# VT commits to extending Ethan Allen to Burlington by 2017



## afigg (Oct 26, 2012)

The link to this local news article was posted on several other rail forums yesterday, but I don't see the news here, so here goes. The gist of the story is that the state of Vermont is committed to extending the Ethan Allen northward to Burlington by 2017, regardless of whether they can get federal funding for the rest of the track and bridge upgrades that are needed. I think the writer of the article was not aware of the prospects of $20 million in federal funding from the Senator Jefford's earmark which has been on the books for some years. With $6 million allocated in the state budget, Vermont may have a large percentage in place for the estimated $35 to $45 million cost to upgrade the 68 miles of tracks and the right of way.

I would venture that Middlebury College would be willing to contribute funds for a Middlebury train station, because a train service to Albany, NYC, and the NEC would be a huge boon to the college.

Excerpts from the article:



> MIDDLEBURY — Vermont will proceed with sufficient rail improvements to re-establish passenger train traffic along its western corridor from Rutland through Middlebury to Burlington by 2017, and the state will proceed on that track regardless of the prospects for federal funding.
> That was the message on Tuesday from Chris Cole, the Policy, Planning and Intermodal Development director for the Vermont Agency of Transportation, known as VTrans.
> 
> ...
> ...


----------



## CHamilton (Oct 26, 2012)

That's excellent news. It's good to hear something semi-official, even though we know it's been talked about for some time. I spent my high school years in Burlington, and look forward to getting there by train.


----------



## MattW (Oct 26, 2012)

Would there be any benefit to extending the Ethan Allen past Burlington on towards St. Albans and terminating at the same place as the Vermonter? Admittedly, there wouldn't seem to be much if any scheduling advantage, but maybe a consolidation of terminal services involved in turning the train?


----------



## CHamilton (Oct 26, 2012)

MattW said:


> Would there be any benefit to extending the Vermonter past Burlington on towards St. Albans and terminating at the same place as the Vermonter? Admittedly, there wouldn't seem to be much if any scheduling advantage, but maybe a consolidation of terminal services involved in turning the train?


IIRC, the tracks from downtown Burlington toward Essex Junction, where the Vermonter passes on its way to St. Albans, aren't there any more. One such track was in the back yard of the house I lived in in my high-school days, but it's been turned into a trail. Even if it had been rail-banked, there would be a huge outcry from NIMBYs in the area, since no trains have gone that way for probably 75 years. My knowledge is out of date, so please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## MattW (Oct 26, 2012)

CHamilton said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > Would there be any benefit to extending the Vermonter past Burlington on towards St. Albans and terminating at the same place as the Vermonter? Admittedly, there wouldn't seem to be much if any scheduling advantage, but maybe a consolidation of terminal services involved in turning the train?
> ...


I don't know, I just went through Google Earth and I saw rails and ties still in place from Burlington through the Essex Junction wye. The imagery was taken on May 19, 2012. I'll of course defer to anyone with more recent ground-truth.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 26, 2012)

I found this map: http://www.vermontrailway.com/maps/files/vrs_route_map_back.pdf. Hope it helps.

It's good to see Vermont supporting passenger rail. I would like to see BOS-MTR soon.


----------



## Anderson (Oct 26, 2012)

I wonder what the timing, etc. would be on this. There's a part of me wondering what the track setup is at Essex Jct.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Oct 26, 2012)

Anderson said:


> I wonder what the timing, etc. would be on this. There's a part of me wondering what the track setup is at Essex Jct.


By timing, I'm assuming you mean the schedule. Actually, other than Fridays, when the Ethan Allen would leave Rutland for Burlington at 11:13PM, the existing schedule could work, as NB 291 would depart Rutland at 8:48PM, Sa-Th, and the M-F SB 290 is scheduled to depart Rutland at 8:00AM, with a Sat Dep. of 11:00AM and a Sun Dep of 5:05PM. While it would likely mean a 5:30-6:00AM Dep from Burlington for 290, but that is no worse than the NB Dep time of the new NFK service.


----------



## afigg (Oct 26, 2012)

MattW said:


> Would there be any benefit to extending the Vermonter _[Ethan Allen]_ past Burlington on towards St. Albans and terminating at the same place as the Vermonter? Admittedly, there wouldn't seem to be much if any scheduling advantage, but maybe a consolidation of terminal services involved in turning the train?


Several Vermont rail maps, including the one Swadian found, show an active NECR line from Essex Jct to the Vermont Rail System line at Burlington. Whether it is in acceptable condition or something that is occasionally used for equipment moves at 10 mph speeds or is active but hasn't been used in years, not a clue. I also don't know if VTrans is looking to run the Ethan Allen to Essex Jct or planning to terminate it at Burlington and store it there overnight. Extending the Ethan Allen to St. Albans would be a rather long move if there is storage at Burlington.

If the projected date is 2017, the odds are good that the Vermonter will be running to Montreal by then. With an early AM departure from MTR and a 9-10PM ish arrival in MTR. Southbound the Vermonter would arrive at ESX at 9+ AM. Would there be a market for having the Ethan Allen depart ESX - if there is space, connector tracks, etc - after the southbound Vermonter and arriving at ESX before the northbound Vermonter to provide connections from Middlebury & Rutland for trips to MTR? My guess is that while there would be some interest in it, it would mean a mid to late morning start for the Ethan Allen from ESX. Which on weekdays would put the Ethan Allen into NYP late in the day.

If the goal of the Ethan Allen is to provide direct service from Burlington-Rutland to NYC & connecting trains at NYP, then it should start from Burlington 7 to 8 AM on weekdays. The additional 68 miles with a max speed of 60 mph will likely add 90 minutes to the Ethan Allen schedule. Could have a bus service provide connections from Middlebury and downtown Burlington to the Vermonter at ESX for trips to MTR.

In the long term, the Ethan Allen should be a candidate for twice a day service if ridership grows enough to support it.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Oct 26, 2012)

afigg said:


> The additional 68 miles with a max speed of 60 mph will likely add 90 minutes to the Ethan Allen schedule.


That is the 35-45 million dollar question. What will operating tracks speeds be? Obviously the faster, the more $$$. So it will be a question of speed vs. available cash.

OTOH, Google maps, which I've found to be on the slow side under non-busy, dry road conditions, says it will take 1 hour, 46 minutes to drive the 66.8 miles between Burlington and Rutland, and 290's schedule claims it takes 1 hour, 37 minutes to go the 63 miles between Rutland and Saratoga Springs.


----------



## afigg (Oct 26, 2012)

The Davy Crockett said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > The additional 68 miles with a max speed of 60 mph will likely add 90 minutes to the Ethan Allen schedule.
> ...


The #290 Ethan Allen used to take 2 hours, 3 minutes from Rutland to Saratoga Springs before the track work in 2011. IIRC, the news reports were there was one remaining slow 5 mile segment with jointed rail on the VRS tracks to Rutland that was on the future fix list when funding could be found. So the 1:37 segment could be sped up, especially if NY state directs additional funds for upgrades to the CP tracks for the Adirondack service.

There is a cost study from several years ago for upgrading the Rutland-Burlington tracks to Class III 60 mph. How many stops would there be between Rutland and Burlington besides Middlebury? Probably 1 or 2 more. So 90 minutes for an extension to Burlington is probably too optimistic; maybe 100 minutes would be a better placeholder for schedule ideas. Because the Ethan Allen would be competing against a state road, not a separated 65-70 mph highway, a 60 mph max speed could be quite competitive to in-state driving times.


----------



## jis (Oct 26, 2012)

afigg said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > Would there be any benefit to extending the Vermonter _[Ethan Allen]_ past Burlington on towards St. Albans and terminating at the same place as the Vermonter? Admittedly, there wouldn't seem to be much if any scheduling advantage, but maybe a consolidation of terminal services involved in turning the train?
> ...


A quick look through Google satellite images suggest that the track from Burlington to Essex Jct is all in place and well ballasted except for a short segment in the vicinity of Burlington yard. There is a Wye at Essex Jct, just south of the Amtrak station where this line connects to the Vermonter route. It looks suspiciously like Burlington Yard is actually served out of Essex Jct.


----------



## transit54 (Oct 26, 2012)

jis said:


> A quick look through Google satellite images suggest that the track from Burlington to Essex Jct is all in place and well ballasted except for a short segment in the vicinity of Burlington yard. There is a Wye at Essex Jct, just south of the Amtrak station where this line connects to the Vermonter route. It looks suspiciously like Burlington Yard is actually served out of Essex Jct.


The line between Essex and Burlington is indeed active - I'm actually looking at it from my window right now!

It sees about 1-2 trains on an average weekday - a wood chip train from Swanton that services the McNeil generating station and a train that brings interchange traffic to the Vermont Rail System railyard in downtown (I believe this originates at the NECR railyard in St Albans). The track is not in great shape and I believe it is currently in "excepted" status, meaning that a passenger train could not currently operate on it. There is a tunnel under North Ave which was rehabbed in the not too distance past by

However, it's not a terribly long line, so it could be brought up to speed if needed. However, I see no benefit to sending the train to St Albans - St Albans generates very little of the Vermonter's ridership, so it wouldn't cover the extra cost. I wouldn't be surprised if it is actually cheaper to overnight the train in Burlington with the VRS. The only way I could imagine it being justifiable is if the train were to continue on to Montreal. Keep in mind, the VRS has a 99 year lease on the tracks from the State, but they are truly State owned, so the State has a degree of leverage with the VRS when getting favorable terms to make this all work.

I think the announcement is great news - I've known of the general plan for some time, but it's nice to hear that there's a date for completion. I was trying to make it down there for the event, but I just didn't manage to find the time.

The speed will need be 59 MPH on the Rutland - Burlington segment. The speed limit on Route 7 (which parallels the rail route) is 50 MPH, so this is actually car competitive, especially considering there are many lower speed sections where the road passes through towns. I can't drive to Rutland in much less than 90 minutes and that's doing 5-8 MPH over the limit most of the way.


----------



## CHamilton (Oct 26, 2012)

transit54 said:


> The line between Essex and Burlington is indeed active - I'm actually looking at it from my window right now!
> 
> It sees about 1-2 trains on an average weekday - a wood chip train from Swanton that services the McNeil generating station and a train that brings interchange traffic to the Vermont Rail System railyard in downtown (I believe this originates at the NECR railyard in St Albans). The track is not in great shape and I believe it is currently in "excepted" status, meaning that a passenger train could not currently operate on it.


Thanks so much for the clarification. I guess I was thinking of the line that goes through the North End of Burlington, which I believe no longer has tracks. That one is unlikely ever to see trains again, having been abandoned in 1961 or 2 (depending on which source you read).


----------



## Anderson (Oct 26, 2012)

transit54 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > A quick look through Google satellite images suggest that the track from Burlington to Essex Jct is all in place and well ballasted except for a short segment in the vicinity of Burlington yard. There is a Wye at Essex Jct, just south of the Amtrak station where this line connects to the Vermonter route. It looks suspiciously like Burlington Yard is actually served out of Essex Jct.
> ...


I see four potential benefits to extending the train to either St. Albans, or at least to Essex Jct:

1) Consolidating operations on turning. Basically, not having to put crews up in two separate locations so close to one another. I'm not sure what the benefit would be, but I'm guessing it would be greater than zero.

2) Enabling a transfer from an Ethan Allen to a Vermonter bound to Montreal. This falls under "network effect" in that it allows a number of rides with a transfer (and considering the short run, this might make at least _some_ sense).

3) Potentially just running the Ethan Allen through. This may sound silly, but bear with me: The Vermonter currently takes 7:30 NYP-Essex Junction. The Ethan Allen takes 5:35 NYP-Rutland. Adding 90 minutes to that is 7:05, adding another 30 minutes over the dubious track would get you to 7:35...basically the same amount of time. Figure 2:00 Essex Junction-Montreal (I've seen estimates of 90 minutes MTR-SAB, and SB the Vemonter takes 30 minutes SAB-Essex), and that's 9:35. _Basically_, the second routing would be potentially time-competitive with the Vermonter at the moment, though not with the Adirondack directly. This only really makes sense if you're already running the Vermonter to MTR, at which point you'd have three crew bases consolidated.

4) Running a "loop" train. A train turning south at Essex could do "double duty" in being both a second Vermonter (as far as Essex) and a second Ethan Allen. The train could rest at either NYP or Essex, but you could get two trains out of one set here. The Ethan Allen could _in theory_ do that, but I'm not sure if there's _quite_ enough room to do a restock-and-turn in the schedule on all days, and I would be genuinely shocked if you'd be able to pull a turn on all days with the extension.

Just wondering, but are there any plans in the works to improve the track from Fort Edward-Rutland? That section takes about 75-80 minutes for 44 miles of track. I'd think getting that under 60 minutes would be a nice goal alongside improvements between SDY and there (which would help the Adirondack).


----------



## transit54 (Oct 26, 2012)

Anderson said:


> I see four potential benefits to extending the train to either St. Albans, or at least to Essex Jct:
> 
> 1) Consolidating operations on turning. Basically, not having to put crews up in two separate locations so close to one another. I'm not sure what the benefit would be, but I'm guessing it would be greater than zero.


The only benefits that I can think of would be a reduction in cost for cleaning/servicing crews for the train. And the cost of overnight lodging for the crew is probably less than Burlington. However, keep in mind that one the MTR link comes online, there won't be a train in SAB overnight, eliminating any benefits. This will happen around the same time (2017), IIRC.



> 2) Enabling a transfer from an Ethan Allen to a Vermonter bound to Montreal. This falls under "network effect" in that it allows a number of rides with a transfer (and considering the short run, this might make at least _some_ sense).


Potentially, yes. However I think the larger focus will be varying the timing between the two trains to stagger them for the Burlington area. That way there is, in essence, two arrivals and departures at different times to choose from. A cheaper way to offer the connection is just run a bus bridge between the two stations. This would also allow passengers to spend more of their time at Burlington Union Station (a much, much nicer facility than what is in Essex Jct), there's also plenty to do and eat in the vicinity of the Burlington station.



> 3) Potentially just running the Ethan Allen through. This may sound silly, but bear with me: The Vermonter currently takes 7:30 NYP-Essex Junction. The Ethan Allen takes 5:35 NYP-Rutland. Adding 90 minutes to that is 7:05, adding another 30 minutes over the dubious track would get you to 7:35...basically the same amount of time. Figure 2:00 Essex Junction-Montreal (I've seen estimates of 90 minutes MTR-SAB, and SB the Vemonter takes 30 minutes SAB-Essex), and that's 9:35. _Basically_, the second routing would be potentially time-competitive with the Vermonter at the moment, though not with the Adirondack directly. This only really makes sense if you're already running the Vermonter to MTR, at which point you'd have three crew bases consolidated.
> 
> 4) Running a "loop" train. A train turning south at Essex could do "double duty" in being both a second Vermonter (as far as Essex) and a second Ethan Allen. The train could rest at either NYP or Essex, but you could get two trains out of one set here. The Ethan Allen could _in theory_ do that, but I'm not sure if there's _quite_ enough room to do a restock-and-turn in the schedule on all days, and I would be genuinely shocked if you'd be able to pull a turn on all days with the extension.


Both really interesting concepts. I could certainly see one of those happening, but as sort of another phase of rail improvements after the extension work is done. I think initially it will terminate in Burlington.



> Just wondering, but are there any plans in the works to improve the track from Fort Edward-Rutland? That section takes about 75-80 minutes for 44 miles of track. I'd think getting that under 60 minutes would be a nice goal alongside improvements between SDY and there (which would help the Adirondack).


They did work on this segment earlier this year, and I do believe there are plans to do more. I can't think of the specifics off the top of my head, but it is absolutely on the State's radar.


----------



## transit54 (Oct 26, 2012)

CHamilton said:


> Thanks so much for the clarification. I guess I was thinking of the line that goes through the North End of Burlington, which I believe no longer has tracks. That one is unlikely ever to see trains again, having been abandoned in 1961 or 2 (depending on which source you read).


Yes, that has become the much beloved Waterfront Bike Path/Island Line trail. I really doubt that would ever come back. At this point it just makes much more sense to run everything over the NECR.


----------



## afigg (Oct 26, 2012)

Anderson said:


> I see four potential benefits to extending the train to either St. Albans, or at least to Essex Jct:
> 
> 1) Consolidating operations on turning. Basically, not having to put crews up in two separate locations so close to one another. I'm not sure what the benefit would be, but I'm guessing it would be greater than zero.
> 
> ...


The current Vermonter NYP-ESX trip time is around 9:24 (faster northbound). Were you thinking what the projected trip time would be after the improvements in VT, MA, CT? Which would get to around 7:45, baring additional improvements such as upgrades to 79 mph speeds north of White River Jct.

With the track and signal upgrades between Poughkeepsie - Schenectady and the 2nd track bypass at Ballston Spa, the Ethan Allen should get some trip time improvement in the next several years. The extension to Burlington cost esimates may include more track replacement to the Vermont Rail tracks from Rutland to the CP connection. We can only make guess estimates as to the trip time from Rutland if the Ethan Allen were to be extended all the way to Essex Jct. Even if it is a slow segment from Burlington to ESX, the Ethan Allen should be faster to NYP from ESX than the Vermonter route as it is a more direct route. But trying to have the Ethan Allen connect to the Vermonter at ESX really messes up the schedule flexibility for the Ethan Allen.

