Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer
It's automated-ish. The main problem in having any meaningful automation is that currently the signalling currently can't tell where a train is other than to say that it is either at or between certain stations. That means that a train can't leave until the next one has left its station because if the one before it has to make an emergency stop between stations, it would get rammed at full speed. So frequency is limited to run time between the two furthest stations.
And then, as you rightly point out, there remains the issue of platform capacity which is already problematic at several stations.
So before any interlining can take place, the metro needs to be automated, which can't happen until all the tunnels, trains and command centres are outfitted with new, proprietary signalling. Then the busiest stations have to be re-excavated (since all metro stations are underground) to have their platforms widened to accommodate the increased congestion caused by people waiting.
So it's possible, but it'd just be very, very expensive. For the cost, you'd do better to just build parallel metro or LRT lines to alleviate the pressure.
|
Which is what Montreal has essentially done with the green and orange lines downtown. It just seems like it'd make more sense to not have two separate lines a couple blocks apart servicing essentially the same area when it could be on one tunnel and allow for easier transferring. Vancouver, Calgary, and Edmonton have this.
Anyways, what you're saying makes sense with the proprietary technology of the Metro and issues with transmitting location between trains, especially with how high frequency the metro is at peak hours. Berri-UQAM is nightmareish around 8am.
I just thought it was odd the duplication of green and orange in Downtown Montreal as well as how the yellow line is basically Montreal's stubway, when it could probably run alongside orange line to Laval.