Montreal - Portland passenger service, past and future

The Saint Lawrence Seaway made it redundant as a port,

While train service is nuts, I'd take issue with your characterization of Montreal. The city has lost some prominence in Canada, but it's also due in part to the growth of western Canada. (Calgary had a population of 85k in 1940. It's now about 1 million.) Regarding the point on the port of Montreal. The port handled 24.5 million tons of bulk and containerized cargo last year and is the Canada's second busiest port after Vancouver. That's hardly redundant.

I would like to note that my observations on this service are exactly that, observations. In some other threads and some other forums members might post information or opinions regarding future service that they would like to see or discuss. In my posts on this service especially recently I am simply attempting to forward what I am seeing happen right now here in Maine.

This is not about a trip to 'Fantasy Island', this is a question of service that the State of Maine is actively working on bringing into operation. In general I support passenger rail service in Maine that is operated on a sustainable basis. The Downeaster is at least close to this standard. Whether or not Portland - Montreal service would be is subject to substantial debate and discussion of which this thread has already seen in spades and will understandably see more of in the future.

I can understand very well why some very experienced and knowledgeable members think this service would be unsuccessful. At present judging from concrete actions on the ground and statements from state transportation officials their views are very different and they are making decisions to that effect. More has been done to bring this service to reality in the past two years than at any time since the construction of the SLR in the 19th century.

In regards to direct service from New York I often wonder myself about this but previous discussion has shown that the necessary rail links are not in place at present to consider this service.

On the subject of transportation links between Maine and Canada the following appeared in today's Portland Press Herald via Associated Press:

'Jetport restoring airservice to Yarmouth, N.S.', via Associated Press, in the Portland Press Herald, February 26, 2010

Starlink Aviation ended its Portland-to-Yarmouth air service last November.

Today's announcement follows Air Canada's decision last month that it's going to offer twice-daily service between Toronto and Portland starting on May 17.

I think articles and information such as this demonstrate that the quality and quantity of transportation connections between Maine and points in Canada is often in flux. I'm not attempting to correlate these new services with some type of 'pent-up' need for rail travel, just trying to show that existing service isn't always representative of potential or actual demand. Sometimes route structures represent corporate compromises that are related to profitability and regulatory issues.

The recent cancellation of service by The Cat Ferry from Portland and Bar Harbor to Yarmouth, N.S. is another example where there was a combination of issues that ultimately made the service unsustainable.

Ridgefielder wrote:To expand on Noel's point about there being no bus service on this route, I'd also point out that Montreal is nowhere near as important a city as it was a hundred, or even fifty, years ago. The Saint Lawrence Seaway made it redundant as a port, while the pro-Francophone legislation passed in the 1970's (and on-and-off rumbling about secession) caused a lot of major companies (including the Bank of Montreal) to move their headquarters to Toronto. Last time I was up there-- and this is pre-recession-- every other office building downtown had big "a louer" (for rent) signs on it.

If our goal here is to discuss ways to expand/improve passenger service in Maine-- or in New England as a whole-- we should be thinking about ways to link (relatively) economically vital, growing cities to each other, and to the rest of the Northeast. For instance, I think restoring some kind of through Maine-New York service via one of the traditional NYNH&H/B&M routings (New London-Norwich-Worcester-Ayer-Lowell, or Providence-Worcester-Ayer-Lowell) would make a lot more sense than spending money on Montreal-Portland.

I totally agree here, it would be a very good idea to have a decent daylight through train between New York and Portland.
You would have a good train to New York out of Worcester in the process and not be stopping at communities in Northern
New England that barely have a gas station and store.
Noel Weaver