As for improvements on the CP tracks north of Schenectady, I've mentioned before in an Adirondack thread that one of the applications NY state submitted for the HSIPR grants was for $23 million for track and signal upgrades to 79 mph Class IV tracks from SDY to Whitehall and Plattsburgh to Rouses Point. The application included building a side track for a customs facility at Rouses Point, so a upgrade to 79 mph for SDY to Whitehall should be markedly less than $23 million.

What should be noted about these 2 trains is that they should see some of largest trip time reductions among all the current Amtrak trains, mostly because of the HSIPR projects in other states: NY, MA, CT which are looking to improve service in their own states.


----------



## Nathanael (Oct 26, 2012)

CHamilton said:


> IIRC, the tracks from downtown Burlington toward Essex Junction, where the Vermonter passes on its way to St. Albans, aren't there any more.


I have definitely seen versions of the plans which would continue from Burlington to Essex Junction, and the route is at least railbanked if not reinstated.

The catch is that the tracks approach the wrong way to continue to Montreal. The trains would probably terminate at Essex Junction and ask people to change trains to continue to Montreal, at least in all the proposals I've seen so far.

The current plans have the Vermonter extended to Montreal *before* 2017. If the preclearance platform is actually built at Montreal, only one train can be present at a time (under current plans). The Vermonter and Adirondack's schedules can be kept far enough away from each other to do this, but I'm not sure the Ethan Allen could *also* be kept far enough away from *both* of the other trains.


----------



## MattW (Oct 27, 2012)

Actually, it appears from Google imagery that there is a western leg to the Essex Junction wye that if not serviceable has at least not been encroached on could be used to send trains from Burlington to Essex Junction station or Montreal.


----------



## Anderson (Oct 27, 2012)

transit54 said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > I see four potential benefits to extending the train to either St. Albans, or at least to Essex Jct:
> ...


It hit me while I was out this evening, but a big advantage of consolidating all three trains to MTR is that Amtrak might be able to get a commissary running at MTR. Granted, this would have issues with all of the horse manure that you get with food inspections there (California's inspections make more sense than the ones at the US/CA border when you get down to it), this would relieve a lot of the food-runs-out issues on the Adirondack at peak season (where the "entree" [salad/sandwich] selection on the way back can get pretty thin while you're still passing Lake Champlain). A commissary for one train makes no sense, I would agree, but for 3-4 trains it does.

And yes, I agree that these are definitely "next stage" ideas. In this vein, I'm also wondering how much time improvement you can get on the Vermont routes. I know we're getting mentions of 7:45 on the Vermonter in this thread, and 8:00 or so on the Adirondack when Alan and I talked on the Adirondack back in August. If I get an idea of what timetable goals exist, I can also get an idea of what can be done with the MTR facility and timing spacing. Frankly, though, if you get a train in from BOS in addition to the other two, there's a respectable chance that you'll need a larger facility no matter what.


----------



## jis (Oct 27, 2012)

Anderson said:


> I see four potential benefits to extending the train to either St. Albans, or at least to Essex Jct:
> 
> 1) Consolidating operations on turning. Basically, not having to put crews up in two separate locations so close to one another. I'm not sure what the benefit would be, but I'm guessing it would be greater than zero.


I think that is solving a non-existent problem. The crews just turn if necessary and tie up the train and go off to their hotel. I have actually shared a taxi with them once at St. Albans, when I was the only arriving passenger on the train! Next morning they come back using that same apparently one taxi in St. Albans and get the train ready to go. Not much servicing of the train other than that.



> 2) Enabling a transfer from an Ethan Allen to a Vermonter bound to Montreal. This falls under "network effect" in that it allows a number of rides with a transfer (and considering the short run, this might make at least _some_ sense).


That could be a legitimate positive.



> 3) Potentially just running the Ethan Allen through. This may sound silly, but bear with me: The Vermonter currently takes 7:30 NYP-Essex Junction. The Ethan Allen takes 5:35 NYP-Rutland. Adding 90 minutes to that is 7:05, adding another 30 minutes over the dubious track would get you to 7:35...basically the same amount of time. Figure 2:00 Essex Junction-Montreal (I've seen estimates of 90 minutes MTR-SAB, and SB the Vemonter takes 30 minutes SAB-Essex), and that's 9:35. _Basically_, the second routing would be potentially time-competitive with the Vermonter at the moment, though not with the Adirondack directly. This only really makes sense if you're already running the Vermonter to MTR, at which point you'd have three crew bases consolidated.


None of those trains have a "crew base" at the out station, and don't have any reason to have a crew base, so there are no crew bases to consolidate.

Also remember that at Montreal no two trains can arrive or depart within one hour of each other since there will be only a single platform with C&I facility

BTW, when the Montrealer ran it was given 2hrs MTR to SAB. To get to 90mins will require significant - very significant track improvement in Canada and VT.

I doubt that I will see two trains from VT run to Montreal. Remember one of the catches in extending the Vermonter to Montreal which is yet to be resolved is the exorbitant charge that CN proposes to impose on it, including possibly requiring CN crew to handle the train from SAB to MTR. Since it will be a new operation it is not covered by the agreement that covers the Adirondack.



> 4) Running a "loop" train. A train turning south at Essex could do "double duty" in being both a second Vermonter (as far as Essex) and a second Ethan Allen. The train could rest at either NYP or Essex, but you could get two trains out of one set here. The Ethan Allen could _in theory_ do that, but I'm not sure if there's _quite_ enough room to do a restock-and-turn in the schedule on all days, and I would be genuinely shocked if you'd be able to pull a turn on all days with the extension.


A not insurmountable fly in the ointment of that plan is that said loop train will not be able to stop at Essex Jct. station without a backup move or without reversing direction there, since it is north of the wye.



> Just wondering, but are there any plans in the works to improve the track from Fort Edward-Rutland? That section takes about 75-80 minutes for 44 miles of track. I'd think getting that under 60 minutes would be a nice goal alongside improvements between SDY and there (which would help the Adirondack).


The problem is mostly the track between Whitehall Jct (which is south of Whitehall station) and Rutland, which the Ethan Allen does not share with the Adirondack.


----------



## jis (Oct 27, 2012)

Anderson said:


> It hit me while I was out this evening, but a big advantage of consolidating all three trains to MTR is that Amtrak might be able to get a commissary running at MTR. Granted, this would have issues with all of the horse manure that you get with food inspections there (California's inspections make more sense than the ones at the US/CA border when you get down to it), this would relieve a lot of the food-runs-out issues on the Adirondack at peak season (where the "entree" [salad/sandwich] selection on the way back can get pretty thin while you're still passing Lake Champlain). A commissary for one train makes no sense, I would agree, but for 3-4 trains it does.


Surely you jest. Amtrak saw it fit to decommission food service and the commissary in Albany even with 8 trains per day, and you think they will open a commissary in a different country for three trains? As I alluded to earlier none of these trains will be in the black for various reasons in a long long time, if ever, so it is unlikely that an expensive commissary operation will be spun up for them, when a much closer to black NYP - ALB service does not have a commissary in Albany. The commissary solution might just be adding baggage cars and putting two refrigerated storage units in them and carry extra stock from the New York Commissary, if it comes to that.



> And yes, I agree that these are definitely "next stage" ideas. In this vein, I'm also wondering how much time improvement you can get on the Vermont routes. I know we're getting mentions of 7:45 on the Vermonter in this thread, and 8:00 or so on the Adirondack when Alan and I talked on the Adirondack back in August. If I get an idea of what timetable goals exist, I can also get an idea of what can be done with the MTR facility and timing spacing. Frankly, though, if you get a train in from BOS in addition to the other two, there's a respectable chance that you'll need a larger facility no matter what.


I have heard a goal of 8 for the Adirondack, but that is many moons away, and it also involved moving the train to the much faster CP between Rouses Point and Montreal, which now appears to be dead. So maybe it is closer to 8:30 to 9 now, since the CN route which meanders through people's back yards, figuratively speaking will not likely ever be as fast as the CP route.

BTW, one intriguing idea that has been floated around is to run an overnight train NYP to MTR via Rutland, Burlington timed so as to depart Burlington in the morning and get into MTR before noon and depart MTR in the evening getting through Burlington late evening and Rutland around midnight. It can dither around Albany for a while to arrive (and depart) NYP at a reasonable hour. Of course it will carry Sleepers and even spring for a Cardinal style Diner/Lounge perhaps. This would make a day trip possible from Rutland and Burlington to MTR, as well as a convenient overnighter from New York. OTOH it misses the Ski crowd from MTR if there is such.

Then the Vermonter can pretty much run on its current schedule but to Burlington instead of to SAB, where hardly anyone goes to anyway. Naturally the overnight train would probably have to be in addition to a daytime Ethan Allen. Thought I'd throw this into the pot since we are brainstorming ideas.


----------



## transit54 (Oct 27, 2012)

jis said:


> BTW, one intriguing idea that has been floated around is to run an overnight train NYP to MTR via Rutland, Burlington timed so as to depart Burlington in the morning and get into MTR before noon and depart MTR in the evening getting through Burlington late evening and Rutland around midnight. It can dither around Albany for a while to arrive (and depart) NYP at a reasonable hour. Of course it will carry Sleepers and even spring for a Cardinal style Diner/Lounge perhaps. This would make a day trip possible from Rutland and Burlington to MTR, as well as a convenient overnighter from New York. OTOH it misses the Ski crowd from MTR if there is such.
> 
> Then the Vermonter can pretty much run on its current schedule but to Burlington instead of to SAB, where hardly anyone goes to anyway. Naturally the overnight train would probably have to be in addition to a daytime Ethan Allen. Thought I'd throw this into the pot since we are brainstorming ideas.


This would be an absolutely wonderful service, but I really doubt that it would see the light of day in the next 10 years or so. And NYP-MTR just seems to be a little short for an overnight run. I think you'd really have to do WAS-MTR to make it worthwhile. I also cannot imagine this existing without a MTR-NYP day trip option via VT.

I don't think there's a huge ski crowd from MTR. Jay Peak is very popular with Canadians and St Albans is the closest stop to there. But they'd just as soon take a day trip into St Albans. It's still quite a haul from St Albans.


----------



## Anderson (Oct 27, 2012)

On the one hand, I didn't jest on the commissary front. On the other hand, I would counter that with the NYP-ALB only trains not having food service (and NYP-ALB-NYP not likely being a long enough run not to be workable on a single food order out of NYP), and with the others only potentially being topped up for the last two hours of a run, a commissary at ALB would be somewhat redundant. On the other hand, one at Buffalo would _actually_ make sense, even with "only" four trains.

With that said, I like the "fridge car" idea, and indeed that idea would probably be a good one for more than a few of the longer trains out there.

I do _really_ like the idea of running an overnight train NYP-MTR via Rutland...but that really falls back to liking the idea of an overnight train NYP-MTR whatever the route.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Oct 27, 2012)

transit54 said:


> I think you'd really have to do WAS-MTR to make it worthwhile.


This service is something everyone south of NYP misses, as getting to Canada from points south of NYP requires either an overnight stay in NYC or points north, or spending some quality time in NYP in the deadest part of the night.



> I don't think there's a huge ski crowd from MTR. Jay Peak is very popular with Canadians and St Albans is the closest stop to there. But they'd just as soon take a day trip into St Albans. It's still quite a haul from St Albans.


I went to school in VT's Northeast Kingdom for a year a while ago.. At that time the Quebecois went to Stowe in fairly large numbers, not sure if they still do, but IMHO it would not be very practical for them to take the train to any place in VT for skiing other than Waterbury, then getting a shuttle to Stowe, etc., but that would be too indirect and take too much time vs. driving.


----------



## Anderson (Oct 27, 2012)

The Davy Crockett said:


> transit54 said:
> 
> 
> > I think you'd really have to do WAS-MTR to make it worthwhile.
> ...


Well, from WAS you can get in on the 4-ish AM Regional or the 5 AM Acela, but it's a nerve-wracking connection. Coming in from elsewhere, though, you're right...and I _hate_ having to hoof it to WAS.


----------



## afigg (Oct 27, 2012)

jis said:


> BTW, one intriguing idea that has been floated around is to run an overnight train NYP to MTR via Rutland, Burlington timed so as to depart Burlington in the morning and get into MTR before noon and depart MTR in the evening getting through Burlington late evening and Rutland around midnight. It can dither around Albany for a while to arrive (and depart) NYP at a reasonable hour. Of course it will carry Sleepers and even spring for a Cardinal style Diner/Lounge perhaps. This would make a day trip possible from Rutland and Burlington to MTR, as well as a convenient overnighter from New York. OTOH it misses the Ski crowd from MTR if there is such.
> 
> Then the Vermonter can pretty much run on its current schedule but to Burlington instead of to SAB, where hardly anyone goes to anyway. Naturally the overnight train would probably have to be in addition to a daytime Ethan Allen. Thought I'd throw this into the pot since we are brainstorming ideas.


You would do this in place of a (daytime) Vermonter that runs to MTR? A Vermonter to MTR provides direct access to MTR for Stamford and the central New England axis from NHV to western VT. If you cut off the Vermonter at Burlington and extend a Rutland-Burlington route train north to MTR, unless there is a BOS-MTR train as well, most of New England loses access to MTR. MA, CT have a stake in the Vermonter getting extended to MTR so their citizens can travel to MTR. If a BOS-MTR train does not happen, day trips to MTR from BOS should be feasible by scheduling an Inland Route Regional to provide connections at SPG to the Vermonter to MTR.

Honestly, some of the ideas we're posting here, are not just counting chickens before the eggs hatch, but counting them before the eggs are even laid.  The focus for the next few years on the projects that are not fully funded should be: 1) getting the customs facility open in MTR, 2) for VT and NY to work with the Quebec government and CN to persuade them to make track and switch improvements north of the border; 3) extend the Vermonter to MTR with a faster trip time than the Montrealer ever had; 4) extend the Ethan Allen to Burlington with a competitive trip time; 5) for CT to find the additional funds to complete NHV-SPG track upgrades for a 110 mph corridor; 6) for MA to complete studies and start on projects for BOS-WOR-SPG track upgrades; 7) add several Inland Route Regionals to the schedule for much improved train options for trips to/from SPG, WOR (not small population centers for New England you know). Oh, for fun, start a Brunswick ME to BON to NYP daily train over the Grand Crossing and the Inland Route to take the place of the planned 3rd Inland Route Regional.

Get all those done along with a 3 hour NYP-BOS Acela trip time, New England has a pretty solid foundation to build additional train service and all sorts of connection options on. Easy. :lol:


----------



## jis (Oct 27, 2012)

Oh I actually do not believe much of any of this will actually happen. We will be lucky if Vermonter actually gets extended to Montreal within the next ten years.  I have no problem with throwing out random ideas of things that would be nice to have.

Even for moving C&I to Montreal, the only thing that has been done is the basic architectural framework. The rest it is currently on hold pending finalization of US - Canada treaty and passage of that in both US Congress and Canadian Parliament. If this happens by mid next year then necessary contracts can be let and construction can begin in late 2013 if lucky or later, which is more likely. So even though people are saying 2014, I will be very pleasantly surprised if it happens by 2015. And of course if one certain candidate wins then he will have to explain to his followers why he is signing a bill that extends Amtrak Service when he promised that he will kill Amtrak. So much uncertainty involved.


----------



## afigg (Oct 27, 2012)

The Davy Crockett said:


> transit54 said:
> 
> 
> > I think you'd really have to do WAS-MTR to make it worthwhile.
> ...


If the Adirondack trip times can be improved, close to what they once were, the departure time from NYP can be moved to allow for better connections from south of NYP. I pulled several old Amtrak Adirondack schedules from the Museum of Railway Timetables when we were having the NY state HSR and Adirondack discussion.

In 1988, the Adirondack departed Grand Central at 10:45 AM daily, scheduled to arrive at MTR at 8:01 PM. There is a reference to a shuttle service departing NYP at 10 AM. Must have been fun. In 1993, after the train moved to NYP, #69 departed NYP at 10:25 AM, scheduled to arrive MTR at 8:05 PM. If a custom facility is built at MTR and other improvements allow for a 9 to 9.5 hour trip time, Amtrak would probably move the Adirondack departure to 9:30 AM or later to allow for better connections from PHL-WAS & HAR. On the other hand, a Vermonter to MTR also provides that for WAS to PHL.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 29, 2012)

Anderson said:


> On the one hand, I didn't jest on the commissary front. On the other hand, I would counter that with the NYP-ALB only trains not having food service (and NYP-ALB-NYP not likely being a long enough run not to be workable on a single food order out of NYP), and with the others only potentially being topped up for the last two hours of a run, a commissary at ALB would be somewhat redundant. On the other hand, one at Buffalo would _actually_ make sense, even with "only" four trains.
> 
> With that said, I like the "fridge car" idea, and indeed that idea would probably be a good one for more than a few of the longer trains out there.


There is simply no need for a horribly expensive commissary in Montreal, much less a couple of fridges in the baggage car. The trains aren't running out of food because they can't carry enough food; they're running out of food because they're not being properly stocked. Period.

If my Maple Leaf could carry enough food not to run out of food until after Albany on the return on a very busy weekend with sold out crowds, as well as the requirement to have at least 1 fridge & 1 freezer empty by NFL for the VIA Rail crew, then clearly the cafe cars have the storage needed to actually carry enough food for the round trip on the Adirondack.

The problem isn't a lack of a commissary in Canada; the problem is a failure to properly stock those cars with enough food to last for the round trip.


----------



## afigg (Jan 31, 2013)

Update on the prospects of Ethan Allen getting extended to Burlington by 2017: Improved. Governor Shumlin has in the proposed 2014 state budget $5 million to replace rail, switches for fixing up part of the tracks from Rutland to Burlington. Going to fund the upgrades year by year until done.

Railway Age article on the Govenor's budget proposal.

Rutland Herald article "Governor pushes western rail funding"

Excerpt from the Rutland Herald article:



> “What’s most important is the governor has put this in his budget,” said Rep. Herb Russell, D-Rutland City. “There are places — clean water, for example — Chairman (David) Deen (of the Fish and Wildlife Committee) was furious he didn’t get all the money he wanted for clean water. Rail is clearly a priority for this administration.”


----------



## Donctor (Feb 1, 2013)

transit54 said:


> The line between Essex and Burlington is indeed active - I'm actually looking at it from my window right now!
> 
> It sees about 1-2 trains on an average weekday - a wood chip train from Swanton that services the McNeil generating station and a train that brings interchange traffic to the Vermont Rail System railyard in downtown (I believe this originates at the NECR railyard in St Albans). The track is not in great shape and I believe it is currently in "excepted" status, meaning that a passenger train could not currently operate on it. There is a tunnel under North Ave which was rehabbed in the not too distance past by


I hear them from my house, and can see them if I cross the street.

It would be nice to have an Amtrak service nearby. Hopefully they'll use the station downtown.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Feb 1, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> I found this map: http://www.vermontrailway.com/maps/files/vrs_route_map_back.pdf. Hope it helps.


Wow, the VRS owns/operates that orphaned trackage over in the Odgensburg/Madrid/Norwood area of NY? How did that happen? Did they win it in a poker game or something? :giggle:


----------



## Ispolkom (Feb 1, 2013)

Isn't the New York track part of the old Rutland Railroad?


----------



## jphjaxfl (Feb 1, 2013)

Ispolkom said:


> Isn't the New York track part of the old Rutland Railroad?


Yes, the Rutland Railroad which is what will used between Rutland and Burlington, VT had trackage in New York and their trains to Vermont operated on that trackage prior to the 1950s when they were discontinued. The Rutland was bankrupt and filed for abandonment in 1961. The state of Vermont bought up parts of the railroad.


----------



## Cats (Mar 14, 2013)

Several years ago, the VTRR tracks between Charlotte and Burlington were upgraded and a VTRR commuter train was tried. It failed miserably and was pulled even before the end of the federally-sponsored trial period. As far as I know, there is now a "fast" VTRR freight line. If the State of VT can't find better uses for it's taxpayers' dollars, it ought to try to think harder.


----------



## transit54 (Mar 14, 2013)

Cats said:


> Several years ago, the VTRR tracks between Charlotte and Burlington were upgraded and a VTRR commuter train was tried. It failed miserably and was pulled even before the end of the federally-sponsored trial period. As far as I know, there is now a "fast" VTRR freight line. If the State of VT can't find better uses for it's taxpayers' dollars, it ought to try to think harder.


While I wasn't living here at the time, I believe there were some politics involved in pulling the service. Namely, it was one of Gov Jim Douglas's first moves upon arriving in office. The problem with the train is that it went between Burlington and Charlotte. Had they run the train to Middlebury, it would have been a success. Montpelier, even more so (although that's a different line). It's not that taxpayer dollars were wasted, it's that not enough were invested to make the service a success. However, rest assured that those improvements are helping the Ethan Allen extension.


----------



## CHamilton (Jun 10, 2014)

At Issue: Rail Travel's Future in Vermont


> BURLINGTON, Vt. -
> The state is getting ready to spend millions of dollars upgrading the railroad tracks between Rutland and Burlington with the goal of bringing passenger service to that region. But is rail travel worth the investment in Vermont?
> 
> Last year, ridership on Amtrak was up four percent according to federal officials. More than 137,000 riders used the rail service. Of that, about 81,000 took the Vermonter line up the Connecticut River Valley to St. Albans, and 53,000 took the Ethan Allen Express from Rutland to New York.
> ...


----------



## Ryan (Jun 10, 2014)

GO HOKIES!!!

Oh.

Different VT, right?


----------



## FreeskierInVT (Jun 12, 2014)

Any update on when Ethan Allen service to Burlington might start up? The WCAX story didn't mention any concrete dates, and quite frankly I didn't like the "tone" of the article. All I got was "High Speed Rail" or it's simply not worth it, but what is "High Speed Rail" to the UVM Transportation Research Center?


----------



## Anderson (Jun 12, 2014)

The article is curious insofar as it is...well, it seems slightly hostile to current plans, but I think that is more a case of a reporter sitting down with someone without a lot of facts. Oops.

As to "high speed rail", that is such a muddled term in the US that it isn't even funny. I could interpret those comments as either wanting a 220 MPH train or simply wanting something that _doesn't_ average 20 MPH for hours and hours. Honestly, it probably "actually" means:
(A) Upgrade tracks into the 79-90 MPH range wherever possible to at least get decent 40-50 MPH average speeds; and

(B) Don't take two hours to get into Montreal from the border.


----------



## afigg (Jun 12, 2014)

FreeskierInVT said:


> Any update on when Ethan Allen service to Burlington might start up? The WCAX story didn't mention any concrete dates, and quite frankly I didn't like the "tone" of the article. All I got was "High Speed Rail" or it's simply not worth it, but what is "High Speed Rail" to the UVM Transportation Research Center?


The goal in Vermont was 2017 for extending the Ethan Allen to Burlington. The state in the FY2015 transportation bill that was recently signed by the Governor provides a total of $19 million for the western rail corridor. Governor Shumlin's press release. As the language in the press release lists state matching funds for federal grants, the $19 million number likely includes the federal TIGER grant funds. So there is support and funds to extend the Ethan Allen and the western corridor track upgrades to 60 mph track may be completed by 2017, but extending the EA will also require stations to be built or restored. Building or restoring stations can be a slow process.


----------



## neroden (Jun 12, 2014)

The funding picture is a bit murky. I believe the $19 million does *not* include proposed federal money, but does include state money which is intended to be the state match for federal money; so if Vermont gets the TIGER grant, the total will be more than $19 million.

This is going directly to trackwork; the line from Rutland to Charlotte has needed a LOT of work, including culvert and bridge replacements. The Middlebury tunnel is already fully funded and under construction, but there are a number of other smaller bridges and culverts to replace (including some with hurricane damage), and a bunch of grade crossings. And there's a lot of track replacement to do. (North of Charlotte this work was done for the Champlain Flyer and is still usable.)

As for stations, Burlington is in fine condition and can probably be reopened; even though a new platform would be desirable, it probably qualifies as an existing train station (it's used for excursion service) and doesn't need one immediately. Even when it does need one, I'm thinking it'll be in the $1-2 million range, since it's only the platform which is needed. Since the line is owned by the state, the freight hauler isn't going to raise spurious objections to high platforms the way the class Is do.

Middlebury will need to have a station built from scratch pretty much. I'm expecting a bare platform, again $1-2 million.

That's it for stations; the plan is to open with just Middlebury and Burlington if that's all they have funding for, other stations are considered bonus.


----------



## FreeskierInVT (Jun 12, 2014)

What about the station in Charlotte that was built for the Champlain Flyer service? From the pictures I've seen, it would work fine as an Amtrak station. Pictures of both Charlotte and Burlington are here


----------



## Donctor (Jun 12, 2014)

neroden said:


> As for stations, Burlington is in fine condition and can probably be reopened; even though a new platform would be desirable, it probably qualifies as an existing train station (it's used for excursion service) and doesn't need one immediately. Even when it does need one, I'm thinking it'll be in the $1-2 million range, since it's only the platform which is needed. Since the line is owned by the state, the freight hauler isn't going to raise spurious objections to high platforms the way the class Is do.



The platform is currently part of the bike path.


----------



## FreeskierInVT (Jun 13, 2014)

Donctor said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > As for stations, Burlington is in fine condition and can probably be reopened; even though a new platform would be desirable, it probably qualifies as an existing train station (it's used for excursion service) and doesn't need one immediately. Even when it does need one, I'm thinking it'll be in the $1-2 million range, since it's only the platform which is needed. Since the line is owned by the state, the freight hauler isn't going to raise spurious objections to high platforms the way the class Is do.
> ...


The platform is part of the bike path, however it does have a canopy and yellow safety strip which were installed for the Champlain Flyer service.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jun 14, 2014)

Donctor said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > As for stations, Burlington is in fine condition and . . . only the platform which is needed.
> ...


OMG. Imagine the congestion . . .

twice a day for about 5 or 10 minutes maximum. 

Guess they'll have to find another way for bikers to

get around the station for those crowded times.


----------



## FreeskierInVT (Jun 14, 2014)

I can't imagine it being a problem, the bike path is plenty wide at that point (perhaps the widest along the entire path). Enough to accommodate bike path traffic and a boarding or alighting train.


----------



## CHamilton (Jul 27, 2014)

A pretty detailed article on Vermont's passenger rail plans.

Burlington-Rutland Passenger Rail Line Coming


----------



## neroden (Jul 28, 2014)

Good article.

Apparently the funded Middlebury Tunnel alone is going to take until 2017 to finish construction, so it can't happen faster than that.

Here's hoping that the other necessary improvements to the Burlington-Rutland line get funded and happen on schedule to allow for opening by 2017.

Looking at the "funded 2015" plan and the existing state of things the VTrans webpages, it looks like most of the rail replacement (except for two short segments north and south of Middlebury) will be done by the end of 2015. It also looks like a lot of the bridge and grade crossing work will be done, though it's really hard for me to tell how much will still be left to be done. I would expect the rest of it to be done in 2016.

There's also station construction. Which would just mean platform construction at Middlebury, and possibly reconstruction at Burlington. Both could go pretty fast given that the state owns the rails, but they need to be funded.


----------



## FreeskierInVT (Jul 29, 2014)

Great to hear of some progress being made. I'm still surprised (see my post above) that Charlotte isn't mentioned as a future station stop. A platform, parking lot and station "building" were all constructed for the Champlain Flyer service; it would seem like a waste to not stop there.


----------



## neroden (Jul 30, 2014)

Well, Vermont hasn't even scraped together money to start doing an EIS for a station in Middlebury, even though the state keeps swearing that they're going to have one. So once they get around to talking about stations, the station in Charlotte may become part of the plans again.


----------



## JayMadison (Jul 30, 2014)

I hope they do extend the line, burlington is a great city and traveling out there again would be a lot of fun.


----------



## mlhughes0522 (Jul 30, 2014)

That would great but also add train on Vermonter line like

55/57 SAINT ALBANS 7:00a SPF 1:00p was 7:00p

256 SPF 7:00a SAINT ALBANS 1:00p

56/54 WAS 8:00a SPF 3:15p SAINT ALBANS 9:00p

255 SAINT ALBANS 3:00p SPF 9:00p


----------



## Peter (Aug 15, 2014)

middlebury can always be added on later, the real passenger demand will be from Burlington to NYC. Travel times to NYC will still be longer than driving but will offer a reasonable alternative.

I think 2x daily would really help to increase demand. I have wanted to take the ethan allen a ton of times but one of the directions the time always is wrong. Will be great to offer a morning and early evening options.

I see absolutely no reason to extend a foot past Burlington. The demand will be from NYC to Burlington. Passengers from NYC to Montreal will be via the adirondak the NYers want it to stay in NY. once they do customs in montreal instead of actually stopping it will be a huge boost.

Its good to actually see 2 states caring about making rail service realistic even if they happen to be next to each other. I just wish there was support for improving trains in other areas of the country. We dont need high speed rail we need to improve the slow areas which we have just so many of.


----------



## jis (Aug 15, 2014)

mlhughes0522 said:


> That would great but also add train on Vermonter line like
> 
> 55/57 SAINT ALBANS 7:00a SPF 1:00p was 7:00p
> 
> ...


If there are facilities available in Burlington to service and turn trains, then why not run those trains to Burlingon instead of St. Albans. There is neither ridership, nor much else other than a convenient wye and a parking siding for turning the train at St. Albans. The track from Essex Jct. to Burlington will need a little fixing up admittedly. They could just run a Thurway van to St. Albans from Essex Jct. if desired to take care of the half a dozen passengers.


----------



## CHamilton (Sep 17, 2014)

Vermont rail upgrade grant rejected by feds


> MONTPELIER – A Vermont Transportation Agency official said Monday he was disappointed the state didn't get a federal grant that would have helped complete an upgrade to the rail system between Rutland and Burlington, but officials remain committed to restoring passenger rail service to the route.
> The agency learned last week that their application for a transportation infrastructure grant of almost $10 million was rejected.
> 
> Chris Cole, the agency's director of policy, planning and intermodal development, said they hadn't learned yet why the application was rejected.
> ...


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Sep 17, 2014)

CHamilton said:


> Vermont rail upgrade grant rejected by feds
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think the decision had anything to do with the worthiness of this application. This was simply NOT the year for any Amtrak projects. I'm assuming that politics drove THAT decision. (It wasn't a coincidence.)

Perhaps the feeling was that with the House Transportation Committee moving the furniture on the Amtrak funding, that throwing TIGER into that soup would not have been productive. Also, denying hundreds of good applications reminds Congress that TIGER is seriously underfunded, and they need to put more money into the pot if they want stuff out of the pot for their districts. So maybe next year.


----------



## afigg (Sep 17, 2014)

> The agency learned last week that their application for a transportation infrastructure grant of almost $10 million was rejected.
> 
> Chris Cole, the agency's director of policy, planning and intermodal development, said they hadn't learned yet why the application was rejected.


"Rejected" is too strong a word in this case. There were $9.5 billion in requests for a total of $600 million in funds. it should be regarded as simply not getting selected this year. VT was one of 4 states that did not get a TIGER grant this year. It may have been that since VT passenger rail received TIGER grants in the past 2 years, it got passed over this year because of the political need to spread the grants around.

Since VT has lined up the funds to fix up most of the tracks between Rutland and Burlington and only needs around $10 million to complete the work, the state DOT might be able to find other ways to fund completion the track work. Maybe federal CMAQ money, state pays for the remaining work itself by extending the project into another state budget year cycle. Or if the current track segment projects don't use up their contingency funds, carry the leftover funds forward and use them to replace/repair as many miles of remaining track as the funds allow. Also if the TIGER program survives reasonably intact in the FY15 appropriations, VT can try again next year.


----------



## CHamilton (Jul 8, 2015)

A post on the Amtrak Vermonter Facebook group linked to a 6/19/2015 draft of the _Vermont State Rail Plan - 2015_. Lots of fascinating stuff in the plan, including this discussion of extending the Ethan Allen to Burlington (3.2.1, p. 93):



> Since 2012 the State of Vermont has been working on projects to prepare rail, stations, grade crossings, and bridges between Rutland and Burlington. These projects have utilized the earmark secured by Senator Jeffords. The largest project so far, at $18 million, has been in Middlebury where two overpasses needed to be replaced where the track travels through the town below grade. Work is expected to begin in mid-2015. The State of Vermont was awarded nearly $9 million in TIGER funds in 2013 to rehabilitate a portion of the rails between Rutland and Leicester. A new “temporary” station is required in Middlebury but the old station in Burlington doesn’t require upgrades. In Middlebury two overpasses must be replaced and the current design for that work involves creating a short tunnel section through the center of town. VTrans estimates the cost of completing the remaining infrastructure work needed to extend the Ethan Allen Express to Burlington to be around $26.4 million. This would provide 59 mile per hour service, the minimum for effective intercity passenger rail service. Work to be completed would include:
> --Continuously welded rail where it is not currently in place, as well as new ties and surfacing;
> --New passing sidings;
> --Crossing upgrades;
> ...


Section 3.2.3 (p. 97) also includes an option to create new service between Schenectady and Rutland, bypassing Bennington, which could then be extended to Burlington.


----------



## afigg (Jul 9, 2015)

The Vermont State Rail Plan is remarkably detailed and chock full of information on ridership, passenger stats, stations, service metrics, grade crossings, track status, and projections for future passenger growth. Lays out a fairly specific plan and project goals for the next 20 years, provided of course, that sufficient federal funding can be obtained,.

Based on the schedule chart, the completion of the track and bridge upgrades needed for extending the Ethan Allen to Burlington may be stretched out into 2019. What I am not clear on is whether VT has all the funding in place for the track upgrades for the extension, or is looking for more federal funds, including landing another TIGER grant. Excerpt:



> VTrans estimates the cost of completing the remaining infrastructure work needed to extend the Ethan Allen Express to Burlington to be around $26.4 million. This would provide 59 mile per hour service, the minimum for effective intercity passenger rail service. Work to be completed would include:
> 
>  Continuously welded rail where it is not currently in place, as well as new ties and surfacing;
>  New passing sidings;
> ...


FYI, for those who have not read the draft plan, the priorities for passenger rail for the next 20 years are:

A total of $370.3 million in passenger rail infrastructure initiative



> s were identified in Chapter 3. Based on planning activities within the State, VTrans has identified the following passenger rail capital priorities:
>  First Priority
> – Extend Ethan Allen Express service to Burlington;
> – Extend the Vermonter to Montreal (although this is not anticipated to require additional infrastructure investment);
> ...


The Third Priority level items are in the 10 to 20 years from now block.


----------



## jis (Jul 9, 2015)

I guess by infrastructure they mean fixed infrastructure?

I suspect there may be some rolling stock investment needed to get the Vermonter to Montreal, though that might be couched as expense and not capital. However that would be interesting since typically it is easier to get capital money than expense money since in federal budget scoring capital is scored at 80% while expense is scored at 100% to the year in which it is appropriated. Of course how Vermont does things in their state budgeting may be very different.

BTW I just discovered that the signaliing facility rule says max speed 79mph without some automation of stopping at signal in danger aspect, but 49 CFR 213.9 says Class 4 track is good for 80mph for passengers. Just a curious 1mph difference,


----------



## CHamilton (Jul 9, 2015)

jis said:


> I guess by infrastructure they mean fixed infrastructure?
> 
> I suspect there may be some rolling stock investment needed to get the Vermonter to Montreal, though that might be couched as expense and not capital.


There is an interesting note on rolling stock, too (p. 104):



> 3.5 Equipment ConsiderationsAs current passenger rail services are maintained and new passenger rail services are considered, Vermont will face issues in terms of the maintenance of existing equipment and potential alternatives for new equipment. ...
> 
> 3.5.2 Next-Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee
> 
> The Ethan Allen Express service currently uses Amtrak’s existing fleet of P32DM dual mode (Diesel and electric 3rd rail) locomotives to access Penn Station New York. The ability to operate in electric or diesel mode is of benefit for the Ethan Allen Express route, since a portion of the route (between Penn Station and Croton-Harmon) is electrified, while other sections of the route are not. This fleet of locomotives, used by New York State and Vermont state-supported intercity rail passenger services, will be nearing the end of their useful lives over the next five years. The States of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont are working together with the PRIIA 305 Next Generation Equipment Committee to develop a specification for a new dual mode locomotives to replace the existing fleet. Once the specification is completed by the technical committee and approved by the executive committee it may be used to procure these locomotives when funding becomes available.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 10, 2015)

jis said:


> I guess by infrastructure they mean fixed infrastructure?
> 
> I suspect there may be some rolling stock investment needed to get the Vermonter to Montreal, though that might be couched as expense and not capital. However that would be interesting since typically it is easier to get capital money than expense money since in federal budget scoring capital is scored at 80% while expense is scored at 100% to the year in which it is appropriated. Of course how Vermont does things in their state budgeting may be very different.
> 
> BTW I just discovered that the signaliing facility rule says max speed 79mph without some automation of stopping at signal in danger aspect, but 49 CFR 213.9 says Class 4 track is good for 80mph for passengers. Just a curious 1mph difference,


That's been around for a while and commented on several times (particularly with the PTC mandate, which could nominally raise speed limits on some routes slightly).

Vermont has a pretty good program going given the size of the state (per capita the planned spending is probably on par with Virginia), and they do seem to get the "network thing". It's just a shame you don't have more states looking at something like this...


----------



## neroden (Jul 10, 2015)

> VTrans estimates the cost of completing the remaining infrastructure work needed to extend the Ethan Allen Express to Burlington to be around $26.4 million.


This is the most important number. This is the cost beyond that of the projects already funded & committed (which include the large Middlebury tunnel project).

$26.4 million seems like a pretty small number. I could imagine them actually getting the funding for that in the next couple of years.

The longest-lead-time item among the unfunded parts of the project is the rehabilitation of Middlebury station, because this requires design, planning, environmental review, etc. Everything else in the upgrades is straightfoward "upgrade in place" stuff, and a fairly recent change to the 'categorical exclusion' rules means they won't even need Environmental Impact reviews. So the rest of the repairs could be done very quickly.


----------



## CHamilton (Nov 10, 2015)

OFFICIALS ALL ABOARD WESTERN RAIL CORRIDOR PROJECT



> Nearly 80 lawmakers, state officials and friends of passenger railroading took something of a victory lap Thursday with an excursion on a vintage train from Middlebury to Burlington’s Union Station and back.
> 
> The journey was to commemorate the state’s recent receipt of $10 million in federal funds to groom the Rutland-Burlington Western Rail Corridor for an extension of Amtrak’s New York-Rutland Ethan Allen Express to the Queen City.
> 
> ...


----------



## Railroad Bill (Nov 10, 2015)

CHamilton said:


> OFFICIALS ALL ABOARD WESTERN RAIL CORRIDOR PROJECT
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Excellent news Charlie. Let's hope this will come to pass and stimulate other states to follow in Vermont's lead.


----------



## neroden (Nov 11, 2015)

So the funding's all in place, and the environmental clearances are all in place... most of the work can just be *done*. Middlebury tunnel is the longest lead-time item, probably followed by Middlebury station. Here's hoping they manage to mollify the locals and get that under construction ASAP.


----------



## MattW (Nov 11, 2015)

I like that they are at least considering running it to St. Albans, it just makes no sense to have to separate servicing facilities so close to each other.


----------



## jis (Nov 11, 2015)

AFAIK, St. Albans does not have much of a service facility beyond a track to park the train at with HEP possibly provided from shore, and a Wye to turn the train. Maybe they have a second track to park a second train there, maybe not.


----------



## PVD (Nov 11, 2015)

Funny how they mention the benefit of electrification as far as Croton-Harmon. I always thought the diesel fired up as soon as you hit the West Side. Well, I guess if we ignore gapping and a much lower top speed, the P32Dm with third rail would be fine. Maybe next gen equipment will deal with speed, but I'm not sure how to address gapping economically in relatively short single unit.


----------



## jis (Nov 11, 2015)

As Dutchrailnut has pointed out many times, they will never run the P32DMs in E-mode at surface track speed. The E-mode on those will be used only where absolutely necessary in tunnels. I believe the electrification to Croton-Harmon is of no relevance to Vermont service.


----------



## MattW (Nov 11, 2015)

jis said:


> AFAIK, St. Albans does not have much of a service facility beyond a track to park the train at with HEP possibly provided from shore, and a Wye to turn the train. Maybe they have a second track to park a second train there, maybe not.


But there's also the personnel issue. I'd imagine there will be less personnel required to service two trains at the same place than in different places.


----------



## jis (Nov 11, 2015)

Thirdrail can probably tell us more, but I am not sure Amtrak has any significant personnel in St. Albans either. The train cleaning stuff is all contracted out AFAIC, and I did not see them do anything with the engine at all other than just parking it, and then everyone headed off to the hotel.


----------



## PVD (Nov 11, 2015)

Top speed in E mode on a P32DM would be much lower than max track speed on MNRR up the Hudson, it would make no sense technical problems notwithstanding. I totally agree with you. I don't know why it was even in the report that way, unless they are talking about something that doesn't exist yet.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jan 23, 2018)

Here's an interesting article. Apparently, a couple of developers that lobbied for the train don't want the trains stored and serviced near their station.

They're probably correct in saying that the rail yard two blocks away would make a better storage area but you did lobby for the train.

Waterfront denizens to Amtrak: Stop but don’t stay

If you click on the link, you'll see a picture of something they called the Vermonter.




It is equally laughable.







> Developers Melinda Moulton and Elizabeth Steele renovated Union Station in the 1990s, hoping to entice Amtrak to bring service to the station.
> 
> Now that plans to bring service to Burlington are coming together, Moulton said she was dismayed to learn that the 500 foot long and about 14 foot high train might stay there, every night, on one of the most popular spots on Burlington’s waterfront.
> 
> ...


----------



## Anderson (Jan 23, 2018)

So, is there a timeline on this? I'm mainly asking because the thread title is officially a misnomer.


