Passenger Trains > Patronage Springfield Line vs Empire Line

On another forumn a poster had made an interesting comparison between patronage at Hartford, CT (179,186 last year) vs. Hudson, NY (187,776 last year).  Rhinecliff, NY (186,273) is also higher than Hartford.  Hartford is the CT state capital; Hudson and Rhinecliff are relatively small upstate NY communities that have grown as commuting bases to NY City since the 1980s when NY-Albany/Rensselaer service was improved.
The main reason for patronage differences is that NY used from state bond issues from the 1970's to upgrade the former New York Central tracks whereas CT, until now, has done nothing to upgrade the former NH tracks.  Presently there are 13 weekday round trips (including the Lake Shore Limited) between NY and Albany-Rensselaer vs. 6 round trips between New Haven and Springfield.  To my knowledge, CT did not object to Amtrak's single-tracking of the Springfield Line circa 1989 and had no plans at that time to promote any growth of service over this line.
Would be interested to hear from CT residents as to why CT slept while NY was working on the rr?
Andy

I was a Connecticut resident at the time the Springfield Line was single-tracked. Connecticut was focused on the Shore Line East startup at that time, at least in part because some of the worst traffic congestion in the state would be helped by getting commuters off the Quinnipiac River Bridge in New Haven. Much of the second track on the Springfield Line that was taken up at the time was jointed rail, so the state's logic in allowing its removal was that to enhance service at some indefinite time in the future, that track would need to be completely rebuilt anyway.
 

Hudson and Rhinecliff  have lot of vacation home / extended weekend people, feeding from both sides of the river.  Go down to the city on Tuesday, come back up on Thursday.  On the Harlem line, the Wassaic station parking lot always has a lot of MA VT CT etc license plates as people drive down to the station, spend a few days working in the city, and then go home.

The NYNH&H railroad ran special weekender trains from GCT to Danbury to Pittsfield MA as late as the 1960s. Thursday, Friday northbound and Sunday evening, Monday morning southbound. Even then there was sufficient patronage to support the service.

While much of what Patch wrote is true, the big NUT was all the heavy-highway contractors
O&G, Tilcon-Tomassso, White Oak, Lanes, Suzio, Palmer Paving  just to name a few along with the big milling companys, Costello, Garrity were in bed
with top state people. They just wanted to black top everything. Everyone new up at 2200 that rails was getting the short end of the stick. This went on right
up though the Rowland years. By than Angello was bought out by Tilcon (Old Castile) and became Tilcon-Ct.
Even after 2 or 3 anti trust investigations by the Feds/State Justice Dept, they couln't prove that the boys were in bed and that they divided up the state.
Having worked out of my pay scale at times as a inspector and working VIP and heavy highway, i once had a talk with one of Lanes VP's (who happens to live down the street from me) and was told that after they
finished the I-91 segment from Windsor Ct to the MA line, that Lanes would not bid on a another CDot job again. That the $$ that flowed into peoples pockets had gotten out of control.
And Lanes to this day hasn't submitted a bid on any CDot job.
I don't know how many times i had to shut a job down cuz the mix went off-test because they'ed try to throw garbage into the mix and take the hit if it fail compaction testing

Enough 

It's not the single-tracking.  It's the one-seat ride down the Hudson vs all but 2 trains on the Hartford Line requiring a change at New Haven.  Amtrak quit running through cars years ago except on the old Bankers (weekday Trains 141 and 148) and today's Vermonter.

There are 10 weekday one-seat rides each weekday between Hudson, Rhinecliff and New York.  There are usually 9 weekday trains between Hartford, New Haven and New York, and only 2 of them are 1-seat rides.  The others require a change at New Haven.

The travel-time vastly favors the Hudson/Rhinecliff trains.  Rhinecliff-New York is between 1 hr 35 mins and 1 hr 55 mins.  The Hudson-New York times are 20 minutes longer.  The Hartford-New York times are between 2 hrs 27 mins and 2 hrs 53 mins. 

And the fares are higher between out of Hartford than out of Hudson or Rhinecliff.  The Hartford 10-trip fare is $488, the Hudson 10-trip is $416 and the Rhinecliff 10-trip is $312.  Interestingly, you can frequently find one-way tickets than are less than 1/10 of the 10-trip fare.  For instance, tomorrow there are $42 tickets out of Hartford and $36 tickets out of both Rhinecliff and Hudson, well below 1/10 of the 10-trip fares of $416 out of Hudson.

And, finally, there aren't competing buses out of Rhinecliff and Hudson, while there's substantial non-stop bus service between Hartford and New York.There are 15 buses tomorrow between Hartford and New York with timings between 2 hrs 30 mins and 3 hrs 15 mins.  The fares range between $14 and $21.  The non-stop buses are 1/3 the Amtrak price and are at least 15 minutes faster and usually more. 

toledopatch, did Connecticut have much to say about the removal of the double-track?  It wasn't offering any money to maintain the Hartford Line, so Amtrak was free to do with its line what it wanted.  And what Amtrak needed to do was to reduce its expenses on a lightly used line. 

