New infrastructure funding -- in Waterloo Region?

[panamaniac]

All I want is a train trip to Toronto that's one hour or less. Don't really care who or how.

[REnerd]

All I want is a train trip to Toronto that's one hour or less.  Don't really care who or how.

But I do care when - as frequently and conveniently timed as possible!  

[tomh009]

Absolutely, 2-for-1 deal on HSR Acela MK. II sets from Bombardier

Nooo... I want European technology not Acela.

Would you settle for Japanese technology?

[dunkalunk]

I'd love it if the feds stepped up and helped negotiate an agreement between all stakeholders for the construction of a rail freight bypass along the 407. What's being called the 'Missing Link' would divert freight traffic from the CP mainline in North Toronto and the CN mainline in Brampton, allowing more dedicated GO service on the Kitchener and Milton GO lines.

The project isn't exactly in the region, but it would go far to freeing up track space through Brampton and actually making AD2W GO Trains a more-affordable reality. In addition, with both Wynne and Trudeau governments being as friendly as they are, it might actually happen. Funding of it would be seen as a showcase of what's possible when governments come together to work on a common goal that requires the co-operation of all stakeholders, rather than just throwing money at projects that are shovel-ready.

More info on the missing link here: http://www.mississauga.ca/portal/cityhal...d=5200012q

[Canard]

Absolutely, 2-for-1 deal on HSR Acela MK. II sets from Bombardier

Nooo... I want European technology not Acela.

I'm curious what you think are the main technical differences between the Acela sets that Bombardier built from Amtrak are vs. Alstom or Siemens hardware operating in France or Germany.

(Kind of having a bit of fun with you - I got raked over the coals by someone for saying that Bombardier builds the best LFLRV's, and being asked to quantify my statement)

[BuildingScout]

Nooo... I want European technology not Acela.

I'm curious what you think are the main technical differences between the Acela sets that Bombardier built from Amtrak are vs. Alstom or Siemens hardware operating in France or Germany.

(Kind of having a bit of fun with you - I got raked over the coals by someone for saying that Bombardier builds the best LFLRV's, and being asked to quantify my statement)

The main difference, as best as I understand, is that the Acela is a path designed to work with existing infrastructure in America, while the TGV and the ICE were designed from the ground up to be high speed trains. Essentially the difference between the ICE-T and the ICE-3 from Siemens.

[tomh009]

Bombardier does make the Zefiro as well, which is designed for high-speed track. 

And even the Acela technology could do much better.  The US crash standards make it overweight, and the poor track infrastructure often keeps it far away from its 250 km/h top speed.  250 km/h really wouldn't be that bad in the Windsor-Montreal corridor, if the infrastructure allows 200+ km/h speeds (I don't know whether it does or not).

[Canard]

It does because it did from ~1969-1982, when Canada actually did have HSR.

That being said, HSR in the corridor would probably be a totally new, straighter alignment.

[plam]

It does because it did from ~1969-1982, when Canada actually did have HSR.

That being said, HSR in the corridor would probably be a totally new, straighter alignment.

As far as I can tell HSR in Canada only meant 100mph, which isn't HSR by modern standards. I suspect that you know much more about this topic than I do though. So, please correct me if I'm wrong.

[tomh009]

If they could do 100 mph in 1969, I suspect 200+ km/h would not be so difficult with 50 years newer technology, even on the same tracks. But I'm happy to educated more!

[Canard]

We were doing 200+ km/h in 1969, actually, with Toronto-Montreal in under 4 hours.



http://www.blogto.com/city/2012/09/a_bri...urbotrain/

It was never a question of technology, it's all stupid politics and money. We just have to choose to do it and get on with it.

[tomh009]

It was never a question of technology, it's all stupid politics and money. We just have to choose to do it and get on with it.

That's it, really.  Let's wait and see whether the new government is any friendlier to high-speed rail, or even rail in general.

Apart from train sets, I now understand that the bigger benefits will come from dedicated passenger (VIA and/or GO) right-of-ways and the elimination of level crossings on those right-of-ways.  And that seems like a good way to spend some of the infrastructure budget.

[Canard]

There is a very good reason why the Shinkansen and TGV* do not have road crossings.

* - On LGV. TGV does operate at lower speeds (<150 km/h) on some rural routes which do have crossings, and there have been collisions and, ahem, other incidents...

[plam]

We were doing 200+ km/h in 1969, actually, with Toronto-Montreal in under 4 hours.

http://www.blogto.com/city/2012/09/a_bri...urbotrain/

It was never a question of technology, it's all stupid politics and money. We just have to choose to do it and get on with it.

Yes, that's what I meant when I said 100mph. Wikipedia says that in scheduled service the TurboTrain was limited to 95mph, which is similar to today's max speed on the Corridor (I've measured it with GPS onboard).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAC_TurboTrain

The fastest schedule on that page was 3h59 for Toronto-Montreal. (Today's fastest schedule is 4h42; I suspect it is an issue of maintaining max speed, not attaining it). We can't actually have fast rail with all these level crossings. It's too dangerous, too.

[tomh009]

I went back and read (most of) the comments at the TurboTrain link Canard posted. Someone claimed there are nearly 600 (!) level crossings between Toronto and Montreal. If true, that's HUGE infrastructure spending, even if you were to convert only a quarter of those and close access for the rest (or keep as level in some areas).

Wow.