But… for what purpose? Are RER or Transilien trains 300 metres long? Together they serve three billion riders a year, and none of their trains are longer than 140 metres.
2 « J'aime »
I think that part of it has to do with how the lines are setup. Toronto has this huge hub where everything ends up. There’s only so many lines going into Union station. My understanding of the RER is that they are much more segregated on their own dedicated lines. You can see it quite clearly on https://www.openrailwaymap.org/ Toronto is still working toward a more frequent European style of service. They recently signed a contract with Deutsche Bahn. Toronto’s system has a lot going for it, but it still needs a lot more work. We seriously need to pickup the pace in Montreal.
Maybe, but most platforms are 200m long on the RER network. I’m just saying if the stations are already built with 300m long platforms… Why don’t we keep it that way? Not that 100m really makes a difference… I agree with you that shorter trains are better if they’re run more frequently
Most of our platforms are just bare concrete. They don’t have any kind of awnings, or weather protection. They are as barebones as a platform can be. Most of them don’t have anything overly elaborate that could possibly be worth keeping. If we were to eventually decide to improve our commuter trains, we might as well tear them down and replace them. In a sense, it could be considered a blessing since it means that we can start with a clean slate if we want. We need not burden ourselves with what is already there.
2 « J'aime »
I didn’t mean the platforms themselves. I meant that since we already have a 300m footprint, what difference does it make.
Then again, if we already have that footprint we could always build a 200m platform and extend it if need be.
If we were to build such a system, I don’t think that length would be the main issue. I think that it would be the width of the corridor. The Vaudreuil-Dorion corridor is the only one that is wide enough no questions asked. At 60 meters, you could build another pair of rails easily and you will still have a buffer on both sides and between each pair of rails.
The fact is that once we start running more services, we might need more platforms at key locations. Montreal-Ouest is one of those locations. There clearly isn’t enough space at the current location of the station. We might be able to get away with it by moving it more to the east, closer to the Loyala Campus. There’s a bit more space behind Réno-Dépot. Personally, I’m of the opinion that the better solution is to eliminate the at grade crossing as part of rebuilding the station. I would build a cut and cover station that is partially under Sherbrooke and Broughton.
At Vendôme, the government showed a complete lack of foresight. Vendôme is really boxed in with the CUSM. I’ve got a really hard time seeing where a fourth platform would be built so that we could have a proper quad track service with 2 dedicated up and down tracks.
Theses are the types of issues that we would run in, and that’s an ongoing problem. Neither Montreal nor Quebec seems to have any interest in preserving the width of the existing corridors. There are more encroachment on rail right of ways being built every year. Considering the needs, it is absolutely insane that they are not being preserved.
1 « J'aime »
I would start by running a better train service. The “optimism” of perhaps one day having a need for 300 m long trains in a world of 120 m trains seems misplaced.
2 « J'aime »
Why do we need 4 tracks? If all the trains stop at all the stops between Montréal-Ouest and Lucien-L’Allier, two tracks are enough no? Plus in this case there is a third track.
Les gares Vendôme et Montréal-Ouest sont un goulot d’étranglement sur l’heure de pointe. Ces stations n’ont que trois quais pour accommoder trois lignes qui passent dans les deux directions.
En après-midi, les trains des lignes Vaudreuil et Candiac doivent souvent attendre que la plateforme deux se libère à Montréal-Ouest avant de pouvoir s’y arrêter.
4 « J'aime »
Yes but with modern signalling and trains that can actually accelerate at a normal modern speed, with show-up-and-go frequencies, that becomes moot. Again, we have 250 metre long, 12-car trains pulled by diesel tugs. Of course they get in the way of each other at rush-hour! Meanwhile, in other cities our size (or perhaps slightly bigger or smaller), they have real trains converging in their downtown cores, with 90 second headways in between them. It’s really not rocket surgery.
3 « J'aime »
How many tracks you need depends on a few things. One of them is the frequency of the service. The other is signaling. Since there is absolutely no automatisation on those lines, the distance between trains is greater which limits how many you can schedule.
The Westmount sub coming into Lucien-L’Allier has 3 rail lines. The third rail lane did not exist until recently which does point out that EXO’s predecessor felt the need to add more capacity. For a commuter train service, having 3 lanes kind of works since there are more trains going toward Lucien-L’Allier in the morning, and more trains going out in the afternoon. As soon as we starts talking about getting more frequent bidirectional service, having 3 rail lanes is really really really awkward as far as scheduling goes. Not having the fourth lane effectively condemns it to remain a commuter service.
Until a fourth rail lane gets built, there is always going to be a bottle neck coming in or going out. The accepted wisdom is that a one way rail lane deliver 4 times as much capacity as a bidirectional rail lane. That’s effectively what that middle rail is along the Westmount sub. It really does not do much to increase capacity. It is next to useless. You can’t even use it as a track to allow trains to pass each other since the only locations where there are switches are near Lucien L’Allier and near Montreal-Ouest. Once a train is on that middle track, it is there until it reaches the end of the Westmount sub.
Let’s just have fun and pretend that we will be given the ideal scenario, and all three lines get modernized and upgraded with frequent, two-way, all-day service. The LL terminal turns the Westmount sub into a truncated S-bahn, and all three lines can coexist with just two main tracks if modern signalling is used. Again, the only reason there is a crush now is because all three lines basically only offer long, slow trains with peak-hours service. With show-up-and-go frequencies and regular all-day timetables, the trains can be shorter, quicker, and the platforms less crowded overall. It’s a paradigm shift from the service we are accustomed using.
