Bullet Train from Calgary to Edm

[Bertuzzied]

http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryheral...36-216dc48b0d9d

high-speed rail link between Calgary and Edmonton could make the 270-kilometre trip in well under two hours and cost about 100-dollars round trip.

Umm doesn't everyone drive like 140km on highway 2 anyways? it normally only takes me 2 hours from city limit to city limit anyways.
Actually i drive a lot faster leaving Edm than going to it. (who would want to stay any longer)

If they put this through it's going to be a huge disaster.

[Cowperson]

Why would it be a disaster?

It would sure beat driving there in January in an ice storm!!

As someone who used to drive a tractor crossing the Edmonton/Calgary rail line, I can tell you farmers would be very put out if they own property on both sides of the track as those crossings would likely be reduced substantially. Farmers would likely be facing massive detours to get to their land.

There's one potential opposition group right there.

But these trains don't seem to be disasters anywhere else. It's an issue of whether we need it or not and if the demand is there to support the cost.

Cowperson

[albertGQ]

The provincial government have looked at this and had two seperate studies on it, and both came back that the bullet train is not financially worth it. It would cost taxpayers billions to contruct and hundreds of million to operate on an annual basis

[FireInTheHole]

I would be in favour of a project like this. It would help to even further commerce between Edmonton / Red Deer / Calgary. A flight is a hastle, as the Edmonton airport is too far out of town. Or, you are looking at a 3 hour drive each way. Makes for a long day trip. A bullet train would take you from door to door in around an hour and a half each way. Is it expensive to implement? Yes - but you have to look at it as a long term investment in our provincial economy.

[RougeUnderoos]

This came up a few weeks ago and Ralph said something like "it could happen, but we will not be paying for it".

If it's a moneymaker, someone would build it. But they havent yet so fotze's old professor must be on to something.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 6 2004, 08:37 PM
Why would it be a disaster?

It would sure beat driving there in January in an ice storm!!

As someone who used to drive a tractor crossing the Edmonton/Calgary rail line, I can tell you farmers would be very put out if they own property on both sides of the track as those crossings would likely be reduced substantially. Farmers would likely be facing massive detours to get to their land.

There's one potential opposition group right there.

But these trains don't seem to be disasters anywhere else. It's an issue of whether we need it or not and if the demand is there to support the cost.

Cowperson

how long would it take for them to make back 3.4billion dollars? They are going to have to make a tonne of overpasses.

For a family of 4 it would cost them $400 for a round trip. Unless gas is $3.25/litre at that time the costs wouldn't make sense.

[octothorp]

Personally, I'd use it a lot if the cost wasn't too prohibitive--maybe about once a month on average. $100 round trip isn't too bad--something around $80 would be great. I'm a big fan of rail travel, though. I still can't believe that there's no affordable rail travel between Calgary and Banff anymore.

It sounds like the biggest cost is in terms of buying land up for the track.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Bertuzzied@Oct 6 2004, 09:33 PM
If they put this through it's going to be a huge disaster.

But just think how much it would boost the GDP! :P

[Bertuzzied]

Originally posted by octothorp@Oct 6 2004, 08:47 PM
Personally, I'd use it a lot if the cost wasn't too prohibitive--maybe about once a month on average. $100 round trip isn't too bad--something around $80 would be great. I'm a big fan of rail travel, though. I still can't believe that there's no affordable rail travel between Calgary and Banff anymore.

It sounds like the biggest cost is in terms of buying land up for the track.

Don't forget after you arrive in Edmonton you would most likely have to rent a car, since it's not exactly a condensed area(world's largest city in the land size) and i don't think there bus system is very good.

but i guess if they are going to build it, it would take 10-12 years and by that time oil will be at $200/barrel. hmmm. what kind of fuel does a bullet train use? is it all electricity? nuclear power? hehehe

[nfotiu]

There are environmental and safety benefits as well. As well as money saved on expanding roads. That should all be considered as well.

I can't believe there is not high speed rail around where I live in the central/north east US. The roads are awful. Highways can't be considered highways around here anymore. I drove from Virginia to Boston in the summer and averaged less than 30 mph for the whole trip!!! People who haven't driven on highways around here would be shocked to see how traffic on highways just congests to a standstill for hundreds of miles. North America seems so far behind Europe and Japan in this regard.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Bertuzzied+Oct 6 2004, 08:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bertuzzied @ Oct 6 2004, 08:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Oct 6 2004, 08:37 PM
Why would it be a disaster?

It would sure beat driving there in January in an ice storm!!

As someone who used to drive a tractor crossing the Edmonton/Calgary rail line, I can tell you farmers would be very put out if they own property on both sides of the track as those crossings would likely be reduced substantially. Farmers would likely be facing massive detours to get to their land.

There's one potential opposition group right there.

But these trains don't seem to be disasters anywhere else. It's an issue of whether we need it or not and if the demand is there to support the cost.

Cowperson

how long would it take for them to make back 3.4billion dollars? They are going to have to make a tonne of overpasses.

For a family of 4 it would cost them $400 for a round trip. Unless gas is $3.25/litre at that time the costs wouldn't make sense. [/b][/quote]
I'm not advocating it but the usual thing to do - and would have been done in the feasibility study - would be to try and determine average ridership at particular prices, maintenance costs on an ongoing basis, contingencies, the cost of carrying debt for the time frame in question, etc and perhaps look at a 25 year time frame or something.

It happens on things like this all the time.

Again, I have no idea if its economical or not.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by nfotiu@Oct 6 2004, 02:54 PM
There are environmental and safety benefits as well. As well as money saved on expanding roads. That should all be considered as well.

