News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.9K     0 

It may not have been explicitly spelled out (any more than Rob pointed out already), but it is heavily implied in other ways, and a reasonable assumption. The second you bring QC into the fold, their interests are to be treated as equal to the rest of the nation. For better or worse.

That’s not the only factor, in fact I you could probably talk sense into QC if you really wanted to. It just isn’t worth it; you’re opening up a new problem to spend more money. The added animosity, time and cost are a lose-lose despite the material benefits.
……
What leverage does BQ/PQ have? Or the QC government? Refuse construction within QC? Well, then Phase 2 will be built before Phase 1 and the project will be 100% in ON until QC finds a more constructive stance…
In practice, ‘western’ ON needs only a few (big) infra improvements to get NF and Windsor to become two HFR-esque branches for ALTO to thru-run onto.

1- Halton sub bypass (Bramalea-Georgetown)
2- Guelph sub rehab and/or straightening
3- Bayview Jct
4- Welland Canal tunnel

Some of these are not immediately necessary (2, 4). You can run to Kitch and Ham/St. Kits with only 1 & 3. GO has all but (4) on the books in some way.
The best “Halton Sub Bypass” is still the “Missing Link”: It won’t come anytime soon, but once you have it (for CN, CP doesn’t really matter), you have the entire Toronto-London corridor under public control (when treating CN’s willingness to sell KITC-LNDN as a given).
Let’s read the room; if the feds want to ‘save’ GO Expansion, they can perhaps kill two birds with one stone by packaging any of these as loosely part of ALTO and GO Exp (I do know they aren’t, really). They might be planning a swoop-in anyway, but this ties an Injection to ALTO, without bringing its huge scope.

Obviously this is not on the table right now, but there is a future opportunity for greater collaboration where it is already expected.
I don’t see the need for GO Expansion to be “saved” (as it is still happening), but there are indeed infrastructure elements which become easier to justify if you look at GO Expansion and ALTO/HSR/HFR simultaneously…
Hey now, there’s also an extremely windy. abandoned CP corridor you could use. Or a highway right of way! Lots of ideas to pass the time to the obvious decision.
West of Bonarlaw, the Havelock Sub is similarly mostly straight as the Guelph Sub. Greenfield alignments will be found where the exosting alignments are too windy, but the straightest alignments to pierce through the greenbelt and out of the GTHA are still the Havelock Sub and the Toronto-Kitchener corridor…
 
I don't see serving Hamilton with HSR as a huge priority. Increase GO service speed and frequency and Hamilton could comfortably have 2 express trains an hour to Toronto that take less than an hour. You could also have service to St. Catherine's and NF that is fast and frequent for a fairly low overall capital expense. To get people between London and Hamilton, the existing VIA service slots can sufficiently handle that kind of demand, with the only remaining connection Hamilton to KW.

Fast service (not HSR) between Toronto and London via KW just makes more sense from a capital expense perspective. Get that route down to under 2 hours (doable with conventional rail along existing alignments) and it will be well used on hourly frequencies. No need to over complicate itm
 
I don't see serving Hamilton with HSR as a huge priority. Increase GO service speed and frequency and Hamilton could comfortably have 2 express trains an hour to Toronto that take less than an hour. You could also have service to St. Catherine's and NF that is fast and frequent for a fairly low overall capital expense. To get people between London and Hamilton, the existing VIA service slots can sufficiently handle that kind of demand, with the only remaining connection Hamilton to KW.

Fast service (not HSR) between Toronto and London via KW just makes more sense from a capital expense perspective. Get that route down to under 2 hours (doable with conventional rail along existing alignments) and it will be well used on hourly frequencies. No need to over complicate itm
The Kitchener route connects to Pearson, which will be an important connection for HSR trips both east and west.

Hamilton could be served on a theoretical eventual Toronto - Niagara Falls higher-speed line. That corridor at a minimum should be heavily beefed up and sped up. The corridor is already generally extremely straight and could be upgraded to 200km/h or above rail fairly simply by just removing crossings and addressing slow zones in the Hamilton area. Ideally getting Toronto- Hamilton down to 40 minutes and Toronto-Niagara Falls down to 1:15 or so.
 
