No, the Montreal extension is more than just "talk". VT has received funding with a TIGER grant to upgrade the tracks all the way to the VT-Canada border. The various US federal agencies are in negotiations with their Canadian counterparts on the treaty revisions and procedural issues on setting up a Customs Facility in Montreal. There are floor plans and IIRC a preliminary design contract was awarded for the facility. The primary US side driver for the facility is NY state for the Adirondack with VT in a support role. The wheels of bureaucracy are turning slowly on this, but they are turning. It could happen in the next several years, we'll see.. I expect there will be a news update sometime this year. Jis may have more recent news on the status.Montreal extension just talk for now. Up to Vermont and Quebec to come up with cash for track repairs, customs/immigration facility at Gare Central.
What they plan to do apparently is use a currently little used platform track as the international platform with attached C&I upstairs at the concourse level. Of course none of this will happen until the Canadian Parliament and the US Congress can pass the modified treaty necessary to allow American CBP agents to work on Canadian soil beyond airports and Vancouver Pacific Central Station (and anywhere else where they operate now). If and when it happens it is envisaged that a CBP detachment from the American CBP staff assigned to Dorval will handle C&I on departures to the US from Gare Centrale.You are correct. There is a fenced off Customs track in Vancouver. Part of the problem at Gare Central is that it is an underground station (like NYP) with numerous trains (both intercity and commuter) throughout the day.
The re-route over the CT River Line has slipped to 2015. Found a recent news article that mentions it as part of a report on Mass DOT plans for the Inland route and improving Boston to Springfield service: Talk of high-speed rail between Springfield and Boston heats up. I think Worcester to Springfield would be upgraded to 79 mph Class IV, hardly high speed, but sloppy headline writers are nothing new. Mass DOT has posted a five year Capital Improvement Plan which calls for $249 million over the next 5 years for a grab bag of rail projects - seasonal Cape Cod service track upgrades., Springfield station, Housatonic Railroad upgrades and Inland Route. I would not rule out a return of at least 1 daily Inland Route Regional by or in 2017 once the funded NHV-SPG upgrades are completed and Worcester to Framingham-BOS upgrades for MBTA service are done.The reroute of the Vermonter to the Connecticut River Line is a separate project which will probably finish earlier. It was supposed to happen in (late) 2014, but it may have slipped to (early) 2015. Massachusetts seems to have difficulty doing projects on schedule.
...
The extensions of the Ethan Allen are Vermont's other big project, and unlike the rest of the things I mentioned, those extensions are not funded. But the governor of Vermont has announced that he's going to get the extension to Burlington done, and bits of trackwork keep getting funded and built in dribs and drabs.
The Inland Rail Study is considering a 484-mile route through Springfield that would go beyond the St. Albans terminus of Amtrak’s Vermonter and connect the Northeast with a northern anchor in the Quebec capital, traveling at an estimated top speed of 90 miles an hour, Franklin County’s regional transportation planning manager Maureen Mullaney told the Franklin Regional Planning Board this week.
Here's a link to Power-Point presentation with floor plans and photos of the proposed facility in Gare Centrale
http://www.thetbwg.org/meetings/201304/presentations/D1P7a.ppt
There's only a short section of track on the Quebec side of the border that would require upgrading between Vermont and Cantic where a "Vermonter" would junction with the Adirondack's route into Montreal.
https://www.google.ca/maps/preview#!q=Cantic%2C+QC&data=!4m15!2m14!1m13!1s0x4cc985e4686a94b5%3A0x2cfb12a32b56f0ba!3m8!1m3!1d9408!2d-73.34938!3d45.0649755!3m2!1i1366!2i641!4f13.1!4m2!3d45.064976!4d-73.34938
.....And a pre-clearance facility would require the elimination of the suburban St. Lambert stop as the trains would have to run non-stop between Montreal and the US/Can border.
I think people keep tossing out that 90mph number not because they have any clue about what the profile of a route is and whether any train can practically run at such a speed for any sustained length of time, but simply because that is what you get for Class 6 track and it requires very minimal grade crossing work.Where is this "90 MPH" stretch? :huh: Certainly not in Vermont!
Actually the only statistic that has any meaning is departure to arrival time.For all these routes these people throwing around "high speed" "90 mph" and similar talk need to learn how to read maps and observe the crookedness of many of these rail lines. You can post all the 90 mph maximum speeds you want, but if you have numerous 40 to 60 mph curves and a route that is several miles longer than the semi parallel interstate highway, you will NOT achieve run times faster than driving times, or even close to them.
A hint: The Crescent takes 4 hours between Atlanta and Birmingham over a 165 mile line. google Maps says 2 hours 17 minutes and 147 miles. NS has a 79 mph speed lmit on this route, so why not the 60 mph, that is 2 hours 45 minutes that is easily achievable with a 79 mph speed limt? One answer, curves. This issue applies to virtually all railroad routes in New England.
Then, there is also the little issue of signal system north of White River Junction. There is not one. That gives you a 59 mph limit even if the alignment would allow more.
How about we have an attack of realism?
TrueActually the only statistic that has any meaning is departure to arrival time.For all these routes these people throwing around "high speed" "90 mph" and similar talk need to learn how to read maps and observe the crookedness of many of these rail lines. You can post all the 90 mph maximum speeds you want, but if you have numerous 40 to 60 mph curves and a route that is several miles longer than the semi parallel interstate highway, you will NOT achieve run times faster than driving times, or even close to them.
A hint: The Crescent takes 4 hours between Atlanta and Birmingham over a 165 mile line. google Maps says 2 hours 17 minutes and 147 miles. NS has a 79 mph speed lmit on this route, so why not the 60 mph, that is 2 hours 45 minutes that is easily achievable with a 79 mph speed limt? One answer, curves. This issue applies to virtually all railroad routes in New England.
Then, there is also the little issue of signal system north of White River Junction. There is not one. That gives you a 59 mph limit even if the alignment would allow more.
How about we have an attack of realism?
It actually might be in Canada. It would not apply for a Boston to Montreal train, but the New Haven to Springfield tracks are to be be upgraded to a nominal 110 mph capability. With the stops and grade crossings on the NHV-SPG corridor, the Vermonter may only reach 90 or 110 mph for short segments, but Amtrak would be able to claim the corridor as 110 mph trackage in their system statistics.Where is this "90 MPH" stretch? :huh: Certainly not in Vermont!
Where is this "90 MPH" stretch? :huh: Certainly not in Vermont!
I was thinking this as well. There's a lot of track between the border and Montreal that is pretty straight and very flat which would be a candidate for high top speeds. Rouses Point to Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu is about 20 miles of straightaway, and the line between St. Albans and meeting that line isn't terrible, especially once you get across the lake. Really, the track is good for fast running until you get into Montreal...where an attack of bad curves makes a hash out of everything.It actually might be in Canada. It would not apply for a Boston to Montreal train, but the New Haven to Springfield tracks are to be be upgraded to a nominal 110 mph capability. With the stops and grade crossings on the NHV-SPG corridor, the Vermonter may only reach 90 or 110 mph for short segments, but Amtrak would be able to claim the corridor as 110 mph trackage in their system statistics.Where is this "90 MPH" stretch? :huh: Certainly not in Vermont!
Not Metro-North. ConnDOT, like Shore Line East.Are these all going to be Amtrak trains? I hear soft murmurs of Metro-North running to Hartford.
Enter your email address to join: