Maine Ski Train

If the stops were limited (North Station, Haverhill, Durham) and only one train set was used with a single round trip, costs could absolutely be more defined than say than a multiple stop DE. Add in a couple of "scenic" 1 hour trips while parked in Bethel too generate more revenue and it could not only work, but be marginally profitable.

fogg1703 wrote:If the stops were limited (North Station, Haverhill, Durham) and only one train set was used with a single round trip, costs could absolutely be more defined than say than a multiple stop DE. Add in a couple of "scenic" 1 hour trips while parked in Bethel too generate more revenue and it could not only work, but be marginally profitable.

That is something along the lines of what I was thinking of as well, at least in terms of a single roundtrip, using a single trainset, and likely with limited stops (although I would lean towards including most of MA).

If a five car DE trainset is used what is the capacity, 300-350 seats?

306 if my math and memory are correct (72 * 4 in coach, 18 in business class).

If a one seat ride is not possible then the best thing is not to even try it. People do NOT want to change trains or seats part way into a trip. In that case my vote is for bus instead of train. Building and maintaining a facility to allow for the orderly transfer of passengers is costly too.
Noel Weaver

Noel Weaver wrote:If a one seat ride is not possible then the best thing is not to even try it. People do NOT want to change trains or seats part way into a trip. In that case my vote is for bus instead of train. Building and maintaining a facility to allow for the orderly transfer of passengers is costly too.
Noel Weaver

Well, if the "facilities" in question were of the same nature as the ones in 1993 were, we'd be talking about an uncovered wooden high-level platform that would probably be in one of the angles shown in http://binged.it/SRU3nz , situated so as to allow access to both tracks; not terribly expensive. For orientation, the left-right track is PAR's Brunswick branch, with left being towards Portland and right towards Brunswick; the intersecting track is part of the Maine-owned portion of the MMA/STL/GT, with down being towards East Deering and up towards Lewiston and Bethel. I haven't been up there recently, so I don't know the extent to which this junction has changed as a result of the Downeaster work. My personal belief is that, if you made the ski train an extension of the Sunday River brand, with an atmosphere of "once you're on the ski train, you're on vacation," it could overcome the potential drawback of a two-seat ride.

At any rate, this particular case is a good one for trains to win out over buses, just because of the weather factor and the fact that traveling in a straight line on the SLR at 59 mph beats navigating the curves and hills of Route 26 at 55 mph. The SLR line is lightly used with only one customer, so if necessary you could probably park the ski train short of the junction to wait if the Downeaster is late without being in the way of freight service. I'm still thinking of the ski train being privately owned and operated by Sunday River rather than NNEPRA and Amtrak, so they could have porters stationed at the junction to help passengers transfer their ski equipment between trains.

Incidentally, I just looked at the stories that were linked on the previous page; I didn't realize that the Belfast & Moosehead Lake was involved in operating the train at one point. Is there anyone from their operation who is active on this board and who was around back then?

Noel Weaver wrote:If a one seat ride is not possible then the best thing is not to even try it. People do NOT want to change trains or seats part way into a trip. In that case my vote is for bus instead of train. Building and maintaining a facility to allow for the orderly transfer of passengers is costly too.
Noel Weaver

This is particularly true when passengers are lugging skis, ski boot bag, and clothing. I once years ago took the overnight Montrealer from Newark, NJ to Stowe, VT for skiing on Mt. Mansfield. The skis, etc. fit OK in the bedroom so did not need to check baggage. At the Stowe station I transferred to a taxi (they have roof racks for skis there which facilitated that issue) for the several miles to the resort area. During my stay I noted buses arriving directly at the resort, no need for any transfers or cabs. The train was fine for me as there was only the one transfer, to the cab with the driver's assistance, but if I had to transfer trains once or twice, that would have been a negative. I likely would have taken the trains anyway, but that sentiment I believe is not true of the general public.

Would a cabbage be able to store all the bags and ski's for the entire train? I'm making an assumption that you would have day tripper and overnight travelers. I'm also making an assumption that the day trippers would have larger luggage than normal day passengers with clothing to change for the mountain.

I would understand adding a luggage premium like is done for bikes. This would also limit the stations you could stop at.

I'm not concerned with the transfer to the mountain, most ski areas are set up to transfer people and their gear.

Red Wing wrote:Would a cabbage be able to store all the bags and ski's for the entire train? I'm making an assumption that you would have day tripper and overnight travelers. I'm also making an assumption that the day trippers would have larger luggage than normal day passengers with clothing to change for the mountain.

It probably would if it was properly configured with ski racks and shelving for luggage.

Red Wing wrote:I would understand adding a luggage premium like is done for bikes. This would also limit the stations you could stop at.

I would think that would need to be built into the base for a "Ski Train". Seems kind of ridiculous charging people "extra" for bringing skis on a ski train. Then again, there are plenty of folks who rent at the mountain.

Red Wing wrote:I'm not concerned with the transfer to the mountain, most ski areas are set up to transfer people and their gear.

Correct and that's exactly what Sunday River did back then. I'm quite certain they could do the same thing all over again if they wanted to.

The mention of the Stowe station...I did not think that there was a rail connection in that area. Did it connect with the main line south in the rt 89 area?

markhb wrote:I haven't been up there recently, so I don't know the extent to which this junction has changed as a result of the Downeaster work.

The junction has been rebuilt from the sub grade up, new diamond and all, on PARs RoW. However I have seen no indication of any new turnouts being installed. Supposedly part of the purpose of the reconstruction of Danville Junction was to allow passenger trains to "run-through" the junction without having to stop and make some kind of complicated reverse move. This means in effect that any "two-seat ride" arrangement would logically originate from Portland. Obviously changes could be made, platforms could be built etc. etc. but this would set aside a great deal of the capital investments that have already been made to solve this exact problem.

I think I'm understanding that the reason why you're looking so hard at Yarmouth is because you (and I both) know that an alternative passenger operator other than Amtrak would have to use non-PAR tracks for the entire distance. The converse of this also being that any train using PAR tracks has to be run by Amtrak. Given all the changes that have happenned since the last run of the Silver Bullet it looks to me as if PAR has basically ingrained themselves quite well into any passenger service scheme in Maine. That's really quite a shift from the past when a lot of proposals routinely floated the SLR (ex-GT) into Portland as an "alternative".

It's ironic in a sense that the fire on the Back Cove Bridge not only eliminated the Old Port from contention for a passenger train station but it also substantially damaged Lewiston - Auburn's chances as well. Brunswick, at least in part due to their fortuitous position on the ex-MEC main line became the more "natural" candidate on the path of least (fiscal) resistance.

Thanks for the info on Yarmouth Junction. Regarding my interest in it, my position stems from the idea that the private sector, the ski resort itself, tried to run the service for several years "back when," and if the service is to be restored post-Downeaster extension the same private sector should have at least the first crack at doing so before a tax-subsidized service is contemplated. Beyond that, it's safe to say that a winter-only train to Bethel with accommodations for skis is really going to primarily benefit two private businesses, Sunday River and Mt. Abram (a third if anyone is going to come from Boston to ski Lost Valley ), and unless the resorts are going to cover the full cost of the service (beyond farebox recovery) it seems like spending that level of tax money for such a lopsided benefit to two businesses finally approaches the "how much are we willing to spend" limit Cowford recently asked about in another thread. And yes, if the train weren't to be a NNEPRA/Amtrak operation it's highly unlikely it would be able to use the track from PTC to Yarmouth Jct., so a transfer would be necessary if Amtrak wasn't running the whole route.

Something else regarding the business case for the service occurred to me today, though. It seems possible that one of the justifications for the Silver Bullet was to attract traffic that may have been on the fence between going to Sunday River or Sugarloaf; you had (and still have) to drive to Sugarloaf, but you could take a train to Sunday River. Now, the two megaresorts are under common ownership, so that impetus is moot. Also, another question arises: is the current G&W ownership of the STL as friendly to such a service as the prior management was?

Going back to Yarmouth Junction for a moment, the two overhead map servers both show the Portland-Auburn turnout as being in apparently servicable shape, which would in fact accommodate a one-seat ride from Portland to Auburn and beyond without reverse moves, etc.

markhb wrote:Thanks for the info on Yarmouth Junction. Regarding my interest in it, my position stems from the idea that the private sector, the ski resort itself, tried to run the service for several years "back when," and if the service is to be restored post-Downeaster extension the same private sector should have at least the first crack at doing so before a tax-subsidized service is contemplated. Beyond that, it's safe to say that a winter-only train to Bethel with accommodations for skis is really going to primarily benefit two private businesses, Sunday River and Mt. Abram (a third if anyone is going to come from Boston to ski Lost Valley ), and unless the resorts are going to cover the full cost of the service (beyond farebox recovery) it seems like spending that level of tax money for such a lopsided benefit to two businesses finally approaches the "how much are we willing to spend" limit Cowford recently asked about in another thread. And yes, if the train weren't to be a NNEPRA/Amtrak operation it's highly unlikely it would be able to use the track from PTC to Yarmouth Jct., so a transfer would be necessary if Amtrak wasn't running the whole route.

While it would be fair to say that on some level if Amtrak and NNEPRA are involved there are tax subsidies to their overhead I only propose, or re-propose this idea contingent on the farebox recovery and any sponsorship from the resorts being equal to 100% of fully allocated costs, as understood using current formulas.

Here is perhaps another angle to remember. Les Otten ran this train when PAR was quite unfriendly to passenger service of any kind. If he had another shot at it again and could run out of Boston North Station, under the aegis of a friendly state agency but with the requirement that he cover any operating losses which would he choose? A transfer at Yarmouth Junction or a one seat ride from BON?

My point is that the 90's arrangement of the Silver Bullet Express was an artifact of its time shaped by the political and business forces in place at that time. It could be done again today with the allowance that the private sector covers any fully allocated costs not covered by fares, with the added advantage (which I think we all agree is really significant) of running out of Boston.

markhb wrote:Something else regarding the business case for the service occurred to me today, though. It seems possible that one of the justifications for the Silver Bullet was to attract traffic that may have been on the fence between going to Sunday River or Sugarloaf; you had (and still have) to drive to Sugarloaf, but you could take a train to Sunday River.

A lot of people here make the case that Sugarloaf doesn't attract as many of the "from away" crowd as Sunday River. So, assuming this to be true, we're talking about skiers coming from within Maine. Given that the drive time and ride time difference is perhaps greatest on a percentage basis from within Maine I think you could have a case that improvements in market share from Mainers was actually part of the goal.

markhb wrote:Now, the two megaresorts are under common ownership, so that impetus is moot.

I'm not so sure about that. I would imagine they are treated as separate business units each with their own marketing and management teams which could in fact be fiercely competitive. Just one possibility.

markhb wrote:Also, another question arises: is the current G&W ownership of the STL as friendly to such a service as the prior management was?

When Bethel was making a lot of noise a few years ago about wanting service over the SLR no one from the SLR came out and started stating terms. While the SLR wouldn't necessarily have the same aggressive approach to defending their property as PAR I still take their somewhat passive stance in this case as at least indicating a somewhat more amenable disposition to the possibility of passenger service over their line.

gokeefe wrote: While it would be fair to say that on some level if Amtrak and NNEPRA are involved there are tax subsidies to their overhead I only propose, or re-propose this idea contingent on the farebox recovery and any sponsorship from the resorts being equal to 100% of fully allocated costs, as understood using current formulas.

Here is perhaps another angle to remember. Les Otten ran this train when PAR was quite unfriendly to passenger service of any kind. If he had another shot at it again and could run out of Boston North Station, under the aegis of a friendly state agency but with the requirement that he cover any operating losses which would he choose? A transfer at Yarmouth Junction or a one seat ride from BON?

My point is that the 90's arrangement of the Silver Bullet Express was an artifact of its time shaped by the political and business forces in place at that time. It could be done again today with the allowance that the private sector covers any fully allocated costs not covered by fares, with the added advantage (which I think we all agree is really significant) of running out of Boston.

markhb wrote:Now, the two megaresorts are under common ownership, so that impetus is moot.

I'm not so sure about that. I would imagine they are treated as separate business units each with their own marketing and management teams which could in fact be fiercely competitive. Just one possibility.

Is there any precedent in the Amtrak system for such a fully-sponsored train?

Regarding competition between the two resorts, I am not a skier, but I do know two things: several of Sugarloaf's price packages and their Frequent Skier Card cover both resorts plus Loon Mountain (also owned by the same company), and as I understand it one of the first things that happened after Sugarloaf came under common ownership with SR was that they removed the sign in the snowfields that said "If you were at Sunday River, you'd be at the top now."

The guy who runs my local post office always mentions the ski train when we talk trains and tells of how it was often packed when he rode it (which was quite frequently). He said ridership wasn't a reason for them closing it