News   Jul 17, 2024
News Roundup for July 17, 2024
 440     0 
News   Jul 17, 2024
Don Valley Floodway
 971     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
Minto Submits Modifications to Grand Park Village Plan in Mimico
 1.1K     2 

VIA Rail

steveintoronto said:
To put that in perspective in the GTHA, GO Transit still offers only hourly service on many routes. It's entirely possible that if VIA is offering hourly trains on the Peterborough alignment, GO will offer an RER type service hourly to mesh with VIA to Peterborough, but GO would of course be a stopping service, thus complementing VIA's express through Peterborough to Toronto, stopping at Peterborough and perhaps a station in the north of Toronto before headed down to Union.

VIA certainly isn't going to be providing RER levels of frequency. The operation has to break even from the start for operating budget, and increase from there. But Japan certainly has lessons for others to learn from. Paris claims to have modelled the RER on Tokyo.

With passing loops and CBTC Plus signalling/control, this can be done on a single track line, although GO might be held at times in station loops for an HFR to pass.
Click to expand...

Fair points. Ultimately in order to compete with commuter flights successfully they must provide much more frequent and faster trains than they do now. Maybe in the medium term they can ramp up service at reasonable cost. If they can figure out a way to get people to and from Montreal in under 3 hours for around $100+/- consistently and frequently that would be a good way to compete.

For the passing loops they'll need to rebuild the tracks around the platforms so that they can have trains passing through the middle
 
steveintoronto said:
What's peculiar, at least in the English press, is the lack of coverage from either AMT (they may be stifled) or VIA.
Edit to Add: There are indications that the tunnel is 'in the possession' (if not owned by) of AMT:
/
Click to expand...

The whole AMT Deux Montagnes line is being transferred to REM to be turned into one branch of the LRT service, and that's the main existing user of the tunnel.
 
I don't get why people are worried. If Quebec wants HFR, they'll lean on Caisse to make it happen with the tunnel. Watch.
 
cplchanb said:
jus

just to kind of put it into perspective...during the rush hour periods, japan has shinkansen trains coming every 5 minutes. I recall looking at their next train displays and they had 3 trains scheduled in each direction departing in a span of 15 min!! I guess compared to canada it would be hyper frequent service... thats japan though... I can live with 1 every 30 min, but it ideally should be EMUs
Click to expand...
Japan is pretty much the gold standard when it comes to rail. We don't need to match what they have since they have so many more people in such a smaller area. It would be more relevant to look at countries that have a similar population density as what we have in the Windsor-Quebec Corridor like France or Ireland or Scandinavia. If we get 15 minute RER service and hourly Via service (both electrified) that alone will be a huge improvement to rail transportation in this country.
 
RE: REM proposal for Mont Royal Tunnel:

0


http://www.cat-bus.com/2016/08/how-...lic-partnership-is-privatization-in-disguise/

Entire context of the discussion at link above is a very worthwhile read.
 
jcam said:
The whole AMT Deux Montagnes line is being transferred to REM to be turned into one branch of the LRT service, and that's the main existing user of the tunnel.
Click to expand...
Is that official? I'd have assumed that REM would still be under AMT.

The feds would have to sign off on converting the tunnel so it couldn't handle mainline traffic. Who owns it these days, it's still CN as far as I know.

robmausser said:
Its GO-ALRT but with funding.
Click to expand...
GO-ALRT had funding - until it didn't.

They've been talking about this kind of service through the tunnels for near 60 years. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligne_3_(métro_de_Montréal)

I'll believe it when I see it.
 
jcam said:
The whole AMT Deux Montagnes line is being transferred to REM to be turned into one branch of the LRT service, and that's the main existing user of the tunnel.
Click to expand...

nfitz said:
Is that official? I'd have assumed that REM would still be under AMT.

The feds would have to sign off on converting the tunnel so it couldn't handle mainline traffic. Who owns it these days, it's still CN as far as I know.
Click to expand...
It appears that CN have transferred/sold ownership to AMT for the tunnel years ago, I'm still looking for references beyond repeated mention in the Quebec rail forums. It's my understanding that the Deux Montagnes line will remain extant and running north of the tunnel, but requiring a transfer to REM through the tunnel to Central Station. Ditto for VIA HFR Quebec City branch to connect with Central Station and the Ottawa/Toronto leg of HFR.

