So this study explains a little more how Amtrak got to such astronomical costs of adding an additional train. It does not explain a large chunk of the costs though. For example.........how we get to $95 million for just a simple add of Chicago - St. Paul. What I can decipher is:
$95 million total for a simple add Chicago to St. Paul:
$46 million of the above is for purchase of new equipment instead of using existing.
$10 million of the above is for adding a new platform and pedestrian crossover to the Milwaukee Airport Station (why this is a necessary stop is not explained).
$300,000 for upgrade of former Midway station as a layover point.
$1,000,000 annual maintenence of equipment.
OK so where does the rest of the money come from for scenario #4. I don't see it other than CPR says some additional capacity improvements for one additional frequency. It is unspecified and so that leads me to throw the BS flag on these numbers.
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/passengerrail/pdfs/2nd-train-feasibility-report%20.pdf
For one, I do not see why they cannot use existing equipment or rehab sidelined equipment like they did for the Heartland Flyer. Second, I don't see a reason to stop at the Chicago-Airport station for a intermediate distance train. By all means skip that stop. It fits more into the marketing of the Chicago to Milwaukee corridor trains. So lots of padding going on here, in my opinion.
Now as for the differing capacity improvement costs based on schedule of the train. OK I can buy into that based on current freight train schedules and capacity at current times. So I do not have a huge problem with the schedule analysis other than to say, low priority scheduled freight trains can be moved or rescheduled or in the case of CPR rerouted over the West Line out of Bensenville to the Twin Cities but I understand the point of it being a private railroad and it being their choice.
The 120 train movements a day between CUS and whatever point North they mentioned. Seems they need to add another track there. I understand they are constrained by three tracks immediately to the North of CUS though. Might be another high priced infrastructure project to fix that.
Lets look at the costs:
1. Use old equipment rebuilt ? Not possible. As wrecked equipment is rebuilt it is immediately returned to regular service. There is no spare old equipment to add to this service. The wrecks of 188 and Vermonter have caused reduction in some train's consists. Now IMO once new coaches are built they will first be added to those trains that are sold out . The older cars when not needed will become part of a surge fleet. Note Amtrak has to now borrow commuter equipment for the thanksgiving rush.
All in all this poster is very disappointed that there has not been more construction of coaches. The new California cars will help the midwest but any freeded cars both levels appear to have already been allocated to present services. Addiing capacity to existing services is the least costly of service improvements.
$46 million for ~ 11 -12 California cars is not far fetched although IMO new equipment should not be alocated to any trip or route. But until funds are appropriated by congress criters any expansion of service or even adding necessary rolling stock to present train any where in th USA is not possible.
That cost is not even accounting for 5 additional locomotives which puzzles this poster. 4 operating + 1 maintenance spare = 5.
2. Milwaukee (MKA) airport station will provide all passengers at the intermediate train stations MSP - MKE easy access to an airport for longer air trips. Remember MKA has more passengers than the downtown station (MKE).
3. North of Chicago union station the ROW appeared to have had at one time more than 2 tracks (4) so maybe just adding the additional track(s) would be the only cost. It may be METRA and Amtrak would like a third middle track to run express around local traffic and can share the cost ?.
I am not absolutely certain, but I have a memory that, except for a short distance near Tunnel City, the line was double track all the way.
Johnny
Deggesty I am not absolutely certain, but I have a memory that, except for a short distance near Tunnel City, the line was double track all the way.
Canadian Pacific took up all the double track and replaced with reverse CTC (so there was some improvement as well) and kept the double track in places for passing sidings. Milwaukee Road did have CTC and double track along the route. Problem was the CTC was only facing one direction on each main in most cases.........forcing one directional running on each track.
The Milwaukee had numerous crossovers though which allowed them to use the opposite direction main for passing and when they would pass and run against the backward facing CTC signals it would turn the signals yellow and then red based on the forward block the opposing train was in. It's just that they did not have CTC signals facing both ways on both mains (in short distances in some locations they did BUT not for the majority of the Chicago to MSP mainline).
I expect that CP did a study and found that reverse CTC on one mainline with passing sidings was probably slightly more efficient than the Milwaukee system and easier to operate / dispatch for the amount of trains the line carried (approx 24-30 at time they took over from SOO probably lower than 24 now as they lost the FORD HAULER to MSP and a few others).
So the Milwaukee had poor man's CTC so far as the installation cost was concerned?
In March of '72, I rode from Pasco to Chicago--and a real observation car was on the rear, but some benighted person coupled a car on behind the observation car in Minneapolis, so I was not able to look back as I enjoyed doing.
They all come in in the range o $200-300 million capital expenditure to create a service that will loose something in the range of $4-6 million per year.
Mac
Deggesty So the Milwaukee had poor man's CTC so far as the installation cost was concerned? In March of '72, I rode from Pasco to Chicago--and a real observation car was on the rear, but some benighted person coupled a car on behind the observation car in Minneapolis, so I was not able to look back as I enjoyed doing.
Yes, I grew up in Brookfield and my closest friend had a backyard that ajoined the Milwaukee to MSP Mainline and he had a CTC Signal on the border of his backyard. Also rode early versions of Amtrak to and from MSP from MKE. They had vista domes on the route at that time. The Milwaukee CTC signals only faced one direction on each main forcing directional flow of traffic. Eastbound Main was the southernmost track and Westbound was the Northernmost track. Likewise crossing signals were setup the same way so that if you were running Westbound on a Eastbound main the crossing signals did not engage until you were a lot closer to the road vs if you were traveling in the correct direction of the CTC.
A little off topic but somewhat related. Look at what it takes and the arguing over what kind of restaurant will go into the Milwaukee Amtrak Depot.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/29450404.html
So with $120,000 a year lease, the proprietor that takes that space will have to gross between $650,000 to $750,000 a year in order to make an above 15% return and pay himself and his staff a decent wage.........thats why a lot of the cheaper places are backing out or telling the real estate firm "no way".
In my view the Milwaukee Amtrak station lacks space for retail. What I would do is gut the offices on the second level and extend the second level floor over the tracks in the trainshed, move Amtrak ticketing and baggage up to the second level with escalators up there...........then escalators down to track level platforms from the newly expanded waiting area up there. Limit the first level area for bus passengers and retail. Seems to me that would increase the overal revenue of the building and make it roomier and more passenger frendly via more eating and retail choices.
While this is one of the longer state lead corridor studies at 486 miles, the main question is why are they designing a service that only attracts demand for a 4-car train?
The revenue density per trainmile is not sufficient with such a short train for an efficient operating point. The proposal does not break it out but you still have 3 T&E employees at a fixed cost per trainmile and only one food service attendent.
It is also interesting that they do not consider financial aspects of extra business to the Empire Builder from a greater number of people being able to make trips within their desired departure/arrival windows.
I do not see in their study a basis for their ridership projections. I realize it is very difficult because of past history to develop new, sensible routes. Clearly the route should serve the Madison MSA, but the connecting rail structure is not there.
Just having a train with six cars woudn't generate more revenue unless the four-car train is already at capacity.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm I do not see in their study a basis for their ridership projections. I realize it is very difficult because of past history to develop new, sensible routes. Clearly the route should serve the Madison MSA, but the connecting rail structure is not there. Just having a train with six cars woudn't generate more revenue unless the four-car train is already at capacity.
CP from Madison, North back to the former Milwaukee Mainline is in OK to pretty good shape, speed and maintenence wise. It's the 50% from Watertown, WI into Madison via Sun Prarie over WSOR that needs the majority of the work. Milwaukee just let that section go to crap prior to the SOO takeover. Plus, heavy duty grade crossing territory once you get into Madison until you get out as none of the track is grade seperated..........so no matter what you do unless you elevate the tracks that will slow down any Chicago-Madison-MSP train fairly significantly. I think that is why MN choose to bypass Madison with this study.
Wasn't an Madison airport stop considered as an alternative in the planning for the cancelled WI HrSR proposal? Paul Milenkovic would know. Seems ridiculousto have two trains in WI, with neither serving Madison, but stopping at several tanktowns.
schlimmWasn't an Madison airport stop considered as an alternative in the planning for the cancelled WI HrSR proposal? Paul Milenkovic would know. Seems ridiculousto have two trains in WI, with neither serving Madison, but stopping at several tanktowns.
Yes they wanted the Airport to avoid the downtown city running I suspect and perhaps the more costly land acquisition for development. You can see what it would be like just by going to YOUTUBE and looking up WSOR in Madison, WI.
I would be happy with a second frequency skipping Madison as a former Wisconsin resident an oftentimes visitor. It's just all around faster that way by rail and Madison has well established bus routes into and out of town. Not a lot of folks travel MSP to Madison. It's primarily Madison to Milwaukee and Chicago or points South. Milwaukee Road did OK by largely skipping Madison, they only served it from Chicago for the most part.....they might have had one or two trains via Sun Prarie but most was Chicago to Madison direct.
But you see you are falling into that rut of old thinking. The CNW and MILW didn't run that route via Milwaukee and Madson to the TC, so how can we now? To skip the 2nd largest MSA in WI is ridiculous.
M-SP / Chicago was put forward a few years ago as one of the proposed high-speed rail lines. But then WI elected a new governor who withdrew support. As Rep. Oberstar said at the time, unfortunately you can't just build a bridge over Wisconsin.
wjstix M-SP / Chicago was put forward a few years ago as one of the proposed high-speed rail lines. But then WI elected a new governor who withdrew support. As Rep. Oberstar said at the time, unfortunately you can't just build a bridge over Wisconsin.
Correction: He supports it, he just does not want to pay for it. It was the same with the Chicago to Madison via Milwaukee HSR proposal. Had that been a grant with a follow-on grant to complete the system. Walker would have been for it. However, having just resolved a budget deficit he wasn't in any mood to create another one in two years downstream or to raise taxes substantially to cover HSR construction. Had the Feds offered back to back grants and only told Wisconsin they would cover operating costs after construction.........I'm pretty sure he would have accepted the project.
This is the problem with political bias in the United States. Stories are slanted to make politicians seem a lot more obstinate than they really are on a issue and it is a big reason why compromise is never attempted because people throw up their hands and say........"why bother".
I don't know why folks presume Walker is anti-rail based on one projects rejection he is consistently supporting the Chicago to Milwaukee service improvement plans.
The WI HrSR CHI to MAD involved more than just running a train. It included Talgo having an assembly and maintenance facility in Milwaukee. WI lost the federal rail grant money after Walker wanted to use it for roads, instead. The trains were paid for, built and ultimately sold by Talgo after a court ruling. WI spent millions for nothing. Not fiscally sound by any evaluation, especially since WI now is running a deficit again.
As reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel at the time:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker said Thursday the state should pass up the federal government's offer of $823 million for a high-speed rail line linking Milwaukee to Madison and Chicago - unless millions more for operating the line come with the deal.
That's unlikely, he said. Based on what's known about the high-speed rail plan, Walker said he would reject the federal largess.
The county executive, a Republican candidate for governor, said he might back the high-speed rail idea if "there was a model that could be shown where it was self-sufficient, where the operating costs were covered by the users." He acknowledged that also was unlikely.
Walker warned against hidden costs linked to the line, which he said ultimately could lead to cannibalizing other state transportation projects or prompt some new tax or fee. "There's no appetite for a tax increase," Walker said.
He also questioned the basic premise of the line, saying the ticket cost likely would be too high to attract enough riders. Walker said the fast trains wouldn't be as swift as driving a car, when factoring in time needed to get to the Amtrak station in Milwaukee and time to get from a proposed rail station at the Madison airport to the state Capitol or other Madison destinations.
Gov. Jim Doyle and other high-speed rail advocates must show where the money would come from to operate the rail line, Walker said.
"If they can't, then I don't know how you take" the money President Barack Obama announced for Wisconsin last month, Walker said. He compared that large sum of federal money with a person winning a Maserati sports car in a raffle and not being able to afford the insurance.
"What good does it do to keep it in your garage all the time?" he said.
He spoke on the rail issue during a speech to Milwaukee-area hotel operators and in an interview.
Walker said he was concerned the operating costs for the rail line would take away money intended for road and bridge projects. The state's application for the federal railroad aid estimated operating subsidy costs at $7.5 million a year for the Milwaukee to Madison link and $8.1 million for upgraded service on the existing Hiawatha line between Milwaukee and Chicago, according to the state's application for federal high-speed rail money. The annual subsidy would grow to $28 million for both links by 2022.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So he was concerned about two areas that Governor Doyle and the Democrats NEVER addressed. #1 TOTAL COSTS for the project through implementation, it was clear that $810 million was not going to be enough to meet the requirements of the first tranche of financing from the Feds. #2 Ongoing subsidy, I feel this part could have been addressed and his opposition overcome. The first or item #1 was the showstopper.
In regards to break even or self sufficiency. $28 million is a tiny part of the Wisconsin Budget and they easily could have afforded that. An extra $500-$1 Billion to complete the system.......too much money, at once, in my opinion. Concerns about the travel time being competitive at only 110 mph with 4 intermediate stops between Milwaukee and Madison are probably spot on given that Madison is only an hour drive for the far out Milwaukee Suburbs and 1.5 hours for the closer in suburbs.
With all that aside, if Madison funded a depot and tracks downtown, Wisconsin could incrementally upgrade the WSOR Watertown to Madison tracks and you could get a fairly reasonable service without spending probably 20-30% of the above. However you still need to make an argument where the money comes from and how it benefits.
Neither in your excerpts nor anywhere else was there an indication that the $823 million was insufficient for the upgrades, especially since much of the cost of planning, route surveying etc. was already done.
Even in his own comments, it is obvious he was opposed to rail subsidies and to even higher speed rail, much less actual HSR (the Maserati). Apparently he was ignorant of that. He did not want to divert or lose a penny for roads, because the highway construction firms were major campaign donors. Taxes were cut in WI, primarily for the upper brackets. The budget quickly returned to a deficit. Educaion was attacked, with likely permanent damage. He clearly wanted to use his TP and union-busting success for a national run, but he was quickly rejected, even by voters in WI, so he quit the 2016 race quickly. The citizens of WI are the big losers on his tenure.
He cut approx $150 million a year for 2 years from the Multi-Billion Dollar UW budget, thats hardly a scratch, IMO. Same University system that was found to have close to a Billion in various ancillary accounts tucked away. So most voters won't be overly alarmed at the cuts despite the faculty sniveling about any cut and actually wanting year to year increases to infinity. Regardless he gave the UW Board of Regents authority to raise tuition without the veto of the Democrats in the legislature so UW will be able to make up for the cuts in tuition increases if it needs to.
You can do the math on the $823 million, most quad gate crossing upgrades are close to $100k if not over that amount between Chicago and Madison, double tracking in places that CP wanted it along with capactity improvements would have ate up well over $100 million. Then you have the cost of rail upgrades between Watertown and Madison. Construction of a Madison downtown station, Construction of 5 stations along the route with parking and platforms, Signaling improvements. No way would $823 million cover it, it may have represented a large down payment but not the complete cost.
The jury is still out on the budget because it is a two year budget, we should have an updated figure in January where it will fall but typically you can't take the two year out figure all that seriously because it can climb or decrease by several hundred million. Additionally, he is pre-emptively acting to fill the gap via borrowing as well as budget cuts. Wisconsin highways badly need attention. In my view they should shift to toll roads like the DFW area has but I think being Liberal they will continue to blow money on them and keep them free.
I haven't met a whole lot of folks unhappy with Walker and what he has done because he has lowered property taxes it was across the board for property taxes and I don't know where you get that only the upper brackets have property. Folks did get angry with him running for President though because they elected him to be Governor.
UW long has been a financial budget hog, so have the state employee unions.....most folks cheer his attention to those two groups. I am not worried about either group as both are protected by remaining Wisconsin state law.
UW Annual Budget: $6 Billion a year (Federal grants, tuition, fundraising, etc)
State Funding of UW: $1.2 Billion a year.
The Midway Station isn't in Chicago, its the old Minnie station.
sjgiss The Midway Station isn't in Chicago, its the old Minnie station.
Well, regardless of whether you feel Walker was right or wrong in doing what he did, the facts still show that the MSP-Chi high speed line proposal needed the approval of three states, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois. Only Wisconsin under Gov. Walker rejected it, even though an earlier Gov. of WI had supported it.
wjstix Well, regardless of whether you feel Walker was right or wrong in doing what he did, the facts still show that the MSP-Chi high speed line proposal needed the approval of three states, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois. Only Wisconsin under Gov. Walker rejected it, even though an earlier Gov. of WI had supported it.
Again your mixing up partisanship with fact and the end result is the readers of this Forum are left misinformed. Schlimm does this as well sometimes What you state and how you state it is untrue. The former Democratic Governor agreed to a lot of things without any real money to pay for them but only really planned for the Chicago to Madison route because he had a Candyman (Feds) that were going to provide the downpayment for it........it was the one project proposal rejected.........Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison. I say project proposal because I do not think the rail passenger corridor was rejected. Instead I think it was the corridor as 110-125 mph HSR and the projected costs as well as the Federal Government terms for accepting the money that was rejected.
The current Chicago to MSP route as far as I know is still on WisDOT's long range plans and HAS NOT been rejected. If it had been rejected the study Amtrak was conducting and paid for by the state would have been cancelled as well.
Currently there is a disagreement over Chicago to MSP routes and that right now is the issue between MN and WI. Additionally MN wants to get started right away on the planning for the project whereas WI is more looking in the future. So WI long range plans, MN short term plans. MN wants an ex-C&NW routing (now UP) and Wisconsin likes the current CP routing. Obviously there is a difference in cost for upgrade between the two routes. Bottom line is though there has to first be an agreements on rail routes across the state of Wisconsin from MSP to MKE.
Article attached:
http://volumeone.org/news/1/posts/2014/11/07/8004_chugging_forward_local_train_service_on_minnesotas
Not misleading at all. Facts are simply that for reasons valid or not (that is all that is in dispute) he did reject the plan and thus forfeited the $400+ millions in the federal stimulus money which was conditioned on the accepted proposal. He also forfeited the jobs and the Talgo plant in Milwaukee and lost $40+ million in a lawsuit. He also lost title to the unused Talgo trainsets.
schlimm Not misleading at all. Facts are simply that for reasons valid or not (that is all that is in dispute) he did reject the plan and thus forfeited the $400+ millions in the federal stimulus money which was conditioned on the accepted proposal. He also forfeited the jobs and the Talgo plant in Milwaukee and lost $40+ million in a lawsuit. He also lost title to the unused Talgo trainsets.
I don't disagree on that but that is the Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison corridor, there were no plans to build beyond Madison with the money the Feds gave.
The problem I have with MN is they do not have any idea what they want to do. They keep flipping routes despite stating they agree on Wisconsins proposal for using the Empire Builder route that skips Madison. Despite the ongoing flip-flopping on routings......MN has not decided on a priority on which it will focus on first. In fact it has several routes it seems to want all of them built. Then the real frosting on the cake is if you read in depth on what MN wants they state basically "We just want to be ready with the planning if at some point in the future the Federal government ever gives out money again to states with rail plans". Thats it. No intent to build or improve with MN own money. Right now all MN is doing is EIS studies........nothing much more and most of those studies are funded directly from the Feds via grants.
