Vermonter Timetable Improvements

[George Harris]

Train speeds to increase in Vermont March 11

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — The Vermont Transportation Agency is warning people that trains will be moving faster between the Massachusetts border and St. Albans.

On March 11, train speeds are being increased to up to 79 miles per hour south of White River Junction and up to 59 mph to the north.

The speed increases follow upgrades to the tracks.

The upgrades included improvements to 46 road crossings, but there are still a number of non-gated crossings.

See no point in getting too excited about this. The speed limit north of White River Jct. has been 59 mph for many years, curvature permitting. Whether that has been the case for the last few years, I do not know, but looking at the accident report for the 1984 Montrealer derailment, it was then, and the train was being operated at that speed, again curvature permitted.

As to the 79 mph south of WRJ: No need to get too excited about this either. Look at a map. The line is so crooked it is unlikely to mean much if any running at that speed. The main time saving will be in getting back on the river line throughout thereby eliminating the current detour.

 

[transit54]

See no point in getting too excited about this. The speed limit north of White River Jct. has been 59 mph for many years, curvature permitting. Whether that has been the case for the last few years, I do not know, but looking at the accident report for the 1984 Montrealer derailment, it was then, and the train was being operated at that speed, again curvature permitted.
As to the 79 mph south of WRJ: No need to get too excited about this either. Look at a map. The line is so crooked it is unlikely to mean much if any running at that speed. The main time saving will be in getting back on the river line throughout thereby eliminating the current detour.

The higher speed saves 28 minutes, IIRC (could be +/- a min or two). Yes, there is much more savings associated with the Mass work (I think in the area of 40-50 min).

I think the primary reason for the press release that you quoted was to warn residents that trains will be coming through at faster speeds, even if they aren't hitting top speed. The NECR will be picking up the speed of their freight traffic, also, although they are similarly restricted by the geography of the line as you mention.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

I think the primary reason for the press release that you quoted was to warn residents that trains will be coming through at faster speeds, even if they aren't hitting top speed.

Joke I heard while living in Vermont:

A Texas rancher is visiting Vermont. He is out enjoying a walk along a dirt road which climbs through the woods, when he comes upon a clearing where a Vermonter is working beside the road tending the fence to his pasture. They start chatting about livestock when the Texan says: "When I'm at home, I can drive for half a day and not reach the end of my property." The Vermonter hears this, gets a knowing look on his face, and says: "You know, I had a car that ran like that once too." :huh:

 

[afigg]

The higher speed saves 28 minutes, IIRC (could be +/- a min or two). Yes, there is much more savings associated with the Mass work (I think in the area of 40-50 min).
I think the primary reason for the press release that you quoted was to warn residents that trains will be coming through at faster speeds, even if they aren't hitting top speed. The NECR will be picking up the speed of their freight traffic, also, although they are similarly restricted by the geography of the line as you mention.

Not difficult to check the schedule change on the Amtrak reservation system. Starting on March 17, the northbound Vermonter is to arrive at St. Albans at 8:57 PM compared to the current 9:25 PM. I suspect the trains have been running at the higher speeds for a while. The reason for the press release is to get positive publicity about the 28 minutes in time time reduction and get more Vermonters to take the train.
The trip time savings in MA for the re-route over the CT River Line have been projected to be about 25 minutes. There will 3 station stops in MA north of SPG not just the one at Amherst, so the stops are adding time to the trip. Getting rid of the back-up move will increase schedule reliability and, I would imagine, will cut operating costs by eliminating the need for a 2nd engine or cab car.

As the double tracking restoration, track, signal & grade crossing, station upgrades on the New Haven to Springfield corridor are completed, the trip times may get cut in several stages through 2016-2017 on that segment. The schedule for the Vermonter may remain pretty close to what it is now south of NHV and/or NYP. The trip time savings north of NHV will be used in extending the train to Montreal. Which my bet would be on taking place before the end of 2015, if there is not a hold-up in getting treaty agreements modified.

 

[Anderson]

If, between the NHV-SAB improvements and putative SAB-MTR improvements, enough time is knocked off the trip, I could see a "slot swap" happen with a train an hour or so later. But I don't see Amtrak just "sliding trains around" on the NEC. As to the question of the earlier times not being the best for intrastate travel, I think what Vermont really wants to avoid is moving the train around repeatedly in different directions. If there's a hope of getting the extension to MTR by 2015 or 2016, then that would speak to pushing most or all modifications in that general direction since a pre-8 AM departure from MTR is probably going to be a headache.

While we're on the topic, has there been any further talk about VT "doubling up" either of its trains? I know that's been mentioned before as another priority of theirs. Likewise, any word on the Ethan Allen extension?

