Adirondack discussion

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
There are more issues with using Springfield, MA crews into Canada such as learning French, Canadian railroad regs, qualify for the extended route, and hope CN unions don't demand crewing the train based on the above and on precedent. Tom Downs killed the Montrealer because of the cost of CN's 5 person crew for 72 miles while the same crew could not go up and back the same day, plus another crew to take it out and back from the yard in Montreal. It may be easier and cheaper to get an EXO crew, even if they work for the contractor. CN crews are probably not certified for passenger trains.

The station "agent" (so to speak) at Burlington, who used to be stationed at Essex Jct, worked for the CV, Amtrak, has many friends at CN in Montreal, and literally knows everything. That is what he has told me.
 
Last edited:
The CN ine used to reach the uS borderr splits at Cantic. The Rouses Point line used by the ADIRONDACK heads west (and slightly southh) there to reach the CPKC junction at Rouses Point. The "mainline" goes east over the Richelieu River and a bit south to cross the border at East Alburgh, VT. From there it continues to St. Albans. The freighht goes that way, as e\we hope eventually will the VERMONTER.
Actually the line to Rouses Point runs mostly south and slightly west and runs straight through Cantic. The St. Albans line comes in from the East makes a sharp turn to join the Rouses Point to North Line. In today's operations the Arlburgh Line is the "Main Line".

See this mapL

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.0645129,-73.3467466,3077m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu
 
The engineers wouldn’t have to go quite as far as the Vermonter engineers are out of Brattleboro. The northbound job lays over in St. Albans like the Springfield based conductors do. The southbound job runs down to Springfield on the southbound train and then takes the northbound back to Brattleboro - returning home the same day. Seems like it would be a more likely issue for the conductors - particularly during NECR tie jobs when the train essentially runs an hour late every day due to 25 mph for 20 miles.
 
There are more issues with using Springfield, MA crews into Canada such as learning French, Canadian railroad regs, qualify for the extended route, and hope CN unions don't demand crewing the train based on the above and on precedent.
Doesn't VIA Rail use its own crews over CN tracks? If they can, why couldn't Amtrak as well, provide their own qualified crews?
 
Doesn't VIA Rail use its own crews over CN tracks? If they can, why couldn't Amtrak as well, provide their own qualified crews?

In a word, No. VIA trains are crewed by their own people, and lack a position called "conductor". The engineer actually handles checked baggage. Totally different set up they have there.

The last use of CN crews on passenger trains I recall was on the ONR Northlander south of North Bay, and that is gone like 15 years.

Interesting comparison is how Greyhound staffs their Vermont/Boston buses. It was always a Greyhound Lines driver north of Burlington, a driver change point, a legacy of Vermont Transit south of there.

There was no involvement of Greyhound Canada, which is gone. The Montreal - Burlington drivers I have encountered either were cycled off the Albany - Montreal Northway run, or else were Canadians, based in Montreal.
 
In a word, No. VIA trains are crewed by their own people, and lack a position called "conductor". The engineer actually handles checked baggage. Totally different set up they have there.
So again, why can't Amtrak qualify its engineer's on CN and do the same?

*

As for the bus ops....Greyhound Lines, the US company always ran the buses into and out of Montreal to/from the USA on several different routes...at one time to Albany, to Syracuse via Watertown, to Burlington, and to Bangor. GL (US) employed some Montreal based Canadian driver's, as they still do. Greyhound Lines of Canada, in its later years, reached Montreal from Toronto via Ottawa, after acquiring the former Voyageur Colonial line.
On the route from Montreal to Boston via Burlington, service from Burlington to Boston was operated in a pool with Vermont Transit, and they did change drivers at Burlington while VT was still independent. However, in the summer time, Greyhound and VT ran some trips to Hampton Beach, and some express trips to Boston, that didn't stop in Burlington. They used GL or VT drivers without changing anywhere. The drivers filled out trip reports and collected tickets for both companies. The driver's were assigned on a pro-rated mileage basis, to insure proper coverage by the end of the season. Greyhound and Carolina Trailways had a similar setup on Washington-Annapolis-Eastern Shore summer trips.
 