So MN basic complaint against Wisconsin is Wisconsin will not conduct EIS studies on the Empire Builder route or commit to a date or planning towards a final project. Wisconsin does still have a HSR commitment to the Empire Builder route that it HAS NOT cancelled, it just has not set a date and the plan remains in the future. MN has complained that Wisconsin is blocking it by failing to plan. Which is not really a valid argument. If you look at the MN HSR website they have done a study already on the MSP to Chicago route and identified some issues that can be worked on===> ON THE MN SIDE OF THE BORDER from North of La Crosse to St. Paul that would positively impact train times. The real truth is that MN does not want to commit to the rail corridor financially unless #1 both Wisconsin and Illinois are also in the funding stage and #2 Some trains beyond the Empire Builder are already running.
Stating that Illinois and MN are "waiting" on Wisconsin is also misleading since niether has contributed their own tax money to development of Amtrak trains on the proposed corridor whereas Wisconsin has. Including ongoing station and parking improvements as well as some rail improvements. Wisconsin also has a DOT fund that directly supports and funds rail frieght line rehabilitation and rail banking which I am not sure IL or MN have.
So largely, IMO, it is a political argument that WI is blocking Chicago to MSP HSR development. It can proceed in both IL and MN for quite a ways without Wisconsin participation..........yet it hasn't.
I wonder if there are studies that realistically show passenger traffic projections for the segment Madison and MKE to MSP as well as Chicago to MSP? I don't think the numbers are there unless it were a true HSR corridor (>150mph). It's been almost half a century since it was a corridor (multiple trains), unlike CHI-MKE, thus very few peope would consider "taking the train."
The concept of incrementalism is flawed. It did work in places that have always had frequent, if slow services, such as Germany, which is the example folks like Oltmann consider. The speed on those corridors increased steadily for many years. CHI-STL and CHI-DET retained a service, if slow.
It's just interesting what people do. I was having a conversation with a car rental employee at the Appleton airport last tuesday. He told me they rent a lot of cars to road warriors who fly in from the Twin Cities, who then drive to Milwaukee and south for business. They don't want to take the chance of having their flights delayed or cancelled which happens often from the Twin Cities to/from Milwaukee and Chicago by air plus congestion. Flying 75 min. to noncongested Appleton, then driving I-41 90+ min. to their Milwaukee or North Chicago area appointments turns out to be the better tradeoff between reliability and travel time.
As a Wisconsinite, I think the best option right now for Wisconsin is to provide the Hiawatha's with 1) new, attractive equipment suited to the operation, 2) extend service to an easy-access Waukesha county station stop with plenty of parking (Village of Pewaukee at Hwy 16?), (Miller Park flag stop in addition, if that works), 3) rebuild the Mayfair Junction area outside of Chicago Union Station to speed up all train movements there, and 4) eliminate grade crossings from Rondout to the Milwaukee airport station.
Madison should be forgotten for now. Glad Walker nixed the "free" money. The city is a nitemare to deal with. Watertown-Madison-Portage is out of reach.
The Empire Builder should be broken into a Twin Cities - Chicago train (CP), and a Twin Cities - West Coast train (BNSF). The TC-Chic. schedule should be suited to stops between TC and Chic. If resources become available for a second train per day and it's warranted, great!
My two cents - one for the card, one for the stamp.
Gramp He told me they rent a lot of cars to road warriors who fly in from the Twin Cities, who then drive to Milwaukee and south for business. They don't want to take the chance of having their flights delayed or cancelled which happens often from the Twin Cities to/from Milwaukee and Chicago by air plus congestion. Flying 75 min. to noncongested Appleton, then driving I-41 90+ min. to their Milwaukee or North Chicago area appointments turns out to be the better tradeoff between reliability and travel time.
Really? Flight time to non-congested Mitchell takes 5 minutes longer than to Appleton, but saves the 90 minute driving time. Also, there are only two non-stops to/from Appleton @ $910 r/t versus five flights to/from Mitchell @ $584 r/t.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.