Dumb questions about how to take the train

[p&sr]

Boy...what some people will do for PR! The Marx Construction Company (who built the station) claims, on their website, that the new Albany station is the first new railroad station built in the U.S. since WW II. I don't have to go far to show them that the building plate on New Orleans Union Passenger terminal says 1954; I'm sure there are many other stations that were built after the war. Anybody have any additions?

We have a few here in the Bay Area. For example, the CalTrain Depot at 4th and King in San Francisco was built in 1975, to replace a different terminal at a different location. Both the Emeryville Station and the Jack London Square Station were built for Amtrak in the 1990's after the original Oakland Station (at a different location) was damaged by the 1989 earthquake. Also in the 90's, the new Amtrak Station in Martinez was built, replacing the original depot at a different location.

All of this was prior to whatever they built in New York State in 2002. So it seems they weren't the first new station in such a long while after all.

 

[sky12065]

I'm kind of wondering now if the Rensselaer Station if the first of it's magnitude built since WWII? Not stating that it is but just wondering! It is more towards the pre-WWII hay-day of great train stations or terminals than I've ever seen!

 

[Bill Haithcoat]

Forgot to mention -- when buying tickets on Amtrak.com, always select the "pick up tickets at station" option. It's a lot easier to make changes or cancel your reservation this way. Once the tickets are printed, there is a 10% cancellation penalty. The tickets can be picked up at the ticket counter or Quik-Trak machines: all you need is the reservation number.

You don't even need that. For the Quik-Trak machines, dipping the credit card used to make the reservation is sufficient. And I'm pretty sure I've just given my name and showed a drivers license and credit card to pick up tickets from a station agent.

For first timers its a good thing, but make sure you actually have a station to go to! I dunno how things are on the Empire Service, but there's still a ton of stations which are bus stops next to freight lines!

Both Albany-Rensselaer and Rochester have Amtrak Stations! Click on the location names for photos!

Boy...what some people will do for PR! The Marx Construction Company (who built the station) claims, on their website, that the new Albany station is the first new railroad station built in the U.S. since WW II. I don't have to go far to show them that the building plate on New Orleans Union Passenger terminal says 1954; I'm sure there are many other stations that were built after the war. Anybody have any additions?

The station in BIrmingham, originally the L&N station, was built about the same time that the NOL station was built. It is, however,in pitful shape.

 

[zoltan]

One problem with Maple Leaf is that, in my experience, it's usually filled to the gills -- you're virtually guaranteed to be sitting next to someone in coach (if you can find a seat), and business class is often sold out weeks in advance. Lakeshore Limited often has the same problem, plus almost guaranteed lateness on top of that.

I never know quite how to feel when my train is full. On one hand, annoyed that I have less space to myself, and the atmosphere of the carriage is generally less peaceful - on the other hand, I should feel pleased that Amtrak is doing good business, and attracting customers.

I shall only say that I was very, very grateful when queuing to collect my tickets that I'd bought in advance from Montreal to Penn Station, as a VIA rail official (I gather Amtrak pay for their services once a day, for the one departure) was walking down the queue asking everyone if they already had tickets, as the train was full.

It did occur to me that it seems an unfair system whereby those boarding at Albany, who have alternatives, can book up half the capacity of a train, preventing those boarding at Montreal, who have no alternative, from traveling. It also can do Amtrak's revenue no good, as the train is running half empty for most of the route - although, the Albany passengers only seem to be paying $11 less than those going all the way!

I guess the upshot of it all is that if the United States gets a president that's foresighted enough to invest in rail, increasing capacity on the Empire Corridor should hopefully be a big priority, as people will be even more attracted to the services than they are now if they can walk up to a station just before departure of a train and be able to get a seat on it.

 

[AlanB]

There are currently four tracks in Rensselaer; not Albany BTW! The Albany/Rensselaer station is physically in Rensselaer across the Hudson River from Albany. The four tracks are 3 platform rails and the fourth track is on the west side of the platform tracks. So technically Marx was correct in that statement.
It appears that the DOT grant, which BTW is a quarter of a million more that you noted, is actually to extend the platforms and to add a 5th overall rail. There is currently space to add that 5th rail on the first platform's side nearest to the station. So that could explain why DOT referred to the future rail as the 4th rail... the 4th platform rail!

