Montreal - Portland passenger service, past and future

In my opinion as a couple-times-a-year recreational visitor (by train), I find public transit in Portland to be perfectly adequate for getting around a city of its size. You can't expect a Boston or New York style transit system in a metropolitan area with fewer than 250,000 people. And if you're headed to the beaches or anywhere else out of town, Amtrak passengers are in the same situation as air travelers... if a bus doesn't go there, you rent a car.

A restoration of Portland-Montreal rail passenger service is another thing altogether. As I wrote several pages ago, I am among those who simply don't see a potential market that would be capable of justifying the significant startup and operational costs anytime in the foreseeable future. If there was government money to be spent, it would be better spent on a Boston-Montreal train (via Palmer, CSX-NEC-CN), where the existence of direct bus and air service shows that a viable market for public transportation currently exists.

No argument on the comments regarding Portland's transport options. I shouldn't have minimized what IS available. My point is that unless a visitor is making a day trip anywhere in Maine, it's highly unlikely that they could (or would want to) rely on public transport alone, hence the need for an auto. Visitors who drive to the state bring their own "free" transport solution along with them... which unfortunately really works against rail and other transport options, for that matter. (It's unlikely many visitors from NYC fly to Maine.)

Hey, what about an auto-train from Montreal? Hmmmm. KIDDING!!!!!!!

TomNelligan wrote: If there was government money to be spent, it would be better spent on a Boston-Montreal train (via Palmer, CSX-NEC-CN), where the existence of direct bus and air service shows that a viable market for public transportation currently exists.

Currently, the 'approved' federal plan (if it were ever to be funded) is to have Bosotn-Montreal service go from North Station using the Lowell commuter rail line, then continue north ffromLowell through Nashua, Manchester and Concord NH, turning northwest (on existing ROWs - though some have had the rails ripped up) to Lebanon NH, across the Connecticut River to White River Junction VT, then through Montpelier, Burlington and St. Albans before continuing on to Montreal.

That's the route that the studies have been studying (for things like passenger count estimates, etc)

djlong wrote:

TomNelligan wrote: If there was government money to be spent, it would be better spent on a Boston-Montreal train (via Palmer, CSX-NEC-CN), where the existence of direct bus and air service shows that a viable market for public transportation currently exists.

Currently, the 'approved' federal plan (if it were ever to be funded) is to have Bosotn-Montreal service go from North Station using the Lowell commuter rail line, then continue north ffromLowell through Nashua, Manchester and Concord NH, turning northwest (on existing ROWs - though some have had the rails ripped up) to Lebanon NH, across the Connecticut River to White River Junction VT, then through Montpelier, Burlington and St. Albans before continuing on to Montreal.

That's the route that the studies have been studying (for things like passenger count estimates, etc)

Well, that would certainly have a connection with the Downeaster though Portland folks would have to backtrack a bit. As for auto options in Portland, I imagine they have rent a car and zip car options there.

djlong wrote: Currently, the 'approved' federal plan (if it were ever to be funded) is to have Bosotn-Montreal service go from North Station using the Lowell commuter rail line, then continue north ffromLowell through Nashua, Manchester and Concord NH, turning northwest (on existing ROWs - though some have had the rails ripped up) to Lebanon NH, across the Connecticut River to White River Junction VT, then through Montpelier, Burlington and St. Albans before continuing on to Montreal.

Correct, but while the B&M New Hampshire Division was the traditional Boston-Montreal route, that would be FAR more expensive to restore than running a train via Palmer on trackage that is not only still in existence, but already up to passenger service standards. Trackwork startup costs would be zero, and you could start that run tomorrow if funding and equipment were in place. I would have to question how any additional revenue generated by service via Manchester and Concord would justify the added cost.

Then again, I'm always happy to be reminded that my tax dollars are helping to support deserving consultants and bureaucrats.

MA Department of Tourism reports that there were 635K visitors from all of Canada in 2008.... that's ALL of Canada, not just PQ. Granted, there's probably more northbound potential but, interestingly, you're actually starting with a significantly smaller base market than Maine. And while highway mileage is slightly higher between Boston-Montreal vs Portland-Montreal, you can make it in under 5hrs if you step on it.

Present direct public transport: 5 flights/day ea way (commuter planes, very pricey, must be for the business market), 4 direct route bus trips.

More intermediate traffic potential? Sure. Real need or potential for success? Doubtful.

