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

[johnny.menhennet]

Since we are talking about multiple frequencies over the current Adirondack route, I was wondering why you guys think that is a good solution at present. I think that if the current train often only runs with about 2 cars north of Albany, why it would not be smart to increase size of the train before increasing frequency.

I also think that a Vermonter extension to Montreal would be a good thing, but I am worried about it. I think that the Vermonter is in a good place right now, but I feel that a Montreal extension would put the train in a similar boat with the Adirondack. The Adirondack has a significant percentage of end-to-end ridership. If the Vermonter was to be extended, I feel that Amtrak would allow most of the riders to go to Montreal because they can get more revenue out of them, and the potential riders still in Vermont would face "sold out" or "no room available" for their specific city pairs too often, like Amtrak currently will not allow many passengers NorCal-Reno like they will NEC-Vermont. That is my main concern with extending a day train over this route.

 

[afigg]

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.

Yes, looking up the air fares, the cheapest for direct round trips are just above $300 USD. Not including whatever extra fees might be added, but go with $300 to $400 round trip as the current cheap seats air fare cost comparison.

Greyhound NYC to Montreal trip times range from 7h 54m (midnight departure with fewer stops) to 8h 50m (middle of the day departure). The cheapest Greyhound price I get for next week is $73, standard fare $103. Megabus does not go to Montreal (yet?).

The Adirondack NYP to MTR prices for the next week are $63 to $70, so the train prices are lower than Greyhound. Since the Adirondack currently takes 11 hours, the prices have to be low to compete.

Driving time is given at around 6-1/2 hours but one has to add border inspection time and at least one pit stop to that. For those who have driven the route, would 7-1/2 hours driving time from NYC to Montreal be a reasonable estimate?

What the Greyhound and driving trip times indicate to me is that if the Adirondack can get back to a circa 9 hour or less trip time, it would be able to compete reasonably well against the bus services and driving from NYC to Montreal. Circa 370 miles is a long drive. And between 2 cities with very good transit systems, so for a lot of New Yorkers, why drive? at $3 to $4 a gallon gas? The potential is there for substantial ridership growth if the improvements and customs facility come to pass.

 

[Anderson]

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.

It was regrettable, but who would have predicted the ridership surge of the last decade? In their shoes, I'd probably have mothballed a bunch of equipment somewhere rather than dumping it outright...but I'd still have taken it out of service.

As to the question of multiple NYP-MTR frequencies, the main reason is network connectivity: It would be ideal to have a link to a Boston train with a decent time, a Florida/Atlantic Coast train, and a Midwest train without an overnight stay somewhere. Likewise, decent network connectivity on the Canadian end (i.e. being able to connect to the train from an early corridor train coming in from at least Ottawa, if not Toronto) would be good as well. That probably dictates two-a-day.

 

[Trogdor]

Since we are talking about multiple frequencies over the current Adirondack route, I was wondering why you guys think that is a good solution at present. I think that if the current train often only runs with about 2 cars north of Albany, why it would not be smart to increase size of the train before increasing frequency.

The train runs four or five coaches (plus cafe car) north of Albany.

 

[Blackwolf]

Since we are talking about multiple frequencies over the current Adirondack route, I was wondering why you guys think that is a good solution at present. I think that if the current train often only runs with about 2 cars north of Albany, why it would not be smart to increase size of the train before increasing frequency.

I also think that a Vermonter extension to Montreal would be a good thing, but I am worried about it. I think that the Vermonter is in a good place right now, but I feel that a Montreal extension would put the train in a similar boat with the Adirondack. The Adirondack has a significant percentage of end-to-end ridership. If the Vermonter was to be extended, I feel that Amtrak would allow most of the riders to go to Montreal because they can get more revenue out of them, and the potential riders still in Vermont would face "sold out" or "no room available" for their specific city pairs too often, like Amtrak currently will not allow many passengers NorCal-Reno like they will NEC-Vermont. That is my main concern with extending a day train over this route.

