Vermonter Question

I was thinking of doing a Vermonter trip over Labor Day weekend and had two questions:

1. If I detrain at Burlington/Essex Junction Vt. are their any hotels/ motels within walking distance? If not is a cab easy to find?

2. Do they still run this train with diesel locomotives on both ends so they don't have to Y the train at St. Albans?

Any help is appreciated.

Thanks

AmtrakPa1234 said:

I was thinking of doing a Vermonter trip over Labor Day weekend and had two questions:
1. If I detrain at Burlington/Essex Junction Vt. are their any hotels/ motels within walking distance? If not is a cab easy to find?

2. Do they still run this train with diesel locomotives on both ends so they don't have to Y the train at St. Albans?

Any help is appreciated.

Thanks

Click to expand...

1. Not within what I'd consider walking distance. Essex Junction has a nice downtown area with shops and such, but there's very little lodging available nearby. There's plenty in the area though. What are you looking for as far as price/quality goes? There's a Days Inn that's not too far away from the station, and if you head over to the area of the airport (10-15 min by cab) there's a bunch of motels that are decent shape. If you're looking for something a little nicer, I highly recommend staying downtown, as you'll be close to the waterfront, Church St, and lots of things to do. Also, if you're looking to avoid renting a car, the bus terminal is downtown, which enables you to get just about anywhere, though Sunday service is pretty limited and the bus system is shut down for labor day.

If you're coming in on a weekday, there's public bus service to the station. The train usually misses the 9 PM bus, but there's a 10 PM that almost always works. Saturdays have service also, but it doesn't run as late as the train arrives. If you end up taking the bus to downtown, you'll actually go right past my house. However, the train usually gets in around 9:20 or so, and you really won't want to wait for the next bus. Cabs sometimes hang out at the station, but the train arrival has been pretty erratic the last year (they just finished up fixing the bulk of the slow orders, so now's the time to ride!) so they haven't been doing that lately. I recommend you call a cab once you reach Montpelier, as it's about 45 minutes out of Essex Jct and you'll know when you'll be arriving. I recommend Green Cab (802-316-0700), they're the cheapest cab company in Burlington, and the service is excellent. If they're not available, Yellow Cab (802-862-3400) is a great value also. I took Green Cab last weekend and they charged $10 to get from the train station to Burlington. Yellow is about $12 IIRC.

2. Yes.

One additional suggestion if I may: The Adirondack (which services Port Kent, NY, right across the lake) is a fantastic ride. It's probably my favorite train in the Northeast, other than perhaps the Acela, but that's for very different reasons. What I'd suggest for a weekend trip is taking the Vermonter up, then taking the ferry across the lake ($4.50 per person) and jumping on the Adirondack down (or doing it the other way).

If you have any other questions, be sure to ask.

I should also note that the purpose of the two locomotives isn't to avoid wying the train in St Albans. It's actually to accommodate the switch between CSX and the NECR in Palmer, MA. When you reach Palmer, the train will reverse direction for the remainder of the trip.

AmtrakPa1234 said:

I2. Do they still run this train with diesel locomotives on both ends so they don't have to Y the train at St. Albans?

Click to expand...

Not when I took it the Vermonter a short time ago. Just past the St. Albans station, they detached the loco from one end of the train, moved it to the other end, and reattached it. We then continued our journey with the passenger cars traveling in the other direction (for me, that meant riding facing backward).

Walt said:

AmtrakPa1234 said:

I2. Do they still run this train with diesel locomotives on both ends so they don't have to Y the train at St. Albans?

Click to expand...

Not when I took it the Vermonter a short time ago. Just past the St. Albans station, they detached the loco from one end of the train, moved it to the other end, and reattached it. We then continued our journey with the passenger cars traveling in the other direction (for me, that meant riding facing backward).

Click to expand...

Really? Did they have a cab car on the other end or something? Because otherwise they'd have to detach the loco in Palmer, MA too, which I can imagine would result in some delays. A while back the train used to run regularly with a cab car, but I haven't seen that for about two years. I heard the excess cab cars were appropriated to the improved Keystone service when it started.

I've been on the Vermonter three times in the last month, all three times with power on both ends.

Wait Walt, did you mean at Palmer? I can't imagine you'd be on the train past St Albans, as that is the originating and terminating point for the train. But I still don't see how they'd get the P42 turned in the proper direction at Palmer...but maybe I don't have the track layout correctly in my mind.

Perhaps they were low on P42s in NHV or something, but in my experience its normal procedure to run it with two locomotives.

rnizlek said:

Wait Walt, did you mean at Palmer? I can't imagine you'd be on the train past St Albans, as that is the originating and terminating point for the train. But I still don't see how they'd get the P42 turned in the proper direction at Palmer...but maybe I don't have the track layout correctly in my mind.
Perhaps they were low on P42s in NHV or something, but in my experience its normal procedure to run it with two locomotives.

Click to expand...

Yea, I meant Palmer. :blink:

As far I could tell, they don't flip the engine around. But sitting in the train, I didn't have much of a view except for when the engine went by the windows as it moved to the new head of the train set.

Can P42's drive in either direction?

Do they keep an extra engine in Palmer, one facing east and one facing west? I mean, they could take off the east facing engine, leave it at Palmer, and what I saw going by the windows was the west facing engine? Naw, that wouldn't work. :unsure:

This was only two months ago, and it happened on both trips (55 and 56). We had just one engine, and it changed ends.

Walt said:

rnizlek said:

Wait Walt, did you mean at Palmer? I can't imagine you'd be on the train past St Albans, as that is the originating and terminating point for the train. But I still don't see how they'd get the P42 turned in the proper direction at Palmer...but maybe I don't have the track layout correctly in my mind.
Perhaps they were low on P42s in NHV or something, but in my experience its normal procedure to run it with two locomotives.

Click to expand...

Yea, I meant Palmer. :blink:

As far I could tell, they don't flip the engine around. But sitting in the train, I didn't have much of a view except for when the engine went by the windows as it moved to the new head of the train set.

Can P42's drive in either direction?

Do they keep an extra engine in Palmer, one facing east and one facing west? I mean, they could take off the east facing engine, leave it at Palmer, and what I saw going by the windows was the west facing engine? Naw, that wouldn't work. :unsure:

This was only two months ago, and it happened on both trips (55 and 56). We had just one engine, and it changed ends.

Click to expand...

I know P42s can only drive in one direction (I mean, they can drive in both directions, but they can't be coupled to a consist backwards and still allow for the engineer to control the train and see the track ahead). There could very well be a way they could flip the engine around there, but I can't seem to see one. Perhaps Amtrak had brought one up and positioned it properly, then attached that to the consist and deadheaded the other one back to the nearest place they could wye it. But I've just never seen this done before in the two dozen or so times I've ridden the Vermonter. Did you loose HEP during the engine change? If you didn't, that would be an indication that had positioned another P42 there and connected it before they disconnected the other one.

Strange. Well, I'll be on it at the end of this month so perhaps they'll do it then, too.

rnizlek said:

Did you loose HEP during the engine change?

Click to expand...

We did loose HEP while they changed engine ends.

And they warned us that they were re-coupling the engine. I guess for the expected bump.

rnizlek said:

Walt said:

rnizlek said:

Wait Walt, did you mean at Palmer? I can't imagine you'd be on the train past St Albans, as that is the originating and terminating point for the train. But I still don't see how they'd get the P42 turned in the proper direction at Palmer...but maybe I don't have the track layout correctly in my mind.
Perhaps they were low on P42s in NHV or something, but in my experience its normal procedure to run it with two locomotives.

Click to expand...

Yea, I meant Palmer. :blink:

As far I could tell, they don't flip the engine around. But sitting in the train, I didn't have much of a view except for when the engine went by the windows as it moved to the new head of the train set.

Can P42's drive in either direction?

Do they keep an extra engine in Palmer, one facing east and one facing west? I mean, they could take off the east facing engine, leave it at Palmer, and what I saw going by the windows was the west facing engine? Naw, that wouldn't work. :unsure:

This was only two months ago, and it happened on both trips (55 and 56). We had just one engine, and it changed ends.

Click to expand...

I know P42s can only drive in one direction (I mean, they can drive in both directions, but they can't be coupled to a consist backwards and still allow for the engineer to control the train and see the track ahead). There could very well be a way they could flip the engine around there, but I can't seem to see one. Perhaps Amtrak had brought one up and positioned it properly, then attached that to the consist and deadheaded the other one back to the nearest place they could wye it. But I've just never seen this done before in the two dozen or so times I've ridden the Vermonter. Did you loose HEP during the engine change? If you didn't, that would be an indication that had positioned another P42 there and connected it before they disconnected the other one.

Strange. Well, I'll be on it at the end of this month so perhaps they'll do it then, too.

Click to expand...

