[nfitz]

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.

How are we talking about Jasper - population 4,700 - and dissing service to Windsor - population over 400,000. Even Chatham is over 100,000 with another 50,000 in Woodstock.

 

[Urban Sky]

Then why even humour those pushing for an ALTO Windsor if this plan is good enough for nation building?

Because there is a less-than-subtle difference between discussing this project in the light of recent government statements and your equally relentless and unashamed trolling and spamming? The Quebec-Windsor Corridor is home to the majority of people and economic activity in this country and this is naturally where the vast majority of public funds for intercity transportation links get invested. Grow up and deal with it!

Now, if you don’t have anything to contribute on-topic, why don’t you just leave and unfollow this thread and find yourself different victims? Or just find an actual hobby like permanent camping in the forests or something. Have a nice day!

 

[nfitz]

You misunderstand why Jasper and Banff were listed. It is true that their permanent population is quite low and insignificant.

If it's not related to Alto, or at least HST, then you are in the wrong thread.

And now you are talking service to Algonquin Park?

 

[Sauga89]

This sounds very interesting, but it really screams for a map.

Current rail map:

Possible southern route (HSR in purple):

I admit that a Kitchener route is probably cheaper and more pragmatic to build in the short term. I wouldn't be upset to see a Kitchener routing built. In the long-term though, I really wonder if the existing 4 diesel trains per day, and sharing track with CN is really enough for all the people who live in Mississauga, Oakville, Burlington, Hamilton, Niagara and Brantford (and those travelling to those places). I think something like what I suggested will be needed eventually. The lack of a Pearson connection on the southern route is a problem (though I have some vain hope of transit being built one day along the 407/403 corridor - light rail if heavy rail is infeasible)

Also, I was thinking of a station in the Dundurn and Hill street junction (with a connection to the Hamilton LRT).

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.

The tunnel thing was only if one couldn't get an agreement with CP between Aberdeen yard and Bayview junction. But CP already has an arrangement with GO, and my understanding is that the Hunter Street tunnel is already a limiting factor for CP, so I was thinking a deal could be reached to quad track the line from Aberdeen yard to Bayview. Otherwise, there are no tunnels in what I suggested. Everything else is an existing or former railway alignment.

I don't think that 175.8 km if you are dipping into Hamilton proper is correct.

It is correct if you measure it from Union to the point in London where CP and CN meet in a diamond crossing. That takes about 5 km off of both routes. Also, building a new right of way between New Hamburg and London sounds like an outrageously expensive way to cut 12 km.

 

[nfitz]

It is correct if you measure it from Union to the point in London where CP and CN meet in a diamond crossing. That takes about 5 km off of both routes. Also, building a new right of way between New Hamburg and London sounds like an outrageously expensive way to cut 12 km.

That makes sense, but someone seems to have deleted my on-topic post that you quoted with the relevant distances for the two corridors, that I spent a long time measuring . So I can't really comment.

 

[Sauga89]

That makes sense, but someone seems to have deleted my on-topic post that you quoted with the relevant distances for the two corridors, that I spent a long time measuring . So I can't really comment.

I was notified that my post above was also deleted briefly, before it was restored. (EDIT: Actually, now that I look at it, it was my original post that was deleted, and is still deleted). You could also reply to me in the fantasy maps thread if you like.

 

[ssiguy2]

Thanks for those great maps Sauga89. Your purple route is the exact same one I was talking about. I wouldn't go into Hamilton but rather stop at Aldershot. Hamilton will have very frequent GO service by then and allows for an easy transfer right into Hamilton as well as onto the Niagara line meaning it would serve both downtown Hamilton stations. The KW route has no connectivity at all.

The primary reason for ALTO West is to serve SWO which has no GO rail and hence the fastest route to London & Windsor should be given priority and that very much means the Aldershot route with the Brantford by-pass.

 

[MisterF]

The primary reason for ALTO West is to serve SWO which has no GO rail and hence the fastest route to London & Windsor should be given priority and that very much means the Aldershot route with the Brantford by-pass.

This is a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of high speed rail.

 

[Sunnyside]

I have little to add as to why SWO’s 1st HSR via Hamilton is DOA. I will suggest framing the city, laid out as a rail hub with major geographic barriers, has terrible approaches which also prohibit any acceptable through-service for HSR. Uphill both ways, sends the project downhill, other hill puns go here.

What I will add is a silver lining given talk of national infrastructure projects. A break for Hamilton is more likely to lie in more trains of all stripes. i.e, if the strategic value of moving goods in and out of the ports were to become a national priority…

 

[crs1026]

The primary reason for ALTO West is to serve SWO which has no GO rail and hence the fastest route to London & Windsor should be given priority and that very much means the Aldershot route with the Brantford by-pass.

The primary purpose of Alto West would be to eliminate flights out of Pearson to London and Windsor by offering a land based alternative that is almost as fast. And to clear highway lanes. I'm not sure that there are currently enough flights to be a load on Pearson, and many run from secondary adjoining terminals that can't be shifted to long haul flights.

As a fantasy market survey, someone should stand on the Mavis overpass on the 401 with a sign reading "Honk if a High Speed Train stopping only at London and Windsor would get you out of your car". I bet very few would honk. Most of those car trips have a first or last mile component that a very limited stop HSR service doesn't facilitate at the moment.

