News   Jul 16, 2024
Minto Submits Modifications to Grand Park Village Plan in Mimico
 605     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
News Roundup for July 16, 2024
 564     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
The Urban Jungle
 707     2 

SmartTrack (Proposed)

Several threads has this Montreal info mentioned in other threads...
44 North said:
Whoa, this sounds amazing. Not to mention a heluva lot more interesting than SmartTrack. I was thinking this is a tram-train proposal, considering it says "light rail". But it also says fully automated.
Click to expand...
Trainset aside, it probably has a lot of elements in common with GO RER, such as CBTC infrastructure upgrades.
(CBTC = Communications Based Train Control, which also enables Automatic Train Control features).

For GO RER, Metrolinx docs mention CBTC which includes automation features (supervised Autopilot-style automation for speed optimization to keep short headways), which may be the same as this. However, full automation is an optional feature of CBTC, but the feature is there if it is deployed, probably as supervised Autopilot-style operation in GO's case.

CBTC is that same type of system TTC is installing to enable 2-minute headways on Yonge with supervised autopilot-style automatic train operation. Metrolinx is wanting to doing the same for the $13.5bn GO RER to enable the sub-15-minute headways we keep hearing about, as little as 4-minute headways.

So Metrolinx may apparently be getting similiar "automatic" system at the cost of $800 million (already part of $13.5bn RER budget), albiet almost certainly not fully enabled for automated/unmanned. At the minimum, automatic braking features would presumably be enabled -- for safety purposes when trains enroach into the buffer space of the train ahead.

More info: GO Transit Train Control --and-- Metrolinx docs on CBTC
 
Last edited:
Wonderful, another thread on this proposal.

I'm not sure how it's light-rail, given it would be sharing track with freight and other passenger services.

This looks more like an RER-type service than light rail.
 
Its more of a dedicated rail line with metro frequencies. very unique format, you don't typically see this type of project elsewhere. Its like a big hybrid between RER, Skytrain, and LRT. High station spacing, existing rail corridors, overhead catenary, 3-12min frequencies, automated, etc. Very interesting.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Its more of a dedicated rail line with metro frequencies. very unique format, you don't typically see this type of project elsewhere. Its like a big hybrid between RER, Skytrain, and LRT. High station spacing, existing rail corridors, overhead catenary, 3-12min frequencies, automated, etc. Very interesting.
Click to expand...
Other than automation, and some changes to the alignment, how does this differ from the Line 3 proposal that has been announced on more than one occasion in the last 55 years?
 
mdrejhon said:
Several threads has this Montreal info mentioned in other threads...

Trainset aside, it probably has a lot of elements in common with GO RER, such as CBTC infrastructure upgrades.
(CBTC = Communications Based Train Control, which also enables Automatic Train Control features).

For GO RER, Metrolinx docs mention CBTC which includes automation features (supervised Autopilot-style automation for speed optimization to keep short headways), which may be the same as this. However, full automation is an optional feature of CBTC, but the feature is there if it is deployed, probably as supervised Autopilot-style operation in GO's case.

CBTC is that same type of system TTC is installing to enable 2-minute headways on Yonge with supervised autopilot-style automatic train operation. Metrolinx is wanting to doing the same for the $13.5bn GO RER to enable the sub-15-minute headways we keep hearing about, as little as 4-minute headways.

So Metrolinx may apparently be getting similiar "automatic" system at the cost of $800 million (already part of $13.5bn RER budget), albiet almost certainly not fully enabled for automated/unmanned. At the minimum, automatic braking features would presumably be enabled -- for safety purposes when trains enroach into the buffer space of the train ahead.

More info: GO Transit Train Control --and-- Metrolinx docs on CBTC
Click to expand...

A bit technical for me. But I'm more stuck on the basics of the "trainset" issue, and why the press release would use the wording "light rail". Perhaps Montreal's proposal can operate similarly to how Mlinx wants to operate RER (and vice versa), but there must be some kind of fundamental difference between what's proposed for the GTHA and Montreal. Why else would they say "light rail"? Will the trains be narrower and similar to subway/metros (or Skytrain-style light metros); or use standard LRT (so as to allow for street-running capability in the future)? Or is this typical mainline heavy rail, with the proponents/media misusing wording to get the public on board (similar to Tory's "surface subway" term for ST)?

