Comments on: The New Champlain Bridge – Barely Built for Rail

By: M Monty

M Monty — Wed, 27 Nov 2019 18:45:52 +0000

Very interesting analysis. in an interesting blog.
But, is this blog still active? Last entry appears to be almost two years old.

By: Fraser Pollock

Fraser Pollock — Tue, 13 Sep 2016 18:14:16 +0000

Oh yes, the Alstom Coradia Lint 41 DMU weighs in between 12.56-14.09 per axle load and could be run on your new bridge as well as the Talent BR 643 DMU’s we use to run.

By: ant6n

ant6n — Tue, 13 Sep 2016 18:06:46 +0000

@Fraser
Thanks for your comments.

Note that the vehicles I advocated for, the British Class 700 and 345, while similar to the light rail vehicles in many respects (size, weight, speed), are also mainline rail vehicles. Note that one of them is also built by Bombarder, and that both support automation as built (any rail vehicle supports automation, you just have to equip the necessary signalling system etc.).

I’d advocate using these vehicles for the REM, operating them just like LRVs. But since they are mainline vehicles, they should be able to intermingle with the AMT and VIA trains.

By: Fraser Pollock

Fraser Pollock — Tue, 13 Sep 2016 18:00:28 +0000

First as an independent Transportation Planner in Ottawa, I am glad someone in Montreal has finally grown a brain and has raised many of the same if not even more issues than I did when I first wrote the backers of the REM proposal in the spring. I am convinced more than ever that this was really done to try and sell Bombardier’s Innovia ART 300 Automated Light Metro System, otherwise known as the Vancouver Skytrain/Scarborough RT technology in the Montreal area. Bombardier maybe shelving the technology because it has had so few orders in the last 30+ years. Far too few orders for the modern vehicle transit industry and far too few to be holding open valuable production lines for it.

Just for clarification, the O-Train (now called the O-Train Trillium Line) in Ottawa is actually licensed as a commuter rail line by Transport Canada not a an LRT line, we just operate it like a diesel LRT line. The line actually used by the O-Train was sold to the City of Ottawa by the CPR but is still considered an active part of the national railway system. That means legally, LRT technology can’t be used on it due to Transport Canada operating rules. Therefore, the line had to use mainline railway compatible vehicles. Alstom Coradia Lint 41 DMU’s (Diesel Multiple Units) were purchased because the original Bombardier BR643 Talent DMU’s used were now not in production, so when service on the line needed to be expanded new vehicles were required.

These types of DMU’s have the motor gearing that allows LRT like acceleration not standard commuter railway vehicle acceleration rates, which makes LRT like operation possible and thus allows stations to be much closer together than would be possible on a standard commuter rail line. Standard Light Rail Vehicle or LRV acceleration is faster than the standard Commuter Railway vehicle acceleration rates and thus allows stations to be much closer together which is ideal in suburban and especially dense urban areas.

By: FranÃ§ois Ghali

FranÃ§ois Ghali — Sun, 11 Sep 2016 03:18:00 +0000

This is a very interesting point you have brought in your article, Anton.

Of course, it’s a shame that the new Champlain Bridge wasn’t designed for heavy rail. But light trains that are compatible with existing heavy rail infrastructures aren’t uncommon in North America. For example, the O-train in Ottawa is a light rail system that is using existing heavy rail infrastructures abandoned by freight rail companies. As you said, the same can be done for the existing infrastructures on the Deux-Montagnes line without having to demolish them by using lighter trains than the old MR-90. I really think you should propose this idea during the BAPE audiences, hoping that the CDPQ will hear it and consider this option before it’s too late, allowing the Mascouche, St-Jerome trains as well as VIA Rail to use the Mount-Royal tunnel.

@Stefan: the Victoria Bridge belongs to CN and it’s already heavily used by VIA Rail, Amtrak, the AMT and CN freight trains.

By: Stefan

Stefan — Sun, 11 Sep 2016 02:12:10 +0000

Why not use the Victoria Bridge instead?

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 10 Sep 2016 13:41:08 +0000

http://www.learnquebec.ca/export/sites/learn/en/content/curriculum/social_sciences/sec_geography/resources/metropolises/metropole_images/carte_voiture.gif

Anybody that advocates for billions of dollars in public transportation investment in the red areas is part of the problem.

By: David Tighe

David Tighe — Sat, 10 Sep 2016 12:37:28 +0000

I begin to share your apprehension about the REM project. Could not the TOR of the Champlain bridge project have taken account of probable long-term trends in North American passenger rail transport? It would have cost little at the construction stage to provide higher load capacities. Why did not the TOR of the REM take account of its integration with the existing Montreal networks? Where were the provincial and Municipal governments in the planning process?

We are heading towards three independent and unintegrated transport systems serving a fairly minor city. The tragedy is it would have been avoidable with a serious urban transport plan at the provincial level who it appears at present treats transport issues “cas par cas”.

I see similarities with the TRAMM project of around 1973 (rail link Mtl-Mirabel) when Quebec’s backing out of the financing resulted in loss of the billions invested in Mirabel Airport and required further billions to be invested in the expansion of Dorval. Finally, absence of political will