# High-speed rail for NY to Canada?



## CHamilton

U.S. Congresswoman calls for high-speed rail linking Manhattan to Canadian cities



> New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney ... wants governments in [the US] and Canada to get moving on building a high-speed rail line that would link Manhattan, where her district lies, to cities north of the border.
> 
> “It would really help the economies of our countries dramatically,” Ms. Maloney insisted in an interview with The Globe and Mail, as she prepared to take the stage on Tuesday night at the Democratic National Convention here. “Both of our countries should get behind it, push it and make it happen.”
> 
> The dream of bringing European fast trains to North America has been around for decades without making much headway. But it got a powerful boost from President Barack Obama, whose stimulus bill allocated $8-billion for the development of high-speed rail projects. Most of that money is still waiting to be spent.
> 
> Only one cross-border link – between New York and Montreal – is mentioned in the U.S. Transportation Department’s 2010 list of “priority corridors.” But little progress has been made on advancing the project advocated by the Quebec government. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has expressed no enthusiasm for the idea.


----------



## jis

CHamilton said:


> U.S. Congresswoman calls for high-speed rail linking Manhattan to Canadian cities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney ... wants governments in [the US] and Canada to get moving on building a high-speed rail line that would link Manhattan, where her district lies, to cities north of the border.
> 
> “It would really help the economies of our countries dramatically,” Ms. Maloney insisted in an interview with The Globe and Mail, as she prepared to take the stage on Tuesday night at the Democratic National Convention here. “Both of our countries should get behind it, push it and make it happen.”
> 
> The dream of bringing European fast trains to North America has been around for decades without making much headway. But it got a powerful boost from President Barack Obama, whose stimulus bill allocated $8-billion for the development of high-speed rail projects. Most of that money is still waiting to be spent.
> 
> Only one cross-border link – between New York and Montreal – is mentioned in the U.S. Transportation Department’s 2010 list of “priority corridors.” But little progress has been made on advancing the project advocated by the Quebec government. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has expressed no enthusiasm for the idea.
Click to expand...

Another one of these "won't happen anytime soon" feel good project ideas.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

I don't think the current regime north of the border would to too receptive to this idea, considering what they have done to VIA recently.


----------



## afigg

The Davy Crockett said:


> I don't think the current regime north of the border would to too receptive to this idea, considering what they have done to VIA recently.


I agree that the current government in Ottawa would not be receptive to a NYC to Montreal HSR corridor proposal. Or any HSR proposal. Nor would most HSR supporters in the US at this time. The focus in the US is going to be for HSR on the NEC, in California, LA to Las Vegas, Mid-west, Dallas to Houston, and so on.

That said, NYC to Montreal is an obvious candidate for a HSR corridor, given the population size and wealth in both cities, the ~330 mile distance, and that both have extensive local transit systems for a HSR service to connect to.

I see in the news that the Seperationist party just won the elections for the providence of Quebec, albeit as a minority party with a bare plurality. The Seperationists, if they think about the economics and power politics, could look to improve transportation infrastructure and expand trade with the US to make the providence less dependent on Ottawa and the rest of Canada. One way to poke Ottawa and PM Harper in the eye would be to advocate for a HSR corridor service from Montreal to NYC. Not that I expect that to happen, but far stranger things have happened in politics.


----------



## CHamilton

afigg said:


> I see in the news that the Seperationist party just won the elections for the providence of Quebec, albeit as a minority party with a bare plurality. The Seperationists, if they think about the economics and power politics, could look to improve transportation infrastructure and expand trade with the US to make the providence less dependent on Ottawa and the rest of Canada. One way to poke Ottawa and PM Harper in the eye would be to advocate for a HSR corridor service from Montreal to NYC. Not that I expect that to happen, but far stranger things have happened in politics.


I was thinking the same thing. As you say, the Parti Québécois does not have a majority in the new Quebec parliament, meaning that they will have to enter into a coalition with other parties. And it sounds like they have other priorities. But VIA -- and trains in general -- are very much entwined with the history of Canada, and so might be a potent symbol of the future of the country. Read Pierre Berton's _The National Dream_ and _The Last Spike_: they're the definitive history of rail-building in Canada.


----------



## Anderson

CHamilton said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see in the news that the Seperationist party just won the elections for the providence of Quebec, albeit as a minority party with a bare plurality. The Seperationists, if they think about the economics and power politics, could look to improve transportation infrastructure and expand trade with the US to make the providence less dependent on Ottawa and the rest of Canada. One way to poke Ottawa and PM Harper in the eye would be to advocate for a HSR corridor service from Montreal to NYC. Not that I expect that to happen, but far stranger things have happened in politics.
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking the same thing. As you say, the Parti Québécois does not have a majority in the new Quebec parliament, meaning that they will have to enter into a coalition with other parties. And it sounds like they have other priorities. But VIA -- and trains in general -- are very much entwined with the history of Canada, and so might be a potent symbol of the future of the country. Read Pierre Berton's _The National Dream_ and _The Last Spike_: they're the definitive history of rail-building in Canada.
Click to expand...

Well, Charest was also a big fan of this project as well, so it's possible that you could get _some_ cross-party cooperation on this front. No clue what the CAQ thinks on this front, but they're still pretty nebulous on a number of things.

The one thing in favor of this happening with or without the Canadian federal government is that the segment on that side of the border is <50 miles long. Even if you just bumped up the existing track grades there to allow a 60-70 MPH average (i.e. 79/90 MPH top speeds) and cut the St. Lambert stop, this would probably be workable. Not as nice as HSR-all-the-way, but plausible for the Quebec government to fund.


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> The one thing in favor of this happening with or without the Canadian federal government is that the segment on that side of the border is <50 miles long. Even if you just bumped up the existing track grades there to allow a 60-70 MPH average (i.e. 79/90 MPH top speeds) and cut the St. Lambert stop, this would probably be workable. Not as nice as HSR-all-the-way, but plausible for the Quebec government to fund.


Have you guys actually traveled on that line? Yes part of it can be upped to 90 (this is Canada where even 100mph is possible on non-signaled track), but there are other parts that will not be good for anything above 40mph, and some even as low as 15mph.

The real problem with HSR on this route is that building an HSR ROW through the Adirondacks won't come cheap, and all the population between NY and MTR would not be enough to justify such ahead of a dozen other potential corridors in the US. The current ex-DH ROW is never going to be exceedingly fast. One could possibly cut a couple of hours at best, and that would be it.


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing in favor of this happening with or without the Canadian federal government is that the segment on that side of the border is <50 miles long. Even if you just bumped up the existing track grades there to allow a 60-70 MPH average (i.e. 79/90 MPH top speeds) and cut the St. Lambert stop, this would probably be workable. Not as nice as HSR-all-the-way, but plausible for the Quebec government to fund.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you guys actually traveled on that line? Yes part of it can be upped to 90 (this is Canada where even 100mph is possible on non-signaled track), but there are other parts that will not be good for anything above 40mph, and some even as low as 15mph.
> 
> The real problem with HSR on this route is that building an HSR ROW through the Adirondacks won't come cheap, and all the population between NY and MTR would not be enough to justify such ahead of a dozen other potential corridors in the US. The current ex-DH ROW is never going to be exceedingly fast. One could possibly cut a couple of hours at best, and that would be it.
Click to expand...

I was on it yesterday morning. Basically, I'm assuming that the "heavy lifting" will need to be on the US side of the border...for the most part the Canadian side consists of either running through open fields or in an urban RoW that is in decent condition (though with some curves that probably need fixing on the way into/out of Gare Central). Put another way, the sections that the US would cover are the ones where lots of money is needed; Canada has the "easy" sections.


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing in favor of this happening with or without the Canadian federal government is that the segment on that side of the border is <50 miles long. Even if you just bumped up the existing track grades there to allow a 60-70 MPH average (i.e. 79/90 MPH top speeds) and cut the St. Lambert stop, this would probably be workable. Not as nice as HSR-all-the-way, but plausible for the Quebec government to fund.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you guys actually traveled on that line? Yes part of it can be upped to 90 (this is Canada where even 100mph is possible on non-signaled track), but there are other parts that will not be good for anything above 40mph, and some even as low as 15mph.
> 
> The real problem with HSR on this route is that building an HSR ROW through the Adirondacks won't come cheap, and all the population between NY and MTR would not be enough to justify such ahead of a dozen other potential corridors in the US. The current ex-DH ROW is never going to be exceedingly fast. One could possibly cut a couple of hours at best, and that would be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was on it yesterday morning. Basically, I'm assuming that the "heavy lifting" will need to be on the US side of the border...for the most part the Canadian side consists of either running through open fields or in an urban RoW that is in decent condition (though with some curves that probably need fixing on the way into/out of Gare Central). Put another way, the sections that the US would cover are the ones where lots of money is needed; Canada has the "easy" sections.
Click to expand...

