster, but it would cost a lot more to implement that service too.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2023, 6:26 PM
wanderer34 wanderer34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Miami/somewhere in paradise
Posts: 1,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
I don't understand why you keep saying that when it's already been debunked. We're not guessing about what would happen with a hypothetical if it were built. We're talking about a corridor where there's already rail service and is already a popular and well used route now without those higher speeds being in place. So obviously we know that people will ride it with or without higher speeds. I'm sure it would attract more people if it were faster, but it would cost a lot more to implement that service too.
What I was saying is that in order for the route to truly be HSR, it has to be at least 150 mph+. Anything less isn't HSR, and you have to consider the estimated time of arrival, which along with the speed, is just as important in getting this project enough political & popular support, regardless of whether it uses the lakeshore alignment or a new alignment, it really doesn't matter, as long as the project has 150 mph+, the speed & ETA is very important in order for it to be successful & utilized heavily.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2023, 10:39 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
Toronto - Montreal is way more than 339km. More like 500..
.
Sorry, your data is correct. Not sure where I got the wrong information from?
Never-the-less, elapse time is based upon average speeds, which are consistently around 57% maximum speeds on Eurostar quality tracks.

Using your 500 kilometers distance, or miles, here's what the speeds need to be to meet the following elapse times:

2 hours = 250 km/h average, requiring maximum speeds of 437 km/h (faster than any intercity train in the world)
3 hours = 166.67 km/h average, requiring maximum speeds of 291 km/h (as fast as Eurostar)
4 hours = 125 km/h average, requiring maximum speeds of 218 km/h (slightly faster than Siemens Charger locomotives but much faster than existing track speeds)
5 hours = 100 km/h average, requiring maximum speeds of 175 km/h (well within the capabilities of the Siemens Charger locomotives, close to existing track maximum speeds)

Do not confuse maximum speeds with average speeds. There is, even on Eurostar tracks, lots of activities than can slow all trains down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:47 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.