High-speed rail for NY to Canada?

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.

CHamilton

Engineer
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
5,301
Location
Seattle
U.S. Congresswoman calls for high-speed rail linking Manhattan to Canadian cities

New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney ... wants governments in [the US] and Canada to get moving on building a high-speed rail line that would link Manhattan, where her district lies, to cities north of the border.

“It would really help the economies of our countries dramatically,” Ms. Maloney insisted in an interview with The Globe and Mail, as she prepared to take the stage on Tuesday night at the Democratic National Convention here. “Both of our countries should get behind it, push it and make it happen.”

The dream of bringing European fast trains to North America has been around for decades without making much headway. But it got a powerful boost from President Barack Obama, whose stimulus bill allocated $8-billion for the development of high-speed rail projects. Most of that money is still waiting to be spent.

Only one cross-border link – between New York and Montreal – is mentioned in the U.S. Transportation Department’s 2010 list of “priority corridors.” But little progress has been made on advancing the project advocated by the Quebec government. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has expressed no enthusiasm for the idea.
 
U.S. Congresswoman calls for high-speed rail linking Manhattan to Canadian cities

New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney ... wants governments in [the US] and Canada to get moving on building a high-speed rail line that would link Manhattan, where her district lies, to cities north of the border.

“It would really help the economies of our countries dramatically,” Ms. Maloney insisted in an interview with The Globe and Mail, as she prepared to take the stage on Tuesday night at the Democratic National Convention here. “Both of our countries should get behind it, push it and make it happen.”

The dream of bringing European fast trains to North America has been around for decades without making much headway. But it got a powerful boost from President Barack Obama, whose stimulus bill allocated $8-billion for the development of high-speed rail projects. Most of that money is still waiting to be spent.

Only one cross-border link – between New York and Montreal – is mentioned in the U.S. Transportation Department’s 2010 list of “priority corridors.” But little progress has been made on advancing the project advocated by the Quebec government. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has expressed no enthusiasm for the idea.
Another one of these "won't happen anytime soon" feel good project ideas.
 
I don't think the current regime north of the border would to too receptive to this idea, considering what they have done to VIA recently.
 
I don't think the current regime north of the border would to too receptive to this idea, considering what they have done to VIA recently.
I agree that the current government in Ottawa would not be receptive to a NYC to Montreal HSR corridor proposal. Or any HSR proposal. Nor would most HSR supporters in the US at this time. The focus in the US is going to be for HSR on the NEC, in California, LA to Las Vegas, Mid-west, Dallas to Houston, and so on.

That said, NYC to Montreal is an obvious candidate for a HSR corridor, given the population size and wealth in both cities, the ~330 mile distance, and that both have extensive local transit systems for a HSR service to connect to.

I see in the news that the Seperationist party just won the elections for the providence of Quebec, albeit as a minority party with a bare plurality. The Seperationists, if they think about the economics and power politics, could look to improve transportation infrastructure and expand trade with the US to make the providence less dependent on Ottawa and the rest of Canada. One way to poke Ottawa and PM Harper in the eye would be to advocate for a HSR corridor service from Montreal to NYC. Not that I expect that to happen, but far stranger things have happened in politics.
 
I see in the news that the Seperationist party just won the elections for the providence of Quebec, albeit as a minority party with a bare plurality. The Seperationists, if they think about the economics and power politics, could look to improve transportation infrastructure and expand trade with the US to make the providence less dependent on Ottawa and the rest of Canada. One way to poke Ottawa and PM Harper in the eye would be to advocate for a HSR corridor service from Montreal to NYC. Not that I expect that to happen, but far stranger things have happened in politics.
I was thinking the same thing. As you say, the Parti Québécois does not have a majority in the new Quebec parliament, meaning that they will have to enter into a coalition with other parties. And it sounds like they have other priorities. But VIA -- and trains in general -- are very much entwined with the history of Canada, and so might be a potent symbol of the future of the country. Read Pierre Berton's The National Dream and The Last Spike: they're the definitive history of rail-building in Canada.
 
