you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 1 day ago (1 child)

The amount of money planned for that could probably cover twinning a much larger amount of existing track, with less environmental impact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Why just twin the line and still have something designed in the 1800’s. Canadians are so damn cheap to do anything properly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago* (2 children)

    Twinning is a more cost-effective way to have passenger rail separated from freight, and it could make rail travel more practical for a larger part of the country than just that one corridor the high speed rail plan covers. A new route over new land is so much worse for the environment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago

    Twinning is a more cost-effective way to have passenger rail separated from freight

    Sure, but if you want actual high-speed passenger rail, the track needs to be straight and level.

    The current freight tracks are as level as possible, but to achieve that, they follow the terrain, leading to some very twisty lines that require lower speeds.

    Simply twinning those won't get near as much of an improvement for passenger rail as is needed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    It would be dumb to put in new lines and not make them high speed. We are so far behind the rest of the world it’s shocking. Not sure if you travel the world at all, but when you see what is available in other countries, you realize how embarrassing our country is in that regard. It would not be worth it to just put in more low speed rail lines, kinda pointless IMHO.

  • source
  • parent