11-04-2015, 09:30 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-04-2015, 09:32 AM by BuildingScout.)
(11-04-2015, 08:52 AM)ookpik Wrote: So about 2 min to accelerate, 2 min to decelerate and another 1 to 2 minutes stationary. (I'd say 2 min at places like YYZ where people will have lots of luggage to schlep on and off the train.) So each stop will probably add about 5 min to total travel time of an HSR. That argues against frequent stops. And that IMNSHO argues against HSR in the proposed London-KW-Toronto corridor. ISTM to make much more sense to run "conventional" trains at 160km/hr, have stops at all mid-sized communities along the route like Guelph and Woodstock, and thus get as much ridership as possible as quickly as possible. At 160km/hr it should be possible to do KW to Union in half the time it now takes on GO. Offer hourly trains and you've go a backbone system that satisfies regular commuters as well as casual day-trippers.
But as I said before it would be nice to see some analysis of these issues including speeds, stops, frequency, costs, etc.
I agree we couldn't have many stops. Guelph and Pearson tops, in my opinion.
I question the value of spending a large amount close to the HSR cost yet end up with only a 160km/hr train. If we are going to expropriate land and lay down track we might as well go all the way.
We should lay down HSR track, have a two stop train every hour (possibly even a few non-stops express during rush hour) and in the gaps between the two-stops send a milk run right behind which would have up to 1:30 to complete the trip.