Ethan Allen Companion Route via Bennington (was: Reroute Mechanicville-Bennington-Manchester)

Hello all,

I'm currently interning with a county regional commission involved in moving the Ethan Allen from the Canadian Pacific/Clarendon Pittsford lines to the Pan Am/Vermont Railway lines. In reading studies, I'm beginning to think that the estimates of the extension may be overestimated. The most comprehensive study showing specific costs is available here, and suggests the addition of many sidings, some of which appear to be redundant.

Schenectady-MP 480
Between Schenectady and MP 480, the study suggests $6.3M in upgrades, mainly for sidings and turnouts. In their defense, I don't know if this is currently a bottleneck for Amtrak/CP/Pan Am, but in shifting the Ethan Allen there wouldn't be additional passenger train service through the area. While the upgrades may be useful for the project/time being they appear redundant, other than a reconfiguration of trackage at 480, where the new route branches to the east. Also included in this number is a cost of $70,000 per turnout to remove them from service. I can't imagine it costs 1/3 the cost of a brand new turnout to remove a turnout from service. I could be wrong, but a flatbed truck, crane, and a group of guys with torches can't be that much.

MP 480-Mechanicville
Between MP 480 and MP 468, the study suggests the addition of 3 crossovers, and 4 additional turnouts, as well as 2.5 miles of new trackage, and 7000ft of shifted mainline. There currently exists double track between MP 468 and MP 470, and MP 478 to MP 479. They don’t specify where this shifted mainline will be, but I assume they intend this additional passing siding to be placed between 470 and 478. If with no upgrades, passenger trains travel at 40mph, they would tie up this trackage for 12 minutes. This is not a very long period of time. With the recent renovation of the Mechanicville yard, the trackage has been redesigned so as to allow Pan Am through freights to bypass congestion from the intermodal yard. The replacement of one set of crossovers with #20s (presumably right by the Mechanicville tower) will increase speed through the area, and is logical, but the additional 2 crossovers seem redundant, as does 2.5 miles of brand new track, and 7000 feet of rerouted mainline.

Mechanicville-Hoosick
Between MP 467 and MP 466 exists a passing siding. Between MP 447 and 445 exists another passing siding. At MP 445 Ethan Allen trains would branch off towards North Bennington. The study calls for 3 sidings to be placed between MP 466 and MP 447, a distance of 19 miles. With 4.75 miles of sidings, that leaves 14 miles of single track, or on average, 4, 4 mile long sections of single track between 1.6 mile long sidings. This seems ridiculous, especially because observed train lengths on the intermodal trains often exceed 1.6 miles in length. Even with 3 sidings, that won’t make a 2 mile train fit. A better option would be 2, 2 mile sidings, with 3 sections of 5 mile long single track between them. At 40mph, a train could clear single track in 8 minutes. Even one siding placed between 447 and 466 would probably account for the increase in traffic, seeing as Pan Am can get trains across that section of railroad without too much trouble as it is.

Hoosick-Rutland
Between Hoosick and Rutland the study seems fairly accurate. There’s no mention of the welded rail north of Manchester, and I believe they’re overestimating the work needed for the Hoosick Jct-Manchester section, which received a substantial upgrade just over 10 years ago, complete with welded rail and new ballast. In the aftermath of Irene, additional ballast was dumped on much of the line, and several parts of the ROW were rebuilt, including a bridge that may or may not be on the list of bridges needing work. Also included is an additional passing siding in North Bennington as well as one north of Manchester. While the passing siding north of Manchester makes a lot of sense, the one in North Bennington may be redundant if VTR/PAR and Amtrak can come to an operating agreement so that freight train interference is minimal. I believe on the current Ethan Allen route, the Rutland-Whitehall train runs at night so as to not interfere with the EAX.

In any case, I’d like clarification as to the necessity of all these passing sidings, because they add up quickly. If they were to start Amtrak service between Schenectady and North Bennington they’d obviously need some additional trackage, but it can’t possibly be as much as they’re proposing. For a country without a lot of money, you’d think they wouldn’t throw it away on presumably redundant passing sidings for a single daily roundtrip.

I’d also like to open up discussion beyond just these estimated upgrades. Ridership currently is around 80,000/year, and will grow to about 90,000 by 2030 if the Ethan Allen remains on it’s current route. If an additional train rain via North Bennington in conjunction with the Ethan Allen, 2030ridership is expected to be 125,000, while a reroute of the Ethan Alllen would result in ridership of 110,000. It seems like the reroute is the best option, and hopefully funding will become available in the next 4 years, but a cheaper project will look more favorable, and will probably operate just as well as the expensive one.