As entertaining a movie as Field of Dreams is, it has done one major disservice -- making the mantra "Build it and they will come" part of our consciousness. Geography and demographics determine the real costs and potential benefits to any rail transportation undertaking other than at a theme park or tourist line, and even those do CBAs. If anything, the shift in population out of inland Maine might be an argument against intermediate stops and, thus, for quicker transit times. But there isn't any documentation that is readily accessible showing any significant pent-up demand for re-establishing Montreal-Portland passenger rail service. Absent that documented demand, the funding and political will necessary for such an endeavor is unlikely to ever materialize. Yes, it gives us something to discuss, but how many posts equal one Pandrol clip?
Following up on Noel's post, the sensible thing would seem to be to push for re-establishment of service from Providence through to Lowell Junction for at least one RT a day. The Downeaster service would no longer be an orphan. With sharp scheduling, there could also be a connection at Worcester Union with both of the New England States so former New York Central points would be accessible to and from southern Maine. P&W might like some ROW improvements, and despite some improvements on the Brook, PAR might even like to have some funds thrown its way for the Worcester Line and those other parts of the Freight Main that haven't yet gotten improved with -- yet another movie reference -- Other People's Money.

gokeefe wrote: In general I support passenger rail service in Maine that is operated on a sustainable basis. The Downeaster is at least close to this standard. Whether or not Portland - Montreal service would be is subject to substantial debate and discussion of which this thread has already seen in spades and will understandably see more of in the future.

For the DE, do you mean by sustainable that the train cover costs? The latest figures available on the web site show 2010 Q1 revenue of about $1.95 million, down 6% from Q1 in 2009 (which was a record breaking quarter). NNEPRA states that "First quarter ridership and revenues were each 3% greater than budgeted resulting in a cost recovery of 66%."
The DE has survived, and performed mostly to expectations, if not quite, but does that mean it is necessarily sustainable over the long haul, and does it bode well for further expansion beyond Brunswick to Bangor and to Montreal?

jaymac wrote:Following up on Noel's post, the sensible thing would seem to be to push for re-establishment of service from Providence through to Lowell Junction for at least one RT a day. The Downeaster service would no longer be an orphan. With sharp scheduling, there could also be a connection at Worcester Union with both of the New England States so former New York Central points would be accessible to and from southern Maine. P&W might like some ROW improvements, and despite some improvements on the Brook, PAR might even like to have some funds thrown its way for the Worcester Line and those other parts of the Freight Main that haven't yet gotten improved with -- yet another movie reference -- Other People's Money.

What was the faster routing "back in the day"? Via Providence or via New London and the Norwich Branch?

On-topic, though, I just find it hard to believe that responsible people in the ME government think this is a good idea. I'd think even a reinstated summer-only Bar Harbor Express would garner more reliable ridership than Montreal-Portland (or Boston-Montreal via Portland, which is the form I assume this service would ultimately take if it becomes reality).

cpf354 wrote:

gokeefe wrote: In general I support passenger rail service in Maine that is operated on a sustainable basis. The Downeaster is at least close to this standard. Whether or not Portland - Montreal service would be is subject to substantial debate and discussion of which this thread has already seen in spades and will understandably see more of in the future.

For the DE, do you mean by sustainable that the train cover costs? The latest figures available on the web site show 2010 Q1 revenue of about $1.95 million, down 6% from Q1 in 2009 (which was a record breaking quarter). NNEPRA states that "First quarter ridership and revenues were each 3% greater than budgeted resulting in a cost recovery of 66%."
The DE has survived, and performed mostly to expectations, if not quite, but does that mean it is necessarily sustainable over the long haul, and does it bode well for further expansion beyond Brunswick to Bangor and to Montreal?

Mr. cpf354,

No, I certainly don't think Downeaster must recover its full operating cost in order to be sustainable. I think it has to recover enough of its costs that the public and their elected representatives feel it is a reasonable expenditure in the public interest. At present based on continued political and public support for the service the train meets this standard and may even exceed it.

I am not a believer in 'built it and they will come'. I am a believer in facts and the facts right now show that the state government in Maine and certain interests and community leaders believe this Montreal - Portland service should be started. Other facts also show or at least imply that steps are being taken to make this service happen. I strongly agree that New York - Portland service is potentially more beneficial to Maine than Montreal - Portland service but right now the state government and the public appear to be headed in a different direction.

