Ethan Allen Discussion, including Expansion (Burlington)

[rovetherr]

Do you know if the tunnel between Burlington and Essex Jct. is still excepted track? I sort of remember that it was going to be rebuilt.

The NECR's Burlington Branch is class 1 track, good for 10 mph only, at least it was the last time I looked at an NECR timetable. The track would require a fair amount of work to prepare it for scheduled passenger traffic, but then so will sections of the VTR. A few years ago there was some work performed on the tunnel, in an effort to raise the clearance to Plate F. The last I knew, that effort had not been successful, and the tunnel was still rated at Plate C or D. I have run a passenger extra through the tunnel, but it was an OCS for the VTR/NECR/VTAOT at the early stages of the tunnel project, and used our much older, smaller passenger stock.

As for servicing the train set in Burlington, I am sure that we would work out a deal much like in Rutland, where the train is cleaned, watered, and fueled in preparation of its return trip. Currently, the EA isn't fueled in Rutland, but fueling wouldn't be an issue in either place, the company that delivers to us could just drop fuel direct into the engine while it is being serviced, instead of into our tanks.

From what I can glean from reading what the AOT has said about passenger service in VT over the years, the final plan for the EA is to run from ALB to SDY to Mohawk yard, diverting onto the shared main and then the PAS at Mechanicville, up the VTR from Hoosick Jct, onto the NECR at Burlington, and terminate either at Essex Jct. or St. Albans after meeting up with the Vermonter on it's way to Montreal.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

Do you know if the tunnel between Burlington and Essex Jct. is still excepted track? I sort of remember that it was going to be rebuilt.

The NECR's Burlington Branch is class 1 track, good for 10 mph only, at least it was the last time I looked at an NECR timetable. The track would require a fair amount of work to prepare it for scheduled passenger traffic, but then so will sections of the VTR. A few years ago there was some work performed on the tunnel, in an effort to raise the clearance to Plate F. The last I knew, that effort had not been successful, and the tunnel was still rated at Plate C or D. I have run a passenger extra through the tunnel, but it was an OCS for the VTR/NECR/VTAOT at the early stages of the tunnel project, and used our much older, smaller passenger stock.

As for servicing the train set in Burlington, I am sure that we would work out a deal much like in Rutland, where the train is cleaned, watered, and fueled in preparation of its return trip. Currently, the EA isn't fueled in Rutland, but fueling wouldn't be an issue in either place, the company that delivers to us could just drop fuel direct into the engine while it is being serviced, instead of into our tanks.

From what I can glean from reading what the AOT has said about passenger service in VT over the years, the final plan for the EA is to run from ALB to SDY to Mohawk yard, diverting onto the shared main and then the PAS at Mechanicville, up the VTR from Hoosick Jct, onto the NECR at Burlington, and terminate either at Essex Jct. or St. Albans after meeting up with the Vermonter on it's way to Montreal.

They wouldn't have to rehab the Burlington Branch for passenger traffic if the Ethan Allen is terminating downtown. I don't see any reason why they would ever want to run it thru with passengers to Essex Jct. The demand isn't there for that. We're talking strictly the occasional non-revenue move on an as-needed basis to transfer Vermonter and Ethan Allen equipment or wye a trainset. Something in the realm of acceptable SGR on the branch would do that job...at the very most Class 2 and no better if they envision non-revenue Amtrak usage to be anything more than few-and-far-between. All fully within the realm of the desired freight upgrades on the branch.

[rovetherr]

I think that the idea to run through to Essex Jct is just that for now, an idea. However, the state of Vermont is very focused on creating a multi-modal transportation system that allows for mobility without the exclusive use of cars. And the connection to the Montreal bound Vermonter is a link in that chain for the western corridor.

[Noel Weaver]

I think that the idea to run through to Essex Jct is just that for now, an idea. However, the state of Vermont is very focused on creating a multi-modal transportation system that allows for mobility without the exclusive use of cars. And the connection to the Montreal bound Vermonter is a link in that chain for the western corridor.