 

[afigg]

While we're on the topic, has there been any further talk about VT "doubling up" either of its trains? I know that's been mentioned before as another priority of theirs. Likewise, any word on the Ethan Allen extension?

I believe the concept is that a second train over the Vermonter route in VT could be provided by a Boston to Montreal train. But that could be a long ways off if CSX demands Worcester to Springfield capacity upgrades first and MA would have to pay for it.

On the Ethan Allen extension, why would there be news? The Governor is pushing for annual funding allotments to upgrade the corridor one segment and year at a time.

On the revenue side for transportation, looks like VT will add a 2% wholesale tax on gasoline, which I expect would go mostly for transportation. AP news article on a VT House committee backing the new gas tax.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I think they would have to upgrade the whole route to 79 mph before any service additions, like extention to MTR or BOS-MTR. I think that ridership gains could be huge with a well-timed extension to MTR. Too bad the line is in such bad shape.

 

[jphjaxfl]

I think they would have to upgrade the whole route to 79 mph before any service additions, like extention to MTR or BOS-MTR. I think that ridership gains could be huge with a well-timed extension to MTR. Too bad the line is in such bad shape.

As George Harris pointed out, its the terraine, not that the line is in bad shape. To get 79MPH, you would have to build a complete new rail line.

 

[transit54]

Not difficult to check the schedule change on the Amtrak reservation system. Starting on March 17, the northbound Vermonter is to arrive at St. Albans at 8:57 PM compared to the current 9:25 PM. I suspect the trains have been running at the higher speeds for a while. The reason for the press release is to get positive publicity about the 28 minutes in time time reduction and get more Vermonters to take the train.

The NECR has only authorized the speed increase as of March 11, I believe. So the trains have not been running faster, even though the work has been wrapped up for a while.

While we're on the topic, has there been any further talk about VT "doubling up" either of its trains? I know that's been mentioned before as another priority of theirs. Likewise, any word on the Ethan Allen extension?

The State has committed to completing the extension of the Ethan Allen by 2017. As afigg alluded to, they will be doing the needed upgrades incrementally using state funds, unless federal funds become available, in which case the work may conclude sooner. I doubt you'd ever see the trains "doubled up."

If, between the NHV-SAB improvements and putative SAB-MTR improvements, enough time is knocked off the trip, I could see a "slot swap" happen with a train an hour or so later. But I don't see Amtrak just "sliding trains around" on the NEC. As to the question of the earlier times not being the best for intrastate travel, I think what Vermont really wants to avoid is moving the train around repeatedly in different directions. If there's a hope of getting the extension to MTR by 2015 or 2016, then that would speak to pushing most or all modifications in that general direction since a pre-8 AM departure from MTR is probably going to be a headache.

Yes, I would imagine that a slot swap would be what you would see, unless there was another clear opening identified that the train could be scheduled into. Other than the southbound arrival into NYP, the train does not really traverse the NEC at peak times. In fact, delaying the departure from WAS would move the train even more so out of peak times.

I don't think there's any hope of MTR by 2015. 2016, maybe. There is a good amount of track work that needs to be done in Canada that hasn't even been funded, yet alone begun. The other consideration with going into MTR is that you'd have to reasonably offset the train from the Adirondack. Given the shorter length of the Adirondack's trip (which will be even shorter once pre-clearance is put into place), I think it would be the easier train to move back - perhaps a 10 or 11 AM departure. I could see the Vermont be scheduled in around 7:30, to provide a sufficient offset.

In any event, I think that the extension is so far off in the future that we can only speculate at this point regarding the impacts on the schedule. VT is going to need to change the schedule twice: once when the MA work is done, and once when the connection to Montreal is finally completed. However, keeping the NEC timepoints the same ultimately minimizes the benefit that VT gets from the work. An adjustment is needed, most likely around the time the MA work is done. Obviously there are constraints that the state and Amtrak will need to work around, but I am relatively hopeful that it will happen.

 

[Nathanael]

As to the question of the earlier times not being the best for intrastate travel, I think what Vermont really wants to avoid is moving the train around repeatedly in different directions. If there's a hope of getting the extension to MTR by 2015 or 2016, then that would speak to pushing most or all modifications in that general direction

I would agree. Since Vermont's long-term plan is to make this a train from Montreal to New York (& beyond) via Vermont, I would expect the schedule to be pushed in the direction of that schedule whenever it changes.

You might see rearrangement of trains on the NEC, but not until Vermont is satisfied with the "northern end" timetable.

 

[Nathanael]

In any event, I think that the extension is so far off in the future that we can only speculate at this point regarding the impacts on the schedule. VT is going to need to change the schedule twice: once when the MA work is done, and once when the connection to Montreal is finally completed.

