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

[Tracktwentynine]

I think the preclearance is a good move, especially if it opens up Montreal to additional service, which I think can be supported.

I also think that an overnight train would be a good addition, though that's something that should happen after the Vermonter has been extended to Montreal. As for the 750-mile PRIIA restriction, one possible solution would be to run the overnight train (I'm going to call it the Montrealer) from Montreal to Richmond (RVR), which would make its route 780 miles long (it would only be 671 between MTR and WAS).

I've created a mock-up of a schedule, simply as a basis for discussion.

First off, the assumptions:

1. I made no changes to the Adirondack, except to subtract the 60 minute southbound border check and the 90 minute northbound border check.
2. Because the Adirondack acts as an Empire Service train south of Albany, I did not change it's schedule there. All time savings are accrued north of the border (later AM departure, earlier PM arrival).
3. I edited the Vermonter's schedule to run via Northampton, MA, as that reroute is in the works. I assumed a 30 minute time savings between Springfield, MA and Brattleboro, VT.
4. I also subtracted 30 minutes from the Vermonter's schedule for ARRA work in Vermont. These subtractions are taken evenly along all stations in Vermont based on proportion of mileage.
5. I estimated a run time of 105 minutes (1h45) for the Vermonter / Montrealer between Montreal and St. Albans.
6. I did not change the Vermonter's scheduled times south of Springfield, and used the regular weekday schedule. I used the same travel times for the Montrealer.

Now, with those assumptions in place, let's look at potential endpoint times:

• Vermonter SB #55 - Dp MTR 7:46 -> SPG @ 14:40 -> NYP @18:24 -> WAS @ 22:15
• Adirondack SB #69 - Dp MTR 10:30 -> ALB @ 17:40 -> NYP @20:40
• Montrealer SB #61 - Dp MTR 20:30 -> SPG @ 3:24 -> NYP @ 7:08 -> WAS @ 10:59 [-> RVR* @13:25] *Optional to get past PRIIA
  

• Adirondack NB #68 - Dp NYP 8:15 -> ALB @ 10:45 -> MTR @ 17:34
• Vermonter NB #56 - Dp WAS 8:05 -> NYP @ 11:21 -> SPG @ 15:00 -> MTR @ 22:09
• Montrealer NB #60 - [RVR* dp 15:35] -> WAS @ 18:00 -> NYP @ 21:16 -> SPG @ 0:55 -> MTR @ 8:04 *Optional to get past PRIIA
  

If the Montrealer ran to Richmond, it would either require 3 sets, a 2 hour turn, or moving the Montreal departure earlier and the Richmond departure later.

The full schedule (without RVR extension) is below:



(click link for larger version)

 

[jis]

Other than the fact that the numbers for Adirondack are reversed, this is neat! Very well done!!

The northbound Adirondack is actually railroad direction westbound and hence should be odd numbered (69) and the southbound is eastbound and hence should be even numbered (68). This is one of the lasting oddities.

One should also keep in mind that merely managing to make a train's run greater than 850 miles is not going to magically make the money or the desire to run it appear in Amtrak's coffers. If that were the case Sunset East would be running today. Going forward, it will probably be easier to find state money and FTA disbursed money than FRA disbursed money (read Amtrak budget) for running passenger trains. In effect this has been the case in the Northeast anyway for quite a while, if you take into consideration who pays for how much of the train ridership in the northeast anyway.

 

[afigg]

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.

I don't know how much of an Amtrak supporter Gov. Cuomo is. But he is not up for re-election until 2014. To get these changes in place takes more than just the Governor of NY. A pro-rail Administration in the White House helps get support and cooperation from DHS, Customs, State Dept, US DOT, FRA, and may steer some funding to NY & VT. Gov. Shumlin of VT is a vocal supporter of extending the Vermonter to Montreal. Without his support, the extension plans would likely be going nowhere as they have for years. Shumlin is up for re-election in 2012 (VT Govs get 2 year terms), but according to the political tracking websites I googled, he is considered a safe bet for re-election.

The key is to get the agreements signed, funding allocated, and work started in the next several years while the political leadership in NY, VT, and at the right places in DC are all aligned in support. Then if Cuomo is succeeded by a Pataki type in 2014, the key upgrades are already in place or too far along for a new Governor to stop.

As for the trip time improvements on the CP line, there are solutions for increased freight traffic with double tracking, but, of course, that would be expensive. I think NYC to Montreal should be a candidate for true HSR branching off of an improved NEC, but I recognize that the public and political support for that is not yet remotely there, in large part because there is only one train a day. By making incremental improvements, making the trip times closer to being competitive with driving and bus services, increase NYP-MTR service frequencies to say 3 trains a day (1 Vermonter, 2 Adirondacks), you get more people taking the train. Over time, the increased ridership and increased public awareness of the train option will help build the foundation for building true high speed service to Montreal and across upper state NY to Buffalo. We will see HSR in a number of other corridors in the US before NYC-Montreal because of the complexities of alignment of interests in Canada and the US, but I think eventually it will happen.

 

[Shawn Ryu]

Question: If US and Canada ever end up building HSR from Montreal to NYC, which route would be best, the Adirondack route through Plattsburgh and Albany or the Vermonter route through Hartford and St Alban?

Keep in mind the potential populations HSR can serve on different routes.

 

[afigg]

Question: If US and Canada ever end up building HSR from Montreal to NYC, which route would be best, the Adirondack route through Plattsburgh and Albany or the Vermonter route through Hartford and St Alban?

Keep in mind the potential populations HSR can serve on different routes.

Best candidate may be the I-87 ROW north of Albany/Schenectady to Montreal. If we are to get serious about HSR, we have to build new ROWs and tracks in place of the meandering train routes through the mountains and hills laid out in the mid 1800s because of the technology and grade constraints of the era. (same goes for Harrisburg to Pittsburgh). But this would in the very long term, not in the next decade or so.

 

[jis]

Question: If US and Canada ever end up building HSR from Montreal to NYC, which route would be best, the Adirondack route through Plattsburgh and Albany or the Vermonter route through Hartford and St Alban?

Keep in mind the potential populations HSR can serve on different routes.

Best candidate may be the I-87 ROW north of Albany/Schenectady to Montreal. If we are to get serious about HSR, we have to build new ROWs and tracks in place of the meandering train routes through the mountains and hills laid out in the mid 1800s because of the technology and grade constraints of the era. (same goes for Harrisburg to Pittsburgh). But this would in the very long term, not in the next decade or so.

Same goes for New York to Albany too actually. The Water Level Route will never be an HSR route.

 

[Anderson]

Good point on the Richmond extension option. To be fair, your schedules for the Montrealer are RIGHT on top of the Carolinian's schedule, which raises an interesting prospect since the Carolinian's operating agreement covers 100% of operating costs as of now. There's already $25m coming in, so if the train were simply extended north and a large pad added at, for example, New Haven for the SB train, there wouldn't be THAT much of a subsidy to deal with. I'd presume that endpoint business would be non-existent, but you'd certainly generate a good deal of corridor business on the train to supplement the LD traffic.* However, to deal with this you would definitely need three-class service onboard (i.e. a good deal of BC/"overnight coach" space to deal with the overnight travel) or some on-board space handling methodology to avoid overnight LD coach folks from getting assigned to short-haul coach cars.

As to avoiding PRIIA, the idea isn't to reduce the state subsidy to $0 necessarily, but rather to get the train out of needing a 100% subsidy. If VA and NC were to kick in as they do now, and VT/CT/QC were to kick in a share for the northern end of things, the train might be kept to a "sane" loss in the $10-15m range. Likewise, the Amtrak subsidy situation is rather complicated...if Amtrak were to run a steady "surplus" in its subsidy year over year (i.e. operating losses turning out to be less than the subsidy covers), kicking in something from the Amtrak side might be doable.

*Using endpoint corridor operations to help cover some of the operating costs has come to mind on establishing some overnight services...for example, a LAX-SFO/EMY overnight train could easily be timed to pick up a LOT of traffic between San Jose and Sacramento on one end and between San Diego and Los Angeles (and/or Los Angeles and Oxnard) on the other. Even operating as an "expensive all-reserved Surfliner" on those routes, such a train could probably find a respectable boost from such business.

 

[AlanB]

Question: If US and Canada ever end up building HSR from Montreal to NYC, which route would be best, the Adirondack route through Plattsburgh and Albany or the Vermonter route through Hartford and St Alban?

Keep in mind the potential populations HSR can serve on different routes.

Best candidate may be the I-87 ROW north of Albany/Schenectady to Montreal. If we are to get serious about HSR, we have to build new ROWs and tracks in place of the meandering train routes through the mountains and hills laid out in the mid 1800s because of the technology and grade constraints of the era. (same goes for Harrisburg to Pittsburgh). But this would in the very long term, not in the next decade or so.

I-87 north of Albany isn't exactly straight enough for HSR either. Yes, it's probably better than the meandering of the current ROW along Lake Champlain. But I've driven that road many times and you might get speeds of 100 MPH, but I doubt you're getting much above that even with tilting technology.

 

[Anderson]

Question: If US and Canada ever end up building HSR from Montreal to NYC, which route would be best, the Adirondack route through Plattsburgh and Albany or the Vermonter route through Hartford and St Alban?

Keep in mind the potential populations HSR can serve on different routes.

Best candidate may be the I-87 ROW north of Albany/Schenectady to Montreal. If we are to get serious about HSR, we have to build new ROWs and tracks in place of the meandering train routes through the mountains and hills laid out in the mid 1800s because of the technology and grade constraints of the era. (same goes for Harrisburg to Pittsburgh). But this would in the very long term, not in the next decade or so.

I-87 north of Albany isn't exactly straight enough for HSR either. Yes, it's probably better than the meandering of the current ROW along Lake Champlain. But I've driven that road many times and you might get speeds of 100 MPH, but I doubt you're getting much above that even with tilting technology.

In other words, on that alignment you could get the ALB-MTR time down to 3-3.5 hours (depending on how much 100 MPH running you had and how many stops you were forced to take), and NYP-MTR times under 6 hours (possibly moving in the general direction of five hours if improvements can be made south of ALB)? That may not be the ultimate goal for such a route, but I'd take that in a heartbeat. Come to think of it, I suspect a lot of people would for the ability not to have to deal with airport security+airport customs.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Putting two trains on the same line would be great, but they got to at least have one train on each line first, which they almost have except that the Vermonter is cut off at St. Albans. Amtrak would never get funding for two trains before they get funding for one train, whatever schedule that one train runs on.

 

[Anderson]

Putting two trains on the same line would be great, but they got to at least have one train on each line first, which they almost have except that the Vermonter is cut off at St. Albans. Amtrak would never get funding for two trains before they get funding for one train, whatever schedule that one train runs on.

Amtrak already has funding for one (the Adirondack), and I believe that Vermont has indicated a willingness to pony up for the Montreal extension on the Vermonter pending some help with the capital improvements needed. At least, that's my understanding.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Putting two trains on the same line would be great, but they got to at least have one train on each line first, which they almost have except that the Vermonter is cut off at St. Albans. Amtrak would never get funding for two trains before they get funding for one train, whatever schedule that one train runs on.

Amtrak already has funding for one (the Adirondack), and I believe that Vermont has indicated a willingness to pony up for the Montreal extension on the Vermonter pending some help with the capital improvements needed. At least, that's my understanding.

So it looks like we might be seeing two NYP-Montreal trains on different routes. What I mean it that two trains on the same route is a lot harder to get.

 

[Anderson]

Putting two trains on the same line would be great, but they got to at least have one train on each line first, which they almost have except that the Vermonter is cut off at St. Albans. Amtrak would never get funding for two trains before they get funding for one train, whatever schedule that one train runs on.

Amtrak already has funding for one (the Adirondack), and I believe that Vermont has indicated a willingness to pony up for the Montreal extension on the Vermonter pending some help with the capital improvements needed. At least, that's my understanding.

So it looks like we might be seeing two NYP-Montreal trains on different routes. What I mean it that two trains on the same route is a lot harder to get.

Yes and no. Really, the main issue would be exchanging equipment and/or rounding up a spare set, but there's no reason that provided the cars and engines for it that Amtrak couldn't, for example, extend 233 to Montreal and return it as 242. I'm not sure what the net cost would be (assuming that food service is restored on all Empire Service trains), but the Adirondack only costs $13m to operate total. I'm guessing a net cost to the state of $4-5m overall (assuming that there's no net frequency added NYP-ALB and taking into account about $6m in revenues)?

As to trouble adding frequencies, I think that's a toss-up. If the demand is there to fill one decent-length train (the Adirondack is way up there in terms of load factors, though it could probably stand to be lengthened at least a little bit) and resist at least some pricing pressure, I think trains being added becomes quite likely as long as you don't have an anti-rail government. The problem is that a lot of once-daily routes do run half-empty for much of the route and have lousy CR.

Of course, none of this gets into equipment issues...*sighs(

 

[trainviews]

I think New York would really only be interested in a second Adirondack if the current one approaches or passes 100% cost recovery. North of Saratoga Springs (which is served by the Ethan Allen too) New York state is very sparsely populated, Plattsburg being the only real population centre. Even though New York is pretty rail friendly it has other priorities and is much more likely to focus on the NYC-Albany-Buffalo corridor and maybe a service to Binghampton.

Vermont has a clearer interest in better service, but on the other hand the Vermonter has a much worse cost recovery/costs more money. Also a second train on the route could very well be Boston-bound instead of NYC.

As for a night train the logical thing would actually be to run it on the Adirondack route (and then just change direction at NYP - the engine has to be changed anyway), as it is at least an hour shorter and the intermediate population matters less as it is served in the middle of the night. But as others have pointed out, even if the train could be a good idea it is hard to see who is going to be willing to pay for it under the current rules no matter what route is chosen.

 

[jis]

Putting two trains on the same line would be great, but they got to at least have one train on each line first, which they almost have except that the Vermonter is cut off at St. Albans. Amtrak would never get funding for two trains before they get funding for one train, whatever schedule that one train runs on.

Amtrak already has funding for one (the Adirondack), and I believe that Vermont has indicated a willingness to pony up for the Montreal extension on the Vermonter pending some help with the capital improvements needed. At least, that's my understanding.

By no means is the continuing funding of the Adirondack absolutely certain. It is a political struggle every year, some worse than others, to keep it going. While its ridership numbers are growing, it could grow a lot more without requiring another train. As has been mentioned, beyond Saratoga, the train is not exactly overflowing. Usually only two cars or less, worth of passengers cross into or back from Canada. There are of course exceptional days, but one cannot depend on exceptional days only to determine how many trains to run. At this point, when NYS has to come up with money to keep the Empire Service running, of necessity, Adirondack will just hobble along, and no additional anything will happen on that route for a while.

Canada Service from New York taken together will probably see more funding go to the Leaf in the immediate couple of years ahead, to just keep it running, given that CN has served notice to abandon the Whirlpool Bridge in Niagara Falls, and everyone is scrambling to figure out how to keep that bridge from shutting down, something that will require additional several million of funding etc.

