The Plan To Bring High Speed Rail to the Corridor - Alstom's Proposal for High Frequency Rail (HFR)
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 01. 2023
- While the procurement for High Frequency Rail (HFR) continues, there is a lot that remains unknown about what the future of passenger rail will be like in the Corridor. Alstom decided to go public with their vision of this future.
Instead of opting for the current design goal of 200km/h tracks and service, Alstom believe that High Speed Rail (HSR) with maximum speeds of 300km/h might be the better solution to increase ridership and the modal share of passenger rail.
Join us as we go over their plan and what the future could look like.
Huge thanks to High Speed Rail Canada for releasing the presentation deck and maps used throughout the video.
www.highspeedrailcanada.com/2...
Bruno Marchand en faveur du TGV (La Presse)
www.lapresse.ca/actualites/20...
Alstom propose à nouveau un TGV entre Québec et Toronto (Journal de Montréal)
www.journaldemontreal.com/202...
Le projet de TGV mérite d’être étudié, estime Plante
journalmetro.com/actualites/2...
Video by David Bellerive (@dbellerive15).
---------------
SUPPORT RAIL FANS CANADA - SOUTENEZ RAIL FANS CANADA: www.railfans.ca/support
---------------
Subscribe to our channel: www.railfans.ca/youtube
Join our Discord: www.railfans.ca/discord
---------------
Follow us Twitter (X): / railfanscanada
Instagram: www.instagram.railfans.ca
Threads: threads.railfans.ca
Time to build
Just as Brightline is already starting to build HSR from Los Angeles to Los Vegas.
this is AWESOME although I do hope the idea is to eventually upgrade the 144 kmph parts of the alignment to at least 200 kmph if not more at some point.
As part of HFR, there is (at least) plans to improve speed along the Corridor up to 200km/h. This, for now, can only be done on dedicated tracks as freight traffic is a big part of why speeds are lower (traffic, track conditions and grading).
We do believe that, no matter the chosen option in the end, improving passenger rail in the Corridor is primordial to create a modal shift and a more sustainable transport network than flying or driving. -David
@@RailFansCanada what I meant is that it seems that the proposal, based on 1:14, is to initially have sections of track from Toronto to Peterborough section that have a top speed of 144 kmph and I hope that over time they upgrade those low speed sections for higher speeds.
Ah I see! In that case it’s mostly because it is a CP and Metrolinx alignment that would be shared. The likelihood of them being upgrade further is far less likely saddly.
Oooohhh myyyy, I paid attention to the timeline and they are taking soooo loooong just to plan!!! 3-5 years after deciding on the private partner to develop plans? Construction wouldn't start until 2028, so it wouldn't be commisioned until at least 2035... Canada has a habit of studying non-road projects for so long that by the time they're built, they're already outdated. Made me sad, even though it's such a positive video lol
The whole timeline for HFR is far from enthusiastic, that's for sure. We'd hope that it can be accelerated, but given that the RFQ was supposed to be launched in January now says "Q1 2023" is not really the momentum we like to see.
This is a long time to wait for a new train line. Plus it doesn't go through populated areas. If you are using the Canadian Pacific route, use the North Toronto station.
@@trainglen22 The Canadian Pacific and CN are private owner. The won't sell one single tie of that rail.
@@clarification007 They only care about profit, their greedy owners don't care much about the environment. If they did they would electrified cargo routes.
Following the Americans over the cliff of absurd delay. Dithering seems to be the battle cry of rail planning in both Canada and the US. Sad.
When we arrived from China in 2019 (lucky, I know), we thought the west was way ahead of us in terms of trains. We were wrong😅
But I do hope for the best for Canada. Loved living here because of how laid back it is.
"The west" is made of many different countries across continents. Passenger rails in Canada indeed is no way near the level in China or many European countries...
I really think they should go all in !
And hope that Alstom also proposed a full speed alternative.
What I'm referring to is building a line based on the French / Spanish model (also known as the "parallel" model, in reference to the parallel layout in electrical circuitry) :
An uninterrupted high-speed line from Toronto's outskirts to Quebec City's outskirts, bypassing every city center in between, just "grazing" the intermediate cities.
That, plus either dedicated high-speed branches or simple "connector spurs" to access the legacy network and serve downtown stations and you have an extremely efficient, high capacity, high frequency network / line.
This would greatly slash travel times and increase capacity even more, offering a variety of services from ones calling at all stations to direct nonstop ones.
That way you can offer certain classes of service that would only be successful on major city pairs and with the shortest possible journey times.
France and Spain also rely on a number of secondary out-of-town "on-line" stations where trains bound for a farther destination could make a short stop without loosing too much time. (There are at least 4 tracks in these stations, 2 inner ones where nonstop trains run through without slowing and 2 or more outer tracks where trains stop that are of varying lengths depending on your frequency needs).