It is my understanding that on both the Adirondack and the Maple Leaf that a moratorium is very much in place currently to the number of passengers allowed to book travel north of the US border. I remember reading something somewhere that the number is right along 175 or so, and that this number is set by USCIS as a limit of the number of people they are willing to process aboard the train. As such, Amtrak is not able to sell more than that number of tickets for points on the other side of the border... Which requires that most of the train be empty aside from two cars.

After a preclearance is set up, I'd suspect the restriction would be lifted. Much like the Cascades from Vancouver, they could then sell out the whole train and not have an issue. I think there lies the real key to hurdle before any additional train frequencies are addressed.

 

[Donctor]

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.

You are correct. By this time, the Montrealer was usually a bag, sleeper, Heritage lounge, and three Amfleet II coaches.

 

[CHamilton]

I also think that a Vermonter extension to Montreal would be a good thing, but I am worried about it. I think that the Vermonter is in a good place right now, but I feel that a Montreal extension would put the train in a similar boat with the Adirondack. The Adirondack has a significant percentage of end-to-end ridership. If the Vermonter was to be extended, I feel that Amtrak would allow most of the riders to go to Montreal because they can get more revenue out of them, and the potential riders still in Vermont would face "sold out" or "no room available" for their specific city pairs too often, like Amtrak currently will not allow many passengers NorCal-Reno like they will NEC-Vermont. That is my main concern with extending a day train over this route.

Johnny, your concern is a good one, although in the days of the Montrealer, Essex Junction (Burlington) and Waterbury (Stowe) had lots of traffic both north and south. In the winter, you'd see lots of college students carrying skis on board -- today, there'd be just as many snowboards, I'm sure. So especially since VT is paying the bills, I bet that Amtrak would make sure to have capacity for passengers not going all the way to MTR.

 

[jis]

Since we are talking about multiple frequencies over the current Adirondack route, I was wondering why you guys think that is a good solution at present. I think that if the current train often only runs with about 2 cars north of Albany, why it would not be smart to increase size of the train before increasing frequency.

The present train has way more than two cars full north of Albany. It does pretty well to Plattsburgh. In general about two cars worth of people go north of Rouses Point. These days may be they are getting a few people more than two cars worth on many days, but I don;t know for sure.

But it is true that there is much more growth possible with a single train with more cars before one needs to get hit by the additional cost of a track charge and operating crew etc. needed for a second train.

 

[jis]

I also think that a Vermonter extension to Montreal would be a good thing, but I am worried about it. I think that the Vermonter is in a good place right now, but I feel that a Montreal extension would put the train in a similar boat with the Adirondack. The Adirondack has a significant percentage of end-to-end ridership. If the Vermonter was to be extended, I feel that Amtrak would allow most of the riders to go to Montreal because they can get more revenue out of them, and the potential riders still in Vermont would face "sold out" or "no room available" for their specific city pairs too often, like Amtrak currently will not allow many passengers NorCal-Reno like they will NEC-Vermont. That is my main concern with extending a day train over this route.

Johnny, your concern is a good one, although in the days of the Montrealer, Essex Junction (Burlington) and Waterbury (Stowe) had lots of traffic both north and south. In the winter, you'd see lots of college students carrying skis on board -- today, there'd be just as many snowboards, I'm sure. So especially since VT is paying the bills, I bet that Amtrak would make sure to have capacity for passengers not going all the way to MTR.

Why is the situation with the Vermonter where Vermont pays the bill any different from the Adirondack with New York paying the bill?

I think we are getting way ahead of ourselves worrying about sold out trains, specially when more equipment becomes available. I wish we'd have such a problem on the Vermont route. Actually the Vermont train running to Montreal will increase efficiency in at least one way. One won't have to send two P42s one at each end with the train like they do now.

 

[AlanB]

Driving time is given at around 6-1/2 hours but one has to add border inspection time and at least one pit stop to that. For those who have driven the route, would 7-1/2 hours driving time from NYC to Montreal be a reasonable estimate?

Yes, that's reasonable. It does depend on what time you hit the border and how long the lines are, plus of course how many stops you make along the way. Also hitting Albany during rush hour can be a problem and add to the times.