They COULD run the P42 backwards, but it would be considered a back-up move. Infact, the P40 had a hostler stand so that it could be driven that way, but not faster than IIRC, 10 mph. So if they backed it up, they'd be moving that distance pretty danged slow.,

Green Maned Lion said:

They COULD run the P42 backwards, but it would be considered a back-up move. Infact, the P40 had a hostler stand so that it could be driven that way, but not faster than IIRC, 10 mph. So if they backed it up, they'd be moving that distance pretty danged slow.,

Click to expand...

10 MPH is 6 minutes to the mile, or about 12 minutes for two miles. That may not be any slower than reversing direction twice (but do they also reverse direction at Springfield these days so that passengers only have to ride backwards for two miles of the whole route?).

I'm still not convinced there's any good reason that a bridge couldn't be built at Palmer to act as a wye, such that shortly after a southbound train crosses route 20, it would go into a nearly 180 degree loop, with roughly a 500-700' diameter. I think the track to the abandoned right of way that forks off to the south / east of the Waltham MBTA Commuter Rail station has a slightly tighter curve than that, which would seem to demonstrate that such a tight curve can work.

Then there's also the problem of money. Much of the Vermonter's route apparently doesn't collect enough revenue to justify good track maintenance. I'm not even sure if you had $10 million to spend making track better for the benefit of the Vermonter that removing the backing near Palmer would make the list of things to do at all; building a new bridge is pretty expensive, per hundred feet of track, compared to improving existing track 5-20 MPH track to a point where you can reliably run at 59 MPH on it.

rnizlek said:

I should also note that the purpose of the two locomotives isn't to avoid wying the train in St Albans. It's actually to accommodate the switch between CSX and the NECR in Palmer, MA. When you reach Palmer, the train will reverse direction for the remainder of the trip.

Click to expand...

Does that mean part of this trip you ride backwards (seats facing the wrong way)?

AmtrakPa1234 said:

Does that mean part of this trip you ride backwards (seats facing the wrong way)?

Click to expand...

Yep. :lol:

Green Maned Lion said:

..., but not faster than IIRC, 10 mph. So if they backed it up, they'd be moving that distance pretty danged slow.,

Click to expand...

Oh, that is the Vermonter!

I always though it traveled that show due to the extremely bad track in VT. Maybe it is simply because the engine is backing up.

Apparently because of our discussion here about the Vermonter, both 55 and 56 are experiencing a service disruption today.

Are they working out the logistics of the engine swapping at Palmer?

Walt said:

Apparently because of our discussion here about the Vermonter, both 55 and 56 are experiencing a service disruption today.
Are they working out the logistics of the engine swapping at Palmer?

Click to expand...

:lol: I would imagine it's from all the wonderful rain we've had ... Amtrak suspended service between Albany and Hudson for a short while on Monday because a portion of the tracks were flooded.

Tony said:

Green Maned Lion said:

..., but not faster than IIRC, 10 mph. So if they backed it up, they'd be moving that distance pretty danged slow.,

Click to expand...

Oh, that is the Vermonter!

I always though it traveled that show due to the extremely bad track in VT. Maybe it is simply because the engine is backing up.

Click to expand...

It is slow in part due to bad VT track. Actually, it's mostly late due to bad VT track, but it is slow because of it also - its capped at 59 MPH till Palmer. Even still, you don't loose that much time against driving the route until you get to Palmer. That switch, coupled with the circuitous route it takes on CSX (down, then over, then down again) adds a solid 40 minutes to the trip. Building a bridge and some additional track would save 20 minutes of that, but I'd say the other 20 is spent negotiating the distance between where the NECR drops you on CSX and Springfield.

Really, they just need to bring back the Montrealer. The route just eats up the whole day currently, but if it were a night route you could go to sleep after getting on the train in Burlington and wake up in New York. I've joked with people that I'd probably spend an additional 3-5 years in this state if the Montrealer was still around, it would make getting around so much easier, and that's my biggest complaint with living up here. That being said its just not going to happen, as an overnight train would primarily only benefit people in the Burlington area, as the rest of its stops would be incredibly late at night. So that state of VT will never fund it, and thus it will never happen.

rnizlek said:

It is slow in part due to bad VT track. Actually, it's mostly late due to bad VT track, but it is slow because of it also - its capped at 59 MPH till Palmer. Even still, you don't loose that much time against driving the route until you get to Palmer.

Click to expand...

The times I took the Vermonter, I think the speed was capped at 5.9 MPH on the New England Central track. :lol:

Walt said:

rnizlek said:

It is slow in part due to bad VT track. Actually, it's mostly late due to bad VT track, but it is slow because of it also - its capped at 59 MPH till Palmer. Even still, you don't loose that much time against driving the route until you get to Palmer.

Click to expand...

The times I took the Vermonter, I think the speed was capped at 5.9 MPH on the New England Central track. :lol:

Click to expand...

Really...that's what it feels like sometimes. My second to last northbound trip a storm had knocked out the signals from Brattleboro to White River and we had to proceed at a restricted speed of 20 MPH. It took forever. A marked difference from the previous day's ride on the Acela from NHV to BOS.

Tony said:

AmtrakPa1234 said:

Does that mean part of this trip you ride backwards (seats facing the wrong way)?

Click to expand...

Yep. :lol:

Click to expand...

Forgive me, but after all these years, I still cannot understand why American travellers have a problem with riding backwards on trains... here in the UK and throughout Europe, every single railcar or passenger coach you could name features a mix of seating facing both ways, and usually the option to reserve a seat facing in the direction you prefer (not much use, say, if you want to travel Liverpool to Norwich in the UK, where you'll find your train switching direction twice : ).

It is actually safer to travel in a backwards facing seat since any sudden deceleration or stop (a fairly obligatory component of any crash or accident) will pull you into your seat, not throw you out.

Back on topic, I only rode the Vermonter once, back in 2005. I was going all the way to Montréal, using the Thruway bus. It's a real shame that in order to provide daytime service to those states that night time service from Montréal was lost. I'm still adamant that day and night service on the Adirondack route would be complimentary - and the border is close enough to Montréal for customs checks to be a disturbance for passengers.

*j*

jamesbrownontheroad said:

Forgive me, but after all these years, I still cannot understand why American travellers have a problem with riding backwards on trains... here in the UK and throughout Europe, every single railcar or passenger coach you could name features a mix of seating facing both ways, and usually the option to reserve a seat facing in the direction you prefer (not much use, say, if you want to travel Liverpool to Norwich in the UK, where you'll find your train switching direction twice : ).

Click to expand...

I believe it is because the Amtrak coach cars we are talking about here in the USA, have all the seats facing one direction. It isn't a mix. So, either everyone is facing forward or everyone is facing backward. And, in the USA, we tend to be forward thinking people.

Walt said:

jamesbrownontheroad said:

Forgive me, but after all these years, I still cannot understand why American travellers have a problem with riding backwards on trains... here in the UK and throughout Europe, every single railcar or passenger coach you could name features a mix of seating facing both ways, and usually the option to reserve a seat facing in the direction you prefer (not much use, say, if you want to travel Liverpool to Norwich in the UK, where you'll find your train switching direction twice : ).

Click to expand...

I believe it is because the Amtrak coach cars we are talking about here in the USA, have all the seats facing one direction. It isn't a mix. So, either everyone is facing forward or everyone is facing backward. And, in the USA, we tend to be forward thinking people.

Click to expand...

Not on the Vermonter! The typical configuration is with half the seats going one way and the other half going the other way.

From the voice of the conductor on the Vermonter (I sadly know this by heart, having ridden the train so many times):

"Ladies and gentleman, in just a minutes we will be arriving in Palmer, MA. Palmer is not a station stop - the doors will not open in Palmer. In Palmer we will leave the New England Central Railroad, which we have been on and will switch to CSX's railroad, which we will use to get to Springfield and further points south. At Palmer the train will reverse direction - this is a normal procedure and we do it every day. If you're not comfortable with the train moving backwards, simply gather your belongings and grab the seat tag above your seat and move to the other end of your car. Please do not attempt to turn your seats, as they are not meant to be turned! Next stop Springfield in 25 minutes!"

rnizlek said:

From the voice of the conductor on the Vermonter (I sadly know this by heart, having ridden the train so many times):
"Ladies and gentleman, in just a minutes we will be arriving in Palmer, MA. Palmer is not a station stop - the doors will not open in Palmer. In Palmer we will leave the New England Central Railroad, which we have been on and will switch to CSX's railroad, which we will use to get to Springfield and further points south. At Palmer the train will reverse direction - this is a normal procedure and we do it every day. If you're not comfortable with the train moving backwards, simply gather your belongings and grab the seat tag above your seat and move to the other end of your car. Please do not attempt to turn your seats, as they are not meant to be turned! Next stop Springfield in 25 minutes!"

