High Speed Rail - Calgary/Edmonton

[getbak]

I was in Europe in March when a huge blizzard blew through and all the high-speed trains were shut down.

[SebC]

If we can't even keep the LRT running well in the cold, I imagine high speed trains would be worse.

I do wonder though if adding some heat tracing to the switches downtown wouldn't be a cost-effective way to improve reliability.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by SebC

Fuel costs: the net effect of rising fuel costs is increased viability of rail. So, while it means the ticket prices would be off, the case for rail is only strengthened.

Fuel is a double-edged sword. Rising fuel costs makes alternative options more viable only if the alternatives are cheaper or close in cost to the consumer. So while it is certainly more expensive to drive because of fuel costs, it will also be more expensive to take the train. (again, depending on type of fuel and its cost relative to gasoline.)

It probably takes about two-thirds of a tank of gas to get to Edmonton in my car. My fuel cost then is about $30-35 for that drive. That study was basically looking at $100+ for a ticket ten years ago. I don't see many people being willing to spend three times as much for a train ticket at this point, even if they might save a few minutes (once you account for having to live on the train's schedule, not your own). And that is just a single person. The per-person cost of the train is static, but the per-person cost of driving decreases rapidly once you start adding passengers.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And that is just a single person. The per-person cost of the train is static, but the per-person cost of driving decreases rapidly once you start adding passengers.

That's what I've been saying. Do you ever see a family of four flying to Edmonton or vice versa now? Hardly ever. The economics of HSR will marginally work only for solo travellers.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Fuel is a double-edged sword. Rising fuel costs makes alternative options more viable only if the alternatives are cheaper or close in cost to the consumer. So while it is certainly more expensive to drive because of fuel costs, it will also be more expensive to take the train. (again, depending on type of fuel and its cost relative to gasoline.)

It probably takes about two-thirds of a tank of gas to get to Edmonton in my car. My fuel cost then is about $30-35 for that drive. That study was basically looking at $100+ for a ticket ten years ago. I don't see many people being willing to spend three times as much for a train ticket at this point, even if they might save a few minutes (once you account for having to live on the train's schedule, not your own). And that is just a single person. The per-person cost of the train is static, but the per-person cost of driving decreases rapidly once you start adding passengers.

Although very broad and high-level, what's the viability of high-speed electric trains running on Wind power? I believe part of the LRT's energy source are wind-generated energy that feeds into the grid.

Also, would Maglev be a possibility to overcome the weather issues?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

To those suggesting that driving takes only marginally more time than a train would, and thus people wouldn't pay to save only a little time, I think that misses much of the point and I disagree.

When driving, it is wasted, unproductive time. Not to mention stressful - especially with weather. In other words it is negative time.

When flying, you can access your laptop, or read or do a few, somewhat more productive things. But you are still cut off.

On the train, not only can you have a coffee or a snack like flying (much more conveniently than in a car), but you can get up and walk around - it is a better way to travel - especially if you are going straight to meetings at arrival. It is much less stressful.

More importantly though, is the fast that you have internet access and are essentially in full productive mode. Two hours on a train (or however long it takes) is the opposite of driving because it is useful, productive, and stress-free time.

I would counter this by asking- why do more people drive than take Red Arrow then? If the productivity is that much more?

And how much more productivity would we get as a province with $2B in each of Calgary and Edmonton dedicated to LRT improvements? I forget the exact numbers, but something like 100,000 people take the LRT every day. If we could bump that to 150,000, and make the existing 100,000 people's trip quicker- wouldn't that trump the numbers that would take a high speed train to Edmonton?

[jammies]

Economic arguments aside, I mostly want a high speed train because it would be cool.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by jammies

Economic arguments aside, I mostly want a high speed train because it would be cool.

I think that's the reason some people are in favour of this. If some private enteprises wanted to take this on on their own dimes, so be it. But I definately don't want this done on tax monies.

[Redliner]

Originally Posted by Acey

How is the speed of these 200+ kph trains affected by -30° and heavy snow?

I have to think weather would be a big issue for HSR. If you look around the world, most countries with expansive high speed rail networks have relatively moderate climates. That said, they manage to run TGVs through the alps in Europe and Japan does get snow in some places, so there must be solutions out there.

Heavy snow can be a problem for any railway, albeit one that is workable. Tracks must be plowed, especially if you're planning on running short, light trains over them at 200+kph. Switches can be kept clear of ice and snow using propane heaters, and there is a wide variety of railway snow-fighting equipment available to do the rest. It would definitely add to the operating cost though. High speed trains aren't heavy enough to plow their own way through deep snow like big freight trains can, nor would it be advisable to slam into one at high speed. The snow plows CP uses to punch through avalanches in the mountains are equipped with 5-point safety harnesses like they have in race cars, because when snow packs down hard it can be like concrete, and those plow trains decelerate from 45 mph to zero in about 3 seconds when they hit the drift. Try that in a high speed train and you'll be competing with the airlines in more than just transit times.

