Windsor to Quebec City corridor high-speed rail
Thu, 2008-01-10 19:24
#1
Windsor to Quebec City corridor high-speed rail
Thu, 2008-01-10 19:24
#2
[url=http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=228684]Ottawa, Ontario and Quebec will fund an updated feasibility study on launching a high-speed rail service between Montreal and Windsor.[/url] Well, make that[url=http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/January2008/10/c8088.html] Quebec City and Windsor.[/url] Or Quebec City and Toronto?
Back in 1998[url=http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committee/361/tran/evidence/ev1038788... the Lynx project proposed a 320 kilometre-per-hour high-speed rail system in the 854 kilometre-long corridor between Toronto and Quebec City[/url] capable of transporting up to 20 million people per year, with 10 station stops. That would be Toronto, Guildwood, Kingston, Ottawa, Dorval, Montreal, Laval, Trois-Riviиres, L'Ancienne-Lorette and Quebec City. But a Toronto-Montreal express would run non-stop through Kingston and Ottawa. This is on new straighter railbed, two tracks to Montreal and one track onward to Quebec City, for passenger trains only.
What about the regular Via Trains, asked one MP, and the other stations along the way between Toronto and Ottawa. That is, would slower trains run on the same track, stopping at the 10 other local stations between Toronto and Ottawa, and pull onto a siding when the TGV wants to pass them?
An interesting example is the new high-speed line from Frankfurt to Kцln (Cologne) that opened in 2002. Although this line is only 177 km long, it has 26 short tunnels to keep the line straight and level.
It has stations at Limburg Sьd, Montabaur and Siegburg, as well as a spur line to Wiesbaden. When it was planned (replacing the slow route down the west bank of the Rhine) each state had objections to the bypassing of the cities on the Rhine, particularly Bonn, Andernach, Koblenz, Mainz and Wiesbaden. The district of Limburg-Weilburg made the construction of a station at Limburg a prerequisite. The discussion reached the Federal Cabinet which decided in 1989 to include a station at Limburg Sьd, the only station in Germany served only by ICE trains, connected by bus to the old Limburg station. DB then consulted with the states and community groups over the details of the route. In North Rhine-Westphalia there was considerable debate over the location of the station to serve the Bonn area. DB decided that the station would be built at Siegburg, with a CityRail link to Bonn. In Rhineland-Palatinate, DB decided that a station would be built north of Montabaur only 21 km north of Limburg Sьd, partly to serve Koblenz, preventing a local objection similar to the Limburg case.
Result: hourly service from Frankfurt to Cologne, but one hour it stops only at Frankfurt Airport and takes one hour 4 minutes, while the next hour it stops also at Limburg South, Montabaur (10 minutes past Limburg South), Siegburg, and Cologne Airport taking one hour 30 minutes. In between are more hourly trains from farther south which stop at the Frankfurt Airport, Siegburg, and Cologne. In short, three out of four ICE trains whistle through[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Limburg_Sued_Strecke.jpg] Limburg South [/url]and Montabaur, which have four tracks in total, of which two are equipped with a platform and two allow through trains to pass the station unobstructed at speeds of up to 300 km/h.
![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Limburg_Sued_Strecke.jpg]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Limburg_Sued_Strecke.jpg]){kind=link}
So no harm done. Everyone's happy. How to make TGV service work.
The Lynx team, by the way, were six firms: SNC-Lavalin in Montreal, an engineering contractor, and AGRA Monenco from Toronto, which would handle the civil works, project and construction management, and guideways infrastructure; Bombardier and GEC Alsthom for the rolling stock, power supply, electrical substations and catenaries, signalling and communication systems, and systems integration; and AXOR from Montreal and Ellis-Don from Toronto for bridges, buildings, and structures.
[ 12 January 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
Fri, 2008-01-11 05:29
#3
[url=http://www.thestar.com/News/article/293107]An idea whose time has come, say McGuinty and Charest:[/url]
quote:
both made clear they thought the ambitious project may finally get on track."This has been talked about for quite some time but every once in a while there's an idea whose time actually comes," McGuinty said.
Charest said it was an idea "worth pursuing."
"I see this as a project that will have many, many economic, social and environmental benefits," he said after meeting with McGuinty at the Chateau Laurier.
Congested roads, ballooning gas prices and growing worries over climate change have all given new life to this old dream, the premiers said. And they pitched the multi-billion-dollar, 1,200-kilometre rail line as a massive job-creation scheme.
