Calgary Regional Rail Transit

[InfrastructureEnthusiast]

It's hard to imagine how HSR works for Banff? How long could you really get up to speed for? That slide indicates it might cut out communities...like Cochrane? Canmore? It almost certainly has to go through the reserve at some point...I'd think having a stop there would be important to the nation... And then once you're into the mountains, how straight of a ROW can they really achieve?

Is it possible they'd use the TC1 median?

I don't think HSR trains running the Banff route would be able to achieve top speeds, but it doesn't really make sense to have a second set of trainsets and standards for that route either. Plus having the high tech train run on the most tourist heavy line is good PR for the province.

I can see a move of the HSR line into HWY1 corridor after Cochrane working well. Not running the tourist oriented train right through the Exshaw mining operation is probably a good idea too..

Nice thing about having its own dedicated tracks is that it should be possible to run some trains as direct express service, airport to Banff non-stop even, while another schedule could have more stops along the way.

Overall an encouraging presentation. The 30 year map seems reasonable. I'd like to see it done in closer to 20, but it sounds like the YEG/EdmDT segment is going to take a lot longer to sort out.. I believe the word the presenter used was "costly"

Wouldn't at all be surprised to see the Banff line running well before the Edmonton route.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

To start in this next budget, I see the Province moving forward on corridor focused planning and engineering, environmental and other impact reviews of Calgary-Airport and Calgary-Airdrie. They're one and the same for most of the route and they're the most studied, since the City has down their down Airport Rail Study. You can use that to start up the Crown Corp, study rolling stock for HSR and Regional that can use the same track, and begin to establish the passenger rail corridor standards. I'm wondering if they do a people mover now or if they do one type of rail. Do you use commuter rolling stock from the terminal to the Blue Line and the commuter stop near Nose Creek and on to the eventual Green Line? Or do use a people mover, which would be its own tech and force a transfer to commuter or LRT (which you would need to do anyways)? Depends on the cost difference of the people move and its tech.

As much as I'd like to see HSR to Banff, I can see that route being more conventional rail that twins the freight tracks. Maybe they look at what a separate corridor to Banff would look like and maybe it does make sense. Even as has been stated, with some direct trains and some milk run trains that stop along the way.

 

[Surrealplaces]

I don't think HSR trains running the Banff route would be able to achieve top speeds, but it doesn't really make sense to have a second set of trainsets and standards for that route either. Plus having the high tech train run on the most tourist heavy line is good PR for the province.


Wouldn't at all be surprised to see the Banff line running well before the Edmonton route.

Agreed. I don't think a train to Banff needs to be really high speed, anything over 110km/hr would be good. A faster HSR could be incorporated later once we get an idea of the passenger volume, etc..

As for the Banff vs Edmonton, personally I'd rather see the Calgary to Banff first. It's really needed.

 

[whatchyyc]

Based on what the presenters were saying it seems like it may be more difficult than expected to twin the CPKC line, and even if it were twinned there would only be one track for passenger trains.

 

[YYCguy]

One track for bi-directional passenger trains sounds disastrous and terribly inconvenient. It would require trains to pull over on a siding to let oncoming trains pass! Much like VIA experiences with CPKC currently?

 

[CBBarnett]

One track for bi-directional passenger trains sounds disastrous and terribly inconvenient. It would require trains to pull over on a siding to let oncoming trains pass! Much like VIA experiences with CPKC currently?

Exactly. using the existing CPR track is the "cheap" route to do it, which is why that strange bid from Banff kept proposing it. It's only real advantage is it's a cheap and quick to do. Ultimately you could run trains very soon if you don't care about reliability and speed, and save a ton on capital cost using existing tracks.

In the long-run though, none of that is optimal for passenger rail and would cap out relatively quick, preventing a materially significant shift in intercity mobility culture.

Greenfield lines will be more expensive, but allow total control and optimization for the passenger system. High enough speeds, high enough reliability and material mode shift will occur over personal vehicles between Calgary, Edmonton and Banff. That mode shift accelerates the return on investment. So it's very much a spend a lot more, but get a lot more in return scenario.

Exciting, but I don't know if any of this is really new - the old studies in the 2000s and early all said the same findings. France and Japan learned this in the 1970s - 2000s, China and Spain a bit later. Greenfield dedicated trains are the way to go (often with the exception being entering and existing the cities, where constraints force a slower speed and sharing of infrastructure with less optimized rail networks).

Hopefully this time around the population, growth and seriousness in the government investing in a long-term, but really strategic, infrastructure program will see something physically be built. We also should be wary of any silly "made-in-Alberta" bespoke adjustments that deviate from the international best practices too much. We know nothing about building quality intercity passenger rail, we should really just copy-paste what successful countries do for the past 50 years.