If we'd used such a criteria for a Toronto to Montreal HST, then they'd leave Toronto heading along the Lakeshore - rather than towards Algonquin Park. :)
We’ve talked about this so often that even you should by now be able to acknowledge this: The two mainlines following the Lakeshore are the respective transcontinental spines of the two Canadian big Cheeses and motivating either to vacate their route would require federal transportation policies which represent an outright revolution. Building a HSR corridor along the 401 would incur high land acquisition costs and stir up similar local opposition as Wynne’s insincere HSR election stunt, while stripping the Lakeshore communities of their downtown stops and of the ridership base for Local services to sustain service to the smaller communities.

Also, despite briefly pointing towards Algonquin Park for an insignificantly short stretch between Locust Hill and Claremont, a straight line from Toronto to Ottawa crosses the Havelock Sub passes through Tweed and Peterborough addsonly a minuscule detour:
Euclidean distances have some obvious limitations (especially when they pass through Lake Ontario), but I’ve drawn and measured them below between the respective station locations of MTRL, OTTW, KGON, Peterborough and TRTO:
img_2992-jpeg.505977


Viewed from Montreal to Toronto, going via Kingston adds 6 km (or 1.2%) and going via Ottawa adds 14 km (2.8%). Viewed from Ottawa to Toronto, however, going via Kingston adds 30 km (8.5%), but going via Peterborough only adds a single km (0.3%)…

I'm not sure if this would work, but I was thinking if you bought the Ontario Southland railway between Woodstock and St. Thomas, then you could re-build the St. Thomas to Glencoe railway. You could then pay CP to swap tracks with you. That would give you a route between Glencoe and Woodstock via London for HSR.

Between Woodstock and Paris, you could either negotiate with CN, or more likely, expropriate land next to CN's right of way to widen it. It's about 30 km, mostly through farmland, but by following CN's ROW, you'd avoid bisecting parcels. That would make expropriation easier.

Paris to Lynden is an abandoned railway with parts of the land sold off, but perhaps it could be rebuilt.

Lynden to Copetown is 8 km of active CN track. Two options there. First, you could widen the ROW through expropriation. Alternatively, you could re-build the Copetown to Brantford rail line and pay CN to swap their existing line with you (which would also give GO trains a route into Brantford).

From Copetown, you could follow the abandoned route into Hamilton to CP's Aberdeen yard.

From Aberdeen yard to Aldershot, I think there are a couple options. Either you negotiate access with CP or, less ideally, you skirt Aberdeen Yard and tunnel 2 km under Dundurn street and York Blvd towards the lake. Then fold any widening for HSR into the junction work GO already needs to do (though part of me wonders if the junction could be better fixed by rebuilding the CN line between Caledonia and Welland).

Total route between Union and London via Hamilton: 175.8 km, most of it pretty straight, compared to 190.0 km via Kitchener. Kitchener would probably be easier to build, but the southern route would better serve people in Hamilton, Niagara and along the lakeshore.
This sounds very interesting, but it really screams for a map.

The problem of routing Toronto-London trains through Hamilton will always be to find a station location which serves Hamilton somewhat conveniently and Toronto-London & Toronto-Buffalo simultaneously without adding a detour with change of direction to either. The last time this was attempted (in 1992), the Hamilton station was amalgated together with Dundas and Burlington into a single station at Aldershot. Hamilton deserves better and it has to be at a station served by GO with frequent service…
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if this would work, but I was thinking if you bought the Ontario Southland railway between Woodstock and St. Thomas, then you could re-build the St. Thomas to Glencoe railway. You could then pay CP to swap tracks with you. That would give you a route between Glencoe and Woodstock via London for HSR.

Any thing is possible with money...but... remember that the OSR route for instance is still owned by CPKC and has utility for auto and other freight traffic.

Nothing wrong with your proposal, but the moment a proposal includes tunnels and new embankments through the rougher parts of the Niagara Escarpment, its price and timeline is going to escalate.

My recollection is that during the shortlived Collenette HSR study, a somewhat simpler greenfield route was proposed. It may not have had rigourous study, but at face value it found a cheaper and easier path (which nonetheless generated objections from locals, of course, but made sense otherwise).

