High Speed Rail for Canada Symposium

[TinGoat]

   
   

Check out the High Speed Rail Canada Website.

Join their forum and receive the news letters...

[TinGoat]

Hi Gang,

While many Model Railroaders look to the past, there were many railfans in attendance at the High Speed Rail Symposium in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada looking to the future of Passenger Rail Service in Canada...    

[doctorwayne]

Well, I'll jump in with an opinion.
True high speed rail requires a dedicated right-of-way, preferably with no level crossings. It may be practical for areas of high population density, but in Canada, most are too far apart, and I can't see there being sufficient need for such a service. I think that we're talking billions of dollars for a very limited system that, in all likelihood, would be under-utilised, and those of us out in the unserviced areas (most of Canada) would be unwilling to support such a scheme.

The current plan to convert GO trains to electric locomotives is another high-speed plan that's also impractical. Stringing catenary along the busiest track in the country won't make the trains any faster, and even a dedicated line to get people to work 15 minutes faster won't cut it. The provincial government encourages population growth (a dumb idea to start with) then, after it has occurred, tries to shoe-horn in transportation solutions through the growth which they promoted.

If and when high speed rail becomes a viable idea, private enterprise will build it and do so without government assistance. It's either a money-maker, and will be built, or it's a money pit, and should not be built.

Wayne

[tetters]

^^^ ---- I agree Wayne.

[TinGoat]

Hi Guys,

That's what the Automobile Lobby wants you to beleive...

That's what the Bus Coach line industry wants you to beleive...

That's what the Airlines want you to beleive...

However, there is a mountian of studies sitting on Parliament Hill that all agree that High Speed Rail is feasable in the Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Windsor corridor. Not to mention a line between Edmonton and Calgary.

The Problem is that we had a prime minister who owned a large stake in a Bus Coach Line who pushed rail travel off the table. [Thanks Paul Martin]

The problem is that there isn't the political/public will to pursue High Speed Rail in Canada.

The problem is, Rome wasn't built in a day, but many people think that High Speed Rail can be built in a day.

VIA Rail asked for $$$ to improve infrastructure and the government denied it. So they asked if they could borrow money to make improvements. The government passed a bill forbidding VIA Rail to borrow money.

Recently, Canadian National improved/replaced many cross-overs between Montreal and Toronto. Bringing the allowable cross-over speed up to ~40kph. They approached VIA rail and suggested that for a little more money, the cross-overs could be replaced with ones that would allow ~75kph operating speeds.

VIA couldn't get the $$$ so they are stuck with the slower cross-over speeds.

A Parliamentary Committee was set up to deal with High Speed Rail and they set the criteria of 300kph or bust. All or nothing. Well, that's what we got: Nothing.

The regular operating speed between Montreal and Toronto is slower now that it was 20 years ago because of the traffic congestion where VIA trains have give the Right-of-way to freight and/or pass through those slow cross-overs.

Higher Speed Rail [*note: "Higher" not "High"] rail could have been achieved with those cross-overs.

Also, the countries that do have High Speed Rail didn't build it overnight. It was built in stages. The High Speed Trains in France and England, for example, are able to hit those high speeds in the open country, but they have to slow down through the cities where they have to share track with other trains on older infrastructure. The High Speed sections were built by improving sections of track, not just by creating new ROW. It was done in incrementally in stages. And even now, those trains do not travel the whole length of the line at top speed.

The Key Word in Incremental.

Think of it like a trip to Grandma's house by car...

You pull your car out of your driveway and drive along your residential street at 30-40kph until you get onto mainstreet that allows you to travel at 50-60kph in stop-and-go traffic. From there, you get onto the Freeway and you can cruise along at 80-100kph [or more] until you get close to Grandma's town, where you pull off the Freeway and onto another mainstreet. You slow down to the 50-60kph until you get to Grandma's street where you slow down again to the 30-40kph to her driveway.

High Speed Rail works the same way. It only hits top speed in the open country.

High Speed Rail has to be competitive with other mods of transportation. It doesn't have to completely out-strip it.

