Is there any way Trains mag can get a tour of these new Talgos and learn the actual layout??. I would think that Talgo would have some tours to highlight this equipment since the trains are about to start testing
Now yesterday legislature committee rejects building a maintenance.base. Is it possible that the recall effort of the Governor and the past recal efforts of legislature are having unintended consequences ??
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/legislators-buck-walker-reject-train-maintenance-base-bg4isr4-142671085.html
blue streak 1 Found the following articlon seating . Will have 397 seats due to one car being a Bistro car. Talgo offered to build 2 more coaches.
Found the following articlon seating . Will have 397 seats due to one car being a Bistro car. Talgo offered to build 2 more coaches.
Sitting here recuperating it suddenly occured to me that these numbers do not add up. Unless these Talgos are different ( a possibility ) car capacity of 36 seats (Washington state Talgos ) is listed in Amtrak's . I do not have enough information about Talgos to know if all of them are the same length. Does anyone have such information ? A train of WI Talgos with capacity of 397 would indicate car capacity of 30 with 13 revenue cars ? Unfortunately layout of the cars bpth length and seating layout has not been published.
Another possibility would be a plan to use base train of 11 revenue coaches and use more if available ?? But that still does not explain the 396 vs published 397 ??
So I am much less certain about how these Talgo trains are set up. Just need more info ?????
can2
UP does not appear to allow them to go faster at all, on the Portland - Eugene segment of the Cascades route.
So maybe there are considerations other than technological, which are making the difference between "a bit faster" and "much faster".
Dwight,
The much faster around curves is questionable at best. On the BNSF in Washington State they are only allowed about 10 MPH faster on most curves. A bit faster yes, much faster no.
Mac McCulloch
Talgos are passive-tilt cars, a less maintenance-intensive, passive version of the Acela (which uses computers and hydraulics to make the train tilt), and are thus cheaper to build and maintain yet provide the mechanism to allow trains to comfortably traverse track that has not been purpose-built for high speed transport. Talgos can go around curves much faster than conventional equipment, they have a low profile and are equipped with pedestals between the cars that make the cars tilt. Double-decker cars can hold more passengers but if you try to run double-decker cars at 110 MPH you had better have plenty of barf bags aboard.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/state-decision-on-dining-car-led-to-less-seating-talgo-says-2n4hs9a-142417595.html
Streak,
Since ruling grades are 1% each direction and are not long, 5-6 miles maybe, I doubt that tonnage ratings are an issue. That will change with route through South Tacoma. The NP was 2.2% from Tacoma to South Tacoma and I suspect will be about the same on the new alignment which will feature a station stop at old MILW freight house not far into the hill.
Vancouver platform is fairly long. The Wye there is maybe 5 degree curve which would give about 1000' platform length. I do not know about Olympia Amshack, nor about the new stop I think Oregon put in at Oregon City. Neither of these will not see much traffic anyway so a short platform should not affect station dwell time.
I can not speak to UP speed posting. IIRC They list speeds in ETT and I can not speak to lineside posting. I think they have a 70MPH maximum for passenger trains regardless of kind, which is unlike BN.
Mac
PNWRMNM Streak, I can not quote platform lengths between Seattle and Eugene, despite having been on many at one time or another. My perception is that the platforms are generally much longer than the Talgo trains. One would expect this since the entire route was served by 10-15 car trains of 85 foot or so heavyweight and later streamliner cars. Mac
I can not quote platform lengths between Seattle and Eugene, despite having been on many at one time or another. My perception is that the platforms are generally much longer than the Talgo trains. One would expect this since the entire route was served by 10-15 car trains of 85 foot or so heavyweight and later streamliner cars.
MAC good point! I have not been there since the platform revisions were completed at King St station so SEA was one question. Since Amtrak moved from Tacoma dome that was another and with the pending move to the freight house in Tacoma that has been another. Cannot remember Vancouver Wash. And what about Olympia Amshack?
Adding cars to present Talgos in PNW appears to be feasible with the following.
