A New Adirondack Route Into Montreal?

[jis]

But Lucien Allier is not Windsor station, and its not a nice historic property like Central.

So trains can only stop at nice historic properties?

You left out a few things: Trains can only stop at nice historic properties, must do so daily, and must be manufactured by the Budd Company.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Besides Montreal Gare Centrale has got to be one of the most mundane looking historical properties that I have come across

 

[Green Maned Lion]

You guys all know that if I was given a free hand at running Amtrak, you'd love it. :lol:

Although I'd imagine I'm not the only one on the board who has good ideas for Amtrak given a free hand.

 

[Neil_M]

You guys all know that if I was given a free hand at running Amtrak, you'd love it. :lol:

The foamers might, the passengers less so....

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Oh, and why is that?

 

[PRR 60]

But Lucien Allier is not Windsor station, and its not a nice historic property like Central.

So trains can only stop at nice historic properties?

You left out a few things: Trains can only stop at nice historic properties, must do so daily, and must be manufactured by the Budd Company.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Besides Montreal Gare Centrale has got to be one of the most mundane looking historical properties that I have come across

I did not even know it was historic. It's kind of like Penn Station with windows. I guess Gare Centrale disproves the conventional wisdom that everything old has charm.

 

[tp49]

But Lucien Allier is not Windsor station, and its not a nice historic property like Central.

So trains can only stop at nice historic properties?

You left out a few things: Trains can only stop at nice historic properties, must do so daily, and must be manufactured by the Budd Company.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Besides Montreal Gare Centrale has got to be one of the most mundane looking historical properties that I have come across

I did not even know it was historic. It's kind of like Penn Station with windows. I guess Gare Centrale disproves the conventional wisdom that everything old has charm.

I thought it was a relic to the 40's when it was built. Didn't think it was all that great and didn't think it was allthat terrible either. It was just blah.

 

[jis]

I thought it was a relic to the 40's when it was built. Didn't think it was all that great and didn't think it was all that terrible either. It was just blah.

Exactly. Well put.

 

[Steve4031]

Gare Centrale and Penn Central are much better for passengers than Chicago's Union Station. The remodels done in the 90's has chopped up the space and restricted the flow of passengers to and from Amtrak trains. Of course Amtrak's micky mouse boarding procedures don't help matters. In Montreal and New York you just get on the train without all of the mess that one must endure in Union Station.

 

[Neil_M]

Oh, and why is that?

Too much relying on the past and worn out old coaches. It's about time the US had a modern passenger rail system, not some collection of miserable old junk staggering about once a day.

You always seem to be harking back to the past, which is typical railfan behaviour and something even I indulge in, but that's the past. You need to think about 40 to 50 years in the future, and Budd blah blah is not the future.

 

[Steve4031]

Or go to Europe and ride the TGV or and ICE. Of course I have experienced problems in Europe too. A big issue is airconditiioning and lack of air circulation on some trains. The older EC or IC cars have this issue. Sometimes an ICE does too.

I have had wonderful lunches on the trains in the diner in Italy, Germany, and Austria. Other trains inexplicably have no food service. Or sometimes no food service even though the timetable says it will.

 

[p&sr]

I have had wonderful lunches on the trains in the diner in Italy, Germany, and Austria. Other trains inexplicably have no food service. Or sometimes no food service even though the timetable says it will.

This reminds me of travelling from Istanbul to Budapest, a double-overnight trip with No Food Service on-board. We survived on black-market rations from the attendant in the Hungarian car... chocolate-stuffed crescent rolls (stale).

 

[Neil_M]

Or go to Europe and ride the TGV or and ICE. Of course I have experienced problems in Europe too. A big issue is airconditiioning and lack of air circulation on some trains. The older EC or IC cars have this issue. Sometimes an ICE does too.

A lot of the older coaches simply don't have air conditioning, I suppose due to the lack of really really hot weather in the summers plus they generally have opening windows. I have never had a lack of air con on a TGV or ICE although I doubt they never go wrong. On the newer vehicles the air con is contained in 1 module and is very easy to change compared to the older stuff where it is spread around the vehicle, then you have to spend several hours leak testing the system as opposed to changing the module in about 30 minutes.

 

[Steve4031]

I don't think the AC actually failed, I just think the setting was off. It was one of those day's where it was kind of cool outside but sunny. So the sun was shining in creating a greenhouse effect, and the air was not circulating. It was no big deal. At least I did not have a two night trip with no food.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Too much relying on the past and worn out old coaches. It's about time the US had a modern passenger rail system, not some collection of miserable old junk staggering about once a day.You always seem to be harking back to the past, which is typical railfan behaviour and something even I indulge in, but that's the past. You need to think about 40 to 50 years in the future, and Budd blah blah is not the future.

For intercity trips, I think the state of the track is a much bigger problem. Aside from fixing spirals in the northeast, there's basically been a refusal to spend money on having alignments designed for speeds faster than trains were running 80 years ago before jet airplanes and the Interstate Highway system redefined people's travel expectations.

 

[Neil_M]

Too much relying on the past and worn out old coaches. It's about time the US had a modern passenger rail system, not some collection of miserable old junk staggering about once a day.You always seem to be harking back to the past, which is typical railfan behaviour and something even I indulge in, but that's the past. You need to think about 40 to 50 years in the future, and Budd blah blah is not the future.

For intercity trips, I think the state of the track is a much bigger problem. Aside from fixing spirals in the northeast, there's basically been a refusal to spend money on having alignments designed for speeds faster than trains were running 80 years ago before jet airplanes and the Interstate Highway system redefined people's travel expectations.

Indeed. But where do you start? When you look at the Swiss and French they are planning for the next 10 to 15 years, which is the only way to do it when you look at how long it takes to build new lines and introduce new stock.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Oh, and why is that?

Too much relying on the past and worn out old coaches. It's about time the US had a modern passenger rail system, not some collection of miserable old junk staggering about once a day.

You always seem to be harking back to the past, which is typical railfan behaviour and something even I indulge in, but that's the past. You need to think about 40 to 50 years in the future, and Budd blah blah is not the future.

You're right. I don't believe in poorly built crap, which is all we as a society have managed to turn out in recent years. Build a new car to the level of durability and quality that Budd built their equipment to, and I'd be fine with it. I am reluctant to replace old but solid and serviceable equipment with new equipment that isn't built as well, is more complicated, more likely to break down under proper maintenance, and so on. A lot of the "new" equipment I have seen in recent years only advantage over new stuff, among a slew of disadvantages, was being younger.

I'm not an antique. But I do not believe in using new things for their novelty of newness. I refuse to replace a 30 year old piece of equipment if there is no ROI for doing so. There is no reason to replace a 30 year old Amfleet with a new coach, spending $3 million to do so, if it does not provide $3 million worth of better revenue-vs-expense performance over the next 10 years.

Explanation by way of example:

An Amfleet coach, over the next 10 years, is going to bring in $9 million in revenue service, and cost $6 million to maintain for repairs, maintenance, inspections, etc. So it will make a gross profit of $3 million.

A GXP3000Supercalefragilisticexpealadocious coach costs $3 million to buy, will produce $10.1 million in revenue (its newness means it can be in service use a bit more) and cost $6.2 million to maintain over that period of time - due to its technology and newness, there will be more bugs. Ok then, it is producing a gross profit of $3.9 million. Cool. EXCEPT it cost $3 million to buy. So on a 10-year depreciation cycle, which is what I think Amtrak uses, It is producing $900,000 of gross profit. So the upgrade costs me $3 million of precious capital for a decrease in profits of $2.1 million.

Would you keep the Amfleet or buy the new one? Me, I'd keep the Amfleet. There is no advantage to replacing an old piece of equipment for a new one if it decreases the amount I'd make.

 

[AlanB]

Explanation by way of example:An Amfleet coach, over the next 10 years, is going to bring in $9 million in revenue service, and cost $6 million to maintain for repairs, maintenance, inspections, etc. So it will make a gross profit of $3 million.

A GXP3000Supercalefragilisticexpealadocious coach costs $3 million to buy, will produce $10.1 million in revenue (its newness means it can be in service use a bit more) and cost $6.2 million to maintain over that period of time - due to its technology and newness, there will be more bugs. Ok then, it is producing a gross profit of $3.9 million. Cool. EXCEPT it cost $3 million to buy. So on a 10-year depreciation cycle, which is what I think Amtrak uses, It is producing $900,000 of gross profit. So the upgrade costs me $3 million of precious capital for a decrease in profits of $2.1 million.

Would you keep the Amfleet or buy the new one? Me, I'd keep the Amfleet. There is no advantage to replacing an old piece of equipment for a new one if it decreases the amount I'd make.

The problem with your theory is that, at least in the case of the Heritage cars for example, the need to have parts made from scratch was driving the cost to maintain the cars well over the fictional $6 Million dollar mark, and quite probably over the $9 Million in revenue mark thereby negating any profit or at least greatly reducing it.

Now we're not quite to that point with the Amfleets, but we are getting close to that point where parts are likely going to become hard to get and will have to be custom made. My guess is that we've got maybe another 10 to 15 years before that happens and the costs of maintaining them won't be cost effective.

 

[Alice]

<snip> a 10-year depreciation cycle, which is what I think Amtrak uses <snip>

Depreciation cycles are accounting and tax tools and arguably have nothing at all to do with how long a piece of equipment lasts.

 

[jamesontheroad]

Glad that I searched the forums before posting: I found this photograph on railpictures.net and wanted to find out more (which this thread has answered).

http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=276674&nseq=19

As some of you might remember, I also joined the forum many moons ago because of the Adirondack. I lived in Montréal from 2004 - 2005 and made many trips on the Adirondack. I also made one trip on the Vermonter in the months before the bus connection from St. Albans to Montréal was cut.

If moving to Gare Lucien L'Allier saves time and money, then I'm all in favour. The Adirondack almost always runs late because of customs or running delays, so same day connections are very risky, so same-station transfers aren't likely to be a big problem. It would - a bit like the connection between two two major stations here in Glasgow (Scotland) - be a bit of a pain to do it by the métro because both stations are indoors all the way, but still a good 5 - 10 minute walk from train platform to métro platform just for a 90 second métro ride one stop.

And while Lucien L'Allier has some facilities, it's nowhere near as well provided for as Gare Centrale. Maybe one small shop, nothing to compare with Gare Centrale's huge food courts, delicatessens, post office, bank, Bureau en Gros (Staples) etc and only minimal AMT staff levels. It does however support all day AMT train service, so at least it's not just a morning and evening hub. Another minor downside is that the platforms are completely open to the elements, unlike at Central where the subterranean platforms do at least offer some protection from Montréal's truly frigid winter climate.

I would be very interested if anything ever emerged about border patrol happening in Montréal. Pierre Trudeau airport (YUL) already supports a very large community of US border control agents providing pre-clearance for US bound passengers, so it's not like US staff would be there just for one daily train. It works fine in Vancouver, and I suspect Lucien L'Allier has enough platforms for a dedicated track to be enclosed with fencing for a secure processing zone. However secure departure / arrival space inside the station building would also be needed. Perhaps there would be room at the south/east side of the station for a dedicated platform and an isolated departure / arrival lounge. I imagine that facilities have to be provided in Vancouver for those instances when someone attempts to enter Canada and is refused entry, requiring deportation back to the border. With one daily train it would probably be easier for Canadian officials to (ahem) 'accommodate' the person and send them back the next day.

If - and here I am really veering into the realms of pure aspiration - the powers that be make this change and invest in border pre-clearance at Lucien L'Allier, I would suggest supporters of the Vermonter should lobby very hard to have the route re-extended to it's old Montréal terminus. Not only could this seriously boost ridership on the Vermonter (through connections south of NYC, local cross-border traffic for tourism etc) it would justify the cost of investing in border clearance facilities.

All the best from your adopted Scottish forum representative :lol:

*j* :b:

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Depreciation cycles are accounting and tax tools and arguably have nothing at all to do with how long a piece of equipment lasts.

I thought the original intent was that the accounting metrics were supposed to be rough approximations of how long a piece of equipment actually does last.

Of course, there seem to be no shortage of people who seem to want to adjust the accounting rules to demonstrate how well some business meets some artificial metric that ultimately doesn't really reflect the true value of what's going on.

 

[Alice]

Depreciation cycles are accounting and tax tools and arguably have nothing at all to do with how long a piece of equipment lasts.

I thought the original intent was that the accounting metrics were supposed to be rough approximations of how long a piece of equipment actually does last.

Of course, there seem to be no shortage of people who seem to want to adjust the accounting rules to demonstrate how well some business meets some artificial metric that ultimately doesn't really reflect the true value of what's going on.

All true. Congress uses the tax code to encourage certain behaviors. And that is why corporations essentially have to prepare two sets of books, by FASB rules and by IRS rules. Even the FASB rules sure look like they're political, witness the mark-to-market changes in banking this week.

I've been chuckling at all of the administration appointees (current and prior administrations) with tax problems. "It is too complicated, I didn't know." Sure, and by the way, who do they think wrote that code they have trouble with?

 

[jamesontheroad]

Realised that I too a photo of the Lucien L'Allier platforms on a roll of monochrome film I used February / March 2006. I doubt much has changed; this is the view with the terminal building behind. Not the most appealing of international termini...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbrownont...57606760370564/

Here's an aerial view. I can count seven tracks, with the southernmost seeming to me to be a sensible place to locate an isolated customs zone. I've zoomed out so that you can see how the Centre Bell (indoor arena) was built right across the location of the old tracks into Gare Windsor.

http://maps.google.com/maps?client=safari&...mp;t=h&z=17