+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: High-Speed Rail (HSR) - Toronto/Pearson/Kitchener/London (/showthread.php?tid=306)
RE: High-Speed Rail (HSR) - Toronto/Pearson/Kitchener/London - KevinL - 11-05-2015
For the record, the high speed proposal floated just before the provincial election last year had four stops only - London, Kitchener, Pearson and Union. Entirely new rights-of-way were proposed from London to Kitchener (bypassing Stratford) and from Kitchener to about Georgetown (bypassing Guelph).
This still makes a good amount of sense, and I doubt a Guelph stop is forthcoming. Keep in mind Guelph would be expected to still have local GO train service.
RE: High-Speed Rail (HSR) - Toronto/Pearson/Kitchener/London - Canard - 11-07-2015
Maybe we could learn a lesson from something like the British Rail Class 800. It can run on both electrified and non-electrified track, thanks to on-board Diesel. It can also switch between the two modes at speed. These trains are replacing the InterCity 125's which are even older than our LRC fleets. But they have the same issues there - how do you implement HSR (or semi-HSR) on existing right-of-ways which may not have optimal track geometry? Hopefully, Colinette goes for a ride.
RE: High-Speed Rail (HSR) - Toronto/Pearson/Kitchener/London - BuildingScout - 11-07-2015
(11-07-2015, 08:55 AM)Canard Wrote: how do you implement HSR (or semi-HSR) on existing right-of-ways which may not have optimal track geometry? Hopefully, Colinette goes for a ride.
Because of this, new dedicated and elevated track is sometimes preferred. Cheaper crossings and less disruption of property when purchased, e.g. a farmer might be able to drive its combine under a cheaply designed dirt underpass.
RE: High-Speed Rail (HSR) - Toronto/Pearson/Kitchener/London - Canard - 11-07-2015
Round and round we go. Obviously that's the optimal thing to do, but all I'm pointing out is that if we ask for too much, all that's going to happen is someone's going to say "Oh it's too expensive." and it gets cancelled like it has every other time for the last 40 years of HSR studies. Accepting something slightly less fast than 300 km/h but significantly cheaper that will meet 80% of the requirement of optimal, true HSR may be the way to go - and this is what the UK has done/is doing.
RE: High-Speed Rail (HSR) - Toronto/Pearson/Kitchener/London - BuildingScout - 11-07-2015
(11-07-2015, 11:29 AM)Canard Wrote: Accepting something slightly less fast than 300 km/h but significantly cheaper that will meet 80% of the requirement of optimal, true HSR may be the way to go - and this is what the UK has done/is doing.
HSR is the preferred choice in the UK, under a pro-austerity conservative government no less. This should tell you a lot about whether the extra costs are justified.
RE: High-Speed Rail (HSR) - Toronto/Pearson/Kitchener/London - Canard - 11-07-2015
I have no idea what that sentence means.
RE: High-Speed Rail (HSR) - Toronto/Pearson/Kitchener/London - ookpik - 11-07-2015
(11-07-2015, 11:41 AM)BuildingScout Wrote: HSR is the preferred choice in the UKHardly applicable to Canada.
They have an extensive passenger rail system. We have almost nothing.
They have a steadily growing system. We have one that's been shrinking for decades.
They already have an HSR line with direct connections to an extensive HSR system across Europe. We have nothing.
They've begun construction of new HSR link between London and Birmingham. We don't even have a gleam in our eyes let alone plans for anything.
They have a public that understands why HSR is worth the incremental cost. We have a public that begrudges any new spending on public transport.
They have an ex-coal miner without so much as a university education as their Minister of Transport. We [now] have an ex-astronaut with a Ph.D in engineering
RE: High-Speed Rail (HSR) - Toronto/Pearson/Kitchener/London - mpd618 - 11-07-2015
(11-07-2015, 12:28 PM)ookpik Wrote: They have a public that understands why HSR is worth the incremental cost. We have a public that begrudges any new spending on public transport.
And yet both the Ontario government and the new federal government are very friendly to large-scale transit infrastructure investment. I don't know why we would wait for incremental additions over 50 years when the pieces are in place now, and the economy could use the boost.
RE: High-Speed Rail (HSR) - Toronto/Pearson/Kitchener/London - BuildingScout - 11-07-2015
(11-07-2015, 12:28 PM)ookpik Wrote:(11-07-2015, 11:41 AM)BuildingScout Wrote: HSR is the preferred choice in the UKHardly applicable to Canada.
I can boil down most of your differences to "they have a head start on us". The only way to fix this is to, guess what, get started.
Lastly the UK is also a late comer to HSR. They opened their first high speed line only in 2003 when the Dover-London Eurostar line became high speed. Since then they have created plans to expand their network extensively, thus confirming the need for HSR.
I could see a similar expansion here, in densely populated southern Ontario & Quebec: Hamilton, Niagara (connecting to Buffalo-New York City), London, Windsor (connecting to Detroit-Chicago), Barrie, KW, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City, Trois Rivieres, and Sherbrooke (connecting to New York City).
