High Speed Train Coming?-split from boosting Canada’s military spending"

[Halifax Tar]

I will never understand why laypeople always assume professionals are morons who never think of things. Particularly bizarre when this mindset comes from military folks who have spent a lifetime receiving the same crap from the average Wikipedia civvy expert.

I stopped reading at that last period.

AI ASSISTED how many times have subject matter experts been wrong ?

 

[YZT580]

I will never understand why laypeople always assume professionals are morons who never think of things. Particularly bizarre when this mindset comes from military folks who have spent a lifetime receiving the same crap from the average Wikipedia civvy expert.

Aside from the fact that the freight railways have no interest in any of this, your suggestion takes every controversy about HSR and scales it up 10x. Take Alto's 60m RoW (which already has sensitivities with the rural public) and now make it 100m to accomodate extra track. And then tell the neighbours you're doing this not just for passengers (who they are already convinced look like the monopoly man) but to move hazardous goods too. I'm sure they'll love it. Oh and all this to end up with another set of freight conflicts that this very project is trying to avoid.

from the way you replied you failed to acknowledge the last point which was to build passenger rail on the current right of way so there would be little or no conflict with freight. And as I said, it was a possibility that didn't involve a massive land grab. In fact and you will definitely laugh at this one, you could make it a fast i.e. 120 mph line as the original turbo was supposed to attain and reduce your Toronto/Montreal transit time to 4 hours and that is with the initial 6 stops. Wouldn't cost as much and it would make it a true service to all of Ontario since the service could easily be extended to Windsor. You are definitely not a moron but you are most definitely naive. I spent the last 10 years of my career in aviation future development and I can assure you that professionals at least in that field do NOT think of things. Their thoughts are controlled by their personal prejudices. Simple example is the "moron" who thought that passengers would accept the change in seat pitch that WestJet tried to institute. Want another example: Mirabel. But then again, maybe you have your own set of prejudices that interfere with your acceptance of thoughts other than your own. Have a good day

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I will never understand why laypeople always assume professionals are morons who never think of things. Particularly bizarre when this mindset comes from military folks who have spent a lifetime receiving the same crap from the average Wikipedia civvy expert.

Umm, my guess is it's the years of our professionals crapping the bed with with procurement, recruiting, etc, etc? Seriously, you must have been drunk when you typed that line.....

 

[lenaitch]

it was a possibility that didn't involve a massive land grab.

It would still involve a large land grab, simply by virtue of both carriers wanting lots of tracks to themselves. What it would not be, in comparison the ALTO, is as much of a physical barrier, since the speeds would be slower and more level crossings would be possible.

you could make it a fast i.e. 120 mph line as the original turbo was supposed to attain and reduce your Toronto/Montreal transit time to 4 hours and that is with the initial 6 stops.

Your proposal is closer to the original High Frequency Rail proposal, just on a different corridor. The key to fast (pick your speed) and consistently on-time passenger rail is separating it from freight. Somebody has to move. Europe can better get away with mixing non-HSR passenger rail and freight because they don't move anywhere near the tonnage we do in North America.

The speed a trainset is designed for or geared for isn't the defining issue; track classification rules are. Each class of track has a maximum speed for passenger and freight, and design rules in terms of curvature, grade, super elevation ('track banking'), maintenance standards, as well as crossing protection rules. The CN Kingston subdivision between Toronto (Pickering) and Dorval is considered Class 5 track and has a maximum passenger track speed of 100mph but not in all areas and further limited when switching tracks. The class of track required for high speed rail does not exist anywhere in Canada. In addition to very specific design parameters, level crossings are simply not allowed.

 

[YZT580]

It would still involve a large land grab, simply by virtue of both carriers wanting lots of tracks to themselves. What it would not be, in comparison the ALTO, is as much of a physical barrier, since the speeds would be slower and more level crossings would be possible.


Your proposal is closer to the original High Frequency Rail proposal, just on a different corridor. The key to fast (pick your speed) and consistently on-time passenger rail is separating it from freight. Somebody has to move. Europe can better get away with mixing non-HSR passenger rail and freight because they don't move anywhere near the tonnage we do in North America.