Three times. Also when the Connecticut work is done, which is probably going to be after the MA work.

 

[afigg]

Amtrak has posted a news release on the new Vermonter schedule that will start on March 18. The new timetable is on the second page of the news release. Excerpt from the first paragraphs of the news release:

NEW YORK — Amtrak, in partnership with the Vermont Agency of Transportation and New England Central Railroad, announced a revised schedule beginning March 18, on the Vermonter service between St. Albans, Vt. and Washington, D.C.The new timetable (below) is highlighted by a reduction in overall travel time by up to 28 minutes and is the direct result of a recently completed two-year, federally funded program which provided for the upgrade and repair of a 190-mile stretch of track, signal and other key infrastructure equipment owned and maintained by New England Central Railroad.

“The Vermonter project to upgrade the New England Central Railroad main line is a great example of a very successful public-private partnership, helping both rail passenger and freight services,” said Raymond Goss, Senior, Vice President, New England Central Railroad. “This project involved the Vermont Agency of Transportation, the Federal Railroad Administration and the Railroad. We are happy to be part of this partnership.”

As a result of these improvements, track speeds along the route within Vermont have been increased, from 55 mph to a maximum 59 mph north of White River Junction and from 59 mph to a maximum 79 mph south of that location to the Massachusetts border. Below the Vermont border, track speeds will remain unchanged. These efforts will reduce overall travel time and improve reliability.

The odd thing in the Vermonter schedule is the long 47 minute wait at NYP on Saturdays and Sundays for the northbound #54. That can't help with ridership from south of NYP to VT. At some point, they should adjust the southern NEC weekend AM schedule and have the weekend Vermonter depart WAS closer to 8 AM.

 

[Anderson]

I think there is a very, very strong desire on Amtrak's part to keep everything on the NEC on time that they can, esp. WAS-NYP. And I've heard that one thing Vermont wants to do is get a second train on the route, to offset some of the troubles that optimizing an MTR train may pose.

 

[afigg]

I think there is a very, very strong desire on Amtrak's part to keep everything on the NEC on time that they can, esp. WAS-NYP. And I've heard that one thing Vermont wants to do is get a second train on the route, to offset some of the troubles that optimizing an MTR train may pose.

Looking up a couple of older Vermonter schedules, the long wait at NYP for the Sat-Sun trains; ~45 minutes NB, ~35 minutes southbound, has been there since at least 2005. Guess they are putting the extra NYP time in to provide a buffer for weekend trackwork, north and south of NYP. The WAS-NYP potion of the Vermonter schedule has not changed much except to reduce excess padding for the #55 weekday train which in 2009, departed NYP at 7:05 PM, arrived WAS 10:30 PM.

I think there will not be any significant changes to the Vermonter schedules between WAS and NHV, except as part of a bigger NEC Regional reshuffle and there is not much reason to expect Amtrak to do that in the next several years. The trip time savings in MA and on the NHV-SPG line will be used to implement later departures southbound and arrivals northbound.

One nuisance of the weekend 7:30 AM departure from WAS is that the DC Metro system does not starting running until 7 AM on Saturdays & Sundays. That makes it impossible to take the DC Metro to Union Station in time to get on #54 on weekends.

As for a second train over the route in VT, the Vermonter only had 82K passenger north of SPG in FY2012. That is not enough traffic to justify a second daily train, at least by VT. Got to build ridership first, and wait to see of the extension to Montreal can be done. Then see whether MA is willing and able to fund a Boston to Montreal train.

 

[Anderson]

Vermont has been pushing to upgrade service as much as possible, though, and there have been rumblings in recent years about the following:
(1) A second Ethan Allen (presumably post-extension to Burlington)

(2) A second Vermonter (presumably either a shuttle or a course-altered NER running up to SAB)

(3) Vermonter to MTR

The point about the BOS-MTR train does raise an interesting possibility that I hadn't thought of before: I know VT gets a lot of vacationers from New York and so forth. I wonder how many they get from the upper end of the NEC? This comes to mind because if there's enough tourist traffic for it to be a reasonable draw and the operating subsidy would be small enough (I have no idea what the Vermonter's subsidy looks like, given the "seat purchase" rule I've heard about), I could see Vermont going in on that (in part or in whole).

 

[battalion51]

Its all about slots. If you look at the NEC Timetable you can see that 172 & 54 pretty much share the same slot while 56 & 152 share the same slot. Remember that there's a lot of complexities in the way the system is set up, its not quite as simple as just moving a train around because it has cascading effects on SEPTA, NJT, Yard Crews, Mechanical, and trainset utilization.