Thanks

That's a VERY impressive analysis and a nice job of summarizing.

From your description it certainly seems like some of the sidings would be redundant. The Vermont Railway portion of the proposed reroute, between Hoosic Junction and Rutland, currently carries one round trip freight a day. Keeping that and one passenger round trip out of each other's way shouldn't be all that hard. The B&M portion of the line is busier, but even then, we're talking one passenger trip a day, not hourly service.

When a turnout is removed, there are also changes made in the circuitry of the automatic block, TCS and crossing protection systems.

Ah, thanks! That probably answers that question. I hadn't considered that because of the seperate sections relating to signal system costs. The data I used came from page 31 in the document linked to in the first post.

B&M 1227 wrote:Hello all,

I'm currently interning with a county regional commission involved in moving the Ethan Allen from the Canadian Pacific/Clarendon Pittsford lines to the Pan Am/Vermont Railway lines. In reading studies, I'm beginning to think that the estimates of the extension may be overestimated. The most comprehensive study showing specific costs is available here, and suggests the addition of many sidings, some of which appear to be redundant.

You need to speak with the engineering firm that built these estimates to find out what their assumptions were and which standards they were applying. I know AREMA is what is generally used for engineering of the track itself but I don't know if AREMA has standards that apply to planning for capacity levels etc. That could very well indeed be something that isn't necessarily " planned" or "calculated" but "desired".

The political answer (as opposed to my suggestion above to pursue the technical answer) is that the host railroad generally has pretty wide latitude in determining what track improvements are required in order for them to be able to host new or additional passenger service. The Surface Transportation Board (STB) which is the governing regulatory body in this case does not generally dispute requirements of the railroads, especially if they are roughly "in line" with previous requests. That being the case it may or may not matter if you think the request is redundant. You can safely assume that this is what PAR will say they 'need'.

B&M 1227 wrote:Schenectady-MP 480
Between Schenectady and MP 480, the study suggests $6.3M in upgrades, mainly for sidings and turnouts. In their defense, I don't know if this is currently a bottleneck for Amtrak/CP/Pan Am, but in shifting the Ethan Allen there wouldn't be additional passenger train service through the area. While the upgrades may be useful for the project/time being they appear redundant, other than a reconfiguration of trackage at 480, where the new route branches to the east. Also included in this number is a cost of $70,000 per turnout to remove them from service. I can't imagine it costs 1/3 the cost of a brand new turnout to remove a turnout from service. I could be wrong, but a flatbed truck, crane, and a group of guys with torches can't be that much.

You're right a flatbed truck, crane and a group of guys isn't that much. But that is probably not at all an accurate assessment of the amount of work necessary to make these changes. Not only is there a significant amount of signal work involved, as edbear mentioned, but there is also the likely requirement for new ties (in place of the old switch timbers), some new ballast and a fair amount of surfacing, lining and tamping to ensure the new track settles in correctly. The work to the grade is what makes this expensive, and we are of course assuming that you're not talking about Excepted track which isn't being maintained, this is main line track that will be running regular freight and passenger service, probably at Class IV speeds. When it's all said and done, it just isn't a cheap proposition. Would it cost $70,000? With fully allocated costs for labor (w/possible overtime), benefits, taxes and some overhead as well? Entirely possible. Welcome to the world of business budgeting!

B&M 1227 wrote:MP 480-Mechanicville
Between MP 480 and MP 468, the study suggests the addition of 3 crossovers, and 4 additional turnouts, as well as 2.5 miles of new trackage, and 7000ft of shifted mainline. There currently exists double track between MP 468 and MP 470, and MP 478 to MP 479. They don’t specify where this shifted mainline will be, but I assume they intend this additional passing siding to be placed between 470 and 478. If with no upgrades, passenger trains travel at 40mph, they would tie up this trackage for 12 minutes. This is not a very long period of time. With the recent renovation of the Mechanicville yard, the trackage has been redesigned so as to allow Pan Am through freights to bypass congestion from the intermodal yard. The replacement of one set of crossovers with #20s (presumably right by the Mechanicville tower) will increase speed through the area, and is logical, but the additional 2 crossovers seem redundant, as does 2.5 miles of brand new track, and 7000 feet of rerouted mainline.

