High Speed Train Coming?-split from boosting Canada’s military spending"

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Reductio ad absurdium.

You're the one making the claim that somehow HSR will play out differently here despite similar conditions compared to other similar regions on the planet. Your exceptional claim requires some exceptional evidence as to why you think it'll be different here than it would be in Spain, Italy, Germany or France where HSR works in corridors with less population density.

And no one has answered my question as to why, in the MOST populous part of our 'corridor', GO trains bleed money. They pass through my city 6 times a day [last time I looked] pretty much empty.

 

[PrairieFella]

We haven’t seen CANHSR’s prices yet, but regular speed rail in Canada is notably more expensive than reg speed in European countries. I just came back from some travel in Europe and just checked VIA for equivalent distant tickets — $105CAD vs €19,60 so 3-4x more. I suspect CANHSR would be proportionately more expensive than existing HSR.

Fair enough, but I'll reserve judgement until a fare structure is released.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

What makes you think HSR will only be for rich people? It's not like that anywhere in Europe.

Because, after the HSR build consumes XXX billions over a decade or two, no Government is going to feel like subsidizing ticket prices so the average Joe can afford to use it. My sense, based on lots of history in Canada, is that HSR will be a boutique network that carry, what, sub- 10,000 riders per day?

I’ve read the arguments on both sides of this very passionate argument and am forming my opinion that HSR is too big a leap and wonder if the play should be HFR, on a new right of way separate from the freight tracks. The engineering and construction costs would be lower and carriage capacity higher.

Thoughts?

 

[Kirkhill]

They dream about this shit even in Alberta. (or at least some do)

Passenger rail

Alberta is developing a Passenger Rail Master Plan that will serve as the foundation to advance passenger rail in the province.

www.alberta.ca

View attachment 91531

https://majorprojects.alberta.ca/details/Calgary-Banff-Rail-Link/4492

Edmonton - Calgary High Speed Rail Line

Prairie Link Rail Partnership (EllisDon & AECOM) is proposing to build a high speed rail link between Edmonton and Calgary. The project would allow passengers and freight to travel between the two cities at speeds up to 400 km/h. On June 8, 2021, Prairie Link Rail Partnership announced an MOU...

majorprojects.alberta.ca

https://majorprojects.alberta.ca/details/Edmonton-Calgary-Hyperloop-Project-Test-Track/10570

And part of that debate is should our municipal greenline be part of the upgrade and why can't we have proper subway downtown like a real city? Assuming of course that the feds and the province are going to pony up and the downtown merchants get the service for free.

 

[Kirkhill]

My guess is that if Trudeau wasn't attached to it the attitudes would change somewhat...

Philip Cross: Justin Trudeau’s failed vision for Canada​

The Liberal leader leaves office with a vague legacy and little impact either domestically or abroad

Few of Trudeau’s policies had the significant benefits promised for them. Deficit spending failed to boost incomes. The federal carbon tax did not reduce emissions: oil and gas production reached record highs. National unity was weakened by repeated federal intrusions into provincial jurisdiction. Canada’s long-standing embrace of immigration weakened when a surge in new arrivals after 2020 overwhelmed health care and housing. Fatally, Trudeau’s tenure was marked by lack of a strategic vision and indifference to efficient implementation.

Philip Cross: Justin Trudeau’s failed vision for Canada

Justin Trudeau leaves office with a vague legacy and little impact either domestically or abroad, write Philip Cross. Read more

financialpost.com

Possibly but I can tell you in my case that even if Poilievre had proposed it I would still be arguing that the money was better spent on ports, energy corridors and pipelines.

Then with the income stream we could start budgeting for defence and municipal improvements.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Possibly but I can tell you in my case that even if Poilievre had proposed it I would still be arguing that the money was better spent on ports, energy corridors and pipelines.

Then with the income stream we could start budgeting for defence and municipal improvements.

Totally agree......this is NOT political at all for me.

 

[Kirkhill]

@Humphrey Bogart

The question of sharing track was raised.

Question, what is the planned time to move a car from Vancouver to Halifax?

 

[mariomike]

I just looked at the GO train lines here in Ontario since I can get on for free March 1st. Well, going to do each line once just to see what I can see, and then probably never take them again.....

Looking forward to your report .....

Don't forget to tap your PRESTO.

 

[Kirkhill]

Because, after the HSR build consumes XXX billions over a decade or two, no Government is going to feel like subsidizing ticket prices so the average Joe can afford to use it. My sense, based on lots of history in Canada, is that HSR will be a boutique network that carry, what, sub- 10,000 riders per day?

I’ve read the arguments on both sides of this very passionate argument and am forming my opinion that HSR is too big a leap and wonder if the play should be HFR, on a new right of way separate from the freight tracks. The engineering and construction costs would be lower and carriage capacity higher.

Thoughts?

What happened to the Turbo train?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

It had an accident. Couple pages back….

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

@Humphrey Bogart

The question of sharing track was raised.

