Which (one) G7 country does not have high-speed rail?

[myata]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Such as the cost perhaps?

What is the annual cost of federal and provincial, etc bureaucracy when it has zero useful outputs and basically, pays itself just to be (sit) there? Nah, still mental inertia and laziness. People, smart and mentally alive figure out these costs all the time.

[Perspektiv]

16 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I live in a Toronto suburb with a VIA and GO station.  I would take that train to Toronto Union and hop on a 2.5 hour train to Montreal instead of driving. I’d pay good money for it.   I think it would be very popular.

I think the performance of these trains in Canadian climate would be telling. 

Many high speed trains work in cold climates, but delays due to this, is typically quite frequent.

An aircraft can be de-iced in mere minutes. Takes far more time to clear tracks and switches during the same type of weather.

I would rather be on an aircraft during extreme weather, and have quite a few times.

[Zeitgeist]

You won’t get high speed rail in Canada or much new valuable boosts to energy efficient infrastructure as long as our governments continue to spend billions on fluff like equity departments, bloating the size of government with more civil servants, and dubious actions overseas.  

[Zeitgeist]

16 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

I think the performance of these trains in Canadian climate would be telling. 

Many high speed trains work in cold climates, but delays due to this, is typically quite frequent.

An aircraft can be de-iced in mere minutes. Takes far more time to clear tracks and switches during the same type of weather.

I would rather be on an aircraft during extreme weather, and have quite a few times.

That’s why it’s only warranted in populated corridors.  KW-Toronto-Montreal has a good business case mainly because I can see it being used as a local bullet train commuter line for people at the western and eastern ends of the GTA and Peterborough to get in and out of downtown Toronto.  It would have to play a role in that daily commute transportation network.  With roughly 10 million people in the Golden Horshoe from Niagara to Waterloo to Barrie to Clarington, it’s hard to get anywhere quickly during rush hour.  It can take 3 hours to get from Hamilton to Oshawa in rush hour.   That kind of grind is destroying quality of life, business productivity, the environment, and our marketability as a place to live and work.   HSR would help curb some of that mess.  Montreal could use HSR for similar reasons, but bridging both cities would have multiple benefits.

Edited November 12, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[Perspektiv]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

HSR would help curb some of that mess

Where do you build something like this? What corridor? 

You can't possibly put something like this on existing via rail tracks, which has many crossings that are at grade with regular traffic. Also, the age of the tracks would heavily limit speeds, plus electrification would be required.

Something like this, must be segregated, and built from scratch, to truly get its full value/speed.

Where can you put it? 

You almost must elevate the tracks on a significant portion, or go under. Especially in Toronto or Montreal.

The cost of such a project, would make no sense, especially if going under for some parts.

The feasibility is just not there, unless there is something that I am missing. 

California has already built such projects and several are in the works, and you're looking at some lines worth over 7 billion USD.

The issue? Building near dense population is insanely tedious and expensive. 

This isn't factoring heated electrical lines, switches, and the amount of extra requirements to make such a line suitable for Canadian climate.

I just don't see this taking flight, when you can improve airports, add capacity to existing ones, and just overall make air quicker and more reliable for much less.

I just don't see the possibility of me wanting to take a train to Toronto from Montreal, vs a flight or simply driving myself.

One is cheap and convenient, the other is fast.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

Where do you build something like this? What corridor? 

You can't possibly put something like this on existing via rail tracks, which has many crossings that are at grade with regular traffic. Also, the age of the tracks would heavily limit speeds, plus electrification would be required.

Something like this, must be segregated, and built from scratch, to truly get its full value/speed.

Where can you put it? 

You almost must elevate the tracks on a significant portion, or go under. Especially in Toronto or Montreal.

The cost of such a project, would make no sense, especially if going under for some parts.

The feasibility is just not there, unless there is something that I am missing. 

California has already built such projects and several are in the works, and you're looking at some lines worth over 7 billion USD.

The issue? Building near dense population is insanely tedious and expensive. 

This isn't factoring heated electrical lines, switches, and the amount of extra requirements to make such a line suitable for Canadian climate.

I just don't see this taking flight, when you can improve airports, add capacity to existing ones, and just overall make air quicker and more reliable for much less.

I just don't see the possibility of me wanting to take a train to Toronto from Montreal, vs a flight or simply driving myself.

One is cheap and convenient, the other is fast.

Air travel for short distance flights is time consuming, costly, and environmentally taxing because of security, parking, fuel costs, landing fees, and high emissions.

Again, HSR can only work in certain markets.  Yes it needs a dedicated line, which is why we’re getting a dedicated passenger rail line from Toronto through Peterborough through Ottawa to Montreal.  However, the line is intended to carry current conventional diesel trains.

However, the GO train system in Ontario is being electrified, as electrification allows the trains to travel faster and both accelerate and slow down faster.  It allows the trains to function like subways as needed, creating a seamless transition between commuter rail trains and urban transit systems.  Paris uses this (RER).

So, my guess is that the system we’ll get with High Frequency Rail will be an electric-diesel hybrid capable of travelling speeds approaching HSR for segments of the lines.  Over time the train sets and sections of the line can be upgraded.  If it can approach 3hrs on a Montreal-Toronto route, that’s significant.

I agree that true HSR is unlikely.  

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Air travel for short distance flights is time consuming, costly, and environmentally taxing because of security, parking, fuel costs, landing fees, and high emissions.

Most people travel for selfish reasons. Convenience and comfort are high on the needs, as well as price.

Understanding how consumers choose product, ensure you're making a wise business decision.

You can't virtue signal a clientele into buying your products.

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yes it needs a dedicated line

I don't think you're considering how expensive this would need to be, for this to be convenient, which would make it expensive if any companies running it, intended to turn a profit.

Its just not feasible.

 

 

[Zeitgeist]

25 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Most people travel for selfish reasons. Convenience and comfort are high on the needs, as well as price.

Understanding how consumers choose product, ensure you're making a wise business decision.

You can't virtue signal a clientele into buying your products.

I don't think you're considering how expensive this would need to be, for this to be convenient, which would make it expensive if any companies running it, intended to turn a profit.

Its just not feasible.

 

 

Some would still fly.  I’d train it to Montreal.

Via is building a passenger dedicated line.  Well it’s an existing disused line.  It’s just not really HSR.  It’s HFR and upgradable over time.  

Edited November 12, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[Perspektiv]

44 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 I’d train it to Montreal.

The demand would need to be sky high, to justify all the bridges and tunnels that you would need to build.

45 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s HFR and upgradable over time.  

To run a high speed train, you would need to segregate every single road crossing. 

So, building bridges, and likely sinking the tracks underneath.

It otherwise defeats the purpose of speed, if you need to significantly slow down at the many crossings. 

It would be inefficient.

Travel a bit, and see how China or Japan built theirs. 

Experience it in Europe.

The current tracks just don't cut it, if you are looking at running at even remotely close to max speeds.

It should run as straight as possible.

Meaning elevated tracks to make it realistic and more affordable than tunnels, which would cost you many million per kilometer.

Look at California.

Having to negotiate property owners into moving, skyrocketed the costs.

Via rail would be best off upgrading its entire fleet and stations.

[OftenWrong]

7 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

The demand would need to be sky high, to justify all the bridges and tunnels that you would need to build.

To run a high speed train, you would need to segregate every single road crossing. 

So, building bridges, and likely sinking the tracks underneath.

It otherwise defeats the purpose of speed, if you need to significantly slow down at the many crossings. 

It would be inefficient.

Travel a bit, and see how China or Japan built theirs. 

Experience it in Europe.

The current tracks just don't cut it, if you are looking at running at even remotely close to max speeds.

It should run as straight as possible.

Meaning elevated tracks to make it realistic and more affordable than tunnels, which would cost you many million per kilometer.

Look at California.

Having to negotiate property owners into moving, skyrocketed the costs.

Via rail would be best off upgrading its entire fleet and stations.

Nonsense, they could save a lot of money by cutting a swath through the pristine Boreal forest. Ain't that pristine no more anyway. Cut down some more of them trees, drain that wetland, See that swamp with the moose in it there? Fill it in with rocks and then cover with concrete. 

There's yer modern transport, low carbon transportation. "Progressive". "Efficient". "Green technology".

[Perspektiv]

9 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Nonsense, they could save a lot of money by cutting a swath through the pristine Boreal forest. Ain't that pristine no more anyway. Cut down some more of them trees, drain that wetland, See that swamp with the moose in it there? Fill it in with rocks and then cover with concrete. 

Some of those lands or properties are contested? No worries, that's why guns exist.

Sign here and here, and be content you get to see another day.

Yours truly,

Dictator.

Thinking and critique of the poor planning, subject to 15 years in jail for secession. 

