DaveLovesDee

I doubt a rail link between Calgary and Edmonton would be profitable, as I wouldn't think there would be enough people using it. If you made it an indirect route there would probably be even less use because driving the route wouls still be quicker.

Steve_P

A high speed rail link between the two cities has been discussed numerous times and would likely be profitable in the long run. Highway 2 between Calgary and Edmonton is one of the busiest highways in north America so we're told.

I think the scale of such an undertaking would be so expensive as to only ever be contemplated during some very boom times as it would require no grade level crossings. Plus it would have to compete with the current airline links between the two cities

jimf

I agree, as things are now I'm sure a passenger train service between Calgary and Edmonton wouldn't be profitable otherwise the private sector would have moved in already to provide the service. The commercial environment must favour flights and cars over trains thats all. It reflects one aspect of why Canadian per capita oil useage is so high.

For Edmonton/Calgary I believe there is a track in place already for freight. Even with a few stops a modern passenger train should be faster than car and also faster than flight for downtown to downtown journeys (over 180 miles or so between the cities). Whether the line could take high speed passenger trains is another matter. Of course without integrated local transport into the suburbs a rail link between the cities has less value.

jimf

The Edmonton-Calgary Bullet Train Debate!

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...8-35fb11530df5

Simon Legree

[QUOTE=Jingsamichty;7077824]As well as ignoring the energy cost of tanker construction, which is not insignificant when you consider the steel production and then the fabrication in the yard, you've also ignored the production of the oil itself in the Gulf, and the transportation from the oilfields to the loading terminal.

It's also a bit disingenuous to attempt to argue against the oilsands on environmental grounds by 'ignoring the occasional Exxon Valdez'. I think most marine biologists would agree that the enormous increase in shipping traffic and associated marine pollution is one of the major problems facing the world today.

Speaking of tankers how about this !

MarkG

High-speed rail lines are incredibly expensive; merely to raise the peak speed by 20-30mph on the West coast main line in the UK has taken a decade and cost billions of pounds.

You really don't want a derailment when your train is packed with passengers at 180mph; and preventing that costs a lot of money. This is why flying generally makes far more sense than trains, if you need to travel hundreds of miles at more than 60mph or so.

jimf

It looks like various options have been costed including using the existing track or a new route.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Canada

http://highspeedrail.ca/

Although not cheap high speed rail is tried and tested and from an engineering viewpoint nothing radical at all.

West coast main line work has taken years at great expense but is an entirely different scale of work taking an essentially victorian arrangement with large numbers of stations and upgrading for modern high speed trains while keeping the very heavily used route open.

For Edmonton-Calgary it would essentially be a cultural and political decision whether to adopt high speed rail. There wouldn't be cost or technical barriers if the will was there to go for it.

GavinR

What it really needs is one of the French hi-speed trains with a drive on, drive off capability like the chunnel. Edmonchuck to Calgary in half an hour and the ability to drive away at the other end would get a whole load of cars and freight off the 2.

Simon Legree

Years ago there was a jet powered train that ran, well occasionally it was able to make the whole trip, between Toronto and Montreal. It was a total bust. More breakdowns than complete trips. Does anyone remember it. I forget what they called it but it didn't last long.

DaveLovesDee

Was it the Jet Train

Simon Legree

That would be too logical. I think it was actually called the Turbo. I remember the deafening roar when they spooled it up at Toronto Union and I was standing on the platform waiting for the GO train.

DaveLovesDee

The Turbo Train YouTube Turbo Train

jimf

The Turbo Train........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAC_TurboTrain

Novocastrian

Public transport infrastructure spending is likely to be a partial solution to the problems facing our economy at the moment. Who better than GM/Ford/Chrysler to provide the rolling stock for, let's say a Bombardier produced high speed train link? Upgrading existing track and/or laying new, shouldn't be beyond the skills of the many people facing redundancy from the construction industry right now.

It's worth considering seriously and might become more so in the context of an Obama presidency down there.

But to return to the subject of the oil sands (not the subject of oil, that is for another discussion): I've read no posts on this thread which credibly dispute the majority opinion that exploitation is creating an environmental disaster (or my point that based on energy return on energy invested it makes no sense to proceed).

jimf

It looks like most agree that there are opportunities to reduce oil consumption in north america.

On the other hand...........

I've read no posts on this thread which credibly dispute the minority opinion that exploitation is not creating an environmental disaster (or the point that based on energy return on energy invested it does make sense to proceed)