[dullturtle06]

So, where do you put this new station?

The station has 5 tracks. If we assume 2 tracks for HSR, there is no reason those other 3 tracks cannot handle the 3 different trains once HSR is up and running. Currently, along the back tracks it is all parking lots behind buildings. Parking garages at the side of those buildings could be added into the cost of the HSR if need be. O,r another elevated guideway over the existing tracks.

I do feel the interior of the station needs to change to better direct the flow of passengers.

Remember,it is a bidirectional service at that station with no branches. Even if it were 5 minute frequency, the most you still need is 2 tracks.


The problem is the swing bridge over the Trent Severn canal. Wouldn't wanna piss off a bunch of rich boaters.

But the existing fixed bridges over the canal are already at a 7 meter clearance so that restriction has already been in place. Boats are already dealing with it without much fuss.

 

[micheal_can]

But the existing fixed bridges over the canal are already at a 7 meter clearance so that restriction has already been in place. Boats are already dealing with it without much fuss.

What is the height of the existing rail bridge over the canal?

 

[dullturtle06]

So, where do you put this new station?

The station has 5 tracks. If we assume 2 tracks for HSR, there is no reason those other 3 tracks cannot handle the 3 different trains once HSR is up and running. Currently, along the back tracks it is all parking lots behind buildings. Parking garages at the side of those buildings could be added into the cost of the HSR if need be. O,r another elevated guideway over the existing tracks.

I do feel the interior of the station needs to change to better direct the flow of passengers.

Remember,it is a bidirectional service at that station with no branches. Even if it were 5 minute frequency, the most you still need is 2 tracks.


The problem is the swing bridge over the Trent Severn canal. Wouldn't wanna piss off a bunch of rich boaters.

But the existing fixed bridges over the canal are already at a 7 meter clearance so that restriction has already been in place. Boats are already dealing with thay

What is the height of the existing rail bridge over the canal?

A new viaduct would need to be built through Peterborough, im say the height of the new rail viaduct only needs to allow for a 7 meter clearance and can be a fixed bridge. The current rail bridge would be demolished. The swing bridge sits around 2 meter over the water.

 

[micheal_can]

But the existing fixed bridges over the canal are already at a 7 meter clearance so that restriction has already been in place. Boats are already dealing with thay

A new viaduct would need to be built through Peterborough, im say the height of the new rail viaduct only needs to allow for a 7 meter clearance and can be a fixed bridge. The current rail bridge would be demolished. The swing bridge sits around 2 meter over the water.

So, we need 5 more meters? Not insurmountable.

 

[nfitz]

The only way I see a tunnel to be constructable in downtown Montreal is to keep it at the existing track level and to build it underneath Robert-Bourassa, with a station between the intersection with Rene-Levesque (above) and Sainte-Antoine (below):
View attachment 633424View attachment 633425

The map with the announcement - and the other recent ones, suggest they are coming in on an "east-west" (parallel to Rene-Levesque) alignment rather than a "north-south" alignment parallel to the REM. Which means CP track not CN track.

If they do want to be serious about this - as they say they are - they need to avoid things like the curves into Central. And either deep tunnel from somewhere west of Lucien-L'Allier or a big curve from St. Henri on the CN track, to turn parallelish to the Central Station alignment.

The map indicates the tunnel is more due north, rather than the northwest-southeast alignment of the existing tunnel. Then take it all the way to the Trois Rivieres subdivision. Or else they'll spend much of their 90 minutes to Quebec City, just getting to Laval.

 

[andrewmaps]

I've posted this in the other thread also...
This map I made awhile back, just ensuring that EXO is involved (for the their benefit and to help pay for it)
(please excuse the LRT de l'Est concept still in there)

 

[micheal_can]

The map with the announcement - and the other recent ones, suggest they are coming in on an "east-west" (parallel to Rene-Levesque) alignment rather than a "north-south" alignment parallel to the REM. Which means CP track not CN track.

If they do want to be serious about this - as they say they are - they need to avoid things like the curves into Central. And either deep tunnel from somewhere west of Lucien-L'Allier or a big curve from St. Henri on the CN track, to turn parallelish to the Central Station alignment.

The map indicates the tunnel is more due north, rather than the northwest-southeast alignment of the existing tunnel. Then take it all the way to the Trois Rivieres subdivision. Or else they'll spend much of their 90 minutes to Quebec City, just getting to Laval.

Alto - HSR

Take a look at what I had drawn.It is almost a straight line to the CP tracks north of the Mont.

 

[Allandale25]

^ Awesome map. Thoughts @Urban Sky ? Don't be too harsh

 

[Urban Sky]

The map with the announcement - and the other recent ones, suggest they are coming in on an "east-west" (parallel to Rene-Levesque) alignment rather than a "north-south" alignment parallel to the REM. Which means CP track not CN track.

