Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

PATH should probably be considered part of the NYC subway, but the JFK AirTrain is more of a UPX type system (different technology, similar concept) that connects JFK airport with the main subway system.

PATH and the NYC Subway have similar technological/administrative differences as the Metro/REM will. The PATH is under authority of the PANYNJ while the subway is under the MTA.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

PATH should probably be considered part of the NYC subway, but the JFK AirTrain is more of a UPX type system (different technology, similar concept) that connects JFK airport with the main subway system.

Hmm, I would say that the AirTrain is a near perfect comparison for the TTC SRT since it acts as an extension to the subway rather than going downtown, is automated light metro rather than running on mainline railway, and even uses Bombardier ALRT technolgy, the same as the SRT!

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

It's already been anounced that the Mascouche line will stop at Canora station where the riders will have to transfer to the new REM line to reach downtown.

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

And the trains then run empty in the tunnel all the way to Central?

One of the map show a new station between Montpellier and Mont-Royal. It is also noted as a transfert station. I suppose it means that the Mascouche train could stop there and passengers would have to transfer to the REM there. If needed, a smart move would be to have a REM train waiting there, so the Mascouche passengers wouldn't flood the regular REM trains or have to wait because the trains are full.

[SkahHigh]

I believe this problem with the Mascouche line might be resolved eventually by converting it to REM.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

I believe this problem with the Mascouche line might be resolved eventually by converting it to REM.

le CN va dire quoi ?

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

le CN va dire quoi ?

The CN wouldn't have anything to say if the Caisse builds it's own trackage.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

The CN wouldn't have anything to say if the Caisse builds it's own trackage.

il y a de la place à côté de la ligne du CN ?, ou elle passerait ailleurs ? si la ligne Mascouche est remplacée, j'espère qu'ils utiliseront les locomotives pour une ligne jusqu'à St-Jean. Le commuter rail devrait être pour les villes de 2e couronne.

[franktko]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

I also drew a map of what I believe are reasonable goals the city should strive for. This is not a dream scenario, but something I believe the city will one day build (give it like 80 years or something).


-3 by Rommheim, on Flickr

Nice map Rico. The problem with it is the blue line west extension - no way we will extend this line to serve Hampstead and Côte-St-Luc only, some of the worst "metro" citizen of the island. If you ask them what's the best thing about their area, it's going to be being enclaved and isolated from the rest of Montrealers...

I think the best path for a blue line extension would be to go south quickly (avoid Hampstead) towards Monkland and join Sherbrooke east of Cavendish, then following Sherbrooke with a terminal at Concordia University.

[Rico Rommheim]

Originally Posted by franktko

I think the best path for a blue line extension would be to go south quickly (avoid Hampstead) towards Monkland and join Sherbrooke east of Cavendish, then following Sherbrooke with a terminal at Concordia University.

Agreed, I always thought that the blue line joining the Montreal-West commuter rail station would be nice, but then I don't think anyone would actually use the blue line from Loyola to go to Snowdon and then downtown. The detour is too big. The main problem with the blue line that I see is that it has no direct downtown access, so an extension to Loyola would only connect NDG to the northen portions of Montreal. And in most cases taking the bus straight to Vendome might be quicker than a hypothetical metro line going towards snowdon.


You're right about the citizens of Hamstead and CSL perhaps not even wanting a metro connection to their municipalities. It's a different world out there.

[hipster duck]

The Montreal REM is pretty impressive. A few questions (although they may have already been answered - I only went back 1 page and they weren't):

1. Will the REM use existing infrastructure with automatic train control? Like, will they just use the current Deux-Montagnes overhead electrification system?

2. Is there a plan to create a Trudeau-GC express service? With automation this should be fairly easy, but you probably have to add passing tracks and switches.

3. Do they plan on reconfiguring the platform setup at GC? Right now, it's built as a terminal station - narrow, darkly lit platform that you access when your train is in the station and all you have to do is descend from the concourse hall and board. If it's an REM, it'll be like a Metro - the waiting is done at platform level, and the train is in and out in 90 seconds. The platform has to be spacious enough to allow entering and exiting passengers to circulate around the platform while providing ample escalator and elevator space to move them out of there*.

