Wisconsin Rail Passenger Plan 2030

[CMStPnP]

This has a little more description on the Twin Cities to Eau Claire, WI service.    WisDOT says it currently is not their initiative but being run by a private group at the moment.

Interesting the goal of 17 Chicago to Milwaukee Round Trips with 7 of those being Chicago to Green Bay trains..........good luck negotiating with CN on that proposal, given their less than welcoming approach to charter trains I can just imagine what they will say to that much additional passenger trains on their Fox River Valley route.    Looks like still a dream goal anyway as they have no current studies or EIS done on the route.    However, it does explain why Amtrak purchased the Milwaukee to Green Bay Bus route from another company and is running buses on it now.

Seems they also want to change the Milwaukee to Twin Cities corridor to branch from Watertown to Madison then North from Madison to Portage and West again but again nothing definte and looks most is TBD.

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/multimodal/rail/plan-app10b-1.pdf

 

[charlie hebdo]

With the obstacle of CN, plus a conservative legislature not interested in public transportation,  seems an unlikely bet. 

[Gramp]

The only wise step for Wisconsin is to continue to improve the existing Hiawatha/Empire Builder route service.

Milwaukee to Green Bay would be another living-in-the-past slow poke service. Routing to Madison takes away a chunk of one of the best lines going, increasing travel times between Milwaukee and St. Paul by at least an hour. 

[charlie hebdo]

Gramp

The only wise step for Wisconsin is to continue to improve the existing Hiawatha/Empire Builder route service.

Milwaukee to Green Bay would be another living-in-the-past slow poke service. Routing to Madison takes away a chunk of one of the best lines going, increasing travel times between Milwaukee and St. Paul by at least an hour. 

 

If the funds were there,  connect with Twin Cities service(s) via a fairly fast spur.  Link MAD to MKE only if a 115 mph line can be run.  Otherwise it won't be fast enough to compete with a car or bus. 

[Overmod]

charlie hebdo

Link MAD to MKE only if a 115 mph line can be run.

You mean 110, right?

[CMStPnP]

charlie hebdo

If the funds were there,  connect with Twin Cities service(s) via a fairly fast spur.  Link MAD to MKE only if a 115 mph line can be run.  Otherwise it won't be fast enough to compete with a car or bus. 

You know the Milwaukee Road was smarter than this and ran Chicago to Madison via the Fox Lake line with a higher speed service and it did pretty well up until the eve of Amtrak.    The Varsity usually ran 3-5 car trains.    I do think that line has more potential than a linkup to Milwaukee.    I just think the politics within Madison are getting in the way of common sense.

Fox Lake line is 79 mph to Fox Lake now isn't it under METRA?    How much more would it cost to extend that speed limit to Madison (roughly 90 miles - WSOR mostly 40-45 mph)?    80 miles from Milwaukee to Watertown to Madison.....roughly (50-50, 79 mph, 15-20 mph.     42 miles WSOR branch from Watertown to Madison (mostly 15-20 mph).

Seems to me the Chicago to Madison corridor is the cheaper to upgrade with METRA having completed probably 30-40% of it already for it's trains.   Plus the 80 miles without Metra, WSOR would defray part of the costs as a tenant or shared user (not so much traffic on the Watertown line).

I have the track profile of the Watertown to Madison line.   Believe it or not a good portion of it is engineered and had at one time 80-90 mph running for passenger.   I don't think even at those speeds the trains had much patronage though and Milwaukee to Madison was dropped as a passenger route a long time before the Chicago to Madison Varsity was in danger.    According to the article below the last Madison to Milwaukee train was dropped in 1960.     The Chicago to Madison trains operated up until Amtrak Varsity on Weekends only but I think the Souix ran daily.   So two trains a day on the weekend?    I don't have a time table with me.

http://powervoyeur.blogspot.com/2006/10/madrail-part-3-passenger-rail-in.html

I can't believe the street running to reach the Madison Milwaukee Road depot either, so probably would need a new depot location.

[Overmod]

CMStPnP

Fox Lake line is 79 mph to Fox Lake now isn't it under METRA?    How much more would it cost to extend that speed limit to Madison (roughly 90 miles - WSOR mostly 40-45 mph)?    80 miles from Milwaukee to Watertown to Madison.....roughly (50-50, 79 mph, 15-20 mph.     42 miles WSOR branch from Watertown to Madison (mostly 15-20 mph).

This is cute as far as it goes.  But you have forgotten a little something.  Now you need a full contingent of equipment for Chicago-Madison and another for Chicago-Milwaukee, and you've cut Milwaukee out of fast access to the capital except going the long way round likely with a 2-seat ride.

You also have the considerable fun of explaining two, not one, expensive projects largely benefiting people from Illinois but prospectively largely funded by Wisconsin.  Even absent concerns involving Cook County and money in general, that's a really high price for not very many minutes of 'time saved' with higher speed... 

[charlie hebdo]

Overmod

 

 

charlie hebdo

Link MAD to MKE only if a 115 mph line can be run.

 

 

You mean 110, right?

 

 

Either.  Nothing sacred about either speed, AFAIK  is there? 

[CMStPnP]

Overmod

This is cute as far as it goes.  But you have forgotten a little something.  Now you need a full contingent of equipment for Chicago-Madison and another for Chicago-Milwaukee, and you've cut Milwaukee out of fast access to the capital except going the long way round likely with a 2-seat ride. You also have the considerable fun of explaining two, not one, expensive projects largely benefiting people from Illinois but prospectively largely funded by Wisconsin.  Even absent concerns involving Cook County and money in general, that's a really high price for not very many minutes of 'time saved' with higher speed... 

Actually you misunderstood.    Milwaukee Road and C&NW both abandoned Milwaukee to Madison not later than 1960.    Milwaukee in 1960 and C&NW in 1954.    That was pretty early on in the financial loss side of the fence and both still had very respectable freight traffic on those lines.     So they both determined that Milwaukee to Madison was a non-market for rail service and could better be served by Bus, Auto or Plane and they both were right.    Even today that is true and translates to frieght car haulage as well.    Watertown to Madison is barely alive as a WSOR line, just barely and that is why it is in such crappy shape.

Having grown up in the state I would never advocated for Milwaukee to Madison High Speed rail unless it was 270 mph and nonstop.    What happened under Obama with Governor Walker is every freakin suburb West of Milwaukee wanted to be a stop on the Milwaukee to Madison route and their compromise I think was about 7-8 stops.    Here is the real kick in the butt, none of those bergs wanted anything to do with contributing money towards stations or line improvements, they wanted either Uncle Sugar to step in or the state to pay for everything.    Only Madison volunteered a little support for it's station.   BTW, Look at what the extra station stops  are doing to Chicago to Milwaukee.    Every time they improve the tracks, they add another stop.    So even though the Chicago to Milwaukee trains are faster and on smoother rail since 1970.    The time it takes to get to Chicago is still a few min longer than 1970.    Some of it is bad station design (Milwaukee Airport) and another part is the METRA congestion near Chicago.    So I say NO to Milwaukee to Madison unless it is 200+ mph and you have a non-stop option.     Chicago to Madison has always had more dedicated riders and more patronage then Madison to Milwaukee.    That is just how the travel market works.   Financially smarter to improve Madison to Chicago at this point.

[Overmod]

CMStPnP

Financially smarter to improve Madison to Chicago at this point.

I think you're right, and I think there would be far more business between Madison and Chicago than between Madison and Milwaukee.  I thought the context was for the kind of high speed that charlie hebdo was describing (presumably 110mph instead of 125 peak, because much easier and cheaper) and that it would be much 'easier' to arrange that as an intrastate project than Illinois/Wisconsin.

I suspect Milwaukee-Madison at any meaningful approximation of 200mph service would almost have to be nonstop.  Is there some 'compromise' intermediate location that could be turned into a regional 'midpoint' a la Texas Central... and is there money to coordinate reasonably high-speed 'interurban' regional to serve it?

[Overmod]

charlie hebdo

Nothing sacred about either speed, AFAIK  is there? 

110 is the highest speed in class; that's why it is the 'high speed' on the improved Michigan line and ex-Alton.  To get 115 (or even 111) peak, you'd have to build to PRIIA 125mph... and that's considerably more expensive whether you use the additional speed capability or not.

Is 110 adequate if we can arrange reasonably quick acceleration to that speed range and have reasonable sustained time in that range between stops?

[BaltACD]

The issue with any HSR is sustained running at max speed.  Station stops every 30 -50 miles kill the overall trip time.

[CMStPnP]

Overmod

I suspect Milwaukee-Madison at any meaningful approximation of 200mph service would almost have to be nonstop.  Is there some 'compromise' intermediate location that could be turned into a regional 'midpoint' a la Texas Central... and is there money to coordinate reasonably high-speed 'interurban' regional to serve it?

That is not the whole story.....

So what the Midwest HSR compact wants to do is eventually dog leg the successful Milwaukee Road Hiawatha route at Watertown to Madison then Madison to Portage.    Believe it or not the Madison to Portage line was used by the Milwaukee Road as the connection to the former privately run Hiawatha service (stilll used by CP for frieght connection to Madison), Madison Hiawatha passengers would transfer at Portage to go to Milwaukee or Twin Cities.   If you look at the state map of Wisconsin, Portage is almost due North of Madison  AND it is only 32 miles with no street running as I understand it to the old Milwaukee Depot in Madison.     