I agree


----------



## Anderson

Well, a practical question: I know there are some sections of the current routing that can only get sped up so far, but most of the bad ones here are right along Lake Champlain. The "really bad" part seems mostly contained to Plattsburgh-Westport or Plattsburgh-Lake George, and even within that you've probably got places you could bump the track from 15 MPH to 30 MPH or 40 MPH to 50 MPH with simply straightening a few curves or relaying some track. South of Westport or Lake George, the train seems to make good time, and north of Plattsburgh the problem is the customs stop and the attached "pads" plus a few lousy curves entering Montreal.

Additionally, there's a fat pad north of Albany when you're SB. On my ride yesterday, we were about 30-50 minutes behind from the border until before SDY, but we were on time pulling into Albany. I think there's some padding in there to accommodate delays "up north" that borders on insane: NB, you depart Albany at 11:05 AM and arrive at Saratoga Springs at 11:57 AM (52 minutes for 37 miles...believable, if slower than ideal). SB, you depart Saratoga Springs at 3:53 PM and arrive at Albany at 5:40 PM (1:47, or 107 minutes, for the same 37 miles). Basically...there's an hour of pad as you approach Albany to deal with the fact that US Customs can take an insane amount of time running through the train, plus incidental freight issues. Amtrak clearly _really_ wants the train onto the ALB-NYP segment on time.

Practically speaking, it strikes me that you might be able to get NYP-ALB down by at least 15 minutes without breaking the bank (2:15 here would only imply an average speed of 63 MPH...hell, they pull that and change on the Peninsula Sub and they're looking to run _that_ down even further; 2:00 would imply 70.5 MPH, which seems like the upper limit of "reasonable"), possibly more if you start cutting stops. I think you realistically have 2:00 of inspection plus padding in for the border stop each way. Moreover, I think you could _easily_ cut 15-20 minutes off north of the border without _too_ much work through "cheap" improvements such as improving track conditions and _possibly_ fixing one or two curves south of MTR proper, plus eliminating the "doomed" St. Lambert stop. I guess the operative question is how much you can beat out of the D&H south of Lake Champlain...again, 15 minutes is one thing, but could you "find" an hour or more here without a major overhaul? And how well would a 7-8 hour trip time "sell"?

There's one other practical question: Given the sheer mass of traffic that runs between the endpoints, it seems like you could shed an hour or more by slashing stops from an "express Adirondack" and apply that time to moving a frequency later in the morning (so as to allow comfortable connections from south of NYP, if not a link with one of the Florida trains). Considering the sheer mass of border-crossing traffic, how much traffic could you get onto a train that "only" stops at ALB and Rouses Point _en route_ and/or how many intermediate stops would you need to make the train work?*

*Only marginally related, but I'm likewise wondering how much business that "express" might generate on the southern end as well, if properly timed. Again, assuming 5 minutes per stop, cutting the 5 intermediate stops plus limited track-related improvements could get you 1:50 or so NYP-ALB. While that _alone_ won't sell, if you could couple that with a NYP-MTR time at or below seven hours, I think you would be able to not only sell that train, but also get a limited premium for it.

*tl;dr:* Amtrak could probably run an 8:00 Adirondack Express by moving Customs into MTR and cutting all intermediate stops not involving crew changes. At that point, the improvements to get a train into the 7:00 range become easily foreseeable, and if timed properly such a train _should_ have extensive market reach.


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> There's one other practical question: Given the sheer mass of traffic that runs between the endpoints, it seems like you could shed an hour or more by slashing stops from an "express Adirondack" and apply that time to moving a frequency later in the morning (so as to allow comfortable connections from south of NYP, if not a link with one of the Florida trains). Considering the sheer mass of border-crossing traffic, how much traffic could you get onto a train that "only" stops at ALB and Rouses Point _en route_ and/or how many intermediate stops would you need to make the train work?*


Even with a second daily Adirondack, there would be political pressure from the up state politicians to have the train stop at many of the stations on the route, even if they have tiny annual boarding numbers. One of the realities that will be encountered with state supported train services. You may need 3 or 4 daily trains over a route to have one be a super express train.

As for speeding up the Adirondack, it will obviously benefit from the funded improvements between NYP and Schenectady and Amtrak taking full control of the corridor between Poughkeepsie and Schenectady (SDY). Having control of the NYP to SDY with a busy NYP-ALB route does provide a good foundation for future speed and service incremental enhancements and for a stair step approach to a HSR corridor to MTR.

One of the applications that NY State submitted in the original round of HSIPR applications was for an Adirondack Service Reliability Initiative for $23.5 million to upgrade the tracks from Schenectady to Whitehall and Plattsburgh to Rouses Point to class IV with 79 mph max speeds. 14 miles of jointed track were to be replaced with CWR, modify grade crossings warning devices for the higher speed, etc. It was projected to cut 12.5 minutes off of the trip time.

With the Ethan Allen sharing Schenectady to (almost) Whitehall segment, speed improvements on that section benefit service to VT as well which means support from 2 states for serious upgrades to that segment. Such as double tracking much of it to support 2 daily Ethan Allens extended to Burlington and 2 daily Adirondacks.

For the tracks between Whitehall and Rouses Point, I think the only realistic approach will be small incremental improvements to fix congestion choke-points and really slow sections. Grow ridership on the Adirondack service significantly and build the political support over many years to then get serious about a NYP to MTR true HSR project.


----------



## Anderson

I'll agree that you'd need either a third train and/or two tightly-spaced trains to "get away with" skipping most (or all) stops. However, I'm going to disagree that you couldn't shave off most of the downstate stops _a la_ the LSL...if nothing else, you could probably cut everything south of ALB save NYP if you had an earlier Empire Service train that provided a legal connection (which I'd note could be comparatively tight in this case, too, given the equipment stop at ALB), or everything but PKE if you _really_ wanted a direct MNRR connection. North of SDY, though, I _do_ think some stops are skippable:

Rouses Point 1,498

Plattsburgh 12,401

*Port Kent  692*

_Westport 4,520_

*Port Henry 2,160*

*Ticonderoga 1,627*

*Whitehall 1,655*

_Fort Edward* 8,867_

Saratoga Springs*	29,742

The ones in bold seem like they might be skippable; Port Kent has only one passenger per train on average, and the others only have 2-3 each. Granted, I believe this would increase with the addition of another train, but I'd also argue that such stops might also be made seasonal for an additional train. Rouses Point only survives this axe because of the engineer change at the border.

Westport and Fort Edward have enough traffic to potentially justify their existence unless you're going to a "true express", though the latter might be cuttable if you got an additional Ethan Allen on the route (since that's the last stop the trains share).

By the way, I've got a good peg on the number of passengers to/from MTR in that report: 74,008 less Rouses Point and St. Lambert traffic, or about 71,000-ish (perhaps plus a few hundred for any SB traffic out of Rouses Point, and potentially also plus some traffic that would transfer into MTR without a St. Lambert stop), or about 100 folks per train on average, plus growth since _2008_ (which should get you to around 120 or so per train now, or a good number more during peak season and 60-80 during the slower seasons). Considering the constraints on through traffic (trains either getting capacity locked by the border folks or being sold out south of ALB; I've seen both), this sort of selling year in and year out isn't bad at _all_.


----------



## CHamilton

Anderson said:


> Port Kent 692
> 
> ...Port Kent has only one passenger per train on average...


This stop exists to serve the ferry to Burlington, VT, which only runs June - October. So it is used a little more than you suggest, but only in the summer. It might be less needed once the Ethan Allen is extended to Burlington.


----------



## AlanB

Anderson said:


> Rouses Point only survives this axe because of the engineer change at the border.


The operating crew doesn't change at Rouses Point. They work Albany to Montreal, then return the next day.

If anything, Rouses is a bit more about US Customs.


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> I'll agree that you'd need either a third train and/or two tightly-spaced trains to "get away with" skipping most (or all) stops. However, I'm going to disagree that you couldn't shave off most of the downstate stops _a la_ the LSL...if nothing else, you could probably cut everything south of ALB save NYP if you had an earlier Empire Service train that provided a legal connection (which I'd note could be comparatively tight in this case, too, given the equipment stop at ALB), or everything but PKE if you _really_ wanted a direct MNRR connection.


