Adirondack June '23 cancellation, and September restoration, state of Upstate NY service

[Bonser]

As to New York’s commitment to the line qua Montreal or Upstate New York, I think it’s a question of both. Traffic between Montreal and upstate stations may be necessary for the train to be financially viable. The new RPA stats aren’t helpful to figure out anything about the Adirondack because they are based on FY21 when the train didn’t run, but these upstate stations have so little ridership, that it might be that without traffic between them and Canada, the train is unsustainable. Without traffic to Canada, ridership would fall by half. In 2019, only about 25,000 passengers originated or terminated between Whitehall and Canada, about 35 per train, half a coach. Presumably a chunk of those 25,000 were Canada bound, maybe 20%, just a guess. That leaves 28 per train above Westport. That would make the unique segment of the no-Montreal Adirondack least used service nationwide by a mile. Right now, it’s the Heartland Flyer at around 75. Is it really the best use of limited equipment to drag four empty coaches and a lounge hundreds of miles to serve 28 passengers per train. Anywhere else in the country that would be a Thruway connection from Albany. That may actually be the best solution, which I never thought I would say, as multiple trips could be offered at the same cost. The bus would also likely be significantly faster and could facilitate a better overall schedule. Maybe it would make sense to convert the train to a second daily Ethan Allen? In any case, I think that Montreal traffic is entirely necessary to justify train service to that region over that route. The ridership simply isn’t there.

I understand the low ridership north of Westport but the train is frequently sold out NYP- Montreal. This was particularly true pre-Covid. It gets healthy ridership and the stops south of Westport are in New York State.

 

[Amtrak25]

I understand the low ridership north of Westport but the train is frequently sold out NYP- Montreal. This was particularly true pre-Covid. It gets healthy ridership and the stops south of Westport are in New York State.

It is sold out New York to Montreal because it it sold out New York to Albany.

 

[Bonser]

It is sold out New York to Montreal because it it sold out New York to Albany.

I've taken it annually in the fall for the past 15 years. Both arrivals and departures in and from Montreal have always had far more than 30 people. The lineup for departure in Gare Centrale in the morning usually has well over 50.

 

[jiml]

Do the tracks still go under the Bell Center? I ask because if so, that's literally across the street from Marriott Chateau Champlain (and access to Gare Central via the underground city), so while not ideal it's not disastrous.

Not quite, however virtually right up to it. We're talking feet/metres rather than miles/km. The construction of the arena took over part of the old Windsor Station site. The entire complex, including the Chateau Champlain, is interconnected by underground walkways though. Everything one could want, including Gare Centrale, is an easy covered walk.

 

[keelhauled]

I've taken it annually in the fall for the past 15 years. Both arrivals and departures in and from Montreal have always had far more than 30 people. The lineup for departure in Gare Centrale in the morning usually has well over 50.

50 people from Canada's second city en route to the largest metro in the US is not terribly inspiring.

 

[jis]

Redacted

 

[fdaley]

The arrangement I recall from some pre-pandemic trips was two Amfleet II coaches at the back of the train that were exclusively for through travelers from NYP to Montreal and were often filled nearly to capacity. Forward of the lounge, there usually were two Amfleet I cars for local travelers in NYS, including people boarding en route who were going to MTR, and another car between NYP and Albany that was removed at Albany. I think there were often 100-plus, sometimes 150-plus, crossing the border, though there probably were some off-season, midweek days that only had 45.

 

[Urban Sky]

Some of those 50 are also intra-Canada travelers. The important number is how many are crossing the border, even though many who cross the border are not going all the way to NYC.

Intra-Canada travellers on the Adirondack, where the only two Canadian stops are Montreal and Saint-Lambert?

 

[jis]

Intra-Canada travellers on the Adirondack, where the only two Canadian stops are Montreal and Saint-Lambert?

My mistake. I was inadvertently thinking of the Leaf. Removed the first sentence in the original post.

