When Vermonter to Montreal?

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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

penfrydd

Service Attendant
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
111
Itching for the Greenfield, MA station stop for the rerouted Vermonter, and wondering on the status/timetable for the route all the way to Montreal. Any word?
 
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.
 
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.
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.

As for the re-route to the CT River Line, that is expected to happen in early 2015.
 
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they set up a customs operation in Vancouver, BC similar to what afigg described for Cascades service? Is the setup where passengers are screened by Canadians on the inbound trip and Americans on the outbound trip? That definitely seems like it'd be hugely beneficial for all parties involved since you could just leave on the inbound trip after your inspection was complete. It'd also be good for the crews since it would allow additional rest time for them since they're not having to wait for the train to be cleared by the border folks.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
The current delay for Montreal service is "treaty negotiations" between the US, Canada, and Quebec over setting up a "preclearance" facility in Montreal Gare Centrale.

This particular delay has been going on for what, years now? I don't know why "treaty negotiations" are taking so long, though if I were to hazard a guess I'd guess that Stephen Harper hates passenger rail and has ordered the negotiators to delay -- but that's just me being conspiracy-minded. It could also be that the US is irrationally demanding insane things which no Canadian can accept, since that seems to be par for the course in treaty negotiations in recent years.

Anyway, the facility is designed, though I don't know if everyone's signed off on it -- it's going to use a track and platform which are currently unused and wasted as employee parking.

Anyway, the first use of the "preclearance" facility will be for the Adirondack.

Regarding extending the Vermonter to Montreal, it has been concluded that the schedule works out (won't conflict with the Adirondack). I believe the "treaty" arrangements are going to preemptively make sure that the border agents agree to handling the Vermonter. And the tracks have already been upgraded as far as the US-Canadian border. I'm sure VIA and AMT will have no complaints. The extension would require an additional agreement with CN (potentially a problem), and possibly an upgrade from the border to Cantic, but that's not a long distance.

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 Springfield (MA) Union Station project is also funded and under construction but I haven't heard much about it since, I think, April. There seems to be one recent update indicating that they've dealt with the asbestos and are now figuring out how to demolish the baggage building without damaging the main building. All the work seems to be on demolishing the baggage building -- I'm not sure if they've started on the train station, tunnel, or platforms at all yet! For some reason this project has no scheduled completion date of any kind. :-(

The NHHS project (New Haven-Springfield), thankfully, has regular updates: http://www.nhhsrail.com/info_center/newsbriefs.aspx -- they're continuing progress with laying signal wire.

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 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 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.

As for extending the Ethan Allen, VT received a $9 million FY13 TIGER grant with matching state funding for a total of $18.5 million to upgrade a 20 mile segment of the Vermont Railway with CWR to Class III track. VT got a $7.9 million FY12 TIGER grant to upgrade the tracks north of St. Albans. The TIGER grant program has been good to Vermont, in part I'm sure because 20% of the TIGER grant funds have to go to rural areas. I expect VT will submit an FY14 TIGER application for a grant, along with matching state funds, to upgrade the remainder of the tracks from Rutland to Burlington. Ethan Allen to Burlington by 2017 is a good possibility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In reality it shouldn't be that big of a challenge to get the B&A up to 80 or 90 MPH maximum speeds. The biggest hurdle for high speeds is getting cab signals put in place, which is already in there. In reality you're looking at upgrading some rail and track bed, and putting down a second set of tracks in some areas, if not the whole way. That also shouldn't be a challenge since the B&A was double tracked years ago. Heck, there are some places where it is very apparent where double track was as the train negotiates through cut/throws from double track being ripped out. We're only talking about 98 miles from Springfield to Boston, getting it to an average speed of 60 MPH is extremely doable.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another Amtrak train on track?


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.

Thanks for posting the link to that power point. An interesting read.
 
Where is this "90 MPH" stretch? :huh: Certainly not in Vermont!
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.
What is always more important is what is the start to stop average speed that can be attained, i.e. the total running time from O to D, rather than what maximum speed is achieved en route.

Mullaney is just being unrealistically optimistic, is all I can say, and will fail to deliver on the promise in a very spectacular way. That is one bit of certainty in all of this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmm, the capital city of the province of Quebec is Quebec (City), not Montreal.

My guess would be that the 90mph reference is either optimistic (as Jis mentioned) or just confused the speeds planned or hoped for on the various routes in that study (Boston-Springfield, Springfield-Greenfield-Vermont-Montreal, Springfield-New Haven, etc).
 
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?
 
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?
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?
Actually the only statistic that has any meaning is departure to arrival time.
True
 
Where is this "90 MPH" stretch? :huh: Certainly not in Vermont!
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.
 
I think VT to montreal would come only after the pre-clearance facility in montreal can be actually opened. There is alot of NY political power behind getting it into montreal but the earliest i think they are saying is 2016. The New York to Montreal route has so much potential to increase times i think all that work will happen before VT to montreal happens.

Hopefully we can get two routes to montreal eventually! The vermont route had very low numbers compared to the NY route so faster tracks might help to improve increase some numbers.
 
Where is this "90 MPH" stretch? :huh: Certainly not in Vermont!
Where is this "90 MPH" stretch? :huh: Certainly not in Vermont!
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.
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.

*sighs*

Serious, frustrating question: How is the track into the old Windsor station vs. that into Gare Central? Right now, Amtrak misconnects with just about everything VIA runs on the way north. You can barely make a connection from the Ocean to the Adirondack (as a friend of mine did once). You can also make a connection from Ottawa or Quebec to the Adirondack now...but absolutely nothing connects the other way with any semblance of reliability. When Amtrak was using Windsor station and made the switch, IIRC you (A) still had an overnight train on the Corridor and (B) the Montrealer was running overnight and so allowed connections to day trains both coming and going. If you could tighten things up a bit so you had good connections on both ends this would be moot, but I have to ask given that the Adirondack largely operates without much interlining with other trains.
 
Are these all going to be Amtrak trains? I hear soft murmurs of Metro-North running to Hartford.
 
Are these all going to be Amtrak trains? I hear soft murmurs of Metro-North running to Hartford.
Not Metro-North. ConnDOT, like Shore Line East.

But any train to Canada is likely to be Amtrak more than anything else, even though funded by New York or Vermont.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top