In a word, No. VIA trains are crewed by their own people, and lack a position called "conductor". The engineer actually handles checked baggage. Totally different set up they have there.

The last use of CN crews on passenger trains I recall was on the ONR Northlander south of North Bay, and that is gone like 15 years.

Interesting comparison is how Greyhound staffs their Vermont/Boston buses. It was always a Greyhound Lines driver north of Burlington, a driver change point, a legacy of Vermont Transit south of there.

There was no involvement of Greyhound Canada, which is gone. The Montreal - Burlington drivers I have encountered either were cycled off the Albany - Montreal Northway run, or else were Canadians, based in Montreal.
Well, in principle there's nothing stopping Amtrak having its operating crews on that stretch of CN, like VIA has, irrespective of whether the crews have conductors or not. VIA's lack of conductors is pretty much an internal practice within VIA. That specific issue would only come up if a VIA crew, rather than an Amtrak crew, staffed an Amtrak train. Even that is not insurmountable, turn it over completely to VIA like the Maple Leaf is and International was. The Leaf, as VIA 97/98, has no conductor between Niagara Falls, ON and Toronto.

Note that Amtrak operates on CN in Canada with its own crews, including conductors, on both Cascades and Adirondack. For those who might protest that the Cascades is on BNSF, note that, while BNSF still physically owns the whole of the New Westminister Subdivision, BNSF and CN have agreed that CN exercises Rail Traffic Control (dispatching in Canada) from the Fraser Bridge to CN Junction just outside Vancouver's Pacific Central Station, making that CN's railroad for all practical operational purposes. Also note that both VIA and Amtrak operate over that stretch of track, VIA without conductors, Amtrak with them.

Amtrak crews already operate in Canada on CN using a their own T&E crewing model. VIA's own operating crew practices are simply not an issue. CN's unions' resistance to Amtrak crewing in the case of a resumed Montrealer may be an issue, but the composition of an Amtrak crew shouldn't be.

So again, why can't Amtrak qualify its engineer's on CN and do the same?
Amtrak can and already does. See above reply.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the issue has ever been just operating in Canada. The issue around Montreal is purely inter-Unilon bickering. Unions apparently protect their territory to ridiculous extent. It turns out that historically the precursor trains of the Adirondack were operated by American crew to Montreal and continued to do so. The Montrealer OTOH was operated by a Canadian crew (Canadian Union member) North of St. Albans. Having an Amtrak crew operate the St. Albans to Montreal segment would involve a change in operating territory fiefdom of the Union involved, and that apparently is the bigger catch than anything else.

We have repeatedly seen similar problems in the New York area among NJT, MNRR and LIRR Unions, so I have no problem believing that such things can be complete show stoppers.
 
I would have the Springfield crew run to White River Junction, and a Montreal based crew employed by Amtrak run down to WRJ. Many years ago, CV and B&M crews would change there. That would take care of issues of French, Canadian regs, and wall time constraints. Former EXO crews who ran on the CP or CN should be easy to train. Which union local they would work for, I have no idea.

Is there anything barring Amtrak from hiring Canadians ? I would think they would not have to pay for their health insurance. How does Canadian medical insurance work if injured on the job in the US ?

The only Amtrak crewing of trains I know of on CN besides the Cascades, where a precedent was set must be 100 years ago by the Great Northern, is 2 miles to Niagara Falls, ON and that bridge belongs to either Amtrak or NYSDOT.

Union turf battles are established by precedent and they have long memories.
 
Last edited:
Well, in principle there's nothing stopping Amtrak having its operating crews on that stretch of CN, like VIA has, irrespective of whether the crews have conductors or not. VIA's lack of conductors is pretty much an internal practice within VIA. That specific issue would only come up if a VIA crew, rather than an Amtrak crew, staffed an Amtrak train. Even that is not insurmountable, turn it over completely to VIA like the Maple Leaf is and International was. The Leaf, as VIA 97/98, has no conductor between Niagara Falls, ON and Toronto.