1. Platform length
2. Amtrak does not list anywhere I can find of the empty weight of each Talgo coach so loco power tonnage rating is not known. However the new locos that the midwest HrSR group sound like they will have a better tonnage ratings than that of F-40s and P-42s. Since tonnage ratings for any loco is route specific that is an item to be determined.
3. HEP capacity and demand.
4. Need for assistant conductor(s)
Note: saw those speed boards on BNSF (ex T-79; P-70; F-50 ) Does UP post same?
Sam1 True. But there may be hope in Italy. An article in the lastest issue of Trains highlighted a first ever, privately financed and owned high speed start-up in Italy. Nuovo Transporto Viaggiatori (NTV) will offer fast (187.5 mph top speed), frequent, financially competitive services to Turin, Milan, Rome and Naples. The venture is being hoisted by businessmen who apparently have raised the financing in the world's capital markets.
True. But there may be hope in Italy. An article in the lastest issue of Trains highlighted a first ever, privately financed and owned high speed start-up in Italy. Nuovo Transporto Viaggiatori (NTV) will offer fast (187.5 mph top speed), frequent, financially competitive services to Turin, Milan, Rome and Naples. The venture is being hoisted by businessmen who apparently have raised the financing in the world's capital markets.
Yes they raised financing through the Capital Markets, though the CEO is a very wealthy man. It should be noted though that the French National Railway (SNCF) has since bought a 25% stake in the company.
Although the article was short on financial details, it appears that the operators will have to cover their operating costs and, presumably, pay rent to the national rail system. I don't know anything about the Italian rail system, but I presume the infrastructure is owned by a government agency. They will also have to provide a return to their shareholders.
This is basically correct, they pay RFI a per path charge, based on a high-speed trainset, with variable rates depending on the trackage it is operating on (higher on high-speed trackage, lower when it is running on lower speed connecting trackage), most likely they are also buying Traction Power (electricity) from RFI on a kwh basis, but they might be able to "wheel" it to RFI from an independent power producer. All other expenses they have to cover directly.
The Talgos on this route operate in push-pull mode with a locomotive on one end and a ballasted loco shell on the other since this particular equipment does not meet FRA crashworthyness standards. One of the selling points to the Talgo was higher speed on the curves, about 10 MPH based on BNSF speed signage I happened to see. This is more an issue in Washington than in Oregon.
MAC: Went back and reviewed the car lengths and capacities and will modify previous post.
If WI is building just 14 car trains then when cars need to be removed then train may only be 12 or 13 cars ? Wash trains list 3 cars out of service at any time from a total of 60 cars. So wash 11 or 12 car trains. Length of car is 43' 1" so 11 cars 474 ' 12 cars 516' 13 cars 559' 14 cars 602'. Anyoneknow CHI - MKE, SEA - Vancouver ( VAN fixed customs platform ) Sea - PDX, PDX - Eugene route platform lengths.
All Amfleet and bi-level cars are 85' long.
Various pass capacities are listed with an 8 car train (640' but doors will fit onto 600' platform. Talgo 14 car train also listed.
each total train
Amfleet-1 70 560
Amfleet-2 60 480
Horizon 68 544
Talgo 36 500
Superliner-1 74 592
Superliner-2 74 592
California 96 768
Surfliner 90 720
It was a surprize to me how close all the trains were in capacity except California cars and Surfliners. As before I made no provision for lost seats due to lounge and food service siince an assumption was made each train set would loose about same number of seats.
If longer conventional trains possible at CHI hub due to longer platforms then conventional equipment will definitely win out ??
PNWRMNM Paul, The Democrat administration bought two trains, each 14 cars, seating capacity unknown, for roughly $72 million. The article is silent as to whether locomotives to move the cars are included.Mac McCulloch
Paul,
The Democrat administration bought two trains, each 14 cars, seating capacity unknown, for roughly $72 million. The article is silent as to whether locomotives to move the cars are included.Mac McCulloch
MAC: Amtrak's fleet plan lists Washington's Talgo coaches at 36 seats each so a 14 car train qould be 506 not counting lost seats due to lounge and food service. Same as a 8 car Amfleet at 60 / car or 6 Bi-levels at 80 / car.
I believe that I read somewhere power car is included.
