News   Nov 27, 2024
Towers to be Introduced to Longo's Site at 7 and Woodbine in Markham
 194     1 
News   Nov 27, 2024
Masterplanned Community in Markham Would Replace Big Box Centre
 267     0 
News   Nov 27, 2024
Menkes Welcomes First Occupants to Festival at Assembly Park in Vaughan
 675     0 

Montréal Transit Developments

I wasn’t at all aware that there was a proper flying junction on the REM where branches divide near Sunnybrooke. Thank you to @grimley on AgoraMtl for the pic!

9df7c06ae80864123d2e2844d080e707342ad3b1.jpeg

Post

This four-track section looks so cool!!
 
^ Sorry @NoahB, or anyone who can answer this - I assume the junction shown above is where the Deux-Montagnes and Anse-à-l'Orme/YUL branches diverge. If so, how will the YUL branch diverge from the Anse-à-l'Orme branch? Will it also be grade-separated, or at-grade (like UP Express)?

This really peaks my interest because this will be the best example of branching (automated) ”metro” services in Canada since the SkyTrain.

Edit: I recently found out about the Devisubox cameras - they’re a great way to check on the status of multiple REM stations and the main junction.
 
Last edited:
mind_the_gap said:
^ Sorry @NoahB, or anyone who can answer this - I assume the junction shown above is where the Deux-Montagnes and Anse-à-l'Orme/YUL branches diverge. If so, how will the YUL branch diverge from the Anse-à-l'Orme branch? Will it also be grade-separated, or at-grade (like UP Express)?

This really peaks my interest because this will be the best example of branching (automated) ”metro” services (edit: in Canada) since the SkyTrain.
Click to expand...

That branch-off will be right by the A-40/Henri-Bourassa/Alfred-Nobel interchange. It looks like it will be a flat junction, which should be fine given the lower train frequency vs. the Boul. Thimens junction.
 
These Fires really got me thinking - How resilient are the elevated structures on the REM to earthquakes?

It’s surprising to see all the single-pier spans on the West Island branch - even highway overpasses (typically) have/had more piers to distribute the load. Then there’s all the stations being supported by a single (thin) pier with separate platform structures built around them.

Pierrefonds-Roxboro especially, should’ve been built with highway overpass-style concrete-slabs on the sides, like the tail tracks at Deux-Montagnes. Would it have been possible to trench Kirkland instead of going so high up also? I really do respect the effort they made throughout the system though.

As much as I love the REM, these elevated structures really seem flimsy to me. Hopefully there aren’t serious construction quality issues as with Edmonton’s (SE) Valley Line’s piers.

At least the CDPQ really got something right, by deciding on emergency stairwells at intersections, instead of forcing passengers to walk to the nearest station like in Vancouver.

Sending my love out to you all in QC/PQ and NS!!!
 
mind_the_gap said:
These Fires really got me thinking - How resilient are the elevated structures on the REM to earthquakes?

It’s surprising to see all the single-pier spans on the West Island branch - even highway overpasses (typically) have/had more piers to distribute the load. Then there’s all the stations being supported by a single (thin) pier with separate platform structures built around them.

Pierrefonds-Roxboro especially, should’ve been built with highway overpass-style concrete-slabs on the sides, like the tail tracks at Deux-Montagnes. Would it have been possible to trench Kirkland instead of going so high up also? I really do respect the effort they made throughout the system though.

As much as I love the REM, these elevated structures really seem flimsy to me. Hopefully there aren’t serious construction quality issues as with Edmonton’s (SE) Valley Line’s piers.

At least the CDPQ really got something right, by deciding on emergency stairwells at intersections, instead of forcing passengers to walk to the nearest station like in Vancouver.

Sending my love out to you all in QC/PQ and NS!!!
Click to expand...

Not sure how resilient they are. But not sure the fact that they use single piers is inherently bad.

They those pier spans in Tokyo.


The Yurikamome line: (Google)
1686285264905.png

Tokyo Monorail:
20191203_215306_bb43e2e6_w1920.jpg


In Jakarta, another seismically active city, they are building lots of rail with single piers too. Here is their new "Jabodebek LRT" line. (source)
IMG_20230607_190256.jpg
 
NoahB said:
In Jakarta, another seismically active city, they are building lots of rail with single piers too. Here is their new "Jabodebek LRT" line. (source)
IMG_20230607_190256.jpg
Click to expand...

Thanks for bringing up the Jabodebek LRT. It really is a good example:

figure5.gif

The Greater Jakarta Light Rail Transit Project (LRT Jabodebek) is an infrastructure project that utilizes lead rubber bearings (LRBs) to reduce seismic demand on structures. This seismically isolated system shall provide operational performance levels under design earthquakes. Nonlinear time-history analysis was used to evaluate the structural performance. Five pairs of scaled ground motions were used as the input motions for the time-history analysis. The ability of the lead rubber bearing to isolate the structures and dissipate earthquake energy will determine its effectiveness in achieving the targeted structural performance level. From this exercise, the targeted performance was achieved.
Click to expand...
Source
 
For the elevated section of the Broadway Extension for Vancouver's SkyTrain, some of the girders sit on the column caps, while others are more fixed in place with a concrete plug. It's a short elevated section, so they used girders instead of the segmental post-tensioned system used for longer stretches.
You can see where there's rebar on the column caps in this video:


Fu0QfVpXsA8ajX0

 
Last edited:
Only 4 to 6 weeks of test runs? I'd have thought they'd have been doing more of that before even starting trial operation, let alone full operation.

You'd think that the agency responsible would be ultra careful after the Ottawa debacle, for a brand new system. I'd think even an extension would see longer trial running.
 
nfitz said:
Only 4 to 6 weeks of test runs? I'd have thought they'd have been doing more of that before even starting trial operation, let alone full operation.

You'd think that the agency responsible would be ultra careful after the Ottawa debacle, for a brand new system. I'd think even an extension would see longer trial running.
Click to expand...
They've been doing very frequent test runs for a year and a half already, covering two winters. These are the final tests.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top