Jump to content
webfil

Réseau express métropolitain (REM)

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, webfil said:

I did not know that Rotems only ran in pairs.

As a rule, they don't. But if you ask them to build cars as married pairs, they will.

 

Frankly, this is why any discussion of the equipment is silly. As the CDQP writes the specifications, the different companies will come up with car designs to fit those specifications - not the other way around.

 

Dan

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-12-15 at 6:09 PM, smallspy said:

Frankly, this is why any discussion of the equipment is silly. As the CDQP writes the specifications, the different companies will come up with car designs to fit those specifications - not the other way around.

Yes, the other way around. As previously stated, CDPQ will not retain tenders with unproven rolling stock model and technology. If you have any information that was not stated here yet and that you would like to share with us, please know that you are welcome to do it. I'd point out the unnecessary condescension on this amateur discussion board, but that would be unpleasing on my part, so I will not elaborate on that.

----

The BAPE released its report. Unsurprisingly, it is not favourable to the project (perhaps because people yelled during the hearings and BAPE does not like citizens yelling at projects with a structuring vision ― my 2¢). CDPQ replied with numbers and facts. At worst, the REM will have the same infrastructure and operations costs as the bus and train lines it replaces. At best, it will save a couple of bucks. One thing is sure, capacity and service level will be greatly improved. 

That network is a long shot. We have not been used in Québec to projects of such magnitude since 40 years. BAPE is criticizing the lack of political decisionship in the project; the tendency is to depoliticize mobility in order to allow such long shots. 

Anyways, here are the BAPE report and two press releases from CDPQ :

http://www.bape.gouv.qc.ca/sections/rapports/publications/bape331.pdf

https://www.cdpqinfra.com/en/content/bape-report-rem-project-analysis-overlooks-facts-and-distorts-reality

https://www.cdpqinfra.com/en/content/rem-project-financial-information-note

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, webfil said:

Yes, the other way around. As previously stated, CDPQ will not retain tenders with unproven rolling stock model and technology. If you have any information that was not stated here yet and that you would like to share with us, please know that you are welcome to do it. I'd point out the unnecessary condescension on this amateur discussion board, but that would be unpleasing on my part, so I will not elaborate on that.

Who's being condescending?

 

Arguing about the equipment that may or may not be used on the line at this point in time IS silly. It's like arguing about whether you get the turbo V6 or the V8, and you haven't even figured out what kind of car you have. It's putting the cart before the horse. It's any number of different analogies that all apply in the same way.

 

Dan

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, smallspy said:

Who's being condescending?

Arguing about the equipment that may or may not be used on the line at this point in time IS silly. It's like arguing about whether you get the turbo V6 or the V8, and you haven't even figured out what kind of car you have. It's putting the cart before the horse. It's any number of different analogies that all apply in the same way.

Dan

Of more concern than the rolling stock is some of the infrastructure - particularly the Mount Royal Tunnel. Besides AMT's current use of the tunnel, VIA also has eyes on it for the long term. From all I've read and heard so far, the REM would monopolize the tunnel and exclude VIA, forcing them to set up suburban transfer points that would defeat the whole purpose of their plans. Not to mention killing the Mascouche line, underused though that may be now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CDQP's rolling-stock specifications and their choice of technologies are highly inappropriate for the passenger loads and level of service they intend to offer.  Low-capacity 80-meter trains? No human on board to intervene and debug faulty equipment?  Exotic automated technologies combined with lopsided light-rail car body designs (yet to be proven in harsh winter conditions) and trucks? 

Lower cost solutions have yet to be debated.  The solutions can be presented in different levels of upgrades:

1-Retain the commuter rail rolling-stock and have it run often on newly constructed track with advanced signalling and centralized traffic control

2-Purchase more electric commuter rail rolling-stock and have it run often on the infrastructure described in #1

3-Purchase a derivative of proven conventional subway rolling-stock design, heavily winterize it and have it run under 1.5 kv ~ 25 kv catenary, newly constructed trackage and advanced signalling (Washington Metro or BART-style rolling-stock).  Trains should be arranged in triplets, not all motorized.

