VIA Rail

[kEiThZ]

I think they are really trying to get some third party to fund HFR and are running into issues with risk and cost. It shouldn't take over a half decade to study this and come up with a sound plan. I am really disappointed with the Liberals on this file. Will make me personally reconsider support for them. This is was the one project that would have guaranteed my vote. And they couldn't even get a published study to add to the ridiculous pile of studies in 4 years.

 

[crs1026]

BTW, how did HFR envision getting trains from the tunnel onto the Trois-Rivieres sub? I think the connecting track that VIA used to use in the 1980s is long gone, and been redeveloped? (you'd think I'd know better, given I've ridden that train ... but it was winter, it was dark ... I don't know where I was!)

Good question..... but all it would take to restore the connection is to relocate one Home Depot..... surely Montreal could swallow that?

- Paul

 

[SamStar]

BTW, how did HFR envision getting trains from the tunnel onto the Trois-Rivieres sub? I think the connecting track that VIA used to use in the 1980s is long gone, and been redeveloped? (you'd think I'd know better, given I've ridden that train ... but it was winter, it was dark ... I don't know where I was!)

The best option for VIA is to obtain access to the Mont-Royal tunnel. This is obviously what would be best for the HFR and for connection in downtown Montreal.
I am not very optimistic anymore for that to ever happen. I was at first then realized that the infrastructures needed to efficiently mix the REM and VIA trains will unlikely be built at the current time. I don't see how a VIA train can fit within the REM trains when the frequency between the shared portion (between A40 Station and Central Station will be every 2 minutes at rush hour). It is technically doable I am sure, but quite a challenge. Take this challenge in Japan / Germany or China and it would be a no brainer to fix, but here, we seem to be stuck with an old mentality.

An alternative would be to use a new terminal North of the Mont Royal. Perhaps, a the A40 junction station. This will be the new terminus of the Mascouche cummuter line and directly linked with the REM.
This is what I think will happen if ever the HFR gets funding and is underway.
There is already a connection between the Trois-Riviere Sub from the CFQG and EXO connecting to CN (EXO previously known as AMT) : https://goo.gl/maps/yugzCUm5iYw
I believe this is where the old connecting track was : https://goo.gl/maps/nMAL8YxHFXT2 It seems to be quite costly to rebuilt, but not impossible.

Ultimately, if the above options do not work. One could see a potential use of the Lucien L'allier station (Old Windsor station) for VIA's HFR trains to Qc-City. Litterally 5 minutes away from Central Station with metro connection and directly downtown...
A short connection would be required if going onward to Ottawa and Toronto.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

The best option for VIA is to obtain access to the Mont-Royal tunnel. This is obviously what would be best for the HFR and for connection in downtown Montreal.
I am not very optimistic anymore for that to ever happen. I was at first then realized that the infrastructures needed to efficiently mix the REM and VIA trains will unlikely be built at the current time. I don't see how a VIA train can fit within the REM trains when the frequency between the shared portion (between A40 Station and Central Station will be every 2 minutes at rush hour). It is technically doable I am sure, but quite a challenge. Take this challenge in Japan / Germany or China and it would be a no brainer to fix, but here, we seem to be stuck with an old mentality.

An alternative would be to use a new terminal North of the Mont Royal. Perhaps, a the A40 junction station. This will be the new terminus of the Mascouche cummuter line and directly linked with the REM.
This is what I think will happen if ever the HFR gets funding and is underway.
There is already a connection between the Trois-Riviere Sub from the CFQG and EXO connecting to CN (EXO previously known as AMT) : https://goo.gl/maps/yugzCUm5iYw
I believe this is where the old connecting track was : https://goo.gl/maps/nMAL8YxHFXT2 It seems to be quite costly to rebuilt, but not impossible.

Ultimately, if the above options do not work. One could see a potential use of the Lucien L'allier station (Old Windsor station) for VIA's HFR trains to Qc-City. Litterally 5 minutes away from Central Station with metro connection and directly downtown...
A short connection would be required if going onward to Ottawa and Toronto.

Given that this thing is supposed to be all about frequency... I'd tend to splitting the difference. Run half the services via Dorval onto a timed cross platform transfer to Toronto trains at Ottawa (or possibly a J train arrangement merging/splitting at Dorval (possibly dropping the Quebec section again at Ottawa) given this timing means a lot of closely following services between Montreal and Ottawa) and run the other half to Lucien L'Allier. Emphasize the quality of northern connections in Montreal, but get the benefit of both through running, proper transfers and direct downtown service. Longer term look at some kind of Lucien L'Allier - Central peoplemover ala that thing they wanted on Bay Street, especially if there's ever a temptation to bump up to grow toward hourly service to both branches.

