I love 'Dooloot'! It is the virtual "Erector Set Town of the U. S."!!! Dunno if I would need to get there at 110 mph, though. How much are the "native Americans" going to contribute from their casino loot? Prob'ly nada, methinks.
As the previous thread pointed out, getting north from Farmington Minnesota to the Twin Cities will be difficult. The UP spine line south of Farmington is well engineered but north there are problems. At Rosemount Minnesota the line splits with the ex-RI trackage heading for Inver Grove Heights and the ex- Milwaukee line which is now operated and switched by Progressive Rail until Eagan Minnesota. The line north of Eagan was abandoned by Soo Line in the late eighties. This line would be impractical to rebuild I think,even though a bridge still exists across I-494. The ex-RI route has to cross the Mississippi river which has substantial barge traffic at both bridges that the UP currently uses to cross the river. A new bridge would be in order if passenger service would ever be resumed on the Spine Line. Ironically one of the best places to build that bridge might be where the Rock Island crossed the Mississippi at Inver Grove.
CG9602My suggestion would be to take that amount of taxpayer money and upgrade the ex-CRIP "Spine Line" to FRA Class 6 standards (passenger train speed limit: 110 mph), and offer service to Des Moines and Kansas City, and some of the towns along the way, before beginning service between Saint Paul and the Twin Ports. Perhaps offer service between the Twin Cities and Omaha, NE, and intermediate towns, along the ex-CNW. Either of those routes would offer service to a larger population than service between Saint Paul and Duluth. You could even take those funds and help WI and IL defray the costs of implementing the Midwest HSR initiative, before offering service between the Twin Ports and Twin Cities.
Twin Cities-Kansas City wouldn't be as high a State priority in my eyes as using the Spine Line and (CP?) to reach Rochester and Winona. Nonetheless, Albert Lea is a Stage II proposal; and combined with a KC service would bring economies of scale for rehabbing the route for some Chicago - Twin Cities services. Other, faster if smaller market, CHI-TC service could be provide by way of Eau Claire, WI that is also a first priority for Minnesota.
The biggest question seems to be how to get into the Twin Cities from Farmington. The goal is to serve both downtowns which in some cases are incompatible with serving the current Midway station.
The just-released Minnesota Rail Plan can be accessed through the MN/DOT website at www.dot.state.mn.us. The priority passenger improvements would cost $4.0-5.1 billion.
I would concur.
Since the driving time between Minneapolis and Duluth is roughly 3.5 hrs, I suppose they'd want to go that fast to make significantly better time (gotta get Grampa & his walker to da casino dare don't ya knohhhw). But realistically I don't understand, with only 1 stop between Duluth and Minneapolis at Hinckley, or maybe 3 including Cambridge and Anoka thrown-in, why they'd need 110 MPH?
The following article is quoted courtesy of today's Trains News Wire:
"ST. PAUL, Minn. — Implementing fast passenger trains between Duluth, Minn., and Minneapolis could reach nearly $1 billion, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune has reported. The revised cost estimates come from state officials, who now say the line will cost at least $615 million, nearly double the previous cost estimate. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has to submit a grant application for federal funds within weeks, and players need to reach an agreement on a cost estimate. DOT Project Manager Dave Christianson said the $615 million estimate is probably most accurate, but he said in a "worst-case scenario," costs could reach $990 million. The proposed route would use BNSF Railway's Hinckley Subdivision, and passenger trains would travel 110 mph; completion is planned for 2012 or 2013. The route would link Minnesota's largest city to the tourist destination of Duluth, as well as providing a fast link to Grand Casino Hinckley, a major draw."
In the world of private business, I cannot begin to imagine going to my boss or business partners to tell them that I had under-estimated the cost of a project by even 15%, let alone 50%. Perhaps that is why many of us are very skeptical of plans for HSR. Even SSR ("slow-speed rail") is experiencing major problems in places like Austin and Denton, TX. Nothing in government ever seems to get done without delays and cost overruns. Building railroads will be no different.
John Timm
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.