News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 5.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 29K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 2.8K     0 

Xav

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 17, 2020
Messages
122
Reaction score
204
I would love to see a cost breakdown of how much money really was saved by using the old CN rail tunnel vs just boring a new tunnel next to it, considering all of these complications. Of course you would have to factor in any refurbishment to the old tunnel that would need to be done that now would not be needed due to this rebuild.

However, if the cost was close, then this is an epic fail. It would have been much more wise in that case to build a new tunnel for the REM, as this effectively killed the ability to have VIA and other trains continue into Garre Central from the East. Two tunnels are always better than one.

What's really scary is that all these issues showcase how unsafe the tunnel really was during commuter rail times.
 

ARG1

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
4,855
City:
Toronto
I would love to see a cost breakdown of how much money really was saved by using the old CN rail tunnel vs just boring a new tunnel next to it, considering all of these complications. Of course you would have to factor in any refurbishment to the old tunnel that would need to be done that now would not be needed due to this rebuild.

However, if the cost was close, then this is an epic fail. It would have been much more wise in that case to build a new tunnel for the REM, as this effectively killed the ability to have VIA and other trains continue into Garre Central from the East. Two tunnels are always better than one.
Honestly, I think either way a new Mont Royal tunnel is warranted. Ideally VIA and other commuter trains don't travel via Canora, and we can instead build a new tunnel between Gare Centrale and Parc. That way you have a far more direct route for the rest of the regional rail services especially the SJ line.
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
7,084
Reaction score
3,122
However, if the cost was close, then this is an epic fail. It would have been much more wise in that case to build a new tunnel for the REM, as this effectively killed the ability to have VIA and other trains continue into Garre Central from the East. Two tunnels are always better than one.

Killing the "other trains" option may not have been accidental by CDPQ; they get paid per passenger km and less local competition improves that number.
 

ericmacm

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 31, 2015
Messages
477
Reaction score
899
I don't have much to add to the discussion, but I just wanted to say that I was on the north shore for work this week and I got to see the elevated section of REM West Island along A-40 under construction as I was driving in. It's really impressive and imposing, I love it. I am looking forward to visiting again and riding it someday.
 

Xav

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 17, 2020
Messages
122
Reaction score
204
Honestly, I think either way a new Mont Royal tunnel is warranted. Ideally VIA and other commuter trains don't travel via Canora, and we can instead build a new tunnel between Gare Centrale and Parc. That way you have a far more direct route for the rest of the regional rail services especially the SJ line.
That would be amazing, but very complex. It would require a 5-7km tunnel, and basically a new central station probably deep under the current one. In other words: B-I-L-L-I-O-N-S
 

ARG1

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
4,855
City:
Toronto
That would be amazing, but very complex. It would require a 5-7km tunnel, and basically a new central station probably deep under the current one. In other words: B-I-L-L-I-O-N-S
A) Same applies to a new Mont Royal tunnel for the REM no?
B) What is the CN part of Gare Centrale used for? In theory you can start the tunnel north of those tracks and just have it diverge east to Parc

1654262407610.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xav

Xav

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 17, 2020
Messages
122
Reaction score
204
A) Same applies to a new Mont Royal tunnel for the REM no?
B) What is the CN part of Gare Centrale used for? In theory you can start the tunnel north of those tracks and just have it diverge east to Parc

View attachment 404485
You can't build north from those platforms. They're not deep enough to clear the underground parking lots, the underground city and the metro green line that are meters from there.

The difference with the Mont-Royal tunnel is really that nothing was in its way, and no one expected so many complications.
 

robmausser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
3,798
Reaction score
5,818
You can't build north from those platforms. They're not deep enough to clear the underground parking lots, the underground city and the metro green line that are meters from there.

The difference with the Mont-Royal tunnel is really that nothing was in its way, and no one expected so many complications.

Yeah, unfortunately this cant really be done "the other way around" as in; build a new tunnel for VIA/EXO and use the old tunnel for REM.

What SHOULD have happened, is a new tunnel be built for REM, deeper underground, with a new station, or even just nearby Garre Central, doesnt have to go to it, and refurbish the existing tunnel for EXO/VIA use. But building a new tunnel that links to the existing track at Central Station, basically impossible now.
 