Losing tunnel access is unfortunate, but the more I look at some of the routing options the less I think it's either a project killer or even as big an issue as the Havelock corridor itself.

For that matter, we all seem to have forgotten that it is quite possible to access Central from the south once you've run around the long way. Any through service has to reverse in Montreal, but we're getting double ended trains after all. Treating Central as a stub acessed from the south and pushing passengers originating in Montreal to get Quebec trains somewhere north of downtown seems quite reasonable.

 

[Urban Sky]

This is the first I am hearing about this. Its always been my understanding that CP freight traffic has been increasing dramatically.

Just because the one-man-HSR-cult claims something, doesn’t usually mean that it is true...

What about London and Paris, that never had central terminals. Instead they had (and still have) terminals around the periphery of "downtown" and you have to take other services to get from one terminal to the other, to continue journeys that don't start or finish in the capital. Not quite the same I admit, but it's not like there's much downtown near Paddington or Victoria! Or Gare Du Nord.

The location of stations in London and Paris is the legacy of the early 19th century when railroads were built by venture-capitalists, which lacked the funds to buy the necessary lands to consolidate their various terminii (every railroad had its own sets of station, just like CN and CP) at a more central location. The lack of more central through(!) stations is the biggest liability of both countries’ respective national rail networks and has motivated the construction of a HSR bypass around Paris and to a certain degree also Phase 2 of HS1, which created the opportunity for direct service from Manchester or Birmingham to what Brits call “the continent”...

 

[Bureaucromancer]

And in London prompted Thameslink, Crossrail and eventually Crossrail 2 as well as the majority of the underground.

Lack of central stations may be reasonable and necessary, but its certainly not something to be taken on lightly.

 

[Urban Sky]

Lack of central stations may be reasonable and necessary, but its certainly not something to be taken on lightly.

Having different trains serving different stations which are often peripheral to the city center is certainly a bug, not a feature...

 

[ShonTron]

Just because the one-man-HSR-cult claims something, doesn’t usually mean that it is true...


The location of stations in London and Paris is the legacy of the early 19th century when railroads were built by venture-capitalists, which lacked the funds to buy the necessary lands to consolidate their various terminii (every railroad had its own sets of station, just like CN and CP) at a more central location. The lack of more central through(!) stations is the biggest liability of both countries’ respective national rail networks and has motivated the construction of a HSR bypass around Paris and to a certain degree also Phase 2 of HS1, which created the opportunity for direct service from Manchester or Birmingham to what Brits call “the continent”...

Montreal was unique in Canada as it used to have many rail terminals built operated by three different companies - the Grand Trunk had the Bonaventure Station (which burned down after most trains moved to Central) for most trains, and Moreau Street Station for northbound trains, CP had Windsor Station for trains headed west, south and southeast (Toronto, Ottawa, Saint John, and New York) and Viger Station for trains headed north and east (Quebec City), as well as a grand Park Station for trains headed north originating at Windsor or Viger. All three former CP stations still stand. Canadian Northern had Tunnel Station for its trains. CN consolidated to the CNoR property and built Central Station, replacing Bonaventure, Tunnel, and Moreau Stations.

All of these stations were just outside the historic city centre - around Place d'Armes - though the downtown grew towards the west; Central Station - CN's replacement of CNoR's TunnelStation - was in the financial centre. When VIA was fully established, it moved all its trains to Central Station.

Vancouver, Winnipeg, and Hamilton also had separate major railway stations (typically CP/TH&B in one, GT/CN and others in the other), but Montreal once had a collection of separate stations much like Paris or London.

(Edits - I mistook the GTR office building with Bonaventure Station, now gone, and confused Portal with Tunnel)

 

[steveintoronto]

^ Thameslink mentioned above uses the century+ old Snow Hill Tunnel (not to be confused with the one in Birmingham of the same name) and many terminals were 'connected through' on the Metropolitan and other "junction" connections. London's railways were much more 'through running' in the past than they are today, save for resurrections and Crossrail, which is completely new for it's tunnelled section. (Paris and other European cities also had 'ring lines' to connect the terminals) The limitation for the Metropolitan ties were the 'flat junctions' in many cases (some flyovers were used even underground, the Widened Lanes being a prime example). Thought had been given to resurrecting the Met's original role, but the costs to upgrading to modern junctions and signalling systems were onerous and necessitated complete bypassing.

"Through-running" is a topic in itself, and any modern city aspires to do this, or to resurrect in some way what they had a century ago. The Mount Royal Tunnel isn't a lost cause just yet, but could be due to apathy.

Through-running - ReThinkNYC

How to Get New York Regional Rail Right – Streetsblog New York City
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2018/01/10/how-to-get-new-york-regional-rail-right/
Jan 10, 2018 - A through-running regional rail system for greater New York can .... This is only possible if the same train serves multiple city center stations.

