# U.S., Canada move to end screening stop for Amtrak



## transit54 (May 11, 2012)

It looks like things are inching forward on eliminating the border stop for the Adirondack and moving screening to Montreal, much like is done with the Cascades in Vancouver.

http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120511/amtrak-stop-us-canada-120511/20120511/?hub=MontrealHome


----------



## afigg (May 11, 2012)

Senator Schumer of NY issued a press release yesterday on the agreement to place the Customs facility in Montreal. His version gives Sen. Schumer a lot of the credit, but it is an election year and as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security, he would have the power to break through the inertia of the DHS bureaucracy.

From the reports, there are still policy details to work out, the secure screening facility in Montreal has to be completed, and then US & Canadian Customs & Border agencies have to re-locate personnel to the Montreal station. Likely to be a while before the customs inspection is done in Montreal.

This agreement has significant implications for the Adirondack and the Vermonter. Once the facility is in place, clears a major hurdle for extending Vermonter service northward to Montreal. We may see the Vermonter running through to Montreal in a few years.

How much time would having the customs inspection take place in Montreal take off the Adirondack scheduled trip time? 90 minutes? 2 hours? Figure the funded improvements from NYP to Schenectady will cut 15-20 minutes, if not more, off of the trip time. There are proposed track and signal projects that would speed up the Schenectady to Rouses Point leg, although it would still be on the slower side. Still, what would be the effect on ridership of a ~ 8.5 hour NYP to Montreal train trip? Pretty big I think. NY State and Amtrak should be thinking about adding a second daily Adirondack in a few years.

When/if the customs facility opens in Montreal, how would the Adirondack departure times be adjusted? Leave NYP a hour or 2 later in the morning to allow more connections from greater NY city region (LIRR, NJT) and from further south on the NEC? Still depart Montreal at around 9:30 to 10 AM to allow a dinner time arrival in NYC?


----------



## jamesontheroad (May 11, 2012)

This is fantastic news. Amazing what you can achieve in an election year. :giggle:

Since I first rode the Adirondack in 2004 I've been hoping that common sense might prevail and this could happen.



afigg said:


> From the reports, there are still policy details to work out, the secure screening facility in Montreal has to be completed, and then US & Canadian Customs & Border agencies have to re-locate personnel to the Montreal station. Likely to be a while before the customs inspection is done in Montreal.


Do we know if the Adirondack will shift to Gare Lucien L'Allier near the old Windsor Terminal, or has space been set aside in Gare Centrale? Re: the re-location of personnel, this won't be such a huge drag because there is already a large contingent of US Border agents working at Montréal Trudeau airport at the US pre-clearance facility. Perhaps this means a few more jobs for US agents, and two extra shifts downtown; no big deal really.



afigg said:


> This agreement has significant implications for the Adirondack and the Vermonter. Once the facility is in place, clears a major hurdle for extending Vermonter service northward to Montreal. We may see the Vermonter running through to Montreal in a few years.


+1

Although I'm cautious about the Vermonter. Back in the days of the overnight Montrealer/Washingtonian (basically on the same route as the Vermonter) the train passed through Vermont in the middle of the night. There was a good balance with one daytime and one nighttime cross-border train. Although cross-border ridership on the Vermonter declined, the train survives today because it is subsidised by the state of Vermont to provide daytime service to intermediate communities. Could we really justify two cross-border trains between NYC and Montreal, especially as they would arrive and depart within a few hours of each other?

I would actually suggest that the Vermonter should be preserved as it is, as it has grown to become an important service for the many intermediate communities of Vermont. With the forthcoming Viewliner order, I would argue for re-instating overnight service between Montreal, NYC and Washington in addition to, rather than instead of extending the Vermonter. Given that most overnight passengers would be traveling intercity rather to intermediate points, it could run along the same route as the Adirondack. Pre-departure/post-arrival border checks would make overnight service very attractive - no late night disturbance to have your passport checked.



afigg said:


> How much time would having the customs inspection take place in Montreal take off the Adirondack scheduled trip time? 90 minutes? 2 hours?


Right now, the Adirondack is scheduled to allow one hour for border checks at Rouses Point, NY. A slightly longer stop (albeit cushioned to allow for delays accrued on the journey north) is scheduled for Canadian checks at Lacolle, QC. Over the last four days, southbound train #68 has arrived at Plattsburgh, NY between 2 and 25 minutes late, so it's usually a given that one hour is not enough, especially at weekends or over holidays when the train can be sold out.

The great advantage of handling border checks before departure / after arrival in Montreal is that passengers can be cleared as they arrive and "check-in" at the station, presumably proceeding into a "sterile" waiting area dedicated to cross-border trains. In previous discussions about relocating the Adirondack terminus I've suggested that there isn't particularly obvious space for this at Gare Lucien L'Allier in Montréal. Perhaps there is room at Gare Centrale to somehow create a sterile waiting area at concourse level which then has direct access to platform level?

The only downside with pre-departure/post-arrival border checks is that it will presumably be impossible to retain the intermediate stop at St. Lambert, QC. The St. Lambert stop was, if I remember correctly, occasionally used for connections between the Ocean to the Adirondack, but given the Adirondack's reliability, I would never normally recommend a same-day connection as particularly safe.


----------



## jis (May 11, 2012)

jamesbrownontheroad said:


> This is fantastic news. Amazing what you can achieve in an election year. :giggle:
> 
> Since I first rode the Adirondack in 2004 I've been hoping that common sense might prevail and this could happen.
> 
> ...


No shift to Lucien L'Allier. The facility is being built at Gare Centrale.

You are correct, the border agents will come from Dorval.



> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > This agreement has significant implications for the Adirondack and the Vermonter. Once the facility is in place, clears a major hurdle for extending Vermonter service northward to Montreal. We may see the Vermonter running through to Montreal in a few years.
> ...


Only if someone comes up with the big bucks that CN wants to run it to Montreal. It is not covered by the special agreement that Amtrak has with CN for Amtrak crew to operate the Adirondack to Montreal. Another item to be worked before anything can happen with the Vermonter can get into this act. The NY/VT/QC troika are interested, but it all depends.. as they say.



> Although I'm cautious about the Vermonter. Back in the days of the overnight Montrealer/Washingtonian (basically on the same route as the Vermonter) the train passed through Vermont in the middle of the night. There was a good balance with one daytime and one nighttime cross-border train. Although cross-border ridership on the Vermonter declined, the train survives today because it is subsidised by the state of Vermont to provide daytime service to intermediate communities. Could we really justify two cross-border trains between NYC and Montreal, especially as they would arrive and depart within a few hours of each other?


The other possibility being considered is to run what is primarily a Boston - Montreal train on the VT corridor. Very early stages of consideration on that. Lots needs to happen before that comes to pass.



> The great advantage of handling border checks before departure / after arrival in Montreal is that passengers can be cleared as they arrive and "check-in" at the station, presumably proceeding into a "sterile" waiting area dedicated to cross-border trains. In previous discussions about relocating the Adirondack terminus I've suggested that there isn't particularly obvious space for this at Gare Lucien L'Allier in Montréal. Perhaps there is room at Gare Centrale to somehow create a sterile waiting area at concourse level which then has direct access to platform level?


Vancouver does not really have much of a sterile area. They start border checks for departure when the train is pretty much ready to receive passengers, or let people hang out on the fenced off platform for a bit.



> The only downside with pre-departure/post-arrival border checks is that it will presumably be impossible to retain the intermediate stop at St. Lambert, QC. The St. Lambert stop was, if I remember correctly, occasionally used for connections between the Ocean to the Adirondack, but given the Adirondack's reliability, I would never normally recommend a same-day connection as particularly safe.


Correct. St. Lambert stop will be gone.


----------



## sitzplatz17 (May 11, 2012)

jamesbrownontheroad said:


> I would actually suggest that the Vermonter should be preserved as it is, as it has grown to become an important service for the many intermediate communities of Vermont. With the forthcoming Viewliner order, I would argue for re-instating overnight service between Montreal, NYC and Washington in addition to, rather than instead of extending the Vermonter. Given that most overnight passengers would be traveling intercity rather to intermediate points, it could run along the same route as the Adirondack. Pre-departure/post-arrival border checks would make overnight service very attractive - no late night disturbance to have your passport checked.


A Washington - NYC - Montreal overnight train would be awesome. I remember taking the train to Montreal from DC a few years back - such a hassle to have to leave at 3:15am from Union station! Though I guess the trade off is that an overnight train would go through the Adirondacks at night - which is gorgeous in the fall.


----------



## afigg (May 11, 2012)

jamesbrownontheroad said:


> Although I'm cautious about the Vermonter. Back in the days of the overnight Montrealer/Washingtonian (basically on the same route as the Vermonter) the train passed through Vermont in the middle of the night. There was a good balance with one daytime and one nighttime cross-border train. Although cross-border ridership on the Vermonter declined, the train survives today because it is subsidised by the state of Vermont to provide daytime service to intermediate communities. Could we really justify two cross-border trains between NYC and Montreal, especially as they would arrive and depart within a few hours of each other?
> 
> I would actually suggest that the Vermonter should be preserved as it is, as it has grown to become an important service for the many intermediate communities of Vermont. With the forthcoming Viewliner order, I would argue for re-instating overnight service between Montreal, NYC and Washington in addition to, rather than instead of extending the Vermonter. Given that most overnight passengers would be traveling intercity rather to intermediate points, it could run along the same route as the Adirondack. Pre-departure/post-arrival border checks would make overnight service very attractive - no late night disturbance to have your passport checked.


Vermont's interest is in having daytime service to and from Montreal. A Vermonter originating/terminating in Montreal would allow Montrealers to make day trips to VT with early morning departures to VT and return trips to Montreal in the evening. Vermonters could make overnight and weekend trips to Montreal. A Vermonter extended to Montreal also allows a single seat ride from Stamford, Hartford, Springfield MA and VT to Montreal. Why not have 2 trains covering entirely different routes between NYC and Montreal? Most people in NYC will take the Adirondack to Montreal, but a Vermonter extended to Montreal main purpose would be to provide access to VT from Montreal and south of VT, not for WAS-NYP to Montreal through traffic. Although there would be some.

Something to keep in mind is the current Vermonter trip time to St. Albans is going to be improved. Reportedly 25 minutes will be removed from the Vermonter schedule this fall in VT after more track and signal improvement work this summer. The return to the CT River line will cut another 25 minutes; should happen by fall of 2013 (maybe). The upgrades to the Springfield corridor will take until 2016-2017, but should cut another 30 minutes or so from the current trip time. There is also the extended Vermonter trip times on the New Haven line due to the 2 tracking and catenary work.

If it takes 2 hours to cover the 70 to 75 miles from St. Albans to Montreal while 90-100 minutes is cut from the current WAS-St Albans trip time, the Vermonter would go from WAS to Montreal in not much longer than the current end to end trip time. Not much of a stretch on a daytime schedule. Of course, as jis is pointing out, VT and Amtrak have to get CN and Canadian officials to agree and then there is issue of funding it all.



jamesbrownontheroad said:


> Right now, the Adirondack is scheduled to allow one hour for border checks at Rouses Point, NY. A slightly longer stop (albeit cushioned to allow for delays accrued on the journey north) is scheduled for Canadian checks at Lacolle, QC. Over the last four days, southbound train #68 has arrived at Plattsburgh, NY between 2 and 25 minutes late, so it's usually a given that one hour is not enough, especially at weekends or over holidays when the train can be sold out.


The northbound Adirondack takes 4 hours on the schedule to cover the 72 miles from Plattsburg NY to Montreal. If there are no border stops and no longer a stop at St. Lambert, even with padding left in, that suggest that could be cut to 2 hours or less.

The question is what are the goals for trip times for the Adirondack service? If NYP-MTR can be trimmed to 8 to 8-1/2 hours, how competitive is that with driving times and bus services? Have to look em up.


----------



## CHamilton (May 11, 2012)

james is right that while extending the Vermonter to Montreal would be reasonably easy, it would actually make more sense to create a second train that would run overnight, on a schedule similar to the old Montrealer's. But it might be worth coordinating the new development of a Montreal-Vermont-Boston train, together with extending the Ethan Allen to Burlington. Vermont would be happy, because that would let passengers from Vermont's largest city easily travel by train to Montreal, Boston, and Albany/NYC.

Edit: I see that afigg has already made most of these points. Apologies for the duplication.


----------



## fairviewroad (May 11, 2012)

afigg said:


> Senator Schumer of NY issued a press release yesterday on the agreement to place the Customs facility in Montreal. His version gives Sen. Schumer a lot of the credit, but it is an election year...


Not to rush to Senator Schumer's defense...but in point of fact, while it's an "election year" in some quarters, Senator Schumer himself is not up for re-election until 2016.



jamesbrownontheroad said:


> The only downside with pre-departure/post-arrival border checks is that it will presumably be impossible to retain the intermediate stop at St. Lambert, QC.


According to the Great American Stations website, the St. Lambert stop had a whopping 1,405 riders in FY2011. That's less than 2 riders a day in each direction.

Not a big loss.


----------



## Anderson (May 11, 2012)

1) I'm wondering if the desired Boston-Montreal train couldn't be achieved with a split somewhere like Springfield, MA (and depending on the timing, it might be possible to do the turn with a single engine). At present with the Vermonter, this could simply be done by sticking cars onto 448/449 and sliding them over at Springfield.

2) On the Adirondack, ideally the NYP departure will be pushed back a little to allow for humane connections with trains coming from/going to the south (getting from WAS to MTR is not my idea of a fun time, and neither is going the other way).

3) On the Vermonter, I'd actually argue for keeping it a day train (at least for now). As much as I like overnight train trips, the Vermonter will draw a decent amount of traffic from places other than NYP that the Adirondack can be just plain clunky for, even allowing for a slightly better schedule. Likewise, I believe that a slightly altered Vermonter schedule might allow a connection with the Meteor (NB, you'd need a better pad, but if the Meteor goes back to a post-rush hour departure from NYP, then it might be doable), which would open up a LOT of city pairs. For the record, if this became possible I would argue for seriously studying a through car service of some kind.

4) To echo the above, I would support an overnight train on one of the routes as well (probably the Vermonter's route due to layout issues at NYP) if the ridership was there. Of course, I expect that it will be there...but putting the caveat in is always a good move. I'm wondering if this couldn't be arranged through a split in a Regional at New Haven (primarily to save a slot in CT), with a slightly shorter consist going to Boston than runs through at present/would be likely in the near future. Likewise, I'm left wondering about doing a Springfield split on this train as well (to hit BOS as well as NYP-WAS).


----------



## jis (May 11, 2012)

You can see an article on this subject in _Railway Age_ at

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/safety/customs-relief-in-sight-for-amtraks-adirondack.html?channel=


----------



## jis (May 11, 2012)

afigg said:


> The northbound Adirondack takes 4 hours on the schedule to cover the 72 miles from Plattsburg NY to Montreal. If there are no border stops and no longer a stop at St. Lambert, even with padding left in, that suggest that could be cut to 2 hours or less.
> 
> The question is what are the goals for trip times for the Adirondack service? If NYP-MTR can be trimmed to 8 to 8-1/2 hours, how competitive is that with driving times and bus services? Have to look em up.


And if someone can come up with a few Canadian and US bucks to fix the rock and roll at 20mph track from Roues Point to Cantic, and put in a controlled switch at Rouses Point and Cantic, so that flagman does not have to get off, set and reset switches, they could cut another 15 to 20 minutes I suppose.


