Portland to Conway Ski Trains?

[VTKilarney]

I call fake on that photo. ;-)

 

[spring_mountain_high]

I call fake on that photo. ;-)

haha i didn't even realize that...i just googled RDC

 

[BenedictGomez]

The internet will resolve much of the commuter transportation problems/congestion. Twenty years from now, far more people will be working from home.

Hell, I work in finance and I can do 97.5% of my job from home. Really 100%, if you don't count "meetings", and if you even want to nit-pick that, meetings could be conducted via split-screren Skype or some form of online meeting vendor.

This trend's exacerbation will be fueled primarily by cost-savings at first, but then as older, more "people-facing friendly" workers retire they'll be replaced with young people who are far more apt to be comfortable with low human interaction/involvement.

 

[VTKilarney]

No doubt all sorts of well heeled property owners along the route will object. Here is a pretty comprehensive study of the Portland to North Conway stretch: http://www.maine.gov/mdot/ofbs/documents/pdf/MtnDivExecutiveSummary_001.pdf

Frankly, if the Sunday River ski train was not viable, I don't see how this train will be.

As an aside, there is a rail line that is almost entirely overgrown that runs from St. Johnsbury to Whitefield, NH that I wish would be opened up to recreational use.

 

[Newpylong]

I'd love to see someone figure out how to offer a local light rail service in my area on the NH seacoast. We've got a decent bus system servicing the region, but it's underutilized. I think part of the reason it is, is because people are impatient. The timing of the stops varies by 15 minutes or so based upon traffic in the few times I've used it.

However, we've got rails connecting Dover, Durham, Newmarket (no currently operating station in town) Exeter and Portsmouth. All of these towns have high population density downtown districts. Those rails sit vacant most of the day except for the 10 times a day the Downeaster rolls through; 5 times going southbound and 5 return trips back north. There's occasional freight on the line as well, but it's even less frequent.

If someone could come up with some sort of local trolley type train (basically a bus capacity train car) that runs when the track is not being used for the Downeaster or freight, thus connecting the 5 towns, I'd be all for it. If I could pay $5 one way to grab a train to head from Newmarket to Portsmouth or Dover, I'd do it in a heartbeat over driving to those locations. I bet such a service would help UNH grow their enrollment as well. Newmarket and Dover are the bedroom communities for upper classmen at the school. Most of the students live in the downtown areas of these towns within walking distance of the rail.

I know in Maine, there's talk of similar local rail service connecting Gorham to Portland someday.

No, the Portland Division is at capacity as is. There are the 10 Downeasters and 8 scheduled Pan Am freights plus locals. There is very limited double track left. If Amtrak were to even add one more train an additional siding would need to be built.

 

[VTKilarney]

Considering how successful the Downeaster seems to be, I was shocked to see that it is still millions of dollars in the red each year. While I doubt that the NH group's labor costs will be as high as Amtrak's, there is still a ton of work that needs to be done to the track.

 

[deadheadskier]

I'm just talking about the local area here. There are points during the day when the track sits vacant for an hour or more. During those down times it would be great to have a local train run from Dover down to Newmarket and across to Portsmouth. Something like the fake picture train a few posts back. :lol:

Is it unrealistic? Today yes, in the future maybe not.

 

[Newpylong]

I'm just talking about the local area here. There are points during the day when the track sits vacant for an hour or more. During those down times it would be great to have a local train run from Dover down to Newmarket and across to Portsmouth. Something like the fake picture train a few posts back. :lol:

Is it unrealistic? Today yes, in the future maybe not.

If it was all double track, definitely possible. Especially since the line to Portsmouth is still active.

Rail is highly underutilized. If used in the right manor it is an indispensable mode of transportation. It is too bad a nation we were so quick to rip it all up after the Interstates went in. Now we are paying out the a$$ to put it back in. Some of the corridors are lost forever. I love me a good rail trail, but people can bike anywhere - I rather have the trains.


Back to Boston to Montreal via Portland:

I know MEDOT spent a lot of money west of Westbrook for a customer who never materialized. Other than that I think this guy has about 40 miles of 70 lb rail laid in the early 1900s to rebuild, just to get to North Conway. They he has to maintain it. I don't see it happening. Who is going to ride it anyway?