----------



## OBS (Jan 24, 2018)

Anderson said:


> So, is there a timeline on this? I'm mainly asking because the thread title is officially a misnomer.


It should be done about the same time the SL is again running to Florida...


----------



## neroden (Jan 24, 2018)

The controlling source of delay is the Middlebury tunnel. Thoughtless people with irrational, baseless complaints delayed that project's completion until 2020. (It's getting done basically exactly as originally designed.) Apart from that, a Middlebury platform needs to be built and some other details need to be worked out, but none of them will take nearly as long as the Middlebury tunnel.


----------



## FreeskierInVT (Jun 6, 2018)

Now looking like 2021 for the Ethan Allen to be extended. This, plus a rendering of the Ethan Allen using Superliner equipment...

https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2018/06/06/study-suggests-burlingtons-union-station-for-overnight-train-storage


----------



## keelhauled (Jun 6, 2018)

NIMBYism? In Burlington? I'm shocked! SHOCKED I SAY!


----------



## neroden (Jun 8, 2018)

Well, they're right; the train should go at least to Essex Junction and preferably to Montreal. It's nuts to stop it in Burlington when Essex Junction is so close.


----------



## Karl1459 (Jun 8, 2018)

keelhauled said:


> NIMBYism? In Burlington? I'm shocked! SHOCKED I SAY!


Its not NIMBYism, its about the noise of a parked train!


----------



## jis (Jun 8, 2018)

Karl1459 said:


> keelhauled said:
> 
> 
> > NIMBYism? In Burlington? I'm shocked! SHOCKED I SAY!
> ...


Just extending the train all the way to Essex Jct. or St. Albans will fix that problem.



although at some significant additional cost perhaps, but for addition of a few more stations and travel possibilities.


----------



## cpotisch (Jun 8, 2018)

FreeskierInVT said:


> This, plus a rendering of the Ethan Allen using Superliner equipment...
> 
> https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2018/06/06/study-suggests-burlingtons-union-station-for-overnight-train-storage


Why do people always have to find a way to screw up details like that? Every time I read an article featuring Amtrak from a main stream media outlet, they always have to throw in a little bit of nonsense...


----------



## Ryan (Jun 8, 2018)

Because the person doing the rendering knows nothing of Amtrak...


----------



## cpotisch (Jun 8, 2018)

[rant] They never do, but one would think that there would they'd get that kind of stuff right at least half of the time. Yet articles about Amtrak from any mainstream outlet almost always get multiple things wrong, It doesn't make much difference, but I would think that a reporter or author might be able to do a reasonable amount of research about this kind of stuff. Literally, if you just do an image search for "Ethan Allen Express," this is the first result that comes up:




That's all it takes to get a sense of what the train actually is. But nope, that's apparently too hard. [/rant]


----------



## jis (Jun 8, 2018)

Considering that even _Trains _gets things wrong half the time, expecting general media to get things right is indeed a fool's errand.


----------



## railiner (Jun 8, 2018)

The other thing is, the average reader of the general media, doesn't really know or care about the details. And general media would probably rather dig into their own archives for "stock shots", rather than the expense of taking new photo's or using someone else's....


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jun 10, 2018)

Karl1459 said:


> Its not NIMBYism, its about the noise of a parked train!



Just how noisy is parked train these days? I'm willing to bet the people that are commenting haven't really been around an idling train. The Genesis engine isn't that noisy, particularly if when aren't supplying HEP. A nice 480 standby box would do wonders.

Additionally, if new equipment is ordered, it is likely not to be as loud.


----------



## cpotisch (Jun 10, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Just how noisy is parked train these days? I'm willing to bet the people that are commenting haven't really been around an idling train. The Genesis engine isn't that noisy, particularly if when aren't supplying HEP. A nice 480 standby box would do wonders.
> 
> Additionally, if new equipment is ordered, it is likely not to be as loud.


Speaking from personal experience, I've found that a couple idling P42s are pretty f***ing noisy. Not as bad as an F40 ("Screamers"), but it's pretty darn loud.


----------



## jis (Jun 10, 2018)

I have noticed the SC-44s, and specifically the Birghtline version of them are remarkably quiet. Some people are actually complaining that they are dangerously quiet



Apparently people wearing headphones can walk into them by mistake while texting and not paying attention to where they are going


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jun 10, 2018)

jis said:


> I have noticed the SC-44s, and specifically the Birghtline version of them are remarkably quiet. Some people are actually complaining that they are dangerously quiet
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently people wearing headphones can walk into them by mistake while texting and not paying attention to where they are going


If they can't notice something that big in their peripheral vision, they need to get their eyes check.


----------



## jis (Jun 10, 2018)

AmtrakBlue said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > I have noticed the SC-44s, and specifically the Birghtline version of them are remarkably quiet. Some people are actually complaining that they are dangerously quiet
> ...


What can I say. They must be very focused on their little screen


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jun 10, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > Just how noisy is parked train these days? I'm willing to bet the people that are commenting haven't really been around an idling train. The Genesis engine isn't that noisy, particularly if when aren't supplying HEP. A nice 480 standby box would do wonders.
> ...


It was probably supplying HEP, which is why I stated a nice 480 standby box would do wonders. It would also allow the A(utomatic)E(ngine)S(tart)S(top) system to function.


----------



## jis (Jun 10, 2018)

When an engine is stopped, are they able to use some sort of an electric engine block heater to function at least in the winter?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 10, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > Thirdrail7 said:
> ...


How noisy is a parked train "these days?" In the case of Amtrak Genesis locomotives it's just as noisy today as it was nearly three decades ago. I find idling Amtrak locomotives to be extremely loud myself, it's certainly not easy to talk or listen to another person while standing near one, and even though my home station supplies hotel power Amtrak still leaves the rest of the locomotive running. Depending on the station location and layout of the city that idling noise could adversely impact nearby homes and hotels. A shut down engine is nice and quiet but even though "green running" Amtrak claims it shuts down locomotives where hotel power is located that's not how they actually do things where I live. Maybe it's just easier to blame NIMBY's with dismissive low effort rhetoric than it is to admit this might be a real issue worth debating and resolving beforehand.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jun 10, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> How noisy is a parked train "these days?" In the case of Amtrak Genesis locomotives it's just as noisy today as it was nearly three decades ago. I find idling Amtrak locomotives to be extremely loud myself, it's certainly not easy to talk or listen to another person while standing near one, and even though my home station supplies hotel power Amtrak still leaves the rest of the locomotive running. Depending on the station location and layout of the city that idling noise could adversely impact nearby homes and hotels. A shut down engine is nice and quiet but even though "green running" Amtrak claims it shuts down locomotives where hotel power is located that's not how they actually do things where I live. Maybe it's just easier to blame NIMBY's with dismissive low effort rhetoric than it is to admit this might be a real issue worth debating and resolving beforehand.


I'm not seeing where anyone is being dismissive. Additionally, there may be an issue and I even proposed a solution....one that wasn't available "nearly 30 years ago." The AESS system that has been installed on most of the engines (the whole diesel fleet is not included) has done wonders, and mended fences in various neighborhoods. Furthermore, there may be another fleet of diesels by the time this service begins....and hotel power can be used if it is available and conditions permit. Perhaps conditions or operations do not support using the feature where you live, but that may have absolute no bearing on where this is being proposed.

Maybe it is easier to whine and listen to others than it is to open your mind and find out for yourself before exploring the options.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 10, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> I'm not seeing where anyone is being dismissive. Additionally, there may be an issue and I even proposed a solution....one that wasn't available "nearly 30 years ago." The AESS system that has been installed on most of the engines (the whole diesel fleet is not included) has done wonders, and mended fences in various neighborhoods. Furthermore, there may be another fleet of diesels by the time this service begins....and hotel power can be used if it is available and conditions permit. Perhaps conditions or operations do not support using the feature where you live, but that may have absolute no bearing on where this is being proposed. Maybe it is easier to whine and listen to others than it is to open your mind and find out for yourself before exploring the options.


Here on AU we don't use the "NIMBY" term as a starting point for thoughtful discussion of multiple viewpoints. Rather, we use it as a blunt force weapon with which to bludgeon nuance into dust. I'd personally love to "find out for myself" what it would take for Amtrak to shut down their locomotives at my home station. How would you suggest I go about doing that? I'd also like to find out if auto shutdown and quiet idling is a requirement for the next fleet of new/used long distance locomotives. Rather than debate theoretical maybes I'd enjoy getting down to the nitty gritty details and see where Amtrak really falls on the side of excessive noise and pollution, not just in the Northeast but throughout their entire network. Amtrak's vague and indefinite claims on these matters have been confusing and annoying me for several years now.


----------

