felix123
Active Member
The REM hasn't replaced the DM EXO line yet. Opening of the branch that replaces it has been delayed to next year.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Ansem
- Start date
The REM hasn't replaced the DM EXO line yet. Opening of the branch that replaces it has been delayed to next year.
turini2
Active Member
Well, the bit of EXO replaced by the REM isn't open yet... The Mont Royal tunnel has been shut since May 2020.
In the long term, it may cause issues for high speed rail to access Quebec City from Montreal - Alstom's 2022 HFR presentation shows a time wasting reversal in and out of Montreal...
Another HSR report suggested building a second Mont Royal tunnel to allow for faster Montreal-Quebec traffic ... it does suggest that CDPQ Infra got a very expensive bit of infrastructure at a very low cost...
Last edited:
Urban Sky
Senior Member
The Mascouche line and the Saint-Jerome line, as well as any form of HFR or HSR link towards Quebec City critically depend on the tunnel to access downtown Montreal at a reasonable travel time and construction cost. So apart from irrevocably cripling the future prospects of all other existing suburban and intercity passenger rail networks, it was the best idea the transport policy makers of this city, province and country ever allowed to happen…
Northern Light
Superstar
Re the above.........
I will say, just as with the O/L I was not an REM cheerleader.
Its not because I was happy with or a defender of the status quo, its because I could see theft from the future HFR/HSR and other, in order to satisfy the present/near-term, and that plans that appear better value do so only by shifting their cost to a different project/provider.
There's nothing inherently wrong w/REM as an idea or with O/L in the case of Toronto; the problem is that both projects appeared to be better value for money that conventional builds in part because they took over existing corridors/infra as if there was no opportunity cost, and that wouldn't come back to bite.
I completely get that one should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good; but neither should one give up all future ambition for a slightly better present.
Both projects sabotaged other future choices, either precluding them, or making them much more expensive and complex than they would have been otherwise.
That's why I will always discourage what I see as mindless cheerleading. Question everything! That doesn't mean you don't go ahead and build, maybe, even what has happened here; but you should do so eyes open, not closed.
I will say, just as with the O/L I was not an REM cheerleader.
Its not because I was happy with or a defender of the status quo, its because I could see theft from the future HFR/HSR and other, in order to satisfy the present/near-term, and that plans that appear better value do so only by shifting their cost to a different project/provider.
There's nothing inherently wrong w/REM as an idea or with O/L in the case of Toronto; the problem is that both projects appeared to be better value for money that conventional builds in part because they took over existing corridors/infra as if there was no opportunity cost, and that wouldn't come back to bite.
I completely get that one should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good; but neither should one give up all future ambition for a slightly better present.
Both projects sabotaged other future choices, either precluding them, or making them much more expensive and complex than they would have been otherwise.
That's why I will always discourage what I see as mindless cheerleading. Question everything! That doesn't mean you don't go ahead and build, maybe, even what has happened here; but you should do so eyes open, not closed.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Surrendering the Mont-Royal tunnel has added maybe $10 billion in construction costs (for a second tunnel) and 10 years to the timeline for the expansion plans of exo and VIA/HFR/HSR, which have been known for decades.
Every honest methodology of accounting would have added these costs to the costs of the REM project, but even without them, the economic rationale (from a publi view) was apparently so shockingly bad that no BCR or NPV were (to my knowledge) ever published for this project…
Last edited:
Urban Sky
Senior Member
I’m a bit surprised that you see OL and REM in similarly critical terms for their use of existing infrastructure: OL adds tracks for its own purposes and completely avoids the area where rail capacity and space is the most constraint (i.e., Gare Centrale), whereas the REM annexed and monopolized some of this country’s most critical rail infrastructure (the Mont-Royal tunnel) and crippled the future utility of another one (Gare Centrale). Not to mention that the OL complements the existing network where the REM replaces (DM) or destroys (MA) existing lines…
Northern Light
Superstar
My concern w/the OL for the purpose of the comparison is that it removed capacity (potential capacity) from the Lakeshore East Corridor, without allowing for a service model that included HFR/HSR and/or dramatically ramped up VIA service.
The 4-tracks (reserved to GO) should be sufficient for their purposes, subject to service model and how Scarborough Junction is handled. But looking at what I understand DB is proposing for GO, even with with more sophisticated signalling on the way, I don't see enough room for maxed out corridor service that isn't perpetually stuck behind GO Trains.
My assumption which I have shared privately in the past, but will do so publicly here is that HFR/HSR will end up using the Don Sub, then CP Mainline to Havelock sub.