"I don't think there's any doubt there's going to be lots of good Ontario and Quebec jobs created as a result of this project," McGuinty said, citing the need for workers to build the tracks, manufacture the cars and engineer the high-speed technology.
Canadian Auto Workers president Buzz Hargrove said he would be "very supportive" of such a rail link if the rolling stock is built here.
"We need something different from what's happening today, a major mega-project that recognizes manufacturing is really, really struggling," Hargrove said.
"As long as it's combined with a requirement that the vehicles or the cars that they use are purchased or built in Ontario or Canada then I'll be fine with it," he said.
"The time is now because of fuel costs ... because of the environment and because of the economy," said David Jeanes, president of Transport 2000 Canada, a public transportation advocacy group.
[url=http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/story.html?id=906e16ff-7f60-406f-b719-... in Windsor.[/url]
[url=http://news.therecord.com/News/CanadaWorld/article/293561]Wanted in Kitchener-Waterloo:[/url]
quote:
Rail advocate Paul Langan, of Cambridge, says politicians should lobby to get high-speed rail passing through this region."The rest of the modern world is doing it. Why not us?" asked Langan, of the lobby group Transport 2000. "I just hope it's just not another study."
Planners could recommend bypassing this region to put a bullet train on existing tracks through Brantford instead, he warned.
"Certainly, we have the population growth in the future for it to be here," Langan said.
So take the Lynx project and add four stations: Pearson Airport, Kitchener, London and Windsor?
Or would it be a station midway between Cambridge and Hamilton with links to each, since Waterloo Region is planning rapid transit in Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo? Swing the TGV line southeast of Milton, maybe cut through the Escarpment south of Britannia Road, put the station on Highway 8 northwest of Rockton, then head west?
[ 11 January 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
Fri, 2008-01-11 13:55
#4
I'm on the fence. There are lots of good reasons to think that this could be a good idea, but the Star piece is a really good example of why it could go horribly wrong. Politicians see a chance to shovel billions and billions of tax dollars to a well-defined and vocal constituency, and a well-defined and vocal constituency is making it known right away that it expects to be on the receiving end of those billions and billions of dollars.
Fri, 2008-01-11 18:22
#5
saga
I am delighted to see this. We need a huge solution to congestion through Toronto. No offense, but TO, you are best avoided if one is traveling through.
QEW, 401 ... yech!
How will this work, though, if every town wants to get on board the hi speed, as we all will?
If it speeds up and slows down too much ... could be a vomit comet. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
How far are we technologically from the '1984' I believe, electronic car-hooks into highway 'trains' of cars ... whatever that is called.
That's what I want. An electric city car that can scoot onto a remote control highway. [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2008-01-11 19:46
#6
quote:
Politicians see a chance to shovel billions and billions of tax dollars to a well-defined and vocal constituency, and a well-defined and vocal constituency is making it known right away that it expects to be on the receiving end of those billions and billions of dollars.
That's right this sort of thing is only acceptable when the beneficiaries are the business and financial elite, better make sure it's a private public partnership, private profits public pays.
Sat, 2008-01-12 12:23
#7
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]I'm on the fence.[/b]
[url=http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=9df12... Gazette: Over the period that high-speed rail has been rejected as "too expensive", many billions of dollars of public and private money have been lavished on airport expansion and highway development.[/url]
quote:
The Toronto Pearson airport expansion alone would cover the costs of a high-speed line between Toronto and Montreal.What do we have to show for this investment? A passenger transport system entirely based on petroleum consumption, with little hope of using alternative energies in the medium term. The highest possible emissions of smog and greenhouse gases. Frequent congestion in airports and on highways. High vulnerability to adverse weather conditions.
No other country in the industrialized world does quite so badly, except perhaps the United States. The question is not whether high-speed rail is too expensive, but rather how we can afford to delay it any longer.
Doubts about the population of the Quebec-Windsor corridor are equally misplaced. The fact that we have large planes flying half-hourly each way between Toronto and Montreal, in addition to VIA Rail's most heavily travelled routes and the busiest highways in Canada, demonstrates the demand for travel in this part of Canada. By international standards, the population numbers and distances between the cities are well suited for successful fast trains.
What the population is not sufficient for, however, is building high-speed rail while also retaining all the air traffic. Airlines and politicians are legitimately worried about the risk of destabilizing the fragile Canadian air transport system. The way out of this problem is not for lobbyists to block high-speed rail, but rather for airlines to negotiate favorable terms for using high-speed trains to transport passengers bearing airline tickets. This is common practice in Western Europe and of benefit to traveller and airline alike.