The REM 'justification' for the grab is signalling, a strawman argument, as there are a number of examples of heavy/light rail sharing tracks and signalling in Europe, some with BBD's own signalling system.

This is all discussed at length at the links provided prior.

As per AMT's retaining control and ownership, Catbus and other forums have discussed and detailed it. The Quebec legislature has passed a law mandating REM's acquisition. It is draconian and cause for great concern. The Montreal press have also been running many arguments on that matter.

Here's a few articles that cover the matter:

Catbus» Blog Archive » How the Caisse's Light Rail System will ...
www.cat-bus.com/.../how-the-caisses-light-rail-system-will-crumble-under-its-own-we...
May 18, 2016 - How the Caisse's Light Rail System will Crumble under its own Weight .... In order to safely run trains through the Mount-Royal tunnel, ...
Catbus
www.cat-bus.com/
Mar 13, 2017 - How VIA Rail Torpedoed its Own “High-Frequency Rail” Project and Montreal's ... This would require shared access to the Mount Royal tunnel, which the ... rail system shared between REM, AMT and VIA, but not impossible.

Catbus» Blog Archive » How the Caisse's “Public-Public-Partnership ...
www.cat-bus.com/.../how-the-caisses-public-public-partnership-is-privatization-in-dis...
Aug 10, 2016 - If the Caisse builds infrastructure, shouldn't they own it and manage it ... line in the AMT network) AND the Mount-Royal tunnel, the backbone of ...

Trains vie to use Mount Royal tunnel | montreal city weblog
w5.montreal.com/mtlweblog/?p=61144&cpage=1
Jul 14, 2016 - In reality, we own the tunnel infrastructure, if they want to use it they should stay ... choices: http://www.cat-bus.com/2016/07/rem-rushing-ahead/ ... if Via and AMT and REM and everyone just had their own dedicated rails that ...

From the last link above: (Note the FRA waiver, TC can offer the same here, and Metrolinx should take note, as some of the engineering/planning staff have suggested in Metrolinx reports)(the same applies for the TTC/Toronto City Planning and their thinking from the last century as per 'only subways', which is going to be their almost fatal undoing)
[...]
  • ant6n 14:11 on 2016/07/14 Permalink
    I spoke to Jean-Vincent Lacroix (the main marketing guy quoted in the article) and Andlauer (their technical director) about how Caltrain in SF got a special waiver to mix FRA (heavy) trains with UIC (lighter European) trains. They got this waiver because they proved it’s safe, and there’s a slow but ongoing regulatory process to change the regulations nationwide.

    Yes there’s a big question-mark around mixing the heavy and _automated_ light trains, but in principle it’s possible if they share a signalling system that ensures they don’t cash into each other. The Europeans are currently developing a standard open system that would allow that, ERTMS. Many agencies are planning automation on top of that system.

    In any case, the major technical hurdle is requiring that all trains be equipped to use whatever signalling system is installed in the tunnel, whether they are heavy or light, and whether they are unattended or attended. They also need to have the same dimensions, and use the same electrification.

    If unattended operation through the tunnel is not possible, but the Caisse has to insist on it, they could always have operators sit in front just going through the shared tunnel.

    Regarding frequency, all that’s required is to make the REM trains longer. If they are longer than 80m, they don’t have to run every 3 minutes. If the REM trains ran every 4 minutes and we insalled signalling system that allows one train every 2 minutes (30tph), then every second train could be a ‘heavy’ one that could go to one of several places, like Outrement/Laval/St-Jerome, Montreal-North/Mascouche, or Quebec City.

    The main problem is that the Caisse is starting all their calculations assuming they already own the Mont-Royal tunnel, and then they only consider their own needs (Airport/West Island/Brossard), and then they kick out every other train.

    In reality, we own the tunnel infrastructure, if they want to use it they should stay compatible with _our_ trains.

    Privatization should be opposed, exactly because it gives a private entity control and then they just mess up all our regional plans.