3 « J'aime »
I’ll add two things about Montreal-West. The three platform layout and three tracks are still useful versus a 2 track high-frequency layout as it may help avoid the need to construct a grade separation at the junction. By running the inner track in one direction and the outer tracks in the other direction, only one conflicting path would remain.
Secondly, the level crossings at Montreal-West are themselves a serious constraint on the stations capacity. For safety, trains have to crawl whenever crossing Westminster. Even without adding platforms, a grade separation is required.
Avec une gare terminale en cul de sac, ça cause plus de contraintes opérationnelles parce qu’il faut renvoyer tous les trains dans l’autre sens pour libérer les quais.
La 3e voie de la sub Westmount sert donc surtout pour les nombreux mouvements de trains haut-le-pied qui font la navette entre le garage Lachine et Lucien L’Allier sans s’arrêter aux gares.
Le fait d’avoir 3 voies permet aussi une meilleure insertion des trains en provenance de Candiac et Saint-Jérôme sur la sub : ils peuvent se suivre de beacoup plus près (en étant sur des voies différentes) que s’il n’y avait que 2 voies.
3 « J'aime »
Cost estimate for Westminster & Elmhurst grade separation
- $55 million
- $75 million
- $95 million
- $115 million
0 votant
Société de transport en commun QS réclame une aide d’urgence
Désolé, votre navigateur ne supporte pas les videos
(Québec) Québec solidaire (QS) réclame une aide d’urgence pour les sociétés de transport en commun qui ont été durement affectées par la pandémie.
Publié à 12h06
Caroline Plante La Presse Canadienne
Ce dossier a besoin d’un « électrochoc », mais le gouvernement Legault ne semble pas en être conscient, selon le porte-parole de QS en matière de transports, Étienne Grandmont.
En point de presse à l’Assemblée nationale vendredi, il a déploré que le service dépérit, à Montréal surtout, où la Société de transport de Montréal (STM) ne garantit plus les passages aux 10 minutes.
Lundi dernier, le chef parlementaire de QS, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, avait interpellé le premier ministre François Legault sur cette question, soulignant l’importance de ne pas réduire l’offre de services en transport en commun.
« L’achalandage ne revient pas au niveau prépandémique, a expliqué vendredi M. Grandmont. Avoir moins de passagers, ça entraîne moins de revenus, et moins de revenus, ça entraîne un service qui est moins bon. »
Le résultat, selon lui : « encore moins de monde utilise les transports en commun », alors que ceux-ci doivent faire partie de la stratégie pour lutter contre les changements climatiques.
« On demande que le gouvernement injecte immédiatement des fonds pour maintenir le service, et ensuite s’asseoir avec les sociétés de transport pour revoir le mode de financement qui est désuet », a-t-il martelé.
M. Grandmont a cité l’Association du transport urbain du Québec, qui regroupe l’ensemble des sociétés de transport au Québec, et qui estime à 560 millions le manque à gagner des sociétés de transport en 2023.
Si rien n’est fait rapidement, ce montant pourrait grimper à 900 millions en 2027.
« Le cercle vicieux de la baisse des services, on est en train de le voir à Montréal, mais on va le voir ailleurs au Québec », a prévenu le député de Taschereau.
Dans une déclaration écrite envoyée à La Presse Canadienne vendredi, la ministre des Transports, Geneviève Guilbault, dit croire « pleinement au potentiel du transport collectif ».
Elle rappelle que son gouvernement n’a pas hésité à soutenir les sociétés de transport pendant la pandémie en investissant 1,7 milliard pour pallier la baisse d’achalandage.
« Nous sommes en contact régulier avec ces organismes. […] Nous aurons des solutions à présenter au cours des prochains mois », a-t-elle déclaré.
2 « J'aime »
Honestly, I think the most expensive would be Woodland, because of the close proximity to the 20, and the underpass that was built in the late 1980s that didn’t include an extension to the north because Woodland ends at Elm, and at the time there was a little traffic using it other than CP riders going to and from the station. Automobile traffic was very light because it wasn’t a preferred route for commuting drivers to get to northern Beaconsfield at the time, having only been extended from Elm to Montrose at that time. That said, it’s entirely feasible, if we had the will (as usual).
1 « J'aime »
I think its way more than that. Given just how tight the site is, you can’t really put an underpass or a bridge at Westminster. There’s a bit more wiggle room at Elmhurst, but it is still extremely tight. To grade separate theses crossings, you really won’t have much choice but to rebuild the station. I beleive that the better option is to rebuild the station under the street in a cut and cover excavation. Even if we just have a single platform per direction, we are most definitely talking about opening the street on both sides to be able to build the station box. That likely means service relocations as well. I would at least double that 115 million amount you have on that poll. I think that’s why it has not yet been grade separated. Trains have to stop at the station either way, so the benefits of grade separating that station are a bit more limited than a grade crossing that would be located in the middle of a 100km/h section of the track.
1 « J'aime »
An underpass is not unrealistic, but it would require some rerouting of traffic.
Westminster
Elmhurst
1 « J'aime »
La gare est partiellement sur talus à cause de l’élévation des rue Elmhurst et Westminster pour rejoindre Sherbrooke et les deux rues sont elles-mêmes légèrement surélevées en anticipation de la traverse. Je me demande s’il serait possible de légèrement rabaisser les rues, restreindre leur élévation au nord des voies et légèrement surélever le talus pour permettre de séparer les niveaux.
Pour Westminster, on aussi la faire passer en viaduc conventionnel sous la ligne et fermer les rues Sherbrooke et Broughton entre Westminster et Ballantyne.
1 « J'aime »