Click to expand...

Ah, that's it. I have never been on the Vermonter where the PA system worked.

Also, I have only been in BC, and the seats in the other end of the car were booths.

rnizlek said:

Walt said:

rnizlek said:

It is slow in part due to bad VT track. Actually, it's mostly late due to bad VT track, but it is slow because of it also - its capped at 59 MPH till Palmer. Even still, you don't loose that much time against driving the route until you get to Palmer.

Click to expand...

The times I took the Vermonter, I think the speed was capped at 5.9 MPH on the New England Central track. :lol:

Click to expand...

Really...that's what it feels like sometimes. My second to last northbound trip a storm had knocked out the signals from Brattleboro to White River and we had to proceed at a restricted speed of 20 MPH. It took forever. A marked difference from the previous day's ride on the Acela from NHV to BOS.

Click to expand...

Has this track ever been any good? My mother remembers intermidable trips on the Vermont Central in the 1930s and 1940s. Not that the Rutland Railroad (or, God help us, the Addison Railroad) were speed demons.

I have been on this train one time, in 1995. At that time the track north of White River Junction did not seem that bad. Speed limit has never been above 59 mph north of White River Junction because there are no signals. At that time, or for that trip, there was an engine on one end and a cab car on the other end. Coming up from New Haven, the train pulled straight north along the Connecticut River across the CSX (still Conrail at that time, I think) track and the the engineer went to the cab car and we went into the Springfield station cab car leading. Continued to Palmer with cab car leading, then the engineer went back to the engine and away we went north to White River Junction and on to St. Albans. At that time there was still the bus on to Montreal.

This whole reversal system is a legacy of the Boston and Maine / Guilford / Pan Am or whatever it is now railroad's don't maintain track policies of many years standing. Pre-Amtrak and early Amtrak Montrealer days, the train went straight north along the Connecticut River line of the B&M north of Springfield all the way to WRJ.

The setting: The line along the Connecticut River was solely B&M from Springfield to East Northfield (49.7 miles). From East Northfield to Windsor, it was owned by B&M (59.4 miles), but Central of Vermont had trackage rights. From Windsor to White River Junction (14.1 miles) the line was owned by CV and B&M had trackage rights. The CV line then went more or less north west out of WRJ. The B&M had or has a line than continued north from WRJ along the Connecticut River. There may be some error in either the foregoing length of B&M with CV rights or my memory, as the number of B&M miles on which CV had rights that sticks in my mind is around 51 miles, not 59 miles. South of East Northfield the CV line went through Palmer to New London CT. The distance East Northfield to Palmer is 45.6 miles. Palmer is 14.7 miles east of Springfield on the CSX line. Up until recent sell off, the CV was owned by Canadian National, and in the 60's and 70's was know for having fairly good track, particularly when compared to the other railroads operating in New England.

The Event: In the early 70's the deterioration of the the B&M track on the line had reached the point that much of it was in the 10 to 25 mph range leading to stretching of the Montrealer's schedule and poor timekeeping even with that. The deterioration was also becoming an aggravation to CV. I do not remember the date but it reached the point that Amtrak exercised for the one and only time a provision in the original Amtrak law that allowed it to condemn a section of track that ceased to be usable for passenger trains. It used it against the B&M and bought that portion of the line on which the CV also had trackage rights. The section was then sold to the CV which then, with some government assistance, as I recall got it back into shape for something like 60 mph passenger train service. The B&M portion south of East Northfield was not included as CV did not use it and did not want it. When the track involved had been restored to the point that the Montrealer could be restarted, the Palmer see-saw became part of its route so as to avoid the unrestored B&M trackage. I do nor remember much of the details, as I had small kids at the time and a lot of the goings on in the railroad world got missed.

George Harris said:

I have been on this train one time, in 1995. At that time the track north of White River Junction did not seem that bad. Speed limit has never been above 59 mph because there are no signals.

Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I think much more of the line is signaled now. There was an article on the NECR in Trains a year or two ago and it mentioned it had something like 13 miles of CTC territory. However, now when I ride I notice signaling much of the way up to WRJ, so I'm not sure if they've signaled more of the line or not. Plus I know that we had to proceed the whole way to WRJ at restricted speed when the signals went out due to a storm - I'm assuming this wouldn't have been an issue if we were in dark territory and were just operating under a track warrant. But my hunch is that even if the line were completely signaled, the track is in no condition to support 79 MPH operation.

George, thanks for the historical background. Very interesting and informative.