by CHTT1
You expect U.S. taxpayers to fund a train that runs through a foreign country? I assume this would occur after all possible U.S. corridors are in operation.
Railroad Forums
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
CHTT1 wrote:You expect U.S. taxpayers to fund a train that runs through a foreign country? I assume this would occur after all possible U.S. corridors are in operation.The main people benefiting from said train would be Americans... theoretically don't even have to sell intra-Canada tickets. By your logic should we not be funding the Adirondack, or the Cascades? It's the same idea - pairing US cities with Canadian cities, only better because you have US cities on both ends!
deathtopumpkins wrote:True. But it's not going to happen because there are other American cities being skipped over on the other side of the lakes. Ever wondered why VIA doesn't do the same? Windsor to Montreal via Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, Syracuse? Maybe because that would skip London, Toronto, and Ottawa? Here's a tip, that's never going to happen.....CHTT1 wrote:You expect U.S. taxpayers to fund a train that runs through a foreign country? I assume this would occur after all possible U.S. corridors are in operation.The main people benefiting from said train would be Americans... theoretically don't even have to sell intra-Canada tickets. By your logic should we not be funding the Adirondack, or the Cascades? It's the same idea - pairing US cities with Canadian cities, only better because you have US cities on both ends!
electricron wrote:Windsor to Montreal via Syracuse would be really out-of-the-way. Buffalo to Chicago via Detroit & Canada is shorter than going south of the lake. Also, Toronto is a lot larger of a city than Cleveland.deathtopumpkins wrote:True. But it's not going to happen because there are other American cities being skipped over on the other side of the lakes. Ever wondered why VIA doesn't do the same? Windsor to Montreal via Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, Syracuse? Maybe because that would skip London, Toronto, and Ottawa? Here's a tip, that's never going to happen.....CHTT1 wrote:You expect U.S. taxpayers to fund a train that runs through a foreign country? I assume this would occur after all possible U.S. corridors are in operation.The main people benefiting from said train would be Americans... theoretically don't even have to sell intra-Canada tickets. By your logic should we not be funding the Adirondack, or the Cascades? It's the same idea - pairing US cities with Canadian cities, only better because you have US cities on both ends!
deathtopumpkins wrote:To be clear I don't think this will happen anytime soon, and I agree there are much higher priorities, I just don't think it's as silly an idea as is being suggested.This thread is about Pre-Clearance.
Railjunkie wrote:Forgot about the sealed train. As of now it isn't so IF the poster wants the Ocean off 69 then St Lambert is the station.Catching the Ocean off 69 was the original plan. However, as with all fantasies, the reality is somewhat different. It was my vision, that the Adirondack arrival in MTR would be early enough to catch the departing Ocean, and I would be able to stroll through Gare Central, and have time enough to gape at it's beauty, from one Name train to Another. However, reading the thread, it's possible to make the connection to the Ocean at St. Lambert, however, since the arrival of the Adirondack is at 18:57, and Ocean Departs at 19:17, and the Adirondack OTP is 70%, the consequence of being stranded in St. Lambert makes me consider a night at the Fairmont, and not have to hustle for the connection.
marco wrote:Railjunkie wrote:Forgot about the sealed train. As of now it isn't so IF the poster wants the Ocean off 69 then St Lambert is the station.Catching the Ocean off 69 was the original plan. However, as with all fantasies, the reality is somewhat different. It was my vision, that the Adirondack arrival in MTR would be early enough to catch the departing Ocean, and I would be able to stroll through Gare Central, and have time enough to gape at it's beauty, from one Name train to Another. However, reading the thread, it's possible to make the connection to the Ocean at St. Lambert, however, since the arrival of the Adirondack is at 18:57, and Ocean Departs at 19:17, and the Adirondack OTP is 70%, the consequence of being stranded in St. Lambert makes me consider a night at the Fairmont, and not have to hustle for the connection.
If we can agree upon an HOUR PLUS savings for customs processing for the Adirondack, which is respectable, the question is, will the double track project in the capitol district further shave an hour from the trip?
Thanks for the great information, very grateful for railroad.net's existence.
electricron wrote:Hey, I'm not the one who proposed it! I was just responding to someone else who did. I never said I wanted Amtrak to run such a train. In fact, in the very post of mine you quoted I agreed that there are much better things Amtrak could be doing - I just didn't think it was as silly an idea as the post I was responding to said.deathtopumpkins wrote:To be clear I don't think this will happen anytime soon, and I agree there are much higher priorities, I just don't think it's as silly an idea as is being suggested.This thread is about Pre-Clearance.
So you want Amtrak to run a train from Detroit, whoops not Detroit but Port Huron to Toronto over 184 miles, then 85 more miles to Buffalo with just the one Canadian pre-clearance city being Toronto in over 250 miles of track. Even in the desert southwest, the Southwest Chief and Sunset Limited stop more frequently than once in 250 miles.
Stupidest idea ever conceived!
deathtopumpkins wrote: Does anyone know if the pre-clearance agreement is limited to specific locations (Montreal, Vancouver) or if it can be expanded, such that we could add pre-clearance facilities at multiple stations, allowing additional stops within Canada?What your describing is how the Eurostar train works between the UK and France/Belgium, if you were boarding in France, you would go thru UK Passport Control while on French or Belgium Soil at each station; this works great when you have multiple trains per day going thru the Channel Tunnel, but not so much on a one-a-day train. This is also called "Juxasposed Border Controls" which is different from pre-clearence.
deathtopumpkins wrote:Currently it's only VAN and MTL because the Cascades, Adirondack, and any reanimated Montrealer are the only trains that have no non-Customs stops of any significance on the other side of the border. St. Lambert is basically a zero for demand in its own right and fully expendable. The treaty allows for preclearance anywhere, but it's only practical when it's a 'sealed' train between the preclearance station and the border. So that rules out the Maple Leaf, which has intermediate stops of significant ridership on the other side of the border that are used by purely intra-Canadian passengers. Same would be true for any reanimated International/International Limited or Niagra Rainbow. Those routes are useless if they have to forego their Canadian intermediates. Same is true on the inverse. I doubt any VIA Rail revival of the Atlantic would be practical if it ran totally sealed across Maine, as it's simply too long a distance to not have at least 1-2 stops with one that catches a few flies of ridership from the I-95 corridor.electricron wrote:Hey, I'm not the one who proposed it! I was just responding to someone else who did. I never said I wanted Amtrak to run such a train. In fact, in the very post of mine you quoted I agreed that there are much better things Amtrak could be doing - I just didn't think it was as silly an idea as the post I was responding to said.deathtopumpkins wrote:To be clear I don't think this will happen anytime soon, and I agree there are much higher priorities, I just don't think it's as silly an idea as is being suggested.This thread is about Pre-Clearance.
So you want Amtrak to run a train from Detroit, whoops not Detroit but Port Huron to Toronto over 184 miles, then 85 more miles to Buffalo with just the one Canadian pre-clearance city being Toronto in over 250 miles of track. Even in the desert southwest, the Southwest Chief and Sunset Limited stop more frequently than once in 250 miles.
Stupidest idea ever conceived!
And yes, this thread is about pre-clearance - which is how we got on the topic of this hypothetical train, because we were speculating on how pre-clearance could benefit a train running through Canada. It may be a tangent, but it is relevant.
Does anyone know if the pre-clearance agreement is limited to specific locations (Montreal, Vancouver) or if it can be expanded, such that we could add pre-clearance facilities at multiple stations, allowing additional stops within Canada?
Greg Moore wrote:F-line to Dudley via Park, thanks, this is what I really was asking for when I used the example of a Buffalo-Detroit train.That's the Niagra Rainbow, NY-DET via Buffalo and Windsor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagara_Rainbow" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Which model do you think that might fight?