Rouses Point Subdivision (Adirondack)

[Oreius]

I was checking out Google Earth on the Rouses Point Line. I traveled on the Adirondack in 2012 and remember it being very rough trackage—jointed rail. There were some spots with welded rail, though. Looking at the line now, it seems as those most of it is still jointed rail. Doesn’t CN own that line? I remember a CN track man had to board at Rouses Point to throw the switch just south of the Canadian border. CP still owns the Line south of the junction AFAIK. I take it only local freights use the Rouses Point Subdivision aside from the 2 daily Adirondack trains…

The CP Line down to Schenectady also had some jointed rail segments—notably north of Glens Falls. Now, jointed rail does add to the nostalgia of a train ride, but it does force trains to slow down. This explains why a 381-mile trip from NYC—Montreal takes 11or more hours…

 

[zephyr17]

The CN line to the border at Rouses Point is basically a fairly lightly used branch line and takes a somewhat roundabout route. The Adirondack moved onto it when it started using Montreal's CN Gare Central instead of CP's Windsor Station. The CP line from Montreal is the original route of the Adirondack, and is a more heavily used main. But you can't get to Gare Central on it.

PS, well maintained jointed rail doesn't slow anything down. The Southwest Chief used to do 90 on jointed rail.

 

[Oreius]

The Adirondack putsyed on that line. I think the fastest we went on the Rouses Point was about 40 mph. We averaged 30 mph from north of the border checkpoint to Cantic. It must be FRA Class 2.

Rouses Point Subdivision used to be double track on the past—at least in more sections. Some of the bridges are double-track, but only a single track remains.

 

[zephyr17]

Well, it is a lightly trafficked CN branch line. I doubt CN sees any reason to maintain it more highly than the Canadian equivalent to FRA classes 2 (30 mph max passenger) or 3 (60 mph passenger). As I mentioned, the CP line hosts significantly more traffic and is probably maintained to a higher level. But the Adirondack can't get to Gare Central on it.

I've ridden it and, yes, it pretty much does take forever to get from Montreal to the border using that CN branch.

 

[NS VIA Fan]

The Adirondack uses a 5.3 mile lightly used portion of CN's Rouses Point Subdivision between Rouses Point and Cantic. The remainder of the Rouses Point Subdivision (37.4 miles) north of Cantic to Cannon (near St. Lambert and Jct with the Montreal-Halifax mainline) sees more traffic with freight to the New England Central Railroad and St. Albans VT. This is also the former Amtrak 'Montrealer' route.




In the CN Timetable below 28/628 & 29 are the 'Adirondack'.....and 623 & 624 are the 'Montrealer'

 

[jiml]

Excellent mapping.

 

[NS VIA Fan]

Excellent mapping.

Thanks!

 

[NS VIA Fan]

Nostalgia!

The Adirondack at Montreal CP Windsor Station before it moved to CN Central Station in 1986

 

[jis]

And then CP Windsor itself moved to Lucien L'Allier a few blocks west as I recall, appropriately named after the father of Montreal Metro, I guess.

Amtrak has considered the possibility of moving the Adirondack back to the CP to terminate at Lucien L'Allier so are to have run at least one trial run, but nothing came of it. Instead the decades long project of getting C&I done at Gare Centrale has carried on at glacial pace, with apparently not even any effect of global warming to move the glacier along any faster

 

[Oreius]

Despite the slowness, this line is still rather unique in that a passenger train uses a single track branch line. It was neat passing basically through people’s backyards.

 

[FreeskierInVT]

I've taken a few videos of the Adirondack along the CP line north of the border. The train does go very slow, at least between Saint Jean and Cantic.

The only video I wound up posting on YouTube was of the Adirondack at St.-Jean-Sur-Richelieu in June 2016:

 

[neroden]

Technically, you could run the Adirondack on the CP line, connect through the branch line through Candiac (in brown on the map), and get to Gare Centrale that way, but that line is in even worse shape, is mostly used for industry, and has been disconnected at the south end. Or you could build a connection where the CP main from the south crosses the CN east-west main, a bit north of Du Canal station.

But either choice would require connected-up thinking from the Quebec government, which is in short supply; instead, they just severed their busiest commuter rail line for conversion to some sort of automated rail line without thinking about the recently-built line which feeds into it or the one which was planned to feed into it.

