[nfitz]

Question: are they 80km/h curves or 50km/h curves?

I don't know the answer, but a 80 km/hr curve is a 50 mph curve, and railway design is normally done in miles.

So I'd guess just a minor typo, and they are 80 km/hr (50 mph) curves.

 

[reaperexpress]

Question: are they 80km/h curves or 50km/h curves?

I somehow think the presentation slides weren't proofread as there seem to be a lot of inconsistencies between the slides and the report. Regardless of what the speed of those curves are, I do like the idea of bypassing Acton and Rockway due to the complications of being able to widen the existing curves and grade separate the line.

The three curves on the existing line currently have a 70 mph (112 km/h) speed limit. Despite this error, I also agree with the need to build a new railway for this segment for the same reasons as you. I'd also add that there are a number of awkward interactions with roads which would be really expensive to fix anyway. I detailed my own argument and alignment in this post from a while ago.

112 km/h might sound fast for people accustomed to our 100 km/h highway speed limits, but it really is inadequate for such an important intercity line especially given its HSR aspirations. It's already subpar for a mainline railway in Southern Ontario.

I still think it makes the most sense to run the HSR track through the middle of Guelph rather than bypass it, even with the property acquisition and grade separation that would be required. In my mind, it makes more sense to electrify, grade separate, and provide maintenance for one rail line instead of two.

In isolation, it may make more sense to bypass Guelph completely, however with all-day RER service on the line and the number of trains that would be on the line, the 5 km/h slow order at Kent St will need to be resolved one way or another, grade separation being the most likely.

The existing slow zone along Kent street in Guelph is 10 mph (16 km/h). Grade separation would be necessary if we want to operate above 80 mph along that strech, but I think that's unnecessary given that most trains will stop at Guelph Central. In my opinion, the station is significant enough that it should be of Intercity status, meaning that all trains would stop there.

In Utrecht, The Netherlands I was staying off a street that had a similar arrangement. But trains were able to operate at a reasonable speed (I'd guess around 60-80 km/h) because the segment was fenced, blocking off some former pedestrian crossings. To cross the railway you had to go to a proper level crossing on a collector or arterial road.

So I'm guessing if we simply fenced the railway, blocking off the Glasgow and Dublin crossings, we could get the speed up to 45 mph or so.

^ I really hope they don't relocate Acton GO station. I also wonder if there are any plans to add a Rockwood station eventually.

I don't think we'd need to relocate or close Acton. We could keep the existing line as an unelectrified single-track 70 mph railway used by peak-hour peak-direction express services (i.e. commuter services making all stops to Mt. Pleasant, then non-stop to Union). Regional and Intercity trains would use the new double-track high-speed line bypassing the two towns. I don't see the redundant railways as a waste since we'd probably need 3 tracks anyway if we wanted to serve both stopping and intercity services on the same line.

 

[1overcosc]

A direct Pearson-Kingston route is completely unthinkable! Pearson apparently has 49 departures to Kingston per week, mostly on Beechcrafts. Even assuming 100% capacity that's less than 1000 passengers/week, or less than a single HSR train. It's also assuming that a notional Toronto-Ottawa HSR wouldn't be better off just skipping Kingston in the first place and shaving 50km off the route (significant cost savings)..

A bit late, but first off, the Kingston-Toronto air route is NOT a good way to judge service demand between Kingston and Pearson. Adding a leg to Kingston Airport always causes a journey to go up by hundreds of dollars (Kingston-Toronto-Rome would be $400-$500 more than simply Toronto-Rome), so most Kingstonians who fly out of YYZ drive, train, or bus there instead. I'd say that only 10%-20% of Kingstonians headed for Pearson actually fly out of Kingston Airport.

 

[TOareaFan]

The existing slow zone along Kent street in Guelph is 10 mph (16 km/h). Grade separation would be necessary if we want to operate above 80 mph along that strech, but I think that's unnecessary given that most trains will stop at Guelph Central. In my opinion, the station is significant enough that it should be of Intercity status, meaning that all trains would stop there.

We are really narrowing in on opinions of stop spacing and significance here.

