• Amtrak Vermonter (Montreal Greenfield Boston CT River Line)

  • 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

  • 2075 posts
  • 1
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 139
  by lordsigma12345
 
Finally an update on the new high level platform at Springfield. Also sounds like Amtrak will be moving into Union Station shortly. Note that MassDOT has 10 million budgeted for it so will be interesting to see how much it comes out to.

http://www.masslive.com/business-news/i ... _work.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
  by nephersir7
 
Jehochman wrote:
Trains in the Valley wrote:June 21, 2017 | The House of Commons of Canada adoped Bill C-23, “Preclearance Act, 2016″. The bill has been sent to the Senate of Canada, where it will sit until the Senate returns to session on September 19, 2017.
If you remember, in December 2016 the US Congress passed a law authorizing pre-clearance in Montreal for rail travel. Once Canada passes their matching law, the facility can be built and eventually the Vermonter becomes the Montrealer. Terminating the train in a major city would make increased service frequency more economical.
The Canadian law has finally passed.

http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/2017/dec ... vel-canada" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
  by gokeefe
 
It's 2018 right now. I think the Senator was being very careful in his comments. They have been shepherding this project all along. I would expect that to continue.
  by Palmer5RR
 
The article says;
"Track improvements are still needed in Canada, security questions remain, and it’s not clear yet who will pay for new facilities and staff."
I would think to accomplish just these 3 items would take until well into 2020 or much more time.
  by Allouette
 
Well, not so much. While improvements are needed to the Cantic Sub, it's currently used by the Adirondack. The few miles between Cantic and East Alburgh are all low-speed anyway due to the Missisquoi Bay bridge. South of the border has already been upgraded to track suitable for 50 MPH MAS. Any pre-clearance facility would also be shared with the Adirondack, and the same security questions would apply. New York's congressional delegation is also pushing getting this done.

It was easier when the Adirondack and Montrealer ran on opposite schedules between 1974 and 1987. Canadian and US Customs folks would usually be able to work both trains with a van returning them to their starting points.
  by lordsigma12345
 
I was looking at the ridership statistics on the Vermonter on Amtrak's performance reports and on the reports on http://www.narprail.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Am I correct that passenger trips are only credited to the Vermonter service if they begin and/or end on the state-supported part of the route (IE trips that begin or end at stops north of New Haven?) It would appear from the way the statistics read, that is the case. Assumingly in this case trips on the Vermonter where both end points are on the NEC are considered Northeast Regional trips.
  by lordsigma12345
 
Did MassDOT have PTC installed on the CT River line as part of the Knowledge Corridor project? I was under the impression that, similarly to the NECR, the particular section of track was exempt from the requirements due to traffic levels and also because even though MassDOT now owns the tracks, Pan Am still retains full freight rights and also operates the line on behalf of the state and they are a class II exempt from PTC. My understanding was also that PTC may need to be added to the line if additional corridor service is added beyond the Vermonter. Just curious if anyone has the full information on that.
  by Dick H
 
I am not sure that PAR is totally exempt from PTC. I believe it has been posted
somewhere that PAR will have to equip a group of it's freight locos with PTC to
operate over MBTA owned lines in Massachusetts. PAR currently has to have
locos with Cab Signals to operate between Springfield and Berlin to reach the
Plainfield operation. It would seem they will need PTC at least on that trackage.
  by electricron
 
lordsigma12345 wrote:Did MassDOT have PTC installed on the CT River line as part of the Knowledge Corridor project? I was under the impression that, similarly to the NECR, the particular section of track was exempt from the requirements due to traffic levels and also because even though MassDOT now owns the tracks, Pan Am still retains full freight rights and also operates the line on behalf of the state and they are a class II exempt from PTC. My understanding was also that PTC may need to be added to the line if additional corridor service is added beyond the Vermonter. Just curious if anyone has the full information on that.
The FRA main line exemptions to PTC are listed under https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/236.1019" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
For the rail corridor north of Springfield into Vermont;
(2) Passenger service is operated on a segment of track of a freight railroad that is not a Class I railroad on which less than 15 million gross tons of freight traffic is transported annually and on which one of the following conditions applies:
(i) If the segment is unsignaled and no more than four regularly scheduled passenger trains are operated during a calendar day, or
(ii) If the segment is signaled (e.g., equipped with a traffic control system, automatic block signal system, or cab signal system) and no more than 12 regularly scheduled passenger trains are operated during a calendar day.

So, that 2 round trips for passenger trains in unsignaled territory, or 6 round trips for passenger trains in signal territory; with less than 15 million tons of freight per year.
  by Arlington
 
So, to tie it all together, is it the case that Mass has got.the signals to support 6rt north of SPG but no PTC plans for now?
  by johnpbarlow
 
Arlington wrote:So, to tie it all together, is it the case that Mass has got.the signals to support 6rt north of SPG but no PTC plans for now?
There appears to be no Commonwealth of Mass PTC implementation plan for its Conn River line nor is such a plan listed in the MBTA implementation plan or Q417 progress report. Nor is there a PTC implementation plan for the New England Central so the implication is the Conn River line north of Springfield meets the PTC Exclusion criteria.

PTC Implementation status per RR dashboard for September 2017 (the latest one published): https://www.fra.dot.gov/app/ptc/
MBTA Q4 2017 PTC Implementation Status report: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0030-0058
See photos showing Q417 PTC implementation status for the track segments that comprise the MBTA PTC and Amtrak PTC plans.

At the Thursday House of Representatives’ Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing, Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson said the following re: Amtrak's operation over routes excluded from PTC implementation such as the Conn River line:
Similarly, Anderson’s prepared testimony states, “if a train operates over routes identified by the FRA as eligible for “mainline track exclusion” (of PTC requirements) owing to light passenger traffic or lack of hazardous material freight trains, “we are currently reviewing our policy … to determine whether we have adequate safety mitigation practices in place for each territory, and in certain areas, where signal systems are not in place, we will reconsider whether we operate at all.”

At the hearing he added, “And I doubt I will.”
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
  • 1
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 139