Amtrak Empire Service (New York State)

[jhdeasy]

California has an extensive network of Thruway Bus connections to/from Amtrak trains.

Looking in the latest Amtrak timetable, I see only the following Thruway bus connections for New York:

[meet trains 63, 64, and 281]: Buffalo (Exchange Street) - Dunkirk - Fredonia - Jamestown

[meet trains 68 and 69]: Westport - Lake Placid

I wonder if there are other viable candidates for Thruway bus service connecting to/from Amtrak trains between Buffalo and Albany-Rensselaer?

[mohawkrailfan]

I wonder if there are other viable candidates for Thruway bus service connecting to/from Amtrak trains between Buffalo and Albany-Rensselaer?

I'd start with the college towns. Rochester-Geneseo. Syracuse-Cortland-Ithaca. Syracuse-Oswego. Maybe Rensselaer-Oneonta.

[Greg Moore]

I think for the cities west of Albany, we're back to more trains per day to really make this effective.

THOUGH, one thing I think Albany has to consider (for a variety of reasons) is a "fill-in" station between Albany and Schenectady near the current SUNYA campus with direct access to campus.
Not every Amtrak train would need to stop there, but 1-2 a day in either direction would probably be a big pay-off for SUNY Albany students.

[Station Aficionado]

A Thruway network is an excellent-and cheap-way to expand service. In addition to college towns (Geneva being another), Ft. Drum would seem a good target. On a somewhat related note, has the proposal to establish a stop at Lyons completely evaporated or has it just been pushed to the furthest back burner?

[Train Detainer]

If you want service improvements and the notion is to get people off the highways and onto trains, I'd suggest NYS add service from ALB to Buffalo via Bingo. Take a left at your new Schenectady depot with stops at Worcester (eventually), Oneonta, Sydney (eventually), Binghamton, BigFlats/Corning, Hornell, Attica (eventually). Trains could circle back toward ALB via CSX (and vice-versa) (backing into/out of Exchange St. with a quick recrew). This would be a good opportunity to establish morning service ALB-BUF. If service to NiaFalls is eventually needed from the Tier, a connection between the old Conrail SouTier CP-Depew and CSX CP431 could be made with trains terminating/originating at NiaFalls a-la current practice. (Of course the other elephant in the room there is SouTier service east of Bingo to greater NY/NJ, but that's another thread.)

Another notion mostly for entertainment value - if establishing SouTier trains to ALB-BUF, why not redo Depew or Central Terminal so that 48/49 could split with 448/449 at Buffalo with 448/449 running SouTier/B&A, eliminating that splitting headache at Renss.?

Lyons? Tiny town with stations less than 45 min. away in either direction - I wouldn't put that on any priority list.

[docsteve]

. . . NYS add service from ALB to Buffalo via Bingo. Take a left at your new Schenectady depot . . .

How take a left?

[Backshophoss]

That's a little too far left(south) to make it work,NS doesn't control the entire Southern Tier Route,parts are
operated by a Regional Shortline or 2,and you still wind up dealing with CSX at Buffalo.

[Train Detainer]

That's a little too far left(south) to make it work,NS doesn't control the entire Southern Tier Route,parts are
operated by a Regional Shortline or 2,and you still wind up dealing with CSX at Buffalo

Last I checked, NS not only controls, but now owns the old A&S from Schenectady to Bingo and the entire SouTier from Bingo to Buffalo, and Amtrak already operates on the CSX Chicago Line. The CNY only operates (and NS owns) east of CP-BD to Sparrowbush. It would actually be very easy if you can get NS on board.

How take a left?

Right now you'd have to go a couple miles up to Rexford/Ballston Lake to wye the train for the A&S, but there's plenty of room within the wye for a loop - as soon as funding is available.

[ctclark1]

Trains could circle back toward ALB via CSX (and vice-versa) (backing into/out of Exchange St. with a quick recrew).

I know this is a pretty far-fetched idea anyway, but how exactly are you proposing getting from the Tier to Exchange? Two options currently, both rather complicated for CSX to even consider dealing with -- one involves heading south on the Bison Runner, crossing DRAW to CP2, and backing up on Track 3/Compromise Branch across the bridge at CP1 and continuing to back down the Avenue RT (does that even still exist?). The other would involve taking the Howard runner north to 437, and then backing all the way down the Niagara Branch. Be better off (again, all a pipe dream anyway, good luck getting NS to agree to the trackage rights on the mostly single-track line) ignoring Exchange and just taking Howard around to 437 and straight on to Depew.

But I digress, I doubt we'll ever see an agreement to this from NS, if Amtrak even thinks about considering it.

[east point]

NY state already gets grief for not enough service on the water level route. Any train off CSX would IMHO is most likely a non starter.

[Train Detainer]

taking the Howard runner north to 437, and then backing all the way down the Niagara Branch.

Exactly. Cross over at 437 to the Belt Line towards T and back in. All the way? Its a far shorter shove from 437 to Exchange Street than from old CP-69 to NiaFalls (and yes, there's the grade crossing at Exchange St.).

ignoring Exchange and just taking Howard around to 437 and straight on to Depew.

A possibility, but serving the city center with its better connectivity will bring more riders and get the equipment off the Water Level Route for its crew/service stop (a big plus for CSX).

NY state already gets grief for not enough service on the water level route. Any train off CSX would IMHO is most likely a non starter

I wasn't talking about removing anything, just suggesting adding trains to serve other parts of the state rather than adding bus/thruway service to the highways, and if you looped trains from/to the SouTier, you'd be adding trains to both lines. There's been discussions about adding a third main from Albany to Buffalo, adding trains, HSR and any number of other things. This country really needs a better, more expansive rail passenger system like Europe has - so let's add trains wherever possible - not medium and long distance buses.

[Station Aficionado]

This country really needs a better, more expansive rail passenger system like Europe has - so let's add trains wherever possible - not medium and long distance buses.

Strange, on a number of rail trips in Europe over the last decade plus, I could've sworn there were extensive coach (to use the Brits' term) networks connecting to the rail systems. Must've been dreaming. Because it's certainly true that if one looks at the timetables of Amtrak California, the most successful state rail program in the country, there's nary a bus connection to be found.

The California system is so successful, in no small part, because of the bus system they have developed. Buses feed significant numbers of passengers into the system at minimal or even no cost. Now, unlimited cash may appear from somewhere, and we can then undertake the crucial task of restoring direct rail service to the booming population centers of Elmira and Hornell, but I rather doubt it. Back here in reality, New York would be well served by expanding the Thruway network for its state-supported trains.

[ApproachMedium]

I would have to agree with that. A friend of mine who lives in cali uses the bus connections to the trains often when visiting family. Where if the bus was not there such connections could not be made and he would just drive instead.

[ExCon90]

I read not long ago that a large number of Amtrak California passengers (it might have been over 50%?) use a thruway bus for part of the journey. Almost certainly they wouldn't be on the train at all without the bus connection.

[Train Detainer]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. First, I did say 'not medium and long distance buses'. I don't know what your definition of trip lengths is, but I dare guess that very few of the UK's feeder bus routes would qualify as either medium or long. Second, I did mention connectivity, which includes short-haul buses, light rail, taxis, city buses, etc.

It seems that people in this country all too often forget the differences (and similarities) between North America and Europe. For instance - the main UK island is just about 553 miles from top to bottom and 316 miles at the widest (Penzance to Ramsgate) and would fit into the New England states plus New York State. Yet if you look at National Rail's Principal Routes map and compare it to rail density in the northeastern US (particularly passenger routes), it would compare much more favorably to a US rail map of 1890 than the current map and should make any rail advocate jealous (or hurl).

Granted - the population is different (63.1 M for UK vs. 35.5M for NE/NY), but a quick estimate of rail density ratio looks like 3 or 4 to 1 in favor of the Brits. Can anyone tell me, with a straight face, that this country is honestly doing what it takes to provide an adequate rail system that would boost/support a wider economy?

With the exception of Scotland (which would roughly compare to Maine), I doubt most people using feeder coaches in the UK spend anything close to the 3 or 4 hours a person from Corning or Ithaca would have to be on the bus to catch Amtrak at Rochester or Syracuse - I've done it myself. If an Ithaca student has to be on a bus for 3 1/2 hours to get on a train at Syracuse (and no, there aren't enough trains to have a quick connection at most times of the day), then wait for a train, then be on the train for 6 1/4 hours for a trip of well over 10 hours, why wouldn't they get in a car for a 6 hour drive?

Yes - many Amtrak users take (much longer than should be necessary) bus trips to get to the train - but imagine how many more rail users there would be if people didn't have to travel just to travel....