When Vermonter to Montreal?

[Anderson]

In a sense, the problem is that from SPG south there are multiple ways to handle that Vermonter...and as such, multiple ways for VT to offload capital costs and/or reduce the operating subsidy. For example, it may make more sense to run the train NYP-MTR with Massachusetts running a connecting train BOS-SPG...but if MA wants to kick in some, I could see the train running BOS-MTR with the "stub" (be it a Regional or something CT would nominally sponsor) running NYP-SPG. Or the train might get split/combined at SPG (which is probably a viable proposition since the route is not excessively long and while there may be delays, it's not like NYP-SPG is the Hi Line).

 

[keelhauled]

Or we could just axe the whole stupid idea of going to Boston and focus on New York where the train is actually competative.

 

[Anderson]

Or we could just axe the whole stupid idea of going to Boston and focus on New York where the train is actually competative.

It isn't stupid if Massachusetts is willing to pay for it. In a way, that's the issue: If MA is willing to hand VT enough money to offset lost through-passengers down to NYP so they can get a train into BOS then there's no reason for VT to flatly refuse. Moreover, running a through section to BOS (e.g. splitting at SPG), again presuming that it is done at MA's expense, would definitely make sense (especially if it would somehow result in a net improvement in the train's operating picture).

 

[jis]

The primary flow on the Vermonter/Montrealer though is likely to remain to be WAS - NYP - Vermont - MTR irrespective of how much Massachusetts wants to chip in. For that reason it would be generally harmful to place the need of a train change in the path of the main flow. Ergo I would discount the idea of a service from NEC south to VT/MTR that requires a train change. Hence if a train change is required it should preferably the BOS - MTR service. Of course a split/join at SPG could eliminate train changes for both flows too.

 

[keelhauled]

Or we could just axe the whole stupid idea of going to Boston and focus on New York where the train is actually competative.

It isn't stupid if Massachusetts is willing to pay for it. In a way, that's the issue: If MA is willing to hand VT enough money to offset lost through-passengers down to NYP so they can get a train into BOS then there's no reason for VT to flatly refuse. Moreover, running a through section to BOS (e.g. splitting at SPG), again presuming that it is done at MA's expense, would definitely make sense (especially if it would somehow result in a net improvement in the train's operating picture).

Well I guess if MA wants to write VT a check, who am I to object. In that case I'll call them dumb, but since I don't live there it doesn't bother me. But looking at from the point of view of a resident of VT I just don't think that a train via Springfield to Boston has a prayer of being competitive with the three bus companies that run from VT or just across the border in NH straight down I89. it takes as long for the Lake Shore Limited to get to Springfield from Boston as it does for a bus to get to White River Junction. And it takes a little over three hours for the Vermonter to make it up to WRJ. Five and a half hours by train, two and a quarter by bus. Or if you go to Burlington, it would be seven and a half hours by train, four via Megabus. Not even close. And busses are cheaper, too.

Whereas NYC is a less competative market via ground transport and the length makes the bus both less attractive and the time differential to Burlington is only an hour longer compared to Megabus (two hours longer to WRJ). Also, going to Boston requires fighting the CSX bottleneck, whereas the line to New Haven is going be nicely double tracked passenger trackage reasonably soon.

As a VT taxpayer I would be far more supportive of a second New York frequency than trying to run a single uncompetitive frequency to Boston against multiple daily faster and cheaper busses. Not only in terms of where the money is most effectively used, but as a whole VT is very well linked to Boston. There are far fewer public transportation options to New York and the eastern seaboard, and more options of any kind would help connect to state to the rest of the northeast.

 

[rspenmoll]

I noticed that the Vermont Rail Plan has the Boston to Montreal train running over the former Boston and Albany to Springfield and then up the Connecticut River Line. That seems to be a very indirect routing. Why not have the train run via the Fitchburg Line to Greenfield and then up the Connecticut River Line from there? Even if the track between Fitchburg and Greenfield is in too bad shape to make that feasible, it would still be a shorter distance to have the the train turn onto the New England Central at Palmer. Of course, to get the shortest possible route, it would be ideal to rebuild the track along the Boston and Maine's line from Concord to White River Junction, but I know that's never going to happen.

 

[neroden]

In regards to Vermont-to-Montreal service, the ball seems to be in Quebec's court now. They have to build the "international platform" with the customs facilities, they have to upgrade the line to the border, they have to cut a deal with CN.

Hopefully Vermont and NY (who benefits from eliminating the border crossing on the Adirondack) will manage to encourage the Quebec government to do all this, now that the Canadian federal government has done its part.