 

[AlanB]

Since we are talking about multiple frequencies over the current Adirondack route, I was wondering why you guys think that is a good solution at present. I think that if the current train often only runs with about 2 cars north of Albany, why it would not be smart to increase size of the train before increasing frequency.

The present train has way more than two cars full north of Albany. It does pretty well to Plattsburgh. In general about two cars worth of people go north of Rouses Point. These days may be they are getting a few people more than two cars worth on many days, but I don;t know for sure.

But it is true that there is much more growth possible with a single train with more cars before one needs to get hit by the additional cost of a track charge and operating crew etc. needed for a second train.

Agreed! After our excursion on the Ocean to Halifax, upon our return the train had 2-Amfleet II cars, a cafe, and 3-Amfleet I cars.

And because they had sold more tickets out of Montreal than could fit in the 2 AMF II cars, we were unfortunately forced to sit in the AMF I cars. I think that they were pretty close to having sold out those 3 cars. And US Customs forced them to put us in the AMF I cars, they didn't want to have people on both sides of the cafe car, so the short haul passengers got the good long distance seats, while the long haul passengers got the crappy short haul seats.

Thankfully going north the CBSA didn't seem to have the same silly restrictions that the US Customs has, so we were able to sit in the nicer AMF II seats the whole way.

 

[transit54]

I think we are getting way ahead of ourselves worrying about sold out trains, specially when more equipment becomes available. I wish we'd have such a problem on the Vermont route. Actually the Vermont train running to Montreal will increase efficiency in at least one way. One won't have to send two P42s one at each end with the train like they do now.

The second P42 should be going away as soon as the work in Massachusetts is done on the Knowledge Corridor, eliminating the turn in Palmer, MA. That should be either late 2013 or 2014 from what I've heard.

 

[afigg]

Since we are talking about multiple frequencies over the current Adirondack route, I was wondering why you guys think that is a good solution at present. I think that if the current train often only runs with about 2 cars north of Albany, why it would not be smart to increase size of the train before increasing frequency.

Service frequency for the Adirondack is not going to be increased until ridership and revenue for the current Adirondack daily train increase enough to support it. That is going to be a few years. Amtrak does not appear to have enough Amfleet II cars to support a second daily Adirondack if the preference would be to equip it with LD coach cars. Either Amtrak converts Horizons freed up from the Midwest by 2016-17 into LD coach configuration or places the order for Amfleet II replacements.

I also think that a Vermonter extension to Montreal would be a good thing, but I am worried about it. I think that the Vermonter is in a good place right now, but I feel that a Montreal extension would put the train in a similar boat with the Adirondack. The Adirondack has a significant percentage of end-to-end ridership. If the Vermonter was to be extended, I feel that Amtrak would allow most of the riders to go to Montreal because they can get more revenue out of them, and the potential riders still in Vermont would face "sold out" or "no room available" for their specific city pairs too often, like Amtrak currently will not allow many passengers NorCal-Reno like they will NEC-Vermont. That is my main concern with extending a day train over this route.

The Vermonter is a long way from being full in MA and VT. Going back to FY10 to stay clear of the track work outages last year, the Vermonter had 86,245 passengers, either north of NHV or Springfield MA. That works out to around 120 for each train. If the Vermonter got crowded, Amtrak could add one or 2 Amfleet Is to increase the capacity.

A Vermonter extended to Montreal would get a lot of turnover traffic in VT and MA. People would take it from WAS-NYC to VT/MA and between VT/MA and Montreal. Since Vermont is paying for the train, they can have Amtrak adjust the ticket prices to discourage through traffic. For example, if the Adirondack was $90 for NYP-MTR, the Vermonter could be set to $130 for NYP to MTR with a big price jump above the NYP to VT stop prices. That would push people in NYC to take the Adirondack to Montreal which is the more direct route anyway.

Amtrak follows a similar pricing approach with the Crescent and the Lynchburg Regional between WAS and Charlottesville and Lynchburg to get people to take the Regional to free up Crescent seats for longer range traffic. The Crescent is more expensive from NYP-WAS to CVS and LYH than the Regional. The problem with the LD train to Reno is not the same because there is only one daily LD train with a limited supply of Superliner coach cars to add to it.