The CDQP's obsession with adopting exotic train technology, undersized infrastructure (what kind of service levels and crowding could you expect from 80 meter platforms?) and over dependence on complex automated signalling systems exposed to a snow-belt is a recipe for financial and operational ruin.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jack 47 said:

The CDQP's rolling-stock specifications and their choice of technologies are highly inappropriate for the passenger loads and level of service they intend to offer.  Low-capacity 80-meter trains? No human on board to intervene and debug faulty equipment?  Exotic automated technologies combined with lopsided light-rail car body designs (yet to be proven in harsh winter conditions) and trucks? [...]

The CDQP's obsession with adopting exotic train technology, undersized infrastructure (what kind of service levels and crowding could you expect from 80 meter platforms?) and over dependence on complex automated signalling systems exposed to a snow-belt is a recipe for financial and operational ruin.

Harsh winter conditions? :rolleyes:

No problem operating light trains in Edmonton or Moscow, where the average and extreme winter temperatures are well below the ones observed in Montréal. If you are talking about precipitations, it was not a concern when planning a light rail system in Ottawa, where the annual snowfalls are higher than Montréal, nor is it a problem for the exploitation of a street-running tram in Sapporo, that has a climate similar to the one found in Montréal and an average snowfall of 6 meters per year (more than twice the snowfall in Montréal).

Also, Montréal has had light rail transit for 98 years, including dedicated-ROW LRT lines pointing towards Lachine, Cartierville, Montréal-Nord, Pointe-aux-Trembles and Granby, as well as street-running tramways. Montréal has improved since then its expertise in snow removal operations on its railways and streets, while it is quite uncommon for a city of such size to receive that much snow (with some exceptions such as Sapporo).

One major problem for the eventuality of light rail is freezing rain accumulation on the power source; that element forced La Caisse to prefer catenary alimentation over third rail ― although I don't know if it is problematic for Toronto's subway and LRT lines, where freezing rain episodes occur quite frequently.

As for the "exotic" technology, people tend to forget that the very first automated metro with such technology "in the Western hemisphere" was developed in Ontario and showcased at the 1967 World Fair held in... Montréal!

Also, automated train does not mean unmanned trains. In its scenarios of exploitation, the CDPQ plans having personnel on board for security and operations, as well as several agents per line for maintenance operations. Vancouver has a similar scenario of exploitation, with automated trains featuring personnel on board ― without much danger nor chaos in case of disruption.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jack 47 said:

The CDQP's rolling-stock specifications and their choice of technologies are highly inappropriate for the passenger loads and level of service they intend to offer.  Low-capacity 80-meter trains? No human on board to intervene and debug faulty equipment?  Exotic automated technologies combined with lopsided light-rail car body designs (yet to be proven in harsh winter conditions) and trucks? 

Lower cost solutions have yet to be debated.  The solutions can be presented in different levels of upgrades:

1-Retain the commuter rail rolling-stock and have it run often on newly constructed track with advanced signalling and centralized traffic control

2-Purchase more electric commuter rail rolling-stock and have it run often on the infrastructure described in #1

3-Purchase a derivative of proven conventional subway rolling-stock design, heavily winterize it and have it run under 1.5 kv ~ 25 kv catenary, newly constructed trackage and advanced signalling (Washington Metro or BART-style rolling-stock).  Trains should be arranged in triplets, not all motorized.

The CDQP's obsession with adopting exotic train technology, undersized infrastructure (what kind of service levels and crowding could you expect from 80 meter platforms?) and over dependence on complex automated signalling systems exposed to a snow-belt is a recipe for financial and operational ruin.

 

I mean the system is based off of the Canada Line, which has run nearly faultlessly since 2010. The system that controls the trains (by THALES I believe) is fairly advanced and can usually re-boot itself during errors, and agents are able to manually 'drive' the trains if faults develop. Obviously Vancouver's climate is less harsh than Montreal's, but the Canada Line stock does run through the snow Vancouver gets quite well - Translink tends to run trains when not in operational service to ensure the tracks remain clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing to consider....