 

[Surrealplaces]

I think if it could be twinned, a second track dedicated for passenger train would work. It would only need a second standby track somewhere along the route, assuming the frequencies are an hour or longer. At 1-2 hour frequencies, only two trains would be needed and would only pass each other once each run.

 

[InfrastructureEnthusiast]

I recall a comment early in the presentation about how strongly the province felt about having full control of the ROW vs the federal jurisdiction involved with using the freight rail lines, so greenfield past the commuter terminus makes a lot sense. I think with an optimized ROW they'd be able to provide an express service to Banff in under an hour, which would be a big sell.

I think we'll see some twinning of the freight rail lines with mixed passenger service sooner than later too, I suspect this is why Jasper isn't on the 30 year plan, that route will likely be served by some sort of improved VIA service.

Slightly tangential to all this, but the latest NATO funding target is now 5% GDP, with 3.5% being hard military, while the other 1.5% can be "dual purpose" infrastructure spending.

Apparently the feds are planning to put the money needed to service the ring of fire mines in Ontario under that, hopefully the other premiers come to the table with their own infrastructure projects too, like improved national and international road and rail links. Could definitely help accelerate some of the regional routes.

 

[darwink]

Calgary--Banff to be high-speed

I think higher speed, lets say 200 kph, is viable with CPR as a partner and twining for key segments.

Combined with the Ghost Dam project, there might need to rethink and realignment working with First Nations partners to gain a mutually beneficial agreement and project. If they're way more willing to come to the table with a stop near the Casino rather than on the CPR alignment, that could be a key enabler. Also opens up access to Kananaskis, which can be seen as a tourism capacity reliever versus Banff for the province, which is exposed to federal government risk on increasing capacity.

I'm happy to see the thought on a sprint to show benefits, which then underpins demand to tie in other communities over time.

 

[darwink]

Apparently the feds are planning to put the money needed to service the ring of fire mines in Ontario under that, hopefully the other premiers come to the table with their own infrastructure projects too, like improved national and international road and rail links. Could definitely help accelerate some of the regional routes.

Mainline twinning might fit the bill there. Twinning in the park would provide capacity to Johnston Canyon, Caste Mountain and Lake Louise from Banff that would relieve congestion while concentrating demand in already well used areas. Depends on the philosophy, are you concentrating in some areas to preserve the rest, or are you attempting to just keep visitation lower.

Maybe if sealift would be viable from Grays Bay Port, the port and road project could be supplemented by relatively slow, but high weight capacity rail. Have to want to move a lot of really heavy stuff to make that even somewhat viable.

 

[lemongrab]

I suppose the one thing with Cochrane is that you'd want higher frequency and connectivity than you'd get from the Banff line, so a red line extension makes more sense anyways? I imagine you would create a movement for it to turn due west at the 12 mile coulee eventual interchange and then run it down the CPKC line...gentler grade than the big hill and sets you up for better station location(s) in town. The town layout does feel a little funny for a train and it would likely be very park-n-ride dependent, though it also looks like there is a prime area just south of the presumptive station for a bunch more midrises.

I wonder what kind of frequency that would justify by the time that might be built...20 peak /40 off?

 

[dirtymood]

I think higher speed, lets say 200 kph, is viable with CPR as a partner and twining for key segments.

One of the speakers at the virtual event last night did make the distinction of “high-er speed” rail between Calgary and Banff, compared to true high speed rail between Calgary and Edmonton. They did say that using the existing track alignments probably would not be feasible for any type of higher speed train, so it’d have to be greenfield.

 

[YYCALGARY]

Which is fine, as there is plenty of greenfield to build on. How wide is the QEII ROW? I know it's likely that much of any new line would need to be constructed outside the ROW but curious to know how much actual space the Province already owns.

I may have glazed over the answer in previous discussion so if the answer is there just point me to it!

 

[trtcttc]

For Calgary/Banff, HSR is not necessary. Conventional trains can probably do that route in 1.5 hours? Does it really need to be much faster than that? And as you add more stops, the benefits of HSR decreases as it can't maintain the high speed for very long. Id' think part of this project is not just for tourism but building new connectivity for the towns on the route, which makes the most sense with conventional rail.

 

[whatchyyc]

For Calgary/Banff, HSR is not necessary. Conventional trains can probably do that route in 1.5 hours? Does it really need to be much faster than that? And as you add more stops, the benefits of HSR decreases as it can't maintain the high speed for very long. Id' think part of this project is not just for tourism but building new connectivity for the towns on the route, which makes the most sense with conventional rail.

It's more like HSR is just a "might as well" if they're going to build a new alignment separate from CPKC anyways