# When Vermonter to Montreal?



## penfrydd (Jan 17, 2014)

Itching for the Greenfield, MA station stop for the rerouted Vermonter, and wondering on the status/timetable for the route all the way to Montreal. Any word?


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jan 17, 2014)

Montreal extension just talk for now. Up to Vermont and Quebec to come up with cash for track repairs, customs/immigration facility at Gare Central.


----------



## afigg (Jan 17, 2014)

MikefromCrete said:


> Montreal extension just talk for now. Up to Vermont and Quebec to come up with cash for track repairs, customs/immigration facility at Gare Central.


No, the Montreal extension is more than just "talk". VT has received funding with a TIGER grant to upgrade the tracks all the way to the VT-Canada border. The various US federal agencies are in negotiations with their Canadian counterparts on the treaty revisions and procedural issues on setting up a Customs Facility in Montreal. There are floor plans and IIRC a preliminary design contract was awarded for the facility. The primary US side driver for the facility is NY state for the Adirondack with VT in a support role. The wheels of bureaucracy are turning slowly on this, but they are turning. It could happen in the next several years, we'll see.. I expect there will be a news update sometime this year. Jis may have more recent news on the status.

As for the re-route to the CT River Line, that is expected to happen in early 2015.


----------



## battalion51 (Jan 17, 2014)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they set up a customs operation in Vancouver, BC similar to what afigg described for Cascades service? Is the setup where passengers are screened by Canadians on the inbound trip and Americans on the outbound trip? That definitely seems like it'd be hugely beneficial for all parties involved since you could just leave on the inbound trip after your inspection was complete. It'd also be good for the crews since it would allow additional rest time for them since they're not having to wait for the train to be cleared by the border folks.


----------



## the_traveler (Jan 17, 2014)

You are correct. There is a fenced off Customs track in Vancouver. Part of the problem at Gare Central is that it is an underground station (like NYP) with numerous trains (both intercity and commuter) throughout the day.


----------



## jis (Jan 17, 2014)

the_traveler said:


> You are correct. There is a fenced off Customs track in Vancouver. Part of the problem at Gare Central is that it is an underground station (like NYP) with numerous trains (both intercity and commuter) throughout the day.


What they plan to do apparently is use a currently little used platform track as the international platform with attached C&I upstairs at the concourse level. Of course none of this will happen until the Canadian Parliament and the US Congress can pass the modified treaty necessary to allow American CBP agents to work on Canadian soil beyond airports and Vancouver Pacific Central Station (and anywhere else where they operate now). If and when it happens it is envisaged that a CBP detachment from the American CBP staff assigned to Dorval will handle C&I on departures to the US from Gare Centrale.


----------



## Nathanael (Jan 17, 2014)

The current delay for Montreal service is "treaty negotiations" between the US, Canada, and Quebec over setting up a "preclearance" facility in Montreal Gare Centrale.

This particular delay has been going on for what, years now? I don't know why "treaty negotiations" are taking so long, though if I were to hazard a guess I'd guess that Stephen Harper hates passenger rail and has ordered the negotiators to delay -- but that's just me being conspiracy-minded. It could also be that the US is irrationally demanding insane things which no Canadian can accept, since that seems to be par for the course in treaty negotiations in recent years.

Anyway, the facility is designed, though I don't know if everyone's signed off on it -- it's going to use a track and platform which are currently unused and wasted as employee parking.

Anyway, the first use of the "preclearance" facility will be for the Adirondack.

Regarding extending the Vermonter to Montreal, it has been concluded that the schedule works out (won't conflict with the Adirondack). I believe the "treaty" arrangements are going to preemptively make sure that the border agents agree to handling the Vermonter. And the tracks have already been upgraded as far as the US-Canadian border. I'm sure VIA and AMT will have no complaints. The extension would require an additional agreement with CN (potentially a problem), and possibly an upgrade from the border to Cantic, but that's not a long distance.

The reroute of the Vermonter to the Connecticut River Line is a separate project which will probably finish earlier. It was supposed to happen in (late) 2014, but it may have slipped to (early) 2015. Massachusetts seems to have difficulty doing projects on schedule.

The Springfield (MA) Union Station project is also funded and under construction but I haven't heard much about it since, I think, April. There seems to be one recent update indicating that they've dealt with the asbestos and are now figuring out how to demolish the baggage building without damaging the main building. All the work seems to be on demolishing the baggage building -- I'm not sure if they've started on the train station, tunnel, or platforms at all yet! For some reason this project has no scheduled completion date of any kind. :-(

The NHHS project (New Haven-Springfield), thankfully, has regular updates: http://www.nhhsrail.com/info_center/newsbriefs.aspx -- they're continuing progress with laying signal wire.

The extensions of the Ethan Allen are Vermont's other big project, and unlike the rest of the things I mentioned, those extensions are not funded. But the governor of Vermont has announced that he's going to get the extension to Burlington done, and bits of trackwork keep getting funded and built in dribs and drabs.


----------



## afigg (Jan 17, 2014)

Nathanael said:


> The reroute of the Vermonter to the Connecticut River Line is a separate project which will probably finish earlier. It was supposed to happen in (late) 2014, but it may have slipped to (early) 2015. Massachusetts seems to have difficulty doing projects on schedule.
> 
> ...
> 
> The extensions of the Ethan Allen are Vermont's other big project, and unlike the rest of the things I mentioned, those extensions are not funded. But the governor of Vermont has announced that he's going to get the extension to Burlington done, and bits of trackwork keep getting funded and built in dribs and drabs.


The re-route over the CT River Line has slipped to 2015. Found a recent news article that mentions it as part of a report on Mass DOT plans for the Inland route and improving Boston to Springfield service: Talk of high-speed rail between Springfield and Boston heats up. I think Worcester to Springfield would be upgraded to 79 mph Class IV, hardly high speed, but sloppy headline writers are nothing new. Mass DOT has posted a five year Capital Improvement Plan which calls for $249 million over the next 5 years for a grab bag of rail projects - seasonal Cape Cod service track upgrades., Springfield station, Housatonic Railroad upgrades and Inland Route. I would not rule out a return of at least 1 daily Inland Route Regional by or in 2017 once the funded NHV-SPG upgrades are completed and Worcester to Framingham-BOS upgrades for MBTA service are done.

As for extending the Ethan Allen, VT received a $9 million FY13 TIGER grant with matching state funding for a total of $18.5 million to upgrade a 20 mile segment of the Vermont Railway with CWR to Class III track. VT got a $7.9 million FY12 TIGER grant to upgrade the tracks north of St. Albans. The TIGER grant program has been good to Vermont, in part I'm sure because 20% of the TIGER grant funds have to go to rural areas. I expect VT will submit an FY14 TIGER application for a grant, along with matching state funds, to upgrade the remainder of the tracks from Rutland to Burlington. Ethan Allen to Burlington by 2017 is a good possibility.


----------



## battalion51 (Jan 17, 2014)

In reality it shouldn't be that big of a challenge to get the B&A up to 80 or 90 MPH maximum speeds. The biggest hurdle for high speeds is getting cab signals put in place, which is already in there. In reality you're looking at upgrading some rail and track bed, and putting down a second set of tracks in some areas, if not the whole way. That also shouldn't be a challenge since the B&A was double tracked years ago. Heck, there are some places where it is very apparent where double track was as the train negotiates through cut/throws from double track being ripped out. We're only talking about 98 miles from Springfield to Boston, getting it to an average speed of 60 MPH is extremely doable.