----------



## afigg (May 11, 2012)

Anderson said:


> 1) I'm wondering if the desired Boston-Montreal train couldn't be achieved with a split somewhere like Springfield, MA (and depending on the timing, it might be possible to do the turn with a single engine). At present with the Vermonter, this could simply be done by sticking cars onto 448/449 and sliding them over at Springfield.
> 
> 2) On the Adirondack, ideally the NYP departure will be pushed back a little to allow for humane connections with trains coming from/going to the south (getting from WAS to MTR is not my idea of a fun time, and neither is going the other way).


I don't see why split trains or trying to merge a Boston to Montreal train with the often late LSL would be a good idea. I see too many posts here about tagging on this once a day train or that daily train. The goal should be to increase ridership by increasing frequency, schedule flexibility, and relibility, not trying to have 1 train do everything.

A Boston to Montreal train is probably some ways off. The Boston to Springfield line should get some improvements in place first as incremental steps toward an Inland route Regional and additional BOS to SPG service. The budget crunch at MBTA due in part to the debt load from the Big Dig is likely to result in streching out and delays BOS to Worcester improvements and restoring double tracking to SPG. When/if a BOS to MTR train does happen, it can depart BOS in the morning with the westbound LSL providing a mid-day BOS to SPG service. The eastbound LSL and MTR to BOS trains can provide SPG to BOS service at different times in the afternoon or early evening.

NYC and Montreal are both major cities (well, duh) with excellent transit systems. They should be able to support multiple daily trains between them if the travel times can be made competetive. Get enough ridership growth to provide a foundation for serious discussion of and planning for a true NYC to Montreal HSR service connecting to a WAS to NYC to BOS HSR.



Anderson said:


> 3) On the Vermonter, I'd actually argue for keeping it a day train (at least for now). As much as I like overnight train trips, the Vermonter will draw a decent amount of traffic from places other than NYP that the Adirondack can be just plain clunky for, even allowing for a slightly better schedule. Likewise, I believe that a slightly altered Vermonter schedule might allow a connection with the Meteor (NB, you'd need a better pad, but if the Meteor goes back to a post-rush hour departure from NYP, then it might be doable), which would open up a LOT of city pairs. For the record, if this became possible I would argue for seriously studying a through car service of some kind.


Of course the Vermonter should stay a day train. The purpose is to provide transportation to and within VT and central New England from south of NYC and, if a Montreal extension can be worked out, from Montreal. The WAS/NYC to Montreal distances are not really suitable for over night sleeper travel, until or unless we get a major expansion of service along the routes. With enough demand to support an overnight sleeper service.


----------



## afigg (May 11, 2012)

jis said:


> And if someone can come up with a few Canadian and US bucks to fix the rock and roll at 20mph track from Roues Point to Cantic, and put in a controlled switch at Rouses Point and Cantic, so that flagman does not have to get off, set and reset switches, they could cut another 15 to 20 minutes I suppose.


If NY State is going to be stalled by CSX on plans and projects for 90 or 110 mph tracks for the western Empire corridor, they may turn more attention and state funds in the mean time to the Adirondack corridor from Schenectady to Montreal. Go ahead with the congestion relief and modest improvements projects, but they won't consume that much funding. After many years, the state and Amtrak will have control of the southern Empire corridor with the funding to do many of the long wanted improvements. So many of those items can be checked off the to do list in the next several years. So why not turn to improvements for the Adirondack service?

If it is legally possible to spend NY state funding for track fixes north of the border, maybe they can pay CP to do some low cost projects. Or ask the Quebec and Montreal government agencies to provide funding for track improvements on the Canadian side to support both freight and passenger rail travel.

Digging up the 2009 NY State Rail plan, on page 92, it claims that in a 2004 study, CP presented a proposal that identified $40.9 million in improvements between Schenectady and Rouses Point that could reduce trip times by 38 minutes. Included raising max speed to 79 mph on the northern and southern ends as well as 5 to 10 mph speed increases between Whitehall and Port Kent. They proposed a 50/50 split on the capital improvements. NYSDOT and CP subsequently funded some of the improvements. So if all of the pieces can be put into place, what NYP to MTR Adirondack trip times could be achieved within the constraints of the current ROW with comparatively modest track and signal upgrades?


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (May 11, 2012)

Overnight trains cost a lot to operate. Besides, both the Adirondeck and Vermonter have good scenery, which can be quite a draw. Extending the Vemonter to Mobntreal would not be a bad idea, but they should keep it a day train. It is all right to operate two trains between the same endpoints a few hours from each other. The routes are different, one goes maainly in New York, the other in Vermont.


----------



## jis (May 12, 2012)

North Of the border the route is CN, not CP. So it is CN that will need to be dealt with for fixing tracks between Rouses Point and Montreal.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (May 12, 2012)

How does the CN cooperate with Amtrak?


----------



## AlanB (May 12, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> How does the CN cooperate with Amtrak?


Well Amtrak just filed a complaint against them for their handling of the City of New Orleans.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (May 12, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > How does the CN cooperate with Amtrak?
> ...


I guess that the CN won't be upgrading the track for Amtrak, then, unless they have other reasons to upgrade, or if they don't have to pay for it at all, no favours.


----------



## Gord (May 13, 2012)

transit54 said:


> It looks like things are inching forward on eliminating the border stop for the Adirondack and moving screening to Montreal, much like is done with the Cascades in Vancouver.
> 
> http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120511/amtrak-stop-us-canada-120511/20120511/?hub=MontrealHome


Now, if they'd just do the same thing for the Maple Leaf.

Too bad this type of improvement came too late for the International.

Gord


----------



## jis (May 13, 2012)

Gord said:


> Now, if they'd just do the same thing for the Maple Leaf.
> 
> Too bad this type of improvement came too late for the International.
> 
> Gord


Unlikely to happen for the _Maple Leaf_, because it is a full-fledged VIA train funded by VIA in Canada. It therefore cannot be run as a sealed train from Niagara Falls NY to Toronto ON, without losing VIA sponsorship. Hence C&I inspection has to happen at the border.

Neither would this have been possible for the _International _since it also was a full-fledged VIA train in Canada serving VIA stops.

Unlike those trains, the _Adirondack _is a pure Amtrak operation with Amtrak crews all the way to Montreal Gare Centrale.


----------



## afigg (May 13, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Swadian Hardcore said:
> ...


The customs facility at the Montreal station is not being built and won't be staffed for free. The Canadian or Quebec government is providing funding for it. If there are poor condition tracks and connections on the Canadian side that seriously slow down the train that can be fixed with a modest amount of funding by the provincial or Canadian governments, the US side may strongly nudge the Canadian government officials to provide the funding. The tourist, leisure, and business travel across the border is going both ways.


----------



## afigg (May 13, 2012)

Anderson said:


> 2) On the Adirondack, ideally the NYP departure will be pushed back a little to allow for humane connections with trains coming from/going to the south (getting from WAS to MTR is not my idea of a fun time, and neither is going the other way).


Looked up the 1982 Amtrak schedule for the Adirondack and Montrealer. Depressing just how much longer the Adirondack takes NYP-MTR than it did 30 years ago. Back then, the northbound Adirondack departed Grand Central at 10:35 AM, arrived MTR 7:13 PM. Yes, 8 hours and 45 minutes, not the close to 11 hours today. The later morning departure from NYG presumably allowed for connections from NYP via a jaunt on the subway. If up to several hours is taken off the Adirondack trip time, moving the morning departure from NYP to 9:30 AM or later would allow for easier connections from the south.

The southbound 1982 Adirondack departed Montreal (Windsor Station) at 10:15 AM, arrived NYP 6:57 PM. Back then, they were waving people through customs after a quick look at their drivers licenses and asking them if they have anything to declare. A shorter trip time would also probably move to a later departure from MTR which would allow for better connections at MTR from elsewhere and to give people time to clear customs.

The southbound Montrealer took 2 hours to get from MTR to St. Albans (SAB) with, if I read the schedule correctly, US customs inspection done enroute. It departed Montreal at 7:40 PM, arrived SAB 9:40 PM, arrived WAS 11:07 AM (13:27 SAB to WAS). The northbound Montrealer took 2:38 to get from SAB to MTR with a customs stop at Cantic, Quebec. Left WAS at 5:25 PM, arrived SAB 7:17 AM, arrived MTR 10:05 AM (13:52 WAS to SAB).

The current WAS to SAB trip times on weekdays is 13:20. Which is a little faster than the 1982 Montrealer, despite the longer route and backup move in MA. Subtract the trip time improvements from the track upgrades in VT, MA, CT, and projects getting completed on the New Haven line & the NEC, the Vermonter should eventually be several hours faster WAS to SAB than the 1982 Montrealer. Which is progress.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (May 13, 2012)

Back in 1982, who owned the adirondack's route? Was it the D&H?


----------



## jis (May 13, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Back in 1982, who owned the adirondack's route? Was it the D&H?


Yes, and a very decrepit one at that.


----------



## Anderson (May 14, 2012)

afigg said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > 2) On the Adirondack, ideally the NYP departure will be pushed back a little to allow for humane connections with trains coming from/going to the south (getting from WAS to MTR is not my idea of a fun time, and neither is going the other way).
> ...


I think these timings just made the argument for the Montrealer working as an overnight route. I'd like to note, regarding my LSL suggestion, that WB/NB it would make sense. SB/EB, however, I definitely see the issue...and of course, trying to run one without the other would require some real creativity in equipment/crew moves, as this isn't the NEC.


----------



## oldtimer (May 14, 2012)

jis said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Back in 1982, who owned the adirondack's route? Was it the D&H?
> ...



The railroad was not called the Decrepit & Horrible for no reason!

:giggle: hboy: :wacko:


----------



## Anderson (May 14, 2012)

oldtimer said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Swadian Hardcore said:
> ...


As I understand it, the D&H was basically yet another doomed mid-distance railroad in the Northeast; there were a lot of lines in the same position even before the Penn Central meltdown (IIRC, it was largely a bridge line between the NYC and CN/CP)...until Conrail happened and as part of the deal, the D&H picked up a huge amount of trackage rights since nobody wanted Conrail holding a monopoly into New York City. (or a few other cities). However, even this didn't fix the fact that the D&H, like a lot of other lines, had probably deferred a _lot _of maintenance throughout most of the 1960s and 1970s.


----------



## jis (May 14, 2012)

Anderson said:


> As I understand it, the D&H was basically yet another doomed mid-distance railroad in the Northeast; there were a lot of lines in the same position even before the Penn Central meltdown (IIRC, it was largely a bridge line between the NYC and CN/CP)...until Conrail happened and as part of the deal, the D&H picked up a huge amount of trackage rights since nobody wanted Conrail holding a monopoly into New York City. (or a few other cities). However, even this didn't fix the fact that the D&H, like a lot of other lines, had probably deferred a _lot _of maintenance throughout most of the 1960s and 1970s.


Yup, and then in 1984 it was acquired by the master of railroad dismantlement Guilford for a pittance, and then disposed off in bankruptcy proceeding for over $10 million a few years later when CP picked it up. Until CP picked it up it was bouncing from one fiasco to another and year to year it wasn't even clear whether the Adirondack would run the next year simply due to the possibility that there would be no serviceable track. So no matter what they wrote in the schedules, trust me, the ride was a much worse and unpredictable experience over that period than it is today.

Trackage rights obtained by D&H back then has now been inherited by CP and it does make use of quite a bit of them. One special success is the development of the Northern NAFTA Corridor from Montreal to Harrisburg via Schenectady, Bimghamton, Scranton, which is what has save the Lackawanna Cutoff (including Nicholson Viaduct) from decay, and is instead now a 60mph freight railroad in good order. The Susquehanna Valley Line from Schenectady to Binghamton has also undergone a revial as is the Montreal to Schenectady line, which is being upgraded with aid from new York State.


----------



## DingDong (May 14, 2012)

Here's some info on extending the Vermonter to Montreal:

http://www.railvermont.org/news/91-agency-of-transportation/334-agency-outlines-work-for-montreal-passenger-trains.html


----------



## afigg (May 14, 2012)

Anderson said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > The southbound Montrealer took 2 hours to get from MTR to St. Albans (SAB) with, if I read the schedule correctly, US customs inspection done enroute. It departed Montreal at 7:40 PM, arrived SAB 9:40 PM, arrived WAS 11:07 AM (13:27 SAB to WAS). The northbound Montrealer took 2:38 to get from SAB to MTR with a customs stop at Cantic, Quebec. Left WAS at 5:25 PM, arrived SAB 7:17 AM, arrived MTR 10:05 AM (13:52 WAS to SAB).
> ...


An overnight Montrealer train would likely lose a ton of money. It would serve through traffic between WAS-NYP and Montreal with lousy hours for central New England. The 1982 Montrealer schedule had the southbound #61 train arriving White River Jct at 11:40 PM, Springfield MA at 3 AM, Hartford at 3:50 AM, New Haven at 4:43 AM. The northbound #60 arrived NHV 10:40 PM, SPG 12:06 AM, White River Jct 3:47 AM.

The total track mileage in the 1982 schedule is 671 miles, so the Montrealer would have to be a state supported train. VT is not going to pay for a train to pass through VT in the middle of the night. The distance and trip times are viable for a day train. Which will have a bigger passenger base of people taking the train on the NEC, to/from central MA and VT. I just don't see an overnight train on the old Montrealer route being viable, even if there was not the mileage requirement for state support. Besides most people in NYC would take the Adirondack to Montreal as a day train which could improve on the 1982 schedule times if the Customs facility gets built and once the funded track projects in NY State are completed.


----------



## Trogdor (May 14, 2012)

afigg said:


> An overnight Montrealer train would likely lose a ton of money. It would serve through traffic between WAS-NYP and Montreal with lousy hours for central New England. The 1982 Montrealer schedule had the southbound #61 train arriving White River Jct at 11:40 PM, Springfield MA at 3 AM, Hartford at 3:50 AM, New Haven at 4:43 AM. The northbound #60 arrived NHV 10:40 PM, SPG 12:06 AM, White River Jct 3:47 AM.
> 
> The total track mileage in the 1982 schedule is 671 miles, so the Montrealer would have to be a state supported train. VT is not going to pay for a train to pass through VT in the middle of the night. The distance and trip times are viable for a day train. Which will have a bigger passenger base of people taking the train on the NEC, to/from central MA and VT. I just don't see an overnight train on the old Montrealer route being viable, even if there was not the mileage requirement for state support. Besides most people in NYC would take the Adirondack to Montreal as a day train which could improve on the 1982 schedule times if the Customs facility gets built and once the funded track projects in NY State are completed.


I disagree. While you would have less than ideal times in New England, that's not where the potential ridership is. While I don't have hard data offhand, I have had a number of friends in Montreal tell me they'd like to take the train to New York, but the current schedule is just a waste of a day. Even if you eliminate an hour for the customs stop, you still lose virtually the entire day traveling between Montreal and New York. If you want to connect to/from Washington, DC, you're talking about an ungodly hour at one end or the other (if you make the connection to the Adirondack, you're talking about a 4:00 am departure from WAS, if you have an extended Vermonter on the current schedule, you're getting to Montreal at midnight).

For people who take the train for sightseeing purposes, the day train works great. But, for basic transportation from Montreal to the busy cities between New York and DC, the train does not offer a competitive schedule.

Run it overnight, and people don't care that it takes a long time and runs really slow. If anything, it can actually work to the train's advantage. Granted, Springfield and White River Junction get crappy times, but they're not exactly bustling centers of activity either (and Springfield has numerous other travel options to/from the south, which is where most of the traffic is headed anyway). I'd wager that whatever you lose at those stations due to poor times, you'd more than make up with people traveling DC and New York to Montreal on a train with a much more convenient schedule for them.


----------



## DingDong (May 14, 2012)

afigg said:


> VT is not going to pay for a train to pass through VT in the middle of the night.


Yes, but Quebec might--I imagine the train would bring in a number of tourists and also be popular with Montrealers trying to get South. In any case, the train would provide a decent late-evening and early-morning connection between Montreal and Burlington, which Vermont might be willing to spend something on.


----------



## jamesontheroad (May 14, 2012)

DingDong said:


> Here's some info on extending the Vermonter to Montreal:
> 
> http://www.railvermont.org/news/91-agency-of-transportation/334-agency-outlines-work-for-montreal-passenger-trains.html


From that page:



> A space in Montreal Central Station adjacent to platform 23 has been identified for a pre-clearance facility.  Three different entities have property rights in that area, making the deal more complex.


Is there a plan of Gare Centrale anywhere online? I'm trying to remember where this is.


----------



## DingDong (May 14, 2012)

jamesbrownontheroad said:


> > A space in Montreal Central Station adjacent to platform 23 has been identified for a pre-clearance facility.  Three different entities have property rights in that area, making the deal more complex.
> 
> 
> Is there a plan of Gare Centrale anywhere online? I'm trying to remember where this is.


According to Wikipedia:



> One platform (23) is inaccessible to the main concourse, and serves instead as parking for the company cars belonging to upper-level management.


----------



## afigg (May 14, 2012)

DingDong said:


> Here's some info on extending the Vermonter to Montreal:
> 
> http://www.railvermont.org/news/91-agency-of-transportation/334-agency-outlines-work-for-montreal-passenger-trains.html


Thanks for the link. Several interesting news items about Vermont rail plans there.

-the VT 2013 state budget has $6 million for track upgrades on the western corridor. If I am interpreting the brief article correctly, the $6 million is the state matching component required to access the (ex-)Senator Jefford's long standing ~$20 million earmark to upgrade the Bennington-Rutland-Burlington tracks with continuous welded rails and allow speeds up to 60 mph. Appears that VT will make progress towards the track upgrades needed to extend the Ethan Allen to Burlington in the next several years.

-VT submitted a TIGER IV grant application for $11 million total with $3 million in state matching funds to replace the jointed tracks north of St. Albans to the border with new welded rails. With $100 million of the $500 million FY12 TIGER IV funds to be granted to intercity passenger rail projects, VT may have a real shot at getting selected.

-History item on costs for the Montrealer on this page, although I can't confirm how accurate it is: "When the Vermonter replaced the overnight Montrealer in 1995, the cost to operate between Montreal and Saint Albans was as much as the cost between Saint Albans and Washington DC. This was because the union required four crews. The Vermont Rail Action Network supports our hard working train-crews but recognizes (as do the unions, we think) that this is not acceptable or possible today."


----------



## OBS (May 14, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > An overnight Montrealer train would likely lose a ton of money. It would serve through traffic between WAS-NYP and Montreal with lousy hours for central New England. The 1982 Montrealer schedule had the southbound #61 train arriving White River Jct at 11:40 PM, Springfield MA at 3 AM, Hartford at 3:50 AM, New Haven at 4:43 AM. The northbound #60 arrived NHV 10:40 PM, SPG 12:06 AM, White River Jct 3:47 AM.
> ...


Absolutely true. When this train was operating (the second time around, ie early 90's), the train was literally always packed! People loved the o/nite schedule. I spent many years working the Vermonter, and passengers were constantly lamenting the daytime schedule, indicating they used to "always" take the train when it was on the o/nite schedule, etc. For exactly the reasons that were indicated here. All this ridership was even though it had "ala Cardinal" food service. I always contended that this train was treated as a "stepchild" much like the Cardinal. It was unfortunate that Amtrak was stuck with the excessive expense of the CN crews that took the train across the boarder...


----------



## afigg (May 14, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> I disagree. While you would have less than ideal times in New England, that's not where the potential ridership is. While I don't have hard data offhand, I have had a number of friends in Montreal tell me they'd like to take the train to New York, but the current schedule is just a waste of a day. Even if you eliminate an hour for the customs stop, you still lose virtually the entire day traveling between Montreal and New York. If you want to connect to/from Washington, DC, you're talking about an ungodly hour at one end or the other (if you make the connection to the Adirondack, you're talking about a 4:00 am departure from WAS, if you have an extended Vermonter on the current schedule, you're getting to Montreal at midnight).
> 
> For people who take the train for sightseeing purposes, the day train works great. But, for basic transportation from Montreal to the busy cities between New York and DC, the train does not offer a competitive schedule.


I think you underestimate how much padding has been added to the Adirondack schedule over the years because of track bottlenecks and post 9/11 border inspection. The Adirondack schedule trip times in 1982 were 8:54 southbound and 8:48 northbound. That was from Grand Central to Windsor Station with the schedule showing 376 track miles. The current Adirondack has 381 track miles MTR to NYP, so it a little longer route. Still, I don't see a reason that with track upgrades from Poughkeepsie to Schenectady and improving track conditions north of Schenectady that the Adirondack can't at least match, if not improve, on the 1982 trip times.

I agree 8.5 or 9 hours between NYC and Montreal is still not fast. But I don't see that there would be a big enough market - or least in the near future - to support overnight travel between WAS-NYP and MTR if the trip can be done during the day in 9-12 hours. Those daytime stops in VT for people traveling to VT are the reason the Vermonter exists. The Vermonter should see ridership growth as the trip time improvements in VT and MA are implemented and when eTicketing is added. Amtrak is not going to add a overnight train with sleeper cars to the Vermonter route ahead of a NYP-PHL-CHI and a 3rd NYP-WAS-Florida LD train.


----------



## DingDong (May 14, 2012)

Here's another article on extending the Vermonter to Montreal (from last year):

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20110823/NEWS02/110822032/Vermont-targets-rail-service-Montreal-within-3-years?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (May 14, 2012)

The first article says that Quebec is supportive of the Vermonter extension. I'm not sure if it will or even can pay the funds when they actually have to do it. Bridging the Vermonter to Montreal would be a good idea for travellers whether it's a day or night train, the problem comes with choosing which one. I cannot find myself choosing one over the other.

It would probably be a waste to make the Adirondack overnight, because it has good scenery and it's already very crowded.


----------



## AlanB (May 15, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> It would probably be a waste to make the Adirondack overnight, because it has good scenery and it's already very crowded.


Actually it wouldn't surprise me to find that, if Amtrak had the equipment and someone to help fund it, that they couldn't find enough riders to support both a daytime run and a overnight run on the Adirondack.


----------



## Anderson (May 15, 2012)

Just to chime in here, even 8 hours flat NYP-MTR (a noticeable improvement on the 1982 schedule) still more or less shoots a day. Assuming an 8 AM departure, you're looking at a 4 PM arrival...which is basically enough time to get to your hotel and unpack for dinner. Moreover, that early departure leaves in place the borderline toxic WAS-NYP times as the only connection option (though PHL-NYP and NHV-NYP would be a bit better off) while only offering 66/67 as a workable choice for some connections such as BOS or RVR. In technical terms, it sucks.

Assuming you used the saved time to push the departure back (say to 10 AM), those connections get better, and a noon departure of some sort would allow connections via the Meteor from the south (and potentially from the LSL from the west if that gets moved up per some of the plans Amtrak discussed in the PIP). It's still a pretty badly shot day, though, but it at least racks up a bunch of transportation options. If it got to the point that a second Adirondack was merited, an 8-ish departure and a 12-ish departure from each end would probably max out your connectivity options (you'd have a connection to/from Florida, a connection to/from the Midwest, and "reasonable hour" connections to/from Boston and other places).

As to priorities, I agree on the NYP-PHL-CHI front, though that may end up "just" taking the form of the Cap-Penny cars unless/until demand on that front spikes . The third NYP-WAS-Florida train might have to wait in line, though, depending on Amtrak's subsidy allowances. That market already has two trains per day, and as much as I'd like to see a third, it really seems more likely that you'd get one (or both) of the existing trains running REALLY long on the sleeper side (i.e. 5-6 sleepers, maybe more) and Amtrak springing to re-lengthen the platforms at a bunch of stations along the A-line and/or S-line (a lot of stations have deteriorated platform ends that could probably be re-paved for a fraction of the third train's annual subsidy). At the very least, doing so would be a strong prelude to the third train since Amtrak wouldn't be stuck either running a short train or running a half-empty train while demand increased.*

Also, do remember, an overnight train to Montreal would _probably _require a subsidy from one or more states (since it would almost assuredly fall under the "magic" 750 mile line...it might be worth prioritizing an effort to reduce that line to about 650 miles or so, honestly)...if it has service to Boston, you might be able to get MA on board, and it might also be possible to get VT on board. The question would be whether Quebec would be willing to kick in some and whether you could arrange a federal earmark of some sort to at least partly fill the gap.**

*Basically, the problem is that there's a significant supply jump between two trains and three trains, and I do believe that it behooves Amtrak to ensure that there's the demand for a reasonably full third train throughout most of the year. Can either the A-line or the S-line support 6-7 sleepers? Good question. Another good question is how high you'd want ridership on the Palmetto to go before running the train through.

**And of course, there's always room to talk about running a third train on the Adirondack's route, but I doubt that NY state is up for paying for three trains on that route. Two day trains if demand allows and the subsidy keeps going down, yes. Three trains, no.


----------



## jis (May 15, 2012)

afigg said:


> I think you underestimate how much padding has been added to the Adirondack schedule over the years because of track bottlenecks and post 9/11 border inspection. The Adirondack schedule trip times in 1982 were 8:54 southbound and 8:48 northbound. That was from Grand Central to Windsor Station with the schedule showing 376 track miles. The current Adirondack has 381 track miles MTR to NYP, so it a little longer route. Still, I don't see a reason that with track upgrades from Poughkeepsie to Schenectady and improving track conditions north of Schenectady that the Adirondack can't at least match, if not improve, on the 1982 trip times.
> 
> I agree 8.5 or 9 hours between NYC and Montreal is still not fast. But I don't see that there would be a big enough market - or least in the near future - to support overnight travel between WAS-NYP and MTR if the trip can be done during the day in 9-12 hours. Those daytime stops in VT for people traveling to VT are the reason the Vermonter exists. The Vermonter should see ridership growth as the trip time improvements in VT and MA are implemented and when eTicketing is added. Amtrak is not going to add a overnight train with sleeper cars to the Vermonter route ahead of a NYP-PHL-CHI and a 3rd NYP-WAS-Florida LD train.


I agree. Besides Amtrak cannot add a Sleeper train on any route to Montreal unless the states pay for it, without breaking the law. No state including Quebec (while VIA is busy slashing and burning service in Canada), in their right mind would fund such a train, and it cannot be nationally funded without creating exceptions to PRIIA.

Then again, in 1969 just before A-Day and complete loss of Montreal service, the Laurentian , which then used to run via Mechanicville, and not Schenectady, used to depart NY GCT at 8:30am, pass through Rouses Poin at 4:40pm with only a 20 min C&I stop at Lacolle, to arrive in Montreal Windsor at 6:10pm. So it appears that most of the time saving was between Rouses Point and Montreal.

Even in 1991, the running time from New York to Rouses Point was pretty similar, within 30mmins variation. The real additional time between then and now is over one additional hour between Rouses Point and Montreal.

In effect C&I moving to Montreal will get rid of most of that additional one hour and in addition to that maybe 15 - 20 mins will be saved in reduced padding requirements due to double track from Albany to Schenectady and slightly higher speed between Poughkeepsie and Schenectady. So at most a reduction of maybe 80 mins in schedule. Notwithstanding all the huffing and puffing, I don't see any significant speedup north of Schenectady because freight interference is only going to get worse, not better, with that segment gaining momentum as the northern NAFTA Corridor (Montreal - Schenectady - Binghamton - Scranton - Harrisburg - the primary raison d'etre for private and NY State investment on that route). NY State funding for the old D&H is primarily for commerce of the freight kind. the Adirondack is an incidental gainer out of it, to the extent that things improve.

Even before that, apparently very little prevents Amtrak from sliding the schedule down by 90 mins to depart NY at 9:45 and arrive in Montreal at 8:55pm, to be later revised to a 7:30pm-ish arrival. That would give it a connection from 160/180 from the south at NYP.


----------



## jamesontheroad (May 15, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > It would probably be a waste to make the Adirondack overnight, because it has good scenery and it's already very crowded.
> ...


+1

The thing about an overnight train is that it would open up the NYC/Montréal rail corridor to a whole market of new customers who would never consider taking the Adirondack. I've done that trip dozens of times, but admittedly because I'm a bit of a rail nut. One recollection of every trip was the number of Montréalers/ais and New Yorkers who admired my spirit but said they could never justify losing two whole days just to spend a weekend away in Montréal.

Let's also not forget that Amtrak's number one competitor, Greyhound has not one, not two but three "overnight" buses between NYC and Montréal every night, departing at 6:30PM, 9:00PM and 00:01AM (with an additional 11:00PM departure on Fridays and Sundays). This could be a train with potential to grow both at both "ends" of the train - people who would like to take sleeping accommodation and save a day's travel (or roughly four hours out of a day if flying), and budget travellers who would no doubt prefer an Amtrak reclining seat to one on Greyhound.


----------



## afigg (May 15, 2012)

jis said:


> Even in 1991, the running time from New York to Rouses Point was pretty similar, within 30mmins variation. The real additional time between then and now is over one additional hour between Rouses Point and Montreal.
> 
> In effect C&I moving to Montreal will get rid of most of that additional one hour and in addition to that maybe 15 - 20 mins will be saved in reduced padding requirements due to double track from Albany to Schenectady and slightly higher speed between Poughkeepsie and Schenectady. So at most a reduction of maybe 80 mins in schedule. Notwithstanding all the huffing and puffing, I don't see any significant speedup north of Schenectady because freight interference is only going to get worse, not better, with that segment gaining momentum as the northern NAFTA Corridor (Montreal - Schenectady - Binghamton - Scranton - Harrisburg - the primary raison d'etre for private and NY State investment on that route). NY State funding for the old D&H is primarily for commerce of the freight kind. the Adirondack is an incidental gainer out of it, to the extent that things improve.
> 
> Even before that, apparently very little prevents Amtrak from sliding the schedule down by 90 mins to depart NY at 9:45 and arrive in Montreal at 8:55pm, to be later revised to a 7:30pm-ish arrival. That would give it a connection from 160/180 from the south at NYP.


Looking at the 2012 Adirondack schedule, there has been a lot of padding added. Using Plattsburgh (PLB) as the northern end to stay clear of Rouses Point padding for customs, the southbound #68 schedule PLB-NYP is at 8:05. The northbound #69 NYP-PLB is 6:57. #68 to NYP has some serious padding. The 1982 schedule from Grand Central has #68 PLB-NYG in 7:09, #69 NYG-PLB in 6:46.

One of the many 2009 NY State applications for the stimulus funds, which I have a copy of (only the form part of the application to be specific), was for $23.5 million for track improvements on the CP line. The project was to upgrade track speeds between Schenectady to Whitehall and Plattsburgh to Rouses Point to 79 mph for a total trip time reduction of 12.5 minutes. The speed increases on the southern end from Schenectady to Whitehall for 9 minutes of trip time savings would also benefit the Ethan Allen, so that part should be easier to get the funding for. The project application also included constructing facilities at Rouses Point to have the custom inspection shifted to adjacent yard tracks to clear the main line. With a custom facility at the Montreal station, the Rouses Point modification would be moot. The copy I have does not have a breakdown of the costs, so don't know what the track upgrades for the Schenectady to White Hall segment would cost.

My point is that if NY State and Quebec are serious and willing to provide or re-allocate funding for track upgrades north of Schenectady, there should be significant trip time improvements that can achieved at a modest cost. The track, signal, and crossing upgrades would benefit both freight and passenger rail which helps to get the funding. That VT wants to extend the Vermonter may help tilt the balance to getting track improvements done on the Canadian side. We shall see how it plays out. But my read of the politics says that we will see much of the proposed improvements happen in the next 2-3-4 years.


----------



## jis (May 15, 2012)

afigg said:


> My point is that if NY State and Quebec are serious and willing to provide or re-allocate funding for track upgrades north of Schenectady, there should be significant trip time improvements that can achieved at a modest cost. The track, signal, and crossing upgrades would benefit both freight and passenger rail which helps to get the funding. That VT wants to extend the Vermonter may help tilt the balance to getting track improvements done on the Canadian side. We shall see how it plays out. But my read of the politics says that we will see much of the proposed improvements happen in the next 2-3-4 years.


As long as Cuomo gets re-elected yes. If a do nothing like Pataki clone replaces Cuomo then that will be the end of it.

Characterizing recognition of actual track and traffic conditions as "padding" is a bit misleading. The wonderful schedules of 82 that you talk about more often than not involved 2 hour delays. As a matter of fact, in my 4 or so trips on that train back then, I cannot recall a single time when it arrived anywhere less than one hour late. But of course that could have been just my misfortune too.

The net time saving will be somewhere between one hour and 1:45. No matter what they do to the track on that RoW, there is not much track that is straight enough on that route to run sustained 79mph. Maybe George can explain that phenomenon better than I. The situation is somewhat similar to the RF&P. One can wish, but that won't get anyone to run at sustained speeds higher than 60mph to 70mph on it either. And as I said earlier, they are grossly under-estimating the effect of freight interference that is coming down the pike. Sorry to sound a bit down, but that is the reality as I perceive it, being somewhat familiar with the situation through ESPA's interactions with Amtrak and CP.


----------



## jamesontheroad (May 15, 2012)

jamesbrownontheroad said:


> Is there a plan of Gare Centrale anywhere online? I'm trying to remember where this is.


Part of the answer to my question is here, apparently a track diagram for Gare Centrale dated May 1997.

http://www.emdx.org/rail/GareCentrale/PlanVoies.gif

A less detailed by architecturally accurate plan is here:

http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/montreal_diagram.htm

Note that they are rotated 180º relative to each other. Platform 23 is at the eastern end of the complex. The station concourse is on the level above, and the island platforms between tracks are accessed either by stairs or escalators. As has already been noted, there are none accessing this track, so presumably if access is to be made from the main station concourse, a new opening will have to be made from the concourse to the tracks, presumably from within the sterile holding area for border checks.

I just hope that whoever designs it has the foresight to allow the accommodation of both arriving and departing passengers, even if that is just a dream for now


----------



## Anderson (May 15, 2012)

jis said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > My point is that if NY State and Quebec are serious and willing to provide or re-allocate funding for track upgrades north of Schenectady, there should be significant trip time improvements that can achieved at a modest cost. The track, signal, and crossing upgrades would benefit both freight and passenger rail which helps to get the funding. That VT wants to extend the Vermonter may help tilt the balance to getting track improvements done on the Canadian side. We shall see how it plays out. But my read of the politics says that we will see much of the proposed improvements happen in the next 2-3-4 years.
> ...


If there's any good news in this, it's that as far as I can tell, Cuomo should be safe for at least a second term. New York seems to be in no danger of voting in a Republican anytime soon...Cuomo blew out Paladino by just over 25 points in what was otherwise a Republican year, and it's not like Paladino had beaten out a credible challenger in the primary (Rick Lazio and Steve Levy were both looking to get smashed in the general election as badly as Paladino was at best, and might well have done worse). Heck, Cuomo was only one of four Democrats to get in by a fairly safe margin.*

So...the NY Governor's Mansion should remain in Democratic hands for the foreseeable future, which should in turn prevent any bad surprises on this front.

*The other three were in NH, MD, and AR. You can make an argument for CO as well, but nobody knew what was going to happen there.

(I'll even say that in the case of NY in particular, the only brand of Republicans that are likely to be elected are the brand that will screw up rail plans and offer nothing that I'd want in return, policy-wise. So given that, I'd rather have a Democrat.)

As to the tracks through the Adirondacks, those are going to present a problem for any real speed upgrades. As has been said, in some cases the alignment is the problem. Basically, the only major speed upgrade plans in Virginia between RVR and ALX, when you get down to it, seem to essentially involve large sections of new alignment. If anything, the route in New York is worse-off since the combination of mountains and lakes in the region make fixing the alignment nigh-on impossible.


----------



## AlanB (May 15, 2012)

Anderson said:


> That market already has two trains per day, and as much as I'd like to see a third, it really seems more likely that you'd get one (or both) of the existing trains running REALLY long on the sleeper side (i.e. 5-6 sleepers, maybe more) and Amtrak springing to re-lengthen the platforms at a bunch of stations along the A-line and/or S-line (a lot of stations have deteriorated platform ends that could probably be re-paved for a fraction of the third train's annual subsidy).


Actually, it may not be that simple. I believe that repaving them would trigger ADA issues, requiring that the entire platform be modernized to ADA standards, which if the station was not ADA compliant would up the costs considerably.


----------



## Anderson (May 15, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > That market already has two trains per day, and as much as I'd like to see a third, it really seems more likely that you'd get one (or both) of the existing trains running REALLY long on the sleeper side (i.e. 5-6 sleepers, maybe more) and Amtrak springing to re-lengthen the platforms at a bunch of stations along the A-line and/or S-line (a lot of stations have deteriorated platform ends that could probably be re-paved for a fraction of the third train's annual subsidy).
> ...


Ugh...ok, your point is taken.

I am reminded of the story of a group of nuns (well, technically, sisters...but that's splitting hairs) who wanted to renovate a building in New York City for use as a homeless shelter. The project melted down because an ADA-required elevator installation was going to increase the cost of the project by something like 1/3, knocking it out of their price range.

As much as the ADA serves a role...let's just say that there needs to be a bit more flexibility in letting grandfathered facilities remain grandfathered even with improvements.


----------



## jis (May 15, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > That market already has two trains per day, and as much as I'd like to see a third, it really seems more likely that you'd get one (or both) of the existing trains running REALLY long on the sleeper side (i.e. 5-6 sleepers, maybe more) and Amtrak springing to re-lengthen the platforms at a bunch of stations along the A-line and/or S-line (a lot of stations have deteriorated platform ends that could probably be re-paved for a fraction of the third train's annual subsidy).
> ...


I heard that fortunately FRA has backed off from its impractical idea that any new platform must be full length full high on single level passenger lines. Now there is a freight train exception, which allows for low level platforms on tracks where there is frequent freight service, apparently. So now it is possible to repave low level platforms at 8" above railhead, or some such even where only single level trains dwell, provided there is significant freight traffic on the same track and there is no reasonable cost alternative to build sidings for high level platforms.

Basically FRA started having a de-ja-vu ICC experience ( as in the expectation that requiring cab signaling above 79mph would cause everyone to install cab signals - not!) wherein, instead of building nice expensive high level platforms, the operators chose to do nothing and make the stations effectively even less ADA accessible as time went on.


----------



## Tracktwentynine (May 15, 2012)

I think the preclearance is a good move, especially if it opens up Montreal to additional service, which I think can be supported.

I also think that an overnight train would be a good addition, though that's something that should happen after the _Vermonter_ has been extended to Montreal. As for the 750-mile PRIIA restriction, one possible solution would be to run the overnight train (I'm going to call it the _Montrealer_) from Montreal to Richmond (RVR), which would make its route 780 miles long (it would only be 671 between MTR and WAS).

I've created a mock-up of a schedule, simply as a basis for discussion.

First off, the assumptions:


I made no changes to the _Adirondack_, except to subtract the 60 minute southbound border check and the 90 minute northbound border check.
Because the _Adirondack_ acts as an Empire Service train south of Albany, I did not change it's schedule there. All time savings are accrued north of the border (later AM departure, earlier PM arrival).
I edited the _Vermonter_'s schedule to run via Northampton, MA, as that reroute is in the works. I assumed a 30 minute time savings between Springfield, MA and Brattleboro, VT.
I also subtracted 30 minutes from the _Vermonter_'s schedule for ARRA work in Vermont. These subtractions are taken evenly along all stations in Vermont based on proportion of mileage.
I estimated a run time of 105 minutes (1h45) for the _Vermonter_ / _Montrealer_ between Montreal and St. Albans.
I did not change the _Vermonter_'s scheduled times south of Springfield, and used the regular weekday schedule. I used the same travel times for the _Montrealer_.
Now, with those assumptions in place, let's look at potential endpoint times:


_Vermonter_ SB #55 - Dp MTR 7:46 -> SPG @ 14:40 -> NYP @18:24 -> WAS @ 22:15
_Adirondack_ SB #69 - Dp MTR 10:30 -> ALB @ 17:40 -> NYP @20:40
_Montrealer_ SB #61 - Dp MTR 20:30 -> SPG @ 3:24 -> NYP @ 7:08 -> WAS @ 10:59 [-> RVR* @13:25] _*Optional to get past PRIIA_



_Adirondack_ NB #68 - Dp NYP 8:15 -> ALB @ 10:45 -> MTR @ 17:34
_Vermonter_ NB #56 - Dp WAS 8:05 -> NYP @ 11:21 -> SPG @ 15:00 -> MTR @ 22:09
_Montrealer_ NB #60 - [RVR* dp 15:35] -> WAS @ 18:00 -> NYP @ 21:16 -> SPG @ 0:55 -> MTR @ 8:04 _*Optional to get past PRIIA_

If the _Montrealer_ ran to Richmond, it would either require 3 sets, a 2 hour turn, or moving the Montreal departure earlier and the Richmond departure later.

The full schedule (without RVR extension) is below:





(click link for larger version)


----------



## jis (May 15, 2012)

Other than the fact that the numbers for Adirondack are reversed, this is neat! Very well done!!

The northbound Adirondack is actually railroad direction westbound and hence should be odd numbered (69) and the southbound is eastbound and hence should be even numbered (68). This is one of the lasting oddities.

One should also keep in mind that merely managing to make a train's run greater than 850 miles is not going to magically make the money or the desire to run it appear in Amtrak's coffers. If that were the case Sunset East would be running today. Going forward, it will probably be easier to find state money and FTA disbursed money than FRA disbursed money (read Amtrak budget) for running passenger trains. In effect this has been the case in the Northeast anyway for quite a while, if you take into consideration who pays for how much of the train ridership in the northeast anyway.


----------



## afigg (May 15, 2012)

jis said:


> As long as Cuomo gets re-elected yes. If a do nothing like Pataki clone replaces Cuomo then that will be the end of it.
> 
> Characterizing recognition of actual track and traffic conditions as "padding" is a bit misleading. The wonderful schedules of 82 that you talk about more often than not involved 2 hour delays. As a matter of fact, in my 4 or so trips on that train back then, I cannot recall a single time when it arrived anywhere less than one hour late. But of course that could have been just my misfortune too.
> 
> The net time saving will be somewhere between one hour and 1:45. No matter what they do to the track on that RoW, there is not much track that is straight enough on that route to run sustained 79mph. Maybe George can explain that phenomenon better than I. The situation is somewhat similar to the RF&P. One can wish, but that won't get anyone to run at sustained speeds higher than 60mph to 70mph on it either. And as I said earlier, they are grossly under-estimating the effect of freight interference that is coming down the pike. Sorry to sound a bit down, but that is the reality as I perceive it, being somewhat familiar with the situation through ESPA's interactions with Amtrak and CP.


I don't know how much of an Amtrak supporter Gov. Cuomo is. But he is not up for re-election until 2014. To get these changes in place takes more than just the Governor of NY. A pro-rail Administration in the White House helps get support and cooperation from DHS, Customs, State Dept, US DOT, FRA, and may steer some funding to NY & VT. Gov. Shumlin of VT is a vocal supporter of extending the Vermonter to Montreal. Without his support, the extension plans would likely be going nowhere as they have for years. Shumlin is up for re-election in 2012 (VT Govs get 2 year terms), but according to the political tracking websites I googled, he is considered a safe bet for re-election.

The key is to get the agreements signed, funding allocated, and work started in the next several years while the political leadership in NY, VT, and at the right places in DC are all aligned in support. Then if Cuomo is succeeded by a Pataki type in 2014, the key upgrades are already in place or too far along for a new Governor to stop.

As for the trip time improvements on the CP line, there are solutions for increased freight traffic with double tracking, but, of course, that would be expensive. I think NYC to Montreal should be a candidate for true HSR branching off of an improved NEC, but I recognize that the public and political support for that is not yet remotely there, in large part because there is only one train a day. By making incremental improvements, making the trip times closer to being competitive with driving and bus services, increase NYP-MTR service frequencies to say 3 trains a day (1 Vermonter, 2 Adirondacks), you get more people taking the train. Over time, the increased ridership and increased public awareness of the train option will help build the foundation for building true high speed service to Montreal and across upper state NY to Buffalo. We will see HSR in a number of other corridors in the US before NYC-Montreal because of the complexities of alignment of interests in Canada and the US, but I think eventually it will happen.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (May 15, 2012)

Question: If US and Canada ever end up building HSR from Montreal to NYC, which route would be best, the Adirondack route through Plattsburgh and Albany or the Vermonter route through Hartford and St Alban?

Keep in mind the potential populations HSR can serve on different routes.


----------



## afigg (May 15, 2012)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Question: If US and Canada ever end up building HSR from Montreal to NYC, which route would be best, the Adirondack route through Plattsburgh and Albany or the Vermonter route through Hartford and St Alban?
> 
> Keep in mind the potential populations HSR can serve on different routes.


Best candidate may be the I-87 ROW north of Albany/Schenectady to Montreal. If we are to get serious about HSR, we have to build new ROWs and tracks in place of the meandering train routes through the mountains and hills laid out in the mid 1800s because of the technology and grade constraints of the era. (same goes for Harrisburg to Pittsburgh). But this would in the very long term, not in the next decade or so.


----------



## jis (May 15, 2012)

afigg said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> > Question: If US and Canada ever end up building HSR from Montreal to NYC, which route would be best, the Adirondack route through Plattsburgh and Albany or the Vermonter route through Hartford and St Alban?
> ...


Same goes for New York to Albany too actually. The Water Level Route will never be an HSR route.


----------



## Anderson (May 15, 2012)

Good point on the Richmond extension option. To be fair, your schedules for the Montrealer are RIGHT on top of the Carolinian's schedule, which raises an interesting prospect since the Carolinian's operating agreement covers 100% of operating costs as of now. There's already $25m coming in, so if the train were simply extended north and a large pad added at, for example, New Haven for the SB train, there wouldn't be THAT much of a subsidy to deal with. I'd presume that endpoint business would be non-existent, but you'd certainly generate a good deal of corridor business on the train to supplement the LD traffic.* However, to deal with this you would definitely need three-class service onboard (i.e. a good deal of BC/"overnight coach" space to deal with the overnight travel) or some on-board space handling methodology to avoid overnight LD coach folks from getting assigned to short-haul coach cars.

