Should canada have high-speed rail?

[countryboy]

The subject of a high-speed rail system for Canada has popped up in another thread. I think it started during a discussion of current airport security issues.

It's an interesting thought. Other parts of the world have had good and safe high-speed rail systems for a long time. The one in Japan is called the "Shinkansen" which means "New Main Line", but we refer to it as the bullet train. It started in 1964 during the Tokyo Olympics and has never had a fatal accident.

Do you think Canada should start to consider establishing a service like this? The benefits would be many, and of course, so would the challenges...

 

[ironsides]

From where to where? They are expensive.

 

[countryboy]

From where to where? They are expensive.

Where? Oh, across the entire country would be one possibility. Maybe start with the heaviest potential traffic corridors.

Expensive? I guess (I don't know the costs)...just kicking the concept around at this point...

 

[lone wolf]

VIA has been kicking the concept around for a number of years. The early-seventies turbos weren't a great success - but they operated on conventional rail between Toronto and Montreal. The problem would be in year-round perfectly smooth track on land subject to frost heave. In my opinion, it would be a start-from-scratch project put forward to people who prefer to adapt existing plant.

http://www.canada.com/news/Rail+ready+high+speed+trains/1672527/story.html

 

[Francis2004]

Where? Oh, across the entire country would be one possibility. Maybe start with the heaviest potential traffic corridors.

Expensive? I guess (I don't know the costs)...just kicking the concept around at this point...

Well ironside has a point..

So does LW.. I remember the train between Montreal and Toronto and was even on it as a child..

Where does bullet or fast trains make sense and when does price of airfare compete with trains in a way that makes them affordable..

Going from BC to Halifax would be a major undertaking that would make rates way to high in my opinion.. They could never compete with airfare and still would require the same security that airports do..

Look at the problems Spain had..

 

[ironsides]

Lone Wolf hit the nail on the head one big problem would be, smooth track that would be impervious to hot and cold, let alone shifting Earth. Small short runs in high traffic commuter corridors might work.

Chinese high-speed train sets new record.
Chinese high-speed train sets new record - CNN.com

Even a speed of 394km per hour which the Chinese (The Harmony express) train is slower than a airplane.

 

[AnnaG]

IMO, if you're in a hurry, take a plane. If you like scenery, take rail. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. By rail you can take a couple trunkfuls of stuff; by plane, not so much. Trains has a more efficient use of fuel; planes are fast. Trains can pack many passengers; planes not so much. People can board trains almost the entire length, planes only a couple places. Trains are comfortable, planes are a pain sometimes. Trains are regular in movement, planes are subject to wind and stuff. I'd rather fly over the prairies than go by rail. lol

 

[TenPenny]

No.

It's a waste of money in a country that is sparsely populated and very large.

 

[lone wolf]

No doubt it's the nicest way to see Canada. The Northlander was my preferred ride on those ordeals in Toronto. A car trip back was out of the question after treatment and I'd rather be strapped to the roof than do Greyhound. No billboards.... No traffic.... No crowd. Even within city limits, you're still riding in the wild (though that lonesome whistle lost out to noise bylaws) High speed trains may have to wait - at least until maglev is feasible reality.

YouTube - "The City of New Orleans" - A Train Slideshow

 

[countryboy]

IMO, if you're in a hurry, take a plane. If you like scenery, take rail. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. By rail you can take a couple trunkfuls of stuff; by plane, not so much. Trains has a more efficient use of fuel; planes are fast. Trains can pack many passengers; planes not so much. People can board trains almost the entire length, planes only a couple places. Trains are comfortable, planes are a pain sometimes. Trains are regular in movement, planes are subject to wind and stuff. I'd rather fly over the prairies than go by rail. lol

What? AnnaG, you mean to say you'd prefer to miss out on one of life's greatest experiences...seeing the prairies?!? Shame, shame. :lol: (Did I mention I'm from Manitoba originally?) :lol:

Seriously, there is one other aspect to rail that might be important...I don't know the numbers (sorry, not an expert) on energy required to move a specific weight or mass by air vs. rail, but it might be worth looking into. I'm thinking about total energy savings here.