Note that Amtrak operates on CN in Canada with its own crews, including conductors, on both Cascades and Adirondack. For those who might protest that the Cascades is on BNSF, note that, while BNSF still physically owns the whole of the New Westminister Subdivision, BNSF and CN have agreed that CN exercises Rail Traffic Control (dispatching in Canada) from the Fraser Bridge to CN Junction just outside Vancouver's Pacific Central Station, making that CN's railroad for all practical operational purposes. Also note that both VIA and Amtrak operate over that stretch of track, VIA without conductors, Amtrak with them.

Amtrak crews already operate in Canada on CN using a their own T&E crewing model. VIA's own operating crew practices are simply not an issue. CN's unions' resistance to Amtrak crewing in the case of a resumed Montrealer may be an issue, but the composition of an Amtrak crew shouldn't be.


Amtrak can and already does. See above reply.
I agree… was asking @Amtrak25 that question.
 
The only Amtrak crewing of trains I know of on CN besides the Cascades, where a precedent was set must be 100 years ago by the Great Northern, is 2 miles to Niagara Falls, ON and that bridge belongs to either Amtrak or NYSDOT.

Union turf battles are established by precedent and they have long memories.
Well, Amtrak/NYDOT ownership of the Whirlpool Bridge takes over close to the very close to the east end of Niagara Falls, ON platform. The CN Grimsby Sub's MP 0 is apparently the the bridge (since it is notated as BRIDGE, Amtrak control extends to MP 0.47. CN CTC ends at MP 0.6, which is just east of the station, IIRC.) It isn't a mile or two, if BRIDGE is the middle of the bridge then Amtrak control extends it almost 1/2 mile from its center, which is close to the station. Amtrak operates for a matter of mere yards over CN rail there, at most. My guess is 0.13 miles between the end of CN CTC and Amtrak represents CN owned track fronting platform the Niagara Falls platform, so GO Transit/Metrolynx trains don't have to officially have anything to do with Amtrak, just CN.

I remind you of the subject of this thread, the Adirondack, operates over CN with Amtrak crews in Canada (and another few yards in the US) from just north of the Rouses Point station to where ever EXO takes over ownership in Montreal. That is addition to the Cascades.

I was responding to your contention that the fact that VIA's operating crews were without conductors could somehow be an issue here, not Union jurisdiction and turf. My point was VIA's crew practices has nothing whatsoever to do with Amtrak's ability to operate over CN in Canada. I actually agree with your and jis' point that one of the stumbling blocks to Montrealer resumption is likely tied up in some kind of Union jurisdiction hairball. Even extending to what union controlled which turf back before Amtrak or VIA, irrespective current ownership or operational control. Regardless of how long it goes back, it still is part of the Union jurisdiction/turf fight hairball, it has absolutely nothing to do with VIA and their conductor-less operations.

As to Amtrak employing employees based in Canada, well, they'd have to deal with compliance and registration with foreign country's employment, HR and other rules, which is monstrous headache for any organization, let alone a railroad, let alone a government-sponsored one, especially when we are talking on the order of like just 10 employees. Plus whatever issues the union's may have over jurisdiction probably applies to Amtrak staff whether the are based in Vermont or Quebec. If union issues could be solved, an hours of service issue, if any, could be solved by putting a short crew district from, say, White RIver Junction to Montreal. It could be handled like the short district from Reno to Winnemucca. On the CZ, crew works from Sacramento to Reno, rests, works from Reno to Winnemucca and back, rests, works Reno to Sacramento. Something like could be possible or just flat out another crew base established. Either would be a lot easier than than basing Amtrak employed crews in Quebec. In any case, the real rub is union jurisdiction issues, not VIA lacking conductors, hours of service, or where the crew are employed. If jurisdiction could be settled, the rest could probably fall into place relatively easily.

