[ShonTron]

There's also the Glasgow Subway, but that's a small underground loop. Los Angeles' subway (Red and Purple Lines) are completely underground, but they are part of a larger rail network that includes several light rail lines that run on the surface, elevated, and in tunnels.

I really can't think of other subways located 100% underground, but I am sure there are others.

 

[aquateam]

It isn't. Pyongyang has built theirs 110m underground to double as a nuclear shelter / evil lair!

That's another thing that North Korea has in common with Quebec:

Contest open to world except residents of North Korea, Iran, and Quebec

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

I have always been intrigued about the fact that the system is entirely underground. I wonder if the Montreal Metro is the only metro system in the world that is 100% underground...

I think partis is as well at least the lines that use rubber tires, One of the draw backs of them is they don't perform well on grades or in wet or snow conditions.

 

[Hopkins123]

I have always been intrigued about the fact that the system is entirely underground. I wonder if the Montreal Metro is the only metro system in the world that is 100% underground...

That factoid may soon change if Valerie Plante gets her Pink Line. The parts through Westmount, NDG and Lachine are proposed to be above grade.

 

[nfitz]

From link:

Blue line:
Week Peak: Every 3 to 5 minutes None-peak: Every 5 to 10 minutes
Week-end Every 8 to 11 minutes

Yellow line:
Week Peak: Every 3 to 5 minutes None-peak: Every 5 to 10 minutes
Week-end Every 5 to 10 minutes

Green line:
Week Peak: Every 3 to 4 minutes None-peak: Every 4 to 10 minutes
Week-end Every 6 to 12 minutes

Orange line:
Week Peak: Every 2 to 4 minutes None-peak: Every 4 to 10 minutes
Week-end Every 6 to 12 minutes​

I tell you - orange line wasn't doing every 4 minutes at peak last time I was there in rush hour (in March). Let alone every 2 minutes! The bulk of their service is on the green and orange lines - Line 2 and Line 1)

Look at those off-peak times. The BEST off-peak time is 4 minutes - compare to 3.5 (early evening) on TTC Line 1 and 3.3 (mid-day) on TTC Line 2. The worst scheduled is 12 minutes on both STM Line 1 and 2. The worst Line 1/2 scheduled in Toronto (even though it runs later and longer) is 5 minutes on TTC line 2 (Line 4 worst is 5.5 minutes ... Line 3 is temporarily at 6.75 minutes with the track rehabilitation going on - used to be 5.5 minutes before the service reduction because of the poor track conditions).

And the best on any line on weekends in Montreal is every 6 minutes on Line 1/2 (ignoring the 3-station line 4 Yellow). Good grief, TTC Line 2 is 4.5 minutes on Saturday afternoons, and often packed. TTC Line 1 is every 2.6 minutes most of Saturday (I seldom take it, not sure how busy it is).

Montreal's system has two complementary lines serving the downtown core. There are 5 inbound tracks to Berri-UQAM. That provides more capacity at peak than the TTC's "U" between Line 2 and Union.

Line 2 is at crush load in rush-hour. Most AREN'T heading south of Danforth. Many head north on Yonge. Many are heading to U of T. Others get off and take the Sherbourne bus (especially to George Brown), or the King/Dundas Streetcars (especially from Broadview). It's not like they have 5 packed lines, and we have 2. Gosh, the one you quote is only 3 stops long, and most change then to another train.

In many ways the systems are quite similar. Platforms are the same 152-metre (500 foot) length - though Toronto trains are a bit shorter, not fully using the platform, and Montreal trains are significantly narrow - at 2.5 metres wide, they are narrower than our streetcars - let alone the 3.1-metre wide trains. The Montreal 152 m by 2.5 m wide gives you a (very) approximate area of 382 m² compared to 436 m² for the 139-m long Toronto trains. Which on do you think you can crush-load more people on at rush hour?

Conspiracy theory?

No idea. I just don't see it with my own eyes. It's certainly packed downtown in rush-hour in Montreal. But I don't see as busy trains on weekends - which amazes me given they are less frequent! And gosh, the number of hours I used to stand in Lionel-Groulx waiting for a train transferring late at night ...

One things for sure, trains are operating faster and with more consistency and the service is more reliable. Whenever I'm there, I know that Berri-UQAM to Honore-Beaugrand is 15 minutes.