I see in the news that the Seperationist party just won the elections for the providence of Quebec, albeit as a minority party with a bare plurality. The Seperationists, if they think about the economics and power politics, could look to improve transportation infrastructure and expand trade with the US to make the providence less dependent on Ottawa and the rest of Canada. One way to poke Ottawa and PM Harper in the eye would be to advocate for a HSR corridor service from Montreal to NYC. Not that I expect that to happen, but far stranger things have happened in politics.
I was thinking the same thing. As you say, the Parti Québécois does not have a majority in the new Quebec parliament, meaning that they will have to enter into a coalition with other parties. And it sounds like they have other priorities. But VIA -- and trains in general -- are very much entwined with the history of Canada, and so might be a potent symbol of the future of the country. Read Pierre Berton's The National Dream and The Last Spike: they're the definitive history of rail-building in Canada.
Well, Charest was also a big fan of this project as well, so it's possible that you could get some cross-party cooperation on this front. No clue what the CAQ thinks on this front, but they're still pretty nebulous on a number of things.

The one thing in favor of this happening with or without the Canadian federal government is that the segment on that side of the border is <50 miles long. Even if you just bumped up the existing track grades there to allow a 60-70 MPH average (i.e. 79/90 MPH top speeds) and cut the St. Lambert stop, this would probably be workable. Not as nice as HSR-all-the-way, but plausible for the Quebec government to fund.
 
The one thing in favor of this happening with or without the Canadian federal government is that the segment on that side of the border is <50 miles long. Even if you just bumped up the existing track grades there to allow a 60-70 MPH average (i.e. 79/90 MPH top speeds) and cut the St. Lambert stop, this would probably be workable. Not as nice as HSR-all-the-way, but plausible for the Quebec government to fund.
Have you guys actually traveled on that line? Yes part of it can be upped to 90 (this is Canada where even 100mph is possible on non-signaled track), but there are other parts that will not be good for anything above 40mph, and some even as low as 15mph.

The real problem with HSR on this route is that building an HSR ROW through the Adirondacks won't come cheap, and all the population between NY and MTR would not be enough to justify such ahead of a dozen other potential corridors in the US. The current ex-DH ROW is never going to be exceedingly fast. One could possibly cut a couple of hours at best, and that would be it.
 
The one thing in favor of this happening with or without the Canadian federal government is that the segment on that side of the border is <50 miles long. Even if you just bumped up the existing track grades there to allow a 60-70 MPH average (i.e. 79/90 MPH top speeds) and cut the St. Lambert stop, this would probably be workable. Not as nice as HSR-all-the-way, but plausible for the Quebec government to fund.
Have you guys actually traveled on that line? Yes part of it can be upped to 90 (this is Canada where even 100mph is possible on non-signaled track), but there are other parts that will not be good for anything above 40mph, and some even as low as 15mph.

The real problem with HSR on this route is that building an HSR ROW through the Adirondacks won't come cheap, and all the population between NY and MTR would not be enough to justify such ahead of a dozen other potential corridors in the US. The current ex-DH ROW is never going to be exceedingly fast. One could possibly cut a couple of hours at best, and that would be it.
I was on it yesterday morning. Basically, I'm assuming that the "heavy lifting" will need to be on the US side of the border...for the most part the Canadian side consists of either running through open fields or in an urban RoW that is in decent condition (though with some curves that probably need fixing on the way into/out of Gare Central). Put another way, the sections that the US would cover are the ones where lots of money is needed; Canada has the "easy" sections.
 
The one thing in favor of this happening with or without the Canadian federal government is that the segment on that side of the border is <50 miles long. Even if you just bumped up the existing track grades there to allow a 60-70 MPH average (i.e. 79/90 MPH top speeds) and cut the St. Lambert stop, this would probably be workable. Not as nice as HSR-all-the-way, but plausible for the Quebec government to fund.
Have you guys actually traveled on that line? Yes part of it can be upped to 90 (this is Canada where even 100mph is possible on non-signaled track), but there are other parts that will not be good for anything above 40mph, and some even as low as 15mph.

The real problem with HSR on this route is that building an HSR ROW through the Adirondacks won't come cheap, and all the population between NY and MTR would not be enough to justify such ahead of a dozen other potential corridors in the US. The current ex-DH ROW is never going to be exceedingly fast. One could possibly cut a couple of hours at best, and that would be it.
I was on it yesterday morning. Basically, I'm assuming that the "heavy lifting" will need to be on the US side of the border...for the most part the Canadian side consists of either running through open fields or in an urban RoW that is in decent condition (though with some curves that probably need fixing on the way into/out of Gare Central). Put another way, the sections that the US would cover are the ones where lots of money is needed; Canada has the "easy" sections.
I agree
 
Well, a practical question: I know there are some sections of the current routing that can only get sped up so far, but most of the bad ones here are right along Lake Champlain. The "really bad" part seems mostly contained to Plattsburgh-Westport or Plattsburgh-Lake George, and even within that you've probably got places you could bump the track from 15 MPH to 30 MPH or 40 MPH to 50 MPH with simply straightening a few curves or relaying some track. South of Westport or Lake George, the train seems to make good time, and north of Plattsburgh the problem is the customs stop and the attached "pads" plus a few lousy curves entering Montreal.