Ah. Finally. Freedom. The way Trudeau would like it.

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

The demand would need to be sky high, to justify all the bridges and tunnels that you would need to build.

To run a high speed train, you would need to segregate every single road crossing. 

So, building bridges, and likely sinking the tracks underneath.

It otherwise defeats the purpose of speed, if you need to significantly slow down at the many crossings. 

It would be inefficient.

Travel a bit, and see how China or Japan built theirs. 

Experience it in Europe.

The current tracks just don't cut it, if you are looking at running at even remotely close to max speeds.

It should run as straight as possible.

Meaning elevated tracks to make it realistic and more affordable than tunnels, which would cost you many million per kilometer.

Look at California.

Having to negotiate property owners into moving, skyrocketed the costs.

Via rail would be best off upgrading its entire fleet and stations.

It’s mid-20th century tech.  Via uses old British train sets.  We need faster and more frequent.  HSR won’t be what we get.  It will look more like a faster conventional rail that with better sets can achieve 200 kph about 60-80 percent of the line.  It won’t get us to 3 hrs To to Mtl.  Maybe 4 hrs on an express.   That’s a bit less than Acela in the US.  Not bad but not exciting.  France’s TGV is almost 3 x as fast but has a completely different kind of dedicated track end to end.  

Edited November 13, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[TreeBeard]

If high speed rail is important to someone as an Ontario voter, you’ll need to vote for someone other than Conservatives.  
 

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/the-toronto-to-montreal-high-speed-train-just-got-another-step-closer-1.6337371
 

The Kathleen Wynne Liberal government proposed a 250 km/hr high-speed train that would have travelled from Toronto to Windsor in just two hours, but funding was paused in 2019 by the Doug Ford government.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

If high speed rail is important to someone as an Ontario voter, you’ll need to vote for someone other than Conservatives.  
 

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/the-toronto-to-montreal-high-speed-train-just-got-another-step-closer-1.6337371
 

The Kathleen Wynne Liberal government proposed a 250 km/hr high-speed train that would have travelled from Toronto to Windsor in just two hours, but funding was paused in 2019 by the Doug Ford government.

The federal Liberals have promised it and reneged since Chrétien was in office.  Provincially Ford paused HSR but lengthened the first major Toronto subway project in decades significantly to create the Ontario Line.  Ford is better on subways and commuter rail, supporting Go electrification and expansion.   It seems like Ford is trying to leave HSR to the Feds and VIA.   It would be better to make Go and Via compatible with the same electrification and train sets, because HSR or something approaching it works well for Go trains on the Barrie, Lakeshore, and K-W lines.  My understanding is that Go trains will eventually be extended to London.  Might as well let Ontario take care of HSR on some of the Go Toronto spurs but let the feds take care of HSR from Toronto to Montreal.  Again though, it would be a watered down HSR.

The current plan including existing transit in the Greater Golden Horseshoe:

Edited November 13, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

If high speed rail is important to someone as an Ontario voter, you’ll need to vote for someone other than Conservatives.  
 

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/the-toronto-to-montreal-high-speed-train-just-got-another-step-closer-1.6337371
 

The Kathleen Wynne Liberal government proposed a 250 km/hr high-speed train that would have travelled from Toronto to Windsor in just two hours, but funding was paused in 2019 by the Doug Ford government.

Wynne supported it. Now you KNOW it was a bad idea  

[myata]

8 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

To run a high speed train, you would need to segregate every single road crossing. 

We have become a nation of "here's 1,00000 reasons why it cannot be done". Something that everybody else, a standard staple. Let's see where it gets us, in a generation or two.

Sweden is a large Northern European country with a population between Quebec and Ontario. It has HSR: SJ 200 km/h (3 hours Toronto to Montreal) with connections between main cities. This is 21st century; but we forgot.

Edited November 13, 2023 by myata

[Perspektiv]

5 hours ago, myata said:

Something that everybody else

Canada isn't everybody else.

Sweden is far more dense, regarding population. 

Overall, it makes sense.

China. Very dense compared to Canada. Makes sense. Japan. You can pepper stops along the way, in cities that just make sense.

France.

I could go on.

Australia would be a better comparison.

High volumes of the country are just not populated. Most the population is concentrated in several areas.

Horrific weather for train tracks  as is quite punishing conditions.

A high speed link due to this for such distances would be insanely expensive.

Tax payers having to foot the bill, no less.

Find me a country set up like Canada and Australia, with the climate and lack of density, that has a high speed link, and now we're talking.