A crowded Vermonter and Adirondack would be good problems to have. Better than half empty trains with poor cost recovery that would be at threat of shutting down.

 

[Anderson]

Amtrak does something similar with the Meteor on discouraging short-haul traffic in VA unless the Regionals are already slammed. I think WAS-RVR tickets are locked to the second-highest bucket as a rule, which more or less eliminates short-haul traffic when the Regionals aren't near capacity. Not that this has tended to stop me from taking it home, but the tactic is pretty clear.

As to the Adirondack being tied down by Customs...that is really obnoxious.

 

[jis]

I think we are getting way ahead of ourselves worrying about sold out trains, specially when more equipment becomes available. I wish we'd have such a problem on the Vermont route. Actually the Vermont train running to Montreal will increase efficiency in at least one way. One won't have to send two P42s one at each end with the train like they do now.

The second P42 should be going away as soon as the work in Massachusetts is done on the Knowledge Corridor, eliminating the turn in Palmer, MA. That should be either late 2013 or 2014 from what I've heard.

Good point! I believe the turning Wye at St. Albans just beyond the round house is still usable. At present they just park the train on a station side leg of the Wye adjacent to the station and go off to their hotels. The following morning they come back and pull out from the siding to the platform ready for departure. I guess all that they have to do is pull up beyond the other leg of the Wye on the mainline, back into the Wye and then forward to where they park the train now.

 

[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.

You are correct. By this time, the Montrealer was usually a bag, sleeper, Heritage lounge, and three Amfleet II coaches.

You're right. The separate Am-Dinette went away sometime in late 80s. Before that it used to have an Am-Dinette and the Heritage Le-Pub. After losing the Am-Dinette I think half the Lounge was used to provide dining service at food times. And the car used to be full of smoke since smoking was allowed until quite late.

But AIR in the early to mid 80s Le Pub was a very nice socializing experience, and I still keep in touch with a few ladies that I met there, just in a friendly way of course. The car had relatively well appointed subdued lighting, unlike the almost sunburn producing glaring lights in Amfleet Lounge cars. And in that time frame, it also had Slumbercoach Service which made sleeping accommodation affordable. It would be really nice if something like that could be brought back...... One can dream....

 

[jis]

Since we are talking about multiple frequencies over the current Adirondack route, I was wondering why you guys think that is a good solution at present. I think that if the current train often only runs with about 2 cars north of Albany, why it would not be smart to increase size of the train before increasing frequency.

Service frequency for the Adirondack is not going to be increased until ridership and revenue for the current Adirondack daily train increase enough to support it. That is going to be a few years. Amtrak does not appear to have enough Amfleet II cars to support a second daily Adirondack if the preference would be to equip it with LD coach cars. Either Amtrak converts Horizons freed up from the Midwest by 2016-17 into LD coach configuration or places the order for Amfleet II replacements.

Actually I suspect that before a second train to Montreal happens on the old D&H, it is more likely that a second train to Plattsburgh will happen. Indeed, whenever the funding for Adirondack comes under threat, they never talk of discontinuing the train. They usually talk of cutting it back to Plattsburgh. Plattsburgh has a relatively vibrant SUNY campus and does produce significant traffic. Beyond that the only significant traffic producer is Montreal.

I also think that a Vermonter extension to Montreal would be a good thing, but I am worried about it. I think that the Vermonter is in a good place right now, but I feel that a Montreal extension would put the train in a similar boat with the Adirondack. The Adirondack has a significant percentage of end-to-end ridership. If the Vermonter was to be extended, I feel that Amtrak would allow most of the riders to go to Montreal because they can get more revenue out of them, and the potential riders still in Vermont would face "sold out" or "no room available" for their specific city pairs too often, like Amtrak currently will not allow many passengers NorCal-Reno like they will NEC-Vermont. That is my main concern with extending a day train over this route.

The Vermonter is a long way from being full in MA and VT. Going back to FY10 to stay clear of the track work outages last year, the Vermonter had 86,245 passengers, either north of NHV or Springfield MA. That works out to around 120 for each train. If the Vermonter got crowded, Amtrak could add one or 2 Amfleet Is to increase the capacity.