 

What they have been describing as "light rail" is being done as such to differentiate from the "heavy rail" trains that run through the Mont Royal tunnel today.

 

From the initial specs that they've outlined, it looks more to be in line with a subway system or a type of intermediate capacity system such as Bombardier's ART. The ultimate capacities of either of these types of systems hugely outstrips the ultimate capacity of any heavy rail system system built to North American standards. That the preliminary specifications that they've laid out for the line don't seem to meet the supposed needs is a problem that needs to be corrected, but isn't necessarily a fault of the system design.

 

Dan

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, smallspy said:

One thing to consider....

 

What they have been describing as "light rail" is being done as such to differentiate from the "heavy rail" trains that run through the Mont Royal tunnel today.

 

From the initial specs that they've outlined, it looks more to be in line with a subway system or a type of intermediate capacity system such as Bombardier's ART. The ultimate capacities of either of these types of systems hugely outstrips the ultimate capacity of any heavy rail system system built to North American standards. That the preliminary specifications that they've laid out for the line don't seem to meet the supposed needs is a problem that needs to be corrected, but isn't necessarily a fault of the system design.

 

Dan

The Mont-Royal tunnel is a commuter rail tunnel, not heavy rail (which also known as metro, rapid transit rail or subway)

It important to distinguish between three types of transit systems according to transport planning definitions (commuter rail, light rail and heavy rail), which is defined by their carrying capacity, frequency and type of equipment.

Montreal's Metro is among the heaviest class of North American heavy rail systems (up there with New York and Toronto), with peak directional capacities of 29,000 people or more per direction.  The Mont-Royal tunnel, which carries commuter rail traffic and signalling, cannot attain that kind of throughput.  The Bombardier ART or any Intermediate Capacity System carries far less than heavy rail (metro) systems, but could carry more than commuter rail.  Refer to definitions on APTA's website, ridership statistics and documentation:

http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/glossary.aspx   (mode of service definitions)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Marc-André Carignan (Architectural & urban columnist for Radio-Canada, Metro News, Canal Savoir and Kollectif), CDPQ would be setting up an architecture, urban integration and design committee in response to one of the BAPE recommendations. NGOs such as Héritage Montréal, the Québec Association of Architects and Ariane Alliance for a national planning policy also pleaded for such committee.

On another note, the MTMDET clearly stated in response to some municipalities (such as Pointe-Claire and Brossard) that it will not fund new roads nor will it build new ramps to provide access to the new stations. Brossard asked for a widening of A-30, while Pointe-Claire had requested that some interchanges be rebuilt to improve security of pedestrians and cyclists. However, MTMDET remains open to the idea of new overpasses for cyclists and pedestrians over A-40 that would be under maintenance of the municipality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-02-03 at 9:32 PM, Jack 47 said:

The Mont-Royal tunnel is a commuter rail tunnel, not heavy rail (which also known as metro, rapid transit rail or subway)

Again, it's all about perspective.

 

To the transit side, "heavy rail" is used to differentiate subways from "lighter" vehicles such as the ART and LRTs/streetcars.

 

But if you talk to the train guys, anything less than a full-sized train - whether it is a commuter train or not - is "light rail". You can't run a subway on the same tracks. The federal regulations that cover these kinds of things spell that out quite clearly.

 

So don't think about the REM in the sense of an LRT such as what many other cities have built, but more in the technology being "lighter" - and therefore, incompatible - than what is running there now.