 

[Anderson]

The platform, I agree, is Quebec's/Canada's issue. The deal with CN and/or the improvements...well, let's just say that I suspect we'll see Vermont picking up at least part of the cost there in the end.

As I've indicated, I believe that no small part of the desire behind the Boston train is that Massachusetts (I think) wants the through train. I think Vermont might also want it as a matter of getting people as many places as possible, though I suspect they'd be just as happy with through cars or a transfer. Consider this as one of those places where interstate dynamics get a bit odd...and you've got three states (MA, VT, and CT) which are party to this particular mess.

One thing to consider is that while we've talked about splitting the train going south (e.g. a Boston section and a New York section out of Montreal), it is quite possible that MA might opt to split it the other way around (e.g. a Montreal section and a New York section out of Boston). As it stands it seems increasingly likely that there will be some sort of Inland Route service through to New York at some point, if only because doing so is easier than trying to get the limit on trains north of New Haven lifted (note what has been happening with traffic loads and fares on NEC-North). Offering to split the train at SPG and send a section up into Vermont might get VT to help out with some associated improvements.

 

[Eric S]

The Northern New England Rail Initiative has documents on its website proposing an additional Vermonter running NYP-SPG-Vermont-Montreal as well as a BOS-SPG-Vermont-Montreal service. (As far as Inland Route service, the same study suggests 8 BOS-SPG-NHV R/Ts.)

With relatively frequent BOS-SPG service and much more frequent SPG-NHV service, it becomes easier to have trains make connections in SPG, so that a Montreal-NYP train connects in SPG to a train to BOS.

 

[afigg]

The Northern New England Rail Initiative has documents on its website proposing an additional Vermonter running NYP-SPG-Vermont-Montreal as well as a BOS-SPG-Vermont-Montreal service. (As far as Inland Route service, the same study suggests 8 BOS-SPG-NHV R/Ts.)

With relatively frequent BOS-SPG service and much more frequent SPG-NHV service, it becomes easier to have trains make connections in SPG, so that a Montreal-NYP train connects in SPG to a train to BOS.

You beat me to it. Their Documents page has the presentation from the June 25, 2015 stakeholder meeting in Springfield which advances the alternatives considerably from the previous public documents. Also has more specific cost estimates, although still ballpark numbers, for the Alternatives. The Meeting summary is also worth looking at.

Rather than discussing the idea of splitting a corridor train which has significant drawbacks in time-keeping reliability when operating over tracks shared with freight trains or just a BOS-MTR train, we should be thinking of SPG becoming a major hub and transfer station for central New England, So a MTR to SPG to NHV (and maybe to NYP) second daily train providing an additional frequency over the Vermonter route would have a connection at SPG for those going to/from BOS. Or a MTR to SPG to BOS train would be scheduled for connections at SPG for an Inland Route Regional going the other way for those going to NYP and the southern NEC.

The trips presented in the better Alternatives are 2 hours or less for SPG-BOS (down from the current ~2.5 hours for the LSL) and 6:35 or less for a SPG to MTR train - well, after spending a fair amount of money. The current Vermonter trip time from SPG to St Albans is 5 hours and 40 minutes, so think about the schedule options if a 6 and a half hour time from SPG to MTR could be achieved.

In Alternative 2, A BOS to SPG to MTR would still take circa 8.5 hours, which is still slow compared to driving, so it might not pass the ridership test. But a MTR-SPG-NYP train (in addition to the Vermonter) might pass the ridership metrics and cost recovery metrics and have connections at SPG for the BOS trip market.

 

[Palmetto]

I noticed that the Vermont Rail Plan has the Boston to Montreal train running over the former Boston and Albany to Springfield and then up the Connecticut River Line. That seems to be a very indirect routing. Why not have the train run via the Fitchburg Line to Greenfield and then up the Connecticut River Line from there? Even if the track between Fitchburg and Greenfield is in too bad shape to make that feasible, it would still be a shorter distance to have the the train turn onto the New England Central at Palmer. Of course, to get the shortest possible route, it would be ideal to rebuild the track along the Boston and Maine's line from Concord to White River Junction, but I know that's never going to happen.

You answered your own question when you mentioned PAS track conditions. And besides that, Amtrak already runs on CSX to Springfield out of South Station, and there's a very easy connection at SPG to the Conn River Valley Line heading westward from Boston. Pan Am Southern would serve Fitchburg as opposed to CSX at Worcester, which is the 3rd largest city in MA. Fitchburg residents could just shoot down I-190 [?] to grab the train in Worcester. And I agree with you on Concord-WRJ. It'll never happen, but I think it's still on the HighSpeed Rail Map.