Additionally, there's a fat pad north of Albany when you're SB. On my ride yesterday, we were about 30-50 minutes behind from the border until before SDY, but we were on time pulling into Albany. I think there's some padding in there to accommodate delays "up north" that borders on insane: NB, you depart Albany at 11:05 AM and arrive at Saratoga Springs at 11:57 AM (52 minutes for 37 miles...believable, if slower than ideal). SB, you depart Saratoga Springs at 3:53 PM and arrive at Albany at 5:40 PM (1:47, or 107 minutes, for the same 37 miles). Basically...there's an hour of pad as you approach Albany to deal with the fact that US Customs can take an insane amount of time running through the train, plus incidental freight issues. Amtrak clearly really wants the train onto the ALB-NYP segment on time.

Practically speaking, it strikes me that you might be able to get NYP-ALB down by at least 15 minutes without breaking the bank (2:15 here would only imply an average speed of 63 MPH...hell, they pull that and change on the Peninsula Sub and they're looking to run that down even further; 2:00 would imply 70.5 MPH, which seems like the upper limit of "reasonable"), possibly more if you start cutting stops. I think you realistically have 2:00 of inspection plus padding in for the border stop each way. Moreover, I think you could easily cut 15-20 minutes off north of the border without too much work through "cheap" improvements such as improving track conditions and possibly fixing one or two curves south of MTR proper, plus eliminating the "doomed" St. Lambert stop. I guess the operative question is how much you can beat out of the D&H south of Lake Champlain...again, 15 minutes is one thing, but could you "find" an hour or more here without a major overhaul? And how well would a 7-8 hour trip time "sell"?

There's one other practical question: Given the sheer mass of traffic that runs between the endpoints, it seems like you could shed an hour or more by slashing stops from an "express Adirondack" and apply that time to moving a frequency later in the morning (so as to allow comfortable connections from south of NYP, if not a link with one of the Florida trains). Considering the sheer mass of border-crossing traffic, how much traffic could you get onto a train that "only" stops at ALB and Rouses Point en route and/or how many intermediate stops would you need to make the train work?*

*Only marginally related, but I'm likewise wondering how much business that "express" might generate on the southern end as well, if properly timed. Again, assuming 5 minutes per stop, cutting the 5 intermediate stops plus limited track-related improvements could get you 1:50 or so NYP-ALB. While that alone won't sell, if you could couple that with a NYP-MTR time at or below seven hours, I think you would be able to not only sell that train, but also get a limited premium for it.

tl;dr: Amtrak could probably run an 8:00 Adirondack Express by moving Customs into MTR and cutting all intermediate stops not involving crew changes. At that point, the improvements to get a train into the 7:00 range become easily foreseeable, and if timed properly such a train should have extensive market reach.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's one other practical question: Given the sheer mass of traffic that runs between the endpoints, it seems like you could shed an hour or more by slashing stops from an "express Adirondack" and apply that time to moving a frequency later in the morning (so as to allow comfortable connections from south of NYP, if not a link with one of the Florida trains). Considering the sheer mass of border-crossing traffic, how much traffic could you get onto a train that "only" stops at ALB and Rouses Point en route and/or how many intermediate stops would you need to make the train work?*
Even with a second daily Adirondack, there would be political pressure from the up state politicians to have the train stop at many of the stations on the route, even if they have tiny annual boarding numbers. One of the realities that will be encountered with state supported train services. You may need 3 or 4 daily trains over a route to have one be a super express train.

As for speeding up the Adirondack, it will obviously benefit from the funded improvements between NYP and Schenectady and Amtrak taking full control of the corridor between Poughkeepsie and Schenectady (SDY). Having control of the NYP to SDY with a busy NYP-ALB route does provide a good foundation for future speed and service incremental enhancements and for a stair step approach to a HSR corridor to MTR.

One of the applications that NY State submitted in the original round of HSIPR applications was for an Adirondack Service Reliability Initiative for $23.5 million to upgrade the tracks from Schenectady to Whitehall and Plattsburgh to Rouses Point to class IV with 79 mph max speeds. 14 miles of jointed track were to be replaced with CWR, modify grade crossings warning devices for the higher speed, etc. It was projected to cut 12.5 minutes off of the trip time.