You and I could think all we want, but the issue is very very political, since the train survives due to tremendous effort on part of the Adirondack region legislature. This train has been on the potential cutting block each year for the last ten years, rescued at the last moment by some weird deal of mutual back scratching between upstate and downstate Legislature and the Governor. In general there has been way more enthusiasm about having endless meetings and issuing numerous press releases about the future than about actually coming up with the necessary funds, and this when NY did not have to cover operating deficits of the entire Empire Service. Just sitting through the discussions about the Adirondack at the ESPA meetings with the state transport commissioner's representative and legislative assistants for relevant NY legislators is an interesting eye opening experience to say the least.

The current focus for funding in NY State is on maintaining and enhancing Empire Corridor service which includes taking over funding from Amtrak, with certain added attention to west of Albany service, and upgrading of Poughkeepsie - Hoffmans. While there is much talk about north of Albany, enthusiasm wanes very quickly as one heads north of Saratoga. Heck maybe there is an opportunity for contracting the whole thing north of Albany out to S&NC some day and getting better service. Who knows? (I am just flying a random kite here based on next to nothing  )


----------



## Anderson

AlanB said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rouses Point only survives this axe because of the engineer change at the border.
> 
> 
> 
> The operating crew doesn't change at Rouses Point. They work Albany to Montreal, then return the next day.
> 
> If anything, Rouses is a bit more about US Customs.
Click to expand...

Ah, ok. Sorry...the Vermonter's experience with a crew change at St. Alban's made me (stupidly) assume that the crew was switched here, either because of union restrictions/old operating rules or because of border "issues". That's another stop that could probably be dropped, then. That brings a total of 9 stops that are probably droppable without too much fuss (6 on ridership/logistics, 3 on redundancy):

St. Lambert

Rouses Point

Point Kent

Port Henry

Ticonderoga

Whitehall

Hudson

Rhinecliff

Yonkers

You could probably get to 11-12 stops if you go to a total express run south of ALB and skip Fort Edward as well.


----------



## Trogdor

If you cut out every stop between Albany and the border, you might save 25-30 minutes.

Low passenger counts already make for fairly quick dwells, and since the speeds tend to be fairly low anyway (I don't have the exact timetable handy), the acceleration penalty isn't as much as if you were to stop on a stretch where you'd otherwise be running 79.


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> Ah, ok. Sorry...the Vermonter's experience with a crew change at St. Alban's made me (stupidly) assume that the crew was switched here, either because of union restrictions/old operating rules or because of border "issues".


Huh? Since the Vermonter has never run beyond St. Albans, what exactly are you talking about? The crew that takes it to St. Albans brings it back the next day.


----------



## Gratt

Talking about HSR between NY and Canada really feels like putting the cart before the horse.

As others have pointed out the focus should be on reducing trip times between NYP and ALB or SDY.

When that corridor looks more like the Keystone. Then we can talk about pushing HSR up to Cannada.

-As a cheaper alternative though, I think NYP-TWO and NYP-MTR would be great candidates for overnight trains.

Imagine getting on a train at 9PM in NYP and waking up at 8AM in either city. :wub:


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> By the way, I've got a good peg on the number of passengers to/from MTR in that report: 74,008 less Rouses Point and St. Lambert traffic, or about 71,000-ish (perhaps plus a few hundred for any SB traffic out of Rouses Point, and potentially also plus some traffic that would transfer into MTR without a St. Lambert stop), or about 100 folks per train on average, plus growth since _2008_ (which should get you to around 120 or so per train now, or a good number more during peak season and 60-80 during the slower seasons). Considering the constraints on through traffic (trains either getting capacity locked by the border folks or being sold out south of ALB; I've seen both), this sort of selling year in and year out isn't bad at _all_.


No need to guess the passenger counts for Montreal. Montreal and Saint-Lambert are listed on the Great American Stations website although Quebec is not exactly a US state. The Ottawa stations for the Maple Leaf are not listed which I figure is because the ML is a VIA train north of the border. For FY11:

Montreal Gare Centrale: 84,851

Saint-Lambert: 1,405

Apparent why dropping Saint-Lambert as a stop in exchange for a Customs facility in MTR is not a big deal.

On the express train idea, unless I'm mistaken, all of the Adirondack stops from Albany southward have high level platforms which reduce the typical station dwell time except for Rhinecliff and Hudson. With Amtrak taking control of the Poughkeepsie to SDY segment and with the level boarding requirement in effect, NY state and Amtrak may put priority towards installing full length high levels with freight bypass tracks in Rhinecliff and Hudson. All high level platforms through to Schenectady would cut trip times for both the Empire service trains and the Adirondack.

North of Schenectady, the low passenger count stations may not slow the schedule that much if they are in the middle of a slow 30 or 40 mph section. I don't have track charts though. I see the economic and trip time savings argument for dropping some of the less used stations north of SDY for a second daily Adirondack, but politics can trump that. First, have to get ridership and demand to the level that adding a second Adirondack is viable and does not cost much to add - and the equipment is available to support it. Second, an "express" Adirondack is only helpful if the departure times from NYP and MTR work for your schedule.

What we will have with the Adirondack over the next few years is the opportunity to see the effects on ridership of incrementally reducing trip times. First, a Customs Facility in MTR could cut an hour or more off in 1 fell swoop. Then the second track between ALB and SDY, maybe if 2014. Then track improvements south of ALB and track improvements in Canada. Also see how the cost recovery improves with faster trip times.


----------



## NY Penn

Given the political situation in Albany, TBH a second day _Adirondack_ (esp. an express train) won't be viable unless the trip time falls drastically.

However, an interesting idea would be an overnight train, which could run express through the rural overnight section. Better yet, it seems possible that such a train could get away without a diner if it leaves each terminal at, say, 8:30 PM and arrives at 8 the next morning, since there wouldn't be enough time to serve any meals. If the cafe car food is upgraded slightly, it should work.1

Here's a possible schedule:



Spoiler



What other stops would such a train really need?

NYP.....20:30......08:00

POU..._21:50......06:30

ALB__..23:00......05:20

ALB__..23:10......05:10

WSP....02:10......02:10

MTR__..08:00.....20:30



1One of the loss leaders for the LD trains is the dining car; if this is cut and replaced with an enhanced cafe car (as discussed in one of the PRIIA reports IIRC) then this could be quite a viable option.

Comments?


----------



## jis

What needs to happen first is adding a couple more cars to the present train to enhance its capacity to allow for relatively easy ridership increase. Everything else could follow if the ridership evolution justifies.


----------



## afigg

NY Penn said:


> Given the political situation in Albany, TBH a second day _Adirondack_ (esp. an express train) won't be viable unless the trip time falls drastically.
> 
> However, an interesting idea would be an overnight train, which could run express through the rural overnight section. Better yet, it seems possible that such a train could get away without a diner if it leaves each terminal at, say, 8:30 PM and arrives at 8 the next morning, since there wouldn't be enough time to serve any meals. If the cafe car food is upgraded slightly, it should work.1
> 
> Here's a possible schedule:
> 
> ...
> 
> Comments?


The track distance from NYP to MTR is 381 miles. Why would the state of NY provide state subsidy funding for an overnight train with sleeper cars that passes through upper state NY in the middle of the night? Unless or until trains can operate over the corridor at a net operating profit or at breakeven with multiple daily trains, the odds of an overnight train with a sleeper car are remote. With the requirement that states provide subsidies for all trains of less than 750 miles, states are not going to fund overnight trains with sleeper cars except for specific scenarios where the state is at the endpoint of a long route.

[edit: fixed typo]


----------



## Anderson

afigg said:


> NY Penn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the political situation in Albany, TBH a second day _Adirondack_ (esp. an express train) won't be viable unless the trip time falls drastically.
> 
> However, an interesting idea would be an overnight train, which could run express through the rural overnight section. Better yet, it seems possible that such a train could get away without a diner if it leaves each terminal at, say, 8:30 PM and arrives at 8 the next morning, since there wouldn't be enough time to serve any meals. If the cafe car food is upgraded slightly, it should work.1
> 
> Here's a possible schedule:
> 
> ...
> 
> Comments?
> 
> 
> 
> The track distance from NYP to MTR is 371 miles. Why would the state of NY provide state subsidy funding for an overnight train with sleeper cars that passes through upper state NY in the middle of the night? Unless or until trains can operate over the corridor at a net operating profit or at breakeven with multiple daily trains, the odds of an overnight train with a sleeper car are remote. With the requirement that states provide subsidies for all trains of less than 750 miles, states are not going to fund overnight trains with sleeper cars except for specific scenarios where the state is at the endpoint of a long route.
Click to expand...