 

[robmausser]

The only way I see a connection happening without people having to transfer on the REM or other, is to back out of Central Station and build two rail connections between CN and the St.Hubert line, and then onto the Mascouche Line from St.Hubert.

Both would require expropriation of land. Yellow for connections.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

The only way I see a connection happening without people having to transfer on the REM or other, is to back out of Central Station and build two rail connections between CN and the St.Hubert line, and then onto the Mascouche Line from St.Hubert.

Both would require expropriation of land. Yellow for connections.

View attachment 177915

Assuming we can build the connections this isn't exactly a backing move. There's no reversal except after the station, and we're already getting double ended trains.

 

[SamStar]

The only way I see a connection happening without people having to transfer on the REM or other, is to back out of Central Station and build two rail connections between CN and the St.Hubert line, and then onto the Mascouche Line from St.Hubert.

Both would require expropriation of land. Yellow for connections.

View attachment 177915

Perhaps, it would be easier if the inbound traffic from Quebec City stays on the CN mainline and goes through CN Taschereau yard and goes to the Central Station before going backward to Ottawa-Toronto?
Realistically, this might be what we get. I would be the first to support those new CP-CN yellow connections or the Mont Royal tunnel share between REM-VIA, but I don't see this happening soon. I believe the financial cost would be prohibitive.
Unfortunately, this detour would be costly in time. VIA's trains to Northen Quebec need about 35 minutes from Central - Station to Sauvé which is a bit further North-East of Ahuntsic Station.

 

[crs1026]

^Nitpick - are those yellow connections drawn correctly? I thought the Trois Rivieres line continues straight at Gare Ahuntsic? You have HFR routed towards the CN line to Joliett?

I can’t imagine the lower connection at South Jct (Montreal West) ever happening - too much impact on a neighbourhood.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

I think HFR not allowed through the Mt Royal Tunnel would render a much more abrupt outcome: HFR ends at Montreal. At some point, those who enabled, encouraged the 'REM grab' of what was a federally regulated railway (I still can't find trace of the line being abandoned, let alone re-purposed as required by the Transportation Act and other legislation) are going to have to pay the price of doing that: No through-running to Quebec City and points in between.

It will be up to the Province of Que to set that straight, since they've somehow laid claim to it. Meantime, the same will have to hold true for west of Toronto: The Province of Ont is going to have to cough-up to pay for the extension through to London, or further. Unless Private Investors/InfraBank see a business case made to extend it there.

The real saleable and doable gem is Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto. In a way, stymieing HFR through Mont Royal Tunnel has made the challenge easier, not harder in terms of selling the project to investors.

I can’t imagine the lower connection at South Jct (Montreal West) ever happening

It's a show-stopper! A poison pill, not for the real spine, but for the extension, at least to QC. They created the problem, they can fix it. (The Province is in for a good chunk of the funding for REM)

Keep this in mind:

[...]
Among the revelations released from the management agreement between Quebec and the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ) Monday were that the caisse has the right to sell if one of the four branches — from the South Shore to downtown Montreal; to Deux-Montagnes; to the West Island and to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport in Dorval — was found to be underutilized and unprofitable. But Macky Tall, CEO of the caisse’s infrastructure subsidiary, said the caisse isn’t interested in a quick sale because its investment is designed to earn higher returns in the long run. It would be up to the Quebec government to decide if a sale is required, or if other options, such as compensating the caisse for an underperforming line, or simply closing it down and replacing it with bus service, was more warranted. The caisse is investing $3 billion in the 26-station line, with the federal and provincial governments kicking in $1.28 billion each.
[...]

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/rem-releases-details-of-its-management-agreement

Live by that sword, and die by it too...it has to swing both ways. Either Quebec presses the point, or leaves itself dangling.

 

[nfitz]

The only way I see a connection happening without people having to transfer on the REM or other, is to back out of Central Station and build two rail connections between CN and the St.Hubert line, and then onto the Mascouche Line from St.Hubert.

In addition to the question from crs1026 about using the Joliette line instead of the Trois-Rivieres (which joins at St. Martin's Junction in Laval), isn't the elevation change very significant between the CP line and CN line in Ville-St. Pierre where you show the other connection? I've not checked the elevations, but the slope on the north-south line there is pretty significant already isn't it - essentially you are crossing the western edge of the escarpment? And then there's all those new houses under where you've draw the link.

Personally if I was coming in that way, I'd keep to the CP tracks, and do something cut-and-cover de la Gauchtierre or St. Antoine 4 or 5 blocks to new platforms near Central Station. Wasn't someone tossing that idea around in the 1980s briefly? Much faster travel times than the current disastrous alignment on the CN tracks.