[Antiloop33rpm]

In the reports I've read, it suggests that the difference in cost between building in an existing corridor and in a new corridor is quite small.

That seems to be true for any reports I have read too. Basically, if you want train service that can travel at speeds of above 160 km/h, perhaps 180 km/h in some instances, you have to build an entirely new infrastructure. As soon as you have too do that, the cost between building a corridor for 200 km/h and 300 km/h become almost negligible, and the cost of building in a new right of way versus an old one are negligible.

Really there is not much need to deviate far from existing routes. Straightening routes out will only result in minimal time savings. There are plenty of right of way spaces a new line could be built in (hydro right of ways, freeway right of land, existing rail right of land in some cases). And keeping the route roughly the same means most towns and cities along the way could actually benefit from it too.

The only two places on a corridor network that you would stick to existing right of ways are going to be Toronto (roughly from Pearson to Union to Oshawa or somewhere around there) and the Island of Montreal. The corridors in these cities will obviously need too be upgraded a great deal but it will be fine too have high speed service using them.

And Acela, Jet Train, tilting trains, all those cheapo 'solutions', are a total waste of time.

 

[AlchemisTO]

If we are going to build high-speed rail in this country, we have to do it properly, not on the cheap like in the U.S. and U.K. They have had endless problems and failures because they always need to find a way to save a few bucks in the short term.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Being miserly and thinking small is, unfortunately, part of our Canadian heritage. If the Brits and the Americans cheap out, we don't have a snowball's chance in hell.

 

[EnviroTO]

Other than the insane price tag of Maglev. I cannot see how this could ever be justified as a reasonable investment in Canada.

The costs aren't that different when comparing the building new true high-speed rail ROWs and a Transrapid style maglev guideway. The bulk of the cost for creating a new high-speed rail system or maglev system comes from the cost of creating a brand new completely isolated ROW with very gradual curves and gradients. In addition, maglevs use more than 20% less energy per seat compared to high-speed rail. The larger obstacle to widespread adoption is the fact that the technology hasn't been proven to a large scale and the lack of interoperability with existing infrastructure. Due to the lack of interoperability the maglev ROWs need to be built right to the city core rather than to the fringes of the city as would be likely in the case of high-speed rail with continued service to the core on existing tracks at a slower speed.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

The costs aren't that different when comparing the building new true high-speed rail ROWs and a Transrapid style maglev guideway.

The cheapest estimate I have seen anywhere for Maglev is $25 million/km. But that was only in one instance. Every other piece on Maglev I have read puts the cost somewhere between $50 - $100 million/km. High speed rail projects run in the range of $10 - $18 million/km (CDN) depending on the challenges of the terrain and number of structures required (some are more expensive than that but those are in cases where there is a great deal of tunneling of bridges required). In the case of the corridor, most of it will be built through rather unchallenging terrain.

The only area where the costs would likely approach the high end of that spectrum are between Kingston and Toronto (or where in the eastern part of the GTA the dedicated corridor would begin) where the slightly hilly terrain and more populated land will mean a few more challenges for the project. Through that segment of the line though if the right of way were able to built in the 401 or a hydro corridor where most of the difficult earthwork would be done, then it probably would not be that much more expensive than segments running through say the area between Ottawa and Montreal.

Maglev is a super neat technology, but in the same way the Concorde was. Unless you are serving the super rich or population centers that could produce an incredible volume of customers, it makes no sense. Not too mention that even if costs where exactly the same for HSR and Maglev you still gain far more out of an HSR line because of its interoperability and the great number of other benefits that would come with it.

 

[EnviroTO]

If you check www.transrapid.de and click System -> Economic Efficiency it looks like ICE and Transrapid trackage isn't that different in terms of costs... of course they are comparing completely different routes so it isn't entirely a useful comparison. The Transrapid trackage looks less expensive to build than the JR Maglev trackage. The Shanghai maglev trackage wasn't that expensive but has Chinese labour costs but on the other hand dealt with much more difficult soil conditions. There isn't enough experience with the technology yet to know what the costs would be... but it can handle steeper gradients and should have lower ongoing maintenance and energy costs. Guideway costs are the real risk.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

^The primary problem is that estimates are just that, estimates. With so few projects having been and being built, trying to estimate a budget is like playing dice. HSR is established and it is incredibly easy once you start researching to get a reasonable and firm estimate of how much a project would cost. With Maglev, perhaps all would be super duper if the costs really were as low as Transrapid showed (though trusting company literature alone for an accurate appraisal is probably not wise). But with so many unknowns, it would safe to assume costs could easily rise, and by quite a bit. And over the distances that would have too be covered in the corridor, that could send the costs of the project soaring to astounding rates. (Just as an example, a Montreal-Toronto connection, roughly 540km, at $17 million/km would cost 9.1 billion CDN. If that cost went to $25 million/km then that is $13.5 billion which is a huge price tag for only a single link. Given that most estimates range from $25 million/km at the low end too $100 million/km at the high end, the chances that the project could explode into a massive money pit would instruct most people I think too forget about Maglev).

