[StreetcarRider]

I am normally not a fan of value engineering, but in the case of Alto I hope it is happening, and we UTers might want to keep those principles in mind while we imagine, er, anticipate what Alto is planning. The proposal needs some rigourous scope control if it is going to meet public approval and get built expeditiously.

Does this system really need to be 300km/h end to end, or could land and construction costs be greatly reduced by allowing sections of 200 km/h - or even specific slow ordered curves - and would that really harm the end to end timimg all that much ?

Planning more expensive terminals in central locations may be prudent, but allowing scope to expand by including major diversions of freight lines seems unlikely to get approved.

With the sticker price so high, we need to be focussed on how to get the most value for the least cost.

- Paul

Yes, agreed. I'm putting a lot of faith in CPDQ. CPDQ Infra has a track record. CPDQ brings money. Together, they have a self-interested reason to get cost/benefit right, and it shows in previous projects.

When Alto said something about stopping in a suburb east of Toronto while finishing the downtown stop, I had interpreted them to mean temporary use of a distant GO station like Oshawa or Bowmanville, as opposed to a whole new and permanent station for Toronto. Maybe that's not what they meant. Maybe that's not even feasible.

 

[zang]

Does this system really need to be 300km/h end to end, or could land and construction costs be greatly reduced by allowing sections of 200 km/h - or even specific slow ordered curves - and would that really harm the end to end timimg all that much ?

What's the difference then between newer Lumi trains on the line? If they didn't have to deal with freight traffic, they could regularly do that speed between almost all stations. The promise in introducing them was faster end-to-end trips along the corridor. The reality has been something vastly different as schedules are even further delayed.

If we're building new track, let's make it as fast as possible, period. Running across farmland means the interaction with humans is reduced massively. They're complaining because they want to complain, not because a train running through their field a half kilometre away is that much of a nuisance.

 

[crs1026]

What's the difference then between newer Lumi trains on the line? If they didn't have to deal with freight traffic, they could regularly do that speed between almost all stations. The promise in introducing them was faster end-to-end trips along the corridor. The reality has been something vastly different as schedules are even further delayed.

If we're building new track, let's make it as fast as possible, period. Running across farmland means the interaction with humans is reduced massively. They're complaining because they want to complain, not because a train running through their field a half kilometre away is that much of a nuisance.

The difference is the ability to run at 300 km/hr for those sections where this can be done at reasonable investment.

The point being, a single 5- mile slow section might allow construction and routing through a location that might be problematic or force a longer detour to maintain a 300 km/h routing.

This has little to do with complaints - those will happen regardless - it's about cost curtailment to the design.

Like I said, value engineering is often destructive, but in this case it may save us all a lot of money and make the difference between sticker shock and a more sellable price tag.

- Paul

 

[just east of the creek]

The difference is the ability to run at 300 km/hr for those sections where this can be done at reasonable investment.

The point being, a single 5- mile slow section might allow construction and routing through a location that might be problematic or force a longer detour to maintain a 300 km/h routing.

This has little to do with complaints - those will happen regardless - it's about cost curtailment to the design.

Like I said, value engineering is often destructive, but in this case it may save us all a lot of money and make the difference between sticker shock and a more sellable price tag.

- Paul

The Eurostar reaches about 300 kmh in France, in the tunnel, around 100 kmh, and the overall average is a little over 200 kmh. There will be compromise with ALTO on speed in areas, but wherever possible, that higher end should be reached to keep travel times lower.

Externally the trains are not that noisy, and pass quickly, I am not sure that noise should be a large factor in route selection.

I am not sure anyone is building a line as they do in China - hundreds of km’s of elevated track, going wherever the authorities wish it to go, in long straight stretches with great sweeping curves.

 

[micheal_can]

I am normally not a fan of value engineering, but in the case of Alto I hope it is happening, and we UTers might want to keep those principles in mind while we imagine, er, anticipate what Alto is planning. The proposal needs some rigourous scope control if it is going to meet public approval and get built expeditiously.

Does this system really need to be 300km/h end to end, or could land and construction costs be greatly reduced by allowing sections of 200 km/h - or even specific slow ordered curves - and would that really harm the end to end timimg all that much ?

Planning more expensive terminals in central locations may be prudent, but allowing scope to expand by including major diversions of freight lines seems unlikely to get approved.