----------



## NS VIA Fan (Jan 17, 2014)

Here's a link to Power-Point presentation with floor plans and photos of the proposed facility in Gare Centrale

http://www.thetbwg.org/meetings/201304/presentations/D1P7a.ppt

There's only a short section of track on the Quebec side of the border that would require upgrading between Vermont and Cantic where a "Vermonter" would junction with the Adirondack's route into Montreal.

https://www.google.ca/maps/preview#!q=Cantic%2C+QC&data=!4m15!2m14!1m13!1s0x4cc985e4686a94b5%3A0x2cfb12a32b56f0ba!3m8!1m3!1d9408!2d-73.34938!3d45.0649755!3m2!1i1366!2i641!4f13.1!4m2!3d45.064976!4d-73.34938

.....And a pre-clearance facility would require the elimination of the suburban St. Lambert stop as the trains would have to run non-stop between Montreal and the US/Can border.


----------



## CHamilton (Mar 31, 2014)

Another Amtrak train on track?




> The Inland Rail Study is considering a 484-mile route through Springfield that would go beyond the St. Albans terminus of Amtrak’s Vermonter and connect the Northeast with a northern anchor in the Quebec capital, traveling at an estimated top speed of 90 miles an hour, Franklin County’s regional transportation planning manager Maureen Mullaney told the Franklin Regional Planning Board this week.


----------



## the_traveler (Mar 31, 2014)

Where is this "90 MPH" stretch? :huh: Certainly not in Vermont!


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Mar 31, 2014)

NS VIA Fan said:


> Here's a link to Power-Point presentation with floor plans and photos of the proposed facility in Gare Centrale
> 
> http://www.thetbwg.org/meetings/201304/presentations/D1P7a.ppt
> 
> ...



Thanks for posting the link to that power point. An interesting read.


----------



## jis (Mar 31, 2014)

the_traveler said:


> Where is this "90 MPH" stretch? :huh: Certainly not in Vermont!


I think people keep tossing out that 90mph number not because they have any clue about what the profile of a route is and whether any train can practically run at such a speed for any sustained length of time, but simply because that is what you get for Class 6 track and it requires very minimal grade crossing work.
What is always more important is what is the start to stop average speed that can be attained, i.e. the total running time from O to D, rather than what maximum speed is achieved en route.

Mullaney is just being unrealistically optimistic, is all I can say, and will fail to deliver on the promise in a very spectacular way. That is one bit of certainty in all of this.


----------



## Eric S (Mar 31, 2014)

Hmm, the capital city of the province of Quebec is Quebec (City), not Montreal.

My guess would be that the 90mph reference is either optimistic (as Jis mentioned) or just confused the speeds planned or hoped for on the various routes in that study (Boston-Springfield, Springfield-Greenfield-Vermont-Montreal, Springfield-New Haven, etc).


----------



## George Harris (Mar 31, 2014)

For all these routes these people throwing around "high speed" "90 mph" and similar talk need to learn how to read maps and observe the crookedness of many of these rail lines. You can post all the 90 mph maximum speeds you want, but if you have numerous 40 to 60 mph curves and a route that is several miles longer than the semi parallel interstate highway, you will NOT achieve run times faster than driving times, or even close to them.

A hint: The Crescent takes 4 hours between Atlanta and Birmingham over a 165 mile line. google Maps says 2 hours 17 minutes and 147 miles. NS has a 79 mph speed lmit on this route, so why not the 60 mph, that is 2 hours 45 minutes that is easily achievable with a 79 mph speed limt? One answer, curves. This issue applies to virtually all railroad routes in New England.

Then, there is also the little issue of signal system north of White River Junction. There is not one. That gives you a 59 mph limit even if the alignment would allow more.

How about we have an attack of realism?


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Mar 31, 2014)

BTW does anyone know why Montreal and QC stations have elevated platform while rest of Canada has low platforms?


----------



## me_little_me (Mar 31, 2014)

George Harris said:


> For all these routes these people throwing around "high speed" "90 mph" and similar talk need to learn how to read maps and observe the crookedness of many of these rail lines. You can post all the 90 mph maximum speeds you want, but if you have numerous 40 to 60 mph curves and a route that is several miles longer than the semi parallel interstate highway, you will NOT achieve run times faster than driving times, or even close to them.
> 
> A hint: The Crescent takes 4 hours between Atlanta and Birmingham over a 165 mile line. google Maps says 2 hours 17 minutes and 147 miles. NS has a 79 mph speed lmit on this route, so why not the 60 mph, that is 2 hours 45 minutes that is easily achievable with a 79 mph speed limt? One answer, curves. This issue applies to virtually all railroad routes in New England.
> 
> ...


Actually the only statistic that has any meaning is departure to arrival time.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 31, 2014)

me_little_me said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > For all these routes these people throwing around "high speed" "90 mph" and similar talk need to learn how to read maps and observe the crookedness of many of these rail lines. You can post all the 90 mph maximum speeds you want, but if you have numerous 40 to 60 mph curves and a route that is several miles longer than the semi parallel interstate highway, you will NOT achieve run times faster than driving times, or even close to them.
> ...


True


----------



## afigg (Mar 31, 2014)

the_traveler said:


> Where is this "90 MPH" stretch? :huh: Certainly not in Vermont!


It actually might be in Canada. It would not apply for a Boston to Montreal train, but the New Haven to Springfield tracks are to be be upgraded to a nominal 110 mph capability. With the stops and grade crossings on the NHV-SPG corridor, the Vermonter may only reach 90 or 110 mph for short segments, but Amtrak would be able to claim the corridor as 110 mph trackage in their system statistics.


----------



## Mike (Jun 14, 2014)

I think VT to montreal would come only after the pre-clearance facility in montreal can be actually opened. There is alot of NY political power behind getting it into montreal but the earliest i think they are saying is 2016. The New York to Montreal route has so much potential to increase times i think all that work will happen before VT to montreal happens.

Hopefully we can get two routes to montreal eventually! The vermont route had very low numbers compared to the NY route so faster tracks might help to improve increase some numbers.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 15, 2014)

the_traveler said:


> Where is this "90 MPH" stretch? :huh: Certainly not in Vermont!





afigg said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Where is this "90 MPH" stretch? :huh: Certainly not in Vermont!
> ...


I was thinking this as well. There's a lot of track between the border and Montreal that is pretty straight and _very_ flat which would be a candidate for high top speeds. Rouses Point to Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu is about 20 miles of straightaway, and the line between St. Albans and meeting that line isn't terrible, especially once you get across the lake. Really, the track is good for fast running until you get into Montreal...where an attack of bad curves makes a hash out of everything.

*sighs*

Serious, frustrating question: How is the track into the old Windsor station vs. that into Gare Central? Right now, Amtrak misconnects with just about everything VIA runs on the way north. You can barely make a connection from the Ocean to the Adirondack (as a friend of mine did once). You can also make a connection from Ottawa or Quebec to the Adirondack now...but absolutely nothing connects the other way with any semblance of reliability. When Amtrak was using Windsor station and made the switch, IIRC you (A) still had an overnight train on the Corridor and (B) the Montrealer was running overnight and so allowed connections to day trains both coming and going. If you could tighten things up a bit so you had good connections on both ends this would be moot, but I have to ask given that the Adirondack _largely_ operates without much interlining with other trains.


----------



## penfrydd (Jun 15, 2014)

Are these all going to be Amtrak trains? I hear soft murmurs of Metro-North running to Hartford.


----------



## jis (Jun 15, 2014)

penfrydd said:


> Are these all going to be Amtrak trains? I hear soft murmurs of Metro-North running to Hartford.


Not Metro-North. ConnDOT, like Shore Line East.

But any train to Canada is likely to be Amtrak more than anything else, even though funded by New York or Vermont.


