Wow! I wonder what started that ball rolling. A quick look at the map would tell them that a Lewiston/Auburn to Montreal link would traverse a sparcely populated area; cut through mountainous terrain; and have to go through New Hampshire (not rail friendly). In the other direction, toward Portland to connect with Amtrak, at least its not far to go and the shore line has a strong potential to be extended to Boothbay. But then there is the Maine turnpike that goes from Lewiston to Portland right now. Bus anyone?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
How fit is the Grand Trunk to handle a passenger train, or for that matter, how intact is it nowadays?
There was "one a day' as of April 1960.
Posted by sojourner (Member # 3134) on :
I'm all for it!!! I'd call it the Moose Express!
Posted by TBlack (Member # 181) on :
Gilbert, The Grand Trunk sold this line some years ago to Genesee & Wyoming. I believe they run at least one train daily between Sherbrooke, PQ and Auburn/Lewiston, but at speeds not to exceed 30 MPH. So I'd guess major trackwork would be necessary, and did I mention that there is no signalling on the line? Furthermore, the G&W is a very well run, profitable, public company; someone would have to do a VERY convincing sales job to get them to accept Amtrak.
And Sojourner, I suspect the moose would be faster than the train.
Posted by sojourner (Member # 3134) on :
If the moose are faster than the train, that is fine, we will see more moose out the window. If the train went too fast, we might miss them!
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by sojourner: If the moose are faster than the train, that is fine, we will see more moose out the window. If the train went too fast, we might miss them!
Ms. Sojourner, I think you have pretty well summarized any ostensible "need' for service over this route.
As I have consistently noted and received your consistent objection thereto, publicly funded passenger trains are about moving people through densely populated regions at speeds higher than can attained by highway travel (possibly even air travel after factoring greater transfer and formalities time) and ideally minimize the need for more costly ($$$ and environmental) air and highway infrastructure.
Amtrak is not in the excursion or luxotrain business; that belongs to the private sector in which a number have stepped up to the plate - and all have struck out.
Enjoy your rides, dear woman; even if not for the purpose of providing any passenger transportation that could be considered meaningful, the existing LD system, or at least most of it, is 'safe', be it Donkeys or Pachyderms running the show at 100 and/or 1600 Penn.
Posted by sojourner (Member # 3134) on :
If they can have a train to Labrador, they can have a train through Maine.
A train is not just what you describe. It is also a national park on wheels.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
Amen, Ms. sojourner. Evidently, you actually read the article I linked and are marching to the beat of its drum. Kind of why I put the word "planners" in quotes, as their idea is mostly along the lines of a nostalgic remembrance of things past rather than a viable plan for the future (unfortunately).
Posted by DeeCT (Member # 3241) on :
With the extension of the Northeaster to Brunswick in the works it would be about 20 miles further to connect to Lewiston.
Hmmm --- Boston to Montreal --- sign me up for that trip.
Moose watching a bonus.
Dee
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
DeeCT, I believe that Auburn/Lewiston is served by another line to Bangor and beyond that diverges away from the line to Brunswick which runs pretty much along the coast all the way to Rockland.
Posted by sojourner (Member # 3134) on :
Dee, you mean Downeaster, right? I'm all for the train all the way up to Bah Hahbah too, if that is where the line you mean goes? Also, is there going to be a stop in Freeport? LL Bean would like that. . . .
Posted by rresor (Member # 128) on :
For one summer season, in 2002, there WAS a train from the Lewiston area to Montreal. It departed from Danville Junction, where the former Grand Trunk (now st. Lawrence and Atlantic) crossed the former Maine Central line from Portland to Bangor. It was called the "Acadian Railway" and offered a very pleasant all-day trip through nice mountain scenery (especially in New Hampshire). SLA is mostly welded rail and 40 MPH. It was a nice ride; I'm only sorry it lasted just a year.
The line along the coast from Brunswick to Rockland ends at Rockland. The line to Bangor runs farther inland. In fact, Maine Central had two main lines, the "Lower Road" through Augusta and the "Back Road" through Lewistown. They split just north of Portland and rejoined at Waterville. The Downeaster extension to Brunswick will use the Lower Road and, yes, it will stop in Freeport.
Posted by sojourner (Member # 3134) on :
Will the train eventually go to Augusta and Bangor? Could it go further???
I had to take a bus from Portland to Augusta when I went to that capital--the morning Greyhound there was quite poor, from a cruddy terminal in Portland, though it was nice to see Lewiston and Auburn. The return, on Concord Coach, was much nicer, from a lovely new terminal in Augusta; on the ride, we didn't see any towns that I remember; and I don't think we made any stops. The bus came in to Portland at same place as the Downeaster--very nice. I did have to take taxis in Augusta, but they were no problem--not too expensive either.