The speed a trainset is designed for or geared for isn't the defining issue; track classification rules are. Each class of track has a maximum speed for passenger and freight, and design rules in terms of curvature, grade, super elevation ('track banking'), maintenance standards, as well as crossing protection rules. The CN Kingston subdivision between Toronto (Pickering) and Dorval is considered Class 5 track and has a maximum passenger track speed of 100mph but not in all areas and further limited when switching tracks. The class of track required for high speed rail does not exist anywhere in Canada. In addition to very specific design parameters, level crossings are simply not allowed.

from way back, the turbotrain sets leaned into the corners. Did this allow for a higher speed legally for a given classification of track?

 

[lenaitch]

from way back, the turbotrain sets leaned into the corners. Did this allow for a higher speed legally for a given classification of track?

That I don't know. Track speeds are determined not only by alignment but also by limitations in the signalling system. Also, active tilting suspension impacts the forces experienced by the passengers, it does not change the dynamic forces between the wheels and rail.

More recently, the LRC ('light - rapid - comfortable') class of passenger rail cars initially had active tilting suspension. The system was deactivated after a while due to maintenance problems, and completely stripped out during upgrade maintenance. If I recall, when tilting was active, they were allowed a speed of 110 mph on stretches of the Corridor when other passenger trains were limited to 100.

 

[ytz]

from way back, the turbotrain sets leaned into the corners. Did this allow for a higher speed legally for a given classification of track?

1) Rules have changed since the 60s.

2) The Turbo Train only hit 4 hrs between Toronto and Montreal once a day. Never serviced Ottawa. It's the Avro Arrow of Canadian rail. Lots of myth making.

3) Freight trains today are nothing like they were in the 70s. They are substantially longer. VIA is currently entangled in lawsuits because they can't fit a 7 car train at 100 mph on the Corridor with CN. Aside from the fact that Transport Canada will not tolerate mixing freight with anything faster, the freight railways themselves will never tolerate faster speeds and longer trains that substantially interfere with their ops. And no government will expropriate from two of the largest companies in Canada who individually carry freight that would be a significant chunk of total freight in Europe.

4) Speed determines geometry. Target travel time determines speed. Modal competition determines target travel time. Demand for trains slower than driving is limited. Make the travel time shorter and the required speed goes up which makes curve radii larger. This would substantially drive up expropriation. And it would be along a far more populated portion of the Corridor, with much more opposition and much higher cost.

Again, I'll go back to what I said earlier. Do you think the folks planning a $90B project never went through options analysis looking at this stuff? They even left the bidding open to allow the freight companies to propose something like you suggested. They never did.

 

[YZT580]

1) Rules have changed since the 60s.

2) The Turbo Train only hit 4 hrs between Toronto and Montreal once a day. Never serviced Ottawa. It's the Avro Arrow of Canadian rail. Lots of myth making.

3) Freight trains today are nothing like they were in the 70s. They are substantially longer. VIA is currently entangled in lawsuits because they can't fit a 7 car train at 100 mph on the Corridor with CN. Aside from the fact that Transport Canada will not tolerate mixing freight with anything faster, the freight railways themselves will never tolerate faster speeds and longer trains that substantially interfere with their ops. And no government will expropriate from two of the largest companies in Canada who individually carry freight that would be a significant chunk of total freight in Europe.

4) Speed determines geometry. Target travel time determines speed. Modal competition determines target travel time. Demand for trains slower than driving is limited. Make the travel time shorter and the required speed goes up which makes curve radii larger. This would substantially drive up expropriation. And it would be along a far more populated portion of the Corridor, with much more opposition and much higher cost.

Again, I'll go back to what I said earlier. Do you think the folks planning a $90B project never went through options analysis looking at this stuff? They even left the bidding open to allow the freight companies to propose something like you suggested. They never did.