I was in Portland today for a meeting, and driving home, northbound on I-295 around 4:30pm, I noticed how heavy the traffic was. I'm sure I-95, Maine Turnpike, is just as bad. Considering that the proposed service would be a single frequency per day I wonder if discounting the population of Mainers from Lewiston and other areas that would use the service is a major oversight. But then again in order to achieve correct depature times for rush hour it seems the depature and arrival times for Montreal would be terrible. (depart Portland 5:30 pm, arrive Montreal approx. 11:30pm; depart Montreal 2:00 am, arrive Portland approx. 8:00 am)

It seems the more realistic option would be something like depart Montreal 8:15am arrive Portland approx. 2:15pm; depart Portland 3:00pm arrive Montreal 9:00pm). Interestingly enough this schedule would allow one trainset to do the job.

One other alternative would be to run the train on a 'commuter friendly' schedule in the winter and on a 'tourist friendly' schedule in the summer. In terms of a ski train this schedule might actually work by allowing people to leave the slopes late and arrive early thus preserving as much skiing time as possible. Whether or not the Quebecois acutally drive like this themselves (early in the am to get to the slopes and staying late to ski as much as possible) seems very doubtful.

G, I have to give you credit - you don't give up! Tagging on extra capacity to meet demand on ~10% of the journey is a further cost burden.

About schedule, how do you come up with a 6hr schedule? That time reflects a ~50mph average (~300 miles), not factoring in the time spent on a back up move into Portland's station... and God knows the route/time issues associated with Montreal station access. My trusty 1956 Official Guide has the one single train pair making the journey in about 10:20 EB / 9:50 WB Trains 16/17 (I think it's timetable E/W)

How much is a reasonable fare for such an excursion?

Plus 45 mins to a hour at Customs each way at Norton.

[quote="TomNelliganCorrect, but while the B&M New Hampshire Division was the traditional Boston-Montreal route, that would be FAR more expensive to restore than running a train via Palmer on trackage that is not only still in existence, but already up to passenger service standards. Trackwork startup costs would be zero, and you could start that run tomorrow if funding and equipment were in place. I would have to question how any additional revenue generated by service via Manchester and Concord would justify the added cost.

Then again, I'm always happy to be reminded that my tax dollars are helping to support deserving consultants and bureaucrats.[/quote]

I think you're looking at the difference between:

Palmer route: Cheaper to start, longer trip times, far fewer people along the right-of-way.

NH Div route: More expensive to start (Concord to Lebanon's ROW has no rail) but there are commuter options (Boston-Nashua-Manchester-Concord), multi-modal options (KMHT airport station is part of the plan) and far higher population along the much-more-direct (and, hence, faster) route.

Remember that the only way this'll be built is with federal dollars. It's easier to get more federal dollars if you're going to have less of an operating deficit because you're selling more tickets. You can also claim to have more use because of the aforementioned commuter options.

[quote="djlong
Remember that the only way this'll be built is with federal dollars. It's easier to get more federal dollars if you're going to have less of an operating deficit because you're selling more tickets. You can also claim to have more use because of the aforementioned commuter options.[/quote]

Not only would I not want my Federal tax dollars to go to a waste like this but I would not vote for any politicans who voted to spend Federal dollars on waste like this.
Noel Weaver

Two points: 1) border delays are going to happen with both rail and auto; 2) again, long/medium distance trains don't mix with commuter trains. Different station stop needs, schedule requirements, operating authorities... Heck even the coaches are a completely different configuration.

Cowford wrote:G, I have to give you credit - you don't give up! Tagging on extra capacity to meet demand on ~10% of the journey is a further cost burden.

About schedule, how do you come up with a 6hr schedule? That time reflects a ~50mph average (~300 miles), not factoring in the time spent on a back up move into Portland's station... and God knows the route/time issues associated with Montreal station access. My trusty 1956 Official Guide has the one single train pair making the journey in about 10:20 EB / 9:50 WB Trains 16/17 (I think it's timetable E/W)

How much is a reasonable fare for such an excursion?

Cowford,

Mr. MEC407 had a nice estimate of the travel time earlier in this thread. I continue to openly discuss this topic because as we can see from our discussion to date even worst case assumptions seem to show support for this service. We are most certainly not talking about a train that would be running essentially empty all the time. I think where we are all being careful is attempting to understand whether or not this could be viable as a year round or a seasonal service.

MEC407 wrote:According to this site, it's approximately 137 miles from Yarmouth Junction, Maine, to Island Pond, Vermont, and then another 110 miles from Island Pond, Vermont, to Sainte-Rosalie, Quebec. That brings the Yarmouth to Sainte-Rosalie total mileage to 247. I would assume that the CN track from Sainte-Rosalie to Montreal is probably another 35 miles or so, based on the most direct highway route between those two cities, which is about 38 miles. That would bring the Yarmouth to Montreal total mileage to 282, give or take five miles.

Assuming an average speed of 45 MPH (which is about what the Downeaster's average speed is), we'd be looking at a running time of a bit more than 6 hours between Yarmouth Junction and Montreal.

In regards to a backup move into the Portland Transportation Center. Although this would be necessary today the track is currently being rebuilt to allow trains coming from the north to travel onto the Mountain Division without the need for a backup move. I'm assuming this track would be in place in this scenario.

In so far as commuter service is concerned I was thinking more of commuters at stations that would be on the line anyways such as Lewiston/Auburn and Bethel. I don't find it all too much of a stretch to believe that people commute from Western Maine to Portland, whether or not the route via train would be efficient for them compared to roads would be dependent on many other factors, weather being the first among these.

But the train would be running from Portland, not Yarmouth Jct, so add 13.5 miles... 295 miles... call it an even 300. Comparing the Downeaster speeds with that possible on the SLR is a bit of mismatch, considering the different route characteristics. While you can shave time off the schedule by eliminating stops, you really think you can shave 4 hrs off the past passenger schedule (which averaged ~30mph)? C'mon!

Population of Bethel: 2,400 Commuter rail potential: zero

we can see from our discussion to date even worst case assumptions seem to show support for this service. We are most certainly not talking about a train that would be running essentially empty all the time.

You and I must be reading different threads!

So two questions for you: 1) How much would you expect the fare level to be; and 2) given all the supposed benefits of the train service, what would be the breakeven, dollar-wise, between acceptable and unacceptable operating deficit.

Cowford,

I'm pretty sure we're reading the same thread.

In regards to the scheduled speeds on SLR I have asked around and the most consistent answer that I get is that their track is in Class III condition. I don't know enough about localized conditions or slow orders that might negate this but Class III is 59 mph max speed. I don't think the schedule from 1956 can be used as a reliable guide. 16/17, which this thread originally was about made dozens of stops along the way. I would be curious too as to the condition of the tracks back then compared to today. I wouldn't be surprised if they are in better condition today.

I deliberately didn't answer the fare question earlier as I thought someone else might be able to produce a guess.

Here's my idea of what a range for the fare might look like:

Let's assume the road and rail distances for travel are about the same, 300 miles. We'll adopt a fuel efficiency rating of 20 mpg. We can calculate higher if necessary but I think this is reasonable based on the lack of interstate highway travel. We'll assume that the Canadians are buying all of their gas in the U.S. where it is cheaper, either on the way in, or on the way out.

So 300 miles at 20 mpg = 15 gallons to get to Portland. 15 gallons x $2.75/gal.= $41.25. If we also assume mileage costs of around .25/mile that's an additional $75. I'm open to debate/interpretation on the mileage figure, the low end of milage reimbursement that I've seen is .17/mile and the high end is .40/mile. So the initial isolated total expense is $116.25.

Note: Mapquest shows the driving distance from Montreal to Portland as 262 miles. If we adopt this change with all previous assumptions the initial isolated total expense is $101.53 (13.1 gal. x 2.75/gal.= $36.03, mileage 262 x .25/mile = $65.50). There is also a $1 toll for the Maine Turnpike, it would be $2 if you follow the Mapquest directions. I'm going to assume the travelers know things well enough to get off at Exit 48 instead of Exit 52.

My calculations estimate that a single one-way fare should be approximately $62.04 assuming $0.2068/mile. This is based on current mileage recovery on the 'other' Amtrak service in Maine. If we look at the New York based train that goes to Montreal we can see the rate is approximately $0.1811 for 381 miles of total travel. I'm being circumspect about naming trains and services because we are talking about fares.

Broadly speaking I would think 40% farebox recovery is the bare minimum necessary to justify normal operational funds. Highways and Airports receive government money too. Sometimes rail based travel is an efficient use of subsidy money and sometimes it is not. It all depends on how the economic benefits are calculated and, as we all know, what the ridership levels are.