I can give three reasons that are practical:

1) It's cheaper than flying by a _lot_, and an overnight train makes such a trip practical. The Montrealer only collapsed because of consistently bad track conditions and resulting reliability issues. The biggest issues with the Adirondack, relating to cost recovery, are almost entirely an artifact of the limited capacity for traffic crossing the border. Remove that issue and get reliable OTP, and you've got a lot of untapped ridership potential. Based on the selling out that you tend to run into near peak season, I think the Adirondack could easily support another car or two in its current form, and that's with only one daily frequency. An overnight train would actually serve the business community.

2) The train for this already exists; it just happens to originate/terminate in Albany. Extend 243 to MTR and have 250/232 originate in MTR and it's your schedule almost perfectly. If you can keep the OBS situation in hand (look at some of the European "night train" operations...they'll have a cafe-lounge, not a "full" diner), this shouldn't be an issue.

3) Finally, an overnight train would almost assuredly come alongside the addition of the secure facility at Gare Central. That's going to drop travel time by about 2:00 or so on its own.

This actually raises a serious secondary question: Has New York given any serious thought to making a single level car purchase? I'm not thinking just in relation to the Adirondack, but in general they seem to be the state most likely to put together a federal grant request for a set of single-level corridor cars (possibly along with PA).


----------



## AlanB

Anderson said:


> This actually raises a serious secondary question: Has New York given any serious thought to making a single level car purchase? I'm not thinking just in relation to the Adirondack, but in general they seem to be the state most likely to put together a federal grant request for a set of single-level corridor cars (possibly along with PA).


New York has been busy living high off the hog by getting services for free that most other states are paying for.

They haven't even been thinking about buying cars; although that may change now that they have to fund the Empire Corridor. Or maybe not.

After all, up until this past year those in Albany seem to have believed that the costs of running the MTA haven't gone up in more than 10 years. Which is to say that for many years they hadn't increased the amount of money sent to the MTA to help support things.


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> This actually raises a serious secondary question: Has New York given any serious thought to making a single level car purchase? I'm not thinking just in relation to the Adirondack, but in general they seem to be the state most likely to put together a federal grant request for a set of single-level corridor cars (possibly along with PA).
> 
> 
> 
> New York has been busy living high off the hog by getting services for free that most other states are paying for.
> 
> They haven't even been thinking about buying cars; although that may change now that they have to fund the Empire Corridor. Or maybe not.
> 
> After all, up until this past year those in Albany seem to have believed that the costs of running the MTA haven't gone up in more than 10 years. Which is to say that for many years they hadn't increased the amount of money sent to the MTA to help support things.
Click to expand...

NY State as a whole is one of the largest buyers of rail cars in the country. Uptil now NY State had no control over service run by Amtrak, so they basically let Amtrak do whatever it did and of course just complained about it, not that they were willing to shell out the money to gain control either. Now that they have to pick up the tab they will exercise much more control, perhaps even more than Amtrak will be happy to live with. But then again NY State has a few agencies that run passenger service somewhere or the other in the state, so it is not like they dontt know how to handle such either.

There are a host of single level cars soon to be retired in the NY area that could be put through a Amtrak California style rehab (as done with NJT Comarrows) to build up a healthy collection of additional cars for upstate service for cheap should NY be interested in such as a first step. Their first problem is however, to figure out a contract with Amtrak that both can live with. That is not yet a done deal.

However, as I have mentioned before, funding any such stuff in New York inevitably involves upstate-downstate politics and the outcomes are usually unpredictable.


----------



## AlanB

jis said:


> NY State as a whole is one of the largest buyers of rail cars in the country.


True, but those buying the cars are the transit agencies which, while arguably are under the control of the state, get the bulk of their funding from sources other than the state.


----------



## Anderson

AlanB said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> NY State as a whole is one of the largest buyers of rail cars in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but those buying the cars are the transit agencies which, while arguably are under the control of the state, get the bulk of their funding from sources other than the state.
Click to expand...

From what it sounds like, there are two "easy" options for NY to place a car order:

1) Attempt to shift some MNRR or LIRR cars to Amtrak service with a refit; or

2) "Piggyback" a car order on their next commuter car order (i.e. when ordering 100 or 200 commuter cars, just bump the order up with options and exercise them for cars with a marginally different seat layout (i.e. 60-72 seat capacity instead of 100-130) and more luggage space.


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> NY State as a whole is one of the largest buyers of rail cars in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but those buying the cars are the transit agencies which, while arguably are under the control of the state, get the bulk of their funding from sources other than the state.
Click to expand...

I don't have the details on the source of funding, but do you really expect the source of funding for any potential Amtrak targeted cars purchased by NY State to be any different? If you do, Amtrak targeted cars will be a long time in the coming. I suspect the funding source mix will not be any different for passenger cars irrespective of whether they are for use in commuter service or upstate service. Is there any reason to believe otherwise?

AFAICT the source of funding is a mix of State DoT, Federal FTA, Federal CMAQ, and potentially for NY Area PANYNJ. Any one of those can fund additional upstate targeted cars through some appropriate machination like cascading existing cars to upstate while replacing them with new cars in NY area, etc..


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> NY State as a whole is one of the largest buyers of rail cars in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but those buying the cars are the transit agencies which, while arguably are under the control of the state, get the bulk of their funding from sources other than the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what it sounds like, there are two "easy" options for NY to place a car order:
> 
> 1) Attempt to shift some MNRR or LIRR cars to Amtrak service with a refit; or
> 
> 2) "Piggyback" a car order on their next commuter car order (i.e. when ordering 100 or 200 commuter cars, just bump the order up with options and exercise them for cars with a marginally different seat layout (i.e. 60-72 seat capacity instead of 100-130) and more luggage space.
Click to expand...

LIRR does not have any cars that can be shifted to Amtrak service. They only have EMUs and C3 multi-levels which are not quite suitable for long distance service, though arguably New York to Montauk is a longer trip than New York to Albany in terms of time taken. In any case no surplus cars there.

MNRR has the Comets that are targeted for replacement in the near future, and could be cascaded with the California style Comarrow refurb into Amtrak service. The new commuter cars being talked about will probably be something like the NJT MLVs for MNRR, or so I am hearing, so piggybacking on that may not be an option. The only other new acquisitions are more EMUs.

Of course NJT has a slew of Comets that are prematurely retired to offer too. And there is the west of Hudson MNRR fleet, which will get replaced when the east of Hudson ones get replaced.


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> I don't have the details on the source of funding, but do you really expect the source of funding for any potential Amtrak targeted cars purchased by NY State to be any different? If you do, Amtrak targeted cars will be a long time in the coming. I suspect the funding source mix will not be any different for passenger cars irrespective of whether they are for use in commuter service or upstate service. Is there any reason to believe otherwise?
> 
> AFAICT the source of funding is a mix of State DoT, Federal FTA, Federal CMAQ, and potentially for NY Area PANYNJ. Any one of those can fund additional upstate targeted cars through some appropriate machination like cascading existing cars to upstate while replacing them with new cars in NY area, etc..


If NY State were to look to order its own equipment for the Empire corridor services, I think Amtrak would strongly resist NY buying different equipment. The FRA and US DOT (under the current administration) would almost certainly back up Amtrak on that. One purpose of the Next Gen single level car specifications is to purchase a uniform or mostly single level fleet. The Amfleets have been very successful in providing a standard car type that has been the mainstay in the eastern routes.

If NY State were to go off and order its own cars for the Empire service, PA its own set for the Keystone corridor while the NEC got a different set of cars, that would severely hamper the operational flexibility and adaptability that the Amfleet Is have provided for decades. No, I think NY, PA, VA, ME will be expected to support combined uniform large purchases of equipment. If the single level coach and café car order were to be placed with CAF at Elmira, I think the NY State politicians would rather supportive of that plan. :lol:

Discussions of future equipment purchases for the NEC and eastern states really should be in the Amtrak forum, not HSR. Even the Adirondack is leaning OT, but it does go to Montreal and improvements to and ridership growth for the Adirondack are key to the prospect of a future NYC to Montreal HSR service. I have been comparing the 1982 Adirondack schedule to the current one which is an interesting exercise and may post some thoughts on that later.