Additionally, we can easily justify a Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton HSR. This, aside from being sorely needed, would also go a long way towards the Liberal party mending fences with Alberta.
RE: High-Speed Rail (HSR) - Toronto/Pearson/Kitchener/London - Canard - 11-07-2015
To clarify BuildingScout's statement above:
The UK has 1 "Official" 300 km/h+ line called "High Speed 1" which runs from St. Pancras in London to the channel tunnel entrance.
The trains I mentioned above are on their conventional "highER speed network" which ran a system called the InterCity 125 for almost 40 years at 125 mph/200 km/h. This is what the Hitachi "Chevy Volt" trains I was saying could be good for us are running on.
RE: High-Speed Rail (HSR) - Toronto/Pearson/Kitchener/London - ookpik - 11-07-2015
(11-07-2015, 12:43 PM)mpd618 Wrote: And yet both the Ontario government and the new federal government are very friendly to large-scale transit infrastructure investment.
![[Image: CDrAUilUkAAquJ_.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDrAUilUkAAquJ_.jpg)
![[Image: 141367-142299.jpg]](https://cdn.psychologytoday.com/sites/default/files/styles/article-inline-half/public/blogs/140259/2014/01/141367-142299.jpg)
(11-07-2015, 01:46 PM)BuildingScout Wrote:Absolutely! I'm not against HSR as I've said more than once already. I'm very much in favour of rapid deployment of medium to high-speed passenger rail. Where we may differ is over how much longer we're willing to wait and how much more we're willing to pay for true HSR.(11-07-2015, 12:28 PM)ookpik Wrote: Hardly applicable to Canada.I can boil down all your differences to "they have a head start on us". The only way to fix this is to, guess what, get started.
Quote:Lastly the UK is also a late comer to HSR. They opened their first high speed line only in 2003 when the Dover-London Eurostar line became high speed. Since then they have created plans to expand their network extensively, thus confirming the need for HSR.That's a crucial difference. The Eurostar has been heavily used for more than a decade by people who do business or vacation all over the continent. They already understand the need to expand HSR within the UK and are prepared to pay for it. If we already had something like a Toronto to Montreal HSR line here then extending it to this region and points west would be a no-brainer. But we don't. It's going to be a hard sell to get HSR here notwithstanding the enthusiasm of all levels of government. I'm willing to compromise if it gets people off the 401 substantially sooner and/or with significantly less hissing.
RE: High-Speed Rail (HSR) - Toronto/Pearson/Kitchener/London - BuildingScout - 11-07-2015
(11-07-2015, 02:02 PM)Canard Wrote: To clarify BuildingScout's statement above:
The UK has 1 "Official" 300 km/h+ line called "High Speed 1" which runs from St. Pancras in London to the channel tunnel entrance.
Correct, they also have two more forthcoming extensions: HS2 (to Birmingham first and then on to Manchester and Leeds) and a still in the works HS3 (Liverpool-Hull) extension. Both of these are supposed to reach similar speeds to High Speed 1 (HS1), all other lines are faster trains but not true HSRs.
RE: High-Speed Rail (HSR) - Toronto/Pearson/Kitchener/London - Elmira Guy - 11-07-2015
Liverpool to Hull seems kind of a weird idea. They're on opposite sides of the country. Wouldn't connecting both these cities to London by HSR be a better idea?
I worked in Hull for a time and HSR from Hull to London would be a great idea. I know lots of Brits say the rail system today isn't as good as it once was and I had no cause to argue with them. But I still found myself envying their system compared to our own pathetic, almost non-existant passenger rail system.
RE: High-Speed Rail (HSR) - Toronto/Pearson/Kitchener/London - KevinL - 11-07-2015
(11-07-2015, 03:19 PM)Elmira Guy Wrote: Liverpool to Hull seems kind of a weird idea. They're on opposite sides of the country. Wouldn't connecting both these cities to London by HSR be a better idea?
That line would be built after the London-Manchester(-Leeds) line, and connect with it.
RE: High-Speed Rail (HSR) - Toronto/Pearson/Kitchener/London - BuildingScout - 11-07-2015
(11-07-2015, 03:19 PM)Elmira Guy Wrote: Liverpool to Hull seems kind of a weird idea. They're on opposite sides of the country. Wouldn't connecting both these cities to London by HSR be a better idea?
Part of the problem is that the country is too centralized in London, so the idea of an East-West line by passing London via Manchester and Leeds reaching Hull is to create a more two dimensional network rather than the hub and spokes around London. Also the Birmingham line is intended to foster companies to move out of London knowing that, shall the need arise, you could be in the capital in 50 minutes.
I'm not familiar enough with the UK to judge if the above rationale holds under scrutiny, I'm just passing along the thought process.
Lastly, each of the HS1, HS2 and HS3 projects had huge blowback, both from NIMBYs and from staunch conservatives who opposed any and all changes (this is almost unique to Britain, can't think of any other country where a significant percentage of population opposes change as a matter of principle).