VIA Rail

[Aylmer]

As discussed the trains will be 3m wide and have highfloor so I'm not sure I would call them LRV's.

I never called them LRVs. I don't know exactly what kind of vehicles will be used, but I was told they'd be high-floor and powered by catenaries. That could mean anything from Calgary/Edmonton-style LRT to Australia-style metro/commuter rail. But in any case, they'll be narrower than the full-width VIA trains, which currently clock in at 3.2m.

 

[nephersir7]

As @SamStar proffered a day or so back, as did I, this has to be one of the elephants behind the curtain. The reason for the 'sudden change of stance on the tunnel' wasn't down to altruism or just plain common and business sense. It was down to an ultimatum from the Feds. That might have been coupled with a threat to block an application to 'abandon' the present status of that route, the northern leg of which is still used for freight as well as heavy rail passenger.

Yes, I agree that the "sudden change of stance" wasn't because of altruism. It's well documented that CDPQi did never wanted to share its tunnel, hiding behind circular arguments such as "sharing isn't physically possible under our plans" and "federal regulations don't allow it currently".

However, it's important to remember that all along, it was Minister Marc Garneau who called the shots. Otherwise, VIA was ready to cave in.

As Le Soleil reported in December 2016: (my translation)

Theorically, both the organizations have been in talks for months, but since the Caisse has announced its intention to reserve the Mt Royal tunnel, (to be) acquired from the AMT, for the sole use of its upcoming light rail train.

But the arguments of VIA Rail who pleaded for interoperability of rail infrastructures, weren't getting through.
VIA's president and CEO, Yves Desjardins-Siciliano, who initially was adamant to the access to downtown, now seemed to be getting behind the idea of a transfer station near Autoroute 40.

Thursday, the talks were re-launched during a meeting "facilitated by public servants from Transport Canada", according to VIA Rail's spokesperson Mariam Diaby's own words. "During the next months, along the objective of maximizing the use of existing infrastructure, engineering teams from the CDPQ and VIA Rail will analyze the feasibility of interoperable infrastructure and the use of technologies enabling the cohabitation of the REM and HFR in the tunnel"​

https://www.lesoleil.com/actualite/...lle-a-lautre-d31ffcf2f74d7720541e64731ba80b9a

Until I can see some regulatory approval for what is planned for the tunnel, and by deduction, the loss of a functioning heavy rail line presumably but not necessarily still federally regulated, I remain unconvinced that the project can go ahead as stated.

BTW, CN has already made is already well into the process of abandoning its northern freight spurs as part of their agreement with CDPQi.



I remember reading an article about some of their freight customers relocating their activities to the east-end of Montreal as a result.

Btw: Have REM themselves actually stated vehicle width at the floor level?

If you look at one of my previous comments, I posted the specs that rolling stock bidders had to comply with for the REM:

Narrow? They're 3m wide.

View attachment 134419 View attachment 134420

 

[steveintoronto]

If you look at one of my previous comments, I posted the specs that rolling stock bidders had to comply with for the REM:

Check your reference closely. It states "expected". You haven't supplied a link for that chart. Where did you get it perchance? And when was it collated and posted?

 

[dowlingm]

Has VIA stopped using the tunnel then? Which makes me wonder where the services through Joliette go now.

the long way round: https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?15,1880946

 

[steveintoronto]

Without addressing the *legal* aspects of the above (and there's more potential conflict elsewhere in Acts and Statutes), the CDPQ bit this off when they and the Province asked for Federal funds, seeming to overlook that it would come with 'conditions'. And that's beyond the necessity to deal with the CTA on the status of the existing rail service through the Mount Royal Tunnel, an unavoidable invitation to legal/jurisdictional confrontation alone.

I can't believe that the CDPQ and PQ Gov't weren't aware of these issues when they first launched into this, or if they were, what were they thinking?

Well, here's food for thought:
Gouvernement du Québec
and
Caisse de dépôt et de placement du Québec
Agreement respecting public infrastructures
Guiding principles

https://www.cdpqinfra.com/sites/all/themes/custom/cdpq_infra/assets/pdf/FullText_Agreement.pdf

Is it arrogance, or just incompetence that the Feds weren't consulted? In all fairness, there may be a separate agreement with the Feds, I can't find one. I recommend accessing the above link, and peruse Section 5, especially the "land acquisition" in 5.2

 

[nephersir7]

You haven't supplied a link for that chart. Where did you get it perchance? And when was it collated and posted?

https://www.cdpqinfra.com/sites/def...ifications_and_addendum_01-8001_mrsem-eng.pdf

Is it arrogance, or just incompetence that the Feds weren't consulted? I

What makes you think the Feds weren't consulted? Along the development of the project, there was a lot of consultation that took place regarding the acquisition federal lands, integration with the Champlain bridge, financing the project, etc.

 

[steveintoronto]

What makes you think the Feds weren't consulted?

Perhaps it's my personal failing in not finding any docs to allow me to believe they have. You could supply them please?

I've scoured a number of CDPQ and CDPQInfra docs, and absent in all of them so far is "federal" or "national" when it comes to consulting on legality and nuance on the use of federally regulated entities.

I'm sure you can change that impression by offering up reference...

The doc in question stating 'specs' is dated June 2016, far from being up-to-date. It's a 'guide' to submitting RFIs. Comment on "width" end of post.

I'm reading through it, and note Pg 36:

So where is the application to the CTA? I'm sure that's not just an oversight, is it?

Transfer and discontinuance of railway lines
How to transfer or discontinue a railway line
Under Part III, Division V of the Canada Transportation Act, a federal railway company must take these steps before transferring or discontinuing operations:

1. provide notice in the company’s three-year plan for at least 12 months of its intention to discontinue operating the line;
2. publicly advertise the railway line’s availability or any operating interest that the railway company has in the line;
3. negotiate with interested parties;
4. offer to transfer all of its interest in the railway line to the applicable federal provincial and municipal governments and urban transit authorities; and
5. notify the Agency if the line will be discontinued.

Learn more about how to transfer or discontinue railway line operations.

How the Agency can help
Upon application by a party, the Agency can assist by:

• determining whether a particular trackage is subject to the transfer and discontinuance process;
• ensuring compliance with the transfer and discontinuance process; and
• ensuring that the railway company and an interested party negotiate in good faith.

Find out how to file an application.

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/transfer-and-discontinuance-railway-lines

There's a further legal complication:

https://www.tc.gc.ca/en/railsafetyactreview/documents/Metrolinx_RTM_and_TransLink.pdf

They all acknowledge being under the various Federal Rail and Transportation Acts and regs, and are asking for exceptions.

I bet the 'conversations' behind closed doors in Montreal right now are 'piqued'...

If you look at one of my previous comments, I posted the specs that rolling stock bidders had to comply with for the REM:

They're a guide:

In addition to certain criteria presented in Table 2 below, CDPQ Infra recommends the following for the REM train configuration:
[...chart...]
The configuration options for the Rolling Stock to meet initial and future demand, while optimizing use of the Rolling Stock, will need to be examined by the RSSOM Contractor.

Pg 58 https://www.cdpqinfra.com/sites/def...ifications_and_addendum_01-8001_mrsem-eng.pdf

It appears that REM could save money, increase the size of car capacity and be far more standardized if they use the 3.2m width. That and platform height would allow the same jigs to be used to produce cars used elsewhere, including Toronto and thus be usable to share tracks with RER (with the 25kVAC bi option) and with Metrolinx LRTs with the same catenary height and current now supplied although a low and high platform as used on the UPX stations would be required..

Width*
From 2.7m to 3.2 m"
* Other widths and lengths available on case by case basis

http://www.alstom.com/Global/Transport/Resources/Documents/brochure2014/METROPOLIS - Product sheet - EN - LD.pdf?epslanguage=en-GB

Here's the problem as seen by CDPQ:

https://www.cdpqinfra.com/sites/def...ifications_and_addendum_01-8001_mrsem-eng.pdf

REM and VIA can agree on 3.2 metre width (assuming that's VIA's standard) or HFR uses gauntlet or bypass tracks, either of which will require a larger station box.

Here's the various loading gauges for North Am and Europe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge#/media/File:Gabarit_AAR_Plate_F.png

 

[begratto]

Good to finally see Montreal getting Line 3! Only took 60 years. Most of the original primary alignment too!

Line 3 never made it past the planning stages, in the early 1960's. The City of Montreal paid the whole bill for the initial construction of the metro - strictly on its territory. This hypothetical line 3 would have required a financial contribution from Ville Mont-Royal and Ville Saint-Laurent as they would have had stations in their territory, but they never agreed to a fair deal with the city of Montreal, so the whole idea was dropped - for the next 5 decades.