That said, the way New York does funds disbursement is different from the Feds. New York legislature does not do project by project earmarks. They appropriate a lumpsum for non-downstate rail (passenger and freight lumped together) with a general understanding of how it is proposed to be spent. The Governor/Executive after that follows through on whatever was negotiated with the legislature during the budget process, and does have considerable leeway in cross allocating depending on how things develop over the year. This has its pluses and minuses. Money that was supposedly appropriated for something, may not actually get spent on it eventually, and conversely money that initially was not there could suddenly appear out of thin air for some other project. And all this while the Governor and the Executive endlessly bicker, which of late has been more subdued than usual, fortunately.

 

[DingDong]

According to this article, the Montrealer was one of Amtrak's poorest performing routes. Has anything changed since then?

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/12/travel/to-montreal-the-restful-way.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

 

[Trogdor]

According to this article, the Montrealer was one of Amtrak's poorest performing routes. Has anything changed since then?

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/12/travel/to-montreal-the-restful-way.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

That's not exactly what it says. The actual quote was "the Montrealer line was one of the poorest-performing of Amtrak's sleeper services in terms of revenue..."

Revenue just means how much money (in sales) is taken in. Says nothing of costs, which I'm sure were considerably less than on a full-service train with sleepers, fully staffed diners, lounges, etc.

 

[afigg]

According to this article, the Montrealer was one of Amtrak's poorest performing routes. Has anything changed since then?

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/12/travel/to-montreal-the-restful-way.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

That's not exactly what it says. The actual quote was "the Montrealer line was one of the poorest-performing of Amtrak's sleeper services in terms of revenue..."

Revenue just means how much money (in sales) is taken in. Says nothing of costs, which I'm sure were considerably less than on a full-service train with sleepers, fully staffed diners, lounges, etc.

Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but the Montrealer was a full service train with sleeper cars and a diner car. Would not be surprising if it was among the poorer cost recovery trains back then if the crew costs and operating costs were high because of the rules and track fees north of the border. But the Montrealer is not coming back as a night time train with sleepers because under the current rules it would require state subsidy support and that is not going to happen. The only prospects for an overnight NYP-MTR train might be a 3rd Adirondack departing at 9-10 PM, arriving at ~7 AM if ridership grows by leaps and bounds, but with Amfleet II (or Am II replacements) cars for those willing to travel that way.

 

[jis]

According to this article, the Montrealer was one of Amtrak's poorest performing routes. Has anything changed since then?

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/12/travel/to-montreal-the-restful-way.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

That's not exactly what it says. The actual quote was "the Montrealer line was one of the poorest-performing of Amtrak's sleeper services in terms of revenue..."

Revenue just means how much money (in sales) is taken in. Says nothing of costs, which I'm sure were considerably less than on a full-service train with sleepers, fully staffed diners, lounges, etc.

Every time I rode the Montrealer AFAIR it definitely had a fully staffed train specific Lounge called Le Pub, and I think it had a Diner too.

 

[Trogdor]

Never mind. I'm thinking of the Federal/Shoreliner/Night Owl that had the minimal staffing.

 

[afigg]

By no means is the continuing funding of the Adirondack absolutely certain. It is a political struggle every year, some worse than others, to keep it going. While its ridership numbers are growing, it could grow a lot more without requiring another train. As has been mentioned, beyond Saratoga, the train is not exactly overflowing. Usually only two cars or less, worth of passengers cross into or back from Canada. There are of course exceptional days, but one cannot depend on exceptional days only to determine how many trains to run. At this point, when NYS has to come up with money to keep the Empire Service running, of necessity, Adirondack will just hobble along, and no additional anything will happen on that route for a while.

However, if the long customs stop at the border goes away and the Adirondack cuts a couple of hours off of the trip time, that should not only increase ridership, but also reduce the operating cost. Don't have to pay the crew and burn fuel sitting there for an hour or more every day while waiting for the customs inspectors to process the train. Would also expect that there are many one-time passengers who found sitting in the non-moving train for an hour or longer while the customs inspectors processed everyone to be so irritating that they did not take the Adirondack again.