*Toronto fucked this up big time with its latest $1B Union Station overhaul. They're keeping the 1915-era platforms, even though they're hopelessly narrow and were designed for pre-war long distance steam train travel for a city 1/10 the current size, not regional express rail services.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

The Montreal REM is pretty impressive. A few questions (although they may have already been answered - I only went back 1 page and they weren't):

1. Will the REM use existing infrastructure with automatic train control? Like, will they just use the current Deux-Montagnes overhead electrification system?

2. Is there a plan to create a Trudeau-GC express service? With automation this should be fairly easy, but you probably have to add passing tracks and switches.

3. Do they plan on reconfiguring the platform setup at GC? Right now, it's built as a terminal station - narrow, darkly lit platform that you access when your train is in the station and all you have to do is descend from the concourse hall and board. If it's an REM, it'll be like a Metro - the waiting is done at platform level, and the train is in and out in 90 seconds. The platform has to be spacious enough to allow entering and exiting passengers to circulate around the platform while providing ample escalator and elevator space to move them out of there*.

*Toronto fucked this up big time with its latest $1B Union Station overhaul. They're keeping the 1915-era platforms, even though they're hopelessly narrow and were designed for pre-war long distance steam train travel for a city 1/10 the current size, not regional express rail services.

1-they will have to replace all the rails on the Deux-Montagnes Line
2-the YUL-GC frequency at rush hour , 6 to 12min , 4 cars , 2 cars off-peak times, travel time 25-30min
3-no informations on this, but the GC station will be underground and built like a Metro station.

http://cdpqinfra.com/sites/all/files/document/cdpqinfra_briefing_technique_anglais_2016-04-22.pdf

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

The Montreal REM is pretty impressive. A few questions (although they may have already been answered - I only went back 1 page and they weren't):

1. Will the REM use existing infrastructure with automatic train control? Like, will they just use the current Deux-Montagnes overhead electrification system?

2. Is there a plan to create a Trudeau-GC express service? With automation this should be fairly easy, but you probably have to add passing tracks and switches.

3. Do they plan on reconfiguring the platform setup at GC? Right now, it's built as a terminal station - narrow, darkly lit platform that you access when your train is in the station and all you have to do is descend from the concourse hall and board. If it's an REM, it'll be like a Metro - the waiting is done at platform level, and the train is in and out in 90 seconds. The platform has to be spacious enough to allow entering and exiting passengers to circulate around the platform while providing ample escalator and elevator space to move them out of there*.

*Toronto fucked this up big time with its latest $1B Union Station overhaul. They're keeping the 1915-era platforms, even though they're hopelessly narrow and were designed for pre-war long distance steam train travel for a city 1/10 the current size, not regional express rail services.

Toronto's spending $1B to keep the 1915-era look? That's fucking crazy. How in the hell did something like that get passed?

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Toronto's spending $1B to keep the 1915-era look? That's fucking crazy. How in the hell did something like that get passed?

When the Union station overhaul was planned, building a regional rail system with subway-like frequencies wasn't really on the radar. Still, they should have had some foresight. This stuff isn't rocket science.

The other reasons they preserved the current platform arrangement was that they wanted to keep the existing station operational during construction but also because they wanted to keep the heritage shed. The heritage shed might be old, but it's not pretty and, more importantly, not functional. Its primary purpose of venting coal smoke from steam trains is not exactly high up on the priority list in 2016.

Here are the platforms at Union station, which they are preserving:



By contrast, here are the platforms at Berlin Hauptbahnhof, a train station built for 21st century commuting needs:

[Innsertnamehere]

couple of things.

1. Platforms are from the late 1920's. The station building was designed in the early 1910's and completed by the early 20's, but disputes over the rail corridor meant that the platforms themselves didn't open until 1931.

