Train crews probably requalifying...
Resumption of Amtrak service to Canada (2022-2023 Q2)
- Thread starter Nobody
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
And as is typical of any story about Amtrak, they don't specify spring of what year
When we lived in Westchester, we often rode up to Montreal and stayed in the Bonaventure Hotel, located directly over the tracks. They have some great transpotters rooms if you know what to ask for. Now that we're in Boston it is a hassle to connect to the Adirondack, so I guess we'll have to wait for the Boston-Montreal train. I'm not holding my breath...
(FWIW the story said Spring 2023)
Last edited:
The Amtrak Cascades will start a 2nd round trip between Seattle and Vancouver on March 7.
https://is.gd/L4QodO
I wonder what the timetable will look like?
https://is.gd/L4QodO
I wonder what the timetable will look like?
That should be great news for travelers hoping to link trips on Amtrak's Empire Builder & VIA's Canadian!
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Who is the they? Presumably not Amtrak since this is entirely out of their control. It is something the the Province of Quebec has to fund and implement. Currently there is no budget for it, and new provincial government has decided to throw all the work that had been done so far and start from scratch. IOW they have kicked the Can down the road.
Indeed we would be lucky if CN deigns to bring the speed limit on the Rouse's Point to St. Lambert section to something marginally respectable for passenger train operation.
It will probably be 517-518 on their former schedule. The 516-519 pair resumed with the same schedule they had prior to the suspension, so I expect the same.
518
Leave Portland 3:00 pm
Arrive Seattle 6:30 pm
Leave Seattle 7:00 pm
Arrive Vancouver 11:00 pm
517
Leave Vancouver 6:35 am
Arrive Seattle 11:00 am
Leave Seattle 11:30 am
Arrive Portland 3:00 pm
danasgoodstuff
OBS Chief
Quite likely, but I kind of hate that schedule northbound.
I agree on the northbound schedule. Northbound, I would like to see both an early morning train for Seattle to Vancouver and a train leaving Seattle around noon.
I tried to find, on the internet, a schedule for the Seattle to Vancouver Cascade train which resumed last Sept. I looked at both the Amtrak website and the Amtrak Cascade website. I guess Amtrak thinks it's not important.
I tried to find, on the internet, a schedule for the Seattle to Vancouver Cascade train which resumed last Sept. I looked at both the Amtrak website and the Amtrak Cascade website. I guess Amtrak thinks it's not important.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Go to amtrak.com. Click on the "Schedule" tab. Plug in Seattle and Vancouver BC and a date in the form and get back a page that looks like this, after you select the Cascade Service train from the list of alternatives:
One of the benefits of running a "noon" trip in each direction on the north end is that it could create through Vancouver, BC to Eugene trips. The morning northbound from Seattle would turn in BC and run through to Eugene. The next morning it would run through from Eugene and then return to Seattle from BC in the evening.
The Great Northern Internationals made three daily round-trips using two sets of equipment, so the idea of tighter utilization of equipment isn't new. My guess is that given the abandonment of the parallel NP line between Seattle and BC there would be a "need" for more passing tracks as a reason not to do this.
WashDOT has not been shy about funding capacity improvements in order to implement a desired schedule. Witness the 3rd main around Kelso, second track around Golden Gardens, the siding at Colebrook, BC which was required for the second Vancouver train.
A third Vancouver train simply is not a priority at this time. For WashDOT, getting up to 6 Seattle-
Once it becomes one, I am quite sure Washington will step up with reasonable capacity improvements by BNSF (which tends to realistic and reasonable about such things, rather than taking it as a wish list opportunity like UP).
Last edited:
I think the bigger issues are (1) border folks on both sides being a bit resistant to more staffing at Pacific Central Station and (2) realistically, some improvements will probably be needed north of the border for some mix of capacity and (hopefully) runtime. I think you could probably get a good package together that simply kicks Seattle-Vancouver to something like 6x/day with those improvements.
Well, as a Washington resident, I know Washington DOT at this point is much more interested in more Seattle-Portland service and cross state service than increasing Vancouver service past two round trips at this time. Getting some bang for the buck east of the Cascades from passenger rail investments has a significant political dimension.
When they do, they are not afraid of investing in rail infrastructure, even in BC. However, I do not think they'd be interested in funding improvements to the Fraser River Bridge, a major choke point, because most benefits would accrue to CN.
You are correct that CBSA would likely be an impediment to increased service. They did their best to block the second train when it was originally initiated, and it took major lobbying by the BC provincial government and the City of Vancouver in Ottawa to get CBSA to back down.
As the sponsor and funding source of rail service to Vancouver, unless and until Washington DOT gets interested in increasing Vancouver past two trains, nothing will happen. Having gotten the second train restored, their priorities now lie elsewhere.
Last edited:
I'm lumping CBSA and CBP together, but I know CBSA needed a kick in the arse last time around.