----------



## jis

afigg said:


> If NY State were to go off and order its own cars for the Empire service, PA its own set for the Keystone corridor while the NEC got a different set of cars, that would severely hamper the operational flexibility and adaptability that the Amfleet Is have provided for decades. No, I think NY, PA, VA, ME will be expected to support combined uniform large purchases of equipment. If the single level coach and café car order were to be placed with CAF at Elmira, I think the NY State politicians would rather supportive of that plan. :lol:


All that will of course depend on who eventually runs the Empire Corridor. It is not etched in stone that it will be Amtrak, though it still remains highly likely that it will be Amtrak.  As for choice of vendors, CAF in Elmira, Bombardier in Plattsburgh, and the Japanese outfit in Yonkers are all capable of producing said cars, so there is chance of some decent competition too. But at present none of them are producing the standard single level car as specified. The Viewliner is not the standard single level car specified.

Having said that, at present there appears to be no plan to acquire any new cars in the short order. Some number of Horizons are expected to cascade to the Empire Corridor and that should last them for the next decade easily.

BTW, Amfleets work fine with Amtrak's Horizon fleet as well as with an assortment of Comet cars. I don't see interoperability with a mix of cars as a big issue. They are all compatible with standards set by Amtrak. The argument for using single design is getting better pricing for larger orders. But NY already has huge orders for the basic Bombardier single level cars, and NJT + possibly MNRR have a huge production stream for the Bombardier MLVs. I don;t see any reason why something like the MLV would be unsuitable for the New York - Albany service for example, with suitable setup with different seats like the ACES MLVs.

Ironically, most of the commuter agencies that operate trailer cars are moving towards high platform multi-level cars on the NEC, and at least one is even contemplating high platform multi-level EMUs. So at least as far as commuter railroads are concerned, which buy an order of magnitude more cars than Amtrak and state contracted regional services will ever buy, are moving away from single level cars just a single level car standard is evolving. Surprisingly, in spite of the myriads of issues with the MLVs pointed out by the rail advocacy groups, they have proved to be very very popular with the riding public, as it shows in all surveys to date. There is public pressure on ConnDOT to acquire them after the denizens of Connecticut experience NJT MLVs on the football trains from New Haven to Secaucus!


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> If NY State were to go off and order its own cars for the Empire service, PA its own set for the Keystone corridor while the NEC got a different set of cars, that would severely hamper the operational flexibility and adaptability that the Amfleet Is have provided for decades. No, I think NY, PA, VA, ME will be expected to support combined uniform large purchases of equipment. If the single level coach and café car order were to be placed with CAF at Elmira, I think the NY State politicians would rather supportive of that plan. :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> All that will of course depend on who eventually runs the Empire Corridor. It is not etched in stone that it will be Amtrak, though it still remains highly likely that it will be Amtrak.  As for choice of vendors, CAF in Elmira, Bombardier in Plattsburgh, and the Japanese outfit in Yonkers are all capable of producing said cars, so there is chance of some decent competition too.
> 
> Having said that, at present there appears to be no plan to acquire any new cars in the short order. Some number of Horizons are expected to cascade to the Empire Corridor and that should last them for the next decade easily.
> 
> BTW, Amfleets work fine with Amtrak's Horizon fleet as well as with an assortment of Comet cars. I don't see interoperability with a mix of cars as a big issue. They are all compatible with standards set by Amtrak. The argument for using single design is getting better pricing for larger orders. But NY already has huge orders for the basic Bombardier single level cars, and NJT + possibly MNRR have a huge production stream for the Bombardier MLVs. I don;t see any reason why something like the MLV would be unsuitable for the New York - Albany service for example, with suitable setup with different seats like the ACES MLVs
Click to expand...

First, I think this is relevant because one thing tying up better upstate service _is_ the overall car situation. It's not at the top of the list, but it's a problem...particularly in light of the relative shortage of LD Amfleets.

Second, I agree that MLVs could be used for NYP-ALB service, as could Comets. Since I think I've seen MLVs and single-level cars stuffed together before, and since NY state seems to want food service on all trains, could an Amcafe or something similar be paired with such a set?


----------



## AlanB

jis said:


> I don't have the details on the source of funding, but do you really expect the source of funding for any potential Amtrak targeted cars purchased by NY State to be any different? If you do, Amtrak targeted cars will be a long time in the coming. I suspect the funding source mix will not be any different for passenger cars irrespective of whether they are for use in commuter service or upstate service. Is there any reason to believe otherwise?
> 
> AFAICT the source of funding is a mix of State DoT, Federal FTA, Federal CMAQ, and potentially for NY Area PANYNJ. Any one of those can fund additional upstate targeted cars through some appropriate machination like cascading existing cars to upstate while replacing them with new cars in NY area, etc..


No, I'm not expecting the State to buy Amtrak cars all on its own. I'm sure that they'll get help from the Fed in some fashion or another.

Just stating that there is a difference between saying that NY State brought a bunch of cars when they really aren't the lead in things when it comes to transit agencies and provide a rather low amount of the actual dollars vs. actually being the lead when it comes Amtrak cars for NY State services.


----------



## AlanB

jis said:


> LIRR does not have any cars that can be shifted to Amtrak service. They only have EMUs and C3 multi-levels which are not quite suitable for long distance service, though arguably New York to Montauk is a longer trip than New York to Albany in terms of time taken. In any case no surplus cars there.


It's not even a matter of being suitable for longer distances in terms of comfort. The LIRR has no cars left now that can service low level platforms. Everything is only compatible with high level plats; so unless NY State converts every platform to high level, nothing could be taken from the LIRR.


----------



## AlanB

jis said:


> BTW, Amfleets work fine with Amtrak's Horizon fleet as well as with an assortment of Comet cars. I don't see interoperability with a mix of cars as a big issue. They are all compatible with standards set by Amtrak. The argument for using single design is getting better pricing for larger orders. But NY already has huge orders for the basic Bombardier single level cars, and NJT + possibly MNRR have a huge production stream for the Bombardier MLVs. I don;t see any reason why something like the MLV would be unsuitable for the New York - Albany service for example, with suitable setup with different seats like the ACES MLVs.


Just curious if you know for sure that the Empire Connection tunnel was built with enough height clearance to clear a MLV? I would hope so, since it was constructed rather recently, but still I do have to wonder if they allowed for it or not, since the rest of NYP can't take Superliners anyhow.


----------



## Anderson

AlanB said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have the details on the source of funding, but do you really expect the source of funding for any potential Amtrak targeted cars purchased by NY State to be any different? If you do, Amtrak targeted cars will be a long time in the coming. I suspect the funding source mix will not be any different for passenger cars irrespective of whether they are for use in commuter service or upstate service. Is there any reason to believe otherwise?
> 
> AFAICT the source of funding is a mix of State DoT, Federal FTA, Federal CMAQ, and potentially for NY Area PANYNJ. Any one of those can fund additional upstate targeted cars through some appropriate machination like cascading existing cars to upstate while replacing them with new cars in NY area, etc..
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not expecting the State to buy Amtrak cars all on its own. I'm sure that they'll get help from the Fed in some fashion or another.
> 
> Just stating that there is a difference between saying that NY State brought a bunch of cars when they really aren't the lead in things when it comes to transit agencies and provide a rather low amount of the actual dollars vs. actually being the lead when it comes Amtrak cars for NY State services.
Click to expand...

My assumption in asking this was that NY State would be getting help from the Feds for at least part of the purchase cost; an 80-20 match wouldn't be unbelievable, for example.


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> LIRR does not have any cars that can be shifted to Amtrak service. They only have EMUs and C3 multi-levels which are not quite suitable for long distance service, though arguably New York to Montauk is a longer trip than New York to Albany in terms of time taken. In any case no surplus cars there.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not even a matter of being suitable for longer distances in terms of comfort. The LIRR has no cars left now that can service low level platforms. Everything is only compatible with high level plats; so unless NY State converts every platform to high level, nothing could be taken from the LIRR.
Click to expand...

Good point. Even if they did, they have no surplus anyway, and nothing that they plan to replace in the near future. MNRR does plan to replace at least a subfleet of the Comet fleet in the near future, with some (the ConnDOT ones) possibly cascading to Shore Line East. I know that Bombardier is actively working with ConnDOT to sell them a bunch of MLVs.

Incidentally LIRR does run the Cannonball and other East End Expresses using their C3 MLVs, and these trains have non stop runs for over an hour from the likes of Speonk to Jamaica and v.v. Actually they are kind of fun to ride IMHO, and not all that horrible as far as comfort goes. Yeah, no reclining seats, but the regular seats aren't all that bad for a couple of hours.


----------



## fairviewroad

Anderson said:


> you could probably cut everything south of ALB save NYP


No, no, you'd want to skip NYP too and just run the whole thing right into the Atlantic Ocean, so that the passengers can be exactly

like this pie-in-the-sky New York-Montreal high speed rail proposal: Dead On Arrival.


