Boston to White River Junction, VT

[Rockingham Racer]

The Vermonter does SPG-WRJ in 3h03.
The East-West rail study proposes BOS-SPG in 1h30 (ish)

I'm thinking 4h30m via SPG is about the best that anyone will see in the next 50 years.

That's not very compelling when the drive is a little over two hours on a good day. A bus would be both cheaper and faster.

Don't assume everyone on the train is traveling from Boston to WRJ, or vv. It's not out of the question that someone would want to do a Worcester to Bellows Falls or Waterbury trip.

[mtuandrew]

The problem with Boston - Montreal is there is no direct rail route. However one could make that bus argument about even the current the Vermonter, it takes considerably longer than driving, but yet it does pretty well. I think rerouting the Vermonter to Boston (in concert with the Ethan Allen being extended to Burlington) might make sense. The Ethan Allen extension will undoubtedly gobble up some of the Vermonter's ridership from the Burlington area since the train is likely to take less time than the Vermonter to get to NYC.

Two thoughts:
1) I bet that you’d find a good number of Vermonter riders going from Connecticut to Vermont, who would switch from train to car if you rerouted it to Boston. Same with folks coming from NJ and points southeast. While you could run the Ethan Allen through NYP and down the Corridor, you’d have a backup move and power switch in NYP that Amtrak has recently been reluctant to do.

2) there’s always BON-POR-MTL via the St. Lawrence & Atlantic/St-Laurent & Atlantique.

[unichris]

1) I bet that you’d find a good number of Vermonter riders going from Connecticut to Vermont, who would switch from train to car if you rerouted it to Boston. Same with folks coming from NJ and points southeast.

Indeed. A big part of why it's such an odd mid-day timing for NY, CT, and MA is that it actually originates in DC. I'd love an evening train, but that would really be a late night train in DC.

Given quite high usage levels for one train per day having another train north that originated in Boston and met an NHV-SPG shuttle at some other point in the day, or having a Boston to Springfield that met the Vermonter would both be good ideas, but don't think you're going to see a lot of the present ridership happy about diverting the present one.

Having several Boston to Springfield trains one of which met the Vermonter in each direction would be the first step.

[charlesriverbranch]

For my upcoming trip on the Lake Shore Limited, I am flying Cape Air from Lebanon, NH to Boston and picking up the train there. The other alternative for me is to drive to Springfield, Massachusetts and park my car there. But since I am flying back this doesn't really work as well.

My brother, who lives in Windsor, VT, drives to Albany to catch the Lake Shore.

[charlesriverbranch]

The problem with Boston - Springfield - WRJ (or Boston - Greenfield - WRJ) is that it bypasses Manchester and Concord. The point of Boston - Manchester - Concord - Lebanon - WRJ is to spur economic development. I don't think a Boston - WRJ route via Springfield would do that.

[mtuandrew]

The problem with Boston - Springfield - WRJ (or Boston - Greenfield - WRJ) is that it bypasses Manchester and Concord. The point of Boston - Manchester - Concord - Lebanon - WRJ is to spur economic development. I don't think a Boston - WRJ route via Springfield would do that.

What additional economic development would stem from a Boston-Concord-WRJ route that wouldn’t occur with a Boston-Concord route? And would that additional development be worth the $xxx million to rebuild the B&M through New Hampshire? I’m inclined to say no, and that it would make more economic sense for cost/benefit to route via either Springfield or via Greenfield direct on the B&M. If New Hampshire had retained rails and a short line on the route in question, we would be having a different conversation.

[TomNelligan]

The problem with Boston - Springfield - WRJ (or Boston - Greenfield - WRJ) is that it bypasses Manchester and Concord. The point of Boston - Manchester - Concord - Lebanon - WRJ is to spur economic development.

Manchester and Concord would be well-served by a restoration of commuter-type service to Boston. That's an achievable goal tht might actually come to pass in coming years But to date the New Hampshire legislature has not shown a willingness to pay for the necessary track and other infrastructure improvements and then ongoing operating subsidies. Given NH's inaction on that first step, I see zero chance that they would come up with the additional pile of money needed to restore the roughly 70 miles of missing track between Concord and Lebanon. And don't forget the cost of fighting the lawsuits from the NIMBYs who have gotten accustomed to roughly 35 years without any noisy trains threatening their quiet towns. They can tie things up for years, as some South Shore towns did when the MBTA proposed restoring commuter service on the Greenbush branch about 25 years after it had ended.

