The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Without any construction to any of the platforms, is 2 car trains the longest it can be?

Yes, but the busiest stations have been pre-built to the maximum 50 metre length.

[nname]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Yes, but the busiest stations have been pre-built to the maximum 50 metre length.

Even with the 40m underground stations - they are built with 50m but with 10m blocked by knock-out walls. So extension to those stations would only require some finishing on the platform.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

I would think that this would be almost impossible to implement with out some massive tunnel work that would give enough headroom for pantographs to be installed on retrofitted subway cars. They must be cheaper to install then 3rd rails so that might be the reason why they aren't use in many older metro lines.

Also over on wiki thses are some of the reasons why they aren't considered in places with harsher climates.

Overhead line equipment can be adversely affected by strong winds causing swinging wires.[4] Power storms can knock the power out with lightning strikes on systems[citation needed] with overhead wires, stopping trains if there is a power surge.

During cold or frosty weather, there is a risk of ice build-up on overhead lines. This can result in poor electrical contact between the collector and the overhead line, resulting in electrical arcing and power surges.[5]

to answer some of your questions, here's a video from CDPQi

• Video Link

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

to answer some of your questions, here's a video from CDPQi

• Video Link

This is a great video but it really shows the pitfall in the broadness of the term "LRT"...

Like, this video is saying "LRT" but is really referring to automated rapid transit which is, in most other places in Canada, categorized as something other than (and above) "LRT".

Surrey's using the same terminology for something basically amounting to the same thing as what the video (correctly, I might add) considers to be a 'tramway'. It's not gonna be long before LRT proponents out here are going to cite this video and say "look, LRT is such an awesome transit choice that even Montreal has chosen it!" and not realize that the video is actually pushing for exactly what these LRT proponents oppose....

[lrt's friend]

What Montreal is proposing is much closer to the Skytrain than a tramway or even the C-Train. The main difference from the Skytrain is that it will be a catenary-based instead of third rail based. Catenary was the better choice given that Montreal receives much more snow and ice than Vancouver and even Toronto.

This shows us that when it comes to passenger rail technology today, the many choices can blend together to address local requirements. It becomes much more difficult to pigeon hole what is actually being built.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

What Montreal is proposing is much closer to the Skytrain than a tramway or even the C-Train. The main difference from the Skytrain is that it will be a catenary-based instead of third rail based. Catenary was the better choice given that Montreal receives much more snow and ice than Vancouver and even Toronto.

This shows us that when it comes to passenger rail technology today, the many choices can blend together to address local requirements. It becomes much more difficult to pigeon hole what is actually being built.

Don't want to start that debate again, but don't forget about grade-separation also... Which is why we can't compare the REM with the C-Train or Edmonton LRT.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

What Montreal is proposing is much closer to the Skytrain than a tramway or even the C-Train. The main difference from the Skytrain is that it will be a catenary-based instead of third rail based. Catenary was the better choice given that Montreal receives much more snow and ice than Vancouver and even Toronto.

This shows us that when it comes to passenger rail technology today, the many choices can blend together to address local requirements. It becomes much more difficult to pigeon hole what is actually being built.

Procurement documents from the CDPQi show Light Metro as the description of the system.

[Nouvellecosse]

Yeah, there isn't anything ambiguous or difficult to categorize here. The creators of the video just made a mistake and used the wrong term. Nothing complicated about it; people make mistakes all the time.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yeah, there isn't anything ambiguous or difficult to categorize here. The creators of the video just made a mistake and used the wrong term. Nothing complicated about it; people make mistakes all the time.

Doesn't seem that way, actually. Before this video was out the local & national media were already calling the REM proposal an "LRT" - and the standalone Champlain Bridge Rail proposal was also called an "LRT". The terminology may be adjusted simply to cater to what people are familiar with in Montreal. This happens elsewhere, like in most Asian cities, which use the exact same nomenclature - street-level LRTs are "tramways" whereas light metros are termed as "LRT".

The problem is the terms "LRT" and "light rail" are so buzzwordy. The terms are so broad in what type of transit systems they can refer to; so when someone says that there are, say, 390 LRT systems around the world and uses that to advocate for a tramway "LRT", maybe as little as 75 of those systems actually match the type. It's misleading.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Doesn't seem that way, actually. Before this video was out the local & national media were already calling the REM proposal an "LRT" - and the standalone Champlain Bridge Rail proposal was also called an "LRT". The terminology may be adjusted simply to cater to what people are familiar with in Montreal. This happens elsewhere, like in most Asian cities, which use the exact same nomenclature - street-level LRTs are "tramways" whereas light metros are termed as "LRT".

The problem is the terms "LRT" and "light rail" are so buzzwordy. The terms are so broad in what type of transit systems they can refer to; so when someone says that there are, say, 390 LRT systems around the world and uses that to advocate for a tramway "LRT", maybe as little as 75 of those systems actually match the type. It's misleading.

I agree. In Shanghai at least, "light rail" was used in the past to indicate elevated rail. What is now known as Metro Line 3 was formerly called the Pearl Light Rail line, but anyone who's been to Shanghai knows that Metro Line 3 is absolutely heavy rail, and definitely not anything like what we call LRT in North America.