Even Madrid and Paris are bypassed by some trains.
Many cities have both a central station and a "TGV" or "AVE" station and they are both served by high-speed trains.
You can have a look on Google Maps sat view for CDG airport or Disneyland Resort Paris, they both are located on Paris' Eastern high-speed bypass or Lyon Saint Exupery airport located on Lyon's Eastern high-speed bypass. They all have through running underground stations where trains can stop or bypass each other at high-speed.
There's also Avignon TGV station, a perfect example of "on-line" station on the outskirts of the city where trains can stop or run through at full speed.
Or a major destination like Montpellier on the Mediterranean coast that has both a central and a high-speed out-of-town on-line station.
Canada's Eastern corridor would be perfect for that and the economic boost would be massive !
On such a setup, you can easily have trains every 4 minutes each way and none of them blocking any other.
These types of networks are also perfect for multiple levels of service from dirt cheap low-cost to full service premium. The flexibility and capacity of such a layout permit everything.
And frankly, it's much better than Acela !
If Canada really wants higher frequency and capacity, they have to go for the parallel model or their network will have the same problems as the German network currently has : delays and bottlenecks.
This Canadian "Eastern backbone" high-speed line could be massively successful, but they have to do it properly.
I feel like the Japan Tohoku Shinkansen model would fit best for this corridor, especially since the technology is proven in harsh winters and is profitable even with lower passenger volumes, but I'll take anything at this point!
If federal transportation minister and Alberta and BC transportation ministers should look into it for Edmonton- Calgary-Vancouver passenger rail corridor. Plus intra province passenger rail corridors connecting all Alberta and BC cities.
Alstom trains are used by SNCF for their 2 main high-speed services : InOui, the regular operator. And OuiGo, the low-cost operator in both France and Spain and they are profitable with tickets starting at the dirt cheap price of less than 10 euros !
The Alstom lineup also offers every kind of adaptations to weather conditions, from "winterized" versions to "summerized" or desert and dust configuration. Or both.
They run in the high, narrow and freezing corridors of the Alps and the near desertic coast of Morocco bordering the Sahara.
So all your concerns, from profitability to weather conditions are addressed.
Plus, keep in mind that Shinkansen trains, although being excellent trains, never run on legacy tracks and exclusively on dedicated high-speed lines without any mixed traffic whereas Alstom HST's (and most other European manufacturers' for that matter) offer trains compatible with a wide variety of power types, voltages and frequencies to run on various legacy tracks.
Like the TGV's Thalys PBKA (Paris Brussels Koln Amsterdam) that is "quadricurrent", capable of supporting the power setup of 4 different countries high-speed lines.
Alstom is also the only one offering full speed and "all terrain" double decker high-speed trains if the capacity is required (which you think is needed between Toronto and Montreal). This one's not pendular though.
There's also the issue of local manufacturing : Alstom has factories capable of building these trains on location.
It's by far the ideal candidate.
Meanwhile in the late 1860s Canada and USA laid thousands of miles of track in just three years. Takes decades now to decide where to put it.
One should ask the commuters in Ottawa if the same company who's wheel bearings keep failing & closing down their LRT should be allowed to bid on this project.
Which company manufactured the trains in Ottawa that you are referring to?
@@RailFansCanada Alstom and the Avelia's are having similar issues, buy Siemens Velaros instead.
I like the idea of a "Gare du Nord" in Montréal. Even if not at Edouard-Montpetit, as long as there's a connection to the metro somewhere.
The station in Ottawa is not downtown, so an outlying station is not something new.
@@annoyed707 and the suburban station in Ottawa is an inconvenience. Ottawa made a mistake by removing rail service to the heart of the city, one of the main advantages of trains. When you arrive in “Ottawa,” you have to transfer to the local rail system to access the inner city; until recently, there wasn’t even this, only buses. A Montreal Gare du Nord would likewise be far less convenient than a station with direct downtown integration and between the orange and green lines, which is what we use now. It’s problematic enough that the Quebec City station requires you to walk with your luggage several blocks through the snow to get to the tramway; the Gare du Nord would make three cities in a row with inconvenient transit connections.
Merci David. C'est une vidéo intéressante et instructive. / Thank you David. It's an interesting and informative video.
I’ve been waiting for you to post a video on this - thanks! Strangely, beyond Yakabuski’s G&M op-ed today, the Alstom proposal has gotten absolutely no attention in English-language media (par rapport aux médias francophones où le sujet est couvert partout sur Radio-Canada, La Presse, TVA, QUB réseau, etc.)
But ☝, we need a french version of this video for Quebec who are highly concern on the project.👍👍👍👍👍 ...Thanks.
The best choice is always to serve main stations with high speed rail, especially if they are origin or destination of a big number of trains. Build a Montreal North station is a wrong choice although is the cheaper one. A better solution, instead, is to build another Mount Royale tunnel for high speed trains. Is fundamental for high speed service to serve the main station on bigger hubs where rapid transits and commuter trains can feed with passenger from the entire city and neighborhoods.
Butt, a lot more $$$$$$$ Millions more! But also the HST won't go faster the +/- 150Kmh in a tunnel. So, I don't agree with d1234as for that case.
@@clarification007 yes, but is mandatory to serve main railway hub. It's not important that speed in urban penetration is 250/300 km/h, but it's more important to reach the central station (Montreal Central, in this case). Forget Japanese high speed model, the Canadian system is more similar to European one, Canada has standard gauge rail system and the only lacking thing in urban penetrations is electrification. Japan has mainly small gauge network instead of standard gauge and there's no interoperability between Shinkansen and standard lines.
There's no reason to have high speed rail approach to main station, is only a "nice to have" that can be built after. The initial necessities are to build high speed lines outside the cities and electrifying urban section to reach the main stations of main destinations: Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa and Quebec City main station must be reached from high speed trains; instead smaller cities and town can be served also from small dedicated stations in the suburbs if the existent railway stations are not easy to be reached from high speed line.
High-speed trains can perfectly run at 300, 320kph or more in tunnels. You just have to build a piston effect mitigation entry or relief ducts.
That has been done for years and it works well.
If trains were limited to such low speeds in tunnels, the European networks, especially the French and Spanish ones would come to a standstill... But they run full speed in many tunnels without shattering windows all around.
Vraiment chouette to ave i-speed !
Thumbs up for this project. 🙂👍
Thank you! Cheers!
@@RailFansCanada de rien
I have two alternative suggestions: Build a new railway in the median and in some areas beside the 401. Also replace the very old Canadian train sets with new ones, so travel between Vancouver and Toronto is done on a modern train.
Travel need to return Vancouver-Montréal. One shoudl not repeat the huge mistkaked of 1989 to cut transcontinental trains.
Canada needs to prioritise connecting as many cities to hsr lines as possible, even if it means they’re all detached at first. This means completing a line from Ottawa-Gatineau to Montreal, or a line from Kitchener or Hamilton to Oshawa via Toronto
Yes it is the right time to get that project started.
I think the Ontario and Quebec should be owner of that HSR not Via Rail!
Why not? Via Rail got enough to get the HFR in all Canada on the tracks.
Since many years Ottawa and Via Rail stop any talk on the HSR, in fact, they slowdown passengers rail transport to long in Canada.
Unfortunately it looks like the government is going to let it be privately run, not owned by the governments/VIA at all. And while Via has decimated rail service in Canada, it's not exactly their fault; more the government's for constantly decreasing their budget so they couldn't operate services
To stay future proof most of the track outside of cities should operate at least at 250 km/h
VIA and Alstom should always work together
Well that's a disaster waiting to happen alstom rolling stock has been plagued with issues for decades the HHP-8, Aveilia Liberty, PRASA X'trapolis, Dutch Coradias, Citadel LRVs and various other alstom products have been real headaches
@@IndustrialParrot2816 Hmm i never knew that
They have been talking about high speed rail in Canada since the 70s when Transport2000 was lobbying for it.
What stopped it? The 70s had an oil crisis and Europe took real action and North America just waited it out rather than being innovative.
Canada had the Turbo Train in the 1970s which was able to reach speeds of 246 Km/hr but it was taken out of service by Via Rail in 1982 and then all of them were scrapped in 1984 .
@@pbilk The Canada of the 70's was a very different landscape demographically compared to today. As noted, the Turbo Trains were forced to share rickety freight trackage with thousands of level crossings. The wigwags were not even down by the time the train was past, accidents were frequent. Remember 1970's were barely a decade post-steam locomotive here.
Just get something built - even if ita not perfect. This plan sounds fine enough to me. You can always add later, but if we keep waiting for the perfect plan at the perfect time for the perfect cost nothing will ever happen
Where did you hear about the "Gare du Nord" idea? The map you show seems like it's going to Lucien L'Allier.
The map was the one included in their presentation in November, however Alstom Canada VP of Public Relations made a statement in an interview last week more inline with a Gare du Nord (Article is in french). journalmetro.com/actualites/2991560/tgv-montreal-a-un-role-a-jouer-dans-le-projet-selon-alstom/
Our guess is that they might have a stop a Lucien L'Allier (I know some on forums have suggested "reviving" the old Windsor station, but it might be stretch given the presence of the Centre Bell, or to tunnel up to Gare Centrale) and a more "regional" stop as that Gare du Nord, likely around Gare Parc or somewhere around there. Though for speed sake, Lucien L'Allier is still a "detour" on the routing. -David
Ah, got it. Thanks for the information!
