Suddenly London Ontario is the place to be if you’re looking for a high speed rail line. Glen Murray, Ontario’s Minister of Transportation & Infrastructure, has announced plans to have a high speed connection between Toronto downtown, Pearson airport, Kitchener-Waterloo and London up and running in 10 years.
Not just that, but the trains will run half-hourly with 28 trips each way daily on the line carrying, eventually, 20,000 riders per day.
I am not making this up. You can read more details on the CBC’s Kitchener-Waterloo site.
An extremely superficial document titled “Moving Ontario Forward” came my way recently, and I could not help thinking back to the early days of “GO Urban”, the technology that eventually became ICTS and Skytrain, with similarly vacuous presentations for public consumption.
The first nine pages contain:
- Cover: St. Pancras Station in London, UK.
- Page 2: Same shot with the report title superimposed.
- Page 3: Beauty shot of London, Ont.
- Page 4: Shot of a badly decayed steel mill in Pittsburgh, PA.
- Page 5: Beauty shot of downtown, revitalized Pittsburgh today.
- Page 6: Historical photo of construction of the CPR.
- Page 7: “The Dawning of a New London”: London, Ontario, presumably just before dawn.
- Page 8: Back to St. Pancras with the title “Our Plan to Move Ontario Forward”
- Page 9: “Preface” with the text:
- “FirstClassPartnerships, Inc. (FCP), a well-respected leader in transportation planning, was contracted by the Ministry of Transportation to develop a business case for transit in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, and a pre-feasibility study on High Speed Rail from Toronto to London.”
Readers will remember First Class Partnerships for their work on the review of Metrolinx plans published by the Neptis Foundation. FCP’s website presents the company as having significant influence in the GTHA’s transit plans.
Now we finally get into the meat, although it’s a scrawny bird.
Page 10: Summary: Concept
- 17 million intercity trips per year in Toronto – London corridor, and demand keeps growing
- Today, travel is overwhelmingly by car, on 401
- Bus and rail each have only 3% – 5 %
- In corridors with similar population, density, car ownership and incomes, High Speed Rail is commercially viable
Page 11 asks: “Has the time come to bring High Speed Rail to Ontario?”
Page 12 answers in large, red, boldface letters: “YES!”
Page 13 has a map.
Note that from about Georgetown to east of Kitchener, and for most of the distance between KW and London, the line would run in a new corridor (pink) while the existing route (green east of KW, orange to the west) would be left as is.
Page 14: Summary: Key Findings
By 2025, it would attract about 6 million passengers per year
- About three-quarters of passengers would be “diverted”, with 20,000 car trips taken off 401 each day
- Fare revenues would repay most capital investment with a net cost to government of about $500m
- While High Speed Rail would directly serve only London and Kitchener, GO riders from Guelph, and communities across south western Ontario would see benefits
Page 15 has a table of scenarios:
This table is the entire public description of the “study” and “business case” for the proposal. What is noteworthy is that it purports to show a rising demand and, eventually, a falling cost for this service. This only happens if we go for the most expensive, highest speed option, and almost certainly shows a demand and benefits model that assigns a high value to the shortest travel time.
The “Benefit Cost Ratio” is highest for the 320km/h electric option, but this includes unspecified “wider benefits” that cannot be directly plugged into a purely financial model, thinks like time savings and road capacity released by diverted trips.
The net cost of this most aggressive of schemes is shown as a mere $555m, but this is over the long haul presuming that ridership actually builds up to nearly 6-million annually, or 20,000 daily. That will be something of a challenge. Profit from fares is supposed to pay off most of the $2-3b pricetag over 10-15 years, but that will be a challenge considering the bargain basement fares Murray is touting.
In his CBC interview, Murray claimed that fares would average $40, but that frequent riders could see them as low as $10-20. It is not clear whether this refers to full length London-Toronto trips, or shorter hops from KW. In any event, GO fares to KW today are $16.10 for a full fare adult, and 40 fares on Presto (the equivalent of a monthly pass) would cost $516.90, or $12.93 each.
The proposed fare for the Union-Pearson Express is over $20, and even at that, the line won’t be profitable according to the provincial auditor especially if capital costs are taken into account. According to Murray, the UPX service would be merged with the high speed line to save on operating costs. (This would also relieve pressure on track time which will be at a premium between UPX and GO requirements, both operating at 15 minute headways.) How the high speed service would link to Pearson Airport is unclear given that Metrolinx is just finishing up a spur from the main corridor that is decidedly not “high speed”, does not serve trains arriving from the west, and serves a terminal only large enough for comparatively short trains.
It is a mystery how the high speed rail is going to recoup at least 3/4 of its capital cost from operating profits when no other rail operation in the GTHA comes close to breaking even.
With 28 trains each way, or 56 one-way trips, the average patronage of every single train will have to be 357. However, those pesky riders insist on travelling when it is convenient for them, not for the railway, and they will concentrate in peak periods. Indeed, the whole idea that the high speed service will make commuiting easier implies concentration of ridership in a comparatively small number of those 56 trips. How are the peak loads supposed to fit on that half-hour headway in anything less than GO Transit size coaches.
To put it another way, taking 20,000 trips off of Highway 401 is a nice idea, but the benefit is greatest if this happens when the road is busy. The number of trips that can be diverted at peak periods is constrained by the size of the trains and the service frequency.
In his interview with CBC, Murray clarified that of the 20k trips shifted from Highway 401, 15k are existing commuters and by implication the remaining 5k represent growth that would occur without the rail service.
Those trips also represent people who started somewhere, probably not next door to the train station. Without robust feeder/distributor services in London and KW, those customers won’t be able to reach the trains. This is the same problem faced by GO Transit’s planned service expansion into two-way all-day service. Far too often, we hear about shiny new trunk services in transit networks, but little discussion of how people will access them or the degree to which the local access leg of a trip compromises time savings on the express rail portion.
Page 16: Summary: Proposed Services
Intercity High Speed Rail
- 2 trains per hour all day, 320 km/h + electrified
- 71 minutes from London to Union Station, Toronto, and 48 minutes from Kitchener to Union Station, Toronto.
- Business and Economy Class
- Affordable fares competitive with other transportation options
GO Regional Express Rail
- Regional Express Rail
- GTHA Transit Fund To Build Fully Electric Regional Rail Network
- 15 minute two-way electric service on all lines within 10 years
- Will serve Guelph and Kitchener
- Interim subway relief for Toronto
Pre-feasibility numbers demonstrate that RER investments in Toronto fundamentally change the numbers and present a strong case to run HSR to London.
The 10 year timeline for 15-minute service to KW is directly contradicted by the Minister’s interview in which he claims this is only 5 years away. Meanwhile, there are Liberal promises of two more GO trips each way (doubling the present service) to KW by 2016.
Page 17: We’re back at St. Pancras Station.
Somewhere there is a detailed report with more information, but this is not public:
- According to Minister Murray (on Twitter) because the election writ has been dropped and he cannot make the document public, but
- According to the Ministry, the document contains commercially confidential information.
“One of the first things we want to do if we’re re-elected is get those studies out there,” said Murray. [From the CBC article]
Well, if they contain “commercially confidential information”, those reports are not going anywhere, and Murray should start thinking about how to either strip such info out of the reports, or tell the Ministry (assuming he is still its Minister) to stop hiding information behind that catch-all phrase, one that is used far too often to hamper public access to documents.
At this threadbare stage of the proposal, what can possibly be confidential unless Murray has proceeded much further down the path of shopping around a commercial proposal than he is telling anyone? This project would take a goodly chunk out of Ontario’s transportation spending in the next decade or so, but we can’t see the report? This is precisely the sort of arrogance that got the Liberals in trouble over Gas Plants, among other things.
Talking to the CBC, Murray claimed that the high speed line would not be operated by Metrolinx, and CBC confirmed that Metrolinx is not involved in the study. Murray suggested that possibly the Ministry of Transportation would run the service, and of course there is always the possibility of private sector involvement.
Yet again, we hear that the “private sector” (which might actually be a very large public sector pension fund) might be interested. That only works if there is a profit to be made, and that profit depends on a secret study, not to mention investing up to 10% of the new Liberal transportation fund. Other cities and regions in Ontario might well wonder when their turns will come.
Open, transparent government? No. Election goodies? Definitely.
Steve Munro 
Exactly!
That’s like saying that Greyhound and other coach services are profitable while they get to ride the tax subsidized highways for free.
Same with the Trucking Industry.
LikeLike
Excellent questions which I will try and answer.
Most people only know other cities as a tourist, quite naturally.
The historic cores are certainly more pedestrian and transit friendly, but it is a myth that Europe does not have a “car culture”.
Car ownership in France, the UK and Germany is very similar to Canada. Of course it is lower in central London and central Paris, but car ownership is actually higher in Italy, closer to US levels. Take a look here.
As for density, take a look at Bristol Parkway station on Google Earth (which is where half the trains from London stop). You will see station with a big car park, surrounded by single family suburbs, If you zoom out you will see a motorway, industrial areas and big shopping centres. The biggest employer and business destination nearby at Abbey Wood, the Ministry of Defence, is a long mile away, and although I think there is a bus service, most people drive. Business visitors take taxis. I often have business travel to destinations around the UK. If there is public transit, I take it on principle (and to learn) but usually I take a taxi just as I would in London Ontario.
Take a look at Georgetown or Guelph and compare them with Maidenhead, or compare Guelph with Swindon. you will still sprawling suburbs in both countries. The English ones tend to have more parks, and I think if you count houses you will find that Canadian suburbs are actually about the same density.
Our model distinguished inner and outer regions of each city, using a “nested logit” model. We do assume I think that GO is also upgraded with RER. What this means is that the typical peak passenger, which might be a London area resident going to a meeting in Agincourt, would have the choice of:
1. 3 – 4 hours in the car, each way, and pretty exhausted when they get home (that’s how I feel after 6 hours in traffic, anyway). Maybe $50 for gas; another $100 or so wear and tear on the car. No price for wear and tear on the body, but 6 hours time wasted.
2. Taxi or drive to the Airport in London, say $20. A flight to Pearson, for $600, plus $50 for a rental car, or $100 for 2 taxis, travel time about 2 hours. Longer if it snows or there is a thunderstorm.
3. Taxi to the station in London, or maybe drive and park for $20. A 70 minute ride to Union Station, with a fully flexible peak ticket the fare will be about $150 each way (based on UK experience). Breakfast on the way in, maybe a cocktail on the way home. From Union a GO RER train to Agincourt, 30 minutes and $5, then a taxi or bus to the destination. Of course, to a meeting in Missisauga, driving time will be shorter. But unless traffic eases up on 401, HSR will still be more attractive for the peak business traveller from London.
Leisure passengers are generally much more price sensitive. They will take a bus, share a ride, or get a lift from a friend to the station. The fare will be $20 – $40. For two or three people travelling together, it will still be cheaper to drive, especially if a car is needed at the other end. That’s why we only expect to capture about one in five existing car trips onto HSR (20%), despite the faster trip time. Most people will still drive. We know that.
I’m sorry if I suggested current trip time was 3 hours. The reason the table in the Minister’s pack shows the longer route via Kitchener is (1) Kitchener is a big market and the Government is buying much of the route, so it makes sense to send HSR that way (2) capacity on the Brantford route is constrained, because the line is also used by about 30 big freight trains each day. It’s the CN main line. So is the line from Bramalea to Georgetown, but that needs to be multi-tracked anyway for GO.
