Canada announces High Speed Rail

[Acfb]

To get the thread slightly more back on topic, that's interesting considering that Alberta really could gain a lot from a decent rail system.

It's crazy that there isn't passenger rail service between Calgary and Edmonton although I don't know how much push for that there would be. Calgary is a pretty right wing city which is very oil focused.

 

[JonasB]

That is really crazy. You really don't need a fancy high speed train to get reasonable travel times either, a regular 200 km/h train would probably be faster than both driving or flying.

 

[Acfb]

Carney would be mad not to call a snap election. Momentum is with the Liberals, and the ‘Maple Maga’ label on Pollievre is hitting home. He’s too Trumpy.

Another reason is that it heads off the inevitable ‘Governor Carney is an unelected dictator’ jibe from south of the border.

Either way, I don’t imagine high speed rail will be high on the agenda right now.

Carney will announce the election for April 28 today and is standing in the Ottawa Nepean riding.

 

[jamesontheroad]

Carney will announce the election for April 28 today and is standing in the Ottawa Nepean riding.

Prior to the (leaked) announcement, CBC Poll Tracker had the Liberals ahead for the first time yesterday.

This also means Carney will stand for election in a riding adjacent to Conservative leader Pierre Polivierre.

 

[nwales58]

... a regular 200 km/h train would probably be faster than both driving or flying.

40 years ago, LRC was intended to be a 200 km/h train.

 

[Acfb]

Prior to the (leaked) announcement, CBC Poll Tracker had the Liberals ahead for the first time yesterday.

Poll Tracker

If an election were held today, who would win? The CBC News Poll Tracker is your guide to following the polls. Get the latest numbers and analysis on where the political parties stand from Éric Grenier.

newsinteractives.cbc.ca

This also means Carney will stand for election in a riding adjacent to Conservative leader Pierre Polivierre.

Yougov has released their projection for the Canadian election and it predicts the Liberals will get a modest overall majority of about 21 on a 4% lead over the Conservatives. The NDP is also predicted to get by far their worst result ever with only 4 seats although they could salvage a few more seats IMO if they concentrate on the ones they hold that are close in BC and Hamilton Centre etc. I do think Jagmeet Singh will lose his own seat and resign as leader though.

 

[jamesontheroad]

Yougov has released their projection for the Canadian election and it predicts the Liberals will get a modest overall majority of about 21 on a 4% lead over the Conservatives. The NDP is also predicted to get by far their worst result ever with only 4 seats although they could salvage a few more seats IMO if they concentrate on the ones they hold that are close in BC and Hamilton Centre etc. I do think Jagmeet Singh will lose his own seat and resign as leader though.

It has been quite a remarkable election campaign to watch. Carney could not have played it better in terms of strategy. Poilievre has been extremely complacent in handling his new Liberal opponent.

It will be an interesting final few days of campaigning.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Personally I think they should use the existing alignment until around Oshawa. The route is currently 3/4 tracks and could probably made 4 tracks throughout. The linespeed isn't too bad at 80/90mph and freight trains don't rejoin until Pickering. Go Transit are planning electrification out to Oshawa too as well as increased frequency. It should be possible to accommodate both on the existing alignment. Building on a new alignment in the GTA will massively increase costs and not create a particularly fast line anyway.
Unfortunately Canada is probably worse than the UK for building transport infrastructure on time and on budget but it certainly seems to be more willing to build infrastructure than in the UK. There's 3 light rail lines, 1 metro line and 2 metro extensions being built in the GTA alone.

I'm visiting Canada next month (Barrie, 100km north of Toronto), and have been looking at a rail trip into the city on GO Transit.
I discovered that Phil Verster, former CEO of Scotrail and East West Rail and with earlier senior appointments at Network Rail and Irish Rail, has resigned as CEO of GO Transit and Metrolinx, the Ontario government agency delivering regional public transport in the GTA.
Apparently despite successfully managing many of the projects you describe, he was held responsible for the delays to a major rail interchange in Greater Toronto.

 

[Acfb]

It has been quite a remarkable election campaign to watch. Carney could not have played it better in terms of strategy. Poilievre has been extremely complacent in handling his new Liberal opponent.