Of course, since it is my understanding that neither Vermont nor Quebec are remotely interested in sponsoring a resumption of the Montrealer, the whole thing is probably moot, anyway.
 
I would have the Springfield crew run to White River Junction, and a Montreal based crew employed by Amtrak run down to WRJ. Many years ago, CV and B&M crews would change there.
The engineers are already based in Brattleboro so if they were going to do something it may end up being there. The union has fought to protect the Brattleboro crew base when management has in the past looked at moving the engineers to Springfield like the conductors are.

Another possibility is that they'd simply leave the status quo alone and setup a Montreal based crew to operate down to St. Albans in the morning and return in the evening.
 
Last edited:
Another possibility is that they'd simply leave the status quo alone and setup a Montreal based crew to operate down to St. Albans in the morning and return in the evening.

Given anything resembling the current Vermonter timetable, which would have it arriving St Albans from Montreal at 9am, and departing for Montreal at 9pm, there is no way a Montreal-based crew can go down to St Albans and go back the same shift - they'd be out for 16 hours. You can't tweak the schedules to get it down to 11 hours. A St Albans-based crew would usually not be able to make it to Montreal and back within 12 hours either. That's why I said send the Montreal crew to WRJ and their hotel, though the Brattleboro/ Springfield/ whatever unions would start a holy war for the intrusion.

If they cycled the crews on an elaborate rotation Brattleboro - Montreal, they'd be away from home multiple days, have to learn 72 miles of new territory, Canadian RR regs, and of course French, a difficult language.

The Montrealer, with the schedule roughly flipped 12 hours, had to use two CN crews per day for the 72 miles, which is the cost issue that Downs & Mercer used to kill the train. Downs later admitted killing the Montrealer (and Broadway Ltd) was a mistake, but the damage had been done.
 
Last edited:
I never suggested that VIA's crewing has any impact on this. VIA has nothing to do with this.

Well, this is what I was primarily responding to:
Doesn't VIA Rail use its own crews over CN tracks? If they can, why couldn't Amtrak as well, provide their own qualified crews?
In a word, No. VIA trains are crewed by their own people, and lack a position called "conductor". The engineer actually handles checked baggage. Totally different set up they have there.

The last use of CN crews on passenger trains I recall was on the ONR Northlander south of North Bay, and that is gone like 15 years.

Interesting comparison is how Greyhound staffs their Vermont/Boston buses. It was always a Greyhound Lines driver north of Burlington, a driver change point, a legacy of Vermont Transit south of there.

There was no involvement of Greyhound Canada, which is gone. The Montreal - Burlington drivers I have encountered either were cycled off the Albany - Montreal Northway run, or else were Canadians, based in Montreal.

If that isn't what you meant, why couldn't you have answered something to the effect that Amtrak could theoretically qualify crews on CN just like VIA does, but there might be union issues in the way? You lead with the fact VIA doesn't have conductors, which wasn't and isn't germane to your current position, or to Amtrak qualifying crews on CN in Canada generally.
 
Last edited:
Well, this is what I was primarily responding to:


If that isn't what you meant, why couldn't you have answered something to the effect that Amtrak could theoretically qualify crews on CN just like VIA does, but there might be union issues in the way? You lead with the fact VIA doesn't have conductors, which wasn't and isn't germane to your current position, or to Amtrak qualifying crews on CN in Canada generally.
Why would the CN union object to Amtrak qualifying some crews over their rails, and not ViA Rail’s?
If it’s an issue of citizenship, Amtrak could satisfy that by employing some Montreal based Canadian crews, to represent a pro-rated proportion of the train-miles run. And if VIA Rail members are represented by that CN union, Canadian Amtrak employees could be, as well…
 
Why would the CN union object to Amtrak qualifying some crews over their rails, and not ViA Rail’s?
If it’s an issue of citizenship, Amtrak could satisfy that by employing some Montreal based Canadian crews, to represent a pro-rated proportion of the train-miles run. And if VIA Rail members are represented by that CN union, Canadian Amtrak employees could be, as well…
CN itself does not have a problem with Amtrak crews nor with their American citizenship/residency. Nor apparently does the Canadian government as long as they are working back and forth from and to bases in the US.