2. It was a 1 billion dollar project, reconfiguring tracks would have turned it into a 2 billion dollar project. Structural support pillars are designed to hold up tracks at existing locations, moving tracks means the pillars would need to be moved too. Given the phasing plan for Union too - I'm not sure they could have done it without entirely shutting down the station - something that isn't exactly desirable or really possible. Trust me - GO is aware of the problems with the existing platforms - the cost to fix it is just insane though, so they deal. Besides, adding platform width takes away from available tracks. Union needs all the tracks it can get - and its going to max out at 14 tracks, with the existing configuration. Every track you remove to make wider platforms actively reduces capacity.

3. Berlin Hauptbahnhof is a new build station built from the ground up - comparing the two is hardly fair. Hauptbahnhof is an incredible station - possibly one of the nicest on the globe. One thing Union does have that it doesn't is dual side access tracks - which helps disperse passengers much quicker given the width of the platforms. Hauptbahnhof uses wide, centre platforms serving 2 tracks each, with each track facing a single platform. 9 out of the 11 tracks at Union that are "substandard" (old) have access to two platforms each. Its not as bad as it looks.

4. The Bush shed is heritage designated as its on of the last ones in North America. That is the reasoning behind keeping 2/3rds of it. Not sure I agree with them doing that, but that is why. They installed the large central shed replacement anyway, so its still a lot nicer. The restored shed is also a LOT nicer than the pre-restoration shed. The thing was in absolutely abysmal shape.

5. The actual platform renovations and shed restoration is only around $100 million if I recall.. the majority of the money (around $700 million) is going into the new concourses below the tracks. Another couple million for the now complete PATH extensions and second platform at the subway station, and you round out to a billion.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

When the Union station overhaul was planned, building a regional rail system with subway-like frequencies wasn't really on the radar. Still, they should have had some foresight. This stuff isn't rocket science.

The other reasons they preserved the current platform arrangement was that they wanted to keep the existing station operational during construction but also because they wanted to keep the heritage shed. The heritage shed might be old, but it's not pretty and, more importantly, not functional. Its primary purpose of venting coal smoke from steam trains is not exactly high up on the priority list in 2016.

Here are the platforms at Union station, which they are preserving:



By contrast, here are the platforms at Berlin Hauptbahnhof, a train station built for 21st century commuting needs:

That station in Berlin is impressive. Looks like a shopping mall with trains!

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

couple of things.

1. Platforms are from the late 1920's. The station building was designed in the early 1910's and completed by the early 20's, but disputes over the rail corridor meant that the platforms themselves didn't open until 1931.

2. It was a 1 billion dollar project, reconfiguring tracks would have turned it into a 2 billion dollar project. Structural support pillars are designed to hold up tracks at existing locations, moving tracks means the pillars would need to be moved too. Given the phasing plan for Union too - I'm not sure they could have done it without entirely shutting down the station - something that isn't exactly desirable or really possible. Trust me - GO is aware of the problems with the existing platforms - the cost to fix it is just insane though, so they deal. Besides, adding platform width takes away from available tracks. Union needs all the tracks it can get - and its going to max out at 14 tracks, with the existing configuration. Every track you remove to make wider platforms actively reduces capacity.

3. Berlin Hauptbahnhof is a new build station built from the ground up - comparing the two is hardly fair. Hauptbahnhof is an incredible station - possibly one of the nicest on the globe. One thing Union does have that it doesn't is dual side access tracks - which helps disperse passengers much quicker given the width of the platforms. Hauptbahnhof uses wide, centre platforms serving 2 tracks each, with each track facing a single platform. 9 out of the 11 tracks at Union that are "substandard" (old) have access to two platforms each. Its not as bad as it looks.

4. The Bush shed is heritage designated as its on of the last ones in North America. That is the reasoning behind keeping 2/3rds of it. Not sure I agree with them doing that, but that is why. They installed the large central shed replacement anyway, so its still a lot nicer. The restored shed is also a LOT nicer than the pre-restoration shed. The thing was in absolutely abysmal shape.

5. The actual platform renovations and shed restoration is only around $100 million if I recall.. the majority of the money (around $700 million) is going into the new concourses below the tracks. Another couple million for the now complete PATH extensions and second platform at the subway station, and you round out to a billion.

Was it not possible to just build an entirely new station right next to the old one and then tear down the old one when the new one is ready to use? The Toronto station does not look appealing at all to me. How much did the Berlin station cost to build?