----------



## jamesontheroad (Nov 4, 2014)

Just a nudge to resurrect an old thread - are there any more recent updates on the Vermonter reaching Mtl?

Thanks!


----------



## neroden (Nov 4, 2014)

Nope! No news since *2012*. (I've been impatiently keeping an eye on this one myself.)


----------



## FreeskierInVT (Nov 4, 2014)

Just saw this article from last week:

http://vtdigger.org/2014/10/27/first-step-toward-cross-border-rail-service/


----------



## jamesontheroad (Nov 5, 2014)

FreeskierInVT said:


> Just saw this article from last week:
> 
> http://vtdigger.org/2014/10/27/first-step-toward-cross-border-rail-service/


That's something, I suppose. Thanks for sharing.

It's frustrating given that just a few miles from Montreal Gare Centrale is a fully functioning and staffed USBP pre clearance facility at Dorval Airport (YUL). It could be argued that opening a facility for rail passengers increases the value for money afforded by the US tax payer subsidising American officials stationed in the city 

If this major investment could be secured, the Adirondack could post a much shorted journey time (improving connections at both ends), the Vermonter could return to Montreal and - just maybe - the case could be made for a new service to/from Boston. After all, once the various agencies involved have invested in such a pre clearance facility, for once the argument can be made that to make it more cost effective more train should be run.


----------



## NYerTrainFan (Feb 28, 2015)

The Ethan Allen up to Burlington will be huge if they can do 2x a day i bet ridership soars. i bet we see ridership on the vermonter take a huge hit when the Ethan Allen is connected.

For pre-clearance in Montreal i know we all hope this can get resolved and rolling. They really need to improve the tracks between plattsbugh and montreal they have to be the slowest on amtrak the train barely moves.

Basically amtrak really needs to get speeds to be competitive with driving times that doesn't seem unrealistic goal for 2020 does it?


----------



## NYerTrainFan (Feb 28, 2015)

Until the pre clearance is done, the vermonter to montreal seems unrealistic. I though the numbers to montreal were always super low compared to the adirondack


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Mar 16, 2015)

The agreement between the US and Canada to speed border crossings has been signed. This should help towards extending the Vermonter to Montreal.

Tres bon!


----------



## Bob Dylan (Mar 16, 2015)

The Davy Crockett said:


> The agreement between the US and Canada to speed border crossings has been signed. This should help towards extending the Vermonter to Montreal.
> 
> Tres bon!


Good news Scott! Does mean the Adirondack will now have all the Border Crossing rig-a-morale done @ the Station in Montreal like the Cascades in [email protected] Pacific Central?


----------



## jis (Mar 16, 2015)

jimhudson said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> > The agreement between the US and Canada to speed border crossings has been signed. This should help towards extending the Vermonter to Montreal.
> ...


No this means now the construction of the facilities at Montreal Gare Centrale for the C&I facility can begin. The first step would be issuing RFP etc. to put the bulding contract in place.

The C&I rigmarole can move to Montreal only after the facilities have completed construction and are put into operation.


----------



## afigg (Mar 16, 2015)

jis said:


> No this means now the construction of the facilities at Montreal Gare Centrale for the C&I facility can begin. The first step would be issuing RFP etc. to put the bulding contract in place.
> 
> The C&I rigmarole can move to Montreal only after the facilities have completed construction and are put into operation.


I'm not sure if this agreement evens means they can advance to construction of a CBP facility at Gare Centrale. The agreement that was signed was a broad agreement on preclearances across all transportation modes. It may be necessary to reach and sign a separate agreement and terms with the specifics for a custom facility at Montreal.

DHS press release: United States and Canada Sign Preclearance Agreement

Senator Leahy press release: Leahy Hails U.S.-Canada Pre-Clearance Agreement That Brings Closer The Goal Of Restoring Vermont-To-Montreal Passenger Rail Service. I found a press release on this at Senator Leahy's website, but not Senator Schumer (yet). Leahy's office beat Schumer's office to getting this in front of the press for positive press coverage? How did that happen?

Anyway, Leahy's press release supports the notion that yet more negotiations are ahead before they can even start work on a facility at MTR.



> WASHINGTON (MONDAY, March 16, 2015) -- Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) says years of work on the goal of restoring passenger rail service between Vermont and Montreal took a major step forward Monday as the United States and Canada signed a long-awaited agreement designed to improve cross border travel and security between the two countries.
> 
> U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Canadian Minister of Public Safety Steven Blaney signed a new pre-clearance agreement in Washington that was negotiated under the Beyond the Border Action Plan approved earlier by President Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
> 
> Pre-clearance facilities allow travelers to pass through U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspections prior to traveling, permitting them to quickly move along to their destinations upon arrival in the United States. A new agreement has been needed before discussions and work on creating a pre-clearance facility at Montreal’s Central Station -- and re-establishing train service between Vermont and Montreal -- could happen. The agreement is also a positive step for improving the travel experience on the air service between Burlington International Airport and Toronto City Airport.


The agreement is a big step and one that has been a long time coming, considering Schumer and other NY/VT Senators asked to speed up the process towards a customs facility in May, 2012. Almost 3 years ago.


----------



## jis (Mar 16, 2015)

This is the big "treaty update" that was talked about.

Unfortunately, I believe this agreement has to be approved by the legislature in both countries. I have not seen any announcement that such has been addressed by the Congress in the US yet, and when it involves Congress, .... well ....

After that step, the rest of it should be relatively easy. But of course time will tell....


----------



## afigg (Mar 16, 2015)

jis said:


> This is the big "treaty update" that was talked about.
> 
> Unfortunately, I believe this agreement has to be approved by the legislature in both countries. I have not seen any announcement that such has been addressed by the Congress in the US yet, and when it involves Congress, .... well ....
> 
> After that step, the rest of it should be relatively easy. But of course time will tell....


I should have quoted this paragraph in the DHS press release:



> Given the groundbreaking nature of the agreement, the United States and Canada must enact legislation for it to be implemented. The Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act was introduced in the last Congress, and we are hopeful of its reintroduction in this Congress. Currently, the 2001 U.S.-Canada Air Transport Preclearance Agreement continues to apply.


If this is legislation and not a treaty, then it would have to pass both the House and Senate. That could take a while, years even, especially if it becomes a bargaining chip over other legislation someone would to block or fight over. The question is whether US and Canadian Customs and the Canadian & Quebec governments would proceed on facility design and working out the details & how to fund it while waiting on Congress to pass legislation, so they could proceed to construction once both countries have passed the needed legislation to enact the agreement. Or does the process stall entirely while waiting on a barely functional Congress? hboy:


----------



## neroden (Mar 16, 2015)

It appears that the trouble is caused by the US wanting powers to arrest people in Canada. Riiiight. This is Security State madness; I don't know why they can't do the traditional thing of cooperative countries and keep a Mountie on hand to arrest people as needed.

Anyway, Canada is demanding reciprocity, it appears.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Mar 17, 2015)

Security state madness is alive and well in Canada too, in the form of Bill C-51.


----------



## Guest (Mar 17, 2015)

Neither the exisitng 2001 agrteement for air preclearance (which is covered by current legislation in both countries) nor the just-signed new treaty gives US CBP the power to arrest in Canada, nor vice versa. The sending country (i.e. the US for a facility in Canada) has powers to inspect, which have been broadened and clarified under the new agreement, but the arrest on Canadian territory would have to be made by Canadian police.

The new agreement does give the sending country's officers the right to bear arms up to the limit of their counterparts in the host country. CBSA officers are armed at land crossings, but not in Canadian airports, though the union is lobbying for the latter.

The new agreement clarifies the jurisdiction for criminal prosecutions against officers of the sending counttry, i.e. if a CBP agents commits a crime in Canada it would be subject tgo US proceedings just like diplomatic immunity.