Boston-WRJ via Springfield has the distinct advantage of using active passenger trackage and stations that actually exist. That's an overwhelming advantage both in terms of startup costs.

[Rockingham Racer]

The problem with Boston - Springfield - WRJ (or Boston - Greenfield - WRJ) is that it bypasses Manchester and Concord. The point of Boston - Manchester - Concord - Lebanon - WRJ is to spur economic development. I don't think a Boston - WRJ route via Springfield would do that.

Given that the New Hampshire legislators pretty much ignore passenger rail funding, it's probably not a problem for THEM, just for US

[bostontrainguy]

The problem with Boston - Montreal is there is no direct rail route.

Well you could go via Palmer like we used to do on MBRRE "Snow Trains" years ago or of course go via Springfield. I wouldn't say there is no direct route.

[electricron]

Given that the New Hampshire legislators pretty much ignore passenger rail funding, it's probably not a problem for THEM, just for US

Have you ever looked at New Hampshire's budget?
https://das.nh.gov/budget/Budget2020-20 ... 0Final.pdf
The entire budget is around $6.5 billion, and they spend around 10% of that, around $650 million, on all Transportation Department activities.

[Roadgeek Adam]

The problem with Boston - Springfield - WRJ (or Boston - Greenfield - WRJ) is that it bypasses Manchester and Concord. The point of Boston - Manchester - Concord - Lebanon - WRJ is to spur economic development.

Manchester and Concord would be well-served by a restoration of commuter-type service to Boston. That's an achievable goal tht might actually come to pass in coming years But to date the New Hampshire legislature has not shown a willingness to pay for the necessary track and other infrastructure improvements and then ongoing operating subsidies. Given NH's inaction on that first step, I see zero chance that they would come up with the additional pile of money needed to restore the roughly 70 miles of missing track between Concord and Lebanon. And don't forget the cost of fighting the lawsuits from the NIMBYs who have gotten accustomed to roughly 35 years without any noisy trains threatening their quiet towns. They can tie things up for years, as some South Shore towns did when the MBTA proposed restoring commuter service on the Greenbush branch about 25 years after it had ended.

Not only that, but Manchester and Concord would be able to justify spending on transit-oriented development with commuter rail services a lot faster than a single Amtrak train could ever provide.

[Rockingham Racer]

Given that the New Hampshire legislators pretty much ignore passenger rail funding, it's probably not a problem for THEM, just for US

Have you ever looked at New Hampshire's budget?
https://das.nh.gov/budget/Budget2020-20 ... 0Final.pdf
The entire budget is around $6.5 billion, and they spend around 10% of that, around $650 million, on all Transportation Department activities.

And only $28,528,950 for airports, rail, and public transit. Quite unimpressive and we don't how much [or little] of that is for passenger rail.

[lordsigma12345]

Boston-WRJ via Springfield has the distinct advantage of using active passenger trackage and stations that actually exist. That's an overwhelming advantage both in terms of startup costs.

Other advantages include the fact that the WOR-SPG line has very few at grade crossings and would already have PTC. It is an ideal line to bring some more east west passenger service with a few improvements - far more so than the greenfield - north station idea. (No offense to supporters of the northern option - I’m all for the northern approach provided it is in addition to, not instead of the southern approach.)

[Wash]

2) there’s always BON-POR-MTL via the St. Lawrence & Atlantic/St-Laurent & Atlantique.

There is a lot more absolutely nothing between Portland and Montreal than there is between Springfield and Montreal (with the exception of Lewiston/Auburn that absolutely should have a rail link to Portland and points south). That isn't to mention all the millions of dollars in track upgrades needed, or the myriad logistical issues to be solved before a train can even run.

That being said, the idea of an overnight train that ran NYP-NVN-SPG-WOR-BON-POR-LWS-MTL makes me far too happy.

[markhb]

From previous discussions here, it's also my understanding that the section of rail that would need to be restored is so winding that it makes Worcester-Palmer look like a drag strip. I doubt that, even if the line were restored, modern schedules would come anywhere close to those old ones.