One of the problems with the Downeaster is its commuter-geared schedule. It is inconvenient for people leaving NYP in the morning, arriving in Boston noonish. . .. they miss the last morning train to Portland, and there isn't another until 5PM. I wound up taking a Concord bus from Boston to Portland too--this was also easier to do than going to Boston North, since the bus station is right by Boston South. And Concord Coach (or Concord Trailways, or whatever it's called) is a very nice line (unlike Greyhound!). I did take the Downeaster Southbound, though--a pretty ride, esp around Saco.
Posted by TBlack (Member # 181) on :
Uh, Sojourner, Labrador is an island (albeit a big one); I think you mean Gaspe Penninsula. Details aside, I get what you mean: the perennial struggle for definition. Is the train for tourists or is it for people who need to get from A to B. Canadians have decided that their LD network is for tourists, and subsidize it accordingly. We haven't made that decision down here yet. That's what makes the proposal for a passenger line between Montreal and Lewiston/Auburn and onto Portland fall into a void.
RResor mentions the "Acadian Railway". It was a tourist line not unlike the AOE. Both met the same fate.
I'd love to dream with you about what would be nice to have, but eventually financial reality is going to hit us in the face.
TB
Posted by sojourner (Member # 3134) on :
Mr. Black, Labrador is not an island—it is on the Canadian mainland above Quebec. (You are probably thinking of Newfoundland.) The train, built in the 1950s, is not pat of the VIA Rail system. It starts in Sept-Iles, used to run to Labrador City; still goes into Labrador but only as far as Emeril City now--it recently changed ownership. It may only run a couple of days a week now. Here are some sites about it:
Though tourists take it, I believe it is also used by people getting from A to B--inc native peoples in the area. I believe it was built in part to transport mine workers? Anyway, I know about it from posts here--including some people who drove up to Sept-Iles to take it. And from people here recommending the Hammond Innis book about it, The Land God Gave to Cain, which I very much enjoyed.
The Land God Gave to Cain is an epithet for Labrador. My only point was that if the Land God Gave to Cain can have a train, then certainly central Maine can too! (It doesn't have to be an Amtrak train, but I would hope it is more than just a tourist train.)
BTW I would love to take this train. I would also love to go to Newfoundland!
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Ms. Sojourner, the railroad noted, Quebec North Shore & Labrador, is a private sector concern. I can recall its construction during the 1950's, as I was actively following industry affairs as a teenager (to my Father's chagrin, must I say). The QNS&L does not have a physical connection with any other railroad.
The passenger train operation over this road apparently dates from the 90's and is analagous to Amtrak and VIA operations over the various "freight" rail systems. The passenger train concern is publicly owned by the Tribal Councils (whoops, governments) of several Indian Reservations (whoops, "First Nations' - a term I first learned watching coverage of the recent Olympics).
Continuing, I DO sincerely respect that you hold any restored service over the St Lawrence & Atlantic (formerly Grand Trunk) would be a tourist excursion and for which you would not expect any public funding to be involved with such. You are apparently aware that Mr. Resor has noted that there was a tourist operation over those lines that has since folded.
Finally, while it appears evident that Canada is willing to fund tourist rail passenger operations (really, what else could The Canadian be considered?) while the US is not (that there is excellent scenery to be viewed along many - Corridors included - Amtrak routes, is simply not what Amtrak is all about), we should note that tourism comprises a far greater percentage of Canada's Gross National Product than it ever does here in the USA. As such, hospitality industry interests within Canada have a far stronger Lobby than do those here; that is just a simple 'factoid of life".
Posted by TBlack (Member # 181) on :
Sojourner, Thanks for the geography lesson! (see, old dogs CAN learn new tricks!). So let me amend the first sentence in my last posting to: "Uh, Sojourner, you don't mean a train to Labrador, you mean a train in Labrador...". I think you have to work pretty hard to get to the railhead. In any event, the point I was trying to make in my previous post was the distinction between trains that get you from A to B and those that are sold as tourist attractions. I think Gilbert is making the same point.
Going beyond that thought, you and I use the train recreationally, for the most part. So, I'm empathetic to your notion of the "national park on wheels"; I just don't think that point of view is widely recognized in this country as a possible means of economic development. At least, I haven't heard much in the way of convincing arguments for it.
TB
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by TBlack: ..Going beyond that thought, you (Ms. Sojourner) and I use the train recreationally, for the most part. So, I'm empathetic to your notion of the "national park on wheels"; I just don't think that point of view is widely recognized in this country as a possible means of economic development. At least, I haven't heard much in the way of convincing arguments for it.
I doubt if such is either, Mr. Black, but unlike yourself, Ms. Sojourner, and others here, as well as myself with my biennial joyrides (as distinct from my semi annual or therebaouts "got somewhere to go and Amtrak is convenient" journeys), I do not think it should be.
Hosting passenger trains can only be a burden to the Class I industry interfering with what makes the $$$, namely freight operations. I'm certain with hindsight that the industry regrets having signed up with Amtrak as the long term burden has far exceeded any short term gains that were realized when the roads were relieved from the financial burden of operating intercity trains - and were given an advance "up front" for one month of estimated contract fees. That had the roads said "thanks but no thanks", the LD's would have started to be gone with expiration of the five year "moratorium" under RPSA '70 and WOULD have been gone upon enactment of the "Staggers" Act during 1979.
