A bunch of reasons! Too many to list, but the biggest reason was to provide a one-seat ride between Providence and Montreal. This crazy pitch is built on the idea that there would be demand for a train between Providence and Montreal (and Providence and VT and Providence and NH), in addition to the obvious demand between Boston and Montreal. By extending to Providence you add another major city to the line, without severing and connections that would exist in a Boston <-> Montreal line. In a world where NSRL exists, extending this line to Providence would be of greater benefit than cost, IMO.
Alrighty, I'll bite. I love crayon maps as much as anyone else on this board, and Lord knows I've put forth some wild unsubstantiated ideas in my time. But responding to the question of "Why?" with "A bunch of reasons, too many to list" is kinda contrary to the point of a discussion board, where the idea is to, you know, discuss things. Moreover, saying "The biggest reason to run a train direct from Montreal to Providence is to provide a one-seat ride between the two" is a bit like saying "The biggest reason to build a bridge here [in some random place] is so that cars can get from one side of the river to the other." Neither of these statements says anything.
I don't mean to be a jerk. If your reason for proposing this idea it because it would be cool, then I'm onboard with that! I honestly don't believe that there needs to be a "better" reason to toss an idea around -- it's important for the ongoing transit discourse to have moments of fun, imagination, and delight, and saying, "Wouldn't it be cool if you could get on a train in Providence and get off in Montreal?" certainly checks all those boxes.
Let me give you some blunt feedback regarding problems I see with this proposal. If you can come up with solutions, awesome! If not, hopefully the feedback is helpful as you imagine other ideas, crazy or otherwise.
- NSRL: the North-South Rail Link, like the tunnels that run into Manhattan, will be electric only. For your proposal to work, you'd need at least one of three things:
- A locomotive swap in Woburn. Isn't the worst idea, but will cost you time and increase operational logistics
- Electrify everything to Montreal. This would be extremely expensive and quite unlikely for any foreseeable future
- Use dual-mode locomotives. These aren't exactly rare, but they aren't super common, they are expensive, I believe less efficient, and increase operational complexity because it reduces the number of locomotives you can swap in at the last minute
- Stop spacing: you have a mix of intercity stop spacing and commuter rail spacing -- 50 miles between Montpelier and Lebanon, but 6 miles between Attleboro and Mansfield. Intercity and commuter rail are different problems that call for different solutions, including potentially different locomotives, different passenger coaches, and different schedules. We know from the current MBTA commuter rail schedule that it takes at least 45 minutes to go BOS-PVD with those same stops that you're proposing, while Amtrak is able to do it in just over 30. Aren't Providence passengers going to be annoyed at that extra travel time?
- Northern Rail: this is a long windy route through the mountains. It is no doubt beautiful, but also will increase your travel times, plus require significant investment to reactivate for passenger use
- Reverse move at Burlington: this takes a super long time (or has to be planned and carried out with extreme speed and precision every time, including having a second locomotive ready to go)
- Comparison to existing proposals and existing service: So you have to ask yourself, "Why is this better than more conventional proposals?" Rail service to Montreal typically is proposed originating in Boston and either traveling via Springfield or Manchester. Why is your proposal better than the conventional "Boston-Manchester-Montreal + transfer to Boston-Providence service" idea? (That conventional idea, by the by, avoids the electric/diesel issue, as well as the stop spacing issue.)