Keep in mind this plan as devised is designed to help PAR/S and CP cope with the possibility of any future increases in traffic ever after passenger service starts. In effect they could really never go back and "ask for a little more help". PAR/S has just spent a lot of money getting this yard ready to handle a lot of new traffic. Stating that passenger trains would only tie up this trackage for "12 minutes" ignores the signaling system requirements which of course are going to 'drop' signals to "Stop" well before the passenger train arrives and for several more minutes after it departs, depending on the signal block setup. Remember as well, the faster the passenger train is traveling the longer the buffer in front of it must be. In systems that use fixed blocks this means in effect that something moving at 40 MPH (or lets assume more) is going to have to have an extra block in front of it 'drop' sooner. Signal systems have to be setup to deal with these issues and that in turn requires more time and track capacity from the host railroad.

In your paragraph below you mention intermodal freights being too long for the sidings. While that may be the case they certainly wouldn't be too long for the 2.5 miles of brand new track. There's your intermodal siding (maybe).

B&M 1227 wrote:Mechanicville-Hoosick
Between MP 467 and MP 466 exists a passing siding. Between MP 447 and 445 exists another passing siding. At MP 445 Ethan Allen trains would branch off towards North Bennington. The study calls for 3 sidings to be placed between MP 466 and MP 447, a distance of 19 miles. With 4.75 miles of sidings, that leaves 14 miles of single track, or on average, 4, 4 mile long sections of single track between 1.6 mile long sidings. This seems ridiculous, especially because observed train lengths on the intermodal trains often exceed 1.6 miles in length. Even with 3 sidings, that won’t make a 2 mile train fit. A better option would be 2, 2 mile sidings, with 3 sections of 5 mile long single track between them. At 40mph, a train could clear single track in 8 minutes. Even one siding placed between 447 and 466 would probably account for the increase in traffic, seeing as Pan Am can get trains across that section of railroad without too much trouble as it is.

The shorter sidings could be there for the railroad to use for parking consists of manifest freight (and not necessarily just consists for VTR either). As before I would also keep in mind that travel time for any train is of course going to be vastly different than actual time from when the signals 'drop' to when they are 'clear' again.

B&M 1227 wrote:Hoosick-Rutland
Between Hoosick and Rutland the study seems fairly accurate. There’s no mention of the welded rail north of Manchester, and I believe they’re overestimating the work needed for the Hoosick Jct-Manchester section, which received a substantial upgrade just over 10 years ago, complete with welded rail and new ballast. In the aftermath of Irene, additional ballast was dumped on much of the line, and several parts of the ROW were rebuilt, including a bridge that may or may not be on the list of bridges needing work. Also included is an additional passing siding in North Bennington as well as one north of Manchester. While the passing siding north of Manchester makes a lot of sense, the one in North Bennington may be redundant if VTR/PAR and Amtrak can come to an operating agreement so that freight train interference is minimal. I believe on the current Ethan Allen route, the Rutland-Whitehall train runs at night so as to not interfere with the EAX.

There could very well indeed be errors as you mention above. Check directly with the engineering firm that wrote the study.

In regards to the passing sidings I would be careful about judging them as redundant and even more reluctant to assume that the freight railroads would enter into an agreement with Amtrak that would abrogate or modify their track rights in the slightest. That's the entire basis for the American freight rail system's success, passenger trains no longer require the railroads to slow down or modify freight movements. During the ICC-era (especially of course after the Hepburn Act of 1906) which lasted until 1971 (when Amtrak was created) freight railroads had to modify their schedules and timing around passenger trains. This era has effectively ended and most of the leverage now resides with the freight railroads. Basically you've got to go along with what they're asking for if you want to preclude constant delays or issues with dispatching. The freight railroads are not required in any way to 'give you the road' unless they so choose to.

B&M 1277 wrote:In any case, I’d like clarification as to the necessity of all these passing sidings, because they add up quickly. If they were to start Amtrak service between Schenectady and North Bennington they’d obviously need some additional trackage, but it can’t possibly be as much as they’re proposing. For a country without a lot of money, you’d think they wouldn’t throw it away on presumably redundant passing sidings for a single daily roundtrip.

All of the above depends on how much you value freight rail. Over 3 decades ago now "The People" decided that the free flow of goods over rails was far more important than the free flow of people over rails. In effect passenger rail itself was determined to be "redundant". Of course we have learned since that this is not necessarily the case, but back in the era of cheap gas, new interstate highways and low pollution controls passenger trains really did seem economically ridiculous. The laws and regulations you are working within were written in that era. This however is not necessarily a bad thing, first because when freight railroads are compelled to accept new passenger train service there is also the consequent responsibility to the operator to upgrade the corridor as required and second because of the first the improvements that are made absolutely ensure that the freight railroads are adequately compensated for both operating and capital costs AND the new passenger train services run on time, at the best possible speed, and with minimal freight train interference (if any). In the end you get a much better product, operationally and you also retain healthy freight railroads, which as everyone learned in the 60's and 70's are utterly essential to the smooth functioning of the economy.

B&M 1227 wrote:I’d also like to open up discussion beyond just these estimated upgrades. Ridership currently is around 80,000/year, and will grow to about 90,000 by 2030 if the Ethan Allen remains on it’s current route. If an additional train rain via North Bennington in conjunction with the Ethan Allen, 2030ridership is expected to be 125,000, while a reroute of the Ethan Alllen would result in ridership of 110,000. It seems like the reroute is the best option, and hopefully funding will become available in the next 4 years, but a cheaper project will look more favorable, and will probably operate just as well as the expensive one.

Assuming the "No Build" is out make your recommendation based on which alternative can be completed with the least amount of trouble for the most amount of new ridership.

I won't comment on the non-VRS lines listed, since I don't know enough about their operations to really comment on the reasoning that went into their requests for improvements. However, I can add a few comments on the VRS segment.

B&M 1227 wrote:Hoosick-Rutland
Between Hoosick and Rutland the study seems fairly accurate. There’s no mention of the welded rail north of Manchester, and I believe they’re overestimating the work needed for the Hoosick Jct-Manchester section, which received a substantial upgrade just over 10 years ago, complete with welded rail and new ballast. In the aftermath of Irene, additional ballast was dumped on much of the line, and several parts of the ROW were rebuilt, including a bridge that may or may not be on the list of bridges needing work. Also included is an additional passing siding in North Bennington as well as one north of Manchester. While the passing siding north of Manchester makes a lot of sense, the one in North Bennington may be redundant if VTR/PAR and Amtrak can come to an operating agreement so that freight train interference is minimal. I believe on the current Ethan Allen route, the Rutland-Whitehall train runs at night so as to not interfere with the EAX.

As stated, there is no mention of new rail for the section north of Manchester. Or Arlington for that matter, where the welded rail stops. I think that this will be a non-starter. The current rail is light, and heavily worn/battered, and if 60/40 is the speed the planners are looking for, upgraded rail is going to be the only way it is accomplished. The two sidings they are talking about would provide protection against adverse conditions, like late trains, MW activity, etc. The siding in Danby would be handy to have back, even if just for freight operations. Since they list the siding south of North Bennington in chains, and not a MP I'm not sure where it is supposed to be located. But with interchange at the Hoosick Gateway increasing, additional capacity will be needed.

As for the bridges, the one bridge (Roaring Branch in Arlington) that sustained heavy damage was not among the bridges listed in poor condition. The bridge in Danby had a lot of material lodged in it, but suffered no structural damage since all the water flowed to the north and washed out a culvert as a result of the plug of debris in the bridge. So I wold say that their assessment of the bridges is correct.

With our current PTC waiver, we are not allowed to run a train on the same segment of track as an occupied Amtrak train. This would apply to the rerouted train as well, I would assume. So there would certainly be some sort of schedule realignment of the freight traffic, not really a big deal compared to having to shell out the money for PTC. It will be more of a problem north of Rutland, but that is getting off topic.

The sections of track upgraded in the first attempt at the ABRB project are getting to the point where some surfacing and tie replacement is needed, however every third tie might be overly aggressive. A solid skim lift and spot tie replacement and 60/40 should be quite attainable. So if you look at the cost for upgrades, not including rail, I would say it is not too far off for the VRS section. But the elephant in the room is rail. Even 115# #1 relay isn't cheap, and there are 40 track miles to replace! Now, the NECR and PAS have gotten money to do this over greater distances, so it isn't impossible. However, my opinion is I wouldn't hold my breath for another round of TIGER or ARRA funds any time soon! But I hope I am proven wrong, I would love to go ripping through Manchester at 40!

rovetherr wrote:Now, the NECR and PAS have gotten money to do this over greater distances, so it isn't impossible. However, my opinion is I wouldn't hold my breath for another round of TIGER or ARRA funds any time soon! But I hope I am proven wrong, I would love to go ripping through Manchester at 40!

Amtrak being, for better or worse, a political creature, it seems relevant to note that with the death of Sen. Inouye, Patrick Leahy is now the senior senator from the majority party and as such is President Pro Tempore of the Senate.