My gut says that a routing that can connect to Pearson Airport and capitalise on easier topography parallelling Highway 7 and/or using the Halton and Guelph Subs is going to win a cost comparison, and passes through a substantial population base so has equal revenue potential if the odd local stop is assumed..

Even without the Missing Link project (again, a deep sink for time and money) the stretch of CN from Bramalea to Georgetown is relatively short, and adding further capacity there on a shared basis is probably cheaper and faster to build....and there is likely enough room to protect CN's interests to overcome their objections. I'm enough of a pragmatist to be happy with paying CN a generous entry fee....if that route is say $2B cheaper, give them a $500M entry fee.

We have to be careful not to interpret the Carney intent to mean the sky is the limit. If we are also considering large infra projects such as pipelines or the Ring of Fire, spending $50 B on HSR only makes sense if we can show that the benefit outweighs that of those projects.... I doubt that is true. But spending a couple Billion that transforms Toronto - Windsor rail service, avoids highway expansion, and has minimal delivery time might make the cut.

- Paul
 
The Kitchener route connects to Pearson, which will be an important connection for HSR trips both east and west.

Hamilton could be served on a theoretical eventual Toronto - Niagara Falls higher-speed line. That corridor at a minimum should be heavily beefed up and sped up. The corridor is already generally extremely straight and could be upgraded to 200km/h or above rail fairly simply by just removing crossings and addressing slow zones in the Hamilton area. Ideally getting Toronto- Hamilton down to 40 minutes and Toronto-Niagara Falls down to 1:15 or so.
I don’t see how the draw bridge at Saint Catherines can be resolved as a severe bottleneck, which only leaves the tunnel at Welland and a CP alignment between Toronto and Buffalo. Niagara Falls is irrelevant for international travel and the worst location for border checks, which should therefore be moved to a border facility in Buffalo (same for a Toronto-Detroit service terminating at Michigan Central station). Toronto-NF can be left to GO and NF-Buffalo to Amtrak…
 
Last edited:
I don’t see how the draw bridge at Saint Catherines can be resolved as a severe bottleneck, which only leaves the tunnel at Welland and a CP alignment between Toronto and Buffalo. Niagara Falls is irrelevant for international travel and the worst location for border checks, which should therefore be moved to a border facility in Buffalo (same for a Toronto-Detroit service terminating at Michigan Central station). Toronto-NF can be left to GO and NF-Buffalo to Amtrak…
Niagara Falls is a massive tourist destination that draws an absolute ton of long-distance travel. It is most definitely a key destination, and you only need to look at how GO consistently fills multiple 1,000 seat GO trains every summer weekend to see this. It will be a far higher traffic driver than Buffalo, especially for Canadian traffic.

The Welland Canal is of course the largest obstruction, yes. Bayview Junction is also likely a similarly expensive problem in Hamilton. But not unfixable at all. The Welland Canal is likely a similar-sized "problem" to the Davenport Diamond. $300-$400 million train bridge and you are fixed.

The beauty of not adhering to strict HSR standards on the line means that you could make compromises in certain locations to contain costs - i.e. the Welland Canal crossing and Bayview Junction. They don't inherently have to be designed for 200-300km/h operations in small sections like that.

The demand pattern along Toronto-Niagara is also tighter stop spacing than HSR traditionally supports, but still wide enough that it's not really commuter rail. Toronto-Oakville-Hamilton-St Catharines-Niagara Falls is a workable stopping pattern that would drive quite a bit of ridership, I think.
 
All this talk about passenger rail enhancements in southern Ontario are fine, but remember the words Carney keeps repeating, as recently as yesterday: 'nation building' and 'energy superpower'.

Quite true, and that's why I would expect Ring of Fire, pipelines, and resource projects generally to top the list. Those things make money for Canada and improve self sufficiency.

But as long as DoFo is talking up GO 2.0 and that silly tunnel, I don't feel it's irrelevant to point out what might improve transportation most effectively.