 

[neroden]

If you think about it, Montreal-NY service arguably benefits Montreal more than NY, so Quebec may actually be more interested in spending money on it than we might imagine. I really haven't got a sense of the political dynamics in Quebec regarding this service, however, probably because I don't read French.

 

[afigg]

News update on the long slow process to get approval for and build a Customs inspection facility at the Montreal station.

Senator Schumer press release with a seriously long winded title: SCHUMER, GILLIBRAND, STEFANIK ANNOUNCE NEW LEGISLATION THAT WILL BRING MONTREAL-TO-ALBANY PRE-CLEARANCE PROGRAM ONE STEP CLOSER TO REALITY – PRE-CLEARANCE PROGRAM COULD SAVE OVER AN HOUR IN DELAYS AT NORTHERN BORDER CROSSING, IMPROVE LOCAL ECONOMY, AND BOOST TOURISM. Excerpt:

U.S. Senators Charles E. Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, and U.S. Representative Elise Stefanik today announced legislation that would bring the pre-clearance program that more easily allows Canadians to travel to the North Country and Capital Region one step closer to reality. The Senators and Congresswoman explained that the bill they are introducing and pushing in Congress, the Promoting Travel, Commerce, and National Security Act of 2016, would expand U.S. jurisdiction over the American Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents that are operating in Canada, pursuant to border security agreements. Schumer, Gillibrand and Stefanik said this would ensure American citizens and federal government workers are subject to U.S. law and legal protections when working at the pre-clearance location just across the border in Canada, where they would be working to pre-clear passengers traveling on Amtrak’s Adirondack line from Montreal which stops in the North Country and Albany. The Senators and Congresswoman said that, right now, passengers on this line are stopped at the border – oftentimes for more than an hour – while CBP clears the entire train, making the trip longer and a more arduous process. Schumer, Gillibrand and Stefanik said making the trip from Montreal through the North Country and Capital Region would not only boost travel efficiency, but also increase tourism opportunities for local businesses in New York.

I'm guessing 2018 or 2019 before a Customs facility opens in Montreal. And that may be really optimistic.

 

[afigg]

Missed this report earlier this week. Burlington Free Press: Amtrak Montreal train service could take three years. Excerpts:

MONTPELIER - Amtrak's Vermonter train could resume passenger service to Montreal within three years, lawmakers were told Tuesday morning.

The stars are aligned, and I think we are going to go as fast as we possibly can, said Brian Searles, Vermont's former transportation secretary who now works as a consultant on the cross-border train project.

.....

"We think everybody is poised and ready for passage of this legislation," Searles said, noting that Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has led the bill in Congress.

With legislative approval in hand, a "highly speculative" timeline would require 12 months of planning and permitting and 24 months of construction, for a total of three years, Searles said.

So three years is the optimistic timeframe. Which would be 2019, 9 years after the stimulus award to VT for track upgrades. <sigh>

 

[neroden]

Vermont is going full speed ahead. The federal governments in both the US and Canada have been unimaginably slow.

From what I can tell, the timeline as:

(a) design agreement from Canadian and US Customs (done)

(b) treaty (done)

© enabling legislation in US (not done) and enabling legislation in Canada (not done)

(d) funding in Quebec (I have no idea)

(e) agreement with AMT and owners of Central Terminal (I have no idea)

(f) final design and construction of station facility

--- At this point the Adirondack can have preclearance --

(g) agreement with CN and perhaps CP

(h) trackwork in Canada

(i) Amtrak operating agreement with Vermont, Quebec, Canadian and US Customs, etc...

It sounds tediously long. Vermont has been as fast as they can. The feds in both countries have been very slow but since they've all agreed in principle I think they won't create any more delays after the legislation is passed.

I don't know about Quebec and AMT, let alone CN and CP; there could be further delays...

 

[jis]

I believe the only agreement needed for the Vermont - Montreal service is with CN. There is no CP involvement in it. The big issue is crewing. Unlike the Adirondack agreement where Amtrak T&E crew operates the train to Montreal, there is no agreement in place allowing such to happen with the Vermont service. Which probably means absent such an agreement CN T&E crew will have to take over at St. Albans or somewhere like that to take the train to Montreal. And of course such and agreement involves not just Amtrak and CN, but the respective unions too - which of course makes the outcome somewhat more uncertain.

 

[jis]

The Pre-Clearance bill is making progress through Congress. It has already passed the House and is expected to pass the Senate soon and become law before the end of this month. The corresponding bill has already passed the legislative process in Canada.

https://stefanik.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stefanik-peaks-support-canadian-preclearance-legislation-it-passes-house

 

[afigg]

The Pre-Clearance bill is making progress through Congress. It has already passed the House and is expected to pass the Senate soon and become law before the end of this month. The corresponding bill has already passed the legislative process in Canada.

