[hw621]

Well Carney has spoken about expediting big projects in the national interest. Not sure if this project is included in that or if he's just focused on Pipelines, ports, etc.

Could they shorten the design and development phase from 5-6 years to 3 years and possibly put shovels in ground in 2029? Only time will tell.

Cut project timeline? into almost half?! Did that happen in Canada, ever?

 

[Thaboss]

Any chance the shovel hits the ground within the term of the Liberal Government? If not it runs the risk the next government may cancel it and we end up with another study.

Near zero percent chance..


And frankly it should not be expected. Better for this thing to be correctly planned and issues clearly identified, than to face a cali HSR situation.

We're talking about a 100 billion dollar investment here. You don't rush into such things will blinders on

 

[micheal_can]

Cut project timeline? into almost half?! Did that happen in Canada, ever?

Timelines are based on money and resources. Throw enough money and resources at something and the timeline will shrink. Remember, we built one of the largest navies in the world during WW2 That was due in part to changing factories over to support that. So, lets take rails.If the tenders for the ~4000kmof rails were sent out, then realistically, as soon as the rail bed is ready,rails can go down. Realistically, what is needed now are surveyors and engineers to get the route figured out.So, hire a bunch more could be all that is needed.

 

[lenaitch]

Timelines are based on money and resources. Throw enough money and resources at something and the timeline will shrink. Remember, we built one of the largest navies in the world during WW2 That was due in part to changing factories over to support that. So, lets take rails.If the tenders for the ~4000kmof rails were sent out, then realistically, as soon as the rail bed is ready,rails can go down. Realistically, what is needed now are surveyors and engineers to get the route figured out.So, hire a bunch more could be all that is needed.

Plus will/motivation and, if you want to make a wartime footing comparison, some legislation. John Inglis and the auto companies didn't stop manufacturing their peacetime products simply out of patriotism. An analogy would be the National Shipbuilding Program where the government essentially nationalized several shipyards in all but name by guaranteeing them work.

I'm not even sure the extent of rail manufacturing in Canada. I know Algoma used to but no longer does. You want to hire a bunch of surveyors and engineers? Pay them a lot more than they're making now, and run the risk of gutting other industries.

Actually, it sounds like a typical government project.

 

[Urban Sky]

Near zero percent chance..


And frankly it should not be expected. Better for this thing to be correctly planned and issues clearly identified, than to face a cali HSR situation.

We're talking about a 100 billion dollar investment here. You don't rush into such things will blinders on

Considering that it took Montreal only 2 years of public planning procedure (2016-2018) to sabotage its entire long-term planning for its Commuter and Intercity rail networks by rushing through a multi-billion transit project without spending a single thought on what the rail network should look like in 50 years, we can count ourselves lucky that this project gets studied to death…

 

[micheal_can]

Plus will/motivation and, if you want to make a wartime footing comparison, some legislation. John Inglis and the auto companies didn't stop manufacturing their peacetime products simply out of patriotism. An analogy would be the National Shipbuilding Program where the government essentially nationalized several shipyards in all but name by guaranteeing them work.

I'm not even sure the extent of rail manufacturing in Canada. I know Algoma used to but no longer does. You want to hire a bunch of surveyors and engineers? Pay them a lot more than they're making now, and run the risk of gutting other industries.

Actually, it sounds like a typical government project.

The difference is, things take a long time these days.

To speed it up, they could ignore the planning phase for some things, like rails and ties and simply open it up for bids. They could even allow multiple contracts for the same thing. They could also build it such that if it can be upgraded now, then work starts now. If that same work needs to wait for land to be cleared,etc, then it waits. So, from Smiths Falls to QC, as soon as the plan is in place, that gets worked on and opened. Meanwhile, the route between Toronto and Smiths Falls sees the logging, the blasting, and the rest of the work needed to be ready for ties and rails.

 

[officedweller]

VIA HFR would have been a slow cow of a train...

 

[CapitalSeven]

VIA HFR would have been a slow cow of a train...

It would have been a little faster than the fastest current trains, except usually on time instead of an hour late. And had they stuck to the 2016 plan, it would be running now, not 15 years from now. 24 years from conception to boarding is a pretty sluggish bovine.

