I haven't been following the discussion here recently and as I've only managed to read up the last few months now, I will refrain from commenting on some already rather old posts, except for the following two remarks:
#1
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoTrans
Regardless of which route you want to make the principal route you need to separate the freight from the passenger and to a lesser extent commuter service from inter-city service if you want to add more service and increase the speed. You have 4 options;
1. Triple track or quadruple track the existing Lakeshore route and have 1 or 2 tracks for passenger and 2 tracks for freight. You will have to build rail to rail separations so freight and passenger trains can switch sides at certain locations and junctions. You will have to expand all the existing grade separations and subways in order have the extra tracks.
2. Move the passenger trains off the existing Lakeshore route on the HFR route ( ex CP route ).
3. Move the freight off the existing Lakeshore route but keep trackage rights for CN to handle freight at night for customers on the Lakeshore route. This would mean having Via purchase the CN trackage and then CN built their own double track line on the proposed HFR ex CP route or take the cash and use it to convert the existing CP route to a joint ownership with triple tracks to a point where CN diverges to get back to the existing mainline somewhere between Cornwall and Montreal.
4. The same as option 3 but have Via use the ex CP Montreal & Ottawa route that Via already owns from Ottawa to Rigaud and have CN use the current Via line through Alexandria. Via could follow the CP tracks to Dorval and switch to CN to gain access to Central Station.
This is the only way you can get higher speed trains free to run on higher quality track and be free of interference from slow freights. The other way to increase speeds is to use bi-mode diesel electrics which can make use of both electrified and un-electrified territory. As more of the trackage is electrified the locomotives can run in electric mode for greater distances until the whole line is electrified. CN would probably not be in a hurry to electrify their system although at some point in time they will have to come to grips with greenhouse gases. Electric locomotives also have better acceleration and braking than diesel locomotives.
|
You can cross #4 from your list, as
CN is in the process of abandoning all trackage (or trackage rights) in the Ottawa area (including on the entire Alexandria Subdivision), which will make the Alexandria Subdivision effectively a dedicated passenger corridor...
#2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
People really need to look at Barcelona-Zaragoza-Madrid mentioned in the video. Similar population distribution and slightly longer than Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. They had hundreds of flight a day too when service started. It's one of the most profitable HSR lines in the world today.
|
I'd rather argue that you should take a closer look at what HSR has really achieved in Spain, as this
academic report produced in Spain estimates that Madrid-Barcelona will only recover less than half of its entire financial costs (i.e. operational and capital costs combined) over a 50-year period and that even including any social benefits fails to attain the break-even point. Even if Madrid-Barcelona at the very least recovers their operating costs (an already ridiculously low barrier which Madrid-Villadolid still somehow fails to meet), calling it "one of the most profitable HSR lines in the world today" does grave injustice to lines like Tokyo-Osaka and Paris-Lyon,
which have actually repaid their entire capital costs:
Just to underline why Spain would be the last country I would name as a successful HSR nation, it accounts for
9.1% of the European Union's population and
31.4% of its HSR network, but
only 5.9% of its rail ridership:
Prev
Linear Mode