If they do want to be serious about this - as they say they are - they need to avoid things like the curves into Central. And either deep tunnel from somewhere west of Lucien-L'Allier or a big curve from St. Henri on the CN track, to turn parallelish to the Central Station alignment.

The map indicates the tunnel is more due north, rather than the northwest-southeast alignment of the existing tunnel. Then take it all the way to the Trois Rivieres subdivision. Or else they'll spend much of their 90 minutes to Quebec City, just getting to Laval.

^ Awesome map. Thoughts @Urban Sky ? Don't be too harsh

As I‘ve already answered in the other thread, constructing an East-West tunnel would be extraordinarily disruptive on the downtown area and almost impossible to achieve within any publicly acceptable budget and timeframe:

I hate to disappoint you but there are severe vertical alignment issues which would make a tunnel crossing underneath Gare Centrale in West-East extremely challenging:

• The existing passenger concourse at Gare Centrale is above the existing tracks. You would have to build elevators and escalators through the existing platforms, which are rather narrow.
• You need to avoid the Autoroute Ville-Marie with its various ramps, which reaches more than 40 meters deep.
• You can only dive up to the CP Westmount Sub once you‘ve cleared all the various road underpasses beneath it (Guy, Georges-Vanier, Atwater, Glen, Sherbrooke, Girouard, Cavendish), some of which (Glen Road) are listed heritage structures and can therefore hardly be altered.

There are unfortunately good reasons why I think that such a tunnel would at least cost $10 billion and take 10 years to build - and its footprint would paralyze the entire downtown for multiple years…

On the other hand, I don‘t think that the „tight curves out of Gare Centrale are that much of a problem: It will probably always be a crawl to Rue de la Commune (i.e., where you reach the Peel Basin), but if you find a better location for Ray-Mont to move their operations away from the SE quadrant of Wellington/Bridge, you should be able to find a 60 mph / 100 km/h alignment until Sainte-Marguerite Street and from there you should be good to teach 100 mph / 160 km/h (You wouldn’t be able to reach much higher speeds anyways before slowing down for the stop in Dorval again)…

 

[micheal_can]

As I‘ve already answered in the other thread, constructing an East-West tunnel would be extraordinarily disruptive on the downtown corridor and almost impossible to achieve within any publicly acceptable budget and timeframe:

You said 10 years. Given that this is an expected 15 years project, that should be doable. If you are digging a tunnel without any spots for a station cavity,what disruptions would be faced?The trucks moving the spoils? Start north of the tunnel and move it by rail.

 

[Urban Sky]

I can’t reiterate enough how almost all the problems of the QBEC-TRTO HSR corridor only relate to the segment east of Montreal. Given that it is highly possible that we will never reach Phase 3 of the project, I would not let that final segment dictate us to spend billions and billions on infrastructure pieces which make hardly any sense without the extension to QBEC. As I wrote previously, finding a downtown location which also works for MTRL-QBEC is the lowest of priorities:

The three challenges of extending HxR from MTRL to QBEC are in that order:
1) Not inconvenience travellers from MTRL towards OTTW/TRTO.
2) To find a convenient way to transfer between QM and MOT trains.
3) To find a convenient downtown(-ish) station for QBEC-MTRL trains.

Challenge #1 prescribes the Status Quo (Terminus at Gare Centrale, Satellite station at Dorval Airport).
Challenge #2 prescribes Dorval as transfer station (as Gare Centrale would escalate travel times).
Challenge #3 leaves us with only two solutions: either extend QM trains beyond Dorval to Gare Centrale (which would not be time-competitive with transfering to the orange line at De La Concorde) or to have a “downtown” station at either Parc (which lacks rail links towards downtown), Canora (which lacks space for proper intercity rail station, especially one which acts as downtown station) or Namur (which would have an inconveniently long walk to the orange line).

 

[nfitz]

As I‘ve already answered in the other thread ...

It would be easier to discuss Alto in the Alto thread, rather than the corridor thread!

I hate to disappoint you but there are unfortunately severe vertical alignment issues which would make a tunnel crossing underneath Gare Centrale in West-East direction extremely challenging:

• The existing passenger concourse at Gare Centrale is above the existing tracks. You would have to build elevators and escalators through the existing platforms, which are rather narrow.
• You need to avoid the Autoroute Ville-Marie with its various ramps, which reaches more than 40 meters deep.
• You can only dive up to the CP Westmount Sub once you‘ve cleared all the various road underpasses beneath it (Guy, Georges-Vanier, Atwater, Glen, Sherbrooke, Girouard, Cavendish), some of which (Glen Road) are listed heritage structures and can therefore hardly be altered.