I think the best use of the line between Burlington and Essex Junction would be to turn the entire train. It is much more effilcient to turn an entire train than it is to cut the engine off and turn it on a turntable. It is much cheaper too because they will not need the manpower to do the work cutting the engine off and coupling it up again, couple up weather conditions and this is probably a no brainer.
Noel Weaver

[Ridgefielder]

From what I can glean from reading what the AOT has said about passenger service in VT over the years, the final plan for the EA is to run from ALB to SDY to Mohawk yard, diverting onto the shared main and then the PAS at Mechanicville, up the VTR from Hoosick Jct, onto the NECR at Burlington, and terminate either at Essex Jct. or St. Albans after meeting up with the Vermonter on it's way to Montreal.

Am I right in guessing that the traditional D&H/B&M/Rutland passenger route via Troy is long gone?

[Mcoov]

Am I right in guessing that the traditional D&H/B&M/Rutland passenger route via Troy is long gone?

Abandoned and pulled up by 1956.

[Greg Moore]

Am I right in guessing that the traditional D&H/B&M/Rutland passenger route via Troy is long gone?

Abandoned and pulled up by 1956.

And much of the ROW now built over/gone.

[MattW]

Do you know if the tunnel between Burlington and Essex Jct. is still excepted track? I sort of remember that it was going to be rebuilt.

The NECR's Burlington Branch is class 1 track, good for 10 mph only, at least it was the last time I looked at an NECR timetable. The track would require a fair amount of work to prepare it for scheduled passenger traffic, but then so will sections of the VTR. A few years ago there was some work performed on the tunnel, in an effort to raise the clearance to Plate F. The last I knew, that effort had not been successful, and the tunnel was still rated at Plate C or D. I have run a passenger extra through the tunnel, but it was an OCS for the VTR/NECR/VTAOT at the early stages of the tunnel project, and used our much older, smaller passenger stock.

As for servicing the train set in Burlington, I am sure that we would work out a deal much like in Rutland, where the train is cleaned, watered, and fueled in preparation of its return trip. Currently, the EA isn't fueled in Rutland, but fueling wouldn't be an issue in either place, the company that delivers to us could just drop fuel direct into the engine while it is being serviced, instead of into our tanks.

From what I can glean from reading what the AOT has said about passenger service in VT over the years, the final plan for the EA is to run from ALB to SDY to Mohawk yard, diverting onto the shared main and then the PAS at Mechanicville, up the VTR from Hoosick Jct, onto the NECR at Burlington, and terminate either at Essex Jct. or St. Albans after meeting up with the Vermonter on it's way to Montreal.

They wouldn't have to rehab the Burlington Branch for passenger traffic if the Ethan Allen is terminating downtown. I don't see any reason why they would ever want to run it thru with passengers to Essex Jct. The demand isn't there for that. We're talking strictly the occasional non-revenue move on an as-needed basis to transfer Vermonter and Ethan Allen equipment or wye a trainset. Something in the realm of acceptable SGR on the branch would do that job...at the very most Class 2 and no better if they envision non-revenue Amtrak usage to be anything more than few-and-far-between. All fully within the realm of the desired freight upgrades on the branch.

What about consolidating service locations? Would the cost of not having to maintain two close servicing locations outweigh the cost to rehab the Burlington-Essex Junction tracks and just run the train all the way to St. Albans?

[Noel Weaver]

Do you know if the tunnel between Burlington and Essex Jct. is still excepted track? I sort of remember that it was going to be rebuilt.

The NECR's Burlington Branch is class 1 track, good for 10 mph only, at least it was the last time I looked at an NECR timetable. The track would require a fair amount of work to prepare it for scheduled passenger traffic, but then so will sections of the VTR. A few years ago there was some work performed on the tunnel, in an effort to raise the clearance to Plate F. The last I knew, that effort had not been successful, and the tunnel was still rated at Plate C or D. I have run a passenger extra through the tunnel, but it was an OCS for the VTR/NECR/VTAOT at the early stages of the tunnel project, and used our much older, smaller passenger stock.