There are many other projects and proposals up for consideration in New England for service to Montreal none of these are anywhere close to being as far along as what is happenning in Maine. I believe this is noteworthy, significant and has largely escaped the notice of others elsewhere. While in other states not a single dollar has been spent on planning Maine has active construction projects in progress that have at a minimum a secondary purpose of enabling this service. Danville Junction is the most glaring example, this is a project which has absolutely no relation whatsoever to Downeaster service.

I understand that the service is fiscally questionable with ridership projections that seem to have little basis in fact, or at least in studies that are not produced by consultants working for the Office of Passenger Transportation at MDOT. The fact of the matter remains that at this point in time the momentum appears to be shifting towards more aggressive planning and expenditures by local entities, such as Lewiston-Auburn in favor of projects that help bring about this service. A lot of what is going on in L-A right now reminds me of what happened in Brunswick about four or five years ago when the community committed everything they could to making passenger service a reality in their town.

jaymac wrote:But there isn't any documentation that is readily accessible showing any significant pent-up demand for re-establishing Montreal-Portland passenger rail service. Absent that documented demand, the funding and political will necessary for such an endeavor is unlikely to ever materialize. Yes, it gives us something to discuss, but how many posts equal one Pandrol clip?

Mr. jaymac,

Your point is preceisely what I am communicating. The political will necessary for precisely this endeavor exists and has become noticeably stronger in the past four years. The funding is still in question but the incremental approach being used by NNEPRA has given them capital improvements funds that have a 'dual-use' for Downeaster at present and for future service to Auburn and points beyond. Rehabilitation work on the Portland - Royal Junction segment of PAR's Portland Road has many possible applications for service from multiple directions. The significance of this work is strategic and goes far beyond Downeaster service extension.

Ridgefielder-
Havent any either ETTs or publics that old to show the different times for Providence v. Norwich routing, but Providence has enough AMTK infrastructure already in place to make it seem a better choice for either stripping off cars or changing power or having passengers do a cross-platform change. Also, the further east along the Shore Line the train cango before changing compass direction, the greater the potential passenger draw would be.

gokeefe-
I know you're stating your strong interest and the interest of several local government and non-government organizations in Maine. Assuming SLR and Canadian connections form the routing, what about agencies in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Quebec? If they all don't buy in to support a line capable of at least 60 mph, I'm having trouble seeing service restoration coming to fruition. This would be a substantial investment in ROW, motive power, rolling stock, communications and signalling, and hiring. Such an investment, especially one both interstate and international dimensions, needs more than an incremental approach if it is to avoid becoming dismissed as the railroad version of former Sen. Ted Stevens' bridge to nowhere.

cpf354 wrote:

gokeefe wrote: In general I support passenger rail service in Maine that is operated on a sustainable basis. The Downeaster is at least close to this standard. Whether or not Portland - Montreal service would be is subject to substantial debate and discussion of which this thread has already seen in spades and will understandably see more of in the future.

For the DE, do you mean by sustainable that the train cover costs? The latest figures available on the web site show 2010 Q1 revenue of about $1.95 million, down 6% from Q1 in 2009 (which was a record breaking quarter). NNEPRA states that "First quarter ridership and revenues were each 3% greater than budgeted resulting in a cost recovery of 66%."
The DE has survived, and performed mostly to expectations, if not quite, but does that mean it is necessarily sustainable over the long haul, and does it bode well for further expansion beyond Brunswick to Bangor and to Montreal?

Considering that Brunswick only has a population of 21,000 and even Bangor has only 31,000, I'm inclined to say the further extension of the Downeaster might be reaching a demographic breaking point, with too little population and too little demand to justify a bus service let alone passenger rail between Portland and Montreal.

gokeefe wrote: I am not a believer in 'built it and they will come'. I am a believer in facts and the facts right now show that the state government in Maine and certain interests and community leaders believe this Montreal - Portland service should be started. Other facts also show or at least imply that steps are being taken to make this service happen.

I honestly can't imagine any justification, economic or otherwise, for Portland to Montreal service. Quite frankly, the old Amtrak Montrealer was a desperate failure and even the Adirondack is hanging by a thread, dependent on a tenuous NYS subsidy. With the obvious complications of cross border travel and the increasing irrelevance of Montreal as a destination, any discussion of expanded service to Montreal is unrealistic, although the sparsely populated Maine route is perhaps the most implausible proposal to date.

gokeefe wrote:I strongly agree that New York - Portland service is potentially more beneficial to Maine than Montreal - Portland service but right now the state government and the public appear to be headed in a different direction.

Considering the current level of Downeaster service and the limited potential of Maine as a passenger rail market, it isn't reasonable to expect any sort of one seat ride between Portland and NYP. I can appreciate that having to transfer between two Boston stations is inconvenient, but it isn't unreasonable for the number of passengers involved.

gokeefe wrote:There are many other projects and proposals up for consideration in New England for service to Montreal none of these are anywhere close to being as far along as what is happenning in Maine. I believe this is noteworthy, significant and has largely escaped the notice of others elsewhere. While in other states not a single dollar has been spent on planning Maine has active construction projects in progress that have at a minimum a secondary purpose of enabling this service.

The outcome of this popular enthusiasm for passenger rail might have negative consequences in the long run if Maine creates a network that can't be sustained by the state's taxpayers.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:Considering that Brunswick only has a population of 21,000 and even Bangor has only 31,000, I'm inclined to say the further extension of the Downeaster might be reaching a demographic breaking point, with too little population and too little demand to justify a bus service let alone passenger rail between Portland and Montreal.

You have to look at it from a regional standpoint. Wells has a population of only 10,000, and yet it's the second most-used station in Maine after Portland. Why? Because it's also used by people who live in Kennebunk, Sanford, North Berwick, Ogunquit, and York. Add up the populations of those towns, plus the population of Wells, and you've got a total population of about 60,000.

Assuming that the Brunswick station is also utilized by people in Topsham, Lisbon, Bowdoinham, and Bath, you'd have a combined population of about 50,000.

Now, it's still possible that the Portland-Brunswick service will be a massive failure (hopefully it won't), but all I'm saying is that when you look at population numbers, especially in a place like Maine, you have to look beyond the population of the town where the station is located and look at the entire area that is likely to use the station.

jaymac wrote:Ridgefielder-
Havent any either ETTs or publics that old to show the different times for Providence v. Norwich routing, but Providence has enough AMTK infrastructure already in place to make it seem a better choice for either stripping off cars or changing power or having passengers do a cross-platform change. Also, the further east along the Shore Line the train cango before changing compass direction, the greater the potential passenger draw would be.

I was assuming that the engine change point for any hypothetical WAS/NYP-Maine service-- via whatever route-- would be New Haven, since there's already extensive engine terminal infrastructure in place, not to mention station trackage set up to make power swaps as easy as possible and personnel skilled at the task. Is there really that much AMTK presence in Providence apart from the station itself?

Not sure you'd pick up that many more riders if you go Providence vs New London- aside from Providence itself, the only stops you'd miss are Mystic, Westerly and Kingston.

With regard to the routes between Worcester and New Haven, the Norwich Branch is considerably short than running via
Providence. They could also serve at least Norwich and maybe Putnam in the process.
The main reason the New Haven ran the State of Maine through Providence was the heavy presence of through freight trains
on the Norwich Branch at night on a line with simply no automatic block territory and no interlockings except at Putnam.
Both M-6 and M-7 were hot trains between the B & M at Portland and Cedar Hill and beyond and both ran with very long
trains as well and they also ran nonstop except for meets between Worcester and Cedar Hill. You also had P-2 in the picture
from Cedar Hill to Worcester. N-1 was the other through train but that left Worcester in the afternoon, made several stops
and would not have interferred with nighttime operations.
By running the State of Maine through Providence they handled mail there and that line had only one through freight at night
in each direction and it was a turn job out of Providence. This line also had ABS signals all the way between Boston Switch
and South Worcester.
Under today's operations probably the Norwich Branch would be the best bet. Engine change would be at New Haven anyway.
Amtrak does not even have a place to turn a single engine at or near Providence anymore.
Noel Weaver