W. K. Lis said:
If SmartTrack had used tram-trains (light-rail) in their presentations, they may have been able to use Eglington West AND be able to build under Queen or King Streets, instead of using Union Station.
Click to expand...

Tram-trains should most definitely be on Mlinx's radar IMO. I think they really are a missing piece of our region's transportation puzzle, and can fill a void that is either currently ignored, or being tackled using two different lines/technologies. Because the RH line is a bit of an oddity compared with other GO lines, I've recently been thinking it to be a candidate for tram-train operation. The main trunk and majority of the route can operate as it currently does, but with branches taking it out of the valley and on-street in its south end, or along Yonge in its north end.

But as for this Montreal proposal...are we sure it's what can be called a "tram-train"? Although I'm not familiar with what's being proposed, I saw no mention of any street-running (i.e tram-style) branches. The article seemed to make it quite clear that this is to be fully automated, and therefore wouldn't have street-running components like pre-metros or stadtbahns seen around the world (like Boston's Green Line or our Crosstown). I'd guess their proposal would fit somewhere within the commuter rail and subway/metro category. Or only in the subway/metro category.
 
W. K. Lis said:
If SmartTrack had used tram-trains (light-rail) in their presentations, they may have been able to use Eglington West AND be able to build under Queen or King Streets, instead of using Union Station.
Click to expand...

With the original $7B budget (on-top of GO RER) they could drive double-decker EMUs underneath King or Harbour too.

The real story about SmartTrack is that the budget got slashed from a proposed $7B to something closer to $1B. In fact, I believe the city will now be kicking more into Gardiner than into SmartTrack.
 
W. K. Lis said:
If SmartTrack had used tram-trains (light-rail) in their presentations, they may have been able to use Eglington West AND be able to build under Queen or King Streets, instead of using Union Station.
Click to expand...
How would that have changed anything? Whether it Be Queen or Union. And is the DRL not suppose to run underneath Queen?
 
LRT seems like a good idea until you realize that most LRT systems have n average speed of around 50 km/h.

With those station spacings a "Smarttrack/GO RER" system flying along at 120 km/h will have been seen as a much better choice.

Any of you taken the UPX? Thing is a bullet. Makes the subway seem like a snail.

You don't build LRT in rail corridors, it makes no logical sense. If the space is there for LRT tracks, the space is there for heavy rail tracks. Put up some proper PTC, and you can share all the tracks in the corridor effectively.

Its how its done in Europe to great success.

Lets not reinvent the wheel people!
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbt
Was four years how long it took to get ALP45DPs from delivery into full service, or how long Train de l'Est was delayed? I can never remember :)

(with no disrespect to Montrealers, just those who write ridiculously ambitious "proposals")
 
robmausser said:
LRT seems like a good idea until you realize that most LRT systems have n average speed of around 50 km/h.

With those station spacings a "Smarttrack/GO RER" system flying along at 120 km/h will have been seen as a much better choice.

Any of you taken the UPX? Thing is a bullet. Makes the subway seem like a snail.

You don't build LRT in rail corridors, it makes no logical sense. If the space is there for LRT tracks, the space is there for heavy rail tracks. Put up some proper PTC, and you can share all the tracks in the corridor effectively.

Its how its done in Europe to great success.

Lets not reinvent the wheel people!
Click to expand...

From picking out the key words in the article and press release (e.g "light rail" and "fully automated"), I'm definitely thinking this isn't conventional LRT. I actually wouldn't be surprised if the the Caisse, with the help of the Fed Liberal gov't, have it planned in advance to opt for Bombardier's medium-capacity light metro technology (MkIII or a variant). I guess as a sort of an indirect way of propping-up BBD and 'creating jobs'.