The preclearance facilirtes at the Port of Vancouver and Pacific Central Station are not covered by current legislation, so these administrative exceptions would be brought under the new legislation.

Finally, both the 2001 agreement and the propsed new agreement are recripocal in that Canada can establish pre-clearance on US tarritory, but to date has chosen not to do so.


----------



## Vermonter Fan (Mar 18, 2015)

I just saw a news article on New Hampshire Public Radio web site (WWW.NHPR.ORG) that US can Canada had finalized an agreement for the customs facility at the Montreal rail station.


----------



## jis (Mar 18, 2015)

But it still needs to be approved by the Congress


----------



## neroden (Mar 19, 2015)

Thanks for the clarifications, Guest.

Here's hoping Canada can establish preclearance in Detroit and extend VIA there.  (Not likely, I know, but it's nice having a general-purpose agreement.)


----------



## afigg (Mar 19, 2015)

Vermonter Fan said:


> I just saw a news article on New Hampshire Public Radio web site (WWW.NHPR.ORG) that US can Canada had finalized an agreement for the customs facility at the Montreal rail station.


Here is the NHPR article: A Step Closer To Train Service From Vermont To Montreal. I think the agreement Vermonter Fan is referring to is the US-Canadian agreement, not a specific agreement for Montreal but that might have been part of the bigger agreement, Anyway, excerpts from the NHPR report:



> A significant hurdle to the resumption of Amtrak rail service through Vermont to Montreal was cleared Monday when the United States and Canada signed an agreement allowing the creation of a U.S. Customs facility in Montreal.
> 
> The agreement marks a long-awaited starting point for the effort to begin in earnest to restore service to Montreal. This year marks 20 years since the Amtrak Montrealer stopped running.
> 
> ...





> Cole says all of the states and the Province of Quebec want to see service to Montreal resumed.
> 
> “To me it’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when. It’s a question of how do we appropriately apportion the costs amongst all the parties that are going to benefit from the service,” he says.


With support from all the state and Provincial governments involved, he right, it becomes a question of when, not if. But when, could be a while. If Quebec pays for track improvements north of the border, as we have discussed before, the total combined trip time reduction for the Adirondack from the MTR Customs facility, track upgrades in Canada, and upgrades from Albany through Schenectady could be significant.

PS. Posted too soon.


----------



## neroden (Mar 19, 2015)

Hmm. AMT recently bought the line from Montreal Central Station north through the tunnel. I wonder if AMT or Quebec could buy more of the line.

The only section which is on CN's mainline appears to be quite short; through a wye near a railyard, across the Victoria Bridge, and through a railyard on the other side of the river. Maybe this is what Cole means by "securing train access to the Victoria Bridge"; this may be the most difficult part of the line to get access to.


----------



## NS VIA Fan (Mar 20, 2015)

neroden said:


> Hmm. AMT recently bought the line from Montreal Central Station north through the tunnel. I wonder if AMT or Quebec could buy more of the line.


I can’t see any advantage to AMT in purchasing the line to the border. The only sizable community is Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu but it’s also located on a CP line that has AMT service as far a Candiac now. Probably easier to extend a commuter service that already exists the 15 miles to Saint-Jean.


----------



## VentureForth (Mar 20, 2015)

Why aren't the existing agreements for the Adirondack not good enough to duplicate? The Canadian side is all the same stations, services, people, etc. What's different is the US customs point in St. Albans.

I'd still like to see service into Windsor from Detroit.


----------



## jis (Mar 20, 2015)

VentureForth said:


> Why aren't the existing agreements for the Adirondack not good enough to duplicate? The Canadian side is all the same stations, services, people, etc. What's different is the US customs point in St. Albans.
> 
> I'd still like to see service into Windsor from Detroit.


Actually no. That would have been true if the Canadians continued to use the trailer at Cantic as their border checkpost. They discontinued that and moved the border check for the Adirondack to Lacolle, adjacent to the road border checkpost there. Unfortunately the line from St. Albans does not pass by there. It joins the Adirondack route at Cantic, and of course that is why the checkpost used to be Cantic in the middle of a field with nothing else around.
So to start service from St. Albans, the Canadians will have to re-instate a border checkpost somewhere on that route. hence it won't happen, given that the whole shebang is to move to Montreal Central real soon now (i.e. in a few years).

What I cannot figure out is why CBSA cannot move their inspection to Montreal Central immediately, given availability of funds, and will I suppose. That would not require any treaty and of course it will require discontinuing the stop at St. Lambert. The treaty is required to allow CBP to do their inspection in Montreal Central. For the time being CBP can continue their inspection at Rouse's Point, and if necessary, at St. Albans.


----------



## 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 Vermonter to Montreal (3.2.2, p. 95):



> VTrans believes that the infrastructure within Vermont is sufficient for the service extension. Between grants under the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (HISPR) and the TIGER VI Discretionary Grant Program, over $90 million has been spent on the corridor. This includes upgrades to the entire line from the Massachusetts border to the Canadian border. Much of the rest of the extension within Canada would share the same route as the existing Adirondack service and would share the same station in Montreal.
> 
> In March 2015 the United States Department of Homeland Security and The Government of Canada signed a preclearance agreement that will make new train service agreements easier by setting up an agreed upon process for border crossing, customs, and other cross-border activities. While VTrans does not believe that extending the Vermonter to Montreal will require incremental capital investment from Vermont, the service will likely require additional subsidies. Amtrak would need an operating or track agreement with VIA Rail in Canada; baggage, ticketing, and customs infrastructure and agreements must be worked out. The allocation of other costs such an engine turn, train cleaning, and crew quarters would need to be determined. For other U.S./Canada routes such as the Adirondack service to Montreal, the Maple Leaf service to Toronto, or the Cascades service to Vancouver, sponsoring agencies in the U.S. subsidize the service into Canada.


----------



## afigg (Jul 9, 2015)

As I noted in the Ethan Allen extension thread, the Vermont State Rail Plan (draft) is remarkably full of information, data, and specifics.

I wonder if this would really be the case, once service is running to MTR: "However, VTrans estimates that the Vermonter subsidy would increase by $2 million, associated primarily with the cost of cross-border operations, and additional expenses incurred in Canada." Yes, operating costs increase, but ridership would significantly increase along with revenue. They may be underestimating the potential revenue that would come by turnover of seats on 1 run with people travelling between VT and Montreal and others traveling from VT to NYP and the southern NEC.

They expect the Vermonter to cut 50 minutes off of the trip time between VT and New Haven, once the upgrades to the CT River Line & SPG-NHV line are completed. That will boost traffic between VT and NYP-WAS. BTW, when the heck will the first round of trip time reductions for the CT River Line be implemented? I haven't read anything about that in a while.

Another item in the plan is: "As a later initiative, Vermont would add a second Vermonter frequency, although this would require negotiations, not only with Canadian authorities and Amtrak, but also with other New England states."

The maps show the second Vermonter running to NYP and south of it. Since NYC is the dominant market for trips on the Vermonter, one option that would allow for a better schedule offset from the current Vermonter would be to run it just to NYP. But with MassDOT looking at a BOS-SPG-MTR train, the second frequency might be better provided by the Boston-Montreal train. With Springfield becoming a proper hub station, coordinate the BOS-MTR train schedule for transfers at SPG to/from an Springfield or Inland Route Regional.