Extreme temperatures are even more challenging. Metal gets brittle when it's cold, and long periods of sub-zero temperatures can actually weaken the rails to the point that they break. I would imagine this is more of an issue for a 20,000 ton coal train than it would be for a comparatively light high speed passenger train, but it's still something that would need careful consideration. The other big issue with cold is the air brakes. It's pretty tough to get air through frozen pipes and hoses when it's -30 outside, and if you can't do it, the train's brakes don't work. Again this is probably more of an issue for freight trains due to their length, and I believe (but I'm not sure) that many of the European high speed trains actually have electric braking systems so this one may be a moot point. Regardless, Alberta's somewhat extreme climate would certainly present a set of challenges that HSR has not yet encountered.

Personally I would love to see High Speed Rail in Alberta, but I have some serious doubts about its economic viability. If they can't even make it work in a densely populated corridor like southern California, I can't see it getting a green light here unless someone has a lot of money that they can't wait to lose.

[Ozy_Flame]

Cold weather bullet trains might be possible.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid...d-weather.aspx

[darklord700]

Great article from the Herald

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...485/story.html

"the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto corridor with a much-higher population concentration, has long been a money-losing proposition for the federal government."

"Most families will not pay hundreds of dollars for a high-speed train trip from downtown to downtown"

"They are more likely to take the warm car out of their garage and drive it directly to their destinations at a fraction of the cost of train tickets for the parents and children."

"The province should not again spend more money to find out what its 2008 report already concluded: "

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Fuel is a double-edged sword. Rising fuel costs makes alternative options more viable only if the alternatives are cheaper or close in cost to the consumer. So while it is certainly more expensive to drive because of fuel costs, it will also be more expensive to take the train. (again, depending on type of fuel and its cost relative to gasoline.)

As the train is the most fuel efficient mode, it stands to reason that its comparative advantage grows as fuel rises. Granted, some fuels can rise faster than others.

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Although very broad and high-level, what's the viability of high-speed electric trains running on Wind power? I believe part of the LRT's energy source are wind-generated energy that feeds into the grid.

Also, would Maglev be a possibility to overcome the weather issues?

Wind power is a premium product, and Maglev is very pricy. Either would likely worsen the economics of the project. I'd be interested in a natural gas powered train though.

Originally Posted by darklord700

"the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto corridor with a much-higher population concentration, has long been a money-losing proposition for the federal government."

Slow trains are not particularly comparable to fast trains.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Cold weather bullet trains might be possible.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid...d-weather.aspx

In addition to this, Sweden runs near HST and Russia has HSR.

[BigNumbers]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Cold weather bullet trains might be possible.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid...d-weather.aspx

I don't always trust my life to new highspeed transport, but when I do, it's technology created by the Chinese.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by Table 5

For that you need autobahn-quality roads...and more importantly, autobahn-quality drivers.

Is this insurmountable? Its not like we dont already have a working model to look at it. Plus maybe it is time for us to raise the driving skill standards.

[Acey]

It's not insurmountable, but in my eyes, the people who need to be in favour of it would get nothing from it.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

Is this insurmountable? Its not like we dont already have a working model to look at it. Plus maybe it is time for us to raise the driving skill standards.

The quality of the roads is not insurmountable. It just takes $$$.

The drivers are a much tougher thing. Licensing standards and drivers-ed in Canada is pitiful, and has created generations of drivers who are just good enough to get by. Even if we raised driving skill standards (which we should regardless) it would take decades to get the mediocre drivers off the road. Right now, we can't even get people to stay in the right fricking lane at the best of times, never mind have them do it on a superhighway that requires everyone to be on top of their game at all times.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The quality of the roads is not insurmountable. It just takes $$$.

The drivers are a much tougher thing. Licensing standards and drivers-ed in Canada is pitiful, and has created generations of drivers who are just good enough to get by. Even if we raised driving skill standards (which we should regardless) it would take decades to get the mediocre drivers off the road. Right now, we can't even get people to stay in the right fricking lane at the best of times, never mind have them do it on a superhighway that requires everyone to be on top of their game at all times.

Maybe I'm a bad driver, but the "stay in the right lane" thing has always boggled my mind. Take for example me driving along at 110km/hr on Deerfoot. People in the right lane are presumably going 90-100km/hr. I'm not constantly pulling into/out of the right lane because someone else wants to rip along at 125km/hr.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not constantly pulling into/out of the right lane because someone else wants to rip along at 125km/hr.

Well than do it for the Emergency Vehicles that would prefer not having to constantly lose valuable seconds waiting for people to vacate the passing lane.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Addick

Well than do it for the Emergency Vehicles that would prefer not having to constantly lose valuable seconds waiting for people to vacate the passing lane.

LOL, why take the most extreme position? Of course I move for emergency vehicles. I didn't say I was a complete jerk.