High Speed Rail Toronto Public Symposium

Go transit it pedestrian speed when compared with the 300kmph trains in Aisia and Europe.

I was just this afternoon reading about the Republican Convention, and how people who got to Chicago by rail did so at speeds of 60mph, or VIA rail speed. 

In 1860.

Yeah.  It's time for an upgrade.

Ah, the Toronto/London line must have different restrictions.

But, you are correct, in fact there are some places where VIA's LRC's are allowed to go 100mph, if the information at one site is accurate.

I suspect with the frequent stops, and frieght traffic, VIA doesn't get much past 60mph between Toronto and London.  In the few places where the line parallels  the QEW and later the 401, cars and trucks seem to be going faster.

"... no matter what the weather conditions."

While looking about for info, I came across this:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080629.wvialate0629...

I had the privelege of spending an afternoon with a retired CP rail engineer who started as a fireman back in the 30's, and retired with the steam locomotives he used to drive.  Great stories, let me tell you.

Anyway, he told me that steam locomotives would reach 100mph on passenger runs.

Le T, that's interesting - I take Amtrak between Toronto and NYC, and it's really interesting when you get to that north-south corridor into NYC and see the other train lines that go through - they're electric, are they?  I've never taken them, though, because the only place other than NYC that I go in New York state is Syracuse, and the only train that way is Amtrak.  (Actually, it looks like you can't take the electric trains all the way to Albany either - you have to switch to Amtrak in Poughkeepsie: http://www.mta.info/mnr/html/mnrmap.htm)

The trains that go from New York to New Jersey and Philadelphia are pretty neat too - they have amazing transit in that New York-NJ-Philadelphia corridor.  And of course, the MTA subways are incredible - although I find the whole express train thing kind of confusing when I have to go to any stop that isn't a transfer point or hub.  http://www.mta.info/nyct/maps/submap.htm

plangan wrote:

1973 Turbo schedule - Train 62 which left Toronto at 12:45 p.m. and arrived in Montréal at 4:44 p.m.

Train 63 left Montréal at 12:45 p.m. and arrived in Toronto at 4:44 p.m. (Both were daily trains.)

Amazing. How soon we forget. Thanks.

When I got to Albany on the Amtrak they switched engines to an electric to go to NYC. The MTA trains are also electic and I took some of those in and around NYC. I don't think that any diesel passenger trains go to Grand Central or Penn station. And yes, I would have been totally lost on the subway with all those express trains had I not had a local with me.

Paul - I just found the site a bit slow to load for the info that was on it. Didn't mean to offend. It seems that it's done in flash or something but doesn't need to be. I just have slow internet so I complain about stuff like that. It's actually faster this morning so it might even have been my connection.

Paul, does that mean that they gave VIA money to simply build another of the same kind of track we already have?  For slow trains?  Argh.  If they're going to build new tracks anyhow, they should build high speed ones!

I've had the pleasure of traveling by rail in Jolly Olde, thirty some years ago.  The London to Manchester run went fast, but they did have their local milk run trains.  Never will forget the slow ride in the fog from Birmingham to Stratford.

ANYways....  The British system had the cement ties, and no level crossings.  You also didn't require the team of Sherpas that VIA demands to climb from the platform into the car, as the platforms were at the same level as the car floors. 

High speed rail requires a lot of retrofitting of stations, if not completely new ones, as it also needs to be integrated with other forms of public transit, and fast boarding and.... dissemboarding?  :)  Add to that, the cost of total grade separation (that's a lot of bridges) and suddenly we're talking real money.

However,  what's the cost of NOT having a high speed rail line?  For starters, I think if fair to say that the lane additions to the 401 between Toronto and London, and eventually Windsor could be considered a cost of not having a high speed rail line.

It just got suddenly cheaper, didn't it?

plangan wrote:

1973 Turbo schedule - Train 62 which left Toronto at 12:45 p.m. and arrived in Montréal at 4:44 p.m.

Train 63 left Montréal at 12:45 p.m. and arrived in Toronto at 4:44 p.m. (Both were daily trains.)

That would be the week in June 1973 when the Turbo was in service.  It was not until January 1974 that the Turbo saw any prolonged service even though it was scheduled for use in December 1968.  Engine fires on Sept. 23, 1975, and May 29, 1979, caused further setbacks and reductions in the Turbo rolling stock.  The LRC, which CP was developing prior to the creation of VIA, took over after the Turbo's last run on October 31, 1982.

The Turbo had a number of problems related to its design and the facilities it was used upon.  The main infrastructure problem was that there were too many level crossings along the route that required speed reductions.  Slightly behind that was the lack of welded track that resulted in lower speeds and a rougher ride (with resulting damage to the wheels).