A Vermonter extended to Montreal would get a lot of turnover traffic in VT and MA. People would take it from WAS-NYC to VT/MA and between VT/MA and Montreal. Since Vermont is paying for the train, they can have Amtrak adjust the ticket prices to discourage through traffic. For example, if the Adirondack was $90 for NYP-MTR, the Vermonter could be set to $130 for NYP to MTR with a big price jump above the NYP to VT stop prices. That would push people in NYC to take the Adirondack to Montreal which is the more direct route anyway.

Vermont's plan has generally been to get to two trains per day to/through Vermont, with occasional noises about one of the trains being permanently bustituted north of Springfield. If that comes to pass (the two trains, not the bustitution) then extending one to Montreal will cause no significant overcrowding issue IMHO, unless somehow Vermont's population doubles or some such.

As far as setting fares, Amtrak has relatively little freedom in setting the fares will be on either the Vermonter or the Adirondack. Both are state funded trains and they as a result have significant say on that matter. The "I Love New York" fares as they apply to the Adirondack as well as the "Montreal Getaway" fares (or whatever they are called) that were in effect from Jan through early April, are all NYSDOT approved.

Incidentally, I am planning a little field trip on the Adirondack to Montreal over the Memorial Day weekend.

 

[Anderson]

jls: Didn't know about the chatter either for a second Plattsburgh train or a second train up the Vermonter route. Not that I'm surprised by the latter (Vermont seems very pro-rail; it might well be the best state in the nation in that regard, though I could see a serious challenge to that title from a few states), but it is impressive.

Honestly, I can see a "short of the border" train getting set up and then being extended...I'd think that service to/from Montreal would probably, released from goofy Customs rules and a long border delay, be an incrementally net positive move for any train terminating at St. Albans or Plattsburgh.

 

[jis]

jls: Didn't know about the chatter either for a second Plattsburgh train or a second train up the Vermonter route. Not that I'm surprised by the latter (Vermont seems very pro-rail; it might well be the best state in the nation in that regard, though I could see a serious challenge to that title from a few states), but it is impressive.

Honestly, I can see a "short of the border" train getting set up and then being extended...I'd think that service to/from Montreal would probably, released from goofy Customs rules and a long border delay, be an incrementally net positive move for any train terminating at St. Albans or Plattsburgh.

Incidentally, terminating at St. Albans is simply because there is storage and turning Wye there. The train pretty much empties out at Essex Jct (Burlington). Both time I have been to St. Albans, I was one of exactly two fare paying passengers on the train beyond Essex Jct. (Burlington) !

I agree that extending to Montreal is a positive, though whether the additional fare actually covers the additional cost is another matter - subject to the whims of CN and other factors.

 

[afigg]

Actually I suspect that before a second train to Montreal happens on the old D&H, it is more likely that a second train to Plattsburgh will happen. Indeed, whenever the funding for Adirondack comes under threat, they never talk of discontinuing the train. They usually talk of cutting it back to Plattsburgh. Plattsburgh has a relatively vibrant SUNY campus and does produce significant traffic. Beyond that the only significant traffic producer is Montreal.

Plattsburg had only 12.4K passengers in FY11, so it not that active a destination. The station passenger counts north of Schenectady or Saratoga Springs - as are the populations - are quite small until Montreal. But with NYP to Plattsburgh at under 7 hours, might be feasible to support a second NYP-PLB train with a single train set making a round trip from NYP.

Vermont's plan has generally been to get to two trains per day to/through Vermont, with occasional noises about one of the trains being permanently bustituted north of Springfield. If that comes to pass (the two trains, not the bustitution) then extending one to Montreal will cause no significant overcrowding issue IMHO, unless somehow Vermont's population doubles or some such.

I have read the Vermont plans to have 2 daily trains on the Vermonter route through VT. Which makes sense given the investment in upgrading the tracks and the better travel flexibility provided by 2 daily trains. What we don't know is the restrictions and costs of the customs facility in and tracks to Montreal. CN may not want more than 2-3 daily passenger trains to MTR. What is overnight storage and servicing capacity in MTR for Amtrak trains?

