MrGoose
Active Member
Thinking about HFR service to Quebec, instead of using the Mont Royal tunnel, why not use CN's Longue Pointe spur to access Gare Centrale and or create a parallel tunnel to the original?
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
Darwinkgo
Active Member
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Not to mention that sending anything else than infrequent freight trains travelling at basically walking speed through the highly touristy Old Port area is a non-starter and that it is close to impossible to construct a connection into Gare Centrale:
MrGoose
Active Member
Most of it is empty and could be repurposed for a new set of tracks. There are a few houses at the very end that would have to be expropriated.
ah shit, it looked like there was already a connection there.
I guess there are a few options then, each one suboptimal
1. Trains from Quebec take a big loop around to Dorval and then to Gare Central (for travelers from Toronto to Quebec they’d get off at Dorval), slow
2. Trains bypass Gare Centrale all together and just stop at Dorval, inconvenient for downtown to downtown travelers.
3. Twinning of the Mont Royal Tunnel (is this physically possible, is there enough space under Gare Centrale to do this), very expensive.
But I’m guessing VIA has already evaluated these options.
crs1026
Superstar
^While I hate to see VIA taking the long way round, I’m pretty much resigned to seeing that happen. I can’t see the value in messing up the flow of a pretty important transit line to accommodate VIA.
What can be done is to rearrange trackage, install signalling, and improve turnouts so that VIA can negotiate the stretch across the top of the city and through the freight yards much faster. This is an example of where, without expropriating or unfairly tying the freight railroads’ hands behind their back, Ottawa should be giving VIA strong legal levers to enforce cooperation. With Via paying for the upgrades, of course.
I’m also convinced that a stop that connects with REM in the north might actually be a big marketing plus - many travellers are not headed downtown and such a stop might actually shorten their overall trip time. Many others may not care where they transfer to REM, either. I even wonder about trains that turn west instead of east and terminate at Dorval, or just carry on westwards.
It’s not my dream solution, but one has to overcome one’s initial paradigm sometimes. I’m saving my dreams for Phase II, when one might propose a new HSR bore under the Mountain.
- Paul
What can be done is to rearrange trackage, install signalling, and improve turnouts so that VIA can negotiate the stretch across the top of the city and through the freight yards much faster. This is an example of where, without expropriating or unfairly tying the freight railroads’ hands behind their back, Ottawa should be giving VIA strong legal levers to enforce cooperation. With Via paying for the upgrades, of course.
I’m also convinced that a stop that connects with REM in the north might actually be a big marketing plus - many travellers are not headed downtown and such a stop might actually shorten their overall trip time. Many others may not care where they transfer to REM, either. I even wonder about trains that turn west instead of east and terminate at Dorval, or just carry on westwards.
It’s not my dream solution, but one has to overcome one’s initial paradigm sometimes. I’m saving my dreams for Phase II, when one might propose a new HSR bore under the Mountain.
- Paul
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Yeah I'm of a similar mind. I am very disappointed to see a new discontinuity built into the VIA network, but the ship has long since sailed given that the design of the REM correspondance station precludes trains from continuing on to Dorval or Centrale. Given the choice between serving the REM but not Centrale, or serving Centrale with a huge detour but not REM, the clear choice is to serve the REM.
My pipedream a second Deux Montagnes rail tunnel a bit further east, serving the Mascouche line, Saint-Jérome line, VIA Québec intercity, and/or VIA Jonquière/Senneterre services, shown below in pink.
This would resolve the discontinuities currently being introduced to the HFR, Jonquière/Senneterre, and Mascouche services, as well as the pre-existing detour on the Saint-Jérome Line. Plus the commuter rail services would become be a viable alternative to the eastern leg of the Orange Line, providing relief to the metro's most overcrowded segment.
Even in the most optimistic scenarios this would be decades down the road, but it would be a huge improvement to network connectivity, speed, and capacity.
Last edited:
ARG1
Senior Member
This looks so much nicer of set up especially for EXO lines like the Mascouche and especially the St. Jerome lines.
