Amtrak Vermonter / Montrealer

shadyjay wrote:Noel is correct.

For 54/56, the train crew works SPG->SAB, overnights, then works the next day's 55/57 back to SPG.

Brattleboro is only an engine crew change point.

how often do they do that ? I have never seen an Amtrak crew change at Brattleboro. It's less then 2 hours from SPG to BRA so it doesn't make sense to change engineers there . I am not saying it doesn't happen that way just that a 2 hour run makes no sense

Is the crew change at new haven to blame for the chronic delay? I am assuming New Haven is also where they switch from an electric to a diesel.

Is the crew change at new haven to blame for the chronic delay? I am assuming New Haven is also where they switch from an electric to a diesel.

I took the Vermonter last Friday and the new haven engine change took about 15 minutes. i always walk to the engine end of the platform and watch and have even posted some videos of engine changes on YouTube. The engineer of the AEM-7 dual lash up(919,924) took a while to talk to the engineer of p42-#40 then moved out of the way and#40 lashed up and we were on our way



as to the crew change at new haven .... On this date one conductor got off jumped on the trailing AEM-7 and then when P42 #40 lashed up another conductor got out and got on the train


i could be mistaken but i always thought the delays on the Vermonter were mainly due to the poor track north of Springfield

I would say that most of my trips on the Vermonter (I largely just take it southbound) have been on time to early through Vermont and in to Springfield (some padding here). Likewise, we've arrived early into New Haven as there's padding on the Springfield to New Haven portion of the Vermonter's schedule I believe (or there used to be). Believe it or not, but most of the delays I've experienced on the Vermonter have been between New Haven and NYC - dealing with MetroNorth commuter trains. Amtrak has even tried to make this a reliable "corridor train" once it leaves NYC for Washington DC, as it is a train that a lot of monthly Amtrak passholders ride with due to the 7:05 p.m. (rush hour) departure from NYP.

justmejie wrote: i could be mistaken but i always thought the delays on the Vermonter were mainly due to the poor track north of Springfield

NO the Vermonter is always late getting in to Palmer, which is about 15 miles east of Springfield I know CSX some times causes a delay but more often then not the delay is known about by NECR dispatch a few hours ahead of their scheduled arrival on the property, so its somewhere down south.

Jp1822,

Would you like to share this Montreal schedule on the Amtrak Vermonter Facebook page as well?

Driver survives Vermonter vs SUV mishap. (3/5)

http://www.wggb.com/Global/story.asp?S=14194067

I had a trip planned on the Vermonter for Memorial Day weekend. I just got an e-mail from Amtrak saying there had be a change to my transportation. I went on the website and sure enough, bus service north of Springfield. In the past when I've seen this kind of change on the website it would just have a "Service Change" message on the website that you'd have to click on to see what had changed. This time they are actually listing a 3054 & 3057 Thruway Bus service (with 54/57 ending at Springfield). I had assumed just track work, but actually calling it Thruway Bus service instead of just a bustitution for 54/57 surprised me. Anyone know if there's anything more to this?

Haven't heard anything - worked the Waterbury (VT) station this morning. I do know that the crews up north are taking a week off from rail replacement as they haven't made it through Waterbury, south, with installing the new rail yet.

I went ahead and checked and it seems the Thruway bus is scheduled 5/29 through 6/2 for the southbound trip. My guess would be a "maintenance blitz" where they are doing a lot of work all at once, requiring the cessation of passenger traffic. This may include massive tie and/or rail work, in addition to possible switch renewal or bridge - signal work. It just seems like a bad timing to do this work - Memorial Day Weekend is a busy travel weekend, and shoving people on a bus instead of a train isn't a good way to "beat the traffic".

Still, beats driving (and paying for gas)!

I sure this comment will get ripped for being way too speculative but, once the ALP-45DP hopefully become tried and true, would this not be a perfect line to experiment them on via either a State of Vermont or Amtrak purchase? Under diesel, they have about the same Horsepower as a P42, and under electricity, they would have no problem pulling the current consist. It removes the need for an engine change in New Haven and they can fit the height constraints of the NYC Tunnels. Amtrak was busting Vermont to buy DMU's and that fell through, why not start talking about splitting the cost of two ALP45-DP for Vermonter Service. These will be even better than DMU's as the ALP-45DP will permit through-running all the way to DC without an engine-change or lengthy layover. Seems like time, and future equipment and money savings will be a sure possibility.

Hawaiitiki wrote:I sure this comment will get ripped for being way too speculative but, once the ALP-45DP hopefully become tried and true, would this not be a perfect line to experiment them on via either a State of Vermont or Amtrak purchase? Under diesel, they have about the same Horsepower as a P42, and under electricity, they would have no problem pulling the current consist. It removes the need for an engine change in New Haven and they can fit the height constraints of the NYC Tunnels. Amtrak was busting Vermont to buy DMU's and that fell through, why not start talking about splitting the cost of two ALP45-DP for Vermonter Service. These will be even better than DMU's as the ALP-45DP will permit through-running all the way to DC without an engine-change or lengthy layover. Seems like time, and future equipment and money savings will be a sure possibility.

I could see two problems with that. First, you'd have a non-standard piece of equipment with all the maintenance headaches that entails; would seem to me that if you're going to do that you want to run from one major engine terminal to another. Second, if the experiment is *not* successful, you just a) saddled one of the smallest states in the Union with the cost of the units and b) you're going to have a lot of unhappy passengers if your experimental engine breaks down somewhere north of White River Junction in a January blizzard, miles from a rescue engine...

While discussion of Amtrak acquisition of ALP-45DP extends far beyond the scope of a Vermonter topic, there would still be the issue with the Vermonter operating over its existing "via Palmer' route regarding a rear unit that would operate on the head over the Spfld-Palmer segment. Of course, restored operation over the B&M would nullify this constraint.

Otherwise, if Amtrak were to consider the ALP-45DP, any of the Corridor trains operating through Wash to the South would be fair game for such a locomotive. A "back of the envelope' would be some twelve units.

I realize that the merits of a succesful ALP-45DP could be realized on almost any train that involves New York Penn Station and Diesel territory, just thought the Vermonter route would be a great testbed for possible wider system-use, due to non-extravagant train lengths, it being a mid-distance route, and having light service. And from what I've read, it seems like the Palmer-Back-up will be nullified with the line moving closer to the Conn River within the next five years. And even if it wasn't, I'm sure the ALP-45DPs are extremely well-designed for working with a cab car, albeit programed for an NJT or AMT cabcar, cause NJT & AMT will both be running them in push-pull mode a majority of the time.

Heard through the grapevine that the Vermonter track outage for 5/29 through 6/2 is due to track work on CSX. With a little luck, in a few years we won't have to deal with CSX at all on this train (except to cross the diamond in Springfield).

Punching BOS - ALB into Amtrak reservations also reveals a Thruway bus for the same timeframe.

Still seems like poor timing to me!

Hawaiitiki wrote:I realize that the merits of a succesful ALP-45DP could be realized on almost any train that involves New York Penn Station and Diesel territory, just thought the Vermonter route would be a great testbed for possible wider system-use, due to non-extravagant train lengths, it being a mid-distance route, and having light service. And from what I've read, it seems like the Palmer-Back-up will be nullified with the line moving closer to the Conn River within the next five years. And even if it wasn't, I'm sure the ALP-45DPs are extremely well-designed for working with a cab car, albeit programed for an NJT or AMT cabcar, cause NJT & AMT will both be running them in push-pull mode a majority of the time.

A google search turned up a presentation from Mass DOT stating that they expect to begin service over the Pan Am Southern route in October 2012. This is a 2010 presentation, so the schedule might have slipped a bit, but the rehabilitation of the old route is fully funded, so it won't get delayed because of funding. So the backup move at Palmer goes away in several years. And when the work in Vermont is done, the Vermonter trip times north of Springfield MA to St. Albans will be reduced by 55 minutes which is not too shabby.

An issue with the ALP-45DP is that Amtrak makes it clear that a long term goal in acquiring new equipment is to reduce the number of different equipment across the fleet. That is a large part of the motivation behind the Next Generation standard equipment specs. Amtrak can't take it anywhere near as far as, for example, Southwest Airlines with their Boeing 737s, but having just several types of diesel locos, one ACS-64 electric loco type, just several types of single level cars, and so on for the main fleet lowers the maintenance and inventory stocking costs. Amtrak may not be interested in getting a unique locomotive for a limited application. One that is neither from their new electric locomotive vendor Siemens nor, presumably, from whoever Amtrak would buy their next generation diesel locomotives. And from Bombardier which may dampen any interest in acquiring it or even leasing one from NJT for testing based on what I have read on these forums.

shadyjay wrote:Heard through the grapevine that the Vermonter track outage for 5/29 through 6/2 is due to track work on CSX. With a little luck, in a few years we won't have to deal with CSX at all on this train (except to cross the diamond in Springfield).

Punching BOS - ALB into Amtrak reservations also reveals a Thruway bus for the same timeframe.

Still seems like poor timing to me!

I hope this is a one time bussing because,
I will be taking the Vermonter from new Haven to WRJ a lot this summer. Going south from Montpiliar VT to Stamford. why Montpelier one way? RCT bus service connects to the train going south only from St. Johnsbury VT for all of a price of a Happy Meal and extended to stamford due to "fare bucket" same price... my other option is Stamford-NYC/Boston Bus cheap deal and Bus Concord Coach to Littleton NH but that costs a lot more. either way taking public transportation to see my friends in VT is 1/2 the price then it is to drive with the current gas prices. don;t forget 600 miles is a lot of maintenance costs on a car too!

the last way I know is more than driving and out of the way for me, Dartmouth Coach from White River JCt to NYC. you have to add more to the cost for me to go into NYC to get that bus.

these are the only ways I know how to get to NEK-VT st. Johnsbury Vt area. if you have another way of travel to this area, I would love to hear about it