Then look at a close-up of the few (or only?) renderings of the proposal; the train looks neither like "LRT", nor a typical mainline heavy rail passenger vehicle. Seems to me this is the makings of a medium-capacity Skytrain-type metro proposal (albeit one that will use existing surface rail corridors for much of its length). And quite possibly a bit of history repeating itself in that like Toronto's SRT and Vancouver's Skytrain, there may be a push from the gov't for something unconventional and Made in Canada. If this is true, you might be right that it doesn't make sense and they shouldn't reinvent the wheel. But I still think there's some underappreciated merit with these 'light metro' technologies.

Montreal_Light_Metro_proposal.png
 

Attachments

  • Montreal_Light_Metro_proposal.png
    Montreal_Light_Metro_proposal.png
    154 KB · Views: 428
It admittedly looks very tram-train-like.
It may be artfully abstract to somewhat obscure actual vehicle type, but windows and general pointy cab definitely scream tram-like.

There's already existing vehicles that roughly/superficially resembles this, and some of them are tram-trains. Given that photo, maybe it is a train consist of multiple LRT vehicles running in a dedicated ROW, much like Ottawa's new O-Train Confederation Line.

Assuming a Bombardier stealth rescue is intended with this initiative too, even a 4-LRV consist would be lower capacity than what AMT runs on Deux-Montages. However, sheer frequency of multi-LRV consists definitely compensates, ala Calgary C-Train style -- Calgary's two LRT routes moves more people daily than all of GO's network combined (train+bus) ridership!

Then again, it could very easily be some off-the-shelf subway/metro that uses catenary. Some models of them are pointy-nosed.
 
Last edited:
mdrejhon said:
It admittedly looks very tram-train-like.
It may be artfully abstract to somewhat obscure actual vehicle type, but windows and general pointy cab definitely scream tram-like.

There's already existing vehicles that roughly/superficially resembles this, and some of them are tram-trains. Given that photo, maybe it is a train consist of multiple LRT vehicles running in a dedicated ROW, much like Ottawa's new O-Train Confederation Line.

Assuming a Bombardier stealth rescue is intended with this initiative too, even a 4-LRV consist would be lower capacity than what AMT runs on Deux-Montages. However, sheer frequency of multi-LRV consists definitely compensates, ala Calgary C-Train style -- Calgary's two LRT routes moves more people daily than all of GO's network combined (train+bus) ridership!

Then again, it could very easily be some off-the-shelf subway/metro that uses catenary. Some models of them are pointy-nosed.
Click to expand...

No question it does look tram-like. And multi-LRV consists are a reasonable expectation - seeing that it could allow for future extensions to be built in-median, and allow for easier vehicle purchases. But standard LRVs are hefty, costly, and built with impact standards for roadway operation. In other words standard LRVs are not all that optimal for what this plan proposes: fully automated, and fully grade-separated (from both road and rail). The proposal needs something light, fast, with high acceleration, high-freqeuncies, and high capacity.

Today's Railway Gazette article (and their use of the term "light metro"), keywords from the previous press release, and considering Quebec's ties to Bombardier - I'm somewhat convinced at this point that the Caisse and Libs have already settled on some variant of BBD's ART advanced light rail vehicle. It won't be 'off-the-shelf', could be MK-3.1 or MK-4, and will probably use catenary instead of 3rd rail or LIM. But the proposal is clearly much more SRT or Skytrain like (i.e subway/metro/light-metro) than either RER (i.e commuter rail) or Transit City LRT (i.e mostly slower tram-style operation).

The timelines are obviously too ambitious, just like every other transit plan. But at this point I think what seems to be proposed (light metro) is laudable and the right solution.

*Edit: and to avoid confusion with LRT, or make the mistakes TO made with the SRT (1. by never including it as a subway line for 30yrs, 2. deciding on standard LRT for an overly costly rebuild proposal, 3. allowing for public confusion between its rebuild and street-running LRT) - I think it would be wise for Montreal to drop any use of the word "light" in the proposal. They should simply call it a subway/metro and move forward.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top