As to avoiding PRIIA, the idea isn't to reduce the state subsidy to $0 necessarily, but rather to get the train out of needing a 100% subsidy. If VA and NC were to kick in as they do now, and VT/CT/QC were to kick in a share for the northern end of things, the train might be kept to a "sane" loss in the $10-15m range. Likewise, the Amtrak subsidy situation is rather complicated...if Amtrak were to run a steady "surplus" in its subsidy year over year (i.e. operating losses turning out to be less than the subsidy covers), kicking in something from the Amtrak side might be doable.

*Using endpoint corridor operations to help cover some of the operating costs has come to mind on establishing some overnight services...for example, a LAX-SFO/EMY overnight train could easily be timed to pick up a LOT of traffic between San Jose and Sacramento on one end and between San Diego and Los Angeles (and/or Los Angeles and Oxnard) on the other. Even operating as an "expensive all-reserved Surfliner" on those routes, such a train could probably find a respectable boost from such business.


----------



## AlanB (May 15, 2012)

afigg said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> > Question: If US and Canada ever end up building HSR from Montreal to NYC, which route would be best, the Adirondack route through Plattsburgh and Albany or the Vermonter route through Hartford and St Alban?
> ...


I-87 north of Albany isn't exactly straight enough for HSR either. Yes, it's probably better than the meandering of the current ROW along Lake Champlain. But I've driven that road many times and you might get speeds of 100 MPH, but I doubt you're getting much above that even with tilting technology.


----------



## Anderson (May 15, 2012)

AlanB said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > Shawn Ryu said:
> ...


In other words, on that alignment you could get the ALB-MTR time down to 3-3.5 hours (depending on how much 100 MPH running you had and how many stops you were forced to take), and NYP-MTR times under 6 hours (possibly moving in the general direction of five hours if improvements can be made south of ALB)? That may not be the ultimate goal for such a route, but I'd take that in a heartbeat. Come to think of it, I suspect a lot of people would for the ability not to have to deal with airport security+airport customs.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (May 16, 2012)

Putting two trains on the same line would be great, but they got to at least have one train on each line first, which they almost have except that the Vermonter is cut off at St. Albans. Amtrak would never get funding for two trains before they get funding for one train, whatever schedule that one train runs on.


----------



## Anderson (May 16, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Putting two trains on the same line would be great, but they got to at least have one train on each line first, which they almost have except that the Vermonter is cut off at St. Albans. Amtrak would never get funding for two trains before they get funding for one train, whatever schedule that one train runs on.


Amtrak already has funding for one (the Adirondack), and I believe that Vermont has indicated a willingness to pony up for the Montreal extension on the Vermonter pending some help with the capital improvements needed. At least, that's my understanding.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (May 16, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Putting two trains on the same line would be great, but they got to at least have one train on each line first, which they almost have except that the Vermonter is cut off at St. Albans. Amtrak would never get funding for two trains before they get funding for one train, whatever schedule that one train runs on.
> ...


So it looks like we might be seeing two NYP-Montreal trains on different routes. What I mean it that two trains on the same route is a lot harder to get.


----------



## Anderson (May 16, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Swadian Hardcore said:
> ...


Yes and no. Really, the main issue would be exchanging equipment and/or rounding up a spare set, but there's no reason that provided the cars and engines for it that Amtrak couldn't, for example, extend 233 to Montreal and return it as 242. I'm not sure what the net cost would be (assuming that food service is restored on all Empire Service trains), but the Adirondack only costs $13m to operate total. I'm guessing a net cost to the state of $4-5m overall (assuming that there's no net frequency added NYP-ALB and taking into account about $6m in revenues)?

As to trouble adding frequencies, I think that's a toss-up. If the demand is there to fill one decent-length train (the Adirondack is way up there in terms of load factors, though it could probably stand to be lengthened at least a little bit) and resist at least _some _pricing pressure, I think trains being added becomes quite likely as long as you don't have an anti-rail government. The problem is that a lot of once-daily routes do run half-empty for much of the route and have lousy CR.

Of course, none of this gets into equipment issues...*sighs(


----------



## trainviews (May 16, 2012)

I think New York would really only be interested in a second Adirondack if the current one approaches or passes 100% cost recovery. North of Saratoga Springs (which is served by the Ethan Allen too) New York state is very sparsely populated, Plattsburg being the only real population centre. Even though New York is pretty rail friendly it has other priorities and is much more likely to focus on the NYC-Albany-Buffalo corridor and maybe a service to Binghampton.

Vermont has a clearer interest in better service, but on the other hand the Vermonter has a much worse cost recovery/costs more money. Also a second train on the route could very well be Boston-bound instead of NYC.

As for a night train the logical thing would actually be to run it on the Adirondack route (and then just change direction at NYP - the engine has to be changed anyway), as it is at least an hour shorter and the intermediate population matters less as it is served in the middle of the night. But as others have pointed out, even if the train could be a good idea it is hard to see who is going to be willing to pay for it under the current rules no matter what route is chosen.


----------



## jis (May 16, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Putting two trains on the same line would be great, but they got to at least have one train on each line first, which they almost have except that the Vermonter is cut off at St. Albans. Amtrak would never get funding for two trains before they get funding for one train, whatever schedule that one train runs on.
> ...


By no means is the continuing funding of the Adirondack absolutely certain. It is a political struggle every year, some worse than others, to keep it going. While its ridership numbers are growing, it could grow a lot more without requiring another train. As has been mentioned, beyond Saratoga, the train is not exactly overflowing. Usually only two cars or less, worth of passengers cross into or back from Canada. There are of course exceptional days, but one cannot depend on exceptional days only to determine how many trains to run. At this point, when NYS has to come up with money to keep the Empire Service running, of necessity, Adirondack will just hobble along, and no additional anything will happen on that route for a while.

Canada Service from New York taken together will probably see more funding go to the Leaf in the immediate couple of years ahead, to just keep it running, given that CN has served notice to abandon the Whirlpool Bridge in Niagara Falls, and everyone is scrambling to figure out how to keep that bridge from shutting down, something that will require additional several million of funding etc.

That said, the way New York does funds disbursement is different from the Feds. New York legislature does not do project by project earmarks. They appropriate a lumpsum for non-downstate rail (passenger and freight lumped together) with a general understanding of how it is proposed to be spent. The Governor/Executive after that follows through on whatever was negotiated with the legislature during the budget process, and does have considerable leeway in cross allocating depending on how things develop over the year. This has its pluses and minuses. Money that was supposedly appropriated for something, may not actually get spent on it eventually, and conversely money that initially was not there could suddenly appear out of thin air for some other project. And all this while the Governor and the Executive endlessly bicker, which of late has been more subdued than usual, fortunately.


----------



## DingDong (May 16, 2012)

According to this article, the Montrealer was one of Amtrak's poorest performing routes. Has anything changed since then?

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/12/travel/to-montreal-the-restful-way.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm


----------



## Trogdor (May 16, 2012)

DingDong said:


> According to this article, the Montrealer was one of Amtrak's poorest performing routes. Has anything changed since then?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/12/travel/to-montreal-the-restful-way.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm


That's not exactly what it says. The actual quote was "the Montrealer line was one of the poorest-performing of Amtrak's sleeper services in terms of revenue..."

Revenue just means how much money (in sales) is taken in. Says nothing of costs, which I'm sure were considerably less than on a full-service train with sleepers, fully staffed diners, lounges, etc.


----------



## afigg (May 16, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> DingDong said:
> 
> 
> > According to this article, the Montrealer was one of Amtrak's poorest performing routes. Has anything changed since then?
> ...


Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but the Montrealer was a full service train with sleeper cars and a diner car. Would not be surprising if it was among the poorer cost recovery trains back then if the crew costs and operating costs were high because of the rules and track fees north of the border. But the Montrealer is not coming back as a night time train with sleepers because under the current rules it would require state subsidy support and that is not going to happen. The only prospects for an overnight NYP-MTR train might be a 3rd Adirondack departing at 9-10 PM, arriving at ~7 AM if ridership grows by leaps and bounds, but with Amfleet II (or Am II replacements) cars for those willing to travel that way.


----------



## jis (May 16, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> DingDong said:
> 
> 
> > According to this article, the Montrealer was one of Amtrak's poorest performing routes. Has anything changed since then?
> ...


Every time I rode the Montrealer AFAIR it definitely had a fully staffed train specific Lounge called Le Pub, and I think it had a Diner too.


----------



## Trogdor (May 16, 2012)

Never mind. I'm thinking of the Federal/Shoreliner/Night Owl that had the minimal staffing.


----------



## afigg (May 16, 2012)

jis said:


> By no means is the continuing funding of the Adirondack absolutely certain. It is a political struggle every year, some worse than others, to keep it going. While its ridership numbers are growing, it could grow a lot more without requiring another train. As has been mentioned, beyond Saratoga, the train is not exactly overflowing. Usually only two cars or less, worth of passengers cross into or back from Canada. There are of course exceptional days, but one cannot depend on exceptional days only to determine how many trains to run. At this point, when NYS has to come up with money to keep the Empire Service running, of necessity, Adirondack will just hobble along, and no additional anything will happen on that route for a while.


However, if the long customs stop at the border goes away and the Adirondack cuts a couple of hours off of the trip time, that should not only increase ridership, but also reduce the operating cost. Don't have to pay the crew and burn fuel sitting there for an hour or more every day while waiting for the customs inspectors to process the train. Would also expect that there are many one-time passengers who found sitting in the non-moving train for an hour or longer while the customs inspectors processed everyone to be so irritating that they did not take the Adirondack again.

Improved On-Time Performance also helps to reduce costs. Checking the 2009 NY State Rail plan, the Adirondack OTP fell to dreadful levels of less than 20% in FY06 and FY07. For March 2012, the endpoint OTP was at a respectable 88.7%. Positive trend that should also increase ridership and revenue.

If the ridership to Montreal goes up by 50% or even doubles over the next several years after the customs facility opens in MTR with better cost recovery, that will shore up support for funding the Adirondack. NYC to Montreal is a pretty long drive and a rather long trip on a Greyhound bus. I'll have to check the air fares in more depth, but they were not cheap for direct NYC to Montreal flights. If the Adirondack can get back to more competitive trip times, it should do very well.


----------



## PRR 60 (May 16, 2012)

jis said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > DingDong said:
> ...


When I rode it in 1994, the Montrealer had a Cardinal-style diner-lounge serving pre-prepared, warmed meals. Not bad, but far from a full-service diner.

It was a neat ride. You called it a night on the urban NEC in Connecticut, and woke-up in rural Vermont. Quite a contrast.


----------



## jamesontheroad (May 16, 2012)

afigg said:


> I'll have to check the air fares in more depth, but they were not cheap for direct NYC to Montreal flights. If the Adirondack can get back to more competitive trip times, it should do very well.


Montréal Trudeau has direct air service to La Guardia (Air Canada, American & soon Delta as well); JFK (American) and Newark (Air Canada). Porter Airlines also have a slice of the market through their nice downtown Toronto airport hub.

Roundtrip fares are generally around the CAD$325 / USD$300 mark.


----------



## Anderson (May 16, 2012)

jamesbrownontheroad said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > I'll have to check the air fares in more depth, but they were not cheap for direct NYC to Montreal flights. If the Adirondack can get back to more competitive trip times, it should do very well.
> ...


That sounds about right...IIRC, your airfares tend to go up about $100+ for a cross-border roundtrip. If the times were decent and/or an overnight service was offered, the Adirondack really should mop up in that market on the cost advantage. Honestly, I'd be somewhat surprised if a properly-equipped Adirondack on an 8-hour schedule couldn't get somewhere around 85-90% CR against those sorts of costs.*

*Once you include traffic on the southern end of the route, the train should probably be profitable...but there's an accounting issue there. In 2005, there was a convoluted restructuring of costs and revenues that lumped all non-LSL ticket revenue NYP-ALB into one category and broke that off from the upstate Empire Service, Adirondack, and Ethan Allen. This little shift saw the Adirondack lose about $1.5 million in revenue and the Ethan Allen lose nearly $3 million. It also saw revenue on the Vermonter crash from $14.8m to $2.8m, though how much of this went to the NEC and how much went to the NHV-SPG shuttles I don't know. The Keystones also lost something like half of their revenue in the process, and the Carolinain lost $2.3m as well.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (May 16, 2012)

The equipment is the biggest issue stopping service expansion. No equipment, no train. You could convince the state governments to fund a train but it is all useless if they don't pay for more equipment. That is the biggest reason preventing multiple frequencies, because Amtrak has always had trouble getting money for equipment. They shouldn't have retired so much in the 1990s.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (May 16, 2012)

Since we are talking about multiple frequencies over the current Adirondack route, I was wondering why you guys think that is a good solution at present. I think that if the current train often only runs with about 2 cars north of Albany, why it would not be smart to increase size of the train before increasing frequency.

I also think that a Vermonter extension to Montreal would be a good thing, but I am worried about it. I think that the Vermonter is in a good place right now, but I feel that a Montreal extension would put the train in a similar boat with the Adirondack. The Adirondack has a significant percentage of end-to-end ridership. If the Vermonter was to be extended, I feel that Amtrak would allow most of the riders to go to Montreal because they can get more revenue out of them, and the potential riders still in Vermont would face "sold out" or "no room available" for their specific city pairs too often, like Amtrak currently will not allow many passengers NorCal-Reno like they will NEC-Vermont. That is my main concern with extending a day train over this route.


----------



## afigg (May 16, 2012)

jamesbrownontheroad said:


> Montréal Trudeau has direct air service to La Guardia (Air Canada, American & soon Delta as well); JFK (American) and Newark (Air Canada). Porter Airlines also have a slice of the market through their nice downtown Toronto airport hub.
> 
> Roundtrip fares are generally around the CAD$325 / USD$300 mark.


Yes, looking up the air fares, the cheapest for direct round trips are just above $300 USD. Not including whatever extra fees might be added, but go with $300 to $400 round trip as the current cheap seats air fare cost comparison.

Greyhound NYC to Montreal trip times range from 7h 54m (midnight departure with fewer stops) to 8h 50m (middle of the day departure). The cheapest Greyhound price I get for next week is $73, standard fare $103. Megabus does not go to Montreal (yet?).

The Adirondack NYP to MTR prices for the next week are $63 to $70, so the train prices are lower than Greyhound. Since the Adirondack currently takes 11 hours, the prices have to be low to compete.

Driving time is given at around 6-1/2 hours but one has to add border inspection time and at least one pit stop to that. For those who have driven the route, would 7-1/2 hours driving time from NYC to Montreal be a reasonable estimate?

What the Greyhound and driving trip times indicate to me is that if the Adirondack can get back to a circa 9 hour or less trip time, it would be able to compete reasonably well against the bus services and driving from NYC to Montreal. Circa 370 miles is a long drive. And between 2 cities with very good transit systems, so for a lot of New Yorkers, why drive? at $3 to $4 a gallon gas? The potential is there for substantial ridership growth if the improvements and customs facility come to pass.


----------



## Anderson (May 16, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> The equipment is the biggest issue stopping service expansion. No equipment, no train. You could convince the state governments to fund a train but it is all useless if they don't pay for more equipment. That is the biggest reason preventing multiple frequencies, because Amtrak has always had trouble getting money for equipment. They shouldn't have retired so much in the 1990s.


It was regrettable, but who would have predicted the ridership surge of the last decade? In their shoes, I'd probably have mothballed a bunch of equipment somewhere rather than dumping it outright...but I'd still have taken it out of service.

As to the question of multiple NYP-MTR frequencies, the main reason is network connectivity: It would be ideal to have a link to a Boston train with a decent time, a Florida/Atlantic Coast train, and a Midwest train without an overnight stay somewhere. Likewise, decent network connectivity on the Canadian end (i.e. being able to connect to the train from an early corridor train coming in from at least Ottawa, if not Toronto) would be good as well. That _probably_ dictates two-a-day.


----------



## Trogdor (May 16, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> Since we are talking about multiple frequencies over the current Adirondack route, I was wondering why you guys think that is a good solution at present. I think that if the current train often only runs with about 2 cars north of Albany, why it would not be smart to increase size of the train before increasing frequency.


The train runs four or five coaches (plus cafe car) north of Albany.


----------



## Blackwolf (May 16, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> Since we are talking about multiple frequencies over the current Adirondack route, I was wondering why you guys think that is a good solution at present. I think that if the current train often only runs with about 2 cars north of Albany, why it would not be smart to increase size of the train before increasing frequency.
> 
> I also think that a Vermonter extension to Montreal would be a good thing, but I am worried about it. I think that the Vermonter is in a good place right now, but I feel that a Montreal extension would put the train in a similar boat with the Adirondack. The Adirondack has a significant percentage of end-to-end ridership. If the Vermonter was to be extended, I feel that Amtrak would allow most of the riders to go to Montreal because they can get more revenue out of them, and the potential riders still in Vermont would face "sold out" or "no room available" for their specific city pairs too often, like Amtrak currently will not allow many passengers NorCal-Reno like they will NEC-Vermont. That is my main concern with extending a day train over this route.


It is my understanding that on both the Adirondack and the Maple Leaf that a moratorium is very much in place currently to the number of passengers allowed to book travel north of the US border. I remember reading something somewhere that the number is right along 175 or so, and that this number is set by USCIS as a limit of the number of people they are willing to process aboard the train. As such, Amtrak is not able to sell more than that number of tickets for points on the other side of the border... Which requires that most of the train be empty aside from two cars.

After a preclearance is set up, I'd suspect the restriction would be lifted. Much like the Cascades from Vancouver, they could then sell out the whole train and not have an issue. I think there lies the real key to hurdle before any additional train frequencies are addressed.


----------



## Donctor (May 16, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> DingDong said:
> 
> 
> > According to this article, the Montrealer was one of Amtrak's poorest performing routes. Has anything changed since then?
> ...


You are correct. By this time, the Montrealer was usually a bag, sleeper, Heritage lounge, and three Amfleet II coaches.


----------



## CHamilton (May 16, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> I also think that a Vermonter extension to Montreal would be a good thing, but I am worried about it. I think that the Vermonter is in a good place right now, but I feel that a Montreal extension would put the train in a similar boat with the Adirondack. The Adirondack has a significant percentage of end-to-end ridership. If the Vermonter was to be extended, I feel that Amtrak would allow most of the riders to go to Montreal because they can get more revenue out of them, and the potential riders still in Vermont would face "sold out" or "no room available" for their specific city pairs too often, like Amtrak currently will not allow many passengers NorCal-Reno like they will NEC-Vermont. That is my main concern with extending a day train over this route.


Johnny, your concern is a good one, although in the days of the Montrealer, Essex Junction (Burlington) and Waterbury (Stowe) had lots of traffic both north and south. In the winter, you'd see lots of college students carrying skis on board -- today, there'd be just as many snowboards, I'm sure. So especially since VT is paying the bills, I bet that Amtrak would make sure to have capacity for passengers not going all the way to MTR.


----------



## jis (May 16, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> Since we are talking about multiple frequencies over the current Adirondack route, I was wondering why you guys think that is a good solution at present. I think that if the current train often only runs with about 2 cars north of Albany, why it would not be smart to increase size of the train before increasing frequency.


The present train has way more than two cars full north of Albany. It does pretty well to Plattsburgh. In general about two cars worth of people go north of Rouses Point. These days may be they are getting a few people more than two cars worth on many days, but I don;t know for sure.

But it is true that there is much more growth possible with a single train with more cars before one needs to get hit by the additional cost of a track charge and operating crew etc. needed for a second train.


----------



## jis (May 16, 2012)

CHamilton said:


> johnny.menhennet said:
> 
> 
> > I also think that a Vermonter extension to Montreal would be a good thing, but I am worried about it. I think that the Vermonter is in a good place right now, but I feel that a Montreal extension would put the train in a similar boat with the Adirondack. The Adirondack has a significant percentage of end-to-end ridership. If the Vermonter was to be extended, I feel that Amtrak would allow most of the riders to go to Montreal because they can get more revenue out of them, and the potential riders still in Vermont would face "sold out" or "no room available" for their specific city pairs too often, like Amtrak currently will not allow many passengers NorCal-Reno like they will NEC-Vermont. That is my main concern with extending a day train over this route.
> ...


Why is the situation with the Vermonter where Vermont pays the bill any different from the Adirondack with New York paying the bill?

I think we are getting way ahead of ourselves worrying about sold out trains, specially when more equipment becomes available. I wish we'd have such a problem on the Vermont route. Actually the Vermont train running to Montreal will increase efficiency in at least one way. One won't have to send two P42s one at each end with the train like they do now.


----------



## AlanB (May 16, 2012)

afigg said:


> Driving time is given at around 6-1/2 hours but one has to add border inspection time and at least one pit stop to that. For those who have driven the route, would 7-1/2 hours driving time from NYC to Montreal be a reasonable estimate?


Yes, that's reasonable. It does depend on what time you hit the border and how long the lines are, plus of course how many stops you make along the way. Also hitting Albany during rush hour can be a problem and add to the times.


----------



## AlanB (May 16, 2012)

jis said:


> johnny.menhennet said:
> 
> 
> > Since we are talking about multiple frequencies over the current Adirondack route, I was wondering why you guys think that is a good solution at present. I think that if the current train often only runs with about 2 cars north of Albany, why it would not be smart to increase size of the train before increasing frequency.
> ...


Agreed! After our excursion on the Ocean to Halifax, upon our return the train had 2-Amfleet II cars, a cafe, and 3-Amfleet I cars.

And because they had sold more tickets out of Montreal than could fit in the 2 AMF II cars, we were unfortunately forced to sit in the AMF I cars. I think that they were pretty close to having sold out those 3 cars. And US Customs forced them to put us in the AMF I cars, they didn't want to have people on both sides of the cafe car, so the short haul passengers got the good long distance seats, while the long haul passengers got the crappy short haul seats.

Thankfully going north the CBSA didn't seem to have the same silly restrictions that the US Customs has, so we were able to sit in the nicer AMF II seats the whole way.


----------



## transit54 (May 16, 2012)

jis said:


> I think we are getting way ahead of ourselves worrying about sold out trains, specially when more equipment becomes available. I wish we'd have such a problem on the Vermont route. Actually the Vermont train running to Montreal will increase efficiency in at least one way. One won't have to send two P42s one at each end with the train like they do now.


The second P42 should be going away as soon as the work in Massachusetts is done on the Knowledge Corridor, eliminating the turn in Palmer, MA. That should be either late 2013 or 2014 from what I've heard.


----------



## afigg (May 16, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> Since we are talking about multiple frequencies over the current Adirondack route, I was wondering why you guys think that is a good solution at present. I think that if the current train often only runs with about 2 cars north of Albany, why it would not be smart to increase size of the train before increasing frequency.


Service frequency for the Adirondack is not going to be increased until ridership and revenue for the current Adirondack daily train increase enough to support it. That is going to be a few years. Amtrak does not appear to have enough Amfleet II cars to support a second daily Adirondack if the preference would be to equip it with LD coach cars. Either Amtrak converts Horizons freed up from the Midwest by 2016-17 into LD coach configuration or places the order for Amfleet II replacements.



johnny.menhennet said:


> I also think that a Vermonter extension to Montreal would be a good thing, but I am worried about it. I think that the Vermonter is in a good place right now, but I feel that a Montreal extension would put the train in a similar boat with the Adirondack. The Adirondack has a significant percentage of end-to-end ridership. If the Vermonter was to be extended, I feel that Amtrak would allow most of the riders to go to Montreal because they can get more revenue out of them, and the potential riders still in Vermont would face "sold out" or "no room available" for their specific city pairs too often, like Amtrak currently will not allow many passengers NorCal-Reno like they will NEC-Vermont. That is my main concern with extending a day train over this route.


The Vermonter is a long way from being full in MA and VT. Going back to FY10 to stay clear of the track work outages last year, the Vermonter had 86,245 passengers, either north of NHV or Springfield MA. That works out to around 120 for each train. If the Vermonter got crowded, Amtrak could add one or 2 Amfleet Is to increase the capacity.

A Vermonter extended to Montreal would get a lot of turnover traffic in VT and MA. People would take it from WAS-NYC to VT/MA and between VT/MA and Montreal. Since Vermont is paying for the train, they can have Amtrak adjust the ticket prices to discourage through traffic. For example, if the Adirondack was $90 for NYP-MTR, the Vermonter could be set to $130 for NYP to MTR with a big price jump above the NYP to VT stop prices. That would push people in NYC to take the Adirondack to Montreal which is the more direct route anyway.

Amtrak follows a similar pricing approach with the Crescent and the Lynchburg Regional between WAS and Charlottesville and Lynchburg to get people to take the Regional to free up Crescent seats for longer range traffic. The Crescent is more expensive from NYP-WAS to CVS and LYH than the Regional. The problem with the LD train to Reno is not the same because there is only one daily LD train with a limited supply of Superliner coach cars to add to it.

A crowded Vermonter and Adirondack would be good problems to have. Better than half empty trains with poor cost recovery that would be at threat of shutting down.


----------



## Anderson (May 16, 2012)

Amtrak does something similar with the Meteor on discouraging short-haul traffic in VA unless the Regionals are already slammed. I think WAS-RVR tickets are locked to the second-highest bucket as a rule, which more or less eliminates short-haul traffic when the Regionals aren't near capacity. Not that this has tended to stop me from taking it home, but the tactic is pretty clear.

As to the Adirondack being tied down by Customs...that is _really_ obnoxious.


----------



## jis (May 17, 2012)

transit54 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > I think we are getting way ahead of ourselves worrying about sold out trains, specially when more equipment becomes available. I wish we'd have such a problem on the Vermont route. Actually the Vermont train running to Montreal will increase efficiency in at least one way. One won't have to send two P42s one at each end with the train like they do now.
> ...


Good point! I believe the turning Wye at St. Albans just beyond the round house is still usable. At present they just park the train on a station side leg of the Wye adjacent to the station and go off to their hotels. The following morning they come back and pull out from the siding to the platform ready for departure. I guess all that they have to do is pull up beyond the other leg of the Wye on the mainline, back into the Wye and then forward to where they park the train now.


----------



## jis (May 17, 2012)

Donctor said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > DingDong said:
> ...


You're right. The separate Am-Dinette went away sometime in late 80s. Before that it used to have an Am-Dinette and the Heritage Le-Pub. After losing the Am-Dinette I think half the Lounge was used to provide dining service at food times. And the car used to be full of smoke since smoking was allowed until quite late.

But AIR in the early to mid 80s Le Pub was a very nice socializing experience, and I still keep in touch with a few ladies that I met there, just in a friendly way of course.  The car had relatively well appointed subdued lighting, unlike the almost sunburn producing glaring lights in Amfleet Lounge cars. And in that time frame, it also had Slumbercoach Service which made sleeping accommodation affordable. It would be really nice if something like that could be brought back...... One can dream....


----------



## jis (May 17, 2012)

afigg said:


> johnny.menhennet said:
> 
> 
> > Since we are talking about multiple frequencies over the current Adirondack route, I was wondering why you guys think that is a good solution at present. I think that if the current train often only runs with about 2 cars north of Albany, why it would not be smart to increase size of the train before increasing frequency.
> ...


Actually I suspect that before a second train to Montreal happens on the old D&H, it is more likely that a second train to Plattsburgh will happen. Indeed, whenever the funding for Adirondack comes under threat, they never talk of discontinuing the train. They usually talk of cutting it back to Plattsburgh. Plattsburgh has a relatively vibrant SUNY campus and does produce significant traffic. Beyond that the only significant traffic producer is Montreal.



> johnny.menhennet said:
> 
> 
> > I also think that a Vermonter extension to Montreal would be a good thing, but I am worried about it. I think that the Vermonter is in a good place right now, but I feel that a Montreal extension would put the train in a similar boat with the Adirondack. The Adirondack has a significant percentage of end-to-end ridership. If the Vermonter was to be extended, I feel that Amtrak would allow most of the riders to go to Montreal because they can get more revenue out of them, and the potential riders still in Vermont would face "sold out" or "no room available" for their specific city pairs too often, like Amtrak currently will not allow many passengers NorCal-Reno like they will NEC-Vermont. That is my main concern with extending a day train over this route.
> ...


Vermont's plan has generally been to get to two trains per day to/through Vermont, with occasional noises about one of the trains being permanently bustituted north of Springfield. If that comes to pass (the two trains, not the bustitution) then extending one to Montreal will cause no significant overcrowding issue IMHO, unless somehow Vermont's population doubles or some such.

As far as setting fares, Amtrak has relatively little freedom in setting the fares will be on either the Vermonter or the Adirondack. Both are state funded trains and they as a result have significant say on that matter. The "I Love New York" fares as they apply to the Adirondack as well as the "Montreal Getaway" fares (or whatever they are called) that were in effect from Jan through early April, are all NYSDOT approved.

Incidentally, I am planning a little field trip on the Adirondack to Montreal over the Memorial Day weekend.


----------



## Anderson (May 17, 2012)

jls: Didn't know about the chatter either for a second Plattsburgh train or a second train up the Vermonter route. Not that I'm surprised by the latter (Vermont seems _very_ pro-rail; it might well be the best state in the nation in that regard, though I could see a serious challenge to that title from a few states), but it is impressive.

Honestly, I can see a "short of the border" train getting set up and then being extended...I'd think that service to/from Montreal would probably, released from goofy Customs rules and a long border delay, be an incrementally net positive move for any train terminating at St. Albans or Plattsburgh.


----------



## jis (May 17, 2012)

Anderson said:


> jls: Didn't know about the chatter either for a second Plattsburgh train or a second train up the Vermonter route. Not that I'm surprised by the latter (Vermont seems _very_ pro-rail; it might well be the best state in the nation in that regard, though I could see a serious challenge to that title from a few states), but it is impressive.
> 
> Honestly, I can see a "short of the border" train getting set up and then being extended...I'd think that service to/from Montreal would probably, released from goofy Customs rules and a long border delay, be an incrementally net positive move for any train terminating at St. Albans or Plattsburgh.


Incidentally, terminating at St. Albans is simply because there is storage and turning Wye there. The train pretty much empties out at Essex Jct (Burlington). Both time I have been to St. Albans, I was one of exactly two fare paying passengers on the train beyond Essex Jct. (Burlington) !

I agree that extending to Montreal is a positive, though whether the additional fare actually covers the additional cost is another matter - subject to the whims of CN and other factors.


----------



## afigg (May 17, 2012)

jis said:


> Actually I suspect that before a second train to Montreal happens on the old D&H, it is more likely that a second train to Plattsburgh will happen. Indeed, whenever the funding for Adirondack comes under threat, they never talk of discontinuing the train. They usually talk of cutting it back to Plattsburgh. Plattsburgh has a relatively vibrant SUNY campus and does produce significant traffic. Beyond that the only significant traffic producer is Montreal.


Plattsburg had only 12.4K passengers in FY11, so it not that active a destination. The station passenger counts north of Schenectady or Saratoga Springs - as are the populations - are quite small until Montreal. But with NYP to Plattsburgh at under 7 hours, might be feasible to support a second NYP-PLB train with a single train set making a round trip from NYP.



> Vermont's plan has generally been to get to two trains per day to/through Vermont, with occasional noises about one of the trains being permanently bustituted north of Springfield. If that comes to pass (the two trains, not the bustitution) then extending one to Montreal will cause no significant overcrowding issue IMHO, unless somehow Vermont's population doubles or some such.


I have read the Vermont plans to have 2 daily trains on the Vermonter route through VT. Which makes sense given the investment in upgrading the tracks and the better travel flexibility provided by 2 daily trains. What we don't know is the restrictions and costs of the customs facility in and tracks to Montreal. CN may not want more than 2-3 daily passenger trains to MTR. What is overnight storage and servicing capacity in MTR for Amtrak trains?

The second train to Vermont may be provided by the proposed Boston to Montreal train, if that goes through Springfield or cuts north at Palmer (which would provide service to Amherst) and provide direct connections to Boston from VT. One possibility is that the Vermonter gets extended to Montreal in several years. Then when MA is ready to start a BOS to MTR train (after improvements to the BOS-WOR-SPG/Palmer segment and Amtrak has the equipment to support it), the Vermonter is cut back to St Albans and the BOS-MTR train goes to Montreal instead, providing the Montreal to VT service that VT wants. VT would continue to pay for the Vermonter which also benefits central MA stations, MA pays for the BOS-MTR train which also benefits VT. Lot of ways for these plans to play out.


----------



## jis (May 17, 2012)

afigg said:


> I have read the Vermont plans to have 2 daily trains on the Vermonter route through VT. Which makes sense given the investment in upgrading the tracks and the better travel flexibility provided by 2 daily trains. What we don't know is the restrictions and costs of the customs facility in and tracks to Montreal. CN may not want more than 2-3 daily passenger trains to MTR. What is overnight storage and servicing capacity in MTR for Amtrak trains?


Amtrak trains are stored and serviced at the VIA facility in Montreal, and AFAICT storage capacity is not an issue for a couple of trains. CN has hardly any traffic between Cantic and Montreal, maybe a couple or 3 freights a day. And the only traffic between Cantic and Rouses Point is the Adirondack. That is why that part has the rock'n'roll track which has probably not seen a tamper in a decade  Juuuust kidding.



> The second train to Vermont may be provided by the proposed Boston to Montreal train, if that goes through Springfield or cuts north at Palmer (which would provide service to Amherst) and provide direct connections to Boston from VT. One possibility is that the Vermonter gets extended to Montreal in several years. Then when MA is ready to start a BOS to MTR train (after improvements to the BOS-WOR-SPG/Palmer segment and Amtrak has the equipment to support it), the Vermonter is cut back to St Albans and the BOS-MTR train goes to Montreal instead, providing the Montreal to VT service that VT wants. VT would continue to pay for the Vermonter which also benefits central MA stations, MA pays for the BOS-MTR train which also benefits VT. Lot of ways for these plans to play out.


Yup. Many possibilities.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (May 17, 2012)

afigg said:


> The second train to Vermont may be provided by the proposed Boston to Montreal train, if that goes through Springfield or cuts north at Palmer (which would provide service to Amherst) and provide direct connections to Boston from VT. One possibility is that the Vermonter gets extended to Montreal in several years. Then when MA is ready to start a BOS to MTR train (after improvements to the BOS-WOR-SPG/Palmer segment and Amtrak has the equipment to support it), the Vermonter is cut back to St Albans and the BOS-MTR train goes to Montreal instead, providing the Montreal to VT service that VT wants. VT would continue to pay for the Vermonter which also benefits central MA stations, MA pays for the BOS-MTR train which also benefits VT. Lot of ways for these plans to play out.


Is it even a possibility that a Boston-Montreal train could go via Manchester, Concord, and Lebanon to meet up with the current roue at White River Jct.? Google Maps makes it look like these tracks have somewhat been torn up but they are the designated Boston-Montreal high speed path. I have always seen this as the best route between these cities.


----------



## afigg (May 18, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> Is it even a possibility that a Boston-Montreal train could go via Manchester, Concord, and Lebanon to meet up with the current route at White River Jct.? Google Maps makes it look like these tracks have somewhat been torn up but they are the designated Boston-Montreal high speed path. I have always seen this as the best route between these cities.


The route through NH would clearly be the most direct route from BOS to MTR. The problem is New Hampshire and the lack of solid state support for passenger rail projects. The impression I got from somewhere in the MA DOT viewgraphs or MA State Rail Plan is that the state planners are looking at running a BOS-MTR through Worcester (which is the 2nd biggest city in MA), and then through central MA as a general route. I think MA would prefer to have a Boston to Montreal service run from South Station and go through Framingham and Worcester, so that drives the options for a route. The drawback of course, is that a BOS-MTR train to either Palmer and then north or further to SPG & then north is going to be the long way around to Montreal which would hurt though ridership.

BTW, came across this article written several weeks ago that confirms that the remaining HSIPR/ARRA track work for the 191 mile NECR route in Vermont is to be completed this summer or early fall with a completion ceremony planned for Brattleboro in October. That matches news reports that stated that the plan is to take 25-27 minutes off of the Vermonter schedule this fall, presumably when the new fall-winter schedule takes effect.


----------



## Anderson (May 19, 2012)

afigg said:


> johnny.menhennet said:
> 
> 
> > Is it even a possibility that a Boston-Montreal train could go via Manchester, Concord, and Lebanon to meet up with the current route at White River Jct.? Google Maps makes it look like these tracks have somewhat been torn up but they are the designated Boston-Montreal high speed path. I have always seen this as the best route between these cities.
> ...


...and cue yet another case where an intermediate state's disinterest in a project screws things up for the endpoint states/provinces (CT, WI and SC leap to mind as other examples; at least IN was more than happy to kick in an application with a caveat attached). Sadly, it's highly doubtful that MA, VT, or QC would be willing to provide any matches for that segment.*

*Would it even be _allowed _for one state to provide the match for a "linking section" in another state? I know the political issues there (in a lot of cases, voters can't sort out why having their state just swallow the cost for a few miles of road in another state for a good connection somewhere makes sense when the other state is being stubborn, so you've ended up with more than a few cases of an expressway terminating at the state line followed by a few miles of surface street, or a four-lane highway going to two lanes at a border...there was an infamous case of this at the VA/NC line for a long time), but assuming that several states wanted a project to go through, could they just fund the "troublesome" match themselves?


----------



## jis (May 19, 2012)

I wonder what the traffic potential is between Boston and Montreal. At present there a 7 Canadair CRJ non-stop flights a day and about 14 other CRJ/ERJ based one stop connections. Even if all those traveling O/D BOS - YUL using those were to transfer to trains that would just fill a longish train maybe, depending on how many are O/D BOS - YUL and how many are connectors. I cannot see how one could justify spending mucho dinero rebuilding tracks on a partially abandoned RoW for this. So the most likely thing to happen will be along existing usable trackage, which indicate a routing via Palmer or Springfield. My guess is that it might be [referred to be via Palmer becuase of the Amherst routing, and there could indeed be even a Vermont terminator from Boston before anything happens to Montreal.

As for interest in rail, CT can hardly be categorized as a state uninterested in rail or opposed to rail. If anything it has actually bought more equipment in the recent past than Amtrak has. CT does aggressively protect what it perceives to be its primary interest, which is efficient, on time and reliable transport to New York, and one can't blame them for it. This unfortunately sometimes runs afoul of the desire to run the Amtrak trains a little faster on that railroad. Incidentally, many in NJ wish that NJT were as good as MNRR at protecting its interest on the NEC. And no matter what CT allows or not, and no matter how much railfans might dream, the cowpath of a railroad that MNRR is, will never support anything significantly faster than at most 90 mph in short spells between New Rochelle and New Haven. Restoration of the fourth track at the eastern end will of course help reduce congestion and increase schedule reliability for both MNRRR and Amtrak, and that is funded and in the works.


----------



## Anderson (May 19, 2012)

jis said:


> I wonder what the traffic potential is between Boston and Montreal. At present there a 7 Canadair CRJ non-stop flights a day and about 14 other CRJ/ERJ based one stop connections. Even if all those traveling O/D BOS - YUL using those were to transfer to trains that would just fill a longish train maybe, depending on how many are O/D BOS - YUL and how many are connectors. I cannot see how one could justify spending mucho dinero rebuilding tracks on a partially abandoned RoW for this. So the most likely thing to happen will be along existing usable trackage, which indicate a routing via Palmer or Springfield. My guess is that it might be [referred to be via Palmer becuase of the Amherst routing, and there could indeed be even a Vermont terminator from Boston before anything happens to Montreal.
> 
> As for interest in rail, CT can hardly be categorized as a state uninterested in rail or opposed to rail. If anything it has actually bought more equipment in the recent past than Amtrak has. CT does aggressively protect what it perceives to be its primary interest, which is efficient, on time and reliable transport to New York, and one can't blame them for it. This unfortunately sometimes runs afoul of the desire to run the Amtrak trains a little faster on that railroad. Incidentally, many in NJ wish that NJT were as good as MNRR at protecting its interest on the NEC. And no matter what CT allows or not, and no matter how much railfans might dream, the cowpath of a railroad that MNRR is, will never support anything significantly faster than at most 90 mph in short spells between New Rochelle and New Haven. Restoration of the fourth track at the eastern end will of course help reduce congestion and increase schedule reliability for both MNRRR and Amtrak, and that is funded and in the works.


I didn't say that they were disinterested...but CT's obstruction has at least been rather a pain with respect to travel times on the NEC-North. I also think it's fair to say that getting those extra 10-20 MPH would still count for something.

Also, one of Amtrak's PRIIA report on the NEC says that they can get 90-110 MAS between New Rochelle and NHV. Obviously, they won't be able to manage this on the whole line (you can never manage that), but it would still be an improvement.


----------



## SubwayNut (May 19, 2012)

The big issue and interests between the two corridors is ownership, in New Jersey Amtrak owns the Northeast Corridor. In Connecticut Amtrak owns the NEC from the Rhode Island Boarder (and all the way from Boston) all the way to New Haven and the Shuttle's branch line up to Springfield (which CT-DOT want's commuter rail on). The Connecticut Department of Transportation (It doesn't normally use the name CT-DOT) owns the line from New Haven to the New York boarder where Metro-North owns the Line all the way into Grand Central. I believe Metro-North (under the complicated agreement with CT-DOT which runs the joint-state New Haven Line and why it took so long for the new M8 cars that were desperately needed to be built) is in charge or routine maintenance while CT-DOT must fund all major capital improvements which is why only today there finally slowly replacing he last remnants of the original and unique 1907 catenary (Info from the MTA). Metro-North finished this project on their section of line way back in 1995. I have a hunch if Amtrak owned this section of the corridor it might have happened already with the project that extended electrification to Boston.

Shore Line East (the CT-DOT sponsored New Haven to New London Commuter Rail Line using diesel locomotives under wire) is operated directly by Amtrak (including there ticketing), you can't buy a regular ticket from GCT to New London via MNR and SLE you need two seperate ones. In New Haven's Union Station there are two separate sets of ticket windows those for Metro-North and those for Amtrak/SLE. CT-DOT has ordered some M8s for SLE and I hope this results in direct New York to London Service at cheeper commuter fares.


----------



## afigg (May 19, 2012)

Anderson said:


> ...and cue yet another case where an intermediate state's disinterest in a project screws things up for the endpoint states/provinces (CT, WI and SC leap to mind as other examples; at least IN was more than happy to kick in an application with a caveat attached). Sadly, it's highly doubtful that MA, VT, or QC would be willing to provide any matches for that segment.*


If NH is not going to be an active participant, there are plenty of other projects in New England to invest the limited amount of passenger rail funds in while waiting for the NH political environment to realize that the expansion age of roads, more roads, and ever more cars is coming to a close.

While NH sits on the sidelines, let VT extend service to Montreal, get at least 2 trains a day on the eastern corridor, extend the Ethan Allen to Burlington. Massachusetts can upgrade the Inland Route to SPG for increased BOS-SPG service, extend Springfield shuttles northward along the CT River line to bring train service back in a major way to central MA. CT & Amtrak can upgrade the Springfield line with double tracking, faster speeds, and increased service including Inland Route Regionals. Maine can extend the Downeaster to Brunswick and reduce trip times for the Downeaster to Portland with service improvements as a side effect for the NH stops.

If these service expansions are successful and leads to businesses relocating or starting up around intercity and commuter train lines, eventually NH's leadership will realize that they need to become a serious participant in the restored New England passenger rail system.

As for CT, they are investing $284 million in state bonds in upgrading the Springfield line. They have been spending considerable state money in the catenary and bridge replacement projects for the New Haven Line. The state focus is mostly on the commuter services to NYC, not so much on intercity passenger rail, but given much of their population commutes to NYC that is understandable.

On the NEC and New Haven line stuff, I don't think we should turn this into another NEC thread. The prospect of a customs facility in Montreal with proposed track upgrades in northern VT opens up possible direct train services to Montreal through VT to MA and CT. So the discussions about what is going on in "greater" central New England tie in to service to Montreal. But the NEC in CT and Downeaster are peripheral to Montreal service except to note that improved trip times on the New Haven line will benefit the Vermonter.


----------



## AlanB (May 19, 2012)

jis said:


> Restoration of the fourth track at the eastern end will of course help reduce congestion and increase schedule reliability for both MNRRR and Amtrak, and that is funded and in the works.


That's interesting, as that's going to involve moving/destroying existing platforms.


----------



## jis (May 19, 2012)

AlanB said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Restoration of the fourth track at the eastern end will of course help reduce congestion and increase schedule reliability for both MNRRR and Amtrak, and that is funded and in the works.
> ...


Only one. In Milford.


----------



## afigg (May 22, 2012)

On the subject of a possible Boston to Montreal service, I get a guess estimate trip time of around 8.5 hours if it went via Palmer and Amherst. I figure by the time a BOS-MTR service would start, there would be NHV-SPG shuttles extended north to Greenfield MA and Amtrak would be running at least 1 Inland Route Regional which would allow connections to BOS for Northampton and Greenfield. So MA could run a BOS-MTR over the (somewhat) shorter route and provide/restore direct Boston service to Amherst.

BOS to SPG is currently 2:15. Looking at the map, BOS to Palmer to Amherst is a little further than BOS-SPG. With MA taking ownership of the BOS-WOR tracks and plans for Inland Route upgrades, I’ll ballpark the BOS to Amherst trip time at 2 hours. The current trip time from Amherst to St. Albans is 5 hours; subtract ½ hour for the track improvements in VT. Then add 2 hours for St Albans to Montreal. Or go with 2:15 BOS to Amherst and 1:45 St Albans to MTR. Either way, that adds up to around 8 and ½ hours.

Driving time from Boston to Montreal is given at around 5 to 5.5 hours by several map programs. Call it circa 6 hours with a customs and a pit stop.

Question is how much ridership would a BOS-MTR train get with an 8.5 hour trip time? Or would it get enough ridership from BOS to VT and VT to MTR to keep the operating loss to a minimum?


----------



## Anderson (May 22, 2012)

afigg said:


> On the subject of a possible Boston to Montreal service, I get a guess estimate trip time of around 8.5 hours if it went via Palmer and Amherst. I figure by the time a BOS-MTR service would start, there would be NHV-SPG shuttles extended north to Greenfield MA and Amtrak would be running at least 1 Inland Route Regional which would allow connections to BOS for Northampton and Greenfield. So MA could run a BOS-MTR over the (somewhat) shorter route and provide/restore direct Boston service to Amherst.
> 
> BOS to SPG is currently 2:15. Looking at the map, BOS to Palmer to Amherst is a little further than BOS-SPG. With MA taking ownership of the BOS-WOR tracks and plans for Inland Route upgrades, I'll ballpark the BOS to Amherst trip time at 2 hours. The current trip time from Amherst to St. Albans is 5 hours; subtract ½ hour for the track improvements in VT. Then add 2 hours for St Albans to Montreal. Or go with 2:15 BOS to Amherst and 1:45 St Albans to MTR. Either way, that adds up to around 8 and ½ hours.
> 
> ...


Part of the answer there is that Boston, like New York, Philly, and Washington, has a decent carless population if I'm not mistaken. So there's that aspect to be had, plus the fact that MTR has a decent public transit system.

The other part of the answer is that the Adirondack generates a lot of NYP-MTR traffic with even worse times, relatively speaking. So I don't think the numbers would be awful...especially when you add in traffic to Vermont. It might also come down to the cost...remember, gas in New England tends to be more expensive than gas in the South and Midwest (though it's not as bad as either New York or the West Coast). Per gasbuddy.com, the cost of gas for a trip is about $53 one way or $103 round trip...which does seem to offer an opening.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (May 22, 2012)

Anderson said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > On the subject of a possible Boston to Montreal service, I get a guess estimate trip time of around 8.5 hours if it went via Palmer and Amherst. I figure by the time a BOS-MTR service would start, there would be NHV-SPG shuttles extended north to Greenfield MA and Amtrak would be running at least 1 Inland Route Regional which would allow connections to BOS for Northampton and Greenfield. So MA could run a BOS-MTR over the (somewhat) shorter route and provide/restore direct Boston service to Amherst.
> ...


I agree with Anderson. I do not feel that a trip tie of even 8.5 hours would hamper ridership, and I think it's workable.

As as sidenote, I hope the rest of the country doesn't have the gas costs we do! Some of the more expensive stations in my area are over $5.00 a gallon now, within about 10 cents of the peak they hit in early July 2008.


----------



## afigg (May 22, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Part of the answer there is that Boston, like New York, Philly, and Washington, has a decent carless population if I'm not mistaken. So there's that aspect to be had, plus the fact that MTR has a decent public transit system.
> 
> The other part of the answer is that the Adirondack generates a lot of NYP-MTR traffic with even worse times, relatively speaking. So I don't think the numbers would be awful...especially when you add in traffic to Vermont. It might also come down to the cost...remember, gas in New England tends to be more expensive than gas in the South and Midwest (though it's not as bad as either New York or the West Coast). Per gasbuddy.com, the cost of gas for a trip is about $53 one way or $103 round trip...which does seem to offer an opening.


Agree that Boston has a good transit system with a population that does not either have a car or is not inclined to drive long distances does make a difference. I can see a BOS-MTR train at 8.5 hours doing ok, but the ridership will be less from Boston than it would be if it took the more direct route through NH. On the other hand, by the time a BOS-MTR train service starts, odds are that gas prices will be way more than $3-$4 a gallon.

A brief check of air fares shows that for 1+ week in advance, the prices for direct Logan to Montreal flights are pretty high. The less expensive, but longer connecting flights are through JFK, PHL, Detroit, etc. The high prices for direct flights may be due to post Memorial Day travel.

If a BOS-MTR train does happen, it would make for a neat loop trip from NYC. Take the NEC to Boston early AM, then BOS-MTR. Return on the Adirondack a day or 2 later. Now if the BOS-MTR and the Adirondack were equipped with future Viewliner sightseer type lounge cars, would do big business in the fall during the peak color season.


----------



## jis (May 23, 2012)

The first train to arrive into Boston from New York, other than 66, is after 10am on week days and 11am on weekends. So the train would have to leave around the time that LSL leaves Boston to make such a trip possible on any day of the week.


----------



## afigg (May 23, 2012)

jis said:


> The first train to arrive into Boston from New York, other than 66, is after 10am on week days and 11am on weekends. So the train would have to leave around the time that LSL leaves Boston to make such a trip possible on any day of the week.


Good point. With the NYP-BOS long trip time and no circa 5 AM departures from NYP to BOS, connecting to a BOS-MTR train is unlikely. A BOS-MTR train would probably depart mid-morning, late enough to allow connections from all the MBTA commuter train lines, but early enough to provide a early evening or circa 6 PM arrival in MTR. Want to get there early enough to allow connections in MTR to commuter trains, if not also VIA.

Doing a loop the other way - Adirondack north, then MTR-BOS, with an overnight stay in Montreal with a evening BOS-NYP train might work. But the prospects of a BOS-MTR are some years away. Odds are better that an Adirondack and Vermonter loop between NYP and MTR will be feasible in 3-4 years.


----------



## jis (May 23, 2012)

afigg said:


> Doing a loop the other way - Adirondack north, then MTR-BOS, with an overnight stay in Montreal with a evening BOS-NYP train might work. But the prospects of a BOS-MTR are some years away. Odds are better that an Adirondack and Vermonter loop between NYP and MTR will be feasible in 3-4 years.


Yes, with the Vermonter the only thing missing is the political will and the operating subsidy to run the train everything else is already in place to run such a train. Heck, as a matter of fact the hand thrown switch at Cantic is normally set in the direction of Essex Jct. The Adirondack crew has to get off the train to set it in the Rouses Point direction, pass it, and then set it back in the Essex Jct. direction before heading on.


----------



## Anderson (May 24, 2012)

jis said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > Doing a loop the other way - Adirondack north, then MTR-BOS, with an overnight stay in Montreal with a evening BOS-NYP train might work. But the prospects of a BOS-MTR are some years away. Odds are better that an Adirondack and Vermonter loop between NYP and MTR will be feasible in 3-4 years.
> ...


As far as I can tell, it's _really_ just a matter of cash (and hopefully time) for some improvements to get the train running. I think VT is up for the subsidy, but the need to fix up the rails is a bit prohibitive on their part.


----------



## jis (May 24, 2012)

Anderson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > afigg said:
> ...


you missed the point I was making. There is no trackwork that must be done to run the train. The track is there used by freight trains every day. Yes there are a few slow stretches between Essex Jct. and Cantic, specially near the bridge across Richeleau River, but it is not so bad as to be unusable. Freight trains use it regularly.

Can the tracks be improved? Of course. But to start running a train all that you need is the political will and subsidy, both of which are currently lacking beyond having endless meetings about when to have the next meeting and issue the next report.


----------



## Anderson (May 24, 2012)

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


The point is taken...my understanding was just that those track issues slowed things to the point that the run started to get embarrassingly long over those miles. Of course, I think the bigger issue has been getting the customs facility set up at MTR, which from what I can tell, Vermont wants taken care of first.


----------



## NS VIA Fan (May 24, 2012)

Here's a different option for a Boston <> Montreal route………extend a Downeaster up the St. Lawrence & Atlantic's line to where it junctions with the Ocean's route near St. Hyacinthe, Quebec…….then it's only 30 miles into Gare Centrale. (Portland <> Montreal: 295 miles) 

http://www.gwrr.com/operations/railroads/north_america/st_laurent_atlantique_railroad

 

This was CN's Grand Trunk line to Portland and had passenger service into the mid 1960's. Old Orchard Beach and the Maine seacoast are still popular destinations for Quebecois. Also, this line is near the Mt. Washington Valley summer and winter ski resorts.


----------



## DingDong (May 24, 2012)

NS VIA Fan said:


> Here's a different option for a Boston <> Montreal route………extend a Downeaster up the St. Lawrence & Atlantic's line to where it junctions with the Ocean's route near St. Hyacinthe, Quebec…….then it's only 30 miles into Gare Centrale. (Portland <> Montreal: 295 miles)
> 
> http://www.gwrr.com/operations/railroads/north_america/st_laurent_atlantique_railroad
> 
> ...



Interesting, although this route travels a lot more distance in Canada so it would probably require a stop at the border and maybe VIA crews and a VIA train number in Canada (like the Maple Leaf). You'd at least have to stop in Sherbrooke because it's a big enough city it would be dumb not to, but that would mean you couldn't use the pre-clearance facility at Montreal.


----------



## afigg (May 24, 2012)

jis said:


> you missed the point I was making. There is no trackwork that must be done to run the train. The track is there used by freight trains every day. Yes there are a few slow stretches between Essex Jct. and Cantic, specially near the bridge across Richeleau River, but it is not so bad as to be unusable. Freight trains use it regularly.
> 
> Can the tracks be improved? Of course. But to start running a train all that you need is the political will and subsidy, both of which are currently lacking beyond having endless meetings about when to have the next meeting and issue the next report.


As I posted earlier in the thread, VT submitted a TIGER IV grant application for $11 million total with $3 million in state matching funds to rehabilitate the tracks north of St. Albans to the border. The odds of being selected are long with over $10 billion in total applications for $500 million of FY12 TGER IV funding, but VT is willing to put up $3 million of state money. The 2013 VT state budget which appears to have benn passed has $6 million to provide state matching funds to access the long standing Sen. Jeffords earmark for track upgrades to the western corridor.

A google search turned up the minutes of the Feb. 29, 2012 meeting of the Vermont Rail Council (PDF Link) which had multiple VTrans and 4 Amtrak personnel present. There were discussions about the plans for the western corridor extension and/or reroute of the Ethan Allen and Vermonter, including extending it to Montreal. Quoting from the meeting minutes:

"Rep. Aswad asked the target date for passenger rail service to Canada. Chris Cole replied three years. Pre-clearance issues are being resolved presently. Costa Pappis added the targeted speed for passenger rail is between 59-79 mph and the Canadian National cannot handle that right now."

So you could get a Vermonter that has a smooth ride with 60 and 79 mph speeds in VT to the border and then a lot slower and bumpy in Canada to Montreal.


----------



## afigg (May 24, 2012)

NS VIA Fan said:


> Here's a different option for a Boston <> Montreal route………extend a Downeaster up the St. Lawrence & Atlantic's line to where it junctions with the Ocean's route near St. Hyacinthe, Quebec…….then it's only 30 miles into Gare Centrale. (Portland <> Montreal: 295 miles)
> 
> ...
> 
> This was CN's Grand Trunk line to Portland and had passenger service into the mid 1960's. Old Orchard Beach and the Maine seacoast are still popular destinations for Quebecois. Also, this line is near the Mt. Washington Valley summer and winter ski resorts. [/size]


That is the route for a proposed Portland to Montreal train that is one of the service expansion options being studied by Maine. There was a public meeting view graph presentation on it from 2011 that is available on the net somewhere. As I recall, pretty much of an obvious non-starter requiring hundreds of millions to restore the tracks to decent passenger train speeds for a proposed once a day train. Then there is the problem of customs inspection for a passenger train at an isolated border crossing.


----------



## Ozark Southern (May 24, 2012)

DingDong said:


> NS VIA Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a different option for a Boston <> Montreal route………extend a Downeaster up the St. Lawrence & Atlantic's line to where it junctions with the Ocean's route near St. Hyacinthe, Quebec…….then it's only 30 miles into Gare Centrale. (Portland <> Montreal: 295 miles)
> ...


Would it be possible to pre-clear passengers at Montreal and seat them in a sectioned-off car (I've seen barriers in the vestibules sometimes) until after the border? You'd still need to stop at the border, yes--but the only ones who would need to be processed would be those who boarded after MTR. Should make the stop a lot faster.


----------



## Anderson (May 24, 2012)

Ozark Southern said:


> DingDong said:
> 
> 
> > NS VIA Fan said:
> ...


Seems like a probable mixed bag. Considering that you're probably looking at 2-3 hours of running on the Canadian side of the border, it seems to me that you'd have that barrier in place for a _long_ time. Mind you, if it was _just_ Sherbrooke subject to this, that wouldn't be as much of an issue...but it still seems like a potential mess if Quebec starts wanting more stops.


----------



## afigg (May 24, 2012)

Ozark Southern said:


> DingDong said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting, although this route travels a lot more distance in Canada so it would probably require a stop at the border and maybe VIA crews and a VIA train number in Canada (like the Maple Leaf). You'd at least have to stop in Sherbrooke because it's a big enough city it would be dumb not to, but that would mean you couldn't use the pre-clearance facility at Montreal.
> ...


The customs inspection issue from what I know is not (directly) the number of passengers, but that there would have to be a custom inspection performed at the border both ways. At an isolated border crossing. The distance is too far from Montreal with multiple stops in Canada and the US for pre-clearance and sealing of passengers over the Portland to Montreal route to be practical.

Found a link to the MaineDOT Lewiston/Auburn/Montreal Passenger Rail Study report from August, 2011. The Portland to Montreal concept was for 2 daily round trips with a trip time of 7:20 assuming a layover of 90 minutes for customs in both countries. The good was the predicted ridership of 200K per year. The not so good is the estimated construction costs of $676 to $899 million and the expected 29% to 32% farebox recovery. I think a restoration of a Portland to Montreal train is possible someday, but not until after many other improvement and service expansion projects in Maine and New England are accomplished.


----------



## jamesontheroad (May 27, 2012)

afigg said:


> A brief check of air fares shows that for 1+ week in advance, the prices for direct Logan to Montreal flights are pretty high. The less expensive, but longer connecting flights are through JFK, PHL, Detroit, etc. The high prices for direct flights may be due to post Memorial Day travel.


About five years ago I had to cancel a YUL-BOS roundtrip booked at relatively short notice (~ 2 weeks) with Air Canada. I was refunded the full fare as credit for future travel, and it was sufficient to cover the entire cost of a London (England) > Montréal / Chicago > London trip a year later


----------



## afigg (May 29, 2012)

News update on the efforts for the Customs facility in Montreal on the Railway Age website. Excerpts from the news article:



> Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Charles Schumer, (D-N.Y.), and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) are urging U.S. and Canadian negotiators to reach quick agreement to allow Customs security clearance for Amtrak to take place in Montreal's Gare Central. That would immediately benefit Amtrak's Adirondack, linking New York and Montreal via New York State, which currently suffers extensive delays at the U.S.-Canadian border near Rouses Point, N.Y....
> 
> The “approval for pre-clearance in Montréal would lay the groundwork for a dramatic improvement of service on Amtrak’s Adirondack line, mark the first crucial step in bringing Amtrak’s Vermonter back to Montreal and, more generally, help increase ridership on the entire Northeast Corridor," the letter said.


The letter, signed by the four Senators, was sent to Secretaries Clinton (State Dept) and Napolitano (DHS). A joint letter from four US Senators does carry weight, especially since this is from Democratic Senators (ok, Bernie Sanders is an Independent but he does caucus with the Dems) to a Democratic administration. Should provide a poke in the ribs to the upper level bureaucrats to get the agreements done.

A copy of the press statement and letter can be found on Senator Gillabrand's webpage (and I expect the other 3, but they all will have the same letter).


----------

