Editor’s note: This commentary is by Carl H. Fowler, of Williston, who is vice chair of the Rail Passengers Association, president of CHF Rail Consulting, and a member of the Vermont Rail Advisory Council.
[T]he Ethan Allen Express Amtrak train should not terminate at, nor be stored, in Burlington.
Rather, the 7.97-mile-long New England Central RR Burlington to Essex Junction branch line should be upgraded to allow Amtrak trains to proceed to St. Albans to be serviced and stored overnight at the existing Amtrak layover facility, until operations are extended to Montreal.
• Soon this will facilitate direct travel from Montreal to downtown Burlington on the train, which should be of great tourism and business benefit to Burlington, the state of Vermont and Canada. It is expected arrangements will be complete early in the next decade to permit both current Vermont Amtrak trains to reach Montreal.
• This proposal also avoids the need to construct a second track and to relocate the bike path at Burlington Union Station. Ultimately money spent to create a Burlington storage location would be wasted when service extends to Canada.
• This work would also unlock the potential to use the All-Earth Rail rail diesel car trains in real regional rail service, as through operations from Burlington (and points south) would be possible to both Montpelier and St. Albans. Currently passengers from north and east of Essex Junction cannot be routed to Burlington by passenger trains of any carrier on a regular basis.
Issues with the proposed layover locations in Burlington: None of the options in downtown Burlington are ideal for parking and servicing the Amtrak Ethan Allen Express when it begins service from Rutland to Burlington, probably in the autumn of 2021 or the spring of 2022.
• The Urban Reserve setting places the train in clear view of numerous apartments and construction of new utilities and for new road access will be needed. While neighborhood worries about locomotive/electric generator noise will be largely mitigated by the installation of off-train ground-level electric power hook-ups, the aesthetics of the train being parked in such a beautiful view-shed are real and compellingly suggest another location. For example, sewage tanks will have to be pumped in clear view after every trip!
• Burlington Union Station has multiple problems. Parking the train there requires the installation of two expensive switches to/from a newly constructed passing and storage track. This in turn forces a relocation of the Burlington bike path to the other side of the tracks. This new right of way easement is a very serious concern to the ECHO Center. Only reconfiguration of the platform is required if the train is serviced elsewhere. This platform work is funded in the next VTrans budget.
• It is also critical to note that the distance between streets at the waterfront along the rail line in front of Union Station which cannot be blocked for extended periods of time will preclude any freight train from being stored or held overnight on the new passing track at Union Station. Only passenger trains will be short enough to be “stabled” there. This sadly assures that the Ethan Allen would be kept there overnight on every trip if this facility is built.
• Should the train be extended to Montreal the need for this costly expenditure on the Burlington waterfront will vanish. This could deter the highly desirable extension of the Ethan Allen route to Canada. If the nearest to Burlington that Montreal riders can reach by train is Essex Junction on the Vermonter, it is unlikely that many will use the train to visit Burlington.
• The residents of the apartments in the Main Street Station complex have very legitimate concerns about noise and aesthetics if the train parks there. As noted above, the noise from the train’s electric power generators will be largely mitigated by the installation of ground/off-train power connections, but there will still be substantial noise from switching, cleaning, stocking and servicing the train, again including the need to pump out sewage tanks. Further, the view of the lake will be reduced for both Main Street Landing residents and for the general population during the train’s layovers. If there were no better alternatives use of this location might be unavoidable, but such is not the case.
• The Burlington yards are at or over capacity according to the Vermont Rail System. Further, VRS states that they have no room there for any added yard tracks. Even if space in the yards somehow could be found, ground power electrical connections will still need to be constructed there. It is, however, fair to note that last summer VRS stored its Dinner Train in the yards every night. They had to cut the train in half to store it on two tracks, something Amtrak would oppose for its train and which would require two power hook-ups — a further added cost.
• Use of a storage/passing track south of the stations/yards is the least impactful option if the train must be stored in Burlington. This requires funding for an added switch/crossover, which will be needed to subdivide the long existing passing/storage track to simplify operations and to construct the needed electrical hook-up. The train would have to be operated backwards for about five minutes each evening from the station to this site, after unloading riders at the Union Station platforms (and the reverse in the mornings before departure) and the Amtrak crew would need to taxi to their hotel. However, they already do this daily in St. Albans.