It will be an interesting final few days of campaigning.

It's been a remarkable election. Conservatives have done better than expected in Ontario as well as getting 41.5% nationally but Poillievre has still managed to lose his Carleton seat.

I have no idea how Canadian politics will continue to play out. Will one more heave work for the Conservatives or will it backfire? Judging by his speech earlier, it looks like Poillievre might even try and continue as leader, maybe engineering a by election in another Conservative seat in Ontario.

 

[jamesontheroad]

It's been a remarkable election. Conservatives have done better than expected in Ontario as well as getting 41.5% nationally but Poillievre has still managed to lose his Carleton seat.

I have no idea how Canadian politics will continue to play out. Will one more heave work for the Conservatives or will it backfire? Judging by his speech earlier, it looks like Poillievre might even try and continue as leader, maybe engineering a by election in another Conservative seat in Ontario.

I slept badly last night (in CET) so popped AirPods in and drifted in and out of sleep listening to CBC Radio coverage. As of this morning, Elections Canada has paused counting for a couple of hours.

Poillievre made his speech long before the count in his riding was complete. As you say, @Acfb, he could be parachuted into a safe seat that someone else has just won, and then force a by-election. But he would need the party to support him. How strange that in his own riding (which he already held) the majority of his own constituents wanted him gone.

 

[Mrwerdna1]

Announced today, though it feels like it’s been talked about for decades already, and I can imagine any incoming government of a different political persuasion cancelling it immediately…

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-announces-high-speed-rail-quebec-toronto-1.7462538

So, as was mentioned counting is still ongoing. However, unless a coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberals is formed, it looks most likely to be a Liberal Government, either with an outright majority, or relying on the support of the NPD (or Bloc Québécois, though that seems unlikely).

In either case, it appears highly likely that these initial plans will go ahead (yay). That's step one. However, given it's a six-year plan, unless they manage to get shovels in the ground somewhere in the next few years ahead of the design and development plan concluding or enter into contractual agreements with private investors that are difficult to walk back on, I don't see how it will survive the next government to be elected somewhere between now and 2029. Projects like these really are a nerve-wrecking affair. Almost seems like you never know if it's actually going to happen until opening day comes.

Hard to predict how Canadian politics may evolve, but I think it's likely the Conservatives will win the next election, albeit perhaps not an outright majority, if the Trump phenomenon still lingers. I would so want to live in a world where public transport was largely apolitical and there was cross-party support for projects like this, I really do, but alas, we don't (yet).

Still, let's hope someday Canadians, everyone from students, families with kids, business leaders, politicians and pensioners, will all be wizzing from Montreal to Toronto at 200mph, comfortably and quietly, with free wifi, all the mod-cons and a train leaving every 20-30 min or so. The talks of cancelling the project, at that point, merely a distant memory...

 

[Cowley]

We’ve gone quite a way off topic for a thread about Canadian high speed rail.
I’ve started a new thread on the election now in general discussion, so anything about that can be discussed here:

Mark Carney wins the Canadian election

I thought it was worth a discussion. The situation in America and Trumps rhetoric over the last few months certainly didn’t seem to help the conservative candidate Pierre Marcel Poilievre. It’ll be interesting watching how things play out with their noisy neighbours, and Carney seems to be...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[DM352]

Talked about in Alberta periodically is the Edmonton to Calgary high speed line. It would be a good alternative to the QE2 highway which is a 2/3 lane dual carriageway but often gets congested with fast lane hoarders doing an elephant race. Calgary has no passenger service except the expensive Rocky Mountaineer to Vancouver that is not fast and most people cannot afford.

I looked on the railmap app and the current freight speed of this Alberta route is 45mph which is like going on the Rugeley Chase line for 300km assuming that did not get upgraded!


I did see the Ontario Toronto Montreal route has sections that are 95mph already (Canada is metric except for the railways apparently) which is higher than the adjacent 110kph highway.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Talked about in Alberta periodically is the Edmonton to Calgary high speed line. It would be a good alternative to the QE2 highway which is a 2/3 lane dual carriageway but often gets congested with fast lane hoarders doing an elephant race. Calgary has no passenger service except the expensive Rocky Mountaineer to Vancouver that is not fast and most people cannot afford.

