Long/Medium Distance Maine Amtrak Service

Moderator Note:

This thread was originally posted in the New England forum. Upon request of the member who started the thread, it has been moved to the Amtrak forum.

-MEC407, New England Forum moderator, 17 Jul 2013


—


Since the Downeaster service began there has been occasional discussion, occasionally tangential to the topic at hand, of passenger service restoration between Portland, Maine and markets in the medium to long distance range. When I first started writing this thread I going to propose discussion of a service that used Grand Junction trackage around Boston. After doing my homework I found a post by Mr. Noel Weaver discussing possibilities for service to Portland from Grand Central through Providence, RI and then Worcester, MA. The reasons he gave for this were many and they made a lot of sense, including most importantly that the rail ROW via the P&W through Worcester, MA was relatively viable right now.

Although I undestand NNEPRA is limited in the service that it can provide by subsidies from the State of Maine is there a possibility that some of these Medium or Long Distance markets would be so easy to enter that the outlay in operating subsidies would in fact be quite minor?

The markets and routes considered are the following:

1. Portland - New York City, Grand Central Station/Penn Station (either/or take your pick but justify it)
[formerly "State of Maine", NH #125/126]

2. Portland - Washington, Union Station [major stops only?] (year-round service?)
[formerly "East Wind" or "Bar Harbor Express" both of these trains were seasonal]

3. Portland - Montreal [perhaps seasonal initially with extension to Old Orchard Beach?]
[formerly GT/CN #16/17]
What would be a sensible and perhaps historically correct name for this service?

Feel free to add your own.

I know ideas like this are ambitious etc. I also know that the Portland - Lewiston - Montreal service via St. Lawrence & Atlantic has been a very high priority for the current administration. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised to see it started up out of the blue before Governor Baldacci leaves office. He would have a chance to make a proposal for this service before he leaves office for the next two-year budget period starting July 1, 2009.

Unfortunately, Amtrak service in Maine may grind to a halt in early July 2009. While supposedly promising to do so many months ago, the Governor did NOT put any funds in his two year proposed budget starting July 1st. I understand there is some hope to get another extension of federal funding, that has provided the bulk of funds for the Downeaster. Otherwise, that new facility in Saco may be a station without a train, along with the other stations on the Downeaster route..

Ummm, ... ... Either you are breaking news and Train Riders NE missed it or the funding is somewhere else or is added as an amendment later in the legislative process. There has been no indication whatsoever to this point that there wasn't going to be funding for the Downeaster. Obvisouly times are very difficult but I don't think a service with almost 500k ridership a year is considered 'disposable' anymore.

Dick H wrote:Unfortunately, Amtrak service in Maine may grind to a halt in early July 2009. While supposedly promising to do so many months ago, the Governor did NOT put any funds in his two year proposed budget starting July 1st. I understand there is some hope to get another extension of federal funding, that has provided the bulk of funds for the Downeaster. Otherwise, that new facility in Saco may be a station without a train, along with the other stations on the Downeaster route..

If you go to The Official Amtrak Downeaster Thread on the Amtrak Forum, you will find that the funding issue was talked about, as that's what I started the thread on. Sometime last summer the funding issue was taken care of, not sure how far out it extends; but the Downeaster won't be coming to a grinding halt this coming summer.

Originally I had that thread on this forum as its more New England related than Amtrak related but someone with the powers to be thought otherwise.

It's easy to connect cities on a map and propose restoration of rail passenger service. We'd all like to see more passenger trains in northern New England. But it's a LOT harder to find the government money to make it happen. All of the routes you list would require extensive (= expensive) trackwork to bring them up to passenger train speeds, a supply of new equipment since Amtrak doesn't have any spare cars right now, and ongoing funding for operating support. With both state and Federal governments in the middle of the worst financial crisis of our lifetimes, I don't think this is going to happen anytime in the forseeable future. And as long as you can connect from the Downeaster to the Northeast Corridor in Boston via a 15-minute, $2.00 subway ride, I don't think that the cost of rebuilding either the traditional B&M State of Maine route via Lowell and Worcester or the Grand Junction branch in Boston should be prioritized over other potential restorations where no current alternative service exists.

Regarding my post on Downeaster funding, apparently I did make an error in using a July 2009 cutoff. Actually, the service would end "after summer ends" as noted from the following passage from the Downeaster blog of January 27, 2009:

Patricia Quinn disclosed that Gov. Baldacci had not put $16 million into his supplemental budget for Downeaster operating costs for the next two years. The result is that, as of now, there is no funding to continue the service after summer ends. The Maine Washington delegation has been contacted in an effort to continue Congestion Mitigation federal funding which currently picks up most of the Downeaster’s deficit. (Ed. Note: To get the Downeaster up and running, federal CMAQ funds [Congestion Mitigation Air Quality] were allocated to bridge the gap between the fare box and operating expenses. That was a three-year commitment. Then it was extended for another three years thanks to our Washington delegation. The current extension ends October 31, 2009. With the state not putting money in its budget, we’re back to another effort to extend the use of those funds. Train funding, whether nationally or regionally, is an eternal challenge.)