One problem with rail is for every simple question there is usually a complicated answer.
As for fixing the roof before renovating the living room, Ontario needs to do both. Each will take a decade; and each offers financial and economic benefits far in excess of the costs. Ontario is not poor; if there is a good investment to be made, you should not wait. Bad investments?? Better never make them at all.
After half a century of stop-start investment, UK rail is now:
– Electrifying the last two main lines into London, Great Western, Midland
– Building the Crossrail project and buying 1,000 new EMU cars
– Building the Thameslink project and another 1,000 new EMU cars
– Replacing the 35 year old HST diesel trains (“Intercity 125”)
– beginning work on a new high speed line to the north of England
And the UK had a banking crisis. I think Ontario can do GO RER and HSR at the same time, and even get started on the line to Peterborough, Kingston, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City as well. New York? Maybe, but I think it will be a long time. Too long for the business market. The leisure market is larger, but the yields are so much lower. You can take high speed rail from London all the way to Marseilles, soon to Madrid, but really it is a string of routes. It’s always going to be cheaper to fly from London to Madrid, and a whole lot faster.
LikeLike
Mr Schabas, I applaud your optimism as I too would love to see high speed rail in Canada, but just don’t think it’s realistic. One point I’d like to hear you expand upon is how to deal with the main competition: automobiles.
To use your example, the journey from Bristol to London, UK on the M4 starts out roughly similar to that of London, ON to Toronto on Highway 401. As you get closer to the city centres, things change dramatically: the 401 bulges to 16 lanes with express/collectors, whereas it appears from Google Streetview the M4 remains at 6 lanes. To drive into and then park in central London, UK costs £10 (congestion charge) plus £35 for a day’s worth of parking (see pg. 2). The equivalent in Toronto is $0 + $23 (pg 2). At today’s exchange rate that works out to $81 for Bristol to London, vs. $23 for London to Toronto.
I admit this is a rough estimate, but it doesn’t seem intuitively fishy that it costs more to drive and park in London, UK than Toronto, and that $58 estimate is a big one in the context of the fare levels you’re suggesting. You clearly have the minister’s ear – time to talk about tolling the 401 and/or a congestion ring in Toronto as a difficult but necessary prerequisite for TKL HSR.
LikeLike
I have been in it and if I recall correctly there are 2 main differences:
1) The platforms are a lot wider and are higher than those in Union. This allows for safer and faster loading and unloading. Even with the new passenger concourses being built it will be difficult to clear the platforms. This is a major accident waiting to happen. Perhaps we can put in platform edge doors on the train platforms in Union Station. This is where they are needed, not in the subway.
2) Germany does not have the antiquated operating rules that North America does. It will be difficult to get those trains into and out Union following North American rules, especially if Tory’s Smart Train gets built.
I also wonder about the availability of track time on the portions where the line would tun on CN track, specifically the Halton Sub from Bramalea to Georgetown and the entrance into London. Also CN still owns the line to Kitchener though they lease it to the Goderich Exeter line who are not thrilled about improving the track. All the railways involved are federally regulated and the province cannot do anything without their or the fed’s permission.
LikeLike
Is anyone else suffering the cognitive dissonance of initially reading “Hamilton Street Railway” throughout this discussion every time the initialism “HSR” shows up? 😛
Steve: Is is a secret plan to upgrade the bus service, didn’t you know?
LikeLike
I would buy that argument if CN and CP were invited to the table to look into developing a high speed rolling highway along the line like the Eurotunnel Shuttle.
Steve: I have a problem with this claim, like many others related to congestion. Although there is a large projected ridership, how many of those trips are now taken during periods (and in directions) corresponding to congested times on the highway, and will peak carriage by rail be limited by a fixed half-hourly service of standard-sized trains?
LikeLike
Michael,
In the UK and some parts of EU, HSR owes its success to two key factors that are missing here. First, the cost of motoring is high, due to ownership costs, fuel prices, congestion charges, parking, etc. Second, those countries tend to have an extensive network of local and intercity rail routes that ferry passengers to the HSR from surrounding areas. People will less likely use the HSR if they need to spend 30+ minutes at each end of their journey on a bus.
It seems from your claim that the HSR is most suited for business travellers, who can afford to spend $100-200 on a trip (train + taxi) between Toronto and K-W/London. That’s a small population you are targeting.
LikeLike
Also, the acronym “RER” reminds me of the RER (Réseau Express Régional) suburban rail network in Paris. Must not be a coincidence in naming?
LikeLike
Several years ago this is exactly what they were going to do. Immediately the trucking industry blew a fuse over taxpayers subsidizing a private railway company and that was the end of that!
LikeLike
Thank you, Mr. Schabas, for the informative posts. It’s enlightening to hear comparisons other than with the US for a change. Try not to let the nitpicking get to you. One might well wonder how we (or rather our forefathers) ever built a transcontinental railway back when there were only a hundred thousand or so people in British Columbia.
As has been widely reported, we’ve had very little investment in infrastructure in recent decades. We’re losing ground to other countries. We seem to be bogged down in endless bickering and self-interest.
LikeLike
If any “Private Sector Partner” wants to guarantee that the subsidy required is $555mm I suggest they post a bond to be forfeited if the NPV is higher. I suggest 2-3Bn.
LikeLike
If the Province or Metrolinx buys the line from Georgetown to Kitchener or beyond that is good but again what is the problem with buying the entire line to London instead of building a new line. I realize that there might be a better gradient and/or shorter alignment but this length is probably about half the total trip length.
The line from Bramalea to Georgetown is tripled track except for one section, while line from Burlington to London is already double tracked. Almost all the freights through Brantford also go through Brampton so you are running into the same trains either way but I grant that Bramalea to Georgetown is a lot shorter. There is still a bottle neck in Brampton from Kennedy Road to the CP diamond where it is only double tracked and that section would be hard to triple track without impacting the neighbourhood.