(And don't forget...we're talking "high speed" here, so those lovely prairies would be going by at maybe 270 km/hr. Wouldn't that be great?)

 

[countryboy]

IMO, if you're in a hurry, take a plane. If you like scenery, take rail. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. By rail you can take a couple trunkfuls of stuff; by plane, not so much. Trains has a more efficient use of fuel; planes are fast. Trains can pack many passengers; planes not so much. People can board trains almost the entire length, planes only a couple places. Trains are comfortable, planes are a pain sometimes. Trains are regular in movement, planes are subject to wind and stuff. I'd rather fly over the prairies than go by rail. lol

Forgot one point here..."If you're in a hurry, take a plane" but I'm wondering it that would still apply on a short flight, with all the airport delays and security "issues" being discussed on another thread? I'm thinking about Edmonton-Calgary, Montreal-Toronto, Regina-Saskatoon (the Roughrider fans in Saskatoon might love it!), and I'm sure there are many others...

 

[Nuggler]

Shyte, yah, Loner:

When I werked fer de INCO, I used to take the train (The Canadian) from a certain point in Eastern Ont., and was deposited approx 6 or 7 hours later, in the Sud-bur-eee.

OMG, what a ride. Up in the dome car with snow blowin atcha, a mickey of rye in yer jacket pocket.

Can't be described............at least not without the threat of divorce.

Didn't appreciate it at the time, but, would give, well, at least, oh say, a few bucks, to do it again.

The train guys were so tolerant of INCO workers, miners, refinery, smelter workers.

T'was a great time in me life.

A simple train ride, eh.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

As I mentioned in the thread Countryboy is referring to, trains come with their own challenges. Personally, for downtown to downtown service on short distance runs, I think they would be ideal. It's been a long time since I rode the TGV, but I think it had its own dedicated track, and it would have beaten a plane ride between Paris and Rennes by quite a bit if you timed it from your driveway to your destination, but the trip through LeMans was quite uncomfortable as the train switched from track to track to track at a slow speed. The big problem would be with cost, I don't think many are too enthusiastic about land expropriation, (folks are still reeling over the Mirabel and Pickering airports) for a dedicated track and negotiating landowners' rights of way for crossings to their own property, considering what is going on now on the East coast with a new owner of an existing rail line raising the leases for private crossings by 10X in some cases. That is only the first part, the engineering and building of a suitable rail bed is another. The demand and ridership to make it profitable is another consideration, someone has to pay for it, and even if the taxpayers agree, businesses in competition wouldn't allow it to be subsidized.

 

[countryboy]

As I mentioned in the thread Countryboy is referring to, trains come with their own challenges. Personally, for downtown to downtown service on short distance runs, I think they would be ideal. It's been a long time since I rode the TGV, but I think it had its own dedicated track, and it would have beaten a plane ride between Paris and Rennes by quite a bit if you timed it from your driveway to your destination, but the trip through LeMans was quite uncomfortable as the train switched from track to track to track at a slow speed. The big problem would be with cost, I don't think many are too enthusiastic about land expropriation, (folks are still reeling over the Mirabel and Pickering airports) for a dedicated track and negotiating landowners' rights of way for crossings to their own property, considering what is going on now on the East coast with a new owner of an existing rail line raising the leases for private crossings by 10X in some cases. That is only the first part, the engineering and building of a suitable rail bed is another. The demand and ridership to make it profitable is another consideration, someone has to pay for it, and even if the taxpayers agree, businesses in competition wouldn't allow it to be subsidized.

Oh sure, there are lots potential obstacles to such a "crazy" (in the minds of some) idea...it must have been a reeeeeally big challenge back in the days when they built the first cross-country railroad, eh?

 

[TenPenny]

Chinese high-speed train sets new record.
Chinese high-speed train sets new record - CNN.com

Even a speed of 394km per hour which the Chinese (The Harmony express) train is slower than a airplane.