This is nice, and makes sense to follow the development model of SNCF, but it's basically corporate marketing for a multi billion dollar project. Not sure what will actually move the needle for federal investment and breaking ground in QC. Also, did they talk about actually how and where the new passenger only tracks would go? Any real surprises?
Given the procurement model for HFR, a lot of it is left to the private partner, so we don't exactly know. However, from the HFR maps shown by the government, we expect they will rely on mostly abandoned or branch lines. The more "surprising" parts are really the plans for Toronto and Montreal as there is very little space to add additional tracks, and will most likely rely on shared track access with CN/CP/Metrolinx.
Alstom's proposal seems to rely on the CP Trois-Rivieres branch (between Quebec City and Laval, for the most part on new tracks that might be profiled slightly differently to allow higher speeds), the CP Park, Adirondack subdivision (from Laval to Dorval), CP Vaudreuil and CP Winchester (to leave Montreal), and then along the existing VIA tracks (former CN Alexandria subdivision).
Beyond Ottawa, it would rely on existing VIA tracks to Smiths Falls, then the Belleville subdivision up to a certain point. From that point onward, it would most likely be new tracks to Peterborough, following a similar alignment to the Trans Canada Trail.
Once in Peterborough, it will likely follow the CP Havelock and Bellevile subdivisions to the Don Valley, where it would then proceed on Metrolinx Don and Bala Branch.
We expect most HFR proposals to follow a very similar alignment. The potential differences are likely going to be in the speed grade of new and upgraded tracks, but also the approach to "the Montreal problem". -David
@@RailFansCanada VIA owns CP M&O line according to signs on the trail. A lot of crossings, but good enough for HFR.
High-speed service in Canada will never be a reality. Canada is an underdeveloped country with many financial resources but a stagnant mentality in the past and it does not have a vision of the future. In Canada, nothing ever changes .
Every stop on a HSR line and intersecting large cities slows the average speed down considerbly. Better to skirt cites and building stations near airports than build under central business districts and tie HSR with the local rail network with a spur... You don't lose overall time doing so. The fewer the stops, the faster the train. Don't turn HSR into a gold plated local rail network, you would be better off if you have too many stops to build HFR...
The train has to go to the people. People will not go to the train. When Canada was expanfing yes the people went to the train. But now that the country is lack of a better term established the train has to go to the people. Bypassing CBDs is a recipe for failure. It's job is to link cities in the foreground not in the background.
Second comment unrelated: You should do a video on the passenger rail developments going on in Alberta! Specifically the Calgary-Banff proposal and the Calgary-Edmonton HSR proposal (NOT the hyper loop one), both of which have MOUs with either/both the CIB or/and Govt of Alberta. Curious as to why Via is willing to expand HFR/HSR along the Laurentian route and not Calgary Edmonton (the other of only two corridors in Canada where’s there’s a solid business case for it). Seems odd that the West, even in high traffic corridors, has to rely purely on the private sector and provincial govt and doesn’t get support from Via. I’m assuming the reasoning is political (ie Albertans don’t typically vote liberal), but if there’s actual technical or business case reasons I’d be interested in a deep dive from la gang! (I get that Toronto-Quebec is interprovincial but the line stops within both provinces at other cities and also Via used to operate Calgary-Edmonton then stopped - if the private sector sees a potential return for building, why doesn’t Via which in theory is not purely motivated by profit as a crown corp?)
Since the beginning mention of the HSR mention in Canada the most favorable place to start a project of this size, is where the high population are, Quebec and Ontario.
There no mention of VIA Rail on this project. The HSR could be paid from Ontario and Quebec as owner. While the HFR could be with ideal for year with VIA.
VIA is very busy enough with all Canada.
The Toronto-Quebec HSR corridor will cover more then 65% of Canada’s population, how can you possibly bring politics into a crown corporation?
Maybe more attention needs to be paid towards local and provincial governments who are swindled by O&G lobbyists? Calgary barely has one functioning LRT system which is surrounded by SFH and parking lots.
Ok is worth it
The way I interpreted the map for Montréal is that it would use the CP alignment from St-Martin JCT to Park then Outremont Sub then Adirondak sub to Montréal Ouest, then Vedom and the shack over Lucien l'allier metro.
Montréal Ottawa would be CP tracks from Lucien l'allier to Dorion, then Winchester to de Beaujeu and VOA's Alexandria sub to Ottawa. Montreal to Toronto would leave Lucien l'Allier on CP to Dorion and continue on Winchester to Smith Falls and then on the windy right of way to peterborough, assuming they can buy all the house/buildings that are now in the way since CP abandoned the right of way ages ago.