[url=http://news.therecord.com/Opinions/article/294160]Waterloo Record: it's decision time -- and time for the fast trains to start moving.[/url]
quote:
There are numerous factors that can account for Highway 401's problems, including bad weather and construction -- but the basic problem is quite simple: too many drivers trying to use the highway at the same time.There is a better way: trains.
The route from Windsor to Quebec City is perfect for trains. They are safe and reliable, and they are not likely to cause major environmental problems.
Currently, Via Rail trains move at a maximum speed of 155 km/h compared to high-speed trains that can go 300 km/h.
The Eurostar service, for example, sends trains between London and Paris at that speed, enabling passengers to make the journey in two hours and 15 minutes. Even in England itself, trains move from London to cities in northern regions in three hours.
The real question is not if high-speed trains will move along the tracks but when. Eventually, the various factors, including population along the route, highway congestion, fuel prices and environmental concerns, will prompt the federal government and the governments of Ontario and Quebec to go beyond the study stage and set up a new service. Whether a rapid-train line would go through Waterloo Region is a question local transportation planners might like to comment on. At the very least, the region's rail link to Toronto could be improved at the same time that the rapid line is built.
quote:
Originally posted by saga:
[b]How will this work, though, if every town wants to get on board the hi speed, as we all will?[/b]
This is easier to solve than you'd think. See my opening post. All you need is to widen the track to four tracks at smaller stations, so the 320 km/hr train can zip through the centre tracks with no risk to anyone standing on the platforms, and at the same time a local train being overtaken by an express can wait at a station platform while that happens. The fact that one of the newest high-speed ICE routes in Germany has two local stations ten minutes apart, which three-quarters of the ICE trains whistle safely though, proves the point neatly.
Sun, 2008-01-13 04:52
#8
And right now, as has undoubtedly happened before, CN, Air Canada and West Jet are taking the right senators, M.P.'s, cabinet ministers and M.P.P.'s to lunch to make sure this never, ever, happens.
Sun, 2008-01-13 04:56
#9
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]And right now, as has undoubtedly happened before, CN, Air Canada and West Jet are taking the right senators, M.P.'s, cabinet ministers and M.P.P.'s to lunch to make sure this never, ever, happens.[/b]
Why CN?
Sun, 2008-01-13 06:22
#10
Well, in the Windsor- Quebec City corridor, VIA rents "right of way" on the CN lines. VIA, in fact, pays a premium to get track priority, but in my conversations with VIA employees, I learned that they suspect that VIA in fact does not get that priority service-- or it least it suffers if it conflicts with CN's freight traffic.
So, that rent puts revenue into CN's coffers, without cramping their style too much.
Not only do we pay CN (I imagine CP too, in other parts of Canada) VIA train schedule performance and speed (VIA could go much faster if they had a dedicated track, even with the current rolling stock) is compromised through this arrangement.
One of the esoteric things to think about is that trains in this corridor used to travel faster in the age of steam locomotives than it does now.
Sun, 2008-01-13 06:33
#11
Thanks, Tommy, I never would have guessed at that angle! Didn't realize CN and CP were still eating at the passenger rail trough, but now you mention it I should have known that VIA doesn't own its own track.
I'm also surprised about the steam locomotive thing, though I know nothing about those. I find rail travel between Montrйal and Toronto to be quite handy, actually. For example, if I can make the 5:00 pm train on Sunday, I get from downtown Toronto to downtown Montrйal at 9:15 pm - a total of 4 hours 15 min. That's a road distance of approx. 540 km, so that's equivalent to driving [b]non-stop[/b] at 127 km/hour.
High-speed would be much better, of course. But I personally still find the train very competitive with flying between Montrйal and Toronto and (far more so) Ottawa.
Sun, 2008-01-13 06:41
#12
But if we would like to indulge ourselves in some "what if..." in terms of high speed rail, it could be fun.
In my inexpert opinion, I wouldn't limit such an idea to just the Windsor to Quebec City corridor.
For one, any actual "high speed" rail line requires a dedicated line, probably a double track that is very level and very straight. Bombardier ran into trouble with Amtrak because the high speed trains they sold for the Bosnywash corridor ran over old curvy lines, which played havoc with the life span of the wheels.
So, think of all the land required for that undertaking. It's substantial, and the discord it will cause in rural Canada won't be insignificant.
But if I could play a latter day Van Horne, I'd run such a line from airport to airport, starting not in Windsor, but in Chicago, through to Detroit, and Windsor. Cities, if they wanted to be a stop, would have to finance their own rapid light rail connecting the airport to the city centers.