I looked on the railmap app and the current freight speed of this Alberta route is 45mph which is like going on the Rugeley Chase line for 300km assuming that did not get upgraded!


I did see the Ontario Toronto Montreal route has sections that are 95mph already (Canada is metric except for the railways apparently) which is higher than the adjacent 110kph highway.

Agreed on Edmonton to Calgary. Problem is getting Alberta's government to consider buying it!

 

[Meerkat]

I had skimmed the summary about building HS from Windsor to Quebec City, and how half of Canada’s population lived in this ‘small’ area without really remembering how vast Canada is.
Of course when I thought a bit harder about 1,000km I realised that that is roughly the direct distance from Lands End to John O’Groats, so it’s quite an undertaking! And seems pretty ideal for HS rail if they can get a decent cost v speed compromise (particularly on routes into city centres).
Are they planning on serving current city centres or just a suburban Parkway station with a commuter/LRT link to downtown - is the market downtown to downtown or would Parkways (being more like airports) serving the wider areas be better?

 

[Sorcerer]

Are they planning on serving current city centres or just a suburban Parkway station with a commuter/LRT link to downtown - is the market downtown to downtown or would Parkways (being more like airports) serving the wider areas be better?

I am not quite sure whether it'll be downtown to downtown or parkway to parkway, but high-speed rail is better when the trains are able to run non-stop between city centres, even if it means using existing track to reach them. China's high-speed rail might act like a substitute for domestic air travel with it's stations being outside the city centres, but even then I think it's now expected that it's expanding downtown areas will reach the high-speed rail hubs anyway. A parkway station wouldn't hurt though, especially if it compliments a downtown station rather than replacing it. But even needing a metro connection to the centre is better for the environment than flying.

 

[Mrwerdna1]

Agreed, albeit at least in Montreal, the REM will create great connections across town, including the airport. But still, I think as a rule of thumb, in France and Spain the high-speed stations located within the city centre are more heavily frequented and appreciated by rail users than the parkway stations (for obvious reasons). The whole concept of parkway stations is just heavily car-centric and not fit for the 21st century.

Also, as cool as Shinkansen is and I certainly marvelled at many things when visiting Japan last winter, stations like Shin-Osaka are much less convenient than they could be, given you have to take the metro or local rail to get into the centre. In contrast, hopping on the train in Tokyo at one of the several stations downtown was a breeze. I still marvel at how quickly you can get from street level to the train, it's such an efficient process. Neither Spanish or Chinese high-speed rail can compete with that aspect, given the station design, location and security checks all lead to much longer waits and walks, still granting that those are both very impressive systems in their own right.

I just think, despite the higher upfront cost, city centre stations are the way to go.

 

[Austriantrain]

I just think, despite the higher upfront cost, city centre stations are the way to go.

In (Continental) Europe certainly. It might be a bit different in car-centric North America, especially where inner cities are not so attractive and public Transport is poor.

 

[Mrwerdna1]

But why reenforce bad habits? Many North American cities (Montreal included) are painstakingly trying to undo part of that legacy. And whilst unlikely to succeed in the near future, every little helps. Montreal and Toronto in particular, through the creation of high-quality regional public transport (REM in Montreal, Go Expansion in GTA) are now finally on track to shifting modal use, even if only gradually. If the planners do opt for parkway stations, which I do not believe is sensible, then at least they should take a leaf out of Japan's book and heavily encourage (i.e. mandate) transit oriented development around those stations, so that new urban areas or neighbourhoods of existing cities can be created that are from their inception planned around high density, walkability and high quality public transport access. It doesn't just make sense from an urbanist point of view, but if pulled off right, can even act as a funding stream for either the regional transit authorities or private operators (if they opt for a privatised operator model).

 

[Brubulus]

Agreed, albeit at least in Montreal, the REM will create great connections across town, including the airport. But still, I think as a rule of thumb, in France and Spain the high-speed stations located within the city centre are more heavily frequented and appreciated by rail users than the parkway stations (for obvious reasons). The whole concept of parkway stations is just heavily car-centric and not fit for the 21st century.