The delays to doing customs at Gare Centrale are dominated by the Quebec government. After the whole thing was actually designed, a new Quebec government came in and apparently refused to discuss the project at all for several years. Aieee.

Of course, a thoughtful Quebec government would have extended the CP terminus to reach Gare Centrale, rather than cutting it back, which is what they actually did. It's 1500 feet. Unfortunately, not only did they cut the terminus back a block (it was 770 feet from Windsor station to Central), they proceeded to build underground highways and metro lines in most of the reasonable locations for extending the tracks underground to connect.

Every time I want to curse US rail planning, I just look at Canada, where disconnected uncoordinated "planning" where each project makes the others less effective seems to be the *norm*.

 

[Oreius]

I don’t think the Rouses Point Subdivision is even signaled. I didn’t have my scanner, but I saw practically no signals. Must be dark territory..

 

[NS VIA Fan]

Technically, you could run the Adirondack on the CP line, connect through the branch line through Candiac (in brown on the map), and get to Gare Centrale that way, but that line is in even worse shape, is mostly used for industry, and has been disconnected at the south end. Or you could build a connection where the CP main from the south crosses the CN east-west main, a bit north of Du Canal station.

There's a significant grade separation north of Du Canal Station so it would be a costly connection from CP down to the CN RoW. Just put the money towards upgrading the Rouses Point Subdivision!

But either choice would require connected-up thinking from the Quebec government, which is in short supply; instead, they just severed their busiest commuter rail line for conversion to some sort of automated rail line without thinking about the recently-built line which feeds into it or the one which was planned to feed into it.

The conversion of the heavy-rail Mount Royal Tunnel line to an LRT Subway line is nothing new. It was proposed as far back as the early 60s in the original planning for the Montreal Metro but negotiations with CN stalled. It was to have been 'Line 3' and looking at early Metro Maps.....there were Lines 1, 2, & 4 with Line 3 missing. (see cancellation of Line 3 here: )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Metro#Cancellation_of_Line_3

Of course, a thoughtful Quebec government would have extended the CP terminus to reach Gare Centrale, rather than cutting it back, which is what they actually did. It's 1500 feet. Unfortunately, not only did they cut the terminus back a block (it was 770 feet from Windsor station to Central), they proceeded to build underground highways and metro lines in most of the reasonable locations for extending the tracks underground to connect.

It was Canadian Pacific's desire in 1970 to demolish Windsor Station and build a new Office Tower on that site that required the relocation to the tracks (although that realignment did help with the route of the new Ville-Marie Expressway ramps) See pages 6 & 7 here:

ucrs-309-1971-oct-929.pdf

The construction of the underground Metro and Expressway Tunnels would have had nothing to do with a connection between Windsor Station (now Lucien L'Allier) and Central Station. The tracks into Windsor are on an escarpment and there is a significant drop on the SE side of the right-of-way. An elevated structure...not a tunnel would have been required linking it into the CNR Viaduct approaching Central Station from the southeast.

But why would you connect the stations anyway? Other cities have two stations. Unless you did an origin/destination study......Windsor/Lucien L'Alleir could be just as convenient for some as Central is to others and both have easy access to the Metro a lot probably take after arriving downtown anyway.



Below........Central, Windsor and Bonaventure Stations in 1947.

 

[neroden]

I should not need to explain why the stations should be connected; I will simply point to the RER, Thameslink, Crossrail, the SEPTA regional rail tunnel, Amtrak's rerouting of all traffic to Chicago Union Station, and innumerable other examples throughout the world. There are multiple benefits.

The thoughtlessness involved in the conversion of the Deux-Montagne Line is epitomized by the failure to consider the fate of the Mascouche Line (now without direct access to Central Station) and the Saint-Jerome Line (which *was* going to be rerouted to Central Station to save a whole lot of travel time, but now can't be). Now they are both on 13-mile detours with a hairpin turn, instead of a 6-mile route. Vague handwaving promises that this might be fixed someday are being made, but there's no evidence that they have any functioning plans to do so. In practice it looks like they're permanently cutting off all access to Central Station from the north for anything other than their automated trains, with long-term deleterious consequences for commuter and intercity rail in Quebec.

Like I say, disconnected thinking.

 

[NS VIA Fan]

I should not need to explain why the stations should be connected; I will simply point to the RER, Thameslink, Crossrail, the SEPTA regional rail tunnel, Amtrak's rerouting of all traffic to Chicago Union Station, and innumerable other examples throughout the world. There are multiple benefits.

