Option 1B proposed a "Long(er) Weekend" semi-express (stopping at Croton-Harmon, Hudson, Albany & Pit only) that left NYP at 12:30pm and got to Pittfield at 4:20pm (Fridays) and then a Sunday return at 5:40pm into Penn at 9:30pm. Equipment availability was said to be there, but it had several strikes against it:
1) NYSDOT would not support a new train that failed to make all stops
2) (In my view) the Friday Outbound was too early.
The bottom of the 27th page of the PDF, which has page number ``19 of 51'' printed in the bottom right corner of the page number image, says the express would save 10 to 12 minutes by skipping stops. For a trip that takes about 4 hours, I think 10 to 12 minutes is a rounding error that isn't necessarily worth putting effort into. The top of that page shows a schedule departing New York Penn Station on Friday at 2:20 PM, arriving Pittsfield at 6:10 PM (perhaps that will have a Pittsfield departure around 6:30 PM arriving in Albany an hour later?), and Sunday's Pittsfield departure proposed for 2:45 PM, arriving at New York Penn Station 6:45 PM. (Perhaps the Albany departure to Pittsfield will be around 1:15 or 1:30 PM?)
The 35th page labeled ``27 of 51'' says this is expected to cost the state a bit less than a quarter million dollars for 20 weeks of service.
Option 2 contemplated a new connecting track and the use of CSX's Schodack Subdivision. But because this physically-shorter route would be slow (40mph) it only saved 4 minutes vs being able to go via ALB at 110mph.
If you find the intersection of 9J and Knickerbocker Rd in Schodack Landing, NY on a map, immediately to the west is the north-south passenger track, and roughly half a mile east is the freight track. Option 2 assumed a connection to the slow freight track instead of the fast passenger track. It does look like a connection to the western track would have some potentially complicated interactions with some small houses, power lines (which probably could be moved higher) and the connector that turns a northbound train on the freight track west to go across the Hudson into Selkirk Yard.
If it were practical to build a new track headed due west from Chatham, NY, it would take less than 10 miles for it to reach the passenger track.
I assume in the long run, upgrading the freight track for better speeds might also be possible, although the cost may be difficult to justify.
So I think the pilot is going to be an Option 1A (I'm not sure why they don't propose a Sat-Sat r/t such as the Cape Flyer has)
Presumably they're starting with the simplest, cheapest thing that might work?
The 33rd page (``25 of 51'') mentions the possibility of building a Chatham, NY platform. It makes lots of sense to start the service without that platform to get some data from actual experience on how popular the service is, but building that platform is likely to both reduce the operating subsidy, since it will increase ticket revenue with almost no increase in operating cost, and it also has potential to make New York be more supportive of the service, since a Chatham platform would mean that the Pittsfield branch would serve a station in New York state.
The 41st page (``33 of 51'') says they expect 2600 passengers over the 40 one way trips per year, which works out to an average of 65 passengers per trip.
