News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.1K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 957     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 361     0 

VIA Rail

There's a bit of a problem though, as the RFI (as opposed to the later RFP which may or may not have been so rigid) stated (gist) "Already in use elsewhere" and essentially (gist) "off the shelf and proven". Hopefully more will show on that point. I was led to believe there were a number of consortiums there, albeit maybe they were all using the same locomotive in their "trainsets". I'll see if I can get more info on that, (see edit at bottom of this post) but meantime, I've been sent a link and Google has translated it very well: (still not perfect, but translation software has come a long way)

Publié le 09 décembre 2016 à 22h15 | Mis à jour le 10 décembre 2016 à 07h42

Toujours de l'espoir pour un TGF d'un centre-ville à l'autre
(Québec) All hope is not lost to see the high-frequency train (TGF) travel from downtown Quebec City to Montreal. VIA Rail and the Caisse de depot et placement du Québec (CDPQ), which is leading the Montreal electric train project, have created a new committee to study the feasibility of a coexistence in the tunnel under Mount Royal, Access to the Central Station.


Theoretically, the two organizations have been talking for months, since the Caisse announced its intention to reserve the tunnel under Mount Royal, acquired from the Agence métropolitaine de transport, for the sole use of its future light train.

But VIA Rail's arguments, which argued for the interoperability of railway infrastructure, were not perceived. Yves Desjardins-Siciliano, President and CEO of the Crown Corporation, originally focused on access to the city center, seemed even to be behind the idea of a multimodal Highway 40.

On Thursday, the talks were relaunched at a meeting "facilitated by officials from the Department of Transport" in Canada, according to the words of VIA Rail spokesperson Mariam Diaby. "In the coming months, with the objective of maximizing the use of existing infrastructures, engineering teams from the CDPQ and VIA Rail will analyze the feasibility of interoperable infrastructures and the use of technologies allowing cohabitation" REM and TGF in the tunnel, said Diaby.

Mayor Régis Labeaume, who received the great boss of VIA Rail on Friday, is delighted with this news. "In the world, there are places where there are multiple uses of the same path and the technologies would be ready for that. This means, according to Via Rail, that it is possible to coordinate the EMN frequencies with the arrivals of VIA Rail trains from Quebec City, Toronto and Ottawa, "he said.

A promise

Mayor Labeaume promised to be kept informed of developments by both Mr. Desjardins-Siciliano and Micheal Sabia, President of the CDPQ, who also came to meet him a few weeks ago.

"From there, I will take a stand. I would like to go directly to the central station, which would be the simplest. Now what I want to know: is it possible or is it not possible using the five-kilometer track under Mount Royal? "Continues the Mayor in an interview with Le Soleil.

He does not deny that his faith in direct access to the city center wavered after Mr. Sabia argued that the coexistence of the two trains was not possible under Mount Royal. Mr. Labeaume then declared that the intermodal station "it might make sense". "I do not know the customer profile of a TGF, but the time to land at a station and go downtown, we're talking a few minutes and from there we could get to Trudeau Airport Also directly, "he remarked.

Now that the president of VIA Rail says the opposite, the mayor wants to have a clear heart and seems inclined to return to the option central station. "One way or another, I want it to work. There is still an hour and a quarter of won, we will say what we want, "he hammered.

As for his preference for a TGV, Mr. Labeaume says he will talk about it later.
Click to expand...
https://translate.google.ca/transla...tgf-dun-centre-ville-a-lautre.php&prev=search

Alex's link states "Request for Proposal" but the description clarifies that somewhat: (Since we have so little info, best we get it exact to get a reasonable projection from it, I can't locate the original yellow info sheet on this)
The Government of Canada's 2016-2017 budget proposes to provide VIA Rail with funding to support technical studies and other pre-procurement activities related to the renewal of VIA Rail’s Québec-Windsor Corridor fleet. It is further to such proposal that VIA Rail issues this notice.

Accordingly, VIA Rail hereby gives notice to potential suppliers that it intends to invite the industry to submit credentials, current product pipeline information, and relevant financial information over the coming weeks.

Additionally, VIA Rail intends to hold a one day “Market Day” on July 21, 2016 in Montreal to meet with interested suppliers.
Click to expand...
I'm reading that as a serious RFI cum proposal. The question remains, who submitted what and who even responded?