Also, as cool as Shinkansen is and I certainly marvelled at many things when visiting Japan last winter, stations like Shin-Osaka are much less convenient than they could be, given you have to take the metro or local rail to get into the centre. In contrast, hopping on the train in Tokyo at one of the several stations downtown was a breeze. I still marvel at how quickly you can get from street level to the train, it's such an efficient process. Neither Spanish or Chinese high-speed rail can compete with that aspect, given the station design, location and security checks all lead to much longer waits and walks, still granting that those are both very impressive systems in their own right.

I just think, despite the higher upfront cost, city centre stations are the way to go.

The best option is using conventional lines to access town and city centres, with high-speed running in between, the journey time penalty is small and the cost benefits are huge, especially when infrastructure isn't already at capacity. The reason Japan does things that way is due to capacity constraints and the break of gauge.

 

[NCT]

Canadian cities are less car centric than their US cousins. Much of Toronto is TTC land, and Go trains are increasing service levels to 4tph on most lines. The Metro and REM cover the lion's share of Montreal. An Equivalent of Milano Centrale - Rodorego - Roma Tiburtina - Roma Termini should work well for Toronto - Montreal.

 

[Mrwerdna1]

The best option is using conventional lines to access town and city centres, with high-speed running in between, the journey time penalty is small and the cost benefits are huge, especially when infrastructure isn't already at capacity. The reason Japan does things that way is due to capacity constraints and the break of gauge.

Yeah that's a good compromise. Mind you, in an ideal world, you would create a completely grade-separated system like in Japan. I don't think it is possible to achieve either the frequency or punctuality of that system any other way. But Canada is light-years away from the situation in Japan anyway, so might as well start somewhere. Also, the model you describe is partially employed in France and Italy, to great effect. In Spain, AVE tracks were sometimes added to existing rail-corridors, which was very cost effective. Germany too, of course, has fully mixed traffic corridors, though that is a cautionary tale as to what can happen if high-speed trains are frequently mixed with other rail traffic. The German mixed-traffic model has some serious issues, yikes.

Anyhow, I think parkway stations, such as for instance the model planned for the LA - Las Vegas high speed rail line (with Rancho Cucamonga on the outskirts of L.A. and the not very conveniently located Las Vegas terminal) is not a good model for Canada. Particularly not, as you can quite easily imagine, both in Montreal and Toronto, high-speed rail trains sharing tracks in urban areas with the mainline for just a short while, whilst otherwise travelling grade-separated, i.e. 98% of the way. Other option would be to place new tracks for HSR onto existing rail corridors, which would be more cost-effective than creating a new route alignment from scratch. And like I said, public transport options are rapidly being expanded in both cities. Come around the opening date of a potential HSR line, there is likely to be a network of high-frequency rail & metro lines in both Toronto and Montreal to act as feeder routes. No need for a car there. More problematic is the case of smaller towns and cities on the way. But nothing a little renewed political will couldn't change over the course of 1-2 decades, say...

 

[Brubulus]

Yeah that's a good compromise. Mind you, in an ideal world, you would create a completely grade-separated system like in Japan. I don't think it is possible to achieve either the frequency or punctuality of that system any other way. But Canada is light-years away from the situation in Japan anyway, so might as well start somewhere. Also, the model you describe is partially employed in France, Italy and Spain. Germany too, of course, though that is a cautionary tale as to what can happen if high-speed trains are frequently mixed with other rail traffic. The German mixed-traffic model has some serious issues, yikes.

Anyhow, I think parkway stations, such as for instance the model planned for the LA - Las Vegas high speed rail line (with Rancho Cucamonga on the outskirts of L.A. and the not very conveniently located Las Vegas terminal) is not a good model for Canada. Particularly not, as you can quite easily imagine, both in Montreal and Toronto, high-speed rail trains sharing tracks in urban areas with the mainline for a shirt while, whilst otherwise travelling grade-separated, i.e. 98% of the way. And like I said, public transport options are rapidly being expanded in both cities. Come around the opening date of a potential HSR line, there is likely to be a network of high-frequency rail & metro lines in both Toronto and Montreal to act as feeder routes. No need for a car there. More problematic is the case of smaller towns and cities on the way. But nothing a little renewed political will couldn't change over the course of 1-2 decades...