Train problems began with the fact that the Turbo was not a standard design where cars could easily be interchanged.  Parts were also scarce at times due to the unique design.  CN found that the wheels were prone to trouble from the track issue and attempted to resolve this by going with harder sets from Britain but found they cracked even worse in our conditions.  Other early problems related to poor weather seals in the engine compartment and inadequate heating and air conditioning in the passenger cars.  They even had the toilets freezing during the early runs.

A rebuilt Turbo with CN officials and Amtrak VIPs on board had the misfortune of having their 1973 test run sideswiped in the Montreal yard and having the crew & guests evacuate their burning train.

There is not a whole lot to be nostalgic about the Turbo.  It looked good but only delivered 8-9 years of real service - far below what was expected.  The train may have been the right idea but the execution was severely botched by its manufacturer and CN.

Thanks for the great info about the Turbo, 1weasel! It inspired me to look in Wikipedia, and re-discover (I once knew this...) that the Turbo was manufactured by United Aircraft (Pratt & Whitney)!

Plangan, I'd like to visit your web site but it's totally inaccessible to people who do not have the latest version of flash installed.  You're eliminating access to anyone who uses Safari or who may access from a school, library, or mobile computer.  Websites about public policy don't have to be ugly but you can still do great design without requiring the latest version of Flash.

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Great.  I'll bring the rope, you supply the train schedules.

Haha!  This made me burst out laughing.  And I'll probably be giggling sporadically for the next 10 minutes. :D

The cover feature in the June 2009 Walrus magazine is entitled: "Off the Rails: How Canada killed high-speed train travel, and why we should revive it", by Monte Paulsen. Unfortunately [url=http://www.walrusmagazine.com/][color=green][u]the website[/u][/color][/url] still has last month's issue. I'm going to key in the first couple of paras to whet your appetite:

Quote:

On the morning of December 10, 1968, a shiny new locomotive left Toronto's Union Station, pulling a gleaming train packed to its "power dome" with journalists. Just four short years earlier, Japan had rolled out the world's first 200-kilometre-per-hour bullet train, and now scores of reporters were aboard to witness North America's technological response: the TurboTrain, designed by Sikorsky Aircraft, built by Montreal Locomotive Works, and proudly operated by Canadian National.

An hour later, the TurboTrain slammed into a truck.

"The driver of an empty meat truck near Kingston was used to beating trains across a level crossing and tried to outrun the Turbo," recalls John Downing, who reported on the maiden journey to Montreal. "We cut the truck in two, like a hot knife through butter."

The hapless meat man survived. Canada's efforts to develop modern passenger rail service did not. Four decades later, we remain the sole G8 nation without high-speed rail.

Whew, was that ever harder than copy and paste... whatever did we do in the good old days...

plangan wrote:

3. Walrus Magazine HSR Article - I was interviewed for the story so today I will go and buy it.

Now I've read the article - [b]several[/b] column inches (centimetres?) dedicated to Paul Langan - good stuff! He even praises Sir John A. I'm not telling any more. Copyright, ahem, you know. Go out and buy it.

And, having less scruples than unionist, and no access to a newstand that carries the magazine, here's the Walrus article online:

Off the Rails

Quote:

Japan's legendary bullet trains now carry 410,000 people a day. France's Train à Grande Vitesse (TGV), launched more than a decade after the Turbo, moves 268,000 passengers daily, at speeds exceeding 300 kilometres per hour. Altogether, high-speed trains dash across almost twenty nations. These include not only powerhouses such as Russia, China, and the United Kingdom, but Finland, Portugal, and Turkey. Many of these countries are spending stimulus funds to expand their networks.

New high-speed rail projects are in the works around the world. Argentina and South Africa are laying track; Iran and Brazil are laying plans; Morocco has landed partners. Saudi Arabia is building a line from Medina to Mecca, and may collaborate with neighbouring states to develop a 1,984-kilometre railway from Kuwait to Oman. There is talk the line could extend to Yemen, which would become the first nation served by high-speed rail but not a functional government.

Even the Americans are spending billions to extend high-speed rail beyond the Boston-Washington corridor. The stimulus bill passed by Congress in February includes $8 billion for new passenger rail projects. California is likely first in line for that money, with construction slated to begin in 2011 on a statewide high-speed network that promises to whisk passengers from San Francisco to Los Angeles in two and a half hours. Also fighting for a cut of the billions are Texas, with its T-Bone Line connecting Dallas to San Antonio and Houston; Florida, with a bullet train that would fly along the shores of the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico; and New York, seeking a link from the Big Apple through Albany to Toronto.

Why are these countries planning and building high-speed rail lines? Because they're a kind of insurance policy for the twenty-first century. High-speed rail ensures that cities remain connected the next time the price of oil rises, and in the event that $150-a-barrel oil returns for good. Because it is so much more fuel efficient, high-speed rail is far, far greener than flying, and in a century of dwindling oil it's also far more economically sustainable - a fact Saudi Arabia seems to grasp, but Canada does not.