Northeast Corridor, Empire, and Keystone services would have been retained with the substitution of "and passenger" into the 3R Act of 1973 (Conrail enabling legislation) in place of where the legislation said "no passengers" or at least for Conrail's own account.
disclaimer: author holds positions KSU NSC
Posted by TBlack (Member # 181) on :
OK, Gilbert, I'll buy that. But it opens up another question. Your remarks suggest that the Class I's had an option and that the decision was theirs to make as to whether to let Amtrak use their right-of-way. I don't know the business details, but take the Downeaster (Boston to Portland, ME). It uses Guilford (Pan Am) trackage. They (Dave Fink) dug their heels in through the whole negotiation process. I know, casually, Dave, and it's hard for me to imagine he saw the Downeaster as a benefit to his operation. So my question is: do the Class I's really have an option, or did the Feds tell them to do it?
Finally, if you hold positions in KSU and NSC, what do you think about GWR?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Black, under RPSA '70, any railroad operating intercity passenger trains at end of 1969 had the option wither to accept or decline the offer to join the NRPC (now dba Amtrak). Major roads that were eligible but declined were the Southern, Rock Island, and Rio Grande. Further, there have been reports both the Seaboard Coast Line ("we have farebox recovery of our costs as is') and the Santa Fe (concerned about possible unreimbursed costs to enter CUS) were "on the fence' regarding the decision to join up. The May 1, 1971 Agreement which was formulated from the Act, as distinct from negotiations with each party (you've been invited to join; if you accept, here are the terms under which you'll do so; take 'em or leave 'em), stated that member roads would grant access to NRPC for any trains designated by the Basic System and further designated what NRPC would pay for that access. The Agreement also required the member roads to negotiate in good faith with NRPC with regards to any new services that (now) Amtrak desired to operate.
Since Boston & Maine was not operating any intercity trains as of Dec 1969, they had no reason to seek membership in the NRPC. Accordingly nothing within the Agreement could impose B&M to "negotiate in good faith", only the Surface Transportation Board, had any jurisdiction to arbitrate conditions under which the DownEaster would have access.
Finally, I had best withhold any comments regarding securities of Genesee & Wyoming (N-GWR) as I have never held licensure as an investment advisor. I do admit to having had broad conceptual discussions with my clients, i.e. "what's a stock', "what's a mutual fund" while in practice but would never talk about a specific security.
Posted by TBlack (Member # 181) on :
Gilbert, Good recap of history of NRPC there. Recent events have changed the battlefield though. I just picked the B&M situation because it is the most recent in my memory, but it turns out to have broader implications.RPSA '70 does what you describe, but it goes on to say (section 526d) that NRPC (Amtrak) could buy tracks or ask the ICC to condemn track that Amtrak wanted to use but couldn't get purchase agreement on from the host railroad as long as the tracks were "essential to Amtrak's purpose". To aid Amtrak in its B&M agreement, Congress amended the RPSA to allow Amtrak, through the ICC, to seize track that would "further its mission". This is a significant watering down of the previous language.
This went all the way to the Supreme Court; Amtrak won 6-3. So the moral of the story is... (drumroll, and I hope Ms. Sojourner is still reading) Get Amtrak to decide to be in the tourist railroad business!
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
The best example coming to mind regarding the provision of RPSA 70 noted by Mr. Black allowing Amtrak to purchase railroad property is the Porter IN Kalamazoo MI line used by the Wolverines and Blue Water. For Conrail, this line was 'surplus' for their planned freight operations, for Amtrak, it was essential if existing service were to be maintained. While the parties did come to agreement without outside intervention (of course lest we forget Conrail was the GM and Chrysler of its day - and 'Washington was watching"), had such not been attained, the matter would have been addressed as arbitration by the SurfBoard.
Even if "not exactly surplus", there were similarities with the Northeast Corridor conveyance (lawyerese for transfer). Here there was a willing buyer and willing seller and the transaction was completed "cashless" by means of having Amtrak 'work off' the purchase price by allowing Conrail to operate freight over the line to recover the agreed price. The workoff was complete roundly during 1999 when Conrail was acquired by CSX and NS.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
quote:Originally posted by sojourner: If the moose are faster than the train, that is fine, we will see more moose out the window. If the train went too fast, we might miss them!
Ponies anyone?
Can we see ponies?
And bagpipers?
FWIW - The QNS&L passenger operation has (or had) in service a former Wabash Dome Coach. It passed to the N&W and thence to the Southern Railway. It was on this coach that I first experienced dome cars when it was in use on the Asheville-Salisbury train in the early 1970's.
With the demise of SR trains 3&4 in 1975, the dome continued in excursion service on Southern trains until the N&W merger before passing on to Canada.