Good news. So maybe the Vermonter can be extended to Montreal in only 4 or 5 years? :huh:

 

[neroden]

I double-checked and the Canadian bill actually hasn't passed yet. It has gone through "first reading" and is expected to be finalized early in the New Year; since it's backed by every single party in Parliament *and* Trudeau pledged that he wouldn't forget about it, it'll probably go through easily.

I sure hope the US Senate manages to pass the bill before the end of the lame-duck, but oh my god, it's the Senate, it's been a disaster for its entire history, it's the home of gridlock...

Reminder on the next steps after that.

Next, someone has to fund the reconstruction of a corner of Montreal Central Station as a platform with customs/border control facilities. There's already an architectural design for this and I believe it's been approved by both Canadian and US customs & border control (years ago), but it actually has to be funded. The owners and operators of the station have to agree to let this happen (currently they're using it as car parking, so this might be harder than it sounds). This should be the slowest remaining part, but who knows...

Then, Amtrak has to make a financial agreement with Canadian and US customs and border control, both of whom have been utterly weird about this stuff at various times in the past.

This is all that is needed to get the *Adirondack* to Montreal. For the Vermonter, slightly more is needed.

Amtrak has to get approval from Canadian immigration to allow the Amtrak employees to operate in Canada.

Amtrak has to get approval from its unions and the Canadian railway unions to allow the Amtrak employees to operate in Canada.

Perhaps most difficult, Amtrak has to get an operating agreement with Canadian National to run the Vermonter into Canada.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Every little step helps. I'd love to see an overnight trip though.

 

[Anderson]

Every little step helps. I'd love to see an overnight trip though.

Honestly, I think this would make a bit more sense on the Adirondack routing than on the Vermonter routing (given the sheer amount of endpoint travel on this route). You'd almost definitely keep the stops up to SDY, but at the same time I'd think you could do a same-day turn in Montreal with the sets (e.g. the NB overnight train turns as a daytime SB train and the NB daytime train turns as a SB overnight train). Whether you cut the (presumed) sleepers to sit in Montreal during the day is an open question, but if you could manage this I think you'd only need either three full sets or three coach sets and two sleeper sets for two round-trips.

From ALB, you could probably flag stop everything but SDY, SAR, and PLB (though I'd leave them on the timetable for political reasons). FWIW I suspect this train would generate a reasonable amount of business on the south end; as it is, the Adirondack often has a capacity problem between ALB and SDY, and the morning trains out of ALB apparently have their own capacity issues. I suspect the main question is whether you'd want to cut some carriages at ALB heading north and add them heading south rather than running the whole train north.

 

[jis]

Who'll pay for it? NY State most likely won't.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Every little step helps. I'd love to see an overnight trip though.

Honestly, I think this would make a bit more sense on the Adirondack routing than on the Vermonter routing (given the sheer amount of endpoint travel on this route). You'd almost definitely keep the stops up to SDY, but at the same time I'd think you could do a same-day turn in Montreal with the sets (e.g. the NB overnight train turns as a daytime SB train and the NB daytime train turns as a SB overnight train). Whether you cut the (presumed) sleepers to sit in Montreal during the day is an open question, but if you could manage this I think you'd only need either three full sets or three coach sets and two sleeper sets for two round-trips.

From ALB, you could probably flag stop everything but SDY, SAR, and PLB (though I'd leave them on the timetable for political reasons). FWIW I suspect this train would generate a reasonable amount of business on the south end; as it is, the Adirondack often has a capacity problem between ALB and SDY, and the morning trains out of ALB apparently have their own capacity issues. I suspect the main question is whether you'd want to cut some carriages at ALB heading north and add them heading south rather than running the whole train north.

My vision is restoration of an overnight train the begins in Washington DC. Even if you kept in on basically the same route through SPG, it would add an additional trip to NHV-SPG. The reason why the old Montrealer worked was because a lot of through traffic liked the overnight trip, which allowed them a full day in Montreal. The same went for the return. You could spend the whole day in MTR, board a train and sleet your trip away. Although it is unrelated, the same theory worked for the Sunday only overnight Niagara Rainbow (TWO-NYP...which I'd also like to see restored) and the Sunday only, late departure of the eastbound Pennsylvanian.

The Adirondack is supposed to be a scenic route. That is perfect for daytime operation. Let the overnight train serve an additional market and connect different cities, which in turn serves more communities..

 

[PVD]

It is common for people to forget that the Adirondack is a NYS funded train, any service changes are subject to their approval.

 

[MikefromCrete]

Would Vermont continue to fund the Vermonter if it stopped at all the stations in that state in the middle of the night? I doubt it. Of course there could be two trains on the route.