[roger1818]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I agree with this, one thing to not though is that a country that is well run would not have built HSR without there already being large demand on the existing lines (Spain and China being examples of where this principle wasn't followed). Thus the demand for seats on the new HSR is large, hence the high prices, not actually because of the high cost of construction - you wouldn't have high ticket prices if it meant people didn't use the line.

It isn't just the construction costs that are significantly higher, the operating costs are also significantly higher. There are two main causes:

First of all air resistance (fluid friction) is proportional to the square of the velocity, so a 300 km/h train will use twice as much energy as a train traveling 200 km/h and 3.5 times as much energy as on traveling at 160 km/h (VIA's current top speed). Someone has to pay for that energy.

Secondly, HSR trains and track require significantly more maintenance than lower speed trains, which costs money.

HS2 in the UK is not being built primarily for speed but for capacity, however going faster improved the CBR.

When using double track, it is a myth that higher speed trains have a higher capacity than lower speed trains (single track is different, but you can't have HSR on single track). The capacity of a line is the capacity of each train times the number of trains you run. With double track, the minimum interval between trains is based on the stopping distance, and the faster the train is traveling, the more time/distance it needs to stop. Higher speeds will allow better utilization of your equipment, but that is different from capacity.

HFR in Canada should provide ample capacity for the time being, and if it turns out demand outstrips supply, then there will be much greater evidence for the need of HSR than there is today.

I agree that HFR should provide enough capacity for now. If we run out of capacity, that just shows how popular trains are, and will justify expansion.