There is also another factor which makes it even less desirable. A Maglev network would have to have all segments (between two points) built at the same time to make it usable. The inner city and surrounding environs section of an HSR network could however be built first, as a totally separate project. These sections would account for between 20% - 27% of the total length of the HSR network (depending on which sections where built) and 25% - 35% of the total cost of an HSR network (if the network was constructed all at once as would be the case with Maglev). In addition, he inner city portions could be used immediately by existing VIA service as well as regional rail services such as GO and AMT (actually it would be for these uses that the network would primarily be built but too a standard that would allow HSR too run at high efficiency levels). Not only would that investment allow for a far more diverse system benefiting many parties, but by completing a respectable portion of the HSR network beforehand (and the most expensive portion of the network at that) you can sell the HSR concept based on the need for less track length and at a lower cost.

 

[unimaginative2]

I find that cost projections for maglev construction tend to pull numbers out of a hat. For every study I've seen, there's a completely different figure. It would seem that most studies try to eliminate maglev from contention as quickly as possible, so they pick an absurdly high figure.

The biggest disadvantage of Maglev in Europe is that it can't connect to existing rail corridors to get into city centres. That's much less of a problem in Canada for two reasons. The first is that we don't have an infrastructure of high-quality, electrified lines serving our main city termini. The second is that their urban rail corridors are much more constricted than our own. The routes into most major European rail stations are very crowded and would have great difficulty accommodating an additional pair of tracks (or maglev guideways). By contrast, the Kingston and Weston subs on either side of Union have plenty of room for multiple additional tracks. I've seen studies that show plans for five tracks on the Kingston sub through Riverdale, up from two (with one more under construction) at present. The only limitation might be in Montreal at the Mount Royal tunnel, though that could presumably be bypassed.

It's important to note that the terrain through which a Canadian high speed rail line would be built is far, far less challenging than most European routes. Most of the new Italian high speed lines are in tunnels for the majority of their length, an awe-inspiring engineering achievement necessitated by the mountainous landscape. The new Cologne-Frankfurt line is also in very rugged terrain, along with the extensions of the TGV down to the Mediterranean. About the only route comparable to a Canadian TGV would be the LGV Nord in France and the Hannover-Berlin route in Germany. The section west of Toronto, in particular, is stunningly easy to build. The Weston/Halton/Guelph sub from Kitchener to Toronto is already pretty much straight enough for high-speed running, though urban bypasses might be required. From London to Windsor, the arrow-straight CP line could be bought, with freight consolidated on the parallel CN route. All that would be needed is new track, improved ballast, and the elimination of level crossings for speeds of up to 350 km/h.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

I find that cost projections for maglev construction tend to pull numbers out of a hat. For every study I've seen, there's a completely different figure. It would seem that most studies try to eliminate maglev from contention as quickly as possible, so they pick an absurdly high figure.

The big problem is that there is no way of knowing how much a system would actually cost. If you decided too use the lowest possible estimate available you could in theory sell the idea of a Maglev system. But the fact that there are so many estimates as too actual costs that if the low estimate turned out to be false, the cost over runs would be extraordinary.

The perspective I view such a project (be it HSR or Maglev) through is at that of the public. At the end of the day, the public is going too pay for the project and subsequently, they are going to decide if it will get built or not. And when you are talking about projects that are almost certainly going to be over the $10 billion CDN mark, you better be able to address all the concerns and questions that people are, rightly, going to have. Viewing it all that way, HSR would not be easy necessarily to sell, but certainly possible and one which already would have some initial support and could be backed up with a great deal of data and research. The same is not true of Maglev. Aside from outright lies and propaganda, I cannot see how the public would be willing too invest in a minimum $10 billion (and probably closer too $15 billion at the low end) project when there are so many questions and unknowns about cost and technology.

Of course if someone wants to try to promote a Maglev project they are free too do so. But I haven't seen anything that would make me consider it too be a serious option or an investment and risk that would be worth taking. HSR on the other hand could be promoted and done with confidence and a much greater understand of the actual costs involved. And as unimaginative said, it is technically not a challenging project all things considered.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

I have a few questions about general rail issues that maybe some people might be able too answer.

1. Does GO publish travel distances between its stations and Union Station? I know VIA does that in its paper timetables and I am wondering if GO does the same (or if there is somewhere online with information directly from GO, so far I haven't come been able too find anything).

2. Every now and then the idea of GO Train service too Peterborough comes up but I cannot say I have ever seen or heard of what route it would specifically take. Does anyone know if an exact route has been determined already? If so, what would it be?

3. When they did all the recent renovations and construction at Pearson, was there any allowance on site for a future rail right of way or rail station? I don't seem to recall such a provision being made but maybe someone more in the know with Pearson can say for sure.

4. What is the general state of the rail corridor between Brampton and Waterloo? Does it have a lot of heavy freight traffic? In the section that runs through Guelph, is the corridor restricted in accommodating more tracks (say, up to 4)? Also, does the VIA station currently serve a more central, downtown sector of Guelph?

5. What about GO Train service too Barrie? I vaguely recall hearing something about it a while ago, but nothing since. Is this a project that is actually moving ahead or one they are just looking at right now?

6. Does anyone know if there are any particular reasons why St. Catharines - Niagara Falls area has such limited rail service? Is it just because there is a proven limited demand or perhaps there have been troubles negotiating track space with the freight companies?

 

[unimaginative2]

2. Every now and then the idea of GO Train service too Peterborough comes up but I cannot say I have ever seen or heard of what route it would specifically take. Does anyone know if an exact route has been determined already? If so, what would it be?

It's the CP Havelock Sub, I believe. It's an existing rail corridor which runs right up from around Agincourt to Peterborough. The catch is that it's been a freight route for decades, so passenger trains aren't going to be able to run very quickly.

3. When they did all the recent renovations and construction at Pearson, was there any allowance on site for a future rail right of way or rail station? I don't seem to recall such a provision being made but maybe someone more in the know with Pearson can say for sure.

Yes, they have a full corridor. It would more or less follow the 427 and 407 to Airport Road, and then itt would run alongside the people mover to share the current Terminal 1 people mover station.

4. What is the general state of the rail corridor between Brampton and Waterloo? Does it have a lot of heavy freight traffic? In the section that runs through Guelph, is the corridor restricted in accommodating more tracks (say, up to 4)? Also, does the VIA station currently serve a more central, downtown sector of Guelph?

There's heavy freight traffic from Brampton to Georgetown, but only a couple trains a day west of there. It's a bit tight in Guelph. One section runs right next to a residential street, and the area near the station is quite constricted as well. The station is right in the heart of downtown.

5. What about GO Train service too Barrie? I vaguely recall hearing something about it a while ago, but nothing since. Is this a project that is actually moving ahead or one they are just looking at right now?

They're definitely moving ahead, but it's always a slow process. The Barrie station will be out on the southern outskirts of the city, with a massive park and ride lot. I don't necessarily object to having a station like that, but the train should continue to a downtown terminal.

6. Does anyone know if there are any particular reasons why St. Catharines - Niagara Falls area has such limited rail service? Is it just because there is a proven limited demand or perhaps there have been troubles negotiating track space with the freight companies?

It's just VIA. They're completely allergic to adding runs and making the service competitive. They've never tried adding trains, and they don't even think about it. They're all in Montreal and have no idea about the world west of Toronto.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Thanks Unimaginative. I do have a few more questions though.

1. On the CP Havelock Sub, is there room for the addition of more tracks in the right of way? And on the same topic, is there still an existing rail line and station that runs through Peterborough?

2. I know that local Kitchener and Guelph media from time to time bring up the idea of improving rail service in their cities. Are there are any other cities or parts of the GTA where there is the same kind of local pressure to push for better rail connections?

3. With regards too GO's train service, what plans, if any, do they have for future extensions? I know most of the work they are doing right now is adding tracks to existing lines and such. But beyond Barrie and Peterborough, where are they looking seriously at heading next?

4. Who owns the tracks at Union Station? Is this still under the ownership of CN or are there are any special arrangements specifically for the station and that small section of the corridor?

5. On a map I see that GO Danforth station is perhaps a block or two away from a subway station on the Bloor line. In actuality, how close (or far) are these two stations from each other and is there any connection for easy transferring built between them?