  • ant6n 14:16 on 2016/07/14 Permalink
    Btw, the REM people already started their bidding process two weeks ago, locking in their bad technology choices: http://www.cat-bus.com/2016/07/rem-rushing-ahead/
[...]
http://w5.montreal.com/mtlweblog/?p=61144&cpage=1
 
Last edited:
Since this is an important point in itself, I'm posting this link from Anton's post above separately:

Metrolinx and TTC/Toronto Planning take note! This would allow Tramtrains (as exactly espoused by Alstom for their Citadis LRTs now on order by Metrolinx) to run on RER tracks:

Rail News: Passenger Rail
FRA waiver paves way for Caltrain electrification
6/2/2010

Last week, Caltrain received a waiver from the Federal Railroad Administration to operate standard trains and lighter-rail equipment on the same tracks.

  • The waiver will enable Caltrain to transition from its current diesel equipment to a fully electrified system, modernizing Peninsula commuter-rail service, Caltrain officials said in a prepared statement. Caltrain now can begin replacing its diesel-fueled rolling stock with electrified locomotives and passenger cars, which is expected to take years to complete and require the simultaneous operation of both types of equipment.

    There are advantages to switching to electrified rolling stock, which are cleaner and less expensive to operate, Caltrain officials said. In addition, because electric trains can start and stop more quickly, they will enable Caltrain to stop at more stations, officials said.

    The service is expected to attract more riders and reduce traffic congestion in the region.
Click to expand...
I must admit the concept, as practised in the US for decades with the San Diego Trolley and other systems, (albeit temporally) is a little difficult for many Canadians to accept.

Only in Canada you say? Pity...Is it any wonder this nation (with the exception of a few forward thinking cities) is so far behind others?

Edit to Add: Further to the arguments posed above, Montreal is trying to embrace a 'better way of doing things' with the Caisse REM imposition. It's NOT the technology that's at fault, it's the *political sledgehammer for propriety reasons* that is.

And for Toronto? Not much different. Note how even the TorStar's editorial position has changed radically from what they touted three years ago: (Think the Relief Line, and the absurdity of not considering forward compatible options not possible by making it TTC gauge and high platform, short station geometry)
Toronto has over-invested in subways at tremendous cost: Editorial
A Pembina Institute study shows Toronto has over-invested in subways at tremendous cost while Vancouver, Calgary and Ottawa created more transit for less money.

Mon., Sept. 8, 2014

Toronto’s decades-long fixation on subways has left it “stuck in its tracks” compared to cities that are more open to other rapid transit options. Canada’s largest city spends far more per kilometre on new rapid transit and gets a lot less for its money.

That depressing verdict comes in a new report comparing transit across Canada by the highly regarded Pembina Institute. Toronto’s mayoral candidates, and voters, would do well to pay close attention to these findings. Obsessing on subways carries high costs.

Researchers examined commuter systems in five cities: Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Vancouver and Ottawa. They found the two oldest centres, Toronto and Montreal, lag far behind in launching new rapid transit lines.

The comparison is striking. In the last 20 years Toronto managed to open just 18 kilometres of rapid transit, less than one kilometre a year. In contrast, over the same period, Vancouver opened 44 kilometres, more than twice as much. Calgary opened 29 and even Ottawa delivered 23.

That’s a shamefully poor showing for a city like Toronto which aspires to be a leader in public transit. It’s small consolation that Montreal did even worse, opening just 5 kilometres of line in the past two decades. For the purposes of the study, “rapid transit” was defined as subways, light-rail lines, Vancouver’s SkyTrain, right-of-way streetcars travelling in their own separated lane, and right-of-way bus routes.

Toronto and Montreal lag because, unlike other cities, they’ve been slow to invest in “quick-to-deploy rapid transit technologies.” Instead, Toronto has focused on slow-to-deliver subways that come at a heavy cost. That’s why it’s stuck paying an average of $236 million per kilometre for new rapid transit — more than any other city in the study. [...]
Click to expand...
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/edi..._in_subways_at_tremendous_cost_editorial.html
 
Last edited:
steveintoronto said:
Since this is an important point in itself, I'm posting this link from Anton's post above separately:

Metrolinx and TTC/Toronto Planning take note! This would allow Tramtrains (as exactly espoused by Alstom for their Citadis LRTs now on order by Metrolinx) to run on RER tracks:
Click to expand...

Periodic reminder that Transport Canada regulations are not laws of nature — they are federal government regulations implementing federal government policy.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top