There are unfortunately good reasons why I think that such a tunnel would at least cost $10 billion and take 10 years to build - and its footprint would paralyze the entire downtown for multiple years…

The expressway is not an issue. It's entirely south of the tracks, and then bends much further south at Guy. There's the Fort Street entrance, but it's probably expendable in the existing format. You can have the portal west of Guy somewhere.

Stay under the tracks and head under the new Forum, or knock it down. Better yet, a bit further north, approximately under de la Gauchetiere from de la Montagnes from Peel to Forked-Tongue-Bourassa - or better yet, dive and turn closer to due north (not map north) west of the Cathedral, diving below the trench the REM is in between de la Gauchetiere and President Kennedy. If you build the east end of the Alto platforms at Peel and de la Gauchetiere, then you are just about right on top (but further north) of the west end of the Bonaventure Metro platforms. And include a good walkway to the REM and the VIA service (remembering that the tunnel from Bonaventure to Windsor is expendable) to to Drummondville (if you can't simply find a way of running that into the Alto station or Lucien l'Allier via Delson).

The current tunnel heads west-by-northwest - and then the track north of Parc is even more westerly. If they are serious about doing this properly for a 100-year solution, you don't follow that alignment - which was built for Ottawa (and Toronto via the aborted connection on the west island). Just head due north, under the back river, and put the portal on Laval, near the river, east of the 125, near St. Vincent-de-Paul and join the Trois-Rivieres Sub there.

If you do run a parallel EXO service (a great idea to me - for which a 3rd and maybe 4th track would be useful) would be useful, then you could add EXO stations at the Metro stations you pass under - Laurier and d'Iberville.

Yes, this is going to cost $10s of billions. Is it that different than the connection from Euston to Old Oak Common? I wouldn't suggest this for HFR - or for a souped up 240-km/hr version. But this would make sense if they are looking at doing real HST. Yes, the platform may be very deep. If we can build subway stations 40-metres deep, we can build these platforms deep. Heck, if you do the escalators correctly, you could get a block closer to the REM by the top, and people won't perceive it being a great distance; or put a new concourse under the REM.

Here's a map from the STM metro maps, which shows the metro tunnel and Ville Marie locations. Note which way the north arrow is pointing!

 

[nfitz]

... constructing an East-West tunnel would be extraordinarily disruptive on the downtown area ...

More disruptive than building the new subway under Queen Street here? Most of the disruption would be around de la Gauchetiere - which was always a pretty minor street - and isn't even a through street anymore!

and almost impossible to achieve within any publicly acceptable budget and timeframe:

If they do HSR it's going to cost money; that's the way it is. It would be comparable to the sum total of the recent 18 Toronto-area transit projects (16 if the Line 4 extension and Milton RER-like service aren't approved). Or the 401 tunnel.

On the other hand, I don‘t think that the „tight curves out of Gare Centrale are that much of a problem:

For HFR or perhaps segments of 240 km/hr upgraded HFR maybe. But I completely disagree for the HST option. If you need to build a new tunnel - why bother using the current alignment that heads towards Ottawa (well closer to Timmins) rather than Quebec City! And at that point - why use Central at all. You'd mine the station, with access from Argyle Street, Lucien-L'Allier Street and de la Montagnes.

 

[micheal_can]

So, here is why I doubt that they will back in or out of Montreal Central station: Assuming they run the line as a continuous route it would be poor customer service to have seats change the way they face mid ride. Some people cannot sit backwards. As I have not ridden east of Montreal,I don't know how they do it now.

 

[CapitalSeven]

I’m not sure I’d put too much stock in the map released in the puffy business plan. After all, it does have an “illustrative purposes” disclaimer. It also shows a straight line from Peterborough to a point south of Smiths Falls, which is about as fanciful as it gets, unless we’re actually talking hyperloop here.

Question: is there any scope for improving the existing approach to Gare Centrale, particularly where it crosses Wellington Street? Such a compromise would cause less disruption. Building platforms under the current station and the huge curve to St. Urbain with 4 tracks under buildings is quite an undertaking. The straight line up between Montreal and Laval may be just a fudge indicating they don’t know what the heck they are going to do at this time.

On the other hand, the lines on the map may actually be saying something. It looks as though the Alexandria subdivision gets straightened out in a few places to reduce curves and avoid towns and villages (Moose Creek, Maxville, even Alexandria.) If so, would some of the existing track be left in place for some sort of “legacy service”?

Back to Peterborough-Ottawa: The line moving south instead of west from Smiths Falls suggests dropping the segment past Perth that has been discussed and instead going overland in a new route towards Tweed, where the old line can be straightened out easily enough for high speeds. There is a series of hydro corridors that make this link. Who knows whether that’s even feasible, but hydro corridors are a can of worms I can’t resist because the electrical infrastructure is in place and they are well surveyed and not built up.