Amtrak Vermonter / Montrealer

ThirdRail7 wrote:

Arlington wrote:[
Is this a case of having NEC-capable coaches overnighting at a terminal that can get an "earlier start" by serving the hinterlands? Much of Amtrak Virginia's early equipment came from trainsets that sat at WAS each morning before becoming a ~10am northbound and instead starting them at the wee hours deep in Virginia, Is there equipment at SPG waiting to go south? And is this just New Haven Shuttle equipment or a consist that could go as far as Lynchburg (as they currently do on Saturdays)

The nice thing here, too, is that the corridor is likely to be entirely owned by Amtrak (to SPG) and Mass (up to where the NECR starts) or by NECR (which is passenger-service friendly), so they should have a greater ability to build any base they need to start NEC trains somewhere deeper north into Massachusetts.

I was reading a Northeast Rail Multi-State plan that seemed to suggest that there's as big an opportunity serving the Conn River / Knowledge Corridor as there was extending NECs to Lynchburg and Newport News.

Will it be possible for Springfield equipment to go up to Greenfield, turn and be back to "resume its regular programming" to New Haven? Or will they have to build "real" sidings and a place to overnight trainsets north of Springfield?

I believe they hope to use the SPG shuttles to provide the service. The equipment would dh to Greenfield early in the day like the Downeasters dh to Brunswick.

That...or poke the shuttles up there until the Inland Route is ready to resume, the shuttles divert over the Inland, and fully built-out NHHS commuter rail starts poking north of Springfield with MassDOT increasing its funding and equipment contribution to the CDOT pool (sort of like the arrangement RIDOT has with the MBTA). That strategy makes sense for the long-term as it gains a foothold for immediately more Amtrak service that can later be applied to the Inlands without quite as big a jump in equipment needs, and it route-primes the Knowledge Corridor for regular commuter service. Which will take a few years because CDOT's service plan is on a gradual scale-up over several years before the schedule is full-blast. Springfield-Greenfield definitely has CR potential to develop over the mid-term as a mixed NHHS service pattern. I-91 is not a pleasant commute through Northampton and Holyoke on the choked 4-lane section, and fuggedaboutit if you have to brave the pure hell all the way to Hartford from that northerly stretch of 91.

Interested parties should take note of the following meeting announcement:

Public Meeting
Thursday, January 23, 2014
7PM
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
60 Congress Street
Springfield, MA

This study led by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and
the Vermont Agency of Transportation will examine the opportunities
and impacts of more frequent and higher speed intercity passenger rail
service on the Inland Route (the rail line connecting Boston-
Springfield-New Haven) and the Boston-Montreal corridors, including
ridership potential, service development plans and potential
environmental impacts for both corridors.

The original text can be found on this link:
http://www.pvpc.org/resources/transport ... c-2013.pdf

BenH wrote:This study led by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and
the Vermont Agency of Transportation will examine the opportunities
and impacts of more frequent and higher speed intercity passenger rail
service on the Inland Route (the rail line connecting Boston-
Springfield-New Haven) and the Boston-Montreal corridors, including
ridership potential, service development plans and potential
environmental impacts for both corridors.

Note the term "higher speed," not "high." While the Inland Route and Boston-Montreal really weren't candidates for true "high speed" service, the term seemed to be used on every rail project these last few years. Good to see a bit more accuracy in the discussion.

Now that Amherst and Palmer are being cut off of the Vermonter, bringing service back
to Boston on that route might make some sense. Run two trains a day through VT rather
than one, with one going to Boston too, maybe transfer to the inland route at Palmer.
Would be worth a look anyway.

I think a return of service to Montreal by the Vermonter is a much closer prospect than we realize. There has been a lot of trackwork done and at this point the primary hurdle remaining is the establishment of a pre-clearance facility in Montreal for rail passengers. Negotiations and work on this have been ongoing for some time now and could potentially be completed in 2014.

trainhq wrote:Now that Amherst and Palmer are being cut off of the Vermonter, bringing service back
to Boston on that route might make some sense. Run two trains a day through VT rather
than one, and they could go to Boston too, maybe transfer to the inland route at Palmer.
Would be worth a look anyway.

Or combine the trains in Bratt?

I think these two ideas would be a good start:

1. The north- and south- bound Vermonters meet in Springfield around 3pm each day. This train is usually less than 50% full north of Springfield, but it often sells out between New Haven and Washington. There is often an engine on either end of the train to facilitate the Palmer backup move. Going North, the train could split with the tail heading West to go up the Connecticut River Line (when completed) to Northampton, Vermont and Montreal, and the front end continuing East to Palmer, Worcester and Boston. Going South, the sections from Montreal and Boston could meet in Springfield, join up, and head to Washington via New Haven. This service could be provided with virtually no additional equipment. Instead of running 2-3 empty cars between Northern Vermont and Springfield, why not fill them with people who want to go to Boston via the Inland Route? The only question would be which section gets the cafe/business car.

2. Some of the Springfield-New Haven shuttles could be extended to Boston via the Inland Route to increase frequency. This might require extra equipment, such as a cafe and business class, for the longer trip.

Somebody asked about overnighting equipment in Springfield. There's a 8+ car train #148 that arrives in Springfield at 10:10pm. The #141 leaves Springfield at 5:55am, and goes back Washington. I don't know if this train could be extended without having unreasonably early departures and unreasonably late arrivals.

BenH wrote:Interested parties should take note of the following meeting announcement:

Public Meeting
Thursday, January 23, 2014
7PM
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
60 Congress Street
Springfield, MA

This study led by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and
the Vermont Agency of Transportation will examine the opportunities
and impacts of more frequent and higher speed intercity passenger rail
service on the Inland Route (the rail line connecting Boston-
Springfield-New Haven) and the Boston-Montreal corridors, including
ridership potential, service development plans and potential
environmental impacts for both corridors.

The original text can be found on this link:
http://www.pvpc.org/resources/transport ... c-2013.pdf

being a weekly commuter From Okemo parking my car at Bellows falls I wish I could get to this meeting. My vision would be have the train 5 hours later south as well as the same time frame of 5 hours later north. there is a Huge potential for ridership increases. I know many are tired of doing the drive lets just hope the ski resorts could get on board by offering connecting shuttles or have CRT transit aboard adjusting the schedule to have the bus connect to the train as well as GMTA to have a bus montpiliar to the NEK. Some of these have great one way connections at the moment but not round trip because of the train timing.

NRGeep wrote:

trainhq wrote:Now that Amherst and Palmer are being cut off of the Vermonter, bringing service back
to Boston on that route might make some sense. Run two trains a day through VT rather
than one, and they could go to Boston too, maybe transfer to the inland route at Palmer.
Would be worth a look anyway.

Or combine the trains in Bratt?

I always liked the idea of running a train from Boston up to Vermont. Combine in Brattleboro or run a section of the train cross-state to Rutland/Burlington via Ludlow.

The Vermonter would be a lot more useful with twice a day frequency and if the local buses didn't shut down before the train arrived. Rental car availability in Brattleboro, White River Junction, and Essex Junction would be nice too. At WRJ the northbound train arrives at 6:10pm. The local rental car office (Lebanon NH, 4 miles away) closes at 6:00pm. At Essex, it's a $20 cab ride to the airport to get a rental car. Why isn't there a shuttle bus that goes from the train, to the airport and then into town or to a couple of the major universities?

If there's service from Boston to Vermont, it should go through Springfield where there's a lot more population, and connecting trains, than Palmer-Amherst. It's a short drive from Amherst to the new Northampton station. UMass and the town should set up a shuttle bus to meet each train.

jp1822 wrote:

NRGeep wrote:

trainhq wrote:Now that Amherst and Palmer are being cut off of the Vermonter, bringing service back
to Boston on that route might make some sense. Run two trains a day through VT rather
than one, and they could go to Boston too, maybe transfer to the inland route at Palmer.
Would be worth a look anyway.

Or combine the trains in Bratt?

I always liked the idea of running a train from Boston up to Vermont. Combine in Brattleboro or run a section of the train cross-state to Rutland/Burlington via Ludlow.

Okemo would love the idea and so do I especially if I could get thru Chester doing 60-80 MPH judging you update the rail and crossings for a few million via a grant etc etc.. or have as a stop there. I absolutely Hate driving 25 MPH thru the town just to get a speeding ticket if doing 26 MPH yes I said that correctly. The issue is where would you put the stop in Ludlow and or Jackson gore at Okemo? That comes with a HUGE price tag to be ADA compliant and thats what holds this up on Okemo's end.

I've spotted the Vermonter a couple of times recently on the NEC with a Metroliner cab car in the consist. I was wondering if Amtrak had reverted to single locomotive operation north of New Haven, but this recent photo would indicate no. Any idea why Amtrak assigns a cab car to this train?

Matt Johnson wrote:I've spotted the Vermonter a couple of times recently on the NEC with a Metroliner cab car in the consist. I was wondering if Amtrak had reverted to single locomotive operation north of New Haven, but this recent photo would indicate no. Any idea why Amtrak assigns a cab car to this train?

The cab car runs for a reverse move and usually remains in the consist except during the winter months where two diesels are preferred. There are time when the cab cars are shopped for locomotive issues but may still remain in the consist as a coach. At this point, they will add ahead. Think of the car as a disabled engine.

trainhq wrote:Now that Amherst and Palmer are being cut off of the Vermonter, bringing service back
to Boston on that route might make some sense. Run two trains a day through VT rather
than one, with one going to Boston too, maybe transfer to the inland route at Palmer.
Would be worth a look anyway.

Allow me to shill once more for the J-train concept. It seems tailor-made for trains from Montreal to New York and Boston.

I like the idea of running a Springfield shuttle or two on the NECR route.

Add stops at Palmer Belchertown and Mills Falls.