This area is mostly industrial and will present the least aesthetic problems. However, this area is not without residents either. The south end passing track is adjacent on the lake-side to homes and apartments over the northward part of its length. As noted, noise concerns will be reduced by using ground-based plug-in electrical power. But activities like car cleaning and sewage pumping will have to be done here as well.
VRS currently stores tank cars and other equipment on this track. Indeed, VRS sees it as an extension of the freight yard. This does not mean it could not be used, but it does suggest VRS might oppose its use.
The preferred St. Albans/Montreal option: The Burlington-Essex Junction branch line should be upgraded from Class One to at least Class Two and ideally Class Three track status to make this effective. Currently the branch is only cleared for 10 mph operating speeds and is thus not appropriate for passenger operations. This Class Two upgrade would allow a 25 mph passenger train speed limit on branch. Class Three track would allow 40 mph running on much of the line and up to 59 mph in theory on straight track segments. Any higher speed is impractical at most points here, due to the many curves, bridges, grade crossings and the Winooski River canyon along this line.
The result at Class Two would be a 16-18-minute running time from Union Station to Essex Junction, and probably another 2-5 minutes faster at Class Three. North of there to St. Albans the speed limit on the existing Class Three track is already 59 mph, with an operating time of 28 minutes. Thus, total running time from Burlington to St. Albans would be about 45-60 minutes each way. This upgrade is already a priority in the five-year Vermont State Rail Plan.
• Existing arrangements are already in place to clean, service, store and reverse the Amtrak Vermonter in St. Albans. The NECR terminal in St. Albans could easily accommodate a second daily Amtrak train-set. The Ethan Allen Express could use this existing facility. A second ground power outlet might be needed.
• Currently substantial federal grant opportunities exist in the rail-focused BUILD and CRISI awards programs for FY 2019/2020. Due to the complex rebuilding of the downtown rail tunnel in Middlebury, Ethan Allen Express service from Rutland to Burlington cannot begin before the autumn of 2021 and more likely the spring of 2022, so we have time to get federal and/or state funding and do the work if we proceed now.
• A fair estimate for reaching Class Two standards should be around $4 million based on recent similar work to reach Class Three track on segments of the VRS mainline. Obviously complete design and costing would be required. To reach Class Two track standards tie replacement, ballast work, surfacing and some new rail would be needed, but this project is far from a total rebuilding of the line. It should be noted this upgrade effectively eliminates the need for the second track, new switches, ground-power electrical hookups and bike-path relocation in Burlington, which will cost at least $1 million and probably more.
• Once arrangements in Canada have been completed to extend Vermont Amtrak trains to Montreal, both the Ethan Allen Express and the Vermonter should be extended to that city. Extensive use of the Ethan Allen train by Canadian visitors would be facilitated to Burlington, as well as Middlebury and Rutland. Same-day round trip travel would be made easy for these riders. Burlington would be a particular beneficiary of direct service from Montreal to the waterfront.
• This should be possible early in the next decade, when access arrangements are finalized in Canada. Ultimately the existing Vermonter (with its longer route) could be switched to running on an overnight schedule, to give our riders an option to arrive in New York and points south in the morning, as was the case with the Montrealer before 1995. This creates both day and night Vermont trains,
• The NECR may be willing to contribute to the BTV/ESX upgrades. Better track here facilitates freight operations throughout their system. Indeed, the project could be designed to do a more extensive upgrade by including upgraded bridges. That would allow full-weight 286-ton freight car use of the branch. Both the NECR and VRS mainlines then become compliant with contemporary freight train weight standards statewide. However, it is not essential to reach 286-ton standards to reach Class Two 25 mph speeds on the branch for passenger trains.
• VTrans has expressed concerns about crew layover times in St. Albans. Federal rules require a minimum of 10 hours off duty between trips for train operating crews. This issue only arises if the New York to Vermont schedule is such that the required layover time in St. Albans could not be met.
The Ethan Allen Express uses two Amtrak crews each day, one between New York and Albany and a second between Albany and Vermont. If, for example, the train left New York at 9:15 a.m. it would arrive Burlington at about 6 p.m. and St. Albans at about 7 p.m. The southbound return trip could leave St. Albans no earlier than 5 a.m. the next morning to accommodate the layover rules. However, a departure around 6-8 a.m. is much more likely.
The train should not be stored in Burlington. Money spent in Burlington on a storage facility would be effectively wasted if the train ultimately serves Montreal.
The best solution for Burlington and Vermont is to fix the Burlington-Essex Junction Branch Line now, to allow the Ethan Allen Express to reach St. Albans and (soon) Montreal.