More consistency and more reliable? Have you ridden it recently? It certainly was in the 1980s and 1990s. And perhaps even into the 2000s. But the Metro has gone way downhill in reliability in recent years. Perhaps not a surprise, because until recently, they were still running all their original 1960s rolling stock, with the new trains being the 1973 stock (which went in service from 1976 to 1979). Even then though, I almost missed my VIA Train back a few weeks ago, because the Orange Line was a disaster with long waits ... and it was all the new Azur cars; that never used to happen when I used to average one VIA train a week in the 1980s to/from Central station - except once when the ENTIRE CITY had a blackout, when my Metro train was stuck at Georges Vanier (it's cool when a Metro train goes completely dark in a tunnel - people really scream!) ... which somehow didn't stop my VIA train leaving on-time about 5-minutes before I ran into the station ...

Berri to Honoré-Beaugrand is 17 minutes and 10 km - a relatively fast 35 km/hr. But with trains crush loaded at peak, the dwell times are increasingly poor, lengthening journeys. Compare to the last 10 km of our Line 2, from Kennedy to Broadview. Also 17 minutes late at night. I'll give Montreal credit for the ATM that they have, that does optimize acceleration out of the station, braking, and minimizes travel time - which should give them a bit of extra capacity at peak - but crush-loading ... Both systems have similar top operating speeds. AFAIK it's about 72 km/hr for Montreal and 75 km/hr for Toronto. Though I believe the TR rolling stock for Toronto can actually run at 85 km/hr, but isn't.

They are very similar systems in many ways. Similar number of stations. Both have 2 major lines, and 2 lesser lines. Both are a very similar length, so station spacing averages similar. You simply can't be moving 20% more people, with far less, smaller, and infrequent trains. The only possible explanation is that trips there are much shorter. But that doesn't match what I see there ...

I wonder if the Montreal Metro is the only metro system in the world that is 100% underground...

It's not quite 100% underground. 100% indoors, sure. For example, Metro Angrinon is at ground surface. A rare example I'll admit!

 

[begratto]

I tell you - orange line wasn't doing every 4 minutes at peak last time I was there in rush hour (in March). Let alone every 2 minutes! The bulk of their service is on the green and orange lines - Line 2 and Line 1)

The orange line IS every 2 1/2 minutes at rush hour, and once all Azur trains are received (by the end of 2018), the plan is to bring this interval down to every 2 minutes.

 

[begratto]

They are very similar systems in many ways. Similar number of stations. Both have 2 major lines, and 2 lesser lines. Both are a very similar length, so station spacing averages similar. You simply can't be moving 20% more people, with far less, smaller, and infrequent trains. The only possible explanation is that trips there are much shorter. But that doesn't match what I see there ...

I think you might be on to something there. My impression is that the Montreal metro is less "downtown centric" : the montreal metro better connects the popular neighbourhoods . So many people use the metro to go to the Plateau (Métro Mont-Royal, think west Queen st West), to Jean-Talon market (métro Jean-Talon), to Beaubien / Plaza St-Hubert (métro Beaubien) etc. They usually don't travel from the other end of the city. The load might be more spread out in Montréal, whereas in Toronto my impression is that the closer you get to downtown, the fuller the train is. You get that too in Montreal, but maybe less so. In Montreal, take the métro between Henri-Bourassa and Jean-Talon on weekends or late in the evening, it's standing room only, but you are far from the city centre. People might indeed be using the metro for shorter trips in Montreal.

 

[Cobra]

More consistency and more reliable? Have you ridden it recently? It certainly was in the 1980s and 1990s. And perhaps even into the 2000s. But the Metro has gone way downhill in reliability in recent years. Perhaps not a surprise, because until recently, they were still running all their original 1960s rolling stock, with the new trains being the 1973 stock (which went in service from 1976 to 1979). Even then though, I almost missed my VIA Train back a few weeks ago, because the Orange Line was a disaster with long waits ... and it was all the new Azur cars; that never used to happen when I used to average one VIA train a week in the 1980s to/from Central station - except once when the ENTIRE CITY had a blackout, when my Metro train was stuck at Georges Vanier (it's cool when a Metro train goes completely dark in a tunnel - people really scream!) ... which somehow didn't stop my VIA train leaving on-time about 5-minutes before I ran into the station ...

Berri to Honoré-Beaugrand is 17 minutes and 10 km - a relatively fast 35 km/hr. But with trains crush loaded at peak, the dwell times are increasingly poor, lengthening journeys. Compare to the last 10 km of our Line 2, from Kennedy to Broadview. Also 17 minutes late at night. I'll give Montreal credit for the ATM that they have, that does optimize acceleration out of the station, braking, and minimizes travel time - which should give them a bit of extra capacity at peak - but crush-loading ... Both systems have similar top operating speeds. AFAIK it's about 72 km/hr for Montreal and 75 km/hr for Toronto. Though I believe the TR rolling stock for Toronto can actually run at 85 km/hr, but isn't.