Much earlier in this thread I expressed disappointment that HSR trains would not stop in Brampton (by then 600k) providing a link to the HSR to Mississauga (by then 800k) via the HMLRT and was dismissed because those centres would be served by the Pearson stop that is only 14km away.

But now they should stop at Guelph (maybe 150k people by then?) which is 17km from Kitchener?

 

[mdrejhon]

Once you add too many stations to a HSR route, it ceases to be a HSR route.

But there's a solution.

See Japan and France for examples. They have all-stop HSR trains, and express HSR trains, so theoretically we can make everybody happy. You know, sometimes their super express passes through cities bigger than Kitchener!!! It's more of a track capacity and scheduling concern. You can even pull it off on a double-track with some passing sections, to a certain point, and some high traffic HSR routes have 3 or 4 track at HSR specs.

IMHO, I'd say our own "super express" should ONLY stop at London and Kitchener, and perhaps Pearson. The all-stop HSR trains, sure -- throw in Brampton and Guelph -- if demand, scheduling and track capacity warrants.

 

[dunkalunk]

The existing slow zone along Kent street in Guelph is 10 mph (16 km/h). Grade separation would be necessary if we want to operate above 80 mph along that strech, but I think that's unnecessary given that most trains will stop at Guelph Central. In my opinion, the station is significant enough that it should be of Intercity status, meaning that all trains would stop there.

In Utrecht, The Netherlands I was staying off a street that had a similar arrangement. But trains were able to operate at a reasonable speed (I'd guess around 60-80 km/h) because the segment was fenced, blocking off some former pedestrian crossings. To cross the railway you had to go to a proper level crossing on a collector or arterial road.

So I'm guessing if we simply fenced the railway, blocking off the Glasgow and Dublin crossings, we could get the speed up to 45 mph or so.

The grade separation has less to do with the line's speed and the disruption caused by the frequency of the line. There could easily 6 trains per direction per hour on this stretch of track that would cause a lot of noise and vibration and delays. The rail corridor on Kent Street is also very narrow and can barely fit the two tracks (one disused) that are currently on it. The section of track would benefit from being placed in a trench to not only mitigate local impact, but to also duck under the low-speed switches at the junction with the Galt spur. The line itself would also benefit from a wider sweeping curve if properties on the south side of Kent St are acquired

I envision three classes of service on the line: Express, Intercity, and Local. While intercity and local trains would almost certainly serve Gulelph station, I would hope that express services blow through the station without stopping, and be able to maintain a reasonable (100km/h) speed while doing so.

 

[reaperexpress]

The grade separation has less to do with the line's speed and the disruption caused by the frequency of the line. There could easily 6 trains per direction per hour on this stretch of track that would cause a lot of noise and vibration and delays. The rail corridor on Kent Street is also very narrow and can barely fit the two tracks (one disused) that are currently on it. The section of track would benefit from being placed in a trench to not only mitigate local impact, but to also duck under the low-speed switches at the junction with the Galt spur. The line itself would also benefit from a wider sweeping curve if properties on the south side of Kent St are acquired

I envision three classes of service on the line: Express, Intercity, and Local. While intercity and local trains would almost certainly serve Gulelph station, I would hope that express services blow through the station without stopping, and be able to maintain a reasonable (100km/h) speed while doing so.

Ah, I see what you're saying. I think you're right, it is worthwhile to lower the railway west of the station, and at that point we might as well up the speed too. Especially since the down grade will help trains accelerate out of the station.

I think part of the issue here is terminology. I think what you're referring to as "Intercity" is what I'm referring to as "Regional", what I'm referring to as "Intercity" you're referring to as "Express" and what I'm referring to as "Express" you're referring to as "Local".

To be clear, in my mind it was:
Intercity: Detroit (Customs-controlled platform in Michigan Central), Windsor (new station in Detroit-Windsor tunnel), Chatham, London, Kitchener, Guelph, Pearson, Union (2 tph peak / 1 tph off-peak)
Regional: London, St. Marys, Stratford, Kitchener, Guelph, Georgetown, Brampton, Pearson, Mount Dennis, Union (2 / 1)
Express: Kitchener Central, Kitchener East, Guelph Central, Acton, Georgetown, Mount Pleasant, Brampton, Dundas West, Union (2 / 0)
Local: Mount Pleasant, Brampton Central, Bramalea, Pearson, Etobicoke North, Weston, Mount Dennis, Dundas West, Union (6 / 4)

If we had two major centres which were being linked, then I would see the justification for an almost non-stop high-speed service. But as of yet I've not heard any talk of connecting to Detroit or Chicago. As it stands, we're connecting one major centre with a couple medium-sized centres, skipping two slightly smaller medium-sized centres along the way. I expect that more people will be travelling between Kitchener and Guelph than between Kitchener and Toronto, so I don't think it makes sense to have twice as many trains serving the latter. The difference between Brampton and Guelph is that people from Brampton are mostly travelling within the GTA, where they are served by the intra-GTA local service as well as the regional service that would likely be the only all-day service serving Guelph.

Of course I agree that this is unreasonably nit-picky at this point, though our intended stopping patterns does affect the way in which we design the railways. My main question is whether we can really support a frequent premium high-speed service with ridership solely from Kitchener and London. If we can, then I retract all of my previous statements.

 

[mdrejhon]

In some countries, express trains are more express than that.
In Japan, the Shinkansen is "Super Express" in their English translation, printed on tickets to date.

A Shinkansen HSR train ticket from Japan -- with "Super Express (reserved)" printed at top.

Depends on how integrated their intercity systems are with their metro/regional train systems, and express intercity trains skips a few cities along the route. If we went by Japan/Euro standards, a true intercity express HSR will NOT stop at Guelph, will NOT stop at Oshawa, it's simply Kitchener-nonstop-Toronto-nonstop-Kingston-nonstop-Ottawa. Heck, forget Kitchener -- the super express whooshes past Kitchener-sized cities enroute between major metros. Even the Beijing-Shanghai express is far more express than that -- it runs nonstop for hundreds of kilometers before stopping.

I guess it depends on whether "express" is used in the context of intercity or local trains, and what the populace is used to.

Realistically we'll have a mix of HSR trains, and when we use the word "express" on a HSR, that's exactly it: It's not stopping at Guelph distances from Kitchener, by Japanese/Euro standards, no matter what you argue. Sure, their semi-express or non-express may, but what they call "express" will go nonstop for a hundred kilometers or more. The train schedule is a mix of express intercity and non-express intercity trains. Heck, Pearson is possibly a waste of a stop in a true HSR situation.

Given a four-track corridor plus a few station passing tracks, we may be able to sustain:

HSR Downtown Express: London-Kitchener-Union (2 per hour, plus extra trains during peak, 300kph)
HSR Express: London-Kitchener-Pearson-Union (2 per hour, 300kph)
HSR All Stops: London-Kitchener-Guelph-Brampton-Pearson-Union (2 per hour, 250kph)
GO RER Kitchener: All GOTrain stations (4 per hour, 160-200kph)

 

[TOareaFan]

If we had two major centres which were being linked, then I would see the justification for an almost non-stop high-speed service. But as of yet I've not heard any talk of connecting to Detroit or Chicago. As it stands, we're connecting one major centre with a couple medium-sized centres, skipping two slightly smaller medium-sized centres along the way. I expect that more people will be travelling between Kitchener and Guelph than between Kitchener and Toronto, so I don't think it makes sense to have twice as many trains serving the latter. The difference between Brampton and Guelph is that people from Brampton are mostly travelling within the GTA, where they are served by the intra-GTA local service as well as the regional service that would likely be the only all-day service serving Guelph.

If one of those medium size centres being skipped you refer to is Brampton.....it is not slightly smaller....it is larger than, both, KW and London.....and if, as I suggested pages and pages ago, we are trying to build a regionally connected service then the HMLRT which connects there also introduces Mississauga to the connectivity equation.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Brampton acts as a suburban area of a large centre, not a centre in itself. bringing intraurban connectivity into it isn't a question as its an interurban service.