The thoughtlessness involved in the conversion of the Deux-Montagne Line is epitomized by the failure to consider the fate of the Mascouche Line (now without direct access to Central Station) and the Saint-Jerome Line (which *was* going to be rerouted to Central Station to save a whole lot of travel time, but now can't be). Now they are both on 13-mile detours with a hairpin turn, instead of a 6-mile route. Vague handwaving promises that this might be fixed someday are being made, but there's no evidence that they have any functioning plans to do so. In practice it looks like they're permanently cutting off all access to Central Station from the north for anything other than their automated trains, with long-term deleterious consequences for commuter and intercity rail in Quebec.

Like I say, disconnected thinking.

You can't please everyone and give all a one seat ride......but look at the service someone say in Deux-Montagnes is going to have now with trains running on almost a subway frequency where before they had hourly service on week days, 9 trains on Saturday and only 5 on Sunday. Same goes for the Airport, West Island and South Shore......as well as a planned extension to the East Island. There's also two new stations being inserted into the Mount Royal Tunnel.

And you mention REF, Cross-rail etc. What's the difference? REM will also provide one seat rides across the Montreal region at a much greater frequency than now. But I get it!......the usual comments on the railfan forums. “It's automated light-rail so it's not a 'real' train!”

 

[neroden]

Look, the automated conversion is all very well and good, but *they should have presented an integrated plan from the get-go*. Once which *accounted for* the Saint-Jerome and Mascouche lines, rather than treating them as an afterthought after they'd already started digging.

THAT is what I'm complaining about. It's perfectly possible to make a reasonable plan for automating the line while providing connections, but they didn't try. Disconnected thinking. Almost every transit agency in the world would have had their ducks in a row and had such details worked out before breaking ground. They didn't.

I see this sort of disconnected thinking in Toronto too, where repeatedly, "newspaper-headline" plans are proposed without really thinking about how they interact with the rest of what's there. (UP Express was like that. So's SmartTrack, the Ontario Line, and the Scarborough Subway Extension.) VIA's "High Frequency Rail" plan is getting stomped on by multiple projects in both Ontario and Montreal without the slightest thought.


*Most* of the time in Toronto they eventually accomodate and build something reasonable (not always), but this is a great contrast to the sort of integrated planning which is routine in the US and especially in Europe and China. "Compatibility with other planned and proposed projects" is a routine section in project documents in the US, and even more so in the UK. But apparently not in Canada!

To get back to the topic of the Adirondack, the Quebec government's response to the customs preclearance proposal seems to amount to "new phone, who dis?". This isn't normal in other countries. It's the same lack of coordinated thinking.

 

[jis]

The tragedy in the US is that while pro-forma the design document come out looking nice, reflecting some latent good intentions, eventually what gets implemented usually is a mere shadow of cobbled together little pieces from the grand plan, the rest never to be built. The resultant thing often sucks to high heaven when compared to modern systems in Europe and Asia and that too usually after zillions in cost overruns (beyond the already bloated cost figures in the original plan) and many years behind schedule.

 

[jiml]

I see this sort of disconnected thinking in Toronto too, where repeatedly, "newspaper-headline" plans are proposed without really thinking about how they interact with the rest of what's there. (UP Express was like that. So's SmartTrack, the Ontario Line, and the Scarborough Subway Extension.) VIA's "High Frequency Rail" plan is getting stomped on by multiple projects in both Ontario and Montreal without the slightest thought.

*Most* of the time in Toronto they eventually accomodate and build something reasonable (not always), but this is a great contrast to the sort of integrated planning which is routine in the US and especially in Europe and China. "Compatibility with other planned and proposed projects" is a routine section in project documents in the US, and even more so in the UK. But apparently not in Canada!

The evolution of rail projects in Ontario is all easily explainable and is usually tied to partisan politics. How much time do you have?

 

[neroden]

Heh, I've actually followed a bunch of the Toronto politics. Pity Transit City never got implemented.

The thing is, in Toronto -- and Montreal -- it seems like these one-off disconnected "vanity projects" sell politically. And a coordinated plan (like Transit City!) does not. This is politically *very odd*. In the US, grand coordinated plans actually seem to sell better (though as Jis notes, they don't generally get fully implemented). This fundamental political difference confuses me.