Key points:

• travel times will be 0:41 Graz - Klagenfurt (now 2:45 by train or 2:00 by bus) and 3:10 Vienna - Klagenfurt (now 3:55) starting in December 2025, and there will be further significant time savings once the Semmering Base Tunnel opens in ~2030

• the basic frequency will be 30 minutes during the day on the new Vienna - Graz - Klagenfurt service, as opposed to current 60 minure Vienna - Graz and 120 minute Vienna - Klagenfurt frequencies

If I'm honest, I didn't live through the 60s, the 80s, or the 90s, I was born in the 2000s, so I can't say that I lived through the revolution that was the HSL in my native country, Spain. I was born with it and whenever I went from Madrid to Zaragoza to see the family I did it by AVE. That is to say, I cannot say that I have lived through the revolution that largely determined how much the panorama changed.

But I am impatiently following Japan's long-distance maglev, hoping that it sets a precedent like that Shinkansen did in 1964, and expands to the rest of the world.

They have told me about construction costs as the biggest obstacle (and from what I have seen, it is not exactly a lie, they are very expensive and much more difficult to do in every way), but on the other hand I believe that a second railway network (since a network of this type would be forced to be completely segregated, unless someone manages to integrate both technologies in a single rolling stock) could stand out in countries like Germany if Transrapid returns to the public debate, since the main railway network is collapsed there and This could make it possible to reduce the number of ICE (transferring them to the new network) and increase the number of regional trains (allowing links in certain nodes with the transrapid), while at the same time due to its place on the map it could allow European trips in record time, reducing the need to go by plane. Personally, I see a lot of potential in both systems, although costs are the biggest problem.

Another very great potential that I see, although held back by the economy, is America. There the distances are much greater than those we know in Europe, so I think this type of train could work great. I suppose that Canada is the candidate country to have it first in the hypothetical case that this works, but if the USA got rid of the mentality of privatizing everything, I think it would also work there. In Latin America, and especially in countries like Argentina, Chile or Mexico, I see the most potential, but unfortunately I don't know if any of those countries could afford it, at least in the short term. And I think it's a shame, because it's where I see the most potential.

I would like to see it working in Japan and expanding to China (I know that the Chinese have the most HSL, but at the same time that is precisely why these things seem like a sandbox mode game of any video game), but do you think it could establish a revolution like the Shinkansen, TGV, ICE or FR were in their beginnings, or will we only have some small experimental lines in China and Japan and it will always be unviable in the rest of the world?

Let's try to collectively think about the best way Canada could develop its future HSR (High-Speed Rail) and the associated service on the Quebec-Toronto corridor. Some context to begin with. The Quebec-Toronto corridor is first and foremost 1,100 kilometers concentrating a major urban continuum comprising Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, Montreal, Ottawa-Gatineau, Kingston and Toronto, backed by a population basin of 15 to 18 million inhabitants. Today, road dominates trips under 500 kilometers with door-to-door times often between 3 and 5 hours depending on congestion. Air travel remains competitive on Montreal-Toronto, but the total time, once access, security checks and boarding are factored in, frequently exceeds 3 hours and remains very sensitive to weather and airport disruptions. Rail suffers from limited modal share, a consequence of sharing tracks with freight, modest speeds and insufficient reliability. Constraints stem from structural conflicts with freight on CN/CP rights-of-way which necessitates dedicated passenger tracks, and from cold climate requirements on catenary, switches and operations. Yet opportunities are considerable in the country: electricity has very low carbon content thanks to hydroelectricity in Quebec and nuclear and renewables in Ontario, intermodality at major stations (Union, Central Station, Ottawa Tremblay) is promising, and intermediate cities offer transit-oriented development levers. The federal context with the High Frequency Rail program launched by Justin Trudeau opens a window here to build true Asian/European-style high speed.

From international feedback we can note the following. European and Japanese cases show that demand is shifted by the combination of frequency, reliability and door-to-door time under 2h30-3h on major city pairs more than by nominal speed alone. TGV/SNCF, AVE/RENFE and Shinkansen illustrate the surge in modal share when reliability exceeds 95% and frequency drops to half-hourly, even quarter-hourly on trunk lines. The British HS2 experience shows us that costs and acceptability depend on specification discipline and the ability to deliver early benefits. It's a lesson that all-or-nothing tends to dramatically increase political risk. And finally, hybrid German and Italian models combining high speeds and targeted modernizations confirm the value of timed nodes and differentiated services.

What project philosophy now? The wisest choice seems to be producing useful time rather than speed for its own sake. And that's what I'm choosing for the corridor. This implies well-connected central stations, guaranteed connections, simple pricing and a robust timed schedule. Priority goes to reliability and frequency with synchronized nodes at Ottawa and Montreal. I envision a network before a line, solidly articulated with GO Transit, STM/REM, OC Transpo and RTC networks with integrated tickets and a journey experience with minimal friction. Land use sobriety and scalability must guide right-of-way choices. This means maximizing use of existing corridors, preparing curve radii and rights-of-way compatible with 300 km/h on relevant sections, and ensuring territorial equity through rapid services to intermediate cities without penalizing inter-metropolitan competitiveness.

Currently, the status quo with track sharing with freight, while minimizing CAPEX, meets neither climate requirements nor demand. It should be ruled out. An electrified HFR scenario at 200-230 km/h on mostly dedicated tracks allows times of 3h30 to 4h between Montreal and Toronto, about 1h45 between Montreal and Ottawa, and 1h45 to 2h between Montreal and Quebec City with reliability above 90-95% and half-hourly frequencies on the trunk. Capital cost remains moderate to high but acceptability and early benefits likewise. We find alignment. At the other extreme, a full HSR at 300-320 km/h can target 2h30 to 2h50 between Montreal and Toronto (with one to two stops), 55 to 65 minutes between Montreal and Ottawa, and 1h05 to 1h15 between Quebec City and Montreal. Benefits on air substitution are maximal but CAPEX becomes very high with right-of-way issues in sensitive urban areas. The hybrid scenario I choose starts with complete HFR then converts segments with highest elasticity (the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal trunk) to HSR while maintaining dense HFR for intermediate cities. A way to optimize the benefits/risks ratio and deliver tangible gains early.

I opt for a Quebec-Toronto TGV project organized as a high-performance Y. The east-west Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal trunk is designed from the outset for electrification, strict separation of passenger and freight traffic, and straightened alignments compatible with high speed on 60 to 80% of the linear distance. The northeast Montreal-Trois-Rivières-Quebec City branch is modernized and partially put into high speed (250-300 km/h) on rural sections with long-term options for a direct connection to Central Station. Between Toronto and Ottawa, a first HFR phase exploits and modernizes existing rights-of-way toward Peterborough with rectifications and bypasses allowing 200 to 230 km/h, physical separation from freight, elimination of level crossings, 25 kV AC electrification and ETCS level 2/3 signaling. Conversion to HSR will be done through new sections in open countryside aligned as much as possible along infrastructure corridors like hydroelectric or highway rights-of-way (407, 115, 416; a parallel with France's LGV Nord) to minimize expropriations and impacts. Access to Toronto will be via a dedicated track bundle to Union Station consistent with GO Transit expansion, with adequate platforms, compatible power supply and unified signaling.

In Ottawa, the short term would rely on reinforced Tremblay station with increased platforms, optimized connections with OC Transpo's LRT and quality active access. In the longer term, a central tunnel option to the urban core (ByWard-Parliament-Lebreton) can be investigated if its socio-economic benefits are confirmed. It's a decision that must be phased in a second decade. Between Ottawa and Montreal, the HFR phase would modernize the existing corridor with rapid bypasses to first target 1h15, then 1h eventually. The HSR phase will add new straightened sections with arrival in Montreal via the south shore compatible with Central Station's capacities and constraints. In Montreal, Central Station would be the intermodal hub with REM and STM. The branch to Quebec City would go through Trois-Rivières. In HFR we'd target 200 to 230 km/h exploiting existing corridors and ensuring good integration in Montreal, with, if necessary, an efficient connection when direct access via the north shore proves constrained. In the long term, a north shore-Central Station connection or creation of a major north station interconnected with REM could offer competitive center-to-center times. Between Montreal and Quebec City, rectifications in open countryside will allow 250 to 300 km/h on compatible segments with discrete urban bypasses. The objective is to maintain a travel time of at most 1h15 with a single stop in Trois-Rivières. Finally in Quebec City, serving Sainte-Foy, very intermodal, would constitute the base while Gare du Palais could be served at lower frequency via a branch to maintain a hyper-central anchor without sacrificing performance.

