Railroad Forums 

  • Amtrak Buffalo Exchange Street Replacement

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1556787  by johnpbarlow
 
Attached is Amtrak's NY to Detroit /Toronto service timetable for February 1976 showing the Toronto connection was via TH&B to/from Hamilton and CP to/from Toronto. NY to/from Detroit passenger service was provided by Amtrak's Empire State Express. Via wasn't invented until January 1977 when CN spun off its passenger service to Via. On October 1978, CP donated its passenger service to Via and the RDCs continued to operate this route until April 1981 when Amtrak's Maple Leaf service started up. A pair of CP RDC-2s rest at Buffalo's Central Terminal in April 1976.
Attachments:
Amtrak Feb 1976 Timetable NY-Toronto.JPG
Amtrak Feb 1976 Timetable NY-Toronto.JPG (119.48 KiB) Viewed 1909 times
CP RDC Central Terminal Buffalo Apr 1976 2.jpg
CP RDC Central Terminal Buffalo Apr 1976 2.jpg (902.91 KiB) Viewed 1909 times
 #1556798  by MACTRAXX
 
Everyone:

I rode the Buffalo-Toronto RDC service four round trips - twice each in both 1979 and 1980.
The first time was in Summer 1979 when Amtrak was still serving Central Terminal.
The subsequent three times were from/to Exchange Street.

The schedule as shown in JB's post above was basically the same until the service ended in Spring 1981
when the "Maple Leaf" Amtrak/VIA service through Niagara Falls began.

I discovered that this train was an interesting partnership between three railroad companies - Conrail, TH&B
and CP Rail to provide this service. The run was about 100 miles in length total.

CP Rail provided the RDC equipment - on all of my trips two cars in the red/white "warpaint" color scheme.
A CP T&E crew ran the train between the Hamilton TH&B station and Toronto. The picture posted by JB
above shows the CP RDC train just as I remenbered from my first trip in 1979 at Central Terminal.

Conrail and TH&B operated the train between Hamilton and Buffalo providing T&E crews on a six-months-each
basis. I found that the Conrail crew that operated the train was a Canadian Division crew based out of St. Thomas
and remember one of the Conrail Conductors wore an Amtrak uniform in service - a remnant of the
"Niagara Rainbow" days.

Conrail trackage was between Buffalo and Welland; TH&B between Welland and Hamilton.

One of the more memorable parts of this run was the view from the ridge of the Niagara Escarpment as the train
was nearing Hamilton from the east down or up hill to/from the TH&B station.

I do not want to get totally off the BFX subject - I remember that there is a topic elsewhere about this train.
Good to see that BFX has been very much improved with the opening of the new facilities...MACTRAXX
Last edited by MACTRAXX on Mon Nov 16, 2020 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 #1556803  by Jeff Smith
 
MACTRAXX wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 10:57 am SA: There looks to be room for a second high platform at BFX - with the amount of current use is not necessary.
...
Hopefully someday "upstaters" will get their due from NYS' much talked about HSR.
 #1556853  by Roadgeek Adam
 
The pillars holding 190 up make it almost impossible to have a second platform, not to mention the access point is a paid lot that Amtrak doesn't run and is definitely not ADA accessible. You'd have to have a really off-alignment 2nd platform to make it work.

Image
 #1556899  by Station Aficionado
 
Well, that's a tad unfortunate. It seems too often decisions are premised on the notion that current service levels are frozen in amber for eons to come. With the current timings, it's unlikely that any train would have to hold out, waiting for the platform to clear. But that could become an issue with any additional frequencies. Does anyone know the level of freight traffic through that area?

I just read the wikipedia entry on the station. Assuming that article is correct, the prior station was built with two platforms and a connecting overhead walkway (long gone before Amtrak). And, on the Google satellite view (dating to before the demolition of the prior station, there is what could be an abandoned platform for the second track immediately east of the station. But, as Roadgeek Adam suggests, any second platform would be oddly situated in relation to the current station and platform.
 #1556908  by StLouSteve
 
Looks like a second platform would have to be staggered slightly up or down. When building St Louis' light rail system, they had to do that for one stop (Wellston) and you have to walk all the way down to the end of the platform and then cross the tracks (at grade) to access the other direction platform and parking lot (which is on the other side of a street crossing) so it can be done, although far from ideal.

BTW, I also rode the connecting RDC from Buffalo to Toronto on the TH&B. One of my favorite Budd car memories. Customs boarded the train and interviewed folks while en route so it was not a big deal getting across the border. Took the Greyhound the other way and recall having to take luggage into the building and getting hassled quite a bit including searching through our clothes in our suitcases.
 #1556917  by Ridgefielder
 
StLouSteve wrote: Wed Nov 18, 2020 9:35 am Looks like a second platform would have to be staggered slightly up or down. When building St Louis' light rail system, they had to do that for one stop (Wellston) and you have to walk all the way down to the end of the platform and then cross the tracks (at grade) to access the other direction platform and parking lot (which is on the other side of a street crossing) so it can be done, although far from ideal.
A staggered platform wouldn't really be *that* big of a deal, when you think about it. It's not as if many people are going to be transferring from a northbound to a southbound.