The focus is on travelling from down-town to down-town. It takes 4-5 hours to travel by car from Toronto to Montreal. It takes about the same amount of time by train. And, even though the flight is very short, you have to travel a distance from downtown Toronto the Pearson, and then travel from Dorval to Montreal, so it still takes 4-5 hours in total from down-town to down-town.

Constant incremental improvements in the rail infrastructure will eventually leave the other modes in the dust by cutting the trip down to 3 hours or less...

Stop throwing money at the Highways and put it towards the Railway.

No one expects VIA Rail to be able to move at 300kph any time soon, but it would be nice if they could get up to 200kph in the near future.

[doctorwayne]

That's what the Automobile Lobby wants you to beleive...

The manufacturing sector and the trucking industry are the ones pushing for more roads. Drivers may clamour for more, but if those two lobbies aren't adding their voices, the pleas will go unanswered.

That's what the Bus Coach line industry wants you to beleive...

In my opinion, most people who are riding intercity buses are not doing so by choice.

That's what the Airlines want you to beleive...

The airlines are heavily subsidised by government and most routes cannot pay for their costs. I am even more opposed to this than I am to subsidies for high speed rail. Airlines, ethically speaking, should keep out of the arguement entirely.

However, there is a mountian of studies sitting on Parliament Hill that all agree that High Speed Rail is feasable in the Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Windsor corridor. Not to mention a line between Edmonton and Calgary.

Ottawa's business is to create mountains of studies on whatever project strikes taxpayers' fancy at any given time. As long as the situation is being "studied", no real action is taking place, other than the placating of those espousing their pet projects.

The Problem is that we had a prime minister who owned a large stake in a Bus Coach Line who pushed rail travel off the table. [Thanks Paul Martin]

The railways themselves started the push when they found the costs cutting into their bottom line. Government involvement, through VIA, has, in general, been even less kind to the industry than has been the U.S. government's funding of Amtrak, where there's a much larger and more concentrated pool of potential riders.

The problem is that there isn't the political/public will to pursue High Speed Rail in Canada.

Government, especially in Canada, is a very tenuous entity - here today and gone at any time - what party would make high speed rail one of their causes if the next regime would axe the project, and what government would have enough public support to invest that much of taxpayer's money into a project that would need such a long time to complete. As you say, "incremental" - no big pay-off for the party-of-the-day to crow about.

If there's not the public will, then for whom would we be building it?

The problem is, Rome wasn't built in a day, but many people think that High Speed Rail can be built in a day.

Most people (and I'm not talking about the so-called "experts") haven't a clue about railroads, never mind high speed ones. They don't understand incremental, either. What they do understand is that it'll be fast and that they'll save tons of time. And if they miss their train, there'll be another along in 5 or 10 minutes, just like a streetcar. And that limited (and incorrect) understanding also means that they don't understand that it will be expensive. For them, too.

VIA Rail asked for $$$ to improve infrastructure and the government denied it. So they asked if they could borrow money to make improvements. The government passed a bill forbidding VIA Rail to borrow money.

Well, one could argue that the Government is you and me. Personally, though, I'm insulted by this notion, as very little of what I've seen generated by Government in the past several decades is stuff that I agree with. I no longer expect my Government to act in anything but a self-serving manner, regardless of party.

Recently, Canadian National improved/replaced many cross-overs between Montreal and Toronto. Bringing the allowable cross-over speed up to ~40kph. They approached VIA rail and suggested that for a little more money, the cross-overs could be replaced with ones that would allow ~75kph operating speeds.

VIA couldn't get the $$$ so they are stuck with the slower cross-over speeds.

Well, as short-sighted as that may appear, it is an improvement, and is, as you say, "incremental".

A Parliamentary Committee was set up to deal with High Speed Rail and they set the criteria of 300kph or bust. All or nothing. Well, that's what we got: Nothing.

See my earlier comment about Government. I do agree, though, that they ensured that "bust" would be the option chosen.

The regular operating speed between Montreal and Toronto is slower now that it was 20 years ago because of the traffic congestion where VIA trains have give the Right-of-way to freight and/or pass through those slow cross-overs.

Higher Speed Rail [*note: "Higher" not "High"] rail could have been achieved with those cross-overs.