----------



## jis

fairviewroad said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> you could probably cut everything south of ALB save NYP
> 
> 
> 
> No, no, you'd want to skip NYP too and just run the whole thing right into the Atlantic Ocean, so that the passengers can be exactly
> 
> like this pie-in-the-sky New York-Montreal high speed rail proposal: Dead On Arrival.
Click to expand...

Heh! If you skipped NYP you'd have to run all the way to Greenport before you actually fall into the sea. :lol: But point well taken.


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> fairviewroad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> you could probably cut everything south of ALB save NYP
> 
> 
> 
> No, no, you'd want to skip NYP too and just run the whole thing right into the Atlantic Ocean, so that the passengers can be exactly
> 
> like this pie-in-the-sky New York-Montreal high speed rail proposal: Dead On Arrival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heh! If you skipped NYP you'd have to run all the way to Greenport before you actually fall into the sea. :lol: But point well taken.
Click to expand...

And now suddenly, I'm thinking of Alan Sherman's "J. C. Cohen" (a parody of Casey Jones, involving a northbound subway train).

Again, it depends on how you define "high speed rail" as to whether something is workable here. A run that has 79 MPH speeds off of the "bad stretch" along Lake Champlain but that does the run in seven hours or less is feasible without putting billions of dollars into the plan...but you'd need NY state to get on board, and that's not likely unless/until a lot is happening on the main Empire Corridor.


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> Again, it depends on how you define "high speed rail" as to whether something is workable here. A run that has 79 MPH speeds off of the "bad stretch" along Lake Champlain but that does the run in seven hours or less is feasible without putting billions of dollars into the plan...but you'd need NY state to get on board, and that's not likely unless/until a lot is happening on the main Empire Corridor.


A trip time of 7 hours would very likely require substantial ROW straightening between Fort Edwards and Plattsburgh. At some cost point, might as well build a true HSR corridor. However, I would venture that a roughly 8.5 hour trip time is feasible and maybe even 8 hours if enough money were spent in the slow stretches. I did a random check of Adirondack time-keeping on Amtrak Status Maps for different days in recent week and then back in the Spring. A common pattern is that the Adirondack runs late between Plattsburgh and Fort Edward, but then makes it up because of the extreme padding heading south of Saratoga Springs or north of Plattsburgh.

Removal of the custom stops at the border will help, not just in the obvious trip time savings, but I expect in better scheduling of the freight trains. If the southbound #68 spends anywhere from 45 to 90 minutes at the Rouses Point holding up the line, it throws a wild card every day into the dispatching of everything else on the line.

Rather than focus on 8 or 7 hour trip times, we should consider the effects of a 8-1/2 hour trip time (if Quebec is willing to pay for some track improvements north of the border). If ~86K are willing to take an almost 11 hour trip with a long mind numbing stop at the border for Customs, ridership should take off with a 9 or 8.5 hour trip time. Worry about better trip times later.


----------



## AlanB

afigg said:


> Removal of the custom stops at the border will help, not just in the obvious trip time savings, but I expect in better scheduling of the freight trains. If the southbound #68 spends anywhere from 45 to 90 minutes at the Rouses Point holding up the line, it throws a wild card every day into the dispatching of everything else on the line.


No freight crosses the border at Rouses Point, so it doesn't matter how long Amtrak sits there for customs, it doesn't matter at all in that place.

Now if the train departs late from Rouses because of Customs, it could cause conflicts further down the line with freight or even the sister train coming north.


----------



## Anderson

afigg said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it depends on how you define "high speed rail" as to whether something is workable here. A run that has 79 MPH speeds off of the "bad stretch" along Lake Champlain but that does the run in seven hours or less is feasible without putting billions of dollars into the plan...but you'd need NY state to get on board, and that's not likely unless/until a lot is happening on the main Empire Corridor.
> 
> 
> 
> A trip time of 7 hours would very likely require substantial ROW straightening between Fort Edwards and Plattsburgh. At some cost point, might as well build a true HSR corridor. However, I would venture that a roughly 8.5 hour trip time is feasible and maybe even 8 hours if enough money were spent in the slow stretches. I did a random check of Adirondack time-keeping on Amtrak Status Maps for different days in recent week and then back in the Spring. A common pattern is that the Adirondack runs late between Plattsburgh and Fort Edward, but then makes it up because of the extreme padding heading south of Saratoga Springs or north of Plattsburgh.
> 
> Removal of the custom stops at the border will help, not just in the obvious trip time savings, but I expect in better scheduling of the freight trains. If the southbound #68 spends anywhere from 45 to 90 minutes at the Rouses Point holding up the line, it throws a wild card every day into the dispatching of everything else on the line.
> 
> Rather than focus on 8 or 7 hour trip times, we should consider the effects of a 8-1/2 hour trip time (if Quebec is willing to pay for some track improvements north of the border). If ~86K are willing to take an almost 11 hour trip with a long mind numbing stop at the border for Customs, ridership should take off with a 9 or 8.5 hour trip time. Worry about better trip times later.
Click to expand...

Well, a lot of the problem is that it is quite often easier to sell people on ten $100 million projects than on a single $1 billion project; moreover, it is easier to obtain those sorts of budget commitments. Among the million other issues surrounding it, the long timeframe on CAHSR is a bit of a problem: Politicians can think in timeframes of up to a decade or so if pushed (even if 2-4 years is their preferred frame of reference, 8 years or so for a major project means that a Governor starting something big can hope to be in office when it is done). Moreover, and I could be wrong here, but I think that at least some rules regarding studies may be a bit more lenient on smaller projects (i.e. cleaning up a couple of grade crossings or straightening a curve within an existing RoW) than on larger ones (i.e. starting up a new route with fresh alignments). Witness how quickly, for example, the Norfolk train came together (3 years, including construction) versus how long the Richmond-to-Hampton Roads project is taking (from what I can tell, that study process started in 2004 and there's _still _a Tier II report required).

Being charitable, a bunch of small projects that can be shoehorned into a state budget with limited assistance from on high are more workable, in many cases, than one big project that requires a ten-year process. It's also worth noting that at least on the southern end of the Adirondack line (and the northern one as well), 90 MPH may be achievable (as opposed to "just" 79 MPH) within the foreseeable future. But when you get down to it, based on what is possible with regulations and whatnot, I'd rather see five or ten minutes of improvement every year or two than gamble on a big project aimed at whacking 90 minutes off of travel time (note that this is notwithstanding the border crossing delay).

Afigg: I'm going to argue that you can get down to eight hours even within reason, assuming that you can get a frequency that skips at least some downstate stops and some cooperation from QC. Right now, the trip is just over 11:00 (it's 11:05 NB and 11:10 SB). Dropping the customs stop should eliminate 2:00 each way, if the thick pad heading into Schenectady plus the customs times are any indication. That's 9:05-9:10 each way. Doing the limited NY State proposal should get you to 8:50-8:55 or so, and realistically shedding some of the local stops on the lower end (going to an LSL stopping schedule) should get you another ten minutes. 8:45-8:50 isn't entirely unreasonable to hope for, and that's with very little improvement along the line.

I do want to ask: Is the lower Empire Corridor capped at 90 MPH or 79 MPH? I can't recall, honestly, but the <60 MPH average speed suggests some room for improvement along here, and I _know_ there's a push to get 110 MPH running north of ALB.

My point with all of this is that with minimal operational changes and improvements, a push for 8:00 should be plausible without _too_ much effort in some sense, and as I think we can both agree, trip times in that range should send ridership up substantially enough to look at a second train (which should itself drive ridership up since I have very little doubt that the slightly insane NYP connection is _not_ helping with through traffic off of the NEC in _either_ direction, and a second train would seem to at least hint at one or the other leaving late enough to make the connection with a post-5:00 AM train out of DC one way, and to allow a legal connection to a train arriving in DC before 1:30 AM the other).

The other thing that I keep looking at is this: There's so much endpoint traffic on the route (and the "in between" areas are such a dead zone in terms of ridership) that I could see a serious discussion emerge of either an express frequency or an express section. As it is, I think the potential ridership to MTR with no changes but the removal of the border restrictions on capacity (i.e. not even cutting trip times down) is probably about 100k or so. I don't have a good metric to guess at what you'd get with consistent LD seating or with the large cut in in-transit time, but would demand increasing by 50% seem insane with that much improvement? I doubt it, and that's going to stress the train's capacity right there.

And Alan, I think you're dead on with the possible conflicts down the line being the issue...if CP can't tell whether the Adirondack will be coming through at 12:00 or 1:30, that's going to offer some real operational headaches.