Of course Wash DOT is only running 11 or 12 car trains.
I went back and read the whole article, which is enough to give state sponsored passenger trains a deserved bad name despite the reporter's ignorance or bias, whichever it is.
The Democrat administration bought two trains, each 14 cars, seating capacity unknown, for roughly $72 million. The article is silent as to whether locomotives to move the cars are included. The Democrats appear to have spent or committed to $12 million for a temporary shop that they can not use for too long because the 'track is bad". I guess they have never heard of track maintenance or rehabilitation. This part of the story sounds like total bovine excrement to me.
The instant decision seems to be whether to quit now and mothball the trains or double down to run the trains and support 27 Talgo maintenance jobs in WI. The Democrat administration agreed to fund these 27 jobs will cost something over $100 million over the next 20 years, say present value of about $50 million. The article is not clear if this maintenance contract is labor only, or if it includes parts and consumables. Since each job will cost about $177,000 per year at the begining, it may well include parts and materials, In addition the state is looking at $60 million more or less as a site for those jobs, so the state is looking to buy 540 job years for something in excess of $110 million present value, or $203,000 present value per job per year.
OR they could pay to expand ATK Chicago facilities at a cost of $9-17 million plus a $3 to $5 million study to demonstrate to ATK where and how to do it instead of building the new $60 million shop in Wisconsin. A business would obviously do the work in Chicago. Democrats would obviously spend other people's money (Wisconsin taxpayer's) to do it in Wisconsin to keep those precious 27 jobs. I have no idea what the wraskelly wrepublicans now in office will do
Does the advocacy community see why the general public goes righteously crazy when this kind of stuff goes on?
With respect to the separate maintenance facility, I don't know either, I am just going with what is in the paper.
There may have been an original plan to have a Talgo-specific carbarn because the original plan was for a volume buy of Talgo trainsets for the Midwest Regional Rail initiative. You would think that whatever building they had would have to fit an entire articulated train set rather than simply one or two cars at a time. The 810 million to Wisconsin under Governor Doyle may be been viewed as a downpayment on doing the whole Midwest region, and then the political pendulum swung in the other direction.
Although for whatever it is worth, the Journal Sentinel reporter had the impression that the Chicago maintenance bay for the two train sets would cost serious coin, but maybe less than for the Wisconsin facility the Governor wants to keep to save 27 jobs by spending millions in state money, a mode of job creation the Governor said he was dead set against in sending the original 810 million back to the Federal Government.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I do not think Talgo equipment requires a separate maintenance facility. To the best of my knowledge the Washington sets are maintained at the Coach Yard near King Street Station in Seattle. This coach yard was the turnaround point for GN and NP transcontinental trains plus maintenace base for GN and NP trains to Portland OR back in the day.
When I worked there as a clerk shortly after ATK took over, they had a drop pit so could change wheels. I do not recall whether or not they had a wheel lathe. I know Interbay Roundhouse about 5 miles away did.
There you have it. Maybe the Wisconsin Talgos should be leased to Washington state to make up for maintenance changeout and traffic growth, and Wisconsin should get some credit on their bill for using cars out of the Amtrak corridor pool. It seems that grownups could work some equitable arrangement to the benefit of everybody.
With respect to the fixed-consist Talgos, maybe I am over dramatizing. The Pullman Standard-New Haven-NYC Train-X cars were not brand-name Talgos, but they worked on a similar shared axle between train cars principle, complete with axle steering linkages and pendulum tilt. Those things I know had retractable dolly wheels to facilitate switching cars. I am thinking the car changeouts on Talgo need to take place in the shop, but with the right kind of dolly wheels, it shouldn't be any more trouble in theory than assembling RoadRailers. And I think it is clear that consists will not be switched on a daily basis -- adding cars is something that will take place in response to long-term growth in average demand.
But you can't mix Talgo and conventional. You could couple conventional cars on to a Talgo end car, but there is no transition car that allows passengers or even crew members passge when the train is in motion.
With respect to Talgo being maintenance orphans, that is a bigger deal. From, as they say on Slashdot, The Fine Article, you need a separate facility for them. Back in the day when the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative was alive, the ideas was that you would have lots of Talgo trainsets to justify such a facility. When Governor Doyle signed the Talgo contract, the idea was that the initial two Talgo sets would be just the beginnings of a Talgo fleet.
