Amtrak Vermonter / Montrealer

Trains make their money (and win political support) delivering people to big city centers. Springfield MA is right in that sweet spot. The logo for the NNEIRI with a big dot at Springfield is not accidental (and not negotiable in favor of a Palmer cutoff)


It is *impossible* to imagine Western Mass' legislators (about 10% to 20% of the legislature, depending on how you reckon) going for a plan where a state-sponsored BOS-MTR train bypasses Springfield's population and the CT River Line's shiny new rail (state owned, state paid) and a $50m to $75m Springfield train terminal rehab just to save Bostonians 20 minutes (if anything) and satisfy railfan straighter-route OCD.

Not gonna happen.

And from a passenger rail perspective, always serving Springfield is a good business.

The Northern New England higher-speed system is going to "cross" at Springfield with lines radiating to MTR, BOS, and CT-NEC. That's what hubs are for: Concentrating your firepower at a locus of demand.

I think the goal for future service should be to avoid the Palmer move. You have the single track between Springfield and Palmer that can delay trains, as can the switching move.

Arlington wrote:It is *impossible* to imagine Western Mass' legislators (about 10% to 20% of the legislature, depending on how you reckon) going for a plan where a state-sponsored BOS-MTR train bypasses Springfield's population and the CT River Line's shiny new rail (state owned, state paid) and a $50m to $75m Springfield train terminal rehab just to save Bostonians 20 minutes (if anything) and satisfy railfan straighter-route OCD.

Not gonna happen.

But, if I understand correctly, Springfield passengers for Montreal would be served by the DC/NY-Montreal train(s) and Boston-Springfield passengers by the multiple Boston-Springfield and Boston-New Haven frequencies. In other words, routing Boston-Montreal via the NECR would have no effect on Springfield. So, I doubt the legislators from Springfield would care, and I'm pretty sure any legislator from Amherst would support the idea. That said, you may well be correct that the time difference is not enough to justify the added costs (trackage charges on NECR plus station costs for Amherst, less slightly lower trackage charges on CSX).

Station Aficionado wrote: Springfield passengers for Montreal would be served by the DC/NY-Montreal train(s) and Boston-Springfield passengers by the multiple Boston-Springfield and Boston-New Haven frequencies. In other words, routing Boston-Montreal via the NECR would have no effect on Springfield.

Legislator's intelligence is honed and focused to notice particular things, like losing things to create a gain for somebody else, eg. like Springfield losing 2 frequencies to Boston and 2 frequencies to MTR, if 2 BOS-MTR's bypass Springfield.

{APPEND}I'm also going to guess that Vermont, for its part, would prefer 2 more trains passing through Springfield so that Vermont folks can transfer/connect to the NHHS shuttle/commuter service.

And even Amherst is better off concentrating its traffic at Deerfield via a reliable shuttle bus connecting to a menu of frequent/redundant trains rather than dividing its traffic between two stops. I'm sure that some Amherst traffic will switch to direct buses to NYC, but overall (across the whole of New England) focusing service on frequent, better-maintained routes is going to be better for business.

Jehochman wrote:

just curious if everyone agrees that any Boston-Montreal service should run via Springfield.

The track from Palmer to East Northfield is rough. Springfield is only 20 minutes away and has brand new track running up the river. With commuter rail running south (and maybe north), and a new station, Springfield will be a good place to collect additional passengers. Moreover, some Boston passengers may be heading there, to Holyoke, Northampton or Greenfield (with its intermodal transportation center). It is more practical for any new services to take advantage of recent infrastructure upgrades rather than demanding new ones.

Springfield is what the Inland Regionals are for. There'll be a much fuller schedule to choose from for getting there, and fuller transfer options for heading north to Greenfield. BOS-MTL doesn't have a ridership angle for the L-shaped routing. That's for directs to Vermont and MTL which are currently pretty inaccessible places from Boston on the Eastern MA highway network. And it's effective competition for the buses which get clogged in traffic on the Pike (for the Albany routing) and on I-93 up to New Hampshire. That is why they're studying--and are most likely to use--the NECR route with fewer intermediate stops. Boston does not have a hard time reaching the Pioneer Valley by highway today, and won't very soon have a hard time reaching it by rail. One-seats to Northampton and Greenfield are extracurricular without clear demand as far as Boston is concerned, and managing the track congestion on the B&A almost necessitates a diversion for keeping shortest distance in CSX dispatch territory by diverting at Palmer.

Palmer-Northfield is also one of the last segments on the NECR main that hasn't gotten any freight funding for track renewal and 286K loads. St. Albans-E. Swanton just got its funding, and CT from the border to New London just got its funding for tie renewal and heavier rail. The Massachusetts segment is next and will get its turn in the TIGER grant queue long before another passenger route runs along it and get the line up to full state-of-repair. It's needed sooner than that as a freight priority so they have a complete 286K mainline from Canada to port of New London. They won't need to do anything to it when BOS-MTL starts. The investment focus is squarely on the B&A piggybacking off the Inlands, and primarily speeding up MBTA territory so every stakeholder commuter and intercity benefits. NECR will gladly turn over whatever slots this one round-trip per day needs in exchange as an IOU for the freight upgrades. They only run a couple times a day here.

It doesn't matter what the pretty logo says...NECR via Amherst is what they're studying, and the Legislature has been on-board with that for some time now. There is no pushback from Western MA because it was never their route; this is Central MA's route.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:It doesn't matter what the pretty logo says...NECR via Amherst is what they're studying, and the Legislature has been on-board with that for some time now. There is no pushback from Western MA because it was never their route; this is Central MA's route.

Who is "they" that's studying it? NNEIRI is pretty clear (at least in their public documents) that the "Study Area" includes the CT River Line in MA but not the NECR. (see http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/ ... dyArea.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) NECR @ Palmer doesn't even get a dotted line.

In the April 2014 doc, they say:

Potential express stations on the Boston to Montreal Corridor could include Boston (South Station), Boston (Back Bay), Worcester (Union Station), Springfield (Union Station), White River Junction, Burlington (Essex Junction), and Montreal (Central Station).

Can't do that via Palmer. And in Exhibits 10 & 11 in the April 2014 doc (electronic page 46 & 47 of the pdf), Amherst's only mention in the whole document comes when it specifically zeroed out in both the 2020 and 2035 ridership projections (whatever baseline ridership is shown, it is 100% subtracted out in all scenarios. If parallel service via Palmer were contemplated, they'd only partly back it out or show synergistic growth. I read that as "Service at Amherst is 0 at least through 2035" even if BOS-MTL is running by then)

I totally get that there is a freight justification for upgrading the NECR in MA such that you could contemplate a Palmer-Amherst cutoff, but I don't see evidence that NNEIRI (passenger) plans to deviate from the routing depicted in its "study area" map and logo.

the Vermonter is already using the NECR north of Palmer, so it wouldn't exactly require new infrastructure to route a Boston-Montreal train that way.

Having taken a round trip on the Vermonter this week, I can assure you that the NECR infrastructure from Palmer to East Northfield is worn out. That stretch of rail is slow, bumpy, and prone to delays. You could run a train from Boston to Montreal via the Connecticut River Line starting 45 days from now with zero infrastructure investment. How many years will it be before the NECR in Massachusetts gets rebuilt to the same standard?

The keys to successful passenger rail are frequency and reliability, not necessarily flat-out speed. The right idea is having trains that run fast enough, on well-maintained track, keep time, and stop in population centers at convenient times of day.

Springfield has a crew base, maintenance facilities, a big station (soon), lots of population, connecting trains and buses. Why go to within 20 minutes of Springfield, and then bypass it in favor of lightly populated countryside? That makes no sense.

Jehochman wrote:You could run a train from Boston to Montreal via the Connecticut River Line starting 45 days from now with zero infrastructure investment.

Goodness.....how far we have come in a few years. This statement would have been a laugh line in this very forum not so long ago. I remain amazed at what is being done on the Connecticut River Line. One of the greatest infrastructure projects in that part of New England in quite some time.

Jehochman wrote:Having taken a round trip on the Vermonter this week, I can assure you that the NECR infrastructure from Palmer to East Northfield is worn out. That stretch of rail is slow, bumpy, and prone to delays. You could run a train from Boston to Montreal via the Connecticut River Line starting 45 days from now with zero infrastructure investment. How many years will it be before the NECR in Massachusetts gets rebuilt to the same standard?

The keys to successful passenger rail are frequency and reliability, not necessarily flat-out speed. The right idea is having trains that run fast enough, on well-maintained track, keep time, and stop in population centers at convenient times of day.

Springfield has a crew base, maintenance facilities, a big station (soon), lots of population, connecting trains and buses. Why go to within 20 minutes of Springfield, and then bypass it in favor of lightly populated countryside? That makes no sense.

I will certainly defer to your first-hand experience on the NECR from Palmer to Northfield. But I'm thinking CSX might disagree on whether any further infrastructure work is necessary west of Worcester before any more passenger trains run.

As for Springfield, I'll make the point I made before. It will have more service to Boston, and service to Montreal (via a train from New York), probably long before there would be a Boston-Montreal train. So, I don't think one can say that Springfield "needs" a Boston-Montreal train. If your point, however, is that a Boston-Montreal train "needs" Springfield ridership to be successful, then you've sort of proven Mr. Nelligan's point--there isn't sufficient demand for a Boston-Montreal train. Any Boston passenger for Montreal could just take an Inland Route train to Springfield, and transfer to the New York-Montreal train (assuming that the Springfielders haven't filled all the seats).

Station Aficionado wrote:

Jehochman wrote:Having taken a round trip on the Vermonter this week, I can assure you that the NECR infrastructure from Palmer to East Northfield is worn out. That stretch of rail is slow, bumpy, and prone to delays. You could run a train from Boston to Montreal via the Connecticut River Line starting 45 days from now with zero infrastructure investment. How many years will it be before the NECR in Massachusetts gets rebuilt to the same standard?

The keys to successful passenger rail are frequency and reliability, not necessarily flat-out speed. The right idea is having trains that run fast enough, on well-maintained track, keep time, and stop in population centers at convenient times of day.

Springfield has a crew base, maintenance facilities, a big station (soon), lots of population, connecting trains and buses. Why go to within 20 minutes of Springfield, and then bypass it in favor of lightly populated countryside? That makes no sense.

I will certainly defer to your first-hand experience on the NECR from Palmer to Northfield. But I'm thinking CSX might disagree on whether any further infrastructure work is necessary west of Worcester before any more passenger trains run.

As for Springfield, I'll make the point I made before. It will have more service to Boston, and service to Montreal (via a train from New York), probably long before there would be a Boston-Montreal train. So, I don't think one can say that Springfield "needs" a Boston-Montreal train. If your point, however, is that a Boston-Montreal train "needs" Springfield ridership to be successful, then you've sort of proven Mr. Nelligan's point--there isn't sufficient demand for a Boston-Montreal train. Any Boston passenger for Montreal could just take an Inland Route train to Springfield, and transfer to the New York-Montreal train (assuming that the Springfielders haven't filled all the seats).

Your last point, while true, seems to be based on "endpoint to endpoint" mentality. I'm curious what demand would be for Boston-Battleboro, or Worcester - Burlington city pairs. Does anyone know if that service demand could be gauged in a study? My feeling is: "no", but my point stands. It's not just about endpoints. And yes, it would seem that Springfield should be part of this service; it's the second largest city in MA.

Jehochman wrote:You could run a train from Boston to Montreal via the Connecticut River Line starting 45 days from now with zero infrastructure investment.

Correction: the NECR Main from St. Albans to the US/Canadian Border needs a lot of work. I think they may have the funding but I'm unsure if any work has actually been done. the CN Main from the US/Canadian Border to Montreal is also shot from what I understand. Also there needs to be a treaty signed to allow the Vermonter/Montealer crews to enter and work in Canada.

Jehochman wrote:Springfield has a crew base, maintenance facilities, a big station (soon), lots of population, connecting trains and buses. Why go to within 20 minutes of Springfield, and then bypass it in favor of lightly populated countryside? That makes no sense.

There is, as of now no true maintenance facility in Springfield. Hell, they outright refuse to dump toilets now. They cannot make moderate to major repairs to equipment. Half the time there isn't even an electrician there to work on cab signal equipment.

asull85 wrote:Correction: the NECR Main from St. Albans to the US/Canadian Border needs a lot of work. I think they may have the funding but I'm unsure if any work has actually been done. the CN Main from the US/Canadian Border to Montreal is also shot from what I understand. Also there needs to be a treaty signed to allow the Vermonter/Montealer crews to enter and work in Canada.

The upgrade of the 19-mile NECR line from St. Albans, last I heard, will be substantially complete by the end of this year. The project was primarily funded with US DOT TIGER 4 grant money back in FY2012.

My understanding is that before the Vermonter can be extended to Montreal there needs to be a treaty signed between the US and Canada to allow pre-clarence procedure to take place in Montreal Central Station. They also would need to build a facility within the station to do this. For further details follow the link below which will take you to the Cross Border Rail Passenger Service Progress Report, from April 2013.
http://www.thetbwg.org/meetings/201304/ ... /D1P7a.ppt

The tracks from the border to Montreal also need to be rebuilt to allow higher speed passenger operations.

My point about Boston to Montreal is that the route through Springfield is in good shape, while the one through Amherst is not. To use either route the issues in Canada need to be cleared up of course.

I have been on trains that got fixed in Springfield. This Friday the Vermonter lost power in the cafe. They fixed it in Springfield. Another time we had a problem with the control cab, so Springfield sent a rescue train to meet us in Palmer. This produced a very weird looking train with a backwards shuttle hitched on the front of a backwards Vermonter with engines in the middle and at the back end.

I'm not any sort of expert. Just a casual rider who looks out the window and sees things that look like maintenance in Sprjngfield. They can do stuff there that does not happen at other stops. Most importantly, they provide fresh crews.

Let me ask, are crews considered on duty from when they punch the clock or when the train rolls? If a crew boards in Boston and stays all the way to Montreal, if there's a long delay, could exceed the legal time limit? The Vermonter has had a few long delays, after hitting an auto that slid down an icy hill, after hitting a trespasser, after an ice boulder fell on the tracks. Anything can happen up there. Does changing crews partway through the trip reduce the risk of a train having to wait while new crew is driven to the scene?

Jehochman wrote:My point about Boston to Montreal is that the route through Springfield is in good shape, while the one through Amherst is not. To use either route the issues in Canada need to be cleared up of course.

I have been on trains that got fixed in Springfield. This Friday the Vermonter lost power in the cafe. They fixed it in Springfield. Another time we had a problem with the control cab, so Springfield sent a rescue train to meet us in Palmer. This produced a very weird looking train with a backwards shuttle hitched on the front of a backwards Vermonter with engines in the middle and at the back end.

I'm not any sort of expert. Just a casual rider who looks out the window and sees things that look like maintenance in Sprjngfield. They can do stuff there that does not happen at other stops. Most importantly, they provide fresh crews.

Let me ask, are crews considered on duty from when they punch the clock or when the train rolls? If a crew boards in Boston and stays all the way to Montreal, if there's a long delay, could exceed the legal time limit? The Vermonter has had a few long delays, after hitting an auto that slid down an icy hill, after hitting a trespasser, after an ice boulder fell on the tracks. Anything can happen up there. Does changing crews partway through the trip reduce the risk of a train having to wait while new crew is driven to the scene?

The crew is on duty at a specific time, usually 40-60 minutes prior to the trains scheduled arrival. So if a train is 2 hours late, the crew will have been on duty upto 3 hours before the train actually rolls in. Once the crew reaches the 12 hour mark, the train stops. I've personally outlawed at White River Junction. Some buses came and picked up the passengers and we parked the train in the yard for the night. Critical incidents (tresspasser strikes, some crossing accidents etc) require a new crew.

Northampton MA has returned and Greenfield MA has been listed for the first time on the Amtrak Station Information chapter in their internal web site. There is also a note: "Vermonter service begins December 29, 2014" in the listing.
No mention of Holyoke yet.
These entries for "NHT" and "GFD" were just made today.