I have to say that, at least from what I've seen from the pictures, I love the design of the new station. It really echoes that of some of the smaller-city New York Central-era stations on the Water Level Route, like Yonkers and Poughkeepsie.
 #1556947  by Roadgeek Adam
 
Look, with the fact that Buffalo-Depew and Buffalo Exchange Street continue to co-exist (the right decision in my opinion), the need for a staggered 2nd platform is unnecessary. There's a few things working against it.

In order to put that platform in, it would have to be closer to across the tracks from where the temp station was. That was the open space area. Second, it would be on its own and riders would be required to cross the tracks to access it, something Amtrak would shy away from for ADA and safety. There isn't room to build a pedestrian overpass and a pedestrian tunnel would likely cause issues with the 190 supports there. This platform would be an accessibility nightmare.

Now to the point made of the rush decision theory. There were three proposal considered. One is the one I have had the numerous arguments against grumpy old rail men who don't understand that Buffalo Central Terminal is done as a railroad station. The costs to rebuild it for a few trains a day would be ginormous (talking billions, not millions) and making it ADA accessible would be damn near impossible. The safety hazards are too high. The second and the one I liked personally was the Larkinville station idea. The problem is, while best for building two platforms and an overpass, a third track/siding would have to be built due to the high amount of freights, resulting in the costs going up, not to mention the lack of room.

Rebuilding Buffalo Exchange in place did a lot because it actually provides good connection to downtown services. No, 48 & 49 are not going to stop at it, but, whatever. Buffalo's the 2nd biggest city in the state, having two stations in its metro area (technically 3) isn't a bad thing.
 #1556958  by ctclark1
 
Roadgeek Adam wrote: Wed Nov 18, 2020 9:26 pm The second and the one I liked personally was the Larkinville station idea. The problem is, while best for building two platforms and an overpass, a third track/siding would have to be built due to the high amount of freights, resulting in the costs going up, not to mention the lack of room.
Considering the Central ran four tracks down that stretch (from the current 437 to the Track 3/Niagara Branch split at Larkinville) and the Swan Street "Tunnel" was actually under the ends of the leads for the downtown yards (carrying at least 6 tracks, it almost looks closer to 8 in some historic aerial shots) I don't think room for a third track would have been a huge ordeal.

One thing I remember asking a while back and I don't recall getting a response, possibly just because it was unknown, was how much freight CSX runs through the downtown section of the Niagara Branch (through the Main/Commercial and Perry/Erie tunnels). While it does appear that Amrex Chemical (or whatever possibly unnamed company occupies the west end of that building) receives some cars, I'm 99% sure that The Buffalo News no longer receives paper stock by rail anymore, and while I don't know this for sure, I'm pretty sure these are/were serviced with the yard job out of Ohio St, along with Hamburg/Katherine streets. Other than the third crossing of Buffalo Creek using Track 3, I can't see much use for freights out of Frontier to bomb through downtown instead of taking the Belt up to the Niagara Branch at CP 7/8, and for the two Amtrak trains per day (LSL) that would use the platform on the Track 3 side of an imaginary Larkinville station, would that really hamper CSX that much for the freights they do choose to run around the CP-DRAW bottleneck?
If a high platform is an issue for freights, and there really was concern regarding space for a full third track there, couldn't a gauntlet track suffice?

I know its a moot point, but I still never completely understood the space and freight concerns with a Larkinville station. Sell off that portion of the Niagara Branch to Amtrak, with trackage rights for the little space CSX would need to crossover from the Chicago St runner to the one industry on the north side of the Branch. Build a passenger siding off of "Track 3" if you're that concerned with freight blockages (or a gauntlet if high platforms are an issue) and now you've basically freed up Depew completely - no more having to make sure all Amtraks get shifted to Track 2 and block the line between 429 and 437, and you only end up blocking Track 3 through CP-1 twice a day (as opposed to however many times a day it gets blocked now with Empire and Maple). Seemed like a win-win to me. It really seemed more like the city of Buffalo was causing the bigger push against Larkinville with their desire to feed passengers right into downtown... If they had tried hard enough I'm sure they could've figured out a way to get a single Metrorail line to Larkinville.
 #1556965  by MACTRAXX
 
StLouSteve wrote: Wed Nov 18, 2020 9:35 am BTW, I also rode the connecting RDC from Buffalo to Toronto on the TH&B. One of my favorite Budd car memories. Customs boarded the train and interviewed folks while en route so it was not a big deal getting across the border. Took the Greyhound the other way and recall having to take luggage into the building and getting hassled quite a bit including searching through our clothes in our suitcases.
StL and Everyone: This reply has two segments adding to the Buffalo-Toronto RDC train discussion
and the Exchange Street Station Renovation topic.

