montréal REM de l'Est

[SameGuy]

I'm quite certain won’t see moving block signalling on the existing Métro lines in my lifetime, so forget about higher frequencies on the yellow line. Could the tracks be fully segregated with a wall? Sure, that’s what’s being done in the MR tunnel for REM-A. Getting this done on the Orange line really depends on the will to do it, along with the cost and required effort, versus the anticipated gains in frequency and capacity. We don’t need platform doors for full automation (see: SkyTrain, or much of Singapore’s MRT until just a few years ago), but it’s advisable. Heck, IMO platform doors are advisable on the Orange line even without full automation.

[seb851]

Le 2021-07-05 à 18:58, IluvMTL a dit :

 

https://plus.lapresse.ca/screens/dce91f11-76cc-48c2-a592-79dca6206194__7C___0.html?utm_content=ulink&utm_source=lpp&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=internal+share

Une baisse de 40% de l'achalandage des TEC. Les études  de la CDPQ sont caduques.

 

 

 

Cette étude est américaine 

[reecemartin]

On 7/5/2021 at 4:56 PM, SameGuy said:

I think 100 m trainsets and platforms would have been ideal for REM-A, with capacity upgrades somewhere down the road by using double-deck EMUs similar to RER's 2Ns or Sydney's A / B sets. I'm not a fan of using a light metro type on a regional service, but for now its capacity is adequate.

The trouble with the REM-B proposal - apart from all the other questionable decisions - is the lack of compatibility with REM-A. Even if the rolling stock at launch uses the same sets as A running in single two-car units, if REM-A ever upgrades down the road to a more RER-style train, it won't be usable on B.

I really appreciate the thought here, but for a number of reasons larger sets won't work. Afaik the Champlain Bridge can't handle much more weight from rail vehicles and I am sure the same would be true for the guideways designed for the Metropolis trains - furthermore there are loading gauge issues. 

I think realistically for the REM A capacity expansion progression will be like this (for the core):

Initial Capacity Total: X -> Capacity when frequency is maxed out (150 seconds to 90 seconds) (1.6x capacity) : 1.6X -> Single Four Car Trains with 2 more doors (1.1x ca[acity) : 1.76X -> slight platform extensions add one more car (should be possible at many stations, selective door opening can be used for those which do not support it) (1.25x capacity) -> 2.2X 

So you can more than double the capacity on the system without any massive capital works assuming you get to the point where the 4 car trains from day one do not have room and are packed. That should make the capacity comparable to Metro Lines, at that point the solution is to add another trunk through the city to provide more capacity and deinterlace some of the branches. 

[SameGuy]

3 hours ago, reecemartin said:

I really appreciate the thought here, but for a number of reasons larger sets won't work. Afaik the Champlain Bridge can't handle much more weight from rail vehicles and I am sure the same would be true for the guideways designed for the Metropolis trains - furthermore there are loading gauge issues. 

I think realistically for the REM A capacity expansion progression will be like this (for the core):

Initial Capacity Total: X -> Capacity when frequency is maxed out (150 seconds to 90 seconds) (1.6x capacity) : 1.6X -> Single Four Car Trains with 2 more doors (1.1x ca[acity) : 1.76X -> slight platform extensions add one more car (should be possible at many stations, selective door opening can be used for those which do not support it) (1.25x capacity) -> 2.2X 

So you can more than double the capacity on the system without any massive capital works assuming you get to the point where the 4 car trains from day one do not have room and are packed. That should make the capacity comparable to Metro Lines, at that point the solution is to add another trunk through the city to provide more capacity and deinterlace some of the branches. 

My musings were based on planning for heavier trains from the outset. 😊

[Enalung]

8 hours ago, Kolev3000 said:

Je ne sais pas si ça vous apporte une info intéressante que vous ne saviez pas déjà mais je m’essaie…

 

Si l'insertion doit se faire à l'est des voies du CP, il suffirait de tasser le boulevard vers le nord pour conserver l'accès au boulevard Nôtre-Dame. L'insertion pourrait alors se faire au sud du boulevard. D'ailleurs, j'aimerais souligner que des travaux dans la conduite l'intercepteur sud, on en a fait il y a à peine quelques années de cela.

[TER200]

Sur quoi te bases-tu ? Google ne fait que réafficher les informations de la page wikipédia du REM, qui cite notamment un article d'il y a six mois présentant le projet de REM de l'Est.

[Enalung]

21 minutes ago, Kolev3000 said:

Google affirme pas avec certitude le prolongement de la ligne bleue…

Ça démontre juste que CDPQ a une efficacité et un sérieux dans son execution qui pousse Google a indexé ce qu’ils annoncent même si la construction n’est pas encore commencé ou même officialisé, c’est ça que je veux souligner….

Voilà !

Il est important de souligner que l'algorythme de Google indexe sans aucune intervention humaine. Certaines pratiques permettent d'augmenter la visibilité d'une information sur Google, entre autre, le respect stricte des Standards sur l'accessibilité du Web (pour les personnes handicapés). De ces jours, cet algorithme s'apparente plus à un AI, et est capable, grâce à un réseau neuronal, d'analyser et comprendre le contenu d'une page. Cet algorithm n'est pas parfait, et il a été démontré qu'il est sujet à des biais au même titre que nous. Il existe d'ailleurs plusieurs études très sérieuses sur le sujet.

[champdemars]

Il y a 10 heures, Enalung a dit :

Il est important de souligner que l'algorythme de Google indexe sans aucune intervention humaine. Certaines pratiques permettent d'augmenter la visibilité d'une information sur Google, entre autre, le respect stricte des Standards sur l'accessibilité du Web (pour les personnes handicapés). De ces jours, cet algorithme s'apparente plus à un AI, et est capable, grâce à un réseau neuronal, d'analyser et comprendre le contenu d'une page. Cet algorithm n'est pas parfait, et il a été démontré qu'il est sujet à des biais au même titre que nous. Il existe d'ailleurs plusieurs études très sérieuses sur le sujet.

En même temps, si tu cherches "REM", ça va te donner "REM" et les informations trouvées dans Wikipédia. Pas besoin de beaucoup de AI là-dedans :).

 

[TER200]

La page indexée qu'on voit sur le résultat de recherche Google, c'est Wikipédia. La CDPQ n'y est pour rien.

[Enalung]

I've got a question for those of you with better memories then me. When they released their study of possible routes, did they ever consider running it under St-Catherine? I was looking at Google Maps a few days ago and one of the thing that struck me is that there are far fewer high rises along St-Catherine. The deep foundations of skyscrapers were cited as a concern. With fewer tall buildings, it might be less of an issue along St-Catherine. My guess is that since it is closer to the mountain, the rock layer would be closer to the surface which would make it possible to dig the tunnel closer to the surface. Being closer to Berri-UQAM might also make it possible to squeeze the tunnel in between the yellow and orange line. 

Sure, it would closely parallel the green line, but only for 3 stations. This would have the benefit of making interchanges much easier. It would also allow a good integration with the existing RESO foot paths. There could be a direct connection to Berri-UQAM and McGill. Since there is only 2-3 story structures between René-Lévesque and the Radio-Canada tower, the insertion could still be done along the René-Lévesque axis in order to allow for a station near the planned TOD in that location. The tunnel would then make a gentle curve in order to get under St-Catherine. As far as best worse solutions go, I think this might be much closer to the mark then a lot of what has been proposed up to this point.