• Pittsfield - New York City Service Study (via Albany)

  • 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

  • 261 posts
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 18
  by Station Aficionado
 
Having looked through the study and read the articles, one thing I’m not clear on—has CSX agreed to this, or is that something that has to be worked out before 2020?
  by Greg Moore
 
newpylong wrote:The operational advantages of going via Albany likely would sway the vote but I highly question that going via the Schodack Sub is only 4 minutes faster. The Schodack route and a new short east leg wye, then a few more miles until the Post Road comes in is going to be drastically faster even if only 40 mph.
That's a future goal/plan. But costs money.
I suspect ultimately if there's enough business that will happen. But for now, I think it makes sense to work with what tracks currently exist.
  by Rockingham Racer
 
I would imagine that a weekend-only service is not going to generate a lot of business. It's pretty roundabout going via Renssalaer, [going north, then reversing and coming back south to Chatham],and eats up lots of time.
In my wonderful fantasy world, that connection would open up a lot of new city pairs between Boston and Yonkers were Amtrak to run a train over it.
  by Ridgefielder
 
Rockingham Racer wrote:I would imagine that a weekend-only service is not going to generate a lot of business. It's pretty roundabout going via Renssalaer, [going north, then reversing and coming back south to Chatham],and eats up lots of time.
In my wonderful fantasy world, that connection would open up a lot of new city pairs between Boston and Yonkers were Amtrak to run a train over it.
You never know. As I've said before in other contexts (notably the discussion of through NYC-Maine service) Manhattan is somewhat unique in the US in that it has a large number of high-income households who lack easy access to a car. Hence the success of the Hampton Jitney bus line to eastern Long Island, and the continued existence of the LIRR Cannonball (the last regularly-scheduled train in the US that I know of that carries a drumhead). There may well be plenty of people who'd be happy with a comfortable 1-seat ride on Amtrak even if it does mean a few extra minutes because of the reverse move at Rensselaer.

In terms of an intermediate station, though, I think actually something at the location of the old NH/B&A interchange at State Line Jct. in West Stockbridge would make more sense than Chatham. That would be a much easier drive from Great Barrington, Stockbridge and Lee. And since it's right on the Mass Pike you might pick up people who'd otherwise drive all the way to Rensellaer (since Chatham itself is several miles south of I-90).
  by east point
 
Wonder if some persons that would take this train might keep an auto near station that they could use ? Keep your car there or maybe Albany other times of year ?
  by Greg Moore
 
Ridgefielder wrote:
Rockingham Racer wrote:I would imagine that a weekend-only service is not going to generate a lot of business. It's pretty roundabout going via Renssalaer, [going north, then reversing and coming back south to Chatham],and eats up lots of time.
In my wonderful fantasy world, that connection would open up a lot of new city pairs between Boston and Yonkers were Amtrak to run a train over it.
You never know. As I've said before in other contexts (notably the discussion of through NYC-Maine service) Manhattan is somewhat unique in the US in that it has a large number of high-income households who lack easy access to a car. Hence the success of the Hampton Jitney bus line to eastern Long Island, and the continued existence of the LIRR Cannonball (the last regularly-scheduled train in the US that I know of that carries a drumhead). There may well be plenty of people who'd be happy with a comfortable 1-seat ride on Amtrak even if it does mean a few extra minutes because of the reverse move at Rensselaer.

In terms of an intermediate station, though, I think actually something at the location of the old NH/B&A interchange at State Line Jct. in West Stockbridge would make more sense than Chatham. That would be a much easier drive from Great Barrington, Stockbridge and Lee. And since it's right on the Mass Pike you might pick up people who'd otherwise drive all the way to Rensellaer (since Chatham itself is several miles south of I-90).
You know, I think that's an excellent area for a stop and easy enough to re-add a siding there, I think that's part of where the double track was ripped up.)

Honestly, I think you could do both.
  by scoostraw
 
Station Aficionado wrote:Having looked through the study and read the articles, one thing I’m not clear on—has CSX agreed to this, or is that something that has to be worked out before 2020?
Doesn't Amtrak have compelled access?

In other words if they want to run another train, doesn't CSX have no choice but to accommodate them?
  by ThirdRail7
 
scoostraw wrote:
Station Aficionado wrote:Having looked through the study and read the articles, one thing I’m not clear on—has CSX agreed to this, or is that something that has to be worked out before 2020?
Doesn't Amtrak have compelled access?