----------



## CHamilton (Jul 19, 2015)

Former Vermont Transit Chief To Push Montreal Train Route



> MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — A former Vermont transportation secretary is coming out of retirement to help plan resumption of passenger train service between the northeastern United States and Montreal.
> 
> Brian Searles, who retired as transportation secretary in December, is returning to state service part-time to deal with the U.S. and Canadian governments on plans to restore Amtrak service on the northern end of a route that last operated in 1994.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 19, 2015)

In a sense, the problem is that from SPG south there are multiple ways to handle that Vermonter...and as such, multiple ways for VT to offload capital costs and/or reduce the operating subsidy. For example, it may make more sense to run the train NYP-MTR with Massachusetts running a connecting train BOS-SPG...but if MA wants to kick in some, I could see the train running BOS-MTR with the "stub" (be it a Regional or something CT would nominally sponsor) running NYP-SPG. Or the train might get split/combined at SPG (which is probably a viable proposition since the route is not excessively long and while there may be delays, it's not like NYP-SPG is the Hi Line).


----------



## keelhauled (Jul 19, 2015)

Or we could just axe the whole stupid idea of going to Boston and focus on New York where the train is actually competative.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 19, 2015)

keelhauled said:


> Or we could just axe the whole stupid idea of going to Boston and focus on New York where the train is actually competative.


It isn't stupid if Massachusetts is willing to pay for it. In a way, that's the issue: If MA is willing to hand VT enough money to offset lost through-passengers down to NYP so they can get a train into BOS then there's no reason for VT to flatly refuse. Moreover, running a through section to BOS (e.g. splitting at SPG), again presuming that it is done at MA's expense, would definitely make sense (especially if it would somehow result in a net improvement in the train's operating picture).


----------



## jis (Jul 19, 2015)

The primary flow on the Vermonter/Montrealer though is likely to remain to be WAS - NYP - Vermont - MTR irrespective of how much Massachusetts wants to chip in. For that reason it would be generally harmful to place the need of a train change in the path of the main flow. Ergo I would discount the idea of a service from NEC south to VT/MTR that requires a train change. Hence if a train change is required it should preferably the BOS - MTR service. Of course a split/join at SPG could eliminate train changes for both flows too.


----------



## keelhauled (Jul 19, 2015)

Anderson said:


> keelhauled said:
> 
> 
> > Or we could just axe the whole stupid idea of going to Boston and focus on New York where the train is actually competative.
> ...


Well I guess if MA wants to write VT a check, who am I to object. In that case I'll call them dumb, but since I don't live there it doesn't bother me. But looking at from the point of view of a resident of VT I just don't think that a train via Springfield to Boston has a prayer of being competitive with the three bus companies that run from VT or just across the border in NH straight down I89. it takes as long for the Lake Shore Limited to get to Springfield from Boston as it does for a bus to get to White River Junction. And it takes a little over three hours for the Vermonter to make it up to WRJ. Five and a half hours by train, two and a quarter by bus. Or if you go to Burlington, it would be seven and a half hours by train, four via Megabus. Not even close. And busses are cheaper, too.

Whereas NYC is a less competative market via ground transport and the length makes the bus both less attractive and the time differential to Burlington is only an hour longer compared to Megabus (two hours longer to WRJ). Also, going to Boston requires fighting the CSX bottleneck, whereas the line to New Haven is going be nicely double tracked passenger trackage reasonably soon.

As a VT taxpayer I would be far more supportive of a second New York frequency than trying to run a single uncompetitive frequency to Boston against multiple daily faster and cheaper busses. Not only in terms of where the money is most effectively used, but as a whole VT is very well linked to Boston. There are far fewer public transportation options to New York and the eastern seaboard, and more options of any kind would help connect to state to the rest of the northeast.


----------



## rspenmoll (Jul 19, 2015)

I noticed that the Vermont Rail Plan has the Boston to Montreal train running over the former Boston and Albany to Springfield and then up the Connecticut River Line. That seems to be a very indirect routing. Why not have the train run via the Fitchburg Line to Greenfield and then up the Connecticut River Line from there? Even if the track between Fitchburg and Greenfield is in too bad shape to make that feasible, it would still be a shorter distance to have the the train turn onto the New England Central at Palmer. Of course, to get the shortest possible route, it would be ideal to rebuild the track along the Boston and Maine's line from Concord to White River Junction, but I know that's never going to happen.


----------



## neroden (Jul 20, 2015)

In regards to Vermont-to-Montreal service, the ball seems to be in Quebec's court now. They have to build the "international platform" with the customs facilities, they have to upgrade the line to the border, they have to cut a deal with CN.

Hopefully Vermont and NY (who benefits from eliminating the border crossing on the Adirondack) will manage to encourage the Quebec government to do all this, now that the Canadian federal government has done its part.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 20, 2015)

The platform, I agree, is Quebec's/Canada's issue. The deal with CN and/or the improvements...well, let's just say that I suspect we'll see Vermont picking up at least part of the cost there in the end.

As I've indicated, I believe that no small part of the desire behind the Boston train is that Massachusetts (I think) wants the through train. I think Vermont might also want it as a matter of getting people as many places as possible, though I suspect they'd be just as happy with through cars or a transfer. Consider this as one of those places where interstate dynamics get a bit odd...and you've got three states (MA, VT, and CT) which are party to this particular mess.

One thing to consider is that while we've talked about splitting the train going south (e.g. a Boston section and a New York section out of Montreal), it is quite possible that MA might opt to split it the other way around (e.g. a Montreal section and a New York section out of Boston). As it stands it seems increasingly likely that there will be _some_ sort of Inland Route service through to New York at some point, if only because doing so is easier than trying to get the limit on trains north of New Haven lifted (note what has been happening with traffic loads and fares on NEC-North). Offering to split the train at SPG and send a section up into Vermont might get VT to help out with some associated improvements.


----------



## Eric S (Jul 20, 2015)

The Northern New England Rail Initiative has documents on its website proposing an additional Vermonter running NYP-SPG-Vermont-Montreal as well as a BOS-SPG-Vermont-Montreal service. (As far as Inland Route service, the same study suggests 8 BOS-SPG-NHV R/Ts.)

With relatively frequent BOS-SPG service and much more frequent SPG-NHV service, it becomes easier to have trains make connections in SPG, so that a Montreal-NYP train connects in SPG to a train to BOS.


----------



## afigg (Jul 20, 2015)

Eric S said:


> The Northern New England Rail Initiative has documents on its website proposing an additional Vermonter running NYP-SPG-Vermont-Montreal as well as a BOS-SPG-Vermont-Montreal service. (As far as Inland Route service, the same study suggests 8 BOS-SPG-NHV R/Ts.)
> 
> With relatively frequent BOS-SPG service and much more frequent SPG-NHV service, it becomes easier to have trains make connections in SPG, so that a Montreal-NYP train connects in SPG to a train to BOS.


You beat me to it. Their Documents page has the presentation from the June 25, 2015 stakeholder meeting in Springfield which advances the alternatives considerably from the previous public documents. Also has more specific cost estimates, although still ballpark numbers, for the Alternatives. The Meeting summary is also worth looking at.

Rather than discussing the idea of splitting a corridor train which has significant drawbacks in time-keeping reliability when operating over tracks shared with freight trains or just a BOS-MTR train, we should be thinking of SPG becoming a major hub and transfer station for central New England, So a MTR to SPG to NHV (and maybe to NYP) second daily train providing an additional frequency over the Vermonter route would have a connection at SPG for those going to/from BOS. Or a MTR to SPG to BOS train would be scheduled for connections at SPG for an Inland Route Regional going the other way for those going to NYP and the southern NEC.

The trips presented in the better Alternatives are 2 hours or less for SPG-BOS (down from the current ~2.5 hours for the LSL) and 6:35 or less for a SPG to MTR train - well, after spending a fair amount of money. The current Vermonter trip time from SPG to St Albans is 5 hours and 40 minutes, so think about the schedule options if a 6 and a half hour time from SPG to MTR could be achieved.