This is viable, but comes with some Billion dollar choices if you max out service options, a new trestle across the Don may be necessary (Leaside Rail Bridge) and that would be $$$; the 1/2 mile bridge over Bayview requires total reconstruction, and there a some other added costs vs the option of running up Stouffville.
Even then, the residual corridor service operating with Kingston as a hub may be challenged to find slots that allow smooth flow into Union Station particularly with growth from existing service levels.
AHK
Senior Member
A picky point, but the Saint-Jerome line uses the CP rail network, comes into / goes out of Montreal the Lucien-L'allier station outside the Bell arena, via Montreal West, Park, and so on, to St. Jerome. Does not, and never did use the tunnel as part of its route.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
It was always planned to divert the SJ line into the Gare Centrale and all what was missing was either the so-called Home Depot curve or a tunnel linking from Parc Station into the Mont-Royal tunnel. Neither solution is available anymore thanks to the rogue pension funds to which we outsourced the passenger rail network design in this city and province…
felix123
Active Member
Good point. And that's why so many riders opt to catch it from Parc, rather than winding through the west.
I think it's a shame that the MR tunnel won't be available for intercity trains. Imho the MR tunnel section of the REM will create what will be Canada's first "big" metro network, with multiple routes, connections and redundancy through the core of the island, like we see in Europe, Asia and even in the US (the OL should have a similar effect in Toronto, opening up transit to slog neighbourhoods like Leslieville and Thorncliffe). Even then, it will still be relatively modest in scope, but the frequency and connectivity beat the old DM line, and the line os so far running at >98% reliability, (I assume that that's better than the DM line, but can't state that as fact).
The benefits will be great for urban transit in Montreal, with a significant future tradeoff. I don't think that the OL's tradeoffs are as significant.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
I don't blame Montreal for using the Mount Royal tunnel at all and if that hurts VIA's expansion plans then too bad, they can pay for it.
VIA/Ottawa have had decades to do something with VIA and never have. How many studies and reports has Ottawa done about HSR between Toronto & Montreal since the 70s?..........more than I can count. Why should Montreal put off using the tunnel because Ottawa is doing yet another study on HSR which means it could be yet another 50 years before they actually build it. In the mean time this tunnel will be serving hundreds of millions of people.
We will see HSR between Calgary & Edmonton way before we will in The Corridor because Ottawa only studies things to death while Alberta has a habit of actually building things and worrying about every last sensitivity later.
VIA/Ottawa have had decades to do something with VIA and never have. How many studies and reports has Ottawa done about HSR between Toronto & Montreal since the 70s?..........more than I can count. Why should Montreal put off using the tunnel because Ottawa is doing yet another study on HSR which means it could be yet another 50 years before they actually build it. In the mean time this tunnel will be serving hundreds of millions of people.
We will see HSR between Calgary & Edmonton way before we will in The Corridor because Ottawa only studies things to death while Alberta has a habit of actually building things and worrying about every last sensitivity later.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Friendly note for anyone who doesn’t know yet @ssiguy2: he tends to show up periodically, dump some of his ever-same talking points and then goes hiding again without bothering to respond to any replies to his posts. If you are not afraid of expending time and effort on interacting with someone who probably won’t even bother reading anything you write to him, please don’t hesitate to reply to him…
Last edited:
drum118
Superstar
felix123
Active Member
You can disagree with someone's post but that's a bit much, dude.Lol, seems like somebody forgot to keep all doors at the Vancouver Zoo shut!
To anyone who doesn’t know @ssiguy2: he shows up periodically, vomits his ever-same talking points and then goes hiding again without ever bothering to respond to any replies to his posts. If you want to waste your time on someone who probably doesn’t even bother reading anything you write to him, feel free to reply to him…
Urban Sky
Senior Member
I take you never had the pleasure of “discussing” with @ssiguy2, which is usually characterized by you (and others) responding to something he just posted, and him not bothering to reply or continue the discussion, just to suddenly reimerge out of nowhere one or two months later and posting the exact same stuff while ignoring everything which had been said in response to his previous post.
If this is the kind of behavior you want to encourage (or you don’t believe me), then please go ahead and respond to him. I can take all kinds of opinions and apreciate all varieties of viewpoints, but I expect people to show minimum levels of respect for what other people have to tell you - and having seen over and over the behavior I describe here, I am simply giving the kind of advise which would have prevented me from wasting my time trying to argue with someone who doesn’t seem to have the slightest interest in engaging into a discussion. This is a forum (i.e., a community of people who share a common interest and deserve to be respected in their genuine efforts of engaging in meaningful exchanges) and not Twitter, after all.
But as I said, please feel free to make your own experiences by trying to engage him for a meaningful discussion.
Last edited: