The problem with a stop at Shelburne is its proximity to Burlington. It is 7 miles from Shelburne to Burlington by rail. And I know that Castleton and Rutland are similar in distance, however the operational considerations for both locations are quite different. The Castleton stop is in a permanent (and quite slow) speed restriction due to a series of sharp curves at the station. Shelburne on the other hand, is in 60 mph territory with no permanent speed restrictions close by. So a stop at Shelburne will cost far more time wise than Castleton currently does. The current bus schedules to Shelburne have fairly dense coverage for 6 days of the week, with only the commuter bus' 4 round trips running on Sundays.jp1822 wrote:We've heard about this extension "hoping to be" for MANY years now. Hopefully this will finally get it done. I think though they should have considered a stop at Shelbourne as it is a self-contained little town like Middlebury where one can walk to museums, stores, and lodging. Buses from Burlington are somewhat seasonal at best to Shelbourne.
The issue with a wye connecting the CLP Mainline Sub and the VTR Northern Sub is that it is in Center Rutland, about 1 1/2 miles short of the Rutland station. The best solution would be to have the train come up from the south via Hoosick Jct and continue on. But that is in the far distant future, if ever. The train could turn on the wye in Rutland yard proper, but once it arrives in Burlington, will have nowhere to turn unless they continue on to Essex Jct. So it looks like some sort of cab car/added loco/cabbage set-up will be part of the plan for the near to middle future.One major obstacle was the junction at Rutland - which was similar to how the Vermonter had to operate in order to get north up to St. Albans at Palmer Jct. Hopefully they will be able to construct a true "Y" at Rutland so no back up maneuver will be needed.
The schedule will certainly be interesting, the slots in and out of NYP are fairly locked in, so it would be logical to have any changes be made on the Vermont side of the train. However, that is going to be cutting into the rest period of the crew, possibly to the point where they will not be able to make rest for the return trip. I'm not privy to the discussions going on in the AOT about the service, so perhaps there is an operational plan drawn up, but just not released yet.Likewise, I like the Friday early evening departure from NYC to Rutland and the same southbound from Rutland on Sunday. However, in order to be passenger friendly, it would seem that the northbound Ethan Allen would have to leave NYP at around 3:30 pm in order to make it up to Burlington, VT before midnight (and vice versa). Whether this would be the normal schedule - not sure.
I believe that is the plan, the train set would be serviced there instead of in Rutland. Since there is only one track at the station, laying over at the platform would be an issue when the NECR local comes into Burlington to make interchange, usually done at night to avoid the Vermonter and road freights on their mainline during the day.Would the train set layover at the yard just south of where Burling Union Station is?
I'm hoping the extension does finally happen, however even if it flounders the track work has helped us on the freight side quite a bit. Run times are down, so we have that much more time to be able to perform work along the line, or still be able to make it back to the home terminal when things go wrong and fall behind "schedule".