With the Ethan Allen sharing Schenectady to (almost) Whitehall segment, speed improvements on that section benefit service to VT as well which means support from 2 states for serious upgrades to that segment. Such as double tracking much of it to support 2 daily Ethan Allens extended to Burlington and 2 daily Adirondacks.

For the tracks between Whitehall and Rouses Point, I think the only realistic approach will be small incremental improvements to fix congestion choke-points and really slow sections. Grow ridership on the Adirondack service significantly and build the political support over many years to then get serious about a NYP to MTR true HSR project.
 
I'll agree that you'd need either a third train and/or two tightly-spaced trains to "get away with" skipping most (or all) stops. However, I'm going to disagree that you couldn't shave off most of the downstate stops a la the LSL...if nothing else, you could probably cut everything south of ALB save NYP if you had an earlier Empire Service train that provided a legal connection (which I'd note could be comparatively tight in this case, too, given the equipment stop at ALB), or everything but PKE if you really wanted a direct MNRR connection. North of SDY, though, I do think some stops are skippable:

Rouses Point 1,498

Plattsburgh 12,401

Port Kent 692

Westport 4,520

Port Henry 2,160

Ticonderoga 1,627

Whitehall 1,655

Fort Edward* 8,867

Saratoga Springs* 29,742

The ones in bold seem like they might be skippable; Port Kent has only one passenger per train on average, and the others only have 2-3 each. Granted, I believe this would increase with the addition of another train, but I'd also argue that such stops might also be made seasonal for an additional train. Rouses Point only survives this axe because of the engineer change at the border.

Westport and Fort Edward have enough traffic to potentially justify their existence unless you're going to a "true express", though the latter might be cuttable if you got an additional Ethan Allen on the route (since that's the last stop the trains share).

By the way, I've got a good peg on the number of passengers to/from MTR in that report: 74,008 less Rouses Point and St. Lambert traffic, or about 71,000-ish (perhaps plus a few hundred for any SB traffic out of Rouses Point, and potentially also plus some traffic that would transfer into MTR without a St. Lambert stop), or about 100 folks per train on average, plus growth since 2008 (which should get you to around 120 or so per train now, or a good number more during peak season and 60-80 during the slower seasons). Considering the constraints on through traffic (trains either getting capacity locked by the border folks or being sold out south of ALB; I've seen both), this sort of selling year in and year out isn't bad at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rouses Point only survives this axe because of the engineer change at the border.
The operating crew doesn't change at Rouses Point. They work Albany to Montreal, then return the next day.

If anything, Rouses is a bit more about US Customs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll agree that you'd need either a third train and/or two tightly-spaced trains to "get away with" skipping most (or all) stops. However, I'm going to disagree that you couldn't shave off most of the downstate stops a la the LSL...if nothing else, you could probably cut everything south of ALB save NYP if you had an earlier Empire Service train that provided a legal connection (which I'd note could be comparatively tight in this case, too, given the equipment stop at ALB), or everything but PKE if you really wanted a direct MNRR connection.
You and I could think all we want, but the issue is very very political, since the train survives due to tremendous effort on part of the Adirondack region legislature. This train has been on the potential cutting block each year for the last ten years, rescued at the last moment by some weird deal of mutual back scratching between upstate and downstate Legislature and the Governor. In general there has been way more enthusiasm about having endless meetings and issuing numerous press releases about the future than about actually coming up with the necessary funds, and this when NY did not have to cover operating deficits of the entire Empire Service. Just sitting through the discussions about the Adirondack at the ESPA meetings with the state transport commissioner's representative and legislative assistants for relevant NY legislators is an interesting eye opening experience to say the least.

The current focus for funding in NY State is on maintaining and enhancing Empire Corridor service which includes taking over funding from Amtrak, with certain added attention to west of Albany service, and upgrading of Poughkeepsie - Hoffmans. While there is much talk about north of Albany, enthusiasm wanes very quickly as one heads north of Saratoga. Heck maybe there is an opportunity for contracting the whole thing north of Albany out to S&NC some day and getting better service. Who knows? (I am just flying a random kite here based on next to nothing :) )
 
Rouses Point only survives this axe because of the engineer change at the border.
The operating crew doesn't change at Rouses Point. They work Albany to Montreal, then return the next day.

If anything, Rouses is a bit more about US Customs.
Ah, ok. Sorry...the Vermonter's experience with a crew change at St. Alban's made me (stupidly) assume that the crew was switched here, either because of union restrictions/old operating rules or because of border "issues". That's another stop that could probably be dropped, then. That brings a total of 9 stops that are probably droppable without too much fuss (6 on ridership/logistics, 3 on redundancy):

St. Lambert

Rouses Point

Point Kent

Port Henry

Ticonderoga

Whitehall

Hudson

Rhinecliff

Yonkers

You could probably get to 11-12 stops if you go to a total express run south of ALB and skip Fort Edward as well.
 
If you cut out every stop between Albany and the border, you might save 25-30 minutes.

Low passenger counts already make for fairly quick dwells, and since the speeds tend to be fairly low anyway (I don't have the exact timetable handy), the acceleration penalty isn't as much as if you were to stop on a stretch where you'd otherwise be running 79.
 
Ah, ok. Sorry...the Vermonter's experience with a crew change at St. Alban's made me (stupidly) assume that the crew was switched here, either because of union restrictions/old operating rules or because of border "issues".
Huh? Since the Vermonter has never run beyond St. Albans, what exactly are you talking about? The crew that takes it to St. Albans brings it back the next day.
 
Talking about HSR between NY and Canada really feels like putting the cart before the horse.

As others have pointed out the focus should be on reducing trip times between NYP and ALB or SDY.

When that corridor looks more like the Keystone. Then we can talk about pushing HSR up to Cannada.

-As a cheaper alternative though, I think NYP-TWO and NYP-MTR would be great candidates for overnight trains.

Imagine getting on a train at 9PM in NYP and waking up at 8AM in either city. :wub:
 
By the way, I've got a good peg on the number of passengers to/from MTR in that report: 74,008 less Rouses Point and St. Lambert traffic, or about 71,000-ish (perhaps plus a few hundred for any SB traffic out of Rouses Point, and potentially also plus some traffic that would transfer into MTR without a St. Lambert stop), or about 100 folks per train on average, plus growth since 2008 (which should get you to around 120 or so per train now, or a good number more during peak season and 60-80 during the slower seasons). Considering the constraints on through traffic (trains either getting capacity locked by the border folks or being sold out south of ALB; I've seen both), this sort of selling year in and year out isn't bad at all.
No need to guess the passenger counts for Montreal. Montreal and Saint-Lambert are listed on the Great American Stations website although Quebec is not exactly a US state. The Ottawa stations for the Maple Leaf are not listed which I figure is because the ML is a VIA train north of the border. For FY11:

Montreal Gare Centrale: 84,851

Saint-Lambert: 1,405

Apparent why dropping Saint-Lambert as a stop in exchange for a Customs facility in MTR is not a big deal.

On the express train idea, unless I'm mistaken, all of the Adirondack stops from Albany southward have high level platforms which reduce the typical station dwell time except for Rhinecliff and Hudson. With Amtrak taking control of the Poughkeepsie to SDY segment and with the level boarding requirement in effect, NY state and Amtrak may put priority towards installing full length high levels with freight bypass tracks in Rhinecliff and Hudson. All high level platforms through to Schenectady would cut trip times for both the Empire service trains and the Adirondack.

North of Schenectady, the low passenger count stations may not slow the schedule that much if they are in the middle of a slow 30 or 40 mph section. I don't have track charts though. I see the economic and trip time savings argument for dropping some of the less used stations north of SDY for a second daily Adirondack, but politics can trump that. First, have to get ridership and demand to the level that adding a second Adirondack is viable and does not cost much to add - and the equipment is available to support it. Second, an "express" Adirondack is only helpful if the departure times from NYP and MTR work for your schedule.

What we will have with the Adirondack over the next few years is the opportunity to see the effects on ridership of incrementally reducing trip times. First, a Customs Facility in MTR could cut an hour or more off in 1 fell swoop. Then the second track between ALB and SDY, maybe if 2014. Then track improvements south of ALB and track improvements in Canada. Also see how the cost recovery improves with faster trip times.
 
Given the political situation in Albany, TBH a second day Adirondack (esp. an express train) won't be viable unless the trip time falls drastically.

However, an interesting idea would be an overnight train, which could run express through the rural overnight section. Better yet, it seems possible that such a train could get away without a diner if it leaves each terminal at, say, 8:30 PM and arrives at 8 the next morning, since there wouldn't be enough time to serve any meals. If the cafe car food is upgraded slightly, it should work.1

Here's a possible schedule:

What other stops would such a train really need?

NYP.....20:30......08:00

POU..._21:50......06:30

ALB__..23:00......05:20

ALB__..23:10......05:10

WSP....02:10......02:10

MTR__..08:00.....20:30

1One of the loss leaders for the LD trains is the dining car; if this is cut and replaced with an enhanced cafe car (as discussed in one of the PRIIA reports IIRC) then this could be quite a viable option.

Comments?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What needs to happen first is adding a couple more cars to the present train to enhance its capacity to allow for relatively easy ridership increase. Everything else could follow if the ridership evolution justifies.
 
Given the political situation in Albany, TBH a second day Adirondack (esp. an express train) won't be viable unless the trip time falls drastically.

However, an interesting idea would be an overnight train, which could run express through the rural overnight section. Better yet, it seems possible that such a train could get away without a diner if it leaves each terminal at, say, 8:30 PM and arrives at 8 the next morning, since there wouldn't be enough time to serve any meals. If the cafe car food is upgraded slightly, it should work.1

Here's a possible schedule:

...

Comments?
The track distance from NYP to MTR is 381 miles. Why would the state of NY provide state subsidy funding for an overnight train with sleeper cars that passes through upper state NY in the middle of the night? Unless or until trains can operate over the corridor at a net operating profit or at breakeven with multiple daily trains, the odds of an overnight train with a sleeper car are remote. With the requirement that states provide subsidies for all trains of less than 750 miles, states are not going to fund overnight trains with sleeper cars except for specific scenarios where the state is at the endpoint of a long route.

[edit: fixed typo]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Given the political situation in Albany, TBH a second day Adirondack (esp. an express train) won't be viable unless the trip time falls drastically.

However, an interesting idea would be an overnight train, which could run express through the rural overnight section. Better yet, it seems possible that such a train could get away without a diner if it leaves each terminal at, say, 8:30 PM and arrives at 8 the next morning, since there wouldn't be enough time to serve any meals. If the cafe car food is upgraded slightly, it should work.1

Here's a possible schedule:

...

Comments?
The track distance from NYP to MTR is 371 miles. Why would the state of NY provide state subsidy funding for an overnight train with sleeper cars that passes through upper state NY in the middle of the night? Unless or until trains can operate over the corridor at a net operating profit or at breakeven with multiple daily trains, the odds of an overnight train with a sleeper car are remote. With the requirement that states provide subsidies for all trains of less than 750 miles, states are not going to fund overnight trains with sleeper cars except for specific scenarios where the state is at the endpoint of a long route.
I can give three reasons that are practical:

1) It's cheaper than flying by a lot, and an overnight train makes such a trip practical. The Montrealer only collapsed because of consistently bad track conditions and resulting reliability issues. The biggest issues with the Adirondack, relating to cost recovery, are almost entirely an artifact of the limited capacity for traffic crossing the border. Remove that issue and get reliable OTP, and you've got a lot of untapped ridership potential. Based on the selling out that you tend to run into near peak season, I think the Adirondack could easily support another car or two in its current form, and that's with only one daily frequency. An overnight train would actually serve the business community.

2) The train for this already exists; it just happens to originate/terminate in Albany. Extend 243 to MTR and have 250/232 originate in MTR and it's your schedule almost perfectly. If you can keep the OBS situation in hand (look at some of the European "night train" operations...they'll have a cafe-lounge, not a "full" diner), this shouldn't be an issue.

3) Finally, an overnight train would almost assuredly come alongside the addition of the secure facility at Gare Central. That's going to drop travel time by about 2:00 or so on its own.

This actually raises a serious secondary question: Has New York given any serious thought to making a single level car purchase? I'm not thinking just in relation to the Adirondack, but in general they seem to be the state most likely to put together a federal grant request for a set of single-level corridor cars (possibly along with PA).
 
This actually raises a serious secondary question: Has New York given any serious thought to making a single level car purchase? I'm not thinking just in relation to the Adirondack, but in general they seem to be the state most likely to put together a federal grant request for a set of single-level corridor cars (possibly along with PA).
New York has been busy living high off the hog by getting services for free that most other states are paying for.

They haven't even been thinking about buying cars; although that may change now that they have to fund the Empire Corridor. Or maybe not.

After all, up until this past year those in Albany seem to have believed that the costs of running the MTA haven't gone up in more than 10 years. Which is to say that for many years they hadn't increased the amount of money sent to the MTA to help support things.
 
Back
Top