Your route appears to deviate south of Guelph instead of going through it. Is Guelph not worthy of high speed service or is the route too difficult. If I were a resident of Guelph or a company there or a staff member at The University of Guelph I would be insulted.
LikeLike
So the Metrolinx planning department:
a) is too busy?
b) pretends they’re not home when the minister approaches the front door?
c) rotfltao?
d) all of the above?
If this department becomes solely an operational entity, then the absorption of Metrolinx by GO can be considered complete.
LikeLike
From an engineering point of view, running a high speed rail operation at 30 minutes interval will require a lot of infrastructure. At London station, there would be a need for station with 4 platforms. Trains cannot come and go like a metro. It would need to be dwell platform waiting for luggage to be loaded or unloaded. Trains need to be cleaned, toilets need to clean etc.
Putting a station like that in downtown London will require a lot of digging. If the station is placed farther away from downtown, a relay service would be needed to connect it. A large station in downtown London will no doubt be an improvement and set the stage for many new redevelopment. The cost will be huge.
Likewise, Union Station would need to dedicate 4 platforms for this service. If 320km/h EMUs are used, it can never terminate at Union Station. Trains operating in the 300 km/h+ must use a special gauge. Standard railroad gauge are too narrow for stability. If new a new track gauge is used, a new station in Toronto would need to be built. Even if the track gauge leading to Union can be modified, a train travelling at 300 km/h will generate shockwaves for the trains travelling in the opposite direction. This can derail a train.
Increasing the catchment area of YYZ is always good for Canadians. Right now, an executive travelling from CDG to YKF on Air France will require a connection at ORD. If this line is built, the AF flight can fly into YYZ and switch over to a train. This is a much more seamless experience as F class on a train is much better than F class product on a regional jet. It also remove the need to clear US customs. This definitely will make YYZ more attractive to One World members. Hopefully, more flights will fly out of YYZ. Right now, passengers travelling on One World will need to route through ORD and connect to YKF on American Eagle.
LikeLike
As do I. However, my comment was more along the lines that if you were to go as far as London to relieve congestion on the 401, why would you limit the project to only relieving car traffic and not take the opportunity to investigate reducing truck traffic as well?
Of course, all of the parties in this provincial election seems to be suffering from Massive Mental Math Multiplier Mayhem syndrome in some form or another.
LikeLike
Just some comments:
The present Union Station reno did include changes at some platforms to accommodate HSR. I forget exactly what as the project was tendered 4 years ago.
Most, if not all, HSR systems use a 1435 mm gauge, TGV, ICE, RENFE, Channel Tunnel, Shinkansen,etc.
In Japan the Tokyo/Kyoto/Osaka line terminates at the Tokyo station. The routine is as follows.
You are on the platform at 9:55 for your 10:10 train.
You watch the 10:00 am pullout.
All the tourists now have their cameras out and are looking northward waiting to take pictures of their train which they naturally assume is coming from the north.
At 10:03 a Bullet train backs in slowly and quietly from the south.
The train is beside you by the time you notice what is happening.
The photo shoot is now screwed up.
At 10:10 your train departs southbound. It has two stops before it hits speed which is south of Yokohama.
This routine is repeated several times in the morning.
No HSR trains will be doing 300 kmh between Union and Pearson.
Through Stratford, Guelph and Georgetown? Yes. As they will not be stopping.
Steve: The HSR is not going to pass through either Guelph or Stratford, but bypasses them on a new corridor.
If you are ever in Japan try to schedule a train transfer in Nagoya. Arrive at 11:00, have lunch and get on the platform at 1:00 for your 2:00 train. Within a one hour period at least 8 Shin’s pass through heading north and another 8 do the same heading south. Four platforms are in use for the Shin’s. It is an mind boggling display.
There are a number of other platforms which the turtles use.
LikeLike
Yes when I look at the density surrounding the Bristol Parkway station it appears low, however the overall density of Bristol remains much higher, and I assume it has better transit. Also, and more materially here, the station in Bristol has a very large parking lot attached that is clearly for the use of the station, and that station is very close to what appear to be some major arterial roads including an M class highway very close by. This would make regular access much easier. The London train station is notable for its lack of access from the major highways, and lacks a large parking area.
Yes, however, the problem with doing a renovation while your roof is leaking is you do not get the major benefit. Here much of the travel time benefit could be achieved for London by creating access to a greatly improved GO at Cedar Creek Road where the tracks cross it very close to the 401 just west of Cambridge. Similar access at the 403 west of Hamilton, would allow those coming from the west to gain much better access. These services then need to be much closer to express and higher speed to gain traffic from both Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge. This type of service would facilitate access for those from Windsor, Sarnia, Woodstock, Ingersoll … as well. There is considerable travel from Windsor (and Sarnia) into and through Toronto. The drive from Sarnia, (100km west of London) does not become an issue, and would not be worth paying to avoid, until it reaches Hamilton or Cambridge, even for a 9:00 or 10:00am arrival into Toronto.
I travel to Yonge and St Clair, the financial district, the area around Keele and Bloor, and Oakville quite frequently, and I can tell you by the time I have accessed the London train station, I can also be east of Woodstock. I would be better served by frequent express service to Cambridge at the highway with generous parking than downtown London. This would also apply to those from Windsor, and even to a lesser degree south and east end of London.
The issue of it being 2 vs 3 hours is not a question of what the choices for government were, but rather the credibility of forecast. Via has not been filling those trains that travel on a 2 hour basis, this raises uncertainty surrounding the number who would alter their choice for an hour.