Dick

I mentioned this article in another thread, but it must have gotten lost in the shuffle.

PORTLAND — Under Gov. John Baldacci’s proposed state budget, funding for the Amtrak Downeaster may hinge on the federal government’s willingness to broaden the use of transportation dollars for rail operations.

That’s because Baldacci’s $6.1 billion biennial spending plan does not include operations funding for the Downeaster, a service that has reported steady gains in ridership while planning expansion to Freeport and Brunswick.

Read the rest at: http://www.theforecaster.net/story.php?storyid=17704

TomNelligan wrote:It's easy to connect cities on a map and propose restoration of rail passenger service. We'd all like to see more passenger trains in northern New England. But it's a LOT harder to find the government money to make it happen. All of the routes you list would require extensive (= expensive) trackwork to bring them up to passenger train speeds, a supply of new equipment since Amtrak doesn't have any spare cars right now, and ongoing funding for operating support. With both state and Federal governments in the middle of the worst financial crisis of our lifetimes, I don't think this is going to happen anytime in the forseeable future. And as long as you can connect from the Downeaster to the Northeast Corridor in Boston via a 15-minute, $2.00 subway ride, I don't think that the cost of rebuilding either the traditional B&M State of Maine route via Lowell and Worcester or the Grand Junction branch in Boston should be prioritized over other potential restorations where no current alternative service exists.

Mr Nelligan,

I asked the question precisely because I had been led to believe by other information on the boards that the Providence - Worcester route was in fact in reasonably good shape that substantial line rehabilitations would not be needed. Although this news is disappointing at least we know that there is a reason why this type of service restoration can't be done right now.

In regards to whether or not there will ever be this type of service restoration, as long as the Northeast Corridor can deliver people to Boston for connecting service at North Station, I wonder if there is enough of a time loss that eventually this argument might not work. There must be at least a one hour advantage to not getting off the train in Boston and probably another hour's advantage if the service were to be treated as a non stop express once it entered the Downeaster service area.

Did the State of Maine stop at locations north of Boston that were served by B&M local and regional service?

Mr. Nelligan I also noticed that 'The State' was mentioned as a B&M service, I was under the impression that was a New Haven train, I guess only for the portions on NH tracks (makes sense of course, how could NH originate service on another railroad's territory). Was the 125/126 designation a B&M or NH number or was it shared by both railroads to designate the same train?

[EDIT] I'm going to post the information regarding the Downeaster service in the applicable Amtrak Downeaster thread.[END EDIT]

From an engineering PoV, the Maine - NYC services via Worcester face the following issues: 1) Track capacity on existing CTC-controlled single track between Portland and Plaistow NH (GTI), Lawrence and Andover MA (MBTA) and between Worcester and Springfield (CSX) if the service doesn't go via Providence or Norwich. 2) Deteriorated, unsignalled GTI track between Andover and Worcester. 3) Unsignalled, medium-speed track on both P&W routes from Worcester to the Shore Line. So a good deal of capital expenditure would be required for track rehab, signals and new sidings and/or double track. But given that, you could probably manage Portland - New Haven in about the old East Wind time.

From a traffic planning PoV, if you scheduled (and kept) good connections with the MBTA commuter rail at Haverhill and Worcester, and persuaded the MBTA to co-operate with through ticketing, the Mass. segment would start to look like the beginnings of a regional mesh, and you might look for some good intermediate-points ridership.

The Portland - Montreal route is different - thinly populated (Berlin, NH with 10K people looks like a metropolis north of the notches) and never a high-speed route. No Interstate or airline competition, but I don't think demand would ever exceed a couple of RDCs worth of seats, except maybe in July and August.

To GOkeefe: The State of Maine stopped at Old Orchard, Kennebunk, Wells, No. Berwick, Dover, Exeter, Haverhill and Lawrence before swinging over to Lowell. So the answer is: the State of Maine made more stops than today's Downeaster does.

To jbvb: It's CTC between Lowell Jct. and Bleachery, then all the way to Ayer. The only unsignalled territory would be Ayer - Worcester, and Worcester - Boston Switch on the NEC.

Rockingham Racer wrote:To jbvb: It's CTC between Lowell Jct. and Bleachery, then all the way to Ayer. The only unsignalled territory would be Ayer - Worcester, and Worcester - Boston Switch on the NEC.

So approximately how much mileage is dark? I was doing some research and read reports about the proposed Quad Cities service extension to IA. The signalling was easily the most expensive part of the entire operation, although this did include some modifications to grade crossing signals, for the most part the real issue was installing CTC signals.

I understand there are bigger and more serious obstacles such as track condition but the signals budget was what really blew things out of the water.

I kind of wonder about the Montreal service. It seems pretty clear that it would be successful in the summer. Perhaps NNEPRA could take some cars off and provide them to the Downeaster in the Winter time especially for peak holiday travel.

gokeefe wrote: I asked the question precisely because I had been led to believe by other information on the boards that the Providence - Worcester route was in fact in reasonably good shape that substantial line rehabilitations would not be needed.

Mr. Jbvb has already commented on this, but the problem on the old State of Maine route is mainly north of Worcester, where the B&M Worcester-Ayer line is currently 10 mph unsignaled track. Ayer-North Chelmsford-Lowell-Lowell Junction is signaled but good only for freight speeds. The Providence & Worcester RR maintains its track well for freight operation, but it's all unsignaled and not a particularly fast line.

Mr. Nelligan I also noticed that 'The State' was mentioned as a B&M service, I was under the impression that was a New Haven train, I guess only for the portions on NH tracks (makes sense of course, how could NH originate service on another railroad's territory). Was the 125/126 designation a B&M or NH number or was it shared by both railroads to designate the same train?

It was a joint New Haven/Boston& Maine operation between New York (Grand Central) and Portland with through sleepers and connecting coaches north of there via the Maine Central. As of the summer of 1956, the State of Maine train numbers were as follows:

New York-Worcester, NH #124
Worcester-Portland, B&M #81 (#83 on Sundays)
Portland-Worcester, B&M #82
Worcester-New York, NH #125

Mr. Nelligan,

Thank You for your replies. A quick look at a map shows Worcester - Ayer to be about 20 miles worth of track, possibly less. I'm looking at the one that goes by the Devens Reserve Forces Training Area. Although obviously the P&W section is a bigger challenge in terms of signalling I find it interesting that the real challenge is mainly a small (relative to the entire route, or even just trackage in MA) portion. Intriguing.

Thank you also for answering the numbering question. It's just a piece of trivia but it's nice to know whether or not the 'Buck and a Quarter' reference was native to the B&M.

I think in these very uncertain times any talk of expanding the current service is highly speculative. The goal now is maintaining passenger rail between Boston and Portland. IMHO, several things should happen. First, the Maine DOT should take direct control of the Downeaster and eliminate the costly "middleman" known as the NNEPRA. Second, a serious look should be taken at scheduling and equipment resources. The current schedule is overly ambitious and train frequency should be reduced back to 4 daily round trips. Third, the Downeaster ideally should not be a commuter service. That function should be performed by extending commuter rail to Dover, NH, and eliminating all DE stops between Anderson and Dover. As that option is far off in the future, then consideration should at least be given to eliminating Haverhill. The goal here would be to improve trip time and minimize delays, at the cost of a handful of boardings.
This winter has been especially hard on the Downeaster. Given the amazing ability of the NNEPRA to plant news stories about commuters in the club car and commuters who use it to get from their homes in Fort Kent or someplace, there has been zero mention of the many service debacles and fall outs that took place last month during the ice storm. Then there is the added chronic problems with the T's new signal upgrades in the Lawrence and Haverhiil area. The DE's on time performance has slipped badly as a result. I think you'll find some serious ridership declines from here on, with the double affect of the softening economy and service woes on the train.

I have to say this is the first time I've ever heard someone say something negative about NNEPRA. With all due respect, 90% of the Downeaster's success is the result of NNEPRA's oversight and management of the service. Dumping it into MDOT's lap is just about the last thing I'd want to do to the Downeaster. (I'd be even less keen on it being entirely Amtrak-managed.)

Honestly, I think the Downeaster would've died long ago if NNEPRA hadn't been running the show. It's a small but very effective organization, and despite having the rather grand and bureaucratic-sounding words "rail authority" in their name, there's only like five or six people in their office. NNEPRA operates with a very sharp pencil and with a lot of transparency. It certainly isn't the huge barrel of pork and wastefulness that MBTA and MBCR are, that's for sure.

cpf354 wrote:Given the amazing ability of the NNEPRA to plant news stories about commuters in the club car and commuters who use it to get from their homes in Fort Kent or someplace, there has been zero mention of the many service debacles and fall outs that took place last month during the ice storm.

Actually, there was a prominent story in either the Boston Globe or the Boston Herald about the winter-related Downeaster problems, and the media up here in Maine have reported on it as well. NNEPRA has been very open and honest about that stuff and has said that they're not happy about the problems and that they want to find ways to prevent them from happening in the future.