I don’t understand how this is an issue. Trains between QC and MTL can be 200 metres long, trains between MTL and the west can be 400 metres long if demand warrants it. There is no reason why all the trains have to be identical. We can have 10 tph to Quebec, 20 tph to Toronto, or any combination in between. The most flexible thing in this project is the train length and departures, these things work around infrastructure, not the other way.
I highly doubt Quebec-Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto will be treated as one HSR line. It will most likely be treated as 2 or even 3 lines running on similar infrastructure. This would also significantly simplify the issue of montreal terminals, just have westward trains begin and end downtown, and trains to Quebec begin and end at Dorval. People going from Ottawa to Quebec could easily transfer at Dorval
The idea of having a stop in Laval for a MTL-TO train makes perfect sense.
The door-to-door travel time for someone in Laval would greatly be increased by forcing them to travel to downtown MTL (wherever the station ends up being located).
For a ?small? incremental cost you add greatly to the number of people that would be tempted to take the train.
If you travel by bus to Ottawa, the bus will stop in Kirkland for exactly the same justification. You don’t force everyone to travel downtown to get on the bus.
All trains don’t have to stop in Laval, there could be a combination of stopping and non-stop services depending on the demand.
Same for Toronto: there could be a stop in Pickering or Oshawa in addtion to the mandated stop in Peterborough.
Eurostar uses 400m long trains.
French TGVs use 200m long trains in multiple units quite often (if not exclusively) on the major routes (Paris-Marseille, Paris-Lyon, Paris-Bordeaux, Paris-Lille…)
Some of the German ICE 4s also exist in 12-13 car consists (345-375m)
Added: Oh and of course some of the Shinkansen lines do too
These are just the ones I know of from the top of my head
From experience on the french TGVs, they are often quite PACKED even though they are double deckers, so considering the corridor has a comparable population, it would be wise to at least plan for future 400m-train operation.
Nous parlons évidemment tous de la gare de Dorval comme étant d’une évidence obligatoire.
Mais que penseriez-vous du sous sol du mariot à l’aéroport de Dorval Comme une station à la place de la gare de Dorval? Ce sous-sol a déjà été planifié pour être une gare de train de la ligne de Vaudreuil Hudson, que serait l’impossibilité de le réutiliser pour le train à grande vitesse?
Je suis d’accord. Ils font mieux que les autres sur certains aspects comme les stations en ville et les coûts de construction, ce qui sont des avantages majeurs.
Cependant, il faut aussi voir que les lignes à grande vitesse en Espagne ne transportent qu’un quart du nombre de passagers en France tout en ayant deux tiers de la population française.
En Allemagne, les ICE ont transporté un nombre de passagers légèrement inférieur à la France tout en ayant leurs gares en centre ville, mais des gains de temps globalement bas puisqu’ils ont préféré mettre l’accent sur la desserte que sur la vitesse.
Il y a des avantages à tous les systèmes, mais même si un gros point noir du système français est l’accessibilité des gares intermédiaires (voir Champagne-Ardennes et Meuse TGV), on ne peut pas nier qu’il fonctionne très bien du point de vue du nombre de voyageurs annuels.
We can increase frequency instead of rebuilding infrastructure. Doubling to 1 train per half hour shouldn’t be an issue. We probably could go to 1 traine every 10 minute before we ever really need to think about rebuilding the stations to make them longer.
Cet espace a été conçu pour accueillir une gare de train / navette aéroportuaire. Je pourrais me tromper, mais j’ai la nette impression que cet espace est très loin d’être assez long pour ce genre d’usage. De plus, c’est une gare terminale, ce qui complique les opérations.
I highly doubt Quebec-Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto will be treated as one HSR line.
Exactly. It just felt like the discussion, especially around downtown tunnels, was making the assumption they were one line.
There are other potential design consequences of splitting up the services as well, in particular around what maximum speed the Quebec line would be designed to.
30 trains per day is one train per half-hour during much of the day. Going more frequent than that may require different infrastructure choices where track-sharing with commuter services may occur (through west Island and on the approach to Union Station Toronto).
The plan is to have a system going from Toronto to Québec. It’s a mistake to lock into it being operationally one line for the reasons discussed above.
Et c’est pourtant ce que tous les vrais pays font.
Il n’y a aucun avantage à morceler le système.
Il s’agit d’un axe complet qui doit être traité comme un axe complet.
Dans tous les cas, le projet officiel est une seule ligne de Toronto à Québec.
What’s the difference of having a full line Quebec-Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto versus having to transfer at Gare Dorval to go to Ottawa? Is it that passengers from Toronto can’t wait to get on a direct travel to downtown Montreal?
I guess Toronto travelers can wait for the next train if a “Cote-De-Liesse/Laval” destination doesn’t satisfy their criterias.
Plus, transfers on a HSR? Really? Between two capital cities?
Pour ce que ça vaut, Alto parle d’une ouverture en phases du système. À voir si ce sont des parties d’un grand tronçon qui seront ouvertes, ou des branches distinctes!
A few of the trade-offs to consider.
Following mostly the existing right-of-way, with upgrades mostly east of Port-Neuf, a Dorval to Quebec service in 2 hours can be done with existing Siemens Charger trains at 200 km/h max speed. Going to 300km/h on the flats west of Trois-Rivières would save only around 8 minutes, at significant expense. Turning it into a 1.5 hour travel time would involve entirely new track from Louiseville eastward.
Assuming diesels are kept, even temporarily to Quebec, then on the 300km/h (or even 320 km/h) right-of-way to Ottawa, a 200 km/h train would lose 15 minutes vs. electrified HSR on that stretch. It’s possible to through-run the diesel, but it’d save passengers time to transfer to the faster train at Dorval, even with luggage and a 5 minute wait.