The forecast in effect asserts 18,000 drivers, (20k persons) when you are clear that these would largely be single driver vehicles. This implies 10 fully occupied lane hours with Toronto core and beyond drivers, who would actually divert. How many of these are from London, how many from KW? If half of this is from London, this would be a very large portion of the overall traffic. There are only 4 lanes between 403 and 401 that are eastbound at Woodstock, and only 3 west of that.
A London, Ontario train station that looked more like the one in Bristol with similar highway access and a large car park would also be more credible, especially if it was located where it would not have to face a long slow exit from the city.
While Ontario may be fairly wealthy, its government is not financially that well off at this time. The fix required in GTHA is both large and uncertain, and will yield larger social and economic benefits. There will be large resources required to fix it. Better to get the roof fixed and be sure, before we address doing things under it. While HSR may be a good investment, when there is good access, it may not be prior to that.
LikeLike
I am glad to think that they’re thinking big with this proposed rail line. Yes, there are lot of unanswered questions, but keep in mind that this is a preliminary study: not detailed engineering and design.
As I understand, the rail lines through Acton, Guelph, Kitchener, Stratford, etc are all single track and in poor condition. A significant investment in infrastructure upgrades will be necessary to bring in frequent 2-way all-day service. If that money is on the table, we should absolutely consider a new rail corridor alignment.
We also need a willing partner in the federal government who will revisit rail regulations and train control. With a potential new rail corridor, it may be easier to get exemptions from certain regulations if the corridor is designated for passenger trains only (no freight). The granted exemptions for the O-train in Ottawa, so it has been done before. With electrification and modernized regulations, trains could turnaround faster in Union station (and increase the station capacity).
The HSR line will run parallel to highway 401, and the highway should be tolled when the HSR opens. This needs to be factored into economic and ridership projections. Tolls will hopefully divert passengers from highways to railways. This will free up more highway space for trucks, and result in an economic benefit by speeding up the movement of goods through the region.
LikeLike
I want to reply to a previous message. RobInNorthToronto has already responded to some of the points. Let me first say that I’m not optimistic about this high-speed proposal. I would love to see HSR in Southwestern Ontario replace a lot of short-haul air traffic and highway use, but I don’t like the way the proposal just showed up out of the blue in an election campaign. Frankly, I wouldn’t count on it being built even if we assume for the sake of argument that the Liberals win three consecutive majority governments, starting with the election this coming June 12. Having said that, we need to be accurate about problems with the proposal.
If four platforms are required, that means, roughly speaking, that a platform can’t be cleared in less than 4 headways, or 2 hours. That can’t be right. You mention servicing such as bathroom cleaning. If needed, this can be done on a service track away from the station. But how often is it needed? I don’t really know but at 320km/h a round trip would probably be less time than the Greyhound from Toronto to Ottawa and I don’t believe the driver cleans the bathroom in Actinolite. I don’t see why a 4-per-hour service cannot work with just a single platform — 15 minutes is plenty of time for one train to arrive and depart.
As already pointed out, many HSR services use standard gauge and based on this I conclude that it would be insane to use a different gauge for our HSR. In Toronto, Kitchener, and London, existing tracks would be used at lower speed to get the train to and from its dedicated high speed tracks which would begin further from the stations.
As for the shockwave, in the large spaces between cities where most of the new track would be built, sufficient space is available to leave enough space between the tracks for whatever requirements exist for a particular train operation scenario.
I hope that it will not be long until a proposal like this can be considered properly, not as a questionable election promise, with benefits including avoiding multi-billion dollar expressway expansions and avoiding construction of Pickering airport. By making an extremely attractive service it should be possible to attract enough people to avoid some expansion projects altogether. If the net cost really ends up being under a billion dollars, it’s an absolute steal. I’m not yet convinced that is accurate, but the concept deserves a fair hearing. Certainly we need to stop reflexively expanding expressways just because they’re busy and planning for an enormous airport that is not required.
LikeLike
For the sake of history, let it be recorded that it wasn’t the trucking industry that killed CP’s Expressway trailer-on-flat-car expansion plan. It was a combination of the Government of Ontario and CP’s own inability to fund the major capital works involved on its own.
Back about 2002, CP presented a plan to the governments of Canada, Ontario and Quebec for a four-way P3 for its entire Montreal-Detroit corridor. The largest part of the plan called for double-tracking the large amount of single-track and installing a huge amount of CTC. Additionally, new Expressway terminals would have been built at various points and more rolling stock would have been purchased, all aimed at offering multiple departures daily on all the route segments.
Federal Minister of Transport David Collenette and his Quebec counterpart approved. But a senior Ontario bureaucrat, who deserves to remain nameless, threw cold water all over the idea, saying it was a corporate handout that would draw the ire of Ontario taxpayers. So, the plan died.
CP’s original plan to build Expressway into a multi-route, trans-border system similar to Norfolk Southern’s Triple Crown operation foundered for lack of available capital. It would have included Montreal-Quebec City (over the ex-CP line), Montreal-New York, Toronto-New York, Detroit-Chicago, Chicago-St. Paul and various other routes.
It still makes sense, but not in a country and a province that doesn’t understand the highway-relieving abilities of a modern rail-based intermodal operation.
LikeLike
I rode the TGVs in France and they entered many towns on the same track as the local trains and shifted to high speed rights of way in the country. Does France use a different gauge than the rest of the world? These 320 km/h trains passed each other quite often and while there was a noticeable buffeting there was no threat of derailment. Where they shared tracks with other trains they operated at much slower speeds. Please tell me where there 320 km/h trains that NEED a special gauge?
From Wikipedia:
The last time I looked 1,435 mm was standard gauge. Stick to airplanes, a subject that you have a much greater knowledge of than I do.
LikeLike
The comparison with the UK is informative I think.