Amtrak did to Connecticut what the freight railroads do to Amtrak and commuter lines.  It reduced its infrastructure to what it needed.  It made improvements to the line.  It installed welded rail and CTC, and the line has met the needs of the passenger trains operating on it for the past 20 years or more.

And now, when Connecticut wants increased service, Amtrak charges for the increased infrastructure required, just like the freight railroads do to Amtrak and commuter services.

knotch8 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> toledopatch, did Connecticut have much to say
> about the removal of the double-track?  It wasn't
> offering any money to maintain the Hartford Line,
> so Amtrak was free to do with its line what it
> wanted.  And what Amtrak needed to do was to
> reduce its expenses on a lightly used line. 

I don't think Connecticut had any standing to object, since they weren't paying for the existing service in any way, but I do recall asking state DOT people at the time if it could impede future service enhancement in that corridor. And that was where I got the "We'd need to rebuild the second track anyway" response.

That all being 25+ years ago, I don't remember who specifically I was talking to or under what circumstances, but it was surely in conjunction with the reporting I was doing about the Shore Line East plans.

I'm going to guess that Amtrak had deferred maintenance on much of the second main in anticipation of retiring it, much as stick rail survived on the New Haven Line's No. 3 Track between West Haven and Devon for a long, long time before that section was reduced to three main tracks (with No. 3 remaining as an industrial track in West Haven and Woodmont).

There's a bit more to this. I live on the line now and have been watching all of this.
Going back to the late 70's, CDOT wanted increased service and anted up some money purchasing 13 SPV-2000's, but contracted Amtrak to run them and operate them as through cars....a typical Connecticut success that was.
The single tracking project was part of the NECIP from the early 80's as money was spent on track 1 bringing it up to class IV standards The old signaling system remained in place while the cantilever ones sat without heads for years. In December of 1990 it began and Amtrak approached the state asking if they had any interest in spending cash on it to keep track 2.  In typical CT fashion, they said "why should we care" to Amtrak, but some local politico complained to the Hartford Courant (the article is sitting in front of me and has been for years).

Comparing to the Hudson line is tricky as NY owns a good portion of the line, and it's suburban NYC.  Hartford is not and never will be (seems to be competing on number of murders, to be sure). The through trains mostly stopped with the electrification, but the route proved rather useful during Amtrak's bridge replacements on the Shoreline. It's not a pretty route, but it's surprisingly functional and the ridership is oddly decent for it -again- not being suburban NYC.  Reincliff (or Reinbeck) is a weekend getaway or even home for the not-so-broke of the city off a very scenic route, while the suburbs of Hartford make for slightly less expensive living for those who have to occasionally commute to the city for the work week.

Looking forward to see what the long overdue changes bring.

-Tom

knotch8 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> toledopatch, did Connecticut have much to say
> about the removal of the double-track?  It wasn't
> offering any money to maintain the Hartford Line,
> so Amtrak was free to do with its line what it
> wanted.  And what Amtrak needed to do was to
> reduce its expenses on a lightly used line. 

Self-reinforcing silliness.  The line was lightly used due to a lack of service.  The original NEC plan was to provide hourly through service from Springfield/Hartford to Grand Central Terminal with stops between New Haven and New Rochelle at major stations.  The right question is what ever happened to that service plan, which was what the New Haven used to run.

> Amtrak did to Connecticut what the freight
> railroads do to Amtrak and commuter lines.  It
> reduced its infrastructure to what it needed.  It
> made improvements to the line.  It installed
> welded rail and CTC, and the line has met the
> needs of the passenger trains operating on it for
> the past 20 years or more.

This mentality is everything that is wrong with the issue.  The line should meet the needs of the patrons and residents, not the needs of a train schedule.

How is what you describe Amtrak's actual "needs"?  Isn't Amtrak supposed to provide intercity service where demand exists?

> And now, when Connecticut wants increased service,
> Amtrak charges for the increased infrastructure
> required, just like the freight railroads do to
> Amtrak and commuter services.

Isn't it Connecticut residents, i.e. US taxpayers, who want increased service?  And wasn't Amtrak and Connecticut provided megabucks to provide this service?

Why does Amtrak give NY State service dual mode engines to provide direct service to NYC, but not the Springfield line?  Its not like NY State paid for the P32's.  Isn't this a fair question for Connecticut residents to ask?  Why are they being discriminated against?  Especially as the Connecticut service is actual interstate service, but the NY service is intrastate?

Springfield MA and Hartford CT share many companies, and plant locations.  Several insurers have properties within a few miles of each other, but across state lines. That's partly the result of various incentives offered when companies said they were expanding.  When my company was part of the big insurer, we would regularly visit facilities in both states.

It's a good example of a situation where a regional solution engagng all forms of commuting etc would have made more sense than expanding I-91, building the Busway, starting the commuter train etc all in vacuums makes.

(Same problem as happens in NJ/NY, etc)