In other words if they want to run another train, doesn't CSX have no choice but to accommodate them?
I believe that only applies to where they already have service. Additional service must be provided for by operating agreement. That is where CSX can use the Amtrak’s “routes, schedules and consists shall be compatible with the physical capabilities of CSXT clause to annihilate the service. They can ask for a ton of improvements to operate the train.
  by scoostraw
 
Well in that case, I would expect nothing less than CSX to demand the replacement of the 2nd mainline track between Post Road and Pittsfield to handle the heavy traffic that a weekend Amtrak train would create.
  by Ridgefielder
 
ThirdRail7 wrote:
scoostraw wrote:
Station Aficionado wrote:Having looked through the study and read the articles, one thing I’m not clear on—has CSX agreed to this, or is that something that has to be worked out before 2020?
Doesn't Amtrak have compelled access?

In other words if they want to run another train, doesn't CSX have no choice but to accommodate them?
I believe that only applies to where they already have service. Additional service must be provided for by operating agreement. That is where CSX can use the Amtrak’s “routes, schedules and consists shall be compatible with the physical capabilities of CSXT clause to annihilate the service. They can ask for a ton of improvements to operate the train.
As I said in a different thread, the incoming Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee-- a/k/a the 3rd most powerful guy in Congress-- is none other than Rep. Richard Neal of the Mass. 1st Congressional District, which covers the Berkshires. Given that, I'd imagine CSX will be reasonable over this. It's a relatively minor adjustment- 2 more trains in a week over ~40 miles of track. We're not talking about adding 5/day on the RF&P or something.
  by Greg Moore
 
scoostraw wrote:Well in that case, I would expect nothing less than CSX to demand the replacement of the 2nd mainline track between Post Road and Pittsfield to handle the heavy traffic that a weekend Amtrak train would create.
As I recall, a good portion of this was until a decade or so ago. Shouldn't be too hard to do this... oh and then demand access to 3-4 trains a day :-)
  by J.D. Lang
 
Greg Moore wrote:
scoostraw wrote:Well in that case, I would expect nothing less than CSX to demand the replacement of the 2nd mainline track between Post Road and Pittsfield to handle the heavy traffic that a weekend Amtrak train would create.
As I recall, a good portion of this was until a decade or so ago. Shouldn't be too hard to do this... oh and then demand access to 3-4 trains a day :-)
I believe that the second main was lifted in the mid-late 80's when Conrail changed everything over from ABS to CTC. Its single track from CP150 in Pittsfield to CP170 after it crosses I-90; then from CP176 to Post Rd. I don't see why 2 weekend Passenger trains would interfere but you never know what CSX may ask for.

J.Lang
  by Greg Moore
 
J.D. Lang wrote:
Greg Moore wrote:
scoostraw wrote:Well in that case, I would expect nothing less than CSX to demand the replacement of the 2nd mainline track between Post Road and Pittsfield to handle the heavy traffic that a weekend Amtrak train would create.
As I recall, a good portion of this was until a decade or so ago. Shouldn't be too hard to do this... oh and then demand access to 3-4 trains a day :-)
I believe that the second main was lifted in the mid-late 80's when Conrail changed everything over from ABS to CTC. Its single track from CP150 in Pittsfield to CP170 after it crosses I-90; then from CP176 to Post Rd. I don't see why 2 weekend Passenger trains would interfere but you never know what CSX may ask for.

J.Lang
You may be right, I've been around that area for decades and the years blend together :-)

And I agree, 2 weekend passenger trains shouldn't interfere, but this is CSX :-)
  by Arlington
 
Ridgefielder wrote:incoming Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee-- a/k/a the 3rd most powerful guy in Congress-- is none other than Rep. Richard Neal of the Mass. 1st Congressional District, which covers the Berkshires. Given that, I'd imagine CSX will be reasonable over this. It's a relatively minor adjustment- 2 more trains in a week over ~40 miles of track. We're not talking about adding 5/day on the RF&P or something.
Most of the Population of Neal's district lives in Greater Springfield (including Holyoke & Palmer), and along the Masspike. Not that Pittsfield isn't important to all of the Berkshires, but his constituents priorities might not put Pittsfield-NYC at the top (weekend service is inherently a "second home" service and may not even serve registered voters from the district). I'm sure he'll be supportive of a Pittsfield train, but I don't see it being a "must have" (Montreal service hasn't been for VT & Sen Leahy)
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 18