OTOH, if we could get it down to 4hr, I'd probably never fly. Speeds of 250km/hr should be about enough, and that is not specially fast by the standards mentioned here.
I understand that the trip from Vancouver to Calgary is never going to happen at 400km/hr because of all the mountains, avalanches and rock slides. One simply could not maintain the track for speeds of even 80km/hr. But the rest of Canada is pretty much flat.
Why don't we do 250km/hr in the rest of the country? Beats me. We'd probably have to build a parallel track because of the overarching importance of freight traffic in Canada, but for reasonable traffic volumes, a single track with "passing lanes" should work fine.
I understand that the trip from Vancouver to Calgary is never going to happen at 400km/hr because of all the mountains, avalanches and rock slides. One simply could not maintain the track for speeds of even 80km/hr.
Well, actually, from a technical viewpoint, it's doable: high-speed trains can do higher grades than freight trains, one could also build longer tunnels, be them for mountains, cutting curves or avoiding rockfall danger zones. Most of Japan is mountainous, too: 102 km(!) of the Jōetsu Shinkansen runs in tunnels (I recently calculated that a Denver-Salt lake City route would need not much more). It's more the cost factor vs. the smaller size of cities to be served that speaks against it. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
As for the Vancouver/Calgary route, yes, I suppose with enough tunnels and such, but it's a mighty long way through a series or four more-or-less continuous mountain ranges. I doubt it will ever be done.
