Ethan Allen Discussion, including Expansion (Burlington)

[jstolberg]

If the Ethan Allen eventually gets shifted to the full Vermont route north of Mechanicsville, I feel at least one Albany Empire Service train should be extended to Saratoga Springs. Saratoga's traffic warrants two a day at least and that frequency should be maintained. I wouldn't be opposed to extending a few more to Saratoga Springs in order to provide more comprehensive service in the capital region as well. This seems to make sense as a short extension.

I think it will be some years before the Ethan Allen might get rerouted over the Mechanicsville - North Bennington route. The Phase 2 evaluation summary that is on the NY-VT Bi-State Passenger Rail Study website has a estimated $90 million cost to upgrade the tracks and signals to 60 mph passenger speeds over the route to Rutland. The track upgrades would also benefit freight rail by upgrading the tracks to 286K capacity and increasing freight speeds (as I recall seeing elsewhere) to 40 mph. But $90 million is a lot for an alternate route with small population centers. Because of the large price tag, the track upgrades might get done in bits and pieces over the years, primarily justified to improve freight rail traffic.

VT is going to take up to 5 years to extend the Ethan Allen northward to Burlington while the state also works to extend the Vermonter to Montreal. Any plans to re-route through N Bennington and Manchester is likely to be on hold until those 2 projects are completed and then years spent on incremental upgrades. By that time, increased passenger traffic to Montreal and on the Empire corridor might result in additional service north of Schenectady such as second daily Adirondack.

The ridership projections in that study baffle me. The 2010 baseline ridership for the Ethan Allen and Adirondack are indicated in Table 6 as 78,600 per year. The footnote says "One-way boardings." Actual ridership on the Adirondack in 2010 was reported by Amtrak at 118,673 and the Ethan Allen had 48,031. That totals 166,604. More than twice the reported 2010 baseline.

Maybe they meant "round-trips" and maybe they used the calendar year instead of the fiscal year. Or maybe the model wasn't calibrated to match the real world results.

Then consider the 2030 "No-Build" case. The ridership forecast for 2030 is 88,200, an increase of 12.2% over the base case. Actual ridership on the combined routes rose 11.7% from 2010 to 2012. So according to the forecast, Amtrak achieved almost 20 years of growth in 2 years.

And the no build case assumes no change in the consist of either train. With the growth presently being experienced, that's not a realistic assumption. Amtrak was already adding a car to the Ethan Allen consist this summer during the racing season. I'm glad the study is stamped "Draft" because some serious revisions need to be made.

John Stolberg

[Station Aficionado]

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.

Mr. Stolberg, I think your link goes to the Amtrak/Via presentation at the November 2011 meeting. I couldn't find anything about this November's meeting on the website, other than the dates. The TWBG did have an earlier 2012 session (looks like they're having two a year). Here's presentation from that meeting by Transport Canada about cross-border rail:http://www.thetbwg.org/meetings/201204/ ... bbons.pptx. I didn't see much useful info in it, other than the statement that they hoped to conclude preclearance negotiations by the end of this year. Don't know what the status of that is.

[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.

Mr. Stolberg, I think your link goes to the Amtrak/Via presentation at the November 2011 meeting.

Yes, you are correct. I saw November and overlooked the year.

[Station Aficionado]

On looking again, I see there was also an Amtrak presentation at the April 2012 meeting:http://www.thetbwg.org/meetings/201204/ ... emanch.ppt. Didn't provide any update on the status of the preclearance treaty negotiations, but Amtrak's engineering department has developed some drawings for the facility in Montreal. These were to be submitted to an architect for review this fall. If the treaty is signed, they hope to have the facility up and running in 2014 (a date also mentioned for possible extension of the Vermonter). In re Michigan-Canada service, it says "regular international rail service is years in the future," and indicates it is dependent on construction of new rail tunnel between the US and Canada. Also, Michigan DOT requested a test train for Jan. 1, 2013 from Toronto to Ann Arbor for an NHL game between the Red Wings and the Maple Leafs. The NHL, however, is going through a lockout, so I don't think the test train will happen.

There was also an FRA presentation(http://www.thetbwg.org/meetings/201204/ ... i_fra.pptx), but it appears just to have been an overview on passenger rail development and funding inside the US.

[Noel Weaver]

I resurrected this one to provide a link to an article in the Albany Times Union today (Thursday, December 13th) about passenger service between Albany and Rutland. I thought it was interesting.

http://www.timesunion.com/business/arti ... 113595.php

Noel Weaver

[rovetherr]

It is interesting, and strangely enough was just as interesting 15 years ago when they did the exact same study! This is the sort of thing that drives me up a wall, everyone who is involved in the planning and potential operation of this service knows what needs to be done to get the line up to snuff, why keep re-studying the same thing over and over? Even the numbers are fairly similar, ratio wise, as last time. :facepalm:

I hope it comes to be, but I'm not holding my breath. The EA extension to Burlington is quite feasible, with the state and the VTR putting money into the Northern Sub it shouldn't take too long before the line is ready. And there really only needs to be an amendment to the trackage agreement already in place between AMTK and VTR. Adding service up through Hoosick Jct. however means dealing with PAS, and CPRS, and the negotiations that that will require.

[TomNelligan]

why keep re-studying the same thing over and over?

It's called politics. A "study" allows the pols to say "look, we're doing something!" without having to come up with the money to actually fund the project.

[Albany Rider]

At the public hearing held by the Vermont - New York Study group in Mechanicville, NY on December 11th, the consultants revealed that the estimated capital cost has risen to $117.5 million. In addition, rerouting to a Vermont thru Mechanicville only routing was said to lower boardings by 20,000.

Tony

[jp1822]

At one time, Amtrak ran two frequencies of the Ethan Allen Express. One was more of an extended Empire Corridor train to Rutland, while the other was more on the schedule of the evening express between NYP and Albany (departing NYP around 5:30 p.m. northbound and departing Rutland around 5:30 p.m. southbound). It was clearly meant to capture the "north of Albany market" to Saratoga Springs and Rutland (ski central from Rutland). This continued for a few timetables and at one point it ran without an express connection between NYP and Albany, and just ran to and from Albany and Rutland. It would seem that the second frequency is definitely needed on weekends, or at least having the Ethan Allen Express running non-stop between NYP and Albany with a "receive only" at Albany for example so as to offer up options north of Albany to Rutland without having the train get sold out all the time.

Eventually the train was cut down to its current schedule and the intermediate stops between NYP and Albany were added in.

If the Ethan Allen Express were extended from Rutland to Burlington, I have to wonder if the train would be better off with a non-stop schedule and "receive only" between NYP and Albany - northbound for example. It would certainly speed up the schedule, get people to Vermont quikcker and achieve Vermont's subsidy better.

Amtrak has talked a number of time of getting another frequency established between NYP and Saratoga Springs but nothing has ever been done. They even worked out "layover plan" for the train at Saratoga Springs, as opposed to running a train empty from Albany up to Saratoga Springs to get a revenue train southwards. The later was the procedure for Schenectady gaining a frequency ("Electric City Express"). But that was dropped. Occasionally the train number that was called the "Electric City Express" appears on the arrival screen at NYP, with even the origination designated as Schectady. But this is far from reality.

[jstolberg]

The nature of the Ethan Allen route will change significantly after the Albany double track work is done and about 15 minutes gets shaved off the schedule between Schenectady and Rensselaer. After the double track is done, that additional train to Saratoga Springs becomes a lot more attractive.

Route performance in September was significantly better than September 2011 with ridership up by 20% and on-time performance improved from 38% to 65%, but that was due to last year's aftermath of Hurricane Irene. For the whole fiscal year, ridership on the Ethan Allen was up 10% and on-time performance was up from 61% to 72%.
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/34/894/Amtr ... r-2012.pdf

[Noel Weaver]

You have Apples and Oranges here:
Apples meaning the Ethan Allen to Vermont which is basically operated for the state of Vermont to serve Vermont period.
Oranges meaning service to Saratoga Springs, New York which I agree warrants additional service but the State of New York should be the ones paying for that and not the State of Vermont. Somebody commented that ridership on the Ethan Allen would drop if it were re-routed through North Bennington, that is not true in the case of Vermont travel and again because Vermont is paying the cost of this train then Vermont should have the say as to when and where it runs. Vermont will get more bang for its bucks if this train is operated through North Bennington rather than through Saratoga Springs.
Noel Weaver

[electricron]

You have Apples and Oranges here:
Apples meaning the Ethan Allen to Vermont which is basically operated for the state of Vermont to serve Vermont period.
Oranges meaning service to Saratoga Springs, New York which I agree warrants additional service but the State of New York should be the ones paying for that and not the State of Vermont. Somebody commented that ridership on the Ethan Allen would drop if it were re-routed through North Bennington, that is not true in the case of Vermont travel and again because Vermont is paying the cost of this train then Vermont should have the say as to when and where it runs. Vermont will get more bang for its bucks if this train is operated through North Bennington rather than through Saratoga Springs.
Noel Weaver

What you state is true. What you state couldn't work can if you can get both New York and Vermont to subsidize a train through Saratoga Springs.
Texas and Oklahoma can with the Flyer, Washington and Oregon can with the Cascades, there's no reason why New York and Vermont can share too.

[Noel Weaver]

You have Apples and Oranges here:
Apples meaning the Ethan Allen to Vermont which is basically operated for the state of Vermont to serve Vermont period.
Oranges meaning service to Saratoga Springs, New York which I agree warrants additional service but the State of New York should be the ones paying for that and not the State of Vermont. Somebody commented that ridership on the Ethan Allen would drop if it were re-routed through North Bennington, that is not true in the case of Vermont travel and again because Vermont is paying the cost of this train then Vermont should have the say as to when and where it runs. Vermont will get more bang for its bucks if this train is operated through North Bennington rather than through Saratoga Springs.
Noel Weaver

What you state is true. What you state couldn't work can if you can get both New York and Vermont to subsidize a train through Saratoga Springs.
Texas and Oklahoma can with the Flyer, Washington and Oregon can with the Cascades, there's no reason why New York and Vermont can share too.

Vermont wants Burlington in on this train and in order to serve Burlington without a big loss of time in Rutland or a major re-shuffling of equipment that is already in tight supply the train needs to have a straight shot through Rutland. A straight shot through Rutland simply is not possible using the route through Saratoga Springs. Changing ends on a push pull train at Rutland would consume considerable time and so would a trip south of the station to turn the entire train on the wye. The only practical way to serve Burlington via this route is to run through North Bennington and north on the old Rutland Railway. I know this trackage through Vermont needs work but it would still work out much better for Vermont to get the line upgraded and run the train through the entire western portion of this beautiful state. I think an additional train out of Saratoga Springs would be a good idea too but that would be the responsibility of New York State and I hope New York will come through with support for an additional train between Saratoga Springs and Albany enroute to New York.
Noel Weaver

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

You have Apples and Oranges here:
Apples meaning the Ethan Allen to Vermont which is basically operated for the state of Vermont to serve Vermont period.
Oranges meaning service to Saratoga Springs, New York which I agree warrants additional service but the State of New York should be the ones paying for that and not the State of Vermont. Somebody commented that ridership on the Ethan Allen would drop if it were re-routed through North Bennington, that is not true in the case of Vermont travel and again because Vermont is paying the cost of this train then Vermont should have the say as to when and where it runs. Vermont will get more bang for its bucks if this train is operated through North Bennington rather than through Saratoga Springs.
Noel Weaver

What you state is true. What you state couldn't work can if you can get both New York and Vermont to subsidize a train through Saratoga Springs.
Texas and Oklahoma can with the Flyer, Washington and Oregon can with the Cascades, there's no reason why New York and Vermont can share too.

Vermont wants Burlington in on this train and in order to serve Burlington without a big loss of time in Rutland or a major re-shuffling of equipment that is already in tight supply the train needs to have a straight shot through Rutland. A straight shot through Rutland simply is not possible using the route through Saratoga Springs. Changing ends on a push pull train at Rutland would consume considerable time and so would a trip south of the station to turn the entire train on the wye. The only practical way to serve Burlington via this route is to run through North Bennington and north on the old Rutland Railway. I know this trackage through Vermont needs work but it would still work out much better for Vermont to get the line upgraded and run the train through the entire western portion of this beautiful state. I think an additional train out of Saratoga Springs would be a good idea too but that would be the responsibility of New York State and I hope New York will come through with support for an additional train between Saratoga Springs and Albany enroute to New York.
Noel Weaver

Well, that's exactly what they're thinking. Except Rutland-Burlington has already been subject to a lot of track work and isn't far off from being passenger ready, so they're phasing it. Start in 2017 with the reverse move at Rutland, then get the south half rebuilt. The reverse is manageable so long as it's not an open-ended commitment. They can't build it all in a monolith, but they can reverse from Rutland to Burlington if it's for 3-5 years only and they have their funding commitments in order Bennington-Rutland by the time Rutland-Burlington service starts.

Purely a means to an end.

[jp1822]

You have Apples and Oranges here:
Apples meaning the Ethan Allen to Vermont which is basically operated for the state of Vermont to serve Vermont period.
Oranges meaning service to Saratoga Springs, New York which I agree warrants additional service but the State of New York should be the ones paying for that and not the State of Vermont. Somebody commented that ridership on the Ethan Allen would drop if it were re-routed through North Bennington, that is not true in the case of Vermont travel and again because Vermont is paying the cost of this train then Vermont should have the say as to when and where it runs. Vermont will get more bang for its bucks if this train is operated through North Bennington rather than through Saratoga Springs.
Noel Weaver

What you state is true. What you state couldn't work can if you can get both New York and Vermont to subsidize a train through Saratoga Springs.
Texas and Oklahoma can with the Flyer, Washington and Oregon can with the Cascades, there's no reason why New York and Vermont can share too.

Vermont wants Burlington in on this train and in order to serve Burlington without a big loss of time in Rutland or a major re-shuffling of equipment that is already in tight supply the train needs to have a straight shot through Rutland. A straight shot through Rutland simply is not possible using the route through Saratoga Springs. Changing ends on a push pull train at Rutland would consume considerable time and so would a trip south of the station to turn the entire train on the wye. The only practical way to serve Burlington via this route is to run through North Bennington and north on the old Rutland Railway. I know this trackage through Vermont needs work but it would still work out much better for Vermont to get the line upgraded and run the train through the entire western portion of this beautiful state. I think an additional train out of Saratoga Springs would be a good idea too but that would be the responsibility of New York State and I hope New York will come through with support for an additional train between Saratoga Springs and Albany enroute to New York.
Noel Weaver

Correct me if I am wrong Mr. Weaver, but I think you are proposing two trains to emerge - eventually. A train that would be subsidized by both NY and Vermont running between 1) NYC-Saratoga Springs-Rutland (current route of the Ethan Allen Express, but with an additional frequency to both Saratoga Springs and Rutland) and 2) a train subsidized by Vermont running between NYC-Albany-North Bennington-Rutland-Vermont.

This seems plausible IF NY State comes up with some money to fund the Saratoga portion, AND Vermont comes through with upgrading the line to at least 60 mph track (or high - HAH!) between North Bennington and on up to Burlington on the west side of the State. Throw in a Vermont shuttle train of sorts between Rutland and Bellows Falls and this State would have a GREAT public rail system.

However, if the Burlington extension comes first via reverse move at Rutland, while knowing (1) and (2) are the goals, I think this should be done, pending good track speeds north of Rutland and a good fast reverse move, if not direct.

I still can't help to think that some how, a connection needs to be made at Springfield to a train east to Boston at some point. I don't think the Lake Shore Limited offers this connection both ways. The Vermonter used to have a pretty good transfer of passengers between a former "Inland Route" Northeast Direct to the north and southbound Vermonter.