I agree that work on the Fraser River Bridge wouldn't make sense for a single extra train per day. It would make more sense were the corridor to be converted to something more substantial...but this is a pretty common theme that we see crop up: The improvements needed for a small expansion of service are probably sufficient (or mostly sufficient) for a larger expansion of service, but nobody is ever willing to go back and negotiate even the rights to the larger expansion (and instead we get hand-wringing over some of the improvements and probably often end up "overpaying" for the one or two trains).
In any case, increased service to Vancouver past the second train is not a priorty of Washington DOT for the near future, so the issue is really moot.
There is a study for HSR in the Cascades Corridor, but that is decades away at best.
After Seattle-Portland is up to 6 trains a day and cross-state Seattle-Yakima-Pasco-Spokane service is established, more Vancouver service will likely rise to the top of the agenda. At that time, capacity issues on the entire line, both in Washington and BC will be probably be revisited. Both Washington and BNSF have a demonstrated willingness to address such issues.
While the Washington state legislature and Department of Transportation are very interested and supportive of rail corridor services, resources are not unlimited here.
Washington is not solely focused on Vancouver.
Last edited:
Oh, I know, but there's also a massive pot of federal money lurking (even if there are a lot of folks potentially putting bids in while nobody has their...stuff...together on administering it.
Washington is bidding for it, but according to its own priorities.
We have quite a competent Rail Division and strong political support for state supported corridor services here.
Vancouver service is returning to pre-COVID levels. Cross-state service daytime corridor service is non-existent and implementing something for that has gotten increasing interest and scrutiny. As a Washington taxpayer, I agree with that Vancouver has sufficient service for now, especially since BC doesn't kick in, and the main stem Seattle-Portland service would benefit from increased frequencies and cross state corridor service should start.
Last edited:
I mean, SEA-PDX service has already had the work needed to achieve...either 6x or 8x service (I forget - I know that in 2017 they were supposed to get 6x/day, but that frequency level lasted quite literally about 30 minutes before it was ahem literally derailed; the question in my mind is whether there was a deal worked out for another two trains to get added on top of that). So that should only be waiting on the new trainsets showing up (and I forget whether WA is even paying full price there given the whole derailment).
Siegmund
Lead Service Attendant
What I want -- selfish non-Washington-resident that I am --- is for there to be easy transfers from the Starlight and Builder to the Vancouver trains. I have these visions (from 35 years ago, now) of seeing cross-platform transfers from the Starlight to the San Diegan, and from the LSL to the Lake Cities in Toledo... a noontime departure each way would do that, for the Builder; morning south / evening north would do that for the Starlight if it was still on a 32- or even 34-hour schedule, rather than a 36-hour one.
If I am spending the night in Seattle or Vancouver, the morning train felt uncomfortably early (though I did manage to take it once), and the evening one uncomfortably late.
Not disputing that the 3rd Vancouver frequency is not Washington's top priority... but it would take less investment than establishing day service to Spokane will. The infrastructure upgrades for 6/day to Portland were supposedly complete 5 years ago, and that ought to happen "automatically" as soon as there is relief for the equipment shortage.
If I am spending the night in Seattle or Vancouver, the morning train felt uncomfortably early (though I did manage to take it once), and the evening one uncomfortably late.
Not disputing that the 3rd Vancouver frequency is not Washington's top priority... but it would take less investment than establishing day service to Spokane will. The infrastructure upgrades for 6/day to Portland were supposedly complete 5 years ago, and that ought to happen "automatically" as soon as there is relief for the equipment shortage.
So, establishing easy transfers from the corridor train(s) to the LD train(s) is easy to work up. Due to OTP issues, the reverse is often trickier - even if the host is doing a good job, there's just more room for things to go wrong if the inbound train has traveled 2000 miles vs having traveled 200 miles.
Edit: It gets easier if you're able to do things with unreserved trains, but for various reasons Amtrak has moved against having such services be the norm (with a few exceptions on the state-supported side of things). You could also do something similar with having a dedicated connection train (this was pretty common "back in the day"), but this requires being willing to idle a trainset (and take up a track) or run an extra move (with resulting implications on the crewing/equipment side) and can mess with reliability for local pax.
Last edited:
Several press reports that full Adirondack service to Montreal will start April 3. I'd actually like to buy a ticket in early April, but it doesn't seem to be in the Amtrak computer system. Anyone have any idea when we will be able to reserve?
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/amtrak-s-adirondack-line-montreal-reopening-17832339.php
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/amtrak-s-adirondack-line-montreal-reopening-17832339.php
With the extended Ethan Allen to Burlington, VT, it was about 2 weeks out.
Expect the 49 miles in Quebec to take 3 hours, thanks to CN track quality.
There's a half dozen news articles about this, including the Montreal Gazette.
- Status
