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

[oldtimer]

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

Yes, and a very decrepit one at that.

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

:giggle: hboy: :wacko:

 

[Anderson]

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

Yes, and a very decrepit one at that.

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

:giggle: hboy: :wacko:

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

+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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.