Our understanding of the issues is less mature than in the UK. We have no firm position on whether we build more highways or develop alternatives. The feds proffer no vision whatsoever for Inter City rail and let it flounder. Metrolinx has failed, so far at least, to be any kind of inspiration or to engage discussion; their promises repeatedly wither as with all day service and electrification. Three political parties have virtually no common ground on the subject, and one, as they did years ago, represents an out and out threat to what we do have. The TTC board have more agendas than buses. And in Toronto’s mayoral race, only one, Olivia Chow, has anything approaching a mature and honest approach.
So, alas, our painful participation in this immature debate has some distance yet to go.
LikeLike
A 4 platform station is reasonable. In a single platform configuration, 2 incoming and outgoing trains can fit. However, this is not a regular commuter train service but a high end service. Technically, as soon as a train pulls in, it can offload the passengers. Then take the train out of service and head to a nearby depot or station for cleaning and resupply. Then it can head back to the terminal station to take passengers.
Doing it this way would not allow the unload of luggage. No matter how efficient the luggage handlers are, they will need at least 20 minutes to unload everything. The seats will have to be rotated so that everyone face the direction of travel. As a high end service, catering companies would need to load beverages and food in the galley. Crews need to be rotated and coffee must be brewed before the passenger steps in so that they can have a welcome drink. People also have to locate their seats and place their carryons in the overhead, which increases loading time. A train dwelling at the station for 40 minutes is actually quite optimistic.
If we look at a recently designed station, the West Kowloon Terminal Station in Hong Kong will have 6 platforms for short haul service. The 6 platforms will service 6 inbound and 6 outbound trains per hour. It is also not prudent to build a service with no room for expansion. Even if 2 platforms are needed today, there should be room for expansion so that we are not digging up a station a few years down the road.
If one takes a look at a shadowgram of the shockwaves coming from a Shinkasen travelling at 320 km/h, one can see the bow waves and wake behind it. This is why if a Shinkasen needs to pass a regular train, it must slow down to around 160km/h. The question becomes is 160km/h a high speed service or not. Acela runs high speed only in a few sections. Because of shockwaves concern, the Hokkaido Shinkasen will run at 160km/h when travelling in the tunnel between Shin Amori and Kikonai station.
LikeLike
I’d just like to point out that the type 407 ICE 3 (max 320 km/h) has been certified for service to London through the Chunnel and there has been no track regauging anywhere to make it happen. This would be the same Chunnel which VIA’s Renaissance cars were originally intended to run through and didn’t have their trucks regauged after they were purchased.
LikeLike
Um, it’s not the 50s any more.
And in any case, if it was so important to have everything facing the right way, the brand-new right-of-way could simply be built with a big (as in, around most of the city) loop at each end. Fortunately, it is quite normal for train seats to face both forward and back (although I confess I don’t know what is typical on modern HSR).
And of course this cannot be done without the train empty and motionless.
Steve: And, moreover, a lot of the food service prep can be done in the station before the train arrives. It might even be handled by the inevitable cafe that a station with such frequent service could spawn.
And again, this is not the 50s.
Although the 2050s aren’t that far off.
This discussion shouldn’t be about finding excuses for why everything has to be done in the most expensive way possible, or not at all. It should be about exploring what is really feasible, preferably with as much real information as possible. Which is why I agree with Steve that the lack of transparency out of the provincial government is so disappointing.
LikeLike
Mr. Schabas mentions Roger Ford (not Fort) who writes for Modern Railways. I have been reading Mr. Ford for over a decade now and there is no way I can believe that some Train Operating Companies (TOC the franchisee) are truly profitable (as in no public subsidy). As anyone who reads Roger Ford knows, governments (Both UK and Scottish) pay Network Rail (the Track Authority which operates most but not all stations) directly for both capital and a lot of of the operations fund.
So the only way we can pretend that TOCs are profitable is to not count the direct government subsidy to Network Rail. Mr. Schabas knows this really well from his career on British Railways and indeed having operated a company himself.
Of course some TOCs which are paying a premium have received a subsidy (google cap and collar for some fun). Using Mr. Schabas argument, VIA is really profitable. It’s really easy to declare a profit when you do not have to pay for any capital funding for the track and station, and back-end your premium payments and front-end your subsidies.
Me too, like many readers of Steve’s website, I want high speed rail, it’s overdue, but putting out stuff like that diminishes the credibility of the plan. I am wondering what’s motivating Mr. Schabas here, he should know better than support half-baked plans like that.
As others have mentioned, the Quebec-Windsor corridor has been studied to death for HSR and there is no debate left, it’s really Toronto-Montreal via Ottawa.
LikeLike
Kevin’s comment:
How many current 400 km/hr lines anywhere in the world pay for their operating and most of their capital costs through passenger fares? Yes, that number is steady at a strong zero.
Although the finances are conveniently kept secret, I suspect there is a large element of Rob Fordian arithmetic underlying any claim to pay back most of the capital and all of the operating expenses through passenger fares.
There are very good reasons why private sector railways in North America got out of the passenger rail business. I don’t see a lot of them re-introducing passenger service. Presumably because their accountants have to use real arithmetic.
Although the government is invoking dubious reasons for secrecy, I presume that Mr. Schabas has no such limitations. So show us the math.
Steve: At the risk of appearing unduly fair to Michael Schabas, his work was done under contract to MTO, and he is bound by whatever confidentiality rules they impose. He is free to talk about his work elsewhere and HSR in general, but not, I suspect, about the specifics of this proposal. We will all have to wait until June 13 when whoever becomes Minister of Transportation can bring light and transparency to this debate by releasing Schabas’ full report.
LikeLike
Kevin’s answer:
Massive government subsidies in cash and land. At its peak, almost a third of the budget of the entire Dominion of Canada was being spent on subsidising railway construction. So much government money was being shoveled out that some of it made its way to sticky fingers, leading to the Pacific Scandal and the fall of the government.