I wonder. Your first 4 paragraphs are logical and are a good response to the proposition put forward. Your last sentence is both caustic and unnecessary and my reply is still valid. If folks planning things thought of everything WestJet wouldn't be replacing seats; again! People present an issue for discussion not to be ridiculed. I didn't know the answer so I asked. I notice in many of your responses you quote others presumably because you either aren't certain of or didn't know the answer to the point being brought up. That is true for the rest of us too. People would be far more willing to view your replies flavourably if you refrained from the editorials and simply stated what you know or what you think you know. Saw an add the other day: the caption on it read: the only dumb question is the one unasked. This argument by the way is from Leadership 101, its good advice yours to accept or reject. Bye

 

[ytz]

I wonder. Your first 4 paragraphs are logical and are a good response to the proposition put forward. Your last sentence is both caustic and unnecessary and my reply is still valid. If folks planning things thought of everything WestJet wouldn't be replacing seats; again! People present an issue for discussion not to be ridiculed. I didn't know the answer so I asked. I notice in many of your responses you quote others presumably because you either aren't certain of or didn't know the answer to the point being brought up. That is true for the rest of us too. People would be far more willing to view your replies flavourably if you refrained from the editorials and simply stated what you know or what you think you know. Saw an add the other day: the caption on it read: the only dumb question is the one unasked. This argument by the way is from Leadership 101, its good advice yours to accept or reject. Bye

I'm hoping you've heard of this:

I've seen this play out for the last two decades on defence issues in Canada. And knowing how that makes me feel, I am not going to sit quiet and watch professionals in other fields get maligned or dismissed by come lately Wikipedia experts.

And broadly, I don't think it suits our society well to politicize every f'ing thing and accept that comments informed by Wikipedia are equally valid as professional experience and knowledge.

In this particular case, I see no difference between those who screech about how RCAF officers are biased and would have picked the Gripen if they weren't incompetent and the crowd that screeches that the group building Alto (including two of the largest rail builders in the world) are clueless and would have built on xyz alignment if they knew better. Different topics maybe. But the same arrogance and disdain for expertise.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'm hoping you've heard of this:

I've seen this play out for the last two decades on defence issues in Canada. And knowing how that makes me feel, I am not going to sit quiet and watch professionals in other fields get maligned or dismissed by come lately Wikipedia experts.

And broadly, I don't think it suits our society well to politicize every f'ing thing and accept that comments informed by Wikipedia are equally valid as professional experience and knowledge.

In this particular case, I see no difference between those who screech about how RCAF officers are biased and would have picked the Gripen if they weren't incompetent and the crowd that screeches that the group building Alto (including two of the largest rail builders in the world) are clueless and would have built on xyz alignment if they knew better. Different topics maybe. But the same arrogance and disdain for expertise.

Spending public money and expropriating land is political. And as much as you wish to hand wave away we, the unwashed masses, we are citizens of this country and we have every to pose questions and disagree.

If you dont like that NK and China would be good places to set up shop.

If the last 6 years has taught me anything its that expert is title that must be earned and maintained; and continually questioned. They are also just as fallible and open to corruption as their opposite number at the other end of socio economic scale. Your blind faith in experts if folly IMHO.

Trust but verify.

 

[lenaitch]

VIA is currently entangled in lawsuits because they can't fit a 7 car train at 100 mph on the Corridor with CN.

That's not explaining the issue. It's not a matter of 'fit'; the new Siemens equipment is simply replacing older stock. The basis of the lawsuit is technical. The new equipment is much lighter than the stuff being replaced and CN alleges that it has the potential to not trigger some crossing signals, so has mandated either a minimum number of axles (more than the Siemens trainsets have) or a lower speed at crossings. There's bunch of tech involved. Signals are activated by the wheels and axles essentially shorting out a voltage between the rails. CN uses a lower voltage than its peer railways. It's only an issue on what are called 'predictive' signals, which adjust the signal activation distance depending on the train's speed. Those requirements are either burning holes in VIA's schedule times or eating up the limited number of new trains because they are having to double up to maintain speeds. VIA alleges that CN doesn't have the hard data to back its case. CN says it's a safety issue and is acting out of an abundance of caution.

One solution is a thing called a 'shunt enhancer' which is basically an inductive coil that can amplify the voltage shunted between the rails. Unfortunately, they are not yet approved in North America.

In my opinion, the dispute has ended up in civil court because Transport Canada dropped the ball (actually, never picked it up). To me, this is clearly a safety-based regulatory issue. TC has the technical expertise; the court does not.