There's a reason why this works in one place and won't in others.

[myata]

7 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Sweden is far more dense, regarding population. 

We're blasting excuses without any regard to the reality, facts.

Sweden population density: 20 / sq.km

Ontario: 14. Quebec: 6.

This isn't a huge difference at all. But if we'll take into account the narrow corridor along the border where a great majority of population is concentrated, the numbers will actually work in the opposite direction!

We won't do it and don't really care why. Let's see where this attitude will get us. It's coming.

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Canada isn't everybody else.

Sweden is far more dense, regarding population. 

Overall, it makes sense.

China. Very dense compared to Canada. Makes sense. Japan. You can pepper stops along the way, in cities that just make sense.

France.

I could go on.

Australia would be a better comparison.

High volumes of the country are just not populated. Most the population is concentrated in several areas.

Horrific weather for train tracks  as is quite punishing conditions.

A high speed link due to this for such distances would be insanely expensive.

Tax payers having to foot the bill, no less.

Find me a country set up like Canada and Australia, with the climate and lack of density, that has a high speed link, and now we're talking.

There's a reason why this works in one place and won't in others.

I would never support HSR across Canada unless the tech was cheap.  It isn’t.  It’s about corridors: Boston-NYC-Philadelphia-DC, Osaka-Tokyo, etc.

K-W-Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal (Quebec-Windsor?) meets the threshold of a reasonably priced HSR-light.  By that I mean the fastest trains we can run on a fairly conventional diesel-electric hybrid line that’s dedicated as passenger-only.  The problem is that such a scenario still puts Montreal to Toronto at 4 hours.  I’d probably still drive instead at that speed.  The magic number is 3 hours to make weekend jaunts comfortable.   It means we need trains to hit the 250 kph mark, which may not be possible on those tracks, even with the added over/underpasses and track straightening.   The Corvette won’t be a Ferrari no matter what paint job and trim you apply.  That may have to be the story for Canada.  Quite good but not top class.  

Edited November 13, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[Aristides]

Toronto/Montreal is the only place HSR might make sense, otherwise far too expensive for the populations involved. The bill for HSR between LA and San Francisco is now being put at $110 Billion USD.

[Perspektiv]

49 minutes ago, Aristides said:

The bill for HSR between LA and San Francisco is now being put at $110 Billion USD.

The only thing you do with numbers like that, is stick your pinky up while advising of the numbers, evil laugh, and demand a signature while continuing the evil laugh.

3 hours ago, myata said:

Ontario: 14. Quebec: 6.

And Montreal to Toronto. How much density in between?

You're dealing with a vastly different geography.

Canada is one of the largest countries on the planet.

China makes sense, because a city like Beijing can boost its economy, by bringing people outside of it into it now, very efficiently. Many cities around it are quite large. It further opens Beijing to masses of people with money, and with skills, boosting your economy.

The Philippines is building a similar train, to link Manila to one of their most prominent military bases, where many American citizens reside. The city is incredibly wealthy, and would bring a reliable link to it. You're otherwise using roads. Same idea. You're opening a gateway to do business.

I can fly from Toronto to Montreal via Porter Airlines in about an hour and a half.

I just don't understand how a train competes with this.

Porter is quick. I have used them for business. The 3 hour wait times just don't happen.

I honestly drove in an hour before flights, and always had time to kill.

I used to be a ticket agent, and would recommend travelers to spot themselves 45 minutes and this is for a bus. I would recommend more for a train. 

Via rail recommends 45 minutes for a regular non hub city, and 90 for a hub.

You clearly have never worked in the industry, if you think people will go through similar headaches to line up for a train, only to take double the time.

Thats what happens when you're such a large country.

 

[CdnFox]

10 hours ago, myata said:

We have become a nation of "here's 1,00000 reasons why it cannot be done". Something that everybody else, a standard staple. Let's see where it gets us, in a generation or two.

 

Sometimes people come up with a solution to a problem nobody asked.  Doing something just for the sake of doing it is rarely 'wise'.

Quote

Sweden is a large Northern European country with a population between Quebec and Ontario. It has HSR: SJ 200 km/h (3 hours Toronto to Montreal) with connections between main cities. This is 21st century; but we forgot.

Sweden has a reason for that. Given it's population density and lack of conflicting issues (first nations land etc) it makes sense for them. It's 450 k sq km - Quebec alone is 1.5 million sq km.   Basically sweden connects a very large hunk of its population with a high speed rail line, so there's lots of users.  Canada would have to run a line from montreal to vancouver to get the same sort of effect.