It is possible, with a poor showing, to re-issue the request again.
 
Last edited:
steveintoronto said:
Publié le 09 décembre 2016 à 22h15 | Mis à jour le 10 décembre 2016 à 07h42

Toujours de l'espoir pour un TGF d'un centre-ville à l'autre

https://translate.google.ca/transla...tgf-dun-centre-ville-a-lautre.php&prev=search
Click to expand...

I find this article very interesting.
First, the is a mention that discussions will happen between VIA and the CDPQ facilitated by the federal ministry of Transportation to examine the share of the Mount-Royal Tunnel. I see a lot of positivism in such discussions regarding the funding of the HFT project by the Federal Governement. Even better if the insfrastructures can be shared between the future REM and VIA.

Second, Labeaume says trains to Ottawa-Toronto will use the Mount-Royal tunnel as well. I had not foreseen that coming and always assumed future HFT between Ottawa and Montreal would use a very similar path that they use today given VIA already owns the Alexandria sub.
I take Labeaume's words with a big train of salt. I don't know how they would reach Ottawa North of Mount-Royal. Using the Lachute or M&O sub maybe ? Time will tell.
 
While not high speed, it would still be fascinating to see hybrid 200kph trains (160kph+ diesel / 200kph+ electric) become a reality during VIA fleet renewal. Spain uses those (Talgo) those are among the few that meets/exceeds VIA HFR requirements.

Other than Siemens / Talgo, I wonder if other manufacturers are willing to make those -- if several of the RFQ's were offers to create a brand new trainset -- given so few models meet VIA's requirements.

Sharing with CDPQ's light rail will be an interesting challenge. Dual-mode locomotives are often quite heavy, and might present a big ask for Transport Canada to intersperse light rail & heavy dual-mode locomotives on the same track in the tunnel. I suppose it could be done (strict speed limits, e.g. 20kph, combined with an advanced CBTC system). It'll be interesting if enough hurdles are overcome to permit this to happen.

It's wholly possible VIA could opt for 100% electric trains, as the cost of electrifying the whole corridor from Toronto to Quebec City might actually end up cheaper than twinning the tunnel under Mount Royal. Permitting VIA to go for lighter weight EMUs, in order to interoperate with CDPQ's lighter rail system (which, ironically, might actually even use the same EMUs). A longshot, but, what if?
 
Last edited:
SamStar said:
I find this article very interesting.
First, the is a mention that discussions will happen between VIA and the CDPQ facilitated by the federal ministry of Transportation to examine the share of the Mount-Royal Tunnel. I see a lot of positivism in such discussions regarding the funding of the HFT project by the Federal Governement. Even better if the insfrastructures can be shared between the future REM and VIA.

Second, Labeaume says trains to Ottawa-Toronto will use the Mount-Royal tunnel as well. I had not foreseen that coming and always assumed future HFT between Ottawa and Montreal would use a very similar path that they use today given VIA already owns the Alexandria sub.
I take Labeaume's words with a big train of salt. I don't know how they would reach Ottawa North of Mount-Royal. Using the Lachute or M&O sub maybe ? Time will tell.
Click to expand...
SamStar said:
Second, Labeaume says trains to Ottawa-Toronto will use the Mount-Royal tunnel as well.
Click to expand...
This would require the re-establishment of a corridor now abandoned, discussed in this forum prior and on-line. It would save considerable time (some estimate half an hour) to Ottawa, as well as not having to share tracks with CP or CN.

Edit to Add: Also this is being considered almost a century later again:
Montreal_GareCentrale_NouvelleLigneThornton.gif
 
Last edited:
mdrejhon said:
Sharing with CDPQ's light rail will be an interesting challenge. Dual-mode locomotives are often quite heavy, and might present a big ask for Transport Canada to intersperse light rail & heavy dual-mode locomotives on the same track in the tunnel.

It's wholly possible VIA could opt for 100% electric trains, as the cost of electrifying the whole corridor from Toronto to Quebec City might actually end up cheaper than twinning the tunnel under Mount Royal. [...]A longshot, but, what if?
Click to expand...
Dual mode locos are being spec'd by VIA for their next "trainset" purchase. The challenge for the tunnel, as far as it's been presented by Caisse, is *pantograph standard*, or catenary height.