ManyQuestions
Active Member
This would certainly be an endgame fix for the regional rail network if combined with the doubling of the CN line from Anhuntsic to Terrebonne. The designs that I envisioned had included a new direct double track line from Gare Centrale to Gare Parc running parallel to the existing tunnel until past the McTavish reservoir before deviating to the east through a bored tunnel with an exit portal east of the track split near the new UdeM campus. The idea was that this would avoid expensive station construction while leaving underground space free for the future Pink line/Diagonal metro given that this line would be meant for regional and intercity trains. However, watching the McGill station REM construction makes this plan more challenging. They appear to have run into some geotechnical issues and have restarted the collection of core samples on the roads near the station box excavation. Furthermore, there does not seem to be any room to east of the existing station tubes to bore a tunnel at the same track elevation without running into building foundations and the new pedestrian tunnel under Maisonneuve that connects to the green line.
cplchanb
Senior Member
anything new on the new trainset front? Has Siemens started making the first set yet? IIRC they are supposed to begin testing next year.
ManyQuestions
Active Member
Honestly looks really nice. Only big operation issue would be using the current trains at an underground Plateau station.
Last edited:
ManyQuestions
Active Member
Do you know if they will have the same design as the new CalTrans units minus the spoiler and with cab cars?
reaperexpress
Senior Member
The station in Plateau is totally optional, it was just an idea to maybe attract some ridership away from the Orange Line from that busy neighbourhood. It can easily be omitted if construction proves to be particularly challenging.
smallspy
Senior Member
Besides the completion of the Calidot coach order (which will stretch out to about 2023 or so), Siemen's current priority is their 75-unit order for Amtrak ALC-42s. The first dozen or so are currently under construction, with the first one scheduled to be largely completed by the end of the year. Other than a couple of small orders for commuter agencies, VIA's locos should be the next on the line.
They have also recently finalized the design of the cab car and performed some testing on the individual components, and it sounds like the first one of those should be completed - unsure if it will be for VIA or the Calidot order - around the middle of next year.
Dan
ManyQuestions
Active Member
Just noticed a typo in my original response. I meant to say that the design would be awesome but I don't think that it would be easy to construct and underground station for the current diesel locomotive hauled sets of ten bilevel coaches. A station would be really nice but it runs into the same issues that served as some of the motivations for using metro EMUs for the REM.
Last edited:
Mcurtis
New Member
Not sure of the quality or accuracy of the reporting of this website. But I came across an article on TrainsMagazine.com (Link attached) talking about the corporate business plan for VIA rail and the next 5 years.
A couple of the things that I thought were interesting/concerning.
- Via wants to increase its budget from 148 million to 300 million. I don't think I truly realized how shoestring of a budget that is to try and operate a rail network for a country as large as we are geographically. I understand that they get revenue from their ticket sales, ads, etc but I hope they see the increased government funding.
- The Canadian won't see the third run return because of the actions of host rail networks. Is this a matter of saying to CN/CN; build us some more rail capacity here so we can make this work for both parties? or is Via a burden to their business models that they want off their networks as much as possible (hence HFR proposal)?
- They would like an additional 110 million (I'm assuming to bring the total to ask to $410 million). Would this be for infrastructure deficits they have/projects (redoing the Budd cars) or is this more to cover their budget after the horrid year they have had because of Covid?
- They talk about needing to look into the replacement of these units as part of the proposal for making these routes more viable. WIthout knowing anything about trainsets at all. Would a potential addition to the Charger order be viable if they can find the money or is rebuilding the better units coming off the Toronto - Montreal corridor the more likely option?
VIA Rail Canada five-year plan says third 'Canadian' trip won't be restored, casts doubt on train's future | Trains Magazine
Corporate plan calls flagship train 'no longer sustainable' in current form
trn.trains.com
A couple of the things that I thought were interesting/concerning.
- Via wants to increase its budget from 148 million to 300 million. I don't think I truly realized how shoestring of a budget that is to try and operate a rail network for a country as large as we are geographically. I understand that they get revenue from their ticket sales, ads, etc but I hope they see the increased government funding.
- The Canadian won't see the third run return because of the actions of host rail networks. Is this a matter of saying to CN/CN; build us some more rail capacity here so we can make this work for both parties? or is Via a burden to their business models that they want off their networks as much as possible (hence HFR proposal)?
- They would like an additional 110 million (I'm assuming to bring the total to ask to $410 million). Would this be for infrastructure deficits they have/projects (redoing the Budd cars) or is this more to cover their budget after the horrid year they have had because of Covid?
- They talk about needing to look into the replacement of these units as part of the proposal for making these routes more viable. WIthout knowing anything about trainsets at all. Would a potential addition to the Charger order be viable if they can find the money or is rebuilding the better units coming off the Toronto - Montreal corridor the more likely option?