If there's traffic congestion, let's face it: it's freight which, so to speak, "pays the freight", so it's not surprising that passenger trains are yielding. Expediting passenger trains isn't very high on a freight railroad's list of "things to do". And, because the freights (the predominant traffic) couldn't fully utilise them, there wasn't enough reason to spend the extra cash for high speed crossovers. If a line is busy with slow moving freight, how far will a high speed passenger train get before it's delayed by either a slow moving train ahead of it, or by opposing traffic? And, like those slow freight trains, there would be passenger trains moving in both directions. Double the chances of delays.

Also, the countries that do have High Speed Rail didn't build it overnight. It was built in stages. The High Speed Trains in France and England, for example, are able to hit those high speeds in the open country, but they have to slow down through the cities where they have to share track with other trains on older infrastructure. The High Speed sections were built by improving sections of track, not just by creating new ROW. It was done in incrementally in stages. And even now, those trains do not travel the whole length of the line at top speed.

The Key Word in Incremental.

See my earlier comment on "incremental".

Think of it like a trip to Grandma's house by car...

You pull your car out of your driveway and drive along your residential street at 30-40kph until you get onto mainstreet that allows you to travel at 50-60kph in stop-and-go traffic. From there, you get onto the Freeway and you can cruise along at 80-100kph [or more] until you get close to Grandma's town, where you pull off the Freeway and onto another mainstreet. You slow down to the 50-60kph until you get to Grandma's street where you slow down again to the 30-40kph to her driveway.

High Speed Rail works the same way. It only hits top speed in the open country.

Not in these parts.
There you go, throwing that "incremental" stuff into the equation - Joe Blow, if he wants it at all, wants HIGH SPEED, without the fine print. :mrgreen:

High Speed Rail has to be competitive with other mods of transportation. It doesn't have to completely out-strip it.

That's certainly true, but like all mass transit, it will require subsidies for every rider - those subsidies don't decrease as ridership increases, either, so the more people that use it, the more expensive it becomes.

The focus is on travelling from down-town to down-town. It takes 4-5 hours to travel by car from Toronto to Montreal. It takes about the same amount of time by train. And, even though the flight is very short, you have to travel a distance from downtown Toronto the Pearson, and then travel from Dorval to Montreal, so it still takes 4-5 hours in total from down-town to down-town.

And do the majority of travellers go from downtown to downtown? If we're going to Grandma's house out in the sticks, there needs to be some ancillary service. And if we're also coming from somewhere out in the boondocks, a means to get to the station.

Constant incremental improvements in the rail infrastructure will eventually leave the other modes in the dust by cutting the trip down to 3 hours or less...

Some may think this an important improvement, but I see it as a very poor return on investment. Your time or my time is important to Government and business only inasmuch as it applies to them: is there some benefit for them? A relative handful of riders will not keep a government in power, which seems to be governments' main function. If the same riders will make money for business, then business will gladly fund the project, all the while, of course, asking for government assistance. If it is not viable economically, it will not, and should not, be built.

Stop throwing money at the Highways and put it towards the Railway.

I can think of better targets for the "throwing" than either. The squeaky wheel, usually with a rubber tire mounted on it, gets the grease.

No one expects VIA Rail to be able to move at 300kph any time soon, but it would be nice if they could get up to 200kph in the near future.

I think that it would be nice if they could provide service, even at 20 mph, to a city like Hamilton, with a population of half a million: the trains pass through the city, but there's no stop. Not, admittedly, all VIA's fault, but surely a more immediate concern.

Sorry to be so pragmatic about the subject, but the "glitter" isn't sufficient to blind me.

Wayne

[tetters]

...snip Personally, though, I'm insulted by this notion, as very little of what I've seen generated by Government in the past several decades is stuff that I agree with. I no longer expect my Government to act in anything but a self-serving manner, regardless of party. snip...

[TinGoat]

There is a High Speed Rail Symposium in Torontoon Saturday April 25 at the University of Toronto.

If you want to learn more, visit High Speed Rail Canada

[TinGoat]

Toronto High Speed Rail Symposium:

Saturday April 25, 2009.

University of Toronto