There are examples in Europe where both light and heavy rail share same. Although disputed by some, and some of the PQ blogs are abuzz on this, this is a cynical ploy by REM to block any other users of the tunnel thus forcing passengers to use REM. It's not just VIA being affected, it's also AMT.

I'll dig further and see what I can find to post, but the la Presse article *seems to indicate* that the debate has taken an official turn.

I'm sure some of the other posters will dig on this, and check the translation, which is good, but not gospel.

Edit: For those who missed reference to this prior:
How VIA Rail Torpedoed its Own “High-Frequency Rail” Project and Montreal’s chance for Regional Rail
October 4th, 2016 by ant6n
Click to expand...
http://www.cat-bus.com/2016/10/via-torpedoed-regional-rail/

The excellent entire blog and comments is too long to quote here. I suggest others reading it select quotes from it to discuss. I think this discussion is back on the burner. It's a crucial one, for VIA and others.

Edit to Add:

Btw: Retrospect of the above can be applied to this:
AMT quietly cancels $103-million bid from Bombardier for double-decker train cars
Jason Magder, Montreal Gazette
More from Jason Magder, Montreal Gazette
Published on: May 17, 2016 | Last Updated: May 17, 2016 5:53 PM EST[...]
Click to expand...
http://montrealgazette.com/business...s-103-million-bid-from-bombardier-report-says
 
Last edited:
SamStar said:
I find this article very interesting.
First, the is a mention that discussions will happen between VIA and the CDPQ facilitated by the federal ministry of Transportation to examine the share of the Mount-Royal Tunnel. I see a lot of positivism in such discussions regarding the funding of the HFT project by the Federal Governement. Even better if the insfrastructures can be shared between the future REM and VIA.

Second, Labeaume says trains to Ottawa-Toronto will use the Mount-Royal tunnel as well. I had not foreseen that coming and always assumed future HFT between Ottawa and Montreal would use a very similar path that they use today given VIA already owns the Alexandria sub.
I take Labeaume's words with a big train of salt. I don't know how they would reach Ottawa North of Mount-Royal. Using the Lachute or M&O sub maybe ? Time will tell.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about signalling systems, but due to REM being fully automated, would VIA need to be fully automated too? For VIA trains in the Mont Royal Tunnel to operate with REM, would they need to enter an "automatic" or "ATC-style" or "moving block" mode when they start to run on REM tracks, and disengage when they leave? This might allow the two systems to co-exist, as well as alleviate some concerns about light and heavy rail on the same tracks.
 
alexanderglista said:
For VIA trains in the Mont Royal Tunnel to operate with REM, would they need to enter an "automatic" or "ATC-style" or "moving block" mode when they start to run on REM tracks
Click to expand...
On the very short headways as projected that this would run, it would have to be more sophisticated than moving block even.

Hopefully some of these details will emerge in the next while. Meantime, I haven't had a chance to peruse this yet, but this espouses concepts even beyond CBTC:
Dr. Alan F. Rumsey, P.Eng., FIRSE, has spent his entire career in railway signalling and communications, and is one of the driving forces behind CBTC (communications-based train control) for rail transit.

Recently retired from Parsons, Dr. Rumsey is an independent consultant (Rumsey Transit Systems Consulting, Kingston, Ontario). He is currently advising the Toronto Transit Commission on its CBTC program.

The following is an address Dr. Rumsey gave to an IRSE (Institution of Railway Signal Engineers) CBTC Seminar in Toronto on Dec. 1, 2016, entitled “Are you a visionary or a skeptic?”
[...]continues at length[...]
Click to expand...
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/communications/cbtc-are-you-a-visionary-or-a-skeptic.html
 