Improved On-Time Performance also helps to reduce costs. Checking the 2009 NY State Rail plan, the Adirondack OTP fell to dreadful levels of less than 20% in FY06 and FY07. For March 2012, the endpoint OTP was at a respectable 88.7%. Positive trend that should also increase ridership and revenue.

If the ridership to Montreal goes up by 50% or even doubles over the next several years after the customs facility opens in MTR with better cost recovery, that will shore up support for funding the Adirondack. NYC to Montreal is a pretty long drive and a rather long trip on a Greyhound bus. I'll have to check the air fares in more depth, but they were not cheap for direct NYC to Montreal flights. If the Adirondack can get back to more competitive trip times, it should do very well.

 

[PRR 60]

According to this article, the Montrealer was one of Amtrak's poorest performing routes. Has anything changed since then?

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/12/travel/to-montreal-the-restful-way.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

That's not exactly what it says. The actual quote was "the Montrealer line was one of the poorest-performing of Amtrak's sleeper services in terms of revenue..."

Revenue just means how much money (in sales) is taken in. Says nothing of costs, which I'm sure were considerably less than on a full-service train with sleepers, fully staffed diners, lounges, etc.

Every time I rode the Montrealer AFAIR it definitely had a fully staffed train specific Lounge called Le Pub, and I think it had a Diner too.

When I rode it in 1994, the Montrealer had a Cardinal-style diner-lounge serving pre-prepared, warmed meals. Not bad, but far from a full-service diner.

It was a neat ride. You called it a night on the urban NEC in Connecticut, and woke-up in rural Vermont. Quite a contrast.

 

[jamesontheroad]

I'll have to check the air fares in more depth, but they were not cheap for direct NYC to Montreal flights. If the Adirondack can get back to more competitive trip times, it should do very well.

Montréal Trudeau has direct air service to La Guardia (Air Canada, American & soon Delta as well); JFK (American) and Newark (Air Canada). Porter Airlines also have a slice of the market through their nice downtown Toronto airport hub.

Roundtrip fares are generally around the CAD$325 / USD$300 mark.

 

[Anderson]

I'll have to check the air fares in more depth, but they were not cheap for direct NYC to Montreal flights. If the Adirondack can get back to more competitive trip times, it should do very well.

Montréal Trudeau has direct air service to La Guardia (Air Canada, American & soon Delta as well); JFK (American) and Newark (Air Canada). Porter Airlines also have a slice of the market through their nice downtown Toronto airport hub.

Roundtrip fares are generally around the CAD$325 / USD$300 mark.

That sounds about right...IIRC, your airfares tend to go up about $100+ for a cross-border roundtrip. If the times were decent and/or an overnight service was offered, the Adirondack really should mop up in that market on the cost advantage. Honestly, I'd be somewhat surprised if a properly-equipped Adirondack on an 8-hour schedule couldn't get somewhere around 85-90% CR against those sorts of costs.*

*Once you include traffic on the southern end of the route, the train should probably be profitable...but there's an accounting issue there. In 2005, there was a convoluted restructuring of costs and revenues that lumped all non-LSL ticket revenue NYP-ALB into one category and broke that off from the upstate Empire Service, Adirondack, and Ethan Allen. This little shift saw the Adirondack lose about $1.5 million in revenue and the Ethan Allen lose nearly $3 million. It also saw revenue on the Vermonter crash from $14.8m to $2.8m, though how much of this went to the NEC and how much went to the NHV-SPG shuttles I don't know. The Keystones also lost something like half of their revenue in the process, and the Carolinain lost $2.3m as well.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

The equipment is the biggest issue stopping service expansion. No equipment, no train. You could convince the state governments to fund a train but it is all useless if they don't pay for more equipment. That is the biggest reason preventing multiple frequencies, because Amtrak has always had trouble getting money for equipment. They shouldn't have retired so much in the 1990s.