So the Midwest HSR said screw that connection that was proven by the Milwaukee and opted for the much longer indirect dog leg routing because then Madison passengers would not have to change trains.   I just DO NOT understand how the longer Watertown to Madison then Madison to Portage routing is preferable as it dog legs for everyone on the train but Madison passengers.     The Madison Portage connection only doglegs for Madison passengers and requires a train change in Portage.   The whole Walker fight, they were still arguing for a direct path into Madison but arguing over a downtown Madison station or one using the Airport ..............again no clue why anyone would think this was a great route over what Milwaukee had setup pre-Amtrak.   So I think it is highly political and the Madison folks want the dog leg for their convienence.    Happy WISDot dropped it for now and won't look at it again for probably a decade or more.....not sure about Amtrak though.

 

[CMStPnP]

BaltACD

The issue with any HSR is sustained running at max speed.  Station stops every 30 -50 miles kill the overall trip time.

Exactly and if you have no financial skin in the game or project, what do you care how successful the trains are as you get your trains and service just not ever with any hope of being self-sustaining or profitable.   But if Uncle Sugar is paying for everything and the train losses it's win-win for you regardless of train performance outcome.

In Wisconsin we go through this BS everytime it is Milwaukee vs the Western Suburbs.    Recent example was Radon in Waukesha's water which, the city of Waukesha a Milwaukee suburb is outside the drainage basin into Lake Michigan.   So under treaty with Canada Waukesha cannot pump water from Milwaukee West.     So what do they do?    Do they buy an expensive filtration system to pull out the Radon? OR pull the water by pipeline from the West?   Abide by spirit of the treaty....?

  Nope, they violate the spirit of the treaty with Canada because they know Canadians might snivel a little but won't raise that much of a ruckus.    They pump the water from Lake Michigan to Waukesha.   Canadians raise a little fuss so Waukesha agrees to pump effluent into Lake Michigan watershed on a 1 for 1 basis to compensate for the fresh water they are pumping out.   Canadians agree because even though dirty they get the water back.

Same deal with speed rail or the Milwaukee Electric Lines.   City of Milwaukee wanted to keep the rail lines, suburbs would only agree if someone else paid for their subsidy and they got the rail service for free.    Fast forward to the Milwaukee Road Cannonball Commuter service between Milwaukee and Watertown, repeat scenario all over again.    Milwaukee wanted to keep it, suburbs wanted it 100% paid for.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The city vs. suburbs scenario is similar is most metropolitan areas.  Chicago vs. suburbs and collar counties has played out in a similar fashion over the years going at least as far back as restoring passenger service to CA&E in the late 1950's.

[charlie hebdo]

CSSHEGEWISCH

The city vs. suburbs scenario is similar is most metropolitan areas.  Chicago vs. suburbs and collar counties has played out in a similar fashion over the years going at least as far back as restoring passenger service to CA&E in the late 1950's.

 

And had the latter debacle's factors occured 30 years later,  some of the CA&E might well have been part of Metra. I'm thinking along the branches west of Wheaton to Warrenville on into Batavia and to St. Charles where populations have boomed.

[Overmod]

I'm still stuck back in the old route #4 days where 125mph (now PRIIA compliant common equipment) was supposed to be the most cost-effective thing -- that route used the Madison 'dogleg' as acceptable.  I was under the impression that the revised cheap 110mph version would be following the same routing.  I had the impression that a full HSR routing from Chicago through Madison to the Twin Cities (via Rockford?) was hopelessly DOA compared with some of the #4 variants.

There is no "major" disaster with the sharp dogleg at Madison (comparable to the issues with the NEC 'second spine' via Hartford) as all trains stop there, and the curve can be located near enough to the station as to be negotiated in final braking or early acceleration, at low enough speed not to require tilt.  The situation at Portage would be another matter entirely...

I don't see much joy in a Portage-to-Madison shuttle to meet the 'Empire Builder' route except if it could be built as a high-speed maglev comparable to the thing proposed for Washington-Baltimore.  Very separate from the operation of 110mph regular trains; a new-technology demonstrator; no issues with Chicago suburbs; solves the one-seat issue to the capital...

[charlie hebdo]

1. Is Madtown to TC really so many potential riders?  Is there a competent study?  Or multiple trains MKE to TC?  Madtown to MKE makes good sense.

2. A major problem with reintroducing slow trains (top speed 79 mph) on routes abandoned for 50 years is that it takes something special to attract ridership.  The former ridership prior to the deterioration of service about 1965 or so would largely be septugenerian or older. This is an issue on many possible routes abandoned by Amtrak.