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Was it not possible to just build an entirely new station right next to the old one and then tear down the old one when the new one is ready to use? The Toronto station does not look appealing at all to me. How much did the Berlin station cost to build?

Where would you put a new station? Union is surrounded on every side (except maybe the east, but that's about to change very soon and would still potentially be a problem for all trains in the eastern GTA), and part of what makes it successful is the subway connection.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

It was a 1 billion dollar project, reconfiguring tracks would have turned it into a 2 billion dollar project.

I would have rather they spent $2B to get it right.

Structural support pillars are designed to hold up tracks at existing locations, moving tracks means the pillars would need to be moved too. Given the phasing plan for Union too - I'm not sure they could have done it without entirely shutting down the station - something that isn't exactly desirable or really possible. Trust me - GO is aware of the problems with the existing platforms - the cost to fix it is just insane though, so they deal.

GO was in a better position to shut down the entire station than you let on, as was VIA. Only the Lakeshore line travels through Union station. All other GO lines terminate there. Lakeshore could have used the modern platform 27/28 on the south side of the station, and they could have used those other tracks for train movements. All other lines, plus VIA (they could have temporarily suspended through trains to Aldershot) could have terminated on either side of the current union station, using temporary, upgraded outdoor platforms and the teamways as access points to the subway/downtown. Then they could have ripped out the entire middle and rebuilt the station from scratch. The east and west sides have their own GO storage yard, too. What I'm suggesting isn't easy, of course, but it's a lot easier than trying to reconfigure the station 40 years down the line to accommodate RER service because they screwed it up the first time.

We all forget the 5 years of annoyance that we had to put up with to get to the infield terminal so that they could tear down T1 and T2 to build the large, modern new airport terminal. Imagine if they would have tried to spruce up the old terminal 1 and terminal 2 instead. That's what GO's doing now.

Besides, adding platform width takes away from available tracks. Union needs all the tracks it can get - and its going to max out at 14 tracks, with the existing configuration. Every track you remove to make wider platforms actively reduces capacity.

The dwell time is what constrains the capacity of Union, not the number of tracks. In stations like Berlin - which has just 6 tracks on the upper level - or 4 for regional rail - they can thread hundreds of trains at subway-like frequencies.

One thing Union does have that it doesn't is dual side access tracks - which helps disperse passengers much quicker given the width of the platforms. Hauptbahnhof uses wide, centre platforms serving 2 tracks each, with each track facing a single platform. 9 out of the 11 tracks at Union that are "substandard" (old) have access to two platforms each. Its not as bad as it looks.

I think two platforms at Union are still narrower than one platform at Hauptbahnhof. And there are other reasons for going for the 1 big platform design: cross-transfers to other lines being one, and the ability to move around large obstacles like elevator shafts and stairwells being another.

4. The Bush shed is heritage designated as its on of the last ones in North America. That is the reasoning behind keeping 2/3rds of it. Not sure I agree with them doing that, but that is why. They installed the large central shed replacement anyway, so its still a lot nicer.

There was nothing preventing them from dismantling the shed and rebuilding it somewhere else. The point is to remove it from Union station where it disrupts the station's functionality.

The restored shed is also a LOT nicer than the pre-restoration shed.

Lipstick on a pig. A $1 billion pig.

5. The actual platform renovations and shed restoration is only around $100 million if I recall.. the majority of the money (around $700 million) is going into the new concourses below the tracks. Another couple million for the now complete PATH extensions and second platform at the subway station, and you round out to a billion.

Yes, and those new concourses have permanently sealed the fate of those narrow, pre-war platforms. It will have to be fixed eventually, and it will cost way more than $1 billion next time around.

[caltrane74]

There has been some talk of building a new Union Station at Bathurst and/or in the Portlands area. That would be the best solution.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Where would you put a new station? Union is surrounded on every side (except maybe the east, but that's about to change very soon and would still potentially be a problem for all trains in the eastern GTA), and part of what makes it successful is the subway connection.

It was just a question. I'm not familiar with the area but just about anything is doable.