As for servicing the train set in Burlington, I am sure that we would work out a deal much like in Rutland, where the train is cleaned, watered, and fueled in preparation of its return trip. Currently, the EA isn't fueled in Rutland, but fueling wouldn't be an issue in either place, the company that delivers to us could just drop fuel direct into the engine while it is being serviced, instead of into our tanks.

From what I can glean from reading what the AOT has said about passenger service in VT over the years, the final plan for the EA is to run from ALB to SDY to Mohawk yard, diverting onto the shared main and then the PAS at Mechanicville, up the VTR from Hoosick Jct, onto the NECR at Burlington, and terminate either at Essex Jct. or St. Albans after meeting up with the Vermonter on it's way to Montreal.

They wouldn't have to rehab the Burlington Branch for passenger traffic if the Ethan Allen is terminating downtown. I don't see any reason why they would ever want to run it thru with passengers to Essex Jct. The demand isn't there for that. We're talking strictly the occasional non-revenue move on an as-needed basis to transfer Vermonter and Ethan Allen equipment or wye a trainset. Something in the realm of acceptable SGR on the branch would do that job...at the very most Class 2 and no better if they envision non-revenue Amtrak usage to be anything more than few-and-far-between. All fully within the realm of the desired freight upgrades on the branch.

What about consolidating service locations? Would the cost of not having to maintain two close servicing locations outweigh the cost to rehab the Burlington-Essex Junction tracks and just run the train all the way to St. Albans?

There are only two ways in and out of Burlington by rail:
1. South to Rutland
2. East to Essex Junction
In order to get to St. Albans or anywhere else in that part of Vermont a train would have to use the line from Burlington to Essex Junction. It would not make any sense to go right through downtown Burlington and stop only at Essex Junction. Personally I do not see any logical reason to run such a train beyond Burlington unless it was just to Essex Junction and even then I do not think very many folks to ride such a train. I do not think it is at all important to link up the two routes at Burlington/Essex Junction and I don't think there is nearly enough potential business out of St. Albans to support two trains.
Noel Weaver

[shadyjay]

Still think the best idea would be to run the Ethan Allen and Vermonter from NYP to Burlington. No turning of trainsets would be required, as schedules would be tweaked so that the NB Vermonter to become the next day's SB Ethan Allen (and vice versa). I know of the plans to extend the Vermonter to Montreal, but in a perfect world, the Montrealer would be brought back.
Also in a perfect world, I'd possibly run a second NYP-Rutland frequency, running on the present route, to continue serving Saratoga Springs and Castleton. Not sure of what I'd call that train, since I would like to see the Ethan Allen rerouted via Bennington, Manchester, and on to Rutland and Burlington.

[Hawaiitiki]

Hasn't Amtrak made it clear that it is their long-term intention to extend both of these trains to Montreal? They obviously gave no time-line but I can swear seeing somewhere that at least the Vermonter will one day return to Montreal whether it be by the will of Vermont, Canada, Quebec, VIA, or Amtrak.

[The EGE]

The Vermonter will probably return to Montreal by 2020. Wouldn't that be a coup - getting the Vermonter and Ethan Allen extended together!

[afiggatt]

Hasn't Amtrak made it clear that it is their long-term intention to extend both of these trains to Montreal? They obviously gave no time-line but I can swear seeing somewhere that at least the Vermonter will one day return to Montreal whether it be by the will of Vermont, Canada, Quebec, VIA, or Amtrak.

It is the state and the Governor of Vermont that is pushing for extending the Vermonter to Montreal. VT received the TIGER grant earlier this year to upgrade the tracks north of St. Albans to the border for freight and passenger service. Those track upgrades are expected to be completed by the end of next year because it will open NECR to heavier freight trains.

Both NY and VT are working with Quebec and the US Government to open a Customs facility in at the Montreal train station. There is design and engineering work underway on constructing a Customs facility at MTR jointly funded by NY, VT Quebec. There are treaty and joint customs issues to be settled, so the earliest date for a Customs facility at the MTR station is 2014, but could easily slide to 2015. There is a presentation from Amtrak at the US-Canadian Transportation Border Working Group meeting in April that covers the status back then of the cross border passenger rail initiatives including the Montreal Customs facility. In that presentation, the earliest date for the Vermonter being extended to Montreal was "perhaps late 2014". There was a November TBWG scheduled to be held this past week, so we should check to see if Amtrak & VIA presented at the meeting when the presentations are posted. There are other interesting items in the Amtrak presentation including connecting the Amtrak MI corridor to VIA in Windsor.

The plans are to extend the Vermonter to Montreal. There is no hint that there is any interest in extending the Ethan Allen to MTR. Would add several hours and operating costs to the Ethan Allen route.

[MattW]

Do you know if the tunnel between Burlington and Essex Jct. is still excepted track? I sort of remember that it was going to be rebuilt.

The NECR's Burlington Branch is class 1 track, good for 10 mph only, at least it was the last time I looked at an NECR timetable. The track would require a fair amount of work to prepare it for scheduled passenger traffic, but then so will sections of the VTR. A few years ago there was some work performed on the tunnel, in an effort to raise the clearance to Plate F. The last I knew, that effort had not been successful, and the tunnel was still rated at Plate C or D. I have run a passenger extra through the tunnel, but it was an OCS for the VTR/NECR/VTAOT at the early stages of the tunnel project, and used our much older, smaller passenger stock.

As for servicing the train set in Burlington, I am sure that we would work out a deal much like in Rutland, where the train is cleaned, watered, and fueled in preparation of its return trip. Currently, the EA isn't fueled in Rutland, but fueling wouldn't be an issue in either place, the company that delivers to us could just drop fuel direct into the engine while it is being serviced, instead of into our tanks.

From what I can glean from reading what the AOT has said about passenger service in VT over the years, the final plan for the EA is to run from ALB to SDY to Mohawk yard, diverting onto the shared main and then the PAS at Mechanicville, up the VTR from Hoosick Jct, onto the NECR at Burlington, and terminate either at Essex Jct. or St. Albans after meeting up with the Vermonter on it's way to Montreal.

They wouldn't have to rehab the Burlington Branch for passenger traffic if the Ethan Allen is terminating downtown. I don't see any reason why they would ever want to run it thru with passengers to Essex Jct. The demand isn't there for that. We're talking strictly the occasional non-revenue move on an as-needed basis to transfer Vermonter and Ethan Allen equipment or wye a trainset. Something in the realm of acceptable SGR on the branch would do that job...at the very most Class 2 and no better if they envision non-revenue Amtrak usage to be anything more than few-and-far-between. All fully within the realm of the desired freight upgrades on the branch.

What about consolidating service locations? Would the cost of not having to maintain two close servicing locations outweigh the cost to rehab the Burlington-Essex Junction tracks and just run the train all the way to St. Albans?

There are only two ways in and out of Burlington by rail:
1. South to Rutland
2. East to Essex Junction
In order to get to St. Albans or anywhere else in that part of Vermont a train would have to use the line from Burlington to Essex Junction. It would not make any sense to go right through downtown Burlington and stop only at Essex Junction. Personally I do not see any logical reason to run such a train beyond Burlington unless it was just to Essex Junction and even then I do not think very many folks to ride such a train. I do not think it is at all important to link up the two routes at Burlington/Essex Junction and I don't think there is nearly enough potential business out of St. Albans to support two trains.
Noel Weaver

I'm not suggesting not stopping at Burlington, but the train would arrive from the south, stop at Burlington, then proceed to Essex Junction and then St. Albans. The point wouldn't be to increase ridership by linking two trains, the point would be to decrease cost by not having to maintain two separate turning facilities and crews.

[jstolberg]

There was a November TBWG scheduled to be held this past week, so we should check to see if Amtrak & VIA presented at the meeting when the presentations are posted. There are other interesting items in the Amtrak presentation including connecting the Amtrak MI corridor to VIA in Windsor.

Here's the presentation. http://www.thetbwg.org/meetings/201111/ ... manch.pptx

The only real new information I see is an estimate of $2 million for track replacement at the Whirlpool Bridge.