 

[Newpylong]

Best bet is to buy heritage rolling stock and run it over existing ROW. I know nothing about the existing lines up that way which are still in good enough condition to carry passengers.

Now, if we're talking reactivating a line for passenger service only, then that's essentially impossible these days. The cost of improvements to the line, along with operating expenses, were never even really favorable one hundred years ago. Large railroad companies subsidized lightly used branch lines with profits from their freight business and main lines. A seasonal ski train is not going to even bring in the money to stay running, let alone pay to lay track and fix bridges, unless its receiving some kind of subsidy. That doesn't have to be from the government, it could be in the form of freight traffic. That opens a whole new can of worms though. You'd have to try and pull together funding from private sources and government transportation grants to start service, and with already existing routes that would be hard to justify. You already have freight carriers and Amtrak already runs service to Montreal via New York. And honestly, given the remoteness of where this line is going, there doesn't seem to be a justification for passenger service since it serves few population centers. The best line to Montreal is up the Hudson Valley since it has a more direct route, gentler grade, and fewer curves. Amtrak trains can travel much faster. I believe the section between Albany and New York was even upgraded to 110mph service.

New York to Montreal not really relevant here - but you're forgetting north of Albany. You're on a freight line that has to follow Champlain for a long distance, limiting train speeds down to 30 mph in many areas. 8 hours to MON from Alb/Rens. Straight on a map maybe, in reality not so much.

 

[VTKilarney]

Just looking at the current timetable for the Adirondack, I calculated the following:
It takes the Adirondack two hours and thirty five minutes to cover the 141 miles between New York City and Albany at an average speed of 55 miles per hour.
The same train takes eight hours and one minute to travel the remaining 240 miles to Montreal at an average speed of 30 miles per hour. To be fair, there is a border crossing and many more stations north of Albany, but even factoring that in it's a VERY slow train north of Albany.

The Vermonter averages 41 mph between New York City and Saint Albans, but the route itself is much less direct.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Considering how successful the Downeaster seems to be, I was shocked to see that it is still millions of dollars in the red each year.

I didn't know that, but I'm not shocked in the least, I'd expect that. Amtrak began operations in 1971.

Train trivia time......


Q) In Forty-three fiscal years of life, in how many of those 43 years has Amtrak made a profit?








A) 0

 

[VTKilarney]

Yes, but the Northeast Corridor is profitable, and the Downeater is a short run off of a profitable route. That's why I was surprised to see just how much in the red it operates. We aren't talking about a trans-con here.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Yes, but the Northeast Corridor is profitable, and the Downeater is a short run off of a profitable route. That's why I was surprised to see just how much in the red it operates. We aren't talking about a trans-con here.

AFAIK, the NE Corridor is AMTRAK's only profitable route (or at least it used to be). AMTRAK is a money-sucking taxpayer-funded disaster (resisted the urge to use the term, "trainwreck").

You're right that the short work routes are much better than the completely illogical uber-wasteful long-haul routes though. So while I know nothing about the Downeaster, I'd speculate: A) Unions B) Debt bomb are the most likely reasons for why it's financially failing.

 

[spring_mountain_high]

I didn't know that, but I'm not shocked in the least, I'd expect that. Amtrak began operations in 1971.

Train trivia time......


Q) In Forty-three fiscal years of life, in how many of those 43 years has Amtrak made a profit?








A) 0

Q) when was the last time a government funded interstate turned a profit?


A) NEVER


it's national infrastructure, not a profit center

 

[Edd]

Too lazy to check but do the Japan super trains turn a profit? I'm assuming Euro trains are heavily government funded.

 

[VTKilarney]

Too lazy to check but do the Japan super trains turn a profit? I'm assuming Euro trains are heavily government funded.

It is allegedly profitable. But... it's a MUCH better service, it's in one of the most densely populated countries, and it's in a country where driving is much more expensive. Japan's size also lends itself to profitable rail operations. They don't have the same geographic area to cover as the United States. High speed rail really shines for trips of 2-5 hours, and there are loads of people taking trips of that length in Japan.

On the other hand, they do have to contend with Godzilla.