I rode the Shanghai maglev this summer, we hit 431km/h.

 

[vinod1975]

Oh sure, there are lots potential obstacles to such a "crazy" (in the minds of some) idea...it must have been a reeeeeally big challenge back in the days when they built the first cross-country railroad, eh?

Good to read all the comments here as soon I am coming to Canada for 7 Years

 

[countryboy]

I rode the Shanghai maglev this summer, we hit 431km/h.

So, let's see...how long would a trip from Montreal to Toronto take at say, 385 km/hr. I think it used to take 6 hours by car (?), so at an average speed of say, oh maybe 90 km/hr, would I be close at a trip length of around 540 km.? Would that make it a 1 hr. 45 min. trip in rough figures?

My figures are probably off, but it looks to me that it might be possible to travel between Montreal and Toronto faster than the net time by air. I'm of course considering arrival time at the airport, etc.

I'm sure somebody will set me straight on those numbers...feel free!

 

[AnnaG]

What? AnnaG, you mean to say you'd prefer to miss out on one of life's greatest experiences...seeing the prairies?!? Shame, shame. :lol: (Did I mention I'm from Manitoba originally?) :lol:

I drove through the prairies. Hubby went across by rail. The nicest part of crossing was finally seeing the Rockies or a lake (on the other side). I guess there's always the choice of boozing one's way across if going by rail. lol

Seriously, there is one other aspect to rail that might be important...I don't know the numbers (sorry, not an expert) on energy required to move a specific weight or mass by air vs. rail, but it might be worth looking into. I'm thinking about total energy savings here.

For short intercity distances at least, rail is way more efficient. Maximum take off weight for an Airbus 330 series is 233 tonnes (cargo/passenger weight of about 70 tonnes). Rails can carry as much as 130 tonnes per car, and tens of thousands of tonnes per train. Airbus says their 380 goes through almost 3 liters of fuel per passenger per kilometer. UK trains average between 2 MPG and 12 MPG depending upon terrain and load. Passenger trains get the higher fuel mileages.

Fuel efficiency in transportation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Electric trains are even more efficient than diesel powered ones.

(And don't forget...we're talking "high speed" here, so those lovely prairies would be going by at maybe 270 km/hr. Wouldn't that be great?)

I'd much prefer rail.

 

[countryboy]

I drove through the prairies. Hubby went across by rail. The nicest part of crossing was finally seeing the Rockies or a lake (on the other side). I guess there's always the choice of boozing one's way across if going by rail. lol

You drove? Well then, you must have seen the tree a few miles east of Regina, if you were on the Trans-Canada Hwy.! It's on the north side of the road...you can't miss it. :lol:

 

[AnnaG]

As I mentioned in the thread Countryboy is referring to, trains come with their own challenges. Personally, for downtown to downtown service on short distance runs, I think they would be ideal. It's been a long time since I rode the TGV, but I think it had its own dedicated track, and it would have beaten a plane ride between Paris and Rennes by quite a bit if you timed it from your driveway to your destination, but the trip through LeMans was quite uncomfortable as the train switched from track to track to track at a slow speed. The big problem would be with cost, I don't think many are too enthusiastic about land expropriation, (folks are still reeling over the Mirabel and Pickering airports) for a dedicated track and negotiating landowners' rights of way for crossings to their own property, considering what is going on now on the East coast with a new owner of an existing rail line raising the leases for private crossings by 10X in some cases. That is only the first part, the engineering and building of a suitable rail bed is another. The demand and ridership to make it profitable is another consideration, someone has to pay for it, and even if the taxpayers agree, businesses in competition wouldn't allow it to be subsidized.

Japan seems to have done it. The longest bullet-train ride is over 2400 km. Japan's climate is similar to southern Canada's (where most Canadians live) and the terrain varies from mountainous to flat, like Canada's. Canada has loads of room to make railbeds and Japan is one of the most densely populated places on the planet.
Yeah, forget it. Rail in canada would be a washout. :roll: