Adirondack Business Class

[afigg]

Another good question is how much business a WAS-NYP-MTR night train might get.

For routes of this distance, roughly 8-12 hours, an overnight train with sleepers is simply not going to happen without a MAJOR revival in passenger train travel in the US. The Adirondack and Vermonter (and the MA proposed Boston-Montreal train idea) are state supported trains. The states are not going to provide state subsidy funding for a train that goes through their state in the middle of the night. Pennsylvania is not going to provide state funds for a overnight NYP to Pittsburgh train, for example, which has been brought up as a revival idea in posts. The only way that we might see a revival of an overnight WAS-NYP to Montreal train is if there is a busy corridor service with multiple day trains and there is enough passenger traffic to justify an overnight train on the corridor which is mostly a coach train, but they add a sleeper car or two because there is enough demand for it, aka a Twilight Shoreliner type of train.

 

[afigg]

The problem with any scenario involving WAS is that you either have to run the train out to Queens and around the Sunnyside loop, or everyone gets to ride backwards for part of the trip.

A train leaving Washington with any type of engine on the front arrives into NY of course with the engine still on the front. However, to go to Albany and eventually MTR, the train is now facing the wrong way in Penn Station, the engine needs to be on what was the rear of the train coming up from DC. Now that problem can be solved with a cab car. But again, it means an operation like the Keystones, where you either ride backwards from NYP to PHL and then forwards PHL to HAR or vice versa.

Otherwise the only other alternative is to send the train to Queens and loop it at Sunnyside so that it's now facing in the correct direction to get to Albany. And that's a big waste of time; not to mention that I can just hear passenger complaining when the arrive back at Penn Station 20 minutes after they left it.

Nothing that a NYP to Grand Central connecting tunnel couldn't solve! If such a tunnel is still feasible after the East Side Access project and with all the infrastructure in the way AND there is Next Gen HSR project that connects from NYP to the Grand Central Metro-North tracks, then a train could run from Montreal to Grand Central to NYP to WAS. Just have to pony up TBD billion dollars for the project. :lol:

 

[Anderson]

Another good question is how much business a WAS-NYP-MTR night train might get.

For routes of this distance, roughly 8-12 hours, an overnight train with sleepers is simply not going to happen without a MAJOR revival in passenger train travel in the US. The Adirondack and Vermonter (and the MA proposed Boston-Montreal train idea) are state supported trains. The states are not going to provide state subsidy funding for a train that goes through their state in the middle of the night. Pennsylvania is not going to provide state funds for a overnight NYP to Pittsburgh train, for example, which has been brought up as a revival idea in posts. The only way that we might see a revival of an overnight WAS-NYP to Montreal train is if there is a busy corridor service with multiple day trains and there is enough passenger traffic to justify an overnight train on the corridor which is mostly a coach train, but they add a sleeper car or two because there is enough demand for it, aka a Twilight Shoreliner type of train.

I don't think it's just that we need a major revival in train travel. It's that we need to be able to at least tighten up the daylight corridor trains' schedules with improvements. If NYP-MTR was six hours, I suspect it would get a lot more business than the current 11 hour schedule; not only that, but you could double up the equipment uses and have a morning and an afternoon train each way (say, 8 AM and 4 PM). The problem on this and some other routes (CHI-IND leaps to mind as another textbook example of a bad corridor) is that the corridor speeds range from mediocre to awful.

Mind you, even with only an all day travel time and bad connectivity choices, the Adirondack is getting about 171 people per train and has managed nearly 50% growth since 2005. Much of the problem on some routes such as this, I suspect, isn't a lack of demand but a lack of supply.

 

[the_traveler]

In 2009, NY state submitted a HSIPR ARRA application for $23.5 million for track and signal improvements including 60 to 79 mph speeds between Schenectady and Rouses Point

I for one would not want to be riding a train on the twisting and curving tracks on a ledge above Lake Champlain doing 60-79 MPH!!

I think the 2x1 ex-Metroliner Club Cars would be better suited for a daytime run (like the Adirondack) than an overnight run (like 66/67). My experience on 66 a few weeks back proved that to me. The cafe - which is open all night due to the frequent stops and turnover - is separated from BC by only a curtain. Thus that curtain has to hold back the sometimes loud talking and always full bright lights at the cafe counter - while those in BC are sleeping!

 

[AlanB]

The problem with any scenario involving WAS is that you either have to run the train out to Queens and around the Sunnyside loop, or everyone gets to ride backwards for part of the trip.

A train leaving Washington with any type of engine on the front arrives into NY of course with the engine still on the front. However, to go to Albany and eventually MTR, the train is now facing the wrong way in Penn Station, the engine needs to be on what was the rear of the train coming up from DC. Now that problem can be solved with a cab car. But again, it means an operation like the Keystones, where you either ride backwards from NYP to PHL and then forwards PHL to HAR or vice versa.

Otherwise the only other alternative is to send the train to Queens and loop it at Sunnyside so that it's now facing in the correct direction to get to Albany. And that's a big waste of time; not to mention that I can just hear passenger complaining when the arrive back at Penn Station 20 minutes after they left it.

Nothing that a NYP to Grand Central connecting tunnel couldn't solve! If such a tunnel is still feasible after the East Side Access project and with all the infrastructure in the way AND there is Next Gen HSR project that connects from NYP to the Grand Central Metro-North tracks, then a train could run from Montreal to Grand Central to NYP to WAS. Just have to pony up TBD billion dollars for the project. :lol:

At this point, connecting NYP to GCT would be most feasible and easiest if the connection was made to the tail tracks that the LIRR is using. Unfortunately, the tracks from the LIRR level will not connect to the Metro North tracks, meaning that the train would end up in Sunnyside and not headed towards Montreal.

I'm not sure that with the new lower LIRR level that it is even possible anymore to connect to the MN levels from the South. Between the Lexington Avenue Subway that transitions between Lex and Park Avenue at GCT, the #7 Line below that, the Times Square Shuttle above that, the loop tracks for MN, and the Park Avenue tunnel for cars, I don't think that there is any room to shoehorn in another tunnel anymore.

So the only answer might be that after connecting to the LIRR tail tracks, make the stop on the LIRR level, and then find someplace north of GCT to build a connecting track between the LIRR tunnels under Park Ave and the MN tunnels above the LIRR tunnels. I'm not sure if that is possible, without taking out a building basement however. It may be, I just don't know.

 

[afigg]

I don't think it's just that we need a major revival in train travel. It's that we need to be able to at least tighten up the daylight corridor trains' schedules with improvements. If NYP-MTR was six hours, I suspect it would get a lot more business than the current 11 hour schedule; not only that, but you could double up the equipment uses and have a morning and an afternoon train each way (say, 8 AM and 4 PM). The problem on this and some other routes (CHI-IND leaps to mind as another textbook example of a bad corridor) is that the corridor speeds range from mediocre to awful.

Mind you, even with only an all day travel time and bad connectivity choices, the Adirondack is getting about 171 people per train and has managed nearly 50% growth since 2005. Much of the problem on some routes such as this, I suspect, isn't a lack of demand but a lack of supply.

A 6 hour NYP to MTR train would require a new ROW and major bucks in Northern NY state as I understand it. Looking at the northbound Adirondack schedule it gets to Plattsburgh at 3:15 PM (7 hours from NYP), and then takes almost 4 hours to travel the next 72 miles to MTR with customs inspection stops and presumably some slow track. If the NYP-Plattsburgh trip time can be cut to 6 hours, and Plattsburgh to MTR to 2 hours with inspection done in the MTR station, that gets down to 8 hours NYP-MTR. Which would be enough to seriously boost ridership if the almost 11 hour Adirondack does that well and could result in expansion of additional daily trains.

 

[Anderson]

I don't think it's just that we need a major revival in train travel. It's that we need to be able to at least tighten up the daylight corridor trains' schedules with improvements. If NYP-MTR was six hours, I suspect it would get a lot more business than the current 11 hour schedule; not only that, but you could double up the equipment uses and have a morning and an afternoon train each way (say, 8 AM and 4 PM). The problem on this and some other routes (CHI-IND leaps to mind as another textbook example of a bad corridor) is that the corridor speeds range from mediocre to awful.

Mind you, even with only an all day travel time and bad connectivity choices, the Adirondack is getting about 171 people per train and has managed nearly 50% growth since 2005. Much of the problem on some routes such as this, I suspect, isn't a lack of demand but a lack of supply.

A 6 hour NYP to MTR train would require a new ROW and major bucks in Northern NY state as I understand it. Looking at the northbound Adirondack schedule it gets to Plattsburgh at 3:15 PM (7 hours from NYP), and then takes almost 4 hours to travel the next 72 miles to MTR with customs inspection stops and presumably some slow track. If the NYP-Plattsburgh trip time can be cut to 6 hours, and Plattsburgh to MTR to 2 hours with inspection done in the MTR station, that gets down to 8 hours NYP-MTR. Which would be enough to seriously boost ridership if the almost 11 hour Adirondack does that well and could result in expansion of additional daily trains.

Fair enough. I'm not as familiar with the tracks in upstate, so I wasn't sure how much of the delay was because of track conditions, how much because of track alignment, and how much could be fixed with either limited straightening or with simply upgrading the existing line. I'm fairly certain that there are plans to knock some time off of NYP-ALB, but beyond that I'm somewhat in the dark (though definitely interested in learning more); VA, NC, FL, and so forth have had most of my attention.

 

[afigg]

In 2009, NY state submitted a HSIPR ARRA application for $23.5 million for track and signal improvements including 60 to 79 mph speeds between Schenectady and Rouses Point

I for one would not want to be riding a train on the twisting and curving tracks on a ledge above Lake Champlain doing 60-79 MPH!!

I think the 2x1 ex-Metroliner Club Cars would be better suited for a daytime run (like the Adirondack) than an overnight run (like 66/67). My experience on 66 a few weeks back proved that to me. The cafe - which is open all night due to the frequent stops and turnover - is separated from BC by only a curtain. Thus that curtain has to hold back the sometimes loud talking and always full bright lights at the cafe counter - while those in BC are sleeping!

The application and the 2009 NY State Rail Plan discuss raising the max speeds to 79 mph on the southern and northern ends of the route between Schenectady and Rouses Point. I guess the really winding parts are not suitable for 79 mph speeds and will remain class 3 track.

Getting back to the original subject of this thread, Amtrak appears to be doing pretty well with the first class service option on the Acela. There are enough people traveling on the NEC between the major cities who are willing to pay for it (or use their free upgrade pass as I once did). I wonder if the other high(er) speed corridors being developed could support this level of service. I think that major anchor cities with a lot of well off business and individual passengers taking the train are key to supporting a premium type service. Chicago - St. Louis and Chicago-Dearborn-Detroit might be able to support such a service if the 110 mph speeds and faster trip times attract enough of the business and executive travelers.

Would an Adirondack with much improved trip times and multiple daily frequencies traveling between NYC and Montreal be able to someday support a first class or premiere class type service car or a half club car? Meal service at the seat, free drinks, etc. Would NYP-ALB be able to support premium service for the morning and late afternoon trains? Amtrak may want to consider, when the time comes to order single level corridor cars, ordering a few club or first class cars to support first/premiere class type service on trains other than the Acela.

 

[Anderson]

Thank you for reminding me about how Amtrak operates the only all-night bar I know of...

As to upgraded service levels, I agree that this is at least worth a study. One thing I'd be quite curious about is how much folks would be willing to pay for 2-1 seating on corridor routes (or on the Palmetto) and/or better seat pitch. Such service has been getting a bit of a squeeze lately, so it seems worth looking into. After all, if Amtrak could get the BC accommodation charge over again and then some for 2-1 seating in at least part of a car, it would seem to be worthwhile.* I'd note that this applies in particular on Regionals that run off-corridor (i.e. the Virginia trains) as well as other non-NEC routes.

*Nothing would prevent three-class seating on a route, either. If to avoid confusion you want to not use "First", you could always have Coach, Business, and Custom or something else (maybe Premium Business, or maybe relabel the current Business on some routes as Premium Coach).

 

[afigg]

At this point, connecting NYP to GCT would be most feasible and easiest if the connection was made to the tail tracks that the LIRR is using. Unfortunately, the tracks from the LIRR level will not connect to the Metro North tracks, meaning that the train would end up in Sunnyside and not headed towards Montreal.

I'm not sure that with the new lower LIRR level that it is even possible anymore to connect to the MN levels from the South. Between the Lexington Avenue Subway that transitions between Lex and Park Avenue at GCT, the #7 Line below that, the Times Square Shuttle above that, the loop tracks for MN, and the Park Avenue tunnel for cars, I don't think that there is any room to shoehorn in another tunnel anymore.

So the only answer might be that after connecting to the LIRR tail tracks, make the stop on the LIRR level, and then find someplace north of GCT to build a connecting track between the LIRR tunnels under Park Ave and the MN tunnels above the LIRR tunnels. I'm not sure if that is possible, without taking out a building basement however. It may be, I just don't know.

Need a 3 dimensional map or hologram of all the tunnels and structures under ground around and between Grand Central and NYP to see if there is any room left for tunnels that can run from NYP to the MNRR levels at GCT. Or the only option is a pair of really deep tunnels to new levels under the 2 stations. The 2010 Next Gen NEC plan had a HSR tunnel going from NYP to GCT and emerging somewhere in the Bronx. That plan was conceptual at best, but any HSR tunnel line emerging north of Manhattan should have a connection to the MNRR ROW, if not the Hudson Line directly, so the future growth option is there for a true HSR line running up the Hudson line ROW to Albany and to Montreal and across upper state NY. Amtrak is supposed to release an updated and expanded Next Gen NEC concept / plan in the spring; will be interesting to see whether it still includes a HSR tunnel under Manhattan ($$$$) to GCT and if they have considered future branch HSR line to Albany & Montreal.

 

[the_traveler]

A 6 hour NYP to MTR train would require a new ROW and major bucks in Northern NY state as I understand it. Looking at the northbound Adirondack schedule it gets to Plattsburgh at 3:15 PM (7 hours from NYP), and then takes almost 4 hours to travel the next 72 miles to MTR with customs inspection stops and presumably some slow track.

Most of the time from Plattsburgh to MTR is padding for the customs stop. But there is some slow track into Gare Central also. There has been talk about switching the Adirondack to the former Gare Windsor (about a block or so away) - I forget the new name now - and doing C&I inspections at the station both ways! That would speed up time also.

 

[Blackwolf]

Most of the time from Plattsburgh to MTR is padding for the customs stop. But there is some slow track into Gare Central also. There has been talk about switching the Adirondack to the former Gare Windsor (about a block or so away) - I forget the new name now - and doing C&I inspections at the station both ways! That would speed up time also.

I'm not 100% sure or properly educated, but per Wikipedia, Windsor Station is no longer capable of being used as a rail terminal. When Molson Center (Hokey Stadium) was built, it was placed on top of the trackage for the Head House. Thus, even though Windsor Station is physically still there, rails cannot route into the former platforms any longer (a similar situation to Union Station in Seattle.) The building was remodeled, and all of the former passenger areas are filled with business offices that likely won't put up with the idea of being evicted to return the station to use. Not to mention, the station is a Heritage Site (National Landmark) and thus is nearly impossible to work on any longer without causing a whole lot of grief in keeping it as original as possible.

A pity, because this is a very striking and gorgeous station when compared to Central Station (Gare Central) in use by VIA a block away.

Wikipedia Windsor Station article

 

[NY Penn]

I'm assuming Traveler meant its replacement, Lucien L'Allier.

 

[afigg]

A 6 hour NYP to MTR train would require a new ROW and major bucks in Northern NY state as I understand it. Looking at the northbound Adirondack schedule it gets to Plattsburgh at 3:15 PM (7 hours from NYP), and then takes almost 4 hours to travel the next 72 miles to MTR with customs inspection stops and presumably some slow track.

Most of the time from Plattsburgh to MTR is padding for the customs stop. But there is some slow track into Gare Central also. There has been talk about switching the Adirondack to the former Gare Windsor (about a block or so away) - I forget the new name now - and doing C&I inspections at the station both ways! That would speed up time also.

The big time savings would indeed be performing all the US and Canadian customs inspection at the Montreal station with perhaps only a brief stop at the border for the conductor or engineer to check-in with the border agents. There is a ton of padding in the Adirondack schedule for the border crossing. it would be interesting to see what the total trip time might be able to be cut to with the NYP-Schenectady upgrades with 110 mph running and congestion fixes, and more extensive upgrades to the CP tracks between Schenectady and Montreal. Not 90 or 110 mph speeds north of Schenectady, but signal and track upgrades for 79 mph speeds, curve elevations that are acceptable to CP, some 2nd track sections, bypass tracks, improvements to the really slow sections. Quebec or Canada funds some track upgrades on the Canadian side. What could be achieved with a hundred or two hundred million in track upgrades in upper NY state?

The NYC to Montreal driving time is given as roughly 6 and half hours, I expect that is without traffic jams, pit stops, or delay time for customs at the border. If a less than NYP to MTR trip time of less than 8 hours can be achieved, that becomes competitive with driving or taking a bus, which would be a major step in boosting ridership on the corridor.

 

[the_traveler]

I'm assuming Traveler meant its replacement, Lucien L'Allier.

Yes I was. Thanks!