Pour le paiement, le gouvernement, mais, effectivement, ils sont trop Carbrain pour ça…
Pour ce qui est des commandes, il va pas bientôt y avoir une commande? Car les MR-73 sont vieillissants non? Et il me semble que la STM voulait aussi installer le CBTC sur la Orange et la Verte
Oui, je sais que juste les Azurs peuvent prendre le CBTC, c’est normal que les Azurs arrivent sur la ligne bleue, juste que la Ligne Verte a aussi besoin d’Azurs
Le PPVU (Plan de Prolongement de Vie Utile) est déjà débuté. Si tu portes attention, tu n’entendras plus le vacarme de l’ancien compresseur à pistons.
Mais le Plan n’est pas une remise à neuf comme on a pu le voir avec le MR-63. Presque rien ne sera visible pour la clientèle. C’est surtout un remplacement des pièces les plus problématiques ou n’ayant plus de pièces de remplacement.
8 « J'aime »
Super intéressant, merci! Je n’étais pas au courant
Ma prédiction : c’est seulement lorsque l’usine de La Pocatière sera menacée de fermeture que le gouvernement octroiera les fonds pour une commande de plusieurs milliards en gré à gré à Alstom pour de nouvelles rames de métro.
15 « J'aime »
Il va falloir remonter la chaîne de montage… si les derniers trains ont étés conçus en 2021, le personnel qui était dédié aux Azur ont étés réassignés ailleurs depuis 3 ans déjà. L’usine travaille probablement à d’autres mandats… d’après moi remettre le tout en place va prendre au moins 1 an.
2 « J'aime »
Le projet a été renommé officiellement « Projet ligne bleue » ou le « PLB ».
Un changement été fait récemment sur le site web de la STM pour réfléter ce changement.
Projet ligne bleue | Société de transport de Montréal (stm.info)
Il aura également une nouvelle signature, et cela se pourrait que la signalétique pourrait changer.
7 « J'aime »
There is absolutely zero requirement for any 2036 trains to be identical to the “2010” Azurs. Alstom (and its progenitors and absorbed companies) have been making Métro Pneu for 70 years, and can supply a pneumatic train to match every spec required by our rollways, tunnel and load gauge, platform heights and any other dimensions. Even the silly wider triple doors can be matched, should we ever decide to go ahead with PSDs.
3 « J'aime »
Cette affirmation m’intrigue. on parle de la signature et de la signalétique du chantier, ou des cinq stations construites?
L’ARTM est occupé à modifier la signalétique des lignes depuis un petit bout, donc j’imagine que c’est simplement la suite logique de ce projet là.
C’est juste un nom officiel pour le projet. Il est nommé “Projet ligne bleu” (PLB) à l’interne dans le bureau de projet depuis longtemps. Cette annonce permet d’officialiser ce nom à l’externe. À ma connaissance ça n’a rien à voir avec les futurs noms des stations.
2 « J'aime »
The Azur is tailor made for the métro. The designers optimized everything to make good use of all the space available. Compatibility with the existing network is garanteed if the trains need to be moved through or to other lines. Since the blue line extension has most of the same contraints as the older stations (152m platforms, loading gauge), I don’t see why it would be preferable to use something else.
Yeah sure, Alstom can make a generic Metropolis train for each occasion, but we’ll be missing out on the good design of the existing trains. Also, this would mean a lot more testing and re-profiling tunnels not to mention the need to maintain a more diverse fleet of trains.
I’d like to see an updated version of the Azur with some up to date feature. LCD screens to replace the DOT matrix display would be neat.
6 « J'aime »
But that’s what I mean. If all the tooling at La Poc is gone, it doesn’t make sense to re-create it from scratch when the owner of the factory is already able to build bespoke Metros to fit every required specification, using their off-the-shelf Metropolis as a basis; the new trains would be the (up-to-date) equivalent of the MPM-10 in every way except perhaps for the look of the body shell. Alstom even supplied the bogies used on the Azur rolling stock. How many generations of Métro Pneu has Alstom supplied to the RATP? I would say they are very adept at building trains to spec.
6 « J'aime »
The specification for the MPM-10 was what the STM wanted in 2010 (actually a bit earlier). What things would the STM change that they have decided between 2010 and 2036 that they don’t like ? If they haven’t changed their minds about anything then the MPM-36? trains will be the same (possibly identical if Alstom wins the future contract). The tooling is only one part of the puzzle since each sub-system will have sub-contractors that will bid on providing that sub-system. Perhaps the MPM-10 sub-contractors will have disappeared or will bid too expensively? From the point of view of a passenger, not much would change however.