 

[AdironRider]

To be fair, Amtrak does have some bullshit strings attached that makes it hard to actually turn a profit. Kinda like the Post Office.

 

[Rowsdower]

Transportation infrastructure almost never turns a profit. Hell, the highway trust fund almost ran out of money last month. The standard that rail is held up to largely relates to our preconceptions where rail used to be run by private corporations, but the road system exists in its modern form as an almost entirely publicly funded entity.

The NEC does turn a profit on operations, but not capital costs. Not that it really matters. It's an integral part of the Northeast's transit infrastructure. It moves millions of people a year and keeps them off of already crowded interstates like I-95. Infrastructure is one of those things you invest in because it generates lots of positive economic activity as a result.

That said, there are many long-distance lines that make little sense to continue operation. Rail works best linking dense population centers over short to medium distances. That's why it works in the Northeast but almost nowhere else in the States. Of the ten most heavily used commuter rail systems in the US, seven are in the Northeast with three of those serving NYC alone.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Q) when was the last time a government funded interstate turned a profit?


A) NEVER


it's national infrastructure, not a profit center

That's not true. There are some roads that have paid for themselves via tolls, but that's not important. And our roads are key for our economic health and GDP, our railroads are a trivial pittance in comparison. As for the vast majority of these train lines being discussed, it's patently laughable to call them "national infrastructure" - there are few that are somewhat important, the rest are pissing $$$$ down a toilet. AMTRAK is a horrendous waste of money in general. They could keep the Northeast corridor/ACELA and scrap the rest of it. Or, at the very least, sell it off to a private entity (if you could actually find a buyer) rather than piss over $1.5 BILLION dollars (yes, it's that much) of taxpayer money down the drain each year on lightly ridden, financially unsustainable routes.

Transportation infrastructure almost never turns a profit. Hell, the highway trust fund almost ran out of money last month.

And it wouldn't have had the politicians not pissed away the money on projects completely counter to what the "trust fund" (what a joke term as applied) was set-up for in the first place, and not raided the fund for BS projects over the years.

Hell, the government makes more off each gallon of gasoline sold than Exxon/Mobil does! A fact that very few Americans realize, and would probably be outraged about if they knew.

 

[Rowsdower]

That's not true. There are some roads that have paid for themselves via tolls, but that's not important. And our roads are key for our economic health and GDP, our railroads are a trivial pittance in comparison. As for the vast majority of these train lines being discussed, it's patently laughable to call them "national infrastructure" - there are few that are somewhat important, the rest are pissing $$$$ down a toilet. AMTRAK is a horrendous waste of money in general. They could keep the Northeast corridor/ACELA and scrap the rest of it. Or, at the very least, sell it off to a private entity (if you could actually find a buyer) rather than piss over $1.5 BILLION dollars (yes, it's that much) of taxpayer money down the drain each year on lightly ridden, financially unsustainable routes.



And it wouldn't have had the politicians not pissed away the money on projects completely counter to what the "trust fund" (what a joke term as applied) was set-up for in the first place, and not raided the fund for BS projects over the years.

Hell, the government makes more off each gallon of gasoline sold than Exxon/Mobil does! A fact that very few Americans realize, and would probably be outraged about if they knew.

You're seriously characterizing a system that moves about a third of our nations freight, and close to half a billion passengers almost exclusively within the Northeast, as unimportant?

I'm not arguing that passenger rail doesn't make sense in rural Nebraska or Maine. I agree, its a waste of resources in that case, but its incredibly important in the metropolitan areas of the Eastern Seaboard. Can you imagine NYC without a rail system? I certainly don't want to. Now if you want to talk about how those government agencies spend that money, then sure, and I'll agree I'm just as frustrated when logical decisions aren't made and money is wasted. However, some of us would prefer to see a system built properly rather than throw our hands up and tear the whole thing down.

And for the record, I support Amtrak's running the NEC. People tend to forget all these lines were run by private entities up to the 1980s and had to be given subsidies because they weren't profitable. Complete privatization isn't feasible on any major pieces of infrastructure. You will always need to draw from public money to get large capital projects done. Amtrak already covers operating expenses at the farebox on the NEC, its rehabbing one hundred year old track and wire that you need the grants for.