It was the right-wing Governors in Florida, Wisconsin, and Ohio who threw a wrench in the plans of a Talgo fleet. But it was a centrist-Democrat Governor who got the Talgo thing going. Maybe it was political greed, that if Wisconsin got the Talgo factory and the Talgo carbarn that Wisconsin would get the lock on all of those jobs if and when Talgo took off. Maybe it is right-wing Governor short sightedness to wrench up the Talgo and the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative plans. Maybe it was having an engineering gadget-freek model train hobbyist in the advocacy community ginning up public support for this thing.
But the post about "political thinking" oversimplifies what was going on and who is to blame, as does the post about not having a plan. There was indeed a plan, it made sense to a lot of people at the time it was made, but that plan did not survive contact with political reality, which is that voter sentiment switches and you get a Governor who changes everything around. Can't people in the advocacy community get acceptance of the idea that if you get government involved, which many of us accept as a necessity for this kind of thing, that one will have to deal with the politics? You accept the government nickle and this kind of thing goes with the landscape?
I agree that the Talgo's are orphan equipment due to their unique design. I have never seen them switched so can offer no comment about ease of adjusting train size to demand.
I once rode the Talgo from Albany OR to Seattle, coming back on the Coast Starlight. The interior design of the Talgo was very pleasant. The ride was not. it was both bumpier and noisier than conventional equipment. I rode the top deck of the superliner and did notice more side to side sway than the Talgo.
Politicians and bureaucrats like shiny toys, the Talgo for example. A rational buisinesman looks at cost and flexability.
The problem of Talgo 's fixed consists will not easily go away without major infusions of cash.
1. Amtrak's FY 2012 five year plan states that their current Talgo fleet consists of 6 power cars and 60 passenger cars.
2. This has an allocation of 1 power car and 3 passenger cars to be out of service for maintenance.
3. That leaves 2 train sets with 12 passenger cars and 3 sets with 11 cars.
4. Unfortunately Wash DOT is taking one train set out of service for mid life overhaul soon.
5. One solution is to build additional sets.
6. New sets and existing sets should have allocated maybe 16 cars ?
7. Since all sets need periodic maintenance maybe some Talgo sets can have 18 -20 cars and others 10 - 12 cars. Then Talgos can be dispatched with consists closer to booked loads. Now MKE unreserved service may be a different problem.
8. As stated above this would need a lot of cash.
9. Anyone know the number of cars that the Oregon and Wash DOT's Talgos that are being built going to get ? Also Wisconsin ?
10. Amtrak's 5 year financial plan now only lists the present 5 orphan sets with no indication whether they will add the others under construction to their 5 year plan ??
Isn't this also a symptom of our ability to study and model economic systems using outmoded assumptions? We have a rail system in the U.S. because Empire Builders kept laying track (without the help of economists). The rail system was over built and led to many economic disasters. Now we assume that an economic model can prevent these abundances, but alas garbage-in, garbage-out.
At least WI is making the effort to build a rail system. Additionally, with the price of gas headed up, the demand for public long distance travel will grow beyond our early assumptions.
Build it and they will come.
Dakota,
The question that should have been asked BEFORE the decision was made is "What is the present value life cycle cost for the seating capacity I am about to buy". I suspect that the Talgo had a higher present value life cycle cost due to the need for an expensive dedicated maintenance base, as opposed to maintaining standard cars at existing facilities in Chicago.
Based only on this article, a very thin base I know, it seems that the politicians purchased the equipment without first sercuring the site of the maintenance base. That failure has them running around like chickens with their heads cut off and will substantially increase the cost of the project.
Looks like a classic example of why the politician/bureaucrat class makes poor business decisions and wastes lots of taxpayer money in the process. All sizzle, no steak, or believing yur own press releases.
I'm not entirely clear just why proceeding with the current deal is a mistake, apart from the maintenance base problem. The state bought two fourteen car trainsets and three additional cars. That indicates the cars are not all that difficult to switch out as they already plan to do so. Should capacity prove inadequate, adding a spare car to each trainset is an immediate solution until Talgo can manufacture additional cars.