I can think of only one major component that makes sense to change: the signalling system. The MPM-10 were required to have on-board signalling equipment compatible with the existing network. Now, since the blue line is getting CBTC, some MPM-10s will be fitted with on-board CBTC to operate on the line. It would make sense to only fit the new CBTC system on the MPM-36 trains. This assumes that the STM will receive funding for CBTC to be operational on the other 3 lines between now and 2040.
1 « J'aime »
Meanwhile, the Sydney Metro extension opened this week. 15.5 km and seven stations, all tunnelled underneath a very dense central business district. Construction of the entire 66 km line began in 2015, with the first 36 km segment opening in 2019. Preparatory works for the extension under the harbour and central business district began in May, 2017, and tunneling began the following year. The current length of the line is 51.5 km.
Our 5 km, five station extension under a road in the suburbs should not take a decade. What is wrong with us?
9 « J'aime »
Simple: we have an aversion to success.
The REM is quite similar to the Sydney project on the technical side (conversion of a commuter train line, some tunnelling, similar length, etc) and will be delivered in a comparable timeline.
Yet, the media reaction was to do some nitpicking on the few initial issues that were eventually ironed out.
When it was time to build on the REM A experience to expand with the REM B, the governments decided to cave in to some NIMBYs instead of looking into ways to improve the design and replicate the original succes.
We prefer decades political back and forth for mediocre results than an efficient and straightforward process to a good but not perfect outcome.
12 « J'aime »
Une vidéo explicative (et assez impressionnante) sur la construction du métro de Sydney pour aller avec ce que tu dis
3 « J'aime »
I’m more willing to beleive that our archaic construction methods played a role. The use of TBMs in Canada is few and far in between. We don’t use cut and cover because we consider that method to be too disruptive despite the fact that it is still widely used worldwide and that we could minimise disruptions with temporary road bridges. Our construction compagnies don’t have the equipment available to build those temporary road bridges because it does not make financial sense to buy that kind of equipment for a single project.
We don’t have local expertise to handle those kinds of projects, so we need to rely on pricy international firms. Our construction workers don’t know much of anything about those construction methods which means that there is a learning curve. Work convention imposes heavy restrictions on what kind of work our construction workers can do, preventing them from touching any work that isn’t from their trade. This leads to a lot of inefficiencies.
We still don’t make wide use of modern machines that have tiltrotor which imposes restrictions on where the machine can be positioned. This often means that the worksite has to be larger, thus increasing disruptions for the local community and traffic. Those same machines typically do not have quick disconnect functionality which means that changing tool / bucket takes longer.
The timing of intervention is often poorly planned, or not scheduled in such a way that everyone comes in one after another to get the work done as quickly as possible. The only type of work that we seem to be able to do in a single weekend of the demolition of a viaduct. We haven’t learned how to do other other type of works in such a short timeframe. If our engineering firms spent half as much time planning those operations instead of making more useless studies, there’s no reason why we couldn’t achieve the same.
In other words, our construction industry badly needs to be reformed.
6 « J'aime »
This! I’m not saying that we are stuck in the Middle Ages of transit construction but there are many firms in Europe that have acquired an expertise on transit construction. Something we lack in NA. Additionally what is also slowing us down is this cultural aversion to transit. When the blue line was announced I knew it would be delayed because people will toss any legal case against it, in bad. faith of course… and it would ultimately delay the project.
Going back to choosing firms, I think its best to select European firms to guide us on future projects… I couldn’t care less about supporting local firms if it means poor planning and delays that are avoidable.
3 « J'aime »
Personally, I think that we should open some contracts to international firms. If our local firms are placed in a position where they have the choice between modernising or going out of business, I beleive that most of them will choose to modernise. Right now, that external pressure does not exist. They can continue to do things as they have been doing for decades without having to worry about losing out on contracts since there’s realistically only a limited number of firms in Québec that can do that kind of job.
3 « J'aime »
I don’t think it’s a lack of expertise in North America, it’s a lack of will. We are unwilling to plan and operate mass transit as a basic public service the same way we build and maintain roads and highways.
1 « J'aime »