News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.9K     0 

Ye, there is genuinely no way in hell they're doing 3rd rail. They have outright said they will be using the same rolling stock as REM A, which is pantograph.

Lol AGAIN, they have NOT said they are using the same rolling stock as REM A. Lol. They are tendering the project out to a different P3 and they are free to use whatever rolling stock they want as long as it fits the required parameters.
 
Lol AGAIN, they have NOT said they are using the same rolling stock as REM A. Lol. They are tendering the project out to a different P3 and they are free to use whatever rolling stock they want as long as it fits the required parameters.
1643306173003-png.377002

You posted this. Yes the Rolling Stock is not interchangeable, but they specified equivalent technology. There are far more options for panto based light metro vehicles than 3rd rail, not to mention how valuable pantos are for reliability and maintaining 90s headways. In all likelihood they'll use Alstom Metropolises again, just single car 40m long trains rather than coupled 80m cars.
 
Lol AGAIN, they have NOT said they are using the same rolling stock as REM A. Lol. They are tendering the project out to a different P3 and they are free to use whatever rolling stock they want as long as it fits the required parameters.
If they don't end up using 40m Metropolises, they will still be using standard gauge and catenary. I believe that the only way that the sets truly will not be interchangeable in this case would be due to the likely PSDs on REM B. They'll have to be configured for whichever rolling stock they choose.

On the other hand, I have no idea why they wouldn't use the same trains. Could they not simply require, as part of the tendering process, trains that would align with the PSDs on REM A, therefore limiting the bidder to Alstom without explicitly saying so? Why go out of their way to make the 2 lines incompatible?
 
If they don't end up using 40m Metropolises, they will still be using standard gauge and catenary. I believe that the only way that the sets truly will not be interchangeable in this case would be due to the likely PSDs on REM B. They'll have to be configured for whichever rolling stock they choose.

On the other hand, I have no idea why they wouldn't use the same trains.
Likely competition. I don't think either line is designed for future connections.
Could they not simply require, as part of the tendering process, trains that would align with the PSDs on REM A, therefore limiting the bidder to Alstom without explicitly saying so?
I don't know why you'd want to do that.
Why go out of their way to make the 2 lines incompatible?
Because it may be cheaper.
 
A new Canadian customer for Siemens


Siemens Mobility has been awarded a contract by Montreal’s exo to design, manufacture, and commission 10 Charger locomotives, the industry leading sustainable platform that meets the stringent Tier 4 regulations for emissions. This is Siemens Mobility’s second order for Charger locomotives in Canada and will replace the older locomotives in the exo fleet with a modern, more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly locomotive. The Charger locomotives will also provide exo with a quieter and more reliable fleet that will enhance the passenger experience. In addition to the the manufacturing contract there is an option for a spare parts supply agreement.
 
REM B will be a completely separate contract and awarded to most compelling bids. As it's ridership will probably have different patterns from REM A, different needs and possibly different rolling stock will be suggested. This line will also have a separate maintenance facility and a different operations and maintenance contract, so compatibility is moot.
 
I'm confused. You wouldn't want a system that could share rolling stock across different lines?

If the lines will never connect there's no need for compatibility.
So why go out of your way to make them compatible?

i.e. London Tube trains aren't all the same:
London-Underground-Tube-Trains_30x40_lo_0.jpg

 
If the lines will never connect there's no need for compatibility.
So why go out of your way to make them compatible?

There are some economies of scale to being able to order and maintain a large number of a single type of car, but I suspect both REM lines are large enough to get the majority of that benefit individually.
 
On the other hand, I have no idea why they wouldn't use the same trains. Could they not simply require, as part of the tendering process, trains that would align with the PSDs on REM A, therefore limiting the bidder to Alstom without explicitly saying so? Why go out of their way to make the 2 lines incompatible?
Because they dont need to be interchangeable and thats the point of P3's, you let the private sector decide the most economical option.

It very well might end up the Metropolises are that best choice, and I wouldn't be surprised, I mean they were the choice for REM A, but they can very well choose another option and theres no reason they would choose that option other than it happening to be the best bang for the buck again.

I'm sure the performance of the Metropolises once the line opens will influence the decision too. If they prove to be reliable, well thats less risk for the consortium. If they prove to be troublesome, count on them choosing something else.

Another thing: while the rollingstock will most likely be overhead and standard gauge, is there any requirement for them to use the same signaling system? If not than that will be the nail in the coffin of interoperability.
 
Last edited:
I'm confused. You wouldn't want a system that could share rolling stock across different lines?

There is a benefit to using the same technology, and thats of course simplicity. Less parts, different maintenance etc.

But, that does come at an eventual cost. And that is whether the technology is a good fit for the new transit line. Maybe curves need to be tighter etc and to use the existing trains you have to tunnel under a section you could have otherwise elevated with lighter trains and to tunnel will cost you $4 billion more. There are many reasons that a "one size fits all" approach doesnt always work.

Ontop of that, let's say during the procurement process a new train comes out by another manufacturer that is half the cost of the old rolling stock, and proven to be twice as reliable, better technology etc. And that manufacturer is willing to give an extended contract saying they will fix any issues that arise so you go with their trains. Or, another city is building with another train and you can tack on an order to their existing order for very cheap.

This also works out of your favour with the existing rolling stock; the company that built the existing trains knows you have an advantage sticking with their same model, and they of course will price them accordingly.

You then have to do some accounting to decide over X amount of years (lets say the trains last 30 years) is it still a better deal to buy the more expensive trains because they will save you on having two different technologies and all the complexities that come with it, or its a better deal with these newer train technology.
 
Cough cough, to all those with rose-colored glasses thinking Montréal is doing transit so well you need to read this.
The link seems to be broken,

Here's the proper link: https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/hanes-public-transit-planning-in-montreal-has-gone-off-track"

EDIT: It looks like the article has been taken down, here's an MSN mirror: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/cana...ing-in-montreal-has-gone-off-track/ar-AATjPeV

Gotta say though that I haven't even read it yet, but the fact it was taken down already does wonders to the point you're trying to make 🤣
 
The link seems to be broken,

Here's the proper link: https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/hanes-public-transit-planning-in-montreal-has-gone-off-track"

EDIT: It looks like the article has been taken down, here's an MSN mirror: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/cana...ing-in-montreal-has-gone-off-track/ar-AATjPeV

Gotta say though that I haven't even read it yet, but the fact it was taken down already does wonders to the point you're trying to make 🤣
Whatever dude.
 

Back
Top