Besides, the Pearson stop will serve Brampton perfectly well. The report stated that it would act as a park and ride stop as well as airport access. To have a High Speed Rail line stop 3 times in 30 km would be silly.

 

[TOareaFan]

^my post above was not as much intended to advocate for a stop in Brampton as it was to correct the notion that it is slightly smaller than KW and London

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Realistically an ultra express HSR product would serve a more national interest (Quebec City-Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto-Windsor (Windsor for the connection to the US Border), with possible International airport connections.

An HSR product by nature would be express but would serve a more regional (provincial) interest. Connecting to intermediate markets not served by the Ultra express.

Then there's the standard (high speed) rail network, and the inter/intra urban services.

 

[reaperexpress]

In some countries, express trains are more express than that.
In Japan, the Shinkansen is "Super Express" in their English translation, printed on tickets to date.

Depends on how integrated their intercity systems are with their metro/regional train systems, and express intercity trains skips a few cities along the route. If we went by Japan/Euro standards, a true intercity express HSR will NOT stop at Guelph, will NOT stop at Oshawa, it's simply Kitchener-nonstop-Toronto-nonstop-Kingston-nonstop-Ottawa. Heck, forget Kitchener -- the super express whooshes past Kitchener-sized cities enroute between major metros. Even the Beijing-Shanghai express is far more express than that -- it runs nonstop for hundreds of kilometers before stopping.

I guess it depends on whether "express" is used in the context of intercity or local trains, and what the populace is used to.

You've hit the nail on the head. An express train is any train which makes fewer stops than an other train. In my case, I was using "express" in the context of local trains which is what people are currently most familiar with. I can't really think of any other word other than "express" that would effectively describe the sectional-express GO services we currently have. The limited-express services that we introduce to serve more inter-city demand can easily have new names like "Intercity", "Regional", "High-Speed" and so on.

In Japan, where travellers are much more train-savvy than here, they actually use the technical terms describing the service pattern, like "Sectional Express" (all stops to __, then operating non stop to __), "Limited Express" (stops only at major stations), "super express", etc.

Realistically we'll have a mix of HSR trains, and when we use the word "express" on a HSR, that's exactly it: It's not stopping at Guelph distances from Kitchener, by Japanese/Euro standards, no matter what you argue. Sure, their semi-express or non-express may, but what they call "express" will go nonstop for a hundred kilometers or more. The train schedule is a mix of express intercity and non-express intercity trains. Heck, Pearson is possibly a waste of a stop in a true HSR situation.

Given a four-track corridor plus a few station passing tracks, we may be able to sustain:

HSR Downtown Express: London-Kitchener-Union (2 per hour, plus extra trains during peak, 300kph)
HSR Express: London-Kitchener-Pearson-Union (2 per hour, 300kph)
HSR All Stops: London-Kitchener-Guelph-Brampton-Pearson-Union (2 per hour, 250kph)
GO RER Kitchener: All GOTrain stations (4 per hour, 160-200kph)

Missing from this is the peak-hour express trains that are necessary to accommodate the heavy peak-direction demand into downtown Toronto. I'm curious what your opinion is as to nomenclature.

And I do agree that we will eventually be able to support many different service patterns, I just think that only starts coming into play once the line is extended to at least Windsor/Detroit. As you mentioned, the super-express services in other countries are typically skipping the small and medium cities because they are rushing passengers from one major city to another one hundreds of kilometres away.

 

[mdrejhon]

Figures -- we're Toronto, where Union-Pearson express has 3 stops.

Just make sure the signage is clear, so we don't hop onto the wrong train. When I was on Paris' RER system, they used a "checkboxes" system. A list of all stations down the line, showed up on the screen (non-scrolling, all stations were displayed simultaneously), with checkboxes next to them. You could glance your station's checkbox to see if the train you're boarding, stopped at that station.

If Metrolinx goes to a mixed service system, they need very clear signage like that at all stations, especially Union.

 

[reaperexpress]

Figures -- we're Toronto, where Union-Pearson express has 3 stops.

Don't even get me started on UPX. Leave it to us to only meet the bare minimum requirement for "express" - skipping one station along the way.