A more conventional upgrade to existing rail service, with a much better network of local connecting buses and feeder routes, is needed more. It can be built for less in far less time. That need is already painfully obvious, HSR can wait.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

I have little to add as to why SWO’s 1st HSR via Hamilton is DOA. I will suggest framing the city, laid out as a rail hub with major geographic barriers, has terrible approaches which also prohibit any acceptable through-service for HSR. Uphill both ways, sends the project downhill, other hill puns go here.

I agree, to pass through downtown Hamilton. But reopening the Hamilton station in Dundas is an option. On paper you could put a station in Hamilton in Mountsberg near the 401, if you ran the high-speed on the CP Galt alignment - but that would be completely useless.

 

[Urban Sky]

I agree, to pass through downtown Hamilton. But reopening the Hamilton station in Dundas is an option. On paper you could put a station in Hamilton in Mountsberg near the 401, if you ran the high-speed on the CP Galt alignment - but that would be completely useless.

It’s not, it’s the kind of bad idea (greenfield intercity station with minimal consideration for existing transit networks) for which the French TGV planners get rightly criticized. A Hamilton station must not only serve the city, but also the existing and future passenger rail networks. Despite its suboptimal location (for Hamilton), Aldershot achieves that far better than Dundas ever could.

A future Hamilton station for HFR/HSR must be located at the existing station at West Harbour or Hamilton GO Centre, depending on whether a CN or CP alignment is chosen for fast and frequent services towards Buffalo. Toronto-London services will become even more irrelevant for Hamilton, as most if them will serve Pearson, Brampton, Guelph, Kitchener and Stratford rather than Hamilton or Brantford…

 

[nfitz]

It’s not, it’s the kind of bad idea (greenfield intercity station with minimal consideration for existing transit networks) for which the French TGV planners get rightly criticized. A Hamilton station must not only serve the city, but also the existing and future passenger rail networks. Despite its suboptimal location (for Hamilton), Aldershot achieves that far better than Dundas ever could.

A future Hamilton station for HFR/HSR must be located at the existing station at West Harbour or Hamilton GO Centre, depending on whether a CN or CP alignment is chosen for fast and frequent services towards Buffalo. Toronto-London services will become even more irrelevant for Hamilton, as most if them will serve Pearson, Brampton, Guelph, Kitchener and Stratford rather than Hamilton or Brantford…

I've literally never heard anyone in France complaining that too many places are served by TGV! What you do is mix services, so that you have some non-stop trains, and others that aren't.

It's pretty clear how the LRT in Dundas can be extended a bit down 8 or Main Street to Dundas.

 

[Mihairokov]

It’s not, it’s the kind of bad idea (greenfield intercity station with minimal consideration for existing transit networks) for which the French TGV planners get rightly criticized. A Hamilton station must not only serve the city, but also the existing and future passenger rail networks. Despite its suboptimal location (for Hamilton), Aldershot achieves that far better than Dundas ever could.

China does greenfield or outlying rural/sub-urban areas for their HSR stations. Shanghai Songjiang is a Class 3 Station in the very south of Shanghai.

One thing they've done there is that they build HSR on the periphery of its largest cities so HSR lines will form a kind of network around the city (think Beijing North, Beijing West, Beijing South, etc.). When they build HSR they don't replace their ancient slow train or medium-speed city hoppers and instead have networks for all three, so the old slow trains still go city centre-to-city centre, preserving those urban lines heading directly into cities. It's easier to build expansive HSR networks on the outskirts or only partially into the cities rather than building them all the way through. What's important with this, obviously, is having metro and train connections between all stations, so every outlying HSR station has a city metro line running to it, along with commuter and rural rail. It's not just an HSR station plopped down in the middle of nowhere.

So for example, if we were to do something similar here, we would build an HSR line through Toronto, but instead of routing it directly to Union we would build a new Toronto North/Toronto East/Toronto West station for it, and then connect that new station to Union with direct GO and TTC service. I imagine it would be like us building Toronto North Station adjacent to Highway 407 Station and then connecting it with a GO line along with already current TTC connections. Union keeps VIA/GO/TTC and Toronto North gets ALTO/GO/TTC.

When I was lazily mapping this out I actually looked at Dundas as a potential "Hamilton North" HSR station as it would be easier to loop the line elsewhere without having to dead-end it in Hamilton itself, but then we would also need direct Metro/GO service b/w "Hamilton North" in Dundas and Hamilton city proper.

 

[Urban Sky]

I've literally never heard anyone in France complaining that too many places are served by TGV! What you do is mix services, so that you have some non-stop trains, and others that aren't.

The French mobility concept for travel is still heavily optimized for the following scenario:
Origin < car > TGV Station < TGV (without transfer in Paris, if you are lucky) > TGV Station < taxi > destination

As much as serving greenfield stations like Champagnes-Ardennes TGV, Meusse TGV or Montpellier Sud de France TGV saves travel time, with the notable exception of Nimes Pont du Guard, each of them is horrendous to reach with anything else than a private road vehicle...

It's pretty clear how the LRT in Dundas can be extended a bit down 8 or Main Street to Dundas.

Sure, but if you have to stop anyways again at Aldershot (i.e., only 5 km later) to actually connect with the GO network (e.g., for onwards travel towards Niagara Falls or any of the smaller stations towards Toronto), why bother with Dundas at all?