How Canada got stuck building low-speed rail | CBC Creator Network
Canada is great at high-speed rail studies — but not at actually building high-speed rail. So why is it the only country in the developed world considering a new conventional-speed passenger network?
Created by Paige Saunders with special guest Reece Martin
Exactly. The line connecting London to Kitchener-Waterloo, two cities of a half-million people, spends most of its length doing 50-60km/h because of the lousy rail lines that have been largely un maintained for forty years. What should be a 45 minute ride ends up being over two hours. We can get so much improvement to our system by just fixing the shit we already have, or had fifty years ago.
It's more complicated, and the Kitchener to London route is a good example with which I'm familiar.
I used to take this route a lot in the mid-Aughts and I think it was roughly 45-60 minutes. I moved back to the area ~5 years ago and was flabbergasted when I found out how long it takes now. I thought, "the government should fix this!" However, when you dig into it more, you find out CN owns that route and they've made the calculation that upkeep is more expensive to them than slow trains. Sure, "the government" could pay CN to fix the rails, but I don't think we want CN getting tax dollars, and even then, back when it was reasonably fast, you'd often experience huge delays because of freight.
Rumours are, GO has been eyeing that section of track and if they buy, they'll obviously fix it up. However, this whole thing demonstrates how important it is to have designated passenger train tracks. And if you're building dedicated tracks between two of the biggest cities in North America, it's probably worth investing the extra money in HSR.
I'm not a rail engineer, but I assume if grades and curves are done for higher speeds off the hop, then the non-earthworks conversion later should be relatively easy?
Paige points out in the video that you can't just trivially convert curvy conventional rail to high speed. He also points towards, without explicitly saying, that with the projected winding route, trains will spend a lot of time at slower than max conventional speeds.
That assumption is not a good one. The video highlights that both competing proposals, which include Siemen's conventional "high frequency" option and Alstrom's high speed rail option, are set to build new track through the Canadian shield in the area around Peterborough which would slow down speeds significantly. There's too much geography navigate around on this proposed route for HSR. Instead the video hosts suggest using the existing freight lines beside Lake Ontario and extending GO service to Peterborough which has much more potential for HSR.
"Speed costs, how fast can you afford to go?" Doesn't matter if it's cars, motorcycles, trains or sailboats. It's not a linear increase either.
Having said that, what I'd love to see is all fixed rail infrastructure turned over to a non-profit corporation. Private or public rail companies with the rolling stock would pay fees to run trains on given schedules controlled by the infrastructure company, with priority given to passenger trains. The fees would be enough to cover the costs of rail maintenance and expansion.
With railways open to anyone with rolling stock, competition is increased. Exclusive routes would be eliminated, which would help reduce freight rates.
Over time, separate passenger rail lines would be developed, at least partially subsidized by fees on the freight companies, as passenger rail typically has very thin margins.
This is key. I used to work for one of the major railroad companies, and passenger trains are an afterthought. There are so many freight trains traveling that there isn't time for anything else. There was barely time for us to get on the track to do maintenance.
Nope, haven't seen it. I will now though.
I have a soft spot for trains in general. Dad (marketing director) and my grandfather (sales agent) worked for railways. Some of my ideas come from them.
They talked me out of following suit. It's a pretty tough business these days.
I agree when it comes to transporting goods, but low speed rail isn't good enough to transport people. Remember, isn't actually that insanely fast. They start at 200km/h, so aren't anything too amazing at the lower end.
That said, if we can get some more low speed rail for goods installed, the tax revenue from that alone should give the governments more than enough to set up high speed rail lines soon after. Canada has a serious internal trade problem. Every single province trades more with the US than their neighbouring province. More cargo rail would help fix that.
In addition, since cargo and passenger rail is combined right now, passenger trains need to wait hours for cargo trains to pass through sections of it because they have priority. Just building a new cargo line would significantly reduce this one problem even if cargo trains are still allowed to use the old lines.
But I’ll point out that 200km/h is still ~50% higher than highway speeds, with no traffic, and you can still focus on other things.
So even low end rail is still better than driving.
I agree with the need for more lines. Here in Ontario, I think ViaRail has to share the only line with other rail companies. So, if a train needs to get past in the other direction, you have to sit on a side line and wait. So annoying!
I priced a return trip from Ottawa to London for three and it was almost $900+tax (I think it didn't include tax), taking 8-10 hours.
Sharing lines isn't that unusual, it's been done since the dawn of the railroads. It's just that freight would be waiting on sidings while passenger and mail moved. Via Rail is just bass-ackwards.
I suppose the problem is that CN or CP own the tracks, and Via is just the renter, so CN and CP give lower priority.
Canada used to have that. But then we decided to urbanize, which allows people to walk everywhere, and thus we eventually had no need for the transit and eventually we ripped it up. It’s interesting we want to go back to the rural lifestyle again.
I do think it's worth proposing a high speed railway line. If we're going to spend 25 years to build it anyway, might as well make it a more competitive option than air travel or car. Air travel can't go much faster than how it is without making it way unreasonably expensive to operate. The cost to operate is more for High speed rail but not as much, it is more in the initial investment.
Canada doesn't want to end up with "high-speed rail" like the Northeast Corridor, so it's prioritizing HFR to begin with...
We should probably start planning out an HSR right of way, but I'm not against expanding our conventional network in lieu of burning money on shit trains that run on shit tracks below conventional speeds for most of the trip anyway.
God the Northeast Corridor sucks and the fact that Amtrak is willing to call it HSR is a disgrace.