We can certainly do the same today. My problem is with the dubious claim that massive government subsidies are not needed and that operating and most of the capital cost of high-speed rail can be paid for with passenger fares.
LikeLike
On the high speed trains that I rode in Europe, mainly the 320 km/h French TGV and the 250 km/h Italian trains the baggage handlers were the passengers. I don’t recall seeing one baggage car. Half of the seats faced forward and half faced backwards so they did not need to spend time and money reversing them. Have you ridden European High Speed Rail because I don’t recognize the trains that you are describing.
The longest that I saw an HSR train sit in a station was just over 20 minutes at an end of line station. At the really busy terminal stations the trains would come in fully stocked from the coach yard, spend 10 to 15 minutes loading then take off. At less busy stations they were serviced on the station platforms. The length of station stops on the TGV seemed to be governed by the time required for the smokers to get off the train, have a cigarette and re-board.
The loading of food and beverages was done very quickly because it was all loaded onto only one car per section. (Some TGVs had 2 sections, Each section had 2 locomotives, 3 first class cars, 4 second class and a food car between them.) The food arrived in special containers which were traded for old containers with the waste and dirty dishes.
“If one takes a look at a shadowgram of the shockwaves coming from a Shinkasen travelling at 320 km/h, one can see the bow waves and wake behind it. This is why if a Shinkasen needs to pass a regular train, it must slow down to around 160km/h. The question becomes is 160km/h a high speed service or not. Acela runs high speed only in a few sections. Because of shockwaves concern, the Hokkaido Shinkasen will run at 160km/h when travelling in the tunnel between Shin Amori and Kikonai station.”
Has there been any documented cases of a 320 km/h train blowing another train off the tracks? I will attest that the shock wave of two 320 km/h trains passing each other is noticeable but it did not come close to derailing anything. Any train in a tunnel will act as a piston and greatly increase the air pressure at the front of the train while decreasing it behind the train. This pressure change can make your ears pop suddenly just like the pressure change does when an airplane takes off or lands. Short tunnels can handle this by having funnel like openings at either end which allow a transfer zone. Long tunnels would require some method of equalizing pressure in front of and behind the train. There are really long tunnels being built in Europe which will handle trains travelling at speeds greater than 160 km/h. The Brenner Base Tunnel between Austria and Italy will be 55 km long and will handle passenger trains at 250 km/h and freights at 160 km/h. See Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenner_Base_Tunnel
You really need to do more research before you make a pronouncement based on 1950’s operating practice as thought they were still in use.
LikeLike
It’s good to see that some readers have travelled, and some use the internet to check basic facts like how fast trains move and what track gauge they use.
I try to work on the basis of facts, research and analysis. It is easy to make all sorts of claims. But it doesn’t really get us anywhere.
Steve is right, the Ministry is not apparently prepared to release my analysis, at least during an election. But people who look at my website and read the various papers I have published will understand that I do not have a record of making outlandish, unsubstantiated claims. Many of the projects and systems I have helped to shape have been successful, some very successful. I have also not been afraid to be critical of scheme which offer poor value for money or which will be a burden on the taxpayer. I am even critical of schemes that are OK, but could be a lot better. Readers can debate whether the Canadian Pacific Railway was a good idea or not, and whether it was a ripoff of the taxpayer.
I will be honest – when I started work for VIA on the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto corridor, and then later for OMT on Toronto Kitchener London HSR, I was skeptical. But I have learned that you can’t tell a good scheme without research and analysis. In the past 25 years, population in the Toronto-Kitchener-London corridor has doubled. Incomes have also increased, as has travel. Schemes that did not stack up 25 years ago do now sometimes make sense, sometimes, a lot of sense. It’s not about “avoiding airport expansion” or even avoiding widening 401, although they may be part of the equation. Benefit Cost Analysis is a pretty developed science, widely used in the UK (google Webtag) and perhaps one of the reasons we have a pretty good rail system here, ridership doubled, many routes paying their way from fares (yes, some remain heavily subsidised, but it is a diverse network), and with politicians actually keen to invest more (and “invest” is the right word, because they expect to get a return on the money … not always the case with rail schemes).
A few points:
In the UK, high speed intercity trains usually stop for 5 minutes or less, and smoking is no longer allowed even on the platforms. HSR will need 2 platforms at Union Station, one eastbound and one westbound. A third platform would be useful, and maybe a fourth for long distance trains if they continue to exist. And yes it would be nice if they were wider. Probably reduce the number of platforms – 4 for VIA, 6 for GO, and make them wide enough for escalators …
There are many theories as to why US railroads got out of passenger travel. Obviously there were big subsidies to road and air transport, while rail was heavily taxed. Passenger fares were also strictly regulated, and in the 1930 FDR actually reduced them, while also imposing very onerous labour laws. If you make a business unprofitable, companies will find ways to leave. It’s hard to leave a business like railroads, because you have so many assets, but eventually they did. You could blame the US government for destroying passenger rail. CN stayed on longer and almost made a go of it. But when 401 was finished, around 1968, CN lost its last profitable route. By the way, through this period I think Air Canada was making losses and subsidised.
Yes, many UK train companies are subsidized but several now are not, even taking into account their pro-rata share of the Government’s grant to Network Rail. See the Regulators’s analysis, read it and figure out what it means. Of course any allocation of fixed costs is somewhat arbitrary (take ECO 100) but Thameslink, East Coast, and South West Trains do seem to cover ALL of their costs, to the extent anyone can figure out what they are. Eurostar too, actually. The tunnel to the France was subsidised, but mostly by private investors, not taxpayers. Fair game, I say.
I don’t know the details of the CP piggy back deal. It may be a missed opportunity, but it may be that it was not a good deal for the taxpayer. You can’t tell without the analysis.
Thanks and keep blogging! Steve maybe we should have a beer next time I’m in Toronto?
LikeLike
Kevin’s comment:
In many cases, the high ventilation requirements of long tunnels constructed in the steam locomotive era have proven to be quite useful for high-speed rail. Sometimes the Law of Unexpected Consequences works out in our favour.
LikeLike
I have a few articles by JR Hokkaido on the effect of operating Shinkansen trains with incoming freight trains on the Seikan Tunnel. Unfortunately, they are all in Japanese. But, this Wiki article documents the effect. We have to also keep in mind that the HSR operating towards Union Station will pass many Bombardier Bilevel cars. Those cars do not have good aerodymanics as they are taller than most passenger coaches.
Steve: Where it does so, the HSR will not be operationg at HSR speeds.
The proposed HSR will have checked luggage service since it is intended to force traffic to YYZ. It takes 10 to 15 minutes to offload luggage and about 20 minutes to load luggage to a train car. This has to be done at the station and cannot be done at a yard near by. Of course, other work can proceed concurrently while luggages are being loaded or offloaded.
Steve: The larger question here will be the dwell time at YYZ station to get the airport passengers, luggage and all, on and off of the train. If passengers do not handle their own luggage, and this group represents a significant part of the market, then this will add substantially to the travel time. I think this aspect of the route needs to be clearly thought out for just what proportion of traffic and type of rider (business class travelling light vs families weighed down by baggage and kiddies) it seeks to serve.
As for rotating the seats, this is standard practice in Japan. I rode on all JR companies except JR Shikoku. At the terminal station, there are usually three people dedicated to this task. Sometimes people spill tea or coffee on the seat and that has to be cleaned right away as are the washrooms. It is simply customer service to keep the cabin clean.
Since the propose HSR will be a higher end service, catering will also take longer time to load. Take a standard F class multi course breakfest. There are usually a choice between oatmeal or a bowl of cereal. It is followed by scrambled eggs, sasuage and bacon. The final course would be a plate of fruits and perhaps bread rolls followed by coffee, tea or juice. The oatmeal is room temperature. So, it can be loaded easily. The scrambled eggs, milk and fruit plates are all loaded seperately since they are not cooked at the same rate. This three course breakfest will probably require six different food trays to be loaded just for one F class passenger.
Coffee must be served within 15 minutes of brewing. So loading coffee in a carafe from a nearby cafe is a disrepect to the customer. Standard operating procedures are to brew coffee before the customer steps in to a train. So, there is a welcome drink. As soon as the customer boards, another pot of coffee is brewed. This will be in time for a beverage run as soon as the train starts moving.
LikeLike
Kevin’s comment:
It is my opinion that the assertion that it is currently possible to construct high-speed rail, particularly at 400 km/hr speeds, and then pay for all the operating and most of the capital costs out of passenger fares anywhere in North America falls into the category of “outlandish, unsubstantiated claim.”
There are circumstances in which this claim has validity. For example, if there is a revolution in Saudi Arabia. Or the future inevitable onset of Peak Oil. I can see those circumstances making it possible to charge fares that would cover the operating and capital costs of high-speed rail in North America.
But right now, all proposals for HSR in North America made by Via Rail, Amtrak, any government or any Class 1 railway all involve substantial government subsidies. Perhaps these people are all wrong and Michael Schabas is right. But I would have to see strong evidence to believe this.
LikeLike
I think this will depend on whether the line could take a page from the airline industry and “containerize” baggage handling. The only question is, how would such a system work for people getting off at stations other than Union.
LikeLike
Thank you Greg Gormick for the detail on CP Rail’s Expressway service.
As long as the rump Toronto Montreal service continues, there exists the possibility, down the track so to speak, that saner heads will consider again its merits: extra tracks versus extra lanes, or truck only lanes on 401. It is after all a technically successful service.
LikeLike
As far as I am aware, there is no HSR service anywhere in the world that operates any system of checked baggage. I could be wrong. Nick L can probably check on the websites of the various HSR operators himself — there is no need to guess, or reinvent the wheel.
HSR serves major airports like Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle (which make Pearson look pretty small) without any special baggage facilities and with station dwell times of about 5 minutes.
I think I can admit that menus have not yet been finalized for the Toronto-London service, or whether we will have scrambled eggs served. This is actually a fairly minor detail …
Steve: Southwestern Ontario is pork country, and so I think bacon and sausages will be on the menu.
LikeLike
Acela has checked luggage service between PHL and NYP. The luggage does not ride with the passengers on Acela, but it is possible. One just has to be comfortable with the luggage arriving later than the person since it is travelling on a different train.
If this new HSR follow the same standards as Hong Kong’s Airport Express. It will be good for travellers. One can check a luggage at London Station, head to YYZ and fly to some where far like FRA without touching the luggage mid way. It will not work for US destinations since Homeland Security will not allow it.
A side note about FRA. The DB ICE trains there are codeshare with Luthansa, which is a Star Alliance member. One can purchase a ticket on ANA from Tokyo Haneda to Dusseldorf via FRA. Once the customer checks in at the ANA counter in Tokyo, the customer will recieve a boarding pass for DB’s ICE train. On arrival at FRA, after customs and collecting luggage, the customer can proceed directly to the train station and board the ICE train. There is no luggage handling facilities, but it does show what a codeshare service can do in terms of reducing shuttle services.
LikeLike
Moaz: I hadn’t commented on this post yet but this had me laughing for a while.
LikeLike
One might also be tempted to offer humble pie with a side of crow.
LikeLike
It’s not so much that Homeland Security won’t allow it, but rather a HSR checked luggage system needs to ensure that they can match a name, face, ticket, and a physical person on an aircraft to every piece of luggage passing through security at the airport on the way to all outbound flights.
LikeLike