There were always 4 tracks in ALB, one bypass and three platform tracks.

When the new station was built, basically the only thing that was done to the exisiting pattern was to build high level platforms. I believe that a few switches were moved and realigned, but overall little was changed to the track layout. The plan however was to pull down the corner of the old station and install a fifth track, since three working platform tracks doesn't give them much flexibility at all. Especially when the LSL runs late, since that uses up two of the three platform tracks.

Now not withstanding the monies just found to allow that fifth track to be built, no work has started on the project so far. I saw that first hand today while waiting for the engine change on the LSL I was on.

 

[AlanB]

It did occur to me that it seems an unfair system whereby those boarding at Albany, who have alternatives, can book up half the capacity of a train, preventing those boarding at Montreal, who have no alternative, from traveling. It also can do Amtrak's revenue no good, as the train is running half empty for most of the route - although, the Albany passengers only seem to be paying $11 less than those going all the way!

That's not an Amtrak thing, that's a customs thing. Going northbound Canadian Customs only allows Amtrak to fill two coaches with passengers for the crossing. And they insist that they are all in two cars, not spread out throughout the train. I can only assume that US Customs wants the same thing, or perhaps Amtrak just applies the more restrictive policy to both directions.

It's for this same reason that the Adirondack doesn't carry a business class car. Amtrak wanted to add one, much like the Maple Leaf, and they were shot down.

Even right now with the dome running, everyone must leave the dome prior to the boarder crossing to comply with the demmands from Canadian Customs.

 

[sky12065]

There are currently four tracks in Rensselaer; not Albany BTW! The Albany/Rensselaer station is physically in Rensselaer across the Hudson River from Albany. The four tracks are 3 platform rails and the fourth track is on the west side of the platform tracks. So technically Marx was correct in that statement.
It appears that the DOT grant, which BTW is a quarter of a million more that you noted, is actually to extend the platforms and to add a 5th overall rail. There is currently space to add that 5th rail on the first platform's side nearest to the station. So that could explain why DOT referred to the future rail as the 4th rail... the 4th platform rail!

There were always 4 tracks in ALB, one bypass and three platform tracks.

When the new station was built, basically the only thing that was done to the exisiting pattern was to build high level platforms. I believe that a few switches were moved and realigned, but overall little was changed to the track layout. The plan however was to pull down the corner of the old station and install a fifth track, since three working platform tracks doesn't give them much flexibility at all. Especially when the LSL runs late, since that uses up two of the three platform tracks.

Now not withstanding the monies just found to allow that fifth track to be built, no work has started on the project so far. I saw that first hand today while waiting for the engine change on the LSL I was on.

Based on what you're saying, Marx must have either replaced an existing track or their information on their website is inacurate! Also I believe that the location of the unrailed platform side would align with the old station as you noted making both of our statements accurate about the future 5th rail!

 

[zoltan]

That's not an Amtrak thing, that's a customs thing. Going northbound Canadian Customs only allows Amtrak to fill two coaches with passengers for the crossing. And they insist that they are all in two cars, not spread out throughout the train. I can only assume that US Customs wants the same thing, or perhaps Amtrak just applies the more restrictive policy to both directions.
It's for this same reason that the Adirondack doesn't carry a business class car. Amtrak wanted to add one, much like the Maple Leaf, and they were shot down.

Even right now with the dome running, everyone must leave the dome prior to the boarder crossing to comply with the demmands from Canadian Customs.

Ah, I see! So, technically, the stretch from Montreal to Rouses point can be full before the stretch south of Rouses point is full.

Though it leaves me wondering if subsidising the wages of maybe three more customs officials to service a third carriage would be an economic proposition if Amtrak reckoned they could, on average, pay for it with the fares paid by the extra passengers. Even if it didn't quite add up, it would be quite possible that the authorities in Montreal would be willing to fund it on the basis of the economic benefit of more capacity into and out of the city, and the benefits to its citizens.