One other note. You mentioned HSR needing a new tunnel through Mont-Royal when it comes to build its network. This might actually be a project that isn't too far away. In addition too the Deux-Montagne line, the Mascouche line will use the tunnel. They also want to route the St-Jerome line through the tunnel as well as using the tunnel for a future Terrebone line (which will run through Laval). But because of capacity issues, issues with CN crossing the St. Laurent sub and general limitations of the tunnel they have had to put off rerouting the St-Jerome line and the new Terrebone line (which would probably be underway where it not for these problems). Simply for political reasons (the need to let the heat over the Laval Metro extension die down and alternate with a South Shore project) this project will not take place for another couple years. But there is more and more acknowledgment each day that the current tunnel and right of way north of Mont-Royal are not going to be able to much more expansion beyond the two lines. So just in terms of serving its own needs, I don't think it will be too long until a new Mont-Royal tunnel and Montreal North passenger rail right of way are undertaken. And one final note, the Deux-Montagne line is purchasing Bi-Level EMUs too deal with capacity issues in the meantime.

Edit: There are also a number issues surrounding the electrical supply system through the tunnel and on the Deux-Montagne line and whether it will be able to handle extra loads.

If you look at the map below of the eastern portion of the new Repentigny-Mascouche you see that the routing seems to be a little, strange, and never made much sense until I started reading through some of the more technical documents. The original plan had Terrebone and Mascouche being served be a seperate line (which would have followed the rail line where the blue arrow is) and after the current Repentigny stop it would have continued a little further with one or two more stations (following the purple arrow). I have yet to see any documents which explain why they decided to make the rather awkward connection between Repentigny and Terrebone (given this route adds about 15 minutes to the trip time) but it seems very likely that this has been done as a temporary solution until all the serious technical issues with the tunnel and north Montreal right of way are figured out.

 

[Brighter Hell]

1. On the CP Havelock Sub, is there room for the addition of more tracks in the right of way? And on the same topic, is there still an existing rail line and station that runs through Peterborough?

The line's still being used for freight. It services industrial areas in Peterborough and mines north of Havelock, among other things. The line goes right through downtown Peterborough and the station's still there but it's now a tourist info centre and MTO office. The city has a location in the southwest fringes designated for a commuter rail station, so the only way I could see the old station being used again is if it's VIA istead of GO, and even then I doubt it.

I don't see why the corridor couldn't be double tracked, but that's putting the cart before the horse. Let's worry about just getting minimal service first, and even that's doubtful. The Places to Grow plan doesn't envision GO trains to Peterborough, and as long as the conservatives are in government I don't see VIA being expanded either.

edit: here's the old CP station

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Thanks for the info Brighter. I forgot about Places To Grow. I have a feeling going over it again will give me a lot of the answers I am looking for.

and as long as the conservatives are in government I don't see VIA being expanded either.

The Liberals, however, only did as little as required to maintain the status quo at VIA. About the only positive thing you can say about government policy towards VIA in the last 15 years or so is that it hasn't gotten worse at least.

That does bring another point that is central to this topic which is where will the pressure for better rail service (be it HSR or regional rail) come from? Agencies like GO and VIA really seem to have little interest in pushing for radical changes. Obviously governments, be it federal or provincial, will be the instrument that puts the plans in motion. But since they largely react to the public (minus strong ideologically minded governing parties) what groups or person are most likely to get the governments to take action? Private interests? Lobby groups? Just general public pressure (as was the case with the Conservatives sudden interest in the environment)? Maybe some forward thinking ministers?

Thats the part that I have no clue about. Technically, it is not that difficult. In terms of funding, it is a lot of money if you consider the costs of the network as a whole all at once, but over a span of 15 or 20 years, a realistic time frame to construct it all, it is still less than is spent on highways. And public support wouldn't be much of a problem so long as peoples concerns (both past and present) were addressed and dealt with and the project was shown to be in the publics interest (and not in the interest of private business such as the Lynx proposal). It is just finding an efficient channel to take all the ideas and planning and make it a government priority.

So, anyone have any ideas?

 

[Long Island Mike]

Everyone: The French-SNCF and the Japanese have to me the top technology for high speed rail today. I live in the Northeast Corridor and I see Amtrak's ACELA train by Bombardier-I feel that it is good for the USA but that speed record on SNCF is the best HSR technology today! LI MIKE

 

[Brighter Hell]

The Liberals, however, only did as little as required to maintain the status quo at VIA. About the only positive thing you can say about government policy towards VIA in the last 15 years or so is that it hasn't gotten worse at least.

True enough. IIRC, it was Collinette who was pushing for and got extra funding for VIA improvements, and he was even publicly musing about real high speed rail. But the Martin camp quashed the funding. I could see Dion investing in passenger rail, but with Harper I just don't see it, even with his recent focus on the environment.