As I mentioned before, Amtrak crews already operate in Canada over CN controlled rails on the Cascades and CN owned and controlled rails on the Adirondack. So whatever had to be dealt with as far as CN corporate and the Canadian government has already been dealt with. Of course, such Amtrak crews have to be CCOR and territory qualified.

I think that Amtrak instituting a crew base in Canada would be orders of magnitude more complicated and expensive than doing what CN and the Crown already appear fine with.

As to the Union representing CN train crew not being happy, that boils down to a simple "it's not us". Whatever crew base CN uses, presumably Montreal, doesn't get the jobs. I am not sure if CN's unions are UTU (Amtrak's operating crew union) affiliates or not, or if CN and VIA train crew are represented by the same union. Even if one or the other were true, that Montreal union local would still scream bloody murder.

VIA, btw, would probably be loathe to take the train. It would already love to unload the Maple Leaf onto GO Transit/Metrolynx.

In a lot of ways, I do not really think it matters. If there was a lot of political will in Vermont or Quebec to resume the Montrealer, some kind of solution could probably be found, though far from easily. There appears to be none in Quebec and little, if any in Vermont. It isn't going to happen any time soon, so this potential union jurisdiction hairball is an interesting theoretical conversation, but little else.
 
IMO we should wait for operating persons to give us a report on the "Imrpovements" That is speeds, rides, ballasting, surfacing, transit time. ETC.
Well, it is probably just going to be just enough so CN doesn't impose 10 mph slow orders when the temperature exceeds 30° C/86°F. It is 25 mph track anyway, and I doubt that's going to change, it's just that they'll be able to do 25 on it when the weather warns up.
 
Most answers to these questions are in the article. Little reason for the pols to do anything quietly in this case. (Unless they're afraid of budget hawks, or rail advocate perfectionists 🚂. We need our customs facility.)

Expanding on the article, the two elected officials mentioned are super partisans in opposite parties, and a third, the other U.S. Senator, joined Majority Leader Schumer's letter. Representative Stafanik's public letter was to both Amtrak and CN, while the Senators' was to Amtrak, at least the one I saw.

“This track work will help mitigate, but not eliminate heat slow order speed limits going forward,” Amtrak and CN Railway said in a joint statement.
My question is why close it for six weeks? The answer is probably to save on overtime pay.
 
All the reporting seems to be pretty fuzzy about the source of funds. Most simply say "CN and Amtrak came to an agreement". CN doubtless is receiving funds to do the work. No one seems to want to mention the funds, nor where they came from. NYS passed discretely through Amtrak somehow within its operational subsidy? Some kind of Amtrak slush fund or more creative Amtrak accounting without NYS participation? Certainly no one is crowing about how "we made it possible" other than Schumer and Stafanik, apparently through sheer force of their personalities.

I may be being petty, but in order to get a second Vancouver train, my Washington state tax dollars had to be spent in British Columbia for rail infrastructure, a new CTC siding at Colebrook. It was above board and clear, as was the fact that neither Amtrak nor BC kicked in. I think would resent if federal Amtrak subsidy dollars were spent for this rather than the work being on New York's dime. Add in the fact that the Cascades is a far more viable and popular service than the Adirondack could ever hope to be.
 
Last edited:
And not one word about it under https://www.amtrak.com/alert.html

The term "FreeMason" comes to mind, though using public funds from somewhere.

Schumer/Gillibrand and Stefanik do not sing out of the same hymnal, yet both claim credit.

Governor Hochul and the NYS-DOT Commissioner Marie Therese Dominguez (whoever heard of her ?) are silent.
 
Back
Top