In Alternative 2, A BOS to SPG to MTR would still take circa 8.5 hours, which is still slow compared to driving, so it might not pass the ridership test. But a MTR-SPG-NYP train (in addition to the Vermonter) might pass the ridership metrics and cost recovery metrics and have connections at SPG for the BOS trip market.


----------



## Palmetto (Jul 20, 2015)

rspenmoll said:


> I noticed that the Vermont Rail Plan has the Boston to Montreal train running over the former Boston and Albany to Springfield and then up the Connecticut River Line. That seems to be a very indirect routing. Why not have the train run via the Fitchburg Line to Greenfield and then up the Connecticut River Line from there? Even if the track between Fitchburg and Greenfield is in too bad shape to make that feasible, it would still be a shorter distance to have the the train turn onto the New England Central at Palmer. Of course, to get the shortest possible route, it would be ideal to rebuild the track along the Boston and Maine's line from Concord to White River Junction, but I know that's never going to happen.


You answered your own question when you mentioned PAS track conditions. And besides that, Amtrak already runs on CSX to Springfield out of South Station, and there's a very easy connection at SPG to the Conn River Valley Line heading westward from Boston. Pan Am Southern would serve Fitchburg as opposed to CSX at Worcester, which is the 3rd largest city in MA. Fitchburg residents could just shoot down I-190 [?] to grab the train in Worcester. And I agree with you on Concord-WRJ. It'll never happen, but I think it's still on the HighSpeed Rail Map.


----------



## neroden (Jul 20, 2015)

If you think about it, Montreal-NY service arguably benefits Montreal more than NY, so Quebec may actually be more interested in spending money on it than we might imagine. I really haven't got a sense of the political dynamics in Quebec regarding this service, however, probably because I don't read French.


----------



## afigg (Mar 2, 2016)

News update on the long slow process to get approval for and build a Customs inspection facility at the Montreal station.

Senator Schumer press release with a seriously long winded title: SCHUMER, GILLIBRAND, STEFANIK ANNOUNCE NEW LEGISLATION THAT WILL BRING MONTREAL-TO-ALBANY PRE-CLEARANCE PROGRAM ONE STEP CLOSER TO REALITY – PRE-CLEARANCE PROGRAM COULD SAVE OVER AN HOUR IN DELAYS AT NORTHERN BORDER CROSSING, IMPROVE LOCAL ECONOMY, AND BOOST TOURISM. Excerpt:



> U.S. Senators Charles E. Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, and U.S. Representative Elise Stefanik today announced legislation that would bring the pre-clearance program that more easily allows Canadians to travel to the North Country and Capital Region one step closer to reality. The Senators and Congresswoman explained that the bill they are introducing and pushing in Congress, the Promoting Travel, Commerce, and National Security Act of 2016, would expand U.S. jurisdiction over the American Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents that are operating in Canada, pursuant to border security agreements. Schumer, Gillibrand and Stefanik said this would ensure American citizens and federal government workers are subject to U.S. law and legal protections when working at the pre-clearance location just across the border in Canada, where they would be working to pre-clear passengers traveling on Amtrak’s Adirondack line from Montreal which stops in the North Country and Albany. The Senators and Congresswoman said that, right now, passengers on this line are stopped at the border – oftentimes for more than an hour – while CBP clears the entire train, making the trip longer and a more arduous process. Schumer, Gillibrand and Stefanik said making the trip from Montreal through the North Country and Capital Region would not only boost travel efficiency, but also increase tourism opportunities for local businesses in New York.


I'm guessing 2018 or 2019 before a Customs facility opens in Montreal. And that may be really optimistic.


----------



## afigg (Apr 2, 2016)

Missed this report earlier this week. Burlington Free Press: Amtrak Montreal train service could take three years. Excerpts:



> MONTPELIER - Amtrak's Vermonter train could resume passenger service to Montreal within three years, lawmakers were told Tuesday morning.
> 
> The stars are aligned, and I think we are going to go as fast as we possibly can, said Brian Searles, Vermont's former transportation secretary who now works as a consultant on the cross-border train project.
> 
> ...


So three years is the optimistic timeframe. Which would be 2019, 9 years after the stimulus award to VT for track upgrades. <sigh>


----------



## neroden (Apr 4, 2016)

Vermont is going full speed ahead. The federal governments in both the US and Canada have been unimaginably slow.

From what I can tell, the timeline as:

(a) design agreement from Canadian and US Customs (done)

(b) treaty (done)

© enabling legislation in US (not done) and enabling legislation in Canada (not done)

(d) funding in Quebec (I have no idea)

(e) agreement with AMT and owners of Central Terminal (I have no idea)

(f) final design and construction of station facility

--- At this point the Adirondack can have preclearance --

(g) agreement with CN and perhaps CP

(h) trackwork in Canada

(i) Amtrak operating agreement with Vermont, Quebec, Canadian and US Customs, etc...

It sounds tediously long. Vermont has been as fast as they can. The feds in both countries have been very slow but since they've all agreed in principle I think they won't create any more delays after the legislation is passed.

I don't know about Quebec and AMT, let alone CN and CP; there could be further delays...


----------



## jis (Apr 4, 2016)

I believe the only agreement needed for the Vermont - Montreal service is with CN. There is no CP involvement in it. The big issue is crewing. Unlike the Adirondack agreement where Amtrak T&E crew operates the train to Montreal, there is no agreement in place allowing such to happen with the Vermont service. Which probably means absent such an agreement CN T&E crew will have to take over at St. Albans or somewhere like that to take the train to Montreal. And of course such and agreement involves not just Amtrak and CN, but the respective unions too - which of course makes the outcome somewhat more uncertain.


----------



## jis (Dec 8, 2016)

The Pre-Clearance bill is making progress through Congress. It has already passed the House and is expected to pass the Senate soon and become law before the end of this month. The corresponding bill has already passed the legislative process in Canada.

https://stefanik.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stefanik-peaks-support-canadian-preclearance-legislation-it-passes-house


----------



## afigg (Dec 8, 2016)

jis said:


> The Pre-Clearance bill is making progress through Congress. It has already passed the House and is expected to pass the Senate soon and become law before the end of this month. The corresponding bill has already passed the legislative process in Canada.


Good news. So maybe the Vermonter can be extended to Montreal in only 4 or 5 years? :huh:


----------



## neroden (Dec 8, 2016)

I double-checked and the Canadian bill actually hasn't passed yet. It has gone through "first reading" and is expected to be finalized early in the New Year; since it's backed by every single party in Parliament *and* Trudeau pledged that he wouldn't forget about it, it'll probably go through easily.

I sure hope the US Senate manages to pass the bill before the end of the lame-duck, but oh my god, it's the Senate, it's been a disaster for its entire history, it's the home of gridlock...

Reminder on the next steps after that.

Next, someone has to fund the reconstruction of a corner of Montreal Central Station as a platform with customs/border control facilities. There's already an architectural design for this and I believe it's been approved by both Canadian and US customs & border control (years ago), but it actually has to be funded. The owners and operators of the station have to agree to let this happen (currently they're using it as car parking, so this might be harder than it sounds). This should be the slowest remaining part, but who knows...

Then, Amtrak has to make a financial agreement with Canadian and US customs and border control, both of whom have been utterly weird about this stuff at various times in the past.

This is all that is needed to get the *Adirondack* to Montreal. For the Vermonter, slightly more is needed.

Amtrak has to get approval from Canadian immigration to allow the Amtrak employees to operate in Canada.

Amtrak has to get approval from its unions and the Canadian railway unions to allow the Amtrak employees to operate in Canada.