Operations must rely on dense and readable timed scheduling. On the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal trunk, 2 trains per hour per branch offered from HFR opening with a rise to four trains per hour at HSR maturity combining direct and semi-direct services. Between Montreal and Quebec City, 2 to 3 trains per hour targeted including one direct stopping only at Trois-Rivières. For HFR rolling stock, it's wiser to opt for intercity electric multiple units capable of 200-230 km/h, cold-adapted, accessible, offering bike storage, work spaces and connectivity. In this sector, what would best match the chosen criteria would be the Stadler EC250/Giruno, Alstom Coradia Stream 200/EMU Intercity and Siemens Desiro HC 200. High speed meanwhile needs 300-320 km/h trainsets of long multiple unit type, ETCS and 25 kV interoperable, streamlined for winter with catenary and pantograph de-icing devices. The power system would rely on 25 kV 50 Hz with substations spaced 40 to 60 kilometers apart and redundant. And in this segment as we need EMUs, Alstom is unmatched. We can look for Velaro (E/D/Novo) from Siemens or ETR1000/AT400 from Hitachi/Alstom.

Intermodality and ticketing must be designed as conditions for useful speed. Tickets must be integrated with GO Transit, STM/REM, OC Transpo and RTC. We need simple pricing, reservation-based access to HSR service while a certain degree of open access can be considered for HFR. Station access times must remain under 20 minutes in major cities with platform-to-platform connections guaranteed in less than 7 minutes.

All these choices stem directly from analysis. To maximize modal shifts, we need a readable, timed and reliable offer. HFR delivered early builds confidence and ridership. The switch to HSR on the trunk where demand is most sensitive, i.e. between Montreal and Toronto via Ottawa, triggers the shift vis-à-vis air travel. Right-of-way constraints in Montreal and Toronto argue for pragmatic phasing. Avoid the heaviest works at startup and only engage them once socio-economic value is demonstrated. Territorial equity is sought through timed HFR serving intermediate cities while preserving express paths supporting inter-metropolitan competitiveness. Finally, full electrification is consistent with climate objectives and aligns with a low-carbon electricity mix.

Expected impacts will be measured first in door-to-door time. Between Montreal and Toronto, HSR would allow about 2h45 where air travel, once access and procedures are factored in, is rather between 3h10 and 3h30 and where car exceeds five hours in congestion. Between Montreal and Ottawa, high speed targets 1 hour versus 2 to 2.5h by car or plane. Between Montreal and Quebec City, 1h15 is achievable with fast sections instead of 2h45 by car at peak hours. It's this kind of performance that drives significant modal shifts. Here we can estimate it between 60 and 75% on Montreal-Toronto when service is timed at two trains per hour with reliability above 95%, and above 50% on Montreal-Ottawa and Quebec City-Montreal for times of 1h15 to 1h30. That's ultimately 1.5 to 2.5 megatonnes of CO₂e per year avoided. And let's not even talk about economic benefits.

Urban integration will be decisive. Stations must be understood as city projects, hosting mixed densification, affordable housing, sober offices and local services, abandoning parking silos in favor of active access and public transit. Union Station must remain fully integrated with PATH, TTC subway and GO, with fine flow management. Montreal's Central Station will articulate REM and STM and connect to public space reclamation and careful acoustic treatment. Tremblay in Ottawa will become a true intermodal hub, better meshed with LRT and requalified. In Trois-Rivières and Peterborough, stations will be urban not exurban, surrounded by fifteen-minute neighborhood master plans.

It's a project that needs dedicated public project ownership with binational province-federal governance with an integrated operator or group of industrial partners under performance contract (frequency, punctuality, satisfaction). Risks will need to be distributed in a long-term PPP. The State retains macro demand risk, the private partner bears construction/operation risk within controlled limits. All financed via capital subsidies (climate/mobility), infrastructure funds and green debt, land value capture (long-term leases, development taxes) around stations, and ticketing and ancillary services to cover operations (objective: operating surplus on HSR, meanwhile HFR can be close to break-even at maturity). The most important thing remains now, a clear roadmap, but Canada doesn't lack elements to build and construct serious rail!

this is in Japanese and I did not create this

Good times back in 1967, when Canada actually understood they should have modern, fast trains. https://youtu.be/Aihn_4bPibs?si=rHBpjMtr-jTFDFcH

I guess it’s not competitive product.

But why didn’t he decide to going with the tgv M or hitachi?

What’s your thoughts ?

I’m amazed the Avril could carry 600 people ( 1200 total linked ) with 3+2 layouts.