Waterloo Region Connected

Full Version: High-Speed Rail (HSR) - Toronto/Pearson/Kitchener/London
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
(11-03-2015, 02:44 PM)ookpik Wrote: [ -> ]It takes a while for an HSR to reach maximum speeds from a stop and then to slow down to make a stop.

I think people tend to overstate these factors. Modern HSR trains take about 2 minutes to reach maximum speed and about a minute and a half to come to a complete stop from maximum speed. Adding a few stops really doesn't make much of a difference.

Train acceleration is glacial compared to a sports car, which can reach similar speeds in 15-20 seconds, but not large enough to really make an impact if we were to have a stop in Guelph and Pearson.
I think as well that HSR would have the potential to reorient the commuter-shed of KW and the GTA. With sub-1hr commutes, KW becomes far more attractive to live in than, say, Brampton. Give it a few years and the population here would explode.
It is very unclear to me how HSR fits with enhanced GO train service. Would HSR replace GO, or supplement it?
Assuming Go could fix their bottlenecks, it would probably still serve a purpose by offering a lower cost, more frequent alternative.
And there would still be plenty of intermediate stops to serve.
(11-03-2015, 03:32 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-03-2015, 02:44 PM)ookpik Wrote: [ -> ]It takes a while for an HSR to reach maximum speeds from a stop and then to slow down to make a stop.

I think people tend to overstate these factors. Modern HSR trains take about 2 minutes to reach maximum speed and about a minute and a half to come to a complete stop from maximum speed. Adding a few stops really doesn't make much of a difference.

Train acceleration is glacial compared to a sports car, which can reach similar speeds in 15-20 seconds, but not large enough to really make an impact if we were to have a stop in Guelph and Pearson.

The train does need to be stationary for a while, too, unless we have high-speed passengers (HSP), too!   Smile
(11-04-2015, 12:23 AM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-03-2015, 03:32 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: [ -> ]I think people tend to overstate these factors. Modern HSR trains take about 2 minutes to reach maximum speed and about a minute and a half to come to a complete stop from maximum speed. Adding a few stops really doesn't make much of a difference.

Train acceleration is glacial compared to a sports car, which can reach similar speeds in 15-20 seconds, but not large enough to really make an impact if we were to have a stop in Guelph and Pearson.

The train does need to be stationary for a while, too, unless we have high-speed passengers (HSP), too!   Smile

So about 2 min to accelerate, 2 min to decelerate and another 1 to 2 minutes stationary. (I'd say 2 min at places like YYZ where people will have lots of luggage to schlep on and off the train.) So each stop will probably add about 5 min to total travel time of an HSR. That argues against frequent stops. And that IMNSHO argues against HSR in the proposed London-KW-Toronto corridor. ISTM to make much more sense to run "conventional" trains at 160km/hr, have stops at all mid-sized communities along the route like Guelph and Woodstock, and thus get as much ridership as possible as quickly as possible. At 160km/hr it should be possible to do KW to Union in half the time it now takes on GO. Offer hourly trains and you've go a backbone system that satisfies regular commuters as well as casual day-trippers.

But as I said before it would be nice to see some analysis of these issues including speeds, stops, frequency, costs, etc.
(11-04-2015, 08:52 AM)ookpik Wrote: [ -> ]So about 2 min to accelerate, 2 min to decelerate and another 1 to 2 minutes stationary. (I'd say 2 min at places like YYZ where people will have lots of luggage to schlep on and off the train.) So each stop will probably add about 5 min to total travel time of an HSR. That argues against frequent stops. And that IMNSHO argues against HSR in the proposed London-KW-Toronto corridor. ISTM to make much more sense to run "conventional" trains at 160km/hr, have stops at all mid-sized communities along the route like Guelph and Woodstock, and thus get as much ridership as possible as quickly as possible. At 160km/hr it should be possible to do KW to Union in half the time it now takes on GO. Offer hourly trains and you've go a backbone system that satisfies regular commuters as well as casual day-trippers.

But as I said before it would be nice to see some analysis of these issues including speeds, stops, frequency, costs, etc.

I agree we couldn't have many stops. Guelph and Pearson tops, in my opinion.

I question the value of spending a large amount close to the HSR cost yet end up with only a 160km/hr train. If we are going to expropriate land and lay down track we might as well go all the way.

We should lay down HSR track, have a two stop train every hour (possibly even a few non-stops  express during rush hour) and in the gaps between the two-stops send a milk run right behind which would have up to 1:30 to complete the trip.
(11-04-2015, 09:30 AM)BuildingScout Wrote: [ -> ]I question the value of spending a large amount close to the HSR cost yet end up with only a 160km/hr train. If we are going to expropriate land and lay down track we might as well go all the way.

I do too which is one reason why I'd like to see cost numbers. 

If the incremental cost of laying HSR-compatible tracks and running HSR rolling stock is small then by all means. However compared to what we have now, which is laughable and embarrassing, regular, frequent, fast rail connections between here and Toronto is essential even if "fast" isn't necessarily HSR. I'll gladly sacrifice some speed for more frequency and reliability if that tradeoff makes economic sense.

One more thing. The province talks about a London to Toronto HSR. What's the demand for rail service between those two cities? I ask because London generally isn't iincluded in any vision of a Silicon Valley-like technical corridor in southern Ontario. Likewise Western, unlike UW, isn't particularly well-known for technology programs. So before we double the length of the rail run (and presumably almost double the cost) we should establish the need. Has that been done? Perhaps a project of this scale should start with KW to Toronto service with plans to extend it to London and then further afield.
I would guess that there is some demand for people going London -> Pearson at least.
Air Canada has more than half a dozen departures to Pearson daily. WestJet has seen fit to introduce another two daily starting in the spring. So that's some indication of the demand to Pearson. I couldn't guess at how many people would take rail to downtown if it were competitive with the speed of car travel.

London probably makes sense, I think. The further west it goes, the cheaper land and other costs become. And once we're talking about London, connections with proposed American high-speed rail start to be logical.
One thing to kind of "zoom out" here and look at some realities, is that true HSR is so, so, so much better than what we have now, that we're all kind of missing just how significant some less-expensive, incrementally better service options are.  I'm always amazed when I go to Mainland Europe or the UK and get on a "regular, slow" train and it's some pissant EMU doing 200 km/h and the next one comes along in <10 minutes.  We would be over the moon with service like that, and over there, that's just the basic norm.

Don't get me wrong, at all - as a rail enthusiast there's nothing more that I want to see than HSR in Canada!  I'm just saying, that even if we don't get full HSR, Electrification and sustained 160 km/h are vast, massive, huge improvements over what we have now.
(11-04-2015, 01:30 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]One thing to kind of "zoom out" here and look at some realities, is that true HSR is so, so, so much better than what we have now, that we're all kind of missing just how significant some less-expensive, incrementally better service options are.  I'm always amazed when I go to Mainland Europe or the UK and get on a "regular, slow" train and it's some pissant EMU doing 200 km/h and the next one comes along in <10 minutes.  We would be over the moon with service like that, and over there, that's just the basic norm.

Don't get me wrong, at all - as a rail enthusiast there's nothing more that I want to see than HSR in Canada!  I'm just saying, that even if we don't get full HSR, Electrification and sustained 160 km/h are vast, massive, huge improvements over what we have now.

That's exactly what I've been trying to say. I've been on many Inter-city and Railjet trains in AT, CH and DE that covered London to Toronto distances at "only" 160 to 200 km/hr.  These trains are a quantum leap over what we have today and even the expanded GO service that's been "promised" in the next decade.

Now some of those European "fast" if not "high speed" trains, e.g. those that run along the Inn valley in Austria, are constrained by the mountainous geography and legacy rail beds. There's simply no room to add HSR tracks and upgrading in place would unacceptably disrupt existing service. So if we have the opportunity to build our rail service from scratch it only makes sense to provide for eventual full HSR, if not initially then in the foreseeable future.

[With apologies to von Clausewitz, Patton, et al...] While we should all dream (and scheme Wink ) let's not jeopardize a good plan by the dream of a perfect plan. 

[Image: georgespatton138200.jpg]
My understanding (probably not as detailed as most of you guys) is that a lot of the cost of HSR is around the safety around the track/road crossings - in particular removing level and uncontrolled crossings.

So if we're talking about a train that spends most of its time at 160km/h or most of its time at ~250km/h I agree, the high speed part isn't necessarily that big of a deal. But if the 160km/h version of the train actually involves constantly slowing down when travelling through cities and towns for safety reasons - then that's a much bigger difference.
Also, as someone originally from Southwestern Ontario - I question the commuter type demand for a London-Toronto train, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were demand for a daily trip. I know a lot of people that would happily drive 45-60 minutes into London and then take the train into Toronto. Even if getting to Pearson involved going into Union station and then taking the Pearson express - it would definitely be popular.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29