Anybody have information on locomotives for Talgos ordered by Wisconsin for Hiawatha service?
You can Google Wisconsin & Talgo for some more information, but the order is for 2-14 car trains sets with options for two more. The release I saw stated that "existing" locomotives will be used for the service. Since the service will continue to be operated by Amtrak, one can assume they will use the Gensis locomotives now in the service.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
jeaton....the order is for 2-14 car trains sets with options for two more.....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Actually, I was wondering more about whether the locomotive would be articulated power cars or independent units that require articulated train end units. These end units are said to be rougher riding; explaining their frequent use as an auxiliary (train) power or baggage car instead of revenue space.
The published description of 14 cars and 420 seats corresponds with the normal capacity of 30 seats per intermediate unit and indicates that the end units would be used for revenue space and no business class or food service would be available on the trains. The trains could be lengthened with additional intermediate units with some proportionate impact on acceleration.
Someone asked why so many cars were needed; and the answer is in part that each Talgo intermediate unit has less than half the number of seats of a conventional Amfleet or Horizon coach. While the additional capacity was intended for future growth and the attraction of a faster service, the recent bump in ridership consumes virtually all that reserve capacity. In case anyone missed it, Hiawathas are now running with solid Amfleet consists of six cars with perhaps as many as 444 seats (I don't know what the current seating configuration may be).
The Talgo car design that is FRA compliant is about 43 feet. The 14 car train set might be longer than the platforms at Milwaukee Airport and Sturdevant, but I don't think there is a problem at Milwaukee, Glenview or CUS.
Fourteen 43-foot coach units would indicate the need for a platform 562 feet long over the train doors. If the practice with a small crew continues that only two or three doors are opened to check tickets and IDs before boarding, platform length is not a great concern.
However the limited number of open doors extends the dwell time for boarding and alighting by minutes. Minutes can be saved by using all train doors and spreading seat assignments to utilize those doors. Even if alternate intermediate units were without doors, toilets, and wheelchair tie-downs for increased seating, seven doors would be available and cut dwell time to only about half a minute to load and go.
It seems that platform access could be controlled at MAS and Sturtevant. Tickets and IDs could be checked and passengers could wait for the train in a departure lounge or on the platform. This might facilitate reducing on-board crew; but also require additional station personnel. Passengers needing assistance could be accommodated with either station or on-board personnel.
Question: What's the door layout of the Talgoes (or talgo-like cars) in other settings? Do they have so few doors? I wonder because one of the factors that allows quick times on European trains is the short pause time for loading/unloading on platforms, often as short as one minute.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The problem is not the number of doors on the train; but the number of doors opened at the stations - see earlier post. As with Metra, European train ticket processing is carried out on board and in route. 9-11 just reinforced the common, but not universal, US railroad and subsequent Amtrak practice of checking tickets at the door.
As for door layout, each 43(?)-foot, 30-passenger Cascade Talgo intermediate unit has a vestibule and door in the end suspended by the adjacent unit. There is an accessible toilet with water and sanitation tanks, electrical panel, and luggage rack between the vestibule and seating area. The HVAC and possibly brake valve and reservoir are located ahead of the wheels and suspension.
Perhaps the ticket checking process needs to be changed to on board, like Metra, where it works fine. Can you imagine how long it would take to board a rush hour Metra with only one door open?
I certainly agree with you; and think the security threat is overblown. What's more, computerized car and seat assignment would not be that difficult; and signage along the platform would mark one's boarding location.
In the present environment, secured access is possible, even if there is a breach in security boarding at a Metra station "westbound" to Wisconsin.
In any case, if so-called homeland security is so important, why aren't those same standards applied to Metra, Marta, etc.? Logic?
Sssshhh!
(Amtrak hq is in DC)
I don't think that the number of doors opened or limited platform length is going to be any problem for the Milwaukee-Chicago service. I am sure that by far the largest passenger counts are at the terminals of the service. Assuming the train crew consists of just the conductor and one assistant, they might only open two doors at the intermediate stops, but I doubt that the passenger counts at those stops cause any significant delays.
Given that the Talgo car doors are at or very close to the platform level, I suspect that movement into and out of the car will be quicker than that for the Amfleet or Horizon coaches. The conductors lifting tickets on the platforms at the intermediate stops is not for security. It is just the method being used to be sure they get a ticket from every passenger.
jeatonI don't think that the number of doors opened or limited platform length is going to be any problem for the Milwaukee-Chicago service. I am sure that by far the largest passenger counts are at the terminals of the service. Assuming the train crew consists of just the conductor and one assistant, they might only open two doors at the intermediate stops, but I doubt that the passenger counts at those stops cause any significant delays. Given that the Talgo car doors are at or very close to the platform level, I suspect that movement into and out of the car will be quicker than that for the Amfleet or Horizon coaches. The conductors lifting tickets on the platforms at the intermediate stops is not for security. It is just the method being used to be sure they get a ticket from every passenger.
