Ethan Allen Discussion, including Expansion (Burlington)

[Mcoov]

So would the train stop at the station on the lakeside next to the aquarium, or continue on to Essex Junction? Or both?

[Noel Weaver]

This is just my feeling but I doubt if any extension will occur until the train is re-routed to operate via North Bennington. It will cost equipment and time as well if they have to change ends at Rutland, probaably a 15 minute minumum of time lost and it will involve either another locomotive or a cab car. Vermont is paying the entire cost of this train so it only makes sense to run and serve as much of Vermont as possible. As for a second train, forget it for some time to come, the cost would be high and most likely the potential would not be as good, you would go from one strong train to two weak trains in my opinion. The population is just not there for more than one round trip a day. The only thing that might work would be an extra NB on Friday PM and SB on Sunday PM.
Noel Weaver

[Greg Moore]

This is just my feeling but I doubt if any extension will occur until the train is re-routed to operate via North Bennington. It will cost equipment and time as well if they have to change ends at Rutland, probaably a 15 minute minumum of time lost and it will involve either another locomotive or a cab car. Vermont is paying the entire cost of this train so it only makes sense to run and serve as much of Vermont as possible. As for a second train, forget it for some time to come, the cost would be high and most likely the potential would not be as good, you would go from one strong train to two weak trains in my opinion. The population is just not there for more than one round trip a day. The only thing that might work would be an extra NB on Friday PM and SB on Sunday PM.
Noel Weaver

Yeah, when if ever is the reroute through North Bennington going to happen? I'd ride that at least once for the sheer novelty of it (I have family in Bennington. But trust me, it would be FAR faster to simply drive there from my house in Troy

As for a 2nd train, yes/no. I think you're right, though, probably a 2nd train on only Friday and Sunday would be the place to start. Keep the Ethan Allen on its normal weekday schedule and add the additional train during its current weekend schedule.

But, I think ultimately, this is sort of like the Maine and Virginia extensions, incrementally extending the corridor. I think it's ultimately just a matter of time.

[25Hz]

I think incremental extensions won't work. You'd need a fueling pad, no? Kind of a PITA to build then move such an installment several times.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

The Rutland reverse wouldn't be nearly the pain the Palmer reverse is. Palmer happens within yard limits at a busy junction feeding two busy adjacent yards with crisscrossing traffic by three different freight carriers. With dispatch that makes the passenger trains take a back seat to all of that. You've got nowhere near the same freight interference in Rutland. If the reverse happens on the platform itself it avoids the nearby junction and freight yards entirely.

Besides, the route can't feasibly be extended north of Rutland and relocated south of Rutland as a monolith. So if it comes down to 5-10 years of an awkward reverse via the existing route to add Burlington vs. nothing ever...what's preferable? If it's state-sponsored and they feel confident about the ridership, I see no problem phasing it. It's forward momentum for funding the eventual relocation via Bennington. Good enough is better than perfect when the goal is route-priming the corridor for further development.


As for fueling, can't they use the VTR yard in Burlington for that? I doubt the carrier would have a problem with if they're reaping the primary benefits of all that track improvement work and get reimbursed for the fuel cost and/or layover space. Don't forget, the NECR branch out of Essex Jct. gives them easy access to swap equipment with the Vermonter as-needed, so that probably lessens the need to have a dedicated park-and-fuel for just the Ethan Allen. Spot-siphon off VTR as needed, pool with the Vermonter as needed. It's not like this route goes far enough afield on a full enough schedule to need a full-service layover facility.

[Station Aficionado]

The Rutland reverse wouldn't be nearly the pain the Palmer reverse is. Palmer happens within yard limits at a busy junction feeding two busy adjacent yards with crisscrossing traffic by three different freight carriers. With dispatch that makes the passenger trains take a back seat to all of that. You've got nowhere near the same freight interference in Rutland. If the reverse happens on the platform itself it avoids the nearby junction and freight yards entirely.

Besides, the route can't feasibly be extended north of Rutland and relocated south of Rutland as a monolith. So if it comes down to 5-10 years of an awkward reverse via the existing route to add Burlington vs. nothing ever...what's preferable? If it's state-sponsored and they feel confident about the ridership, I see no problem phasing it. It's forward momentum for funding the eventual relocation via Bennington. Good enough is better than perfect when the goal is route-priming the corridor for further development.


As for fueling, can't they use the VTR yard in Burlington for that? I doubt the carrier would have a problem with if they're reaping the primary benefits of all that track improvement work and get reimbursed for the fuel cost and/or layover space. Don't forget, the NECR branch out of Essex Jct. gives them easy access to swap equipment with the Vermonter as-needed, so that probably lessens the need to have a dedicated park-and-fuel for just the Ethan Allen. Spot-siphon off VTR as needed, pool with the Vermonter as needed. It's not like this route goes far enough afield on a full enough schedule to need a full-service layover facility.

Do you know if the tunnel between Burlington and Essex Jct. is still excepted track? I sort of remember that it was going to be rebuilt.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

The Rutland reverse wouldn't be nearly the pain the Palmer reverse is. Palmer happens within yard limits at a busy junction feeding two busy adjacent yards with crisscrossing traffic by three different freight carriers. With dispatch that makes the passenger trains take a back seat to all of that. You've got nowhere near the same freight interference in Rutland. If the reverse happens on the platform itself it avoids the nearby junction and freight yards entirely.

Besides, the route can't feasibly be extended north of Rutland and relocated south of Rutland as a monolith. So if it comes down to 5-10 years of an awkward reverse via the existing route to add Burlington vs. nothing ever...what's preferable? If it's state-sponsored and they feel confident about the ridership, I see no problem phasing it. It's forward momentum for funding the eventual relocation via Bennington. Good enough is better than perfect when the goal is route-priming the corridor for further development.


As for fueling, can't they use the VTR yard in Burlington for that? I doubt the carrier would have a problem with if they're reaping the primary benefits of all that track improvement work and get reimbursed for the fuel cost and/or layover space. Don't forget, the NECR branch out of Essex Jct. gives them easy access to swap equipment with the Vermonter as-needed, so that probably lessens the need to have a dedicated park-and-fuel for just the Ethan Allen. Spot-siphon off VTR as needed, pool with the Vermonter as needed. It's not like this route goes far enough afield on a full enough schedule to need a full-service layover facility.

Do you know if the tunnel between Burlington and Essex Jct. is still excepted track? I sort of remember that it was going to be rebuilt.

I think it was so NECR and VTR could have a more robust interchange taking advantage of NECR's new 286K capability, but I don't know if it's attached to a public appropriation or if NECR's paying largely out-of-pocket for it.

For non-revenue equipment transfers it shouldn't make that much difference so long as the condition isn't totally abominable. Class 1 and plus- state-of-good-repair are effective enough for shuffling occasional trainsets between routes.

[Noel Weaver]

The one thing that the trackage between Burlington and Essex Junction could be very useful for would be to wye the train. If they get the track up to par between Rutland and Hoosic Junction they would not need to have two locomotives or a cab car and in that case it would be cheaper and easier to just run over to Essex Junction to turn the entire train rather than cut the locomotive off and turn it on the turntable at Burlington. It would cost a lot less too, the crew could do that move rather than having to station mechanical people at Burlington for just that one train. As for swapping equipment, I doubt if that would be a factor but in the not too distant future the second locomotive or cab car will no longer be necessary on the Vermonter either, I think there will be some changes in Vermont but who knows what exactly the changes will be at this point in time.
Noel Weaver

[CNJ]

I think an Amtrak train running over the entire Rutland route would be a very successful venture.

[M&Eman]

If the Ethan Allen eventually gets shifted to the full Vermont route north of Mechanicsville, I feel at least one Albany Empire Service train should be extended to Saratoga Springs. Saratoga's traffic warrants two a day at least and that frequency should be maintained. I wouldn't be opposed to extending a few more to Saratoga Springs in order to provide more comprehensive service in the capital region as well. This seems to make sense as a short extension.

[Greg Moore]

If the Ethan Allen eventually gets shifted to the full Vermont route north of Mechanicsville, I feel at least one Albany Empire Service train should be extended to Saratoga Springs. Saratoga's traffic warrants two a day at least and that frequency should be maintained. I wouldn't be opposed to extending a few more to Saratoga Springs in order to provide more comprehensive service in the capital region as well. This seems to make sense as a short extension.

The "problem" I suspect is that even just a simple change (and I tend to agree btw) throws the number of trainsets and turning them out of whack.

[afiggatt]

If the Ethan Allen eventually gets shifted to the full Vermont route north of Mechanicsville, I feel at least one Albany Empire Service train should be extended to Saratoga Springs. Saratoga's traffic warrants two a day at least and that frequency should be maintained. I wouldn't be opposed to extending a few more to Saratoga Springs in order to provide more comprehensive service in the capital region as well. This seems to make sense as a short extension.

I think it will be some years before the Ethan Allen might get rerouted over the Mechanicsville - North Bennington route. The Phase 2 evaluation summary that is on the NY-VT Bi-State Passenger Rail Study website has a estimated $90 million cost to upgrade the tracks and signals to 60 mph passenger speeds over the route to Rutland. The track upgrades would also benefit freight rail by upgrading the tracks to 286K capacity and increasing freight speeds (as I recall seeing elsewhere) to 40 mph. But $90 million is a lot for an alternate route with small population centers. Because of the large price tag, the track upgrades might get done in bits and pieces over the years, primarily justified to improve freight rail traffic.

VT is going to take up to 5 years to extend the Ethan Allen northward to Burlington while the state also works to extend the Vermonter to Montreal. Any plans to re-route through N Bennington and Manchester is likely to be on hold until those 2 projects are completed and then years spent on incremental upgrades. By that time, increased passenger traffic to Montreal and on the Empire corridor might result in additional service north of Schenectady such as second daily Adirondack.

[Ridgefielder]

The one thing that the trackage between Burlington and Essex Junction could be very useful for would be to wye the train. If they get the track up to par between Rutland and Hoosic Junction they would not need to have two locomotives or a cab car and in that case it would be cheaper and easier to just run over to Essex Junction to turn the entire train rather than cut the locomotive off and turn it on the turntable at Burlington. It would cost a lot less too, the crew could do that move rather than having to station mechanical people at Burlington for just that one train. As for swapping equipment, I doubt if that would be a factor but in the not too distant future the second locomotive or cab car will no longer be necessary on the Vermonter either, I think there will be some changes in Vermont but who knows what exactly the changes will be at this point in time.
Noel Weaver

There's still a turntable in Burlington?

[TomNelligan]

There's still a turntable in Burlington?

Yes, and an active ex-Rutland roundhouse that serves as the Vermont Railway's shop.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

The one thing that the trackage between Burlington and Essex Junction could be very useful for would be to wye the train. If they get the track up to par between Rutland and Hoosic Junction they would not need to have two locomotives or a cab car and in that case it would be cheaper and easier to just run over to Essex Junction to turn the entire train rather than cut the locomotive off and turn it on the turntable at Burlington. It would cost a lot less too, the crew could do that move rather than having to station mechanical people at Burlington for just that one train. As for swapping equipment, I doubt if that would be a factor but in the not too distant future the second locomotive or cab car will no longer be necessary on the Vermonter either, I think there will be some changes in Vermont but who knows what exactly the changes will be at this point in time.
Noel Weaver

There's still a turntable in Burlington?

http://goo.gl/maps/DbLTu