With the sticker price so high, we need to be focussed on how to get the most value for the least cost.

- Paul

If that is the case, lets have some sections of the 400 series highways at 80km/hr as it would have made the construction cheaper. Right? This ain't the 1800s where we build a line that is good enough. This ain't the 1960s where we build highways that are good enough...

 

[urbanclient]

I am normally not a fan of value engineering, but in the case of Alto I hope it is happening, and we UTers might want to keep those principles in mind while we imagine, er, anticipate what Alto is planning. The proposal needs some rigourous scope control if it is going to meet public approval and get built expeditiously.

Does this system really need to be 300km/h end to end, or could land and construction costs be greatly reduced by allowing sections of 200 km/h - or even specific slow ordered curves - and would that really harm the end to end timimg all that much ?

Planning more expensive terminals in central locations may be prudent, but allowing scope to expand by including major diversions of freight lines seems unlikely to get approved.

With the sticker price so high, we need to be focussed on how to get the most value for the least cost.

- Paul

Good news, as I've hinted previously, only ~200 km out of the 600 km section from Toronto to Montreal needs to be at 300 km/h design speeds. Similar case for the full ~1000 km.

Most of Alto will likely be built to 200 km/h standards or lower. The target travel times imply <200 km/h average speeds while having only 7-8 stops. For Toronto-Montreal the average speed is about 191 km/h. Alto has lower stop density than the typical 300 km/h Spanish or Chinese line.

Total route distance: 596.618 km → >200 km/h distance share: 183.237 / 596.618 = 30.7%

Total moving time (excluding 2+2 min dwells): 187.002 − 4.000 = 183.002 min → >200 time share: 37.562 / 183.002 = 20.5%

187 minutes is 3 h 07 min, same as Alto’s target travel times. Based on that and this map from the November 2022 Alstom Via HFR presentation (slight modifications), I made a table:

Step (west→east)	What’s happening	Cap / target	Distance (km)	Time (min)	Cumulative dist. (km)	Cumulative time (min)
TORONTO → PETERBOROUGH (140.000 km in 40.000 min)
1	Accel from stop	0→144	3.127	2.606	3.127	2.606
2	Cruise	144	36.444	15.185	39.571	17.791
3	Accel	144→300	10.445	2.823	50.016	20.614
4	Cruise (this is 300-cruise #1)	300	83.040	16.608	133.056	37.222
5	Brake into station	300→0	6.944	2.778	140.000	40.000
6	Dwell (Peterborough)	—	0.000	2.000	140.000	42.000
PETERBOROUGH → OTTAWA (272.400 km in 85.000 min) (order 144 → 300 → 200)
7	Accel from stop (within the 80 km yellow block)	0→144	3.127	2.606	143.127	44.606
8	Cruise to finish the 80 km yellow	144	76.873	32.030	220.000	76.636
9	Accel at start of red	144→300	10.445	2.823	230.445	79.459
10	Cruise (this is 300-cruise #2, inside red)	300	77.401	15.480	307.846	94.939
11	Decel within red to lower cap running	300→200	3.858	0.926	311.704	95.865
12	Cruise remainder of red at lower cap	200	62.296	18.689	374.000	114.554
13	Cruise in orange before final braking	200	35.314	10.594	409.314	125.148
14	Brake into Ottawa	200→0	3.086	1.852	412.400	127.000
15	Dwell (Ottawa)	—	0.000	2.000	412.400	129.000
OTTAWA → MONTRÉAL (184.218 km in 58.000 min) (100% orange cap = 200)
16	Accel from stop	0→200	6.032	3.619	418.432	132.619
17	Cruise	200	175.100	52.530	593.532	185.149
18	Brake into Montréal	200→0	3.086	1.852	596.618	187.001

The difference is the ability to run at 300 km/hr for those sections where this can be done at reasonable investment.

The point being, a single 5- mile slow section might allow construction and routing through a location that might be problematic or force a longer detour to maintain a 300 km/h routing.

This has little to do with complaints - those will happen regardless - it's about cost curtailment to the design.

Like I said, value engineering is often destructive, but in this case it may save us all a lot of money and make the difference between sticker shock and a more sellable price tag.

- Paul

Not sure this is being conveyed: isn't the glaringly obvious issue with the "Lumi" Siemens Chargers/Venture is that they have a design top speed of 201 km/h and a realistic operating top speed of 160 km/h? It's impossible to run at 300 km/h with Via's current trains, regardless of track geometry.

Point of comparison, Chinese rolling stock on 350 km/h lines have design top speeds of 380 to 400 km/h.

 

[reinventingthewheel]

The difference is the ability to run at 300 km/hr for those sections where this can be done at reasonable investment.

The point being, a single 5- mile slow section might allow construction and routing through a location that might be problematic or force a longer detour to maintain a 300 km/h routing.

This has little to do with complaints - those will happen regardless - it's about cost curtailment to the design.

Like I said, value engineering is often destructive, but in this case it may save us all a lot of money and make the difference between sticker shock and a more sellable price tag.

- Paul

Same goes for track curvature. You don’t need to acquire tons of properties to achieve top speed in curves, the value is hardly worth the cost.

People need only measure the total rail distances between cities and compare that to Alto’s target travel times to realize the average speed is going to be far closer to 200 than 300.

If that is the case, lets have some sections of the 400 series highways at 80km/hr as it would have made the construction cheaper. Right? This ain't the 1800s where we build a line that is good enough. This ain't the 1960s where we build highways that are good enough...

Okay settle down, we do have sections of reduced speeds on ramps. If we built them for higher speeds then interchanges would waste even more land. Also, in the case of roads, introducing technical segments of reduced speeds becomes a safety concern as free willed motorists tend to not observe limits, a stark contrast from trained rail operators.

 

[micheal_can]

.Okay settle down, we do have sections of reduced speeds on ramps. If we built them for higher speeds then interchanges would waste even more land. Also, in the case of roads, introducing technical segments of reduced speeds becomes a safety concern as free willed motorists tend to not observe limits, a stark contrast from trained rail operators.

So you mean station approaches should have a lower speed? That would be obvious. Just imagine a random section of the 401 built for speeds of 80km/hr, just to save money. That is exactly what you are saying, unless you only mean station approaches.

 

[generalcanada]

Someone want to bring up that Alstom map from a few years ago?

 

[urbanclient]

Someone want to bring up that Alstom map from a few years ago?

^Edited into post above

 

[reinventingthewheel]

So you mean station approaches should have a lower speed? That would be obvious. Just imagine a random section of the 401 built for speeds of 80km/hr, just to save money. That is exactly what you are saying, unless you only mean station approaches.

What I’m really saying is you’re comparing apples and oranges. Road design / operation should have no influence on rail.

 

[crs1026]

When Alto said something about stopping in a suburb east of Toronto while finishing the downtown stop, I had interpreted them to mean temporary use of a distant GO station like Oshawa or Bowmanville, as opposed to a whole new and permanent station for Toronto. Maybe that's not what they meant. Maybe that's not even feasible.

Bear in mind that the trains not only need to arrive, but they need a route to their maintenance base - and at more than 15 mph.
If the planned maintenance base were at Agincourt, I could see why Alto might start with an east end station. But… if the maintenance base is west of Union, then some platform capacity down that way might as well be planned right from the get-go.
We shall see.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

What I’m really saying is you’re comparing apples and oranges. Road design / operation should have no influence on rail.

What I am saying is that you would not design a freeway to have low speeds. In fact most of them get built to much higher speeds, so why would you do that to High Speed Rail?

 

[crs1026]

What I am saying is that you would not design a freeway to have low speeds. In fact most of them get built to much higher speeds, so why would you do that to High Speed Rail?

We don't accept speed reduction when designing highways? We sure do.
Ask any trucker about some of the grades on the 400 series highways.
It may seem that they are built for consistent uniform speed, but in fact there are places where it's just too expensive to flatten out the route.
For highways, curves are cheaper and easy but gradient not so much. For HSR, curves are more difficult but gradient is more tolerant.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

Ask any trucker about some of the grades on the 400 series highways.
It may seem that they are built for consistent uniform speed, but in fact there are places where it's just too expensive to flatten out the route.
For highways, curves are cheaper and easy but gradient not so much. For HSR, curves are more difficult but gradient is more tolerant.

- Paul

They have increased the speed on some highways to 110km/hr. Trucks are still governed at 105 km/hr. Not seeing how that matters.