Smaller centers, Like London, Hamilton, Kitchener etc, would also be lower tech rail hubs that brought in passengers from the surrounding area. You can't have "high speed" if the train is stopping at places like Glencoe, Ingersoll, Woodstock Brantford and Ancaster. But those places, and hundreds like them, deserve access.
On the other end, I'd have Montreal hooked up with New York City.
On the other hand, with the way technology is progressing, I wonder if we might be better off waiting until Mag-Lev comes down in price. Last I heard, it was about 11 million per kilometer. Perhaps now that a few places have actually implemented Mag-Lev, it has come down in price?
Sun, 2008-01-13 06:58
#13
quote:
I'm also surprised about the steam locomotive thing, though I know nothing about those.
Ha. I'm not quite that old either...but I think I have a foggy memory of the age of steam. My American cousin's lived in Indiana for a short time when I was perhaps three years old. I do know from my brother that we visited them there when I was about three. I seem to recall my older cousin holding my hand as a great black monster of a steam locomotive thundered past where we were outside. Close to where they lived, I would surmise.
Memory can be fairly plastic though. I asked my cousin about this years ago, and he had no memory of the event, if it happened. I guess the year would have been 1962. Possibly '61.
I did, however, know an older man who was an engineer for CP during the age of steam. He said trains between Montreal and Toronto, the passenger expresses, would go around 100 mph at times. And in non passenger runs, just to see how fast they could go with the new "stream lined" locomotives from England, they had them up over 120 mph. But that was right at the end of the age.
----
VIA service between London and Toronto isn't too bad, but if one wants to get to Montreal or Ottawa via VIA, there are hours of layovers in Toronto, making flying --deliberately making flight-- more attractive.
Sun, 2008-01-13 16:10
#14
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]If I could play a latter day Van Horne, I'd run such a line from airport to airport, starting not in Windsor, but in Chicago, through to Detroit, and Windsor. Cities, if they wanted to be a stop, would have to finance their own rapid light rail connecting the airport to the city centers.[/b]
It's been done. ICE Trains from Stuttgart, Basel, or Munich, heading north down the Rhine Valley via Mannheim to Koln and onward, stop at the Frankfurt Airport, by-passing the main Frankfurt station. CityTrains to the downtown 11 minutes away run every 15 minutes.
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]With the way technology is progressing, I wonder if we might be better off waiting until Mag-Lev comes down in price. Last I heard, it was about 11 million per kilometer. Perhaps now that a few places have actually implemented Mag-Lev, it has come down in price?[/b]
It's still used only on short pilot runs. Wait for the ShangHai - HangZhou line, now undergoing environmental assessment, and see if it's worth the cost. For that matter, see if it's any quieter or faster than regular TGV trains.
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]You can't have "high speed" if the train is stopping at places like Glencoe, Ingersoll, Woodstock, Brantford and Ancaster.[/b]
You have two choices: keep the present Via service to the local stations, and design the high-speed route to connect with the Via route at places like Kingston (and, IMHO, London), which may not be easy. Or give up on passenger service on the old tracks, let the freight trains run unhindered on them, and run the local service on the new tracks with four-track local stations as outlined above. Either method works fine. It's a question of route design which one works best in a given situation. But the local service will be faster, and get more cars off the road, if it's on the new tracks.
[ 13 January 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
Thu, 2008-06-05 01:00
#15
[url=http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-S08-T305.pdf]Interesting new poll on attitudes to high-speed rail in Canada.[/url]
The highest support is from males aged 30-39 in Quebec, with Ontario close behind, and the West close behind that.
Every group supports it, but the trends are interesting. Some people may be keener on cheap mass rail transit rather than high-speed.
There is less support from those aged 18 to 29, and less support from women. Mind you, 77.9% of those aged 18-29 still say they have a positive impression of high-speed rail in general (18.8% negative, 3.4% unsure). But that's a touch below the 80% support of 30-39s. On Canada having a high-speed system, it's similar. On personal habits, however, 75.8% of 18-29s would consider using it, while 84.4% of 30-39s would. On government funding the complete project, 69.1% of 18-29s support it, while 78.2% of 30-39s do. On shared funding (public-private partnership), both groups feel about the same (75.8% or 75.0%support it.)
It makes me wonder if support has peaked. Are younger people starting to say "webcam or videophone is almost as good if you're in a hurry"?
I still think we will see high-speed rail in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. But regular trains at lower cost serving the mass market (including intermediate communities) are perhaps equally important.
