Canadian Pre-Clearance

[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.

[deathtopumpkins]

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]

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!

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.....

[deathtopumpkins]

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!

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.....

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.

So VIA via the US would be a longer route with fewer large cities. But Amtrak via Canada would be a shorter route with more large cities (you lose Cleveland and Toledo but you pick up Hamilton (easy connection to Toronto), Detroit, and some not-insignificant destinations like Ann Arbor and London, ON.

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.

[electricron]

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!

[NS VIA FAN]

Hard to justify today with the current border climate……but Amtrak did this route in the ‘70s between Detroit and Buffalo as it was a lot shorter and faster running through Canada then going via Cleveland.

The Empire State Express/Niagara Rainbow were strictly Amtrak trains while in Canada. No CN or VIA involvement….and in fact the only time you could buy an Amtrak ticket between two Canadian stations.

[AgentSkelly]

As probably the resident expert on crossing the US/Canada border here having done it on all modes plus having a few contacts "on the border", I'm glad the pre-clearence bill was signed and now my favorite VAC trains now are full pre-clearance, which I ride often.

Vancouver Central Station will apparently start a full pre-clearance trial in January/February 2017, which once they get the kinks worked out, they will be able to figure out the operational plan for land-based pre-clearance stations which not only includes train stations, but also ferry terminals like Victoria's Belleville Ferry Terminal and the WSF International Terminal in Sidney, BC.

[marco]

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.

[Railjunkie]

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.

Even back in the day when you could grab the Ocean at Gare Central you may have had only 10 to 15 minutes. Generally it was just a walk across the platform. The hour plus will help taking some of the fat out of the schedule would help also.

The second track between Albany and Schenectady will help other trains. Unless Amt 280 is extremely late from Niagara Falls or AMT290 is a little tardy coming down from Vermont the second track has no time savings for AMT69.

[deathtopumpkins]

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!

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.

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?

[AgentSkelly]

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.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

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!

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.

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?

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.

What those kinds of routes are now allowed to do is consolidate checkpoints on one side of the border (e.g. the new Niagra Falls, NY station) to speed things along at one self-contained checkpoint. But that's only practical at border crossings where mutual access to a self-contained secure site is logistically possible. For example, you probably wouldn't be able to do a single-serve border checkpoint on the Montrealer for purposes of keeping St. Lambert or adding more Quebec intermediates because the road access on the Allburg and Clarenceville sides of the border is cut where the tracks cross and wouldn't allow equal commute access to a single secure facility for both American and Canadian Customs officials. So a hypothetical route config with intermediates on both sides but bad luck-of-the-draw on border access to a combo facility would have to keep doing separate Customs checkpoints in each country. And I suppose if the terminal station just isn't anywhere near equipped for a security-enclosed checkpoint (e.g. bare outdoor platform, somewhere lower-use where it would be too much of a cost bleed), then preclearance isn't going to be financially practical even if you are running sealed.



So you can slot any fantasy international AMTK or VIA proposals into those 4 categories accordingly:
1. Preclearance @ the terminal on route running 'sealed' in one country.
2. No preclearance @ the terminal on sealed or non-sealed route because of impracticality of terminal configuration.
3. Consolidated border checkpoint on route with intermediate stops in both countries.
4. No consolidated checkpoint (e.g. access circumstances beyond anyone's control re: checkpoint siting) on routes with intermediates in both countries, requiring checkpoints in both countries.

Since the major cities on either side of the border inform where the demand is, it's not hard to see where things group. Montreal and Vancouver are #1's very close to the border with little of interest en route to the border, so those are the big preclearance gravity wells for anything that crosses on either Amtrak or VIA. Toronto Metro and lower Great Lakes region in general are a Canadian megalopolis with plenty of intermediate demand on both sides, so Detroit and Niagra Falls are naturals for #3 consolidated-checkpoint stops for Amtrak or VIA. Ditto if there's ever a Mexican crossing in San Diego or El Paso. And any of the (very few) viable proposals that pass through miles of rural land at the border and have intermediates on both sides stay #4 (or, even rarer, #2) because of impracticality of trying to force-fit. Other than the Atlantic or that Portland, ME-Montreal "hotel train" proposal the only such route I could think of that has any juice would be an LD from the Lower 48 to Anchorage if/when Alaska RR ever gets its track connection to Yukon/B.C. (for no other reason than Congress will want that as 'manifest destiny' showpiece pork).

[mtuandrew]

F-line, there's a fifth option which bears mentioning:

5. sealed cross-border train, except for one (or multiple) unsealed cars for intermediate traffic; either consolidated or separate checkpoints at the borders for unsealed cars. This would probably be the most practical option for a resurrected Atlantic, rather than inspecting everyone at either border.

I guess there's also this:

6. add and cut cars to a precleared/sealed train for in-country use only, like the VIA portion of the Maple Leaf. Passengers from America to destinations before Toronto would either get to ride across the border in one unsealed & inspected car, or have to walk across the border and meet the train on the other side.

[Greg Moore]

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.

Which model do you think that might fight?

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

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.

Which model do you think that might fight?

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;

In that case you've already got the consolidated stop at Niagra and would just need to do up the same in Detroit. It's a #3 setup, but because the route is a double border-crosser you'd have 2 consolidated Customs stops--one for each U.S.-side border--instead of double-dipping at each border with a grand total of 4 total individual Customs stops on the schedule.