Xav

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 17, 2020
Messages
122
Reaction score
204
Yeah, unfortunately this cant really be done "the other way around" as in; build a new tunnel for VIA/EXO and use the old tunnel for REM.

What SHOULD have happened, is a new tunnel be built for REM, deeper underground, with a new station, or even just nearby Garre Central, doesnt have to go to it, and refurbish the existing tunnel for EXO/VIA use. But building a new tunnel that links to the existing track at Central Station, basically impossible now.
Right. The only solution now, if it ever comes to that, is to build a new tunnel from the Parc station and build new central station platforms deep under the existing station. That tunnel would then have to continue west to surface along the CP Westmount sub, or curve to the south and reach the maintenance centres for Victoria bridge access (or both).

A good solution for now would be to build a connection before Parc station with the CN line and have the north bound commuter and Via trains stop at Côte-de-Liesse station (including HFR East), and the west/southbound trains operate out of Central station. In other words, a Boston situation but with a direct link between the two stations.
 

superelevation

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 17, 2020
Messages
419
Reaction score
874
I would love to see a cost breakdown of how much money really was saved by using the old CN rail tunnel vs just boring a new tunnel next to it, considering all of these complications. Of course you would have to factor in any refurbishment to the old tunnel that would need to be done that now would not be needed due to this rebuild.

However, if the cost was close, then this is an epic fail. It would have been much more wise in that case to build a new tunnel for the REM, as this effectively killed the ability to have VIA and other trains continue into Garre Central from the East. Two tunnels are always better than one.
I think the hard part is less the tunnel itself, but the connections to existing infrastructure
 

Xav

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 17, 2020
Messages
122
Reaction score
204
I think the hard part is less the tunnel itself, but the connections to existing infrastructure
It's not that far-fetched to imagine a connection between the CP Parc sub (through Parc des Gorilles) and the CP Westmount sub for connections to the existing network.

The real complexity would probably be downtown, connecting with Central Station.
 

NoahB

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
437
Reaction score
1,344
REM opening schedule updated:
Today, our teams have simplified the commissioning schedule into 3 phases:

  1. South Shore branch (Brossard-Central station, excluding Griffintown-Bernard-Landry station*): maintained for fall 2022.
  2. Downtown, North Shore and West Island branches: simultaneously for late 2024.
  3. YUL-Aéroport-Montréal-Trudeau branch: We are working with Aéroports de Montréal to align and optimize the new schedule, and to be able to confirm that this REM branch will be commissioned this fall.
ACTUALITE-5_22-005-Visuels_Nord-Sud_GIF_Echeancier_EN_20220616.gif

They claim this schedule prevents delays that could have set the last opening of the Deux-Montagnes and Anse-à-l’Orme branches until 2026.
They will start the testing on the branches before the tunnel. They will "deploy tests and trials from the Saint-Eustache maintenance centre instead of the one in Brossard" and "Isolate the Mount Royal Tunnel from testing to ensure that once the work and testing is done, the entire network will be ready and commissioned by late 2024"

Test sequence from the article:
  1. Phase 1: Saint-Eustache maintenance centre to Sainte-Dorothée station
  2. Phase 2: Sainte-Dorothée station to Côte-de-Liesse
  3. Phase 3: Anse-à-L'Orme (west) branch
  4. Phase 4: Côte-de-Liesse to Central station (finally, including the Mount Royal tunnel)


ACTUALITE-5_22-005-Visuels_Nord-Sud_GIF_Test_EN.gif
 

Attachments

  • 1655737478379.png
    1655737478379.png
    122.4 KB · Views: 15
Last edited:

felix123

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2016
Messages
382
Reaction score
613
Downtown-northbound now delayed to late 2024, West Island and North Shore will now open as a single phase with the Mont-Royal tunnel portion.
This represents a full 2 year delay on the tunnel portion, beyond the finalized schedule.

Disappointing news, and expected following the recent interview with one of the PMs.
Downtown-South Shore portion still on track to open this fall (fingers crossed).
 

Top