----------



## AlanB

Anderson said:


> I do want to ask: Is the lower Empire Corridor capped at 90 MPH or 79 MPH? I can't recall, honestly, but the <60 MPH average speed suggests some room for improvement along here, and I _know_ there's a push to get 110 MPH running north of ALB.


If by lower Empire you mean ALB to POU, then neither. There are already places where the speeds top 100 MPH, although I don't believe that there are long stretches of that, but I've heard detectors claiming the train was going over 90 MPH on more than one occasion.


----------



## Anderson

AlanB said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do want to ask: Is the lower Empire Corridor capped at 90 MPH or 79 MPH? I can't recall, honestly, but the <60 MPH average speed suggests some room for improvement along here, and I _know_ there's a push to get 110 MPH running north of ALB.
> 
> 
> 
> If by lower Empire you mean ALB to POU, then neither. There are already places where the speeds top 100 MPH, although I don't believe that there are long stretches of that, but I've heard detectors claiming the train was going over 90 MPH on more than one occasion.
Click to expand...

Ah, that's good to hear. I'm just wondering...why, then, does it take 2:30 to get from NYP-ALB? Is it delays south of POU? Slow running on the Empire Connection?


----------



## AlanB

Anderson said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do want to ask: Is the lower Empire Corridor capped at 90 MPH or 79 MPH? I can't recall, honestly, but the <60 MPH average speed suggests some room for improvement along here, and I _know_ there's a push to get 110 MPH running north of ALB.
> 
> 
> 
> If by lower Empire you mean ALB to POU, then neither. There are already places where the speeds top 100 MPH, although I don't believe that there are long stretches of that, but I've heard detectors claiming the train was going over 90 MPH on more than one occasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, that's good to hear. I'm just wondering...why, then, does it take 2:30 to get from NYP-ALB? Is it delays south of POU? Slow running on the Empire Connection?
Click to expand...

Well again, I don't believe that there are long sustained stretches where the trains currently top 90MPH. Something that Amtrak is looking to change now with the long term lease.

And then yes there are slow patches on Metro North and sometimes interference from their trains, and then one isn't exactly flying from Spuyten Duyvil down to NYP.


----------



## Gratt

AlanB said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do want to ask: Is the lower Empire Corridor capped at 90 MPH or 79 MPH? I can't recall, honestly, but the <60 MPH average speed suggests some room for improvement along here, and I _know_ there's a push to get 110 MPH running north of ALB.
> 
> 
> 
> If by lower Empire you mean ALB to POU, then neither. There are already places where the speeds top 100 MPH, although I don't believe that there are long stretches of that, but I've heard detectors claiming the train was going over 90 MPH on more than one occasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, that's good to hear. I'm just wondering...why, then, does it take 2:30 to get from NYP-ALB? Is it delays south of POU? Slow running on the Empire Connection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well again, I don't believe that there are long sustained stretches where the trains currently top 90MPH. Something that Amtrak is looking to change now with the long term lease.
> 
> And then yes there are slow patches on Metro North and sometimes interference from their trains, and then one isn't exactly flying from Spuyten Duyvil down to NYP.
Click to expand...


It would be really interesting to see a map of speed restrictions between NYP-ALB. We can then all debate on what can and should be fixed :giggle:


----------



## George Harris

Here is a listing of allowed speeds and the milepost limits of their application from a 2004 CSX employee timetable. Taht timetable was legitimately available on-line for a while, whether still or not, I do not know. It only gives information north of the end of MNR ownership. There are only two zones of 110 mph speeds, one 16.8 miles long and the other, which is north of Albany, 7.3 miles long.

..75.5 End MNR, begin CSX

*..90*

..76.5

*..80*

..76.6

*..90*

..78.9

*..95*

..85.4

*..80*

..85.5

*..95*

..87.7

*..80*

..89.2 Rhinecliff Station

*..80*

..89.8

*..90*

..92.6

*..80*

..93.1

*..90*

102.3

*..80*

102.6

*..90*

108.8

*..80*

108.9

*..90*

114.1

*..50*

114.5 Hudson Station

*..50*

115.0

*..90*

119.4

*..75*

119.6

*..90*

121.5

*..85*

124.3

*110 <----*

141.1

*..75*

142.0

*..15*

142.1 Albany-Rensselaur Station

*..15*

142.4

*..20*

143.1

*..25*

143.6

*..40*

145.2

*..80*

146.9

*..90*

149.0

*110 <---*

156.3

*..90*

157.8

*..55*

159.5

*..30*

159.8 Schenectady Station

*..30*

159.9 Connection to CP for Montreal 15 mph through connection track


----------



## Anderson

George,

Thank you for the chart. It really does help to actually have numbers to go on.

Looking at this, how much of that 80-95 territory could go to 100-110? I know some of those dropoffs are curve-related or yard-related (and besides, the slowdown at Albany and the one at Schenectady are both largely incidental since the train has to stop for them anyway), but I'm seeing well over 50 miles of reasonably quick track that might be a candidate for nudging up further.

Likewise, does anyone know the speeds along the MNR section? That's another 75 miles or so of track, and there are some good, straight sections that could benefit there (to say nothing of the benefits of speeding up the West Side Line/Empire Connection once you get out of Penn).


----------



## AlanB

Anderson said:


> Likewise, does anyone know the speeds along the MNR section? That's another 75 miles or so of track, and there are some good, straight sections that could benefit there


Top speed from Spuyten Duyvil to Manitou is 75 MPH, with lots of exceptions for curves and complex interlockings at major stations. After Manitou it is 80 MPH to just past Garrison, where it goes up to 90 MPH until Beacon. From Beacon on top speeds range from 80 to 90 MPH to Poukeepsie. And of course curves still impact those tops speeds all along the way.

I'm not sure if speeds can be increased much beyond those numbers along the way, and I have to wonder at what cost too. But I can tell you that without considerable pressure from the Governor on the MTA board, not to mention the dollars flowing from Albany which is unlikely, the MTA will not even think about higher speeds for its line as they simply don't need it and don't want the scheduling complications that will come from running Amtrak faster than their own trains.



Anderson said:


> (to say nothing of the benefits of speeding up the West Side Line/Empire Connection once you get out of Penn).


There are only 10 miles of track between NYP and the bridge at Spuyten Duyvil. The bulk of that has a top speed of 60 MPH, with some 50's & 55's thrown in along the way. Then things slow down for both the bridge and the extremely sharp curves coming into NYP. I suppose that one might be able to bump things up to a top speed of 90 MPH for maybe 7 to 8 miles of the 10, but you're not really buying that much time and there is considerable risk with running 30 MPH faster thanks to all those living in the tunnels and under the overpasses above this line.


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> (to say nothing of the benefits of speeding up the West Side Line/Empire Connection once you get out of Penn).
> 
> 
> 
> There are only 10 miles of track between NYP and the bridge at Spuyten Duyvil. The bulk of that has a top speed of 60 MPH, with some 50's & 55's thrown in along the way. Then things slow down for both the bridge and the extremely sharp curves coming into NYP. I suppose that one might be able to bump things up to a top speed of 90 MPH for maybe 7 to 8 miles of the 10, but you're not really buying that much time and there is considerable risk with running 30 MPH faster thanks to all those living in the tunnels and under the overpasses above this line.
Click to expand...

Also do not forget the sharp curves in the middle of it all by the Trump property at what used to be CP Martha (AFAIR). All that used to be in the open, but is now in a tunnel under various Trump buildings.

I don;t see much chance of saving a lot of time on that segment.


----------



## AlanB

jis said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are only 10 miles of track between NYP and the bridge at Spuyten Duyvil. The bulk of that has a top speed of 60 MPH, with some 50's & 55's thrown in along the way. Then things slow down for both the bridge and the extremely sharp curves coming into NYP. I suppose that one might be able to bump things up to a top speed of 90 MPH for maybe 7 to 8 miles of the 10, but you're not really buying that much time and there is considerable risk with running 30 MPH faster thanks to all those living in the tunnels and under the overpasses above this line.
> 
> 
> 
> Also do not forget the sharp curves in the middle of it all by the Trump property at what used to be CP Martha (AFAIR). All that used to be in the open, but is now in a tunnel under various Trump buildings.
> 
> I don;t see much chance of saving a lot of time on that segment.
Click to expand...

No CP Martha anymore to my knowledge, and not real sure just where it might have been. Don't see any CP in that area. However, there is a 25 MPH curve just past MP 2 at about 2.25 as a guess, which would put it in the general area of the Trump Buildings. And that 25 lies within the 35 MPH overall speed limit from CP Empire at the MP 1 marker. Right after that curve is where the top speed jumps to 60 MPH and shortly after that the train enters the Riverside Park Overbuild.