The second train to Vermont may be provided by the proposed Boston to Montreal train, if that goes through Springfield or cuts north at Palmer (which would provide service to Amherst) and provide direct connections to Boston from VT. One possibility is that the Vermonter gets extended to Montreal in several years. Then when MA is ready to start a BOS to MTR train (after improvements to the BOS-WOR-SPG/Palmer segment and Amtrak has the equipment to support it), the Vermonter is cut back to St Albans and the BOS-MTR train goes to Montreal instead, providing the Montreal to VT service that VT wants. VT would continue to pay for the Vermonter which also benefits central MA stations, MA pays for the BOS-MTR train which also benefits VT. Lot of ways for these plans to play out.

 

[jis]

I have read the Vermont plans to have 2 daily trains on the Vermonter route through VT. Which makes sense given the investment in upgrading the tracks and the better travel flexibility provided by 2 daily trains. What we don't know is the restrictions and costs of the customs facility in and tracks to Montreal. CN may not want more than 2-3 daily passenger trains to MTR. What is overnight storage and servicing capacity in MTR for Amtrak trains?

Amtrak trains are stored and serviced at the VIA facility in Montreal, and AFAICT storage capacity is not an issue for a couple of trains. CN has hardly any traffic between Cantic and Montreal, maybe a couple or 3 freights a day. And the only traffic between Cantic and Rouses Point is the Adirondack. That is why that part has the rock'n'roll track which has probably not seen a tamper in a decade Juuuust kidding.

The second train to Vermont may be provided by the proposed Boston to Montreal train, if that goes through Springfield or cuts north at Palmer (which would provide service to Amherst) and provide direct connections to Boston from VT. One possibility is that the Vermonter gets extended to Montreal in several years. Then when MA is ready to start a BOS to MTR train (after improvements to the BOS-WOR-SPG/Palmer segment and Amtrak has the equipment to support it), the Vermonter is cut back to St Albans and the BOS-MTR train goes to Montreal instead, providing the Montreal to VT service that VT wants. VT would continue to pay for the Vermonter which also benefits central MA stations, MA pays for the BOS-MTR train which also benefits VT. Lot of ways for these plans to play out.

Yup. Many possibilities.

 

[johnny.menhennet]

The second train to Vermont may be provided by the proposed Boston to Montreal train, if that goes through Springfield or cuts north at Palmer (which would provide service to Amherst) and provide direct connections to Boston from VT. One possibility is that the Vermonter gets extended to Montreal in several years. Then when MA is ready to start a BOS to MTR train (after improvements to the BOS-WOR-SPG/Palmer segment and Amtrak has the equipment to support it), the Vermonter is cut back to St Albans and the BOS-MTR train goes to Montreal instead, providing the Montreal to VT service that VT wants. VT would continue to pay for the Vermonter which also benefits central MA stations, MA pays for the BOS-MTR train which also benefits VT. Lot of ways for these plans to play out.

Is it even a possibility that a Boston-Montreal train could go via Manchester, Concord, and Lebanon to meet up with the current roue at White River Jct.? Google Maps makes it look like these tracks have somewhat been torn up but they are the designated Boston-Montreal high speed path. I have always seen this as the best route between these cities.

 

[afigg]

Is it even a possibility that a Boston-Montreal train could go via Manchester, Concord, and Lebanon to meet up with the current route at White River Jct.? Google Maps makes it look like these tracks have somewhat been torn up but they are the designated Boston-Montreal high speed path. I have always seen this as the best route between these cities.

The route through NH would clearly be the most direct route from BOS to MTR. The problem is New Hampshire and the lack of solid state support for passenger rail projects. The impression I got from somewhere in the MA DOT viewgraphs or MA State Rail Plan is that the state planners are looking at running a BOS-MTR through Worcester (which is the 2nd biggest city in MA), and then through central MA as a general route. I think MA would prefer to have a Boston to Montreal service run from South Station and go through Framingham and Worcester, so that drives the options for a route. The drawback of course, is that a BOS-MTR train to either Palmer and then north or further to SPG & then north is going to be the long way around to Montreal which would hurt though ridership.