Anyway, Line 3 would only have been 18km long (including a spur to Ahuntsic made redundant with the construction of Sauvé and Henri-Bourassa metro stations), while the REM is 67 km long - a very different beast.

 

[mdrejhon]

I guess that explains why VIA seemed so unconcerned previously about REM, making little comment about the tunnel proposal. They knew they already had what they wanted in the bag.

Indeed, it is not possible for REM to proceed without federal blessing -- being a federally regulated corridor.

A fed ultimatum, behind the scenes, per se.

No doubt, REM still had significant pull here: The VIA trains will have to be electric & equipped with the same state-of-art system (CBTC) necessary for tunnel ATO. That gives a big mandatory technical requirement if VIA still wants to use the tunnel. VIA (feds) can still choose to balk and just stop diesel trains at a transfer station instead. But hopefully VIA goes the full way and makes electric-propelled trains compatible with tunnel ATO.

 

[nephersir7]

Perhaps it's my personal failing in not finding any docs to allow me to believe they have. You could supply them please?

I've scoured a number of CDPQ and CDPQInfra docs, and absent in all of them so far is "federal" or "national" when it comes to consulting on legality and nuance on the use of federally regulated entities.

I'm sure you can change that impression by offering up reference...

I'm pretty sure one would have to file an Access to Information Request to obtain the feds' correspondence.

So where is the application to the CTA? I'm sure that's not just an oversight, is it?

It says right there in your quote: "Under Part III, Division V of the Canada Transportation Act, a federal railway company must take these steps"

The RTM isn't listed as a federal railway company in the link:
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/federal-railway-companies

I don't think that's an oversight from the feds.

Therefore, it can be assumed RTM does not have to apply to the CTA before abandoning its track to CDPQi's plans.

 

[steveintoronto]

It says right there in your quote: "Under Part III, Division V of the Canada Transportation Act, a federal railway company must take these steps"

The RTM isn't listed as a federal railway company in the link:
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/federal-railway-companies

I don't think that's an oversight from the feds.

Therefore, it can be assumed RTM does not have to apply to the CTA before abandoning its track to CDPQi's plans.

Feel free to assume, here's from the Safety Act Review I posted reference to:

https://www.tc.gc.ca/en/railsafetyactreview/documents/Metrolinx_RTM_and_TransLink.pdf

 

[mdrejhon]

Found and old diagram of the Montreal central station:
Credit: http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/montreal_diagram.htm

The merge is still similar like that. The right hand is the single-track tunnel under Mount Royal. The VIA trains should be able to get out of the way of the REM quickly, assuming good automatic switching design.

If push came to shove, and REM wants to jealously guard 3-minute peak period headways, then assuming good VIA EMU design with a good moving-block system -- plunger them through them moving-block style with tight CBTC headways -- possibly cram them safely as tightly as 1min 30sec at peak right between two REM Trains!

Separate them quickly at a good automatic switch prevent slowing down REM trains.

Gonna take a good, trusted, reliable moving block ATO system to pull that off. Handover the VIA train control to ATO, which then automatically switches-in the VIA train right between two REM trains, goes through tunnel, and immediately switches the VIA out of the way, before stopping.

But not impossible -- TTC is going to pull off 1min50sec with inline stops included. Assuming you have no stops in the way in a shared section (which appears to be the case here) -- you only switch-in and switch-out of a shared track section with no stopping. For this, a brief 1min30sec headway is certainly doable with CBTC + ATO without major slowdown (i.e. faster than railyard operation).

 

[innsertnamehere]

TTC is doing 1:50, but not with merging traffic like it would be here.

It may be that you have to shift REM service around to accommodate the VIA service. For example, frequency goes:

REM
2 minutes
REM
2 minutes
VIA
2 minutes
REM
2 minutes
REM

You have to blocks of two minute frequencies for REM surrounding a 4 minute gap where you insert a VIA trip.

 

[nephersir7]

The right hand is the single-track tunnel

The tunnel is double-tracked

Assuming you have no stops in the way in a shared section (which appears to be the case here)

There are two REM stops within the tunnel, and two more past the tunnel before the junction with the heavy-rail tracks.

 

[mdrejhon]

Oops, thanks for the correction!
Yes, I misinterpreted some of the lines for the diagram (lines versus tracks).