The term 'light rail' (Chinese 轻轨) no longer exists in Shanghai. All Metro Lines are now simply called Rail Transit lines (轨道交通).

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Doesn't seem that way, actually. Before this video was out the local & national media were already calling the REM proposal an "LRT" - and the standalone Champlain Bridge Rail proposal was also called an "LRT". The terminology may be adjusted simply to cater to what people are familiar with in Montreal. This happens elsewhere, like in most Asian cities, which use the exact same nomenclature - street-level LRTs are "tramways" whereas light metros are termed as "LRT".

The problem is the terms "LRT" and "light rail" are so buzzwordy. The terms are so broad in what type of transit systems they can refer to; so when someone says that there are, say, 390 LRT systems around the world and uses that to advocate for a tramway "LRT", maybe as little as 75 of those systems actually match the type. It's misleading.

The original Champlain bridge proposal isn't the same proposal as the REM and it actually did appear to be conventional LRT based on the renderings. Perhaps this is what caused the confusion with the media. And of course, terminology used in distant regions isn't really relevant when we're talking specifically about the Canada/North America context as there are often differences. A great example is the one you mentioned, how in North America, we don't even use the term tramway, and instead our closest approximation is streetcar.

In North America, systems described as light rail have been around for decades with the term denoting streetcar-like vehicles generally running at higher speeds with longer consists than streetcars, predominantly in their in ROW with wider stop spacing (but often with some street-running and level crossings) and always operated by drivers due to this lack of isolation. Light metro rapid transit has long been referred to separately with Skytrain and Scarborough RT nearly always being recognised and discussed as distinct. The term LRT has been established and recognised long enough not to be a mere "buzz word". It just happens to be an idiosyncrasy that's mainly limited to NA.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The original Champlain bridge proposal isn't the same proposal as the REM and it actually did appear to be conventional LRT based on the renderings. Perhaps this is what caused the confusion with the media. And of course, terminology used in distant regions isn't really relevant when we're talking specifically about the Canada/North America context as there are often differences. A great example is the one you mentioned, how in North America, we don't even use the term tramway, and instead our closest approximation is streetcar.

In North America, systems described as light rail have been around for decades with the term denoting streetcar-like vehicles generally running at higher speeds with longer consists than streetcars, predominantly in their in ROW with wider stop spacing (but often with some street-running and level crossings) and always operated by drivers due to this lack of isolation. Light metro rapid transit has long been referred to separately with Skytrain and Scarborough RT nearly always being recognised and discussed as distinct. The term LRT has been established and recognised long enough not to be a mere "buzz word". It just happens to be an idiosyncrasy that's mainly limited to NA.

Historically here in Ottawa, tramways were called 'car lines' with the vehicles known as streetcars. I am not sure whether 'car line' was a common term across North America.

[GreaterMontréal]

It's a LRT, use overhead catenary power,, and fully automated like the Skytrain.

[Nouvellecosse]

Keep in mind that the method of power collection isn't what defines a system. While LRT is usually overheard since such systems are not closed and have interaction with streets, both metro systems and commuter/mainline railways can and do have examples of both. Panama metro's rolling stock will probably be similar to REM.

[MalcolmTucker]

Important to delineate in Montreal as not metro though, as that carries a collective memory of not being able to operate outside at all.

I'd also wager that the French language materials are more precise.


Could all come down to the federal bridge agreement allowing a right of way for something called light rail, so they are calling it that because who cares in the end. What matters is the ppdph will be high.

[scryer]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but with the REM, am I to understand that all of the ground-level portions of the proposed line do not interact with street vehicles in any way?

I skimmed over the proposal, so my apologies for any questions already answered...

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by scryer

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but with the REM, am I to understand that all of the ground-level portions of the proposed line do not interact with street vehicles in any way?

I skimmed over the proposal, so my apologies for any questions already answered...

It's a fully automated, segregated, light metro with up to 90s frequency, and up to 100m (5 cars) while opening at every 3min and 4 cars trains (80m).

[scryer]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

It's a fully automated, segregated, light metro with up to 90s frequency, and up to 100m (5 cars) while opening at every 3min and 4 cars trains (80m).

Thanks for the clarification!

I do wonder how snow removal will work with this system?

BUT this is definitely the most exciting transit project in the country, and Montreal is going to love this kind of LRT. I am so glad that it is all grade-separated with none of that mixing in the traffic crap! And the fact that it connects to the airport is straight up awesome.

Now if only Toronto could do something similar...

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by scryer

Thanks for the clarification!

I do wonder how snow removal will work with this system?

BUT this is definitely the most exciting transit project in the country, and Montreal is going to love this kind of LRT. I am so glad that it is all grade-separated with none of that mixing in the traffic crap! And the fact that it connects to the airport is straight up awesome.

Now if only Toronto could do something similar...

Just run trains all night.

[GreaterMontréal]

The Deux-Montagnes commuter line is 100% electric and it's working fine during the winter.