Now, with CP's only reason to have stopped plans to abandon Québec being the port of Montréal, there is no way they will allow frequent and electrified trains betwen Parc and Montreal West, and certaintly not between Lachine and Smith Falls. The couple of freight trains left between Québec and Ontario are just double stacked container PSR log and slow trains.
The fact that they are pitching the downgraded US version of Avelia shows they do not take this project seriously. The loss of Central Station because the REM destroyed the Mont Royal tunnel is the big elephant nobody talks about and unless the governnent is willing to build a second tunnel (which could emerge at Parc and thus avoid the CP freight line at Outremont/Adirondak) then nothing will ever happen. Stopping trains at Lucien l'Allier is not realistic since what is left of the tracks doesn't have enough platforms to add services and this certaitly woudln't be a premium service when there is no station to speka of and platforms that are open to sky/precipitation. In destroying Windsor Station, CP made very sure there was no future for trains there, and would still prefer to sell the right of way from Luciel l,allier to Vendome to real estate developpers.
That Alsom PDF is a very sad joke because it shows obody is taking this project seriously. It is just a powewrpoimt that looks good to politcians who don't even realize what route it would take through Montréal.
A map would help yo understand what you are talking about!
@@clarification007 I was refering to the map prvide in the alstom proposal for HFR. It uses CP tracks from St-Thérèse down to Parc, along Jean Talion, down to Montreal West and to Lucier l'allier. And to Ottawa, uses CP tracks from Luvier l'allier to Dorval to Dorion and CP winchester to Smith Falls.
Considering they found 100-year old explosives left in the tunnel and considerable corrosion that required rebuilding the thing at McGill...I am not so sure the REM "destroyed" the Mont Royal Tunnel. The thing seems to have needed quite a lot of maintenance--including, uh, EOD techs--I think that running Exo commuter trains through the thing would have ended badly at some point.
@@andrewweitzman4006 At McGill, there is no tunnel since it is cut/cover operation. So he state of tunnel there is irrelevant. And between just south of Ste Catherine (where actual tunnel begins) and the McGill station is a very short stretch of actual tunnel. Remember that the tunnel was check and fixed up during the 1995 rebuild. The explosives this is a nice story for media but is an excuse. They would not have inserted explosives beyond the space that was to be dug, so when they enlarged the cavern for Édouard Montpetit, they wouldn't have encountered stuff beyond the original tunnel holes.
REM sold the project as an easy and fast to do. Once it was too late to stop, then they have to find excuses to admit to reality that it would take longer and cost a lot more. And they also shifted worked to the shoulth shore and found excuses to delay deux Montagnes, west island leg and the airport one. At one point CDPQ blamed tunnel problems on steam engines running through tunnel. No steam engine ran through tunnel, it was always electric, and the trains that went beyond what is now Grand Moulins switched to steam there. (trains went to Hawkesbury to the west, St-Sauveur and St-Rémi to the north, as well as St-Thérère and St-Jérome. When a project uses false PR to explain problems, they are being dishonest.
Alstrom was the manufacturer of Ottawa's fantastic LRT!
Why do you think the trains don't work Alstom hasn't produced any trains for Amtrak that haven't been plagued with issues the HHP-8 and Aveilia Liberty have both had many issues and the original acelas had to be taken out of service multiple times because of how many issues they had not to mention when Amtrak was looking for a replacement for the GG1 in the 1970s the French CC class was nearly unusable but the Swedish RC-4 was very successful and became the AEM-7
The problem of the LRT is that Ottawa’s LRT got upgraded into a light metro like service similar to the Vancouver Skytrain and Montreal REM, but with curves and segments built for tram vehicles. Running frequent and faster tram derived vehicles with some modifications to do metro like service will go into the same issues we see.
Seeing that Toronto will use the same vehicles on Line 6 Finch West, it will have less of a problem with the type of service it will be doing and Ottawa not meddling with the designs.
Anybody know how much VIA Rail have to pay CN and/or CP to use their rail on a yearly basis?
I'm very curious to know that?
I do not believe this is a public figure, however it has been for VIA a considerable preoccupation at each time the current agreement was to expire. For HFR, the plan is to outright acquire the needed corridors, and as such, not require a capacity agreement with the freight operators. -David
The last forum I read on exo St- Jérôme, someone said legal rights to "track" stay with CP. France keeps track split from operations too.
what about the many other cities along the corridor? are we just going to abandon them entirely so that Peterborough can have high speed rail? I think tat a dedicated line is needed but abandoning the rest of the system and leaving people between oshawa and dorval without a high speed network doesn't make much sense. Peterborough would definitely benefit from having a rail line connecting them to toronto or ottawa but if that is the goal then maybe have something like a go transit line that goes here and focus on upgrading the kingston subdivision. though im not a planner or someone who knows a lot about this stuff thats just my opinion and I would like to see the whole corridor benefit thats all.
As we somewhat cover in the video, a lot of details will be left to the private partner and government.
For what we know; there is a requirement for service to continue along the exisiting corridor, possibly with service increases. The original VIA proposal did include improvements there; in addition to the new alignment. Details are few and thin, so we are pretty much waiting to see more, either through the RFP (if the documents get released) or once a private partner is selected. -David
electrified hsr for canada is a great idea, however, there will be a ton of backlash im sure...
Why ? It's not like they're destroying stuff in the middle of cities, most of the big works would happen in fields
@@booketoiles1600 there are a lot of car lover's that will hate this. They will pretend to be worried about the environment even though the rails exist, and also it's better than cars. They will also say the taxes will rise although I doubt it.
Via rail should have coloured lines like a metro
but high speed operation would mean full electrification, is that possible?
From the numerous studies done over the years, nothing would indicate that it is not possible to achieve. I also doubt we’d see any non-electric high speed rolling stock adaptable for the North American market. As it stands, the plan for HFR would have AT LEAST 90% of the network electrified. -David
@@RailFansCanada I‘d just heard somewhere that some segments can’t be electrified because of the cargo companies. I don’t reall know a lot about privately owned rail infrastructure tho, I’m from Europe.
The current system that VIA Rail operates is almost exclusively on freight lines owned and operated by CN and CP Rail. The HFR/HSR plan calls for new dedicated passenger rail infrastructure, that only VIA would use. On these new sections, the track could be electrified but on any shared section, that could be more complicated due to the shared operation and the owner of the track not being VIA. There isn't really an exact answer at the moment as a lot will come down to what proponents of the project propose as their solution. - Shane
Problem with bringing higher speeds on only parts of the network is that it's more difficult to justify buying expensive high-speed trains if they can only operate at this speed for a fraction of their trips. It's like buying a very expensive car that can go up to 130km/h when you're driving in town with much lower speed limits 80% of the time, is it really worth the additional cost ? (in that case only really expensive cars would be able to be that fast).
It may be more interesting to have a continuous dedicated corridor at 200-250km/h for most of the benefits without the full cost of "full" HSR, making the line more reliable and free more capacity from the beginning (as opposed to fighting with freight and local trains to get more)
High speed trains aren't that expensive though, the expensive part really is building good tracks with wide turns and the land costs oh and also electrification.
It's not like a metro where there's hundreds of wagons, an intercity line has just tens of trains
I'm advocating for a continuous dedicated corridor at 320-360kph.
Since you're going also for the continuous line, why not go for the full speed ?
2 European countries have chosen the "parallel" model of uninterrupted lines and branches to city centers plus on-line full speed through running stations and it works great, offering the best capacity, speeds, reliability, frequency and service.
They're also they only ones really capable of offering both dirt cheap low-cost and premium services with really short journey times.
So maybe there's a good example to follow there.
Should have been done decades ago.
God I hope the government goes for proper high speed rail!
Would make sense if it included Kingston and Belleville Ontario.
RM Transit's little brother?
Something totally separate from RM Transit. We are primarily a website platform that has a CZcams channel. www.railfans.ca
Oh I see. Ok~
Poor Kingston. Being left behind again
Existing services along the existing Corridor would continue, and we hope that some improvements to service can still be done to improve the passenger experience and travel times. Sadly, a lot of it is tied up in the willingness and cooperation from the track owners (CN and CP around Kingston). Historically, that collaboration has been very limited.
@@RailFansCanada they would continue but Kingston would be completely bypassed with the new HSR. traffic going to and from Kingston would essentially be just university students and seasonal. All that could really be done is to improve the tracks to maybe triple track and give via rail the right of way but even then would it be worth it? No way CN budges on that
Kingston is not worth a stop with only 132,000 of population. The HFT would be perfect.
Very funny video. If we didn't know better you would swear this was a real plan. True Canadian knowhow ! Think of it but do nothing, 63 years and counting and when you know that CPR also ran it's last steam engine 63 years ago tells you a lot as to where this idea is going. Still, a very humorous video.
But highly serious compare with all empty informations so far!
@@clarification007 It's just a case of 'History repeating' as in Propellerheads with the great Miss Shirley Bassey.
NOTHING will be done for high speed rail in Canada until political graft and kickbacks have been agreed upon regarding this project.
Only then might we see some progress on this front.
The best owner for this High Speed Train project, should be Ontario and Quebec Gouvernements with private investments.
Transport Canada's position have to be fair to all Canada and that doesn't help to get the HSR fast on the track for all Canada. In fact, Canada is to large for an HSR for now.
If it's not engineered for 140mph+ along with eventual overhead power supply then it's not worth doing. You can always begin service with diesel traction at 110mph to 125mph with a view to future updates that have already been engineered for.
Diesel? Over and out in the XXl Century.
While ambitious, the upscaling from the original HFR project to an HSR-type of modernized passenger rail as proposed by Alstom would involve a huge increase in construction costs along with a duplication of both HFR and HSR types trains.
As evidenced in the past 30 or more years, HSR proposals would, in all likelihood, simply not be endorsed by our federal government, especially in light of present fiscal demands brought about by the pandemic, the downturn in our economy and, most disturbingly, the instability resulting from both a not-to-be-ignored shift to the political right of the spectrum and on-going issues due to the war in the Ukraine.
It is therefore highly unlikely that Alstom's plan would ever be approved due to the enormous costs involved while ignoring an almost-as-effective HrSR-type of modernized passenger rail such as HFR.
If you look at Sweden, for instance, they have just-recently shelved their HSR project in favor of properly funding and/or upgrading their existing, immensely popular and successful passenger rail that is almost identical to HFR in Canada.
After all the efforts undertaken on HFR at this point in time, let's not risk an eventual total cancelation of an upgraded, far more costly upgraded HFR, tantamount to what amounts to just another HSR-type of project!
Sweden is a bad example though, seeing as it was a populist decision taken by a new government, and they will most likely have to backtrack on it in the near future when lack of capacity will become too obvious to ignore.
Absolutely retarded takes.
I live in downtown Toronto and travel to Montreal quite often. My current preferred method of transportation is flights from Toronto city airport.
The speed and travel time for HFR is simply not acceptable and not attractive. Period. It would still take 4 hours and 30 minutes to travel between two city centers, barely better than the current time of 5 hours by rail, and it just doesn't make sense to take them. I would still choose to fly 100% of the time.
Now, you get that time down to 3 hours, and I, as well as COUNTLESS OTHERS, will absolutely be using the high-speed rail 100% of the time. Those 1 hour and 30 minutes of time savings are ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL. They are the difference for the majority of travellers that uses the corridor to go from the country's largest city to the second largest by rail instead of air. It's LITERALLY the make or break for this project. It's the difference between a marginally better but still insanely costly improvement and a fundamental shift in how we travel for 70% of Canadians while costing just a little bit more.
I am speaking for myself only here, but I truly believe that there is a very serious case to study HSR as a viable option. With the climate crisis, incentives are larger than ever to decarbonize and create a major modal shift in how people travel along the Corridor. The case of Sweden is, generally, an exception to the rule, as more and more countries are building up their infrastructure. Canada's Corridor has suffered from lack of investment and general competitiveness with the airlines. HFR can help reduce the gap, but HSR is likely a move valuable addition to the travel option in the Corridor. There is also a lot of questions unanswered about the attractivity of HFR to convince people to choose taking the train instead of flying.
As the pricetag for HFR is still unclear, HSR on certain segments might not be as much of a stretch as we can be led to believe. After all, most of the risks is on the private partner and their business case, with the feds acting as the guarantee for SOME of the elements. As the risk is meant to be shifted onto the private partner, and their ability to make a profitable operation, I am not too surprised that Alstom at the very least sees HSR as the way forward.
Let's not forget that other private partners have also made comments during the RFEOI, which led to the update by the Federal Government suggesting that openess to more ambitious projects, and will likely have various proposals by the bidders once Qualifications and Proposals are ongoing. It is too early to know definitely. -David
High initial costs are soon forgotten and institutionalized knowledge over time makes things cheaper. We already pay such high taxes, the least they could do is use them for something that could benefit us.
The comparison with Sweden is not right. Sweden is a totally different situation! Sweden has already a good 200kmh network, where the most important line Stockholm-Göteborg already competes and outperforms the air route.
The Canadiain 'Corridor' does not have a good rail connection by any means. That makes a whole different consideration !
Where as in Sweden the 250-300kmh would reduce the trip from Stockholm to Göteborg and Malmö with 'just' resp. 45 and 90 minutes, an HSR between TOR-MTL makes a difference of 2 hours less with a competitive 3 hour journey (4:10 hour will not be competitive enough to displace the air route of 1:15hr flight). So HSR on the Corridor really makes a difference vs the HFR !
The new Swedish right wing government is very pro electric vehicle (probably preferibly Volvo/Polestar😬) and has little with commuter transit. (Elon Musk will like them !)
They already blocked further double tracking between Goteborg and Boras, what keeps the 60km commute at a poor 70 minutes. (over €100mln preparations thru the drain !)