 

Dan

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the CDPQ might be considering Alstom trains for the REM? Their visualizations seem to imply the use of low-floor LRVs, and with the Ottawa Confederation Line employing full CBTC and ATO, it makes it quite realistic to see them adapt their technology for Montreal, which would demonstrate the true flexibility of the Citadis platform, from street-running trams to driverless rapid transit. With their breakthrough deal with Toronto as quoted above, it seems like Alstom is establishing a prominent presence in North America, and combined with its lead in the field of automated transportation technology, would appear to be the perfect solution to Montreal's dilemmas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Transit geek said:

I wonder if the CDPQ might be considering Alstom trains for the REM? Their visualizations seem to imply the use of low-floor LRVs, and with the Ottawa Confederation Line employing full CBTC and ATO, it makes it quite realistic to see them adapt their technology for Montreal, which would demonstrate the true flexibility of the Citadis platform, from street-running trams to driverless rapid transit. With their breakthrough deal with Toronto as quoted above, it seems like Alstom is establishing a prominent presence in North America, and combined with its lead in the field of automated transportation technology, would appear to be the perfect solution to Montreal's dilemmas.

They will give it to Bombardier, needs to be a Quebec Company, reason why the TAs in the consortium can't New Flyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Transit geek said:

I wonder if the CDPQ might be considering Alstom trains for the REM? Their visualizations seem to imply the use of low-floor LRVs, and with the Ottawa Confederation Line employing full CBTC and ATO, it makes it quite realistic to see them adapt their technology for Montreal, which would demonstrate the true flexibility of the Citadis platform, from street-running trams to driverless rapid transit. With their breakthrough deal with Toronto as quoted above, it seems like Alstom is establishing a prominent presence in North America, and combined with its lead in the field of automated transportation technology, would appear to be the perfect solution to Montreal's dilemmas.

Alstom is on the bid shortlist, along with Hyundai-Rotem and Bombardier Transport. In the tender, the LRVs need to be high-floor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MTL66 said:

They will give it to Bombardier, needs to be a Quebec Company, reason why the TAs in the consortium can't New Flyer

Also, the Caisse is not part of the ATUQ buying group, that goes without say. ATUQ and ST's base their tender scoring on the government grants obtained for canadian parts & assembly, whereas the price generally only weighs in for ~75% of the final score. Nothing prevents New Flyer of bidding on bus provision contracts in Québec; they do ― with a price generally equal or slightly lower than Nova (e.g. -7000$/bus for STM hybrids).

I wouldn't know the scoring sheet of the Caisse, but I'd say price is more important there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2017 at 9:16 PM, MTL66 said:

They will give it to Bombardier, needs to be a Quebec Company, reason why the TAs in the consortium can't New Flyer

Does NFI still have the arrangement with Girardin? Not that it seemed to have helped NFI much, if any, in Quebec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mark Walton said:

Does NFI still have the arrangement with Girardin? Not that it seemed to have helped NFI much, if any, in Quebec.

Yes, as Girardin help broker the sale of MiDi and XD40's to CIT operators 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, and more to the point, the federal government agreed to finance part of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/02/2017 at 3:24 PM, Mark Walton said:

I came across this on the Transport Action BC site earlier this week: https://transportactionbc.wordpress.com/ Could the events described happen to REM as well if they use Canada Line technology?

Sorry for responding to an older post, but I just thought I would help clarify. 

Theoretically, yes, but REM seems to be proposing overhead catenary for power instead of the third-rail that the Canada Line has. The the third-rail had too much ice build-up, and for that section that was closed on the Canada Line, the train needed full power as it had to go from a station up a significant climb over a bridge, which the ice prevented. Overhead catenary seems to handle much better in harsher winter climates than a third-rail for power, and the overhead wires can be sprayed with a de-icing agent fairly easily, if freezing rain or other issues are deemed likely to be problematic. 

20 minutes ago, SMS said:

However, and more to the point, the federal government agreed to finance part of it.

Yup, article here: http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/federal-money-moves-rem-closer-to-funding-6-million-price-tag

Has there been a winning bidder been chosen for Alstom/Hyundai/ Bombardier yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-06-15 at 2:12 PM, SMS said:

However, and more to the point, the federal government agreed to finance part of it.

On 2017-06-15 at 2:36 PM, maege said:
On 2017-06-15 at 5:04 PM, tomsbuspage said:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×