Thu, 2008-06-05 08:03
#16
If we care about the environment we should build a better rail network.
Fri, 2008-06-06 02:14
#17
Catchfire
It also occurs to me that the 2600 people about to lose their jobs in Oshawa might be particularly skilled to do this kind of work.
Of course, to work, I would expect, this plan would have to mean less flights and less people driving. If it just takes on the passengers from buses or existing trains, it just means more money for the same trip that, as unionist points out, already takes a very convenient and comfortable 4.25 hours. Subsidize this and let the air industry plummet into anachronism. And for fs, stop building highways in the GTA.
Thu, 2009-06-04 09:03
#18
plangan
High Speed Rail Canada http://highspeedrail.ca
has added in english and french two rare
Canadian high speed documents to their website.
High Speed Rail Canada, (HSRC) a citizen's national advocacy group dedicated to the education on, and the implementation of, high speed trains in Canada, has made available to the public the :
1. 2008 UPDATED FEASIBILITY STUDY OF A HIGH SPEED RAIL SERVICE IN THE QUÉBEC CITY WINDSOR CORRIDOR/ 2008 ÉTUDE D'ACTUALISATION CONCERNANT LA FAISABILITÉ D'UN TRAIN HAUTE VITESSE DANS LE CORRIDOR QUÉBEC - WINDSOR and
2. THE FINAL REPORT ON THE 1992-1995 QUÉBEC-ONTARIO HIGH-SPEED RAIL /RAPPORT FINAL SUR LE PROJET DE TRAIN RAPIDE QUÉBEC-ONTARIO 1992-1995 PROJECT STUDY.
Paul Langan, Founder of High Speed Rail Canada states, " The request for proposals for the 2008 Updated Feasibility Study of a high speed rail
service in the Quebec City Windsor Corridor have never been made available to the public before. The final report on the 1992-1995 Quebec-Ontario High Speed Rail is thee most referenced document on high speed rail in Canada and has been out of print and is available
electronically for the first time.
Our mandate is to educate people on the benefits of high speed rail in Canada. Adding these two documents to our website goes a long way to achieving that goal."
For more information - http://highspeedrail.ca
contact; Paul Langan, 519-654-0089
Thu, 2009-06-04 16:41
#19
It also occurs to me that the 2600 people about to lose their jobs in Oshawa might be particularly skilled to do this kind of work.Of course, to work, I would expect, this plan would have to mean less flights and less people driving. If it just takes on the passengers from buses or existing trains, it just means more money for the same trip that, as unionist points out, already takes a very convenient and comfortable 4.25 hours. Subsidize this and let the air industry plummet into anachronism. And for fs, stop building highways in the GTA.
High speed rail would devastate the airline industry over small distances (such as Montreal/Toronto) due to the time wasted at airports, checking in and out, liftoff, et cetera.
Flight is still substantially faster. High speed rail will typically reach 200 km/h, whereas a Boeing 747 can reach 900 km/h. Subsidize trains all you want (I support that) but the airline industry will not "plummet into anachronism". New York to Los Angeles and Montreal to Vancouver will still be done by flying. For that matter, so will Berlin to Tokyo.
Obama unveiled his high speed rail plan about 6 weeks back: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/obama.rail/
Thu, 2009-06-04 19:37
#20
High speed rail would devastate the airline industry over small distances (such as Montreal/Toronto) due to the time wasted at airports, checking in and out, liftoff, et cetera. Flight is still substantially faster. High speed rail will typically reach 200 km/h, whereas a Boeing 747 can reach 900 km/h. Subsidize trains all you want (I support that) but the airline industry will not "plummet into anachronism". New York to Los Angeles and Montreal to Vancouver will still be done by flying. For that matter, so will Berlin to Tokyo. Obama unveiled his high speed rail plan about 6 weeks back: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/obama.rail/[/quote]Integrating rail and air would be a good idea. Ever flown into Frankfurt or Narita? There is a train station right at the Airport.
Fri, 2009-06-05 15:05
#21
It also occurs to me that the 2600 people about to lose their jobs in Oshawa might be particularly skilled to do this kind of work.
Just to echo Catchfire...one of the biggest advantages to pushing high speed rail now is tieing it in with the current manufacturing industries crisis.
apples:
High speed rail would devastate the airline industry over small distances (such as Montreal/Toronto) due to the time wasted at airports, checking in and out, liftoff, et cetera.
Well duh...High speed rail might negatively impact gasoline retail sales too...won't someone please consider the pump jockeys welfare?!?!