If you want to play with trains so bad visit your local hobby store   but there has to be a good business case to build one in the real world and "because sweden" isn't a good business case.

[myata]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sometimes people come up with a solution to a problem nobody asked.

In central areas of Toronto around one third does not own a car. No car, you're stuck to your close neighborhood, even within the city commuting 1.5 hr one way wouldn't work for everybody. With the inflation and rent squeezes, how long it is till the fraction is over a half?

That's a recipe for compartmentalization, stagnation, falling further behind in the world and eventually, another nudge toward the third world. While in Europe one can visit a couple of neighboring countries in a weekend without breaking their bank with a to smart and flexible rate system. Mexico is considering a high speed rail system. And Canada has been, for some time.

[Zeitgeist]

36 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

The only thing you do with numbers like that, is stick your pinky up while advising of the numbers, evil laugh, and demand a signature while continuing the evil laugh.

And Montreal to Toronto. How much density in between?

You're dealing with a vastly different geography.

Canada is one of the largest countries on the planet.

China makes sense, because a city like Beijing can boost its economy, by bringing people outside of it into it now, very efficiently. Many cities around it are quite large. It further opens Beijing to masses of people with money, and with skills, boosting your economy.

The Philippines is building a similar train, to link Manila to one of their most prominent military bases, where many American citizens reside. The city is incredibly wealthy, and would bring a reliable link to it. You're otherwise using roads. Same idea. You're opening a gateway to do business.

I can fly from Toronto to Montreal via Porter Airlines in about an hour and a half.

I just don't understand how a train competes with this.

Porter is quick. I have used them for business. The 3 hour wait times just don't happen.

I honestly drove in an hour before flights, and always had time to kill.

I used to be a ticket agent, and would recommend travelers to spot themselves 45 minutes and this is for a bus. I would recommend more for a train. 

Via rail recommends 45 minutes for a regular non hub city, and 90 for a hub.

You clearly have never worked in the industry, if you think people will go through similar headaches to line up for a train, only to take double the time.

Thats what happens when you're such a large country.

 

But flights are a luxury for people making frequent trips for family or small businesses.  I drive because I want wheels at the other end and don’t want to rent a car.  I could afford to fly but I reserve flights for drives greater than about 8 hours, e.g. drive Toronto to NYC but not to D.C.   If I have a dying relative and have to travel to the suburbs of Montreal every weekend and my options are a) fly return on Porter for $300 and rent a car for two days $150 (including fuel) or b) drive for 2.5 tanks of gas, $250, I might alternate weekends between flying and driving.  If I can get a return train ticket for $200 and rent a car for $150 and get to Montreal in 3.5 hours or less, I’ll probably always take the train, maybe even if it’s 4 hours. If it’s longer than that and more expensive than that by train, I won’t bother going by train unless I need to get work done or want to read or sleep.  To beat a flight in that regard, the price and trip length must be competitive.

Edited November 13, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[CdnFox]

31 minutes ago, myata said:

In central areas of Toronto around one third does not own a car. No car, you're stuck to your close neighborhood, even within the city commuting 1.5 hr one way wouldn't work for everybody. With the inflation and rent squeezes, how long it is till the fraction is over a half?

 

And how does long distance high speed rail help them get out of their neighborhood? Heck - they can't even drive to the high speed rail station.  ANd if they can they can fly.

Sounds like it would be cheaper and easier to buy them a car.

And if they want to take a trip - RENT a car.

Quote

That's a recipe for compartmentalization, stagnation, falling further behind in the world and eventually, another nudge toward the third world. While in Europe one can visit a couple of neighboring countries in a weekend without breaking their bank with a to smart and flexible rate system. Mexico is considering a high speed rail system. And Canada has been, for some time.

In europe you can drive to those countries just as easily. In europe MOST of the time another 'country' is only a few hour drive away if that. You can't even get out of your own PROVINCE in canada in a few hours.

So you're telling some fictional tales that don't really add up to anything.

Make your business case for it if you're going to claim we should have it. Who's complaining today about not having it? How many users would likely pay the money? How much would we have to charge to pay for it and maintain it - or are you planning for the gov't to subsidize it and take the money away from local transit?

Fairy tales about other countries and imaginary open air prisons aren't a case.  You're talking about a monumentally expensive undertaking - make your business case for it.