Last edited:
The Montreal Gazette has published some biting articles of late, and this may be a side-issue to HFR, but has a direct affect on it:
Opinion: Montreal's electric train project not as green as it seems
Matthew Chapman and Jean-François Boisvert
Quebec’s largest public-transit project in 50 years, the Réseau électrique métropolitain, has been rushed through a superficial consultation process to the detriment of users, non-users and the environment. Though attractive alternatives exist, earnest participants are beginning to understand the outcome is pre-ordained.
It’s not hard to see why the proposal has enamoured so many. The $5.5-billion electric train network — spearheaded by the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec through its new subsidiary, CDPQ Infra — would link the West Island, Trudeau Airport, the North Shore and South Shore to Central Station.
The promoter’s PR machine has done brilliant work selling the project’s environmental credentials to the public — Electric? What can be better! — but the fact remains no formal analysis was done of greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions stemming from the project’s full life cycle before, during or since public hearings held by the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement.
In the context of supposed carbon austerity, such a position is morally and environmentally untenable.
Three years ago, the Quebec Transport Department faced a similar decision with construction of the new Turcot Interchange. While hailing it as a “carbon neutral” project, it conveniently omitted the two most significant impacts on GHG emissions: the production of millions of cubic metres of cement, and the solo-driving suburban sprawl that it would continue to facilitate.
Environmental groups have struggled to publicly oppose the REM after having applauded its announcement so enthusiastically. Unfortunately, the difference between appearance (CDPQ Infra’s polished images and videos) and reality (massive parking lots and a slew of 1960s-style concrete viaducts snaking through the city) is not insignificant.
It’s hardly surprising for CDPQ Infra to gloss over emissions accounting. From its perspective, only one criteria is of ultimate concern: the bottom line. This project was conceived with return on investment in mind. Concerns regarding integration with existing networks, service to dense communities and low-income neighbourhoods, and attention to environmental consequences were subordinate.
What’s more, it appears to be the shape of things to come across Canada, since federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau has eyed the project’s financing structure favourably.
As one of the project’s most outspoken proponents, Mayor Denis Coderre presumably finds the lack of a comprehensive emissions assessment inconsequential. That’s not surprising, either, given that Montreal’s current administration refuses to measure the city’s collective emissions on a regular basis.
While leading cities measure annually, Montreal has no such engagement. And to quote the 2013 inventory made public last week, “the 2013 results should not be compared directly with those published previously” because of changes in methodology. Still, you can be sure the Coderre administration will claim full credit for reductions “achieved.”
It’s time to start measuring what matters. The clock is ticking. The 16 months leading to October 2016 set successive records for global average temperatures. By conservative estimates, in roughly 15 years, we will reach the 1.5°C warming threshold agreed to by COP 21 negotiators in Paris last December.
Many climate scientists are at a loss as to how they can better convey the gravity of the data they are observing. Projects like the REM have them in disbelief. In an era where greenhouse-gas reductions should be a primary decision criterion in every major investment — especially those involving public funds — such an analysis is nowhere to be found in this project.
Should the provincial government decide to fund the initiative — as it most certainly will — it must not use money its green fund — the Fonds Vert — unless the project is shown to reduce emissions competitively per dollar invested.
Public-transit solutions proposed by groups like Option transport durable and Pour un meilleur projet demonstrate that viable alternatives perform better by almost every measure to build a more livable, human-centric city.

Matthew Chapman and Jean-François Boisvert are co-founders of the Coalition Climat Montréal.
Click to expand...
http://montrealgazette.com/opinion/...ectric-train-project-not-as-green-as-it-seems
 
Here's more on the same subject, again publishing credit to the Montreal Gazette:

Caisse to charge new regional transit body for operating costs
Jason Magder, Montreal Gazette
More from Jason Magder, Montreal Gazette
Published on: December 11, 2016 | Last Updated: December 11, 2016 6:27 PM EST