I can't believe there is not high speed rail around where I live in the central/north east US. The roads are awful. Highways can't be considered highways around here anymore. I drove from Virginia to Boston in the summer and averaged less than 30 mph for the whole trip!!! People who haven't driven on highways around here would be shocked to see how traffic on highways just congests to a standstill for hundreds of miles. North America seems so far behind Europe and Japan in this regard.

30mph on the highway? How long did it take you to get to Boston, a week?

There was much swearing around here this summer when you had to slow to a crawl for 20 minutes because of road maintenance on the highway, but then it was back up to 80mph for the rest of the trip. But then we have 2.5 million people in Alberta and you probably drove past a hundred million people on that trip.

[troutman]

High Speed Rail:

http://www.o-keating.com/hsr/

the ICE runs on its own dedicated high speed lines, the main one running from Fulda to Hannover, with a small section of line between Ulm and Frankfurt. Speeds up to 280km/h or 174mph can be achieved. In 1999 the 3rd generation of ICE will be introduced which will be capable of 330km/h or 205mph. However in service it is likely that it will be limited to 300km/h or 186mph. This will be for the Berlin-Hannover line currently being built.

GNER has ordered two Pendolini trains from Fiat Ferroviaria who is the Italian company who has the biggest market share in tilting trains. These tilting trains will run on the East Coast Mainline. If everything goes according to plan they will arrive in the UK in 2000. These trains will suplement the existing 31 Inter City 225 train to improve the timetable. GNER hopes to cut the journey time for the 400 mile journey from London to Edinburgh from 3hours 58 minutes to 3 hours 30 minutes on selected services. At the moment most of the signalling is only suitable for speeds up to 125 mph (200km/h), but there are plans to improve it to 140mph (225km/h) in the near future, and possibly further for the new trains. Even if maximum speeds are not improved, it will still be faster than conventional trains because the Pendolini's will be able to exceed speed restrictions on curves by up to 30% thanks to the tilting mechanism

Webring for high-speed train enthusiasts:

http://p.webring.com/hub?ring=speedtrain

[Bertuzzied]

One puzzling question i have always had about bullet trains is ... ROADKILL? how can animals run away from something that goes 350km/hour. Also can someone derail a bullet train easily? i mean like a shopping cart on the tracks??

[nfotiu]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Oct 6 2004, 09:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Oct 6 2004, 09:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-nfotiu@Oct 6 2004, 02:54 PM
There are environmental and safety benefits as well. As well as money saved on expanding roads. That should all be considered as well.

I can't believe there is not high speed rail around where I live in the central/north east US. The roads are awful. Highways can't be considered highways around here anymore. I drove from Virginia to Boston in the summer and averaged less than 30 mph for the whole trip!!! People who haven't driven on highways around here would be shocked to see how traffic on highways just congests to a standstill for hundreds of miles. North America seems so far behind Europe and Japan in this regard.

30mph on the highway? How long did it take you to get to Boston, a week?

There was much swearing around here this summer when you had to slow to a crawl for 20 minutes because of road maintenance on the highway, but then it was back up to 80mph for the rest of the trip. But then we have 2.5 million people in Alberta and you probably drove past a hundred million people on that trip. [/b][/quote]
It took almost 20 hours to drive 550 miles all on interstates with 70mph speed limits! No real accidents or construction to slow us down, just congestion. We chose to drive for the experience, and we wanted to have our car as we were going out to martha's vineyard as well, but never again will I drive that stretch! The plus side of getting around around here is that flights are very reasonable for flying anywhere up and down the atlantic coast, pretty much around $150 or so to anywhere.

[octothorp]

Well, one of the long-term benefits is that it would be a great alternative form of travel for an aging population. It may not be a big deal for most of us young folks to make a two-hour drive non-stop from Calgary to Edmonton, but for a couple in their 70s, it's more likely to take 3 hours plus bathroom breaks and a lunch break. I hate to perpetuate stereotypes here, but an aging population doesn't make for safer driving conditions, especially on day-long trips. Personally, I'd be much happier knowing that certain relations of mine were taking the high-speed between Calgary and Edmonton, rather than making that long drive every few weeks.

[Fobulous]

Its funny how the topic of building a rail system from Cal - Ed comes up when really our own train system in Calgary sucks. To get from my sisters house in Westhills to downtown it would easily take 2 hours when you have to keep switching buses and trains.

I say before even entertaining this idea, we get our own system set up.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally posted by octothorp@Oct 6 2004, 09:41 PM
Well, one of the long-term benefits is that it would be a great alternative form of travel for an aging population. It may not be a big deal for most of us young folks to make a two-hour drive non-stop from Calgary to Edmonton, but for a couple in their 70s, it's more likely to take 3 hours plus bathroom breaks and a lunch break. I hate to perpetuate stereotypes here, but an aging population doesn't make for safer driving conditions, especially on day-long trips. Personally, I'd be much happier knowing that certain relations of mine were taking the high-speed between Calgary and Edmonton, rather than making that long drive every few weeks.

There is greyhound. Which would be cheaper but slower. But if they are seniors i'm sure they won't mind the extra hour of travel.

[Thunderball]

That's pretty misleading... well under 2 hours... they should say just under an hour and a half, which sounds a lot better to people.

Either way, if we can go the cheaper CP route, get it done. Good alternative transport, good for the economy and tourism. By the way, Octothorp.... well put.

My Edmonton-Calgary record is 1hr. 50 mins anyway... B)

Doggy Dogg is right too... though I fear poor planning has destroyed the prospect of a better LRT system.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

I say we go the full Lyle Lanley route and get the monorail! ;-)

Am I the only one that remembers the old Dayliner between Edmonton and Calgary and the perpetual carnage that happened when rural folk couldn't figure out at grade crossings?

The Airlines have also strenously objected to a government funded high speed rail link.