 

[Septa9739]

I think this is all illustrative of my point. The question was raised of truncating at Plattsburgh. The average per train originations/terminations in Canada is 91 and change. Per train ridership to St. Lambert is 3, so at least 88 make the crossing. Of course there are heavy days and slow days, but that’s the average. So add In our other 35, and we get 123 on average. That‘s a full two cars plus going above Whitehall and justifies train service. @keelhauled is spot on that that’s pathetic in one sense, but the train is slow and the crossing byzantine, so what do we really expect? In any case, the problem occurs when those Canada passengers drop out and we’re left with about 30 per train, half of one coach. At that point it becomes important to ask whether service to Plattsburgh is justified. Another poster observed that Plattsburgh is peaky based on a local college, so midweek could be far less that 30, but weekends could be higher should service to Montreal be terminated? Maybe weekend service only at that point? Maybe you shift the slot to the Ethan Allen Express so as to continue service to the busy stations like Saratoga and add service to the booming Burlington segment? I’m not advocating for either, but just trying to illustrate that ending service to Montreal, will crush ridership and drop the operating ratio to an unsustainable place. Then the nasty cycle kicks in. In the long run it will actually be cheaper for New York and better for the region to pay to figure this mess out than to truncate service.

 

[jis]

The reason that the NY State count is 30 and not something higher, even though it serves the largest State Park in the US is that NY State has never been serious about providing service to the Adirondack region using this train even though the funding justification is based on that. It is time that they stepped upto the plate California style, instituted a comprehensive Thruway bus/van service connecting to this train to provide actual service within this underserved corner of NY State instead of running a hopelessly inferior service to Canada even when the Canadians don't particularly care.

 

[fdaley]

The Adirondack Park is large, but its population is tiny and dwindling. And the people who go there for recreation are used to packing their gear into SUVs. Yes, New York could do more to promote the train as a way to reach this region, particularly for the large pool of travelers from NYC who don't own cars, but I don't think in the short term, or even the long term, that such an effort is going to replace the 70 percent of riders who are now going to/from Canada.

More so, the cross-border ridership really has grown substantially over the past couple of decades, at least until the pandemic. That seems impressive to me given the long delays at the border crossing, the slow running north of the border and the overall long trip time for through travelers.

 

[Amtrak25]

I've taken it annually in the fall for the past 15 years. Both arrivals and departures in and from Montreal have always had far more than 30 people. The lineup for departure in Gare Centrale in the morning usually has well over 50.

I for one never said 30 people were on it. It generally crosses the border with 120 - 140. You will still encounter booked up conditions since the train is completely full New York-Albany, with current capacity of 240 and a load factor of 50 - 60% through the North Country.

 

[SubwayNut]

Yah my last trip on the Adirondack was in February 2016 going northbound I'm pretty sure I had a seat mate the who way with two full Amfleet II coaches.

Southbound my trick would be to get off in Yonkers (I used to live in Northern Manhattan). I still remember when I first took the Adirondack in 2008, not getting a seatmate until Hudson or Rhinecliff in the "intermediate car," since I was getting off in Yonkers and being so happy I wasn't in the completely packed two through coaches the whole ride. I remember they had locked the door in Montreal to separate intermediate passengers from through passengers and they filled up more than two cars with some being let up through ours and to the one in front after we left Montreal, that was being kept empty for passengers going to New York boarding at intermediate stops.

 

[Amtrak25]

I watched the last 68 on radar on Friday. It did the usual 30 & 50 MPH, got to Rouses Pt in 2 hours. There were no heat restrictions and there was no heatwave.

Now it is early Sunday morning, and Amtrak is either too lazy or too cowardly to put up an passenger alert. I don't know what is going on except CN is up to something unscrupulous and Amtrak as usual has crawled under a rock and plays victim.

Amtrak had the entire 3 year service outage, watching CN track deteriorate on qualification runs, to start negotiating with CP. They have done nothing. Let's see how much beloved and ballyhooed CPKC goes along with that. NY-DOT is merely a check writing firm and also does nothing.

This is the future for North Country and Montreal:
"Pack your bag, lock your door, with a ticket in your pocket and come aboard. Come on along, we're gonna take you home on a Continental Trailways bus. Trailways, we're better than your average bus."

 

[PVD]

They put it up on Amtrak NEC alerts, maybe not the best/only place it should be.

 

[Septa9739]

If the Montreal Terminal was switched, would that make the whole pre-checked customs disaster project go any better? I.e is the problem technical at Gare Central, or administrative, not suggesting the two are mutually exclusive?

 

[Amtrak25]

If the Montreal Terminal was switched, would that make the whole pre-checked customs disaster project go any better? I.e is the problem technical at Gare Central, or administrative, not suggesting the two are mutually exclusive?

One thing has nothing to do with the other. Customs and Border control in each country and the Quebec government do not know or nor care about CN track conditions. Preclearance will never happen in any case.


While Montreal's Sunday high temperature will be 86, the rest of the month will be in the high 70's. I don't believe the heat restriction excuse one bit, especially when they say "until further notice".

