"Heritage" Stations Available for Amtrak Use

I seem to remember that there was a previous proposal to move Amtrak to Union Station, but NS objected, but reason why escapes me at the moment.

I believe it would be making a station stop within the limits of the GTW crossing there.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: oh WHOUPEE, I'll be Silver in their rewards plan next year - whatever that means).

A few more points on your stays, and a new membership card with the word "Silver" on it, though the "Silver" on mine is fading after only a few months.

Jersey_Mike wrote:

I seem to remember that there was a previous proposal to move Amtrak to Union Station, but NS objected, but reason why escapes me at the moment.

I believe it would be making a station stop within the limits of the GTW crossing there.

Interesting. I wonder why that's a problem now, but wasn't pre-April 1, 1971.

hi55us wrote:that really was a great job and an example for the rest of the system, however I feel it would have been a waste if the station was only seeing two trains a day(448/449) the fact that the boston commuter rail runs out of it justifies the renovation. This is what I believe it holding back stations such as buffalo and detriot in addition to the poor locations that have been mentioned on this forum.

Bingo, if the T wasnt trying to get trains to Worcester at the same time the WUS project was gaining momentum you'd have never seen this station come back.

As noted above, Worcester Union Station represents a good example of a classic building that was basically raised from the dead. Indeed it's the MBTA commuter service to Boston rather than Amtrak's one train each way a day that provided the impetus. Unfortunately non-rail commercial rentals within the station have not met initial expectations and the place is often basically deserted, since rush hour activity represents just a few hours each weekday. For that matter, all of downtown Worcester is still trying to revive itself. But at least the building is safe from the demolition that seemed to be its inevitable fate twenty years ago.

There are other tenants in there besides that little coffee shop and an ATM? WHo knew...

A couple dramatic before-and-after shots were just posted on NERAIL, which just prove the "never say never" factor:

http://photos.nerail.org/showpic/?photo ... age=9&key=
http://photos.nerail.org/showpic/?photo ... age=9&key=


Getting back on topic, I can see Amtrak utilizing Burlington-Union Station again if/when the Ethan Allen Express is ever extended from Rutland to Burlington VT. I say AGAIN because it already hosted Amtrak service, if only for a very brief period, during filming of the Jim Carrey movie "Me Myself and Irene" where it played the part of Providence RI. In reality, there is space in the lower level adjacent to the track and platform for passenger use and during the years Vermont Rail System ran trains out of there, the ticket office was located there.

Throughout Vermont, all heritage stations at existing stops are utilized, except the Windsor-Ascutney (restaurant) and Randolph (gift shop?) stops. Both have low ridership and are basically "flag stops". Plus, the "heritage" building is already in use for another purpose.

I too am waiting for the Springfield-Union Station project to get off the ground. As I've said before, Springfield station is frozen in time, with low level platforms, at-grade crossing in front of idling engines, etc. Seems like the Union Station proposal will make it a true intermodal station and thus should be well patronized. But we'll see!

Most heritage stations are no longer in use because the passengers aren't there. How can you support a 20k square foot building on 10-20 passengers/day? With 2-3 trains/day? It's not a good use of funds. South Bend was designed for 20+ trains/day on NYC and GTW, but sees two. Buffalo, Detroit, and St. Louis were designed for 200+ trains/day but the cities see 5-10 trains/day now.


As for the comment about bad locations, that holds true in my book. Look at the legacy stations in Cinci, Detroit, Buffalo... None of them are in areas that are convenient to the business district.

There's nothing wrong with new stations provided they're suitable for the volume of traffic. Legacy stations were one of the biggest problems the Class I's had to deal with in the later years of passenger trains, and there's good reason. They're very expensive to maintain and staff.

Tadman wrote:There's nothing wrong with new stations provided they're suitable for the volume of traffic. Legacy stations were one of the biggest problems the Class I's had to deal with in the later years of passenger trains, and there's good reason. They're very expensive to maintain and staff.

Plus, many of them were/are stub-end terminals, meaning through trains had to back in or out, taking time, and money.

Tadman wrote:Most heritage stations are no longer in use because the passengers aren't there. How can you support a 20k square foot building on 10-20 passengers/day? With 2-3 trains/day? It's not a good use of funds. South Bend was designed for 20+ trains/day on NYC and GTW, but sees two. Buffalo, Detroit, and St. Louis were designed for 200+ trains/day but the cities see 5-10 trains/day now.


As for the comment about bad locations, that holds true in my book. Look at the legacy stations in Cinci, Detroit, Buffalo... None of them are in areas that are convenient to the business district.

There's nothing wrong with new stations provided they're suitable for the volume of traffic. Legacy stations were one of the biggest problems the Class I's had to deal with in the later years of passenger trains, and there's good reason. They're very expensive to maintain and staff.

Interesting that you mention Cincinnati, since Amtrak moved back into CUT--where, of course, they are not required to keep upthe entire building, but only the portion used for rail purposes. Do you think Amtrak was better off down at River Road Station, and should have remained there?

Cleveland Union Terminal, like its counterpart in St. Louis, was converted into a a commerical complex including a hotel and retail stores.

Great photos, djlong. Do you know if they preserved that magnificent Shoreliner sign for the NY NH & H when they did the restoration?

shadyjay wrote:Throughout Vermont, all heritage stations at existing stops are utilized, except the Windsor-Ascutney (restaurant) and Randolph (gift shop?) stops. Both have low ridership and are basically "flag stops". Plus, the "heritage" building is already in use for another purpose.

Do you know what the situation is at Brattleboro? Are they still planning on building a new station across the tracks from the current location (basement of old station, which is now a museum or art gallery)? My recollection is that the city was involved in protracted negotiations (or maybe litigation) with the property owner.

Cleveland Union Terminal has been modified some to create Tower City. However the right of way is largely in tact. "The Rapid" still uses the traction concourse. However, the west approach has been narrowed by the construction of the federal courthouse and by construction of the junction for the lake front line. The addition to parking decks to much of the old steam concourse. These modifications are not insurmountable given the will and financing to make the necessary changes.

Benefits would include location closer to the central business district than the proposed lake front station. The office complex and hotel that the Van Sweringen brothers built are still in use. The mall is underperforming as a mall and the former Higbee's Department Store building is available for renovation. I hope that Ohio's 3-C corridor would use part of CUT instead of a new lakefront station.

Station Aficionado wrote:

shadyjay wrote:Throughout Vermont, all heritage stations at existing stops are utilized, except the Windsor-Ascutney (restaurant) and Randolph (gift shop?) stops. Both have low ridership and are basically "flag stops". Plus, the "heritage" building is already in use for another purpose.

Do you know what the situation is at Brattleboro? Are they still planning on building a new station across the tracks from the current location (basement of old station, which is now a museum or art gallery)? My recollection is that the city was involved in protracted negotiations (or maybe litigation) with the property owner.

I haven't heard anything for Brattleboro in quite a while... back in the mid/late 1990s there was a report in "Rumourpace" about a new station and how construction was to start "at any time now". Since then, I've heard nothing. Personally, I think a better idea would be to build a new station north of the present one. A station stop at the present station snarls traffic at the busy US 5/VT 119/VT 142 intersection right in downtown and backs traffic up into NH. There's also usually a crew change for the engineer I believe that is just north of the station, so the SB will pause briefly before the station, then enter the station, do the work there, then continue on, all the while traffic is backed up on both sides of the river. Not to mention, parking at Brattleboro is a narrow strip between the station building and the tracks.

The ideal location for a new station in Brattleboro would have adequate parking, an enclosed building, and not on any crossing circuits. Since there is a bank between US 5 and the tracks and the Connecticut River north of the station, no ideal location exists in that immediate area. But a station just north of downtown may work, somewhere near the West River perhaps. And get the interstate bus service to stop there as well, and you have an intermodal station. I know this involves Amtrak leaving a "heritage" station, but its only a basement usage at present and the benefits would outweigh the negatives.