Perhaps most difficult, Amtrak has to get an operating agreement with Canadian National to run the Vermonter into Canada.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 8, 2016)

Every little step helps. I'd love to see an overnight trip though.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 10, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Every little step helps. I'd love to see an overnight trip though.


Honestly, I think this would make a bit more sense on the Adirondack routing than on the Vermonter routing (given the sheer amount of endpoint travel on this route)_. _You'd almost definitely keep the stops up to SDY, but at the same time I'd think you could do a same-day turn in Montreal with the sets (e.g. the NB overnight train turns as a daytime SB train and the NB daytime train turns as a SB overnight train). Whether you cut the (presumed) sleepers to sit in Montreal during the day is an open question, but if you could manage this I _think_ you'd only need either three full sets or three coach sets and two sleeper sets for two round-trips.

From ALB, you could probably flag stop everything but SDY, SAR, and PLB (though I'd leave them on the timetable for political reasons). FWIW I suspect this train would generate a reasonable amount of business on the south end; as it is, the Adirondack often has a capacity problem between ALB and SDY, and the morning trains out of ALB apparently have their own capacity issues. I suspect the main question is whether you'd want to cut some carriages at ALB heading north and add them heading south rather than running the whole train north.


----------



## jis (Dec 10, 2016)

Who'll pay for it? NY State most likely won't.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 10, 2016)

Anderson said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > Every little step helps. I'd love to see an overnight trip though.
> ...



My vision is restoration of an overnight train the begins in Washington DC. Even if you kept in on basically the same route through SPG, it would add an additional trip to NHV-SPG. The reason why the old Montrealer worked was because a lot of through traffic liked the overnight trip, which allowed them a full day in Montreal. The same went for the return. You could spend the whole day in MTR, board a train and sleet your trip away. Although it is unrelated, the same theory worked for the Sunday only overnight Niagara Rainbow (TWO-NYP...which I'd also like to see restored) and the Sunday only, late departure of the eastbound Pennsylvanian.

The Adirondack is supposed to be a scenic route. That is perfect for daytime operation. Let the overnight train serve an additional market and connect different cities, which in turn serves more communities..


----------



## PVD (Dec 10, 2016)

It is common for people to forget that the Adirondack is a NYS funded train, any service changes are subject to their approval.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Dec 10, 2016)

Would Vermont continue to fund the Vermonter if it stopped at all the stations in that state in the middle of the night? I doubt it. Of course there could be two trains on the route.


----------



## Palmland (Dec 10, 2016)

Anderson said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > Every little step helps. I'd love to see an overnight trip though.
> ...


I think this is a good idea. The Vermonter is a scenic ride that meanders through the countryside and serves some larger communities in New England including some college towns. Seems like it would be better to keep this a daytime train.

The Adirondack, however has a faster route and, as mentioned, would serve the very large end points very effectively with an overnight schedule. Yes we'd lose the scenic ride along Lake Champlain but if Amtrak is about effective transportation and not a scenic ride, it would make sense to make this change. Best of all, this change could happen tomorrow if equipment were available. Easy to figure the schedule: just add 12 hours to the current one- Lv NYP 8:11PM, arrive Montreal 7:11am. Return at 10:20 pm and arrive NYP at 8:50am.

It would provide early morning departure from Saratoga Springs and Schenectedy for those headed to the city and late evening return. But since the train is supported by NY state, Sen. Schumer would have to be convinced it was a good thing. The small upstate communities would be served late at night ( which is also true for upstate VT if the Vermonter became overnight). I well remember seeing a line of handsome maroon sleepers sitting at GCT one evening ready for passengers to board the Montreal Ltd. And since the Adirondack now uses NYP rather than GCT, no reason it couldn't begin its trip in Washington.


----------



## west point (Dec 10, 2016)

An overnight Montrealer might have advantage of wintertime skiers going to the various resorts. Know this poster did it once and had a delayed stop due to large contingent unloading. Maybe an extra car(S) on Fridays northbound and southbound on Sunday nights ?


----------



## afigg (Dec 10, 2016)

MikefromCrete said:


> Would Vermont continue to fund the Vermonter if it stopped at all the stations in that state in the middle of the night? I doubt it. Of course there could be two trains on the route.


Same goes for CT and MA which contribute to the Vermonter operating subsidy. And as others have posted, applies to NY state for the Adirondack. So long as there is only 1 train or even 2 trains over the route, why would any state pay for a train that runs through it in the wee hours of the night? Vermont wants to extend the Vermonter to Montreal in part so it can get tourists and visitors from Montreal to visit VT. A Vermonter/Montrealer that departs Montreal in the evening doesn't do much for that.


----------



## neroden (Dec 10, 2016)

Anderson said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > Every little step helps. I'd love to see an overnight trip though.
> ...


Absolutely. Worth noting:

-- St. Lambert is already being removed with the "preclearance"

-- Rouses Point exists almost entirely for customs inspection and will probably be removed. (Averaging 0.8 passengers on and 0.8 passengers off each train.)

-- when the Ethan Allen Express reaches Burlington, ridership at Port Kent will collapse

-- there will be daytime trains from Saratoga Springs southward

However, looking at it harder, I think it doesn't work. And this is why.

Doing customs at Montreal should cut an hour out of the schedule southbound and about an hour forty minutes northbound.

The current southbound run is 10 hours 30 minutes; it would be down to 9 hours 30 minutes.

The current northbound run is just short of 11 hours; it would be down to 9 hours 30 minutes.

This is too short for an overnight train, even with a lot of end-to-end traffic. It becomes impossible to serve

*any* of the intermediate points outside the wee hours. I did my best to design a schedule:

Southbound: A 7 AM arrival at Montreal (which would be 5 AM at Plattsburgh) would mean a 9:30 PM departure from NYC. I suppose you could depart even later from NYC, but urrgh.

Northbound: Similarly, a 7 AM arrival at NY would mean 11:30 PM at Plattsburgh and 9:30 PM at Montreal.

This is just about tolerable, I suppose, but any speed improvements anywhere and it starts to become untenable. Also, you're going through Albany at 4 AM southbound and midnight northbound -- not great for connections to Empire Service West.

Let's get the Adirondack into Montreal, get the Ethan Allen Express to Burlington (and Essex Junction, perhaps) and close St. Lambert (to Amtrak, AMT will still run), CBSC Lacolle, Rouse's Point, and Port Kent; then see what happens with a *faster* daytime run.


----------



## jis (Dec 10, 2016)

Palmland said:


> But since the train is supported by NY state, Sen. Schumer would have to be convinced it was a good thing.


It isn't that easy. Impressing Schumer is useful if it is federal funds one is looking for. Last time I looked Schumer had very little control over what the NY State legislature does. Upstate new York funding is part of a complex upstate downstate deal that is unlikely to be impacted solely by convincing Schumer. And what would the argument be for Schumer or the NY Legislature and the Governor? Fund this great train to Montreal that will skip most of your state and treat it as a fly over country? Such arguments are easier to make when there is plentiful service and one is trying to add another one. Even then on the NEC trying to run a train treating the intermediate stops as flyover country has never worked, and we expect it will on a route that can barely sustain one train? And that too with a train that provides no other connectivity within the state that you expect to fund it? Good luck!

Bottom line is that it has to bring clearly identifiable value to New York State. An overnight flyover country train between New York and Montreal adds very little that is not achievable by the myriads of flights that exist between New York's several airports and Montreal. Now if we could do new York to Montreal in three hours or less, that would be something.

There is similar issue with trying to run a Vermonter service to Montreal overnight across Vermont. One needs o figure out a way of designating either of those two as part of national service and fund it federally.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 10, 2016)

Nathanael,
You're forgetting that speed improvements do not _have_ to improve runtime. While adding 3-4 hours is generally a bad idea, adding 30-60 minutes to the schedule to move times at key stations to sane hours has a long history. SB, slapping a large pad in at ALB should basically eliminate the chance of getting stuck out-of-slot on MNRR, even if something gets mildly frakked up either in MTR, at the border, or on the D&H. NB, it's simply down to runtime questions.

Of note, as I understand it NY could use an additional SB train in the morning ALB-NYP. NB, on the other hand, running one of the late trains through could help its performance (and of course, remember that equipment sets can be shuffled as needed).


----------



## jis (Dec 10, 2016)

I would be astounded if an overnight train arriving at 7am could be turned around in time for a 9:30am-ish departure back to New York, after removing a Sleeper, assuming of course that it actually makes it in on time.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 10, 2016)

jis said:


> I would be astounded if an overnight train arriving at 7am could be turned around in time for a 9:30am-ish departure back to New York, after removing a Sleeper, assuming of course that it actually makes it in on time.


The departure is 10:20 AM right now, and that could _easily _be pushed back closer to 11:00 AM, depending on the distribution of time savings at the border. "Splitting the baby" on the 90-minute border hold would allow that. I'd think that 3:20-4:00 _should _be enough for a "soft turn" (e.g. other than the sleeper, it's on par with turning Regionals around; it's also notably not _that_ much less than the Shoreliner gets at NPN; additionally, there's not even a food restocking to do).


----------



## Palmetto (Dec 11, 2016)

MikefromCrete said:


> Would Vermont continue to fund the Vermonter if it stopped at all the stations in that state in the middle of the night? I doubt it. Of course there could be two trains on the route.


Actually, the train became transport for skiers going to Vermont in the winter season.



west point said:


> An overnight Montrealer might have advantage of wintertime skiers going to the various resorts. Know this poster did it once and had a delayed stop due to large contingent unloading. Maybe an extra car(S) on Fridays northbound and southbound on Sunday nights ?


As I said. The lounge car was a hopping place on Fridays. Had a piano in it at some point, as well.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Dec 11, 2016)

PVD said:


> It is common for people to forget that the Adirondack is a NYS funded train, any service changes are subject to their approval.





MikefromCrete said:


> Would Vermont continue to fund the Vermonter if it stopped at all the stations in that state in the middle of the night? I doubt it. Of course there could be two trains on the route.


Would Canada chip in? They'd get a few more American visitors from NYC/DC (and Canadian residents can travel overnight to NYC/DC).


----------



## NS VIA Fan (Dec 11, 2016)

Looks like the Bill has passed:

http://www.theprovince.com/news/national/bill+passed+congress+likely+help+speed+canadians+across/12508813/story.html

And here's a link that includes the facility that was proposed in 2013 for Gare Centrale in Montreal.

http://www.thetbwg.org/meetings/201304/presentations/D1P7a.ppt


----------



## afigg (Dec 11, 2016)

As just posted, the Senate passed the preclearance bill Saturday morning as part the typical last minute flurry of passing legislation as the Congressional session ends. Press release from Senator Leahy (D-VT): Leahy 'Preclearance' Bill To Ease Vt.-Canada Rail & Air Travel Clears Congress Saturday Morning. Obama will presumably sign the bill quickly. Now it is up to the Canadian parliament to pass their own legislation, but it is expected to pass easily.



neroden said:


> Absolutely. Worth noting:
> -- Rouses Point exists almost entirely for customs inspection and will probably be removed. (Averaging 0.8 passengers on and 0.8 passengers off each train.)
> -- when the Ethan Allen Express reaches Burlington, ridership at Port Kent will collapse
> 
> ...


Rouses Point could become a flag stop but the state of NY may balk at that.
Port Kent had 565 passengers total in FY2016. May be difficult to detect a ridership "collapse". The Ethan Allen extension to Burlington is now projected for 2020, so it will be 4 years or more before direct Burlington service will an effect.

The Adirondack had scheduled trip times faster than 9 hours and 30 minutes back in the 1980s. Looking at a 1988 schedule, roughly 9:15 from Grand Central. The key question is whether the Canadian Government or the Providence of Quebec are willing to fund track and switch improvements and if so, how much? The prospect of 3 daily trains to the US with direct service to NYC, Philly, DC, and eventually Boston as opposed to just 1 daily Adirondack helps to change the political dynamics on the Canadian side. As I recall from the earlier studies w/o digging them up, there are low hanging fruit improvements north of the border on the order of 10s of millions that would make a difference in travel times.


----------



## jis (Dec 11, 2016)

In 1950 there were six trains between New York and Montreal as far as I can tell. Three were via Plattsburgh (D&H), two of which were overnight - one express, one stopping - to Gare Windsor. The express died first. Only the daytime one survived. There were two via Burlington (Rutland) - one daytime, one overnight, both stopping everywhere and to Gare Centrale and one via Springfield (New Haven) overnight to Gare Central.

As we know, at the end of the day only one survived because of NY State funding mainly justified in the state for serving the otherwise under served Adirondack region, with Montreal as an also ran, even though Montreal provides a lot into the farebox. Possibly that is the reason it was not cut back to be just an NY State train.


----------



## neroden (Dec 11, 2016)

afigg said:


> As just posted, the Senate passed the preclearance bill Saturday morning as part the typical last minute flurry of passing legislation as the Congressional session ends. Press release from Senator Leahy (D-VT): Leahy 'Preclearance' Bill To Ease Vt.-Canada Rail & Air Travel Clears Congress Saturday Morning. Obama will presumably sign the bill quickly. Now it is up to the Canadian parliament to pass their own legislation, but it is expected to pass easily.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Heh, yeah, it might be hard to spot a collapse in riderhsip at Port Kent, but then again, it might go down under 100 passengers per year.

Rouses Point only has 1208 passengers per year as of 2015 (and maxxed out at 1498 in 2011), arrivals + departures. Admittedly that's about half the town's population. It's only 25 miles from Plattsburgh, however. With the customs delay removed, making it a flagstop makes a lot of sense.

Hopefully ridership will increase. If it doesn't, it's hard to justify a station with that level of ridership, especially when it's just for Amtrak (it costs nothing to share a station with commuter trains). People would drive to Plattsburgh to go south. More damningly, it's ony 45 miles to Montreal by car, and an 1 hour 30 minutes by train (*not* including the customs delays) so very few will use Rouse's Point to go north (about 30% of current ridership).

-----

Out of curiosity I went through the 2015 data and figured out which stations have lower ridership than Rouses Point. Not counting stations with no service:

-- Connersville, IN (Cardinal, less than daily)

-- Lexington Barbecue Festival, NC (special events only)

-- Lordsburg, NM (Sunset Limited, less than daily)

-- Montgomery, WV (Cardinal, less than daily)

-- NY State Fair, NY (special events only, did badly in 2015)

-- North Philadelphia, PA (very few Amtrak trains stop, most passengers would take SEPTA)

-- Port Kent (seasonal, apparently no service in 2015?)

-- Sanderson, TX (Sunset Limited, less than daily)

-- S Portsmouth, KY (Cardinal, less than daily)

-- Thurmond, WV (Cardinal, less than daily)

Tied for number of riders:

-- Windsor - Mt Ascutney, VT (1208)

Slightly more:

-- Wishram, WA (1300)

Bluntly, it's pretty clear Rouses Point station was only opened in the first place because of customs inspections. The only stations with lower passenger counts are three-a-week (and much further from the next station along the line), special events only, seasonal, and North Philadelphia. I guess it will probably stay open as a flagstop if the locals want it to, as it costs very little time to stop, most of the time.


----------