Before I assumed that 60/40 was achievable anywhere between Bennington and Rutland, I would look for evidence that someone had researched the RoW alignment thoroughly. I'm not sure I have the paper to confirm it, but nothing I've read indicates the Rutland ever ran that fast, and the river valley route oesn't have a lot of straightaways just waiting for the heavy rail and signals to be unleashed.

jbvb wrote:Before I assumed that 60/40 was achievable anywhere between Bennington and Rutland, I would look...

In 1949 the passenger speed limit was 55 MPH with one 50 MPH curve along the way.

Ridgefielder wrote:

rovetherr wrote:Now, the NECR and PAS have gotten money to do this over greater distances, so it isn't impossible. However, my opinion is I wouldn't hold my breath for another round of TIGER or ARRA funds any time soon! But I hope I am proven wrong, I would love to go ripping through Manchester at 40!

Amtrak being, for better or worse, a political creature, it seems relevant to note that with the death of Sen. Inouye, Patrick Leahy is now the senior senator from the majority party and as such is President Pro Tempore of the Senate.

That's a really good point. I think we could expect to see some major projects benefiting Vermont. Anyone ever seen how many things there are in West Virginia named after the late Sen. Byrd?

Plan aside, I'm not sure where these mileposts are coming from - but the double iron as it exists today is between CPF477 and 475 and 469 and 468 on the joint mainline. There also is no passing siding between 467 and 466, but there is between 466 and 464. There also double track between 448 (not 447) and 445.

Back to the plan - besides being a pipe dream, from an operational standpoint (and cost) it doesn't make sense. Way too many changes in infrastructure for 1 (maybe a couple eventually?) pair of trains a day. After all the Tiger grants that were already awarded they will never get funding for this.

Thanks for the mileposts clarification. The rationale for the reroute stems from Vermont footing the operating cost of the train, while only serving a small bit of the state. Ridership numbers show only 1200 annual riders boarding in Castleton, vs I believe 4800 in Manchester, and 6400 in Bennington. the Southern Vermont Rail Group maintains that these numbers are much lower than actual ridership, and this may be the case seeing as some new Amtrak service has quickly surpassed it's expected ridership, however I wouldn't take their word for it. In Vermont's eyes, it makes more sense for that train to stay in the state for a longer period of time, and serve a greater portion of the Vermont population. In addition, with service being extended from Rutland to Burlington, it makes some sense to route the train due south from Rutland to avoid additional equipment and time required for a reverse move there. Probably most significant is a projected 15,000 rider increase from NY Penn if the train is rerouted, taking advantage of the 55% of New Yorkers that don't drive. In the state's eyes, that is 15,000 more people spending time, and money in Vermont.

I think it's reasonable that they add a siding or two between 464 and 448 seeing that there's been a big tonnage increase over Pan Am, but I agree that the changes between 468 and 480 are extravagant. Also seemingly ridiculous is any additional passing sidings between Hoosick Junction and Rutland. If the train were to run at all, it would be running under dark territory, preventing VTR/PAR service in the area during this time. While the group (the same people doing the South Coast Rail study...) seems to be getting on track with what they're doing, I'm a little annoyed that they completely skipped over the need for welded rail the first time around. Yes sidings and grade crossings and bridge improvements are important, but 40 miles of welded rail is equally necessary to the trains operation if not more so...

B&M 1227 wrote:Mechanicville-Hoosick
Between MP 467 and MP 466 exists a passing siding. Between MP 447 and 445 exists another passing siding. At MP 445 Ethan Allen trains would branch off towards North Bennington. The study calls for 3 sidings to be placed between MP 466 and MP 447, a distance of 19 miles. With 4.75 miles of sidings, that leaves 14 miles of single track, or on average, 4, 4 mile long sections of single track between 1.6 mile long sidings. This seems ridiculous, especially because observed train lengths on the intermodal trains often exceed 1.6 miles in length. Even with 3 sidings, that won’t make a 2 mile train fit. A better option would be 2, 2 mile sidings, with 3 sections of 5 mile long single track between them. At 40mph, a train could clear single track in 8 minutes. Even one siding placed between 447 and 466 would probably account for the increase in traffic, seeing as Pan Am can get trains across that section of railroad without too much trouble as it is.

Good analysis. Let me give you another interpretation.

As you say, based on the length of the trains that are currently running, 2-mile sidings would be better. Perhaps the intent is to lengthen one or more of the existing sidings and add two in between. 4.75 miles could be two sidings 2 miles long and one 0.75 mile siding extension.

B&M 1227 wrote:I’d also like to open up discussion beyond just these estimated upgrades. Ridership currently is around 80,000/year, and will grow to about 90,000 by 2030 if the Ethan Allen remains on it’s current route. If an additional train rain via North Bennington in conjunction with the Ethan Allen, 2030ridership is expected to be 125,000, while a reroute of the Ethan Alllen would result in ridership of 110,000. It seems like the reroute is the best option, and hopefully funding will become available in the next 4 years, but a cheaper project will look more favorable, and will probably operate just as well as the expensive one.

Thanks

I'll reprint here a comment I made earlier on another thread.

The ridership projections in that study baffle me. The 2010 baseline ridership for the Ethan Allen and Adirondack are indicated in Table 6 as 78,600 per year. The footnote says "One-way boardings." Actual ridership on the Adirondack in 2010 was reported by Amtrak at 118,673 and the Ethan Allen had 48,031. That totals 166,604. More than twice the reported 2010 baseline.

Maybe they meant "round-trips" and maybe they used the calendar year instead of the fiscal year. Or maybe the model wasn't calibrated to match the real world results.

Then consider the 2030 "No-Build" case. The ridership forecast for 2030 is 88,200, an increase of 12.2% over the base case. Actual ridership on the combined routes rose 11.7% from 2010 to 2012. So according to the forecast, Amtrak achieved almost 20 years of growth in 2 years.

And the no build case assumes no change in the consist of either train. With the growth presently being experienced, that's not a realistic assumption. Amtrak was already adding a car to the Ethan Allen consist this summer during the racing season. I'm glad the study is stamped "Draft" because some serious revisions need to be made.

Not only has the ridership on the Adirondack and Ethan Allen already grown 11.7% in the past 2 years, it should take another jump after the trip time gets significant reductions due to projects in Albany and Ballston Spa which are already in planned and should be considered in the "No Build" case.

John Stolberg

Agreed.

B&M 1227 wrote:Thanks for the mileposts clarification. The rationale for the reroute stems from Vermont footing the operating cost of the train, while only serving a small bit of the state. Ridership numbers show only 1200 annual riders boarding in Castleton, vs I believe 4800 in Manchester, and 6400 in Bennington. the Southern Vermont Rail Group maintains that these numbers are much lower than actual ridership, and this may be the case seeing as some new Amtrak service has quickly surpassed it's expected ridership, however I wouldn't take their word for it. In Vermont's eyes, it makes more sense for that train to stay in the state for a longer period of time, and serve a greater portion of the Vermont population. In addition, with service being extended from Rutland to Burlington, it makes some sense to route the train due south from Rutland to avoid additional equipment and time required for a reverse move there. Probably most significant is a projected 15,000 rider increase from NY Penn if the train is rerouted, taking advantage of the 55% of New Yorkers that don't drive. In the state's eyes, that is 15,000 more people spending time, and money in Vermont.

I think it's reasonable that they add a siding or two between 464 and 448 seeing that there's been a big tonnage increase over Pan Am, but I agree that the changes between 468 and 480 are extravagant. Also seemingly ridiculous is any additional passing sidings between Hoosick Junction and Rutland. If the train were to run at all, it would be running under dark territory, preventing VTR/PAR service in the area during this time. While the group (the same people doing the South Coast Rail study...) seems to be getting on track with what they're doing, I'm a little annoyed that they completely skipped over the need for welded rail the first time around. Yes sidings and grade crossings and bridge improvements are important, but 40 miles of welded rail is equally necessary to the trains operation if not more so...

I was surprised to find a topic on this. In any case: VermontBiz.com

...
The recently announced federal grants consist of $500,000 to plan expansion of service on the route of Vermont's other passenger train, the Vermonter, and $500,000 towards the inauguration of a new train that would originate in New York City and call in Manchester and Bennington on its way to Burlington.
...
The second grant will allow Vermont to develop similar plans for a companion route to the current, New York-Albany-Burlington Ethan Allen, but routed via North Bennington, on the route of the long-defunct Rutland Railroad, rather than Saratoga Springs.

That would bring passenger trains back to Bennington County for the first time since the Rutland Railroad ended all passenger service in 1953.

Dan Delabruere, who heads the Rail and Aviation Bureau at Vermont's Agency of Transportation (VTrans), termed it "unlikely" that the new train would call in Bennington village:

The rail spur from North Bennington into Bennington village is inactive – part of it has become a rail trail, in fact – so that the train would presumably stop at the depot that still stands in the former village.
...