I suspect they'll follow the French/Spanish model of existing central station, newbuild parkway, a couple of underutilised political stations followed by another parkway then existing central station. GO transit in Toronto is getting electrified anyway so piggybacking off that is likely especially given the limited frequencies, more than 2tph is unlikely.

 

[Sorcerer]

I think that it's very likely they'll use the French model of using an existing station running on classic lines into the city centre given that this project will likely have French influence and consultancy. Much like how California High Speed Rail will use Caltrain tracks to run into San Francisco, or perhaps more appropriately how Al Boraq in Morocco runs along the classic lines into central stations. I think Parkway stations can have a purpose, especially with a connection to the airport, but I wouldn't say it's essential to have one.

Spain and Japan have different track gauges between the classic and high-speed lines (though with Spain there is gauge-changing technology) which is why they usually run all the way into the cities on those dedicated tracks. The only standard gauge high-speed lines that are grade-separated at terminus stations are China's high speed rail, which again is more akin to a domestic air travel substitute and uses the Parkway station model, and HS1 and HS2 that run on dedicated lines simply because of the lack of capacity on existing routes (hence their construction in the first place).

 

[AlastairFraser]

I think that it's very likely they'll use the French model of using an existing station running on classic lines into the city centre given that this project will likely have French influence and consultancy. Much like how California High Speed Rail will use Caltrain tracks to run into San Francisco, or perhaps more appropriately how Al Boraq in Morocco runs along the classic lines into central stations. I think Parkway stations can have a purpose, especially with a connection to the airport, but I wouldn't say it's essential to have one.

Spain and Japan have different track gauges between the classic and high-speed lines (though with Spain there is gauge-changing technology) which is why they usually run all the way into the cities on those dedicated tracks. The only standard gauge high-speed lines that are grade-separated at terminus stations are China's high speed rail, which again is more akin to a domestic air travel substitute and uses the Parkway station model, and HS1 and HS2 that run on dedicated lines simply because of the lack of capacity on existing routes (hence their construction in the first place).

I think a couple of parkway stations at the Toronto end would be useful, due to the sprawl of the Greater Toronto area. One could have an interchange with a Go station to make it easier (I'd also target a direct connection to Pearson Airport if there was any future westward HSR towards Hamilton/London/Detroit).

 

[Grimsby town]

I think a couple of parkway stations at the Toronto end would be useful, due to the sprawl of the Greater Toronto area. One could have an interchange with a Go station to make it easier (I'd also target a direct connection to Pearson Airport if there was any future westward HSR towards Hamilton/London/Detroit).

The Greater Toronto Area is polycentric too so there's the option of having multiple start/end points for highspeed rail. As I mentioned previously in the thread, my preferred option would be running in Toronto Union station on the existing Go owned tracks, with a stop at Oshawa for interchange to Go. If capacity becomes an issue then building a dedicated line running along the highway 407 or tunneled line could potentially serve places like North York, Toronto Pearson and Mississauge, either directly or through interchanges with rapid transit.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The Greater Toronto Area is polycentric too so there's the option of having multiple start/end points for highspeed rail. As I mentioned previously in the thread, my preferred option would be running in Toronto Union station on the existing Go owned tracks, with a stop at Oshawa for interchange to Go. If capacity becomes an issue then building a dedicated line running along the highway 407 or tunneled line could potentially serve places like North York, Toronto Pearson and Mississauge, either directly or through interchanges with rapid transit.

Perhaps Oshawa would be good initially.
If you were going to build along Highway 407 as a new alignment, then a station connected to Unionville Go in Markham and one connected to Oriole GO/Leslie TTC in North York seem like the best idea.

 

[Grimsby town]

Perhaps Oshawa would be good initially.
If you were going to build along Highway 407 as a new alignment, then a station connected to Unionville Go in Markham and one connected to Oriole GO/Leslie TTC in North York seem like the best idea.

Unionville would definitely be a sensible place for a station. I was there a couple on months ago and there's a significant high density development under construction/complete with a lot more planned. Its got good Go train and bus connections and is the mid point of the Purple A BRT route.