Actually, I would like to see Amtrak doing what is practiced in a lot of places in Europe, and, have customs officers on the train from Montreal, undertaking checks as the train makes its journey, with a few additional staff employed to hold passengers pending removal from the train on arrival at the border, where necessary. This could immediately shave 40 minutes to one hour off the Adirondack's schedule.

To pick up on one incidental point, I can assume that the US customs regulations are slightly different, as, while Penn Station-bound passengers are put in the front two coaches, to avoid the need to make announcements in this part of the train and to open the door at low platforms, passengers for any other stations are spread thinly over the rearmost carriages as the train stops at Rouses Point. (I thought of using these carriages and claiming to only be going as far as Yonkers with my New York ticket, but it isn't such a great idea in reality, as you end up spending every upstate New York call hoping no one sits next to you; at least in the front two coaches you know exactly where you are as regards your neighbour).

 

[AlanB]

Though it leaves me wondering if subsidising the wages of maybe three more customs officials to service a third carriage would be an economic proposition if Amtrak reckoned they could, on average, pay for it with the fares paid by the extra passengers. Even if it didn't quite add up, it would be quite possible that the authorities in Montreal would be willing to fund it on the basis of the economic benefit of more capacity into and out of the city, and the benefits to its citizens.

You'd think that would be the case, but the second Vancouver train has been held up because Canada wants Amtrak to pay for clearing it. Apparently they don't want to encourage tourism.

I believe that a deal has finally been worked out, but I'm not positive.

Actually, I would like to see Amtrak doing what is practiced in a lot of places in Europe, and, have customs officers on the train from Montreal, undertaking checks as the train makes its journey, with a few additional staff employed to hold passengers pending removal from the train on arrival at the border, where necessary. This could immediately shave 40 minutes to one hour off the Adirondack's schedule.

The Adirondack is really the only train where that might work, and then only in the southbound direction. Even then one still has to be very careful, as the Adirondack does make one additional stop in Canada after leaving Montreal, so you've got to make sure that you clear those passengers and don't let them slip through. Going northbound there's really too many stops to start the process before reaching Canada. On the Maple Leaf this idea isn't workable at all between the fact that it makes too many stops and the fact that the train does not remain under Amtrak's control.

 

[AlanB]

Based on what you're saying, Marx must have either replaced an existing track or their information on their website is inacurate! Also I believe that the location of the unrailed platform side would align with the old station as you noted making both of our statements accurate about the future 5th rail!

The location of that future 5th rail is indeed closest to the existing station, and from what I've been told too close to the old station, which may result in the need to trim the corner off that building. The 5th track would also become the second track that can reach the Post Road cutoff that allows the Boston section to head to Boston. Right now the Boston stub either has to perform a backup move to reach the Post Road track or the passengers have to go upstairs and then back downstairs to reach the platform that services the Post Road track.

 

[sky12065]

Based on what you're saying, Marx must have either replaced an existing track or their information on their website is inacurate! Also I believe that the location of the unrailed platform side would align with the old station as you noted making both of our statements accurate about the future 5th rail!

The location of that future 5th rail is indeed closest to the existing station, and from what I've been told too close to the old station, which may result in the need to trim the corner off that building. The 5th track would also become the second track that can reach the Post Road cutoff that allows the Boston section to head to Boston. Right now the Boston stub either has to perform a backup move to reach the Post Road track or the passengers have to go upstairs and then back downstairs to reach the platform that services the Post Road track.

The left side of the photo at http://www.northeastfoto.com/gallery/files...DSC_0040e22.jpg shows where the future platform rail would be.

 

[AlanB]

Based on what you're saying, Marx must have either replaced an existing track or their information on their website is inacurate! Also I believe that the location of the unrailed platform side would align with the old station as you noted making both of our statements accurate about the future 5th rail!

The location of that future 5th rail is indeed closest to the existing station, and from what I've been told too close to the old station, which may result in the need to trim the corner off that building. The 5th track would also become the second track that can reach the Post Road cutoff that allows the Boston section to head to Boston. Right now the Boston stub either has to perform a backup move to reach the Post Road track or the passengers have to go upstairs and then back downstairs to reach the platform that services the Post Road track.

The left side of the photo at http://www.northeastfoto.com/gallery/files...DSC_0040e22.jpg shows where the future platform rail would be.

Correct.