They are very similar systems in many ways. Similar number of stations. Both have 2 major lines, and 2 lesser lines. Both are a very similar length, so station spacing averages similar. You simply can't be moving 20% more people, with far less, smaller, and infrequent trains. The only possible explanation is that trips there are much shorter. But that doesn't match what I see there ...

Montreal Metro isn't perfect, but it's way better ran than the TTC subway, by a mile

fyi, born and raised in Montreal, I know that system inside out and despite it's issues, I've never been this frustrated like the TTC subway has made me so many time. The slowdowns are driving everyone nuts and the way they turnaround the trains at terminal stations is so inefficient during rush hour... I could go on

 

[felix123]

I think partis is as well at least the lines that use rubber tires, One of the draw backs of them is they don't perform well on grades or in wet or snow conditions.

Actually, rubber tires perform a lot better than steel wheels do on grades. This is one of the reasons Montréal advantageously builds its stations such that there is an uphill slope when approaching a station / downhill slope when departing. It assists with deceleration into the station and acceleration out of it.

For now, until RER with proper electrification and infill stations gets off the ground in Toronto (here's hoping it does), Montréal's rapid transit network is quickly becoming significantly better than Toronto's, due to the beginning of REM construction in Montréal:
http://montrealgazette.com/news/loc...ion-rem-we-will-start-work-almost-immediately

 

[KevinT]

Actually, rubber tires perform a lot better than steel wheels do on grades. This is one of the reasons Montréal advantageously builds its stations such that there is an uphill slope when approaching a station / downhill slope when departing. It assists with deceleration into the station and acceleration out of it.

Ah hills, the original regenerative braking system...

 

[Filip]

Actually, rubber tires perform a lot better than steel wheels do on grades. This is one of the reasons Montréal advantageously builds its stations such that there is an uphill slope when approaching a station / downhill slope when departing. It assists with deceleration into the station and acceleration out of it.

For now, until RER with proper electrification and infill stations gets off the ground in Toronto (here's hoping it does), Montréal's rapid transit network is quickly becoming significantly better than Toronto's, due to the beginning of REM construction in Montréal:
http://montrealgazette.com/news/loc...ion-rem-we-will-start-work-almost-immediately

I would say Montreal's rapid transit network (aside from dense downtown coverage) is significantly worse than Toronto's.

REM just gets them back in the game. Call me when they turn their commuter rail network into a full suburban train system.

 

[felix123]

I would say Montreal's rapid transit network (aside from dense downtown coverage) is significantly worse than Toronto's.

REM just gets them back in the game. Call me when they turn their commuter rail network into a full suburban train system.

Actually, they are doing one better - they are converting their commuter rail network into a metro.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I would say Montreal's rapid transit network (aside from dense downtown coverage) is significantly worse than Toronto's.

REM just gets them back in the game. Call me when they turn their commuter rail network into a full suburban train system.

I don't disagree, but you'll have to let the folks in milton, brampton, barrie, markham and richmond hill know when Toronto has a full suburban train system as well.

 

[aquateam]

For now, until RER with proper electrification and infill stations gets off the ground in Toronto (here's hoping it does), Montréal's rapid transit network is quickly becoming significantly better than Toronto's, due to the beginning of REM construction in Montréal:
http://montrealgazette.com/news/loc...ion-rem-we-will-start-work-almost-immediately

Yesterday was the ceremonial first "shovel in the ground" for the REM. I am really impressed how quickly this project went from napkin drawing to under construction.

Last week they announced that they had funding for the blue line extension:

Although, $ 675 million per kilometer?? Makes the SSE look like a bargain.

Between balancing the budget and all the transit expansion, the provincial liberals here are really doing a great job, too bad they aren't doing so well in the polls.

 

[Hopkins123]

Yesterday was the ceremonial first "shovel in the ground" for the REM. I am really impressed how quickly this project went from napkin drawing to under construction.

Last week they announced that they had funding for the blue line extension:

Although, $ 675 million per kilometer?? Makes the SSE look like a bargain.

Between balancing the budget and all the transit expansion, the provincial liberals here are really doing a great job, too bad they aren't doing so well in the polls.

Blue Line extension at least is five new stations versus SSE's single stop.

Montreal truly is making excellent progress and there unlike here doesn't treat the word "subway" like it's a dirty term. They embrace grade separated transit whole hog.