Question, what is the planned time to move a car from Vancouver to Halifax?

The most important transcontinental train on the CPKC network in Canada is train 101. The standard is 4 days from Toronto to Vancouver.

Great primer here on that:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.candorail.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Cando-Vaughan-Case-Study-web.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi6zrbSltuLAxWnpIkEHaB9OPoQFnoECFAQAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw3RlYTjkwnzKB6y00ZqrlmT

 

[Brad Sallows]

Reductio ad absurdium.

You're the one making the claim that somehow HSR will play out differently here despite similar conditions compared to other similar regions on the planet. Your exceptional claim requires some exceptional evidence as to why you think it'll be different here than it would be in Spain, Italy, Germany or France where HSR works in corridors with less population density.

You just asserted conditions are "similar". They are not. Government is structured differently and behaves differently. Public and social expectations are different. The populations live differently, and accept different levels of density. If you want to study how it will play out, examine the histories of transit rail projects in Canada. On budget and on time? Fares cover operations? Interruptions easily accommodated?

 

[YZT580]

That's a reasonable discussion that we can have and respect why you say that, I still personally believe SNCF is the better choice due to their experience with switching between HSR and normal rail, which will be required in Canada. The Japanese cannot do this since their standard and HSR rail are different gauges.

I suppose overall I'm kinda disappointed by the attitudes toward a nation building project in this thread.

The general consensus from what I have read and written in this thread is support for high speed but we can't afford it at this time. Secondly, a better option in our minds appears to be frequency over speed as all those little places that aren't currently serviced will still not be serviced. The resident of Port Hope should be able to get to Bellville by transit. The people who will benefit from High Speed already have several transportation options: all we are doing is providing another. And finally, Trudeau should never have made this announcement. He is a lame duck leader.

So PF, we want to see nation building but this isn't the right option imho. A pipeline or two so a refinery in N.B. isn't dependent upon a tanker from Texas, and a proper harbour to ship our resources to market in competition with others will go further to build up Canada than saving 3 hours on a VIA train ever will

 

[Kirkhill]

The most important transcontinental train on the CPKC network in Canada is train 101. The standard is 4 days from Toronto to Vancouver.

Great primer here on that:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.candorail.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Cando-Vaughan-Case-Study-web.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi6zrbSltuLAxWnpIkEHaB9OPoQFnoECFAQAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw3RlYTjkwnzKB6y00ZqrlmT

Thanks, so another day or two to Halifax?

What I was thinking that sharing track the passenger trains will be running at something equivalent to the freight system. By road Toronto to Vancouver is 50 hours. By air we are looking at 4 to 5 hours.

Toronto to Montreal by road is 5 to 6 hours. Peterborough to Ottawa by road is a bit more than 3 hours.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I wonder why we need an 'outsider' to deliver high speed rail, or any improved rail service, when Canadian railways already do that stuff...

Annual Rail Trends​

Canada’s railways are making an investment in this country’s future. These investments enhance the safety, efficiency, and capacity of the Canadian rail network, which underpins cost-effective supply chains. These are investments in people, good jobs, and essential public services (through record tax contributions). Moreover, investments in rail help to reduce Canada’s transportation sector emissions, as rail continues to be the most fuel efficient mode of ground transportation available.

In 2023, Canadian railways invested $2.9 billion in their Canadian assets, bringing the total to more than $22.7 billion over the past decade. These investments in track, rolling stock, technology, and other equipment improve the safety, efficiency, capacity, and fluidity of Canadian supply chains. In fact, average railway dwell times remained below ten hours in 2023, while ports’ average terminal dwell times and delays for late marine vessels remained above 100 hours.

Annual Rail Trends | Railway Association of Canada

View the 31st edition of Rail Trends, the Railway Association of Canada’s annual report on the performance of Canada’s railway industry.

www.railcan.ca

 

[YZT580]

Might be something to be said for leaning on the two big lines to make space, one way or another, for passenger rail on their corridors, whether that means a CPKC/CN passenger system, double- or triple-tracking to provide capacity for Via, letting Via or whoever build on CPKC/CN rights of way, or whatever. As far as I'm aware, they're doing reasonably well financially. Let them claim a tax credit, perhaps, but being a duopoly should come with some expectation of public benefit.

I'm not at all anti-car: I'm anti-"car as a taxpayer priority, especially for routine travel." Where do we find the money to fund local, regional, and national rail? By scaling all support for automotive travel to "safe and occasional." No more new lanes. No more $80 million interchanges. Fix the potholes and keep the bridges in good nick, and otherwise freeze it.

Meanwhile, start from an aspirational principle that every Canadian should be a fifteen minute walk from reliable transit (feel free to play with the numbers: half hour, whatever). That might be a twice-daily creeping bus out in the sticks, connecting to a one-trip-each-way milk run train that's half parcel service, connecting eventually to a HFR service, and from there to light rail or bus in the city they're trying to get to, but cut out this patchwork government, private, PPP, government contracted private operator, try to catch a lift from a friend, get stiffed by a taxi company, and so on and so on process that trying to travel out of a small town is right now.

Oh, and flying is for special occasions, emergencies, and places that absolutely nothing else can reach.

If I have my history correct, railways were granted extensive land holdings on both sides of their proposed lines on the condition that they provide passenger service. When they found that there wasn't the passenger volume on the lines to justify dedicated service they dropped the passengers which are labour intensive in lieu of more freight. When CN and CP discovered that running transport trucks could handle the freight volumes on most branch lines, they dropped them too and sold off the land. In their defense, the taxes that towns were levying on the tracks through the towns was a major factor. Road taxes for the truck are a lot lower than property taxes. I fully agree with your aspirational principle at least for urban dwellers. But a street car can easily be designed to safely travel at 100 km/hr. so adding trackage on every major highway shouldn't be a problem. Giving VIA its own track within the railway right of way shouldn't be a serious problem either: give CN a tax break. My point is, we can provide transportation solutions that will benefit all 8 million occupants of the Great Lakes/ST Lawrence corridor and not just the few lucky souls who live near one of what, 5 stops.

 

[dapaterson]

If I have my history correct, railways were granted extensive land holdings on both sides of their proposed lines on the condition that they provide passenger service. When they found that there wasn't the passenger volume on the lines to justify dedicated service they dropped the passengers which are labour intensive in lieu of more freight. When CN and CP discovered that running transport trucks could handle the freight volumes on most branch lines, they dropped them too and sold off the land. In their defense, the taxes that towns were levying on the tracks through the towns was a major factor. Road taxes for the truck are a lot lower than property taxes. I fully agree with your aspirational principle at least for urban dwellers. But a street car can easily be designed to safely travel at 100 km/hr. so adding trackage on every major highway shouldn't be a problem. Giving VIA its own track within the railway right of way shouldn't be a serious problem either: give CN a tax break. My point is, we can provide transportation solutions that will benefit all 8 million occupants of the Great Lakes/ST Lawrence corridor and not just the few lucky souls who live near one of what, 5 stops.

Frequent stops make HSR not HSR. Spoke and hub, please.

 

[OldSolduer]

I wonder why we need an 'outsider' to deliver high speed rail, or any improved rail service, when Canadian railways already do that stuff...

​

I asked a similar question to a very well known member on here - why does the CAF spend so much on "consultants" when the expertise is at their fingertips.
The basic answer I recall is that the internal people are not trusted enough to ask

 

[quadrapiper]

I can get behind any project that doesn't interfere with rail freight or cost anyone except the company operating the passenger service more. Give them a right-of-way and see what they do.

The public already benefits from the relatively low-emission transportation of massive quantities of goods.

As far as I'm aware, plenty of people and companies are all doing reasonably well financially. Let's tithe all of them, including you.

That's the idea. Absolutely a balancing act, but we absolutely do not tax high-performing individuals or companies enough. The idea is that Canada's resources and industry, in the old, broad sense, benefit Canadians as a whole. Telling the big rail lines that they're going to maybe eat the cost of, or maybe just provide land for, passenger rail service isn't at all out of line.

It's the corporate equivalent of telling homeowners to keep the public sidewalk shovelled.

If I have my history correct, railways were granted extensive land holdings on both sides of their proposed lines on the condition that they provide passenger service.

That's my vague understanding of it: not sure which government allowed them to weasel out of it.

When they found that there wasn't the passenger volume on the lines to justify dedicated service they dropped the passengers which are labour intensive in lieu of more freight. When CN and CP discovered that running transport trucks could handle the freight volumes on most branch lines, they dropped them too and sold off the land. In their defense, the taxes that towns were levying on the tracks through the towns was a major factor.

Could see an argument that, if the railways were to return to a position where they delivered on their side of the original bargain, that no property taxes be assessed on rights of way and the like.

Road taxes for the truck are a lot lower than property taxes. I fully agree with your aspirational principle at least for urban dwellers.

You have to get pretty far out before a skeletal, daily trip to town and trip back, service couldn't be delivered: not necessarily as something that would be reasonable for commuters, but as a catch-all support for everyone else. What's the cost to the taxpayer when Gene Bloggins, 96, can't get into the doctor and needs to be helicoptered out of Woss because something-or-other was left to become critical?

But a street car can easily be designed to safely travel at 100 km/hr. so adding trackage on every major highway shouldn't be a problem. Giving VIA its own track within the railway right of way shouldn't be a serious problem either: give CN a tax break. My point is, we can provide transportation solutions that will benefit all 8 million occupants of the Great Lakes/ST Lawrence corridor and not just the few lucky souls who live near one of what, 5 stops.

This would take too much coordination to make feasible, but a "Canadian pattern" single model or single range of low-floor railcar (in the loosest sense) suitable for as broad a spread of interurban/rural/urban service as possible might not be the worst idea.