 

[jis]

If the Montreal Terminal was switched, would that make the whole pre-checked customs disaster project go any better? I.e is the problem technical at Gare Central, or administrative, not suggesting the two are mutually exclusive?

It would certainly bring the current pretend Kabuki Dance to an end since there is neither space nor desire to put any C&I facility at Lucien L'Allier. Even when Amtrak considered such a move at least once in the past, it was assumed that C&I will continue to be at the border (Lacolle and Rouse's Point) and not in Montreal. Maybe the logical thing to do would be to build proper border stations at Rouse's Point holding both US and Canadian C&I, instead of the idiocy that is going on at present. There is no legal and treaty issues preventing such any more.

 

[zephyr17]

Maybe the logical thing to do would be to build proper border stations at Rouse's point holding both US and Canadian C&I, instead of the idiocy that is going on at present.

A new facility at Rouses Point would mean having to get off the train. Horrors!

 

[Amtrak25]

Recent ESPA newsletter documented plans to build it right next to the US11 highway facility, regardless of what they build or not in Montreal. That means off the train with your luggage down the vestibule steps and out in the elements as in Niagara Falls, ON. Expect ridership to nosedive, assuming the train returns, which I now doubt.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Recent ESPA newsletter documented plans to build it right next to the US11 highway facility, regardless of what they build or not in Montreal. That means off the train with your luggage down the vestibule steps and out in the elements as in Niagara Falls, ON. Expect ridership to nosedive, assuming the train returns, which I now doubt.

It possible that a new facility will be a high level platform and have a “tent” (like Denver) over it that protecting the passengers. The border guards have been asking for a better facility for quite some time. No reason why we can not arranged one that both sides can work from. Yes there an issued with US guy’s want to carry there weapons. Serious we can just pave an access road to the checkpoint and call it a neutral zone so everyone can carry their weapons and access the single border check stations.

 

[jis]

A new facility at Rouses Point would mean having to get off the train. Horrors!

There are a few ways in which C&I is handled on trans-border trains that operate on a route involving travel for many hours in each country in the world:

1. Sealed trains with C&I at point of origin or/and destination. (e.g Kolkata to Dhaka service between India and Bangladesh, C&I at Kolkata International and Dhaka Cantonment stations, Cascades between Vancouver BC and Seattle WA, inspection at Vancouver BC).

2. C&I at the border - two subcases ,

2a Inspection off train (e.g. Maple Leaf between US and Canada, border between Malaysia and Thailand at Padang Besar)

2b Inspection on board while the train is stopped at a station (e.g. when it operated Finland - Russia service with inspection at Vanaikkala and Vyborg)

3. On board inspection while train is in motion (e.g. before Switzerland joined Schengen, inspection between Italy and Switzerland, or France and Switzerland on non stop services)

4. No inspection (The Schengen border situation - hell might freeze over before US and Canadian exceptionalism can deal with that.)

Each of those requires cooperation of the C&I Authorities.

3 requires the most participation from C&I. 1 & 2a require significant infrastructure at the inspection points. Unfortunately 3 appears to be impossible given the bureaucratic attitudes prevalent in both the US and Canada.

1 is difficult to do in a situation where the owners of the terminal and their funders are recalcitrant. (Case of Montreal) Where this can be managed (e.g. Vancouver Pacific Central Station) it tends to work well.

Which leaves only 2a or 2b if you want to run the train at all. Of course 2b is the least expensive and that is why after all the posturing is done, that is what happens when you want to run the train at all. US/Canada seem to prefer 2a, but reluctantly live with 2b i the absence of adequate infrastructure.

Of course there is choice 5 which is discontinue the train and let everyone drive, bus or fly.

For Adirondack we are currently at 2b, with a plan/apparent fantasy of going to 1.

 

[zephyr17]

Recent ESPA newsletter documented plans to build it right next to the US11 highway facility, regardless of what they build or not in Montreal. That means off the train with your luggage down the vestibule steps and out in the elements as in Niagara Falls, ON. Expect ridership to nosedive, assuming the train returns, which I now doubt.

Hopefully they would build it with high platforms and platform canopies like Niagara Falls, NY. It's a lot easier with high platforms than on the low ones on the Ontario side.

 

[jis]

Hopefully they would build it with high platforms and platform canopies like Niagara Falls, NY. It's a lot easier with high platforms than on the low ones on the Ontario side.

Actually the plan/vision was to move the Canadian C&I to Niagara Falls NY too. Space was set aside for it, but it has not happened yet.