- Paul
 
Niagara Falls is a massive tourist destination that draws an absolute ton of long-distance travel. It is most definitely a key destination, and you only need to look at how GO consistently fills multiple 1,000 seat GO trains every summer weekend to see this. It will be a far higher traffic driver than Buffalo, especially for Canadian traffic.
I was talking about “international traffic”. Once GO receives the slots for hourly trips with their 12-cars-and-almost-2000-seats monster trains, there won’t be any capacity issues. Conversely, Intercity rail has too small vehicle sizes (compounded by compulsory reservations) to make any dent.
The Welland Canal is of course the largest obstruction, yes. Bayview Junction is also likely a similarly expensive problem in Hamilton. But not unfixable at all. The Welland Canal is likely a similar-sized "problem" to the Davenport Diamond. $300-$400 million train bridge and you are fixed.
Depending on what size (height) of ships must clear at the Welland tunnel, the ramp (and thus the capital cost) will be orders of magnitude larger than the Davenport Diamond. Have a look at the Rendsburger Hochbrücke to imagine the scale of local opposition such as monster would attract…
The beauty of not adhering to strict HSR standards on the line means that you could make compromises in certain locations to contain costs - i.e. the Welland Canal crossing and Bayview Junction. They don't inherently have to be designed for 200-300km/h operations in small sections like that.
Correct, but intercity rail from NF would presumably operate beyond Toronto and delays at the Welland Canal spread across the network…
The demand pattern along Toronto-Niagara is also tighter stop spacing than HSR traditionally supports, but still wide enough that it's not really commuter rail. Toronto-Oakville-Hamilton-St Catharines-Niagara Falls is a workable stopping pattern that would drive quite a bit of ridership, I think.
The obvious solution is Regional Express trains, similar to those already operating today, just faster…
 
Last edited:
If you really want to turn this into true nation building, a line from Windsor to Halifax should be discussed......To the east er, you would have about 3-5 stops and pass through 2 more provinces.
Please keep this sort of thing to the fantasy thread or others threads already covering the corridor and lack of trains in this country.
 
Depending on what size (height) of ships must clear at the Welland tunnel, the ramp (and thus the capital cost) will be orders of magnitude larger than the Davenport Diamond. Have a look at the Rendsburger Hochbrücke to imagine the scale of local opposition such as monster would attract…
The maximum 'air draught' (vertical clearance) on the St. Lawrence Seaway/Welland Canal is 35.5m (~116').

And even more nation building? Build from Jasper and Banff to the 5 major cities on the Prairies.
OK, I'll bite. How is this 'nation building'? I'm taking a wild leap to assume that the PM views the term as strengthening, protecting and diversifying our economy, not making life easier for tourists. Billions out for more billions in.
 
Why only run a single service pattern? In many places with high speed rail, they have different trains stopping at different places, with some more non-stop and some all stop.

And surely for that particular route (unlike the one to Peterborough), running a high-speed premium commuter service would be beneficial.
Yes this would be accurate but to building like that introduces massive scope creep that will no doubt be challenged politically by a future govt.

The greatest chance for sucess of alto is by keeping the project simple.

Let future generations build upon its success
 
Friendly reminder that “nation-building” projects don’t need to cover the entire country, but that they need to induce impulses which overall make the country stronger and more resilient. Whatever might (or should) happen to the west of the Q-W corridor is certainly beyond the scope of this thread…
 
I mentioned it as a response to nation building and how ALTO/HSR is or is not nation building.



It is nation building as it would cross more than the 2 provinces that the ROC seems to think gets everything. If we were to ignore the tourism travel between TOM, you would find that we would not need anything. Reality though that tourism is a big driver of our economy and ignoring it is not a good idea.That is why when others speak of Niagara Falls,I agree. Banff and Jasper are similar, and are reasonably close to Calgary and Edmonton at 136 km and 364km respectfully.

I know nothing more will happen outside of the current scope of ALTO, but, if we want this to be 'nation building', extending it 369km to Windsor is not enough to the ROC.
According to the World Travel and Tourism Council, it represents about 6% of our GDP. I'm not sure if this page will copy (it's a bit of a funny site if you're not a member), it puts numbers on our GDP by category. Tourism, entertainment, etc. is also one of the first sectors to go soft when the economy turns down because it is mostly discretionary spending.
 

Back
Top