Whether it is sensible decision to cancel the HSL Europabanan is very questionable. The new HSR has multiple goals. 1: Reduce journey time on the Stockholm-Malmö (and to Copenhagen and Germany ! ). The projections with hsl are 50% more passengers on the route. A 3.5 hour journey Stockholm to Copenhagen and CPH Airport (vs 5hr today) would really make a difference.
A 2nd consideration is that the Swedish rail network is overcrowded , with both passenger trains and cargo freight rail. The new HSR has also the objective to free up rail capacity for the growing Cargo transport. (These capacity considerations were also made in the UK with the HS2).
Currently Sweden's rail has already capacity problems, so it is to be foreseen that in the future it will reach its limits and cause multiple (more) transit problems.
Inserts* JUST DO IT GIF 😂😂
I swear at this point we have to look into bullet trains to really keep up with the Jones and stay relevant in terms of the G7 nations and what they should be offering their citizens planes are too noisy and pollute quite a bit.. Montreal and Ottawa are at that distances were a flight isnt justificted from Toronto.. same can be said for Quebec city going to Montreal or Ottawa
There have been studies on high speed rail in Canada for over 50 years now. This latest one will probably gather dust like all the rest before it. There is no serious push for high speed rail, and there is no serious demand for high speed rail here, it's just more of a fantasy. Never mind the logistical challenges in Canada, the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor is heavily populated by Canadian standards but is very lightly populated compared to existing high speed rail corridors. The high speed rail corridors in Europe, China, Japan and Boston-Washington all have at least triple the population - in some cases over 10 times the population. There is a very real chance that investing billions in a high speed rail network here can result in the costs outweighing the benefits. I'd like to see a TGV style service here but it simply isn't realistic when you factor in all the variables such as the extremely high costs, the lack of demand and low population base. I wouldn't get too excited about any high speed rail proposals unless funding is committed and the ground is broken.
This is going to get built before any true high speed rail being built in the US
HAHA they have been talking about this for the last 50 years usually around a Federal election time, don't hold your breath till at least 2123
Ummmm, this project was only pushed forward in november 2022 so not that long.
I'll excuse your narrow definition of "Canada" when I can ride a high-speed train there from Vancouver.
So Vancouver is basically Cascadia , as it is more likely to get a HS train Vancouver-Seattle-Portland than to Calgary. let alone to the East... 🌲🌲
@@lws7394 I know I know. But still it would be nice, because as much as I love the Prairies, I'd like to be able to cross them to visit my wife's family in K-W in less than 3 days.
The only way to have a train line that is remotely in the same time ballpark as flying is to have continuous a maglev going 500km/h, so it could cross the continent overnight (winter night)
That's not happening any time soon, that's orders of magnitudes longer than the longest maglev project and Canada isn't known to be at the forefront of rail innovation.
@@booketoiles1600 I agree. I've seen footage of MagLev in China - ideally fast enough to concentrate urban development in Winnipeg, Brandon, Regina, Moose Jaw & Medicine Hat, while averting such development in between. Perhaps true Conservative Governments in Ottawa & in the four western provinces will agree on conscription into the Canadian Armed Forces to provide the manpower to build that line through invocation of the Federal "Emergencies Act".
STOP dreaming and be more realistic ! VIA's HFR (dedicated passenger rail) is way more realizable than high speed train.
Note: Alstom trains are extremely inferior to siemens and are guaranteed to be a bigger headache than an asset. The new Avelia trains have yet to enter to enter revenue service as there is an issue with software compatibility (something like that). At present they are gathering dust and having their paint stripped in a yard in Philadelphia. The Ottawa LRT uses Alstom as well - yup they've been great lol
Before billions of dollars are flushed down the toilet, please concentrate on improving the existing VIA rail service. It is not reliable; delays are frequent. The existing customers are likely to be the earliest converts to alternative services; however, some of us have been quite turned off by delays, lies in the face of a delay by VIA personnel, and the childish seating requirements that exist in present day rail service.
You just described the goal of the HFR project : buy freight tracks so they stop impeding passenger travel, electrify and double track it all and voilà you've got a decent intercity line always on time.
Now they're requesting contractors to do that work and some contractors are saying that some sections with good geography could be built to a high speed standard without tremendous costs.
But regardless of what option the government chooses, the new line will be more reliable and with "high" frequency (like one or two trains per hours lol)
Ugh they really shouldn't be using alstom equipment it's not suitable for North American Trackwork its too fragile
The Alstom problem is from the legacy tracks on the Northeast Corridor, with newly built high speed segments there would be little to no problem doing any simulated tests. Practically how the LGV and TGV networks are run, high quality segments with high speed trains of quality but also needing to be replaced
Avoid Alstom and bring in Japanese
the airlines and CN/CP lobbying will delay this project for decades.