That ruling 60, save curve restrictions, lasts until CP Inwood at MP 10, where it drops down to 45 MPH for the Harlem River Bridge at Spuyten Duyvil and the tie in to Metro North territory.


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are only 10 miles of track between NYP and the bridge at Spuyten Duyvil. The bulk of that has a top speed of 60 MPH, with some 50's & 55's thrown in along the way. Then things slow down for both the bridge and the extremely sharp curves coming into NYP. I suppose that one might be able to bump things up to a top speed of 90 MPH for maybe 7 to 8 miles of the 10, but you're not really buying that much time and there is considerable risk with running 30 MPH faster thanks to all those living in the tunnels and under the overpasses above this line.
> 
> 
> 
> Also do not forget the sharp curves in the middle of it all by the Trump property at what used to be CP Martha (AFAIR). All that used to be in the open, but is now in a tunnel under various Trump buildings.
> 
> I don;t see much chance of saving a lot of time on that segment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No CP Martha anymore to my knowledge, and not real sure just where it might have been. Don't see any CP in that area. However, there is a 25 MPH curve just past MP 2 at about 2.25 as a guess, which would put it in the general area of the Trump Buildings. And that 25 lies within the 35 MPH overall speed limit from CP Empire at the MP 1 marker. Right after that curve is where the top speed jumps to 60 MPH and shortly after that the train enters the Riverside Park Overbuild.
> 
> That ruling 60, save curve restrictions, lasts until CP Inwood at MP 10, where it drops down to 45 MPH for the Harlem River Bridge at Spuyten Duyvil and the tie in to Metro North territory.
Click to expand...

Before Trump took over that property there was a small yard there which connected to the Empire Connection via CP Martha. Now it is gone since there is no yard and nothing to connect to.

I suspect that with some effort the 60 could probably go up to 75, but no more. That would give some 4 miles or so of actual 75 mph running maybe, given that there are curve restrictions even in that segment AFAIR. On the whole probably not worth the effort, to save 50 secs or so, if that.


----------



## AlanB

jis said:


> I suspect that with some effort the 60 could probably go up to 75, but no more. That would give some 4 miles or so of actual 75 mph running maybe, given that there are curve restrictions even in that segment AFAIR. On the whole probably not worth the effort, to save 50 secs or so, if that.


I count 8 curve restrictions between MP 2.25 (approx) and MP 10, which is the ruling 60 MPH territory on the line.


----------



## George Harris

Anderson said:


> George,
> 
> Thank you for the chart. It really does help to actually have numbers to go on.
> 
> Looking at this, how much of that 80-95 territory could go to 100-110? I know some of those dropoffs are curve-related or yard-related (and besides, the slowdown at Albany and the one at Schenectady are both largely incidental since the train has to stop for them anyway), but I'm seeing well over 50 miles of reasonably quick track that might be a candidate for nudging up further.
> 
> Likewise, does anyone know the speeds along the MNR section? That's another 75 miles or so of track, and there are some good, straight sections that could benefit there (to say nothing of the benefits of speeding up the West Side Line/Empire Connection once you get out of Penn).


You would have to run 8.25 miles at 110 instead of 90 to save one minute. I would suspect that almost everyhing under 90 mph is curve related.


----------



## afigg

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the current goal is to reduce NYP to ALB trip times by 15 minutes to a typical schedule time of 2:15. Don't know if the funds that have been provided to NY and Amtrak for the improvements projects for the Poughkeepsie to Albany segment of the corridor are sufficient to achieve that. Or whether there are more projects yet to be funded for other improvements along the entire corridor that are required to get to a reliable 2:15 NYP-ALB time.

Among the HSIPR grants to NY, there is $2.45 million for grade crossing improvements described as "Improvements to the reliability of the existing grade crossing warning device equipment, allowing them to provide satisfactory approach warning times without the need for further upgrade if higher rail speeds are implemented. This project is located at 12 grade crossing locations on the CSXT Hudson subdivision (MP 75.95-126.98)". So, they are upgrading or replacing the sensor equipment so it can handle higher speeds automatically? How many of these crossings have quad gates or at least longer gate arms?

There is also $58.1 million for a 4th track at ALB, Schenectady station upgrades, signal upgrades; $7.9 million to move the signal wires north of Poughkeepsie underground, and, of course, $91.2 million for the second track between ALB and SDY.

The question for the Adirondack is how much can or will the trip time be reduced between NYP and SDY? Looks to me to something less than 3 hours northbound, maybe 3 hours or so southbound to leave padding in to make up for delays north of Saratoga Springs. That leads to the question of what the trip time might be north of SDY with the Customs inspection done at the Montreal station, no stops at St. Lambert or Cantic north of the border.


----------



## George Harris

AlanB said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that with some effort the 60 could probably go up to 75, but no more. That would give some 4 miles or so of actual 75 mph running maybe, given that there are curve restrictions even in that segment AFAIR. On the whole probably not worth the effort, to save 50 secs or so, if that.
> 
> 
> 
> I count 8 curve restrictions between MP 2.25 (approx) and MP 10, which is the ruling 60 MPH territory on the line.
Click to expand...

I would be very interested in knowing the speeds and their limits in this area and on up to Poukeepsie. If anyone has a copy of the operating timetables, they normally have a list of speeds in the back pages, or sometimes even next to the scheduly page.


----------



## Nathanael

Looking at all these curves makes me wonder -- tilting trains, folks? Get some for Metro-North too (you only need them for the expresses, since the line has express and local tracks).


----------



## Anderson

Nathanael said:


> Looking at all these curves makes me wonder -- tilting trains, folks? Get some for Metro-North too (you only need them for the expresses, since the line has express and local tracks).



I'm not sure exactly _how_ much speed a tilt train _actually_ gets you. At least with the Acelas, I know it's _just_ a comfort issue. However, the Talgos can somehow go a bit faster up in the Northwest.


----------



## jis

Acelas are allowed to go around curves faster than Regionals. It is a comfort issue for Acelas as well as Talgos. No safety issue involved. Afterall none of the engines/power heads tilt.


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> Acelas are allowed to go around curves faster than Regionals. It is a comfort issue for Acelas as well as Talgos. No safety issue involved. Afterall none of the engines/power heads tilt.


Does this apply on lower-speed curves (i.e. where all of the limits are <125 MPH)? i.e. Are there curves that are 70 MPH for a Regional but 80 MPH for an Acela?


----------



## AlanB

Anderson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acelas are allowed to go around curves faster than Regionals. It is a comfort issue for Acelas as well as Talgos. No safety issue involved. Afterall none of the engines/power heads tilt.
> 
> 
> 
> Does this apply on lower-speed curves (i.e. where all of the limits are <125 MPH)? i.e. Are there curves that are 70 MPH for a Regional but 80 MPH for an Acela?
Click to expand...

Yes. Although I'm not sure if those are the exact numbers in the case of Acela, but yes, even in areas where the speed for all trains is 125 MPH or less, Acela can still be given a higher speed than a Regional can.

Back when the Acela brake debacle hit, and Metroliners were brought back to fill the void for a while, they ran slower over the entire run than Acela. And it wasn't just because of 125 vs 135 or 150 in places, it was because they have to take certain curves slower than the Acelas no matter what.

Or as another example, I've been on an Acela where the Tilt failed. Because of that, they had to run slower through the curves than normal.


----------



## Anderson

Huh. I'd always been told that it was a "comfort thing" rather than an actual speed issue (and that the Talgo situation had as much to do with tilting as it did with shorter cars in the sets). Then again, passengers getting nauseous or bounced around because of lousy curve handling _would_ qualify as both, I suspect.

Now I can't help but wonder what a tilting set could do along the line in upstate.


----------



## jis

The speed limits set by FRA take comfort into account. Purely from a safety perspective a Regional could run at the same speed as Acelas through all curves. But they are not allowed to do so because the lateral g force would be higher than the standards used by the FRA to set speed limits. So I think you got the words right but the meaning a bit jumbled up.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> Acelas are allowed to go around curves faster than Regionals. It is a comfort issue for Acelas as well as Talgos. No safety issue involved. Afterall none of the engines/power heads tilt.


The 'comfort issue' could translate into a safety issue as far as the passengers inside go....while the trains themselves can go around the curves at the same speeds, provided their center of gravity is similar, the tilt mechanism directs the centrifugal force so that the passenger is pressed down toward the floor rather than sideways...so they may feel 'heavier' going around fast curves, but are not thrown off their feet.


----------



## jis

Yes, safety of passengers, not of rolling stock.


----------