First-In my four Buffalo-Toronto RDC train round trips Canada Customs inspection was at the Fort Erie Station
which was adjacent to the west end of the International Bridge. The inspectors would drive up to meet the train
from the Peace Bridge. On one of my trips I remember watching their vehicles driving up Niagara Boulevard as
the train was nearing the west end of the I Bridge for the FEO stop.
Does anyone know when the Fort Erie Station building was removed?

US Customs performed their inspection at Black Rock on a curved connecting track to the Niagara Branch which
was just to the east of the Squaw Island drawbridge. This track-which looks to have long been removed-was near
Dearborn Street and just north of the I-190 NYS Thruway and NYS-198 intersections. NYS 265 and 266 are nearby.

There is a past discussion about the Buffalo-Toronto service that could be revived with those posts here:
viewtopic.php?f=46&t=48395 "Buffalo-Toronto Trains"

Second-I do agree with RGA about the site of Exchange Street compared with a Larkinville location to add the
Lake Shore Limited to potentially replace the Depew station site. Keeping BUF and BFX is a good move offering
two options for Buffalo area Amtrak riders. Adding options such as second platforms at BFX is not necessary now.

The perennial problem with Central Terminal has always been its location. Even though a BCT revival could mean
future improvements to the surrounding neighborhoods the trouble is that the area has deteriorated enough to
the point that it would discourage at least some ridership. Renovating BCT would have a very high price tag.
It could take a future project - such as a new stadium for the Buffalo Bills - to revitalize the East Side area.
In that case a relocated or added station option could make sense in the future - for now BFX and BUF
are sufficient especially now again with the opening of the new BFX facilities...MACTRAXX
 #1556977  by Ridgefielder
 
MACTRAXX wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:43 am The perennial problem with Central Terminal has always been its location. Even though a BCT revival could mean
future improvements to the surrounding neighborhoods the trouble is that the area has deteriorated enough to
the point that it would discourage at least some ridership. Renovating BCT would have a very high price tag.
It could take a future project - such as a new stadium for the Buffalo Bills - to revitalize the East Side area.
In that case a relocated or added station option could make sense in the future - for now BFX and BUF
are sufficient especially now again with the opening of the new BFX facilities...MACTRAXX
Have said this in other threads, but-- Buffalo Central Terminal was built to serve a city of 570,000 people. The population had grown 60% in the three decades prior to its opening.

Buffalo is now a city of 255,000 people. The population has declined by 20% in the past 30 years, although it seems to be steadying.

There just isn't the need there for so much station, in my opinion.
 #1557006  by Roadgeek Adam
 
The city also didn't expand in the direction they imagined either. There just isn't expansion heading east of Larkinville and there's no current future. An East Side stadium is incredibly unlikely to happen. Almost all of the land is developed for the ones needed for a new football stadium.

In reality, Buffalo Central Terminal needs a lot of the land torn down. A lot of those abandoned falling apart REA buildings aren't worth saving. The headhouse and the old overpass? Sure. Keep those as good historical points. Both would make great museum parts in the future. It amazes me to no end how many grumpy old men raillfans think that Central Terminal has any future as a railroad station. It boggles the mind. I've gotten into tons of fights.
 #1557101  by Ridgefielder
 
Roadgeek Adam wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:59 pmThe city also didn't expand in the direction they imagined either.
That seems to have been a common issue with some of those "late golden age of rail" projects. Downtown Detroit didn't expand toward Michigan Central Station; the business center of Manhattan never moved far enough north for the New York, Westchester & Boston's Harlem River Terminal to make sense....

It's hard for me to think of a scenario where BCT would be a superior station location to Exchange Street. Even in the event of some sort of restored Buffalo-Erie-Cleveland service there's no reason a train couldn't make a reverse move after a station call. Or have power on both ends, for that matter.
 #1557146  by Pensyfan19
 
Ridgefielder wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:47 pm
Roadgeek Adam wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:59 pmThe city also didn't expand in the direction they imagined either.
That seems to have been a common issue with some of those "late golden age of rail" projects. Downtown Detroit didn't expand toward Michigan Central Station; the business center of Manhattan never moved far enough north for the New York, Westchester & Boston's Harlem River Terminal to make sense....

It's hard for me to think of a scenario where BCT would be a superior station location to Exchange Street. Even in the event of some sort of restored Buffalo-Erie-Cleveland service there's no reason a train couldn't make a reverse move after a station call. Or have power on both ends, for that matter.
There's also the possibility of increased frequencies for the Empire Service, the eventual NY High Speed Rail on the corridor, and even GO Transit expanding to Buffalo; all of which would justify the use of a larger and grander station (of course being Central Terminal) that can hold more trains and represent the city's greatness.