Quebec’s pension fund intends to charge the new regional public transit body a fee per passenger to operate its proposed electric light rail network at a profit.
That will amount to a public body paying for a private company to run a transit service and reap a profit, an idea that doesn’t sit well with at least one observer.
“This will add a huge deficit to the government, and that deficit is going to (be paid) by my taxes and your taxes, and the taxes of our children so the Caisse de dépôt can then pay people to retire,” said Ahmed M. El-Geneidy, an associate professor for McGill’s School of Urban Planning. “It’s like a vicious circle.”
The proposed $5.9 billion Réseau électrique métropolitain project, would see the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec take over the existing Deux-Montagnes line and build new dedicated tracks to the Trudeau airport, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue and Brossard.
El-Geneidy explained that most public transit services in the world are not profitable and depend on government subsidies to cover their costs. The Deux-Montagnes line, for example — which would be rolled into the Caisse project — cost $39.8 million to run in 2015, but fares made up only 55 per cent of that cost.
However, in the case of the REM train, the government subsidy will cover both operating costs, and a return on the Caisse’s initial $3.1 billion investment to build the project.
From the outset, Caisse CEO Michael Sabia has insisted that the electric light rail project will earn a market-competitive return on its investment with the bulk of the profits coming from fares to ride the system. The plan calls for federal and provincial governments to contribute $2.9 billion, which would buy them some equity into the system — presumably allowing them to share in the profit.
Sabia has repeatedly refused to disclose how much it would cost to ride the train, saying only it will be in line with other fares in the region.
However, at recent open houses held in the region, officials from the Caisse have told the public they intend to collect a fee per passenger from the government-funded body covering public transit, the Autorité régional de transport métropolitain. When up and running by June of next year, the ARTM will be in charge of regional transit planning, and will outline a simplified fare structure for all forms of public transit. The ARTM will be funded mostly by the regional governments and the province.
On Friday, Jean-Vincent Lacroix, a spokesperson for the Caisse explained that to make the fare system user friendly, the Caisse will allow the ARTM to determine a single fare system for people to ride the REM train system with the same transit pass they would use to take the métro or bus. Lacroix said the Caisse is in discussion with the ARTM’s transition committee to work out the modalities of payment.
“The key word is ‘integrated’ so that it’s the same fee to take any form of public transit,” Lacroix said. “Afterwards, we will charge the ARTM an operating fee per kilometre travelled per passenger.”
Lacroix said it’s too soon to say whether the fee per rider per kilometre would include a profit margin, but the Caisse’s own documents say the objective of the project is for the pension fun to earn a market competitive return.
“In other words, they are putting in $3.1 billion now, and they are going to collect the money with profit down the road from our children and from us through tickets, but the tickets won’t cover the cost of operations,” El-Geneidy said. “So the (ARTM) will have a huge deficit for the next 20 years to pay back this $3 billion. It will be just like the Olympics, where we wasted a lot of money and got a lot of loans, and because of that we couldn’t make any big projects because we were in such a big debt.”
Last week, Lacroix said fares are only one of the ways the REM will earn a profit. Other sources of revenue include real estate development and revenue from advertisements and publicity placed in trains and at stations.
“The Caisse is also taking the risk on ridership,” Lacroix explained, adding that if few people take the train, the project won’t be profitable.
He added that because the trains will be fully automated, the operating cost will be low.
“Our analysis has shown that our business model will attain its objectives,” he said. “Our work with the ARTM in the coming months will allow us to assure that the future fares will be simple, comparable and integrated.”
Click to expand...
http://montrealgazette.com/news/loc...new-regional-transit-body-for-operating-costs

Some very serious questions are being asked about REM, albeit that's fodder for another forum, what pertains to this one is how VIA (and AMT) could be crippled if the Mt Royal tunnel access is denied to them.
 
The city of Ottawa is trying to work with VIA Rail for a "two for one" fare so that VIA users can travel on the Confederation Line LRT (Line 1) for free.

Alta Vista a hotbed of LRT action as Stage 1 heats up with train assembly

VIA TWO-FOR-ONE

Speaking of connections, the new Tremblay Station will be close enough to the Via Rail Station that Via passengers can simply transfer to the light-rail line and zip downtown. City officials are trying to make that a much more enticing connection.

“We are talking to Via about having an option on their Via ticket that would give the holder of that ticket access to their destination,” Cloutier said.

That means a Via passenger arriving in Ottawa could hop on the light-rail line without paying the extra light-rail fare.

“That cuts down on congestion around the area. It’s more environmentally friendly. It’s very convenient for the customer, and shows off the extraordinary benefits of the LRT,” Cloutier said.

The possible deal with Via is currently at the discussion stage.
 
dowlingm said:
Irish Rail has a similar arrangement with Dublin LUAS, but not for zero extra cost
http://www.irishrail.ie/contact-us/faqs?i=4826
Click to expand...
Both Paris and London do it for 'through booking' on the cities' transit rail system to tie stations together. (TfL and RER/Metro in Paris). The only problem (as I found out in Paris) is checked baggage, in which case one must wait at least 12 hours for the baggage shuttle (road) to take it from one heavy rail station to the other. The solution is to travel light, and carry your own baggage when possible, and make connections within an hour or to buy a ticket with "Not via London" or "Not via Paris" on the ticket. One gets a cheaper ticket in both cases to avoid the core.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top