BTW, came across this article written several weeks ago that confirms that the remaining HSIPR/ARRA track work for the 191 mile NECR route in Vermont is to be completed this summer or early fall with a completion ceremony planned for Brattleboro in October. That matches news reports that stated that the plan is to take 25-27 minutes off of the Vermonter schedule this fall, presumably when the new fall-winter schedule takes effect.

 

[Anderson]

Is it even a possibility that a Boston-Montreal train could go via Manchester, Concord, and Lebanon to meet up with the current route at White River Jct.? Google Maps makes it look like these tracks have somewhat been torn up but they are the designated Boston-Montreal high speed path. I have always seen this as the best route between these cities.

The route through NH would clearly be the most direct route from BOS to MTR. The problem is New Hampshire and the lack of solid state support for passenger rail projects. The impression I got from somewhere in the MA DOT viewgraphs or MA State Rail Plan is that the state planners are looking at running a BOS-MTR through Worcester (which is the 2nd biggest city in MA), and then through central MA as a general route. I think MA would prefer to have a Boston to Montreal service run from South Station and go through Framingham and Worcester, so that drives the options for a route. The drawback of course, is that a BOS-MTR train to either Palmer and then north or further to SPG & then north is going to be the long way around to Montreal which would hurt though ridership.

BTW, came across this article written several weeks ago that confirms that the remaining HSIPR/ARRA track work for the 191 mile NECR route in Vermont is to be completed this summer or early fall with a completion ceremony planned for Brattleboro in October. That matches news reports that stated that the plan is to take 25-27 minutes off of the Vermonter schedule this fall, presumably when the new fall-winter schedule takes effect.

...and cue yet another case where an intermediate state's disinterest in a project screws things up for the endpoint states/provinces (CT, WI and SC leap to mind as other examples; at least IN was more than happy to kick in an application with a caveat attached). Sadly, it's highly doubtful that MA, VT, or QC would be willing to provide any matches for that segment.*

*Would it even be allowed for one state to provide the match for a "linking section" in another state? I know the political issues there (in a lot of cases, voters can't sort out why having their state just swallow the cost for a few miles of road in another state for a good connection somewhere makes sense when the other state is being stubborn, so you've ended up with more than a few cases of an expressway terminating at the state line followed by a few miles of surface street, or a four-lane highway going to two lanes at a border...there was an infamous case of this at the VA/NC line for a long time), but assuming that several states wanted a project to go through, could they just fund the "troublesome" match themselves?

 

[jis]

I wonder what the traffic potential is between Boston and Montreal. At present there a 7 Canadair CRJ non-stop flights a day and about 14 other CRJ/ERJ based one stop connections. Even if all those traveling O/D BOS - YUL using those were to transfer to trains that would just fill a longish train maybe, depending on how many are O/D BOS - YUL and how many are connectors. I cannot see how one could justify spending mucho dinero rebuilding tracks on a partially abandoned RoW for this. So the most likely thing to happen will be along existing usable trackage, which indicate a routing via Palmer or Springfield. My guess is that it might be [referred to be via Palmer becuase of the Amherst routing, and there could indeed be even a Vermont terminator from Boston before anything happens to Montreal.

As for interest in rail, CT can hardly be categorized as a state uninterested in rail or opposed to rail. If anything it has actually bought more equipment in the recent past than Amtrak has. CT does aggressively protect what it perceives to be its primary interest, which is efficient, on time and reliable transport to New York, and one can't blame them for it. This unfortunately sometimes runs afoul of the desire to run the Amtrak trains a little faster on that railroad. Incidentally, many in NJ wish that NJT were as good as MNRR at protecting its interest on the NEC. And no matter what CT allows or not, and no matter how much railfans might dream, the cowpath of a railroad that MNRR is, will never support anything significantly faster than at most 90 mph in short spells between New Rochelle and New Haven. Restoration of the fourth track at the eastern end will of course help reduce congestion and increase schedule reliability for both MNRRR and Amtrak, and that is funded and in the works.