 

[Urban Sky]

VIA HFR would have been a slow cow of a train...

To help me unwind before falling asleep at night, I've been watching cab view videos from Scandinavia (having moved on from Norway to Sweden in the meanwhile) for the last few months and am currently "busy" with the train from Oslo to Stockholm, so I'd like to compare that line with Toronto-Montreal:

	Toronto-Montreal	Oslo-Stockholm
Distance ("as the crow flies")	504 km	415 km
Distance by rail	539 km	572 km
Maximum speed	160 km/h	200 km/h
Traction	Diesel	Electric
Number of departures (typical weekday)	6	5
Travel Time (fastest)	4:57 hours	5:25 hours
Average speed (fastest)	108.9 km/h	105.6 km/h

 

[Urban Sky]

It would have been a little faster than the fastest current trains, except usually on time instead of an hour late. And had they stuck to the 2016 plan, it would be running now, not 15 years from now. 24 years from conception to boarding is a pretty sluggish bovine.

Which is why virtually all advanced Western countries upgraded their busiest conventional (160 km/h and less) infrequent (a few trains per day) intercity rail routes to semi-fast (e.g., 200 km/h) semi-frequent (e.g., hourly) corridors decades before contemplating High Speed Rail.

ALTO is yet another example of North American exceptionalism, whereas HFR was deeply rooted in European best practice exemplified by Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, France, Belgium, Netherlands or the UK…

 

[robmausser]

It would have been a little faster than the fastest current trains, except usually on time instead of an hour late. And had they stuck to the 2016 plan, it would be running now, not 15 years from now. 24 years from conception to boarding is a pretty sluggish bovine.

This ^^

The issue is that a lot of facts get obfuscated by numbers on paper that don't reflect reality.

The HFR train would have, on paper, shaved 30 minutes off the current Toronto > Montreal train.

Except, thats completely false.

There is ONE train to Montreal from Toronto right now that takes just around 5 hours, on paper. Often times, its an hour or more late.

The other trains take 6+ hours and are often an hour late as well.

The whole point of HFR was that there would be 10 or more trains a day that take 4h30m to Montreal. Not one that sometimes if you are lucky fingers crossed makes it in 5.

And then again, the truth is obfuscated by comparing HFR to HSR in Europe.

People will say "this train will be so slow, trains in Europe run at 330kmh!"

and again thats false. SOME trains, at specific sections of their route, operate at 330kmh. There is not a single train in all of Europe that operates at 330kmh the entire route from station to station.

Again, its cherry picking data to make something look worse than it is.

 

[officedweller]

VIA HFR would have been a slow cow of a train...

HFR = Heifer

 

[cplchanb]

Honestly i think it was a good decision to switch to high speed. I don't think via would've been able to successfully market hfr to the public. The speeds are simply too slow for modern 1st world standards. 30min faster on paper is nothing in a 5-6hr trip when people casually read about trains overseas that can do the same trip in half the time. I don't think any "frequency" argument could justify spending billions on travel times that are slower than what trains in the 70s were regularly doing.

 

[nfitz]

Honestly i think it was a good decision to switch to high speed. I don't think via would've been able to successfully market hfr to the public. The speeds are simply too slow for modern 1st world standards. 30min faster on paper is nothing in a 5-6hr trip when people casually read about trains overseas that can do the same trip in half the time. I don't think any "frequency" argument could justify spending billions on travel times that are slower than what trains in the 70s were regularly doing.

I don't think that perceived perception of what people would think would have had any role in the decision. It would come down to the economic modelling, where the results of the transport modelling would show not enough modal shift from car and air to create the travel demand that would work without excessive subsidies.

 

[cplchanb]

I don't think that perceived perception of what people would think would have had any role in the decision. It would come down to the economic modelling, where the results of the transport modelling would show not enough modal shift from car and air to create the travel demand that would work without excessive subsidies.

Perhaps but thats more like a different facet from the same stone. Modal shift comes from people changing their mind about how they travel, and what drives people to change their mind? Successful planting of the idea seed.