60-70 passengers got off #339 at Sturtevant the last time I was up there in June. The train was in the station for over a minute. Assuming almost everyone had a monthly pass and evenly divided between doors, that still takes a minute more to board than using all doors.
Metra has little problem in checking tickets and taking cash fares on board. From my and others experience, tickets are collected on board in Europe to keep down dwell time at intermediate stations.
If on-board fare control is unacceptable for security reasons, then most stations can be fenced and secured and boarding controlled by station personnel as I suggested previously.
How much faster would the train have to run to make up for that extra minute for boarding? What happens if another stop is added at Truesdale? Together with MAS and Glenview or another stop, those four add four minutes to the schedule between Chicago and Milwaukee. Money will be spent to increase speed to 110 mph; why undermine the effectiveness of this betterment with arcane ticket collection.
jeatonI don't think that the number of doors opened or limited platform length is going to be any problem for the Milwaukee-Chicago service. I am sure that by far the largest passenger counts are at the terminals of the service.
That sounds right but if you check 2008 Hiawatha service, it shows total ridership of 750,000. The two intermediate stops are Glenview, IL - 66,000 and Sturtevant, WI - 74,000. A fair number of people board or get off at those two stops - almost 20% or 27 people per train. The same situation occurs on the three Amtrak trains through Champaign, IL 152,000 or 70 people per train. I don't know how long in duration those stops are (not shown in timetable) but I bet it's more than a couple minutes.
HarveyK400 Money will be spent to increase speed to 110 mph; why undermine the effectiveness of this betterment with arcane ticket collection.
schlimmjeatonI don't think that the number of doors opened or limited platform length is going to be any problem for the Milwaukee-Chicago service. I am sure that by far the largest passenger counts are at the terminals of the service. That sounds right but if you check 2008 Hiawatha service, it shows total ridership of 750,000. The two intermediate stops are Glenview, IL - 66,000 and Sturtevant, WI - 74,000. A fair number of people board or get off at those two stops - almost 20% or 27 people per train. The same situation occurs on the three Amtrak trains through Champaign, IL 152,000 or 70 people per train. I don't know how long in duration those stops are (not shown in timetable) but I bet it's more than a couple minutes.
Thanks for the numbers. However, I'd like to straighten out a couple points.
oltmannd Speeding up boarding is "cheap speed" compared to trying to save a couple minutes with class 6 track.
I totally agree; and have advocated such measures for a looong time.
oltmanndSpeeding up boarding is "cheap speed" compared to trying to save a couple minutes with class 6 track.
Absolutely and it would seem to be cheap and easy to implement
I am going to submit here that the ticket collection process has little to no impact on the time spent at an intermediate stop. Amfleet and Horizon coaches are simply not designed for rapid and safe entrance or exit. Unless the conductor is extraordinarily slow, taking the ticket and checking an ID will take less time than it takes most individuals to climb the steps into the car.
I suspect that the reason that Amtrak does not have open doors unattended by a crewman is for safety and rider assistance. Beside the delay caused by a passenger having a difficult time without assistance with heavy luggage, having an unattended door would mean that a crewman would have to move a car length to close the door before the train could depart.
The Talgo cars will mitigate some of the loading problems. The floor of the car is so low that no more than one step up is required to enter the car. Compared to existing cars, doors are half the distance apart making it at least easier for a crewman to open two doors at a stop, more if the need was apparent. Procedures for insuring that all tickets are collected could easily be established, without the need for gated access to the intermediate stations' platforms.
For operational modeling & planning, we automatically double the platform dwell time for an Amfleet type car vs. a commuter-type car, for the equivalent number of passengers.
RWM
Railway Man For operational modeling & planning, we automatically double the platform dwell time for an Amfleet type car vs. a commuter-type car, for the equivalent number of passengers.RWM
Very interesting. Why? Are the steps higher on the Amfleet car? Nobody needs to help much with boarding on commuter cars.
The current Talgo equipment does, as was mentioned earlier have doors at each end of each car, thus making the equivalent of a double door for one train service person to handle. Additionally, I believe the doors had commuter style buttons which would allow the Conductor to open all doors in the train from a central point, if so desired. Since a group of four doors can be opened by two trainmen, on-platform ticket collection does actually improve the boarding process. Scheduling dwell for this or any other boarding process is the obligation of the planners for the service, snd if you have thoughtful and intelligent folks to work with at your government agency, as WASHDOT's folks were, then you get well though out ticket collection processes and dwells to support that, which do not adversely impact the schedule.
The Cascades Talgos were drawbar equipped, making it difficult, though not impossible, to add or remove cars. Individual cars were serviced in the consist, and such operations as wheel truing were also done within the consist. This required a revision in thinking by the American railroaders that handled the equipment, but Talgo's service technicians led the way and the adjustments were relatively easy to make and are now made without a second thought.
One thing that also aided Talgo longevity was the fact that the people in the Seattle area and beyond were very proud of these trains, and most took good care not to abuse them or ruin them. The surfaces inside plus the care with which the public used them, added to their serviceability as much as the routine and heavy maintenance did.
The one thing that the Talgo brings to the table is the anti-centrifugal force system which, as proven during higher speed tests between Vancouver and Portland, allowed significantly higher speeds on curves than conventional equipment. The deceleration, speed through the curve and then the effort to accelerate out of the curve gave those of us closely watching the tests the impression that a good deal of time could be saved by simply raising speeds in territory where it was possible. Of course, BNSF cooperated by allowing the tests and adding superelevation where possible, and then permitting the speed increases as the FRA approved them.
Leave it suffice to say that the Talgos in Wisconsin, if used after the WASHDOT/Amtrak model, should vastly improve service where it may exist and provide an excellent level of availabilty and speed for the money spent.
schlimm Railway Man For operational modeling & planning, we automatically double the platform dwell time for an Amfleet type car vs. a commuter-type car, for the equivalent number of passengers. RWM Very interesting. Why? Are the steps higher on the Amfleet car? Nobody needs to help much with boarding on commuter cars.
Railway Man For operational modeling & planning, we automatically double the platform dwell time for an Amfleet type car vs. a commuter-type car, for the equivalent number of passengers. RWM
Note that Amtrak's Horizon and Amfleet coaches are all equipped with traps over the steps in the customary railroad style to handle both ground-level and high-level platforms, which all but eliminates remote operation of doors. Metra's gallery coaches are set up for ground-level platforms only, which allows remote operation of doors. Other differences include the width of the doors, gallery coaches have double-width doors while Amtrak's coaches do not.
CSSHEGEWISCHNote that Amtrak's Horizon and Amfleet coaches are all equipped with traps over the steps in the customary railroad style to handle both ground-level and high-level platforms, which all but eliminates remote operation of doors. Metra's gallery coaches are set up for ground-level platforms only, which allows remote operation of doors. Other differences include the width of the doors, gallery coaches have double-width doors while Amtrak's coaches do not.
jeatonI am going to submit here that the ticket collection process has little to no impact on the time spent at an intermediate stop. Amfleet and Horizon coaches are simply not designed for rapid and safe entrance or exit. Unless the conductor is extraordinarily slow, taking the ticket and checking an ID will take less time than it takes most individuals to climb the steps into the car. I suspect that the reason that Amtrak does not have open doors unattended by a crewman is for safety and rider assistance. Beside the delay caused by a passenger having a difficult time without assistance with heavy luggage, having an unattended door would mean that a crewman would have to move a car length to close the door before the train could depart. The Talgo cars will mitigate some of the loading problems. The floor of the car is so low that no more than one step up is required to enter the car. Compared to existing cars, doors are half the distance apart making it at least easier for a crewman to open two doors at a stop, more if the need was apparent. Procedures for insuring that all tickets are collected could easily be established, without the need for gated access to the intermediate stations' platforms.
Don't believe my observations on time taken for boarding. At the minimum, count the passengers and mark the time it takes for boarding and alighting, noting the type of car and whether tickets were just checked or taken at the door before you offer your opinion.
Railway Man says dwell time is half as much for commuters; but we're dealing with a mixed market where most are commuters or day-trippers. The time needed to board or alight is exacerbated by luggage beyond a briefcase or laptop carried by commuters.
Since steps are fewer for the Talgo, they are slightly faster boarding than Horizon or Amfleet cars. In addition, all doors can be opened remotely for low platforms; and I have suggested that only alternate cars need doors for a 20% increase in seating capacity. Seven doors are 3.5 times 2.
A procedure for ensuring all tickets are collected and no one rides beyond the transportation purchased was used here sometimes and almost universally in Europe - it's called on-board collection. Only because of the over-reaction to security I offered the suggestion for controlled platform access.
As for those needing assistance, whether for luggage or a disability, computerized seat assignment can cluster such passengers in the units (4 of 14; 29%) adjacent the staffed doors.
RFID's are apparently the fashion these days. Isn't that how the I-Pass/Speedpass auto toll collection works?
Do you suppose that a train ticket could be an RFID tag? That you could even request that passengers wear it, either as a clip-on "name tag" or as a kind of "necklace" thing that I use for my employee ID and my USB drive.
Do you suppose conductors can just go through the train and scan the passengers to make sure the fares are paid? Could commuters or regular riders have a kind of RFID that they would just be billed for their rides, just as with Speedpass on the roads?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
"The Cascades Talgos were drawbar equipped, making it difficult, though not impossible, to add or remove cars. Individual cars were serviced in the consist, and such operations as wheel truing were also done within the consist. This required a revision in thinking by the American railroaders that handled the equipment, but Talgo's service technicians led the way and the adjustments were relatively easy to make and are now made without a second thought"
One of the long-time knocks on any kind of articulated or semi-permanently coupled equipment is this matter of switching out cars, for any reason.
When the plans for Talgo were first made known by WisDOT to our local advocacy group, and this goes back a few years, the recent announcement by the Wisconsin Governer did not come from "thin air" apart from long-term DOT planning, I had asked about the drawbacks of articulated trains.
I was told that the Hiawatha, for all practical purposes, was "semi-permanently" coupled because it cost too much to switch cars in an out of the consist, and all of the coach yard space in Chicago has been given over to office building parks.
On the other hand, Train-X, TurboTrain, and Talgo all had/have "dolly wheels" or similar arrangements for uncoupling the single-axle articulated connections to do shop work on the cars. Look, even an OTR semi-trailer truck is semi-permanently coupled in that fashion, every semi trailer I know has dolly wheels, and truck drivers couple and uncouple their semi trailers all the time. I would agree that you can't "switch" Talgo equipment, and removing a bad-order Talgo coach from a consist out on the road is a serious problem, but my understanding is that they uncouple these things in the shop all the time.
As to doing wheel maintenance on articulated trains, I saw somewhere how in France they have special shops that can swallow entire TGV trains and do wheel work on them in place.
With the TurboTrain, however, I got the impression from Jason Shron's recent book that they had to do wheel maintenance on those puppies all the time, in part because the TurboTrain used friction tread brakes on these tiny "streetcar" wheels the thing had. That book told of how in Canada, the Turbo maintenance facility was simply some station tracks set aside in Toronto, and how they were doing the constant and chronic wheel maintenance by propping the car ends on dolly wheels and by swapping out the articulated single-axle trucks as a unit.
I am a bit of a "guided-axle fan" in the way Jason Shron is a "Turbo train fan", and I think the Talgo is cool and everything, but the part of "vastly improve service" seems a bit overstated. Yes, the Talgo has fewer boarding steps (but still has some steps), so boarding should be a tad faster, and the Talgo has passive tilt, so the travel times should be a tad quicker, and Talgo is considerably lighter in weight, so trains should accelerate quicker and use less fuel, although if they are keeping the arrangement of WaDOT of a 140 ton F59 at one end and a 130 ton ballasted NPCC at the other end, and add to that the aero drag of the height mismatch, the fuel savings of Talgo of what they have now may not be that dramatic.
The other thing about Talgo is that if Amtrak goes into Talgo in a big way, and the Wisconsin Governer must believe in it by making the "preemptive purchase" of a pair of train sets along with the push to get the Talgo US assembly plant located in Wisconsin, than at least one has standardized on Talgo and can set up to maintenance bays for it. But if Talgo is a kind of orphan with those Cascades train sets and a couple train sets in Wisconsin, not quite so good.
HarveyK400 Don't believe my observations on time taken for boarding. At the minimum, count the passengers and mark the time it takes for boarding and alighting, noting the type of car and whether tickets were just checked or taken at the door before you offer your opinion. Railway Man says dwell time is half as much for commuters; but we're dealing with a mixed market where most are commuters or day-trippers. The time needed to board or alight is exacerbated by luggage beyond a briefcase or laptop carried by commuters.
I am not disputing your observations as to loading time. All I have said is that the time required to lift tickets at the door is not the factor that causes the total time spent at the stop. While my opinion is not based on a thorough study of the subject, I have observed the process perhaps several hundred times over the decades that I have been riding trains.
Given that the Talgo cars are easier to step aboard and that the doors can be built for remote operation, perhaps lifting tickets at a limited number of open doors would be the factor controling the time spent at the stop. If that's the case, perhaps Amtrak will employ a method to collect tickets on board for passengers boarding at intermediate points. It's not rocket science.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.