Is the problem that Talgo lacks a permanent manufacture facility in this country and their temporary one is planned to be used as the Wisconsin maintenance facility? Alternatively, did Wisconsin's politicans believe that the capital equipment funds were a one time expenditure that would never have to be revisited? Something else, such as the poisonous political conflict that seems to exist there?
BaltACD Nothing is quite as destructive as political thinking.
Nothing is quite as destructive as political thinking.
Yes, but the political thinking of which Governor of Wisconsin of which political party?
We currently have an arguably ultra-right-wing Republican Governor who tried to drive a stake through the heart of Talgo and we ended up with Talgo as the un-dead. He had a moderate Democratic Governor predecessor who signed the contracts with Talgo that got the ball rolling.
But did you actually read the article? That the Hiawatha service ridership is growing by leaps and bounds and looks to exceed the capacity of the fixed-consist can't-couple-to-anything-else maintenance-orphan Talgo? This has nothing to do with the current Governor.
OK, you can blame me for the Talgo fiasco. Yes, I take full responsibility for this disaster.
I joined the local bricks-and-morter passenger train advocacy group in the mid 2000s. The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative was the focus of our advocating. Someone asked at a meeting "what kind of train are we going to get for the proposed 110 MPH service", and our then chapter president answered, "I might be that I am not supposed to tell you this, but the plan is to go with Talgo." My hand goes up, "Isn't that the same kind of articulated train they tried in the late 1950's on the New Haven, and wasn't it that you couldn't couple and uncouple cars a problem." "It won't be today," was the answer, "the Hiawatha runs with a fixed consist with conventional cars because with today's labor costs it is cheaper to trail the extra cars during off-peak then to switch cars in and out, anyway."
I guess I was sold on Talgo right then and there. There is also a little bit of a back story inasmuch as I always wanted to exhibit modern-concept passenger trains at the Madison, WI (Mad City) Model Train Show, and if you spend any time over at the MR part of these forums, you will know that standard 85' passenger cars in HO scale need broad curves and a rather large modular club layout. The Talgo cars are about half length and work quite nicely on 18" radius curves in HO on a table-top layout.
So I spent the last several years at Mad City exhibiting a Talgo layout as part of the local advocacy group exhibit, complete with posters explaining what Talgo is and how great it is. One year I had the Madison Mayor give a TV standup on Talgo and his streetcar proposal, and another year I had the Dane County Executive talk up the trains on TV, someone who may end up as our next Governor. I had bullet-point lists of the advantage of Talgo.
Amtrak has the right idea in going with the bi-level California Car design for next-gen corridor service everywhere the clearances allow it. You have 50% more seating space per platform length along with the low step-up for boarding, and yes, these cars will be 110 MPH capable. The cars will all be part of a pool and maintained at Beech Grove. I don't know anymore what Talgo is supposed to do, apart from being a capacity-constrained fixed-consist maintenance orphan, and Wisconsin is in this mess because people like me in the advocacy community didn't yell out, "Hey, wait a minute!" to the right people, and I was out in front of the crowd waiving the Talgo flag because I am a model train hobbyist who thinks Talgo is kewl. I have looked over the bullet-pointed posters I have in the basement, and it seems that like many others in the advocacy community, I just made stuff up. Low floors! Light weight and low energy consumption! Pendulum tilt! Tren articulado y ligero de Goicoechea y Oriol! Viva Franco!
Yes. It is all . . . my . . . fault.
As for the relevancy for this thread, politicians don't have to get it right. They can play all sorts of silly games whilst pulling the wool over the eyes of the voters. But business people have to get it right or they go out of business, which is clearly not the end game for business folks. I hope they make it. It could be a model for the U.S. to emulate. Who knows? It might even sell in Wisconsin.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The consequence of a poorly thought out "plan."
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Now WI doesn't know what to do with talgos. sounds like lawsuits all around.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/administration-wants-to-keep-train-base-plans-on-track-despite-cost-rc4gmet-142164293.html
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.